-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter CleveBucks
- Start date
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
Garrett will get ushered out after the new university president is installed. Kiffin wanted to replace McNair in January. USC decided to play out McNair's contract so that releasing him wouldn't be interpreted as being related to the sanctions. Judging by the response here, it seems they played it right.
Upvote
0
ulukinatme;1722447; said:It saddens me that all those wins are "vacated," so it essentially erases them from the record books, rather than reversing the final outcome. Would be so much sweeter if those productive years were rewritten as winless seasonsI just find it humerous that they can't grow the balls and take the title away for that year. If those wins are vacated, how would they have been eligible to play in the NC game? Strip the Heisman for icing on the cake, give it to the #2 guy or just call it vacated for that year.
the NCAA didn't award the title, the AP and the BCS did. It's up to both of those "bodies", I guess, to take the titles away.
Upvote
0
methomps;1725445; said:
Pretty damn clear. Sanctions come down, the person most-noted in the report (McNair) "let go". The appearance is that he was "allowed to leave" due to the sanctions.
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
HonuBuck;1725448; said:
And the university somehow had the foresight two or so years ago (whenever they renewed McNair's contract to have an ending date of June 30, 2010) to know that the sanctions would come down in June 2010 and implicate McNair?
Upvote
0
Well, you said that they handled McNair in a way to make it seem as if his departure wasn't connected to the sanctions. Then you said that judging by the response, you think they played it right, which I take to mean that you think people interpret his departure as related to something else.
So far, I haven't seen anybody insinuate that McNair is gone for reasons other than the conclusion I've jumped to. Given the opportunity to comment on it, Kiffin did not cite anything (other job opportunities, performance, poor fit, attitude, demands for a new contract, etc.) to dissuade me or anyone else from reaching the same conclusion now that we probably would have reached if he had been canned in January.
Of course if what you were really referring to was not fans' perceptions, but that of recruits, I'd say your correct. They played it "right" in that it allowed them to perpetuate the delusion/lie that there would be no sanctions through signing day and beyond.
So far, I haven't seen anybody insinuate that McNair is gone for reasons other than the conclusion I've jumped to. Given the opportunity to comment on it, Kiffin did not cite anything (other job opportunities, performance, poor fit, attitude, demands for a new contract, etc.) to dissuade me or anyone else from reaching the same conclusion now that we probably would have reached if he had been canned in January.
Of course if what you were really referring to was not fans' perceptions, but that of recruits, I'd say your correct. They played it "right" in that it allowed them to perpetuate the delusion/lie that there would be no sanctions through signing day and beyond.
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
jlb1705;1725451; said:
I'm saying that Lane Kiffin didn't want to retain McNair as RB coach. Kiffin told university officials this in January. Fresh off Carroll leaving for Seattle, the university didn't want to push McNair out and have media and/or the NCAA interpret the decision (to get rid of McNair) as having to do with the Bush case.
They had no grounds for firing him, so they knew they would have to pay him the remainder of his contract. So they just decided to let it run its course.
Upvote
0
Did I read it correctly that even if he stayed, he was not allowed to be in contact with recruits for a year?
Upvote
0
methomps;1725450; said:
No, but the fact they declined to renew his contract after the sanctions were imposed make it appear that their refusal to renew is a direct result of his actions.
Upvote
0
actually it seems like they played it wrong if that was their intention, seeing as that is the overwhelming impression from this 'release' in the media and on the boards.methomps;1725431; said:
If it were me, the last thing I would want in january are more enemies, particularly those implicated in these violations. What reason would he have to toe the company line of brash defiance and victimization by reggie if you fire him (making him a fall guy)?
Upvote
0
methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
HonuBuck;1725456; said:
If his contract ended in May, they would have declined to renew it then. It was a football decision, pure and simple.
osugrad21;1725453; said:
Yes, nor will he be able to recruit for a year if he catches on somewhere else.
jwinslow;1725457; said:
Message board fans weren't really a concern. USC knew they would have to take the PR hit anyway, but they decided they didn't want to take it in the leadup to the hearing.
It's only bad luck for the university that the sanctions took until June to come out.
As for toeing the company line, the NCAA accused McNair directly. His career was on the line. The NCAA wanted to (and did) put a show cause order on him. He certainly wasn't toeing the company line or otherwise doing USC any favors.
Upvote
0