Comparing the Auburn and Cam Newton case with the USC and Reggie Bush case

Unbuckling the mailbag:

Question: If the NCAA applied the Auburn/Newton standard (university unaware of violation, no penalty) to USC/Bush, what would happen?

Scott Schmidt

West Hollywood

Answer: USC fans have a right to be cynical and bewildered about the NCAA’s decision this week to reinstate Auburn quarterback Cam Newton.

NCAA President Mark Emmert used the word “outraged” in the damage-control statement his organization released.

“We recognize that many people are outraged at the notion that a parent or anyone else could ‘shop around’ a student-athlete and there would possibly not be repercussions on the student-athlete’s eligibility.”

Um … well … yes … exactly.

This ruling has legs faster than Cam Newton’s.

The NCAA basically confirmed it was a violation that Newton’s father, through a scouting service, shopped his son to Mississippi State in a pay-for-play scheme that apparently never materialized.

Since there was no evidence — “at this time,” officials said — to prove Auburn or the player knew he was being shopped, however, the NCAA had no choice but to rule Newton eligible for Saturday’s Southeastern Conference title game against South Carolina.

The NCAA wants the public to believe Cecil Newton asked Mississippi State for more than $180,000 for his son’s services but was refused, and then Cam ended up at Auburn for no enticements other than a free education.

The public is having a hard time believing that.

There are similarities between USC/Bush and Newton/Auburn, and differences. The violations in the Newton case were tied to a different school, not the one he ended up attending. And there’s no evidence any money changed hands.

What’s hard to track here is that the NCAA, in its infractions report on USC, broke new ground in saying that even if USC didn’t know about the Reggie Bush violations … it should have known.

This week’s NCAA ruling exposed a gaping loophole that allows a parent to shop his kid, through a runner, to the highest bidder with it being OK as long as the kid and the school don’t know about it.

The NCAA concedes it had no legal recourse to stop it.

“We will work aggressively with our members to amend our bylaws so that this type of behavior is not a part of intercollegiate athletics,” Emmert’s statement concluded.

That’s nice. Until then, though, well, ‘tis the shopping season.

Q: Why do you despise Auburn? I’ve always enjoyed reading your columns. Until now.

Tandy Culpepper

A: Tandy, I’ve always enjoyed taking your questions. Until now.

Q: Does Texas Christian’s move spell BCS continuation or BCS death? Seems like it’s a move that could save the current format.

Chris Marbello

A: I agree it wasn’t a good week for the “death to the BCS” crowd. TCU joining the Big East removes one more advocate for reforming the system.

With Utah joining the Pac-10 next year and TCU ending up this year in no worse than the Rose Bowl, who is left to fight the anti-BCS fight?

Instead of remaining outside the circle of power to rail against the system it claims is unfair, Utah and TCU have joined it. If undefeated TCU gets squeezed out of the national title game this year by Auburn and Oregon, TCU can hardly lambaste the BCS only days after it became a card-carrying member.

This is about as fair, short of a playoff, as the system is going to get. Boise State can’t blame the BCS this year for its woes. Had the Broncos defeated Nevada last week, they would be positioned to play in the Rose Bowl, or for a national title.

Also, with Utah and TCU moving on to major conferences, Boise State is in prime position to claim the annual BCS automatic bid given to the highest “non-AQ” in the top 12.

Q: I think I understand which teams will likely play each other, and in which bowl game, if both Oregon and Auburn win their final games this Saturday, and if Oregon or Auburn loses. However, if Oregon and Auburn lose this Saturday, which team will play TCU for the BCS championship?

Charlie Tajiri

A: In that scenario, Texas Christian is in the game for sure with the second spot up for grabs. You might logically think Stanford, because it is ranked No. 4 in the BCS standings, would move up to No. 2.

What we don’t know is how badly Oregon and Auburn lost. Would voters drop Oregon below Stanford even though the Ducks defeated the Cardinal in the head-to-head meeting?

Would maneuvering allow No. 5 Wisconsin to sneak past Stanford into the title game?

There are also many folks south of Mason-Dixon who feel one-loss Auburn deserves a title-game bid no matter what happens Saturday.

You can bank on this: CBS announcers will immediately start shilling for Auburn if they fall behind South Carolina.

My question is: How can you say one-loss Auburn deserves to get in — no matter what — when you don’t even know the final score of the SEC title game?

What if South Carolina wins by 21?

Q: Really? Indict and cite polls simultaneously? Ventriloquists are amazed at your ability to talk out of two sides of your mouth.

Madison Louison

A: I know. Blame it on the Red (Nebraska) Scare. I am a child of the Charlie McCarthy Era.

Q: Is it just me or do a lot of people out there really hate (I mean hate) Boise State?

Steve Romero

A: It’s not just you. The backlash against Boise State has really been something. I thought Americans loved the underdog.

It’s really amazing how vindictive the USA Today coaches were in the aftermath of Boise’s heartbreaking loss to Nevada. The coaches punished Boise by dropping the Broncos seven spots to 10 and “rewarded” the winner by moving Nevada up two slots to No. 17.

Yet, watch how far No. 16 jumps this week, and how little No. 2 falls, if South Carolina upsets Auburn.

Here’s my gripe: If the coaches didn’t think Boise State deserved a shot at this year’s national title, the coaches should not have made the Broncos No. 5 in their preseason poll.

But they did. And any team that starts out No. 5 deserves a chance to move up three poll spots in three months, or else this year’s USA Today poll is really a sham.

Q: I’m not a total Pac-10 homer, but how is it that Oregon is No. 1 in both human polls but slides to No. 2 overall? I thought the human polls were given more weight than the computers.

Cy Bolton

A: Auburn did jump Oregon for No. 1 in this week’s BCS standings, but the margin was .0002. That’s barely measurable. The human polls do have more weight now in the system — two-thirds instead of a half — so in most cases the school leading in both polls is going to prevail.

In the case of Oregon and Auburn, though, if the poll points are really close, then the computer average can make the difference.

And remember, in the BCS, finishing second is as good as finishing first.

Q: Now that Boise State has lost to a ranked team, it proves my point you know nothing about college football. Your Times Top 25 is a joke.…You are a shame to your profession and the L.A. Times should get rid of you. Shame, shame, shame. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Thomas Bailey

A: I don’t answer all my fan mail, but if you would provide your mailing address I’d be happy to send you an autographed photo of me standing on Boise State’s blue field last summer.

It would be the least I could do for your kind words and support.

Q: You often complain about the coaches ranking, but you have some questionable rankings yourself. I believe a face-to-face meeting should have great weight when the teams ranked have the same number of losses. Why, then, do you have Missouri and Oklahoma State ranked ahead of Nebraska when all three have two losses and Nebraska has defeated both teams?

David Kraus

A: You bring up a great point. I take great care in trying to balance my checkbook and my rankings and usually adhere to your philosophy, but there are always exceptions.

There’s a reason I have five Big 12 teams clustered in ranking positions No. 14 through 18 — because they are all pretty even.

Texas A&M ranks ahead of Nebraska based on its recent wipeout 9-6 victory over the Cornhuskers. Oklahoma won’t play Nebraska until Saturday but is higher ranked in every polling index I know of except for “heat.”

Nebraska defeated Missouri and Oklahoma State — this is true — but neither team has suffered as inexplicable a loss as Nebraska’s Oct. 16 home defeat to the worst Texas team since 1997.

chris.dufresne@latimes.com