Breakthrough in Reggie Bush Investigation
by wtfitzhomie on Oct 10, 2007 2:08 PM CDT
21 comments
Apparently one of the financiers is about to talk to the NCAA board about what exactly went down.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
21 comments
Email
Print
Comments
screw usc and reggie bush forreal...
it's about time that someone speaks out and says what we already know about the usc football program... they are effing cheaters. not only do they cheat on the field (the infamous "bush push"), but they also cheat off the field. pete carrol runs one of the most classless programs in college football, and hopefully this all leads to some sort of punishment.
by killebrew40 on Oct 10, 2007 3:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m curious...
What denotes classless?
We don't really want to go down that road do we?
by Paragon SC on Oct 11, 2007 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh...
I wouldn't go so far as to call them classless, but USC does some underhanded things that never hear the light of day.
I've always had a problem with how they use celebrities to sell their school, not on TV, etc but actual facetime with the recruits (ie: all those 5 star RBs).
by sharkbait101 on Oct 10, 2007 3:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Carroll
wants a pro like atmosphere for his program -- and that is exactly what he got.
They INVITED agents in to the locker room. If any of those documents show a link b/w Reggie or any other USC player then I'm not sure ignorance is a valid defense for USC.
All the NCAA has to prove is if they (coaches) SHOULD have known about benefits to players.
This does not look good for them. Not at all.
by EYESofBEVO on Oct 10, 2007 3:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if im wrong
If the NCAA does what it should do and strip USC of all its wins when Reggie was with the team(same thing that happened to Oklahoma). Then wouldnt that give Oklahoma another National title? I think that would make me vomit all over myself.
by lalonghorn on Oct 11, 2007 2:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Vacating wins
I think that USC would simply vacate thier wins, that does not mean the OU would be decalred the champion. First OU will still have lost the BCS championship game (USC simply will not have won it) so OU would have one loss and Auburn would still be undefeated. Second the NCAA does not declare a National Champion in Football, so the BCS would have to strip USC of thier BCS title.
Of course OU will probably "claim" they won the national title, but we already know they are cheaters so to me that is calling the kettle black.
by billb on Oct 11, 2007 7:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, it doesn't work like that
The NCAA does not crown a National Champion in D1 football, nor do they control BCS bowl games. The only control the NCAA has is over regular season games. The NCAA could vacate all of USC's wins from 2003 until 2005, and they would still own an AP national title and a BCS title since those are totally separate entities.
It is highly unlikely that either the AP or BCS would vacate a nat champ, regardless of what happened. Keep in mind that most writers and pollsters feel that an athlete accepting money is not like taking steroids or criminal behavior. There is a feeling that the NCAA regs are asinine, and that athletes are exploited by universities.
Same with the Heisman. I noticed that the article incorrectly pointed out that Bush could lose the Heisman - again, that is up to the Downtown Athletic Club, not the NCAA, and it seems doubtful that they would take back a Heisman. It's not like they tried to take OJ's away.
by DogTown on Oct 11, 2007 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Auburn's
If anything Auburn would be the rightful champ for their undefeated season, compared to USC's likely 0-0 season and OU's 1 loss season.
by sharkbait101 on Oct 11, 2007 8:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Easy there
I'm not going to waste anyone's time trying to change their minds about USC - if you don't like the school or the program, so be it.
I will say though regarding the a priori assumption that they are cheating off the field: prove it. And not "prove it" as in "dredge up the usual rap sheet from Bruins Nation, I mean something substantive."
As for the Bush Push, spare me. Desmond Reed still can't flex his foot after getting an injury on a field that just happened to not have been mowed for weeks, and you don't hear him bitching about it. It's not intramurals, brother.
On to Reggie Bush and the agents: the question isn't "was he up to shenanigans" - it seems pretty obvious that he was. The important question is did or should USC have known.
In that area, the challenge for the NCAA is to prove that benefits which were going to the player's family were something that SC should have known about. In other words, it was a long way from the flagpole - what's the reasonable expectation for supervision.
All of that changes if the NCAA can show that someone at USC knew and did nothing. If that's the case, then SC deserves whatever they get.
As for the newly cooperative individual, he's going to have to overcome the stigma - fair or otherwise - that he's a convicted felon with an axe to grind, figuratively speaking.
If the wins get vacated, they get vacated. Likewise the national championship - change the records all you like, it doesn't change the fact that SC tattooed Oklahoma and would have done it without Bush anyway.
by DC Trojan on Oct 11, 2007 9:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Agents
I hear a lot about allowing agents in the locker rooms, etc. If that's so, couldn't the NCAA rule that USC should have been extra-careful, knowing that some of these "boosters" were (or could be) talent agents?
by Horn Brain on Oct 11, 2007 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's an interesting question
In hindsight, yes, they should have kept the agents out and I suppose the NCAA could go after them on taht front. There's a tightrope walk for the university, because Bush actually worked for an agent - a real agent, not the bozos who were paying his parents - one summer, but it was "above board" inasmuch as the compliance folks knew about the job and the pay. Talk about hiding in plain sight.
Still, I think using a "climate of agents" argument is pretty weak - as I said before, the home run for the NCAA would be to show that someone from the team knew and said nothing.
by DC Trojan on Oct 11, 2007 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "stigma" element
is completely irrelevant and so is the person involved. It wouldn't matter if they were working with Charles Manson.
