Listening to Colin Cowherd and he just compared the Reggie Bush situation to Charles Woodson saying that Charles Woodson took money and they didn't take his Heisman trophy away. Cowherd said they didn't take Woodson's Heisman away because UofM wasn't going through what USC is going through now. Saying Woodson took money while playing at Michigan like it's common knowledge..... am I missing something?
Woodson ALLEGEDLY took $$ while playing at U of M?
Are you sure he didn't say, "If Woodson had, they wouldn't have..."?
that Woodson took money and Cowherd said the reason Woodson's Heisman wasn't taken away was because Michigan wasn't going through what USC is going through now.
That, to me, seems that Cowherd is saying "Yes, Woodson took money but it's different from Bush because...." That seems very irresponsible for a national sports personality to do without some knowledge of it.
It would be incredibly irresponsible of him if he didn't know for a fact that there would be zero repercussions from anyone.
I had never heard anything about this Woodson situation before today but, honestly, I would not be surprised. I know of multiple players who are currently in college that are with an agency. One guy will definitely be drafted next year, one other will be drafted either next year or the year after and the other will be drafted in the next 3 years. This is nothing new and nothing surprising. Many guys have been talking to agents for years, if they have potential.
Talking with an agent or making verbal comments about signing with them eventually are far different than signing any paperwork or receiving any sort of benefits before doing so.
I've only heard about it here on the board but Purplestuff (I think that's the right handle) has plenty of links to articles regarding it.
He was always taking money...from future NFL picks by making them look bad and lowering their draft stock.
Yes, he did. Dr Saturday mentioned it once...I can't find the article.
The details are unclear from the standpoint of a paper trail and testimony, but it is likely something happened. Here is a quote from a Yahoo! article:
The only comparable situation is 1997 winner Charles Woodson, who in 2001 was alleged to have taken almost $14,000 in improper benefits from an agent during his Heisman campaign. Woodson denied taking benefits, and the University of Michigan and NCAA were never able to substantiate claims of impropriety.
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit. Cowherd is a douche.
... Charles Woodson, who in 2001 was alleged to have taken almost $14,000 in improper benefits from an agent ...
... the University of Michigan and NCAA were never able to substantiate claims of impropriety.
Sadly, I don't have any evidence to back up my claims.
If you run a google search for it all that comes up are USC forums with people comparing the Bush situation to Woodson. I havent seen anything concrete to back up these claims.
Is it Purplestuff? lol
You should know from my constant presence and over-abundance of MGoPoints that I don't have time to frequent any other forums.
Aside from checking my email and trying to download the latest Holly Rowe videos, this site is my only home on the internet.
...that I was completely kidding. ;-)
It just seemed...familiar...heh.
I can't listen to that blowhard anymore. I'm amazed that he was given a TV show.
That said, the reggie Bush thing is not like woodson... The NCAA investigated USC because of bush. Bush was not implicated in "everything else that's going on there" he was the MAJOR thing going on there
Cowherd is a huge USC homer, and I wouldnt believe anything he has to say. Hasnt he ripped Michigan enough in the past.
He's on the record as saying "Michigan is done" and I'm sure after ND last year he said "Michigan is BACK!"
He just sucks. I heard him with all this LeBron BS, he'd make the case for another city every other day. He's a big NY/LA guy, and went on and on about how LeBron better go to New York... etc. I really just don't understand how people listen to him. Of course, "Mall Cop" was the #1 movie in america for a while... can't explain that either
Last summer Cowherd was talking about how RR was going to be successful here, saying "once Michigan gets the athletes they're used to for his system, they will be unstoppable" or something of the sort. That was actually good to hear from him for once.
What complete garbage.
Here's some more just general discussion of it from back in 2008
A 2001 Free Press article covered the improprieties, which came out in the Marion Darnell Jones / SC Talent Agency hearings:
Since then, quite a few people have paid dearly for Woodson's relationship with Summit and its associates. A big chunk of Woodson's pro earnings were misused, federal investigators say. Jones, Summit partner James E. Brown, a real estate agent and a credit union president have all been indicted in what appears to be an elaborate fraud scheme.
And, because Woodson apparently violated NCAA rules before and during his Heisman-winning season, Michigan has seen its most celebrated season tarnished in the eyes of some fans.
actually say what Woodson allegedly did wrong. What rules did he violate? Where is the evidence?
As we all know, the Freep isn't very reliable, and this basically says nothing.
Look who got the byline
Rosenberg LOVED Carr. He wasn't trying to take the program down in 2001.
This is just another in a long long list of things Lloyd refuses to talk about. Very titilating, don't think I will sleep tonight
From a related article by Drew Sharp in 2001:
Carr said a U-M investigation could not substantiate the allegations that Woodson received improper benefits from an …
So maybe the Tinfoil hat brigade was right regarding the FreeP bias...
Did you expect Carr to say, "Yeah, we are guilty as shit!"?
Note that he doesn't deny anything but just says, "Nobody wants to talk about that." If any other coach in the country did that (four years after the fact, mind you) would we have the same trusting reaction?
What could possibly have been done by a U-M investigation? I'm sure they didn't have access to Jones' financial records or receipts. They likely had zero access to or interaction with Jones at all. My guess is any investigation consisted of asking Charles Woodson if he took money, him saying no (Why would he want to give back his Heisman or tarnish his national title season?), then everybody looking around to make sure no one was really watching and concluding that this would suffice. I'm sure OSU conducted a similar "investigation" into Maurice Clarett's activities and turned up no evidence of wrongdoing as well.
The fact is, this case got extremely limited scrutiny years after Woodson had already left campus and it was easily swept under the rug because nobody really cared enough to look into it at that point (save guys like Sharp scrounging for a story) and because the NCAA lacked the enforcement power or the whistle blower to adequately investigate on their own. Carr's comments sound a hell of a lot like Pete Carroll's when the Bush story broke, but Carr didn't have to deal with an ongoing Yahoo Sports investigation or have the guy who paid his player testifying to the NCAA.
It takes a huge leap of faith to believe that nothing happened here, but plenty of people seem happy to do it when U-M players/coaches are implicated while quickly condemning anyone who plays/coaches elsewhere.
If any other coach in the country did that (four years after the fact, mind you) would we have the same trusting reaction?
Nope but there's a lot of classy things about Carr that most other coaches don't share. I trust the guy. I can't imagine him looking the other way in light of how focused he was on building character in his players.
Freep had a negative article about a Michigan Player and/or Program. Never saw that coming. /sarcasm
need to take money when he IS money?
it was investigated, nothing ever came of it. OTOH, even early on in the Bush investigation, there were clear improprieties. Very different from the Woodson case. Did Charles take money/benefits? Maybe, but nothing was ever proven and the NCAA seemed satisfied with the result. Perhaps the links were just far too tenuous to make a case, unlike with Bush.
The bigger difference between Bush and Woodson's cases is that in Bush's the FBI got involved, forcing him to testify. (This is also what finally got us in trouble for Ed Martin.) The NCAA doesn't have that kind of clout, so the large majority of the time it can't prove its allegations.
The difference is that Bush didn't sign with the guys advancing him money and then refused to pay them back. They responded by going to the press and testifying in front of the NCAA. None of the evidence against USC is based on anything Bush did/said to them.
Woodson signed on with Jones and as a result Jones had no reason or incentive to run to the NCAA and spill the beans.
How dare they. Do you not think the NCAA would have found something if this were to have happened during the basketball investigation?
Bush took cash, Woodson saves lives.
OLUMBIA, S.C. _ Heisman Trophy winner Charles Woodson testified Thursday that he did not take money or anything else of value from a Columbia sports agent during his college career at the University of Michigan. Woodson, testifying in the trial of Columbia banker Andre Lewis, said he _ not Summit Management Group Ltd. _ paid for a trip to Myrtle Beach in the spring of 1997, before his Heisman-winning season. He also denied accepting a fur coat for his mother while still in college, saying, "I don't know when that was bought."
A receipt obtained by The State newspaper lists a $5,215 purchase from Henig Furs in Montgomery, Ala., on Dec. 11, 1997 _ two days before the Heisman awards ceremony and three weeks before the 1998 Rose Bowl, Woodson's final college game. The receipt,
Investigators found a receipt for a fur coat. The receipt is dated December 11, but does not indicate if or when that coat was given to Woodson's mother.
This was a trial, with testimony by many people under oath. Not one person testified either to the fact that Woodson did not pay for the trip to Myrle Beach or if or when Summit gave the coat to his mother. Very different than USC / Bush & Mayo.
They were vastly different trials. Jones was on trial for ripping off his clients once they got to the NFL while Bush was sued by the agents for not paying back the money they gave him while he was at SC. The lawyers in the Jones case tap-danced around the issue of college eligibility and only focused on the facts relevant to their case (one of the articles posted says a lawyer told Stephen Davis they wouldn't get into eligibility issues and he says basically, "I don't care, I'm not in college any more.")
No one ever showed that Michigan, as program, should have known that Woodson took anything (not that I know if he even did)...This doesn't have anything to do with the Heisman issue, but it speaks to comparing USC to Michigan.
Uh, nobody is "taking" Bush's Heisman away. USC is giving it back voluntarily. Also, yes, it's fairly common knowledge that Woodson took agent cash before the Rose Bowl. I don't want to play degrees of "we're not quite as bad," but that game came after Woodson won the Heisman, so he wouldn't have been ineligible in any of the relevant games.
Bc the alleged gifts came before the final game UM faced the possibility of vacating said game
...which happened after he won the Heisman.
According to federal records made public during the 2001 trial of Andre Lewis, (who was being tried for fraud and had a relationship with Summit Management, Woodson's agents) the firm's records showed that it had paid for a trip made by Woodson in May 1997 to South Carolina, and for a tuxedo two weeks before the Heisman Trophy was awarded, (and a month before the 1998 Rose Bowl).
Unless there are facts by either Woodson, the NCAA, a court of law, or the University, it is nothing more than rumors that have creeped into the 'common knowledge' because they have been discussed to death on USC and UT message boards over the past decade.
I guess this begs the question of what is fairly common knowledge and how much of it are we willing to believe.
Lastly, if Woodson or any other player for that matter were to have taken money between the final game and the bowl, are they retroactively ineligible for the entire season, or just the bowl game?
Marcus Ray was also suspended for a couple games to start 1998 for agent contact, iirc.
Agents. Tricky business. Luckily, Woodson was cooperative and the NCAA couldnt prove anything.
Actually, Ray played in the first two games of the '98 season before the NCAA ruled him ineligible and slapped a six-game suspension on him. We probably would have had to vacate those two games if we hadn't lost both.
I found the Freep article from 2001 also, (and, yes, Geaux Blue - unbef--kinglievable who wrote it). It referred to the indictment of Marion Darnell Jones. That led to another search I made of the interwebs.
The facts of the case are murky, at best. Records obtained during the fraud investigation showed that Summit paid for a trip Woodson made to Myrtle Beach and for a tuxedo. Woodson testified, under oath, in a federal fraud trial related to Summit Management, (Jones' firm) that he did not take any cash, trips or other gifts while he was a student-athlete at Michigan. Bruce Madej, the U-M AD spokesman, said that the department could not substantiate any of the claims and had not been contacted by the NCAA.
This rumor has been circulating for years. There was an allegation that during his final year, woodson received somewhere around $10,000-$15,000 FROM AN AGENT! The salient points to remember:
1. The NCAA investigated, and could not come up with any substantiation to this RUMOR;
2. There was NO allegation of any improper conduct on behalf of the University - in USC's case, the most damning allegation was that the university either knew or intentionally turned a blind eye to Bush's compensation;
3. The allegedly improper benefit received by Charlie Heisman was conveyed by an agent. In USC's case, it was a booster, and it was not limited to Bush (bball team involved, as well).
The bottom line is that with Bush, the NCAA found actual evidence - in Woodson's case, there was none. I, for one, find it to be troubling that Woodson's Heisman season would be tarnished by unsupported rumors such as this.
There is simply no basis to compare the Woodson NON-situation to the situation at USC.
bush got money from an agent, not a booster (mayo is a different story), and in fact, there's no smoking gun that proves that either
You do remember that our b-ball team was completely on the take at the time Woodson would have gotten these benefits, right? Ed Martin's decade plus of blatant cheating ( http://www.michigandaily.com/content/ed-martin-revealed-his-long-and-inf... ) and one football player taking money from an agent is a lot worse in my book than Bush/Mayo.
Also, the evidence connecting SC to Lake (who denies he ever met or spoke with Pete Carroll) is three one minute phone calls McNair made to a phone number Bush gave him when he was trying to locate Bush (which happened to be Lake's cell phone) and a picture with Lake/Michaels standing behind McNair and an actor.
I'm pretty sure you could find the same kind of evidence/connection in Woodson's case since Jones was at the Heisman ceremony and could very easily have been in a picture with Lloyd Carr. Or Carr could have called a number trying to find out where everyone was having dinner only to find out later that it was Jones' cell phone number.
Ryan Ermani was talking a little about this on WDFN earlier - he said something like "Woodson has admitted to taking money."
I don't know where he got that information, I was worried when I saw this thread that it was true...
Ryan Ermani is an overreactionary douche and gives all Michigan fans a bad name. Sports Radio hosts (or any talk radio for that matter) don't have the same standards of proof as journalists. I'm sure he has heard of the rumors and believes them as fact.
Again, Ermani = douche.
to taking more than a million dollars from Charles Woodson, over a period of several months in 2009-2010.
ESPN.com says it cannot substanitate any of the details, and has declined to investigate.
extremely subtle deflection.
So what if Woodson got 10 grand. Bush's mom got a freaking house.
That's great logic there.
I've posted articles about this before illustrating that basically USC was in the exact same position U-M was with Woodson, the only difference was a more interested press and a bitter wannabe agent with an axe to grind. The reason it can be dismissed by our fans (the exact same reaction that is laughed at when it comes from USC fans) is because Marion Darnell Jones didn't become the star witness in an NCAA investigation like Lloyd Lake did.
We know Woodson flew to South Carolina (where Jones' offices were located) before his junior season. We know Jones was at the Heisman trophy ceremony (In the same room as Lloyd Carr, omg!). We also know Jones paid his other clients who were less concerned about their college reputations/eligibility (like Stephen Davis). We also know that Woodson made some odd immediate payments to Jones long before the NFL draft.
I certainly don't think the coaches could've/should've known, but I also think it is something we should be mindful of when so many on here bash other programs for things that easily could have gotten us the same punishment with almost zero wrong doing on the part of the football program.
The payment is something that Woodson testified about. He set up a line of credit and used it to pay Jones a six figure sum (a fact that seems odd to me considering he had yet to sign a pro contract) within a month of leaving Michigan.
There has been debate about who paid for Woodson's trip to South Carolina, but I've never seen anyone claim that he never went. Newspapers reported after the fact that Jones was at the Heisman ceremony and I've never seen it contradicted, but of course many will conveniently refuse to believe it if Drew Sharp's name is on the byline.
Don't forget that the trial and what Woodson was testifying about had to do with Jones ripping off his clients once they reached the NFL. Issues of early payments and college eligibility were not addressed so most of this didn't come up at trial. Without a forthcoming witness (as Lake was in the USC case) or another investigative body doing their dirty work, the NCAA was powerless to really pursue this any further than they did.
To me there is enough smoke to convince me that something was cooking between Jones and Woodson. To me it shows how vulnerable a school can be and how common this sort of thing is. I don't view it as an indictment of U-M or Woodson, but I also think it should alter our perception of another program getting hammered for essentially the same thing.
Tons of athletes with high pro stock can get loans, from banks, or agents, or whoever, with the knowledge that they are about to hit the jackpot. That's where all that draft day bling and Jalen Rose suits come from. Obviously the issue is whether that comes before or after they leave the program.
But really, every time someone bags on USC, you seem to feel the need to drag Michigan through the mud through possible happenings. The NCAA isn't the arbitrator of right and wrong; but you have court cases, other investigations, and so on, that came up with nothing substantive. In USC case, you have just the opposite. To continue to bring up "But we did it tooooooo!!! Kinda...maybe..." strikes me as lame a deflection as all those who said about our allegations "well, everyone is doing it....!!". But then, they weren't caught doing it, and the fact they are doesn't make it right.
I think you'd be better off following Brandon...and seemingly, USC's new management....and taking the lumps, and letting it go.
First to your point, the line of credit isn't weird, but using it to pay your agent (who at that point hadn't really done anything to deserve payment) doesn't make sense to me. The agent is only entitled to a cut of the money that comes in and the lawyers in the case between the two parties thought it was weird enough to ask Woodson about it as if Jones was ripping him off here, but Woodson said he had no problem with the payment.
As for the other issues, somebody else posted this thread about Woodson's case (based on something said on national TV that I doubt you'll see Woodson or anyone else coming out to deny), and I just happen to think anyone who isn't a completely biased Michigan fan would conclude from the facts that Woodson almost certainly took money from an agent. I don't think it should lessen USC's guilt or punishment (though I do think there are mitigating factors there that are often ignored) nor do I think Michigan is in need of additional NCAA wrath. My goal is not to tear down Michigan, but to put the entire college football landscape into perspective when people praise the saintly Lloyd Carr while calling Pete Carroll a cheating scumbag (when both are pretty fantastic people and damn good football coaches who occasionally make mistakes).
My issue is more with the perception that most here have that one program is squeaky clean while the other is filthier than Kim Kardashian. Both do things the right way the overwhelming majority of the time and both slip up from time to time. Since I am not nearly as classy as Pat Haden or Dave Brandon (as you well know) I tend to vent when the opportunity presents itself.
The payment confusion, not where the money comes from, makes more sense. I get it now.
An interesting side note....take it for whatever it means...but Lloyd and Carroll got along. For a team that smacked us around a couple of time, there wasn't the animosity there was with some coaches. And Lloyd was not the Chauncey Billups of the NCAA (i.e., friends with everybody). FWIW.
And I think part of the problem is image, not action. USC promoted a "hey, it's just a big party, anybody can come in" appearance; where as Lloyd gave the image of "do anything he could to stop it". Carroll hurt himself by jumping ship just before the NCAA hit port. And it wasn't like it was his first job offer; or his best. Just a badly (or well, depending on why you think he did it...) timed departure.
But, since you bring it up...I don't think it's all that bad to be like...
(And yes, there were far worse I could have posted...)
I think as long as Ray J isn't in the photo/video freezeframe, the family atmosphere here on this site will be preserved.
It is pathetic that half-truths, innuendo and otherwise unsubtantiated material are used to drag a good man - a Michigan man, a man who has stood for what "leaders and best" truly means - through the muck.
Colin Cowherd is a poor man's Jim Rome so you can imagine where his credibility sits with me. The Woodson allegations have been repeated for years and nothing, I repeat, nothing was ever validated to this point by the NCAA.
Nothing was ever proved by the NCAA there either. It is an agency with extremely limited investigative and enforcement powers. If Jones had talked (as Lake did regarding USC) we would have been in just as much trouble as SC (don't forget this occurred at the same time Martin was still paying basketball players, a case of blatant, rampant cheating).
But nobody has a problem with bad mouthing Clarett because he played for a rival school and doesn't donate to our favorite charities.
Based on this type of logic then innuendo and half-truth warrant defaming a man? That's ridiculous. You paint a picture based on circumstantial evidence noting that if an agent had flipped there would have potentially been some consequences for M and Woodson. Again, based on circumstantial evidence never warranting investigation by the NCAA. If it's not investigated and an outcome proven it's not a violation.
You should be careful to compare a good man like Charles Woodson with a felon like Clarett. As for Clarett, I think the sad part of his case is not the extra benefits he received but the complete lack of institutional control at tUofOSU regarding his actions. Tressel was never a leader or mentor to that vulnerable young man; I guess that's Boren like "family values" in action.
You seem to view NCAA punishment as the arbiter of truth, in which case you will not be satisfied. I think we all know UCLA basketball players were on the take for decades, but by NCAA enforcement standards nothing happened.
The organization has basically zero investigative or enforcement power and can only process cases that fall right into their lap (SEE U-M stretching bullshit or USC investigation where Lloyd Lake was the lone/star witness). No one is comparing Clarett with Woodson, but I am comparing our standard of proof in the two cases. You announce that Tressel oversaw a program with a complete lack of institutional control, yet provide zero evidence to back it up. Yet when people note Jones' presence at the Heisman ceremony, the fact that Woodson signed with him the day after the Rose Bowl (Why didn't he need to shop for an agent and compare options?), the flight to South Carolina, the receipt for a fur coat worn by Woodson's mother found in Jones' office, etc., you act like it isn't reasonable to assume Woodson was at best ineligible for having illegal contact with an agent (SEE story on here yesterday about players attending an agent party in Miami). And this is just the evidence gathered at a glance without any real investigation of the situation.
