NCAA finds "no basis" to sustain USC appeal

[froginaustin]

hmy:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-0527-usc-ncaa-appeal-20110527,0,994463.story

The NCAA decision rejecting USC's appeal means penalties imposed against the school's football program, including a two-year bowl ban and the loss of 30 scholarships over three years, remain in place. University officials 'respectfully, but vehemently, disagree' with the findings. . . ..

 

[BrewingFrog]

Man! They are really pissed off at Auburn!

 

[froginaustin]

Speculation about the impact on USC's recruiting classes--

http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/usc/post/_/id/6888/quick-reaction-uscs-appeal-denied

. . .

The Trojans already have eight players committed to join next year's class, per various reports, with one -- top local lineman Max Tuerk -- giving his verbal commitment Wednesday morning, in fact. That leaves only seven open spots for the maximum 15-player class, per NCAA-mandated restrictions that now will come into play next season and stay active until 2015.

Also beginning next season is a 75-man overall scholarship limit for the roster, which will make for even more squeezing. As of this writing, to our best guess, USC plans to have 82 players on scholarship next season, with 58 spring-roster players, 21 newcomers and one returner (receiver Brice Butler).

. . ..

 

[West Coast Johnny]

I wonder if Greg Townsend has USC buyers remorse yet?

 

[FrogAbroad]

Let's say a HS senior signed/submitted his LOI before the sanctions, but has not yet gotten on campus...a May 2011 HS grad, in other words. Now, because of the sanctions, he wants to go elsewhere. What restrictions would there be regarding his transfer to another D1 program?

 

[Texas Otto]

Let's say a HS senior signed/submitted his LOI before the sanctions, but has not yet gotten on campus...a May 2011 HS grad, in other words. Now, because of the sanctions, he wants to go elsewhere. What restrictions would there be regarding his transfer to another D1 program?

:unsure:

If he is released from his LOI by the University (either by USC's choosing to get under the new mandate of 75 scholarships or by the student athlete volunteering to go elsewhere), and has never set foot on campus other than his official or unofficial visits then the student athlete would be allowed to transfer to a school (if they have available space) without having to sit out a year. Or if USC releases the student athlete from his LOI obligation he can transfer to another D1 institution and enroll in January (gray shirt) once that institution has room available and not have to sit out a year. The catch is USC has all the power they can decide not to relaese the student athlete, or can choose to conditionally release him from his obligations depending on where he decideds to transfer. Not really fair is it?


T

The catch is