Started By
Message
re: Manziel recommendation from NCAA on Wednesday
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:18 am to ChemE in the OP
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:18 am to ChemE in the OP
If I'm A&M, I play him no matter what they say. Vacation doesn't take away the publicity or the money, and A&M isn't winning shite without him, so what's the downside?
10
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:20 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
what's the downside?
Playing a game you cannot win.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:22 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
If I'm A&M, I play him no matter what they say. Vacation doesn't take away the publicity or the money, and A&M isn't winning shite without him, so what's the downside?
The downside if you play him when the NCAA told you what was up beforehand? I would think if you tell the NCAA frick you, then they might decide to do a lot more than just vacate wins. They could slap you with lack of institutional control (i.e., we let our players break the rules, find out about it, and play them anyway with no consequences) which could mean scholarship losses, bowl/playoff bans, etc. There is a definite possible downside.
This post was edited on 8/27/13 at 8:23 am
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:23 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
If I'm A&M, I play him no matter what they say. Vacation doesn't take away the publicity or the money, and A&M isn't winning shite without him, so what's the downside?
It's either lose 5 games without him or make money on a vacated season. They gon' take da money...
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:24 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
so what's the downside?
Forefiture of those games, scolly reductions, and a host of other penalties,
Bama played that same game and didn't work out so well
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:24 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
If I'm A&M, I play him no matter what they say. Vacation doesn't take away the publicity or the money, and A&M isn't winning shite without him, so what's the downside?
I agree. The concept of vacated wins is bogus anyway.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 8:50 am to PrivatePublic
The down side is that if they recommend he sits and he does not then they could hit them harder in the end?* #amiwrong?
Posted on 8/27/13 at 9:45 am to PrivatePublic
That worked out real good for Bama in 1993 didn't it ?
3 years probation , 30 scholarship reductions all for a kid taking 200 dollars from an agent , then telling his coach he didn't take it.
3 years probation , 30 scholarship reductions all for a kid taking 200 dollars from an agent , then telling his coach he didn't take it.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 10:18 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
If I'm A&M, I play him no matter what they say. Vacation doesn't take away the publicity or the money, and A&M isn't winning shite without him, so what's the downside?
I reluctantly agree with this.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 1:03 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Vacation doesn't take away the publicity or the money, and A&M isn't winning shite without him, so what's the downside?
Vacation during the season could cost them the opportunity to go to any bowl at all, and yeah, to have to forego even an appearance in the chicken sandwich bowl would be a serious kick in the nuts, financially speaking.
Posted on 8/27/13 at 3:00 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
so what's the downside?
To blatantly ignoring the recommendation? Sanctions. Probation. Bowl bans. Scholarship losses.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News