• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

NCAA punishes USC - Reggie Bush, OJ Mayo, Dwayne Jarrett, Joe McKnight investigation

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Taosman;1715025; said:
SC's response sounds like the athletic department is still arrogant.
Garrett has to go. He's at the core of this rotten apple.
I am shocked that the NCAA actually stepped up to the plate on this.
Click to expand...

Carroll is an arrogant ass as well. Practically flaunting the fact that all these agents and stars and God knows who were hanging around on the sidelines when this is precisely what the NCAA is concerned about. Playing innocent and saying "we didn't know" when the very issue is that he made no effort to know.

That is what institutional control is all about Petey you dip[censored].
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyefrankmp;1714993; said:
ESPN was on TV while I was at Skyline tonight and I heard Herbstreit defending Pete Carrol and the USC program. He was making the USC program out like they knew nothing about this. Was Pete involved? I do not know. Did they know what was happening? How could they not.

I think I have lost all respect for Kirk.
Click to expand...

Well, among other things, Cheaty Petey hired an illegal coach/consultant in 2008, and set up his players with Michaels for a summer "internship" program that was deemed to be extra benefits because it was set up solely for players.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1715031; said:
Carroll is an arrogant ass as well. Practically flaunting the fact that all these agents and stars and God knows who were hanging around on the sidelines when this is precisely what the NCAA is concerned about. Playing innocent and saying "we didn't know" when the very issue is that he made no effort to know.

That is what institutional control is all about you dip[censored].
Click to expand...

That's what I kept saying every time I heard him say "we didn't know". That's not an excuse, Petey. It's your job to know and if you don't, this is what happens. Someone needs to explain to him what "lack of institutional control" is.
 
Upvote 0
ThisIsMyUsernam;1715103; said:
That's what I kept saying every time I heard him say "we didn't know". That's not an excuse, Petey. It's your job to know and if you don't, this is what happens. Someone needs to explain to him what "lack of institutional control" is.
Click to expand...

What Petey means is "we didn't know; because, we didn't want to know. In fact, we even made extra efforts to not know; and if someone ever tried to let us know we just ignored them (i.e. or wouldn't believe them to be credible, etc.) so we could still say we didn't know. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
Good luck with an appeal. For those recruits and families who are buying the "much of this is going away when we appeal" line from the SC coaches, read what is there to read.

USC faces an uphill battle in appeal

USC announced Thursday it would appeal NCAA sanctions it considers "excessive." And even before those plans became official, Trojans football coaches were calling recruits and getting out the message that the penalties could be reduced.

"They're trying to appeal it and at least cut it in half," said incoming freshman Giovanni Di Poalo, an offensive lineman from Ventura St. Bonaventure High who said he spoke to Trojans line coach James Cregg.

However, if recent history is any indication, Trojans players and fans shouldn't get their hopes up.

Since a key change to an NCAA bylaw was made in January 2008, only one in 11 appeals has been successful.

The change: An appeal will be granted only if the offended party shows "the penalty is excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion" by the NCAA Committee on Infractions.

Before, an appeal could be won if, upon review, it was determined that a penalty was inappropriate based on the evidence and circumstances.

"It's a tougher standard to meet," said Mike Glazier, the head of Collegiate Sports Practice group at the Kansas office of Bond, Schoeneck & King, who for 20 years has been working with universities during the NCAA investigation process. "It was changed for that purpose ? to make it harder to be successful on appeal."

*****

USC's stance is that violations with Bush took place ? but they had no way of knowing about them. Bush has denied wrongdoing from the time allegations surfaced years ago.

Glazier said such an appeal would be "a pretty big uphill battle." He added: "Just to be successful on appeal because you claim the penalties are too harsh, your chances are not very good."

Michael Buckner, a Florida-based attorney and private investigator who has worked on NCAA cases, agreed that "most of the penalties" would be upheld. However, he said the loss of 10 scholarships a year "might be excessive," noting that the NCAA usually reduces scholarships at the rate of two for every one ineligible player.

Buckner, a USC alumnus, said it appeared to him the infractions committee "did what they should have done and imposed the appropriate penalties" considering USC's status as a repeat offender that was failing to properly monitor its athletes.

Buckner's firm represented Alabama State ? the only school to be successful with an appeal since the bylaw was changed.

****

Alabama State had its penalty of five years probation for widespread academic fraud shortened to three years in 2009 after Buckner's firm asked the appeals committee to consider how federal and state courts had defined "abuse of discretion."

Using Alabama State as a template, the NCAA now has a five-part test that defines "abuse of discretion" if the penalty was:

Not based on a correct legal standard or was based on a misapprehension of the underlying legal principles.

Based on a clearly erroneous factual finding.

Failed to consider and weigh material factors.

Based on a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition was arbitrary, capricious or irrational.

Based in significant part on one or more irrelevant or improper factors.

That the NCAA would toughen rules on appeals came as no surprise to its membership.

"It's like anything," said Brian Battle, the compliance director at Florida State, which had an appeal denied in January. "Any time somebody wins something, they'll say, 'Where did we … do something that caused this separate group of people to overturn the decision?"
Click to expand...
cont'd
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeye86;1715146; said:
YouTube - Pete Carroll's response to NCAA sanctions imposed on USC
Click to expand...

How he kept a straight face while recording this beyond me. I can't speak for other high schools, but I know for a fact that at Moeller we had a full evening with the athletes from all sports and their PARENTS in which we handed them a copy of NCAA guidelines and then went over- in detail -- what was legal and what was not.

How could you look at a housing for your athletes and NOT realize that some of these kids were living well beyond the NCAA allotment?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top