AZ_
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,728
- Reaction score
- 51,464
- Points
- 148
If you want to know why USC and Ohio State aren't even in the same ballpark regarding their allegations and punishments....here is some reading to help you better understand.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=d28c898042cdd2bc958fd5a6e282e000
If you want a summary, here are some of my favorites:
"Student-athlete 1" is Reggie Bush, and we all know he took the world while in college.
But did you know.....
Oh but even if that weren't bad enough, here was the death blow...
Would have been able to survive except....
And boom goes the dynamite...
Not over yet though....
And this doesn't even include the stuff about OJ Mayo or the women's tennis program.
So I ask again, while it's nice conversation to bring up the thought that OSU is going to get the "USC treatment"....where does the NCAA have similar grounds to do so when compared to the violations committed at Southern Cal?
Hope that answers some questions to those of you who haven't been saying these things, but the NCAA Enfractions report is a good read for anyone interested.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=d28c898042cdd2bc958fd5a6e282e000
If you want a summary, here are some of my favorites:
The penalties imposed in this case are commensurate with the nature of the violations and the failure of appropriate oversight by USC.
A member of the Pacific-10 Conference, the institution has an enrollment of approximately 35,000 students. The institution sponsors 10 men's and 11 women's intercollegiate sports. This was the institution's sixth major infractions case. Most recently, the institution appeared before the committee in June 2001 for a case involving the football and women's swimming programs. Accordingly, USC is considered a "repeat violator" under NCAA Bylaw19.5.2.3. The institution also had infractions cases in 1986, 1982, 1959 and 1957, all of which involved its football program.
Beginning in October 2004 and continuing until November 2005, two individuals (for the purposes of this report, "agency partners A and B" respectively), were in the process of forming a sports agency and marketing company, in partnership with student-athlete 1 and his step-father and mother ("the parents"). In the course of this relationship, agency partners A and B gave student-athlete 1 and his parents impermissible benefits in the form of cash, merchandise, an automobile, housing, hotel lodging and transportation.
"Student-athlete 1" is Reggie Bush, and we all know he took the world while in college.
But did you know.....
Further, the assistant football coach knew or should have known that student-athlete 1 and agency partners A and B were engaged in violations that negatively affected student-athlete 1's amateurism status. The assistant football coach provided false and misleading information to the enforcement staff concerning his knowledge of agency partner A's and B's activity and also violated NCAA legislation by signing a document certifying that he had no knowledge of NCAA violations.
Oh but even if that weren't bad enough, here was the death blow...
During the period August 8 to December 11, 2008, the institution's intercollegiate football program exceeded the maximum number of countable coaches. Specifically, in August 2008, the former head football coach hired a consultant ("the consultant") for the entire 2008 regular playing season.
During this period, the consultant engaged in activities that triggered NCAA Bylaw 11.7.1.1.1 when the consultant attended practice sessions, analyzed video footage of the institution's contests, and discussed with the former head football coach his observations and analyses of the institution's special teams.
Would have been able to survive except....
The committee notes that the former head football coach did not check with the institution's compliance office before hiring the consultant. Rather, another institution's compliance office notified the compliance office at USC of the consultant's service with the USC football staff. As a result, this violation is a component of Finding B-7, lack of institutional control.
And boom goes the dynamite...
Not over yet though....
IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING CONTACTS BY A BOOSTER. [NCAA Bylaws 13.01.2, 13.01.4 and 13.6.7.1]
On several occasions beginning in December 2002 and continuing to December 2005, during prospective football student-athletes' official paid visits to the institution's campus, a representative of the institution's athletics interests and the owner of a local restaurant ("representative A") made impermissible off-campus recruiting contacts with a number of prospective student-athletes.
And this doesn't even include the stuff about OJ Mayo or the women's tennis program.
So I ask again, while it's nice conversation to bring up the thought that OSU is going to get the "USC treatment"....where does the NCAA have similar grounds to do so when compared to the violations committed at Southern Cal?
Hope that answers some questions to those of you who haven't been saying these things, but the NCAA Enfractions report is a good read for anyone interested.