Notice of Allegations *update*

[Awsi Dooger]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.

As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.

I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.

Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...

 

[CANE4LIFE]

If we get another bowl ban, then f*ck the NCAA and anyone ever cooperating again. Every school should basically stonewall from now on when they get investigated.

 

[UMFarArcher]

BS. We're not getting any other post season bans. This LAST season just bought us fewer scholarship reductions, and that helped right there.

You don't dig for two frigging years if you got something of substance.

And I still can't believe that some UM fans in the joint haven't shanked Shapiro.

 

[deleted3746]

BS. We're not getting any other post season bans. This LAST season just bought us fewer scholarship reductions, and that helped right there.

You don't dig for two frigging years if you got something of substance.

And I still can't believe that some UM fans in the joint haven't shanked Shapiro.

Crown him.

 

[rsa coral gables]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.

As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.

I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.

Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...

makes very little sense to me. it seems clear that we would receive 2 bowl bans, so one would want to use them during years where we would have zero chances of a BCS or NC game, such as 2012. if we had chosen not to self impose this year, and next year we do real well, then we are sitting in the same boat as Ohio State.

 

[DCH]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.

As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.

I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.

Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...

makes very little sense to me. it seems clear that we would receive 2 bowl bans, so one would want to use them during years where we would have zero chances of a BCS or NC game, such as 2012. if we had chosen not to self impose this year, and next year we do real well, then we are sitting in the same boat as Ohio State.

Yea that makes no sense. I'm glad that our administration does not see this as a gambling opportunity.

 

[SmokeyRone]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.

As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.

I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.

Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...

makes very little sense to me. it seems clear that we would receive 2 bowl bans, so one would want to use them during years where we would have zero chances of a BCS or NC game, such as 2012. if we had chosen not to self impose this year, and next year we do real well, then we are sitting in the same boat as Ohio State.

Yea that makes no sense. I'm glad that our administration does not see this as a gambling opportunity.

Yeah, since they have been wrong 1005 of the time. Glad they don't gamble. I mean, Shannon was a stone cold lock, right?

 

[pook187]

Rone's the biggest chicken little in the history of message boarding.

 

[Classic]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.

As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.

I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.

Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...

makes very little sense to me. it seems clear that we would receive 2 bowl bans, so one would want to use them during years where we would have zero chances of a BCS or NC game, such as 2012. if we had chosen not to self impose this year, and next year we do real well, then we are sitting in the same boat as Ohio State.

Yea that makes no sense. I'm glad that our administration does not see this as a gambling opportunity.

Yeah, since they have been wrong 1005 of the time. Glad they don't gamble. I mean, Shannon was a stone cold lock, right?

I think this is a severely misguided line of reasoning.

I think it is inarguable that we were destined to lose at least one bowl. We self-imposed, so as to take that "first" bowl ban in 2011, instead of this year (2013), after sanctions will have been officially announced. That makes our first self-imposed bowl ban a no-brainer, and an obviously deft decision by the administration.

I think it is more than likely that we were destined to lose a second bowl game, as well, and Miami, obviously, agreed and self-imposed that bowl ban this year. Again, the point of this is to take the second dose of our medicine in 2012, instead of being banned from our second bowl in 2014.

It seems that some argue we shouldn't have self-imposed because the NCAA is intent on making us endure at least a one year bowl ban that was not voluntarily conceded. That doesn't make much sense to me. "Miami's transgressions deserve a two year bowl ban, but they already self-imposed a two year bowl ban, so we'll add another year or two, because we need to tell you to do something that you couldn't already have done." I don't believe that the NCAA's Committee on Infractions will rationalize our punishment in that manner. It doesn't compute for me.

I can comprehend the argument, but it's not compelling.

To me, the only way that a second self-imposed bowl ban could possibly be determined as a bad idea is if we learn that the NCAA would have otherwise only knocked us with a one-year bowl ban. I don't believe that we'll ever hear that, and I think it was unlikely given the circumstances.

Don't see how we could possibly have "wasted" two years.

