The Facts Before Us
Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 09:05AM Even though I have a longstanding policy of not attending to off-field stories like the Reggie Bush home scandal, apparently consistency is seen as being in the Speak No Evil/Hear No Evil/See No Evil camp.
Hogwash.
Not me
The policy was in place for a myriad of reasons. It has been my experience, knowing people well-connected to several prominent programs, that this kind of stuff happens everywhere.
And I mean everywhere.
It goes on just as easily at Duke and UCLA as it does at Texas and USC. The only difference is who gets caught.
So please pardon my failure to get all hopped up over these types of incidents, since I'm a little too jaded and realistic to let my emotions get the best of me. Sanctimoniousness need not apply and I can't help but feel terribly sorry, if also a bit amused, at those who make these stories out to be more than they are.
The news of the scandal broke late Sunday night after the story was published on Yahoo! Sports' website. It documented the Bush family's tenancy at a 3,000 square foot home valued at $750,000 in San Diego. The home is owned by Michael Michaels, a man connected to agent David Caravantes.
What's implied is that by occupying the home, the Bush family received an improper benefit and puts Bush's amateur status in doubt. By extension, USC's 2005 season could also be in peril if it is determined they were playing with an ineligible player.
That's the story.
***
At first glance, one can go, 'hey' the Bush's are guilty, USC's in trouble, this is one big big scandal'.
But reality sets in at some point if you're not part of the hysterical crowd.
Obviously, the Bush family needs to explain its situation. Did they even pay rent? Reggie Bush said on ESPN yesterday that his family was leasing the home just like any other family. If so, did they pay the going rate for a home that big and in that neighborhood, or were they getting some kind of discount?
I'd want to live there, too
The story's fate germinates out of this unknown seedling.
However, I can't help but feel the implications are minimal.
NCAA rules prohibit improper benefits to both amateur athletes and their families and friends. This is a case of a possible infraction applied to a player's family.
However, it will be tough to connect this directly to Bush. Think about it, he's not signing papers to rent or lease that home. I doubt he spent much if any time there as he was a college athlete at USC, which is well over two hours' drive from the family home.
If you follow college football with any intensity, you know it's a year-round sport---players don't have many opportunities to get away from campus unless they live within a short driving distance of their schools. They end up working out through spring break and most takes summer school to stay eligible and be near the campus weight facilities. Bush's family simply lives too far away for him to make the home in dispute any kind of residence.
Even more difficult is connecting this story to USC. So far, there have been no implications that Mr. Michaels or Caravantes are USC boosters. Instead, they're independent agent types. They're the common hustler that can be found around any and all college football programs, and particularly successful ones like USC, attempting to poach their players before other agents arrive.
The NCAA frowns upon boosters and agents, but boosters are its main concern. They're direct, financial connections to athletic departments. They create paper trails and indicate that a program is directly attempting to circumvent the NCAA's amateur rules. Agents are usually independent and universally loathed but harder to police and enforce.
Connecting all these dots, we see a story that boils down to the following:
There is no true crime committed. The city attorney general has no interest in this story, for example. It is purely an NCAA amateurism matter.
However, Reggie Bush's parents are potentially guilty of greed and stupidity. Potentially.
By not producing evidence as of right now to explain their rent situation, they're dragging this story out and fueling speculation as to their possible guilt. They could very well be innocent and then this becomes a complete non-story, much to the chagrin of the pitchfork and torch crowd.
As of now USC is guilty of nothing. Unless other details come out, USC had no hand in the Bush family's goofy home deal and no direct means to control what had happened. A players' family's home situation isn't usually something that's discussed in a compliance office if you catch my drift.
However, USC can still be punished because the NCAA rules do not permit schools to play ineligible players and dictate that any improper benefit to an athlete or his friends and family can merit a program's punishment.
What's my take?
Right now, I'm waiting for the Griffins to explain the deal. That will help move this story to some kind of a conclusion. USC is sitting pretty at the moment. They do not appear to have been involved in this and it will be hard to directly connect the program to Michaels and Cervantes.
What's funny is that I had been told several weeks ago of an incident at USC's campus where an assistant coach nearly went roid-monkey on an agent who had been hanging around the front of USC's athletic department, more or less dragging the agent off campus. That goes a long way in explaining USC's opinion of the agents circling the team and their appetite for the Michaels' and Caravantes' of the world.
Will USC be punished if Bush is found to not have been an amateur? Maybe. I've given up trying to understand the NCAA's punishment approach. They more or less rule as they go along and the same may happen here. I can look back to other recent improper benefit cases to have an idea of what may happen, but it's only an idea.
Ohio State's Troy Smith was suspended for some games after accepting money from an Ohio State booster. However, Smith still had eligibility (Bush doesn't, obviously) and his situation involved a booster, which is normally a higher crime than agent infractions.
Recently, Oklahoma's Adrian Peterson drove a free car from an Oklahoma friendly dealership for several weeks before returning it. The NCAA swiftly dismissed that case after talking to Oklahoma's compliance people.
However, Bush's family's home is of much greater benefit than a few hundred dollars or a new car. The NCAA may or may not be as forgiving simply because the dollar amount changed.
How USC is responsible for that, I have no idea. My guess is if this story dissolves, nothing will happen, but if it escalates, if new details emerge, we might actually look at forfeiture, which would be interesting and fairly unprecedented. But then the NCAA would have to stomach taking this year's remarkable Rose Bowl off the books as well as one of it's all-time great games in the USC/Notre Dame game from October. Somehow I doubt the NCAA wants to do that.
There, I addressed this story. Right now it looks like much ado about nothing, since the devil's in the details. It makes for great offseason fodder but it's a crime that carries an expiration date (Bush is no longer eligible) and it will be hard to punish USC since it had no clear role in this other than unwittingly playing a guy who may or may not have been eligible.
You may now return to your previously scheduled pitchfork and torch rabblerousing.
BruinsNation: We Must Ignite This Bus!
Blogs, Business/Economics, General, Heisman, NCAA, Players, Punditry/Media, Teams 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
If you think back to these, they usually surface when and if the program is successful. No one gets upset and, it's usually hard to get any interest if a 2-9 team has some issues.
And, really, to imply that Reggie didn't know about something fishy going on because his parent lived two hours away and "he's not signing papers to rent or lease that home". Give me a break.
Reggie: "Hi Mom, sorry it took me a while to get here- had trouble finding the brand new 3000 sq foot house with a view. I knew exactly where the old crappy apartment was. Things must be going great at your government job!"
That is just ridiculous.
Sure, USC, as an institution is unlikely to be directly implicated in this. But it does reflect poorly on both the school and a coach who doesn't appear to be genuinely interested in enforceing discipline.
The story said they had moved out---it takes a looooong time to organize moving out of a home if you've ever done it before. It's a slow process and a pain in the butt, and is impossible to do for a 3,000 square foot house in an abbreviated weekend.
You've got to arrange with a moving/truck company on their time, and have them estimate the overall size of your belongings. Then, you have to schedule a pickup time, which could be immediate or it could be a few days later depending on the availability of their trucks and drivers.
This all happens in advance of them arriving to move things and takes some time. It's completely the opposite of a fly-by-night process.
In other words you're shooting blanks and sounding quite conspiratorial.
As Bush noted on the ESPN show yesterday, his family had been looking for a home for several months and had made the move time for this weekend when he purchased something for them.
Do the math---the home was purchased around March of last year, the Griffins moved in around April. A one-year lease ends late April/early May, just in time for the NFL draft.
The Griffins had timed their lease and move in anticipation of the NFL draft.
What does this have to do with Carroll enforcing discipline? Bush's parents were behind the home deal. People's living arrangements are their own business, not a football coach's.
My take is far from lame. Its rational and fact-based instead of speculative and colored with a great deal of perspective.
I'm not implying Reggie Bush didn't know anything.
I am saying it's a strong likelihood he had NO involvement in the house deal. 20 year old busy college students do not broker home deals, sign leases, pay their parents' home rental costs, etc.
He may have known, but probably had no direct involvement in the deal.
I'll say it again, most of this story is about the Griffins and whatever they did.
USC and Bush are tangential, at best, from my reading of this.
Preach it CFR. Preach it!
Just for fun, I just opened the yellow pages and called a mover. After less than 3 calls, and less than 10 minutes, I set up a "move" for tomorrow of my ficticious 3000 square foot home in LA. You make it sound like its rocket science. And that is about as silly as when you suggested that Reggie had no idea anything was going on when he saw his folks new digs.
And you're speculating no less with that tripe about a "one year lease," Reggie's "new house," and the NFL draft. You are just buying the Bush camp's half-backed story and trying to fill in the blanks so it makes some semblence of sense.
If you are aware of verifible information that show that Reggie bought a new home that his folks are now living in, please point the way. The Bush's sure haven't, and that adds to reasonable suspicion. Without any real information to support your position, it looks like you are just grasping at straws and acting like a shill.
You're right, I looked into that also just now, although it's not the easiest thing ever. I've moved before and haven't always gotten same-day service :o).
In other words the moving quickly scenario is possible, but still not likely.
Again, I've never suggested he didn't know what was going on. I have said he had no role in that. There is a vital and important difference in the distinction, because it moves him from accessory to participant.
The one year lease scenario is reasonable, however, as it clearly matches the timing of the draft and the family's reasonable expectation to have the cash available sometime in April or May to move into a new home. It is far from half-baked.
I'm just as curious as you for information about the Griffins' whereabouts---the difference has always been I have been looking before I take that leap. So have other sites like EDSBS (so far) and HP.
It's responsible attendance to the events, not the true half-baked nonsense like is happening at your favorite site.
All they need to do is come out and provide some commonsense information that anyone who wasn't up to something would have at their finger tips. If you owned the place, and were paying rent, and someone came to ask questions, I bet the first thing you say (with some indignation) would be "I paid rent, damnit." "And I am just moving to the new place by boy Reggie bought us at 123 Maple Lane."
What you call not taking a "leap" sounds to me (who admittedly, unlike you, is a partisan) as giving them a free pass. In my opinion, this is a time for the hard questions, and until those questions are answered, a hearty bit of scepticism. Not sitting around trying to come up with explanations that might fit with the Bush's public statements and excuse their behavior.
And, when I said you were suggesting Bush didn't know what was going on, I was reading this: "However, it will be tough to connect this directly to Bush. Think about it, he's not signing papers to rent or lease that home. I doubt he spent much if any time there as he was a college athlete at USC, which is well over two hours' drive from the family home." I suppose I can see your point, reading this again, but I sure got the impression that you were suggesting he didn't know about it. Take it for what its worth.
And maybe I'd take it another way if you weren't, in my opinion, minimizing the potential implications of this story (you call them "minimal," among other things). The best you can muster is to say his parents were "potentially" stupid and greedy. That seems inconsistent to me to having a "wait and see" attitude.
I don't disagree one bit that the entire situation is fishy.
I agree that whoever knows whatever they know, they need to come out, and come out soon with truthful, accurate information. My concern isn't with USC but the truth. We all want answers.
My path to the truth, however, is one not down the road of accusation and leaping off a cliff of irrelevant information, but one of caution. My experiences have led me to that kind of approach, and judging by this response, I think you respect that, and I greatly appreciate that respect.
I have no issue with skepticism, and sharp skepticism. What I have issue with is blind accusation and an overall shrill atmosphere. Your reponse here says you're not part of that and I'll gladly listen to you if that's the case.
Let's hope more facts emerge, and emerge very soon :o).