Am I Wrong

[radiocane]

Our Real Goal now is to get to 6 wins and forfit another bowl game to help our sanctions moving forward

 

[DapperSlapper]

Don't need to get to six wins to self impose a bowl ban.

 

[Andrew]

I think we should self impose regardless of how many games we win. It wouldn't surprise me if we haven't already informed the NCAA of our intent to do so.

 

[Odin]

Don't need to get to six wins to self impose a bowl ban.

It takes 6 wins to be bowl elegible,so how can you impose a bowl ban if you're not elsgible.I guess they could announce it now but if we finish with 5 or less wins it's meaningless.Golden will never admit to it but the plan all along was to get to 6 wins,bowl ban and get the youngsters experience.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Don't need to get to six wins to self impose a bowl ban.

It takes 6 wins to be bowl elegible,so how can you impose a bowl ban if you're not elsgible.I guess they could announce it now but if we finish with 5 or less wins it's meaningless.Golden will never admit to it but the plan all along was to get to 6 wins,bowl ban and get the youngsters experience.

Nope. Just like the NCAA may ban a team from postseason play for 2 seasons, that ban lasts 2 seasons ONLY, whether the team becomes eligible or not. As long as the competition(s) from which a school is banning itself are mathematically possible when they ban themselves, the self imposed sanction is valid.

 

[CaneShades]

Well if thats the case I say ban now!

 

[Problem2]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

 

[Sugarhillcane]

I guarantee it means a lot more to the NCAA if we forfeit a Bowl game when we're actually bowl eligible.

 

[CanesAreAble]

We skatin', y'all.

Believe.

 

[CaneDaddy]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

This.

 

[DapperSlapper]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

How can the NCAA ban a team from postseason play for 2 years if that team doesn't become eligible for those 2 years? That's the way it works - if it's mathematically possible to make it, it can be banned.

 

[CaneDaddy]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

How can the NCAA ban a team from postseason play for 2 years if that team doesn't become eligible for those 2 years? That's the way it works - if it's mathematically possible to make it, it can be banned.

The difference is that we are self imposing at the moment. If we self impose two then the NCAA will probably not give us another. If we only self impose 1 and wait on the NCAA, then they will just take away one the following year. You dont take the chance. We are going to a ****** bowl this year. Self impose and dont worry about the **** later.

 

[DapperSlapper]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

How can the NCAA ban a team from postseason play for 2 years if that team doesn't become eligible for those 2 years? That's the way it works - if it's mathematically possible to make it, it can be banned.

The difference is that we are self imposing at the moment. If we self impose two then the NCAA will probably not give us another. If we only self impose 1 and wait on the NCAA, then they will just take away one the following year. You dont take the chance. We are going to a ****** bowl this year. Self impose and dont worry about the **** later.

I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, a school can self impose a ban on specified competition if it's mathematically possible for the school to play in the competition from which it is banning itself. When the NCAA bans a school from postseason play, it more often than not does the same thing - ban something for which the school may or may not qualify.

 

[CaneDaddy]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

How can the NCAA ban a team from postseason play for 2 years if that team doesn't become eligible for those 2 years? That's the way it works - if it's mathematically possible to make it, it can be banned.

The difference is that we are self imposing at the moment. If we self impose two then the NCAA will probably not give us another. If we only self impose 1 and wait on the NCAA, then they will just take away one the following year. You dont take the chance. We are going to a ****** bowl this year. Self impose and dont worry about the **** later.

I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, a school can self impose ban on specified competition if it's mathematically possible for the school to play in the competition from which it is banning itself. When the NCAA bans a school from postseason play, it more often than not does the same thing - ban something for which the school may or may not qualify.

Yeah but you said a team doesnt have to get six wins to self impose. Yes they do. You cant self impose something you dont qualify for. If the NCAA bans a team from the post season then you are right, they dont. They are banned from the post season regardless if they make it or not.

There is a difference between self imposing and a NCAA postseason ban.

 

[DapperSlapper]

But how can we ban ourselves from a game that we wouldn't be going to if we only win 5 games?

How can the NCAA ban a team from postseason play for 2 years if that team doesn't become eligible for those 2 years? That's the way it works - if it's mathematically possible to make it, it can be banned.

The difference is that we are self imposing at the moment. If we self impose two then the NCAA will probably not give us another. If we only self impose 1 and wait on the NCAA, then they will just take away one the following year. You dont take the chance. We are going to a ****** bowl this year. Self impose and dont worry about the **** later.

I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, a school can self impose ban on specified competition if it's mathematically possible for the school to play in the competition from which it is banning itself. When the NCAA bans a school from postseason play, it more often than not does the same thing - ban something for which the school may or may not qualify.

Yeah but you said a team doesnt have to get six wins to self impose. Yes they do. You cant self impose something you dont qualify for. If the NCAA bans a team from the post season then you are right, they dont. They are banned from the post season regardless if they make it or not.

There is a difference between self imposing and a NCAA postseason ban.

No, you can self impose that which is mathematically possible. You can self impose at the very beginning of a season, or partway through - as long as it is still possible to become eligible.

 

[CaneDaddy]

How can the NCAA ban a team from postseason play for 2 years if that team doesn't become eligible for those 2 years? That's the way it works - if it's mathematically possible to make it, it can be banned.

The difference is that we are self imposing at the moment. If we self impose two then the NCAA will probably not give us another. If we only self impose 1 and wait on the NCAA, then they will just take away one the following year. You dont take the chance. We are going to a ****** bowl this year. Self impose and dont worry about the **** later.

I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, a school can self impose ban on specified competition if it's mathematically possible for the school to play in the competition from which it is banning itself. When the NCAA bans a school from postseason play, it more often than not does the same thing - ban something for which the school may or may not qualify.

Yeah but you said a team doesnt have to get six wins to self impose. Yes they do. You cant self impose something you dont qualify for. If the NCAA bans a team from the post season then you are right, they dont. They are banned from the post season regardless if they make it or not.

There is a difference between self imposing and a NCAA postseason ban.

No, you can self impose that which is mathematically possible. You can self impose at the very beginning of a season, or partway through - as long as it is still possible to become eligible.

That would be news to me. Lets say even if you can, the NCAA would probably not take it into consideration. Same reason we waited last year to self impose once we knew we were getting into a bowl game.

 

[DapperSlapper]

The difference is that we are self imposing at the moment. If we self impose two then the NCAA will probably not give us another. If we only self impose 1 and wait on the NCAA, then they will just take away one the following year. You dont take the chance. We are going to a ****** bowl this year. Self impose and dont worry about the **** later.

I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, a school can self impose ban on specified competition if it's mathematically possible for the school to play in the competition from which it is banning itself. When the NCAA bans a school from postseason play, it more often than not does the same thing - ban something for which the school may or may not qualify.

Yeah but you said a team doesnt have to get six wins to self impose. Yes they do. You cant self impose something you dont qualify for. If the NCAA bans a team from the post season then you are right, they dont. They are banned from the post season regardless if they make it or not.

There is a difference between self imposing and a NCAA postseason ban.

No, you can self impose that which is mathematically possible. You can self impose at the very beginning of a season, or partway through - as long as it is still possible to become eligible.

That would be news to me. Lets say even if you can, the NCAA would probably not take it into consideration. Same reason we waited last year to self impose once we knew we were getting into a bowl game.

The school did not want to tank the season last season, so they waited until the end. Since that went so poorly, they are probably afraid to self impose a ban early on this season.

TTU self imposed a ban against playing in the Big 12 Championship game and a bowl in 1997. They self imposed that ban on November 6, 1997, with 3 games left on the schedule. At the time, they were 4-4. The NCAA accepted both sanctions, even though they would not have played in the Big 12 Championship had they not self imposed the ban because they did not win their division.

If an actual case in which a school self banned before eligible isn't good enough for you, here's a bit from an intrepid Herald reporter who asked the NCAA:

### The NCAA told us that any school that’s anticipating NCAA penalties can declare itself bowl ineligible during a season, as long as it's mathetically possible to be bowl eligible. UM spokesman Chris Freet said he has heard no discussion of UM doing that again. That might earn points with the NCAA, but doing it now would remove a carrot for UM players.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...ns-heat-marlins-um-chatter.html#storylink=cpy

 

[NVA CANE]

If we just forfeit and take some ammo out of the ncaa's weapon.

 

[DapperSlapper]

I'll just add one more thing for now -

I don't know how the joint investigation was moving along just before last season or early on in the season, but UM (if they had enough info) may have been better off self imposing a full postseason ban early on last year. Because UM waited, it lost the opportunity to self impose a prohibition against playing in the ACC championship game (since they already knew they weren't going to the championship when they self imposed the bowl ban).

 

[rascani]

This would also somewhat explain why this team rotates players so much. I think it's pretty clear that they're building more for next year than this year. I just hope they find a half decent defensive scheme somewhere along the way and don't quit the recruiting trail like Shannon did.