So I JUST read a story on espn, and some thoughts crossed my mind that I wanted to get down real quick. Oklahoma was just forced to vacate their 2005 football season because their QB and a lineman received payments from a car dealership when they actually never worked there. When I read about this I immediately thought of USC and Reggie Bush. It is pretty obvious that Bush and his family received money while he was playing. My bet is the NCAA will also end up forcing USC to vacate their two seasons he was their running back... taking away a national title and his heisman trophy. I haven't seen anyone make this connection... but if that happens it will be a huuuuuge black eye for USC and Reggie Bush...
What are your predictions??? Leave some comments!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Quickie #2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Oklahoma got just a slap on the wrist. If the NCAA wanted to hit Oklahoma where it hurts it would demand Oklahoma's earnings from its 2005 bowl appearance and/or ticket revenue from its games. Or better yet, ban them from playing in a bowl this year or next. But they didn't. Oklahoma has been a corrupt program for decades (as have many other southern football schools), but the NCAA doesn't have the willpower to go after this kind of behavior anymore.
For a soon-to-be lawyer, that's a pretty reckless prediction.
The issue is whether there is a difference between irrefutable evidence that two players directly receiving payments from a car dealership and evidence (much is circumstantial) that family members of another player received funds to travel to away games.
The rule is that a direct payment to a member-party is different from a payment to a third party without the knowledge of a member-party.
There is still much to clarify with the Bush family, but nothing with any credence has ever to my knowledge been suggested directly linking Reggie Bush to illegal payments. Indirectly? Maybe.
Furthermore, I agree with Brent that this was a mere slap on the wrist for Oklahoma. Applying the same standards to USC, the worst that could happen would be a fine and/or scholarship reduction for a season or two.
I am not certain that the NCAA could do anything about Bush's Heisman Trophy if they were inclined. Isn't the Heisman under the Downtown Athletic Club's mercy?
Finally, USC is going all the way next year!
I agree with these fellas that the punishment isn't sufficient. What does it mean to vacate a season that is already played? Are they going to go back in time and prevent these games from taking place? No. The season happened, and the players played. These players still got a free education for playing football. Who cares if they take the season out of the books? Is that really the best the NCAA can do to discourage this type of thing from happening again? Would Reggie Bush really care? USC? centojack is correct in that a punishment that effects the programs' futures is the only thing that will really make them think twice about their future behaviors. If that even will.
By the way, I wanna add my own "I know" to this category. I know that college football will institute a playoff system by 2015.
Corey,
I think your allegiance to USC is clouding your judgment. Do you honestly believed that Reggie Bush thought his family could all of a sudden afford a half a million dollar house on his Dad's janitorial salary? Also, how would they be able to afford the house and travel around the country watching his games? There is no way in hell that Reggie didn't know his parents were receiving "direct payments" for his accomplishments. Moreover, he signed receipts himself for hotels his family obviously could not afford.
I also agree that the punishment isn't that big of a deal to Oklahoma... but if the same punishment is handed out to USC it becomes a huuuuge deal. Stripping away a national championship means way more than an 8-2 season. And yeah the Heisman isn't related to the NCAA but if USC's title is taken away because of Bush's conduct, how do they let him keep the trophy.
Clouded my allegiance? So now the soon-to-be lawyer is arguing that a third-party son should be liable for failure to discover the source of his parents' money? Grow up!
You'd be hard-pressed to find a law anywhere that holds relatives liable for not inquiring as to the origin of all funds. Hell, the Bush family probably told Reggie that they had savings, or an inheritance, or what have you. Why would they tell Reggie anything if the source was legally questionable?
I really hope you don't become an NCAA witch-hunter after you pass the bar, Dave. You're not far off.
Corey you are cracking me up! If your parents suddenly went from barely scraping by on one parents meager income, to all of a sudden living in a 1/2 a million dollar home and travelling the country... you would ASK about it. And it doesn't matter if Bush asked about it or not... USC had the OBLIGATION to ASK about it... and to not let these agents in the locker rooms and sidelines where things like this could happen!
