NCAA Infractions Committee Report on USC - Ghosts of infractions past haunt SC

[DeToxRox]

Dan Wetzel on his Twitter said the report is due this week. Another tweet (took from another forum but the author was not included) said the NCAA is going to say Bush received improper benefits.

One person predicting severe penalties for the Bush affair is Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times. On his Twitter account, he made a prediction of five years probation, a bowl ban and a loss of 21 scholarships.

Should be interesting.

[tyketime]

Until they figure out a way that the "punishment" follows the offending players and/or coaches (which I readily admit I have no suggestion...), then these decisions ring hollow to me.

[Chief Rum]

Dan Wetzel on his Twitter said the report is due this week. Another tweet (took from another forum but the author was not included) said the NCAA is going to say Bush received improper benefits.

One person predicting severe penalties for the Bush affair is Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times. On his Twitter account, he made a prediction of five years probation, a bowl ban and a loss of 21 scholarships.

Should be interesting.

The reports I have seen from insiders is that this was set to be released some time ago, but USC has been trying to lessen sanctions by threatening legal action. No confirmation on that, though.

I wonder if the McKnight stuff has been worked in? And if the basketball program will see any further punishment? Or if the NCAA has backed off of a potential lack of institutional control charge?

21 scholies is an oddly specific number. Most guesses would probably be a divisibile of 5 or 10 (5 scholies, 10 scholies, 20 scholies, etc.). 21 isn't a natural number to be a "guess", which makes me wonder if Dufresne actually knows something there after all.

[Chief Rum]

Until they figure out a way that the "punishment" follows the offending players and/or coaches (which I readily admit I have no suggestion...), then these decisions ring hollow to me.

I would like to see both. The institution gets hit, and the coaches get hit. I doubt there's much that can be done to the players, except maybe strip them of rewards or ban them from NCAA events or something like that.

[DeToxRox]

The reports I have seen from insiders is that this was set to be released some time ago, but USC has been trying to lessen sanctions by threatening legal action. No confirmation on that, though.

I wonder if the McKnight stuff has been worked in? And if the basketball program will see any further punishment? Or if the NCAA has backed off of a potential lack of institutional control charge?

21 scholies is an oddly specific number. Most guesses would probably be a divisibile of 5 or 10 (5 scholies, 10 scholies, 20 scholies, etc.). 21 isn't a natural number to be a "guess", which makes me wonder if Dufresne actually knows something there after all.

I searched for the LA Times Writer and in his Twitter he said he predicted 21 schollies because it is what Alabama got in 2002.

[Chief Rum]

I searched for the LA Times Writer and in his Twitter he said he predicted 21 schollies because it is what Alabama got in 2002.

Ah well, so much for that. He probably doesn't have any inside information on specific numbers than.

[RainMaker]

Until they figure out a way that the "punishment" follows the offending players and/or coaches (which I readily admit I have no suggestion...), then these decisions ring hollow to me.
Well I think it's impossible to punish the players. Coaches would seem much easier than they are making it out to be. Why can't they do what they did to Sampson? You get a 5-year ban from coaching the sport.

The school should be punished when they should have known what was going on. If it's a clean program that has a one time incident with two people who are not high up on the chain, than I see giving the school a pass. But there is no way that USC didn't know what was going on. The same goes for all these other schools that deal with shady characters. You are responsible for the actions of your employees.

The one thing I hate is when schools get postseason bans after the players and coaches have left. You just screw the new batch of players and a coach who had nothing to do with anything. I would rather see them state that the postseason/bowl ban takes place in 4-5 years when all the new players have played out their scholarship. That way new recruits know in advance that they won't have an opportunity to play in a bowl/postseason during those years before they commit.

[RainMaker]

Question about coaches and contracts. Lets say you are a coach and you get a big bonus if you bring a team to the Final Four. Then say 6 years later they vacate your wins. Do you have to pay back the school that bonus?

[Eaglesfan27]

Dan Wetzel on his Twitter said the report is due this week. Another tweet (took from another forum but the author was not included) said the NCAA is going to say Bush received improper benefits.

One person predicting severe penalties for the Bush affair is Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times. On his Twitter account, he made a prediction of five years probation, a bowl ban and a loss of 21 scholarships.

Should be interesting.

Chris Dufresne is a huge SC hater - no surprise that he is predicting/hoping for the worst.

[Logan]

21 scholies is an oddly specific number. Most guesses would probably be a divisibile of 5 or 10 (5 scholies, 10 scholies, 20 scholies, etc.). 21 isn't a natural number to be a "guess", which makes me wonder if Dufresne actually knows something there after all.

Seems to be the equivalent of one "class" given that you can have 85 scholarships out a time right?

[bob]

I would rather see them state that the postseason/bowl ban takes place in 4-5 years when all the new players have played out their scholarship. That way new recruits know in advance that they won't have an opportunity to play in a bowl/postseason during those years before they commit.

Doesn't that effectively become a death penalty though? Who would go play there during that period or for years afterwards?

[Logan]

At a place like USC, I think the detriment to recruiting wouldn't be too great (outside of the loss of scholarships). You'll still be playing on national TV at a high profile school where scouts will be watching your every move. There's not too many Vernon Gholston's out there whose NFL stock skyrockets based on a bowl game.

[Axxon]

Dan Wetzel on his Twitter said the report is due this week. Another tweet (took from another forum but the author was not included) said the NCAA is going to say Bush received improper benefits.

One person predicting severe penalties for the Bush affair is Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times. On his Twitter account, he made a prediction of five years probation, a bowl ban and a loss of 21 scholarships.

Should be interesting.

Am I the only one who sees the irony that an organization that ostensibly is there to promote student athletes uses loss of scholarships as a penalty? I mean, it's not like any jocks have to worry, they'll slide to other schools. Who will suffer is the higher academic candidates with more marginal physical skills who would have never attended the school on probation anyway and now may not attend college at all. Way to go NCAA. It's all about the student athletes? RIGHT.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Until they figure out a way that the "punishment" follows the offending players and/or coaches (which I readily admit I have no suggestion...), then these decisions ring hollow to me.

As previously mentioned, they do have some penalties that follow coaches already. With that said, I think they need to be harder on the schools to reinforce that they need to be much more vigilant about what is going on in their program.

[RainMaker]

Doesn't that effectively become a death penalty though? Who would go play there during that period or for years afterwards?
I think it beats having some unsuspecting kids lose their opportunity based on a past regime. If it costs a school in recruiting, then perhaps they should run a cleaner program.

[RedKingGold]

Question about coaches and contracts. Lets say you are a coach and you get a big bonus if you bring a team to the Final Four. Then say 6 years later they vacate your wins. Do you have to pay back the school that bonus?

Not an expert by any means, but it seems the groundwork is there for an unjust enrichment claim (i.e. coach ended up getting an unexpected windfall).

[Honolulu_Blue]

You know, DeTox, this report really had better come out this week, or I will be pissed. I kept expecting the Big Ten meeting on expansion to happen "tomorrow" for weeks on end.

[DeToxRox]

You know, DeTox, this report really had better come out this week, or I will be pissed. I kept expecting the Big Ten meeting on expansion to happen "tomorrow" for weeks on end.

Well I guess I know one person I will be leaving behind when Zombie Joepa attacks.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well I guess I know one person I will be leaving behind when Zombie Joepa attacks.

I will be pretty hard to leave behind considering I will likely be sitting in your driveway for like 5 weeks before the Zombie Joepa attacks.

Your thread will be all like: "ZOMBIE JOEPA: ATTCKS TOMORROW!" and the fucker wont even have died yet.

[DeToxRox]

I will be pretty hard to leave behind considering I will likely be sitting in your driveway for like 5 weeks before the Zombie Joepa attacks.

Your thread will be all like: "ZOMBIE JOEPA: ATTCKS TOMORROW!" and the fucker wont even have died yet.

Well played. Well I'm across from the Library. I'll have the barbed wire out front.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Well played. Well I'm across from the Library. I'll have the barbed wire out front.

It's ok, DeTox. Don't worry. You're still my College Football Insider. I know your info is good. I blame Pumpy for all these delays.

[MrBug708]

Chris Dufresne is a huge SC hater - no surprise that he is predicting/hoping for the worst.

Cant think of one writer in LA who has it out for USC, so this is rather surprising

[Axxon]

Am I the only one who sees the irony that an organization that ostensibly is there to promote student athletes uses loss of scholarships as a penalty? I mean, it's not like any jocks have to worry, they'll slide to other schools. Who will suffer is the higher academic candidates with more marginal physical skills who would have never attended the school on probation anyway and now may not attend college at all. Way to go NCAA. It's all about the student athletes? RIGHT.

Ok, just me then? I wonder if part of it is because my college didn't have any sports teams so that I approach this issue more neutrally since my school can't benefit/be hurt in the argument. I know it's hard to find a truly meaningful penalty for cheating but losing scholarships should not be in the picture.

[Eaglesfan27]

The reports I have seen from insiders is that this was set to be released some time ago, but USC has been trying to lessen sanctions by threatening legal action. No confirmation on that, though.


That wouldn't surprise me. Oklahoma, Alabama, and others have had issues just as serious in the recent past as what USC is accused of and they were not hit with bowl bans. Heck, Alabama just won a National Title while on probation. If the NCAA tries to levy a bowl ban against USC, I'd expect a strong legal response set on the precedent that the NCAA has set.

[MrBug708]

The fact that USC would want to sue the NCAA would be awesome as it would be the pinnacle of their arrogance. I'm also not sure the grounds in which they would sue though because I'm pretty sure their is a grievance policy that USC would have to follow and knowing Special Ed, Lame, and McNair being on the staff, it would be the fastest way to end up WITH the death penalty, which I'm perfectly fine with as well.

[MrBug708]

According to Wetzel, the report isn't going to come this week due to how lengthy the report is. Whatever that means

[Kodos]

Sorry. Kinkos ran out of paper.

[Ksyrup]

Environmentally sensitive!

[Chief Rum]

According to Wetzel, the report isn't going to come this week due to how lengthy the report is. Whatever that means

LMAO... this organization, seriously, is run by fools. Or liars. Or both. It's sad that, despite that, they wield the hand of fate over whole programs like they do here with USC or have with others in the past.

I'm not saying, as a UCLA fan, that I don't want USC to get hit; of course, I do. But the NCAA is a travesty.

[cactusdave]

The fact that USC would want to sue the NCAA would be awesome as it would be the pinnacle of their arrogance. I'm also not sure the grounds in which they would sue though because I'm pretty sure their is a grievance policy that USC would have to follow and knowing Special Ed, Lame, and McNair being on the staff, it would be the fastest way to end up WITH the death penalty, which I'm perfectly fine with as well.I don't know why it's arrogant to imagine that the NCAA in her infinite wisdom, taking 5 years to render a decision, very likely will screw it up.


Not sure how anybody can defend the current rule set assembled by these academic bureaucrats. It makes no distinction between outright cheating and failure to catch someone cheating.


What preposterous nonsense!


I do think fighting the outcome in the courts is a tough slog considering that the courts have heretofore given the NCAA so much deference despite the fact they are doubtless the largest offenders of Sherman Anittrust laws in the country.


It's pretty unlikely you'll ever see the death penalty again in CFB, although I wouldn't put it beyond the reach of these imbeciles to impose it again.


One can only hope that someday soon they'll realize (or be forced to realize) that the problem isn't the kids or the programs.


That was the problem 30 years ago.


Punishing them has the same effect as Nancy Reagan's "Just say No to Drugs" policy. Putting the drug abusers behind bars whilst the dealers roamed around free.


Do you think Lloyd Lake or Michael Michaels cared about what would happen to USC if they tampered with Reggie and his family? Don't be ridiculous! These aren't boosters. These are predatory agents trying to lead the athletes away from college athletics.


Punishing USC? Talk about leaning the ladder against the wrong wall!


The problem today is the NCAA's shameful exploitation of the collegiate athlete and the unwillingness of the NFL and the NBA along with their player unions to take a stand against predatory agents.


USC will likely go after the predatory agents first (Lake, Michaels and Ornstein) for violating California law and tampering with a collegiate athlete.


Once they've established that in fact, they themselves were victims, not perpetrators under the law, they will challenge the NCAA ruling, using the legal result with the law breaking predatory agents as air cover to prove that the NCAA got it all wrong.

[larrymcg421]

The best way to punish the coaches is for the sanctions to follow them wherever they go. So whoever hires them will have to suffer the same loss of scholarships/bowl bans/etc as the team he left.

[RainMaker]

Punishing USC? Talk about leaning the ladder against the wrong wall!

But this isn't like a couple agents tracked down a player in a dark alley and handed him a suitcase full of money. These guys were welcome in the locker room and on the sidelines at games. They were a part of the team and there is no way USC was naive enough to think something wasnt' happening.

I feel bad for a school when an alum lets a kid drive his Mercedes around. I don't feel bad when the school turned a blind eye to all this stuff. They created the culture and allowed it to happen.

[RainMaker]

The best way to punish the coaches is for the sanctions to follow them wherever they go. So whoever hires them will have to suffer the same loss of scholarships/bowl bans/etc as the team he left.
I don't think you can ban another school from bowl games and such just because they hired a dirty coach. But I don't see why you can't ban these guys from coaching for 5 years.

[sooner333]

Yes, Oklahoma got hit with scholarships, probation, and no bowl ban. I also don't think USC will get a bowl ban. But, I do think Oklahoma may have pretty darn close. We lost our wins (we got them back on appeal, but the appeals process was changed so it's much harder to get them back now--essentially we would have lost that appeal now).

But I think the thing that saved us was the response to the problem. We got much tougher on compliance right after we found out. We let the NCAA know about the potential problem, investigated it, and then kicked the starting QB off the team without waiting for a ruling from the NCAA. I think that swift action helped OU. It's really hard to say what USC has done because there's no open records law that applies to USC as a private school. So everything is up for speculation on how things have been handled internally and with the NCAA. But, from an outsiders perspective, it seems like USC hasn't done much to get out in front of the problem...not just with Bush, because that came out after he was gone, but with the compliance program in general. It seemed that USC thumbed its nose more than fixing what was a potential problem. But if that is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if USC got a bowl ban and OU didn't--also, because of no open records, it's hard to know what else may have been uncovered.

[cactusdave]

The best way to punish the coaches is for the sanctions to follow them wherever they go. So whoever hires them will have to suffer the same loss of scholarships/bowl bans/etc as the team he left.Why all of this preoccupation with the punishment all the time? Why not get preoccupied with the constructive steps required to put an end to an issue that involves less than 1% of collegiate athletes?

It's not a staggering problem. USC had one scholarship athlete the entire decade who apparently decided to shirk the rules. I hardly think that justifies branding the word "cheater" on Pete Carroll's forehead as he moves between jobs.

[Chief Rum]

Why all of this preoccupation with the punishment all the time? Why not get preoccupied with the constructive steps required to put an end to an issue that involves less than 1% of collegiate athletes?

It's not a staggering problem. USC had one scholarship athlete the entire decade who apparently decided to shirk the rules. I hardly think that justifies branding the word "cheater" on Pete Carroll's forehead as he moves between jobs.

Wow, you really think it was just one athlete? Time for cactusdave to do a Google search.

[RainMaker]

It's not a staggering problem. USC had one scholarship athlete the entire decade who apparently decided to shirk the rules. I hardly think that justifies branding the word "cheater" on Pete Carroll's forehead as he moves between jobs.
:lol:

[MrBug708]

I don't know why it's arrogant to imagine that the NCAA in her infinite wisdom, taking 5 years to render a decision, very likely will screw it up.


Not sure how anybody can defend the current rule set assembled by these academic bureaucrats. It makes no distinction between outright cheating and failure to catch someone cheating.


What preposterous nonsense!


I do think fighting the outcome in the courts is a tough slog considering that the courts have heretofore given the NCAA so much deference despite the fact they are doubtless the largest offenders of Sherman Anittrust laws in the country.


It's pretty unlikely you'll ever see the death penalty again in CFB, although I wouldn't put it beyond the reach of these imbeciles to impose it again.


One can only hope that someday soon they'll realize (or be forced to realize) that the problem isn't the kids or the programs.


That was the problem 30 years ago.


Punishing them has the same effect as Nancy Reagan's "Just say No to Drugs" policy. Putting the drug abusers behind bars whilst the dealers roamed around free.


Do you think Lloyd Lake or Michael Michaels cared about what would happen to USC if they tampered with Reggie and his family? Don't be ridiculous! These aren't boosters. These are predatory agents trying to lead the athletes away from college athletics.


Punishing USC? Talk about leaning the ladder against the wrong wall!


The problem today is the NCAA's shameful exploitation of the collegiate athlete and the unwillingness of the NFL and the NBA along with their player unions to take a stand against predatory agents.


USC will likely go after the predatory agents first (Lake, Michaels and Ornstein) for violating California law and tampering with a collegiate athlete.


Once they've established that in fact, they themselves were victims, not perpetrators under the law, they will challenge the NCAA ruling, using the legal result with the law breaking predatory agents as air cover to prove that the NCAA got it all wrong.

That's great and all but I guess Carroll shouldnt have allowed them in the locker room, otherwise you might have a valid complaint

[cactusdave]

But this isn't like a couple agents tracked down a player in a dark alley and handed him a suitcase full of money. These guys were welcome in the locker room and on the sidelines at games. They were a part of the team and there is no way USC was naive enough to think something wasnt' happening.As far as SC knew these guys were friends of the Bush family from the time he was a little kid. Do you think they were signing a deed to a house in front of SC officials? Hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to stuff like this.


How do you think this thing went down? If SC was aware of it and "turned a blind eye" as you suggest then they were complicit cheaters themselves. Otherwise we're talking negligence which is certainly possible, particularly considering the way the NCAA has constructed their LOIC rules.


But there is a distinction to be made between complicit participation with the cheating and negligence in oversight and clearly the former is far more serious in terms of an infraction. So which is it?


I feel bad for a school when an alum lets a kid drive his Mercedes around. I don't feel bad when the school turned a blind eye to all this stuff. They created the culture and allowed it to happen.They created a culture how? By opening up their practice sessions to the public?


The public is allowed to tour Heritage Hall as well. Is it any less likely to imagine a player/family/agent rendezvous may have taken place there?


How exactly does one go about identifying these predatory agent types based upon appearances?


Let's consider 85 scholarship athletes plus their family and their friends all having the capability of placing a program's behind in a sling, all congregating in one place from time to time to watch a ballgame or a practice session if you like. What kind of a surveillance network is required to manage that?


I didn't write these stupid unenforceable rules. These genuises don't bother to think through these problems. The very same people who brought us "excessive celebration" and now the "no messages under the eyes" rule.

[cactusdave]

Wow, you really think it was just one athlete? Time for cactusdave to do a Google search.Has Yahoo alleged anything else? Are you talking about Mayo? I thought we were talking about the football program?


Okay so let's include Mayo. Good Lord! These two kids aren't axe murderers you know. Maybe they took a little money prematurely. Even that can't be conclusively proven. It'd be nice if the public could be relied upon to maintain some perspective here.


Nevermind that half of the Florida and Oregon football teams are in jail, because god forbid, OJ Mayo received a flat screen television while he was enrolled at USC.

[cactusdave]

That's great and all but I guess Carroll shouldnt have allowed them in the locker room, otherwise you might have a valid complaintWhat would have given him cause to prevent it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good Lord, some people will apparently defend pretty much anything.

But on the bright side, you managed to double your lifetime post count (under this username) in just a matter of hours.

[larrymcg421]

Why all of this preoccupation with the punishment all the time? Why not get preoccupied with the constructive steps required to put an end to an issue that involves less than 1% of collegiate athletes?

It's not a staggering problem. USC had one scholarship athlete the entire decade who apparently decided to shirk the rules. I hardly think that justifies branding the word "cheater" on Pete Carroll's forehead as he moves between jobs.

The preoccupations comes with my frustration at seeing punishments carried out that end up hurting people that were not involved in the scandals (i.e. other players on the team), while the coaches can freely move about without penalty.

Much of it stems from being a Canes fan and seeing the penalties almost destroy the program in the mid-90s whilst Dennis Erickson was able to come back and coach at other schools without problem.

[DanGarion]

Has Yahoo alleged anything else? Are you talking about Mayo? I thought we were talking about the football program?


Okay so let's include Mayo. Good Lord! These two kids aren't axe murderers you know. Maybe they took a little money prematurely. Even that can't be conclusively proven. It'd be nice if the public could be relied upon to maintain some perspective here.


Nevermind that half of the Florida and Oregon football teams are in jail, because god forbid, OJ Mayo received a flat screen television while he was enrolled at USC.
To UCLA fans, anyone that plays for USC is a axe murderer...

[cactusdave]

We lost our wins (we got them back on appeal, but the appeals process was changed so it's much harder to get them back now--essentially we would have lost that appeal now).That's interesting. Hadn't heard that before.


But I think the thing that saved us was the response to the problem. We got much tougher on compliance right after we found out. We let the NCAA know about the potential problem, investigated it, and then kicked the starting QB off the team without waiting for a ruling from the NCAA.


I thought OU responded after the allegations were communicated to the public by someone who worked in the office at the Big Red car dealership who was unfriendly to the Sooner program.


Not deliberately trying to cast dispersions on your version, but one of these days someone is going to have to explain to me what constitutes "self reporting" to the NCAA.


As far as kicking Bomar out, I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything else left to do. I mean the guy was dead to rights guilty, and it was as plain as day! What else was Stoops going to do?


I think that swift action helped OU. It's really hard to say what USC has done because there's no open records law that applies to USC as a private school. So everything is up for speculation on how things have been handled internally and with the NCAA. But, from an outsiders perspective, it seems like USC hasn't done much to get out in front of the problem...not just with Bush, because that came out after he was gone, but with the compliance program in general.


What knowledge do you have that suggests that the compliance office has fallen down on the job? I think they were at least as timely responding to McKnight as was OU with Bomar.



It seemed that USC thumbed its nose more than fixing what was a potential problem. But if that is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if USC got a bowl ban and OU didn't--also, because of no open records, it's hard to know what else may have been uncovered.


You could be right. But the NCAA has said repeatedly during the 5 year episode that USC cooperated fully with them, providing access to officials in the athletic department, compliance office as well as the entire coaching staff. I think the media (especially Yahoo) has persisted with this theme that the program has stonewalled the process when USC has simply said, "Whether you think it's right or not, we don't know what took place with Reggie and those people. We weren't involved on any level and it took us by complete surprise".

[dawgfan]

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I'd like to see USC get hit pretty hard given the severity of the punishments levied on Washington back in '93, and to instill a little humility on a program that needs some.

On the other hand, I don't think what happened at USC was as blatantly bad as what happened at Alabama leading to the 2002 sanctions, so I'd rather not see a Pac-10/West Coast team get hit harder than other recent offenders either.

[cactusdave]

The preoccupations comes with my frustration at seeing punishments carried out that end up hurting people that were not involved in the scandals (i.e. other players on the team), while the coaches can freely move about without penalty.

Much of it stems from being a Canes fan and seeing the penalties almost destroy the program in the mid-90s whilst Dennis Erickson was able to come back and coach at other schools without problem.


Fair enough but the coaches aren't necessarily at the heart of the problem in the majority of cases. Just because I coach a football program doesn't mean that I'm operating a large scale surveillance network tracking the behavior of every scholarship athlete in the program.


If that's the job description you don't need a football coach. You need Columbo or Jim Rockford.


As coach I can implement the NCAA's recommended best practices approach which includes reasonable oversight.


if that's not enough and you're telling me that you're going to label me a cheater and make it impossible for me to work at my profession whenever some greedy kid steps out of line, then you're going to find out very soon that nobody wants that job.

[sooner333]

cactusdave-

I don't know what's going on at USC. I'm not near the situation, so I'm kind of going by a lack of response from USC. That's not fair really, but you hear more about this kind of thing with public schools who are subject to open records. I'm willing to wait to find out from the NCAA what they are saying, I was just giving an off-the-cuff impression I have of the situation which isn't based in fact.

The change in the rules on appealing wins was changed afterward from a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to one that is essentially beyond a shadow of a doubt. I heard this from OU's Director of Compliance at a public meeting (i.e., I didn't just pick up on this in conversation).

As to what happened at Big Red, it is my understanding that a person informed both the conference (maybe the NCAA) and OU at the same time about the situation without telling OU that it had been reported. Then OU told the NCAA they were going to investigate. I could be mixing this situation up with another, but I am pretty sure that is what happened.

[JHandley]

What would have given him cause to prevent it?
The same reason you don't let someone smoke in a grain silo.

Shit tends to blow up in your face when you do.

[cactusdave]

333, appreciate the perspective and truly I'm spit balling here as well as this thing has been managed since day one like a military secret.


That's an interesting shift on the part of the NCAA from preponderance to beyond a shadow of a doubt.


I think the issue from an outsiders perspective re: OU, Big Red and Bomar is that the abandonment of wins even on appeal should have been cut and dry.


If the NCAA rule is that a player becomes ineligible when he accepts gifts or money deemed inappropriate by the NCAA, then from that moment forward any wins in which he was a participant should be abandoned.


There is no question that I'm aware of as to whether or not Bomar played in games for at least one season during the same period that he was falsifying timesheets.


Therefore on appeal or not, how does this simple interpretation of eligibility versus non eligibility get reversed?

[cactusdave]

The same reason you don't let someone smoke in a grain silo.

Shit tends to blow up in your face when you do.


You're missing the point.


Obviously Carroll would know TODAY that Lake and Michaels were up to no good when it came to Reggie. But 5 years ago when the only thing that Carroll knew about them was that they were long standing family friends of the Griffins, what exactly is it that he should have prevented? Their access to Reggie? On what basis?

[sooner333]

According to this report the NCAA partially reversed its opinion on the University's failure to monitor, which was the basis for taking the wins away. The players, as far as I know, certainly played after they had falsified their time sheets with Big Red.

NCAA committee partially overturns ruling, reinstates 8 Sooners wins - College Football - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3258745)

[cactusdave]

According to this report the NCAA partially reversed its opinion on the University's failure to monitor, which was the basis for taking the wins away. The players, as far as I know, certainly played after they had falsified their time sheets with Big Red.

NCAA committee partially overturns ruling, reinstates 8 Sooners wins - College Football - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3258745)It tells us absolutely nothing with regard to how on the one hand Florida State should abandon wins (and in that case the NCAA smugly refers to the proposition of the "ineligible player" as the cause for the action, as if the matter is cut and dry when in the case of OU on appeal or otherwise, it quite clearly is anything but cut and dry.


