-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter CleveBucks
- Start date
Try me.
LightningRod
Legend
I clicked on the links before responding. For gosh sakes BNs even tacked Clarity's situation to its board. So what does that have to do with all of the O$U and badmouthing that has gone on since 2003? Welcome to the barrel U$C fans.
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
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?
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?
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
The Heisman trophy is voted on by past Heisman winners and others with voting priviliges. It is not an NCAA award. Thus, no notoreity, up to and including allegations of murder would cause an award winner to relinquish that prize.
And, all other matters aside, it would likely require a significant institutional tie-in with this story for USC to be asked to forego the results of all their games in which Bush participated. And by significant institutional tie-in I mean something along the lines of an awareness on the part of USC that Bush was living in a residence paid for by a future agent, or agent-wannabe. There is currently no evidence that USC was aware of such a financial relationship, if any existed, between Bush's mother and Michael Michaels. No-one knows what rent was paid by the Bush's and thus we cannot establish if that rent was fair, or if it was simply below market rate, or free. Certainly, from the AD's point of view, there can be little doubt that Bush was housed on or near campus throughout his career at USC. Compare and contrast this situation with the Ohio State Basketball issues after the Bosnian Agent - O'Brien business became public knowledge.
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
If they were the presumptive owners, then the Griffin's name would, indeed, be on the deed.
It isn't, thus is clearly a landlord, tenant relationship or (and this would raise a red flag) a clear case of Mi Casa Sou Casa - which would lead to natural assumptions that Michael's wanted a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" business relationship.
As for no-name on deed and real estate law, you do not have to put a tenants name on your deed. In fact that would be a very, very bad idea.
Could we simply be looking at a very poorly executed version of what I state above. Michaels simply bit of more than he could chew. The return he hoepod for did not materialize. The Griffin's get the better part of the deal, Reggie selects another agent entirely outside Michaels' sphere of influence, thus MM's investment is placed completely at risk?
His inability to pay taxes on the property speaks volumes (yes, presumptive volumes) about this being a highly speculative endeavor on Michael's part. But even if it is simply a case of Michael's basking in the reflected glory that was Reggie's career at USC that is called Boosterism and certainly cause for concern.
I agree, I would think the investigation really starts from the point of whether the deal offered was too bloody good to be true. Declarations of innocence may not hold sway when a future 1st round pick like Reggie Bush is somewhere in the mix.
Agreed once again, I think it would take a lot of very over-ripe low-hanging fruit to drop into the NCAA's hands to convince them that Reggie and the Griffin's and USC were all equally complicit in this matter. I refer to the O'Brien case at OSU for comparison. There, the tie-in and institutional involvement was much clearer.
Again, take the much clearer example afforded by O'Brien and OSU, no doubt whatsoever about the coach's involvement, nor those of the assistants. Yet, the NCAA stops short of severing the head or imposing its most severe penalties. True OSU had been up-front and honest when confronted and that helped .. but wrt Griffin & Michaels the clear tie-in does not seem to be there. The primary beneficiaries were Bush's family, not Bush himself, and the benefit was enjoyed in a relatively far flung county of the State. So, they may indeed not get hit with lack of institutional control. More likely, in this damned if you do, damned if you don't world of NCAA investigations that "failure to Monitor" charge MIGHT apply.
Upvote
0
Please enlighten us all as to how Gentry's and Clarity's serious physical conditions have anything to do at all with the shady housing arrangements for Reggie Bush's family?
Upvote
0
Based on just that one article, this has shades of the Albert Means incident - the difference between the two being that the agent was working on his own behalf and not as a booster for USC. It looks to me like the guy wanted to ride Bush's coattails and used the housing scheme to win the favor of his family, who would then steer Reggie Bush in his direction. The arrangement wouldn't require any contact with Reggie Bush himself, and would give plausible deniability in the face of NCAA accusations. The fact that Bush chose different representation (wisely, it seems) lends itself to this theory. One has to wonder how Reggie Bush could see his family moving into such a house and not question where it came from and get knowledge or at least suspicion of the situation that way. This one could get interesting, but my gut says that USC and Bush get through it cleanly.
Upvote
0
CoosMeister
Buckeye Fanatic
I only wish USC the best. I hate when any program gets in trouble because as ALL of us know deep down, it happens everywhere.
Also, for some of us to remember...700 Grand for a California home is not that much. Its actually a much much smaller house than you would expect. So its not like they are renting or living in a mansion here.
The only thing is suspiscous is that they moved out so quickly...but...remember Reggie Bush has just begun negotiations to sign a 60+ million dollar contract with Houston. I would suspect the family is probably doing a little house shopping in Texas...
Pretty much, this all stinks of a second rate journalist going after a top program...Haven't we seen how this ends before?
Also, for some of us to remember...700 Grand for a California home is not that much. Its actually a much much smaller house than you would expect. So its not like they are renting or living in a mansion here.
The only thing is suspiscous is that they moved out so quickly...but...remember Reggie Bush has just begun negotiations to sign a 60+ million dollar contract with Houston. I would suspect the family is probably doing a little house shopping in Texas...
Pretty much, this all stinks of a second rate journalist going after a top program...Haven't we seen how this ends before?
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
I wholeheartedly agree that we here in particular should be sensitive to the distinction between smoke, fire, and fire-alarms that stories such as this one engender.
Sorry, but 3,000 square feet is the actual square footage of the home involved. That size is more, much more than a teeny little salt-box. It is much more more than your average family home. It is in fact what joe six-pack might call a mansion.
A - that is far from the only suspicious thing about this report.
B - The Griffin family's movements may have little to do with Reggie's future address - the State of which, let alone the city neither they nor Reggie know with certainty until sometime on the afternoon of April 29th.
Its a story, and an intriguing one at that. It involves a top figure who was part of a top program, but, unless the byline reads "Tom Friend" I cannot characterize this as second-rate journalism.
Regardless, until a USC to Michael Michaels connection is proven they will at minimum get the benefit of my doubt.
Upvote
0