Now it's 'Bama's turn...when will you guys learn

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:50 pm

that cheating doesn't pay?

http://sports.excite.com/news/03052009/v9190.html

Sincerely,

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:08 pm

Using your athletic scholarship to get free textbooks for other students?

That ain't gonna get you no Kim Kardashian ass.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:09 am

Since when was an overrated whore like Kardashian the gold standard for hot 'tang? Reggie could have done soooo much better, but he was duped like everyone else.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:41 am

S_M, I'll have you take note of Reggie's culture and the size of Miss Kardashian's ass.

There's also no denying that she has a stunningly beautiful face and gorgeous tits. Then there's the Birdy Factor, as she's obviously quite the fan of black cock.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:31 pm

So 5 'Bama athletes get free Textbooks for their friends and the NCAA says it could be a major infraction. Yet Reggie get free trips, reduced housing for his parents, and his parents get loans from agents, but not even a slap on the hand from the NCAA.

NICE!

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:40 pm

That's cause it's Bama. The NCAA knows any books given out to Bama students only end up being used as bong coasters anyway.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:40 pm

I have nothing against Bama, but I do think it would be funny if they got slapped pretty hard. Watch how fast Saban would skip town.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:18 pm

Sam, I know they're TigerSluts and all but I'm thinking all you need to do is package up your own gaggle of this...

...and send 'em on their way for a weekend with the fat, balding middle aged dorks who are in charge of the NCAA's Petty Rules & Other Stupid Shit Department and Bama should be fine.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:28 pm

Van wrote:NCAA's Petty Rules & Other Stupid Shit Department

Well, there's the Petty Rules and then there's the Petey Rules. Sam should be hoping Bama falls under the latter.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:55 pm

Yeah, 'cause Petey's such a proven cheat.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:58 pm

When the shit goes down on your watch, you are responsible.

Illustration of the NCAA Petey Rules.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:24 pm

Anyone have proof that Pete or anyone from USC cheated or are they still just talking out their ass?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 7:35 pm

Convenient dodge, Indy. Petey is not required to know the housing arrangements of the parents of his players, nor should he reasonably be expected to keep up on such things.

That's not part of a major college football program's coach's job description. He's got a hundred or so kids on his squad and many of those kids come from broken homes, with multiple parents. No way in hell a HC can be expected to keep up on all of their housing arrangements.

Maybe some other group within the university might be expected to keep up on such things but there's no way such a huge task can also be part of a HC's job description.

The HC is also usually not in the position of wanting to see his star players poached from his program by unscrupulous agents. That's not exactly something that would benefit Pete, or his team.

People want to point fingers. I get that. Just use your head and at least make some attempt to point them at the responsible parties. Pointing your finger at Pete over something which would be the very last thing on earth Pete would want to see happen just isn't very smart. Pointing your finger at Pete over something about which no reasonable person could expect him to have any knowledge is also not very smart.

What, you think Reggie's family made a point of telling Pete they were living in some house they supposedly couldn't afford? You think they didn't attempt to keep Pete out of the loop there...assuming any of that story actually happened the way it's been reported. None of us even know to a certainty if any of it really happened.

If you can dig up any charges of Pete himself or even his coaches committing any shady acts, by all means, let's hear them. If the Reggie Bush thing is all you've got (and it is) then you're all behaving like a bunch of jealous Chicken Littles. The Reggie Bush deal hardly indicates a history of cheating on Pete's part, or even on the part of the USC football program.

Oh, and no, don't even bother trying to lump the O.J. Mayo thing in with Pete's USC football program. One has nothing to do with the other.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:48 pm

Van,

It is the compliance department's responsibility. I was making a joke in this thread. We've discussed this topic ad nauseum here in your absence. I'm sure you had lurked. You can go back and see my "in all seriousness" responses to U$C and the Bush/Jarrett/Mayo/etc. stories. Me pointing at Petey is more for muse and smack. He should have been aware of these blatant violations. Was the burden on him to discover them? Not really. Compliance department should have known and passed it along.

