08-17-2011, 09:47 AM
nothing on the Bowlsby/Stanford angle, but more on the Mizzou/Haith angle
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...=hp_t11_a5
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...=hp_t11_a5
Did Bob Bowlsby dodge a bullet?
nothing on the Bowlsby/Stanford angle, but more on the Mizzou/Haith angle
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...=hp_t11_a5
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...=hp_t11_a5
08-17-2011, 11:45 AM
Those Shapiro allegations are a nuclear detonation for the U. I expect the death penalty, except that...
...the then-head of the NCAA Infractions Committee was the immediately previous Miami AD who was in charge during the timeframe within which the NCAA violations occurred.
Link here.
...the then-head of the NCAA Infractions Committee was the immediately previous Miami AD who was in charge during the timeframe within which the NCAA violations occurred.
Quote:Dee himself, AD from 1993-2008, was in charge when Miami football was at the center of a Pell Grant fraud scandal in 1995. The program was stripped of 24 scholarships, given a one-year bowl ban and three years probation. Despite that, he was allowed to be on the infractions committee for the max nine years from 2001-2010.
Shapiro's run of lawlessness came at roughly the same time that Dee was on the committee, the last three years as chairman (2008-2010). That committee is the nine-person board that hears testimony at hearings and ultimately decides penalties for schools and individuals.
Link here.
Those Shapiro allegations are a nuclear detonation for the U. I expect the death penalty, except that...
...the then-head of the NCAA Infractions Committee was the immediately previous Miami AD who was in charge during the timeframe within which the NCAA violations occurred.
Link here.
...the then-head of the NCAA Infractions Committee was the immediately previous Miami AD who was in charge during the timeframe within which the NCAA violations occurred.
Quote:Dee himself, AD from 1993-2008, was in charge when Miami football was at the center of a Pell Grant fraud scandal in 1995. The program was stripped of 24 scholarships, given a one-year bowl ban and three years probation. Despite that, he was allowed to be on the infractions committee for the max nine years from 2001-2010.
Shapiro's run of lawlessness came at roughly the same time that Dee was on the committee, the last three years as chairman (2008-2010). That committee is the nine-person board that hears testimony at hearings and ultimately decides penalties for schools and individuals.
Link here.
08-17-2011, 01:04 PM
Pat Haden & Larry Scott should be some of those people watching this story. In following some of the SC appeal process, Dee was a prominent member of the infractions posse that came down so hard on the Kiffens.
IIRC there was an associate AD from South Bend who was also particularly zealous in slapping it to SC.
Scott has already made comments regarding tOSU regarding his concern for consistent treatment by the NCAA.
IIRC there was an associate AD from South Bend who was also particularly zealous in slapping it to SC.
Scott has already made comments regarding tOSU regarding his concern for consistent treatment by the NCAA.
Pat Haden & Larry Scott should be some of those people watching this story. In following some of the SC appeal process, Dee was a prominent member of the infractions posse that came down so hard on the Kiffens.
IIRC there was an associate AD from South Bend who was also particularly zealous in slapping it to SC.
Scott has already made comments regarding tOSU regarding his concern for consistent treatment by the NCAA.
IIRC there was an associate AD from South Bend who was also particularly zealous in slapping it to SC.
Scott has already made comments regarding tOSU regarding his concern for consistent treatment by the NCAA.
08-17-2011, 01:59 PM
(08-17-2011, 12:01 PM)garvin link Wrote:I believe that's going to work against Miami rather than for it, fullmetal. There will be plenty of people watching to see if the NCAA holds Dee's school to the same standards to which Dee held others.
Wow, I'm late to this party. ESPN's Ted Miller just nails this angle:
http://tinyurl.com/Deekarma
(08-17-2011, 12:01 PM)garvin link Wrote:I believe that's going to work against Miami rather than for it, fullmetal. There will be plenty of people watching to see if the NCAA holds Dee's school to the same standards to which Dee held others.
Wow, I'm late to this party. ESPN's Ted Miller just nails this angle:
http://tinyurl.com/Deekarma
Wait ..... THE NCAA HAS SOMEONE FROM MIAMI AS THE HEAD OF ITS INFRACTION COMMITTEE ? ? ? ?  Oh Lord ....
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Wait ..... THE NCAA HAS SOMEONE FROM MIAMI AS THE HEAD OF ITS INFRACTION COMMITTEE ? ? ? ?  Oh Lord ....
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-17-2011, 09:44 PM
(08-17-2011, 04:54 PM)Leftcoast link Wrote:Wait ..... THE NCAA HAS SOMEONE FROM MIAMI AS THE HEAD OF ITS INFRACTION COMMITTEE ?????  Oh Lord ....
Past tense Lefty - had.
SI's Steward Mandel gives an appropriately scathing review & summary.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...ml#tyntHFL
If you want the undistilled version, Garvin's original links are the primary sources, but Mandel really tags into the hypocrisy of the Committee for Infractions as chaired by Dee & particularly relating to our SoCal Pac12 distant cousins.
The Dodd article linked by fullmetal above also has a bracing dose of indignation.
Does the NCAA acknowledge that SC was jobbed by a kangaroo court and revisit their sanctions, or do they try to carry that level of 'justice' forward and utterly gut NC, tOSU, Miami and the others to come?
Conversely, if NC, tOSU, & UM don't receive in measure the same kind of draconian treatment as SC, what do Scott & Haden do?
(08-17-2011, 04:54 PM)Leftcoast link Wrote:Wait ..... THE NCAA HAS SOMEONE FROM MIAMI AS THE HEAD OF ITS INFRACTION COMMITTEE ?????  Oh Lord ....
Past tense Lefty - had.
SI's Steward Mandel gives an appropriately scathing review & summary.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...ml#tyntHFL
If you want the undistilled version, Garvin's original links are the primary sources, but Mandel really tags into the hypocrisy of the Committee for Infractions as chaired by Dee & particularly relating to our SoCal Pac12 distant cousins.
The Dodd article linked by fullmetal above also has a bracing dose of indignation.
Does the NCAA acknowledge that SC was jobbed by a kangaroo court and revisit their sanctions, or do they try to carry that level of 'justice' forward and utterly gut NC, tOSU, Miami and the others to come?
Conversely, if NC, tOSU, & UM don't receive in measure the same kind of draconian treatment as SC, what do Scott & Haden do?
08-18-2011, 08:36 AM
Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo were on the payroll. Southern California got what it deserved. The fact that Miami is guilty of violations doesn't affect what Southern California did. The real question is whether the NCAA will be willing to give Miami the death penalty, or will they stop just short of that.
Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo were on the payroll. Southern California got what it deserved. The fact that Miami is guilty of violations doesn't affect what Southern California did. The real question is whether the NCAA will be willing to give Miami the death penalty, or will they stop just short of that.
08-18-2011, 09:45 AM
One side effect of the death penalty is that the non-football sports will probably suffer badly as well. There's only one data point--SMU. But the effects are very real to those involved. I know Miami's rowing program hasn't made waves, but without football money to provide the Title IX balance, a lot of women's sports funding could be in jeopardy.
One side effect of the death penalty is that the non-football sports will probably suffer badly as well. There's only one data point--SMU. But the effects are very real to those involved. I know Miami's rowing program hasn't made waves, but without football money to provide the Title IX balance, a lot of women's sports funding could be in jeopardy.
08-18-2011, 11:40 AM
I'm OK with that - nothing Miami has done for 20 years suggests they should be in charge of a sports program.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
I'm OK with that - nothing Miami has done for 20 years suggests they should be in charge of a sports program.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-18-2011, 12:11 PM
(08-18-2011, 08:36 AM)terry link Wrote:Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo were on the payroll. Southern California got what it deserved. The fact that Miami is guilty of violations doesn't affect what Southern California did. The real question is whether the NCAA will be willing to give Miami the death penalty, or will they stop just short of that.
Sorry Terry but I disagree, staunchly. Saying Bush was "on the payroll" is glib and misleading. Yeah, he got money from guys who wanted to be his agents. They went to great lengths to keep SC in the dark about that. Implying that he was on SC's payroll is disingenuous, and stating it directly is inconsistent with what's known.
After the exhaustive NCAA investigation all that was revealed to this point concerns just Mayo and Bush. I didn't follow the specifics of Mayo since the hoops sanctions weren't program killers. However, it seems pretty clear that SC got kangaroo courted on the football issues, and in financial terms, that is the only real game. Ted Miller has followed this whole issue pretty closely and all this has been covered in his posts as well as other sources.
My point is that a scorched earth attitude towards SC, the Bares, Oregon, Washington, etc. is bringing a pacman perspective to a Black Ops sports world. Going forward, the continued robustness, and possibly viability, of ALL non revenue sports at EVERY Pac12 (16..etc) conference school will be dependent on football derived monies. Sanctions that effect negative consequences for any conference member will hurt others members with minimal effect on other conferences. Fullmetal has made a good specific point on this Re Miami.
Has SC been full of themselves for the decades since I was on the Farm (OJ days); sure! But they got screwed. Were they completely innocent? Hell no, but they didn't deserve what they got. As we all were told in Intro to Psych classes: sanctions, like any negative reinforcement, need to be timely, appropriate to the specific behavior, and consistent. The NCAA looks to be failing miserably on this.
The NCAA has some serious frass on the table and getting it right is going to be brutal. Meanwhile we can sit back and enjoy the most promising football season in, oh 60 years with the Grand Guignol that will be the Miami story as a side dish.
(08-18-2011, 08:36 AM)terry link Wrote:Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo were on the payroll. Southern California got what it deserved. The fact that Miami is guilty of violations doesn't affect what Southern California did. The real question is whether the NCAA will be willing to give Miami the death penalty, or will they stop just short of that.
Sorry Terry but I disagree, staunchly. Saying Bush was "on the payroll" is glib and misleading. Yeah, he got money from guys who wanted to be his agents. They went to great lengths to keep SC in the dark about that. Implying that he was on SC's payroll is disingenuous, and stating it directly is inconsistent with what's known.
After the exhaustive NCAA investigation all that was revealed to this point concerns just Mayo and Bush. I didn't follow the specifics of Mayo since the hoops sanctions weren't program killers. However, it seems pretty clear that SC got kangaroo courted on the football issues, and in financial terms, that is the only real game. Ted Miller has followed this whole issue pretty closely and all this has been covered in his posts as well as other sources.
My point is that a scorched earth attitude towards SC, the Bares, Oregon, Washington, etc. is bringing a pacman perspective to a Black Ops sports world. Going forward, the continued robustness, and possibly viability, of ALL non revenue sports at EVERY Pac12 (16..etc) conference school will be dependent on football derived monies. Sanctions that effect negative consequences for any conference member will hurt others members with minimal effect on other conferences. Fullmetal has made a good specific point on this Re Miami.
Has SC been full of themselves for the decades since I was on the Farm (OJ days); sure! But they got screwed. Were they completely innocent? Hell no, but they didn't deserve what they got. As we all were told in Intro to Psych classes: sanctions, like any negative reinforcement, need to be timely, appropriate to the specific behavior, and consistent. The NCAA looks to be failing miserably on this.
The NCAA has some serious frass on the table and getting it right is going to be brutal. Meanwhile we can sit back and enjoy the most promising football season in, oh 60 years with the Grand Guignol that will be the Miami story as a side dish.
08-18-2011, 12:51 PM
My gut instinct is to join the Leftcoast and unclechuck in watching the self-immolation of the Miami football program spread to the rotting structure of the entire AD. Unfortunately, I do feel a bit for the decent teams huddled under the auspices of that structure...
My gut instinct is to join the Leftcoast and unclechuck in watching the self-immolation of the Miami football program spread to the rotting structure of the entire AD. Unfortunately, I do feel a bit for the decent teams huddled under the auspices of that structure...
(08-18-2011, 12:11 PM)unclechuck link Wrote:it seems pretty clear that SC got kangaroo courted on the football issues
I don't think it's at all clear that SC got "kangaroo courted." Southern California got a full hearing and an appeal, pursuant to NCAA rules. There was evidence that Bush asked for and got thousands of dollars in cash, hotel rooms, limo rides, a car, trips to Vegas and Hawaii, rent-free housing for his parents, furniture, tickets, etc. from prospective agents. Bush was "on the payroll." There also was evidence that Bush agreed to be represented by an agent. For both of these reasons, Bush was ineligible to compete. There was evidence that an SC assistant coach, Todd McNair, knew about the agent's relationship with Bush. McNair denied knowing the agent and denied knowing of the agent's relationship with Bush. Based on evidence in the record (for example, cell phone records showing calls between McNair and the agent), the panel did not believe McNair. The panel had conflicting evidence before it and they decided McNair was the guy who was lying. I know that SC, McNair, and thousands of Trojan fans don't agree. But so far as I can tell, the hearing panel made a legitimate, good faith credibility determination based on the evidence in the record and inferences that could be drawn from it. Based on the reasoning in the decision issued by the hearing panel, I don't think it was just a "kangaroo court."
(08-18-2011, 12:11 PM)unclechuck link Wrote:it seems pretty clear that SC got kangaroo courted on the football issues
I don't think it's at all clear that SC got "kangaroo courted." Southern California got a full hearing and an appeal, pursuant to NCAA rules. There was evidence that Bush asked for and got thousands of dollars in cash, hotel rooms, limo rides, a car, trips to Vegas and Hawaii, rent-free housing for his parents, furniture, tickets, etc. from prospective agents. Bush was "on the payroll." There also was evidence that Bush agreed to be represented by an agent. For both of these reasons, Bush was ineligible to compete. There was evidence that an SC assistant coach, Todd McNair, knew about the agent's relationship with Bush. McNair denied knowing the agent and denied knowing of the agent's relationship with Bush. Based on evidence in the record (for example, cell phone records showing calls between McNair and the agent), the panel did not believe McNair. The panel had conflicting evidence before it and they decided McNair was the guy who was lying. I know that SC, McNair, and thousands of Trojan fans don't agree. But so far as I can tell, the hearing panel made a legitimate, good faith credibility determination based on the evidence in the record and inferences that could be drawn from it. Based on the reasoning in the decision issued by the hearing panel, I don't think it was just a "kangaroo court."
08-18-2011, 02:00 PM
Quote:SOMEONE FROM MIAMI ... ??  Oh Lord ....
That was the unanimous consensus in Columbia, Lefty, when Mizzou AD Mike Alden hired Haith last spring. It's not the first time Alden has attracted the scrutiny of the NCAA here ... there was the problem with Dukie Quin Snyder a few years ago that almost cost Alden his job -- oh, how we wish it had. Lots of head-scratching over this hire when it first came about, but we had no idea this was coming down the pike. Perhaps MU should have, though -- the university released a statement that Haith was thoroughly vetted before he was hired (if you call talking to 20 people a thorough vetting; I'm thinkin' NOT) but somehow they missed the smiling photos at the strip club and the pix of Haith & Shalala grinning like idiots with Shapiro's check in hand. Shapiro went to prison sometime in 2010, yet no one made a connection in March 2011.
And then there's the "eww" factor ...
Mizzou's season looks like it's over before it started, and some are already calling for Haith's head -- or at least put him on leave until they sort this out (except that could take years).
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011...-on-haith/
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
Quote:SOMEONE FROM MIAMI ... ??  Oh Lord ....
That was the unanimous consensus in Columbia, Lefty, when Mizzou AD Mike Alden hired Haith last spring. It's not the first time Alden has attracted the scrutiny of the NCAA here ... there was the problem with Dukie Quin Snyder a few years ago that almost cost Alden his job -- oh, how we wish it had. Lots of head-scratching over this hire when it first came about, but we had no idea this was coming down the pike. Perhaps MU should have, though -- the university released a statement that Haith was thoroughly vetted before he was hired (if you call talking to 20 people a thorough vetting; I'm thinkin' NOT) but somehow they missed the smiling photos at the strip club and the pix of Haith & Shalala grinning like idiots with Shapiro's check in hand. Shapiro went to prison sometime in 2010, yet no one made a connection in March 2011.
And then there's the "eww" factor ...
Mizzou's season looks like it's over before it started, and some are already calling for Haith's head -- or at least put him on leave until they sort this out (except that could take years).
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011...-on-haith/
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
08-18-2011, 03:38 PM
Garvin, Terry,
Immediately after the initial ruling, and again after the appeals decision there were numerous articles from sources other than SC blogs that pointedly contradicted multiple elements of the timing and specifics of "facts" that the infractions committee used in its findings. One specific example I can recall (hazily) is the Assc. AD from ND insisting that Reggie Bush drove a tricked out automobile on campus, and coaches should have been alerted by that, when it fact it was a 5-6 year old Chevy or similar. When rebutted by the SC folks she continued to insist that it was so, absent any proof. The process used to determine that McNair "knew" everything about what Lake was doing involved sequential steps of unproven assumptions that would make mortgage banking folks blush.
You've doubtlessly seen in the last couple of days reference to Dee's behavior during the SC hearings as they've been linked on this thread (Ted Miller, Steward Mandel, Dennis Dobbs). Yet you state that everything looks above board to you. From Miller's post today:
"One of my takeaways from (U)SC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times."
http://tinyurl.com/millerSCinfrac
And Mandel's post; recall he's the putative SEC football writer for SI.
http://tinyurl.com/MandelDeeSC
I'm not an internet zealot, my sources are mostly SI & ESPN online, and the LA Times sports section that I get at home. I don't watch TV sports news. Given the broad scope of resources that you all frequently cite on this board It's hard for me to believe that you are unaware of the significant concerns raised over the past 11 months about the legitimacy of the infractions committee's proceedings, conclusions, and judgements.
If you are, then you've chosen not to follow this story very closely, and if you're just throwing this stuff out to stir the pot for your own amusement, fine it's an open blog, but I'm not interested in playing.
Immediately after the initial ruling, and again after the appeals decision there were numerous articles from sources other than SC blogs that pointedly contradicted multiple elements of the timing and specifics of "facts" that the infractions committee used in its findings. One specific example I can recall (hazily) is the Assc. AD from ND insisting that Reggie Bush drove a tricked out automobile on campus, and coaches should have been alerted by that, when it fact it was a 5-6 year old Chevy or similar. When rebutted by the SC folks she continued to insist that it was so, absent any proof. The process used to determine that McNair "knew" everything about what Lake was doing involved sequential steps of unproven assumptions that would make mortgage banking folks blush.
You've doubtlessly seen in the last couple of days reference to Dee's behavior during the SC hearings as they've been linked on this thread (Ted Miller, Steward Mandel, Dennis Dobbs). Yet you state that everything looks above board to you. From Miller's post today:
"One of my takeaways from (U)SC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times."
http://tinyurl.com/millerSCinfrac
And Mandel's post; recall he's the putative SEC football writer for SI.
http://tinyurl.com/MandelDeeSC
I'm not an internet zealot, my sources are mostly SI & ESPN online, and the LA Times sports section that I get at home. I don't watch TV sports news. Given the broad scope of resources that you all frequently cite on this board It's hard for me to believe that you are unaware of the significant concerns raised over the past 11 months about the legitimacy of the infractions committee's proceedings, conclusions, and judgements.
If you are, then you've chosen not to follow this story very closely, and if you're just throwing this stuff out to stir the pot for your own amusement, fine it's an open blog, but I'm not interested in playing.
Garvin, Terry,
Immediately after the initial ruling, and again after the appeals decision there were numerous articles from sources other than SC blogs that pointedly contradicted multiple elements of the timing and specifics of "facts" that the infractions committee used in its findings. One specific example I can recall (hazily) is the Assc. AD from ND insisting that Reggie Bush drove a tricked out automobile on campus, and coaches should have been alerted by that, when it fact it was a 5-6 year old Chevy or similar. When rebutted by the SC folks she continued to insist that it was so, absent any proof. The process used to determine that McNair "knew" everything about what Lake was doing involved sequential steps of unproven assumptions that would make mortgage banking folks blush.
You've doubtlessly seen in the last couple of days reference to Dee's behavior during the SC hearings as they've been linked on this thread (Ted Miller, Steward Mandel, Dennis Dobbs). Yet you state that everything looks above board to you. From Miller's post today:
"One of my takeaways from (U)SC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times."
http://tinyurl.com/millerSCinfrac
And Mandel's post; recall he's the putative SEC football writer for SI.
http://tinyurl.com/MandelDeeSC
I'm not an internet zealot, my sources are mostly SI & ESPN online, and the LA Times sports section that I get at home. I don't watch TV sports news. Given the broad scope of resources that you all frequently cite on this board It's hard for me to believe that you are unaware of the significant concerns raised over the past 11 months about the legitimacy of the infractions committee's proceedings, conclusions, and judgements.
If you are, then you've chosen not to follow this story very closely, and if you're just throwing this stuff out to stir the pot for your own amusement, fine it's an open blog, but I'm not interested in playing.
Immediately after the initial ruling, and again after the appeals decision there were numerous articles from sources other than SC blogs that pointedly contradicted multiple elements of the timing and specifics of "facts" that the infractions committee used in its findings. One specific example I can recall (hazily) is the Assc. AD from ND insisting that Reggie Bush drove a tricked out automobile on campus, and coaches should have been alerted by that, when it fact it was a 5-6 year old Chevy or similar. When rebutted by the SC folks she continued to insist that it was so, absent any proof. The process used to determine that McNair "knew" everything about what Lake was doing involved sequential steps of unproven assumptions that would make mortgage banking folks blush.
You've doubtlessly seen in the last couple of days reference to Dee's behavior during the SC hearings as they've been linked on this thread (Ted Miller, Steward Mandel, Dennis Dobbs). Yet you state that everything looks above board to you. From Miller's post today:
"One of my takeaways from (U)SC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times."
http://tinyurl.com/millerSCinfrac
And Mandel's post; recall he's the putative SEC football writer for SI.
http://tinyurl.com/MandelDeeSC
I'm not an internet zealot, my sources are mostly SI & ESPN online, and the LA Times sports section that I get at home. I don't watch TV sports news. Given the broad scope of resources that you all frequently cite on this board It's hard for me to believe that you are unaware of the significant concerns raised over the past 11 months about the legitimacy of the infractions committee's proceedings, conclusions, and judgements.
