The Cam Newton investigation has further-reaching implications than just this weekend's Auburn-Georgia game or the Iron Bowl. Heisman Trophy chatter site Stiff Arm Trophy polled a sample of the award's voting body, and heard back from 58 members, roughly 79% of whom said the various allegations swirling around Cam Newton wouldn't sway their voting.
Which is all very interesting, but not nearly as interesting as the reasons several of them expressed:
[A] number of voters shared the sentiment expressed by Fanhouse's Brett McMurphy (a Florida voter): "These are still only allegations. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?"
Nothing happened to it. It's still there. But unless the FBI's involvement in this case continues and deepens, nobody in Cam Newton's case is on trial. Nor is Cam entitled to due process: Recall that based on their own bylaws, the NCAA would be perfectly within bounds to recommend suspension based on the actions of Cecil Newton or another third party alone, even if Cam had no prior knowledge.
[The] Oregonian's John Hunt said, "The Heisman Trust may see fit to take a trophy away, but it's not our place to judge players' character - just what they do on the field."
That's nice -- only it is their place. The very first sentence of the Heisman Trophy Trust mission statement reads:
The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.
2 comments
11
Comments
Others may read the first line of the mission statement differently
As in “… pursuit of excellence with integrity on the field”.
But then one would be able to counterpoint with “well of course with integrity on the field, if that means that they’re not knifing opponents on camera (with indisputable video evidence obviously)”.
¡Viva La Revolución!
by ecuamerican on Nov 12, 2010 3:42 PM EST reply actions
Even if NCAA bylaws allow suspension of a player based on third-party actions
Heisman voters would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that their evaluation of a player should be limited to actions taken by that player.
Mark Ingram’s dad was convicted of bank-fraud and money-laundering while his son was in college. The media studiously (and correctly) reminded everyone that this wasn’t to be held against Jr. Should we have felt differently if Ingram’s dad had tried to make money off of his son’s football career? For that matter, would anyone be shocked, now or years from now, if it came out that he did?
Of course, LaMichael James plead guilty to lesser charges stemming from allegedly strangling his girlfriend and has a prior arrest for battery. But at least his dad has kept a low profile, and the NCAA eligibility committee doesn’t care about criminal violence (and for that, Urban Meyer thanks them).
by Ardbeg on Nov 12, 2010 5:17 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed