No decision yet according to Golden

[dodaniels]

Deep down I know it's the right move to self impose, but selfishly I want 3 more games, not 1.

I agree with this on a personal level.

But the right thing to do is self impose. Worse thing that can happen by not imposing another ban is going 11-1 or 10-2 next year and then having to take a bowl ban.

Yep, look at Ohio St.

 

[Gennaker Cane]

Isn't that the definition of tanking a game? Nobody is suggesitng they're taking money to lose. Giving a half-assed effort is what everyone did last year, after their bowl reward was taken away

It would be worse on team morale if you wait until after Duke, we win and then self-impose. Better to at least tell the team now the decision. Even better if it's "win vs. Duke and you go", "lose vs. Duke and we self-impose". But tell the team, not the media.

No it would be worse for team morale to impose now. If you wait till after the Duke game they have all off season to get right. you do it now and i guarantee we lose to Duke. See BC game last year

Nobody who is coming back next year will tank the game against Duke, as they will be fighting for playing time if they do. That leaves the seniors...I think we'd be OK.

No one is thinking anyone will "tank" the game. No one tanked the game last year against BC. What some guys didn't do last year vs. BC was give it their all. They went through the motions, just like they did against USF in '10 in the Shannon banner game.

 

[bes628]

Isn't that the definition of tanking a game? Nobody is suggesitng they're taking money to lose. Giving a half-assed effort is what everyone did last year, after their bowl reward was taken away

It would be worse on team morale if you wait until after Duke, we win and then self-impose. Better to at least tell the team now the decision. Even better if it's "win vs. Duke and you go", "lose vs. Duke and we self-impose". But tell the team, not the media.

No it would be worse for team morale to impose now. If you wait till after the Duke game they have all off season to get right. you do it now and i guarantee we lose to Duke. See BC game last year

Nobody who is coming back next year will tank the game against Duke, as they will be fighting for playing time if they do. That leaves the seniors...I think we'd be OK.

No one is thinking anyone will "tank" the game. No one tanked the game last year against BC. What some guys didn't do last year vs. BC was give it their all. They went through the motions, just like they did against USF in '10 in the Shannon banner game.

right

 

[Bigtip]

I dont think we impose. I'm erring on the side of slight homerism but **** em. i dont think we should walk away from the ACC champ game and all the bowl practices and the recruiting leverage gained from playing in the ACC champ

 

[Notsince1985]

Isn't that the definition of tanking a game? Nobody is suggesitng they're taking money to lose. Giving a half-assed effort is what everyone did last year, after their bowl reward was taken away

It would be worse on team morale if you wait until after Duke, we win and then self-impose. Better to at least tell the team now the decision. Even better if it's "win vs. Duke and you go", "lose vs. Duke and we self-impose". But tell the team, not the media.

No it would be worse for team morale to impose now. If you wait till after the Duke game they have all off season to get right. you do it now and i guarantee we lose to Duke. See BC game last year

Nobody who is coming back next year will tank the game against Duke, as they will be fighting for playing time if they do. That leaves the seniors...I think we'd be OK.

No one is thinking anyone will "tank" the game. No one tanked the game last year against BC. What some guys didn't do last year vs. BC was give it their all. They went through the motions, just like they did against USF in '10 in the Shannon banner game.

No. Tanking, by definition, is deliberately not trying. Do you really think there were guys out there not trying against BC last year? No one was not trying. There is a difference between not trying, and not giving it your all, which is what a lot of guys did.

 

[UMFarArcher]

If it's true that our team won't play to win regardless of our bowl chances - then we need to shut the damned thing down.

We need players - who by every fiber of their being - just hate to lose. Whether a football game, a pickup basketball game, tether ball, or tiddly winks.

If we have a team of candyasses, why bother?

 

[SBAMACANE]

I hate Shapiro and the NCAA. While I'm at it throw in the $EC, too. Never too early or too late to jump on that train.

 

[sebastian0]

I hate Shapiro and the NCAA. While I'm at it throw in the $EC, too. Never too early or too late to jump on that train.

Add ND in there too

 

[Biscuits]

How the **** is 'stringing along the team' - whatever the **** that actually means - even in the same universe of "Things That Are Bad for This Program" with losing to Duke??? The kids are on scholarship to play football. If keeping them in the dark for another week about the bowl decision helps up win against Duke, then they can take any butthurtness about the decision and nurse it for another team. Like Duke J. said, do what's best for the team.

 

[JHallCanes]

I dont think we impose. I'm erring on the side of slight homerism but **** em. i dont think we should walk away from the ACC champ game and all the bowl practices and the recruiting leverage gained from playing in the ACC champ

I think its more recruiting leverage to take the ban, to be honest. Most of these recruits don't care what's happening right now, they care about how their experience will be effected and all of them would sacrifice a bowl game this year if it means they have a better chance of playing in one.

 

[scrantoncane]

Would it be a positive if they dont impose? I am thinking if they dont impose then the lawyers and ncaa must be telling them some positives.

Given the history of this administration's decision making......I'd say it would be premature to assume off the bat that a decision to NOT self impose would indicate we are "free and clear".

Shalala may be a great president for the school...you'll get little argument from me there. She may be great at raising money...you get no argument from me there.

But we're talking about the same woman who

1. Hired Coker
2. Extended Coker
3. Hired Shannon
4. Extended Shannon

We're talking 4 of the worst decisions in the history of this program. I wouldn't put anything past this administration. I simply don't trust them when it comes to football related decisions.

Always respected your opinion as a poster. A few questions: 1. are you a UM graduate (I am not)? 2. Do you think it was all her (or if not all her, what percentage her) that made the decisions to sign and extend Coker and Shannon? 3. Do you think self-imposing right now, based on what this board knows, is the right move?

 

[fincane]

How the **** is 'stringing along the team' - whatever the **** that actually means - even in the same universe of "Things That Are Bad for This Program" with losing to Duke??? The kids are on scholarship to play football. If keeping them in the dark for another week about the bowl decision helps up win against Duke, then they can take any butthurtness about the decision and nurse it for another team. Like Duke J. said, do what's best for the team.

Lets say you think you've got a promotion in your future if you complete some task. Your boss lets you think that knowing he is gonna take it away from you after you do what he needs you to do. You good with that? Every thing is all good?

I bet Duke doesn't think beating the Blue Devils and then being told hours later that they're not playing in the title game is good for the team. You want these guys to act like men and play up to their scholarships? Then treat them like men. Tell them before the game that they're not playing in the postseason. Or you can play the result. If they win, act like no ban was coming and they get to go to Charlotte. If they lose, impose a ban. Don't treat them like children who you trick into doing what you want.

 

[DBrown]

Fincane, you make good points but consider this, is telling the team about future decisions a part of the process? Is it how we do business as a team? You don't talk about fsu when your game planning all week for kstate. You don't address bowl travel plans when your sitting on 5 wins. Its a day to day operation and maybe golden isnt focused on anything other than getting the team prepared for duke with no distractions and that's how he wants his ship run. Who knows, the administration might not have a desicion as of yet. We dont know but I doubt it has anything to do with "stringing along" players. JMO

 

[Consigliere]

Jorge Milian ‏@caneswatch
Golden said team reacted poorly last year when bowl ban was announced before season finale. Maybe why it's not being announced now..

This was my point exactly. We have to do what we have to do. But we still should go out winners against Duke. Do what needs to be done to keep the team focused. Duke already said they would not be disappointed in another bowl ban.

While I am not sold on a ban, at this moment, I said the same if we were going to impose one.

 

[Consigliere]

Deep down I know it's the right move to self impose, but selfishly I want 3 more games, not 1.

I agree with this on a personal level.

But the right thing to do is self impose. Worse thing that can happen by not imposing another ban is going 11-1 or 10-2 next year and then having to take a bowl ban.

Yep, look at Ohio St.

Please stop with the Ohio State comments. Our situation is nothing like their situation.

 

[pope7137]

Deep down I know it's the right move to self impose, but selfishly I want 3 more games, not 1.

I agree with this on a personal level.

But the right thing to do is self impose. Worse thing that can happen by not imposing another ban is going 11-1 or 10-2 next year and then having to take a bowl ban.

Yep, look at Ohio St.

Please stop with the Ohio State comments. Our situation is nothing like their situation.

He was stating a situation that could come by not taking a bowl ban? A very possible one.

 

[Consigliere]

Deep down I know it's the right move to self impose, but selfishly I want 3 more games, not 1.

I agree with this on a personal level.

But the right thing to do is self impose. Worse thing that can happen by not imposing another ban is going 11-1 or 10-2 next year and then having to take a bowl ban.

Yep, look at Ohio St.

Please stop with the Ohio State comments. Our situation is nothing like their situation.

He was stating a situation that could come by not taking a bowl ban? A very possible one.

I follow, its a simple thought and not similar to ours.

One program was arrogant, had a head coach with direct knowledge and had nothing to play for last season.

One program was compliant, had a head coach with NO direct knowledge, already took a self imposed ban and has something to play for this season.

Like I said, I get it...it is a weak argument.

 

[razrcane]

Deep down I know it's the right move to self impose, but selfishly I want 3 more games, not 1.

You want more of the mediocre soup we've seen this year? Jesus Christ....

smh..definitely self impose and move onto next year

 

[Notsince1985]

Deep down I know it's the right move to self impose, but selfishly I want 3 more games, not 1.

You want more of the mediocre soup we've seen this year? Jesus Christ....

Yes, I enjoy watching games no matter what, and would rather have 3 more and not have to wait until next year.

 

[JimmyJohnsonsHair]

How the **** is 'stringing along the team' - whatever the **** that actually means - even in the same universe of "Things That Are Bad for This Program" with losing to Duke??? The kids are on scholarship to play football. If keeping them in the dark for another week about the bowl decision helps up win against Duke, then they can take any butthurtness about the decision and nurse it for another team. Like Duke J. said, do what's best for the team.

Lets say you think you've got a promotion in your future if you complete some task. Your boss lets you think that knowing he is gonna take it away from you after you do what he needs you to do. You good with that? Every thing is all good?

I bet Duke doesn't think beating the Blue Devils and then being told hours later that they're not playing in the title game is good for the team. You want these guys to act like men and play up to their scholarships? Then treat them like men. Tell them before the game that they're not playing in the postseason. Or you can play the result. If they win, act like no ban was coming and they get to go to Charlotte. If they lose, impose a ban. Don't treat them like children who you trick into doing what you want.

^ This. Is a win over Duke (knowing we are self imposing a bowl ban) really that important to the program that it's worth losing the trust and respect of the players? It's a meaningless game for all intents and purposes.