PonyFans.com

I don't pretend to know all the players in the USC Reggie Bush scandal but these documents based on a cursory review appear to establish most, if not all of these illegal inducements under NCAA rules were by NFL player agents. Wouldn't be surprised to see USC have to forfeit victories for playing an ineligible player but how do these documents establish USC involvement if any in the violations? Is there any real not assumed evidence establishing USC was involved in these violations? -I admit I don't know. Are there any contacts between these agents and USC? Now we get down to the bottom line-the difference between the USC investigation and the SMU investigation appears to be SMU admitted direct involvement at all levels of the SMU administration in funneling money directly to SMU players. The USC violations ostensibly appear to be the result of NFL Player Agents who probably were in fact working against the interests of USC since he eventually turned pro rather than stay in school.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/n ... &type=lgns

USC - Good
SMU - BAD

The proper NCAA response is to ban NCAA events at the University of North Dakota and withdraw Focus on the Family banner ads.

I thought part of the NCAA's requirements were for member institutions to have some reasonable control over their athletes and the activates/inducements they received. If so, the USC can show that they did try to police there athletes and prevent players from receiving inducements. IF that is correct, and USC didn't know about the problems and the NCAA decides to punish the University of Southwest North Dakota, then we may have found heaven. Imagine the players we can buy by having an 'agent' as our middle man!

Stallion, this is a serious lack of institutional control whether USC directly talked to the agents or not.

Also, here's an ESPN article about USC's arrogance. Sounds a lot like SMU before we got caught (and subsequently shut down).

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... id=4935779

A few outtakes:

Garrett has scoffed at suggestions that he should lose his job, and he has combatively challenged the idea that the athletic program would sink because of the controversies, or even a trifle like losing two-time national title winner Pete Carroll to the NFL last month. "We're too good," Garrett has said.

The NCAA was already investigating 2006 published reports that Bush and his parents took hundreds of thousands of dollars during his last two years at USC from two wannabe sports marketers, Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels. Yet Garrett allowed USC basketball coach Tim Floyd to bring in Mayo for a one-and-done freshman season in 2007-08. Garrett should have known better. Mayo's arrival was openly brokered through a Los Angeles events promoter named Rodney Guillory who had landed a USC basketball player in trouble in 2001.

most schools in USC's position wouldn't dare raise any more red flags with the NCAA. Their administrators would at least fake looking contrite. Not Garrett. As his next football coach he hired Lane Kiffin, the pot-stirring 34-year-old who served on Carroll's coaching staff during the Bush scandal, then moved on to a rancorous 1¼-season stint as the Oakland Raiders' head coach that ended with owner Al Davis calling him a "flat-out liar."

Kiffin quickly landed as head coach at the University of Tennessee, where he falsely accused Florida archrival Urban Meyer of cheating, then committed enough secondary rules violations of his own during his volatile one-year stay to prompt the NCAA to look into his recruiting practices.

When asked just before bolting Tennessee to name the most difficult part of the job, Kiffin cracked, "Following all the rules."

Of course, Bush could do himself and his alma mater a huge favor and cut another fat check; this one big enough to make Lake drop his civil suit before any damaging testimony begins. If that happens, USC could be right back where it's been the past few years: daring the NCAA to catch it if it can.

I'm not denying there was lack of oversight and USC should face probation and sanctions but the difference in the facts is substantial so far. To hang USC for the agent violations the NCAA is going to have to establish that someone was a representative of the university. Otherwise, you are left with a lack of oversight case-a much different scenario. And by the way how did Bush only rate a 1998 Impala? Does that really raise oversight issues-the housing and travel arrangements if known might raise suspicion though. My concern though for someone who has followed recruiting for years is that we should be careful of assigning the acts of street agents and NFL players agents to a university. SMU to a certain extent got nailed for this because Sherwood Blount was acting as both a big wig alumnus and NFL agent. Others at SMU have no such excuse. I think states should enact laws-some already have-criminalizing illegal inducements to athletes until they declare for the draft.

Stallion wrote:I'm not denying there was lack of oversight and USC should face probation and sanctions but the difference in the facts is substantial so far. To hang USC for the agent violations the NCAA is going to have to establish that someone was a representative of the university. Otherwise, you are left with a lack of oversight case-a much different scenario. And by the way how did Bush only rate a 1998 Impala? Does that really raise oversight issues-the housing and travel arrangements if known might raise suspicion though.

McKnight rated a Land Rover (and that's very much material).

LA Times said that Tim Floyd (former USC basketball coach) couldn't wait to start his testimony re: OJ Mayo. There are a lot of issues in the USC program, and Mike Garrett's arrogance might come back to bite him just as SMU's arrogance did back in the day.

The civil case will also factor heavily...don't think that the NCAA won't be interested in what the subpoenaed persons have to say.

well that's true-I'm not discounting that additional facts won't be disclosed-just questioning whether many of these items should be considered in the same light of the SMU case where there was an organized slush fund orchestrated and authorized at the highest levels of the university. The interests of NFL Player's Agents and a university are not the same since agents are trying to convince players to turn pro while a university wants the player to complete his eligibility

Personally, I think it is great that we have an avenue by which we can start buying a winning team again. All we do is set up an ‘agent' and let him do all the dirty work. We can claim we have no control over agents and that we are merely innocent bystanders. We have our players and we are removed from the source of player payment. The NCAA can't do a thing because we all know we can't control out of control sports agents. The worse we can get is some silly lack of institutional control drivel.

Stallion wrote:well that's true-I'm not discounting that additional facts won't be disclosed-just questioning whether many of these items should be considered in the same light of the SMU case where there was an organized slush fund orchestrated and authorized at the highest levels of the university. The interests of NFL Player's Agents and a university are not the same since agents are trying to convince players to turn pro while a university wants the player to complete his eligibility

Not in the Mayo case. There was an openly-brokered deal to get him to USC where USC pretty much said "we want him for one year" and a "sports marketer" stamped approval.

Let's say that the NCAA establishes a connection between USC recruiting and the actions of these "marketers." What sort of penalties would you say USC deserves?

well of course, the head BB Coach is a representative of the university so obviously the NCAA could punish USC assigning responsibility to the university for anything done by the street agents for actions directed or controled by the Head BB Coach. Still a long way from an AD, President of the University and Chairman of the Board of Govenors approving a scheme to pay multiple players. But there is nothing wrong with a player going to school with the understanding that he is "one and Done". Was Shawnbray anticipating a One and Done? Rumors on SMU board claim they heard this within months of his arrival at SMU.

Stallion wrote:well of course, the head BB Coach is a representative of the university so obviously the NCAA could punish USC assigning responsibility to the university for anything done by the street agents. Still a long way from an AD, President of the University and Chairman of the Board of Govenors approving a scheme to pay multiple players.

Garrett (the AD) was in on the Mayo deal. Given a chance to escape culpability himself by firing Garrett, the USC President took no action, effectively endorsing Garrett's actions.

I think you'll find that more will come out about the football allegations as well. The question remains - what punishments do you think that USC deserves?

CalallenStang wrote:

Stallion wrote:well of course, the head BB Coach is a representative of the university so obviously the NCAA could punish USC assigning responsibility to the university for anything done by the street agents. Still a long way from an AD, President of the University and Chairman of the Board of Govenors approving a scheme to pay multiple players.

Garrett (the AD) was in on the Mayo deal. Given a chance to escape culpability himself by firing Garrett, the USC President took no action, effectively endorsing Garrett's actions.

I think you'll find that more will come out about the football allegations as well. The question remains - what punishments do you think that USC deserves?

I thought we already established that the University of Southwest North Dakota will take the hit for this.

Whatever USC gets, it probably won't affect their future recruiting at all (i.e., it will be too lenient).

I doubt the NCAA would erase the post-season for them.

I think we might actually see some substantial penalties. The NCAA probably wants to flex their muscles again, and what better time than doing it to a top program who has just been taken over by a coach that I am sure they do not like. No death penalty but I would not be surprised with one or two years of no bowls and some token removal of past wins, and loss of some scholarships. But I do think we might actually see some bowl game punishment.

I'll believe it when I see it (anything resembling a harsh punishment).

Alabama cheats, over and over again, and they have always gotten the slaps on the hand that are probation and a few lost scholarships.

Oklahoma State cheats, over and over again, and they get the same.

Now USC shows a pretty extensive lack of institutional control, and the same type of arrogance that got SMU in so much trouble. I'm expecting a few lost scholarships... maybe a year or two with no bowls... and they'll just keep doing what they are doing. Especially with their new coach, which, if anything, has even less respect for the rules than Carroll.

I'm not in any way saying that SMU deserved better. We didn't. But the fact is that others have had similar patterns of NCAA rule breaking, and have never had similar punishments.

Forrest Gregg had it absolutely right when he said that they will never do it to another school, they don't have the guts.

I'm just resigned to the fact that college sports in general, and the NCAA in specific, is a completely corrupt set of organizations... and absolutely nothing is going to change that anytime soon.