Sunday
Apr232006
BCS Meeting
Sunday, April 23, 2006 at 06:59PM BCS officials begin "low key" meetings this week in Phoenix---no major changes to the current format are expected.
Other details:
- Possible changes to the number of at-large teams eligible for BCS play thanks to the extra BCS game and two additional BCS bowl slots
- Fox representatives will also attend the meetings, as they will televise all non Rose Bowl BCS games
- Fox will determine the name of the new BCS championship game
- Sugar Bowl officials expect to return to New Orleans and the Superdome after playing in Atlanta last year when the game was displaced by Hurricane Katrina
Reader Comments (17)
Look, my policy here is to more or less ignore off-field bad press/player misconduct stories, for every team.
I hold the view that if a program's in the top 25, and particularly top 10, they're doing a lot of little things wrong, both the players and program. Attending to the Bush issue at the moment would be going out of my way and being a touch inconsistent.
I don't participate in any of that Fullmer Cup type stuff, ya know? Its not interesting and a bit disenenguous because everybody's doing some illegal things, it's just a matter of who gets caught.
If the story grows, maybe I'll have something. For today? No.
However, sounds like a legit story. More facts are needed because it's more innuendo than story right now. The author has little word from the Pac-10, USC or the NCAA, kind of the important players.
My hunch is USC will be fine, but Bush's parents will be made to look like fools. But that's just first impression.
My other hunch is that it's NFL motivated, since this probably could have been run at any time between March and now, and particularly Jan. 4, but instead was released the Monday before the draft. Someone clearly knew their news cycle whoever held the information.
My other comment is that BruinsNation is going to embarrass the hell out of themselves on this story. EDSBS already warned as much.
The way you have been blowing Bush all this time it is no surprise now that you don't have any comment on it.
EDSBS is run by grownups and I'm 100% certain they wouldn't embarrass themselves under your scenario.
There's a story right now on the wires about a former UCLA football star being arrested.
However, it's of no interest to CFR. That's not my prerogative, get it? Doesn't matter who or what, its not in the mission here an what I'm doing. I would hope you can respect that.
What the hell SC has done in reaction to all the thuggery (and now looks like cheating) that has gone on under Carroll?
No wonder people call you guys out as bunch of Trojan lapdogs.
What part of that don't you get?
Reggie Bush was the face of college football last year and also this year's draft.
He is a germaine topic.
Your refusal not to discuss this story makes you look like SC's little bitch.
UCLA was fine with that misconduct when he went 10-2 in back-to-back years.
No, I'd say losing 27-0 and 52-21 and having four disappointing seasons in a row were a bigger factor for why Toledo got fired. Nice spin, though.
The infractions occuring off the field was one of the major reasons for UCLA canning Buffet Bob.
Manning didn't punch out anyone during those 10-2 years. The Handicap allegations came out after the 10-2 years. And once the stories piled UCLA canned Toledo.
Nothing from SC though even though we have had countless stories of player assaults, gang rapes, brandishing guns, and now this Bush story. Of course no one is taking Pom Pom to task.
Keep making excuses like a Trojan shill though HP. No wonder those guys clown you so bad over at BN.
For the record, there were all kinds of shenanigans going on a UCLA in 1997-98, including investigations into whether UCLA players had connections to the mob or were throwing games.
But that was okay then, because Toledo won 20 in a row and had never lost to USC.
It was only when Toledo started losing and losing to USC that he got fired. Pretty simple. UCLA is very familiar with corruption--it tolerated it during the Sam Gilber era.
Anything else is spin.
No one is going take Petey to task at SC over his football players thuggery around campus or off field mishaps. They are operating over there like any of those goon programs from Florida or SEC.
And WTF does this have to do with Sam Gilbert? We are talking about USC/college football not college hoops.
Little girls? What's to rescue, you're embarrassing yourself and knowing HP, it looks like he's having some fun pushing you over that ledge. Forgive a man his bloodlust at easy prey.
The story will fully come out in due time and people can weigh the facts. Right now that story's very incomplete and I look forward to all investigation to see what all happened.
I resent the accusation of being a Trojan shill... frankly if I'd been around during the Mike Williams thing I'd have laughed my tail off at them for trying to argue that the kid should be eligible (as well as shredding the NCAA for its callousness in not making a ruling until hours before USC's first game of the year).
I'm an honest broker, not a partisan hack.
However, I know a partisan hack when I see one and you're it, anonymous.
Everyone's well aware that Toledo's termination had to do with UCLA football losing games. Tomfoolery off the field is nothing new in Westwood or Troy or Gainesville or Champaign, even. However, coaches are never terminated explicitly for the things that happen off the field.
It's only when the bad press combines with unacceptable records that the coach loses his job (Neuheisel, Barnett, Toledo, Zook). You're using the bad off-field stuff as the means to the Toledo termination when in fact they're mere accomplices, the stuff that the UCLA administration and AD could throw back at him if he tried to fight his departure. The combination of incidents are the AD's leverage, in other words.
It's the same reason Zook went as quietly as Toledo did.
Only when a coach feels he's above reproach has there been a fight (Neuheisel, Barnett) about his termination.
Carroll's no saint but to say nobody's taking him to task is asinine. I remember after the Maualuga story all kinds of plaintitive wails from some of the more prominent football writers about what a bad call that was in letting the guy play.
Carroll took a boatload of flak, but he made the decision and its something he'll have to contend with if he's ever under fire at some later date, much the same as Toledo or Zook or whoever.
And re. the Toledo issue your post shows how little you actually know about the inside story on Southern California college football scene.
Right now you look like nothing but a panting Trojan shill who has some kind of weird ManCrush on the Pundit.
No wonder you have been laughed off elsewhere.
Keep shilling and not commenting on the Bush story.
As for panting, it's pretty clear who is obsessed with who here.
It's not on my front page because it has NEVER been my priority to address these types of stories, no matter what player, no matter what school. It's not a USC thing, its a CFR thing. Get it through your thick skull for once.
For example, I wasn't jumping over Texas before their multiple-arrest whatever it was in December. It wasn't really relevant to my mission here. Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams and Rey Maualuga and Justin Medlock have all been of ZERO concern for the CFR blog.
At some point (maybe tonight, maybe never) I'll address the Bush situation if I feel like it but doing so would go against how I've operated. It would be inconsistent, in other words. I have the itch to talk about it but I have to keep in mind how I've done things the last 18 months, got it?
What, exactly am I spinning? You use that word as if it has meaning here when I have yet to give more than a brief response to the story.
The HEISMAN Pundit is in fact one of my better friends, someone I personally know. If you'd been reading here you'd know that, and you'd also know just how much I've ignored all stories similar to the Bush one this week because as I've said over and over again (and it's not getting through your thick skulls) that's simply not something I've ever taken great attention to on here.
If you guys can't respect that, it's your problem, not mine. I've been consistent and fair from day one. Everything else is gravy except to a handful of apparently UCLA-blinded critics.