NCAA overstepped in USC case

[socaljim242]

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?


Correct.




Incorrect.


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.


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.


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 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.

Still clueless I see. Lake and his pal hadnt even started paperwork for an agency. They are not the people listed as the people with the internship. That was a legit well known agency . Seriously you read and you assume and youre pretty much wrong every time. The NCAA needed a smoking gun. Otherwise they have a sttar player who was gett

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?


Correct.


Incorrect.


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.


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.


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 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.

You're wrong again. Lake and his buddy never had an agency. They wanted to start one and they wanted Bush as the first player of that agency. The sports agency in the report is a well known agency . So you see you again show how clueless you are. You should really get a job at the NCAA it's people like you who have an obvious ax to grind who look at something USC does and your first inclination is that they did something wrong.
McNair walked into an interview and was asked about a phone call on a spefic date and who he spoke to. McNair said he didnt recall any call on that date. The NCAA said thank you and Mcnair left later he found out they thought he was lying . After further review it was learned that the NCAA was off by at least a year and they also had who called who wrong. McNair wasn't asked to elaborate they just took him as lying (at the first questioning). When it was found that they got the dates wrong the order wrong did the NCAA reinterview McNair? No they stuck to their guns with the now out in the open e mail. "they don't need to know why we disbelieve him only that we disbelieve him"
So you see you are totally wrong again and you fail to see the lengths that the NCAA went to slur this guy simply to pin the sanctions on USC.
I'd say nice try but it was a total fail on your part.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

I really don't understand, how someone could keep getting a story wrong, with all the facts are out there.

Either the Notre Lame fan is trolling, or he just cant admit he was wrong about this because it will hurt his little heart.

 

[socaljim242]

I really don't understand, how someone could keep getting a story wrong, with all the facts are out there.

Either the Notre Lame fan is trolling, or he just cant admit he was wrong about this because it will hurt his little heart.

At least he's consistent . He's gotten every thing wrong.lol
I find it hilarious Domer goes there since they have in their past booster who stole 1.4 million from her employer and spent a lot of it on eight Notre dame football players with gifts , cash, trips. Unlike Bush the Notre Dame players were being rewarded for being Notre Dame football players by a booster not trying to get them to leave like Bush so that was truly benefiting that program. Holtz claimed he didn't know even though these players all lived on campus and there were eight of them with a person who was a registered booster. But USC is the devil and Pete should know what guys from San Diego were doing 200 hundred miles away . Fing hilarious and quite the double standard. lol

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Domer, here is an email from Copper to Meyer. If you can see the writing on the wall, maybe you should come to USC to get a better education...

From: Cooper, Shep

To: Eleanor Myers; Bri!lon B. Baitowsky; John Black: [email protected]; Dee, Paul T: Brian Halloran; [email protected]; jpotuto l @un!.edu: Schiessler, Diann CC: Uphoff, Rodney; Eiworth, Jim ·

Sent: 3/1!201 0 i 2:55:28 PM

Subject: RE: Thoughts to Consider for Tue Evening Conf Call from Rod Uphoff Eleanor

Thank you for y9ur thoughts on this . There is one bylaw the committee might consider if it does not find McNair for unethical conduct. That bylaw is 11 .1.1 -Standards of Honesty and Sportsmanship. It's somewh?-t "aU-encompassing" and has been cited only on rare occasions. b\Jt it was cited by U1e committee in the 2002 Alabama case against an assistant football coach. ·st.q, e."~=

Shepard C. Cooper Director NCAA Infractions Committees (317)917-6222



From: Eleanor Myers (mailto:eleanor.myers@temp!e.eduJ

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 2:09

To: Cooper, Shep; Britton B. Banowskv; John Black; [email protected]; Dee, Poul T; Brian Halloran; [email protected]; jpotutol @unl.edu; Schiessler, Diann Cc: Uphoff, Rodney; Elworth, Jim

Subject: Re: J'houghts to Consider for Tue Evening Conf CJII from Rod Uphoff Rod, .

J!lis is really fantastic. thanks for aU this wonderful w~rk. I had independent(y come to a conclusion that I could support a fmdingthat the "agreement"/u_nderstanding between the Griffins, Bush , Lake and Michaels regarding the f ormation of a sports agency began in late 2004 and that money was prgvided to'the Griffins pursuant to that <.greement prior to the National Championship game in January 2005. I appreciated your vi_ews on that poiut. Here is the issue that l am currently struggling with and that 1. hope we wiU have time to discuss tomorrow evening: asswning that McNair failed to monitor and/or ignored a number of indic ations tbat Bush was receivjng .improper benefits, is th.at a basis for an unethical conduct finding or a lack of institutional control fmding on behalf of USC?

His lawyer makes a strong claim that as an assistant CQac.h, he cannot cause the institution to be charged with a Jack of institutional control. Moreover; the unethical conduct charge is appropriate only if he lied. Does a failure to follow up and investigate wheu he should sho'.v that he actually knew anything? To make an unethical conduct ftnding, I thittk we would need to be pretty confidant that we knew the content of the Jan 8 call from Lake to McNair and that it was a threatening call and McN air lied about it. As to that call, we have evidence that Lake was taping calls during this time (.1 believe this is from Lisa Lake or Maiesha Jones' transcripts and not from an illegal source) and that soon after he made t hreat s directly to Bush which Bush's lawyer called extortionate.

On the other side, we have a botched interview in which McNair did not have a good opportu nity to explain the call, since the date the staff questioned him about was wrong. (2005 instead of2006). We also have the Brooke Augustin stuff, but which version was the lie? if the first interview was a lie and he corrected it, can we reaUy charge bim Vvith unethical coriduct? TI1at creates a bad incentive for others caught in a lie. And finally, I personally do not think we can use the dog fighting information which is .not in lhe record and which stafF chose no1 to put in t])e record. Look forward to a productive conversation tomorrow: Eleanor At 11:37 AM 311/2010,

Coop , Shep wrote: Members of the Committee: CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER NCAA 009032

 

[nddulac]

Uh, Reggie Bush never got sued for anything.

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.

I think this typifies the pointlessness of continuing this argument. It's pointless to atgue with someone whose basic argument is "you're wrong because you are right."

 

[trojanfan12]

I think this typifies the pointlessness of continuing this argument. It's pointless to atgue with someone whose basic argument is "you're wrong because you are right."

You're not right though. You said that the lawsuit was what broke the story and that was what got the NCAA to investigate.

So, you weren't right at all. Nice try though. You sound a lot like an NCAA investigator. There was a Domer on the committee.

Maybe you have a reason to be trying to defend the NCAA?

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Here is a quote from Fox sports news, yet Domers have all the answers. Hell they should have "shut that program down after that travesty with killing that student.. ( "this statement is My quote")

The bottom line is that USC fans and administrators have been right all along: USC football got screwed by an NCAA Committee on Infractions that was biased against the school from the start. After four years of investigating every aspect of the program they could find no evidence of wrongdoing against anyone but Bush, so they went after McNair to help make their case. They failed to make that case, but luckily they weren’t just the investigators, they were also the judges and jury. They proudly nailed USC’s pelt to the wall, never suspecting that the emails about their deliberations would be made public. Now we all know the truth.

I would not be surprised if USC filed one heck of a lawsuit against the NCAA in this one

 

[socaljim242]

I think this typifies the pointlessness of continuing this argument. It's pointless to atgue with someone whose basic argument is "you're wrong because you are right."

It's pointless because you obviously don't know the facts you regurgitate message board stories about USC and you've been wrong about everything you have written. Point after point has been shown to be wrong so it's not been an argument it's been a window to Your bias and lack of knowledge about the subject.You refuse to see the NCAA for what it is and was. USC should have been hit for the acts of Bush and his parents he should have been ruled ineligible, USC should have had a larger compliance office , the tennis player shouldn't have used a school card to call home but none of that was enough to nail USC with LOIC . It's clear that the NCAA wanted to hit USC just because they were USC. They saw the wins , the fun, the celebrities, Pete and they for some reason couldn't stand it and wanted to bring USC down a notch. They were confident that if they searched long enough they would find the violations. People who had no business having a say on the results of the investigation were pushing for a major penalties and knowing that after almost five years they didn't have anything on the school and the coaches pinned it all on McNair branding him a liar and saying someone at USC knew thinking no one would know the truth. But the truth is out now. You've written McNair isn't going to get anything. You're wrong about that too. McNair is going to get a big payday and you will have been officially wrong about every single thing.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

That's exactly what the NCAA hated. They hated the fun and hollywood atmosphere of USC. USC was a giant in the media. They had a loose program with a coach who loved to have fun. They had the open practices. They had the celebrities. It was Hollywood. They were doing it there way and not the traditional way how the ncaa wanted. With all that, they were winning. The ncaa hated that, so they tried hard to bring the program down to give USC a lesson, but they were sloppy with it and got caught. Why use emails dummies?

Anyway, they tried, but SC still got great recruiting classes during all this, so they didn't kill us like they wanted too.

Fight On!

 

[nddulac]

It's pointless because you obviously don't know the facts ...

Yeah, sure. But it has been fun . . .

 

[socaljim242]

Yeah, sure. But it has been fun . . .

