ESPN College Football

Greg Katz writes : While 10 Trojans were selected in the 2008 draft, walk-on receiver Brad Walker saw his career, which was highlighted by being the intended receiver on Reggie Bush's ill-fated lateral against Texas, end.

WeAreSC recruiting mailbag : Erik McKinney fields questions from readers about recruiting in the Southeast, defensive back recruiting, and possible near-future commitments.

Garry Paskwietz writes: With the selections of Matt Kalil by the Minnesota Vikings with the No. 4 pick, and Nick Perry by the Green Bay Packers at No. 28, USC adds to its NCAA-best number of all-time first-round draft picks.

Erik McKinney writes : Tempe, Ariz., defensive back Priest Willis is the inspiration for a feeding frenzy, as schools from all over the country lobby for his services.

McKinney writes : Pinetop, Ariz., fullback Chans Cox is being looked at as both an offensive and defensive player in recruiting.

More McKinney : Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., offensive lineman Dane Crane has seen his recruiting increase in recent weeks.

Other than USC fans celebrating the return of Matt Barkley, there was a lot of sourness in the pre-Christmas mailbag.

You can follow me on Twitter here.

To the notes!

Mark Twinbridges, Mont., writes: Have you read the full NCAA report on the two schools [USC and Ohio State]? I cannot believe you would write such an inane piece if you had read the reports. Comparing the OSU situation to the USC violations is like comparing a dog to a rabid wolf. USC used impermissible benefits to recruit, that strikes at the very heart of NCAA rules. Then the university hindered the investigation at every turn.

Ted Miller: Yes, I have read both reports.

You wrote: "USC used impermissible benefits to recruit." Wrong.

You wrote: "Then the university hindered the investigation at every turn." Wrong.

You made two points. Both were wrong. And if you had read the USC report, or really any news stories about USC's NCAA violations, you would know that.

But I am sorry that you found my story "inane."

Interlude... (insert sigh).

Yes, the mailbag was inundated with angry rants from Ohio State fans this week. It was frustrating. Not because I was repeatedly called names. I've grown to enjoy that part of this job for some perhaps masochistic reason. No, it was because the amount of factually incorrect assertions was mind-numbing. Sure, a lot of it was Buckeyes fans who are of the "my school, wrong or right, I don't care about the truth, I just attack, attack, attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to my worldview" sort of fans. Every team has those, and they are part of the wonderful tapestry of college football.

But what bothered me was the number of seemingly intelligent folks who just don't know what they are talking about. Many of you may recall that some weeks ago, I wrote I was done dealing with the amount of ignorance surrounding USC's case with the NCAA. It was time to move on. I am so sick of writing about USC's NCAA case. I really, really wanted to move on. But, alas, I can not.

---

Jay from San Diego writes: At first I thought your article was meant in a joking manner. Then I realized you were actually being serious. I'm sure some of the people who follow you will eat your "piece" up but it appears blatantly misinformed & devoid of intelligence. The above link regards your article.

Ted Miller: First off, I like Eleven Warriors. Probably one of the best fan blogs out there. I even appreciate a mostly gentle touch while they ripped apart my article.

But here's the problem: The very first line of critique is factually incorrect. "A player getting over $X00,000 in impermissible benefits." No USC player got that. Reggie Bush's parents lived for free in a fancypants house in San Diego provided by would-be agents, but it's a matter of record that extra benefits provided to Bush didn't approach $100,000. A minor distinction? Well, the distinction between player and parent certainly worked out for Auburn and Cam Newton in 2010.

It is correct that I often used "patronizing closed door language." That is because the door is closed. When I wrote "everybody in college sports knows" USC was treated unfairly, it was an overstatement to make a clear point that just about everybody knows this. I've talked to many, many people who have a professional awareness of USC's case. I've talked to people who sat in the room with the NCAA's Committee on Infractions hearing with USC. Everybody thinks USC got screwed, not just USC folks. And, when I've talked to folks who might say differently, I've always been able to easily win the ensuing argument by stating the facts.

I don't intend that to sound arrogant. It's not brilliant rhetorical ability. It's the facts. Let me show you an example of facts.

Eleven Warriors includes this link, which is a comparison done by another Ohio State fan site of Ohio State's case with USC's and others before the NCAA.

Eleven Warriors writes this: "And 'impossible not to conclude Ohio State case was far more severe.'? USC's took four years to complete, largely in part because USC stifled the investigation. Ohio State's was done in under a year."

The link provided by Eleven Warriors, however, includes this: "While the mainstream media has been trying hard to push the 'USC fought the NCAA' meme, it's absolutely not true. USC’s former student athletes, and the agents and representatives therein, may not have worked with the NCAA, but the University absolutely did. That is even expressed (apparently) in the Notice of Allegations, where the NCAA thanked USC for their help and support. In fact, pages 56 and 57 of the NCAA Public Infractions Report."

So ... facts, you know?

How did the "USC didn't cooperate" storyline begin? Well, it likely emerged from a perception of USC's self-defense. USC administrators found it difficult to stomach the idea that they were supposed to know what was going on in San Diego with a player's parents and men who were: 1) unaffiliated with the school; 2) not even actual agents who might be known in the industry.

Yes, USC was not obsequious. Yes, USC, in fact, aggressively defended itself. Yes, USC, in fact, probably hurt it self by actually WINNING THE ARGUMENT.

From the link and written by an Ohio State fan: "For the most part, USC makes a fantastic case regarding the issues that it denied wrong doing..." and, "It is easy to believe that USC got hammered beyond what they deserved."

I'm not going to spend 1,500 words debating the particulars of the Ohio State case. After coach Jim Tressel was sacked, it seemed the sanctions the Buckeyes received were not unreasonable. My point was merely they made the ruling against USC even more unreasonable. And, yes, I think the Ohio State case was worse than USC's, and if you cleared a room of Buckeyes and Trojans fans and asked folks to make a ruling, I suspect they'd agree.

Let me share a story that will annoy USC fans but many will find interesting. During a flight delay last year, I was cornered at an airport by an administrator from a major program outside the Pac-12. He made fun of me as a "USC fanboy" because of my rants against the NCAA ruling against the Trojans. But we started talking. Turned out he agreed with just about all my points. (He just didn't like USC.)

He told me, after some small talk and off-the-record, that "everybody" thought USC got screwed. He said that he thought the NCAA was trying to scare everyone with the ruling, but subsequent major violations cases put it in a pickle.

Then he told me that USC was punished for its "USC-ness," that while many teams had closed down access -- to media, to fans, etc. -- USC under Pete Carroll was completely open, and that was widely resented. There was a widespread belief the national media fawned on USC because of this. Further, more than a few schools thought that the presence of big-time celebrities, such as Snoop Dogg and Will Ferrell, at practices and at games constituted an unfair recruiting advantage for the Trojans.

It wasn't against the rules, but everyone hated it. This, as he assessed his own smell test, was a subtext of the so-called atmosphere of noncompliance that the NCAA referred to -- an atmosphere that oddly yielded very few instances of noncompliance around the football program even after a four-year NCAA investigation.

But you'll note that Snoop and Will are no longer hanging around USC, which now has strict access guidelines.

Another point people keeping making to me: USC's case involved three sports and involved a lack of institutional control. That is not an invalid point, but this is the Pac-12 football blog. It doesn't cover basketball or tennis. And the violations connected to the basketball recruitment of O.J. Mayo shouldn't have, say, cost USC an extra 15 football scholarships. That's not how the process works, based on NCAA policy.

Anyway. The pointlessness of debating moot points was supposed to be the gist of my original column. What's done is done; all this is academic. Some Ohio State fans will read this and go, "Oh, interesting." But many others will simply go, "Idiot." And that's fine.

But, Buckeyes fans, would it help if I just wished you a Merry Christmas?

---

Josh from Fairbury, Neb., writes: Hey Ted, big news for USC with Matt Barkley returning for his senior season. It's a little early, but how do you see the Heisman award situation panning out next year in the Pac-12? I've personally always considered Barkley to as good (if not better) than Andrew Luck. Who else from the Pac-12 conference might be a Heisman hopeful for 2012?

Ted Miller: Barkley is No. 1. If I were to crown a No. 2, it would be Oregon's do-everything offensive weapon De'Anthony Thomas.

It's entirely possible the player who wins the Trojans-Ducks matchup next fall will be headed to New York as a result.

---

Brian from Kent, Wash., writes: I am trying to find the Pac-12 record book for all passing stats and seeing how close Matt Barkley is to shattering all of them, can you help me out?

Ted Miller: Barkley set the Pac-12 single-season record for TD passes this year with 39, breaking Matt Leinart's mark of 38 set for USC in 2003.

Barkley has 80 career TD passes. He needs 20 in 2012 to break Leinart's conference record of 99 -- which is 14 more than anyone else before him.

Barkley has 9,054 career passing yards. He needs to throw for 2,765 yards to eclipse Carson Palmer's conference record of 11,818.

In other words, unless Barkley gets hurt, he's going to own just about every major career conference passing record by season's end.

---

Darryl from Oakland writes: I understand the "rah rah" aspect of the SEC, but in reality, shouldn't the USC Trojans be considered the #1 team in the country in the preseason polls for 2012?

Ted Miller: USC likely will get some No. 1 votes but my guess is LSU will be the preseason No. 1. The Tigers' defense has a chance to be even better in 2012 than this year.

And, yes, though it's preposterously early to project, an LSU-USC matchup would be great fun on many levels, including the "rivalry" that was based on LSU finishing No. 2 behind USC in 2003.

Ha! I know at least one head just exploded in Baton Rouge. Some might say that was a split national title.

---

Garen from Los Angeles writes: Dear Mr. Miller, For the last several years I have dealt with very difficult times in both my professional and personal life. Its hard to find the words to describe how much your blog has meant to me during these times, but it has become much more than just news and entertainment. Day after day, year after year, your blog has provided me with a constant source of escape and relief, and I cant begin to thank you enough for that. I look forward to reading your blog on a daily basis. Than you again for the wonderful job that you do. Happy Holidays and Go Bears!

Ted Miller: Thanks, Garen. You made my day.

The mailbag often highlights people who call the Pac-12 blog names, notes that typically are countered with snarky replies.

But with Christmas coming up this weekend, why not have a nice note to wind things up?

Breathe, USC fans, breathe.

In fact, I'd suggest you ignore what happened Tuesday with Ohio State and its slap on the wrist from the NCAA for a massive systemic breakdown and a coverup by head coach, Jim Tressel.

Yes, when you hold up the Ohio State case and the USC case, it's impossible not to conclude the Ohio State case was far more severe. It was, of course, without question. No informed, objective person believes differently.

But here's the thing: Being outraged will accomplish nothing. You will be unhappy and your team will still be docked 30 scholarships over the next three years for what one player secretly did while Ohio State will be down just nine scholarships over the same time period for the rule-breaking of five with full knowledge of their head coach. And your unhappiness will provide great joy to folks who don't like your team.

Adopting a placid pose — at least as best as you can — will be good practice for handling potentially more infuriation ahead. The NCAA also likely will give even worst upcoming cases — North Carolina and the University of Miami at Paul Dee — less severe penalties than it gave USC.

Why? Because the NCAA treated USC unfairly — everybody in college sports knows this — and it likely won't revisit such irrational harshness. In the end, the justification for such severe penalties, meted out in contrast to past precedent, was little more than "just because."

But the NCAA, an organization not endowed with a sense of self-awareness, failed to foresee when it curb-stomped USC that among the lawbreakers in college football, the Trojans were jaywalkers amid a mob of bank robbers. Ohio State's sanctions, in fact, represent a return to NCAA normalcy: Mostly toothless penalties that will have little effect on the program's prospects, other than a single-season bowl ban.

There we go again: Fretting the particulars and the injustice of it all.

The point is USC fans have been quite reasonably been shaking their fists at the heavens or, more accurately, the NCAA home office in Indianapolis for two years. That anger has accomplished nothing, other than emboldening taunts from opposing fans.

You know: Fans whose teams didn't finish 10-2 and ranked No. 5 in the nation.

And therein lies the ultimate revenge: Winning.

It's hard to imagine the next five years won't see a USC downturn. Losing 30 scholarships is a tough burden. Things could be particularly difficult in 2014 and 2015, when the true cumulative impact arrives. And it could be even more galling if Ohio State is back in the national title hunt those years. Maybe playing Miami in a Fiesta Bowl rematch!

But if the Trojans can somehow remain in the picture, perhaps playing in a Rose Bowl -- or two -- along the way that would be a heck of a panacea, wouldn't it?

It's a longshot, sure. But other than that, we've got nothing for you USC. Sorry.

Easy, now. Breathe, breathe. Happy place. Happy place.

Oh, no. That's exactly what we were trying to avoid.

Happy Friday.

Join me on my Twitter journey to exotic lands.

To the notes.

Joe from San Jose writes: what are the ACTUAL chances of Tedford being on the HOT SEAT? I was a Ted-Head, but ever since they were moments away from being ranked #1, they really haven't performed - which says a lot for a team which is recruiting in the top 15 the last couple of years.

Bill from Danville, Calif., writes: Ted, Its official - Tedford's seat is warm. Tonight was a pathetic display of offensive ineptitude. Maynard should have sat down at the half yet Tedford stuck with him while every bear fan at AT&T knew he gave us little or no chance to win. Sorriest display in several years of mediocre football.

Gary from Berkeley writes: Tedford has to be on the hot seat after that game against SC, right? If we win less than 6 games this year (no bowl game), do you think he should be fired??

Ted Miller: It's clear that California fans frustration is bubbling over, and Jeff Tedford's equity based on transforming the Bears from laughingstock to contender is running out. And an 0-3 start in Pac-12 play, including blowout losses to Oregon and USC -- teams the Cal used to battle atop the conference -- makes that frustration understandable, as does the declining play of QB Zach Maynard.

So, yes, I think it's fair to put Tedford on the proverbial hotseat. And, yes, I think if Cal has another losing, bowless season, it's fair to ask hard questions about whether it's time for a change.

The schedule softens up the next four weeks: Utah, UCLA, Washington State and Oregon State. As Jon Wilner pointed out, if the Bears win three of four, they would head into tough games with Stanford and Arizona State at 6-4, already bowl eligible.

Tedford has recruited well -- particularly of late -- and will be playing in a renovated stadium and will have fancy new facilities next year, projects his early success in large part paid for. I'd think if Cal reaches a bowl game, it would be hard not to let him coach into 2012, knowing that it's "win-or-else."

And, by the way, Tedford has no buyout in his contract. According to Wilner, it would cost Cal "approximately $10 million" to fire Tedford after this season.

So the Old Blues will need to be really motivated to dispatch Tedford. And more than a few will have to open their wallets and prove their motivation.

---

Eric from Portland writes: With the release of the NCAA investigation regarding Auburn, what the NCAA is telling us; as long as no one talks your school won't be found guilty. So using that logic, Oregon should have paid another $25K to Mr. Lyles with a contract to keep silent and USC should have paid off the marketing company that sunk Reggie. Just seems like they are telling colleges to be more secretive.

Ted Miller: Yes, that is what the NCAA is telling you, though here's a guess they would phrase it differently.

In almost every major violations case, there's a self-interested whistle-blower who feels like he was wronged and wants revenge. USC probably wouldn't be yoked with NCAA sanctions if Reggie Bush had paid off would-be agent Lloyd Lake (not USC, that would have been really, really bad).

And, yes, Oregon's position would have been safer if Willie Lyles had no grudge against the football program.

But the cases aren't exactly parallel. Lyles was a person of interest for the NCAA for a while because it was looking into alleged street agents. Oregon was going to be connected to him no matter what. Only now Lyles appears to be a far more eager witness.

---

Jason from Seattle writes: No, we're not giving Utah a break. For years now, you and other sports writers have been beating us over the head with the nonsense that these non-AQ schools deserve BCS games for beating one or two BCS teams all year and then getting fat off of cupcakes. Well...you've all been exposed. Utah is getting THRASHED in the P12. Don't make excuses. Look at ASU, they've suffered far more injuries than Utah and they have found a way to win. This is what life is like in a legit BCS conference (I'm looking at you Big East). You want to claim that Utah will catch up with good recruiting in a few years? Absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether these past non-AQ darlings deserved their BCS games. We've been telling you these non-AQ schools wouldn't survive BCS schedules and now we've got a data point to back it up.

Ted Miller: I don't agree with this, but this is a position held by many mailbag writers, so Jason gets his moment to vent. As I did.

---

Liberal Duck from Eugene writes: Your article makes me think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. Did you get some cloud cover today in Scottsdale that has got you down? If so, welcome to my world! Vitamin D supplements should help. I, personally, haven't seen too many comments stating that Utah doesn't belong in the PAC. I do think some people are, perhaps, a little giddy that both Colorado and Utah are feeling a little pain their first year in the conference. It kind of validates for us that the PAC-12 Conference is good. We need that validation, perhaps, because the PAC doesn't get the recognition it deserves from the idiot national media (You, of course, excluded).

Ted Miller: Also a valid position. More than a few Pac-12 fans were worried that if Utah and Colorado rolled this year, it would be widely viewed as evidence the conference was soft. Their struggles mean that at least one trash talk position isn't available to Pac-12 critics.

---

Kevin from Houston writes: Thinking about the Stoops situation, I realize, it's not so much about his 10 game fbs losing streak, or his sideline demeanor, it's about Oregon State. Stoops' record vs Oregon State, 2-6, including losing at home last year that broke the unbeaten streak. Let's say the cats win those 2 games, last year, and last week, Stoops would certainly still have his job at this moment, another key loss to OSU was in 2006, which would have meant a first bowl game for Stoops, all else being equal. These 2 programs have been so similar over the past 8 years, and OSU has gotten the best of Arizona most of the time. While Stoops for the most part has beaten the teams he has supposed to, Oregon State has usually been the exception.

Ted Miller: An interesting observation. And true in many ways. Those pesky Beavers gave Stoops trouble.

Of course, if Arizona hadn't lost to Oregon State last year, and it had gone to Stanford as an unbeaten, top-10 team and then began a five-game losing streak, well, that collapse might have been viewed with even more negative emotion.

But it's probably fair to say that if the Wildcats had won at Oregon State last weekend, Greg Byrne probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger on Monday.

---

Dan from Sacramento writes: For the purpose of determining who plays in the Pac-12 championship game, what does the league look at- overall Pac-12 won-loss record or record within the division (North or South). For example, if UCLA has a better record than ASU in Pac-12 South play, but ASU has a better overall Pac-12 record (due to more games won against the North)- does ASU play in the championship game? Or would UCLA? I presume overall Pac-12 record takes precedence, then who won the head-to-head (between UCLA & ASU).

Ted Miller: Each division is decided by overall conference record, not division record. And then, if tied, head-to-head.

ESPN.com is looking at potential "Sweet Beginnings" -- players who are about to make highly anticipated debuts -- and our Pac-12 selection is Oregon freshman running back De'Anthony Thomas, who's "Sweet Beginning" started on Twitter.

How so? Well, if your Twitter feed included people watching the Ducks practice this preseason, what you got was "De'Anthony Thomas just did this," "De'Anthony Thomas just did that" and "I can't believe what De'Anthony Thomas just did" over and over again.

Neither The Oregonian's Ken Goe nor Rob Moseley of the Eugene Register-Guard are known for hyperventilating over young players with lots of flowery talk of certain greatness, yet Goe called Thomas a "flash of electricity," and Moseley simply said Thomas was "phenomenal throughout camp."

The 5-foot-9, 173-pound native of Los Angeles, who notoriously spurned a commitment to USC to sign with Oregon, is not listed on the Ducks two-deep depth chart in advance of the marquee matchup with LSU in Cowboys Stadium for a pretty good reason: LaMichael James and Kenjon Barner are one of the better running back tandems in the country. But you can be certain Thomas get at least a few touches against the Tigers. And more as the season wears on.

"De’Anthony definitely is a great, great football player," Ducks running backs coach Gary Campbell told The Oregonian. "He’s going to be able to help us early, I believe. And one day he’s going to be an outstanding football player.”

Thomas, nicknamed "The Black Mamba" at Crenshaw High School, was rated the nation's No. 16 overall prospect last year by ESPN Recruiting. His senior season, he rushed for 1,306 yards -- averaging 11.4 yards per carry -- and caught 16 passes for 349 yards and totaled 27 touchdowns.

More than a few folks have compared his speed and ability to change direction to Reggie Bush.

While football is a game of doing, not talking, Thomas appears fully capable of walking the walk in 2011.

When news of the Miami scandal broke, USC fans immediately connected former athletic director Paul Dee's name to the man who chaired the NCAA Committee on Infractions hearing for the Reggie Bush case.

And they had a completely rational thought: How could Dee have any credibility as the judge of whether an athletic program is operating within the rules, seeing that his was allegedly awash in wrong-doing? Those USC fans then wondered -- again, rationally -- if there would be a way for USC to make another run at getting its sanctions reduced.

While there were many whispers about some sort of new, special-case appeal, it appears that the Trojans will not take action. The school released a statement from president C. L. Max Nikias:

"I have determined that the university's mission is best served by moving forward at this time, without pursuing further redress ... This decision followed an extensive review of all of our options and after consultation with many sources. We ask that the Trojan Family offer its utmost support to the student-athletes and coaches of the Trojan football team, confident that USC's commitment to the highest level of excellence in academics and athletics will not waver in the coming years."

Some Trojans fans will be angry with this, and not unreasonably. It's through-the-looking-glass unfair that Dee led the assault on USC, which concluded with what some consider unjustifiably harsh penalties, a position most familiar with the case held well before Dee was unmasked.

But word on the street is there was an earnest effort made by USC administrators to evaluate options. This decision was not arrived at without a lot of thought about potential outcomes.

With the NCAA assessing no penalties against coach Lane Kiffin today in connection to his year at Tennessee, the Trojans finally know where they stand going forward: another year out of the postseason, 30 scholarships docked over the next three years.

The message from Nikias is really the only thing USC fans can do: move on.

Oh, and they can root for former assistant coach Todd McNair to take the NCAA to the cleaners in his lawsuit.

USC coach Lane Kiffin can now put his brief and controversial tenure at Tennessee in his rearview mirror after the NCAA found him guilty of no major violations during his one year in Knoxville.

Obviously, a win for Kiffin and USC.

Did the NCAA's egregious ruling in the Reggie Bush case play a role here? If Committee on Infractions chairman Dennis Thomas and other members of the committee read the work of Paul Dee's committee, it surely was somewhere in the back of their minds.

USC released statements from both Kiffin and AD Pat Haden.

Kiffin:

“I’m very grateful to the NCAA, the Committee on Infractions and its chairman, Dennis Thomas, for a very fair and thorough process. I'm also very grateful that we were able to accurately and fairly present the facts in our case and that no action was taken against us. I’m pleased that the NCAA based its decision on the facts and not on perception. I’m also very grateful that the Tennessee football program was cleared of any wrongdoing.

“As I have said before, we always have been committed to following NCAA rules and bylaws both at Tennessee and now at USC, and we always will be. Now that this has reached its conclusion, I am looking forward to continuing to prepare our team for the upcoming season.”

Haden:

“We obviously were pleased to learn about the NCAA’s ruling today regarding Lane Kiffin. I appeared at Lane’s NCAA hearing, and I believe the NCAA’s decision is fair and based on the facts presented. I'm glad this is behind us now and I know Lane feels the same way. From the time he arrived at USC, Lane Kiffin has been extremely compliant regarding NCAA rules and I feel confident that he will continue to be so.”

It appears USC coach Lane Kiffin will learn his NCAA sanctions fate on Wednesday, and the Knoxville News Sentinel is reporting it will be good news.

From the Sentinel:

The two major violations levied against the football program were found to be secondary violations and no further penalties were levied against the UT program, former coach Lane Kiffin or former assistant David Reaves.

ESPN.com's Andy Katz reported Tuesday that former Tennessee men's basketball coach Bruce Pearl will receive a multiple-year show-cause penalty from the NCAA's committee on infractions, information that will be made public Wednesday.

Kiffin, Tennessee's coach in 2009, participated in the same hearing in front of the Committee on Infractions as Pearl. It would be highly unusual for the NCAA to provide a ruling on one program and not the other.

Tennessee's defense boiled down to blaming everything on Kiffin, and its efforts seemed mostly successful. The NCAA charged Kiffin with failing to “promote an atmosphere for compliance within the football program," while Tennessee avoided any serious charges.

Kiffin could have faced some sort of suspension or recruiting restrictions.

The Los Angeles Times' Gary Klein tracked down Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott to see if he had any reaction to the Miami scandal and that the Hurricanes athletic director at the time, Paul Dee, was the man who sat in stern judgment of USC.

And Scott didn't beat around the (Reggie) Bush when asked "whether he agreed with national college football columnists who had described Dee as hypocritical."

"If the allegations prove true," Scott told the Times, "the words irony and hypocrisy don't seem to go far enough."

Zing!

This also was interesting from Scott. Is it possible that the NCAA is too impotent to police itself?

From the Times:

An advocate for change, [Scott] noted: "I like considering bold, new ideas in terms of reform. If I worry about anything, it's that the reform effort moves too slowly and does not go far enough."

Scott emphasized he was not advocating for the NCAA to move the enforcement and penalty process outside the organization. But he endorses considering it.

"I think we need to step back and consider bold new ideas, including the possibility of bringing in outside resources," he said.

This makes sense to me: Enforcement from an objective, unaffiliated body that reviews evidence and makes decisions without a proverbial horse in the race.

One of my takeaways from USC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times.

Remember this widely mocked comment from then-USC athletic director Mike Garrett shortly after the NCAA hammered the Trojans?

"As I read the decision by the NCAA," he told the group, "… I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans."

It was a stupid things to say for political reasons. But understand: Garrett isn't a stupid man. He was expressing an impression -- poorly, yes -- that many in the room had in front of Dee's Infractions Committee: The NCAA was going to get USC, no matter what the facts of the case were.

In its appeal, USC tried to point this out: Yes, you got us. You hammered us. But we both know this punishment doesn't fit the crime. And no matter how you try to downplay precedent when judging cases, it will come back to haunt you when far worse sets of violations come around the bend.

And so we have North Carolina, Ohio State and, with a thunderclap, Miami.

None of this will help USC. The NCAA isn't going to come back and say it's sorry.

But it might lead to major reforms, which I think we all can agree need to happen as soon as possible.

The word of the day is "Schadenfreude."

"Enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others," says Merriam-Webster.

That aptly describes the feelings at USC, where Trojans fans surely are grinning ear-to-ear over revelations of myriad alleged NCAA rules violations at Miami, most of which occurred under the watch of former athletic director Paul Dee.

Yes, the same Paul Dee who was the Committee on Infractions chairman in the USC case. Yes, the same Paul Dee who said, "high-profile athletes demand high-profile compliance."

Or, in the case of Miami under his watch -- 1993-2008 -- what appears to be the worst compliance IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Know what Dee told the Palm Beach Post about the allegations of Miami booster Nevin Shapiro, who is presently chilling in jail for his part in a $930-million Ponzi scheme?

Dee told the Post, "We didn't have any suspicion that he was doing anything like this. He didn't do anything to cause concern."

Let that sink in for a second.

Or how about this from Dee? Here he waxed sell-righteously -- and inaccurately -- over the USC case: “This case strikes at the heart of the principles of amateurism.” ("Inaccurate" because booster pay-for-play strikes at the heart of amateurism, not agents trying to lure players AWAY from amateurism).

Or this from Dee's Infractions Committee report on USC? “The general campus environment surrounding the violations troubled the committee. At least at the time of the football violations, 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.”

You want questionable monitoring? Shapiro, whose activities were supposedly unknown to Dee, once picked a fight with Miami's ... wait for this ... director of compliance!

In the press box. During a football game.

From the Yahoo! Sports report:

Shapiro, intoxicated, said he confronted Miami’s head of compliance, David Reed. According to a witness to the event, an incensed Shapiro was stalking through the Orange Bowl press box at halftime when he spotted Reed.

In a rage, Shapiro began cursing at the compliance director, calling him a “sissy” and other derogatory names, while attempting to draw him into a fight. In Shapiro’s mind, Reed was part of the problem in a slumping Miami program, largely for what Shapiro thought was too much oversight on relationships between players and boosters. And in Shapiro’s mind, that was worth fighting picking a fistfight with the head of compliance in a crowded press box.

That. Is. Rich.

The good news, USC fans, is you are not alone in your outrage. My guess is Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel does a fine job summarizing your thoughts here. This image is particularly well-wrought.

Dee, Miami's AD during most of the period covering Shapiro's allegations, is retired and no longer under NCAA jurisdiction. Still, it seems only fair he should spend a day at USC's Heritage Hall wearing a sandwich board with the word "Hypocrite."

And if you need more, Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports adds his thoughts.

It's one thing to ignore Shapiro. It's an insult to our intelligence for any high-ranking Miami administrator to say they had no idea what he was all about.

"Karma," said one individual affected by that USC decision, "is a b----."

Read the entire Yahoo! Sports story here.

Schadenfreude isn't a good thing. In fact, too much of it imperils your soul. Or, to employ more moderate terms, makes you no fun to be around.

But, at least for today -- OK, for a week or so -- Dee-light in the Dee-liciousness of it.

A football field is 100 yards long, and each yard marker has produced immortal memories in college football.

ESPN.com is looking at some of the most famous touchdowns in college football history for each and every yard marker, and Reggie Bush's punt return for USC at Oregon State in 2004 is the choice at 65 yards.

You can check out "Yards to Glory" here.

And here's what I wrote about Bush's punt return against the Beavers.

65. Reg-gie, Reg-gie

Reggie Bush's spectacular punt return propels USC

Nov. 6, 2004: It was hard to see, but Reggie Bush's punt return was spectacular in the fog at Oregon State. Top-ranked USC, the defending national champion, was clinging to a 14-13 lead when Bush ran 65 yards -- virtually untouched -- for a touchdown. The Trojans, who had trailed 13-0, went on to win 28-20 over the pesky Beavers, who have riddled USC in Corvallis. That was USC's 18th consecutive victory, and it went on to win a second consecutive national title.

A quick, pre-media day mailbag (my Internet connection at Sky Harbor is not terribly reliable, so this is a rush job).

By the way, you can follow me on Twitter, which could come in handy tomorrow. Or any day for the rest of your wonderful life, really.

To the notes.

Andrew from Los Angeles writes: Do you or any of your colleagues plan to speak to the travesty that is the ncaa?One school gets hammered for an assistant coach who "should've known" and the other will get a slap on the wrist for a head coach who knew and lied to cover it up?

Ted Miller: While your account is an oversimplification, it isn't by much.

It's not paranoia when someone is actually out to get you and does that very thing, and USC fans can feel pretty comfortable with the reasonableness of the position that the way the NCAA approached the USC case was unique: The NCAA decided to send a message, no matter the facts of the case. It was going to hammer USC, period.

Then all hell broke loose in college football, with several far more severe high-profile cases, and the NCAA went back to what it was before: Milquetoast.

Not a single objective person in the world could sit the USC and Ohio State cases side-by-side and decide the USC case deserved harsher penalties. Sure, you'll see comments below from Ohio State fans and USC haters spouting half-truths, but if you are familiar with the facts of both cases, they aren't even in the same ballpark.

(One qualification: We still don't know Ohio State's penalties, only that it was spared the dreaded "lack of institutional control" or even the "failure to monitor" charges.)

Think about it this way: In just a few months, the Ohio State case got worse and worse on a near-weekly basis. In four years, the USC-Reggie Bush case remained the USC-Reggie Bush case.

Oh, sure, let's not forget the NCAA was "troubled" by the campus environment at USC -- bringing in the little used bylaw 15.16.17.122.1287.1246574: "If the NCAA feels bad, it reserves the right to arbitrarily hammer you."

Bryan Fischer does a nice job of explaining -- in scrupulous detail -- the NCAA's massive failure. And, if you want a shorter version, Jon Wilner highlights some of the forehead-slapping issues here.

---

Steve from San Diego writes: Ted, first time writer here. Got a very hypothetical but relevant question for you that I need some clarification on. Let's say Stanford runs the table to an undefeated record heading into the Pac-12 championship game. Meanwhile, Arizona State lives up to the hype by going 10-2 to represent the Pac-12 South in the inaugural title game. Stanford then proceeds to beat the Sun Devils to advance to their first BCS National Championship game. This would put the 10-3 Sun Devils squad in the Rose Bowl, right? But hold the phone here- there's also a talented & deserving Oregon Ducks team with a 10-2 record anticipating a BCS invite as well. In a scenario where both teams losses are in-conference (yes, that assumes the Ducks beat LSU and the Sun Devils beat Mizzou.

Ted Miller: If the Pac-12 champion plays for the national championship, the Rose Bowl will have the option of picking another conference team with an at-large invitation, if it meets BCS selection criteria.

You may recall this rule getting in the way of Stanford last year:

For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl.

But TCU's selection last year means the Rose Bowl has satisfied that rule. So it will have the option -- its oft-stated preference -- of matching the Pac-12 and Big Ten again this go-round, even if it loses one of its conference champs when it plays for the national title.

As for picking between Oregon or Arizona State in your scenario, it's purely at the bowl's discretion, as long as both are in the top 14 of the BCS standings and have at least nine victories. The bowl likely would pick the higher-ranked team, though the head-to-head game on Oct. 15 in Eugene also would weigh heavily.

---

Amalgam from Reno, Nev., writes: Why does the media keep writing about Oregon running back LaMichael James relationship with Willie Lyles? Oregon wasn't paying Lyles during James recruitment in 2007-08, so the James-Lyles relationship isn't relevant.

Ted Miller: "Amalgam" isn't a real person. I just created the question because many Ducks fans sent me a link to a blog post that included this assertion.

I want to make clear that assertion isn't correct. James' "relationship" with Willie Lyles is relevant in that the NCAA can investigate whatever it wants and it most certainly will examine the nature of Lyles and James' relationship. It doesn't matter that Lyles wasn't getting paid by Oregon at that time.

Doesn't mean the NCAA will find anything. Only that it is relevant because the NCAA is looking into Lyles and Oregon and James has both in common.

By the way, the NCAA -- again -- has not formally sent Oregon an letter of inquiry yet, so we really don't know where -- and on whom -- their primary focus is.

USC running back Marc Tyler hasn't been acting like a senior leader for the Trojans of late, and now he's earned a suspension from coach Lane Kiffin for the season opener against Minnesota on Sept. 3.

At least.

Speaking to TMZ, Tyler -- who led the Trojans with 913 yards rushing last year -- appeared intoxicated when he made inappropriate comments about Kim Kardashian and joked about being paid to play for the Trojans, who you might recall are still in the midst of serving NCAA sanctions.

Moreover, Tyler is awaiting a ruling from the school's disciplinary committee on a pair of alcohol-related incidents from last year, which could make his penalty even more severe. Kiffin added that Tyler is also suspended from all team activities.

“Although Marc may find this punishment severe, it is imperative we continue to have a high standard for player behavior," Kiffin said in a statement. "Marc needs to work hard to show us that he can meet the standards of being a USC football player.”

Athletic director Pat Haden said Tyler "stepped way out of line."

"Marc has a lot to do to prove he belongs on our team," Haden said. "We hope Marc learns from this and comes back a changed and better person.”

The school also released a statement from Tyler:

“I want to apologize for embarrassing USC, my teammates and coaches. I am disappointed that I let down all the people who have supported me as I have been working through some personal issues. After meeting today with Mr. Haden and Coach Kiffin, I realize how my behavior and my statements, even though I was joking, can reflect poorly on so many people. As a veteran player, I should know that my job is to be an example for the younger guys. I accept my punishment and I regret that I will miss the opening game of my senior year. I am committed to doing everything the right way so that I can be reinstated to the team.”

What this means for USC is the backfield suddenly becomes very inexperienced, though the injury-prone Tyler was far from a certainty to top the rotation at the position. Without Tyler, the mercurial Dillon Baxter is the only returning running back who recorded a carry last year, and he had just 59 totes. Further, Baxter was listed behind junior Curtis McNeal and redshirt freshman D.J. Morgan on the post-spring depth chart.

Read more here.

On Friday, the Pac-10 becomes the Pac-12, and life as we all have known it ends.

But before we move on as a 12-team league, let's look back at the best of a 10-team league.

On Wednesday, we looked at the best players. Thursday, it's the best teams.

We've listed 12 teams because that's the new magic number (Arizona fans, see if you can guess who came in 13th).

Again, no team before 1978 -- when Arizona and Arizona State joined the Pac-8 -- was considered.

1. 1991 Washington: The Huskies finished 12-0 and split the national title with Miami.

Best player: Defensive tackle Steve Emtman won the Outland Trophy and Lombardi Award.

Point differential: Washington outscored its foes 495-115.

Best win: Whipped Michigan 34-14 in Rose Bowl. Wolverines finished ranked sixth.

Comment: Four wins over teams that finished ranked in the final top 25, including road victories at No. 15 Nebraska and at No. 8 California. Featured one of the great defenses in college football history, yielding just 9.2 points and 67.1 rushing yards per game. Eight Huskies earned first-team All-Pac-10 honors.

2. 2004 USC: While the NCAA and BCS have nixed it in their own ways, the Trojans finished 13-0 and won the national title on the field.

Best player: Quarterback Matt Leinart won the Heisman Trophy.

Point differential: USC outscored its foes 496-169.

Best win: Crushed Oklahoma 55-19 in the national title game.

Comment: Basically a push for dominance with 1991 Washington. Beat four teams that finished ranked in the top 25, including the bludgeoning of Oklahoma. Eight Trojans earned first-team All-Pac-10 honors.

3. 2003 USC: The Trojans finished 12-1 and split the national title with LSU. Their only loss came in triple overtime at California.

Best player: Receiver Mike Williams was a consensus All-American.

Point differential: 534-239.

Best win: The completely dominant 23-0 victory at then-No. 6 Auburn in the opener set the tone for the season -- and caused many Pac-10 fans to question how good these highly rated SEC teams really are.

Comment: The Trojans finished the regular season ranked No. 1 in both polls but lost out playing in the BCS title game because of the computer polls. LSU fans have been thanking the computers for that glitch ever since.

4. 2005 USC: A 34-game winning streak came to an end with a nail-biting loss to Texas in the national title game. The Trojans finished 12-1.

Best player: Reggie Bush won the Heisman Trophy.

Point differential: 638-297.

Best win: The 34-31 win at Notre Dame -- the "Bush Push" game -- was one of the all-time greats.

Comment: Perhaps the best collection of offensive players in the history of college football: Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Dwayne Jarrett, Ryan Kalil, Sam Baker and Taitusi Lutui earned first-team All-Pac-10 honors. And don't forget LenDale White, Winston Justice, Steve Smith and Dominique Byrd.

5. 1978 USC: Finished 12-1 and split national title with Alabama. Lost to Arizona State, 20-7.

Best player: Charles White was a unanimous All-American.

Point differential: 318-153

Best win: A 24-14 win over the team that "claimed" the other half of the national title.

Comment: Split national title -- coaches liked the Trojans; AP the Crimson Tide -- despite a decisive 24-14 USC at Alabama. So much for head to head.

6. 1979 USC: Finished 11-0-1 and No. 2 behind Alabama. Tied Stanford 21-21.

Best player: Charles White won the Heisman Trophy.

Point differential: 389-171

Best win: The 17-16 win over Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, in which White ran for a record 247 yards, including the game-winning touchdown with just more than a minute remaining.

Comment: Team featured four future College Football Hall of Famers in White, Marcus Allen, Ronnie Lot and Brad Budde. By the way, THAT undefeated, untied Alabama team was really, really good: Outscored foes 383-67. So no sour grapes on that one.

7. 2001 Oregon: The Ducks finished 11-1 and ranked No. 2 in both polls. The only loss was 49-42 versus Stanford (a really, really weird game, if you recall).

Best player: Quarterback Joey Harrington finished fourth in the Heisman Trophy voting.

Point differential: 412-256.

Best win: A 38-16 win over Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.

Comment: The Fiesta Bowl victory caused plenty of folks to bemoan the Nebraska-Miami matchup in the BCS title game, considering Colorado had blown out Nebraska the final weekend of the regular season. As for the Stanford loss, the typically straightforward AP noted the game had "everything but aliens landing on the Autzen Stadium turf."

8. 1984 Washington: Finished 11-1 and ranked No. 2 behind BYU. Lost to USC ,16-7.

Best player: Defensive tackle Ron Holmes was a consensus All-American.

Point differential: 352-145

Best win: Shocked Oklahoma 28-17 in the Orange Bowl. Sooners finished ranked sixth.

Comment: A controversial season. Before the Orange Bowl, Sooners coach Barry Switzer lobbied hard for the winner to be declared the national champion. As it was, BYU won the national title after beating a bad Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl. Does anyone believe BYU was better than the Huskies? No.

9. 2010 Oregon: The Ducks finished 12-1 and No. 3 in both polls, losing the national title game to Auburn.

Best player: Running back LaMichael James finished third in the Heisman Trophy voting.

Point differential: 611-243

Best win: The Ducks handed Stanford its only loss, 52-31, after trailing 21-3 early. Cardinal finished ranked No. 4.

Comment: An innovative, exciting team to watch, one that played faster than perhaps any big-time college team in history.

10. 1996 Arizona State: Finished 11-1 and ranked No. 4 in both polls. Lost Rose Bowl -- and potential national championship -- to Ohio State, 20-17.

Best player: Quarterback Jake Plummer finished third in the Heisman Trophy voting.

Point differential: 488-216

Best win: The Sun Devils trounced top-ranked, two-time defending national champion Nebraska, 19-0.

Comment: The Sun Devils lost one of the most dramatic Rose Bowls, when the swashbuckling Plummer was out-swashbuckled by Joe Germaine, who was raised in Arizona as an ASU fan.

11. 2000 Washington: The Huskies finished 11-1 and ranked No. 3, their only loss coming at No. 7 Oregon. They beat Purdue 34-24 in the Rose Bowl.

Best player: Marques Tuiasosopo finished eighth in the Heisman Trophy voting.

Point differential: 387-270

Best win: Beat Miami, 34-29. Hurricanes finished ranked No. 2.

Comment: This is not the most talented team on the list. In fact, some have rated the 2000 Oregon State team -- see below -- ahead of the Huskies. And based on NFL results, the Beavers were more talented than the Huskies. But head to head matters, and the win over Miami is better than anything Oregon State did.

12. 2000 Oregon State: The Beavers finished 11-1 and ranked No. 4, their only loss a 33-30 decision at Washington, which finished ranked No. 3.

Best player: Running back Ken Simonton was first-team All-Pac-10.

Best win: Beat Oregon 23-13 in Civil War. Oregon finished ranked seventh in the coaches poll.

Comment: One or two more plays at Washington, and the Beavers would have played for the national title. And they, by the way, were more talented than the Oklahoma team that did win the title. Notable Beavers: Ken Simonton, Chad Ochocinco (the Chad Johnson), T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Chris Gibson, DeLawrence Grant, LaDairis Jackson, Dennis Weathersby and Eric Manning. They spanked Notre Dame 41-9 in the Fiesta Bowl.

Two interesting articles published Wednesday on USC, which touch on the larger controversies of college football that are barking at us from the headlines seemingly every other day.

The Los Angeles Times' Gary Klein tries to assess the financial damage from USC's Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo scandals. One word: Millions.

This much is clear: The football price tag already runs well into the tens of millions in lost bowl appearances, sagging attendance, attorney fees and other direct and ancillary costs.

Then former LA Times writer and USC player Lonnie White writes about his experiences as a Trojan receiving extra benefits -- or bags of money, if you prefer -- in the 1980s under John Robinson and Ted Tollner.

Once back in his own car, the player smiles when he looks into a small brown bag filled with money. It’s $5,000 cash and it could not have come at a better time.

Sounds like a bad movie. It isn’t. It was life for me when I played college football at the University of Southern California in the 1980s. I wasn’t old enough to drink legally, yet if I was caught, my actions would have had an impact on thousands connected with the program.

To this day, it’s something I’m ashamed about. Rent was overdue and my household bills were delinquent. I needed the money to live. So accepting the $14,000 in different forms of “benefits” over my college years three decades ago was an act of survival.

White seems to believe that more happened in during his time at USC than today because technology makes it more difficult to get away with things.

With today’s media in love with scandals, people would have a field day with some of the “unknown” things that happened within college football programs decades ago.

Everything from $100 handshakes (when players are slipped cash during meet-and-greet events) to sponsored party trips (often featuring women, sex, drugs and alcohol), would be exposed.

But he also writes that he has knowledge of violations going on at present.

I know at least five athletes, who are either a relative or close family friend, who played at the BCS level last season. And they all agree, there’s more rule-breaking going on than people know.

It’s the “dirty secret” of college football that will continue to grow as money and power are connected to the sport.

Obviously, these two stories are related, and they fit in with our present, scandal-ridden time in college football: USC, Ohio State and North Carolina, not to mention the strange situation with Oregon and Willie Lyles.

Big-money ventures are often high risk, high reward. College football is a big-money venture, and cheating to gain an advantage is high risk and high reward.

Further, big stakes often inspire rationalizations at every level that attempt to justify behavior. One thing I've noticed over the past few years: When someone is asked about NCAA rules violations, they reply, "I didn't do anything wrong."

A beautiful non-response.

Did you take money? "I didn't do anything wrong."

Did you provide extra benefits? "I didn't do anything wrong."

Did you steer a player to Program X? "I didn't do anything wrong."

It's not a denial of breaking the rules. And, in the respondent's mind, it's not a lie. Not really. The rules are bad, so breaking them isn't wrong, this thinking goes. Coaches, the NCAA and universities make millions off of sports and the athletes are unpaid. So taking some gifts or money under the table isn't wrong, even if it's against the rules.

And, in a sense, it's not a black act of moral turpitude. It's not like beating up an innocent person just for fun.

Do you always drive the speed limit? Now, think of your sputtering frustration when you get a ticket for going 67 mph in a 55 mph zone. You want to tell the police officer to go stop a real criminal or something, right?

Still, rules are rules, even if the system seems out of whack.

Is there a massive, systemic change that can end corruption and epidemic rules violations in college football? Probably. But it would require a redistribution of wealth, and we know how that goes over in this country. Folks who have it don't like to share it. And we also likely would have to change some laws (read: Title IX).

It's been the wildest offseason I can remember -- at least since last offseason -- and we're not even finished with June. The sport is as exciting and popular as it's ever been. But the enlarged spotlight has revealed the cockroaches scurrying around in the shadows, which is the unpleasant and unintended consequence of that increased popularity.