Reggie Bush ineligible For Heisman?

burmafrd

Well-Known Member
Messages
43,820
Reaction score
3,379
I guess now we maybe cannot call White the dumbest USC RB around right now.
If Bush does get ruled retroactively ineligible, then the Downtown Athletic Club- NOT the NCAA- has the responsibility of deciding whether or not to pull the trophy. Probably they will.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,710
Reaction score
96,625
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
DBoys said:
Whatever man he only won Texas the Championship on USC's turf :rolleyes:.

Please tell me when Bush had a performance in a Championship game that compares to the game Vince had in the Rose Bowl?


Bush's game had to do with Texas' DEFENSE. Vince Young WAS NOT making the tackles on Bush.

TEXAS won the NCAA, not VY.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
jazzcat22 said:
Bush's game had to do with Texas' DEFENSE. Vince Young WAS NOT making the tackles on Bush.

TEXAS won the NCAA, not VY.

This is about as far from the truth as one can get IMO. I agree that Texas' defense did a fine job against Bush but without Vince Young, Texas doesn't win that game. Not really any other way to say it IMO.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,710
Reaction score
96,625
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
ABQCOWBOY said:
This is about as far from the truth as one can get IMO. I agree that Texas' defense did a fine job against Bush but without Vince Young, Texas doesn't win that game. Not really any other way to say it IMO.

I agree to a certain point. It is a team game, and VY had more to do with this than anyone. I was just pointing out that the defense did a great job, and they way I read the post. It was VY out making every play of the game.

I'm glad UT won, but I'm not going to think VY is a god because of it. There was 10 other Offensive players out blocking , running their routes and so forth to help.
 

Avery

The Dog that Saved Charleston
Messages
19,465
Reaction score
20,518
College athletes should never get paid. Going to school for free is a sweet deal. Receiving stipends towards rent, food, etc. isn't bad either.

That aside, what do they really have to pay off? Personal stuff like car loans, cell phone bills, etc.; essentially, stuff that they decide they want to purchase.

Don't think for a second that athletes aren't getting benefits; even getting a free meal or drink at a bar from a booster is against sanctions yet it happens all the time.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
jazzcat22 said:
I agree to a certain point. It is a team game, and VY had more to do with this than anyone. I was just pointing out that the defense did a great job, and they way I read the post. It was VY out making every play of the game.

I'm glad UT won, but I'm not going to think VY is a god because of it. There was 10 other Offensive players out blocking , running their routes and so forth to help.

Fair points all. I can not disagree. Having said that, I do share in the opinion that VY was the best player in college football last year. I recall the season as it went along and up to the Fresno State Game, Vince Young was going to win the Heisman. After that Fresno game, everybody was on Bush and that was pretty much the end of any chance for Young. The problem there was that when it really counted, Vince Young pretty much made it clear who was the best player on the field. At least, that's what I saw in my mind. Interestingly enough, my father inlaw is a huge USC fan and we watched the NC game together. After that game, he came away with the same impression. His words to me were, "I had no idea Vince Young was that good a football player." I do believe that had the voting took place after that game, Young would be the Heisman Trophy winner. No matter really. What will happen will happen and Bush will alway be the guy who carried the trophy off the stage. It's pretty much a done deal regardless of what happens from here on out IMO.
 

trickblue

Not Old School...Old Testament...
Messages
31,439
Reaction score
3,961
Dan Patrick just had College Football expert Joe Shad on...

Shad said that at this very moment the Heisman committee is convening to investigate the matter.

He went on further to say that the Hesman voting ballot specifically states that all nominees must be in strict compliance with NCAA rules.

The agent that bought the house for Bush's family did not get his contract and it is suspected he may have leaked the deal indirectly...
 

peplaw06

That Guy
Messages
13,699
Reaction score
413
Rack said:
They are given a free education. That's more then enough payment.



I guess KNOWLEDGE just isn't worth much these days?

Well, most of the athletes rarely go to class. They don't really care about the education. Especially if there's a possibility of tons of money through professional sports.
 

LeonDixson

Illegitimi non carborundum
Messages
12,299
Reaction score
6,808
It isn't clear to me exactly what his infraction would be if I understand the situation correctly. He did not receive anything from a USC supporter per se. His family may have received free housing from this guy who speculated that Bush would sign with his promotional company. That didn't happen. He signed with someone else. There is no violation of representation since he clearly didn't have an agent. Would the infraction be that he (or his family) received gifts for playing at USC?

Help me out here by explaining what the NCAA violation would be. I'm not saying there isn't one, just saying I don't understand what it was if there was one.

And for all you Vince Young for the Heisman supporters, a legitimate argument can be made for either Bush or Young winning the Heisman. But to argue that Bush didn't have a Heisman type season is nuts. IMHO they both had that kind of a season. The vote went Bush's way. Get over it. If Bush gets retroactively disqualified and Young gets the honor, so be it. He is deserving. But please don't rag on Bush or his career and last season's performance. That was Heisman caliber all the way.
 

JonCJG

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
162
POSTED 1:53 p.m. EDT, April 24, 2006

HEISMAN TRUST LOOKING AT STRIPPING TROPHY?

Though we can't yet find anything about this on the 'Net, the Heisman Trophy Trust is looking at the situation involving 2005 award winner Reggie Bush, and the highest honor on the NCAA totem pole could ultimately be stripped.

In a Monday appearance on The Dan Patrick Show, Joe Schad of ESPN.com reports that the Heisman committee is meeting to discuss what could or should happen. Schad says that the Heisman ballot specifically says that the winner must be in complete compliance with all relevant NCAA bylaws.

Schad also told Patrick that attorney David Cornwell says that the Bush family will "cooperate fully" with any Pac-10 or NCAA investigation.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
77,964
Reaction score
41,095
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
LeonDixson said:
It isn't clear to me exactly what his infraction would be if I understand the situation correctly. He did not receive anything from a USC supporter per se. His family may have received free housing from this guy who speculated that Bush would sign with his promotional company. That didn't happen. He signed with someone else. There is no violation of representation since he clearly didn't have an agent. Would the infraction be that he (or his family) received gifts for playing at USC?

Help me out here by explaining what the NCAA violation would be. I'm not saying there isn't one, just saying I don't understand what it was if there was one.

And for all you Vince Young for the Heisman supporters, a legitimate argument can be made for either Bush or Young winning the Heisman. But to argue that Bush didn't have a Heisman type season is nuts. IMHO they both had that kind of a season. The vote went Bush's way. Get over it. If Bush gets retroactively disqualified and Young gets the honor, so be it. He is deserving. But please don't rag on Bush or his career and last season's performance. That was Heisman caliber all the way.


I may be completely off base here so read it with a grain of salt.

However if an agent gave money/favors of value to Bush or his Family while he was currently playing at USC.

Then that would make it inelidgible for Bush to play this past season, because once you get money or favors of monetary value (the house for the family) then you are no longer considered ok to play in college.

I am not sure if that was the case or if the university knew anything about it.

But as they say in law sometimes, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 

peplaw06

That Guy
Messages
13,699
Reaction score
413
LeonDixson said:
It isn't clear to me exactly what his infraction would be if I understand the situation correctly. He did not receive anything from a USC supporter per se. His family may have received free housing from this guy who speculated that Bush would sign with his promotional company. That didn't happen. He signed with someone else. There is no violation of representation since he clearly didn't have an agent. Would the infraction be that he (or his family) received gifts for playing at USC?

Help me out here by explaining what the NCAA violation would be. I'm not saying there isn't one, just saying I don't understand what it was if there was one.
While I don't know the specifics, it is pretty clear that his family living in a house free of charge simply because he was one of the top college players, and stood to be a top draft pick is a violation of his amateur status. It doesn't have to be from alumni, boosters, or with the school's knowledge. If he's receiving "payment" for his abilities, he's not an technically an "amateur."

Think of the Jeremy Bloom situation. He was receiving endorsements for skiing, yet the NCAA ruled him ineligible to play football.
 

LeonDixson

Illegitimi non carborundum
Messages
12,299
Reaction score
6,808
Thanks BP. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that the player had to have enllisted an agent for that part of the rule to be in effect. He clearly did not because he signed with a completely different agent and promotional firm. The company formed by the guy who provided the housing is on the verge of bankruptcy because he was totally dependent upon Bush signing with him. I guess all "contact" with agents is forbidden?

Regarding the "gift" itself, do you know whether it matters who the gift comes from?
 

LeonDixson

Illegitimi non carborundum
Messages
12,299
Reaction score
6,808
peplaw06 said:
While I don't know the specifics, it is pretty clear that his family living in a house free of charge simply because he was one of the top college players, and stood to be a top draft pick is a violation of his amateur status. It doesn't have to be from alumni, boosters, or with the school's knowledge. If he's receiving "payment" for his abilities, he's not an technically an "amateur."

Think of the Jeremy Bloom situation. He was receiving endorsements for skiing, yet the NCAA ruled him ineligible to play football.

Thanks peplaw06. That answers one of my questions.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Mike Smith aka Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
77,964
Reaction score
41,095
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
LeonDixson said:
Thanks BP. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that the player had to have enllisted an agent for that part of the rule to be in effect. He clearly did not because he signed with a completely different agent and promotional firm. The company formed by the guy who provided the housing is on the verge of bankruptcy because he was totally dependent upon Bush signing with him. I guess all "contact" with agents is forbidden?

Regarding the "gift" itself, do you know whether it matters who the gift comes from?


I don't think it matters where it comes from.

I don't even think they can do shoe or sports clothes ads while in college.

Also it seems like there are some stories going around that some kids are trying to get agents to pony up money or favors before they even agree to meet with them let alone sign with them.

Also a player, to my knowledge, is not allowed to sign with an agent until his season is over and he has decided to go into the draft. I think once he signs he is no longer allowed to play in college ala Mike Williams WR USC a couple years back.
 

DBoys

New Member
Messages
4,713
Reaction score
0
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2419079

USC asks Pac-10 to eye Bush family, house reportESPN.com news services

LOS ANGELES -- The Pac-10 said Sunday it will investigate the reported connection between a home where Reggie Bush's family lived and a man who sought to market the Southern California star tailback.
Bush's family allegedly lived in the house in Spring Valley, Calif., owned by a man who had sought to handle the star tailback's professional marketing while Bush was still playing for USC, Yahoo.com reported Sunday.
Could Bush lose his Heisman?

The director of the Heisman Trophy Trust told ESPN's Joe Schad on Monday that he will reach out to board members to determine the potential ramifications of an investigation involving 2005 winner Reggie Bush.
"We're doing some soul searching ourselves right now," Rob Whalen said. "To the best of my knowledge no one has ever had a Heisman Trophy revoked."
Whalen said he's already begun to receive e-mails from Texas fans who believe runner up Vince Young should now receive the trophy.

"Clearly that's premature," Whalen said. "Let's see what happens and how this plays out."

The official Heisman ballot includes this wording: "In order that there will be no misunderstanding regarding the eligibility of a candidate, the recepient of the award MUST be a bonafide student of an accredited university. The recepient must be in compliance with the bylaws defining an NCAA student."
• Schad on Reggie Bush situation

The Web site reported that the family moved out of the house this weekend after questions over its ownership arose. Reporters from several news organizations visited the house on Thursday.

On Monday, David Cornwell, the attorney who represents Reggie Bush's family, told ESPN's Joe Schad that Reggie Bush had no knowledge of the "lease" agreement between his parents and San Diego businessman Michael Michaels, who owned the home the Bush family lived in.

"At this point, I'm not going to get into the particulars of the transactions between the family and Mr. Michaels," Cornwell said. "It is inapppropriate to presume that the Griffins did anything wrong."
Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner, chose to turn pro after his junior season with USC. He is expected to be the No. 1 pick in Saturday's NFL draft.

"Rather than jumping to conclusions, we need to determine the facts before commenting on this report,'' USC athletic director Mike Garrett said in a statement on Sunday. "We have asked the Pac-10 to look into this.''

Pac-10 spokesman Jim Muldoon confirmed to The Associated Press that an investigation will be held at the school's request, but had no further details.
Cornwell said Bush's parents will "cooperate fully" with any inquiry from the

Pac-10 or NCAA. Cornwell also suggested there is a logical explanation for the arrangement.

Members of Bush's camp are also expected to argue that the NCAA rules legislating "extra benefits" are not applicable in this case, because Michaels was not involved in the marketing of Bush.

At issue is the San Diego-area home's connection with Michaels, who reportedly attempted to steer Bush toward signing with San Diego agent David Caravantes, and sought to handle Bush's marketing with a new firm he had founded.

"They were trying to get me in front of [Bush] during the interview process, which I was never a part of," Caravantes said in an interview published in the
San Diego Union-Tribune. "They didn't try to recruit him for me. They thought it would be a good idea to have everything in San Diego. I think their concept was that they were going to deal with marketing, and they [needed] an agent ...

"If things worked out, we were going to try to put something together [to become business partners]. But everything was in waiting to see if they landed [Bush] to do the marketing. Nothing came of it."

State records showed construction was completed on the home in early 2005 and Michaels purchased it for $757,500 in late March, Yahoo reported.
Neighbors told Yahoo that Bush's mother Denise Griffin, stepfather LaMar Griffin and brother Jovan Griffin moved into the home shortly after that.
NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes and their families from receiving extra benefits from agents or their representatives. It can be a violation even if Bush had no knowledge of the transaction.

The Union-Tribune said it is unclear what rent Bush's mother and stepfather paid during their time in the house. If it is less than market value, the NCAA could consider that a violation, the newspaper said.

Bush eventually signed with a different agent and marketing firm.
"This time of year, falsely or unfalsely, this is the stuff that comes up," Mike Ornstein, one of Bush's current representatives, told the Union-Tribune. "It's a bunch of BS."

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report
 

JonCJG

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,175
Reaction score
162
USC UNLIKELY TO FORFEIT GAMES

Joe Schad of ESPN.com reports that the NCAA is not likely to strip the USC Trojans of any victories earned, even if it's proven that tailback Reggie Bush was ineligible for all or part of the 2005 season.

"ecause it was not an 'institutional violation' and USC received no competitive advantage, it is not likely that the school would have to vacate victories," Schad reports, citing an unnamed source. Schad also says that it is unlikely that the school will lose scholarships or future bowl games.

Because Bush has left USC, any punishment likely would involve the vacating of records that he set, according to Schad. But then there's also that little thing known as the Heisman Trophy, which Schad reports could ultimately be taken from Reggie.

Lawyer David Cornwell wisely is clamming up about the situation, since in our view nothing good can come out of this situation between now and the draft on Saturday.

"At this point, I'm not going to get into the particulars of the transactions between the family and Mr. Michaels," Cornwell told Schad. "It is inappropriate to presume that the Griffins did anything wrong."

Schad also explains that the Bush camp is "expected to argue that the NCAA rules legislating 'extra benefits' are not applicable in this case, because Michael Michaels [who owned the house in which Bush's family lived] was not involved in the marketing of Bush."

That's a weak argument, in our opinion. The reality is that Michaels apparently wanted to handle the marketing of Bush, and that in an apparent effort to get his foot in the door, he gave them the keys to the whole place. The fact that Bush went with someone else shouldn't matter.

Any other rule would permit the families of high-profile student-athletes to pocket money and other benefits from prospective agents without consequence, as long as the student-athlete eventually hires someone else.

And the biggest red flag, in our opinion, remains the fact that the Griffins high-tailed it out of the house within 24 hours after reporters started asking questions. Absent evidence that they already had lined up a move, and that the timing of the arrival of the reporters was thus coincidental, we think that the abrupt vacancy cries out that they knew they were getting benefits that they should not have gotten.

The deeper question is whether anyone else knew, specifically from the USC football program. Although Schad's report paints a rosy outlook for the Trojans, it's our understanding that the program can be in hot water if it "knew or should have known" about any irregular living arrangements. The key here is the "should have known" standard. If, in the end, the evidence is that the Griffins blatantly were living in a house owned by someone else, the program arguably should have asked a few questions.

We're not suggesting that every D-I program has an obligation to babysit all of its football players and their families. But as to the handful, at most, of guys who are likely to be wooed each year by potentially unscrupulous characters, we think that each school has a duty to keep tabs on the high-end prospects, and their families.

One reader suggested that, if push comes to shove, the Trojans will pull the Sgt. Schulz routine and hope for the best. But playing dumb might not be good enough, especially if the evidence ultimately shows that plenty of people in and around the program knew what was going on.
 

Da Hammer

The Natural
Messages
10,604
Reaction score
1
BigDFan5 said:
Young was not the best player last year, and he damn sure wasnt best by a long shot lol
Yeah I mean Bush and Leinart clearly proved to be better players by in the Championship playing such a great game and leading their team to be the NCAA BCS champs, oh wait... that was Vince Young who was the first player in NCAA Division 1 Football to both pass for 3,000 yards and rush for 1,000 yards
 

BigWillie

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,355
Reaction score
1,081
123456 said:
USC UNLIKELY TO FORFEIT GAMES

Joe Schad of ESPN.com reports that the NCAA is not likely to strip the USC Trojans of any victories earned, even if it's proven that tailback Reggie Bush was ineligible for all or part of the 2005 season.

"Because it was not an 'institutional violation' and USC received no competitive advantage, it is not likely that the school would have to vacate victories," Schad reports, citing an unnamed source. Schad also says that it is unlikely that the school will lose scholarships or future bowl games.


Because Bush has left USC, any punishment likely would involve the vacating of records that he set, according to Schad. But then there's also that little thing known as the Heisman Trophy, which Schad reports could ultimately be taken from Reggie.

Lawyer David Cornwell wisely is clamming up about the situation, since in our view nothing good can come out of this situation between now and the draft on Saturday.

"At this point, I'm not going to get into the particulars of the transactions between the family and Mr. Michaels," Cornwell told Schad. "It is inappropriate to presume that the Griffins did anything wrong."

Schad also explains that the Bush camp is "expected to argue that the NCAA rules legislating 'extra benefits' are not applicable in this case, because Michael Michaels [who owned the house in which Bush's family lived] was not involved in the marketing of Bush."

That's a weak argument, in our opinion. The reality is that Michaels apparently wanted to handle the marketing of Bush, and that in an apparent effort to get his foot in the door, he gave them the keys to the whole place. The fact that Bush went with someone else shouldn't matter.

Any other rule would permit the families of high-profile student-athletes to pocket money and other benefits from prospective agents without consequence, as long as the student-athlete eventually hires someone else.

And the biggest red flag, in our opinion, remains the fact that the Griffins high-tailed it out of the house within 24 hours after reporters started asking questions. Absent evidence that they already had lined up a move, and that the timing of the arrival of the reporters was thus coincidental, we think that the abrupt vacancy cries out that they knew they were getting benefits that they should not have gotten.

The deeper question is whether anyone else knew, specifically from the USC football program. Although Schad's report paints a rosy outlook for the Trojans, it's our understanding that the program can be in hot water if it "knew or should have known" about any irregular living arrangements. The key here is the "should have known" standard. If, in the end, the evidence is that the Griffins blatantly were living in a house owned by someone else, the program arguably should have asked a few questions.

We're not suggesting that every D-I program has an obligation to babysit all of its football players and their families. But as to the handful, at most, of guys who are likely to be wooed each year by potentially unscrupulous characters, we think that each school has a duty to keep tabs on the high-end prospects, and their families.

One reader suggested that, if push comes to shove, the Trojans will pull the Sgt. Schulz routine and hope for the best. But playing dumb might not be good enough, especially if the evidence ultimately shows that plenty of people in and around the program knew what was going on.

I'm willing to bet almost anything that Schad is wrong.

Take for instance the Ohio State basketball squad and their forfeiture of games recently. If you want to use the line "they received no competitive advantage", you could've said the same they. Yes they had illegal players, but had no advantage either.

Fact is, USC DID have an advantage by having one of their better players, a Heisman Trophy winner, who led them to victories playing in games. How is having a illegal player who was considered the top player in the country not an advantage? That's like saying the 82 year old Danny Almonte didn't help the Bronx Little League team years ago to an advantage.

For the NCAA or even Schad to say they didn't receive an advantage is laughable.

Now, I really don't care either way what happens. But the excuses being made for USC and Reggie Bush are rather funny.

But I cannot even blame Reggie Bush as much as I can USC. You have to govern yourself in cases like this and watch your back. They didn't do so, so now they must/should pay the dividends.
 

burmafrd

Well-Known Member
Messages
43,820
Reaction score
3,379
That Schad idiot really thinks someone will buy his swill? Lack of
Instituitional Control is used quite often by the NCAA. And when you consider just how long the family was in the house- almost a year- the family of arguably the most famous college football player of last season- for USC to claim that reasonably they did not know and could not have expected to know - is just plain stupid. Or lawyer speak for "I know my client was found standing over the body wacking at it with a bloody axe but that does not matter because I said so".
 
Top