retroactively ineligible?

[Sonny]

Say it ain't so Reggie!

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt ... &type=lgns

Audio recordings that allegedly establish an improper financial relationship between former USC running back Reggie Bush and a would-be sports marketing agent were played for NCAA investigators this week, sources told Yahoo! Sports.

Lloyd Lake, a partner in failed sports marketing agency New Era Sports & Entertainment, played "portions" of the recorded conversations for the NCAA, which is investigating claims that Bush and his family received cash and benefits during the running back's USC playing days in 2004 and 2005. Lake has filed a lawsuit against Bush and his family, seeking to recoup nearly $300,000 in benefits Lake claims he helped provide.

The allegations against Bush, who now plays for the New Orleans Saints in the NFL, could bring NCAA sanctions against USC. Penalties could include forfeiture of victories in 2004 and 2005. The fate of the 2004 national championship would be in the hands of the Bowl Championship Series committee. The NCAA could rule Bush retroactively ineligible, leaving the Heisman Trust to determine Bush's eligibility for the award.

[Dan Wishengrad]

There is a great irony here: If Bush had gone ahead and signed to have Lake represent him as a Pro, this likely would have either never come to light, or would at least not be so damning to Reggie and to USC now.

But Bush apprently let the guy pay for all sorts of goodies including the house his family lived in, with a handshake agreement that Lake would re-coup this illegal "payola" (by NCAA rules, anyway) later. But then Reggie chose to have a different agent represent him instead when it came time for the quid-pro-quo payback. No wonder Lake is so willing to expose the whole thing now!

The Moral: Dont bite the hand that feeds you!

[Ryan Hanavan]

Is this really going to hurt Bush though?

So maybe he gives back the Heisman and possibly a championship ring (I bet he still gets to keep that though). He can still say he won them both because taking money wasn't really performance enhancing unless a psychologist can prove me wrong. He will continue to cash his NFL checks and live happily ever after.

It's the program that suffers and it sounds like this was all RB and USC was not involved. If they were then the punishment might fit the crime but for now I just don't see it.

[OAKS]

So maybe he gives back the Heisman and possibly a championship ring (I bet he still gets to keep that though).

They're going to have to change the billboard:

[TheBearcatHimself]

Shouldn't they already have to change the billboard to reflect USC's half share of the 2003 title?

[FLAK]

Shouldn't they already have to change the billboard to reflect USC's half share of the 2003 title?

Those are the BCS National Champions, they don't give out crystal footballs to a team that the AP voters chose


It doesn't matter if USC was involved or not, they should've been keeping tabs on their star players (EVERYONE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO THE SHOW) to make sure they didnt get tied up in these types of business dealings.

[LaxRef]

It seems simple to me: you cheat, you forfeit. It sucks for the players on the team who didn't cheat, but one of the reasons they won was that they had a cheater on the team.

It reminds me of the woman from the 4x100m relay team that stands to lose her medal because Marion Jones is a doper. She said something like, "Why should I lose my medal when I didn't cheat?" The answer is that maybe the only reason you won is that you had a doper running on your team.

Taking it to an extreme, suppose you were the only person of the four that didn't dope, and your team won the gold by 0.01 seconds. Do you really think you'd have won if none of the other people on your team had doped?

[sohotrightnow]

Nothing would bring me greater pleasure than to see the demise of USC. Their football team is almost as classless as their student body.

Suge Knight was on their sidelines last week. Way to set an example Petey-Poo. Who is going to be there next week? Charles Manson?

[KnoxVegas]

I have two words for Reggie Bush: Joe Jurevicius. At least he had the sense to sign early and screw his team for one game.

[Dan Wishengrad]

It seems simple to me: you cheat, you forfeit. It sucks for the players on the team who didn't cheat, but one of the reasons they won was that they had a cheater on the team.

It reminds me of the woman from the 4x100m relay team that stands to lose her medal because Marion Jones is a doper. She said something like, "Why should I lose my medal when I didn't cheat?" The answer is that maybe the only reason you won is that you had a doper running on your team.

Taking it to an extreme, suppose you were the only person of the four that didn't dope, and your team won the gold by 0.01 seconds. Do you really think you'd have won if none of the other people on your team had doped?

What Bush did was clearly wrong, but is it really cheating? Yeah, he knowingly violated NCAA rules. But this is not the same as taking performance-enhancing drugs to gain an unfair competitive advantage, or videotaping opposing coaches to steal play calls, or doctoring up a baseball with vaseline, or not starting a game clock to allow a basketball team enough time to score a winning basket, or two jockeys colluding to box in another horse on the rail, etc. etc. etc.

I am not justifying the behavior or condoning it by any means, just saying that I think calling it "cheating" is a bit of a stretch. Nothing Reggie or the USC team did on the field in '05 rises to the level of "cheating" in my book, anyway. I believe (personal opinion only, folks) that the NCAA is wrong to have all these ridiculous rules that allow universities to make milllions and millions of dollars off of "amateur" athletes, who then aren't even allowed to have enough pocket money (if they come from non-affluent backgrounds) to take a girl out on a date on Saturday night after the game.

Just my two cents, as always...

[LaxRef]

It seems simple to me: you cheat, you forfeit. It sucks for the players on the team who didn't cheat, but one of the reasons they won was that they had a cheater on the team.

It reminds me of the woman from the 4x100m relay team that stands to lose her medal because Marion Jones is a doper. She said something like, "Why should I lose my medal when I didn't cheat?" The answer is that maybe the only reason you won is that you had a doper running on your team.

Taking it to an extreme, suppose you were the only person of the four that didn't dope, and your team won the gold by 0.01 seconds. Do you really think you'd have won if none of the other people on your team had doped?

What Bush did was clearly wrong, but is it really cheating? Yeah, he knowingly violated NCAA rules. But this is not the same as taking performance-enhancing drugs to gain an unfair competitive advantage, or videotaping opposing coaches to steal play calls, or doctoring up a baseball with vaseline, or not starting a game clock to allow a basketball team enough time to score a winning basket, or two jockeys colluding to box in another horse on the rail, etc. etc. etc.

I am not justifying the behavior or condoning it by any means, just saying that I think calling it "cheating" is a bit of a stretch. Nothing Reggie or the USC team did on the field in '05 rises to the level of "cheating" in my book, anyway. I believe (personal opinion only, folks) that the NCAA is wrong to have all these ridiculous rules that allow universities to make milllions and millions of dollars off of "amateur" athletes, who then aren't even allowed to have enough pocket money (if they come from non-affluent backgrounds) to take a girl out on a date on Saturday night after the game.

Just my two cents, as always...

First off, I don't like the NCAA model either. But it is what it is, and just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean they don't apply.

Second, being in a situation where some teams can attract players because they pay them under the table while the teams that don't pay their players illegally can't attract the same talent level is clearly cheating. In this case, it's a gray area, since it doesn't appear to me that the pay was linked to him being recruited to play at USC. But if the rules say that makes him ineligible and costs USC victories, so be it.

If it's a bad rule, change it. But if it's the rule, it's the rule until it's changed.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I agree with everything you have said, LaxRef. This is a different situation than, say, paying an athlete to attend a school and play for your team, or arranging a proxy to take all his tests so he can just play and party.

But as I implied above, it's gotta be tough for a kid (and these are all basically "kids" after all, no matter how big they are) like Reggie who has to see his Mom not be able to even afford a decent life while his own teammates like Matt Leinart are out on the town dating supermodels and Hollywood's A-List hotties.

If someone offers to break the rules to give you and yours a better life, I know I won't sit in judgement about what I do would do myself until I walked a mile myself in that kid's shoes. And now, of course, he can legitmately earn his millions and take care of his family, which he tried to do while still at USC -- right or wrong. Too bad the whole program may the price for Bush's decisions.

[LaxRef]

If someone offers to break the rules to give you and yours a better life, I know I won't sit in judgement about what I do would do myself until I walked a mile myself in that kid's shoes. And now, of course, he can legitmately earn his millions and take care of his family, which he tried to do while still at USC -- right or wrong. Too bad the whole program may the price for Bush's decisions.

Well, I feel sorry for his teammates. But as others have said, if he'd just honored his agreement to sign with this agent, or maybe even if he'd paid back what he took under false pretenses, then he likely wouldn't be in this position. I don't feel sorry for him at all.

[JW]

Regardless of what happens to the University, i think it is pretty ridiculous for the Agent to think that he is going to recieve reinbursement for the finances that he ILEGALLY provided.

Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

[LaxRef]

Regardless of what happens to the University, i think it is pretty ridiculous for the Agent to think that he is going to recieve reinbursement for the finances that he ILEGALLY provided.

Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

Well, are they illegally provided? If Reggie Bush agreed to representation and accepted cash, he violated NCAA rules, but that doesn't mean that laws were broken. Well, maybe fraud or something on Bush's part.

But the agent probably has no legal responsibility to obey NCAA rules.