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

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.