USC issue...

[jrock210]

Man a 2 year postseason ban....Press conferance tomorrow

[AHSeagles]

Man a 2 year postseason ban....Press conferance tomorrow

I saw a video clip on ESPN with Joe Schad talking about it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5267933

Possibly vacating a national championship and a Heisman trophy! srs bsnss

[FarmerFootballPlayer]

So would the national championship then go to Oklahoma and the Heisman to VY?

[lonny23]

So would the national championship then go to Oklahoma and the Heisman to VY?
The title should go to Auburn. They were 13-0 and won the Sugar Bowl.

[lonny23]

This is great news with the Pac-10 expansion!:D

[WestPlano006]

The title wold go to Auburn if they awarded it to someone else, but I think it would be a case where no champion would be crowned. I still think Bush keeps the Heisman for all his charitable acts since being drafted... he really has done a lot.

A 2 year bowl ban on USC with OU and Texas heading to the Pac-10 would certainly help both in national recruiting and hurt USC though.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

I think it would be a split National Championship. They would go to the final polls, before Bowl games. Auburn was #2 in the AP and OU was #2 in the BCS. Therefore, OU would get the BCS crown, with a forfeit from USC... and Auburn would get the AP crown.

You have to understand, it's not like the USC team would lose an OL'men or a Safety. They'd retro-actively lose, perhaps, the most explosive athlete in CFB history. OU had 5 turnovers, most deep in their own territory. If it could go wrong... it did! But, they still had around 400 yds of offense (128 yds on the ground). Bush accounted for just over 150 AP yds, giving the Trojans great scoring opportunities. Think about the amount of attention given a guy who should've never been on the field.

You can't welcome the Heisman Trophy to Vince Young (2005)... and say the BCS poll was obselete, in having OU at #2 (2004). That's having your cake and eating it, too. USC got there... by cheating.

2004
Oklahoma - BCS National Champs (by way of vacation)
Auburn - AP National Champs (by way of vacation)

2005
Vince Young - Heisman Trophy winner (by way of vacation)

Do I accept it? Of course. Will I chest-thump about it? Absolutely not. Turnovers or not... USC was CLEARLY the best team in the Nation.

[wesaxman34]

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa39/snud/nelson_ha_ha.jpg

[CCCSportsFan]

News story from the LA Times... Sadly, no wonder Pete Carroll high tailed it out of there! I wish they could have made him stay and face the music he helped create!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/sports/la-sp-usc-20100610

[pied]

You can't recreate history. If RB is not eligible, does VY win? Almost certainly, do we know for sure, absolutely not.

Same thing with the National Title. In my opinion, the results stay the same and there is anasterick. The NCAA can remove them from their record books, but you can't say the games did not happen or the vote was not conducted.

This isn't the Miss USA contest.

VY might be the highest eligible vote getter, but not the winner.

[farmerfan]

The title should go to Auburn. They were 13-0 and won the Sugar Bowl.

and OU would be considered 13-0 and winners of the Orange Bowl.

[wesaxman34]

News story from the LA Times... Sadly, no wonder Pete Carroll high tailed it out of there! I wish they could have made him stay and face the music he helped create!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/sports/la-sp-usc-20100610

Yeah, he didn't fool anyone when he fled LA...the timing definitely wasn't a coincidence.

[pied]

and OU would be considered 13-0 and winners of the Orange Bowl.

12-1* or 12-0. Tehy got their a$$ kicked in the Bowl Game.

[Maroondog]

Dream on people. They will not re-award any Heismans or national championships over this.

[farmerfan]

12-1* or 12-0. Tehy got their a$$ kicked in the Bowl Game.

is USC going to have to forfeit?

My understanding of a forfeit is the loser then becomes a 1-0 winner which would make OU winner of that game, but then again with the forfeits of the other 12 games then SC would have no business in that game.

Yes they got their *** kicked, Auburn would have too had they played instead of OU.

I'm fine with 12-0 but no way should Auburn be given the luxury of being "awarded" that national title over OU.

Like you said in an earlier post, you can't erase the memory of that game from the minds of OU fans, SC fans, Auburn fans and CFB fans, it happend and it probably would be better if they just kept an astericks next to it.

I just fail to see why Lonny would think Auburn would deserve to be awarded the NC over OU in this scenario.


Oh wait, I get it now, who was the coach of Auburn then :rofl:

[pied]

Probably a good time to point out that ou was forced to vacate all of their 2005 wins for the same thing.

They are still on the books after appeal. This is the dopey part of the issue. Sdholarship reductions/ban from post season lpayn is much more important in my opinion.

Calling the case "significant and serious," the NCAA's Division I infractions committee said Wednesday that Oklahoma must vacate its eight football victories during the 2005 season, including a bowl win, because of major violations involving players working at a Norman auto dealership.

OU president David Boren said the university would appeal the decision, including a finding that the school failed to monitor athletes working at Big Red Sports/Imports.

"Above all, we do not believe that erasing the 2005 season from the record books is fair to the over 100 student-athletes and coaches who played by the rules and worked their hearts out for a successful season that year," Boren said in a statement.

The NCAA also issued a public reprimand and censure to OU, extended the school's current probation until May 2010 and cut two football scholarships each for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons.

OU finished 8-4 in 2005, beating Oregon, 17-14, in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl.

"Vacate does not mean forfeit," explained Paul Dee, acting chair of the committee, which issued the findings and assessed the penalties. The teams that Oklahoma beat wouldn't get credit for victories. The Sooners' record for 2005 would be 0-4.

Dee, athletic director at the University of Miami, said in a conference call that Oklahoma would not have to return any bowl money.

The committee said that three players – quarterback Rhett Bomar from Grand Prairie, offensive lineman J.D. Quinn from Garland and walk-on wide receiver Jermaine Hardison from Midwest City, Okla. – received a total of about $17,000 for work they didn't perform at Big Red.

Individual statistics compiled by Bomar and Quinn in 2005 would also be vacated; Hardison never played in a game. The penalties are on hold, pending the appeal.

This is Oklahoma's sixth major infractions case involving football and seventh overall. Several schools have seven, but only Arizona State and SMU, each with eight, have more overall major cases.

Recruiting expert Bobby Burton said Wednesday that the penalties, if upheld, would have little impact on the Sooners' recruiting. "I just don't see it as that big a deal," he said.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/071207dnspooulede.c8ab5b.html

[tayb]

So how does this work with the victories in the post-season?

I think vacating wins is silly in general and largely ineffective. People remember the season, they'll talk about the season. You can't pretend it didn't exist in any fashion except the record books. I would personally prefer to see an asterisk next to the BCS games instead of seeing them awarded to anyone. In 2004 they "won" an AP "title" so there isn't much to change there, 2005 they lost to Texas, but in 2004 they waxed the floor against oklahoma. What do they do with that game? I disagree with all scenarios presented that involve awarding that National Championship to anyone. I would much rather see an asterisk or a year void of a "champion" in the record books than a losing team or a team that didn't participate in the game being awarded the winner.

With the same train of thought I find it silly that people are mentioning giving the Heisman to Vince. Do I think he deserved it at the time? Yes, I do. But I don't want to see some crap like this tainting the Heisman nor would I like to see Vince getting an award he didn't because Bush was taking cash under the table. If you want to further punish Bush then put an asterisk in the Heisman books and/or ask him to return the trophy but don't give it to someone else.

The penalties that will actually affect USC will be the scholarship reduction and the ban from post-season play for two years. It will hurt their recruiting. Taking away wins from seasons 6+ years ago isn't going to turn any recruits away from USC. Not being able to play in a bowl game until you are a Junior? That might.

My 2 cents.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Probably a good time to point out that ou was forced to vacate all of their 2005 wins for the same thing.

