NCAA Admits Blind eye toward USC!

Knut,  I hate the Trojans.  I would rather go bare.  Does that make me a Trojan hater?

LMFAO CFF!

Skins are always better.

Good to see you again.

KNUT

02/01/2007 is the day that Alabama came off probation. 

"Isn't Roll Tide what a Bamer does when he rolls over the evidence on an Aubie?"

Is this really coming from a Tennesse Fan?  ha that is funny.

Watch it now skibum, CFF isn't just a Tenn. fan, he's a legend in these parts when it comes to deep-sea fat  lady wrestling and naked chicken fighting.

KNUT

That is great! 

You're right about that, but you are wrong about not being a critical target of NCAA bylaws. Agents are included within the "institutional control" subject matter. Of course an institution cannot monitor everything players do off-site, but see applicable references below:

According to the Yahoo! expose: "Sources told Yahoo! Sports that representatives of New Era were allowed into the USC locker room during the 2005 season. Ornstein and other agents frequented the USC sidelines during several games and numerous practices that season, according to published reports. Also, (running backs coach Todd) McNair allegedly knew of Bush's involvement with the New Era venture before last season's national championship game against Texas, according to two sources. And at one point during the 2005 season, sources say Bush thought that Carroll knew about his parents' living arrangement and feared he was going to conduct his own investigation. Bush called Michaels, instructing that if Carroll called regarding the house to 'tell him that you're a longtime family friend.' Carroll never called Michaels."

RE: Ornstein. He is "the former director of club marketing for NFL Properties who in 1995 pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud for his actions in an attempt to defraud the league. Ornstein was sentenced to five years probation, four months of home confinement and had to make $160,000 restitution to the league for the crime, according to published reports."

"Ornstein, in possible violation of NCAA statutes, admits he negotiated contracts for Bush during the 2005 season or that the credit card of an Ornstein employee was used to pay for flights and limo rides to the San Francisco Ritz-Carlton for Bush's family during the weekend of the USC-Cal game." And he "didn't operate in the shadows to offer USC a convenient 'How could we know?' excuse. Ornstein was so up front he even worked with the USC compliance office in May of 2005 to set up a paid internship at his company for Bush and other Trojan players. So a convicted marketing agent approached the USC compliance office, which is supposed to monitor potential violations, and offered to 'help' Carroll by employing his mega-talented future first-round draft pick, and no one thought, gee, this might be not be a good idea?" http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=dw-bush_usc&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

In fact, this from joemcknight.org: "USC football practices are regarded as more open to the public than just about any big-time college program in the country, but Trojans coach Pete Carroll changed the admission requirements this week to crack down on agents. 'I just don't think it's the right place for them to be doing their work,' Carroll said. 'I respect they have a job to do. It's just not going on at the practice field. They have their time outside of practice.'

Other schools, though, have implemented institutional controls long ago, such as:

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY’S, AGENT POLICY (http://www.lsusports.net/fls/5200/assets/docs/ad/compliance/pdf/complaince_agent_policy.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=5200):

Known Agents or runners may not travel or be included as guests in any activities in which student-athletes are present. However, it is permissible for Agents to purchase tickets from outside agencies for commercial flights upon which teams are traveling, and Agents may purchase tickets to athletic events in the same manner as any other member of the general public. In order to enforce this provision, the Athletic Compliance Office will review guest lists. An individual who is known to be an Agent or runner may not be allowed to watch practice, which is not open to the public. Nor will individual’s known to be Agents be allowed admission into team locker rooms when student-athletes are present. Further, SEC regulations prohibit member schools from issuing media credentials, sideline passes, or bench passes to a known Agent."

http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&KEY=&ATCLID=177234

See the difference? One shows an ATTEMPT at institutional control, the other doesn't ...

See this too ... http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=jo-bush_uscsidebar&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"A head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within the program the coach supervises" could be found guilty of lack of institutional control."

Here's what you're not getting, cajun - "compliance" - that's a key word in your post, but you're oblivious to what it means regarding agents and college sports.  If it's not against NCAA policy for an agent to be present at a practice, how can a coach be found guilty of lack of institutional control for letting an agent be present at a practice?

In all you pasted in this post, is there a single "infraction" evident - even assuming it's all true?  Can you explain exactly what NCAA rule you believe USC violated?  I'm not here suggesting they didn't break some rule - I have no idea - but from what I've read on the RB case, I can't figure it out.

Look - I don't like the agents hanging around college athletest any more than you, but that's not what we're debating.  We're talking about what the NCAA allows re: agents, and how they've dealt with similar issues in the past.  For whatever reason, well - for an obvious reason...lol, you want to hold USC to a higher standard than the other football schools.

Let me ask you this -

GAINESVILLE -- NFL players Jevon Kearse and Johnny Rutledge testified Tuesday that while in college agent William "Tank" Black gave them thousands of dollars so they would sign with Black's company after turning pro.

"I was a recipient of periodic cash payments from Tank Black," said Kearse, a Pro Bowl defensive lineman with the Titans.

