Man, this report is dense and deep. Lots to read. I'll try to do a series of posts outlining and summarizing here and there, but here's the end result for the USC Football Program Cheating Trojans:
*Public reprimand and censure. Duh.
*Four years probation through June 9, 2014. Ummm, yeah.
*No post-season bowl games for 2 years. Symbolic and monetary, won't affect recruiting much really, given the cycles. More of a perception thing. Also, could be irrelevant: Kiffin hasn't shown any ability to take any team to the post-season as a HC ever.
*Vacating all wins in which Bush participated. And in those years, that's a lot of wins. No-brainer.
*The forfeiture of the MNC. This was needed. And while we'll all sorta know it happened, they should have it stricken from the record. Winning with cheaters is cheating, therefore it never happened. Also, there is specific language requiring the removal of the MNC from their banners. That's just kinda funny.
*Limit of 15 Scholarships per year for 3 years through the 2013-14 academic year. They're losing 10 schollies a year, or 40%. That is freaking huge. A big disadvantage. Kiffin will be pulling his hair out within a few months on the trail trying to figure this one out.
*Disassociation with Reggie Bush - no help recruiting, no financial donations, etc. Bush can't do jack in an official capacity with USC. Ever.
*Prohibit all non-USC personnel from the locker room and sidelines/traveling with the team/practices except media, family and compliance-approved exceptions. No more role models like Snoop Dogg and Will Ferrell at practice, in the locker room and on the sidelines. This will, actually, hurt recruiting. And Kiffin will be sad.
*One assistant (RB Coach McNair) can, essentially, no longer recruit. No way he keeps his job anyway...
*There is no TV ban, but the report specifically talks about that decision:
The committee seriously considered the imposition of a television ban as a penalty in this case. After lengthy discussion, the committee ultimately decided that the imposition of other significant penalties, as set forth here, adequately responded to the nature of the violations found in this case and the level of institutional responsibility. Therefore, a television ban need not be imposed. The committee notes, however, that the television ban is a penalty designed in part to ameliorate extensive and positive media and public attention gained by a program through commission of violations. The committee also notes that the decision in this case not to impose the penalty was a very close call. All student-athletes, coaches, administrators, boosters and agents must understand that violations of NCAA rules have severe consequences.
Wow.
The committee has balls. They enforced here. Big time.
Contrary to maybe what you'd expect I'm not happy about this. I wish USC didn't cheat, and I wish they didn't attract players that cheat. But having $ and cars and houses and all that? That's a competitive advantage. It helps you bring in guys that you wouldn't otherwise get. And those guys helped USC win, a lot. And that's not fair.
I really wish our rival didn't do this garbage. I wish they'd have been willing/able to compete honestly on the field like we do. I still don't think that a paid team should whoop us like they've whooped us for a while, and like DMQ said, it's dissatisfying to not have a chance to beat that machine at its height.
The loss of bowls, schollies, and recruiting advantages (through crazy oversight) will knock these guys back down a bunch over the next few years. I expected an ND swing in the series anyway, and this should hasten it. The gap will close. Not really the way I wanted it to happen, but you gotta pay the price when you get caught.
Overall, it just makes me a bit bummed out about a sport I love, and a rivalry that deserves more. It bums me out that Poodle Pete had to do this kind of stuff/let this kind of stuff happen to win. It bums me out that their AD didn't give a damn about the program, and it bums me out that the kids there that have/had nothing to do with it get impacted just as much/more than the Coaches and Players that DID break the rules (over and over, and a lot). Yeah, just a bummer.
I'd love to say that I think USC has learned its lesson and will straighten up.
I doubt it.
By TLNDMA June 10, 2010 - 9:22 pm
Nobody will be able to say the NCAA only picks on the little guys anymore.
Garrett and Carroll are the two biggest culprits in this. I think of the Joe Mcknight story as reported in the fall where, Carroll walks right by McKnight as McKnight gets into the shiny new SUV. Does Carroll question him about it? NO.
Carroll and Garrett changed the SC slogan from “Fight On” to “Look the other Way”. They didn’t do their jobs as they needed to do them. Now SC pays the price.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By GB June 10, 2010 - 10:26 pm
Does this affect ND’s losses during the years USC vacated their wins?
