Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2010

Morris: How Newton saga could be a good thing

AUBURN MIGHT not believe it. College football fans might not believe it. The truth is the controversy surrounding Auburn quarterback Cam Newton is the best thing that could happen to college athletics.

What better way for the NCAA to recognize there is a problem with the way amateurism is defined than to have the highest profile athlete in the highest profile sport under investigation for allegedly selling his services?

The NCAA should have received a wakeup call this summer to begin redefining amateurism. Yet virtually nothing changed after players from North Carolina to South Carolina to Georgia to Florida allegedly had illegal dealings with agents.

Instead, the NCAA continued to roll along, investigated the incidents, suspended a few players and might even tack on a few penalties for the schools. I do not recall any talk about changing the model for NCAA athletics.

Now comes Newton. He is the best player in college football and likely winner of the Heisman Trophy. He is reasons No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 the Auburn Tigers are one step from playing for the national championship.

Newton’s spectacular play has caused national TV networks to shift their spotlight to Auburn. He has become a weekly star on ESPN highlight shows essentially serving as a promotional wing of the Auburn athletics department. Who needs a Heisman campaign when ESPN has jumped on your bandwagon?

The best part about the attention shown Newton is the disclaimer that is attached to any mention of his name. He is under investigation because his father, Cecil, allegedly shopped his son to Mississippi State a year ago. The asking price, according to those in the know, was $150,000.

We know, of course, that Newton ended up at Auburn. Yet there are no facts to any and all claims that Auburn might have matched or bettered the price tag on Newton’s head. So, Auburn is left in a precarious position. It continues to play Newton in hopes he will win the Heisman and Auburn will capture a national title.

The long-term consequences could be that Auburn used an ineligible player, which would mean vacating all the trophies Newton adds to his family’s mantle as well as any championships Auburn claims.

The sordid situation makes for great drama. But the reality is those who focus on Newton and his recruiting are missing the point. The discussion should be about why an athlete — OK, his family — would accept under-the-table cash in the first place.

The answer is pretty simple. The NCAA continues to deal with amateur athletes in an archaic system that has run its course. Shouldn’t Newton be allowed to pocket at least a portion of the revenue he has created for the Auburn athletics department?

Newton has helped fatten the wallet of Auburn coach Gene Chizik, who stands to earn $1.5 million in bonuses if the Tigers roll to the national title. That is on top of Chizik’s $2.1 million annual salary.

You cannot walk anywhere in Auburn, Ala., without seeing Newton’s No. 2 jersey, yet the quarterback is not seeing one dime of the revenue generated from the jerseys sale.

On top of that, Newton looks like a NASCAR car on the football field, a human billboard. Darren Rovell, a CNBC sports business reporter, counted 17 Under Armour logos on Newton during one game, according to the Birmingham News.

Yet the NCAA still wonders why athletes break the rules. It is because the rules are outdated.

If you need an example, consider the case of Georgia wide receiver A.J. Green. He served a four-game suspension earlier this season because he had the audacity to sell his — not the football team’s — jersey that was used in the Independence Bowl for just under $1,000.

To criticize the NCAA for how it operates is fruitless unless solutions are offered. Some say athletes should be paid, outright. That is not realistic. If you pay football players, you must also pay wrestlers and women’s tennis players.

Rather, I would suggest the NCAA and its member schools establish trust funds for athletes. When an athlete graduates, he or she qualifies to dip into that fund. Another possibility would be to establish another fund for those athletes whose jersey numbers are used for public sale. Let’s take $1 from the sale of every jersey, throw it into the bank, and award that athlete — Stephen Garcia, say, at USC — the sum upon earning a degree.

Granted, these suggestions might not be any more feasible than paying all athletes stipends. But at least the suggestions provide a starting point for discussion, something the NCAA seems averse to considering.

The reality is no band-aid is going to fix the problem of athletes violating NCAA rules. No clapping of the hands is going to make the Cam Newton case, or any other, go away.

This is not just a problem with an athlete and his family possibly accepting cash under the table. This is not about Cam Newton. This is bigger than that. It is about the system, a bad one at that.

The hope is that the high-profile nature of Newton’s case will force the NCAA to begin looking at a new model for amateur athletics.

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.