Cam Newton: Once a classless jerk, still a classless jerk

Some things will never change. Even in a convincing win over the Oakland Raiders, Carolina Panthers and former Auburn Quarterback Cam Newton showed that he’s about as classy and mature as he was when he lifted a laptop from a classmate’s dorm room, cheated on exams and skipped out on something like 568,343 traffic tickets.

One of the most disliked players in the SEC is on his way to becoming one of the most disliked players in the NFL. The only difference is that when you’re disliked in the NFL, the shots taken at you are harder to avoid and more likely to hurt like they mean it.

Good luck, pal.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

ESPN tool Stephen A. Smith says you are RACIST for criticizing Cam Newton

Ace has a much deeper analysis of this idiot’s comments. Go check it out.

At issue is the cartoon seen at right, which appeared in the Charlotte Observer after Panthers QB Cam Newton’s interception machine game against the Giants.

Steve Smith—veteran receiver and team captain—took Newton to task not for his performance, but for his demeanor on the bench.

As Ace notes, this is not the first time teammates have been irked by Newton’s behavior during bad outings. Last season he covered his head with a towel and sat on the bench, frowning refusing to even acknowledge his teammates efforts on the field.

After the season he admitted that he “hadn’t been a good teammate.”

So what is ESPN tool Stephen A. Smith so upset about?

Ace explains:

---

Actually, he doesn't think it's racism. He's certain of it. He feels it in his bones. And he's angry at white people who attempt to "define" racism for African-Americans. See, only African-Americans can define racism, and they are (or at least one is) defining racism as a Hello Kitty t-shirt cartoon about a black quarterback who has previously been yelled at for mopery by his teammates and has just been taken to task about it by his veteran team-captain black all-time-all-star receiver.

It becomes racism the moment a White Person notices, especially in the South (which is 75% of Steven A. Smith's argument).

Steve Smith (the receiver) can notice that Newton is relapsing into his bad old sulky mopery ways, but you're not allowed to. Because agreeing with Steve Smith, who is black, would be racist, if you're White.

He's permitted to comment, you are not. He has that right based on skin color; your skin color, on the other hand, strips you of that right.

Who's the racist here, again?

---

If you can stomach Smith’s diatribe, here’s the video.

“It reeks of something a little more than football.”

Indeed it does, Smith. It reeks of hypocrisy and elitism among certain members of the black community who cheerfully employ a shameless double standard. If you can take it, wait until you get to the part where he disparages southerners.

He’s obviously never been to Charlotte, NC. It’s one of the most liberal and cosmopolitan metro areas in the Old South. We’ve come a long way in this part of the world. All the racists are up north. In places like Bristol, CT.

Here’s a smackdown of reality for you, Mr. Smith. The truth is not racist. Facts are not racist. The stats are not racist and neither is the scoreboard. Telling the truth by citing facts, relating the stats and pointing to the scoreboard doesn’t make anyone racist.

And mocking someone for not performing up to the standards expected of an overall top draft pick doesn’t, either.

UPDATE: Is it racist to point out that Stephen A. Smith found an article about him in The Onion, then went on a Twitter rant thinking it was real?

UDATE II: Brilliant and insightful Comment from ColorofGrey in the comment section. Please read.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Auburn fans take issue with writer’s “dissing” of Cam Newton

College football has many sensitive fan bases.

A few can be classified as hypersensitive, and Auburn fans’ reaction to Pete Fiutak’s comparison of Andrew Luck and Cam Newton highlights why they’re as over the top as anyone.

This should surprise absolutely no one. Objectivity is not to be tolerated when it comes to coverage of their football program.  Woe be to any reporter or columnist who doesn’t channel his inner Phillip Marshall in every story they publish. 

Thayer Evans. Joe Schad. Pete Thamel. Kevin Scarbinsky. Pete Fiutak.

Fuitak responds to a question on the matter in this post at CollegeFootballNews.com:

---

Q: Knowing what you know right now … do you take Cam Newton after his rookie year, or Andrew Luck? Or even Robert Griffin? Let’s say Cam stayed an extra year. Would Luck still be the No. 1 pick? - P.K.

A: If Cam had stayed for one more year Luck would still be the No. 1 overall pick. The same knocks on Newton that were out there last year would’ve been part of the equation, but I do think he’d go before RGIII. Had Luck come out in 2011, he’d have gone to Carolina and Newton would’ve gone to either Denver at the two or Buffalo at the three.

But the first question is interesting. It would be a coin-flip, but I’d probably go with the known and take a chance that Cam really is the real deal.

Cam had the best rookie season of any quarterback in the history of the NFL. That doesn’t really mean much, though, considering the team still stunk. Rick Mirer had one of the greatest rookie QB seasons of all-time and Vince Young looked like a world-beater after his first season – they didn’t exactly build on their strong debuts. The NFL has a funny way of adjusting to styles – notice the beating Michael Vick took last year - and the rushing part of Newton’s game has to become a memory or he’ll have a short shelf life. And it will. He has all the skills, size, and tools to become an elite pocket passer who happens to run once in a while. But can he be patient enough?

I’m still not 100% sold that he’s going to handle things all that well if the Panthers keep struggling.

There were times last year when Newton started to get a little petty and appeared on the verge of tossing his team under the bus, and there’s credible belief out there that he might be a wee bit too in love with being Cam Newton, Superstar.

But it’s not really fair to Newton, or anyone, to be compared to Luck as a pro prospect. Believe me, because I have all the scouting guides going back to the 1970s, there hasn’t been this much gushing over a prospect since John Elway.

---

Newton was the lightning-in-a-bottle quarterback who led Auburn to its first national title in more than half a century and whose father famously shopped him in violation of NCAA recruiting rules. Those two aspects of Newton’s one season at Auburn have the program’s fans on a razor sharp emotional edge. Anything less than gushingly effervescent commentary on his career or athletic ability is certain to be met with intense blowback from hypersensitive fans and this instance is no exception.

Despite praise for Newton’s rookie season, and despite the fact that he’d probably have taken Newton as “the real deal,” Auburn fans are upset that Fiutak doesn’t see Newton as an absolute football messiah. In likely reference to this ESPN interview, Fiutak notes that Newton has something of an ego issue. Fiutak isn’t the first to note that the guy the team refers to as “Mr. Mopeyhead” takes himself seriously and doesn’t get along with others when things aren’t going well. Fiutak does a good job of presenting both sides—Newton a gifted athlete and difference making quarterback, but he also has an attitude and he still has much to prove.

“Dumbass,” one Bunker poster says of Fiutak. “Douchebag,” says another. “Idiot,” says a third. A fourth Bunker poster wants Cam to be compared to one of history’s all time greats—Peyton Manning. Newton is hella good—after all he broke Mannings rookie records—but let’s not reserve Newton’s spot in the Hall of Fame yet, shall we?

