Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:36 am to gatorsimz
32-13
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:37 am to OPR
quote:
See, that's the thing. It's not even classified. It's just probation. When they really want to screw someone, the NCAA releases it to the media with a title. "Major Probation", "Bowl In-elligible", etc.
"Major probation" is a term used by the CFCA, not the NCAA. The NCAA didn't create the stipulation for the coaches poll, the coaches did that themselves.
While it's left vague, given past behavior, I think it's safe to assume "major probation" means "banned from post-season play". The coaches don't want to risk sending a team to the BCSNCG if that team is barred by the NCAA from playing that game.
This post was edited on 12/15/09 at 10:41 am
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:37 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
32-13
like i said, touchy.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:38 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Then why does the coach's poll only choose to not vote for teams when they are on post season ban? This happened with Auburn in 1993, Cal in 2001, and Alabama in 2002. Are you interpreting their rules for them?
Get that reasonable, rationale and well thought out shite off this board. No one wants that around here.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:40 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Are you interpreting their rules for them?
yes, im attempting to. Considering, i cant find an explanation on the intrawebz and they use terminology that only they use without a definition of the said term.
ETA: Google "Major NCAA Probation"
Any guesses on what comes up?
This post was edited on 12/15/09 at 10:44 am
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:43 am to OPR
quote:
I don't have to go to space to KNOW that there is no gravity. I don't have to go to China to KNOW that the people over there speak Mandarin. I don't have to wreck my car to KNOW that it freakin hurts.
Technically, yes you do. People used to say, "I don't have to sail off the edge of the earth to know that it ends somewhere".
But seriously, do you know the difference between "major probation" and a few kids borrowing extra books for their friends? Look into that and you'll find your answer.
This post was edited on 12/15/09 at 10:48 am
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:43 am to yeanheard
Well, just look at the examples of when they have not voted for teams, that the AP did. I think that pretty much explains when they do, and don't vote for teams. Auburn in 1993, Cal in 2001, and Alabama in 2002 are the most recent examples I can think of. If the NCAA bans a team from the postseason, the coach's poll is not going to vote for them. This is obviously in no way the case for Oklahoma in 2008, or Alabama in 2009. I think that's pretty clear, and the "journalist" who wrote the piece, and the OP, had alternative motives in getting this out there, than simple "interest in the truth".
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:43 am to yeanheard
quote:
yes, im attempting to. Considering, i cant find an explanation on the intrawebz and they use terminology that only they use without a definition of the said term.
Well thanks, Clarence Darrow. Let me be the first to tell you that they don't give a shite what your interpretation is, and if you think for one second that this issue wasn't addressed ad nauseum..you're out of your mind. Do you really think that an organization like the Coaches arse. is going to omit something like this, if it was something valid?
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:45 am to OPR
There’s still no word coming out of Baton Rouge regarding possible NCAA rule violations committed by former assistant DJ McCarthy who “resigned” last week.
Two Fridays ago, The Daily Reveille on the LSU campus reported that a according to a former Tiger football player, McCarthy had paid money to current player Akiem Hicks. McCarthy was the lead recruiter when Hicks came from a junior college in California to Baton Rouge.
That story was quickly pulled from the student paper’s website, an apology was printed, and no other major papers picked up on the payment part of the story.
LSU has said only that they are looking into a possible violation by McCarthy involving a player who was not used in game action this year (Hicks).
They also put together a very detailed resignation agreement that will require McCarthy to fully cooperate with NCAA officials IF he want to be paid through February.
The language in the document certainly makes it sound as though some form of major violation might have taken place. Coaches aren’t fired and documents aren’t drawn up when someone places one too many phone calls to a recruit. You might say that LSU’s reaction so far has been far from “secondary” in nature.
That said, LSU has tried to reveal as little as possible about its probe.
The Baton Rouge Advocate has tried to use open records laws to get its hands on internal documents and emails regarding the investigation, but LSU has balked.
That led The Advocate to post an opinion piece on Sunday that said in part: “LSU’s response is clearly contrary to the spirit of the public records law, and while we are not lawyers, possibly the letter of the law, too.”
We’ll have more as it develops, but with LSU tap-dancing around the subject like Gene Kelly, I wouldn’t count on much more information anytime soon.
LINK
Two Fridays ago, The Daily Reveille on the LSU campus reported that a according to a former Tiger football player, McCarthy had paid money to current player Akiem Hicks. McCarthy was the lead recruiter when Hicks came from a junior college in California to Baton Rouge.
That story was quickly pulled from the student paper’s website, an apology was printed, and no other major papers picked up on the payment part of the story.
LSU has said only that they are looking into a possible violation by McCarthy involving a player who was not used in game action this year (Hicks).
They also put together a very detailed resignation agreement that will require McCarthy to fully cooperate with NCAA officials IF he want to be paid through February.
The language in the document certainly makes it sound as though some form of major violation might have taken place. Coaches aren’t fired and documents aren’t drawn up when someone places one too many phone calls to a recruit. You might say that LSU’s reaction so far has been far from “secondary” in nature.
That said, LSU has tried to reveal as little as possible about its probe.
The Baton Rouge Advocate has tried to use open records laws to get its hands on internal documents and emails regarding the investigation, but LSU has balked.
That led The Advocate to post an opinion piece on Sunday that said in part: “LSU’s response is clearly contrary to the spirit of the public records law, and while we are not lawyers, possibly the letter of the law, too.”
We’ll have more as it develops, but with LSU tap-dancing around the subject like Gene Kelly, I wouldn’t count on much more information anytime soon.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/15/09 at 10:46 am
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:49 am to Alahunter
quote:
Alahunter
quote:
Bama inelligible for BCSCG?
this has what to do with this thread?
oh thats right, fricking nothing.
go to the tiger rant, or just search for one of the 500 threads on that subject.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:50 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Well, just look at the examples of when they have not voted for teams, that the AP did. I think that pretty much explains when they do, and don't vote for teams. Auburn in 1993, Cal in 2001, and Alabama in 2002 are the most recent examples I can think of.
yeah, youre right. they should reword their shite.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:51 am to yeanheard
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:53 am to yeanheard
quote:Easy big fella
yeanheard
Posted on 12/15/09 at 11:05 am to yeanheard
quote:
yeah, youre right. they should reword their shite.
Lets break it down, Justice Cardoza. Since you are attempting to interpret the rules for the organization, let me throw something out there for you to chew on. Post ex facto. While you're researching this, why don't you take a look at that term as well? A precedent is in place e.g. the examples listed by Capstonegrad06. Those are the situations in which it warrants non-receipt of coaches votes. Are you saying you want the Coaches Assoc. to go back and retroactively remove UA from their ballots? While it may be helpful in the future to have an explicit outline of the particular rule, in this instance it is moot. The votes have been cast, and no amount of hand wringing by fans of other schools is going to change that.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 11:44 am to NBamaAlum
quote:
Since you are attempting to interpret the rules for the organization, let me throw something out there for you to chew on. Post ex facto. While you're researching this, why don't you take a look at that term as well?
Sorry, you must've mistaken me for an uneducated 10 year old. You're forgiven. quote:
Are you saying you want the Coaches Assoc. to go back and retroactively remove UA from their ballots?
No, not at all.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 11:53 am to yeanheard
quote:
Sorry, you must've mistaken me for an uneducated 10 year old. You're forgiven.
It is an assumption that is easy to make when one is posting things like this.
quote:
Im really curious as to why the NCAA is completely disregarding the rules in this case.
quote:
its not about bowl elligiblity. its the fact that teams that are on probation are not able to receive Coaches Poll Votes.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 12:13 pm to OPR
I bet this was written by a bitter boog fan.
quote:
I went back to the 10th and looked. I didn't see it posted. Obviously it's crap. Or is it?
Should Alabama be ineligible for the coaches poll, hence out of BCS Championship?
December 10th, 2009 by Vince Mullins
From reader Steve via e-mail, rock solid research and based in fact, but I fear this will likely go the way of the “Barack Obama was not born in the USA so he cannot be President” campaign. But let’s see if we can break down this BC-Mess, shall we? Please forward to your favorite blogs, websites and writers:
It appears that either the USA Today Coaches poll members must re-vote in order to recalculate the final BCS standings, OR The National Football Foundation & College Hall of Fame, Inc. should move up the University Cincinnati’s football team to play the University of Texas football team in the BCS Championship game.
At the bottom of the AFCA page with the Coaches Votes it specifically states:
“The AFCA prohibits coaches from voting for schools on major NCAA probation.”
LINK
And I think it is very clear they are on “major” probation due to a textbook scandal.
LINK
Even though they appealed, the infractions are not set aside per below NCAA Bylaw:
32.10.2 – Determinations of fact and violations arrived at by the Committee on Infractions shall not be set aside on appeal.
LINK
Based on these circumstances, the University of Alabama football team is required receive 0 (zero) points from the USA Today Coaches poll, giving them a recalculated BCS average of 0.6656, thus moving them down to number 8 on the BCS final standings:
LINK
Share the college football love:
* E-mail this story to a friend!
* FriendFeed
* del.icio.us
* Google Bookmarks
Related posts:
1. Oklahoma, Alabama top new AP poll
2. Dez Bryant ineligible for the rest of season
3. Fantasy Top 25 Poll for Week 3
4. Ingram Leads Final HeismanPundit.com Heisman Poll
5. A survey of college coaches by conference
Tags: Alabama Crimson Tide, BCMess, BCS
Leave a Reply
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 12:15 pm to yeanheard
Bama is eligible for the MNC game:
An Auburn fan emailed Bell and that was the response he received: LINK
quote:
Under long-standing AFCA policy a school is inelgible for Coaches' Poll
consideration if it is under "major NCAA probation" that includes any
of the following penalties in a given season:
1. Live television ban
2. Postseason competition ban
3. Loss of 20 percent of total football scholarships
Alabama received none of these penalties from the NCAA as a result of
the investigation you referenced and is therefore eligible to receive
votes in the USA Today/AFCA Coaches' Poll this season.
Thank you for your interest in the AFCA.
Todd Bell
AFCA
Todd Bell
Director of Media Relations
American Football Coaches Association
100 Legends Lane
Waco, Texas 76706
P- 254-754-9900
F- 254-754-7373
E-mail- tbell@afca.com
An Auburn fan emailed Bell and that was the response he received: LINK
Posted on 12/15/09 at 12:18 pm to mre
quote:
An Auburn fan emailed Bell and that was the response he received: LINK
Bwahahahahaha
what IS it with some of these bitter boog fans? Are their lives SO sad that they have to find something bad about Bama to make themselves feel better?
Damn!
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News