Yet ANOTHER Violation By U$C? (LA Times article)

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:43 am

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 7350.story

Is there anything these guys won't cheat at ?

They cheat in football.

They cheat in basketball.

They cheat to inflate their academic rankings....

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:04 am

I know Carrol.

He will deny it or say he didnt know/understand the rules and the NCAA will...

God damn you FSU for admitting we fucked up. The NCAA has shown time and time again that it doesn't reward honest mother fuckers.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:44 am

Mr T wrote:I know Carrol.

He will deny it or say he didnt know/understand the rules and the NCAA will...

God damn you FSU for admitting we fucked up. The NCAA has shown time and time again that it doesn't reward honest mother fuckers.

Wow... as recall you were on the opposite side of this issue when it was Oklahoma turning itself in for minor violations...

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:58 am

SunCoastSooner wrote:Oklahoma turning itself in for minor violations...

What are major violations if paying your top players is a minor?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:01 pm

PSU,

We need a :Van: similar to

for this one.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:04 pm

We need a :whiny witch hunt: icon for both m2 and Indy.

Pete is a former NFL coach, with massive ties to the NFL coaching fraternity. He coaches in L.A. You think his coaching buddies aren't going to talk shop with the guy, including visiting him at practices and probably even breaking down tape together? You think they're not going to sit around talking about ways to get better?

You think Mike Sherman doesn't do the exact same thing with his coaching buddies?

They're coaches. That's what they do.

When m2 gets together with other windchime makers at Ren Faires, you think they don't talk about woolen tights and anal sex?

When this guy is found guilty of coaching the players and being paid by USC to consult/coach, as opposed to just talking shop with Pete, then you can go back to getting your whiny little panties in a bunch.

Jesus, it's pathetic, the way you sheep will latch onto anything, no matter how trivial, in your unbridled zeal to do what you can't do on the football field: take down USC.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:05 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
could constitute a serious violation
Whoa.

I'm not putting too much stock in that article. Obviously written by a UCLA hack.

Seriously, I'll believe the NCAA is serious about this case of institutional control, or lack thereof, when they do something besides sit and fart on theor own hands. Sorry NCAA, just like the stink on your hands, the stink on $C isn't going away anytime soon...especially when the farts keep on a coming.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:08 pm

Van's right. If they paid the dude, there is an issue. If they didn't, every fucking school does this. Weis was asked back while Willingham was coach and he watch practice, addressed the team and talked to the coaching staff. Now, Weis brings back former players and coaches to observe practice and tell him what they think/see.

I think there is something rotten in Denmark, but not over something like this.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:52 pm

Van wrote:someone touched my booboo.

Seriously, jokeshow, grow some skin. Every time someone brings up an "unsubstantiated" claim about USC football you fire back with an unsubstantiated rationalization. Perhaps you should have some auto-reply, something like:

"Throw a kid a ball. He'll swat at hit, catch it, fuck it, anything but use his head or legs."

This article is only 15-minutes-old and you're already:

Otherwise, yes, coaches talk shop. I'm pretty sure Jim Leavitt isn't counted as a member of OSU's staff because Tressel chatted to him about Dickrod. The issue is who gets paid:

USC football Coach Pete Carroll employed a former NFL tactician last season to help with the team's punting and kicking game, an arrangement that may have violated NCAA rules that prohibit consultants from coaching, The Times has learned.

A lot obviously depends on what exactly is meant by employed. Till then, save your fuck you, hayters spiel, eh. Thx in advance.

Also:

The new issue involves the employment of Pete Rodriguez, who has coached for several professional franchises. In an interview with The Times, he acknowledged that he attended USC practices, monitored games and offered Carroll behind-the-scenes advice on matters ranging from the needs of individual players to avoiding penalties during punt returns.

That sounds just like your provincial ditty about two guys who love football just getting together at a roadside bar and talking shop.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:01 pm

You know how all networks keep a "death piece" on most famous actors should they croak?

