|
Here is my attempt at rational analysis of what will make the difference between penalty and no-penalty in this case:
A) The exact nature of the arrangement: Obviously, someone has to determine exactly what we have here. Were the Griffins living for free in this "agent's" house? Were they paying rent? The article mentions that the Griffins weren't on the deed, but even my limited knowledge of real estate leads me to question why a landlord would ever put tenants on the deed.
If we are to believe that this was a no-rent or low-rent deal for the Griffins in exchange for them letting Michaels' group represent Reggie, what happened? The article plainly states that Bush never considered this group that Michaels was with. So did they renege on this alleged deal? If so, why does Michaels then allow them to remain in the house for several more months (Bush selected another agent in January, Griffins stay through April)? Even more puzzling, why did Michaels' partner (Caravantes) never meet with Bush or his family?
B) If the Griffins had any knowledge of this guy's sports agent dreams: Even if there was no understanding of a deal, the Griffins may still be in violation if the rent offer was too-good-to-be-true. When, if ever, did they learn of Michaels' ties to an agent? Did they know this all along? Or did Michaels suddenly develop an interest in sports agency after he realized he had an in with the family of a future 1st rounder?
C) If SC had any knowledge: If it is determined that this situation violated NCAA rules, what knowledge did SC have? The NCAA can impose penalties even if SC boosters and athletics officals are not involved in the infraction, but one would expect the NCAA to be more harsh if the school knew of the deal and looked the other way. One would hope (but not necessarily expect) that the NCAA would be less harsh if it is shown that the school knew nothing of this.
D) If SC was reasonably dilligent in looking after things: Even if the school can show they knew nothing of this, the NCAA will always be interested in seeing if the school was looking after the things they were supposed to monitor. "Failure to monitor" is an infraction just below "lack of institutional control". Did the school not know about this deal because they had their heads buried in the sand? Or was the compliance office up to NCAA standards and simply found no word that Bush's family had moved from one San Diego apartment to a different home?
__________________
|