Getting to the ACC Championship

[PowerIslam aka Sumdumgoy]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

I am not sure about this, I think it is called a "post-season ban" even though teams refer to it as a "bowl ban." With that being said, I wouldn't worry about it unless it is on the table...i.e. we can represent the coastal.

I need clarity on this from someone.

 

[Consigliere]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

I am not sure about this, I think it is called a "post-season ban" even though teams refer to it as a "bowl ban." With that being said, I wouldn't worry about it unless it is on the table...i.e. we can represent the coastal.

I need clarity on this from someone.

Here is my take, no expert.

The NCAA hands down POST SEASON BANS (See UNC or PSU) and that states no bowls or Conference Championship appearances. It used to be called Bowl Ban because there was no post season but now due to Conference Champ games (12 Team Conferences) it is really called a Post-Season Ban.

This is my take.

My question is, if we win the Coastal then lose the ACCCG AND we choose to forfeit the bowl game, does the NCAA count that as a full ban or like a half game. It may all be moot because the NCAA might not need us to forfeit another game.

 

[DapperSlapper]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

I am not sure about this, I think it is called a "post-season ban" even though teams refer to it as a "bowl ban." With that being said, I wouldn't worry about it unless it is on the table...i.e. we can represent the coastal.

I need clarity on this from someone.

A ban is actually "Prohibition against specified competition in the sport." The NCAA normally does a full ban of competitions outside the normal schedule - that includes championship games, bowl games, and exempt games (like USC played against Hawaii while they were under a postseason ban. The NCAA let them play that 13th game because it was scheduled far in advance. Some schools, Bama comes to mind, have tried to schedule exempt games after getting postseason bans). A school can self impose any kind of ban it wants, and it can do it at any time while the game(s) from which it is banning itself are mathematically possible. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BECOME BOWL ELIGIBLE TO SELF IMPOSE A BOWL BAN.

Last year, UM missed out on an opportunity to self impose a full post season ban because we were already eliminated from the ACC championship game when we self imposed a bowl ban. Does that mean anything in the grand scheme of things? I don't know, but it couldn't have been worse to self impose a full postseason ban earlier on in the season (whether you make it does not matter, as long it was mathematically possible when you imposed the ban). The better course of action is to self impose a full postseason ban early on in the season (if that is that you are inclined to do). Since we had a bowl ban last year without a championship game ban, perhaps UM could do something similar.

For what it's worth to anyone here, TTU self imposed a full postseason ban (champ game and bowl) in 1997 when they were 4-4 (early November). The NCAA accepted and adopted those penalties as their own and did not add any additional sanction against future competitions, even though TTU did not end with a good enough record to go the the Big12 champ game. The NCAA considered each element of the self imposed sanction separately and accepted and adopted each one.

For reference, here is what TTU did wrong:

Between 1990 and 1997, at least 76 student-athletes competed while ineligible.
During the 1993-94 through 1996-97 academic years, the institution exceeded team and individual grant-in-aid limitations in four sports.
During the summer of 1993, an assistant football coach provided a student athlete with tuition assistance and other extra benefits and committed academic fraud by completing significant portions of the student-athlete's course work.
In August 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive impermissible proctoring services.
During the summer of 1991, a junior college basketball coach and representative of the institution's athletics interests provided tuition and enrollment assistance to a student-athlete and a prospective student-athlete.
During the 1995 football season, the institution failed to adhere to sound academic standards in regard to a student-athlete and allowed the student athlete to compete while ineligible.
Beginning with the spring 1992 term, a member or members of the football coaching staff provided a student-athlete with money on several occasions before and after the student-athlete's enrollment at the institution.
Between 1991 and 1996, representatives of the institution's athletics interests provided free bail bonding and legal services to student-athletes.
An assistant football coach violated the principles of ethical conduct by knowingly violating extra-benefit legislation and by providing false and misleading information to the institution.
From the summer of 1994 through the spring of 1997, the institution allowed student-athletes to place free long-distance telephone calls and failed to monitor the student-athletes' use of athletics department telephones.
There was a lack of institutional control and monitoring of the institution's athletics programs.
There were several secondary violations involving the provision of impermissible services, transportation and meals to student-athletes and prospective student-athletes.

While there were violations in other sports, football was the big offender, and this is what they got-
FOOTBALL: withdrew from 1997 conference championship game; postseason ban for 1997; limit of 40 official visits for 1997-98; limit of five coaches permitted to recruit off campus from December 1997 through January 1998; reduction from 25 to 17 initial awards for 1998-99, from 25 to 19 for 1999-2000, and from 25 to 21 for 2000-01; limit of 80 total awards for 1999-2000 and 2000-01; reduce the number of evaluation days in May 1998 from 20 to 15 with no more than 90 evaluation opportunities as opposed to a permissible 140; show-cause requirement imposed on a former assistant football coach for 3 years.

Let's also not forget UM's 1995 case (even though everyone wants to forget it). That was a staggering list of violations, and the punishment did, in a sense, fit the crime. Let's take a look back...

Violation Sumary: IMPROPER FINANCIAL AID: institution awarded more than $412,000 in excessive aid as a result of improperly calculating off-campus room and board stipends; student-athletes received an average of $110 in impermissible books a semester; student-athletes were improperly compensated for employment. EXTRA BENEFITS: athletics department staff member helped student-athletes fraudulently receive a total of $212,969 in Pell Grants; cash awards to football student-athletes for game performance. ATHLETICS DEPARTMENT FAILED TO FOLLOW DRUG-TESTING POLICY. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.

Penalty Summary: Public reprimand; FOOTBALL: reduction from 25 to 18 initial awards for 1995-96, from 25 to 12 for 1996-97 and from 25 to 14 for 1997-98; reduction from 85 to 80 total awards for 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98; postseason ban for 1995. BASEBALL: reduction of 6.12 equivalency awards over a three-year period. TENNIS: reduction of 1.98 equivalency awards over a three-year period. WOMEN'S GOLF: reduction of 1.06 equivalency awards over a three-year period. Annual reports; recertification.

The 1995 bowl ban was funny, with Foote begging the NCAA for a hint as to whether UM should self impose, since the hearing had already taken place, but the decision had not been rendered. Although the media reported that UM self imposed a bowl ban, the NCAA decision came out on December 1, and it stated that the bowl ban was NCAA imposed... Who could forget Foote?

 

[caneworld]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

Nope. ACC has already ruled on that a few weeks ago - that a team is not eligble for ACCCG if banned from postseason bowls.

 

[roswellcanes]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bernie20]

Hope that VT loses to both Clemson and FSU. Then, we need to beat Uva and Duke. The biggest game of the year will us versus VT at home. must win.

I was hoping that VT wasn't a must win game. You just know that somehow someway those aholes wil find a way to get to the ACCCG! We need to pray that they lose either at BC or UVA at home. Highly unlikely. We are gonna have to beat FSU or VT to go.

Of course this assumes we are gonna beat Duke and UVA.

 

[CaneSuger]

So are we.

All we have to do is take care of our business and we'll be in.

As someone else said, UNC is ineligible.

 

[DapperSlapper]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

Nope. ACC has already ruled on that a few weeks ago - that a team is not eligble for ACCCG if banned from postseason bowls.

That has nothing to do with self imposed sanctions - only NCAA imposed sanctions. A self imposed sanction does not become an NCAA imposed until it it accepted and adopted by the COI after a hearing (or as part of a summary disposition). Moreover, a bowl ban could be imposed after playing the ACC championship game.

 

[caneworld]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

Nope. ACC has already ruled on that a few weeks ago - that a team is not eligble for ACCCG if banned from postseason bowls.

That has nothing to do with self imposed sanctions - only NCAA imposed sanctions. A self imposed sanction does not become an NCAA imposed until it it accepted and adopted by the COI after a hearing (or as part of a summary disposition). Moreover, a bowl ban could be imposed after playing the ACC championship game.

And you think ACC is going to let us hoodwink them into imposing a self ban after playing the ACCCG?

 

[JefeGringo]

We will wi out after the FSU game. I don't know if we will go to the ACCCG or not, guess its up to the admin.

 

[DapperSlapper]

I keep seeing the bowl ban talk about the acccg. We can play in the acccg and still take the ban on a post season bowl.

Nope. ACC has already ruled on that a few weeks ago - that a team is not eligble for ACCCG if banned from postseason bowls.

That has nothing to do with self imposed sanctions - only NCAA imposed sanctions. A self imposed sanction does not become an NCAA imposed until it it accepted and adopted by the COI after a hearing (or as part of a summary disposition). Moreover, a bowl ban could be imposed after playing the ACC championship game.

And you think ACC is going to let us hoodwink them into imposing a self ban after playing the ACCCG?

It's not the ACC's call, though I'm unsure about what this means: "ACC is going to let us hoodwink them into imposing a self ban after playing the ACCCG". UM can do as it pleases with the self imposed sanction. Last year, UM self imposed a bowl ban, but not an ACC championship game (because they waited too long and were already out of the running for the ACC championship game). They could have self imposed earlier in the season and taken a full postseason ban. While UM may not want to ruffle feathers, it can certainly go the ACC championship game and then self impose a bowl ban.

 

[dudenate]

The FSU game is never irrelevant, never.

+1 mill.

Yes, mathematically we're still in contention with a L...but this game means plenty.