October 9, 2007
Agent will cooperate with NCAA on illegal payments to Reggie Bush
The LA Times is reporting that a "sports marketer" who made payments to Reggie Bush and his family has agreed to cooperate with an NCAA investigation into the matter.
Lloyd Lake will "provide documentation of financial transactions" made to Bush and his family while the Heisman Trophy winner was a member of the USC Trojans football team.
Lake and his business partner Michael Michaels first came to national attention in April 2006 when Michaels told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the Bush's family never paid rent on the home they lived in while Bush played at Southern Cal.
In September 2006, Yahoo Sports published a detailed investigation of improper payments made to Reggie Bush and his family by the two agents of more than a quarter of a million dollars in cash, rent and gifts.
In a January 2007 follow-up, Yahoo Sports reported the existence of audio tapes conversations between the family and the agents discussing the payments and other arrangements.
Since 2006, the NCAA has conducted an ongoing investigation into the matter, but little information has come out publicly until now.
According to the LA Times piece, the NCAA has asked Southern Cal to join them in the meeting with Lake but Southern Cal has declined to participate.
Experts have said that the resulting NCAA investigation could result in the forfeiture of games in 2004 and 2005, Bush's Heisman Trophy and even the school's 2004 National Championship, as well as future sanctions on recruiting and bowl participation.
Comments:
Big Tide said:
posted on October 9, 2007 9:59 PM — 12.208.88.211 — link — abuse?
In another thread Kevin was pointing out the fact that college football works in cycles and good teams have a shelf life of about 3 years. Well you can go ahead and put USC on the clock. Bama fans know from experience what the iron fist of the NCAA can do to a football program.
1st_and_NOLE
posted on October 9, 2007 10:17 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
said:
I just want to throw this out there......
It's been said the Chargers may be looking at Pete Carroll as their new head coaching next year.
With the sh!t hitting the fan... PC may jump shit to take one of the best NFL jobs down in Southern Cal (no pun intended).
There are cracks in the Roman (or Trojan) Empire.
Autigerman said:
posted on October 9, 2007 10:18 PM — 72.205.222.229 — link — abuse?
forfeiture of games in 2004?
Isnt that a bit harsh? Even from an Auburn fan.
Seems there were a bunch of players not involved.
Guess the money made him play better.
Certainly got him to So cal rather then some other school guess thats the point.
posted on October 9, 2007 10:29 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue
said:
There are a lot of opinions & theories going back over the two years worth of posts linked in the story above. I'm not going to rehash mine, but football players that suddenly drive up in a new car ought to be enough to raise some questions in the compliance office.
gatorhippy
posted on October 9, 2007 10:51 PM — 70.121.185.56 — link — abuse? said:
K-Hue...
Noting the discussion of the MNC forfeiture in the last few lines of the thread intro...
The NCAA can't take that away as they don't award it...
It would have to be stripped by the awarding organizations...
As would Bush's Heisman...
Right?
badgerballer
posted on October 10, 2007 9:46 AM — 71.34.157.128 — link — abuse? said:
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it were all true. The boy has character issues, that's for certain. And those flaws tend to show up - both on and off the field.
His antics in the NFC championship game last year solidified my thinking on the topic. Pointing at Brian Urlacher on the break away, then doing a solo front flip into the end zone, then dancing in the end zone on top of that; in the other team's house, no less - was one of the most tasteless, low-rent things I've seen on a football field in many years. And considering this is the NFL we're talking about, that's saying something.
gatorstud said:
posted on October 10, 2007 10:04 AM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
damn kev...i don't believe people really understand how bad this could get for usc......everybody has been waiting on this one for awhile...it's been coming...usc can try to stick their heads in the sand, and hope it goes away..but when there is smoke...there is usually fire...but we all knew eventually the facts would come out.....people will be calling for usc and bush to give back any and all hardware that is associated with this.....
and usc fans will catch the brunt of it on here, as well as other sites.....(sorry spartacus)
reggie bush and usc ought to do the "marion jones" dance number and give their "hardware" back before the ncaa strips them.....i think this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better....
jmho
go gators...and hokies
TampaGator said:
posted on October 10, 2007 10:33 AM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
Gatorhip/#12:
He might be in Iraq (maybe A'stan?). If recollection serves, I believe he's military. He may not have access to the I'net.
_____________________________________________
As for Bush--Lordy my stomach ached all damn season over how much love that boy was getting, and how little Vince Young was.All damn season, one argument after another, I got into it with USC Fan (or otherwise generally mis-led ESPN educated sportsfan) about why V'Young deserved H-man, and not Bush.
"Oh My" (as Mick Hubert would say) how I enjoyed that BCS c'ship game!!
Hook'em Horns!
GO GATORS!!
hrposon said:
posted on October 10, 2007 1:06 PM — 98.200.123.115 — link — abuse?
Awarding the 2004 BCS Championship to Auburn sounds about right.
As far the 2005 Heisman, we all know who was the best. Vince wouldn't want a used tarnished award. Besides, he's got his eyes on the Super Bowl and NFL MVP.
Tampa Hurricane
posted on October 10, 2007 1:48 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse? said:
hrposon, there is no chance that they would award Auburn with the title. The most likely response would be to just have a vacated title in 2004, so no BCS champion. Why would they award the title to a team that wasn't even good enough to qualify for the title game?
hrposon said:
posted on October 10, 2007 2:33 PM — 98.200.123.115 — link — abuse?
@19 Tampa Hurricane - By playing in the SEC, going undefeated for the season and winning the SEC Championship game is enough. No other team was tested that much.
But in an ABC/ESPN world, things aren't always fair. The SEC is primarily a CBS conference. Back then the Coaches poll was called the ESPN/Coaches poll. These are the same guys that vote for teams that are playing in the ABC/ESPN games the following week no matter how good they are. They now call it the USA Today Coaches poll.
I never thought the Auburn slight would ever be righted. When USC was slighted, the AP gave them the MNC.FromVT said:
posted on October 10, 2007 3:06 PM — 76.31.204.151 — link — abuse?
"Why would they award the title to a team that wasn't even good enough to qualify for the title game?"
And how is the qualification determined? Mostly by opinion. Those opinions are given by people that can not watch all the games, and in the coaches poll really no games. Why is it that AP writers are considered to know more about football than anyone else? Why is there opinion important enough to rank teams bidding for a national championship? The polls are nothing more than opinion, those opinions usually determine who gets to play for the national championship. That is a great qualification process.
VTBobb
posted on October 10, 2007 4:26 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
Gatorhippy sounds right to me. I hate to sound like a lawyer, but as per Rule 8, Section 1, Article 2 of the 2007 NCAA Football Rules, "The score of a forfeited game, or a suspended game that later results in a forfeiture, shall be: Offended Team—1, Opponent—0. If the offended team is ahead at the time of forfeit, the score stands (Rules 3-3-3-a and b, and Rules 9-2-3-a and b)."
FYI – I found the rules here http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2007/2007_football_rules.pdf. Man, you can find almost anything on the internet, except maybe an honest, straight forward response from a politician, or a Notre Dame fan that will admit the Irish have been consistently overrated for the last 5-10 years, but I digress.
gatorhippy
posted on October 10, 2007 4:40 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse? said:
VTBobb (#23):
I agree that it would be a win for the Sooners...
However, don't forget that the SoCal/Okie contest that year was NOT a "BCS NC" Game as we had this past season...
It was simply a bowl game pitting BCS numbers One and Two against each other...
As well as...
The NCAA has no say in the matter as to whether USC would be stripped of the title at all or who it should go to in that case...
If USC is sanctioned at all...
Since the NCAA investigation could rule that while Bush's family received benefits...
USC and Pete's staff had no idea what was going on away from campus with Reggie's family...
That will be the clincher in how severe of a punishment; if any; that USC receives...
Which brings back us back to the "BCS Bowl" game...
Since the NCAA doesn't sanction any MNC for the highest division of football...
The BCS commitee could still certainly hand the trophy to whoever they want for that year...
I'm inclined to feel that it would be the Sooners, but a sanctioned USC gives a lot of credence to Auburn being just as deserving...
Especially with all the hype surrounding the feel that they might have been snubbed...
However this pans out; it will certainly become more dramtic and cause more controversy over the BCS and the refusal of the NCAA to step up and take charge of post-season play...
Jon said:
posted on October 10, 2007 8:25 PM — 68.84.19.20 — link — abuse?
His antics in the NFC championship game last year solidified my thinking on the topic. Pointing at Brian Urlacher on the break away, then doing a solo front flip into the end zone, then dancing in the end zone on top of that; in the other team's house, no less - was one of the most tasteless, low-rent things I've seen on a football field in many years. And considering this is the NFL we're talking about, that's saying something.
Personally, I love every second of it. Nothing is better than watching touch-down dances and mocking the other team. If you like the team, it pumps you up. If you hate the team, it pisses you off. Either way, it raises the amount of emotional commitment you have to a game.. Remember, it's a game. IMHO, judging a human beings honor/character based on how they celebrate a big play during a game = ridiculous.
posted on October 11, 2007 12:17 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Here's what will happen. Auburn will most likely step up and claim the title after a few other things transpire in this general order:
USC will be forced to VACATE, not forfeit, the games from 2004.
Most MNC selectors will change their final poll results, awarding the title to Auburn. Some will refuse to change it, some will choose Oklahoma, one or two may choose Utah.
Keep in mind that VACATING games does not give the original LOSING team a win, it simply means that the WIN of the offender never happened. The loser still has their loss.
Okalahoma still lost a game in 2004, leaving them #2 behind Auburn.
Now, if they were required to FORFEIT the games, it would be a different story. You might see Auburn and OU split the titles. That would be bitterweet for the Sooners, though.
But a split title still counts as much.If you think that something as important as a MNC would simply be VACATED, especially when there were other deserving teams, you're crazy!
Look, no one would want to win a title this way, but I don't see a problem with it. Everyone knows Auburn got shafted. If USC knowingly broke the rules, that's all there is to it.
Considering it doesn't take much prompting for certain teams to step up years after the fact to claim titles, you can expect a legitimate heir apparent to do no less...
gatorhippy
posted on October 11, 2007 1:11 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse? said:
WE ATL (#26):
There is a difference between VACATING games
(ala Sooners) and FORFEITING games (as is being discussed in this case for USC)...As for the MNC and the Heisman...
There would be a very large chance each awarding organization simply VACATING the award of each title or award and there being no winner in said years...
VTBobb
posted on October 11, 2007 1:36 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
Jon (#25),
College football is a game. However, when I was growing up, I was taught that a game isn't about trying to DEGRADE and HUMILIATE your opponent, but about trying your hardest, working as a team (in a team sport) to overcome the opponent, and learning some life lessons about winning and losing gracefully.The attitude of "win at all costs and then rub your opponent's collective noses in it" is a sad direction for our country and society. It can lead to things like adults assaulting kids at little league games and a random Oklahoma fan trying to single handedly supply the Vienna Boys Choir with a whole new recruiting ground. I only hope that before you are responsible to guide any members of the next generation, your attitude will change. (Can anyone tell I'm a newly expecting father?)
gatorstud said:
posted on October 11, 2007 1:51 PM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
vtbobb #29...first off.....good post...the old saying "act like you have been there before".....should be written on a chalkboard in every locker room....at all age levels.....
secondly...congrats on the good news of your upcoming child....
if it your first....then let me tell you that your world is about to change for the better....accept it...embrace it...and most of all enjoy it....it goes by fast......i am the father of 10 yr. old twins and i can tell you that everyday is a new day for me to be the best dad i can be......and it is soo damn cool watching your kids play sports....and both of mine understand sportsmanship, humility, and above all....that it is just a game.....and have fungo gators..and hokies
VTBobb
posted on October 11, 2007 2:10 PM — 74.1.112.66 — link — abuse? said:
Gatorstud,
Thanks! It's my first. I'm pushing 40, and always wanted a family, but never worked out. 3 of my 4 brothers and most of my HS & college friends have kids, so I have an idea how things will change. But I know it will be more profound than I expect (for instance, a new perspective on touchdown celebrations). I can't wait! And GS, keep being that everyday hero to your little ones.
posted on October 11, 2007 2:11 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Gator Hippy: Agreed, there is a good chance that some selectors would vacate the title for that year, but two minor selectors did choose Auburn as their champion that year, ( and one selector chose Utah )so those could be claimed in the absense of a superior claim.
Auburn might look a little opportunistic to some initially, but in 10 years, who's going to care?
As far as the Heisman, since it's an individual award, I doubt anyone else would want it. It would probably be vacated.
I'm sure some creative US attorney might be able to come up with some federal charges with which to indict Reggie Bush. He certainly seems worthy to get some Mike Vick-like attention...
OU Fan said:
posted on October 11, 2007 2:33 PM — 84.146.24.205 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta post #26, you said "Everyone knows Auburn got shafted." How do you figure?? On one hand, you have an Oklahoma team whom I believe started the season ranked I believe to be #2. The Sooners went through the 2004-2005 season undefeated and maintained their #2 ranking all the way until the 2005 national championship game. Now on the other hand, you have an Auburn team who correct me if I am wrong was not even in the top 25. But, if the Tigers were a top 25 team, they must have been somewhere between 15 and 25. Now, that Auburn team respectfully went through the SEC undefeated and worked their way up the polls. But, does that Auburn team deserve to pass a #2 ranked Oklahoma team who beat their opponents by margins that were BCS title game worthy and maintained their ranking?? I don't think so. Not in my opinion. And even though the Sooners got wooped in every way possible, they deserved to be in the national title game. However, I will say this: I think having a BCS top 4 team playoff would be great, especially when there is more than 2 undefeated teams. 2004-2005 would have been the season to start: USC, OU, Auburn, and Utah. BOOMER SOONER!
Rammer Jammer said:
posted on October 11, 2007 2:38 PM — 199.89.170.92 — link — abuse?
WE ATL
"Auburn might look a little opportunistic to some initially, but in 10 years, who's going to care"?
People such as yourself.But that will never happen because as you have stated before; Auburn would never do that such a thing. Only schools such as Bama, ND,etc... would stoop to that level.
BTW- How many selectors choosing Auburn as MNC would you consider to be legit? (I'm not trying to make a point; I'm simply asking a question)
RTR
Tampa Hurricane
posted on October 11, 2007 3:51 PM — 24.96.199.254 — link — abuse? said:
WE ATL, I hate to do this, but I have to agree with Rammer Jammer. Haven't you knocked multiple programs on other postings for accepting or claiming post dated titles. If the BCS decides to vacate the title for that year, then there should be no claims for MNC of that year. Would there be any difference between AU coming in in 10 years and claiming that MNC, and how other schools have claimed MNC for other years after the fact? People at AU need to realize that they have no claim to the MNC in 2004.
posted on October 11, 2007 4:01 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
OU Fan: Yea, shafted to the extent that they were a major team deserving of being in that top two, not to take anything away from OU or USC. Any sort of playoff would have been preferred over leaving out a deserving team.
Auburn started the year ranked 17th, and you are right, it would have been tough to catch up with USC (1st) and OU (2nd)
Everyone makes light of Auburn's OOC schedule that year, but consider this: Auburn played far more ranked teams during the regular season than did either USC or Oklahoma.
Ranked teams at the time of the game:
Auburn: LSU 4th, Tennessee 8th, Georgia 5th, Tennessee 15th (SEC Champ. game)
Oklahoma: Texas 5th, OK State 20th, ATM 22nd
USC: California 7th, Arizona State 19th
Not to re-hash 2004 or anything...
posted on October 11, 2007 4:15 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Rammer and T-Cane: Apples to oranges. Here's why:
Back-dated titles refer to titles awarded for years BEFORE THERE WERE NATIONAL POLLS. That's not the case here.
Yes, I do ridicule teams for going back years later and staking claims to MNCs. The reason I do is that THERE WERE SUPERIOR CLAIMS TO THEIR MINOR ONE STILL IN PLACE. If Cooter's Bait and Tackle awarded you a MNC in 1993, but the AP and UPI polls gave theirs to someone else, your claim is SUBORDINATE to theirs, meaning it has less standing.
Auburn did receive two minor selectors choose them as MNC for 2004. If USC is able to hold on to their AP and BCS crown, then Auburn would look ridiculous trying to also claim a title with their inferior case. But, if USC's titles are vacated by various selectors, including the big two, Auburn's minor selectors would then enjoy prominence over everything else.
College football, like everything else in nature, abhors a vacuum. A vacated title will be filled, like it or not. I know you think it shouldn't, but it definitely will, and I think my team's replacement claim would be superior to any others'. Something like this has no precedent in college football, so we'll just have to see how it plays out, assuming that USC's games are vacated by the NCAA.
Rammer Jammer said:
posted on October 11, 2007 5:29 PM — 199.89.170.92 — link — abuse?
WE ATL
Auburn wasn't even selected to play in the NC game. Why would the voters all of sudden choose them over OU to be the back dated champs.
BTW-I know what subordinate means. TE and gatorhippy are good teachers. But thanks anyways. Just kidding!
RTR
OU Fan said:
posted on October 12, 2007 3:21 AM — 139.139.51.70 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta, I see what you're saying. I'm glad you pulled up those ranked teams that OU, USC, and Auburn beat that year because yesterday I was too busy and in a hurry to look it all up. If anything, maybe it should have been Auburn versus OU in the title game being that USC only beat 2 ranked opponents, but then again, Trojan fans can counter argue by saying their team maintained their #1 ranking all year, just as I did for Oklahoma's #2 ranking. The BCS in my opinion has it good things and its bad things, and when good undefeated teams get left out of the title game and don't get a chance to prove themselves, its unfortunate-not to take anything away from Oklahoma. That 2004-2005 Auburn team was a good one with Campbell, Cadillac, and Brown. Don't worry though because if in the future 2 teams plus OU go undefeated, more than likely OU will get left out of the title game because of the Sooners losing back to back national championships. Now that I think about it, OU losing those back to back national championships hurt pretty bad. Damn. BOOMER SOONER!
Tomcat said:
posted on October 12, 2007 6:40 AM — 69.148.173.234 — link — abuse?
Okay This Might Sound Crazy
Missu over OU
Tex A&M over TTech
Penn St over Wisc
Kentucky over LSU
Rice over Houston
Arizona over USC
Stanford over TCU
Notre Dame over Boston College
These all sound kinda crazy, but the way its been going this year a few of these will probably happen
BTW the last one is by far the crazyest
Hookem-HornsLennie Collins
posted on October 12, 2007 8:28 AM — 67.67.223.182 — link — abuse? said:
I was shocked to hear that the NCAA were going to follow through on this. I know USC faithfuls are going to blame Oklahoma for this. But OU's AD and Coach is right. When they found out about this car dealership junk they kicked those 2 players off the team. But the NCAA said that was not good enough! USC staff had to know about this lower middle class family living in one of the nicest neighborhoods in SAN DIEGO! Come on! Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll both had that deceptive smirk on their faces when interview on the Best Damn Sports Show. Then on top of that Reggie Bush's family "moved" out the day the story came out. Odd? I still think the NCAA won't touch the "beloved" USC or the wannabe "beloved" USC!
Lennie Collins
posted on October 12, 2007 8:41 AM — 67.67.223.182 — link — abuse? said:
Hey fellow bloggers...not to get off the subject but while watching Cold Pizza 10/10 I heard one of the COLLEGE FOOTBALL experts state that the two conferences that are EXTREMELY AGAINST a PLAY-OFF SYSTEM in college football are:the BIG 11 and Pacific-10. I wonder why? Play-offs! Play-offs! Did someone say Play-offs! Play-offs! I just hope we can get thru the season with on more upsets while viewing these games! Playoffs!
posted on October 12, 2007 5:53 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse? said:
Rammer: If USC has to vacate the 2004 season, I really don't expect many selectors to do anything. Only the major two would be forced to act. Although they are not aligned with the NCAA, they do have their reputation to preserve, and it's doubtful that they just would let things stand the way they were.
It's irrelevant who was in the BCS championship game in 2004. Here's how it would play out:
*USC is forced to vacate the 2004 season. Oklahoma's game with them doesn't change to a win because of the vacation, it stays a loss. USC's victories are removed, like they never happened.
*Some MNC selectors change their votes, some do not.
*Regardless, Auburn had two selectors choose them as MNC. Even if the AP and BCS did not change their vote and left their NC vacated, Auburn's minor selectors would have credibility in this vacuum, allowing Auburn to be fully justified in claiming a MNC.
*Auburn may not choose to do that though. I'd certainly lobby for them to do it, though.
Keep in mind though, that in the last few years the NCAA changed their guidelines for these infractions. Teams no longer have to prove that they didn't know that the infraction was occuring. Now they are assumed to be not guilty, unless it can be proved that they did know.
And considering the love affair the media has for USC lately, they may escape the penalties of this whole sordid affair. Personally, I doubt that they didn't know all this was going on. You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that.
OU Fan: Yea, that was just a tidbit of info that I used when arguing about the 2004 season. I'm kinda over it all now. I usually throw that out when someone starts moaning about Auburn's weak OOC schedule. (not that you did) How much weight do you give an OOC when 3 of your 4 conference games are to top 10 schools?
Even if USC had to forfeit the games rather than vacate them, I doubt that many Sooner fans would want a split title with Auburn. That would definitely be taking the moral high ground.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
OU-Ron
said:
posted on October 9, 2007 9:41 PM — 72.198.24.199 — link — abuse?Damn, losing to Stanford on Saturday, and now this today, you know that PC's dobber has to be down, way down----Hmmmm some recruits may start to rethink their commitment, we may be starting to see some declining years for S Cal.