Dave Sittler (Tulsa World): USC "not cooperating"

[Edmond Sooner]

This was in both the print and online edition of The Tulsa World today:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/Sports/SportsExtra/blog/sittlerblog_main.asp

So, from I what I read in that article USC simply refuses to cooperate with the NCAA, so the investigation is at a "standstill." I guess what it boils down to is it pays to stonewall? :confused:

Not a very fair or efficient way to run a railroad, it seems to me. Just sayin'.

[JohnnyMack]

I hate to tell y'all this, but finding the smoking gun in this Reggie Bush case is going to be very, very hard to do.

With the stupid ****s who concocted the BRS&I scam there was a blatant paper trail.

With the RB deal, I'd imagine finding hard evidence at this point is going to be next to impossible.

[Big Red Ron]

I hate to tell y'all this, but finding the smoking gun in this Reggie Bush case is going to be very, very hard to do.

With the stupid ****s who concocted the BRS&I scam there was a blatant paper trail.

With the RB deal, I'd imagine finding hard evidence at this point is going to be next to impossible.There is already a documented paper trail. RB's parents went from renting an apartment to living in a $750,000 house in the San Diego suburbs, that was paid for by an agency. That was the cost of construction as I understand it. The house is new and would fetch far more than a million on the open market.

[Edmond Sooner]

There is already a documented paper trail. RB's parents went from renting an apartment to living in a $750,000 house in the San Diego suburbs, that was paid for by an agency. That was the cost of construction as I understand it. The house is new and would fetch far more than a million on the open market.

That was my understanding, too. Further, I don't get how the school can just refuse to cooperate. I'd think that in and of itself should bring some sort of penalty. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to grasp the wisdom of the NCAA's "investigative" procedures & policies...

[Collier11]

also, reggie bush had signed room service bills from glamorous motels, doesnt seem that hard to me

[MojoRisen]

Nope, how did they afford to pay for the house? And if it was free isn't that still a benefit- especially since the house is owned by a Professional Sports agent?

[XingTheRubicon]

It isn't necessarily about being right or wrong with the NCAA. It's mainly about ****ing them off.

Remember that St. Johns coach a few years back that had a player vindicated concerning an auto and he said "he felt like he was being raped," with the process of how the NCAA looked into it.

Well, about a year later, the NCAA helped him fully understand what being raped truly felt like. The NCAA found about 5,000 violations and bent St. Johns over.

Remember Bosworth wearing his NCAA shirt? On national television? We went on the worst probation/public relations nightmare in the history of our school a few years later.

Ask Georgia about the NCAA since the early '80s.




If you remember the movie "The Untouchables," Sean Connery led everyone to a blank door in the back of a post office. (where a Capone bootlegging operation existed) Mr. Ness naively asks, "how did you know how to find this place?" and Connery's character said, "the problem hasn't been finding it,.....



That's kind of like the NCAA and their relationship to University athletic departments. They know what's going on, you just can't be blatant about it or **** them off or embarrass them in any way. USC is pushing this envelope. It was embarrassing for the NCAA when an Alabama booster paid a HS coach $150,000 for a DL recruit. It just looks bad, so Bama got hosed.
It's embarrassing for a Heisman winner to be living like Paris Hilton ala Reggie Bush. The NCAA may not ever get anything tangible on the RB case, but they will lift the tarp on Heritage Hall if they feel compelled to do so (ie: If SC ****es them off by not cooperating)


...and I imagine finding a corollary offense at SC be it large or small will be about as hard as finding a sheep with vaginal tears in Payne County.

[AlbqSooner]

The settlement in the civil suit with Bush and the "Landlord" was reported to have included a stipulation that the "Landlord" not cooperate with the NCAA investigation.

If the Federal Grand Jury in California (San Diego?) that is investigating this returns any indictments, the evidence presented may well be placed in the public record. The NCAA could then obtain it. If, and it is a big if, the NCAA is able to determine that USC committed violations and stonewalled the NCAA investigation, it would seem likely there would be little in mitigation and the penalties would almost have to be severe.

[Scott D]

1. the guy was trying to become an agent and open an agency using Bush as his catalyst.
2. If the settlement had such a stipulation, it'd still be rendered moot by the Federal investigation.
3. Anyone who thinks USC is going to benefit from stonewalling just needs to look at USC's past transgressions to see that clearly they just don't learn.

[AlbqSooner]

2. If the settlement had such a stipulation, it'd still be rendered moot by the Federal investigation.
Not really rendered moot. If the Federal Grand Jury returns "No True Bill", which means does not indict anyone, those proceedings, as any other Grand Jury proceedings, remain sealed.

The stipulation was that the "Landlord" not cooperate with the NCAA. There is nothing the NCAA can do to force him to cooperate.

Additionally, even if their are indictments and the evidence is unsealed, until it is placed in the public domain - submitted into open court as evidence - it is not subject to FOIA proceedings.

[goingoneight]

Even though I don't like USC... they have taken smart notice to what happens when you cooperate with the NCAA through OUr case. It's not Pete Carroll or Bob Stoops handing out money/benefits to players. It's not USC/OU/OSU/UT, either. It's greedy boosters who don't think winning and recruiting are enough, THEY make the offerings. Boosters are basically just fans. Some are great boosters like Gaylord and Jamail, some are crooked like McRae and Booger Pickens. And you're expecting a broke college kid to be honest and refuse their offerings. Expecting this is about as naive as expecting underage quarterbacks not to drink until they're 21... it's stupid.

[fadada1]

if any fan base (other than SMU) knows anything about the ncaa, violating procedures, and the ramifications of such actions, it's OU fans.

if other fan bases think we don't pay attention to these types of things, and can't carry a (somewhat) intelligent conversation regarding ncaa violations, they're as stupid as osu fans.

usc will get theirs. one way or another, their world will come crashing down on them.

[Scott D]

Not really rendered moot. If the Federal Grand Jury returns "No True Bill", which means does not indict anyone, those proceedings, as any other Grand Jury proceedings, remain sealed.

The stipulation was that the "Landlord" not cooperate with the NCAA. There is nothing the NCAA can do to force him to cooperate.

Additionally, even if their are indictments and the evidence is unsealed, until it is placed in the public domain - submitted into open court as evidence - it is not subject to FOIA proceedings.

My point was that provided the FGJ decides to go forth, it won't matter that the "landlord" agreed not to cooperate with the NCAA.

[StoopTroup]

I don't give a rats a$$ about SUC.

Everybody knows they're dirty.

[westcoast_sooner]

There is already a documented paper trail. RB's parents went from renting an apartment to living in a $750,000 house in the San Diego suburbs, that was paid for by an agency. That was the cost of construction as I understand it. The house is new and would fetch far more than a million on the open market.

For those not aware of housing prices in California, $750K in my neck of the woods is about 1400 square feet on a 7000 square foot lot. While I live in the Bay Area, and housing prices here are generally higher than in the San Diego area, a $750K house there is still not all that great.

The key is that rent on a place like that would still likely be somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand a month, depending on neighborhood etc.

Now with regard to USC not cooperating, doesn't surprise me. After our so-called slap on the wrist, it sure seems like what I've been hearing is surely going to come true. That is that self-reporting and self-punishment will become a thing of the past.

[Big Red Ron]

For those not aware of housing prices in California, $750K in my neck of the woods is about 1400 square feet on a 7000 square foot lot. While I live in the Bay Area, and housing prices here are generally higher than in the San Diego area, a $750K house there is still not all that great.

The key is that rent on a place like that would still likely be somewhere between 2 and 3 thousand a month, depending on neighborhood etc.

Now with regard to USC not cooperating, doesn't surprise me. After our so-called slap on the wrist, it sure seems like what I've been hearing is surely going to come true. That is that self-reporting and self-punishment will become a thing of the past.I'm from Newport Beach, CA and a $750,000 house isn't much. However, this was inland about thirty minutes from San Diego and that 750,000 was the cost to build it, as it was brand new when the Bush's moved in. You can get a pretty nice and relatively large house for that kind of money, especially if you built it for that price.

[Stoop Dawg]

While it does suck for you guys that you have to pay through the nose for a sucky house, I don't think that's the point.

I think the point is that Bush's parents couldn't afford it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Big Red Ron]

While it does suck for you guys that you have to pay through the nose for a sucky house, I don't think that's the point.

I think the point is that Bush's parents couldn't afford it. Correct me if I'm wrong.Yeah, it really doesn't matter. The point is, the Bush's went from the ghetto to a brand new house with no change in their financial status, cept for their son's agreement to let this guy be his agent. It doesn't really get any more clear than that.

I have no idea what the punishment will be but USC will be punished.

When the NCAA vacated OUr wins in 2005 for using the two cheaters, they set a pretty clear precedent. USC should be very concerned about all this.

[fwsooner22]

Yeah, it really doesn't matter. The point is, the Bush's went from the ghetto to a brand new house with no change in their financial status, cept for their son's agreement to let this guy be his agent. It doesn't really get any more clear than that.

I have no idea what the punishment will be but USC will be punished.

When the NCAA vacated OUr wins in 2005 for using the two cheaters, they set a pretty clear precedent. USC should be very concerned about all this.


So, did USC cheat?

[Collier11]

If USC had knowledge, then they were allowing an ineligible player to play so yes, if they had no knowledge of the living situation then NO.

[Big Red Ron]

If USC had knowledge, then they were allowing an ineligible player to play so yes, if they had no knowledge of the living situation then NO.OU didn't know about those two that cheated until after it was done. I see this as no different, just on a much bigger scale. That's what I'm saying, even if they give them the same slap on the wrist we got, they lose, at least one NC.

[Collier11]

I think there is a difference between cheating and breaking rules, I think Ou broke rules by not monitoring properly but they did not cheat because IMHO cheating is done knowingly and on purpose!

[fwsooner22]

Almost every year there are high schools that forfeit games or season because they used players that were ineligible because of grades or the fact that they did not live in the district. The coaches in many of these cases did not know about the grades or where the kid lived. They should have but they didn't. Did they cheat? Yes, they did, just no knowingly.

[BASSooner]

unknowingly cheating....doesn't make sense, there has to be a word similar to that but it can't have the word "cheating" in it.

[Scott D]

inadvertently broke the rules?

It'd be pretty hard to convince anyone who isn't a diehard for USC, that someone in the athletic dept didn't notice some of the places Bush was staying, where he got his suit for the Heisman ceremony, etc...

It's almost nonsensical to say that nobody involved with the football program knew anything was possibly running afoul of the rules. That's what makes the Federal case so interesting, if/when anything begins to come out from there. Will USC tighten up further, or will they quickly change their tune in regards to cooperation.

[Collier11]

breaking rules and cheating is much different IMO

[birddog]

breaking rules and cheating is much different IMO

if you make a statement like this, you must elaborate.

[AlbqSooner]

My point was that provided the FGJ decides to go forth, it won't matter that the "landlord" agreed not to cooperate with the NCAA.
OK, I misunderstood. You are correct.

[Taxman71]

Me thinks USC is wearing out paper shredders faster than the Enron execs.

[stoopified]

Ya know I could swear that back in '72-'73 when we were going through the Kerry Jackson-Mike Phillips investigationthat it was stated that failure to cooperate withj an NCAA investigation was in itself grounds for sanctions and probation.I am getting old and THAT was a long time ago so maybe it was just my imagination.

[OUDoc]

Ya know I could swear that back in '72-'73 when we were going through the Kerry Jackson-Mike Phillips investigationthat it was stated that failure to cooperate withj an NCAA investigation was in itself grounds for sanctions and probation.I am getting old and THAT was a long time ago so maybe it was just my imagination.
There would almost have to be a clause like that. Otherwise the NCAA would have no teeth at all.

[MamaMia]

This should have been enough for the NCAA to sanction USC...

http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2007/02/15/News/Usc-Probes.Alleged.Recruiting.Violation-2721988.shtml?xmlsyn=1

[Taxman71]

Don't worry, Keith Jackson (the old guy, not OU legend) will perform any favors required of him to keep the Pac-10, especially USC, out of trouble.

Besides, didn't USC violate the NCAA rules by letting their band play in that Fleetwood Mac video?

[Collier11]

if you make a statement like this, you must elaborate.


As I said previously, IMO I believe that cheating is intentional but breaking rules can be done unintentionally

[1stTimeCaller]

That's the deal. The players cheat knowing that if they get caught the school gets into trouble for braking rules.

It seems as if USC is trying to cover up the fact that one of their players was caught cheating. That makes them cheaters, if that is in fact what's happening.

[jrsooner]

If USC had knowledge, then they were allowing an ineligible player to play so yes, if they had no knowledge of the living situation then NO.This is an incorrect assumption. If any family member of an athlete, prospective athlete (9 grade+), or graduated athlete gets benefits because of the athlete's position for a school, then the college is held accountable for it. The students are supposed to advise the compliancy departments whenever these things happen (just like athletes are supposed to declare their employment :) ). Unless I missed something when the compliancy department spoke a few months back to our Alumni club, that's the ruling.

[Collier11]

I realize that, I was stating the diff between USC cheating or not...they are still in the wrong regardless