The AP: Hypocritical Arbiters or Just USC Fans?

With the release of the NCAA's investigation the USC Trojans are poised to lose their 2004 BCS National Title, but not their AP title. AP Sports editor Terry Taylor, stated that the title will stand, "The poll is intended to measure on-field performance. If teams are allowed to play, they're allowed to be ranked and USC certainly played in 2004." This decision comes just a month after the AP decided awards weren't about on-field performance. Who reigns as AP award winners remains largely insignificant to most, who aren't USC fans, but has the AP declared itself the arbiter of rules without telling anyone? There in lies the true significance of their latest decision.

"The poll is intended to measure on-field performance. If teams are allowed to play, they're allowed to be ranked and USC certainly played in 2004."

Let's talk on-field performance: 87 Tackles, 5 Sacks, 4 Interceptions, and 2 Forced Fumbles.

That was Brian Cushing's on-filed production during his rookie year with the Houston Texans. Three months after receiving his Rookie of the Year award from the AP it was announced that he would be suspended the first four games of next season. The AP decided a re-vote was in order. Ms. Taylor justified it by saying, "I think there's a heightened awareness out there. I think there's less tolerance, you know, for PEDs, for steroids, for anything that could, in some way, be considered a performance enhancer."

USC cheated, perhaps not chemically, but they cheated. Is the AP not as sanctimonious or do they not believe that run of the mill paying student-athletes is as damning as PEDs? This decision places a new value system on "degrees" of cheating with Ms. Taylor as the un-appointed judge and jury. Degrees of cheating is not a new concept, but until now no media institution had deemed itself worthy to rate these infractions. The AP chose to acknowledge the NFL's rules but ignore the NCAA's all on the basis of what? Timeliness? Part of the impetus for a re-vote was Cushing's admission that he had tested positive. So because USC repeatedly failed to cooperate, they're rewarded instead of punished by the AP. I wish bill collectors had the same policy.

During a time when the amount of media outlets with access continues to dwindle, the AP stood out as one without a stake in broadcast rights. Now, however, the AP has apparently decided it's no longer good enough to report facts and break stories, they are now in a position to decide which rules should be followed. As a consumer we can only hope that they don't abandon reporting on stories such as student athletes getting paid, because they've clearly decided it's not nearly as troubling as PED use. Congratulations Ms. Taylor, your name is once again being discussed. It certainly seems like that may be even more important to her than being consistent or the AP's credibility.

Continue reading...

USC Gets The Ban Hammer

While the NCAA infractions committee poured over information, records, and hearsay in the case of the University of Southern California nobody thought USC would get more than a slap on the wrist. After the penalties and report came out today, the hammer drop fell harder than anyone anticipated. The full report is 67 pages, and you can see the full version here. After the break I take out a few choice parts that caught my eye and give my assessment.

The NCAA's enforcement and infractions processes are, at best, only one avenue to police and sanction amateurism violations caused by agent involvement. These processes are often slow. The limited scope of authority also means that these processes are, at times, incomplete.

Right off the bat the report addresses the problems of agents having dealings with high profile athletes. The NCAA freely admits it is a problem that the associatoin currently is not equipped to corral. Anyone who knows college sports knows this. The problem is that no one has a solution, at least one that can be implemented.


The report first addresses the Reggie Bush situation. The list of impermissible benefits is lengthy and detailed. They involve agents that Bush was in contact with during his time at USC. They vary from the well-known rent-free house for his parents to, cash for a down payment on a new car, free limo rides to San Diego, and an airline trip to the Orange Bowl for his brother. The final one tome is the most eyebrow raising:

Prior to the institution's September 3, 2005, football contest at the University of Hawaii, Manoa (Hawaii) student-athlete 1's step-father went to agency partner A's mother‟s home in El Cajon where she provided $5,000 in cash to him.

It almost seems like something out of Blue Chips. At this point, it is obvious this was a train running straight off the tracks. Anyone could see a single item as a bad mark on the career of a college athlete, but taken all together it is gross miss conduct of which the parties involved were aware of the underhanded nature of their actions.

The report states the following about their conversation with Bush on the matter:

Student-athlete 1 consented to an interview with the enforcement staff in late April 2009. Although he denied entering into any type of agreement with agency partners A and B, or anyone else associated with their attempts to form a sport agency, he conceded that he knew agency partners A and B, and he communicated regularly with agency partner A via telephone and text messaging. Student-athlete 1 reported that he socialized with agency partner A at area clubs and at his (student-athlete 1's) parents' home. He admitted that some of the conversations between him and agency partner A were about the formation of a sports agency. He also admitted that, with agency partner A, he attended a party that was given annually in San Diego for a former NFL player. [See: Findings 1-a-(5) and 1-a-(6).] He said it was "possible" that he helped agency partner A get into the USC locker room after a football game and that it was also "possible" that agency partner B was there too.

So Bush admitted to having a relationship with them and "possibly" helped them get in contact with other USC players. He has denied all those benefits listed and entering any type of agreement with the agents.

Pete Carroll, who was at the hearing in February is now residing in Seattle. The punishment he faces for this happening under his watch is the altering of his coaching record and the black mark of public perception. Even with that said many feel Petey peace-outed before he felt the true wrath of these sanctions. The one part of the report I would like to highlight involving Carroll was his use of an old NFL acquaintance to break down film for the team. This "outside consultant" performed duties that only countable football coaches are allowed to perform. Therefore, USC exceeded their limit on number of coaches. This story was out in the press before this report, but here is the excerpt I found interesting:

The institution, the enforcement staff and the former head football coach are in agreement with the facts of this finding and that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The institution believes that the violation is secondary because, in its estimation, it was isolated, inadvertent and neither provided, nor was intended to provide, a competitive advantage. The enforcement staff took no position as to whether the violation was secondary or major. The committee finds the violation occurred and it was major in nature.

Here was USC saying it was only a secondary violation. The problem many have had with the USC football program is their attitude that they can skirt the rules so easily. Not intended to provide a competitive advantage? They brought in a veteran coach with college and NFL experience to break down film. How is that not helping you in the field of competition? But here is the most compelling part, the report says:

The committee notes that the former head football coach did not check with the institution's compliance office before hiring the consultant. Rather, another institution's compliance office notified the compliance office at USC of the consultant's service with the USC football staff. As a result, this violation is a component of Finding B-7, lack of institutional control.

Boom. You notice that last sentence? That dread "lack of institutional control"? As an athletic department you never want to hear those words, ever. See how it states that Carroll did not check with the compliance department before bringing the consultant (who was Pete Rodriguez) in. It is not unheard of for coaches at major programs to operate with their own sense of complete autonomy but in the article I linked in the previous paragraph about the incident, this is the quote Carroll provided when asked by the press about the situation:

“To get to the point where we could have a guy be a consultant and come and see us, we did all of the homework, went through compliance, did all of the steps that you have to to make sure it’s OK,” Carroll said. “The way we understood and interpreted it, we tried to do everything exactly the right way. And that’s it.”

Right here Carroll contradicted what the committee found in the report, which I assume they found by interviewing the compliance officer at USC. Not the most egregious error ever made by a major college coach, but it goes to show laid back Pete was more than capable of twisting the truth and distorting facts while running his program.



The next section goes into detail about the OJ Mayo mess. Once again they lay out a list of impermissible benefits (my favorite was a $1400 TV). Here is the long and short of it:

From August 2006 through May 2008, representative B who was also affiliated with a professional sports agency, and representative B's associate ("representative C"), provided inducements and extra benefits in the form of cash, lodging, merchandise, automobile transportation, meals, airline transportation and services to student-athlete 2 when the young man was both a prospect and an enrolled student-athlete, to his brother ("brother"), to his girlfriend ("girlfriend") and to the girlfriend's mother ("girlfriend's mother").

The lesser known third party in these findings was a girl on the women's tennis team. Her violations seem to stem from her fondness of the telephone.

From November 2006 to March 2009, a former women's tennis student-athlete ("former women's tennis student-athlete") used an athletics department long-distance access code to make 123 unauthorized personal telephone calls to family members in another country. The total value of the calls was $7,535.

I mean damn, you have to be calling your foreign home quite a bit to rack up that much of a phone bill. Are international calls usually that pricey? I guess it depends how long she was talking but that is $61.26 a call.

The next section hits on that dreaded "lack of institutional control" point again. The report goes into detail about each section but this is the summary of it:

From December 2004 through March 2009, the institution exhibited a lack of control over its department of athletics by its failure to have in place procedures to effectively monitor the violations of NCAA amateurism, recruiting and extra benefit legislation in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's tennis.

There are 25 items on the penalties list. Some of them were imposed by USC in light of the situation with men's basketball. This of course was a faint attempt at showing the NCAA they were cleaning up things in house, but with the list of transgressions the committee had to impose tougher sanctions and they did.

Some of the highlights from the penalties:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Four years of probation from June 10, 2010, through June 9, 2014.

4. The institution's football team shall end its 2010 and 2011 seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including a bowl game, following the season. Moreover, during the two years of this postseason ban, the football team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limit in the number of football contests that are provided in Bylaw 17.9.5.2, with the exception of a spring game as set forth in Bylaw 17.9.5.2-(a).

5. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which student-athlete 1 competed while ineligible, beginning in December 2004.

6. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3.-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which student-athlete 2 competed during the 2007-08 regular seasons. (Institution imposed)

7. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which the women's tennis student-athlete competed while ineligible between November 2006 and May 2009. (Institution imposed)

9. Limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid and 75 total grants in football for each of the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years.

10. Limit of 12 grants-in-aid in men's basketball for 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years. (Institution imposed)

A few others of note: The school will have to "disassociate" with the 3 former student-athletes mentioned. That means Bush, Mayo, and the tennis player have to get the OJ treatment. Also, with the vacating of wins for the sports (including their 2005 Orange Bowl BCS national championship win), they are also taking away all of their records on the field/court.

The report goes into full detail about the size of the eraser the USC sports information department will need.

Regarding penalties C-5, C-6 and C-7, the vacations shall be effected pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b) and shall include participation in any postseason competition, including football bowl games, conference tournaments and NCAA championships. The individual records of student-athlete 1, student-athlete 2 and the former women's tennis student-athlete shall also be vacated for all contests in which they competed while ineligible. Further, the records of the head coaches of the affected sports shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated results. Finally, the institution's records regarding football, men's basketball and women's tennis shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated institutional, coaches' and student-athletes' records in all publications in which records for football, men's basketball and women's tennis are recorded, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting materials, electronic and digital media, and institutional and NCAA archives. Any reference to the vacated results, including championships, shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas, and any other forum in which they appear.

That last part reminds me of Judge Dredd, when Sly is found guilty of killing the reporter in front of the tribunal.

"Let the betrayal of the law be taken from our courts. Let his armor be taken from him. And all his garb of justice. Let him be stricken from our hearts and our memories, forever!"



That may be a bit of a dramatic example and considering the horrible movie that Judge Dredd was, not an appropriate analogy.

So where does USC go from here? When Miami got a one year postseason ban and reduction of scholarships in 1995, it took them about 3 years before Butch Davis righted the ship [Interesting note: Paul Dee, who was the AD at Miami when they got their sanctions, was the chair of this NCAA infractions committee]. However, college football is a different animal these days. With super-conference realignment looming as a possibility and 24-hour media, USC could lose a lot of their recently signed athletes as well as established players. Some say the program will take 5-10 years to recover, others think Kiffin will have things back to order after the 2 year postseason ban is lifted. No one knows for sure so if they tell you they do call them an idiot and walk away.

One last note on this. Mike Garrett, the athletic director who had these violations occur on his watch, was at a booster function in San Francisco last night. He wasn't exactly apologetic for what had happened. His priceless quote #1 of the night was this:

"As I read the decision by the NCAA," he told the group, "… I read between the lines and there was nothing but a lot of envy. They wish they all were Trojans."

He went on: "Today I got a purpose for really wanting to dominate for another 10 years."

And then the final big kicker. After acknowledging his position as AD might be in trouble, he fired a salvo across Pete Carroll's bow: "Probably. I'm sure Pete Carroll knew a few things that were going on too. That's why, after all those years of teams pursuing him, miraculously he's in Seattle."

I understand the Trojan nation thought they were impenetrable. They thought that no force could bring them down as long as they stood behind their high walls. They became wealthy and powerful in the land of college athletics but through their own arrogance and belief that they could not be touched by the rules, they were burned from within. The good thing about USC as opposed to the actual Trojans is that they can rebuild their city and reclaim their prominence, but for now their empire has crumbled about them.

Continue reading...

Excuse Me While I Rip This Guy: Team of the Decade

Through certain channels I learned that ESPN was still squeezing the college football orange after the end of the season up until signing day. This has led to a similar phenomenon around the interwebs of making decade lists in different categories for different sports. Pat Forde has chimed in on a variety of topics while looking back on the last ten years of college football. The one that caught my attention was his "single most dominant team of the decade" post. Upon hearing about this at the office I immediately began a plan in my head to attack his analysis and reasoning because he chose the 2004 USC Trojans over the 2001 Miami Hurricanes. While I had a myriad of things to do at work I decided to wait until I got home and then read Forde's article and then proceed to rip it in a tribute to FJM/Big Daddy Drew-Peter King style. However, when I got home and clicked on said post, the reasoning behind his choice was not very involved and neither were the remainder. It appears we have a classic mail-it-in job by Pat. A quick relevant topic that would provoke debate and remembrance among its readers but did not require any real thought. That's fine, but one of the glories of the internet is that irrelevant people can bitch on irrelevant blogs about inane ramblings of paid journalists who sometimes get lazy on the job. Fear not! I will press on and attempt to show that the best team we saw take the field in the aughts were the 2001 squad from the U. The analysis after the break.

The single most dominant team of the decade boils down to a two-squad debate: USC '04 or Miami '01.

Okay, I can get down with this.

The Hurricanes produced an astonishing amount of pro talent and stampeded to a perfect record

Also true.

but they also were slightly lessened by facing an underwhelming Nebraska team in the 2002 Rose Bowl.

How does them facing a Nebraska team that did not necessarily deserve to be there lessen who they were as a team? They did win that game right? Hmm, let me check: 37-14. Yeah was pretty much no contest. So Miami should be docked points because the BCS is stupid and illogical?

The Cornhuskers should never have been there after being humiliated by Colorado but got the nod anyway.

I cannot argue this point. Nebraska got drilled by Colorado for their lone loss. This lead to them losing a tiebreaker to get into the Big 12 title game. Texas from last year would agree that sometimes you don't get into the conference title game because of 5th level tiebreakers. There was no other undefeated team. A one-loss Oregon team were who many thought should be there, but we can't turn back the clock and by all means Oregon could have pulled an upset but they were not superior to the team Miami fielded.

USC '04, meanwhile, stamped its final mark by annihilating undefeated Oklahoma, 55-19, in the 2005 Orange Bowl.

Anyone who watched that game, much like the Miami Rose Bowl could see that the opponent was not in the league of the victor. Must I really rehash Oklahoma's recent BCS bowl history aside from their 2000 title(an Orange Bowl in which they really should have played[and most likely would have lost to] the Hurricanes who beat FSU 13-2 that year but got the nod which led to a change in the BCS formula). In 2004 Oklahoma was not the only undefeated title contender. The Auburn Tigers went undefeated, in the SEC, and were denied a chance to play USC. Maybe USC would have not won by such a big margin, or at all, because SEC SPEED IS BLINDING FAST OMGWTFBBQ!!!11one. See it works both ways, every BCS year you can point to who the champion should have or could have played to win the title.

This was the best Trojans team from the best program of the decade.

