Writer Proves People Are Happy To Judge Newton/Auburn/Chizik With Or Without Facts

 Send This Story To A Friend

I think Cam Newton’s father asked for money from Mississippi State.  I think the younger Newton had to have known about it.  And I think someone at Auburn probably spoke with the Newtons about money, too.

But I can’t prove one bit of any of that.

Therefore, in my view, I can’t hold anything I think against Cam Newton, Gene Chizik or Auburn until something is actually, ya know, proven.

That obviously makes me different from Josh Weinfuss.  Weinfuss is a sportswriter and a member of the Football Writers Association of America.  As such, he has a vote for the Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year Award.

When he saw Chizik’s name on this year’s ballot, he decided to vote AU’s coach 8th on his eight-man list. 


“I know just about as much as everybody else does.  I’m not covering the scandal, in which accusations are being tossed around like Newton’s passes that his father, Cecil Newton, tried to orchestrate a pay-to-play deal worth $180,000, but I’ve read my fair share on it.  Which is why I voted Chizik eighth out of eight.”


Because he admits he doesn’t know any more facts than the rest of us?  Do go on…


“Chizik should not reap the benefits of Newton’s play because the chances are better than worse that someone in the Auburn family gave Cecil Newton what he wanted in order to get Cam to head to the Plains.”


Chizik should not reap the benefits of Newton’s play because the chances are… blah, blah, blah.  Imagine if our court system worked like this.  Forget that whole beyond-a-reasonable-doubt thing. 

“Ya think he did it?  He look guilty to you?  Then convict this here spud right now!”

No thanks.  Like Weinfuss, I think a lot of things.  Unlike Weinfuss — apparently — I realize that I’m occasionally wrong.  I realize that two plus two doesn’t always equal four.

Just a few months ago, I thought Eric Bledsoe’s high school transcript had been tinkered with and that Kentucky was about to lose a bunch of basketball victories.  Many people thought that.  And we were all wrong.

So while I think l’affaire Newton smells to high heaven, I’ll not condemn or convict anyone until I see some facts or hear some confessions.  So far all we’ve got to go on are sources who are connected to one of Auburn’s rivals — a rival that lost out on Newton’s recruitment — and a number of sources who remain nameless.  That’s it.  Lots of smoke.  No fire yet.

When fire is discovered, I’ll be right there to say, “I thought so.”  But until then, I’m reserving judgement.  That’s how I’d want to be treated if I were in Newton’s or Chizik’s shoes.  But I guess I’m along on that one.

“… knowing what I know,” Weinfuss concludes, “(Chizik) doesn’t deserve my vote or anyone else’s.”

Well, if Weinfuss actually knows something, I wish he’d call up the NCAA and let them in on it.  ‘Cause I’m getting awfully tired of writing about the Newton saga.  If Weinfuss can bring it to an end by sharing his vast knowledge, best he just go ahead and do so.

In the immortal words of Judge Smails…