• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NCAA announces punishment for UNC at 3 pm

HeavyPetter said:
I'd put UNC-CH football at least two rungs below Auburn. UNC-CH football has no caché nationally. NONE. And you left Texas A&M off your list.
Click to expand...

The bolded bit is essentially my point, but put more succinctly.

I left off a couple of teams (TAMU was one of them) in hopes of avoiding an argument about it because it is all beside the point. (mission unaccomplished)
 
Bowl ban? So they won't get to go to the Independence Bowl in Shreveport again this year?
 
BoogityBoogity said:
Bowl ban? So they won't get to go to the Independence Bowl in Shreveport again this year?
Click to expand...


Rumor has it that the punishment may include having to go to the Independence Bowl for the next 5 years.......regardless of their record.
 
Joe Schad
@schadjoe

Will not be surprised if NCAA took additional UNC FB scholarships and issues postseason ban when details released today
 
Guess we should find out in next few minutes, but all indications seem to be 1 year bowl ban and 15-20 scholarships. I'd be okay if that was their punishment because I was afraid they might escape no bowl ban.
 
at the very least, i hope they have to wear this as part of their punishment:

unccheat.jpg
 
So a bowl ban only applies to the next season they're bowl eligible, not just next season, regardless of record, correct? I can see the NCAA making it next season regardless of how a team does in that season.
 
Dekin said:
Rumor has it that the punishment may include having to go to the Independence Bowl for the next 5 years.......regardless of their record.
Click to expand...

The NCAA might order that they have to keep NC State on their schedule 5 more years. Then we all suffer because we have to listen to Wolfpack fans gloat about it.
 
94Deac said:
So a bowl ban only applies to the next season they're bowl eligible, not just next season, regardless of record, correct? I can see the NCAA making it next season regardless of how a team does in that season.
Click to expand...

Eligibility doesn't matter. A 2 year bowl ban would be for the next two years, whether eligible or not. Actually, I believe it's a post-season ban, which includes conference Champ game as well IIRC. Eligibility doesn't matter, or else you could punish a team like Duke when kids are playing that weren't even born when the infraction occurred.
 
Penalties for the case include a one-year postseason ban, reduction of 15 football scholarships, vacation of records and three years probation. The former assistant coach received a three-year show-cause penalty restricting any recruiting activity.


Report is out.
 
Banned from post-season play for 2012, 3 years of probation, reduction in scholarships of 15 over 3 years, vacating of wins in '08 and '09, reprimand and fine.
 
GboroDeac said:
Penalties for the case include a one-year postseason ban, reduction of 15 football scholarships, vacation of records and three years probation. The former assistant coach received a three-year show-cause penalty restricting any recruiting activity.


Report is out.
Click to expand...

Not bad, but could have been worse. 15 schollies seems light given the transgressions.
 
Much worse than UNC indicated was coming, but they still skated IMO. Somewhat surprised that there wasn't 1 more year of bowl ban or one more year of scholarships.
 
89DeaconMike said:
Word on IC premium is that it is worse than they thought.
Click to expand...

Considering they expect that the ncaa will just take away the candy bowl in the lobby at Kenan, then yeah everything's going to be worse than they thought.
 
RacerDeac said:
Eligibility doesn't matter. A 2 year bowl ban would be for the next two years, whether eligible or not. Actually, I believe it's a post-season ban, which includes conference Champ game as well IIRC. Eligibility doesn't matter, or else you could punish a team like Duke when kids are playing that weren't even born when the infraction occurred.
Click to expand...

The problem is that is a like a toothless viper- highly toxic venom, but harmless. And I don't buy the punishment delayed argument because the immediate ban will punish incoming freshman who also weren't involved. You have to punish the program. I realize it's still likely UNC will be some kind of bowl eligible but in general if you want to make the punishment count, you ban only in seasons it matters (i.e. bowl-eligible). Banning post-season for a 5-7 team isn't really punitive. In Duke's case, I doubt they've done much in the way of program violations (football only, of course). If they have, they're doing it wrong.
 
RacerDeac said:
Much worse than UNC indicated was coming, but they still skated IMO. Somewhat surprised that there wasn't 1 more year of bowl ban or one more year of scholarships.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Not the Hammer of Thor that I hoped for, but more than the slap on the wrist that I feared would be the only punishment.
 
94Deac said:
The problem is that is a like a toothless viper- highly toxic venom, but harmless. And I don't buy the punishment delayed argument because the immediate ban will punish incoming freshman who also weren't involved. You have to punish the program. I realize it's still likely UNC will be some kind of bowl eligible but in general if you want to make the punishment count, you ban only in seasons it matters (i.e. bowl-eligible). Banning post-season for a 5-7 team isn't really punitive. In Duke's case, I doubt they've done much in the way of program violations (football only, of course). If they have, they're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

That's why I expected at least a 2 year ban. That still punishes the program. Makes recruiting harder. A 1-year ban is pretty light. Does anyone know whether upper classmen are allowed to transfer as a result of the ban?
 
RacerDeac said:
Much worse than UNC indicated was coming, but they still skated IMO. Somewhat surprised that there wasn't 1 more year of bowl ban or one more year of scholarships.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, was hoping for 2 years and 20+ scholarships. This punishment shouldn't set back program too much, but looks bad for them anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top