PDA

View Full Version : The NCAA Sanctions on Ohio State and USC



SoCalDukeFan
12-20-2011, 05:56 PM
Ohio State has multiple infractions over several years involving several players and a booster. The head coach knew about it but kept quiet.

USC had one player whose family, 100 miles from the school, got major benefits. Player also got benefits. Asst coach is accused of knowing about it and lying but kept quiet. No USC booster was involved, the benefits came from a wannabe agent.

Ohio State gets a one year bowl ban and loses 9 scholarships.

USC gets a two year bowl ban and loses 30 scholarships.

NCAA is a TOTAL JOKE.

SoCal

Olympic Fan
12-20-2011, 07:34 PM
Ohio State has multiple infractions over several years involving several players and a booster. The head coach knew about it but kept quiet.

USC had one player whose family, 100 miles from the school, got major benefits. Player also got benefits. Asst coach is accused of knowing about it and lying but kept quiet. No USC booster was involved, the benefits came from a wannabe agent.

Ohio State gets a one year bowl ban and loses 9 scholarships.

USC gets a two year bowl ban and loses 30 scholarships.

NCAA is a TOTAL JOKE.

SoCal

And North Carolina has nine major violations (more than USC and OSU combined) with the associate head coach actually funneling money (more money that Ohio State and USC combined) to the players. We have at least four players lying to investigators and the guilty coach refusing to cooperate with the NCAA. He was allowed to resign from his job while receiving a $90,000 severence package.

What will their penalty be?

Bluedog
12-20-2011, 08:48 PM
I agree that the NCAA seems to be inconsistent with their punishments, but didn't that one player's family at USC get an obscene amount of benefits? Like in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands range? (I am not asking these questions in a mocking tone, by the way. I honestly don't know all the facts of the case, but I thought Bush's family got basically a house.) While as far as I know, the Ohio State players traded their memorabilia for free tattoos or sold them on eBay for a couple hundred. Seems like a different scale to me so perhaps that's why USC got a worse punishment, but the Ohio State coverup from a coach's perspective certainly was more blatant. USC also got charged with "lack of institutional control," I believe, with the basketball program being investigated in tandem. Ga Tech got its ACC Championship taken away (as well as a good portion of the season) for one player receiving something like $200 and no coverup involved at all. That seemed unnecessarily harsh to me. Definitely inconsistent punishments, but hard to be please everybody, I suppose. Again, I haven't read extensive details surrounding all these cases, but the above are what I recall, so I apologize for any misstatements.

mgtr
12-20-2011, 09:44 PM
And North Carolina has nine major violations (more than USC and OSU combined) with the associate head coach actually funneling money (more money that Ohio State and USC combined) to the players. We have at least four players lying to investigators and the guilty coach refusing to cooperate with the NCAA. He was allowed to resign from his job while receiving a $90,000 severence package.

What will their penalty be?

Loss of wine and cheese privileges for one year. Hah!

alteran
12-20-2011, 09:48 PM
Loss of wine and cheese privileges for one year. Hah!

You can maybe take the cheese, but you'll NEVER get the whine out of the tarheels.

SoCalDukeFan
12-20-2011, 11:44 PM
I agree that the NCAA seems to be inconsistent with their punishments, but didn't that one player's family at USC get an obscene amount of benefits? Like in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands range? (I am not asking these questions in a mocking tone, by the way. I honestly don't know all the facts of the case, but I thought Bush's family got basically a house.) While as far as I know, the Ohio State players traded their memorabilia for free tattoos or sold them on eBay for a couple hundred. Seems like a different scale to me so perhaps that's why USC got a worse punishment, but the Ohio State coverup from a coach's perspective certainly was more blatant. USC also got charged with "lack of institutional control," I believe, with the basketball program being investigated in tandem. Ga Tech got its ACC Championship taken away (as well as a good portion of the season) for one player receiving something like $200 and no coverup involved at all. That seemed unnecessarily harsh to me. Definitely inconsistent punishments, but hard to be please everybody, I suppose. Again, I haven't read extensive details surrounding all these cases, but the above are what I recall, so I apologize for any misstatements.