Either an ineligible player participated in a certain number of wins, or he didn't. There's no preponderance of the evidence factor, nor is it beyond a shadow of a doubt.


The standard of proof was never in question where this aspect of the matter is concerned.


So what could possibly be the basis for this ruling or for overturning the ruling if you will? And what should we expect with regard to Bush? Was he ineligible in 2005 the way Florida State players were? Or was he only ineligible the way Bomar was?


I know you don't have the answer but this is ludicrous.

[bronconick]

I wonder with the rumored threat of a lawsuit if that isn't another reason why the NCAA won't touch the death penalty ever again.

Everyone saw what it did to SMU football.

It was supposedly brought up as an option during one of Alabama's probation hearings.

If I'm a major school, and they hand that down, I'm in court before the fax finishes. Court costs would likely be cheaper than becoming irrelevant in football.

[MrBug708]

Usc was on probation back when all of this happened. And then the Joe McKnight thing happened.

I would settle for 5 years probation. The USC donors already paid off the guy with the smoking gun and I'm not sure Lame and Special Ed possess the ability to stay clean for 5 years. But then again apparently everyone at USC is angelic and not an ax murderer

[cactusdave]

I wonder with the rumored threat of a lawsuit if that isn't another reason why the NCAA won't touch the death penalty ever again.

Everyone saw what it did to SMU football.

It was supposedly brought up as an option during one of Alabama's probation hearings.

If I'm a major school, and they hand that down, I'm in court before the fax finishes. Court costs would likely be cheaper than becoming irrelevant in football.


The courts would most likely show heavy deference to the NCAA investigatory process making a lawsuit a very difficult proposition for USC.


Remember that USC is a willing NCAA participant which means that they at least tacitly agree to abide by the rules and decisions of the NCAA.


That creates a huge burden for them to overcome. They would almost have to show that the NCAA process is fraudulent and that they deliberately sought to harm USC with their decision.


On the other hand it isn't completely unfounded. Remember that the courts did indulge Al Davis in his fight against Pete Rozelle, the NFL, the city of Oakland and the proposition of eminent domain some years back.


Thinking about it though, a better path for USC might be to sue the predatory agents (messrs Lake, Michaels and Ornstein) FIRST, for damages directly related to their violating California law by tampering with an amateur collegiate athlete.


This would LEGALLY establish the fact that USC was a victim in these circumstances and might well then serve as the air cover that they would need to double back and sue the NCAA for getting the result wrong and damaging their athletic program unfairly.

[MrBug708]

I doubt USC would take it to court. That would most likely bring testimony of people that wouldn't normally be compelled to speak on the issue.

[cactusdave]

But then again apparently everyone at USC is angelic and not an ax murdererThis from a guy who's head football coach is practically the poster child for cheaters in CFB over the past decade and a half.


It strikes me as nothing short of amazing how Bruins prefer to spend every waking moment telling you what they don't like about USC as opposed to what they do like about their own program.

[cactusdave]

I doubt USC would take it to court. That would most likely bring testimony of people that wouldn't normally be compelled to speak on the issue.


If the basis for a lawsuit becomes whether or not these thugs approached Bush with an offer of gifts and money, that is in direct violation of California law. It's hard to imagine how USC would be placing themselves in a difficult situation under those circumstances.


Their position would be, "You thugs cost our program millions of dollars by your tampering with one of our players. We're going to make you guys pay through the nose so that the next crook thinks twice about it before he decides to screw around with one of our kids."

[dawgfan]

This from a guy who's head football coach is practically the poster child for cheaters in CFB over the past decade and a half.
I have no love for Neuheisel, but let's be clear here - he bent a lot of rules with regarding to contacting recruits and he participated in a high-stakes NCAA basketball pool, but that's a far cry from paying players or cheating to keep players academically eligible. There's a lot of examples of much worse things that have happened under other coaches as compared to what Neuheisel did.

[MrBug708]

This from a guy who's head football coach is practically the poster child for cheaters in CFB over the past decade and a half.

Just because my coach has a tainted past doesn't exclude me from calling a spade a spade.

It strikes me as nothing short of amazing how Bruins prefer to spend every waking moment telling you what they don't like about USC as opposed to what they do like about their own program.

We'd like to at least suck at a level playing field, not one stacked towards USC from the start

[MrBug708]

If the basis for a lawsuit becomes whether or not these thugs approached Bush with an offer of gifts and money, that is in direct violation of California law. It's hard to imagine how USC would be placing themselves in a difficult situation under those circumstances.


Their position would be, "You thugs cost our program millions of dollars by your tampering with one of our players. We're going to make you guys pay through the nose so that the next crook thinks twice about it before he decides to screw around with one of our kids."

That's a very naive take. USC doesn't have a sparkling record and I doubt too many donors want any legal investigator snooping around their AD

[DanGarion]

It strikes me as nothing short of amazing how Bruins prefer to spend every waking moment telling you what they don't like about USC as opposed to what they do like about their own program.
What do you expect? It's how 99% of the UCLA fans are.

[DanGarion]

Usc was on probation back when all of this happened. And then the Joe McKnight thing happened.


Huh? What probation are you talking about?

[Chief Rum]

Huh? What probation are you talking about?

I don't recall the specific details, but I am pretty sure USC was on probation in the mid-2000s for the academic tutors scandal from the late 1990s. I think that's what Bug's referring to. Surprised you would question him, considering UCLA fans are so much about USC.

[cactusdave]

We'd like to at least suck at a level playing field, not one stacked towards USC from the start Sincerely, Sam Gilbert

[Chief Rum]

Sincerely, Sam Gilbert

lol... you know you're reaching when you grasp at a 45 year old straw.

[sooner333]

It tells us absolutely nothing with regard to how on the one hand Florida State should abandon wins (and in that case the NCAA smugly refers to the proposition of the "ineligible player" as the cause for the action, as if the matter is cut and dry when in the case of OU on appeal or otherwise, it quite clearly is anything but cut and dry.


I'm not sure why FSU's wins were vacated. But, if the basis was for failure to monitor, there was a big difference. FSU's employees essentially aided the students in cheating on the test, leading to their ineligibility. OU failed to notice that players were getting paid in their (otherwise allowed) summer job. I think there's a difference there. I'm not sure if the NCAA has vacated wins every time there has been an ineligible player or not.

[cactusdave]

I'm not sure why FSU's wins were vacated. But, if the basis was for failure to monitor, there was a big difference. FSU's employees essentially aided the students in cheating on the test, leading to their ineligibility. OU failed to notice that players were getting paid in their (otherwise allowed) summer job. I think there's a difference there. I'm not sure if the NCAA has vacated wins every time there has been an ineligible player or not.

No two situations are ever going to be the same.


It's not unreasonable to expect these buffoons to at least make an effort to bring some form of consistency to their sanctioning process.


Taking a stand on abandoning wins based on ineligible players is the clearest opportunity to be consistent. In fact I find it outrageous that OU had the audacity to appeal the ruling much less have the appeals committee overturn the result.


In fact, what is the basis for OU feeling slighted for having to abandon wins where there is no question that they won those games whilst their QB was obviously an ineligible player on the take? Sorry but I don't see what having a cooperative attitude in the face of breaking the rules, has to do with something as straightforward as winning games with an ineligible athlete.


What does "self reporting" have to do with that, I wonder?


"Oh sorry officer, I know my young son shoplifted that item from the store, but since they caught him and we're willing to cooperate in the matter, couldn't we just put the item back and call it even now?"


Self reporting is the NCAA's way of saying, "We've invented so many useless, unenforceable rules, that our rule book is now twice the size of the Federal Tax Code. So as a consequence we're asking the programs who committed the violations to turn themselves in because we couldn't possibly hope to enforce all of this gorp on our own. When we have to actually enforce something, it takes us about 50 years to get our act together".


So the rule breakers turn themselves in when it's obvious they're going to be caught anyway thus avoiding serious consequence. What a great system. I think we should try it in our justice system.

[DanGarion]

I don't recall the specific details, but I am pretty sure USC was on probation in the mid-2000s for the academic tutors scandal from the late 1990s. I think that's what Bug's referring to. Surprised you would question him, considering UCLA fans are so much about USC.

There was the 2002-2003 period where they lost 2 1/2 scholarships, that's all I can think of.

[MrBug708]

Sincerely, Sam Gilbert

What does Sam Gilbert have to do with anything?

[MrBug708]

There was the 2002-2003 period where they lost 2 1/2 scholarships, that's all I can think of.

They were also placed on probation. See? What woul dyou do without the Bruins?

[MrBug708]

What do you expect? It's how 99% of the UCLA fans are.

When 99% of USC fans break the law, what can you expect from us?

[DanGarion]

When 99% of USC fans break the law, what can you expect from us?
Why do you hate so much?

[MrBug708]

Why do you hate so much?

I was mocking your use of the 99%

[DanGarion]

I was mocking your use of the 99%

UCLA fans need to be like me. Cheer on USC when they aren't playing UCLA, because USC makes UCLA better and it's beneficial to have a strong opponents.

[Chief Rum]

UCLA fans need to be like me. Cheer on USC when they aren't playing UCLA, because USC makes UCLA better and it's beneficial to have a strong opponents.

Nothing wrong with that if it's a level playing field. When one side is cheating, though (and then their arrogant fans more often than not throw that ill-gotten success in your face), not so much.

[DanGarion]

Nothing wrong with that if it's a level playing field. When one side is cheating, though (and then their arrogant fans more often than not throw that ill-gotten success in your face), not so much.
But the point is USC wasn't cheating... Players accepting money and etc. from people not associated with the team that are "agents" isn't cheating. I know you aren't going to agree with me here, but that's how I look at this. USC appears to have screwed up by allowing people more access to the players than they should have had, but that isn't cheating.

[Chief Rum]

But the point is USC wasn't cheating... Players accepting money and etc. from people not associated with the team that are "agents" isn't cheating. I know you aren't going to agree with me here, but that's how I look at this. USC appears to have screwed up by allowing people more access to the players than they should have had, but that isn't cheating.

No, what's out there at this point is inconclusive. What really went on is under the table and no one knows. What is known is that there were people out there handing out benefits to players, or benefits that are certainly questionable of whether the players should be receiving them. Whether the program itself is pushing that, allowing that, offering that, turning a blind eye, whatever, the players--and the recruits--know. And recruiting was the lifeblood of Carroll's success.

Carroll fostered this environment and benefited from it. It's entirely arguable that a good deal of his recruiting success had at its core this environment, where benefits might be possible to those who come to USC (whether they received them or not).

Although I don't put this on Carroll, but on Garrett. Carroll was just a vessel--Garrett found someone to run the program who wouldn't raise a big stink if stuff was going on around his program. And in the end, it might not even be on Garrett, but on the people above him, the USC higher ups and administrators who knew from their fundraising efforts that boosters weren't going to help them out without a successful football program, or that they would only contribute to the program.

It all comes down to improper benefits, and that's cheating.

[RainMaker]

But the point is USC wasn't cheating... Players accepting money and etc. from people not associated with the team that are "agents" isn't cheating. I know you aren't going to agree with me here, but that's how I look at this. USC appears to have screwed up by allowing people more access to the players than they should have had, but that isn't cheating.
When you're hanging out in the locker room and are on the sideline of games, you are associated with the team. USC can try and pretend that this happened innocently behind their back, but I'm not naive enough to believe that.

[sooner333]

In fact, what is the basis for OU feeling slighted for having to abandon wins where there is no question that they won those games whilst their QB was obviously an ineligible player on the take? Sorry but I don't see what having a cooperative attitude in the face of breaking the rules, has to do with something as straightforward as winning games with an ineligible athlete.


What does "self reporting" have to do with that, I wonder?


I don't think anyone necessarily felt slighted, they just didn't want to give up the wins. I don't see how that's feeling slighted, it's just not wanting to give up what you have. Just like USC would feel slighted if they lost wins or scholarships or bowl games.

Secondly, I think it is important to at least reward self-reporting to an extent. If a school knows of something, but chooses to not report it, I think that is worse than if they find out and report it. Oftentimes the school itself is not the culprit, but somebody who is an employer, agent, or booster might be. So when the school hears about it, it should be better to report it than have knowledge and do nothing. I guess nothing in that article said they got a bonus for reporting it. Only that they shouldn't have known that he was ineligible, so there shouldn't be a penalty. I guess the new evidence standard is for "should have known." Should they have known more than they shouldn't have known, or whether they should have known at all (and if so, then lose your wins).

And I certainly wouldn't call it even when OU lost coaches recruiting on the road and scholarships either. The wins were something that had no effect on the long-term status of the program, just the history of it. If you think the NCAA has too many rules, I'm not going to argue with you...but if you think that means the rules should be broken or no penalties for not reporting broke rules, I disagree.

[cactusdave]

No, what's out there at this point is inconclusive. What really went on is under the table and no one knows. What is known is that there were people out there handing out benefits to players, or benefits that are certainly questionable of whether the players should be receiving them. Whether the program itself is pushing that, allowing that, offering that, turning a blind eye, whatever, the players--and the recruits--know. And recruiting was the lifeblood of Carroll's success.

Carroll fostered this environment and benefited from it. It's entirely arguable that a good deal of his recruiting success had at its core this environment, where benefits might be possible to those who come to USC (whether they received them or not).

If it's inconclusive at this point then why have you PERSONALLY concluded that it's a byproduct of an environment fostered by Carroll?


You admit you don't even know what it is that the NCAA has discovered here yet and then you turn around and make this argument about Carroll or Garrett contributing to cheating.


See I call that HATING. A reasonable person I think, would simply say that they're going to reserve judgement until more of the facts have surfaced.

Although I don't put this on Carroll, but on Garrett. Carroll was just a vessel--Garrett found someone to run the program who wouldn't raise a big stink if stuff was going on around his program. And in the end, it might not even be on Garrett, but on the people above him, the USC higher ups and administrators who knew from their fundraising efforts that boosters weren't going to help them out without a successful football program, or that they would only contribute to the program.

It all comes down to improper benefits, and that's cheating.In a silly, round about way, you've just accused the program of complicit CHEATING which is a charge no one, including the over zealoused haters at Yahoo, have had the nerve to publically allege.


What on earth are you basing this on? Reggie Bush taking money from thugs and gang members means that USC was complicit with that?


Shall we branch off into a discussion about Dealey Plaza and the "Grassy Knoll" as well?


Look I suppose what you're advancing is possible yet the charge we're hearing is NEGLIGENCE not COMPLICITY. You do understand the difference, right?

[cactusdave]

I don't think anyone necessarily felt slighted, they just didn't want to give up the wins. I don't see how that's feeling slighted, it's just not wanting to give up what you have. Just like USC would feel slighted if they lost wins or scholarships or bowl games.Well the comments by David Boren in the face of the appeal sure make it seem as if he felt slighted by the initial ruling.

"The part of the appeal I felt obligated to make was the part that erased the records, because I felt that our coaches were not to blame and I felt that all those other players that were out there and played by the rules, it's kind of like group punishment," Boren said. "You don't punish a whole group for what one or two people do."


Yeah no kidding David! I agree you "don't punish a whole group for what one of two people do" and that same sentiment resonates with every single program who's unfortunately been forced to abandon wins as a result of having ineligible athletes on the field, contributing to those wins.


So the question still remains, why is a different standard being applied?


Secondly, I think it is important to at least reward self-reporting to an extent. If a school knows of something, but chooses to not report it, I think that is worse than if they find out and report it.

Of course it's worse. 333, the behavior you just described would constitute complicit cheating. Not negligence! "We knew something was going on but we were afraid of the consequences." That's not failing to catch a cheater. That's CHEATING!


Often times the school itself is not the culprit, but somebody who is an employer, agent, or booster might be. Yes that gives rise to possible negligence and LOIC . "We didn't know about it but we probably should have if we were taking all of the necessary steps related to proper oversight."


So when the school hears about it, it should be better to report it than have knowledge and do nothing.


Indeed! But that is an obligation each NCAA member has. if you know something you need to say so. Giving this silly credit to programs for blowing the whistle on themselves is absurd! If they don't do that and they subsequently get caught and it's found out that they knew and instead of reporting it, they covered it up, that's COMPLICIT CHEATING.


I guess nothing in that article said they got a bonus for reporting it. Only that they shouldn't have known that he was ineligible, so there shouldn't be a penalty. I guess the new evidence standard is for "should have known." Should they have known more than they shouldn't have known, or whether they should have known at all (and if so, then lose your wins).Of course they should have known. That was the point of the LOIC sanction. The compliance office wasn't properly scrutinizing the timesheets and the employment records hence Bomar continued to get away with fasifying his payment claims.


If you think that means the rules should be broken or no penalties for not reporting broke rules, I disagree.What I said was that these bureaucrats have made up so many rules that they can't enforce them any longer so they've taken to giving credit to the rule breakers for blowing the whistle on themselves, which is absurd.


First, because every program should be obligated to blow the whistle on themselves when they suspect that rules have been broken and they ought not to need an incentive to do that.


Second, it raises tremendous controversy about how and when a program came to know that rules being broken such that they could proactively communicate that to the NCAA to receive future consideration and it potentially penalizes an organization that legitimately didn't know it was having a problem, for not self reporting.


For crying out loud, if I don't know I'm having a problem, how can I be expected to self report it? And if I do self report a problem, doesn't it raise serious questions about how long I've known about it, or how I came to learn of it in the first place?

[cactusdave]

I don't think anyone necessarily felt slighted, they just didn't want to give up the wins. I don't see how that's feeling slighted, it's just not wanting to give up what you have. Just like USC would feel slighted if they lost wins or scholarships or bowl games.Well the comments by David Boren in the face of the appeal sure make it seem as if he felt slighted by the initial ruling.

"The part of the appeal I felt obligated to make was the part that erased the records, because I felt that our coaches were not to blame and I felt that all those other players that were out there and played by the rules, it's kind of like group punishment," Boren said. "You don't punish a whole group for what one or two people do."


Yeah no kidding David! I agree you "don't punish a whole group for what one of two people do" and that same sentiment resonates with every single program who's unfortunately been forced to abandon wins as a result of having ineligible athletes on the field, contributing to those wins.


So the question still remains, why is a different standard being applied?


Secondly, I think it is important to at least reward self-reporting to an extent. If a school knows of something, but chooses to not report it, I think that is worse than if they find out and report it.

Of course it's worse. 333, the behavior you just described would constitute complicit cheating. Not negligence! "We knew something was going on but we were afraid of the consequences." That's not failing to catch a cheater. That's CHEATING!


Often times the school itself is not the culprit, but somebody who is an employer, agent, or booster might be. Yes that gives rise to possible negligence and LOIC . "We didn't know about it but we probably should have if we were taking all of the necessary steps related to proper oversight."


So when the school hears about it, it should be better to report it than have knowledge and do nothing.


Indeed! But that is an obligation each NCAA member has. if you know something you need to say so. Giving this silly credit to programs for blowing the whistle on themselves is absurd! If they don't do that and they subsequently get caught and it's found out that they knew and instead of reporting it, they covered it up, that's COMPLICIT CHEATING.


I guess nothing in that article said they got a bonus for reporting it. Only that they shouldn't have known that he was ineligible, so there shouldn't be a penalty. I guess the new evidence standard is for "should have known." Should they have known more than they shouldn't have known, or whether they should have known at all (and if so, then lose your wins).Of course they should have known. That was the point of the LOIC sanction. The compliance office wasn't properly scrutinizing the timesheets and the employment records hence Bomar continued to get away with fasifying his payment claims.


If you think that means the rules should be broken or no penalties for not reporting broke rules, I disagree.What I said was that these bureaucrats have made up so many rules that they can't enforce them any longer so they've taken to giving credit to the rule breakers for blowing the whistle on themselves, which is absurd.


First, because every program should be obligated to blow the whistle on themselves when they suspect that rules have been broken and they ought not to need an incentive to do that.


Second, it raises tremendous controversy about how and when a program came to know that rules being broken such that they could proactively communicate that to the NCAA to receive future consideration and it potentially penalizes an organization that legitimately didn't know it was having a problem, for not self reporting.


For crying out loud, if I don't know I'm having a problem, how can I be expected to self report it? And if I do self report a problem, doesn't it raise serious questions about how long I've known about it, or how I came to learn of it in the first place?

[RainMaker]

Settle down cactus. There is not a chance in hell the NCAA gives USC a penalty that impacts the program in a major way. You guys can keep on cheating with impunity.

[duckman]

I keep laughing when I read cactusdave's post because I keep placing long pauses between his paragraphs. Please tell me I'm not the only one! :D

[cactusdave]

Settle down cactus. There is not a chance in hell the NCAA gives USC a penalty that impacts the program in a major way. You guys can keep on cheating with impunity.Just having a conversation. Hoping to learn something from another knowledgeable fan.

[cactusdave]

I keep laughing when I read cactusdave's post because I keep placing long pauses between his paragraphs. Please tell me I'm not the only one! :DIt's by no means required reading you know.

[Chief Rum]

If it's inconclusive at this point then why have you PERSONALLY concluded that it's a byproduct of an environment fostered by Carroll?


You admit you don't even know what it is that the NCAA has discovered here yet and then you turn around and make this argument about Carroll or Garrett contributing to cheating.


See I call that HATING. A reasonable person I think, would simply say that they're going to reserve judgement until more of the facts have surfaced.

Nothing conclusive, as in "nothing outwardly confirmed in the media at large". There's a ton of scuttlebutt about what has been going on, floating around in USC and UCLA circles. I am aware of that scuttlebutt, and I know that what is proveable and what else is thought to have happened by many close to USC or to observers of USC are two different things.

Everyone following the program who is not trying to be a biased USC honk knows the environment Carroll projected. Fun, good times, loud music in open practices, funny pranks, celebrities on the sidelines at games, etc. Carroll was Dr. Feelgood.

The presence of guys like Lake and Michaels fits right in with that environment. It was a party at USC, all friends invited. This was not a tightly wound, closed environment. Carroll didn't want it that way. He wanted his players to have fun, and he has never been accused of being particular about this rule or that rule or checking IDs at the door.

It's not exactly hard for hangers-on looking to cash on to get in on a situation like this, if they want to.

I accuse Carroll of being loose with the environment he had set up, and I accuse Garrett of hiring Carroll exactly because he is not a stickler for the rules. Was Carroll actively involved in cheating? I don't know and neither do you. I actually tend to doubt it--it's more something he would let his son Brennan or Ed O or Todd McLaren (or however you say his name) deal with. But the way he operated things, whether intentional or not, contributed to the possibility that his players could come under outside influences.

It doesn't really much matter to me what you call it. I know that you're not a "reasonable" person in this discussion, certainly not any more than I am (and probably far less).

In a silly, round about way, you've just accused the program of complicit CHEATING which is a charge no one, including the over zealoused haters at Yahoo, have had the nerve to publically allege.


What on earth are you basing this on? Reggie Bush taking money from thugs and gang members means that USC was complicit with that?


Shall we branch off into a discussion about Dealey Plaza and the "Grassy Knoll" as well?


Look I suppose what you're advancing is possible yet the charge we're hearing is NEGLIGENCE not COMPLICITY. You do understand the difference, right?

I doubt the NCAA is going to quibble over negligence as opposed to complicity. Do you?

And you are one labelling things. I never said USC was complicit in cheating. I said what the situation was and that that situation amounts to improper benefits, which is cheating. You are the one drawing an arrow from one to the other.

There was a time when I would really get into long, stupid harangues with EF27, the resident myopic USC fan on the board here. I never realized what a relative pleasure it is debating with him. You appear to want to be insulting in tone (as well as unreasonable). I hope EF27 comes back soon, so I can have a rational discussion with him, rather than sitting here having you question my vocabulary.

[cactusdave]

No reason to feel insulted. I don't know you so it couldn't possibly be personal. Sorry if you feel the tone is too aggressive.

[Eaglesfan27]

There was a time when I would really get into long, stupid harangues with EF27, the resident myopic USC fan on the board here. I never realized what a relative pleasure it is debating with him. You appear to want to be insulting in tone (as well as unreasonable). I hope EF27 comes back soon, so I can have a rational discussion with him, rather than sitting here having you question my vocabulary.

I'm not myopic.

I am very optimistic. A USC member on the premium board posted this list of some very good reasons for optimism for Trojan fans:

1.) Pete Carroll said he expects no sanctions, which means things went real well at the hearings. I know PC is positive, but he ain't stupid.
2.) Tim Floyd was allowed to coach at UTEP.
3.) The NCAA wanted Bush's depo and didn't get it. That right their tells you they don't have what they want. They have the same evidence that couldn't close this case 3 years ago.
4.) The NCAA infractions hearing do not read Message boards, where the most of the USC hate is.
5.) If the NCAA is still trying to prove that Bush took money, how could they expect USC to have known about it.
6.) ESPN/ABC just released their TV schedule, with USC the headliner.
7.) Florida State had 61 athletes cheat in 9 different sports. That is the epitome of cheating. FSU misses no postseason or bowl games.
8.) Todd McNair is still the RB coach. He would have been shown the door 3 years ago if he was a liability.


I'll add a few of my own to the list:

President Steven Sample said after the hearings "It will come out and it will be great."

The team has managed to convince a bunch of recruits including multiple out of state kids to come to USC despite the late change in staff and put together the #1 class (at least according to Rivals.) Maybe they just blew smoke up a bunch of kid's asses, but that would be destroying their long term credibility if they did so. Instead, I believe they presented the info they have and they knew would lead to a slap on the wrists and the recruits were convinced of the same.

[Noop]

7.) Florida State had 61 athletes cheat in 9 different sports. That is the epitome of cheating. FSU misses no postseason or bowl games.

You're clueless. What happened at Florida State was a professor didn't change his damn test and students had access to older test. It is not like all 61 of those students were cheating in different classes.

Florida State should have never forfeited games or scholarship since it was an issue with the university itself. The NCAA wanted to get pay back for the whole mascot thing a few years ago.

You may go back to believe your cheating ass school is innocent.

[Eaglesfan27]

You're clueless. What happened at Florida State was a professor didn't change his damn test and students had access to older test. It is not like all 61 of those students were cheating in different classes.

Florida State should have never forfeited games or scholarship since it was an issue with the university itself. The NCAA wanted to get pay back for the whole mascot thing a few years ago.

You may go back to believe your cheating ass school is innocent.

I was quoting a list from another poster on another board without editing it. The fact is that a lot of schools have gotten away with various serious offenses over the last decade without significant sanctions. The precedent has been set and that is part of my optimism.

[Noop]

I was quoting a list from another poster on another board without editing it. The fact is that a lot of schools have gotten away with various serious offenses over the last decade without significant sanctions. The precedent has been set and that is part of my optimism.

Apologizes if you were just quoting another fan.

[Eaglesfan27]

To be clear, I think USC will get probation and the loss of a few scholarships, just like other programs have gotten. I just don't think they will get a bowl ban or TV ban and as long as they don't, I'll be happy.

Edit to add: The first 8 points in my post above are directly from another fan on a USC message board. I think as a group he has good points why USC won't get a major penalty (i.e. TV/Bowl ban.) Only the point about Sample and recruiting are my own thoughts.

[Chief Rum]

No reason to feel insulted. I don't know you so it couldn't possibly be personal. Sorry if you feel the tone is too aggressive.

If that wasn't your intent, no insult then. Tone is always difficult to read on the Internet. One tip I'll give you, though, is that if you continue to lecture me on vocabulary, I will continue to take offense at that. ;)

[Chief Rum]

I'm not myopic.

I am very optimistic. A USC member on the premium board posted this list of some very good reasons for optimism for Trojan fans:

1.) Pete Carroll said he expects no sanctions, which means things went real well at the hearings. I know PC is positive, but he ain't stupid.
2.) Tim Floyd was allowed to coach at UTEP.
3.) The NCAA wanted Bush's depo and didn't get it. That right their tells you they don't have what they want. They have the same evidence that couldn't close this case 3 years ago.
4.) The NCAA infractions hearing do not read Message boards, where the most of the USC hate is.
5.) If the NCAA is still trying to prove that Bush took money, how could they expect USC to have known about it.
6.) ESPN/ABC just released their TV schedule, with USC the headliner.
7.) Florida State had 61 athletes cheat in 9 different sports. That is the epitome of cheating. FSU misses no postseason or bowl games.
8.) Todd McNair is still the RB coach. He would have been shown the door 3 years ago if he was a liability.


I'll add a few of my own to the list:

President Steven Sample said after the hearings "It will come out and it will be great."

The team has managed to convince a bunch of recruits including multiple out of state kids to come to USC despite the late change in staff and put together the #1 class (at least according to Rivals.) Maybe they just blew smoke up a bunch of kid's asses, but that would be destroying their long term credibility if they did so. Instead, I believe they presented the info they have and they knew would lead to a slap on the wrists and the recruits were convinced of the same.




Bollocks. You're as myopic as they come. That's like telling me your not a psychiatrist either. ;)

I actually agree with you somewhat. I think the NCAA wanted the Bush (and Michaels) deposition to strengthen their case. I think they have a TON of stuff on USC, because I strongly suspect USC did (and probably is still doing, given the current coaching staff) a TON of stuff. But it will be innuendo, hints, stories that don't match, unexpected financial contributions, things that skirt the rules but don't go full on into violations of the bylaws, like the crap Special Ed and Lame pulled at Tennessee on their way out the door.

Without a real hook, it will be harder for the NCAA to come down as hard as they want to and probably suspect they need to. I am certain much of the rest of the member schools, particularly other top programs like Texas, LSU, Florida, Notre Dame, etc., are pushing the NCAA strongly to not play this hand weakly, because they don't like what's gone on in South Central either, and they don't like that USC goes into their traditional "territories" and takes away recruits either. So the NCAA is in a tough place, because some powerful schools are on them on one end, but they don't have as strong a case as they like and USC has deep pockets and is threatening legal action.

I think all that has a lot to do with the delay in the sanctions. Of course, the latest delay is supposedly because of the "size" of the report. If that's true, you could also reason that's because there is so much there, and that would seem to suggest some rough sanctions are coming to USC. Tough to say.

My guess is what you're guessing, that it will be probation and scholies. A bowl ban for a year will be considered but in the end not done. The scholies will probably be harsher than expected, for two reasons; 1) USC was on probation when the Bush stuff happened, so this is a second offense; 2) the NCAA will be pissed they couldn't swing a bowl ban and will need sharper scholie losses to keep the other member schools off their back. I also think the NCAA will vacate some wins from the 2004-05 seasons, but they don't have the ability to change anything with respect to the 2004 BCS championship or Bush's Heisman.

Of course, I am convinced Kiffin is dirtier than Carroll, more arrogant than Carroll and not as good of a gameday coach, so maybe in the end, sanctions won't matter as much as Carroll leaving for the pros.

[Chief Rum]

Oh, as to the TV stuff, I don't think that was ever seriously considered. Taking away USC TV games hurts the exposure of the opponent as well, and the Pac 10, unfairly. It also hurts the NCAA's negotiations with future TV partners in contract renewals. So I don't think TV is an appealing punishment option for them.

I do think it's possible they might find some way to withhold TV money from USC, or at least delay its arriving at Heritage Hall until after the probationary period is over (although I don't know if the NCAA has ever done anything like that before).

[TroyF]

Oh, as to the TV stuff, I don't think that was ever seriously considered. Taking away USC TV games hurts the exposure of the opponent as well, and the Pac 10, unfairly. It also hurts the NCAA's negotiations with future TV partners in contract renewals. So I don't think TV is an appealing punishment option for them.

I do think it's possible they might find some way to withhold TV money from USC, or at least delay its arriving at Heritage Hall until after the probationary period is over (although I don't know if the NCAA has ever done anything like that before).


Agreed. If they had videotape of Carroll giving Bush an SUV filled with bags of cash, I still don't think the NCAA would strip USC of bowl games or TV rights. That hurts their cash cow. It was never, ever going to happen.

I do think they are getting probation and the loss of scholarships and I do think it will be a little more severe than a lot of USC people think. If they were going to do nothing, they could simply close the case and call it a day.

[MrBug708]

I think in the end, the punishment USC will receive will be harsher then the alums want and lighter then the rest of college football wishes it was given

[cactusdave]

Bollocks. You're as myopic as they come. That's like telling me your not a psychiatrist either. ;)

I actually agree with you somewhat. I think the NCAA wanted the Bush (and Michaels) deposition to strengthen their case. I think they have a TON of stuff on USC, because I strongly suspect USC did (and probably is still doing, given the current coaching staff) a TON of stuff. But it will be innuendo, hints, stories that don't match, unexpected financial contributions, things that skirt the rules but don't go full on into violations of the bylaws, like the crap Special Ed and Lame pulled at Tennessee on their way out the door.

Without a real hook, it will be harder for the NCAA to come down as hard as they want to and probably suspect they need to. I am certain much of the rest of the member schools, particularly other top programs like Texas, LSU, Florida, Notre Dame, etc., are pushing the NCAA strongly to not play this hand weakly, because they don't like what's gone on in South Central either, and they don't like that USC goes into their traditional "territories" and takes away recruits either. So the NCAA is in a tough place, because some powerful schools are on them on one end, but they don't have as strong a case as they like and USC has deep pockets and is threatening legal action.

I think all that has a lot to do with the delay in the sanctions. Of course, the latest delay is supposedly because of the "size" of the report. If that's true, you could also reason that's because there is so much there, and that would seem to suggest some rough sanctions are coming to USC. Tough to say.

My guess is what you're guessing, that it will be probation and scholies. A bowl ban for a year will be considered but in the end not done. The scholies will probably be harsher than expected, for two reasons; 1) USC was on probation when the Bush stuff happened, so this is a second offense; 2) the NCAA will be pissed they couldn't swing a bowl ban and will need sharper scholie losses to keep the other member schools off their back. I also think the NCAA will vacate some wins from the 2004-05 seasons, but they don't have the ability to change anything with respect to the 2004 BCS championship or Bush's Heisman.

Of course, I am convinced Kiffin is dirtier than Carroll, more arrogant than Carroll and not as good of a gameday coach, so maybe in the end, sanctions won't matter as much as Carroll leaving for the pros.


I think the inuendos and hints and anecdotal thoughts can be dsicovered in any major program in the country. It just happens to be SC's turn in the barrel again.


I read where Ohio State committed something like a thousand minor infractions in 2009 (okay maybe it was only hundreds), which tells me two things. First, the NCAA is completely out of control when it comes to unenforceable rules and second that every school struggles to keep from bending the vast majority of these silly regulations.


I think the biggest problem the NCAA has with the Bush incident is that they don't have the "smoking gun" and they never will have it.


If they can't nail down what exactly it was that Bush and family did or didn't do after 5 years of investigation, it's an extreme reach to assert that SC should have been able to see it coming and deal with it either.


That's a wall that mitigates the circumstances in SC's favor that the NCAA just can't get over IMO. Not for lack of trying certainly.

[MrBug708]

Friday is D-day for the slap on the wirst

[Eaglesfan27]

Friday is D-day for the slap on the wirst

I wouldn't necessarily believe ESPN. I do think it will finally come this week, but my guess is that it will be on Thursday.

[MrBug708]

I think Friday so they can skip out on the SEC and the media for the weekend

[Chief Rum]

I think Friday so they can skip out on the SEC and the media for the weekend

I agree. The NCAA did the same thing to Alabama in 2002 (Friday announcement), and they just did it to UConn this past Friday. My understanding is that this is intentional; a normal PR move the NCAA does.

The NCAA, from what I have seen, doesn't like to have to answer questions about its rulings.

[MrBug708]

The first "rumors" are appearing

Probation:
5 year window with 3 active
17 over 3 scholarships
1 year bowl ban
no TV ban

If true it's basically the slap on the wrist like everyone thought

[Swaggs]

The first "rumors" are appearing

Probation:
5 year window with 3 active
17 over 3 scholarships
1 year bowl ban
no TV ban

If true it's basically the slap on the wrist like everyone thought

Do they have to vacate any wins or championships?

[bob]

I've heard complaints that say the NCAA can only investigate so much because they have no power once the athlete graduates - you can't force them to talk and you can't punish them if they lie. To get around that, why don't they make scholarship offers a legally binding contract with specific language around taking money from schools, agents, etc, with specific punishment. Then the NCAA could sue an athlete for breach of contract, force it into a real court system, and get answers (see Chris Webbers' "I'll lie to the NCAA but not federal court").

I don't really follow recruiting that much, so maybe this just isn't possible due to something I'm not thinking of.

[DaddyTorgo]

The first "rumors" are appearing

Probation:
5 year window with 3 active
17 over 3 scholarships
1 year bowl ban
no TV ban

If true it's basically the slap on the wrist like everyone thought

seriously.

[RainMaker]

I've heard complaints that say the NCAA can only investigate so much because they have no power once the athlete graduates - you can't force them to talk and you can't punish them if they lie. To get around that, why don't they make scholarship offers a legally binding contract with specific language around taking money from schools, agents, etc, with specific punishment. Then the NCAA could sue an athlete for breach of contract, force it into a real court system, and get answers (see Chris Webbers' "I'll lie to the NCAA but not federal court").

I don't really follow recruiting that much, so maybe this just isn't possible due to something I'm not thinking of.
Probably is just too much of a hassle for them legally. There are complaints from some fans, but it's not really going to hurt the popularity of the sports. No one is going to stop watching college football because a few schools like USC are allowed to cheat.

[SnDvls]

Do they have to vacate any wins or championships?

I'd imagine they'd vacate wins from 2 years and their Pac-10 Championships. The BCS title isn't governed by the NCAA so they can't do anything about that, but the BCS board can strip them of it, but they won't award it to someone else it will just go "unwon" for that year.

[Eaglesfan27]

There is noise out of USC that they haven't even received the report yet and that all of these experts who are guaranteeing the report is coming out tomorrow are going to look silly tomorrow when the report isn't announced.

[MrBug708]

The fact that it has taken this long has already made the NCAA look silly

[Eaglesfan27]

The fact that it has taken this long has already made the NCAA look silly

I meant the Yahoo "writers" who are guaranteeing the report is coming out tomorrow and that USC is going to get hammered. Not to mention ESPN reporting that they know the report is coming out tomorrow. It could come out, but if so, Heritage Hall and Steven Sample have done an amazing job of shutting down all possible leaks and USC's Public Information Officer has denied that they have the report as of late this afternoon and USC has to be given the report at least 24 hours before it is made public. I think all of these rumors of what the punishment will be are just wild guesses, just like all of these guarantees about it being out tomorrow are.

[RainMaker]

Hasn't Yahoo shown to be pretty spot-on with their college reporting? I'd argue that they are becoming one of the best journalistic sports sites on the web.

[MrBug708]

Yahoo has credibility in the sports world, expect with USC fans. I believe they broke the UConn violations. THey broke the Bush case and Bush has since paid off both Michaels and Lake. I'd say they have been vindicated

[Logan]

I meant the Yahoo "writers" who are guaranteeing the report is coming out tomorrow and that USC is going to get hammered.

If what is being reported here is considered "hammered"...

[Poli]

Why hasn't this thread title been edited yet?

[Poli]

That's better.

[Eaglesfan27]

If what is being reported here is considered "hammered"...

No, a yahoo writer wrote yesterday that he guarantees the report is coming out today (highly unlikely now) and that "USC is getting the worst penalty in decades, book it." Yahoo may have gotten a few things correct, but overall their sports "writers" are terrible.

[DanGarion]

Well that writer should be out of a job.

