USC Gets The Ban Hammer

While the NCAA infractions committee poured over information, records, and hearsay in the case of the University of Southern California nobody thought USC would get more than a slap on the wrist. After the penalties and report came out today, the hammer drop fell harder than anyone anticipated. The full report is 67 pages, and you can see the full version here. After the break I take out a few choice parts that caught my eye and give my assessment.

The NCAA's enforcement and infractions processes are, at best, only one avenue to police and sanction amateurism violations caused by agent involvement. These processes are often slow. The limited scope of authority also means that these processes are, at times, incomplete.

Right off the bat the report addresses the problems of agents having dealings with high profile athletes. The NCAA freely admits it is a problem that the associatoin currently is not equipped to corral. Anyone who knows college sports knows this. The problem is that no one has a solution, at least one that can be implemented.


The report first addresses the Reggie Bush situation. The list of impermissible benefits is lengthy and detailed. They involve agents that Bush was in contact with during his time at USC. They vary from the well-known rent-free house for his parents to, cash for a down payment on a new car, free limo rides to San Diego, and an airline trip to the Orange Bowl for his brother. The final one tome is the most eyebrow raising:

Prior to the institution's September 3, 2005, football contest at the University of Hawaii, Manoa (Hawaii) student-athlete 1's step-father went to agency partner A's mother‟s home in El Cajon where she provided $5,000 in cash to him.

It almost seems like something out of Blue Chips. At this point, it is obvious this was a train running straight off the tracks. Anyone could see a single item as a bad mark on the career of a college athlete, but taken all together it is gross miss conduct of which the parties involved were aware of the underhanded nature of their actions.

The report states the following about their conversation with Bush on the matter:

Student-athlete 1 consented to an interview with the enforcement staff in late April 2009. Although he denied entering into any type of agreement with agency partners A and B, or anyone else associated with their attempts to form a sport agency, he conceded that he knew agency partners A and B, and he communicated regularly with agency partner A via telephone and text messaging. Student-athlete 1 reported that he socialized with agency partner A at area clubs and at his (student-athlete 1's) parents' home. He admitted that some of the conversations between him and agency partner A were about the formation of a sports agency. He also admitted that, with agency partner A, he attended a party that was given annually in San Diego for a former NFL player. [See: Findings 1-a-(5) and 1-a-(6).] He said it was "possible" that he helped agency partner A get into the USC locker room after a football game and that it was also "possible" that agency partner B was there too.

So Bush admitted to having a relationship with them and "possibly" helped them get in contact with other USC players. He has denied all those benefits listed and entering any type of agreement with the agents.

Pete Carroll, who was at the hearing in February is now residing in Seattle. The punishment he faces for this happening under his watch is the altering of his coaching record and the black mark of public perception. Even with that said many feel Petey peace-outed before he felt the true wrath of these sanctions. The one part of the report I would like to highlight involving Carroll was his use of an old NFL acquaintance to break down film for the team. This "outside consultant" performed duties that only countable football coaches are allowed to perform. Therefore, USC exceeded their limit on number of coaches. This story was out in the press before this report, but here is the excerpt I found interesting:

The institution, the enforcement staff and the former head football coach are in agreement with the facts of this finding and that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The institution believes that the violation is secondary because, in its estimation, it was isolated, inadvertent and neither provided, nor was intended to provide, a competitive advantage. The enforcement staff took no position as to whether the violation was secondary or major. The committee finds the violation occurred and it was major in nature.

Here was USC saying it was only a secondary violation. The problem many have had with the USC football program is their attitude that they can skirt the rules so easily. Not intended to provide a competitive advantage? They brought in a veteran coach with college and NFL experience to break down film. How is that not helping you in the field of competition? But here is the most compelling part, the report says:

The committee notes that the former head football coach did not check with the institution's compliance office before hiring the consultant. Rather, another institution's compliance office notified the compliance office at USC of the consultant's service with the USC football staff. As a result, this violation is a component of Finding B-7, lack of institutional control.

Boom. You notice that last sentence? That dread "lack of institutional control"? As an athletic department you never want to hear those words, ever. See how it states that Carroll did not check with the compliance department before bringing the consultant (who was Pete Rodriguez) in. It is not unheard of for coaches at major programs to operate with their own sense of complete autonomy but in the article I linked in the previous paragraph about the incident, this is the quote Carroll provided when asked by the press about the situation:

“To get to the point where we could have a guy be a consultant and come and see us, we did all of the homework, went through compliance, did all of the steps that you have to to make sure it’s OK,” Carroll said. “The way we understood and interpreted it, we tried to do everything exactly the right way. And that’s it.”

Right here Carroll contradicted what the committee found in the report, which I assume they found by interviewing the compliance officer at USC. Not the most egregious error ever made by a major college coach, but it goes to show laid back Pete was more than capable of twisting the truth and distorting facts while running his program.



The next section goes into detail about the OJ Mayo mess. Once again they lay out a list of impermissible benefits (my favorite was a $1400 TV). Here is the long and short of it:

From August 2006 through May 2008, representative B who was also affiliated with a professional sports agency, and representative B's associate ("representative C"), provided inducements and extra benefits in the form of cash, lodging, merchandise, automobile transportation, meals, airline transportation and services to student-athlete 2 when the young man was both a prospect and an enrolled student-athlete, to his brother ("brother"), to his girlfriend ("girlfriend") and to the girlfriend's mother ("girlfriend's mother").

The lesser known third party in these findings was a girl on the women's tennis team. Her violations seem to stem from her fondness of the telephone.

From November 2006 to March 2009, a former women's tennis student-athlete ("former women's tennis student-athlete") used an athletics department long-distance access code to make 123 unauthorized personal telephone calls to family members in another country. The total value of the calls was $7,535.

I mean damn, you have to be calling your foreign home quite a bit to rack up that much of a phone bill. Are international calls usually that pricey? I guess it depends how long she was talking but that is $61.26 a call.

The next section hits on that dreaded "lack of institutional control" point again. The report goes into detail about each section but this is the summary of it:

From December 2004 through March 2009, the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics by its failure to have in place procedures to effectively monitor the violations of NCAA amateurism, recruiting and extra benefit legislation in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's tennis.

There are 25 items on the penalties list. Some of them were imposed by USC in light of the situation with men's basketball. This of course was a faint attempt at showing the NCAA they were cleaning up things in house, but with the list of transgressions the committee had to impose tougher sanctions and they did.

Some of the highlights from the penalties:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Four years of probation from June 10, 2010, through June 9, 2014.

4. The institution's football team shall end its 2010 and 2011 seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including a bowl game, following the season. Moreover, during the two years of this postseason ban, the football team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limit in the number of football contests that are provided in Bylaw 17.9.5.2, with the exception of a spring game as set forth in Bylaw 17.9.5.2-(a).

5. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which student-athlete 1 competed while ineligible, beginning in December 2004.

6. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3.-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which student-athlete 2 competed during the 2007-08 regular seasons. (Institution imposed)

7. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which the women's tennis student-athlete competed while ineligible between November 2006 and May 2009. (Institution imposed)

9. Limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid and 75 total grants in football for each of the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years.

10. Limit of 12 grants-in-aid in men's basketball for 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years. (Institution imposed)

A few others of note: The school will have to "disassociate" with the 3 former student-athletes mentioned. That means Bush, Mayo, and the tennis player have to get the OJ treatment. Also, with the vacating of wins for the sports (including their 2005 Orange Bowl BCS national championship win), they are also taking away all of their records on the field/court.

The report goes into full detail about the size of the eraser the USC sports information department will need.

