How does UNC only get one (1) year of postseason ban?!

The NCAA has placed North Carolina's football program on three years' probation and banned it from the 2012 postseason

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7677271/north-carolina-tar-heels-handed-postseason-ban-2012-ncaa

IMO, what they did was far worse than a couple of tattoos. More players involved... higher $ value of improper benefits... etc.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1113963 wrote:How does UNC only get one (1) year of postseason ban?!

UNC is not Ohio State.

UNC usually bans themselves from bowl games with subpar seasons.

Definitely surprised that they only got a one year post-season ban. Losing 15 scholarships seems about right though.

When it comes to the NCAA, it doesn't seem like there's much consistency in their decision-making process.

Always forget they have football.

So this needs explained again? OSU didn't get banned for tattoos. SMH.

WebFire;1114305 wrote:So this needs explained again? OSU didn't get banned for tattoos. SMH.

Don't think that it wasn't a part of it...and nowhere did anyone say it was the only reason SMH

ytownfootball;1114434 wrote:Don't think that it wasn't a part of it...and nowhere did anyone say it was the only reason SMH

Scarlet pretty much did. Compared UNC to tattoos. Plain and simple.

WebFire;1114484 wrote:Scarlet pretty much did. Compared UNC to tattoos. Plain and simple.

I compared OSU receiving improper benefits of tattoos to UNC receiving improper benefits of money & hotels. Plain and simple.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1114569 wrote:I compared OSU receiving improper benefits of tattoos to UNC receiving improper benefits of money & hotels. Plain and simple.

Ok, UNC got more punishment than OSU for the tattoos. So you should be fine with this.

WebFire;1114609 wrote:Ok, UNC got more punishment than OSU for the tattoos. So you should be fine with this.

They did?

[and btw... I know what you are trying to do/argue]

Scarlet_Buckeye;1114569 wrote:I compared OSU receiving improper benefits of tattoos to UNC receiving improper benefits of money & hotels. Plain and simple.

Scarlet_Buckeye;1114785 wrote:They did?

Yes. OSU's postseason ban, loss of schollies and vacating wins came because Tressel lied, not because of the players receiving tattoos. I still don't understand why people confuse the two. Tressel lied about players getting improper benefits (which was partially the tattoos), because of Tressel's lie is why OSU got punished severely. Had it just been the tattoos, it would have been suspensions for the players and that is it.

dwccrew;1114793 wrote:Yes. OSU's postseason ban, loss of schollies and vacating wins came because Tressel lied, not because of the players receiving tattoos. I still don't understand why people confuse the two. Tressel lied about players getting improper benefits (which was partially the tattoos), because of Tressel's lie is why OSU got punished severely. Had it just been the tattoos, it would have been suspensions for the players and that is it.

I understand/knew that. UNC tried covering up the improper benefits of the hotel too, I believe. So your point?