USC Won't Get Hammered Because of it's "Fresh" Approach to Cheating
by Todd on Jun 3, 2010 9:24 AM CDT
Email
Print...or "Apparently Ted Miller Spent Too Much Time Covering Auburn"
ed.- I'm putting in a jump before the updates take up the whole front page, but be sure to follow the jump and keep scrolling down for updates.
With the sanctions on Southern Cal supposedly coming out tomorrow, it's only natural that gallons of digital ink be spilled on what columnists the country over think they are going to be. Pat Forde penned a good column on the myth of selective enforcement which, unfortunately, prompted Ted Miller to vomit out a response arguing that, since the USC case is being considered "a litmus test for NCAA enforcement equity," if the Trojans aren't hammered into oblivion or at the very least receive the same penalties as Alabama in '02 then heads are going to explode. He's probably right about the heads exploding part, but he's also wrong wrong wrong wrong on just about everything else. Seems the basis of his disagreement is that Alabama cheated "old school":
...let's just quickly list the major findings from the Alabama case, courtesy of USA Today.
- A recruit, identified in news reports as Kenny Smith, and his parents were given $20,000 in cash, lodging and entertainment by two Crimson Tide boosters beginning in 1995. The first payment of $10,000 was made in $100 bills delivered in a grocery bag. Smith signed with Alabama but couldn't meet academic requirements.
- An Alabama booster previously identified as Logan Young of Memphis, Tenn., gave cash to a high school coach who was seeking $100,000 cash and two sport-utility vehicles in exchange for directing star recruit Albert Means to Alabama.
- An assistant coach, former recruiting coordinator Ronnie Cottrell, received two loans totaling $56,600 from Young in violation of NCAA rules. The loan was not repaid until the case became known.
- Two boosters involved in repeated rules violations were known to the Alabama staff, coaches and fans and often were seen at the team hotel during road games.
- A recruit, identified previously as Travis Carroll, was given the use of a car in 1999 for agreeing to attend Alabama. The car was repossessed when Carroll transferred to Florida.
Let all that swirl in your head for a bit. That's old-school cheating in its purest form. Reading it almost makes you crave a jar of moonshine.
No one here will deny any of that took place. You do the crime, etc. But here's where Miller goes off the tracks. Instead of similarly listing and blasting Southern Cal's sins, he simply links them (here, here, and here!) and assures his readers that there's "[no] comparison by any objective measure." Really Ted? Just for the sake of equal time, let's list USC's sins here and compare:
- In April 2006, Yahoo! Sports reported Trojans running back Reggie Bush and his family were provided cash and gifts -- extra benefits -- by a pair of would-be sports agents who wanted to represent Bush when he turned pro.
- ESPN’s "Outside the Lines" reported in May of 2008 that basketball player O.J. Mayo accepted cash and gifts -- extra benefits -- from Rodney Guillory, who was connected to Bill Duffy Associates Sports Management. Moreover, former Trojans basketball coach Tim Floyd was alleged to have provided a $1,000 cash payment to help steer Mayo to USC, according to a Yahoo! Sports report.
- The LA Times reported in December that running back Joe McKnight was using a 2006 Land Rover that belonged to a Santa Monica, Calif., businessman who employed McKnight's girlfriend.
- These allegations, as well as any other possible violations that might be reported, will be assessed to see if the total constitutes a "lack of institutional control" or a less severe charge of "failure to monitor" for the USC athletic department.
That list doesn't include the recent investigation into the Land Rover Joe McKnight doesn't own yet has been driving around in or the similar accusation that agents freely and with the knowledge/permission of coaches roam the halls of USC's athletic complex. Miller writes "Boosters paid players. Again, boosters paid players. That's the ultimate sin in college sports because it provides a competitive advantage. Preventing pay-for-play is the chief reason the NCAA exists." in his blasting of Alabama, and yet is curiously quiet over the fact that "pay-for-play" is clearly alive and well in LA. So what's the difference? Is it the fact that boosters were involved at Alabama while it was merely "agents" doing the dirty work in the USC case? Are the Trojans going to avoid an "Alabama Slammer" because us dumb ol' boys down hyah cheated old school while Southern Cal is on the cutting edge of pay for play? I guess we'll just have to find out tomorrow...
UPDATE: The loyal opposition over at Bruins Nation has it's own take:
Miller hilariously blasts Alabama for "old-school cheating in its purest form" while conveniently overlooking what appears to be a systematic pattern of out of control rule breaking (allegedly) that has taken place in Southern Cal in recent years. He somehow omits to mention the fact that Southern Cal also also may fall under the category of repeat offender.
They also have a more comprehensive list of infractions and links to incidents since Carroll's sudden departure and Kiffin's hiring that hint at a continuing culture of corruption at USC (did you know Rutgers is claiming tampering against the Trojans over the transfer of a basketball player? Me either!).
UPDATE II: Pete chimes in:
At the risk of another painful session of “Educate DFWTrogan”, let’s do this. From your link:
USC fans don’t want any major penalties. That’s not likely to happen.
Also from your link:
Alabama received five years’ probation, a two-year bowl ban and the loss of 21 scholarships over three years after it was found that Crimson Tide boosters paid players.
Boosters paid players. Again, boosters paid players. That’s the ultimate sin in college sports because it provides a competitive advantage. Preventing pay-for-play is the chief reason the NCAA exists.
Want to hear something funny?
…in the Albert Means case, Means never received a penny of the money alleged to have been paid, and was never supposed to. The money was changing hands between a booster and Means’ coach and there’s no evidence that Means even knew about it. Kenny Smith supposedly did, but on the order of about $20k.
Contrast the allegations against Bush, which (by some accounts) have he and his family receiving more in benefits than Means’ HS coach and Kenny Smith did combined.
Other problems with Miller’s article:
He’s comparing official documents from the NCAA in the ‘Bama case to partial leaks from the USC case and assuming that’s an apt comparison.
He takes the “staring down the barrel of a gun” comment wholly out of context. He makes it sound like it was just about the 1999 infractions, but it was more about the string of repeat-offender cases that led up to it.
He ignores the fact that pretty much every participant in the 2002 infractions case was wholly cooperative with the NCAA and, by the NCAA’s own measure, did everything they could have to prevent this.
Then you have this:
my family and I spend Christmas Eve in Alabama annually, so I know this is a sore subject among the Crimson Tide faithful
Miller is, by all accounts, one of ESPN’s PAC-10 writer, yet he has to listen to SEC fans trumpet the obvious superiority of the conference every year on vacation.
Think he might be a little biased?
UPDATE III: OTS joins in as well:
I will add, though that I do find it odd that people are seemingly so fixated on the Bush and Mayo allegations, apparently convincing themselves that those allegations constitute the entire case.
I find that ridiculous. The NCAA has conducted a thorough investigation into both the USC football and basketball programs, and that investigation has spanned several years now. We know of Bush and Mayo, of course, but they could have easily uncovered a lot of things that we have no clue about now. They operate under a veil of secrecy — which is only provided even further cover when you are dealing with a private institution exempt from FOI laws — and it’s very common to have surprises when the NCAA COI releases its ruling.
No one at Alabama was thinking of Gene Jelks during most of the Langham affair, nor did anyone mention Kenny Smith during the peak of the Albert Means rumors, and no one realized that the textbook scandal was both a football problem and that it did involve large sums of money. And we are a public institution, yet we were effectively in the dark on all of that. But guess what?
The point is that the NCAA, in the course of their investigation, could have found countless violations that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps that is not the case, of course, but it is possible, and at the very least this off-hand notion that this is just a Bush / Mayo scandal is clearly erroneous.
Update IV: OTS chimes in again:
If you want to talk about a “fresh” approach to cheating, if you believe the facts as established by the NCAA, then far from being an “old school” method of cheating the Albert Means scandal was unquestionably novel. Albert Means and his mother were (supposedly) completely unaware that any money ever changed hands or that money was ever any factor whatsoever, and furthermore the money was supposedly given to Means' high school coaches who had agreed in turn to use their influence to steer the recruit to whichever school paid out the big bucks. And it should also be mentioned that the NCAA (nor the FBI, for the matter) ever found the first dime of that money. That’s not old school, that’s newfangled.
