1CN on (possible Canes sanction)

[1CN]

I just had a revelation on how NCAA
hands out sanction on scholarship reduction

For some strangle reason I was under the impression
that USC would losing 30 Scholarship players (in 3 season)
not 30 scholarship over 3 season

Confess..lol
yep me too...

Examples: My understanding of USC sanction. USC was only allowed to
have 75 players after the 1st year of probation.
This number would decrease by 10 for the next 2 season

2013:75 S'ship athletes
2014:65 S'ship athletes
2015:55 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 30 scholarship players by 2015

Examples: UNC (same as above)
2013: 80 S'ship athletes
2014: 75 S'ship athletes
2015: 65 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 15 scholarship players by 2015

After during a little more research,

USC most keep a roster of 75 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 15 scholarship per year
without going over 75 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 30 scholarship

UNC most keep a roster of 80 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 20 scholarship per year
without going over 80 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 15 scholarship

There is no way UM receive Penn State type of sanction
with the type of corporation by the University...

I'm confident that Golden can handle , USC type punishment
if applied by NCAA...

we skate........

 

[pcitycane]

nice. i try not to be that guy but you really need to review your post before you post it. **** load of errors in that thing.

 

[deleted3746]

Seems like AG and staff are already prepping for schollie reductions.

 

[919Cane2DaGrave]

this made my ******** less tight. If we only get 30 that would be a blessing IMO. could be alot worse.

 

[Dandycane]

I just had a revelation on how NCAA
hands out sanction on scholarship reduction

For some strangle reason I was under the impression
that USC would losing 30 Scholarship players (in 3 season)
not 30 scholarship over 3 season

Confess..lol
yep me too...

Examples: My understanding of USC sanction. USC was only allowed to
have 75 players after the 1st year of probation.
This number would decrease by 10 for the next 2 season

2013:75 S'ship athletes
2014:65 S'ship athletes
2015:55 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 30 scholarship players by 2015

Examples: UNC (same as above)
2013: 80 S'ship athletes
2014: 75 S'ship athletes
2015: 65 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 15 scholarship players by 2015

After during a little more research,

USC most keep a roster of 75 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 15 scholarship per year
without going over 75 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 30 scholarship

UNC most keep a roster of 80 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 20 scholarship per year
without going over 80 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 15 scholarship

There is no way UM receive Penn State type of sanction
with the type of corporation by the University...

I'm confident that Golden can handle , USC type punishment
if applied by NCAA...

we skate........

You guys keep assuming we aint getting a Penn State punishment. So what. We could get a level lower, but that's still a major blow.

PS got 4 year bowl ban. We could very well get a 3 year ban.

This is a big investigation with alot of people talking.

 

[cane305]

ONLY 30?

are you serious? if we get 30 that's getting hammered. hard.

we have less players than the total number of scholarship allotment right now. maybe Golden has the ballpark figure on the # of scholarship reductions.

 

[Bigtip]

I still have no idea what the OP is confused about. cannot follow:

"For some strangle reason I was under the impression
that USC would losing 30 Scholarship players (in 3 season)
not 30 scholarship over 3 season"

did he think that we had to make 30 guys leave the program?

 

[jw410]

I just had a revelation on how NCAA
hands out sanction on scholarship reduction

For some strangle reason I was under the impression
that USC would losing 30 Scholarship players (in 3 season)
not 30 scholarship over 3 season

Confess..lol
yep me too...

Examples: My understanding of USC sanction. USC was only allowed to
have 75 players after the 1st year of probation.
This number would decrease by 10 for the next 2 season

2013:75 S'ship athletes
2014:65 S'ship athletes
2015:55 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 30 scholarship players by 2015

Examples: UNC (same as above)
2013: 80 S'ship athletes
2014: 75 S'ship athletes
2015: 65 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 15 scholarship players by 2015

After during a little more research,

USC most keep a roster of 75 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 15 scholarship per year
without going over 75 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 30 scholarship

UNC most keep a roster of 80 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 20 scholarship per year
without going over 80 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 15 scholarship

There is no way UM receive Penn State type of sanction
with the type of corporation by the University...

I'm confident that Golden can handle , USC type punishment
if applied by NCAA...

we skate........

You guys keep assuming we aint getting a Penn State punishment. So what. We could get a level lower, but that's still a major blow.

PS got 4 year bowl ban. We could very well get a 3 year ban.

This is a big investigation with alot of people talking.

I'm not trying to knock your character, but you ALWAYS CRY WOLF.. You always think the worst in every situation. The biggest negative poster on this board. I don't believe we will get a 3yr bowl ban and I am willing to bet money we don't. I do not believe we will get an additional 2 year bowl ban after self imposing on our own. No other school self imposed a bowl ban in the last 10 years. That is being proactive sir.

Just stop with the negative crap. it's becoming really annoying.

 

[Dandycane]

I just had a revelation on how NCAA
hands out sanction on scholarship reduction

For some strangle reason I was under the impression
that USC would losing 30 Scholarship players (in 3 season)
not 30 scholarship over 3 season

Confess..lol
yep me too...

Examples: My understanding of USC sanction. USC was only allowed to
have 75 players after the 1st year of probation.
This number would decrease by 10 for the next 2 season

2013:75 S'ship athletes
2014:65 S'ship athletes
2015:55 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 30 scholarship players by 2015

Examples: UNC (same as above)
2013: 80 S'ship athletes
2014: 75 S'ship athletes
2015: 65 S'ship athletes equaling a loss of 15 scholarship players by 2015

After during a little more research,

USC most keep a roster of 75 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 15 scholarship per year
without going over 75 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 30 scholarship

UNC most keep a roster of 80 scholarship players
for the next 3 season ..and can only offer 20 scholarship per year
without going over 80 scholarship athletes

equaling a loss of 15 scholarship

There is no way UM receive Penn State type of sanction
with the type of corporation by the University...

I'm confident that Golden can handle , USC type punishment
if applied by NCAA...

we skate........

You guys keep assuming we aint getting a Penn State punishment. So what. We could get a level lower, but that's still a major blow.

PS got 4 year bowl ban. We could very well get a 3 year ban.

This is a big investigation with alot of people talking.

I'm not trying to knock your character, but you ALWAYS CRY WOLF.. You always think the worst in every situation. The biggest negative poster on this board. I don't believe we will get a 3yr bowl ban and I am willing to bet money we don't. I do not believe we will get an additional 2 year bowl ban after self imposing on our own. No other school self imposed a bowl ban in the last 10 years. That is being proactive sir.

Just stop with the negative crap. it's becoming really annoying.

And Im tired of the pie in the sky "we are da U" knuckleheads who are still living in the eighties.

This program has serious problems right now. Our loud mouthed, chest thumping fanbase is in denial.

We can not risk your assumptions as to a bowl ban. This program is on very shaky ground on many levels and we need to error on the side of caution. No other program has to face what we may be facing because no other program has had this many individuals implicated in wrong doing. Now the NCAA may or may not have corroborating evidence....but we are in no position to risk the long term damage that can be done by a 3 year ban (losing recruits and a coaching staff).

Never underestimate how fragile a program we are. We almost lost the program once back in the day, and it can damned well happen again.