The general USC debate thread (merged)

#27
#27
I had heard that it was probably going to be a 10 scholarship reduction to the football team, a probable year or 2 bowl ban and tv ban. I'm personally hoping they get more because they have slapped the NCAA in the face repeatedly under Carroll and now I'm sure the current regime will do much the same. In my wishful thinking the death penalty would be the punishment, but that won't happen especially to a big time money maker like SC. I'm just hopeful that whatever happens, it's enough to get Lane and his boys fired over time.
 
#28
#28
junder13 said:
One point I would like to make is that its a shame the true violators (reggie bush, oj mayo, etc) will not suffer any consequences themselves. This may not deter athletes going forward, as their haven is easy found in the high-paying professional rank. They & the boosters are the real culprits in my eye. USC simply turned a blind eye in many cases (maybe not all).



Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

true violators? give me a break, that is pure stupidity. let me ask you this, say you come from a poor family, and a booster says if you play at our school we will provide a house, and cars, and money for you and you're family while you're here. why wouldn't you take that? i don't blame them. the true violators are the boosters, and the coaches. PC is gettin off and will never be punished for it
 
#29
#29
So, if all of these sanctions are true and USC is going to get punished pretty good, is it obvious that Pete knew all of this was coming??
 
#31
#31
this meeting is basically putting a rubber stamp on the basketball violations. bush et all comes later since he wont testify for a month or so.
 
#32
#32
My information is 2nd-hand but from someone on the committee who passed the info off to a Notre Dame fan whom I associate with. I am confident this info is solid.


Not here to argue lane & monte's abilities. I questioned lane's play-calling during the season (so not sour grapes) and I believe monte's a great coach but wide open offenses may be more difficult for him to scheme against. Time will tell...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#34
#34
Vol Mania 21 said:
true violators? give me a break, that is pure stupidity. let me ask you this, say you come from a poor family, and a booster says if you play at our school we will provide a house, and cars, and money for you and you're family while you're here. why wouldn't you take that? i don't blame them. the true violators are the boosters, and the coaches. PC is gettin off and will never be punished for it
Click to expand...

You haven't a clue, dude. The athlete's KNOW they are violating NCAA rules when they take benefits (money, rent-free apartments, "loaned" cars, etc) from boosters. The coaches don't always know about these sutuations (or know after the fact). This could happen at UT so be careful what you say. The real violation occurs between the athlete and booster whom the university can only indirectly try to prevent. Now, obviously, in some cases the athletic dept is involved (ie SMU in the 80s).

Again, I'm not saying USC is guilt-less. Carroll was known for having open practices and boosters made themselves comfortable within their facilities, so one could argue it was allowed to occur by turning a blind eye. But I have not read one credible source say carroll or any other coach under his tenure offered a player/recruit benefits. I'm not as well versed with their bball program.

Be careful the statements you describe as stupid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#35
#35
I'm with you junder. Doing something wrong knowing you won't get in trouble for it doesn't make it right or not your fault. Can't say I blame the athletes too much since it's hard to turn down free cars when you're that young and in college, but they know they're breaking the rules.
 
#36
#36
Hope USC gets closest thing to death penalty.

Lane wasn't the best schemer/playcaller, but was 1,000x better than Fulmer. I liked his offense much more than Cutcliffe's.

Monte will do well wherever...sheez
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#38
#38
I don't know what the final outcome will be, but I will be surprised if USC football gets hit with anything. There are two reasons:

(1) it seems that USC has become one of those 'sacred cow' programs because of money and pop culture ties that USC has (Snoop Dogg hangs out at practices, doesn't he?)

(2) I don't think slease ball Kiffin would have left if he had any notion that this would result in any kind of significant sanctions. Kiffin says that USC is his 'dream job' but he is one of those guys that really isn't loyal to anything but his own image and ego. If he thought that there was a good chance that USC would be banned from bowls for 2 years or if he would lose a lot of scholarships, he would have stayed put and let someone else become the care-taker of the program and suffer through those penalties.

I have nothing to base this one except a gut feeling, but I just don't see this coming to anything. Plus, it is time that we started treating Kiffin like the irrelevant child that he is. Of course, from what I saw of him on Sportscenter the other day, it looks like he needs to quit enjoying the southern CA fast food.
 
#39
#39
For everyone who thinks Monte will always be Monte-he admitting coming into the season that the offense he was the most concerned with was the spread. Every time they played a good spread team with weapons they got tore up: Ole Miss, Auburn, and Va tech specifcally. Now he is going to a conference that primarily runs that offense. He might have good players, but we did not have chopped liver last season and Auburn and Ole Miss got yards at will.

I would honestly rather have Wilcox-a young up and coming coach who is used to dealing with these offenses. Plus, Monte is in his Seventies. Sooner or later you lose some MPH on your fastball, and I actually thought that was happening last year with him.
 
#40
#40
kohlrums said:
For everyone who thinks Monte will always be Monte-he admitting coming into the season that the offense he was the most concerned with was the spread. Every time they played a good spread team with weapons they got tore up: Ole Miss, Auburn, and Va tech specifcally. Now he is going to a conference that primarily runs that offense. He might have good players, but we did not have chopped liver last season and Auburn and Ole Miss got yards at will.

I would honestly rather have Wilcox-a young up and coming coach who is used to dealing with these offenses. Plus, Monte is in his Seventies. Sooner or later you lose some MPH on your fastball, and I actually thought that was happening last year with him.
Click to expand...

I liked Monte, but I think that you are right. The evidence seems to indicate that Monte had a problem with the spread. There might be a number of reasons for that, and Monte might have fixed it in the off-season, but I think that Wilcox is going to come in and do a really good job. I like the idea of an up-and-coming coach that wants to prove himself in the SEC after having a lot of success elsewhere.
 
#41
#41
byobbio said:
I wouldn't call Lane a "first rate schemer" in any stretch of the imagination. I can't see where he's that good of a playcaller or game manager. True, it is going to be a little different in the Pac 10 vs. the SEC. I think those two losses against UCLA and AL would have been won by Fulmer (provided he got us in those spots, which clearly he wouldn't have). When he was the OC in waiting at USC they did have some prolific offenses. He did recruit several of those players and will continue those successes. I think they will do well in the Pac 10. I don't think he was cut out for the SEC. I'm not mad anymore that he's gone. I was clearly on the Lane Train and am now clearly off of it. Really, in hind site I don't think leaving TN was the worst thing anybody's done to the program. Contact with the recruits showed the character he and his posse have, but all that is behind us now. Sure, "f" him, but we have football to play in the SEC. The Pac 10 is second rate and always will be.

What was the question again?
Click to expand...

Well said. The only time we will play USC is if a bowl matchup is awarded. Other than that, we do not have anything to worry about. There will be more egos and violations at that school with Kiffin there. Dooley will bring class and respectability back to the Hill.
 
#42
#42
kohlrums said:
For everyone who thinks Monte will always be Monte-he admitting coming into the season that the offense he was the most concerned with was the spread. Every time they played a good spread team with weapons they got tore up: Ole Miss, Auburn, and Va tech specifcally. Now he is going to a conference that primarily runs that offense. He might have good players, but we did not have chopped liver last season and Auburn and Ole Miss got yards at will.

I would honestly rather have Wilcox-a young up and coming coach who is used to dealing with these offenses. Plus, Monte is in his Seventies. Sooner or later you lose some MPH on your fastball, and I actually thought that was happening last year with him.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said but I still wouldn't count out Monte with a defense full of talented players, which he will definitely have.
 
#43
#43
byobbio said:
I think those two losses against UCLA and AL would have been won by Fulmer (provided he got us in those spots, which clearly he wouldn't have).
Click to expand...
Man I'm beginning to hate you for putting me in a position to defend the jerk...

But there's no way CPF would have had that team close to Bama. For one, Chavis would have been the DC which would have taken UT out of the game in the 1st qtr. Over that, CPF would have emphasized "managing" the game too much until he was down by 3 scores.

UT didn't have the tools vs UCLA with the passing game still not clicking.
I don't think he was cut out for the SEC. I'm not mad anymore that he's gone. I was clearly on the Lane Train and am now clearly off of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not mad and believe he would have done well in the SEC until the NCAA caught up with him.

I didn't jump on that bandwagon. While I liked alot of the things he had done with discipline et al, I didn't really buy 7-6 as proof of anything.
 
#44
#44
Vol Mania 21 said:
true violators? give me a break, that is pure stupidity. let me ask you this, say you come from a poor family, and a booster says if you play at our school we will provide a house, and cars, and money for you and you're family while you're here. why wouldn't you take that? i don't blame them. the true violators are the boosters, and the coaches. PC is gettin off and will never be punished for it
Click to expand...


Dude, I'm a coach and I used to be poor, so don't believe the hype on that whole poor thing! That is so overblown! When kids get scholarships and getting recruited they are generally surrounded by other kids that aren't getting a sniff! Most kids feel fortunate that they were blessed with the physical ability, the family support, great coaches, and athetic support to have that opportunity, because they can look at their friends that work just as hard or harder and they don't have the same opportunities. The kids that are going to do the bad things when that opportunity available are a greedy kid or a kid with greedy parents; in which case one or the other has very low moral character! Period. I was poor and I had an abusive stepfather growing up and I always tell my kids that there are no excuses for not knowing the difference between right and wrong. Growing up poor doesn't give you the right to do wrong. Just like growing up in an abusive environment doesn't give someone an excuse to inflict life on someone else!
 
#45
#45
junder13 said:
You haven't a clue, dude. The athlete's KNOW they are violating NCAA rules when they take benefits (money, rent-free apartments, "loaned" cars, etc) from boosters. The coaches don't always know about these sutuations (or know after the fact). This could happen at UT so be careful what you say. The real violation occurs between the athlete and booster whom the university can only indirectly try to prevent. Now, obviously, in some cases the athletic dept is involved (ie SMU in the 80s).

Again, I'm not saying USC is guilt-less. Carroll was known for having open practices and boosters made themselves comfortable within their facilities, so one could argue it was allowed to occur by turning a blind eye. But I have not read one credible source say carroll or any other coach under his tenure offered a player/recruit benefits. I'm not as well versed with their bball program.

Be careful the statements you describe as stupid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

ya i'm clueless, i played ball for a NCAA school. i agree the kids know its a violation, but if it benefits them or their families when they've grown up having nothing, i don't blame them. don't kid yourself, the coaches know more than you think
 
#47
#47
UTBEATEMALL said:
Dude, I'm a coach and I used to be poor, so don't believe the hype on that whole poor thing! That is so overblown! When kids get scholarships and getting recruited they are generally surrounded by other kids that aren't getting a sniff! Most kids feel fortunate that they were blessed with the physical ability, the family support, great coaches, and athetic support to have that opportunity, because they can look at their friends that work just as hard or harder and they don't have the same opportunities. The kids that are going to do the bad things when that opportunity available are a greedy kid or a kid with greedy parents; in which case one or the other has very low moral character! Period. I was poor and I had an abusive stepfather growing up and I always tell my kids that there are no excuses for not knowing the difference between right and wrong. Growing up poor doesn't give you the right to do wrong. Just like growing up in an abusive environment doesn't give someone an excuse to inflict life on someone else!
Click to expand...

:good!:
 
#48
#48
haha nice blame the kids, even tho the grown ups throw cash in their face. gtfo, congrats on being a coach. didn't know Upward Basketball was so big
 
#49
#49
Best thing that could happen to nip this in the bud is if USC sued Bush for every cent of his NFL lucre for breach of his scholarship agreement, which I'm sure said something about not violating the rules.
 
#50
#50
I am torn on this one, I bet I have read 10-15 stories on this issue today and according to half they will get 2 years probation for football and nothing else for bball. The other half are saying bowl ban, tv ban, loss of schollies, giving back wins ect. So in my mind no one really knows.A good sign to watch will be to watch Seantrell Henderson(sp?) to see if he picks up a pen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top