BMW

Miami Reaction

| 7 Comments

The University of Miami football scandal is the story of the week on the collegiate landscape and the hot button topic of conversation among Trojans.

Here are some reactions from Trojans and non-Trojans alike:

USC AD Pat Haden: "What we at USC are looking for is a consistency in rules that are applied. Consistency. That's all we ask."

Click here for more Haden on ESPN Radio.

scott-larry.jpgPac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott on former Miami AD Paul Dee presiding over USC's NCAA case: "If the allegations prove true, the words irony and hypocrisy don't seem to go far enough."

USC LB Chris Galippo on Dee: "A little bit of hypocrisy for sure. I think that's pretty obvious. What goes around comes around a little bit."

Former USC LB Keith Rivers on Dee: "It's unfortunate that he was so harsh on SC when his school was doing way more than what you found USC to be guilty of."

SI.com's Stewart Mandel: "If USC got a two-year bowl ban and 30 docked scholarships, what should Miami get for an encyclopedia of allegations so tawdry as to make USC look like a bubble-gum shoplifter?"

LA Times columnist T.J. Simers on comparing the USC and Miami cases: "It has nothing to do with the University of Miami's problems other than the fact that the joker who worked as the Hurricanes' former athletic director provides an immediate guffaw."

A simple Google news search of Miami and USC will lead to endless more opinions.  What do you think?  (And keep it clean!)

7 Comments

I remember thinking it was a conflict of interest when Dee presided over the SC ruling. You can compare SC's Bush scandal maybe to the Cam Newton saga at Auburn, but the Miami situation involves a whole team of players, spanning many years. Oh, and also the AD. Anything less than double what USC got would be unfair. Death penalty on the Miami program wouldn't be far off.

If one player cost USC 30 lost scholarships and a two year bowl ban, what is it going to cost Miami and the 70+ players implicated? A loss of 2,000 scholarships and no bowl game for the rest of the century! I'm exaggerating, but still. This has become somewhat humorous.

Mike Garret's dont seem too bad now, "they wish they were USC." Now I know who he meant it too.

Simers is plain wrong. Miami matters. After presiding over two of the worst cases of violations in post-SMU college football, Dee is completely ineligible to rule on the USC case. That doesn't make USC 'innocent' but it does question the judgement and impartiality of the chair of the COI and his key arguments rationalizing the heavy-handed penalties inflicted upon USC. Moreover, the COI and the NCAA has proven to be completely inconsistent in its rulings and level of sanctions while lacking any respect for the rule of law and the right to a fair trial with (1) the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and (2) the right to cross-examine one's accusers.

So if Dee is found to have been "aware" of the situation at Miami while he was there, couldn't a case be made that his irrational punishment of USC could be seen as his attempt to distract what was really going on at Miami? Regardless, is it time yet to sue to eliminate the sanctions? I mean how much more ludicrous do things have to get, how much more unfair? Rodwood's comment is now that far off! But I don't understand how T-Classic's comment is relevant, though it is funny.

Gee, last year Seantrel Henderson backed out of LOI to USC and headed to U of Miami. Perhaps they gave him a better package than 'SC. Hmmmmm.

At this point it must seem clear even to the NCAA that they had the wrong man in charge of our case. If the NCAA is to be considered a reputable organization they must construe the USC findings as tainted. They need to suspend our sanctions until a new group can review the evidence from scratch and come to a finding void of influence from tainted individuals.

Leave a comment