Just curious, what is considered a “slap on the wrist” for USC violations?

I’m just curious, UCLA fans, what would you consider to be a “slap on the wrist” to USC?

My response to a question about USC sanctions has gotten some rather heated response regarding my thought that USC will only get minor penalties for any violations they’re found guilty of. But what’s your definition of minor penalties?

Is a postseason ban major?
Is a loss of around five scholarships major?
Is a TV ban major?

I think two of those three could happen. To me, that’s minor.

Is it not?

Facebook Twitter Plusone Digg Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email
  • Anonymous

    5 years no TV and no postseason. Anything else is a slap on the wrist.

  • Sid

    I think those are minor penalties.

    A major penalty would be something like vacating wins from tainted seasons as well as forfeiting any championships (conference and national) won during those seasons.

    A postseason ban and losses of scholarships could become major penalties if they extend for multiple years. Any one-year penalties would be considered minor.

  • Anonymous

    Take wins and “championships” (how can you have an actual championship without a playoff?) from the affected seasons.

  • Bruin ’05

    Agree with Sid.

    What I saw from the past for teams having ineligible players play is forfeiting wins/titles. Upon receiving improper benefits, especially if the coach knows about it, should have resulted in suspensions of players in games.

    I believe it will be more beneficial for UCLA if NCAA punish the future USC for their past mistakes. I don’t see how forfeiting wins from the Pete Carroll era helps us at all now that it appears we are turning the corner in football.

  • Coach Thom

    I believe most people have already accepted the probability that USC will escape any meaningful sanctions. The school is just too well connected to the powers that be. It would be like the federal government sanctioning Bush for the blatantly illegal invasion of Iraq. It simply won’t happen. What we as Bruins can insure is that our own program remains clean and that we will always occupy the moral high ground. Small comfort to some, but it is the best we can hope IMHO.

  • Blue Critter 2

    Given the Michigan penalties but more the current Oregon matters, I would hope the NCAA would decide it is time to finally put cheating in its rightful place and come down with no less that four (4) years suspension of post season play and TV games (except the UCLA vs S$C game). Loss of scholarships will not make much difference as the suspension of the above will take care of recuiting.

  • sandiegobruinfan

    I think a post-season ban, loss of scholarships, and a very outside chance at vacating 2005 victories…but no TV ban as unfortunately, $C is the NCAA’s golden goose on the west coast and one is naive if one thinks ESPN and ABC would just sit on their hands if the Trojans are banned from TV.

  • DFlinn

    Would Dohn post this? no. Is Jon trying to be Dohn? No. He’s running the blog his own way and he wants to hear people’s opinions on things.

    In terms of what would be considered a slap on the wrist, I’d say the loss of any scholarships or penalties lasting only 1 year would be a slap on the wrist.

    Personally, I would like to see all games with inelligible players vacated (the standard for cheating) with forfeiture of their championships associated with those seasons. For future, I’d like to see at least a 1 year TV ban, 2 years of post-season ban and 4 years of at least 2 scholarships lost. Will we see it? Probably not.

    If they wind up with 2 years of lost scholarships and a 1 year post-season ban I would consider it a slap on the wrist and it would also have very little affect on the USC program other than degrading what little credibility Kiffin has left.

  • Hiero

    I believe that most people think that minor penalties would be limited to the forfieting of wins during ’04 and ’05. These penalties (which are assessed whether SC knew or not of Bush’s ineligibility) would be reduced to * in most stat books.

    In order to get penalties that would have some bite, the NCAA COI will have to make a finding of lack of institutional control. This would likely result in a couple of years (probably 2) ban on post season play. A limitation on TV appearances (perhaps only one year)could be assessed. There area also restrictions in the number of scholarshps and other recruiting limits. These penalties are not minor. They could have a fairly lasting impact on the football (and basketball) program. More importantly Sc would be branded a cheater by the NCAA.

  • Anonymous

    Reading these posts, I hear claims that USC somehow cheated in football. USC isn’t even being accused of cheating in football. The question is whether or not they knew that Bush’s parents received a house in San Diego.

