Questions with regards to Reggie's Impala?

I thought the NCAA didn’t comment

“The NCAA will not comment on the content of confidential documents. “HOWEVER” bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit……………………………..

How do you feel about the ncaa, gnossos?
No comment!

are hard at work dissecting Frankenstein. LINK
Fight On Director Freeh!

This is the issue of Finding 1-a-(4). Before it became Finding 1-a-(4) in the NCAA’s Public Infractions Report (issued 6/10/10), it was presented at the COI meeting (Feb 19-21, 2010) as Allegation 1-a-(4), the product of a 3 ½ year NCAA investigation. Between February and June of 2010, 1-a-(4) was changed profoundly, such that it became the primary justification for stripping USC of its 2004 BCS victory. Without such change, the NCAA COI probably wouldn’t have had grounds to vacate that championship. So, did the NCAA alter the conclusion of its investigative team because new evidence became available between February and June, or did it realize during that period that a change of dates was necessary to justify the NCAA’s predetermined objective of stripping USC of the 2004 BCS title?

The first quote you highlighted (with the date "late 2004") is taken directly from the Public Infractions Report (6/10/10), page 5:

http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/995/952139.pdf

The second quote you highlighted (with the date "Feb 2005") is taken directly from USC’s formal response (pages 32 and 33) to the COI, prepared 12/09 and presented Feb 19-12 at the COI meeting:
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/USCs2009ResponsetoNCAA.pdf

The format of USC’s response is clear. USC was presented with a series of allegations based on the findings of the NCAA investigation and either agreed with or defended itself against each allegation. The second quote you highlighted (with the date "Feb 2005") is the formal "allegation" based the NCAA investigation. It is evident that the primary source of this allegation must be testimony provided by Lloyd Lake that Reggie Bush asked for the Impala in February 2005. This is in approximate agreement with the Yahoo investigation which determined that Reggie Bush was given the Impala in "Spring 2005".

Also contained within USC’s response is the statement (page 27): "USC agrees that Student athlete 1 (Bush) was ineligible for competition throughout the 2005-6 football season. We have no basis upon which to conclude that Student athlete 1 was ineligible for competition during the 2004-2005 football season." It seems highly likely that the NCAA agreed with this conclusion, and therefore need to change its allegations to justify declaring Bush ineligible for 2004-2005.

There simply must have been too much pressure on the NCAA to take away USC’s 2004 title than to stick with the primary conclusion of their investigation…that Reggie Bush himself (excluding family) didn’t receive any substantive or documented benefits until at least February 2005. In the NCAA’s own words (Public Infractions Report, page 12):

"The question facing the committee was whether student-athlete 1 agreed to become involved with the proposed agency and, if so, when that happened. The committee finds that an agreement for representation was made in the fall of 2004 when student-athlete 1 and his stepfather agreed to form a sports agency with agency partners A and B and that student-athlete 1 began receiving benefits at least by December 2004 when he received funds to purchase an automobile. [See Finding 1-a-(4).] Based on the information presented to the committee, not only was student-athlete 1 aware of and willing to accept assistance from agency partners A and B, but he also agreed to join in that effort."

Since the exact date that Lake, Bush and his stepfather entered an agreement for representation is a point of contention (the NCAA acknowledges that an "operating agreement" was not in place until Jan. 20th, 2005, PIR page 13), the date that Bush began receiving benefits would be strong evidence of a tacit and consensual agreement and on Reggie’s part. Without this, you’ve basically got a couple of guys talking, perhaps negotiating, about forming a sports agency, and the NCAA bylaws specifically prohibit "agreement of representation", not talking. Without Reggie receiving any benefits before the Orange bowl, USC has a very strong case to retain its 2004 BCS title. Problem was, the NCAA investigation (based on Lake’s testimony) and the Yahoo investigation both had Reggie receiving the Impala in Feb 2005, at earliest. This explains why the NCAA’s dates changed (from Feb ’05 to Dec ’04) between February 2010 and June 2010, between Allegation 1-a-(4) and Finding 1-a-(4).

Did the NCAA have any basis to justify a December 2004 date of purchase for the Impala? This answer is "yes". Bush completed a USC Student-Athlete Motor Vehicle Information form in August, 2005 which stated the Impala was purchased "December 2004", and that was the date that the NCAA chose to adopt. However, in doing so, the NCAA determined that Reggie Bush’s recollection (December 2004) was more credible than Lloyd Lake’s recollection (February 2005) for perhaps the one and only instance in the entire case. In doing so, the NCAA adopted a conclusion that was in direct conflict to testimony given by both witnesses, Lake and Bush; namely that Lake had given an Impala to Bush in December 2004. In doing so, the NCAA has set precedent that BCS championships can hinge upon something as seemingly minor as the accuracy by which college kids complete administrative paper work.

It is unfortunate that the NCAA, armed with nothing more than vague recollections from disreputable people with conflicting motives can take down a major university’s athletic program. The USC case is a another example that power corrupts and of what can happen in the absence of any meaningful oversight.