You're missing the point.


Obviously Carroll would know TODAY that Lake and Michaels were up to no good when it came to Reggie. But 5 years ago when the only thing that Carroll knew about them was that they were long standing family friends of the Griffins, what exactly is it that he should have prevented? Their access to Reggie? On what basis?

According to this report the NCAA partially reversed its opinion on the University's failure to monitor, which was the basis for taking the wins away. The players, as far as I know, certainly played after they had falsified their time sheets with Big Red.

NCAA committee partially overturns ruling, reinstates 8 Sooners wins - College Football - ESPN

It tells us absolutely nothing with regard to how on the one hand Florida State should abandon wins (and in that case the NCAA smugly refers to the proposition of the "ineligible player" as the cause for the action, as if the matter is cut and dry when in the case of OU on appeal or otherwise, it quite clearly is anything but cut and dry.


Either an ineligible player participated in a certain number of wins, or he didn't. There's no preponderance of the evidence factor, nor is it beyond a shadow of a doubt.


The standard of proof was never in question where this aspect of the matter is concerned.


So what could possibly be the basis for this ruling or for overturning the ruling if you will? And what should we expect with regard to Bush? Was he ineligible in 2005 the way Florida State players were? Or was he only ineligible the way Bomar was?


I know you don't have the answer but this is ludicrous.

I wonder with the rumored threat of a lawsuit if that isn't another reason why the NCAA won't touch the death penalty ever again.

Everyone saw what it did to SMU football.

It was supposedly brought up as an option during one of Alabama's probation hearings.

If I'm a major school, and they hand that down, I'm in court before the fax finishes. Court costs would likely be cheaper than becoming irrelevant in football.

Usc was on probation back when all of this happened. And then the Joe McKnight thing happened.

I would settle for 5 years probation. The USC donors already paid off the guy with the smoking gun and I'm not sure Lame and Special Ed possess the ability to stay clean for 5 years. But then again apparently everyone at USC is angelic and not an ax murderer

The courts would most likely show heavy deference to the NCAA investigatory process making a lawsuit a very difficult proposition for USC.


Remember that USC is a willing NCAA participant which means that they at least tacitly agree to abide by the rules and decisions of the NCAA.


That creates a huge burden for them to overcome. They would almost have to show that the NCAA process is fraudulent and that they deliberately sought to harm USC with their decision.


On the other hand it isn't completely unfounded. Remember that the courts did indulge Al Davis in his fight against Pete Rozelle, the NFL, the city of Oakland and the proposition of eminent domain some years back.


Thinking about it though, a better path for USC might be to sue the predatory agents (messrs Lake, Michaels and Ornstein) FIRST, for damages directly related to their violating California law by tampering with an amateur collegiate athlete.


This would LEGALLY establish the fact that USC was a victim in these circumstances and might well then serve as the air cover that they would need to double back and sue the NCAA for getting the result wrong and damaging their athletic program unfairly.

I doubt USC would take it to court. That would most likely bring testimony of people that wouldn't normally be compelled to speak on the issue.

This from a guy who's head football coach is practically the poster child for cheaters in CFB over the past decade and a half.


It strikes me as nothing short of amazing how Bruins prefer to spend every waking moment telling you what they don't like about USC as opposed to what they do like about their own program.

If the basis for a lawsuit becomes whether or not these thugs approached Bush with an offer of gifts and money, that is in direct violation of California law. It's hard to imagine how USC would be placing themselves in a difficult situation under those circumstances.


Their position would be, "You thugs cost our program millions of dollars by your tampering with one of our players. We're going to make you guys pay through the nose so that the next crook thinks twice about it before he decides to screw around with one of our kids."

I have no love for Neuheisel, but let's be clear here - he bent a lot of rules with regarding to contacting recruits and he participated in a high-stakes NCAA basketball pool, but that's a far cry from paying players or cheating to keep players academically eligible. There's a lot of examples of much worse things that have happened under other coaches as compared to what Neuheisel did.

Just because my coach has a tainted past doesn't exclude me from calling a spade a spade.


We'd like to at least suck at a level playing field, not one stacked towards USC from the start

That's a very naive take. USC doesn't have a sparkling record and I doubt too many donors want any legal investigator snooping around their AD

What do you expect? It's how 99% of the UCLA fans are.

Huh? What probation are you talking about?

I don't recall the specific details, but I am pretty sure USC was on probation in the mid-2000s for the academic tutors scandal from the late 1990s. I think that's what Bug's referring to. Surprised you would question him, considering UCLA fans are so much about USC.

