&otStewart Mandel asks the question.
I’ve expressed my opinion about retroactive forfeits before, and that applies to the Sooners as well:
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. … [A]ltering the results of games that were played three years ago flies in the face of common sense, doesn’t it?
As I clarified in a later post:
I’ve already expressed my opinion about the Orwellian absurdism of these retroactive forfeits. I suppose I can see the logic behind it if the team knew at the time that it was using an ineligible player… but to declare a player ineligible long after the fact, because of conduct that the team knew nothing about, and then to change the results of the team’s games on that basis? That strikes me as totally ridiculous and lame. It would be a different situation if the allegations involved something that changed the competitive balance of the game(s) in question (e.g., performance-enhancing drugs, gambling on the outcome, etc.)… but if not, and if the team was itself innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing (or willful blindness), then I’d say the punishment doesn’t fit the crime… especially given that the punishment does violence to common sense by literally rewriting history. (And for the record: ;Well, what else can we do?” is not a valid reason to impose an otherwise unsupportable punishment.)
Beyond that, I’m not sure what else there is to say, except to remind Trojan-haters that the apparent unfairness and hypocrisy in the NCAA’s actions (and inactions) isn’t the result of some grand pro-USC conspiracy — it’s quite obviously the result of the different circumstances of the two cases, specifically relating to the fact that the NCAA lacks the power to force Reggie Bush to talk, now that he’s in the NFL. Stewart Mandel explained this well back in May:
It’s not that the NCAA is stalling — it’s that it’s flailing. Through this case, we’re seeing first-hand just how limited the organization’s enforcement powers really are. If Bush were a current student-athlete, the NCAA could hold him out of competition until the matter was resolved. It could also sanction him if he failed to cooperate with investigators (much like it did Maurice Clarett for lying to investigators). With Bush being a professional football player, however, the NCAA holds no more authority over him than it does over you or I. The same goes for other, non-university parties.
Not only are Bush and his family declining to speak with investigators, but, according to reports, they also recently reached a settlement with Michael Michaels — the man whose house the Bush clan supposedly lived in rent-free — that specifically prohibits him from talking to investigators. In other words, they bought him off. And Ornstein, obviously, has no motivation to cooperate — he’s going to do whatever it takes to protect his client’s name.
If you look back, nearly every major NCAA infractions case over the past decade — from the Alabama/Albert Means saga in football to the basketball scandals at Michigan (Ed Martin), Ohio State (Jim O’Brien), Minnesota (an academic advisor writing papers) and Georgia (Jim Harrick/Tony Cole) — has included the presence of at least one voluntary whistle-blower. More often than not, they’ve also involved local or federal litigation that produced subpoenaed testimony. The NCAA is almost entirely dependent on others to do its dirty work, and so far, no one has stepped forward to help them on this one.
Earlier this month, Pac-10 enforcement chief Ron Barker told SI.com’s Michael Silver, “This is the first time I’ve encountered anything like this, where all parties — even those who’ve turned against each other — have not cooperated with an investigation.” Translation: They talked to Yahoo!, but they won’t talk to us.
(Long-delayed hat tip: BK.)
P.S. How must Oregon feel about all this? The Ducks, 10-1 and ranked #5 in the final BCS standings in 2005, lost 17-14 to Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl after being denied a BCS bid which they felt they deserved ahead of #4 Ohio State and #6 Notre Dame, both of whom had two losses. Losing to a 7-4 team in the Holiday Bowl after making that argument was embarrassing enough, but now it turns out the Ducks’ Holiday Bowl loss was to nobody, since Oklahoma’s win has been nullified. Oh yeah, and who was Oregon’s only regular-season loss to? The possibly-ineligble USC Trojans! Oregon finished the 2005 season 10-2, and it may end up that both of their losses were to teams who’ll have to forfeit the victories! Heh. If I were a Ducks fan, I’d be barking quacking mad.
|
Categories: USC, College Football
|
July 12th, 2007 at 5:08:39 pm
As to USC…there is a fundamental difference between the alleged transgressions involving USC and OU.. Let us assume that the NCAA finally is able to prove the Bush and family allegations. In the OU case boosters were giving money to players TO GET THEM TO PLAY FOR OU Thus the school got a benefit from the action. In the USC situation agents wanted Bush to leave USC early offered him and his family money…but ironically this actually hurts USC…since Bush was being encouraged to leave USC early…which he did of course. The NCAA has always treated sports agents who are not affilitated with a school as much different than school boosters. So it will be interesting to see what they will do if they ever get the proof necessary to sustain the allegations.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:56:52 pm
About time!
I was listening to Cowherd today, and he made the following point: the OU matter was somewhat swift because it involved boosters and players, whereas the USC situation involved players and prospective agents. Presumably, programs have some degree of control over their boosters (they are identifiable via donations, are invited to functions, serve on committees, etc.). Also, boosters are (hypothetically) deterred from doing anything that would have the potential to hurt the program, whereas agents are acting in their own self interest and couldn’t care less about the schools. Thus, OU was being punished for a lack of institutional control, whereas USC really didn’t do anything wrong.
I initially thought this made a lot of sense. However, isn’t it the case that Pete regularly holds open practices at USC where actors, celebrities, and *gulp* agents are on the field and communicating with players? If that doesn’t demonstrate some level of lack of institutional control/disrespect for the rules, what does? Personally, I think if Rhett Bomar was the face of the NCAA (a la Reggie Bush), this would have been swept under the rug long ago.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:32:38 pm
BK, the problem in this case wasn’t with legitimate agents, but with wannabe agents. Cowherd also made that point this morning, noting that Miami and USC are perhaps the only schools who would have absolutely no chance to shut down contact with agents given the cities they are in — where most of that industry is based (plus New York, but I think Rutgers is a long way from having issues with agents). Life is just a lot simpler and easier for coaches to control in places like South Bend than in Los Angeles.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:49:40 pm
I agree with you for the most part, Andrew, but I think you missed my point. Not being able to control the actions of agents despite your best efforts is one thing. Not attempting to prevent it from happening is another. But actively inviting agents into situations where this type of thing may occur is entirely different.
Waive that porkchop in front of the dog enough times and eventually he’ll take a snap at it. You know what I’m saying?
July 12th, 2007 at 8:56:10 pm
BK,
Have you ever been to a USC practice. I have. They’re not swarming with agents. USC is not a “closed” campus, so agents can come in and meet players anywhere around campus. USC tried to control them. Pete called the NCAA in 2003 for help with agents. It just happened, it was not encouraged AT ALL.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:01:44 pm
BK, can you please show me your sources that say USC invited agents to the sidelines? And after you find those sources, please explain to me how that has any relevance to the Bush case, which involved non-agents down in San Diego –150 miles from the USC campus — trying to work out a deal with Reggie Bush’s stepfather.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:31:11 pm
One question Andrew: How can USC and Miami be the only schools unable to stop agents? Where does UCLA fall then?
July 12th, 2007 at 9:32:06 pm
Why would agents want to represent UCLA football players? ;)
July 12th, 2007 at 9:48:08 pm
Matt and Andrew – Never been to a practice, and I have no “sources,” I just recall reading something about agents mingling with the celebrities on the sidelines of ‘SC practices and games. I could very well be mistaken.
…googling in progress…
On second thought:
—In my search to find said article, I did come across this, from your very own Daily Trojan:
Ornstein would be Mike Ornstein, (Bush’s marketing agent) who is the same guy that told journalists for Yahoo that the gifts to Bush and his family constituted “loans” (and claimed that he had “no idea” whether or not the loans constituted an NCAA violation—they did). I don’t think we need to get into an “agent versus marketing agent” debate on this one. If nobody in the ‘SC compliance office could detect the possibility for wrongdoing or violations, I’m speechless. It may not be “encouragement,” but it certainly seems to be turning a blind eye to the situation. Also, it’s clear from Reggie’s “internship” that Ornstein’s contacts with the Bush family were a bit more involved than mere pitches to Reggie’s step-father. Anyone care to speculate what Reggie was paid and what “work” he performed, other than allowing Ornstein to have his ear?
—Then there is this, taken from Mandel’s mailbag article:
Unclear whether the sideline referred to here is practice or game, but as Stewey says, “it’s obviously shady”—which was my point all along. And Matt, I’m assuming you don’t/didn’t go to every ‘SC practice, but if you do/did, would you know an agent if you saw one? How?
—Last, there is the Yahoo article that broke the whole Bush story. Here is the opening two paragraphs:
And
And
And
I’m sick of teaching myself how to italicize and block quote, but you get the picture. Those are my sources, and to my knowledge, nobody has come out to say that they’re inaccurate. So, Andrew and Matt, with all due respect, I think that you two are just plain mistaken.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:25:08 pm
Oh, and just for fun I googled “USC football institutional control” and this was one of the links. Granted, many of the items on this list are non-stories, but it still makes USC look like the Cincinnati Bengals of the college football world.
http://www.fanblogs.com/usc/007003.php
Maybe Miles Brand should spend some time with Roger Goodell?
July 12th, 2007 at 10:26:28 pm
And nobody has yet to corroborate the Yahoo report, either…
July 12th, 2007 at 10:27:42 pm
…including the NCAA.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:02:40 pm
BK, my point was that if excuses are being made for Miami and USC for being in Miami and LA, then the same would have to be said for UCLA. And no, I’ve never been to an USC practice. Or game. Or anything at USC other than a graduation. Though for a LSU student raised by a Notre Dame fan, I have surprisingly little dislike for the Trojans.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:23:53 pm
My comments were directed to Matt H., not M-b-Matt, sorry for the confusion.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:46:50 am
Accusations are one thing. Proof is another. Hell, evidence is another, too.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:12:43 am
I think it is ridiculous to punish a team for the actions and negligence of a few. Fine the coaches, athletic director, whatever. Besides a handful of NFL-caliber players, the rest of the team was made up of student athletes who will forever - and unfairly - have a void in their college athletic careers. I think this sucks.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:28:45 am
Brendan- you mean those UCLA football players that beat you in November? Oh, right.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:39:24 pm
Why oh why must you remind me of that horrible day? Curse you! Curse you and all the
halflingsanonymi!;)
July 13th, 2007 at 1:46:32 pm
I don’t really feel bad for the “innocent” players that chose to go to Oklahoma. You know Oklahoma’s track record when you go there. Chances are they’re going to get in trouble while you’re there. When UGA got in trouble for the Harrick/Cole affair a sportwriter pointed out that UGA gets punished for a major violation on avg every 4.16 years. If you sign with UGA it is highly probable that there will be a major violation while you’re there. An intelligent recruit should consider that when he’s looking at schools. As bad as UGA’s history is Oklahoma’s history is even worse.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:09:42 pm
I guess it depends on who is offering the scholarship. When you are playing at a level that you are decent enough to be a Tight End for a college team, but probably not good enough to be in the pros, you may only get so many offers from colleges.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:52:19 pm
If you got an offer from Oklahoma I would assume you got enough other offers to choose one with a better history.
July 14th, 2007 at 2:06:17 pm
MBM, the reason you don’t have to worry about fUTLA is that stellar talent is not known for going to fUTLA. Sure there was Troy Aikman about fifteen years ago, but even he was a transfer from Oklahoma. The types of agents you have to worry about are the ones drawn by the really big fish (e.g., Reggie Bush), and fUTLA doesn’t get the really big fishes, whereas USC and Miami do.