USC Sanctions Released..Vol. No BCS For Them

[eneyekayee]

Originally Posted by rothypejc

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0611-usc-coaches-20100611,0,1745152.story

The coaches — along with USC Athletic Director Mike Garrett — appeared at a Northern California Trojans Club function just hours after learning from the NCAA what penalties they'll be dealing with for the next few years.

Garrett wasn't at all contrite.

[color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]"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."[/color]

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by Fear The Ibis

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Dude really said it took Miami 2 years. What???? You're just looking at
the raw record. Impact went WELL beyond that...

Ya'll really expected Miami to be on top forever

When Dennis Erickson bounced it was already going towards rebuilding.  Should I blame last year performance on the impact of sanctions

.

Every dominant team eventually has down years.  Miami's down years was expedited by the sanctions, and even then they only had ONE losing season.  Yes, I know they were getting spanked by FSU, yes they lost to ECU.  However, in 1998 they did manage to pull a huge upset against UCLA.

Did Miami not have NFL talent on those squads?  As far as I know, Edgerrin James ran all over UCLA to dash their Fiesta/Title hopes.

It also happened to be a time where FSU was dominant and Miami was at a downturn.

How is it 6 years?

They got slapped after the 1995....

1996 (One season)
1997 (two seasons)
1998 (three seasons)
1999 (four seasons)
2000 National Title

That is some impact right there boy, I tell ya

Plus, many of you are acting as if this isn't going to be appealed.  Sanctions are always appealed.  The penalties are too harsh considering it only involves 2 players.

Ohio State never returned their title and they played with an "uneligible" Freshman

Do u realize we were playing in the garbage big east? Conference was and still is garbage. Not hard to get wins.


Y'all are going to be trying to make a comeback in a Pac16 superconference. You're out of your mind if you think your comeback is going to be in any way similar to Miami's....

Not saying it's impossible. Because SC can and will make a comeback. It's just not going to be quick and easy by any means.

I don't get it.

Ya'll puff your chest at your accomplishments, and now it's being downplayed.

I bet on a different day if I would say that Miami only won a 'chip in 2000 because they played in the Big East, everyone will come in saying how dominant Miami was, that it doesn't matter, etc.

Bottom line is Miami won a National Title in 2000, four years after getting sanctioned.  There are teams that have never been sanctioned that have never won a National Title.

If this sticks....USC will not play in a bowl in 2010, glass half full says that the recruiting class for '10 is already set.  It will be tough to recruit for the 2011 season, however in 2012 it's back in business (minus 10).

 

[after h0urs]

Originally Posted by ddot7

Originally Posted by after h0urs

Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

have yall heard how impossible an appeal is now since the rules changes?

Not saying it'll happen but if there's any case that can be somewhat overturned it's this one.  These sanctions are extremely harsh considering the facts.  There is a LOT of dependence on circumstantial evidence.  I think it's reasonable to think that the 2 year ban can be reduced down to 1 year.
Stewart Mandel puts it best:

"You'd be hard-pressed to find precedent for a school hit so hard over activities by parties with no association to the university. It's not unreasonable to think it will find sympathy from the Infractions Appeal Committee, which, in 2003, overturned the second year of Michigan basketball's postseason ban despite four former players taking $616,000 from rogue booster Ed Martin. But such reversals are rare.

If anything, it sure seems the committee is trying to set a new precedent. It's holding USC responsible for the sins of not just Bush and Mayo, Ornstein and Guillory, but all the star athletes and seedy brokers everywhere whose misdeeds go unreported. They spent four years building their case in order to use it as a global deterrent.

...One thing's for certain: After keeping fans waiting in the dark for four years, the NCAA delivered a powerful resolution. But it sure seems the end result was less about the organization punishing USC than it was about flexing its muscle to the rest of the country."

I hadn't followed too closely.  Aside from your view as a U$C fan, how do you know there was no proof of association with the university/anyone within the athletic department and that it is just circumstantial evidence?  Obviously you're going to find and attach yourself to the viewpoints that feel this penalty was too harsh and should be overturned but what is the actual basis for it?

Because it says so in the report.  The only association that is drawn by the NCAA is Todd McNair and even there they say, "the assistant football coach (Todd McNair) knew or should have known that student-athlete 1 (Reggie Bush) and agency partners A (Lloyd Lake) and B (Michael Michaels) were engaged in violations that negatively affected student-athlete 1's amateurism status."  In other words, the NCAA can't definitively say that there was a connection, but rather that the proper checks weren't put in place.
I'm not saying SC is clean in this whole situation; the fact that they only had 2 compliance staff members was clearly wrong and they should have investigated O.J. Mayo further while he was a student, but all I'm saying is the overall penalty is far too harsh for something that isn't definitive.  When you stack it up next to Bama and OU, the penalty is way too high.  NCAA clearly made an example of SC.

 

[bigmike23]

But that idiot Garrett won't have a job soon

 

[ohdannyboy]

two years...far too harsh

 

[fear the ibis]

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Originally Posted by Fear The Ibis

Originally Posted by ooIRON MANoo

Dude really said it took Miami 2 years. What???? You're just looking at

the raw record. Impact went WELL beyond that...

Ya'll really expected Miami to be on top forever

When Dennis Erickson bounced it was already going towards rebuilding.  Should I blame last year performance on the impact of sanctions

.

Every dominant team eventually has down years.  Miami's down years was expedited by the sanctions, and even then they only had ONE losing season.  Yes, I know they were getting spanked by FSU, yes they lost to ECU.  However, in 1998 they did manage to pull a huge upset against UCLA.

Did Miami not have NFL talent on those squads?  As far as I know, Edgerrin James ran all over UCLA to dash their Fiesta/Title hopes.

It also happened to be a time where FSU was dominant and Miami was at a downturn.

How is it 6 years?

They got slapped after the 1995....

1996 (One season)
1997 (two seasons)
1998 (three seasons)
1999 (four seasons)
2000 National Title

That is some impact right there boy, I tell ya

Plus, many of you are acting as if this isn't going to be appealed.  Sanctions are always appealed.  The penalties are too harsh considering it only involves 2 players.

Ohio State never returned their title and they played with an "uneligible" Freshman

Do u realize we were playing in the garbage big east? Conference was and still is garbage. Not hard to get wins.





Y'all are going to be trying to make a comeback in a Pac16 superconference. You're out of your mind if you think your comeback is going to be in any way similar to Miami's....



Not saying it's impossible. Because SC can and will make a comeback. It's just not going to be quick and easy by any means.

I don't get it.

Ya'll puff your chest at your accomplishments, and now it's being downplayed.

I bet on a different day if I would say that Miami only won a 'chip in 2000 because they played in the Big East, everyone will come in saying how dominant Miami was, that it doesn't matter, etc.

Bottom line is Miami won a National Title in 2000, four years after getting sanctioned.  There are teams that have never been sanctioned that have never won a National Title.

If this sticks....USC will not play in a bowl in 2010, glass half full says that the recruiting class for '10 is already set.  It will be tough to recruit for the 2011 season, however in 2012 it's back in business (minus 10).





The '01 was dominant. Doesn't change the fact that the big east was garbage. Hence why we left the big east for the ACC.

I love how you focused on that one menial part of my statement and ignored the fact that you're going to have to try to make comback in the midst of a PAc16 superconference....


If you can't see the diff between bouncing back from probation in a weak %!* big east 15 years ago compared to a pac16 conference in a couple years from now i dont know what to tell u.

 

[ThaxbyChamblis]

Can't enroll more than 15 in any year for next 3 years

So, you have 78 right now to start 2010. Some are going to transfer, lets say 3 to make the numbers easy.

75 schollies in 2010

Sign 15 in 2011 & 20 kids graduate/nfl. Down to 70 going into 2011

Sign 15 in 2012 & 20 kids graduate/nfl. Down to 65 in 2012

Sign 15 in 2013 & 20 kids graduate/nfl. Down to 60.

