Originally posted by: Pastore
What does his performance on the field, and his resulting Heisman, have to do with receiving illicit aid?
Did it happen in the before or after the game?Originally posted by: mpitts
Can the NCAA take away Ohio State's victory against Michigan in 2004 after it was found that Troy Smith took $500 cash from a booster during the season?Originally posted by: her209
It sounds like this all went down in the 2005 season. Since USC didn't win back in January, can the NCAA take away the Championship from a previous year?Originally posted by: chambersc
I'm going on the record right now that USC will have at least 1 championship yanked. As far as the Heisman, Reggie will keep it.Originally posted by: mpitts
I'm going on record right now that USC will not lose their AP or BCS/AP championships and Reggie Bush will not have his Heisman trophy taken from him.Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Beat me to it, I smell a Heisman removal here.. looks like the player who really deserved it for last year will actually get it!
Someone's going to be right![]()
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Beat me to it, I smell a Heisman removal here.. looks like the player who really deserved it for last year will actually get it!
I'm going on record right now that USC will not lose their AP or BCS/AP championships and Reggie Bush will not have his Heisman trophy taken from him.
Originally posted by: Pastore
What does his performance on the field, and his resulting Heisman, have to do with receiving illicit aid?
Originally posted by: Mill
The reporters had access to receipts, credit card statements, hotel bills, and several witness accounts.
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt...?slug=ys-bushprobe&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Hopefully the NCAA will hit USC with a very big stick. Forfeiture of all games after Bush was ineligible would be a start, and I wouldn't be shocked to see massive scholarship reductions.
Originally posted by: her209
Did it happen in the before or after the game?Originally posted by: mpitts
Can the NCAA take away Ohio State's victory against Michigan in 2004 after it was found that Troy Smith took $500 cash from a booster during the season?Originally posted by: her209
It sounds like this all went down in the 2005 season. Since USC didn't win back in January, can the NCAA take away the Championship from a previous year?Originally posted by: chambersc
I'm going on the record right now that USC will have at least 1 championship yanked. As far as the Heisman, Reggie will keep it.Originally posted by: mpitts
I'm going on record right now that USC will not lose their AP or BCS/AP championships and Reggie Bush will not have his Heisman trophy taken from him.Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Beat me to it, I smell a Heisman removal here.. looks like the player who really deserved it for last year will actually get it!
Someone's going to be right![]()
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: mpitts
It's going to be interesting to see what happens. I wonder how (or if) they will punish USC since it was prospective agents and not boosters or the school itself.
It will be very interesting. But why did Carroll and his staff show such naiveté by allowing agents or people like agents into the locker room or sideline? Who has access should be vetted.
Regardless, if he was ineligible USC should have to forfeit their games.
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Pastore
What does his performance on the field, and his resulting Heisman, have to do with receiving illicit aid?
Absolutely nothing but the argument will be made that he shouldn't have been elligible to play in the upcoming games/season and/or he was willfully disregarding the rules of the NCAA and must be punished justly. $100,000 punishment would need to come from his ability and not his pocket -- see where the argument could go?
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Pastore
What does his performance on the field, and his resulting Heisman, have to do with receiving illicit aid?
Absolutely nothing but the argument will be made that he shouldn't have been elligible to play in the upcoming games/season and/or he was willfully disregarding the rules of the NCAA and must be punished justly. $100,000 punishment would need to come from his ability and not his pocket -- see where the argument could go?
Why does this rule exist? How does it hurt the college or the sport for players to be getting paid?
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Pastore
What does his performance on the field, and his resulting Heisman, have to do with receiving illicit aid?
Absolutely nothing but the argument will be made that he shouldn't have been elligible to play in the upcoming games/season and/or he was willfully disregarding the rules of the NCAA and must be punished justly. $100,000 punishment would need to come from his ability and not his pocket -- see where the argument could go?
Why does this rule exist? How does it hurt the college or the sport for players to be getting paid?
Originally posted by: Compton
I doubt anything will become of this.
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Anyone who thinks a program like USC can rise from the dead so quickly without this type of thing happening is delusional. The fact is that this happens at pretty much any successful school in the country.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Compton
I doubt anything will become of this.
Same. They don't do anything to the past records of anything, they only punish whomever was involved.
Originally posted by: Baked
Another blackman under investigation just 'cause he's black.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to try to place the race card, please choose another game
Anandtech moderator
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Compton
I doubt anything will become of this.
Same. They don't do anything to the past records of anything, they only punish whomever was involved.
Anytime a player plays after receiving a benefit like this he is considered ineligible. The NCAA will then strip the school of all victories in games the player participated in after he started receiving the benefit. If the NCAA thinks the school was trying to cover up the player's ineligibility, they'll punish the school as well with scholarship reductions/probation/etc.
This happened to the Michigan basketball program because of the Fab Five and it happened to the Alabama football program for the '93 season because a player signed on a cocktail napkin with an agent in New Orleans after the 93 Sugar Bowl.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Compton
I doubt anything will become of this.
Same. They don't do anything to the past records of anything, they only punish whomever was involved.
Anytime a player plays after receiving a benefit like this he is considered ineligible. The NCAA will then strip the school of all victories in games the player participated in after he started receiving the benefit. If the NCAA thinks the school was trying to cover up the player's ineligibility, they'll punish the school as well with scholarship reductions/probation/etc.
This happened to the Michigan basketball program because of the Fab Five and it happened to the Alabama football program for the '93 season because a player signed on a cocktail napkin with an agent in New Orleans after the 93 Sugar Bowl.
That's not true. The University of Washington had problems like that too a few times in the past 20 years. They either warned or made them bowl ineligible.
