clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

(UPDATED) McKnight should be ruled ineligible...simple as that!

New, comments

UPDATE:

And the other shoe dropped...

Schenter Repsonds! Check out the LAT HT - DFW Trojan in the FanPosts!

- - -

You are going to need a pretty solid paper trail to show that Joe McKnight DID NOT do anything wrong in regadrs to the SUV he was driving.

After going over the article in the LAT again this morning a little more stands out. Aside from the article stating that the reporter saw McKnight driving away ALONE in the SUV which is obviously contradictory to what McKnight has stated in the article, there is this...(emphasis added)

Approached Wednesday after practice, McKnight acknowledged riding in the Land Rover but said he has never driven it. McKnight said his girlfriend, Johana Michelle Beltran, works as a secretary for Schenter, although the player said he did not know him.

[...]

USC asks its athletes to provide written documentation about the vehicles they drive on campus. McKnight said Wednesday that he had not provided the school information on the Land Rover because he hadn't driven it.

However, Todd Dickey, USC's senior vice president for administration, said Friday that McKnight did provide the school with written documentation that he was driving the vehicle. Tim Tessalone, USC's sports information director, said the running back had been "mistaken" in his account to The Times. Tessalone declined a request to see the documentation or say when the information was filed.

Fine...

So, McKnight denies that he ever drove the vehicle in the article, but USC says he filed paperwork for it? Then Tessalone "corrects" McKnight's version of the story as "mistaken"?

So what is the story?

McKnight better have an airtight alibi...I mean what part of "did you EVER drive the vehicle?" do you not understand?

I realize I am not a college graduate but even if unintentional (highly doubtful) I can see that McKnight borke the rules. I mean he knew the rules enough to submit paperwork that he was driving the vehicle. He knew the rules enough to say enough to acknowledge he could in trouble if he did drive the vehicle. This is such a slam dunk that I see no reason why USC hasn't already ruled him ineleigible. The bigger question I have is IF the compliance office has the paperwork on the SUV did anyone ask the right questions as to who, what, where, when, why?

The article states that McKnight grew up in a low-income area so I think it is pretty clear that no one from his family bought the car. That is an easily asked & answered question. If the ex-girfriend/mother of McKnight's son is driving the SUV the next question is even easier...where did she get the vehicle? But that gets tricky...if she isn't a student at the school then SC has a tough road to hoe in getting the info on that vehicle by simply asking the question. She has no obligation to answer any of the schools questions but if she didn't it doesn't take a genius to figure out that she probably has something to hide. As I have said before in reagrds to Bush and Mayo, there are privacy issues that need to be addressed so SC's hands are a bit tied.

Now, McKnight should know better simply because even the smallest appearance of impropriety would turn this type of issue into a major s*** storm.

Wolf offers up some history...

This isn't the first time a high-profile tailback in Los Angeles has been involved in an SUV scandal. In 2001, UCLA tailback DeShaun Foster was deemed ineligible by the NCAA for driving a Ford Expedition of a friend of an agent.

He missed the final three games of his career.

In Foster's case, UCLA suspended Foster when it learned from the NCAA of the possible infraction and waited for an NCAA ruling. The NCAA determined Foster to be ineligible, and he never played for the Bruins again. It was particularly damaging for Foster, who at the time was the nation's third-leading rusher and a Heisman Trophy candidate.

Rumors were that the NCAA was given a tip by someone with USC ties that Foster was driving a luxury vehicle.

So there is a precident.

And he makes the obvious conclusion...

It's unclear if McKnight will be declared ineligible for the game. "I don't know if that's even in question right now," Carroll said.

It would be difficult for USC to play McKnight if there's no resolution to the investigation since it would run the risk of using an ineligible player. And it seems implausible the NCAA would make a ruling on the situation; next week is a holiday week, with Christmas falling on a Friday.

This one is easy for USC.

Make McKnight ineligible for the bowl game and get down to the nuts and bolts of it later...after the bowl game. If McKnight gets his feelings hurt and chooses to leave SC then fine. Thanks for the memories...good luck in the NFL. With SC already under the microscope for Bush and Mayo who needs this?

I could care less what the haters and detractors think but my three-year old could figure this out.

Shut him down, submit the info to the NCAA and let it play out from there. But SC has to treat this with a a sense of urgency and bit of a scortched earth policy...anything less will only piss off the NCAA and we are already in their crosshairs.

I can't wait for the other shoe to drop!