ESPN College Football

Are we nearing an endgame in the seemingly endless tango between USC and the NCAA?

Maybe, but it isn't the one former USC assistant coach Todd McNair wanted. His appeal of sanctions was denied by the NCAA appeals committee, it was announced Friday morning.

Wrote the NCAA, "This appeal decision is separate from the university’s appeal, which has not yet been decided."

What does this mean for USC? Well, if McNair won his appeal, it certainly would have boded well for the Trojans getting back some scholarships as well as a restoration of bowl eligibility this season. But McNair's losing his appeal doesn't mean USC won't get some relief, though the reality is NCAA rules make it difficult to win an appeal.

McNair appeared before the appeals committee in November, while USC's case was heard on Jan. 22.

McNair's connection to would-be agent Lloyd Lake, who broke NCAA rules by providing money and gifts to Reggie Bush, was the centerpiece of the case against USC. The NCAA originally penalized McNair with a "show-cause" finding, preventing him from having contact with recruits for a year. McNair's contract subsequently was not renewed by new Trojans coach Lane Kiffin.

McNair's argument before the appeals committee, according to the report:

In his written appeal, the former assistant coach [McNair] asserted that the finding of violation against him should be set aside because the finding of violation is clearly contrary to the evidence presented to the Committee on Infractions and there was a procedural error and, but for the error, the Committee on Infractions would not have made the finding of violation.

Here's the gist of the findings from the appeals committee upholding sanctions against McNair:

The Infractions Appeals Committee stated in its report that, “As the committee considered the former assistant coach’s arguments, both written and oral, it became clear that the most pertinent issues devolved to matters of witness credibility.” This statement specifically related to the former assistant coach’s arguments that the Committee on Infractions allegedly relied on false statements in making its credibility determinations. The appellate committee considered all of the information presented by the Committee on Infractions and the former assistant coach. As a result, the appellate committee found that the evidence met the standard required by its prior reports, the applicable NCAA bylaw and other matters, which properly guide its decisions. The appellate committee also did not agree with the former assistant coach’s remaining arguments on appeal, which the public report further details.

McNair's attorney issued a statement, noting, "The NCAA should get the facts right when it ends a coach’s career."

... the Infractions Committee mischaracterized and manipulated key testimony. The Infractions Committee based Mr. McNair’s unethical conduct finding on demonstrably false statements. The Infractions Committee based its decision on inconsistent and contradictory findings. And today the Infractions Appeal Committee said that’s OK.

Mr. McNair had hoped the Infractions Appeal Committee would set aside his unethical conduct finding so he can try to resume his career. The decision today makes that very difficult.

The statement also adds that McNair might pursue further legal action:

Moreover, according to reports, the United States Congress is considering holding investigative hearings into the NCAA’s enforcement procedures, in part because of the NCAA’s mishandling of Mr. McNair’s case. It appears the NCAA stands alone in believing Mr. McNair is guilty of a major violation.

Mr. McNair is now considering legal action to remedy the injustice he has suffered.

So maybe this becomes just another chapter in this long, sad bit of theater.

Note: You can read the entire public report at the bottom of this link.

New USC athletic director Pat Haden told USA Today that he talked to Reggie Bush and Reggie Bush is sorry.

"He's really contrite," Haden told the newspaper. "He knows he made a series of mistakes. It wasn't just one mistake. It was a series of mistakes."

Well, that settles everything. Maybe the NCAA will give the Trojans back their scholarships and release a short statement: "Let bygones be bygones."

Or not.

Basically, after four-plus years, in which Bush mostly used a series of lawyers to avoid being accountable, which forced his alma mater to remain in the news in a negative way throughout the lengthy process that ended with major sanctions, the severity of which cannot be justified by the violations themselves but more likely are rooted in the "catch-me-if-you-can" attitude Bush, and subsequently USC, adopted. Bush says, "Whoops. Sorry."

Let's quickly look at the lines of Bush culpability.

