USC dropping game

Donate To GopherHole
gophersfan

gophersfan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
4,826
Reaction score
466
Points
83
Now that NCAA Saction USC. under the rule.

"The institution's football team shall end its 2010 and 2011 seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including a bowl game, following the season. Moreover, during the two years of this postseason ban, the football team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limit in the number of football contests that are provided in Bylaw 17.9.5.2, with the exception of a spring game as set forth in Bylaw 17.9.5.2-(a)."


What game will USC have to give up. it will be a none conference game.


there non conference schedule is @ Hawaii, Virginia, @ Minnesota, Notre Dame.

it won't be Notre Dame. so we can rule them out. it down to Hawaii, Virginia and Minnesota.
 

Any of those would work. The relevant rule is one which allows a team to play a 13th regular season game if they play at Hawaii. Dropping any of these games puts them back to 12 games. Hawaii might be the easiest game to get out of playing.
 


Gopherholefan said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...



We talking about the Hawaii exemption. Which give a team that schedule a game in Hawaii, they are allow to schedule a 13 regular season game. since USC was saction. they lose this Hawaii exemption the next 2 year and must drop a non conference game.
 

Likely Hawaii, because of the exception, any team with an open date on Sep 2 can play an additional game. USC might have to pay some compensation, but not nearly what it would have to pay to any of the other teams, for dropping the game. You can bet, that any team dropped by USC, without the ability to substitute another game, would be looking for big money in compensation.
 


I would think Hawaii, but it would be our luck...
 

What are you talking about? Where does it say anything about dropping a game?
 


They will most likely drop home games, because those will be easiest to get out of. I would bank on Virginia being dropped this year and Minnesota being dropped the following year.
 



Rosemountian said:
They will most likely drop home games, because those will be easiest to get out of. I would bank on Virginia being dropped this year and Minnesota being dropped the following year.
Click to expand...

USC only has 12 games scheduled for 2011. 13 in 2010.
 

I would think that Hawaii is the clear cut game that has to be dropped in this case. The only reason Hawaii is on the USC schedule is because of the "Hawaii Exemption" . It seems to me that the aforementioned recent NCAA ruling against USC clearly states the Hawaii Exemption cannot be used by USC to give them 13 games. I would guess Hawaii - unfortunately for them - would likely have to find a last minute replacement or do without an extra game in 2010.
 

Goldmember said:
USC only has 12 games scheduled for 2011. 13 in 2010.
Click to expand...

I would bank on USC not dropping MN in 2011 then. Virginia will probably not get their game. You would think Hawaii would be dropped, but since they are not going to a bowl game, the coaches are probably using the Hawaii game as a talking point to guard against transfers.
 

I can't imagine the NCAA is actually going to enforce this rule for the 2010 season. To do so does far less to punish USC, who's season is trashed anyway, then it does to screw whoever gets dropped. It will be virtually impossible to replace this game for any of the 3. I've heard nothing of this with UVA. I would say it almost has to be Hawaii if it happens, but I don't think they will enforce this part of the deal.
 



I'm guessing this is not going to be an issue as I doubt USC's appeal will be ruled on before the start of the 2010 season. Garrett and USC president have made it pretty clear they plan to appeal parts of the sanctions.
 

I think they drop us or Virginia, not Hawaii

At least here is the line of thought behind that statement. When Alabama got hit so hard with sanctions and a post season bowl ban a few years ago, they went out and scheduled Hawaii to use it as a recruiting tool with players. They could say sure, we aren't going to a bowl game, but we are going to be kicking back in Hawaii in early December. It served as kind of a reward for the players since bowling wasn't an option. Now, that might not work as well for USC since so many of their players are from sunny Californina anyway, but they do recruit nationwide and that could be a tool to get other kids to go to USC during the bowl ban years.
 

I wouldn't think it would be us. I'm guessing Lane Kiffin would love to get a chance to come to his home state and beat the Gophers. He's pretty arrogant like that ha.
 

If it's only 2011 then it won't be us because that game is in the coliseum, right?
 

badgergopher said:
If it's only 2011 then it won't be us because that game is in the coliseum, right?
Click to expand...

To repeat: USC only plays 12 games in 2011. The only reason this is a topic is because USC plays at Hawaii in 2010, and therefore was permitted to schedule a 13th game.
 

Jike Spingleton said:
To repeat: USC only plays 12 games in 2011. The only reason this is a topic is because USC plays at Hawaii in 2010, and therefore was permitted to schedule a 13th game.
Click to expand...

Eh..he's got Badger is his screen name...he can't be that bright to begin with....
 

Jike Spingleton said:
To repeat: USC only plays 12 games in 2011. The only reason this is a topic is because USC plays at Hawaii in 2010, and therefore was permitted to schedule a 13th game.
Click to expand...

I misread your earlier post. This could be problematic.

- USC has open date 12/11
- PAC10 doesn't have a championship game on championship weekend
- Hawaii has open date 12/11
- WAC doesn't have a championship game on championship weekend
- USC can't go to bowl game
- USC would like to plan a big trip for players and alumni
- USC would like to make a late season impression on recruits

If I'm Mike Garrett, I'd back out of the Gopher game and switch the Hawaii game to December 11th. If he doesn't / can't move the game, then I think we're fine because I think they'd rather drop a September Hawaii game than a BCS road game that's already slated for a broad TV audience.
 

badgergopher said:
I misread your earlier post. This could be problematic.

- USC has open date 12/11
- PAC10 doesn't have a championship game on championship weekend
- Hawaii has open date 12/11
- WAC doesn't have a championship game on championship weekend
- USC can't go to bowl game
- USC would like to plan a big trip for players and alumni
- USC would like to make a late season impression on recruits

If I'm Mike Garrett, I'd back out of the Gopher game and switch the Hawaii game to December 11th. If he doesn't / can't move the game, then I think we're fine because I think they'd rather drop a September Hawaii game than a BCS road game that's already slated for a broad TV audience.
Click to expand...

One major problem with your scenario: Championship Week isn't December 11th. It's the previous week - the only game on the 11th is Army-Navy.

Bottom line, we're playing USC, this year and next.
 

Nice catch. I then agree. I think they keep our game and drop/move Hawaii.
 



wait!what? said:
It should be a forfeit and a loss for USC.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit harsh - of all the schools in the country, Hawaii should have the easiest time filling that slot because any team not on probation with an open date can play them without having to cancel another game. I don't think they'll have a hard time finding a school willing to take a trip to Hawaii.
 

2727Gopher said:
I think that's a bit harsh - of all the schools in the country, Hawaii should have the easiest time filling that slot because any team not on probation with an open date can play them without having to cancel another game. I don't think they'll have a hard time finding a school willing to take a trip to Hawaii.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, if USC drops a game they owe for the lost revenue minus their apperance fee. With Hawaii they would only owe for the difference between what USC would bring in and what the replacement would.
 


Can't say I'm surprised. USC always has and will continue to play by a different set of rules!
 

Seems like the NCAA used some common sense with the exemption, IMO.
 

It's Hawai'i that would be hurt by losing the game, not U$C. No need to penalize their opponents.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom