Discussion in 'Football' started by jkernea, Jul 14, 2011.
Once officially, then again just for öööös and giggles but not a trophy.
I wonder if they thought we didn't have enough time or they didn't think they needed to declare them ineligible and have them quickly reinstated. The sCam Newton case had not yet happened at that time so it wasn't an obvious reference like it is now.
I disagree. It's the BCS that cared so much about the game, not the NCAA. Your post is pure speculation.
Can't the ACC say, based on the collective results of the 2009 football season, that Tech, having only one conference loss, is the de facto winner of the 2009 Championship? The ACCCG never happened, but based on records, we were the best team that season. Like how the Big 10 was doing it.
That would be some really funny öööö.
As mad as everyone is right now, can you imagine if we had beaten ugay in '09 and the NCAA vacated that win too? Talk about chaos......and maybe some death threats for the NCAA.
Shouldn't our loss be vacated as well? Only fair.:wink:
If we kept record the way they do it would.
Was going to post the same thing. It fails the test of logic. I don't care what Auburn did or didn't do.
It is a matter of who is to judge the risk and make the decision, the NCAA or the school. If fault is found afterwards and the school made the decision to take the risk, then the consequences make sense. But if no fault is found (not suspiscion, but fault) then obviously the school made the RIGHT decision.
The NCAA wants the schools to cede the judgement to them on whether a player should be instated, whether they have evidence or not.
In hindsight, we should have made the same deal Auburn did as I am sure they knew he would be reinstated by the NCAA before they ever gave them the option.
Who holds the NCAA accountable for their actions?
Allen, ask Philthy if his leg was never broken inthe game that never happened?
Yes, it is pure speculation. But to say that the NCAA wouldn't care about how their investigation might effect the outcome of the BCS championship is crazy. I'm sure they would have ruled Newton ineligible if they had real evidence in the case. Auburn could have insisted on playing him all along, and the NCAA could sit back and wait however long they wanted to rule him ineligible retrospectively, and hand down penalties on Auburn. That would be easy. Instead, Auburn said based on the investigation, we won't play him. Without a valid case, the NCAA would have looked terrible and lost all credibility as an enforcement agency for influencing the game. The NCAA does not want to put itself in a position of taking an action and then not being able to support it later. If every rumor, accusation or investigation has the effect of disqualifying players before the facts are known, it will become a farce. I believe the NCAA knows this and hopes to avoid any rulings on eligibility prior to completing a 2 year investigation. DR gave them the perfect loophole by allowing them to rule on a procedural error and mostly ignore eligibility. Unfortunately, not many programs can force the NCAA's hand the way Auburn did.
I see what your saying now. I interpreted your first comments as the NCAA being manipulated by Auburn due to financial interest rather than what you just described.
As a follow-up to my previous post, I should point out that, while the NCAA has no interest in ruling on eligibility the week after they start an investigation, they do not seem to be willing to let programs do an internal investigation. This creates the "catch-22" that DR found himself in the week before the UGA game. A rumor about Thomas triggered an NCAA investigation, and Tech was notified with instructions not to pursue the facts themselves. In such a situation, the NCAA ruling will not come for 2 years and the program is unable to evaluate the risk of playing the athlete by conducting their own investigation. With the consequences being what they are, schools will be forced to consider every rumor grounds to sit the involved athlete for at least the rest of the season, pending NCAA judgement. Let the rumors begin!
Sigged. Everyone send a rumor per week.
Someone's not exactly helping matters...
What does that have to do with anything?
Bilbo's name had been swirling around before it surfaced that Booker was the alleged runner. No matter, Bilbo is/was a runner. Just find the timing of it funny, that's all.
Not that it matters who a professional athlete works out with, but I actually feel Bilbo got unfairly treated by the GTAA. He didn't seem to be involved at all, and was surprised that they banned him from Tech.