OT: Per ESPN USC has received complaint

Submitted by Geaux_Blue on June 2nd, 2010 at 4:04 PM

48 hours before Friday's teleconference, the school receives the complaint and has the full findings in order to present a statement. As such, USC knows its fate.

What's more, it is highly unlikely Bush will be forced to forfeit his Heisman.

 

USC already admitted wrongdoing with the basketball program and sanctioned itself, including a ban on postseason participation, a reduction of scholarships and vacating all of its wins from 2007-08.

But though USC chose to contest the allegation against the football program, its ultimate goal is to overcome the perception of a lack of institutional control, which could result in significant sanctions, including scholarship reductions, TV and postseason bans, recruiting restrictions and probation.

If USC is found guilty of major violations, the NCAA also could rule that the Trojans are "repeat violators." Per NCAA rules, "An institution shall be considered a 'repeat' violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty."

Per College Football Live and ESPN.com

Comments

Mitch Cumstein

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^

There has probably been a lot of discussion on this, but the Heisman isn't awarded by the NCAA.  So I wouldn't think this would have anything to do with the Heisman, unless the DAC decides to take action based on NCAA recommendation. 

Geaux_Blue

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

is the award likely has the requirements the player is determined eligible by the NCAA. if the NCAA determines he wasn't, that would prove to be a failed requirement. etc and so on.

hell, OJ still has his Heisman, doesn't he? i think they said during the bit that no one has been stripped in the award's history

MGoShoe

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

...I saw this morning that Brian Griese has made his debut.  Except for a few too many umms, he did a passable job for his first time on camera. 

Congrats to him for this gig.  Clearly he'll have to weigh in on Michigan from time to time and unlike many ex-players and coaches, I expect he won't always wear maize and blue colored glasses.  We should be prepared. 

PhillipFulmersPants

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^

Just saw that myself in the office break room doing a segment on B12 meetings, possible teams leaving, etc. I agree. From the small 4 minute bit I saw he looked pretty comfortable and polished on camera.  If nothing else, he'll challenge Jesse Palmer for fattest tie knot title.

Njia

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^

Set the Gold Standard for not being a homer when he called Purdue or U-M games (particularly when his son was playing). The biggest foul of which he could be accused was referring to Michigan's QB as "Brian" instead of "Griese" from time to time.

And he did have that one slip up when he started shedding some tears at the '98 Rose Bowl after Brian's come from behind victory and MVP award. But, I think we can all safely forgive him for that. I know I did.

The FannMan

June 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

The '98 Rose Bowl was a special moment.  IIRC - Griese did the entire game in a even manner.  After it was over, Jackson announced the winner of the MVP by saying he was sitting next to his "proud papa."  Thus, it was Jackson who, in a class move, allowed Bob Griese to acknowledge that his son had just won the MVP of the Rose Bowl.  To his credit, Griese didn't go on about Brian or his family.  He only told Jackson  "You've lost me partner."  Jackson then talked for a bit while Bob pulled himself together. 

I didn't think it was a slip-up.  I thought it was a legend and a very good broadcaster handling the situation very professionally.  Man, I miss Keith Jackson.

Njia

June 2nd, 2010 at 5:34 PM ^

It wasn't a "slip up" IMO. However, it may have been seen as one by some of his colleagues. That's all I'm sayin'.

EDIT: The basis for my argument: Some journalists go "ape shit" when one of their own "becomes the story." To whit: In the early days of the Iraq War, CNN sent its Chief Medical Correspondant, (and U-M alum) Dr. Sanjay Gupta to report on the medical and health-related stories. He was embedded with the troops during much of the campaign. Sanjay just happens to be an assistant professor of the Neurosurgery at Emory University Hospital and associate chief of neurosurgery at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. During his deployment to Iraq as a reporter for CNN, a young girl was brought to a field hospital with a massive shrapnel wound to the head. None of the U.S. military doctors were qualified to treat her wound. Dr. Gupta was it - no surgery, and there was no chance she would live. So, he did what any, reasonable human being would do: he donned his surgical gown and got to work. In the end, she died anyway. After the story broke of him attempting to save the girl's life, he was chastised in the media for "becoming the story." Sanjay is too nice a guy, (I knew him years ago when we were both students at U-M) but my response to my erstwhile journalism colleagues would have been, "Fuck off".

DY

June 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^

Bob Griese referred to Brian as "Griese" during games.  I don't know if it was fans or Bob who acknowledged how awkward it was for him to be doing that and ABC decided it was ok for Bob to refer to his son by his first name.

In relation to that, in the 1998 season media guide, in the 97 season recap section, there is a breakdown of the team's record under various circumstances - home/away, turf/grass, etc.  - My personal favorite: Jackson/Griese crew 7-0, IIRC.

CalGoBlue

June 2nd, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^

Not to get too far off tangent, but Griese's run for first down on 3rd and 6 or 7ish late in the 4th Quarter of the '98 Rose Bowl is unforgetable.  One of the great plays in M sports since I started watching in the '70s.

BlockM

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

I have two predictions:

1. The NCAA will use this case as one where they try to show that they actually have some authority and aren't afraid to use it. (Unlike the probable situation here at Michigan.)

2. Any punishment they get won't be as much as most people want.

Geaux_Blue

June 2nd, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^

that the NCAA won't try to throw their weight around with UM bc there was no inherent bad-faith action but, instead, a lack of understanding (or desire to get clarification) of minor rules.

Erik_in_Dayton

June 2nd, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

USC football is going to get hammered.  The NCAA has been investigating them for years.  Their infractions hearing was unusually long, and an extraordinarily large amount of information was gathered by the investigators.  This is circumstantial evidence, but I think it points to them getting hit very hard.  I think that failing to sanction themselves and hiring Mr. Recruiting Violation, Lane Kiffin, won't help their cause. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/sports/ncaafootball/21usc.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/sports/ncaafootball/22usc.html

AMazinBlue

June 2nd, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^

be hammering their West Coast meal ticket?  There isn't really another high profile drawing card on the left coast for football.  I hope the perception is false, but they seem to "protect" certain schools that carry a lot of weight in college football.

There certainly are a lot of schools getting in trouble lately with UConn and Kansas adding to the mix, two very high profile bb schools.

Anonymosity

June 2nd, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^

SPOILER ALERT:

After years of deliberating, the NCAA decided the 2005 USC team was, in fact, the greatest of all time, after all (ESPN had it right!).  The NCAA has pressured the BCS into retroactively naming USC the 2005 National Champion, and that announcement is coming Friday.

Rasmus

June 2nd, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^

[1] I keep thinking of the section about the Ed Martin scandal in Michigan's recent response to the NCAA allegations. It basically said nothing happened until 2003 because Martin wouldn't cooperate before that. So the NCAA itself couldn't and didn't do squat until then. The point being that the NCAA has no real power.

[2] Similarly, it seems the case against USC football is dependent on people cooperating. It doesn't seem terribly clear to me that this has happened in any significant way. ESPN or whoever breathlessly reporting that it has doesn't mean much. Bush has the advantage here -- he knows what really happened, and that knowledge puts him in a position to reach out to anyone who could really hurt him by producing evidence. The point being that we don't know that the NCAA can prove anything, really.

Hannibal.

June 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^

I am a pessimist and a grump nowadays and my spidey sense tells me that USC is going to get off with nothing more than symbolic punishment like vacating victories.

Zone Left

June 2nd, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^

ESPN's PAC-10 blogger on the likelihood of severe penalties.  I tend to agree with him in principle, Alabama boosters paying players for their commitments likely would seem worse to the NCAA than agents paying players.  Agents paying players doesn't directly benefit the school's team.  However, if players know the money is out there, there isn't too much difference...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22746/ncaa-wont-give-usc-the-alabama-slammer

PurpleStuff

June 2nd, 2010 at 11:51 PM ^

This guy has a pretty level-headed and well reasoned response.  It would be nice if jealousy over USC's recent successes didn't cloud people's judgment about this case to such an extent.

If Marion Darnell Jones had been given the mouthpiece that Lake and Michaels got from Yahoo! sports, Michigan very easily could have been put in this exact same position regarding Charles Woodson.  Of course, this post will likely get negged, but no one will offer any substantive difference between Woodson taking money from a criminal who wanted to be his agent and Bush doing the exact same thing (allegedly).