USC Football: NCAA Displays Lack of Control and Logic with Punishment

Before I begin what some people are going to categorize as a rant, let me say that Pete Carroll is no longer a particularly popular guy around the USC campus. The community wants an apology.

But then there is the Reggie Bush issue, which has to be discussed.

So let's make sure everyone knows what we're talking about here:

Reggie Bush took money so that his family could live in Los Angeles with him, and because of that the NCAA extends USC a postseason ban for two years, forfeiture of wins, forfeiture of scholarships, and a partridge in a pear tree.

It seems that someone over at the NCAA office is trying to compensate for something because this punishment does not fit the crime.

If anyone reading this has ever been to (or lived in) Los Angeles, then they likely know that the money Reggie received will buy a nice apartment for about six months. This is an expensive town, and it wasn't like Reggie was running around spending all of his money on drugs or financing an international crime syndicate.

As a college kid, he wanted his family to be around.

How is that not understandable? Los Angeles is a big town filled with all sorts of pitfalls. He wasn't in his own backyard in Louisville, Kentucky. This is the big city, and it turns on the dollar.

What the NCAA claims they found in their report, according to ESPN, is this:

"A lack of institutional control, impermissible inducements, extra benefits, exceeding coach staff limits, and unethical conduct by an assistant football coach."

Uh...

A lack of institutional control? Is that supposed to mean that USC can control every sketchy businessman in Los Angeles? Hello, NCAA, have you ever been here?

I can't for the life of me figure out what impermissible inducements and extra benefits are, but I'll assume that would be similar to the BOATLOADS OF MONEY THE NCAA MADE OFF REGGIE BUSH AND THE USC DYNASTY . Sanction yourselves, NCAA, and repay that money to the universities because obviously it was earned through immoral means based upon your findings.

Then there is the mysterious, "exceeding coach staff limits and unethical conduct by an assistant football coach."

To me, that reads, "BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS unethical conduct by someone who isn't at USC now/doesn't matter."

The findings/accusations were incredibly stupid to begin with. These aren't the types of things that have any impact on football itself, and frankly it shouldn't have any bearing on what the NCAA does. Only one question actually mattered here:

Was Bush paid to attend USC in order to help them win championships?

The answer is no.

I could have saved the NCAA four years of jerking the world around to come up with a ridiculous punishment that will now affect people who had absolutely nothing to do with the "crimes."

Two full classes of college students have started at and graduated from USC since Bush left. Why are a bunch of kids who were in eighth grade at the time these events allegedly took place getting punished for them?

And I use the word allegedly because the NCAA isn't the United States government. They don't have to abide by strict legal precedent in their judicial process, nor do they have to actually collect any evidence. They are a heavy-handed arbiter who could summon Florida right now and with no proof whatsoever ban them from participating in college football for the next 10 years.

Is it safe to have an organization like that in charge of anything? They didn't prove anything with their report other than they are the ones who are out of control.

Fortunately for USC, the punishments aren't actually that bad. I'll explain:

Forfeiture of Wins

NCAA: "Hey, USC, you didn't win those games in 2004."

USC: "Ummm...yes we did. Reality happened."

NCAA: "No, we're going to use a time machine to alter history."

USC: "Well...we have these tapes of the games here that clearly show they were played and we won them."

NCAA: "We'll be needing those too, every copy will have to be destroyed."

USC: "No."

NCAA: "Yes."

USC: "You can't make me."

Loss of Scholarships

This doesn't actually hurt as USC rarely uses all of its scholarships anyway. Unlike most of the schools in the SEC, USC does not engage in the devastating practice of over-recruiting, which actually should be penalized by the NCAA.

Most of the schools that do it bring in a bunch of kids and falsely promise them an education in return for their partnership with the university to invest in their football career. Then if the school isn't happy with their development, they rip away their scholarships and kick them off of the team.

How is that for keeping the student athlete in mind?

That is why a school like Auburn takes 35 recruits every year while schools like USC and Northwestern take half as many.

No matter what you say about USC, at least the school cares about and cares for its students' well being.

And last, my favorite:

Two Year Postseason Ban

This particular punishment is hilarious, because it actually only hurts the NCAA/BCS.

First, college football is unique among American sports in that it is the only sport with a truly meaningful regular season. The postseason, aside from the national title game, accomplishes virtually nothing.

Now either USC will finish in BCS contention (potentially even top two), and then the NCAA looks stupid and the BCS loses money by providing illegitimate results again, or USC would have qualified for some mid-level bowl that they don't want to play in anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Either way, USC doesn't lose but the BCS might.

The timing also couldn't be more perfect, as the Pac-10 Superconference is being formed as this article is being written, but won't go into effect until the fall of 2012. That will, funny enough, be the point in time that the postseason ban is lifted.

College football is getting ready to go through two awkward seasons of questionable relevance anyway, as the entire Big 12 isn't going to actually matter.

And USC likely would have been among the deserving teams who got left out of the National Championship Game (heck it seems that 80 percent of the teams that deserve a shot are always left out by the BCS) anyway, so now fans won't even have to face that frustration.

What does it all mean?

It means what I have been saying for months, which is that the NCAA is an outdated organization on the verge of getting its comeuppance. The crap they have pulled on Alabama was uncalled for (though there are a shockingly large number of Bama fans who have an inexplicable problem with USC, and those folks need to get on the right side of the fight now because we're in this together).

This crap was also uncalled for.

Frankly, the good news is that as we enter the superconference era, the NCAA will lose all of its power over college football. The major conferences are going to monopolize the sport, lose their tax exempt status (who cares, they'll be making a gazillion dollars), and the NCAA will have no bearing/authority over what happens anymore.

For all the big schools who have dealt with ridiculously severe punishments from the NCAA in the past, the day of liberation is almost here.

It started with Colorado's jump to the Pac-10, and will continue with Nebraska's jump to the Big Ten. When the 16-team conferences emerge, college football will officially be what the fans made it into a long time ago.

College football will be a business.

And the NCAA won't be leaching off it anymore.