Six weeks later, the Pac-12 football officiating controversy continues to simmer.

Not a weekend passes without a reference by analysts or on social media to the involvement of a “third party” — an untrained official — in the conference’s replay review process.

Campus officials haven’t forgotten, either.

In late October, athletic directors met with conference leadership and engaged in what one source described as a “healthy discussion” on the topic.

In mid-November, the presidents and chancellors did the same.

How can the Pac-12 escape the clutches of the Yahoo revelation that general counsel Woodie Dixon overruled a call in the Washington State-USC game?

How much damage has been done to the Pac-12 brand as a result of the controversy, which tarnished the officiating process and called into question the integrity of the on-field product?

The Hotline reached out to more a half-dozen experts in the fields of sports branding, marketing and strategic communications. A few declined to speak on-the-record; several were willing to comment publicly; all of them uttered the T-word.

Transparency.

“Hoping the crisis goes away isn’t enough,’’ said Glenn Bunting, whose west coast-based strategic communications firm, G.F. Bunting and Co., has represented numerous entities in the sports world, including Baylor.

“(The Pac-12) has to be hyper-aggressive and hyper-vigilant,” Bunting added. “What are they doing to ensure this doesn’t happen again? It’s not enough to have the commissioner say, ‘It’s all good.’”

To this point, however, that’s exactly what the conference has done with regard to the clean-up process.

Commissioner Larry Scott, who approved of the system that allowed an untrained official (Dixon) to participate in replay reviews, has been the lone voice:

* It was Scott who concluded that Dixon’s influence was a one-time event.

* It was Scott who explained the actions of those involved in the controversial incident.

* It was Scott who announced a short-term change in protocol that removes untrained officials from the process.

The three central players in the controversy were Dixon, the general counsel who serves as the lead football administrator; Bill Richardson, the replay supervisor based in the conference’s command center; and Gary McNanna, the replay booth official in the L.A. Coliseum that fateful night.

Both Richardson and McNanna believed Washington State linebacker Logan Tago was guilty of targeting USC quarterback JT Daniels, only to have Dixon overrule their decision by calling into the replay center and voicing his opinion.

Neither Dixon, Richardson or McNanna has spoken publicly.

“There’s an old saying: sunlight is the best disinfectant,’’ said Bunting, a Stanford graduate who roots for the Cardinal and Oregon.

“The questions here are so central to integrity, fairness and how the Pac 12 handles official replays. It doesn’t begin and end with football. Who’s going to stop this kind of meddling from happening in other sports?”

The conference has taken initial steps toward the sunlight.

The morning after the Yahoo report made national news and sparked intra-conference anguish, Scott acknowledged the flawed system at unrelated media event in San Francisco and announced a short-term change in protocol:

Conference administrators were removed from the decision-making process, while the replay supervisor (Richardson) was granted clear and ultimate authority in replay reviews.

“A lot of people in (Scott’s) position wouldn’t even avail themselves to the media,” Bunting said. “I give him credit for trying to answer questions.”

Weeks later, the Pac-12 announced its intentions to develop “a comprehensive manual governing all aspects of instant replay officiating, including detailed protocols and procedures.”

That news was accompanied by a statement from the athletic directors in which they offered collective support for the protocol changes and expressed confidence in the process.

But many questions remain unanswered, including:

How frequently has Dixon participated in the replay review process since the command center went fully operational at the start of the 2017 season? What was his motivation for calling in after witnessing the Tago-Daniels hit? Where was he at the time? What angle did he have of the collision?

Also: Who conducted the conference’s initial review (in the hours after the Yahoo report) and with whom did he/she speak? What proof does Scott have that Dixon’s impact was a one-time event?

And: Did Dixon’s interference in the Tago-Daniels decision influence McNanna and Richardson in their controversial no-call one quarter later, when USC’s Porter Gustin seemed to commit an obvious targeting penalty on WSU quarterback Gardner Minshew?

Had Gustin been flagged, the Cougars would have had first down on the 10 yard-line in the final minutes. Instead of losing the game by three points, they could very well be undefeated.

“Coca Cola got through New Coke, but they eventually raised their hand and said it was a bad idea,” said Patrick Crakes, a media industry strategist and former Fox Sports executive. “You have to really take ownership.”

There are questions moving forward, as well:

Who’s responsible for developing the forthcoming replay manual? With whom will they consult? Who must approve the final product? When will it be ready?

In response to an inquiry, Pac-12 spokesperson Andrew Walker said the development of the replay manual would “include benchmarking against other conferences and best practices, based on discussions with national leaders, among other due diligence, and would be made available to the public upon completion.”

Those are important steps, for sure. But would a manual produced by the conference and approved by conference be enough to satisfy the public’s need for transparency? To fully disinfect, Bunting and Crakes agreed, the Pac-12 must look beyond the its own chain of command:

Let officiating experts inspect the manual and testify publicly to its validity.

Allow the coaches to review it and speak candidly, without fear of reprimand or fine.

“You want to hear a chorus of independent voices say, ‘They have enacted reforms that give us confidence this won’t happen again,’” Bunting said.

Added Crakes: “There’s no question that having an understandable, transparent process with the proper credentialed experts enhances a brand … You want stakeholders to have faith in the process.”

Perhaps no voice would lend more credibility to the manual than that of Washington State coach Mike Leach, who excoriated Dixon and Scott in a series of text messages (per Yahoo) after the loss to USC.

The source of his frustration: The no-call on Gustin.

“Why can’t I help wondering,” Leach wrote to Dixon, “if you’re trying to manipulate wins and losses?”

Since then, Leach has pleaded for public scrutiny of the process: “Those that have a voice have to speak for those of us who are silenced.”

Why should the public have faith in the process if Leach does not?

“You have to be transparent and suffer the consequences,’’ said former Big 8 commissioner Chuck Neinas, one of the most respected voices in college sports. “Look at the Big 12. The ‘Fifth-Down Game’ still lingers.”

Three decades ago, confused Big 8 officials granted Colorado a fifth down in the final seconds inside Missouri’s 5 yard-line. The Buffaloes used the extra play to score the winning touchdown and, thanks to that victory, eventual captured the national championship.

Twenty years later, ESPN’s Outside The Lines produced a lengthy expose on the ‘Fifth-Down Game.’

“Officiating is an inexact science,” said Neinas, who was not Big 8 commissioner at the time. “Some calls are more important than others, which is why conferences have gone to command centers.

“You hope you have well trained people who understand the game and have been involved in it for years.”

The involvement of a so-called ‘Third Party’ in the replay review process isn’t the first cataclysmic blow to the credibility of Pac-12 officiating during Scott’s tenure as commissioner.

In the spring of 2013, coordinator of basketball officials Ed Rush offered $5,000 to any official who called a technical foul on Arizona coach Sean Miller. ‘BountyGate’, as it became known, produced an onslaught of criticism from all corners of the college basketball world.

The conference looked into the matter, determined Rush was joking and that, according to Scott, “the officials in the room realized they were not serious offers.”

In response to the involvement of a third party in the football replay review scandal, Scott conducted an internal review and determined “it was not (Dixon’s) intention” to influence the process. Scott indicated Dixon would not be punished and, one week later, was effusive in his praise for Dixon.

Based on ensuing developments, Pac-12 athletic directors were not satisfied with that course: Their late-October meeting with Scott resulted in disciplinary measures against “certain personnel” involved in the incident. (Notably, the conference did not name names or specify the discipline.)

The impact of the scandal on the Pac-12 brand, it seems, depends on the size of the canvass.

Crakes believes the brand will “march on” nationally, impacted, above all, by performance on the field.

“The question is what does this do to the brand positioning with the hardcores — for the big donors, the ultra-engaged fans who buy tickets, and the administrators on the campuses?” he said.

“That’s different than the brand impact with the general public, and it’s something to consider … Something that impacts faith in the system can damage brand perception with key stakeholders.”

The controversy is the latest in a series of unfortunate events for the conference that span the past 12 months and include public tiffs with ESPN personalities, historically bad postseason showings in football and men’s basketball and ensnarement in the basketball corruption scandal — all of it set against the backdrops of lagging TV revenue and distribution.

Media criticism has been intense. Campus officials have gone public with their frustrations.

But David Carter, director of USC’s renown Sports Business Institute and a leading authority on sports marketing, took a broad view of the landscape when asked to assess the state of the Pac-12’s brand.

“At the direction of university presidents and chancellors, the Pac-12 is as much of a business enterprise as it is an athletic conference,” Carter said in an email. “Any setbacks or successes within the conference are viewed under a broader lens of what the conference has been tasked with accomplishing.

“So, despite apparent and well publicized under-performance of late on the field and court, the conference’s ability to build its brand internationally, as well as that of its schools — and to support the business development efforts of each conference member individually — remains strong.

“This is not to say that the Pac-12’s sports business is not affected by scandals and reduced media distribution. The conference’s sports-related brand is in large part shaped by the ability for fans and alumni to consume competitive product without the specter of chronic scandal.”

Why we need your support: Like so many other providers of local journalism across the country, the Hotline’s parent website, mercurynews.com, recently moved to a subscription model. A few Hotline stories will remain free each month (as will the newsletter), but for access to all content, you’ll need to subscribe. The good news for Hotline faithful: I’ve secured a discount: 12 cents per day for 12 months. Click here to subscribe. And thanks for your loyalty.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.