forums

UNC sanctions: One bowl ban, 15 schollies, Blake show cause

Advertisement
When a school gets hit with scholarship reductions, can they elect to take the loss in one year. Could UNC reduce their schollies by 15 next year and be done, or does it have to be evenly spread out of the years?
 
bomb said:
If we can sacrifice another bowl instead of scholarships, that's the best option. The hardest part of a bowl ban is what it does to recruiting, but losing a 2012 bowl won't really hurt recruiting since the 2012 class is already signed. We can still tell the Jan enrollees and the 2013 class that the bowl losses are behind us, it won't affect them, and we didn't lose too many 'ships.

I'd give up the bowl to save 5 'ships in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Jonnyblaze said:
When a school gets hit with scholarship reductions, can they elect to take the loss in one year. Could UNC reduce their schollies by 15 next year and be done, or does it have to be evenly spread out of the years?
Click to expand...
i think the ncaa would have to approve taking them all in one year....its not likely they would
 
JHallCanes said:
bomb said:
If we can sacrifice another bowl instead of scholarships, that's the best option. The hardest part of a bowl ban is what it does to recruiting, but losing a 2012 bowl won't really hurt recruiting since the 2012 class is already signed. We can still tell the Jan enrollees and the 2013 class that the bowl losses are behind us, it won't affect them, and we didn't lose too many 'ships.

I'd give up the bowl to save 5 'ships in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Click to expand...

+1

Also I'm just ready for it to be over with, I want to know what we're going to get so we can move foward.
 
Advertisement
Wow, look who was on that committee. Oregon, sec, Missouri. Can we get that? Oregon has issues, the ncaa has been on campus at lsu and they will be getting their second NOA in as many years, and where is our loser former bb coach, who has been implicated in the most damning of the allegations?
 
Advertisement
Liebenator said:
NJtoFLAcane said:
the plan is to be at 80 schollie kids by the fall........basically managing the roster for sanctions

the issue we are gonna have is this **** with reggie and scott regarding the former coach

between that and the football ****......that could pave the way for LOIC

also......if blake got a show cause.......i cant see how hurtt escapes without one as well.......there are also nunzio and hill.....as well as haith and his staff who could have some issues as well

also when slims dee put the hammer down on usc...........he said "ignorance is no excuse".......so i still expect the bar to be set at what usc got
Click to expand...

Can someone translate drunk for me?
Click to expand...
what didnt make sense?
 
LOL at Hurtt if he can't recruit. That essentially castrates the only favorable thing he had going for him. Eff that guy.
 
The only thing that concerns me is the sheer numbers of coaches involved with us..... UNC had Blake and fired Butch....

We had Hill, Hurt, Pannunzio, and Haith.... It's tough to justify "institutional control" when you have that many guys "potentially" involved.

That said, I still think we end up with similar to UNC, just because we cooperated and were open from the outset.
 
Advertisement
bomb said:
If we can sacrifice another bowl instead of scholarships, that's the best option. The hardest part of a bowl ban is what it does to recruiting, but losing a 2012 bowl won't really hurt recruiting since the 2012 class is already signed. We can still tell the Jan enrollees and the 2013 class that the bowl losses are behind us, it won't affect them, and we didn't lose too many 'ships.

I'd give up the bowl to save 5 'ships in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

This, hope for another bowl ban and a small amount of schollies lost.
 
wushah said:
LOL at Hurtt if he can't recruit. That essentially castrates the only favorable thing he had going for him. Eff that guy.
Click to expand...

And knowing what we do now, can he really recruit? Or was it that he had his hand in the cookie jar and knew how to get kids what they wanted. I can bet there is some shady **** going on at Louisville, just get that feeling.
 
Advertisement
this says a lot

"Fourteen players missed at least one game in 2010 and seven were forced to sit out all that season, with four of those either dismissed from the team or ruled permanently ineligible by the NCAA."
 
Canecling said:
this says a lot

"Fourteen players missed at least one game in 2010 and seven were forced to sit out all that season, with four of those either dismissed from the team or ruled permanently ineligible by the NCAA."
Click to expand...

that is a pretty good point that would seemingly bode well for us.

you would think that our sanctions would be relatively proportional to the number of games we had players suspended for compared to UNC.

I say we get roughly half the punishment of UNC. 6-9 schollys over 3 years
 
mpatrizio said:
The only thing that concerns me is the sheer numbers of coaches involved with us..... UNC had Blake and fired Butch....

We had Hill, Hurt, Pannunzio, and Haith.... It's tough to justify "institutional control" when you have that many guys "potentially" involved.

That said, I still think we end up with similar to UNC, just because we cooperated and were open from the outset.
Click to expand...
this

the problem here is that it isnt just the football program.......its at least 2 sports that currently have issues.........and a LOIC will result in things getting uglier than they otherwise may have been

id say that UNC and USC are probably in the ball park of what we are looking at
 
SFbayCane said:
If we lose 5 a year over three years I think the NCAA will be hard-pressed to get another university to cooperate with them in the future. At some point UM needs to be thrown a bone for offering full cooperation.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point that hopefully rings true. Thinking outside the box a little bit.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top