Some further thoughts on the Bush Saga.
While there a more questions than answers in this whole sorted mess. A number of people that I have talked to have feelings that range from not surprised to shocked and dismayed. Many that I have talked to are more surprised that Reggie Bush would act this way when he showed us a completely different side publicly. While I am surprised that Reggie Bush is attached to this sort of story I'm not surprised that it happens at all.
As I have looked around some other sites the general tone is that there has to be some truth to this story. The classic Watergate term of "what did USC know and when did he know it" seems to be the general thoughts that people have. It is an important question and the answer will determine the future of the program.
This is not some Chicken Little the sky is falling panic mode that people are in. Fans truly are concerned about how bad this could get. And I'm not talking about giving back a Heisman Trophy or forfeiting a National Championship. The problems of this situation are on a go forward basis. We could lose scholarships, we could lose televised games and we could lose the chance to play in bowl games.
While I'm disgusted at this behavior I'm also not surprised. College athletics has had problems with boosters for years and the NCAA has been too slow to catch up. Now it's the agent's. When I read the story about the agents hanging around Heritage Hall I was a little surprised that they had that sort of access to just hang around and wait for players you it was a disaster in waiting. USC's open policy has allowed the perception to be made that this program isn't concerned about its reputation and that its anything goes.
Now, lets look at what some of the media are saying. Dan Shanoff on his blog writes:
About Reggie Bush:
I'd strip Bush of the trophy and give it to runner-up Vince Young. That's adding insult to injury. (And righting a wrong: The Rose Bowl proved that VY deserved the Heisman last year.)
I think that's legitimate. If Bush is ruled ineligible as the Heisman Bylaws state then he should be made to give it back. Of course his wanting to give it to Vince Young is self-righteous. Based on what I have read about Vince Young that time has passed in his eyes and that chapter is closed.
About USC:
The most fascinating upshot? That makes Auburn your 2004 national champ. (Remember: Auburn was unbeaten and controversially left out of the BCS title game. They ended the season No. 2 in the final BCS rankings. If I was Auburn, I would start this p.r. campaign RIGHT NOW.)
Again, more self-righteous arrogance. Even if they pull the NC title, which I think is unlikely, installing Auburn, as the National Champion is ludicrous. Auburn wouldn't accept it and no one would accept Auburn if they did accept it. Of course that might not surprise many with state of things with the Auburn football program of late.
About the Coaches:
But I think it would be a mistake to let Pete Carroll off the hook, simply because he claims not to have known anything.
As the head of the program - its CEO, effectively - he is responsible for what happens. To think that he didn't keep tabs on his best player either shows remarkable willful negligence -- or remarkable willful stupidity. With either excuse, do you really want that guy coaching your team?
Some of this I said in my earlier post but this is the crux of the whole case. If a coach knew what was going on then SC is screwed in the worst way and it will go all the way to Mike Garrett. If it happens on your watch then you are responsible.
While I think he makes some good points I think Shanoff's tone of incredulity is self-serving, arrogant and smacks of having an axe to grind with Pete Carroll. Most of the other news organizations who have stories out on this pretty much say the same things but what would you expect them to say that what may have occurred is ok and is no big deal; that the NCAA doesn't really care if you break the rules, of course not.
My track record on these issues is pretty clear; keep the program clean and good character should always be the rule not the exception. I'm not interested in people burying their heads in the sand. I have seen on some other boards that these stories are really nothing new. You're kidding me right? I do not recall in any of the previous stories about agents having access to the locker room or that Ornstein provided financial help or that the someone on the coaching staff knew. I can assure you that, if true, this is new and explosive news and does not bode well for USC.
I am past caring about Reggie Bush. He's gone and he may have left a path of destruction in his wake. His decisions may have cost USC some of the prestige that they have worked so hard build over the past few decades. Some fans don't seem to get that. They also don't understand the potential ramifications. As I wrote on Cardinal and Gold earlier this summer:
I'm a huge SC fan but I can't accept players whose actions disrupt team chemistry or whose selfish actions will hurt the institution that gave them the chance to make millions only to have those actions make it tougher for future teams to come. I would rather not have won all that we have only to have it taken away because of selfishness.
This is exactly what may be happening here.
0 recs |
5 comments
Comments
McNair and timing
For example, the issue of McNair knowing. Note that the Yahoo story says "before the National Championship Game." The writers did not say "early in the season", or "in summer camp," or "before the Notre Dame game." When did NcNair allegedly know? The week before the game? I'm not sure that's so damaging.
Also And the story about New Era reps being on the sidelines and in the locker room. Sports columnists again show their lack of reading comprehension.
Regarding the charges that the compliance office allowed agents into the locker room:
"Sources told Yahoo! Sports that representatives of New Era were allowed into the USC locker room during the 2005 season." Then they write "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."
That sure doesn't sound like Carroll knew who Michaels or Lake was.
And: "Ornstein and other agents frequented the USC sidelines during several games and numerous practices that season, according to published reports."
It's old news that agents are allowed at practice and inside Heritage Hall. See the LAT article. Everyone is allowed. I am, you are, your mama is ... Also, can someone alert me to a published report of agents on the sideline during games? I haven't read anything like that? Have you? Home or away games? Maybe it's correct. Maybe it's sloppy writing. As for Shanoff and Corso and Wetzel, is definitely sloppy thinking.
by Zoulou on
Sep 15, 2006 7:05 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
do you really think that they'd have published
You can poke at the articles all you want, but it will be the ensuing investigation that counts, and the investigation is going to only start with the articles.
Don't doubt that there is plenty more than can't be proven by journalists, but will be by investigation (journalists really can't threaten you with jailtime to get you to tell the truth).
The first step is denial, now I hope you've moved on to anger.
by cornnation on
Sep 16, 2006 3:33 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If someone wrote it, it must be true ??
by Defender90 on
Sep 18, 2006 11:16 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Great points
If he did know it could spell dire consequenses for USC.
by Paragon SC on
Sep 15, 2006 7:17 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs






