Self-Imposed Bowl Ban

CanesAreAble

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
8,414
Found guilty of what, though? Going to Benihanna for free? Only three guys received multi game suspensions, and that's hardly enough for a bowl ban. USC got nailed becaue Bush and family took a lot more than that, and SC didn't try to investigate despite numerous red flags.

Plus SC's compliance department was virtually non-existent. They had agents on the sideline, and in the locker room.
 

DiegoCane

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
8,818
I don't understand what you guys don't get. We have already been found guilty when they suspended 8 players.
So we are going to get major sanctions over $3700 spread out over 8 players? Boise St had more free "benefits" then that and got 9 loss of scholarships over 3 years.
 

Hurrisaints

Recruit
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
44
If we impose a bowl ban it could also help in the loss of future scholarships and sanctions. It sucks I know it does but if they can only prove some stuff that would make us loose scholarships or probation a self-imposed bowl ban may reduce the chance of those being as serious.
 

HulkaCaniac

Cheeseburger football.
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
8,302
I think this was planned all along. I think they were advised by the NCAA to suspend the players and then not accept a bowl bid. And UM kept the second part hush hush. Way I look at it, nobody really thought the team was going to go to a big time bowl game. And I could care less to see the Canes playing on the smurf turf.
 

DiegoCane

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
8,818
Must have heard from the NCAA. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Hopefully we get this out of the way, lose maybe 10 scholarships over the next 3 years and we are set. One time.
 

Larry

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
13,600
I can not imagine us self imposing a bowl ban unless we have a good idea that'd be one of the punishments levied by the NCAA.

I don't mind taking the hit this year, even if we "skate", if it means we don't get hit with significant scholly reductions (something that causes real damage to the football program).

The conference and school doesn't get a couple of bucks, losing the extra practice time, and the players don't get crappy gift bags.
 

CaniacMike21

Senior
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
3,499
How many teams have self-imposed bowl bans in the past? What did their sanctions end up being?
 

DiegoCane

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
8,818
According to all reports we've been as cooperative as possible with the NCAA. I'm sure they have a decent sense that a bowl ban is probably apart of the sanctions otherwise I don't see any reason to do it.

My question is, why did Boise St get off so easy?
 

CaneDaddy

All-American
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
11,140
Good and bad news.
Good news: Obviously the NCAA advised us to do this to hopefully reduce future penalties.
Bad news: We are going to have future penalties.
 

Problem2

All-American
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
12,837
#UM Al Golden "It wasn't my decision but I do agree with it 100%."
3 minutes ago

#UM Al Golden "As a program we feel like we're starting to pay our debt here and that's why I think its a good decision."
1 minute ago

RT @sgorten: Eichorst on Coach Al Golden: "I plan on working side by side with him for a long, long time"
2 minutes ago

RT @allCanesBlog: Al Golden on his future : " I don't have any decisions to make." #fb
4 minutes ago

RT @LinderWQAM: #UM Al Golden "Our seniors will take the approach that they can take this (bowl) game but they can't take our unity and our toughness."
4 minutes ago
 

DiegoCane

All-ACC
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
8,818
Good and bad news.
Good news: Obviously the NCAA advised us to do this to hopefully reduce future penalties.
Bad news: We are going to have future penalties.
I'm pretty sure there isn't a single person that didn't already know this.
 
Top