The #Bet against college football wins.

Now, I fully expect this title to be revoked before the ball goes into the air for the first game of 2024-25.

Still, fuck you Harbaugh.

Mike

I know I'm going to regret asking this the minute I click the "I'm not a robot" button, but...

Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title" (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 05:46:18 -0800 (PST), The NOTBCS Guy <don.p.del.grande@gmail.com> wrote:

>I know I'm going to regret asking this the minute I click the "I'm not a robot" button, but...
>
>Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title" (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.

1) I like Harbaugh. Not sure why he's always critisized. I would hste to lose him, but I can understand if he leaves.

2) I don't quite understand the fuss about signal stealing. It's been a part of sports for 100 years and is an accepted part of sports. Also,
watching and scouting teams is common and accepted, and watching game films is also. Watch coaches during games cover their mouths
when talking during the game, they know their signals are probably known. What is not acceptable is using those signals to send info to the player
in real time, such as what the Astros did. I haven't seen anything suggesting this happened.

3) If the NCAA tried to vacate the title just won, I would hope the University would take the NCAA to court.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:46:21 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> I know I'm going to regret asking this the minute I click the "I'm not a robot" button, but...
>
> Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title" (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.

a) should've been the Big Ten Conference. We're now to the point where this title has to go the route of the Reggie Bush situation. So, the CFP Committee after the NCAA does it's job and vacates "wins".

b): The two suspensions should've been enough right there, but the fact is that if we are to have a sanctioning body, it has to have the authority and the temerity to do what is necessary.

"#Bet" was a bet against college sports.

Mike

> > Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title" (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.

> a) should've been the Big Ten Conference. We're now to the point where this title has to go the route of the Reggie Bush situation. So, the CFP Committee after the NCAA does it's job and vacates "wins".

Unless you can show that Michigan cheated against either Alabama or Washington, the NCAA is not going to vacate either of those wins, which means the CFP will not vacate its championship as even if the Big Ten decides for some reason to vacate Michigan's title, there is nothing in any CFP regulations that makes being a conference champion a requirement for being in the playoff - either that, or Alabama has to hand back at least one of its championships.

Please, please, please, pleasepleaseplease, PLEASE, did I mention "please", please tell me you don't certainly think that the CFP is going to respond, "Well, if Michigan vacated those regular season games, it would not have qualified for the CFP championship (especially as you don't know that), so we can vacate the CFP championship."

The Reggie Bush situation is different - he played in the BCS championship game after agreeing to be represented by an agent, which made him ineligible to play in that game, which is pretty much an automatic vacating of that win by the NCAA.

> b): The two suspensions should've been enough right there

He served his NCAA suspensions. I will repeat the question: for what specific reason would the NCAA vacate the CFP championship game win?

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:46:21 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > I know I'm going to regret asking this the minute I click the "I'm not a robot" button, but...
> >
> > Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title" (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.
> a) should've been the Big Ten Conference. We're now to the point where this title has to go the route of the Reggie Bush situation. So, the CFP Committee after the NCAA does it's job and vacates "wins".
>
> b): The two suspensions should've been enough right there, but the fact is that if we are to have a sanctioning body, it has to have the authority and the temerity to do what is necessary.
>
> "#Bet" was a bet against college sports.
>
Everybody tries to steal signs. Michigan just cheated better than everybody else. They didn't beat all comers because they
stole signs. The beat everybody else because they had the best players and coached them better than everybody else. It
would be a farce if their wins or championship got vacated.

> Everybody tries to steal signs. Michigan just cheated better than everybody else. They didn't beat all comers because they
> stole signs. The beat everybody else because they had the best players and coached them better than everybody else. It
> would be a farce if their wins or championship got vacated.

Technically, "stealing signs" is only "illegal" during a game you are playing, and even then, it's only a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
The problem Michigan has is, you're not allowed to scout future opponents in person, in any sport (well, with two exceptions - if it's part of a doubleheader and you're in the second game, or if it's part of a conference or NCAA tournament you are also in).

They're not going to vacate the championship game, but if the NCAA wanted to, it could vacate the games where Michigan had somebody at an opponent's game. Then again, I think there's precedent for this, and it didn't include vacating wins. Of course, Michigan will probably be hit with penalties besides the 3-game suspension Harbaugh got, which could include a show cause for Harbaugh himself (which he would probably serve while being the head coach of some NFL team). The NCAA knows that Michigan's NIL collective can more than make up for any scholarship penalties, and it's getting out of the bowl ban business, but I can also see Michigan being fined the amount of money it got from the Rose Bowl, and never mind that half of that money will end up coming out of women's sports (it is the school that is fined, and not the team, so the fine cannot be treated as "men's sports spending" for Title IX purposes).

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:18:17 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title" (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.
>
> > a) should've been the Big Ten Conference. We're now to the point where this title has to go the route of the Reggie Bush situation. So, the CFP Committee after the NCAA does it's job and vacates "wins".
> Unless you can show that Michigan cheated against either Alabama or Washington,

They cheated to get there. See Bush, Reggie.

I would think that obvious.

> Please, please, please, pleasepleaseplease, PLEASE, did I mention "please", please tell me you don't certainly think that the CFP is going to respond, "Well, if Michigan vacated those regular season games, it would not have qualified for the CFP championship (especially as you don't know that), so we can vacate the CFP championship."

Not only do I believe that, I would think it an OBVIOUS outcome of the unsportsmanlike conduct already declared.
> The Reggie Bush situation is different - he played in the BCS championship game after agreeing to be represented by an agent, which made him ineligible to play in that game, which is pretty much an automatic vacating of that win by the NCAA.
> > b): The two suspensions should've been enough right there
> He served his NCAA suspensions. I will repeat the question: for what specific reason would the NCAA vacate the CFP championship game win?

The second suspension was the Big Ten's. Also, on top of it, you are getting to the point where the presence of any sanctioning body becomes an absurdity at the rate things are going if something of meaning is not done here.

Mike

JE Corbett <jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 5:46:21 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
>>> I know I'm going to regret asking this the minute I click the "I'm not
>>> a robot" button, but...
>>>
>>> Kindly explain to us (a) who has the authority to "revoke the title"
>>> (hint: the NCAA cannot vacate titles it did not give out), and, more
>>> importantly, (b) the reasoning for the decision.
>> a) should've been the Big Ten Conference. We're now to the point where
>> this title has to go the route of the Reggie Bush situation. So, the CFP
>> Committee after the NCAA does it's job and vacates "wins".
>>
>> b): The two suspensions should've been enough right there, but the fact
>> is that if we are to have a sanctioning body, it has to have the
>> authority and the temerity to do what is necessary.
>>
>> "#Bet" was a bet against college sports.
>>
> Everybody tries to steal signs. Michigan just cheated better than
> everybody else. They didn't beat all comers because they
> stole signs. The beat everybody else because they had the best players
> and coached them better than everybody else. It
> would be a farce if their wins or championship got vacated.
>

IAWTP. Stealing signs is part of the game. If it wasn’t coaches wouldn’t
secure them.

I really cannot get on board with sign stealing being a sanctionable
offense.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie

> IAWTP. Stealing signs is part of the game. If it wasn’t coaches wouldn’t
> secure them.
>
> I really cannot get on board with sign stealing being a sanctionable
> offense.

It's not. Live scouting future opponents, on the hand, might be. Probably not enough to vacate wins, but if the NCAA passes its new "revised penalties for infractions" legislation soon (the earliest it can do it is June), a fine of up to 10% of the 2023 football budget might hurt. (Yeah, right - "might hurt," say, the women's gymnastics team, but I don't see football, men's basketball, or even baseball touched by this unless they run out of money from the other sports combined.)

The question is now, is the NFL going to punish Harbaugh if the NCAA gives him any sort of further suspension?

There are two different answers to this: (a) Jim Tressel after Ohio State, and (b) Pete Carroll after USC.

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 2:59:02 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> The question is now, is the NFL going to punish Harbaugh if the NCAA gives him any sort of further suspension?
>
> There are two different answers to this: (a) Jim Tressel after Ohio State, and (b) Pete Carroll after USC.

Here's one thing different: Tressel was still employed by Ohio State when the NCAA handed down the suspension. He resigned before it could be enforced by the NCAA, but it had been handed down. Harbaugh has already sat two 3 game suspensions upon agreement and has now left with no suspensions already declared for next season. Carroll was also already gone before the NCAA hammer came down on USC.

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:59:02 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> The question is now, is the NFL going to punish Harbaugh if the NCAA gives him any sort of further suspension?
>
> There are two different answers to this: (a) Jim Tressel after Ohio State, and (b) Pete Carroll after USC.

If Goodell had a nutsack, the answer would be yes.

Mike