General

Having Faced The Music, Now The Trojans Wait

Feb 22, 2010, 9:15 PM UTC

USC’s late February court-type date has come and gone with little inâ†µthe way of public payoff. Participants are barred from commentingâ†µpublicly and the NCAA committee on infractions’ gears turn ponderously even when the cases areâ†µsmall and simple. USC’s case is not. USC’s case â†µrequiresâ†µthe services of grunting bellhops: â†µâ†µâ‡¥But there were signs from the hearings that make it highly improbableâ†µâ‡¥U.S.C. football will leave this multimillion-dollar, four-yearâ†µâ‡¥investigation with a wrist slap. The first and most glaring hint cameâ†µâ‡¥from a hotel bellhop, who practically grunted while pushing anâ†µâ‡¥industrial luggage cart full of documents out of the meeting room. Thereâ†µâ‡¥were seven boxes on the cart, including a six-inch-thick binder labeledâ†µâ‡¥U.S.C. Response Volume 1. â†µâ†µâ†µPoring through USC Response Volumes 1 through N will apparently takeâ†µabout two months. During that time, people associated with USC willâ†µprovide voluminous quantities of “no comment” on the record.â†µOff the record, they will assure everyone willing to listen that theyâ†µare going to get off easy.â†µ

â†µâ†µA couple months ago, that assertion seemed preposterous. Pete Carrollâ†µhad suddenlyâ†µand unexpectedly flown the coop for a Seattle Seahawks job that lacked the total control he had repeatedly claimed was necessary if heâ†µwas to leave his perch as sultan of the country’s most consistentlyâ†µsuccessful college football program. The USC basketball program hadâ†µimposed a meaningful-if stillâ†µtoo weak-postseason ban on itself. USC, which if free of sanctionsâ†µis probably the best job in the country right this second, had to hireâ†µaâ†µneophyte with a career losing record to replace Carroll. And mostâ†µdamning of all, when USC asked the NCAA to self-apply sanctions likeâ†µthey did to the basketball program theyâ†µwere turned down. â†µ

â†µ

â†µToday the idea that USC could escape serious punishment isâ†µconsiderably more plausible. The Trojans brought in their usual array ofâ†µuber-recruits. Seantrel Henderson may be spooked enough to forgo signingâ†µhis letter of intent, but he's the only one. And though the fact thatâ†µReggie Bush was spectacularly ineligible has been meticulouslyâ†µdocumented by Yahoo! Sports, drawing a line between those documentsâ†µand Pete Carroll is considerably more difficult. Maybe it's in thoseâ†µbinders. Maybe not. Doctorâ†µSaturday sums up the issues: â†µ

â†µâ†µâ‡¥â†µâ‡¥The most damning claim against USC is [Lloyd] Lake’s allegation in [Don] Yaeger’sâ†µâ‡¥book that he was in the room with Bush’s stepfather as he discussedâ†µâ‡¥the sketchy housing arrangement with Carroll over the phone. Otherâ†µâ‡¥evidence is similarly vague and circumstantial, such as various rumorsâ†µâ‡¥that coaches and administrators (including Carroll and athletic directorâ†µâ‡¥Mike Garrett, another former Heisman winner) were tipped off aboutâ†µâ‡¥Bush’s arrangements, were well-acquainted with the sleazier elements onâ†µâ‡¥the fringes of the program and were often in position to notice Bush andâ†µâ‡¥his family spending well above their means. ...â†µâ‡¥
â†µâ‡¥â†µâ‡¥Even if you could prove that kind of chatter, it doesn’t amount toâ†µâ‡¥much in the way of a smoking gun. So far, there is no firm evidence inâ†µâ‡¥any published reports to date that anyone at USC had direct knowledge ofâ†µâ‡¥improper benefits to any football player, which probably means the NCAAâ†µâ‡¥doesn’t have it, either.â†µâ‡¥

â†µâ†µâ†µThe NCAA’s response would seem to vary wildly based on what judicialâ†µstandard they use. Is it certain that USC coaches had knowledge Bushâ†µwas getting paid very large amounts of money? Probably not. This Lakeâ†µguy has a clear motivation to strike back at the guy who took his moneyâ†µand ditched him for a real agent and the corroborating evidence is likely toâ†µbe scant. But is it reasonable to believe that no one at USC noticedâ†µBush driving a shiny new 2005 Impala around and wondered where theâ†µnot-particularly-wealthy kid got it? That, too, gets a “probablyâ†µnot.” The NCAA is not a court and does not have to find somethingâ†µbeyond a reasonable doubt. A lower standard for conviction is the Trojanâ†µhater’s best hope.â†µ

â†µâ†µA lower standard and the â†µdesireâ†µto make that much paperwork relevant, anyway:â†µ

â†µâ†µâ‡¥â†µâ‡¥[NCAA vice president for enforcement services David] Price also said that most times the committee met, it heard casesâ†µâ‡¥from several universities, and this one was dedicated to U.S.C. Inâ†µâ‡¥contrast, Alabama’s case before the N.C.A.A. in 2002, which resulted inâ†µâ‡¥five years of probation, a two-year postseason ban and cripplingâ†µâ‡¥scholarship reductions, took two days.â†µâ‡¥

â†µâ†µâ†µThat evidence is circumstantial in the extreme, but it’s all we’veâ†µgot until spring.â†µ

â†µ

This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.

See More: