NCAA overstepped in USC case

[nddulac]

Their entire case was built on McNair.

Sure - the fact that Reggie Bush was being sued for breech of contract over he extra benefits he received (and his failure to honor his contractual agreements) had nothing to do with it.

The reason USC got hit so hard was because of the attitude taken by the Mike Garrett-lead athletic department, which engaged in a campaign of obstruction and lack of cooperation. that coupled with the reality that that USC was not making anything even close to industry standard efforts at maintaining compliance.

Now - you can make the case that the penalties at USC were too harsh, but to me, that is a non-starter. I understand the argument, because the penalties were indeed harsh. But given the atmosphere at USC at the time, and USC's history that is littered with with runins with the NCAA and PAC-n) I still say it is a non-starter.

A better argument would be that the penalties at Miami (Fl) and tOSU were far too lenient. (The penalties at Oregon were actually about par for the course given the number of players involved.) I will never understand how Ohio State avoided a "lack of institutional control" penalty. However - I await the outcome of the case at North Carolina. That case warrants a level of punishment amongst the harshest the NCAA has ever dealt.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Name one USC official that didn't cooperate. I'll wait.

 

[nddulac]

Name one USC official that didn't cooperate. I'll wait.

Mike Garrett.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Apparently there have now been e-mails released in which committee members state that they can't find any wrongdoing by McNair.

Their entire case was built on McNair.

Lol, isn't that crazy?!

Oh, lets not forget about a bigger joke, Paul Dee

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Mike Garrett.

How??

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Some people think having a certain attitude, means you are not cooperating.

 

[trojanfan12]

Sure - the fact that Reggie Bush was being sued for breech of contract over he extra benefits he received (and his failure to honor his contractual agreements) had nothing to do with it.

The reason USC got hit so hard was because of the attitude taken by the Mike Garrett-lead athletic department, which engaged in a campaign of obstruction and lack of cooperation. that coupled with the reality that that USC was not making anything even close to industry standard efforts at maintaining compliance.

Now - you can make the case that the penalties at USC were too harsh, but to me, that is a non-starter. I understand the argument, because the penalties were indeed harsh. But given the atmosphere at USC at the time, and USC's history that is littered with with runins with the NCAA and PAC-n) I still say it is a non-starter.

A better argument would be that the penalties at Miami (Fl) and tOSU were far too lenient. (The penalties at Oregon were actually about par for the course given the number of players involved.) I will never understand how Ohio State avoided a "lack of institutional control" penalty. However - I await the outcome of the case at North Carolina. That case warrants a level of punishment amongst the harshest the NCAA has ever dealt.

Uh, Reggie Bush never got sued for anything. There was no contract. The wannabe agent and his stepfather were trying to start a sports agency business and the improper benefits he and his family received were to entice him to leave USC early and sign with them.

Read the NCAA's report, only McNair was named. The NCAA built their case entirely on McNair and an alleged phone call that they couldn't even get the date right on.

Additionally, the NCAA's report stated that USC cooperated fully with the investigation. In fact, Pete Carroll testified before the NCAA even though he was already in Seattle and didn't have to.

Also, there have been e-mails released stating where committee members say that they can't find wrongdoing on McNair's part.

Again, no one has said that USC didn't deserve some sort of sanctions, merely that the NCAA conducted the investigation in an unfair and bias manner, violated it's own rules (now proven) and that the punishment was too harsh compared to other programs that have had similar issues.

 

[socaljim242]

Sure - the fact that Reggie Bush was being sued for breech of contract over he extra benefits he received (and his failure to honor his contractual agreements) had nothing to do with it.

The reason USC got hit so hard was because of the attitude taken by the Mike Garrett-lead athletic department, which engaged in a campaign of obstruction and lack of cooperation. that coupled with the reality that that USC was not making anything even close to industry standard efforts at maintaining compliance.

Now - you can make the case that the penalties at USC were too harsh, but to me, that is a non-starter. I understand the argument, because the penalties were indeed harsh. But given the atmosphere at USC at the time, and USC's history that is littered with with runins with the NCAA and PAC-n) I still say it is a non-starter.

A better argument would be that the penalties at Miami (Fl) and tOSU were far too lenient. (The penalties at Oregon were actually about par for the course given the number of players involved.) I will never understand how Ohio State avoided a "lack of institutional control" penalty. However - I await the outcome of the case at North Carolina. That case warrants a level of punishment amongst the harshest the NCAA has ever dealt.

Mike Garrett had no clue nor did others at USC about the shenanigans going on with Bush and his parents with those two guys in San Diego. USC turned over everything that was asked of them and told the NCAA they didnt know anything about these deals. If fact the NCAA said USC fully cooperated. Was Mike Garrett overly gruff ? Yes. Many say he was over the top with his "arrogance".But as we see with these e mail revelations he was right when he said the NCAA was out to get USC. Idiots want to point to schools who "cooperated" and got off easy . They cooperated because they had coaches doing illegal things so they had to things to show the NCAA like emails and paper trails that showed the wrong doing. Wtf was USC supposed to show or say when they didn't have a hand in the wrong doing? So you get off from your coach lying to the NCAA so players can play in bowl game , from paying middle men to get players, from changing grades to players will remain eligible, from boosters taking kids on yachts , handing out cash? You get away with all that because you say here's the evidence after you got caught? But saying you didnt do shit when you didnt do shit is wrong? The atmosphere at the time? What is that? That USC was beating teams left and right? That they had fun? That celebrities likes going to games and practice? The horror!!!!!!

 

[trojanfan12]

Mike Garrett.

Incorrect based on the NCAA's own report. The "attitude" that USC took was that they didn't know what the Bush family was up to and it was up to the NCAA to prove otherwise. USC never hid anything or tried to impede the NCAA's investigation.

 

[963BUSC]

Sure - the fact that Reggie Bush was being sued for breech of contract over he extra benefits he received (and his failure to honor his contractual agreements) had nothing to do with it.

The reason USC got hit so hard was because of the attitude taken by the Mike Garrett-lead athletic department, which engaged in a campaign of obstruction and lack of cooperation. that coupled with the reality that that USC was not making anything even close to industry standard efforts at maintaining compliance.

Now - you can make the case that the penalties at USC were too harsh, but to me, that is a non-starter. I understand the argument, because the penalties were indeed harsh. But given the atmosphere at USC at the time, and USC's history that is littered with with runins with the NCAA and PAC-n) I still say it is a non-starter.

A better argument would be that the penalties at Miami (Fl) and tOSU were far too lenient. (The penalties at Oregon were actually about par for the course given the number of players involved.) I will never understand how Ohio State avoided a "lack of institutional control" penalty. However - I await the outcome of the case at North Carolina. That case warrants a level of punishment amongst the harshest the NCAA has ever dealt.

You come across trying to sound like you are making an intelligent and reasonable argument and you start off with a "Fact" about Reggie Bush being sued for breech of contract? When/who?

Then your second statement you claim that USC's Athletic department had a lack of cooperation when the NCAA's report directly states that USC fully cooperated.

 

[963BUSC]

Name one USC official that didn't cooperate. I'll wait.

Mike Garrett.

Directly from the NCAA's report
"The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4." (page 56)

Complete and total failure on that name, try again.

 

[nddulac]

Uh, Reggie Bush never got sued for anything. There was no contract. The wannabe agent and his stepfather were trying to start a sports agency business and the improper benefits he and his family received were to entice him to leave USC early and sign with them.

Oh, really? how exactly was it that the story broke? And why was the NCAA waiting and working so hard to get court transcripts from the Reggie Bush/Lloyd Lake court trial?

Read the NCAA's report, only McNair was named. The NCAA built their case entirely on McNair and an alleged phone call that they couldn't even get the date right on.

I have read the report. In fact, McNair is not named at all. He is referred to as "the assistant football coach." But, if that counts as "being named", then you had better include "agency partners A and B", "student-athlete 1", and several family members of student athlete 1 (such as "the former brother-in-law", "student-athlete 1's parents", ) as well as the all-important "former NFL player." There are other characters as well - such as "agency partner A's mother" and "agency partner A's former girlfriend". One of my favorites is "Agency partner A's sister, a well-known news anchor for a San Diego television station." Of particular interest however, is "the associate" - a woman "the assistant coach" said he was accompanied on (the weekend of the birthday party of the "former NFL player."

Also, there have been e-mails released stating where committee members say that they can't find wrongdoing on McNair's part.

Unless the events in the "Committee Rationale" elucidated on page 24 of the report are completely fabricated, I would say that there was plenty that the NCAA found that would cause one to believe that McNair - excuse me "the assistant coach" lied to the NCAA. From the report:

The committee finds ample reason in the record to question the credibility of the assistant football coach. For example, he provided various explanations as to what he did, and with whom, in San Diego during the March 2005 birthday party. In his last explanation, he said he was accompanied on that weekend by a female associate ("the associate"). (Note: In his initial interview with the enforcement staff, the assistant football coach never mentioned being accompanied by the associate. The assistant football coach later offered the associate as a witness who could corroborate his version of what happened during the 2005 birthday party weekend. When interviewed by the enforcement staff, the associate claimed she accompanied the assistant football coach to the birthday party and that the assistant football coach neither saw nor spoke to agency partner A at the March 2005 party.)

But it goes on . .

According to the assistant football coach, the associate was a tutor in the athletics department and he contemplated hiring her to assist him in "starting an independent record label." (Note: No such enterprise was ever started.) According to the assistant football coach, he picked up the associate at her apartment in Los Angeles and drove with her to San Diego for the birthday party, yet there were no telephone calls between the two either before the weekend, or contemporaneous with their departure, so as to coordinate the arrangements to travel to San Diego. In fact, the telephone records show no phone calls between the two until March 23, 2005, more than two weeks after the birthday party. In contrast, during the period from March 23 to July 18, 2005, the assistant football coach's telephone records reflect 742 calls to the associate.

My conclusion? McNair lied and then bought himself a witness to help cover it up. Obviously, that was also the conclusion of the NCAA Committee on Infractions.

So again, unless they were jsut making things up, I would say that had a lot more than "just one phone call."

So - unless the argument is that the NCAA should not have been able to find out that McNair lied, I would say that McNair has zero chance of ever getting relief from his show cause penalty. But if you choose to cherry-pick data, perhaps you might conclude otherwise.

 

[nddulac]

Directly from the NCAA's report
"The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4." (page 56)

had they really cooperated, the NCAA report would have indicated that their cooperation would have exceeded their obligations. That was the Mike Garrett tactic - Let the NCAA investigate. USC should not have to investigate itself, after all.

But okay. Let's assume for the sake of argument that i am completely full of shit. Wouldn't be the first time. None the less, you can't get past page 2 of the report before you find this little gem:

Both the football and men's basketball cases are incomplete because a number of key witnesses, including the athletes at the center of these allegations, refused to cooperate in whole or in sufficient measure. In addition, the family of student-athlete 1, whose actions were at the center of this investigation, refused to cooperate.

 

[nddulac]

You come across trying to sound like you are making an intelligent and reasonable argument and you start off with a "Fact" about Reggie Bush being sued for breech of contract? When/who?

Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels.

Reggie Bush settles lawsuit with New Era partner Lloyd Lake | Daily Trojan

It would be excedingly difficult to settle a lawsuit if no lawsuit existed.

 

[socaljim242]

Oh, really? how exactly was it that the story broke? And why was the NCAA waiting and working so hard to get court transcripts from the Reggie Bush/Lloyd Lake court trial?


I have read the report. In fact, McNair is not named at all. He is referred to as "the assistant football coach." But, if that counts as "being named", then you had better include "agency partners A and B", "student-athlete 1", and several family members of student athlete 1 (such as "the former brother-in-law", "student-athlete 1's parents", ) as well as the all-important "former NFL player." There are other characters as well - such as "agency partner A's mother" and "agency partner A's former girlfriend". One of my favorites is "Agency partner A's sister, a well-known news anchor for a San Diego television station." Of particular interest however, is "the associate" - a woman "the assistant coach" said he was accompanied on (the weekend of the birthday party of the "former NFL player."


Unless the events in the "Committee Rationale" elucidated on page 24 of the report are completely fabricated, I would say that there was plenty that the NCAA found that would cause one to believe that McNair - excuse me "the assistant coach" lied to the NCAA. From the report:

But it goes on . .

My conclusion? McNair lied and then bought himself a witness to help cover it up. Obviously, that was also the conclusion of the NCAA Committee on Infractions.

So again, unless they were jsut making things up, I would say that had a lot more than "just one phone call."

So - unless the argument is that the NCAA should not have been able to find out that McNair lied, I would say that McNair has zero chance of ever getting relief from his show cause penalty. But if you choose to cherry-pick data, perhaps you might conclude otherwise.

All that digging and you're still clueless. Tod Mcnair was the only person given show cause penalty. He alone was the reason the NCAA connected the shenanigans of the Bushes the wanna be agents from San Diego . Without him they have nothing to give USC what they already planned to give. They got one story from Lake and then they sat Mcnair down and asked him about a phone call on a specific date. When he told them he doesnt recall a phone call between him and Lake on that date. They said thank you and thats it. They claimed he lied.They believed the felon but thought Mcnair lied. But once the truth came out it turned out they had not only the dates wrong (they were off by about a year) but they got who called who wrong. But that didnt matter , who would ever know . They had him . They never thought anyone would know that they basically ended his coaching career on their lies. So again. You got everything wrong. You are one of the few (bad word here) who still think the NCAA wasn't out to get USC and were either going to find something or they were going to make it look like they found something.

 

[socaljim242]

had they really cooperated, the NCAA report would have indicated that their cooperation would have exceeded their obligations. That was the Mike Garrett tactic - Let the NCAA investigate. USC should not have to investigate itself, after all.

But okay. Let's assume for the sake of argument that i am completely full of shit. Wouldn't be the first time. None the less, you can't get past page 2 of the report before you find this little gem:

So you want the NCAA to say they "really" cooperated? Really? LOL. With sugar on top? Have you seen the venom in these e mails? USC was asked for paperwork and they gave it and every coach that was asked was interviewed. The NCAA can't make Bush or any former student talk what is USC supposed to do? If the coaches or a booster wasn't involved if none of this happened on campus how is USC supposed to investigate? Good lord you just don't get it.

 

[nddulac]

All that digging and you're still clueless.

Perhaps you can substantiate your claim of me being clueless with examples of where I am incorrect or displaying a misunderstanding of the facts presented by the NCAA?

Tod Mcnair was the only person given show cause penalty.

Correct.

He alone was the reason the NCAA connected the shenanigans of the Bushes the wanna be agents from San Diego.

Incorrect.

Concerning the sports marketing agency (sports marketers A and B) being representatives of the institution's athletics interests, in April 2005, sports marketer B contacted USC's associate director of athletics ("the associate director of athletics") to determine if any of the institution's student-athletes would be interested in a summer internship with the sports marketing agency. The associate director of athletics asked the former director of compliance ("former director of compliance") if it was permissible for a student-athlete to intern for a sports marketing group. After the former director of compliance's April 26 approval, two of the institution's football student-athletes were hired by the sports marketing agency. Shortly thereafter, sports marketer B informed the associate director of athletics that the sports marketing agency had also hired student-athlete 1.

It would seem there was plenty of reason for USC to be aware that Bush - er "student athlete 1" - was involved with "sports marketer B's" enterprises.

Without him they have nothing to give USC what they already planned to give.

See - that is flat out absurd. The NCAA report contains pages and pages of information garnered from testimony and phone records that have nothing to do with McNair.

They got one story from Lake and then they sat Mcnair down and asked him about a phone call on a specific date. When he told them he doesnt recall a phone call between him and Lake on that date. They said thank you and thats it. They claimed he lied.They believed the felon but thought Mcnair lied.

If you read the report, it is clear why the believed the felon over the coach - the felon's story was corroborated by the testimony of multiple other witnesses, whereas the story of the coach kept changing and was not consistent with the phone record data.

So again - unless the information presented in the NCAA report in the descriptions of their reasoning is factually incorrect (and notice - that is different than simply being biased or spun a certain way), I don't think McNair can expect any relief from his show cause penalty. The equation is simple - if you lie to the NCAA in an investigation, you get a show cause penalty, and it effectively ends your coaching career (unless you are Bruce Pearl, of course.)

Of course, if the data presented in the justifications in the NCAA report was factually incorrect, it would be the basis of (or at least a major component) of the appeal. And ... it turns out it was!

The finding of unethical conduct is “contrary to the evidence, based on incompetent evidence and compromised by procedural error . . . .”

The use of the word "incompetent" is important here. It does not mean the same as "incorrect". Basically, USC appealed based on the argument that the people who gave testimony to the NCAA didn't have full knowledge or understanding of the information they were providing. Also, that the NCAA shouldn't have found out things they found out. Certainly, if this were a court of law, these would be compelling arguments in an appeal. But the NCAA isn't bound by the same rules of evidence that apply in a court of law. Regardless, the point was moot since the show cause penalty was enacted on McNair himself - not on the University. so the University lacked standing to appeal it.

 

[trojanfan12]

Oh, really? how exactly was it that the story broke? And why was the NCAA waiting and working so hard to get court transcripts from the Reggie Bush/Lloyd Lake court trial?

One of the wannabe agents reported it to Yahoo and the story broke shortly before the NCG vs. Texas.

I have read the report. In fact, McNair is not named at all. He is referred to as "the assistant football coach." But, if that counts as "being named", then you had better include "agency partners A and B", "student-athlete 1", and several family members of student athlete 1 (such as "the former brother-in-law", "student-athlete 1's parents", ) as well as the all-important "former NFL player." There are other characters as well - such as "agency partner A's mother" and "agency partner A's former girlfriend". One of my favorites is "Agency partner A's sister, a well-known news anchor for a San Diego television station." Of particular interest however, is "the associate" - a woman "the assistant coach" said he was accompanied on (the weekend of the birthday party of the "former NFL player."


Unless the events in the "Committee Rationale" elucidated on page 24 of the report are completely fabricated, I would say that there was plenty that the NCAA found that would cause one to believe that McNair - excuse me "the assistant coach" lied to the NCAA. From the report:

But it goes on . .

My conclusion? McNair lied and then bought himself a witness to help cover it up. Obviously, that was also the conclusion of the NCAA Committee on Infractions.

So again, unless they were jsut making things up, I would say that had a lot more than "just one phone call."

So - unless the argument is that the NCAA should not have been able to find out that McNair lied, I would say that McNair has zero chance of ever getting relief from his show cause penalty. But if you choose to cherry-pick data, perhaps you might conclude otherwise.

The NCAA's entire case was based on the one phone call with McNair and they got the date wrong. He was the only USC official named. We know that he's "the assistant coach" mentioned in the report because he was the only USC official who was sanctioned by the NCAA when they slapped a "show cause" on him.

What you THINK happened means less than nothing. If the NCAA truly had any evidence against McNair, then why are there now e-mails released in which committee members state they could find no wrongdoing?

I get it, you're a Domer and really wanted to be able to say that all of those ass kickings were because USC cheated. Sorry it's not working out for you.

 

[trojanfan12]

Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels.

Reggie Bush settles lawsuit with New Era partner Lloyd Lake | Daily Trojan

It would be excedingly difficult to settle a lawsuit if no lawsuit existed.

The lawsuit was AFTER Bush left USC, he was never sued while at USC and the lawsuit isn't how the story broke as you claimed.

 

[trojanfan12]

Incorrect.

Actually, it is you who is incorrect. The allegation made by the wannabe agent was that he called McNair and notified him of what was happening. McNairs contention was that he was never told. When the NCAA asked McNair about receiving a call from him, they gave him the wrong date. When he told them there was no call or that he didn't remember a call on that date, he was telling the truth. However, the NCAA determined that he was lying based on their own incorrect information.

Also, you act like USC and USC fans are trying to say that nothing happened. That isn't the case at all. USC and USC fans haven't denied that the Bush family took stuff they weren't supposed to. No one has ever even disputed what the Bush family supposedly received. The only thing that has been disputed has been USC's knowledge of what was going on and the level of sanctions received vs. what happened.

The NCAA was never able to prove that anyone at USC knew anything which is why they said USC "should have known." However, no one, including the NCAA, has ever said "how" USC was supposed to know considering that the wannabe agent himself said "everything was done off campus, behind closed doors. We knew we had to do it that way because Reggie could get in trouble."