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

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Meeting an institution's obligations does not mean it volunteered information. I think that may be what's honking some people off. The sense is SC didn't give up the goods on their own, even if they did provide all that was asked of them. (Conversely, the sense is - certainly on this board - that Ohio State said "Hey, we're an open book.... here's this, here's that.... we looked high... we looked low.. this is what we found.. anything else you need?")

I have no opinion on that, just trying to make sense of the NCAA report as cited by Thomps, and the 4 year "stonewalling" idea. I think it's pretty clear that the investigation should not have taken than long, if SC was volunteering information. But, that said, and I haven't looked - I don't see where SC was obligated to do so while still being able to meet their "Cooperation" requirements.

 

[Oh8ch]

Your efforts to defend USC are valiant. But O J Mayo was a ticking time bomb from day one. I went back and looked up my first post in the O J Mayo thread. This is from July of 2006:

There is no 'student' in this student-athlete. He wants dollars and there are zero consequences to him for any action he might take while at USC. Zero incentive to follow the rules other than not getting caught before his year is over so he can continue to use the major networks to showcase his talent.

Further, agents know this and will do anything they can to win the Mayo lottery.

IMO this would be a very risky pickup for the Trojans and they would have no one to blame but themselves if he takes them down. Did they learn nothing from Reggie Bush? What does Mayo have to lose? What do the agents have to lose? Only USC can lose from this one.

 

[Gatorubet]

In the recent wide ranging fsu academic scandal case, the FSU higherup in chage of coordinating Nole athletics and academics refused to testify in the years long investigation - despite the fact that his employee - Brenda Monk - said that she was following orders from her supervisors.

Despite this patently obvious attempt to keep the wrongdoing from going higher up, FSU was found by the NCAA to have cooperated in the same manner as USC was found to have cooperated.

I'm not quite sure that that finding means what it sounds like it means when all is said and done.

 

[Steve19]

Meanwhile, circulating to sell his new book on winning, Petey are sad :(

As Southern California deals with NCAA sanctions that cast a cloud over Pete Carroll's wildly successful nine-year run with the Trojans, the former USC coach is taking it upon himself to protect the legacy of his program.

"It's been most difficult to watch everybody have to deal with it, whether it's the players or the coaches or the fans who support the university," Carroll told The Associated Press shortly after arriving in New York for the start of a two-week promotional tour for his new book, "Win Forever."

"I do feel responsible being connected with it," Carroll said of USC's troubles. "I've also felt a responsibility, with the way it's come down, to work to try to get the message out there and defend somewhat."

story continues here (ESPiN)

 

[OSU SPORTS]

Your efforts to defend USC are valiant. But O J Mayo was a ticking time bomb from day one. I went back and looked up my first post in the O J Mayo thread. This is from July of 2006:

When have you ever heard of the number 1 prospect in the nation giving his verbal over the telephone to a coach at a school he had never even visited. This had odor on it from day 1.

 

[Poe McKnoe]

I'm all for the sanctions because I think Petey was running a dirty ship, but this gives you an idea of how long this investigation took.

When this all started, they had to take pictures on a regular camera, get them developed, and use a scanner to put them on their computer THEN upload them to the Internet.

 

[cincibuck]

Your efforts to defend USC are valiant. But O J Mayo was a ticking time bomb from day one. I went back and looked up my first post in the O J Mayo thread. This is from July of 2006:

Yep, anyone who lived in Cincinnati during the Mayo years could tell you he was a train wreck looking for a place to happen. Can we say 'manipulative?'

 

[methomps]

In the recent wide ranging fsu academic scandal case, the FSU higherup in chage of coordinating Nole athletics and academics refused to testify in the years long investigation - despite the fact that his employee - Brenda Monk - said that she was following orders from her supervisors.

Despite this patently obvious attempt to keep the wrongdoing from going higher up, FSU was found by the NCAA to have cooperated in the same manner as USC was found to have cooperated.

I'm not quite sure that that finding means what it sounds like it means when all is said and done.

Goldsmith resigned before the investigation got to him. Both the university and the NCAA tried to get him to cooperate. This is all detailed in the investigative report. He got hit with a show cause order for his failure to cooperate.

Your efforts to defend USC are valiant. But O J Mayo was a ticking time bomb from day one. I went back and looked up my first post in the O J Mayo thread. This is from July of 2006:

I agree that Mayo was a mistake. So does the university. Hence the self-imposed sanctions on bball.

Meeting an institution's obligations does not mean it volunteered information. I think that may be what's honking some people off. The sense is SC didn't give up the goods on their own, even if they did provide all that was asked of them. (Conversely, the sense is - certainly on this board - that Ohio State said "Hey, we're an open book.... here's this, here's that.... we looked high... we looked low.. this is what we found.. anything else you need?")

I have no opinion on that, just trying to make sense of the NCAA report as cited by Thomps, and the 4 year "stonewalling" idea. I think it's pretty clear that the investigation should not have taken than long, if SC was volunteering information. But, that said, and I haven't looked - I don't see where SC was obligated to do so while still being able to meet their "Cooperation" requirements.

The investigation took 4 years because the NCAA tried to wait out the Bush lawsuit. Finally, SC got Bush to agree to sit down with the NCAA in the summer of 2009 and the notice of allegations went out that fall.

Sorry, but I think the proposed idea that "stonewalling really means cooperating when asked but not going above and beyond" is simply changing the argument mid-air (which I am not accusing you of, but if anyone said before that USC stonewalled and now tries to use this clarification, then they are retreating without trying to make it look that way).

Here are some of the definitions of stonewall:

to block, stall, or resist intentionally: lobbying efforts to stonewall passage of the legislation.

To engage in delaying tactics; stall: "stonewalling for time in order to close the missile gap"

To refuse to answer or cooperate with; resist or rebuff

I doubt Taos said "stonewall" but meant "cooperated when asked but nothing more."

But let's talk about this idea. What gives this sense that USC didn't volunteer information? The fact that it fits conveniently into a picture of the bad guy getting his just deserts?

Certainly nothing publicly available. We have the NCAA saying that USC cooperated (which assertion is of course immediately questioned on this board since it is inconsistent with the black/white story of bad and good). We have Taos quoting Paul Dee's statement about the reasons the investigation took so long:

"Dee said the investigation stretched on nearly four years for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them was the fact that it encompassed so many different facets, including three different sports, two major athletes, multiple individuals outside the USC program, and eventually, the majority of USC?s athletic administration. The report also notes that a lack of cooperation by the subjects ? Bush and his family and Mayo ? slowed the progress of investigators.

The only lack of cooperation cited is that of Bush, the Griffins, and Mayo.

So where is the basis for this "sense" that USC did not assist? You say it isn't required by the rules, but the very first sentence of 32.1.4 contemplates an "affirmative obligation on each institution to assist the enforcement staff in developing full information to determine whether a possible violation of NCAA legislation has occurred and the details thereof."

The NCAA says USC met that obligation. The NCAA knows what role USC played in this investigation. The NCAA knows what information USC volunteered and did not volunteer.

People on this board who sense that SC did not cooperate have no idea. They aren't privy to the communication that went on between the NCAA and SC.

As for the Ohio State comparison, as I said I will not discuss Ohio State compliance on this board.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No idea, thomps... I was just trying to make sense of it.

 

[Steve19]

Perhaps we miss the important distinction between USC and Bush.

I think the point is that, even if USC cooperated, Bush strategically reached confidentiality agreements with those capable of testifying, which made any real investigation impossible and benefited USC. USC and Petey weren't exactly standing on rooftops asking Bush to allow those people to cooperate fully with the NCAA and be freed from those agreements.

Methomps, they don't deserve you.

 

[methomps]

Perhaps we miss the important distinction between USC and Bush.

I think the point is that, even if USC cooperated, Bush strategically reached confidentiality agreements with those capable of testifying, which made any real investigation impossible and benefited USC. USC and Petey weren't exactly standing on rooftops asking Bush to allow those people to cooperate fully with the NCAA and be freed from those agreements.

Methomps, they don't deserve you.

And how would public proclamations from SC be received on this board? Do we have any reason to believe it wouldn't be met with rolling eyes and the word "public posturing"?

NCAA punishes USC? Oh see USC didn't cooperate
NCAA says USC cooperated? Oh that just means they met the minimum.
SC makes public plea for Bush/Michaels to cooperate? [You can fill in the blank but we know it wouldn't be "wow USC is really trying to get to the bottom of this"]

SC convinced Bush to sit down with the NCAA. And Bush did so. And when Bush didn't provide the documents he said he would, USC disassociated him.

And I don't know how any of the settlements helped USC. The NCAA found that Bush took money. In fact, the Bush-Lake settlement happened the night before Lake was to be deposed by Bush's lawyers. Thus, the settlement prevented the one opportunity for Lake to face adverse questioning.

Thanks Reggie.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

A statement from USC to that effect may not have been the most compelling to everyone, but it would be received a whole lot better than comments like these:

"As I read the decision by the NCAA," he told the group, "? I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans."

"That's a classic example of somebody talking about what they don't know," Carroll told a handful of reporters, that "somebody" being the NCAA.
"You guys have been around it. You've seen what it's like. You know what it's like every day after practice there, the exchange, the hugs, playing catch, high-fives with the kids, taking pictures and all that stuff.
"They don't get it. It's just an indication of how far off they are in this whole process."
Carroll conceded that "one particular situation" was "out of sorts" ? the presence of agents on campus during the height of the Reggie Bush-Matt Leinart era. Carroll also allowed that awareness could have been greater, that USC's compliance office could have been larger, that its reach could have been wider.
But that's as much ground as Carroll would give. "Always Compete" isn't just his motto, it's his lifestyle.
The environment around the football program wasn't what the NCAA "projected and portrayed it to be," Carroll said. "They don't get it because they were never there. To rule on something that they really didn't understand and be so far off, it's a misuse of their power."

 

[jwinslow]

What was the explanation for Joe McKnight?

 

[buckeyesin07]

A statement from USC to that effect may not have been the most compelling to everyone, but it would be received a whole lot better than comments like these:

Not to mention this:

"The agenda of the NCAA, the infractions committee, took them beyond the facts. The facts don't match the sanctions."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT7RvG_FpBY&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Pete Carroll's response to NCAA sanctions imposed on USC[/ame]

 

[Gatorubet]

Goldsmith resigned before the investigation got to him. Both the university and the NCAA tried to get him to cooperate. This is all detailed in the investigative report. He got hit with a show cause order for his failure to cooperate.

And the fact that he "resigned before the investigation got to him" likely spared FSU far more serious penalties than they received. FSU breathed a sigh of relief when he refused to cooperate. Saying that "FSU tried to get him to cooperate" may be factually true. I'm sure there is a letter somewhere with an FSU logo asking him to testify. But if he had, and his employe is to be believed, he would have had to address charges that he ordered the academic counselors to give answers to athletes and make sure that they stayed eligible. The assumption is that it came from "pray for a misdemeanor" "Warsaw Rules" Bowden and his staff. His fortuitous absence was a Godsend for the Noles.

That whole self serving set of circumstances is what I was talking about. And yet FSU was found to have "cooperated", even though the first self investigation by FSU did not find any wrongdoping by the football team, and even though FSU had to keep sending new revisions/submissions of their story to the NCAA.

All I am saying is that - me, personally - places less credibility on that finding by the NCAA when they can also apply it to that horse abortion of an FSU fact situation. Does not mean USC did anything wrong by application, but it does not mean that they were forthcoming either, at least not soley by virtue of a finding of "cooperation".