NCAA Denies USC Appeal

[Anaxamander]

http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1225393

Quote:

Wednesday, according to multiple sources inside and outside the university, the final decision of the NCAA's Infractions Appeals Committee was in hand and being reviewed by USC before its Thursday release by the NCAA. And it's not good news for USC football. Despite speculation and media reports that there might be a willingness on the part of the NCAA to listen favorably to a USC appeal that had asked that the 30 scholarships lost over three years with a maximum of 75 allowed and a two-year postseason bowl ban be cut in half, USCFootball.com's sources indicate that USC's appeal has been denied completely.

[bkrich83]

So just to get this straight. Cam and his dad put his services up to the highest bidder and it's not an infraction. Reggie Bush's parents get money from a rogue agent 120 miles from campus and SC gets hit with a stiffer penalty than Bama did for an actual school sponsored pay for play scenario?

SC should get hit for failing to monitor no doubt. But the punishment should fit the crime. Going on past precedent this is far beyond. Someone on the infractions committee had an axe to grind. I'll give you a few tries to guess who.

Oh well. It's over. Time to move on.

[bostonsports]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

So just to get this straight. Cam and his dad put his services up to the highest bidder and it's not an infraction. Reggie Bush's parents get money from a rogue agent 120 miles from campus and SC gets hit with a stiffer penalty than Bama did for an actual school sponsored pay for play scenario? SC should get hit for failing to monitor no doubt. But the punishment should fit the crime. Going on past precedent this is far beyond. Someone on the infractions committee had an axe to grind. I'll give you a few tries to guess who. Oh well. It's over. Time to move on.

exactually, the thing that real makes me mad is the fact that usc doesnt have the same players, coaches, athletic director, students, anything except fans and they get hit with these huge penaltys. Fine the university tons of money, dont make the players who had nothing to do with it suffer.

[p_rushing]

Quote: Originally Posted by bostonsports

exactually, the thing that real makes me mad is the fact that usc doesnt have the same players, coaches, athletic director, students, anything except fans and they get hit with these huge penaltys. Fine the university tons of money, dont make the players who had nothing to do with it suffer.

This is the only reason that players should be paid. If they are paid, the schools can put clauses in the contract and get the money back if the players go to the NFL. If they don't go to the NFL, then good luck trying to get anything back.

[Bamafan3723]

Quote: Originally Posted by bostonsports

exactually, the thing that real makes me mad is the fact that usc doesnt have the same players, coaches, athletic director, students, anything except fans and they get hit with these huge penaltys. Fine the university tons of money, dont make the players who had nothing to do with it suffer.

That happens in every NCAA case though. When Bama got punished, players that had nothing to do with it had to suffer because of what others did. Same with SMU and countless others.

[bostonsports]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bamafan3723

That happens in every NCAA case though. When Bama got punished, players that had nothing to do with it had to suffer because of what others did. Same with SMU and countless others.

Ya I know, just imo the ncaa could do a better job ratting these guys out why they are still there, and the nfl imo needs to punish the players as well, thats the one thing that could stop this imo, if the ncaa and nfl came up with some sorta plan that that would suspend players responsible for a few games, and fine the players the same amount they got. But I dont think that will ever happen, and because of that colleges will keep on getting hit of unfair sanctions.

[dan_457]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

So just to get this straight. Cam and his dad put his services up to the highest bidder and it's not an infraction. Reggie Bush's parents get money from a rogue agent 120 miles from campus and SC gets hit with a stiffer penalty than Bama did for an actual school sponsored pay for play scenario? SC should get hit for failing to monitor no doubt. But the punishment should fit the crime. Going on past precedent this is far beyond. Someone on the infractions committee had an axe to grind. I'll give you a few tries to guess who. Oh well. It's over. Time to move on.

As much as I don't care for USC, I have to agree here. Worse things have happened with more lenient sanctions. The NCAA has no rhyme or reason as to how it hands out it's penalties. but we all already knew that much.

[franch1se]

I also want to know how the NCAA allowed the 5 at Ohio State to play in a bowl since it was "such a unique experience" when they were directly involved in scandal and still at the university but they won't allow the USC players to play in a bowl for something that happened when most of them were in middle or elementary school.

Also, to explain this quote "No precendents will be used to determine USC's appeal and USC's sanctions can't and won't be used as precendent towards future cases."

and also....**** Paul Dee