Bush's family got huge benefits including use of a house. However this was in a time when anyone with a pulse could get a huge mortgage. My problem is how is USC or any school supposed to police families that may be 100 miles away (in this case) or even thousands.

It would probably be easier to police free tattoos. Ohio State's issues, while less in monetary value, were systemic and over many years and involved a booster. How is that not a lack of institutional control? USC's involved someone who thought he was an agent.

You are right that the USC basketball team was also penalized. I personally thought the accusations against basketball were worse than those against football. The coach was charged with paying a runner to get OJ Mayo to USC, and the same runner had gotten USC in trouble before with another player.

I don't think USC should have gotten off. I do think think that 2 years of no bowl games and loss of 30 scholarships over 3 years is too severe.

From what I have read both UNC and Miami should be penalized more severely than USC. Hard to imagine what that is short of the death penalty.

As does this guy link (http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post?id=31896)

SoCal

El_Diablo
12-21-2011, 01:43 AM
Notwithstanding how USC's misdeeds (i.e. benefits for Bush) directly compare with OSU's misdeeds (i.e. tattoos, cars, pants), I understand that USC's penalties were likely made harsher due to their general lack of cooperation with the NCAA and COI, whereas OSU has been relatively proactive in self-reporting, taking mitigating steps, and taking self-disciplinary actions. One has to factor that data in when comparing how the NCAA has handled the two situations, rather than simply focus on the benefits themselves.

CameronBornAndBred
12-21-2011, 08:12 AM
And North Carolina has nine major violations (more than USC and OSU combined) with the associate head coach actually funneling money (more money that Ohio State and USC combined) to the players. We have at least four players lying to investigators and the guilty coach refusing to cooperate with the NCAA. He was allowed to resign from his job while receiving a $90,000 severence package.

Their uniforms are ugly, too.

davekay1971
12-21-2011, 08:46 AM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/12/19/2862012/tar-heels-top-receiver-may-face.html

D Jones is the MAN! I remember when I was in college and I had plenty of money to pay for admission to the club for the first 24 ladies arriving to the party in my honor, and then buy 24 shots every hour on the hour, AND give away $500 to some lucky ladies!

Glad that UNC has cleaned up their football act. CLEARLY, there is no lack of institutional control at that fine palace of academic virtue.

The clock is ticking, NCAA...when do we all get to roll our eyes at the sanctions comin' to Chapa Heeya?

(And, to keep this vitriolic anti-UNC post loosely connected to the thread, how are those sanctions going to stack up against USC's and OSU's? I was going to post this to the old UNC beat goes on thread, but that was locked, and I didn't feel like the wonderfully entertaining Dwight Jones poster story was worth it's own thread).

PS: I'm kind of old and out of it, but I really really want to attend that party. Ummm, what exactly is a "sexxxy casual" dress code? Maybe I should consult with the ladies of the UNC-CH Chi Omega chapter. They seem really well versed in the etiquette of partying with UNC athletes. Remember ladies...be a classy jersey chaser, and keep your jock-sniffing boyfriends in check! http://deadspin.com/5787963/self-proclaimed-jersey+chasers-bring-unc-hoopsters-to-sorority-formal-warn-sisters-first

Olympic Fan
12-21-2011, 04:38 PM
Stewert Mandell of SI has an interesting take on how the OSU ruling impacts other pending cases. His major take: "If anybody's fans should be shaking in their boots, it's UNC's."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/12/20/future.ncaa.penalties/index.html#ixzz1h9rbs7Ox

Heard a recorded opinion piece by Jim Rome (not one of my favorites), talking about the Ohio State ruling -- lambasting AD Gene Smith (the guy Talman Trask wanted to hire at Duke in 1997) for not self-imposing a one-year bowl ban. His argument was that the Buckeyes would be far better off taking their medicine this year -- with a 6-6 team in a minor bowl with a lame duck coach -- than next year, when Urban Meyer will have to stay home no matter what.

Rome didn't mention it, but I wonder if the same applies to the powers that be at UNC. They elected to go bowling this year and ended up in the Poulan Weed-Eater Independence Bowl (about the worst bowl possible) with a lame duck coach.

Of course, the UNC response has been that they won't be getting a bowl ban ... that nobody gets a bowl ban with out a LOIC ruling. That's exactly what Gene Smith said at Ohio State and -- surprise, surprise! -- OSO got a bowl ban with the same Failure to Monitor (not LOIC) that UNC admitted.

I can hear screams from Chapel Hill now if they get a bowl ban. Hope they enjoy their bowl trip now when Coach Fedora will have to start with a team banned from a bowl.

throatybeard
12-22-2011, 12:04 AM
They elected to go bowling this year and ended up in the Poulan Weed-Eater Independence Bowl (about the worst bowl possible) with a lame duck coach.

The Independence Bowl was last sponsored by Poulan in 1996. It has had four different sponsors since then.

-jk
12-22-2011, 07:44 AM
The Independence Bowl was last sponsored by Poulan in 1996. It has had four different sponsors since then.

But "Poulan Weed-Eater Independence Bowl" was such a brilliant name, it bears repeating!

-jk

CameronBornAndBred
12-22-2011, 11:49 AM
It just dawned on me that Withers better enjoy his time at the Independence Bowl, because since he's off to Ohio State next season he'll definitely be home for the holidays. There is some sort of delicious irony in there, although I don't think as an individual he's deserving of any penalties.

Devilsfan
12-22-2011, 03:05 PM
Based on how bad the sanctions were at tOSU, I say "death" to our friends at the state college in chapel hill.

mgtr
12-22-2011, 04:04 PM
With regard to NCAA sanctions, I am probably in company with a large number of fans -- interested, but not knowledgeable. Given that lack of knowledge, the sanctions appear to have quite a random element, and vary by who is in charge of the NCAA. I also have never quite comprehended why penalties imposed on an institution during a coach's tenure don't travel with him (eg, Calipari and quite a few others).
I am confident we have members of this board who can enlighten me (and, I hope, others).

SoCalDukeFan
12-22-2011, 08:35 PM
With regard to NCAA sanctions, I am probably in company with a large number of fans -- interested, but not knowledgeable. Given that lack of knowledge, the sanctions appear to have quite a random element, and vary by who is in charge of the NCAA. I also have never quite comprehended why penalties imposed on an institution during a coach's tenure don't travel with him (eg, Calipari and quite a few others).
I am confident we have members of this board who can enlighten me (and, I hope, others).

Link (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/ci_19590485)

SoCal

mgtr
12-22-2011, 09:32 PM
Link (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/ci_19590485)

SoCal

Thanks, good info. Doesn't much change my mind, however. Still wonder why sanctions don't follow coach.

SoCalDukeFan
12-22-2011, 10:39 PM
Thanks, good info. Doesn't much change my mind, however. Still wonder why sanctions don't follow coach.

I guess that the coach could coach pro or retire and the sanctions would have little meaning.

It does seem wrong that players who were in high school or even middle school when the violations occurred have to pay the penalty and the coach can move on to another college job and enjoy success. I will say in most of the recent cases that has not happened. Pete Carroll is in the pros and Tressell is also.

I also think in some cases it is more the schools responsibility than the coaches. You might have an agent paying a player's family hundreds or thousands miles away. Is the coach suppose to police that?

If you set very very very low expectations for the NCAA than you will only be mildly disappointed.

SoCal

Newton_14
12-22-2011, 10:52 PM
Bush's family got huge benefits including use of a house. However this was in a time when anyone with a pulse could get a huge mortgage. My problem is how is USC or any school supposed to police families that may be 100 miles away (in this case) or even thousands.

It would probably be easier to police free tattoos. Ohio State's issues, while less in monetary value, were systemic and over many years and involved a booster. How is that not a lack of institutional control? USC's involved someone who thought he was an agent.

You are right that the USC basketball team was also penalized. I personally thought the accusations against basketball were worse than those against football. The coach was charged with paying a runner to get OJ Mayo to USC, and the same runner had gotten USC in trouble before with another player.

I don't think USC should have gotten off. I do think think that 2 years of no bowl games and loss of 30 scholarships over 3 years is too severe.

From what I have read both UNC and Miami should be penalized more severely than USC. Hard to imagine what that is short of the death penalty.

As does this guy link (http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post?id=31896)

SoCal

You may be right in your assessment of comparing the actual violations of the 3 schools, however, I think you are under estimating the cooperation factor. That played a very large role in the severity of the penalties USC received. According to reports, the USC administration and staff went into full denial, circled the wagons, and did not cooperate with the investigators. The NCAA gives a lot of weight to that. It appears that OSU and UNC worked with and cooperated with the investigators much moreso than did USC.

I think that played a huge role in the sanctions at USC being much more severe than OSU sanctions.

One thing OSU did wrong, and paid the price for, was not assesing a self-imposed Bowl Ban. That is why they got hit with a bowl ban next year. I fully expect the same thing to happen to UNC. They accepted 2 Bowl Bids (last year and this year) after the investigation had started, and I will be very surprised if the NCAA does not make them pay the piper for doing so, and hits UNC with at least a one year bowl ban.

burnspbesq
12-22-2011, 11:00 PM
Count me as one member of the Trojan Family (JD) who is willing to let bygones be bygones.

The bowl ban has run its course, we will continue to get the best recruits in SoCal, and Barkley is coming back. And in the process of dealing with the NCAA investigation, we got rid of Mike Garrett.

On another blog I frequent, I just posted a link to a YouTube video of the Spirit of Troy playing "Conquest" and told them they'd better get used to hearing it. They (and you) might get to hear it 14 times next year.

SoCalDukeFan
12-24-2011, 05:51 PM
You may be right in your assessment of comparing the actual violations of the 3 schools, however, I think you are under estimating the cooperation factor. That played a very large role in the severity of the penalties USC received. According to reports, the USC administration and staff went into full denial, circled the wagons, and did not cooperate with the investigators. The NCAA gives a lot of weight to that. It appears that OSU and UNC worked with and cooperated with the investigators much moreso than did USC.

I think that played a huge role in the sanctions at USC being much more severe than OSU sanctions.

One thing OSU did wrong, and paid the price for, was not assesing a self-imposed Bowl Ban. That is why they got hit with a bowl ban next year. I fully expect the same thing to happen to UNC. They accepted 2 Bowl Bids (last year and this year) after the investigation had started, and I will be very surprised if the NCAA does not make them pay the piper for doing so, and hits UNC with at least a one year bowl ban.


USC closely worked with the NCAA. While a large portion of the media has been trying hard to push the “USC fought the NCAA” meme, it’s absolutely not true. ..That is even apparently expressed in the Notice of Allegations, where the NCAA thanked USC for their help and support. In fact, pages 56 and 57 of the NCAA Public Infractions Report says this.."The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation ... The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel .. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution's cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case."

SoCal

Newton_14
12-24-2011, 10:35 PM
USC closely worked with the NCAA. While a large portion of the media has been trying hard to push the “USC fought the NCAA” meme, it’s absolutely not true. ..That is even apparently expressed in the Notice of Allegations, where the NCAA thanked USC for their help and support. In fact, pages 56 and 57 of the NCAA Public Infractions Report says this.."The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation ... The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel .. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution's cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case."

SoCal

So the NCAA gave USC tougher penalties simply because they do not like USC and wanted to treat them unfairly for no apparent reason? Had nothing to do with actual violations or coaches and assistant coaches being less than forthcoming to the investigators? Pete Carroll denied the allegations from the outset and then skipped town. Then USC hires a coach to replace him that had just spent one year at Tennessee getting them in trouble. I doubt USC scored any points with the NCAA with that hire.

At any rate, the NCAA viewed the USC and OSU situations differently and handed down infractions they felt were deserved in both cases. I doubt there was some grand conspiracy at play to screw USC over.

I agree the NCAA is not very consistent and some of their rulings make no sense, but I don't feel they were too harsh on USC, and the penalties do not appear to have hurt the state of USC's program too much, as they are pretty much right back at the top of the PAC-? heading into next year.

