quote:
The NCAA death penalty is what was given to SMU. Two year (or one year) shut down of the program in question. It is basically a twenty year penalty in football, using SMU as a case study. Might not be as bad in basketball, but still really bad.

The current students at UNC don't deserve that.

SMU and the ramifications for the SWC are a terrible example to compare this to.

The situations are different to the point the only comparable thing would be the name of the punishment.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Crowknowsbest

Member since May 2012

25901 posts

Posted on 1/5/15 at 3:11 pm to Dr RC

quote:
SMU and the ramifications for the SWC are a terrible example to compare this to.

Without UNC, UVA, and Duke's desire for the ACC to stay together, the conference is incredibly unstable. Take out one of those and it becomes even more so.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by MedDawg

Member since Dec 2009

4475 posts

Posted on 1/5/15 at 8:00 pm to Dr RC

I agree SMU is a horrible example. They deemphasized football on purpose. A top program (from a bigger school than SMU) that didn't deemphasize their program could come back much quicker.

A 2 year death penalty wouldn't necessarily hurt UNC's basketball program for very long. With just a couple classes they could be back to mid-ACC level. If they had the right coach.

A 2 year death penalty would hurt longer but a top program such as Bama could be back in 5 years or so. If they had the right coach.

Hell, look at Penn State. Extremely tough sanctions and an even bigger stigma and they won 8 games one year and went to/won a bowl this year. They had a top 15 2015 recruiting class before sanctions were removed and are close to the Top 10 now.

0 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board