THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[nddulac]

If McNair did so much wrong, why is he about to win his lawsuit. It's been said that the reason Pat Haden was unsuccessful in his attempts to get the NCAA to lighten the sanctions is because of the McNair suit and it would be tantamount to the NCAA admitting they were wrong.

Time will tell on McNair. Like I said, I am convinced that the NCAA botched how they handled it, which is why I think he has a chance of winning his case. Bit I am also convinced he was dirty as hell. And that's the rub - a botched investigation does no exonerate him from wrong doing. It just means they can't punish him. Getting off on a technicality and being found to be innocent are two very different things.

Additionally, Garrett did not say that USC was going to make things as hard as possible on the NCAA. He said that USC wasn't going to do the NCAA's job for them. He maintained that USC did not know what the Bush family was up to and told the NCAA that it was their job to prove they did.

The NCAA never proved their case, which is why the findings say that USC "should have known" and then the NCAA punished as if they had proved that USC did know.

This makes no sense. If the NCAA's conclusion was that USC should have known, then they did in fact prove their case. Rules were being broken, and USC didn't prevent or detect it - which is their responsibility as a member institution. That's the case. Even you have said that USC deserved to be punished for blowing that aspect. Now - was the punishment harsh? Yes - it was very harsh - especially when compared to other situations while ignoring USC's long history of violations. But when you consider that at the time USC football had been penalized by the NCAA more than any school not named Southern Methodist, it stands to reason that the penalties should be harsh.

As for McNair, I see points both ways. I do think he knew and I think he lied to the NCAA in the investigation (because his story kept changing.) But slapping a guy with a show-cause is (except in rare cases) a career ender. If you are going to end a person's career, you should definitely have your ducks in a row, so to speak. And I think there is sufficient information to indicate that the NCAA did not do their job as well as they should have in order to justify handing down a career-ending penalty.

But here is the thing about how hard USC got it (in my mind at least.) Yes - it was harsher than other schools have been hit. But my problem with that is not in how hard USC was penalized, but in how soft they NCAA has been with programs like Ohio State. The jury is still out on cases like North Carolina. And God only knows what will happen with Baylor. But in the end my stance is not that USC was penalized too harshly, but that others should be penalized just as harshly. Otherwise, no one learns that this kind of chicanery is not okay.

 

[socaljim242]

Time will tell on McNair. Like I said, I am convinced that the NCAA botched how they handled it, which is why I think he has a chance of winning his case. Bit I am also convinced he was dirty as hell. And that's the rub - a botched investigation does no exonerate him from wrong doing. It just means they can't punish him. Getting off on a technicality and being found to be innocent are two very different things.


This makes no sense. If the NCAA's conclusion was that USC should have known, then they did in fact prove their case. Rules were being broken, and USC didn't prevent or detect it - which is their responsibility as a member institution. That's the case. Even you have said that USC deserved to be punished for blowing that aspect. Now - was the punishment harsh? Yes - it was very harsh - especially when compared to other situations while ignoring USC's long history of violations. But when you consider that at the time USC football had been penalized by the NCAA more than any school not named Southern Methodist, it stands to reason that the penalties should be harsh.

As for McNair, I see points both ways. I do think he knew and I think he lied to the NCAA in the investigation (because his story kept changing.) But slapping a guy with a show-cause is (except in rare cases) a career ender. If you are going to end a person's career, you should definitely have your ducks in a row, so to speak. And I think there is sufficient information to indicate that the NCAA did not do their job as well as they should have in order to justify handing down a career-ending penalty.

But here is the thing about how hard USC got it (in my mind at least.) Yes - it was harsher than other schools have been hit. But my problem with that is not in how hard USC was penalized, but in how soft they NCAA has been with programs like Ohio State. The jury is still out on cases like North Carolina. And God only knows what will happen with Baylor. But in the end my stance is not that USC was penalized too harshly, but that others should be penalized just as harshly. Otherwise, no one learns that this kind of chicanery is not okay.

McNairs story didnt keep changing. He was asked specific dates and times and he answered them the NCAA had their date all wrong and said he lied. When they realized it they kept going anyway because it was the only thing they thought they had. They had their mind made up and ignored the facts just like you . The truth is Bush and his family tried to keep this on the down low they knew it wasn't allowed. Why on earth would they tell someone at USC? As for should have known they said the same about Lou with the football players getting stuff from that woman.

 

[trojanfan12]

This makes no sense. If the NCAA's conclusion was that USC should have known, then they did in fact prove their case. Rules were being broken, and USC didn't prevent or detect it - which is their responsibility as a member institution. That's the case. Even you have said that USC deserved to be punished for blowing that aspect. Now - was the punishment harsh? Yes - it was very harsh - especially when compared to other situations while ignoring USC's long history of violations. But when you consider that at the time USC football had been penalized by the NCAA more than any school not named Southern Methodist, it stands to reason that the penalties should be harsh.

I disagree, If USC knew, then the NCAA would have said they knew. Instead, they said they "should have known." They also never explained how USC was supposed to know what was happening behind closed doors over 120 miles from campus.

Even the wannabe agent, Lloyd Lake, was quoted as saying: "We did everything behind closed doors and away from campus. We knew we had to do it that way because Reggie could get in trouble."

As for McNair, you can believe what you want, but his story didn't keep changing. The NCAA's "smoking gun" was a phone call that was placed to McNair from Lake in which Lake claims that he asked McNair if Reggie was going to make good on his promise to sign with the sports agency that he and Reggie's stepdad were trying to start. He says that was what they talked about...McNair says it wasn't. The NCAA also got the date wrong and when they kept asking about the call on the date they had, McNair truthfully said he didn't know what they were talking about because there was no such call. The NCAA then said he was lying.

No one disputes that there was wrongdoing. What has been disputed is whether or not USC knew and was involved. Also, no one has ever explained how they were supposed to know considering the way everything was handled. Are they supposed to hire private detectives to follow these kids and their families around 24/7?

Additionally, USC's past transgressions have nothing to do with the Bush case. You can try and drag that in all you want to bolster what you want to believe happened, but none of the people involved in any of it were still employed at USC when the Bush family was up to their nonsense.

 

[wazzu31]

As much as I like the idea of a developmental league for the NFL, this is why I don't think it will ever happen. I think kids who would star in college, would go to the NFL developmental league rather than college and it would seriously hurt the quality of CFB. Why deal with the hassle of going to school for 3 years, when you can spend the next 3 years concentrating solely on football and preparing for the NFL.

True, but especially after this whole crap with Baylor, college football shouldn't be the priority. Joe Klatt was on the radio and brought up some good points about how stuff that happens at Baylor happens throughout college athletics and it is mostly done by kids who are not mentally ready for college but get a pass because they have athletic skills. A shot at a developmental league in the long run I think would help the college game after a few years of seeing how poorly their peers would do in such a league IMO.

A developmental system is a solid idea but is not logistically or economically feasible for the NFL.

 

[WizardHawk]

NFL teams are allowed to stash project development players away on their practice squad. Some never see the light of day and some end up making the roster and contributing. The ones that can't stick to a squad end up in arena leagues or the CFL where they still have a chance of catching the eyes of scouts and having their chance at getting to the NFL. They don't need a developmental league.

 

[nddulac]

I disagree, If USC knew, then the NCAA would have said they knew. Instead, they said they "should have known."

I don't disagree with this.

They also never explained how USC was supposed to know what was happening behind closed doors over 120 miles from campus.

There has never been a need to explain how. That's up to the institution. What is very clear in the bylaws is that the institution is responsible to know. The fact that it is hard meet ones responsibilities is not a sufficient excuse for failing to do so.

As for McNair, you can believe what you want, but his story didn't keep changing. ...

The part of the story that he changed was not about the phonecall, but who he was with when attending the party in San Diego. Originally, he said he was alone. Later, he changed that story to indicate that he was there with a young woman. That was important because the young woman provided testimony about what happened at that party with regards to McNair and Lake.

Additionally, USC's past transgressions have nothing to do with the Bush case. You can try and drag that in all you want to bolster what you want to believe happened, but none of the people involved in any of it were still employed at USC when the Bush family was up to their nonsense.

So your argument is that Garrett was not the athletic director in say 2001 when the program was slapped with sanctions over academic fraud? I mean - I'll agree that he wasn't there in 1986, 1982, 1959, or 1957. But I won't agree that none of those instances should be considered relevant in terms of establishing a pattern of institutional behavior.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't disagree with this.

I don't care if you do or not. It seems a pretty obvious difference. When the NCAA proves a school knew or was involved, they say so. In this case, they didn't. I'm sure being a Domer you no bias at all.

As for the rest, what you have is your own conjecture and what you think happened which I'm sure is 100% unbiased.

End of the day, none of it matters. The Bush family did what they did and USC got unjustly hammered for it. The sanctions are finally over, the NCAA was further exposed for the corrupt organization they have become and USC is on the way back.

By the way, the person in charge of the committee when USC was hammered was Paul Dee. The same Paul Dee who was in charge at Miami when Nevin Shapiro was running amok and who chastised USC saying "high profile athletes demand high profile compliance."

That's the level of credibility you are basing your opinion on.

 

[trojanfight]

Found this particularly interesting. NCAA reaching

 

[trojanfan12]

Found this particularly interesting. NCAA reaching

The NCAA as victim. As if this couldn't get any funnier.

Also, speaking of those on the committee. It's interesting that there was a representative from the University of Washington who had the integrity to see the conflict of interest and remove herself from the punishment portion of the hearings and the representative from Notre Dame did not.

 

[wazzu31]

NFL teams are allowed to stash project development players away on their practice squad. Some never see the light of day and some end up making the roster and contributing. The ones that can't stick to a squad end up in arena leagues or the CFL where they still have a chance of catching the eyes of scouts and having their chance at getting to the NFL. They don't need a developmental league.

When players go to the arena league or the CFL they don't get paid by the NFL. The NFL is a juggernaut no doubt but they won't be able to sustain paying a bunch of college age kids. Had Jameis Winston pulled his crap while being paid for a NFL team he would've been fired, not covered up.

 

[RegentDenali]

Found this particularly interesting. NCAA reaching

And a 1 - 2 - 3,

 

[nddulac]

As for should have known they said the same about Lou with the football players getting stuff from that woman.

Yes - Lou should have known and should have dealt with it. That was his job. He failed. Notre Dame was (very rightly) penalized for it.

 

[socaljim242]

Yes - Lou should have known and should have dealt with it. That was his job. He failed. Notre Dame was (very rightly) penalized for it.

Well of course he should have known. There was five of them and the lady was a booster. It all happened within arms reach.lol. Seriously though. You can't follow these guys 24/7. I imagine it's a little easier to keep up with kids at ND since they are mostly on campus. But even then you're not searching their wallets.

 

[nddulac]

Well of course he should have known. There was five of them and the lady was a booster. It all happened within arms reach.lol.

How many players were involved and who was or wasn't a "booster" is not what is important. What is important is that it is the coach's responsibility to police the program. How difficult it is to do that is a non-starter (except to children who choose to make excuses rather than take responsibility.) If you are unwilling to take responsibility, don't accept the job. But if you accept the job, you accept the responsibility. Period. It is the essence of being an adult.

Seriously though. You can't follow these guys 24/7. I imagine it's a little easier to keep up with kids at ND since they are mostly on campus. But even then you're not searching their wallets.

How many athletes are on the roster? and how many assistant coaches are there? How many trainers? Academic support staff? It isn't as hard as you think to keep tabs.

Again -children make excuses. Adults take responsibility.

 

[socaljim242]

How many players were involved and who was or wasn't a "booster" is not what is important. What is important is that it is the coach's responsibility to police the program. How difficult it is to do that is a non-starter (except to children who choose to make excuses rather than take responsibility.) If you are unwilling to take responsibility, don't accept the job. But if you accept the job, you accept the responsibility. Period. It is the essence of being an adult.


How many athletes are on the roster? and how many assistant coaches are there? How many trainers? Academic support staff? It isn't as hard as you think to keep tabs.

Again -children make excuses. Adults take responsibility.

I don't care if you do or not. It seems a pretty obvious difference. When the NCAA proves a school knew or was involved, they say so. In this case, they didn't. I'm sure being a Domer you no bias at all.

As for the rest, what you have is your own conjecture and what you think happened which I'm sure is 100% unbiased.

End of the day, none of it matters. The Bush family did what they did and USC got unjustly hammered for it. The sanctions are finally over, the NCAA was further exposed for the corrupt organization they have become and USC is on the way back.

By the way, the person in charge of the committee when USC was hammered was Paul Dee. The same Paul Dee who was in charge at Miami when Nevin Shapiro was running amok and who chastised USC saying "high profile athletes demand high profile compliance."

That's the level of credibility you are basing your opinion on.

That's the problem here. His bias blinds him. he would rather accept fairy tales from Paul Dee than entertain the thought that a player and his family tried to prematurely cash in on his fame and tried to keep it quiet.
He makes himself feel better by throwing Lou Holtz under the bus so he can keep bashing USC.
The NZAA made a huge deal about Bush and they threw down the hammer while Paul Dees program in Miami was a cesspool of corruption. They had Shapiro running out of the tunnel to lead the team .They named the players room after him, they had photos of him with players on yachts with the players wearing all kinds of jewelry and flashing cash. And it was going on for many years with the count being more than 70 players. But USC should have known.lol

 

[trojanfan12]

They had Shapiro running out of the tunnel to lead the team.

Even worse, there was a picture of him handing a $50,000 donation check to then University of Miami President Donna Shalala.


Donna Shalala Must Admit Blame In Nevin Shapiro Scandal or Resign

 

[socaljim242]

Even worse, there was a picture of him handing a $50,000 donation check to then University of Miami President Donna Shalala.


Donna Shalala Must Admit Blame In Nevin Shapiro Scandal or Resign

I forgot about that. It's just funny that these people who just don't like USC still swallow what Paul Dee was feeding them. They don't get that Bush was getting paid to leave USC. All these programs got caught trying to keep players eligible , trying to give them money to stay and be happy, trying to give them As for classes that didn't exist or were a sham so they can play.

 

[trojanfan12]

They don't get that Bush was getting paid to leave USC.

Exactly. That's why they went to such lengths to keep it hidden. They knew USC wouldn't have been okay with it.

Even if their reason for not being okay with it wasn't because it was against the rules, they definitely wouldn't have been okay with having the most dynamic player in cfb being paid to leave school early.

 

[socaljim242]

Exactly. That's why they went to such lengths to keep it hidden. They knew USC wouldn't have been okay with it.

Even if their reason for not being okay with it wasn't because it was against the rules, they definitely wouldn't have been okay with having the most dynamic player in cfb being paid to leave school early.

I just find it funny how you can tell the amount of disdain for USC and those years the guy has.Emails now show the NCAA was out to get SC regardless of what they found and didn't care if they had to lie about McNair to get the desired result. That he ignores. The they should have known, well thats the end all that justifies the NCAAs actions. But ask him about UNCs corruption and he's just not sure what to do with that. It's still not clear to him. Yes the classes were a sham and hundreds of players didn't even go to a class and got passed for more than a decade. That he's not outraged about. lol

 

[trojanfan12]

I just find it funny how you can tell the amount of disdain for USC and those years the guy has.Emails now show the NCAA was out to get SC regardless of what they found and didn't care if they had to lie about McNair to get the desired result. That he ignores. The they should have known, well thats the end all that justifies the NCAAs actions. But ask him about UNCs corruption and he's just not sure what to do with that. It's still not clear to him. Yes the classes were a sham and hundreds of players didn't even go to a class and got passed for more than a decade. That he's not outraged about. lol

The funny thing is, no one denies that the Bush family took stuff they shouldn't have and no one has ever said that USC shouldn't have been punished. The only dispute has been whether or not USC knew what was happening and the level of punishment that was handed out.