forums

Miami wins 9+ games

Yeah, Golden will have to make a decision. Does he want to play in the ACCCG and possibly a BCS bowl if we win, or does he want to self-impose a post season ban and not play in the ACCCG.

I think if we have the opportunity to play in the ACCCG, we play in it.
 

Advertisement
RiDLer80 said:
Yeah, Golden will have to make a decision. Does he want to play in the ACCCG and possibly a BCS bowl if we win, or does he want to self-impose a post season ban and not play in the ACCCG.

I think if we have the opportunity to play in the ACCCG, we play in it.
Click to expand...


You play for the ACC crown if you get the opportunity.
 
Miami is working with the NCAA closely so I'm sure they have some sort of an idea of the punishment that's coming. What if the NCAA was only going to impose one bowl ban but hit the team with 25 scholarships over 3 years and self imposing makes the entire ordeal go bye bye? Do you self impose? What if the NCAA is going to drop the hammer and give Miami 2 bowl bans and scholarship reduction? Then self imposing would mean the two bowls wouldn't affect the program and at all and Miami can focus primarily on the scholarship reductions.

It will be interesting exactly what Miami does once the team does become bowl eligible. I just hope if they do self impose again that they announce it after the final game of the year. If Miami doesn't self impose the bowl game then I think that we skate.
 
Last edited:
Good question.

Tentatively, I'll say yes. The more we fall on the sword now, the less blood we'll be leaking down the road......
 
CanesAreAble said:
RiDLer80 said:
Yeah, Golden will have to make a decision. Does he want to play in the ACCCG and possibly a BCS bowl if we win, or does he want to self-impose a post season ban and not play in the ACCCG.

I think if we have the opportunity to play in the ACCCG, we play in it.
Click to expand...


You play for the ACC crown if you get the opportunity.
Click to expand...

yup. how could UM turn down the opportunity to play in the ACC title game given that we've never made it there yet? Golden would be able to say he's the first coach to lead us to that. great on the resume, great to point out to recruits, great for the momentum of the program overall.
 
Advertisement
jw410 said:
I wouldn't self impose a darn thing.

Let the NCAA do that.

You want players to develop and you cannot honestly believe that 15 extra practices plus a bowl game wouldn't effectively contribute to the progress of this program then I respectfully disagree with you.
Click to expand...

this. look at ****** UNC. the head coach was involved, academic fraud. look at OSU. head coach lied to cover it up.

we ain't gettin another bowl ban. idk why folks keep bringing it up. we are done with bowl bans i believe.
 
Bigtip said:
this. look at ****** UNC. the head coach was involved, academic fraud. look at OSU. head coach lied to cover it up.

we ain't gettin another bowl ban. idk why folks keep bringing it up. we are done with bowl bans i believe.
Click to expand...

Only bringing it up cause it's a possibility
 
Anything short of the ACCCG we self impose. Even if we lose the ACCCG it's worth playing in it for recruiting purposes. But just some 9 win bowl game. Self impose and preempt the NCAA.

I do believe UM has a very good idea of what's going on and what the NCAA is gonna hand down. As someone said if Miami doesn't self impose this season if we qualify for a bowl game then there will be no more bowl bans. We shall see but 8 to 9 wins this season in my opinion is a very real possibility. I didn't think that before seeing pics and video of the players that TheUNuffSaid has been posting.
 
Advertisement
Agree with anything less than ACCCG we should self-impose

I'd hate to win 9 games and go to Chick-Fil-A and then make the Orange Bowl the following season and not be able to go
 
pcitycane said:
Bigtip said:
this. look at ****** UNC. the head coach was involved, academic fraud. look at OSU. head coach lied to cover it up.

we ain't gettin another bowl ban. idk why folks keep bringing it up. we are done with bowl bans i believe.
Click to expand...

Only bringing it up cause it's a possibility
Click to expand...

I suppose it is a possibility but I don't think it will come to that. first off, we SHOULD know what we're dealing with sanctions wise by then. meaning, I don't think we'll be self imposing anything at that point. it will be already in the works of being handed down by the NCAA

second - a 2 year bowl ban almost certainly means LOIC. i just don't see it. I don't see how we get LOIC when it appears that the highest level of coaches involved were assistants. we had the proper compliance mechanisms in place. there were no HCs or ADs involved. I really think we get Failure to Monitor with the 1 year bowl ban already served and scholly losses (around 10-15 over 3 years)
 
Bigtip said:
I suppose it is a possibility but I don't think it will come to that. first off, we SHOULD know what we're dealing with sanctions wise by then. meaning, I don't think we'll be self imposing anything at that point. it will be already in the works of being handed down by the NCAA

second - a 2 year bowl ban almost certainly means LOIC. i just don't see it. I don't see how we get LOIC when it appears that the highest level of coaches involved were assistants. we had the proper compliance mechanisms in place. there were no HCs or ADs involved. I really think we get Failure to Monitor with the 1 year bowl ban already served and scholly losses (around 10-15 over 3 years)
Click to expand...

The scary thing is anyone could decide to talk between now and then.
 
pcitycane said:
Bigtip said:
I suppose it is a possibility but I don't think it will come to that. first off, we SHOULD know what we're dealing with sanctions wise by then. meaning, I don't think we'll be self imposing anything at that point. it will be already in the works of being handed down by the NCAA

second - a 2 year bowl ban almost certainly means LOIC. i just don't see it. I don't see how we get LOIC when it appears that the highest level of coaches involved were assistants. we had the proper compliance mechanisms in place. there were no HCs or ADs involved. I really think we get Failure to Monitor with the 1 year bowl ban already served and scholly losses (around 10-15 over 3 years)
Click to expand...

The scary thing is anyone could decide to talk between now and then.
Click to expand...



And say what? That Shannon was directly involved? Even C. Rob didn't go there. He actually said Shannon hated Shapiro. The point is, UCF had their AD involved. That's LOIC, not rogue assistants. OSU had their coach lying to the NCAA and got the wrist slap. They just had to sacrifice sweater vest. We have been very cooperative and all the coaches are already gone.

If we were any other school, I think we'd get 3 scholarships a year for 3 years, but since we're The U we will get up to 15 max but hopefully 12. 12 is very manageable IMO. I am personally still hoping for the 9 but 12 would be ok.


Oh, and a big no on the bowl ban. Unless the one scenario is an option where we take a bowl ban but don't get any other penalties. I would take that deal right now. I would still like to be able to go to the ACCCG though. I would lobby for that, but I would sacrifice it only for no more penalties whatsoever.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top