Furthermore, as Pete mentions, trying to compare the official documents we had in the Means saga to the unverified, off-the-record leaks we have gotten in the USC case is an apples and oranges comparison. That veil of secrecy over USC only serves to further underscore the uncertainty that we have over this investigation, even down to the allegations themselves, and trying to compare the two is, more than anything else, a sign that the writer is ignorant with regard to the fundamental differences between the sources of information in the two cases.
Finally, I will also add that no one should underestimate the impact of this case moving forward with regard to how member institutions interact with the NCAA. As Pete mentioned, Alabama was as cooperative as humanly possible with the NCAA during the Means scandal, with the NCAA in fact ruling that the enforcement team at UA did everything they could have done within their power. With USC, on the other hand, they have been anything but cooperative and in reality have been nothing if not brazenly defiant. If USC skates in this case, I think that establishes with a pretty high degree of certainty which manner of interaction a rationally-acting major football power should pursue with the NCAA in years to come. If USC escapes here, most schools in a similar situation will likely find cooperation an indefensible strategy.
174 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I try to keep my cussing to a minimum around here...but seriously,
fuck this dude. and fuck this USC bullshit.
RBR's King of Hip-Hop...
by SpockJenkins on Jun 3, 2010 8:43 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely
I don’t want to see any team’s fan base have to suffer for the stupidity of a few, but at the very least this is as bad as our issue and we got hammered. Further, accusations continued AFTER the NCAA began it’s inquiry. That’s ballsy, but it’s also stupid.
I’m afraid USC will get what they deserve, frankly.
www.RollBamaRoll.com - Our logo has more championships than you
by BamaReturns07 on Jun 3, 2010 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions
nail. meet hammer.
but it should also be pointed out that while plenty of folks in Bama nation will be POed if USC gets a slap on the wrist, we won’t be particularly surprised. the decision making debacle by the NCAA in the textbook case made it abundantly clear to every Crimson Tide fan that the organization is incapable of handing down a coherent system of punishment for infractions.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
you're right that we won't be surprised if it's just a slap on the wrist...
just hella fuckin pissed…
RBR's King of Hip-Hop...
and it's also important to remember that our concerns...
are not an argument that we should not have been punished by the NCAA for the means case. even though we todd states this quite clearly i’ve already seen way too many… interested parties make this flawed argument to counter his points.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Clearly...
Clearly this non-existent distinction that Miller tries to draw is baseless. To me, as a piece, it’s barely even worth reading.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 8:44 AM CDT reply actions
ConquestChronicles are heaping praise on such an enlightening, informative, and well thought piece of literature....
you can find it in the fiction section of the internet, which with as much BS is floating around there will probably exist in the future.
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I will add, though...
… that I do find it odd that people are seemingly so fixated on the Bush and Mayo allegations, apparently convincing themselves that those allegations constitute the entire case.
I find that ridiculous. The NCAA has conducted a thorough investigation into both the USC football and basketball programs, and that investigation has spanned several years now. We know of Bush and Mayo, of course, but they could have easily uncovered a lot of things that we have no clue about now. They operate under a veil of secrecy — which is only provided even further cover when you are dealing with a private institution exempt from FOI laws — and it’s very common to have surprises when the NCAA COI releases its ruling.
No one at Alabama was thinking of Gene Jelks during most of the Langham affair, nor did anyone mention Kenny Smith during the peak of the Albert Means rumors, and no one realized that the textbook scandal was both a football problem and that it did involve large sums of money. And we are a public institution, yet we were effectively in the dark on all of that. But guess what?
The point is that the NCAA, in the course of their investigation, could have found countless violations that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps that is not the case, of course, but it is possible, and at the very least this off-hand notion that this is just a Bush / Mayo scandal is clearly erroneous.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 8:58 AM CDT reply actions
Two points on USC...
… these two come from Dan Wetzel’s column today:
Stretching over four years, the case that centers on Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo has gained such national focus and caused such entrenched positions among fans that it feels like a referendum on the NCAA itself.
“®eferendum on the NCAA itself.” I think that’s right. For better or for worse, fair or unfair, to the vast majority of people this case is really not about Reggie Bush, or O.J. Mayo, or Pete Carroll, or Tim Floyd, or anybody else associated with USC. Plain and simple, this case is about the very legitimacy of the NCAA as an enforcement organization. To most people, if USC slides, it is just the ultimate proof that — for all of its rules, regulations, and supposed enforcement activism — the NCAA is really just a paper tiger more often than not, at least when it comes to major programs.
The committee’s report is done, all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed. USC will have received it by Thursday morning at the latest. Its basic structure and conclusions were completed weeks ago. The final release was delayed, according to a source, by the sheer length of a report that’s expected to run well over a hundred pages. What normally takes the committee six-to-eight weeks to complete, took 14.
Based on that, we should definitely know something either today or tomorrow. And judging the time and the length of the report, I keep going back to what Pete wrote several weeks back. This has to be an old school bludgeoning.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 9:11 AM CDT reply actions
As a point of comparison, the public report in the Albert Means case was 37 pages. The public report in the Langham case was 20 pages.
Now, with a straight face, try to make an argument that a report almost 3x the length of the Albert Means case is going to result in a slap on the wrist for USC.
I'm wrong all the time.
Once Kiffin was hired at usc
they had to add pictures so he could understand it.
by UAinPHOENIX on Jun 3, 2010 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
Pete brings up some good points...
Pete brings up some good points.
If you want to talk about a “fresh” approach to cheating, if you believe the facts as established by the NCAA, then far from being an “old school” method of cheating the Albert Means scandal was unquestionably novel. Albert Means and his mother were (supposedly) completely unaware that any money ever changed hands, and in reality the money was supposedly given to Means high school coaches who had agreed in turn to use their influence to steer the recruit to whichever school paid out the big bucks. And it should also be mentioned that the NCAA (nor the FBI, for the matter) ever found the first dime of that money. That’s not old school, that’s newfangled.
Furthermore, as Pete mentions, trying to compare the official documents we had in the Means saga to the unverified, off-the-record leaks we have gotten in the USC case is an apples and oranges comparison. That veil of secrecy over USC only serves to further underscore the uncertainty that we have over this investigation, even down to the allegations themselves, and trying to compare the two is, more than anything else, a sign that the writer is ignorant with regard to the fundamental differences between the sources of information in the two cases.
Finally, I will also add that no one should underestimate the impact of this case moving forward with regard to how member institutions interact with the NCAA. As Pete mentioned, Alabama was as cooperative as humanly possible with the NCAA during the Means scandal, with the NCAA in fact ruling that the enforcement team at UA did everything they could have done within their power. With USC, on the other hand, they have been anything but cooperative and in reality have been nothing if not brazenly defiant. If USC skates in this case, I think that establishes with a pretty high degree of certainty which manner of interaction a rationally-acting major football power should pursue with the NCAA in years to come. If USC escapes here, most schools in a similar situation will likely find cooperation an indefensible strategy.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 10:01 AM CDT reply actions
+1
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
One of the many differences between the Crimson Tide and the trOJans
At Alabama, there is honesty. As stated in the article, “No one here will deny any of that took place.”
That does not occur in South Central. They deny everything. They never even heard of Bush. OJ Mayo? He was never seen on campus. (Probably true that he was never seen in a classroom, but that’s another story.)
The trOJies mantra is simple: Deny, obfuscate, accuse. They deny anything ever happened. But if it happened, it was nobody connected with the school. And what are you talking about, Tide, or Bruins, or anyone else who suggests they’re dirty – you do it more and worse. Their approach is to kill the messenger, and the maker of the paper the message was written on.
But what do I know? I’ve only been watching this happen for five decades. (Google Clarence Reece or Marv Goux.)
Not true...
you just don’t look hard enough.
As I noted below…Many SC fans see the issues of Ornstein as the bigger deal not Lake/Michaels. We don’t all the facts there because the most important info is sealed in non-disclosure agreements. Obviously in many peoples eyes if its sealed in an NDA then it probably is not good…but no one knows for sure.
So, yes many SC Fans want corroborated proof or facts that Lake/Michales was a problem…just like many UCLA fans say show me the proof of Sam Gilbert’s dirty dealings.
Just because Yahoo! says it does not make it so.
The Ornstein issue has USC Dead to rights…Lake/Michaels to me is icing on the cake, Mayo/Guillory is the cherry on top!
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
The difference between receiving benefits to go to a school and receiving benefits from people trying to influence your post-college career
Are such fundamentally different actions that these comparisons shouldn’t even be occurring.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
If Bama had received a slap on the wrist...
I bet USC fans would be the ones making the case for similarity. I don’t think either of us will ever be able to remove our homer glasses.
That white stuff on the top of chickencrap...... is chickencrap.
this is incorrect...
todd, ots and pete all explain that the issue at stake here is if the NCAA’s system of meting out punishment is fair, not if one school or another is more guilty than the other.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
That might be the issue at stake for Alabama fans, it certainly isn’t the issue at stake for us.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Okay, so it’s the issue at stake for the NCAA. What happens if it doesn’t appear fair to anyone not associated with USC? What’s actually going to happen to the NCAA? I’d be willing to put a shiny nickel on “nothing.”
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
and that's precisely the danger.
one school bends over backwards in openess and cooperation with the investigation and comes a hair from the death penalty. if another, which does everything possible to stonewall the inquiry gets off scott free (which may or may not happen) then the mixed signal is catastrophic for the rest of the participating institutions. where is the oversight of the association? what reason does any school have for compliance? and in an era when conferences are amassing significantly more power than the umbrella agency, that’s extremely perilous.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Or it’s the beginning of the emergence of the college football equivalent of soccer’s English Premiere League: an organization nominally within the control of the governing body (wherein the NCAA would be equivalent to the Football Association) but operating largely for its own financial benefit.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
STOP THAT!!!
don’t give me hope to be taken cruelly away once again!
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
well, yes.
if its your school in the cross hairs nobody cares more than you do. but this is something we are sympathetic about. we’ve been there. we know how horrible that feels.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
No, it's not...
No, it’s not. If that makes you sleep better at night, fine, but it’s not a meaningful distinction with regard to NCAA rules. If that distinction meant anything whatsoever, Alabama would have never been punished for the Antonio Langham Bourbon Street bar napkin contract with an agent. At the end of the day, the point remains that benefits are / were being given to student-athletes who are / were not allowed to receive them. Best of luck trying to sell that argument to the NCAA. I don’t think the NCAA could possibly care less about the future intentions of those benefits.
And furthermore, I must add that you have it wrong on insinuating an Alabama signee personally received benefits as an inducement to sign with Alabama. To the contrary, the NCAA themselves said that did not happen. According to the NCAA, the money went from Logan Young to Milton Kirk and Lynn Lang, and at no point did Albert Means or his family receive any money or even become aware that money was involved. If you’re going to make a meaningful distinction between the Means and Bush cases, it is that… Bush and his family received money; Means and his family did not. Bush and his family were living the proverbial high life in Cali, Means and his family were living the rough life in the Memphis projects. That’s the distinction, but of course that distinction does not auger well for USC.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
As an outsider
I’ve appreciated your thoughtful posts in this and in other threads. I’m posting this as an explanation, rather than an argument.
I think both the distinction that you raised and the distinction Rabbit raised are meaningful. I don’t think that USC fans believe that there’s any effect on Bush’s eligibility because the benefits came from an unaffiliated agent rather than a booster (at least, most of us don’t, there’s going to be some unique snowflakes anywhere). I think we’re only making that distinction with respect to further punishment of the USC athletics programs.
I think it’s at least a colorable argument that benefits from an unaffiliated third-party could be more difficult to monitor than benefits from an affiliated booster. On the other hand, I concede that benefits which never make it into the hands of a prospect would be more difficult to monitor than benefits which make it to the family of an enrolled student-athlete.
I don’t even think that I can decide which way to look at this situation makes the most sense, let alone argue that someone else’s view is less reasonable than mine. Couple that with the mercurial nature of the NCAA and the fact that each one of these determinations is a rare enough occurrence that the NCAA is aware that this will be viewed as a broader “statement” by the NCAA on any number of issues, and any attempt at prediction seems totally futile.
My only hunch is that if anyone’s actually happy with what happens on Friday, the NCAA probably did something wrong. Good thing I don’t need to be at work on Saturday.
I think it’s at least a colorable argument that benefits from an unaffiliated third-party could be more difficult to monitor than benefits from an affiliated booster.
In some circumstances, that would be correct, but in others it would be incorrect. That is a determination that would have to be made based on the unique set of facts and circumstances of a particular case, and would thus have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. You cannot really draw any general conclusions there.
In this particular case, it could be a tough call. If it’s just a random outsider who happens to come into contact with a particular player, then yes USC is less culpable and it is more difficult to control an independent third-party in that circumstance. On the other hand, if you have — as is my understanding — you had agents crawling your practices and football facilities for years on end, and then something like this happens, I don’t think there should be any real doubt that it was within control of the institution in question and that they should be punished accordingly for not policing the situation effectively.
In my eyes, you cannot have agents crawling the place with a team stocked full of Heisman Trophy winners and future first round draft picks and then afterward legitimately claim that there was no way you could have known about or prevented any wrongdoing. I’m willing to concede the benefit of the doubt in a close case, but at that point plausible deniability becomes an issue.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I totally agree that it's a tough case
There are any number of factors which could influence the NCAA’s decision, and I don’t know which ones they’re going to pick.
I will note that USC’s practices and football facilities were crawling with lots of people in general, and were well-known for being significantly more open than most. I would argue that other team’s practices and locker rooms are agent-less as a side effect of these locations being more closed in general, rather than any particular compliance efforts. In addition, I think that the agents in question could be charitably described as inexperienced and lesser-known, and would likely have been seen as family friends.
I’m not saying your conclusions are wrong or even unreasonable, but I think there’s still quite a bit of gray there.
To me it’s the difference between risk management and surveillance. Letting agents be around players is bad risk management. The fact that USC didn’t catch what was going on with the Bush family is a surveillance failure. You can argue as much as you like (and people have and will) whether that’s a true shortcoming in USC’s compliance staff, but it seems to be fairly straightforward an argument that they didn’t look for agents paying families after players enrolled because they aren’t representatives of the university trying to attract or retain players.
As for the broader issue of risk associated with agents about the place: if your implication is correct, and there was much more exchange of cash between agents and players, why hasn’t any evidence surfaced yet? Thus far, the only information that hasn’t leaked has been because of legal settlements between third parties. If you want to apply the “no smoke without fire” logic, I’d like to see the verifiable evidence.
I know that’s not the NCAA standard, but what I’m saying is: if you’re willing to claim it, how are you going to prove it?
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
this touches exactly upon our concern...
alabama’s situation in the means case was exactly like this in the sense there was no way the university could have known about the activities. and that’s what the ncaa specifically cited as reason for lack of institutional control. so why is it a problem in one case and not the other? (which it may or may not be. we’ll find out tomorrow)
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Good recruiting pitch, DC
“You can argue as much as you like (and people have and will) whether that’s a true shortcoming in USC’s compliance staff, but it seems to be fairly straightforward an argument that they didn’t look for agents paying families after players enrolled because they aren’t representatives of the university trying to attract or retain players.”
So Kiffin says, “Fellas, we won’t give you anything … NOW. You won’t be paid … NOW. But just wait. Once you’re in school, and we’re not trying to attract or retain you, then anything goes. You can have a house for your parents, a car, as many flat screens as you want, but they’ll all be coming from the agents who are trying to sign you, and we don’t care about that.”
