December 21, 2005
Leinart ruled ineligible; reinstated for Rose Bowl
USC quarterback Matt Leinart violated an NCAA rule by appearing in a promo spot for ESPN earlier this month. The USC football team reported the violation to the NCAA and petitioned to have him reinstated. After reviewing the case, the NCAA has agreed to allow Leinart to play in the Rose Bowl.
"Whenever we are aware that media outlets ask student-athletes to do these kinds of tags we immediately cut them off," said Tim Tessalone, USC's sports information director. "Unfortunately, this one slipped by."Leinart's actions were "unintentional and inadvertent," said the NCAA's Kent Barrett.
"This was the type of thing where it was obvious the student-athlete was not attempting to become an endorser of a network," Barrett said.
Leinart, who finished third in this year's Heisman balloting, has practiced three times in preparation for the Jan. 4 Rose Bowl against Texas. Barrett said athletes can practice and take part in team and school activities while petitions are being considered by the NCAA's reinstatement staff.
Comments:
posted on December 21, 2005 3:11 PM — 12.223.203.217 — link — abuse?Pete Holiday said:
Somehow I doubt that he "unintentional[ly]" and "inadvertent[ly]" shot a promo for ESPN.
He might not have known it was against the rules, but there's no way he did it on accident.
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 21, 2005 3:43 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Pete.. I believe they are saying that he was not intentionally trying to endorse a network, not that he didn't realize he was participating in a network commercial. Which, in either case, is a ridiculous rule. Networks and Universities can exploit student athletes for financial gain, but God forbid, a student athlete films a commercial in which he is not financially compensated.
Brock...nice touch. Your litterary prowess makes for good reading.
gabriel robles said:
posted on December 21, 2005 5:03 PM — 67.116.192.74 — link — abuse?
Screw Matt Leinert?
Profound, pal, profound!!Gabriel
RW said:
posted on December 22, 2005 10:59 AM — 216.54.247.251 — link — abuse?
They could've found a headless body in his car, and he'd still have been "re-instated"... Sheesh, you guys act like this is about something other than the money they'll make on Jan. 4 when they put a couple of "teams at their best" against each other.
The advertising revenue would have dropped substantially if Leinart couldn't play - not because he's personally such a draw, but because NCAAFB fans would have known that the 'game' was tainted, and a percentage of them would have decided to watch something else.
Now, if this had been the quarterback for Toledo (last night's game), he'd have been publicly executed for this "major" and "intentional" infraction... And if it had been a no-name, 3rd stringer on either Texas' or USC's kick coverage team, he probably couldn't have gotten away with the headless body...
USAFCCF said:
posted on December 22, 2005 2:38 PM — 131.55.121.8 — link — abuse?
ESPN had to have known this was not legal. It is another example of ESPN taking advantage of a situation for publicity. Sometimes I think they are getting too big for their britches and need to be taken down a peg or two......
Fan of the Game said:
posted on December 23, 2005 10:06 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Eric...I never said that the University didn't give scholarships or that Leinhart wasn't on scholarship. So I'm not sure what your reference to that was about. The NCAA is a governing body that is supposed to protect the interests of the student athletes as well as the universities. Now we all know whos interests are really being looked after. Based on your posting, non-scholarship athletes are not entitled to the same scrutiny as scholarship athletes. I'm not sure what you mean by "the NCAA can do whatever they want because of this compromise"? What compromise? The NCAA has nothing to do with what athletes are given scholarships by what universites, so how could they be impowered to do whatever they want based on that? The real truth is that they do what they want to keep full control of the one of the largest money makers in the world....college athletics.
JT said:
posted on December 26, 2005 10:23 AM — 63.228.165.18 — link — abuse?
I think college athletes should be able to make as much money as they want as long as none of that money comes from the university. In other words, if one takes endorsement deals (or gifts from boosters), one doesn't get any sort of scholarship or tuition break after that point. All official institutional scholarships should be need-based and/or academically merit-based, and again, those who take outside money wouldn't qualify.
Tony said:
posted on December 27, 2005 7:04 PM — 67.177.212.219 — link — abuse?
It wouldn't matter if Leinart played or not USC would still be better with John David Booty taking snaps. USC is on its way to breaking the most wins streak of Oklahoma. Oh yeah I hope Texas is watching film from last years NC game because they are going to live it again.
BAMA said:
posted on January 5, 2006 2:28 AM — 66.108.11.138 — link — abuse?
Too many chiefs and not enough indians in this case. Agreed, it was a simple thing. However, I thought about defending Leinart in this situation until I saw his post game interview on ABC in which, he said (direct quote) " ...we are still the better team, they just made the plays". Are you kidding me? Was he joking? I live in NYC and know that class exists few and far between in LA. However, I feel that Pete Carroll is a class act, and I was jaw down when he said this. This kid needs to grow up considerably before he considers the draft. And take some Zinc in hopes of thickening his skin. I cannot believe that he sunk to that. This is obviously who this kid is on a daily basis, running around with C-List celebs. Please. I would rather sip mayonnaise through a straw than think for one second that he was representing my organization. No thanks, Mr. Leinart. I'll be playing see-saw with a cheese grater in the corner if ya need me. Right after I throw up in my mouth. Thanks
Michael Jones said:
posted on January 5, 2006 1:20 PM — 68.93.30.91 — link — abuse?
I have to agree with BAMA. Matt has a perception issue and has no grasp of reality. Without an attitude adjustment, it is unlikely he will last long at the next level. Reality is that USC and Texas both put their best on the field and Texas won! Also, Vince Young (non-heisman winner) beat the combinded efforts of Matt Leinhart and Reggie Bush. It now seems that not only is Texas the better team, Young is the Best of the three....Hey Matt welcome to the real world....and not the PAC-10!
UnderratedBadgerFan said:
posted on January 5, 2006 3:24 PM — 138.162.140.41 — link — abuse?
Hey Tony, I bet your regretting what you said now about USC this and USC that. Look like they'll have to start a whole new streak to beat that Oklahoma one ehh there "Tony". Such a beautiful game that was. In-"Vince"-able, SO TRUE! USC couldn't stop him if they had last years defense and this years together. Leinhart's definetely needs to come up with a better excuse for losing. I'd like to see him try that one next year when he's playing in New Orleans.
meatball said:
posted on January 5, 2006 11:23 PM — 65.6.165.253 — link — abuse?
How much you say Mr. Leinart lost in a signing bonus alone by hanging around another year and taking ball room dancing.. 10-20 mil? Perhaps watch to see what VY gets and compare that, what an IDIOT.
Mr. Leinart should’ve taken lessons in CLASS instead.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Brock in Va Beach said:
posted on December 21, 2005 2:19 PM — 24.199.155.210 — link — abuse?Screw Matt Leinert.