USC appeals

Submitted by ish on June 25th, 2010 at 2:20 PM

according to's bruce feldman, USC filed an appeal.  no word on its contents or which parts (if fewer than all) they're appealing. 



June 25th, 2010 at 2:23 PM ^

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.

Hoken's Heroes

June 25th, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^

...their appeal is a legal matter since this isn't in front of a court and the NCAA isn't a legal entity. Regardless of what you think of USC, it's their right to appeal. My understanding is that most appeals don't merit much change. What will be interesting to see is how USC's recruiting goes, what Sr and Jrs stay, and what MR. Henderson is going to do. What ever team he goes to will be revealed as the 2nd highest bidder after USC.


June 25th, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

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.


June 25th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^

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?


June 25th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^

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.


June 25th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^

...this.  If he means for this season, ok.  If he means in general, he's off the list.


Rick (Cincinnati)


With Nebraska joining the Big10(12), how would you rate the top 4 or 5 teams? Is Michigan even in the top 4 anymore?

  (2:25 PM)


If Neb was in there now, they'd be top for [sic] with OSU, Iowa and Wisconsin, followed by Michigan and PSU.

But then he said this:

Derrick (Fairfield,Ohio)


Who would be your dark-horse team to win the BigTen this year?



  (2:42 PM)


Well, since I don't see OSU, Iowa or Wisc as a "darkhorse" to win the Big Ten, I'll say Michigan.

He's back on the list. 


June 25th, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^

...Nebraska doesn't join the Big Ten until 2011 (i.e., next year).  Perhaps he means we're in that group in the context of the past few years.

Whatever, I'm not actually concerned about what Bruce Feldman thinks or says about Michigan.  Just trying to have some fun banter.


June 25th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

...he did.  Well we can now say with 99% certainty that Bruce Feldman thinks we're fighting PSU for fourth place in the Big Ten and if UNL were in the conference this year, we'd be fighting for fifth place.  Bruce is more confident than most of the punditry, so he's obviously cemented his position on the "good list".


June 25th, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^

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."


June 25th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^

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).


June 25th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^

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).


June 25th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^

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.


June 25th, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^

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.


June 25th, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^

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.


June 25th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^

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.


June 27th, 2010 at 5:44 AM ^

"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.