In matters of NCAA athletics their compliance if the investigation didn't cause for a needed resolution such as sanctions or penalties then the concern is a non-issue. Maybe players at UCLA were on the take but since nobody testified or was investigated they get to keep their banners etc. Welcome to Barry Switzer's Oklahoma.
Tressel's limitation in institutional control related to the following:
- between 2001 and 2005 20 OSU players were arrested or faced disciplinary action
- charges included alcohol related issues but also robbery, drug and gun possession, marijuana trafficking and using fake money in a strip bar (my personal favorite)
- Troy Smith allegedly broke a woman's jaw in a fight in a parking lot and was suspended for two games after accepting $500 from a booster
- Clarett himself said that he was provided cash and a no show job
I would say this meets "announce" criteria for a lack of institutional control.
At the end of the day, no NCAA investigation means no issue whether or not it leads to "the truth" and what interesting philosophical criteria that describes. Is it reasonable to assume Woodson possibly might have been in the position you describe? Sure, it's plausible but so are lots of things. No investigation, no outcomes. Toothless or not, it's the way that Ohio State has been getting by for years...
As much as it pains us to acknowledge it, there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Woodson had contact with agents before and during the 1997 season, and most likely accepted gifts that would have compromised his eligilbility. It's also extremely likely that this has happened to other players here over the years. People like to cling to the fantasy of these guys being "true amateurs," playing for nothing but a scholarship. In the real world, players are most likely getting illicit benefits just about everywhere and the NCAA is largely powerless to stop it. In any event, the statute of limitations has expired, so we're in the clear. But we shouldn't get on our high horses when other schools get nailed, and if anyone out there wants to vilify RichRod for the "major" practice violation, well what does this say about Lloyd?
I don't think that is what he is saying either, though, to be fair. To me it just shows how easily this can happen and when it occurs in such a small sample size (one guy) it is hard to view it as an indictment of the coach, whether that coach is someone we like/respect (Carr) or the coach of a successful rival (Carroll). I don't expect Carr to have to scan passenger lists to see where Charles Woodson may have flown over the summer or to interview everyone at his table at the Heisman ceremony or demand proof that the coat his mother was wearing was purchased legitimately. At the same time, I don't think Carroll is a big cheater because he didn't think to investigate the title history of Reggie Bush's '96 Chevy Impala (the "sweet ride" Lake and Michaels provided him with) or collect the canceled rent checks for his parents' house in San Diego.
To me it shows the new "special compliance for special players" standard the NCAA retroactively imposed on USC is complete bullshit.
Boy, that escalated quickly... I mean, that really got out of hand fast.
Simmons would be great at just about anything, but he has been the first to say that he does NOT belong on live TV. He's too quick with awesome (but wildly inappropriate) jokes
Is it because he's too quick with "awesome" jokes, because he became a parody of himself 5-7 years ago, or because his voice sounds like a whiny 8-year-old's?
His article on Tiger established beyond any doubt he has no ability to write about anything outside his specific area of knowledge - basketball and Boston sports. It was staggeringly bad.
Maurice is bad mouthed because he had further troubles. Didn't they find something ridiculious in his car? (I did a quick search and came up with this,I knew he got in some major shit but this was a while ago) http://coedmagazine.com/2009/08/24/the-12-dumbest-convicted-athletes/
"His first offense came on New Year’s Day of 2006 when Clarett robbed a couple at gun point, only to come away with a cell phone.
His problems didn’t end there, as just seven months later, Clarett was found to have an automatic rifle, two handguns, and an open bottle of vodka in his car. This all happened after police went to pull Clarett over for an illegal U-turn."
That's why we make fun of Clarett.
Not to mention that Clarett totally had it all, and completely did himself in - tragic implosion.
Meanwhile Woodson may have been swindled by his agents, but he continues to be successful and give back to the community. He may not be a saint, but he is a hell of a lot more saintly than Maurice Clarett.
Don't forget the lint roller!
That's why we make fun of Clarett.
The whole world is disinformation, don't believe none of it, ya hear. You call that a guvment, why I'd leave the blame country if I was Woodson ya hear.