 

[rudebuddha]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

Highly doubtful. Like others posted, UNC got 1 yr, OSU got 1 yr, and USC got 2, and they didnt self-impose. We self-imposed 2, including a conference championship game. Definitely lose scholarships, but Id bet that we are done with post-season bans

^^^^This. Unless there are significant allegation none of us know about, the postseason bans will not continue.

I hope you are right but I'm not as optimistic. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever they want. I think they are going to give us one more bowl ban just to avoid any possibility of a public perception that Miami got off with a slap on the wrist.

Slap on the wrist?
We endured a 2 year bowl ban which is some of the harshest penalties the NCAA can dish out.
They gave us a 1 year bowl ban for running amok AND committing federal fraud back in mid 90's with absolute lack of institutional control as it was our own staffer committing the fraud.
For Miami to get any more bowl bans AND substantial scholarship reductions, the NOA better have a boatload of provable infractions with concrete evidence. We've already suspended players, made restitution given up 2 bowl games and a conference championship game.
This was a rogue booster who supposedly bought a number of players drinks, dinner and some hookers without the coach's knowing about it not like USC, UNC and OSU where the coaches knew about the infractions and tried to cover it up.

Love Shannon or hate him I give him kudos for hating Shapiro. Shannon seems like the only person in the past decade who hated Shapiro before he was convicted. The coach's not knowing is not lack of institutional control. Shannon was pretty clear he would hang people by their ********s if they even talked with Shapiro. He even said he had spies everywhere he would let him know.

None of us knows anything until the NOA is made public but if the Yahoo story is 10% corroborated which would mean the 8 players already suspended and a few others then the 2 bowl bans we've already incurred are far more than a just penalty.

 

[CANE]

Oh ****!








WE SKATE!

 

[Travis Bickle]

I don't mind the bowl ban. It was a proactive move that could positively effect sanctions once they're handed down. Something I applaud the administration for. The only thing I didn't like was the timing. Why announce it before the Duke game? Anyhoo, I bet OSU is regretting their decision too since they must have been salivating at the thought of taking on ND for a championship...

 

[caneinpsl]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

Highly doubtful. Like others posted, UNC got 1 yr, OSU got 1 yr, and USC got 2, and they didnt self-impose. We self-imposed 2, including a conference championship game. Definitely lose scholarships, but Id bet that we are done with post-season bans

^^^^This. Unless there are significant allegation none of us know about, the postseason bans will not continue.

I hope you are right but I'm not as optimistic. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever they want. I think they are going to give us one more bowl ban just to avoid any possibility of a public perception that Miami got off with a slap on the wrist.

I'm right. Only way we get more bowl bans is if there are groundbreaking new allegations in the NOA. Now that is a possibility, but as others have pointed out the investigation wouldn't have lasted this long if they had a smoking gun on something new.

Edit: I agree they do whatever they want, but looking at what they gave UCF for LOIC, I see NO way we get more than 2 years with the current consensus on what transgressions happened at UM.

 

[MiamiManiac]

Delaying the bowl bans would have hurt recruiting more than this pending investigation already has. Knowing some punishment is coming, you don't think recruits care about bowl games? Not to mention being better and playing in a better bowl?

The best thing for the future of Miami was to self impose. Not really a debate, imo.

 

[rudebuddha]

They are gonna give more postseason bans, bet the house on that. We wasted two years "self imposing".

Highly doubtful. Like others posted, UNC got 1 yr, OSU got 1 yr, and USC got 2, and they didnt self-impose. We self-imposed 2, including a conference championship game. Definitely lose scholarships, but Id bet that we are done with post-season bans

^^^^This. Unless there are significant allegation none of us know about, the postseason bans will not continue.

I hope you are right but I'm not as optimistic. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever they want. I think they are going to give us one more bowl ban just to avoid any possibility of a public perception that Miami got off with a slap on the wrist.

I'm right. Only way we get more bowl bans is if there are groundbreaking new allegations in the NOA. Now that is a possibility, but as others have pointed out the investigation wouldn't have lasted this long if they had a smoking gun on something new.

Edit: I agree they do whatever they want, but looking at what they gave UCF for LOIC, I see NO way we get more than 2 years with the current consensus on what transgressions happened at UM.

The one immutable fact is that we gave up two bowl games for a reason. The Miami administration and lawyers know what is out there and if they had deemed it all hearsay they would have told the NCAA to F off and let Miami go enjoy quesadillas and coronas in El Paso last year, but they didn't.

Us self imposing is the one fact that has had me worried about the investigation. You don't flagellate yourself unless you are guilty of something.
I just hope the NOA says they couldn't prove ****.

 

[caneinpsl]

Highly doubtful. Like others posted, UNC got 1 yr, OSU got 1 yr, and USC got 2, and they didnt self-impose. We self-imposed 2, including a conference championship game. Definitely lose scholarships, but Id bet that we are done with post-season bans

^^^^This. Unless there are significant allegation none of us know about, the postseason bans will not continue.

I hope you are right but I'm not as optimistic. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever they want. I think they are going to give us one more bowl ban just to avoid any possibility of a public perception that Miami got off with a slap on the wrist.

I'm right. Only way we get more bowl bans is if there are groundbreaking new allegations in the NOA. Now that is a possibility, but as others have pointed out the investigation wouldn't have lasted this long if they had a smoking gun on something new.

Edit: I agree they do whatever they want, but looking at what they gave UCF for LOIC, I see NO way we get more than 2 years with the current consensus on what transgressions happened at UM.

The one immutable fact is that we gave up two bowl games for a reason. The Miami administration and lawyers know what is out there and if they had deemed it all hearsay they would have told the NCAA to F off and let Miami go enjoy quesadillas and coronas in El Paso last year, but they didn't.

Us self imposing is the one fact that has had me worried about the investigation. You don't flagellate yourself unless you are guilty of something.
I just hope the NOA says they couldn't prove ****.

I agree, but two bowl bans is hardly light punishment. Again, there has to be something earth shattering that's proven for us to get more than the two we have taken. Only PSU and OSU have received bowl bans greater than two years than 1980. What do people really think we have done to warrant a 3rd year?

 

[rudebuddha]

^^^^This. Unless there are significant allegation none of us know about, the postseason bans will not continue.

I hope you are right but I'm not as optimistic. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever they want. I think they are going to give us one more bowl ban just to avoid any possibility of a public perception that Miami got off with a slap on the wrist.

I'm right. Only way we get more bowl bans is if there are groundbreaking new allegations in the NOA. Now that is a possibility, but as others have pointed out the investigation wouldn't have lasted this long if they had a smoking gun on something new.

Edit: I agree they do whatever they want, but looking at what they gave UCF for LOIC, I see NO way we get more than 2 years with the current consensus on what transgressions happened at UM.

The one immutable fact is that we gave up two bowl games for a reason. The Miami administration and lawyers know what is out there and if they had deemed it all hearsay they would have told the NCAA to F off and let Miami go enjoy quesadillas and coronas in El Paso last year, but they didn't.

Us self imposing is the one fact that has had me worried about the investigation. You don't flagellate yourself unless you are guilty of something.
I just hope the NOA says they couldn't prove ****.

I agree, but two bowl bans is hardly light punishment. Again, there has to be something earth shattering that's proven for us to get more than the two we have taken. Only PSU and OSU have received bowl bans greater than two years than 1980. What do people really think we have done to warrant a 3rd year?

I know 2 years is a harsh punishment. I believe anything else is strictly punitive.
I was actually surprised about Penn State. I think the NCAA got caught up in the Sandusky scandal and just threw all the books at them.
Sure the coach's and administrators looked sideways when horrific crimes were being committed by someone who was endorsed by the university. The Sandusky crimes were terrible but that was a criminal situation and was being taken care of and still being taken care of by the courts.
The NCAA punishment for Penn State was just them trying to prove to the world how righteous they believe they are.
Why didn't the NCAA ban TCU for that Texas Christian drug scandal where something like 17 students including 4 current football players were busted in a sting.
Illegal activities go on in every campus in America including the one nobody in sports wants to talk about: sports gambling.
The Penn State situation proves that the NCAA is arbitrary with it's punishment and that precedent can be ignored.
Makes me worried because they have always had a hard on for Miami.

My last note is simple: CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUBLISH THE NOA!!! Serious fans are waiting on pins and needles to find out what the allegations are.

 

[rccollins]

I hope you are right but I'm not as optimistic. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever they want. I think they are going to give us one more bowl ban just to avoid any possibility of a public perception that Miami got off with a slap on the wrist.

I'm right. Only way we get more bowl bans is if there are groundbreaking new allegations in the NOA. Now that is a possibility, but as others have pointed out the investigation wouldn't have lasted this long if they had a smoking gun on something new.

Edit: I agree they do whatever they want, but looking at what they gave UCF for LOIC, I see NO way we get more than 2 years with the current consensus on what transgressions happened at UM.

The one immutable fact is that we gave up two bowl games for a reason. The Miami administration and lawyers know what is out there and if they had deemed it all hearsay they would have told the NCAA to F off and let Miami go enjoy quesadillas and coronas in El Paso last year, but they didn't.

Us self imposing is the one fact that has had me worried about the investigation. You don't flagellate yourself unless you are guilty of something.
I just hope the NOA says they couldn't prove ****.

I agree, but two bowl bans is hardly light punishment. Again, there has to be something earth shattering that's proven for us to get more than the two we have taken. Only PSU and OSU have received bowl bans greater than two years than 1980. What do people really think we have done to warrant a 3rd year?

I know 2 years is a harsh punishment. I believe anything else is strictly punitive.
I was actually surprised about Penn State. I think the NCAA got caught up in the Sandusky scandal and just threw all the books at them.
Sure the coach's and administrators looked sideways when horrific crimes were being committed by someone who was endorsed by the university. The Sandusky crimes were terrible but that was a criminal situation and was being taken care of and still being taken care of by the courts.
The NCAA punishment for Penn State was just them trying to prove to the world how righteous they believe they are.
Why didn't the NCAA ban TCU for that Texas Christian drug scandal where something like 17 students including 4 current football players were busted in a sting.
Illegal activities go on in every campus in America including the one nobody in sports wants to talk about: sports gambling.
The Penn State situation proves that the NCAA is arbitrary with it's punishment and that precedent can be ignored.
Makes me worried because they have always had a hard on for Miami.

My last note is simple: CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUBLISH THE NOA!!! Serious fans are waiting on pins and needles to find out what the allegations are.

It is wise, imo, to not reveal it if we don't have to.

 

[jerzeycane]

I'm right. Only way we get more bowl bans is if there are groundbreaking new allegations in the NOA. Now that is a possibility, but as others have pointed out the investigation wouldn't have lasted this long if they had a smoking gun on something new.

Edit: I agree they do whatever they want, but looking at what they gave UCF for LOIC, I see NO way we get more than 2 years with the current consensus on what transgressions happened at UM.

The one immutable fact is that we gave up two bowl games for a reason. The Miami administration and lawyers know what is out there and if they had deemed it all hearsay they would have told the NCAA to F off and let Miami go enjoy quesadillas and coronas in El Paso last year, but they didn't.

Us self imposing is the one fact that has had me worried about the investigation. You don't flagellate yourself unless you are guilty of something.
I just hope the NOA says they couldn't prove ****.

I agree, but two bowl bans is hardly light punishment. Again, there has to be something earth shattering that's proven for us to get more than the two we have taken. Only PSU and OSU have received bowl bans greater than two years than 1980. What do people really think we have done to warrant a 3rd year?

I know 2 years is a harsh punishment. I believe anything else is strictly punitive.
I was actually surprised about Penn State. I think the NCAA got caught up in the Sandusky scandal and just threw all the books at them.
Sure the coach's and administrators looked sideways when horrific crimes were being committed by someone who was endorsed by the university. The Sandusky crimes were terrible but that was a criminal situation and was being taken care of and still being taken care of by the courts.
The NCAA punishment for Penn State was just them trying to prove to the world how righteous they believe they are.
Why didn't the NCAA ban TCU for that Texas Christian drug scandal where something like 17 students including 4 current football players were busted in a sting.
Illegal activities go on in every campus in America including the one nobody in sports wants to talk about: sports gambling.
The Penn State situation proves that the NCAA is arbitrary with it's punishment and that precedent can be ignored.
Makes me worried because they have always had a hard on for Miami.

My last note is simple: CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUBLISH THE NOA!!! Serious fans are waiting on pins and needles to find out what the allegations are.

It is wise, imo, to not reveal it if we don't have to.

depends on what's in it

 

[Gennaker Cane]

Classic, I understand your arugment, completely. I disagree with you, though. You're applying logic to an illogical institutution, one who is now intent on "sending a message" that nothing will be tolerated if it is against their own rules. The NCAA likes to be the master of discipline, it insists on being the final arbiter of what is reasonable in every circumstance. Other than Notre Dame, I can't remember the last time they ever held that any institution self-imposed enough to suit their wishes, even Boise State got hit harder for truly ridiculous infractions. They always want the last word, which is why I thought it was stupid to try to appease them by self-imposing two bowl bans. Yes, one was fairly obvious, but why give them the ammunition they need to jusitfy a third (e.g., why let them say "Miami knows it was so wrong that they conceded two bowl bans, a third one therefore isn't so outside the realm of possibility that we shouldn't impose one.") Even if we successfully argue we now have insitutional control, they can always punish us for not having it when it mattered. And we're talking about an insitution that is as likely to give as much credence to Hill, Stoutland, and even Shapiro as Golden, James, or anyone else still employed by UM. I understnad the logic of saying we thing we're likely to get two bowl bans, so take them now. But conceding this much encourages them to try for more, the history of the insitution proves they have no consistency and now they are trying to scare everyone else from committing other infractions.
Having said that, what's done is done, and I hope it works out for UM.

I'd expect one more. The timetable worked against us. We self imposed the first time expecting a resolution before we'd have to think about it again. Then once it rolled around the second time we debated strongly, by all indications, but concluded we had to do it again. Otherwise there might be a perception we were ignoring the situation or making light of it.

As a gambler I never would have self imposed. I mentioned that on several sites. It's simply too difficult to predict somebody else's opinion and thread the needle toward maximum benefit to yourself, as opposed to inflicting more damage than the other side is contemplating.

I would have cooperated fully, and stressed that to the media, while going about business as usual.

Everybody is going to claim they were correct. That's the certainty. If we receive no more bowl bans the group who supported self imposing will assert we otherwise would have received 3 or more. If we get hammered for 1 or 2 more years and plenty of scholarships, the ones like me will conclude we should not have self imposed, and so forth...

makes very little sense to me. it seems clear that we would receive 2 bowl bans, so one would want to use them during years where we would have zero chances of a BCS or NC game, such as 2012. if we had chosen not to self impose this year, and next year we do real well, then we are sitting in the same boat as Ohio State.

Yea that makes no sense. I'm glad that our administration does not see this as a gambling opportunity.

Yeah, since they have been wrong 1005 of the time. Glad they don't gamble. I mean, Shannon was a stone cold lock, right?

I think this is a severely misguided line of reasoning.

I think it is inarguable that we were destined to lose at least one bowl. We self-imposed, so as to take that "first" bowl ban in 2011, instead of this year (2013), after sanctions will have been officially announced. That makes our first self-imposed bowl ban a no-brainer, and an obviously deft decision by the administration.

I think it is more than likely that we were destined to lose a second bowl game, as well, and Miami, obviously, agreed and self-imposed that bowl ban this year. Again, the point of this is to take the second dose of our medicine in 2012, instead of being banned from our second bowl in 2014.

It seems that some argue we shouldn't have self-imposed because the NCAA is intent on making us endure at least a one year bowl ban that was not voluntarily conceded. That doesn't make much sense to me. "Miami's transgressions deserve a two year bowl ban, but they already self-imposed a two year bowl ban, so we'll add another year or two, because we need to tell you to do something that you couldn't already have done." I don't believe that the NCAA's Committee on Infractions will rationalize our punishment in that manner. It doesn't compute for me.

I can comprehend the argument, but it's not compelling.

To me, the only way that a second self-imposed bowl ban could possibly be determined as a bad idea is if we learn that the NCAA would have otherwise only knocked us with a one-year bowl ban. I don't believe that we'll ever hear that, and I think it was unlikely given the circumstances.

Don't see how we could possibly have "wasted" two years.