They are still on the books after appeal. This is the dopey part of the issue. Sdholarship reductions/ban from post season lpayn is much more important in my opinion.




http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/071207dnspooulede.c8ab5b.html

None of that details the scenario of a team that cheated to become BCS National Champions. If they vacate their wins from that season it doesn't mean there is NO BCS National Champion. The BCS committee will have to decide what to do, but you can't just have USC - who apparently went 0-0 - as BCS National Champions... with a f'n asterisk. LOL! That does nothing!

Say what you want about OU, losing 55-19... but they lost to a team who cheated to get where they were. And, that particular team had arguably the most explosive player in the history of CFB.

Btw...

AP Reports: Sources inside the NCAA have been quoted as saying, "What they had going was completely unregulated and over-the-top. We found evidence that at least half the players were being paid, and coaches and university all looked the other way. If we had our way, we would give them the death penalty. But word came down from the top that we can't rock the boat that much."

Bush's affect on the USC program in 2004:

vs Va Tech = 3 tds and 258 AP yds (24-13 win)(w/o Bush = 3-13 loss)
vs Colorado State = 1 td and 162 AP yds (49-0 win)
vs BYU = 2 tds and 248 AP yds (42-10 win)
vs Sanford = 1 td and 240 AP yds (31-28 win)(w/o Bush = 24-28 loss)
vs Cal = 0 tds and 140 AP yds (23-17 win)
vs ASU = 1 td and 120 AP yds (45-7 win)
vs Wash = 1 td and 126 AP yds (38-0 win)
vs WSU = 2 tds and 143 AP yds (42-12 win)
vs OSU = 1 td and 252 AP yds (28-20 win)
vs Ariz = 0 tds and 130 AP yds (49-9 win)
vs ND = 1 td and 111 AP yds (41-10 win)
vs UCLA = 2 tds and 335 AP yds (29-24 win)(w/o Bush = 15-24 loss)
vs OU = 0 tds and 150 AP yds (55-19 win)

USC could've easily been 9-3 on the season w/o Bush. The kid was a DIFFERENCE MAKER! Take him away and it's very likely OU and Auburn meet for the BCS Title. OU was pretty damn good, too... I mean, they beat a good Texas team led by VY - who went on to have a spectacular game in the Rose Bowl vs Mich. Their 5 turnovers (4 inside of their own 30-yd line) is what bit them in the foot vs USC. I mean, they had around 400 yds of offense vs USC, I remember correctly. I just don't think USC was 36 pts-better-than OU... and w/o Bush I think OU could've had a different gameplan.

[pied]

None of that details the scenario of a team that cheated to become BCS National Champions. If they vacate their wins from that season it doesn't mean there is NO BCS National Champion. The BCS committee will have to decide what to do, but you can't just have USC - who apparently went 0-0 - as BCS National Champions... with a f'n asterisk. LOL! That does nothing!

Say what you want about OU, losing 55-19... but they lost to a team who cheated to get where they were. And, that particular team had arguably the most explosive player in the history of CFB.

Btw...



Bush's affect on the USC program in 2004:

vs Va Tech = 3 tds and 258 AP yds (24-13 win)(w/o Bush = 3-13 loss)
vs Colorado State = 1 td and 162 AP yds (49-0 win)
vs BYU = 2 tds and 248 AP yds (42-10 win)
vs Sanford = 1 td and 240 AP yds (31-28 win)(w/o Bush = 24-28 loss)
vs Cal = 0 tds and 140 AP yds (23-17 win)
vs ASU = 1 td and 120 AP yds (45-7 win)
vs Wash = 1 td and 126 AP yds (38-0 win)
vs WSU = 2 tds and 143 AP yds (42-12 win)
vs OSU = 1 td and 252 AP yds (28-20 win)
vs Ariz = 0 tds and 130 AP yds (49-9 win)
vs ND = 1 td and 111 AP yds (41-10 win)
vs UCLA = 2 tds and 335 AP yds (29-24 win)(w/o Bush = 15-24 loss)
vs OU = 0 tds and 150 AP yds (55-19 win)

USC could've easily been 9-3 on the season w/o Bush. The kid was a DIFFERENCE MAKER! Take him away and it's very likely OU and Auburn meet for the BCS Title. OU was pretty damn good, too... I mean, they beat a good Texas team led by VY - who went on to have a spectacular game in the Rose Bowl vs Mich. Their 5 turnovers (4 inside of their own 30-yd line) is what bit them in the foot vs USC. I mean, they had around 400 yds of offense vs USC, I remember correctly. I just don't think USC was 36 pts-better-than OU... and w/o Bush I think OU could've had a different gameplan.

ou was very good, and I think the game got blown open on a few key plays. Off the top of my head a fumbled punt and a pick when the ou WR fell, but those are the breaks and they got their a$$ kicked.

When ou was forced to vacate their '05 wins that included a Holiday Bowl win.

Typically the starting QB is considered a difference maker and had an impact on all the games ou played in '05.

It's a stupid way to resolve the issue.

[tayb]

Well, removing Bush does not necessarily negate all the numbers he compiled because he would then have been replaced by some other heralded USC tailback. This is why you cannot assume the outcomes of any games would have changed substantially. Anything could have happened. Who is to say LenWhale wouldn't have had an amazing year if he wasn't relegated to third down and mop-up duty? USC also could have gone 6-7 because defenses didn't have to worry about Bush. No one knows.

If you want to punish a team for past crimes then punish their future because you cannot change the past. The game's have been played. It's silly to take away victories and even more silly to assume that the losing team would have won without the infringing player on the field.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Well, removing Bush does not necessarily negate all the numbers he compiled because he would then have been replaced by some other heralded USC tailback. This is why you cannot assume the outcomes of any games would have changed substantially. Anything could have happened. Who is to say LenWhale wouldn't have had an amazing year if he wasn't relegated to third down and mop-up duty? USC also could have gone 6-7 because defenses didn't have to worry about Bush. No one knows.

If you want to punish a team for past crimes then punish their future because you cannot change the past. The game's have been played. It's silly to take away victories and even more silly to assume that the losing team would have won without the infringing player on the field.

With that kind of logic, a program may feel just fine with allowing cheating to occur, giving them a National Title. They'll know they would eventually have to be punished, but as long as they win that Crystal Ball, all will be right in the world. To them it would be "to hell with the future".

At the same time, I ask: lets say a guy takes steroids for the next 2 yrs, goes to the 2012 Olympics and wins the 100 Meter dash, while setting a world record. It is discovered, a year later, that he was on undetectable steroids, should he be required to give up his medal, as well as see the world record thrown out the door... or should he be allowed to keep his medal, world record, and just have "asterisks" placed next to them?

[pied]

With that kind of logic, a program may feel just fine with allowing cheating to occur, giving them a National Title. They'll know they would eventually have to be punished, but as long as they win that Crystal Ball, all will be right in the world. To them it would be "to hell with the future".

At the same time, I ask: lets say a guy takes steroids for the next 2 yrs, goes to the 2012 Olympics and wins the 100 Meter dash, while setting a world record. It is discovered, a year later, that he was on undetectable steroids, should he be required to give up his medal, as well as see the world record thrown out the door... or should he be allowed to keep his medal, world record, and just have "asterisks" placed next to them?

Ask Bob Stoops, that's the closest analogy we have apparently.

[tayb]

With that kind of logic, a program may feel just fine with allowing cheating to occur, giving them a National Title. They'll know they would eventually have to be punished, but as long as they win that Crystal Ball, all will be right in the world. To them it would be "to hell with the future".

At the same time, I ask: lets say a guy takes steroids for the next 2 yrs, goes to the 2012 Olympics and wins the 100 Meter dash, while setting a world record. It is discovered, a year later, that he was on undetectable steroids, should he be required to give up his medal, as well as see the world record thrown out the door... or should he be allowed to keep his medal, world record, and just have "asterisks" placed next to them?

Do you really think a football team would cheat during a season and sacrifice years of their future for a shot at a title? I don't and SMU is a perfect example of why. That school still hasn't recovered. Besides, punishing teams in the future may not be the best answer but it is sure as heck a better answer than trying to re-write history. Neither oklahoma nor Florida State felt any effects from their vacated season but they would have felt it in the recruiting department if they lost 20 scholarships and were banned from post-season play for two years.

