NCAA Cam Newton Ruling Puzzling

So Cam Newton's father Cecil Newton, Sr. did request money for Cam Newton to play at Mississippi State. But allegedly, Cam knew nothing about that request. So he eligible to play in this weekend's SEC Championship Game against South Carolina with a trip to the BCS Championship and the Heisman Trophy on the line.

Newton's father will have limited access to the Auburn program, according to the NCAA. This basically means he can hang with his son and watch Auburn games, but that's probably about it from what I can gather.

Nothing will happen to Auburn.

Now, there's one other thing: All of that is based on the evidence that was before the NCAA at this time. The NCAA doesn't comment on potential or on-going investigations. And from what I can see, they haven't completely closed the book on this case yet.

If it turns out that the Newtons received extra benefits from Auburn, trust me: Auburn will feel the hammer from the NCAA. But as of right now, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that links Auburn to a payment to Cecil Newton.

Yes, yes, I know: there was a report from ESPN.com's Joe Schad that stated that Cam Newton told someone he wanted to go to Mississippi State, but the money from Auburn was "too much."

However, don't you think that if there was any validity to that report, that Newton would have been held out at some point prior? Or that the NCAA would have declared him ineligible?

Yes, Cecil Newton solicited for money from Mississippi State. But what some people are missing is that: a) no money changed hands and; b) Cam isn't at MSU.

So while what Cecil Newton did was appalling, it is hard to prove that Cam knew what his father was doing. These meetings being discussed were clandestine and I have yet to see that Cam was along for the ride to any of them.

How, then, can you punish the son for the sins of the father if the sin was merely asking for cash?

Do I think that this opens a loophole for parents or other relatives acting on behalf of players to ask for money from teams? No, I don't. Because receiving extra benefits is still a major violation (see Bush, Reggie for proof of that). And no, the Bush case, to me, is not relevant here at all. In that case, extra benefits were provided and received by both family and student-athlete in that scenario. The student-athlete in question received benefits of his own and even if he hadn't, there is no way that he could not have known about the house.

It's like people trying to compare Cam Newton's situation to the one involving University of Kentucky basketball player Enes Kanter and the fact that his family received benefits from a team over in his native Turkey. Again, notice the distinction: Benefits received vs. benefits asked for.

I can understand how some folks might think it is wrong. But in this case, as far as I am concerned, the NCAA got things right. Until further evidence is presented, Cam Newton should be allowed to play.