Sincerely, Sam Gilbert

lol... you know you're reaching when you grasp at a 45 year old straw.

I'm not sure why FSU's wins were vacated. But, if the basis was for failure to monitor, there was a big difference. FSU's employees essentially aided the students in cheating on the test, leading to their ineligibility. OU failed to notice that players were getting paid in their (otherwise allowed) summer job. I think there's a difference there. I'm not sure if the NCAA has vacated wins every time there has been an ineligible player or not.

No two situations are ever going to be the same.


It's not unreasonable to expect these buffoons to at least make an effort to bring some form of consistency to their sanctioning process.


Taking a stand on abandoning wins based on ineligible players is the clearest opportunity to be consistent. In fact I find it outrageous that OU had the audacity to appeal the ruling much less have the appeals committee overturn the result.


In fact, what is the basis for OU feeling slighted for having to abandon wins where there is no question that they won those games whilst their QB was obviously an ineligible player on the take? Sorry but I don't see what having a cooperative attitude in the face of breaking the rules, has to do with something as straightforward as winning games with an ineligible athlete.


What does "self reporting" have to do with that, I wonder?


"Oh sorry officer, I know my young son shoplifted that item from the store, but since they caught him and we're willing to cooperate in the matter, couldn't we just put the item back and call it even now?"


Self reporting is the NCAA's way of saying, "We've invented so many useless, unenforceable rules, that our rule book is now twice the size of the Federal Tax Code. So as a consequence we're asking the programs who committed the violations to turn themselves in because we couldn't possibly hope to enforce all of this gorp on our own. When we have to actually enforce something, it takes us about 50 years to get our act together".


So the rule breakers turn themselves in when it's obvious they're going to be caught anyway thus avoiding serious consequence. What a great system. I think we should try it in our justice system.

There was the 2002-2003 period where they lost 2 1/2 scholarships, that's all I can think of.

What does Sam Gilbert have to do with anything?

They were also placed on probation. See? What woul dyou do without the Bruins?

When 99% of USC fans break the law, what can you expect from us?

Why do you hate so much?

I was mocking your use of the 99%

UCLA fans need to be like me. Cheer on USC when they aren't playing UCLA, because USC makes UCLA better and it's beneficial to have a strong opponents.

Nothing wrong with that if it's a level playing field. When one side is cheating, though (and then their arrogant fans more often than not throw that ill-gotten success in your face), not so much.

But the point is USC wasn't cheating... Players accepting money and etc. from people not associated with the team that are "agents" isn't cheating. I know you aren't going to agree with me here, but that's how I look at this. USC appears to have screwed up by allowing people more access to the players than they should have had, but that isn't cheating.

No, what's out there at this point is inconclusive. What really went on is under the table and no one knows. What is known is that there were people out there handing out benefits to players, or benefits that are certainly questionable of whether the players should be receiving them. Whether the program itself is pushing that, allowing that, offering that, turning a blind eye, whatever, the players--and the recruits--know. And recruiting was the lifeblood of Carroll's success.

Carroll fostered this environment and benefited from it. It's entirely arguable that a good deal of his recruiting success had at its core this environment, where benefits might be possible to those who come to USC (whether they received them or not).

Although I don't put this on Carroll, but on Garrett. Carroll was just a vessel--Garrett found someone to run the program who wouldn't raise a big stink if stuff was going on around his program. And in the end, it might not even be on Garrett, but on the people above him, the USC higher ups and administrators who knew from their fundraising efforts that boosters weren't going to help them out without a successful football program, or that they would only contribute to the program.

It all comes down to improper benefits, and that's cheating.

When you're hanging out in the locker room and are on the sideline of games, you are associated with the team. USC can try and pretend that this happened innocently behind their back, but I'm not naive enough to believe that.

I don't think anyone necessarily felt slighted, they just didn't want to give up the wins. I don't see how that's feeling slighted, it's just not wanting to give up what you have. Just like USC would feel slighted if they lost wins or scholarships or bowl games.

Secondly, I think it is important to at least reward self-reporting to an extent. If a school knows of something, but chooses to not report it, I think that is worse than if they find out and report it. Oftentimes the school itself is not the culprit, but somebody who is an employer, agent, or booster might be. So when the school hears about it, it should be better to report it than have knowledge and do nothing. I guess nothing in that article said they got a bonus for reporting it. Only that they shouldn't have known that he was ineligible, so there shouldn't be a penalty. I guess the new evidence standard is for "should have known." Should they have known more than they shouldn't have known, or whether they should have known at all (and if so, then lose your wins).

And I certainly wouldn't call it even when OU lost coaches recruiting on the road and scholarships either. The wins were something that had no effect on the long-term status of the program, just the history of it. If you think the NCAA has too many rules, I'm not going to argue with you...but if you think that means the rules should be broken or no penalties for not reporting broke rules, I disagree.

If it's inconclusive at this point then why have you PERSONALLY concluded that it's a byproduct of an environment fostered by Carroll?


You admit you don't even know what it is that the NCAA has discovered here yet and then you turn around and make this argument about Carroll or Garrett contributing to cheating.


See I call that HATING. A reasonable person I think, would simply say that they're going to reserve judgement until more of the facts have surfaced.

In a silly, round about way, you've just accused the program of complicit CHEATING which is a charge no one, including the over zealoused haters at Yahoo, have had the nerve to publically allege.


What on earth are you basing this on? Reggie Bush taking money from thugs and gang members means that USC was complicit with that?


Shall we branch off into a discussion about Dealey Plaza and the "Grassy Knoll" as well?


Look I suppose what you're advancing is possible yet the charge we're hearing is NEGLIGENCE not COMPLICITY. You do understand the difference, right?

Well the comments by David Boren in the face of the appeal sure make it seem as if he felt slighted by the initial ruling.

"The part of the appeal I felt obligated to make was the part that erased the records, because I felt that our coaches were not to blame and I felt that all those other players that were out there and played by the rules, it's kind of like group punishment," Boren said. "You don't punish a whole group for what one or two people do."


Yeah no kidding David! I agree you "don't punish a whole group for what one of two people do" and that same sentiment resonates with every single program who's unfortunately been forced to abandon wins as a result of having ineligible athletes on the field, contributing to those wins.


So the question still remains, why is a different standard being applied?



Of course it's worse. 333, the behavior you just described would constitute complicit cheating. Not negligence! "We knew something was going on but we were afraid of the consequences." That's not failing to catch a cheater. That's CHEATING!


Yes that gives rise to possible negligence and LOIC . "We didn't know about it but we probably should have if we were taking all of the necessary steps related to proper oversight."





Indeed! But that is an obligation each NCAA member has. if you know something you need to say so. Giving this silly credit to programs for blowing the whistle on themselves is absurd! If they don't do that and they subsequently get caught and it's found out that they knew and instead of reporting it, they covered it up, that's COMPLICIT CHEATING.


Of course they should have known. That was the point of the LOIC sanction. The compliance office wasn't properly scrutinizing the timesheets and the employment records hence Bomar continued to get away with fasifying his payment claims.


What I said was that these bureaucrats have made up so many rules that they can't enforce them any longer so they've taken to giving credit to the rule breakers for blowing the whistle on themselves, which is absurd.


First, because every program should be obligated to blow the whistle on themselves when they suspect that rules have been broken and they ought not to need an incentive to do that.


Second, it raises tremendous controversy about how and when a program came to know that rules being broken such that they could proactively communicate that to the NCAA to receive future consideration and it potentially penalizes an organization that legitimately didn't know it was having a problem, for not self reporting.


For crying out loud, if I don't know I'm having a problem, how can I be expected to self report it? And if I do self report a problem, doesn't it raise serious questions about how long I've known about it, or how I came to learn of it in the first place?

Well the comments by David Boren in the face of the appeal sure make it seem as if he felt slighted by the initial ruling.

"The part of the appeal I felt obligated to make was the part that erased the records, because I felt that our coaches were not to blame and I felt that all those other players that were out there and played by the rules, it's kind of like group punishment," Boren said. "You don't punish a whole group for what one or two people do."


Yeah no kidding David! I agree you "don't punish a whole group for what one of two people do" and that same sentiment resonates with every single program who's unfortunately been forced to abandon wins as a result of having ineligible athletes on the field, contributing to those wins.


So the question still remains, why is a different standard being applied?



Of course it's worse. 333, the behavior you just described would constitute complicit cheating. Not negligence! "We knew something was going on but we were afraid of the consequences." That's not failing to catch a cheater. That's CHEATING!


Yes that gives rise to possible negligence and LOIC . "We didn't know about it but we probably should have if we were taking all of the necessary steps related to proper oversight."





Indeed! But that is an obligation each NCAA member has. if you know something you need to say so. Giving this silly credit to programs for blowing the whistle on themselves is absurd! If they don't do that and they subsequently get caught and it's found out that they knew and instead of reporting it, they covered it up, that's COMPLICIT CHEATING.


Of course they should have known. That was the point of the LOIC sanction. The compliance office wasn't properly scrutinizing the timesheets and the employment records hence Bomar continued to get away with fasifying his payment claims.


What I said was that these bureaucrats have made up so many rules that they can't enforce them any longer so they've taken to giving credit to the rule breakers for blowing the whistle on themselves, which is absurd.


First, because every program should be obligated to blow the whistle on themselves when they suspect that rules have been broken and they ought not to need an incentive to do that.


Second, it raises tremendous controversy about how and when a program came to know that rules being broken such that they could proactively communicate that to the NCAA to receive future consideration and it potentially penalizes an organization that legitimately didn't know it was having a problem, for not self reporting.


For crying out loud, if I don't know I'm having a problem, how can I be expected to self report it? And if I do self report a problem, doesn't it raise serious questions about how long I've known about it, or how I came to learn of it in the first place?

Settle down cactus. There is not a chance in hell the NCAA gives USC a penalty that impacts the program in a major way. You guys can keep on cheating with impunity.

I keep laughing when I read cactusdave's post because I keep placing long pauses between his paragraphs. Please tell me I'm not the only one! :D

Just having a conversation. Hoping to learn something from another knowledgeable fan.

It's by no means required reading you know.

Nothing conclusive, as in "nothing outwardly confirmed in the media at large". There's a ton of scuttlebutt about what has been going on, floating around in USC and UCLA circles. I am aware of that scuttlebutt, and I know that what is proveable and what else is thought to have happened by many close to USC or to observers of USC are two different things.

Everyone following the program who is not trying to be a biased USC honk knows the environment Carroll projected. Fun, good times, loud music in open practices, funny pranks, celebrities on the sidelines at games, etc. Carroll was Dr. Feelgood.

The presence of guys like Lake and Michaels fits right in with that environment. It was a party at USC, all friends invited. This was not a tightly wound, closed environment. Carroll didn't want it that way. He wanted his players to have fun, and he has never been accused of being particular about this rule or that rule or checking IDs at the door.

It's not exactly hard for hangers-on looking to cash on to get in on a situation like this, if they want to.

I accuse Carroll of being loose with the environment he had set up, and I accuse Garrett of hiring Carroll exactly because he is not a stickler for the rules. Was Carroll actively involved in cheating? I don't know and neither do you. I actually tend to doubt it--it's more something he would let his son Brennan or Ed O or Todd McLaren (or however you say his name) deal with. But the way he operated things, whether intentional or not, contributed to the possibility that his players could come under outside influences.

It doesn't really much matter to me what you call it. I know that you're not a "reasonable" person in this discussion, certainly not any more than I am (and probably far less).


I doubt the NCAA is going to quibble over negligence as opposed to complicity. Do you?

And you are one labelling things. I never said USC was complicit in cheating. I said what the situation was and that that situation amounts to improper benefits, which is cheating. You are the one drawing an arrow from one to the other.

There was a time when I would really get into long, stupid harangues with EF27, the resident myopic USC fan on the board here. I never realized what a relative pleasure it is debating with him. You appear to want to be insulting in tone (as well as unreasonable). I hope EF27 comes back soon, so I can have a rational discussion with him, rather than sitting here having you question my vocabulary.

No reason to feel insulted. I don't know you so it couldn't possibly be personal. Sorry if you feel the tone is too aggressive.

I'm not myopic.

I am very optimistic. A USC member on the premium board posted this list of some very good reasons for optimism for Trojan fans:

1.) Pete Carroll said he expects no sanctions, which means things went real well at the hearings. I know PC is positive, but he ain't stupid.
2.) Tim Floyd was allowed to coach at UTEP.
3.) The NCAA wanted Bush's depo and didn't get it. That right their tells you they don't have what they want. They have the same evidence that couldn't close this case 3 years ago.
4.) The NCAA infractions hearing do not read Message boards, where the most of the USC hate is.
5.) If the NCAA is still trying to prove that Bush took money, how could they expect USC to have known about it.
6.) ESPN/ABC just released their TV schedule, with USC the headliner.
7.) Florida State had 61 athletes cheat in 9 different sports. That is the epitome of cheating. FSU misses no postseason or bowl games.
8.) Todd McNair is still the RB coach. He would have been shown the door 3 years ago if he was a liability.


I'll add a few of my own to the list:

President Steven Sample said after the hearings "It will come out and it will be great."

The team has managed to convince a bunch of recruits including multiple out of state kids to come to USC despite the late change in staff and put together the #1 class (at least according to Rivals.) Maybe they just blew smoke up a bunch of kid's asses, but that would be destroying their long term credibility if they did so. Instead, I believe they presented the info they have and they knew would lead to a slap on the wrists and the recruits were convinced of the same.

You're clueless. What happened at Florida State was a professor didn't change his damn test and students had access to older test. It is not like all 61 of those students were cheating in different classes.

Florida State should have never forfeited games or scholarship since it was an issue with the university itself. The NCAA wanted to get pay back for the whole mascot thing a few years ago.

You may go back to believe your cheating ass school is innocent.

I was quoting a list from another poster on another board without editing it. The fact is that a lot of schools have gotten away with various serious offenses over the last decade without significant sanctions. The precedent has been set and that is part of my optimism.

Apologizes if you were just quoting another fan.

To be clear, I think USC will get probation and the loss of a few scholarships, just like other programs have gotten. I just don't think they will get a bowl ban or TV ban and as long as they don't, I'll be happy.

Edit to add: The first 8 points in my post above are directly from another fan on a USC message board. I think as a group he has good points why USC won't get a major penalty (i.e. TV/Bowl ban.) Only the point about Sample and recruiting are my own thoughts.

If that wasn't your intent, no insult then. Tone is always difficult to read on the Internet. One tip I'll give you, though, is that if you continue to lecture me on vocabulary, I will continue to take offense at that. ;)

Bollocks. You're as myopic as they come. That's like telling me your not a psychiatrist either. ;)

I actually agree with you somewhat. I think the NCAA wanted the Bush (and Michaels) deposition to strengthen their case. I think they have a TON of stuff on USC, because I strongly suspect USC did (and probably is still doing, given the current coaching staff) a TON of stuff. But it will be innuendo, hints, stories that don't match, unexpected financial contributions, things that skirt the rules but don't go full on into violations of the bylaws, like the crap Special Ed and Lame pulled at Tennessee on their way out the door.

Without a real hook, it will be harder for the NCAA to come down as hard as they want to and probably suspect they need to. I am certain much of the rest of the member schools, particularly other top programs like Texas, LSU, Florida, Notre Dame, etc., are pushing the NCAA strongly to not play this hand weakly, because they don't like what's gone on in South Central either, and they don't like that USC goes into their traditional "territories" and takes away recruits either. So the NCAA is in a tough place, because some powerful schools are on them on one end, but they don't have as strong a case as they like and USC has deep pockets and is threatening legal action.

I think all that has a lot to do with the delay in the sanctions. Of course, the latest delay is supposedly because of the "size" of the report. If that's true, you could also reason that's because there is so much there, and that would seem to suggest some rough sanctions are coming to USC. Tough to say.

My guess is what you're guessing, that it will be probation and scholies. A bowl ban for a year will be considered but in the end not done. The scholies will probably be harsher than expected, for two reasons; 1) USC was on probation when the Bush stuff happened, so this is a second offense; 2) the NCAA will be pissed they couldn't swing a bowl ban and will need sharper scholie losses to keep the other member schools off their back. I also think the NCAA will vacate some wins from the 2004-05 seasons, but they don't have the ability to change anything with respect to the 2004 BCS championship or Bush's Heisman.

Of course, I am convinced Kiffin is dirtier than Carroll, more arrogant than Carroll and not as good of a gameday coach, so maybe in the end, sanctions won't matter as much as Carroll leaving for the pros.

Oh, as to the TV stuff, I don't think that was ever seriously considered. Taking away USC TV games hurts the exposure of the opponent as well, and the Pac 10, unfairly. It also hurts the NCAA's negotiations with future TV partners in contract renewals. So I don't think TV is an appealing punishment option for them.

I do think it's possible they might find some way to withhold TV money from USC, or at least delay its arriving at Heritage Hall until after the probationary period is over (although I don't know if the NCAA has ever done anything like that before).

Agreed. If they had videotape of Carroll giving Bush an SUV filled with bags of cash, I still don't think the NCAA would strip USC of bowl games or TV rights. That hurts their cash cow. It was never, ever going to happen.

I do think they are getting probation and the loss of scholarships and I do think it will be a little more severe than a lot of USC people think. If they were going to do nothing, they could simply close the case and call it a day.

I think in the end, the punishment USC will receive will be harsher then the alums want and lighter then the rest of college football wishes it was given