USC Punishment Officially Released
Per Forde:
2-year postseason ban, 30 lost schollies, four years probation. WIns vacated from '04 and '05. Kaboom.
UPDATE: with link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5272615
The NCAA said its findings included "a lack of institutional control, impermissible inducements, extra benefits, exceeding coach staff limits, and unethical conduct by an assistant football coach."
Ouch
Bring on Chris Galippo
goes the dynamite
Michigan does not win the 2004 Rose Bowl
Correct. However, the NCAA's ruling proves that we only lost because they cheated.... and no matter how bold, or rediculous, of a statement that is, I'd like to see a USC fan/alum argue otherwise
that any team in the past two years that UM beat could point to the NCAA ruling looming and say it demonstrates Michigan only won because they practiced more?
because i doubt you are.
I wouldn't mind if they erased the last two years
there weren't many teams that we beat the past two years.....
This also assumes that you can prove that Michigan would have beat USC if they didn't cheat.
+1 for the tagline in light of conference expansion talks
Or it forces USC fans to prove that it would have beat Michigan if it didn't cheat...
if I have to hear from bitchy Big 10 b-ball fans that UM's last, and only, conference tourney championship never happened... I can tell USC their 2004 Rose Bowl never happened.
Now I just have to meet people from USC...
Rose Bowl win will not be vacated as that was part of the 2003 season.
Ridiculous*
Was this a possibility? If it was, why did they decide not to make them vacate that bowl game?
OTL said that all the crap that happend, didn't happen until after that bowl game according to the report. Not sure how true it is, but thats what they're saying.
repeatedly. A vacated win does not go to the loser of said game.
Anyone who did try that is *really* stretching, since we didn't play USC in the Rose Bowl in the seasons that are vacated. We played USC in the Rose Bowl following the 2003 season, Texas in the Rose Bowl following 2004, played a game that never happened against Nebraska following 2005, and then USC in the Rose Bowl following 2006. The vacated seasons are '04 and '05.
..and womens tennis because some non American player spent 7 grand calling home...haha.
was it charged to the school? They lost 4 yrs of victories b/c of phone calls? Wow, that seems like the hammer to me.
over how much time? The 4 years?
Early reports are over 3 years, but probation on four. Some conflicting reports. Waiting on the 67 (!) page report.
From the report (link to report below):
9. Limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid and 75 total grants in football for each of the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years.
10. Limit of 12 grants-in-aid in men's basketball for 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years. (Institution imposed)
http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf
So wait...
My impression when I read this initially was
2011 - 75 Scholarship Players
2012 - 65 Scholarship Players
2013 - 55 Scholarship Players
But this actually means
2011 - 75
2012 - 75
2013 - 75
?
My understanding is that you're second scenario is correct. 75, 75, 75. I don't think it's really feasible to field a team with only 55 scholarship athletes. This is still a huge blow when you consider:
a) that's 10 4-5 star recruits for each of those three years that won't be on the field
b) it's going to be much harder to recruit kids to come to a school that's at such a big disadvantage to start.
I would expect recruiting to drop off pretty significantly when you take into account the post-season ban on top of this (see Tom VH's interview with Andre Youoaidfjlakjd on the right).
It's neither scenario one or two. The official cap on scholarships will stay at 75, but because of the 15 scholarship per year limit, if say 20 kids leave one year, they'll be down a net of five scholarships, in addition to the 75 limit.
Oh yeah, ok. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Not quite. While most schools can enroll 25 kids per recruiting class, for the next three years USC will only be able to enroll fifteen. If USC suffers a metric shit ton of turnover they will be stuck way way under 75.
The 10 lost schollies a year is big, but only being able to take 15 total per year is the real kick in the nuts here. I would think at least a few of those Juniors and Seniors will transfer, so without being able to take more than 15 in any given year, it is unlikey that they even reach 75 for the next couple of years. That yearly cap is the real killer. Could you imagine UM trying to rebuild our schollies after Lloyd left, but only being able to take 15 a year.
With Demar not being admitted, I guess the silver lining is that it opens up a spot to try and catch one of these potential transfers from USC. I'm a hopeless optimist I guess...
10 a year for 3 years. I think 2011, 2012, and 2013. Thats what OTL is reporting.
I didn't think there was a photo that described the amount of smiling I did today but that frog comes pretty close
this is the best news I've heard in what seems like a very long time
GameDay says they were very close to a TV ban, but chose not to. That's where you really hurt a modern day football program. It's too bad that didn't happen.
I just read the penalties section in the report and there are 2 big paragraphs describing how close the committee was to imposing a TV ban. Sounds like it was a VERY close decision.
http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf
I don't see where it says football scholarships are reduced by 30
I didn't either...
But I just saw it on Yahoo.
They said on OTL on ESPN that they lose 10 scholies in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Not in that ESPN report. It was probably written before everything was fully out so they could publish something at 3. It's on all the newspapers' twitters and what not. Damn kids and their rock and roll.
ESPN Quote
"The football team will lose 10 football scholarships annually from 2011-13."
It's hard to look at that picture knowing what the rest of your avatar looks like.
In my best Ricky Bobby voice, I'm harder than diamond in an ice storm.
Now this image is going to be stuck in my head for weeks.
That's a very attractive man.
Yet another reason to not feel sorry for them...
HELLO!!