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

[CanesAreAble]

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

If it's a no-brainer, then it should've been done BEFORE the season. Period.

Ohio State* doesn't seem unmotivated this season. How would it look if they imposed a bowl ban when they were 10-0 or something like that?

If we were REALLY trying to get out in front of this thing with recruits, then we should've self-imposed TWO bans last November. Right?

 

[dookie blaylock]

the testimony happened in december 2011. we self-imposed in november. the school knew of the allegations, but there was no solid corroboration until he testified.

The school already knew there was truth to the allegations. We had players missing games and making restitution, so Allen's testimony wasn't earth-shattering.

My point remains the same with regard to what we've been telling recruits.

and my point is that the advantage of plausible deniability goes out the window when someone confirms that it happened. "some truth" turns into "more truth" and that has to be taken into account. when speculation turns into confirmation, the game changes.

Plausible deniability went out the window when players got suspended and paid back money.

Do you think we started telling recruits, "Ay, we might get hammered now that the Pee Wee Allen article came out."

suspensions and paybacks don't cover players that already graduated. statute of limitations goes back 4 years. that includes calais, gooden, wright, franklin, cooper, farquharson, shields, and whoever else was on rosters between 2007 and 2011. even though a bunch of allegations are flimsy, if allen confirmed those, then it factors in. all of those had plausible deniability for violations that couldn't be proven without sworn testimony that is public record or an interview with investigators.

 

[CanesAreAble]

the testimony happened in december 2011. we self-imposed in november. the school knew of the allegations, but there was no solid corroboration until he testified.

The school already knew there was truth to the allegations. We had players missing games and making restitution, so Allen's testimony wasn't earth-shattering.

My point remains the same with regard to what we've been telling recruits.

and my point is that the advantage of plausible deniability goes out the window when someone confirms that it happened. "some truth" turns into "more truth" and that has to be taken into account. when speculation turns into confirmation, the game changes.

Plausible deniability went out the window when players got suspended and paid back money.

Do you think we started telling recruits, "Ay, we might get hammered now that the Pee Wee Allen article came out."

suspensions and paybacks don't cover players that could be implicated that already graduated. statute of limitations goes back 4 years. that includes calais, gooden, wright, franklin, cooper, farquharson, shields, and whoever else was on rosters between 2007 and 2011. even though a bunch of allegations are flimsy, if allen confirmed those, then it factors in. all of those had plausible deniability for violations that couldn't be proven without sworn testimony that is public record or an interview with investigators.

But how does that change the message to recruits?

I'm trying to put myself in Al Golden's shoes. What has he been selling to recruits?

 

[Canesfan1899]

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

Excellent points, take our medicine now so we can hopefully move forward with the idea that post season bans are over. If anything that should help with the 2013 recruitng class as they know they will be elgible to play in bowl game every year they are on campus.

 

[bomb]

This is insane. OF COURSE you take the ban now. And if you can win the Coastal and give up a third post season game, you do that too.

How do some folks not get it? This is ALL about recruiting. That's what's at stake. Dropping games this year, means you can tell recruits NOW that this doesn't affect them and you don't lose kids.

And whether you self-impose or the NCAA imposes their penalties, you've already given up 2-3 post season games and the associated revenues, which might help reduce scholarship reductions, which again, is everything.

This is about 200 feet beyond a no brainer.

As I said pre season, the only thing that matters this year is to get to 6 wins or better, and give recruits something to get excited about for the future.

This is not a "NO BRAINER." No disrespect but we know NOTHING about the investigation and the progress/sanctions etc.

Recruiting seems to be doing well, we did incredible last year and we have the same information as last year (no clue when sanctions are coming). This class seems to be holding strong and we will see soon how well we are really doing on NSD>

I trust Mike Glazier, I don't think the school will impose at the moment. We will see, no school has ever given themselves 2 self-imposed bowl bans.

We will see, no need to say its a no brainer when the fans are being asked a serious question without any information.

That's fair, if for some reason we think we are going to get a slap on the wrist, I agree, but everything I have heard says that's highly unlikely.

As far as historic bowl bans go, I think many teams would have happily self-imposed 2 years of bans if they could mitigate their scholarship losses, and to be frank, because we took one quick last year, the 2012 class figured it was behind them. If we has taken 2 years off the bat, we might have lost a few kids last year. If you take the 2nd now, the 2013 class KNOWS they won't be missing any bowls, and they are the kids making decisions about their future right now.

 

[dookie blaylock]

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

If it's a no-brainer, then it should've been done BEFORE the season. Period.

Ohio State* doesn't seem unmotivated this season. How would it look if they imposed a bowl ban when they were 10-0 or something like that?

If we were REALLY trying to get out in front of this thing with recruits, then we should've self-imposed TWO bans last November. Right?

ohio state didn't self-impose a bowl ban. they went 6-6 and played in the gator bowl. the ncaa didn't like it and slapped them with a bowl ban because gene smith harped on how unnecessary a bowl ban is. now they're 10-0 and ineligible for the postseason.

 

[dookie blaylock]

The school already knew there was truth to the allegations. We had players missing games and making restitution, so Allen's testimony wasn't earth-shattering.

My point remains the same with regard to what we've been telling recruits.

and my point is that the advantage of plausible deniability goes out the window when someone confirms that it happened. "some truth" turns into "more truth" and that has to be taken into account. when speculation turns into confirmation, the game changes.

Plausible deniability went out the window when players got suspended and paid back money.

Do you think we started telling recruits, "Ay, we might get hammered now that the Pee Wee Allen article came out."

suspensions and paybacks don't cover players that could be implicated that already graduated. statute of limitations goes back 4 years. that includes calais, gooden, wright, franklin, cooper, farquharson, shields, and whoever else was on rosters between 2007 and 2011. even though a bunch of allegations are flimsy, if allen confirmed those, then it factors in. all of those had plausible deniability for violations that couldn't be proven without sworn testimony that is public record or an interview with investigators.

But how does that change the message to recruits?

I'm trying to put myself in Al Golden's shoes. What has he been selling to recruits?

if it happens, he'd probably sell that there's no way the ncaa gives us a third year if we give one up this year and that self-imposing is assurance that anything handed down will have minimal effects on how we go from here on out.

 

[UMJer026]

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

If it's a no-brainer, then it should've been done BEFORE the season. Period.

Ohio State* doesn't seem unmotivated this season. How would it look if they imposed a bowl ban when they were 10-0 or something like that?

If we were REALLY trying to get out in front of this thing with recruits, then we should've self-imposed TWO bans last November. Right?

I can't agree with any of that. Like I said, you don't self-impose two years in advance because then you risk losing the team for that period, AND you really cast a dark cloud over the future of your program. For example, announcing a self-imposed two year ban in 2011 could have detrimentally impacted the 2012 class. Similarly, imposing a self-imposed ban for this year and next (if we know we are getting three) wouldn't make sense, as we'd scare off some of the 2013 kids.

Ohio State is a GREAT example. Had they self-imposed last year and sat out their bowl, they'd be contending for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (!!!!!) this year. Instead, they chose to reward their guys for their 6-win season with a trip to sunny Tampa, and now, sitting at 10-0, they've got nothing to look forward to this year. Don't you think they'd trade in last year's bowl appearance for post-season eligibility this year?

 

[bomb]

I see your point but totally disagree from the recruits that I have talked to over the last 10 years and seen gone elsewhere when a university is in trouble. There is no need to be ****y and go play a game we don't belong in. ****iness gets a university nowhere! Ask USC! Be proactive and acknowledge that we have make mistakes and we are making an effort to move forward.

Then why not self-impose at the beginning of the season?

Playing in the bowl game isn't a sign of ****iness. SC's problems were different. Their main problem was they had a one-man compliance department for a certain period of time. Their monitoring protocols were a joke.

Why WOULD you? Why not wait and gather as much info as possible?

And btw, there is PRECEDENCE. You may recall less than a year ago we announced we were forgoing a bowl appearance 48 hours after our 6th win.

And as far as kids missing one bowl as a freshman, **** straight it matters to them. Just look at 10 years of quotes from these kids.

 

[bomb]

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

Esto.

 

[cane305]

To recap:

Apparently it is more likely that we will reach the ACC championship next year then this year when we are just one win against duke away.

 

[bomb]

To recap:

Apparently it is more likely that we will reach the ACC championship next year then this year when we are just one win against duke away.

Terrible spin. We're not trying to sacrifice future years to win the Coastal now at 7-5. We're not Duke. We're trying to get our program back to longterm championship contention, year in and year out. We're ******* Canes for gods sake.

 

[cane305]

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

 

[dookie blaylock]

To recap:

Apparently it is more likely that we will reach the ACC championship next year then this year when we are just one win against duke away.

what you're saying is that it's better to go to the acc championship game with a crappy team where we will likely lose to florida state (who we are competing with for top recruits), play in a sh*t bowl game, lose out on the opportunity to give ourselves a postseason ban to mitigate incoming sanctions, and potentially f*ck our chances at a quality bowl next year when the team will be better. am i getting that right?

 

[dookie blaylock]

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.

 

[CanesAreAble]

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

If it's a no-brainer, then it should've been done BEFORE the season. Period.

Ohio State* doesn't seem unmotivated this season. How would it look if they imposed a bowl ban when they were 10-0 or something like that?

If we were REALLY trying to get out in front of this thing with recruits, then we should've self-imposed TWO bans last November. Right?

ohio state didn't self-impose a bowl ban. they went 6-6 and played in the gator bowl. the ncaa didn't like it and slapped them with a bowl ban because gene smith harped on how unnecessary a bowl ban is. now they're 10-0 and ineligible for the postseason.

I understand they didn't self-impose. I was making the point that not being bowl-eligibile from the beginning of the season didn't kill morale.

and my point is that the advantage of plausible deniability goes out the window when someone confirms that it happened. "some truth" turns into "more truth" and that has to be taken into account. when speculation turns into confirmation, the game changes.

Plausible deniability went out the window when players got suspended and paid back money.

Do you think we started telling recruits, "Ay, we might get hammered now that the Pee Wee Allen article came out."

suspensions and paybacks don't cover players that could be implicated that already graduated. statute of limitations goes back 4 years. that includes calais, gooden, wright, franklin, cooper, farquharson, shields, and whoever else was on rosters between 2007 and 2011. even though a bunch of allegations are flimsy, if allen confirmed those, then it factors in. all of those had plausible deniability for violations that couldn't be proven without sworn testimony that is public record or an interview with investigators.

But how does that change the message to recruits?

I'm trying to put myself in Al Golden's shoes. What has he been selling to recruits?

if it happens, he'd probably sell that there's no way the ncaa gives us a third year if we give one up this year and that self-imposing is assurance that anything handed down will have minimal effects on how we go from here on out.

So have we been telling recruits that all year? That we're going to forgo a bowl this year?

I am honestly stunned at the positions people I consider bright are taking on this. This is an absolute NO BRAINER -- you try to get the sanctions out of the way NOW, so that you can MOVE ON, get past them, and continue to build the program. What is the benefit of not self-imposing? To reward 5 seniors for their tenure here? God bless those kids and the number of hours they've put into this program, but 5 seniors are not bigger than the overall direction of the program. To be frank, it's not even close.

As for the timing of it all, you can't self-impose mid-season, as you'd risk losing your team at that point. You do it as close to the end of the season as possible, ideally right before the last game, so that the seniors at least know it's their last game. I wouldn't worry about players not trusting Golden or thinking the staff mislead them. You have the decision come from the top, from the **** President herself.

With regard to it blowing up the 2013 class, I couldn't disagree more. This is already something that is on every recruit's mind. To pretend it's not an issue or that the worst is somehow behind us (despite no punishment having been rendered!!) is to deny reality. We know we are going to get hammered. Recruits know it. Rivals know it. Everyone knows it, except, apparently, some of our fans.

If it's a no-brainer, then it should've been done BEFORE the season. Period.

Ohio State* doesn't seem unmotivated this season. How would it look if they imposed a bowl ban when they were 10-0 or something like that?

If we were REALLY trying to get out in front of this thing with recruits, then we should've self-imposed TWO bans last November. Right?

I can't agree with any of that. Like I said, you don't self-impose two years in advance because then you risk losing the team for that period, AND you really cast a dark cloud over the future of your program. For example, announcing a self-imposed two year ban in 2011 could have detrimentally impacted the 2012 class. Similarly, imposing a self-imposed ban for this year and next (if we know we are getting three) wouldn't make sense, as we'd scare off some of the 2013 kids.

Ohio State is a GREAT example. Had they self-imposed last year and sat out their bowl, they'd be contending for the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP (!!!!!) this year. Instead, they chose to reward their guys for their 6-win season with a trip to sunny Tampa, and now, sitting at 10-0, they've got nothing to look forward to this year. Don't you think they'd trade in last year's bowl appearance for post-season eligibility this year?

See, I think self-imposing out of the blue casts a dark cloud. There's all kinds of nonsense being floated out there. You had anchors on TV saying we "should" or "could" get the death penalty. I think self-imposing again muddles the message to recruits.

Ohio State* should've sat out a bowl, but the point I was making is their morale wasn't broken for this season.

I don't believe the NCAA hits us with a second bowl ban.

I see your point but totally disagree from the recruits that I have talked to over the last 10 years and seen gone elsewhere when a university is in trouble. There is no need to be ****y and go play a game we don't belong in. ****iness gets a university nowhere! Ask USC! Be proactive and acknowledge that we have make mistakes and we are making an effort to move forward.

Then why not self-impose at the beginning of the season?

Playing in the bowl game isn't a sign of ****iness. SC's problems were different. Their main problem was they had a one-man compliance department for a certain period of time. Their monitoring protocols were a joke.

Why WOULD you? Why not wait and gather as much info as possible?

And btw, there is PRECEDENCE. You may recall less than a year ago we announced we were forgoing a bowl appearance 48 hours after our 6th win.

And as far as kids missing one bowl as a freshman, **** straight it matters to them. Just look at 10 years of quotes from these kids.

You self-impose at the beginning of the year so you're not betraying players and recruits who expected Miami to play in a bowl game. Golden is selling these guys on winning the Coastal and playing for the ACC championship game. "My bad, guys. We ain't going to Charlotte."

As for freshmen playing in bowl games, it didn't derail USC's recruiting because all the cards were on the table.

 

[cane305]

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

 

[LuCane]

I can tell you it'll matter more to Alex Collins if he misses a bowl game next year than if we miss our 2nd bowl game this year.

 

[UMJer026]

If you don't think we're getting a second bowl ban, then that obviously changes the risk calculus. Personally, I don't think there is any way we don't get a second bowl ban, and I think a third is a very realistic possibility.

With regard to what Golden is selling recruits, I don't think the message changes. In fact, I think it gets bolstered by the certainty of being one step closer to getting out from underneath the looming spectre of sanctions.

 

[Bigtip]

You self-impose at the beginning of the year so you're not betraying players and recruits who expected Miami to play in a bowl game. Golden is selling these guys on winning the Coastal and playing for the ACC championship game. "My bad, guys. We ain't going to Charlotte."


^^^this is the whole story. there is ZERO chance of us self imposing after clinching the coastal. sorry