Here’s my column on the challenges facing Lane Kiffin and the USC football team in the wake of severe NCAA sanctions.
Inside USC with Scott Wolf
USC football, Trojans basketball and other sports news
Here’s my column on the challenges facing Lane Kiffin and the USC football team in the wake of severe NCAA sanctions.
The Appeal will be flat-out denied. Less than 10 percent are ever granted and that usually involves exceptional circumstances i.e. a mistake of law. In the SC situation the NCAA ruling was “discretionary,” which means the committee was given great latitude in what punishment it could administer to the Trojans.
Personally, I am already over the shock and depression (and anger) that spoiled my yesterday.
So unless there is some other advantage to stalling the inevitable I say face the music now and get the 2-year bowl ban punishment completed in 2010 and 2011
The flip side of the argument is that SC would be in the running for a great season and thus a great bowl game this year during the Appeal process. This would probably be the Trojans’ last best chance for a great year until at least 2015.
And is it such a big deal to be denied a bowl game unless it were for the national championship (yes, I know, I am spoiled)– Do you think UGLY UCLA (that’s redundant) will be any less worked up at beating SC, or that Northern Dame lacks revenge for all of its Trojan defeats? The beauty of college football is that each game is important and is a wonder unto itself because it means so much to that particular school’s fans.
Yes, Virginia, the sun came up on the Trojan family early this morning, and in the long-run this several-year punishment will be a small blip on the incredible SC football heritage history
May all of college football ‘fight on.’
LJ………..great points.
If SC appeals and delays the bowl bans, it will only hurt recruiting more. While they appeal they should “self-impose” a bowl ban this year. This way if it is reduced to 1 year they will have already served it and if it’s denied they will only have one more year. The players recruited next year will only have one year of a bowl ban. I don’t see how they could get anyone with a two year ban. I’m most worried about the incoming freshman like Henderson or Woods bolting.
stop with the “self-impose” nonsense. You can’t self-impose punishment after the fact. That was something Garret should have done last year.
I nominate LAWYER JOHN to head up the violations committee that will convene to investigate the Harbaugh regime at Stanford! That’s right Bruin fans… You don’t matter to us anymore.
The ban does not take effect if the automatic stay is waived – tantamount to “self-imposition” spedjones, ie during appeal, abstain from bowl participation. Appeal should take maybe a year?
Research informs me that four year investigation and this many “boxes” of evidence is unheard of in NCAA history, and it appears they clearly operated with an agenda to “get SC.” In such circumstances a careful scrutiny of the penalty and past practice/history of penalties may result in some adjustment.
I think that the inequity of the sanctions that were specifically based on little proven facts (and a lot of their wishful findings) of direct culpability by the University, that specifically caused that degree of penalty is absurd and instead of filing a useless and expensive waste of time appeal to a crooked agendized (fatcat goold ol boys) organization that in itself is headed into the abyss of irrellevancy (these super conference events are just the huge beginning of such), I believe that this case should go directly to the Superior Court! Jerry Tarkanian set the precedent years ago!
oh how sugar sweeeeeeet would it be if Southern Cal “self imposes” a one year ban during the appeals process and then the NCAA still enforced the two year ban after the appeal is denied!!!
oh life is good now, but that would be like heaven on Earth….well actually it’s heaven on Earth now. oh it’s good! Southern Cal, i never thought i’d say thank you, but thank you….OH THANK YOU!!!!
Calling yourself “Count” is a misnomer – you clearly cannot. You should think before you write for the public view, or are you a Bruin in disguise (genetic trait not to do so.) By waiving the automatic stay during an appeal thereby allowing the penalty to take effect despite an appeal (similar to a defendant remaining out of prison during an appeal process thereby not garnering any “credit for time served”) USC will have served whatever penalty it was due during the appellate period. However, due to the time it takes to appeal, it will prevent any extension of time during which the bowl ban will be impose, ie longer than the next 2 years, maximum. In effect, SC would be betting that the appeal process would take less than two years and it could hopefully salvage at least one bowl game. Clearly the most damaging penalty is the 2 year bowl ban.