Bowl bans and scholarship reductions?

[Dingaan1828]

Traditionally, the NCAA has relied on scholarship reductions and bowl bans for the most punishing parts of sanctions.

We have self-imposed a bowl ban once, with the possibility of doing it again to mitigate or eliminate expected NCAA bans. I get that, as we hope that the better teams in the near future won't have to suffer through bowl bans. No problem, IMO.

The bigger concern to me is future scholarship reductions. Since we now have about 80 on scholarship, and the number of current commits is quite low, do any of you think we may actually self-impose a scholarship limit on ourselves? For instance, if we play with 80 next year, we could offer that as a voluntary 5 scholarship reduction to the NCAA. I'm not suggesting we do it, just wondering how much of a heads up UM has on possible NCAA sanctions. A self-limit of 5 would have a minor effect on the program, but could soften the blow from the NCAA.

Thoughts?

 

[SmokeyRone]

We get hammered. Near PSU like sanctions.

Thanks, Shalala.

 

[bear]

We get hammered. Near PSU like sanctions.

Thanks, Shalala.

Do not EVER put us in the same sentence as PSU you idiot!

 

[3FW]

We will know our fate well in advance of next year and have a good idea before signing day.

 

[Flrcane]

Traditionally, the NCAA has relied on scholarship reductions and bowl bans for the most punishing parts of sanctions.

We have self-imposed a bowl ban once, with the possibility of doing it again to mitigate or eliminate expected NCAA bans. I get that, as we hope that the better teams in the near future won't have to suffer through bowl bans. No problem, IMO.

The bigger concern to me is future scholarship reductions. Since we now have about 80 on scholarship, and the number of current commits is quite low, do any of you think we may actually self-impose a scholarship limit on ourselves? For instance, if we play with 80 next year, we could offer that as a voluntary 5 scholarship reduction to the NCAA. I'm not suggesting we do it, just wondering how much of a heads up UM has on possible NCAA sanctions. A self-limit of 5 would have a minor effect on the program, but could soften the blow from the NCAA.

Thoughts?

The only concern I have with this line of thought, is that the NCAA will no doubt add to the scholarship reductions regardless of what we self-impose. That is, they will use it as a baseline number to start off. So if we take five, they will do ten. If we do ten, they will do twenty, and so forth. If, however, we self-impose another bowl ban, then the NCAA starts at zero in terms of scholarship reductions, and potentially making it more likely the ultimately number will not be as bad.

 

[SpikeUM]

If you look at every case in recent years, there has been some type of scholarship reductions, so it probably makes sense to do something, like 3 over 3 years.

 

[JHallCanes]

NCAA is basically reducing our scholarships as we speak. ****ed up.

 

[SpikeUM]

If you think about it, scholarship reductions hurt recruits the most, since there are less scholies for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who couldnt go to a good school otherwise. Similarly, bowl bans hurt the players and fans of the team, which had nothing to do with the infraction.

If you really want to punish the correct entities, punish the coaches (ban them) and punish the school directly (cold hard cash).

 

[Shogungts]

If you think about it, scholarship reductions hurt recruits the most, since there are less scholies for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who couldnt go to a good school otherwise. Similarly, bowl bans hurt the players and fans of the team, which had nothing to do with the infraction.

If you really want to punish the correct entities, punish the coaches (ban them) and punish the school directly (cold hard cash).

I understand what you are getting at, but I don't like this line of reasoning either as it makes the schools with more money (or boosters) even more powerful. Now, if they get caught, they can just pay a fine and keep moving on; this would only widen the gap between the have and have nots and push a school like Miami closer to the have nots.

 

[JHallCanes]

Both solid posts

 

[SpikeUM]

Shogungts,

I get what you are saying and its a valid point. Perhaps the way to get around that is to use percentages. So punish a school by having them pay a fine of say 10% of their football revenues.

 

[Shogungts]

Shogungts,

I get what you are saying and its a valid point. Perhaps the way to get around that is to use percentages. So punish a school by having them pay a fine of say 10% of their football revenues.

Certainly an option, but a couple of counter points to that:

1) 10% would most likely hurt a school with less money a lot more than it hurts a school with more money.

