- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The NCAA and USC
Posted on 2/5/10 at 9:35 am
Posted on 2/5/10 at 9:35 am
What exactly is USC's football program being investigated for other than providing RBush's family a home? Who was donor/booster? Could this be denied or supported? Is the NCAA looking into anything else that we know off?
How does this compare to other programs findings (i.e. Alabama, AU) and what was their exact punishment? I can't remember exactly what the NCAA's findings were or exactly how many scholarships were taken away but I remember AU lost post season play and Al lost many scholarships.
I ask because i'm curious to see what might happen with USC. I know the NCAA makes up their own damn rules as they go along but the purpose of my question is to find out the findings and resulting punishments of other schools to try and determine what might be the punishment for USC......
How does this compare to other programs findings (i.e. Alabama, AU) and what was their exact punishment? I can't remember exactly what the NCAA's findings were or exactly how many scholarships were taken away but I remember AU lost post season play and Al lost many scholarships.
I ask because i'm curious to see what might happen with USC. I know the NCAA makes up their own damn rules as they go along but the purpose of my question is to find out the findings and resulting punishments of other schools to try and determine what might be the punishment for USC......
4
Posted on 2/5/10 at 9:45 am to Orange Daisy
the question is if they can prove that USC coaches and admins knew bush was being given gifts. no booster or anyone associated with SC was paying him despite what you read on this site. it was an agent paying bush so bush would sign with him
Posted on 2/5/10 at 9:49 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
the question is if they can prove that USC coaches and admins knew bush was being given gifts. no booster or anyone associated with SC was paying him despite what you read on this site. it was an agent paying bush so bush would sign with him
Lack of Institutional Control does NOT require knowledge of offenses.
I am NOT saying USC is guilty. have no idea and will wait to see the results. But, you are incorrect if you thing "plausible deniability" is a defense.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 9:54 am to Orange Daisy
I believe they're also looking at Joe McKnight and the Land Rover.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:02 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I am NOT saying USC is guilty. have no idea and will wait to see the results. But, you are incorrect if you thing "plausible deniability" is a defense.
you may be right, but you cant just say "lack of institutional control" and sanction the school without having some proof. they will get hit, probly loss of schollies, maybe forfeit games but they wont be banned from bowl season as that hurts the whole pac 10
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:02 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
Indeed. Know OR should have known. Both would burn USC, though obviously to a different extent.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:07 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
you may be right, but you cant just say "lack of institutional control" and sanction the school without having some proof
Actually, the NCAA doesn't need "proof" the way the you or I perceive "proof". They aren't a court of law, and are not bound by the rules of evidence. "Proof" is only that which they feel proves their case.
Further, "lack of institutional control" is a vague term that is not defined in any concrete way. If the NCAA feels like the institution lacked control, then it lacked control.
The issue is going to be whether any coach or administrator at USC knew about the agent's relationship with Bush, and if they didn't know about it, whether they should have.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:27 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
the question is if they can prove that USC coaches and admins knew bush was being given gifts. no booster or anyone associated with SC was paying him despite what you read on this site. it was an agent paying bush so bush would sign with him
What type of gifts?
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:35 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
no booster or anyone associated with SC was paying him despite what you read on this site
ehhhh...Ornstein was approved by USC as someone Bush could do an internship with. Orny was a well known shady sports marketing agent. I worked in the industry in NJ at the time and WE were bidding on Bush's exclusive trading show signing rights when he was still playing for USC. Even we knew what was up with Orny, 3000 miles away.
Also, Lake and crew were given locker and practice access at times. All of the above could easily be interpreted as boosters, or worse.
BUT, they won't be and USC will be minimally impacted going forward.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:51 am to el tigre
According to the book Tarnished Heisman, Bush propositioned Michaels & Lake to start up a new Sports Agency where he would be the marquee player. He and his family accepted cash and a home up front while he was still in school.
His father also met with an Indian Casino on several occasions to invest in the new agency. The Indian Casino eventually gave them cash advances.
Lake and Michaels were given access to USC practices and sideline passes for games.
Bush and his running back coach were taken out on New Year's eve curtesy of Michaels & Lake. They had a free limo and hotel rooms.
Lake recorded phone conversations between himself and the Bush's that proves all of this.
USC also allowed Bush to intern for a sports agent. This sports agent was a convicted criminal and he also provided Bush with cash.
USC's basketball coach was fired for giving OJ Mayo cash.
Joe McKnight apparently was given a Land Rover to drive around by some type of marketer or agent.
His father also met with an Indian Casino on several occasions to invest in the new agency. The Indian Casino eventually gave them cash advances.
Lake and Michaels were given access to USC practices and sideline passes for games.
Bush and his running back coach were taken out on New Year's eve curtesy of Michaels & Lake. They had a free limo and hotel rooms.
Lake recorded phone conversations between himself and the Bush's that proves all of this.
USC also allowed Bush to intern for a sports agent. This sports agent was a convicted criminal and he also provided Bush with cash.
USC's basketball coach was fired for giving OJ Mayo cash.
Joe McKnight apparently was given a Land Rover to drive around by some type of marketer or agent.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:07 am to crimsonsaint
bamawriter and crimsonsaint, what is your opinions on what the ncaa will do, could do, should do?
This post was edited on 2/5/10 at 11:15 am
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:36 am to Orange Daisy
I think they'll be stripped of all wins that bush played in including the 04 championship. I think they'll get 3 to 5 years of probation and a post season ban. Probably lose 5 or so scholarships per year for 3 years. They could get banned from having their games televised as well.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:47 am to el tigre
I really think there should be minimal distinction as to whether improper benefits were obtained through the school or a third party. Honestly, how easy is it for the latter to be simulated by someone affiliated with the school?
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:49 am to crimsonsaint
quote:
I think they'll be stripped of all wins that bush played in including the 04 championship.
agree...but that's a totally toothless punishment. Hurts nothing going forward.
quote:
. I think they'll get 3 to 5 years of probation
agree.
quote:
and a post season ban.
MAYBE 1 year, max....if any.
quote:
Probably lose 5 or so scholarships per year for 3 years.
i am guessing 2-3 schollies.
quote:
They could get banned from having their games televised as well.
no way that happens. USC is WAY too important for western U.S. tv ratings.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:51 am to crimsonsaint
quote:
USC also allowed Bush to intern for a sports agent. This sports agent was a convicted criminal and he also provided Bush with cash.
this is the one that really gets me. At what point is claiming ignorance just inexcusable? Ornstein was WELL known to have this rep, and any university exercising anywhere near the proper controls would know about Ornstein before approving him.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:52 am to Dr. 3
quote:
I really think there should be minimal distinction as to whether improper benefits were obtained through the school or a third party. Honestly, how easy is it for the latter to be simulated by someone affiliated with the school?
absolutely.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 11:57 am to el tigre
Does the Dwayne Jarret / Matt Leinart free/reduced rent issues still apply in the total case for Lack of Institutional Control here, or has the time period for that offense already run out?
Posted on 2/5/10 at 12:01 pm to CrazyTigerFan
who knows, the NCAA doesn't really follow a formula or strict methodology. They are pretty arbitrary. It's a joke.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 12:46 pm to el tigre
just don't think anything other than 2-3 yr post season ban will hurt them that much.
Posted on 2/5/10 at 12:47 pm to el tigre
quote:
and a post season ban.
wont happen, SC makes lots of money for the pac 10, taking them out of bowls hurts the conference.
quote:
Probably lose 5 or so scholarships per year for 3 years.
lose schollies yes, but not 5 per year, more like 2 a year
quote:
They could get banned from having their games televised as well.
not gonna happen SC is a money maker for the NCAA and the pac 10 and the TV networks
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News