That sort of recruiting sounds OK under your thesis. It doesn’t sound right, to me.
I have two answers. One is a legalistic parsing of what you said, the other is a broader point about enforcement.
On the legalistic side, if representatives, by which I mean paid employees or “boosters” were approach players and making an explicit connection between playing at SC and getting unmonitored payments from agents, then that would surely be an inducement – just because the payments weren’t coming from a traditional angle wouldn’t excuse an obvious sales pitch. So you may say, well, isn’t that what happened with Bush, to which I would answer only that there is no evidence that the university had any sort of role in deliberately making such a connection.
On the broader question of enforcement, plainly football compliance has to expand their horizons. I’m not arguing that SC should ignore shenanigans with agents. I’m suggesting that they weren’t looking for it because there’s not the same culture in high school and college football of “players’ representatives” that I understand is more prevalent among basketball players. Plainly it’s something that they have to consider. I don’t know precisely how SC could be expected to catch benefits that go to a player’s family, but if nothing else Bush showed that there’s a need to expand the horizons of what should be looked for in football compliance.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Ha!
So Kiffin says, "Fellas, we won’t give you anything … NOW. You won’t be paid … NOW. But just wait. Once you’re in school, and we’re not trying to attract or retain you, then anything goes. You can have a house for your parents, a car, as many flat screens as you want, but they’ll all be coming from the agents who are trying to sign you, and we don’t care about that."
That sort of recruiting sounds OK under your thesis. It doesn’t sound right, to me.
Says the fan of the program that hired a coach with 51 recruiting violations and an official letter of censure from the NCAA!
H-O-R-S-E!!
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Yes, Horse...
Making too many phone calls is hardly analogous to paying money to a player; but more importantly, he WAS CLEARED by the NCAA. Bama checked with them to see if it was OK to hire him. They said, “YES”.
It was pretty convenient to USC to have an open policy that included agents. How could they have known ?
Oh, that coach...
…I thought he meant Pat Dye….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 5, 2010 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Can you show me where ANYONE from USC is alleged to have paid a player let alone Reggie Bush?
WRT to football that’s not listed in any of the allegations that the press has reported (Neither are recruiting violations). We have yet to see what the NCAA is alleging because USC is a private institution they are not bound to release the NCAA’s letter/notice of infractions.
That is where the disconnect is and has always been. It is the fatal flaw in many peoples argument. Being fast and loose with access is far different than the assumption that you are implying.
Neuheisel has a letter of censure, not a show cause letter so of course he could be hired…and was by UCLA.
The USC Athletic department deemed Rodney Guillory a booster because of how he “delivered” OJ Mayo to USC. USC in turn self sanctioned the hoops program because of the evidence they found in regards to illegal benefits being given to Mayo. If that is the inference you are implying then fine but I suspect it isn’t because Mayo hasn’t really been a big part of the discussion, most everyone has focussed on Bush and football.
My focus has always been about football because thats is where most of the conversation has been directed.
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
This!
Nobody cares until it happens to them…snooping around the private lives of a players family is a non-starter for me.
If the NCAA want to protect their member organizations and honest players then simply add wording to the scholarship paperwork that states that the NCAA or Member institution can recoup the cost of said schollie if a player breaks the rules in regards to taking money and putting a program on probation.
Many won’t like it but as bad as the NCAA is in many areas even the NCAA should have some recourse to protect their product.
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
I would be all for that.
But of course, for them to enforce such a clause, they would have to have proof that would actually stand up in a court of law, not their normal “we think it, so it must be so” standard.
Perhaps 'receiving' benefits wasn't the best phrase...
It’s not a meaningful distinction with regard to NCAA rules, but it is an extremely meaningful distinction with regard to motive and intent, which is relevant to punishment.
To be crude, Bush is a grade-A scumbag who screwed this university behind everyone’s back and then left. He was ineligible, but no one associated with the university contributed to his ineligibility. Payment was delivered from people who weren’t associated with USC, didn’t care about USC, and were demonstrably hurting USC.
You’re right in that it doesn’t make Bush less guilty or ineligible. But it does make USC less culpable, and it WILL affect the punishment.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
one of the things pete has pointed out on several occasions...
is the argument that usc is not culpable misses the parallel with the alabama case… at some point it graduates from “see no evil” etc to lack of institutional control. the key point todd and ots make is that the threshold from the means case on that issue is substantially below what we know about the accusations involving usc, much less what is actually in the ncaa’s report.
again, the point here isn’t that alabama fans are against usc. honestly, having been through that with our program, we don’t wish that on any school. it’s simply too devastating to the sport as a whole. but we are greatly concerned with the consistency of the ncaa’s punishments in these cases – something we are very acutely aware of in light of the textbook debacle.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Question, Rabbit
Didn’t Bu$h work one summer? And didn’t he work for an agent? And didn’t that agent, purely by coincidence, happen to be the agent that Bu$h eventually signed with?
Maybe that’s not against any rules. It sure looks like it though. Might be just a whiff or two of impropriety.
And is it the official Trogan position that nobody in the Compliance Office or in the Athletic Department or in the Western United States knew that Bu$h was “interning” for a summer with a sports agent? Do you suppose Bu$h got minimum wage? We will probably never know, because no one in the athletic department knew anything at all.
But I’m not going to be totally negative about you trOJies. You did, very charitably, find career positions for Sgt.Schultz, Mr. Magoo and Inspector Clouseau in your compliance department. That was very good of you.
Now, at the end of rant, a real question. Does anyone at sc think there was any wrongdoing at all?
you have a good point here...
but it’s difficult to take it seriously with the dollar symbols and terrible punnage. help us out a bit, please?
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
and he is a retired atty...
go figure…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
I can respond to this.
Bush’s internship with Ornstein was approved by USC. They knew about it, and his wage was documented and was within NCAA regulations. A sports agency is a good place for a young athlete to work a summer job. I have interned for agents and managers myself.
It is not the official Trojan position that nobody know Bush was interning with a sports agent. This internship was document and approved. There is nothing inherently inappropriate about a young athlete working a summer job in one of the only fields in which he can learn about his future profession.
It is unfortunate that Ornstein took that opportunity to build a relationship with Bush that he would misuse, and it is equally unfortunate that Bush was complicit in this.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
I must have this earlier...
So what about MJD or Marcedes…they too interned with Ornstein and it was approved by UCLA…should we then assume they were on the take like Bush?
Your selective memory is amazing…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
missed this...
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
Maybe...
This could make USC less culpable, but that is far from a certainty. If the NCAA determines that USC should have known about this and should have taken proactive measures – and, from what I can tell, you can make a good case for that based on the fact that agents were apparently attending practices under Carroll, they damn well should have on both counts – then the questions of intent and motive became removed at best and likely irrelevant to the punishment at hand.
And you’re right, Bush is an unquestionable piece of shit who profited from his fame by acting with a complete disregard for any and all rules and who now couldn’t care less about the fate of his alma mater place he kinda-sorta went to school at for two and a half years. He ought to be punished very, very hard by the NCAA, no question there, regardless of what happens to USC as an institution. With that said, however, with regard to the legitimacy of the NCAA as an organization, they and the Heisman Trust can crucify him all they want, but they suffer a major backlash without hitting hard at USC directly.
In any event, I’m not going to try to be a fool and exactly what the NCAA will do. I just know from our past experience that throwing yourselves at the NCAA for mercy, hoping that they will find motivate and intent and all the rest to be mitigating factors, has not worked out well. I’m glad it’s you guys and not us, and I’ll just leave it at that.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Question...
…and pardon my ignorance, but how exactly can they punish Bush as a person? Since he’s gone, is he not out of NCAA bounds? Perhaps you were referring to something different. Curious to know.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Jun 3, 2010 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't underestimate this...
Don’t underestimate the impact the NCAA could have on Bush. They can strip all of his records, take away his national championship, and possibly arrange for his Heisman to be taken away.
And furthermore, don’t be a fool, the NCAA can hit him hard in the pocket. I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but Bush has pretty much been a bust in the NFL, and frankly his future paychecks will depend almost entirely on his name brand. And if the NCAA comes straight and alleges he was a knowing, shameless cheater who egregiously broke every amateur rule in sight, all of massive endorsement contracts will fall away and he’ll lose millions.
Again, don’t be a fool, the NCAA can hit Bush and they can hit him hard.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I uhh...wasn't trying to be a fool,
but you definitely answered my question. Thanks.
"Let's go be champions, boys!" - Greg McElroy
(Formerly SugarBowl93)
by RememberTheRoseBowl on Jun 3, 2010 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions
His National Championship?
If you are trying to credit that championship to Bush, you didn’t watch the game. SC had a guy named Matt Leinart throwing the ball that night, you may have heard of him; he won a little bronze guy too.
Banned from BN and proud of it
Doesn't matter...
…to the NCAA. They took almost a season’s worth of wins from our ‘93 team because of one player’s involvement. I’m not saying that should happen to you, or will, just that the precedent is there.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 5, 2010 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
But wouldn't Bush - as with any NCAA Football Player - be a representative of his team/school?
I’m asking, not arguing.
www.RollBamaRoll.com - Our logo has more championships than you
by BamaReturns07 on Jun 3, 2010 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not comfortable saying that they are.
Players are students, not employees. You’re giving the power to 18 year olds whose major qualifications are skills with a leather ball to do too much damage to organizations.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
I know, right? In one case players received extra benefits,
and in the other case players received…. oh wait, maybe they are the same after all.
The point is that in both cases school officials knew — or should’ve known — that players were receiving benefits. Well, except for the minor detail that Albert Means wasn’t actually receiving any benefits himself — just his HS coach was.
The problem with defending yourself by saying that it wasn’t the school or a booster providing the benefits and so the school wasn’t responsible, is that the school WAS responsible for allowing those agents access to the players. And it’s conceivable (not saying it has been proven, but that it could potentially be the case) that the school encouraged the agents to be there and used their presence as a recruiting tool. (i.e. come to USC, we have a clear pipeline to the NFL, as evidenced by all these agents swarming our locker room.) When you chum the waters, don’t act surprised that sharks appear.
And yet… the real money changed hands between the Bush family and guys who were trying to break in to being agents, as opposed to the established agents. I’m not arguing that allowing agents to be around the players wasn’t poor risk management, but again, if the shenanigans are far from campus with people you wouldn’t even know to be a risk, what exactly was the university supposed to do?
Put it another way, if the point is to argue, a la NCAA, that the university should have known in the Bush case regardless of the practical limits of surveillance, so be it. But I would like to see someone put together a surveillance program that essentially accounts for the unexpected. That would be a nice piece of industrial engineering.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
It's enough to make you want to throw up your hands, isn't it?
Welcome to Alabama’s world, circa 2001.
My hands were thrown up a long time ago. I’m just along for the ride now.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
If your ride...
…is like ours, it’s only rewarding if it ends with Nick Saban driving.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 5, 2010 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions
ok. guys I am done embarassing the BAMA Nation over at CC
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 11:30 AM CDT reply actions
if you spent an hour stabbing yourself in the foot with a rusty butterknife...
you’d get about the result.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
They are too busy Rec and +1 and slapping each other on the back in their group think to realize that the sky may actually be falling.
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
interesting...
since all i’ve seen here is well formulated arguments, thoughful responses,and enlightening debate. i guess that’s all a bit to hellenistic for their tastes.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Oh please
He posted 28 times in one thread in our forum in a span of 45 minutes, don’t tell me he was being thoughtful and enlightening.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
ok then, the ball's in your court...
…care to try and contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner?
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
I would not say posted as much as responded directly to negative comments as well as questions
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
suggestion....
how about we drop it and not let the issue derail the discussion in this thread?
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Deal
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
honestly...
who really cares?
if you fell compelled to make a big deal about their reactions why not do it in their trolling fanshot instead?
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Who said I care about their reactions?
I really don’t. I just thought it was funny that guy +1’d himself.
again...
we’ve kept the discussion here very productive thus far and we’d like to keep it that way. if you’d like to take personal jabs at the conquest chronicle posters, do it in the fanshot please.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
I think perhaps rugman11 may have missed an evolving joke in response to TheVoiceOfReason’s criticisms of posters on the Conquest Chronicles site.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
maybe...
but we’re trying to keep the discussion from veering into anarchy here.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Hence a gentle comment rather than a spiteful jab. I get that I’m in someone else’s house here.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
USC won't get it bad...
Just comparing the infractions between Alabama and then looking at USC’s…NO WAY USC gets it nearly as rough. First off, they’re USC – everyone sucks their 1inch shlong. Second, their infractions are nowhere as serious as Alabama’s were. I believe someone else made this point earlier on this post, but most of this stuff involves agents, nottt actual boosters or the coaching staff. Sure, that report seemed to be very non-detailed about the allegations against USC, but either way it shouldn’t take a genius to recognize that their is indeed a considerable difference in the severity of what Alabama did, and what USC is alleged to have done.
I hate USC, but I have to be realistic and say that I believe there’s no way on earth that USC gets anywhere near as severe a punishment that we received.
Lastly, those were probably the worst years in our programs history leading up to and after the sanctions were placed on us…and ultimately I think we benefited from it because it started the coach search and really brought to reality the fact that we were spiriling downwards and that it wasn’t just a dry period. Blah blah blah shit happened and we sucked a few years, but in the end power was restored and THE man worthy of Bryant and stallings throne was finally found. Now we’re almost back to legendary. Hopefully, USC just spirals downward because of kiffins crap coaching and the overly-abundant amount of overrated talent they have. Honestly though, with all this talent U$C recruits, why have they really done?? Win 10 games a year in a highly overrated and unchallenged conference. I’m really not impressed with them as a program. Their advantage is solely that they’re located in LA, where it’s simply a status symbol for athletes to play because it’s in the heart of stardom. Put that university in Alaska and they don’t recruit for shit. So, they’ll always be decent just because of where they are, but as long as they have a bunch of $$$ minded players who don’t take leadership roles then they’ll never peak as high as people expect.
Anyway in conclusion, I think the real penalty is them getting kiffin. The NCAA probably paid the SOB to go there and fuck shit up. SURPRISE BITCHES
It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference.
-Paul "Bear" Bryant
by bamalover on Jun 3, 2010 12:01 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
I think you may have something, bamalover
“Anyway in conclusion, I think the real penalty is them getting kiffin.”
Put that university in Alaska and they don’t recruit for shit.
You think? LMAO And if you take away Bama’s fanbase and tradition, we probably wouldn’t recruit worth shit either. So what?
Umm
“my bad” firecrotch. Does Iowa work better as an example?? That’s actually quite different, by relocating USC I’m not degrading their tradition or any of that crap. I’m simply stating that LA is all they have goin for them. You take away ANY schools traditions and history then no shit they won’t recruit well.
With saban idk if that’s necessarily true though.
Anyway, thank you captain obvious. Nowww go the fuck away
It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference.
-Paul "Bear" Bryant
by bamalover on Jun 3, 2010 9:20 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
for the most part today
the folks that have participated – both visiting usc partisans and regular RBR readers – have been courteous and willing to participate in discussion in a constructive manner. it would be nice if we can keep it going and resorting to tossing out expletives at each other ain’t exactly the hallmark of quality discourse.
i think bamalover is arguing that the location in LA area is the only plus for usc to draw recruits. this may or may not be true (i personally disagree) but cussing each other out certainly isn’t going to establish which argument has more merit.
i will point out that to argue that to “take away Bama’s fanbase and tradition” is to bolster his point. you might as well say, “except for the fact they are an immensely successful program with a long history of winning they are complete losers.”
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
and, bamalover,
the point here is to invite outside opinion. we’d actually prefer if people didn’t “go the fuck away” but, rather, we want them to stick around and provide us with their input. as long as they aren’t trolls, of course. and carrottop4 has certainly not done anything to warrant that designation.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
i apologize
i dont want to give myself a bad name, and admit i may have overreacted…but at the same time i feel like “carrottop4’s” comment was pointless and strictly to mock. i understand not everyone is going to agree with my views, but his remark in no way was insightful and i think was out of place. im mostly confused why an alleged alabama fan would even feel the need to post like that to another bama fan??? i could understand if he were a USC fan, but really? his post just doesnt make sense. thats why i was like go the eff away because it appears to me that he was just trying to kick up dust. if he doesnt agree with what i have to say then thats fine, but theres a right way and a wrong way to go about having opposing views…just as there is to telling people to go away lol. anyway, im all about giving and engaging in intellectual conversations with those who are respectful. at the same tiime im not too shy to let people know i wont take pointless crap from them. ill chill it on the curse words though, that i can agree on.
It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference.
-Paul "Bear" Bryant
basically, all we are asking...
is look beyond the tone of such posts and address the point being expressed. we are hosts here and we can look beyond the foibles of our guests long enough to entertain them. maybe they get under your skin a bit but they are not likely to be regular posters and, more importantly, they are not here to troll – that’s vastly different situation than the discourse we got last week.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Thanks, kleph.
I honestly wasn’t trying to start anything. As you say, my point was that the “move them to Alaska” argument is like saying “that girl wouldn’t be so hot if she didn’t have a beautiful face and a great rack.”
I guess bamalover’s point is “well she may be hot but she didn’t even marry a millionaire.” I wasn’t trying to disagree with that part.
Wow, ummm...
I didn’t expect that response at all. The irony here is that I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Being in the huge media capital of LA is a huge advantage, probably their primary advantage. Just as you say.
I’m just saying that they DO have an inherent recruiting advantage. And yeah, it’s obvious that if you take that advantage away then…. well, then they won’t have an advantage. But so what? They’re probably not moving to Alaska anytime soon. Just like no one is going to take away our fanbase and tradition, which IMO is the huge inherent advantage that we have.
And the fun
is just beginning..
But seriously. I argued and argued with the CC boys/ girls that a booster handing out money could be looked at as the same as an Agent paying players.. But they had none of that. They believe its two completely different issues and will not come with the same sanctions.
They are either ignorant or just plain blind…
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
Although this is all a really pointless debate because it will be settled tomorrow.
A booster handing out money is clearly not the same as an agent paying players. Of course it’s two completely different issues and I do not believe it will come with the same sanctions. I don’t think I’m being ignorant or blind.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
so, you are saying an agent paying players...
should be penalized less than a booster handing out money?
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
For the player, it's the same.
Same punishment for Bush or whatever player is complicit in such a matter. Unfortunately, Bush is gone and cannot be punished. The player is also equally ineligible and if you’re going to vacate wins, that’s the same deal.
For the school? It’s completely different. As far as proactive punishment like bowl bans, TV bans, or scholarship losses go, those punishments should be more severe if payments are coming from people associated with the university. That’s what I’m saying.
Your post seems to inquire into my thoughts on punishment for the agents/boosters themselves. That I don’t know about!
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
i simply was asking the question implicit in your prior comment.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Well then yes, absolutely.
A university booster handing out money to players is worse and should bear a greater punishment than pro agents handing out money to players.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
here's one point of difficulty in our arguments...
you are saying it’s an either/or situation… one is worthy of punishment while the other is not. we aver that both are severe infractions and should be punished appropriately.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
this is the point you are missing..
A player (doesn’t matter the reason or who it came from) was getting paid to play a sport. In this case, SC’s most high profile player (someone that your program should have had 100 eyes on) was receiving extra benefits. Just like in the Bama case, the player wasnt the one receiving anything…and we still got hammered.
LOIC is the key term. It doesn’t matter if SC knew…the NCAA (if they hold to their precedent
) will say SC should have known.
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
It doesn’t matter if SC knew…the NCAA (if they hold to their precedent
) will say SC should have known.
Bingo.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
No, Reggie Bush pays football whether or not he gets paid.
The people who paid Bush did it to ingratiate themselves with him, not so he could play football. He was getting paid to influence his post-USC career. I don’t think that’s a meaningful distinction, but it is true, and it does contradict what you said. Reggie Bush was not getting paid to play college football.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
Reggie’s friends, many of whom were recruited by USC, would have had some knowledge of him having so many perks while still at USC.
Your argument assumes that a player’s performance is not affected, even if he receives money or benefits after being recruited. While partially true, other recruits would find such a perk lucrative, giving USC an unfair advantage in recruiting.
If we extrapolate your argument, what’s to stop players from getting paid after they’ve signed with someone?
In Reggie’s case, his pay gave USC an unfair advantage, particularly in recruiting. Whether or not compensation comes before or after recruitment is a non-sequitur; it’s still an unfair advantage and should carry the same punishment.
It only gives an advantage in recruiting if people knew about it.
You assume that they did. That is an extremely bold assumption. A lot of people, other USC players, have gone on record essentially saying “I had no idea about any of this and I was one of Reggie’s best friends.”
If all the other players on the team knew that Reggie was dirty there wouldn’t have been a 5 year long investigation.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
You’ve got two timeline issues here.
The first is that Reggie Bush was the only Helix High player recruited in the last several years. In fact, the only other player from the San Diego area in the 2003 class was safety Adam Tenney. In fact, through 2008 the only other San Diego area recruit was Mozique McCurtis (haven’t updated the recruiting map in a while). So unless you’re referring to a network of peers outside his school, I don’t think that holds water.
The second is, again, the timing. Bush was gone after the 2005 season. One recruit from the San Diego area, 3 years after. Not exactly a damning statistic.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
those punishments should be more severe if payments are coming from people associated with the university. That’s what I’m saying.
Even if the school knew about the payments from the agent and was complicit in the agent being there in the first place?
so we should be given back our forfeits from 93 then...
since it was just an agreement between the agent and the player. nobody was hurt at all, really. hell, there wasn’t even any money involved.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
No.
But USC didn’t know about the payments, or so it would seem.
And complicit in the agent being where in what place? At Reggie Bush’s house? At USC? How far into USC’s campus is a man in a suit allowed to advance before not checking his ID, his occupation, and determining his intent counts as LOIC?
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
How far into USC’s campus is a man in a suit allowed to advance before not checking his ID, his occupation, and determining his intent counts as LOIC?
The locker room door would be a good starting place at least. I can’t say for sure exactly how much access agents had to the program, or how much the school had to do with it, but I’m just saying that there are situations where a school should be held accountable for an agent’s action. So saying, “we shouldn’t be held responsible because it was an agent, not a booster” isn’t a sound defense, IMO.
Damn, I have a long day in surgery and I miss all this good banter...
Lake and Michaels were not agents…
They were wannbe agents who were friends with LaMar. At the time there was no reason to suspect anything. should overall access to the locker room be curtailed? Probably, but back then there was no reason to, especially with non-booster friends of the family.
I think many are missing the bigger issue in focusing on Lake and Michaels…they are NOT what SC will be hit WRT sanctions…Mike Ornstein is where SC will get hit. It was mentioned above about the school approving Bush to work with Ornstein. That’s true and both USC and UCLA players interned for Ornstein…but where the problems came up are when Ornstein admitted to giving Reggie’s dad a loan.
From Ornstein’s own mouth…
“And I haven’t really given them anything since I signed Reggie,” Ornstein said. "Reggie’s been taking care of his family. On a couple of occasions, Reggie’s (step)father borrowed money and he paid me back afterwards.’’
The card establishes a direct link between Bush’s family and Ornstein’s office while Bush was still at USC, but Ornstein insisted it was merely a matter of helping the family. “If the dad asked, then maybe (Jamie helped),” he said. “The (family) went on other trips. I’m sure the father – if it was anything that needed a credit card to guarantee the hotel and everything – then I’m sure Jamie will have documentation and cash receipts from the father. I guarantee it.”
Asked whether he was aware that such loans could constitute an NCAA violation, Ornstein replied: “I have no idea.”
You get the point…
It was the media that made a big deal out of New Era sports and not the real issue Ornstein. Ornstein is enough to bury them in my eyes and I have said so repeatedly.
Trying to keep tabs on what a family of a player does 150 miles away is nuts…not only logistically but in terms of privacy.
USC officially sanctioned players to work with a convicted felon…what the hell were they thinking.
Full disclosure…one of the players who worked for Ornstein was Marcedes Lewis, his step dad is my cousin and in my numerous discussions with him WRT his in depth knowledge of both programs, Ornstein never made these type of advances to Marcedes. It is clear to me he was gunning for Bush for the big payday…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
And this is the most damning thing I've heard past the Mayo stuff.
USC officially sanctioned players to work with a convicted felon…what the hell were they thinking.
That just stinks of LOIC without even the other stuff.
Disclaimer; this statement was just generalized and doesn’t constitute a knowledgeable opinion, but a observation from the upper deck.
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on Jun 5, 2010 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions
resorting to a slippery slope example
doesn’t bolster your point. but if we assume the school did not know, then the door is very open to the LOIC and the NCAA has shown they have no qualms walking through it. denying the possibility is simply not facing the facts.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
It's not a slippery slope argument
My point is legitimate—that keeping an agent away from a player when you really think about the logistics is a herculean task.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
and using that as reasoning...
to absolve the university of responsibility is clearly a fallacious position to hold. the means case demonstrates this clearly.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
The entire premise of the Alabama argument is,
We got f***ed, therefore justice is everyone else should be f***ed equally. Your past NCAA cases don’t function like legal opinions.
If you believe the penalties you have received were unjust, maybe you should wish for true justice in the future instead of demanding injustice for everyone else.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
wrong.
that is a gross misrepresentation of our position. read todd’s post again. we got caught. we got punished. no questions.
if usc gets off with a slap on the wrist the concern isn’t that we should be vindicated for being punished – it’s what is the basis of regulation by the association?
the implications of that both pete and ots have elucidated quite well in their follow up posts.
as long as you keep insisting we are “against” usc, you simply will not understand the argument we are making.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
BTW, our first ever probation (1993)
was brought on by a drunk player signing a cocktail napkin on Bourbon Street at 2 AM after the Sugar Bowl. Try to control THAT.
Refresh my faulty memory
Did Bama not receive some kind of penalty for the Gene Jelks situation of accepting a loan after he left the University? My memory is somewhat foggy in this regard, but I seem to remember some kind of action from the NCAA in dealing with Bama because of Gene’s actions (unintended, as I recall, as to reflect on the University)?
Have a Crimson Tide Day!
Roll Tide, Saban Tsunami Roll!
Someone else would have to answer that.
I don’t remember the details of the Jelks deal. But that wasn’t what started the investigation.
You're right about that.
I was referring to that it was possibly Bama’s first probation and I just seem to recall that the Jelks situation caused some intervention by the NCAA. I could not recall what the results were, but I know it caused a lot of discomfort and disappointment amongst the faithful. Mainly in that it concerned a loan he receieved after he had completed his time at Bama. Which I thought was totally wrong for the NCAA to be involved in that at the time. I understand now why they would though. Thanks for the reply though.
Have a Crimson Tide Day!
Roll Tide, Saban Tsunami Roll!
The Jelks situation...
…was factored into our ‘sentence’ originally, but later rescinded….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 5, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe I am just simple-minded...
But I think any player (being a member of the institution) that knowingly receives illegal benefits, regardless of who they are from, implicates the institution in noncompliance. He is in control of what he receives. And if he sees his parents recieving benefits and nips it in the bud, then we are not having any discussion here.
And say what you will, Bush was getting payed to play ball whether it was a booster or not.
That white stuff on the top of chickencrap...... is chickencrap.
The agents who handed over the bulk of the money weren’t established enough to be in the locker room.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
the agent that signed antonio langham wasn't
“in the locker room” or even exchanging cash.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
The line of criticism that I am responding to is that USC allowed agents to be around players, ergo it was inevitable that there would be some sort of shenanigans. My response to that is that Bush remains the only documented case of money changing hands in the football program, and that the source of money were people who wouldn’t have been excluded had USC not allowed agents around.
Does that mean that SC can’t be held accountable? No, because who can fathom the mind of the NCAA. But there are recurring inaccuracies in posts in this thread, and to the extent that they influence people’s conclusions, I want to address them.
This is not to assume that people will draw the same conclusions that I will, based on the information to hand: we all have our biases. But while SC folks can be criticized for being optimistic, credit us with actually having paid some attention to the information as it has been revealed.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
No, but boosters do have ties to a program
their specific role is to support the program.
Agents are out to make a buck and if they can sway a player away from a program it helps them and hurts the program. Best example I can give in recent memory is former USC WR Mike Williams. Agents don’t care about the program, they only see it as a means to an end. That doesn’t remove culpability of the university but should the university watch every member of a players family, no matter how far away, to ensure no illicit contact takes place?
There is a law on the books in CA that has specific punishments for agents tampering with amateur players…sadly it is hardly enforced.
The Bush/New Era issue on its own could be defended…but when you throw in Ornstein and then Hoops it is going to be tough for USC to weather that storm.
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
just to make a quick observation
in terms of boosters you seem to be thinking of the good-ole-boy, big-pockets kind of guy who can yuck it up on the sidelines and the training room because of his pull. fact is, under NCAA regulations a season ticket holder is technically a booster. you have to remember that the decision that will come will be made using that kind of technical definition, not the gross stereotype.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
agreed, ticket holders are considered boosters but I think you know what I mean...
I am not comfortable with your good ole’ boy stereotype but I think we can both agree that the average season ticket holder is much different than the big money donor.
I can’t think of any NCAA case that involved the punishment of a program because of the dirty dealings of your average Joe fan who has season tickets. It is the big money donors (boosters) who have been the root of many of the big cases.
Thats what I mean by booster…
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
A booster handing out money is clearly not the same as an agent paying players. Of course it’s two completely different issues and I do not believe it will come with the same sanctions.
To a degree, it is two different issues, but the impact resulting from the difference will depend on the unique set of circumstances of the particular case, as I posted above. In some contexts the punishment for an agent could be worse than a booster, and vice-versa.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions
Coach floyd is not an agent there Thumper!
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions
I invite you to explain yourself with the support of facts.
I’ll wait.
MAGNIFICENT GRAND CHAMPION CC NCAA BRACKET 2010
And once again...
… I will reiterate that what will be interesting and what really may drive the entire punishment in this case will be the things that we do not currently know. A few particularly probing questions will include:
- Was Reggie Bush given money / extra benefits to sign with USC, or given money / extra benefits in any other capacity?
- Did any other USC football player get the same type of benefits from agents / marketing groups?
- What kind of car did Reggie Bush drive, and when did he get it? How was it paid for?
- What kind of housing did Reggie Bush live in, and how was it paid for?
- What was the vehicle and housing situation of other USC athletes?
- What level of access did agents and marketing groups have to USC players?
- When, if ever, did Pete Carroll and company suspect anything was going on?
- When, if ever, did the USC enforcement staff suspect anything sinister?
- What level of preventive measures were in place at USC to try to stop something like this from happening?
Again, all of these things will play a huge outcome in the case, and frankly we have almost no idea whatsoever about any of them.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 1:15 PM CDT reply actions
The Trogan Argument:
The Trogans base their argument that they won’t be hammered as Alabama was because:
1. Reg was paid by an agent after he was already at USC. Alabama players/high school coaches were paid to direct the students to UA. These are two different rules (Alabama violated section 16.11.2 of the current NCAA handbook while USC violated section 12.3 (and yes, these sections are from the current handbook, though I believe similar wording was in the past handbooks for both Alabama and USC).
2. Since agents provide no competitive advantage, the punishments will not be as severe.
The entire argument of the Trogs is that there is a substantive difference between agents and boosters. They are correct – people are motivated when they are offered a lot of money to do something right then.
But I challenge their view that agents provide no athletic benefit. Bush wasn’t exactly quiet about being able to have an agent. Having an agent at this stage in his career provided an advantage that other players were not granted. It was also clear that Bush flaunted this ability to his friends – friends that were affected by recruiting.
Providing an advantage that is not available to other teams DOES INDEED provide athletic advantages, particularly in recruiting, to the team offering these advantages. Knowing that you can get an agent early at USC and knowing that you can get direct compensation at Alabama is indeed the same – providing incentives for recruitment.
If the NCAA is consistent, the trojans will break under the force of the NCAA’s hammering!
I love the silly season...
But, honestly, the USC crowd reminds me of little kids pulling blankets over theirhead, with the belief that if you can’t see the danger, then the danger can’t find you.
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 3, 2010 1:33 PM CDT reply actions
disagree...
there are plenty of us that are not thinking that but we aren’t going to walk around blind without a cane either. I would like to see just what the NCAA has before worrying about the punishment.
As has been well documented here on RBR the NCAA does NOT act with any consistency and because of that there is always a chance of less severe punishment in the face of wrong doing.
So, until there is an actual report I will hold out hope that we can get by with a manageable penalty…
If not so be it. My family will still love me, the sun will still rise in the east and I will always love USC…nothing will change that!
"Mention USC to a Bruin and they get angry; mention UCLA to a Trojan and they laugh."
And now a message from the the self proclaimed Black Sheep of RBR...
I know this is going to come off 100% like a homer but I’ve neverseen another sports blog with this kind of well thought and insightful contributions. I find myself amazed that the process has infiltrated this blog just as abundantly as it has the athletics department. Keep up the good work guys! Heres to hoping I can still sign on here under this name for another month!
"Sympathy has expired Longhorns" WallaceWade04
by The Voice of Reason on Jun 3, 2010 1:58 PM CDT reply actions
And one more thing...
… we have had a lot of talk in the comments about how this is a “tough” case. Well, maybe. But then again, maybe not.
Based on the thorough NCAA investigation, the following scenario is entirely plausible: Reggie Bush and family were given hundreds of thousands in benefits. Bush lived in opulent housing at USC and drive a high-end luxury vehicle. Other USC players in both basketball and football had the same setup. Other players allegedly received money from agents and marketers. A culture of non-compliance permeated the USC program, and thus you could get lack of institutional control, and throw in repeat offender as well.
In that instance, this is one damn easy case, and USC gets nailed. On the other hand, the facts could be reversed and it could truly be a tough case. Again, there is just so much we do not know.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 3, 2010 2:00 PM CDT reply actions
you touch on something here that is getting overshadowed by the homerism (on both sides)
and that’s that since we don’t know, the assumptions of if or if not the NCAA’s actions will be proper are premature. but the gravity of what’s at stake – not just for usc – but for all the institutions that belong to the association are immense. it’s not just if the trojans get hit or not, it’s how the ruling will influence future investigations and the handling of infractions.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Booster by NCAA def.
Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families
Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes
Auburn fans are like slinkys... not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
I've stayed out of this
discussion because I just get mad thinking about what might happen Friday. All anyone wants is for the NCAA to be fair. I think to say that what Means got (well he got nothing) and what Bush got (well he knew what he was getting—$$!) are different and thus USC should not get punished in a like manner is crazy. The main thing is Lack of Institutional Control and how can USC argue they had control and Bama did not.
If USC gets off easy what they are really saying is..don’t be stupid like Bama and confess your sins…pretend like nothing happened, what happened was not relevant, it is all news to you, and it is not your fault.
Will see how this approach works out. We know how the confession approach works.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
All anyone wants is for the NCAA to be fair.
if this is actually the case. then i can say with complete confidence everyone is going to be disappointed.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
Hell, that’s the cornerstone of the American legal system!
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
looks like we'll have to wait a bit longer for the official word...
As of Thursday afternoon, Southern California was still waiting to hear from the NCAA on when an infractions committee decision will be announced, meaning almost certainly nothing will happen this week.
The NCAA typically notifies schools 48 hours in advance of an infractions announcement and then delivers the committee report 24 hours ahead of time, according to NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn. She would not speak directly to the USC case.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
This is F’ing rediculous!
What the FRICK is taking so long!
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
they are trying to be thorough, fair and completely transpar...
i’m sorry. i can’t even type it with a straight face.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
This may have been covered but...
…I know they proved some ties with the Means and Cottrell issues(granted both of those should never have happened but it wasn’t money to players). I do not recall them proving anything with the Kenny Smith or Travis Carroll accusations. The guy in Scottsboro that was accused of the Smith thing won a slander(or libel) case against the NCAA. He wasn’t even a booster. BTW, fuck the NCAA, hope they screw this up so bad they get shut down somehow.
Auburn and Tennessee fans are a lot like Slinkys...neither are worth much but you do get a sense of satisfaction from pushing them down a flight of stairs
I'll vote for that.
And as was mentioned earlier if we go to 4 super conferences maybe they just ditch the NCAA.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
Aren't we making the wrong comparison
To Bama? Everyone keeps comparing the Bush situation to the Means case because of the money. But isn’t the more appropriate comparison to the Langham situation? If the NCAA says it’s against the rules for a student athlete to simply sign a contract with an agent (assuming arguendo that no money exchanges hands), how is it not more wrong for a student athlete to accept money to sign with an agent?
by rolltidered on Jun 3, 2010 8:20 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
because the question is the culpability of the university
for actions it has no direct information about.
OTS knows this better than i do but its my understanding that langham informed the coaches about his deal with the agent and they didn’t do anything about it. so the question of responsibility was pretty clear cut and the games were forfeited. means was completely different as the coaches and representatives of the university weren’t in the know on the details of what transpired between the boosters and the high school coaches. which is roughly similar to the “defense” usc folks are floating as for why the school doesn’t deserve punishment for the bush situation.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
although...
3rd Saturday in Blogtober respectfully disagrees with my assessment.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
One thing USC has going for it that we didn't
The NCAA doesn’t appear to be working closely with Rick Neuheisel and UCLA boosters in this investigation
Rick Neuheisel is smart enough to keep his trap shut on this subject.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
I would hope so. LOL
Just in case you don’t remember the details of our case though, the parallel he’s referring to is how Phil Fulmer helped the NCAA dig up dirt on us. And not just passively passing on information, he actively investigated on his own. And in my opinion, that man is as dirty as they come. No way he was running a clean program.
/ducks and waits for Volunteer trolls
I figured as much. Fulmer never did get caught up to anything though, did he?
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
According to the NCAA? No.
They proved (actually the newspapers proved) that Tee Martin was being paid by the wife of a UT season ticket holder the year they won the NC. But the NCAA said she was a family friend. And then there was the professor that they fired because she said the athletes weren’t doing their own work, but the NCAA generally says it’s not concerned about academic integrity questions.
USC has don damage control
USC has paid the NCAA $600,000.00 back from basketball revenue from the 2 years of O.J. Mayo, and NCAA tournament cash during his two years, they have also paid $4 million in football revenue back from the year in question with Reggie Bush. This damage control, plus the fact that proving what was going on in San Diego is very hard to prove, Its like Bama coaches knowing that a players parents in Mobile has a new house. They are having problems agreeing on sanctions,my take on whats taking so long. USC has already self imposed sanctions on BB schlorships, paid $4.6 million to NCAA for selfimposed sanctions, most likely, sanctions will be retroactive, taking away wins, championship, and a few scholorships per year for a few years, no bowl bans, Lane Kiffin isstill recruiting like crazy, 11 ESPN top 150 already. So you guys need to focus on SEC issues. You are National Champs, pre-season no. 1, why do you even care. WE dont play “yall”. LOL
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