  • Bruin4Ever

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear SUC will be hit with anything that affects their future (i.e. post season ban, no TV). We are going to have to actually beat them on the field and I wouldn’t want it any other way.

    PS: All the “USC cheated” talk just makes us seem bitter. Nothing they are accused of had any affect on them getting recruits or on-field performance. They beat us fair and square, now we just need to get better and bring it to them.

  • McFly

    Vacating wins is more like a kiss on the cheek than even a slap on the wrist. Their future is basically unaffected as far as recruiting goes.

    Here’s an espn article on vacating wins that I pretty much agree with:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/1905/what-does-vacating-wins-really-mean

    The only way to tell if any sanctions are meaningful is to look at their recruiting an on field performance during their sanctions.

    if they go through the years of scholarship losses, TV and post-season bans but still beat us and stay in the top 3 in the final Pac-10 standings then I say there was no punishment at all.

  • Jonathan

    Notre Dame has more pull with the NCAA than anyone. Notre Dame-USC gets better TV ratings than anything outside BCS Bowl games.

    Does anyone think there will actually be a TV ban?

  • Mario DiLeo

    Punishment must always fit the crime. Penalties are meted out so that these crimes never happen again. That being said, games are won and lost on the field so revising history and taking away past victories or titles is a hollow act. The memory of Pete Carroll holding up that glass football is indelible in my mind. Just because some committee declares that a football game that a certain team won didn’t hsappen doesn’t erase the memory of those who witnessed or participated in it.

    Since the past cannot be changed, only an acknowledgment that something illicit took place which affected the outcome of previous wins as well as sanctions which ensure the proverbial playing field is leveled would be considered appropriate punishment.

    Banning U$C from TV hurts the Pac-10 Conference most profoundly. Therefore, only the loss of 10 or more scholarships each season for the next three seasons would give the rest of the Pac-10 the opportunity to catch up to a football program that thumbs its collective noses at recruiting guidelines. Also, a bowl ban during that same period would send a message to other programs that a similar fate would befall them if such transgressions occur.

  • Slippery Pete

    IMHO this is what I consider major penalties:
    5+ scholarship reduction for more than one year. This would screw up recruiting (especially the stockpiling of 5*’s that SC has done for almost a decade).

    Postseason Bowl ban for 1-2 seasons. Mostly because it will cost the university some money. I don’t think any recruits will decomit or transfer based on this sanction. Recruits want to show in the 12-13 games a season they play that they are pro material, period. If they can get selected in the first day of the draft they won’t care which or how many bowls they go to. Actually this penalty will end up hurting the conference as a whole because of the split of Bowl money.

    Minor sanctions (again IMHO):
    Vacating/Forfeiting wins in the past. Whatever they do to record books I watched those games and I know who won and lost. Lets say SC has to forfeit the 66-19 game. That doesn’t erase the asswhipping I saw. Fine, give the win to Dullard and the loss to Carrol. I still saw what happened on the field.

    Vacating national championships/Heisman Trophies: Neither are awarded by the NCAA so they can’t take them away. I don’t see the BCS committee or the NY Athletic Assoc having the balls to ask for their trophies back. They may place the asterisk in their record books, but SC will still hang banners. Ask an Alabama fan how many national championships they have then look at a record book.

    Never going to happen: TV ban:
    Someone point me to a BCS school that has had this sanction since the BCS came about? It is just not feasible with the hundreds of TV outlets and conference TV contracts. Not to mention the damage that it would do to the other teams. For many teams SC is one of the biggest games of the year. What about the OOC teams that schedule USC for exposure and recruiting purposes? Selfishly it would require me to go to the Coliseum in 2011 which makes me ill.

    The problem with all of these possible sanctions is that the major sanctions penalize those who did nothing (current recruits, coaches, new AD etc…) OK well it would penalize Kiffy, but that is a strange coincidence and I doubt he lasts until next Jan. The minor sanctions don’t penalize anyone. Carroll is still gonna make long paper in the NFL for a few years as is Reggie Bush (who is screwing his alma mater 3 ways to Sunday). So what if the record books are re-written, they still make their money and continue to benefit off of when they were dirty.

