Archive

USC penalties - 2 yr post-season ban

  • Emmett Brown
    How does this effect the recruits? I heard on the radio that anyone with less than two years of eligibility left can transfer without sitting out a year.
  • Writerbuckeye
    dokken;385569 wrote:In terms of this thread, Alabama went through the same stuff almost. They turned it around but it took a little while.

    They also had the advantage of being able to oversign lots of recruits (and then cut those who weren't good enough). That speeded up their return to prominence. USC doesn't have that luxury because the PAC 10 has ethics -- at least where oversigning is concerned.
  • LJ
    dokken;385569 wrote:In terms of this thread, Alabama went through the same stuff almost. They turned it around but it took a little while.

    Yeah, and the Alabama report was something like 52 pages long... the USC report is 67 pages long ROFL ROFL
  • enigmaax
    Writerbuckeye;385677 wrote:They also had the advantage of being able to oversign lots of recruits (and then cut those who weren't good enough). That speeded up their return to prominence. USC doesn't have that luxury because the PAC 10 has ethics -- at least where oversigning is concerned.

    Name one player for Alabama who wasn't "good enough" and thus, was cut to give the scholarship to someone else. Didn't happen.
  • gorocks99
    Dan Wetzel of Yahoo is reporting that USC is losing 30 scholarships, vacating the 04 and 05 seasons, and has a 15 scholarship limit for the next 3 years. Hardcore.

    http://twitter.com/DanWetzel
  • LJ
    67 fucking pages

    http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf
  • purple_rein
    It's official

    http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5272615

    They are only allowed 75 scholarship players for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 seasons.
    All wins after December of 2004 are vacated including the 2005 Orange Bowl.
    2 year postseason ban.

    NCAA strongly considered a TV ban on their games, but decided against it.
  • ou1980
    LOL
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Damn. I'm not a USC fan, but I'm leaning this may be a little too harsh.
    Sounds like it was all Bush and Mayo, and USC didn't follow through on compliance.
    If anything Bush's Heisman should be gone, and USC should not be allowed to play in BCS bowls.
    So, with the wins vacated, does that include the National Title too? Does Oklahoma get it, or is like it never happened?
  • 2quik4u
    lol at all the o state fans saying nothing was ever going to happen
  • sjmvsfscs08
    I think the real question is can I finally forget about this?

  • TedSheckler
    ptown_trojans_1;385859 wrote:So, with the wins vacated, does that include the National Title too? Does Oklahoma get it, or is like it never happened?
    That not a NCAA decision. That's up to the BCS.
  • LJ
  • Jughead
    ptown_trojans_1;385859 wrote:Damn. I'm not a USC fan, but I'm leaning this may be a little too harsh.
    Ask Southern Methodist University if this is too harsh.
    enigmaax;385235 wrote:The only thing I don't get is the forfeiting of wins/titles. Why does it matter? People aren't going to forget who won on the field and the fact that he was already at USC and some agent decided to give him money had no impact on the outcome of those games.
    You are right. Why does it matter? USC and their faithful will still claim the National Championship regardless, just like they do with the AP title from the year before.
  • slingshot4ever
    Cheaters, no surprise.
  • krambman
    I think that the NCAA should step up and somehow sanction the head coaches of the three programs involved with this as well as the athletic director. I'd be shocked if the athletic director at USC keeps his job. He saw three programs receive sanctions for MAJOR violations under his watch. Somehow the NCAA should mandate that he be prevented from ever being hired as an athletic director again.
  • TheMightyGators
    centralbucksfan;385503 wrote:Dude, if you don't think this won't affect USC future, your drinking some strong koolaide. It certainly will. Loss of 20 scholarships and 2yr bowl ban will affect the next few years of recruiting significantly. Not only that, they have another "shadey" coach running the program. Its going to set USC back a number of years, no question about that.
    And do your research...after John Robinson left, the first time...USC was pretty insignificant, and had a couple losing seasons as well.

    Learn to read. He said it WILL have an effect on them.
  • Big Gain
    NOW...the basketball program next. If Bush had been given the farm you know Mayo wouldn't play for USC for free.
  • dwccrew
    enigmaax;385235 wrote:The only thing I don't get is the forfeiting of wins/titles. Why does it matter? People aren't going to forget who won on the field and the fact that he was already at USC and some agent decided to give him money had no impact on the outcome of those games. It isn't like his parents house made him a better football player. If the BCS takes away the title, is everyone suddenly going to talk about that year being the year there was no title game?

