Luke Winn of Si.com: "USC deserves to fry for this."

by Ajax on May 12, 2008 2:03 PM PDT

Bumped. Go Bruins. -M

Both Mayo and the Trojans issued pathetic denial statements on Sunday. Sadly, Mayo is by now beyond the arm of the NCAA; he declared for the draft and signed with Andrews in April. USC, on the other hand, deserves to fry for this. A postseason ban, loss of scholarships, and a complete voiding of the 2007-08 season is in order. Even if no money was ever exchanged between the USC camp and Guillory -- and you have to at least wonder, if he was on the take from BDA, why not the Trojans as well? -- the Mayo saga is worthy of that dreaded NCAA label, "Lack of Institutional Control".

Luke Winn lays it all out

Winn also blasts Floyd for feigning ignorance of Guillory, who Southern Cal had allegedly blacklisted from the program:

Floyd, in that Times story [see bluestreet's post above] in March 2007, conveniently portrayed Guillory as a mystery man. This was comical. Not only had Guillory already been making above-board cash off of the nation's No. 1-ranked recruit as a promoter, he had also been busted in 2000 for serving as a runner for another agent. One of the players for whom Guillory had impermissibly purchased airfare was a 6-foot-4 guard named not Mayo but Jeff Trepagnier. The school he played for was none other than USC.

Even though he wasn't in L.A. during the Trepagnier trouble, Floyd isn't dumb enough to not have connected the dots and known that Guillory-arranged goods would be dirty. Nor is the Trojans' coach naive enough not to know that agents had been hovering around Mayo since middle school. Floyd invited Mayo and Guillory into his program -- the latter was seen hanging around the USC locker room during the '06-07 season, a year before Mayo arrived -- and hoped the situation would not implode. Now it has, and a plea of ignorance from Floyd and the Trojans, even if they deliberately tried to ignore the dealings between Mayo, Guillory and BDA, is not an acceptable excuse.

Nice to see the MSM finally acknowledge what we have been saying for years.

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.

7 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Exactly

It’s just too bad that it took the embarrassing inaction following the Bush scandal to inspire this sort of outrage from the MSN.

by Menelaus on May 12, 2008 11:30 AM PDT 0 recs

Yep

A lot of commotion and anger from the MSM over Mayo allegedly taking 30K, yet Bu$h taking 300K while at SUC generates so little in comparison.

It’s just too funny.

by godblesstyus95 on May 12, 2008 11:48 AM PDT up 0 recs

Burn down the Troy

They need to burn down their shady athletic department.

by bluestreet on May 12, 2008 11:35 AM PDT 0 recs

Thanks for this Ajax

I read this and was going to diary/fanpost it. It’s one of the better pieces I’ve seen. Forde, IMO, went over the top asking for the death penalty, but loss of scholarships, postseason bans and more sounds about right. Winn also ties in the age limit rule that has influenced it. Well done on his part.

by ryebreadraz on May 12, 2008 12:05 PM PDT 0 recs

Why not the death penalty?

Assuming there is a “death penalty” rule still in the ncaa books, when would it be appropriately invoked if not here? No one in the universe believes that Timmeh and Garrett didn’t know that something smelled regarding OJ2 and his various expensive doo-dads. OJ2 took money to play bball. Officials at justsc knew it but did nothing. And we haven’t even looked at the long term record of the Trojan Bench, who according to one of my sources (albeit a long time ago) delivered cash to the players every week. And there’s the older yet story from Clarence Reese (sp?) about the payments he got. What more evidence is needed? A confession from Cheatie Petie or Timmeh? That will never happen.

justsc deserves the death penalty in my opinion. Or else the death penalty needs to be taken off the books, because it serves no purpose.

I read somewhere else that the witnesses can’t be trusted because they’re somewhat sleazy and disgruntled. Well of course they’re sleazy. Paying cash to 8th graders, and all that is a sleazy business. And of course there’s no paper trail (well, there are those pesky receipts), so when someone gets stiffed, he might be persuaded to make a fuss. And naturally he’ll be sleazy, just like the witnesses to drug deals and murders and things like that are sleazy.

by Fox 71 on May 12, 2008 3:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

The death penalty

can only be enforced if the same program had recently been sanctioned before. So the penalty is still in the books and you could make the argument that Trepanjier’s suspension was their prior sanction. I don’t know how recent it has to be to use the death penalty so I’m not sure if USC is even eligible for it.

IMO though, I reserve the death penalty for repeat offenders who are paying players/recruits either from within the program or from a university associated booster. To my knowledge, the SMU death penalty came from one of SMU’s biggest boosters paying off recruits and coaches telling recruits they will be paid by the booster should they attend SMU. That is far worse than what USC did IMO. Now that doesn’t mean I don’t think USC should get a stiff suspension because they should. I just wouldn’t give them the death penalty. I’d ban them prom postseason play for a couple years, cut scholarships, put the program on a prolonged probation and take away TV broadcasts. That will cripple a program, but isn’t as sever as the death penalty.

by ryebreadraz on May 12, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

severe*

by ryebreadraz on May 12, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

As a student at SMU

I’d never wish the death penalty on anyone ever again, it literally has left us in ruins, and I know we’re excited about coach JJ but im not sure that we’ll ever get back to where we want to be.

O.A.

by Ollie on May 12, 2008 6:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Can't see the justification

In giving any team a “death penalty,” when doing so would punish players and coaches who are not accused of or found guilty of wrongdoing.

I can completely support a “career death penalty” for coaches that allow this kind of stuff go on. Let’s see how many teams turn a blind eye when the head coach can be banned from the NCAA for life when they lose institutional control.

by FreewayBruin03 on May 12, 2008 10:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

agreed

O.A.

by Ollie on May 12, 2008 10:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

It's a punishment directed at a school, not at players

The players and coaches can obviously leave a death penalty school and catch on elsewhere. The school is doomed, and should be doomed. In my opinion, no one is innocent over at Figueroa JC. The student body knew what was happening with OJ2 (and with the entire football team.) The administration knew. And most of all, the athletic department knew. It doesn’t matter, in my opinion again, whether the paycheck is drawn on a justsc bank account, or a booster’s bank account or an agent’s bank account. The kid is getting paid to play, and that’s not right. If the institution knew and did nothing (and this institution obviously knew something was wrong despite all the non-denial denials), then they deserve to have their tent folded for them.

A school can survive without a particular sport. UCLA survived without Men’s Crew, for example.

Ollie, you raise a philosophical point about death penalties, and that appellation carries with it the baggage from the debate in the criminal justice system. It seems to me that the ncaa’s system says that college athletic teams are to be entirely amateur. That’s what’s taught by the punishment handed down for Dragovic’s “offense” of not getting paid but playing with someone who was paid. There are also many who advocate paying the athletes something, (I don’t see that working – if it’s a free market system, justsc with all its money would emulate the Yankees and have a huge payroll. Or if the payroll was set at a particular amount, justsc would cheat like they are doing now and pay the guys more under the table.) I disagree with this business about paying. Mrs. Fox went to a really really small college in the midwest, but that school fielded a football team that played hard with NO ONE on an athletic scholarship. The game I saw was fun and competitive. I would like to see the shoe money gone, the adidas contributions to the beauty of football uniforms gone, the agents gone, and the runners gone. And at least one way to do this would be to make it clear that if athletes get paid and the ncaa finds out about it, the only questions the school will be asked is what it wants as its last meal, and whether it wants a blindfold and a cigarette.

by Fox 71 on May 13, 2008 5:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

Agreed, Fox

If they make the risk so high to the school, they will become their own best police, in a way, because no player will be worth immediate execution. It might force the rich alums to adjust their attitudes, as well.

Once ignorance is no longer available as a defense, everyone starts becoming much less ignorant.

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on May 13, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

Example from the money-management industry.

I may be one of the few non-lawyers on this site, so I’ll offer up a parallel to the NCAA’s enforcement rights. The parallel is how the SEC oversees investment managers.

The SEC wants to ensure that managers are getting “best execution”, fairness in allocations, don’t have a rogue trader, etc. When a law or rule is broken, the SEC will crack down on the individual or individuals involved. But that’s just the beginning.

The SEC will ask to see firm-wide policies and procedures to see if they are adequate to protect against rule-breaking. If these policies and procedures are not adequate, then the manager gets hammered. The SEC will then look to see if these policies and procedures are being adequately followed and enforced by personnel. If not, then the manager gets hammmered. By doing these things, the SEC has set the bar at “should have known.” Furthermore, these two features allow the “ignorance” excuse to work only if an institution has taken reasonable care to ensure that rule-breaking is being protected against. Believe me, this keeps money-managers on their toes. Lastly, if it happens once, a manager may get a slap on the wrist from the SEC, but if the holes in the policies and procedures are not fixed and the same thing happens again just a few years later, then the manager might as well begin writing their own obituary.

Now, let’s get back to the NCAA. For starters, they can’t do anything to the OJs of the world because they have already left the college game. Second, it’s nice to know that the NCAA has set the bar at “should have known”, much like the SEC. So, how does the NCAA judge the “should have known”? Go straight to SUC’s policies and procedures.

Now, I’m sure SUC has a wonderful, heart-warming policy in place that talks about maintaining integrity, finding the real killer who framed OJ1, etc. So when the NCAA looks at SUC’s procedures, they should ask:
Are SUC’s procedures sufficient?
Are the procedures adequately followed and enforced?

My guess is that “turning a blind eye” isn’t in their procedures, which would mean that the true procedures aren’t being properly followed and aren’t being properly enforced.

It’s a clear lack of institutional control from the coaches on up. Also, considering it’s been a few years since this exact problem happened to SUC with Bush-gate (“turning a blind eye”), the NCAA should hammer them for not only “turning a blind eye” to the OJ2 scandal, but hammer them even more severly for not fixing the gaping holes in their policies and procedures after Bush-gate.

For all intents and purposes, SUC has shouted out a big “F-you” in public to the NCAA. Will the NCAA finally have the guts to do something about it?

by bornagainbruin on May 13, 2008 1:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

Far be it from me

to give the trOJans any kind of advice, but if there’s one thing that seems fairly constant, it’s that you never suffer as much from wrongdoing as you do from covering up the wrongdoing. Just something to think about if they are thinking of continuing this charade of ignorance.

by Tydides on May 12, 2008 12:22 PM PDT 0 recs

It's that ignorance and lack of control

that probably attracted a guy like OJ2 in the first place. Let’s run down OJ2s decision-making process prior to enrollment at SUC:

1. Have to go to college for a year before I go to the NBA.
2. College must be relatively high profile or in a major media market.
3. College can’t look too hard into relationships/amateurism illegalities prior to enrollment or during.
4. Program led by someone desparate enough to allow me to recruit them and not the other way around; willing to win at all costs.
5. Program willing and able to handle irregularities likely to surface once I’ve moved on: they make things “go away”
6. Close to my man Guillory.

It was a marriage made in heaven.

by godblesstyus95 on May 12, 2008 1:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

Does this mean....

We will get a point back from the Lexus Gauntlet thing?

by BruinInDenver on May 12, 2008 1:14 PM PDT 0 recs

From Deadspin's latest post on OJ2

which adds this humorous bit to the general conversation that this story should not be a surprise to anyone:

Mayo, who talked to ESPN.com using the same cell phone number that Guillory had provided for him (according to T-Mobile phone records and independent verification by “Outside The Lines”), said he didn’t speak with anyone from USC on Sunday and reiterated that he had no knowledge of money going from BDA to him. Attempts by ESPN.com to reach USC were unsuccessful Sunday.

That’s right: He called ESPN from one of the illicit phones.

by bruinhoo on May 12, 2008 3:03 PM PDT 0 recs

oh ingenious.

Absolutely brilliant.

by freesia39 on May 12, 2008 3:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

OK,

If I’m DeRozan, I’m starting to worry now.

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on May 12, 2008 3:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Seriously...

He has to be hoping that this drags on long enough that the NCAA doesn’t come down on USC before or during the upcoming season (assuming they do come down, which obviously has yet to happen with Bushgate and other infractions).

by cabz on May 12, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

Burn down the athletic department

I oppose actually burning down the Athletic Department. My issue is that you would endanger the whole wing of attorneys who are working day and night to manage the Bushcapade, OJ2capade, and other relevant activities the good, hard working student athletes at SC are engaged in. What a joke!!!
Bill

BillSouthBay

by BillSouthBay on May 12, 2008 3:08 PM PDT 0 recs

Don't forget the NCAA investigators

who will no doubt be spending A LOT of time in the South Central Los Angeles area in the coming months, well into 2009.

I hope they are looking into some deals for extended-stay lodging!

by godblesstyus95 on May 12, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

Winn did a nice job

Nice job stating the known facts and building his ire to a finishing crescendo. Just filleted Floyd and USC.

by SinnerBoy 99 on May 12, 2008 3:19 PM PDT 0 recs

sports media has an ulterior motive

they want U$C to be good at football and UCLA good at basketball. screw that! the offenses (the bad kind, not the football kind) of this $C program go far beyond one guy like mayo, who was only w/ them for one year, and the fact that this is a huge story (we all knew this was going on; what other guy could go to a Laker game courtside w/ NO punishment whatsoever?) just makes me think they’re trying to divert negative attention away from $C football, their prized glory.

props to Winn and Forde for laying it out….but let’s not forget that success doesn’t make pulling these stunts in other sports acceptable.

by jjreicher on May 12, 2008 5:54 PM PDT 0 recs

Personally

I’m going to move on from the Laker tickets things. The guy who broke the story on OJ was asked about the tickets and said that OJ had in fact known Carmelo for a while and that Carmelo did give him the tickets. Based on the fact that this guy was willing to tell everything else, I doubt he’d lie about the tickets. Now Floyd lying about it is a moral issue, but not an NCAA violation so with regards to the NCAA violation, I think the Laker tickers were legit.

by ryebreadraz on May 12, 2008 6:36 PM PDT up 0 recs

Not so fast

The money for those Laker tickets were donated to charity. Someone should look into which charity the tickets were donated to.

by bluestreet on May 13, 2008 7:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

I assume the LA times

doesn’t fall under the category of sports media anymore, they were all over us in regards to the wooden KL situation and had nothing on OJ2

O.A.

by Ollie on May 12, 2008 7:37 PM PDT up 0 recs

Perceptional Reality

In this morning’s article from the OC Register, there is a rather enigmatic quote from O.J. Mayo:

:”I would like to know if I did [take the money], where did the money go?” Mayo said. “I was a struggling college student like everyone else, I bicycled to class. The truth will come out, even though the perception is reality.”

I am still pondering that last sentence.

by WHP '68 on May 13, 2008 9:56 AM PDT 0 recs

It's meaning is obvious

OJ2, like OJ1, says it doesn’t matter what the evidence shows, unless I confess I didn’t do it. And I’ll never confess, so I didn’t do it. And that wasn’t me with the plasma TV or the nifty clothes. That must have been Bojay Bayo. The fact that all those other people say I took money or had lavish gifts thrown at me means nothing as long as I deny it. I did not have sex with that woman, and I am not a crook.

OJ2 has to be given credit for totally understanding the justsc credo of total denial of everything.

by Fox 71 on May 13, 2008 10:25 AM PDT up 0 recs

this is frustratingly true

Is there anyway, now that hes gone, to prove that he had and used all of the stuff he was alleged to purchase with the money?

O.A.

by Ollie on May 13, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is what I would like to do, but it's probably not possible

I have a lot of faith in the civil justice system. What I would like to do is to litigate against justsc and let the rules of discovery govern what we see and what we don’t see. Following money is not my best thing, but there are a lot of people out there (probably many in the BN) who do know exactly how to follow this sort of trail. And I would love to take bu$h’s depo or OJ2’s depo. Q: Did you have a plasma TV in your dorm room? A: I don’t remember. Q: You don’t remember? A: OK, I had one. Q: Where did you get it? A. I don’t remember. And on and on and on.

I’ve taken hundreds of depos of this sort, where the guy on the other side is dirty, and thinks he can lie successfully. You’ve seen the press releases, etc., from OJ2 and from bu$h. It doesn’t take a genius to cross-examine someone about those non-denial denials.

An obvious problem – who has proper standing to sue justsc for something like this? It would take some creative lawyering to gin up a complaint that would pass muster.

by Fox 71 on May 13, 2008 2:55 PM PDT up 0 recs