More Pushback Against Pre-Emptive Trojan/ESPN Argument For Minor Sanctions For Southern Cal
Lot more pushback already out against ESPN's pre-emptive Trogan puffery courtesy of Ted Miller.
In case you are just getting started out in the West Coast, yesterday evening tWWL's "Pac-10 beat writer" advanced a LOL funny Trogan defense arguing for minor sanctions (by launching a pathetic attack against Alabama. We fired up the obvious first responses about Miller missing context and laughably distinguishing Alabama's "old school" cheating with the apparent "fresh approach" to cheating that has been going on at South Central.
Well few more important points to add here. I will start with Bruins102NCAA who rips apart Miller's pathetic Booster/agent distinction:
NCAA wants to ensure a level playing field. Players who are paid BENEFIT the institution they play for. Neither booster nor agent are officially connected to the university. However, the policy behind the rule stays the same.
The $uc* argument, amongst others, goes after the booster/agent relationship. That agent → player = no violation. However, if we are to believe this, then any school or booster could establish a proxy (unconnected with the school) as an agent and thus skirt the rules. Also, a university may turn a blind eye, as the saying goes, to such an arrangement of agent pays player and thus the university receives a benefit again. Another benefit is to become known as a school that will turn a blind eye on such agent → player arrangements thereby getting more of the talent that demands to be paid.
The logic of the booster/agent arrangement being different is a false distinction. Boosters should be no more culpable than agents merely because their motives are different. To the university, motive is irrelevant: they have to insure that both arrangements do not taint their program. This is what $uc* allegedly failed to do.
So this article by Miller is a simplistic, pro-$uc* article. He's throwing it out there in the unlikely event the NCAA wants to give up monitoring schools for cheating and slaps $uc* on the wrist. It's not going to happen and there are lots of reasons that lead me to believe that the punishment will be substantial at the very least.
Calling it "simplistic" is probably being charitable. More counters to this BS after the jump.
OTS from Roll Bama Roll also points out the ridiculousness of just focusing the Southern Cal scandals around Bush and Payo:
I find that ridiculous. The NCAA has conducted a thorough investigation into both the USC football and basketball programs, and that investigation has spanned several years now. We know of Bush and Mayo, of course, but they could have easily uncovered a lot of things that we have no clue about now. They operate under a veil of secrecy - which is only provided even further cover when you are dealing with a private institution exempt from FOI laws - and it's very common to have surprises when the NCAA COI releases its ruling.
No one at Alabama was thinking of Gene Jelks during most of the Langham affair, nor did anyone mention Kenny Smith during the peak of the Albert Means rumors, and no one realized that the textbook scandal was both a football problem and that it did involve large sums of money. And we are a public institution, yet we were effectively in the dark on all of that. But guess what?
The point is that the NCAA, in the course of their investigation, could have found countless violations that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps that is not the case, of course, but it is possible, and at the very least this off-hand notion that this is just a Bush / Mayo scandal is clearly erroneous.
Furthermore, as Pete mentions, trying to compare the official documents we had in the Means saga to the unverified, off-the-record leaks we have gotten in the USC case is an apples and oranges comparison. That veil of secrecy over USC only serves to further underscore the uncertainty that we have over this investigation, even down to the allegations themselves, and trying to compare the two is, more than anything else, a sign that the writer is ignorant with regard to the fundamental differences between the sources of information in the two cases.
Finally, I will also add that no one should underestimate the impact of this case moving forward with regard to how member institutions interact with the NCAA. As Pete mentioned, Alabama was as cooperative as humanly possible with the NCAA during the Means scandal, with the NCAA in fact ruling that the enforcement team at UA did everything they could have done within their power. With USC, on the other hand, they have been anything but cooperative and in reality have been nothing if not brazenly defiant. If USC skates in this case, I think that establishes with a pretty high degree of certainty which manner of interaction a rationally-acting major football power should pursue with the NCAA in years to come. If USC escapes here, most schools in a similar situation will likely find cooperation an indefensible strategy.
I would also add that not only were they uncooperative, they also brought in proven sleazebags like Hello Kiffin and Ed Orgeron to "boost" their recruiting. If that doesn't constitute giving the NCAA committee the ultimate middle finger instead of showing hint of remorse or contrition, don't know what else can stand out as examples of ultimate arrogance.
And speaking of Alabama here DCBruins also raised an excellent point re. using the strategy of sacrificial lambs to save money (pun intended I guess) programs:
[I]f the NCAA goes soft on the Trogans, it will be a warning sign for non-football (or basketball in some cases) players at every ethically challenged school. Hey Alabama, next time you get in trouble just throw your basketball team under the bus. Or hey Kentucky, problems with your storied men's basketball team, well just punish your football team and you'll be okay. Here is hoping that the NCAA recognizes the Trogans priorities and penalizes the football team for what it did wrong and sees through the Trogans transparent effort to sacrifice its basketball team.
If NCAA does not bring down the hammer of God, then it will officially proven itself as total joke and it would give green lights to programs across the country not just to cheat but to issue collective F bombs at the infractions committee if they ever raise questions and try to "investigate" other program.
The death penalty should be in play for a repeat offender like Southern Cal. If the NCAA is too gutless to consider it, at the very least they should be considering multi-year bowl bans, substantial reduction in scholarships, that will not only ensure these serial cheaters have to play by the rules but also pay some kind of price for the benefit that have been accruing from the (alleged) pay for play services under Pom Pom and Timmeh's corrupt and shady (alleged) regime.
GO BRUINS.
11 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"But we still have to beat them on the field"
/parroted
There, got that stupid line out of the way. Have at it.
Damn I hate that line of reasoning.
Its quite ridiculous that people keep bringing that up. Sure, we do have to beat “them” on the field, but we haven’t played “THEM” since before Petey was there. Sure it was $C, but it was a team on steroids (I’m using that figuratively, but as we all know, the literal translation works as well)! We were playing against a team with a serious unfair advantage. What extra do we gain from beating a team that has been cheating for a decade as opposed to forcing them to play by the rules and them whipping them soundly? Thats like saying, no, let Bonds & McGwire continue to juice, and I’ll see if I can still beat them in the homerun race; only then have I truly beat them. Ridiculous.
No one is saying that $C shouldn’t be allowed to play football. All we are saying is, punish them for what they have done. Make the punishment severe enough to keep them and others from doing it again, and then lets see who really wins on the field of play (BTW, even with the cheating, we’ve beat the Cheatey/ Kitten/ Sarkisian trio three times in recent years). Lets see if they can continue to stack 10 blue-chippers at tailback when they can’t furnish them and their families with houses, free rent, Range Rovers and other assorted means of transportation, money, etc. If they can, then so be it. But my thought is, recruits will see that $C is just another destination, and with the absence of extra “incentives”, will choose to go elsewhere.
formerly Westwood78
by PhoenixBruin on Jun 3, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Apparently
Kessler picked $uc yesterday. Guess he and Wittek are just thinking “Hey, barkley can start while we don’t play in bowl games, then I’ll get my shot”. When QB recruits visit campus I wonder if they have to keep mustain away from them?
This reminds me of election fund raising and fraud.
For years this has been a hot topic on capitol hill. How do we minimize the influence of lobbyists and PACs? And when ever a new law is passed, they just find new ways to funnel the $$ to their man in office.
Splitting hairs between the Alabama incidents and what happened in South Central only serve to further the joke (and it is a bad one) that is ‘amateur athletics.’
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I'm Just Not Holding My Breath....
On the NCAA bringing the proverbial hammer down on those clowns from across town. Maybe I’m wrong and I’ll gladly eat crow if I have to but I just have this sneaking suspicion that they’ll somehow find a way to sneak past the absolute worst stuff and get off relatively well (as opposed to what Alabama suffered by cooperating fully w/NCAA).
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jun 3, 2010 10:28 AM PDT reply actions
OK, Ted...
…my I.Q. just went down reading that piece of, um, “journalism.” Seriously, Ted, I’m going to sue you.
I think the NCAA holds its own fate in its hands with this one. Their credibility is already hanging by tenuous threads of their former moral and just purpose. Alabama is just one of the many voices who could, righteously, begin the process of their demise if they give kid glove treatment to U$C at this point.
I think most will recognize the sacrifice of men’s basketball, to protect their precious football program, for what it is and there could be hell to pay for that by these MaGoo’s.
Love My Bruins
The fact of the matter is
that the NCAA also has to hold all its member institutions to the same standard. Because U$C* is a private school, they are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as state schools and have refused to share any information. That does make it a bit difficult on the NCAA in terms of giving the proper punishment. However it is clear that there were improprieties, and I am not sure how much the burden of proof is on the NCAA. It is doubtful that they will be able to hand down the appropriately harsh sanctions because I don’t think they have all the facts (since U$C* won’t share information), but it should not be a slap on the wrist either.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I disagree with the "difficult for the NCAA" take, Tas
Here in Geezerville, we have lots of associations with lots of boards of directors, plus a master association. The local boards are all subject to the Sunshine Laws (i.e., no private meetings, no “executive committee” decision-making.) Our master association thinks (erroneously, in my view) that the Sunshine Laws don’t apply to them. I’m trying to get that board to do what many others have done, and that is to voluntarily agree to abide by those laws.
The ncaa already has a slew of rules it requires its members to abide by. There is NOTHING that prevents the ncaa from adding another rule, namely, that anyone who wants to feed that the trough of money that is the ncaa must agree to the most liberal disclosure requirements of any member. And I would add that if you want to sup at the table of TV revenue that is presented by the ncaa, then you have to agree to give the ncaa subpoena power. The way to do that would be to agree to binding arbitration under AAA or any similar body,, and those bodies can issue subpoenas that the local court will enforce.
Or the option to just$c* would be that you won’t share in any revenue, and you can’t compete in any tournaments. Go play exhibition games, or more to the point, go apply for admission into the nfl, with the other play-for-pay guys.
That wouldn't matter in this case
since you couldn’t make U$C* abide by the new rule retroactively.
I am all for the most liberal disclosure requirements applying to every member, but I also don’t want the NCAA to turn into the SEC (the Commission, not the conference) and begin to make life miserable for all the member schools because of the few shady ones on which they whiffed…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I could live with the SEC (the Commission, not the conference) rules.
So could Dan Guerrero, and Coach Neuheisel and Coach Howland and most everyone else.
Just$c* couldn’t. Calimari couldn’t. A few others couldn’t.
I think the trade-off is worth it, myself.

by 



















