USC Sanctions a Big Deal Too
Husker fans have got many months to chew on the implications and the future of Nebraska in the Big Ten. But to some degree, that made NU fans overlook the otherwise huge story at Southern Cal. There's been a lot of talk in recent years that the NCAA didn't have the stomach to truly punish big-time football programs (particularly in big markets) because the lost dollars would be too great. Which is why what USC received might be considered the maximum penalty in the modern NCAA for a number of rules violations and a lack of institutional control. USC's transgressions may well have been on par with SMU's in the early 1980's. But instead of the death penalty, USC gets a major rebuilding project.
To summarize the most major penalties, they include a two-year post-season ban and a loss of 30 scholarships over 3 years. Current players can transfer without having to sit out a year. They also vacate all football victories in 2005. This means they vacate the title they won by blowing out Oklahoma. You can bet some Sooners will start thumping their chest and claiming the title as their own. A more hollow title is hard to imagine.
If the Big 12 South (minus Baylor) truly becomes annexed by the Pac-10, this gives these teams a leg up competitively. Not only must the Trojans adapt to a new coaching staff, they'll do it with less talent. At best, they can't have an unhampered recruiting season until 2014. And the lesser classes they pull in (and likely transfer losses) over the next few seasons can impact the team as far into the future as 2017. Anyone who sees this as a slap on the wrist, should think again. Though it is fair to note that USC won't return any money they've made in the past ten years.
Oklahoma, Texas, (and the other current Pac-10 programs) can claim eight titles while USC rebuilds. That's why there will be some appeals by USC. Pete Carroll's pathetic Youtube speech did little to dissuade any non-USC fan from thinking the Trojans were innocent of the charges. If anything, his quick exit and arm's length statement would indicate the man has something to hide.
Now that Nebraska fans have a reason to think about the Rose Bowl, it will be interesting to see who gets their first. Nebraska or USC. If the Trojans had any head start, it's all but gone now.
6/14/2010
Interesting Nebraska-specific view on this, Steve.
I wonder if it will help NU in recruiting the West Coast now… they have done pretty well in CA and AZ recently.
The “race to the Rose Bowl” is interesting too. Hope NU wins that.
6/14/2010
I can see a lot of players on USC current and future rosters going to other teams but probably keeping it in the Pac 10. Oregon and UCLA would be my bet of who will be gaining some players. I don’t think OU or Texas benefits much because it sounds like they are staying in the big XII according to Darren’s article.
6/15/2010
Interesting post. I consider myself a dual-citizen when it comes to college football: I grew up in Southern California as a USC fan and live in Southern California now, but am a Nebraska alum. I follow both teams closely and am a passionate Husker and Trojan fan.
There is little doubt that the USC program was a little looser than it should have been with respect to oversight. Some penalty was in order. I anticipated vacating wins due to Bush’s ineligibility and a loss of some scholarships.
But I was shocked by the NCAA’s decision. I have read the transcripts and findings by the NCAA, and the case that USC knew about Bush’s ineligibility is remarkably weak. But even if USC knew about what transpired, the penalties are still grossly excessive.
Of the 7 teams in NCAA history to receive a two-year bowl ban, 6 involved cases in which school officials or boosters provided athletes with money and other incentives. The seventh is USC. WIth the rampant criminal activity that has taken place among athletes at Florida and Oregon, it is a sad state of affairs to say that USC would have been better off if Reggie Bush had stolen the items he was given rather than receiving them from an unscrupulous business man in exchange for the right to his prospective pro career.
My own opinion is that to a large extent, USC was a victim of its own success. Many in the college football community had grown tired of USC’s success on the football field and on the recruiting trail. The public outcry—-combined with the assumption that the NCAA wouldn’t be able to stand-up to USC—-prompted the NCAA to drop the hammer. In other words, the NCAA allowed popular frenzy to influence its decision.
Any serious of college football should be concerned about such populist decisionmaking by a body with so much control over the sport. The fact remains that if the NCAA can exact an excessive penalty against one school on a thin record of questionable credibility, it can do it to others. Fortunately, Nebraska has virtually unmatched integrity when it comes to athletics and I seriously doubt we are in jeopardy. Still, as a fan of college football, I am uncomfortable with the NCAA not only wielding so much power, but also showing that it can be influenced by the popular will.