• He took extra benefits -- cash and gifts. He knew that was against NCAA rules.
• Bush then refused to pay back money to the agents/marketers when he opted to sign with someone else. Perhaps this all could have ended quietly if Bush and his family weren’t greedy and weren’t so willing to double-cross an associate.
• Bush then refused to pay back money to the agents/marketers when he opted to sign with someone else.
• Bush said in 2006: "We have nothing to hide. When all is said and done ... everyone will see we have done absolutely nothing wrong." So add lying to his list of transgressions.
• Even after Yahoo! broke the story of Denise and LaMar Griffin living in a $750,000 home in 2006, Bush could have realized at any point in the months -- years -- before Lloyd Lake sat down with the NCAA, "Hey, this might hurt USC. I'm a multimillionaire. What's a check for $300,000 to me?" And USC might not be missing 30 scholarships today.

You'll note, by the way, that Bush hasn't publicly come clean. I wonder how in depth he went with Haden about his "series of mistakes?"

Moreover, does Bush understand the depth of his damage to USC? Rival fans are enjoying acting like USC was a rogue football program under Pete Carroll. But that isn't a fair assessment based on the NCAA's own report. After a four-year investigation, the list of major violations for the football team included ... Reggie Bush.

The NCAA wrote: "There was relatively little effective monitoring of, among others, football locker rooms and sidelines, and there existed a general postgame locker room environment that made compliance efforts difficult."

Having been in the USC locker room many times, I won't dispute that. But, er, can you give us examples of major compliance failures, other than Bush, of course?

NCAA report: Crickets.

We write all of this not to relaunch the "USC got screwed" stuff, but merely to point at Bush and say what all USC fans should say to him: "Hey, dude, just about all of this is your fault. From your first taking extra benefits to how you handled yourself afterward. USC's weakened state falls on you first and foremost before it stains the institution and officials who could have done their jobs better."

Only after he becomes persona non grata at USC does Bush say "The whole situation is terrible and nobody feels worse about it than I do."

Actually, my guess is tens of thousands USC fans, alumni, administrators, players and coaches feel a whole lot worse than you do.

And their bad feelings are because of you.

You can now read USC's 2009 defense against NCAA charges online (PDF).

After talking to many sources familiar with the investigation, it's clear that USC representatives believe the infractions committee didn't treat the program fairly -- not an unusual response from a sanctioned program, by the way -- and the university will take its issues to the Infractions Appeal Committee.

USC has two central contentions: 1. There's only tenuous evidence that connects running backs coach Todd McNair to the would-be sports agents, Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels, who courted Reggie Bush with cash and lavish gifts; 2. That marketing representative Mike Ornstein was falsely named as a representative of USC athletic interests.

From USC's response to the NCAA:

In football, the NCAA Staff has attempted to establish a direct link between USC and the issues surrounding student-athlete 1 in two ways: (l) by pursuing unethical conduct charges against the assistant football coach for allegedly knowing about the benefits and failing to disclose them (Allegations I and 3); and (2) by pursuing a novel and flawed theory that a sports marketing agent became a representative of USC's athletics interests solely as a result of employing three USC student-athletes (including student-athlete l) in the summer of 2005. These allegations against the assistant football coach and USC are not supported by the evidence and should be rejected.

Suffice it to say, USC's defense isn't passive. One might, in fact, call it a bit combative with NCAA investigators.

USC believes the [NCAA] has pursued these weak institutional allegations in football because it recognizes that without a direct institutional link, the allegations surrounding Student-Athlete I involve only amateurism issues with no institutional violation. After 3 1/2 years of intensive public and media scrutiny, including repeated public questions as to why USC football has not yet been "brought to justice" by the NCAA, the pressure to accuse USC of having had actual knowledge of and a direct connection to the alleged impermissible benefits is very real.

In other words, USC believes the NCAA is kowtowing to pressure to make an example out of the school.

USC risks prolonging the controversy with an appeal, and it's unclear which portions of the NCAA's argument it will challenge. An appeal likely wouldn't be resolved until the spring of 2011 -- at the earliest -- so there is a risk in merely pushing the sanctions into the future.

After four years of fighting, former USC running back Reggie Bush opted Tuesday to settle a civil law suit against him filed by a failed sports marketer, rather than provide sworn testimony in a deposition this week, according to a report from Yahoo! Sports.

Yahoo cited an anonymous source and terms of the settlement weren't revealed.

If Bush had been deposed, the NCAA would have been able to review the material, which potentially could have supplemented its investigation into the USC football program. Now Bush, who denied wrongdoing in a 2009 meeting with the NCAA investigators, won't have to speak in detail about the cash and gifts he allegedly received from would-be agents while playing with the Trojans.

For USC, this means Bush won't be in position to potentially describe whether or not coaches or administrators had knowledge of his relationship Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels, men who allegedly lavished him with cash and gifts in order to convince Bush to allow them and their now-defunct company to represent him once the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner entered the NFL draft.

The NCAA infractions committee and USC met for three days in late-February, though Bush didn't appear. The infractions committee's ruling, which could include sanctions against the football and basketball programs, could be made public at any time over the next few weeks.

TEMPE, Ariz. -- Pete Carroll didn't seem stressed at all. Bored, but not stressed.

USC's hearing with the NCAA infractions committee broke for lunch at noon, and Carroll stopped by for a brief chat about the Seattle Seahawks and being back in the NFL.

Not surprisingly, he said he's not going to talk about what happened inside the secret hearing.

Carroll didn't have to appear here, something he made note of: "I'm being a good soldier," he said.

He said he was leaving Thursday afternoon. Carroll will be in L.A. this weekend for his A Better LA charity event.

So that means he will be interviewed by the NCAA today. The gist, of course, will be what he knew of former running back Reggie Bush's dealings with would-be agents. And if he should have known.

Carroll has long contended that he knew nothing.

It's likely that Trojans running backs coach Todd McNair, who is also on hand but refused comment, will face tough questioning on the Bush matter. One of Bush's former agent suitors, Lloyd Lake, who is embroiled in a contentious lawsuit with Bush, has claimed that McNair was aware of his association with Bush.

After chatting, Carroll bolted for lunch with Lane Kiffin.

Carroll proposed that Kiffin would be buying.

Does this short news story mean there will eventually -- and perhaps in the near term -- be closure in the seemingly endless Reggie Bush-USC investigation?

Maybe.

Bush losing his attempt to force confidential arbitration to settle a lawsuit filed by a would-be sports agent means that testimony -- if it happens -- will be documented and made public.

That means Bush and other deposed witnesses could be compelled to make on-the-record statements under oath about their knowledge of whether the running back received cash and gifts while playing for the Trojans.

Lloyd Lake is suing Bush, who now plays for the New Orleans Saints, and his parents to recoup nearly $300,000 in cash and gifts they allegedly accepted during Bush's sophomore and junior seasons at USC in 2004 and 2005.

Potential witnesses include Michael Michaels, Lake’s former partner and the owner of the house where Bush’s family lived in 2005. Michaels and Bush settled out of court in 2007, with Michaels agreeing to a confidentiality clause.

But the issue for USC is the NCAA.

The biggest reason that the NCAA's long-running investigation has been, well, so long-running is that it lacks subpoena power. It can't compel Bush, his family or other associates -- such as Michaels -- to talk about what happened because they are no longer under NCAA jurisdiction. The Pac-10 and NCAA have talked to Lake, coach Pete Carroll and other folks at USC but they haven't been able to question Bush and his family.

Lake's lawyer now, apparently, will get to do that. And that will be material the NCAA can use in its investigation of the USC athletic program.

This is what the NCAA has been waiting for: The court case to move forward (though Bush's lawyer told reporters he plans to ask that the case be dismissed on summary judgment).

There are two key issues here.

1. Can it be proven that USC coaches were aware that Bush was receiving money and gifts?
2. Or, even if it can't be proven, does the evidence suggest that USC should have known and didn't "know" because it lacked sufficient oversight?

At this point, the evidence is slim to nonexistent -- at least evidence that has been reported -- that USC coaches were aware of Bush's dealings with Lake. The testimony Lake's lawyers might collect, however, could augment the Bush and other NCAA investigations at USC.

The NCAA also is investigating alleged improper cash and gifts provided to former Trojans basketball player O.J. Mayo. Moreover, running back Joe McKnight was forced to sit out the Emerald Bowl on Dec. 26 because of allegations he was using an SUV that was registered to a local businessman that employed his girlfriend.

The totality of these investigations -- so much smoke, there's got to be fire -- could lead to the dreaded general finding of a lack of institutional control. That could mean major sanctions.

Or it might not.

Still, the court ruling seems to be doing something that hasn't been done in months with the Bush case: Taking a step toward an endgame.

Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

First, lots of feedback on my restaurant recommendations for the ultimate Pac-10 road trip.

I tried to go for diversity: seafood, Italian, Pan-Asian, French, steaks, cheap, pricey, frou frou, local institutions, etc.