[MrBug708]

Same source as Norm Chow to USC :)

[sterlingice]

Why hasn't this thread title been edited yet?

It's like the Duke Nukem Forever of NCAA slaps on the wrist?

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

A reliable writer on USC's site indicates that USC has gotten the report today and it should be made public on Wednesday. The report is supposedly 135 pages long.

[dawgfan]

A reliable writer on USC's site indicates that USC has gotten the report today and it should be made public on Wednesday. The report is supposedly 135 pages long.
I'm guessing (from perusing other violations reports) that the length of the report, if true, would not be good news for USC.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm guessing (from perusing other violations reports) that the length of the report, if true, would not be good news for USC.

Or it could be a long explanation of everything they tried to prove but couldn't. Either way, they have to cover themselves.

[dawgfan]

Or it could be a long explanation of everything they tried to prove but couldn't. Either way, they have to cover themselves.
I guess that's possible too. Given the length of time of the investigation, you'd expect a lot to be written down either way.

[DeToxRox]

Sounds like tomorrow, but like always I'll believe it when I see it:

Lather, rinse, repeat: NCAA report on USC coming Thursday
Posted by John Taylor on June 9, 2010 12:52 PM ET
We know, we know, we know. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three or four or five times? Take a sledgehammer to my groin for being an über-dolt.

And, yet, here we are again.

A mere 109 days after the NCAA concluded their hearing with USC regarding the probe into their football and basketball programs, it appears that the NCAA is set to release the results of their findings. Again.

This time, it's ESPN.com's Joe Schad with the news of an imminent release.

"USC penalties will be announced tomorrow," Schad wrote on his Twitter account.

No further details were given. Although it is interesting to see that Schad chose to write that it will be penalties that will be announced.

As has been our way of dealing with every case of premature speculation, though, we won't hold our breath waiting for the report to come tomorrow, next week or sometime around when Reggie Bush's kid graduates. College.

But, eventually, somebody has to nail it, right? Right???

UPDATE 1:27 p.m. ET: Charles Robinson of Yahoo! Sports just tweeted the following regarding the release of the NCAA's findings. And it looks as, dadgummit, the sucker may indeed be released tomorrow.

"A source says USC expects 2 have a copy of the NCAA's report in their hands in the next few hours. NCAA & USC press conference tomorrow."

[MrBug708]

ESPN's source has to be the same as Mizzou's source

[Eaglesfan27]

ESPN's source has to be the same as Mizzou's source

True, but in this case, it looks like it will finally be done tomorrow. I have a bad feeling that neither USC fans nor USC haters are going to be happy.

[DeToxRox]

Reading a USC fan thread on another site I frequent, they are saying 30 schollies lost over 3 years and a 2 year bowl ban. No idea how true it is but it sounds brutal for USC if true.

[bronconick]

Reading a USC fan thread on another site I frequent, they are saying 30 schollies lost over 3 years and a 2 year bowl ban. No idea how true it is but it sounds brutal for USC if true.

"So.....Texas, since you're coming here anyway, want our Rose Bowl bid? It's not like Arizona State really deserves it."

[DeToxRox]

ATVN Sports (No idea what that is but its affiliated with USC I think) tweets the following:

USC spokesman: No press conference scheduled for tomorrow regarding possible NCAA sanctions. Reports of plan called "erroneous."

[DeToxRox]

Dola, apparently the school will release a press release as opposed to a press conference.

[DeToxRox]

Bruce Feldman tweeted USC gets a 2 year bowl ban and loss of schollies. We'll know for sure tomorrow.

[sterlingice]

"So.....Texas, since you're coming here anyway, want our Rose Bowl bid? It's not like Arizona State really deserves it."

:D

SI

[RainMaker]

Reading a USC fan thread on another site I frequent, they are saying 30 schollies lost over 3 years and a 2 year bowl ban. No idea how true it is but it sounds brutal for USC if true.
Doesn't seem that brutal considering what they did. Seems sort of fair if it also involves the vacating of wins over the years.

So does that mean if they go undefeated and are clearly the best team in college football, they can't play in the BCS Championship Game? Or is it just non-Championship bowls? Just wondering if the Championship is considered a bowl.

[MrBug708]

I'll wait until the NCAA or USC acknowledges it

[Honolulu_Blue]

Doesn't seem that brutal considering what they did. Seems sort of fair if it also involves the vacating of wins over the years.

So does that mean if they go undefeated and are clearly the best team in college football, they can't play in the BCS Championship Game? Or is it just non-Championship bowls? Just wondering if the Championship is considered a bowl.

I never understood why "vacating of wins over the years" was considered a harsh penalty. Who really cares? What happened, happened. Michigan basketball had to essentially wipe out a few seasons because of the whole Fab Five mess, but other than joking about it, it really doesn't mean anything. Maybe if you stripped a team of a National Title, the fans would lose bragging rights or something, but vacating past wins, to me, seems like a really hollow punishment.

The loss of scholarships and bowl bans going forward seems like a much bigger deal, since it has a real, as opposed to a pseudo-real, impact.

[sterlingice]

The only time it's ever had any teeth, it's been fought tooth and nail but still seems to be sticking, at the moment. And that's when Bowden was forced to vacate FSU wins that probably cost him the career coaching wins record.

SI

[Dr. Sak]

So does that mean if they go undefeated and are clearly the best team in college football, they can't play in the BCS Championship Game? Or is it just non-Championship bowls? Just wondering if the Championship is considered a bowl.

I think the proper term that should be used is Postseason ban.

[MrBug708]

Heh...from Detrich Riley's facebook (A kid who picked UCLA over USC after being a silent verbal to them for most of last year). It was a thread with George Uko, a Top 5 DT this past year.

FB status says "DAMN USC Trojans :( Im sorry to hear about the sanctions."

George Uko responds (pardon the language): "fuk fufkf fukkkkkkk meeeeeee D nigga"

DR says "its not too late to transfer bro i told you man. should've listened to me"

Uko: "shuld culd of would of idk nigga im not trying to sit out a year"

Good thing for Mr. Uko is that they'll likely be let out of their NLI's if true :)

[vex]

via Twitter:

http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/563367190/DSCN1871_small_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/tribjazz) tribjazz (http://twitter.com/tribjazz)
(http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/)
If the reports are true, let me be the first to congratulate Colorado State on its improbable 2004 upset of Reggie Bush and USC. 8 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/tribjazz/status/15828045327) via web

[vex]

and:

http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/563367190/DSCN1871_small_normal.jpg (http://twitter.com/tribjazz) tribjazz (http://twitter.com/tribjazz)
(http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/)
Oklahoma should hold its national championship parade along street in San Diego where Reggie Bush's family moved into $757,500 house. 3 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/tribjazz/status/15828487094) via web

[stevew]

So, when they promote Reggie Bush now, will he be known as the Former, Former Heisman Trophy winner?

[bhlloy]

We'll see what's in the report. My guess is at least McNair told the committee that he had some knowledge and that other coaches did as well. It's as close to a death sentence as we've seen for a major program since SMU, so there has got to be some bad stuff in there somewhere.

Assuming the above, I'm pretty sad and disillusioned about the whole affair. You do the crime, you do the time.

[MrBug708]

We'll see what's in the report. My guess is at least McNair told the committee that he had some knowledge and that other coaches did as well. It's as close to a death sentence as we've seen for a major program since SMU, so there has got to be some bad stuff in there somewhere.

Assuming the above, I'm pretty sad and disillusioned about the whole affair. You do the crime, you do the time.

I cant imagine McNair would admit to that, I just find that hard to believe. With no possible jailtime for him if he is caught lying. That means the smoking gun was true (Micheals and Lake), so why not just pay off McNair?

[bhlloy]

Then what is the violation? Considering FSU, Oklahoma and Alabama all got slaps on the wrist (2 of those programs were even on probation at the time). If the smoking gun isn't there a 2 year bowl ban and 20-30 scholarships isn't going to hold up.

[MrBug708]

NCAA could have been gradnstanding and figured it would get thrown out in appeals and everyone would bitch at USC for getting away but the NCAA looks like it did its job?

[bhlloy]

Seems like wishful thinking at this point, but we'll see tomorrow

[MrBug708]

According to Fox News, Kiffin is meeting with the players in the morning to explain the penalties.

[DeToxRox]

According to Fox News, Kiffin is meeting with the players in the morning to explain the penalties.

Are you sure the players won't be explaining the penalties to him?

[Poli]

Fair point.

[Ksyrup]

The only time it's ever had any teeth, it's been fought tooth and nail but still seems to be sticking, at the moment. And that's when Bowden was forced to vacate FSU wins that probably cost him the career coaching wins record.

SI

Blessing in disguise for FSU fans. Bowden had no reason to keep fighting for his job once that happened. And there were plenty of people (outside of FSU) who didn't want to include his Stamford years as part of his victory total anyway. I wasn't too torn up about it.

[sterlingice]

Are you sure the players won't be explaining the penalties to him?

:D

SI

[DeToxRox]

Can't take credit for this but I got a kick out of it.

Apparently the USC defections have begun:

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gator_clause/images/2008/10/09/metmilesrotaryal121.jpg

http://64.13.248.103/images/funnyordietour06.jpg

[Noop]

Then what is the violation? Considering FSU, Oklahoma and Alabama all got slaps on the wrist (2 of those programs were even on probation at the time). If the smoking gun isn't there a 2 year bowl ban and 20-30 scholarships isn't going to hold up.

That was a university issue that involved non-athletes as well as athletes. If Florida State had stonewalled the NCAA nothing would have happened to them. #Fact

[fantom1979]

According to Fox News, Kiffin is meeting with the players in the morning to explain the penalties.

Maybe he can get Al Davis to explain it to them with an overhead projector.

[digamma]

Then what is the violation? Considering FSU, Oklahoma and Alabama all got slaps on the wrist (2 of those programs were even on probation at the time). If the smoking gun isn't there a 2 year bowl ban and 20-30 scholarships isn't going to hold up.

Lack of institutional control?

That has actually been the crime for some of the NCAA's harshest penalties in recent years. Granted these are still small potatoes compared what we'd see in the late 80s and 90s, but that's the catch all.

[MrBug708]

The great thing is that with the scholarship losses, Kiffin has taken 7 WR's and 3 QB's in the last two classes

[SnDvls]

The great thing is that with the scholarship losses, Kiffin has taken 7 WR's and 3 QB's in the last two classes

what?? Mr great coach can't convert them all to OTs and LBs :lol:

[DeToxRox]

USC just got fucked. 2 year bowl ban, limited recruited contact and 10 schollies a year for three years.

[Poli]

I'm really upset here.

[DeToxRox]

Also 4 years probation for USC. I wonder how Lane and Bebe will be able to get around that.

[Logan]

That kind of punishment at a premier program must mean some bad shit went down.

[MrBug708]

Lane Kiffin could turn out to be a great coach, but most fans (well everyone but USC fans) dont think Kiffin and O can go 4 years with probabtion. Thats more important then even a bowl ban

[DeToxRox]

So over the next three years USC will basically sign 45 scholarship players. That is brutal.

[MrBug708]

So over the next three years USC will basically sign 45 scholarship players. That is brutal.

They'll probably be able to spread them out over a few years.

[MrBug708]

DanWetzel The 30 lost scholarships is an absolutely massive total. That's a behind the woodshed type punishment. Also, two year bowl ban

BryanDFischer USC Penalties: 4yr probation, vacate wins in bball in 09-10, 2yr bowl ban fball, w tennis vacate wins, fine of $5,000

BryanDFischer COI considered imposing TV bans but decided penalties were enough, decision was “a very tough call.”

BryanDFischer Failure of USC was to recognize warning signs, b proactive in monitoring, didn't follow through on things, found lack of instit. control

BryanDFischer OJ Mayo violations: received cash, electronic devices, services, meals, transportation and a TV

BryanDFischer Case centered on agent and amateurism violations involving student athlete 1: (Reggie Bush) and student athlete 2 (OJ Mayo)

BryanDFischer Reggie Bush violations: received a vehicle, rent free home for parents, airline tickets, hotel room, cash, limo, furniture, appliance.

USC will DEFINITELY appeal this. This thing is harsh.

[wade moore]

I'm really upset here.


This was my initial reaction as well.

But, to be clear (and I think Poli is in the same boat), I have no malice towards USC. But I LOVE seeing this happen to Kiffin. It's part of why I said (I think I said it here) that the move made no sense for him in my opinion.

[MrBug708]

From ESPN

"The NCAA said its findings included "a lack of institutional control, impermissible inducements, extra benefits, exceeding coach staff limits, and unethical conduct by an assistant football coach.""

Im guessing the Dogfighter got busted

[wade moore]

DanWetzel The 30 lost scholarships is an absolutely massive total. That's a behind the woodshed type punishment. Also, two year bowl ban

BryanDFischer USC Penalties: 4yr probation, vacate wins in bball in 09-10, 2yr bowl ban fball, w tennis vacate wins, fine of $5,000

BryanDFischer COI considered imposing TV bans but decided penalties were enough, decision was “a very tough call.”

BryanDFischer Failure of USC was to recognize warning signs, b proactive in monitoring, didn't follow through on things, found lack of instit. control

BryanDFischer OJ Mayo violations: received cash, electronic devices, services, meals, transportation and a TV

BryanDFischer Case centered on agent and amateurism violations involving student athlete 1: (Reggie Bush) and student athlete 2 (OJ Mayo)

BryanDFischer Reggie Bush violations: received a vehicle, rent free home for parents, airline tickets, hotel room, cash, limo, furniture, appliance.

USC will DEFINITELY appeal this. This thing is harsh.

Tennis team seems to fit in the "which one of these things is not like the other" game.

[DeToxRox]

They'll probably be able to spread them out over a few years.

I am not sure. I am not sure on Pac 10 rules but the NCAA says you can sign 25 kids a class. If these 30 schollies are over 3 years, I don't see how they can spread it out.

[MrBug708]

I am not sure. I am not sure on Pac 10 rules but the NCAA says you can sign 25 kids a class. If these 30 schollies are over 3 years, I don't see how they can spread it out.

I must have read it wrong. That is a harsh penalty.

Basketball, Tennis, and Football means that the NCAA gave them the modern day death penalty

[DeToxRox]

I must have read it wrong. That is a harsh penalty.

Basketball, Tennis, and Football means that the NCAA gave them the modern day death penalty

I know all these recruits right now are sticking with USC (2011 kids) but give these other coaches a week to negative recruit and they will be singing new tunes.

[Swaggs]

I have nothing against USC, but I am glad to see that Reggie Bush (provided the findings are true) will likely have to vacate his Heisman Trophy. It seems like the athletes and/or coaches often get off without much of a penalty, but having to turn over the Heisman Trophy and possibly have the BCS come in and remove the BCS trophy (taking it away from him and all of his teammates on a championship team) has to hurt him a lot.

[MrBug708]

I know all these recruits right now are sticking with USC (2011 kids) but give these other coaches a week to negative recruit and they will be singing new tunes.

30 scholies total, but loss of 10 off both the regular yearly 25 against the cap (75 instead of 85) for three years is going to HURT. Far closer to what set back Oklahoma for a decade than what happened to Bama.

And USC basketball also received another 1 year ban for basketball

[MrBug708]

So where does Seantrel end up?

[DeToxRox]

One aspect that makes this even tougher for ND is now there is no room for error with kids. They are going to not have typical USC classes as it is, but still probably decent but even in those loaded classes they had busts. Cannot afford that at all now.

[DanGarion]

GO UCLA!

[MrBug708]

Oh Dan :)

[DanGarion]

Oh Dan :)

I got a big blue truck now too, (a Ford and I've always been a Chevy guy) so maybe it's time to convert...

[Ksyrup]

If it's any consolation, at least the scholarship restrictions will have ended by the time that 8th grader is ready for college...

[Poli]

Can the thread be edited to include Kiffin-hater chuckles as well?

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I'm not sure who's happier about this news - UCLA fans or Tennessee fans. Is their home-and-home series concluded? Would have been funny to see all the anti-USC/Kiffin stuff between both of the fan bases next year.

[Chief Rum]

Yeah, I'm not sure who's happier about this news - UCLA fans or Tennessee fans. Is their home-and-home series concluded? Would have been funny to see all the anti-USC/Kiffin stuff between both of the fan bases next year.

The home and home is done, but the opportunity may still come: they'll probably be in the same conference by 2020. :D

[MrBug708]

Another reason to question the assistant football coach's credibility in denying that he knew agency partner A is the fact that the two shared a close relationship with a mutual friend ("mutual friend"), a comedian and actor who has appeared in various roles in television and motion pictures. Agency partner A grew up with the mutual friend in the OC. The record in the case included a photograph of the assistant football coach together with agency partners A and B and the mutual friend.

Todd McNair, Rodney Guillory and....anyone have any guesses? :)

[Chief Rum]

Will Ferrell is my guess.

[Chief Rum]

Will Ferrell was born and raised in Irvine, CA, right in the heart of the OC.

[MrBug708]

Yes, I believe so :)

[MrBug708]

I know all these recruits right now are sticking with USC (2011 kids) but give these other coaches a week to negative recruit and they will be singing new tunes.

Just saw that USC's scholarship limits do not count for last year. So with their 19 scholarships last year, you add, 15, 15, 15 for the next 3 years. That's actually a huge point in this.

If USC sues, it could possibly delay when the punishment will occur and if USC loses that lawsuit, they could very well sit their program back 5 years

[MrBug708]

BC makes it official; released a statement a short time ago....in accordance with the NCAA findings, USC's 2005 BCS championship has been vacated.

[Chief Rum]

BC makes it official; released a statement a short time ago....in accordance with the NCAA findings, USC's 2005 BCS championship has been vacated.

BC?

Bowl Committee?

[MrBug708]

BCS...sorry

Pete Carroll's response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT7RvG_FpBY

[Chief Rum]

BCS...sorry

Pete Carroll's response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT7RvG_FpBY

Congratulations Oklahoma?

[RainMaker]

What about Auburn?

[Chief Rum]

What about Auburn?

Hard to reward the undefeated team that wasn't invited to the game over the team that was, and was also undefeated, prior to playing what turned out to be an ineligible USC team.

[Atocep]

The speculation I had heard was that the title would be vacated and there would be no championship given out. No idea if the BCS has said otherwise today, though.

[bronconick]

What about Auburn?


Well, Fox Sports Detroit did a replay of a 2000 High School hockey game that was suspended in the 3rd because of a nasty injury to a player a month or two ago, so I say we get the 2004 Auburn and Oklahoma teams to kickoff this year's college football season at the Rose Bowl (where said game would have occurred)

Minnesota wouldn't mind Peterson playing a meaningless exhibition, right?

:popcorn:

[Tigercat]

Hard to reward the undefeated team that wasn't invited to the game over the team that was, and was also undefeated, prior to playing what turned out to be an ineligible USC team.

Agreed, but it is also problematic to reward the team (OU) that lost in their bowl game over the team they should have played (Auburn) had USC been taken out of the equation instantaneously. But if you have to award one team now in the record books, then OU is the best bet I guess. Co Champs between OU and Auburn is better. But perhaps the best move is just having a *Title Vacated* next to the year.

[MrBug708]

2004 was one of the few years Oklahoma didn't cheat, right?

[duckman]

2004 was one of the few years Oklahoma didn't cheat, right?
:rolleyes:

"Failure to monitor" is hardly cheating, but keep fucking that chicken (as cartman would say). Of course when "Slick Rick" gets busted (and he will), you'll won't be such a pompous ass about your program.

[MrBug708]

I thought it was funny :] wasn't meant harmfully my soon to be conferencemate

[Eaglesfan27]

Heh...from Detrich Riley's facebook (A kid who picked UCLA over USC after being a silent verbal to them for most of last year). It was a thread with George Uko, a Top 5 DT this past year.

FB status says "DAMN USC Trojans :( Im sorry to hear about the sanctions."

George Uko responds (pardon the language): "fuk fufkf fukkkkkkk meeeeeee D nigga"

DR says "its not too late to transfer bro i told you man. should've listened to me"

Uko: "shuld culd of would of idk nigga im not trying to sit out a year"

Good thing for Mr. Uko is that they'll likely be let out of their NLI's if true :)

You missed the part where Uko said "I'd rather suck dicks for 4 years than be a Bruin." This is also very upsetting and I think USC was unfairly made an example of. However, one thing I'm very proud of is how the recruits and current team members are pulling together. Lots of great quotes from recruits and current players about how being a USC Trojan is more important to them than any bowl ban. If Slick Rick can't beat USC in recruiting or on the field during the next 2-3 years, he is never going to do it..

[Eaglesfan27]

We'll see what's in the report. My guess is at least McNair told the committee that he had some knowledge and that other coaches did as well. It's as close to a death sentence as we've seen for a major program since SMU, so there has got to be some bad stuff in there somewhere.

Assuming the above, I'm pretty sad and disillusioned about the whole affair. You do the crime, you do the time.

I read the report (albeit quickly) when I got home. It is only 67 pages and it seems like a lot of supposition and very little proof. Lots of he said, she said stuff. I'm pissed off how hard they came down on USC with a lack of proof.

[Eaglesfan27]

NCAA could have been gradnstanding and figured it would get thrown out in appeals and everyone would bitch at USC for getting away but the NCAA looks like it did its job?


I think that is exactly what is going to happen.

[MrBug708]

USC should sue :]

[Atocep]

I think that is exactly what is going to happen.

I honestly don't see an appeal getting anything overturned. You can't really appeal on the grounds that penalties received were excessive anymore. You have to show that the committee had an agenda and that's damn near impossible to prove.

[Eaglesfan27]

These are just a small sample of some of the great quotes from players on the team today:

Barkley said, "It is a privilege to play at USC no matter how many games we play. We're looking forward to Hawaii. We're not concerned with bowls."

Marc Tyler said, "They can ban us from the post season but the Trojans are still gonna ball, We still going to work hard and ball for our real fans."

Shareece Wright says, "Fight On Trojan World! Let's keep grinding to be the best, don't let things you can control change you!"

Patrick Hall said, "I play the game for my family, friends and teammates! Nothing gone stop us from being great, working hard, or being a family!"

Havili, "I am proud to be a Trojan and wouldn't have it any other way. Fight on!"




Also, word is that George Farmer, SR has told people that his son, who is an elite recruit who has been considered a silent to USC is still firmly for USC and these sanctions won't deter them at all. Several other recruits have said similar things.

Edit: Forgot a great quote from Kessler where he talked about wanting to be a Trojan since he was little and he was still all USC. Antuan Woods said he is still firmly committed to USC as well and can't wait to be a Trojan.

[MrBug708]

If being a trojan means being receptive to having your coaching staff lying to your face, im glad they are at USC

[RedKingGold]

Did I miss this? When did EF move into MBBF territory?

[wade moore]

Did I miss this? When did EF move into MBBF territory?

Heh. You hit on something I was holding back on.

I have a TON of respect for EF27 - one of my favorite posters on this board. Logical, rational, intelligent, etc, etc.

His blind love and denial for USC just doesn't fit with everything else. It really is pretty MBBF-like.

[Eaglesfan27]

Heh. You hit on something I was holding back on.

I have a TON of respect for EF27 - one of my favorite posters on this board. Logical, rational, intelligent, etc, etc.

His blind love and denial for USC just doesn't fit with everything else. It really is pretty MBBF-like.


I'm admittedly very biased in favor of USC.. if it wasn't for them, there is a fair chance I wouldn't be a doctor today. Couldn't afford college without that scholarship and there name helped me get into medical school. That being said, I don't think I've been into MBBF territory at least in this thread. Has anyone else here actually read the 67 pages of the report? They don't have the info in there to support their sanctions.

[Atocep]

Has anyone else here actually read the 67 pages of the report? They don't have the info in there to support their sanctions.

I haven't read it yet, but I'm honestly can't take the USC fans word on it. No offense, but he collective bunch have been delusional throughout this investigation.

In '08 the NCAA redid the way appeals are handled and it's made it incredibly tough to beat them in appeals (schools are 0 for 4 thus far). Here's what penalties can be overturned for:

• The ruling was clearly contrary to the evidence.

• The individual or school did not actually break NCAA rules.

• There was a procedural error that caused the COI to find a violation.

• The penalty is excessive AND is an abuse of discretion.

Their best bet in this appeal would likely be the 4th one, but proving that the penalties were both excessive and an abuse of discretion isn't going to be easy. I think it's safe to say the reason the NCAA was so slow in handing the punishment out was to make sure they were penalties that would stick.

[SnDvls]

I'm admittedly very biased in favor of USC.. if it wasn't for them, there is a fair chance I wouldn't be a doctor today. Couldn't afford college without that scholarship and there name helped me get into medical school. That being said, I don't think I've been into MBBF territory at least in this thread. Has anyone else here actually read the 67 pages of the report? They don't have the info in there to support their sanctions.

I did just finish reading it. There is enough evidence in there to support the NCAA's view and U$C is at fault for many of the things in there. Is everything backed up with a piece of paper? No, but part of that is because Bush and his family wouldn't talk to them, but there are plenty of smoking guns that show there were extra benefits and most of them should have been noticed.

[dawgfan]

I'm a little surprised USC got hit as hard as they did, but obviously the NCAA was convinced the culture around the football program was waaaaaay too lax, and McNair lying to them was a bad move as well.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that USC fans have that the Trojans were unfairly punished, and that the infractions were not based on concrete evidence - I feel the same way about the allegations against Washington back in '93 and the level of punishment leveled back then on the Huskies.

On the other hand, because my Huskies were hit so hard for what they did, there was a part of me hoping to see the Trojans hammered hard for their sins too - tit for tat.

Oh, and where's the mea culpa from RainMaker who kept claiming the NCAA plays favorites and wouldn't dare hammer USC?

[SnDvls]

wow the rebuttle to the NCAA's 67 page report is 169 pages long.

[Noop]

Did I miss this? When did EF move into MBBF territory?

Ditto.

This dude is beyond delusional.

[SnDvls]

SC needs some help on their redactions? I've seen several spots where they actually name Bush's step dad "Griffin" and his mom "Denise" by name and it's not blacked out...oops

[Chief Rum]

I'm admittedly very biased in favor of USC.. if it wasn't for them, there is a fair chance I wouldn't be a doctor today. Couldn't afford college without that scholarship and there name helped me get into medical school. That being said, I don't think I've been into MBBF territory at least in this thread. Has anyone else here actually read the 67 pages of the report? They don't have the info in there to support their sanctions.

