The general USC debate thread (merged)

#729
#729
SC's student tv station is reporting it's a one year bowl ban. 2005 voided. 2004 fine.
 
#731
#731
Reports from SC TV Student TV Station:
17 scholarships
1 year post season ban
5 year window with a 3-year active window and the
active scholarship limitation will be what hurts.
 
#732
#732
I read that as well. That seems like a pretty damn legit penalty. I was expecting way less....IF it's true.
 
#734
#734
ericpatterson1 said:
Ok, please TIFIW which may be nothing... A friend of mine works in HQ of the NCAA. He called me and said the report was done, they would be letting SC know the results today and announcing the findings/penalties tomorrow. Knowing I'm a diehard VOL fan he would just tell me I'd be "happy" and said to look for a postseason ban, vacating of wins, and scholarship reductions. Said they will be the stiffest penalties since Cleveland State. (Don't ask me what those are I don't know). He said the hold up were more legal doings with Bush. Apparently all the "next friday" predictions were wrong and he said the school get notified 48 hours in advance, the they are released the report 24 hours later, and then at the end of the 48 hours they are made public.

Now who knows if this is true, he's never called to give me a "tip" before. I definately don't post enough to worry about my e-cred, just passing along the info.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

NCAA ruling on USC will be announced Thursday - Pac-10 Blog - ESPN
 
#736
#736
droski said:
SC's student tv station is reporting it's a one year bowl ban. 2005 voided. 2004 fine.
Click to expand...
Since I knew the findings were imminent, I finally finished reading Tarnished Heisman. This makes sense. If the evidence the writers had is accurate, it's hard to say SC should have known anything in '04, but it's tough to make the case they shouldn't have been aware in '05.
 
#738
#738
BearCat204 said:
wearesc meltdown in 3....2.....1....:)
Click to expand...
Why? Other than being ineligible for a bowl in a year when they aren't going to be a national title contender, that's not going to hurt SC much. I'm pretty sure they're fine with trading a Holiday Bowl bid this year for keeping '04 intact.
 
#739
#739
BearCat204 said:
Hat, if this plays out like what is being reported as far as sanctions, do you think Garrett stays as AD?
Click to expand...
I think everyone around SC has assumed he'll be out the door when a new university president is in place regardless of what happens in this case. This will just make that almost a certainty.
 
#740
#740
hatvol96 said:
Why? Other than being ineligible for a bowl in a year when they aren't going to be a national title contender, that's not going to hurt SC much. I'm pretty sure they're fine with trading a Holiday Bowl bid this year for keeping '04 intact.
Click to expand...
The scholarship reduction is where I think it will hit them the worst, not post season bowl ban for a year.
 
#741
#741
hatvol96 said:
Why? Other than being ineligible for a bowl in a year when they aren't going to be a national title contender, that's not going to hurt SC much. I'm pretty sure they're fine with trading a Holiday Bowl bid this year for keeping '04 intact.
Click to expand...

agreed. i'd consider anything less than a 2 year bowl ban favorable. 17 scholorships will hurt though. though the wearesc people still are under the belief that they didn't do anything wrong so i assume they will still be angry.
 
#742
#742
droski said:
agreed. i'd consider anything less than a 2 year bowl ban favorable. 17 scholorships will hurt though. though the wearesc people still are under the belief that they didn't do anything wrong so i assume they will still be angry.
Click to expand...
This is why I posted what I posted about meltdown. If it were us in the same exact position, I would say the same thing.
 
#743
#743
BearCat204 said:
The scholarship reduction is where I think it will hit them the worst, not post season bowl ban for a year.
Click to expand...
Scholarship reductions at places where they recruit the best of the best are overrated. Alabama fell off because they had an idiot coach, not because the 'AA cut the size of their roster. You saw it didn't take Saban long to ramp it back up to speed. I'll be interested to see if SC takes the penalties or chooses to appeal.
 
#744
#744
droski said:
agreed. i'd consider anything less than a 2 year bowl ban favorable. 17 scholorships will hurt though. though the wearesc people still are under the belief that they didn't do anything wrong so i assume they will still be angry.
Click to expand...
I'm going to be interested to see what the findings on the basketball program are. If they didn't believe Floyd gave Rodney Guillory $1,000 cash, you can expect Tim to go on an all out media attack on Mike Garrett and Steve Sample. If they did make that finding of fact, the 'AA can expect a lawsuit to be served upon them shortly.
 
#745
#745
they'll take these penalties. if it was a 2 year ban they might appeal. garrett will be gone by the end of the month. SC doesn't actually use all their scholorships most years anyway so i'm not sure it kills them.
 
#746
#746
hatvol96 said:
I'm going to be interested to see what the findings on the basketball program are. If they didn't believe Floyd gave Rodney Guillory $1,000 cash, you can expect Tim to go on an all out media attack on Mike Garrett and Steve Sample. If they did make that finding of fact, the 'AA can expect a lawsuit to be served upon them shortly.
Click to expand...

no way the NCAA says floyd gave him the money. i'm sure it's going to be lack of institutional control which is completely justified IMO for both programs.
 
#748
#748
hatvol96 said:
Not near as much as people would like to think.
Click to expand...

agreed. most of the recruits that will be cut from this probably will never see the field much anyway. it does make the margin for error in recruiting less than before.
 
#749
#749
droski said:
SC doesn't actually use all their scholorships most years anyway so i'm not sure it kills them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If anything, this might make them more dangerous in recruiting. They have a smaller number of slots to fill, thus they can focus more narrowly on their targets.
 
#750
#750
droski said:
it does make the margin for error in recruiting less than before.
Click to expand...
I don't think this will be a problem for their current staff. I wonder if this gets Lane an automatic one year extension. It's fairly common for coaches taking over at schools under investigation to have a clause tying an automatic extension to the number of years and type of penalties the school receives. Wouldn't be surprised at all if Sexton got Kiffin an extra year for each year they are barred from the postseason.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top