Nuggets From NCAA's "University Of Southern California Public Infractions Report": Help Us Find More

First of all, if you haven't seen the report, here it is. It is in PDF format about 67 pages long. The allegations here involved NCAA violations in three sports: football, men's basketball and women's tennis. I have flagged some of the interesting parts that stood out to me in my first read.

Now it would great if you guys can all go through the pages and flag any bit you think is interesting and post it right in this thread. I will share some initial nuggets that stood out to me. In the very first page here is the set up with focus on Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo:

This case is a window onto a landscape of elite college athletes and certain individuals close to them who, in the course of their relationships, disregard NCAA rules and regulations. It centered on a former football student-athlete ("student-athlete 1") and a former men's basketball student-athlete ("student-athlete 2"), both of whom performed at the highest level during their intercollegiate athletics careers. Student-athlete 1 was known to be a candidate for the Heisman Trophy; student-athlete 2 was widely known to be a "one-and-done" student-athlete. In fact, as early as September 2007, student-athlete 2's only year on campus, the institution sent him a memo titled, "Information Regarding the 2008 NBA Draft, Agents and Tryouts." Their world included professional sports agents, "runners" and "handlers," "friends" and family, many of whom were eager to cash in early on expected lucrative professional contracts. The actions of those professional agents and their associates, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the athletes, struck at the heart of the NCAA's Principle of Amateurism, which states that participation in intercollegiate athletics should be "motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental, and social benefits to be derived." Their actions also threatened the efforts of the NCAA and its member institutions to sponsor and support amateur competition at the collegiate level.

And reference to Southern Cal's "general campus environment":

The general campus environment surrounding the violations troubled the committee. At least at the time of the football violations, there was relatively little effective monitoring of, among others, football locker rooms and sidelines, and there existed a general postgame locker room environment that made compliance efforts difficult. Further, in recent years, the NCAA has made efforts to encourage universities to curb excesses in the entertainment of prospective student-athletes making visits to college campuses so as to avoid a perception by prospects of special status or entitlement. Yet, in this case, the committee reviewed information that, during the official paid visit of a highly recruited football prospect, his host - student-athlete 1 - did not pick up the prospect until nearly midnight the evening following a home football game and that he was taken out until the early morning hours. There also was information in the record that the assistant football coach knew that the prospect was not picked up until nearly midnight by student-athlete 1 and that the prospect was taken to a club at which alcohol was served. These activities and others referred to during the hearing fostered an atmosphere in which student-athletes could feel entitled to special treatment and which almost certainly contributed to the difficulties of compliance staff in achieving a rules-compliant program.

Student athlete 1 here of course is none other than Reggie Bush and the assistant coach is none other than the Dog Fighter Meriones exposed here a while ago. More after the jump.

Here is Reggie looking for cash to pimp out his ride:

During a telephone conversation in late 2004, student-athlete 1 informed agency partner A that he (student-athlete 1) was embarrassed to drive his current vehicle, a pick-up truck, and wanted a different vehicle. Agency partner A agreed to provide the cash to purchase a vehicle. A short while later, in December 2004, student-athlete 1 located a vehicle he wanted, and agency partner A gave student-athlete 1's stepfather several thousand dollars in cash for a down payment on the vehicle. Student-athlete 1 later contacted agency partner A to request additional money needed to purchase wheel rims for the vehicle. Agency partner A then drove from San Diego to Los Angeles and gave student-athlete 1 an additional several thousand dollars in cash. Approximately one week later, agency partner A gave student-athlete 1 another sizable cash payment, which the student-athlete used for a car alarm and audio system. [page 5]

As for the Dog Fighter here is one of the most damning part:

At least by January 8, 2006, the assistant football coach had knowledge that student-athlete 1 and agency partners A and B likely were engaged in NCAA violations. At 1:34 a.m. he had a telephone conversation for two minutes and 23 seconds with agency partner A during which agency partner A attempted to get the assistant football coach to convince student-athlete 1 either to adhere to the agency agreement or reimburse agency partners A and B for money provided to student-athlete 1 and his family. Further, during his September 19, 2006, and February 15, 2008, interviews with the enforcement staff, the assistant football coach violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation by providing false and misleading information regarding his knowledge of this telephone call and the NCAA violations associated with it. The assistant football coach failed to alert the institution's compliance staff of this information and later attested falsely, through his signature on a certifying statement, that he had no knowledge of NCAA violations.

It looks like the Dog Fighter also got caught lying to the Committee in this hilarious bit which has a reference to a "comedian":

Another reason to question the assistant football coach's credibility in denying that he knew agency partner A is the fact that the two shared a close relationship with a mutual friend ("mutual friend"), a comedian and actor who has appeared in various roles in television and motion pictures. Agency partner A grew up with the mutual friend in San Diego. The record in the case included a photograph of the assistant football coach together with agency partners A and B and the mutual friend. The assistant football coach stated that the only individual in the photo he knew was the mutual friend, and that it was not uncommon for "passersby" to pose for photographs with celebrities such as the mutual friend. Given the relationship, the committee finds it unlikely that the assistant football coach would have posed in a photograph, which included agency partner A and the mutual friend and not, at a minimum, have been introduced to him (agency partner A) by the mutual friend. The photograph was taken with agency partner B's telephone.

That was from page 25. Who could the comedian be? Will Ferrell is the obvious guess but isn't he from the OC, not San Diego? Very interestingly the report nailed Petey for hiring a coaching consultant as an exhibit of lack of institutional control (page 37):

The committee notes that the former head football coach did not check with the institution's compliance office before hiring the consultant. Rather, another institution's compliance office notified the compliance office at USC of the consultant's service with the USC football staff. As a result, this violation is a component of Finding B-7, lack of institutional control.

Here is the particular reference to an overarching lack of institutional control (p 46):

From December 2004 through March 2009, the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics by its failure to have in place procedures to effectively monitor the violations of NCAA amateurism, recruiting and extra benefit legislation in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's tennis.

 

As a result, three different agents and/or their associates committed violations regarding student-athletes 1 and 2.

Particular instances of lack of institutional control were exhibited in deficiencies in the following areas alleged by the enforcement staff: a) monitoring of student-athlete 1's automobile registration; b) monitoring of student-athlete 1's employment at the office of a sports marketing agent; c) involvement of boosters and agents in the recruiting process; d) monitoring the number of countable coaches in the football program; and e) monitoring long distance telephone calls made from the department of athletics.

The report also nailed Southern Cal as a "repeat offender" (something Patroclus flagged a while ago):

This was the institution's sixth major infractions case. Most recently, the institution appeared before the committee in June 2001 for a case involving the football and women's swimming programs. Accordingly, USC is considered a "repeat violator" under NCAA Bylaw19.5.2.3. The institution also had infractions cases in 1986, 1982, 1959 and 1957, all of which involved its football program. [page 3]

That's what I have for now.

Please go through the report and flag whatever nuggets that seem tasty to you and reference the page numbers in it. Let's archive all this right here on BN so no one can ever accuse us embellishing the facts against the sleaziest athletic program in modern NCAA athletics.

GO BRUINS.