More seriously though, I think it means how good the team and university are about catching the things that they should be catching - and an offseason DUI, while disgraceful, is lower on that list.

To UCLAJD89's point about the Bush unpleasantness, it's a question of whether or not the university should have been able to deduce that there was hidden malarkey. You can debate that all you want, but it's significant that there was real clampdown since the Bush allegations on the freedom of movement for non-team members around team facilities, and especially so for agents. That to me was the sign of an athletic department that was making sure that their practices at least superficially matched their obligations.

I am not sure that you are being fair to the off-field transgressions that are raised by 'SC haters. As I wrote earlier, I see the Bush allegations as going more to the issue of institutional control as extra benefits to a player or a player's family create a competitive imbalance. I know that nothing has been "proven", but the Bush family reaped enormous benefits, and Reggie Bush probably did as well, while Reggie was a student at USC. Note that I am not saying that anything showing knowledge on the part of Carrol or USC of the benefits has been shown-and it is almost certain that knowledge by USC or Carrol never will be shown and there never will be any NCAA action over this issue. But take the Bush situation, throw in the chump change issue of Jarrett's rent being paid and the outline of a case for a lack of institutional control by USC start to take shape, since it is unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that these benefits were provided without Carroll or anyone else in the athletic department knowing. A few more incidents of this sort, particularly if the player can't satisfy the settlement demands of the accusing party a la Reggie Bush, and a legitimate case of lack of institutional control is brought.

The criminal/semi-criminal/lapses in judgment by various USC players tend less to the "institutional control" exercised by USC and more to the character of the players themselves, and by extension the program. I did a little (by no means comprehensive) research and found no instances where criminal conduct of players (excluding gambling) resulted in a finding of a lack of institutional control. Perhaps it is one of those fine-sounding phrases that people use imprecisely to characterize their impression of a program run amok rather than using the phrase as it was intended. In USC's case, my not-completely-fair assessment tells me that it is lame to claim (as some have) that USC is somehow responsible for the criminal activities of its players-one may as well tell a resident of San Diego that he is somehow responsible when a San Diegan commits a crime. What USC is responsible for, however, is meting out discipline and setting standards for its players.

You already know that while I don't see the occasional criminal/idiotic action by any individual player as proving the existence of much of anything other than piss-poor judgment by a typical college kid, much less an out-of-control program, at USC or anywhere else, I do believe that Carrol does not provide the level of discipline to his players that would result in fewer of these incidents. From my outside but not wholly disinterested perspective, I just don't see the willingness to administer strong discipline to the miscreants. Maybe Carroll would do well to remember Voltaire and shoot a few admirals to encourage the rest.

I don't see the USC football program as a criminal enterprise or as Miami of the West, but I would think that some of the issues that have come up, specifically the Bush issue, should raise red flags. While I do not wish USC well, I certainly don't want them to end up with players like the fabulous Lawrence Phillips, or see Carroll reduced to Switzer-esque levels of condoning/tolerating criminality by his players. USC isn't anywhere near that level of rottenness, but if the off-field stuff continues at its current rate, and the discipline remains soft IMHO, USC could find itself compared in a couple of years, and reasonably so, to Oklahoma under Switzer or Nebraska in Osborne's last years.