NCAA's Letter Of Allegations v. U$C* Doesn't Include McKnight Scandal & Death Penalty Discussion For Trojans
by Nestor on Jan 12, 2010 8:43 AM PST
in Football
Email
PrintWell that's the read I can make after going through the news reports from yesterday. If others see it differently and think that the letter probably includes the Joe McKnight scandal would love to hear your takes in the comment thread.
Let's start with revisiting what Charles Robinson and Jason Cole from Yahoo Sports reported (emphasis added throughout):
After almost four years of investigation, the NCAA’s probe into the University of Southern California athletic program has reached a conclusion. Sources familiar with the investigation have told Yahoo! Sports that the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions will meet Feb. 19-21 to address what investigators uncovered at USC. According to typical NCAA procedures, if sanctions are necessary, they will be determined and then made public via a news conference within six to eight weeks of the February hearing.
NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn declined comment. The NCAA’s website indicates the next meeting of the Committee on Infractions will occur Feb. 19-21 in Tempe, Ariz.
Neither USC nor Pac-10 officials could be immediately reached for comment.
The meeting will be the apex in the NCAA’s probe into USC’s athletic program, as it represents the first determination on whether sanctions should be leveled against the school. The determination on a hearing date also indicates USC has received a letter of allegations from the NCAA and that the school has responded in some way. According to NCAA procedures, schools informed of infractions have at least 90 days to respond. After the response period has expired, a case summary is completed and a date is set for the Committee on Infractions to meet and determine whether there is a basis for sanctioning.
So from reading that report if a meeting to address the allegations is scheduled for February 19-21, Southern Cal I am assumed received that letter of allegations around November 19-21 (90 days before the hearing). Dana O'Neil's ESPN report seems to confirm that line of reasoning:
Per NCAA policy, schools have 90 days to respond to the notice of allegations before a hearing is set on the committee on infractions calendar. That means USC received the notice more than three months ago since a hearing date has been set by the NCAA.The committee on infractions will meet Feb. 19-21 in Tempe, Ariz., and according to a source, USC will be the focus of that meeting with the committee.
The Joe McKnight Landrover Bombshell didn't break into the public sphere till mid December. I think it might be reasonable to guess that the NCAA investigators didn't look into those allegations unless someone already had tipped them off to those sordid reports. Given how slow these guys have been operations, I doubt those allegations are included in the letter.
At least from the information available in the public sphere it looks like Southern Cal just sat on that letter of allegations, while Joey Land Rover was cruising around (allegedly) in his Baby Momma Boss's ride. They did nothing until the "self imposed" allegations which observers around the county have laughed as a stupid joke. It gets lot worse.
Patroclus points out that U$C* seems to fall into the category of a "repeat offender" (shocking I know) of NCAA rules after they were placed on probation in 2001:
1. USC’s athletic department was placed on probation for a period of 2 years (8-23-01 through 8-23-03)
2. The NCAA took away 2 scholarships from Football, and 1/2 scholarship from Women’s swimming for the 2002-03 academic year
3. In addition to the above, USC became subject to the NCAA’s repeat violators policy (then NCAA bylaw 19.6.2.3, now bylaw 19.5.2.3), for a period of 5 years from the date of the NCAA’s infraction report and imposition of penalties (8-23-01 through 8-23-06).
Here is what Bylaw 19.5.2.3.1 reads:
An institution shall be considered a "repeat" violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case. It shall not be necessary that the Committee on Infractions’ hearing be conducted or its report issued within the five-year period. (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)
So if any of those allegations are deemed as a major violation of NCAA rules before August 23, 2006, Southern Cal would fall into the category of "a repeat violator." Again as referenced above, it doesn't even look like the allegations addressed McKnight situation.
Of course it will be up to the NCAA to decide whether they come down with death penalty. I am not holding my breath over. However, one has to wonder what would happen to any other institution embroiled in the same set of gory details.
GO BRUINS.
UPDATE (N): Good eye from irisbruin04:
“Per NCAA policy, schools have 90 days to respond to the notice of allegations before a hearing is set on the committee on infractions calendar. That means USC received the notice more than three months ago since a hearing date has been set by the NCAA.The committee on infractions will meet Feb. 19-21 in Tempe, Ariz., and according to a source, USC will be the focus of that meeting with the committee.”
This paragraph suggests that USC received the notice 3 months before the date the hearing was set, not the date of the actual hearing. In other words, the notice was sent to USC in or around October 19-21, not November 19-21.
Looks even worse in that case. GO BRUINS.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Death Penalty
This won’t happen. There have been numerous articles referencing their regret after seeing what it did to SMU.
The real question is whether there will be substantive penalties that really do affect their program or if it is some cosmetic penalty that allows them to conduct business as usual. We all know the NCAA is a joke. However, if they do not come down on suc, there really isn’t a reason for any program in the country to abide by the rules. The spotlight is on the NCAA and the nation is watching.
Penalties
Would love to hear thoughts (and examples) on what can be considered as “substantive” as oppose to a total slap on the wrist.
If not death,
substantive penalties would have to hit them directly in their lifeblood—recruiting. And, I don’t mean taking away 2 or 3 scholarships. Rather, the reverse—let them KEEP 2 or 3 scholarships for each of the next few years. Just enough to recruit a long snapper and a punter.
has to be significant post-season bans
as has been mentioned before, here and elsewhere, missing a scholarship or two, or having past records expunged, would have little effect.
I think even so much as a 2-year post-season ban would hurt the ability of $C to recruit the kind of talent they are used to hauling in.
Even better: 2-year post-season ban and waiving of the ‘sit out a year’ rule for anyone wishing to transfer to another school.
by britishbruin on Jan 12, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
I think you would also want a multiyear television ban as well
I would do a 2 year TV ban plus 2 year post season ban plus schollie reductions and releasing all current players from their scholarships with freedom to transfer anywhere without sitting out a year.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jan 12, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Yeeeah
but that’s never going to happen.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
creative thinking there Silver.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
The NCAA hasn't done TV bans recently - for major programs, at least
Wondering of the effect of TV networks and their $$ has influenced the NCAA in not keeping any of the big boys off of the tube.
formerly bruinhoo
Looking into that
I originally came across those NCAA bylaws, as well as the 2001 probation report on USC, while searching for examples of such major penalties imposed in recent years. Depending on my schedule, I’ll try to write up a summary of what the NCAA has done in response to major violations today or tomorrow.
formerly bruinhoo
Worst-case
You’re probably looking at a postseason ban for 1 or 2 seasons, and a large scholarship reduction (25 scholies) for that same 2 year period.
You’re also probably looking at retroactive forfeiture of the BCS National Title, 2 Pac-10 Titles, and all games in which Reggie Bush participated.
Again, that’s worst case scenario. I suspect the punishment will probably be some sub-set of these possibilities. The biggest impact will be in the number of scholarships that USC is allowed to offer. Everything else is really just window dressing.
Doubt we will see that large of a scholarship reduction
Even Alabama, in its near-miss of the death penalty, was only docked 5 scholarships for a 3-year period (from 85 to 80 total scholies), as well as being limited in how many scholarships it could give out per year during that period. Given the player attrition that can be expected due to the coaching change + sanctions, and this year’s small recruiting class, I imagine the latter would have a bigger impact on SC than the former.
formerly bruinhoo
Yeah, I agree
I was just throwing out the neutron bomb scholie reduction option, which essentially would vaporize an entire recruiting class. I think something on the order of a 5 scholie reduction per year for 3 years is much more likely, however.
Couple examples
Miami Hurricanes: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-02/sports/1995336033_1_university-of-miami-orange-bowl-football
the Hurricanes will be banned from postseason play for one year, and on three-year probation for rules violations.
Miami’s punishment includes a reduction of 13 scholarships in 1996-97 and 11 in 1997-98.
Kansas: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct/13/ncaa_punishes_ku/
Men’s basketball loses one scholarship for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years, and will have 12 grants to give instead of 13.
Men’s basketball also must restrict the number of official campus visits by eight over a two-year period. Given 12 per year, coach Bill Self now has 16 visits to use instead of 24 between now and the 2008-09 school year.
For being found guilty of academic fraud and other violations, football loses three scholarships per signing class for each of the next two years. The 25-scholarship maximum for most football programs is just 22 for Kansas until 2009.
Miami’s penalties were a result of extra financial aid provided to the players by the university. Kansas’s penalties were a combination of Academic Fraud in getting JC players in for FB and a booster providing improper benefits to Darnell Jackson.
Miami was not hit with “Lack of Institutional Control” but the penalties were severe enough that it decimated Miami’s football program for years (Remember the SI article on whether Miami should give up FB?). On the other hand, KU was, but to me the punsihments are pretty light and really did not hurt either of their major programs. Then you’d also have to factor in the use of an ineligible player (Bush) which resulted in Memphis (Rose) and Florida State (Academic Scandal) vacating their wins.
This is just 2 examples and its hard to compare violations and figure out what really was the punishment for what. To me, it seems like whenever there is money involved, the NCAA comes down harder on the institution. Even more so if there is a booster involved (Think Bama & Albert Means recruitment). IMO, the basketball penalties hurt them more although it only involved 1 player as opposed to an entire program.
Although money/extra benefits are involved, the NCAA could see Bush and McKnight’s infractions as being violations that were not directly connected to suc because it did not involve a suc booster or someone within their Athletic Dept. How Guillory factors in, I’m not quite sure since I don’t believe he was a booster by definition but he was around the suc program before and they knew he was toxic yet welcomed him with open arms and access to the program.
I think we’ll see the vacating of wins because of Bush and probation for sure. If and to what extent we’ll see a postseason ban, scholarship reduction and reductions in Official Visits/contact with recruits/how many coaches can recruit is the question in my mind. For some reason, I don’t think “Lack of Institutional Control” is something to fear and we may be disappointed with what the NCAA untimately does.
Miami
won the National Championship in 2001 and was runner up in 2002. And, of course, I don’t have to remind anybody what they did to us in 1998.
I wouldn’t say they were decimated for too long.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Don't forget Alabama
They were on Probation through February 2007, had a 2-year bowl ban and were subject to a 3-year reduction in scholarships, and they ended up bouncing back nicely.
formerly bruinhoo
Yes, but Alabama sucked before that
By Alabama standards. The glorious high of their reign prior to Saban appearing was Shula’s Cotton Bowl appearance. The sanctions definitely hurt them.
From what I have heard
Alabama was very close to getting the death penalty. Apparently, Phillip Fulmer, the former Tennessee coach, was the one who blew the whistle on them. Needless to say, Alabama fans don’t care much for Tennessee.
by bruinbabe2000 on Jan 12, 2010 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
I think one big difference between Miami then and SUC now....
is that SUC was already on probation when Bushgate took place.
by bornagainbruin on Jan 12, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
So the NCAA could come down harder on SUC
(sorry it took two posts to get it out)
by bornagainbruin on Jan 12, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed...
SMU did not sniff a bowl game until this past season, where they beat Nevada BTW. It took that program 21 years to recover. Short of running a prostitution and drug smuggling ring out of heritage hall using the players and cheerleaders as mules there is no way the NCAA drops the death penalty. Would I like them to? Sure, of course I would. I’ll be happy to see that program in flames for the next 5-7 years though…Hopefully the sanctions are enough to make them regret it and at least think once before they try and do it again…
UCLA - Champions Made Here
Regarding the Death Penalty
I looked around to see what types of infractions bring the death penalty upon a school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_%28NCAA%29). If u$c* is hit with the death penalty (and I, like many others, am not holding my breath), would it force the Pac 10 into a situation where expansion was necessary? The “fallout” after SMU was hit with the death penalty was a decline and eventual folding of the Southwest conference as members began leaving according the the wikipedia article.
by Westwood is the best wood on Jan 12, 2010 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
The Death Penalty will never be used again
It destroyed the Southwest Conference, and cause a huge re-alignment of the (then) Big-8 and SEC.
Basically, not only did it harm SMU, but it also hurt other teams in the SWC, such as Arkansas, which has never been as good since they were forced to move to the SEC in 1992.
yep
Alabama’s infractions in 2000/2001 were worse that what SC is being accused of (because boosters were directly paying players) and they still didn’t get the death penalty (although, i’ve heard that the infractions committee was this close to dropping it on them.
Probation, loss of scholarships, postseason bans and losing wins from the past few years are the most likely result.
Has there ever been a player better than Detlef Schrempf?
by bucknellbruin on Jan 12, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
They were close to dropping the bomb on Alabama
In looking through the Infraction Committee’s report, the committee chair wrote that the committee “very seriously” considered imposing the Death Penalty on ‘Bama football, and that it was a very close question. Interestingly, part of the justification given for distinguishing Alabama’s near miss from the imposition of the Death Penalty on SMU included: (brackets and bolding mine)
On the one occasion in which the “death penalty” was imposed [SMU], the penalized institution also had a series of major infractions cases. In that instance however, there was a demonstrated blatant disregard for NCAA rules that permeated through out the entire university and its governance structure. In this case [Alabama], by contrast, university officials cooperated fully with the enforcement staff, often at great personal criticism, in a diligent effort to develop complete information regarding the violations. Had this candor and cooperation been lacking, the death penalty (as well as substantial penalties in addition to those imposed in this case) would have been imposed.
formerly bruinhoo
Normative Ambiguity
Sorry BlueReign I think you are confusing “the way the world ought to be” with “the way the world is” when you say:
"if they do not come down on suc, there really isn’t a reason for any program in the country to abide by the rules. "
The NCAA will aggressively enforce the rules against the little schools or schools without power — so that they can maintain the façade that they actually do something and play an important regulatory role. Hypocrisy has never been seen as a character flaw or problem for them.
And, there will be schools that follow the rules because they have integrity.
Nothing will change until the NCAA is dumped or broken up by the schools that care about higher values.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Jan 12, 2010 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Date USC Received
“Per NCAA policy, schools have 90 days to respond to the notice of allegations before a hearing is set on the committee on infractions calendar. That means USC received the notice more than three months ago since a hearing date has been set by the NCAA.The committee on infractions will meet Feb. 19-21 in Tempe, Ariz., and according to a source, USC will be the focus of that meeting with the committee.”
This paragraph suggests that USC received the notice 3 months before the date the hearing was set, not the date of the actual hearing. In other words, the notice was sent to USC in or around October 19-21, not November 19-21.
Cheatey's news conference was disturbing
to claim they “worked hard to do the right thing” apparently in his mind the right thing is stonewalling, dismissing, denying, ignoring, enabling…
"If you don't take out his battery, he's going to keep going all day."
Going for another pro coach may lead to a similar view
If they get Del Rio as rumored there may be a similar problem. Pro coaches are correctly focused on one thing and correctly try to focus their players on one thing: winning. Coaching at the college level has so many more elements.
PC was great at the many more elements portion of the job except the little thing called the “rules” or the law. I think it could easy for another pro coach to overlook those rules as well.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Jan 12, 2010 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
LOL McKnight's SUV
Only at SC* where a violation occurs AFTER the NCAA completes their investigation and BEFORE they convene to discuss what penalties to bring down.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
thanks for this analysis, N
a good contribution, cutting through a lot of the noise to an issue whose importance the MSM doesn’t seem to be grasping
Don't forget the PX
When the Billy Joe Hobert scandal hit UW, the Pac-10 (urged on vehemently by SUC) piled on more sanctions than the NCAA…could it happen this time around? Hmmmm…
Will be interesting to see if UW returns the favor now that the shoe's on the other foot.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Will Be Anxious To See How Things Evolve Here....
‘SC definitely in some deep, deep doo-doo here. But I do agree with CAJason80 that it’s unlikely the NCAA would levy the death penalty to ’SC. I would have to almost think that the penalties uncovered would certainly HAVE to result in substantive punishment. The bad thing is that the NCAA is notoriously slow a la the erstwhile I.C.C. (Interstate Commerce Commision) that it could take seemingly forever for something to happen.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jan 12, 2010 10:25 AM PST reply actions
Steve Mariucci Sighted on USC Campus
I just heard on ESPN after watching some of Petey’s press conference w/Seahawks that there is a possibility of S.M. taking job at SC. Anyone else heard more on this?
Heard the same thing...
on the Scott Van Pelt show on ESPN radio while I was out at lunch.
3 things
1. We should have read about this on the L.A. Times Website—not Yahoo Sports.
2. This was clearly the impetus for Carroll leaving. The pack of lies about leaving because he is a competitor is just that—a pack of lies.
3. We are guessing about the penalties. This is all in the future. But this will lead to some substantive reporting on the particulars of Reggie-gate et al.
by peggysue69 on Jan 12, 2010 11:48 AM PST via mobile reply actions
The trojan Times...
…never does any real investigative reporting. They have been scooped by Yahoo Sports for years on the $c issues…
UCLA - Champions Made Here
continued
and immediately came here to see if anybody had anymore details regarding this interesting (and potentially unfortunate) development.
NCAA Div 1 COI Committee
While I want u$c to be judged by their NCAA peers…The current NCAA Div 1 COI includes representatives from:
University of Miami (Florida)
University of Oregon
University of Notre Dame
Hope non of them have a axe to grind:-)
Just thinking
Since $c got its letter from the NCAA in Oct., maybe that’s why Petey was so distracted for the rest of the season. Maybe $c put in their letter to the NCAA that they were going to get rid of the coach that did all these bad things to their FB. program. That might be why Petey accepted the job in Seattle. And, $c tells the NCAA that they got rid of the problem at $c and the sanctions will be less than we all hope for. Just wondering and hoping that doesn’t happen.
A movie about Petey’s life should be titled “Winless in Seattle”.
by Forever a Bruin on Jan 12, 2010 12:55 PM PST reply actions
Good point
The distraction potentiality is a good point. Carroll operated in a highly competitive environment. The margins for error are ever so slight and to know that bad news is at hand reduces productivity.
Of course, it could be he just picked the wrong starting QB. Har-har-har.
by peggysue69 on Jan 12, 2010 1:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The NCAA will "punish" U$C
but they will not hurt them.
It doesn’t matter though, the face of that program was Cheat Carroll. As much as we hated the weasel, he was charismatic and effective at recruiting. U$C will always have their tradition (wink wink), but not every coach will be as effective as Petey…especially with CRN on the other side of town, doing some actual recruiting.
I don’t think the punishment will be severe, and I don’t really care too much. It was always about letting the world know what a shady, unscrupulous place Figueroa Tech really is, and now they do.
UCLA is the “cool” place to be now. But we all knew that already.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Agreed
Regardless of how it was done, a sizable talent gap was created over there with Carroll’s recruiting. Neuheisel was starting to close that gap, but now with Carroll gone, I am looking for us to turn the tables.
It will only take outrecruiting them for 2 years to create a talent gap in our favor.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
And actually beating them on the field
which we MUST do next year, and it still won’t be easy no matter who their coach is.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Letting the world know
AND applying real disincentives to their continuing to flout the laws.
If only the former, I’m unsatisfied.
Interesting timing on SC's part
While we cannot be sure of NCAA enforcement’s timeline until the official report is released later in the spring, we can presume that USC received the letter of allegations sometime in October. Additionally, it seems probable that the announcement of self-imposed sanctions on the Basketball program came at the time that USC sent its response to the NCAA.
I find it a bit interesting (but not surprising) that USC likely knew of the NCAA’s allegations early in the fall, before the Men’s Basketball early signing period, but made no mention of any NCAA communication until after its prospects for the 2010 class had signed LOI’s, and the school had to submit a response to the NCAA (and enact any self-imposed penalties). With the Football signing period several weeks in the future when USC had to file a response, it looks like they may have been betting on keeping the lid on the Enforcement Committee hearings and the possibility of Football sanctions until National Signing Day, getting their recruiting class locked up before this became an open issue.
It seems that the whole Petey soap opera may have accelerated the exposure of SC even faster than would hvae naturally occurred.
formerly bruinhoo
Good timing analysis
My question though relates to the timing of today’s leak. It may have come from sc. Note that it is leaked on the day of the McGuire steroid furor. The ESPN coverage heavily tilts towards the McGuire story. And the Times was not the leakee. I’m speculating obviously but the question is intriguing given that the trojans have been in a damage control mode for several years now.
by peggysue69 on Jan 12, 2010 1:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
ESPN's coverage is overwhelmingly Pro-Cheat Carroll
They are repeating his press conference statement verbatim with no running commentary on the relationship between his exit and the looming NCAA inactions.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
They've been in bed with him for years
I’m not surprised at all. Aside from Outside the Lines, the WWL has no journalistic integrity IMO. Just talking heads and entertainment.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Jan 12, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Did you read the Maisel piece?
This is the first story that comes up on their College Football home page about Petey leaving, and it is far from complimentary:
The aura that USC cast over the Pac-10 has gone. Oregon won the Pac-10 this season by two games. The Ducks humiliated the Trojans. So did Stanford. When it came time to dig deeper, to start the climb up the mountain again, Carroll headed out the door.
Also the Forde piece was brutal too
It’s interesting WWL’s online coverage has provided a bit more perspective. Their TV coverage has been shallow, dumbed down catering to lowest common denominator.
not sure if this holds up
but is it also a split between the NFL guys and the College guys? I feel like Ivan Maisel – in particular – has a huge respect for the history of college football, for college players as student-athletes, and for coaches as educators of students and custodians of the legacies of the schools they represent.
The NFL guys seem to be treating this as business; Maisel seems offended by a coach getting out when the going gets tough and potentially leaving $C in shambles.
by britishbruin on Jan 12, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
Do You Think Any Of That
is due to the Ron Miller/Diane Disney connection to SC? They both went there in the fifties, and Miller played FB there as well.
Wondering if there will be a disproportionate East Coast attendance at the NCAA committee meeting?
That might make them slightly more inclined to punish the only recent West Coast threat to the East Coast domination in the BCS (as they see it).
Above commentor noted the following schools as the current members of the Infractions Committee
Miami (Fla), Notre Dame, Oregon.
formerly bruinhoo
Thanks. I missed his comment.
That made me more curious, as it says “includes,” so I found this link:
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1INFRACTION
It seems that only one member is West of the Mississippi
Sanctions
What is appropriate as a punishment would be forfeiture of victories/championships where Bush played, give back those earnings, two year bowl/TV participation, and some sholarship limitations for two years. It would be fair nd sere as a warning to others of what could happen.
From your keyboard to God's ears
That may be right. I vote for the death penalty but I am biased—to understate my attitude. But you may be very close to the truth.
by peggysue69 on Jan 12, 2010 5:14 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
