The more I think about taking a post season ban

[Notsince1985]

I like Shalala, so I'm not one of those who piles on her, but this time I'm not confident she makes the decision I want her to make. I have a hard time believing she'll "roll the dice" so to speak.

 

[Angry Ibis]

At first I thought this was a new topic and you were self imposing a posting ban.

 

[Consigliere]

I haven't heard one good argument to self impose a second bowl ban if we could go to the ACCCG, please enlighten me. Please enlighten me why we should self impose more punishment prior to an NOA if we can go to the ACCCG. Please enlighten me why we should be the first school to self impose a second ban. Don't say recruiting either because we don't even have an NOA so its impossible to know what the NCAA holds, also making the ACCCG would be huge for recruiting it would show Al is getting us there.

An unprecedented self imposed punishment to counteract the hammer the NCAA wants to justly or unjustly drop on us.

To get as much punishment as possible in the rearview and avoid punishment that will impact us going forward. Sucks for the team and program but you sacrifice now to help save the future.

It doesn't guarantee anything. It is only a good faith showing.

To the board, zero reasons to self impose.

 

[Dingaan1828]

Gee, can't we play in the ACCCG, then see how we do? That way if we lose, we can pretend like we never played in it. Self-impose retroactively, and tell the NCAA it wasn't us in the ACCCG. Or at least play the first quarter, but have all the players wear fake nose and glasses. If we're behind, just walk off the field and jump on the busses. That way the NCAA will have no idea it was really us.

 

[-Blazed-]

Devil's advocate...what if we don't impose and we end up with a great team next year that can't go bowling (like OSU this year)?

You can't play life on ifs, but it's worth a consideration IMO

THIS.

OK, Now what if we self impose and the NCAA goes easy? We pass up the ACCCG and a possible BCS bowl for what??

The NCAA went easy on us because he self-imposed again.

 

[Consigliere]

Devil's advocate...what if we don't impose and we end up with a great team next year that can't go bowling (like OSU this year)?

You can't play life on ifs, but it's worth a consideration IMO

Mr. Steve,

Our situation is NOTHING like OSU because we self imposed and they didn't. We took the ban when we had nothing to play for and they said *** it will see what happens. We have something to play for (yes "something") and OSU did not.

 

[Consigliere]

Gee, can't we play in the ACCCG, then see how we do? That way if we lose, we can pretend like we never played in it. Self-impose retroactively, and tell the NCAA it wasn't us in the ACCCG. Or at least play the first quarter, but have all the players wear fake nose and glasses. If we're behind, just walk off the field and jump on the busses. That way the NCAA will have no idea it was really us.

Although the ACC said NO. We could always ask the NCAA to do it, or we can just do it.

Maybe they count it as a half bowl game or some good faith, I doubt it though.

 

[-Blazed-]

Devil's advocate...what if we don't impose and we end up with a great team next year that can't go bowling (like OSU this year)?

You can't play life on ifs, but it's worth a consideration IMO

Mr. Steve,

Our situation is NOTHING like OSU because we self imposed and they didn't. We took the ban when we had nothing to play for and they say *** it. We have something to play for (yes "something") and OSU did not.

OSU got in trouble for Tattoos and Tressel lying. We have kids accepting money,prostitutes, coaches being dirty and other ****.

 

[Angry Ibis]

I

Devil's advocate...what if we don't impose and we end up with a great team next year that can't go bowling (like OSU this year)?

You can't play life on ifs, but it's worth a consideration IMO

Mr. Steve,

Our situation is NOTHING like OSU because we self imposed and they didn't. We took the ban when we had nothing to play for and they say *** it. We have something to play for (yes "something") and OSU did not.

OSU got in trouble for Tattoos and Tressel lying. We have kids accepting money,prostitutes, coaches being dirty and other ****.

We Skate!

 

[DREW!]

According to a conversation The Beast had with Blake James...he said " UM IS GOING TO DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST LONG TERM INTEREST TO THE PROGRAM"...so thats out there now too

 

[PatrickCane]

I am sure our attorneys will get an early wind of the NOA and based on that early wind they will make the decision. I am for skipping the ACCCG and our bowl if it means no bowl ban next year. This team will be very good next year and will have a legit chance at a BCS bowl and we don't want to lose that.

 

[OkieCane]

Devil's advocate...what if we don't impose and we end up with a great team next year that can't go bowling (like OSU this year)?

You can't play life on ifs, but it's worth a consideration IMO

THIS.

OK, Now what if we self impose and the NCAA goes easy? We pass up the ACCCG and a possible BCS bowl for what??

The NCAA went easy on us because he self-imposed again.

You know this how????

 

[Consigliere]

Devil's advocate...what if we don't impose and we end up with a great team next year that can't go bowling (like OSU this year)?

You can't play life on ifs, but it's worth a consideration IMO

Mr. Steve,

Our situation is NOTHING like OSU because we self imposed and they didn't. We took the ban when we had nothing to play for and they say *** it. We have something to play for (yes "something") and OSU did not.

OSU got in trouble for Tattoos and Tressel lying. We have kids accepting money,prostitutes, coaches being dirty and other ****.

Not sure what the point of this is.

 

[Consigliere]

I am sure our attorneys will get an early wind of the NOA and based on that early wind they will make the decision. I am for skipping the ACCCG and our bowl if it means no bowl ban next year. This team will be very good next year and will have a legit chance at a BCS bowl and we don't want to lose that.

ASSUMPTION

You are aware that we have a "legit chance" at this THIS YEAR.

 

[Dingaan1828]

Gee, can't we play in the ACCCG, then see how we do? That way if we lose, we can pretend like we never played in it. Self-impose retroactively, and tell the NCAA it wasn't us in the ACCCG. Or at least play the first quarter, but have all the players wear fake nose and glasses. If we're behind, just walk off the field and jump on the busses. That way the NCAA will have no idea it was really us.

Although the ACC said NO. We could always ask the NCAA to do it, or we can just do it.

Maybe they count it as a half bowl game or some good faith, I doubt it though.

So, you're saying you didn't read my post.

 

[Consigliere]

Gee, can't we play in the ACCCG, then see how we do? That way if we lose, we can pretend like we never played in it. Self-impose retroactively, and tell the NCAA it wasn't us in the ACCCG. Or at least play the first quarter, but have all the players wear fake nose and glasses. If we're behind, just walk off the field and jump on the busses. That way the NCAA will have no idea it was really us.

Although the ACC said NO. We could always ask the NCAA to do it, or we can just do it.

Maybe they count it as a half bowl game or some good faith, I doubt it though.

So, you're saying you didn't read my post.

I did, I know it was sarcastic but I was thinking that if we lose the ACCCG we can always try some BS like that.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

Only a ****** would not want to self impose this year.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Original thread, just kidding.

I am sticking with my original thought process (to the board)

I haven't heard one good argument to self impose a second bowl ban if we could go to the ACCCG, please enlighten me. Please enlighten me why we should self impose more punishment prior to an NOA if we can go to the ACCCG. Please enlighten me why we should be the first school to self impose a second ban. Don't say recruiting either because we don't even have an NOA so its impossible to know what the NCAA holds, also making the ACCCG would be huge for recruiting it would show Al is getting us there.

So please teach me, please let me know why if we

1. Have already self imposed one bowl ban,

2. Haven't received our NOA yet, and

3. Haven't made the ACCCG EVER

Why should we self impose at this juncture.

The fact that UM has not received the NOA yet is not as important as you make it out to be. UM is aware of everything that the investigation uncovered. It is not hard to determine which bylaws the uncovered facts may violate. Determining what will be in the NOA is impossible for anyone who posts here, but not impossible for UM.

In every case before it, the NCAA COI considers whether the institution complied with its obligations under bylaws 19.01.3 (Responsibility to Cooperate) and 32.1.4 (Cooperative Principle). They weigh the school's cooperation against the severity of the violations found. Before the sanctions are stated at the end of a public report, language similar to "The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel as set forth in the findings. The Committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution's cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee." Obviously, the COI could find the opposite to be true in any given case, such that certain acts by UM, including self-imposed sanctions, that go above and beyond the normal cooperation would warrant relief from the penalties the COI would otherwise impose. This is considered in every case. The fact that no other institution has self imposed 2 years worth of competition bans is entirely irrelevant - UM can judge what is best to do based on information it has and conclusions it can make based on that information. UM is looking at repeat violator status to make whatever violations are found that much worse. While I would not say that UM should definitely take a second competition ban this season (if they feel they are not likely to receive a second postseason ban from the NCAA), even if UM does it while only looking at 1 total from the NCAA, that will lighten other sanctions.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - if UM believes that the violations that can be proven would warrant another competition ban, UM would be making a mistake by not self imposing the ban this season. There are reasons I say this.

(1) The team is on an upward trajectory - the young team "excuse" that was used all season means next year the team is older.

(2) Perhaps the most important reason - the transfer rule. If UM does not self impose, and the NCAA hands out a competition ban for next season, all seniors can transfer and play immediately. If the NCAA hands out 2 years' worth of bans, then both juniors and seniors can transfer and play immediately. If UM self imposes, no immediate play transfers.

(3) 2013 recruits can feel more confident that they will be able to play in championship games and bowl games during their entire careers. They may not be certain of it, but certainly more confident than if UM does not self impose.

Self imposing a ban depends on UM's weighing of the evidence and making an informed decision - something no one on this board can do. To say that as a rule UM would be crazy to self impose this year is not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[rok]

Only a ****** would not want to self impose this year.

Making blanket statements like that makes you look like the ******.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

Not self imposing would be right up there with extending Shannon in terms of horrible decisions made by this administration.

If you can't wrap your head around the reasoning behind it...you're being blinded by the excitement of having a better than expected season. I understand..really I do. In many ways this fan base has taken more shots to the gut than any I can think of in recent memory....but some of you really should think about the ramifications and opportunity cost involved in NOT taking the bowl ban.

Absolute no brainer. Take the bowl ban. I'll be extremely upset if they don't......and I'd be shocked if Golden himself doesn't campaign for it behind closed doors as well. What he says on radio shows and to the media is not going to be the truth in regards to this particular subject given the sensitivity and the fact the seniors will be impacted. We're going to find out relatively soon .....let's see how this plays out but I'm shocked how many of you would rather not self impose.