I concede the Trojans had the program of the decade, no argument from me there and 2004 might have been their best team but this is determining which team is the best of the decade, not the best of the best program. We all know Miami has sank in stature during this decade, but in 2001 they were the elite of the sport.

The Trojans became just the second wire-to-wire No. 1 team in the AP poll (Florida State did it in 1999), finishing it off with that absolute crushing of the Sooners.

Are we really using this as evidence? Preseason polls! USC was voted number one and stayed there because they did not lose. Miami started number two behind Florida, who would lose twice. Miami had slapped the Gators 37-20 around in the Sugar Bowl the previous season yet voters somehow voted Florida higher in that preseason. How can this be criteria for deciding which team is better?

The score was 38-10 at halftime for a USC team that combined dazzling offense (Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, LenDale White, Dwayne Jarrett, Steve Smith, Ryan Kalil, Deuce Lutui) and brutal defense (Lawrence Jackson, Mike Patterson, Shaun Cody, Lofa Tatupu).

Using words like dazzling is a fabulous way to accentuate your argument or a 6th grade book report on the Twilight Series.

Andre Johnson, Jeremy Shockey, Clinton Portis, Bryant McKinnie, Vince Wilfork, D.J. Williams, Jonathan Vilma, Ed Reed … those are just some of the future NFL stars who populated this Hurricanes roster.

Yeah, they are just some. 16 players from that team ended up being drafted in the first-round of the NFL draft, including 5 from in the subsequent 2002 NFL draft. I know pro drafting spots and to an extent pro performance is not the ultimate indicator of a team's greatness on the college football field, but in this category Miami wins over USC hands down.

The surprise is not that the Hurricanes stomped their way through the season undefeated -- it's that they were prevented the next year from repeating.

You had to throw this in there didn't you? What a stupid thing to say. It has nothing to do with the 2001 team that the 2002 team was not awarded the 2002 BCS title. The 2002 Hurricanes were very talented but they did not have the same roster(no Portis, McKinnie, Shockey, Rumph, Buchanon, OR ED REED) and we will not venture down he road of the interference call again.

How come at the end of the USC description you did not say "The surprise is not that the Trojans stomped their way through the season undefeated-- it's that they were prevented the next year from repeating."

Sound familiar no? The 2005 Trojans ran to the title game following their 2004 season but lost to Vince Young and Texas with Leinart and Bush. Yep, they failed too. Why no mention of that?

All in all, both teams are great but if you are going to put one above the other you need to come up with better reasons that one team played a certain team in the title game and one team was not ranked number 1 at the beginning of the season.

Now to some stats:

-Miami scored 42.6 ppg, allowed 9.75 ppg, 32.9 avg. margin of victory, NCAA record for consecutive margin of victory over ranked opponents -- they beat #14 Syracuse 59-0 and then #12 Washington 65-7. 6 All-Americans.

-USC scored 38.2 ppg, allowed 13.0 ppg, 25.0 avg. margin of victory, Matt Leinart won the Heisman, 6 All-Americans.

-Miami beat 5 ranked opponents, USC 3.

-The draft info has been mentioned but just to reiterate:
Miami has 14 stars from that team still in the league. Back-ups from that team were Kellen Winslow, Sean Taylor(RIP), Antrel Rolle, and Vernon Carey.

USC has an impressive list as well (53 players that were on that roster are now in the NFL) including Keith Rivers, Steve Smith, Bush, Lofa Tutupu, Fred Davis, Ryan Kalil, Winston Justice and LenDale White. However some of them were not as high profile in the league for their play like Leinart, John David Booty and Matt Cassell(both never really played in 2004), Dwayne Jarrett, and the infamous Mike Williams.

Before the 2005 Trojans lost to Texas in the Rose Bowl ESPN held an online poll about the best college football teams of all-time; only the 2001 Hurricanes were voted ahead of USC. Pat Forde may have a history of bashing the Canes and this may have just been a 5 minute article throw away, but it does not make him any less wrong in my view and those that agree with me. The 2001 Hurricanes were the best ever. I'll end it by letting them say it in their own words:

Continue reading...

FYI: USC Picked To Win Pac Ten

In an amazing shocker, Taylor Mays and company are projected to win the Pac Ten for 8th consecutive year. You might say they could be in trouble for the latest alleged NCAA violations but who are we kidding, the Trojan army has proved impervious to NCAA sanctions. Pete Carroll, the Priam of the program himself thinks he is only "in the middle" of his great run. Perhaps Carroll has done too much praising to the sun god in LA or maybe he knows that while the walls of Troy stand, no NCAA investigator or rival recruiter can break them. There could come a day however, perhaps with the new knowledge that Carroll used a former NFL assistant as a consultant which may be against the rules, when somebody finds a way to bring down the walls of Troy. It has not been all smiles and daisies for USC though, despite going 59-6 the last 5 years, they have only two titles to show for it this decade. With the determination not to be shut out of the national title game this year, USC will once again put all distractions aside and more than likely roll through the Pac Ten. Maybe there is one coach or NCAA official out there intrepid enough to employ the tactic that will bring Carroll and his team down: The Trojan Rabbit.




New commish, coaches in Pac-10, but USC still tops [SportingNews]

Continue reading...

Man with Ascot Ends USC's Perfect Season (and a look at the BCS shakeup)

Oregon State safety Greg Laybourn's late interception of USC QB Mark Sanchez led to the Beavers lone 2nd-half score, but it was enough to hold off the consensus number one. Laybourn, who appeared to be wearing an ascot (credit: originally identified by ASD confidential source Extra Medium) picked off the pass at the USC 30 and ran the ball down to the two-yard line. Oregon State scored on the next play to make the score 27-14 and following a quick USC TD drive, the Beavers recovered the onside kick and secured victory.

The original title for this post, was going to be, "Man in Ascot Deals Death Blow to USC's National Championship Hopes," but the Trojans are not done. With eight of the current top ten teams calling either the SEC or the Big XII home, there's a real possibility of all of them ending up with at least one loss. USC's schedule had already come under fire (a discussion for another day), but if all of the top teams lose, USC could be right back in the mix.

First things first, if a school from the SEC goes undefeated, they're in the big game. Same goes for any team from the Big XII. If a Big Ten school goes undefeated, they will be in, unless there are undefeated teams from both the SEC and the Big XII, in which case they'll be bridesmaids (sound familiar Penn State fans?). If any of these scenarios play out, USC will be stuck once again in a bowl they feel they're better than.

If the SEC champion has only one loss, they're in, unless the BIG conferences each feature an undefeated team. If the Big XII champion has only one loss, they will be in, if there are no undefeated teams, or the SEC champion is the only undefeated team. If either Big Ten team loses only one game, they will have to hope that every team has two losses, because none of them will get the nod over USC.

USC's best hope for another shot at the championship lies, ironically in games they've never had to play, conference championship games. If a two loss team can knock off either an undefeated team or a one loss team, USC may be able to creep back into the picture. Even if there are other one loss teams, but they do not play for the conference title (think Auburn), USC stands a chance. With USC still likely to win the conference, voters will justify that a conference winner carries more weight than a team that couldn't even win their division.

One interesting scenario that could play out, would be Ohio State running the table, and finishing with only one loss. This would assume that they would beat Wisconsin, Illinois, and Penn State. Three quality wins versus one for USC. As much as it pains me, there is no way the voters would put Ohio State into the National Championship. The only match-up that would appeal to me as a Buckeye fan would be a rematch with the Trojans. Would a full-time Terelle Pryor and Beanie Wells make a difference? Based on Jacquizz Rodgers performance, a good running back could go a long way (/slight case of denial).

Regardless of what happens over the next few months, the Trojans are relegated to scoreboard watching and trying to get up for each game hoping for a second chance. As it stands now, potentially the best team in the nation stands on the outside looking in, and if at the end of the year, their ring fingers remain bare, it'll be due to their inability to get excited for a game against a conference opponent on national TV, a 5'6" 180-pound freshman running back, and a man with an ascot.

Continue reading...