really could've been a one word post, and i think you covered this in a sort of roundabout way, MONEY
Mike Lantry, 1972
I'm sure that just about all of you have seen this: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=AnPpRwCwXXWFFRCU.xKjujs5nYcB?slug=...
sitting on the cover of Yahoo! Sports (Y!S) over the last few days. It's not the first time that Y!S has run an expose type of thing on USC - it happened back in 2006 as well: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-bushprobe.
The Yahoo! Sports team has always been my preferred source of news because more often than not, they report the news, without the sensationalism of The Worldwide Leader. They've embraced the blogging culture of sports, and understand that the educated sports fan wants facts, solid analysis, and doesn't give a rats ass about what Brett Favre is doing.
So I would think that if a reputable news agency manages to do the research and is willing to publish something along the lines of what we've seen, something should happen, right? And this isn't like the Ann Arbor News' "Probe" into academics at Michigan. There are actually real figures - "Floyd gave at least $1,000 in cash to Rodney Guillory" - and other pieces of evidence as opposed to fake statistical analysis.
Even with the Reggie Bush affair, nothing happened. Y!S ran that article ages ago. The NCAA was supposedly investigating at the time. Nothing happened. In the meantime, USC won three PAC-10 championships and went to three Rose Bowls.
The NCAA has cracked on other programs for recruiting violations. Alabama football, SMU football, IU basketball, Michigan basketball are just a few. These are (or were) all big name programs with a rich tradition for excellence. However, none of these had the spotlight and widespread following that USC does today. USC right now is college football's equivalent of the Yankees or the Lakers. They have a huge following of fans, and have a huge number of people who detest them. From the NCAA's point of view, this makes them a cash cow. They are a poster program for college athletics.
Having USC go down would be on par with someone like A-Rod or Manny testing positive for steroids in baseball (wait... oh snap! Sorry I had to do it). Actually, it would be closer to Mark Mcgwire and Sammy Sosa testing positive right on the heels of their HR chase. It would shake the very foundations of the sport. And that's why the NCAA simply cannot allow USC to go down. And don't think for a minute that Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd are not completely aware of this. They are milking this for all its worth.
If USC slips over the next few years, falls to mediocrity, don't be surprised if NCAA suddenly discovers violations, and quickly follows with sanctions. USC will be expendable then. But right now, there's just too much money on the table.
really could've been a one word post, and i think you covered this in a sort of roundabout way, MONEY
First off, USC basketball is not the "cash cow" that SC football is, so I don't see any financial incentive that would prevent the NCAA from hammering that program if they were guilty of anything.
Second, there are plenty of big name programs that would fill the void SC is occupying now (college football made lots of money when FSU was dominating in the nineties while SC and Oklahoma sucked). They will make money no matter which particular teams happen to be good at the moment.
Third, neither of these situations (aside from this new Floyd allegation which I will address later) involve the school. Slimy agents and the people who work for them have (allegedly) attempted to sign players in exchange for gifts/cash while the kid was in college. Whatever quid pro quo may have existed, it had nothing to do with attending SC and everything to do with making money off these kids once they turned pro.
I just can't believe that Floyd (or any coach anywhere) would be dumb enough to directly give money to anyone. Also, $1,000 is all it took to bring the kid to SC? Come on. These are the statements of a guy who is desperate to cut a deal to save his own ass (assuming Floyd is not completely retarded). I also don't buy Yahoo as a legitimate news gathering organization. I see them merely looking to grab headlines. In this case every headline has read "Floyd gave cash to Mayo associate" rather than "According to some guy facing charges, Floyd is alleged to have given cash to Mayo associate."
I attended law school at SC and got a pretty close look at the athletic program (probably as close as an outsider can get). The kids all ate in the same shitty cafeteria that me and my friends did (or off the taco truck). I never saw anybody flashing money around town. Dwayne Jarrett got busted for living in an apartment that Leinart's dad paid for, so I can't imagine that real money was changing hands to the players while the school sat back and benefitted.
The Bomar car dealership job (where a kid financially benefitted from his attendance at a particular school) and all the Clarett shenanigans at OSU are much more troubling to me. I just don't see anything that is alleged to have occurred at SC is that huge a deal in terms of a competitive advantage and I also think a lot of it is grenade tossing from people who are looking to get out of serious trouble.
If you have followed this story at all you know that they have lumped both the football and basketball case together under the LACK of institutional control heading. This means that it is going to be awful difficult to come down on basketball and let football slide by.
The fact of matter is that student/athletes have been getting illegal benefits not allowed under NCAA rules. I'll assume you are talking about Brett Romar at OU and the No work job that he got paid for was from an alumnus so please don't blame it on a school (though they lacked institutional control of the situation). If you consider that more troubling than Reggie Bush's parents living for free in a $750,000 + home you have some serious issues for someone who attended law school. As for the Floyd giving money, the fact he knew the rep is damning enough. It was for one night out and after Mayo had already signed with the school. Read the article before you write something that makes no sense. The article clearly points to Mayo benefitting to the tune of $200,000+ which is less than Bush, but far more than Romar.
Every school has a department that specializes in these things and I just recently got an email from Michigan with a phone number to call to check if you think an action you take with an athlete or potential recruit may violate NCAA rules.
What I was saying was that Romar (sorry on prior spelling) benefiting because he attended OU (whether or not the school knew or should have known about it) is more troubling to me than a kid being given money by an agent as a down payment on the kid's future earnings. To put it in a UM context, it is widely alleged/known that Woodson got money from agents, but I find that less troubling than Troy Smith getting $100 handshakes from boosters.
I definitely think these agents need to be driven out of college sports, but I also don't think schools should be punished for one or two kids violating rules if the benefit the kid received had nothing to do with where they went to school. These people presumably would have attempted to pay Bush/Mayo (assuming the allegations are true) if they were at UCLA, ND, UM or any other school (they were merely in it for the money after the kids turned pro).
The histrionics regarding SC I think are the product of their recent success and bitter fans looking to downgrade it with accusations of cheating.
Hate to tell you this, but this happens a lot more then you realize. It has nothing to do with where you go to school as you claim in the Romar case. I know a D1 player that was paid to make sure the sprinklers were working on the football field during he summer. In other words he came to the stadium to make sure the automatic timer worked and left after he saw the sprinklers working.
SC knew about the Bush problems before Mayo got there so the fact that it happened again so the lack of institutional ontrol on their part. The fact that the SC basketball coach made a payment to a street agent is about the worst violation I can imagine. By doing so, he basically gave the NCAA free reign to do as they please if they can prove the incident happened. Rather they decide to do so or not is another thing. Maybe SC should needs to hire a better compliance director as the one they currently have is obviously doing a poor job.
Agree. This argument that somehow the NCAA is willing to let 'SC football slide because it fears losing some enormous financial windfall if SC is merely mediocre is wishful thinking at best. A powerful 'SC selling tons of tickets and jerseys, and pulling in a ton of alumni donations, means a windfall for the university chiefly.
The problem with the Bush investigation, which has been pretty well documented, is that the NCAA has no subpoena power, and is virtually toothless if it wants to investigate someone who is no longer is a part of an NCAA program (see Reggie Bush), and when that person chooses not to cooperate (again, see Bush). That doesn't mean he's guilty or innocent. It just means the investigating body has limited tools at its disposal, and let's face it, "investigating" is hardly a NCAA core competency. I'm not a lawyer, but that's my laymen's understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Agree. If this were Tennessee-Chattanooga we were talking about, it wouldn't get much ink. Jealous fans and all that. Everyone likes to see the giants fall. But this disparaging of writers at Yahoo sports by 'SC fans is also puzzling (I've got 2 friends who rip them every time the topic comes up), as if somehow because there's no NYTimes masthead, it's tabloid sensationalism. If I recall, both writers who broke the original Bush story were former writers for big city dailies. To quote you, "In this case every headline has read "Floyd gave cash to Mayo associate"" Well, sir, for one the very link the OP gave us didn't read quite that way. Big difference between "Source: Floyd gave cash to Mayo associate" and what you wrote.
Disagree. With the notion the allegation in Mayo's case has nothing to do with USC. Floyd paying handlers to help steer the kid to him—which is one of the allegations—directly involves the school through the schools representative, Coach Floyd. Whether it's true or not will be borne out by the investigation, one would think.
Disagree. Johnson's trying to save his own arse (from no legal trouble he's enduring currently) by, ironically, committing a felony and lying to the FBI. Now if you said, he's looking to pad book sales when the tell-all comes out, you may have had a point.
Agree. $1,000 is a paltry sum to motivate someone to push a kid to 'SC.
Agree. Floyd is probably not completely retarded. But then again, the NCAA coaching ranks have seen the likes of Dave Bliss and Jim Harrick, so it apparently isn't something that prevents an AD from hiring you.
While I agree with most of your points here, I don't think that it makes sense to consider $1000 a paltry sum to steer a kid to USC. My reasoning here is that any payment of this type is illegal. Therefore, unless the coach is completely insane, he has to use his own money, and not the university's. While Floyd does make quite a lot of money, he is unlikely to want to shell out a significant percentage of his salary to sign a kid, something likely to apply to other coaches as well. Furthermore, as this deal is illegal, it is hard to imagine that Mayo's handler had many offers here. Therefore, it is fair to assume that a $1000 sum for guiding Mayo to USC is plausible because a) it is a reasonable price for the collegiate coach, and b) the handler is likely not seeing any other offers and $1000 is better than nothing.
Right. I don't get the sense that there are a lot of coaches out there throwing around envelopes full of cash, so Mayo's handlers may have been taking the best or only offer (that is if any of this is true in the first place, which, who knows ...)
But I do point out that Floyd is unlike most NCAA head coaches in that he's cashed in on NBA head coaching bank. Even dropping a $1,000 on dinner for four once in a while is probably not all that unusual in the Floyd household.
If it does turn out to be true, we can sit back and toast Coach Floyd for getting it done so cheap, and secretly wish we had his skills when going into negotiate a price on that new F-150.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I certainly think that if Floyd gave money to anyone associated with Mayo then SC should be heavily sanctioned (that is as blatant/outrageous a violation as I can imagine). I just have a hard time believing it happened.
"Third, neither of these situations (aside from this new Floyd allegation which I will address later) involve the school."
So how was UM involved with Ed Martin? Quick answer: they weren't. Ed Martin had nothing to do with UM other than being a parasite who boosted his ego by "loaning" money to their athletes. But UM got sodomized anyway and it took ten years to dig the basketball program out of the mess.
The Clarett and Bush cases should both have resulted in the same forfieture of games that the Ed Martin scandal did. Since they haven't, and the NCAA has trundled out the same tired excuses (lack of evidence) for both cases, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that the NCAA does not want to penalize either program. And it is reasonable to then infer that money is the main reason they don't want to penalize either program.
I feel the same way about the Martin situation as I do about this. I think the only extra negative in that case is that the same person was giving money to a series of athletes at one school (more of a connection with the school than just one agent/one player). Still, the fact that Mateen Cleaves (allegedly) had a connection with Martin has always caused me to think UM shouldn't have been punished in the way that they were.
This is patently untrue. Ed Martin was given free basketball tickets, and the coaches TOOK HIM ON RECRUITING VISITS. That is much, much more than "being a parasite who boosted his ego by "loaning" money to their athletes".
I've mentioned the same thing to Tater numerous times and he just refuses to grasp the connection Ed Martin had with the hoops program.
Otherwise, I echo what therealtruth said. This was no fringe guy. He was very much an insider brought in by Frieder who Fisher was then unable to control. Michigan got everything they deserved for having this guy so willingly close to the program.
And, it took several years for the NCAA to do anything about it, even after the car accident.
So, all this the NCAA does not want to hurt its cash cow is sour grapes combined with your own mental propaganda.
Get over it.
Over/Under on how many more times Tater will have to be corrected on his continued misunderstanding of the Ed Martin scandal?
I say at least 3 more times over the summer months.
Obviously you attended SC law, and not UM law.
After 4 years in Ann Arbor, I decided it would be nice to see a pretty girl every once in a while and to avoid freezing my cock off 6 months out of the year. Clearly, my intelligence is questionable.
Perhaps, but your logical reasoning is spot on terrific. Frozen cock is the number one cause of herpes, turns out.
We're all jealous of USC. Maybe not the program, but we're jealous of their success. It's ridiculous to think that the NCAA will turn away because of the publicity and success not to mention the money USC generates. Ask Free Shoes University and the now 2nd place head coach ever.
Because the NCAA is perfect.
"If this were Tennessee-Chattanooga we were talking about, it wouldn't get much ink."
And I contend that if this were the UTC program, they would have already forfeited games and been placed on probation. But I do agree that it wouldn't get much ink, because not many people would care.
It took the NCAA more than 6 years to hand sanctions out to Michigan, people. This shit takes time. CALM.
It looks like this is out of the NCAA's hands. The feds are all over it.
If there's an indictment related to the federal investigation, the NCAA won't be able to turn a blind eye to USC anymore.
That IS a good read. I hope everyone takes a look.
But just because i might be a little envious doesn't mean that I am wrongfully righteously indignant.
While UM had an association with Martin, there was no official connection with Martin. So Michigan should not have been held liable for Martin's actions. Moreover, no Michigan employee was found to be directly involved in (or knowledgeable of for that matter) unethical or NCAA banned behavior. So Michigan was unfairly screwed. In fact, the people who were penalized (later players, coaches and UM staff) had NOTHING to do with the affair. So the wrong people were unfairly screwed. The entire manner in which the NCAA handled the matter was unethical. In a fairer world, the NCAA would be investigated and penalized - not UM.
One could even question the broader issue of whether the NCAA has any right legally or ethically to ban gifts between private individuals - especially when it uses its arguably illegal monopoly to exploit athletes. If gifts between private individuals were inherently unethical or criminal, wouldn't said players have been penalized directly? They weren't. Webber was penalized for perjury but not for taking money. But thats another matter.