Wonder what Van's preemptive essay is looking like these days should $C get the slap on the wrist or, GOD FORBID, single season post-season ban that will show the NCAA is :x serious / :x about this kind of thing.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:13 pm

It depends where we are in the SC news cycle. At the beginning, .mVan likes to drop words like nitpick and haters along with phrases like Jesus washed Carrol's dick clean. Once the story grows legs we'll begin to hear everyone does it a lot more regularly.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:42 pm

Unfortunately for you witch hunters, these stories never do grow legs.

When the NCAA produces copies of coaching/consulting checks to this guy, either from Pete or from USC, and they can prove his inclusion on the staff represented one too many assistant coaches, then we have something.

As the story states, even Pete is supposed to have said to the guy, "We have to be very careful about this sort of thing."

Keep in mind, Pete also took over some of the special teams coaching duties himself, which, in theory, may allow him to add one more guy without exceeding the limit.

The funny thing here is all you chicken little finger pointers who keep trying to bring up trivial nonsense like this as some sort of damning evidence that USC cheats. Among all the trivialities you've attempted to cling to so far, this one's just takes the cake for being the most pathetic.

Yes, M Club, what you described there sounds exactly like what coaches do when they talk shop. They watch games. They watch practices. They break tape, and they make observations. They even make...suggestions!

Ooooooooo! Veddy skeddy cheating!!

Oh, and yes, everyone does do it...because it's not cheating.

he attended USC practices, monitored games and offered Carroll behind-the-scenes advice on matters ranging from the needs of individual players to avoiding penalties during punt returns.

Offering advice is not cheating. Let's see proof of paid employment, evidence that he coached in any official capacity, and a roll call of the official, paid USC coaching staff.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:05 pm

The point is you know as much about what goes on behind the scenes as .m2 does, yet somehow the things you discuss with your dolls during your tea parties is somehow the final word.

Since we're back to navigating our way through your particular brand of cogency, I'll point out you took the trouble to make a point I already had. Good job there, guy.

The funny thing here is all you chicken little finger pointers who keep trying to bring up trivial nonsense like this as some sort of damning evidence that USC cheats. Among all the trivialities you've attempted to cling to so far, this one's just takes the cake for being the most pathetic.

Ja, trivial nonsense. I believe it was someone from T1B who was taping back together Pete's shredded documents and not the five seconds it takes to link to an article in the LA Times. This isn't something we're trying to cling to so much as shrugging a "sounds about right." Those shrill, accusatory voices you hear are the ones in your head.

Yes, M Club, what you described there sounds exactly like what coaches do when they talk shop. They watch games. They watch practices. They break tape, and they make observations. They even make...suggestions!

Ooooooooo! Veddy skeddy cheating!!

Oh, and yes, everyone does do it...because it's not cheating.

It's cheating if he was paid, otherwise why make the rule in the first place? By the by, tracking the "needs of individual players" tends to be the domain of people doing more than just talking shop. "Hey San Diego, thanks for the job offer but no thanks; it'll take away from my leisurely strolls around the perimeter of a USC practice."

Offering advice is not cheating. Let's see proof of paid employment, evidence that he coached in any official capacity, and a roll call of the official, paid USC coaching staff.

Other than already having made this point ahead of you, great criteria. Let's see, when trying to skirt financial regulation the first thing I do is make sure my transactions are meticulously recorded in my official bookkeeping, for posterity.

Anyhow, I'm sure you haven't noticed, but this thread is less about nitpicking SC as it is laughing at your predictable, knee-jerk, blind defense of SC.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:28 pm

M Cunt, the thread is about USC supposedly cheating again. Check the first post, and the first response post.

Then, right on cue, it's you and Indy, making it about something else.

You don't get credit for creating a situation, then pointing it out.

The point in this thread is that people accuse USC of cheating, and of the NCAA of sweeping it under the rug, convicting them both without a shred of evidence. They hear a rumor, they assume it to be fact; provided it's a damning rumor.

Nevermind that the NCAA just recently penalized OU, Alabama and Florida St, none of whom can be confused with some no-name whipping boy program. No, those are all flagship programs. They're every bit as important as USC to college football.

Somehow, people have convinced themselves that the NCAA doesn't consider OU and Bama to be off limits, but USC is??

The Alabama Crimson Tide?? The Oklahoma Sooners??

It doesn't get any bigger than those two, and the NCAA penalized them. USC? Too big. The NCAA won't touch 'em.

Brilliant shit, people.

Then they pass out labels, and those labels become the New Truth.

USC football hasn't been caught doing a single thing wrong, yet we have douches like Jon and Indy and so many others here constantly smirking about how they know USC cheats and the NCAA just ignores it.

No, I don't know what actually did or didn't happen. Not with this coaching thing, or the Reggie thing. I also don't know what the NCAA knows.

Neither does anyone else on this board. The difference is, I'm not passing judgment, minus this knowledge. So many of the others here just seem to have this need to believe USC is dirty, so they label them as such, jumping on every rumor as proof of guilt, despite the fact that they have no clue as to the truth of any of it...and despite the fact that none of these rumors ever pan out.

If you don't see a problem with that, well, of course you wouldn't.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:30 pm

Van wrote:
The point in this thread is that people accuse USC of cheating, and of the NCAA of sweeping it under the rug, convicting them both without a shred of evidence. They hear a rumor, they assume it to be fact; provided it's a damning rumor.

Really? That's the point?

I'd say the point is seeing how far they can wedge your panties up your crack while you breathlessly try to defend U$C.

Kudos to M Club for a job well done.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:02 am

USC football doesn't need defending. They haven't been found guilty of any wrongdoing, nor has the NCAA charged them with any wrongdoing.

The people who pronounce them guilty, without knowing anything, that's my issue.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:11 am

Really? You wear a cape and have a superhuman resistance to metacarpal syndrome, and USC is the injustice you choose to fight?

I wouldn't call Bama and OU fair comparisons here. They self-reported.

Still, the thread has become about winding you up. M Cunt? You probably beat your wife.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:27 am

Probably not.

Btw, going to the "I was just trying to wind you up/troll you" card has always been a lame cop out, and it still is.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:38 am

This:

You don't get credit for creating a situation, then pointing it out.

resonates with this:

Btw, going to the "I was just trying to wind you up/troll you" card has always been a lame cop out, and it still is.

I can't believe two diametrically opposed thoughts came out of your head in a single thread.

At any rate, it's only a lame cop out when you've been backed into a corner and have basically called mercy. In this particular instance, and most others, it was simply a matter of pointing out your douche reasoning and then thanking you for being so predictable.

holler.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:59 am

Yeah, it's a remarkable feat of trolling, to post something stupid about USC, then have me call you (or Indy or m2, as the case may be) on your stupid reasoning.

Riveting work, there.

Btw, those weren't opposing thoughts you quoted. Are you truly that fucking stupid? The first quote has to do with you creating the situation, i.e., trolling, then making a self-serving comment that you noticed the thread turned into you and others trolling. You don't get credit for that. You created it, so noticing what you created is hardly laudable. The second quote merely states that what you're doing is lame, always has been lame, and always will be lame.

Trolling is lame. Claiming after the fact that you were merely trolling is lame. You're trolling. You're lame.

Call me when USC football is ever actually found to be in violation of something. In the meantime, enjoy looking back on those halcyon days of yore, when you were merely USC's and Ohio St's bitch; not the entire nation's.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:28 am

Van wrote: Call me when USC football is ever actually found to be in violation of something. In the meantime, enjoy looking back on those halcyon days of yore, when you were merely USC's and Ohio St's bitch; not the entire nation's.

Oh my.

At the risk of you going all Screwball and breaking out the "Whitey" card...

It appears you take some personal credit for SC's success, like maybe you should be able to use that on your resume for your next house-husband gig

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:33 am

Van, Van, Van...

You reacted as I suspected. You think I, as an A&M fan, have a vested interest (in your words have a witch hunt) in $C? I never even recognized them in "my CFB world" until they became relevant in my lifetime, or at least in my CFB Fandom lifetime. $C was shit when I began watching CFB and caring about it.

Regardless, it isn't the fact $C is cheating. We all now that. It's your consistent head in the sand replies that make us laugh. You try to lump M Club and I in the same ilk as mJew and Jon? Take a look in the mirror. mTool and noj=bitch constantly argue their school/program has a) the best of everything b)never done anything wrong c) excuse after excuse why they don't win the NC every year even though they have losses and d)etc. Sound familiar? Your biggest flaw is B above.

I respect your loyalty to the school you never went to. That's swell. You're a solid poster with good input on many areas. I'm glad you returned. This whole $C debate won't be your downfall. Ultimately, it will make you look stupid. More stupid than you look now. For your sake, I hope the NCAA does not release their findings. Because there are some. Many I would guess. For the rest of us, at the very least, though there will be nothing more than a wrist slap, they can silence those of your ilk. Of course, if and when it is a wrist slap, you'll ride the bandwagon of "If it was really that bad, they'd do more than cutting TV coverage for the first 3 games."

Witch hunt? haha. g'luck.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:50 am

Van wrote: Btw, those weren't opposing thoughts you quoted. Are you truly that fucking stupid? The first quote has to do with you creating the situation, i.e., trolling, then making a self-serving comment that you noticed the thread turned into you and others trolling. You don't get credit for that. You created it, so noticing what you created is hardly laudable. The second quote merely states that what you're doing is lame, always has been lame, and always will be lame.

Trolling is lame. Claiming after the fact that you were merely trolling is lame. You're trolling. You're lame.

They are opposing thoughts. You told me I can't frame the issue any way I see fit then turned around and declared I was trolling, the proof because you said so. Hardly. I know you can't reason in a straight line, so I'll refer you to my first post, which came after your predictable hands-over-your-ears response and merely ridiculed your hollow rationalizations. As Indy pointed out, we're not trolling or baiting; we're pointing and laughing, at you. And even after pointing out your predictable tantrums, all you have is that trolling is lame. It's not trolling because you can't fight the impulse to respond to obvious bait, which I didn't even lay in this thread. I encounter more restraint from junior high students.

Srsly, go back to my initial comment in this thread and point out where I said SC was guilty of said accusation. Though this is generally the part where you go silent, when your tasked with explaining yourself.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:54 am

Irony Frisco wrote:it isn't the fact $C is cheating. We all now that.

Oh, we do, do we? Care to lay out what you now? (sic)

I mean, with your inside connections and all, apparently you specifically and "we" in general know even more than the NCAA, or the Pac 10 officials.

How about you link us right up there with what you "know."

For your sake, I hope the NCAA does not release their findings. Because there are some. Many I would guess.

Just a "guess," huh? Wtf, dude? Quit waffling! Nobody likes pussified wafflers! You know, dammit! We all know! People who know don't have to guess! 'Cause...wait for it...they know!

Nah, Indy, you're not finding them guilty, based on precisely...nothing. Nothing but a guess, that is, and a burning desire for it to be true.

While you attempt to reconnect your brain, try this one on for size....

For just one nanosecond, did you ever consider the possibility that the NCAA hasn't released any of their "findings" because...

1: There aren't any.

2: Whatever they have found has been nothing worthy of a press release, a penalty, or anything more than another birthday card to Mike Garrett.

All this continued silence ought to be leading you more to the conclusion that they haven't found anything. If they had, there probably would've been something said by now.

If and when they do find something, guess what? That's when you'll know they've found something, because ESPN will run it as their front page banner, not ten seconds later.

With all the people gunning for USC's scalp, this continued silence ought to seem deafening, not damning.

Guilty 'till proven innocent though, right? When guilt cannot be proven, innocence still isn't an option.

Good stuff. Good stuff. Sharp.

Like I said, call me when something ever comes of any of this. Until then, I'm going to assume that I don't know, and neither does anyone else, so maybe we just ought to let the people who do know inform us of what's really going on before we pass judgment.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:08 am

M Club, if you're only posting to achieve a desirable and predictable response from the person to whom you're addressing your post, that's called trolling.

Tell me you knew.

Like I said, provoking me to attack the position of people who claim to know more than they possibly can is no great trick of mental gymnastics on your part, or Indy's, or anybody else's. This is a message board, which, for some reason, I seem to constantly need to remind Indy. Inexplicably, he seems to be unable to grasp the concept that message boards don't work very well if people don't post responses, and this is acutely the case when we're talking about seasonal topic based message boards, such as a college football board.

If you consider it some grand victory, this notion that you got me to respond about a USC post, on a freaking college football message board, hey, knock yourself out. Do a little dance. You got over, just like those other 7150 times I posted a response, and all those respondents got over.

You know what? I'm going to keep responding, to this and myriad other predictable topics, and I'm likely going to keep posting predictable responses. I'm the same guy, every time. My responses aren't likely to vary much, unless the topics vary much.

Along the way, the sun will again come up tomorrow.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:17 am

Van wrote:M Club, if you're only posting to achieve a desirable and predictable response from the person to whom you're addressing your post, that's called trolling.

Tell me you knew.

You just aren't very bright. The only trolling going on was a trap laid down by .m2. That dude owns you. Most of us were were laughing at your ability to be so easily taken for a ride, as well as at your meandering defense of Holy SC, peace be upon them.

It's all there in the public record.

And again, go back to my first post and tell me where I was trolling. Nice eject.

TheJON · Post by **TheJON** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:14 am

Vag getting owned again? What the fuck else is new?

Don't worry Vag........just put M Cunt and IndyFellatio (is that the trendy name for him?) on ignore like you did me (well, except for the fact that you read my posts still and we all know this. in fact you read them, jerk off to them, read them again......rinse and repeat).

Pete Carroll is a cheating scumbag. Water is wet.

What the fuck is the big deal here? I've been saying it for years. It doesn't matter what USC does, the NCAA will never bust them so all this crap we're discussing is a complete waste of time. They cheat, we all know it and it doesn't matter because the NCAA doesn't do anything about it. This is a non-story.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:19 pm

M Club wrote:You just aren't very bright. The only trolling going on was a trap laid down by .m2. That dude owns you. Most of us were were laughing at your ability to be so easily taken for a ride, as well as at your meandering defense of Holy SC, peace be upon them.

It's all there in the public record.

And again, go back to my first post and tell me where I was trolling. Nice eject.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

And my first post...

IndyFrisco wrote:PSU,

We need a :Van: similar to for this one.

Though Van likes to say I jumped on the article/rumor and took it as gospel, I was simply making a prophecy...one which came true.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:44 pm

'Spray, is USC significantly any more of a cash cow to the NCAA than Bama or OU? Why would USC be off-limits, but OU and Bama aren't? Those two are right there with USC, on the landscape of CF.

Indy, so, if someone posts about ND, saying they're horrible, and they have no future, and Killian and Terry respond in predictable fashion, does that mean the first person got over on them, by drawing out that predictable response? It's happened a million times, and not once have you or M Club made mention of it.

Every time Texas fan says something to piss of OU fan, or vice versa, and they both respond in death-taxes-and the sun will come up tomorrow fashion, did either party get over?

If I say A&M is just pathetic, and you come back with your usual response about how USC cheats and I didn't attend school there, did I get over on you?

