according to espn.com's bruce feldman, USC filed an appeal. no word on its contents or which parts (if fewer than all) they're appealing.
here's one vote for "John Beilein's head in a Futurama jar"
I wish there was some way to give USC even more penalties for arrogance and uselessly wasting everybody's time in the legal process. Double the bowl ban to 4 years so that everybody can transfer without restriction.
If Henderson leaves USC isnt it pretty much considered a lock that he ends up at OSU?
He was considering Miami fairly heavily at the end of the process.
i don't see how he can end up somewhere else. he'd have to go to a year of prep school to do it. why would he want to play against inferior competition? he made a bad choice. no reason to compound it.
Actually, I don't see anything stopping him from leaving at all. Almost all O-linemen redshirt their first year at whatever school they go to. If Seantrel left for Miami or OSU or wherever, he would be forced to redshirt because of transfer rules. If he was let out of his LOI for some reason, he would likely redshirt anyway.
This is like your mom grounding you for a night you were going to stay home and watch TV anyway. It's not really a punishment.
I'm guessing this means that perjury isn't an applicable offense. It would be nice if arrogantly lying to folks trying to get to the bottom of a dirty scam added to the punishment. It sounds like it won't happen, but a guy can dream, right?
I'm sure if we're hit with more penalties than we gave to the NCAA, we'll appeal too. But then, I don't think we'll say they did it just because everyone wishes they were a Wolverine before we do it.
Talking about Michigan:
I see eight wins. I think they are going to be explosive on offense and the leadership should be a lot better in the program because it's more of Rodriguez' guys.
Mr. Feldman is officially on my "nice" list for this Christmas.
He clearly means for this year. Nobody outside of Lou Holtz-esque homers considers Iowa or Wisconsin even remotely close to OSU or UM historically.
For someone else from USC...
Everybody else is just jealous of us.
Hey, if it worked for the attractive yet annoying girl in high school it is worth a shot.
Unfortunately most of the guys on the NCAA committee dont want a threesome with Garrett and Kiffin.
PS We don't want to be trojans
We don't want to be trojans
I can't imagine anybody that would want to be a trojan. Have you seen some of the places those things go? Eek.
it's not like the NCAA will impose further penalties for appealing and wasting time, is there?
can use the USC approach... Huh?
I saw an interview with Lane Kiffin recently, and my impression was that the appeal was a trick to keep recruits coming in and the current players at USC. Now Kiffin/recruiters can say "those NCAA violations were complete BS. We've got the best lawyers on earth and we're going to get that ruling overturned. You have nothing to worry about. This will all go away soon."
At some point these sanctions are going to kick in, and USC will feel the recruiting hit for a couple fo years. Delaying the imposition of the sanctions by an appeal is well within their rights, but at some point Kiffin, Garrett & Co. are going to have to come to grips with the punishment handed down by the NCAA. I'd rather just get it over with now instead of delaying the process and hurting recruiting even more (because lots of those verbal commits are "soft" and will disappear once the players realize it could be 2-3 years of sanctions).
They accepted the 2010 bowl ban and should get a decision on the appeal with respect to the 2011 ban and the scholarships before next year's signing day. They also accepted a five scholarship per year cut over the three year punishment period and are just appealing the other five.
Of course SC haters who just want to see them hammered no matter what will continue to complain, but the appeal isn't some complete denial and really is just asking that the punishment fit the crime based on NCAA precedent. I don't think it is a crazy argument to suggest that one player taking money from wannabe agents (even if it happened at the same time one basketball player did sort of the same thing) doesn't justify significantly harsher punishment than what was dished out for a widespread booster ring paying players (Alabama) or dozens of football players and university staff conspiring to rob the federal government while multiple players were also on the take from outside sources/boosters (which happened at Miami while NCAA disciplinarian Paul Dee was the athletic director).
It would be interesting to see if they are doing this to try to prevent overlap of the post-season ban and the scholarship reductions. They probably figure they can weather them separately, but not overlapping. Keep bringing in 4-5* recruits ready to play once the post-season ban is over, then keep 75 players on your team for years while still recruiting 15 bluechips each year. After the penalties are over, just have a monster class of 25.
therein lies the NCAA's point. if USC can weather the storm easily, there's no sense in levying sanctions.
Appealing to the same people who levied the penalties in the first place usually doesn't affect much change. If I were choosing between the reason for this being that they are arrogant enough to think they will get their penalties lessened or just being disingenuous to players, recruits, and fans, I would vote for "disingenuous." But only by a slim margin.
Kiffin is going to have a tough time if USC starts losing and no longer seems dominant. They weren't exactly tearing it up last year. They have a true sophomore quarterback dealing with a coaching change.
USC has gone through some pretty long droughts in the past. It's not unthinkable that it could happen again. Carroll is gone. Lane Kiffin is unproven, especially with regard to chemistry. Obviously kids will want to come play defense for his father. So there's that. But the offense is another story.
I agree with you that Monte Kiffin is the Ace up Lane's sleeve when it comes to defensive recruiting, but he's 70 years old now, and probably won't be coaching much longer. If you're a defensive recruit, you know that you're DC will be 75 years old by the end of your career, so it's likely he could throw in the towel any day, so the Monte Kiffin card won't be good for that much longer.
I think USC will be pretty good for a while, but with everything going against USC lately, they aren't looking like as great of an option as they used to for all the 5-star recruits.
Have fun with that one Mr. Garrett.
No appeals. Face the music, USC.
the NCAA reducing USC's penalties if Mike Garrett remains their AD.
"I'm sure most schools would be delighted with the trade off of these NCAA sanctions with the ten year run we've had," it seems that the USC alum would be asking for his immediate dismissal, and as you say, I don't think the NCAA will look kindly on any appeal with him still at the hell.
When you interpret what he said, as cheating is well worth it if it results in a decade of being "top dog" then it's clear the man just doesn't get it. Time for change at USC, starting with the A.D. As an aside, couldn't happen to a nicer head coach. Those lost recruits will hurt anyone. Just a different game today with reduced shollies and injury combination.