Regarding penalties C-5, C-6 and C-7, the vacations shall be effected pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b) and shall include participation in any postseason competition, including football bowl games, conference tournaments and NCAA championships. The individual records of student-athlete 1, student-athlete 2 and the former women's tennis student-athlete shall also be vacated for all contests in which they competed while ineligible. Further, the records of the head coaches of the affected sports shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated results. Finally, the institution's records regarding football, men's basketball and women's tennis shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated institutional, coaches' and student-athletes' records in all publications in which records for football, men's basketball and women's tennis are recorded, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting materials, electronic and digital media, and institutional and NCAA archives. Any reference to the vacated results, including championships, shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas, and any other forum in which they appear.

That last part reminds me of Judge Dredd, when Sly is found guilty of killing the reporter in front of the tribunal.

"Let the betrayal of the law be taken from our courts. Let his armor be taken from him. And all his garb of justice. Let him be stricken from our hearts and our memories, forever!"



That may be a bit of a dramatic example and considering the horrible movie that Judge Dredd was, not an appropriate analogy.

So where does USC go from here? When Miami got a one year postseason ban and reduction of scholarships in 1995, it took them about 3 years before Butch Davis righted the ship [Interesting note: Paul Dee, who was the AD at Miami when they got their sanctions, was the chair of this NCAA infractions committee]. However, college football is a different animal these days. With super-conference realignment looming as a possibility and 24-hour media, USC could lose a lot of their recently signed athletes as well as established players. Some say the program will take 5-10 years to recover, others think Kiffin will have things back to order after the 2 year postseason ban is lifted. No one knows for sure so if they tell you they do call them an idiot and walk away.

One last note on this. Mike Garrett, the athletic director who had these violations occur on his watch, was at a booster function in San Francisco last night. He wasn't exactly apologetic for what had happened. His priceless quote #1 of the night was this:

"As I read the decision by the NCAA," he told the group, "… I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans."

He went on: "Today I got a purpose for really wanting to dominate for another 10 years."

And then the final big kicker. After acknowledging his position as AD might be in trouble, he fired a salvo across Pete Carroll's bow: "Probably. I'm sure Pete Carroll knew a few things that were going on too. That's why, after all those years of teams pursuing him, miraculously he's in Seattle."

I understand the Trojan nation thought they were impenetrable. They thought that no force could bring them down as long as they stood behind their high walls. They became wealthy and powerful in the land of college athletics but through their own arrogance and belief that they could not be touched by the rules, they were burned from within. The good thing about USC as opposed to the actual Trojans is that they can rebuild their city and reclaim their prominence, but for now their empire has crumbled about them.

Continue reading...

New NCAA President Might Get It

It's been about a week since Mark Emmert was hired as the new president of the NCAA. Time will tell what kind of an impact he will have over college athletics during his tenure, but from his comprehensive explanations and air of determination it appears he will leave a positive mark. For him to leave his old post at the University of Washington in Seattle and move to Indianapolis alone shows you dedication right there. At its core the NCAA will try to insist that its sole function is to facilitate the opportunities of amateur athletics but the bottom line is the bottom line. Money is that makes all of that possible, and all programs from the struggling small school to the large big conference behemoths are always seeking more.

Emmert has the challenge of making those desires come to fruition while trying to maintain an impossible image of moral perfection. His predecessor, Myles Brand was known for his sweeping reforms of academic standards and Emmert has admitted there is not much headway he can make in that area. His legacy may very well be hinged on whether he can keep the system afloat during these tough economic times in the country. Within the populous, the college basketball and football post-seasons are in the foreground of college athletics. Emmert has allegedly stated that he thinks a college football playoff will happen. Of course he also recognizes he cannot simply Roger Goddell himself upon the association.

"So, when people say things like, “Well, the Association doesn’t have the power or clout that it needs to solve issues,” often they’re referring to issues that some people would love to see the Association solve by dictate. “Coaches’ pay should only be X.” “We should have subpoena power to compel somebody to testify in an infractions issue.” Obviously, the NCAA doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have those kinds of authorities."

So far he is saying all the right things, but he has a long list of challenges ahead of him which he cannot solve by dictatorial mandates or a wave of the hand. Perhaps the best thing all the NCAA member institutions and the public can hold onto right now is cautious optimism.

Mark Emmert interview focuses on NCAA membership issues [NCAA]

Continue reading...

Real Men Don't Taunt, But This May Take It Too Far

Yes, football season is over but the news never stops! We will get into basketball soon enough but a quick story on a possible rules change in college football. After a season in which refs were already forced to make game-changing judgment decisions on penalties for celebration, in 2011 could have even more significant impact on the outcome of games.

The all-powerful Football Rules Committee has endorsed a proposal that would penalize unsportsmanlike conduct as a live-ball foul. In other words, if you break a 90-yard kickoff return you better not salute the band, student section, or your Aunt Prudence or you get flagged. The biggest thing about this rule change would mean that the penalty would not simply be enforced on the kick-off, it would be marked off from where you taunted and the touchdown would be nullified.

The chair of this committee is former Oregon coach Mike Bellotti, who is now the school's athletic director. Bellotti said:

“Our committee firmly believes in the team concept of college football,” said Mike Bellotti, chair of the committee and athletics director at Oregon. “Taunting and prolonged individual acts have no place in our game, and our officials have generally handled these rules well. This is just another step in maintaining our game’s image and reflecting the ideals of the NCAA overall.”

I get the whole believing in the team concept (which has nothing to do with celebrating a score in my opinion) but saying that officials handle these calls "generally well" is a double talk way of saying it is not an exact science. If the rule is enacted these refs will have to make instant in-game decisions on whether a player being happy for getting to the endzone is worthy of taking that 6 points off the board. With the officiating we have had, particularly in the SEC and ACC, we do not want refs to have that power. The Georgia/LSU debacle was bad enough, but not it adds another element that fans really don't care about. Pardon me for dusting off the old "football is played with emotion" line but it is true, these games are hyped up so much by fans, media, and coaches, only taunts and celebrations way out of line need to be penalized. It was not too long ago when NCAA football put forth what was known as "The Miami Rule" to eliminate displays after a touchdown. It snowballed into what we have today where a simple high five, body bump or stare into the thrnong of thousands in the stadium can result in a 15-yard penalty.

The idea sounds great while you are in a NCAA boardroom and you want to put forth the perception that you are promoting good sportsmanship but the bottom line is that what has brought your sport billions and billions of dollars over the years has been the element of showmanship. Asking to keep these displays from being egregious is important but the game is not played without emotion, especially at the highest levels. Even Tim Tebow, the example of the highest level of student-athlete can take it too far once in awhile.



Football taunting rule could be tougher by 2011 [NCAA.org]

Continue reading...

Connecticut In Trouble: Recruiting Violations Revealed

By now, you no doubt have heard about the story. Yahoo Sports unviels a lengthy and detailed investigation into rules violations committed by Connecticut basketball in relation to their recruitment of Nate Miles, a player who was expelled last fall from UConn for trouble with the law. Hard to defend the Huskies on this one; it appears they have been caught with phone records to back up the charges. How timely of Yahoo to unveil this on the eve of the Sweet 16 match-up against Purdue. I would not be surprised to see UConn come out flat due to the story, but that is really up to the players who had nothing to do with this.

Calhoun has been the subject of praise and disdain in his tenure at Connecticut. He built the program literally out of nothing into one of the premeire programs in the sport, but his salty attitude and what some would call sketchy recruiting practices had landed him scrutiny from those who do not care for him. Earlier this season he got into a verbal exchange with a reporter some jackass in a postgame press conference about his million dollar salary. He has never faced any kind of challenge like this where the facts seem laid out in plain sight. The critcism from the detractors will be overwhelming now.

The story of this kid seems to be one that encompasses the entire dark side of college basketball. He had academic and personal problems, he had vampires all around him "advising" him, there were respected people in basketball that did their part to stay away from him, and he eventually self-imploded. As a lifelong fan of Connecticut basketball it is a dark day and I am not even going to try to spin this until we here from the NCAA or Calhoun. If one were trying to force themselves to see the intentions in this, it would be the UConn staff was trying to get this kid on the right track while improving their team at the same time and then cut him loose after he got arrested, but the story indicates the Huskies have continued to recruit him even after Miles landed in a JC in Idaho.

The two cases that came to mind when reading this story were USC and Oklahoma. USC because Yahoo reported on the Reggie Bush scandal and the "advisor" involved with OJ Mayo which has subsequently been swept neatly under the rug and Oklahoma because of the improper phone calls made by former coach Kelvin Sampson. What will happen in this case? We will certainly discuss this story more as it develops and I'm certain will cover it on the Shackleford Files this week. Link to the story below.

UConn violated NCAA rules [Yahoo Sports]

Continue reading...

Bury Low Hits At Wounded Knee

Tom Brady took to his knee at the hands of Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard, the NFL is changing things for the upcoming season. According to the Boston Globe:

"...the league's Competition Committee adopted a clarification of the current rule on hits to a quarterback in the knee area or below. The clarification specifically prohibits a defender on the ground who hasn't been blocked or fouled directly into the quarterback from lunging or diving at the quarterback's lower legs."

I know Catfish is a proponent of limiting the protection that QBs get under the rules, but I think this is a more important rule that the hand glancing the helmet so I have to throw a flag rule. Blows to the head with a single hand lame, protecting quarterback's plant leg good. Carson Palmer has to be sitting around wondering "why this is a rule just now, happened to me in 2005 when I got von Oelhoffened."

Brady rule: Steps taken to protect QBs' knees [Boston Globe]

Continue reading...

The Block in the Back: Time for a Change

It happens all too often. A great return is called back because of a penalty and most of the time it is the block in the back and mostly it is a play that really had nothing to do with the work of the returning team getting to the endzone or down the field. That is not to say that there aren’t legitimate blocks from behind but like the adjustment to the facemask penalty, only serious infractions need to be penalized.

The genesis of this rule I believe was to prevent blockers running downfield from blindsiding would-be tacklers which gave them an unfair advantage and put the kicking team players at risk for injuries. The NFL interpretation of the rule states:

Blocker cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an opponent in a manner that restricts his movement as the play develops.



The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops.

(from NFL.com Rulebook)

In theory this sounds like a sound rule. The return team players must be ahead or at least even with the tacklers in order to attempt to block them. However the game happens at real time in real speed. Most times this penalty seems to occur when a tackler is running for the ball carrier and lunges for a tackle with the blocker behind him. It is simply the appearance of the penalty; player A flies into the air with player B running behind. Everyone who has a team they root for has seen this play because they have had a great return called back and been furious when the replay showed the touch foul. Touch fouls are for basketball(and ACC officials), in football a penalty has to be an egregious physical manipulation of another player.

I mentioned the face mask penalty rule change, which I think is applicable to the block in the back. The 5 yard, “unintentional” face mask penalty was discarded. In theory this means a player can inadvertently grasp a face mask and let go and it not be called. Only when a player’s mask is grabbed and pulled should the flag be thrown. Likewise, I think only certain blocks to the back should be called. Blatant body checks in the back in which a blocker launches himself at the tackler should obviously be called. Also, an obvious shove with both arms extended should be flagged. The other key I believe is unless it is a clear body check to the ground, the block in the back call should not be made if it occurs out of the area of influence of the kicker.

I know this is asking a lot of officials. It comes down to a judgment call, but isn’t that the majority of penalties if not all? Considering that more often than not it is the defenders’ momentum that carries him past the returner, many times blockers are punished for tacklers taking the wrong angle and making a vain attempt to tackle to runner. This does create a lot of gray area, but that already exists. As great as Devin Hester is, he has had at least a few returns called back because of an alleged block in the back that occurred either because some tackler made a desperate attempt to dive after Hester and there was a blocker behind him at the time or a small push in the back occurred after Hester was already blazing downfield.

Making the adjustment to the rule should not the highest priority on the list for the league, but it should be looked at. As much as judgment penalties such as pass interference and roughing the passer are scrutinized, it would be nice if we could eliminate unnecessary penalties on special teams as well.

Continue reading...