Cam and the Ostrich

Since virtually every entity associated with college sports has a mascot, we think the NCAA deserves one as well. Many believe that the longer the Cam Newton “pay for play” story continues to percolate in the news, the more appropriate it would be for the NCAA to adopt the ostrich as its mascot.

Over the last five days, the more the NCAA attempted to convince the college football world that its decision to let Newton retain his eligibility and continue to play, the more it looked like an ostrich with its head buried blissfully in the sand. While those fans who are shocked by the NCAA’s decision argued the simple logic that the decision is inconsistent with past verdicts handed down by the NCAA’s enforcement arm, the Sports Intelligence Analysts, who specialize in detecting deception, believe the deceptive indicators they have spotted in the NCAA’s public commentary in this case help guide us to what appears to be the real reason for the NCAA’s seemingly perplexing decision. The ostrich prefers to avoid trouble by simply burying its head in the sand, believing it can’t be hurt by whatever it refuses to see or acknowledge. The deceptive behaviors identified over the last week in the NCAA’s comments regarding the Newton investigation certainly have an ostrich-like quality to them.

In the opinion of our analysts, most of whom are former officers with the CIA or other intelligence agencies, the NCAA has yet to reveal everything it knows about what really happened, and what Newton knows and doesn’t know about his father’s misguided efforts to sell the quarterback’s services. Our experts formulated their opinion based on several behaviorally deceptive factors observed in the commentary of the NCAA.

First, no fewer than three senior NCAA officials, including NCAA President Mark Emmert, used the phrase, “sufficient evidence” in their public statements about Newton’s potential involvement in or knowledge of his father’s “pay for play” scheme. Behaviorally, the phrase “sufficient evidence” suggests is that the NCAA has evidence that for some reason is not compelling enough to justify punitive action against the Auburn quarterback. Also, NCAA officials’ repeated use of the phrase “at this time” in reference to their “sufficient evidence” finding leads our experts to believe the NCAA has concluded that such evidence may well exist. The use of this phrase clearly indicates potential for acquiring additional information or evidence that would likely establish that Newton knew of, or perhaps even participated in, his father’s efforts to solicit money from the universities interested in his athletic services.

In addition to the repeated qualified statements by NCAA officials, other deceptive behavioral indicators trouble our experts. What the key players in this matter are not saying, for example, is very telling. Perhaps most disturbing is that no one in Newton’s camp has definitively said, “He didn’t do it.” Instead, we hear comments such as the Auburn head coach’s statement, "I'm not answering any questions that don't have anything to do with this football game." If those surrounding the quarterback believed that Newton is not involved, they would be behaviorally inclined to say so.

Newton himself has made no definitive public statement we’re aware of that he is not involved or knowledgeable. Even the Newtons’ attorney appears to be spending more time trying to convince the public of Newton’s innocence than he is making any denials on the quarterback’s behalf.

The attorney, George Lawson, on Nov. 18 told WSB-TV in Atlanta that he is "1 million percent" certain that Cam Newton did not take any money. Lawson said that if the father, Cecil Newton, discussed money, his son "knew nothing" about it. "No money has been offered to Cam Newton,” Lawson said. “Cam Newton hasn't asked for any money." It’s interesting that the attorney is “1 million percent” certain that Cam Newton did not take any money, when there appears to be no evidence that any money changed hands. It’s important to note, however, that Lawson did not give the “1 million percent” assurance in his claim that the quarterback “knew nothing.” His predominant focus on efforts to convince rather than deny the act itself is an example of a universal behavioral clue that always raises a red flag that should lead us to ask further, more probing questions.

So what does all of this mean? Based on their analysis, the Sports Intelligence Analysts have concluded that there is a great deal more to this story than has surfaced to date. The qualified nature of the NCAA’s statements on the matter, coupled with the absence of specific denials by the Newtons, highlights the probable deception at play here and the likelihood that things will get uglier for both Newtons as the NCAA continues its investigation. Perhaps the only good news is that the NCAA gets a new mascot in the deal.