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

[martinss01]

Well, everything I ever say is my opinion.

thats your opinion.

 

[Bill Lucas]

Could USC lose its game vs. Hawaii?

Report: USC/Hawaii college football opener may be in jeopardy - ESPN Los Angeles

The Trojans were put on two years' probation last week and, according to the NCAA Committee on Infractions report, the football team "may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limit in the number of football contests" during that time frame.

 

[808 Buck]

Probation puts USC game in doubt
The million-dollar question for the University of Hawaii is: Will there be a USC football game

Probation puts USC game in doubt - Hawaii Sports - Staradvertiser.com

The apparent intent of the committee on infractions ruling Thursday was to keep USC from using the same detour that Alabama took advantage of in 2002 and '03 when the Crimson Tide were slapped with a two-year probation by the NCAA.

Barred from postseason play, Alabama instead scheduled a 13th game against UH in both 2002 and '03, taking advantage of the Hawaii exemption to play one more game than the current NCAA limit of 12. The Crimson Tide billed the November games as their "bowl" games for recruiting purposes.

If UH loses this game, the athletic department will take a huge hit. They are already in the red, a Boise-less WAC is not very appealing, and there is a real chance that when all of this realignment stuff settles, UH will be left out in the cold. They simply cannot afford to lose any pay days. No Christmas card for Mike Garrett and his crew this year if this happens.

 

[NJ-Buckeye]

Under
Sanctions
Currently

per Michael Rosenburg of SI today
University of
Sanctioned
Cheating

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

What are the chances that the sanctions had something to do with the PAC-16 falling through?

What are the chances of starting rumors to that effect?:pirate1:

 

[scott91575]

Gotta love Pete Carol's response...

He wants the NCAA and high schools to help in a grassroots effort to keep outsiders away from college athletes.

Pete Carroll: NCAA off base with USC Trojans sanctions - ESPN

That from a man that did everything he could to bring in outsiders in order to help recruit players. His practices were a circus of local celebs and hangers on.

What a hypocritical douche.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

CFN's Take

No Pete Fiutak, it doesn't happen everywhere and no, it's not OK. What the [censored] is wrong with you?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Probation puts USC game in doubt - Hawaii Sports - Staradvertiser.com



If UH loses this game, the athletic department will take a huge hit. They are already in the red, a Boise-less WAC is not very appealing, and there is a real chance that when all of this realignment stuff settles, UH will be left out in the cold. They simply cannot afford to lose any pay days. No Christmas card for Mike Garrett and his crew this year if this happens.

Fortunately, UH can argue that:

1. The game had already been scheduled for a long time, and
2. It's the season opener, and not an end-of-season pseudo-bowl game

 

[Buckeneye]

CFN's Take

No Pete Fiutak, it doesn't happen everywhere and no, it's not OK. What the [censored] is wrong with you?

There's a perfectly good explanation for this bulsh...err, article. He was drunk. That has to be it.

 

[WolverineTX]

Gotta love Pete Carol's response...

Pete Carroll: NCAA off base with USC Trojans sanctions - ESPN

That from a man that did everything he could to bring in outsiders in order to help recruit players. His practices were a circus of local celebs and hangers on.

What a hypocritical douche.

Wow. And here I was thinking it'd be difficult to top Garrett's "envy" asshattery. Silly me.

 

[LightningRod]

Come on Pete, you can do better than that for an excuse. From page 30 of the Infractions Report:

There was information in the record that the former head football coach [Pete Carroll] encouraged sports marketer A [Mike Ornstein] 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 [Pete] asked sports marketer A [Ornstein] to consider hiring football student-athletes as interns in his agency. Sports agent B reported:
(Sports marketer A) [Ornstein] was like, ?yeah, here's (the former head football coach) [Pete] 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) [Pete] and (sports marketer A) [Ornstein] that there was an internship program for that summer. That's all I do know.
At the hearing, the former head coach [Pete] denied that he asked sports marketer A [Ornstein] to hire football student-athletes as interns, although he acknowledged that he knew sports marketer A [Ornstein] and that he (sports marketer A) [Ornstein] 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 [Ornstein] had "pleaded guilty to mail fraud for defrauding the NFL."]

USC made a big deal about Lake being a convicted felon yet had no problem giving permission to a convicted felon [Ornstein] to hire football players as summer interns and not monitoring the employment relationship. Come on Pete.

EDIT: I see that Pete claims there is no evidence supporting anything. More on the Ornstein relationship from pages 30-31 of the infractions report.

In the spring of 2005, sports marketer B [Jamie Fritz who was employed by Ornstein] contacted the associate director of athletics to determine if student-athletes would be interested in an internship with his (sports marketer B's) agency [Ornstein's agency]. [Note: sports marketer B and the associate director of athletics had been at another NCAA member institution at the same time and were acquainted with each other both there and subsequently in Los Angeles] The associate director of athletics confirmed that sports marketer B
University of Southern California Public Infractions Report
June 10, 2010
Page No. 31
__________
contacted him about employing student-athletes in paid internships at the agency. Ultimately, three student-athletes, including student-athlete 1 [Bush], worked as interns at the agency in the summer of 2005.
The former director of compliance confirmed the associate director of athletics' account of how the internships came about and added:
. . . it was initially set up while I was there, and the talk was it was gonna be a continuing thing . . . to offer the opportunity to USC student-athletes.
Sports marketers A and B had previously been in partnership with another individual in a different agency. This individual stated that while the three were in partnership, there had never been any interns in their company.
It is permissible to hire student-athletes, as long as the circumstances under which they are hired, work and are paid comport with NCAA legislation. In this instance, the circumstances under which the three student-athletes, including student-athlete 1, were hired constituted a special arrangement made through the sports marketing agency and the institution's athletics department. Despite sports marketer B's [Fritz's] claim to the contrary, there is no evidence that the internship positions provided to the USC student-athletes in the summer of 2005 were solicited externally. USC student-athletes and only USC student-athletes were hired for these positions. The circumstances surrounding the hiring of these student-athletes made sports marketers A and B [Ornstein & Fritz], as well as their agency, representatives of the institution's athletics interests[i.e., boosters]. This, in turn, gave rise to a heightened institutional responsibility to assess and monitor the employment situation and the relationship between student-athlete 1 [Bush] and sports marketers A and B.[Ornstein & Fritz]
Committee

Pages 48-49 continue the discussion of the Ornstein employment matter:

Monitoring student-athlete 1's employment at sports marketing firm. Student-athlete 1 went to work as an intern for sports marketer A's sports agency in late April 2005. In 2005, such internships were established exclusively for USC student-athletes. As previously set forth in Finding B-2, by seeking out and employing USC student-athletes exclusively in 2005, the sports marketing agency became a representative of the institution's athletics interests pursuant to NCAA Constitution 6.4.2-(d) and Bylaw 13.02.13-(d). As set forth in detail in Finding B-2, after hiring student-athlete 1, sports marketer A provided numerous impermissible benefits to him, as well as to members of his family and friends. As previously documented, student-athlete 1 subsequently signed a sports marketing contract with sports marketer A's agency.
Due to the fact that the sports marketing agency contacted the institution about interns, and subsequently hired student-athlete 1--an elite student-athlete with a bright professional future--for employment, the institution assumed a heightened responsibility to monitor the situation. Yet it failed to take a "proactive" stance or investigate concerns and questions that arose regarding the relationship. For example, there was no written description of the duties student-athlete 1 was to perform, at no time did anyone from the institution conduct "spot checks" to ensure that student-athlete 1 was showing up at work and performing appropriate duties, and there was no evidence that the institution performed any other monitoring of this employment relationship.
Not only did the institution assume a heightened responsibility to monitor sports marketer A when the institution knowingly permitted student-athlete 1 to be employed by his sports marketing agency, it failed to follow-up on later information that suggested something in the relationship among sports marketer A, student-athlete 1 and the young man's parents might involve NCAA rules issues. A full investigation of the information might have prevented and/or detected violations of NCAA legislation by sports marketer A.
On November 9, 2005, the sports information director ("sports information director") notified the faculty athletics representative ("FAR"), the then director
University of Southern California Public Infractions Report
June 10, 2010
Page No. 49
__________
of compliance ("then director of compliance") and the former director of compliance by e-mail that inquiries had been made by a journalist ("journalist") concerning sports marketer A being on the institution's sidelines during football contests, student-athlete 1's employment with sports marketer A, and sports marketer A's role as advisor to student-athlete 1 and his family. A day later, November 10, the former director of compliance contacted the FAR, the then director of compliance and the then compliance coordinator by e-mail. He told them that sports marketers A and B had been contacted by the journalist, who was making inquiries into the relationship between sports marketer A and student-athlete 1. In particular, sports marketer A "was concerned because (the journalist) seemed to focus on (student-athlete 1)." Even though sports marketer A had assured the former director of compliance that he was doing everything "by the book," the former director of compliance came away from the conversation with the impression that "the reporter shook up (sports marketer A) and has him second guessing himself." [Note: the following day, November 11, sports marketer A provided impermissible benefits to student-athlete 1's parents by paying their expenses to the institution's away football game against the University of California, Berkeley (Cal) including airline and limousine transportation. See Finding B-2].
The e-mail from the former director of compliance concluded as follows: "I think we should call [student-athlete 1] in to discuss and confirm. I can do that today (since they most likely leave tomorrow for the Cal game)." However, no follow-up meeting with student-athlete 1 concerning the issues raised by the journalist ever took place. The FAR claimed no recollection of receiving or reading the e-mail.

 

[OCBucksFan]

CFN's Take

No Pete Fiutak, it doesn't happen everywhere and no, it's not OK. What the [censored] is wrong with you?

Just... wow

 

[OregonBuckeye]

CFN's Take

No Pete Fiutak, it doesn't happen everywhere and no, it's not OK. What the [censored] is wrong with you?

Yeah, I've seen Pete's articles on USC. Didn't even bother reading it halfway through. Just plain crap. He's becoming more of a sensationalist journalist by the day.

At least someone gets it right

 

[buckeyesin07]

Gotta love Pete Carol's response...



Pete Carroll: NCAA off base with USC Trojans sanctions - ESPN

That from a man that did everything he could to bring in outsiders in order to help recruit players. His practices were a circus of local celebs and hangers on.

What a hypocritical douche.

Bingo. Carroll, the man who had Snoop Dogg on the sideline during his tenure at USC.

 

[NJ-Buckeye]

In a traditional court case, the judge tries to determine if the guilty shows remorse when he decides on the sentence. Guessing right now, NCAA wishes they would have done much more to USC based on Garrett and Pete's responses. Makes one wonder what will happen if/when USC/Kiffen stubs their toe one more time