NCAA Football '05

[Moonliner]

Yes. 2005.

So let me make sure I have this right, in 2005 USC did some bad things. A player (Reggie Bush) was ineligible. As a result of this, 30 current students will be denied scholarships and the players currently on the team will be banned from bowl play for two years.

I really don't see how it's fair to punish today's kids for this. It's like getting a ticket from a red light camera because the guy five cars in front of you ran a red.

I hope Bush owns up to this and pays for those 30 lost scholarships out of his NFL pocket change.

[Kevy Baby]

While I agree that the it might be a "too late" situation, there is still a valid point to punishing the SCHOOL as it should be responsible for ensuring things like this don't happen. Not being able to appear in bowl games for two years is a big hit to the USC budget.

Not trying to defend the matter - just one point I was thinking of. Although I do find it ironic (as I mentioned elsewhere) that the coach and player at the time are both in the pros and immune to any of the punishment (although there is talk of possibly revoking Reggie's Heisman).

[Alex]

I expect the palyers will be allowed to transfer without penalty and I'm sure any USC scholarship player will be able to find a new home if he wants one.

I agree it isn't particularly fair to punish the current students (though in all likelihood we could consider this pre-payment for the punishment that the misdeeds of this administration will bring down on future students) but it is difficult to imagine many other effective forms of punishment since significant fines would be politically impossible and there's no guarantee that the individuals involved would still be around by the time punishment can be issued (though it would be good if the people involved were banned from future involvement in NCAA sanctioned athletics; if the crime is bad --not saying it is in this case, not familiar enough--why should Pete Carroll be allowed to fall back into college football when he flames out of the NFL?).

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

I expect the palyers will be allowed to transfer without penalty and I'm sure any USC scholarship player will be able to find a new home if he wants one.

If all the kids on the team were NFL bound it might not matter that much what school they attend, but statistically less than 3% of them will. Sports shenanigans aside, USC is a damn fine school with world class programs in several disciplines. To deny 30 worthy students a scholarship and thus potentially a chance to attend USC over this is criminal.

[Alex]

I'd have to disagree with your definition of criminal.

And if USC feels really bad about it they can certainly still offer them education scholarships and just not play football. It'd be interesting to learn how many of the students so desirous of a USC education would take that deal (since less than half of their scholarship players graduate anyway).

It is time, however, to end the hypocrisy around money in college athletics and just let schools pay their athletes and let players go to the highest bidders.

[blueerica]

I'm with Alex on pretty much all points.

Actually, I remember this being brought up while I was still in California, but the conversation just seemed to have ended. I figured it just got blown over or someone paid someone off.

I couldn't get the article you linked to load with anything more than pictures, but here's another: With harsh USC penalties, NCAA sends warning to all elite programs

Consider: USC received almost the same exact penalties that Alabama did in 2002 (two-year bowl ban, 21 scholarships) for a case in which the school's own boosters made payments to recruits. The committee even said it "seriously considered the imposition of a television ban" against the Trojans, a penalty it hasn't doled out in more than 15 years.

In other words, in the committee's eyes, USC's failure to monitor a player's relationship with those seeking to cash in on his future earnings is every bit as serious as Alabama's failure to monitor supporters trying to help secure future wins for their favorite team.

I would just consider this a warning shot. I'm surprised that the Alabama situation wasn't enough warning for USC to stop or at least monitor what happened two years later... while the Tide were still being punished.

It's about going one way or the other, and since it's currently not allowed, then it's probably the thing to do for the NCAA.

[Jazzman]

As much as I despise $C, I agree that the NCAA's Witch-Hunt-concluding punishments are ridiculous and only hurt innocent parties. Bush is making wheelbarrows full of cash in the NFL and Il Douche is safely ensconced in his corner office at Seahawks HQ in Seattle, so the guilty parties aren't facing any music at all.

The kids who are losing scholarships and their chance to earn a major bowl game should all bus over to the NCAA Main Office and leave big, steaming turds in the lobby.

[Stan4dSteph]

Play in the NCAA, play by their rules. You want to go pro and get paid, then go do that.

[scaeagles]

The only thing the NCAA can really do is punish the school. The school is ultimately responsible for the conduct of players and coaches. It discourages boosters from paying athletes because all it does it hurt the school for a lengthy period of time.

So with that said, I do not beleive that there is any problem with doing this to the school as long as the athletes are permitted to transfer if they wish to.

Also with that said, I believe that coaches should have an NCAA mandated clause in their contracts that should they move to a lucrative NFL job (or whatever professional sport), and the NCAA discovers infractions directly tracable to him or his staff, that the are responsible for a certain amount of monetary damages to the university.

[Morrigoon]

The NCAA did an investigation, and could not find any evidence that the school knew what was going on, so instead they charge the school with not being in control. In other words, they were hell bent to punish the school for SOMETHING, regardless of the evidence. I call shenanigans.