Help me understand this type of sanction.

[Jack Lambert]

When you say 20 over 4 years are you saying they lose 20 over four year period or is it they lose 20 every year for four year?

[Beaver]

Pretty sure he means a total of 20 scholarships lost over a 4 year period. 20 a year would make it nearly impossible to recruit.

[bullygrowl]

I'd rather have the death penalty, may have to come up with a new phrase for 80 over 4

[spiritual_machine2005]

So, let me know if this is correct. If they get sanctioned with 20 scholly's over 4 years, so in year one they could only have 80 total scholarship players, 75 in year 2, 70 in year 3, and 65 in year 4? So by year 4 they would have a team reduced from the normal 85 scholarship players to 65 scholarship players. I assume that means that in year 5 they would still suffer, because the 25 signing limit would still be in place, so it would take them til year 6 or 7 before they could field a full team of 85 scholarship players. Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.

[sandwolf]

So, let me know if this is correct. If they get sanctioned with 20 scholly's over 4 years, so in year one they could only have 80 total scholarship players, 75 in year 2, 70 in year 3, and 65 in year 4? So by year 4 they would have a team reduced from the normal 85 scholarship players to 65 scholarship players. I assume that means that in year 5 they would still suffer, because the 25 signing limit would still be in place, so it would take them til year 6 or 7 before they could field a full team of 85 scholarship players. Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.

That's not how it was structured for USCw. They were stripped of 30 scholarships over 3 years, with a maximum of 75 total scholarship players during those 3 years. So they couldn't sign more than 15 players per year, and they couldn't exceed 75 total scholarship players. And that may not sound too terrible, but it is detrimental to a program......HERE (http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-ncaa-sanctions-20140608-story.html)is an article looking at the state of their program at the end of the sanctions.


“It's been a long four years,” Athletic Director Pat Haden said.

It also could be a while before the Trojans' marquee sports programs entirely return to normal.

Scholarship reductions combined with injuries, transfers and attrition left USC's football team with 44 available scholarship players for last season's Las Vegas Bowl. That's 41 fewer than the NCAA maximum, so it will take at least two years of signing maximum-size recruiting classes of 25 before the Trojans are back to full roster strength.

[Coach34]

Means they will only be allowed to have 80 on scholly for 4 years. It's not huge- but it does hurt and makes roster management even tougher. Also means kids will get cut quicker if they aren't panning out. Can't afford to wait on them

[Political Hack]

I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see 40 over 4 dropping them to 75 and a max signing class of 15 the next few years. They'll also lose official visits and Jr Days, etc... But I fully expect them to find a way to skirt all of that. The scholarship reductions, bowl ban, tv ban, and show causes are the only thing that could really hurt them.

[sandwolf]

I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see 40 over 4 dropping them to 75 and a max signing class of 15 the next few years. They'll also lose official visits and Jr Days, etc... But I fully expect them to find a way to skirt all of that. The scholarship reductions, bowl ban, tv ban, and show causes are the only thing that could really hurt them.

40 over 4 would be glorious.....it would make them irrelevant for the next 10 years. I am not setting my expectations that high, but it would be awesome if that were to happen.

[Political Hack]

40 over 4 would be glorious.....it would make them irrelevant for the next 10 years. I am not setting my expectations that high, but it would be awesome if that were to happen.

The NCAA will set a tone with this. Everyone reported them. Everyone is pissed. If the NCAA wants to remain relevant they have no choice but to come with a hammer. They didn't just spend 3 years in Oxford for 3 scholarships. If they can't get Freeze, they'll hammer them through scholarship reductions. If they get Freeze, the number will likely be a lot lower than 40 over 4.

[Tbonewannabe]

The NCAA will set a tone with this. Everyone reported them. Everyone is pissed. If the NCAA wants to remain relevant they have no choice but to come with a hammer. They didn't just spend 3 years in Oxford for 3 scholarships. If they can't get Freeze, they'll hammer them through scholarship reductions. If they get Freeze, the number will likely be a lot lower than 40 over 4.

Why would they lighten up the penalties if they get Freeze? It is pretty much proven that it is institutional going back 3 coaches, Nutt, Ogre, Freeze. I know it is too much to ask but I hope USCe is like "Damn they got bent over with no lube, we got off easy".

[LockeDawg]

So, let me know if this is correct. If they get sanctioned with 20 scholly's over 4 years, so in year one they could only have 80 total scholarship players, 75 in year 2, 70 in year 3, and 65 in year 4? So by year 4 they would have a team reduced from the normal 85 scholarship players to 65 scholarship players. I assume that means that in year 5 they would still suffer, because the 25 signing limit would still be in place, so it would take them til year 6 or 7 before they could field a full team of 85 scholarship players. Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.20 scholly's over 4 years is not a cummulative effect.....They would be allowed only 80 total scholarship players for 4 years.

They could survive this scenario IF they had ZERO attrition on the roster for 4 straight years; but that is unrealistic as every team suffers some attrition every year.

[hailstate88]

So, let me know if this is correct. If they get sanctioned with 20 scholly's over 4 years, so in year one they could only have 80 total scholarship players, 75 in year 2, 70 in year 3, and 65 in year 4? So by year 4 they would have a team reduced from the normal 85 scholarship players to 65 scholarship players. I assume that means that in year 5 they would still suffer, because the 25 signing limit would still be in place, so it would take them til year 6 or 7 before they could field a full team of 85 scholarship players. Someone more knowledgeable than me can correct me if I am wrong.

They lose 5 scholarships each year. This isn't compounding over years