Over the weekend I read where
McNair's attorneys wrote that "two NCAA officials have candidly acknowledged that a finding against McNair was necessary for the penalties to be assessed against USC."

So you see that was at the heart of the NCAAs case.

BTW great BB game with UK . Your guys played amazing and try as I might I couldn't root against them.. Congrats on that run.

 

[trojanfan12]

Over the weekend I read where
McNair's attorneys wrote that "two NCAA officials have candidly acknowledged that a finding against McNair was necessary for the penalties to be assessed against USC."

So you see that was at the heart of the NCAAs case.

BTW great BB game with UK . Your guys played amazing and try as I might I couldn't root against them.. Congrats on that run.

Same here. Started watching the game and was definitely pulling for Kentucky. But as the game went on, it became more and more difficult to pull against the Domers.

Kinda pissed me off.

 

[963BUSC]

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:

That's funny, So when the NCAA writes the USC cooperated what they mean is the didn't really cooperate.

And no I'm not disputing that Reggie Bush and Mayo both refused to cooperate. Both had already left the school though and both had already signed large professional deals, USC had no means to compel them to come forward and speak to investigators. But what was USC supposed to do? They couldn't suspend them, since they had already left.

 

[socaljim242]

That's funny, So when the NCAA writes the USC cooperated what they mean is the didn't really cooperate.

And no I'm not disputing that Reggie Bush and Mayo both refused to cooperate. Both had already left the school though and both had already signed large professional deals, USC had no means to compel them to come forward and speak to investigators. But what was USC supposed to do? They couldn't suspend them, since they had already left.

He should have stopped at "lets assume I'm full of shit" .lol

 

[badinflu]

I know I'm late to the party but a couple things I've noticed since reading a lot of the unsealed testimonies.

The charge against McNair was not based on 1 call:

It was several phone calls to and from Lakes number spanning several days. The average was about less than 1 min. (McNair did not remember making or receiving the calls)

Also there was a photo of McNair, Lake, Micheals and Love taken at a club. (McNair said he was there with Love and did not know the other men in the picture or remember when the picture was taken)

McNair and Bush were at a party with Lake in San Diego and they met in a hotel room that Lake/Michaels bought for Bush. (McNair was at the party but denied being in the hotel room or even seeing Bush at the party)

Now as far as the wrong date of the 2:32 phone call. The NCAA did ask McNair about the call on Jan 8, 2005, but it was the wrong date. The actual date was Jan 8, 2006. McNair said he didn't remember a call on that date and that he had never met Lake. The Investigator later recognized that he gave McNair the wrong date and wanted to interview him again, but one of his superiors said it wasn't necessary because McNair adamant that he had never met Lake.

In the Jan 8, 2006 phone call, Lake said he told McNair "he better talk to Reggie because he didn't want to lose money and that (Lake) would have to get USC involved if he didn't get his money back". McNair said he didn't remember receiving a call like that and if he did receive a call like that he would have found out who was calling and checked it out to make sure it wasn't some joke or con. He also said he would have reported something like that to the Pete Carroll.


Now the NCAA thought McNair was lying because of the phone calls, the photo, Lake's testimony and Lake's girlfriend testimony and that McNair was lying in his testimony.

Lake: testified that he met McNair a few times and the he called him to get Reggie to pay him. But during his interview he couldn't remember McNair's name and or remember the picture being taken with him and McNair.

Lake's GF: testified that Lake told her he was going to have to call that "coach" at USC to get his money back. She didn't remember Lake saying the coaches name and she was not there when the phone call was made.

McNair: testified that he had never met Lake or Michaels. He also testified that he did not make it a habit to "hang out" with players outside of football. But he made over 300 calls to Reggie's cell phone and he admitted that he stopped by Len Dale White's apartment before he went to the party in San Diego. He was at the apartment waiting on a female tutor/business partner to take to party. The NCAA thought his testimony was full of lies.

 

[socaljim242]

I know I'm late to the party but a couple things I've noticed since reading a lot of the unsealed testimonies.

The charge against McNair was not based on 1 call:

It was several phone calls to and from Lakes number spanning several days. The average was about less than 1 min. (McNair did not remember making or receiving the calls)

Also there was a photo of McNair, Lake, Micheals and Love taken at a club. (McNair said he was there with Love and did not know the other men in the picture or remember when the picture was taken)

McNair and Bush were at a party with Lake in San Diego and they met in a hotel room that Lake/Michaels bought for Bush. (McNair was at the party but denied being in the hotel room or even seeing Bush at the party)

Now as far as the wrong date of the 2:32 phone call. The NCAA did ask McNair about the call on Jan 8, 2005, but it was the wrong date. The actual date was Jan 8, 2006. McNair said he didn't remember a call on that date and that he had never met Lake. The Investigator later recognized that he gave McNair the wrong date and wanted to interview him again, but one of his superiors said it wasn't necessary because McNair adamant that he had never met Lake.

In the Jan 8, 2006 phone call, Lake said he told McNair "he better talk to Reggie because he didn't want to lose money and that (Lake) would have to get USC involved if he didn't get his money back". McNair said he didn't remember receiving a call like that and if he did receive a call like that he would have found out who was calling and checked it out to make sure it wasn't some joke or con. He also said he would have reported something like that to the Pete Carroll.


Now the NCAA thought McNair was lying because of the phone calls, the photo, Lake's testimony and Lake's girlfriend testimony and that McNair was lying in his testimony.

Lake: testified that he met McNair a few times and the he called him to get Reggie to pay him. But during his interview he couldn't remember McNair's name and or remember the picture being taken with him and McNair.

Lake's GF: testified that Lake told her he was going to have to call that "coach" at USC to get his money back. She didn't remember Lake saying the coaches name and she was not there when the phone call was made.

McNair: testified that he had never met Lake or Michaels. He also testified that he did not make it a habit to "hang out" with players outside of football. But he made over 300 calls to Reggie's cell phone and he admitted that he stopped by Len Dale White's apartment before he went to the party in San Diego. He was at the apartment waiting on a female tutor/business partner to take to party. The NCAA thought his testimony was full of lies.

First of all McnNair was the RB coach at USC of course he called Reggie , LenDale often and at the time Reggie was a big celebrity the Heisman winner. It's funny they talk about one photo at a club where McNair joined in with people he knew (Reggie)and some people he didn't know. It's funny because of the numerous photos of Miami players in yachts and in clubs showing off bling with actual known boosters in the photos and that wasn't enough evidence of anything illegal going on to warrent more than a few months of looking into yet with this crap they were talking about Lake and USC they investigated for five years. Second the "witness" is Lakes girlfriend. Lake was shady enough but the NCAA takes his gfs testamentary as gold? LOL. Seriously, the couldn't even get the date or year right of what they thought was the smoking gun but that didn't matter right. lol. The NCAA guys knowing they didn't have anything close to what most logical people would consider damning evidence were quoted as saying " We need not to inform people why we disbelieve him, only that we do disbelieve him". In other words this is all we have , it's bullshit but no one will know.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's funny because of the numerous photos of Miami players in yachts and in clubs showing off bling with actual known boosters in the photos and that wasn't enough evidence of anything illegal going on to warrent more than a few months of looking into yet with this crap they were talking about Lake and USC they investigated for five years.

To be fair (sort of) to the NCAA, it was all about the timing. We are just now, after the sanctions have already been handed down and the time has already been served, learning about how the NCAA handled themselves in the USC investigation. With Miami, it was learned what the NCAA was doing before any sanctions were handed down, so the NCAA really had no choice but to slink away with their tail tucked between their legs.

 

[socaljim242]

To be fair (sort of) to the NCAA, it was all about the timing. We are just now, after the sanctions have already been handed down and the time has already been served, learning about how the NCAA handled themselves in the USC investigation. With Miami, it was learned what the NCAA was doing before any sanctions were handed down, so the NCAA really had no choice but to slink away with their tail tucked between their legs.

Yes, but how many times has USC asked for the sanctions to be lifted or scaled down since then and every time the NZAA didn't give an inch. Even after Penn state was said to have done everything and their penalties were lessened. USC went and said we've done everything you've asked and yet nothing .

 

[nddulac]

... With Miami, it was learned what the NCAA was doing before any sanctions were handed down, so the NCAA really had no choice but to slink away with their tail tucked between their legs.

There was also the fact that Miami had self-imposed two years of post-season ban - including in a year AFTER they had already qualified for the ACC championship game. Certainly, Miami did not get hammered as hard as they probably should have, but assume that Miami was never penalized is simply factually incorrect.

 

[socaljim242]

There was also the fact that Miami had self-imposed two years of post-season ban - including in a year AFTER they had already qualified for the ACC championship game. Certainly, Miami did not get hammered as hard as they probably should have, but assume that Miami was never penalized is simply factually incorrect.

Miami was reported to have over football 50 players involved and it was with a booster right under the noses of Paul Dee and the coaches. USC got slammed because of Bush. They "self reported" after that booster got thrown in jail and started talking. You can only self report if you have the evidence because people at the school or a well known booster is involved. So yes Miami got away with it. Imagine the hammer that would have come down on USC is they would have had all that to use against them. Heck USC got in trouble because a female tennis player used a school phone card to call home. Lol. Miami lost nine scholarships. What a crock. Lol