Bush and USC

[I. Melvin]

Far be it from me to defend Southern Cal, but here's a question:

Why should USC be punished if a would-be agent gave RB items of value AFTER he had enrolled at USC?

The agent was seeking to benefit himself independent of (and perhaps at the expense of) the university.

Would sure hate it if this happened to us.

[Los Gatos]

Far be it from me to defend Southern Cal, but here's a question:

Why should USC be punished if a would-be agent gave RB items of value AFTER he had enrolled at USC?

The agent was seeking to benefit himself independent of (and perhaps at the expense of) the university.

Would sure hate it if this happened to us.

The payments would make Bush a professional and thus ineligible. Not sure USC would be penalize other than to forfeit the games he played in unless they were aware he was being payed. Or the NCAA determined they should have known. That would fall under the broad heading of "lack of institutional control".

In bb, the might also have to return any money earned from playing in the NCAA tournament. Not sure if the same applies to football bowl games.

[bellbrass]

I think the institution usually escapes the "lack of control" penalty when agents are involved behind the scenes, unless the agent is wining and dining (and paying) many players at the same time. You are correct, though, about there being forfeits of wins if Bush is found to have accepted any gifts or cash. The NCAA is hard-core about that these days.