I believe there is already an answer to that question. The IOC took 5 medals from Marion Jones and removed her name from the record books. As far as I know it is as if she never even competed that year. They even went so far as to ask Jones's relay teammates to return their medals (most refused). I tried to find what they did with the medals (if they redistributed them) but could not find an article discussing it.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Do you really think a football team would cheat during a season and sacrifice years of their future for a shot at a title? I don't and SMU is a perfect example of why. That school still hasn't recovered. Besides, punishing teams in the future may not be the best answer but it is sure as heck a better answer than trying to re-write history. Neither oklahoma nor Florida State felt any effects from their vacated season but they would have felt it in the recruiting department if they lost 20 scholarships and were banned from post-season play for two years.

I believe there is already an answer to that question. The IOC took 5 medals from Marion Jones and removed her name from the record books. As far as I know it is as if she never even competed that year. They even went so far as to ask Jones's relay teammates to return their medals (most refused). I tried to find what they did with the medals (if they redistributed them) but could not find an article discussing it.

1. I'm fully aware of the Marion Jones Saga.

2. You didn't answer the question. Do you think it is right to take back the medals and just put an asterisk there... or should the medals be awarded to the runner-up? Same w/ the record?

[WestPlano006]

Don't vacate wins for a team that had ineligible players... that makes absolutely no sense.

[tayb]

1. I'm fully aware of the Marion Jones Saga.

2. You didn't answer the question. Do you think it is right to take back the medals and just put an asterisk there... or should the medals be awarded to the runner-up? Same w/ the record?

I don't have a problem with the IOC asking the medals to be returned. They cannot forcibly take them but I don't have a problem with them asking. Really, the whole act of publicly demanding the medals back is just a show because as far as I can tell they didn't do anything with them. If they were to try and redistribute them they would have to ask for all runners who medaled to return their medals and give them new ones. That's silly.

I also don't have a problem with emptying out the record books and leaving the "Gold medal winner" blank so long as they have some sort of forward punishment as well. In the Jones case not only did they ask for her medal to be returned and removed her from the record books but they banned her from having any participation in future Olympic games in any capacity. I'm fine with that. I think the IOC did the best they could have possibly done in that situation.

[yankee]

thanks for the future recruits, USC...:rofl:

[lonny23]

Auburn will get the AP title. It's 50/50 if they give the BCS trophy to Auburn or OU.

[yankee]

Auburn will get the AP title. It's 50/50 if they give the BCS trophy to Auburn or OU.

i honestly could care less who gets the trophy. no one is going to think that either team won it (whether it's OU or auburn)...and you most definitely will not hear me gloating about 8 national championships if we end up getting the BCS trophy.

[QQQ]

http://thewateringholeonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lane-kiffin.jpg

Lane Kiffen today...........

"I guess the joke is now on me"

&

"I guess Al Davis finally got revenge on me and Dad:yes:".

:heli::heli::

:D

[ThEgReAtOnE]

It just keeps getting better.

ESPN.com Report
June 11, 2010

Juniors and seniors to-be on the USC Trojans' football team, hit with a two-year postseason ban among other punishments, will be allowed to transfer to other FBS programs without having to sit out a season, the NCAA clarified to ESPN on Friday. :heli:

"The second school would have to submit a waiver asking to waive the year in residence, but NCAA rules allow for this waiver to be granted if a student-athlete's first school has a postseason ban in their sport," NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said in an e-mail to ESPN's Joe Schad.

The rule does not apply to freshman who have signed national letters of intent, however. But schools with an interest in a USC junior or senior are allowed to initiate contact with the player, Osburn said.

NCAA report

The NCAA released a 67-page report detailing its findings in an investigation of the USC athletic program. Read it here. Report

• USC's Dec. '09 response to NCAA

The NCAA threw the book at USC on Thursday with a two-year bowl ban, four years' probation, loss of scholarships and forfeits of an entire year's games for improper benefits to Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush dating to the Trojans' 2004 national championship.

