NCAA will not mess with Southern Cal; they have several programs that are off limits. ND, Ohio St, So cal.

NCAA needs to start treating programs equally and get rid of the 50's and 60's mentality. Let a little common sense prevail when ti comes to dealing with some of these issues.

Funny thing is though, the NCAA may see things quite a bit different than you think.

TV contracts and percentages are determined years in advance.

ESPN/CBS/TNT and the whole rest of them wont get a future discount, or monies returned, if USC is put on probation and not allowed on TV. The NCAA has their money assured from the current contract, leaving the only unknown variable is which schools can claim their rightful portion, based upon TV appearances.

Couple that with the FACT that the NCAA GAINS up to 90% of USC television revenues back from previous revenues generated if they find USC guilty, as per bylaws, of using an ineligible player during those telecasts Reggie played in.

So, the NCAA wont earn any additional money by allowing USC to skate if USC were guilty, nor do they LOSE revenue by putting USC ON probation, but they GAIN 90% of a very lucrative TV portion back from USC that the school already collected if they PUT USC on probation.

Here's the specific bylaw info.

h)Require that the institution shall remit to the NCAA the institution's share of television receipts (other than the portion thereof shared with other conference members) for appearing on any live television series or program if such ineligible student-athlete participates in the contest(s) selected for such telecast, or if the Management Council concludes that the institution would not have been selected for such telecast but for the participation of such ineligible student-athlete during the season of the telecast; any such funds thus remitted shall be devoted to the NCAA postgraduate scholarship program;

And considering I'd already pointed out our 3 year probation in the early 80's (on the heels of a NC and record TV ratings) including a ban from TV and bowl games, I don't see where the NCAA has treated USC like a sacred cow. Notre Dame OTOH.........after it was determined that former booster Kim Dunbar had used all her $1.4M in embezzled funds to lavish gifts on irish players, the school received 2 years probation and a loss of 1 schollie. Their TV and bowl game appearances were not touched.

Your argument seems to come down to: "Since we can't do thorough investigations on all athletes, then we shouldn't perform them on any." Are you seriously trying to compare the amount of money LSU softball generates compared to what football brings in? Similarly, do you truly think that Emily Turner would ever generate as much media attention and scrutiny as Reggie Bush? There's simply no comparison. Where do you draw the line? Football brings in a lot of money to USC, LSU, and other big schools, so it makes sense that when it comes to a school's cash cow program, it's in the university's own best interests to ensure that their star players (and yes, their families) are in fact playing by the rules. By definition, that has to be a "selective" standard. Is a booster (or agent, as the case may be) more likely to extend benefits to one of the country's best running backs, or to a third string offensive tackle? Like any other business, universities' athletic/compliance programs have to make prudent decisions about how to best spend its resources. To imply that a school must expend the same amount of time, energy and resources keeping an eye on a potential future hall-of-famer as the captain of the golf team is disingenuous. Can things still slip through the cracks? Of course they will. But as it turns out, even if USC did everything by the books, by the standards the NCAA has historically set in these kinds of situations, USC should be hit with some kind of penalty. We can argue about whether or not that's fair, but that's the precedent that has been set for other schools in similar situations. Remember, USC itself didn't even investigate the matter until it was made public, which usually mitigates these types of situations in the eyes of the NCAA.

You also seem to be dismissing what the Yahoo guys uncovered, but it was obviously serious enough to spark a (ongoing) Pac-10 investigation and gain further national media attention. If there were no fire to the smoke this would have disappeared months ago. Why question the integrity of the Yahoo reporters? I couldn't care less what their motivations were, as long as there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the story. Just to clarify things, I'm not making any excuses for what any other schools, including LSU, have done in the past regarding improper benefits. As in the case of our basketball program, I can't honestly say the punishment (mainly schollie losses) was undeserved. My problem is that punishments are NOT equitably applied. In the LSU basketball case, NO ONE in the program was involved with the payout (cleared by the NCAA itself), despite Lester Earl's claims. But the actions of a single booster was enough to earn the "lack of institutional control" label and the ensuing near-death penalty. You yourself cited the lack of action taken against Notre Dame after one of their boosters did something similar. That kind of inconsistency makes me seriously question the integrity of the investigative body in question. When all is said and done, Reggie himself may have had zero involvement, but given the NCAA's history when it comes to punishing schools, there definitely seems to be a double standard when it comes to the big programs, hence the skepticism of many LSU fans.

