If we win the acc coastal division....

[Chicken_N_Roffles]

**** the bowl ban. The NCAA is about to affect a 2nd straight recruiting class, without even giving us our punishment yet. In the end, it could very well affect 5 classes. All because they wanna investigate every bull**** claim that this desperate clown wants to make. So **** them. Play the acccg and ruin FSU's season if they are adamant about ******* up ours.

 

[CaptJackSparrow]

If we beat FSU during the regular season will take the bowl ban so we don't have to rematch them...if we lose to them close lets play the rematch...if they blow us out then take the ban so we don't have to get waxed again

 

[jw410]

no self impose.. Players would have worked too hard to just let them graduate and not see a post season. I would rather take the ban and the 10-15 ships over 3 years. we have been nothing but cooperative. all this new stuff is old news.


We SKATE

 

[Oh Snap]

Tough decision. So I'm assuming if we self-imposed 2 bowl bans... that when punishment time comes around the NCAA may agree that 2 was enough and then not deliver bowl bans?
Is that the idea?

I've never heard of a team self-imposing more than 1 year bowl ban.

It's fairly self explanatory.

 

[bolivar]

I think we self-impose. It would go a long ways with the NCAA. Plus, this team is young and will be better next year....... and a HUGE chip on their shoulders..

 

[WhoDat]

I would self impose and let the NCAA look like fools for dragging this along.

Plus if we dont impse it will hurt with recruiting. We may lose Alex Collins and a few other recruits to FSU which will hurt us to ever get back to the ACCCCG.

 

[GhostofVenice01]

Self Impose and get it over with before our dudes grow up and we start ballin

 

[DaU83]

If we're going to a BCS bowl.. take the money and worry about the bowl ban later.. if we're going to some dump bowl self impose and see if that helps with sanctions.

It's a postseason ban, not just a bowl ban.

So if we win the Coastal, we'd have to forfeit the ACCCG as well as the bowl game we'd play in after the ACCCG.

If we win the division, I don't see us imposing a postseason ban.

we don't have to self impose a post season ban.. the NCAA might give us a post season ban.. but i think we could play the acc champ game and take the bowl ban if we lose and it would serve as a penalty in the NCAA's eyes.

 

[condor]

We aren't going to win the ACC and even if we did and went to a BCS bowl with this defense we would get crushed. I would give up the Gator bowl, Champ Bowl or any 2nd tier ACC bowl for reducing our NCAA probation. I sure would rather take a bowl band this year than in 2013 that would hurt recruiting next year. This is a no brainer and if we play in the ACCCG it counts as a Bowl game since it is POST-SEASON. That is why North Carolina can't play in the ACCCG this year. What would really suck is if the ACC makes bans us from the ACCCG next year if the NCAA gives us a bowl band. Just get it over when we still sux.

 

[AllbouttheU]

Play, if we get their the team deserves it.

 

[condor]

Play, if we get their the team deserves it.

So you would rather take a bowl ban in next season than this year? The NCAA hates us and this isn't going to go away. If we get a ban next year it would hurt recruiting if it comes out before Feb. We would get De-commits. If it comes out after NLOID then we could get hit like PSU and USC that allowed any player on the team or signed their LOI to Xfer. Most hs Players don't like schools that don't have a chance to go to bowl games.

 

[FlipT]

We have to fall on the sword of the NCAA, get this behind us and give up the bowl and move forward. We wont be able to recruit with bowl bans moving forward if we aren't playing for a NC.OSU did it last year and now Urban is wasting a year without playing a bowl. Olsen doesn't need to come in to a bowl ban.

 

[Hurracanes]

Self impose. Better things to come for this team. Don't lose out on a possible title run next year.

 

[bathtubgin]

If UM were so inclined, they should have self imposed a ban already.

BTW, a ban could theoretically include only a conference championship, only a bowl game, etc. Normally, the NCAA will make it a complete postseason ban, but the ban can be much more specific, as the wording of the rule (19.5.2(g) for those keeping track) is "Prohibition against specified competition in the sport."

I don't think you can self impose a bowl ban until you are actually bowl eligible.

 

[DapperSlapper]

If UM were so inclined, they should have self imposed a ban already.

BTW, a ban could theoretically include only a conference championship, only a bowl game, etc. Normally, the NCAA will make it a complete postseason ban, but the ban can be much more specific, as the wording of the rule (19.5.2(g) for those keeping track) is "Prohibition against specified competition in the sport."

I don't think you can self impose a bowl ban until you are actually bowl eligible.

That is incorrect. Just as the NCAA can ban a school from specified competition (usually a postseason ban), and that ban "counts" even if the school does not become eligible for the competition from which it is banned, a school can self impose a ban before it becomes eligible.

 

[sniffin94]

Self imposing the bowl ban immediately after stomping fsu would be hillarious.

 

[bathtubgin]

If UM were so inclined, they should have self imposed a ban already.

BTW, a ban could theoretically include only a conference championship, only a bowl game, etc. Normally, the NCAA will make it a complete postseason ban, but the ban can be much more specific, as the wording of the rule (19.5.2(g) for those keeping track) is "Prohibition against specified competition in the sport."

I don't think you can self impose a bowl ban until you are actually bowl eligible.

That is incorrect. Just as the NCAA can ban a school from specified competition (usually a postseason ban), and that ban "counts" even if the school does not become eligible for the competition from which it is banned, a school can self impose a ban before it becomes eligible.

A link to that rule would be nice.

 

[canadianhurricane]

Self impose. Better things to come for this team. Don't lose out on a possible title run next year.

This. Once we become bowl eligible, we self-impose and get it over with. This is a team with alot of potential and most of the potential are freshmen and sophomores. We have a bright future, no need to sell it for a early/mid-december bowl game.

 

[umhurricano]

I would self impose regardless just to get it out of the way. Why would you take a future bowl away from a better team which will have a lot of seniors? It shows no confidence in next year, basically admitting we have peaked by defying expectations this year. I would rather send the message that we expect to be back in the title game every season and can forgo it this season.

I think if Al doesn't self impose it is a very good sign. The whole key is what the NCAA can corroborate. I would realistically say there is a 25% chance they can't corroborate more than a few thousand dollars of improper benefits and recognize our cooperation up to this point, leaving us with a one year ban and a few scholarships lost. I think there is a 50% chance they find more than Ohio State but less than USC and slap us with two bowl bans and 9 scholarships over three years. I think there is a 25% chance they find USC-like violations and hit us with 3 year bowl ban, and 8-10 scholarships over 3 years.

Time will tell and I am ready to get the punishment already.

 

[DapperSlapper]

If UM were so inclined, they should have self imposed a ban already.

BTW, a ban could theoretically include only a conference championship, only a bowl game, etc. Normally, the NCAA will make it a complete postseason ban, but the ban can be much more specific, as the wording of the rule (19.5.2(g) for those keeping track) is "Prohibition against specified competition in the sport."

I don't think you can self impose a bowl ban until you are actually bowl eligible.

That is incorrect. Just as the NCAA can ban a school from specified competition (usually a postseason ban), and that ban "counts" even if the school does not become eligible for the competition from which it is banned, a school can self impose a ban before it becomes eligible.

A link to that rule would be nice.

There is no rule that specifically states this - it's just the way it works. As long as the school self imposes at a time when it is mathematically possible for the school to become bowl eligible, the school is permitted to self impose the ban. That could be before the season starts, or at any time before the school gets its 7th loss (in a normal 12 game season with no more than 1 FCS opponent).

In theory, UM could play in the ACC championship game and then self impose a bowl ban. The term "bowl ban" is used much too loosely. Any "ban" falls under the "prohibition against specified competition in the sport" (which I cited in an earlier post) - the prohibition can be as narrow or as wide as whoever imposes it wants. USC recently (2010 maybe?) played Hawaii in Hawaii because it was ineligible for a bowl. That game gave USC 13 for the year because playing in Alaska or Hawaii can be an exempt game for scheduling purposes. The NCAA could in theory ban a school from that type of game - or, had USC scheduled that years in advance, USC could have self-imposed a sanction prohibiting themselves from playing that game, while attempting to stay eligible for a bowl. A school could in theory be permitted to play in a conference championship game but not a bowl. It could also be banned from a championship, but allowed to go to a bowl.