Is abstinence the answer?

This entry is going to be shorter than usual because of today's 9 a.m. press conference with Dabo Swinney, but here's what's on my mind this morning:

When in considerable doubt on Cam Newton and his worthiness for the Heisman, is it honorable to abstain?

Or is it wimpy?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one.

I have heard that the reporters who have chased the Newton pay-for-play story and broken a lot of the news on it have made the decision to recuse themselves, and to me that's the right thing to do.

But what about those of us who have been on the sidelines and witnessed Newton's incredible exploits in his first full season as a major college athlete?

At the start of the season, I caught some good-natured ridicule from some folks for announcing my man-crush on the kid. About halfway through the season, I caught some flak from a few friends for saying he's in a rare class of transcendent SEC gridiron greats, including him with Herschel, Bo and Darren McFadden.

Now I'm just about convinced he's the best college football player I've ever seen.

And I'm considering not voting him for the Heisman? It doesn't sound right.

But neither does the fact that his dad was found to have attempted to shop him to Mississippi State with the aid of some dude who has connections to an agent.

We cannot judge the kid on what we think might come up in the future. But we can judge him on what we do know.

In my opinion, the NCAA was nuts to drop a feather on Newton when a hammer would've been completely justified.

Before last week's revelation, I'd have had a very difficult time not voting for Newton.

Now, not so much.

The Heisman Trust asks its voters to recognize the “outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity."

But where does integrity end and shadiness begin? Are we going to perform background checks on Newton's competition for the Heisman to assure that those guys have exhibited "the pursuit of excellence with integrity?"

How about all the guys who won the Heisman in the 1970s and 1980s, when inducements to recruits were much more commonplace than now? Are we going to retroactively swipe Heismans if we discover Trans-Ams and thousand-dollar handshakes?

What if a Heisman candidate gets arrested for DUI? Or is found to have cheated on an exam? Or keys a car?

We're not screening judges for Supreme Court nominations. And we're not scrutinizing powerful men who want to become members of Augusta National.

Then again...

The NCAA is doing a poor job of enforcement. Maybe if a bunch of voters either abstained or cast their ballots with someone else, it'd send a message that what the transgressions uncovered so far should not be excused.

But what if the kid's dad is a true nut job, and Cam truly had no clue about the scam? What if the continuing investigation by the NCAA and FBI not only turns up nothing, but produces evidence that supports Cam's contention that he did nothing wrong?

Would I be able to live with myself for not recognizing this kid as what he so clearly is on my ballot?

The votes are due at 5 p.m. Might be 4:59 before mine is cast.

This is a tough one.

LW