Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Because none of the current players were involved in what happened. Reggie Bush allegedly received benefits from a 3rd party (not USC). I get it, USC should have known about it. Punish us, but not this badly. Two years of bowl games? 20 scholarships?

From what I've read, a big reason why it's so harsh is that the NCAA sees USC a "repeat offender."

Obviously the NCAA wanted to punish them financially, and what better way to do that than a post-season ban?

That being said, I think that's a horrible thing to do to those kids. Take away the scholarships, but to put a ban on the post-season? That hurts the kids more than the University, in my opinion.
 
Because none of the current players were involved in what happened. Reggie Bush allegedly received benefits from a 3rd party (not USC). I get it, USC should have known about it. Punish us, but not this badly. Two years of bowl games? 20 scholarships?

There won't be any controversy come bowl time at all, just watch. This has happened to other programs in the past as well

Without the success of USC due to these infractions, one could argue they would not have gotten the recruiting class for teams like today where they may be a top level team

I do agree that the punishment seems fairly steep though

They should go after Floyd and Carrol. Those scumbags

They should allow the USC players to transfer without losing a season of play. Only way to be fair I think
 
Because none of the current players were involved in what happened. Reggie Bush allegedly received benefits from a 3rd party (not USC). I get it, USC should have known about it. Punish us, but not this badly. Two years of bowl games? 20 scholarships?

Try 30 scholarships (10 per year over three years).

While I agree that it sucks for the current athletes, the reality is that this is really the only way the NCAA has of punishing a school that's been cheating for YEARS. USC should turn around and sue the crap out of Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll, but make no mistake, everything that happened is USC's fault, first and foremost, because they let it go on for so long.

Plus, they hired a former crony and known cheater to replace Carroll in Lane Kiffin, so USC really didn't do themselves any favors. Say goodbye to quality football for the next decade or so, especially when Texas and OU start stealing a lot of the great SoCal kids when they join the Pac-10 in the next couple of days.
 
Because none of the current players were involved in what happened. Reggie Bush allegedly received benefits from a 3rd party (not USC). I get it, USC should have known about it. Punish us, but not this badly. Two years of bowl games? 20 scholarships?

Because that's how the NCAA works. It's always after the fact. They are punishing the school, since they can't do anything to the players after they are gone. And the probation is in line with "repeat offenders". In 2002, Alabama got hit with 5 years probation, a two year bowl ban, and 21 lost scholarships. Check it out here. The key phrase is "lack of institutional control".

I'm just happy somebody outside the SEC actually got put on major probation. :) For a long time, it seemed like a witch hunt in the SEC. Of course, in Alabama's case, or really any major money maker, you can throw out that repeat offender thing. Bama was put on three years probation in 1995, then all this happened in 2002, which placed them in the "twice within five years" rule. They got put on probation last year, also within the "twice within five years" rule for major offenders. This technically makes them eligible for the death penalty, but we know that won't happen.
 
I keep reading everywhere that Texas doesn't seem to want to leave the Big 12. Obviously this could simply be nothing more than a public front, but what if it's true? What if Texas, and subsequently all the other Texas schools, reject the PAC-10 invite that appears imminent? If that happens does OU and OK State stay too?

So Colorado goes to the PAC-10, and Nebraska goes to the Big 10, but everyone else remains.

If this happens then suddenly the MWC becomes the buffet line for the Big 12. And if that happens then THANK YOU for not inviting Boise State! :)
 
I keep reading everywhere that Texas doesn't seem to want to leave the Big 12. Obviously this could simply be nothing more than a public front, but what if it's true? What if Texas, and subsequently all the other Texas schools, reject the PAC-10 invite that appears imminent? If that happens does OU and OK State stay too?

So Colorado goes to the PAC-10, and Nebraska goes to the Big 10, but everyone else remains.

If this happens then suddenly the MWC becomes the buffet line for the Big 12. And if that happens then THANK YOU for not inviting Boise State! :)

Texas wants to keep the Big 12 together so they can start their own TV network and continue to be the power player in the conference. They probably won't be able to do the same anywhere else.

That being said, a Big 12 North without the lure of Nebraska football or the Denver TV market would offer painfully little to the teams in the South. Even moving the Oklahoma schools up and replacing them with the likes of TCU and someone else in the South doesn't make a whole lot of sense because those schools don't offer what the conference really needs: TV sets.

No, the Big 12 is dead. Right now everyone is just waiting for Nebraska to make it official. A&M and Texas, meanwhile, are fighting with each other, and judging by the Longhorns' reactions, A&M may actually be winning (for once). If we go to the SEC, I will be the happiest man on this board.
 
Because none of the current players were involved in what happened. Reggie Bush allegedly received benefits from a 3rd party (not USC). I get it, USC should have known about it. Punish us, but not this badly. Two years of bowl games? 20 scholarships?

Only way to punish the school. I have no problem with a repeat offender school getting a punishment like that. They could go worse and give them the death sentance which would ban all scholar ships for a while. It does not effect current scholarships with the players but it does prevent them from giving as many out later on.

Texas wants to keep the Big 12 together so they can start their own TV network and continue to be the power player in the conference. They probably won't be able to do the same anywhere else.

That being said, a Big 12 North without the lure of Nebraska football or the Denver TV market would offer painfully little to the teams in the South. Even moving the Oklahoma schools up and replacing them with the likes of TCU and someone else in the South doesn't make a whole lot of sense because those schools don't offer what the conference really needs: TV sets.

No, the Big 12 is dead. Right now everyone is just waiting for Nebraska to make it official. A&M and Texas, meanwhile, are fighting with each other, and judging by the Longhorns' reactions, A&M may actually be winning (for once). If we go to the SEC, I will be the happiest man on this board.

Texas is many intersted in keeping the big 12 south together minus Baylor which is a joke school in the conference and honestly I do not think even belongs with the big players.

It would be kind of nice to see the dead weight Baylor be dropped. While I was at Texas Tech some of the non-conference games would have more people attending it than Baylor.
As for Rival school Texas and Texas A&M rivally but dead at Texas. Texas considered Texas Tech and OU bigger rivals than A&M. TT considers OU and Texas bigger rivals than A&M.
 
Still some remaining question marks that hopefully will be more clear by the end of the day. No way the PAC-10 stays at 11 with the addition of Colorado.you need at least 12 for a championship game, so what would be the point in expanding just to have the Denver TV market?

Does Notre Dame finally join the Big 10? Looking less likely now that the Big 10 has 12 teams.

And what happens to the Big-12.

My hope, as if my avatar didn't give it away, is that the PAC-10 becomes the PAC-12 with the edition of Utah. I would love for Utah to play in the Rose Bowl in the future and that's the most likely way for it to happen. With that said, I like the Mountain West and would hate to leave it. I liked having Utah being a part of the foundation of the BCS starting to crumble and joining the PAC-10 feels like selling my soul or something.

Anyway, I'm excited to see how all this shakes out.

P-Worm
 
Well, it looks like this may be a fun off-season after all. ESPN is reporting that "sources" are saying that Boise State will be joining the Mountain West, after all. The dominoes are starting to fall.

Actually, by the time of your post it was already official. Boise State will be in the MWC as of July 1, 2011.

I've been reading the same reports about Nebraska. Sounds like that's about to be made official.

I think the only way Utah gets in to the PAC-16 is if one of the Texas schools doesn't join, which could happen!

Tech to the SEC just seems weird to me. Heh.
 
As for Rival school Texas and Texas A&M rivally but dead at Texas. Texas considered Texas Tech and OU bigger rivals than A&M.

Our A&M rivalry is definitely not dead. You could make the argument that OU has surpassed it a bit lately, but believe me, most Horns I know (myself included) want nothing more than for A&M to get their football program turned around so our most important game of the year goes back to where it belongs - Thanksgiving week.

But Tech? Sorry man, I don't look at Tech much differently than I do anyone else. You guys are good at playing the spoiler, though - I'll give you that.
 
SNo way the PAC-10 stays at 11 with the addition of Colorado.you need at least 12 for a championship game, so what would be the point in expanding just to have the Denver TV market?

Does Notre Dame finally join the Big 10? Looking less likely now that the Big 10 has 12 teams.

Whereas before it had ..... 11

Of course, lots of people, myself included, never understood why the Big Ten added Penn State! But, yeah, the Denver TV market is a big enough prize to go after in and of itself, if only for a "short" time. (How long has the Big Ten had 11 teams now??) So, like the Big 10/11, it's unlikely the Pac 10/11 would stay that way forever.
 
Our A&M rivalry is definitely not dead. You could make the argument that OU has surpassed it a bit lately, but believe me, most Horns I know (myself included) want nothing more than for A&M to get their football program turned around so our most important game of the year goes back to where it belongs - Thanksgiving week.

But Tech? Sorry man, I don't look at Tech much differently than I do anyone else. You guys are good at playing the spoiler, though - I'll give you that.

Yes

The rivalries are:

Texas-Texas A&M NOT Texas-Oklahoma
Nebraska-Oklahoma NOT Nebraska-Colorado

The latter may be hard to maintain now..... and the Big 12 made a mess of it too with like a meeting every 2 years
 
We all knew it was happening, of course...

Nebraska has been officially accepted by the Big Ten.

As for Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and OK State.. it looks like they're just waiting for the PAC-X to call...

If A&M doesn't go to the PAC-16, then who do they grab instead? Utah?

When the dust settles, where do Kansas, K State, Iowa State, Missouri and Baylor go?

Do a few get scooped up by the MWC? I think the Big "10" is done for now. The feeling seems to be that even after the PAC-16 is formed, the Big 10 won't invite anyone else.

What do you guys think?

And I bet the WAC grabs an FCS team. Montana? Sac State has expressed desire...
 
Texas-Texas A&M NOT Texas-Oklahoma

Yeah, Texas-OU is fueled mainly by competition, and the fact that in the last decade, the game usually has had national implications. It's different with A&M. I can't put my finger on it. I will say this - after all this conference dust settles, I'll be bummed if Texas doesn't end up in the same place as A&M. I can't say that about any other team.
 
Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and OK State all bolt for the PAC-X next week, but A&M books a room at Hotel SEC.

PAC-X then invites Utah over Kansas to become PAC-16.

MWC then invites Kansas, K State and Missouri to become a 12 team league and then creates two divisions with a Championship Game.

You heard it here first!!

:)
 
Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and OK State all bolt for the PAC-X next week, but A&M books a room at Hotel SEC.

PAC-X then invites Utah over Kansas to become PAC-16.

MWC then invites Kansas, K State and Missouri to become a 12 team league and then creates two divisions with a Championship Game.

You heard it here first!!

:)

It would be better if after Texas, Tech, OU and OsU move to the PAC16, a&m can't get into the SEC since they wouldn't be able to bring in a big money, power school.

There are reports of the Big 12 (or what's left) staying together, as well as reports that a&m wants to get OU to come with them to the SEC, but it's almost certain that OU, OsU, and Tech will follow Texas to the Pac16.

a&m either needs to recognize their place and follow Texas to the Pac16, or keep trying to bark at the door of the SEC without being able to bring in any other team worth a damn.

The whole situation is sort of crazy, and it being the weekend, with a void of 'official' statements from Texas, OU, OsU and Tech, all kinds of rumors and theories are flying around.

Come Tuesday, things will be much more clear for everyone except a&m.
 
A&M will follow us. They always do.

::smirks at IgnatiusTheKing::

We shall see.

While I would prefer that A&M head to the SEC and continue to play UT every year on Thanksgiving, I'd also be okay with joining the Pac 16. I'm just glad that A&M is taking the time to look at all of its options and decide what's best for Texas A&M. I could not care less about doing what's best for the other Big 12 South schools, because I know they are looking out for their own interests, as well.

a&m either needs to recognize theirplace and follow Texas to the Pac16, or keep trying to bark at the door of the SEC without being able to bring in any other team worth a damn.

Typical, though it would appear that SEC commissioner Mike Slive (aka the most powerful man in college sports) disagrees with whatever uneducated assessment you've made. Unless, that is, he likes to travel to remote places like College Station, TX on a Saturday for no reason whatsoever.
 

That's what's being reported all over the place right now, including by Chip Brown (the unofficial spokesperson for UT Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds), who broke the Pac-16 story first on the UT Rivals.com site and has been making the rounds on ESPN and ESPN Radio ever since.

Multiple sources tell Orangebloods.com that Texas A&M has enough votes on its nine-member Board of Regents to join the Southeastern Conference and could announce that move as early as next week.

A source close to the situation said A&M has an invitation from the SEC if it wants it. SEC commissioner Mike Slive was in College Station on Saturday meeting with A&M officials, according to sources, although A&M athletic director Bill Byrne was in Idaho.
 
While I would prefer that A&M head to the SEC and continue to play UT every year on Thanksgiving, I'd also be okay with joining the Pac 16. I'm just glad that A&M is taking the time to look at all of its options and decide what's best for Texas A&M.

No, I understand completely. Personally I think the SEC would make sense for you guys. As long as the Thanksgiving tradition endures, that is. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.