http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...postseason

Looks like the NCAA is trying to do it's best to ensure there will be enough bowl teams.

I'm happy for UNLY, but this is still bogus. The NCAA allowed UNLV's senior players to transfer without penalty only to reverse the ban. The APR in its entirery needs to be thrown out and a new metric needs to be developed.

It also makes me sick that the NCAA got away with the APR ban for UConn. We appealed on the exact same standard, submitting a near perfect APR score for the previous calender year plus offering a forfeiture of all tourney money and placing the school on seslf imposed recruiting restrictions, which of course the NCAA rejected.

UNLV also scheduled a 13th game vs Houston. That means they now need to be 7-6 to be bowl eligible right?

(06-27-2014 08:46 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I'm happy for UNLY, but this is still bogus. The NCAA allowed UNLV's senior players to transfer without penalty only to reverse the ban. The APR in its entirery needs to be thrown out and a new metric needs to be developed.

It also makes me sick that the NCAA got away with the APR ban for UConn. We appealed on the exact same standard, submitting a near perfect APR score for the previous calender year plus offering a forfeiture of all tourney money and placing the school on seslf imposed recruiting restrictions, which of course the NCAA rejected.

my thoughts exactly

(06-27-2014 09:30 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  UNLV also scheduled a 13th game vs Houston. That means they now need to be 7-6 to be bowl eligible right?

They can be bowl eligible at 6-7 if there aren't enough .500+ teams.

(06-27-2014 10:56 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 09:30 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  UNLV also scheduled a 13th game vs Houston. That means they now need to be 7-6 to be bowl eligible right?

They can be bowl eligible at 6-7 if there aren't enough .500+ teams.

yep. they would be below 6-6 teams with a non counting FCS win(not sure if any applicable here), or 6-6 teams with 2 FCS wins. But ahead of teams in final year of transition(think ODU for instance) or 5-7 teams with higher APR scores.

I wish the NCAA would get more serious about academics overall and I believe that is the start of getting rid of the "get paid" idiots, but at the same time a bowl ban immediately for a team punishes many that had nothing to do with the issue

and while letting seniors transfer seems like a decent idea really it just means those staying (that can't transfer immediately) are punished even more by being on a team losing talent and not going to a bowl

the NCAA should withhold some NCAA monies and they should also place a FUTURE bowl ban for the years after the last current players and recruits have left the program.....then you are really hurting "the program" more instead of the current players that are not the ones responsible for the issues........imagine trying to recruit to a program with a future bowl ban in place THAT punishes "the program" instead of the current players and recruits......and it is "the program" that deserves the punishment not the players that are in school and possibly making their APR to the benefit of "the program" and the team

(06-27-2014 04:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I wish the NCAA would get more serious about academics overall and I believe that is the start of getting rid of the "get paid" idiots, but at the same time a bowl ban immediately for a team punishes many that had nothing to do with the issue

and while letting seniors transfer seems like a decent idea really it just means those staying (that can't transfer immediately) are punished even more by being on a team losing talent and not going to a bowl

the NCAA should withhold some NCAA monies and they should also place a FUTURE bowl ban for the years after the last current players and recruits have left the program.....then you are really hurting "the program" more instead of the current players that are not the ones responsible for the issues........imagine trying to recruit to a program with a future bowl ban in place THAT punishes "the program" instead of the current players and recruits......and it is "the program" that deserves the punishment not the players that are in school and possibly making their APR to the benefit of "the program" and the team

That's just kicking the can down the road. Then you're just punishing even more kids who never had a thing to do with the problem.

(06-27-2014 04:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 04:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I wish the NCAA would get more serious about academics overall and I believe that is the start of getting rid of the "get paid" idiots, but at the same time a bowl ban immediately for a team punishes many that had nothing to do with the issue

and while letting seniors transfer seems like a decent idea really it just means those staying (that can't transfer immediately) are punished even more by being on a team losing talent and not going to a bowl

the NCAA should withhold some NCAA monies and they should also place a FUTURE bowl ban for the years after the last current players and recruits have left the program.....then you are really hurting "the program" more instead of the current players that are not the ones responsible for the issues........imagine trying to recruit to a program with a future bowl ban in place THAT punishes "the program" instead of the current players and recruits......and it is "the program" that deserves the punishment not the players that are in school and possibly making their APR to the benefit of "the program" and the team

That's just kicking the can down the road. Then you're just punishing even more kids who never had a thing to do with the problem.

but there is one major difference......those kids made a choice to go to that program knowing in advance there was a bowl ban in place

if the make that choice that is on them and that is the major difference......you are still punishing kids that were not the ones responsible for the APR issue, but kicking it down the road makes it where those being punished had a choice in the matter because no one forced them to choose that program that they knew had a bowl plan in place

and personally I think it makes it "tougher" on the program overall and more "punishing" because it forces them to recruit against their bowl issue instead of punishing those that have no choice in the matter and then moving on past it

with my plan at least you give those being punished the choice to go elsewhere from the beginning and you make it more difficult on the program for the long term because they have several recruiting classes to convince to come play with a bowl ban in place

this VS just punishing those that have no choice in the matter and it is done with little long term consequences

Good for UNLV and yes UCONN got screwed.

i'll give it to u todd, u make sence on this one