Will Anything Change?

by Nestor on May 13, 2008 5:42 PM PDT in Football Comment 17 comments

I must say it has been pretty amusing to see all the commotion over OJ2 allegedly receiving approx. $30,000 in illegal benefits during and before his time at Southern Cal. The outrage on the national scale has been pretty funny to read, watch and listen to considering we didn't hear much of it when a much bigger scandal involving Reggie Bush has been festering for years (except for select few individuals such as the folks at YahooSports and SI.com's Stewart Mandel who have been on the Reggie Bush story from the get go).

I mean, now we have a national firestorm (the local reporters in LA's MSM are probably still looking for their talking points from an embattled Heritage Hall) over a basketball player allegedly taking in $30,000 worth of illegal benefits. Where were those guys when stories came out about a Heisman Trophy winner from the same school allegedly taking in more than $100,00 in illegal benefits and his family (allegedly) benefiting from a free house (worth over $750,000)?

Gary Parrish from Sportsline.com thinks despite all the outrage don't count on some higher authority holding Southern Cal or Tim Floyd accountable :

Floyd is a smart guy who has been around this sport for decades. He knows how it works and must've known what he was getting into when he offered a scholarship to Mayo. I mean, he read the above-mentioned column from Doyel, I'm certain. And yet USC still took Mayo, which isn't looking so smart now. Thing is, practically every program in America -- save a select few -- would've taken Mayo just the same, and then they would've done the exact thing USC did, i.e., close their eyes and cover their ears and yell la la la la la until the season was complete because that's typical behavior for coaches these days.
Most coaches -- save a select few -- just cross their fingers and hope nothing blows up on them, and if it does they plead ignorance and explain to the NCAA that they can't be with the prospects they recruit or the players they coach 24 hours a day and thus can't reasonably be held accountable for what happens between prospects and players and agents. It's why Pete Carroll didn't personally suffer for Reggie Bush, why Mike Krzyzewski didn't personally suffer for Corey Maggette, why John Calipari didn't personally suffer for Marcus Camby, why Norm Stewart didn't personally suffer for Jevon Crudup, so on and so forth.

Likewise, it's why Floyd won't get fired for Mayo.

And it's why USC won't get hammered by the NCAA the way some might expect.

Lack of institutional control?

I doubt it.

Lack of genuinely wanting to know?

Now that's a charge that just might stick.

NCAA for their part is opening an investigation. Try not to LOL when you read this in the LA Times :

In its own statement to The Times today, the NCAA said the allegations made on the television show were "new to the NCAA. This information was not available when the NCAA examined Mr. Mayo's academic and amateurism status prior to his collegiate enrollment, and we will review the information in conjunction with the institution and the Pac-10 conference."

Can you feel the suspense? I am sure those guys will really come down hard on an athletic program that its own university doesn't care much about.

Dave from Michigan's SBN blog - Maize n Brew - who I have a lot of respect for attempted to compare OJ2's story with that of Michigan's Fab-4 (who were busted for taking more than $600,000 from a Michigan booster) and speculated the following pro-rated penalty for the Trojans :

USC should forfeit its wins for this past season, lose a scholarship, be post-season ineligible for next season, and be on probation for two years. MAX. Before people get all huffy about what USC could've or should've known, look at how things went down.

But, here is something Dave and number of other observers are missing on this whole OJ fiasco: this was not the first time this kind if scandal flared up involving Southern California's athletic program. The situation is a little different than what transpired in Ann Arbor, which didn't have a football program with the rap sheet of Pete Carroll's football team.

What is also amusing is to see some so called impartial observers (read Neuheisel haters) criticizing UCLA fans for voicing a little schadenfreude from cross town, after watching what has been unfolding at Garrett’s athletic program over the last few years at a close range (remember unlike other rivals in college athletics we have to share a town, not a state with these characters). What these purported "outsiders " miss is UCLA alums and students do have the right to call it like it is, given how our school’s administration have handled the athletic program whenever there was even a hint of impropriety. Yes, things are a little different at UCLA, which:

did not hesitate from firing a basketball head coach (Harrick), one year removed from a national championship, over discrepancies of expensive meal
immediately took self corrective measures as soon as the stories regarding handicap scandal broke wrt to the football team (which was accompanied by wide outrage from UCLA alums, students, and fans from all over Bruin Nation)
had no problem immediately suspending a Heisman contending running back over allegations of driving SUV (Foster), and flushing a promising football season down the toilet
did not waste any time from suspending a player (Dragovic) for games for – get this – allegations over a playing in a team in which another player had received compensation.

In other words every time any issue has risen with regards to our athletic program, our officials have immediately taken corrective measures and did everything they could do to make sure those incidents never took place again. So it’s laughably ignorant or just absurd to compare the athletic programs run by current UCLA administrators with the ones run by Southern Cal’s Heritage Hall.

Does anyone in their right mind want to compare what happens at UCLA with this?:

So here we are, again, talking about a super star SC player who took money during his time on campus. We're here, again, looking at receipts and paper trails dug up by an investigative journalist. And, again, the University has no idea that any of this happened. They had no clue that their best player (who wore new clothes , sported a flat screen TV in his room, and flew his friends and family out across country to watch games) was doing anything wrong. Again.

Here's the thing. The Reggie Bush incident was supposed to wake up USC. We have agents in our locker rooms? Hmmm... maybe that's not such a good idea. Yet, guess who was hanging around the Galen center locker rooms? That's right! Sports agents! The guys implicated in the investigation said there were hanging around the program for the last two years. So, in the time after their program was publicly chastised for giving professional agents access to their amateur players, they didn't absolutely zero to prevent it from happening again. In fact, according to transcripts from the investigation, these guys (well, their emissaries anyways) were an integral part of the USC basketball staff!!

That was from CPBruinFan at Bruin Roar on what he calls a "lack of institutional control" at Southern Cal, something we have never seen in Westwood and will not tolerate as alums, students and fans of this program.

As for tired, old attacks on Rick Neuheisel, we disposed of those issues here and here. And, obviously, there will be few who won't be able to resist throwing out the mendacious Gilbert references like Pavlov dogs. If anyone here needs to read up on how to beat back those charges go here , here and here .

Anyway, back to the latest scandal in Southern Cal. Here is the thing. I think Dave's speculation in terms of the kind of penalty Southern Cal is facing (if at all) sounds about it right.

Let me just spare you all the suspense on how this movie is going to end. NCAA will review the allegations stemming from ESPN's OTL story. It will get "cooperation" from Southern Cal's athletic department. As a result of their "investigation" they will probably ban the Trojans from appearing in the Big Dance for two years (not a big deal since they are never a factor in that competition anyway), probably take away couple of scholarships, put the program on probation, and may be ban them from TV appearances for couple of years (again not a big deal since no one really cares about watching the "Gap Closers" on the tube). As Parrish stated above Floyd will get to stick around.

But here's the catch. After doling out those sanctions over an insignificant program NCAA will make a big deal out of how it doesn't spare any one, even the mighty Trojans, and then go on to totally forget about what happened with Reggie Bush and the pattern of scandal tainted stories emerging out of Pete Carroll's program.

In other words the OJ2 story will give the NCAA perfect opportunity to show how it can impose some sanctions (when the stakes are not all that high) while look the other way as the Humanitarian continue to "work" on bringing peace in Darfur and in the Middle East, find cure for cancer and aids, and free Tibet.

Oh, and Plaschke will be writing columns on how Carroll and the Trojans are working hard to maintain a program that "follows the rules".

Nothing will change.

GO BRUINS.

3 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

To be fair

I repeated several times that I didn’t blame Bruins fans one bit for celebrating in USC’s problems – explicitly noting, in fact, that there was nothing I enjoyed more than watching Oklahoma deal with problems.

The above post makes it sound like I slammed UCLA fans, which is just not a fair reading of what I wrote.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on May 13, 2008 7:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sure

You larded up your post with snarky BS like this

Across town from the unfolding South Central nightmare, the princes of Westwood are enjoying every salacious detail that emerges from this story. Understandably so. If asked to choose my five favorite days in BON history, I’d undoubtedly include among them the day Mr. Bomar pulled a Bomar. Indeed, there are few satisfactions as fulfilling as schadenfreudian satisfaction.
While I unequivocally enjoy a spring get-together amongst friends to stone the enemy during his weakest hour, it is rather amusing to watch such a stoning party break loose in a glass house (title-holder: Rick Neuheisel).

Though Bruins fans understandably have found their own way to make peace with Slick Rick’s sketchy past, at least to this outsider, this point pretty well makes the case argued above: The haughtiness, be it from Pat Forde or a Bruins fan or anyone else, rings a bit hollow when the OJ Mayo case is viewed as a single wave in the stormy sea of NCAA regulatory dysfunction.

And you come here telling us you didn’t intend to look down and snicker at what we were saying here (not to mention you linked BN in that pot shot along with links to SMQ shots at RN (w/o any counter point) with using not so original "Slick Rick" name calling) ?

It’s like going over to a Trojan website telling them you didn’t mean to slam their program while calling their head coach "Cheatie Peatie". Uh ok. Whatever.

And the OJ Mayo case constitutes a “single wave” of what has been crashing out of Southern Cal? Like I said … whatever.

by Nestor on May 13, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mkay

Having a different take than the one you do is not the same as lambasting UCLA. As you quote above, I wrote, “Understandably so.” As in, I’d be doing the exact same thing if I were UCLA.

That Rick Neuheisel has a sketchy past is not a point up for debate. As also noted above, I noted that Bruins fans have “understandably” reconciled his past with what they expect from him heading forward. As in: I think Bruins fans can legitimately feel confident about what Neuheisel will do in Westwood, no matter his past.

The larger point of my article was to note that the rush to give USC the death penalty was an overreaction, given the ubiquity of transgressions in amateur sports. The post makes clear its intent to illuminate the picture beyond the picture which includes, I note note not at all nastily, the fact that UCLA just hired a coach who’s got a track record of NCAA violations. And at the conclusion, I note that USC will deserve whatever sanctions do come their way from this.

I certainly wouldn’t expect you to make the same points that I raised. But to point to what I actually wrote as some sort of biased-against-UCLA piece from an outsider with an axe to grind is just silly.

My two points about UCLA were (1) that I’d be enjoying this every bit as much as Bruins fans were, and (2) before we all jump aboard Pat Forde’s death penalty wagon, we ought to be a little more realistic about the overall environment that is amateur athletics in big money sports. And as relates to UCLA, I noted (in a friendly manner) that UCLA had just hired a coach with a long track record of violations.

If the post I wrote is a UCLA “slam,” the only lesson I can take from that is that anything mentioned that’s not explicitly pro-UCLA will be conceived as an affront, no matter how nicely it’s phrased. Which would be unfortunate.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on May 13, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm no

If you are going to broad brush Neuheisel’s past as “sketchy” w/o acknowledging what really went down at UDub and what RN has done since then then you are being insincere.

And you are once again playing the “victim” card after taking the initial potshots against us. It’s pathetic and weak.

by Nestor on May 14, 2008 4:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This just in . . .

USC announced today that it had resolved the OJ Mayo dust-up, by firing and turning over to NCAA authorities junior-deputy-associate-first-class Mindie Wingland, accused of dragging a flat-screen television by dog leash into Mr. Mayo’s dormitory room, and brutally hanging on it on his dorm wall without permission. When shown the confirmatory photographic evidence , AD MIke Garrett expressed both shock and outrage, “This was never supposed to happen! These misdeeds of a few underlings will be effectively dealt with, the matter has been resolved, hallelujiah, fight on.”

And that will be that.

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on May 14, 2008 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

You are being disingenuous. You tried to appear to be the unbiased observer, but as the post progresses you become more smarmy and holier-than-thou. Now maybe you did that to try to be funny or interesting, but you just end up looking like an ass.

by UCLA4Life on May 14, 2008 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know you, PB@BON

but I do know what I see. I see opinions and assumptions being called facts. I see strawman arguments being made. I see poor analysis. I see denial and attempts at obvuscation.

I could go on, but I just have one question. What are the facts on which you base your assumption about “the ubiquity of transgressions in amateur sports.” Let’s have some specifics. You can leave out the transgressions coming from the cesspool on Figueroa. We know that. And you can leave out the transgressions at UCLA which UCLA found out about and which UCLA took significant action to correct without the Floyd/Carroll/Garrett denyathon. Let’s have the factual basis for your argument, please.

I have no power to ban you or welcome you—I’m a guest here like you are. But I do have the power to call you out when you show up with poor analyses and no facts to support those poor analyses.

by Fox 71 on May 13, 2008 9:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow

I do know what I see. I see opinions and assumptions being called facts. I see strawman arguments being made. I see poor analysis. I see denial and attempts at obvuscation.

Oy. To begin with, what you “see,” or should have seen, was an argument. With premises and a conclusion. If you dispute some of the premises on which my argument rests, I encourage you to head on over to my site and leave a comment explaining how and where you disagree.

As for “strawman arguments,” I think you need to go look the meaning of that one up, my friend, because it’s not applicable to what I was writing. A strawman argument is a fallacy in critique, in which I take what your words, sort out all their possible meanings, assign the weakest of those meanings to your words, and then proceed to attack that – instead of what you really were saying. The basic idea is not to assume the weakest argument and attack that, but to engage the counter-point you’re refuting on its full merits.

If you can show me one example of me making a strawman argument in my post, I’d be shocked. I think you just tossed that out there among all the other unsupported conclusions in your comment.

As for “poor analysis,” I’m always open to critique, and again invite you to the post to share your thoughts.

As for denial, I have no idea what you mean. You’ll have to be more specific. What is it I’m denying?

And the “obvuscation” – I assume that was a typo and you meant obfuscation. In any case, I disagree that the argument serves to confuse people, but if you’d like to point out the ways in which you think it does, please come leave a comment.

I could go on, but I just have one question. What are the facts on which you base your assumption about "the ubiquity of transgressions in amateur sports." Let’s have the factual basis for your argument, please.

To begin with, the ubiquity of NCAA transgressions is only one of several premises of the argument. With that said, you might disagree with me that the system is full of schools, athletes, boosters, agents, etc who bend and break the rules. But your suggestion that I run off a list of examples for you is confusing. On the one hand: okay, here are but a few, with just a minimum of effort. But more than that, you missed one of the biggest points of the entire argument by demanding that I list all the NCAA violators. One of the points is that the NCAA does a terrible job enforcing the rules. In the present case, had ESPN’s Outside the Lines not investigated, USC would probably have carried on with their total disregard for oversight of their athletes.

In any case, if you firmly believe that my premise is faulty, that’s fine. Though I can’t prove the existence of all the bending and breaking of rules that I’m arguing goes on, neither can you prove their non-existence.

And finally, this again shows a fundamental glossing over of what it is I actually wrote. As vague as every one of these “critiques” are, I’m guessing you skimmed the article. Because ironically, the “critiques” in your comment are equal parts strawman arguments and textbook obfuscation. You managed to string together a long set of ‘problems’ with my post without actually saying anything. While repeatedly mis-representing the character of my argument. The irony is astounding.

I have no power to ban you or welcome you—I’m a guest here like you are. But I do have the power to call you out when you show up with poor analyses and no facts to support those poor analyses.

The only power you’ve displayed in this comment is the ability to assert a conclusion. “This is poor analysis.” Or, “I see strawman arguments being made.” Not only do you seem to misunderstand the meaning and usage of several of the terms you’ve thrown my way, but they’re just conclusions. Not a single counter-point in the entire comment.

And so, I’ll conclude by saying once again that I more than welcome your thoughts on the post, and I’m happy to engage your substantive thoughts on them. “This is poor analysis” is not a substantive claim I can work with. Nor are accusations of non-existent strawmen arguments.

So rather than try to show me up with this comment, come on over and leave a substantive thought that I can work with. I harbor no illusions that my argument is above disagreement. I think I made a reasonable point about the state of amateur athletics, but to whatever extent you disagree, I invite your thoughts.

I’m here at BN because Nestor and I are friends and work closely together, and I thought his post explained my point of view uncharitably.

So while I bow out of this thread now, I note that you’re more than welcome to “call me out” if you disagree with my post. Come on over to the site and lay it all out. The above comment is just huff and puff. If you’ve got some meat for me to chew on, I’ll look forward to it over at BON.

Cheers.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on May 13, 2008 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you might refine your position

4. Stoning the enemy is always fun, even from a glass house. Across town from the unfolding South Central nightmare, the princes of Westwood are enjoying every salacious detail that emerges from this story. Understandably so. If asked to choose my five favorite days in BON history, I’d undoubtedly include among them the day Mr. Bomar pulled a Bomar. Indeed, there are few satisfactions as fulfilling as schadenfreudian satisfaction.
While I unequivocally enjoy a spring get-together amongst friends to stone the enemy during his weakest hour, it is rather amusing to watch such a stoning party break loose in a glass house (title-holder: Rick Neuheisel).

Though Bruins fans understandably have found their own way to make peace with Slick Rick’s sketchy past, at least to this outsider, this point pretty well makes the case argued above: The haughtiness, be it from Pat Forde or a Bruins fan or anyone else, rings a bit hollow when the OJ Mayo case is viewed as a single wave in the stormy sea of NCAA regulatory dysfunction.

I first and foremost wish to welcome you here to BN! Although some of my colleagues have given you a gruff welcome, your somewhat condescending reply aptly cleared up any misunderstanding. I wish to extend to you the hand of friendship once again in an attempt to debate the matter at hand: “What the Princes of Westwood think” or “Bruins in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” I prefer the former myself.

Judging by this portion of the article, the points are as follows:

1. Most, if not all Bruins are celebrating the fact that USC has fallen on hard times; and,
2. This is great, hey I did it when OU got into hot water; and
3. Everyone cheats in the same fashion; and
4. The Bruins are hypocrites because they didn’t get caught this time, have violated the rules in the past, and they have Slick Rick coaching now.

Therefore, Bruins in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I’m sure that this is a glib statement of the points but blogs aren’t really the place for nuanced interpretations.

What gets our goat, is that this is an oversimplification of our position. In that, it is a much weaker representation of our position and thus can be dismissed with trite sayings like “people in glass houses…” incidentally, that makes this argument a classic strawman informal fallacy in logic. However, we can debate this on the logic blogs later.

The oversimplification stems from misunderstanding our feelings on the matter, First, we are not naive enough to think that violation of the rules is not wide-spread. We are not naive enough to think that UCLA does not violate the rules from time to time either. We are not naive enough to think that only USC is capable of violating the rules. What we are angry about is that USC violates the rules, in a HIGH PUBLICITY fashion, over and over again, and does not seem to get punished or TAKES NO ACTION TO SELF-CORRECT THE PROBLEMS WHEN THEY DO ARISE. You don’t need a Bruin to point that out.

So, you see we are angry and you can understand that anger, but our opinion is that USC would rather blame the player, or his hanger-ons, or the poverty, or anything other than themselves. This is not your garden variety “HAW HAW, I love when my rival falters” type sentiment. It comes from watching them violate the NCAA rules in SPECTACULAR fashion and then throw up their hands and blame everyone but the institution that SHOULD be the rational entity ASKING THE QUESTIONS. This is not a single dot in a pointillism painting by Georges-Pierre Seurat. Rather it is like Jackson Pollack, in a rather heavy-handed fashion, spilling a quart of highly contrasting paint, directly in the center of the canvas.

As for our hypocrisy, Nestor has already pointed out what happened under Toledo, and “Slick Rick” has yet to make any misstep. Until then, I for one am for allowing anyone a chance at redemption. This might seem like a gloss but this is territory that has had a thorough going-over here at BN.

Lastly, let me underscore the fact that we are obviously all peers and should act in a civil fashion toward each other. Mistakes in spelling only matter to the lexicographer. That said, I would like to apologize for any hard feelings, look forward to hearing from you again, and wish your team luck (except when playing us).

by Bruins101NCAA on May 14, 2008 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

by Nestor on May 14, 2008 4:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ahh... thank you, sir

First, thanks for a civil reply. And a substantive one. Seriously – very gracious and helpful of you.

That’s a more or less fair take on what I said, and in that light, I can see what the beef is. Of course, I’d note that the only reason I showed up to BN to comment in the first place was because I had absolutely no intention of provoking a UCLA reader.

Anyhow, I appreciate the clarification. The glass house talk was simply a poor choice of words, as the entirety of the post was intended to talk about the big context of amateur athletics. I even tried to make clear that I approved of all the stone throwing at USC. I absolutely see where you’re coming from, though, on the implication that there was a secondary point being made about UCLA. To the extent that my sloppiness gave you (or any Bruin) the idea that I was condemning UCLA, I certainly regret that. Apologies offered.

As for Neuheisel, I happen to agree with you. I don’t think there’s anything egregious about UCLA hiring him under the assumption he’ll dot all his i’s and cross his t’s. I intended to make that point in my post as well, but didn’t do a very good job.

Again, thanks for the proper response. It wasn’t clear to me that the way I’d written the post was causing people like yourself to read the Conclusion at #4 as part of my argument. But it’s not an unfair reading of what I actually wrote. I appreciate you bringing that to light, I regret the offensive implication, but enjoyed the discourse, Bruins101NCAA.

--PB--

by Peter Bean on May 14, 2008 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

I enjoyed the debate as well. Thank you for your opinions, they are not at all out of line and gave us, the Bruin fans, the opportunity to clarify our positions.

Take it easy.

by Bruins101NCAA on May 14, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A nice lengthy reply

which says nothing. You make assertions which you can’t back up and then invite me to your post to argue about it. No thanks. If I don’t need to go to your site (and I still don’t know what your site is) to continue to debate about the absence of any actual evidence which you concede you don’t have. There is nothing left to discuss.

by Fox 71 on May 14, 2008 4:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where is PB's post?

Was it deleted, or am I just not used to the format? Oh well…

Nestor—fantastic post and I tend to agree most with the Parrish article, because the “me not know nothing” card has worked in the past and will more than likely work in the future.

The only difference with this Juice Deuce situation is that the WWL (believe it or not) broke this story with some actual investigation, basically throwing a gigantic turd pie right into Garrett and Heritage Hall’s face.

I have a confession to make: I was actually acquaintances with the Garrett family growing up in Pasadena, but the man looks like a total dirtbag right now and deserves what’s coming to him. If this was (ugh) Dalis or DG, they would be gone before the WWL tape ran.

by bruinhopeful on May 13, 2008 10:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One point missed...

...is where the article makes the following assertion:

Most coaches - save a select few - just cross their fingers and hope nothing blows up on them.

No matter how the whole OJ2-Guillory mess and the Bushgate fiasco turn out, I take a lot of comfort in knowing that CBH is one of those select few who aren’t out there pushing the limits of the rules, that he’s bringing in players who are not only talented, but who are geniunely good human beings, and is not only doing his job the right and honest way, but has built an extremely successful program (both on and off the court) that Coach himself is proud of.

by norcald503 on May 14, 2008 12:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Side note:

Heard on the radio today on 570AM that Derozen is considering transferring if this $C investigation becomes ongoing. Wonder if Lil Romeo still keeps his scholarship?

by bruinhopeful on May 14, 2008 8:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs