USC investigation questions....

• cam93

  why?
• jordo212000

  

  cam93 wrote: why?

  If "why" is asking why people are ticked off at ESPN, it is because of their lack of coverage of this story. It is a huge story and it is getting pushed to the side. Remember the Clarett story? ESPN was all over that. Now, not so much. Why is that? I think they aren't covering it because they haven't been breaking any news on the story. Yahoo Sports has been at the forefront all along. If this is the case, that's messed up IMO. It would be different if there were a million other things to cover, but there isn't. I had ESPN on a for alot of the day yesterday and I can't tell you how many times they ran that fluff piece on the Miracle on Ice team
• devil1197

  Their screwed imo.
• gamauter

  

  Michigan and USC at the same time? I must be dreaming.
• gamauter

  

  I heard Colin Cowherd on ESPN yesterday saying how he thought what Michigan did was worse because their coach was involved and at USC it was just boosters so how would they even know.
• darbypitcher22

  

  trust me, the coaches aren't in the dark to these proceedings...those guys knew what was going on
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The fact that Michael Michaels (former agent in the Bush case) is now scheduled to give a deposition in March (before sanctions are announced) is a death knell for USC's hopes.
  
  The NCAA can take the information from that deposition and use it to determine punishment. It's expected that Michaels will testify that someone on Petey's staff knew about the arrangements, and that he and another agent had full access to players and were allowed on the sidelines.
  
  If that's not lack of control, I'm not sure I understand what the phrase means.
• ytownfootball

  

  USC is going to make it very difficult for the NCAA to NOT throw down the hammer. Those are clearly rules violations known by staff, players and fans. The NCAA runs the risk of appearing as a paper Tiger if they don't come down very harshly.
• 3reppom

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: The fact that Michael Michaels (former agent in the Bush case) is now scheduled to give a deposition in March (before sanctions are announced) is a death knell for USC's hopes.
  
  The NCAA can take the information from that deposition and use it to determine punishment. It's expected that Michaels will testify that someone on Petey's staff knew about the arrangements, and that he and another agent had full access to players and were allowed on the sidelines.
  
  If that's not lack of control, I'm not sure I understand what the phrase means.

  There is still a big issue of credibility with Michael's. He is a convicted felon who had a fairly lengthy stay in the California Department of Corrections. He could speak the truth entirely but his criminal record will be held against him in all likelihood.
  

  ytownfootball wrote: USC is going to make it very difficult for the NCAA to NOT throw down the hammer. Those are clearly rules violations known by staff, players and fans. The NCAA runs the risk of appearing as a paper Tiger if they don't come down very harshly.

  The NCAA is a paper tiger, has been for decades.
• ytownfootball

  

  ^ I know, but they've been presented with the opportunity to re-assert their control, just interesting to see if they take advantage of it.
• 3reppom

  

  ytownfootball wrote: ^ I know, but they've been presented with the opportunity to re-assert their control, just interesting to see if they take advantage of it.

  They won't. The NCAA is governed by various University presidents who's sole interest in intercollegiate athletics is to ensure that everyone continues to make money. That's the bottom line and they don't particularly care beyond that. I would expect the NCAA to retro actively strip USC of some wins and dock them a few scholarships, in short they will do enough to keep the facade of amateurism alive and well without opening Pandora's box on the issue of agents. If the NCAA has any interest at all in self preservation they won't go too far on this.
• ytownfootball

  

  3reppom wrote:

  ytownfootball wrote: ^ I know, but they've been presented with the opportunity to re-assert their control, just interesting to see if they take advantage of it.

  They won't. The NCAA is governed by various University presidents who's sole interest in intercollegiate athletics is to ensure that everyone continues to make money. That's the bottom line and they don't particularly care beyond that. I would expect the NCAA to retro actively strip USC of some wins and dock them a few scholarships, in short they will do enough to keep the facade of amateurism alive and well without opening Pandora's box on the issue of agents. If the NCAA has any interest at all in self preservation they won't go too far on this.

  If they don't go far enough I think they run a very high risk of losing what credibility they have left. I think they're aware of this too. The problem I see with not coming down hard on what amounts to blatant violations of major...MAJOR recognizable infractions is that the message they would send is one more of acceptance, and the result would be further violations of same.
  
  I actually think they're in a tough spot, given that I do agree their sole purpose is coin.
• 3reppom

  

  There are certain things that the NCAA will never bother with again as punishments. I would be stunned to ever see another program get a TV ban, The might employ a ban on post season games but only in extremes. The NCAA can do many things legally, but they won't push the envelop too far with USC or any other school for that matter. So they are left with stripping wins which is pointless, everyone watched the games, everyone knows who won, and docking scholarships. If Bama only received a 2 year bowl ban and 5 years of probation and 21 lost scholarships for buying Albert Means USC won't get more than that.
• ytownfootball

  

  You could be right...I really don't see it leaning one way or the other. I do see what I think should be the route taken though.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  3reppom wrote:

  Writerbuckeye wrote: The fact that Michael Michaels (former agent in the Bush case) is now scheduled to give a deposition in March (before sanctions are announced) is a death knell for USC's hopes.
  
  The NCAA can take the information from that deposition and use it to determine punishment. It's expected that Michaels will testify that someone on Petey's staff knew about the arrangements, and that he and another agent had full access to players and were allowed on the sidelines.
  
  If that's not lack of control, I'm not sure I understand what the phrase means.

  There is still a big issue of credibility with Michael's. He is a convicted felon who had a fairly lengthy stay in the California Department of Corrections. He could speak the truth entirely but his criminal record will be held against him in all likelihood.
  

  ytownfootball wrote: USC is going to make it very difficult for the NCAA to NOT throw down the hammer. Those are clearly rules violations known by staff, players and fans. The NCAA runs the risk of appearing as a paper Tiger if they don't come down very harshly.

  The NCAA is a paper tiger, has been for decades.

  His credibility would be more of an issue IF there weren't already documents and other evidence that will substantiate his testimony.
  
  The NCAA has a real problem with this case because USC has basically been flaunting its lack of adherence to the regs AND its lack of cooperation for quite a few years.
  
  Factor in a ton of pressure now coming from all over the sports world that views USC as having received preferential treatment, and the NCAA knows it has quite a bit riding on this so far as its credibility is concerned.
  
  Let's not forget how they slapped Alabama not that long ago for infractions that don't even come close to this in magnitude (my view).
  
  Alabama has arguably been one of the top 5 programs in college football for a long, long, long time -- so if they can be hit with pretty harsh sanctions, I don't see why USC shouldn't be vulnerable to the same treatment.
• visionquest

  Good info all around guys. Thanks! I'm secretly hoping they get trucked with sanctions of some kind. But, I'm still not sure they will.
• grass_licker

  its usc the ncaa will let it go and espn will do no coverage of it, theyll make it look like nothing ever happened and ncaa and espn will cover every minute of michigans practice schedule
• Speedofsand

  

  It was a 4 year investigation costing the NCAA millions because of Reggie's lawyers. That is the only reason I can think of why the hammer may drop.
  Look at Florida State - they had widespread academic cheating for the athletic dept. Something like 60 "student" athletes in a dozen sports cheating in the online music class plus lots of other violations. A slap on the wrist, especially compared to New Mexico St. getting more severe punishment for much less of the same violations and cleaner history than Free Shoes U
  The NCAA SUCKS
• 3reppom

  

  The Albert Means saga has little in the common with what Bush did. There was a much greater degree of culpability with the Bama coaching staff and administration in their recruitment of Means. Means high school coach Lynn Lang made it abundantly clear to anyone interested in signing means would have to pay for it, it wasn't hidden and it wasn't a secret. Lang said that he could get Means to sign on the dotted line for anyone if they payed 200,000 dollars, he brokered a deal with Memphis area Alabama boosters. That 200,000 dollar price tag was confirmed by Michigan State, Arkansas and Ole Miss. There is a big difference between the Bama coaching staff making it known to their boosters what it would take to sign Means and ensuring that the boosters got it done and Bush's situation in which he acted of his own accord without the knowledge of the USC administration. Keep in mind that the monetary amount has no bearing at all on the decisions of the NCAA. They treat 5 dollars and 500,000 dollars the same if either amount was acquired in a manner counter to NCAA regulations. USC will probably receive a sentence similar to what Bama got. 5 years of probation, 21 lost scholarships and a 2 year bowl ban. If you are expecting anything more than that you will most likely be disappointed.
• stroups

  

  3reppom wrote: The Albert Means saga has little in the common with what Bush did. There was a much greater degree of culpability with the Bama coaching staff and administration in their recruitment of Means. Means high school coach Lynn Lang made it abundantly clear to anyone interested in signing means would have to pay for it, it wasn't hidden and it wasn't a secret. Lang said that he could get Means to sign on the dotted line for anyone if they payed 200,000 dollars, he brokered a deal with Memphis area Alabama boosters. That 200,000 dollar price tag was confirmed by Michigan State, Arkansas and Ole Miss. There is a big difference between the Bama coaching staff making it known to their boosters what it would take to sign Means and ensuring that the boosters got it done and Bush's situation in which he acted of his own accord without the knowledge of the USC administration. Keep in mind that the monetary amount has no bearing at all on the decisions of the NCAA. They treat 5 dollars and 500,000 dollars the same if either amount was acquired in a manner counter to NCAA regulations. USC will probably receive a sentence similar to what Bama got. 5 years of probation, 21 lost scholarships and a 2 year bowl ban. If you are expecting anything more than that you will most likely be disappointed.

  I would be very happy with that but I don't think they are going to get anything close to it. I think they are going to get a little slap on the wrist with just a few scholarships taken away.
• cam93

  ok thats cool
• darbypitcher22

  

  I hope its worse than the Means case. What they've done is worse than that
• 3reppom

  

  I fail to see how the USC administration has a greater degree of culpability for what Reggie Bush and his family did than the Alabama administration did in the Means scandal.
• vball10set

  any word on Seantrel's decision yet??
• darbypitcher22

  

  ^^^^
  
  probably still waiting for the NCAA's decision. I believe he has until April 1st