Former UCLA tailback DeShaun Foster was involved in a similar situation in 2001 and ended up sitting out the Bruins' final three games. UCLA was proactive in cooperating once the NCAA made the school aware of a possible "extra benefits" violation — also involving a player's use of an SUV.
UCLA did not face further punishment from the NCAA, but USC could be viewed differently because the school already is under investigation.
about 2 years ago
Nestor
28 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
If USC were smart
they would suspend him for the Nut Bowl and tell him to go pro.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 19, 2009 10:19 AM PST reply actions
That's their best possible outcome at this point
The more I read the LAT piece I think it is incredibly interesting that the Trojans knew about his vehicle. From the LA Times piece:
USC asks its athletes to provide written documentation about the vehicles they drive on campus. McKnight said Wednesday that he had not provided the school information on the Land Rover because he hadn’t driven it.
However, Todd Dickey, USC’s senior vice president for administration, said Friday that McKnight did provide the school with written documentation that he was driving the vehicle. Tim Tessalone, USC’s sports information director, said the running back had been “mistaken” in his account to The Times. Tessalone declined a request to see the documentation or say when the information was filed.
So, the investigators and reporters should be looking into exactly what the Trojan officials knew about him driving the vehicle and if they exercised due diligence around it. You’d think an institution that has been under the spotlight so much would be extra careful.
I am guessing the Trojans will suspend McKnight for the Emerald Bowl and hope he just goes pro. That would be the easy way out for them without having to answer questions about the responsibility of their compliance officials.
Lots of lying going on
First, the LAT admits in the article that they have known about McSUV driving the thing for 3 weeks. Why was it only mentioned now?
McEscalade says that he didn’t drive the car (lie) and didn’t provide information to the school about driving the car. $C says otherwise.
McMistaken admits—on video (easily found on the net) that he engaged in a conference call with Reggie “Free House” Bust and Cheatey before he enrolled, in violation of NCAA rules. Cheatey denies the phone call ever took place. Either McConferenceCall was a liar and an idiot for talking about a phone call which never happenned or he was telling the truth…and Cheatey is the liar. At this point, I say it’s 50/50 about who is the bigger sociopath at this point.
$C and Cheatey are circling the wagons again. I predict Mc$Candal plays in the Nut Bowl because “all the facts aren’t in” and the school is “still investigating.”
How do you put
USC and smart in the same sentence?
by Give me a B... on Dec 20, 2009 1:14 AM PST up reply actions
With a big, huge if
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 20, 2009 1:42 AM PST up reply actions
Why would you think that?
You’d think an institution that has been under the spotlight so much would be extra careful.
The main lesson that they have learned is that the NCAA investigators are incompetent and won’t act. Why would they be concerned?
It is really stunning
I keep thinking I am getting numb to all it but it just gets shocking every time out. Can you imagine if UCLA or any other program’s athletic department dealt with these kinds of “issues”?
A buddy of mine had a theory
That $C keeps having more scandals revealed periodically so that the NCAA investigation is continually having more incidents to look into and can never actually complete their investigation because it keeps growing.
NCAA
You think those jokes investigating this will drop the hammer on USC in the next decade?
My Theory
I really don’t believe the NCAA has any interest in punishing USC for anything. SC is a marquee NCAA program (at least in football) and punishing them would hurt the NCAA in many ways, particularly in the wallet. The NCAA needs USC to continue to be a top football program and punishing them would not be in their (the NCAA’s) best interests. It’s easy for the NCAA to punish the “lesser” programs so it looks like it is doing it’s job fairly, but when faced with the transgressions by a major program, the investigation will be dragged out indefintiely (see the investigation into Reggie Bush, now what, four years down the road?). It’s becoming pretty obvious to me that that is what is going on here. I wouldn’t expect anything to be done by the NCAA against them.
Agreed
This year alone, we have seen the NCAA come down on Memphis only after Calipari left the university. We have also seen the NCAA come down on Mississippi State, and Renardo Sydney with an “undisclosed violation” not allowing him to play. The only thing those two programs have in common is that they are viewed as smaller programs that need to be made examples of. It is clear that the NCAA is able to come down on programs. It just does not seem to be capable of doing so with the marquee programs within the NCAA.
So if he didn't drive it, what was it doing next to a USC practice field?
I mean if he didn’t drive the car, the last place you would ever expect to find it is next to a USC practice field.
Slightly but not entirely off topic breaking news
Reliable sources reported today that the USC Presidential Search Committee, headed by chair and prominent dental school donor Tony Soprano, interviewed Senora Ross, Spanish Department Chair of Los Angeles Trade Tech, for the position of President to replace Steven Samples. Persons present during the interview, which was held in Heritage Hall who spoke on condition of anonymity (although none of them could either spell or pronounce anonymity), indicated Senora Ross promised to restore institutional integrity to the troubled academic institution which is reeling from the recent Joe McKnight revelations. Senora Ross also promised to increase funding to Trade Tech’s Figueroa Satellite Campus.
In other news, seeing eye dogs have been provided to Head Football Coach Peter Carroll and his entire coaching because they are so blind that they could not see their star running back, raised in the depths of poverty outside New Orleans and saddled with the expense of a child born out of wedlock, just happened to be showing up to practice in a SUV he stated in writing he was driving.
But Peggy, you have to remember that Joe has a just$c* education
When he wrote “I drive the black Landrover,” he thought he was writing, “I do not now, and never have, driven a black Landrover, and in fact have never even seen a black Landrover, or any other vehicle.” That’s what he thought he was saying. Then of course, when he told the fishwrap that he had had never driven the car, he thought he was saying “I never had a dog named Rover.”
He intends to make a formal statement, in Spanish, with the assistance of Senora Ross. He promised to pick her up in a black Landrover, if he ever drove one, which he does not, and never has, and anyone who says he has ever driven one is probably a felon and is working on a book deal.
Edu-ma-cation?
Two McK LAT quotes: “I play football and I have a child.” “I’m just being a football player and a father to my child.”
Doesn’t say anything about actually attending classes.
by Give me a B... on Dec 20, 2009 1:27 AM PST up reply actions
Looks like N pointed this out in the earlier thread.
Late to the party again.
by Give me a B... on Dec 20, 2009 1:38 AM PST up reply actions
Laughs
There is nothing most of us can do to make the NCAA do the right thing; so for the powerless among us, we need to laugh at this and taunt those infidels all day and all night. Like:
If your star running back never drove a LandRover, you must be a trojan.
Guess who is not being entirely candid?
The Orange County Register article Nestors’s post links to refers to a comment by a “Todd Dickey, USC’s senior vice president of administration." Well merely referring to Mr. Dickey, who according to the article is not returning telephone calls, as just any administrator is not entirely correct. According to the State Bar website, Mr. Dickey is a lawyer whose office is on the USC campus which is apparently the place from which he has stopped returning telephone calls. Mr. Dickey not some professional with a Ph.d in education or someone like that who is helping run a major educational institution. Check out ”http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=167284." target="_blank">http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=167284.
Mr. Dickey is a former U.S.C. general counsel according to the Figueroa diploma factory website. According to their website, Mr. Dickey "provides leadership" to the General Counsel Carol Mauch Amir, who is also Secretary to the University. Take a Bruin gander at http://www.usc.edu/about/administration/senior/dickey.html. (Do not have your nonadult children look at this website page which features Mr. Dickey—the maroon colors are everywhere and they look yeech!)
Now there is nothing wrong with a lawyer such a Mr. Dickey responding to the McKnight allegations, they are serious charges of corruption and our legal system expects attorneys to step up and speak for those charged with wrongdoing just as Mr. Dickey was doing before he stopped returning telephone calls. I commend Mr. Dickey for doing his job before he stopped returning telephone calls. But the least the university could do is practice a little integrity be admitting Mr. Dickey, their "senior vice president of administration," is a lawyer whose job it is to avoid civil liability or financial losses to the university if its football team is put on probation and one way to do that I suppose is to stop returning telephone calls.
It's not a similar situation...
In law school we learned that the identical facts can lead to different legal outcomes in different jurisdictions. What this means is what gets penalized at UCLA gets applauded at USC.
Geezer Question: I'm Going to Ask Fox's Question, Again
What supports the belief that sc has NCAA immunity because the NCAA makes money on sc?
For example, if sc were on probation, some other team would go to the bowl games and play on TV.
It seems like there are enough teams with “followings” to be fungible.
So, what is the NCAA’s financial interest in leaving sc alone?
I’m not arguing with anyone. Just curious. As Fox has been over the years.
sjh
I agree
From what I have seen, there is really nothing that sets them apart money-wise in relation to their football team. Many teams make big money and get sanctioned: Alabama, Oklahoma, and Florida St. I have some problem imagining that $uc* has more pull than these programs.
So, if it’s not money, what is it? I’m sort of curious. I suppose we could say that a) the investigation is difficult and being stonewalled by $c is causing it to drag, b) that $c does have money in some other regard other than the worth of their football team, or c) the NCAA just doesn’t care.
I think that the NCAA is facing a crisis in that more schools and players are suing them and it needs to decide whether it is going to continue to operate as a shame organization afraid to take on major universities or it is going to bring the hammer down. u$c* is in danger of the hammer coming down because their M.O. is to continue cheating. One way or the other this will be resolved.
Troy HAS fallen...again, again, and again.
by Bruins102NCAA on Dec 19, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
Me too
My opinion is the failure to act against SC results from NCAA enforcement bufoonery plus trojan stonewalling. Maybe someone who views this as an issue of the NCAA being afraid to discipline a cash cow can do an extensive post on the evidence, not just the inferences that support this analysis.
I can point to evidence of investigative incompetence—an NCAA investigator telling disgraced basketball coach Tim Floyd to hire a lawyer rather than keep him talking about payoffs and the institution’s response to allegations of misconduct. I don’t have all the evidence—it could be I am wrong and this is solely a question of dollars. But I sure would like to see the evidence, not merely the inferences and frustrated expressions of opinion, that support the other view. One way or another, the NCAA response is utterly shameful.
I say all of this with the understanding both views may be correct.
by peggysue69 on Dec 20, 2009 10:23 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Parsing Pete
Here is what the OC Register article says: "USC coach Pete Carroll said USC’s compliance office had the situation ‘in full review.’ ’We’ll have to wait and see what happens with that,’ Carroll said. ‘I don’t really know anything more than that.’
What does he mean he doesn’t “know anything more than” the fact the “compliance office” is reviewing “that.” He most assuredly knows more than “that.” He knows that the guy who is the general counsel’s boss has copped out to the fact McKnight notified the school he was driving the SUV. Carroll knows “that” and he knows McKnight orally denied driving the Ranger Rover which has been photographed parked next to the SC practice field.
The reason Carroll says stuff like this is because he gets away with it with the Times and the NCAA.
by peggysue69 on Dec 19, 2009 10:30 PM PST via mobile reply actions
From LSUFreak apparently
Troy HAS fallen...again, again, and again.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
