SoCal Slammed

[BD80]

Poor Lane.

USC loses 20 scholarships, banned from postseason for two years and all rising juniors and seniors get a free transfer. (should be a fun and very exciting mini recruiting season)

Makes you wonder why Pete Carroll left when he did

[muzikfrk75]

Carroll saw the writing on the wall. Apparently Kiffin didn't lol

[Bluedog]

Linky Link

Yeah, Carroll got out while he could...So LSU is the champion of 2004?

Another

[A-Tex Devil]

Great. Maybe the Downtown Athletic Club will pull the Hesiman from 2005 and give it to the REAL best player that year.

[AZLA]

Carroll saw the writing on the wall. Apparently Kiffin didn't lol

Good point. However, they both anticipated this and, this may sound crazy, but now it's a two-year free pass for Kiffin if he underachieves -- an insurance policy in case of under performance. Meaning, he was just guaranteed at least two years of nothing-to-lose. AKA, "the rebuilding years." This despite whatever happens. If his sub par record as head coach is any indication, being able to point the blame at the lack of scholarship players, no bowl games, the previous SC coaching staff (this despite him having been O.C.), Reggie Bush or Kim Kardashian for that matter; gives Kiffin another win-win. Ka-ching!

[4decadedukie]

Carroll reminds me of the proverbial "rat leaving the sinking ship," although USC really isn't sinking, it's more dry-docked for a few years. However, the NCAA's penalty raises some interesting questions:
1) Does anyone else feel the aggregate penalties imposed are somewhat harsh (and I do NOT mean undeserved, but rather stronger than anticipated and more potent than recent history would suggest they would have been)?
2) If so, could the NCAA possibly be sending a signal of less-tolerance for violations?
3) If so, what are the implications for Kentucky, UConn and (perhaps) even Kansas?

I would be very interested in others' opinions.

[roywhite]

Carroll reminds me of the proverbial "rat leaving the sinking ship," although USC really isn't sinking, it's more dry-docked for a few years. However, the NCAA's penalty raises some interesting questions:
1) Does anyone else feel the aggregate penalties imposed are somewhat harsh (and I do NOT mean undeserved, but rather stronger than anticipated and more potent than recent history would suggest they would have been)?
2) If so, could the NCAA possibly be sending a signal of less-tolerance for violations?
3) If so, what are the implications for Kentucky, UConn and (perhaps) even Kansas?

I would be very interested in others' opinions.

Just my opinion, but:
1) yes
2) yes
3) not good

It bothers me that the investigation took so long and that the penalties fall on players and coaches who were not at the school at the time. But, going after USC football seems like a departure from normal practice for the NCAA. The perception has been that certain heavyweight programs are either not investigated or given no more than a slap on the wrist.

Glad to see some cheating uncovered and penalized.

[left_hook_lacey]

Carroll reminds me of the proverbial "rat leaving the sinking ship," although USC really isn't sinking, it's more dry-docked for a few years. However, the NCAA's penalty raises some interesting questions:
1) Does anyone else feel the aggregate penalties imposed are somewhat harsh (and I do NOT mean undeserved, but rather stronger than anticipated and more potent than recent history would suggest they would have been)?
2) If so, could the NCAA possibly be sending a signal of less-tolerance for violations?
3) If so, what are the implications for Kentucky, UConn and (perhaps) even Kansas?

I would be very interested in others' opinions.

I'm still torn on this. I wonder if the penalties would've been as harsh if there hadn't been such media attention on this story saying that the NCAA has a double standard and protects it's big money makers. That topic has been discussed endlessly while this story developed and I'm wondering if the NCAA made this decision based on all of the chatter about double-standards. If so, good. Watch dog media 1, NCAA double-standards-0.

Now, if we could just get them to be consistent in these types of rulings, and IMO, include the head coaches that are involved when these things happen. Especially John Calipari. Enough is enough with the blatent, under-handed, bending/breaking of the rules.

[4decadedukie]

Just my opinion, but:

3) not good

Glad to see some cheating uncovered and penalized.

Or, Roy, maybe "very good," since I suspect we both feel more draconian NCAA penalties are long overdue, to begin to correct the widespread cheating and near-cheating/environment of noncompliance (and, perhaps, even character and behavioral matters).

[northernduke]

Just thought of this -- Mitch Mustain is a Sr. backup QB (likely not going to win starting job even with new coach) who transferred from Arkansas. He was the #1 prospect out of HS, had a great freshman year at Arkansas and then had a falling out with the coaching staff. Transferred to USC and sat behind Sanchez waiting for his turn. He was supposed to take the reins last year but Barkley jumped him in the depth chart and he never saw the field.

If it is true that Jrs and Srs can transfer without the penalty of sitting out, this could be a windfall for the kid. He could go from the most highly touted backup to a full fledge starter this summer. I'd have to feel pretty good if I was this kid right now.

[cspan37421]

Look out, Cleveland State!

I'm not a TN Vol fan, but I will not be surprised if today is declared Kiffin Schadenfreude Day statewide. And seeing how Kiffin operated, and frankly his arrogant style, always running his mouth, I will probably smile a little with my fellow Tennesseeans.

[cruxer]

Just thought of this -- Mitch Mustain {snip}was the #1 prospect out of HS, {snip} Transferred to USC and sat behind Sanchez waiting for his turn. {snip} He could go from the most highly touted backup to a full fledge starter this summer. I'd have to feel pretty good if I was this kid right now.

What coach really wants Mustain? He left Arkansas because he thought the offense should focus around his passing arm when the team had Darren McFadden and Felix Jones!!! His unhappiness and subsequent transfer caused a rift in the fanbase that eventually prompted a fan to file a FOI request for Houston Nutt's cellphone records, which revealed his suspicious contacts with a comely female reporter at all hours of the night. The controversy diminished Nutt's goodwill and he was eventually driven from the program.

Unless you want all your jumpoffs revealed, stay away from Mustain!

[SoCalDukeFan]

Carroll reminds me of the proverbial "rat leaving the sinking ship," although USC really isn't sinking, it's more dry-docked for a few years. However, the NCAA's penalty raises some interesting questions:
1) Does anyone else feel the aggregate penalties imposed are somewhat harsh (and I do NOT mean undeserved, but rather stronger than anticipated and more potent than recent history would suggest they would have been)?
2) If so, could the NCAA possibly be sending a signal of less-tolerance for violations?
3) If so, what are the implications for Kentucky, UConn and (perhaps) even Kansas?

I would be very interested in others' opinions.

My wife is a Trojan and we have football season tickets.

To me USC had two big problems. The running backs coach was probably aware that Bush and his family were getting favors and they continued to play him. Secondly, an agent who had given money to a previous basketball player was allowed to represent OJ Mayo and wss not kicked out of the coaches office.

1) While I do not know the complete penalty, what I have heard is not too severe in my opinion. The allure of USC under Pete Carroll was you will play on the big stage in a huge market etc, which is a big recruiting advantage. With that advantage comes responsibility to police the program. USC failed to do that. I wish that the penalities did not hurt the innocent but it seems like the NCAA always does.

2) The football violations do not involve (to my knowledge anyway) anything that USC did, ie there is no allegation that a booster paid Bush. I thnk that the signal is that schools need to keep agents and others away from their players and their families.

3) Yes, The NCAA us not afreaid of the big time programs.

I expect USC to appleal but that the appeal will not be successful.

SoCal

[2535Miles]

Didn't Alabama win a National Championship a year after going on probation? Something tells me USC won't have any problems.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

Didn't Alabama win a National Championship a year after going on probation? Something tells me USC won't have any problems.

Ummm, probation is a bit different from getting a postseason ban and losing 20 scholarships, not to mention losing anyone that is an upperclassman. Im sure USC will be fine in a few years, but I don't think they'll be winning any national champioships in the next 5 years IMO.

[SCMatt33]

Carroll reminds me of the proverbial "rat leaving the sinking ship," although USC really isn't sinking, it's more dry-docked for a few years. However, the NCAA's penalty raises some interesting questions:
1) Does anyone else feel the aggregate penalties imposed are somewhat harsh (and I do NOT mean undeserved, but rather stronger than anticipated and more potent than recent history would suggest they would have been)?
2) If so, could the NCAA possibly be sending a signal of less-tolerance for violations?
3) If so, what are the implications for Kentucky, UConn and (perhaps) even Kansas?

I would be very interested in others' opinions.

1) These penalties are not at all harsh. When the NCAA officially releases everything, I'd bet that USC will fall into at least one if not both of the following categories, "repeat violators" and "lack of institutional control." The first one includes any school that committed a major violation within 5 years of being sanctioned for another, even if probation from the first has expired. In this case, USC had been hit with sanctions from an academic fraud case in August 2001, so anything happening before August 2006, i.e., Reggie Bush, would fall under this provision. "Lack of institutional control" would occur because of the range of violations under multiple teams. The only way that it could get worse is for either a TV ban or the death penalty, both of which needlessly harm other schools who USC would play in the coming years. The NCAA has backed off the TV ban almost entirely and the Death penalty only for the absolute most severe cases, such as directly paying players with full knowledge of the team and athletic department over a period of time (like SMU) or a DIII school giving athletic scholarships.

2) I don't think this is necessarily a change in what the NCAA will do to teams, but is rather an indication of how bad the violations were at USC compared to other places. This isn't Derrick Rose having an invalid test score, and nobody knows exactly who knows what (plus a free plane ride). The individual circumstances aren't among the worst (though still pretty bad), but again, it's the repeat nature of the penalties. BTW, that 2001 academic thing did involve a football player.

3) I don't think this says much about the schools you listed, because I don't believe any fall under the repeat violator clause, and I know that none fall under the lack of institutional control tag. At worst, they fall under the lesser "failure to monitor" tag. Most of the experts made a big deal about this in regards to UConn. Who could be sweating about this is Oklahoma, if their allegations with the basketball team come to pass, as they would fall under the "repeat violator" clause.

In researching the 2001 USC case, I found that the NCAA has a public, online, searchable database of infractions located here. I had never heard about it before, but it's really useful in finding info about this stuff.

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

Any of those kids who are now eligible to leave the kind of player (and student) Duke might make a play for? For example, one can't have too many linemen.

GO DUKE!

[budwom]

Interesting thought. While it might usually be considered a stretch that we'd be the beneficiaries of a Trojan transfer, our new recruiting coordinator, Lubick, has extremely strong west coast ties and it's at least conceivable that he might have a link to some of these kids...that and the fact that we do offer immediate playing time for strong players.

[LSanders]

Look out, Cleveland State!

I'm not a TN Vol fan, but I will not be surprised if today is declared Kiffin Schadenfreude Day statewide. And seeing how Kiffin operated, and frankly his arrogant style, always running his mouth, I will probably smile a little with my fellow Tennesseeans.

Yes, I would think a few glasses will be tipped in Kiffin's "honor" in K-Town. IMO, he's a recruiting violation waiting to happen. Given this penalty and Kiffin's penchant for strutting all around the rules, will the NCAA give the lad a little special attention? If so (and he screws the recruiting pooch), his "free pass" will be revoked. If he's forced to follow the straight and narrow, can he and his band of merry men actually recruit legitimately and put post-probation USC back in the national title hunt (especially if he finds himself in the PAC-16 with Texas, et al)?

Personally, I doubt it.

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting thought. While it might usually be considered a stretch that we'd be the beneficiaries of a Trojan transfer, our new recruiting coordinator, Lubick, has extremely strong west coast ties and it's at least conceivable that he might have a link to some of these kids...that and the fact that we do offer immediate playing time for strong players.

I doubt we'd have much of a chance, but I'd kill for one big, strong DT who could help immediately.