UM and President Shalala will have a very difficult decision

[01rodric]

No. It doesn't.

The NCAA takes it into consideration when levying punishment. That's it.

Exactly. So if they want to give two, but we we've given up two what do you think happens?

It depends. If we're looking at major sanctions, they might tack a post season ban on, regardless of what we''ve done. If they aren't, there's no guarantee that self imposing again will lessen any scholarship reductions.


Once again, the NCAA doesn't say, " well, we were going to give you a two year ban, but since you already took it, you're cool."

They don't say well, we were going to give you a year postseason ban plus 16 over 4, but, since you took two years of your own accord, we're just going to give you 12 over 3.

Nobody is really saying it work likes that. The argument for-- and mind you I haven't declared my own position on this-- is about spreading the sanctions around instead of taking a lump sum on the chin. [U]IF[/U], I have to take 2 Post-season bans and X schollies over Z years i'd rather have a part of it out of the way if I can.
Doesn't work like that. The NCAA takes it "into consideration" when deciding punishment. Lots of examples of schools surprised by the NCAA adding additional punishment onto self imposed sanctions.
That just means that NCAA's punishment was greater than what the institution self-imposed.

.

The problem is, there's no chart of violations and expected sanctions. You can't even rely on past history. There's no saying that we'd get two post seasons bans...or more. A school is almost in uncharted territory every time. All they can really do is cooperate to the fullest, grit their collective teeth, and weather the storm. If we get our notice of infractions and could say, "yeah, this will equal to a two year ban, so let's take it now", then maybe. But we cant. We'd look awfully ******* silly if we give away our first shot at going to the ACCCG after almost a decade of futility, take away our first opportunity to go to a BCS bowl since 2003, and the NCAA hammers us anyway. Because they can. Because they have before.

You take one postseason ban to show that you're serious about the allegations. You don't, under any circumstances, take another, because you don't know if it will impact anything, or to what effect.

People saying we won't get a second bowl ban are guessing just like the rest of us. Truth is the school and its lawyers know way more than we do. They are making informed decisions; we aren't.

 

[HarryCarayisGoat]

It is obvious...the risk of not self-imposing far outweighs the rewards for playing in the 2012 ACC championship game.

 

[razrcane]

We are not a good team and this is a chance to burn off another penalty during a down, rebuilding year. Tee it up for 2014.

GTFO here with that **** ****. We haven't been to an ACCCG before. Ever.


As much as we've struggled this year, you can't tell me that we wouldn't have a puncher's chance against Clemson or FSU. A few bounces go our way, a few big plays, and BAM. We'd have the biggest positive that could happen for our program in a decade. And you guys want to give it away on the mere assumption, and I do mean assumption, that it might lessen future sanctions, even though there's no proof it will, or if it will, to what degree.


I've seen people, whose football opinions I respect, call it a 'no brainer'. This thread is about it being a 'tough decision'. The thing is, it's not a no-brainer. It's not a tough decision. Any observation on how the process works, combined with the opportunity to do something positive for the program, results in a clear decision. Let's go to god**** Charlotte and kick some ***.

Smh...can't believe we would self impose. Let's roll to Charlotte.

 

[Bigtip]

It is obvious...the risk of not self-imposing far outweighs the rewards for playing in the 2012 ACC championship game.

it is not obvious clearly since there is a split opinion on the matter. we have never played in the ACC champ, have a young team and young staff and need momentum recruiting. playing for the ACC champ (and the outside chance of winning it) looks like a much better value proposition than saying "no thanks" just to appease the minions at the NCAA.

 

[FloppyBootStomp]

### We hear testimony of some former UM recruits and transfers has been damaging, but the NCAA has received several different versions of what happened with the recruiting of the Sanford Seminole players -- Ray-Ray Armstrong, Dyron Dye and Andre Debose -- and has had to sort through inconsistencies.

### Some of the damaging details given to the NCAA were known by only one former player (Kyle Wright). Those details involved benefits given to Wright by the Shapiro/Michael Huyghue sports agency and weren't given by Huyghue in his deposition to Shapiro's attorney. That has led to suspicions among some that Wright spoke to the NCAA, which he he wasn't required to do.
Wright – through his father – declined to respond when I asked whether he spoke to the NCAA. A UM person said Wright was unhappy when he left UM because of what he perceived as harsh fan treatment.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...ns-tidbits-dolphins-heat-marlins-chatter.html

 

[CaneInControl]

### We hear testimony of some former UM recruits and transfers has been damaging, but the NCAA has received several different versions of what happened with the recruiting of the Sanford Seminole players -- Ray-Ray Armstrong, Dyron Dye and Andre Debose -- and has had to sort through inconsistencies.

### Some of the damaging details given to the NCAA were known by only one former player (Kyle Wright). Those details involved benefits given to Wright by the Shapiro/Michael Huyghue sports agency and weren't given by Huyghue in his deposition to Shapiro's attorney. That has led to suspicions among some that Wright spoke to the NCAA, which he he wasn't required to do.
Wright – through his father – declined to respond when I asked whether he spoke to the NCAA. A UM person said Wright was unhappy when he left UM because of what he perceived as harsh fan treatment.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...ns-tidbits-dolphins-heat-marlins-chatter.html

Butt hurt little *****.

 

[Dandycane]

It is obvious...the risk of not self-imposing far outweighs the rewards for playing in the 2012 ACC championship game.

How is that? What is the risk of not self imposing, considering we've already done it once?

Because there is a serious possibility that we will get a 3 year bowl ban. This is a wide investigation; it's huge.

If we get nailed with a 3 year ban we will lose alot of recruits. Taking 2 bulletts now may preserve the new recruits we are getting.

Not worth the risk for a BS bowl game in a 4 loss or more season.

Better the team hit the weight room early and Golden hitting the recruiting trail.

 

[Consigliere]

If they are going to self-sanction a bowl ban...they need to make that decision after our sixth win...not after we've won the Coastal.

Why? As long as they do it before the ACCCG wouldn't that be enough. Obviously not the day before the game but anytime from here on out would be fine. Once we have accepted to play in the game it is too late.

Also, we could self impose now even though we are not eligible, I just don't think you can self impose once you are mathematically eliminated from a bowl game.

Since nothing is guaranteed

1. ACC Coastal Crown

2. Making the ACCCG next year or any year

3. The NCAA actions against us

I am not self imposing if we can go to the ACCCG now. If we don't make the ACCCG, then self-impose all you want.

 

[Consigliere]

It is obvious...the risk of not self-imposing far outweighs the rewards for playing in the 2012 ACC championship game.

Disagree 100 Times

It is also not obvious, or a no brainer.

 

[Consigliere]

It is obvious...the risk of not self-imposing far outweighs the rewards for playing in the 2012 ACC championship game.

it is not obvious clearly since there is a split opinion on the matter. we have never played in the ACC champ, have a young team and young staff and need momentum recruiting. playing for the ACC champ (and the outside chance of winning it) looks like a much better value proposition than saying "no thanks" just to appease the minions at the NCAA.

Very good.

Also, the NCAA also only takes self-imposed bans into consideration. Nothing is guaranteed, there is no new information from this article either.

We will wait along with the rest of the uniformed fans for the truth.

In Mike Glazier we trust!

 

[KLCane]

The fact that the admin (Blake James) is even somewhat addressing the issue is telling.

 

[Consigliere]

The fact that the admin (Blake James) is even somewhat addressing the issue is telling.

Of what?

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

I'm for doing whatever keeps Alex Collins on board

 

[Larry]

If they are going to self-sanction a bowl ban...they need to make that decision after our sixth win...not after we've won the Coastal.

Why? As long as they do it before the ACCCG wouldn't that be enough. Obviously not the day before the game but anytime from here on out would be fine. Once we have accepted to play in the game it is too late.

Also, we could self impose now even though we are not eligible, I just don't think you can self impose once you are mathematically eliminated from a bowl game.

Since nothing is guaranteed

1. ACC Coastal Crown

2. Making the ACCCG next year or any year

3. The NCAA actions against us

I am not self imposing if we can go to the ACCCG now. If we don't make the ACCCG, then self-impose all you want.

Because you don't have these kids go out there, working toward a goal and working their *** off...accomplish said goal, and take it away.

If I were a student athlete, that is the type of bull**** that would make me transfer, and it has nothing to do with Golden or the program...but if the administration does that, it basically tells me they couldn't give a **** about me.

 

[Consigliere]

If they are going to self-sanction a bowl ban...they need to make that decision after our sixth win...not after we've won the Coastal.

Why? As long as they do it before the ACCCG wouldn't that be enough. Obviously not the day before the game but anytime from here on out would be fine. Once we have accepted to play in the game it is too late.

Also, we could self impose now even though we are not eligible, I just don't think you can self impose once you are mathematically eliminated from a bowl game.

Since nothing is guaranteed

1. ACC Coastal Crown

2. Making the ACCCG next year or any year

3. The NCAA actions against us

I am not self imposing if we can go to the ACCCG now. If we don't make the ACCCG, then self-impose all you want.

Because you don't have these kids go out there, working toward a goal and working their *** off...accomplish said goal, and take it away.

If I were a student athlete, that is the type of bull**** that would make me transfer, and it has nothing to do with Golden or the program...but if the administration does that, it basically tells me they couldn't give a **** about me.

I am sorry for the confusion but what does that have to do with what I posted. Forgive my ignorance.

 

[Consigliere]

Just so people don't have a coronary, I think we have been playing with 79 or 80 or 81 scholarships all year...little effect on the results of games. Just have to be more efficient with said scholarships.

 

[Bigtip]

no way we self impose if we win the coastal

 

[Larry]

If they are going to self-sanction a bowl ban...they need to make that decision after our sixth win...not after we've won the Coastal.

Why? As long as they do it before the ACCCG wouldn't that be enough. Obviously not the day before the game but anytime from here on out would be fine. Once we have accepted to play in the game it is too late.

Also, we could self impose now even though we are not eligible, I just don't think you can self impose once you are mathematically eliminated from a bowl game.

Since nothing is guaranteed

1. ACC Coastal Crown

2. Making the ACCCG next year or any year

3. The NCAA actions against us

I am not self imposing if we can go to the ACCCG now. If we don't make the ACCCG, then self-impose all you want.

Because you don't have these kids go out there, working toward a goal and working their *** off...accomplish said goal, and take it away.

If I were a student athlete, that is the type of bull**** that would make me transfer, and it has nothing to do with Golden or the program...but if the administration does that, it basically tells me they couldn't give a **** about me.

I am sorry for the confusion but what does that have to do with what I posted. Forgive my ignorance.

You asked "why" in response to my statement...and, that is why.

 

[Consigliere]

If they are going to self-sanction a bowl ban...they need to make that decision after our sixth win...not after we've won the Coastal.

Why? As long as they do it before the ACCCG wouldn't that be enough. Obviously not the day before the game but anytime from here on out would be fine. Once we have accepted to play in the game it is too late.

Also, we could self impose now even though we are not eligible, I just don't think you can self impose once you are mathematically eliminated from a bowl game.

Since nothing is guaranteed

1. ACC Coastal Crown

2. Making the ACCCG next year or any year

3. The NCAA actions against us

I am not self imposing if we can go to the ACCCG now. If we don't make the ACCCG, then self-impose all you want.

Because you don't have these kids go out there, working toward a goal and working their *** off...accomplish said goal, and take it away.

If I were a student athlete, that is the type of bull**** that would make me transfer, and it has nothing to do with Golden or the program...but if the administration does that, it basically tells me they couldn't give a **** about me.

I am sorry for the confusion but what does that have to do with what I posted. Forgive my ignorance.

You asked "why" in response to my statement...and, that is why.

Why wait for the 6th win?