If you are, then you've chosen not to follow this story very closely, and if you're just throwing this stuff out to stir the pot for your own amusement, fine it's an open blog, but I'm not interested in playing.
I didn't mean to sound heartless, Fullmetal. I just can't condone a case for giving Miami's football program a slap on the wrist (or even avoiding the NCAA death penalty) based on an argument that without football the Men's Rowing program will lose funding. Although that does sound like exactly the sort of argument Emmert and crew might hide behind if this were an SEC school. Â
But this ISN'T an SEC school and I don't think the NCAA investigation will lead to a SEC/Big 10 slap on the wrist. I suspect that Miami is exactly the sort of target the NCAA loves - a punching bag that they can blast away at and earn back some public credibility while handing out lesser punishment to cherished favorites like Auburn, Alabama and Ohio State.
Gosh, I sound cynical - not my normal view of things.  The gerrymandered and inconsistent arguments since Mark Emmert took charge (Ex #1: Cam Newton's "loophole" eligibility, Support women's sports by buying tix to football blooper, etc).
But this ISN'T an SEC school and I don't think the NCAA investigation will lead to a SEC/Big 10 slap on the wrist. I suspect that Miami is exactly the sort of target the NCAA loves - a punching bag that they can blast away at and earn back some public credibility while handing out lesser punishment to cherished favorites like Auburn, Alabama and Ohio State.
Gosh, I sound cynical - not my normal view of things.  The gerrymandered and inconsistent arguments since Mark Emmert took charge (Ex #1: Cam Newton's "loophole" eligibility, Support women's sports by buying tix to football blooper, etc).
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2011, 04:56 PM by Leftcoast.)
I didn't mean to sound heartless, Fullmetal. I just can't condone a case for giving Miami's football program a slap on the wrist (or even avoiding the NCAA death penalty) based on an argument that without football the Men's Rowing program will lose funding. Although that does sound like exactly the sort of argument Emmert and crew might hide behind if this were an SEC school. Â
But this ISN'T an SEC school and I don't think the NCAA investigation will lead to a SEC/Big 10 slap on the wrist. I suspect that Miami is exactly the sort of target the NCAA loves - a punching bag that they can blast away at and earn back some public credibility while handing out lesser punishment to cherished favorites like Auburn, Alabama and Ohio State.
Gosh, I sound cynical - not my normal view of things.  The gerrymandered and inconsistent arguments since Mark Emmert took charge (Ex #1: Cam Newton's "loophole" eligibility, Support women's sports by buying tix to football blooper, etc).
But this ISN'T an SEC school and I don't think the NCAA investigation will lead to a SEC/Big 10 slap on the wrist. I suspect that Miami is exactly the sort of target the NCAA loves - a punching bag that they can blast away at and earn back some public credibility while handing out lesser punishment to cherished favorites like Auburn, Alabama and Ohio State.
Gosh, I sound cynical - not my normal view of things.  The gerrymandered and inconsistent arguments since Mark Emmert took charge (Ex #1: Cam Newton's "loophole" eligibility, Support women's sports by buying tix to football blooper, etc).
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
08-18-2011, 03:57 PM
Don't worry, I know what you mean. If the rules are not enforced, then there is no justice, and there is no meaning to the NCAA. In proportion to what the NCAA meted out to USC, the death penalty is possible for Miami, and I am expecting something like that. Miami football players were involved in some serious, serious violations.
Don't worry, I know what you mean. If the rules are not enforced, then there is no justice, and there is no meaning to the NCAA. In proportion to what the NCAA meted out to USC, the death penalty is possible for Miami, and I am expecting something like that. Miami football players were involved in some serious, serious violations.
I'm aware that the SC athletic department, its supporters, and some media members didn't agree with the conclusions of the NCAA committee, that they challenged some of the factual findings, that they think the committee was biased, and that they think SC got screwed. However, I don't accept that view of the world at face value just because somebody said so.
Ted Miller's article quotes an unnamed source -- very likely an insider at SC -- who claims that somebody on the NCAA committee was antagonistic and misstated the facts during the hearing. So we have a comment from an anonymous, probably biased source about the perceived attitude of one member of the committee. I don't feel compelled to conclude from that comment that this was a "kangaroo court."
I have read the NCAA's report imposing penalties and the NCAA's report denying SC's appeal. There's quite a lot of evidence behind the conclusions the committee reached. Are there some factual inaccuracies in the details of the committee's report? Probably. The NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, so it couldn't force Reggie Bush and his parents to turn over their records, and they refused to do so. Nor could the NCAA subpoena car dealers, phone companies, airlines, etc. to nail down all of the details. On some points, the NCAA committee had to rely on the recollections of various witnesses, and recollections can be wrong on details. I know that SC supporters have tried to undermine the report's major conclusions by trying to find inconsistencies in the details. But overall, I think the "big picture" story that emerges from the NCAA's report hangs together pretty coherently. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying that the NCAA's report seems reasonably coherent and plausible. It's not an evident product of bias to my eyes.
The issue about Reggie Bush's car is covered in the committee's report. The report states that Bush went to the agent and told him that he had always wanted a Chevy Impala. The report says that Bush located a used Impala, and the agent gave him money (I think maybe $4000?) for a down payment. Later, the agent provided $4000 - $5000 for wheel rims and $3500 for a stereo and alarm. One of the witnesses (not the committee) described the Impala as "tricked out" with new rims. The biggest issue with the car, of course, is not the model or year -- it's the fact that the agent gave Bush the money to buy it. Bush claimed that his parents gave him some of the money and the rest was from his savings. But Bush and his parents refused to provide documentation to the NCAA that would prove the money came from them. The committee chose to believe the testimony of other witnesses who said Bush got the money from the agent.
The other issue with the car relates to institutional control. Athletic departments are supposed to get information about their athletes' cars, precisely so that they can catch situations where outsiders are buying cars for athletes. SC required athletes to register their cars with the athletic department only at the beginning of the school year. So Bush apparently bought the car in late 2004 or early 2005, but he didn't report the car to the athletic department until August 2005. The NCAA said that SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require Bush to report the car to the athletic department immediately. The NCAA also said SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require copies of the documentation for the purchase of the car. When Bush did report his purchase of the car (for $19,000), he didn't fill out the whole form -- he left some blanks, such as where he purchased the car. SC's compliance office never followed up to get the missing information. The NCAA committee found that this incident provided evidence of lack of institutional control because SC's reporting procedures were inadequate, and because SC didn't follow its own procedures by obtaining the omitted information from Bush's incomplete report.
Ultimately, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that Bush was getting all kinds of cash and goodies, and that he therefore was ineligible. SC's defense appears to focus not on whether Bush was getting goodies, but on what McNair knew. McNair says he didn't know anything, while the prospective agent says he talked to McNair about it. It's a credibility issue. The committee didn't believe McNair. To me, the committee's conclusion seemed to be plausible, given what I know of the circumstances.
Perhaps eventually, the whole truth will come out, and maybe the committee will turn out to be wrong on some things. But that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a "kangaroo court." To me, the report of the committee seems to indicate a reasonable effort to get to the bottom of things. Just my opinion.
Ted Miller's article quotes an unnamed source -- very likely an insider at SC -- who claims that somebody on the NCAA committee was antagonistic and misstated the facts during the hearing. So we have a comment from an anonymous, probably biased source about the perceived attitude of one member of the committee. I don't feel compelled to conclude from that comment that this was a "kangaroo court."
I have read the NCAA's report imposing penalties and the NCAA's report denying SC's appeal. There's quite a lot of evidence behind the conclusions the committee reached. Are there some factual inaccuracies in the details of the committee's report? Probably. The NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, so it couldn't force Reggie Bush and his parents to turn over their records, and they refused to do so. Nor could the NCAA subpoena car dealers, phone companies, airlines, etc. to nail down all of the details. On some points, the NCAA committee had to rely on the recollections of various witnesses, and recollections can be wrong on details. I know that SC supporters have tried to undermine the report's major conclusions by trying to find inconsistencies in the details. But overall, I think the "big picture" story that emerges from the NCAA's report hangs together pretty coherently. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying that the NCAA's report seems reasonably coherent and plausible. It's not an evident product of bias to my eyes.
The issue about Reggie Bush's car is covered in the committee's report. The report states that Bush went to the agent and told him that he had always wanted a Chevy Impala. The report says that Bush located a used Impala, and the agent gave him money (I think maybe $4000?) for a down payment. Later, the agent provided $4000 - $5000 for wheel rims and $3500 for a stereo and alarm. One of the witnesses (not the committee) described the Impala as "tricked out" with new rims. The biggest issue with the car, of course, is not the model or year -- it's the fact that the agent gave Bush the money to buy it. Bush claimed that his parents gave him some of the money and the rest was from his savings. But Bush and his parents refused to provide documentation to the NCAA that would prove the money came from them. The committee chose to believe the testimony of other witnesses who said Bush got the money from the agent.
The other issue with the car relates to institutional control. Athletic departments are supposed to get information about their athletes' cars, precisely so that they can catch situations where outsiders are buying cars for athletes. SC required athletes to register their cars with the athletic department only at the beginning of the school year. So Bush apparently bought the car in late 2004 or early 2005, but he didn't report the car to the athletic department until August 2005. The NCAA said that SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require Bush to report the car to the athletic department immediately. The NCAA also said SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require copies of the documentation for the purchase of the car. When Bush did report his purchase of the car (for $19,000), he didn't fill out the whole form -- he left some blanks, such as where he purchased the car. SC's compliance office never followed up to get the missing information. The NCAA committee found that this incident provided evidence of lack of institutional control because SC's reporting procedures were inadequate, and because SC didn't follow its own procedures by obtaining the omitted information from Bush's incomplete report.
Ultimately, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that Bush was getting all kinds of cash and goodies, and that he therefore was ineligible. SC's defense appears to focus not on whether Bush was getting goodies, but on what McNair knew. McNair says he didn't know anything, while the prospective agent says he talked to McNair about it. It's a credibility issue. The committee didn't believe McNair. To me, the committee's conclusion seemed to be plausible, given what I know of the circumstances.
Perhaps eventually, the whole truth will come out, and maybe the committee will turn out to be wrong on some things. But that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a "kangaroo court." To me, the report of the committee seems to indicate a reasonable effort to get to the bottom of things. Just my opinion.
I'm aware that the SC athletic department, its supporters, and some media members didn't agree with the conclusions of the NCAA committee, that they challenged some of the factual findings, that they think the committee was biased, and that they think SC got screwed. However, I don't accept that view of the world at face value just because somebody said so.
Ted Miller's article quotes an unnamed source -- very likely an insider at SC -- who claims that somebody on the NCAA committee was antagonistic and misstated the facts during the hearing. So we have a comment from an anonymous, probably biased source about the perceived attitude of one member of the committee. I don't feel compelled to conclude from that comment that this was a "kangaroo court."
I have read the NCAA's report imposing penalties and the NCAA's report denying SC's appeal. There's quite a lot of evidence behind the conclusions the committee reached. Are there some factual inaccuracies in the details of the committee's report? Probably. The NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, so it couldn't force Reggie Bush and his parents to turn over their records, and they refused to do so. Nor could the NCAA subpoena car dealers, phone companies, airlines, etc. to nail down all of the details. On some points, the NCAA committee had to rely on the recollections of various witnesses, and recollections can be wrong on details. I know that SC supporters have tried to undermine the report's major conclusions by trying to find inconsistencies in the details. But overall, I think the "big picture" story that emerges from the NCAA's report hangs together pretty coherently. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying that the NCAA's report seems reasonably coherent and plausible. It's not an evident product of bias to my eyes.
The issue about Reggie Bush's car is covered in the committee's report. The report states that Bush went to the agent and told him that he had always wanted a Chevy Impala. The report says that Bush located a used Impala, and the agent gave him money (I think maybe $4000?) for a down payment. Later, the agent provided $4000 - $5000 for wheel rims and $3500 for a stereo and alarm. One of the witnesses (not the committee) described the Impala as "tricked out" with new rims. The biggest issue with the car, of course, is not the model or year -- it's the fact that the agent gave Bush the money to buy it. Bush claimed that his parents gave him some of the money and the rest was from his savings. But Bush and his parents refused to provide documentation to the NCAA that would prove the money came from them. The committee chose to believe the testimony of other witnesses who said Bush got the money from the agent.
The other issue with the car relates to institutional control. Athletic departments are supposed to get information about their athletes' cars, precisely so that they can catch situations where outsiders are buying cars for athletes. SC required athletes to register their cars with the athletic department only at the beginning of the school year. So Bush apparently bought the car in late 2004 or early 2005, but he didn't report the car to the athletic department until August 2005. The NCAA said that SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require Bush to report the car to the athletic department immediately. The NCAA also said SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require copies of the documentation for the purchase of the car. When Bush did report his purchase of the car (for $19,000), he didn't fill out the whole form -- he left some blanks, such as where he purchased the car. SC's compliance office never followed up to get the missing information. The NCAA committee found that this incident provided evidence of lack of institutional control because SC's reporting procedures were inadequate, and because SC didn't follow its own procedures by obtaining the omitted information from Bush's incomplete report.
Ultimately, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that Bush was getting all kinds of cash and goodies, and that he therefore was ineligible. SC's defense appears to focus not on whether Bush was getting goodies, but on what McNair knew. McNair says he didn't know anything, while the prospective agent says he talked to McNair about it. It's a credibility issue. The committee didn't believe McNair. To me, the committee's conclusion seemed to be plausible, given what I know of the circumstances.
Perhaps eventually, the whole truth will come out, and maybe the committee will turn out to be wrong on some things. But that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a "kangaroo court." To me, the report of the committee seems to indicate a reasonable effort to get to the bottom of things. Just my opinion.
Ted Miller's article quotes an unnamed source -- very likely an insider at SC -- who claims that somebody on the NCAA committee was antagonistic and misstated the facts during the hearing. So we have a comment from an anonymous, probably biased source about the perceived attitude of one member of the committee. I don't feel compelled to conclude from that comment that this was a "kangaroo court."
I have read the NCAA's report imposing penalties and the NCAA's report denying SC's appeal. There's quite a lot of evidence behind the conclusions the committee reached. Are there some factual inaccuracies in the details of the committee's report? Probably. The NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, so it couldn't force Reggie Bush and his parents to turn over their records, and they refused to do so. Nor could the NCAA subpoena car dealers, phone companies, airlines, etc. to nail down all of the details. On some points, the NCAA committee had to rely on the recollections of various witnesses, and recollections can be wrong on details. I know that SC supporters have tried to undermine the report's major conclusions by trying to find inconsistencies in the details. But overall, I think the "big picture" story that emerges from the NCAA's report hangs together pretty coherently. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying that the NCAA's report seems reasonably coherent and plausible. It's not an evident product of bias to my eyes.
The issue about Reggie Bush's car is covered in the committee's report. The report states that Bush went to the agent and told him that he had always wanted a Chevy Impala. The report says that Bush located a used Impala, and the agent gave him money (I think maybe $4000?) for a down payment. Later, the agent provided $4000 - $5000 for wheel rims and $3500 for a stereo and alarm. One of the witnesses (not the committee) described the Impala as "tricked out" with new rims. The biggest issue with the car, of course, is not the model or year -- it's the fact that the agent gave Bush the money to buy it. Bush claimed that his parents gave him some of the money and the rest was from his savings. But Bush and his parents refused to provide documentation to the NCAA that would prove the money came from them. The committee chose to believe the testimony of other witnesses who said Bush got the money from the agent.
The other issue with the car relates to institutional control. Athletic departments are supposed to get information about their athletes' cars, precisely so that they can catch situations where outsiders are buying cars for athletes. SC required athletes to register their cars with the athletic department only at the beginning of the school year. So Bush apparently bought the car in late 2004 or early 2005, but he didn't report the car to the athletic department until August 2005. The NCAA said that SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require Bush to report the car to the athletic department immediately. The NCAA also said SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require copies of the documentation for the purchase of the car. When Bush did report his purchase of the car (for $19,000), he didn't fill out the whole form -- he left some blanks, such as where he purchased the car. SC's compliance office never followed up to get the missing information. The NCAA committee found that this incident provided evidence of lack of institutional control because SC's reporting procedures were inadequate, and because SC didn't follow its own procedures by obtaining the omitted information from Bush's incomplete report.
Ultimately, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that Bush was getting all kinds of cash and goodies, and that he therefore was ineligible. SC's defense appears to focus not on whether Bush was getting goodies, but on what McNair knew. McNair says he didn't know anything, while the prospective agent says he talked to McNair about it. It's a credibility issue. The committee didn't believe McNair. To me, the committee's conclusion seemed to be plausible, given what I know of the circumstances.
Perhaps eventually, the whole truth will come out, and maybe the committee will turn out to be wrong on some things. But that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a "kangaroo court." To me, the report of the committee seems to indicate a reasonable effort to get to the bottom of things. Just my opinion.
mark3k
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-18-2011, 05:17 PM
... and I believe that, in Mayo's case, his coach resigned almost immediately (without even attempting to convince people that "somehow [he] didn't know" that cash was going straight to Mayo... who was clearly "on the payroll").
... and I believe that, in Mayo's case, his coach resigned almost immediately (without even attempting to convince people that "somehow [he] didn't know" that cash was going straight to Mayo... who was clearly "on the payroll").
08-18-2011, 05:38 PM
I haven't gotten into the weeds of the SC case, and I don't think they got railroaded, exactly.
I do think that the NCAA plays favorites, though, and this was a case of selective enforcement. The NCAA pursued the SC case with a zealousness that it doesn't show very often. And I don't think the reason the NCAA pursued this case so forcefully is because the underlying violations were any more egregious than at lots of other schools that have gone off more lightly.
The main reason I believe this is that someone who works for the NCAA told me a few years ago, before the sanctions against SC came down, that the NCAA's enforcement director was nearing retirement, and he was telling people that he wanted to nail SC as a retirement gift to himself. I heard that directly from an NCAA employee.
I do think that the NCAA plays favorites, though, and this was a case of selective enforcement. The NCAA pursued the SC case with a zealousness that it doesn't show very often. And I don't think the reason the NCAA pursued this case so forcefully is because the underlying violations were any more egregious than at lots of other schools that have gone off more lightly.
The main reason I believe this is that someone who works for the NCAA told me a few years ago, before the sanctions against SC came down, that the NCAA's enforcement director was nearing retirement, and he was telling people that he wanted to nail SC as a retirement gift to himself. I heard that directly from an NCAA employee.
I haven't gotten into the weeds of the SC case, and I don't think they got railroaded, exactly.
I do think that the NCAA plays favorites, though, and this was a case of selective enforcement. The NCAA pursued the SC case with a zealousness that it doesn't show very often. And I don't think the reason the NCAA pursued this case so forcefully is because the underlying violations were any more egregious than at lots of other schools that have gone off more lightly.
The main reason I believe this is that someone who works for the NCAA told me a few years ago, before the sanctions against SC came down, that the NCAA's enforcement director was nearing retirement, and he was telling people that he wanted to nail SC as a retirement gift to himself. I heard that directly from an NCAA employee.
I do think that the NCAA plays favorites, though, and this was a case of selective enforcement. The NCAA pursued the SC case with a zealousness that it doesn't show very often. And I don't think the reason the NCAA pursued this case so forcefully is because the underlying violations were any more egregious than at lots of other schools that have gone off more lightly.
The main reason I believe this is that someone who works for the NCAA told me a few years ago, before the sanctions against SC came down, that the NCAA's enforcement director was nearing retirement, and he was telling people that he wanted to nail SC as a retirement gift to himself. I heard that directly from an NCAA employee.
08-18-2011, 06:04 PM
I'm happy to stipulate that all of the NCAA's findings in the SC case are accurate. There's no question in my mind that Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo were on the take.
What's at issue here is whether the NCAA's rules are being applied consistently and fairly. I don't believe they are.
The NCAA is now what it's always been -- an unaccountable monopoly. "You don't like us?" they can tell member schools. "Go join another association of major universities where you can earn millions of dollars per year from athletics. Oh, right. There aren't any others."
Believe me, I don't relish the idea of defending SC. And in fact, I'm not defending SC. This is about the NCAA.
What's at issue here is whether the NCAA's rules are being applied consistently and fairly. I don't believe they are.
The NCAA is now what it's always been -- an unaccountable monopoly. "You don't like us?" they can tell member schools. "Go join another association of major universities where you can earn millions of dollars per year from athletics. Oh, right. There aren't any others."
Believe me, I don't relish the idea of defending SC. And in fact, I'm not defending SC. This is about the NCAA.
I'm happy to stipulate that all of the NCAA's findings in the SC case are accurate. There's no question in my mind that Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo were on the take.
What's at issue here is whether the NCAA's rules are being applied consistently and fairly. I don't believe they are.
The NCAA is now what it's always been -- an unaccountable monopoly. "You don't like us?" they can tell member schools. "Go join another association of major universities where you can earn millions of dollars per year from athletics. Oh, right. There aren't any others."
Believe me, I don't relish the idea of defending SC. And in fact, I'm not defending SC. This is about the NCAA.
What's at issue here is whether the NCAA's rules are being applied consistently and fairly. I don't believe they are.
The NCAA is now what it's always been -- an unaccountable monopoly. "You don't like us?" they can tell member schools. "Go join another association of major universities where you can earn millions of dollars per year from athletics. Oh, right. There aren't any others."
Believe me, I don't relish the idea of defending SC. And in fact, I'm not defending SC. This is about the NCAA.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »