May 3, 2006
USC sanctions: "Moderate" - "Extremely serious jeopardy"
Is Pete Carroll whistling past the graveyard? Maybe. Jon Wilner says Trojans fans better prepare for the worst.
Let's play some USC-style Jeopardy.At stake: Bush's Heisman Trophy.
Status: Extremely serious jeopardy.
Reason: The Heisman ballot states that recipients must be in compliance with NCAA rules.
``We're doing some soul-searching ourselves right now,'' Rob Whalen, director of the Heisman Trophy Trust, told espn.com. ``To the best of my knowledge no one has ever had a Heisman Trophy revoked.''
At stake: USC's victories and Pac-10 title in 2005.
Status: Extremely serious jeopardy.
Reason: According to reports, the Griffins began renting Michael's house in the spring of '05. If they failed to pay market rate -- Michaels claims they paid no rent at all -- then the NCAA could rule that Bush was ineligible for the 2005 season.
At stake: USC's victories and Pac-10 title in 2004.
Status: Serious jeopardy.
Reason: According to a statement by Michaels' attorney Brian Watkins issued to Yahoo! Sports, Michaels gave the Griffins $28,000 to settle their debt.
An exact date is not given, but the letter indicates the transaction took place in the late fall. If true, the NCAA could rule that Bush was ineligible for part of the 2004 season and force the Trojans to forfeit games won after the payment was made.
At stake: USC's '04 national title.
Status: Serious jeopardy.
Reason: Only the Bowl Championship Series, which is operated by the major conference commissioners, has the authority to revoke its championship. It probably wouldn't look kindly on any title won with an ineligible player.
``Right now, the BCS isn't set up to deal with this kind of issue,'' BCS spokesman Charles Bloom said. ``But it will definitely be discussed in the near future.''
Translation: At their meetings in Half Moon Bay in June, the commissioners could rewrite BCS rules to allow them to revoke USC's championship.
At stake: Future scholarships, recruiting opportunities, postseason bids.
Status: Moderate jeopardy.
Reason: Should USC officials, including Carroll, have known about the Griffins' relationship with Michaels and New Era? If the Pac-10 or NCAA determines there was a ``lack of institutional control,'' then the football program could face recruiting and postseason sanctions.
Comments:
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on May 3, 2006 8:32 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Unless the PAC-10 and/or NCAA officials have that mind-erasing gizmo they used in the "Men In Black" movies and Zap the whole country with it, only the most ardent Auburn and Vince Young fans are gonna lobotimize their own minds (thats assuming the worst)... and maybe a few FUCLA and Domer fans too.
Tee said:
posted on May 4, 2006 5:20 PM — 68.125.132.81 — link — abuse?
USCLink - You're right. The baby bears get squat.
Clippers - Sanctions & forfeiture be damned, I don't think any true Ducks & Bears fans will ever raise the championship banner if it ever got that far. Not sure about the Aubies though. After all, their school newspaper already proclaimed them 2004 National Champs!
Looking forward to that Staples Center series this weekend. Go Lakers!
mark said:
posted on May 4, 2006 5:38 PM — 139.55.209.130 — link — abuse?
To all you trojan fans, if you dont have enough to worry about, the coliseum is going to turn red in september for the biggest husker celebration in cali history. You all will remember what a quaterback with morals and decent taste in women can do to you head cases. You will also get a taste of what the blackshirts can do to a freshman. GO HUSKERS!!!!
Husker Jim said:
posted on May 5, 2006 11:01 AM — 24.252.16.210 — link — abuse?
Could'nt agree with you more Mark.The Huskers will represent in L.A. on 9/16. I am in no way a USC fan, but I think Pete C. is one hell of a coach and hate to see this dynasty he has built up go through this smear campaign. Fan or no fan, I would not wish what the ncaa is going to bring down on USC on any program(except Miami and Colorado). If Mark Sanchez is innocent, the damage is done. Regardless of what happens the Husker nation arrives 9/16 and in the words of the husker back who although did'nt have the tremendous success of past backs epitomized husker ball, character, integrity, honor, hardwork, tenacity, oh and no felonies filed against him. " Day by day we get better and better 'til we can't be beat.....won't be beat!
mark said:
posted on May 5, 2006 6:53 PM — 139.55.209.130 — link — abuse?
trouty, the west coast offense requires a QB with experience. you will have a rookie, we have zac taylor who did nothing but impress me last year only to be better this year. not to mention defense, which the blackshirts will be ridiculous this year. honestly, should be a good game, but edge to the huskers. just ask mel kiper. GO HUSKERS!!!
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on May 5, 2006 8:30 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Mark the Huskers fan, first off only Turds refer to it as "Cali"... just so you know, but thats niether here nor there. USC-Nebraska is gonna be a good game. Itll serve as a great barometer for both teams, though USC will have played @ Arkansas by then (another good heat-check/matchup).
Nebraska should be one of the most improved Offenses in the country, right? Is that what the feeling is in Nebra' ?
Isn't Nebi's Offensive line your biggest concern? They didnt give too much help to the rushing game or protect their QB (Nebri my have been No.1 in Sacks but on the flip-side, they were No.105 in Sacks Allowed!
USC relative strength will be at Linebacker; elite crew, returning Captian, talent youngsters w/experience now, etc (which also might be Nebrasi's relative strength as well). I think Homefield is the difference in a tight defensive game... USC 24 - Nebi 17So Cal Clippers said:
posted on May 5, 2006 8:37 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Tee! What the Fugk is up with your LAKERS ?!
They gotta put it together - get passed ths SUNS.
For all of Phil Jackson's credentials, so-to-speak, he's just done a Baaaad job at play-calling & game-planning in trying to close out this series... up 3-1 and let it get to a game 7 ?!?!Having said that, he doesn have much at all surrounding Kobe Bryant; ya got Odom and then essentially a D-League team as a supporting cast.
Defensive Minded Nebraskan said:
posted on May 6, 2006 3:24 AM — 68.13.180.209 — link — abuse?
So Cal- I dont think any Husker fan needs to be reminded how bad our run game was last year... without it we almost beat Ttech, and would have beaten Oklahoma (i believe). Zach Taylor is underrated in my opinion... he has was it takes to be a pretty damn good NFL qb in my opinion... he's tough, he can scramble to create (not that much speed... but marino style) and he showed signs of having great touch in alot of games last year... add that in with all the injuries (and our RB being 5'6... a beefy 5'6, but no bruiser).. to get to the point, We lacked creativity last year... we were predictable, and as Trojan would say... Callahan was messing up the program like he did in Oakland. Now however, our 2 projected starting RB's may lack the swing pass that cory ross thrived on last year.. but i would stake my word that Callahans play calling along with the "tough" play implimented on both offense and defense this spring will vault the team back to dominence... maybe not this year, but it will be a huge stepping stone, if only we can get a QB with as much toughness as taylor when he is gone...
posted on May 9, 2006 2:18 PM — link — abuse?Jeff Quinton said:
A Nebraska fan lecturing USC fans on morals. I guess he forgot about Lawrence Phillips.
posted on May 9, 2006 8:09 PM — link — abuse?
#13,
First, I'm not #12, my name is on my post - just as your handle is on yours.Second, I couldn't care less about how many more criminals came from Westwood. I'm not a fan of theirs or really that interested in their program overall. I just found it ironic that the symbol of coddled criminal athletes in the whole decade of the 90s played for the school of a fan who was lecturing USC on their morals.
Defensive Minded Nebraskan said:
posted on May 10, 2006 1:53 AM — 68.13.180.209 — link — abuse?
#14 -- I agree that Nebraska has had a a handful of "trouble players" in the last what.. 15 years. But be reasonable, to say that Nebraska even compares to the corruption of MANY other schools is like saying a jalepenio is a habenero(sp?) just because it is spicy. Would you agree that no university is without foul at some point in the same 15 years. Remember, Nebraska holds NCAA records for Acedemic All Americans... and we have many new all americans going into the books every year. -Anthony Hansen
Chris said:
posted on May 10, 2006 10:31 AM — 204.137.64.101 — link — abuse?
Jeff, "the symbol of coddled criminal athletes in the whole decade of the 90s"?? bit of an exaggeration don't you think? no real husker fan would try to justify the scumbag that was lawrence phillips, but let's be honest that was ONE abberation among countless academic all americans and a program with decades and decades of honorable contribution to ncaa football. far more than most other d1 football programs. if you really want to talk about nebraska's legacy of the 90s, let's bring it!
Defensive Minded Nebraskan said:
posted on May 11, 2006 8:56 AM — 68.13.180.209 — link — abuse?
By the way... The Huskers OWNED everyone they played in the 90's if u came away with a win.. you were lucky, very lucky. Nebraska didn't have any talent (from a recruiting stand point) ever... what they had was a coach that knew that the option (if played right) is impossible to stop... also his uncanny ability to pick the plays at the right time. I know everyone instantly thinks about Tommy Frazier or Scott Frost making the Huskers great... but if anyone actually watched the games (most of the time at the stadium) they would know that it was the offensive line as well as the RB and especially the FB's that made it all work. The O-line did thier job and made it all look pretty, the QB had to read one guy... and pitch or cut back. The RB's got to the outside and looked for the ball... and the FB's either got the rock and got some punishing yards... or they acted like they had it and took the MLB and sometimes the safety out of the play. Sure it made for good stats for the QB... but it was really the opposing team fearing everyone, the QB least however... and Osboune would watch the scheme of the defense and use that to his advantage. Simple right? Army and West Virginia are still trying to figure it out however.. West Virginia's only problem is they NEED to commit to the triple option... and get the FB more involved getting 8 in the box... i know that QB can outrun a LB, he'll only get better with experience... Army just needs to choose what they are going to do... sometimes its option heavy, and sometimes its pass heavy (for a running team) i know that you have to attack the opposing teams weakness... but there is no weakness greater than the unexpected. -----now this is just a thought of mine... but to me it seems to work out (with a decent O-line) 4 reciever set... no TE's... no RB's.. no FB's... 2 QB's (one option QB, one pocket passer) put the pocket passer in shotgun formation... and the option qb off set behind the guard. Have 2 recievers on each side (on one side have the slot reciever close to the line... and reserve that spot for a reggie bush type player) imagine that and tell me how it would be defended... and before u say blitz heavy, remember the pocket passer in shotgun... and before u say 4-2-5 just imagine a reciever being taken out of the game and a FB lining up on the other side of the option QB--- I wonder if thats a legal formation? anyone know?
Gerald said:
posted on May 12, 2006 4:04 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
So Cal Clips and Tee:
"Lobotomize their minds"? What on earth are you guys talking about? USC DID NOT BEAT AUBURN IN 2004! SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND NO CASE THAT CAN BE MADE THAT USC WAS BETTER THAN AUBURN!
The Heisman? The same applies. If Reggie Bush was so great, why did Texas score more points despite Bush having better players around him (Leinart, White, Smith, Jarrett) than Vince Young around him?
At some point you USC fans will have to start acknowledging that there is more to being better than just having the media proclaim that you are. If media proclamations meant anything, you guys would have beaten Texas ...
USCLink said:
posted on May 12, 2006 4:47 PM — 66.215.140.48 — link — abuse?
Hey gerald, we didn't beat 106 teams in 2004. Does that mean there was no evidence we were better than them either? Utah went undefeated too. There is no evidence that Auburn was better than them. maybe we should share the title three ways? How does that sound?
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on May 15, 2006 9:40 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Gerald, in 1993 was it? and 1983 Auburn was named "National Champs" by at least a couple of Selections Organizations (ncaasports.com)... Auburn, in 2004 recieved NONE.
The Heisman? My vote was for Vince Young, and thats BEFORE the Rose Bowl (Ive said that for a long time).
The point is that re-issueing National Titles and Heisman Trophies from this is silly.So Cal Clippers said:
posted on May 15, 2006 9:56 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Gerald, the Media just recently got on USC's jock... but they've been Sucking on the SEC's "D" for a looong time -- most "Hyped" confernece.
Gerald, USC's been the best program in the last 4-year stretch; when are YOU gonna acknowlege that?!
USC "woulda beaten Texas" if any number of plays woulda gone the other way, if the ball bounced the other direction... It was THAT Close of a game. Texas brought their A-game, USC didnt... USC LOST. (even ignoring USC's injuries/missing critical players on Defense).Gerald if the Media meant anything, the SEC wouldnt have the 5th best record this past season
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
CT said:
posted on May 3, 2006 1:25 PM — 24.26.254.28 — link — abuse?Game forfeiturers are a serious possibility but anyone who thinks Bush will lose his Heisman Trophy doesn't understand the situation.
Informal polls, jersey sales, etc. show that Bush is still one of the most popular figures in all of sports. The Heisman Trust doesn't care about 'eligibility' really. It cares about its ESPN television contract and the respect it demands from college football fans. Which hurts those more? A popular but ineligible player keeping his trophy or taking a trophy away from a popular player. That is a no brainer, its a much bigger marketing misstep to try to take the trophy away.
It is hard to take Jon Wilner seriously for that point.