|
|
#11
04-24-2006, 04:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How did this not raise red flags immediatly after they moved in? There is no way that family is rich enough to afford a $750,000 home. [/ QUOTE ] why is that? [/ QUOTE ] Because they are black. Duh. [/ QUOTE ] Oh. Just making sure. 
|
|
#12
04-24-2006, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] How did this not raise red flags immediatly after they moved in? There is no way that family is rich enough to afford a $750,000 home. [/ QUOTE ] why is that? [/ QUOTE ] pointless story: i was substitute teaching at one of the most ghetto schools in san diego. one of the teacher's pointed a security guard out to me. it was reggie's dad (step dad technically).he seemed cool.
|
|
#13
04-24-2006, 09:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
Wonder if the fact he didn't sign has something to do with the info getting "leaked" [/ QUOTE ] It may, but the thing is, any retribution will be brought down on USC, not on Bush (well other than expunging his records and such but people are going to ignore that anyway). Still, may have been an FU to Bush anyway, but it's not going to hurt him one iota, and probably not USC either.
|
|
#14
04-24-2006, 09:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
This is really none of the NCAA's business and they should go [censored] themselves.
|
|
#15
04-24-2006, 10:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
This is really none of the NCAA's business and they should go [censored] themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Enforcing their rules certainly is their business. Granted, many of their rules are a bit odd, and usually unenforceable, and arbitrarily enforced, but they probably have an interest in preventing unseemly influence in college sports. The funny thing about this though is the agent was giving out of a desire to land Bush as a client, not to keep him at USC or get him to go to USC. I'm sure he could care less where he goes to school. Of course, if a bigtime program looks the other way on this agent stuff it provides a recruiting incentive ("Hey, come here, you can take all the money you want from whoever, we don't care!"), but it's not like USC gains a direct advantage by Bush being able to live there.
|
|
#16
04-24-2006, 11:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is really none of the NCAA's business and they should go [censored] themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Enforcing their rules certainly is their business. Granted, many of their rules are a bit odd, and usually unenforceable, and arbitrarily enforced, but they probably have an interest in preventing unseemly influence in college sports. The funny thing about this though is the agent was giving out of a desire to land Bush as a client, not to keep him at USC or get him to go to USC. I'm sure he could care less where he goes to school. Of course, if a bigtime program looks the other way on this agent stuff it provides a recruiting incentive ("Hey, come here, you can take all the money you want from whoever, we don't care!"), but it's not like USC gains a direct advantage by Bush being able to live there. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, this is pretty much basis for my statement.
|
|
#17
04-24-2006, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
This is really none of the NCAA's business and they should go [censored] themselves. [/ QUOTE ] If Reggie Bush is functionally getting paid to play college football, he's not an amature and thus not able to play college football. If USC is knowingly using a player who shouldn't be playing, they're breaking the rules. It's a few leaps, and it won't get USC in much trouble (save potentially forfitting games) but it is the NCAA's business.
|
|
#18
04-24-2006, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is really none of the NCAA's business and they should go [censored] themselves. [/ QUOTE ] If Reggie Bush is functionally getting paid to play college football, he's not an amature and thus not able to play college football. If USC is knowingly using a player who shouldn't be playing, they're breaking the rules. It's a few leaps, and it won't get USC in much trouble (save potentially forfitting games) but it is the NCAA's business. [/ QUOTE ] If he is getting paid by a booster as compensation for playing for a specific school I agree. If he is getting paid in exchange for signing in the pros with an agent, then the NCAA should stay out of it. Obviously, the NCAA creates there own rules and can make a rule to make anything under the sun thier business, but that doesn't mean they should. Personally, I think its appalling that the NCAA denies players representation and I wish that someone would challange it in court and/or that the players form some sort of union that protects their rights.
|
|
#19
04-24-2006, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is really none of the NCAA's business and they should go [censored] themselves. [/ QUOTE ] If Reggie Bush is functionally getting paid to play college football, he's not an amature and thus not able to play college football. If USC is knowingly using a player who shouldn't be playing, they're breaking the rules. It's a few leaps, and it won't get USC in much trouble (save potentially forfitting games) but it is the NCAA's business. [/ QUOTE ] If he is getting paid by a booster as compensation for playing for a specific school I agree. If he is getting paid in exchange for signing in the pros with an agent, then the NCAA should stay out of it. Obviously, the NCAA creates there own rules and can make a rule to make anything under the sun thier business, but that doesn't mean they should. Personally, I think its appalling that the NCAA denies players representation and I wish that someone would challange it in court and/or that the players form some sort of union that protects their rights. [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that a coach could run a program that simply turns its back on these things. The program gets a rep for it, and so players with future potential know that if they go there and do well enough, there won't be any problem getting money, even if not through the school. This disadvantages any school that actually tries to police its players and comply with the rules. So if they don't police it, it creates a big incentive to allow all sorts of shenanigans. And then who knows when there is a link between a school and an agent/booster? Again, they can't find out without investigating. Also, as us Michigan fans learned from that Ed Martin debacle, the NCAA is fairly liberal about defining who qualifies as a booster. Then there's lack of institutional control, so even if there is no connection they can get nailed. I doubt the NCAA is gonna take out on their cash cows, but eh, they've come down on Bama and Miami so who knows?
|
|
#20
04-24-2006, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PAC 10 investigating Bush family
I think its appalling that the NCAA denies players representation and I wish that someone would challange it in court and/or that the players form some sort of union that protects their rights.
The problem with this is that nobody on the University/NCAA side of this thing really wants to admit that these "student-athletes" are really not students at all (yes, I know there are exceptions). While I'm happy that the Olympics have done away with the facade of "amateurism", I'm not really sure that would be a good thing for college sports.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