Thanks
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By NWohioND June 11, 2010 - 6:32 am
Biz…I totally disagree with the notion that the “2 year post-season ban” won’t hurt recruiting…if you take the fact, as you said, that they’re limited to approx. 15 scholarships for the next 3 years and 2 of those years they won’t play a bowl game, that will hurt recruiting…we all know coaches are going to use this and it will be effective on a 17 or 18 year old kid…1 year from now to them seems like forever…I’m not saying their staff won’t get quality and top-notch players but that is really huge…it’s obviously a hit on the money side and on the recruiting side…I’m still shocked at all the penalties…I never thought it be this extreme (which is deserved) and the combination of penalties is the key…
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By Ska June 11, 2010 - 10:11 am
Mike Garrett’s response to the sanctions handed down from the NCAA should be considered delusional and disturbing to college football fans, including U$C fans.
Speaking at a U$C booster club function Garrett proclaimed; “As I read the decision by the NCAA,” … I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans.”
I read part of the NCAA decision and it was not only pitiful and sad, but at times got me mad that a university like U$C had no respect for the rules (and continues in that mindset) intended to keep the playing field fair for all teams. What has become obvious is that U$C is a culture of cheating.
Fortunately for U$C fans, they are getting a new university president. This should mean the end of Garrett as AD. If Garrett stays on as AD or someone of his ilk replaces him, look for U$C to be back in front of the NCAA Infractions Committee within a few short years.
Later, Garrett said: “Today I got a purpose for really wanting to dominate for another 10 years.”
Another way of saying Garrett’s U$C will keep cheating and to hell with the NCAA.
U$C was telling recruits in recent recruiting cycles the NCAA would not bring any penalties for the breaking and ignoring of rules. Truly reprehensible to tell recruits that kind of BS. Recruits and their parents should have had some common sense. I guess that says something about the type of recruits that pick U$C.
Coaches at U$C are now telling recruits sanctions will be reduced in an appeal. What a bunch of sleaze bags.
In my opinion, U$C got off easy. They should be repentant and thankful the penalties were not worse.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 11, 2010 - 10:39 am
GB, no it doesnt. When a team is forced to vacate wins, the wins disappear from their record, but the losses to the other teams remain. It’s like the losing team lost to a phantom team.
NW, I agree that the loss in schollies will impact recruiting. But the bowl ban won’t very much. Think about it – the kids being recruited right now would be on campus, at earliest, next spring. So they will automatically miss this coming bowl season. So that means they’d be bowl ineligible for 1, their frosh, season, when most guys don’t play anyway. For the next recruiting cycle, it would literally have no impact, as the guys being recruited then wouldn’t be on campus until after the bowls that year. They’d be eligible again their frosh year and on. I think it matters more from a perception standpoint and a revenue standpoint than from a recruiting angle. It’s the reductions in schollies that really get them on the recruiting front.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By NWohioND June 11, 2010 - 11:39 am
Biz, I believe you’re right…I just read an espn article where the NCAA clarified that RS sophomores, juniors and seniors can transfer to another FBS school and not sit out a year…that’s huge…all the “receiving” school has to do is submit a waiver and the waiver will be granted…and you stating it doesn’t affect future recruiting is fairly accurate…2011 class it affects 1 year and 2012 it won’t affect…I guess just the incoming frosh is mostly affected…point taken
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By trey June 11, 2010 - 12:58 pm
My friend and I were talking the other day about how this affects the CURRENT makeup of the team’s roster. You have to expect a decent number of guys who were borderline to go ahead and transfer after this. Especially Jrs & Srs who are stuck in backup roles and may not really fit in with Kiffykin’s gameplan.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit June 11, 2010 - 2:12 pm
yeah, remains to be seen. if they hold onto most guys, this wont really have a big impact until 3-4 years down the road when the smaller classes (15 schollies each) become Jrs/Srs/5th Yrs. but if a bunch jump ship now (which i would freaking do w/no transfer penalty and a good knowledge of where you stand on the depth chart), they could be hurting big time as early as this fall. But, I dont expect mass defections. Maybe a handful, which can still hurt.
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0