CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

USC 2/20 punishment makes PAC 10 less desirable?

by Florwood · 6/10/2010

Advertisement
C
craigoscarson
Florwood wrote:
USC is banned from bowls for two years, lose 20 football scholarships...Oregon next? This is a conference the B12 WANTS to go to?



http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc-20100610,0,7548894.story




Just makes Texas happy that they'll waltz in and dominate their new conference. USC had this coming for some time... and then some.
P
PurpleReign
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).
C
CougarClaw
PurpleReign wrote:
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).


good point.



welcome to Southern Cal, Kiffin. Here's your fine.



How's your recruiting prowess look now that your kids have to pay to attend USC? I hear Pete Caroll is looking for an assistant Linebackers coach... You know Rick and Norm at UCLA are licking their chops right about now. well. I guess everyone in the Pac 10 would be.



The cat. is. away.

play mice. play!
D
Ddawg
CougarClaw wrote:
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).


You know Rick and Norm at UCLA are licking their chops right about now.


Exactly!!!! UCLA - Rick & Norm - will benefit HUGE!!!!! Ha-ha-ha!!!!!!

Lane Kiffin is a chump. A $4 million p/ year chump.

:crazy:
Advertisement
M
Mars
PurpleReign wrote:
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).

It takes two years to leave the Big XII. But there ain't gonna be no Big XII left to leave after Texas packs up their bags. Texas could be a PACie by 2011.
B
BerliNY
Ddawg wrote:
PurpleReign wrote:
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).


You know Rick and Norm at UCLA are licking their chops right about now.


Exactly!!!! UCLA - Rick & Norm - will benefit HUGE!!!!! Ha-ha-ha!!!!!!

Lane Kiffin is a chump. A $4 million p/ year chump.

:crazy:


UCLA still sux, the NFL OUGHT to be the organization licking its chops right now. THE USC/UCLA combo is as weak now as it's ever going to be, now is the time for LA to get an NFL team.
C
craigoscarson
PurpleReign wrote:
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).


You can argue that USC as a football team will be better the next 2 years than the years after that. They have the talent on campus now inspite of the bowl ban. Who knows what they'll have with the perceived stain of the cheating and scholarship losses. So right as the Big 12 teams come in, USC is limping talentwise from the scholarship losses and recruiting sanctions. (and honestly how many of us think that Lane Kiffin will survive this? I didnt' think he'd survive two years before the ban)



The scholarship loss and recruiting sanctions will reverberate for a decade.



Teams don't recover from sanctions like this right after their bowl ban is over. The balance of power on the west coast has changed dramatically. How do you lose 20 scholarships and recover in 5 years? They might be competitive, but they're going to be a shell of what they were for some time.



A stain like this doesn't go away quickly. This also handcuffs that new USC coaching ""dream team" especially if any investigation is made into their activities at Tennessee.... (my feeling is that the NCAA kept Kiffins behavior in mind when they decided on this ruling.)



Will Matt Barkley ever see a Rose Bowl? Not likely, unless he pays admission. All they can really do is play spoiler, beat up the entire Pac zero and then have someone else default as conf champ.



For the last decade, it was USC and a bunch of mediocre teams (including some of the worst UW teams in history) now it's just a bunch of mediocre teams until Texas jumps in, since USCs regular season is made moot by their lack of post-season eligibility.



If you erase USC from the last 6-7 years of the Pac 10, is the Mountain West a better conference? I think you could make the argument.
J
jonnylingo
more desirable i think. it just makes it easier to get into a better bowl for whoever is in the pac10
C
CougarClaw
craigoscarson wrote:
It's two years of sanctions, so it would be over by the time a hypothetical P16 even started playing games (2012 is the earliest as a two year notice is required to leave the Big12).




If you erase USC from the last 6-7 years of the Pac 10, is the Mountain West a better conference? I think you could make the argument.


does this affect the MWC's BCS criteria qualification at all? Didn't the Pac-0's numbers just drop overall with the fall of the mighty?
Advertisement
L
Lawboy
This expansion is not about on the field issues, but off the field $$$ making. USC still is a huge draw and will bring the LA market and tons of cash. These schools will still get a huge payday, and they could care less if USC suffers for a few years so long a sthe $$$ rolls in. And it will. Those sanctions mean diddly squat to this deal.
G
gmj81
I don't know, the LA crowd is a fickle one... sure, they jump on the bandwagon when the Lakers or Dodgers or Trojans are winning... but when they're not, there's better things to do.



There's a thing about "bringing a market"... In Texas or Nebraska or even SEC country, football is life and people follow their teams through the highs and lows. In other states, not so much. Trojans were a cash cow, but that was just because they were winning. It took awhile for PC to build them back up to that point and to a point where arguably they've never been before. I really don't think it will take long for them to fade back into the middle of the PACk. And when they do, they may still be the dominant team in the LA market but most of those "eyes" will find other ways to spend their time than buying tix or watching the Trojans on the tube.
L
Lawboy
UCLA and USC bring the LA market. It is about TV sets. That is it. Not butts in seats. Just TV sets. That does not change, whether USC is great or not.
G
gmj81
Exactly, when the local teams aren't winning, most LA fans would rather tune in to the Hills or hit the beach or go shopping. They don't pay attention to floundering teams.
L
Lawboy
gmj81 wrote:
Exactly, when the local teams aren't winning, most LA fans would rather tune in to the Hills or hit the beach or go shopping. They don't pay attention to floundering teams.


The deal put together will be based upon ratings for a multi-year cycle, I assume. Which means 2011 seasons and back. Not based upon potential future numbers. If USC sees a drop, it won't be until after 2012. So their suffering will not affect the next TV deal at all.
Advertisement
G
gmj81
That is a good point.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.