There Was No Rush to Judgment

The sudden return of JaRon Rush may have come as a shock at UCLA, but a former high-ranking NCAA executive says he isn’t surprised.

Although Rush was found to have accepted improper benefits from an agent and an Amateur Athletic Union coach, his case was described as extraordinarily intricate, which means the NCAA probably had little precedent on which to base the sophomore’s hefty 44-game suspension.

“In complex cases, the NCAA staff errs on the high side,” said Steve Morgan, a former chief of staff. “There really is an expectation you will make an appeal.”

An appeal pushes the case to a subcommittee of university administrators from around the nation who are empowered to make groundbreaking decisions. And that may have been what the NCAA staff wanted all along. “That’s how precedents get set,” Morgan said.

The five-person panel reduced Rush’s suspension by 20 games, making him eligible to play Saturday at Stanford. The NCAA declined to comment on the ruling.

“Even if people are surprised he came back so quickly, don’t forget he missed 24 games,” said Morgan, an attorney who now represents universities in NCAA matters. “That’s a lot for a young athlete.”

UP NEXT

Thursday

at California

7:30 p.m.

Fox Sports Net 2