EF27, we have had our differences, of course, but outside of USC, I should tell you I otherwise hold you in the highest regard. I have seen you exhibit the qualities of a good, well-intentioned, helpful and interesting person in most any thread not touching on USC football.

What USC football makes you become is ugly. I almost wish you were a complete jerk in all aspects, so at least it would make more sense. Have you been MBBF like in this thread? I don't recall. My memory of the earlier posts in this thread showed cactusdave to have taken on the role of myopic Trojie.

But it's not unfair to label you almost completely and totally blinded by your devotion to all things USC, and you display that regularly.

Given what you have posted here, I can see why you would be so supportive of USC, because of what the opportunities the school has given you (I'll put aside for the moment that, IMO, any school is usually just a tool, and you should instead give yourself and all your own hard work the credit for all that you have achieved).

So given that, you shouldn't be supportive of this situation. You should be mad. You should be angry. At Garrett. At Cheatey Petey. At a USC administration that handled this all so stupidly and arrogantly. You love your school and your football team. And your own administration bent it over and fucked it up the ass, because they were too greedy and too willing to bend the rules (or to allow the rules to be bent) for that greed. That should piss you off, not make you want to join the "Us Against Them" bandwagon.

I'm not interested in ripping USC fans today. I feel bad for them, because I know their love for their program is genuine and they have had nothing to do with what happened today. But there's a time when those fans themselves need to turn to their administration and demand some accountability for once.

[Greyroofoo]

So I'm hearing in this thread the EF27 is a sane rational human being except when you talk about his college football team.



In other words EF27 is just like any other college football fan.

[Chief Rum]

So I'm hearing in this thread the EF27 is a sane rational human being except when you talk about his college football team.



In other words EF27 is just like any other college football fan.

There are different levels of devotion among college football fans. EF27 is a member of one of the more extreme such levels.

[RainMaker]

There are different levels of devotion among college football fans. EF27 is a member of one of the more extreme such levels.
I don't know. I think there is something different when you go to the school and believe it truly made your life better.

My brother is a Florida grad and if I mention anything about how Urban Meyer is a douche, he goes into a tirade about how he is the second coming of Christ. I constantly hear about how the SEC is the greatest conference in the world and how horrible everyone else is.

He's an intelligent, sane person in everything else in life. But go negative about the Gators and he turns delusional.

[Chief Rum]

I don't know. I think there is something different when you go to the school and believe it truly made your life better.

My brother is a Florida grad and if I mention anything about how Urban Meyer is a douche, he goes into a tirade about how he is the second coming of Christ. I constantly hear about how the SEC is the greatest conference in the world and how horrible everyone else is.

He's an intelligent, sane person in everything else in life. But go negative about the Gators and he turns delusional.

That doesn't sound like you're disagreeing. ;)

[MrBug708]

I enjoy the verbal sparring with EF27, though I could imagine how people don't like it, it tends to go on and consume multiple threads.

His team just got the crap knocked out of him and he's facing a reduced squad over the next few years. On top of that, Lane Kiffin is the coach. No need to pile on :)

[MrBug708]

Oh Mike Garrett

"As I read the decision by the NCAA," he told the group, "… I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans."

[RainMaker]

That doesn't sound like you're disagreeing. ;)
I'm not. I just think that his reaction is more the norm and not the extreme.

[Chief Rum]

I'm not. I just think that his reaction is more the norm and not the extreme.

You may be right. I would certainly agree that, in general, college fans tend to be more passionate about their schools than the average fan about a professional franchise.

But I do think EF27 sometimes takes it even further (giving rise to the MBBF reference). He's far from alone in that on this board, though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh Mike Garrett

I kind of figured you made that quote up ... then I saw that he actually said it.

Unbelievable. If that doesn't get him fired before the weekend then any claim of "institutional control" at USC is utterly laughable.

[MrBug708]

Later, he added: "Today I got a purpose for really wanting to dominate for another 10 years."

[Atocep]

I'm reading through the report now. So far I'm 30 pages into it and evidence is pretty damning; especially when you consider the fact that Bush refused to cooperate. The NCAA appears to have done a thorough job.

I would definitely say, though, that Agent A's testimony combined with his sister, the brother-in-law, the NFLPA, and phone records is easily enough to come down hard on the football team in this case.

McNair lying absolutely killed them. Another thing that is clearly working against them in this report is the fact that USC didn't really seem to cooperate much. They fought tooth and nail on every fact in the investigation. Garrett's comments after the report have done nothing but show that there was quite a bit of arrogance in the USC administration that gave them belief that the NCAA really couldn't touch them.



So given that, you shouldn't be supportive of this situation. You should be mad. You should be angry. At Garrett. At Cheatey Petey. At a USC administration that handled this all so stupidly and arrogantly. You love your school and your football team. And your own administration bent it over and fucked it up the ass, because they were too greedy and too willing to bend the rules (or to allow the rules to be bent) for that greed. That should piss you off, not make you want to join the "Us Against Them" bandwagon.

From what I've read thus far, CR's comment that I quoted above lines up perfectly with my feelings on this. This falls entirely on the old coaching staff and the administration. USC fans should be asking for an investigation into the athletic department instead of pointing fingers at the NCAA and screaming that the penalties are unjust.

[BishopMVP]

Whither cactusdave?

One point I haven't seen mentioned - upperclassmen with 2 years or less of eligibility will be able to transfer to any school they want without having to sit out for a year like a transfer normally would. I know according to EF27's collection of quotes everyone is still a TrOjAn 4 LyFe!!!, but I wonder if any players will take advantage of the get out of jail free clause. It's a unique circumstance where they can literally shop around and see what BCS teams they could start for.

PS - as long as we're all being myopic homers, USC can probably thank having ND on their schedule for avoiding the TV ban.

[Radii]

I could name 10 people without trying who are way more irrational about their football teams on this board than EF27. I'm surprised this is even being discussed to be honest!

[Chief Rum]

I could name 10 people without trying who are way more irrational about their football teams on this board than EF27. I'm surprised this is even being discussed to be honest!

Really? I can think of several who are about as irrational, but I can think of few who are more irrational. And I am talking college football here. So I'll throw the gauntlet in front of you-- go ahead and name them.

I'll give you one-- cactusdave. He already showed he is more irrational.

I view EF27 and MBBF on about the same level.

Keep in mind, because I am a UCLA fan, I see this side of EF27 far more often than most.

[Poli]

Given what you have posted here, I can see why you would be so supportive of USC, because of what the opportunities the school has given you (I'll put aside for the moment that, IMO, any school is usually just a tool, and you should instead give yourself and all your own hard work the credit for all that you have achieved).

So given that, you shouldn't be supportive of this situation. You should be mad. You should be angry. At Garrett. At Cheatey Petey. At a USC administration that handled this all so stupidly and arrogantly. You love your school and your football team. And your own administration bent it over and fucked it up the ass, because they were too greedy and too willing to bend the rules (or to allow the rules to be bent) for that greed. That should piss you off, not make you want to join the "Us Against Them" bandwagon.

I'm not interested in ripping USC fans today. I feel bad for them, because I know their love for their program is genuine and they have had nothing to do with what happened today. But there's a time when those fans themselves need to turn to their administration and demand some accountability for once.

I'm with him.

[TroyF]

I kind of figured you made that quote up ... then I saw that he actually said it.

Unbelievable. If that doesn't get him fired before the weekend then any claim of "institutional control" at USC is utterly laughable.

I read the quote. Reread it. Looked it up like you. Reread it again.

Very few things in the sports world flabbergast me. That quote did. Were I a USC fan, I'd be demanding he be fired. Now is NOT the time to start insulting the NCAA. It's the time for apologies for mistakes that were made, promises to put policies in place to ensure it doesn't happen again, and fighting the report behind closed doors.

If I had a son, I'd be one of those jerk parents that would refuse to sign the letter of intent with my son to prevent him from ever playing for a university that had him hired in any capacity.

[Poli]

So I'll throw the gauntlet in front of you-- go ahead and name them.

I'll give you one-- cactusdave. He already showed he is more irrational.

Me? I don't think I'm irrational to the Vols. I actually feel like I'm a bit of a realist in that regards. I quit expecting national championships at UT years ago...once Sanders showed he was just riding Cutcliffe's coattails for a few seasons.

I'm all orange, all the time. I'm 100% Vol in any and every sport...but I hope I'm not viewed as irrational.

[Poli]

I read the quote. Reread it. Looked it up like you. Reread it again.

Very few things in the sports world flabbergast me. That quote did. Were I a USC fan, I'd be demanding he be fired. Now is NOT the time to start insulting the NCAA. It's the time for apologies for mistakes that were made, promises to put policies in place to ensure it doesn't happen again, and fighting the report behind closed doors.

If I had a son, I'd be one of those jerk parents that would refuse to sign the letter of intent with my son to prevent him from ever playing for a university that had him hired in any capacity.

It's incredibly hard to believe he actually said that.

[Chief Rum]

Me? I don't think I'm irrational to the Vols. I actually feel like I'm a bit of a realist in that regards. I quit expecting national championships at UT years ago...once Sanders showed he was just riding Cutcliffe's coattails for a few seasons.

I'm all orange, all the time. I'm 100% Vol in any and every sport...but I hope I'm not viewed as irrational.

If Radii had named you, I wouldn't have agreed. I don't see you as irrational about UT. Or at least most of the time. ;)

[DeToxRox]

What amazes me about USC (the administration) is their unbelievable arrogance in the face of all this. I don't even just mean Garrett's absurd comments, but the fact that, as sanctions were looming, they decide it is in their best interest to hire Lane Kiffin and Ed Orgeron and allow them to keep McNair on staff is amazing.

That is my biggest issue with USC right now. They need to be humbled and this punishment does not seem to have done anything to do that yet. I do sense it'll happen once the appeal holds up, but who knows?

[DeToxRox]

CR had me thinking about irrational fans on FOFC. I think off the top of my head I can think of one MSU fan, one OSU fan, one Mizzou fan (shocker) and that is about it right now. I like to think that the Michigan fans on here are about as rational a fan base as there is (ditto for Red Wings, Lions, etc)

Just how we roll.

[Ksyrup]

That sounds like the kind of frat boy-type quote Kiffin would give. Completely immature and seemingly uttered without consideration for the consequences, or without any decorum befitting his position with the school.

Maybe this really is his dream job.

[MrBug708]

With how it stands right now, given their scholarship situation, USC will only be able to sign seven recruits for 2011. They currently have seven committed.

Im guessing we'll see a lot of defections from the upperclassmen

[MrBug708]

PS - as long as we're all being myopic homers, USC can probably thank having ND on their schedule for avoiding the TV ban.

No, not just Notre Dame, but every team. It's hard to justify banning the opponents of USC for the sins of the Trogans

[Ksyrup]

BC makes it official; released a statement a short time ago....in accordance with the NCAA findings, USC's 2005 BCS championship has been vacated.

Huh?


The BCS is likely to force Southern California to vacate its national championship. BCS executive director Bill Hancock says in a statement Thursday that the presidential oversight committee will meet soon to discuss whether USC will be stripped of its title.

If that happens, there will be no BCS champion for the 2004-05 season. Hancock said no action would be taken by the BCS until the appeal is heard.


Given the way Kiffin and Orgeron handled the recruit situation on the way out of Tennessee, I find it funny that schools are now permitted to contact USC Jrs and Srs about transferring without having to sit a year.

[Poli]

I like it.

[DanGarion]

U$C

Hah... I see what you did there.

[Eaglesfan27]

FWIW, I do think MG needs to fired ASAP.

[Eaglesfan27]

wow the rebuttle to the NCAA's 67 page report is 169 pages long.

Common misperception even on USC boards. That 169 page document is USC's response from the initial allegations and was written in 09.

[Crapshoot]

EF27, we have had our differences, of course, but outside of USC, I should tell you I otherwise hold you in the highest regard. I have seen you exhibit the qualities of a good, well-intentioned, helpful and interesting person in most any thread not touching on USC football.

What USC football makes you become is ugly. I almost wish you were a complete jerk in all aspects, so at least it would make more sense. Have you been MBBF like in this thread? I don't recall. My memory of the earlier posts in this thread showed cactusdave to have taken on the role of myopic Trojie.

But it's not unfair to label you almost completely and totally blinded by your devotion to all things USC, and you display that regularly.

Given what you have posted here, I can see why you would be so supportive of USC, because of what the opportunities the school has given you (I'll put aside for the moment that, IMO, any school is usually just a tool, and you should instead give yourself and all your own hard work the credit for all that you have achieved).

So given that, you shouldn't be supportive of this situation. You should be mad. You should be angry. At Garrett. At Cheatey Petey. At a USC administration that handled this all so stupidly and arrogantly. You love your school and your football team. And your own administration bent it over and fucked it up the ass, because they were too greedy and too willing to bend the rules (or to allow the rules to be bent) for that greed. That should piss you off, not make you want to join the "Us Against Them" bandwagon.

I'm not interested in ripping USC fans today. I feel bad for them, because I know their love for their program is genuine and they have had nothing to do with what happened today. But there's a time when those fans themselves need to turn to their administration and demand some accountability for once.

CHief, have you read yourself on UCLA? You and Bug are so ridiculously over the top ( I want to CMU - my school won't qualify for the 3rd division) that this sounds like a pot calling the kettle black.