Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

June 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM

USC to appeal and more expansion rumors

The news is coming too fast to keep up, especially with trying to do some other things (like compile the stories for the paper).
But here are a few things to pass along:
— USC said in its official statement it will appeal some of the rulings in today’s NCAA
report, specifically those related to football. It didn’t say which ones, but obivously have to believe that the two-year bowl ban and the loss of 30 scholarships would be the ones the school would target. Paul Dee, the chair of the NCAA infractions committee, said in his teleconference that schools can appeal specific penalties and those are stayed while the appeal is in place — I guess meaning it’s possible USC could still be eligible for this season depending on how it plays out. But if a school loses the appeal, the penalties then just get pushed back. (UW faced this same conumdrum in 1994 when a group of players wanted to appeal to get the bowl ban for that season repealed, then ultimately decided not to).
— A TV station in Kansas City is reporting that Texas and Texas A&M may be looking at the Big Ten, and Oklahoma the SEC. However, others who have been better-sourced on this aren’t reporting that, so not sure I’d believe it yet. But this does reiterate the point that the addition of Colorado today doesn’t mean the Pac-16 is a done deal.
— To return to the USC case, the NCAA said today that the report does not cover the issue of players on the current roster who may want to transfer, so that was not addressed. I’ll pass along any solid info on that that comes across.
— To address the issue of vacated wins, all this means is that USC can no longer count the game as a win. It is not a forfeit, so that does not mean that UW gets credit for beating USC in 2005 now. I also assume this means that USC’s conference title for that year is simply vacated and not awarded to anyone else, but I’ll check further on that.
— UW got a two-year bowl ban in 1993 and 1994 and 20 scholarships lost over two years (and I don’t recall a set limit of total players on scholarship). The one difference would be the TV ban that UW got — limited to four games in 1995. The NCAA said it considered one in this case and that it is still a viable penalty. But for the most part, those haven’t been given out in years because they also harm other schools by limiting their exposure for their games, and costing the entire conference TV revenue, which in the Pac-10’s case is shared.
— As for why a two-year bowl ban, the NCAA said simply enough that was the number of bowl games Reggie Bush played in while ineligible.
— As for why it took so long, Dee said it was “extremely complicated,” noting that it involved three sports, and changed over time with the addition of basketball to the case a couple of years ago. He said the case record would be at least a yard high if laid on a table. Also noted the trouble of the NCAA not having subpeona power to call witnesses and that it relies on volunteers at member NCAA institutions to handle much of the committee work.
— The scholarship reduction doesn’t take place until the 2011-12 class. This wasn’t spefically addressed but was done likely because USC, like many other schools, is already well into recruiting for this year.
Ted Miller says that the most damning comment of today is that the NCAA felt that high-profile players demand high-profile compliance. Basically, it just felt USC wasn’t as serious about compliance as it needed to be.
— Miller also has a good instant analysis.
All for now.



No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►