THE REPORT is in, the sanctions have been announced, and justice, incredibly, has been done.
First, the official penalties:
- Postseason ban in football following the 2010 and 2011 seasons;
- Loss of 30 total football scholarships over the 2011, 2012 and 2013 seasons;
- Loss of all football victoriesfrom December 2004 through the 2005 season, including the national championship win over Oklahoma on Jan. 4, 2005;
- All statistics vacated for Bush, Mayo and an unnamed women’s tennis athlete in the games which the NCAA deemed them ineligible due to rules violations;
- Bush and Mayo must be “disassociated” from USC athletics;
- The acceptance of USC’s self-imposed penalties on its basketball program, which included a forfeiture of all wins in 2007-2008 and a one-year postseason ban;
- All titles won during ineligible games must be vacated and trophies and banners must be removed;
- The loss of wins in the women’s tennis program from May 2006 to May 2009, for long distance telephone violations committed by a student-athlete;
- A reduction of recruiting days for the men’s basketball program in 2010-2011; and
- Four years of probation.
On Page two of the report, the NCAA went out of its way state that Bush and his family refused to cooperate with the investigation.
So, what did the NCAA say about the brain surgeons’s athletic programs? Here are some excerpts from the 67 page report: [Note: Additional material added at 7:30 pm]
“The general campus environment surrounding the violations troubled the committee. At least at the time of the football violations, there was relatively little effective monitoring of, among others, football locker rooms and sidelines, and there existed a general post game locker room environment that made compliance efforts difficult. Further, in recent years, the NCAA has made efforts to encourage universities to curb excesses in the entertainment of prospective student-athletes making visits to college campuses so as to avoid a perception by prospects of special status or entitlement. Yet, in this case, the committee reviewed information that, during the official paid visit of a highly recruited football prospect, his host – student-athlete 1 [Bush] – did not pick up the prospect until nearly midnight the evening following a home football game and that he was taken out until the early morning hours. There also was information in the record that the assistant football coach knew that the prospect was not picked up until nearly midnight by student-athlete 1 [Bush] and that the prospect was taken to a club at which alcohol was served. These activities and others referred to during the hearing fostered an atmosphere in which student-athletes could feel entitled to special treatment and which almost certainly contributed to the difficulties of compliance staff in achieving a rules-compliant program.”
“During a telephone conversation in late 2004, student-athlete 1 [Bush] informed agency partner A that he (student-athlete 1) was embarrassed to drive his current vehicle, a pick-up truck, and wanted a different vehicle. Agency partner A [agency Bush had agreed to hire upon leaving sc] agreed to provide the cash to purchase a vehicle. A short while later, in December 2004, student-athlete 1 [Bush] located a vehicle he wanted, and agency partner A gave student-athlete 1′s [Bush’s] stepfather several thousand dollars in cash for a down payment on the vehicle. Student-athlete 1 [Bush] later contacted agency partner A to request additional money needed to purchase wheel rims for the vehicle. Agency partner A then drove from San Diego to Los Angeles and gave student-athlete 1 [Bush] an additional several thousand dollars in cash. Approximately one week later, agency partner A gave student-athlete 1 [Bush] another sizable cash payment, which the student-athlete used for a car alarm and audio system.”
“In the fall of 2004, while student-athlete 1 [Bush] was competing for the institution, student-athlete 1′s [Bush’s] step-father and agency partner A discussed the formation of a sports agency and marketing company featuring student-athlete 1 [Bush] . Subsequently, student-athlete 1 [Bush] entered into an agreement with sports agency partners A and B to establish a sports agency to negotiate future marketing and professional sports contracts. Shortly after the agreement was reached to form a sports agency, student-athlete 1 [Bush] and his family began asking for financial and other assistance from agency partners A and B. Thus, began a pattern of impermissible benefits provided by agency partners A and B to student-athlete 1 [Bush] and his family.” Some of what this included was the following: 1) “In January 2005, at the request of the parents, agency partner A instructed his former brother-in-law to arrange round-trip airline transportation between San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, a value of approximately $1,200, for the parents and for the brother of student-athlete 1 [Bush] to attend the Orange Bowl.” 2) “In early March 2005, after a request from student-athlete 1 to attend a former NFL player’s (“former NFL player”) birthday party in San Diego, agency partner A contacted agency partner B to arrange for student-athlete 1 to use a room in a hotel near the venue where the birthday party was held. On the night of March 5, 2005, agency partner A provided cost- free round-trip limousine service for student-athlete 1 to travel from the hotel to the San Diego nightclub where the birthday party was held.” The biggie: 3) “In March 2005 and after his parents were asked by their landlord to vacate their Paradise Valley Road residence, student-athlete 1′s [Bush’s] parents and agency partners A and B agreed that agency partner B. would purchase a property located in Spring Valley for the parents. The written agreement called for the parents to pay agency partner B $1,400 per month (of the approximately $4,500 monthly cost) plus utilities until such time when student-athlete 1 [Bush] would pay the difference to agency partners A and B with money from the income he would earn once he became a professional athlete. However, the parents resided at the property at no cost until April 2006. In the spring of 2005, agency partner B provided the parents with approximately $10,000 in cash to purchase furniture for the Spring Valley residence. In April 2005, the mother of agency partner A (“agency partner A’s mother”) purchased a washer and dryer for the parents.”
“From December 2004 through March 2009, the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics by its failure to have in place procedures to effectively monitor the violations of NCAA amateurism, recruiting and extra benefit legislation in the sports of football, men’s basketball and women’s tennis. As a result, three different agents and/or their associates committed violations regarding student-athletes 1 and 2. Particular instances of lack of institutional control were exhibited in deficiencies in the following areas alleged by the enforcement staff: a) monitoring of student-athlete 1′s automobile registration; b) monitoring of student-athlete 1′s employment at the office of a sports marketing agent; c) involvement of boosters and agents in the recruiting process; d) monitoring the number of countable coaches in the football program; and e) monitoring long distance telephone calls made from the department of athletics.”
Too bad all this come down on sc. They had run such a clean, upstanding athletic department until petey came on board. Oh, wait!. NOT SO: “This was the institution’s sixth major infractions case. Most recently, the institution appeared before the committee in June 2001 for a case involving the football and women’s swimming programs. Accordingly, USC is considered a “repeat violator” under NCAA Bylaw220.127.116.11. The institution also had infractions cases in 1986, 1982, 1959 and 1957,. all of which involved its football program.”
We now await the BCS to remove the brain surgeons from that ill-gotten championship, and the Heisman people to send UPS to pick-up Bush’s stolen trophy. And how long will Mike Garrett have a job?