Tick tock tick tock: are we there yet?

For a coach as ridiculously unaccomplished as Lame, then your point appears to have generous backing.

I wonder if, after the NCAA has pronounced it’s decision; does it have the testicular fortitude to weigh in with sanctions of it’s own?

I’m not overly optimistic.

I have a lot more faith in the reliability of BN than I do with espn.

set for “usc ncaa” that I leave open on one tab and refresh throughout the day – have done so all week. One of these years…

That’s not all that matters.

Because by that logic, no one should be held accountable for past transgressions. That little line you have in your signature? Doesn’t matter. It’s in the past. How about the green light it gives to athletic departments across the country if they don’t hand down a just and fitting punishment for what they’ve done? Doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t have to do with us beating SUC.

This is not only relevant to us, but to the rest of college football, and perhaps even college sports as a whole.

That’s why this whole “beat them on the field” line is myopic and irrelevant. Beating them on the field is not mutually exclusive with the NCAA enforcing their own rules; the rules that all member schools agree to abide by. Letting the trogans skate on this not only casts doubt on the NCAA’s ability to enforce any of their rules, but calls into question the legitimacy of any athletic competitions held under their banner. Anyone who is disenchanted with the world of professional sports because of the money involved will get to see the same thing happen at the college level. Now won’t that be fun?

But hey, it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t have anything to do with beating SUC.

That’s like being permanently assigned to clean restrooms.

What just$c* is doing is basically just another kind of fraud. The conduct might not always fit the classic definition of “five finger fraud,” but they are cheating. A cheater always has something to hide. When it is institutional cheating, there are more opportunities to uncover the fraud. The best example, of course, is Watergate. The Yahoo Sports Reporters of that era, Woodward and Bernstein, just kept digging. They found evidence, and they linked that evidence to other things, and they used what they learned to get more bits and pieces out of more people. Once enough of that happens, the story tends to fall apart quickly.

With just$c*, one of the first questions has to be the identity of people who have the knowledge you want. Accept as a given that the guys at the top have it, and are not stupid enough to admit anything, even when they’re caught red-handed. So instead of hacking at the top with a battle axe, it’s better to pick at the bottom with a toothpick. Remember McKnight’s statement about being picked up in a limo? That kind of little thing is the thing that you can start picking at.

I always wanted to find disgruntled ex employees. They have an obvious bias, and can be impeached based on that bias, but that’s not as important as the facts that they disclose that will lead to something else, which will lead to something else, etc.

This is a lot like fishing. (Remember that California discovery law does not prohibit a fishing expedition.) Sometimes you just find the hook empty. But other times you get a strike. Or to change the analogy, once you find a tiny hole in the armor, you can wedge your way in and find gold. And it doesn’t take much. Also remember that this isn’t some great mystery. We know what was done and who all of the involved people were. We know that they’re not necessarily stupid, but they are all insufferably arrogant, thinking that they can never get caught. (Well, Timmeh was monumentally stupid, but he might be the exception.) There are witnesses and documents floating around (probably many documents in electronic form) that would bring down the big ketchup and mustard citadel. Someone has to have the will to do the work, and someone somehow has to get this issue into court.

End of rant and sermon.