Black is on trial in federal court on charges he stole millions from the players he represented. If convicted, the 42-year-old faces 25 years in prison.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Sanford has estimated the amount of money missing ranges between $12-million and $14-million.

The players did not testify how much money -- if any -- they lost to Black.

"Tank was a guy I trusted like a father," Rutledge said.

Rutledge estimated that while still enrolled in college, he received as much as $15,000 from Black and his assistant, Alfred "Tweet" Twitty in 1997 and 1998.

"On occasion, I would get more," said Rutledge, a linebacker with the Cardinals.

University of Florida officials said they knew nothing of Black's involvement with its players. The school could face NCAA sanctions if prosecutors prove the university knew Black paid players.

Isn't this situation pretty much the same as what we're dealing with in the RB situation?  Was Florida stripped of its 1996 MNC?  Jevon Kearse played on that team, right?  Did Florida end up on probation over this? 

No.  Florida was not touched by this agent paying Gator players while they played football for the school. 

The key here is the last line in that news report, "The school could face NCAA sanctions if prosecutors prove the university knew Black paid players."  This is what I've said all along - if SC knew about what was going on, they're in trouble.  If they didn't, what are they guilty of?

#1 is what's the article you cite is talking about. What did the university know about the specific infraction?

What many people keep overlooking is that #2 is JUST as important to NCAA policy. And that is what is at stake in the RB case. USC is widely patted on the head by the media for being so open -- open practices (no more), open postgame locker room, etc. There was even a story published around the last NCG comparing Les Miles' secretive "closed practices" vs. No-Pete's fun, giddy, come-on-and-look-all-you-want-we'll-still-beat-you "open practices" ... but they just don't get it. It is LSU's POLICY to close practices for compliance reasons: keeping potential problems away from players.

USC's open practice, open locker room, open Heritage Hall, open EVERYTHING policies under No-Pete were cute and bold and suggestive of being unbeatable as a team, but from a compliance standpoint (#2 above), it was playing with fire. As long as the players kept their noses clean, it was no big deal. But as I read NCAA policy re: institutional control, if something like a RB situation happens, then the school can be culpable for that open door policy.

The NCAA institutional control policy does NOT expect the school to watch everything the players do everywhere. That would be silly. But the NCAA does require, given that, that schools not just throw up their hands and say, well since we can't do a 100% surveillance job on these kids, we won't do ANYTHING. And USC's open door policy suggests a couple of things: 1) USC threw up its hands re: keeping an eye on their kids, 2) used that open door policy to lure many wannabe RBush recruits, thus helping their successes on the field.

What many people keep overlooking is that #2 is JUST as important to NCAA policy. And that is what is at stake in the RB case. USC is widely patted on the head by the media for being so open -- open practices (no more), open postgame locker room, etc. There was even a story published around the last NCG comparing Les Miles' secretive "closed practices" vs. No-Pete's fun, giddy, come-on-and-look-all-you-want-we'll-still-beat-you "open practices"

And the merry-go-round continues...lol   Cajun -

• we agree that agents are allowed access to college athletes as per NCAA rules - right?
• we agree that universities and their coaches (specifically) are recognized by the NCAA as having a role in interaction between agents and college athletes - right?
• we agree that this agent/player interaction is to serve the purpose of facilitating a professional relationship, i.e., the agent and player doing business together once the player has elected to go professional (or has used up his eligibility) - right?
• we agree that agents, by NCAA definition, are not considered a part of a university's "institution" - very different from boosters, for example, who is considered a part of a school/program - right?

So whether USC or any school opens practices to agent presence (or wherever/whatever) or not, explain what's not being "controlled" or complied with?  The NCAA very clearly provides for agent/athlete interaction with full understanding that this relationship is all about a prospective business transaction.  It is not against NCAA rules for an agent and athlete to discuss a "deal."  So, doesn't 1+1=2 just tell you that the only "lack of control" or "non-compliance" possible on the part of the university is if the player and agent actually execute an agreement that the university becomes aware of - and university lies/cheats by playing the kid as an amateur still? 

Your point of view only makes sense if you believe that as per NCAA rule, an agent and player are forbidden to discuss a business deal/professional relationship. 

Look at it this way - let's say everything happened as it did in the RB case, and USC became aware of RB signing on with the agent before RB played his next game.  If USC had then (immediately) declared RB ineligible because he was now a professional athlete - would USC be culpable in any way? 

Given what's been reported, the only way USC can be culpable is SC was aware of the arrangement and did nothing about it - or, if RB lived like a millionaire while playing football at USC, and the program ignored obvious signs the he was receiving benefits.  I remember going back and forth with an OU fan about some "pimped out ride" RB drove that should have tipped USC off (as reported by Yahoo, by the way) - as it turns out, it's a $15,000 car.  RB came from a middle-class family.  I believe his parents combined income was about $100,000.  Should a kid whose parents are making $100,000 per year driving a $15,000 car have triggered alarms?  I don't see it...

but they just don't get it. It is LSU's POLICY to close practices for compliance reasons: keeping potential problems away from players.

gee, I can't figure out a (program's) self-serving reason to keep agents from college athletes...it has to be all about "compliance"...lol