In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Is it still possible that with the McNair lawsuit that the NCAA will have to back down if USC threatens a lawsuit to get the sanctions vacated? If this happened, we would have room for all those on our wish list. Hoping for an early January 2013 present....Will Haden and Nikias pull the trigger or go weakly into the night?
Lol Really?? Thought SS went over this already idk I could be wrong.. I think its a No on the 25.
What would give you the impression that our leadership would do ANYTHING requiring a spine?
Sorry, I don't have much confidence in our leadership team outside of academic focus.
'Pull the trigger?' Like there's a magical 25 scholarships gun? The documents haven't even been released yet.
I guess the concensus is USC leadership won't challenge the crooks at the NCAA. Sounds like Penn State is getting more aggressive with taking it to the NCAA on their sanctions. I would wlecome this type of action.
Something people forget - the finding of LOIC had NO MENTION OF MCNAIR. The NCAA covered their tracks. They made certain to separate those aspects of the violations. USC was sanctioned for not knowing about Reggie's ineligibility - plus Mayo and women's tennis. We were not (officially) sanctioned because of anything McNair did or didn't do.
So unfortunately, unless something huge comes out of the document dump in the McNair case that ties the NCAA to misconduct related to USC and not just McNair then don't get your hopes up.
They didnt mention him by name, but he is all through the report
Did you ever read it?
He was the lynchpin of their case
He was the one and only link they had between Reggie, Lake, and any member of USC staff. He wasn't called McNair, but he was probably called Assistant Coach I or Employee I or something.
Edit: Also, he had to be called out by name otherwise he wouldn't have received the personal show-cause penalty that he incurred.
This post was edited by Man1ak 19 months ago
this right here. No McNair = no hammer dropped on USC.
USC could bring a lawsuit, and just going by the McNair case, USC's own case seems like it would have some teeth. As I recall, however, Prez, Pat and Co. strategized that its the best interest of the school, economically and reputationally, to get pass this thing. Fighting it out in court would take years, and no guarantee of a good outcome. So, I am not sure if I would call our leaders weak, although I think I would prefer more assertive steps re: this whole thing.
Right now, I guess we just ride the McNair bandwagon and see how far it goes. The judge decided to release the correspondence. Who knows whrether the appelalte court will affirm / reverse. But if they affirm, watch out. nzaa will be shitting bricks.
Read the finding of LOIC specifically. That's the sticking point. That's where the harsh sanctions came from.
7. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [NCAA Constitution 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1]
From December 2004 through March 2009, the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics by its failure to have in place procedures to effectively monitor the violations of NCAA amateurism, recruiting and extra benefit legislation in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's tennis.
As a result, three different agents and/or their associates committed violations regarding student-athletes 1 and 2.
Particular instances of lack of institutional control were exhibited in deficiencies in the following areas alleged by the enforcement staff: a) monitoring of student-athlete 1's automobile registration; b) monitoring of student-athlete 1's employment at the office of a sports marketing agent; c) involvement of boosters and agents in the recruiting process; d) monitoring the number of countable coaches in the football program; and e) monitoring long distance telephone calls made from the department of athletics.
When it comes to Reggie, the NCAA came to a finding of LOIC based on the car registration and the internship. NOT MCNAIR.
Now, we can scream and shout about how McNair certainly played into their harshness, but officially it's not there in writing. And if it's not there in writing then there's no legal avenue to challenge unless something new comes out of the emails.
LOIC was not because USC knew. It was because USC didn't know but "should have known."
That's it. It's that simple. Stupid and unreasonable, but simple. There needed to be no link in the NCAA's eyes. It has nothing to do with his name being mentioned or not. The incomplete car registration was the NCAA's smoking gun for LOIC, not McNair.
That doesn't really matter. If the documents show what we expect them to show, it will be obvious that the committee had a vendetta against both McNair and USC.
USC 2013-2014 All Sports Head-to-Head Record: 257-112-2 (0.695)
My USC Football Attendance Streak (Home and Away): 48
Right, but we're not talking about convincing the ncaa it was wrong in this case. We're talking about convincing a court that the ncaa acted in a malicious manner, OR convincing the ncaa that we have a good chance of successfully convincing a court.
Here's more from the committee's findings:
The institution and enforcement staff were not in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The institution admitted only that it failed to monitor the long-distance telephone access code, resulting in the violations detailed in Finding B-6. The committee finds that the violations occurred.
The crux of the violations in this case occurred in football and men's basketball, the two most high profile college sports and the ones with most potential for lucrative playing and marketing contracts for elite student-athletes once they turn pro. Student-athlete 1 was one of the institution's most publicized and talented football players, while student-athlete 2 was the highest-rated prospective men's basketball student-athlete ever to attend the institution. Both student-athletes were expected to be, and were, early first-round draft picks in their professional sports. Elite athletes in high profile sports with obvious great future earnings potential may see themselves as something apart from other student-athletes and the general student population. Institutions need to assure that their treatment on campus does not feed into such a perception. In addition, elite athletes in high profiles sports with obvious great future earnings potential draw to them unscrupulous agents, runners, and others seeking to share in the money to come. They and the student-athletes know that their activities violate NCAA rules. They and the student-athletes therefore operate clandestinely – using cash, avoiding paper trails. Maintaining institutional control of their conduct presents unique challenges to compliance staff. Close monitoring and follow through on information must be employed. In this case, the institution failed to heed clear warning signs. Also, adequate resources must be dedicated to compliance. In this case, while the football violations were occurring, the institution had insufficient numbers of compliance staff to do the thorough and complete job required and provided inadequate supervision to screen out the unscrupulous from contact with student-athletes. The result is that, from December 2004 through
March 2008, the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's tennis.
Right or wrong, the NCAA found LOIC not because of McNair's alleged sins, but those of the USC compliance department, which they felt was inadequately monitoring our "high profile" athletes.
The problem is that the maliciousness shown in those emails applies solely to McNair. If there are more emails that show maliciousness to USC unrelated to McNair then yes, USC has a case. But we have no indication at the moment that any such emails exist.
My point is this: don't get too excited about McNair's victories against the NCAA. McNair's evidence doesn't help USC. We need evidence of our own, independent of McNair's because McNair was not an official piece of the NCAA's finding of LOIC.
This post was edited by PenguinDeTroy 19 months ago
Sadly it seems USC will be fully exonerated in the court of public sympathy and that we were right. Unfortunately our president will continue to fully bendover and accept the beating.
Think Kevin Bacon in Animal house and you have sort of what USC's view on the NCAA is of fighting them.
Winning the academic award in the SEC is sort of like winning the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still a retard.
Why does the malice towards USC have to be independant of McNair? What can't the malice be towards both parties?
Part of why USC got such tough sanctions was because USC fought back in the beginning. It seems to me that USC should either have fought back or taken it in the beginning. There was a shift in policy at the worst time. USC got the detriment of fighting back without any of the benefit. That being written, none of us are aware of all of the nuances of the risk/benefit analysis of a lawsuit.
Because McNair did not officially factor in to the finding of LOIC. Proving malice against McNair doesn't help USC since it was our compliance department, specifically the car registration and the internship that led to LOIC, not the assertion that McNair knew about Reggie.
Based on the excerpts of the emails the judge detailed, the malice was directly at McNair and McNair alone. At no point in those excerpts was USC itself maligned.
Thanks for the solely legal interpretation.
Dealing with the NCAA requires more than just legal interpretations--it requires strength and hammering away in the court of public opinion to bring pressure down on the organization so that it will do what every corrupt bureaucracy will do...cover its ass.
USC hammers away at McNair, releases the emails, demands a new review, and forces the NCAA to deal with its own corruption in the USC case. The NCAA may think it is cute with how it structured the LOIC, but once USC gets a foothold with the McNair case, it can go after the different elements that are explicitly linked to LOIC--Bush's car registration, Ornstein, timing of the sanctions for 2 years instead of 1...
...eventually getting to the basic question: how is it possible that USC has to deal with 30 scholarships plus a 75-scholarship cap given by an agency that is corrupt and malicious to its core?
USC may not even have to file a lawsuit or an injunction--just go after the NCAA and demand justice and force the issue to be heard in the court of public opinion. Won't be pretty for the NCAA, and we'll have all the momentum on our side. What's the NCAA going to do? Defend the work of Paul Dee with Miami's sanctions coming up? Please.
This is now a political fight as much if not more than a legal one.
You're right, this is a political fight as well and that should factor into things. But the thing about political fights is they tend to take shape in back rooms and not out in the open. So we really can't know what the deal is right now.
I guess my point is that, legally, McNair's case just sets the stage. His findings, at this point, only open a new avenue to explore, they don't guarantee us anything. At best we'd be entering a game of chicken, hoping that the NCAA would flinch first. Problem with a game of chicken is that you open yourself up to the possibility of harm if the other side doesn't flinch. Haden doesn't seem like a gambler to me. He's not going to initiate this fight unless he knows he can win.
I'm just not going to get my hopes up. Even if there is a willingness to push, I suspect things won't be resolved until long after the sanctions are done.
Unless the court of appeals affirm the lower court, and all that bad information for the ncaa is on the brink of going public. This changes leverage and the ncaa would be incentivized to engage in settlement talks.
The admin probably are just monitoring the situation, and are taking the position that "we have made our descision to accept the sanctions and move forward, if things work in our favor before the 2014 recruiting class is signed, great, but if not, whatever, we just stay the course." Honestly, the admin probably is not wasting time / money thinking about this. They just sit on the sidelines and look on.
Ncaa's moves will be heavily influenced by the court of appeals descision. And its not really worried about USC per se, its worried about the potential flood gate of litigation that it could be exposed to from other people, schools etc. , in addition to bad PR, lose credibility, etc.
Sad, but true.
USC never fought back at the beginning, middle or end. Ohio state fought back at the begiining. USC actualy knew the facts were on their side and felt the ncaa would conduct itself with honesty and integrity. They were clearly wrong.
Winning winners who win > whining whiners who whine.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports