Time for some answers on a Monday afternoon.
Q: 51Grad said:
About the NCAA sanctions against SC. Did the NCAA allege that any one other than McNair knew about Reggie’s dealings with Lloyd Lake and company? If they did not, why such severe sanctions? If they did allege that others knew, who did they accuse of knowing and not reporting this to the University. Seems if only one person knew of the Reggie’s deal I do not understand how they came to the conclusion that this situation is an example of lack of institutional control.
If they do not come down hard on Ohio St I will be more than surprised. That seems like a classic example of lack of control when the head coach is involved
A: When the NCAA cites lack of instituional control, it can mean that several people knew of violations, or in USC’s case, it argued that people should have known if they did not. Especially in the O.J. Mayo case, it discussed how the program was not being properly monitored. The basic premise of your question is correct, that only Bush committed violations and it seemed based on the investigation that only McNair really knew much. But the NCAA seemed to set a new standard, saying a university should know certain things.
Q: miguelito said:
I seem to recall a few years back that most Southern Cal fans were happy to see Lane take the Raider’s job.
how many losses will it take before they turn on Lane again?
A: Probably 5-6. There are certain standards for USC football, after all.
Q: Ryan said:
Scott,
USC is a mental no show for 3 out of their last 4 trips to the tournament, and their best players (Young, Mayo, Gibson, Derozan, Hackett) leave school early. Leaving the roster in a constant state of flux. Is there any hope that USC could one day become good in basketball? Talk me down from the ledge.
A: USC is not much different than any other program. If if recruits stars, they leave after a year. If it recruits players who can stay, it might not be as good but will have continuity. Look at Pitt. Jamie Dixon’s had one of the most successful programs in the country but has trouble in the NCAA Tournament. Now the conventional wisdom is that Dixon needs more one-and-done players. As long as Kevin O’Neill recruits good players, USC can become good in basketball. This year’s team finished in the top four of the Pac-10, which wasn’t bad considering how many of its top scorers it lost the previous year.
I’m surprised that I don’t hear anything about adopting rules like baseball has. Let the players come right out of high school and go to the NBA, but if they come to college they won’t be eligible until after 3 years.
Believe you are wrong about the ncaa tournament not being there mentally three out of four. One was the sweet sixteen with Young and Pruitt and the other a second round tough loss to Michigan St. with DeRozan after winning the conf. tournament. You can’t really count this last one which was a play – in – game only. Mayo and co. losing to Kansas St. with Beasley bad performance. Correct me if I am in error done strictly from my old memory of 68 yrs.
the new NBA CBA will likely include a two-year out of high school requirement. it improves both the college and pro games. better players staying in college longer and allowing the NBA to draft more seasoned, fundamental players.
Thank you for your reply.
I am taken back with you answer. I always thought that they alleged that Pete knew of Reggie’s deal with Lake.
NCAA saying a university should know certain things certainly is a new standard.
That they would set such a standard indicates they wanted to find a reason to punish USC.
I agree with 51 Grad… As I read the results from many sources reporting the sanctions, I didn’t see any names other than McNair’s indicating their belief he knew something was going on. If they had any proof McNair told the other coaches, why wouldn’t they report it? If they didn’t have any proof and just assumed word spread amoung the coaches, as a University, I would have demanded the proof or back away from using it to penalize the program. McNairs lawsuit against the NCAA may have some answers that assumptions and not proofs were involved here. SCs current administration seems bent on just getting over this and taking whatever punishment is doled out. That is admitting to guilt and I for one do not like that. There are too many variables in this matter. I wish someone with some knowledge would come forward and straighten the unknown out.
As usual Conquest is right. We came within a missed one foot layup from beating Michigan State and making the Final Four. Then all the team disappeared, Garrett ran off our winning coach and our recruits went to Arizona and led them to the Elite Eight. We need the baseball rule to have some stability in college basketball.
dtksr1
I have very little knowledge about this matter. I would suggest that the old saying “Discretion is the better part of valor” which I interpret to mean, it is good to be brave but is also good to be careful, should be considered when dealing with the NCAA.
One part of the discussion that I hear in other sports circles but almost never here is that it seems the layperson expects more punishment to be leveled at USC because of the high profile and sheer amount of the payoff. So if USC had not won the national championship and been the top program in the country at the time, and if the value of the payoff to Reggie Bush not been “a house” then perhaps USC would not have been beaten down quite as much. This relates to Ohio State now because Ohio State’s program is comparable in national success to USC at the time, Terrell Pryor is a comparable nationally high profile player, but the value of some tattoos doesn’t come close to a house in San Diego. I’m not saying I agree with the reasoning — I think the “who knew and what did they know” supersedes the issue of profile and amount, but it bears adding to the discussion.
51Grad and dtksr1, I don’t pretend to know much about the NCAA’s rules, but the idea of holding someone responsible because they “should have known” something (also called “constructive knowledge”) is a very common concept in American civil law.
Maybe USC is the first school to be held to this standard by the NCAA, but if the NCAA is moving in this direction, it’s just importing a basic idea from American law. The idea is that you can’t escape blame by turning a blind eye to obvious problems.
Whether that’s what Pete and USC actually did is a separate question.
Cafe 84 Pizza
Great name, is that your favorite pizza place?
I understand “constructive knowledge” is that you can’t escape blame by turning a blind eye to obvious problems. In this case how can the Bush situation fit the blind eye test when the NCAA only named one person of knowing about the benefits he and his family received.
The main “smoking guns” in the Student Athlete 1 (SA1) case were:
1. A two-minute phone call from Lake to McNair’s phone.
2. SA1’s internship with Orenstein’s sports agency being tainted because all three interns that summer were USC student athletes.
3. SA1 not properly completing his car registration with Compliance when his stepdad purchased the 1996 Impala for him.
The NCAA’s argument was that, had Compliance properly followed up on the car paperwork, the Lake/Griffin connection would have been revealed. They ruled Orenstein was a booster because he only hired USC student athletes, so SA1, in that respect, received improper benefits. The Lake-McNair phone call was the only connection (besides a bad photo) to a member of the coaching staff.
My understanding is that the NCAA wanted to punish USC for having a Compliance Office that “went through the motions” rather than actually looking for problems.