dokken;385569 wrote:In terms of this thread, Alabama went through the same stuff almost. They turned it around but it took a little while.

dokken;385569 wrote:In terms of this thread, Alabama went through the same stuff almost. They turned it around but it took a little while.

Writerbuckeye;385677 wrote:They also had the advantage of being able to oversign lots of recruits (and then cut those who weren't good enough). That speeded up their return to prominence. USC doesn't have that luxury because the PAC 10 has ethics -- at least where oversigning is concerned.

ptown_trojans_1;385859 wrote:So, with the wins vacated, does that include the National Title too? Does Oklahoma get it, or is like it never happened?

ptown_trojans_1;385859 wrote:Damn. I'm not a USC fan, but I'm leaning this may be a little too harsh.

enigmaax;385235 wrote:The only thing I don't get is the forfeiting of wins/titles. Why does it matter? People aren't going to forget who won on the field and the fact that he was already at USC and some agent decided to give him money had no impact on the outcome of those games.

centralbucksfan;385503 wrote:Dude, if you don't think this won't affect USC future, your drinking some strong koolaide. It certainly will. Loss of 20 scholarships and 2yr bowl ban will affect the next few years of recruiting significantly. Not only that, they have another "shadey" coach running the program. Its going to set USC back a number of years, no question about that.
And do your research...after John Robinson left, the first time...USC was pretty insignificant, and had a couple losing seasons as well.

enigmaax;385235 wrote:The only thing I don't get is the forfeiting of wins/titles. Why does it matter? People aren't going to forget who won on the field and the fact that he was already at USC and some agent decided to give him money had no impact on the outcome of those games. It isn't like his parents house made him a better football player. If the BCS takes away the title, is everyone suddenly going to talk about that year being the year there was no title game?

The postseason ban and scholarships is way more important than trying to rewrite history.

sjmvsfscs08;385895 wrote:I think the real question is can I finally forget about this?

Jughead;386049 wrote:Ask Southern Methodist University if this is too harsh.


You are right. Why does it matter? USC and their faithful will still claim the National Championship regardless, just like they do with the AP title from the year before.

dwccrew;386410 wrote:
You are correct, the house Bush's parents lived in did not effect the outcome of the games, but the fact that he they were given the house and whatever else Bush was given may have effected the outcome of what school he went to. Therefore, the wins should be vacated IMHO.

newarkcatholicfan;386460 wrote:Got off way too easy.

enigmaax;385701 wrote:Name one player for Alabama who wasn't "good enough" and thus, was cut to give the scholarship to someone else. Didn't happen.

Writerbuckeye;386667 wrote:I'll do better than that. Here's a running review for Alabama, including names of players who have been "let go" because the school was over the number and had to pare it down by the time the fall deadline arrived.

http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/tag/alabama/

krambman;386512 wrote:The more I think about it the more it seems to me to be a bit harsh. Had multiple players on the football team received improper benefits, then I think this would have been a fair punishment. However, Reggie Bush is the only player named in the report. I have a hard time justifying the NCAA handing the program these types of sanctions for the actions of one player. I agree with everything but the bowl ban, I think it should only be one year.

Also, I really hate the way that all of these sanctions are done (not just with USC but any NCAA sanctions) because it hurts the kids who had nothing to do with the violations the most. The guys who are freshmen at USC now were in middle school when all of this was going on. They are being punished for something they had nothing to do with and they didn't know that this would happen while they were there (yes, they knew the school was under investigation, but that's all). I'd prefer that the bowl ban not happen for five years, that way all current players have the opportunity to play in bowl games their entire time at USC like they thought they would. That way all future recruits would be committing knowing that they would be kept out of bowl games two years in a row. That seems far more fair to me.