Posted by John Taylor on December 3, 2010, 12:51 PM EST
Jim Delany

The fallout from the NCAA’s decision on Cam Newton‘s eligibility continued today as a pair of conference commissioners questioned the wisdom of — and apparent leniency in — the ruling.

In particular, one of the most powerful individuals in all of collegiate athletes expressed concern that there was evidence of a pay-for-play scheme involving the Auburn quarterback’s father, and the NCAA “missed an opportunity to stand up” and hold the people involved accountable. Including, apparently, the quarterback himself.

“What I would say on any third-party issue is that the analysis in my view, whether you’re an assistant coach, president or a booster or a parent, is that there ought to be accountability,” Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, a former NCAA investigator, told the New York Times. “There ought to be consequences. …

“Here, who is closer to a player than the parent? If that person is found to be shopping that player, I think the rule-of-agency principle could easily apply. I would argue in the environment we’re in that it should apply.”

Given that the NCAA found through their investigation that Cecil Newton used an intermediary to solicit money from Mississippi State — the rule-of-agency principle Delaney refers to — Delany feels that the governing body missed out on an opportunity to send a message to everyone involved in the recruiting process that the shopping of the athletic talents of players will not be tolerated.

“We’ve gone to the board of directors to create bright lines, to encourage the N.C.A.A. to take creative risks to get everyone on a more level playing field,” he said. “This was an opportunity to apply a very reasonable concept. They chose to go with a very high standard instead of what’s more of a reasonable application given the facts and reality that we’re dealing with.”

The reality, though, is that the NCAA did not find sufficient evidence that Newton or Auburn had any knowledge of what Cecil Newton was plotting with his middleman. A reasonable person would have to assume that the younger Newton had to know what his father was up to; short of evidence proving that, though, the NCAA’s hands are tied at this time.

You simply can’t sit Newton based on assumptions, regardless of how short of a leap it is for a reasonable person of modest intellect to make.

And I can’t believe I’ve resorted to (gulp) defending the NCAA. Now pardon me while I go take a shower. I suddenly feel dirty…

_________________