The Bodda Getta

I left a comment in response to the article...just so you don't have scroll all the way through, I was arguing with some bammers (I know...pointless). Nevertheless, here is what I said:

I know that details are an inconvenient thing...but you asked. How about the NCAA President, Mark Emmert, coming out on multiple occassions to say that the NCAA has found no evidence that Auburn or Cam has done anything wrong. Let me make this easy for you:

Dec. 1, 2010
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Media+and+Events/Press+Room/News+Release+Archive/2010/Official+Statements/20101201+Cam+Newton+Rls
"Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement."

Dec. 2, 2010
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/December/Statement+by+NCAA+President+Mark+Emmert+on+Cam+Newton+Eligibility
"In the Cam Newton reinstatement case, there was not sufficient evidence available to
establish he had any knowledge of his father’s actions and there was no indication he actually received any impermissible benefit."

Dec. 29, 2010
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/December/NCAA+statement+on+fairness+of+rules+decisions
"Put simply, had Cam Newton's father or a third party actually received money or benefits for his recruitment, Cam Newton would have been declared ineligible regardless of his lack of knowledge."

Feb. 13, 2011
http://college-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/27505143
"There was no evidence that money had changed hands and there was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with it. We would up making a decision that felt to many people morally objectionable, but that fit the facts and the circumstances. We find ourselves making those kinds of judgment calls often."

How about the fact that a preminary letter of investigation (PLOI) from the NCAA is an indication that the NCAA has found evidence of wrongdoing...and Auburn has not received a PLOI from the NCAA at all.

I know, I know...that doesn't fit the "message board montra" at Bama Online that Auburn is going down hard...and the reason that the investigation is "taking so long" is because "they are uncovering so much stuff." You guys crack me up.

Oh, and let me see if I can straighten this out for some of you who don't seem to be able to conceptually wrap your head around the concept of evidence, proof, guilt, innocence, etc.

The NCAA will never come out and say "Cam Newton didn't take any money" they will only come out and say "We do not have any evidence that Cam Newton took money." Why? Because they are only interested in real evidence...they will investigate all accusations, and if they find any truth to the accusations, they will take action...if not, then they simply move on.

Let me put this in terms that hopefully some of you can understand. If it got back to the NCAA that someone gave Trent Richardson $1,000 to go to Alabama, you would think someone was an idiot if they were demanding that you prove that Richardson didn't get $1,000. That premise is the same. Unless the NCAA can prove or has evidence that Richardson did take $1,000, then they investigate, say "we have no evidence of such" and they move on. Easier to understand when you take off those crimson glasses now isn't it?