But here’s something that’s got me all confused. In light of the NCAA’s ruling in the Cam Newton situation, which required an incredibly narrow reading of the applicable bylaw (such narrow application of the rules has not often (if really ever) been followed by the NCAA) and SEC Commissioner Slive’s statement that the Cam Newton ruling was “the right ruling,” meaning the outcome was fair, why then is the NCAA now trying to “change” the rule? If it was the right outcome, why would we need to change it? Perhaps it was the right outcome when an SEC-potential championship team’s star player would have been ineligible.

At this point, what we need the NCAA to actually do is to apply the rules consistently across fact patterns. More bright line rules and the application thereof. For instance, if the NCAA is going to narrowly interpret its rules in one instance, well, then the NCAA needs to apply that same narrow interpreatation across all rules, which currently is not happening at all.

What I think. No matter what the rule would have been, the NCAA would have worked in collusion with the SEC to rule Cam Newton eligible. It’s like Auburn telling us that Cam’s dad won’t be at the Championship Game, in light of the NCAA ruling that he had to disassociate himself (to some random extent) from Auburn. Yet, there he is hugging his son at the end of the game. So, John, is the NCAA investigating Auburn’s violation of that prohibition? I won’t hold my breath.