Thu May 14, 2009 2:00 pm EDT
My attitude toward the NCAA's oooooooongoing investigation into Reggie Bush's lucrative going-away season at Southern Cal has always been that the emperor's police have no clothes: As long as Bush was able to keep potential snitches quiet by any means necessary, the NCAA's investigative dogs lacked the teeth (i.e. the subpoena power) to bring home any fox that didn't turn itself in in exchange for leniency. A lot of other outside observers have agreed with me, for fairly obvious reasons: Since Yahoo! first broke the Bush scandal in 2006, USC has won three Pac-10 championships and three Rose Bowls, Bush has made tens of millions as a pro and pitchman, lawsuits and witnesses have fallen by the wayside and the first of at least three books on the scandal has been published. But not a peep from the NCAA.
But the announcement last month that the Association is rolling the allegations against Bush and O.J. Mayo into a single probe against USC, and especially the late-breaking (and somewhat under-reported) news Tuesday that Mayo handler Rodney Guillory took a direct cash payment from Trojan basketball coach Tim Floyd, has made USC look far more vulnerable to the killer charge of "lack of institutional control" than it has at any point since Bush was first implicated three years ago. Allegations of open fraud in the Mayo case have brought the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office into the fray, and those guys, I think, have some teeth.
And they might be moving fast. The attorney for Louis Johnson, main source for the latest charges against Mayo, said Wednesday he thinks the NCAA "wants to do something before football season," and that "something" will include sanctions. Meanwhile, Charles Robinson, one of the two Yahoo! reporters (with Jason Cole) driving the vast majority of actual reporting in both cases from the beginning, said in an interview with the Orange County Register Tuesday that the NCAA has been extremely active -- and meticulously silent -- in gathering information, and guesses the hammer may fall before the end of the year (emphasis added):
Q: What penalties do you think USC will suffer in the end?
Robinson: Even with the investigation having gone on three years; even with what appears to be a deep, large and wide-ranging investigation; and in spite of a lot of people coming forward with damning evidence, it’s almost impossible for anyone who’s not part of the NCAA infrastructure to be able to accurately speculate about what’s going to happen, simply because of the way the NCAA works. ... I’m hesitant to say what will happen because we don’t know what the weak spots are, and the NCAA absolutely refuses in any way, shape or form to reveal details about their investigations or how their investigative practices work.
Q: How about a timetable then? When will we learn USC’s fate?
Robinson: Based on sources we have who have been interviewed, it appears the NCAA has wrapped up the majority of its Reggie Bush investigation, if not all of it. I believe they are now nearing the end of the O.J. Mayo portion of the investigation. So barring a significant amount of new revelations, I have to believe that most likely in the fall we’ll see some kind of letter of infractions put forward by the NCAA.
One thing people need to understand is, the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions, they’re sort of like some legislative bodies that meet only a certain number of times a year. ... My best guess would be, because it’s taken so long and been so in-depth, that it probably will be later rather than sooner. I would guess November or December — but I also never believed this would be something that’s three years in the making.
(You can also read Robinson's response to critics of his reporting, from which he emerges essentially unscathed, in my opinion.)
Both the interview and the defense are worthy reads for the perspective they lend to the scope of the investigation: At least four different agencies and literally dozens of witnesses are deep into the record, with documents, photos -- allegedly showing known agents and other red-siren types on sidelines, in locker rooms and partying alongside players and coaches -- recordings, sworn testimonies and, yes, possibly ulterior motives. (Louis Johnson, main source for the Mayo story, has an allegedly sketchy background and a book deal; but how do you report on corruption without relying on people who are/have been corrupt? The sources are the sources.) All of which forms one very dark, very heavy cloud over the Trojans for at least the next six months.
Dr. Saturday is a college football blog edited by Matt Hinton. Email him tips and feedback.

Posted Feb 3 2010
RivalsMinute: Bama wins the title
Posted Feb 3 2010
Posted Feb 3 2010
Edited by MJD
Edited by 'Duk
Edited by J.E. Skeets
Edited by Greg Wyshynski
Edited by Matt Hinton
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Jay Busbee
Edited by Steve Cofield
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Chris Chase
Edited by Brooks Peck
Edited by Andy Behrens
46 Comments
1 - 25 of 46
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
I'd watch out if I were a Vol fan....
Lane Kiffin - USC coach 2001-2006
Ed Orgeron - USC coach 2005-2007
Old habits die hard.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
The point I was trying to make was that there was a drastic change in penalties that seemed to coincide with the Notre Dame case. Back in the 80s, sanctions were drastic for even relatively minor violations. One of the violations on the list on the website was for a booster (without the knowledge of the institution) providing a car loan to the mother of a new recruit. While it was a legitimate loan that the mom had to (and did) repay, it was a "non-qualifying loan", that is, mom would not have qualified for the loan under the bank's normal lending practices. NCAA penalty was that the kid had to transfer to another school and the school was placed on three years probation, no bowl games for two years, and no TV appearances for two years. All because a booster did something the school did not know about. Sanctions back then were very, very tough. The ND case helped to correct some of the over-penalizing that was being done by the NCAA. For the first time, the NCAA seemed to accept the excuse that "...it was just a booster" even in situations when it arose out of a sanctioned booster organization (in that case , the ND Quarterback Club). Since 1999, all sanctions have been much lighter. I cannot recall a case where a school of any consequence has been taken off TV or out of bowl games since that time.
Once again, I'm not cracking on ND (or defending USC who I would like to see get pounded). I'm just suggesting that since 1999 the NCAA has been rather toothless in handing out penalties. Thus my prediction that USC will get a nasty letter, a slap on the wrist and no sanction of any consequence.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Second, your belief that ND's sanctions were less than deserved is faulty. You are insistent in labeling the woman as a booster which while correct, is misleading. The woman was a member of the Quarterback's Club, however, to become a member she paid a $25 fee and attended a lunch. This was not a major booster lavishing the program with donations. When the NCAA wrote the rules against gifts from boosters they were intended to be used against major boosters. Furthermore, the gifts that the woman made to the football players were not as a booster but as a girlfriend. I realize that you are loath to admit that this woman was actually dating the players, but courts frequently recognize that an individual wears multiple hats so to speak and it is important to look at in what capacity the person was acting in determining liability. Her intention when giving the gifts to the players was for her own benefit and not that of the university, as she enjoyed "dating" (sleeping) with the football players. Notre Dame was not blameless in this, as anytime an individual is giving players lavish gifts the university has a duty to investigate the situation, and therefore, the sanctions were justified, however, to compare the violations of USC which involved payments by agents and coachs, with what happened at Notre Dame is like comparing Murder with Jay-walking.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Secondly, this whole thing has made a mockery of the NCAA's rules and investigative unit. Why should any student player, why should any school follow NCAA rules? They should merely hire a good attorney and demand equal treatment to the way they have handled Reggie Bush and USC. That is, how they have not handled Reggie Bush and USC. Three long years, and still no discipline for their flagrant rule violations. The NCAA has sent a message, players can be provided money, their family can receive lavish living arrangements. The NCAA has given up on it's right and responsibility to monitor schools for violations regarding monetary payments to student athletes. It is not fair to other universities to allow this infraction to stay on the books these long years, then try to enforce rules upon them, for a more minor, in comparison, infraction. There are no rules, according to the NCAA and USC.
Again, great applause to Yahoo for exposing this NCAA created charade.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
But fans lose focus on the real problem because we get caught up with the name calling on the schools we hate to see win. The real problem is the NCAA, by going "Hollywood" with college football, the NCAA has basically sanctioned the type of behavior from the schools, athletic programs, boosters and the atheletes themselves, if someone is flashing cash at you, wouldn't you as the student athelete be more willing to go to the school? If you want real change the NCAA has to look within themselves and see the systemic problems. Otherwise, giving sanctions by piecemeal just amounts to a dog and pony show for the masses to see and think that "something is being done" to solve the problem, while in reality nothing is being done.
1 - 25 of 46