DD, I've said several times that there is no strict prohibition against player/agent talk. I've said, though, that IF such contact leads to a violation, one thing happens for sure (player loses eligibility)
Now the backtracking begins...lol cajun, you've filled up post after post with, "There is NO rational relationship between an athlete with remaining eligibility and an agent. NONE. Only after an athlete has exhausted his eligibility is there any need for him to meet with ANY agent." ........."Agents have no reason to be anywhere around players with remaining eligibility. None."......etc., etc.
So now you've come around to the position that, "IF such contact leads to a violation, one things happens for sure (player loses eligibility)" No sh&*t, Sherlock - that's profound...lol Have you seen anyone ever argue that Reggie Bush is still eligible to play football for USC?
and one thing might happen (program sanctions) based on the "institutional control" rules if it is determined that the program was too, shall we say, loose with its oversight of players/agents.
Again - very insightful of you to understand that if a program breaks NCAA rules and standards, it might find itself in trouble.
When you make the obvious (understood by all) argument that when players and programs violate NCAA policy there are consequences, you're not really speaking to the position you've staked our for yourself on the RB situation. You have contended that the mere fact that RB had a relationship with agents while playing for SC, and that SC allowed access to agents with their players - that this was tantamount to "lack of institutional control." And of course it's not, as the NCAA clearly allows for the interaction between players and agents - and the only way that situation goes bad is if there is an agreement made, or benefits provided - and the only way SC can be held accountable in the RB situation is if they become aware of an agreement or benefits and do nothing about it (or ignore obvious signs of such),
Look up the FLA St. 1996 probation which brought sanctions against the Seminoles for lacking institutional control RE: agent benefits to a player. There is precedent.
Yes, there is precendent - for precisely what I've been arguing. The reason FSU got slapped was because it was shown to have not acted in good faith in dealing with player/agent issues brought to its attention. Here's an example of what I'm referring to (from the public record of the FSU decision):
In January or February 1993, university representatives received a signed agency contract from an individual who reported that she had found the document lying on a street in downtown Tallahassee. The contract contained the signature of a football student-athlete, who had one year of eligibility remaining, and designated a sports agents service as his "exclusive bargaining agent" and "indispensable consultant" with regard to future "sporting activity contract(s)." The contract also indicated that the student-athlete received an "advance of $300...in consideration" of the agreement. University representatives interviewed the student-athlete, an individual whose name appeared on the contract as a witness, and the managing partner and chief negotiator for the sports agents service. Each individual denied that the signatures on the contract were authentic. The university reported the matter to the Atlantic Coast Conference office and stated that it believed insufficient evidence existed to support a conclusion that a violation had occurred. The conference office concurred and the matter was not pursued further.
However, because no persuasive information had been offered to explain why a forged document would have been created, university and conference representatives should have conducted further inquiries, including submission of the document and sample signatures of the student-athlete and the witness to an expert to determine if their signatures on the document were genuine. The existence of the document also should have heightened the [Page 6] university's awareness of potential problems regarding contracts between agents and student-athletes, even though the institution and conference did not find sufficient evidence to declare the student-athlete ineligible in this particular instance.
See, nobody is arguing that if USC knew of what was going on, or had seen/received evidence that something might be going on and didnt pursue it - that they won't be punished. What we're arguing about here is your notion that because USC was aware of agent/player interaction that this (in itself) amounts to a lack of institutional control.
Think No-Pete is trying to head off that institutional control-based body slam from the NCAA?
I don't know what has gone on at USC and have never claimed to. Maybe the NCAA will find that PC (or someone in the program) was aware of something happening with RB and chose not to act on the information. Anything is possible, and I'm not pretending to know things I don't - that's your role, as you've yet to give one shred of evidence to support your "knowledge" of USC's complicity in the RB matter, or it's "lack of institutional control." Tell me about a signed contract that was found laying around and haded to the athletics department, or a phone call from a student to the athletics department alerting the program of what was going on with RB (this happened in the FSU case) that was then not adequately followed up on...don't tell me about agents on the sidelines or at practices and your opinion that this constitutes "lack of institutional control."
The combination of these two NCAA documents is USC's problem. If they prove RBush took bennies from those three agents, then his eligibility is toast.
Holy crap, cajun...lol Who thinks RB is eligible to play for USC, or doesn't agree that once he took benefits he became ineligible?
And if the NCAA, like it did against FL St. in 1996, determines that because of No-Pete's open door policy across all venues, the RBush situation was made more likely to occur, then the institutional control bylaw would bring sanctions against the program.
And here's where you go wrong. PC's "open door policy" doesn't speak to institutional control. What is your point? - "talking to an agent for 20 mins is okay, but talking to him for 45 mins is a violation?" Either interaction between players and agents is okay, or it's not - there's no quality or quantity metric that I (or you) can find in what the NCAA has established. Neither of us can find where the NCAA puts limits (number of times, places, how long) on player/agent interaction. All the NCAA addresses, and does so in very clear ways, is - "no agreements - no benefits, or you lose eligibility."
If USC exhibited lack of institutional control in the RB case, then it'll have to be like it was in the FSU case - there will be evidence of RB's benefits that was ignored by USC, or not adequately followed-up on.
