According to this article by habitual podcast skipper Andy Katz, the NCAA’s new president has new, emergency legislation on his mind that would seek to avoid another convoluted Cam Newton-like situation. Here’s what the NCAA’s head honcho had to say about the Newton case and the possibility of new rules to keep the problem from repeating itself:
NCAA president Mark Emmert said in an interview Tuesday that emergency legislation could be put in place during the January convention to avoid a repeat of the Cam Newton pay-for-play case.
Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with nine reporters from various media outlets, Emmert said the main question the NCAA must tackle is whether a player should be culpable for the actions of a relative even if no evidence is found that he or she knew about those actions… The NCAA found no evidence that Cam Newton knew what his father did or that Auburn was involved, so he was allowed to keep playing.
The new NCAA chief said the backlash against the organization’s decision to clear Newton to play would have been worse if he were prevented from competing based on the evidence against him. At the same time, he acknowledged it’s a complex legal and ethical issue.
“I was not surprised by the volume or the vitriolic nature, but had we made a different decision, I do think it would have been worse,” Emmert said. “There was no evidence that Auburn University had anything to do with that or the student-athlete had anything to do with that, and under the rules that exist today, he could play ball.”
Emmert, the former University of Washington president who succeeds interim president Jim Isch (who followed the late Myles Brand), said legislation to deal with a Newton-like case is on his mind.
“Who is an agent and who is a third party and how do you define that?” Emmert said. “Is it a registered agent? A financial adviser? A counselor, an uncle, an AAU coach? Who is representing you? The reason the backlash didn’t surprise me is that the face of the case seemed straight forward but we had to deal with the reality of the facts that were known.”
Now, despite there being no mention of Enes Kanter in the article, it doesn’t take an investigative reporter to realize that if Kentucky’s new case for Enes is based on the Newton ruling, any legislation that’s passed concerning the rules that allowed that verdict to be reached would most likely have some effect on UK. Dickie V, who also isn’t an investigative journalist, made the same connection:
I’m not going to pretend to have some nice way to explain how this may or may not play into the Kanter case. That would involve trying to crawl inside the brain of the NCAA, a place I’d be afraid to go even if I was convinced it actually existed. But it is worth following, both to see if it does affect Kanter’s case and to see if the NCAA can use this opportunity to succeed in finding a new way to make themselves look like morons.