What happens to USC's 3 Peat now?

[miniMUNCH]

As far as I can see, unless their is hard evidence tying Bush to this ordeal...that Bush knew his parents were receiving monetary benefit...Bush and USC are not going to get in trouble.

AFAIK, their is no rule against the family of a NCAA player against taking a loan of money from a friend or family member as long as it is a loan and nothing more. Families have done it in the past to buy sports injury insurance policies for their "soon-to-be-pro" players.

Temporarily free rent and money to travel to football games could be construed as a loan.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chuckywang
More bad news. Also rent-related.

That's freaking stupid. SO WHAT if Matt's dad paid rent for his freaking son's place. Who the hell cares!?!?

The NCAA is so intent on making sure they drain every ounce of cash out of these kids, using them to help schools make tens of millions. They use them and then spit them out.

:roll:

They are well aware of the rules before hand. When they don't follow them it's their own fault.

 

[gar3555]

just to fyi the title of this thread...you can't three peat if you don't win three in a row...and to the best of my recollection, they didn't win the national title this year...unless I'm wrong here

 

[erikistired]

a onepeat is not a threepeat. just fyi. lsu, usc, texas. not usc, usc, usc.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chuckywang
More bad news. Also rent-related.

That's freaking stupid. SO WHAT if Matt's dad paid rent for his freaking son's place. Who the hell cares!?!?

The NCAA is so intent on making sure they drain every ounce of cash out of these kids, using them to help schools make tens of millions. They use them and then spit them out.

and the kids use the schools to get elevated to big time paychecks. i always thought the point of school was to go learn something other than running or throwing a ball. as much as i love college football it's getting a bit out of hand.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
As far as I can see, unless their is hard evidence tying Bush to this ordeal...that Bush knew his parents were receiving monetary benefit...Bush and USC are not going to get in trouble.

AFAIK, their is no rule against the family of a NCAA player against taking a loan of money from a friend or family member as long as it is a loan and nothing more. Families have done it in the past to buy sports injury insurance policies for their "soon-to-be-pro" players.

Temporarily free rent and money to travel to football games could be construed as a loan.

yeah probably not going to fly. the house was well out of his parents means and was close enough for him to visit it. and he never questioned it? yeah.

the best scenario i've heard is bush gets his heisman taken away and the records are stricken of a winner for 2005. that way usc isn't punished, nor are his teammates. he's already going to get paid, but maybe it means enough to him that he'll learn a lesson (yeah probably not).

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: gar3555
just to fyi the title of this thread...you can't three peat if you don't win three in a row...and to the best of my recollection, they didn't win the national title this year...unless I'm wrong here

It's about time someone mentioned this.

USC was a powerful team, but they did not 3 Peat...or even 2 Peat.

 

[gar3555]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: gar3555
just to fyi the title of this thread...you can't three peat if you don't win three in a row...and to the best of my recollection, they didn't win the national title this year...unless I'm wrong here

It's about time someone mentioned this.

USC was a powerful team, but they did not 3 Peat...or even 2 Peat.

I think it's denial...

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: gar3555

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: gar3555
just to fyi the title of this thread...you can't three peat if you don't win three in a row...and to the best of my recollection, they didn't win the national title this year...unless I'm wrong here

It's about time someone mentioned this.

USC was a powerful team, but they did not 3 Peat...or even 2 Peat.

I think it's denial...

denial doesn't even come close.

 

[gar3555]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: gar3555

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: gar3555
just to fyi the title of this thread...you can't three peat if you don't win three in a row...and to the best of my recollection, they didn't win the national title this year...unless I'm wrong here

It's about time someone mentioned this.

USC was a powerful team, but they did not 3 Peat...or even 2 Peat.

I think it's denial...

denial doesn't even come close.

but it's not just a river in egypt ya know .

but really, USC is, and probably will be a good team...but not a great team..and just b/c ESPN loves em, everyone else has too I guess

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl

Originally posted by: gar3555
just to fyi the title of this thread...you can't three peat if you don't win three in a row...and to the best of my recollection, they didn't win the national title this year...unless I'm wrong here

It's about time someone mentioned this.

USC was a powerful team, but they did not 3 Peat...or even 2 Peat.

Yup, BCS Champ = National Champ.

2005 = Texas
2004 = USC <<<========= ONLY ONE TIME, not two, not three
2003 = LSU

USC fanbois kept saying they won the other tittle in 2003, therefore, they were co champ. Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight, Al Gore was co president and Monica L. was co 1st lady too...

 

[Rayden]

How is USC being awarded a national title in 2003 not considered a national title? BCS is not the only title in college football.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: Rayden
How is USC being awarded a national title in 2003 not considered a national title? BCS is not the only title in college football.

It is but many haters refuse to accept the fact that AP has been crowning college football national titles for decades. The reason it happened in 2003 was a failure of the BCS to put the top-ranked team into the BCS championship game.

As far as the Bush family house goes, this could fall under the "extra benefits" clause of NCAA rules even if Reggie Bush was wholly unaware. But it's incredulous for Reggie Bush to say he doesn't know anything about his family's living arrangement because he's never ever there. L.A. is only two hours away from San Diego.

I suspect USC will have some sanctions, at least minor, imposed by some "lack of institutional control" ruling even though the infractions have nothing to do with the program itself.

The Matt Leinart rent situation isn't that Bob Leinart was paying for his son's rent, which is okay; but that he was partly paying for roommate Jarrett's rent too.

 

[erikistired]

i like how people whine about the bcs keeping usc out of the 03 title game, but imho the same thing was done to auburn in 04. unfortunately they aren't media darlings like USC have been. fact remains, bcs is the national title.

the one-pete

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Rayden
How is USC being awarded a national title in 2003 not considered a national title? BCS is not the only title in college football.

IIRC, BCS was created to stop all the madness of various championships from various organizations <newspaper,tv, etc.>. All NCAA schools agreed to play by BCS rules and regulations.

BCS = National NCAA Football Champ.

Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it better than it used to be? Yes. You may or may not agree with it but don't cry if your team didn't get to play. Ask Auburn in 2004. They had the same record as USC but they didn't get get to play. USC fans didn't scream bloody murder then. :disgust: Where were their CO CHAMPS rings/tropy??? LOL

 

[Jawo]

HA HA HA! What a bunch over rated semi-snobs!

 

[IAteYourMother]

I'm still confused why Bush's parents getting monetary benefits is related to Bush's ineligibility

 

[JS80]

It sucks that the actions of a stepfather will totally fvck over a talent.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
I'm still confused why Bush's parents getting monetary benefits is related to Bush's ineligibility

It's against NCAA cartel rules. The NCAA and member institutions get to make all the money, not its athletes unless they go pro.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
I'm confused... haven't been keeping up to date on this issue. Why would failing to pay for rent mean that Bush is ineligible?

His parents "rented" a house from a sports agent at the tune of $4,500 a month. They didn't pay rent from Nov 04 - Nov 05 = $54,000.

Bush didn't sign with the agent/agency and they leaked threatened his family they would leak bad info about his family. Same week, they were evicted and it went public. The agency also filed a 3.2 million lawsuit. They say they gave approximately $300,000 in out-of-pocket costs and are seeking 3.2 million in "damages".

What it boils down to is the family used the agent and the agent used the family to get to Bush. When Bush decided he didn't want to sign with the agency, they tried to blackmail the family.

NFL security sent a memo out to all teams letting them know about the agent and agency.

Why did NFL security do that? First of all, how did NFL security know in the first place (and how is it NFL security's business)? Second of all, how is this any of the NFL teams business that NFL security would send them a memo?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: chuckywang
More bad news. Also rent-related.

That's freaking stupid. SO WHAT if Matt's dad paid rent for his freaking son's place. Who the hell cares!?!?

The NCAA is so intent on making sure they drain every ounce of cash out of these kids, using them to help schools make tens of millions. They use them and then spit them out.

The problem is that Matt's dad also paid part of Dwayne Jarrett's rent.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That'd be a shame since they were the best team and program by far over the last 3 years.

Two out of 3 years.

Over the 3 years they did.

Oh please.. Texas was just as good as a team as them for the past 2 years.. USC has such an easy schedule year in and year out.. the Entire pac10 is a joke to football.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That'd be a shame since they were the best team and program by far over the last 3 years.

Two out of 3 years.

Over the 3 years they did.

Oh please.. Texas was just as good as a team as them for the past 2 years.. USC has such an easy schedule year in and year out.. the Entire pac10 is a joke to football.

Well at least according to you. However those who actually know about these things, you know the experts like sportswriters and coaches around the country, disagree with you.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That'd be a shame since they were the best team and program by far over the last 3 years.

Two out of 3 years.

Over the 3 years they did.

Oh please.. Texas was just as good as a team as them for the past 2 years.. USC has such an easy schedule year in and year out.. the Entire pac10 is a joke to football.

Well at least according to you. However those who actually know about these things, you know the experts like sportswriters and coaches around the country, disagree with you.

Sportswriters have an agenda just like everyone else. Please tell me you know this. But, with that being said, I agree that the first team that comes to mind when thinking of the best over the past 3 years is definately USC.

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That'd be a shame since they were the best team and program by far over the last 3 years.

Two out of 3 years.

Over the 3 years they did.

Oh please.. Texas was just as good as a team as them for the past 2 years.. USC has such an easy schedule year in and year out.. the Entire pac10 is a joke to football.

hmm...i am from texas, and woudln't go as far as to say that...in 2004, i would have to say that USC was the better team

however, i do believe that they were only the best team in the country 1 out of the past three years