Wetzel: NCAA Will Not Announce Southern Cal's Case This Week, Report is "Lengthy"
by Nestor on May 12, 2010 9:07 AM PDT
Email
PrintFrom Wetzel's twitter feed:
NCAA wont announce USC case this week. Report is "lengthy" (could mean anything in terms of sanctions) requires xtra time. Next week? Maybe
Hmm. The bit about the report being a "lengthy" one is an interesting one. We obviously have no idea how credible Wetzel's sources are in this instance. Yet the longer it takes for the NCAA to come out with a decision in this matter, the more interesting it is going to get for everyone else.
The conventional wisdom on places like tWWL is NCAA is not going to do much to Southern Cal. ESPN guys are actually out in front advancing the "Trogans are Pac-10's cash-cow" argument to speculate that NCAA will not come down hard on Southern Cal. Still what is also clear that the entire world of college football (from Florida to Texas and all corners in the prairies and in the South East) major programs will be taking close note of what NCAA is doing. It is their credibility that is at stake.
The NCAA officials have one last opportunity to make a statement. It will be interesting to see whether they actually show some guts or give the green light to every other program in the country to engage in all out cheating to boost their major revenue programs.
GO BRUINS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lengthy report
The crank in me is worried that the lengthiness of the report will be due to the NCAA explaining away its methodology for not slamming the Trogans, Hope I’m wrong.
me too
hope your wrong.
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
you're*
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
lol
i know
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
I think the length will be
the NCAA explaining how they have never seen a dirtier program but they don’t want to kill the PAC-10 taking down the Trogans.
I think that is a legitimate reason not to impose the death penalty, why should the rest of the PAC-10 get hurt?
They need to find a creative way to penalize SUC for a long time and encourage them to play by the rules without totally killing their sports program.
i think its going to be fine
the ruling won’t please everyone on BN, but i think it will be more than a slap on the wrist, but not as harsh as many want. As long as the ncaa takes a firm but reasonable stance against the charges, i’ll be happy.
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
Huard
Wonder where he came up with this? I would be overjoyed! :)
"The entire world that bleeds blue and gold ... they have been dying for this." - Coach Rick Neuheisel
it sounds reasonable
forfeited wins doesn’t hurt them too bad, everyone will remember who won on the field.
20 scholies taken away sounds about right, 5 scholarships/ 4 years.
Bowl ban doesn’t hurt the Pac10, only sc, so i hope thats the case and Huard is right.
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
Bowl ban does hurt the Pac-10
Bowl revenue is shared among all Pac-10 teams…so it does hurt, but that is fine by me
Better yet…TV ban for a year…bowl ban for 2 years… 3 years probation and loss of 12 scholarships
If they forfeit any games from 2004, they would lose the Nat’l Championship as well, which again is fine by me…
by WestlakeVillage Bruin on May 12, 2010 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions
An SC bowl ban would not really much of a revenue loss
Unless SC would appear in the national title game, serve as the 2nd Pac-10 team in a BCS game in a banned year, or the Pac-10 could not fill its guaranteed bowl allotments in a season, a bowl ban would not affect the Pac-10’s bowl revenues.
If the final option came true (the Pac-10 is 1-bowl eligible short) in a season, the conference only loses out on the revenue from the lowest rated bowl. Assuming that a team can deduct its expenses from bowl payouts (the ACC does this, I forget if the Pac-10 does as well), the conference would likely come out ahead fiscally.
formerly bruinhoo
Does sound reasonable
Given how the NCAA has imposed sanctions in recent years, I could see any scholarship cuts that they face being imposed under an unbalanced schedule – ie. a 16 scholarship loss would be: year 1/ 6 scholarships, years 2 and 3/ 4 scholarships, year 4/ 2 scholarships.
formerly bruinhoo
makes sense
it will bode well with us in regards to recruiting, if they lose that many scholarships.
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
How does a loss of scholarships affect a school ...
that pays its players?
Really. With all of the “outside” support that surrounds the trogan program, certainly, someone will step up and pay the tuition, too.
I think the only meaningful sanctions will be a long term ban on bowl games and TV — which will affect recruiting and retention more than the loss of scholarships.
sjh
by Class of 66 on May 12, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
if someone does that
step up and pay the tuition, too.
it sounds like that would be recieving improper benefits from an alum. Correct me if i’m wrong, im just speculating.
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
sorry dont know what happened to that post
hit the wrong button i guess. lol
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
Protecting the Pac 10 By Protecting Cheating
is one of the most disingenuous arguments I’ve heard.
If sc is not given a meaningful sanction, because the NCAA does not want to “hurt” the Pac 10, isn’t that an invitation for all of the Pac 10 schools to do what sc does in order to level the playing field?
The problem is that for the most part, the Pac 10 schools have too much integrity to go there.
So, if sc is not sanctioned appropriately, I think to protect the Pac 10, it ought to become the Pac 9 and then become the Pac 10 by bringing in a program that will honor the rules.
I am deeply offended by the argument that UCLA, Cal, and Stanford will be hurt if sc is forced to play by the rules and sanctioned, meaningfully, when it does not.
sjh
by Class of 66 on May 12, 2010 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I was reading up on the death penalty...
the southwest conference was destroyed by the SMU death penalty. I don’t want to see that happen to the PAC-10.
SUC needs to be punished, I can’t see a TV ban working but maybe if they had to forefit their TV revenue with major shares going to PAC-10 teams and a minor share going to their non-conference opponents, that would take a lot of money out of their sports programs. Their boosters might step up to fill the gap but it would still help the other nine schools. A bowl ban for a number of years should be key along with a large loss of scholarships.
On the basketball side I want them to have to put ’lil Romeo back on scholarship and back on the team. If they could force him to start I would be all for that too.
They need to force out the AD and institute better independent controls with 100% access to the program and supervision of recruiting and student/coach contact. There should also be a penalty free transfer option for current SUC athletes (but heavy scrutiny of the schools where they land).
Add in some forefitted wins allong with a redistributing of the tainted football and basketball revenue and that’s a huge blow to the program with enough forward looking penalties to effect recruiting but they will still be able to get the kids that aren’t good enough to get a scholarship at a better division 1 school.
So they will suck for at least 4-5 years which unfortunatly give Lame an excuse to hang on to his job but it will be fun to watch from Westwood.
With All Respect: The Pac 10 Is Not the SWC and ...
SMU’s death penalty was before the modern era of many TV outlets to cover all other teams.
I truly believe that the Pac 10 suffers more having a dirty, unpunished program in it than a justly and severely punished program.
There is also a matter of principle here: I can never buy the argument that “we are too big and important to be punished.” Not to get too political, that was the argument made by some of the hogs that slopped up bail out money. “We are too important to let fail — even though we did terrible things.” I don’t think we are better off for having given into that type of veiled blackmail.
I’d rather see sc justly punished and am willing to take the risk, which I think is minimal, that we suffer some negative consequence.
The failure to punish is the failure to make a clear strong statement as to what our moral and legal values are AND the failure to create a meaningful deterrent agains other programs that might feel the pressure to cheat so as to compete with the dirty programs in the world.
I actually think the NCAA has the most at risk here. Its credibility is already low. Another failure to show that it has real standards and that it will enforce them may be the blow that makes them totally irrelevant as a touchstone for what is right and wrong in college sports.
sjh
by Class of 66 on May 13, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll start by saying that I like the PAC-10 the way it is.
If SUC doesn’t play football for two years, the chatter about conference expansion might become a roar.
I like the idea of letting SUC players transfer without penalty because if all the rats jump from the sinking ship SUC will be worse off in future recruiting.
I say decimate the team but let them play.
Just have a lengthy bowl game ban so that their labors will bear no fruit.
Can the NCAA give their band the death penalty?
I want SUC to feel lots of pain, I just don’t want them to die. Going after their football revenue (where most of the cheating occurred) will hurt them a lot.
Oh, we should get the bell back for all of the cheat years that they had it.
"Descimate them but let them play ... "
is exactly the right tone for the punishment.
Obviously, they won’t get the death penalty. For no good reason, it won’t happen.
I’m not sure all of the players are “innocent” and should be allowed to transfer — but, if the transfer costs them a year of eligibility, that may be sufficient punishment for them.
I’m a hard ass on this topic — but I would spare the band. I like your passion.
sjh
Sorry, SJH, but I can't spare the band.
Just as the professional players — I mean student athletes – know exactly what they’re getting into when they go to just$c*, the band players know they’re going to play their stupid fight song. Frankly, I think that’s a felony, or at least it should be.
I hope the length of the report . . .
is not the equivalent of a tongue-lashing instead of a much deserved trip to the woodshed.
I still don't understand the "cash cow" argument
How does the ncaa benefit because just$c* is on TV rather than someone else, like LSU or Florida or any of a zillion other big name programs? If just$c* isn’t on TV, wouldn’t someone else be? The people who would choose not to watch solely because the Trogans aren’t playing can’t be that much greater than the people who would choose to watch a game with someone else. (That sentence leaves a lot to be desired in terms of intelligibility, but I’m too tired of the whole thing to work harder on it.)
The other argument is that if in fact just$c* is the number one TV attraction, then why wouldn’t the ncaa have insisted that just$c* get the prime time national game every week?
I think the cash cow argument is a fallacy, based on logic. It may be the absolute truth, and it may be the reason the punishment will be laughable, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a logical argument.
along those lines
I remember reading an article prior to this year’s NFL conference championship games that the network’s rooting interest (it was CBS, I believe) was not for the Jets, even though layman’s wisdom suggested the draw of the NY market. In fact, I think a CBS spokeshole said that the draw of the personalities of Manning and Favre transcended the markets from which the teams came. They reasoned that there was already a "market" for the game, and that what the NY area added in casual viewers tuning in merely because they were in the home market (should the Jets have advanced) wasn’t what they’d get from the casual viewers who knew of Favre and Manning. Essentially, NY was already going to tune in anyway, and what the Jets brought in on top of that would likely be less than what Manning/Favre brought in.
I am of the belief that if usc gets what’s coming to it, the TV draw of the casual and the curious will move on like any bandwagoner does. Assuming UCLA rises to its rightful prominence sooner than later, the "void" left by usc’s absence is filled by UCLA, and the LA market is solidified anyway. But usc being forced to play by the rules will also help a team like, for example, Washington. While Seattle isn’t the market that LA is, if Washington becomes a national player there are going to be enough people who will be interested who will watch, essentially replacing the draw usc currently is.
I think at the end of the day, if a team is ranked #4 or #5 or thereabouts – or higher, certainly – the ranking itself becomes the draw for the game, and whether the logo is Tommy Dishwasher or some other nationally recognized powerhouse (or upstart) the TV draw will be there anyway, and it seems as if the networks are aware of this.
I've been thinking about the death penalty.
And it seems to me the only way to really hurt USC is to hit with some form of penalty that has longevity to it. Looking at Huard’s intuition and it just doesn’t add up to me. 2 year bowl ban is nothing. A current High School Freshman would be approaching his senior year and thinking what school he wants to play for around the time they lift the sanctions. And, he would probably still have Rose Bowls in his head.
A loss of 4 scholarships a year across 5 years is a good start; but we all know they will just pay some kids under the table to go and “Walk On” while promising him he’ll earn his scholarship in a couple of years, while they convince some other kid to do the same. Then their PR department will trot out the line that these kids would rather walk on at South Central and have no shot at a bowl game than play for UCLA.
Now take a look at the line up they have in house already. Matt Barkley is only a sophomore next year. They just stocked up on a bunch of highly rated recruits. They are a very young team. So, by the time the sanctions start to put a dent in their program, they are lifted and Cheat Carroll has had a chance to wear out his welcome in the NFL. Voila! Lane is asked to step aside, Carroll comes back, and they are back to business as usual.
Nope. IMO Sanctions have to start at 10 years to have any teeth.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I for one would rather it be the Bruins who put SUC in their place, not the NCAA infractions committee.
Take away the wins, put them on probation contingent on them instituting better control procedures, and let’s go watch our guys “waste time” by running up the score on all that oh so impressively juiced up 5 star talent.
204 days
204 days until we start putting sc in its place on our lawn.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
