Several people have sent me this story, which raises the spectre that USC football, like Michigan basketball a few years back, could have to retroactively forfeit its last three seasons — including the entire 35-game winning streak and the 2003 and 2004 championships — because of allegations of NCAA rules violations by Reggie Bush. [CORRECTION: On second thought, if this real-estate arrangement only existed since the spring of 2005, I guess Bush would only have been potentially ineligible for the 2005 season, in which case no national championships would be at risk. My bad.] Excerpt:
SPRING VALLEY, Calif. – In this sprawling hilltop community with a breathtaking view of Sweetwater Lake, it was no secret who lived in the 3,000-square-foot house at the corner of Apple Street and Luther Avenue.
That home, residents would tell you, was where Reggie Bush’s family lived.
That is, until this weekend, when the family abruptly packed up and vacated the residence – less than 24 hours after Yahoo! Sports approached Bush’s mother about information linking the property to Michael Michaels, a man who is alleged to have tried to play a role in steering Bush toward an agent and who also has ties to a sports marketing company.
Days before Bush is expected to be the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft, unanswered questions about the residence and how his mother, stepfather and brother came to live in it within the last year have prompted the University of Southern California to refer the matter to the Pacific-10 Conference for an investigation.
NCAA statutes prohibit student-athletes or their families from receiving extra benefits from professional sports agents, marketing companies or their representatives. A breach of these statutes could result in an athlete being ruled ineligible, and games in which they played could be forfeited.
USC finished 12-1 last season, its 35-game winning streak and national championship bid both ending with a loss in the Rose Bowl to Texas. Bush, a junior running back, won the Heisman Trophy and elected to skip his senior season and turn pro in January.
In response to reporters’ questions about the matter late last week, USC athletic department officials said they would look into it.
“Rather than jumping to conclusions, we need to determine the facts before commenting on this report,” Trojans athletic director Mike Garrett said in a statement released by the school on Friday. “We have asked the Pac-10 to look into this.”
State records show the Apple Street home was built in late 2004 and early 2005, then purchased by Michaels on March 29, 2005 for $757,500. Around that time, neighbors say Bush’s family moved in. Whether they had visited the house while it was being built is unknown, but there is an inscription in one of the cement slabs in the driveway reading “The Griffins ‘05.”
This story broke several days ago, but I haven’t blogged about it till now — not because I’m trying to ignore it, but because I’ve been out-of-town and/or busy. But clearly, this is a blogworthy story. The latest news is that Reggie Bush says he and his family did nothing wrong.
Every Day Should Be Saturday thinks the story is not quite as big a deal as it’s being made out to be:
OMIGOD USC IS GOING TO HAVE TO LIKE FORFEIT LIFE, RIGHT? Of course this is what you were thinking when you first read the story. Like us, you’re the one who, upon hearing of a planet-sized asteroid several million light years away that might be edging into the earth’s neighborhood, makes your scheme for spending your last minutes on earth in detail. (Hint: orgy in a liquor store would just be the start.) This story is like program AIDS for USC, right?
Not quite–if Bush had an alternate residence, which he supposedly did, then there’s no specific link that Bush used his family as a proxy to live in a house during his senior year while the rest of the world spent their senior year dreading elephantine student loans and tripping over the XBox cords snaking across the floor of their undoubtedly crappy apartment. Furthermore, a sketchy, Lionel Hutch-style agent’s scheme to woo Reggie Bush into a marketing/agent marriage doesn’t constitute the deadly “lack of institutional control� factor that gets the NCAA all heeby-jeeby and sometimes results in whole seasons getting forfeited. In fact, no direct links to USC exist at this point, so UCLA fans, please put down the gris-gris and stop lighting votives–there’s no institutional connection here.
Trojan Wire thinks “NCAA statutes are a little silly, and so is this ‘deepthroat’ investigation. Boi From Troy is less dismissive: “If USC coaches or staff knew about the arrangement, it could spell serious trouble for the Men of Troy…and in either case, this just underscores one of my few criticisms of Coach Pete Carroll–that his program lacks discipline.” And USC Trojans Football writes:
If the Griffins were paying “fair market value” rent, this will become a non-issue, but the Griffins certainly made themselves look guilty by moving out of the house right away. This is the kind of thing that drives coaches and fans nuts. It’s a part of big time college football whether we like it or not. The craziest part of the story is that it appears Reggie never even considered doing business with Caravantes or Michaels. Hopefully the investigation will reveal that USC had no knowledge of this transaction and no NCAA sanctions will be necessary.
(Hat tip: Mr. Irrelevant.)
Me? I don’t know enough yet to make a definitive judgment, and to the gloating Domers who will no doubt pile on in the comment section, I would suggest that neither do you. I will say this, though: I hate the idea of retroactive forfeits. I think they’re dumb, dumb, dumb. We all know that UMass was in the 1996 Final Four; we all know that the Fab Five played in two national championship games. Removing the banners and altering the record books doesn’t change history, and pretending it does has always seemed rather Orwellian to me. I can see the logic behind the idea of forfeiting games that involved a player who is ruled ineligible after the fact, but at the same time, altering the results of games that were played three years ago flies in the face of common sense, doesn’t it?
And with something like this, it seems like such a punishment wouldn’t fit the crime. If an entire program were found to be fundamentally “dirty,” with stuff like this happening all around — or if, say, it turned out Reggie Bush was on steroids or something — that’d be one thing. But “forfeiting” two national championships because of a possibly somewhat shady real-estate deal involving one player’s family? As happy as it would doubtless make some LSU fans (whose Tigers would magically become 2003’s only, undisputed national champs), I really hope it doesn’t come to that. And I’d say that regardless of whether it affects USC or not. If, say, these allegations concerned Vince Young instead of Reggie Bush, I’d be saying the same thing. The Trojans earned those wins on the field, and if they get taken away because of some off-the-field shenanigans that don’t really have much of a logical connection to anything, that’d be a damn shame.
UPDATE: Patrick says “Boi from Troy and Every Day Should Be Saturday get an important detail wrong”:
Knowledge of the infractions by the USC program is not necessary for the leveling of sanctions. All that is necessary, here, is a declaration that Bush was an ineligible player. Whether Bush was ineligible depends on the rent paid by Bush parents for the house. If they paid fair market rent for the place, no infraction. If they did not pay fair market rent, there is an infraction.
It’s not a certainty that an infraction would result in Bush being declared ineligible, but it is certainly possible. Regardless, the USC program’s knowledge of the incident is irrelevant in determining whether Bush was, in fact, ineligible.
I don’t know the rules, but perhaps Patrick is right. If so, however, it seems like it would be not only a shame, but monumentally unjust, to retroactively penalize USC in such a severe manner for infractions that it wasn’t even aware of (without even a showing a negligence!).
Also, as I said in my correction above, I don’t believe the 2003 or 2004 seasons are actually in jeopardy here… but if they somehow are, Ed makes an excellent point: neither the Associated Press, which awarded USC the national championship in 2003 and 2004, nor the Bowl Championship Series, which awarded USC the national championship in 2004, are controlled by the NCAA. Nor does the NCAA have anything to do with the awarding of the Heisman Trophy. As such, presumably the NCAA cannot strip USC or Reggie Bush of these honors. In Ed’s words, “The NCAA and Pac 10 may wish to say USC went 0-12, but all that would mean is that USC would be the first 0-12 national champion!” Heh. Of course, USC could do what (if I understand and remember correctly) Michigan’s basketball team did, and voluntarily forfeit its games and championships, in order to stave off prospective NCAA sanctions. Indeed, I suppose the NCAA could pressure USC to do this, in a sort of legalized blackmail. But, barring that roundabout route, I don’t see how the NCAA can literally strip USC of honors which the NCAA did not bestow upon USC.
UPDATE 2: The ProFootballTalk Rumor Mill has more allegations. (Hat tip: Nebraska.)
|
Categories: USC, College Football
|
April 25th, 2006 at 1:08:36 pm
This is just the most rediculous story I have read in a long while….remember Lebron’s mom getting him a Hummer as a HS senior? There is always someone trying to do business with these athletes and when they do not eventually sign the athlete stories like this leak out….yes it’s strange that the family moved right before the story broke but to think that Reggie Bush grills his parents about there finances is just plain dumb. How many people on this blog ever questioned there parents as a 21 year old about the amount they were paying in interest payments on the house? my dad would have told me to get out of his face if I was not going to pay the bill.
750k is San Diego is not the same as 750k in Lincoln, NE. this house could have been a 2nd home for the owner hence he could rent the house to the Bush family at what ever amount he/she would want to.
Ulimately, IMHO, this will fall by the way side and Reggie will get to keep his Heisman, rightfully earned, and USC will get to keep there records and titles which were also rightfully earned.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:11:58 pm
Ahh, wouldn’t be American if MSM didn’t report some sort of wrong doing by a Bush.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:23:07 pm
Boi from Troy and Every Day Should Be Saturday get an important detail wrong. Knowledge of the infractions by the USC program is not necessary for the leveling of sanctions. All that is necessary, here, is a declaration that Bush was an ineligible player. Whether Bush was ineligible depends on the rent paid by Bush parents for the house. If they paid fair market rent for the place, no infraction. If they did not pay fair market rent, there is an infraction.
It’s not a certainty that an infraction would result in Bush being declared ineligible, but it is certainly possible. Regardless, the USC program’s knowledge of the incident is irrelevant in determining whether Bush was, in fact, ineligible.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:34:07 pm
So if the UCLA game gets forfeited…that technically means that USC lost the game which means that you lost our previous bet…
April 25th, 2006 at 2:17:45 pm
HA! Yes, Mike, Brendan would be forced to don the UCLA hoodie because, technically, USC would be the loser of that game.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:18:05 pm
Well, Brendan, you can relax. Guess what? The Heisman Trophy can’t be taken back. It’s Reggie’s regardless any potential violation of NCAA statutes. It’s his if the school discovered he plagiarized or otherwise cheated his ass off in class.
So, too, national championships are not awarded by the NCAA! There is no methodology for the wire service polls, nor for the BCS, to rescind the results.
The NCAA and Pac 10 may wish to say USC went 0-12, but all that would mean is that USC would be the first 0-12 national champion!
No worries.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:19:44 pm
as long as the UCLA game is reversed =P
April 25th, 2006 at 2:51:49 pm
0-12 National Champs! Priceless
April 25th, 2006 at 3:56:48 pm
BUSH HAD AGREEMENT WITH NEW ERA?
In what could be the next big step toward a finding that USC tailback Reggie Bush was ineligible for all or part of the 2005 football season and that USC knew or should have known about Bush’s ineligibility, Liz Mullen of the SportsBusiness Journal reports that sworn testimony from two hearings regarding a parole violation indicates that New Era Sports & Entertainment had an agreement of some sort with Bush.
Michael Michaels and Lloyd Lake founded New Era in 2005. Earlier this year, Lake faced the revocation of his parole from federal prison. At one of the hearings, Lake’s lawyer, Marc Carlos, testified that “Mr. Bush â€â€? or through his associates â€â€? had made some type of agreement with Mr. Lake’s group.”
Carlos also testified that, after Bush signed with another group, there was a dispute over “representations made by Bush and his family to Mr. Lake’s group” and that “they were going to discuss potential litigation â€â€? or a settlement involving Mr. Bush’s involvement with that agency.”
Legal people please help me out here but it sounds like these “agents” may have had a verbal agreement with Bush and Winston Justice….is that binding in this instance?
April 25th, 2006 at 4:18:22 pm
In what could be the next big step toward a finding that USC tailback Reggie Bush was ineligible for all or part of the 2005 football season and that USC knew or should have known about Bush’s ineligibility, Liz Mullen of the SportsBusiness Journal reports that sworn testimony from two hearings regarding a parole violation indicates that New Era Sports & Entertainment had an agreement of some sort with Bush.
“HE SCREWED”
April 25th, 2006 at 4:20:57 pm
Nebraska and Hawk, where are you getting this “next big step” language from? I did Google News and Technorati searches for the item you’re discussing, but couldn’t find anything.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:21:08 pm
In the end, USC won’t be punished because they make so much money for the NCAA and they are the only good team in the PAC-10.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:26:20 pm
“In the end, USC won’t be punished because they make so much money for the NCAA and they are the only good team in the PAC-10.”
They’re the best team in the whole universe.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:27:51 pm
Brendan
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
April 25th, 2006 at 4:30:46 pm
I honestly am ignorant to legaleze but it seems that this a verbal agreement where Bush told these guys, “yeah I will work with you.” but they never got anything signed, obviously. I dont see how an agreement between Bush and these guys would hurt SC especially if Carroll nor Miek Garrett knew of these agreement.
Stupid? Yes. reason to forfeit a season and revoke a Heisman? Hardly. IMHO.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:31:10 pm
I honestly am ignorant to legaleze but it seems that this a verbal agreement where Bush told these guys, “yeah I will work with you.” but they never got anything signed, obviously. I dont see how an agreement between Bush and these guys would hurt SC especially if Carroll nor Mike Garrett knew of these agreement.
Stupid? Yes. reason to forfeit a season and revoke a Heisman? Hardly. IMHO.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:40:44 pm
Ah, the memories…
So back in 1992 just after the UW won its third of three consecutive Rose Bowls there was this big scandal involving some players who supposedly recieved money from boosters, etc. The biggest name of them all was that years QB Billy Jo Hobert. It was eventually found that he did indeed recieve money and gifts from a booster, as part of a larger witch hunt. There were a number of other accusations about the program but the only one that stuck was that a handful of players who worked for a contracter as part of a work program during the summer in L.A. had been payed but didnt do the work they said they did. Nothing nefarious was ever proved, just some negligence on the contractors part. Then coach Don James had allready told him that if the players weren’t doing their work to fire them.
In the end out of all the accusations, few of which turned out to be true, that one (and later the NCAA saying the football program should have had better oversite over the work program to ensure no wrong doign), the school was hit with major sanctions (sanctions which went above and beyond those levied against Auburn, whose program was actually cited for violations by the coaching staff, rather than a handful of players and no proof of wrong doing by the program.
The good news? Well even though Hobert was found to have violated the rules the program didn’t have to forfeit a single game because it wasn’t a program violation. They kept their national championship too.
Now hopefully, even if this turns out to be true, USC won’t be screwed over like the UW was, but then the East Coast bias is alive and well in the NCAA so who knows.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:25:10 pm
Bush will probably be pretty cooperative in all this, since he’s gonna have his NFL money and that’s all thats gonna matter. I’m just curious to see the truth, if this turns out to be just smoke, then hopefully things will get cleared up. If there is fire behind this however, I think whatever punishment the NCAA and other groups decide would be appropriate. Letting “dirty” programs get away with stuff, puts a de facto disadvantage/penalty on all the clean programs and sending a strong message like they did to Michigan is the right thing to do.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:01:20 pm
It seems pretty clear cut. If Bush’s family wasn’t paying market value rent and USC knew then they should forfeit some/all 2005 wins. If USC didn’t know then no forfeits should be imposed. So, how do you prove if they knew and when they knew it? If they already self-reported to the PAC-10 then they were likely already investigating before the news broke. That should reflect well on them.
BTW, if forfeits are imposed, what happens to the scores? Does USC have it’s point totals converted to zero? I guess that would make it Notre Dame 31, USC 0 :-)
April 25th, 2006 at 7:07:04 pm
I don’t know how it works. But I’m going to look on the bright side. If USC has to forfeit the ND game, Irish fans will have to forever stop whining about the Bush Push. :)
April 25th, 2006 at 7:12:11 pm
P.S. In all seriousness, THE BIGGEST reason to hope USC doesn’t have to forfeit its games is to prevent an asterisk from being put next to that October 15 game, which is without doubt one of the greatest games in college football history. It would be a real shame if that game were to be somehow tainted by a retroactive forfeit. I’d think Irish fans would agree with me… except perhaps the dumbasses who are still bitter and think USC won by “cheating,” but those people’s opinions don’t count because they’re sore losers, and thus bad fans. As for the rest of us, we can appreciate a great football game as just that, and if the situation were reversed, and Notre Dame had won (whether by a “Darius Walker Push” or not), and now some Irish player was at risk of being ruled ineligible after the fact, I’m quite certain I would hope for that to not happen, not only because I root for Notre Dame outside of the ‘SC game, but because that would SUCK to have a true classic essentially wiped off the record books.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:12:34 pm
don’t forget about the consequences of our wager
April 25th, 2006 at 7:29:03 pm
1. It appears the 03/04 championships are safe. As for ‘05, worse case scenario (and that’s a long way off right now), going from 12-1 to 0-13 won’t feel half as painful as going from 12-0 to 12-1 did.
2. According to NCAA regulations: even if Reggie neither did anything wrong nor knew of anything wrong, he is still on the hook for any punishment. Isn’t the NCAA wonderful?
3. Things have been dicey between the Texans and the huge, passionate local pick-Vince crowd, as impractical as a Young drafting would be. (One sports radio jock today proposed that the Vince crowd and the Not-Vince (Reggie, Mario) Crowd settle it “Braveheart” style at the fifty-yard line of Reliant Stadium.) This latest problem makes it even dicier for the Texans. More on this at something new:
http://texasyank.com.blogspot.com/ (second item)
April 25th, 2006 at 7:32:26 pm
Yeah, on second thought, don’t. Stupid busted link.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:56:05 pm
Perhaps this is the link you meant to use texasyank
April 25th, 2006 at 8:00:10 pm
“Irish fans will have to forever stop whining about the Bush Push. :)”
Oh, AMEN! Being someone without a dog in that hunt I found that old a couple of weeks after the game was over.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:14:10 pm
Bless your heart, David. I tell people lately I’m the guy in that ad, the one pounding away at the IBM Selectric in the ad that takes place in the wireless cafe. Yes of course: I’m to surround the link with all the <a href=”etc.” rel=”nofollow”>
April 25th, 2006 at 8:20:07 pm
>
April 25th, 2006 at 8:21:06 pm
Okay, now I’m getting out of here before I burn the whole site down.
Brendan, my apologies.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:22:57 pm
LOL
No worries, I fixed your original comment. It’s all good.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:43:50 pm
Does the fact that Bush didn’t sign with this dick actually keep Bush’s and USC’s bacon out of the fire? There’s no quid pro quo if the agent isn’t getting anything in return.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:47:45 pm
“remember Lebron’s mom getting him a Hummer as a HS senior?”
Yeah, I remember. I also remember LeBron was in high school, so there were no NCAA rules to get in the way. It stank to high heaven, but it wouldn’t have resulted in a legendary coach of a legendary program at a top-ranked school having a year or two of a legendary record erased.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:57:47 pm
Like I said above, the worst that happens is sanctions against the team. I can’t think of any example where they have had teams forfeit a game, let alone a season and there have been violations more egregious than this to compare to.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:37:25 pm
It may very well be shown that the Griffin family paid “below-market rent”, whatever that may mean and however that may be determined. And it may very well be shown that Reggie Bush knew about it. But, I highly doubt Bush ever made any promises to sign, and I highly doubt anyone in the USC program had a clue about it either. USC may very well get slapped with something–I doubt they’ll have to forfeit a season, but we’ll see what kind of creative punishment the NCAA comes up with. A part of me wants USC to get hit with some sort of retroactive punishment just to show how out of touch the NCAA is. The NCAA has rules against players’ families and friends profiting from their status, but it happens all the time and is IMPOSSIBLE to control or enforce. I mean, half these kids (not just at USC, but all over the country) drive to practice in Escalades or BMWs, wear gold and platinum watches, and wear $3000 suits to Heisman ceremonies. Where do they get that money? Pretty obvious: If I’m a lock to be a future NFL draft pick, I bet you I could walk right into a Mercedes dealer, point at a $50,000 car, and say “Write me a loan where I have to pay only $100 a month the first year, then I owe the balance in year two”–conveniently, just after that NFL draft signing bonus gets wired into my account. How are you going to stop that?!?!?
April 26th, 2006 at 12:45:07 am
“I can’t think of any example where they have had teams forfeit a game, let alone a season….”
David, Alabama defeated Miami in the 1993 Sugar Bowl to win their first (and only) National Championship since Bear Bryant had passed away. In the celebration following the game a “fan” paid a partying Antonio Langham $400 for an autograph. In December, 1993 the news came out that the “fan” turned out to be an agent who had Langham’s autograph on a contract. Langham was deemed ineligible and didn’t play another college game. After the season the NCAA declared Alabama’s regular season wins and ties to be forfeited due to Langham’s participation. A 9-3-1 season became a 1-12 season.
This is all from local media reports at the time. Who knows what the actual facts were. The big controversy at the time was that the vaunted new state law against agents tampering with college athletes was useless because the agent was based out-of-state and the tampering occurred in New Orleans. But the bottom line for this discussion is that the NCAA changed a regular season’s wins and ties to forfeited losses in this case and it was due to a player being deemed ineligible due to making an agreement with an agent.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:55:50 am
Interesting, Scott - thanks. Here’s an article about that. It does provide some good news, seemingly, for USC fans, strongly implying that a “lack of institutional control” and alleged “cover up” was indeed the reason the sanction was so harsh — and that “had Alabama been vigorous in unearthing what actually took place, the committee probably would have accepted the school’s self-imposed scholarship reductions.”
April 26th, 2006 at 1:16:22 am
That’s why I think USC looks to be in good shape if they have already turned over their investigation to the PAC10. They must have been investigating long before the story broke in the media.
April 26th, 2006 at 2:45:18 am
ScottF, this series of articles by the Birmingham Post-Herald seems to indicate something different, saying that coaches and boosters were involved.
It references a different incident that led to the resignation of the coach at the time:
Few Auburn fans will forget the 1993 season in which the team finished without a loss under first-year coach Terry Bowden. But the NCAA did not allow the Tigers to claim an SEC championship and barred the team from playing in a bowl.
The NCAA found that Eric Ramsey, a former Auburn player, received improper gifts from coaches and boosters. Former coach Pat Dye was accused of obtaining an unsecured loan for $9,209 for Ramsey from Colonial Bank in Auburn. Not only that, Ramsey tape-recorded his conversations with coaches, including Pat Dye.
Auburn was put on a two-year probation, including a bowl ban and a television ban for 1993. The staggered release of the tapes caused a sensation and gave the NCAA all it needed to punish Auburn.
The incident forced Dye to retire early and let Bowden inherit a team that had been built with the help of cheating. Bowden took the team to an unimaginable height, but it had precedent. It was the third time Auburn had gone undefeated the same year it been on probation. It was put on a three-year probation in January of 1957 and went undefeated in 1957 and 1958.
April 26th, 2006 at 2:47:04 am
FYI, here is a link to a write up of the UW situation, it is however from a fan so it might be biased, but he cites various articles and the results of the NCAA’s investigation.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:03:29 am
“Under the new BCS arrangment Notre Dame will be guaranteed one of the at-large slots in a BCS bowl if it is ranked No.8 or better in the final BCS Standngs. It is also guaranteed annual payment for its participation in the BCS. In those seasons in which the Irish play in a BCS game, the school will receive $4.5 million (an amount equivalent that received by a conference that places a second team in the BCS bowl). In those seasons in which Notre Dame does not play in a BCS game, it is projected to be paid $1.3 million for its participation in the BCS arrangement.”
My hatred for Notre Dame just shot up a few more notches! This is why ND will not join a conference because then it would be forced to play a conference championship game and there by forfeit this exemption they have been granted.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:37:18 am
“Tribe denies link with Bush, prospective agent”
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2422248
April 26th, 2006 at 10:43:52 am
Nebraska, that BCS deal thingy has been covered here before. Feel free to hate ND more if you wish, but be aware that a lot of Irish fans actually don’t like the new deal, because whereas previously Notre Dame got $14 million if they got a BCS bid and nothing if they didn’t, now they are treated more like a “regular” team (in a BCS conference) — they get money no matter what, but this deal is actually bad for them financially if they get to a BCS bowl more than once every 4 or 5 or 6 years (I forget the exact number, and am too lazy to do the math right now). The feeling among some in Domer Nation is that this is conceding to mediocrity, that Notre Dame should expect to get to the BCS on a regular basis, and as such, this deal actually harms them.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:47:29 am
Brendan
was just trying to slyly change the subject to see what Domer would take the bait..LOL.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:46:29 pm
David, You’re referring to another situation with Auburn University where Eric Ramsey secretly recorded conversations with assistant coaches negotiating for “improper gifts”. When he perceived the coaches had torpedoed his chances at the NFL he went public with the tapes. The Alabama situation was portrayed locally as a case of an agent taking advantage of a junior player partying (presumed under the influence) after a huge win. The administration’s lack of following up on the entire situation is what caused the NCAA to impose the forfeits.
And, FWIW, I don’t think the NCAA could directly prohibit the SEC from recognizing Auburn as the conference champions. What they did was bar Auburn from post-season games which kept them out of the conference championship game that season. Of course, if they hadn’t just started the conference championship games I’m sure the SEC would have chosen to disqualify Auburn on their own after the NCAA sanctions were imposed.