USC, NCAA Sanctions, & Signing Day
So we are waiting for the boom to fall from the NCAA on USC. I'm curious about the timing of the sanctions, National Signing Day, and current recruits. Say, for instance, that USC was banned from post-season bowl play from 2010 through 2013, but this wasn't announced until March 1. Would that mean that it was just SOL for recruits who signed this February? Recruits could legitimately say, "this wasn't what I signed up for." Obviously, you could argue they "should have known," but I'm sure USC is blowing smoke up recruit's butts, saying that nothing much is going to come of this investigation.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
If the NCAA is going to hand down these sanctions I would rather they do it before the NSD because it would allow the recruits to really know what they are getting in to and it could help us with a certain running back.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
will we even have room for baxter if knight and parker commit?
January 19th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
It may make things difficult, but I'm sure we make room for virtually any high 4 or 5 star who wants to come here . . . Wilson, Baxter, and whoever else wants to be blue.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
If by "Wilson" you mean "Torrian Wilson," recent events indicate he does not want to be blue.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^
too bad.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:09 AM ^
Obv. we have a self serving interest, as regards Parker & Baxter possibly coming to Michigan. But I have gotten the impression that the Sanctions report will come out after NSD. If the thing is already completed, why would they time the release in such a way that doesn't allow recruits to make an intelligent or informed decision?
January 19th, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^
isn't what the NCAA is all about. Or doing their best to help kids make the best decisions.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
know why everyone thinks this banhammer is going to come down on USC football. I will be completely shocked if they are banned from postseason play. I really just don't think it is going to happen, if it does sweet! Just can't see the NCAA coming down on USC football ever.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
The NCAA has heavily sanctioned Kentucky basketball and Alabama football in the past. That doesn't mean that USC is going to take a bit hit here but I do think it shows that no program is bigger than NCAA regulation.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
Hasn't the BCS era been about a tilt toward big money and away from any concern about student-athletes?
January 19th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
I won't rehash my entire "Baxter" post, but did want to repeat one point. USC will probably get "slapped on the wrist," but the real punishment will come down when Kiffin keeps committing violations while on probation. That is how SMU got the "death penalty."
Asking Kiffin to stop committing violations is like asking a dog to meow; it's not going to happen. Those of us who would like to see USC get the banhammer are going to get our way, but it just won't happen for a couple more years.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
Dog to Meow, LOL +1
January 19th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^
the NCAA is meeting with USC on Feb 19-21. USC has already received a list of infractions.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncb/news/story?id=4816942
If they lose scholarships I would think any 5th years would get trimmed before anyone in Kiffin's first recruiting class are shown the door. Yes, Kiffin is blowing a lot of smoke.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
Usually when the NCAA drops the major sanctions, they open the floodgates and allow penalty-free transfers for anyone who wants to book it for another school. They don't have to sit out a year. It's a nice double-edged sword because it gives the players a Get Out Of Jail Free card and the program loses even more players.
They do this especially when they swing the postseason banhammer and when they cut the number of scholarships. Guys who lose out on a scholarship because of the sanctions have the option of going somewhere else.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
Wish they would hurry-up and drop the hammer,then they could set out in dressing OL Lane up in a flowing robe of sanctions complete with a jesters hat and a copy of the "dead team scrolls".Lane then could go to the Rose Bowl as a parade float.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
...that float has to be made from all natural material. There is nothing natural about Kiffin..
January 19th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
USC is going to get off pretty light. Alabama had a coach delivering a bag of cash to a high school coach in order to get Albert Means.
Boosters run amok all over the place and coaches turn a blind eye to it. If a school gets busted for $100 handshakes, the NCAA will usually tsk-tsk them. USC had boosters doing a little more than that. But they didn't go so far as to have coaches involved in the payouts.
Bama didn't exactly get crushed by those sanctions. Hell, they were on probation this year over that stuff and just won the national championship.
SC is going to lose a couple of scholarships, might forfeit some money, and might have to write a book report on why amateur sports are fun for all ages. But they aren't going to get anything like what Alabama got and no one is ever going to get what UK got.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
But they didn't go so far as to have coaches involved in the payouts.The basketball team apparently did, and the merging of the investigations probably means the NCAA sees it as all one big happy mess at an institution. I think they see this as a 1+1=3 situation. That said, you're right: Alabama seems to be doing OK. They did get hit pretty hard, though. At least, about as hard as the NCAA knows how to hit without pushing the nuke button. They just decided to have their boosters pay a coach instead of players.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:39 AM ^
it was just one program. I think the "hope" is that the NCAA views issues in BOTH programs (even if one program isn't as significantly involved), and lays down the hammer due to "lack of institutional control". Penalties would be stiffer for BOTH programs to serve notice to the university.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
I really, really, really hope that USC gets hit hard by the NCAA but I am very skeptical that it is going to happen. I think they're going to get a hard slap on the wrist. I could see them losing a meaningless number of scholarships (2-3) for a short period of time. Maybe there will be some probation, some financial impact, some house cleaning, etc. But I just don't think it is going to be as bad as we hope.
First of all, I don't think they have as much evidence against them as they have in other cases. Second of all I don't think it affects as many players - or at least I don't think they can PROVE it affected as many players. Third, it is USC and I don't think the NCAA has the balls to hit them hard with sanctions. Fourth, why would USC hire Kiffin if they were trying to impress the NCAA?
I think we know something shady went on (and probably still is going on) and I think Carrol leaving meant to us that it was going to be a bombshell. But it could just be that he couldn't turn down $35 million and wanted to prove himself in the NFL again.
I think we're going to be sadly disappointed when the penalty is announced.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
but I would want the penalty to fit the crime. (I wouldn't want the hammer to come down, even on USC, for ticky tacky infractions.) I guess it depends on what USC actually did, and what the NCAA knows.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
I really dislike USC football, but I'm not convinced of what happened there (especially re: Reggie Bush)...Maybe I've just missed some reports.
January 19th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
Its all about money and usc makes alot of it pluse u got cats like snoop and other high profile people around usc they get slap on the wrist but i hope they go hard on them lol there way to open with house buying car ridin but the all mighty $$$ always wins in the end.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
USC will be in the penalty box and the world at large will be wearing spandex.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
and they'll ask USC for permission first. It's all a kabuki show designed for public consumption, but there will be no real teeth behind anything. That's why Kiffin took the job—he knows the NCAA doesn't have the wherewithal to do much more than to say "Tut, tut" and yank a couple of scholarships.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
My question is why does the NCAA have no face. The NFL has Godell and even the MLB and NBA have a face that discusses the process. I wish the NCAA had a public face that the colleges feared. If the NCAA had a persona they might be percieved as something to be taken seriously.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^
The NCAA does exactly what it's member institutions want it to do. With increased media exposure, they are less likely to bring harsh sanctions for fear of turning off the people who gladly fork over cash for their product.
I don't think it's an accident that after cleaning up college sports after several point shaving incidents in the 40s and 50s, the NCAA ran a tight ship until the late 80s. After the Tulane scandal, the UK Emery issue, and the Jim Valvano issue, there was some scandal-fatigue.
How many times did Jim Harrick get in trouble? I don't think anything happened at Pepperdine, but there were shenanigans at UCLA, UGa and Rhode Island. I remember late-Denny Crum era issues at Louisville. I don't recall any of those programs suffering greatly. (Michigan's own punishment was largely self-imposed, wasn't it?)
People got tired of hearing about it, so the NCAA took a backseat.