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

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Why do you think Todd McNair still has a job?

Because Mike Garrett still has one? I just don't get how an AD of a school who gets hit for major violations across multiple sports keeps his job. If people like Garrett and McNair have jobs then I really doesn't see why the NCAA should let up one bit. After 'Bama got the hammer dropped on them the NCAA didn't budge.

[Eaglesfan27]

I was running some errands and listening to Fox Sports Radio where Derrick Deese was talking about being on the football team back when Mike Garrett was hired. He said right after MG was hired, he walked into the football team and started shouting about racism in the locker room because all of the white players were in their own groups and black players were in their groups. Turns out the players were all organized by their various positions. Even when that was pointed out to MG, he required the team to have assigned seats on the team buses/planes for the rest of the year next to who he picked in an effort to promote team unity. I have a feeling a lot of stories about Garrett's stupidity will be coming to light soon. Garrett needs to "retire" now.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So where does Seantrel end up?

Seantrel's family has told Bruce Feldman that he is sticking with USC. Expected to be enrolled next week. So far, all of the recruits who have commented publicly are sticking with USC.

[MrBug708]

I do question kids who publicly say that they committed because they were told that there weren't going to be any sanctions as told by the coaching staff. Im guessing the staff is telling them the sanctions will be appealed off?

[MrBug708]

Heh

“There’s a difference between cheating and breaking the rules. This was breaking the rules. It’s ludicrous to say USC was cheating.

http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/sc-cou...ifferent-28549

[Eaglesfan27]

A very interesting article (that the publishers have given permission to share):

Dan Weber and Bryan Fischer
USCFootball.com Staff
Talk about it in The Peristyle


In its December Response to the charges from the NCAA Committee on Infractions, USC noted a number of mistakes and factual errors in the evidence presented against assistant coach Todd McNair.

Gerard Martinez
After six years as USC's running backs coach, Todd McNair's contract ends this summer

Those errors were also detailed at the Committee's Feb. 18-20 hearing in Tempe, Ariz., according to a source familiar with the case but not authorized to speak publicly about it.

USCFootball.com reviewed a copy of the Case Summary detailing evidence in the NCAA Committee on Infractions Case No. M295 against McNair supports the USC claim of factual errors, misleading questions and uncorroborated evidence used by the organization's enforcement staff.

The testimony in question involves would-be sports marketer Lloyd Lake and whether McNair knew or should have known of a scheme to provide impermissible benefits to former USC running back Reggie Bush and his family.

The Case Summary is "what the institution believes, what the individuals in the case believe and what the enforcement staff believes," NCAA associate director of public and media relations Stacey Osburn said in commenting about infractions cases in general. No NCAA staffer may talk about a specific case, Osburn said, after the press conference conducted by the Committee chair on the report's release.

The Case Summary documented the allegations against McNair. Each had factual problems.

In questioning Lake, the enforcement staff misstated who made a 2-minute, 32-second phone call that the Committee said it relied on as proof McNair was told of the scheme. In questioning McNair, the staff incorrectly stated the year the phone call was made as happening in 2005. In all five mentions of the year in the questioning session, the phone call is said to have happened in January of 2005, not 2006, when it actually occurred.

"If this (mistake) did occur, then I couldn't imagine they would not be jumping out of their seats about it," said Tom Yeager, former Committee Chairman and Commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Association. "If it's as clear as they're trying to say, then there isn't even a finding to be made against the client.

"The committee would have turned to the enforcement staff for an explanation. If they're making a finding on a call that didn't even occur, that's strange credibility. I can't see all eight of those guys missing that."

Michael Buckner, whose Florida law firm represented Alabama State in the only appeals case that has reduced an NCAA penalty under the new, much stricter standard adopted in January, 2008, was not surprised by discrepancies in the allegations.

"That's not unusual," Buckner said. "They do make mistakes."

The enforcement staff alleged that McNair had knowledge of impermissible activities when told of them by Bush and Lake at a San Diego hotel, March 4, 2005, a day when McNair was not in San Diego. Lake claims to have met McNair that "weekend" at a Marshall Faulk birthday party for 2,000 people. McNair didn't arrive in San Diego until Saturday, March 5, as phone records and two witnesses indicated. No witnesses corroborated Lake's account.

The inconsistencies in this allegation led to this statement in the NCAA June, 10 Infractions Report.

"The committee concludes that the evidence presented contained unresolved discrepancies in what witnesses reported regarding the events and who was present during the March 2005 birthday party weekend."

In three one-minute phone calls to a 619 (San Diego) area code number, the enforcement staff claimed McNair called Lake on the night of Oct. 29, 2005. A photo was provided by Lake showing Lake and partner Michael Michaels standing behind McNair and an actor-friend at a club that night.

Testimony and records indicated that McNair was attempting to reach Bush that evening because Bush was hosting a high-profile recruit. Lake's number was provided to McNair by Bush, who was out with his family and Lake and Michaels. Lake doesn't recall the phone calls. The photo, taken by Michaels' phone, was described by McNair as something the USC coach and former NFL player often did when out in public.

The photo was also called into question by an expert in the USC Response to the NCAA because it was altered from its original format. Neither USC nor the Committee was able to be examine the original photo.

Sources close to the case tell USCFootball.com, that USC and McNair detailed the inconsistencies and errors by the enforcement staff at the Committee's Feb. 18-20 hearing and they will be an element in USC's appeal and McNair's appeal.

"If there are apparent errors, the Committee requires that the errors be brought up at the hearing," Buckner said. The new appeals process does not allow new evidence to be presented in the appeal.

McNair had been pursued by NCAA investigators for the almost four years before being found guilty of unethical conduct and given a one-year show-cause penalty by the NCAA. The penalty prevents him from any recruiting activities in that time.

The Committee found that the USC assistant "knowingly provided false and misleading information . . ." when questioned about his knowledge of Lloyd Lake.

The longest, most-high-profile infractions case in modern NCAA history found USC culpable on many fronts, including multiple violations of amateurism rules. However, the strongest link connecting USC to knowledge of impermissible benefits to Bush lay with McNair.

According to published reports, McNair was questioned for nearly eight hours over two days at the Committee's Tempe hearing. That's longer than many entire NCAA infractions hearings.

In the Case Summary, McNair's credibility was continually questioned by the enforcement staff. USC, in its Response to the allegations, stated that the enforcement staff "accepted at face value the allegations of the primary accusers and summarily dismissed the explanations of the accused . . . charges corroborated by little or no testimony or documentation."

USC also noted in its Response Lake's convictions of drug trafficking, theft, illegal possession of firearms, violence and domestic abuse. An FBI investigation also described Lake's involvement in a San Diego-based gang.

The NCAA countered by saying that, in addition to circumstantial evidence presented, Lake had tape recordings that supported his testimony. On the advice of legal counsel, however, the NCAA Infractions Report said that "the enforcement staff did not present those tapes to the Committee."

According to a source close to the case, and a review of the Case Summary, no tapes were ever cited to corroborate any allegations against McNair.

The NCAA's Osburn cautioned about relying too much on a Case Summary that "does not have all the documentation involved in the case . . . The Committee makes the decision."

But the enforcement staff, USC explained in its Response, needed McNair to make its case:

"USC believes the Staff has pursued these weak institutional allegations in football because it recognizes that without a direct institutional link, the allegations surrounding student-athlete 1 (Reggie Bush) involve amateurism issues with no institutional violation. After 3 1/2 years of intensive public and media scrutiny, including repeated public questions as to why USC football has not been 'brought to justice' by the NCAA, the pressure to accuse USC of having had actual knowledge of and direct connection to the alleged impermissible benefits is very real. The truth is that USC and the assistant football coach had no knowledge of the alleged impermissible benefits to student-athlete 1 and his family."

Page 2 While allegations against McNair about the March 2005 birthday party were dismissed by the Committee due to discrepancies, Oct. 29, 2005 and Jan. 8, 2006 remained key dates in the NCAA Infractions Report.


Bush was to host a recruit after the Oct. 29, 2005 USC-Washington State game considered the nation's the top high school prospect.

Associated Press
McNair made repeated attempts to contact Reggie Bush in regards to the top recruit's official visit

But Bush, on a post-game outing with family and friends, including Lake and Michaels, left the recruit waiting in his hotel room while they ate dinner. The recruit would later verify that timeline.
Among the numerous calls McNair placed to Bush and the recruit that night, three were to a 619 area code that was not Bush's number. That number, cited from McNair's USC phone records, belonged to Lake.
The NCAA assistant director of enforcement, Richard Johanningmeier immediately questioned McNair's credibility when he denied knowing Lake or having any recollection of whose phone number he'd called that night.
"So as you can see from our standpoint, we're having a lot of problems with your credibility and I have to tell you that there's a good possibility that, uh, the NCAA could allege a, uh, ethical conduct charge of providing us false, misleading information in the fact that you denied that you know him, we have the telephone calls and we have a photograph with you with people that you say that you don't know."


The phone calls and photo were cited as proof despite McNair's explanation that the three one-minute calls were to a number Bush had given him earlier when Bush's cellphone wasn't working. Lake, in his interview, didn't recall the phone calls.


The photo, which USC was never allowed to see in its original format, had been altered, according to an expert in the university's response to the NCAA's allegations. McNair and his easily recognized actor-friend had posed for photos frequently according to his testimony.


Despite pages of documentation covering the Oct. 29 calls, the photo and statements of McNair's "lack of credibility" the June 10 Infractions Report did not cite this as evidence that the assistant football coach must have had knowledge of the illegal benefits.


That left the Jan. 8, 2006 phone call.


The Committee said the call from Lake's phone to McNair's at 1:34 a.m., Jan. 8, 2006, and lasting two minutes and thirty two seconds, was "particularly troubling". Based on that call, it said the USC coach misled the enforcement staff and failed to inform USC compliance that he'd been told of the intent to funnel illegal benefits to Bush.


It was the same information about Bush the staff had originally concluded that McNair learned in San Diego 10 months earlier. But the Case Summary shows several inconsistencies in the evidence cited.

---

I just remember 'coach' . . . So I'm just assuming it's him, but I'm not sure.


- Maiesha Jones tells investigators in the Case Summary

---

The NCAA enforcement staff questioned Lake about the early Sunday morning call, which was the day before Bush was to sit down with USC head coach Pete Carroll, McNair and others to qualify a list of agents seeking to represent Bush. Johanningmeier mistakenly stated twice to Lake that the call in question came from McNair.


Just 10 days from returning to prison at the time of the Jan. 8 call, Lake did not admit that the call had been made from his phone, as telephone records showed. He answered the question as if it accurately reflected the situation, recounting why McNair had called him

even though that was clearly not true.


The Case Summary does not show that NCAA investigators asked Lake to explain this discrepancy or his detailed answer about a phone call that the assistant coach did not make.


But the NCAA enforcement staff said it did have a corroborating witness, Lake's girlfriend, Maiesha Jones, who was asked this question by

Johanningmeier:


"Do you have any knowledge . . . of uh, in, uh, of Lloyd making contact with anyone, uh, at USC about his concerns of, uh, about the deal falling apart and maybe calling to make their assistance? Do you have any knowledge of any contacts?"


Jones answered that she remembered such a call, "in like the beginning of February then, when he went to prison, or late January of '06, so I mean within a four-month period before that."


Lake's girlfriend thought maybe the call went to a USC coach, but wasn't sure it was McNair.



"I think it may have been him," Jones answered. "I know it wasn't Pete Carroll . . . I don't know for sure if it was that guy though . . . it might have been that guy . . . I just remember 'coach' . . . So I'm just assuming it's him, but I'm not sure."

Page 3

Another enforcement agent asked about what she described as "the July call." Elsewhere, the transcript shows the call was described as happening at 2:32 a.m. and lasting 1:34, reversing the numbers.
The questioning errors didn't end there.

CASE SUMMARY - ALLEGATION NO. 3
An important exchange between Enforcement Agent Richard Johanningmeier and Todd McNair places the assistant coach in Jan. 2005 rather than Jan. 2006.

RJ: Okay. This is January 2005. According to your telephone records, on Saturday, January 8th, 2005, you had a two minute and 32, uh, second telephone conversation with that same San Diego number, that 619. And for the record, let me read that into the record. The number was 619/***/****. Tell us about that?

TM: I have no idea. I don't recognize that number.

RJ: Okay. And then subsequently on January 8th, the same day, at 2:50 p.m., you placed a one minute call to Bush; and at 3:26 p.m., Bush called you and that call lasted for 13 minutes and 23 seconds. Help us with that sequence? So again, I wanna set the record here, there's the call to the San Diego number comes to you, there's a one minute and 34 second conversation.

TM: Right.

RJ: You place a call to Bush for one minute. Bush then returns that call and there's a 13 minute, almost a 13 and a half minute conversation that occurs.

TM: And this is when?

RJ: This is on January 8th, 2005.

TM: January 8th, I mean, I, I have no idea. January 8th.

RJ: Okay. You still don't know --

TM: Uh, that's two --

RJ: -- recognize this?

TM: -- that's 2005. That's the, uh, that's 2005, that's after the Orange Bowl, that's a week after the Orange Bowl. Uh, I could've, I don't know, I could, I don't know. I mean, I could be on the, on the road, I could be on the road recruiting 'cause the Orange Bowl was probably, that's the championship game, it's probably a week after the first, seventh, I'm probably on the road. I don't, I don't know.

RJ: Okay. So --

TM: I'm probably on the road recruiting. I don't know.

Johanningmeier, who had misstated the nature of the call to Lake, would have similar factual inconsistencies in his questioning of McNair; asking the USC coach about a call that he said was made "Jan. 8, 2005," -- getting the year wrong. There would be four more "2005" references in this session with no one catching the wrong year.
Given the 2005 date, McNair recounted what he was doing the week after USC's BCS championship game against Oklahoma, not after the 2006 Texas game, when Bush was a junior headed off early to the NFL.
At that time in 2005, McNair was on the road recruiting Kyle Moore in Georgia and Brian Cushing in New Jersey. Both signed letters of intent with USC in February of 2005.


As a result of the enforcement staff's mistakes, McNair appears to have never had the chance to respond about the call that the Committee used to convict him. The NCAA admitted that its staff had considered questioning McNair again, but declined since McNair "was on the record and adamant that he had never spoken to Lake."


The Committee agreed with the enforcement staff's finding that Lake, despite having given a detailed answer to a key question with a false premise, was more credible.


The Committee also agreed with its staff's recommendation, finding that McNair had received the incriminating knowledge of the Bush, Lake and Michaels violations as a result of a phone call lasting two minutes and 32 seconds. A call in which, investigators said, Lake was threatening "to go public," and "attempted to get [McNair] to convince [Bush] to either adhere to the agency agreement or reimburse Bush and Michaels."


The Jan. 8, 2006 call that the enforcement staff had mischaracterized as to who made it and when it was made, seems to have provided the NCAA its proverbial smoking gun on McNair.


In a call that took "less time than it would take to order a pizza", as McNair's attorney described in his Response according to the Infractions Report, the Committee determined that the assistant coach learned about the scheme and then failed to report it to USC's compliance office. McNair is then accused of falsely signing a document saying he had no knowledge of any violations in order to avoid being implicated.


USC, in its Response to the Committee, objected to what it described as a flawed process when the NCAA denied USC any opportunity to take part in the questioning of Lake.


USC stated in the Response that Lake had a motive to go after McNair.
"He blamed the assistant football coach for student-athlete 1's decision to go elsewhere and even made the completely unsubstantiated and false allegation that the assistant football coach was paid $50,000 by Sports marketer A (Michael Ornstein) for delivering student-athlete 1 to his sports marketing firm."


McNair, who had no comment for this report, is being represented by independent legal counsel, Scott Tompsett.


"You have to overwhelm the Committee with evidence," Buckner said, "you have to blow them out of the water if you challenge what the staff believes. If you don't, they're going to believe the staff."


Stay tuned to USCfootball.com for more on this developing story as we document further findings from the investigation as they become available.
Gerard Martinez contributed to this story.

Bryan Fischer and Dan Weber cover the Trojans program for USCFootball.com. You can reach them at [email protected] and [email protected].

[MrBug708]

Awesome!

[Eaglesfan27]

Awesome that the NCAA felt the need to respond to the article (which has been gaining traction on many national outlets.) The NCAA's response:

This from spokesperson Stacey Osburn:


The NCAA will not comment on the content of confidential documents. However, it is important to note that the recent story from fan site USCFootball.com takes select pieces of information from comprehensive documents out of context, weaving them into an inaccurate depiction. When reaching a decision, the Committee on Infractions carefully considers the hearing discussions and reviews all documents from all parties in their entirety, not just excerpts taken out of their original context."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Awesome that the NCAA felt the need to respond to the article (which has been gaining traction on many national outlets.)

I'm pretty pleased that they put the excuses in their place as well.

USC really ought to save the desperate appeals for the inevitable death penalty they'll be facing in the next few seasons.

[MrBug708]

UCLA is rumored to have an incoming recruit who just got arrested for theft of a cell phone

[RainMaker]

USC should just suck it up and take it. They cheated, they got caught. They pay consequences now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

UCLA is rumored to have an incoming recruit who just got arrested for theft of a cell phone

Was it Dillon Baxter's phone by any chance?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Was it Dillon Baxter's phone by any chance?

Well played sir.

[MrBug708]

Bastard stole my eventual line!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Bastard stole my eventual line!

Sorry 'bout that, I thought you were handing out a straight line & waiting for someone to run with it

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sorry 'bout that, I thought you were handing out a straight line & waiting for someone to run with it

The thing is that it wasn't just a joke. UCLA continues to bring in thieves.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

The thing is that it wasn't just a joke. UCLA continues to bring in thieves.

ahahahahaha

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

ahahahahaha

Hilarious.

UCLA football: Three players arrested on felony theft charges [Updated] | The Fabulous Forum | Los Angeles Times

[MrBug708]

Anyone else digging the irony of Eaglesfan27 posting more on this in the USC infractions thread?

[dawgfan]

So I guess I'm a little unclear - if the sanctions go through as originally described by the NCAA, would the 15 per class limit apply for the upcoming 2011 class? I know that their appeal may push that out a class, but I'm a little surprised to see the number of kids that USC is taking right now, but that's on the assumption that the penalties are currently scheduled to apply to the upcoming 2011 class.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So I guess I'm a little unclear - if the sanctions go through as originally described by the NCAA, would the 15 per class limit apply for the upcoming 2011 class? I know that their appeal may push that out a class, but I'm a little surprised to see the number of kids that USC is taking right now, but that's on the assumption that the penalties are currently scheduled to apply to the upcoming 2011 class.

My understanding is that with the appeal, they can take up to 20 players for the upcoming class. Of course, Early Enrollees won't count towards that number and several players that have committed are attempting to go that route. If they hadn't appealed, then yes, they would be limited to 15 in this upcoming class.

[RainMaker]

So after their championship is stripped, Pete Carroll will finish with one title in his tenure at USC. I still say that's disappointing considering the talent they had.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So after their championship is stripped, Pete Carroll will finish with one title in his tenure at USC. I still say that's disappointing considering the talent they had.

Actually 2 since the AP has said they are not removing their championships.

[Eaglesfan27]

Dola -

A good article: http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/ncaa-s...se-snipe-28597

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So after their championship is stripped, Pete Carroll will finish with one title in his tenure at USC. I still say that's disappointing considering the talent they had.

This tired argument again?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Actually 2 since the AP has said they are not removing their championships.

BCS is what most recognize as the national champion. Nonetheless, it was tainted.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

BCS is what most recognize as the national champion.

That's not entirely true. There is still a large contingency of fans who still view the AP national championship the "true" championship.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by duckman

That's not entirely true. There is still a large contingency of fans who still view the AP national championship the "true" championship.

Large contingency = small % percentage?

I haven't ran into many in that realm. Actually, I can't say I've heard anyone mention the "AP" champion in years...until EF began trying to scramble for something to make those years count for something.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Poli

Large contingency = small % percentage?

I haven't ran into many in that realm. Actually, I can't say I've heard anyone mention the "AP" champion in years...until EF began trying to scramble for something to make those years count for something.

I think there's a much bigger chunk of people than you might think. I'd say maybe something like 30% are still AP only. Not so much the younger crowd but I'd guess if you ask most people over 55 or so, it's AP only.

[Grammaticus]

I don't think there are anywhere near 30% going AP only. I don't actually know anyone who thinks that way. I also find that most people favor the coaches poll over the AP during the season as well. Although that is less of an issue. I personally consider all of the polls during the season and go BCS for the championship. The only time I can really say the BCS screwed up, was when they let Oklahoma in after they lost their conf. championship game.

[Poli]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think there's a much bigger chunk of people than you might think. I'd say maybe something like 30% are still AP only. Not so much the younger crowd but I'd guess if you ask most people over 55 or so, it's AP only.

Well, maybe. I've been on the east coast, the west coast, Chicago, St. Louis and in Africa with all sorts of people from all over the US since the beginning of the BCS...and I can't recall anyone at all mentioning the AP "champ" since the BCS came out.

Perhaps you can find a message board that deals with college football more intensely and fine a "large number" there that believe the AP crowns the true champion...or a champion of any sort...I'm just saying, in my experience from coast to coast with people across the US, I haven't seen nor heard of it since the BCS started. That is, until USC got the penalty.

I'd wager that if the AP took it's championship from USC as well that the argument might well be that the Solecismic rankings had USC rated 1st and therefore are the true champions.

It is what it is.

[Ksyrup]

The only time anyone ever discusses the AP championship is when there is a dispute over who is playing in the BCS championship game. Other than that, the AP is almost always a rubber stamp of the BCS. I don't recall a fan of a team who wins the BCS Bowl in a season where there is no [legitimately debatable] argument who should have been in that game, talk about how they won the AP championship or how they won both the BCS and AP. AP is a non-factor unless you're trying to argue for a team left out of the BCS Bowl.

[dawgfan]

Obviously the stock people put in the AP crown diminished quite a bit when the BCS was created and some attempt to match #1 & #2 in the polls in a bowl happened, but it's still the longest-running of all the National Championships, and given that there is no "official" NCAA football champions in FBS, I don't see why it's any less "legit" than the BCS champs.

I would argue that in some ways, it's more legit - the AP voters have far less invested in the outcome of their voting than the Coaches poll which dominates the formulas for the BCS, and I appreciate that their voting is open to the public.

[Poli]

Ksyrup pretty much wins this one.

[DeToxRox]

So the rumor I have read is the 3 UCLA freshman who were arrested are going JUCO. This could be a slick move by Rick, because he can bring them back in January as gray shirts and keep their eligibility but make it seem like they were punished.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

So the rumor I have read is the 3 UCLA freshman who were arrested are going JUCO. This could be a slick move by Rick, because he can bring them back in January as gray shirts and keep their eligibility but make it seem like they were punished.

How is this even close to a slick move?

[Poli]

Sounds pretty slick to me.

Your punishment is you can't join the team...yet.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Poli

Sounds pretty slick to me.

Your punishment is you can't join the team...yet.

Wow. Has it come to the point where getting arrested for a felony and being dismissed from the team is described as "slick"? What should he have done? Wait for the charges to be reduced and allow them on campus?

Official release from Rick

“The three young men know they made a terrible mistake,” said Neuheisel. “We expect our players to behave a certain way and there are consequences when they don’t. Paul, Shaquille and Josh are paying a steep price for their lapse in judgment. They will not be allowed to enroll in school this fall and will not have the opportunity to begin their UCLA academic and athletic careers.

“Whether they are allowed to enroll for Winter Quarter will be determined at a later date. That decision will be based on several factors, including their behavior.”

[Chief Rum]

Actually, I think it's a pretty interesting move. It is sort of slick--but it's also sorta tough. I mean, these guys are so apart from the team, they're not even in the same school. And they don't get to be a part of the scout team either or participate in fall camp and the fall practices.

[MrBug708]

And if they want to transfer because the penalty is too harsh, they'll have to sit out a year

[Poli]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Actually, I think it's a pretty interesting move. It is sort of slick--but it's also sorta tough. I mean, these guys are so apart from the team, they're not even in the same school. And they don't get to be a part of the scout team either or participate in fall camp and the fall practices.

This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking.

[MrBug708]

It's not a greyshirt because that only applies to kids who havent stepped foot on campus and their college eligibility clock starts the moment they step foot on campus. Since the sticky finger theives stole on their 3rd day of school, their clock has started.

It's not a redshirt either because when you redshirt, you still are on scholarship, still work with the scout team, and basically are part of the football team. The kids wouldn't be enrolled at UCLA so they can't take advantage of using that extra year to bulk up and learn the playbook.

So they have 5 years to play 4 but that free year of eligibility is being used up because they've already stepped foot on UCLA's campus. It's why they can't just leave UCLA and head to another school to play this fall, transfer rules now apply

[DeToxRox]

Todd McNair is no longer with USC.

But I thought he was innocent?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Todd McNair is no longer with USC.

But I thought he was innocent?

He's going to be touring various golf courses looking for the real cheater.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Todd McNair is no longer with USC.

But I thought he was innocent?

Something tells me that the Trogan family will take care of him either way

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Todd McNair is no longer with USC.

But I thought he was innocent?

There is a line of reasoning out there that this was a mutual decision as him suffering damages allows his civil suit against the NCAA to have more merit and gives him more latitude to file it before the USC appeals are completed.

[Logan]

Well that certainly makes sense!

[MrBug708]

I hope mcnair sues the NCAA. The ncaa won't settle and McNair won't win and USC won't win that PR battle

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I hope mcnair sues the NCAA. The ncaa won't settle...

Well, that all depends. The NCAA didn't have their ducks in a row in the Neuheisel case and it forced them (as well as the UW) to have to settle a case they probably should have won.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, that all depends. The NCAA didn't have their ducks in a row in the Neuheisel case and it forced them (as well as the UW) to have to settle a case they probably should have won.

Who is this Neuheisel guy you speak of, his name sounds familiar....