USC Public Infractions Report

[AZ_]

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:

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.

 

[Tornicade]

well obviously throwing money at recruits as opposed to players making money on the side selling their mostly stolen football equipment. is a less serious offense.

once again Ohio states rules infractions were not violations that gave them any type of competitive advantage on the field. more of a matter of player misconduct.

 

[Maximus]

well obviously throwing money at recruits as opposed to players making money on the side selling their mostly stolen football equipment. is a less serious offense.

once again Ohio states rules infractions were not violations that gave them any type of competitive advantage on the field. more of a matter of player misconduct.

When is it going to sink in...

THIS ISN'T ABOUT RINGS, TATTOOS AND MONEY!!!!!

It wasn't the break-in that brought down the Nixon administration, it was the cover-up!!!

Tressel failed to inform officials when he learned of violations.
Months later he signed the coach's statement that he knew of no violations.
Then he lied to the NCAA about when he found out, what he knew and who he told.

The two worst things a coach can do in the eyes of the NCAA are 1) knowingly pay a player and 2) lying to the NCAA after you've been caught

Coaches that attempt coverups and lie to the NCAA always get fired.

once again Ohio states rules infractions were not violations that gave them any type of competitive advantage on the field.

Sure they did, Tress played ineligible players.

If he had reported it, he'd have his job and there wouldn't be an investigation going on right now.

 

[AZ_]

Of course, you're assuming that had Tressel turned those emails in those players would have been suspended immediately.

Not necessarily true, those emails are certainly not proof of guilt....they are more or less hearsay.

Granted, this isn't absolving Tressel of his fault....but again, the above point would still be true.

 

[JayDub]

Not necessarily true, those emails are certainly not proof of guilt....they are more or less hearsay.

Are you serious? It would have taken the compliance department a week to figure if they were true and they would have been suspended.

Max, please re-post the Ostrich pic again, lol.

 

[DougHeil]

When is it going to sink in...

THIS ISN'T ABOUT RINGS, TATTOOS AND MONEY!!!!!

It wasn't the break-in that brought down the Nixon administration, it was the cover-up!!!

Tressel failed to inform officials when he learned of violations.
Months later he signed the coach's statement that he knew of no violations.
Then he lied to the NCAA about when he found out, what he knew and who he told.

The two worst things a coach can do in the eyes of the NCAA are 1) knowingly pay a player and 2) lying to the NCAA after you've been caught

Coaches that attempt coverups and lie to the NCAA always get fired.



Sure they did, Tress played ineligible players.

If he had reported it, he'd have his job and there wouldn't be an investigation going on right now.

Frankly Max, I'm getting damn sick and tired of your continuing on and on and on about the same crap week by week by week. How many damn times are you going to post the same damn shit? Do you think we all are too stupid to figure it out the very first time you posted it? Maybe if you posted this another ten time or more? Nine just isn't enough.

Again, stop it Max. I'm tired of your shit. I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over again from you. I didn't get it the first time, so what the hell makes you think I will get it now?

 

[Tornicade]

When is it going to sink in...

THIS ISN'T ABOUT RINGS, TATTOOS AND MONEY!!!!!

It wasn't the break-in that brought down the Nixon administration, it was the cover-up!!!

Tressel failed to inform officials when he learned of violations.
Months later he signed the coach's statement that he knew of no violations.
Then he lied to the NCAA about when he found out, what he knew and who he told.

The two worst things a coach can do in the eyes of the NCAA are 1) knowingly pay a player and 2) lying to the NCAA after you've been caught

Coaches that attempt coverups and lie to the NCAA always get fired.



Sure they did, Tress played ineligible players.

If he had reported it, he'd have his job and there wouldn't be an investigation going on right now.

Ineleigible players who were allowed to play per the ncaa after violtions were reported.

nope im not sure what tressels firing has to do with theUSC treatment. banning and such things.
in fact this part of the report
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.

seems to demonstrate a difference in providing fals and misleading information from certfiying no knowledge.

so by ncaa own interpretation . Tressel did not mislead or provide false information regarding the information only lied about his knowledge of it.

once again. Tressel has resigned his job is lost. as the previous investigation and rulings would indicate. USC's activities were far more detrimental.

this does not indicate the need for subsequent post season bans.
USc circumvented their own compliance department. Tressel did nothing of the sort.

Tressel did not cheat. he didnt mislead or redirect anyone from the truth. he lied about his knowledge and paid the consequences.

Now my initial post was not defending tressel. nor was it saying it was done wrong.

nothing in your reply seemed to be directed at the point of discussion. This being that OSU deserve post season bans and sanctions similiar to USC.

I think the the op brought out some good point and im sure the NCAA will be looking at the same things when they make their announcements in july

so to recap and give kcott his cliff notes
The OSU violations are nowhere near as severe as USC
lying to the NCAA is a serious violation but it wasnt providing misleading or false information to the investigation.
Tressels actions at worst impacted when his players would be be suspended not if his players would be suspended.
Noon of the allegations are based on recruiting infractions or agent infractions. Tressel lack of action did not mislead the ncaa or his own compliance department.

THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO COVERUP THE INFRACTIONS TRESSEL KNEW FULL WELL THEY WOULD COME OUT ONCE THE FBI STARTED MAKING ARREST

 

[Maximus]

Ineleigible players who were allowed to play per the ncaa after violtions were reported.

nope im not sure what tressels firing has to do with theUSC treatment. banning and such things.
in fact this part of the report
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.

seems to demonstrate a difference in providing fals and misleading information from certfiying no knowledge.

so by ncaa own interpretation . Tressel did not mislead or provide false information regarding the information only lied about his knowledge of it.

once again. Tressel has resigned his job is lost. as the previous investigation and rulings would indicate. USC's activities were far more detrimental.

this does not indicate the need for subsequent post season bans.
USc circumvented their own compliance department. Tressel did nothing of the sort.

Tressel did not cheat. he didnt mislead or redirect anyone from the truth. he lied about his knowledge and paid the consequences.

Now my initial post was not defending tressel. nor was it saying it was done wrong.

nothing in your reply seemed to be directed at the point of discussion. This being that OSU deserve post season bans and sanctions similiar to USC.

I think the the op brought out some good point and im sure the NCAA will be looking at the same things when they make their announcements in july

so to recap and give kcott his cliff notes
The OSU violations are nowhere near as severe as USC
lying to the NCAA is a serious violation but it wasnt providing misleading or false information to the investigation.
Tressels actions at worst impacted when his players would be be suspended not if his players would be suspended.
Noon of the allegations are based on recruiting infractions or agent infractions. Tressel lack of action did not mislead the ncaa or his own compliance department.

THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO COVERUP THE INFRACTIONS TRESSEL KNEW FULL WELL THEY WOULD COME OUT ONCE THE FBI STARTED MAKING ARREST

It's not that you are misinformed...you are just flat out lying to yourself.

Tressel did not cheat.

How can anyone take you seriously. He signed a compliance letter saying he had no knowledge of violations....THAT'S BREAKING THE RULES, THAT'S LYING...THAT'S CHEATING!!!

 

[Maximus]

Of course, you're assuming that had Tressel turned those emails in those players would have been suspended immediately.

Not necessarily true, those emails are certainly not proof of guilt....they are more or less hearsay.

Granted, this isn't absolving Tressel of his fault....but again, the above point would still be true.

It would have easily been investigates and resolved before the season began....and Tressel would still be coach....that's what is so infuriating.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

It would have easily been investigates and resolved before the season began....and Tressel would still be coach....that's what is so infuriating.

Exactly...the reason that this info was on Tressel's plate was because of an FBI investigation. Had Tressel turned the info into the NCAA when he received it in April, the NCAA would have likely contacted the FBI and would have been able to get the info that they needed fairly quickly. If I remember correctly, AJ Green was suspended fairly quickly after the NCAA found out about him selling his jersey to an agent. Also, by telling the NCAA he had no knowledge of possible violations, Tressel provided false and misleading information to the NCAA on multiple occasions. He played the entire 2010 season with guys he knew were ineligible. That is definitely gaining a competitive advantage.

In terms of USC, any major violations occurring that would have absolutely no bearing on what was just released. They would likely only consider the 2001 case as the others happened well over 24 years ago, and no one currently in the AD or at the school would have even been there when those violations occurred. I'm not too familiar with OSU's history of major violations, but Jim O'Brien committed one not too long ago.

I think the key issue in this whole thing will be what comes of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles investigation into the car purchases. I believe OSU had stated that they approved all of the purchases, so if the investigation turns up something fishy then it could put OSU in some hot water. Otherwise, if the only real violations are that Tressel lied and the players traded stuff for tattoos and cash, then they will likely have to vacate the 2010 season, pay some fines, and maybe lose a couple scholarships. The more I think about it, a postseason ban is probably unlikely, unless another violation or two gets tacked on or if they find out that someone else in the AD knew about it.

 

[calleger]

b00bie... your quoting bugs me....

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.

You quote this thinking it supports your point. It does the opposite. USC had a major infraction in 2001 which enabled them to be slapped with the repeat offender label and given larger penalities. While the report makes reference to 4 other major violations, those were not taken into account for the repeat offender tag. OSU, conversely, has had two major violations that will be counted toward the repeat offender status.

The second quote is largely a wash....

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.

Reggie Bush and what he did wrong in receiving impermissible benefits... kind of a wash compared to 5 players receiving impermissible benefits.....


and then you follow that up

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.

Don't see why you brought this forward to support your arguement. Isn't a head coach doing this worse than an assistant coach?

A large distraction, you then bring forward

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.

Yes, this is not the same as the OSU infractions. That we know of. No arguement there. But, Death Blow?

Wasn't quite sure how to react to this one.

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.

But, let me start. Did Tressel ever contact the compliance department? Why was Pryor's sugar daddy notified and not them?

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.

Nothing really to say to this one. But, it is early in the new Pryor investigations. Give it some time.

 

[AZ_]

b00bie... your quoting bugs me....


You quote this thinking it supports your point. It does the opposite. USC had a major infraction in 2001 which enabled them to be slapped with the repeat offender label and given larger penalities. While the report makes reference to 4 other major violations, those were not taken into account for the repeat offender tag. OSU, conversely, has had two major violations that will be counted toward the repeat offender status.

The second quote is largely a wash....

Reggie Bush and what he did wrong in receiving impermissible benefits... kind of a wash compared to 5 players receiving impermissible benefits.....


and then you follow that up

Don't see why you brought this forward to support your arguement. Isn't a head coach doing this worse than an assistant coach?

A large distraction, you then bring forward

Yes, this is not the same as the OSU infractions. That we know of. No arguement there. But, Death Blow?

Wasn't quite sure how to react to this one.

But, let me start. Did Tressel ever contact the compliance department? Why was Pryor's sugar daddy notified and not them?


Nothing really to say to this one. But, it is early in the new Pryor investigations. Give it some time.

Not sure which will be counted from USC, I was under the impression it was more than just the one earlier in the 90s. If I'm wrong there, then so be it it, but I didn't see anything in the text which led me to believe otherwise.

Secondly, not only did Bush earn benefits, he did it on a MUCH larger scale and basically under the wing of a USC staff member. Say what you will about Tressel "knowing" about a possible violation and not reporting that POSSIBILITY.....But that is NOT the same as an assistant coach fully knowing what was going on and never doing anything. They never self-reported the violations when they came to figure things out, and I can't imagine the two will be viewed the same. Calling it 'a wash' is a bit presumptuous.

Not only did they know about the benefits for Bush, they ALSO added an assistant coach illegally and Pete Carroll never even approached compliance about it.

And calling him an assistant coach is a bit generous, he was basically a professional NFL consultant. Also, saying Pete never went to compliance is also generous, considering one of the biggest and most prominent athletic departments had ONE COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL.

Those things, when coupled together, were a HUGE black mark on that university and most certainly was a huge aid in getting them the dreaded LOIC charge brought about.

Your seemingly casting it off in your explanation, when clearly this was a huge deal to the NCAA.

Also, the USC case had major violations across three major sports.....Ohio State does not. Nothing else really needs to be said about that.

Now, given the fact Tressel has been 'let go' in a sense....I have no reason to believe that LOIC should even be an option with the Ohio State case.

If you do, that's fine.....but I don't see how anyone can say they're in the same neighborhood as USC.