Multiple sources say USC loses appeal

[ponyte]

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?

1. See above comment "Not saying it’s fair, just these are the rules governing the NCAA." It is only logical in the NCAA world. And they make the rules and handle the punishment.

2. The NCAA is a private organization. Thus, its records are not available to the general public. One suspects there are significant confidentiality clauses in all NCAA's contracts. The NCAA didn’t release SMU’s full documentation, just the final report. Unless the NCAA validates these 'leaked' documents, there is no way to know if they are accurate. And one doesn't care if it is a news media, blogger or Deputy Barney Fife that proclaims its real. Only the NCAA knows if it is real. For this beholder, a higher standard of authenticity is needed.

3. The problem wasn't that the coach had a phone conversation with the agent A. The problem was he didn't report it! That was the violation. (page 23...again: "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." The problem wasn't what day or time the conversation happened, the problem was the coach didn't report a possible violation (and then lied using the Sgt Schultz ploy). He signed a document saying he was unaware of any violation. The issue isn’t the date, it is the information he had and failed to report.

[HB Pony Dad]

SI has a good read here

Interesting analogy...

USC officials argued that their program faced the most severe penalties handed down by the NCAA since SMU's football program received the Death Penalty in 1987.