USC was penalized for a lack of institutional control in the ruling by the NCAA following its four-year investigation. The report cited numerous improper benefits for Bush and former basketball player O.J. Mayo, who spent just one year with the Trojans.

Among juniors and seniors whom the transfer rule applies to are quarterback Mitch Mustain, running backs C.J. Gable and Marc Tyler, receiver David Ausberry, cornerback T.J. Bryant, tight end Blake Ayles, safety Drew McAllister and center Michael Reardon.

First-year coach Lane Kiffin said Thursday he hadn't heard from any schools with possible interest in a USC player.

When asked if he's concerned about some of his juniors and seniors transferring, Kiffin said, "If someone wants to leave the best place in the country to play football, we won't stop them." :rofl:

The coaches who presided over the alleged misdeeds -- football's Pete Carroll and basketball's Tim Floyd -- left USC in the past year.

The penalties include the loss of 30 football scholarships over three years and vacating 14 victories in which Bush played from December 2004 through the 2005 season.

USC beat Oklahoma in the BCS title game on Jan. 4, 2005, and won 12 games during Bush's Heisman-winning 2005 season, which ended with a loss to Texas in the 2006 BCS title game.

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

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

USC reaction

Living with scholarship cuts and bowl bans is severe. But the coaches who have endured those conditions say there are steps USC can take, writes ESPN.com's Ivan Maisel. Story

The NCAA threw down the gauntlet, as ESPN.com's Ted Miller details. The penalties exceed in severity sanctions Alabama received in 2002 and Washington in 1993. Blog

A whole lot of people didn't see the shock-and-awe punishment coming, but the NCAA's message was thunderous. There's a smoking crater in L.A. to prove it, Pat Forde writes. Story
• USC basketball deals with sanctions

The NCAA says Bush received lavish gifts from two fledgling sports marketers hoping to sign him. The men paid for everything from hotel stays and a rent-free home where Bush's family apparently lived to a limousine and a new suit when he accepted his Heisman in New York in December 2005.

The NCAA found that Bush, identified as a "former football student-athlete," was ineligible beginning at least by December 2004, a ruling that could open discussion on the revocation of the New Orleans Saints star's Heisman. Members of the Heisman Trust have said they might review Bush's award if he was ruled ineligible by the NCAA.

USC athletic director Mike Garrett, speaking at a previously scheduled USC Coaches' Tour at the Airport Marriott in Burlingame, Calif., had this to say Thursday to boosters: "As I read the decision by the NCAA, all I could get out of all of this was ... I read between the lines, and there was nothing but a lot of envy, and they wish they all were Trojans."

While the bowl ban is the most damaging to Kiffin, who will have to ratchet up his formidable recruiting skills to tempt players with no hope of postseason play before 2012, USC also will lose 30 scholarships over a three-year period, 10 annually from 2011 to '13.

"We've had contact with a number of our signees today, a number of their families," Kiffin said Thursday. "We have had great response from them about their excitement about joining our program and continuing USC's championship level of play. :rolleyes:

"I told the team, and I made sure they understood, that this is something happening to them that's adversity. Football, we talk about all the time, is about adversity, as is life. Our older players have played in a lot of bowl games. Our fifth-year seniors, a number of them have won a number of bowl games already, have played in three Rose Bowl championships."

USC is the first Football Bowl Subdivision school to be banned from postseason play since Alabama served a two-year ban ending in 2003. The NCAA issued no bowl bans during the tenure of late president Myles Brand, but the NCAA reportedly regained interest in the punishment over the past year.

"The real issue here is if you have high-profile players that your enforcement staff has to monitor," said Paul Dee, chairman of the NCAA's committee on infractions.

"It is extremely likely that the people who are receiving these interactions outside the institution are going to receive a bigger reward," Dee added. "So higher-profile players require higher-profile monitoring."

[ThEgReAtOnE]

http://www.dailyworldbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/seantrel.jpg

;)