View Full Version : USC suspended from post season bowls for 2 years, might lose 2004 NCAA championship
Ingtar33
06-11-2010, 12:45 AM
yep. you read it. it's official.
USC has been violating NCAA regulations for years, and Pete Carroll got out just in time, before all his titles and records were stripped from him.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5272615
You'll remember back before Carroll signed with the Seahawks i was talking about this (actually this has been in the works for the better part of 3 years now... somehow USC was able to hold off the NCAA for 3 years... they couldn't keep it going, Carroll saw the writing on the wall and bailed)... Looks like Lane Kiffin is stuck holding the bag.
The Spaz
06-11-2010, 12:47 AM
They are both dicks!
Ingtar33
06-11-2010, 12:49 AM
They are both dicks!
yeah.. trust me... as someone who's worked, clawed and scraped for and earned everything he's gotten in football through hard work... i have zero sympathy for the legacy baby Kiffin who has done nothing but fall ass backwards into the dream head coaching jobs in football, one after another, and never had to... you know. win anywhere.
it might be sour grapes... but i would kill for a chance to head coach in the NFL, or at University of Tennessee... and that legacy baby not only had those jobs gift wrapped for him, but he didn't even have to produce respectable results anywhere to get what is arguably one of the best HC jobs in football... anywhere at USC. so i am certainly laughing about it...
dplus47
06-11-2010, 02:21 AM
yeah.. trust me... as someone who's worked, clawed and scraped for and earned everything he's gotten in football through hard work... i have zero sympathy for the legacy baby Kiffin who has done nothing but fall ass backwards into the dream head coaching jobs in football, one after another, and never had to... you know. win anywhere.
it might be sour grapes... but i would kill for a chance to head coach in the NFL, or at University of Tennessee... and that legacy baby not only had those jobs gift wrapped for him, but he didn't even have to produce respectable results anywhere to get what is arguably one of the best HC jobs in football... anywhere at USC. so i am certainly laughing about it...
After watching what happened at Tennessee, the business with Kiffin in Oakland makes me think that Al Davis has moments of lucidity.
Nobody at USC generally has to work for anything, and it shows up in a lot of their players once they reach the next level. The LB's have been good, but then again, they were on 'roids. Look at some of the members of that famous team that have gone on to the next level: Leinart, Bush, LenDale White... Not exactly overachievers, that's for sure.
Night Train
06-11-2010, 05:09 AM
Couldn't happen to a better program. RIP for about 5 years, USC.
And Pete Carroll escapes before the fire. Here's hoping Seattle wins 1 game a year for the next 5 years.
SaviorEdwards
06-11-2010, 06:22 AM
30 scholarships WOW...if they are vacating that one Bush year, the Heisman should also be taken away.
TheGhostofJimKelly
06-11-2010, 06:43 AM
The biggest deal is the 30 scholarships.
DraftBoy
06-11-2010, 07:04 AM
The biggest deals to me are that all their players with two years of eligibility left can transfer to any school without sitting out and that the 2011 incoming freshman cannot redshirt their first year.
They will only lose 6-7 scholarships a year I read, but they will still land 4-5 5 star guys.
Throne Logic
06-11-2010, 08:05 AM
The biggest deals to me are that all their players with two years of eligibility left can transfer to any school without sitting out and that the 2011 incoming freshman cannot redshirt their first year.
They will only lose 6-7 scholarships a year I read, but they will still land 4-5 5 star guys.
Going to be tough to land those 4-5 star guys based primarily upon what you said in your first paragraph.
Is Lane really going to be able to sit in some high ranked prospect's living room and pitch it? "I realize that we can't offer you a chance at any post season action and that you will be forever associated with USC during the 'dark years'. . . BUT there's good news! Many of our up-and-coming players just bailed for greener pastures, so you will get a chance to play right away!" He adds under his breath, "plus I can't redshirt ya anyhow".
"What was that, Mr Kiffin?" Mr. High Prospect asks?
"Oh, er, nothing. I was just reminiscing about better times in Oakland."
psubills62
06-11-2010, 08:08 AM
Going to be tough to land those 4-5 star guys based primarily upon what you said in your first paragraph.
Is Lane really going to be able to sit in some high ranked prospect's living room and pitch it? "I realize that we can't offer you a chance at any post season action and that you will be forever associated with USC during the 'dark years'. . . BUT there's good news! Many of our up-and-coming players just bailed for greener pastures, so you will get a chance to play right away!" He adds under his breath, "plus I can't redshirt ya anyhow".
"What was that, Mr Kiffin?" Mr. High Prospect asks?
"Oh, er, nothing. I was just reminiscing about better times in Oakland."
You have to know Kiffin and Orgeron will spin things to favor them when talking to recruits. And kids are dumb, they'll believe it, or they won't care.
During his currently brief stints as head coach, Kiffin has shown to be a very, very powerful recruiter.
But yes, these penalties were a long time coming.
ServoBillieves
06-11-2010, 08:12 AM
What kid is going to want to go to a team that isn't bowl eligable? I know they'll still land players because its USC but if I'm talented and smart, I'm eyeballing any other school that gives me that extra game to showcase talent.
Scholarships are the biggest loss for them, but the best part is it falls in to Lane Kiffins lap. Worthless ******* deserves it.
SaviorEdwards
06-11-2010, 08:50 AM
I would love to be a fly on the wall for UCLA and Washington recruiting trips LOL
Ebenezer
06-11-2010, 09:14 AM
Why weren't they just given the death penalty?? Why is there even any recourse? Teams have been cheating for years. It's simple - you break the rules and your program dies. Period.
DraftBoy
06-11-2010, 10:37 AM
Why weren't they just given the death penalty?? Why is there even any recourse? Teams have been cheating for years. It's simple - you break the rules and your program dies. Period.
Alright slow down there, USC doesnt deserve to be killed because an agent/rep bought and paid for some stuff for Reggie Bush. Wow that's going out on a limb a bit don't you think?
FlyingDutchman
06-11-2010, 11:39 AM
Theyre talking about taking back Reggie Bush's Heisman also...
Johnny Bugmenot
06-11-2010, 11:44 AM
Who wants to bet there'll be an NFL team in L.A. within the next year because of this? I know a lot of people have been saying there'd be no team in L.A. because of the continued dominance of USC, but now that they've been penalized, what now?
What kid is going to want to go to a team that isn't bowl eligable? I know they'll still land players because its USC but if I'm talented and smart, I'm eyeballing any other school that gives me that extra game to showcase talent.
Scholarships are the biggest loss for them, but the best part is it falls in to Lane Kiffins lap. Worthless ******* deserves it.
Not being bowl eligible will be a blow to recruiting, but the one thing USC does still have going for them is that most of their games are nationally televised, so you still get more exposure then a lot of other schools.
psubills62
06-11-2010, 12:04 PM
Not being bowl eligible will be a blow to recruiting, but the one thing USC does still have going for them is that most of their games are nationally televised, so you still get more exposure then a lot of other schools.
Not to mention that any 2011 recruits they gain will only have 1 season without any bowls, and that's as freshman. And how many USC players actually expect to play as freshman? So for the most part, they'll still be able to go to bowl games in their careers. It's the guys who are currently there that get screwed out of the postseason (unless they transfer without penalty).
I'm assuming the postseason ban applies for the upcoming season (2010) and the following season (2011).
Ebenezer
06-11-2010, 03:41 PM
Alright slow down there, USC doesnt deserve to be killed because an agent/rep bought and paid for some stuff for Reggie Bush. Wow that's going out on a limb a bit don't you think?
You think that was the only infraction?? Pete Carroll went running for bigger reasons than that.
DraftBoy
06-11-2010, 04:10 PM
You think that was the only infraction?? Pete Carroll went running for bigger reasons than that.
Kinda like a kid cheating on a test, unless you can prove it, you have nothing but baseless accusations.
Captain Obvious
06-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Kinda like a kid cheating on a test, unless you can prove it, you have nothing but baseless accusations.
You've got to be kidding.. Get your head out of the sand...
tat2dmike77
06-11-2010, 04:54 PM
The biggest deal is the 30 scholarships.
And no bowls. That a big tool in recruting and now they don't have the "Play for a national title" line for a long while.
But it helps other schools like Cal, UCLA, Oregon and Oregon ST. These schools can all use the "Hey you can play in a bowl with our program and possibly play for a title in your career here"
The no bowls really really hurts USC in a big way.
I do have to say that somebody knew something. Wheter it was Pete, the AD or and of the other coaches someone knew something and this is why the NCAA came down so hard on USC.
The only people i feel for are the non stars of the '04 team. The guys who did the right thing and worked thier butts off now have nothing because of one guy.
Ebenezer
06-11-2010, 05:02 PM
Kinda like a kid cheating on a test, unless you can prove it, you have nothing but baseless accusations.
look, on this issue I might be old fashioned and want things to be clean...I am not naive...I'm betting that cheating is going on at ALL schools...the NCAA is just a unit that enables. If there was true compliance and no cheating the scape of college athletics would be completely different. The NCAA themselves don't want this cleaned up.
Johnny Bugmenot
06-11-2010, 05:43 PM
Pete Carroll went running for bigger reasons than that. You bring up an interesting point: remember how many times they tried to lure Carroll back to the NFL and he always politely declined, declaring himself content in USC? Well, what changed all of a sudden?
tampabay25690
06-11-2010, 06:08 PM
I feel so bad for USC..........
I think ol Pete needs to pay the price as well......
tampabay25690
06-11-2010, 06:09 PM
But put it this way ALL NCAA schools cheat but some just get caught..........
Ebenezer
06-11-2010, 06:18 PM
But put it this way ALL NCAA schools cheat but some just get caught..........
which was my point above and in other threads...imagine the landscape if they really policed all this stuff...
tampabay25690
06-11-2010, 06:21 PM
which was my point above and in other threads...imagine the landscape if they really policed all this stuff...
All the top 25 teams would be on probation....
Ebenezer
06-11-2010, 06:24 PM
All the top 25 teams would be on probation....
more than that...the games wouldn't be as exciting...many of the better players would be bolting for the NFL at 18 or 19...more wouldn't even get a chance to get into college...ratings would be down...advertising would be down...revenues would be down...
...shall I keep going?
SaviorEdwards
06-11-2010, 06:27 PM
which was my point above and in other threads...imagine the landscape if they really policed all this stuff...
The only reason SC got caught is because Bush and his first agent were morons. The NCAA was forced to police this, it was in their face mocking them.
tampabay25690
06-11-2010, 06:38 PM
more than that...the games wouldn't be as exciting...many of the better players would be bolting for the NFL at 18 or 19...more wouldn't even get a chance to get into college...ratings would be down...advertising would be down...revenues would be down...
...shall I keep going?
NO need u are right
better days
06-11-2010, 06:46 PM
Kinda like a kid cheating on a test, unless you can prove it, you have nothing but baseless accusations.
Nothing but accusations yes, but not baseless.
Ingtar33
06-11-2010, 09:09 PM
But put it this way ALL NCAA schools cheat but some just get caught..........
My school does not cheat. it did before i got there. it doesn't now. thank you very much. If you win by cheating, that's not winning it's stealing.
I can assure you the school i got started with (as a graduate assistant) did not cheat either.
-Pete Carroll had to know what was going on at USC (as did the AD), because I knew what was going on years ago. This was not a secret nor a surprise.
Ebenezer
06-11-2010, 09:28 PM
My school does not cheat. it did before i got there. it doesn't now. thank you very much. If you win by cheating, that's not winning it's stealing.
I can assure you the school i got started with (as a graduate assistant) did not cheat either.
-Pete Carroll had to know what was going on at USC (as did the AD), because I knew what was going on years ago. This was not a secret nor a surprise.
Ing, what would you say is the percentage of top 50 programs (including the current top 25) in the country that are cheating?? 10%, 50%...almost all?
Ingtar33
06-11-2010, 11:45 PM
Ing, what would you say is the percentage of top 50 programs (including the current top 25) in the country that are cheating?? 10%, 50%...almost all?
probably 75%... depends on the coach... depends on the conference, depends on how strict you're being with the definition...
depends what you call cheating... if you go by letter and spirit of the law it's probably closer to 90%... however... there is cheating and there is cheating in D1 football. Some rules are largely winked at as long as you don't break the letter of the rule no one cares how much to ruin the spirit (most recruiting rules are like this)... other rules are sacrosanct.
What USC has been doing for the past decade perhaps 10% to 20% of other programs go that far... and i doubt any were as blatant, or they'd be in just as much trouble as USC... I think it's hilarious that Kiffin ended up as their coach because of the irony... as his one year at Tennessee spread more rumors of malfeasance then i've ever heard about any other coach in one season... so i highly doubt he'll clean up USC.
He's not the only coach out there with nasty rumors floating around him (Saban has ALWAYS been surrounded by those types of rumors)... but he certainly took what was "standard" cheating at Tennessee and made it full blown no holds barred 'shameless' cheating in just one season... at least if the rumors i've been hearing are true that is.
granted I'm probably a little more apt to believe rumors about Kiffin so maybe I'm doing him an injustice.
Ebenezer
06-12-2010, 03:15 PM
probably 75%... depends on the coach... depends on the conference, depends on how strict you're being with the definition...
depends what you call cheating... if you go by letter and spirit of the law it's probably closer to 90%... however... there is cheating and there is cheating in D1 football. Some rules are largely winked at as long as you don't break the letter of the rule no one cares how much to ruin the spirit (most recruiting rules are like this)... other rules are sacrosanct.
What USC has been doing for the past decade perhaps 10% to 20% of other programs go that far... and i doubt any were as blatant, or they'd be in just as much trouble as USC... I think it's hilarious that Kiffin ended up as their coach because of the irony... as his one year at Tennessee spread more rumors of malfeasance then i've ever heard about any other coach in one season... so i highly doubt he'll clean up USC.
He's not the only coach out there with nasty rumors floating around him (Saban has ALWAYS been surrounded by those types of rumors)... but he certainly took what was "standard" cheating at Tennessee and made it full blown no holds barred 'shameless' cheating in just one season... at least if the rumors i've been hearing are true that is.
granted I'm probably a little more apt to believe rumors about Kiffin so maybe I'm doing him an injustice.
judging by your numbers it looks like some of my comments (much to DB's chagrin) are justified. The NCAA is just one big enabler. I will always take the side that it is time to clean it up and clean it up as completely as possible. Otherwise, in a way, it's a sham. Not in the pro-wrestling way but just as dirty, imo.
Cheating is like steroids...if someone is cheating and getting away with it you have to cheat to compete on their level. I would think it would be in the NCAAs best interest to ferret out the cheating and level the playing field. If no one is cheating I don't see the sport going downhill because of that because the talent pool is going to remain the same.
Ebenezer
06-12-2010, 03:25 PM
Cheating is like steroids...if someone is cheating and getting away with it you have to cheat to compete on their level. I would think it would be in the NCAAs best interest to ferret out the cheating and level the playing field. If no one is cheating I don't see the sport going downhill because of that because the talent pool is going to remain the same.
as I said earlier, if the NCAA really policed the sports it would kill the golden goose.
as I said earlier, if the NCAA really policed the sports it would kill the golden goose.
How?
Ebenezer
06-12-2010, 04:08 PM
How?
get rid of the students who don't qualify to be in college, stop the illegal recruiting, the agents and the inside deals and you end up with an inferior product...inferior product = lower ratings = lower ad money = lower bowl money = less money into college coffers...ie, killing the golden goose...who wants to watch a bunch of real accounting, biology and communications majors play football?
Perhaps it would provide an incentive for these people to become better students. As far as the other things, I don't see how getting rid of agents or any of the other stuff will create an inferior product. It's an amateur sport. The same guys will be on the field because that is how the system is built. School stature will rightfully take on more weight in recruiting decisions. Now, with people cheating all of that is getting watered down. Are you saying if USC didn't cheat then Reggie Bush would have never played college football? That's the only case you can make for the product becoming inferior.
get rid of the students who don't qualify to be in college, stop the illegal recruiting, the agents and the inside deals and you end up with an inferior product...inferior product = lower ratings = lower ad money = lower bowl money = less money into college coffers...ie, killing the golden goose...who wants to watch a bunch of real accounting, biology and communications majors play football?
I have nothing against this thread. Great thread. But when I see all the topics that are moved out of this forum that are more relevant, I can only ask why this is in the Bills forum.
Ebenezer
06-12-2010, 05:05 PM
Perhaps it would provide an incentive for these people to become better students. As far as the other things, I don't see how getting rid of agents or any of the other stuff will create an inferior product. It's an amateur sport. The same guys will be on the field because that is how the system is built. School stature will rightfully take on more weight in recruiting decisions. Now, with people cheating all of that is getting watered down. Are you saying if USC didn't cheat then Reggie Bush would have never played college football? That's the only case you can make for the product becoming inferior.
What incentive? If they have been pushed along and never learned how to learn then how are they going to be better students if they don't have the skills to get into and make it through college? Believing that would be complete naivete.
The same guys will not be on the field. How many of them shouldn't even be in college?? Come on.
The game is not watered down because people are cheating. How can you say that? There are certain schools/coaches who are perennial powerhouses because they recruit illegally and manipulate the system to keep students in. The students also know that they can play the system and almost never go to class (especially in basketball).
And yes, I am saying that USC is a cheater, has been a cheater and can attribute their success to cheating. You think Bush was the only infraction? If so, again you are being naive.
Ebenezer
06-12-2010, 05:05 PM
I have nothing against this thread. Great thread. But when I see all the topics that are moved out of this forum that are more relevant, I can only ask why this is in the Bills forum.
Turf, sometimes in the offseason we just don't get around to moving everything - especially if it is a good topic.
Ingtar33
06-12-2010, 10:20 PM
How?
mostly the perennially dominant teams would no longer be the perennially dominant teams. all the schools in D1-A have the exact same number of scholarships, and all "supposedly" abide by the same recruiting rules... in theory the difference between the schools shouldn't be larger then the difference in a coaching staff's ability to recruit fairly.
unfortunately... it doesn't work this way.
Bling
06-13-2010, 02:32 AM
Did I read that someone thought USC was still going to get 4-5 5 stars? That's an extremely silly statement.
mostly the perennially dominant teams would no longer be the perennially dominant teams. all the schools in D1-A have the exact same number of scholarships, and all "supposedly" abide by the same recruiting rules... in theory the difference between the schools shouldn't be larger then the difference in a coaching staff's ability to recruit fairly.
unfortunately... it doesn't work this way.
it's not just the coaching staff but school stature as well. and that's what I'm saying too. If all teams were more competitive it would be good for the NCAA and the Golden Goose so to speak would still be strong.
Ebenezer
06-13-2010, 09:24 AM
it's not just the coaching staff but school stature as well. and that's what I'm saying too. If all teams were more competitive it would be good for the NCAA and the Golden Goose so to speak would still be strong.
but more teams are not competitive because of the culture that Ing describes.
but more teams are not competitive because of the culture that Ing describes.
and cleaning up the mess would be a step in addressing that problem.
Ebenezer
06-13-2010, 03:22 PM
and cleaning up the mess would be a step in addressing that problem.
address competitiveness maybe....but not keeping the quality of the product on the field...if the rules were enforced many of the quality players would not be there and the game would suffer...it's the dirty secret that nobody wants to talk about.
address competitiveness maybe....but not keeping the quality of the product on the field...if the rules were enforced many of the quality players would not be there and the game would suffer...it's the dirty secret that nobody wants to talk about.
How would the quality players not be there though? Competitiveness in admission procedures is left up to the university and for the past three decades we've made a commitment to providing everyone a college education. The state schools across the country have this in their mission statement as a function of public funding. The reality is these schools are fulfilling their missions by providing across the board education that is student centric. Scholastic ability goes back to things that happen in grade school and how those communities build the family and the home. I hear what your saying about people skating by however I think properly addressing this cheating problem is something that will help the social problems in the long run not something that will limit the talent pool for scholastic sports.
Ebenezer
06-13-2010, 03:38 PM
How would the quality players not be there though? Competitiveness in admission procedures is left up to the university and for the past three decades we've made a commitment to providing everyone a college education. The state schools across the country have this in their mission statement as a function of public funding. The reality is these schools are fulfilling their missions by providing across the board education that is student centric. Scholastic ability goes back to things that happen in grade school and how those communities build the family and the home. I hear what your saying about people skating by however I think properly addressing this cheating problem is something that will help the social problems in the long run not something that will limit the talent pool for scholastic sports.
what does any of that have to do with illegal recruiting, tampering and allowing kids to stay in college who aren't academically qualified. Address what you want at the K-12 level but if you don't police what is going on in colleges then it is all status quo...police the current state and you destroy the product.
what does any of that have to do with illegal recruiting, tampering and allowing kids to stay in college who aren't academically qualified. Address what you want at the K-12 level but if you don't police what is going on in colleges then it is all status quo...police the current state and you destroy the product.
The fact that publicly funded universities have a mission of locating and providing education to the under-privledged has everything to do with it. You want to go back to a day and age where getting a college education was like getting into post graduate school and you are ignoring the trends of society. Today is a time where we desperately need the poor to get an education and that is what universities are trying to do. To just caste people off because they score low on the SATs or have trouble keeping up in college isn't consistent with the plight of education as a whole. My point about the k-12 level (and home life and parenting) is the very people you are kicking out were just young kids a product of their environment that failed them. How many of the kids you are saying can't cut the mustard had parents even with a high school education?
Ebenezer
06-13-2010, 05:01 PM
The fact that publicly funded universities have a mission of locating and providing education to the under-privledged has everything to do with it. You want to go back to a day and age where getting a college education was like getting into post graduate school and you are ignoring the trends of society. Today is a time where we desperately need the poor to get an education and that is what universities are trying to do. To just caste people off because they score low on the SATs or have trouble keeping up in college isn't consistent with the plight of education as a whole. My point about the k-12 level (and home life and parenting) is the very people you are kicking out were just young kids a product of their environment that failed them. How many of the kids you are saying can't cut the mustard had parents even with a high school education?
As the child of parents who didn't have a high school education let me say that successes do happen.
While I don't disagree with you we are talking separate points. Putting a kid in a college classroom doesn't make them collegian. Without the study skills they need, that they should have obtained in K-12, they will not succeed. If they are that far behind they need to go to a community college and transfer in later. I have seen, far too often, kids who lack the basic skills to be in college fail out regardless the amount of help they receive. College cannot, and should and will not, replace K-12. Students need to learn how to study and work hard and be disciplined long before they reach the steps of a college.
However, we are again off topic. You want to address and solve society's ills. That's great. I also attempt that to do that within the walls of my classroom. The discussion here is illegal recruiting, tampering and allowing athletes to remain on teams when, in reality, they are not eligible to be there. Don't assume all those kids playing sports are from underprivileged backgrounds. I have known several that are from rather good backgrounds who have posed as college students in order to keep playing their sport.
I'm not out to solve the worlds problems. I have my own stuff to worry about. I'm just pointing out until we start making decisions that are consistent with the way we should like them to be none of the problems will be solved.
As the child of parents who didn't have a high school education let me say that successes do happen.
While I don't disagree with you we are talking separate points. Putting a kid in a college classroom doesn't make them collegian. Without the study skills they need, that they should have obtained in K-12, they will not succeed. If they are that far behind they need to go to a community college and transfer in later. I have seen, far too often, kids who lack the basic skills to be in college fail out regardless the amount of help they receive. College cannot, and should and will not, replace K-12. Students need to learn how to study and work hard and be disciplined long before they reach the steps of a college.
However, we are again off topic. You want to address and solve society's ills. That's great. I also attempt that to do that within the walls of my classroom. The discussion here is illegal recruiting, tampering and allowing athletes to remain on teams when, in reality, they are not eligible to be there. Don't assume all those kids playing sports are from underprivileged backgrounds. I have known several that are from rather good backgrounds who have posed as college students in order to keep playing their sport.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.