USC's NCAA Sanctions Appeal set for Jan. 22nd

#1

TnScooby

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
2,228
Likes
2,271
#1
The Trojans plan to ask the NCAA to cut their scholarship reductions and postseason ban in half from 30 scholarships cut over 3 years and a two year postseason ban down to 15 scholarships and a 1 year postseason ban...Based on what is known, I wonder if the NCAA will give them the Buckeye/War Eagle treatment and cut the sanctions....

NCAA to hear USC Trojans' sanctions appeal on Jan. 22 - ESPN Los Angeles
 
#2
#2
After the cam newton bull****, they damn well better. That ruling was a flat double standard.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
After the cam newton bull****, they damn well better. That ruling was a flat double standard.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Agreed. Between the Cam Newton thing and how they dealt with Ohio State, I hope the NCAA is dismantled.
 
#5
#5
The Trojans plan to ask the NCAA to cut their scholarship reductions and postseason ban in half from 30 scholarships cut over 3 years and a two year postseason ban down to 15 scholarships and a 1 year postseason ban...Based on what is known, I wonder if the NCAA will give them the Buckeye/War Eagle treatment and cut the sanctions....

NCAA to hear USC Trojans' sanctions appeal on Jan. 22 - ESPN Los Angeles

In fairness, the AU and OSU rulings were both by the Committee on eligibility, not the Committee on Infractions, which is who handed down USC's sanctions.

That being said, if they don't grant USC any relief, then the COI better come down on AU and OSU pretty hard.
 
#6
#6
why should they come down on Auburn? They have done nothing wrong>>> I do not understand why people keep saying that.... It was Cam's daddy(allegedly) and it had to do with another school..
people he is eligible..he is good..au is about to win it all..move the freak on.
 
#7
#7
They should use the tOSU ruling as the standard and tell the aa that they simply failed to educate their athletes on the rules.
 
#8
#8
why should they come down on Auburn? They have done nothing wrong>>> I do not understand why people keep saying that.... It was Cam's daddy(allegedly) and it had to do with another school..
people he is eligible..he is good..au is about to win it all..move the freak on.

It wasn't "allegedly", AU admitted what Cecil did re: MSU.

And if you genuinely believe that Cecil shopped Cam to the school that Cam admitted was his first choice, then made the choice for Cam to go to AU without even asking for a cent, you are beyond naive.
 
#9
#9
lol
PROVE TO ME WHERE AUBURN DID ANYTHING WRONG... YOUR SUSPICIONS ASIDE.... I GUESS THE FBI, NCAA, SEC AND AUBURN ARE IN ON THIS CONSPIRACY EVEN BEFORE AU AND THE SEC KNEW HOW GOOD CAM WAS, SLIVE WAS ABLE TO SEE THE FUTURE AND KNOW HE WOULD DOMINATE EVERYONE THEY PLAYED.

The way the rule is written in the ncaa guidelines..NO RULES WERE BROKEN...
dang:whistling::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2:
 
#10
#10
lol
PROVE TO ME WHERE AUBURN DID ANYTHING WRONG... YOUR SUSPICIONS ASIDE.... I GUESS THE FBI, NCAA, SEC AND AUBURN ARE IN ON THIS CONSPIRACY EVEN BEFORE AU AND THE SEC KNEW HOW GOOD CAM WAS, SLIVE WAS ABLE TO SEE THE FUTURE AND KNOW HE WOULD DOMINATE EVERYONE THEY PLAYED.

The way the rule is written in the ncaa guidelines..NO RULES WERE BROKEN...
dang:whistling::banghead2::banghead2::banghead2:

According to the rules implemented by the SEC Cam was ineligible to play at any SEC school the moment his father asked for money.
 
#11
#11
lol
PROVE TO ME WHERE AUBURN DID ANYTHING WRONG... YOUR SUSPICIONS ASIDE.... I GUESS THE FBI, NCAA, SEC AND AUBURN ARE IN ON THIS CONSPIRACY EVEN BEFORE AU AND THE SEC KNEW HOW GOOD CAM WAS, SLIVE WAS ABLE TO SEE THE FUTURE AND KNOW HE WOULD DOMINATE EVERYONE THEY PLAYED.

The way the rule is written in the ncaa guidelines..NO RULES WERE BROKEN...

What we know AU did wrong:

They failed to declare Cam Newton ineligible upon learning of a possible violation involving Newton's father. It took them more than 5 months (and 12 games) to seek reinstatement.

And you need to stop saying that no rules were broken. The NCAA said that Cecil Newton committed a violation by soliciting MSU. Further, they made it clear that Cam Newton's ignorace of the violation is the mitigating factor in his eligibility. No punishment =/= no violation.
 
#12
#12
why should they come down on Auburn? They have done nothing wrong>>> I do not understand why people keep saying that.... It was Cam's daddy(allegedly) and it had to do with another school..
people he is eligible..he is good..au is about to win it all..move the freak on.

Fail
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14

Only according to Mike Slive's interpretation of the bylaw. According to Slive, even though Cecil solicited money from MSU, there is a decent chance that he would not have agreed to accept the money had they been willing to provide it.
 
#16
#16
No chance..... That's what you got.... No chance in he!!! Kiffin asking for forgiveness is a joke! Good luck!!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
Newton is playing on an undefeated SEC team. If Auburn had 2 losses or werent the SEC Champs, he'd be sitting on his butt at home right now.
 
#19
#19
According to the rules implemented by the SEC Cam was ineligible to play at any SEC school the moment his father asked for money.

This.

The family is by extension considered the student athlete. At least, that's what the NCAA told USC regarding Reggie Bush's family.

And at any point that the student-athlete solicits for a pay-for-play agreement the student-athlete is ruled ineligible whether they accept any cash or not.
 
#20
#20
More info on USC's case with the NCAA

Going after the NCAA's 'underbelly' - College Football - Rivals.com


There’s a story behind that. Despite having used up her limit of three three-year terms, Potuto was placed back on the COI for the USC case. She replaced Oregon law school professor James O’Fallon, who wasn’t allowed to sit on the case of a fellow Pac-10 conference member.

Potuto’s presence was a problem, Shell says, despite her testimony to Congress that the NCAA’s “enforcement, infractions and hearing procedures meet due process standards. In fact, they parallel, if not exceed, those procedures … the NCAA in its infractions process clearly meets and very likely exceeds applicable 14th Amendment procedural protections.”

Potuto also said an accused absolutely could confront an accuser at an NCAA hearing.

Bachus said he was surprised, maybe that he had misunderstood, thinking “that you didn’t allow people to confront the witnesses.”

“I teach constitutional law,” Potuto assured Bachus. “We do, and I can give you the bylaw provisions.”

That assurance will be news to USC lawyers who did everything they could think of to try to interview, or just sit in on the NCAA staff’s interviews, with McNair accuser Lloyd Lake. But USC was rebuffed in every instance, to the point of finally accusing the NCAA of resorting to deliberately misleading them to keep the USC lawyers away from the Lake interviews.

Bachus, in a post-hearing newsletter, realized he’d been had, zeroing in on Potuto’s assurance of the accused’s ability to confront accusers at an infractions hearing “as nothing other than deceptive.”

Here’s how that went:

Potuto: “Anybody who appears at that hearing has that right … to ask questions of any individuals or party at a hearing.”
Bachus: “So anyone charged with an offense has the right to appear at the hearing and cross-examine all the witnesses?”
Potuto: “Cross-examining might not be the correct term for it but certainly the right to inquire of anyone else who appears.”
Bachus: “To question the witnesses?”
Potuto: “Of course.”

But in his written testimony to the Subcommittee, nationally renowned Tulane Sports Law Professor Gary Roberts, shot Potuto’s testimony down, saying such questioning would not be possible.

“Because most of the people with personal knowledge of the relevant facts are not allowed to attend, cross-examination of ‘witnesses’ is not possible, ” Roberts wrote. “Rules of evidence are not followed and whatever the committee allows will be heard. In short, the proceeding is quite informal and haphazard by judicial standards.”

Potuto didn’t mention that, Shell says. And that could be a problem for the NCAA now.
 
Advertisement



Back
Top