My comments were in direct response to a comment by another poster that a university should have knowledge of what any student/athlete's family's financial situation is. I did not imply that a school should not stay up to date on what is going on with the athlete specifically. I said that comparing ET to RB was a stretch and only used the comparison to make the point that it is unrealistic in my view for any school to know what is going on with an athlete's family, their financial situation, or to know where to draw the line. To bring it into clarity, how much do you think LSU knows about JR's family's financial situation? Did they request copies of bank statements, mortgage rates, monthly rent receipts, paystubs, or tax documents? Not likely, nor should they. How far into the family relationships should the "investigation" go? Mother, father, sibling, cousin, in-law? Hard to say and another reason it makes little sense. The athlete is a legal adult and their parents or family situation shouldn't be a natural target. That's all I'm saying.

I have also stated in previous posts that I fully understand that the NCAA may punish USC regardless of any findings of the school's culpability or not. What's interesting to me is the suggestion that the NCAA would let USC slide when in fact, it's the NCAA's coffers that would grow as a result of a severe sanction.

As far as the media. I question their motives, not completely dismiss the allegations. Much of their initial claims surrounded the actions of Reggie's parents and I believe that Reggie's parents screwed the pooch. I am not convinced that Reggie or USC were aware, there's a difference. My point was that if these same media people, because of perceived bias and questionable motives, don't get it right when it comes to giving LSU and the SEC it's due, why are they right in this case? I've read the same thing from just about every conference's fans........"the media loves them, the media treats us unfairly".

I really don't see much of a difference in our points of view, just different interpretations.

I hate to punch a hole in your theory USCvball, but...

The future earnings/income from the banned USC games during the supposed probation period, televised or not, would make a huge impact on all coffers and quite possibly outweigh any previous earnings.

I'll flip a coin and decide whether I care about the whole mess, um tommorrow, when i have some free time...
Fur

My point about the NCAA's coffers was that if they impose sanctions and rule RB ineligible, then USC is required to return 90% of the TV revenues earned during those games to the NCAA. It has nothing to do with future monies which is a draw for all, but about past earnings and about money that would go from USC to the NCAA. Yea, they have a reason NOT to let USC skate. That's all. Let me know how the coin flip turns out. :thumb:

I bet Vegas odds on the NCAA going after USC is about 10 billion to one. Maybe i will put a dollar on it just cause losing a dollar wont kill me.

And if the miracle of miracles should happen where it comes out and they do get punished i will have 10 billion to offer the next Joe Mcnight to keep him in La. .

USC will have to go buy some players elsewhere where it is cheaper. Maybe a trailer park near Sabans house.

I think we can both agree that both schools are more or less equally conscientious when it comes to compliance. And I suspect that, irrespective of this particular situation, there are questionable shenanigans at all big schools. I just happen to be a bit more cynical and suspicious given the NCAA's prior "None of LSU's employees or officials were involved, but you still should have known" mentality. I would only disagree with the statement that family aren't a "natural target." IMO, that's like saying witnesses or jurors aren't targets for bribery/intimidation in a mafia case, because the focus should be solely on what the accused is on trial for.

That is an interesting point, but I wonder if it would ultimately benefit the NCAA in the long run if it cripples one of its best programs. They may stand to lose more money in the long term than the amount of TV money gained in the short term. After all, the NCAA has to keep the TV folks happy.

Actually, I can't complain about media coverage of LSU over the past two years :lol: . I would, however, say that there's a difference between simple bias toward one program/conference over another in media coverage and publicizing fairly serious allegations that bears a burden of proof. Maybe when ESPN airs a five-part series on SportsCenter about how the 2006-07 Gators were the best college football team of all time, I'll change my mind.

:thumb:

The point I originally made about compliance departments responsibilities is based on the actual NCAA rules which you can find in their By Laws. The exact wording for extra benefits is this:

Given these are the rules compliance officers are charged with overseeing it stands to reason they should be looking into it. Given the fact they didn't know makes them just as guilty because they should have known. You don't need to see anyone's bank statements or other personal documents when its as obvious as this. It doesn't take much to see where someone is living or what they are driving. The subsequent red flag should have been raised real quick if the USC compliance department was doing their job even just a little.

On the issue of JR, his family and close relatives have lived in the same houses for years. That may be changing soon though.