NCAA Ruling Prediction Thread
Obviously all the talk this afternoon is about the pending announcement of the NCAA ruling in the textbook case. We've already got some predictions going in the other thread, so let's consolidate here. Just post in the comments your predictions of what the sanctions will be.
5 months ago
outsidethesidelines
48 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
F-bomb even mentioned...
vacating wins…does anyone think that is really going to happen???
by RammerJammer23 on Jun 10, 2009 3:39 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I
hope not considering we suspended the players involved as soon as it was discovered but I don’t know how far back this thing goes. Who knows?
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jun 10, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That (“we suspended them as soon as we knew”) is precisely FSU’s defense against its academic fraud scandal, and it hasn’t worked so far. Vacated wins are absolutely a possibility based on that precedent, but that line of thinking assumes that NCAA precedent is actually worth something.
Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog
by Year2 on Jun 10, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
FSU...
Well, with FSU, I think the reason that the NCAA is hitting them so hard on the vacated wins is because they know FSU values that highest, even more than keeping scholarships. You know as well as I do that the FSU administration would gladly accept greater scholarship hits just to get the vacated wins back.
I do not think, in terms of precedential value, that the FSU case really stands for anything. That’s not to say that the NCAA won’t vacate some of our wins, nor does it mean that they will not deny our appeal, but I don’t think the FSU precedent has any relevance. That whole case just screams extraordinary circumstances.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 10, 2009 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vacating wins sounds a lot more likely than forfeiting games as some people below are speculating.
I know that there’s a lot of difference between the FSU and Bama cases. My only point was "we suspended them as soon as we knew" is not guaranteed to save a program from vacating wins if that penalty comes to pass. I should have been more precise the first time.
Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog
by Year2 on Jun 10, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but...
… admittedly the argument worked for OU, and what they were accused of was a hell of a lot worse than what we were.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 10, 2009 11:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't think that's possible
Vacated wins come from players playing while ineligible.
Ineligibility from extra benefits starts when the school learns of the benefit.
If the reports are to be believed, UA suspended the football players involved as soon as they learned of the issue.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 10, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I
have heard everything from 2 to 9 schollies so I’m staying in the middle.
I’ll say 5 over 2 years.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jun 10, 2009 3:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I meant for football...
because I really don’t care if they slam track. It sucks, but, it’s just not that important to me.
Maybe a few years more probation. no scholly’s lost
by BamaDixi on Jun 10, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say the NCAA
apologies for being unfairly hard on Alabama….removes the sanctions from earlier the the decades, adds one more NC to our record (just cause) and puts the barn on probation due to the fact that we as bama fans had to endure 8 years of “Tubbs is the bestest!”….
keep those fingers crossed…
‘When you build a house and you make it hurricane-proof by putting certain kinds of windows in it, and use cement instead of stick construction and all that kind of stuff, you’re getting prepared for what? A hurricane that may or may never every come." ’We’re going to have 12 hurricanes next year, we know they’re coming.’
- Coach Nick Saban
by bammer on Jun 10, 2009 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna go with OTS, but a little harsher
2 scholarships in each of the next two seasons and a five-year extension of probation.
by rugman11 on Jun 10, 2009 3:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I am gonna go with
2 over two yrs (2 total) extend the repeat offender window 5yrs.
Auburn fans are like slinkys... not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
by IHC800 on Jun 10, 2009 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Point of Information
Probation is not the same as the repeat-offender window, and they are not related.
The repeat-offender window is always (and only) five years.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 10, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 for two years, making it six
"What's got two thumbs and loves boobs? THIS GUY!"
by Wallacewade04 on Jun 10, 2009 4:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
oh and the hat
a ki…ke…kiosk? “Dude with the cart” that can stitch words and stuff on anything you want. The original picture has a girl next to me who has a hat that says something…a little more vulgar about tennessee
GOD EVERYWHERE I LOOK THERE ARE A MILLION PEOPLE WITH “SOURCES” WITH A MILLION DIFFERENT ANSWERS
*head about to explodes
"What's got two thumbs and loves boobs? THIS GUY!"
by Wallacewade04 on Jun 10, 2009 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've thought about it some more...
… and I’ll be honest, things just aren’t adding up for there to be any major sanctions. I’ll revise my earlier prediction, and I’ll go with this one as a finalized prediction:
- Zero scholarships lost in football
- Three years probation
- Relatively harsh penalties in track and the other sports programs
Maybe I’m just being too optimistic here and being a bit of a homer, but this is kind of my take. Again, it’s just not adding up for there to be any real, major sanctions. When you look at recruiting and everything else, it just comes off as a non-issue. I think the NCAA essentially comes down hard on the programs who were really driving this, but they let the football team slide for now. The three years probation, though, I think comes with a pretty damn staunch warning. We’ll just have to see how the wording of the ruling is, but I fully expect that with the three-year probation that the NCAA just is just double-dog-daring us to screw up again.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 10, 2009 4:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't get it?
Why is it automatically assumed that the football program bears the brunt? I know there were a few football players mentioned by name, but was anybody named specifically from other sports? Roll Damn Tide anyway. Cut our shcollies in half and we’ll still beat Lame Kitten or the Barn:)
by rolltidefromaz on Jun 10, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you really think change could be evoked via any others means?
Alabama is a “football” school, if the do not punish football they basically did nothing.
If womens track and womens tennis got the death penalty, would you give a damn?
I’ll answer that: HELL NO!
They gotta hit us where it hurts, the football team (aka the wallet, aka the cash…cow) or they would have no assurance that we would do anything to change our ways.
Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. - Paul W. "Bear" Bryant
by TheRedTideConsumes on Jun 10, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah...
…double secret probation is my guess
Offense sells tickets. Defense wins games. - Paul W. "Bear" Bryant
by TheRedTideConsumes on Jun 10, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What
about the “repeat offender” status? Maybe Pete can chime in on that since he has obviously studied the rule book.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
by Bens4vcobra on Jun 10, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ask and you shall receive.
19.5.2.3 Repeat Violators.To summarize, a “repeat violator” is not one who commits a violation while on probation, as is commonly believed. A “repeat violator” is an institution found to have commited a major infraction within five years of the start of another major infraction’s penalty. So it doesn’t matter when the first infraction happened, only when the penalty for it started. In this case, we’re talking about the 2007 textbook scandal and the 2002 infractions.
19.5.2.3.1 Time Period. An institution shall be considered a “repeat” violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case. It shall not be necessary that the Committee on Infractions’ hearing be conducted or its report issued within the five-year period. (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97)
19.5.2.3.2 Repeat-Violator Penalties. In addition to the penalties identified for a major violation, the minimum penalty for a repeat violator, subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions on the basis of specifically stated reasons, may include any or all of the following: (Revised: 1/11/94)
- a)The prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for one or two sports seasons and the prohibition of all coaching staff members in that sport from involvement directly or indirectly in any coaching activities at the institution during that period;
- b)The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid and all recruiting activities in the sport involved in the latest major violation in question for a two-year period;
- c)The requirement that all institutional staff members serving on the Board of Directors, Leadership Council, Legislative Council or other cabinets or committees of the Association resign those positions, it being understood that all institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any NCAA committee for a period of four years; and (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
- d)The requirement that the institution relinquish its voting privilege in the Association for a four-year period.
Even assuming they find football to have committed a major infraction here, the penalty enhancements for repeat violators are too stiff to actually get used here: a) Death Penalty, b) Total scholarship ban, c) NCAA Administrative Ban, c) NCAA Voting Ban.
I don’t think we’re going to see enhanced penalties from being a repeat offender, at least in football. That said, I agree that football will probably lose scholarships because that’s the most visible sport.
by PeteHoliday on Jun 10, 2009 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m going with no scholarships lost for football and 2 years probation.
by brandonh on Jun 10, 2009 4:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
DEAR GOD
Ill take it
http://alabama.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=954161
"What's got two thumbs and loves boobs? THIS GUY!"
by Wallacewade04 on Jun 10, 2009 6:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Staggered penalties...and they will be harsh
Forfeiture; 6 schollies 3-2-1, three years probation.
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 10, 2009 6:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Allright
I hate to be that guy, but supposedly somebody “in the know” says we’ll be losing very few scholarships (like 1-2 for 2-3 years) or maybe not even lose any scholarships at all, but we’ll be vacating some wins from 2005-2006. Also, we of course be back on probation, probably for 3 years.
by Bobby Briggs on Jun 10, 2009 6:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i think we are overlooking the most important quesstion here...
are we supposed to wear our lucky gameday gear tomorrow or not?
by kleph on Jun 10, 2009 6:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd do it
But I have to do actual work all weekend, not just looking at my web browser until its time to go home.
by Bobby Briggs on Jun 10, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BOL is convinced on vacated wins...
… and they may be right. That seems ripe for appeal, though.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 10, 2009 8:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If it’s just vacated wins, it’s a victory. Schollies is what I’m concerned with, and if they’re not cutting into those then we’re fine, IMO.
by cjbama on Jun 10, 2009 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rapport's Words:
http://blog.al.com/rapsheet/2009/06/ncaa_to_force_alabama_to_vacat.html:
TUSCALOOSA — The NCAA will announce Thursday that the Alabama football team must vacate all wins in 2006 and 2007 that included players involved in violations of textbook disbursement policy, a person with knowledge of the ruling said.
That number is about 10, another source said. Alabama will not have to give up its 2007 win over Tennessee or its bowl win that season.
The ruling, which will be announced to the public Thursday, also includes the NCAA placing Alabama on three more years of probation, and Alabama will pay a fine.
The penalties do not include scholarship losses for football, the sources said.
Several other sports received more significant penalties than the football program, including vacating individual records, the sources said.
UA officials were informed of the ruling on Wednesday, but NCAA rules prohibit them from speaking publicly about it.
by brandonh on Jun 10, 2009 8:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
So if this is true...
OTS wins and we must now refer to him as “Lord” and “Your Majesty.”
by brandonh on Jun 10, 2009 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Technically...
….you should be calling him that already. It’s through his infinite patience and mercy that you all haven’t been smote for your insolence so far.
by Todd on Jun 10, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"haven't been smote"
I like the southerness of your medievalness.
I bleed crimson and white...I puke Vol puke orange. RTR
by SugarBowl93 on Jun 10, 2009 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting if true...
….“vacating” wins sucks, but everyone involved knows who won those games no matter what the official NCAA record book states, and if it doesn’t mean a loss in scholarships, then I am all for it.
by Todd on Jun 10, 2009 9:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Does the recruiting class of ‘10 care about a forfeited 41-38 win over Arkansas that happened when they were in the 9th-10th grade? DIdn’t think so.
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 10, 2009 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So...
…do we have to go back in time and not play Oklahoma State at all?
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 10, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And...
…does FSU get to keep its win vs. Bama in 2007? Since we’re both in trouble, is it a tie?
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 10, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That game never happened...
… and what happens now with the inside trout?
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 10, 2009 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The inside trout lives on...
But, the official record book now would indicate that the Iron Bowl was given to Auburn 05-07 via forfeit :)
I just won a t-shirt tearing contest against the Tennessee coaching staff
by Stuck in the Plains on Jun 11, 2009 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NCAA...
…gave them at least five of those six wins to begin with, so they can record them however they like (and yes, I knowed you was jokin’).
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jun 11, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If all that is involved is the wins
then I’m ok with it because of those 10 wins there is not one significant win. The only thing it hurts is our standing in all time NCAA wins, and all time winning percentage, which I think are about 5th in each category.
If they do take our wins maybe they take about 20 from USC.
Nevertheless I look for us to lose at least 6 scholly’s over time.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
by 5026 on Jun 10, 2009 9:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