As for USC, the basketball situation appears to rise above that of UM basketball (due to direct involvement of a USC employee) and the football situation appears equivalent to that of UM basketball. If the evidence is conclusive, USC football should forfeit all games and titles while Bush played and USC basketball should do likewise for Mayo. If this is not the outcome, the NCAA has lost what little integrity that it has left.
Fischer confiscated airline tickets he had bought for Bullock. No Michgian official was knowledgable?
So Fisher did the right thing and he and UM should be punished? Huh? Admittedly it was poor judgement to allow Martin access to the program after this little episode - but it wasn't an infraction. I suspect Fisher gave Martin a lecture on NCAA rules and thought it was sufficient.
No matter what the facts, I think people fall into two camps on the whole issue. Those who support a dictatorial NCAA arbitrarily ruling with an iron fist and those who support the rights of athletes to pursue athletics at the college level as freely as possible. This would include the right not to be punished for the supposed infractions of others. If fairness to the student/athlete isn't the primary consideration, I think we need to rethink the whole business of college athletics.
you clearly don't understand the timeline. Fischer caught Martin giving Airline tickets to Bullock, and didnt' stop him from having access to players. That's a problem, no matter how you want to excuse it.
In my post, I acknowledge that Fisher used bad judgement (given his understanding of NCAA rules) in allowing Martin further access to players after this episode. My larger point, ignored so far by yourself and others, is that Michigan was not punished for this lapse of judgement by Fisher but for the other "gifts" from Martin to UM players. To my knowledge, Fisher and other UM officials were not found to have broken any rules. If the University wished to fire Fisher for his poor judgement, that is its perogative. As for the NCAA leveling sanctions against UM for this episode, it is clearly debatable whether this is ethical or appropriate - especially since they were directed at innocent players and coaches. Its also debatable whether the NCAA or UM have any business trying to police the private noncriminal behavior of athletes. Its also highly questionable whether such policing is possible. If Fisher had banned Martin from access to the program and players, it seems extremely likely that money and gifts would still have changed hands.
In fact, I suspect this type of behavior is probably rampant among college athletics. It is naive to believe otherwise. The only way to stop it would be to institute 24 hour surveillance of athletes and monitoring of all communication. This would be the only way to effectively exercise "institutional control" (a favorite NCAA phrase) over the issue. Of course that would be unethical and possibly unconstitutional. So the NCAA's attempts to police this behavior are unethical and a sham. And the only reason the NCAA isn't challenged on this issue or other issues is its powerful monopolistic control over college athletics.
So you're arguing that the NCAA should not, at all, police the amount of money given to players, right? I just want to be clear.
I am arguing that the NCAA should not be trying to police money given to players by private individuals. Ideally, athletes would not accept such unearned largesse but we don't live in an ideal world. The NCAA, abusing its monopolistic position and power, tramples on athletes' rights in its attempt to enforce the unenforceable. It abuses its power in a number of ways, placing its business interests above the interests of student/athletes.
Why don't colleges bar non athlete students from receiving gifts? Why isn't anybody concerned about colleges bribing academic stars? Perhaps because it doesn't impact a business interest? Perhaps because it would be too overreaching and reveal the lunacy of their policies regarding athletes? Maybe its because they can't - non athletes are not governed by a monopolistic NCAA. The NCAA uses its monopolistic power to trample on athletes' rights routinely and is allowed to do so since courts have unfairly approved of its monopoly status.
Consider the case of Jamal Crawford. What an insane circus!! The NCAA, attempting to penalize Crawford for financial support he received as a minor in high school, couldn't figure out how far its dictatorial powers reached. It kept him in limbo for much of a season, alternately allowing him to play and then barring him from playing. The NCAA abused its power to push around a kid just because he was born into unfortunate circumstances. In a fairer world, Crawford would have been able to sue the NCAA and receive a hefty advance on his NBA salary. He didn't because he knew the courts had already unfairly weighed in on the side of the NCAA's monopoly.
The NCAA abuses its power in a number of other ways - treating athletes unfairly in order to protect its business interests. It sanctions innocent players while letting "guilty" coaches jump from sanctioned programs. It penalizes players for switching colleges while letting coaches jump ship at any time without penalty. It allows coaches to rake in millions while barring athletes from pursuing compensation in a competitive market (or even accepting gifts). I could go on and on.
OK, so your argument isn't that Michigan didn't break the rules, but that the rule that was broken in this case is BS, and it makes the wrong people pay the price (the ensuing players, not the ones who are guilty). I disagree with the first point (that the rule is unjust), but largely agree with the second (the wrong kids "paid the price".