Just Asking?

At this early stage, it's hard to know exactly what will come out of other investigations. But consider this...the NCAA determined that Bush's ineligibility began in December 2004, based on some heresay and phone calls, a "substantial loan" to Bush's parents to address "financial problems" which included a large amount of credit card debt, $1200 worth fo airline tickets, and of course Finding B-1-a-(4)...the Impala...the purchase date of which was moved from February 2005 to December 2004 very late in the investigation, because of some administrative paperwork (like they'd have moved it back to February 2005 if the testimoney vs. paperwork had been reversed). That's it for 2004.

As far as the 2004 season goes, the NCAA alleged that Bush received benefits, but never produced any information that indicated that USC did or should have know about the benefits at that time. Since Lake approached Bush's stepfather 200 miles away, it's a hugh stretch that even the tightest of institutional policing could have prevented it. The USC case changed in 2005, regarding whether USC did or should have known about the benefits, as well as the role of institutional monitering, but we're talking 2004 here...

So what if it is ultimately determined that athletes from Florida, South Carolina, Alabama or (now) Georgia recieved benefits prior to a bowl game, but that the university didn't and shouldn't have known about it? This would be very similar to USC in 2004. If their punishment is comensurate with that received by USC, they should vacate all victories in which the ineligible athletes participated AND receive a future bowl ban for each bowl the athletes played in. Personally, I think this would be excessive, but I'm not chairman of the COI. According to Paul Dee, USC received a two year bowl ban because Bush played in two bowls. If any of these other preliminary reports bare out, it is possible that some of these other athletes' benefits might rival or even surpass the benefits that Bush received in the 2004, and USC was hit with a bowl ban for Bush's 2004 misdeeds. Dee said so.

I'll say it again...a political body given absolute authority and no oversight is a setup for abuse of power, and can be an abomination to justice.

Every high profile school has the same problem with agents. Only koolaid drinkers think this is unique to SC.

No for Fla and South Carolina since they're both led by Paul Dee cronies (Spurrier was a fraternity brother at Fla) ... meaning, yes, Paul Dee is a Fla grad for those who didn't know. Those schools are safe. Alabama has pluses and minuses going for it. On the plus side, it's in the SEC. O the minus side, it's a strong Fla rival. The SEC part probably wins the day here ... no significant penalties.

ALABAMA has got the NCAA infractions committee in their pocket!

I grew up in SEC country. As a result I follow most of the teams closely and their fan posts.

It's funny to me how when a sports agent pays a USC player it's considered cheating. But when a sports agent pays a Bama, Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina player it's the agent to blame. They do not consider that cheating. A double standard, if you ask me.

What's also funny is that no agents are playing UCLA players (allegedly). Their players must be real crap to be drawing no interest.

Personally, I thought that penalty should just be made into an NCAA rule: All visitors admitted to sidelines, locker rooms and practices must be approved 24 hours in advance by the compliance office. Agents and agent representatives are not allowed.

Sports agents do pay former UCLA players though.

Agent: Hey Cory here's $20, go get me a grande cappuccino and get a strawberry frap for yourself.
Cory Paus: Yes sir.

racist

@DixieTrojan: In the immediate aftermath of the sanctions, I recall reading some posts on the national college football blogs in which SEC fans, as well as fans from the other conferences, were blasting PC & other Trojans for "whining" about agents. I recall specifically some SEC fans suggesting that agents and agents' runners were equivalent to USC boosters or that boosters and/or school officials were using such agents to funnel money to players. Now it seems that those SEC fans may have been familiar with such arrangements.