I'm aware that the SC athletic department, its supporters, and some media members didn't agree with the conclusions of the NCAA committee, that they challenged some of the factual findings, that they think the committee was biased, and that they think SC got screwed. However, I don't accept that view of the world at face value just because somebody said so.
Ted Miller's article quotes an unnamed source -- very likely an insider at SC -- who claims that somebody on the NCAA committee was antagonistic and misstated the facts during the hearing. So we have a comment from an anonymous, probably biased source about the perceived attitude of one member of the committee. I don't feel compelled to conclude from that comment that this was a "kangaroo court."
I have read the NCAA's report imposing penalties and the NCAA's report denying SC's appeal. There's quite a lot of evidence behind the conclusions the committee reached. Are there some factual inaccuracies in the details of the committee's report? Probably. The NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, so it couldn't force Reggie Bush and his parents to turn over their records, and they refused to do so. Nor could the NCAA subpoena car dealers, phone companies, airlines, etc. to nail down all of the details. On some points, the NCAA committee had to rely on the recollections of various witnesses, and recollections can be wrong on details. I know that SC supporters have tried to undermine the report's major conclusions by trying to find inconsistencies in the details. But overall, I think the "big picture" story that emerges from the NCAA's report hangs together pretty coherently. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying that the NCAA's report seems reasonably coherent and plausible. It's not an evident product of bias to my eyes.
The issue about Reggie Bush's car is covered in the committee's report. The report states that Bush went to the agent and told him that he had always wanted a Chevy Impala. The report says that Bush located a used Impala, and the agent gave him money (I think maybe $4000?) for a down payment. Later, the agent provided $4000 - $5000 for wheel rims and $3500 for a stereo and alarm. One of the witnesses (not the committee) described the Impala as "tricked out" with new rims. The biggest issue with the car, of course, is not the model or year -- it's the fact that the agent gave Bush the money to buy it. Bush claimed that his parents gave him some of the money and the rest was from his savings. But Bush and his parents refused to provide documentation to the NCAA that would prove the money came from them. The committee chose to believe the testimony of other witnesses who said Bush got the money from the agent.
The other issue with the car relates to institutional control. Athletic departments are supposed to get information about their athletes' cars, precisely so that they can catch situations where outsiders are buying cars for athletes. SC required athletes to register their cars with the athletic department only at the beginning of the school year. So Bush apparently bought the car in late 2004 or early 2005, but he didn't report the car to the athletic department until August 2005. The NCAA said that SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require Bush to report the car to the athletic department immediately. The NCAA also said SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require copies of the documentation for the purchase of the car. When Bush did report his purchase of the car (for $19,000), he didn't fill out the whole form -- he left some blanks, such as where he purchased the car. SC's compliance office never followed up to get the missing information. The NCAA committee found that this incident provided evidence of lack of institutional control because SC's reporting procedures were inadequate, and because SC didn't follow its own procedures by obtaining the omitted information from Bush's incomplete report.
Ultimately, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that Bush was getting all kinds of cash and goodies, and that he therefore was ineligible. SC's defense appears to focus not on whether Bush was getting goodies, but on what McNair knew. McNair says he didn't know anything, while the prospective agent says he talked to McNair about it. It's a credibility issue. The committee didn't believe McNair. To me, the committee's conclusion seemed to be plausible, given what I know of the circumstances.
Perhaps eventually, the whole truth will come out, and maybe the committee will turn out to be wrong on some things. But that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a "kangaroo court." To me, the report of the committee seems to indicate a reasonable effort to get to the bottom of things. Just my opinion.
Ted Miller's article quotes an unnamed source -- very likely an insider at SC -- who claims that somebody on the NCAA committee was antagonistic and misstated the facts during the hearing. So we have a comment from an anonymous, probably biased source about the perceived attitude of one member of the committee. I don't feel compelled to conclude from that comment that this was a "kangaroo court."
I have read the NCAA's report imposing penalties and the NCAA's report denying SC's appeal. There's quite a lot of evidence behind the conclusions the committee reached. Are there some factual inaccuracies in the details of the committee's report? Probably. The NCAA doesn't have subpoena power, so it couldn't force Reggie Bush and his parents to turn over their records, and they refused to do so. Nor could the NCAA subpoena car dealers, phone companies, airlines, etc. to nail down all of the details. On some points, the NCAA committee had to rely on the recollections of various witnesses, and recollections can be wrong on details. I know that SC supporters have tried to undermine the report's major conclusions by trying to find inconsistencies in the details. But overall, I think the "big picture" story that emerges from the NCAA's report hangs together pretty coherently. I'm not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying that the NCAA's report seems reasonably coherent and plausible. It's not an evident product of bias to my eyes.
The issue about Reggie Bush's car is covered in the committee's report. The report states that Bush went to the agent and told him that he had always wanted a Chevy Impala. The report says that Bush located a used Impala, and the agent gave him money (I think maybe $4000?) for a down payment. Later, the agent provided $4000 - $5000 for wheel rims and $3500 for a stereo and alarm. One of the witnesses (not the committee) described the Impala as "tricked out" with new rims. The biggest issue with the car, of course, is not the model or year -- it's the fact that the agent gave Bush the money to buy it. Bush claimed that his parents gave him some of the money and the rest was from his savings. But Bush and his parents refused to provide documentation to the NCAA that would prove the money came from them. The committee chose to believe the testimony of other witnesses who said Bush got the money from the agent.
The other issue with the car relates to institutional control. Athletic departments are supposed to get information about their athletes' cars, precisely so that they can catch situations where outsiders are buying cars for athletes. SC required athletes to register their cars with the athletic department only at the beginning of the school year. So Bush apparently bought the car in late 2004 or early 2005, but he didn't report the car to the athletic department until August 2005. The NCAA said that SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require Bush to report the car to the athletic department immediately. The NCAA also said SC's procedures were deficient because they didn't require copies of the documentation for the purchase of the car. When Bush did report his purchase of the car (for $19,000), he didn't fill out the whole form -- he left some blanks, such as where he purchased the car. SC's compliance office never followed up to get the missing information. The NCAA committee found that this incident provided evidence of lack of institutional control because SC's reporting procedures were inadequate, and because SC didn't follow its own procedures by obtaining the omitted information from Bush's incomplete report.
Ultimately, I think there is quite a bit of evidence that Bush was getting all kinds of cash and goodies, and that he therefore was ineligible. SC's defense appears to focus not on whether Bush was getting goodies, but on what McNair knew. McNair says he didn't know anything, while the prospective agent says he talked to McNair about it. It's a credibility issue. The committee didn't believe McNair. To me, the committee's conclusion seemed to be plausible, given what I know of the circumstances.
Perhaps eventually, the whole truth will come out, and maybe the committee will turn out to be wrong on some things. But that wouldn't necessarily mean it was a "kangaroo court." To me, the report of the committee seems to indicate a reasonable effort to get to the bottom of things. Just my opinion.