Proposed NCAA Penalty Change

[HateTheWhorns]

The following is a list of schools that are currently under NCAA sanctions that include (or soon will include) bowl bans .....Central Florida, UNC, Oregon, Miami, & Penn St.

In order for a bowl ban to truly be penal in nature (do not insert joke here), shouldn't the ban apply only for years where the school on probation actually qualifies for bowl eligibility? Never understood how a 5-7 school is being penalized when they don't even qualify for a bowl. Miami is proposing a bowl ban for the second year where they may or may not qualify. Just don't understand the logic.

Thoughts?

[mojorisen2014]

No USC?

[SoonerorLater]

Just another example of the disjointed and arbitrary nature of the NCAA. The NCAA needs to go away.

[8timechamps]

The following is a list of schools that are currently under NCAA sanctions that include (or soon will include) bowl bans .....Central Florida, UNC, Oregon, Miami, & Penn St.

In order for a bowl ban to truly be penal in nature (do not insert joke here), shouldn't the ban apply only for years where the school on probation actually qualifies for bowl eligibility? Never understood how a 5-7 school is being penalized when they don't even qualify for a bowl. Miami is proposing a bowl ban for the second year where they may or may not qualify. Just don't understand the logic.

Thoughts?

Yes, that is the logical way of thinking. Unfortunately, the NCAA rules left logic back in the 50's (or whenever they were drawn up). The entire thing needs to be redone.

[BoulderSooner79]

Bowl bans usually accompany other penalties such as scholarships. They usually come with probation too which means an new infraction will invoke stiffer penalties than normal. The post season ban it put in there in case the cheating helped the school to a better record and thus nullify the reward of the cheating. If wouldn't be fair to have a penalty with an unbounded time frame if that's what you are asking.

Miami is just trying to get the NCAA to reduce any coming sanctions by self-imposing. I doubt it will help them much.

[8timechamps]

Bowl bans usually accompany other penalties such as scholarships. They usually come with probation too which means an new infraction will invoke stiffer penalties than normal. The post season ban it put in there in case the cheating helped the school to a better record and thus nullify the reward of the cheating. If wouldn't be fair to have a penalty with an unbounded time frame if that's what you are asking.

Miami is just trying to get the NCAA to reduce any coming sanctions by self-imposing. I doubt it will help them much.

But, if we're talking about what's fair, then you have to look at how penalties are handed down now. The penalties almost always affect a team that had absolutely nothing to do with the infractions in the first place. The penalties are given to hurt/punish the program. Since that's the case, a 2 year bowl ban should be for the 2 years a team actually qualifies for a bowl. Otherwise, it's almost always a pointless penalty. This year's Ohio State excepted.

[Jacie]

But, if we're talking about what's fair, then you have to look at how penalties are handed down now. The penalties almost always affect a team that had absolutely nothing to do with the infractions in the first place. The penalties are given to hurt/punish the program. Since that's the case, a 2 year bowl ban should be for the 2 years a team actually qualifies for a bowl. Otherwise, it's almost always a pointless penalty. This year's Ohio State excepted.

Though there is always a disconnect between the coach/players who committed the infraction(s) and the ones who must pay for them, in a sense, a team's fans would appear to be the target of many NCAA penalties. There is a certain logic to it. If not for pressure from the fans to win, the administration would never have hired the offending coach, broken the rules to recruit the offending player or looked the other way when rules were broken. As for the bowl ban, under your suggestion, a school could conceivably not feel the effect of the penalty for years. One, certainly not all, intention of a bowl ban is to make a school look less attractive to future recruits. If a school does not qualify for a bowl within the penalty time frame, it could be argued that it worked.

[OU_Sooners75]

Why cant those schools that get probation also get a TV ban? What about a significant amount of scholarship reductions. Post season bans for more than 2 years?

Seriously, bowl bans are worthless to be honest.

If a major infraction is done and the NCAA does do punishment for it, then it needs to be worthwhile. Or schools will be like oh well! We will serve it and go right back to doing what we were before being caught.


And that brings up another thing. If any team is found in violation of a major infraction, then the NCAA needs to hold that infraction over their head for at least 10 years. And if the school is found to break any more rules in that time frame, then they get a more severe penalty.

They need to stop with the arbituary judgments and set up a minimal penalty for every institution. And then be arbituary to add more to it if it is deserved.

[BoulderSooner79]

But, if we're talking about what's fair, then you have to look at how penalties are handed down now. The penalties almost always affect a team that had absolutely nothing to do with the infractions in the first place. The penalties are given to hurt/punish the program. Since that's the case, a 2 year bowl ban should be for the 2 years a team actually qualifies for a bowl. Otherwise, it's almost always a pointless penalty. This year's Ohio State excepted.

I just think unbounded penalties would be unfair. If Kansas got a 3 year bowl ban, they might not go to a bowl for many decades. I see bowl bans as more of a boiler plate on top of other penalties - reduced scholarships being the main punishment of choice. Coaches and ADs all understand the value of scholarships. I also think vacated wins has more impact that most people think. That's only true for top programs that care about their legacies, but if they do care - they really care. OU would certainly be a program in that category.

[FirstandGoal]

I have no problem with the current ban rules. I have a question. Do teams that are under current bowl bans receive a BCS ranking?

[OU_Sooners75]

If any team is on probation, includinng a bowl ban, then they are not included in the BCS rankings.

Case in point, PSU and OSU this year.

[FirstandGoal]

If any team is on probation, includinng a bowl ban, then they are not included in the BCS rankings.

Case in point, PSU and OSU this year.


Okay. That's what I was thinking.

[Scott D]

I like the fact that OSU picked this year for their bowl ban when they had the option of making it last season when they knew they were going to be middle of the road suckitude.

[StoopTroup]

The NCAA needs to go away.

Really?

You want to talk about chaos. That's not even close to the answer.

Consistency would be a much better adjustment to begin to help the NCAA efficiently administer penalties, fines and rulings.

[HateTheWhorns]

No USC?

SUC's ban ended last year.

[8timechamps]

Though there is always a disconnect between the coach/players who committed the infraction(s) and the ones who must pay for them, in a sense, a team's fans would appear to be the target of many NCAA penalties. There is a certain logic to it. If not for pressure from the fans to win, the administration would never have hired the offending coach, broken the rules to recruit the offending player or looked the other way when rules were broken. As for the bowl ban, under your suggestion, a school could conceivably not feel the effect of the penalty for years. One, certainly not all, intention of a bowl ban is to make a school look less attractive to future recruits. If a school does not qualify for a bowl within the penalty time frame, it could be argued that it worked.

You do make a pretty good point. I suppose there is some reasoning behind it.

[8timechamps]

Why cant those schools that get probation also get a TV ban? What about a significant amount of scholarship reductions. Post season bans for more than 2 years?

Seriously, bowl bans are worthless to be honest.

If a major infraction is done and the NCAA does do punishment for it, then it needs to be worthwhile. Or schools will be like oh well! We will serve it and go right back to doing what we were before being caught.


And that brings up another thing. If any team is found in violation of a major infraction, then the NCAA needs to hold that infraction over their head for at least 10 years. And if the school is found to break any more rules in that time frame, then they get a more severe penalty.

They need to stop with the arbituary judgments and set up a minimal penalty for every institution. And then be arbituary to add more to it if it is deserved.

The thing is (and this was learned back in the 80s/90s) a TV ban hurts every team that plays the team with the ban. TV revenues and exposure were lost for every team OU played while serving a TV ban. The NCAA decided to do away with the TV ban after that. It makes sense that no other team should be punished for what one team did.

[Scott D]

Besides you don't need a TV ban anymore, ESPN just needs to assign Mike Patrick or Beth Mowins to do the pbp for your game, that's punishment enough.