PonyFans.com

What's up with that? I guess they care more about the country club sport players than the basketball players. In all seriousness they should have appealed both imo.

THAT is incredible.

What part of "the NCAA penalty structure mandates at minimum a one-year post-season ban for the level of misconduct that occurred" do you not understand?

mr. pony wrote:THAT is incredible.

While I may not agree with you most of the time I certainly do this time.

the golf issues were not a Tier 1 issue (academic fraud). They will say there is a good chance to win that one, whereas basketball was not likely to get overturned. They are misreading the likelihood of basketball being overturned because the penalty is too severe - which is on the list or reasons you can appeal. The NCAA wanted us to do so, with the moneybags programs waiting in the wings. We missed our chance and it was right in front of us,

Really disappointed in this decision.

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:What part of "the NCAA penalty structure mandates at minimum a one-year post-season ban for the level of misconduct that occurred" do you not understand?

They could have appealed and at least gotten it delayed until next year. Do you not understand.

That could really hurt recruiting for the future. I would have wanted a quick decision.

recruiting is already hurt for the future. We just passed on the only thing good we could have gotten out of this.

It would not have hurt the future if the ban were delayed until next year. Most of the high caliber players have already committed in the 2016 class and with the recruiting restrictions the coaches will not be able to go see a lot of players until 2017 anyway. Bad move for the school to not at least fight for the seniors that put them in this situation anyway.

We are the Tina Turner to the NCAA's Ike. Really thought we would fight

Rebel10 wrote:

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:What part of "the NCAA penalty structure mandates at minimum a one-year post-season ban for the level of misconduct that occurred" do you not understand?

They could have appealed and at least gotten it delayed until next year. Do you not understand.

Not if the NCAA instantly rejected that part of the appeal on their bylaws.

Once again, I think it's a [deleted] rule and I don't even know if Turner is telling the truth, but there is an explicit reason why we are not appealing the postseason ban.

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:

DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:What part of "the NCAA penalty structure mandates at minimum a one-year post-season ban for the level of misconduct that occurred" do you not understand?

They could have appealed and at least gotten it delayed until next year. Do you not understand.

Not if the NCAA instantly rejected that part of the appeal on their bylaws.

Once again, I think it's a [deleted] rule and I don't even know if Turner is telling the truth, but there is an explicit reason why we are not appealing the postseason ban.

Point being the appeal process is lengthy. All they need was time to go the tournament. Don't think there has ever been a time where the NCAA has rejected anything instantly. And if they instantly rejected it we would know before post season you idiot. Either way it was a bad decision not to try.

There were 4 level I penalties. Level I penalties contain a minimum one year post-season ban. We would have to have overturned 4 rulings.

They probably could have rejected this before December.

2ndandlong wrote:There were 4 level I penalties. Level I penalties contain a minimum one year post-season ban. We would have to have overturned 4 rulings.

They probably could have rejected this before December.

If they would have known before December they should have at least tried but since I don't recall anyone being an expert on this who really knows.

they would not have acted before march. There are ways to delay. "new information" being searched out.

PLus you would not have had to prevail on every level 1. The appeals board has the discretion to look at this holistically and say the punishment does not meet the crime.