poor, poor van

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:21 am

damn, son, how many years did you pull this act re: sc and reggie bush?

allow me to be the first:

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:34 am

In Van's defense, he stradled the fence pretty well in that he said if nothing happens to U$C, he has Bode and if something happens to U$C, he has HaytaBode. He may have had his head in the sand all these years, but he damn sure well knew how to cover his bases. I'll give him credit for that.

That being said, there was many a nasty remark he laid my way on my disdain for what happened at U$C. I expect to hear more of the same from him rather than manning up.

Of course, Marty ran him. Or maybe it was Wags. poptart will agree, but is jealous.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:45 am

He's close to being run. I'm trying to reel him back in.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:50 am

i remember something along the lines of "if there's a smoking gun then why hasn't the ncaa done anything about it?" the fence sitting wasn't until news of an infractions hearing (finally!) started making the rounds. both of these generally pre-empted "we're sc and you're irrelevant."

regardless of how well my memory serves me:

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:56 am

M Club wrote:i remember something along the lines of "if there's a smoking gun then why hasn't the ncaa done anything about it?"

Yes, I remember that and many other defenses. Doe not matter. Van is a fan, a good one I admit. He's not good at objectivity. And when he unretires again, he will continue his defense tooth and nail.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:22 am

So may we now put to bed everyone's contention here that the NCAA won't come down hard on their marquee programs? All that continual bleating from the Usual Suspects on this board and all across the interwebs whining about the NCAA always protecting their cash cows? How'd that work out?

As you may well imagine, I'm thoroughly disgusted at the severity of this penalty, which far exceeds the crime. This was strictly pandering to the pitchfork wielding mob. The NCAA knew they were being accused of protecting the OUs, USCs and Bamas of the world - funny how they've managed to hit all three recently, despite their supposed unwillingness to do so - and their response was to give the people what they want.

They went way overboard with this penalty.

Oh well. USC will appeal, they'll lose the appeal, and the acts of a single player and a dirtbag agent six years ago will serve to trash a program for a bunch of kids who weren't even in high school when Reggie played for USC.

I honestly don't know the answer as to how the NCAA might best penalize teams for things committed years ago by people who are no longer even a part of the program. Obviously the best answer would be not to take six years to bring penalties, so that the main players might at least suffer the pain. Killing today's kids for the sins of their distant predecessors just seems insane.

Anyway, so now it's back to the shitter for USC. Make hay while the sun shines, Pac Whatever. USC will be back in, oh, 2020 or thereabouts.

One thing's for certain: We know that while USC is down neither Auburn nor Michigan will be picking up the slack. Though USC will now become irrelevant for probably a decent while, at least they'll have plenty of company in Auburn and Ann Arbor.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:30 am

Van,

I'd say way to sack up....but you didn't.

As for punishing the kids of today for the sins of yesterday? It not's about the kids but the institution. I agree with you this should have happened LONG ago. Actually, you don't think it should have happened at all, but you saying if it were to happen it should have happened long ago I agree with as well.

No matter...you can call those of us WHO WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG the "usual suspects" but you'd be better off saying "yeah, busted. hope we recover soon." It may work out better for you.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:32 am

Van wrote:One thing's for certain: We know that while USC is down neither Auburn nor Michigan will be picking up the slack. Though USC will now become irrelevant for probably a decent while, at least they'll have plenty of company in Auburn and Ann Arbor.

Don't forget ND.

Way to go down swinging, Van. Seriously.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:36 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:Way to go down swinging, Van. Seriously.

Well, shutyomouth and M Club are the only two who called him out by name. Hence, the Van comments towards them. Had I said something earlier, he would have lumped A&M's woes in with theirs.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:33 am

Van wrote: Oh well. USC will appeal, they'll lose the appeal, and the acts of a single player and a dirtbag agent six years ago will serve to trash a program for a bunch of kids who weren't even in high school when Reggie played for USC.

quite articulate for someone with his head still in the sand. this wasn't a single player and a dirtbag agent; it was the permissive environment fomented by sc the institution that practically begged for something major like this to happen. oh, how was pete supposed to notice his star player driving his tricked-out ride to his impoverished family's new palace? i don't know, why'd the exact same thing happen with the school's basketball team? (it's not like there's anything in the report about an actual football coach with actual knowledge of his relationship with the dirtbag lawyer, right?) i wonder what happens if the ncaa decides to pursue the joe mcknight angle.

as for those bunch of kids, i suppose they can just transfer, non? maybe michigan or auburn will pick a few of them off. if they come to ann arbor they'll have to stretch for 15 minutes extra, though.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:34 am

Screw_Michigan wrote:[

Don't forget ND.

Way to go down swinging, Van. Seriously.

oh look, the board vag found someone to hitch his trailer to.

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:41 am

IndyFrisco wrote: As for punishing the kids of today for the sins of yesterday? It not's about the kids but the institution. I agree with you this should have happened LONG ago. Actually, you don't think it should have happened at all, but you saying if it were to happen it should have happened long ago I agree with as well.

I'm not shedding any tears over 'SC, but you won't find me dancing on their grave either. To be honest, I do believe the punishment didn't need to be as severe, though punishment was warranted.

With that said, I'm not really one to buy the "don't punish the kids" line of thinking either, and particularly in this instance.

It's been pretty clear that USC was going to get some sanctions for a few years now. So don't blame the NCAA, blame guys like Carrol and Kiffin that have publicly stated, and privately promised, these kids that no sanctions were coming.

Yeah, I know, "what do you expect them to say to recruits", but the fact remains they lied (are lying) through their teeth to get the kids to come.

Ordinarily, I would probably be happier about this, as there is no team in the (current)Pac-10 that this helps more than Oregon in the immediate future, but after the past few years, I was beginning to really enjoy the back and forth with USC, and I'm not sure we needed them to get smacked down to be right there with them for a few more yaers. I'd rather USC was stayed there, and I'm hoping that UCLA and Washington aren't able to capitalize on things.

Fortunately, if the Pac-16 becomes a reality, the USC "wealth" will get spread around so thin that those 2 aren't able to.

If there was any doubt before (and there was little) that the Kiffin era was not going to be a success, there isn't any now. The only question now is how many years do they give them, post-sanctions, to turn things around. They'd can him after year one, post sanctions, if they are smart. Fair or not, sanctions or not, you can't let a coach have too many down years in a row.

Van isn't totally incorrect about the NCAA giving in to the "angry mob", but what is really amazing is that things actually played out exactly as everybody could see them developing years ago. The NCAA painted themselves into a corner a long time ago, and the longer they took, the more severe the sanctions had to be, for them to be taken seriously. And THAT's why the sanctions should have come down a long time ago.

Honestly, its like Chip Kelly with Masoli. Masoli should have gotten the boot in January. You can't let him hang around the program, can't drag things out and make you look foolish. Kelly's still a new coach. He'll learn. Doubt the NCAA will.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:43 am

Indy, what do you want me to say? That you were right? You weren't right. You were one of the main people who always posted the cartoon of the NCAA sweeping everything under the rug. Most of the people here were predicting that the NCAA would never come down hard on USC, simply because they're USC.

Obviously you were wrong about that, and I was right, since I said the fact that the NCAA came down on Bama and OU (and USC in '01) was proof that they don't avoid going after the big programs.

The fact that it took them six freaking years to come out with their findings, yeah, of course it led any reasonable person to believe that there was a lot more smoke than fire where the Reggie story was concerned.

Is Reggie guilty of the charges against him? Is that what you want me to admit? Okay, fine. As far as we know, yes, he is, at least in the eyes of the NCAA, and those are the only ones that matter. My own opinion is that yeah, he did what he's accused of doing. I've always had that opinion, same as I always believed that Brian Cushing and countless others used HGH.

Once again, I never said he didn't do any of the things of which he was accused. You will find no quotes from me denying that he did those things. What you will find are quotes from me saying, "Innocent until proven guilty." That's always my take, whether it's Reggie, Roethlisberger or anyone else. I also said that Reggie's personal actions with an agent are not crimes on the level of cheating to acquire a player or keep him eligible. I still feel that way, and I definitely feel that the penalties are not commensurate with the crime. My overriding feeling is that the NCAA is coming down on them this hard simply to make an example of them, and to mollify all the rabid witchhunters who were screaming for Trojan blood.

No matter. Other than for the soon-to-fail appeals process, it's a done deal now. Enjoy your time with USC out of the picture. Despite the brave face Kiffin and others connected to the program are trying to show now, I'm thinking this thing is going to get ugly, and it's going to stay ugly for a long time. If the Big XII South big boys do in fact join the Pac 10, they couldn't have chosen a better time. The conference is ripe for the picking.

I wouldn't expect USC to return to national relevancy until the end of this decade.

This is awful, ridiculous, disgusting...yet it's reality, so I get to live with it. The people for whom it really sucks are the current players, who just got royally screwed.

I'm wondering if Reggie will ever be welcomed back in any official capacity to USC? Is he going to be O.J.'d forever? Shit, he just hurt them far worse than O.J. ever did.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:50 am

M Club, from the report I watched today, the players who are currently signed up for USC - even those guys who've only attended summer school - have very limited and really unattractive prospects for transferring. They certainly will have to sit out a year, which is just ridiculous.

The players should have the same freedom as the coaches, who can up and move from school to school at the drop of a hat without any forced waiting period.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:00 am

oh, i thought i read something where transfers in these situations are allowed without players having to sit out the year. maybe that's only for upperclassmen. if not the case then it seems usc should be able to weather this much better than most other teams would considering the talent they have stock-piled.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:17 am

Well, three straight recruiting classes of only 10-ish scholarship athletes will put a large dent in that talent pool. USC normally doesn't go the Bama/Florida route of signing 30-plus players each year. They tend to come in at right around 20. Cut that in half three years running, and you're going to be in trouble.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:58 am

i know they're going to be in trouble; was just saying they're probably in a position to weather this much better than anyone else. you know, remain halfway competitive for the next couple years as opposed to hitting the tank. and if they're only signing 20 a year then it's like they're only giving up five schollies instead of ten.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:09 pm

Lane Kiffen as USC head coach will do far more damage than the NCAA penalties.

Maybe he is to USC what Mike Shula was for bama while they were on probation...a "temp" until the coast is clear for a big-name coarch.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:18 pm

Someone on the radio this morning suggested that Kiffin have all of his top underclassmen go on two-year Mormon missions. They return with no lost eligibility, and voilà, instant powerhouse in 2012.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:30 pm

I like it! 'Mormons' rolling up on Dubs!

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:21 pm

Van wrote:Indy, what do you want me to say? That you were right? You weren't right.

blah blah blah

Look back at my posts. I always contended that I would believe it when I see it.

Good on the NCAA. Call it a witch hunt all you want, "victim." I never gave two shits about U$C either way until they got busted. At that point, I felt they should be dealt with, and I am glad they were. As an alum and fan of a school who has been punished before for cheating, I feel it is only fair everyone is treated the same.

Case closed.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:36 pm

Except everyone wasn't treated "the same." This punishment goes well beyond the crimes, and well beyond other NCAA sanctions handed down to other programs. This was driven by an agenda.

And what "you always contended" was that the NCAA was intentionally sweeping this under the rug because it was U$C. Backpedal all you want, but that's what you posted.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:39 pm

Van wrote: This was driven by an agenda.

That and "Lack of Institutional Control".

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:47 pm

Which was never proven, and which couldn't be proven by a single incident involving only one player and an agent. A lack of institutional control would indicate a widespread disregard for a series of incidents.

This was about Reggie Bush and an agent, and it was really about the NCAA's opportunity to make themselves look good to the raucous mob by taking down USC. Clearly, the NCAA was far more interested in that proposition than any worries about taking down one of their gravy train programs, which is what most everyone here was claiming.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:07 pm

There is a 67 page report of the findings. While you do not see an athletic program as one program, the rest of the world, including the NCAA, does. I have not read the whole report, but from one source I read from that report Bush's RB coach knew of the violations, but did not report them. Mayo, Jarrett, McKnight...there is probably more in the report. I don't have my hands on it. Ultimately, it was lack of institutional control which I have been saying all along.

I have also said that if U$C gets anything more than vacated wins and losing 5 schollies, which I considered to be a slap on the wrist, I'd be shocked. Yes, I'm shocked the NCAA came down on $C as hard as they did. I didn't think they had the balls to do it, so that's why I said good on them. From your chair, I understand the frustration, but this is far from the death penalty. It'll sting for about 5 years.

No one predicted the NCAA would bring the hammer. No one was "right." Why you get so hung up on who is right and who is wrong is beyond me. What you should be hung up on is why $C did what they did (harboring an environment where this can happen) and what they didn't do (blow the whistle when they knew about it). $C only self-imposed the basketball sanctions once busted. Petey "Cut and Run" Carroll wasn't about to do that.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:08 pm

Van wrote:Which was never proven, and which couldn't be proven by a single incident involving only one player and an agent. A lack of institutional control would indicate a widespread disregard for a series of incidents.

This was about Reggie Bush and an agent, and it was really about the NCAA's opportunity to make themselves look good to the raucous mob by taking down USC. Clearly, the NCAA was far more interested in that proposition than any worries about taking down one of their gravy train programs, which is what most everyone here was claiming.

So was Reggie a three sport star? Cuz I read that the infractions occured in three sports.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:13 pm

Bedtime reading....

http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/10061 ... alties.pdf

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:41 pm

So how long do you guys figure USC will be down, and how far is down in this case?

.500? 4-8? 9-3? Getting their asses stomped by the good teams, to the point that they won't even be competitive agaisnt top-flight competition?

I'm thinking 7-5 in 2010, with a 4-4 conference record plus a loss OOC either at Minnesota or at home to ND. In general, 8-4, 7-5 is about where I expect to see them for the next two seasons, then something really bad in 2012; something along the lines of .500 or below.

After around the third season, Kiffin will be let go, then his successor will inherit a relatively empty cupboard. He'll struggle as well, and it won't be until his successor arrives that USC will begin their recovery, which will be somewhere around 2017. 2019 or 2020 is when I figure they'll be back in title contention.

Note: M Club, I just saw a report on USC, and your info was correct. The current juniors and seniors will be allowed to transfer immediately without needing permission from USC to be released. Incoming freshman will have to request their release at USC's discretion.

They didn't mention anything about those juniors and seniors having to sit out a year before being eligible to play elsewhere, so now I'm unsure on that one. The report I saw yesterday said that they would still have to sit out, but this report I just saw seemed to indicate that there wouldn't be anything preventing those juniors and seniors from playing elsewhere right away.

I can't see why the NCAA is limiting the freshmen. They should be allowed to transfer without needing USC's blessing, same as the upper classmen.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:49 pm

You think Van has it bad? How would you like to be Clay Matthews haveing to deal with Aaron Rodgers' tweets?

Aaron Rodgers wrote:"Looking forward to getting my PAC-10 championship ring from the '04 season. Thanks @claymatthews52 ''

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.d ... d=blogDest

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:51 pm

At this point, I'll just say "it depends" on their future. Juniors and Seniors are allowed to transfer without sitting a year. Depending on who and how many, I'd say 2010 could be a losing season starting mostly Freshman and Sophomores and Juniors/Seniors who were probably backups. Year 2 could be as bad or worse. Year 3 back around .500. Year 4 and 5 competitive. Year 6-7 back in the running for conference championships.

Also, consider if the XII teams move into the conference. If $C has to compete against t.u., OU, A&M, etc., it may be a loger road back to the top.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:51 pm

B, that's the only way anyone from Cal ever will get one, too!

Note: ESPN is reporting that Boise St just switched to the MWC. It's about time.

Indy, I don't know, but if I'm a senior at USC I'd be less inclined to transfer than if I were a freshman. An incoming freshman is looking at sheer ass for his career at USC, and he's still in a position to rewrite his future. A senior? It'd be difficult for a senior to transfer to anywhere worth a shit at this late date and still receive playing time. He'd be way too behind the eight ball in terms of spring workouts, learning the system, earning his spot, etc.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Van wrote:Note: ESPN is reporting that Boise St just switched to the MWC. It's about time.

Just saw that. Good for them. I'm thinking the Mountain West should be eligible for a BCS auto-bid with this move.

As for the senior, that's why I said "it depends." We'll just ave to see what, if any, moves are made. I do think ANY player should have the option to transfer without penalty though. Should be all or none.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:26 pm

M Club wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:[

Don't forget ND.

Way to go down swinging, Van. Seriously.
oh look, the board vag found someone to hitch his trailer to.

Don't take your program's irrelevancy out on me, bitch.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:29 pm

From some things I've read, MichiganFan should be pretty worried. Their comeuppance is in August I believe. While their violations weren't this bad, sounds like the NCAA is going to be making examples this year.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:00 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:From some things I've read, MichiganFan should be pretty worried. Their comeuppance is in August I believe. While their violations weren't this bad, sounds like the NCAA is going to be making examples this year.

I think the big difference will be the fact that Michigan can say "as soon as this came to light (Freep articles), we launched an internal investigation that led to self-induced restrictions."

When this started coming out about USC (Yahoo article), they responded with

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:11 pm

Very true, K. And the fact $C basketball did not get additional sanctions other than the self-imposed ones may be because they punished themselves.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:29 pm

Jsc, look how long it took Alabama and Miami to recover from their scandals. 10 years might be slightly pessimistic, but I think Van is closer to being right than most people realize.

People can argue that the NCAA was too harsh, wasn't harsh enough or were just in their sanctions. The shocker was the amount of scholarships that were taken away. Vacating wins does nothing, stripping trophy's does nothing. We still know who won the games and the awards. I think the post season ban is the thing that is really bullshit. Yes, you are penalizing the school, but you are also penalizing kids who weren't there. So while vacating wins is largely a symbolic gesture, I understand that. Punishing the current team, I don't. The loss of scholarships hurts the school without hurting the current players.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:32 pm

So, it's not against the rules to allow for open practices. It's not against the rules for agents to be present. They just can't tamper with the players.

That being said, will $C do more of the same or will they lock the shit down?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:58 pm

M Club wrote:oh, i thought i read something where transfers in these situations are allowed without players having to sit out the year. maybe that's only for upperclassmen.

Yeah, and apparently this only applies if they transfer to a school outside of the Pac 10.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:06 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:So, it's not against the rules to allow for open practices. It's not against the rules for agents to be present. They just can't tamper with the players.

That being said, will $C do more of the same or will they lock the shit down?

Part of the sanctions was that they can't have the likes of Snoop, Will Farrell, et. all running around the practice field.