Terry Bowden on SUC/Bushgate

by silverlakebruin on May 7, 2007 3:43 PM PDT Comment 25 comments

HT to a BRO poster for pointing to this Bowden post on Yahoo Sports:

I saw where Reggie Bush's family agreed to a settlement and gave between $200,000 and $300,000 to Michael Michaels for unpaid rent and for benefits they received while Reggie was playing and winning a national championship for USC. Of course the family, including Reggie, always has maintained that it never violated any NCAA rules or regulations. The NCAA says it has made two requests to meet with Reggie Bush through his attorney and followed up with a written request, but didn't get a response. Bush contradicted this assertion while visiting a Southern California practice last week, saying that he had not been contacted and that if he had he would have hung up the phone. If Reggie Bush and his family continue to stonewall the NCAA like this, the organization has no other recourse but to go after USC as severely as possible and punish the institution for the actions of one of its players. This would include forfeiting games that he played in, even the national championship. If the NCAA does not act decisively here, it might as well forget about ever enforcing its rule against extra benefits. Terry is right of coures. If the NCAA doesn't punish SUC, then they might as well just give up on punishing teams for giving extra benefits.

ALSO NOTE THE TERRY CORRECTLY IDENTIFIES A SINGLE CHAMPIONSHIP CHEATY PETEY'S SUC TEAM WON.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good

Glad to see that the story is dying yet.

I thought the NCAA was supposed to come out with a report or its final finding some time in the summer, no?

by BruinFan1 on May 7, 2007 3:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It was a surprising comment

Bowden is one of the less controversial columnists

by SuperBruinMan on May 7, 2007 4:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't hold my breath

waiting for the NCAA to make its decisive move at justsc. It's hard to tell just what they think they need to have, but if I were representing them I would have filed long ago based just on what has been reported here.

I guess I am getting cynical, but I think the NCAA has different rules for different schools.

by Fox 71 on May 7, 2007 4:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately

SuCsters have a lot of money; where there is money, there is influence. In addition, the SuC alums are a very close-knit and probably well-connected group.

I have no faith in the NCAA digging up any real dirt here--but it's not like ol' Reggie, or SuC, is helping with the investigation.

by Barnes2JJ on May 7, 2007 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hate to say it

but i don't think anything is really gonna happen.maybe take a few scholarships, slap on the hand. how long have we been hearing that the ncaa and pac-10 were looking into allegations of bush recieving benifits. I bet in the settlement, both the bush family, and Michael Michaels agreed not to say anything to anybody. the only way i see anything happening is if the ncaa and/or pac-10 subpena(i know i spelled that wrong)the parties involved.

any way
GO BRUINS!!!!!

by Jeodude on May 7, 2007 5:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I doubt they lose scholarships

If anything, they lose the 2005 season (and Bush's Heisman). At most, they lose parts of 2004 and the National Championship.

An interesting question would be what happens to Leinart's Heisman? If USC is forced to forfeit a few games he should lose his stats, and while he may not have been ineligible, the player who was ineligible was important to winning the award. I doubt he ever loses it though.

by SuperBruinMan on May 7, 2007 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the optimism

And I've been as hard on SC as maybe anyone here, but I don't think there is much of a chance, at this point, that SC loses any games. Bush's Heisman is also likely safe. And I don't even think the biggest critic of SC could honestly say that Leinart's Heisman was ever even at risk.

So, to the point of my disagreement, I tend to think that -- if anything at all happens -- it will most likely be in the form of a last scholarship or two. There's not a chance, imho, that the NCAA thinks canceling games is less serious than docking SC as scholie or two.

Sure, like Fox, I'm pretty cynical. And though I suppose there is one lawsuit left out there that might give us the deposition the anemic NCAA sorely in order to be forced (scratching and clawing) to take real action.

I think the point, as Terry alludes to, is that the NCAA is again demonstrating how irrelevant it is. And here's two great ways to stay irrelevant: (a) don't have a subpoena power; and (b) selectively enforce your rules. Good job NCAA.

It's all pretty depressing actually. At least it is for people who still harbor the thin hope that some of the dark underbelly of college athletics could be cleaned out, and that some of the more obvious perpetrators could be held to account.

by Menelaus on May 7, 2007 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's just that

Taking away scholarships from USC would be admitting that the school itself had done something wrong, while taking away games would just be naming a player retroactively ineligible. While taking away scholarships is much less effective, it is a much bigger punishment.

Leinart's Heisman was never at risk, but I find it interesting to think about how it should be. After all, Dragovic was suspended 10 games for playing with people who were being paid.

by SuperBruinMan on May 7, 2007 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Proportionality and Equality

Great point about Dragovic.

The legitimacy of any legal institution is often judge by the proportionality of the sanctions it renders and the equality with which it treats its subjects.

It is truly hard to respect the NCAA when it punishes Dragovic and lets Jarrett and Bush get by.

Of course, I've never had much respect for the NCAA.

I find it interesting that it's the lawyers amongst us, including me, who have so little respect of these institutions and have so little hope that justice will every prevail.

I didn't come out of law school this way. I was idealistic -- as should be all of those who graduate from law school. But, idealism is tempered by realism.

I'm not going to hold my breath until the NCAA does the right thing.

I'd be more pleased to see a revolt from the member institutions -- the honest programs that get gored while the sc's get glorified.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 7, 2007 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's Not Over Yet

There another lawsuit still coming from the other agentcy organizer who was in jail when the scandal broke. He's out now and it's scheduled for later this summer. If that case goes to trial SC may go on probation, if it doesn't then there may not be any hard proof that Bush committed any violations himself. I hope that guy screws the SC alumni for a payoff equal to their football profits this upcoming season.

by alcor805 on May 8, 2007 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they were actually interested...

They could just declare those who don't cooperate guilty. If they still don't cooperate then they clearly weren't innocent.

by SuperBruinMan on May 7, 2007 8:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

the NCAA sucks

Their blatant disregard of the elephant in the room and unfair enforcement of the rules is just appalling, and absolutely mind-boggling. The longer the NCAA holds off on taking ANY definitive action on bushgate, the deeper they are flushing their own credibility down the hole.

In my eyes, they're already garbage. Either bring down the hammer or be equitable and allow all college players to get "benefits".

by bruinbunz on May 8, 2007 1:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Attention Bruin Lawyers

Bruinbunz has identified the lawsuit! We need a plaintiff, someone who is an athlete at an NCAA school. Then we petition the NCAA to allow the person to remain eligible while the family of that player gets all sorts of lavish benefits. Our request would exactly parallel the bu$h scenario. Then the NCAA says, "Why, dear me. Heavens, no. We can't allow that." Then we file a plain old petition for writ of mandate, asking the Court (in LA Central, it's generally Judge Janavs or at least it used to be) to command the NCAA to grant the petition, saying that they're being selective, whatever, because our athlete stands to be barred from playing and thus will miss out on x, y and z.

Then comes discovery. Rog No. 1: Have you ever had a situation in which a player's family got all kinds of benefits, and you still allowed that player to play and didn't issue any sort of discipline or anything against the school? (Maybe it will have to be a little more refined than that.)

This could very well hold the NCAA's feet to the fire such that they would either have to do something about the justsc's of the world, or admit that they have different rules for the justsc's of the world, or, like Bruinbunz postulates, let athletes get paid. (That would be a bad thing, because justsc people have lots of daddy's money to spend, but that's another fight for another time.)

So Bruin lawyers, how about it? Who wants to find the plaintiff and start the ball rolling? Doesn't have to be a Bruin athlete (and probably shouldn't be.)

by Fox 71 on May 8, 2007 6:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fox

The same thought occurred to me last night while I was studying for my Constitutional Law final.

by BruinFan1 on May 8, 2007 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

First, you have my sympathy re

your Con Law final. Yuck!

It seems to me that as the as the so-called regulating body for sports, the NCAA is guilty of violating Business & Professions Code section 17200 by giving preferential treatment to some athletes/institutions and not giving the same to our erstwhile client. A B & P code violation doesn't yield damages, but it does call for penalties, and I'm sure the NCAA does not want some attorney from California getting penalties from it because it refused to go after penalties from justsc.

17200 also allows restitution but only what our still unknown client has lost.

You know, maybe Dragovich would be our client. He was put on the beach for 10 games, and this (according to our expert who we also have to find) cost him his chance to start, come out early, and sign a huge bonus. And that is damage.

I don't think this is a pipe dream. Maybe there is some sort of defense that the NCAA has, but it's not readily apparent to me. Who's going to take this and run with it? It really needs someone who is based in California, which lets me and sjh out. (Also, it probably wants a good lawyer, so I'm not a candidate.)

by Fox 71 on May 8, 2007 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't discount yourself Fox

To quote Homer Simpson, "If they ever want to pull the plug on me, I want you in my corner." That applies to 66 and the other Bruin lawyers here as well.

I view law school as one of the most boring ways to spend three years. I know there are a number of you who have survived this, and more power to you (at least I have plenty of resources to choose from). Also Fox, my aunt loved constitutional law when she was earning her law degree.

As for my take on this mess, I don't think anything serious is going to happen.

by bruinbabe2000 on May 9, 2007 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what makes 13-9 so sweet!

They had the better recruits, the better coach, the better team...they cheated...they had the media kissing their butts...and they still lost to a KD-coached football team! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Even if nothing happens to them, I'd rather just beat them on the court, the gridiron, the diamond, the sidewalk and the office. Much more gratifying.

by tasser10 on May 9, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow...

"lost to a KD-coached football team".
BOOYAH
(i'm guessing that slang is very outdated... whatever, it was popular when I was a kid)

by bruinbunz on May 10, 2007 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's more of a joke now

by SuperBruinMan on May 10, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Law School Boring? No Way

I suppose it depends on the law school -- but I really loved my 3 years.

A good legal education incorporates graduate level studies in many areas, some obvious and some not. Mine included philosophy, psychology, economics, sociology, history, linguistics, and more.

In addition to cases, I read things like Charles Dickens and Susanne Langer.

The key is to find a law school in which "black letter" law plays second fiddle to theory. A good law school education talks about the core values in a society, how they ought to be allocated, and the law's role in doing it.

Said another way -- a good law school is interdisciplinary. It's like getting to go to a restaurant and sticking your fork in everything that looks good.

There is no better "generalist" law degree than a law degree. My classmates became film directors, restaurant creators (California Pizza Kitchen for one example), teachers and bums.

Law degrees open doors and put graduates in the front of lines. Without one day of journalism training, I became an on air reporter on a magazine format television show on Public TV. After that, I had a good run a writing/producing/directing documentaries and syndicated series. My law degree distinguished me from many others waiting in line.

In fact, I loved law school so much I went on to teach in one.

At least that's what I think happened in my life. You know, the mad cow's disease and all, I'm not really sure.

sjh

by Class of 66 on May 11, 2007 6:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My career path went another direction

Into the boutique law firm (aviation defense) but then that dried up when Beech and Piper and Cessna basically went self-insured or stopped buying insurance.

If you law students decide to go that direction, then you'll learn what a billable hour is. Associate attorneys are sometimes known as "FBU's" (Fungible Billing Units.) You will try to distinguish yourself from your peers, and there are some sure ways to do that. One is to be a huge rainmaker, but I have yet to see a baby lawyer who was good at that. Another way is to be a brilliant trial lawyer, but on the civil side, it is too costly to take a case to trial unless it is a big one, and no client will trust a big case to a baby lawyer.

The other way to distinguish yourself is the billable hour. And once you get hooked on that particular drug, it's hard to get off it. You put in so much time billing that you don't know what it's like to drive in your neighborhood with your lights off. You never eat breakfast with your wife. When you become a little more experienced, you still don't take the time off to develop clients and thus become a rainmaker.

And you bill 2,500 or 2,600 hours year after year after year.

But then you retire, play golf, and write stuff on this board, so it's not all bad.

by Fox 71 on May 11, 2007 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bush

This is the link to an article about Bush and the obgoing investigation. I'm sure I screwed up th cut & paste but it is a decent article I thought would be worth bringing to BN.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/michael_silver/05/10/ncaa.bush/index.html

by artybruin on May 10, 2007 8:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

you should start a new diary on this

the story needs to be kept alive.

Amazing all the ink the LA times devoted to the fake Baron's sister SUV story, or the DeShaun Foster story, but this huge scandal they just ignore...

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on May 10, 2007 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about some action?

The new Pac 10 enforcer sounds like a typical academic blowhard. He really expects things to happen, blah, blah, blah. How many times do we have to hear this. Meanwhile bu$h and all his trOJan friends thumb their collective noses at us, while the team lines up for its paychecks.

(Yawn) Sorry, that's dog bites man. It's not news. It will be news when ANYONE takes any action against justsc.

I still say the action against the NCAA on behalf of a deprived student athlete would have a much greater chance of success at forcing the issue.

by Fox 71 on May 11, 2007 5:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs