Pete Carroll criticizes NCAA on sanctions

[TexasExes98]

Still nothing huh?

Nothing? Did USC receive sanctions for Lack of Institutional Control? Yes, I believe they did. Enough to where the NCAA stripped USC of their BCS title. Hell, Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd peaced out before the NCAA came down and left the school high and dry. Let me guess, Carroll was going to the NFL if a West Coast team came calling, right? Let me guess, it was a coincidence when the Seahawks came calling, right? Again, refer to the ostrich with his head in the sand......

 

[RobToxin]

Nothing wrong with defending the school and stating that he didn't believe USC did anything wrong, but with the way he went about it, he practically dared the NCAA to punish USC.

Yes! This! That is exactly what he did. He sounded like that Ohio State guy that said that stupid thing "I hope Tressell doesn't fire me."

It may have been lip service but at least Tressell took accountability and said the right things. Sometimes in this world, you have to grit your teeth and load your palm with vaseline and lube that which needs to be lubed and then move on.

Garrett did not do that and that was probably a bigger no-no than whatever Reggie received from his agent.

 

[963BUSC]

I still place the full blame for the severity of the sanctions on the AD at the time. Mike Garrett. During the investigation, Garrett came off as arrogant and his attitude, no doubt, pissed off the powers running the NCAA. Had he been a bit more humble and remorseful, perhaps the sanctions would not have been so harsh.

Just my thought anyways.

Others seem to have thought along those lines as well as he was dismissed not long after.

Great system you are advocating. Punishments shouldn't be based on how much a program is cheating or how much benefit they received from their cheating but instead the NCAA should punish institutions based on how arrogant the AD seems. Also if that were the case why didn't the NCAA ease sanctions during the review after the AD was fired.

 

[WizardHawk]

Translation = I have nothing to dispute the facts I've been presented. So I'm trying to save face.

We are naive and have our heads in the sand because we don't believe Carroll actually was with Bush 24/7 AND following his family around. I mean how dumb are we.

It's amazing how easy it is for some people to create this dogma to further their beliefs and are entirely obvious to either fact or common sense. Yet it happens after every one of these cases. It goes beyond just normal cynicism. This is outright a cult religion complete with all of the blind faith they bring.

 

[TexasExes98]

Wrong. Bush's stepfather was involved with a wannabe agent. He and Lake (the wannabe) were trying to start their own sports representation agency and Bush's stepfather was supposed to deliver Reggie as their first client. That is why the impermissible benefits were provided for the Bush family.

Todd McNair never admitted anything and ii's looking like he's going to win his defamation lawsuit vs. the NCAA.

Where is your link that Bush said he thought Pete Carroll knew? I've never seen anything where Bush has done anything other than deny that anything happened. In fact, Bush never even testified before the NCAA.

Cash and carry - Reggie Bush Investigation - Yahoo Sports

"And at one point during the 2005 season, sources say Bush thought that Carroll knew about his parents' living arrangement and feared he was going to conduct his own investigation. Bush called Michaels, instructing that if Carroll called regarding the house to "tell him that you're a longtime family friend." Carroll never called Michaels."

 

[WizardHawk]

Nothing? Did USC receive sanctions for Lack of Institutional Control? Yes, I believe they did. Enough to where the NCAA stripped USC of their BCS title. Hell, Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd peaced out before the NCAA came down and left the school high and dry. Let me guess, Carroll was going to the NFL if a West Coast team came calling, right? Let me guess, it was a coincidence when the Seahawks came calling, right? Again, refer to the ostrich with his head in the sand......

I'm sure it could be said that the Seahawks may have gone after him more vociferously knowing this may be a better time to dangle a carrot or two in front of him, but they gave him everything he had already publicly stated would be required for him to leave USC and go back to the NFL. And we aren't just talking location. He was given full input on who the GM was going to be and other considerations he said he would need to return to the NFL. Coincidence? No, but none is required to say he didn't have to leave over what that case was bringing.

So far all I've read from you is insistence that the world works the way you believe it does and all who don't see it that way are fools, and yet provide nothing by way of proof or fact, simply innuendo at best. Carroll was guilty and that's all there is to it and his leaving was purely because he knew he was guilty and was leaving town before the heat came down on him. Right? How long was his show cause set for? What blame was laid directly on him in any official document? I would actually understand his leaving while still not being guilty of anything as he wouldn't be the first HC to leave pissed off at the overreaching of the NCAA. Don James retired over it. Others have left the college ranks as well because of it.

Given that there is fact and reason on our side the burden of proof falls on you to make your outrageous claims instead of saying something along the lines of 'duh, everyone knows it'.

 

[WizardHawk]

Cash and carry - Reggie Bush Investigation - Yahoo Sports

"And at one point during the 2005 season, sources say Bush thought that Carroll knew about his parents' living arrangement and feared he was going to conduct his own investigation. Bush called Michaels, instructing that if Carroll called regarding the house to "tell him that you're a longtime family friend." Carroll never called Michaels."

So your proof is that Bush said he 'thought' carroll knew, and if he came looking into it to have someone lie to him about it to further keep it from him? Do you not see the failed logic there?

At best he is saying he thought Carroll might have found out and was making sure if he came snooping around to look into that people lie to protect him FROM CARROLL. How exactly does that prove Carroll did in fact know about it and didn't care or helped cover it up?

It's called logic.

 

[trojanfan12]

Cash and carry - Reggie Bush Investigation - Yahoo Sports

"And at one point during the 2005 season, sources say Bush thought that Carroll knew about his parents' living arrangement and feared he was going to conduct his own investigation. Bush called Michaels, instructing that if Carroll called regarding the house to "tell him that you're a longtime family friend." Carroll never called Michaels."

Nice try bringing in an article from 2006 that has had much of it proven to be incorrect.

Bush thinking Carroll knew, equates to Carroll actually knowing, how? Also, sources saying Bush said, isn't Bush saying it.

 

[charlie42s]

Joe McKnights "tricked out SUV" belonged to his girlfriend. There was no violation, which is why there was no punishment.


Also, there was never any question re: players driving "fancy cars". The only cars that were ever called into question were Reggie Bush's car which was shown to not be outside his families means and was never proven to be provided by anyone other than his family and Joe McKnight driving an SUV that belonged to his girlfriend.

So Joe McKnight decided on his 'own' not to play in the Emerald Bowl after the allegations came out? Yeah, right. Punishment or not, he did not play in a bowl game when he was 'eligible' to play.

The girlfriend's SUV was provided to her by an agent, which she was 'supposedly' working for. Yeah, right.

Joe McKnight first told investigators that he was not driving the vehicle and then had to backtrack and admit that he was driving it. I can just imagine his response. "Oh, you mean that SUV. I thought you meant another SUV."

No matter how it was written, he was driving a vehicle that belonged to an agent or an employee of the agent.

 

[trojanfan12]

So Joe McKnight decided on his 'own' not to play in the Emerald Bowl after the allegations came out? Yeah, right. Punishment or not, he did not play in a bowl game when he was 'eligible' to play.

The girlfriend's SUV was provided to her by an agent, which she was 'supposedly' working for. Yeah, right.

Joe McKnight first told investigators that he was not driving the vehicle and then had to backtrack and admit that he was driving it. I can just imagine his response. "Oh, you mean that SUV. I thought you meant another SUV."

No matter how it was written, he was driving a vehicle that belonged to an agent or an employee of the agent.

No, Joe McKnight didn't decide not to play in the Emerald Bowl. He didn't play because USC held him out because the question about the car hadn't been ruled on by the NCAA. So, USC held him out to be on the safe side. In the end, it was determined that the car belonged to his girlfriend (the agent that she worked for was her Dad) and there was no wrongdoing on USC's part.

Keep grasping at those straws though.

 

[socaljim242]

Cash and carry - Reggie Bush Investigation - Yahoo Sports

"And at one point during the 2005 season, sources say Bush thought that Carroll knew about his parents' living arrangement and feared he was going to conduct his own investigation. Bush called Michaels, instructing that if Carroll called regarding the house to "tell him that you're a longtime family friend." Carroll never called Michaels."

Good lord how stupid are you (don't answer we know)? If at some point Reggie thought Pete would find out it's obvious he thought Pete would put a stop to it (why else would you investigate). Since he didn't "find out" it kept going. My god we can see you're an idiot but do you really have to keep proving it over and over?

 

[socaljim242]

So Joe McKnight decided on his 'own' not to play in the Emerald Bowl after the allegations came out? Yeah, right. Punishment or not, he did not play in a bowl game when he was 'eligible' to play.

The girlfriend's SUV was provided to her by an agent, which she was 'supposedly' working for. Yeah, right.

Joe McKnight first told investigators that he was not driving the vehicle and then had to backtrack and admit that he was driving it. I can just imagine his response. "Oh, you mean that SUV. I thought you meant another SUV."

No matter how it was written, he was driving a vehicle that belonged to an agent or an employee of the agent.

Are you two Texas boys inbred twins? Joe didn't decide "on his own". When has any player "decided on his own" to not play in a game because of something not being right? USC sat him and it turned out he could have played.

 

[trojanfan12]

End of the day (and hopefully this thread) is this:


Arrogance and stupidity are a lethal combination and Mike Garrett has an abundance of both. USC found out about the Bush family right about the same time the rest of us did. That was when the Yahoo report came out.


Garrett, and therefore USC, took the stance of "we weren't involved and had no knowledge of this" and told that to the NCAA. There is no problem there.


The problem was that Garrett should have immediately made sure that we conducted our own investigation and then submitted the findings to the NCAA along with self-imposed sanctions to match what we asked for in our appeal (which was roughly half of what we got from the NCAA). While I do not believe USC knew or that there was any way, short of hiring private investigators to follow players around, for them to know, a school is still held responsible for what happens within their athletic department.


However, due to Garrett's previously mentioned abundance of arrogance and stupidity, he basically told the NCAA: "Screw you, we didn't have anything to do with this, we didn't know anything about it and we're not doing your investigation for you". I think he was actually stupid and arrogant enough to believe that USC would get off scot-free on this simply because no one at USC knew or was involved.


The NCAA then came in, they were pissed at Garrett's reaction and rather than behaving as a professional organization, they decided to stoop to Garrett's level. The end result of Garrett's stupidity and the NCAA deciding to stoop to his level? Innocent players and coaches get to suffer the consequences almost 10 years after the fact (not to mention USC fans still having to deal with all of the misinformation that remains).

 

[socaljim242]

End of the day (and hopefully this thread) is this:


Arrogance and stupidity are a lethal combination and Mike Garrett has an abundance of both. USC found out about the Bush family right about the same time the rest of us did. That was when the Yahoo report came out.


Garrett, and therefore USC, took the stance of "we weren't involved and had no knowledge of this" and told that to the NCAA. There is no problem there.


The problem was that Garrett should have immediately made sure that we conducted our own investigation and then submitted the findings to the NCAA along with self-imposed sanctions to match what we asked for in our appeal (which was roughly half of what we got from the NCAA). While I do not believe USC knew or that there was any way, short of hiring private investigators to follow players around, for them to know, a school is still held responsible for what happens within their athletic department.


However, due to Garrett's previously mentioned abundance of arrogance and stupidity, he basically told the NCAA: "Screw you, we didn't have anything to do with this, we didn't know anything about it and we're not doing your investigation for you". I think he was actually stupid and arrogant enough to believe that USC would get off scot-free on this simply because no one at USC knew or was involved.


The NCAA then came in, they were pissed at Garrett's reaction and rather than behaving as a professional organization, they decided to stoop to Garrett's level. The end result of Garrett's stupidity and the NCAA deciding to stoop to his level? Innocent players and coaches get to suffer the consequences almost 10 years after the fact (not to mention USC fans still having to deal with all of the misinformation that remains).

........and after four years of snooping ,mind you it took a four year investigation for ONE player when at Miami they investigated for two years (yeah right) on 71 players. One player , four years of snooping , 71 players they did it in 20 something months.
The NCAA had one thing to pin USC with. That lake told them in an interview that McNair called him one morning in 2006 and he said in the conversation Mcnair admitted he knew. So the NCAA in an interview asks McNair if he called Lake in 2oo5 and initiated a conversation ( the call was in 2006 , the NCAA got the year wrong).. He told them no he did not . They stopped questioning him there and labled him a liar and took Lakes version as the truth. Now years later McNair is going to court to clear his name and it's found out that records show it was Lake who called McNair. Funny but now it doesn't matter to the NCAA that the made a mistake. The whole thing is a joke .

 

[charlie42s]

No, Joe McKnight didn't decide not to play in the Emerald Bowl. He didn't play because USC held him out because the question about the car hadn't been ruled on by the NCAA. So, USC held him out to be on the safe side. In the end, it was determined that the car belonged to his girlfriend (the agent that she worked for was her Dad) and there was no wrongdoing on USC's part.

Keep grasping at those straws though.

So, you've written that USC didn't punish McKnight, but USC didn't allow him to play. Sounds like punishment to me.

Either way, McKnight drove a car that was owned by an agent's representative. That's not permitted by the NCAA. The NCAA probably decided not to proceed with additional punishments, like the Death Penalty, because USC had already taken measures by punishing McKnight when they didn't allow him to play.

I never wrote that USC had done anything wrong, merely that they chose to look the other way. However, McKnight did break NCAA rules by getting the benefit of an agent's(or his employee's) car. That's wrong.

 

[trojanfan12]

So, you've written that USC didn't punish McKnight, but USC didn't allow him to play. Sounds like punishment to me.

Either way, McKnight drove a car that was owned by an agent's representative. That's not permitted by the NCAA. The NCAA probably decided not to proceed with additional punishments, like the Death Penalty, because USC had already taken measures by punishing McKnight when they didn't allow him to play.

I never wrote that USC had done anything wrong, merely that they chose to look the other way. However, McKnight did break NCAA rules by getting the benefit of an agent's(or his employee's) car. That's wrong.

Uh no, I wrote that USC wasn't punished. It's pretty obvious that if McKnight was held out, he was punished. You're wrong about the agents car. It was ruled by the NCAA (after the fact) that McKnight could have played. So, not only were you unable to comprehend what I wrote, you aren't even correct on how the investigation turned out.

Are you running out of straws to grasp yet?

 

[charlie42s]

Uh no, I wrote that USC wasn't punished. It's pretty obvious that if McKnight was held out, he was punished. You're wrong about the agents car. It was ruled by the NCAA (after the fact) that McKnight could have played. So, not only were you unable to comprehend what I wrote, you aren't even correct on how the investigation turned out.

Are you running out of straws to grasp yet?

Please provide a link. I find it hard to believe that the NCAA said that it was okay for a football player to driver an agent's(or his employee's) vehicle.

 

[trojanfan12]

Please provide a link. I find it hard to believe that the NCAA said that it was okay for a football player to driver an agent's(or his employee's) vehicle.

This is from a Sept. 1, 2012 Los Angeles Times article about some allegations that came up about McKnight after he left (yes, they turned out be unfounded) that mentions the Land Rover from 2009:

When allegations regarding Joe McKnight's use of a Land Rover arose in 2009, USC fully investigated the matter. All of the information related to the investigation was sent to the NCAA. The NCAA staff accepted the report, and no violation was processed.

This link also includes the above quote (different source though):

Haden Responds to LA Times Story - USC Trojans

This one (from Jan. 8, 2010) is about him declaring for the draft, but mentions that he wasn't cleared in time for the Emerald Bowl:

USC Trojans' Joe McKnight leaving early for draft - ESPN Los Angeles

 

[charlie42s]

This is from a Sept. 1, 2012 Los Angeles Times article about some allegations that came up about McKnight after he left (yes, they turned out be unfounded) that mentions the Land Rover from 2009:

This link also includes the above quote (different source though):

Haden Responds to LA Times Story - USC Trojans

This one (from Jan. 8, 2010) is about him declaring for the draft, but mentions that he wasn't cleared in time for the Emerald Bowl:

USC Trojans' Joe McKnight leaving early for draft - ESPN Los Angeles

Good try, but neither of those links stated that the NCAA had cleared McKnight of any NCAA violations. One of them wrote that McKnight said and that the other was that USC said.

He drove an agent's car, that's not legal according to the NCAA. Like I wrote earlier the NCAA probably decided that him being held out of the Emerald Bowl was enough punishment.

 

[963BUSC]

OT:

The NCAA argues in defense of an ongoing defamation suit that possible "factual errors, inadequate investigation and overt hostility" by the association should not help the case of former USC assistant coach Todd McNair.

Not sure how anyone can argue for the NCAA's point of view after they made that statement but feel free to carry on.