We shouldn't self-impose another post-season ban

[Angry Ibis]

After 10 pages I am still unclear on how not self imposing helps the future of the program.

Take the ban sooner than later.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

SevenNSeven said:
The thing is, and the thing people need to understand, it doesn't work like that. They don't come out and say "well, we were going to give you a two year postseason ban, but you imposed them already, so you're clear."


They come out with their notice of allegations, we have a chance to respond, then they levy punishment. Of course they look at some factors, like if we self imposed already, but nothing precludes them from giving us more, especially in a very public case. They might want to be seen as being strict and give us another, regardless of what we've done.


I was reading about some other school's sanctions some years ago, and the school president, after the fact, talked about giving themselves a post season ban. Basically said to the effect of, you institute the first one to show that you're serious about the allegations, but you make them take the second one away, because there's no guarantee they will, or that they won't put another one on you anyway.

SevenNSeven mentioned the above in another thread. I like the bold part.

 

[-Blazed-]

also us practicing and playing in a bowl game will give at least 60 players valuable experience for next year.

whereas imposing a bowl ban may help with less than 10 recruitst at best

How is playing in the firestone tire bowl against a ****** team valuable experience?

 

[-Blazed-]

Take the bowl ban now maybe they don't take away scholarships which are important.

 

[-Blazed-]

Why do you guys want to play in the ACC championship? we are going to lose. I swear people forget how ****** our team is after every win. As soon as we lose its fire Coach D, Golden and Fisch.

 

[CanesAreAble]

Why do you guys want to play in the ACC championship? we are going to lose. I swear people forget how ****** our team is after every win. As soon as we lose its fire Coach D, Golden and Fisch.

Neg-worthy.

In order to instill a culture of winning you have to win.

We haven't won the Coastal since joining the conference.

You have to celebrate the small victories along the way.

 

[CaneShades]

Do not take the ban!! Play in the Accch and play in the bowl

 

[DapperSlapper]

The bottom line is that UM has a much better handle on what has been proven than anyone on this board. The tricky part could come with respect to the statute of limitations though. Whether the NCAA can go back more than 4 years (measured from the earliest of the NOI, when the institution notified NCAA enforcement of a problem, or when the institution should have notified enforcement) depends on a finding of one of 2 things in this case:

(b) Allegations in a case in which information is developed to indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part
of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period; [or]

(c) Allegations that indicate a blatant disregard for the Association’s fundamental recruiting, extra-benefit, academic
or ethical-conduct regulations or that involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation. In
such cases, the enforcement staff shall have a one-year period after the date information concerning the matter
becomes available to the NCAA to investigate and submit to the institution a notice of allegations concerning
the matter.

The COI will make that determination, not enforcement. UM and enforcement are jointly investigating everything, so each knows all the facts. However, there is no way to know the decision the COI will make on the above issue (unless enforcement agrees that there is no basis to argue that the case should include allegations older than the 4 year period). That is significant because, based on the available facts, UM may have a good idea of what its punishment will be (something no one here has any idea of). Although the severity of sanctions has evolved in recent years, since 1980, there have been at least 14 schools (maybe 1 or 2 more - it was a quick check) that received 2 year bowl/postseason bans (many schools had no other possible postseason games other than a bowl).

The point of all of this is that, if UM has knowledge of facts that leads them to believe UM will get a 2 year postseason ban from the NCAA, it would be much better to self impose that this year - you get it over with as quickly as possible. UM should be on an upward trajectory right now, so you get it over with before you become good/great. Last year, while I disagree with the decision to self impose a bowl ban that late in the season (missed out on an opportunity to self impose a full postseason ban for the year), UM may not have had enough facts to make that decision earlier (so it's hard to be upset about it).

The NCAA absolutely considers all self imposed sanctions. If a school self imposes a sanction properly, the NCAA will accept and adopt that sanction. I've posted before about Texas Tech in 1997, but it's worth noting again:

TTU self imposed a full postseason ban (champ game and bowl) in 1997 when they were 4-4 (early November). The NCAA accepted and adopted those penalties as their own and did not add any additional sanction against future competitions, even though TTU did not end with a good enough record to go the the Big12 champ game. The NCAA considered each element of the self imposed sanction separately and accepted and adopted each one.

For reference, here is what TTU did wrong:

Between 1990 and 1997, at least 76 student-athletes competed while ineligible.
During the 1993-94 through 1996-97 academic years, the institution exceeded team and individual grant-in-aid limitations in four sports.
During the summer of 1993, an assistant football coach provided a student athlete with tuition assistance and other extra benefits and committed academic fraud by completing significant portions of the student-athlete's course work.
In August 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive impermissible proctoring services.
During the summer of 1991, a junior college basketball coach and representative of the institution's athletics interests provided tuition and enrollment assistance to a student-athlete and a prospective student-athlete.
During the 1995 football season, the institution failed to adhere to sound academic standards in regard to a student-athlete and allowed the student athlete to compete while ineligible.
Beginning with the spring 1992 term, a member or members of the football coaching staff provided a student-athlete with money on several occasions before and after the student-athlete's enrollment at the institution.
Between 1991 and 1996, representatives of the institution's athletics interests provided free bail bonding and legal services to student-athletes.
An assistant football coach violated the principles of ethical conduct by knowingly violating extra-benefit legislation and by providing false and misleading information to the institution.
From the summer of 1994 through the spring of 1997, the institution allowed student-athletes to place free long-distance telephone calls and failed to monitor the student-athletes' use of athletics department telephones.
There was a lack of institutional control and monitoring of the institution's athletics programs.
There were several secondary violations involving the provision of impermissible services, transportation and meals to student-athletes and prospective student-athletes.

While there were violations in other sports, football was the big offender, and this is what they got-
FOOTBALL: withdrew from 1997 conference championship game; postseason ban for 1997; limit of 40 official visits for 1997-98; limit of five coaches permitted to recruit off campus from December 1997 through January 1998; reduction from 25 to 17 initial awards for 1998-99, from 25 to 19 for 1999-2000, and from 25 to 21 for 2000-01; limit of 80 total awards for 1999-2000 and 2000-01; reduce the number of evaluation days in May 1998 from 20 to 15 with no more than 90 evaluation opportunities as opposed to a permissible 140; show-cause requirement imposed on a former assistant football coach for 3 years.

 

[bomb]

Say we give up bowl now but don't win coastal next year. How is that better than us winning the coastal now and not going to a bowl next year

we can still win the coastal this year. no one is saying that won't happen. we just give up the spot in the championship game that we would most likely lose in embarrassing fashion on national tv. our team is awful in cold weather and freezing temperatures in charlotte is another mound of sh*t to throw on top of our lack of depth and youth.

So we give up Two games this year.

That brings the total to 3, which is MORE than what USC or and just one less than Penn state.

We haven't even gotten our notice of allegation yet. Don't you think the school my be overreacting

Look at what you wrote. That's my point. We would get to tell the NCAA that we gave up 3 post season games (and accompanying revenue) which might result in them giving us lesser penalties in the other categories like scholarship reductions. That would be the greatest job of managing NCAA penalties in history.

 

[DapperSlapper]

Say we give up bowl now but don't win coastal next year. How is that better than us winning the coastal now and not going to a bowl next year

we can still win the coastal this year. no one is saying that won't happen. we just give up the spot in the championship game that we would most likely lose in embarrassing fashion on national tv. our team is awful in cold weather and freezing temperatures in charlotte is another mound of sh*t to throw on top of our lack of depth and youth.

So we give up Two games this year.

That brings the total to 3, which is MORE than what USC or and just one less than Penn state.

We haven't even gotten our notice of allegation yet. Don't you think the school my be overreacting

You are not comparing apples to apples. PSU is ineligible for 8 postseason games (plus 4 exempt games) - for 4 years they will not be able to play in either the BigWhatever championship or a bowl game (along with exempt games in Hawaii, Alaska, or PR).

 

[dookie blaylock]

Take the bowl ban now maybe they don't take away scholarships which are important.

this, this, and more of this. even a reduction in potential scholarships lost is more important to us than a bowl game. we are in much more need of scholarships to build on our staggering lack of depth than we are on the postseason at this point.

 

[blackvern]

You dont take another bowl ban.. it makes us look really weak and the NCAA might have to outdo us an give us a 3 ban so it makes them look like they did something. We took our one year bowl ban lets play out the season and see what the NCAA does. Besides what if they only give us a one bowl game ban and we take 2?

 

[TheRagingWolf]

Do not self-impose. The jokes from VT and FSU fans about not playing in the ACCG are getting ******* old. If we win the Coastal we better play in the **** ACC title game.

 

[dookie blaylock]

Do not self-impose. The jokes from VT and FSU fans about not playing in the ACCG are getting ****ing old. If we win the Coastal we better play in the **** ACC title game.

let's not mitigate sanctions because we can't deal with the fact that we have been awful since 2005. that's great logic. fsu fans really don't have a right to say anything because they haven't won the acc since 05, which just proves how delusional they are. vt fans have all the right in the world to give us **** because they have 4 acc titles. suck it up.

 

[GhostofVenice01]

Alot of the reasonings in this thread sound more like fans just wanting to prove a point were still relevent and good enough to win our conf title, rather than the larger long term effects of years to come

 

[Consigliere]

Alot of the reasonings in this thread sound more like fans just wanting to prove a point were still relevent and good enough to win our conf title, rather than the larger long term effects of years to come

Also, a lot of it (both sides) is/are people who don't have any information on the situation taking a guess (like myself).

This is a hypothetical, people are allowed to give their 2 Cents. Like I said, we don't have any information (at least I don't) and people are all over the place with the sanctions stuff.

I will say this:

1. The NCAA makes it up as they go along

2. There are no sentencing guidelines

3. Stop comparing or distinguishing our facts from those of other schools, same thing with penalties (we did more than OSU but less than UNC).

People don't know and they are guessing. That is really all that it is. If I was privy to more information, I would have a better answer.

 

[Clipse]

Self imposing makes no sense. We're not going to get hit hard enough by the NCAA that it's going to make much of a difference regardless. Oh great we might get 5 schollies less over 3 years if we're lucky. We *might* lose another bowl game, which likely won't be a BCS bowl anyways when we have that opportunity this year. OSU and UNC only got a 1 year bowl ban, so I don't see why we'd feel the need to ban ourselves a 2nd time anyways.

You take the opportunity to get revenge on FSU in the ACCCG and make a BCS bowl, which in turn could make a huge impact on recruiting. It would be incredibly stupid to do otherwise.

 

[dookie blaylock]

Alot of the reasonings in this thread sound more like fans just wanting to prove a point were still relevent and good enough to win our conf title, rather than the larger long term effects of years to come

probably the same people that still think we can build a stadium on campus

 

[GhostofVenice01]

Self imposing makes no sense. We're not going to get hit hard enough by the NCAA that it's going to make much of a difference regardless. Oh great we might get 5 schollies less over 3 years if we're lucky. We *might* lose another bowl game, which likely won't be a BCS bowl anyways when we have that opportunity this year. OSU and UNC only got a 1 year bowl ban, so I don't see why we'd feel the need to ban ourselves a 2nd time anyways.

You take the opportunity to get revenge on FSU in the ACCCG and make a BCS bowl, which in turn could make a huge impact on recruiting. It would be incredibly stupid to do otherwise.

What if they decide to hit us with 2 yrs then? It would be an epic **** up, and then the whole board would be up in arms over why we didnt take it SMH

 

[Clipse]

Self imposing makes no sense. We're not going to get hit hard enough by the NCAA that it's going to make much of a difference regardless. Oh great we might get 5 schollies less over 3 years if we're lucky. We *might* lose another bowl game, which likely won't be a BCS bowl anyways when we have that opportunity this year. OSU and UNC only got a 1 year bowl ban, so I don't see why we'd feel the need to ban ourselves a 2nd time anyways.

You take the opportunity to get revenge on FSU in the ACCCG and make a BCS bowl, which in turn could make a huge impact on recruiting. It would be incredibly stupid to do otherwise.

What if they decide to hit us with 2 yrs then? It would be an epic **** up, and then the whole board would be up in arms over why we didnt take it SMH

USC didn't even get hit with 3 bowl bans so why should I expect us to?