Jump to content

USC Apparently Got Nailed


CrimsonTribe

Recommended Posts

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5267933

The USC football program will receive a two-year postseason ban, a reduction in scholarships and a forfeiture of wins from at least the 2004 season when the NCAA releases its sanctions on Thursday, a source told ESPN's Shelley Smith.

The Los Angeles Times reported the NCAA sanctions include the loss of more than 20 scholarships.

No BCS conference football programs have been banned from postseason play over the past seven years, but the NCAA has been expected to make an example of USC, one of the highest-profile programs in the country.

As an Alabama fan I say good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
This sucks.

Well it really shouldn't affect recruiting that much imo since most guys they'd be recruiting would only have their freshman year affected at the most.

Kind of hard to recruit when you're down at least 20 scholarships. It took Alabama years to recover from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of hard to recruit when you're down at least 20 scholarships. It took Alabama years to recover from this.

Yeah, I was just going to remark on that.

I still doubt it will take them that long to recover.

Anyway, the college sports rules regarding stuff like still annoys me as I think players should be compensated more and I think colleges shouldn't be totally held accountable for things they may not anything to do with.

I also think schools consistently get away with violations, but oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, the NCAA takes away the 2004 championship and ships down to the loveliest village on the plains, where it should have been to begin with.

I doubt that happens. They weren't even in the BCS championship game. My bet is they either award it to OU or they blank it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, the NCAA takes away the 2004 championship and ships down to the loveliest village on the plains, where it should have been to begin with.

It doesn't work that way. The title would be vacated and no one would get it. Besides, if you advocate giving it to Auburn, then you have to give a piece of it to Utah and Boise St as well, both of whom went undefeated and won their bowl games too.

Now as for the AP National Championship, I suppose they could always have a re-vote. They did set a precedence for that just recently with the re-vote of Brian Cushing's D-ROY award. But I doubt they will want to go back that many years to vote again. They will probably do the same and take the title from USC and leave it vacant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't work that way. The title would be vacated and no one would get it. Besides' date=' if you advocate giving it to Auburn, then you have to give a piece of it to Utah and Boise St as well[/b'], both of whom went undefeated and won their bowl games too.

Now as for the AP National Championship, I suppose they could always have a re-vote. They did set a precedence for that just recently with the re-vote of Brian Cushing's D-ROY award. But I doubt they will want to go back that many years to vote again. They will probably do the same and take the title from USC and leave it vacant.

No you don't. Unless you think Boise should have been co-champs this year too. Auburn plays in the SEC. They went undefeated. Look at the teams they beat in 2004 (Va Tech, Tennessee (2), Georgia, LSU, Alabama etc.). Who did either of those two beat?

Either way I've claimed the 2004 title since that season, despite not getting a shot at it.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you don't. Unless you think Boise should have been co-champs this year too. Auburn plays in the SEC. They went undefeated. Look at the teams they beat in 2004 (Va Tech, Tennessee (2), Georgia, LSU, Alabama etc.). Who did either of those two beat?

Either way I've claimed the 2004 title since that season, despite not getting a shot at it.:D

Do you have your own fake ring and everything? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you don't. Unless you think Boise should have been co-champs this year too. Auburn plays in the SEC. They went undefeated. Look at the teams they beat in 2004 (Va Tech, Tennessee (2), Georgia, LSU, Alabama etc.). Who did either of those two beat?

Either way I've claimed the 2004 title since that season, despite not getting a shot at it.:D

And yet it still wasn't good enough to get them in the championship game. The system sucks...it did then, and as of now it still does. But to have all of the voters go back and re-vote, then have all the computers recompute their numbers, and come up with the 2 best teams (plus knowing full well that Oklahoma wasn't one of them) to play another championship game won't happen. Auburn's best bet is to lobby the AP to have a re-vote, and if they do just be satisfied with that. But the BCS trophy will simply be boxed up and stored in a giant warehouse somewhere, right on top of the Lost Ark....where it will no doubt be re-examined by top men sometime in the future. Top. Men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was just going to remark on that.

I still doubt it will take them that long to recover.

Anyway, the college sports rules regarding stuff like still annoys me as I think players should be compensated more and I think colleges shouldn't be totally held accountable for things they may not anything to do with.

I also think schools consistently get away with violations, but oh well.

Alabama's got handed down in 2002 and we won a NC 7 yrs later so there's that. There were some lean times in between. And you've got Kiffin for a head coach; can't say that bodes well. Hopefully he's just USC's Mike Shula, but I doubt it. He's getting paid way to much for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alabama's got handed down in 2002 and we won a NC 7 yrs later so there's that. There were some lean times in between. And you've got Kiffin for a head coach; can't say that bodes well. Hopefully he's just USC's Mike Shula, but I doubt it. He's getting paid way to much for that.

I think Kiffin is much more of an asset than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Realistically I think Adley as the leadoff guy is the best lineup for us but if he has trouble batting leadoff in half the games because he can't get his catcher's gear off fast enough then I get it.   Cowser has continued to be incredibly patient, and if Adley can't be our leadoff guy then Cowser is probably our next best option.  Of course Cowser also hits a lot of bombs, so it'd be interesting if he goes on another heater.   If Cowser gets off the schneid then Cowser leadoff and Gunnar at 2 could be incredibly potent.  I don't think Cowser is actually playing that badly, he's just been running into some bad luck.  And he's starting to wake up a little bit anyway.
    • Agreed, appreciate the stats. Gunnar isn't a leadoff hitter - he's a prototypical #3 hitter or cleanup hitter. Hyde writes poor lineups, and Gunnar hitting leadoff has been one of the consistent problems with the offense this season. Gunnar hitting mostly solo shots is both a consequence and reflection of this offense's flaws - the O's have too many low-OBP hitters in the lineup (hitting in less-than-optimal spots for the most part) and are too reliant on solo homers to generate runs. At least Hyde has started hitting Westburg leadoff against LHP, which is progress, but Hyde is way too stubborn and too slow to make the correct adjustments. He's very similar to Buck Showalter in that respect.  Anyway, I look forward to Hyde waking up and moving Gunnar down to #3/#4 against RHP.  
    • While the return on the Tettleton trade wasn't ideal, 1: I don't think you can really expect a 30 year old catcher to put up a career year and then follow it up with another one, and 2: we had Chris Hoiles who played quite well for us following Tettleton's departure.  If we had forward thinking GMs we probably would split them at C and give them DH/1B/OF games on their non catching days, which is what Detroit did with Tettleton to prolong his career after 1992.  (He was basically the same hitter from 1993-1995 but he stopped catching with regularity so his WAR was much lower.)   The Davis trade was so completely undefensible on every level, not the least of which because we already had a player who was at least as good as Davis was on the team, but he didn't fit the stereotypical batting profile of a 1B.  At least today teams wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 10 HR first baseman if he's got an OBP of .400.
    • The Glenn Davis trade was so bad it overshadowed another really bad trade in team history. The Orioles traded Mickey Tettleton that same offseason for Jeff Robinson in part because Tettleton had an off year in 1990 with a .223 batting average and a .381 slugging percentage. Except Tettleton drew 116 walks making his OBP .376 and his OPS+ was 116. Jeff Robinson was coming off a 5.96 ERA in 145 innings pitched. I have no idea what the team was thinking with this trade. Robinson did manage to lower his ERA in 1991 to 5.18 his only Orioles season. There's no way this trade is made today in the age of analytics. Tettleton meanwhile put up 171 home runs and an .859 OPS for the remainder of his career. 😬 Just a bad trade that doesn't get talked about enough thanks to Glenn Davis.
    • Your best POWER hitter should get the most at bats with men on base. Gunnar is third on the team in OB%, but far and away the leader in SLG%. Heck, right now he has the highest SLG% in the AL. Yet he has the fewest ABs with men on base of any of our regulars. Batting him leadoff gives Gunnar more opportunities to hit HRs and score runs, but fewer opportunities to drive in runs. 75% of Henderson's HRs have been hit with the base empty. Compare that to Ohtani (62%), Tucker (60%), Ozuna (57%), Naylor (50%), or Judge (46%). 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...