Some of you took real offense to certain choices ... ouch!

As for those who don't like Adam's Place in Eugene, Ore., are you aware that it's the headquarters of the Eugene Martini Association!

I'm not going to just sit here and listen to you badmouth the home of the Eugene Martini Association, an organization that does so much good in the world, trying to help as many people as possible get the martinis they need!

[Sob.]

To your letters.

Cam from Albany, Ore., wrote: When comparing the spring production of Oregon against the tangible talent at USC, which school is deeper at QB for 2009?

Ted Miller: Interesting question.

USC has three quarterbacks who are more physically talented -- in terms of NFL possibilities, at least -- than any Oregon quarterback.

Oregon has Jeremiah Masoli, who's the top returning quarterback in the Pac-10, and Justin Roper, who has a lot of game experience.

None of USC's three quarterbacks -- Aaron Corp, Mitch Mustain or Matt Barkley -- owns significant experience running a Pac-10 offense. (Mustain's experience as a true freshman at Arkansas doesn't count for much; see his struggles with USC's pro-style offense.)

Oregon's third and perhaps fourth options are Darron Thomas and Nate Costa, if he's healthy. Hopes were high for Costa last year before he suffered another serious knee injury, and Thomas is the quarterback of the future.

Seems to me both schools are fairly set at the position. But heading into 2008, I'd take Masoli over anyone else in the conference.

---

Daniel from Cypress, Calif., writes: What are you hearing about the new PAC-10 commish, about making decisions that will promote viewing of PAC-10 football nationally and what do you see him doing about contributing to changing the BCS?

Ted Miller: You don't need to wait to hear from Larry Scott. Outgoing commissioner Tom Hansen told the Orange County Register this week that there have been discussions about starting a "Pac-10 network," similar to what the Big Ten has already done.

Way -- WAY -- preliminary. But it shows that the Pac-10 is finally, due to revenue woes, looking to get creative in the ways the league markets itself.

As for Scott, it's too early to know how he might change things. He's been laying low, and truth is he probably has no idea what he's going to do. Bottom line is he serves the will of the school presidents, most of whom seem dead-set against change.

And I think the Pac-10 is a long way from joining the revolt against the BCS.

---

Brian from Parts Unknown writes: With the recent news about Floyd at USC possibly giving Mayo's handler $1000 and the NCAA combining the basketball and football probes of USC, I am starting to believe USC will get more than a slap on the wrist. What do you make of this? What penalties would you guess will be coming if the latest allegations are true?

Ted Miller: What has been reported on the basketball side of things is significantly different than what has been reported on the football side.

This is a football blog, so I'm going to leave the Tim Floyd-O.J. Mayo mess to other folks to sort out.

As for football, as I have previously stated: It will come down to whether the NCAA finds that USC knew -- or should have known -- about Reggie Bush's relationship with a pair of would-be agents who were allegedly giving him money and gifts.

The evidence to support the notion that any USC coach had direct knowledge is scant. It basically amounts to an allegation that running backs coach Todd McNair socialized with Bush one night in San Diego when the would-be agents were around and claims by the would-be agents that they were allowed in the USC locker room after games.

Having been in the USC locker room many times, I can only say ... who isn't inside the freaking USC locker room after a game?

And, by the way, both Lloyd Lake's and Michael Michaels' lawyers said early in the case that they had no direct evidence that USC knew what was going on, according to the book, "Tarnished Heisman."

Where USC football, however, might be found most culpable is lax oversight.

Will that, combined with the basketball allegations, amount to the dreaded "lack of institutional control"? We shall see. The odds it will are certainly better than they were a few months ago.

---

Ryan from Austin writes: I really enjoy the blog. It is a nice dose of reality as a Trojan fan in Austin, TX. And for those wondering, coming back to Austin after flying out to Pasadena for the 2006 Rose Bowl was absolutely brutal. Vince Young SI cover everywhere for what seemed like months...wait, it was months. I digress but do have a question... Can USC get to the BCS championship game with one loss? I know there are numerous factors outside their control, but I'm curious if you think an early season loss to Cal or Ohio State ends their title game chances.

Ted Miller: Sure. As you say, a lot factors in -- other one-loss teams, USC's ranking when it loses and who it loses to, the Pac-10's top-to-bottom strength, etc.

What the Trojans need if they lose once is for the teams on their schedule to do well, the Pac-10 as well as Ohio State and Notre Dame. And it would help if the Trojans lone loss comes before November, or even mid-October.

If the Pac-10 makes a strong showing against another difficult slate off nonconference games and seven teams earn bowl eligibility, then USC probably would have a strong case with one loss.

---

Nate from Pleasanton, Calif., writes: If Stanford's Toby Gerhart does declare for the MLB draft who would you expect to step up for the Cardinal and how well do you think they would perform to keep the standards for rushing that were set with last years rushing attack?

Ted Miller: The good news for Stanford fans is it's starting to look like Gerhart will be back.

If Gerhart does bolt, however, Jeremy Stewart would be first in line, with a trio of incoming freshmen -- Tyler Gaffney, Usua Amanam and Stepfan Taylor -- finding themselves in the midst of an outstanding opportunity.

Moreover, coach Jim Harbaugh couldn't stop gushing about Alex Debniak this spring. He's going to double as a lineba
cker and running back.

As big an issue for the running game is filling some holes on the offensive line.

---

Van from Pahrump, Nev., writes: For context, I'm a rabid USC fan. I fully agree that Tim Tebow is already an all-time college great, possessed of justifiably admired awesome football skills and charismatic leadership abilities. But I really don't get the degree of unmitigated fawning over him that seems to universally anoint him as the "best ever." May I be so bold as to ask what ever happened to Vince Young? You know, that Texas QB who apparently played- and only modestly at that- many, many decades ago. I do not think any player in college history ever had an incredible performance like Vince did in the vs. Michigan Rose Bowl- and THEN came his even better performance against USC!

Ted Miller: If you've come expecting me to tweak Tim Tebow, you, my friend, are in the wrong place.

Two national championships. A Heisman Trophy and a third-place finish.

And another year in which Florida is expected to at least play for another championship.

Vince Young was wonderful in a pair of Rose Bowls. In fact, I'm not sure if his twin performances weren't the best bowl performance combination in college football history.

But Tebow has a chance, if he wins a third national title, to instantly become one of college football's all-time greats.

And, you know, he seems like a heck of a guy to me.

---

Manny from Scottsdale writes: Ted, Where do you hear [Arizona State quarterback Danny] Sullivan is a heavy favorite? He was horrible Spring Game and can't move. When I read ESPN I expect to hear good evaluation. Who are you getting that info from? ASU needs anything but Sullivan and we all saw it but you I guess?

Ted Miller: Dennis Erickson. Where did you hear differently?

Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

Too late for Santa, not for the mailbag.

Nathan from Boston writes: So do you think the Pac-10 redeemed itself? Where does it rank among major conferences?

Ted Miller: Redeemed? Absolutely.

Ranking the conferences? That's a tough one. I'd still guess No. 3 behind the SEC and Big 12.

At this point, though, I'd take USC and Oregon into a saloon and let 'em fight any pair from any other conference and be fairly optimistic about the outcome.

My main thought at season's end, however, isn't necessarily that the Pac-10 moved up the conference pecking order but rather that the distance between the best conferences (SEC, Big 12 and Pac-10) was fairly small, as it typically is, despite the annual early-season SEC and Big 12 hyperventilating that happens when those conferences whip the East Coastal Monroe State Squirrels of college football.

The BCS title game between Florida and Oklahoma should provide some answers.

An Oklahoma win would be huge for the Big 12.

If the Gators triumph, though, then three of the Big 12's top four teams will lose bowls -- the Sooners, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State -- and nail-biting wins from Texas and Missouri over the Big Ten won't get much traction.

Anything about Texas' performance against Ohio State make you think they'd be within two touchdowns of USC? Me neither.

What about Ole Miss, which beat Florida in the regular season, whipping Texas Tech?

On the one hand, that suggests SEC depth. On the other, it's a bowl game where one team wants to be there and the other doesn't.

Perhaps now Texas Tech fans won't be so dismissive of California's feelings about the 2004 Holiday Bowl.

Utah's blowout win over Alabama also boosts the Pac-10, which now owns a better regular-season and postseason winning percentage against the Mountain West than the SEC.

The Utes physically manhandled Alabama in what amounted to a Tide home game in New Orleans. In the regular season, Oregon State blew an eight-point lead at Utah in the final 2:38 and outgained the Utes by 70 yards.

So it's fair -- in fact, charitable -- to conclude that Alabama, the SEC's No. 2 team, is comparable to Oregon State, the Pac-10's No. 3.

SEC folks try to downplay USC's blowout win over Penn State with a "It's just the lousy Big Ten!" But the SEC gave the Big Ten its only bowl win (Iowa big over South Carolina), and Georgia beat a Michigan State team that already had been whipped by California.

So can we accurately rank the conferences? No. But we can say that the SEC and Big 12 were not nearly as good as many thought and the Pac-10 was not nearly as bad.

Pac-10 folks will hear lots of rationalizing about the conference's 5-0 bowl record, lots of "please, ignore the four victories over four ranked teams," or "it doesn't mean anything that four different BCS conferences and the Mountain West got stung."

But, in the end, it's like Gertrude Stein said, "5-0 is 5-0 is 5-0."

---

Jeff from Creswell, Ore., writes: Ted - are you going to do a way to early pre-season prediction for the Pac-10 in 2009? I think it will play out like this: USC, OSU, UO, Cal, Stanford, UA, UCLA, ASU, UW, WSU. What do you think?

Ted Miller: I agree with Nos. 1 and 9 and 10. You'll have to wait on the rest.

---

Tad from Salem, Ore., writes: How can officials get a call wrong the second time around after they preview the catch in the end zone in slow motion? What are they looking for? If the receiver comes down in the end zone with both feet in and then falls to the ground with his knee hitting the endzone then the ball comes out after he hits the ground, it still is a touchdown. The ball clearly came out after he hit the ground out-of-bounds. Ted, am I missing something and never heard anything else on this horrible call?

Ted Miller: We'll call this answer, "Ted and Tad Got It Wrong."

Tad, you, of course, are referring to Oregon State quarterback Lyle Moevao's apparent touchdown pass to John Reese in the Sun Bowl that officials ruled incomplete.

Like you, I thought the Beavers got screwed, but unlike you I made a trip to the Rose Bowl media hospitality suite at halftime to stock up on, er, milk and cookies and ran into Pac-10 Associate Commissioner Jim Muldoon, to whom I said, "The Beavers got screwed!"

Nope, he said.

Officials emphasized this year that receivers need to end up with control of the football to record a completion. Reese needed to clearly control the football, even as he hit the ground.

Even Oregon State coach Mike Riley agreed.

"They're going to call that incomplete," Riley said. "As soon as I saw the ball on the ground, I knew it was not a touchdown."

---

Scott from Pullman, Wash., writes: Ted, With Sarkisian trying to poach so many coaches from USC, do you think this will cause any kind of "Bad Blood" with Pete Carrol and Steve Sarkisian when they meet next? Or, will Pete simply understand that Steve is looking for the best coaches he can get?

Ted Miller: Carroll has great affection for Sark and he also understands this is a business. So I don't think Carroll is cursing about the coach poaching.

And when USC visits Washington on Sept. 29, I'm sure Carroll will give all his former staffers a hug before and after the Trojans beat the Huskies 45-zip.

---

Mike from Chicago writes: At some point the Reggie Bush investigation must be finished by the NCAA. What is going on? Isn't there a statute of limitations for the NCAA to act?

Ted Miller: The NCAA is waiting on the courts to decide sports marketer Lloyd Lake's lawsuit against Bush. Last I read (scroll down to "Sports and Courts"), that was still droning along, though there's talk of a settlement, which might hamstring the NCAA's investigation.

---

Mike from Tulsa writes: [You wrote] "I look at the two rosters and think Oregon is WAY, WAY better. They will shock Oklahoma State's defense. They haven't seen anything like what Chip Kelly will bring." It's obvious you spent the entire season covering the PAC-10 with that kind of analysis. I've never heard of QB Chip Douglas. Did he win any conference or national awards? I have heard of Heisman finalists Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, and G. Harrell. But, I'm sure these guys pale in comparison to Chip. I know nothing about Oregon and I would challenge you know nothing about Oklahoma State. So unless Oregon is bringing in a roster that can out class six All-Big12 performers, two consensus All-Americans, a Biletnikoff finalist, and a Ray Guy award winner, I would not make misguided statements publicly about the offensive ineptitude of Oregons Holiday Bowl opponent. Any thoughts? Your the expert.....

Ted Miller: Mike, I hope the Holiday Bowl helped explained my pregame thoughts.