Pregame Guesses: Fall of Troy Edition
by Achilles on Jun 11, 2010 2:09 PM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
Pride goes before destruction,
And a haughty spirit before a fall (Proverbs 16:18)
When pride comes, then comes shame;
But with the humble is wisdom (Proverbs 11:2)
Before destruction, the heart of a man is haughty,
and before honor is humility (Proverbs 18:12)
"For indeed I will make you small among nations,
Despised among men.
Your fierceness has deceived you,
The pride of your heart,
O you who dwell in the clefts of the rock,
Who hold the height of the hill!
Though you make your nest as high as the eagle,
I will bring you down from there," Says the Lord. (Jeremiah 49:15,16)
Historically, pride has always been considered the most serious of the Seven Deadly Sins; it is the sin from which the others descend. Dante Alighieri defined pride as "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor." And pride, it seems, has brought down the Trojan football program.
When one reads through the NCAA's 67 page report, it seems clear that the enormity of the sanctions rendered are not only due to the rules broken by Reggie Bush and his family, not only due to USC's failure to know/stop what was happening at Casa Bush, but rather also due to the fact that USC failed to cooperate with the NCAA, failed to own up to the mistakes made and in fact allowed an assistant coach to lie to the committee. As an aside, the fact that Todd McNair is still employed as a coach at USC as I write this astonishes me; even with everything that goes on over there, I still find myself shocked by that.
They say it's not the crime, it's the cover-up and these words never seem truer than they do right now. Sitting over the morning paper, the emotional resonance between Heritage Hall and Richard Nixon's White House is uncanny. These are people brought down not only by their actions, but by their extraordinary hubris. USC AD Mike Garrett, quoted in the Los Angeles Times on Friday:
"As I read the decision by the NCAA ... I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans ... Today I got a purpose for really wanting to dominate for another 10 years."
USC Head Football Coach Hello Kiffin:
"Regardless of what happens in that appeal, we know this: SC is more powerful than anything else. The university, the football program, the basketball program -- no matter what they try to do to us, it won't matter."
The NCAA's public report linked on BN:
"The general campus environment surrounding the violations troubled the committee."
Even after all that's happened and all that's been said, I remain struck by the extraordinary arrogance of the powers that be at USC. As far as I can tell, there is no sense of contrition, no sense of self-recrimination. And maybe for the first time I begin to accept that the fact that this arrogance is not the exception at USC, it's the rule, the prevailing attitude. It's not a by-product of a few wins in football, it's a taught and instilled and for that reason their fall from grace feels so deserved. Remember, these are people who continue to revere a murderer named Simpson, displaying his trophies and wearing his jersey with, ahem, pride.
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that while those in charge further embarrass USC with their arrogance and lack of contrition, there are a few USC alumni who feel differently. We share a city with USC and as a result every UCLA alumni or fan knows an SC fan or two, someone they can make a friendly bet with on game day but also someone they like and respect. And I did want to note that in my circle of acquaintances, there are a few USC fans who are disgusted by what went on and even more disgusted by how things are being handled now. Oh sure, they're disappointed and maybe feel the punishments handed down were a bit harsh, but I can understand that. They enjoy going to SC games and that won't be so much fun anymore and so this hurts a bit. But all in all, they're revolted by the way their school is acting.
That said, the public face of USC today remains incredibly and unhealthily narcissistic, obnoxiously arrogant and full of sinful pride. Which makes more clear another point:
Everyone hates USC.
We forget because like all good rivals we hate USC, just like Michigan hates Ohio State, Alabama hates Auburn and Texas hates Oklahoma. That's the "you're supposed to hate them" hate. On the other hand, everyone hates USC.
It's not just UCLA that hates SC. Notre Dame hates SC. Ohio State hates SC. LSU hates SC. Alabama hates SC. They don't hate SC because they win games, because Texas also wins games but other than their rivals, they are respected, not loathed. No, SC isn't hated for their record on the field, it's the way they conduct themselves off the field. This is not jealousy, we all traveled to Tuscaloosa a decade ago not because we envied the Tide's record, but because we respected it. That's why we all traveled to South Bend and why we're looking forward to Austin this season. This is not true of USC, where the very pride and arrogance they wear like some putrid badge of honor led to their downfall and the contempt of the college football world.
So, what happens next? Incredibly, or maybe not so incredibly given all we've discussed here, the Trojans are going to appeal the NCAA's decision and this despite the fact that the NCAA has recently made the appeals process more difficult and despite the fact that the appeal could drag on another year. Consider this: Instead of starting the clock ticking on their probation and sanctions now, USC plans to roll the dice on a nearly impossible appeal, prolonging the dark cloud hanging over the program and delaying the distant end to their troubles.
What should happen is obvious. Their new school president should fire Mike Garrett, fire Todd McNair, clean house and pledge 100% compliance with the NCAA in the future. They should accept their punishment like adults and vow to do better in the future. Not only should they say the right things, they should do the right things.
There is too much unknown to positively say how things will play out. What I've been wondering is whether or not this week's events will make their football recruiting more difficult, because even though the NCAA's findings seem to isolate the corruption to one player, the feeling here is that the entire program is disease ridden and anyone who thinks that the former Mr. Kardashian is the only player who received an extra benefit is decidedly and deliberately naïve. One can only wonders if the sanctions and the probation will curtail SC's cheating ways, because if they get caught again, the program will surely walk the Green Mile.
With that, here are your Pregame Guesses, Fall of Troy Edition:
1. Will Todd McNair be on the sidelines when USC opens their football season in 2010?
2. Will USC's appeal of the NCAA's decision result in the reduction of sanctions?
3. How many USC players will transfer and/or ask out of their NLI before they start football camp this summer?
(Feel free to comment below ... we're not just looking for answers to the guesses on this one.)
64 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
fantastic post
I also have a few USC friends that feel karma is serving its due course, but the arrogance coming from those in charge is absolutely disgusting.
1.no 2.no 3. 10
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
1) Yes 2) No 3) 5
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
This is an excellent post Achilles!
I’ve been contemplating writing a post for some time. After reading Garrett’s comments I wanted to slap the man across the face. What is going on with these TROJAN DELUSIONS! The moderator at that pathetic excuse of a blog CC honestly believes that UCLA BRUINS are jealous of u$c. That idea is even more preposterous than the idea that Trogans “earned” their “accomplishments” the honest way. Maybe there is a few people who have wanted to go to u$c, and I don’t want to speak for everyone. But This is a clear cut case of TROJAN DELUSION. NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY that I associate myself with would trade any of the Achievements UCLA has had on and off the field POST WOODEN. (And I say post wooden only because its not just about wins and losses, its about character and honor). Nobody would want those $candal Tainted pathetic “accomplishments” these DELUSIONAL trogans seem to think we want.
If there are any trogans reading this right now. Your pride is your own worst enemy. Your Institution has completely disregarded on the rules, and pissed on everybody who chose to follow them. Your arrogance demonstrates your insecurity in going to a school whose academics are on par with many Cal States.
Just the other day I was reading some comments where these same individuals had the balls to say u$c was on par if not better than UCLA, CAL, and Stanford. I will say, the only way this has happened has been by cheating. Grade inflation, Intensity of classes, or lack there of have created this misconception among its alumni that Figueroa Tech is this elite school. And its these delusions that honestly manifest themselves in to mismanaged pride.
In any case, Sorry for the rant.
1) yes
2) no
3) none (and I don’t want any of the players that want to “stick” with that corrupt penitentiary)
This is a trick question, right?
1) Yes. He stays…and stays quiet.
2) Lets get serious…No.
3) < 3. They’ve drunk the Kool-aid…being gangsta is koooool.
Question regarding the appeal
Is there any further penalty imposed on $uc if they appeal and lose?
I feel like there should be a downside to appealing NCAA rulings that would encourage schools to be very careful when deciding to try to overturn any sanctions. Lets say $uc appeals and loses, there would be something like a third year tacked on to the postseason ban and they lose 10 more schollies. Kind of like getting a traffic ticket. You can choose to take the ticket, pay a fine, go to traffic school and get the point off your record, or you fight it and try to win, but if you lose that point sticks with no option of traffic school.
I hope the NCAA has some sort of system that resembles this, but I’m assuming not.
"He has to want it because talent only takes you so far. How much you want it is the difference between good and great." - Rick Neuheisel
Nope.
The penalties can’t increase on appeal.
Fantastic post
1) Yes if Mikey is there, no if Mikey is gone
2) No
3) 6
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
For indeed I will make you small among nations, Despised among men. Your fierceness has deceived you,
1. No
2. No
3. 3
I don’t think many will leave the program at all. I think they will play their guys to stick around and ask them to accept a ‘walk on’ role. They will hype it up in the media about what a great place it is. It’s so great these guys accepted the burden of paying for their own education. Meanwhile, some time down the line, they will ‘forgive student loans’, and otherwise funnel money to those who bit the bullet so that in effect they never have to pay back any student loans.
I feel pretty strongly about this.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
most powerful ... trogans?
1 – yes, mcnair will survive 2010 to ensure they keep mamba, blackwell and other verbals.
2. no … their pride, arrogance and ignorance will interfere.
3. not many … i believe most sc players expect be play in the nfl. the bowl games are fun but it’s all about getting drafted for these guys!
dominate for another 10yrs? since when is losing 4 games in a season … dominating? look for kitten and staff to finish the job of dismantling sc football. they certainly won’t be winning conference titles based on kitten’s coaching & leadership.
would love dabruins to be right
recruiting was awfully good for usc to predict complete breakdown. Hard to believe they did so well with a mediocre coach with sanctions likely if not imminent. Scholarship penalties should produce a gradual demise, whenever they go into effect after the appeal process is done.
No, No, 4
Would it be too much to ask the NCAA to increase the scholarship loss if SC loses the appeal? Sort of as a “Thank you for being so arrogant and wrong that you wasted everyone’s time. Now shut up and accept the punishment.”
by Sideout11 on Jun 11, 2010 3:03 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Can't happen ...
I read in a post on BRO that the NCAA can’t increase the penalty as the result of an appeal.
I also read that Paul Dee said that the reason they got a two year bowl ban was simple: Reggie Bush played in two bowl games.
Garrett Is As Bad As OJ (Mayo or Simpson you decide)
He’s killed SC’s football program for his own selfish pride. I think the breaking point was Plaschke’s infamous ‘LA is a UCLA Football Town’ article. If you look at Garrett’s record from 93-2000 SC was on the decline. At that point they opened it up to the dark side.
Up until yesterday it worked; They had a fake championship, a new arena built will ill gotten winnings, clout with ESPN, celebrities with agent ties running the sidelines. It was college footballs circus; it’s Saddam and Gomorrah. ‘Win Forever’ was the battle cry for the dishonest. ‘Always Compete’ was more like ‘All Watch Pete Cheat’(and get away with it). These were terms of derision aimed at any oversight.
1. Yes – What more damage can he do?
2. No – SC has no leverage with conference realignment; NCAA’s credibility is on the line
3. 0 – They’ve already been paid or made backroom deals with agents through SC
Yes, No, 0
1. Yes – On the one hand, his silence has already been bought and paid for. On the other hand, they are going to need his recruiting help through these difficult few recruiting years. Plus, there is no moral compass over there. He stays.
2. No – The committee had a close ‘no’ vote to ban them from TV for a year. I’m of the opinion that the committee feels they could justify harder sanctions. Therefore, I don’t think the committee changes a thing.
3. 0 – You can spot a Trogan recruit in 10 minutes. They are the ones who are dumb enough to fall for Lame’s lies. They’ll fall for next round of lies, too. Therefore, they lose none of their 2010 recruits. However, it’ll be interesting to see if Marc Tyler and Mitch Mustain stick around.
Yes, No, 7
1. McNair was given a show-cause penalty, so I’m not sure how $C can justify keeping him. But they will, of course. He can’t really recruit at all, though, so he won’t be particularly useful.
2. Doubt it. Certainly seems like the committee wasn’t concerned merely with hard evidence and took into account the atmosphere and attitude of the $C program. Seems like an appeal saying they don’t have enough evidence would not strike well against that, assuming that perspective is widespread among the NCAA.
3. Doubt any of the recent signees leave, or many of the recent commitments. I could see some JRs and SRs trying to leave. Let’s be honest, though; with Mikey running the show, do you think he’s likely to sign the papers of anybody asking to leave?
by Captain Leebeard on Jun 11, 2010 3:37 PM PDT reply actions
$C* has to let JRs & SRs transfer out
according to NCAA ruling on postseason ban, so even if Mikey wants to say no, he’s forced to allow them to transfer
"The true athlete should have character, not be a character."- John Wooden
High % Chance
Mitch Mustain is gone if he doesn’t start and somebody else needs an emergency starter(Oregon?)
Won't be Oregon or any other Pac-10 team
The conference has already indicated that any intra-conference transfers from SC will have to sit out a year.
Shame and one sure-fire prediction
1. No (Garrett will be gone too).
2. Not a chance ( frivolous (utterly)).
3. Beats me.
Caveat on 3. Parents are responsible for their children even when the kids are off at college. (For those of you who don’t have kids in college, here’s a big news flash, while they are there, their every emotion, disappointment and joy, and sense of growth remains near to your heart.) Any parent should ask themselves if they want their children being educated by the likes of Dogkiller or attending a school whose most prominent player is doing life in the Nevada State Penitentiary. Or where the AD holds such a perverse sense of self-responsibility. If there are some parents who hold themselves accountable as such—there may be more transfers than you can shake a dog bone at.
Last add—Samples will be gone too. (The only prediction I have made in months that is a certainty.)
I seriously doubt that parents will make a moral choice.
These families all think their baby boy is about to go pro.
Honestly the most arrogant SOBs on the planet: Kiffin/Garrett
and, as a result, my prediction:
1) Yes. If they truly were interested in doing the right thing, he would have been gone already
2) No. But I have a feeling this appeal process will last well into 2011, meaning SC will be eligible to play in a bowl game after the upcoming season.
3) 1. And I will go one step further and predict it will be Seantrel Henderson. The rest have either already bought into Carroll/Kiffin’s sleazy used-car salesman pitch and/or lack any self respect and honor to resist the heavy peer pressure being exerted by Kiffin.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Best pregame guesses ever! :D
1) Yes – have to keep him to give a little sense to their appeal
2) No – Heck, are you kiddin me?
3) 3 – They’re Trogans, not the bright types that can understand what’s happening around them
Very nicely done "A"
1. Yes. If Mike Garrett is still there, he will also be.
2. No. Their appeal won’t make a difference.
3. 2 – The elder players are too brain washed. The 2 that leave will be ones that wished all along that they had gone somewhere else to begin with.
Garrett and McNair should have been gone yesterday.
But like you say, they know too much. I think as long as the appeal is in place, they will be as well.
Interesting...
1. Will Todd McNair be on the sidelines when USC opens their football season in 2010?
USC has a Todd McNair problem because he knows EVERYTHING. There is stuff he was involved in, including funneling cash, that did not make the report. A connection i have with a really deep USC guy says stuff is going to break on McKnight, who apparently lived in an apartment paid for by the guy who paid for his Land Rover. So if they choose to fire McNair, they run the risk of him spilling everything during the appeal, or worse, going on ESPN and laying it all out there.
2. Will USC’s appeal of the NCAA’s decision result in the reduction of sanctions?
Maybe. But going simply by previous appeals from other schools, their chances are less than average. They might get the bowl ban reduced, but I think 30 scholies is hard number, and that’s what is really going to hurt them, imo.
3. How many USC players will transfer and/or ask out of their NLI before they start football camp this
Tough question… one thing USC is good at is circling the wagons. You can be guaranteed that from now to the start of camp they will have a team of boosters, alumni and school officials pushing an “us against the world” mentality and a “we’ll win on appeal” narrative to players and recruits.
There is going to be a ton of internal pressure put on these kids. So it’ll be interesting to see if a high profile player calls bullshit and bails, if that starts a stampede for the exits.
Re. number 1
Also note as I pointed out this am McNair was the lead recruit for DeAnthony Thomas, perhaps the most coveted recruit from this year’s class in California. They are trying to recruit him as a tailback and McNair has been driving that train. Should be very interesting to keep an eye on that.
Are you guys in our conference yet?
Very good point about the stampede.
There is going to be a ton of internal pressure put on these kids. So it’ll be interesting to see if a high profile player calls bullshit and bails, if that starts a stampede for the exits.
Losing lots of backups
1) Yes- If they hadn’t gotten rid of him by now, they’re not going to. It could have only helped to give him his walking papers earlier as a sacraficial lamb offered up to the NCAA gods, but they chose to keep him (& chose to bring Kiff & Ed back into the fold).
2) No- It took them 4 Loooooooooooonnnnnngggg years to come up with this ruling. I doubt $C can say (haven’t they said enough the past few days) or do much else during the appeals process that can change much.
3) Numerous- They won’t lose starters because the most important penalty (a TV ban) was not handed down. Therefore, they will still be seen by a national audience (&NFL scouts & GMs) on a weekly basis, so why leave that? Plus, spring ball is over, so it wouldn’t make sense to leave a starting spot with national exposure (the spotlight is even brighter now because of the sanctions) to try your hand at another school hoping to start. Meanwhile, some other kid has been busting his ass all Spring (maybe longer) to hold onto their position. So starters stay put. Back ups are another thing.
