NCAA Infractions Committee Report on USC - Ghosts of infractions past haunt SC

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, except for the fact that they're only marginally allowed to participate in the labor market, that's a big difference (I don't think you were one of the posters saying they shouldn't be allowed that, I'm just saying)

They aren't allowed to participate in the labor market at all, are they? I guess I claim it's fair under the understanding that the player knows he won't be able to work when he accepts the scholarship.

Does anyone have any history on how the $2,000 stipend amount was arrived at? Does that amount increase over time, or did someone just pull a number out of their ass 15 years ago and now we are stuck with it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

They aren't allowed to participate in the labor market at all, are they? I guess I claim it's fair under the understanding that the player knows he won't be able to work when he accepts the scholarship.

True, and yes, they can work at Walmart instead but in most of American life, 300+ employers that dominate an industry can't conspire and require everyone to collectively have that rule. I do hope the NCAA implodes one day, and the last year or so has actually given me some hope that we're heading towards some kind of major shakeup. (I'd love to see the BCS schools leave the NCAA and setup up their own new oversight.....the needs/realities/issues of Alabama football and Yale women's volleyball are not identical, or in the same universe.)

And I should add too that even though I hate the rules and the NCAA cartel - I do think players and coaches that violate the rules they agreed to should be severely penalized, and are generally low-character individuals.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

When did I say it was all about what is best for the kid? Big time college football exists because it is mutually beneficial. The players get an education and an audition for the NFL, and the schools get prestige and fund raising opportunity. As with any mutual agreement, the players have to give something up to get something in return. This set up has worked for decades, so why do you want to change it?

I asked you for your reason for opposing it and that was your response. I didn't see anything in your response about how restricting their ability to earn money was in some sense good for them.

This isn't a mutual agreement either. Colleges have a monopoly on the space. There are no other realistic options.

I understand that college can get away with it because they are in such a position of power over these kids. But just drop the whole "we care about the kids" act that so many like to drum up. You're exploiting young adults for personal satisfaction. I don't justify my trips to the strip club by saying I do it to help those young ladies pay for their tuition.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This isn't a mutual agreement either. Colleges have a monopoly on the space. There are no other realistic options.

This is such bullshit. These kids are given opportunity on a silver platter and most squander it, adding money to the equation isn't going to be some panacea to get kids to think straight. It's likely to just accelerate their downward spiral to irrelevance.

If the limits put on them are just too damn restrictive then I suggest they get a night job and pay their own way through school. Like most folks do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

This is such bullshit. These kids are given opportunity on a silver platter and most squander it, adding money to the equation isn't going to be some panacea to get kids to think straight. It's likely to just accelerate their downward spiral to irrelevance.

So much disdain toward these kids. Continues to be a trend with supporters of the system.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If the limits put on them are just too damn restrictive then I suggest they get a night job and pay their own way through school. Like most folks do.

They they would not be able to pursue their true profession.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I asked you for your reason for opposing it and that was your response. I didn't see anything in your response about how restricting their ability to earn money was in some sense good for them.

This isn't a mutual agreement either. Colleges have a monopoly on the space. There are no other realistic options.

I understand that college can get away with it because they are in such a position of power over these kids. But just drop the whole "we care about the kids" act that so many like to drum up. You're exploiting young adults for personal satisfaction. I don't justify my trips to the strip club by saying I do it to help those young ladies pay for their tuition.

My reason for opposing it was because I think it would lead to 15 to 20 great teams and a bunch of Washington Generals. I know you disagree with that, and there really is no way of knowing until it's tried so I think we will have to agree to disagree.

And no, holding that view is not the equivalent of enabling junkies (at least I think that's what you were going for with the stripper analogy.) I guess I just don't understand why you are so excited about this. If we started naming people who deserve empathy I could type for a month before I got to college football players. And if I wanted to start naming unintended consequences from boosters paying players directly, I could probably type for a month on that one too. That's why I don't like the approach you're advocating.

The current system is far from perfect, but it works pretty well for everyone involved. And the guys who you are talking about getting screwed out of big time money are the ones who will be going high in the draft after their Junior year anyway.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So much disdain toward these kids. Continues to be a trend with supporters of the system.


They they would not be able to pursue their true profession.

The only disdain that I have for the kids in these situations is the fact that so many waste it. Because people like you are telling them to pursue their "true profession". Much like many NFL and NBA players do. I'm just amazed that so many people think that throwing more money at these kids is going to somehow be better for them.

"True profession", I LOL'ed at this when I read it. The opportunity to play professional sports is more akin to winning the lottery. Even when you win you have, on average, four years to make money to last you a lifetime.

If a kid can't follow the rules for four years while being given the opportunity of a lifetime, how are they going to be able to function in the real world?

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

The current system is far from perfect, but it works pretty well for everyone involved. And the guys who you are talking about getting screwed out of big time money are the ones who will be going high in the draft after their Junior year anyway.

What about the kid who stars for 3.9 years, making the NCAA and the school money in the process, and then blows his knee out and doesn't see a dime from the NFL? Sure it's a pretty rare scenario but you can't tell me it doesn't happen (or a million other off the field possibilities, many of which aren't going to be the kids fault)

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What about the kid who stars for 3.9 years, making the NCAA and the school money in the process, and then blows his knee out and doesn't see a dime from the NFL? Sure it's a pretty rare scenario but you can't tell me it doesn't happen (or a million other off the field possibilities, many of which aren't going to be the kids fault)

Well if the kid has been doing what he's suppose to be doing in the classroom... he's learned skills that will allow him to take care of himself for the rest of his life.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What about the kid who stars for 3.9 years, making the NCAA and the school money in the process, and then blows his knee out and doesn't see a dime from the NFL? Sure it's a pretty rare scenario but you can't tell me it doesn't happen (or a million other off the field possibilities, many of which aren't going to be the kids fault)

I know there are insurance policys for kids toward the end of their college carreer, I don't know about freshman and sophomores. So if he blows out a knee his senior year he will get something at least. And yeah, that's a really shitty situation, but do you blow up the system to try and address it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The only disdain that I have for the kids in these situations is the fact that so many waste it. Because people like you are telling them to pursue their "true profession". Much like many NFL and NBA players do. I'm just amazed that so many people think that throwing more money at these kids is going to somehow be better for them.

"True profession", I LOL'ed at this when I read it. The opportunity to play professional sports is more akin to winning the lottery. Even when you win you have, on average, four years to make money to last you a lifetime.

If a kid can't follow the rules for four years while being given the opportunity of a lifetime, how are they going to be able to function in the real world?

We sho dont want no po black boy takin our money and wastin it on rims and that there rap music. Just because he can jump high and run fast dont mean he deserves anything more than a bed and 3 square meals. He is just lucky we dont throw him back in that there ghetto where he came from.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We sho dont want no po black boy takin our money and wastin it on rims and that there rap music. Just because he can jump high and run fast dont mean he deserves anything more than a bed and 3 square meals. He is just lucky we dont throw him back in that there ghetto where he came from.

I figured this was where you'd go when you ran out of bullshit.

Don't forget a free education and a free publicity platform for those skills. I guess that the only thing you say a "black athlete" cherishes is money. Since that's all the "black athlete" seems to understand in your world. He can't see beyond the next "booty call", to the value that a four year education gives him.

You're essentially saying that give the black athlete money now because he can't see the value in an education.

Give me a break.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I figured this was where you'd go when you ran out of bullshit.

Don't forget a free education and a free publicity platform for those skills. I guess that the only thing you say a "black athlete" cherishes is money. Since that's all the "black athlete" seems to understand in your world. He can't see beyond the next "booty call", to the value that a four year education gives him.

Give me a break.

Your post was dripping with so much racism that it was hard not to point it out. Next time mix in the NHL so it doesn't look as obvious.

[DanGarion]

Woohoo, let's break this all down into a race issue now... I'm out of here.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Your post was dripping with so much racism that it was hard not to point it out. Next time mix in the NHL so it doesn't look as obvious.

I guess you say it's "dripping" because you can't actually point out one racist thing in it. Sometimes the truth hurts and if people were more honest with these kids earlier in life... perhaps they'd see the value in an education.

If you can't understand that, then there's something wrong with you.

[Lathum]

IBTL

[Atocep]

This thread quickly spiraled into cringe-worthy debate.

No idea why people still get into these discussions with Rainmaker (I know I've been guilty of it before). He ends up taking every single discussion to extreme points of view and you end up nowhere near what the discussion was originally about.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This thread quickly spiraled into cringe-worthy debate.

No idea why people still get into these discussions with Rainmaker (I know I've been guilty of it before). He ends up taking every single discussion to extreme points of view and you end up nowhere near what the discussion was originally about.

The more you engage him the more he shows he has no clue what he's talking about. It's entertainment.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess you say it's "dripping" because you can't actually point out one racist thing in it. Sometimes the truth hurts and if people were more honest with these kids earlier in life... perhaps they'd see the value in an education.

If you can't understand that, then there's something wrong with you.

You went on a tangent in multiple posts explaining how these kids are idiots who squander these great opportunities. How allowing them to earn a living is a complete waste. It wouldn't have been such a big deal if you didn't go out of your way to single out the two sports predominately comprised of black athletes.

It's a shitty stereotype that you chose to perpetuate. That giving young black men money is bad news because they'll just fuck up their lives with it. Your entire post reaked of some moral superiority you had over these kids and that you know what is best for them and you should decide whether they are allowed to have money.

Maybe it's not racist, but you do imply that you hate the idea of young black athletes earning money.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

The more you engage him the more he shows he has no clue what he's talking about. It's entertainment.

And the more I read from you the more it's clear how jealous you are of young adults being able to earn money for their skills.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I know there are insurance policys for kids toward the end of their college carreer, I don't know about freshman and sophomores. So if he blows out a knee his senior year he will get something at least. And yeah, that's a really shitty situation, but do you blow up the system to try and address it?

Not advocating blowing up the system, but a serious raise in the stipend/exploring what is and isn't allowed for these kids to make something off all the money they are bringing in isn't out of order IMO.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe it's not racist, but you do imply that you hate the idea of young black athletes earning money.

I have no problem with anyone earning money. But you seem to equate earning money with just cold-hard cash on the table right this moment. If these kids play their collective cards right, they are setting themselves up to earn money for the rest of their lives.

Which to me is far more important than an immediate cash infusion with no long term benefit.

It's time to get these kids out of living in the "here-and-now" and show them there is a long road ahead of them that education can make better.

YMMV.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I know there are insurance policys for kids toward the end of their college carreer, I don't know about freshman and sophomores. So if he blows out a knee his senior year he will get something at least. And yeah, that's a really shitty situation, but do you blow up the system to try and address it?

I'd imagine these insurance policies aren't cheap. Some families can afford them but since many prominent athletes come from low income households, I don't think that's a realistic option.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a shitty stereotype that you chose to perpetuate. That giving young black men money is bad news because they'll just fuck up their lives with it. Your entire post reaked of some moral superiority you had over these kids and that you know what is best for them and you should decide whether they are allowed to have money.

So my opinion is somehow less valid than yours because I believe these kids should be concentrating on getting an education first?

All you have to do is look at the the NFL, where most players (black and white alike) are broke three years after they quit playing (and most don't have an education). Is it a stereotype if it's true on a macro-level?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I have no problem with anyone earning money. But you seem to equate earning money with just cold-hard cash on the table right this moment. If these kids play their collective cards right, they are setting themselves up to earn money for the rest of their lives.

Which to me is far more important than an immediate cash infusion with no long term benefit.

It's time to get these kids out of living in the "here-and-now" and show them there is a long road ahead of them that education can make better.

YMMV.

I'm not saying that that is bad advice. I'm just saying it's really not your place to tell other people how to live their life. How they should spend their money, who they should work for, and so on. If a kid has a chance to sign a $2 million sneaker deal while in college, I don't think that's a bad career move. And even if it is, it's not my signature on the contract. It's really not my business.

But this isn't just about those rare cases, it's about just being able to earn a living. $2000 is insanely low for living expenses. I know food and housing is paid for, but what about gas? Transportation? A cell phone? A computer? Clothing? It's not just about the big stars, it's about the average kid who just wants to work a job at the mall to have some spending money.

Maybe that's just my libertarian side. I don't like the nanny stuff where we have to tell adults how they should live their life, what they should do, and whether they can make a living for themselves. People will make good and bad life decisions, it's really not our place to force the ones we feel our best on them.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not saying that that is bad advice. I'm just saying it's really not your place to tell other people how to live their life. How they should spend their money, who they should work for, and so on. If a kid has a chance to sign a $2 million sneaker deal while in college, I don't think that's a bad career move. And even if it is, it's not my signature on the contract. It's really not my business.