You poor, disturbed child, Dave. Did you read what you wrote?
If my parents were suddenly rolling in money, sure I'd ask where it came from. Would it be fair to hold me liable even if that money was illegally acquired? Checkmate.
By your dislogic, you think Reggie would have asked but USC--the university--was obligated to ask. I have less of a problem arguing USC should have known and should be punished than I do with hurling allegations and threats at Reggie.
I believe that Reggie also has an obligation to ask. It would be apparent that they were receiving that money for his amateur accomplishments. His parents actions put his collegiate career in jeopardy as well as subjecting his teammates to possible punishment. There is no way in hell he didn't know about it, and at the very least he had the duty to investigate and try to remedy the matter. My opinion is that Reggie is a cheater, and it should cost him his Heisman and his team the title.
So I don't leave comments here often, but I do always read what you guys say. This time, however, I have something to say too!
Corey, the hypo that you pose is different from Reggie Bush's situation. If your parents suddenly came into money, even illegally, you would not be subject to liability because you would not be the cause of that money.
With Reggie, his family received the house, travel accommodations, etc in an effort to "woo" (for lack of a better word) Reggie. His parents were benefiting solely because of Reggie Bush's name and talents, not because of their own skill or luck.
Even if Reggie did turn a blind eye and didn't ask where the money came from, he had a duty to do so. The only reason anyone was giving his family anything was because of him. His failure to ask or refuse those gifts put his team on the NCAA radar and subjected them to possible punishment.
I'm not going so far as David and calling Reggie a cheater. But, he did allow his family to break the rules. There should be punishment for that.
a) College Football does have a playoff system, just not Div I-A, but I'm sure you knew that. An no, that won't happen by 2015. Not a chance. Look at the current TV/BCS/Bowl contracts. Not saying it that it shouldn't (because it damn well should, and they can keep their beloved BCS as part of teh playoff seeding/lower bowl setup)
b) True, retroactive punishments don't really matter, but making teams bowl ineligble and taking away scholarships sure does (Alabama)
c) USC WILL get hit in the next year or two for Bush, and unlike losing a Holiday Bowl win, vacating those National Titles could be one retroactive punishment that stings, much like how Michigan had to take down those banners due to the Fab 5.
Melissa makes a point that utterly destroys your premise, Corey, although people are wrong in saying it was Reggie's responsiblity. It was primarily USC's ("lack of institutional control"), and as such, they will take the brunt of it. Granted, he may lose the Heisman, but it will be USC that actually suffers. Just look at the recent history of the NCAA and the punishments it has levied. USC will get hit, the only question is how hard. Remember, this is the organization that put Utah’s basketball program on probation because Coach Rick Majerus buying one of his player’s a hamburger (an “extra benefit”), as that player suffered a death in his family that night, and Majerus was being with him to support the player. They ruled that since it was at the restaurant, and not at the coach’s residence, that it violated NCAA rules. They see things only in black and white, and USC will be the next top program to get hit. You all are really looking at it too much through a legal/illegal persepective...laws are one thing, NCAA rules and mandates are one entirely different and far more strict entity.
Let's get one thing straight, we all know that the NCAA won't take away the national titles. It won't happen. USC has too much money, has too many backers and plays to too large of a market to get punished. Taking away the titles would result in such a backlash that the NCAA would probably face lawsuits and PR attacks that could result in destroying what little integrity remains with the organization.
The NCAA would probably dissolve and instead form the "BCS Association" where all of the big college presidents would take over and make the NCAA into the college football version of WTO where only the superpowers stay the superpowers. Call me a wild conspiracy theorist, but never doubt the amount of money and power that big college football programs have over the landscape.
Bush will likely pay a fine and thats it. USC may have to face probation, a fine, and the loss of a few scholarships but again just a slap on the wrist. I agree Bush and his family engaged in some shady gift taking, but USC and its boosters were the ones most at fault. If there were any justice, USC would have to vacate the titles and give back all of their earnings from those bowls. But realistically, the NCAA is weak and has already lost control over most of their product. Just like maybe-maybe-not presidential candidate Fred Thompson said in Law and Order "You take the justice you can get".
Fred Thompson? Playoffs? Melissa? Where to begin...Melissa...
"Destroys" my premise is a bit too strong Brad...whichever Brad you are.
The hypo I posed was slightly different than Reggie's situation, but only because of WHO Reggie is. If you argue that an amateur athlete should be liable for any gifts given to his/her parents in effort to "woo" the player, you've opened up a can of worms.
1. Is the athlete supposed to constantly ask his parents if they've received any kind of gift recently?
1a. If they have, how do you determine if it was in effort to "woo" him?
1b. Is a gold watch from a family friend an effort to woo? (I understand the Bush family didn't receive gifts from a family or friend. I'm simply pointing out how far Reggie's inquiry might have to go to satisfy you all).
2. Does the NCAA want to be in the business of breaking up families by requiring the athlete to interrogate his family?
2a. Does the NCAA want to force the athlete to out his family?
It's true, we shouldn't look at this through just a legal lens. We should consider legal, ethical and practical implications.
When a few of you say Reggie had an "obligation" to ask and disclose his parents' activities, you're making a normative statement about what constitutes ethical behavior. I think all of us would respect a guy who stood up to his greedy family that took illegal gifts in his name. But the NCAA should not obligate him to do so. If the NCAA could do its freaking job, then the family could direct all their hate at the NCAA instead of the NCAA AND their son.
Practically speaking, it makes sense to have the NCAA be responsible for investigating and policing this stuff. If you think players should be responsible too, when a wrong is committed the NCAA will find itself in the business of determining whether the athlete adequately investigated.
3. What would it take for an athlete to meet this so-called "obligation?"
What I sense is occurring here is that by making a reasonable argument--and considering the fact that I went to USC--you all think I'm incapable of acknowledging the program is rife with impropriety.
Psst...it is. But that doesn't mean I'll ignore these outlandish statements.
If you want to talk about premises or assumptions, please do. But think before you write.
Ah, the forum is back.
Here's my two pesos worth:
1. Corey, you're biased. You make some good points (like "Grow up!") but the bottom line is that under the special circumstances that amateur division 1 athletes work and the special rules that they've committed themselves to adhere to (it's an interesting little contract they have to sign. I got to sign one at USD for soccer... in the locker room, five minutes before practice started) the rules are different.
You cannot be indifferent to what your immediate family does with your potential agent or anyone that has anything to do with your current or future career. Mix this with chicks, booze, youth, and tons of money you can't touch and you end up living in very frustrating and dangerous circumstances.
My cousin was a close friend of the late Darryl Russell in college. Him and his buddies used to complain all the time about how much money was being generated by their efforts and yet they couldn't get a piece of it. It frustrated them to the point where they risked their future careers by selling autographed jerseys and t-shirts under the table.
I'd venture to say that most people take the NCAA rules very very seriously. Here's another tidbit from my old college soccer "career”. I got an invitation to “tour” Gonzaga by the soccer coach. Due to NCAA rules, he couldn't observe me or include me in a team practice so he secretly asked one of the players to organize an unplanned pick-up soccer game in the park and invite me. We went and the coach secretly observed the practice from his car two blocks away with giant binoculars.
Hehehe. All these precautions for a little high school junior who wanted to play for a low-ranked D1 team in the middle of nowhere Washington. I can only imagine what it must be like for the big D1 US Hands Football teams.
Moral of the story: no excuses. The Bushes knew what they were doing was wrong, including Reggie.
Whether it can be proven in a court of law, who knows, but I doubt that matters to the NCAA.
If it makes you feel better, I was on a flight with his mom and dad once. They seemed like really nice people and they flew coach.
As far as Reggie keeping the Heismann, OJ got to keep his no? Not literally, he didn't, but he's still in the books without an "I was found legally responsible for the deaths of two people in civil court" asterisk, right?
Can we not quote the actor Fred "Watergayte" Thompson please?
I'll throw in my personal Div. I experience too. Some of you know I played a year of tennis for the mighty Portland State Vikings (our record that year was 3-19). After a day selling programs at a football game--something each sport rotated doing--I got a ride back to campus with my coach. She was hungry. We stopped for Chinese food and when the bill came...wait for it...she picked it up.
I can only imagine what it must be like for talented athletes who are going places. I'm not saying Reggie is blame-free, but these cats on here seem to want the NCAA to force athletes to regularly keep tabs on their parents. It just isn't feasible like that.
If the NCAA really cares, they'd require each athlete's parents to submit to random financial investigation, voluntarily allow monitoring of their assets, etc., etc.
To hammer home my one good point, according to Ricardo, grow up!
3-19. Sounds like the Vikings needed to grow up. In a hurry.
And to comment on Corey's last post, yea there are tons of problems with many of the NCAA's nutty rules, many of which could/will be struck down if it came to that.
Like business and politics and pretty much everything else in our greedy little world, people and organizations are trying to get away with whatever they can for however long they can. The NCAA and many of the top college USHF programs pull their way legally and illegally until someone bigger forces them not to. They don't care about cans of worms or unconstitutional rules, because by the time that they're forced to make changes they will have profited handsomely (see classic Ford Pinto case).
I really think that there's too much money in NCAA sports for the athletes to get zero. That's gonna change, but until it does, it's broken piñata time... grab all you can and fight to keep everyone else out as long as you can.
But we're not there yet and therefore, Reggie et al. are up poop creek. Will they get a harsh punishment or a slap on the wrist? I'm sure the NCAA is trying to figure that out by doing a cost/benefit analysis.
Apparently my last post didn’t have enough thought, so I went ahead and researched some rules for this one.
NCAA Rules
NCAA bylaw 12.3.1.2 states that an individual shall also be ineligible if he or she (or his or her family) accepts any benefits from an agent or someone who represents individuals in the marketing of his or her athletic ability.
I don’t think it gets much plainer than that. This rule clearly states that the individual will be ineligible if he, or his family accepts benefits. Its not my rule, it’s the NCAA rule. While Im not saying its right, or even ethical, it’s the rule!
I know that if my family had the opportunity to live in an expensive house, nice travel accommodations, and ride around in a limo I would want them to. Who wouldn’t? But the difference between me and Reggie Bush is that he also had a team to think about. So while I’m sorry you think that I simply think you are biased, I also think that Reggie Bush did something wrong. Wrongs should be punished.
Maybe the NCAA hasn’t done enough, as of yet, to enforce this rule. That’s not the point I am trying to make. The only point I was trying to make was that Reggie Bush’s family got a lot of stuff. That’s different from a gold watch, dinner, whatever. There is a sliding scale here that I think should be addressed. I’m not saying that the NCAA should be out there making sure no one gets a free hamburger from an agent. That, of course, is completely impractical and unfeasible. But Reggie Bush’s family got a lot more than a free hamburger. At some point, Reggie needed to address the situation.
I figured Melissa would beat Dave to the punch--i.e. finding the actual regulation.
I knew that was the rule. Of course an athlete is ineligible if he or his parents accept gifts. A complication in this case is that Reggie is no longer an NCAA athlete and the fairness of the rule is being called into question, particularly in light of yesterday's Oklahoma ruling.
The real argument is whether the NCAA's rule and application thereof is fair and how that affects an athlete's duties. That is something a few of us have been hammering away at.
In the end, I agree with Ricardo that a cost-benefit analysis will likely solve this issue. Hopefully, the NCAA will re-think its strategy for the future so that athletes, universities and their sports don't have to linger under perpetual scrutiny because the NCAA doesn't know its own rules, and/or doesn't know how to apply them, and /or doesn't care.
Post a Comment