The more I think about taking a post season ban

[OkieCane]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

 

[Angry Ibis]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

I get ya. If D is right and the letter is in today, then lets enjoy the ride.

I think we will be ready for FSU if we play them again. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[OkieCane]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

I get ya. If D is right and the letter is in today, then lets enjoy the ride.

I think we will be ready for FSU if we play them again. We'll see how it plays out.

Sounds good. Hope that leter is in the mail......

 

[Catskill Cane]

Self impose, which give us a total of THREE postseason games.

THEN we have a solid basis for arguing, say, "Loss of five scholarships for three years," we can counter with "Three scholarships for three years."

Surely the loss of an additional post season game is worth six scholarships.

You don't get credit for 3 postseason games. It would count as 2 self imposed post season bans, no more no less.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

It has nothing to do, for me, with being underdogs. It has to do with I'd rather get these bans over with so we can move forward quicker. And although there is no guarantee, it is worth it to try. I'm puckering up and kissing the NCAA's **** if I'm Shalala.

 

[OkieCane]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

It has nothing to do, for me, with being underdogs. It has to do with I'd rather get these bans over with so we can move forward quicker. And although there is no guarantee, it is worth it to try. I'm puckering up and kissing the NCAA's **** if I'm Shalala.

that's your opinion, and that's fine, I can't ague with that. It's the people who use the fact we will be underdogs in the ACCCG as a reason not to play, that's weak. I say if we earn it, play it. Guys like James deserve it.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

It has nothing to do, for me, with being underdogs. It has to do with I'd rather get these bans over with so we can move forward quicker. And although there is no guarantee, it is worth it to try. I'm puckering up and kissing the NCAA's **** if I'm Shalala.

that's your opinion, and that's fine, I can't ague with that. It's the people who use the fact we will be underdogs in the ACCCG as a reason not to play, that's weak. I say if we earn it, play it. Guys like James deserve it.

Lol people wanting to self-impose cuz they scared we would lose? Yikes, our fan base really is cokerized. Also, the only reason I could argue to not self-impose is for guys like Mike James, but the importance of our future outweighs that. I just have this sick feeling that NCAA is gonna drop the hammer and give us 3 games. We self-impose this year means only one more bowl to go.

 

[Angry Ibis]

I guess what I'm saying is people are saying they don't want to play it becasue we will be underdogs, that's a terrible reason IMO. If you don't wanna play over easier sanctions being possible,fine, that's your opinion. But to not play because you are afraid we can't beat FSU, GTFOH, that's weak

It has nothing to do, for me, with being underdogs. It has to do with I'd rather get these bans over with so we can move forward quicker. And although there is no guarantee, it is worth it to try. I'm puckering up and kissing the NCAA's **** if I'm Shalala.

that's your opinion, and that's fine, I can't ague with that. It's the people who use the fact we will be underdogs in the ACCCG as a reason not to play, that's weak. I say if we earn it, play it. Guys like James deserve it.

Lol people wanting to self-impose cuz they scared we would lose? Yikes, our fan base really is cokerized. Also, the only reason I could argue to not self-impose is for guys like Mike James, but the importance of our future outweighs that. I just have this sick feeling that NCAA is gonna drop the hammer and give us 3 games. We self-impose this year means only one more bowl to go.

I gotta think it is more of "Clemson and FSU are further along at this point so the probabilities favor them" rather than the fear of them.

Can't be fear.

 

[Dingaan1828]

Another thing to ponder.What if Miami and UNC both win out. UNC is ineligible and UM could self-impose. The Coastal rep in the ACCCG could be one foul smelling ****. If that scenario were to pan out, I wonder if the ACC might offer UM some incentive to NOT self-impose. By incentive, I mean some way to mitigate the effects of NCAA sanctions.

Just a thought.

What could the ACC do to mitigate the effects of the NCAA?

$$$

Not saying they would. But that scenario is a nightmare for the ACC. It is possible for GT to win the Coastal with a 5-7 record. If that were to happen, I believe the ACC would move heaven and earth to induce UM to not self-impose.

 

[noreastercane]

if we win the Coastal, self imposing would mean 2 post season games this year. We also already have 1 from last year. For a total of 3...

Let's say hypothetically NCAA "offers" us 2 game punishment (total)

Do we still self impose this year? And voluntarily punish ourselves 1 extra game? For what reason?

 

[Dingaan1828]

if we win the Coastal, self imposing would mean 2 post season games this year. We also already have 1 from last year. For a total of 3...

Let's say hypothetically NCAA "offers" us 2 game punishment (total)

Do we still self impose this year? And voluntarily punish ourselves 1 extra game? For what reason?

The NCAA imposes post-season bans, not on a game by game basis.

 

[DapperSlapper]

if we win the Coastal, self imposing would mean 2 post season games this year. We also already have 1 from last year. For a total of 3...

Let's say hypothetically NCAA "offers" us 2 game punishment (total)

Do we still self impose this year? And voluntarily punish ourselves 1 extra game? For what reason?

While the NCAA considers every individual game that a school prohibits itself from playing in, the NCAA, when it imposes sanctions, imposes bans of all games other than non-exempt regular season games. That includes conference championship games, bowl games, and exempt games (which are additional regular season games played in Hawaii or Alaska).

 

[noreastercane]

if we win the Coastal, self imposing would mean 2 post season games this year. We also already have 1 from last year. For a total of 3...

Let's say hypothetically NCAA "offers" us 2 game punishment (total)

Do we still self impose this year? And voluntarily punish ourselves 1 extra game? For what reason?

The NCAA imposes post-season bans, not on a game by game basis.

so if they "offered" us a 2 season ban...
taking it this year would mean skipping 2 games: ACC Champ + Bowl (assuming we win the Coastal)
taking it next year (if we don't win the coastal) would mean skipping just 1 game (bowl)?

 

[DapperSlapper]

if we win the Coastal, self imposing would mean 2 post season games this year. We also already have 1 from last year. For a total of 3...

Let's say hypothetically NCAA "offers" us 2 game punishment (total)

Do we still self impose this year? And voluntarily punish ourselves 1 extra game? For what reason?

The NCAA imposes post-season bans, not on a game by game basis.

so if they "offered" us a 2 season ban...
taking it this year would mean skipping 2 games: ACC Champ + Bowl (assuming we win the Coastal)
taking it next year (if we don't win the coastal) would mean skipping just 1 game (bowl)?

Who are "they" and when and how are "they" offering something?

NCAA Enforcement has investigated, and it is Enforcement that send the NOA and has to prove the case to the COI. The COI decides on sanctions. Enforcement has nothing to do with sanctions. The COI will not make a determination on sanctions until after the infractions hearing.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

Take the ban. No brainer. I could write a thesis on the topic but if you just step back and remove emotion and interject a little common sense......there is nothing to debate here.

 

[Consigliere]

if we win the Coastal, self imposing would mean 2 post season games this year. We also already have 1 from last year. For a total of 3...

Let's say hypothetically NCAA "offers" us 2 game punishment (total)

Do we still self impose this year? And voluntarily punish ourselves 1 extra game? For what reason?

The NCAA imposes post-season bans, not on a game by game basis.

Correct. I don't think they reward teams more because they give up potential BCS games either. A ban is a ban.

 

[Consigliere]

Take the ban. No brainer. I could write a thesis on the topic but if you just step back and remove emotion and interject a little common sense......there is nothing to debate here.

Nice troll, you got me.

 

[Jedi Master Cane]

Take the ban. No brainer. I could write a thesis on the topic but if you just step back and remove emotion and interject a little common sense......there is nothing to debate here.

Nice troll, you got me.

Not trolling at all. It would be a mistake of similar proportions to the Randy Shannon extension to NOT take the ban.

 

[Consigliere]

Take the ban. No brainer. I could write a thesis on the topic but if you just step back and remove emotion and interject a little common sense......there is nothing to debate here.

Nice troll, you got me.

Not trolling at all. It would be a mistake of similar proportions to the Randy Shannon extension to NOT take the ban.

The part about "no brainer."

Without any knowledge of the investigation it is a "no brainer," makes total sense.

 

[scrantoncane]

Take the ban. No brainer. I could write a thesis on the topic but if you just step back and remove emotion and interject a little common sense......there is nothing to debate here.

Nice troll, you got me.

Not trolling at all. It would be a mistake of similar proportions to the Randy Shannon extension to NOT take the ban.

Jedi, you are one of the better posters on the board. Don't even waste your breath. Anyone with half a brain agrees with you.

Now, if the letter that was sent today says otherwise, then obviously the plan changes. But based on everything we've heard in the past year, taking the ban is a no-brainer.