Bush vs. Dez -- "Red Flag"!?!

[windjc]

Just curious. What's the bigger "Red Flag"?

A. Lieing to the NCAA about having a legal meeting with Deon Sanders and then admitting that you lied and made a mistake.

B. Lieing to the NCAA about having received substantial payments from boosters and a house that you family lived in for 3 years from a potential agent while you played at USC. Then, continuing to deny all of this while your school gets a multi-year probation and post-season suspension.

I mean, since Dez is such a "risk" and all, what is the bigger "red flag"?

Hmmm, with all of Bush's endorsements and superbowl ring, maybe its better just to continue to lie than tell the truth.

 

[Doomsday101]

Just curious. What's the bigger "Red Flag"?

A. Lieing to the NCAA about having a legal meeting with Deon Sanders and then admitting that you lied and made a mistake.

B. Lieing to the NCAA about having received substantial payments from boosters and a house that you family lived in for 3 years from a potential agent while you played at USC. Then, continuing to deny all of this while your school gets a multi-year probation and post-season suspension.

I mean, since Dez is such a "risk" and all, what is the bigger "red flag"?

Hmmm, with all of Bush's endorsements and superbowl ring, maybe its better just to continue to lie than tell the truth.

I don't consider problems with the NCAA over their rules as a red flag matter to begin with. If your problem is with the police and breaking the law then that is what I call a red flag.

 

[DallasEast]

Just curious. What's the bigger "Red Flag"?

A. Lieing to the NCAA about having a legal meeting with Deon Sanders and then admitting that you lied and made a mistake.

B. Lieing to the NCAA about having received substantial payments from boosters and a house that you family lived in for 3 years from a potential agent while you played at USC. Then, continuing to deny all of this while your school gets a multi-year probation and post-season suspension.

I mean, since Dez is such a "risk" and all, what is the bigger "red flag"?

Hmmm, with all of Bush's endorsements and superbowl ring, maybe its better just to continue to lie than tell the truth.

The answer is 'B'. And the fundamental difference between both of your examples is as large as the Pacific is wide.

 

[Dcowboy84]

honestly i think being punished for either one is stupid.

i know it sounds bad, but i think the NCAA rules are ridiculous, and their punishments are even more ridiculous.

 

[Modus]

Just curious. What's the bigger "Red Flag"?

A. Lieing to the NCAA about having a legal meeting with Deon Sanders and then admitting that you lied and made a mistake.

B. Lieing to the NCAA about having received substantial payments from boosters and a house that you family lived in for 3 years from a potential agent while you played at USC. Then, continuing to deny all of this while your school gets a multi-year probation and post-season suspension.

I mean, since Dez is such a "risk" and all, what is the bigger "red flag"?

Hmmm, with all of Bush's endorsements and superbowl ring, maybe its better just to continue to lie than tell the truth.

A) If I recall correctly, the guidelines for student interactions with current or former atheletes/agents is prohibited due to the potential of tampering or the agents giving them preferential treatment as part of a marketing campaign.

I don't know for sure if that's what it is but that's as logically sound as the NCAA interpretation of the bylaw. It makes a lot of sense due to the NCAA's assertion of academic excellence as well as profiency on the field of play.

But, lying about it... man, that's just crazy dumb. Honesty gets rewarded even if it's just a minor sanction. Bryant's lying showed a premeditated attempt to cover up his wrong doing. A bit much? Maybe. Did he deserve it? Yes, because it wasn't a big deal and by compounding the crime he compounded the consequences for them.

B) Accepting perks from agents is a direct violation of NCAA guidelines. Players are supposed to be monitored by their coaches and atheletic directors and if they missed it/knowingly overlooked it makes the situation worse. It either demonstrates a lapse of judgment and supervision or a willingness to overlook major infraction to support their run at a BCS Title.


As for the bigger red flag, I think that Bush's actions deserved the harshest consequences. Cover-up or no, one person is not above the team no matter how talented he is or what he brings to the table.

Dez Bryant was just acting like an idiot because he didn't want to get in trouble. He took his punishment in stride by making the adult decision to accept them and make the best of his opportunity. Bush took his former team through a dirt ditch because he can't admit he made a mistake.

NCAA sanctions aren't really a big deal on a professional level because they impact a team more often than an individual. However, you can't just dismiss them as they can potentially lead to other off-the-field issues.

 

[locked&loaded]

who is Deon?

 

[casmith07]

who is Deon?

And what is lieing?

 

[monkey]

A) If I recall correctly, the guidelines for student interactions with current or former atheletes/agents is prohibited due to the potential of tampering or the agents giving them preferential treatment as part of a marketing campaign.
......
But, lying about it... man, that's just crazy dumb. Honesty gets rewarded even if it's just a minor sanction. Bryant's lying showed a premeditated attempt to cover up his wrong doing.

I don't think there are any restrictions on meeting with former athletes, only with agents. Therefore there was no wrongdoing on Dez's part to cover-up when he met with Deion, it only became a violation when he lied to the investigators about meeting with him.

It was clearly a mistake to lie to the investigators, but I can imagine when he starts getting grilled about it, he starts second guessing if what he did was wrong and taking the easy way out.

As far as the OP, Dez's actions were light years away from Bush, who clearly knew he was breaking the rules on a regular basis.

 

[tyke1doe]

The answer is 'B'. And the fundamental difference between both of your examples is as large as the Pacific is wide.

I agree.

Dez simply panicked. Who hasn't panicked and lied about something trivial because you thought it might get you in more trouble than you thought.

It wasn't wrong for Dez to have lunch with Deion. If so, I think it was silly to punish him the entire season for lying about an offense that's not against the NCAA. Let him sit for one game, but not the whole season.

But that did lead him to the Cowboys so I can't be too mad.

On the other hand, taking money from boosters IS against NCAA rules. And then to get your entire team punished for your actions, Bush by a country and city mile.

 

[tyke1doe]

honestly i think being punished for either one is stupid.

i know it sounds bad, but i think the NCAA rules are ridiculous, and their punishments are even more ridiculous.

But they're rules.

A isn't a violation of NCAA rules.
B is a violation of NCAA rules.

 

[DallasEast]

But they're rules.

A isn't a violation of NCAA rules.
B is a violation of NCAA rules.

windjc proposed:

A. Lieing to the NCAA about having a legal meeting with Deon Sanders and then admitting that you lied and made a mistake.

According to the NCAA, Dez Bryant's response that he did not meet with Deion Sanders is a violation of Bylaw, Article 10.1, subsection (d), which reads:

Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01)

(d) Knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning the individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation.

Oklahoma State was proactive in minimizing any retaliatory action expected from the NCAA by suspending Bryant for the remainder of the 2009 season for that very reason (e.g. the rule itself). If they had not done so, I suspect that the NCAA would have investigated even further and possibly imposed sanctions upon OSU per their Use Of Agents General Rule 12.3.1, which states:

An individual shall be ineligible for participation in an intercollegiate sport if he or she ever has agreed (orally or in writing) to be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation in that sport. Further, an agency contract not specifically limited in writing to a sport or particular sports shall be deemed applicable to all sports, and the individual shall be ineligible to participate in any sport.

My guess is that the NCAA was wary of any tangible connection between Sanders' Prime U organization, which provides preparation for players desiring to enter the NFL. His position as such could be interpreted as being an agent.​

Sanders maintained that his meeting was part of his already established mentoring arrangement with Bryant. In the end, it doesn't matter what he or Bryant did or did not do. In my opinion, the NCAA would have concluded that no meeting of any kind should have taken place and passed judgment at OSU's expense.

***

RE: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D110.pdf​

 

[Alexander]

I do not understand why anyone cares anymore about what Dez Bryant did at Oklahoma State. Nor do I understand why anyone would care if Reggie Bush looks worse or not.

You would think by this point, we would have all got over the persecution complex with Bryant and moved on. I guess not.

He has done enough as a Dallas Cowboy to alleviate what few concerns I had to begin with. That is all I care about.

 

[DallasEast]

I do not understand why anyone cares anymore about what Dez Bryant did at Oklahoma State. Nor do I understand why anyone would care if Reggie Bush looks worse or not.

You would think by this point, we would have all got over the persecution complex with Bryant and moved on. I guess not.

He has done enough as a Dallas Cowboy to alleviate what few concerns I had to begin with. That is all I care about.

So, it's safe to say that the OP should've added:

C. Who cares?

:cunning:

 

[windjc]

I do not understand why anyone cares anymore about what Dez Bryant did at Oklahoma State. Nor do I understand why anyone would care if Reggie Bush looks worse or not.

You would think by this point, we would have all got over the persecution complex with Bryant and moved on. I guess not.

He has done enough as a Dallas Cowboy to alleviate what few concerns I had to begin with. That is all I care about.

You care enough to respond to this thread.

Anyway, the "OP" was really asking a rhetorical question. I find it interesting that the media still talks about Dez's "red flags" - in fact Sham had an article about it just 2 days ago, while Bush's illegalities are hardly ever mentioned.

There is an amazing double standard here. Dez has been compared with all kind of examples where players have broken the law, had character issues, etc. but really that is all apples to oranges.

I thought I would compare apples to apples to show the absurdity of it all.

 

[Jarv]

All I know that if Dez wasn't suspended, he would have gotten a gazillion yards and TD's last year and there is no way he would be a Cowboy now. Thanks Mr. Sanders.

 

[THUMPER]

On the other hand, taking money from boosters IS against NCAA rules. And then to get your entire team punished for your actions, Bush by a country and city mile.

If I recall correctly, the facts of the Bush situation are that he personally did not receive anything from a booster or agent, it was given to his father. There are no rules about someone giving something to a family member but the issue is that Bush DID benefit from the "gifts" by living in the house that was being provided for his parents.

If it had been a clear-cut case of Bush receiving money directly from a booster or agent then the NCAA would have come down immediately but it has taken a few years to fry to iron out if an actual infraction/violation occurred and if so to what degree.

IMO colleges are hypocritical anyway in that they make millions of dollars from athletes like Bush yet play the righteous ones when it comes to them getting anything out of playing. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Alexander]

Anyway, the "OP" was really asking a rhetorical question. I find it interesting that the media still talks about Dez's "red flags" - in fact Sham had an article about it just 2 days ago, while Bush's illegalities are hardly ever mentioned.

That's basically my question. Who cares?

Are we that insecure about Bryant that these questions still should bother us? Or is this all about how "the media just hates the Cowboys and is out to get them" thing? If so, carry on.

 

[windjc]

That's basically my question. Who cares?

Are we that insecure about Bryant that these questions still should bother us? Or is this all about how "the media just hates the Cowboys and is out to get them" thing? If so, carry on.

I think its how the media treats a young player unfairly. The punishment and harassment does not fit the crime. I don't think its because he is a Cowboy - although I suppose anything Cowboy related does get a little more media attention.

So I am not personally insecure about it nor do I care if Dallas is blistered in the media.

I do think that there needs to be some form of accountability of how young players are treated in the media and also to what level the media lets other players slide because of their charismatic personalities.

 

[dropshot001]

neither is that bad. i guess if you just stacked up the lies, bush lied more so he was "worse", but it's like like they're getting repeatedly busted for drugs or dui's or things like that.

 

[Alexander]

I do think that there needs to be some form of accountability of how young players are treated in the media and also to what level the media lets other players slide because of their charismatic personalities.

How would you propose the media be punished?