USC hit by post season ban and will have to vacate national title

frostie500

The NCAA announched that their long standing investigation into USC and Reggie Bush has been completed and the Trojans face a two year ban on post season football, loss of scholerships and vacating victories, including a national title win.

The investigation found that the school had lost 'institutional control' in both football and mens basketball with players recieving gifts from agents. It has been reported that Bush was given a house for his parents as well as cars and other gifts. It should be noted that this was not an isolated incident as shown by OJ Mayo and the basketball team

The job facing Lane Kiffin is made even tougher now but its worth remembering that he was involved with the team during this era as an Offensive Coordinator

tallaghtoutlaws

Best thing he can do now is fill the team full of freshman. And let them play straight away so in 2 years time he will have a solid program. It will definitely affect recruiting for sure. Sucks to be USC.

frostie500

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Sucks to be USC.

Sucks to be a fan of any major college programme....every single team is riddled with boosters giving players incentives during recruitment('bama in 02 as well as allegations against so many major teams) and while the USC incident is probably as bad as any that have been reported there are clearly a lot more instances than just this case

tallaghtoutlaws

frostie500 wrote: »

Sucks to be a fan of any major college programme....every single team is riddled with boosters giving players incentives during recruitment('bama in 02 as well as allegations against so many major teams) and while the USC incident is probably as bad as any that have been reported there are clearly a lot more instances than just this case

Definitely and I remember a thread a while back talking about the same thing and I pointed things like the above out and a few told me it wasn't common practice.:D

I have heard stories from guys in D1 colleges who used to tell me they knew "gifts" were changing hands especially in the bigger D1 colleges. This decision by the NCAA is going to send a ripple effect all the way through college football as a lot of boosters players coaches and teams will be looking over their shoulders and trying to cover it up even more.

Be interesting now to see future developments from this. Kind of fooks up USC but serves them right in a way for getting caught.

frostie500

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Definitely and I remember a thread a while back talking about the same thing and I pointed things like the above out and a few told me it wasn't common practice.:D

Hope I wasn't one of them! Although I have to say I was quite adamant when Kiffin took over that maintaining a link to a tainted era was not the best step for a program that said it was looking to build a transparent programme in future.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I have heard stories from guys in D1 colleges who used to tell me they knew "gifts" were changing hands especially in the bigger D1 colleges. This decision by the NCAA is going to send a ripple effect all the way through college football as a lot of boosters players coaches and teams will be looking over their shoulders and trying to cover it up even more.

Be interesting now to see future developments from this. Kind of fooks up USC but serves them right in a way for getting caught.

I'm very interested to see how this develops in future. The one thing that cost USC was that they 'lost institutional control of their athletic department' and that was why they recieved such harsh penalties. Most other schools wouldn't be dealt with as hard as this because its unlikely that multiple sports would be involved in their investigations. The fact that there was football and basketball in this case must have had a major bearing on the outcome.

I'm interested in hearing from Blue on how the news has been carried in LA and how fans are dealing with the tainting of the team that won a national title but more important about how they feel with Pete Caroll's era clearly being made into one where he had no control over his team and its activities. Its worth remembering that prior to Caroll USC was in the doldrums and not a nationally relevant school any longer

Hazys

How 'lucky' was Pete Carroll to get the job in Seattle just before all this happened?

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

How 'lucky' was Pete Carroll to get the job in Seattle just before all this happened?

Makes you wonder did he know all of this was coming and he bailed because of it. Means that he left the program with his name intact and not get stuck in the middle of it all.

frostie500

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Makes you wonder did he know all of this was coming and he bailed because of it. Means that he left the program with his name intact and not get stuck in the middle of it all.

By leaving for the NFL he no longer could be called before the NCAA investigators but there's no way that his name and reputation are intact by this. The lack of control and arrogance of the Trojans falls on his door and while he has been very well compensated(by SC and now that Seahawks) his lasting legacy will have been tainted by this incident

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Makes you wonder did he know all of this was coming and he bailed because of it. Means that he left the program with his name intact and not get stuck in the middle of it all.

There is no doubt in my mind he knew, the allegations were just starting when he left...

tallaghtoutlaws

frostie500 wrote: »

By leaving for the NFL he no longer could be called before the NCAA investigators but there's no way that his name and reputation are intact by this. The lack of control and arrogance of the Trojans falls on his door and while he has been very well compensated(by SC and now that Seahawks) his lasting legacy will have been tainted by this incident

But look at it this way, With no investigation on him personally, if he was directly involved it would have been worse than it is now. As it stands he coached a program that broke rules with no proof he was directly involved. So sure his name when it comes to the program will be dragged slightly through the mud. But no investigation on him gives him the ability to deny to the whole fact and deny any involvement. As a coach his name will remain intact.

eagle eye

frostie500 wrote: »

By leaving for the NFL he no longer could be called before the NCAA investigators but there's no way that his name and reputation are intact by this. The lack of control and arrogance of the Trojans falls on his door and while he has been very well compensated(by SC and now that Seahawks) his lasting legacy will have been tainted by this incident

Maybe for you and some others but not for me by any means. The guy still had to win games and he didn't have every great college player on the planet.

I think its a terrible decision by the NCAA, you can take away titles but banning them from postseason football is unfair. The players that suffer because of this were not even there when this happened.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

Maybe for you and some others but not for me by any means. The guy still had to win games and he didn't have every great college player on the planet.

I think its a terrible decision by the NCAA, you can take away titles but banning them from postseason football is unfair. The players that suffer because of this were not even there when this happened.

I have to agree with you on the first bit for sure.

Did I not read right that both Juniors and Seniors can move to other schools? So ineffectively those players lose nothing as they have the option to move schools to find success i.e a Bowl or Championship win. Link below:

Juniors and seniors to-be on the USC Trojans' football team, hit with a two-year postseason ban among other punishments, will be allowed to transfer to other FBS programs without having to sit out a season, the NCAA clarified to ESPN on Friday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5275644

So this really doesn't punish the players at all but merely the program itself. As for Freshman they will be Juniors when the ban lifts and they will have time to win.

To be honest with you though a lot of players play college ball for pride and a route to the NFL. You don't necessarily need a post season to get drafted. Sure there will be a large number upset by it but others will be happy to still play for pride and finish their ultimate goal of making the NFL.

frostie500

eagle eye wrote: »

Maybe for you and some others but not for me by any means. The guy still had to win games and he didn't have every great college player on the planet.

But the fact remains that Caroll's successes with SC are ultimitly tainted by this ruling. He may have led his teams to these wins and titles but the fact that one of his title teams fielded an inelligible player and as a result questions need to be asked about the school prior to Bush coming on campass. THere will be a lot, like yourself, who think that Caroll isnt to blame but the fact remains that it was his policies of an open field that led to some of the issues that arose.

The report cites a former assistant coach who says that he brought the Bush situation to Caroll's attention but the head coach decided that it was better for the program to have Bush involved for the title year.

eagle eye wrote: »

I think its a terrible decision by the NCAA, you can take away titles but banning them from postseason football is unfair. The players that suffer because of this were not even there when this happened.

The school has to be punished for their actions, vacating wins-even a national title-doesnt really affect the day to day running of a program. Losing scholerships and not having post season play does affect recruiting and the standing of the school. Its not great for players like Matt Barkley and other freshmen who will in all liklihood leave the school before the ban is over but so be it.

The arrogence that I wrote of earlier is only directed at the football program. The basketball program ran afoul of numerous counts too but because they volunterily chose not to play in postseason tournements next year they only have a one year ban and no negaitive headlines. The football program though decided to fight these charges when everyone knew Bush was being paid and other players were getting benefits. In my mind the school felt their football program was above the law and thats the main reason that I feel their penalties were just

eagle eye

frostie500 wrote: »

But the fact remains that Caroll's successes with SC are ultimitly tainted by this ruling. He may have led his teams to these wins and titles but the fact that one of his title teams fielded an inelligible player and as a result questions need to be asked about the school prior to Bush coming on campass. THere will be a lot, like yourself, who think that Caroll isnt to blame but the fact remains that it was his policies of an open field that led to some of the issues that arose.

The report cites a former assistant coach who says that he brought the Bush situation to Caroll's attention but the head coach decided that it was better for the program to have Bush involved for the title year.

I don't care what happened. At the end of the day it was Pete Carroll's job to get his team to win on the field and he did that. As I said regardless of what happened off the field Pete Carroll is a brilliant coach and his reputation is intact in my book because its well known that all the big schools are at this.

frostie500 wrote: »

The school has to be punished for their actions, vacating wins-even a national title-doesnt really affect the day to day running of a program. Losing scholerships and not having post season play does affect recruiting and the standing of the school. Its not great for players like Matt Barkley and other freshmen who will in all liklihood leave the school before the ban is over but so be it.

The arrogence that I wrote of earlier is only directed at the football program. The basketball program ran afoul of numerous counts too but because they volunterily chose not to play in postseason tournements next year they only have a one year ban and no negaitive headlines. The football program though decided to fight these charges when everyone knew Bush was being paid and other players were getting benefits. In my mind the school felt their football program was above the law and thats the main reason that I feel their penalties were just

You can punish the school financially and announce now that in four years time they will be banned from postseason games. This is punishing innocent parties who happen to play for USC now.
Banning them from postseason immediately is just not on imo. Typical uncaring NCAA ruling, no thought given to the poor innocent chap that chose the college before this decision was made.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

Banning them from postseason immediately is just not on imo. Typical uncaring NCAA ruling, no thought given to the poor innocent chap that chose the college before this decision was made.

Whats the difference from banning them now or the future. I just don't understand that logic. Either way innocent players will be caught up in it.

The simple matter new players going in now the chances of them playing in their Freshman or Sophomore years is very low at a school like USC. So either way the majority miss out in Post Season games.

As for the players there, those who are Sophomore or Juniors have the option to transfer schools right now if they wish to play in the post season.

If you ask me the NCAA thought about that before making their decision. but they have to be seen to hit schools hard for breaking the rules. USC fooked up and if anyone is to blame its the Athletics dept for allowing two sports under their wing break major rules and fook everyone up.

davyjose

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't care what happened. At the end of the day it was Pete Carroll's job to get his team to win on the field and he did that. As I said regardless of what happened off the field Pete Carroll is a brilliant coach and his reputation is intact in my book because its well known that all the big schools are at this.

Exactly, nobody was questioning Carroll's coaching ability before, with those exact same players. Just because those players might have been recruited illegally, or whatever, doesn't change the situation on the field, as it stood 2 or 3 years ago.

I figure a lot of USC's better players might get the hell out of dodge. But will this post-season ban, and the fall-out from it, have an impact on their careers? of course. If Sam Bradford had quit Oklahoma half way through his tenure, would he have been as impressive? Or Tebow? I'm not so sure.

tallaghtoutlaws

davyjose wrote: »

I figure a lot of USC's better players might get the hell out of dodge. But will this post-season ban, and the fall-out from it, have an impact on their careers? of course. If Sam Bradford had quit Oklahoma half way through his tenure, would he have been as impressive? Or Tebow? I'm not so sure.

Some would say it all depends on who they jump ship to. But at the end of it if they are good enough and strong athletes they should succeed though no mater where they go. If they have the same goal to succeed and make the NFL.

But the Question is asked will staying at USC affect them getting to the NFL? Does the Post season really matter to scouts when they find those athletes.

eagle eye

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Whats the difference from banning them now or the future. I just don't understand that logic. Either way innocent players will be caught up in it.

The simple matter new players going in now the chances of them playing in their Freshman or Sophomore years is very low at a school like USC. So either way the majority miss out in Post Season games.

As for the players there, those who are Sophomore or Juniors have the option to transfer schools right now if they wish to play in the post season.

If you ask me the NCAA thought about that before making their decision. but they have to be seen to hit schools hard for breaking the rules. USC fooked up and if anyone is to blame its the Athletics dept for allowing two sports under their wing break major rules and fook everyone up.

If they decided that this ban would be implemented in four years time then anybody who is thinking about going to USC will have this information before they choose their college.
Every kid that is there doesn't have the option to move to another college. I'm just saying that some of these kids would never have went to USC if they had been aware that postseason football was out.
These kids done nothing wrong yet they are being penalised.

NCAA should have come up with a decision that USC would not play postseason football in 2015/16 and that way no innocent person is getting stuck in the middle of this.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

If they decided that this ban would be implemented in four years time then anybody who is thinking about going to USC will have this information before they choose their college.
Every kid that is there doesn't have the option to move to another college. I'm just saying that some of these kids would never have went to USC if they had been aware that postseason football was out.
These kids done nothing wrong yet they are being penalised.

NCAA should have come up with a decision that USC would not play postseason football in 2015/16 and that way no innocent person is getting stuck in the middle of this.

Im going to say it for a 3rd time:

- All those Students going into their Junior and Senior Years are allowed to transfer without penalty according to all reports if another school takes them.

- A high % of all Freshman and Sophomores generally don't play in the first 2 years so either way most of them don't play in the post season anyways.

So when you look at it the NCAA have been somewhat fair to the players there. And now look at it this way. If a lot of the Juniors and Seniors leave for greener pastures it now means that Freshman and Sophomores get an opportunity to start what could be a year or 2 years earlier than normal.

Now Granted some of those higher end Freshman who expected to start in their 1st 2 years will lose out but hey they might get to see some action quicker.

So those who really want post season football will transfer if they are juniors or seniors and those who are freshman and sophomores will get post season in 2 years.

NOW

Taking your point for a future ban. When does a player decide going to USC is a bad idea? Lets take 2015/2016 as an example.

That will have more of a detrimental effect on USC than the one now. Because the HS class of 2012 will be affected by this in as will the HS class of 2013 as they will be Juniors and Seniors in USC in 2015 and 2016. And then every player after 2012 and 2013 who feels they are good enough to start as Freshmen or Sophomores will avoid the place.

So ask yourself which will be worse the later option of a later ban which will wreck the college for 4-5 years recruiting or the current ban which will only destroy 2 years.

As a Freshman going into USC now I would stick with it especially if USC were my first choice. Could see football earlier than expected and get to see a post season hopefully as normal in my Junior and Senior Year.

Edit: Sorry for the long windedness many beers have been had.

eagle eye

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Im going to say it for a 3rd time:

- All those Students going into their Junior and Senior Years are allowed to transfer without penalty according to all reports if another school takes them.

- A high % of all Freshman and Sophomores generally don't play in the first 2 years so either way most of them don't play in the post season anyways.

So when you look at it the NCAA have been somewhat fair to the players there. And now look at it this way. If a lot of the Juniors and Seniors leave for greener pastures it now means that Freshman and Sophomores get an opportunity to start what could be a year or 2 years earlier than normal.

Now Granted some of those higher end Freshman who expected to start in their 1st 2 years will lose out but hey they might get to see some action quicker.

So those who really want post season football will transfer if they are juniors or seniors and those who are freshman and sophomores will get post season in 2 years.

NOW

Taking your point for a future ban. When does a player decide going to USC is a bad idea? Lets take 2015/2016 as an example.

That will have more of a detrimental effect on USC than the one now. Because the HS class of 2012 will be affected by this in as will the HS class of 2013 as they will be Juniors and Seniors in USC in 2015 and 2016. And then every player after 2012 and 2013 who feels they are good enough to start as Freshmen or Sophomores will avoid the place.

So ask yourself which will be worse the later option of a later ban which will wreck the college for 4-5 years recruiting or the current ban which will only destroy 2 years.

As a Freshman going into USC now I would stick with it especially if USC were my first choice. Could see football earlier than expected and get to see a post season hopefully as normal in my Junior and Senior Year.

Edit: Sorry for the long windedness many beers have been had.

You see Tallaght I have nothing against a really harsh punishment for USC.

The point you make about Juniors and Seniors has one little big word in it and thats the 'if' word. If other colleges take them. Now I'm not talking about your elite level players who every school in the country will bend over backwards to accommodate, I'm talking about the guys just a step below that who chose USC because it was a school that there was a serious chance of winning a bcs bowl with. There are guys who will be left behind because other schools won't be interested. These guys are being punished for doing nothing wrong.

I just think its fair to everybody if its a ban in a couple of years. So what if USC's recruitment suffers heavily in the meantime, they were caught they deserve it.

Black Swan

frostie500 wrote: »

Sucks to be a fan of any major college programme....every single team is riddled with boosters giving players incentives during recruitment('bama in 02 as well as allegations against so many major teams) and while the USC incident is probably as bad as any that have been reported there are clearly a lot more instances than just this case

Indeed! Not only for the fans, but also for the players of a team that were recently recruited, or have been playing before an NCAA penalty is adjudicated and enforced on their team. It's like being a teen riding in the back seat of a speeding car driven by an older Reggie Bush, and the citing cop not only gives the driver a ticket, but also the kid in the back seat a ticket for speeding.

Transferring to another football programme is not as easy as it sounds, especially if the reason you attended a school was more than to play football, but also liked the academic programme, the student body, your girlfriend, etc., etc.

Another point... Pete Carroll saw it coming and escaped to the Sea Hawks in the nick of time. How responsible was Carroll for the recruiting incentives that broke NCAA rules? He had to know, and either looked the other way, or more than likely, took advantage of them to attract top players. So should Carroll also be penalized, perhaps by having his coach of the year award removed?

In like manner, should Reggie lose his Heisman Trophy? Would Reggie still have won without the incentives, or if he had played for another top Division I football programme and did not get caught by the NCAA?

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

The point you make about Juniors and Seniors has one little big word in it and thats the 'if' word. If other colleges take them. Now I'm not talking about your elite level players who every school in the country will bend over backwards to accommodate, I'm talking about the guys just a step below that who chose USC because it was a school that there was a serious chance of winning a bcs bowl with. There are guys who will be left behind because other schools won't be interested. These guys are being punished for doing nothing wrong.

A lot of players go to the School for many other reasons other than just a "BCS Bowl Shot". A full Ride to a college in Southern California that when you graduate your Degree carries a lot of weight for a lot of football players. The football with a Top program then becomes the bonus to them. Those who are that bothered about the bowl shot will find other teams and leave.

Im sure there are colleges in D1 football that missed out on a lot of the high grade players USC got that would be happy to give them a home. I can bet you anything the fathers/brother/mothers/sisters/brothers of those kids are already putting in calls to some of those schools.

But hey we are all speculating on how the players feel about this. We don't know what goes on in the minds of all those players and why they went to USC. If their only goal was for a BCS Championship well then they need to make sure other schools notice them or they pick up the phone.

Don't get me wrong I do feel bad for any player caught in the middle of this but I don't think not getting to the BCS is the most important thing going. I don't see it hampering their careers either if they plan to hit the NFL.

Black Swan

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

But hey we are all speculating on how the players feel about this. We don't know what goes on in the minds of all those players and why they went to USC.

Indeed.

frostie500

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Pete Carroll saw it coming and escaped to the Sea Hawks in the nick of time. How responsible was Carroll for the recruiting incentives that broke NCAA rules? He had to know, and either looked the other way, or more than likely, took advantage of them to attract top players. So should Carroll also be penalized, perhaps by having his coach of the year award removed?

In like manner, should Reggie lose his Heisman Trophy? Would Reggie still have won without the incentives, or if he had played for another top Division I football programme and did not get caught by the NCAA?

Pete Caroll has gone from one of the best coaches in college football history to a man with a massive question mark over his head. His teams still did well on the field and played great football but how anyone can say that this has no affect on his reputation is beyond me. As you say Blue he has to lose his coach of the year and Bush has to lost his Heiman, this has to change his lasting legacy

eagle eye wrote: »

If they decided that this ban would be implemented in four years time then anybody who is thinking about going to USC will have this information before they choose their college....
NCAA should have come up with a decision that USC would not play postseason football in 2015/16 and that way no innocent person is getting stuck in the middle of this.

WHy though should the NCAA bend over backwards to help a programme that has clearly shown no regard for the rules set out by the NCAA? It's grand to say that other schools act in the same manner (we all know they do) but the fact is that SC got caught and need to be punished. The NCAA is punishing the school and its football program, they are not punishing the players. THe players are just in the firing line

eagle eye

frostie500 wrote: »

WHy though should the NCAA bend over backwards to help a programme that has clearly shown no regard for the rules set out by the NCAA? It's grand to say that other schools act in the same manner (we all know they do) but the fact is that SC got caught and need to be punished. The NCAA is punishing the school and its football program, they are not punishing the players. THe players are just in the firing line

How on earth are you making out that I want the NCAA to help the USC?

They would suffer a lot worse if what I'm saying they should do actually happened. As things stand USC are back playing postseason football in 2012 so it doesn't affect their recruitment.
What I'm saying is that they should enforce this ban from postseason when the players that are there now are not affected and anybody who signs up in the next two years will be aware of the ban before they are recruited and cannot have an complaints.
AS you say, the innocent players there now are in the firing line. This shouldn't happen and its a typical uncaring NCAA approach.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

How on earth are you making out that I want the NCAA to help the USC?

They would suffer a lot worse if what I'm saying they should do actually happened. As things stand USC are back playing postseason football in 2012 so it doesn't affect their recruitment.
What I'm saying is that they should enforce this ban from postseason when the players that are there now are not affected and anybody who signs up in the next two years will be aware of the ban before they are recruited and cannot have an complaints.
AS you say, the innocent players there now are in the firing line. This shouldn't happen and its a typical uncaring NCAA approach.

Lets all agree to disagree it seems we all have a difference of opinion on this. But here is something I found funny about it all. Clay Matthews on twitter:

2 yr postseason ban n possibly 20 schollies gone!? We're gonna be playin w/ all walk-ons!! Wait wasn't I a walk-on!!?? lmao

frostie500

eagle eye wrote: »

They would suffer a lot worse if what I'm saying they should do actually happened. As things stand USC are back playing postseason football in 2012 so it doesn't affect their recruitment.
What I'm saying is that they should enforce this ban from postseason when the players that are there now are not affected and anybody who signs up in the next two years will be aware of the ban before they are recruited and cannot have an complaints.
AS you say, the innocent players there now are in the firing line. This shouldn't happen and its a typical uncaring NCAA approach.

There's merits to what your'e saying EagleEye but the NCAA is punishing the school and has to do so regardless of players. If they delay the na what would you say about the fifth year seniors? what about players that get a medical redshirt and are at SC for six years? Your penalty would always look to put the ban back another year because these players deserve the chance to fight for a national title.

As I said its bad, and I do sympathise, for the players right now but the fact is that the school needs to be punished. They had the chance to sanction themselves and only lose one bowl game (as I said they did it with their basketball program) but the athletic director decided to dig in his heels and fight a battle that was always going to be lost.

If I was an SC fan I'd be placing the blame soley on their athletic director Mike Garrett who feels that "with the penalty we got today I know we're bigger than life." It's this arrogance that has cost the current crop of players the chance to play in bowl games for the next two years and no the "typical uncaring NCAA approach"

Black Swan

frostie500 wrote: »

If I was an SC fan I'd be placing the blame soley on their athletic director Mike Garrett who feels that "with the penalty we got today I know we're bigger than life." It's this arrogance that has cost the current crop of players the chance to play in bowl games for the next two years and no the "typical uncaring NCAA approach"

Garrett's "early retirement" should have been offered to the NCAA to help mitigate the damage done to the football programme at USC (as a result of Garrett's actions as athletic director).