Chuck Norris

September 12th, 2017 at 7:46 PM ^

Haha this is pretty funny. The attitude is essentially "Fuck it, if they're going to make us vacate our wins we're going to vacate our losses too."

Of course, per NCAA guidelines only the losses are vacated, so the 2006 Rose Bowl still "counts".

 

 

titanfan11

September 12th, 2017 at 8:38 PM ^

is just making them vacate wins, and not treat every game played with an ineligible player as a loss, then good for USC.

I mean, say a really bad team, like a Ball State or something, used a couple ineligible players and still went like 1-11.  What would the punishment be?  NCAA ask them to vacate one win?  

ska4punkkid

September 12th, 2017 at 7:53 PM ^

Eh. The NCAA instructed them that all games played be vacated, wins and losses.

Even still, they put a note in the program saying the Rose Bowl loss to Texas was vacated per NCAA violations. What else do you want them to do?

ats

September 12th, 2017 at 8:02 PM ^

This is merely a lucky quirk of the rules.  All regular season wins and ties are vacated and ALL POST-SEASON GAMES are vacated per NCAA rules.  Since USC-Texas was post season, it was Vacated even though a loss.

lilpenny1316

September 13th, 2017 at 10:41 AM ^

USC's defense has been poop since at least the Rose Bowl.  They still gave up 17 first half points to Stanford.  

Texas can score points.  Losing team probably ends up with 35 points.  All it takes are some turnovers and Texas can pull their required one upset of the year before they lose to Kansas or Iowa State.

M-Dog

September 12th, 2017 at 9:18 PM ^

But, according to USC sports information director Tim Tessalone, the program was instructed in 2010 by Jim Wright, then the NCAA director of statistics, not to include participation in any games that year as part of its official records. That edict included the Rose Bowl.

"I have documentation in a letter sent in July 2010 to Wright noting all the changes he instructed us to make, including that losses had to be vacated," Tessalone said in an email. "The letter also states that he had reviewed all our revisions and approved them."

Are you listening Rutgers?  They may be on to something here.

 

Hard-Baughlls

September 13th, 2017 at 11:16 AM ^

I remember the petition to get Joe Pa's wins back.  Like all non "Joestown" koolaid drinking joe-hadists, I of course thin it was disgusting for them to even make such an appeal.

Once you vacate your standing as a decent human upholding the minimal moral standard of preventing child rape!, you vacate any accomplishments you achieved over the course of your lifetime.

If you Cure cancer and enable a child rapist during 1 lifetime, - maybe it's a wash.  Outside of that, go fuck yourself.