You should know not to take everything here at face value. Picture of dude with fingers in ears? Seriously? I'd call that the NCAA $C Rules and it is a very accurate analogy. Instead of defending $C for the severe lack of institutional control that was uncovered, just count your fucking blessings the NCAA continues to sweep it under the rug.

ltr: NCAA, reality

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:04 pm

So Jarrett using his entire 800 bucks a month housing stipend to rent a room in an apartment near campus is a lack of institutional control?
If the NCAA was concerned with being fair they would take a look at the average rent costs near each school and then allow each school to give a housing stipend based on that regions rental cost. Id bet you every single thing you have that for 800 dollars a month youre going to get a lot more in College Station than you will in downtown Los Angeles. Why punish athletes who play for teams that are in more desirable cities with higher rent compared to athletes playing in the middle of butt fuck egypt?

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:22 pm

Why punish athletes who play for teams that are in more desirable cities with higher rent compared to athletes playing in the middle of butt fuck egypt?

Uh, LA isn't exactly on most people's best cities to live in list.

Flip that around. Why reward athletes who choose to play for teams that are in areas where housing prices are extremely overvalued?

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:27 pm

Wasn't Jarrett simply staying with Leinart, at a place provided by Leinart's dad?

What, a dad can't provide his kid and his kid's friend with cheap or even free housing while they're in college? Since when is that a crime?

If my memory of that story is incorrect someone please correct me.

Indy, is USC's Compliance Department responsible for checking up on the housing arrangements of the parents of USC students?

No, it's not. So, since you say Pete should've been aware of what was going on, fine, tell me then how was he supposed to know? Reggie certainly wasn't going to tell him, assuming he even knew himself. Reggie's parents weren't going to tell him. Pete isn't obligated to schedule meetings with the parents of his players, in order to find out what they're doing with their lives.

"He should've known!" is simply a frustrated way of admitting, "I've got nuthin'!"

No, he shouldn't have known. It's not part of his job description to track down things like that and it is the business of the people who do it to try and make sure Pete doesn't find out.

USC has no culpability there; not Pete, not USC's Compliance Department. USC's Compliance Department is set up to make sure that USC's students comply with NCAA regulations. It's not set up to be a watch dog over non USC students, ie, the parents of USC students.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:45 pm

BTH, how do you know this, and how do you know it applies to USC?

Financial statements? Some of the parents of some players are in jail, or unemployed, or their whereabouts can't even be ascertained.

"You just worry about my son/grandson/third nephew. Where I live and how I cover my note is none of yo' damn bidness!" could easily be a popular refrain.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:11 pm

Van wrote:Wasn't Jarrett simply staying with Leinart, at a place provided by Leinart's dad?

What, a dad can't provide his kid and his kid's friend with cheap or even free housing while they're in college? Since when is that a crime?

If my memory of that story is incorrect someone please correct me.

Jarrett was not paying market value for his half of the apartment. Leinart's dad was paying much more than half the rent. This is a violation. As BtH pointed out, the compliance dept. know (or should based upon required financial disclosure) what Jarrett would be able to afford for housing. They should also know where he lives and how much it costs to live there. And in doing the math, they should know that he was living beyond his means. That...is...what...they...do. But they weren't doing it.

Now, get ready for schmick to bring out his argument that Jarrett was only renting an 8x10 spare room and did not need to pay half the rent. If what they were doing was not against the rules, then Jarrett would not have had to "repay" the rent he was getting paid for by Leinart's dad.

Indy, is USC's Compliance Department responsible for checking up on the housing arrangements of the parents of USC students?

On student-athletes? Sure. And any COMPETENT compliance dept....any compliance dept. without a lack of institutional control...knows damn fucking well to start with your top players and work down because the TOP, HIGH PROFILE players are the ones most likely to fall into the traps of agents and boosters that can cause damage to the program.

So, since you say Pete should've been aware of what was going on, fine, tell me then how was he supposed to know? Reggie certainly wasn't going to tell him, assuming he even knew himself. Reggie's parents weren't going to tell him. Pete isn't obligated to schedule meetings with the parents of his players, in order to find out what they're doing with their lives.

"He should've known!" is simply a frustrated way of admitting, "I've got nuthin'!"

I've sad it before in my last post. I said it in the section above this quote. Compliance department. Just because you don't want to belive that is their function does not mean it is not true. You sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, shaking your head and screaming 'NA-NA-NA-NA!" won't change the fact. The only thing around here that "gots nuthin" is $C. "Nuthin" as in NO PENALTIES for multiple textbook cases of LOIC.

No, he shouldn't have known. It's not part of his job description to track down things like that and it is the business of the people who do it to try and make sure Pete doesn't find out.

As I said, the burden is not on him to find this stuff out. When I said he should have known, once again, I have to repeat myself, it should have been reported TO HIM by the compliance departent that was

a) looking the other way <--cheating

or

b) incompetent <-- LOIC

See underlined areas:

The institution must provide evidence that written compliance policies and procedures exist
and demonstrate that they are engaged and functioning in the following areas:
a. Initial-eligibility certification;
b. Continuing-eligibility certification;
c. Transfer-eligibility certification;
d. Academic performance program (e.g., data collection process, penalty implementation
process);
e. Financial aid administration, including individual and team limits;
f. Recruiting (e.g., official and unofficial visits, hosts, entertainment, contacts, phone
calls);
g. Camps and clinics;
h. Investigations and self-reporting rules violations;
i. Rules education;
j. Extra benefits;
k. Playing and practice seasons;
l. Student-athlete employment;
m. Amateurism.

U$C may have WRITTEN COMPLIANCE POLICIES. However, those policies WERE NOT ENGAGED OR FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY. Therefore, LOIC.

LOIC can, but typically does not, refer to one isolated incident. It is usually brought into play when there are multiple instances which there have been with U$C. And in Bush's case, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.

USC has no culpability there; not Pete, not USC's Compliance Department. USC's Compliance Department is set up to make sure that USC's students comply with NCAA regulations. It's not set up to be a watch dog over non USC students, ie, the parents of USC students.

You can tell yourself til you're blue in the face that U$C is not responsible for compliance. And as long as you believe it, rock on. Does not change the fact you are wrong.

Good God...the way you homer... You and schmick were made for each other.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:35 pm

Indy, don't bother going to the cop out "homer" card. I'd be saying the same damn thing if it was ND, Michigan or any other school.

Btw, nowhere on that list you linked was there any mention of the school's duty to demand info on the living arrangements of a student's parents and/or relatives. Everything on that list was confined solely to the student/athlete.

I just don't see how the NCAA can possibly expect its programs to keep tabs on the parents and relatives of each of its student/athletes. These parents and relatives are not necessarily going to always be the most forthcoming with info about their lifestyles.

Regarding Leinart and Jarrett, let's back up a second here, since I'm still not clear on something...

IndyFrisco is sending his son off to college. IndyFrisco has decided that it would be good for his son to move away from home while he's in college; to begin living on his own. However, IndyFrisco doesn't want his son to live in some shitty dorm, or some crime infested neighborhood. IndyFrisco can easily afford to put his son up in a nicer aprtment, in a nicer neighborhood.

So, IndyFrisco pops for a new car for his son, along with a nice apartment for his son...rent free. IndyFrisco is paying all the bills. IndyFrisco is putting his son through college.

IndyFrisco's son calls him one day and says, "Hey, dad, do you mind if my buddy Dwayne comes and stays with me? He's on the team too and my place is much better than the shithole where he's staying."

"Hell, if you don't mind why would I mind? You're the one who'll be sharing your space, not me."

"Dad, he can't afford this neighborhood. Rents here are too high."

"I'm not charging you rent, am I?"

"No."

"The place isn't going to charge me more rent for having a second person living there, are they?"

"No."

"Then what do I care? If you wanna let him live with you, fine by me. You're not gay though, right? Bwaaa..."

"Nice, dad. Real nice. Douchebag."

"Yeah, yeah. So, will your mother and I be seeing you for Thanksgiving?"

This is what I don't understand. Am I to understand that a dad can't just put his kid and his kid's friend up in an apartment, house or hotel....whatever...on his own dime? Or at a reduced rent?

Parents have been doing this for their kids since the dawn of time. When (and why) did it become an NCAA rules violation?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:38 pm

Actually, I need to correct one statement I made:

I wrote:LOIC can, but typically does not, refer to one isolated incident. It is usually brought into play when there are multiple instances which there have been with U$C. And in Bush's case, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.

From the PAC 10 NCAA Compliance document:

If a system of control is in place, a single deviation by a member of the athletics staff or a
representative of the institution's athletics interests will not be considered a lack of
institutional control. However, if there are a number of violations, even if they all are minor,
indicating that the compliance system is not operating effectively, the person(s)
responsible cannot ignore the situation, but must take steps to correct the compliance
system.

And the shit that has gone down at $C definitely ain't minor.

So, either the NCAA is looking the other way as we all (sans homer $C fan) have said all along or they are building one helluva case in the background with no leaks. Methinks they are allowing the violations to go unpunished until they prove otherwise.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:41 pm

Van wrote:This is what I don't understand. Am I to understand that a dad can't just put his kid and his kid's friend up in an apartment, house or hotel....whatever...on his own dime? Or at a reduced rent?

Parents have been doing this for their kids since the dawn of time. When (and why) did it become an NCAA rules violation?

It didn't become a violation when Jarrett became a student. It became a violation when Jarrett became a student-athlete. Don't keep asking why like my son does or I will just say because it is the rules.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:43 pm

And we haven't even gotten on Mayo yet. That shit for brains agent that tagged along with him everywhere he went had already been banned from U$C before for tampering with an athlete. Floyd KNEW this. Everyone KNEW this at $C. But Mayo was the star and the let it go. Mayo got tens of thousands of dollars in cash and benefits.

All these things add up.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:01 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:So Jarrett using his entire 800 bucks a month housing stipend to rent a room in an apartment near campus is a lack of institutional control?

First off, quit lying. Jarrett was paying $650 rent. The lease for the apartment was $3866/month.

No single incident is a lack of institutional control as I posted above. The Jarrett incident violated the "extra benefits" clause of the institutional control compliance guidelines I posted above. He was declared ineligible by the NCAA for this VIOLATION. He only got reinstated because someone paid his fair share of the back rent he would have never paid had he not been caught.

LOIC does not have to be MAJOR violations even though Jarrett's was thousands of dollars, Mayo's was tens of thousands of dollars and Bush's was hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:10 pm

The Mayo thing has nothing to do with USC football. The football program can't be penalized for something that occured within the basketball or golf programs. So, yeah, drop it. Discuss it in the college hoops forum, if you really give a rat's ass about it.

Anyway, student/athlete or not, you're telling me that you as a the parent cannot put your kid through college, including paying for his room and board? You can't pay his rent?

I find that nearly impossible to believe. Wealthy parents across the country pay the rent for their children while those kids are in college, and it doesn't matter whether the kid is on the field hockey team or not.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:30 pm

Van wrote:The Mayo thing has nothing to do with USC football. The football program can't be penalized for something that occured within the basketball or golf programs. So, yeah, drop it. Discuss it in the college hoops forum, if you really give a rat's ass about it.

Good God. Van, you're smarter than this. I know you are. U$C football, while you think it is its own institution, is, in fact, part of a larger institution. U$C. The honus of all this ultimately falls at the feet of your school president. The recent FSU mess did not only include football. That's the whole point about LOIC. There are areas across all the athletic department programs that may be in violation. So don't tell me to drop it just because it hurts your argument.

Anyway, student/athlete or not, you're telling me that you as a the parent cannot put your kid through college, including paying for his room and board? You can't pay his rent?

I find that nearly impossible to believe. Wealthy parents across the country pay the rent for their children while those kids are in college, and it doesn't matter whether the kid is on the field hockey team or not.

Van, Van, Van....There's a reason Jarrett was declared ineligible by the NCAA and Leinart was not when Leinart's dad paid the lion's share of the rent. Nothing wrong with Leinart's dad paying for Leinart's rent. Jarrett, however, was in violation. And Pete Carrol damn well should have known that Jarrett was living with Leinart in that $3800+ pad knowing Jarrett wasn't paying half like the rules said he should.

And once again before you say Petey should have no accountability:

PAC 10 NCAA Compliance Document wrote:A head coach has special obligation to establish a spirit of compliance among the entire
team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes. The head coach
must generally observe the activities of assistant coaches and staff to determine if they
are acting in compliance with NCAA rules. Too often, when assistant coaches are
involved in a web of serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance, saying that they
were too busy to know what was occurring and that they trusted their assistants. Such a
failure by head coaches to control their teams, alone or with the assistance of a staff
member with compliance responsibilities, is a lack of institutional control.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:38 pm

Oh, and this black pimped out Impala? Bush was seen all over the place rolling around in it from 2005 on.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:57 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:U$C football, while you think it is its own institution, is, in fact, part of a larger institution. U$C. The honus of all this ultimately falls at the feet of your school president. The recent FSU mess did not only include football. That's the whole point about LOIC. There are areas across all the athletic department programs that may be in violation. So don't tell me to drop it just because it hurts your argument.

So, you're telling me that if the basketball program gets in trouble because of the O.J. Mayo thing and the trouble there had nothing to do with anything or anybody involving the football team penalties could also be levied against the football team?

Conversely, if USC football were to be put on probation and they were made to forfeit scholarships or bowl games because of the Reggie Bush thing similar penalties could be levied against the basketball or golf programs?

These aren't separate institutions but they are separate programs. A penalty given to one program has no bearing on any other program.

Now, yes, if both USC football and basketball were found guilty of NCAA violations stemming from violations commmitted by a group which is connected to both prpograms, sure, then you've got something.

Reggie's issue, with an unscrupulous agent? That has nothing to do with Mayo's issue, or USC basketball. Different people, different allegations, different cuircumstances. We're not going to see one blanket penalty given to the entire USC athletic program, based on the misdeeds of only one program.

Anyway, student/athlete or not, you're telling me that you as a the parent cannot put your kid through college, including paying for his room and board? You can't pay his rent?

I find that nearly impossible to believe. Wealthy parents across the country pay the rent for their children while those kids are in college, and it doesn't matter whether the kid is on the field hockey team or not.
Van, Van, Van....There's a reason Jarrett was declared ineligible by the NCAA and Leinart was not when Leinart's dad paid the lion's share of the rent. Nothing wrong with Leinart's dad paying for Leinart's rent. Jarrett, however, was in violation. And Pete Carrol damn well should have known that Jarrett was living with Leinart in that $3800+ pad knowing Jarrett wasn't paying half like the rules said he should.

I admit I don't know the details of that case. I also admit that I must apparently be ignorant of the rules in that case.

Again, going back to the example I gave you, are you telling me that you couldn't pay the entire room and board bill for your kid and his buddy, if you wanted to? Not just some booster, but you, the parent of the kid.

Man, I know that goes on, all over the country. If that's illegal then there are countless people violating that rule.

And once again before you say Petey should have no accountability:

I'm saying Pete has no accountability regarding the living arrangements of the families of his players. His players, that's a different matter. There, yes, he has accountability.

PAC 10 NCAA Compliance Document wrote:A head coach has special obligation to establish a spirit of compliance among the entire
team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes. The head coach
must generally observe the activities of assistant coaches and staff to determine if they
are acting in compliance with NCAA rules. Too often, when assistant coaches are
involved in a web of serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance, saying that they
were too busy to know what was occurring and that they trusted their assistants. Such a
failure by head coaches to control their teams, alone or with the assistance of a staff
member with compliance responsibilities, is a lack of institutional control.

Nothing there speaks to a repsonsibility to know what the living arrangements are of the families of the players.

It's no more an assistant coach's job to know the living arrangements of some kid's uncle than it's Pete's.

These rules you keep quoting don't pertain to this situation, at least insofar as Reggie's family is concerned.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:06 pm

Reggie drove a pimped out Impala while in college?

What about it?

Par for the course.

How many college kids, unemployed losers AND seemingly responsible, working adults are driving cars that seem to be beyond their means? Baby mommas, uncles, grandparents, friends, whatever. People come up with ways to have others get them nice shit they otherwise can't afford. It happens every day, in all walks of life, including college athletes.

Again, if Reggie is to be hammered for this then we may as shut down big time college basketball and football because he sure wasn't even close to being unique in that regard.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:18 pm

Van wrote:Now, yes, if both USC football and basketball were found guilty of NCAA violations stemming from violations commmitted by a group which is connected to both prpograms, sure, then you've got something.

Both programs are to be monitored by the same compliance dept. The fact there are multiple areas in violation is the LOIC. I didn't say USC baseball will loase 5 scholarships because football and basketball had a problem. Football and basketball will pay for their violations.

Reggie's issue, with an unscrupulous agent? That has nothing to do with Mayo's issue, or USC basketball. Different people, different allegations, different cuircumstances. We're not going to see one blanket penalty given to the entire USC athletic program, based on the misdeeds of only one program.

Wrong again. I'm sure Mayo and Bush had different girlfriends, different haircuts and different clothes. They were (supposed to be) under the watch of the same compliance dept.

I admit I don't know the details of that case. I also admit that I must apparently be ignorant of the rules in that case.

As you are ignorant of how LOIC is defined by the NCAA and how to apply it to U$C's case.

Again, going back to the example I gave you, are you telling me that you couldn't pay the entire room and board bill for your kid and his buddy, if you wanted to? Not just some booster, but you, the parent of the kid.

Man, I know that goes on, all over the country. If that's illegal then there are countless people violating that rule.

I could pay for my kid's R&B. I could pay for my kid's friend's R&B even if my kid is an athlete. However, if my kid's friend is also an athlete, it is a violation. Why? Because it is considered an EXTRA BENEFIT. If they let cases like that slide, then boosters (which can include parents of athletes) all over the country start setting up bachelor pads for the athletes. In recruiting, guess what? They show the kids which bachelor pads are the best. Kids see the benefit and pick one school over another.

I'm saying Pete has no accountability regarding the living arrangements of the families of his players. His players, that's a different matter. There, yes, he has accountability.

The compliance dept. isn't some jackass sitting in an office looking over paperwork. Because not all schools will employ a 100 person full time compliance staff, they delegate those responsibilities to the existing staff. Everyone is accountable because everyone is educated on compliance, or at least they should be if they are executing thier plan for compliance correctly. Carrol and his assistants are all supposed to be on the watch. There's evident of Bush with a car he could not afford. There's evidence of Bush staying in hotels in Vegas and San Diego where a coaching assistant was with him in San Diego. It's not just his parent's house. His parent's house was only $54k of the $300+k of benefits received by the entire Bush family, including Reggie.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:26 pm

Van wrote:Reggie drove a pimped out Impala while in college?

What about it?

Par for the course.

Except for those pesky little financial statements that are required to be completed by the family BtH was referring to. He, or his family, could not afford 17k for the car. He got the car for 13k and then had 4k of modifications done to it. All the money coming from New Era.

Hell, at least schmick's argument is "it shouldn't be against the rules". Yours is "it didn't happen" (when it did) or "how were they supposed to know?" (when they should).

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:51 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Both programs are to be monitored by the same compliance dept. The fact there are multiple areas in violation is the LOIC.

You've got one rumored violation by the basketball program. Nothing was proven there, but even so it's just one rumored violation.

Reggie's situation is one rumored violation by the football team. The Jarrett case was already settled to the NCAA's satisfaction and Reggie's situation still hasn't amounted to anything.

This hardly meets the LOIC's definition of "multiple and systemic violations," or anything of the sort. It's a couple of unsubstantiated and isolated incidents involving two different programs over, what, three or four years?

If this was Iowa St you wouldn't give a rat's ass, either. Nobody would.

I didn't say USC baseball will loase 5 scholarships because football and basketball had a problem. Football and basketball will pay for their violations.

Assuming there truly were any, which has yet to be proven. It's now 2009. Are Pete and Reggie going to be sitting in their rocking chairs when they finally get the word that the NCAA received proof of misdeeds and USC is to be punished because of it?

Reggie's issue, with an unscrupulous agent? That has nothing to do with Mayo's issue, or USC basketball. Different people, different allegations, different cuircumstances. We're not going to see one blanket penalty given to the entire USC athletic program, based on the misdeeds of only one program.
Wrong again. I'm sure Mayo and Bush had different girlfriends, different haircuts and different clothes. They were (supposed to be) under the watch of the same compliance dept.

I'm still not convinced that USC's Compliance Department is supposed to to somehow stay abreast of the living arrangements of the extended families of its student/athletes. I'm also not convinced they're expected to go Private Investigator regarding the living arrangements of some kid's hard to reach and otherwise uncooperative step dad or uncle. If that guy lies to USC and he makes any effort whatsoever to cover his tracks then what is USC supposed to do?

Does the NCAA realistically expect any school's Compliance Department to go all gumshoe on the extended families of its students? Do you?

I admit I don't know the details of that case. I also admit that I must apparently be ignorant of the rules in that case.
As you are ignorant of how LOIC is defined by the NCAA and how to apply it to U$C's case.

Well, considering the NCAA isn't ignorant of its own LOIC rules and considering the additional fact that the NCAA hasn't said boo to USC yet it's looking like the NCAA is so far satisfied that USC hasn't exhibited any LOIC.

Anything else is just speculation, and usually speculation fueled by blatantly transparent agendas.

Again, going back to the example I gave you, are you telling me that you couldn't pay the entire room and board bill for your kid and his buddy, if you wanted to? Not just some booster, but you, the parent of the kid.

Man, I know that goes on, all over the country. If that's illegal then there are countless people violating that rule.
I could pay for my kid's R&B. I could pay for my kid's friend's R&B even if my kid is an athlete. However, if my kid's friend is also an athlete, it is a violation. Why? Because it is considered an EXTRA BENEFIT. If they let cases like that slide, then boosters (which can include parents of athletes) all over the country start setting up bachelor pads for the athletes. In recruiting, guess what? They show the kids which bachelor pads are the best. Kids see the benefit and pick one school over another.

Okay, if that's the rule then that's the rule. That one shocks me but so be it. Regardless, the NCAA was satisfied that restitution was made and the matter was resolved.

The compliance dept. isn't some jackass sitting in an office looking over paperwork. Because not all schools will employ a 100 person full time compliance staff, they delegate those responsibilities to the existing staff.

These are Compliance Departments, not detective agencies. They are not staffed or trained to do the type of digging that would be necessary to run down the truth behind the living arrangements of the extended families of their athletes.

They're office gnomes...bureaucrats. They're easily duped.

Everyone is accountable because everyone is educated on compliance, or at least they should be if they are executing thier plan for compliance correctly. Carrol and his assistants are all supposed to be on the watch. There's evident of Bush with a car he could not afford. There's evidence of Bush staying in hotels in Vegas and San Diego where a coaching assistant was with him in San Diego. It's not just his parent's house. His parent's house was only $54k of the $300+k of benefits he received by the entire Bush family, including Reggie.

Allegedly. These allegations have not yet been proven, not to the NCAA's satisfaction. Your continuing to bleat these allegations out as fact doesn't make them so.

The counter argument that the NCAA is just sweeping it all under the rug because it's USC? Pure sour grapes, lacking any other supporting argument. The NCAA has penalized USC before. They've penalized just about every program in America. USC is not above being punished. If the NCAA was in possession of irrefutable evidence proving multiple violations and an overall LOIC USC would receive punishment.

They'd have to, otherwise the NCAA themselves would come under investigation.

If the NCAA doesn't punish USC over the Reggie Bush deal then at some point you people are going to have to give up on it and move on. There is a statute of limitations on message board sour grapes.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:12 pm

I'm not going to continue to [IB][/IB] with you. These are the same things we (CFB Forum) have argued time and again. Meds is the only one I've ever seen without viewing it through whatthefuckeveryourcolorsare colored glasses. You brush off the homer tag saying you would argue the same for any other school. I call bullshit. I could care two shits about U$C. Many others here could too. Does not change the fact these players were ineligible when they played meaning wins should be removed as well as titles.

Van wrote:If the NCAA doesn't punish USC over the Reggie Bush deal then at some point you people are going to have to give up on it and move on. There is a statute of limitations on message board sour grapes.

I said long ago (in this thread) we are still in a wait and see mode. Just because the NCAA does not punish them does not mean they aren't sweeping it under the rug. There has already been undisclosed hush money by way of "settlement" to keep some of the accusers quiet. The only reason the Bush camp paid that was so Reggie would not lose his Heisman. The NCAA knows how bad they hurt SMU. And there's SO much documentation on how Bush won't discuss matters with the NCAA nor will those who settled with Bush. If there's nothing to hide, he would cooperate. If he cooperates, he loses his Heisman.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:28 pm

You're still doing nothing but throwing out unsubstantiated allegations as if they're facts.

Oh, and you could care two shits about USC, as could many others here?

I call bullshit on that. If USC weren't USC you wouldn't devote nearly so much time and vitriol on this issue. If the exact same unsubstantiated charges were being levied against Mississippi St or Toledo you wouldn't be expressing nearly the same degree of phony, self righteous indignation about it.

You couldn't even be bothered about it, especially this many years down the road. Because you want to see USC knocked off their perch you're still foaming at the mouth to see "justice done" and you're in love with all the convenient conspiracy theories.

All the "Chetey Petey" talk is pure jealousy and pure nonsense. The guy isn't a saint but nobody can point to anything he's ever done which would merit such a label, especially compared to any other coach of any other top flight program.

Look, if an when USC gets punished then I'll step up and say they were wrong and they deserved their punishment. Same as any other school. Until that happens though I'm not about to convict anybody based on a bunch of agenda driven internet lynch mobs.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:50 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Oh, and this black pimped out Impala? Bush was seen all over the place rolling around in it from 2005 on.

no matter what, Reggie ain't making the Chuck D Pirate hat work no matter how he tries. or Eazy-E's Impala.

i don't think what Bush is on about is what Chuck D means. meant.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:01 am

Van,

If any major program, ANY, was getting away with shit like this I would have a problem with it because they would be reaping the benefits of it as $C is right now. Tennessee, FSU, Miami, OU, t.u., Bama. I don't care. $C just happens to be the one getting away with it.

You say I spout off unsubstantiated comments as fact. Fact is the Bush family was getting the house. Fact is that is against the rules. The FACT that the NCAA has not officially commented good or bad on this FACT speaks volumes. If they are going to let it go, say you found nothing wrong. If you are going to punish them, punish them. The hide and hope people forget tactic isn't working.

The allegations that have been levied against $C players merit an NCAA response because many schools out there will take this non-action as permission to follow suit.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:01 am

hundreds of thousands of dollars according to who? some crack head who said he gave the Griffens 300k yet never earned more that 20k a year on any W2? yeah, ill believe that when my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert.
Let the acuser show where he earned the 300k before you can even assume he gave that 300k away

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:01 am

Indy, exactly what "benefits" did USC football receive from those alleged transgressions?

Reggie was essentially poached from the program. USC didn't benefit at all from what that agent allegedly did. Reggie was already there, in the program. It wasn't like USC committed a recruiting violation to land him. It's not like they helped him through school by forging test scores or letting him skate on his academic requirements.

He was already there. What he's accused of didn't help USC. It only stood a chance of hurting USC.

Dwayne Jarrett's deal? Please. Whether or not he stayed at Leinart's place was not a make or break deal regarding his ability to suit up for USC. That was a kid enjoying his buddy's nicer pad. Again, USC didn't benefit squat from that.

Those are your two allegations. Neither of them benefitted USC and one of 'em has already been settled to the NCAA's satisfaction while the other hasn't amounted to a hill of beans yet, and we're now four years down the road.

That's your LOIC? Those two things? You're going to need a whole lot more than that, and it's going to need to be substantiated.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:00 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:Weren't you the guy who said that anyone who makes any money gets a 1099, not a W2?

Then show it on an SSI statement

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:16 pm

not spotless, just nowhere near responsible for Bush's stepfather allegdly taking money to get reggie to "leave" USC.

There is a huge difference between boosters giving players money to go to and play at a school and agent wannabes giving players money to get them to leave the school, that is all that I have ever tried to maintain in that situation.
You cant treat USC the same in the Bush case,even if it was true, as you can treat Olahoma for the Big Red Motors where a booster was paying players to play for Oklahoma, Alabama for the Lyn Lang/Albert Means deal where the High School coach was paid to get the player to go to Alabama or Notre Dame and Kim Dunbar who gave players at Notre dame 1.2 million dollars to play for the Irish and do all their homework for them or Auburn and the English Department head somehow giving all the players As in classes they never attended. USC did not benfit from the alleged money that the convicted felon said he gave Lamar Griffen the Summer before Reggies Junior Year, in fact you can argue that USC was punished by the loss of reggie for his Senior season.