Sanctions against USC announced today, holy shit…
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Sanctions against USC announced today, holy shit…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/06/10/DI2010061001870.html[/quote]
I saw that too. That is pretty rough. The 20 scholarship penalty is the ball breaker. Who cares about the vacated wins or even a ban from post season. If that had been the extent, that would not effect recruiting and feeding the “machine”, but a scholarship reduction like that will be tough to recover from.
^^The sanctions wont actually be announced till today at 3 o clock.
.greg.
[quote]gregron wrote:
^^The sanctions wont actually be announced till today at 3 o clock.
.greg.[/quote]
Eastern or Western
Everyone’s so down on the bottom 85% of the Big 12, but I’d take Kansas into the Big Ten. These conferences are going to be playing basketball too…
[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
Everyone’s so down on the bottom 85% of the Big 12, but I’d take Kansas into the Big Ten. These conferences are going to be playing basketball too…[/quote]
Smart man.
JUST IN: Colorado is in the Pac-10 now. My opinion is that the other 5 Big 12 schools will follow creating PAC-10 South. Baylor, Missouri, KSU, KU, IW ST are looking for suitors.
What a strange period in college sports. I don’t remember the SWC dissolving but I would have to think this is very similar but add some HGH.
Oh, and USC is screwed. They got hit with a bunch of violations from the Reggie Bush era with at least no post season play for 2 year - 20 scholarships and more… damn USC step aside.
I honestly dont think those sanctions are going to be that big of a deal. I mean it really sucks for the players that are already there but its not going to really affect the incoming classes (exepct for the lack of scholarships)
I also think its bullshit that they are punishing the program/current players there when it was the coaching staff, AD and school pres that should be held accountable. It shouldnt be the players who are there now who werent even in highschool when all of these violations happened. Thats horse shit IMO.
its also bullshit cause they couldn’t actually prove the Bush allegations so they just said “it was a lack of institutional control.” saying that they didnt know about it but they should have so they’re punishing them. Pretty weak IMO.
But I think players go to USC not to win bowl games but to eventually get to the NFL which lack of bowl games for two years wont affect.
.greg.
I want to see what USC will do now, and I mean the current team. When I was there, right about now Willie McGinest would have called a players only meeting in the locker room, and personally challenged every man on the team to step up. This is what I am hoping will happen now. Any guys who were around when this Reggie Bush mess happened are seniors most likely by now, so the current team is new. This is the time where leaders need to come forward and lead the team. For any of you who like to be backseat drivers, just remember, you can’t drive the car from the backseat.
If USC was smart, they would use this to their advantage. Personally I love being against the wall, because you have nowhere else to go but forward, kicking ass and taking names. A lot of these guys have been coddled once they get to college, they forgot what it means to hustle and bust ass like they did in high school.
^^yeah I hear you. I dont think there is even one player on the team from the Reggie Bush season because that was 2004. USC will appeal the NCAA’s sanctions so who knows if all of their imposed sanctions will actually stick or if after the appeal they will drop some of it or not? It’ll definitely be interesting to see what happens. What if they just kick the bucket this season and just tank cause “theres nothing to play for” or if they come out and dominate going 10-0 and not getting a bowl game but there are no other undefeated teams. What if they just smashed everyone and the AP gave them the AP National Championship… That would be some crazy NCAA drama. I love college football and with all the conference shake ups and this sanctioning thing it is definitely going to lead to an interesting season.
.greg.
I want those kids to stand up and play ball, no matter what happens with the sanctions, because its the right thing to do. Those kids can make a statement and say, “you can do whatever you want, but we handle shit on the field.” Whether they win or lose, I will be impressed if they decide to do that.
Yeah I hear ya. I wonder what will happen if USC wins the Pac10. Theres no sanctions against that… If they win it will the Rose Bowl take the second place team or will they take an at large bid? That could make for an interesting bowl game if they get some at large bid against Ohio State. Maybe a SEC team so OSU can get smashed again.
.greg.
Here’s my guess on how the rest of this will shake out:
Nebraska goes to the Big 10
Texas, A&M, Tech, OU, and OSU make the move to the PAC 10 with Colorado
KU, K State, and Mizzou go to the Moutain west
ISU goes to either the MAC or possibly the WAC
Baylor goes to one of the above conferences ISU doesn’t end up at
who gives a shit!!! none of this matters to me. USC is out for two years. I’ll give you my take in 2012.
I think USC will do surprisingly well. Those who think that suddenly SC has nothing to play for forget one very important detail. SC is one of the best football factories out there in terms of getting players drafted. While the bowl ban may diminish visibility, players know that they still have 13 games this season to showcase their talent. If you think that the nfl will suddenly lose interest in SC players and therefore not scout them, you’re crazy.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]silverblood wrote:
this has been floating around for a while. the SEC has been fairly quiet about it but has talked to a few Big 12 programs. it seems that Texas and Oklahoma don’t want any part of the SEC. [/quote]
I don’t think it had much to do with Texas and OU not wanting to be in the SEC. Everything I have heard/read has said that the SEC wanted to expand east, by inviting programs like Miami.
Initially, DeLoss Dodds and Joe Castiglione at least said publicly that they wanted to keep the Big 12 together, but it all depended on Tom Osborne and Nebraska.
[/quote]
the SEC wants to expand into the TEX/OKL market. that’s why TCU has been mentioned also. the SEC already has a market in Fla.
around here in SEC/ACC country a lot of people feel that Texas and Oklahoma want to go to a conference that won’t give them the wars the SEC will give them. the Pac 10 is no slouch but currently I feel the SEC is the best top to bottom in football.
if we can’t get Texas or Oklahoma I would really like to get TCU, VaTech, WVU and either Clemson or UNC. I can’t see UNC leaving the ACC because of basketball. these teams would give us a foothold in the Texas, VA, WVa, and DC markets.
TCU has plans to expand their stadium in 2011 and a neutral site game between TCU and LSU, Bama, Ark, or Auburn at the Cotton Bowl would be great. could even have a game like the opening of the season Kickoff Classic in the Georgia Dome between the SEC and ACC(this season it’s UNC vs LSU). have a Pac 16 vs SEC opener. who wants TV rights for Oklahoma vs Florida, USC Vs Alabama, Oregon vs Georgia, or the old rivalry Texas vs Arkansas?
I think Nebraska, Missouri, and Notre Dame are going to the Big 10 and the Mich/OSt game won’t have the meaning it used to. it will still be a great rivalry but it won’t be the deciding game it was. I think some of the new big games will be Iowa vs Nebraska, Penn St vs Notre Dame, and Ohio St vs Nebraska.
it will be interesting to see what happens.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Then again, I’m bias because I’m not a big fan of the whole “Big offense/Passable defense” thing B12 has going.
[/quote]
You are biased and ill informed. OU and Texas regularly put good to great defenses out on the field every season. This past season both programs had really good defenses. It wasn’t that long ago that Nebraska had the Black Shirts cutting peoples’s heads off. Kansas State, up until Coach Snyder left (2004?), had some good defenses as well.
I didn’t intend to come off as a douche in this thread, so I apologize if I did.[/quote]
I do believe I also gave OU and UT the respect they deserve. Two teams with great defenses do not encompass an entire conference… sans Nebraska of '09.
As a Texas fan personally I would rather see them go to the SEC. Cant get real respect until you battle it out in the best conference. Also like to see the 4 big super conferences. Then maybe in my lifetime there will be a playoff system.
[quote]silverblood wrote:
or the old rivalry Texas vs Arkansas?
[/quote]
The A&M v. Arkansas rivalry has been started back up in the Cowboys new stadium.
I agree with the four major conferences - though each would have subconferences, so not much would be that new. But it does set up the possibility of playoffs. If you take the four conference winners put them in two bowl games, then the winners play = champion. It adds one game to the season - which could be played in the same length season. All the conferences would need to start the same week, end at the end/first week of Dec. Conf. champions, the next week. Bowls over the holiday break. Championship week before classes start. Done.
Nevermind, that makes too much sense therefore it will never happen.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
As a Texas fan personally I would rather see them go to the SEC. Cant get real respect until you battle it out in the best conference. Also like to see the 4 big super conferences. Then maybe in my lifetime there will be a playoff system. [/quote]
you don’t think having all of the projected big 12 schools (including Texas) joining the Pac10 would bring them respect? They would be the first super conference and would without a doubt be the number 2 conference and would rival the SEC (which all the media constantly sucks off) for best conference.
If I was a Texas fan I WOULD NOT want to join the SEC. With having Texas, OU, Alabama and Florida all in the same conference it would only all allow one of those teams to play for the NC and probably 2 to get BCS Games… You could be a one loss team from that conference and possibly not get a BCS game… that would blow
.greg.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]silverblood wrote:
or the old rivalry Texas vs Arkansas?
[/quote]
The A&M v. Arkansas rivalry has been started back up in the Cowboys new stadium.
I agree with the four major conferences - though each would have subconferences, so not much would be that new. But it does set up the possibility of playoffs. If you take the four conference winners put them in two bowl games, then the winners play = champion. It adds one game to the season - which could be played in the same length season. All the conferences would need to start the same week, end at the end/first week of Dec. Conf. champions, the next week. Bowls over the holiday break. Championship week before classes start. Done.
Nevermind, that makes too much sense therefore it will never happen.[/quote]
yeah the +1 thing sounds good but the crappy part is when you have these huge conferences not every team plays one another. Like my previous post said you could possibly be a 1 loss team and lose the tie breaker in your conference. You could have the same record as the team who wins the conference but not have the tie breaker (kinda like what happened with Texas Tech, Texas and OU a couple years ago) and not even have the chance to play for the conf championship
.greg.