PDA

View Full Version : Should Vacated NCAA Wins and/or Championships Be Given To Teams That Lost Originally?



EvanJ
09-09-12, 05:45 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html says Duke could lose their 2010 Men's Basketball title. If that were to happen, I think Butler should think about taking the NCAA to court to get a championship as a mid-major. I think all NCAA games should have winners unless it is a sport where ties are allowed. I also would have made money from the 2010 NCAA Tournament had any team in the Final Four other than Duke won the title.:mad:

trapper700
09-09-12, 05:53 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html says Duke could lose their 2010 Men's Basketball title. If that were to happen, I think Butler should think about taking the NCAA to court to get a championship as a mid-major. I think all NCAA games should have winners unless it is a sport where ties are allowed. I also would have made money from the 2010 NCAA Tournament had any team in the Final Four other than Duke won the title.:mad:

Unfortunately, I don't think the NCAA will even punish duke. If they didn't punish UNC for letting players take fake classes, then they're not gonna do anything to Duke. They like to protect their blue blood programs.

That said, they still unfairly painted a target on UConn's back and have been using them as *the* example for all other programs, even if other schools have done much worse. Emmert is a joke and I hope UConn sues him or the NCAA.

Soriambi
09-09-12, 05:59 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--lance-thomas-lawsuit-could-test-integrity-of-ncaa-.html says Duke could lose their 2010 Men's Basketball title. If that were to happen, I think Butler should think about taking the NCAA to court to get a championship as a mid-major. I think all NCAA games should have winners unless it is a sport where ties are allowed. I also would have made money from the 2010 NCAA Tournament had any team in the Final Four other than Duke won the title.:mad:

I think it would be a fairly pointless exercise. You're not going to get your money back, the Butler team and fans are not going to get the memory of winning a title, even if they have one on paper, etc. Also, what about the games Duke won before the final? If Duke is stripped of those games, all of those teams should have advanced, too, so Butler shouldn't have even been playing Duke. If you grant the win to Duke's Final Four Opponent, for instance, should that team receive a title appearance, and is that title appearance a loss since you're giving Butler a title?

I mean, if they did that (giving the losers of the original game the win) I wouldn't really mind, but on the other hand, I'm just not sure who it benefits. If they had given the win against Notre Dame that USC vacated to Notre Dame several years later, I wouldn't care. If they went back to 2001 and found some reason that the Yankees beat the Diamondbacks, it's not going to change much. Even though stripping a team of wins and titles is pretty pointless, too, I can understand that, because at least an ineligible team won't go down in the record books as the champs or get credit for wins that they broke the rules to get, but doing the opposite just seems pointless.

EvanJ
09-09-12, 07:32 PM
I think it would be a fairly pointless exercise. You're not going to get your money back, the Butler team and fans are not going to get the memory of winning a title, even if they have one on paper, etc. Also, what about the games Duke won before the final? If Duke is stripped of those games, all of those teams should have advanced, too, so Butler shouldn't have even been playing Duke. If you grant the win to Duke's Final Four Opponent, for instance, should that team receive a title appearance, and is that title appearance a loss since you're giving Butler a title?

I didn't think of that. You have to go farther than that and say that another team should have been in the NCAA Tournament instead of Duke, and a bunch of teams would have received different seeds if Duke wasn't there. I think having a champion is more important than having a losing finalist, two losing semifinalists, etc. Golf allows ties for every position except first.

RhodyYanksFan
09-10-12, 08:50 AM
I think it's a fruitless exercise because of what was stated above. Even when they vacate the wins, the fans and players (on both sides) still have the memories of the game.

just-blaze
09-10-12, 09:46 AM
Unfortunately, I don't think the NCAA will even punish duke. If they didn't punish UNC for letting players take fake classes, then they're not gonna do anything to Duke. They like to protect their blue blood programs.

That said, they still unfairly painted a target on UConn's back and have been using them as *the* example for all other programs, even if other schools have done much worse. Emmert is a joke and I hope UConn sues him or the NCAA.

I don't understand why they would protect Duke/UNC over UConn.

In terms of Duke. It does look like UNC players got away with taking fake classes, but the NCAA found a way to excuse it. Its going to be hardpressed for them to find a way to excuse this. Even if Thomas did come from a well off family, there is no way he is allowed to get a 60000 dollar loan.

trapper700
09-12-12, 12:19 AM
I don't understand why they would protect Duke/UNC over UConn.

In terms of Duke. It does look like UNC players got away with taking fake classes, but the NCAA found a way to excuse it. Its going to be hardpressed for them to find a way to excuse this. Even if Thomas did come from a well off family, there is no way he is allowed to get a 60000 dollar loan.

It's not that they're protecting Duke/UNC, it's that the target was to punish UConn for anything they could find (but it was pretty serious). I thought I posted the history behind NCAA president Mark Emmert and UConn, but I guess that was on a different site. Emmert was the former chief operating and academic officer at UConn from 1995 to 1999. He has a well known history of conflict with Jim Calhoun, as they obviously did not see eye to eye on many things. And the fact that the public and board members supported Calhoun over Emmert really pissed him off. This was simply a way for him to stick it to Calhoun.

I mean, look at the way it was played out. Yes, UConn violated the APR rules. And they were punished by losing scholarships and Calhoun was suspended for the beginning of the big east schedule. But they ended up changing the rules again just this year, for which they required use of old data. They made the rule retroactive, and refused to use the most recent years' data.

Basically, even though the rule is new this year, they decided to use data from the 2007-2008 and 2010-2011 seasons. If they had used the 2011-2012 data for this upcoming season, UConn would have been eligible. If this was run by the government, it would have been illegal, because you cannot make a law be retroactive. Plus the fact that they are punishing UConn for something they have already been punished for (with the scholarship deductions) and not allowing them time to adjust to the new rule, for which they would have been eligible if the newest data was incorporated. I believe UConn had a perfect APR score in 2010-2011 and near perfect in 2011-2012, but the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 were really bad.

There's also the fact that there were numerous other schools given waivers because they had shown signs of improvement, and other schools were given hardship waivers because they weren't as well funded as UConn (the historically black colleges). Emmert simply shot them down saying they knew the consequences from the start (they didn't know postseason ban until this year, and their APR scores were already good) and that they should have allocated their funds more wisely.

UNC basically "got away with murder." The NCAA claims they have no jurisdiction because the class was open to all students. And if you look at Julius Peppers' transcripts, he was damn near failing out and well below the requirements if you remove the fake classes.

But what about what the NCAA ruled against CalTech? Why does the NCAA have jurisdiction in that case? They were banned in MULTIPLE sports because CalTech has a policy of giving all students a class trial period for 3 weeks before finalizing their class schedules. This lets them figure out what classes would be best towards their major before being locked in. The NCAA says since their students weren't technically registered during this 3 week period, but already competing in various sports, that they were fielding ineligible players. How is this different from letting players take a fake class that shouldn't even count under the credit requirements. I'm sure numerous athletes at UNC would have falled well short of either minimum credits or GPA without these fake courses.

It just goes to show the bias of the NCAA towards some programs more than others, as well as the inconsistency with its rulings.

trapper700
09-12-12, 12:33 AM
Sorry for derailing the topic and talking about my school. It's just really frustrating to me, as a UConn alum, to read about all this stuff happening at other schools. UConn is getting punished twice for the rule, and it ended up gutting our program. We lost four starters to transfer or the NBA because of it. It's just unfair how the system is.

This whole situation is basically just telling other schools that UConn could have had fake majors and fake classes and avoided this trouble. How is that a fair system?

It's not like all of our students were bad, either. We got poor scores for having a player drop out before even hitting the practice courts, and for one who didn't finish his spring semester prior to graduation because he opted to play professionally in Europe. But we've been known to even have players do extra course work in the offseason and graduate early (Okafor and Kemba).

Here's a good article from Sports Illustrated regarding the situation.


The NCAA looked at the UNC scandal and announced that, as in one of the fake UNC classes, there was nothing to see here. No NCAA rules were violated. Of course, Penn State didn't violate any NCAA rules either, but that is what we call a "technicality," Sorry you have to spend the next decade in the wilderness, Penn State. Bring a blanket and a Thermos.

I don't know how the NCAA can justify this. I don't understand why Penn State has to spend four years in the NCAA's intensive-care-unit for the abhorrent actions of a few former employees, while North Carolina gets a pass for its rampant academic fraud.
I don't know what the NCAA can say to Penn State now. But I really don't know what the NCAA says to Connecticut.

You remember Connecticut, don't you? The Huskies are ineligible for the 2013 NCAA tournament because poor academic scores.

UConn('s new) athletic director Warde Manuel said he was not intimately familiar with the details of the UNC scandal, but that he found it "odd" the NCAA would punish Connecticut severely and not punish North Carolina at all. Manuel called it a "double standard."

The NCAA just made it clear: The Huskies should have cheated. UConn should have given all its players a phony A. Then the NCAA would say, "No violations here!" Instead, UConn was honest about its academic failures, and the NCAA banned the Huskies. Tell me again about those "life lessons" the NCAA wants to teach.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/08/31/UNC-NCAA-academic-fraud/index.html

EvanJ
06-02-14, 04:39 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2014/05/30/auburn-tommy-tuberville-team-should-claim-vacated-2004-title/?sct=obnetwork says Ex-Auburn Coach Tommy Tuberville thinks there should always be a champion.

dabomb2045
06-02-14, 10:44 PM
Stripping a team of wins is stupid IMO. USC 2004/2005 in football. Or Michigan's Final Four appearances with the Fab Five. You can take banners down, or erase records from a book, but you cant change what happened. We all saw what happened on the field and remember it. Just because the NCAA says it so, doesnt mean I still dont consider USC a national champ in 2004 or Michigan a two time Final Four team. Just because Reggie Bush took money, or because a booster gave Chris Webber money doesnt erase what they and their teams accomplished on the field/court.

Mr. Mxylsplk
06-03-14, 08:37 AM
http://tracking.si.com/2014/05/30/auburn-tommy-tuberville-team-should-claim-vacated-2004-title/?sct=obnetwork says Ex-Auburn Coach Tommy Tuberville thinks there should always be a champion.
Well, a better way of saying it might be that Tommy Tuberville thinks his team should be named champion for that one year when the team that beat them subsequently got stripped of its title. I don't get the impression he has strong feelings other than for his own personal benefit.

RhodyYanksFan
06-03-14, 10:23 AM
I wonder what Tuberville would say if the NCAA decided to strip Auburn of the title they won with Cam Newton.

pleasepassthesoup
06-03-14, 01:13 PM
Vacating wins may be the dumbest concept in all of sports. The games happened. The championships happened. Closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change that.

NelsonMuntz
06-08-14, 05:43 PM
Vacating wins may be the dumbest concept in all of sports. The games happened. The championships happened. Closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change that.
Totally agree. It's like having a 16 year old son who has a party while the parents are out of town -- the parents find out about it and to punish him they say "erase that trip to Disneyland you took when you were 8 from your memory".

Also, Mark Emmert is a dick.