Poll on Proposed Penalties for USC

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Most of us have seen the violations and proposed penalties recommended/outlined by USC to the NCAA against the USC football program. The State newspaper is running a poll similar to this one and I thought it would be interesting to see what you believe. Try to be objective. With regards to the recommended penalties, vote on the following:

1. The penalties are too harsh.
2. The penalties are right on target.
3. The penalties are not harsh enough.

Just in case you haven't seen the proposed penalties recommended by USC, they are below (taken from the summary disposition report). There were no Bowl bans or TV restrictions mentioned.

1. A two-year period of probation effective with the date of the submission of the summary disposition report.

2. A limitation of 50 on the number of permissible expense-paid campus visits in the sport of football for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 recruiting periods. This represents a reduction of six (or slightly more than 10 percent) from the legislatively allowed maximum of 56 per year, and a reduction of three (or more than five percent) from the average number of 53 expense-paid visits used by the football program and its former coaching staff for the past four recruiting years.

3. A limitation of two fewer total financial aid awards than otherwise permitted by NCAA legislation for both the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years.

4. There were also disciplinary actions/reprimands/admonishments outlined for several folks affiliated with the Gamecock football program (Tom Perry, Clyde Wrenn, Lou Holtz, Paul Lounsberry, and Pat Moorer).

The entire summary disposition report is provided at http://www.thestateonline.com/news/pdfs/ncaa.pdf

Just in case anyone's interested, The State's results (as of July 15th, 7:45 AM Central) reflect 1614 votes: 230 votes (14%) for "Too Harsh", 469 votes (29%) for "Right On Target", and 915 votes (57%) for "Not Harsh Enough." Keep in mind that most of those votes are coming from SC fans and SC haters (Clemson).

[HSVTider]

I don't think they are harsh enough considering you guys got LOIC. However, do I think the NCAA will accep them? Yep. Is it unfair?? Yep..damn straight it is.

[UM_REBELS]

Sorry Gamecock, i had to vote "not harsh enough". I haven't read the list of infractions, as those can get very vague and longwinded, but I have seen where USC has admitted to 5 major violations including lack of intitutional control. If that is true then this punishment is very light. I also have to assume that if the NCAA accepts the suggested punishment that they have shown some favoritism. I mean, Steve Spurrier back in the SEC....that is a major college football story, and one the whole nation will want to watch.
I hope USC makes it out of this without too much damage, but, Ole Miss was NAILED by the NCAA, and they showed absolutely no mercy.

[ColonelKurtz]

Gamecock fans who don't think that more will come are kidding themselves. Five majors demands more than what has been proposed.

[OmahaBound]

I don't think they are harsh enough considering you guys got LOIC. However, do I think the NCAA will accep them? Yep. Is it unfair?? Yep..damn straight it is.

what do you think would be fair?

i agree with you that it's probably not harsh enough, but i don't think it should be any worse than maybe another scholly or two removed and a couple more years of probation. i don't think it should be worse than that considering the LOIC really isn't even an issue anymore. the new AD and football coach are both highly respected by the NCAA for their reputations of running completely clean programs, and this is the first time we've done anything wrong (or at least been caught for it) in 15 years....there's no significant history of cheating at USC.

[GeauxTo]

Gamecock fans who don't think that more will come are kidding themselves. Five majors demands more than what has been proposed.
Sorry, Gamecock, I also voted not harsh enough. The Col is right, I think; five majors will be of significant concern to the NCAA. Tough to stomach, though.
:o

[TrueGCFan]

I think the penalties are fair. I'm mad as H@!! any of them happened. And further more I will no longer defend Holtz. I've been one of the few in Gamecock Nation who's stood up for him, but no more. Sorry about the rant.
Back to the point. USC didn't pay players to come to the school, they didn't take tests for them, and they weren't paying the refs off. What they did was bad and stupid, but two years and the loss of 4 schollies is enough. I would think losing bowls and tv time is too harsh.

[RW13]

I voted for right on target but prob b/c I'm a gamecock fan. I think more punishment is in order and will be recieved. The NCAA will not treat us like UT, Oklahoma, or the "real" USC, they have a hard-on for us (see mike rathe, jason white, 3 years on campus) and will punish us. Is it deserved? Definately, without question. USC has done bad things and should pay for them. The SEC really is a disgrace....

[Tydefan]

USC fans seem to be missing the point on two things:
1) LOIC is WORST part of it.
2) The NCAA does not care if the parties responsible for the mess are still there or not.
This does not mean that it is a slam dunk that the NCAA will hammer USC. I know that USC fans do not believe in history, but the way the NCAA has dealt with the SEC in the past leads me to believe that the punishment will be more than what USC picked.

[OmahaBound]

This does not mean that it is a slam dunk that the NCAA will hammer USC. I know that USC fans do not believe in history, but the way the NCAA has dealt with the SEC in the past leads me to believe that the punishment will be more than what USC picked.

agreed...i just don't think the punishment is going to be drastically more severe

[WDavE]

If I were to guess, the LOIC will cost you something like 10 scholarships over a two year period and I would also bet that they limit the total number each year.

[Lud0]

agreed...i just don't think the punishment is going to be drastically more severe



New user, log time lurker, I had to register for this. That quote is the first LOL of the day :D

[HSVTider]

what do you think would be fair?

i agree with you that it's probably not harsh enough, but i don't think it should be any worse than maybe another scholly or two removed and a couple more years of probation. i don't think it should be worse than that considering the LOIC really isn't even an issue anymore. the new AD and football coach are both highly respected by the NCAA for their reputations of running completely clean programs, and this is the first time we've done anything wrong (or at least been caught for it) in 15 years....there's no significant history of cheating at USC.

It didn't save us. We fired the entire coaching staff. Shortly after that Sorenson left for South Carolina. I'm not sure what the 5 major infractions were but you guys should probably lose about 15 over 3 years and 5 years of probation. Or 12 over three years and a post season ban.

We lost 21 over three years, 2 year post season ban, and 5 years of probation and we didn't get found guilty of LOIC. So, theoretically, your penalties could be on par with ours, but its not going to happen though for two reasons.

1) The NCAA had no problem leaking tons of reports to the media, so we got hung there.

2) I think they'll go easy on Spurrier.

You couple those two reasons with their blatant disregard for the presidence (sp?) and you guys could get off light.

However, if Fulmer dropped a little note to the NCAA because he's not happy to face Spurrier again (I doubt it..but not out of the realm of possibility..seeing as how he's been shown to do those sort of things), then you guys could get taken to the shed.

JMHO

[RW13]

New user, log time lurker, I had to register for this. That quote is the first LOL of the day :D

Trust him, he's a bama fan. If it's one thing they know, it's breaking the law.....

[HSVTider]

Trust him, he's a bama fan. If it's one thing they know, it's breaking the law.....

Welcome to the club. You can take your seat next to us, Auburn, and Ole Miss. Maybe, Spurrier can get UT a seat at this table too. The whine is pretty good but the cheese sucks.

[HSVTider]

Somebody voted 'too harsh'..that is funny.

This was my 200th post..what a waste.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Welcome to the club. You can take your seat next to us, Auburn, and Ole Miss. Maybe, Spurrier can get UT a seat at this table too. The whine is pretty good but the cheese sucks.
I don't care much for the whine and cheese, but I'll take a cold brew and some pretzels at my seat. After all, I'm sure most of the whine was used up long ago by most of you Bama fans. ;)

[RW13]

boo-hoo our coach left for Texas A&M and our new one just got fired for messing with strippers, yeah, the whine was used a couple years back.....

[WDavE]

boo-hoo our coach left for Texas A&M and our new one just got fired for messing with strippers, yeah, the whine was used a couple years back.....

Don't sell your fan base short... The whining hasn't stopped at BOL nor several other sites..... :)

[fernandomike]

It didn't save us. We fired the entire coaching staff. Shortly after that Sorenson left for South Carolina. I'm not sure what the 5 major infractions were but you guys should probably lose about 15 over 3 years and 5 years of probation. Or 12 over three years and a post season ban.

We lost 21 over three years, 2 year post season ban, and 5 years of probation and we didn't get found guilty of LOIC. So, theoretically, your penalties could be on par with ours, but its not going to happen though for two reasons.

1) The NCAA had no problem leaking tons of reports to the media, so we got hung there.

2) I think they'll go easy on Spurrier.

You couple those two reasons with their blatant disregard for the presidence (sp?) and you guys could get off light.

However, if Fulmer dropped a little note to the NCAA because he's not happy to face Spurrier again (I doubt it..but not out of the realm of possibility..seeing as how he's been shown to do those sort of things), then you guys could get taken to the shed.

JMHO

Fulmer likely had very little to do with this outside of the original complaint regarding the recruitment of Derek Watson many years ago. Instead of mentioning Fulmer, we should be talking about the guy who the NCAA is accusing of turning in reports that were much too favorable to USC. That looks bad and may result in the hammer being brought down. Fulmer cannot create lack of institutional control in Columbia. I do realize that he is public enemy number one and some of that is earned, but it appears to me that we are being a bit too speculative in regard to his level of involvement. If I were a USC fan, I would be angry at Holtz and even more so at the compliance guy (his name escapes me) who allegedly pushed his subordinates to under-report USC's infractions.

[WayzUp]

I voted 'Not Harsh Enough' because I think USC is doing the right thing by submitting our version of the absolute best case scenario that we can hope for, given the improprieties, so the NCAA has been publically given a low mark from which to start. Yes, we'll most definitely get more than what we submitted. But with the penalty suggested being as light as it is, the NCAA would look bad by pulling rank and slamming us with anything really harsh simply because of what UM_REBELS stated above: "...Steve Spurrier back in the SEC....that is a major college football story, and one the whole nation will want to watch."

That is correct, the nation will also be watching and comparing whatever punishment the NCAA comes back with to what Spurrier submitted. If there is a huge gap there, it will reflect badly on an institution that is already under enough fire from a fubar'd national championship system to kids suing for the right to go to the NFL after high school. I think they'll end up coming back with a couple more slaps on the wrist (+1 to each number Spurrier mentioned) and be done with it.

I hope anyway.

[OmahaBound]

It didn't save us. We fired the entire coaching staff. Shortly after that Sorenson left for South Carolina. I'm not sure what the 5 major infractions were but you guys should probably lose about 15 over 3 years and 5 years of probation. Or 12 over three years and a post season ban.

We lost 21 over three years, 2 year post season ban, and 5 years of probation and we didn't get found guilty of LOIC. So, theoretically, your penalties could be on par with ours, but its not going to happen though for two reasons.

1) The NCAA had no problem leaking tons of reports to the media, so we got hung there.

2) I think they'll go easy on Spurrier.

You couple those two reasons with their blatant disregard for the presidence (sp?) and you guys could get off light.

However, if Fulmer dropped a little note to the NCAA because he's not happy to face Spurrier again (I doubt it..but not out of the realm of possibility..seeing as how he's been shown to do those sort of things), then you guys could get taken to the shed.

JMHO


we weren't on probation though...that's one reason why bama got slammed so hard. you said you haven't looked at the major violations. take a look at them and you'll see that we definitely deserve punishment, but they're not even close to the worst violations you've ever heard of. you could very well be right, but i would be really surprised if the final results were 15 schollys lost. 5 years probation sound about right but i would expect no more than 12 schollys lost over 3 years.

[uscrebel]

I chose the not harsh enough option for the sheer reason that this is one of the more flagrant cases that I have read about recently. I mean that not from the standpoint of the actual offenses involving contacts with athletes, but the behavior of Holtz and his compliance officer and (I assume) the AD's office. Much of this could have been nipped in the bud if Holt and the Institution had shown intolerance for this behavior. Apparently, they condoned it.

I think that the whacky, nit-picky regulations are assinine, but they are there and some folks try to abide by them. Schools that do not wish to comply should leave the organization. There have been attempts in the past to organize the Division One schools separately, but the fear of the mid-level teams has made this unsuccessful.

[Jordan]

I think USC will get harder than the proposed punishment, but nowhere near as hard as Bama did during our most recent spout with the NCAA. For us, it was more because we were on probation already. You'll likely get a few more schollys added onto the list over a 2-3 year period, and possibly a one-season bowl ineligibility. Maybe a few more little things here and there, but nothing that will hurt much worse than the proposed ones.

[HSVTider]

I think USC will get harder than the proposed punishment, but nowhere near as hard as Bama did during our most recent spout with the NCAA. For us, it was more because we were on probation already. You'll likely get a few more schollys added onto the list over a 2-3 year period, and possibly a one-season bowl ineligibility. Maybe a few more little things here and there, but nothing that will hurt much worse than the proposed ones.

yeah the reason we were already on probation was a self reported minor infraction in basketball. I can't remember what it was but I remembered that it seemed like a petty thing to get slapped with 3 years of probation for. Something like a basketball assistant gave a kid a lift to the airport because no one else could or something stupid like that.

[cocky4ever]

I think USC will get harder than the proposed punishment, but nowhere near as hard as Bama did during our most recent spout with the NCAA. For us, it was more because we were on probation already. You'll likely get a few more schollys added onto the list over a 2-3 year period, and possibly a one-season bowl ineligibility. Maybe a few more little things here and there, but nothing that will hurt much worse than the proposed ones.
Thats what Im thinking. Hopefully it wont be a 2 year bowl ban because that could significantly hurt our recruiting this year, and that would mean it would take longer for Spurrier to get his ball rolling at SC.

[Cianne]

Thats what Im thinking. Hopefully it wont be a 2 year bowl ban because that could significantly hurt our recruiting this year, and that would mean it would take longer for Spurrier to get his ball rolling at SC.

If a two year bowl ban is instituted at the start of next season, I don't see recruiting dropping off too much because this is still Steve Spurrier and people will still flock to his offense.

[Ironica]

yeah the reason we were already on probation was a self reported minor infraction in basketball. I can't remember what it was but I remembered that it seemed like a petty thing to get slapped with 3 years of probation for. Something like a basketball assistant gave a kid a lift to the airport because no one else could or something stupid like that.

But didn't the basketball thing happen while Bama was on probation from the 92/93 stuff? In 95, Bama was a repeat offender as far as NCAA violations and I would bet that influenced the penalties. In the last one, Bama was a double repeat offender if you catch my drift - kind of a 3 strikes deal.

That said, I still think Bama got hammered too hard. The self imposed stuff would probably have been about right.

UK got hammered just about as hard as Bama for the Mumme stuff.

[BeeDee]

Wow, looking at the results of the poll so far, you'll see a very distinct line. All the "Right On Target" and the one "Too Harsh" are USC fans... most everyone else (even a couple of USC fans) think that they'd be getting off too easy. Kinda makes you wonder if there's any objectivity being practiced. That's not a flame, just an observation.

[Noah.Dreams]

If the NCAA penalities are consistent with past histories, USC can expect to forfeit all games in which ineligible players participated, a 3 year ban on TV and bowl games and a reduction of scholarships for 3 years.

[LedCock]

I think what USC proposed is fair but at the same time maybe a little light because you know the ncaa is gonna want to add to it no matter what you give them. I just think that with USC cooperating so much with them and key figures being fired or replaced, then you have to feel that the football program as a whole is not out of control. It's been said before that you can't watch individuals 24/7 and many times you have to put trust in those individuals in certain circumstances. These people chose to do some wrong things. But I think the real question is could these things have been avoided. Did anyone in the administration see any potential for wrongdoing by these individuals? Are these "bad" individuals still at USC? I think this is what the ncaa is gonna be looking at as well and should put some weight on.

[LBT]

Speaking of consistency, I know Tennessee had some academic problems back in the 90's right? I don't know anything about that situation but it might be interesting to make a comparison if the two situations can in fact be compared.
dont worry gamecock fans. Major violations means that we're official members of the SEC now. We're on our way to the big time.

[BeeDee]

I think what USC proposed is fair but at the same time maybe a little light because you know the ncaa is gonna want to add to it no matter what you give them. I just think that with USC cooperating so much with them and key figures being fired or replaced, then you have to feel that the football program as a whole is not out of control. It's been said before that you can't watch individuals 24/7 and many times you have to put trust in those individuals in certain circumstances. These people chose to do some wrong things. But I think the real question is could these things have been avoided. Did anyone in the administration see any potential for wrongdoing by these individuals? Are these "bad" individuals still at USC? I think this is what the ncaa is gonna be looking at as well and should put some weight on.
Cooperation means very little. Ole Miss self reported a lot of their infractions AND cooperated fully and still got absolutely slammed. After the fact though, they were able to use the cooperation as a means to get the sanctions reduced some.

[WayzUp]

Wow, looking at the results of the poll so far, you'll see a very distinct line. All the "Right On Target" and the one "Too Harsh" are USC fans... most everyone else (even a couple of USC fans) think that they'd be getting off too easy. Kinda makes you wonder if there's any objectivity being practiced. That's not a flame, just an observation.
I think USC/Spurrier put a low starting point out there in hopes the NCAA will use it as their starting point rather than what they hit other schools with for similar (repeat offenders or otherwise) infractions. I think South Carolina expects harsher punishment than what we suggested...but by suggesting on the lighter side, it might make the additional slaps lighter too.

[HSVTider]

If the NCAA penalities are consistent with past histories, USC can expect to forfeit all games in which ineligible players participated, a 3 year ban on TV and bowl games and a reduction of scholarships for 3 years.

Yeah but we all know that they aren't consistent. We shall see what ole Gene Marsh does. He's the head of the committee of infractions (Bama law teacher), maybe they will be consistent this time.

[BeeDee]

I think USC/Spurrier put a low starting point out there in hopes the NCAA will use it as their starting point rather than what they hit other schools with for similar (repeat offenders or otherwise) infractions. I think South Carolina expects harsher punishment than what we suggested...but by suggesting on the lighter side, it might make the additional slaps lighter too.Well, you and Omaha are the only USC fans that have voted that way so far. The rest have said "Right On" and one even said "Too Harsh". Seems like homerism is playing a big part here. I mean, it's split pretty cleanly into two groups: USC Fans and Non-USC Fans + Omaha and Wayz. I wonder if this had happened to Auburn or Ole Miss or LSU if those same folks would have said that the penalties were "Right On Target"... I somehow doubt that.

[supergenius]

I think the penalties will be in the neighborhood of 5 schollys per year for 3 years and a 1 year bowl ban.

[BeeDee]

I think the penalties will be in the neighborhood of 5 schollys per year for 3 years and a 1 year bowl ban.
That sounds about right. I figured two years on the bowls though and at least a couple of years on probation.

[BeeDee]

That sounds about right. I figured two years on the bowls though and at least a couple of years on probation.
We should start a pool... anyone know how to do that on the board?

[OmahaBound]

We should start a pool... anyone know how to do that on the board?

hehe, the winner should get the first sec talk tshirt...if/when that ever happens

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Well, you and Omaha are the only USC fans that have voted that way so far. The rest have said "Right On" and one even said "Too Harsh". Seems like homerism is playing a big part here. I mean, it's split pretty cleanly into two groups: USC Fans and Non-USC Fans + Omaha and Wayz. I wonder if this had happened to Auburn or Ole Miss or LSU if those same folks would have said that the penalties were "Right On Target"... I somehow doubt that.
My personal opinion is that the penalties are "Right on Target." I've read the violations and most of them seem pretty minor to me (although no violation is good). Even most of the 5 that were classified as MAJOR don't seem that terrible to me. I believe that the NCAA will probably add on to our recommended penalties (since they usually do), but that doesn't change the fact that I believe what was proposed was fair.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

I wonder if this had happened to Auburn or Ole Miss or LSU if those same folks would have said that the penalties were "Right On Target"... I somehow doubt that.

And I wonder if these same violations had been cited against Ole Miss, would you have voted "Not Harsh Enough".......I somehow doubt it. :rolleyes:

[Cianne]

And I wonder if these same violations had been cited against Ole Miss, would you have voted "Not Harsh Enough".......I somehow doubt it. :rolleyes:

Probably would have actually.

[Rebeldrummer]

And I wonder if these same violations had been cited against Ole Miss, would you have voted "Not Harsh Enough".......I somehow doubt it. :rolleyes:

No he proabably voted not harash enough because at the least compairable violations have been cited against us , if not less , and we recieved much harsher !

And if the NCaa goes as it has recently ( which is not guarunteed) it will turn down yours and add to them . Especially with the rash of SEC violations ...

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

No he proabably voted not harash enough because at the least compairable violations have been cited against us , if not less , and we recieved much harsher !

And if the NCaa goes as it has recently ( which is not guarunteed) it will turn down yours and add to them . Especially with the rash of SEC violations ...
And do you think what the NCAA did to you was justified, or do you believe they went overboard? As I stated, I believe the NCAA will probably add to our recommended penalties (which we will have to live with); however, based on the violations cited, I believe what we proposed is fair punishment.

[Rebeldrummer]

and on top of that no school with a brain sends in harsh enough punishment , for the simple reason of negotiation . If they send in harsh enough and the NCaa adds on it's bad ...If they accept it's still not good .

If they send i lite punishments and the Ncaa accpets great if the add on , they probably still won't add to what it really equals

[BeeDee]

And I wonder if these same violations had been cited against Ole Miss, would you have voted "Not Harsh Enough".......I somehow doubt it. :rolleyes:
Aaaah, but it's not happening to Ole Miss. I think that we got a raw deal with our last sanctions, but we deserved some pretty harsh punishment (just not quite what we got). I think that if we'd proposed two scholarship losses and giving up some official visits, I'd have said it wasn't harsh enough.

[Cianne]

And do you think what the NCAA did to you was justified, or do you believe they went overboard? As I stated, I believe the NCAA will probably add to our recommended penalties (which we will have to live with); however, based on the violations cited, I believe what we proposed is fair punishment.

At the time of the probation hearing, the NCAA was probably justified in what they did to Ole Miss. After SMU got the death penalty in the 80s, we should have been happy not to be dealt that. In lieu of lawsuits after the probatin in 1995(?), it was shown that the NCAA wasn't entirely justified and this is why Bama wasn't staring down a TV ban, etc. Nobody will ever get that again.

4 scholarships over two years is a pathetic excuse for a probation and isn't enough to really affect a program. There should be something like a 2 year bowl ban, 4 year probation with 12-16 scholarships lost over that time, and the big thing would be limiting high school athlete contact with possible boosters. This should be done by dropping paid visits to 47/year and putting stricter access to the field by boosters during games.

[JBryant12]

I beleive if things were accepted as they are now it wouldn't be harsh enough but since i belive that the NCAA will add on anyways...what Spurrier proposed is right on

[crimsonswamp]

bird fans you are looking down the barrel of a gun boooooooooooom there goes the program death penalty and stevey will leave boys trust me on this one!!!!

[Cianne]

bird fans you are looking down the barrel of a gun boooooooooooom there goes the program death penalty and stevey will leave boys trust me on this one!!!!

Stop making inane, flaming posts.

[BeeDee]

bird fans you are looking down the barrel of a gun boooooooooooom there goes the program death penalty and stevey will leave boys trust me on this one!!!!
That's nice, real nice. I'm sure you'll fit in with with your other crimson clad flaming cohorts that have joined this board lately.

[nooneLT]

geez, no wonder you guys hate Bama so much -_-

[supergenius]

[QUOTE=nooneLT]geez, no wonder you guys hate Bama so much -_-[/QUOTE
That guy has to go!!

[SPURED]

the thing that really bothers me about all this. is USC cheated and still couldnt win 6 games. oh well i think what we proposed is just about right. Spurrier knows the NCAA will add on to it so why would he propose something more harsh right off the bat? like buying a car. you try to negotiate to get that car for less money than you know you should pay for it.

im glad all the bad apples are gone now but i feel sorry for the new guys that had nothing to do with all of this. and if anyone can get us through all of this it is Spurrier so thank god for that.

[Djshockley3]

I think they look pretty fair.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

I think they look pretty fair.
Thanks DJ. You're the first non-Gamecock to vote with some sense. :D

[Djshockley3]

Thanks DJ. You're the first non-Gamecock to vote with some sense. :D


Well thats pretty cool,I never thought that would happean. ;)

[SilverBritches]

Everyone who is not a cock fan voted that the penalties weren't harsh enough except for DJ. Thats not surprising.

[JerryBeeds]

Everyone who is not a cock fan voted that the penalties weren't harsh enough except for DJ. Thats not surprising.

Are you ripping DJ? Is he not entitled to his opinion?

[Djshockley3]

Everyone who is not a cock fan voted that the penalties weren't harsh enough except for DJ. Thats not surprising.


What are you saying silver,lol.

[jneesy]

yes, y'all fired lou but he was hired by usc despite knowing about his checkered past

[JerryBeeds]

yes, y'all fired lou but he was hired by usc despite knowing about his checkered past
That's the worst part. I had no idea how dirty he was until after he had already been hired. It's not a good situation and I'm not proud of it.

[SilverBritches]

What are you saying silver,lol.

I wasn't saying your vote wasn't surprising. I was talking about all of the USC fans.

Also, I didn't mean anything bad in my previous post about the voting breakdown. I was just pointing something out. I know if the situation were reversed, 50 out of 50 UGA fans would vote the same way.

[SilverBritches]

Are you ripping DJ? Is he not entitled to his opinion?

See my previous post.

[Djshockley3]

I wasn't saying your vote wasn't surprising. I was talking about all of the USC fans.

Also, I didn't mean anything bad in my previous post about the voting breakdown. I was just pointing something out. I know if the situation were reversed, 50 out of 50 UGA fans would vote the same way.


Ok,and you are exactly right.

[JerryBeeds]

I wasn't saying your vote wasn't surprising. I was talking about all of the USC fans.

Also, I didn't mean anything bad in my previous post about the voting breakdown. I was just pointing something out. I know if the situation were reversed, 50 out of 50 UGA fans would vote the same way.

Gotcha! ;) I didn't mean to jump to conclusions... :)

[cocky4ever]

I just thought about something and I wanted to get some other opinions on it. Does anyone think that the bad name SC has gotten from players in trouble with the law and the brawl with chumpson will leave a bad taste in the mouths of the very people who will be handing down our punishment. SC has done a lot of things recently to make the school and the whole sport of college football look bad. That could come back to haunt us if the people responsible for the punishment take that into account.

By the way, I didnt vote but I would say that it would be unfair for SC to get off with those light penalties to the program. I understand what they're doing with setting the bar low and all that, but the question was "How do you feel about the penalties suggested by SC for their violations?". Sure, a lot of people make a good argument that those violations had little effect on our overall results, but that isnt the point. Look at the other schools who committed infractions. When looked at in a relative manner to some of the other SEC schools who were punished, the penalties suggested are VERY light. In my mind I may say that the punishments are about right for what happened, but considering how the NCAA operates I would have to say the suggestions are VERY leniant. I can deal with scholly losses and all that, but the bowl ban is gonna be hard for me to take if it comes to be. At SC we're starving for bowl games and any season without the hope of that would kinda put a damper on the whole season. I will still be there pulling for the Gamecocks through thick and thin though, it just sucks that we're in this predicament in the 1st place.

[OmahaBound]

I just thought about something and I wanted to get some other opinions on it. Does anyone think that the bad name SC has gotten from players in trouble with the law and the brawl with chumpson will leave a bad taste in the mouths of the very people who will be handing down our punishment. SC has done a lot of things recently to make the school and the whole sport of college football look bad. That could come back to haunt us if the people responsible for the punishment take that into account.

By the way, I didnt vote but I would say that it would be unfair for SC to get off with those light penalties to the program. I understand what they're doing with setting the bar low and all that, but the question was "How do you feel about the penalties suggested by SC for their violations?". Sure, a lot of people make a good argument that those violations had little effect on our overall results, but that isnt the point. Look at the other schools who committed infractions. When looked at in a relative manner to some of the other SEC schools who were punished, the penalties suggested are VERY light. In my mind I may say that the punishments are about right for what happened, but considering how the NCAA operates I would have to say the suggestions are VERY leniant. I can deal with scholly losses and all that, but the bowl ban is gonna be hard for me to take if it comes to be. At SC we're starving for bowl games and any season without the hope of that would kinda put a damper on the whole season. I will still be there pulling for the Gamecocks through thick and thin though, it just sucks that we're in this predicament in the 1st place.

any ill-will they already feel for USC will be balanced out by the dollar signs ringing in their heads with Spurrier being back in the game. that's why i think they're actually going to give us a fair punishment instead of trying to make an example out of us or something like that.

[GTmorris1970]

yes, y'all fired lou but he was hired by usc despite knowing about his checkered past

We did not fire Lou. As a matter of fact, Mike McGee said on tv numerous times it was Lou's job as long as he wanted it. I am hoping that with the NCAA knowing that Spurrier runs a squeaky clean program, and knowing he has already cut about 10% of the team, they will cut us some slack. We will see. :(

[cocky4ever]

any ill-will they already feel for USC will be balanced out by the dollar signs ringing in their heads with Spurrier being back in the game. that's why i think they're actually going to give us a fair punishment instead of trying to make an example out of us or something like that.
Yeah, I've thought about that too. Hopefully with the circumstances of the AD retiring and bringing in Spurrier and basically a whole new coaching staff they wont try to punish the new staff too harshly. I think they will be stiffer than what we suggested, but, like you said, they will see the dollar signs that come along with Spurrier. Im not saying thats what its all about, just that thats what most big companies operate on, the almighty dollar. Either way, hopefully we can put this behind us and move on soon. It seems that the Lou Holtz Era has come to fruition and has climaxed with this. Now I hope we will move forward and learn from this. Hasnt this been the CRAZIEST offseason EVER??

[SilverBritches]

Gotcha! ;) I didn't mean to jump to conclusions... :)

Nah, its all good. My post was unclear anyways.

[OmahaBound]

Hasnt this been the CRAZIEST offseason EVER??

I can't imagine there have been more than a handful of crazier offseasons TOTAL for all other schools in the NCAA....from the fantastic to the embarrassing to the disappointing and now the disgusting, usc has probably been in the national news more in the last 10 months than the past 20 years combined. the attention is only going to continue throughout this season, but hopefully we can finally have some more good press with a quality football season.

[GTmorris1970]

I can't imagine there have been more than a handful of crazier offseasons TOTAL for all other schools in the NCAA....from the fantastic to the embarrassing to the disappointing and now the disgusting, usc has probably been in the national news more in the last 10 months than the past 20 years combined. the attention is only going to continue throughout this season, but hopefully we can finally have some more good press with a quality football season.

I feel Spurrier is going to explain to this team that it's gut check time. Either crap or get off the pot. He is a winner, and he WILL NOT use this as an excuse to fail. That is the good part. :cool:

[AceLeroy]

I voted , not harsh enough , but only slightly.

I did so because I think S. CAR is dealing with them like you would a car salesman.

Like others have said , they offer this and hope if the NCAA rejects it they will only slightly increase the penalties.

I haven't seen anything that warrants them getting slammed by the NCAA and would hate to see that happen. This is the first time I ever remember them being in trouble ( correct me if I am wrong )and for that maybe they ( South Carolina ) deserve a little leniacy.

[JerryBeeds]

I can't imagine there have been more than a handful of crazier offseasons TOTAL for all other schools in the NCAA....from the fantastic to the embarrassing to the disappointing and now the disgusting, usc has probably been in the national news more in the last 10 months than the past 20 years combined. the attention is only going to continue throughout this season, but hopefully we can finally have some more good press with a quality football season.

The only off-season that even compares to this for us was the whole steroid deal and Joe Morrison dying in 1991 (I think that was the year). If we come out of this with at least 20 scolly's for the probationary period, we'll be golden. Screw a bowl ban, there may not have been a bowl this year anyway. If we have less than 20 scolly's for even just one season, we will be at a competitive disadvantage for at least 3 seasons (just ask Bama fans).

[jneesy]

We did not fire Lou. As a matter of fact, Mike McGee said on tv numerous times it was Lou's job as long as he wanted it. :(

very good point :cool:

[pc72687]

I think it is too harsh. Even the NCAA enforcement officers said USC not only complied with them but went out of their way to help them in the investigation. Their words not mine. This I think is the main thing that will help us. If not for our full honesty, and willingness to fix all this mess, I don't believe this thread would even have merit. Otherwise I think not harsh enough would have to be the only logical choice. But since it is true I think too harsh is the choice. And according everyone who isn't a USC fan, we suck anyways so us not losing any more scholarships or not losing a bowl wouldn't be too bad anyway,right? I mean everyone says we are doomed to be 5-6 or 4-7 forever.

[SilverBritches]

I think it is too harsh. Even the NCAA enforcement officers said USC not only complied with them but went out of their way to help them in the investigation.

Most schools do that as well. We did in our basketball scandal. It doesn't make a bit of difference to the NCAA.

[GeauxTo]

I feel Spurrier is going to explain to this team that it's gut check time. Either crap or get off the pot. He is a winner, and he WILL NOT use this as an excuse to fail. That is the good part. :cool:
GT...
Is this you??

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9492/14378706202np.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us/)

[Neo]

I haven't seen anything that warrants them getting slammed by the NCAA and would hate to see that happen. This is the first time I ever remember them being in trouble ( correct me if I am wrong )and for that maybe they ( South Carolina ) deserve a little leniacy.


The last major violation commited by USC was in 1967. :cool:

[rolltide83]

NOTE TO BOARD: Don't ask a 'bama fan what anyone's penalties should be.. We're still sore about the whole Albert Means mess...

That being said...

I think USC should lose more than two (two?!?!?!?!) scholarships a year. Oh no, you're going to lose your first string long snapper and second string punter... Maybe knock 'em down 4 or 5 per year... beyond that, I believe the other conditions are fair..

Best of luck to Spurrier and USC, I know you guys are excited about the new season... Just be sure to beat up on those morons from Knoxville every once in a while

[Neo]

NOTE TO BOARD: Don't ask a 'bama fan what anyone's penalties should be.. We're still sore about the whole Albert Means mess...

That being said...

I think USC should lose more than two (two?!?!?!?!) scholarships a year. Oh no, you're going to lose your first string long snapper and second string punter... Maybe knock 'em down 4 or 5 per year... beyond that, I believe the other conditions are fair..

Best of luck to Spurrier and USC, I know you guys are excited about the new season... Just be sure to beat up on those morons from Knoxville every once in a while


Now how do you say that Roll? Here are a few facts to consider...

#1 The last major violation at USC occured in 1967. YES 1967!

#2 We didn't commit violations while under probation. So that knocks out the "Death Penalty" and the punishment that Bama suffered.

#3 Spurrier is known as a "squeaky" clean guy. Not once has Spurrier been found guilty of major violations.

[GTmorris1970]

GT...
Is this you??

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9492/14378706202np.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us/)

LMAOROTF................ :D

[pc72687]

Actually Neo your statement though correct about 1967, is a little wrong.

March 1987: Men's Basketball Violations : improper entertainment and transportation; extra benefits; out of season practice; free tickets; improper recruiting employment, entertainment, lodging, and transportation; tryouts; questionable tryouts

Punishment : 3 years probabtion, 1-year postseason ban. 2 players deemed ineligible.

February 1991: Men's basketball, general Violations : institutional control

Punishment : Extention of previous probation by 6 months.

[Neo]

Actually Neo your statement though correct about 1967, is a little wrong.

March 1987: Men's Basketball Violations : improper entertainment and transportation; extra benefits; out of season practice; free tickets; improper recruiting employment, entertainment, lodging, and transportation; tryouts; questionable tryouts

Punishment : 3 years probabtion, 1-year postseason ban. 2 players deemed ineligible.

February 1991: Men's basketball, general Violations : institutional control

Punishment : Extention of previous probation by 6 months.



I was talking about football. I accidently left it out.

[pc72687]

1991 involved football too though. 4 football coaches were indicted on charges of providing steriods to players from 1985-1987.

[G8R4life]

Yeah well, we Gators have had our share also. USCar. will be fine.

[Neo]

1991 involved football too though. 4 football coaches were indicted on charges of providing steriods to players from 1985-1987.



Nope...

Check this out from the NCAA...

Institution: University of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: 08-JAN-67

Facts Summary: Improper financial aid; extra benefits; improper recruiting entertainment, lodging and transportation; tryouts; eligibility; improper administration of financial aid; outside fund.

Violation Summary: Improper financial aid; extra benefits; improper recruiting entertainment, lodging and transportation; tryouts; eligibility; improper administration of financial aid; outside fund.

Penalty Summary: Men's basketball: two-year postseason ban. Football: two-year postseason ban, two-year television ban.

Involved Sports:
Football
Men's Basketball


Involved Penalties:
TV: 2 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: No
Postseason: 2 yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 2 yrs Show Cause restriction on employees: No


Institution: University of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: 03-MAR-87

Facts Summary: Improper entertainment and transportation; extra benefits; out-of-season practice; complimentary tickets; improper recruiting employment, entertainment, lodging and transportation; tryouts; questionable practice.

Violation Summary: Improper entertainment and transportation; extra benefits; out-of-season practice; complimentary tickets; improper recruiting employment, entertainment, lodging and transportation; tryouts; questionable practice.

Penalty Summary: Report regarding compliance programs.

Involved Sports:
Men's Basketball


Involved Penalties:
TV: 0 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: No
Postseason: 1 yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 3 yrs Show Cause restriction on employees: No


Institution: University of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: 03-FEB-91

Facts Summary: Institutional control.

Violation Summary: Institutional control.

Penalty Summary: Six-month probation
Involved Sports:
Men's Basketball


Involved Penalties:
TV: 0 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: No
Postseason: 0 yrs Recruiting: No
Probation: 1 yrs Show Cause restriction on employees: No


https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBi.LSDBi_Menu.HomePage


Those are all of our MAJOR violations except for these most recent. :cool:

[pc72687]

I was just going by what the State Newspaper said. Hopefully the NCAA thinks the last one was 1967 also. It would be a big help!

[Neo]

I was just going by what the State Newspaper said. Hopefully the NCAA thinks the last one was 1967 also. It would be a big help!



The State newspaper is full of idiots. It took me less than 2 minutes to find the major violations that USC has commited. At that website I posted, you can look up anyone's record with the NCAA. :cool:

[pc72687]

The State newspaper is full of idiots.

Sorry but one more correction. The state newspaper is full of liberal idiots. Who use their rag to promote liberalism and the democratic party and also to attack the republican party.

[rolltide83]

Now how do you say that Roll? Here are a few facts to consider...

#1 The last major violation at USC occured in 1967. YES 1967!

#2 We didn't commit violations while under probation. So that knocks out the "Death Penalty" and the punishment that Bama suffered.

#3 Spurrier is known as a "squeaky" clean guy. Not once has Spurrier been found guilty of major violations.

Like I said, anything coming from an Alabama fan will more than likely be more than a little biased, but at the same time Neo, you have to consider that there are 10 violations being considered, 5 of which are major.

I'm not calling for the death penalty, and I'm not even saying that USC should face the punishment that 'Bama has gotten in the past, but two scholarships for two years seems pretty damn well minimal for 5 major violations... Regardless of the program's history. As for Spurrier, I'm not a part of the NCAA infractions committee, but I imagine they don't put a whole lot of stock into who the current coach is. Just look at MSU's punishment even though they already had Croom.

[Neo]

One of these so-called major violations was Holtz accidently talking to a reporter about a recruit. Big whoop-dee!


There weren't payoffs or bribes so I don't think the punishment will be severe. :cool:

[rolltide83]

One of these so-called major violations was Holtz accidently talking to a reporter about a recruit. Big whoop-dee!

Just using the info that I'm given. Though, I'm a little surprised Neo. You're getting pretty defensive about this whole issue... The first step to recovery my friend is admitting that you have a problem. :)

[Neo]

Just using the info that I'm given. Though, I'm a little surprised Neo. You're getting pretty defensive about this whole issue... The first step to recovery my friend is admitting that you have a problem. :)



You need to read my previous posts. All I'm saying is that what may be a major violation is something questionable at best. :cool:

What everyone needs to realize is that USC broke the rules PERIOD! We deserve whatever punishment the NCAA decides to levy against us.

Personally, I think the NCAA will accept our recommendations for punishment without hesitation. For example;

#1 Steve Spurrier is known in the college football world as a man that runs a squeaky clean program.

#2 Everyone attached to those violations have either left or been fired.

#3 The last major violation commited by USC was back in 1967. The NCAA will take that into consideration.


Don't get me wrong, I am fully disgusted by this and we deserve every bit of it. It's just one more smear on USC's record and another "Question" on Holtz's resume. :mad:

Agreed! This is totally unacceptable and disgusting. :mad: I just wanna go out and.....
http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8518/image5pm.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Jordan]

I was talking about football. I accidently left it out.
In most cases, it seems like the NCAA looks at violations by a school's athletics program as a whole, not just sport-specific. Either way though, I think you guys will be fine for the most part, as even the late 80's is a better track-record than most SEC athletics programs. Like I said earlier, y'all might get a little more tacked on, but I don't think it will be much more severe than what's been proposed.