Message Boards

Given the utter lack of anything on the last few high profile chances the NCAA has had to do anything on I think USC should have very good odds (esp since the AD who was the pain is gone).

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:45 PM ET  01.22 by GrandTheftHarley

I honestly think what you propose is fair. The NCAA has an opportunity to be magnanimous and regain some measure of credibility in mitigating U$C's penalities. I have to return to my comment #2, however, in what I believe will underpin the NCAA's decision on the appeal. They have, I think, painted themselves into a corner.

USC did quite a bit to correct the "environment". The reductions that you propose wouldn't be out of line. With Garrett, Carroll and Bush gone, why not recognize USC's efforts with the lessening of penalties.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 10:52 PM ET  01.22 by !@#$%^&*()

USC did quite a bit to correct the "environment". The reductions that you propose wouldn't be out of line. With Garrett, Carroll and Bush gone, why not recognize USC's efforts with the lessening of penalties.

USC might have had a leg to stand on if they had removed Garrett (and to a lesser extent Carrol) before the sanctions were handed down. Had they made those moves and cooperated with the NCAA back in '06 when this first came to light, the penalties would have been far less harsh, IMO.

I generally agree with you Tnerb that to halve the scholy losses and bowl ban would seem fair, but I too am biased and this may be wishful thinking.

I read the 67-page report, and the problem for the NCAA was USC's piss-poor attitude toward compliance issues. Reggie Bush was just the symptom of the problem. In the 7 months since the sanctions came down, all involved parties - including the school's president - have departed. I think USC has further shown contrition by fortifying its compliance efforts and other actions by Haden. In short, USC has given the NCAA everything they could have wanted, but couldn't actually ask for. I'm not sure it's enough, though.

For one thing, the NCAA never really got to the bottom of the Bush incident. Bush's interview with the NCAA can't be corroborated since Bush has paid the agents to not speak to the NCAA. Without any proof, I think the NCAA reasonably concludes that Bush's violations - and therefore USC's failures - may be worse than what is known.

I also don't put much faith in the NCAA appeal process. Those who judge appeals shouldn't be predisposed or biased for one side or the other, and to that end the NCAA says their appeals people are independent of their punishment squad. But the way the NCAA handled the Newton case makes me wonder a lot about that. Suspended one day and re-instated the next? Not that it wasn't the right thing to do, but since when do appeals get reviewed and acted upon so quickly? It's hard to believe from that case that appeals aren't decided hand-in-hand with sanctions.

Finally, the NCAA took a lot of flack for doing nothing in the Bush case for 4 years. I didn't see an ESPN poll on the subject, but I think the harshness of the sanctions helped to rehab the NCAA's rep as a toothless do-nothing. Why would the NCAA risk losing further respect by backing down from a popular decision?

Hope springs eternal, but with this appeal I think USC is wasting their time.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 08:33 PM ET  01.22 by GrandTheftHarley

HiYa, Tnerb. IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell. The NCAA has aready botched it with $Camgate and the Tatt5. They've caught so much grief from the CFB public, and have suffered such a PR black eye recently that they simply cannot retract the U$C consequences. No way are they going to appear vacillating and irresolute.

I agree that the odds are pretty much nil.

I think the way the appeals process works prevents USC from arguing against the findings themselves (e.g., trying to show that the NCAA's conclusions about McNair were faulty or something). So all USC can do is remind the NCAA of other dirty programs from the past and try to compare the severity of their respective penalties.

While USC may be able to make the argument that (fill in the name of your favorite dirty program from years gone by) was every bit as dirty and yet got a comparatively lighter punishment, I seriously doubt this line of discussion will warm the hearts of the committee.

Sort of like telling a judge at your DUI sentencing hearing, "hey, the last guy blew a .25 and you only gave him six months!"

I forgot Garrett & Carroll's theme


(the previous ones were Kiffin, the NCAA, and Hayden, respectively)

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:45 PM ET  01.22 by GrandTheftHarley

.... the NCAA's decision on the appeal.
They have, I think, painted themselves into a corner.

Maybe the fumes will produce at least some degree of euphoria.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 01:17 AM ET  01.23 by Tribute to Troy

But the way the NCAA handled the Newton case makes me wonder a lot about that.

Suspended one day and re-instated the next?

The suspension and re-instatement were reported the next day - simultaneously.

Shortly afterward, Auburn and the NCAA released this video: