- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/17/11 at 10:08 pm to RightKindaGuy
quote:
does kiffin have a plan if the appeal does not work?
A lot of you keep bringing up kiffin, hes not in charge here. Pat haden and mckay are. All SC administration is in contact with the NCAA on what we can and cannot do. USC is asking for 15 schollies reduced and the max at 80 not 75. They will take 20 this year plus the 9 from last years count. If the sanctions are upheld(which they most likely will) the scholarship crunch will begin next year.
Posted on 1/24/11 at 10:50 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
If the sanctions are upheld(which they most likely will) the scholarship crunch will begin next year.
A clarification, please. Are you saying next year's class (when the sanctions are upheld) will be the first of 3 years of 10 scholarship losses with a 75 roster limit? It has been suggested that this year's class will count off 5 of the 30 total -- effectively and unilaterally changing the sanction from 30 over 3 years to 30 over 4 years, or 25 for 3 years. TIA for clarifying.
Posted on 1/24/11 at 11:08 pm to BozoBus
I may be wrong, but the way I interpret things is that they are operating under the assumption that there are no sanctions at this point. When the appeal is denied and ruling upheld, then the regular, initially-imposed sanctions will kick in for the 2012 recruiting class and in going forward (for 2013 and 2014 classes as well).
Posted on 1/25/11 at 12:40 pm to JPLSU1981
Thank you for your input, JP. That is what my quoted excerpt seemed to be suggesting. That interpretation has a numbers contradiction though.
USC is counting back 9 EE's. They are appealing half of the scholarships lost, 15 over 3 years, or 5 per year. That would allow them to sign 20 per year for 3 years (which is just 1 scholarship less than they averaged over the last 2 years, hardly a penalty from that point of reference). If they are treating this year as sanction-free, they would be signing 25 + 9 = 34. They aren't doing that. The 26 they have (9 + 17) and the few they are still recruiting seem geared to signing 20 + 9, what they hope the sanction to be reduced to; they are accepting 5 lost per year. So when the appeal is rightly denied, will they claim the signing of 29 players counts minus 5 from the 30 total and spread the remaining 25 lost to sanctions over the next 3 years? This would effectively soften the sanction to 30 losses over 4 years. And since signing 20 per year is not unusual for them, this makes the effective "penalty" 3 scholarships per year! That is less than the appeal seeks. And the 3 years are being prefaced with a year of 29 signees.
And if the 3 year reduced scholarships do not start until the 2012 class, the 75 player roster limit wouldn't be required until the season after next. The bowl ban would be over. So again, by delaying with this hopeless appeal, they spread the pain out to manageable extents.
If this is their plan, they are ending up with the slap on the wrist they wanted from the start. Briar Rabbit crying about those awful and excessive penalties...uh huh.
Are you taking notes, Auburn?
USC is counting back 9 EE's. They are appealing half of the scholarships lost, 15 over 3 years, or 5 per year. That would allow them to sign 20 per year for 3 years (which is just 1 scholarship less than they averaged over the last 2 years, hardly a penalty from that point of reference). If they are treating this year as sanction-free, they would be signing 25 + 9 = 34. They aren't doing that. The 26 they have (9 + 17) and the few they are still recruiting seem geared to signing 20 + 9, what they hope the sanction to be reduced to; they are accepting 5 lost per year. So when the appeal is rightly denied, will they claim the signing of 29 players counts minus 5 from the 30 total and spread the remaining 25 lost to sanctions over the next 3 years? This would effectively soften the sanction to 30 losses over 4 years. And since signing 20 per year is not unusual for them, this makes the effective "penalty" 3 scholarships per year! That is less than the appeal seeks. And the 3 years are being prefaced with a year of 29 signees.
And if the 3 year reduced scholarships do not start until the 2012 class, the 75 player roster limit wouldn't be required until the season after next. The bowl ban would be over. So again, by delaying with this hopeless appeal, they spread the pain out to manageable extents.
If this is their plan, they are ending up with the slap on the wrist they wanted from the start. Briar Rabbit crying about those awful and excessive penalties...uh huh.
Are you taking notes, Auburn?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News