Not all 15 will stick, some will get dismissed/transfer/fail out/not enroll. Say 2 from each class.

Now your down to 54 going into the 2013 season. That is an entire set of starters on both sides of the ball, plus FIVE down from where you are at now.

It means that almost every kid you recruit must pan out. Every bust is magnified. Every injury is magnified.




UCLA better take advantage

It's gonna take USC like 5 years after the sanctions end just to get back to a full roster

Anybody planning on walking on to USC, this is your time to do it

 

[dlo13]

I'm still convinced that First Born and After Hours are the same person.

 

[bigmike23]

So that mean first born would have 5 different screen names?

 

[mjd77]

Originally Posted by CasperJr

Everybody knew it was going to be bad when the coach dipped off to the pros

Yup...and Pete Carroll knew EXACTLY what he was doing and what was going to happen when he bolted.  I have zero respect for Carroll. 

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by dreClark

Can't enroll more than 15 in any year for next 3 years

So, you have 78 right now to start 2010. Some are going to transfer, lets say 3 to make the numbers easy.

75 schollies in 2010

Sign 15 in 2011 & 20 kids graduate/nfl. Down to 70 going into 2011

Sign 15 in 2012 & 20 kids graduate/nfl. Down to 65 in 2012

Sign 15 in 2013 & 20 kids graduate/nfl. Down to 60.

Not all 15 will stick, some will get dismissed/transfer/fail out/not enroll. Say 2 from each class.

Now your down to 54 going into the 2013 season. That is an entire set of starters on both sides of the ball, plus FIVE down from where you are at now.

It means that almost every kid you recruit must pan out. Every bust is magnified. Every injury is magnified.

UCLA better take advantage

It's gonna take USC like 5 years after the sanctions end just to get back to a full roster

Anybody planning on walking on to USC, this is your time to do it

Is that the way it works?

So they will have an incoming class of 31 freshman in 2014

Thought it was a reduction from 85 scholarships to 75.

Time to go out and get those special "walk-ons"

...

I'm not even bothered by the scholarship reduction.  I think the two year post season ban is too much, but tolerable.

I don't get vacating wins.

Name a relevant program that has had to vacate wins?  Oklahoma got their wins back.  FSU vacated wins to a throwaway season. 

Michigan didn't have to vacate it's share of the 1997 title when it was discovered that one of their players was taking $$$$$$$$.  It's funny how everyone wants Reggie Bush to give up his Heisman, but nothing in regards to Woodson? 

The '01 was dominant. Doesn't change the fact that the big east was garbage. Hence why we left the big east for the ACC.
The Big East was garbage, but they did have decent VTech teams.

You are missing the point.

You don't build a National Championship team overnight.  Look at the rosters, although they were losing kids to FSU and Florida, Miami was still getting kids to The U despite sanctions.

If sanctions now means the same results as Miami, which is a National Title in 2014-2015 (I will take it).

I love how you focused on that one menial part of my statement and ignored the fact that you're going to have to try to make comback in the midst of a PAc16 superconference....

I love the fact that you are focusing on something that is:

a) speculation
b) unconfirmed rumors
c) might not happen

If you can't see the diff between bouncing back from probation in a weak %!* big east 15 years ago compared to a pac16 conference in a couple years from now i dont know what to tell u.

If you can't see the fact that USC will still be able to pick clean the Southern California region then I don't know what to tell you.

Dominance comes in cycles, hence why Miami is not dominant right now, don't worry they are only a coaching move away from being there again

 

[ThaxbyChamblis]

Not 100000% sure either.

But I saw that:

“Reduction of football athletics scholarships to 15 initial grants and75 total grants for each of the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academicyears. This represents a decrease of 10 scholarships for each of thethree seasons.

 

[bigmike23]

If you can't see the fact that USC will still be able to pick clean the Southern California region then I don't know what to tell you.
how? this is not even hate but with limited number of rides open and on probation you really think socal players will still go to USC?



BTW SR and JR on USC can leave to any school they want to and USC cant stop them. the schools can also call those players without getting in trouble.

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by Bigmike23

So that mean first born would have 5 different screen names?

I have one sceen name and the last person that kept talking sideways was banned by Method Mad for making such allegations. I am growing tired of you lames (Not you DLo13). I find it funny how if certain members share an opinion, root for the same team or reside in the same area, they are automatically assumed to be the same person. Keep in mind that my older cousin is a member here and I do have friends that post on nt (all mind you root for different teams).  

Bigmike if you value your sn and your membership I suggest you kill that false !%@# you have been saying for awhile now. I have no problem informing Meth and making you DSK the sequel.

 

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by dreClark

Not 100000% sure either.

But I saw that:

“Reduction of football athletics scholarships to 15 initial grants and75 total grants for each of the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academicyears. This represents a decrease of 10 scholarships for each of thethree seasons.

 

[gunna get it]

Originally Posted by Bigmike23


BTW SR and JR on USC can leave to any school they want to and USC cant stop them. the schools can also call those players without getting in trouble.

on that note, someone told me Dillon Baxter has already been in contact with Florida.

 

[doublejs07]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by Bigmike23

So that mean first born would have 5 different screen names?

I have one sceen name and the last person that kept talking sideways was banned by Method Mad for making such allegations. I am growing tired of you lames (Not you DLo13). I find it funny how if certain members share an opinion, root for the same team or reside in the same area, they are automatically assumed to be the same person. Keep in mind that my older cousin is a member here and I do have friends that post on nt (all mind you root for different teams).  

Bigmike if you value your sn and your membership I suggest you kill that false !%@# you have been saying for awhile now. I have no problem informing Meth and making you DSK the sequel.

 

 

[bigmike23]

someone talks all that #@%* and will go running to a mod cause it looks like he has 5 different screen names and keeps getting called out on it? ummmmmmm


and jay i dont think that rule goes for FR and SO. USC has to ok there move

 

[eneyekayee]

Bigmike if you value your sn and your membership I suggest...

...

 

[cmoneymontana]

Originally Posted by kingkb34

Best news I've heard, since Masoli getting kicked out of Oregon........

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by Bigmike23

If you can't see the fact that USC will still be able to pick clean the Southern California region then I don't know what to tell you.

how? this is not even hate but with limited number of rides open and on probation you really think socal players will still go to USC?



BTW SR and JR on USC can leave to any school they want to and USC cant stop them. the schools can also call those players without getting in trouble.

How? 

Because the NFL Draft matters more than a Bowl game. 

How?

Because we will still play more on National TV than UCLA or any other Pac 10 team.

Even if it goes to a Pac 16, the only two teams that will equal/surpass our exposure is Texas and Oklahoma and they pluck from their own backyard.

I could see some SR's and JR's bolting, especially those that never really gained traction on the depth chart (CJ Gable, Mustain?, etc.)

I know things change, but here are a couple of reactions form the 2011 class:

Max Wittek: "It's not going to affect my commitment. I'm going to stick by it and still feel very much at home with USC."

Max also said that he's spoken with Victor Blackwell a bit about the sanctions and said he thinks Victor feels the same way he does about his USC commitment.

Antwaun Woods: "Um, yeah it has. I'm still committed though, just going through the process."

I spoke with Woods again on Thursday to clarify what he meant and he said, "I heard about it last night. I've been thinking about it all day. But it will only affect me for one year and I still have my redshirt year. I'm still a strong commit though. I know we still have a chance and it's not over. But I'm real passionate about USC and we're not going to let anything get in our way.

I've talked to George Uko too, and he was tripping at first, but then realized it was only two years and he's back to sticking with USC now.

"It's good to know what the sanctions are. I've been waiting for them for a long time. Finally it's over and we know our punishment."

Markeith Ambles quote -

"It really doesn't matter because USC is a great school for academics
and a great place for football to learn to be a great player one day.
That is why I choose the school in the first place. Plus, its only
going to affect me for two years (not going to a bowl). I love the
school and thats why I will stick with my decision to stay with USC.
Why would I want to leave a place with great coaches and great
tradition?"


[table][tr][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]
[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][/table]

 

[ooiron manoo]

on that note, someone told me Dillon Baxter has already been in contact with Florida.
Like Mike said, rule does not apply to him.  Plus, why would he leave?  He will get to play in a bowl before his career is over.  If anything, Florida is trying to get in contact with him, which is illegal 

.  It's not surprising, Urban Meyer has been getting away with illegal recruiting for awhile now, NCAA doesn't have the balls to go after schools in the SEC.

 

[scott frost]

Bigmike if you value your sn and your membership I suggest you kill that false !%@# you have been saying for awhile now. I have no problem informing Meth and making you DSK the sequel.

 

[bigmike23]

I figured that, for the 2011 class, they'll only have 7 scholarships to give, since, projecting their depth chart if no one leaves (granted that's a big "if"), they'll have 68 on scholarship already and their limit will be 75.  Thus, 7 scholarships available.   But you'd have to expect some current players will be run off, or juniors might leave on their own accord.  You can probably bet they'll have at least 10 to give, if not 12-15.

Then, for 2012 and 2013, they'll be able to give out 15 scholarships each year, but their roster for those seasons should be in the lows 70s.

2014 will be the first year they'll be off the scholarship limitations, so they'll be able to give out 25 and have 85 on the roster.

It's too hard to tell at this point how their roster will look in 2014, however.  It's a bit dependent on how many redshirt-seniors are on the roster (from the original 2010 class).  Let's say 10-12 are fifth-year seniors, they could have 80-85 guys on scholarship.   They actually should be okay that year, since they could have a senior-laden team. 

But 2015 could be a bit strange.  They'll have 25 to give and 85 on the roster, of course, but, because of the limitation of the 15 rides per year for 2011, 2012 and 2013,  they still could have very few seniors and juniors, with the roster primarily being sophomores, redshirt freshman and true freshmen. That is, unless they take a great deal of Juco kids in 2014 and 2015 classes. 

Anyway you look at it, it's goiing to definitely put USC at a deficit in terms of talent, depth and experience or probably the next 5 or 6 years

 

[ThaxbyChamblis]

Noooo.

The thing I quoted, keeps in mind the fact that you can only add 15 scholarship players per year.

Like, for example, say in 2010 you have 110 scholarship players on the team and for the next 3 years after that you can only add 15 per year and your total allotment is reduced to 100 per year

2010: After you drop the extra 10 scholarships you have 100 players

2011: You have 100 players. Say 20 players leave for NFL/Graduation/transfer/etc. You'll be left w/ 80 players. But you can only add 15 more because of reductions, so you'll end up w/ 95 scholarship players on your roster. You'll technically have 5 left over, but you can't give them to anyone because you can't add more that 15 scholly players in a year.

2012: You have 95 scholarship players on your team. 20 players leave, leaving you w/ 75. You can only add 15 more, so you'll have 90 on the roster. You still have 10 scholly's left to give, but you can't give them to anyone because you aren't allowed to add more than 15 scholarship players a year.

2013: You have 90 scholarship players on the team. 20 players leave, bringing you down to 70. You can add 15 more, bringing you up to 85 total scholarship players. You have 15 more available, but you can't give them to anyone because you can't add more than 15 in a given year.

So after all that, you'd drop from 110 players to 70. You'd have schollys to give each year, BUT you can't give them because you are capped at adding 15 scholarship players a year.

15 initial grants and 75 total grants I assumed to mean 15 new per year, and 75 total. I could be wrong. And maybe I and the person I quoted are all wrong. And you can't really play w/ the numbers too much because you will be bringing in a full 15 player class every year.