Southern Cal receives sanctions from NCAA

[dfwabel]

Woah, I remembered, NCAA banned SMU's games from being on TV in the death penalty, kinda shocked that they didn't do the same this time.

From what I've heard, the NCAA is still considering a TV ban for USC...

A TV ban is very hard to do now as it wrongly impacts the opponent as they would lose revenue as well.

In terms of return to power, Alabama was placed on five years probation in 2001 for five years, had a two year bowl ban, and lost 21 scholarships over three years due to the Albert Means payment. Their records in the probation era were:

2002: 10-3 (Franchione's last year, no bowl bid)

2003: 4-9 (Mike Shula's first year)

2004: 6-6

2005: 10-2 (Wins later vacated via department wide book scandal; This was self-imposed.)

2006: 6-7 (Wins also vacated; Shula fired)

Alabama did not have the talent to start with that USC has. It will be in the about two season to see the impact of the scholarship loses.

Ogeron and Lane are still there, so who knows what may still occur in terms of improper conduct. USC is getting a new President this Fall too.

[TrueYankee26]

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2004-05 national champions, AUBURN TIGERS!

Auburn would have put USC on the ropes, if not beat them.

[dfwabel]

Pete finally "speaks". (Granted, I think that this goes on at most campuses, but Pete is throwing the still on staff Todd McNair under the bus.)

[Lights Out]

Lane Kiffin will be back in Tennessee by year's end, I think. I hate U$C anyway, so I'm glad to watch them self-destruct. I do feel bad for the players, though, since none of them are responsible. I hope they all land on their feet at better programs.

[The_Admiral]

They got the booty push up the rankings more than I care to count.

Well, they sure got their booty pushed on this one!

[TFoA]

Lane Kiffin will be back in Tennessee by year's end, I think.

Hell no. People were one step away from burning that man in effigy when he left, any bridges he has leading back to Tennessee have been burnt.

USC made the bed for Kiffin, and now he's gotta lay in it.

[Thad]

So I'm guessing that I'm the only one that thinks this is a tad harsh?

Especially considering no one that was involved in this thing is even at USC anymore?

Matt Barkley is going to bolt next season. You can count on that.

No one AT Alabama (as far as WE know) was involved with the misdeeds of the recruitment of Albert Means and they just got a step lower of a penalty. There should be a step up of a penalty when coaches have been proven to give recruits money and known and lied about players getting extra benefits. Even worse is that the RB coach lied about it - the NCAA don't like being lied to. There was a "lack of institutional control" per the NCAA, and with that language USC should be happy that the NCAA didn't do to them what we (as the CCSLC) did to Nick. One or two minor violations like Lane made a habit of committing while at Tennessee could spell big trouble for the Trojans.

[rams80]

The reason the NCAA didn't do the death penalty is because they couldn't...the death penalty is only for repeat offenders.

I'm pretty sure this happens whilst the "Trogans" were on probation. Sounds like repeat offense to me.

That said, the NCAA wasn't going to drop that hammer because SMU, which had been one of the nation's better programs in terms of history and performance, has yet to recover. You aren't going to do that to a Conference flagship.

[ESTONES6]

There is something more than JUST Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo. There is no way you hand down discipline this harsh just over 1 or 2 players.

I also like how Carrol and Bush just say "I disagree with their findings." But they refuse to mention any finding, and they refuse to deny their involvement in the "findings."

[HedleyLamarr]

Also, just as a hypothetical, say USC bounces back this season and wins the Pac-10, who goes to the Rose Bowl? The 2nd place team or a BCS at-large?

If I remember correctly, USC will sit at the bottom of the Pac-10 standings with an asterisk next to their name, denoting that they're ineligible for postseason play. I'm not sure if they can claim a conference championship.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2004-05 national champions, AUBURN TIGERS!

Auburn would have put USC on the ropes, if not beat them.

The season before, USC played Auburn at Auburn. USC won 22-0. Both teams were better the next season, but Auburn wasn't 22 points better.

[dfwabel]

The reason the NCAA didn't do the death penalty is because they couldn't...the death penalty is only for repeat offenders.

I'm pretty sure this happens whilst the "Trogans" were on probation. Sounds like repeat offense to me.

That said, the NCAA wasn't going to drop that hammer because SMU, which had been one of the nation's better programs in terms of history and performance, has yet to recover. You aren't going to do that to a Conference flagship.

With SMU, members of the coaching staff and athletic department made promises that players would be paid during the recruiting process by the SMU booster(s) named in 1984. Bill Clements, then Chairman of the Board and Governor of Texas had approved the payment of players along with other members of the board. The Board agreed to "phase out" the slush fund at the end of the 1986 season, but that it felt duty-bound to honor prior commitments to the players.

SMU was also consistently on probation prior to the investigation which brought about the one year stoppage. Between 1974 and 1984, the school received probation five times. In 1985, the school was placed on three year's probation as a result of recruiting violations in which boosters and an assistant coach were involved. They were just placed on that probation when the deeper investigation from a TV station took place.

USC, or any other school has that infamous history yet, but Fresno State might be in the neighborhood.

[rams80]

If USC built that infamous history, I still doubt the NCAA would trot out the death penalty. The will to permanently cripple a major prestige program isn't there.

[WJMorris3]

Also, just as a hypothetical, say USC bounces back this season and wins the Pac-10, who goes to the Rose Bowl? The 2nd place team or a BCS at-large?

If I remember correctly, USC will sit at the bottom of the Pac-10 standings with an asterisk next to their name, denoting that they're ineligible for postseason play. I'm not sure if they can claim a conference championship.

I think they'd still claim the conference championship, they'd just send the second place team to the Rose Bowl.

I think a TV ban would not be a bad idea, although it doesn't take the NCAA doing it. All it takes is FSN and ESPN and Versus to agree not to broadcast their games, and USC won't ever be on national TV.

[The_Admiral]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

[WJMorris3]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

But they can compensate by scheduling to televise the schools they play at other times. Trust me, it would be fair to the 116 other real members of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

[rams80]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

But they can compensate by scheduling to televise the schools they play at other times. Trust me, it would be fair to the 116 other real members of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

Except they'll want to show other teams on those weeks.

/Will....Western Kentucky finished the transition period this year and are now fully part of the Sun Belt, so no "indy" rips.

[WJMorris3]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

But they can compensate by scheduling to televise the schools they play at other times. Trust me, it would be fair to the 116 other real members of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

Except they'll want to show other teams on those weeks.

/Will....Western Kentucky finished the transition period this year and are now fully part of the Sun Belt, so no "indy" rips.

Which is why I'm not using them in the count.

A shame USC got the ban though... I was looking forward to a NCG between 11-1 Michigan State and 11-1 USC (with 12-0 Notre Dame on the outside looking in, as they darn well should, with that weak schedule they play.)

[The_Admiral]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

But they can compensate by scheduling to televise the schools they play at other times. Trust me, it would be fair to the 116 other real members of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

But most schools are already televising the rest of their schedules anyway. Obviously it hurts the other school; there's no way around it.

[Sport]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

But they can compensate by scheduling to televise the schools they play at other times. Trust me, it would be fair to the 116 other real members of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

Except they'll want to show other teams on those weeks.

/Will....Western Kentucky finished the transition period this year and are now fully part of the Sun Belt, so no "indy" rips.

Which is why I'm not using them in the count.

A shame USC got the ban though... I was looking forward to a NCG between 11-1 Michigan State and 11-1 USC (with 12-0 Notre Dame on the outside looking in, as they darn well should, with that weak schedule they play.)

oh. my. god.

You do this on purpose, you troll.

[WJMorris3]

Doesn't that hurt the teams they play?

But they can compensate by scheduling to televise the schools they play at other times. Trust me, it would be fair to the 116 other real members of the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.

Except they'll want to show other teams on those weeks.

/Will....Western Kentucky finished the transition period this year and are now fully part of the Sun Belt, so no "indy" rips.

Which is why I'm not using them in the count.

A shame USC got the ban though... I was looking forward to a NCG between 11-1 Michigan State and 11-1 USC (with 12-0 Notre Dame on the outside looking in, as they darn well should, with that weak schedule they play.)

oh. my. god.

You do this on purpose, you troll.

If Notre Dame actually grew a pair and had a tough conference schedule, then maybe I'd consider them to be better than they are.

I mean, look at it this way. 11-1 Michigan State would have wins over Ohio State, Iowa, and Wisconsin. 11-1 USC has to play Oregon and UCLA.

Meanwhile, 12-0 Notre Dame would be playing Army and Western Michigan? No, that's a pretty weak schedule.