“Butthurt… bitter tool,” says an AUTigers.com poster. “This may be the most stupid thing a man ever put down,” says another. A third opines and asks, “… complete fool. How does he have a job as a sportwriter?”

Auburn fans on Twitter weren’t much better than forum majorities. @TheAuburner called Fiutak’s answer an “unhealthy obsession,” and suggested that the writer’s motivations may have had a racial underpinning. There were a number of other tweets of the same type and ferocity seen on forums but I think you get the point.

To their credit, a small minority of Auburn fans saw Fiutak’s answer for what it was—an unbiased opinion based on observation of on- and off-field issues.

When a writer does an unabashed hit piece like Nolan Nawrocki did at Pro Football Weekly, the vitriol is well deserved. Any fan base righteously rises up to smite the offender. But Fiutak’s answer to the question was straight down the middle, and he still got hammered for daring to be objective.

Objectivity is not to be tolerated in the loveliest village. Just ask Evan Woodbery of al.com’s Auburn Bureau.

Exit Question: How do you think the Alabama fan base would compare? If an objective analysis of Trent Richardson’s prospects showed a good chance he might not be taken in the first round of the upcoming NFL Draft, what would the Bama Nation’s reaction be? We’re not exactly known for our ability to take kindly to poor coverage, but how do Tide fans handle the truth?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Proposed NCAA legislation won’t completely close the Cam Newton Loophole

The NCAA has released the package of legislation proposed for consideration at the January and April 2012 NCAA Division I Legislative Council and NCAA Division I Board of Directors meetings. If you’re up for it, you can read each proposal here.

The proposed legislation includes amendments to or creation of by-laws governing organization and governance, personnel definitions, amateurism rules, recruiting rules, eligibility matters, financial aid, awards, benefits and expenses, playing and practice seasons, various NCAA committees and regulations governing executives.

Also included in the proposed changes is Proposal No. 2011-23, AMATEURISM – DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS – AGENT. From the proposal text itself:

---

Intent: To specify that an agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly, represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain, or seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete.

Bylaws: Amend 12.02, as follows:
12.02 DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
12.02.1 Agent. An agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly:
(a) Represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain; or
(b) Seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete.
12.02.1.1 Application. An agent may include, but is not limited to, a certified contract advisor, financial advisor, marketing representative, brand manager or anyone who is employed or associated with such persons.

Rationale: As the salaries of professional athletes have risen, age restrictions to participate in professional sports leagues have changed and the notoriety of elite student-athletes has increased with scouting and media exposure, the interest of outside third parties in elite athletes is now greater than ever. As a result, an industry of individuals has been created, including runners, financial advisors, marketing representatives, business managers, brand managers and street agents who seek to broker elite athletes for financial gain. Although governing bodies have attempted to impose regulations on these individuals and their activities, the competitive nature of the industry has resulted in many finding ways to circumvent the rules. One constant is the use of outside third parties. These third parties typically operate free of any governing body's jurisdiction. In order to regulate the interaction of these individuals with prospective student-athletes and student-athletes, the definition of an agent must be broadened. This proposal is not intended to include parents or legal guardians, athletics department staff members, former teammates or those individuals who have the best interest of a prospective student-athlete or student-athlete in mind in providing assistance or information, provided they do not intend to receive a financial gain for their assistance. [emphasis added]

---

This is an expansive proposal, as it is also targeted at the rampant abuse found in college basketball recruiting. But in my view, it only represents one step in the right direction. On the positive side, it identifies the people and defines the activities that need to be prohibited. From the rationale accompanying the proposed amendment, explaining that it would include family members seeking financial gain lassos parents with their hands out.

But on the negative side, it doesn’t go far enough in defining what penalties should apply or how certain circumstances might affect a student-athlete’s eligibility. While the proposed legislation would close the loophole used by Auburn to argue for—and get—Cam Newton’s eligibility restored, it doesn’t address the specifics in the case.

As we all know, Cecil Newton admitted that he participated in a scheme to solicit payment in return for his son’s services. The new legislation would have defined the elder Newton as an agent. But there was never any proof that Cam knew of his father’s scheme, allowing him to escape any impact on his eligibility. The proposed legislation doesn’t address this.

The legislation also fails to address another specific in the Newton case—while the elder Newton copped to shopping Cam to Mississippi State, there was also a lack of evidence showing that he was also shopping at Auburn.

Functionally, if the proposed legislation passes as written, all it does is provide a means for identifying the next Cecil Newton as an agent. What it doesn’t do is establish whether the student-athlete’s eligibility is affected, what penalties should apply, whether the student-athlete’s awareness of having an agent comes into play or whether school where the student-athlete finally lands should suffer any consequences.

While the proposal is a good first step and should be adopted, it should have been much more specific. As a result, the Cam Newton Loophole will be only partially closed.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Unanswered Questions Still Remain About Auburngate

By @NailPhyl

The NCAA has given up on concluded the investigation into not only the recruitment of Cam Newton but also several other issues, according to a recent letter sent to Auburn University last week. Some time has passed and the dust has settled and the fog of disbelief has thinned somewhat. But it still doesn't make any sense why the NCAA closed this investigation after just thirteen months. There are too many unanswered questions that need to be addressed.

In no particular order, here are a few to rattle around in your head:

1. Who was the source for Joe Schad that provided him the direct quote "the money was too much"?

In the article released by Joe Schad on ESPN.com he writes that he was told by a source that Cam Newton called a recruiter for Mississippi State and that source told Schad that an emotional Newton called them on the phone and said he regretted he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State and was going to Auburn because "the money was too much."

Auburn people have tried their hardest to discredit Joe Schad. The truth of the matter is Schad had two direct quotes in the article. The first quote—which turned out to be absolutely true—was Cecil saying it would take "more than a scholarship" to bring his son to Mississippi State. Why was the second quote ignored and not explained? Who is this recruiter and were they even questioned by the NCAA?

Normally I won't link to SportsByBrooks but I really like his theory on who this source is.

A good follow up to this question just so happens to be...

2. Why did ESPN stop working on the story?

Six days before Schad came out with his story Pat Forde, Chris Low and Mark Schlabach released "Cash Sought for Cam Newton" which was the first domino to fall regarding the Cam Newton scandal. Both articles came from ESPN.

Take a minute to look back and analyze something you may have missed. Four people are credited for the information relating to this story. There were FOUR people that included Joe Schad, Pat Forde, Chris Low and Mark Schlabach. A reasonable assumption would be that if four of the most respected journalists that work for ESPN are working on a story, then they were assigned to this story. The editorial staff at ESPN believed the story had legs and wanted to get the information out there.

What happened?

I have a theory. It's a purely speculative theory that ESPN had a change of heart to protect one of their commodities. Instead of dabbling in speculation however, some insight may be gained by looking at the recent news about Forde leaving ESPN to go to Yahoo! sports.