But this isn't just about those rare cases, it's about just being able to earn a living. $2000 is insanely low for living expenses. I know food and housing is paid for, but what about gas? Transportation? A cell phone? A computer? Clothing? It's not just about the big stars, it's about the average kid who just wants to work a job at the mall to have some spending money.

Maybe that's just my libertarian side. I don't like the nanny stuff where we have to tell adults how they should live their life, what they should do, and whether they can make a living for themselves. People will make good and bad life decisions, it's really not our place to force the ones we feel our best on them.

You bring up a good point about expenses. But how much is enough? And when these kids run out of cash what are they going to be willing to do to get more cash. How many NFL players who earned millions of dollars playing are in prison for dealing drugs after going broke?

Pay them now is not in the best interest of the NCAA or the players themselves. All you have to do is look to the current situation with Dez Bryant.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

So my opinion is somehow less valid than yours because I believe these kids should be concentrating on getting an education first?

All you have to do is look at the the NFL, where most players (black and white alike) are broke three years after they quit playing (and most don't have an education). Is it a stereotype if it's true on a macro-level?

Student-athlete graduation rates are at an all-time high and on the same level as traditional students. This notion that scholarship athletes are squandering their opportunities is just not true.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Student-athlete graduation rates are at an all-time high and on the same level as traditional students. This notion that scholarship athletes are squandering their opportunities is just not true.

Just because they're graduating doesn't mean they're receiving the same "education" as other students. I think we all know that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

You bring up a good point about expenses. But how much is enough? And when these kids run out of cash what are they going to be willing to do to get more cash. How many NFL players who earned millions of dollars playing are in prison for dealing drugs after going broke?

Pay them now is not in the best interest of the NCAA or the players themselves. All you have to do is look to the current situation with Dez Bryant.

I don't know why we'd need to set a limit on how much someone was able to earn for themselves. A school is there to provide an education, not be a personal financial adviser.

I also don't know how a former NFL player being arrested for dealing drugs became the face of the average student-athlete. I'd consider that an anamolly.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know why we'd need to set a limit on how much someone was able to earn for themselves. A school is there to provide an education, not be a personal financial adviser.

I also don't know how a former NFL player being arrested for dealing drugs became the face of the average student-athlete. I'd consider that an anamolly.

It's the face of someone running into alot of money and not knowing how to handle it, getting in over their heads and then trying to find a way out.

Don't believe for a second that there aren't many "improper" influences waiting for the day (which is coming soon) that NCAA players are allowed to accept outside revenue.

[molson]

I don't know if this has come up here yet but the Big 10 is considering paying players cash for "living expenses" - between $2k and $5k. I guess that's not a enormous change yet because that's just the calculated estimate of what players have to spend to go to school that isn't covered by scholarships (travel, clothes). But it would be cash, and apparently from what I'm reading in this thread, it might bring about college sports armageddon.

Big Ten considers proposal to help athletes cover living expenses - ESPN

Edit: And can I assume the majority here is against this because of course, college athletes "already get enough"?

[RainMaker]

It has to be approved by other conferences in D1. I don't know why it would be armageddon, it'd work like financial aid. When I was in school I used to get a check from financial aid every semester for like $1300 that covered certain expenses. I'd imagine this would be similar to that.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know if this has come up here yet but the Big 10 is considering paying players cash for "living expenses" - between $2k and $5k. I guess that's not a enormous change yet because that's just the calculated estimate of what players have to spend to go to school that isn't covered by scholarships (travel, clothes). But it would be cash, and apparently from what I'm reading in this thread, it might bring about college sports armageddon.

Big Ten considers proposal to help athletes cover living expenses - ESPN

Edit: And can I assume the majority here is against this because of course, college athletes "already get enough"?

Interesting. Since when are these athletes not granted a free dorm room? And is this money coming from the conference itself? I'd be curious to see what that would do to the finances for each of their member schools if they were able to pass this...

[DeToxRox]

Appeal denied apparently. Found this on another forum:

Dan Weber
USCFootball.com Staff Writer

Related Links:

USC lands big OL
Trojans offer McGee
SC 2011 game by game
Talk about it in The Peristyle
It's been more than 11 months since the NCAA Committee on Infractions hit USC with the harshest penalties in the modern era of college football since the "death penalty" meted out to SMU in 1987.


Associated Press

Both the Todd McNair and now Reggie Bush/USC NCAA appeals have been denied


Wednesday, according to multiple sources inside and outside the university, the final decision of the NCAA's Infractions Appeals Committee was in hand and being reviewed by USC before its Thursday release by the NCAA.

And it's not good news for USC football.

Despite speculation and media reports that there might be a willingness on the part of the NCAA to listen favorably to a USC appeal that had asked that the 30 scholarships lost over three years with a maximum of 75 allowed and a two-year postseason bowl ban be cut in half, USCFootball.com's sources indicate that USC's appeal has been denied completely.

The Trojans football team will be allowed to sign no more than 15 players to scholarships for the next three seasons (against a top limit of 25 for schools not under sanction).

And of even more immediate impact, USC would not be able to compete for the first-ever Pac-12 championship or appear in the first-ever postseason championship game in 2011 as well.

Of further concern, the NCAA's unprecedented additional sanction allowing players affected by the postseason ban this year to immediately transfer to another institution without sitting out a season would still be in play for this year's seniors.

While USC did not release the appeal it filed with the NCAA for its Jan. 25 hearing, the hope has been that the NCAA's favorable treatment of both Ohio State and Auburn, who were allowed to play in this year's BCS bowl games despite serious allegations against each program, would play in USC's favor.

At the time in Indianapolis, USC Pres. Max Nikias said: "All I will say is that I want to thank the NCAA for giving us an opportunity before the appeals committee to have a good and fair hearing. Now we have to wait for the ruling."

Now that they have the ruling, it appears much in line with the complete denial the NCAA's Infractions Appeals Committee made in the case of former USC assistant Todd McNair three weeks ago. And while McNair has clearly reserved the right to consider a lawsuit against the NCAA for a number of mistakes in his case, USC Athletics Director Pat Haden had removed that possibility from the school's potential responses.

"A lot of people say it's going to help you," Haden said of the Auburn and Ohio State cases in January before the hearing. "I don't think so. I don't think it helps or hurts us; I think it's irrelevant."
"This is it," Haden said of further action by USC. "There is no appeal after this . . . This is the final frontier."

[Lathum]

No surprise. The NCAA is such a joke.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Lathum

No surprise. The NCAA is such a joke.

I'm much happier with this outcome than I am with the resolution to the Ohio State and Auburn incidents. I prefer a heartless NCAA that throws around death penalties and the like to the recent milquetoast rulings.

[DaddyTorgo]

MORE DEATH PENALTIES PLEASE!!!!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm much happier with this outcome than I am with the resolution to the Ohio State and Auburn incidents. I prefer a heartless NCAA that throws around death penalties and the like to the recent milquetoast rulings.

well that is what anoys me. I have no problem with them upholding the USC penalties, but don't use the kid gloves on OSU and Auburn then.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm much happier with this outcome than I am with the resolution to the Ohio State and Auburn incidents. I prefer a heartless NCAA that throws around death penalties and the like to the recent milquetoast rulings.

While I agree, I'm most bothered by the lack of apparent consistency in their rulings.

[Eaglesfan27]

I am so pissed off at the NCAA.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I am so pissed off at the NCAA.

True, but there is probably no man happier than Lane Kiffin

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well that is what anoys me. I have no problem with them upholding the USC penalties, but don't use the kid gloves on OSU and Auburn then.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

While I agree, I'm most bothered by the lack of apparent consistency in their rulings.

I'll say we're all in agreement. I too wish that Auburn and OSU would have felt the wrath of an NCAA institution circa 2000.

[GrantDawg]

But, what happened those in the know saying this was going to be completely overturned?

[MrBug708]

Probably the same ones who said that USC did nothing wrong

[Matthean]

I wouldn't say OSU is exactly done with the NCAA at this point.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I wouldn't say OSU is exactly done with the NCAA at this point.

Irrelevant. The fact they let those kids play in the BCS game is a joke.

[Grammaticus]

True but not irrelevant.

[SackAttack]

I wonder if USC fans would have standing to sue the NCAA for the lack of evenhanded treatment between USC and OSU/Auburn.

That would be popcorn-worthy.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Probably the same ones who said that USC did nothing wrong

They didn't...

[MrBug708]

...and everyone is jealous of USC too?