SoCalDukeFan
12-25-2011, 11:41 AM
So the NCAA gave USC tougher penalties simply because they do not like USC and wanted to treat them unfairly for no apparent reason? Had nothing to do with actual violations or coaches and assistant coaches being less than forthcoming to the investigators? Pete Carroll denied the allegations from the outset and then skipped town. Then USC hires a coach to replace him that had just spent one year at Tennessee getting them in trouble. I doubt USC scored any points with the NCAA with that hire.

At any rate, the NCAA viewed the USC and OSU situations differently and handed down infractions they felt were deserved in both cases. I doubt there was some grand conspiracy at play to screw USC over.

I agree the NCAA is not very consistent and some of their rulings make no sense, but I don't feel they were too harsh on USC, and the penalties do not appear to have hurt the state of USC's program too much, as they are pretty much right back at the top of the PAC-? heading into next year.

I think USC's view was that they should not be expected to police players' families who are 100 miles from the school and interacting with people who are neither boosters nor agents, and with no known ties to college or pro football. So USC cooperated but fought the charges.

Paul Dee of Miami headed the committee that investigated USC. Many USC people think that he did have it in for USC. Basically Pete Carroll used USC's location and connection to media types (Snoop Dogg, Will Ferrall etc) to create an atmosphere that no other school could compete against. No one found that anything improper happened as a result of the atmosphere but Dee did not like it. It is interesting that Dee presided over a program that was completely out of control.

I think USC deserved some penalty. They did not thoroughly investigate the Bush allegations. The compliance office was weak. There were other problems in basketball and women's tennis. I think that the situation at Ohio State was worse as it involved a head coach that lied and a rather systematic violation of the rules. In any case it is grossly unfair, in my opinion, to give USC a two year bowl ban and take away 30 scholarships while giving Ohio State only a one year ban and a 9 scholarship reduction. By almost any standard the allegations against Miami are worse than those against USC and Ohio State. How Miami can be punished more severely is hard to fathom.

If you think its okay to punish USC football for what happened with USC basketball, then I guess it will okay to punish UNC basketball for the football problems.

SoCal

sagegrouse
12-25-2011, 11:48 PM
I think USC's view was that they should not be expected to police players' families who are 100 miles from the school and interacting with people who are neither boosters nor agents, and with no known ties to college or pro football. So USC cooperated but fought the charges.

Paul Dee of Miami headed the committee that investigated USC. Many USC people think that he did have it in for USC. Basically Pete Carroll used USC's location and connection to media types (Snoop Dogg, Will Ferrall etc) to create an atmosphere that no other school could compete against. No one found that anything improper happened as a result of the atmosphere but Dee did not like it. It is interesting that Dee presided over a program that was completely out of control.

I think USC deserved some penalty. They did not thoroughly investigate the Bush allegations. The compliance office was weak. There were other problems in basketball and women's tennis. I think that the situation at Ohio State was worse as it involved a head coach that lied and a rather systematic violation of the rules. In any case it is grossly unfair, in my opinion, to give USC a two year bowl ban and take away 30 scholarships while giving Ohio State only a one year ban and a 9 scholarship reduction. By almost any standard the allegations against Miami are worse than those against USC and Ohio State. How Miami can be punished more severely is hard to fathom.

If you think its okay to punish USC football for what happened with USC basketball, then I guess it will okay to punish UNC basketball for the football problems.

SoCal

The situation at Ohio State was worse. But it was also centered almost solely on the inexcusable actions of the head football coach. As we have said before, there was a smoking gun. Once he was pitched and (now) given a five-year ban from coaching (show-cause condition), it is clear that the penalty was weighted more on the individual than on the school. I don't have problems with that.

Now your assertion that former Miami AD Paul Dee had it in for USC and therefore made its penalty more severe is, well, just so-much internet hokum, unless you have some facts to back up your statement. If Dee wasn't a highly respected professional, he never would have been given the assignment. If he behaved in any way other than a professional during the USC case, the other members of the investigation would have resigned. The NCAA is plodding, cumbersome and -- often -- clueless, but it is not an organization likely to be involved in a plot or revenge.

sagegrouse

SoCalDukeFan
12-26-2011, 11:36 AM
The situation at Ohio State was worse. But it was also centered almost solely on the inexcusable actions of the head football coach. As we have said before, there was a smoking gun. Once he was pitched and (now) given a five-year ban from coaching (show-cause condition), it is clear that the penalty was weighted more on the individual than on the school. I don't have problems with that.