We all know what happened to Bruce Feldman who left ESPN for CBS. I won't get into specifics but you can read the details here. I bring Feldman up because Forde mentions his situation as one of the reasons for his departure and provides a good insight of how ESPN can be sloppy. Feldman flatly states about his situation that ESPN "made such a mess, and then they never cleaned it up." Is this kind of like opening a damming story on a team with National Championship aspirations, which also has a player with a great chance at winning the Heisman, and not finishing it?

According to bigleadsports, it is also being said that Forde "has long been unhappy with what he couldn't report on or look into because of ESPN's many conflicts of interest." That is very interesting if you consider the abrupt halt on a story that would have surely put a stop to the National Championship run of a team that just so happens to be a member of the Southeastern Conference. Considering the messy way ESPN handles situations it wouldn't be hard to imagine that in the beginning they didn't think through the implications this story would have had to one of the teams that is part of the fifteen year, $2 billion deal ESPN made with the SEC on August 25th, 2008. I would definitely consider that a "conflict of interest."

As a side note, Forde and Charles Robinson are now coworkers.

3. Why did just one person from the HBO Four talk to the NCAA?

Specifically, why did Chaz Ramsey not talk to the NCAA? I remember he refused to talk if Auburn's attorneys were present. It seemed the story changed when a report came out that said Ramsey had specified a time between April 18th and April 20th of this year. Whatever came of that?

Apparently Only Gray agreed to be interviewed and the others "refused to cooperate," the NCAA said. So, what does that mean? Because Ramsey refused to talk to the NCAA without the presence of any and all attorneys representing Auburn he refuses to cooperate? Did all of the "80 interviews" conducted by the NCAA have to follow this rule? What about other institutions hit with major sanctions in the past 30 years, did they also afford the same luxury or is this preferential treatment of some kind? If this is true, how much of an influence did Auburn's attorneys have on the investigation and who was actually in charge, the NCAA or Auburn University's legal representative?

4. Has anyone made a request for all communication between Auburn and the NCAA enforcement staff?

Remember the reason open document requests were refused? Because there was an ongoing investigation. So lets see the information now. Was there ever a Notice of Inquiry? If no NOI existed, how in the bloody hell did the NCAA conduct an investigation without ever telling Auburn they were investigating? If one doesn't exist does that mean they made no effort to interview students, coaches or other administration on campus?

5. What about Auburn's institutional control?

What else is going on if the NCAA had nothing to pin on Auburn involving Newton and didn't believe the HBO Four but still felt the need to investigate Auburn's institutional control? It's already been discussed on this blog so I won't hit the whole thing again. However, as said on this site, "there’s no reason to engage in a review of institutional control procedures unless there’s something to suggest that it’s lacking." So why was the NCAA reviewing lack of institutional control if it had zero instances of violations and how did they do this without issuing the NOI?

6. What will the end of the bingo trial bring?

A lot of people have already jumped the gun and said 'I told you so' when talking about this trial. However, the buzz I heard when the end of the trial was nearing was that the end of the trial would result in the release information. That trial isn't finished and has been rescheduled for January 30th of 2012.

I realize this question can't be answered right now. Naysayers love to say it's nothing. I have zero reason to trust them any more than the people claiming that there are links with McGregor and illegal recruiting. I'm legitimately intrigued at what happens, if anything, when this case is over.

This isn't just message board fodder. Around the time the first trial was coming to an end, The Opening Drive on WJOX 94.5 FM in Birmingham, Alabama, which is hosted by Jay Barker, Tony Kurre and Al Del Greco, aired several discussions pertaining to this subject specifically and it is where I initially heard mention of multiple southern schools being involved. They didn't go into details. If you know the show, you know that it isn't based on rumor mongering and this information didn't come in from a caller. If you don't believe me, call them and ask them. They are the only ones I know of that have specifically mentioned the ties between the bingo trial, gambling and sports where a link from the source and someone specifically involved in the trial can be traced.

Insert Paul Finebaum to complete that link.

Follow me on Twitter at @NailPhyl

This is what passes for “professional journalism” at the Birmingham News

This is laughable. 

One expects blatant homerism from columnists writing for Rivals, Scout and 247 sites. One also expects those writers to rely on questionable, unnamed sources to drive the narrative in a light most favorable to the program they’re covering. It’s what they do.

But if you expect a major daily newspaper in the state of Alabama to be an objective observer and provide an unbiased look at a news story affecting one of the two SEC programs in the state, you will be sorely disappointed—maybe even embarrassed—by Kevin Scarbinsky’s column in the Wednesday editions of the Birmingham News. If there is a bigger Auburn crybaby anywhere in the state, you’ll need to look up Phillip Marshall or Jeffery Lee.

Scarbinsky is whining about ESPN’s decision to send Urban Meyer to cover Saturday’s Auburn vs. Clemson matchup in Death Valley. Meyer, former Florida Head Coach and two-time National Championship Winner, knows a little about football and is expected to provide insightful color and technical commentary as the game unfolds.

But the Auburn fambly isn’t happy about the decision, as Meyer has been pointed and specific in his criticism of major college athletics recruiting practices and includes Auburn among the programs he thinks stretch the rules too far.  Auburn fans also deeply believe that Meyer was one of the “wizards behind the curtain” who orchestrated a media conspiracy to wreck their 2010 championship run by exposing the Cam Newton pay for play scheme, a scheme that Cecil Newton admitted to participating in. Newton was briefly declared ineligible as a result of the scheme, only to have his eligibility reinstated by the NCAA, which then took the unusual step of explaining the loophole Auburn used to spring the one-and-done wonder from the NCAA doghouse.

Scarbinsky writes:

---

In the spring of 2009, after Auburn hit the road in its Tiger Prowl recruiting limos, Meyer told the Gainesville (Fla.) Sun that the NCAA should investigate. He also took a few shots at Auburn's tires.

"We're trying to sell graduation rates and academics and trying the sing and dance routine," he said. "The Florida coaching staff will not be riding around in limos or ripping off our shirts."

That shirt reference was a shot at Lane Kiffin and his Tennessee staff, but still. Even two years later, Meyer trying to drag his program onto the high ground, despite its arrest record, remains a shining example of hypocrisy.

He didn't stop there. In December of 2010, Meyer was the only SEC coach with a vote that didn't put Auburn No. 1 on his final regular-season ballot in the USA Today poll. He put Oregon first and Auburn second.

But those slights pale next to the role Meyer may have played as a wizard behind the curtain of the Cecil Newton-Kenny Rogers story last fall.

According to multiple news reports, before that story broke, Meyer had vowed on a three-way call with his protege, Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen, and former Mississippi State quarterback John Bond to tell it to The New York Times and ESPN.

Who broke the story of Newton and Rogers asking for money from Mississippi State boosters, Bond included, to send Cam Newton to State? The Times and ESPN.

---

For those of you keeping score, the NCAA is still investigating the whole “Prowl” affair, and is investigating it as an institutional affair rather than a series of individual secondary violations. But the real laugher is the reference to “multiple news reports” regarding a three-way conference call between Meyer, Mullen and Bond.

His source: A single blog post by the most obtuse Auburn homer on the planet. The blog post is behind 247Sports.com’s paywall, but trust me—as a news source it’s about as credible as my Aunt Tootsie’s pool boy.

The alleged three-way call—which at least one of the participants said never happened—had Meyer telling the other two that he was going public with the pay-for-play scheme and tipping off the New York Times and ESPN.

This is what passes as a credible source for the Birmingham News? When was the last time this blog ever ran a story citing a single, unnamed source and passing it off as credible journalism? When the credibility standards of a part-time blogger exceed those of Alabama’s largest newspaper, it’s no wonder that the News’ circulation is circling the drain.

The Scarbinsky column also comes in light of the righteous indignation from the Auburn fambly over the appearance of nationally syndicated talk show host Paul Finebaum at last Saturday’s game between Auburn and Mississippi State. Finebaum’s show—the Paul Finebaum Radio Network—has come under intense fambly indignation over the appearances on the show of Danny Sheridan, the USA Today Sports Analyst. Sheridan has said he has knowledge of the identities of key players in the Newton pay for play scheme. The fambly has begun mounting an email, letter and fax campaign insisting that Auburn University revoke Finebaum’s media credentials.

It also comes in light of last Spring’s events when another radio talk show host—Scott Moore—told his listeners that he had heard recordings that implicated both Cecil and Cam Newton in the pay-for-play scheme. When Moore indicated that he was willing to share that evidence on the air, the fambly rose up and hounded the radio station until Moore was forced off the air. Never mind that, regarding the existence of the recordings, Scott Moore was telling the truth.

The implications here are as chilling as they are crystal clear—bother to tell the truth about a football program under intense NCAA scrutiny, and the fambly will do everything in its power to shut you down. There will be no airing of the fambly’s dirty laundry, whether that airing is on a local radio talk show, a nationally syndicated radio talk show, or even ESPN.

Exit question: Mr. Sheridan, could you give me the odds on Auburn issuing me press credentials for the Florida game at Auburn?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Sheridan responds: Statement regarding NCAA statement

Tit for tat. Shot for shot.

The bizarre story gets even more bizarre, day by day.

Here is Danny Sheridan’s statement—responding to the NCAA’s statement yesterday—regarding the Cam Newton recruitment and the NCAA’s Auburn investigation.

---

"The NCAA statement about me is total propaganda and an absolute misrepresentation of the facts. For the record, I do have sources at the NCAA and that's why the organization has chosen to shoot the messenger.

"The NCAA called me through my attorney and requested an interview. I spoke with two NCAA investigators last Wednesday for almost an hour. I was consistent with them as I have been with the media and the public in refusing to divulge my sources.

"I also politely declined to share the name of the individual I have been told gave money to Cecil Newton. For the NCAA to claim I did anything else is specious, deceitful, disingenuous and completely false. I will be happy to take a polygraph test on these specific issues and challenge them to do so as well."

---

I frankly think the NCAA screwed up with yesterday’s statement, in which it not only copped to the fact that there is an active and ongoing investigation, it’s an “Auburn investigation.” That’s the first time we’ve seen an official statement from the league that they are knee deep in the process of investigating the 2010 National Champs.

What’s interesting is that when Paul Finebaum asked Sheridan whether he had knowledge of whether the school was being investigated for matters other than the Newton story, Sheridan’s attorney would not let him answer. It makes you go “hmmm.”

What’s also interesting to me is that the Mobile Press-Register’s Randy Kennedy has been reporting al.com’s coverage of this story. Kennedy is no wet-behind-the-ears beat writer or sports reporter. He’s the Sports Editor for one of the largest daily newspapers on the Gulf Coast.

But he’s always been a newshound at heart and he appears to be having fun doing his job.

Exit Question: Randy, when are you going to get Twitter?

Source: ‘National Publication’ will release names of key figures in Newton scandal UPDATE: Fizzle

Jim Morris, Editor of Tidefans Pro Sports, created a stir when he said today that a national, daily publication would release names and supporting information of key figures involved in the alleged 'pay for play' scheme involving Cam Newton.

Morris had expected the article to be released just prior to or at same time that sports analyst and oddsmaker Danny Sheridan appeared on the Paul Finebaum Radio Network show.

Sheridan joined the show at 2:00 pm CDT to discuss the story. Sheridan made waves at SEC Media Days when he told PFRN that the NCAA already had at least one key figure in mind—the much ballyhooed “bagman.”

Sheridan appeared on the show as scheduled but under advice of counsel, declined to reveal the name of “the bagman.”

Morris made the announcement at Tidefans.com earlier today. Follow the link.

Later, as the Sheridan segment was wrapping up, Morris apologized and said that the information he’d been given was bogus. Morris admits to getting duped, and so do I.

Morris himself is a solid, credible source. From his Tidefans Pro Sports profile:

---

A note from Jim Morris on what TideFans.com Pro Sports is all about

It’s been a while since I’ve been a contributor to Tidefans.com, if you’re a seasoned TideFans member you may remember me. For the not-so-seasoned I may be a stranger. While I don’t consider myself an expert on the NFL I have spent every waking minute of the past five years, working behind the scenes in the PR world of the NFL.

Along the way I have established relationships with insiders, instigators, outsiders, and outlaws. While I continue to work in the NFL arena, I will be making frequent contributions to TideFans.com. The focus will be on Alabama’s impact in the NFL and the behind the scene stories concerning the Capstone’s former stars.

It’s good to be back and I look forward to continuing the ‘free inside’ access that has made TideFans.com one of the best sites on the internet.

---

I had no problems publishing his info. Stuff like this happens from time to time.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled programming of sports, politics, current events and the occasional snarky farky satire.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

The curious case of academic fraud and felony burglary

 You’ll want to scroll down for an update.

We know one thing is true—the Never to Yield Foundation takes himself seriously. It’s too bad he doesn’t take the facts very seriously.

In a dismissive diatribe yesterday, our friend attempts to exonerate Cam Newton of both the allegations that he committed multiple instances of academic fraud while enrolled at the University of Florida and later burglarized a fellow student’s dorm room, stealing a $1,700 laptop and attempting to deceive investigators by tossing the stolen property out of his window after police officers had already discovered him in possession of it.

Let’s reexamine the allegations and the facts of the two cases. Note well that this wouldn’t even be a topic of discussion today had the self-aggrandizing NTYF resisted the urge to sugarcoat Newton’s misdeeds as a story of “inspiration to other youngsters.” Good Lord, if this is how we’re raising our kids, the future of our society is a bleak one.

ACADEMIC FRAUD

On November 9, 2010, Fox Sports’ Senior College Football writer Thayer Evans reported that the former Florida Quarterback had three different instances of academic fraud while at Gainesville and faced disciplinary action that could have included suspension or expulsion. Evans reported that Newton cheated in a class during his Freshman year, his very first academic year on campus. Evans reported that Newton violated the university’s honor code a second time by putting his name on another student’s paper and turning it in as his own.The deed was allegedly discovered when the course instructor asked the other student why he had not yet turned in his own work

When the other student replied that he had turned in a paper, he and the course instructor examined all of the class’ submissions and found that Newton had put his name on the other student’s paper. When confronted with this, Newton turned in a different paper to the instructor. The second paper was found to have been purchased on the internet, according to Evans’ report.

NTYF cites a CBSSports.com blog entry from Adam Jacobi in a weak attempt to discredit Evans’ story. But what NTYF doesn’t tell you is that Jacobi cites a report from AuburnSports.com, in which the writer cites unnamed sources challenging whether Newton’s case came before the Student Conduct Committee at Florida. This is the only aspect of Evans’ reporting called into question by the AuburnSports story.  None of the fundamental allegations—that Newton cheated in a Freshman class and attempted to pawn off someone else’s work as his own—were ever addressed by either CBSSports or AuburnSports.

By the way, that is the same Rivals site that pulled the Brent Calloway recruitment story out of its arse last April, alleging improper benefits and again citing its own unnamed sources. AuburnSports.com must have one helluva crack investigative team if it has “sources close to” both the University of Florida’s academic affairs and the University of Alabama’s recruiting activities. I’m not going to tell you who to believe in this dispute, but if a third party were to weigh the credentials of these two media organizations, which do you think they’d find to be the most objective and therefore most credible? Again, you believe who you want to believe.

FELONY BURGLARY, LARCENY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

“There was a computer and I took it… threw it out the window.  Huh? Cuz they about to search my room!”

On Friday, November 28, 2008, the Gainesville Sun reported that Florida Quarterback Cam Newton had been arrested and charged with felony counts of burglary, larceny and obstruction of justice.

According to the 16 page police report, a University of Florida student called authorities to report that his laptop had been stolen from his unlocked dorm room as he visited with friends next door. Acting on a tip from that student, investigators on the morning of November 21 asked Cam Newton for permission to enter his dorm room, which he granted. The officers entered and observed a laptop similar in make and model to the one reported stolen, but which had none of the markings described by the owner and which had a serial number with one digit different from the stolen one.

Investigators determined later that day that the reported serial number was in error and that the serial numbers were indeed the same. Detectives returned to Newton’s dorm room later on the same date and again asked for permission to search. Newton complied again, only this time the detectives could not locate the stolen computer.

The NTYF tirade doesn’t go into such pesky things like the facts of the case as alleged by the team of police officers who investigated the theft, observed the evidence and arrested the perp.  Nope. This was all merely “an error of youth and arrogance.” The smoking gun is the incriminating evidence described in this section of the police report:

Cam Newton was charged with felony burglary because police officers overheard him copping to taking the computer. They charged him with felony larceny because he was observed in possession of the property reported stolen by a fellow student, and they charged him with obstruction of justice because when he realized that he was about to be nabbed, he tried to get rid of the evidence. Kind of like a drug dealer tossing bags of white powder out of the car window while being pursued by authorities.

Urban Meyer, then the Florida Gators Head Coach, suspended Newton immediately following his arrest. In Spring 2009, Newton pled guilty to a lesser charge and avoided jail. He decided to transfer to a community college in Blinn Texas, but in Evans’ story from November 9, Newton may not even have been enrolled at Florida for the Spring Semester when he decided to transfer. You don’t get that little nugget from the NTYF diatribe, either.

Once again, none of this old news would even be a topic for discussion today if the grassroots organization of one hadn’t attempted to whitewash these events and somehow paint their recounting as part of some evil conspiracy against teh fambly. Evans’ story reports specific and credible allegations of academic cheating, and the only account to the contrary challenges only part of Evans’ report. The official police report on the laptop heist records specific details and describes a thief who was caught red-handed and charged with three felonies.

Facts are such pesky little Energy Vampires, aren’t they? They suck the credibility right out of even the most carefully crafted line of bullshit.

UPDATE: Several folks have emailed and messaged me asking where the picture of the laptop came from.  Here’s the link to the Deadspin story that first published the source pic. I farked the $ onto the original and added “I Bleed Crimson Red” to the image to protect my farktastic photoshop skills.

Deadspin:

---

We were sent these photos, including the computer and the Florida PD's property label, claiming that we could verify them by the serial number. Sure enough, it matches what's listed in the police report. But we went to Paul Loschak, the former UF student that Newton stole it from, to make sure.

It's "100 percent definitely the laptop," Loschak told us. But we were curious about Newton's name, painted in large white block letters.

When I first bought my laptop, I painted a picture of a forest and a river on the back. I did it partly because I was bored, and partly because I wanted my laptop to have some major identifying features in case it ever got stolen. After my laptop was stolen in October 2008 Cam (or somebody) painted it black to cover my painting and painted his name on it in big white letters, just like you see in the pictures. That's exactly how the laptop looked when I got it back from the police evidence department.

That's just excellent. It's one thing to cover up identifying features on property you've stolen. It's another to put your own damn name on it, as if the international law of Finders Keepers would be in play.

---

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

SEC AD’s snub Cam Newton, award Athlete of the Year to a Tennis Player

Question: Why didn’t Cam Newton win the SEC Male Athlete of the Year Award?

Answer: Because only amateur athletes are eligible for it!

[rim shot]

Helmet rap to @TideFanAtlanta for the joke.

 Via the al.com “Auburn Bureau.” In a move reminiscent of the SEC Football Coaches voting Steve Spurrier Coach of the Year, the conference’s Athletic Directors have awarded the SEC Male Athlete of the Year Award to John-Patrick Smith, a Senior Tennis Player from the University of Tennessee.

As Charles Goldberg points out, this is the first time that an SEC player who won the Heisman Trophy was NOT also named MAOTY.

Is it an intentional snub of the SEC’s most prolific—and most controversial—football player?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Cam Newton scandal forces changes in SEC procedure…

  … but the SEC doesn’t tell us what procedures have been changed.

It’s Ok. I think I’ve got it figured out.

In a story published in today’s Birmingham News, Jon Solomon relates a conversation he had with Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive. Apparently, the badly bungled process that let Cam Newton remain eligible at Auburn despite a violation of the SEC’s own eligibility bylaws has led to a tweaking of the process by which the conference communicates allegations of wrongdoing to the NCAA.

Mississippi State University first reported pay-for-play allegations in January 2010. The SEC claimed that it requested additional information, information that it says was not provided until July 2010.

In the ESPN report that broke the story last November, Cam Newton’s father Cecil said that the NCAA requested financial records from him sometime in early October, indicating that neither the SEC nor Mississippi State had contacted the league until many months had passed and the college football season was well under way.

That left a months-long window open, allowing key players in the scandal to cover their tracks, destroy evidence, get their stories straight and let the trail go cold.

Key paragraphs in Solomon’s story:

---

"We've reached an accommodation as to the kinds of issues they (the NCAA) have had in mind, and what they want to know, when they want to know," Slive said, without elaborating on details. "Those are relatively simple things for us to accommodate. There may be certain issues that they want to know about earlier than others. We have no problem reaching that accommodation."

Speaking in early May, NCAA Director of Enforcement Julie Roe Lach said she has had positive talks with Slive and SEC Associate Commissioner Greg Sankey about informing the NCAA of accusations as early as possible.

"I believe they're going to try and deal with the information in terms of what's the best way to fully vet this," Roe Lach said. "Because we're the trained experts on how to conduct investigations, it makes sense for us to get involved on the front end as opposed to having to come in on the back end and possibly replow ground."

---

Read between the lines here, sports fans. The NCAA was not happy with the inertia demonstrated by the SEC front office in the Newton situation. The SEC blew it. They used a flawed reporting process that delayed key information from being shared for months. They ignored two of their own bylaws regarding ethics and eligibility and allowed a football player to make a complete mockery out of the league and the principles of amateurism.  In the process, they caused Roe Lach and her team of investigators to have to go back and “replow ground,” soil that is still being turned to this day.

While the NCAA doesn’t have the power to compel the conference to change procedures, it looks like some folks got a stern talking-to and adjustments are being made. The question is, what’s being adjusted? Is the NCAA to be immediately notified of credible allegations of rule-breaking? Does the conference return to its pre-Slive days of conducting investigations on its own, or does it still rely on the member schools?

More importantly, are these changes to be codified in a new or amended bylaw, so that fans  can examine them? Or, do we have to figure it out ourselves?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

The righteously indignant Pete Fiutak gets it wrong

Dear Mr. Fiutak:

Reinstatement decisions are NOT enforcement investigations.

In a column posted yesterday, Fox Sports’ Pete Fiutak takes the NCAA to task for what he sees as a glaring inconsistency in upholding the sanctions that hammer Southern Cal for the Reggie Bush case. He makes the mistake of comparing the Bush enforcement improper benefits case to the reinstatement decisions made by a completely different arm of the NCAA.

I probably shouldn’t single out Fiutak because honestly, he’s not the only one who gets it wrong. The sentiments he express are found in columns on sports pages across the country. They’re on websites, blogs and internet message boards. Very few of’em get it.

While Mr. Fiutak will get no argument from me that the NCAA’s “every case is different” approach to both enforcement and reinstatement matters is a recipe for chaos and confusion, his column contributes absolutely nothing to resolving the national confusion over the difference between the results of investigations conducted by the league’s enforcement arm and decisions rendered by a reinstatement staff with no investigatory powers whatsoever.

People want to compare the USC case to the other two highest profile cases of blatant violation of amateurism rules—the Cam Newton case at Auburn and the Tressel, Pryor et al case at Ohio State. In doing so, they try to make the case that Southern Cal is being made to pay a heavy price while Auburn and Ohio State get away scot free.

Here’s the key difference: The Bush case—after a half-decade of media and NCAA background investigation, a notice of inquiry, the formal enforcement investigation, a notice of allegations, a Committee on Infractions hearing, a decision, an appeal and a decision on the appeal—was a thorough, full-fisted anal exam conducted by people with no connection to the Trojan program. Meanwhile, the reinstatement processes that resulted in the eligibility decisions at Auburn and Ohio State were the result of dog-and-pony shows written, produced and directed by the schools themselves.

Repeat after me: Reinstatement decisions are NOT enforcement investigations.  Lather, rinse and for God’s sake repeat this to every college sports fan you encounter.

The Infractions Committee relied on information produced by the NCAA enforcement staff and that information was the closest to the truth that anyone could ever hope for. The reinstatement decisions were based on information provided by the schools, and that information was prepared in a manner that puts the best light on the school that anyone could hope for. It’s a huge difference and it seems to be completely lost on people who should know better.

I am the first to admit that while I know more about NCAA rules and procedures than I ever wanted to, I still have a great deal to learn. It would be helpful if Pete Fiutak and all the other master blasters in the national sports media would slow down, understand the processes involved and at least try to grasp this key distinction between enforcement and reinstatement matters. By not doing so, they’re not helping the public get their own arms around the concepts.

I’ll bet there’s one thing on which Fiutak and I can agree. That would be a standardized set of penalties with mandatory minimum sentences for major violations. This idea was posited by MrSEC. Such a system would end the “every case is different” approach currently in place in both the enforcement and reinstatement offices of the NCAA. To be certain, some unintended victims will suffer under such a cut-and-dried system. But if everyone understands what the penalties are—that all drug dealers, murderers and rapists go to prison, no matter what—there will be fewer people weighing the risk reward ratio and making the wrong decision.

We need that and if this week’s news is any indication, we might soon get it.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

NFL Draft Craft: Don’t believe a word you hear or see

Mock drafts, like NCAA tournament brackets, are made to be busted. There’s Mel Kiper’s Big Board. Todd McShay. Clark Judge. Put all of these forecasts together and they’ll look like a first year stat students scatterplot. They’re all over the place.

Via the Daily Caller (yes, that site has a sports section and I was surprised, too), Joe Theismann doesn’t even think Cam Newton is worthy of a first round pick, much less the first overall pick of the Carolina Panthers. Nick Fairley? The Cowboys want nothing to do with him, according to at least one prominent draft analyst. Mark Ingram has a bad knee. Julio Jones is injury prone. Patrick Peterson has character issues. A.J. Green’s Wonderlic score is too low.

It’s all bullshit.

In the weeks leading up to any NFL Draft, the children who write and say stuff like the above all have an agenda. The Washington Redskins would absolutely love it if Cam Newton fell in their lap. So too would the New Orleans Saints found Mark Ingram still hanging around at pick #24. So their “sources” float stories about players they aren’t gonna pick.

Trust me—the more crap you hear about a player’s lack of potential in the NFL, the more teams there are looking at him and going, “Hmmmm.”

In about 48 hours, the Carolina Panthers will be put on the spot. I fully expect them to take Cam Newton. Nick Fairley. Marcell Dareus. Patrick Peterson. Julio Jones. Whichever player is expected by that organization to fulfill what the organization believes to be its greatest need.

The NFL Draft is all about filling needs and taking the best player available who fits the bill. The only team that always takes the best available athlete—regardless of position and regardless of need—is always and everywhere the completely dysfunctional Oakland Raiders.

But subterfuge is part of the game we call the Draft Craft. It’s crafting a message that makes your competitors doubt—ever so slightly—the capabilities of a player they really want. Generate enough negative buzz, and you’re the Green Bay Packers selecting Aaron Rogers.  The Seahawks and Shaun Alexander as the 19th pick. Or, the New England Patriots waiting patiently until the seventh round until Tom Brady is just there for them.

There is an inverse correlation between the amount of ink spilled about a player’s lack of ability and the interest teams have in him.

Making the right selection in the NFL Draft is a lot like picking players during college recruiting. You know you’ve got some good raw material. You know there’s a lot of potential there. But how much can you dissuade your competitors from pursuing him?

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Pro Football Weekly: Character Counts

Keen analysis from PFW’s Nolan Nawrocki, in which he describes how NFL teams assess character and decide whether to take a chance on a talented prospect with less-than-stellar intangibles. Notable in the story is the first published report that former Arkansas Quarterback Ryan Mallett admitted to having a drug problem during team interviews at the NFL Combine last February. Also notable in the story is that of the six prospects assessed with the greatest risk, three are from SEC schools.

Mallett joins former Auburn Quarterback Cam Newton and Defensive Tackle Nick Fairley. Of those three, Fairley is probably the one teams would be most willing to roll the dice on, because as Nawrocki explains, you can get away with a lot more at that position than others.

Without the character issues, both Mallett and Newton are solid locks for first round selections in the NFL Draft that begins April 28. Nawrocki notes Mallett’s substance problem, but goes out of his way to finger Newton as an immature egomaniac who is ill-suited to fill a leadership role at the position that requires it most.

Newton is a freakishly good athlete and his college coaches have said he is as capable as any they’ve coached at that position. And let’s be honest—in two years as a starting Quarterback, Newton has won two national titles. The question is, did he excel at Auburn because he worked in a system designed for him by evil offensive genius Gus Malzahn? Check out the first few minutes of this conversation with Chuckie Jon Gruden:

 

Both Donovan McNabb and Michael Vick are cut from a similar physical fabric as Newton. Both have proven their worth on the field. It remains to be seen if Newton can do it, or if he becomes a spectacular bust like JaMarcus Russell (in Russell’s defense, he was drafted by an absolute dumpster fire of an NFL program). Ironically, it would probably be better for Newton’s long-term success in the league if he was not one of the earliest picks in the draft. It would mean he “falls” to a better team with more room to let him develop his football IQ.

Mallett is a loaded dice roll. His physical skills are unquestionable, but the “big time party guy” will be tempted sorely by big time NFL money, even if he slips to a late second round pick as many draft gurus project. Last month, former Tennessee and current NY Jets Quarterback Erik Ainge opened up about his long-term struggle with drug addiction. Ainge wasn’t expected to make a major impact when he was drafted in the fifth round in 2008. Mallett, given his resume at Arkansas and his work under gifted Quarterback/Offensive Guru Bobby Petrino, will be. That is, if he can shed the monkey on his back and get his life straightened out.

To put it mildly, this is one of the riskiest NFL Drafts in recent memory. There are a host of unanswered questions about the biggest names available. Teams that take chances will either win big by gambling on the question marks or, like the Raiders did with Russell, lose big.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Nolan Nawrocki goes Energy Vampire and trashes Cam Newton

ZOMG! Gene Chizik was right! There are Energy Vampires out there, and they really are trying to get you!

Take Nolan Nawrocki, for example. He’s the publisher of the Pro Football Weekly Draft Preview, a respected publication that lands in every NFL front office. It has an extensive on and off-field analysis of each prospect in the draft.

This week’s copy draws blood when it comes to the Cam Newton review.

---

Under the "Negatives" for Newton, Nawrocki details the on-field shortcomings. It's a lot of the same critiques we're familiar with: one-year producer, limited field vision, spotty accuracy.

But Nawrocki bludgeons Newton when he starts talking about his personality.

"Very disingenuous -- has a fake smile, comes off as very scripted and has a selfish, me-first makeup," writes Nawrocki.

But Nawrocki was just warming up.

He continued, "Always knows where the cameras are and plays to them. Has an enormous ego with a sense of entitlement that continually invites trouble and makes him believe he is above the law -- does not command respect from teammates and will always struggle to win a locker room . . . Lacks accountability, focus and trustworthiness -- is not punctual, seeks shortcuts and sets a bad example. Immature and has had issues with authority. Not dependable."

---

Nawrocki is either a secret employee of the REC, or he’s an Energy Vampire. Either way, it will be interesting to see how the Never to Yield Foundation handles this obvious smear attempt on teh fambly. Everyone knows that Energy Vampires are immune to boycotts.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook,

AUBurgeddon: Newton investigation’s costly price tag and media fail

In a story from the Birmingham News’ Jon Solomon today, we learn that Auburn University has shelled out a hefty $170,000 or so in legal fees in connection with the NCAA investigation of allegations surrounding former Auburn Quarterback, Cam Newton.

That’s not pocket change, and it looks like there’s a lot more moolah to be spent in the months ahead.  The fact that there’s to be a lot more legal expenses going forward might be news to some people, as is explained in a little better detail later on.

Solomon says:

---

Auburn University says it has spent approximately $170,000 in attorney fees on the Cam Newton case during the past 4 months.

Auburn Senior Associate Athletics Director Scott Carr said Tuesday the fees started in mid-October and have all gone to Lightfoot, Franklin, White LLC, the university's Birmingham-based legal counsel.

Auburn provided the information in response to an open-records request by The Birmingham News.

---

By way of comparison, Solomon notes that the University of Alabama spent a total of $188,443 on the textbook case. He does not note that the textbook matter is altogether closed.

Which leads us to another little nugget of gold provided to the state media cartel’s readers, courtesy of a quote from Mike Slive. Slive was interviewed yesterday by ESPN’s SEC Beat Writer, Chris Low.

The following exchange takes place, and the topmost is repeated in Solomon’s story:

---

Does the NCAA’s investigation of Cam Newton and his father, Cecil, remain open?

MS: You’re going to have to ask them, but nobody has written me a letter that says it’s over.

How did you feel about Cecil being there at the end of BCS National Championship Game after telling Auburn officials he would not attend?

MS: If it was up to me, I would have preferred that he not be in the stadium.

---

OMG! WTF! You mean the NCAA isn’t through investigating Cam Newton and Auburn?!? Hasn’t fellow cartel writer Charles Goldberg of the venerable Auburn Bureau told us over and over and over again that the NCAA has already investigated the matter and “found nothing wrong?”

Has the fambly called in the dogs and pissed on the fire too soon, Nelly?

This is a dark, dark day for denizens of the 334 area code, folks. Especially those who don’t surf the net or read reputable national sportswriters such as Thayer Evans of Fox Sports or Pete Thamel of the New York Times. These and other notable journalists have reported on the very active, very much ongoing nature of the NCAA investigation. Conversely, the state media cartel has cheerfully kept up the fambly meme that the NCAA already finished it’s looky-see and declared them all clean and innocent.

It looks like that $170,000 is a mere down payment. A retainer fee, if you will. Because the ongoing nature of the NCAA investigation of the Newtons and Auburn isn’t all the state media cartel fails to report on.

They fail to note that Lightfoot Franklin & White is the same firm representing Auburn Trustee, booster and puppeteer Bobby Lowder in the Colonial Bank Employees’ class action lawsuit against him, in which the former employees allege that he mismanaged, swindled and otherwise ruined their financial interests in running his bank into the ground.

They fail to note that the sitting Athletic Director, Jay Jacobs, once ran the athletic department’s fundraising colossus, Tigers Unlimited Foundation, which paid out millions to the lobbying firm of Robert Geddie. You know… the Auburn graduate who is one of the 11 people indicted and charged in the BingoGate case. For the slower folks in the 334 Fambly, let me spell that out for you in clear, fifth grade language: Your AD has a documented business relationship with a man who will stand trial as part of a conspiracy to commit fraud, bribery, extortion and money laundering. That is, unless he flips. After all, he’s being represented by the same firm who represents Auburn in the Cam Newton case and Lowder in the Colonial class action case. Franklin’s skills as a negotiator are legendary in the legal community. He represents his clients professionally and thoroughly.

All of’em.

I can’t be too harsh on the state media cartel. In truth, the Birmingham News went all rogue and stuff when they filed the open records request. Solomon often sometimes controls his homerism, plays it straight down the middle and reports the news. Press-Register Sports Editor Randy Kennedy is about as professional as they come. But our state media cartel is clearly dropping the ball on this story and potentially missing out on the opportunity to win Pulitzers.

Follow me on Twitter, and visit the Timeline Page for a complete chronology of events.

 

Oh NOES: Laptops stolen from Dallas Convention Center. Where’s Cam Newton?!?

Uh oh…

It appears someone has made off with an iPad and two laptops from the Dallas Convention Center. News from NBC’s Dallas-Fort Worth affiliate:

---

An iPad and two laptops stolen from the Dallas Convention Center don't contain Super Bowl security information after all, Dallas police said Wednesday.

The items belonged to a private investigator and security consultant based in California. Sources say the company was hired to do work for the NFL in some capacity during the Super Bowl.  The owner of the items association to the big game led to concerns about the contents of the laptop, but police now say security hasn't been compromised.

"After talking with the victims, it was determined that neither the laptops nor the iPad contained any information that would compromise or jeopardize the security of any Super Bowl related events," said Kevin Janse, with the Dallas Police Department. "Detectives further believe the laptop theft was nothing more than a crime of opportunity and that the suspects probably didn’t even realize who the owners of the property were."

Initially, police said the items were taken from a Starbucks kiosk inside the convention center.  The latest information indicates those items were taken while inside a ballroom where they were left unattended for about 25 minutes, Janse said.

---

Thank goodness the machines didn’t contain secure information about the Superbowl. Otherwise, we might learn beforehand whether there will be a wardrobe malfunction during the halftime show or if Jerry Jones will make a surprise appearance on the field for the ceremonial coin toss.

But the real question on everybody’s minds: Does anyone know the whereabouts of Cam Newton at the time of the alleged swipe?

Officials are trying to locate surveillance video from security cameras located throughout the building. If you-know-who shows up, someone alert LSUFreek ASAP.

h/t Scott.

AUburgeddon: Geno at ESPN weighs in: “But it doesn’t feel closed. It feels empty.”

One of ESPN’s best writers weighs in on the Cam Newton story, and as is typical with Woj’s opinion pieces, he leaves no arteries un-gashed. I usually provide some observations or snarky comments on opinion pieces like this, but this one deserves to be unsnarked.

Go read the whole thing. He starts off well and goes straight for the stars from there.

---

Cam Newton is no longer on the Auburn campus, but the stench from his father Cecil's pay-for-play scheme and bungled cover-up still hovers over college football likes gases over a landfill.

The smell has Auburn, Mississippi State, the Southeastern Conference and even the Heisman Trophy Trust holding their noses. And depending on whether the NCAA has completed its investigation or not, perhaps its breath, too. There remains no closure, no neat bow on the Newton box.

…

What matters is if money changed hands, if money was laundered and if Mississippi State was the only school approached by Cecil Newton. So far, nothing.

Of course, Auburn officials who know Cam Newton well say it's entirely possible that he didn't have a clue about his father's actions. He's a 10-year-old in a man's body. He's Tom Hanks in "Big," an innocent. He'd rather play with other kids than deal with adults.

That's what they say, at least.

---

Cam Newton’s agent: Connection to Cecil Newton’s church repairs?

Scroll down for updates.

Call it a coincidence (if you believe in such things as coincidences, UFO’s and the tooth fairy) or call it another link in the chain. Another brick in the wall. Another nail in the … you get the idea.

Per SportingNews today, Cam Newton, tainted Heisman Trophy winning quarterback for the 2010 BCS Champion Auburn Tigers, has signed with an agent. The agent he signed with is Bus Cook, famed for representing future hall of famer Brett Favre.

Bus Cook is affiliated with Perennial Sports. There’s another figure connected with the Newtons who is also affiliated with Perennial. His name is Anthony (Tony) Paige.

Does that name ring a bell?

Cam has a brother named Cecil Newton, Jr. who had a brief stint in the NFL himself. 

Guess who he was represented by?

---

Who is your agent/agency and what factors went into your decision?

Newton: My agent is Tony Paige with Perennial Sports and Entertainment. My father did a lot of background on potentially 10-15 other agencies that were recruiting me. Tony was a great selection because of his knowledge and experience in the industry.

---

Are there two men named Anthony Paige? May be. Both are African American males, both are associated with the Newtons, both have the same name. One guy named Anthony Paige was presented to the Newnan City Council as the guy who would oversee repairs to Cecil Newton’s church. Another guy named Anthony Paige is a registered sports agent, who works for the same company that Cam’s agent does, and who also represented Cam’s big brother.

But none of this is connected, right?

 

 UPDATE: From agent Tony’ Paige’s website at Perennial Sports:

 

“One of the best ways to give back to the community that nurtured you is by setting up a non-profit organization. Perennial can assist, prepare and administer the formation and operation of a foundation.”

He’s absolutely right, of course. Many very worthy non-profit organizations have been formed by star athletes, and a great number of them do wonderful things for the communities the athletes used to call home.

But the the Department of Justice has an entire Division dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting those who use 501(c)(3) tax status to hide income and launder money. Just sayin…

h/t to psupoop. (You may need to join Tidefans.com to read that link.  And that would hurt you, why?)