    The postseason ban and scholarships is way more important than trying to rewrite history.
    I think it is merely in principle on vacating the wins. Since USC cheated, they shouldn't be rewarded.

    You are correct, the house Bush's parents lived in did not effect the outcome of the games, but the fact that he they were given the house and whatever else Bush was given may have effected the outcome of what school he went to. Therefore, the wins should be vacated IMHO.
    sjmvsfscs08;385895 wrote:I think the real question is can I finally forget about this?

    Even with a cheating USC, ND had that game won. Maybe now ND will be able to beat USC? Probably not though. :)

    Jughead;386049 wrote:Ask Southern Methodist University if this is too harsh.


    You are right. Why does it matter? USC and their faithful will still claim the National Championship regardless, just like they do with the AP title from the year before.

    Nobody takes USC fans seriously, do they?
  • enigmaax
    dwccrew;386410 wrote:
    You are correct, the house Bush's parents lived in did not effect the outcome of the games, but the fact that he they were given the house and whatever else Bush was given may have effected the outcome of what school he went to. Therefore, the wins should be vacated IMHO.

    Except that he was already there when someone outside the program started paying him/his family. It wasn't to get him to go to USC and it was because he was at USC - the money didn't come from someone affiliated with the school. If he was at UCLA, he'd have still gotten the same thing. I don't even care that much about the penalties (the forfeits I don't take seriously), it is just that people act like all of this means that USC wouldn't have been what they were without the cheating. The cheating doesn't change what they were on the field and the jealousy of their success on the field makes people over react to exactly what impact all this had on their success.
  • newarkcatholicfan
    Got off way too easy.
  • krambman
    newarkcatholicfan;386460 wrote:Got off way too easy.

    The more I think about it the more it seems to me to be a bit harsh. Had multiple players on the football team received improper benefits, then I think this would have been a fair punishment. However, Reggie Bush is the only player named in the report. I have a hard time justifying the NCAA handing the program these types of sanctions for the actions of one player. I agree with everything but the bowl ban, I think it should only be one year.

    Also, I really hate the way that all of these sanctions are done (not just with USC but any NCAA sanctions) because it hurts the kids who had nothing to do with the violations the most. The guys who are freshmen at USC now were in middle school when all of this was going on. They are being punished for something they had nothing to do with and they didn't know that this would happen while they were there (yes, they knew the school was under investigation, but that's all). I'd prefer that the bowl ban not happen for five years, that way all current players have the opportunity to play in bowl games their entire time at USC like they thought they would. That way all future recruits would be committing knowing that they would be kept out of bowl games two years in a row. That seems far more fair to me.
  • Writerbuckeye
    enigmaax;385701 wrote:Name one player for Alabama who wasn't "good enough" and thus, was cut to give the scholarship to someone else. Didn't happen.

    I'll do better than that. Here's a running review for Alabama, including names of players who have been "let go" because the school was over the number and had to pare it down by the time the fall deadline arrived.

    http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/tag/alabama/
  • krambman
    Writerbuckeye;386667 wrote:I'll do better than that. Here's a running review for Alabama, including names of players who have been "let go" because the school was over the number and had to pare it down by the time the fall deadline arrived.

    http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/tag/alabama/

    Yeah enigmaax, how did you miss that? On signing day everyone was talking about how Alabama signed 10 more players than they had scholarships for and how most other conferences won't allow that to happen or at least most schools won't sign extra players.
  • dwccrew
    krambman;386512 wrote:The more I think about it the more it seems to me to be a bit harsh. Had multiple players on the football team received improper benefits, then I think this would have been a fair punishment. However, Reggie Bush is the only player named in the report. I have a hard time justifying the NCAA handing the program these types of sanctions for the actions of one player. I agree with everything but the bowl ban, I think it should only be one year.

    Also, I really hate the way that all of these sanctions are done (not just with USC but any NCAA sanctions) because it hurts the kids who had nothing to do with the violations the most. The guys who are freshmen at USC now were in middle school when all of this was going on. They are being punished for something they had nothing to do with and they didn't know that this would happen while they were there (yes, they knew the school was under investigation, but that's all). I'd prefer that the bowl ban not happen for five years, that way all current players have the opportunity to play in bowl games their entire time at USC like they thought they would. That way all future recruits would be committing knowing that they would be kept out of bowl games two years in a row. That seems far more fair to me.

    I don't see it as current players being punished, but it's the program being punished. Current players are just unfortunetly caught in the crossfire.