Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

NCAA rules on Reggie Bush case


SSOG

Recommended Posts

link

USC is facing a 2-year postseason ban, a reduction of more than 20 scholarships, and a forfeiture of wins. While the NCAA has no control over the Downtown Athletic Club or the Bowl Championship Series, I'd have to imagine this would probably result in Bush being stripped of his Heisman and USC being stripped of at least one national championship.

To be honest, I'd actually given up on any results ever coming from the probe. I really didn't think anything was going to happen. Guess I was wrong- this is a HUGE blow to USC. It also makes Carroll-to-Seattle look even more like a rat fleeing a sinking ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I was wrong- this is a HUGE blow to USC. It also makes Carroll-to-Seattle look even more like a rat fleeing a sinking ship.

This all makes so much sense now. (moment of clarity)Why would Carroll leave the beach, the lifestyle, the Hollywood star symbol treatment, the empowerment of USC for a broken down NFL franchise up in the cold, soggy hinterlands? Answer, he knew the writing was on the wall. A rat fleeing a sinking ship is the perfect description.I blinked a second, and imagined poor, poor Lane Kiffen and his pretty wife celebrating his dream job after jilting Tennessee with a lousy 7-6 record. Then I cracked a broad smile as it seems like karma came around. I wonder if his dad, Monte will stick arround for this? Without his dad, he pretty much loses his credibility. I don't doubt Kiffen was one of Carroll's disciples, er rats, in this whole mess. Carroll and his ilk will meet their doom if karma stays its course.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The second I heard about the probe, I had a feeling Carroll would flee USC. Once he moved to Seattle, I knew SOMETHING was going to happen to USC. Didn't think it would amount to much, but I'm surprised they came down harshly on USC. Karma at work with Kiffin... :towelwave:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second I heard about the probe, I had a feeling Carroll would flee USC. Once he moved to Seattle, I knew SOMETHING was going to happen to USC. Didn't think it would amount to much, but I'm surprised they came down harshly on USC. Karma at work with Kiffin... :confused:

Got to love how the rat, the guy who should have controlled this, is the one who ends up alright in the end. Seattle is a pretty decent place and the Seahawks not a bad franchise. Too bad they won't fire him over this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that surprises me about this is that a lot of people still seem unsure of whether Carroll was just lucky with his timing or got out of dodge before his reputation took a hit. Maybe I'm just uber skeptical in my old age but I think it's unbelievably naive to think he didn't know full well that the gravy train was about to end.

:shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll probably never know for sure, because the NCAA won't reveal how much pressure or heat was being put out by their investigation. It could have been that Pete was buying his time, looking for the right situation to leave, as he knew it was inevitably coming but without knowing specifically when. Or it could have been *completely* coincidental. But today's public never believe coincidence these days because we've been burned by it before. (guilty until proven innocent :goodposting: )

There was an interesting debate on my local radio station this morning, about the punishment possibly handed out by the NCAA. Taking away bowl bids hurts current players, and removing scholarships hurts some current and potential future players. The coach at the time of the incident is gone, and the school administrators receive only indirect financial punishment through a decline in their recruiting class (no scholarships or bowl bids turns atheletes away). Should we instead be fining, directly, the pockets of the school's higher ups? If we do, then are we hurting the current student body, even those NOT associated in atheletics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll probably never know for sure, because the NCAA won't reveal how much pressure or heat was being put out by their investigation. It could have been that Pete was buying his time, looking for the right situation to leave, as he knew it was inevitably coming but without knowing specifically when. Or it could have been *completely* coincidental. But today's public never believe coincidence these days because we've been burned by it before. (guilty until proven innocent :goodposting: )There was an interesting debate on my local radio station this morning, about the punishment possibly handed out by the NCAA. Taking away bowl bids hurts current players, and removing scholarships hurts some current and potential future players. The coach at the time of the incident is gone, and the school administrators receive only indirect financial punishment through a decline in their recruiting class (no scholarships or bowl bids turns atheletes away). Should we instead be fining, directly, the pockets of the school's higher ups? If we do, then are we hurting the current student body, even those NOT associated in atheletics?

I don't think the NCAA has legal standing to take away paychecks from university employees.
Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll probably never know for sure, because the NCAA won't reveal how much pressure or heat was being put out by their investigation. It could have been that Pete was buying his time, looking for the right situation to leave, as he knew it was inevitably coming but without knowing specifically when. Or it could have been *completely* coincidental. But today's public never believe coincidence these days because we've been burned by it before. (guilty until proven innocent ;) )There was an interesting debate on my local radio station this morning, about the punishment possibly handed out by the NCAA. Taking away bowl bids hurts current players, and removing scholarships hurts some current and potential future players. The coach at the time of the incident is gone, and the school administrators receive only indirect financial punishment through a decline in their recruiting class (no scholarships or bowl bids turns atheletes away). Should we instead be fining, directly, the pockets of the school's higher ups? If we do, then are we hurting the current student body, even those NOT associated in atheletics?

I don't think the NCAA has legal standing to take away paychecks from university employees.
You're probably right. I don't know the details regarding how the NCAA governs the colleges, determining how many scholarships they have, how they can inforce rules, etc. Part of the conversation touched on the possibility of some big schools walking away from the NCAA and forming a new collegiate athletic system altogether. Would take some time for this to happen, but an interesting thought.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting debate on my local radio station this morning, about the punishment possibly handed out by the NCAA. Taking away bowl bids hurts current players, and removing scholarships hurts some current and potential future players. The coach at the time of the incident is gone, and the school administrators receive only indirect financial punishment through a decline in their recruiting class (no scholarships or bowl bids turns atheletes away). Should we instead be fining, directly, the pockets of the school's higher ups? If we do, then are we hurting the current student body, even those NOT associated in atheletics?

Personally, I'm good with the current solution. It sucks that it hurts the athletes already on campus, but what it hurts the most is definitely the offending programs. 2 years of probation and scholarship reductions that dramatic could potentially cripple USC football for a decade or more. A lot of blue chippers will be scared away in the next two years by the probation. A lot more blue chippers will be scared away in the years after that by the fact that the first batch of blue chippers were scared away, leaving the talent level at the school below elite. It's sort of a vicious cycle. It's possible that USC will make it through unscathed... but for a look at how consequences can linger long after the punishment is served, take a gander at SMU.I also think it's fitting that USC's coach right now (Kiffin) was on staff during the violations, meaning it's not an innocent party getting punished. The one change I would make is that if the NCAA determined that a coach was even partially culpable for a violation that results in punishment, I think that the punishment should be applied to both the coach *AND* the program. Don't just put USC on 2 years probation, put Carroll on 2 years probation, too. The next college team that hired him would certainly think twice if bringing him in meant no postseason for 2 years and 20 fewer scholarships.
Link to post
Share on other sites

See I totally disagree with the concept this will cripple USC. The only thing that will really sting is the scholarships and how long is that for? The two years post season ban isn't tragic - they have plenty of national exposure with out of conference games to survive the ban. The lost game don't mean a thing - I mean they do in a larger historical context but not in any immediate or long term context.The scholarships hurt but the top prospects will still get taken care of and get their ride.In fact stuff like the post season ban hurts two classes - the incoming freshmen for the 2010 season and the class coming in for the 2011 season. And you can easily sell the kids on 'we're almost out of the woods' for the second class.Hell I think Kiffin's rep slinking out of Tenn is a bigger obstacle to recruiting.Destroy the team for a decade? For real? Let's settle down here. It's not pretty. But it's not apocalyptical.

The one change I would make is that if the NCAA determined that a coach was even partially culpable for a violation that results in punishment, I think that the punishment should be applied to both the coach *AND* the program. Don't just put USC on 2 years probation, put Carroll on 2 years probation, too. The next college team that hired him would certainly think twice if bringing him in meant no postseason for 2 years and 20 fewer scholarships.

I kinda like this SSOG. Especially since Carroll clearly left to avoid the mess he helped make.
Link to post
Share on other sites

See I totally disagree with the concept this will cripple USC. The only thing that will really sting is the scholarships and how long is that for? The two years post season ban isn't tragic - they have plenty of national exposure with out of conference games to survive the ban. The lost game don't mean a thing - I mean they do in a larger historical context but not in any immediate or long term context.The scholarships hurt but the top prospects will still get taken care of and get their ride.In fact stuff like the post season ban hurts two classes - the incoming freshmen for the 2010 season and the class coming in for the 2011 season. And you can easily sell the kids on 'we're almost out of the woods' for the second class.Hell I think Kiffin's rep slinking out of Tenn is a bigger obstacle to recruiting.Destroy the team for a decade? For real? Let's settle down here. It's not pretty. But it's not apocalyptical.

I said it could POTENTIALLY destroy the team for a decade. Some teams have taken postseason bans and come out of them stronger than ever- just look at UF in the 1990s. Other teams have taken postseason bans and gone into vicious tailspins that took them ages to recover from. It's easy to forget that USC was pretty awful for a while before Pete Carroll came in, and they could easily become awful again. Even the best programs can become mediocre if they get the right push at the right time (witness Miami and FSU). Now it's just a question of whether this is the push that does it, or if it's just a blip on the radar.
Link to post
Share on other sites

See I totally disagree with the concept this will cripple USC. The only thing that will really sting is the scholarships and how long is that for? The two years post season ban isn't tragic - they have plenty of national exposure with out of conference games to survive the ban. The lost game don't mean a thing - I mean they do in a larger historical context but not in any immediate or long term context.The scholarships hurt but the top prospects will still get taken care of and get their ride.In fact stuff like the post season ban hurts two classes - the incoming freshmen for the 2010 season and the class coming in for the 2011 season. And you can easily sell the kids on 'we're almost out of the woods' for the second class.Hell I think Kiffin's rep slinking out of Tenn is a bigger obstacle to recruiting.Destroy the team for a decade? For real? Let's settle down here. It's not pretty. But it's not apocalyptical.

I said it could POTENTIALLY destroy the team for a decade. Some teams have taken postseason bans and come out of them stronger than ever- just look at UF in the 1990s. Other teams have taken postseason bans and gone into vicious tailspins that took them ages to recover from. It's easy to forget that USC was pretty awful for a while before Pete Carroll came in, and they could easily become awful again. Even the best programs can become mediocre if they get the right push at the right time (witness Miami and FSU). Now it's just a question of whether this is the push that does it, or if it's just a blip on the radar.
True, you did say could - I think I was more reacting to a lot of things I;ve been reading about the severity of the blow. I think whether Kiffin is really a good CFB coach is a bigger threat than the sanctions - though the sanctions don't help if Kiff chokes.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubtful the DAC strips Bush of his Heisman -- some of the members have said as much. USC could get stripped of its BCS championship from '04

Heh, so for all their dominance this decade, they could end up with zero real national championships.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheat On.

There wasn't really any cheating involved.I don't get this. I never like it when a system trys to make an example out of someone. This isn't fair to the kids that had nothing to do with the issue in question. It's just too much in my opinion.
Yeah I just wrote about this on the Blurb site but it took way too long for the NCAA to do this. If not for Kiffin stumbling back, they don't punish anyone really who had anythign to do with anything. Sure the larger University but really, that's not who caused rule violations.The coach, the player - in fact all the players - are gone. They get off scot free.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, how can you say the loss of those scholarships isn't devastating? USC was one of a handful of programs that had elite prospects behind elite prospects. They could whiff (margin of error) WAY more on recruiting and still be highly competitive. Now they'll not only have to fight harder for the top guys, but do so in an expanded conference AND with half as many scholarship players so that every miss is going to hurt a TON more.

If Kiffin can keep USC as a perennial BCS contender now, then I've way underestimated his coaching abilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.

Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The coach, the player - in fact all the players - are gone. They get off scot free.

The onus is on the institution to make sure it keeps its coaches and players in line or it suffers. And losing 2 years of bowl games along with large scholarship reductions will cause USC to suffer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubtful the DAC strips Bush of his Heisman -- some of the members have said as much. USC could get stripped of its BCS championship from '04

Heh, so for all their dominance this decade, they could end up with zero real national championships.
Awesome.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, how can you say the loss of those scholarships isn't devastating? USC was one of a handful of programs that had elite prospects behind elite prospects. They could whiff (margin of error) WAY more on recruiting and still be highly competitive. Now they'll not only have to fight harder for the top guys, but do so in an expanded conference AND with half as many scholarship players so that every miss is going to hurt a TON more.

If Kiffin can keep USC as a perennial BCS contender now, then I've way underestimated his coaching abilities.

I say that 10 scholarships a year (according to the National Football Post) is bad but could be worse. I read somewhere they were already under their allotted cap from what understand and have the room.

It's not 30 a year - it's 10-15 PER YEAR.

From NFP -

Well, the team received a two-year bowl ban and a reduction of scholarships by 10 for the next three academic years. That’s an enormous blow. Forget about the buzz from conference expansion — this is USC receiving a penalty harsher than most people ever thought was possible.

Your other points are concerns REGARDLESS of the sanctions (assuming Texas/OK arrives). I think SC was facing a rougher road anyway once Carroll left and after the defense proved itself unable to reload smoothly last year.

(PS - the writer saying it's an enormous blow is, IMO, tremendous amounts of hyperbole)

As for the post season ban - at most a guy recruited in 2011 misses ONE BOWL GAME before they are Bowl eligible. 2012 recruits don't even have that.

Does the ban suck? Yes. Does it hurt? Sure.

But I really don't see these sanctions as the death knell for this school.

Where the post season ban could hurt is with current players who can leave without penalty. We'll see how many flee - THAT'S what would kill the school, at least short term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, how can you say the loss of those scholarships isn't devastating? USC was one of a handful of programs that had elite prospects behind elite prospects. They could whiff (margin of error) WAY more on recruiting and still be highly competitive. Now they'll not only have to fight harder for the top guys, but do so in an expanded conference AND with half as many scholarship players so that every miss is going to hurt a TON more.

If Kiffin can keep USC as a perennial BCS contender now, then I've way underestimated his coaching abilities.

I say that 10 scholarships a year (according to the National Football Post) is bad but could be worse. I read somewhere they were already under their allotted cap from what understand and have the room.

It's not 30 a year - it's 10-15 PER YEAR.

From NFP -

Well, the team received a two-year bowl ban and a reduction of scholarships by 10 for the next three academic years. That’s an enormous blow. Forget about the buzz from conference expansion — this is USC receiving a penalty harsher than most people ever thought was possible.

Your other points are concerns REGARDLESS of the sanctions (assuming Texas/OK arrives). I think SC was facing a rougher road anyway once Carroll left and after the defense proved itself unable to reload smoothly last year.

As for the post season ban - at most a guy recruited in 2011 misses ONE BOWL GAME before they are Bowl eligible. 2012 recruits don't even have that.

Does the ban suck? Yes. Does it hurt? Sure.

But I really don't see these sanctions as the death knell for this school.

Where the post season ban could hurt is with current players who can leave without penalty. We'll see how many flee - THAT'S what would kill the school, at least short term.

Dude, this absolutely cripples USC for the next 4-5 years.

1. The 2010 team will be unaffected by sanctions. But they can't go to a bowl. The recruiting class can only have 15 people in it. The no bowls and the negative recruiting surrounding it will give them a very small class.

2. The 2011 team won't be affected by sanctions very much either. There won't be a ton of incoming freshman, but most wouldn't play anyway. But they still can't go to a bowl.

So for two seasons, the two classes that aren't affected by this will be lost because there is no chance of any type of championships. Not to mention the fact that they have a new coach.

3. The 2012 team will finally be able to play in a bowl. However, they'll have 2 classes of kids (freshmen and sophomores) who will only make up 30 scholarships max. Plus they'll have a max limit of 75, which means that the redshirt senior, senior and junior classes better be less than 45 kids total, or else the second year of recruiting could be 8-10 kids. I'm sure the coaches won't let that happen though.

4. The 2013 team will be absolutely decimated. Zero depth. Freshman, sophomore and junior classes all composed of 15 kids a piece. MAX. They better hope and pray that the senior class of that year (this year's freshman class) is unbelievable AND that out of the 45 players they get in the next 3 years, that they hit home runs with every one.

5. The 2014 will probably be the worst team of all. All the seniors are gone, and you have 3 very small classes making up your sophomores, juniors and seniors. The bright side is that there will be 25 incoming freshman. This is the CRITICAL class to get them back on track quickly. If they can hit a homerun in this class, then they can possibly contend in 2015.

6. The 2015 class will have 2 straight full 25-scholarshipped classes. They will be very young. But the positive thing is that if they hit homeruns with the 2014 and 2015 classes, they will be loaded for the future, because so many of those freshman will have to play and gain a ton of experience.

Miami and Alabama are two case studies of probation. Both teams were destroyed and both teams came back and became powerhouses. Miami came back pretty quick, aided in large part by the fact that they had one of the most unbelievable recruiting classes of all time. Alabama got hit hard and really didn't do a great job of coming out of it. Nick Saban rescued that team, but the probation put them in a tail-spin that they wouldn't have come out of if they didn't get a bigtime coach.

USC will survive. But the next 5 years will be very, very painful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
From the report:

Beginning in October 2004 and continuing until November 2005, two individuals (for the purposes of this report, "agency partners A and B" respectively), were in the process of forming a sports agency and marketing company, in partnership with student-athlete 1 and his step-father and mother ("the parents"). In the course of this relationship, agency partners A and B gave student-athlete 1 and his parents impermissible benefits in the form of cash, merchandise, an automobile, housing, hotel lodging and transportation. As a result of the receipt of these benefits, student-athlete 1 competed for the football team while ineligible. This ineligibility began at least by December 2004 and encompasses the 2005 Orange Bowl game and the entire 2005 football season, including postseason competition. Further, the assistant football coach knew or should have known that student-athlete 1 and agency partners A and B were engaged in violations that negatively affected student-athlete 1's amateurism status. The assistant football coach provided false and misleading information to the enforcement staff concerning his knowledge of agency partner A's and B's activity and also violated NCAA legislation by signing a document certifying that he had no knowledge of NCAA violations....[T]he institution acknowledged that during late during 2004 and early 2005 agency partners A and B, in concert with student-athlete 1's step-father, discussed forming a sports agency, and in the course of that discussion, agency partners A and B provided significant benefits to student-athlete 1's family. Among these benefits was the cost-free use of a home for a period of approximately one year, $10,000 to purchase furniture for the home and the purchase of a washer and dryer. [see: Findings 1-a-(8), 1-a-(9) and 1-a-(10).] The institution also acknowledged that student-athlete 1 directly received benefits. [see Findings 1-a-(6) and 1-a-(7).]As a result of the benefits provided to student-athlete 1 and his family, the institution agreed that student-athlete 1 was ineligible for competition during the 2005 football season.

Among other things.Student-athlete 1 is Bush, of course.
Link to post
Share on other sites

link

USC is facing a 2-year postseason ban, a reduction of more than 20 scholarships, and a forfeiture of wins. While the NCAA has no control over the Downtown Athletic Club or the Bowl Championship Series, I'd have to imagine this would probably result in Bush being stripped of his Heisman and USC being stripped of at least one national championship.

To be honest, I'd actually given up on any results ever coming from the probe. I really didn't think anything was going to happen. Guess I was wrong- this is a HUGE blow to USC. It also makes Carroll-to-Seattle look even more like a rat fleeing a sinking ship.

I don't see how they can be stripped of more than one National title. They only won one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
From the report:

Beginning in October 2004 and continuing until November 2005, two individuals (for the purposes of this report, "agency partners A and B" respectively), were in the process of forming a sports agency and marketing company, in partnership with student-athlete 1 and his step-father and mother ("the parents"). In the course of this relationship, agency partners A and B gave student-athlete 1 and his parents impermissible benefits in the form of cash, merchandise, an automobile, housing, hotel lodging and transportation. As a result of the receipt of these benefits, student-athlete 1 competed for the football team while ineligible. This ineligibility began at least by December 2004 and encompasses the 2005 Orange Bowl game and the entire 2005 football season, including postseason competition. Further, the assistant football coach knew or should have known that student-athlete 1 and agency partners A and B were engaged in violations that negatively affected student-athlete 1's amateurism status. The assistant football coach provided false and misleading information to the enforcement staff concerning his knowledge of agency partner A's and B's activity and also violated NCAA legislation by signing a document certifying that he had no knowledge of NCAA violations....[T]he institution acknowledged that during late during 2004 and early 2005 agency partners A and B, in concert with student-athlete 1's step-father, discussed forming a sports agency, and in the course of that discussion, agency partners A and B provided significant benefits to student-athlete 1's family. Among these benefits was the cost-free use of a home for a period of approximately one year, $10,000 to purchase furniture for the home and the purchase of a washer and dryer. [see: Findings 1-a-(8), 1-a-(9) and 1-a-(10).] The institution also acknowledged that student-athlete 1 directly received benefits. [see Findings 1-a-(6) and 1-a-(7).]As a result of the benefits provided to student-athlete 1 and his family, the institution agreed that student-athlete 1 was ineligible for competition during the 2005 football season.

Among other things.Student-athlete 1 is Bush, of course.
Understood. The thing is that a: these reports were never substantiated (which is why the NCAA could not punish the team for it) and B: could not give a competative edge on the field. There is a reason why the NCAA worded the reason for the punishment the way they did. They basically punished the team for assumed neglagence.In regards to bulletin B, calling them cheaters is kind of harsh and extremely shortsighted. Many teams have overtly cheated when it comes to recruiting players ( a competative edge) and overlooked far worse. The NCAA made an example of the Trojans. Nobody has ever been punished like that in any college sport and to do so without ANY FACTUATED PROOF is silly in my opinion. I am a college football fan and the Trojans are very good for football. This is a sad day knowing that the team will almost certainly be crippled.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood. The thing is that a: these reports were never substantiated (which is why the NCAA could not punish the team for it) and B: could not give a competative edge on the field. There is a reason why the NCAA worded the reason for the punishment the way they did. They basically punished the team for assumed neglagence.

The reports were substantiated by USC itself.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
Hold up...CalBear is BIASED against USC?:shocked: :lmao:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that surprises me about this is that a lot of people still seem unsure of whether Carroll was just lucky with his timing or got out of dodge before his reputation took a hit. Maybe I'm just uber skeptical in my old age but I think it's unbelievably naive to think he didn't know full well that the gravy train was about to end.:yawn:

:blackdot: Totally agree. And this comes as no surprise to me and I suspect is just tip of the iceberg. I am glad USC is being slapped because cheating has no place in college sports. Period. And unless there are harsh penalties the money will continue to erode the integrity of college sports.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that surprises me about this is that a lot of people still seem unsure of whether Carroll was just lucky with his timing or got out of dodge before his reputation took a hit. Maybe I'm just uber skeptical in my old age but I think it's unbelievably naive to think he didn't know full well that the gravy train was about to end.:shrug:

Everyone I know thinks he left because the gig was up in USC. I don't know a person/buddy that I've talked to that thinks he didn't know about all this and he someone left USC right before this went down for millions of dollars in Seattle.I couldn't stand him before and I can't stand him even more now. I'd like to hear what Seattle Seahawks think about this guy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that surprises me about this is that a lot of people still seem unsure of whether Carroll was just lucky with his timing or got out of dodge before his reputation took a hit. Maybe I'm just uber skeptical in my old age but I think it's unbelievably naive to think he didn't know full well that the gravy train was about to end.:shrug:

:goodposting: Totally agree. And this comes as no surprise to me and I suspect is just tip of the iceberg. I am glad USC is being slapped because cheating has no place in college sports. Period. And unless there are harsh penalties the money will continue to erode the integrity of college sports.
Again, there was no cheating involved. USC was not punished for cheating. Why is everyone assuming USC cheated? Read the articles.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that surprises me about this is that a lot of people still seem unsure of whether Carroll was just lucky with his timing or got out of dodge before his reputation took a hit. Maybe I'm just uber skeptical in my old age but I think it's unbelievably naive to think he didn't know full well that the gravy train was about to end.:goodposting:

Everyone I know thinks he left because the gig was up in USC. I don't know a person/buddy that I've talked to that thinks he didn't know about all this and he someone left USC right before this went down for millions of dollars in Seattle.I couldn't stand him before and I can't stand him even more now. I'd like to hear what Seattle Seahawks think about this guy.
Carroll is one of the classiest guy in sports. I think of myself as a great guy but I wouldn't think twice about leaving for twice the money when trouble comes. Nobody in this forum would do otherwise.
Link to post
Share on other sites

[Carroll is one of the classiest guy in sports. I think of myself as a great guy but I wouldn't think twice about leaving for twice the money when trouble comes. Nobody in this forum would do otherwise.

It's sad to see that you stilll admire someone as "classy" even when they give the appearance of impropriety, and are justified because of the money. "Oh, it's a ton of money, it's all good". The feathered gray hair is all class. Some of us have stared fortune in the face and walked away to serve the public good. Some of us have taken oath's that we would never betray our position for personal gain. We may die poor, middle class suckers, but we have something you can't buy, integrity. It's amazing that fame and fortune cloud what is considered class, and blur the definition.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, how can you say the loss of those scholarships isn't devastating? USC was one of a handful of programs that had elite prospects behind elite prospects. They could whiff (margin of error) WAY more on recruiting and still be highly competitive. Now they'll not only have to fight harder for the top guys, but do so in an expanded conference AND with half as many scholarship players so that every miss is going to hurt a TON more.If Kiffin can keep USC as a perennial BCS contender now, then I've way underestimated his coaching abilities.

It is devastating to lose those scholarships. They only get about 19 per year. So 20 over 2 years is reducing the recruiting class to 9 guys. Ed Orgeron is fantastic recruiter, but he has no margin of error. He just can't afford to miss and keep the USC status quo.Further, how is he going to sell the program to blue chippers who want to play now, and bolt for the NFL as Juniors? Those kids will bolt for the Floridas, Texas, and Alabamas of the world. This is very much an apocalyptic measure brought down on USC. I think it will be a decade for them to recover.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So got a message that USC is definitely challenging this. Given that at least a portion of the ruling seems to be coming in response to a tremendous amount of percieved arrogance on the part of the institution, is it possible they can make things worse?

I picture the scene in Breakfast Club between Principal Vernon and Bender where he just keeps tacking on detentions.

Question is, who is the Molly Ringwald character who gets them to stop? Colorado?

The whole thing is exasperating.

re: scholarships - We're just going to have to see how devastating it is. I'm not saying it's nothing and maybe cumulatively with Carroll bugging out and the sanctions it's too much. But I don't hink it';s the apocalypse either.

Also - we seem to have some very different cheating perceptions here.

On the one hand, I think some folks are saying without roids, point shaving, fixing scores, whatever - that the team didn't do anything wrong. The other group is saying well Bush broke NCAA rules and as such, shouldn't have been playing so fielding him is cheating.

I see both sides. The team didn't cheat and it did. Bush shouldn't have been taking money and while he wasn't cheating during a game by using roids or illegal plays or drugging the opposing players gatorade, he shouldn't have been on the field.

Call it cheating, don't call it cheating - it was wrong. Punishment had to happen. Even a dedicated USC fan can see that.

Of course, the NCAA was so damned slow that the people who did the deed got off scot free (save for Kiffin but maybe he came back to clean up some karma, I dunno). Which sucks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how they can be stripped of more than one National title. They only won one.

They only won one BCS national championship, but anyone who says they only won one national championship has been following college football for about 5 minutes. To bring you up to speed- college football has been around for over 100 years, and agencies have been awarding national championships for almost as long. In any year where two different agencies award national championships to two different teams, both teams are considered "national champions", which is why in 1997 both Lloyd Carr and Tom Osbourne won a national championship. It's not like only one of those counted. Michigan is credited with the championship, and so is Nebraska. The championship went on Carr's resume, and it went on Osbourne's. If every agency awards its national championship to the same team, then it is a "consensus national champion".USC only has one CONSENSUS national championship... but they have two national championships. And anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring almost 100 years of college football history and precedent. Just because one agency awards its championship a certain way (creating the game and naming the winner) doesn't mean that every other agency is forced to follow in lock-step. The AP can continue awarding national championships the same way it has for the last 64 years, and they count just as much as they have every season for the last 64 years.

:thumbup: Totally agree. And this comes as no surprise to me and I suspect is just tip of the iceberg. I am glad USC is being slapped because cheating has no place in college sports. Period. And unless there are harsh penalties the money will continue to erode the integrity of college sports.

I think the whole "money is eroding the integrity of college sports" nonsense is hogwash and poppycock. College players are essentially unpaid interns. Having worked as both an unpaid intern and a paid intern, I can honestly say that I didn't feel like the integrity of my internship was eroded because I was making $10 an hour. And I guarantee you that I was nowhere near as valuable to my employer in terms of revenue generated as college football players are to their employers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.

Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
1. They admitted to cheating in basketball recruiting.

2. (From Yahoo Sports) An eight-month Yahoo! Sports investigation has revealed that Heisman Trophy-winning running back Reggie Bush and his family appear to have accepted financial benefits worth more than $100,000 from marketing agents while Bush was playing at the University of Southern California.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-bushprobe

Fact is the NCAA saw enough to hand down the punishment and that's really all there is to it. Whether or not you view it as true is immaterial. Judgment has been passed and they were found guilty.

Here's just one of the events:

March 4, 2005:

While in San Diego for a birthday party for St. Louis Rams running back Marshall Faulk, Bush checks into a suite at the posh Manchester Grand Hyatt paid for on Michaels' credit card. Bush's two-day stay at the resort totaled $1,574.86.

Bama was taken down for less than this. Any exchange of money going to a college athlete is going to be called cheating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.

Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
From the report:

Beginning in October 2004 and continuing until November 2005, two individuals (for the purposes of this report, "agency partners A and B" respectively), were in the process of forming a sports agency and marketing company, in partnership with student-athlete 1 and his step-father and mother ("the parents"). In the course of this relationship, agency partners A and B gave student-athlete 1 and his parents impermissible benefits in the form of cash, merchandise, an automobile, housing, hotel lodging and transportation. As a result of the receipt of these benefits, student-athlete 1 competed for the football team while ineligible. This ineligibility began at least by December 2004 and encompasses the 2005 Orange Bowl game and the entire 2005 football season, including postseason competition. Further, the assistant football coach knew or should have known that student-athlete 1 and agency partners A and B were engaged in violations that negatively affected student-athlete 1's amateurism status. The assistant football coach provided false and misleading information to the enforcement staff concerning his knowledge of agency partner A's and B's activity and also violated NCAA legislation by signing a document certifying that he had no knowledge of NCAA violations.

...

[T]he institution acknowledged that during late during 2004 and early 2005 agency partners A and B, in concert with student-athlete 1's step-father, discussed forming a sports agency, and in the course of that discussion, agency partners A and B provided significant benefits to student-athlete 1's family. Among these benefits was the cost-free use of a home for a period of approximately one year, $10,000 to purchase furniture for the home and the purchase of a washer and dryer. [see: Findings 1-a-(8), 1-a-(9) and 1-a-(10).] The institution also acknowledged that student-athlete 1 directly received benefits. [see Findings 1-a-(6) and 1-a-(7).]

As a result of the benefits provided to student-athlete 1 and his family, the institution agreed that student-athlete 1 was ineligible for competition during the 2005 football season.

Among other things.

Student-athlete 1 is Bush, of course.

Understood. The thing is that a: these reports were never substantiated (which is why the NCAA could not punish the team for it) and B: could not give a competative edge on the field. There is a reason why the NCAA worded the reason for the punishment the way they did. They basically punished the team for assumed neglagence.

In regards to bulletin B, calling them cheaters is kind of harsh and extremely shortsighted. Many teams have overtly cheated when it comes to recruiting players ( a competative edge) and overlooked far worse. The NCAA made an example of the Trojans. Nobody has ever been punished like that in any college sport and to do so without ANY FACTUATED PROOF is silly in my opinion. I am a college football fan and the Trojans are very good for football. This is a sad day knowing that the team will almost certainly be crippled.

:goodposting:
Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to bulletin B, calling them cheaters is kind of harsh and extremely shortsighted. Many teams have overtly cheated when it comes to recruiting players ( a competative edge) and overlooked far worse. The NCAA made an example of the Trojans. Nobody has ever been punished like that in any college sport and to do so without ANY FACTUATED PROOF is silly in my opinion. I am a college football fan and the Trojans are very good for football. This is a sad day knowing that the team will almost certainly be crippled.

:lmao:
Factuate (v):

To proofify the truthiness of one or more claimlets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to bulletin B, calling them cheaters is kind of harsh and extremely shortsighted. Many teams have overtly cheated when it comes to recruiting players ( a competative edge) and overlooked far worse. The NCAA made an example of the Trojans. Nobody has ever been punished like that in any college sport and to do so without ANY FACTUATED PROOF is silly in my opinion. I am a college football fan and the Trojans are very good for football. This is a sad day knowing that the team will almost certainly be crippled.

:thumbup:
Factuate (v):

To proofify the truthiness of one or more claimlets.

:lmao:
Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't and the only reason USC was as perennial as they were was that A) They were cheating and B) They were the only consistent program in their conference. When the next best team is Oregon and they are head and shoulders above the rest of the teams, well, that's just really sorry.Now that it seems the Big-12 is breaking up and the PAC-10 is going to get some consistently good programs, USC was no longer going to be a perennial before the sanctions. With them Kiffen is guaranteed to maintain his current pro+college win/loss ratio. Even with Daddy on board.

You come off pretty bias here bro. Can you explain how they were cheating? Fact is that despite the fact that the NCAA broke themselves scouring every closet assosciated with USC they didn't come up with a shred of proof of anything. The players themselves obviously made mistakes, and Carrol and staff obviously looked the other way of a great many things but again there was no proof. The only telling thing was Bush paying to have a problem go away. The title in which the Trojans were held accountable for was code for overwhelming suspision without proof. Even if the suspision is true, and it's likely, nothing could be confused with actual cheating.
Dude the USC program has been dirty for more than 40 years. About time they finally dropped the hammer on them.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the AP has already said they will not rescind the national title.Question:Why was the NFL rookie of the year worthy of a do-over, but the NCAA national title is not?

Because the performance of the #2 player in the ROY competition had nothing to do with the performance of the #1 player. If USC had been vaporized prior to the 2004 season (which would have been a good start), the season would have been totally different.Even though Cal may wind up officially being declared the Pac-10 winner once or twice due to USC finally getting busted for cheating, I don't really consider us conference champions in those years.Now, 1975 is another story.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the AP has already said they will not rescind the national title.Question:Why was the NFL rookie of the year worthy of a do-over, but the NCAA national title is not?

Maybe the AP is using fantasy football rules. In my fantasy football league, once this week's games kick off, last week's scores become locked- even if there's an error, you cannot go back and change the results. Since 2010 hasn't kicked off, the 2009 RoY hasn't "locked" yet... but the 2005 championship has been "locked" for years.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...