It happens, every time. You don't rag on Killian about not attending ND, but you rag on me about not attending USC. Funny, that. Again, death and taxes.

If someone posts anything to m2, and he responds with non-sequitur pics and other stupid shit about Cal, did they get over on him? His responses are always entirely predictable too.

Newsflash, genius: Most responses here are predictable, from all of us. We all know each other well enough by now to know where we stand on things. We also know how people here respond.

BFD.

You guys are really reaching. Responding to similar posts with a similar response, remaining consistent, that somehow now means people are getting over. (Selectively, of course.)

Jesus, you people really suck. What an awesome college football message board you'd have, especially in July, if people refrained from responding to posts.

Yeah, Indy, let's just all have a riveting talk about your fucking drainage ditch, or your Fat Head helmet logos. That'll carry us through the offseason.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:56 pm

Van wrote:If I say A&M is just pathetic, and you come back with your usual response about how USC cheats and I didn't attend school there, did I get over on you?

Pay attention to Screwball and how many times he takes a dig at me or A&M. I see all of them. I just don't respond to them. There's been no less than a hundred attempts to bait me by many referencing "Dumbass Aggies on the Bonfire" over the years. I took the bait one time. Probably 9 years ago. Never again.

So yeah, I am different than you. ANY time someone takes a dig at USC, you're there like a little dog barking at someone's ankle. M Club nailed it when he said mJew owns you. Hell, even in that thread about Mt Tam I believe long ago you finally "gave up trying to talk to him" yet he takes another dig at you in the thread and you run back in screaming to high hell again.

You just can't LET.....THINGS.......GO......

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:13 pm

So? What fun is a message board if everyone ignores each other, simply because the responses will be predictable? Of course the responses will be predictable.

Did you improve the board, or make it any more entertaining, by not responding to Screwball's attempts to bait you? Instead of coming back with something funny, or something informative, did you achieve a damn thing by doing nothing?

No, you didn't. You contributed nothing. You created a vacuum.

This isn't real life, Indy, this is a message board. Unlike real life, where you can just go do something else if you don't feel like responding to someone, this is a message board. It subsists on posts. It dies on the vine, if people stop responding to each other.

Regardless, by your logic, I get over on you every time you respond to me with, "USC cheats, and you didn't go there anyway!" You're a broken record, and you're not even bringing anything to the table with your shpiel. All you're really doing with those posts is ankle biting. You have no other purpose, with those posts.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Nice spin. You've been owned and now you're presenting it as a case of injecting life into a message board.

Predictable responses aren't necessarily the issue, at least the way you're trying to frame it. I don't get over on someone if I ask how he's doing and he responds, predictably, "fine." Your particular dog and pony show is amusing because .m2 laid the bait; we said, "ha, here comes .mVan to throw a tantrum;" you predictably did even though we basically laid out the warning signs; and then proceeded to argue with us about SC's cheatage even though we were more interested in the clown suit you had on.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:29 pm

Responding to a message board post is not throwing a tantrum.

I guess it is, when you need to frame it as such, in order to claim some lame 'bode.

To me, it's just responding. That is what we're supposed to be doing here, isn't it? Funny, how when I respond to you, it's you getting over. When you respond to me, it's you getting over.

Yeah. Funny. Dumber than dirt, but funny.

Jesus, would it kill you guys to quit obsessing over whether I'll respond in the same way I always do? You're not about to change, and neither am I. Along the way, would it kill you to actually post something worth a shit, once in awhile?

Yes, M Club, I have injected life into this message board. That's not blowing my own horn, it's just fact. Take my posts away this off-season, and what the fuck do you have? You have a pretty goddamn slow moving message board, that's what you have.

We also don't even have half your own posts of late, since you've spent half your time obsessing over me.

Really. Do we need to take another look at "ownage?" You're a fucking non-entity, minus your wholly predictable responses to me, so by your logic I completely own you.

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:44 pm

You're right, responding to messages isn't the issue. What's funny is laughing about your head in the sand while you insist on a completely different conversation. And even when people spell it out for you, you call them dumbasses for not seeing your point of view even though they've said, "Uh, ja, different discussion, fool."

What's also humorous is the nature of your responses. Tell Killian or Terry ND sucks and Weis is fat and they'll engage in a thoughtful discussion, one in which they allow for the infallibility of their football program. You, on the other hand, are no, uh uh, nothing bad ever, sacrosanct, god's wounds, SC is Jesus personified.

Yes, M Club, I have injected life into this message board. That's not blowing my own horn, it's just fact. Take my posts away this off-season, and what the fuck do you have? You have a pretty goddamn slow moving message board, that's what you have.

I meant to thank you for this. It's nice to have a can to kick around during the off season.

I'm also a non-entity considering it takes me about 1/10th of the words to say more than you.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:51 pm

I've never said USC football hasn't cheated. I've said the NCAA has never found them to be in violation of anything, and none of us know if they've cheated, myself included.

That's not defending them as much as it's defending due process. My bigger issue is with people who condemn them, claiming they "know," when they know nothing.

I admit I don't know. I say, let the process run its course. If there's anything there, it'll come out, then we'll know.

That's not defending USC, or saying they're infallible. It's saying, "Innocent until proven guilty, motherfucker. Do you speak it?"

As to you saying more than me, no, you don't. You cherrypick, and you say very little, then you feel this strange need to suck your own dick. You contribute next to nothing.

Limit this board to what little you've ever had to say, and it's tumbleweeds in here.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:17 pm

The only dog I have in this wants to urinate on the corpse. I now, know, am aware, positive SuC is dirty. But nothing matters until something happens. Nothing.

But to chide a poster for coming to his team's defense on here when attacked....wow...like that's only done in here....always.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12003872

M Club · Post by **M Club** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:17 am

Van wrote:I've never said USC football hasn't cheated. I've said the NCAA has never found them to be in violation of anything, and none of us know if they've cheated, myself included.

That's not defending them as much as it's defending due process. My bigger issue is with people who condemn them, claiming they "know," when they know nothing.

I admit I don't know. I say, let the process run its course. If there's anything there, it'll come out, then we'll know.

That's not defending USC, or saying they're infallible. It's saying, "Innocent until proven guilty, motherfucker. Do you speak it?"

As to you saying more than me, no, you don't. You cherrypick, and you say very little, then you feel this strange need to suck your own dick. You contribute next to nothing.

Limit this board to what little you've ever had to say, and it's tumbleweeds in here.

Most of that is a reasonable take. The part about your volume posting vs. a normal posting schedule: not so much.

As far as cherry picking, uh.... hardly. I"m pretty sure I'm good about responding point-by-point. I've called you out on specific statements numerous times that you've failed to address, let alone defend.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:32 pm

It's true, nobody "knows" in the literal sense that USC has cheated. We just all hiiiiiiiiiiighly suspect it. You do too, Van, even if you won't admit it.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:33 am

The Seer wrote:The only dog I have in this wants to urinate on the corpse. I now, know, am aware, positive SuC is dirty. But nothing matters until something happens. Nothing.

But to chide a poster for coming to his team's defense on here when attacked....wow...like that's only done in here....always.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12003872

Slick Rick will land fUCLA in trouble and recieve sanctions before Carroll and USC do, bank on it.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:31 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:
The Seer wrote:The only dog I have in this wants to urinate on the corpse. I now, know, am aware, positive SuC is dirty. But nothing matters until something happens. Nothing.

But to chide a poster for coming to his team's defense on here when attacked....wow...like that's only done in here....always.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12003872

Slick Rick will land fUCLA in trouble and recieve sanctions before Carroll and USC get caught , bank on it.

I have 500.00 says you're wrong....wanna play?