The CardBoard
Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) (/thread-1144.html)


Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - unclechuck - 01-21-2011

Here\'s a well done & concise explanation of the issues, background, and prospective outcome(s) of SC\'s appeal of their football sanctions, to be presented tomorrow.

Of particular use is a section on how SC is going about signing in excess of 20 new scholarship athletes for the 2011 class.

Hat tip to Ted Miller\'s ESPN blog for the link.

http://www.ocregister.com/sports/usc-285073-buckner-ncaa.html


Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - CowboyIndian - 01-21-2011

Oh.....from the subject line I thought this was going to be about song girls and celebrities.

Re: Daddy sold cars - unclechuck - 01-21-2011

while I just took a couple of Wallace Stegner\'s writing classes.

OK....NOW I\'m jealous - Redrum - 01-21-2011

Wallace Stegner.  Damn.

Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - Farm93 - 01-21-2011

It all makes sense to me.  USC is really good at bending the rules.

When the penalties were announced they let all of those on the fence run free.  Why keep them around and risk them leaving in 2011, 12 or 13 when the restrictions are most severe.

Then, per the bending the spirit of the decision playbook, sign as many kids as possible into that now smaller 2010 class by getting them in school by January 2011.  Once that is accomplished load up the true 2011 class with 25 more kids.

Those athletes will likely get a ton of playing time, and realistically will only miss playing a bowl game this upcoming bowl season.  At many other top programs they would miss that game anyway, or have a very minor role.  And, obviously, there are some programs that won\'t go bowling at all.  So the loss is not that big.

So the only big risk to the player would seem to be that NCAA whammy that might hit while the school is on probation.  But if that happens the players could leave right away.  With this complicated program USC probably can maintain a team with 65 players per year if Redshirting is managed properly.

The biggest downside to all of this rule bending?  The appeal.
Because USC is pushing the envelope they likely will not win their appeal, but they weren\'t going to win anyway.  The appeal just gave them needed calendar time to strengthen their rule bending ways.  

Re: Stegner - unclechuck - 01-21-2011

Don\'t agonize Redrum. Interesting guy but clearly old school. Let\'s see, what term would he appreciate...flinty?

Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - unclechuck - 01-21-2011

Farm93 - very much the way I\'m reading it.

As a Pac10 chauvinist I\'ve felt that USC did get a raw deal based on precedence and the North Carolina, SEC and Ohio St rulings of the past 9 months. Don\'t get me wrong, the non-voluntary smugectomy of the Trojan nation this past season has not been unpleasant.

However, given the NCAA\'s prejudicial treatment, and the very modest chances of a significant reduction in penalties, I find myself admiring, in a technical way, SC\'s rule bending gambit with recruiting. Plus, the fact that the game is still afoot as to whether the scholarship reduction & bowl bans can be temporally uncoupled by the appeal further savors the proceedings.  

I\'m afraid I\'m leaning towards a begrudging "well played" to Kiffen, Haden et al. at this point.

Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - unclechuck - 01-21-2011

Ted Miller adds a bit more discussion & speculation in his Friday mailbag:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/18427/opening-the-mailbag-uscs-murky-recruiting#comments


Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - Pastor - 01-21-2011

doesn\'t the penalty also include some \'harshness\' for what happened with the basketball team...\'lack of institutional control\'?


Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - unclechuck - 01-21-2011

Pastor - this part is a bit murky too. Seems the BB sins were pretty much a one man crime wave by Mayo; similar to Bush for FB. However, the BB program fell on its sword quickly with self imposed sanctions that were accepted pretty much in toto by the NCAA. I can\'t recall specifics but I think it was one year TV & tourney ban, plus a couple of scholarships, and the coach was fired / resigned.

My impression is that for essentially the same level of offense the BB program got off proportionally much lighter due to their quick compliance. The NCAA seemed to want to send a message to the defiant AD & football program, hence the big hit.

That\'s my admittedly hazy take.

Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - Pastor - 01-21-2011

I remember the SMU football team death penalty but I was at Illinois when the NCAA came down with the lack of control thing and they hit the football team and basketball team...I don\'t recall for sure but I think the NCAA added to the punishment because they claimed a pattern...in USC\'s case, MBK and football seems like a pattern in the marking.

Re: Primer on USC\'s Appeal (Saturday) - Leftcoast - 01-21-2011

Uncle Chuck, you\'re giving USC way too much credit, in my opinion.

USC, led by Mike Garrett denied any wrong doing for years and played the "self imposed sanctions" card only when it became obvious the NCAA hammer was about to fall.   Even afterward Mike Garrett denied any wrong doing publicly and often.    He famously commented when the USC sanctions were announced:

Quote:“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.”   (http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/10444/mike-garrett-nothing-but-a-lot-of-envy)

Pat Haden was brought in to clean house and improve USC\'s image.