...here's a link to a little more ridiculous love for USC by those espn guys we all love so much. It's to do with the NCAA decision not to allow Williams to play. I've seen very few people in the national media support the decision, which is sad, but expected. Still, this is pretty humorous. I'm starting to think that USC could go 1 - 11 and still go to the orange bowl. There are several references to the NCAA denying Williams as he was boarding a plane with the team to go play VaTech. I read somewhere that he wasn't going anyway, because 1) he wasn't on the team and wasn't allowed to travel with them, and 2) because he hadn't been practicing with the team and wasn't going to play anyway. Is that accurate? Sorry, I'm at work and bored. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bloc/040827
Gawd, What a Bunch of Whiners Not a single one of those opinions dealt with any facts. They were all a bunch of emotionally-charged rants lashing out at the organization that they thinked 'wronged' their guy. I was very surprised to read Bill Curry's statement that Williams had 'done everything the right way." What a crock!!! 1)Williams never enrolled in the spring semester according to a report I read last week. 2)Williams signed with an agent, which automatically made him a professional. 3)Williams accepted money from said agent. I read a report last week where said agent, on a radio interview after the decision was handed down, told the audience that Williams was going to pay all the money back if he was reinstated. If that's true, then Williams hasn't 'done everything the right way.' The guy is a pro. Once he dropped out of school, he was no longer a 'student-ahtlete,' just an athlete. It was the same with Marquise. Once I heard he had signed with an agent, I said "Thanks for the memories." I'm just wondering how long we're going to have to listen to this endless drivel about Williams. As soon as USC loses (which they will if they don't improve dramatically), you know we're going to hear about how "if they only had Williams in the lineup, then they would have won easily." Excuse me now while I go puke.
If what I read is correct, Williams was informed the week prior by CPC that he would not play against VaTech. He was also not utilized in practices with the team the week prior to the VT game. USC "rehearsed" it's travel plans by staying in a cross- town hotel the weekend prior to traveling and BMW was requested not to be there. So I think it's safe to say that USC had prepared for the likelihood that he would not be with the team, at least for the opener. Clearly he was missed by Lienert, but IMO the young man signed with an agent and then accepted his responsibility. At least he accepted it more than USC officials did.........
BULL**** You are right Petey said a week earlier that Williams would not practice and would not play, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
All those post said that the NCAA was the one who is behind the times when it comes to allowing younger players into the draft. I'm sorry, but aren't these people supposed to know anything about what they do for a living. It's not the NCAA's decision, but the NFL's. THe NFL doesn't want the younger players. THese people need to stop blasting the NCAA so much and either blame both the NFL or the NCAA or just put the blame where it belongs: on Mike williams and his agents. THey are the ones who jumped before looking.
Don't forget the NFL Players Union...... they've been against younger players coming in and have prolly had a significant influence on the leagues official position .
