The USC Program might be getting a little nervous....

[The Prowler]

actually, they should've been getting nervous for the past couple of years.....Now Coach Kiffin and Co. might be getting what they deserve.

NCAA probe of USC complete
By Charles Robinson and Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports
 
After almost four years of investigation, the NCAA’s probe into the University of Southern California athletic program has reached a conclusion. Sources familiar with the investigation have told Yahoo! Sports that the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions will meet Feb. 19-21 to address what investigators uncovered at USC. According to typical NCAA procedures, if sanctions are necessary, they will be determined and then made public via a news conference within six to eight weeks of the February hearing.

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn declined comment. The NCAA’s website indicates the next meeting of the Committee on Infractions will occur Feb. 19-21 in Tempe, Ariz.

Neither USC nor Pac-10 officials could be immediately reached for comment.

The meeting will be the apex in the NCAA’s probe into USC’s athletic program, as it represents the first determination on whether sanctions should be leveled against the school. The determination on a hearing date also indicates USC has received a letter of allegations from the NCAA and that the school has responded in some way. According to NCAA procedures, schools informed of infractions have at least 90 days to respond. After the response period has expired, a case summary is completed and a date is set for the Committee on Infractions to meet and determine whether there is a basis for sanctioning.

The NCAA’s investigation of USC has been ongoing since April 2006, when a series of Yahoo! Sports reports detailed allegations of extra benefits given to running back Reggie Bush and his family by a failed sports marketing company. Since then, the probe has come to encompass former Trojans basketball star O.J. Mayo and the men’s basketball program, after a report by ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” detailed benefits that allegedly had been funneled to Mayo. Former Trojans basketball coach Tim Floyd abruptly resigned after a Yahoo! Sports report detailed an alleged $1,000 cash payment from Floyd to a man who had helped steer Mayo to USC. The investigation is believed to also include Trojans running back Joe McKnight, whose use of a 2006 Land Rover and ties to a marketing entrepreneur in Santa Monica also have come under scrutiny after a recent report in the Los Angeles Times.

Recent developments at USC, including its decision to self-sanction its basketball program, appear to have occurred after the Trojans received the NCAA’s letter of allegations. News of the hearing also indicates that former Trojans football coach Pete Carroll has been aware for weeks of the specific violations the NCAA may be alleging against his program. Carroll resigned as USC football coach on Sunday and has been named coach of the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks.

The NCAA probe has stretched beyond individual athletes, widening its focus to USC’s control of its sports programs, as well as various aspects of compliance and oversight, according to sources. It is expected to make conclusions on USC’s institutional control and whether the school had the proper checks and balances in place to oversee its athletes.

USC already sanctioned itself for NCAA violations during the 2007-08 season related to Mayo allegedly having accepted benefits from known sports agency runner Rodney Guillory. The penalties levied by USC included a ban on postseason play, a reduction of scholarships, recruiting restrictions and the vacation of all victories from the 2007-08 season. Both Mayo, through his agent, and Floyd have denied wrongdoing.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ys-uscprobe01110&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

[Kaos]

Shelley Smith said there was nothing to this at all. 

Then she put a snail trail on a picture of Pete Carroll.

[BZ770]

Maybe Pete caught wind of the future and pulled a Franchione, by going to the Seahawks.  Maybe we'll get our MNC if they have to forfeit it.

[jmar]

I'm reserving comment on USC until the verdict is in and we have this class signed due to the mojo factor.

[ggraf71]

Maybe Pete caught wind of the future and pulled a Franchione, by going to the Seahawks.  Maybe we'll get our MNC if they have to forfeit it.

I honestly would not want to claim this MNC. As bad as we chastise the Bama fans for claiming 13 titles, we should know better. This would be one that Auburn would never live down, sort of like most of their titles, ill-gotten and not earned on the field.

I also think that the NCAA doesn't actually award a title, but just "recognizes" the winner as National Champions. I would also assume that it would just be vacated, as in no team was the Champs in 2004-05.

[Birmingham]

I honestly would not want to claim this MNC. As bad as we chastise the Bama fans for claiming 13 titles, we should know better. This would be one that Auburn would never live down, sort of like most of their titles, ill-gotten and not earned on the field.

I also think that the NCAA doesn't actually award a title, but just "recognizes" the winner as National Champions. I would also assume that it would just be vacated, as in no team was the Champs in 2004-05.

First of all, how would Auburn claim a championship for that particular year.  If anybody claimed it would it not be the team that lost to USC in the Championship game?

2nd of all, please explain how "most"... I'll say that again... "most" of our titles are "ill-gotten and not earned on the field".  I'm waiting.

[AUChizad]

Easy.

1925 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with Dartmouth. Who awarded the NC? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his system in 1927. So Bama won their 1925 NC using a formula that didn't exist until 1927? Helms Athletic Foundation started in 1941. Another incredible retroactive NC.


The Associated Press Poll has been active since 1936. The AP took their final poll prior to bowl games from 1936 - 1964 and in 1966 and 1967. They took their final poll after the bowl games in 1965 and from 1968 - Current.


1926 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with 3 other teams with equal or better records! Once again it is the Helms Athletic Foundation in 1941 that awards it!


1930 National Championship- The Davis poll says that Bama tied Notre Dame for NC this year. This was the only one to award it to Bama. Notre Dame was named NC in 6 polls! Parke Davis is another retroactive system! He (an individual, not an organization) did his in 1933!


1934 National Championship- Alabama says they share this with two other teams. The awarders are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was an individual who came up with his own system. Williamson was a geologist who came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus first appeared in 1946!


1941 National Championship- This is a complete joke. The AP ranked Alabama 20th in the nation with 14 teams with better records in the top 20. Once again it is the Football Thesaurus that retroactively awards it. Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC that year. Mississippi State won the SEC title..yet Bama claims a National title!


1964 National Championship- While the AP did award the NC to Bama (10-1-0), Arkansas had the better record, 11-0. Alabama played Texas in their bowl and LOST. The AP final poll was before the bowl.


1965 National Championship- The AP gave this to Bama. That year there were three teams with better records than Bama. Bama 9-1-1, Michigan St 10-1-0, Arkansas 10-1-0, Nebraska 10-1-0.


1973 National Championship- AP puts Bama 4th after their bowl game loss. Bama claims a NC from the UPI poll that was taken before they met Notre Dame in the bowl game and lost. There were 3 teams with better records than Bama that year. The embarrassment of naming Alabama number one caused the UPI to name champions after bowl games.


1978 National Championship- AP gives this to Alabama(11-1-0) even though USC (12-1-0) had the better record Guess who Alabama lost to that year? USC! UPI gave the NC to USC.

[280TIGER]

First of all, how would Auburn claim a championship for that particular year.  If anybody claimed it would it not be the team that lost to USC in the Championship game?

2nd of all, please explain how "most"... I'll say that again... "most" of our titles are "ill-gotten and not earned on the field".  I'm waiting.

I don't think you are still waiting....

[Birmingham]

Good lord has that copy and paste taken on exageration over the years.
None the less, here you go:

1925 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with Dartmouth. Who awarded the NC? Houlgate and Helms. Houlgate started his system in 1927. So Bama won their 1925 NC using a formula that didn't exist until 1927? Helms Athletic Foundation started in 1941. Another incredible retroactive NC.
1925  Only two other schools in the mix here, not sure how you can see Alabama not winning this... oh yeah, this is a copy and paste, these aren't your thoughts.
Alabama's record 10-0
Dartmoth 8-0
Michigan7-1


1926 National Championship- Alabama claims they share this one with 3 other teams with equal or better records! Once again it is the Helms Athletic Foundation in 1941 that awards it!
1926  You've forgotten to add the other four polls that claim that Alabama won the National Champion that year.  More than any other team.  I'm sure they were just simpletons back then unable to take into account things like tougher opponents and stuff like that, I'm sure that never came into their mind.  



1930 National Championship- The Davis poll says that Bama tied Notre Dame for NC this year. This was the only one to award it to Bama. Notre Dame was named NC in 6 polls! Parke Davis is another retroactive system! He (an individual, not an organization) did his in 1933!
1930 WRONG.  1 of 3 polls that claim Alabama as National Champions.  I'm starting to understand a (copy and paste) trend here.  Anytime Alabama  has the same number of wins as another team, give the other team the NC and ignore the number of polls that say otherwise.


1934 National Championship- Alabama says they share this with two other teams. The awarders are Dunkel, Williamson, and Football Thesaurus. Dunkel was an individual who came up with his own system. Williamson was a geologist who came up with his own system. Football Thesaurus first appeared in 1946!
1934  WRONG!  There are no two other schools, there's only Minnesota and since there record was 8-0 to our 10-0 I don't see what you're (copy and paste) griping about.


1941 National Championship- This is a complete joke. The AP ranked Alabama 20th in the nation with 14 teams with better records in the top 20. Once again it is the Football Thesaurus that retroactively awards it. Alabama finished 3rd in the SEC that year. Mississippi State won the SEC title..yet Bama claims a National title!
1941  This is a phuked up world.


1964 National Championship- While the AP did award the NC to Bama (10-1-0), Arkansas had the better record, 11-0. Alabama played Texas in their bowl and LOST. The AP final poll was before the bowl.
1964  Just so I can know what I'm working with here.  When the AP is awarded to another school despite a better record from Alabama, the AP is king.  When the AP sides with Alabama the AP is a worthless rag.  Is that your (copy and paste[d]) thoughts on this?  Either way, how is it "ill-gotten" when the AP awards it to you?


1965 National Championship- The AP gave this to Bama. That year there were three teams with better records than Bama. Bama 9-1-1, Michigan St 10-1-0, Arkansas 10-1-0, Nebraska 10-1-0.
1965  Holy crap look at the schedules of the teams you listed.  There's a reason the AP awarded Alabama the National Champions.  


1973 National Championship- AP puts Bama 4th after their bowl game loss. Bama claims a NC from the UPI poll that was taken before they met Notre Dame in the bowl game and lost. There were 3 teams with better records than Bama that year. The embarrassment of naming Alabama number one caused the UPI to name champions after bowl games.
1973  Bullpoop, name the teams with better records.  
As for Notre Dame, they played Northwestern, purdue, michigan state, rice, army, usc, Navy, pittsburg, airforce, miami and a bowl with Alabama.
Alabama played Cal, Kentucky, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi State, Miami, LSU, Auburn and then Notre Dame in the bowl.  Bowl was 24-23 ND.  
Regardless, I concede this since the neither the AP gave it to Alabama nor did Alabama beat the team they gave it to.


1978 National Championship- AP gives this to Alabama(11-1-0) even though USC (12-1-0) had the better record Guess who Alabama lost to that year? USC! UPI gave the NC to USC.
1978  And JUST when I think the guy who wrote your copy and paste couldn't be more inconsistant.  He's ran the UPI through the ground, nixing many of Alabama's National Championships because the filthy UPI awarded it to them.  The AP goes with Bama.  Out of pure irony, the team that the original writer thinks should get the National Championship.... was simply awarded the UPI.  

So with that being said, I take away what I've always taken away.  1941 and 1973.  How you would see "Most" of Alabama's National Championships as fabricated makes you as delusional as the bammer fans your complaining about.  

[Saniflush]

I gotta say here that applying today's standard of taking into account schedule difficulty to the schedules from years ago is subjective at best and outright dumb at worst.

That is the problem with reviewing the history of anything.  It is very hard to look at it rationally from the point of view of the people who existed while that history was being made.  

[weagle251]

First of all, how would Auburn claim a championship for that particular year.  If anybody claimed it would it not be the team that lost to USC in the Championship game?

Since the MNC is just a beauty contest, it should follow simple beauty contest rules.  When the winner of the contest has to forfeit the crown, the first runner-up becomes the winner.  Auburn was ranked second in the final poll, hence they are the first runner up.  There's really nothing to hash out here.  Still, there's not any kind of precedent, is there?  I don't believe the NCAA has ever forced a team to relinquish their title, have they?


Birmingham's arguments are sound.  '41 and '73 are the most ticky-tack of the claims.  Bryant's other "contested" titles are just products of the system at the time, but they're not any less valid.  But seeing as how the pre-Bryant MNC's were discovered in the Perkins era and weren't even claimed until then, they all seem a little sad and pathetic as a result.  Even if the argument for most of them is sound, we all know that they're the product of an SID's marketing campaign and Bama's ever-present need to be greater than or equal to Notre Dame.

EDIT: ^What Saniflush said, too.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

Still comes down to what you choose to claim.  Regardless of how many you could claim, there is still only a certain number of championships that are true, undeniable and nationally recognized by everyone. 

Yes, you can claim thirteen.  However, there is a reason that ESPN and other national media are only pointing out your eight.  Fact is, they are starting to realize that most universities are only marketing and printing t-shirts that tout their real, ironclad numbers.  Alabama?  Thirteen just sounds better....print'em up.  Not like you can back up now, and try to sell "Got 8" shirts....

[No Huddle]

Easy.

I will make this quick. I agree with you 25, 26, 30, and 41 are CRAP plain and simple. The rest are just how things worked for that year. For example, would you discredit LSU's and Florida's two most recent NC? Because in those three years other teams had better records than the aforementioned teams. 2008 UF 13-1 while Utah was 13-0. 2007 LSU was 11-2 and Kansas was 12-1. 2006 UF was 13-1 and Boise was 13-0. I am sure your answer is no. Also in 2003 spilt national title and LSU and USC. Both claim the title.

[No Huddle]

Still comes down to what you choose to claim.  Regardless of how many you could claim, there is still only a certain number of championships that are true, undeniable and nationally recognized by everyone. 

Yes, you can claim thirteen.  However, there is a reason that ESPN and other national media are only pointing out your eight.  Fact is, they are starting to realize that most universities are only marketing and printing t-shirts that tout their real, ironclad numbers.  Alabama?  Thirteen just sounds better....print'em up.  Not like you can back up now, and try to sell "Got 8" shirts....

It could say "13 is good but 8 is gr8."

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

It could say "13 is good but 8 is gr8."

It would produce monster sales at Walmart for sure! 

[jadennis]

Most of Vagingham's comments are true, and he even left out some good points on some of the years.

I think that 1964 is maybe one that bothers me most.  It bothers me because of how it played out, but also because the AP poll named their champ prior to bowls, so there just isn't anything that can be done about it.  If we were using the same method that excludes 1973, then 1964 would be ruled out too.

Not only did Arkansas finish 11-0 to Alabama's 10-1, the one loss by Alabama was to Texas....a team that Arkansas also happened to beat.  This one should so clearly be Arkansas.  But you get to pull the "hey, we can't help it that the AP did it different back then, what, are we supposed to give it back now?"

So irritating.

1965 was pure luck because the AP named Alabama post-bowl, but went back to pre-bowl for the next two years before going post-bowl from 1968 on.

65 was strictly a "when they lost" deal, not a "look at the records" deal.  Of the four teams (Alabama, Mich St, Nebraska, and Arkansas), only Alabama won their bowl game.  Going into the bowls the other three were all undefeated, with Alabama ranked #4 behind all three of them.  Had 1965 been a pre-bowl title, it would have been Michigan State.

But if you play the "look at their records" card for saying who should have won it, Alabama would not have been the team.  They lost to 6-4 Georgia and tied 8-1-2 Tennessee (who had lost to 7-4 Ole Miss and tied 5-5-1 Auburn).  Michigan State lost to 8-2-1 UCLA, but also beat Notre Dame (7-2-1) at Notre Dame, as well as 7-2 Ohio State.  Arkansas' only loss was to 8-3 LSU.  Nebraska's only loss was to Alabama.  

You could say "so Alabama should be ahead of Nebraska because they beat them head to head".  That only works with undefeated teams.  Nebraska's one loss was to Alabama.  Alabama's was to Georgia, and a tie with Tennessee.  Nebraska's loss was "better" than Alabama's.  Anyway, this one is what it is, the AP named them #1 because of when everyone lost (last game of the year) and when Alabama lost (first game of the year).

[Saniflush]

Oh and for the record I would never claim 2004 no matter what comes of this. 

It was a very special year that I will always remember fondly but that will be the extent of it.

I just want to see one of the poster children for the National Communist's Against Athletes go down.

[AUChizad]

1925  Only two other schools in the mix here, not sure how you can see Alabama not winning this... oh yeah, this is a copy and paste, these aren't your thoughts.
Alabama's record 10-0
Dartmoth 8-0
Michigan7-1

Did they beat Dartmouth on the field? If not then the quote "ill-gotten and not earned on the field" that you scoffed at, applies.

Also, there was no such thing as National Championships at this time. There were no polls. Every poll you claim as a source here did so retroactively. Other polls retroactively gave the MNC to Michigan & Dartmouth. They're not legit either. Claiming a MNC before they existed is like claiming the Oscar for picture of the year in 1776.

1926  You've forgotten to add the other four polls that claim that Alabama won the National Champion that year.  More than any other team.  I'm sure they were just simpletons back then unable to take into account things like tougher opponents and stuff like that, I'm sure that never came into their mind.  


So since that copy & paste job was written a couple of years ago, uat pulled four other illegitimate retroactive sources out of their asses. Doesn't change anything. They tied Stanford in the Rose Bowl. In other words "ill-gotten and not earned on the field". Stanford remained undefeated, as did Navy & Lafayette.


1930 WRONG.  1 of 3 polls that claim Alabama as National Champions.  I'm starting to understand a (copy and paste) trend here.  Anytime Alabama  has the same number of wins as another team, give the other team the NC and ignore the number of polls that say otherwise.

The NCAA recognizes Notre Dame as the 1930 national champion. As do all three polls that existed in 1930 (Dickinson, Houlgate, & Dunkel). Again, because "a laundromat in Tuscaloosa" (-Bear Bryant) wants to revise history, doesn't make it so. Parke Davis's poll (the one the copy & paste job is referring to) is the closest to legit, but still didn't exist until three years after the fact. And even he placed uat & Notre Dame as a tie for first.

"Ill-gotten and not earned on the field".


1934  WRONG!  There are no two other schools, there's only Minnesota and since there record was 8-0 to our 10-0 I don't see what you're (copy and paste) griping about.

Retroactive. "Ill-gotten and not earned on the field". NCAA recognizes Minnesota.

This is the first time, at least, you claim one based on a poll that existed at the time. uat & Minesota both had three polls that existed at the time declare them as #1. So at best it would be a tie. Oh, but wait, you wanna count retroactive polls. Minnesota collected more of those over time.


1941  This is a phuked up world.

I'll count that as an admission of defeat. Moving on.

1961 - I skipped this one earlier. NCAA recognizes uat & Ohio State as co-national championships. Did uat "earn it on the field"? No.

1964  Just so I can know what I'm working with here.  When the AP is awarded to another school despite a better record from Alabama, the AP is king.  When the AP sides with Alabama the AP is a worthless rag.  Is that your (copy and paste[d]) thoughts on this?  Either way, how is it "ill-gotten" when the AP awards it to you?

Not proven on the field. You LOST your bowl game. Arkansas remained undefeated. Just so I can know what I'm working with here, I thought the team with the best record was the national champion? I thought a 10-0 bama was better than a 8-0 team hands-down. So now you want to extend that to not include losses either? uat 10-1, Arkansas 11-0. I guess if you would have lost in Pasadena this year, you'd want to claim the MNC anyway. Might as well go ahead and claim last year too, since Utah only beat you in a bowl game, which doesn't count, right? This embarrassment is what caused the AP to start waiting until the bowl games were over to make their final polls.

"Ill-gotten and not earned on the field".


1965  Holy crap look at the schedules of the teams you listed.  There's a reason the AP awarded Alabama the National Champions.  


Your flawed logic has already been addressed by Sani. Also, I stopped pointing out a while back all of the teams the NCAA recognizes as splitting the National Championships with you (i.e. the ones you didn't "earn on the field" against). But for shits and giggles, this time it was Michigan State.

1973  Bullpoop, name the teams with better records.  
As for Notre Dame, they played Northwestern, purdue, michigan state, rice, army, usc, Navy, pittsburg, airforce, miami and a bowl with Alabama.
Alabama played Cal, Kentucky, Vandy, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi State, Miami, LSU, Auburn and then Notre Dame in the bowl.  Bowl was 24-23 ND.  
Regardless, I concede this since the neither the AP gave it to Alabama nor did Alabama beat the team they gave it to.

One team singlehandedly embarrassed both the AP and the UPI in two separate years into waiting until after the bowl games to award their champions. It was you guys.

You LOST your bowl game. "Ill-gotten and not earned on the field".

As for the other teams with better records: Notre Dame (11-0-0), Ohio State (10-0-1), Oklahoma (10-0-1), Michigan (10-0-1), and Penn State (12-0-0). The copy/paste said three, but there were at least five that I just dug up. Bullpoop indeed.

1978  And JUST when I think the guy who wrote your copy and paste couldn't be more inconsistant.  He's ran the UPI through the ground, nixing many of Alabama's National Championships because the filthy UPI awarded it to them.  The AP goes with Bama.  Out of pure irony, the team that the original writer thinks should get the National Championship.... was simply awarded the UPI.And you're being so consistent yourself. Again, I thought the team with the better record was the consensus national champion? By your calculations, Florida just won the national championship. Both teams had the same exact record, except one team beat the other "on the field". You were on the losing end of that, yet you claim the MNC.

"Ill-gotten and not earned on the field".

[Birmingham]

I stopped reading when you claimed "there was no such thing as National Championships at this time."  

Absolutely unbelievable.

[AWK]

I stopped attempting to reading when you claimed "there was no such thing as National Championships at this time."  

Absolutely unbelievable.

Got it. I know it's hard.