USC gets no BCS points for this season. IMO USC should forfeit all rankings during the season in which they vacated victories as well. They should then calculate the Pac Tin's BCS worthiness after that...

ESPN Wrote:USC won't be ranked in coaches' poll
ESPN.com news services
Updated: July 8, 2010, 10:43 AM ET

This will be an unranked season for USC in USA Today's football coaches' poll.

Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, told USA Today that because the school is under major NCAA sanctions and prohibited from playing in a bowl, it will be ineligible for the poll.

USC filed an appeal with the NCAA last month, asking that several sanctions of its football program be reduced because they are "too severe" and "inconsistent with precedent."

USC appealed only certain aspects of the NCAA's ruling. Among the penalties were a two-year bowl ban, four years of probation, scholarship losses and removal of several victories. The school will accept a bowl ban for the upcoming season and certain scholarship penalties in football, but believes the full sanctions were unduly harsh.

According to USA Today, it was expected that USC would be eligible for the coaches' poll in 2010 because it planned to appeal, but because the school accepted the postseason ban for this season, it became ineligible for the poll.

Teaff released a statement in which he said the AFCA informed USC athletic director Mike Garrett, USC coach Lane Kiffin, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott and BCS executive director Bill Hancock that the Trojans would be ineligible for the 2010 coaches' poll.

The coaches' poll is one of the rankings used in the formula to determine the BCS standings.

"American Football Coaches Association policy dictates that AFCA members who serve on the board of voters to determine national ranking shall not vote on any institution on major probation," Teaff said in the statement.

"Penalties imposed by the NCAA, or a representative conference, are classified as 'major' if the penalties include loss of postseason bowl participation and/or television appearances, and/or loss of 20 percent or more of grants in aid."

The NCAA's sanctions will not prevent USC from being considered for The Associated Press' poll, which is not part of the BCS formula.

In an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times last month, in which she said USC would keep its 2004 AP national title, AP sports editor Terry Taylor said: "The poll is intended to measure on-field performance. If teams are allowed to play, they're allowed to be ranked and USC certainly played in 2004."

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

They'll still be part of the Harris Poll, to my knowledge, so they'll be part of the BCS rankings but severly devalued with no Coaches Poll points.

The BCS only recognized the top 25. With only one poll including USC, the Trojans won't be in the BCS poll...

This year's team should not be punished for something that happened a few years ago.

(07-09-2010 12:56 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  This year's team should not be punished for something that happened a few years ago.

Yes they should. Because if they aren't, then USC gets off scot free. What the hell is the sense in having rules if you don't enforce them? Letting big schools like USC get away with things that other schools have lost their teams for a couple of years for advertises to the entire nation that the NCAA is irrelevant as a regulatory institution, and tends to lead one to believe that federal regulation is required...

Is that what you really want?

(07-09-2010 09:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(07-09-2010 12:56 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  This year's team should not be punished for something that happened a few years ago.

Yes they should. Because if they aren't, then USC gets off scot free. What the hell is the sense in having rules if you don't enforce them? Letting big schools like USC get away with things that other schools have lost their teams for a couple of years for advertises to the entire nation that the NCAA is irrelevant as a regulatory institution, and tends to lead one to believe that federal regulation is required...

Is that what you really want?

I think what David is saying (and I've never seen him post without immediately rattling off conference configurations) is that the players should not be punished. The school? Absolutely.

You can't punish the school without punishing the players as well. The kids can just chalk it up their commitment to that school as a bad decision. They should have picked a school that had better decision makers...

This year's team should not be punished for something that happened 5 years ago.

(07-16-2010 11:22 PM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  This year's team should not be punished for something that happened 5 years ago.

If no team can ever be punished for past transgressions, then I guess its open season for EVERY team to just cheat, cheat, cheat and cheat...as it will always take 1-5 years or more for the NCAA to complete their investigation...but since there are people like you that says players can't be penalized for something that has happened in the past...no one will ever be punished!

Perfect!

PS. Oh...every single USC player KNEW about the NCAA's investigation of the school for the past few years...so EVERY kid that has signed with USC recently knew about the STRONG possibility that the NCAA would put USC on probation.

(07-16-2010 11:22 PM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  This year's team should not be punished for something that happened 5 years ago.

So genius, what's your plan?

No. Don't tell me. You'll probably just p!ss me off...

IMO, stupidity should be a punishable offense. USC was stupid, and they got caught. The fact that none of the kids who helped USC get so stupid aren't there any longer is irrelevant. The kids currently at USC learn a valuable lesson about decisions, and their consequences - their own, and other people's. Their own is learned when they figure out they chose the wrong school if they wanted to play in a bowl game, and challenge for the BCS. Others is pretty self-explanatory...

I get what you're saying for taking their BCS points away and then calculating the Pac-10's BCS numbers - but not exactly fair to the rest of the conference. I wouldn't want C-USA judged differently because say Houston or ECU (the 2 teams who have been ranked recently) got caught doing something, just like you wouldn't want the Big East judged differently because Pitt or whoever else got caught.

You got to pay the cost to be the boss. If the Pac Tin school don't want to be hurt by USC's penalty, then they shouldn't benefit from their strength when not under penalty...

In life, you got to take the good with the bad. It ain't all good, no matter what some morons think...