Now your assertion that former Miami AD Paul Dee had it in for USC and therefore made its penalty more severe is, well, just so-much internet hokum, unless you have some facts to back up your statement. If Dee wasn't a highly respected professional, he never would have been given the assignment. If he behaved in any way other than a professional during the USC case, the other members of the investigation would have resigned. The NCAA is plodding, cumbersome and -- often -- clueless, but it is not an organization likely to be involved in a plot or revenge.

sagegrouse

You don't hold the Ohio State AD and Compliance People accountable for what going on under their nose in Columbus, but the NCAA hammers USC for not knowing what was going on 100 miles away.

The assertion about Dee may be hokum but it is widely held. As for Dee the key words should be "WAS highly respected." Look at the accusations against Miami in his tenure. I am sure he would never head another compliance committee.

SoCal

OldPhiKap
12-26-2011, 11:49 AM
How can the NCAA still be investigating the UNC debacle? Part of the stupidity of this whole thing is, by the time they get around to handing down a punishment, it is meaningless to the actual violators and punishes the innocent.

What can be taking so long?

SoCalDukeFan
12-26-2011, 02:20 PM
How can the NCAA still be investigating the UNC debacle? Part of the stupidity of this whole thing is, by the time they get around to handing down a punishment, it is meaningless to the actual violators and punishes the innocent.

What can be taking so long?

The NCAA has no subpoena power. In the USC case, while USC cooperated with the NCAA Reggie Bush did not. In the USC case, and I would think the UNC case and the Miami case, the main accusers are not the most trustworthy people on the planet.

The NCAA investigating committee is comprised of ADs and others with real jobs. It takes time to get them together.

I think that the NCAA's philosophy is that member schools want to win but within the rules. Kind of like golf. So the member schools will police themselves and report violations. So they are really not set up for quick vigorous investigating of each case.

You are absolutely correct in that the time delay itself is a major problem.

SoCal

Olympic Fan
12-26-2011, 02:35 PM
The issue of cooperation is interesting, especially as it deals with UNC.

The school and its boosters have boasted about their "unprecedented" level of cooperation with the NCAA investigation ...

... except that John Blake, the agent/assistant coach at the center of one prong of the investigation, has refused to cooperate with the NCAA. And since UNC allowed him to retire with pay -- they didn't fire him, the paid him $90,000 to go away WITHOUT requiring him to cooperate with the NCAA -- nobody can force him to testify. He has consistently refused to talk with the NCAA.

... and Jennifer Wiley, the rogue tutor who helped several players cheat AND paid thousands of dollars in parking tickets for players while working as a priivate tutor/nanny for Butch's son, who had totally refused to cooperate with the NCAA and is represented by the same lawyer -- surprise, surprise -- who represents Butch Davis.

... and Butch Davis, who did cooperate for awhile, except that he refused to release his private phone records (even after it was demonstrated in court that it was the only phone he used for job-related work). Just before those records were due to be released on a court order, UNC "fired" Butch -- actually, they didn't fire him, but retired him, paying him $1.6 million not to work ... a settlement that allowed him to refuse to continue to cooperate with the NCAA and -- surprise, surprise -- allowed him to refuse to release his phone records.

I guess on some level UNC has cooperated -- but it also looks like they've paid a lot of money to lot of people to keep their mouths shut.

As to how that stacks up to USC cooperation or Ohio State cooperation or Miami cooperation, I don't know. I do know that when Ohio State fired Tressel, they made payment of his retirement package contingent on his continued cooperation with the NCAA. I think it's significant that UNC made no such requirement in their deal with Butch Davis.

Devil in the Blue Dress
12-26-2011, 02:56 PM
The issue of cooperation is interesting, especially as it deals with UNC.

The school and its boosters have boasted about their "unprecedented" level of cooperation with the NCAA investigation ...

... except that John Blake, the agent/assistant coach at the center of one prong of the investigation, has refused to cooperate with the NCAA. And since UNC allowed him to retire with pay -- they didn't fire him, the paid him $90,000 to go away WITHOUT requiring him to cooperate with the NCAA -- nobody can force him to testify. He has consistently refused to talk with the NCAA.

... and Jennifer Wiley, the rogue tutor who helped several players cheat AND paid thousands of dollars in parking tickets for players while working as a priivate tutor/nanny for Butch's son, who had totally refused to cooperate with the NCAA and is represented by the same lawyer -- surprise, surprise -- who represents Butch Davis.

... and Butch Davis, who did cooperate for awhile, except that he refused to release his private phone records (even after it was demonstrated in court that it was the only phone he used for job-related work). Just before those records were due to be released on a court order, UNC "fired" Butch -- actually, they didn't fire him, but retired him, paying him $1.6 million not to work ... a settlement that allowed him to refuse to continue to cooperate with the NCAA and -- surprise, surprise -- allowed him to refuse to release his phone records.

I guess on some level UNC has cooperated -- but it also looks like they've paid a lot of money to lot of people to keep their mouths shut.

As to how that stacks up to USC cooperation or Ohio State cooperation or Miami cooperation, I don't know. I do know that when Ohio State fired Tressel, they made payment of his retirement package contingent on his continued cooperation with the NCAA. I think it's significant that UNC made no such requirement in their deal with Butch Davis.
Having dealt with discipline in the public schools, I can tell you that the notions about what constitutes cooperation are about as varied as what people choose to eat for lunch.;)

sagegrouse
12-26-2011, 03:40 PM
You don't hold the Ohio State AD and Compliance People accountable for what going on under their nose in Columbus, but the NCAA hammers USC for not knowing what was going on 100 miles away.

The assertion about Dee may be hokum but it is widely held. As for Dee the key words should be "WAS highly respected." Look at the accusations against Miami in his tenure. I am sure he would never head another compliance committee.

SoCal

I agree totally with your second paragraph.

The Ohio State case was about nothing -- what? Some tattoos? It was a clear case that the coverup is worse than the crime. So, a third-rate burglary resulted in the removal of a President because of the attempts to cover tracks. At Ohio State, there was a smoking gun e-mail that showed that Tressel knew of a violation, did not report it, but instead sent it to a friend/mentor of the named player. The last made it ten times worse; if he had done nothing, there would always have been the question of whether he had really read and understood the e-mail.

I really haven't followed the USC case as well as Ohio State, UNC or -- for that matter -- Penn State. But it seems to me that the USC and Ohio State cases are different.

sagegrouse

moonpie23
12-26-2011, 09:48 PM
i could be wrong, but, the longer it goes on, the more i feel like they are gonna skate....out of sight, out of mind...(well, except for letting your name and likeness be used for a new year's party..)

Rich
01-07-2012, 01:07 PM
It looks like Joe Nocera, an excellent writer for the NY Times, has taken up the cause of pulling the veil off of the NCAA. Joe used to write for the Business section, but recently moved over to the Op Ed pages. Here are two recent articles he's written regarding the BS that is the NCAA, including one today that describes some improprieties regarding a Carolina football player. Joe is like a pitbull so this may just be the visibility needed for change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/opinion/nocera-the-college-sports-cartel.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=nocera&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/opinion/nocera-ncaas-justice-system.html?scp=6&sq=nocera&st=cse

SoCalDukeFan
12-10-2015, 05:37 PM
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/07/court-slams-ncaa-reggie-bush-usc-violations-case-todd-mcnair/76958960/)

In case any of you thought the NCAA was a fair, unbiased group - think again.

Will be interesting. I hope McNair becomes a very rich man. Can not make it up to USC.

SoCal

BD80
12-10-2015, 06:01 PM
Link (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/07/court-slams-ncaa-reggie-bush-usc-violations-case-todd-mcnair/76958960/)

In case any of you thought the NCAA was a fair, unbiased group - think again.

Will be interesting. I hope McNair becomes a very rich man. Can not make it up to USC.

SoCal

Not really as damning as the article would have you believe. Court merely says there is enough to take to trial, that a jury could believe McNair's interpretation of evidence.

Could be an amusing jury trial. Trojan fans will believe USC (and McNair) got screwed, other SoCal desert denizens might think USC got its just desserts. Nobody will doubt that Reggie was getting PAID, it is an issue of whether USC knew about it.
McNair will have to take the stand and tell the jury he saw all the evidence that Bush's family was receiving illegal benefits and yet had no reason to suspect anything bad was going on.

Unlike the NCAA investigation into Bush, the NCAA will now have subpoena power to defend itself and to pursue the issue. This might not turn out so well for USC

MarkD83
12-10-2015, 08:46 PM
Not really as damning as the article would have you believe. Court merely says there is enough to take to trial, that a jury could believe McNair's interpretation of evidence.

Could be an amusing jury trial. Trojan fans will believe USC (and McNair) got screwed, other SoCal desert denizens might think USC got its just desserts. Nobody will doubt that Reggie was getting PAID, it is an issue of whether USC knew about it.
McNair will have to take the stand and tell the jury he saw all the evidence that Bush's family was receiving illegal benefits and yet had no reason to suspect anything bad was going on.

Unlike the NCAA investigation into Bush, the NCAA will now have subpoena power to defend itself and to pursue the issue. This might not turn out so well for USC

So before folks think that UNC might go down this same path with any sanctions they receive...the statement in bold would be a very scary thing for UNC.

SoCalDukeFan
12-10-2015, 09:12 PM
Not really as damning as the article would have you believe. Court merely says there is enough to take to trial, that a jury could believe McNair's interpretation of evidence.

Could be an amusing jury trial. Trojan fans will believe USC (and McNair) got screwed, other SoCal desert denizens might think USC got its just desserts. Nobody will doubt that Reggie was getting PAID, it is an issue of whether USC knew about it.
McNair will have to take the stand and tell the jury he saw all the evidence that Bush's family was receiving illegal benefits and yet had no reason to suspect anything bad was going on.

Unlike the NCAA investigation into Bush, the NCAA will now have subpoena power to defend itself and to pursue the issue. This might not turn out so well for USC

It is easy to say that McNair should have figured out that Bush's parents were living a lifestyle well beyond their means. However this was a time when anyone with a pulse could get a massive home loan.

It will be interesting. Also interesting to hear the NCAA explain why they did so much based on the recollection of a convicted felon of a 2 minute phone call.

SoCal

Nugget
12-11-2015, 04:49 PM
It is easy to say that McNair should have figured out that Bush's parents were living a lifestyle well beyond their means. However this was a time when anyone with a pulse could get a massive home loan.

It will be interesting. Also interesting to hear the NCAA explain why they did so much based on the recollection of a convicted felon of a 2 minute phone call.

SoCal

Worse than that, the decision reflects that what Lake recounted as happening in the phone call was extremely murky -- at best/worst he relayed his observation that comments from Bush to Lake (at some prior unspecified time) led Lake to believe that McNair knew what was going on. Lake never even said "I told McNair" or "Bush told me he had told McNair." It's multiple layers of speculation.

And the corruption of the process by people who clearly knew they needed to make this finding against McNair in order to "get" USC is outrageous.

As SoCal notes, the evidence that it "should have been obvious" to USC that Bush (and/or his family) were getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars was very trumped up. The house his parents were living in wasn't super-grand (and it is true that in 2005-2006 anyone with a pulse could have gotten a loan for that kind of house), Moreno Valley was an hour drive away from USC so it is likely that none of the coaches saw it in any event, and Bush was driving a used Monte Carlo (albeit a tricked out one). Clearly, there was lots of "smoke," but the actual evidence of fire wasn't that dramatic.

On top of which, the punishment was absurdly out of proportion to the "crime." USC was nailed as hard as it was in order to be made an example of and as extra punishment for not rolling over in the process. And yet, even with such considerations, the penalty was still massively unfair in the scheme of things -- a 1 year bowl ban (instead of 2) and the loss of 15 scholarships (instead of 30) would have been a more than appropriate sanction as compared to the much more egregious Alabama violations several years earlier.