Obviously didn't feel like a win. So I'm sure as hell not going to look at it that way, regardless of how it officially counts. One player's going to make a difference in a 27 point trouncing LOL!

It depends on the player, BJ...

i guess vandy values the $$$ more than the reputation of the "circle" thet hang out with

(07-20-2010 09:49 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Obviously didn't feel like a win. So I'm sure as hell not going to look at it that way, regardless of how it officially counts. One player's going to make a difference in a 27 point trouncing LOL!

You're missing the point though, if one player is being paid what's to say that multiple players aren't being paid? They had a team loaded with NFL talent, I doubt one player would be on the payroll. Also, if that one player was, say, Tebow, or a big time defensive player, it makes a world of difference.

(07-20-2010 05:24 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  if one player is being paid what's to say that multiple players aren't being paid?

Ask UNC fans about that one...

(07-19-2010 04:02 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I hate vacated games. I think it's the history buff in me, but if a team won, then they won, and I don't want it recorded any differently. I'm not saying don't punish them, but I hate the distortions vacated wins create.

Also, I think goodknightfl is right. If it goes through, Florida will vacate the win, but that doesn't automatically give the victory to Cinci. It just means Florida can't count the win themselves.

Correct.

Just like FSU's "vacated" wins that were taken away...as the teams FSU beat ON the field...can't count them as wins either.

In years past...NCAA use to have a policy of forfeiture during the regular season which did turn losses into WINS for various teams (i.e. Tulane's win over FSU in the early 80's turned into a loss for Tulane and a win for FSU after NCAA punishment was handed down) while post-season games were "vacated", i.e. no one won the game.

Believe now the new NCAA policy is just to "vacate" the wins...which means no one can claim victory...so Cinci will not be able to count the Sugar Bowl game as a "win" either.

This also shows how WEAK the vacated penalty really is in regards to other penalties that the NCAA could hand down...(especially post-season bans, loss of scholarships, and heaven forbid...the dreaded TV ban which hasn't been given out for 20 plus years).

Vacating wins is like a weak slap on the wrist...as it doesn't really penalize said team in the long-run...which is why teams/players/coaches will find ways to cheat in the future.

If they want to get serious about this they shoulf require offending programs to return any BCS money earned while playing an ineligible player.

(07-21-2010 05:24 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  If they want to get serious about this they shoulf require offending programs to return any BCS money earned while playing an ineligible player.

The best approach is to do something to the players, agents, boosters etc.

You can't erase memories and you can't erase what people saw. 51-24 is 51-24 no matter how you want to spin it.

(07-21-2010 06:11 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-21-2010 05:24 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  If they want to get serious about this they shoulf require offending programs to return any BCS money earned while playing an ineligible player.

The best approach is to do something to the players, agents, boosters etc.

Agents are mostly governed by the NFL Players Association Union...and since its the players the BENEFIT from illegal payments...the odds that the Players Union will ever get serious about agent violations is probably slim and none.

NOTE: Believe the schools do have to return any $$$$ gained from post-season appearances with an illegible player.

Believe Bowl game $$$$ and NCAA March Madness $$$$ (as was the case with Univ of Memphis) have to be returned...but that still is much better for the program than facing loss of scholarships, future post-season bans, tv appearance bans, etc...

(07-19-2010 12:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I hope Florida does have to vacate the win. That would even up the BCS victories for The BEast to WVU 2, and the CUSA imports 2.

Actually, if Florida's win is 'vacated' it would not become a win for Cincy or a loss for Florida. With a "Vacate" no result is recorded, which is different from a 'forfeit', in which the other team gets to chalk up a win. A vacate is as if the game were never played. If UF has to vacate, the 2010 sugar bowl will have no official winner nor loser.

Of course this means Cincy would get to remove the loss from their record, thus giving them an undefeated season.

(07-21-2010 07:18 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Believe Bowl game $$$$ and NCAA March Madness $$$$ (as was the case with Univ of Memphis) have to be returned...but that still is much better for the program than facing loss of scholarships, future post-season bans, tv appearance bans, etc...

The two might be different thoguh, because the NCAA tournament pays out based on the number of games you play. So if you forfeit games, you would have to pay back moeny for subsequent appearances. In football, the pay is baes on appearacnes, not wins, so no money shoudl have to be repaid. Now, if the regaular season games were vacated, and thus Florida woudl have not really earned the bid, that might be a different story. But since the NCAA does not govern the BCS television money, I doubt it.