Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Mar 12, 2012 6:18pm
How does UNC only get one (1) year of postseason ban?!
IMO, what they did was far worse than a couple of tattoos. More players involved... higher $ value of improper benefits... etc.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7677271/north-carolina-tar-heels-handed-postseason-ban-2012-ncaaThe NCAA has placed North Carolina's football program on three years' probation and banned it from the 2012 postseason
IMO, what they did was far worse than a couple of tattoos. More players involved... higher $ value of improper benefits... etc.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Mar 12, 2012 7:18pm
UNC is not Ohio State.Scarlet_Buckeye;1113963 wrote:How does UNC only get one (1) year of postseason ban?!
hoops23
Posts: 15,696
Mar 12, 2012 8:22pm
UNC usually bans themselves from bowl games with subpar seasons.
I
ironman02
Posts: 4,989
Mar 12, 2012 10:32pm
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.
When it comes to the NCAA, it doesn't seem like there's much consistency in their decision-making process.
said_aouita
Posts: 8,532
Mar 12, 2012 10:59pm
Always forget they have football.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Mar 12, 2012 11:12pm
So this needs explained again? OSU didn't get banned for tattoos. SMH.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Mar 13, 2012 5:19am
Don't think that it wasn't a part of it...and nowhere did anyone say it was the only reason SMHWebFire;1114305 wrote:So this needs explained again? OSU didn't get banned for tattoos. SMH.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Mar 13, 2012 8:36am
Scarlet pretty much did. Compared UNC to tattoos. Plain and simple.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_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Mar 13, 2012 9:55am
I compared OSU receiving improper benefits of tattoos to UNC receiving improper benefits of money & hotels. Plain and simple.WebFire;1114484 wrote:Scarlet pretty much did. Compared UNC to tattoos. Plain and simple.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Mar 13, 2012 10:33am
Ok, UNC got more punishment than OSU for the tattoos. So you should be fine with this.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
Posts: 5,264
Mar 13, 2012 1:40pm
They did?WebFire;1114609 wrote:Ok, UNC got more punishment than OSU for the tattoos. So you should be fine with this.
[and btw... I know what you are trying to do/argue]
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Mar 13, 2012 1:47pm
Scarlet_Buckeye;1114569 wrote:I compared OSU receiving improper benefits of tattoos to UNC receiving improper benefits of money & hotels. Plain and simple.
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.Scarlet_Buckeye;1114785 wrote:They did?
Scarlet_Buckeye
Posts: 5,264
Mar 13, 2012 1:57pm
I understand/knew that. UNC tried covering up the improper benefits of the hotel too, I believe. So your point?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.