it has to do with there being more players involved than players suspended? There were 5 suspended and 7 or 8 involved total (right?) were the other 2 or 3 players just not around when bama found out or did the athl dept just not know they were involved until after they self reported?

Personally I wouldn"t bother with the appeal. The only tough part of the penalty is longer probation and if you guys get your ducks in a row like Mal has promised you have then that shouldn’t be a problem. NO reason to keep dragging it up.

I think the whole reasoning behind the punishment is that the textbook 5 were receiving the benefits, and thus ineligible, before they were suspended. Surely, they weren’t STILL receiving the books/benefits DURING their suspensions, those were merely after-the-fact punitive actions required to (presumably) re-establish their eligibility. To me, the vacated wins are meant to be “punishment” for allowing those players, who were undoubtedly technically ineligible during the time, to play during those seasons. The fact that we did or didn’t know that they were ineligible doesn’t seem to matter—in our case at least, there’s a rule laid down that says “If you play an ineligible player in the game and win, you vacate that victory.”

If this rule were consistently enforced 100% of the time in all cases, I wouldn’t have a problem with it being thus applied in our case. However, it seems that a large number of previous cases have involved ineligible players playing in games that have NOT been vacated. In the case of the Oklahoma jobs, I think that violation was discovered in the off-season before any games were played that year. I’m guessing that OU’s internal investigation “discovered” that the jobs were only held during the off-season. If so, then dismissing the players from the team would be likely viewed as a sufficient reaction/punishment for the violations. It’ll be interesting to see, in future cases, if the NCAA strictly adheres to the rule they’ve established in this case.

The rule they’ve established here seems fair to me, so long as they apply it consistently. However, I may misunderstand this whole situation. If this vacated wins had little to do with the ineligible players actually playing and more to do with the “repeat offender” window or probation or whatever, then that changes the situation.

Dennis’ twin sister. Sometimes referred to as Sweet Dee, she bartends at Paddy’s. In real life her and Mack are actually married.

 Did you know Dennis is from the gump? A buddy of mine had a beer with him in Sinclair’s over Xmas break the xmas right after the show premiered. Said he was a cool guy.