  • BE REAL

    I am with Slippery Pete on this one, although his monikor smacks of SC bitterness. The NCAA is being watched carefully on this one, so I believe they have to punish SC in some way just to save face.

    The subtraction of future scholarships sounds like the best way to go, although just like with the SC basketball team, an argument could be raised that present players should not be punished for past players’ sins.

    I must say I am surprised that so many ucla folks care so much about SC and are so bent on revenge. It is like the ugly younger sister hoping her beautiful sister catches a cold before the prom

    Just sayin’

    LAWYER JOHN

  • Anonymous

    “the blatantly illegal invasion of Iraq”

    Except that Congress authorized the use of force. Get your facts straight:

    The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 [1], Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution (i.e., a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

    The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

    * Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
    * Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
    * Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
    * Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
    * Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
    * Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
    * Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
    * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
    * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

    The resolution “supported” and “encouraged” diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” and “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

  • Coach Thom

    Since we agree that USC will probably escape any major sanctions, these are my punitive suggestions:

    1. Disband the present SC female cheerleading squad and replace it for the next 10 years with a dozen overweight 50 year-old white guys in nipple tassels and too-tight thongs

    2. During the same period, ‘Tommy Trogan’ must romp around the Coliseum on a 3-legged pink Shetland pony

    3. All music played during Trogan practices must be Roy Rogers, Bing Crosby, and Celine Dion

    4. Before each home game, a female guest speaker must speak to the crowd about how she is learning to cope with the sexual harassment she has recently endured by a member or members of the current football team

    5. The ‘famous USC Marching Band’ must form the script ‘UCLA’ at the close of each half-time performance…but only if they’ve done really well

    6. The reigning USC chancellor/president must perform simulated fellatio with the UCLA bear before each UCLA/USC game…absolutely stark naked

    I have a few more sanctions in mind, but I don’t think they’re severe enough. Let the hammer fall!!!

  • TennesseeBruin

    My blog opinion is that vacating wins and placing an asterisk in front of u$c’s 1 and a half bcs championships would send a necessary message to other programs to succeed with dignity. If that’s not realistic than the rules need to be changed. I believe USC can excel in the future without cheating (and w/o Kiffin) but without vacating wins the NCAA won’t set the record straight so it starts with vacating wins. In general, I’d say major sanctions would be anything that will effectively level the playing field (if that’s possible).

  • ucla84

    Anything less than the death penalty for their entire program, for at least ten years*, and we shall know that the NCAA is made of cowards and cheats.

    Oh, and since there won’t be any rivalry games for a while, the NCAA must force Garrett and Kiffykins to perform at halftime of our homecoming game while dressed as Hot Dog On A Stick employees.

    *Make that twenty years.

  • BRUINBEATCH

    My Fellow Bruins……….GET OVER THIS ADDICTION/FANTASY that some tough sanctions will come to SUC the land of condoms!They will get a slap on the wrist at the most the ncaa will be once again bitch slapped by a big program. We should be happy that they atleast let suc get away with it knwing the great east coast bias there is!Money rules the world and the land of condoms has plenty of it!Lets worry about are self and come up with the funds to support our beloved BRUINS!fight fight fight!

  • tim warren

    At the very least, when the u$c band plays “Tusk”, their fans should be required to change their cheer to “u-s-c-sucks-MORE!”

  • MichaelRyerson

    NCAA mandated replacement of Traveller XXXVIIL, or whatever the hell they’re calling that nag nowadays…meet the new Traveller

    http://blueridgeblog.blogs.com/blue_ridge_blog/2007/05/major_the_mule.html

  • Anonymous

    There is no such thing as a TV ban!!!

  • http://paulm LEY

    Paying players(Bush received money and a house, airline tickets etc….), players receiving cars, Carroll interacting with recruits on off time, Cash deliveries, too many NFL coaches at practice is considered CHEATING. They can sugar coat it any way they want but everyone must play by the same rules. USC CHEATS!

  • uclaroney

    maybe its just me, but i consider vacating past wins to be considered “minor”. look at oklahoma regarding the whole rhett bomar thing. oklahoma was up-front with ncaa investigators, immediately kicked their star quarterback off the team, and they were still hit with vacating past wins. i think a “major” punishment would involve loss of significant scholarships, no post season play, and a tv ban. however, with the amount of revenue usc football brings for the pac10, there are alot of people who’s interests would be hurt if usc is off television and/or doesn’t play in a bowl game. my guess is “minor” vacating of wins, and a couple of lost scholarships, which is the definition of slap on the wrist in my book.

  • theuclan

    Nicely put LEY…. i like how southern cal says that since the coaches and admin didn’t know about any of the discretions they can’t be held responsible.. WTF?

    coach thom – thank you for that secular progressive foolish statement bashing Pres Bush.. LOSER… you are now free to leave the country….

  • A Nony Mouse

    In addition to the NCAA sanctions, whatever they are to be, perhaps the U.S. News & World Report organization should similarly investigate and sanction SUC for their cheating in academic rankings

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc

    USC = Unscrupulous and Sanctimonious Cheaters, where ethics and a sense of fair play don’t exist and the culture of cheating permeates in both academics and athletics. Absolutely sickening.

  • Anonymous

    coach Thom is a genius.

  • ed_jacobson

    There clearly has been a lack of institutional control. Major is

    1. The Death Penalty (minimum 2 years)

    or a combination of:

    2. Post season ban (minimum 4 years)
    3. TV ban (minimum 2 years)
    4. Loss of scholarhips (minimum 10/year for 2 years, 5/year for next two years)
    6. Loss of recruiting visits and hosting of official visits(minimum 2 years)
    7. Forfeit Bush’s Heisman Trophy
    8. Restrictions on USC employment of relatives of student athletes (god, I can’t help but chuckle when referring to USC players as student athletes)
    9. Probation (minimum 4 years) with a higher level of scrutiny and reporting with a clearly articulated Death Penalty provision should violations occur over.

    I believe the following should also occur:

    8. Vacating past wins from affected seasons; and
    9. Forfeit all money earned by USC during those seasons and return funds to the NCAA and Pac-10.

    While these should occur, these alone or combined with lesser degrees of 2-7 listed above would be considered minor IMO. USC doesn’t care about forfeiting the wins or the money, it’s all about the brand they’ve created and the earning potential that brand represents going forward. Sanctions have to substantially get at that issue to be considered major.

  • 2ndGenBruin

    All they need to do to satisfy me is to make Mike Garrett walk the plank, along with their President, for lack of institutional control. Hit them with a 3-5 year TV ban (which hitsthem with loss of revenue — and only slightly hurts the current players), no post-season bans (it’s stupid to penalize current players that had nothing to do with the issues, but hurt them monetarily), and limit their scholarships for the same amount of time. Taking away wins from the past is likewise a waste of time – just window dressing. Don’t forget, we relish the thought of pounding the stuffing out of them and Lame Kitten. We wouldn’t want him to go away and get someone like Tollner or Smith- – too boring to hate!

  • Mike H class of 90

    I agree with many here that it wouldn’t be fair to punish current players for past transgressions, so I would not be for postseason bans, TV bans – things like that. I also don’t think that it’s appropriate to vacate wins because of infractions by one or two players, although I think that will happen. I think loss of sholarships would be appropriate, along with a significant fine (returning money from TV/postseason over the years affected). What needs to happen (but won’t) is for the NCAA to change the rules such that incidents like this can result in fines for the coaches involved and return of scholarship money from athletes involved – they need to start hitting the people that are actually involved!

  • Charlie Bucket

    i think most football fans don’t want an unfair advantage over Southern Cal (i don’t and i figure the players dont either).

    i just want Southern Cal embarrassed like they rightly should be for being so arrogant about the allegations.

    i see Garrett is now trying to make like “i’m not arrogant, i just am a introvert who communicates badly”. so the NCAA should drag Garrett three times around Southern Cal campus (Achilles style) and call it a day. and one season of no bowls. and 5 scholies a year for 2…no 3 seasons.

  • Kracken

    I don’t think everyone understands the scope of power the NCAA holds.

    1. The Heisman is not awarded by the NCAA.
    2. The AP National Championship is not awarded by the NCAA.
    3. “Vacating” a win does not change it to a loss for them or a win for the opponent.

    Believing the opposite is true is deriding this discussion. I think we should focus on what is possible.

    Like Coach Thom’s ideas… except for #6, that just ain’t right.

  • Sam Gilbert

    As a Trojan I’ll gladly accept any punishment harsh enough to get rid of Mike Garrett immediately and hasten the inevitable firing of Lane Kiffin.

  • Anonymous

    for me, its not so much bitterness to SC, but just to right the wrongs in the recruiting playing field. i’m not hoping for the worst possible sanctions, but welcome any appropriate “slaps on the wrist” sanctions that will somewhat restrict future USC recruiting.

    I agree with others on the point not to punish the current players for past mistakes.

  • Anonymous

    to elaborate, one might say that UCLA recruiting and its football program overall has been hindered b/c of USC’s alleged illegal recruiting activities. if so, we need implement sanctions that will help mitigate this.

  • Mario DiLeo

    Since when did a sports blog dedicated to intercollegiate athletics turn into The Huffington Post? OK, if we’re going to go there…Congress acted as they did because they were lied to by Bush regarding WMDs, etc. How else were they to respond given the “information” given? Yes, there are bigger things than the Bruins and Trogans but those things need to be left on another bulletin boatd…this blog is about wrist-slapping not waterboarding…

  • GmanC

    Hey theuclan,
    Get a clue. This country was founded by Deists that were completely secular which is why they they created a constitution with separation of church and state at its bedrock foundation. Attitudes like yours is one of the primary reasons they did leave a country…England.

  • chaney

    Reggie Bush was hiding wmd’s?

  • hear me out

    The threat of sanctions has been helping us much more than the actual sanctions will. Right now every recruiter in the country has been able to use the heavy sanctions angle as a negative recruiting technique – and let’s be honest, every coach worth his salt (including ours) talks down other schools. Which I have NO problem with.

    Whatever happens is for two or three years tops and when the smart recruits find that out they just think “well, if I redshirt I’ll still get a couple years of exposure when I’m in my junior and senior year.” They’re not going to care if less people see the years that they will be going through growing pains or not even seeing the field.

    Unless they get serious sanctions that go beyond three years it’s not going to matter in the recruiting world.

    Basically we’d just get one freebee year of recruiting in this past class (except for he kids who think they’ll be in their prime as true freshmen an sophomores) and maybe a little momentum into next year with relationships built in 2010.

    And while that doesn’t suck, in the long run just winning on the field is what’s going to build our program up, not just theirs falling down.

  • Eric

    This would be USC’s 2nd major violation in 5 year span…so the penalty isSUPPOSSED to be magnified…we’ll see!!!

    Loss of past wins + National Championship + Post Season ban and Loss of Scholarships for 2 years or less is Minor.

    This has to be a 4-5 year ban + loss of scholarships to be Major and then this would hurt USC.

  • Anonymous

    In regard to Eric’s comment

    I know the AP championships can’t be taken by the NCAA so that penalty is off the table.

    What I’m not sure of is if the NCAA can take away BCS trophies or BCS bowl game victores.

    Gold? Anyone?

  • Rob M

    Sorry fellow Bruin fans… but I can’t join in on the wishful thinking, death-penalty-for-$UC bandwagon. Call me a cynic, but I will believe it when I see it. I have very little faith in the NCAA and I’m shocked that they actually arrived to a conclusion of their “investigation” that started in 2006. If even half of the allegations are true, $UC should be looking at vacating wins/championships and reduction of scholarships for multiple years and perhaps even a postseason bans. This really should be a no-brainer, but with the NCAA, you never know. So, again, I will believe it when I see it. (…and smile my ass off…)

    But beyond any actual NCAA sanctions, I would really like to see this become the scarlet letter for $UC. Ideally, this would be a tipping point moment that brands $UC as cheaters from now and forever. Even if they go on to win during Lane Kiffin’s tenure, I’d love for the FACT that they cheated to stick. In a world where $UC posters like Be Real/Lawyer John’s greatest defense is essentially “Yes, $UC cheats and the alumni are d-bags, BUT you guys are just as bad as us.”… IMAGINE a world where newscasters would say things like, “$UC’s basketball team couldn’t cheat their way out of that game.” or even after wins say something like “The $UC Trojans win, possibly without cheating”. Wow, imagine.

  • UCLA ’64

    If the sanctions don’t include taking usc off television for at least 3 years, the punishment will be a slap on the wrist. Television is the only thing that talks in college football anymore since it’s the source of most of the money and controls how the game is conducted.

  • Johnny Angel

    Depending on what they find, I would consider two or more years of tv ban, scholarship losses, and post season ban to be major.

    The *program* is being punished not present players. If there is anyone in the SC program that wasn’t aware of a potential reckoning by the NCAA when they signed at SC then they are not college material. The current players rolled the dice. Sometimes they come up snake eyes.

  • SCFTBL1

    What a bunch of classless, whining losers! Tell me which is worse…knowingly allowing football players to flout parking laws protecting disabled people and playing cash for basketball players (remember Sam Gilbert) or not being able to control or invade the privacy of the parents of one of your players more than a hundred miles away. You clowns will always be losers…get used to it! FIGHT ON!

  • mannywood

    Anyone know the history of television bans? Has that actually happened to any programs and if so, for what?

  • VBru

    Rob M,

    AP National Championships can’t be vacated by the NCAA. They don’t have the authority.

  • j_doe

    In no way, shape or form do I see SC being banned from television. As one posted above… has that EVER happened? This is going to be about scholarships, recruiting window, and perhaps a one year bowl ban. Look at the basketball team, and that is what I see happening to the football team.

  • john wilkes booth

    I’ll be waiting for SCFTBL1 at ‘a theater near you’.

  • Poppy

    The ONLY sanction that would have any affect would be for the NCAA to open the flood gates and allow all football ahletics to transfer to another school without losing any time, can play right away. Then make the other sanctions so hard that these guys would want to move. Remove the heart of something and the rest dies. No TV for 4 years and 10 less scholarships would also help. Removal of games won and championships will have NO serious effect, IMHO!

  • theuclan

    gmanc
    secular progressives want to mold our great country in the image of western europe and hate traditional american values.. you get a clue lib….

  • seed

    Poppy,

    A TV ban is an imaginary sanction that is just not possible in the real world.

    As long as a team draws a large audience the networks are never going to let them out of a contract (not that a team would ever try). These contracts have never been under the NCAA’s control and unless they get their own network – they never will.

    Coach Thom’s ideas are more feasible.

  • Anonymous

    Why shouldn’t current players be penalized. This is the culture of $uc. It is a “way of life” for this institution. This is what is “sold” to a potential recruit. Let’s say the NCAA does drop the hammer ie; major sanctions ect.. We have all heard this year that $uc recruits have been told nothing is going to happen. Either they know something we don’t or it is a major case of hubris. In the perfect world this would be the arrogance of Garrett. Who knows, all of this may have happened for the 17 years that Garrett has been the ad. It’s just that they didn’t didn’t have a caoch who knew what to do.

  • ect.

    Anonymous 11:00 PM,

    What do you mean “way of life” that is “sold?”
    Here’s what I could see happen during a recruiting visit when a way of life is being discussed:

    Coach: At USC our way of life is to legitimately compete for the Pac-10 championship every year and possibly a National Championship.

    Recruit: But aren’t you going to get sanctioned?

    Coach: We’ve never done anything illegal, if we had then we would have been sanctioned.

    Outside of being a naive teenager I don’t see the kid doing anything wrong, especially something that would make him worthy of being penalized.

    Coaches sell schools in a handful of ways:

    The two obvious basic are – We win or We’re building a team that is going to win.

    Then there’s selling the school outside of the program – location, academics (honestly, this is secondary to most recruits aiming for the NFL)

    And of course the negative recruiting/putting down other schools, which everyone needs to admit happens as much at UCLA as any other school.

    I can’t see a coach walking into a family’s living room and saying “hey,we want you to get agents and take gifts from boosters because it’s our culture to not get caught.”

    Do you?