I haven’t looked at the depth chart yet, but I would imagine that the second and third strings are littered with juniors and seniors who were once 4 & 5 star athletes (i.e. Knox) who couldn’t crack the starting lineup for one reason or another. Add to this the fact that these kids all came to $C to be coached by Carroll, not Kiffin. There’s no loyalty here. Most importantly, there aren’t any penalties for leaving. I would wager to say that most programs would lose a good handful of their non-starting juniors and seniors if there were no penalties. Thus, $C will lose many.
formerly Westwood78
Just saw on another board where CJ Gable has floated...
… the idea of bailing on USC to play somewhere else.
Lots of defections
1. Yes
2. No
3. 8
Something to think about with #3. This could be a lose/lose for u$c. If they “misled” the freshmen about sanctions and then refuse to release them from their LOI, their recruiting could be hampered for years. It’s hard to gain kids trust when you lied to an entire recruiting class. On the other hand, if you do release the kids who want to leave you lose your depth for a few years without the means to replace them for a few years. Could be an interesting situation for them.
Plus, my guess, Mustaine, Gable and Havili are out.
by redwhiteandbruin on Jun 11, 2010 4:40 PM PDT reply actions
Havili ... really?
What makes you say that? Would be curious to hear your reasoning. IMHO he would be a big loss.
my bad
posted answer as a new reply.
by redwhiteandbruin on Jun 11, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't remember where I saw it..
…so many comments around the web right now, but someone had said he was open to other schools I’ll try to find the link
by redwhiteandbruin on Jun 11, 2010 4:43 PM PDT reply actions
Why doesn't USC just avoid the middleman . . .
. . . and hire a sports agent as their new AD?
Bleeding powderkeg blue and gold for 55 years. Go Bruins!
1. I think to ward off panic and more chaos (among other things) their arrogance will make them keep McNair.
2. NO reduction. As a matter of fact, questions about McKnight will resurface and USC will realize to back off on the appeal.
3. You’d have to think there are parents out there who cares about character and some players who cares about a meaningful season. These players are blue chippers, they have a ton of options and I’m sure a good number of them will leave . If they stay, they’re going to feel embarrassed at every game once the opposing fans and players mock them and their school. That is not good for the psyche. With the “it’s all about me” mentality in major college sports these days, I doubt incoming freshmen and redshirt freshmen have a strong enough allegiance to stick to a sleazy school that’s the joke of college football right now. If they do, then it says something about their character or intelligence.
These are the same parents
and Blue chippers who went to $C in the first place, in spite of the looming allegations. The fact that they are no longer allegations but now fact doesn’t change much. They went “over there” to be seen on national TV, and they’ll still get that. Those who do have any morals whatsoever will be the starters that leave, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. What’s that 10 minutes thing Kiffin spoke of? I think it applies here.
formerly Westwood78
by PhoenixBruin on Jun 11, 2010 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Some backups will jump
1. Yes
2. No
3. I’ll go with 5. None of their key players will transfer, unless there are personal conflicts that we don’t know of. As someone else posted above, some juniors/seniors further down the depth chart yet talented enough to have a chance to start elsewhere could take advantage of the opportunity to transfer w/o penalty. Also keep in mind that this will be year 1 for a new coaching staff. While Kiffin has a history at SC, that was not while most of the current players have been in south central. Regardless of the sanctions, there could be a coupe of players wanting to leave due to differences with the new staff.
formerly bruinhoo
At least Nixon resigned...
The Trogans are resigned to nothing. Frankly, I support their appealing the sanctions. The longer they draw this out, the longer it should affect recruiting. It is no longer a case of if they will go on probation, but rather how long do they drag it out.
A 2 year ban and 3 year scholie issue hanging over the “school’s” head is worth an additional year. Sort of self imposed additional year. And with Lane excuses at the helm, that’s worth three loses per year regardless the personnel.
To the guesses:
1. No – The Trogans have a habit of firing inconvenient coaches
2. No – But see above
Can Trogan defectors play for another Pac “?” school, or do they have to transfer out of conference?
3. If they have to transfer out of conference 3. If not, 7 – There are between 9 to 14 other Pac “?” teams to play for
Depends on their class
Any defecting junior or senior is free to deal with whoever they’d like, $c has no say in these kids futures. Any incoming freshman that is released from their LOI could be released with the stipulation that they cannot sign with another Pac-11 school. $c can put whatever stipulations they want on these kids.
by redwhiteandbruin on Jun 11, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions
The Juniors/Seniors are free under NCAA rules, but not under the Pac-10's rules
The Conference has its own rule regarding transfers between 2 Pac-10 institutions, making scholarship athletes transferring to another Pac-10 school ineligible for competition and to receive an athletics scholarship for 1 year. The new school is able to request (with approval of 8 of the 10 Pac-10 schools) that this penalty be reduced to allow the player to receive an athletic scholarship, but not to compete.
formerly bruinhoo
Hadn't heard any mention of that
Everything just keeps repeating the NCAA rule. Good to know
by redwhiteandbruin on Jun 11, 2010 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks, y'all
moving to texas soon. gotta learn the lingo. : )
perhaps to become sam in flowermound instead of surf city
Any SC transfers would need to go out of conference
The Pac-10 has already indicated that they will not waive the transfer rules, so anybody who wants out of SC would have to sit out a year (like they do now).
I don't think any of their recruits will leave
I disagree with the COI report in one way. I don’t think there is or was any lack of institutional control. I think it was just the opposite – I think everything on that campus is controlled to the smallest detail by inheritance hall. The arrogance which A so eloquently described is part of that control. Garrett and his cronies cannot grasp the concept that they have done anything wrong. (Best examples are Mikey’s and Lamey’s comments to the northern cal trOJies and Cheatie Petie’s remarkable video. )
With that intro, I don’t think any of their guys will leave because just$c* will make the payoffs as they have always done. Bruins, this has been happening since the beginning of football time. It will never end. That’s the way it was, is and always will be over there.
Maybe when they get caught the next time they will get the gallows. I hope I last long enough.
Long history of violations
First, hats off to “A” for a trmendous post. I am old enough to remember Jaguar Jon Arnett who played at sc inthe 50’s and was only allowed to participate in 5 games his senior year for getting paid for a job he never performed. I have witnessed this crap for 50 yrs. They sold their souls decades ago. The new pres will can Garrett and McNair. I say 4 defections before all is said and done. UCLA ’69
Great post
I’m just astounded at the level of arrogance that Kiff and Garrett are showing, even when an airtight case of major violations is thrown in their face. It’s like an online political argument where someone who can’t win a debate on facts, tries to just win the argument by changing the facts. You might win the argument to sate your own ego, but it won’t have any connection to objective reality.
If they really believe that everybody else is just jealous and want to be Trojans, they’re just living in a different delusional reality. Not surprising, given that SC has historically been a fallback school (i.e. Second Choice). Once students arrive there, they get bombarded with the whole trojan pride propaganda, and many leave there thinking that they truly are omnipotent.
Adding to the theme of everybody hates SC — Stanford also hates SC. They have rivalries with Cal and Harvard, but those are respectful rivalries since nobody doubts the academic credentials of those rival schools. Stanford alums I know just despise SC because of that arrogant attitude, that they are above everybody, including schools that rejected them.
Just as an example, someone I knew in the UCLA band said the Stanford band used to have an open invite out to any of the visiting Pac-10 bands to party it up before the game at the infamous band shack. All of the other Pac-10 bands at some point have taken up Stanford’s offer, except for SC. For that UCLA band member, the band shack parties rank up there with their best college experiences — an experience that the SC band seemed to think they were too good for.
And speaking of camaraderie, Washington also hates SC. Every five years or so, the UCLA band performs their riotous Fall of Troy halftime show, which requires a double sized band. At least twice now, the Washington band has collaborated with UCLA to perform that halftime show, which is an outright mockery of SC. Can’t think of another school reviled to an extent that two conference rival schools would join together to perform that kind of a takedown.
USC suddenly concerned about the rules
USC and their Compliance Dept says 5 schools… Florida, Oregon, Washington, Alabama and Fresno State have allegedly made illegal contact with USC’s Dillion Baxter. Florida has already denied the claim.
How about Fresno trying to jump in there?!
I'm reading their response
and quite frankly, I’m astounded these people are attorneys. It reads like a People magazine article, complete with a color photo of those two White House party-crashers with Joe Biden. They mention “convicted felon” every two lines.
The utter arrogance of this response is amazing. I can scarcely believe this was written by an attorney.
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
No guesses
But that was an outstanding post. I have been shocked by the arrogance and lack of humility in the the SC response. This post absolutely nailed what I am sure we have all noticed about SC’s reaction. Well done.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