2) The schools with bigger/more boosters would likely be able to boost their revenue with additional donations after any sanctions. Of course then the NCAA could try to start regulating that too, but at the least that would be extremely messy and I wouldn't be surprised if it was legally challenged.

I like the idea of finding another way to punish those responsible b/c it is truly unfair to punish the fans and kids that didn't have anything to do with it Certainly coming down on coaches is the best starting point and $ always gets people's attentions, but I think making the sanctions mostly direct financial sanctions (fines as opposed to missed revenue from a bowl game) will really hurt some schools more than others.

I think what they really need to start doing (and we have seen this somewhat in recent punishments) is concentrate on who's really at fault. Is it a coach(es), then nail them and have a lesser penalty for the school. Did or should the school have known, then schollies, bowl bans, etc. Really, as long as we have the joke that is 'amateur sports' that bring in billions, there will most likely never be a fair way to enforce.

 

[Jeepinjimmy]

Problem is, there is no balance or equality with regards to the NCAA. The punishment may be less for one school and.more for anothrr.

 

[Notsince1985]

We get hammered. Near PSU like sanctions.

Thanks, Shalala.

What does that even mean?

 

[SpikeUM]

Shogungts,

I get what you are saying and its a valid point. Perhaps the way to get around that is to use percentages. So punish a school by having them pay a fine of say 10% of their football revenues.

Certainly an option, but a couple of counter points to that:

1) 10% would most likely hurt a school with less money a lot more than it hurts a school with more money.

2) The schools with bigger/more boosters would likely be able to boost their revenue with additional donations after any sanctions. Of course then the NCAA could try to start regulating that too, but at the least that would be extremely messy and I wouldn't be surprised if it was legally challenged.

I like the idea of finding another way to punish those responsible b/c it is truly unfair to punish the fans and kids that didn't have anything to do with it Certainly coming down on coaches is the best starting point and $ always gets people's attentions, but I think making the sanctions mostly direct financial sanctions (fines as opposed to missed revenue from a bowl game) will really hurt some schools more than others.

I think what they really need to start doing (and we have seen this somewhat in recent punishments) is concentrate on who's really at fault. Is it a coach(es), then nail them and have a lesser penalty for the school. Did or should the school have known, then schollies, bowl bans, etc. Really, as long as we have the joke that is 'amateur sports' that bring in billions, there will most likely never be a fair way to enforce.

I guess the points we are making is what makes the NCAA's job so difficult. Not saying they are doing a good job, just that there is no obvious answer.

 

[Shogungts]

I guess the points we are making is what makes the NCAA's job so difficult. Not saying they are doing a good job, just that there is no obvious answer.

We are definitely on the same page; they need to do something different, I am just not sure what they can do under the current circumstances.

 

[LA'Cane818]

Rationalizing NCAA thought process is like reasoning with a wild animal. Nobody knows what the **** they are thinking nor can they predict their behavior.

I fully expect us to get our ******** stretched with PSU like sanctions. Their reasoning being that our infractions were more football related thus warranted similar penalties. I hope I am wrong, but I cannot put any faith in the modern day slavery system that is the NCAA. They lack all rational thought. They are money drunk and will do anything to keep their system of improprieties in place, despite the obvious flaws that have been pointed out by so many. They are much like a wounded animal.

 

[[]_[]Fan2010]

Anyone know how many scholarshipped players we have right now? I remember AG saying this summer we'd be at 80 for the season. Did we do that and does it count is a self-imposed?

 

[Paranos]

Well with the way former canes like kyle wright are spilling the beans along coach hill, hurt, and stoutland singing thier hearts out to NCAA god only knows what is coming down. We need to make it to the ACC SHIP, self impose a ban which would be in essence a two year ban in one. This gives the staff time go out and recruit and gives more Utough strength training time to the team. It also
eliminates the bowl ban transfer
possibility. So he can tell any recruits that come to UM they can play for ship and bowl from day one.

Also I am hopeing Curtis Porter, ben jones, and devon johnson all apply for and get medical hardship years that would give UM the ability to redshirt 3 freshman while not having the medical hardships count against roster totals.

Go Canes

 

[Gennaker Cane]

No chance for any of those 3 to get a hardship. Wait and see guys, we should know in a few weeks what the allegations are. Then we can debate the potential punishment.