Did the Pac-10 Commissioner tip his hand?

It’s because the Pac10 budget for that is as large as that of the entire NCAA for all sports. Scott has seen what the NCAA has, but you are right he should have kept his mouth shut. The NCAA is completely unpredictable with their first ruling, sanity returns upon appeal. However at that point the PR damage is done.

I think that USC has the backing of the Pac 10 and if the NCAA were to hand down a decision that hurt the conference there could be an adverse reaction. Scott is aware of the evidence and is signalling to the NCAA what he would consider fair. I suspect he is not acting out of naivete, but rather attempting to position the conference in a favourable stature.

The NCAA does not need to open another front; it is already in a weak position with regards to football and wants to maintain the status quo. It will not take on the conference over this with a capricious penalty that ends up hurting everyone.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-ncaa-precedent17-2010feb17,0,1722363.story

All of these recent cases involve boosters, coaches, university staff and involve either illicit benefits or academic fraud.

I simply do not see today how USC could receive anything but lighter sanctions than the preceding cases. Our case solely involves agents and marketers for football. For some reason, Guillory is considered a booster for basketball, but I still don’t think the NCAA can prove that Timmy or anyone at SC knew that Guillory was giving money to OJ. OJ only owned a bike for transportation at SC.

So, some say there are “back room rumors” that the NCAA has evidence of more serious wrongdoing. The Internet is full of such egregious fabrications. YET, from execs INVOLVED who have reviewed the NCAA allegations letter and seen the evidence – Mike Garrett and Larry Scott – we hear “the situation is not dire”, “we have a strong case”, and “I don’t expect USC to get hammered.”

The circumstantial evidence from people in the know also corroborates the hard evidence reported to date. The challenge is to try to separate the “hard” evidence from the piles of provocative crap filler content on the net. The NCAA does not have evidence of USC staff or boosters (other than Guillory, whom I refuse to call a booster) knowingly participating in illicit activity.

I don’t have a problem with Larry Scott making an extremely brief comment on this matter. Precedence has been set. We know what we are dealing with. Results can be reasonably forecasted. We should go in prepared for the worst, but have confidence that the results will be fair. And, if they are fair, they will not be severe. USC has done nothing wrong other than allowing Guillory to hang around campus. As for the Bush case, what should we have done differently? I am not sure what we could have done, and am afraid that agents will always find a way to reach high profile players and their families anywhere they play.

directing a recruit to USC (Mayo). Loyd and Michaels would clearly be considered agents even though technically they weren’t’ even that. The LA Times did a really piss poor job on that article, none of those other cases are even close to Bush. They would have been better off just explaining the differences, but then they would have been accused of being pro USC. Don’t want that out of the BruinTimes.

. . . .hand down a harsh sentence (read: one that reads similar to USC’s self-imposed basketball sanctions, plus something additional like instead of a 1-year self-imposed post season ban- a 2 or 3 year ban, as well as hitting USC fooball with by vacating wins from the Bush’s final season, any monetary damages in excess of 100K, more than 5-less scholarships to would be recruits, loss of any/all football or athletic program revenue sharing, and/or any ban on post-season play) IF they errantly dismiss or consciously overlook the verifiable data that USC presents that might exonerate or refute any/all of the allegations against them.

In short, if the NCAA consciously imposes unfair and unprecedented sanctions/penalties against USC in order to satisfy the public’s interest in seeing USC get hammered in this investigation of “Lack of Institutional Control” (that’s what it’s being considered as, in the eyes of the NCAA) and IN SPITE of compelling evidence to prove otherwise- they will have to provide equally compelling evidence before the NCAA Appeals Panel to disprove USC’s evidence of innocence at the next level.

Considering the totality of witnesses, breadth of evidence, and representatives (both university and conference principals scheduled to be in attendance)- this convening NCAA Committee appearing and judging this investigation HAS TO BE totally “on” and extremely transparent in determining their conclusions and judgements. Something tells me the NCAA will not render judgements unwisely or with regard to public perception. If they do, they will wish they hadn’t.

And USC, for that matter, had better provide extensive research, NCAA bylaw interpretation, and hard/verifiable evidence to prove innocence in wrongdoing or malfeasance. Having both ex-coaches in attendance in case their testimony is warranted and/or the execution of their duties and responsibilities are put into question by the NCAA investigators- is a major plus on USC’s side. The conference up and ups are surely a good sign in order to prevent and/or be witness to any obvious bias from the investigating and judging panels that the NCAA will provide, thereby having the luxury of being witness to any and all perceptions of NCAA untoward bias and presentation. The fact that the principals in charge of compliance and student affairs at USC will be present is also a great sign, as it shows that USC is serious, prepared, and ready to refute and counter those allegations against them that they feel they are innocent of. The daily capacity of what these principals do at USC is enormous and having them attend is a great sign of USC’s preparation and belief that they did not violate NCAA compliace or were irresponsible in duty or function- as it applies to Bush and Mayo .

Considering the self-imposed sanctions USC placed upon itself, shows that some things were done in error as it pertains to basketball. But. . . .NOT in football.