Naturally, all of the Trojan faithful think that this punishment is extremely harsh and the university NEEDS to appeal the NCAA's ruling. In fact, the university is appealing, though I'm not sure that it would do any good. I find this punishment to be just and deserving to SC. I mean, this

Now on to Reggie Bush. He made a statement today (that I got from ESPN) saying, "I have a great love for the University of Southern California and I very much regret the turn that this matter has taken, not only for USC, but for the fans and players." If he very much regrets that this has happened to SC, then why did he accept all these gifts? I know he keeps saying that he didn't except any of these lavish gifts, but clearly he did since he was found guilty. There is a rule in the NCAA Rules and Bylaws that says:
An individual loses amateur status and thus shall be ineligible for intercollegiate competition if the individual uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport.Rule 12.1.2, people. Reggie broke this rule and now has to suffer the consequences. His 2005 Heisman might also be in jeopardy, and as much as he deserved the award that year, he would have to give it up because he would be deemed ineligible to play that season. Oof. As a college student-athlete, you need to know that taking money or gifts while you're still in college is a no-no. Sadly, Reggie isn't the first athlete that this has happened to, and he probably won't be the last. I know that all of it is tempting when you're in college and are a big sports stud, but you have to say no when you get these tantalizing offers. Part of the onus has to be on Reggie.
Another part of the onus has to be on Pete Carroll. He was a coach that liked to have control over his team, and yet he had no idea that one of the most prolific players he ever had during his SC tenure was accepting illegal gifts from shady sports agents. I don't really buy that. He claimed today that he and the university had no idea that any wrong-doing was going on. But how can he be sure. He was one of the more media-friendly college football coach

Lastly, what could all this mean to the Pac-10 (or the Pac-16 if things turn out the way they are shaping) and more importantly USC football. I feel that with the loss of the 30 scholarships over the next three years, this may provide some parity within the Pac-10. SC's large recruiting base is in southern California, and a lot of those kids would need some type of scholarship to even consider going to school there. Now, without these scholarships, these high-class athletes that would have normally gone to USC, will now be heading to other Pac-10(or 16) teams, thus spreading the California football love. As for USC, I think that they will somehow end up okay. Recruiting might be a little tricky with the loss of the scholarships and the bowl ban, but they will still be able to find good players thanks to their reputation alone. Also, by the time the bowl ban is lifted in 2012, there starting QB Matt Barkley will be a senior. After that, they'll be able to get more players in through the lift of the bowl ban, because why would you play somewhere where you had no chance at a bowl? I mean, this is USC. If any school could find a way to bounce back from this, it's probably them.
You can call me a hater for being harsh on the poor Trojans today, but really, I think they got what they deserve. There are rules about this set in place for a reason, and if you don't follow them then you need to be punished. Plain and simple. However, this does not take away the fact that I really want to see an SC game this fall haha. Yet, I'm going to say it now and I'm going to say it often...this is definitely the year of the University of Washington and Jake Locker. Pac-10 champs and 2010 Heisman winner. I'm calling it now.
Bet you're glad you picked Pepperdine over USC, huh?
ReplyDelete