I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.
As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.
I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.
Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...
makes very little sense to me. it seems clear that we would receive 2 bowl bans, so one would want to use them during years where we would have zero chances of a BCS or NC game, such as 2012. if we had chosen not to self impose this year, and next year we do real well, then we are sitting in the same boat as Ohio State.
Yea that makes no sense. I'm glad that our administration does not see this as a gambling opportunity.
Yeah, since they have been wrong 1005 of the time. Glad they don't gamble. I mean, Shannon was a stone cold lock, right?
I think this is a severely misguided line of reasoning.
I think it is inarguable that we were destined to lose at least one bowl. We self-imposed, so as to take that "first" bowl ban in 2011, instead of this year (2013), after sanctions will have been officially announced. That makes our first self-imposed bowl ban a no-brainer, and an obviously deft decision by the administration.
I think it is more than likely that we were destined to lose a second bowl game, as well, and Miami, obviously, agreed and self-imposed that bowl ban this year. Again, the point of this is to take the second dose of our medicine in 2012, instead of being banned from our second bowl in 2014.
It seems that some argue we shouldn't have self-imposed because the NCAA is intent on making us endure at least a one year bowl ban that
was not voluntarily conceded. That doesn't make much sense to me. "Miami's transgressions deserve a two year bowl ban, but they already self-imposed a two year bowl ban, so we'll add another year or two, because we need to tell you to do something that you couldn't already have done." I don't believe that the NCAA's Committee on Infractions will rationalize our punishment in that manner. It doesn't compute for me.
I can comprehend the argument, but it's not compelling.
To me, the only way that a second self-imposed bowl ban could possibly be determined as a bad idea is if we learn that the NCAA would have otherwise only knocked us with a one-year bowl ban. I don't believe that we'll ever hear that, and I think it was unlikely given the circumstances.
Don't see how we could possibly have "wasted" two years.
