Floyd On Package Deal
USC coach Tim Floyd waited until the end of the post-game press conference to offer his take on the ESPN package deal story, which alluded to guard Daniel Hackett not being on a basketball scholarship because his father, Rudy, is on the basketball staff.
``All I can tell you is that bridge was crossed three years ago. We checked with the NCAA, Pac-10 and our compliance office.
``We did nothing wrong. Rudy Hackett is more qualified than 95 percent of the assistant coaches in the country.''
Floyd also mentioned he hired Rudy Hackett at the recommendation of club coach Pat Barrett, which I'm not sure was the wisest admission, but there you go.
Much ado about nothing. The real story here is that the mainstream sports media picks on USC, since we are arguably the highest profile collegiate sports school in the country. When you are at the top, everyone tries to pull you down. There's your story.
Amen DFW!
SC should put those lawyers to good use and sue the NCAA and ESPN for slander! Is it doable? Opinions?!?!
Does anyone possess any reading comprehension? Does Floyd? More importantly, do writers at ESPN or The Sporting News know who to write.
The key graph from yesterday's article: "Situations like this are not uncommon -- and not illegal -- but the NCAA has a focus group looking into "package deals" across the country. A focus group, however is different from the enforcement division of the NCAA. This is the arm of the NCAA that would potentially give out any sort of punishment."
Okay, this is a poorly written graph. Does the enforcement division provide punishments, or does the focus group? Using Plain-English Theory to translate poorly written sentences, that because "enforcement" automatically connatates "punishment" and focus groups commonly refer to ideas to be studied, the last sentence in the graph should have been written as "Situations like this are not uncommon -- and not illegal -- but the NCAA has a focus group looking into "package deals" across the country. A focus group, however is different from the enforcement division of the NCAA, which is the arm of the NCAA that would potentially give out any sort of punishment.
But then today, there is this:
"The NCAA is looking into whether point guard Daniel Hackett's arrangement to play for Southern California was part of a package deal that includes his father, who is the school's strength and conditioning coach, according to a report. . . .
Hackett's name was mentioned, but he is only one of the "package deals" that an NCAA focus group is looking into, the cable network said. Such a situation technically does not violate NCAA rules."
And journalists wonder why fewer and fewer people today read their slop.
Anyway, since the enforcement division is not involved (as opposed to Guillory-gate and Reggie-gate), why the defense stance that "nothing as done illegally." Of course nothing was done illegally. But it stinks and it has been abused and the NCAA is lokking into it and may make
PAT BARRETT!?!?!? Beautiful...
S4!T!!!!!
Twice IE crashed on me as I was trying to complete my point. Now I'm have to get back to work. Point is there is no such thing as "technically not violating rules." That makes no sense. Rules were violated, or they were not. How do you "technically not violate a rule?" You can't.
Then why write it? Them is journalmalisn weasel words used to conjure up images of a wildfire when you are writing about a smokey pile of leaves.
Zou... er Desmo,
Excellent commentary, you are either violating the rules or you are not. This is just grist for the ESPN mill.
BTW, download Firefox and dump IE, live a little.
Everyone understands the Hackett situation. It's not against the rules. It is, however, another bit of attention I'm sure Floyd would prefer not to have. OJ, Lil Romeo, Hackett and whatever Sidney may bring with him just seems like a lot of unnecessary distraction for a program that is a bit on the rise.