Multiple sources say USC loses appeal

[Stallion]

a school is liable for sanctions for the actions of any of its Coaches. Now there is a larger issue that a school is not likely to get death penalty sanctions unless there is broader lack of institutional control. But one cheating Coach is sufficient for sanctions.

[NickSMU17]

OSU is towing the line...

[Mexmustang]

Until the entire SEC is put on probation (sans Vandy) the NCAA is not doing their job.

[ponyte]

USC cheated and knew about it.

Did you read the report? When does the (questionable) knowledge of one RB coach equal the entire university?

From the NCAA's June 10, 2010 report, page 23:

"b. At least by January 8, 2006, the assistant football coach had knowledge that student-athlete 1 and agency partners A and B likely were engaged in NCAA violations. At 1:34 a.m. he had a telephone conversation for two minutes and 23 seconds with agency partner A during which agency partner A attempted to get the assistant football coach to convince student-athlete 1 either to adhere to the agency agreement or reimburse agency partners A and B for money provided to student-athlete 1 and his family. Further, during his September 19, 2006, and February 15, 2008, interviews with the enforcement staff, the assistant football coach violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation by providing false and misleading information regarding his knowledge of this telephone call and the NCAA violations associated with it. The assistant football coach failed to alert the institution's compliance staff of this information and later attested falsely, through his signature on a certifying statement, that he had no knowledge of NCAA violations."

As to the false and misleading statements, further in the report, page 24:

"In the Notice of Allegations, the assistant football coach was alleged to have engaged in violations relating to knowledge of the relationship between student-athlete 1, agency partners A and B, and their attempt to establish a sports agency. It was alleged in particular that the assistant football coach initially met agency partner A at the March 5, 2005, San Diego birthday party of a former NFL player [See Findings 1-a-(5) and 1-a-(6)] and, at that time, became aware of agency partner A's activities, some of which included his provision of impermissible benefits to student-athlete 1."

And from page 24:

"The committee finds ample reason in the record to question the credibility of the assistant football coach. For example, he provided various explanations as to what he did, and with whom, in San Diego during the March 2005 birthday party. In his last explanation, he said he was accompanied on that weekend by a female associate ("the associate").

The assistant football coach later offered the associate as a witness who could corroborate his version of what happened during the 2005 birthday party weekend.

When interviewed by the enforcement staff, the associate claimed she accompanied the assistant football coach to the birthday party and that the assistant football coach neither saw nor spoke to agency partner A at the March 2005 party.]2"

So the Assistant coach had a witness. But note the postscript 2.

"The assistant football claimed that, after the party, he stayed at the San Diego home of a former NFL teammate. That teammate was interviewed by the enforcement staff and said that he was not aware that the assistant football coach was going to attend the party, but he "ran into" the assistant coach at the function. He confirmed that he drove the assistant coach to his home after the party. In this interview, the teammate did not mention the associate being with the assistant football coach. "

Kinda odd the assistant coach went to SD and with a female companion but chose to spend the night with another male. One might consider it ‘questionable’. Continued:

"The teammate was interviewed a second time by the institution and the attorney for the assistant football coach. In the second interview, the teammate said that he arranged for the assistant coach to obtain tickets to the party and that the assistant coach was accompanied by the associate. [Note: Admission to the party was by pre-paid tickets only.]"

And later innthe report, page 25:

"Another reason to question the assistant football coach's credibility in denying that he knew agency partner A is the fact that the two shared a close relationship with a mutual friend ("mutual friend"), a comedian and actor who has appeared in various roles in television and motion pictures. Agency partner A grew up with the mutual friend in San Diego. The record in the case included a photograph of the assistant football coach together with agency partners A and B and the mutual friend. The assistant football coach stated that the only individual in the photo he knew was the mutual friend, and that it was not uncommon for "passersby" to pose for photographs with celebrities such as the mutual friend. Given the relationship, the committee finds it unlikely that the assistant football coach would have posed in a photograph, which included agency partner A and the mutual friend and not, at a minimum, have been introduced to him (agency partner A) by the mutual friend. The photograph was taken with agency partner B's telephone."

Contiuned on page 25:

Yet another example of the assistant football coach's lack of credibility was his statement regarding the events on October 29, 2005, the night that a highly recruited prospect ("the top prospect") was on his official visit to the institution. Student-athlete 1 was serving as the top prospect's host during the official visit. The assistant football coach made three phone calls to agency partner A's telephone between 11:39 p.m. and 11:56 p.m. that the assistant football coach said were intended for student-athlete 1 and were made so that he (the assistant football coach) could confirm that student-athlete 1 made contact with the top prospect. The assistant football coach said that he went to a club looking for student-athlete 1 and the top prospect. He claimed that he did not see them in the club, even though the phone calls stopped at that point. The committee believes the explanation provided by agency partner A: that he (agency partner A) was with student-athlete 1 that night, that the assistant football coach knew they were together, that he phoned agency partner A to locate student-athlete 1 and that the assistant football coach eventually met agency partner A, student-athlete 1 and the top prospect at the club. The committee found it noteworthy that the photograph referenced earlier was taken on October 29, 2005. In fact, the institution's response stated, "USC agrees that it is substantially correct that (agency partner A), (agency partner B), (student-athlete 1) and (the assistant football coach) were in the same location on the night of October 29, 2005."

WOW, the questionable coach called the agent to find his lose player. Gee, guess he really didn't know the agent.

So stories change quite a bit. Bottom line is the NCAA felt the coach was lying. One can debate 'questionable' but 'probable' seems more appropriate in this case.

One can reasonable argue that the assistant coach, as an agent of the university, had the obligation to inform the university. It is the university's responsibility to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are in place, and its agents informed and knowledgeable of policies and procedures, to ensure adequate institutional control. The Sgt. Schultz's "I know nothing" argument was not accepted by the NCAA in this case. A lack of institutional control (specifically the assistant has the obligation under NCAA rules to report suspected violations) was determined to have accrued.

And yes, I did read the long boring thing back in June.

Link to full report:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/d28 ... a6e282e000

[Stallion]

The Sargeant Schultz type defense of NCAA violations may have worked in the early 1980s-the entire enforcement strategy of the NCAA was changed by the Lack of Institutional Control model. Violations have to be reported and a university has to monitor. If you do that-you aren't going to get nailed by the NCAA. If you pull a Sargeant Schultz then sanctions will and should be harsh.

[HB Pony Dad]

Yikes!

Let's bash the "other' private Methodists as well...

The findings in this case include a lack of institutional control, impermissible inducements, extra benefits and exceeding coaching staff limits.
Explaining USC’s postseason ban and scholarship reductions

The Infractions Appeals Committee’s decision to uphold the penalties for the University of Southern California means the penalties are now in effect. The appealed penalties are placed on hold until the appeals process is completed. The penalties appealed by the university include a reduction in football scholarships for three years and the second year of the postseason ban.

In this case, USC requested they be able to immediately enact the first year of the postseason ban during the appeals process. The appeals committee granted this request and the first year of the postseason ban was applied to the 2010 season. The remaining year will be applied to the upcoming 2011 season.

The reduction in football scholarships will begin with the 2012-13 academic year. USC will be able to offer 15 initial scholarships (instead of the maximum of 25) and 75 total scholarships (instead of the maximum of 85) for each of the next three academic years. This reduction will not impact those student-athletes who have already signed for the 2011-12 academic year.

The penalties include four years probation; a two-year football postseason ban; a one-year basketball postseason ban; vacation of regular and postseason wins for all three involved sports (football, basketball and women’s tennis); scholarship reductions for football and basketball; and recruiting restrictions for men's basketball. They also include a $5,000 financial penalty; forfeiture of revenue from the 2008 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship; and limitations for the access granted to boosters and non-university personnel to team charters, sidelines, practices, locker rooms and camps for men's basketball and football. The university also must disassociate itself from three boosters, including the former football and men's basketball student-athletes involved in this case. As a part of this disassociation, the university will not be able to accept financial contributions or other assistance for the athletics department from these individuals, and is prohibited from providing these individuals with any benefits or privileges.

The rest of the NCAA statement here

[HB Pony Dad]

USC ‘vehemently’ disagrees with NCAA ruling

“We respectfully, but vehemently, disagree with the findings of the NCAA’s Infractions Appeals Committee. Our position was that the Committee on Infractions abused its discretion and imposed penalties last June that were excessive and inconsistent with established case precedent.”

[RGV Pony]

USC ‘vehemently’ disagrees with NCAA ruling

“We respectfully, but vehemently, disagree with the findings of the NCAA’s Infractions Appeals Committee. Our position was that the Committee on Infractions abused its discretion and imposed penalties last June that were excessive and inconsistent with established case precedent.”

you left out the part where they said they feel like they run, basically, an honest program and had some shoddy bookkeeping issues that they got cleared up

[HB Pony Dad]

you left out the part where they said they feel like they run, basically, an honest program and had some shoddy bookkeeping issues that they got cleared up

Paraphrasing Coach Bobby Collins.

Yes we're guilty of somethings but not very much.

[CA Mustang]

Kinda odd the assistant coach went to SD and with a female companion but chose to spend the night with another male. One might consider it ‘questionable’.

Is that a cheap shot?

So stories change quite a bit. Bottom line is the NCAA felt the coach was lying. One can debate 'questionable' but 'probable' seems more appropriate in this case.

Agreed, but I should have been clearer on my original point. By "questionable", I was referring to 1) The accuracy and completeness of the RB's coaches statements and 2) the university's role. The investigation included some significant errors (http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/doc-leak- ... -usc-28591)

Situation #1) The NCAA claims that a phone call from sports marketing agent Lloyd Lake, who was involved in providing Reggie Bush improper benefits, was received by the phone of USC assistant football coach Todd McNair at 1:34 a.m on Jan. 8, 2006.

Based on phone records of that call, the NCAA said the USC coach “misled the enforcement staff and failed to inform USC compliance that he’d been told of the intent to funnel illegal benefits to Bush.”

All indications are that that call is what the NCAA regards as the most damning piece of evidence against USC in the entire NCAA Infractions Report.

But newly-revealed transcripts of NCAA-led interviews with McNair and Lake about the call from the USCFootball.com report show serious errors by NCAA investigators.

When McNair was asked by an NCAA investigator about the call, he was told the call was made on Jan. 8, 2005. Phone records showed the call was made on Jan. 8, 2006.

For that reason, McNair denied he’d received the call on that date. Astonishly, the question was never corrected and the NCAA never followed up with McNair. To this day McNair has not had a chance to defend himself about the phone call in question.

When the NCAA enforcement staff interviewed Lake about the same call, twice an NCAA official mistakenly stated in the question to Lake that the call in question came from McNair. Phone records showed the call was made by Lake.

Situation #2) In its investigation, the NCAA attempted to prove a connection between sports marketer Mike Ornstein, who reportedly provided improper benefits to Bush, and USC coach Pete Carroll.

On page 30 of the public NCAA Infractions Report, the NCAA cited testimony from an unnamed sports agent as evidence that Carroll had facilitated a connection between Bush and Ornstein.

Ornstein is “sports marketer A” and Carroll is the “former head coach”:

There was information in the record that the former head football coach encouraged sports marketer A to hire student-athletes as interns. A current NFLPA certified agent (”sports agent B”) is the chairman of a sports agency and a colleague of sports marketer A. He reported that the former head football coach asked sports marketer A to consider hiring football student-athletes as interns in his agency. Sports agent B reported:

(Sports marketer A) was like, `yeah, here’s (the former head football coach) and the year before, he, he’s tryin’ to get me to hire, you know, three players, you know.’

…How many players, I don’t even know, maybe he tried to get him to hire ten….but it was totally agreed upon between (the former head football coach) and (sports marketer A) that there was an internship program for that summer. That’s all I do know.

At the hearing, the former head coach denied that he asked sports marketer A to hire football student-athletes as interns, although he acknowledged that he knew sports marketer A and that he (sports marketer A) had “something about his past the years before that had gone wrong . . . (and) it was related to the NFL.” [Note: At the hearing the institution’s general counsel reported that, in 1995, sports marketer A had “pleaded guilty to mail fraud for defrauding the NFL.”]

So a third party claim by an anonymous sports agent - who for all we know is in competiton with Ornstein for clients - is the basis for directly connecting Carroll to Ornstein?

(The site linked above contains more details)

Additionally, broad statements in the media and by commenters make it appear the entire university leadership (from the school president down through the AD and coaching staff) were fully involved in dealing with the agents/marketing reps/etc. Characterizations such as that are inaccurate.

One can reasonable argue that the assistant coach, as an agent of the university, had the obligation to inform the university. It is the university's responsibility to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are in place, and its agents informed and knowledgeable of policies and procedures, to ensure adequate institutional control.

I agree on both parts. However when does the institution's liability begin? When the employee lies? When the employee covers up the lie? Or when the institution discovers the lie? Obviously, there can be a long period of time between each of those three events.

[ponyte]

From the NCAA Constittuion:
"2.1 THE PRINCIPLE OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY [*]
2.1.1 Responsibility for Control. [*] It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate
athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution’s president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures. (Revised: 3/8/06)
2.1.2 Scope of Responsibility. [*] The institution’s responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.
2.8 THE PRINCIPLE OF RULES COMPLIANCE [*]
2.8.1 Responsibility of Institution. [*] Each institution shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs. It shall monitor its programs to assure compliance and to identify and report to the Association instances in which compliance has not been achieved. In any such instance, the institution shall cooperate fully with the Association and shall take appropriate corrective actions. Members of an institution’s staff, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing the institution’s athletics interests shall comply with the applicable Association rules, and the member institution shall be responsible for such compliance.
6.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLE
6.01.1 Institutional Control. The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control."

Of course a lawyer would be better able to interpret these rules, but I interrupt them to mean the University is responsible at all times for its action. And an outside agent that provides benefit to a student athlete is considered an agent of the university by NCAA rules.

Not saying it’s fair, just these are the rules governing the NCAA.

The original post had to do with an assistant coach and a couple of "Agent partners A and B". The link above seems to take some liberties with the report. The link claims thaere was a missed date in the call between the coach and agent. The report actually states "At least by", not a specific date or call. The call is mentioned as one of several examples where the coach's testimaony was subject to consideratble doubt.

I don't see anything to dispute the NCAAs findings concerning the assistant coach lying about his knowledge of the players relatinship with the sports agent.

Also, I have no idea if the transcripts 'leaked' are authentic. One might consider a USC fan blog (original source, Dan Weber and Bryan Fischer of USC Rivals site USCFootball.com ) to be a biased source. Others would discount it altogether as beyond bias and bordering propaganda. Perhaps the NCAA will validate the leaked documents in the future and clarify whether this is a trusted source or not.

For the record, I hold the NCAA and all it does in complete and utter contempt and in no way am I defending the NCAA. Based on the NCAA’s contemptible rules and the evidence found, USC received an appropriate penalty. Tangential arguments about alleged investigative mistakes are not an adequate excuse to allow an institution, clearly violating the rules, to get off scot free or with an inappropriately light penalty.

And yes, I am aware that the NCAA routinely finds a way to hand out serious wrist slaps to certain organization while crucifying others for lesser infraction.

[The PonyGrad]

(A Few Good Men)
USC: ""I strenuously object?" Is that how it's done? Hm? "Objection, your Honor!" "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh! You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider.""

[CA Mustang]

Of course a lawyer would be better able to interpret these rules, but I interrupt them to mean the University is responsible at all times for its action. And an outside agent that provides benefit to a student athlete is considered an agent of the university by NCAA rules.

So as soon as any individual gives a student-athlete anything of value, they immediately become an agent of the university? In what world is that logical?

Also, I have no idea if the transcripts 'leaked' are authentic. One might consider a USC fan blog (original source, Dan Weber and Bryan Fischer of USC Rivals site USCFootball.com ) to be a biased source. Others would discount it altogether as beyond bias and bordering propaganda.

Understandable, but what would be considered an objective source? A local newspaper? A local law enforcement agency? An investigative arm of a national media group? Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.

Tangential arguments about alleged investigative mistakes are not an adequate excuse to allow an institution...

Sorry, but I don't see factual errors in the most crucial segment of an investigation as "tangential". If they are sloppy with basic facts, why should I automatically believe the rest of the investigation?

[mrydel]

Multiple sources often tell me I have lost my appeal.

[EastStang]

Like the reformed hooker who believes everyone should be chaste, USC got off lightly. Heck, their sins were almost as culpable as ours and we got disqualified for a year plus no home games in year 2. No, the Governor of CA was not involved, he was too busy frolicking with the maid. (It never ceases to amaze me how these rich powerful men seem drawn to chubbies, but I digress). Anyway, my view is that every BCS team caught cheating should get disqualified for a year from play. Then perhaps they might consider playing by the rules. "Student athletes is that what you call your slaves" - Eric Cartman 2011.