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

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

They didn't...

They didn't do nothing wrong?

I agree.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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

No.

[Eaglesfan27]

Todd McNair has sued the NCAA for "Libel, slander, interference with contract and with prospective economic advantage." This could still get interesting.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Todd McNair has sued the NCAA for "Libel, slander, interference with contract and with prospective economic advantage." This could still get interesting.

Yeah, and it might be awful for USC. I am sure they hate this. The NCAA's lawyers will leave no stone unturned I am sure.

[Eaglesfan27]

Interesting who took the case. This is one of the most respected firms in California and they rarely take cases they will lose:

The law firm representing McNair will be Greene Broillet & Wheeler. Broillet's accomplishments have been recognized by the legal profession's leading publications and organizations. He is named in Woodward / White, Inc. as one of "The Best Lawyers in America" and in California Lawyer Magazine as "One of California's Most Respected Plaintiff's Lawyers." Bruce has been listed repeatedly as one of the "100 Most Influential Attorneys in California" by the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine/Los Angeles Magazine annually lists the top five-percent of lawyers practicing in Los Angeles and Orange Counties as nominated and voted upon by their peers. Bruce was named to its "Top 10 Southern California Lawyers" and "Top 100 Los Angeles County Lawyers" lists in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. He has also been one of the "Top 10 point getters" in each of those years, and was the "Top point getter" in 2008.

[DeToxRox]

I can't see USC being happy this is going to trial.

It's like the OSU players parents possibly suing SI. The first thing the prosecution would do is bring the Tat 5 to the stand. It's just not good for the universities.

Now McNair has nothing to do with USC at this point, but if I am fan of USC I'd prefer it not go to trial to see the NCAA get a black eye with all the stuff that could come out in the process.

[Noop]

Greene Broillet & Wheeler

Interesting thing about that firm is they don't have not one T14 lawyer. That's pretty awesome I wonder if the NCAA will seek outside counsel against this case.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I can't see USC being happy this is going to trial.

It's like the OSU players parents possibly suing SI. The first thing the prosecution would do is bring the Tat 5 to the stand. It's just not good for the universities.

Now McNair has nothing to do with USC at this point, but if I am fan of USC I'd prefer it not go to trial to see the NCAA get a black eye with all the stuff that could come out in the process.

The lawyers on the USC board who have read the public documents seem very excited about the language in the law suit and feel that it is very favorable for USC, but we'll see how it goes.

[MrBug708]

The problem for USC is that Michael Michael's will probably be forced to testify. There was a reason why Jerry Buss paid him off and it wasn't Reggie Bush who shelled out the money.

[MrBug708]

For those who have forgotten
The key figures - Reggie Bush Investigation - Yahoo! Sports

[molson]

I haven't followed this closely enough to know exactly what the NCAA said/wrote that Todd McNair thought was libel/slander but he'll have to prove it was false, and the NCAA will be allowed discovery to show it was true....which could dig up who knows what else. Libel/slander suits are almost always made out of desperation and don't usually go well, it's a tough case to win the U.S.

[Logan]

BCS strips Southern California of 2004 national championship - Campus Rivalry: College Football & Basketball News, Recruiting, Game Picks, and More - USATODAY.com

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

The lawyers on the USC board who have read the public documents seem very excited about the language in the law suit and feel that it is very favorable for USC, but we'll see how it goes.

Ya think?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Interesting who took the case. This is one of the most respected firms in California and they rarely take cases they will lose:

The law firm representing McNair will be Greene Broillet & Wheeler. Broillet's accomplishments have been recognized by the legal profession's leading publications and organizations. He is named in Woodward / White, Inc. as one of "The Best Lawyers in America" and in California Lawyer Magazine as "One of California's Most Respected Plaintiff's Lawyers." Bruce has been listed repeatedly as one of the "100 Most Influential Attorneys in California" by the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

Southern California Super Lawyers Magazine/Los Angeles Magazine annually lists the top five-percent of lawyers practicing in Los Angeles and Orange Counties as nominated and voted upon by their peers. Bruce was named to its "Top 10 Southern California Lawyers" and "Top 100 Los Angeles County Lawyers" lists in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. He has also been one of the "Top 10 point getters" in each of those years, and was the "Top point getter" in 2008.

Respected plaintiff's lawyers? That's a good one.

Seriously, the Super Lawyer thing is a bit of a joke. It is littered with ambulance chasers and small time lawyers who do big publicity outreach to get their friends to vote for them. I don't know anyone who takes that seriously, and the only people who list it on their bios are the lawyers who need to advertise for business.

[I say this without knowing the merits of the case at all.]

[MrBug708]

I think the NCAA will settle this because McNair's lawyers are going to drag this out. I think they are planning on calling up Snoop as at a witness (for whatever reason) and look to drag this out as long as possible. I cant see the NCAA waiting this out because of the absurdity of having this go to trial and it will probably be cheaper to settle. Of course, USC will likely take that settlement as a chance to sue, though I doubt Haden does so.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Noop

Greene Broillet & Wheeler

Interesting thing about that firm is they don't have not one T14 lawyer. That's pretty awesome I wonder if the NCAA will seek outside counsel against this case.

Nothing to wonder about. They have already. No inhouse lawyer, at least no self respecting inhouse lawyer, represents his company in court.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by digamma

Respected plaintiff's lawyers? That's a good one.

Seriously, the Super Lawyer thing is a bit of a joke. It is littered with ambulance chasers and small time lawyers who do big publicity outreach to get their friends to vote for them. I don't know anyone who takes that seriously, and the only people who list it on their bios are the lawyers who need to advertise for business.

[I say this without knowing the merits of the case at all.]

You beat me to it. I was going to post the same thing. Things like this are part of massive PR campaigns by firms, who oftentimes also pay to have their associates listed.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Jon

You beat me to it. I was going to post the same thing. Things like this are part of massive PR campaigns by firms, who oftentimes also pay to have their associates listed.

This and digammas post (which I can't multi-quote from my iPhone.)

[tarcone]

Was this guy involved? Sounds like it.

[Noop]

USC is going to be an afterthought. Who benefits most in the Pac-12 by this? UCLA? Oregon?

[MrBug708]

Cal, Oregon, and UW have

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Noop

USC is going to be an afterthought. Who benefits most in the Pac-12 by this? UCLA? Oregon?

USC is going to fall into the middle of the Pac for a while, but I'd be surprised if they aren't able to climb back to the top by the end of the decade.

UW was already on an upswing anyway, but USC losing scholarships helps them a lot given Sark's connections in SoCal. UCLA and Cal should benefit due to proximity. Oregon benefits for as long as they can forestall their own NCAA sanctions.

[RedKingGold]

Report: Reggie Bush still hasn’t coughed up his Heisman

Posted by Mike Florio on June 7, 2011, 4:26 PM EDT
AP
On Monday, the BCS stipped USC of its 2004 national title. The move represents the school’s consequences for the money-and-or-things-of-value transactions that rendered former Trojans/current Saints tailbackReggie Bush ineligible.

Last year, Bush decided to give up his 2005 Heisman Trophy, under a fairly clear threat that it would have been taken from him involuntarily. Although USC has packed up its version of the statue and sent it back to the Downtown Athletic Club in New York City, Bush apparently hasn’t.

Our good friend Paul Pabst of The Dan Patrick Show, setting aside his Executive Producer hat and donning the disguise of a reporter, writes that Bush’s version of the award has not yet made its way back to Manhattan.
Pabst explains that Bush’s trophy had been on display at the San Diego Hall of Champions. After the decision was made that the trophy would be returned, “Reggie Bush’s dad came in right after and took it,” a member of management at the San Diego Hall of Champions told Pabst. “That’s the last we saw of it.”

The folks at the Downtown Athletic Club apparently have made no effort to force the issue, and possibly never will. And perhaps Bush never intended to give up the hardware itself. Consider the exact words from his press release:

“One of the greatest honors of my life was winning the Heisman Trophy in 2005. For me, it was a dream come true. But I know that the Heisman is not mine alone. Far from it. I know that my victory was made possible by the discipline and hard work of my teammates, the steady guidance of my coaches, the inspiration of the fans, and the unconditional love of my family and friends. And I know that any young man fortunate enough to win the Heisman enters into a family of sorts. Each individual carries the legacy of the award and each one is entrusted with its good name. It is for these reasons that I have made the difficult decision to forfeit my title as Heisman winner of 2005.”

Forfeit his title? Yes. Actually surrender a chunk of bronze that could eventually fetch a ton of money on eBay? Maybe not.

The fact is that the trophy apparently never will be returned, if neither the Downtown Athletic Club nor anyone else places pressure on Bush to make it happen.

Reggie? It’s time to make good on your word and give back the trophy

Report: Reggie Bush still hasn’t coughed up his Heisman | ProFootballTalk

[molson]

I'm sure its in a LA-area tattoo parlor.

[DaddyTorgo]

What a dirtbag.

[RainMaker]

Can you really take it back? I mean if you win something, they can take away the award in spirit, but can they legally demand that you give the trophy back to them?

Just remember that O.J. Simpson is a Heisman Trophy winner, but Reggie Bush's was vacated.

[MrBug708]

USC needs to tiptoe pretty lightly around Reggie Bush during this lawsuit

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

I haven't followed this closely enough to know exactly what the NCAA said/wrote that Todd McNair thought was libel/slander but he'll have to prove it was false, and the NCAA will be allowed discovery to show it was true....which could dig up who knows what else. Libel/slander suits are almost always made out of desperation and don't usually go well, it's a tough case to win the U.S.

I'm no lawyer, but I thought that proving libel/slander requires a higher burden of proof than simply "false statement." Doesn't malice enter into it also? i.e., he has to prove not only that the statement was false, but that the NCAA knew it was false, made the statement anyway, with intent to harm?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can you really take it back? I mean if you win something, they can take away the award in spirit, but can they legally demand that you give the trophy back to them?

Just remember that O.J. Simpson is a Heisman Trophy winner, but Reggie Bush's was vacated.

The issue is not whether anyone can "legally demand" Reggie give the trophy back, rather, it is whether Reggie looks like a douchebag for implying he would voluntarily give back the trophy then not following up.

It's the same thing America criticizes politicians for; if you're going to make a statement like Reggie did about the trophy, and not follow through, then Reggie is going to look like an ass and deservedly so.

Also, comparing O.J.'s Heisman situation to Reggie Bush's is asinine because they are two completely different situations.

[dawgfan]

Just to follow-up on the pay players issue - only 22 FCS athletic departments turned a profit last year. That number will probably increase with the mega-TV deals being thrown around in the last year or two, but then again, tuition is also increasing rapidly at many schools as states continue to deal with major budget crunches.

Further fodder for the speculation of the BCS schools breaking off into their own higher division, sooner rather than later.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2...meets-the-eye/

(Side note - while her site provides good info, someone needs to tell her that white text on black background is a horrible choice and is really hard to read)

[DeToxRox]

Lane hit with Failure to Monitor for his part of the UT mess. No idea what it will mean for USC, if anything:

KNOXVILLE -- One of the most important developments in the University of Tennessee's lengthy case with the NCAA was former coach Lane Kiffin receiving a failure-to-monitor charge instead of the Volunteers' football program.

The university's response to the NCAA, which UT released to the Times Free Press on Monday, explained the details of why Kiffin, who left UT for Southern Cal after one season, was given the charge. After receiving the NCAA's Notice of Allegations in February, UT formally responded in May and went before the Committee on Infractions in June.

Contained in the 190-page document is UT's reply to each of the alleged 10 major infractions against the men's basketball and football programs, the school's self-imposed two-year probation and the other punitive actions the school imposed on former and current football and basketball coaching staffs.

While the document vividly describes the downfall of UT's former basketball staff with transcripts of the conversations former head coach Bruce Pearl and assistants Tony Jones, Steve Forbes and Jason Shay had with NCAA investigators in which they admitted to the lies and attempted cover-up that ultimately led to their firings in March, the football portion of the case is still shrouded with some mystery.

The NCAA lumped four separate recruiting infractions of a secondary nature into one major infraction, though two of those violations involving former assistant David Reaves are heavily redacted to protect the identity of former or current UT students.

Now the offensive coordinator at New Mexico, Reaves allegedly had UT students contact football recruits illegally, which UT disputed in its response, and his involvement in two members of UT's now-defunct Orange Pride hostess group attending a high school game in South Carolina is the biggest mystery in this case.

"The university does not believe it is appropriate to cite Kiffin for failing to monitor Reaves in that instance," the response states. "Rather, the weight of the evidence is that Reaves acted on his own and without notice to Kiffin. However, as the head coach, Kiffin was ultimately responsible for all employees of the football program."

As for the 16 impermissible phone calls during a Jan. 3-9, 2010, contact period and the impermissible in-person off-campus contact of then UT recruiting intern Steve Rubio with administrators at St. Thomas Aquinas High School in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., UT said it provided Kiffin with enough information that he should have prevented the violations.

From December 2008 to January 2010, UT's compliance staff "provided no fewer than 135 rules-education items" to football coaches and administrators.

"When the university began hiring the former football staff ... the compliance staff immediately began a campaign to fully educate the staff on all aspects of NCAA rules," the response states. "The compliance staff was particularly focused on rules education for the football staff at that time because several of the football coaching staff members were returning to college football from careers in the National Football League."

Brad Bertani, UT's associate athletic director for compliance, said he "vividly" remembered having conversations with the staff "about the impermissibility of certain contacts" just a month before the illegal calls were made.

During the 2009 contact and evaluation period, UT's senior associate athletic director David Blackburn said Bertani and coordinator of football operations Kyle Strongin "were in frequent communication about the permissibility of the coaches' activities," according to the response. Though Strongin also confirmed he relayed Bertani's messages to the coaches, Kiffin said he "did not recall" the compliance staff providing any specific information on illegal calls.

On their recruiting trip to Florida, Kiffin brought Rubio because he attended St. Thomas Aquinas and his familiarity with the area would help Kiffin more easily navigate the area. Rubio had no contact with any prospects while in the school, speaking only with his former coaches and teachers, according to the response.

Blackburn said he specifically told Kiffin on the eve of the trip and Rubio during the trip that Rubio wasn't allowed to enter any schools. Kiffin said it was a "rare circumstance," so he allowed Rubio to enter "to see his old buddies."

"In both instances," the response said, "Kiffin was in a position to have prevented the violations before they occurred."

UT's ability to pin the failure-to-monitor charge and the illegal recruiting on former coaches, along with corrective actions and cooperation with the NCAA, should alleviate the NCAA's pending penalties, which could come sometime next month.

"The university is deeply disappointed that these violations have occurred," the response states. "The depth of the disappointment is matched only by its commitment to doing whatever is necessary to restore the reputations of its men's basketball and football programs. That commitment is perhaps most visibly evidenced by the hiring of Derek Dooley as head football coach and Cuonzo Martin as head men's basketball coach. Both men have impeccable reputations for integrity and compliance with governing rules and regulations."

[gstelmack]

So how does Tressel possibly avoid "Failure to Monitor"?

[Easy Mac]

To be fair, Tressel monitored, but he failed to do anything about it.

[MrBug708]

It means that USC will have a good coach sooner than later

[Matthean]

I remember having a conversation with my Dad and brother about what teams will be good and they kept talking about how good Kiffin was and how USC will be a powerhouse. My Dad tried to reinforce his point by using the line by Bear Bryant that you need 5 blue chippers a year to complete. The scholarship restrictions meant nothing as they could still get their 5 per year. I brought up Michigan and they simply couldn't fathom Michigan being any good. It got to the point where I simply gave up.

[MrBug708]

No idea where to put this, but Lane Kiffin is on the road to meltdown with his latest action this year.

--------------------
"A USC football student manager has been relieved of all duties with the
Trojan football team for intentionally deflating, below NCAA-regulated
levels, some game footballs used by USC's team during the first half in
last Saturday's game against Oregon.

When informed of this allegation by the Pac-12, USC investigated it immediately. The student manager confirmed that he had, without the knowledge of, or instruction from, any USC student-athlete, coach, staff member or administrator, deflated those game balls after they had been tested and approved by officials prior to the game.

Game officials discovered and re-inflated three of the balls before the
game and two others at halftime. All balls were regulation in the
second half."

[Eaglesfan27]

Judge says NCAA 'malicious' in USC investigation


By ANTHONY McCARTNEY Associated PressAssociated Press

Posted: 11/21/2012 03:01:37 PM PST

November 21, 2012 11:20 PM GMTUpdated: 11/21/2012 03:20:37 PM PST





LOS ANGELES—The NCAA was "malicious" in its investigation of a former Southern California assistant football coach who was linked in a report to a scandal surrounding Heisman Trophy-winning tailback Reggie Bush, a judge said Wednesday.

The NCAA's report on ethical breaches by Todd McNair was flawed, and the former coach has shown a probability he can win his defamation claims, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller said.

The NCAA had sought to have the case dismissed, but Shaller disagreed. He said after reviewing sealed documents in the McNair inquiry, which was tied to a gift scandal involving Heisman Trophy-winner Reggie Bush, he was convinced that the actions of NCAA investigators were "over the top."

His ruling states emails between an investigative committee member, an NCAA worker and a person who works in the agency's appeals division "tend to show ill will or hatred" toward McNair.

Laura Wytsma, an attorney for the NCAA, declined comment but said during the hearing that the ruling would be appealed. A message to the agency was not immediately returned. McNair sued the NCAA in June 2011, claiming the association's investigation was one-sided and his future earnings were hurt by its report on the scandal, which led to sanctions against USC. The NCAA determined McNair lied about knowing about some of the gifts lavished on Bush's family by two aspiring sports marketers who hoped to land the future NFL player as a client.

---

---

The NCAA imposed a two-year bowl ban and scholarship restrictions on USC last year as a result of the Bush case. McNair was prohibited from contacting recruits and his USC contract was not renewed.

Shaller said he would unseal the entire inquiry into McNair, but would hold off on release of the records for a month to allow an appeal. "I think the public has a right to know," he said.

McNair's attorney Bruce Broillet declined comment, citing the sealing order in the case. He said during the hearing that the records showed the agency knew it was relying on false statements about McNair's conduct and wanted to "nail" the coach, who also played in the NFL. "They wrote evidence the way they wanted it to be—that's malice," Broillet said.

Wytsma rejected that contention in court, saying the evidence in the case show the committee that investigated McNair was trying to get its report right.

"They were struggling to get the right result," she said, adding that several members of the investigative committee were prominent lawyers and legal scholars.
She also argued that records in the case should not be unsealed, saying it would hurt future investigations. The NCAA does not have subpoena power, she said.

[MrBug708]

I see you conveniently left out the fact that the judge is a USC alumni, so color me stunned that he found it "malicious" in nature.

[MrBug708]

You also left out that Tennessee got hit with more probation due to Lane Kiffin and Coach Orgeron

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just confused on how this case ended up on the bench of a judge assigned to family law cases

[molson]

Is there a reasonable debate over whether USC and its boosters bought Reggie Bush or are these just collateral issues involving guys who took the fall over that?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I see you conveniently left out the fact that the judge is a USC alumni, so color me stunned that he found it "malicious" in nature.

Dude, its a legal judgement - you can't hold your USC prejudice on that... can you? It was the NCAA being absurd, and anything that curbs those jackbooted-scumbags is a good thing.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dude, its a legal judgement - you can't hold your USC prejudice on that... can you? It was the NCAA being absurd, and anything that curbs those jackbooted-scumbags is a good thing.

You get one free "no-cause" 170.6 challenge. But then you can make as many "for cause" challenges as you want. However, it is dangerous practice to do that as the remaining judges in the district hate to see judge shopping like that.

But, in this instance, where sports allegiances can be so very strong, I think a for-cause challenge would have been warranted. It isn't too late for them to make such a challenge. They did use one already on Rita Miller already

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by molson

Is there a reasonable debate over whether USC and its boosters bought Reggie Bush or are these just collateral issues involving guys who took the fall over that?

Depends on who you ask.

[Eaglesfan27]

Documents appear to show improper NCAA involvement in USC case

By Dennis Dodd | Senior College Football Columnist
November 27, 2012 3:23 pm ET

• 51 | Comments
  

Former USC assistant Todd McNair is suing the NCAA for defamation of character. (US Presswire)

Documents that the NCAA is aggressively trying to keep under seal appear to show improper involvement by NCAA staff and committee members in the landmark USC decision more than two years ago.

A judge's decision made public last week -- and obtained in full by CBSSports.com -- shows that at least three persons may have improperly tried to influence the NCAA's powerful infractions committee to find former USC assistant Todd McNair complicit in the Reggie Bush case. Lawyers for McNair are trying to show the association violated its own rules and procedures in investigating their client.

Two non-voting members of the NCAA infractions committee and NCAA staffer allegedly tried to influence voting members inside the 10-person committee. The judge's decision contains excerpts of emails that he has determined show "ill will or hatred" toward McNair.

More on USC

Stories

Judge calls NCAA treatment 'malicious' Eye on College Football: Latest updates RapidReports: More on Pac-12

McNair is suing the NCAA for an undisclosed amount for defamation of character citing irreparable damage to his career. The information was disclosed after a motion by NCAA lawyers to dismiss the case was denied.
Information in Judge Frederick Shaller's decision reveal in detail the apparent lengths the NCAA went to cast McNair -- as one NCAA staffer put it -- as "a lying morally bankrupt criminal, in my view, and a hypocrite of the highest order."

The duties of that staffer, believed to be infractions committee liaison Shep Cooper, are basically administrative -- to assist the committee on infractions on their needs and gathering information. Cooper is a former NCAA enforcement rep.

Shaller said that evidence provided by McNair's attorneys show the NCAA had a "reckless disregard for the truth." Emails between Cooper and committee members Rodney Uphoff, a Missouri law professor, and Roscoe Howard, a former U.S. attorney, were circulated "covertly" in violation of NCAA rules according to the document.

Shallers' decision uses only last names "Cooper," "Uphoff" and "Howard" but the document identifies by their NCAA duties and titles relevant to the case.
The document also refers to a four-page email Howard wrote to infractions committee members trying to persuade them that McNair lied numerous times. The entire email is not included in last week's decision but is summarized by Howard saying, "I hope none of you was insulted by this rant … USC's approach to this case I have found very troubling and downright insulting."

Shaller, a USC grad, already has concluded McNair has proven "actual malice" on the NCAA's part in the lawsuit. McNair contends that false information produced and gathered by the NCAA was central to his appeal that was denied by the association in 2011. He sued the NCAA later that year.

In finding McNair and USC guilty of rules violations, the NCAA used a phone call between the coach and would-be marketer Lloyd Lake, a convicted felon, as evidence. The NCAA concluded that Lake's description of the call was credible and rejected McNair's version. An NCAA investigator got the year of the call wrong (2005, instead of 2006) while interviewing McNair.

The NCAA admitted it had telephone records showing that Lake initiated the call, contrary to his testimony to the association. Lake told the NCAA McNair had called him in early hours of Jan. 8, 2006. That conclusion according to Shaller's decision "could reasonably cast doubt on the occurrence of the … conversation." The NCAA "should have known" parts of the infractions report regarding that call were "demonstrably untrue."

Largely on the basis of that call and Lake's testimony, McNair was found to guilty of unethical conduct by the NCAA. Shaller's decision says McNair's attorneys had proven the NCAA infractions report on USC "contained material false statements regarding" the phone call.

An email from infractions committee member, Eleanor Myers, admits to a "botched" interview with McNair according to Shaller's decision.
On the basis of those issues Shaller said last week he would unseal the entire McNair inquiry waiting 30 days to give the NCAA time to file an appeal. The public's access to the file could reveal the inner workings of one of the most contentious cases in NCAA history. Bush was found to taken benefits and cash from two would-be marketing agents. The school was hit with a two-year bowl ban and the loss of 30 scholarships over three seasons. That particularly penalty has two years to run.

McNair was given a one-year show cause order by the NCAA which his lawsuit contends damaged his reputation such that he hasn't been able to find work in his chosen field. McNair, a former NFL player, was a Trojans assistant from 2004-2009.

The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles. The fact that Shaller's undergrad degree is from USC is not necessarily considered a conflict in legal circles. Shaller would have to have a personal interest in the outcome of the case.
The NCAA infractions committee hears testimony from enforcement officials and the accused before assigning penalties in infractions cases. The enforcement and infractions process was streamlined last month by the NCAA.

[MrBug708]

Is USC trying to get the Lane Kiffin era marked with an asterisk

What's funny is that it's sounding like the judge actually used "wreckless" as opposed to reckless, in his original statement.

If we all just take a step back and refresh ourselves with the lessons learned from the Bush/McNair case, we'll find the all important talking points when dealing with NCAA investigations. That lesson is: be forthcoming and contrite.

If USC had shown one ounce of cooperation during the 4.5 year investigation, they'd never be in this mess to begin with. It's absolutely clear in my mind they'd be free and clear today if they had just stopped being the arrogant snobs they are and confessed to their transgressions. I read this today and - although it's another distressing story involving possible dubious NCAA behavior - I sorta laugh at USC. They really deserve to be in this ever-deepening quagmire. It's really beautiful.

[Eaglesfan27]

It is going to be interesting to see where this goes the next few weeks. Here is an article from the New York Times:

The Next Tobacco? - NYTimes.com

The Next Tobacco?

By JOE NOCERA

Almost from the moment I started writing about the N.C.A.A. last year, I received periodic e-mails from fans of the University of Southern California football team, still incensed about an N.C.A.A. ruling that had been issued against the school in 2010. They claimed that the case offered an unusually stark look at how the N.C.A.A. twists facts, tramples over due process and unfairly destroys reputations when it sets out to nail a school, a player or a coach.

I didn't pursue it back then, partly because the story seemed stale; the alleged transgression had mainly taken place in 2005. Besides, the rules themselves are little more than a restraint of trade, meant to ensure that the athletes remain uncompensated despite the billions of dollars everyone else reaps from the sweat of their brows.

In the U.S.C. case, the N.C.A.A. made a series of allegations about Reggie Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner, the most memorable of which was that his parents had lived rent-free in a house owned ? heaven forbid! ? by one of two would-be agents. The N.C.A.A. views any transaction between a college athlete and an agent as a violation of its amateurism rules.

Ah, but what to do about it? Bush, safely ensconced in the N.F.L., was out of reach of the N.C.A.A. There wasn't even all that much it could do to U.S.C. ? unless, that is, its investigators could prove that a member of the U.S.C. athletic staff had known about the sub rosa relationship. Then it could throw the book at U.S.C. Which is exactly what happened.

The university official the N.C.A.A. singled out was Todd McNair, 47, an African-American assistant football coach. One of the would-be agents, Lloyd Lake, who has a history of prior arrests, claimed that he had told McNair about the relationship during an angry two-and-a-half minute phone call late on the night of Jan. 6, 2006. McNair, for his part, said that he had no recollection of ever meeting Lake, much less having an angry phone call with him. There was no evidence to corroborate Lake's claim.

Not that that mattered. The N.C.A.A.'s Committee on Infractions concluded that Lake was believable, McNair was not, and that the coach was guilty of "unethical conduct." Thus labeled, McNair's coaching career was effectively destroyed.

McNair then sued the N.C.A.A. for defamation ? and here, I happily concede, is where the story becomes anything but stale. About two weeks ago, Frederick Shaller, a superior court judge in Los Angeles, issued a tentative ruling, saying that McNair "has shown a probability of prevailing on the defamation claims." He also denied the N.C.A.A.'s request to put the e-mails and other evidence that had led him to this conclusion under seal.
The evidence is simply beyond the pale. To find McNair guilty of unethical conduct, the enforcement staff had to put words into Lake's mouth that he never uttered. It botched its questioning of McNair ? and then, realizing its mistake, chose not to re-interview him. One enforcement official sent a back-channel e-mail describing McNair as "a lying, morally bankrupt criminal." And that's just for starters.

Because he is a public figure, McNair had to show that the N.C.A.A. had acted with "actual malice" ? that is, it wrote things in the full knowledge that they were false. As any journalist knows, it is very difficult for a public figure to sue for defamation ? precisely because actual malice is so hard to prove. At one point during the hearing, the judge told the N.C.A.A.'s lawyer that he well understood why the organization would want to keep evidence away from the public; if he were the N.C.A.A., he would want to keep it from the public, too.

If this evidence does become public ? the N.C.A.A. has vowed to appeal ? I think it will scandalize fans who have long been led to believe that N.C.A.A. investigators are the "good guys" trying to catch the "bad guys" in college sports. Nor are these the only N.C.A.A. documents that are coming to light. In a class-action lawsuit involving former players who object to the N.C.A.A.'s profiting from their likeness long after they have graduated, e-mails and documents have exposed the essential hypocrisy that underlies college sports. (A lawyer with Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where my fiancee works, is among those working on the case. She has no involvement.)

I think back to another time when the release of documents changed the way the public thought about a certain secretive institution. Back in the mid-1990s, whistle-blowers leaked documents to the news media showing that the tobacco industry had long known that cigarettes caused cancer ? and had been involved in a massive cover-up. The ensuing litigation forced the tobacco industry to pay enormous sums in recompense, and ultimately to be regulated by the federal government.

Not that N.C.A.A. is the next tobacco.
Or is it?

[MrBug708]

It's not. Comparing cheating and getting a harsh punishment is certainly not close to be the same as covering up cancer

[Chief Rum]

Here's what I am wondering. Let's say McNair wins his case and the NCAA has to pay him for defamation.

How does that change USC's situation? I'm thinking it doesn't. The NCAA is unlikely to be inclined to reconsider its decision with them--it's not exactly the most inward looking organization, or one which would look back at its own rulings. Paying off McNair does not mean the NCAA has to do anything about USC--it just means it pays McNair and essentially clears his name in the Bush scandal.

And then I wonder if you even want to go down this road, because let's say the NCAA is somehow compelled (via lawsuit from USC? Not even sure that would work, since it is a voluntary association USC was a willing member of) to reverse or pare down the sanctions, I have a feeling they will just come after USC hard on the Joe McKnight thing, which I think they have largely ignored as a "we already took care of USC" approach. I definitely think the NCAA is a vindictive organization and would do that.

Not that it all wasn't already clear to most observers, the NCAA being a bit of a douche organization was pretty much made clear to me with the Shabazz Muhammad situation, and the fact the lead investigator not only "decided" his guilt in advance, well prior to the investigation being completed, but also blabbed about it to her dumbass BF.

[MrBug708]

So now that the baseball coach has been fired for violations at USC, that makes it the fifth sport to come under the NCAA scrutiny.

Haden has a lot of work to do in order to get the cheating culture purged from Heritage Hall. I would imagine that any lawsuit brought forth on the Bush issue will likely be dropped in order to not see USC's AD get totally annihilated between the McKnight and Baseball problems that weren't addressed in the last "manifesto"