The only thing the NCAA cares about right now is documentation. In fact, that is basically the crux of every NCAA investigation. They need supporting tangible evidence documenting transactions from party A to party B.
If this guy pulls out a file of receipts, hotel bills and checks cut/cashed to the Bush family -- that is all they'll need.
According to Yahoo these documents exist and soon the NCAA will have their hands on them.
RIP...USC
by EYESofBEVO on Oct 11, 2007 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
I should have been more clear - the individual's status might affect his court case, the NCAA as you note can take whatever they want from whomever they want.
As for RIP USC, if it happens, so be it. But I still think they're going to need something more than material proof of Bush's shenanigans to really kill the program.
by DC Trojan on Oct 11, 2007 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering
that most of your post implies a preference for technicality over nuance and generality (ie: the OBVIOUS stigma about the USC program isn't enough, you want us to "prove it"), then your assessment of the Bush-push is hypocritical.
What Bush did is quite literally in the rule book, which qualifies as a factual technicality. The length of Notre Dame's grass is not legally disputable.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 11, 2007 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
breaking the law, breaking the law
You're quite right, there's no limit to the length of the grass on Notre Dame's turf, and there's nothing to say that Desmond Reed couldn't have crippled himself on freshly mowed turf, or on fake grass, or whatever. I have my own thoughts about that, but they are neither here not there.
As for the hypocrisy element...
- The push was illegal, it wasn't called. Did the game hinge on it? Yes. Who should have called it? The officials. Did Notre Dame have any infractions that weren't called? Probably. Would Notre Dame have taken the win under the same circumstances? Undoubtedly. Would I have blown a gasket? Certainly, but that's life. Football isn't just a game, it's a human endeavor, and you can't guarantee that the outcomes of a game will conform 100% to the rules - rather like life. Who's being technical here again?
Perhaps I am morally lax and cynical, but I reserve my outrage on blown calls to instances where a player is deliberately injured and no penalty is incurred - like that A&M player who leveled Colt McCoy last year. You won't find me going on about Vince Young's knee being down or not, because a) it's within the realm of human error, and b) calling him down would only have delayed the inevitable by ~ 30 seconds.
- It may be "OBVIOUS" to you that there's a stigma associated with USC's program, it's not at all obvious to me. Your opinion of USC's program is not grounds for universal condemnation.
- I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bush deserves condemnation for breaking the rules and putting an organization at risk. However, circumstantial suggestions (look at all the agents!) and general opprobrium (they must be dirty!) aren't enough to do more than take away a couple of scholarships to send a message. I could live with that - just as you lose some because people don't follow the rules, sometimes you lose some because they are too eager to follow the law.
My objection to the assumption of a death-penalty level of sanctions is that once you get that serious, it's worth being more rigid than "take a penny, leave a penny." If the NCAA were to impose SMU-type sanctions, I'd like to be sure that they're doing it because they found concrete proof that the university or one of its employees failed to come forward when they knew of a violation - as opposed to because Reggie Bush is an idiot and there plainly must be something rotten on the fringes of South Central.
by DC Trojan on Oct 11, 2007 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think USC should get the death penalty
I'm not sure they should be penalized at all. I'm pretty mixed about a school being held responsible for the actions of a single player or alum.
I was simply pointing out that you were using one systematic line of thinking when it benefited your argument, and the opposite systematic line of thinking when it benefited you otherwise.
by BrooklynHorn on Oct 11, 2007 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
don't bring me down with your logic
I'm just a humble consultant. We have to rely on powerpoint presentations and excel sheets to blur the issue, not fancy-pants systematic lines of thinking.
Actually, it's not just opportunistic cynicism on my part, it's a reflection of the relative seriousness I accord to on-field shenanigans that loosened ND alumni sphincters the world over, versus off-field shenanigans that could - in extremis - take down an entire program.
by DC Trojan on Oct 11, 2007 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bush Push = cheating?
That is garbage. They were on the field doing what they had to to win, just as I would want anyone on my team to do. It was up to the refs to make the call, and they blew it. If a lineman holds and the refs dont call it, it's not like you can say the entire program cheats, or even that that lineman is a cheater. Stuff happens on the field, and it is up to the refs to make the correct call and penalize the team. VY's knee was down before he tossed the ball to Selvin Young; does that make the entire Texas program cheaters because the refs blew it? No. (Just to note, I wish they had called it because UT would have had first and 10 at the USC 11, giving VY 4-plus chances at another touchdown, and yet more stats with which to shame the Heisman voters)
If Petey Carrol was putting laxatives in the ND gatorade, or bugged Charlie Weis' headset, or had paid the refs to not call penalties on USC, THEN you could say they cheat on the field.
by DogTown on Oct 11, 2007 9:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bush Push = Missed Call
The Bush Push is on par with the OU-Oregon debacle. It's illegal for Oregon to touch the ball before 10 yards, but they did, and the officials missed it. Nothing can be done. Oregon didn't cheat, it screwed up and got away with it. USC didn't cheat (then), a player gave a push and got away with it. I doubt it was the plan to shove Leinart into the endzone, but maybe Bush used to play rugby? Anyway, it's pointless for anyone but an ND fan to gripe about the Bush Push because USC's locker rooms and file cabinets are plenty full of goodies for everyone.
by Horn Brain on Oct 11, 2007 12:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
