08-18-2011, 03:38 PM
Garvin, Terry,
Immediately after the initial ruling, and again after the appeals decision there were numerous articles from sources other than SC blogs that pointedly contradicted multiple elements of the timing and specifics of "facts" that the infractions committee used in its findings. One specific example I can recall (hazily) is the Assc. AD from ND insisting that Reggie Bush drove a tricked out automobile on campus, and coaches should have been alerted by that, when it fact it was a 5-6 year old Chevy or similar. When rebutted by the SC folks she continued to insist that it was so, absent any proof. The process used to determine that McNair "knew" everything about what Lake was doing involved sequential steps of unproven assumptions that would make mortgage banking folks blush.
You've doubtlessly seen in the last couple of days reference to Dee's behavior during the SC hearings as they've been linked on this thread (Ted Miller, Steward Mandel, Dennis Dobbs). Yet you state that everything looks above board to you. From Miller's post today:
"One of my takeaways from (U)SC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times."
http://tinyurl.com/millerSCinfrac
And Mandel's post; recall he's the putative SEC football writer for SI.
http://tinyurl.com/MandelDeeSC
I'm not an internet zealot, my sources are mostly SI & ESPN online, and the LA Times sports section that I get at home. I don't watch TV sports news. Given the broad scope of resources that you all frequently cite on this board It's hard for me to believe that you are unaware of the significant concerns raised over the past 11 months about the legitimacy of the infractions committee's proceedings, conclusions, and judgements.
If you are, then you've chosen not to follow this story very closely, and if you're just throwing this stuff out to stir the pot for your own amusement, fine it's an open blog, but I'm not interested in playing.
Immediately after the initial ruling, and again after the appeals decision there were numerous articles from sources other than SC blogs that pointedly contradicted multiple elements of the timing and specifics of "facts" that the infractions committee used in its findings. One specific example I can recall (hazily) is the Assc. AD from ND insisting that Reggie Bush drove a tricked out automobile on campus, and coaches should have been alerted by that, when it fact it was a 5-6 year old Chevy or similar. When rebutted by the SC folks she continued to insist that it was so, absent any proof. The process used to determine that McNair "knew" everything about what Lake was doing involved sequential steps of unproven assumptions that would make mortgage banking folks blush.
You've doubtlessly seen in the last couple of days reference to Dee's behavior during the SC hearings as they've been linked on this thread (Ted Miller, Steward Mandel, Dennis Dobbs). Yet you state that everything looks above board to you. From Miller's post today:
"One of my takeaways from (U)SC's session with Dee's Infractions Committee was an off-the-record comment from an individual who sat in the room. He noted that one individual on the committee was so antagonistic to USC that this individual misstated facts of the case a number of times."
http://tinyurl.com/millerSCinfrac
And Mandel's post; recall he's the putative SEC football writer for SI.
http://tinyurl.com/MandelDeeSC
I'm not an internet zealot, my sources are mostly SI & ESPN online, and the LA Times sports section that I get at home. I don't watch TV sports news. Given the broad scope of resources that you all frequently cite on this board It's hard for me to believe that you are unaware of the significant concerns raised over the past 11 months about the legitimacy of the infractions committee's proceedings, conclusions, and judgements.
If you are, then you've chosen not to follow this story very closely, and if you're just throwing this stuff out to stir the pot for your own amusement, fine it's an open blog, but I'm not interested in playing.