Taco90 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 What's going to happen? I bet they have to forfeit their spring game. NCAA is tough these days. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9177148/ncaa-oregon-ducks-agree-major-violations-committed-football-program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 When is it Alabama's turn to be investigated lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 They'll probably be given the same punishment as Auburn did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Major violaions ........ probably followed by minor punishments If it were a Big 12 school, they would probably get the death penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So about that Auburn vs Oregon MNC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWalum07 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Major violaions ........ probably followed by minor punishments If it were a Big 12 school, they would probably get the death penalty Not really only Baylor gets in trouble ever. The NCAA is a bunch of crooks that care nothing about the S/A only the bottom line. It's all about the all mighty dollar now. No trying to derail the thread but Oregon will be fine but if everything is true about Auburn they should be treated like SMU but it will never happen. Not because they don't deserve it but because they aren't a small private school. Miami, USC, Baylor, SMU are some of the biggest examples of the NCAA rulings that were too harsh. Yes they were cheating but everyone in the country cheats. The only legit case I can recall in recent years is the Ohio State case but the argument can be made the NCAA came down too harsh on the Buckeyes as well. I guess all I am trying to prove is that the NCAA is nothing but a bunch of cash hoarding crooks and I think we all agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco90 Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 So about that Auburn vs Oregon MNC... Maybe 50 years from now TCU will claim that as a National Championship. (Yes aggies I'm making fun of you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Not really only Baylor gets in trouble ever. The NCAA is a bunch of crooks that care nothing about the S/A only the bottom line. It's all about the all mighty dollar now. No trying to derail the thread but Oregon will be fine but if everything is true about Auburn they should be treated like SMU but it will never happen. Not because they don't deserve it but because they aren't a small private school. Miami, USC, Baylor, SMU are some of the biggest examples of the NCAA rulings that were too harsh. Yes they were cheating but everyone in the country cheats. The only legit case I can recall in recent years is the Ohio State case but the argument can be made the NCAA came down too harsh on the Buckeyes as well. I guess all I am trying to prove is that the NCAA is nothing but a bunch of cash hoarding crooks and I think we all agree. The only legit case was Ohio St.? You have got to be kidding. USC had numerous MAJOR infraction and if you asked me, they got off too easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-town12 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Maybe 50 years from now TCU will claim that as a National Championship. (Yes aggies I'm making fun of you) It'll be just as right as the one they claim from the Ft. Worth newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco90 Posted April 18, 2013 Author Share Posted April 18, 2013 It'll be just as right as the one they claim from the Ft. Worth newspaper. Yeah, this never happened. Try to stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-town12 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Yeah, this never happened. Try to stay on topic. My bad. It would be as right as the one they claim in 1935 from the Williamson system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobo97 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 My bad. It would be as right as the one they claim in 1935 from the Williamson system. So are we saying that it's okay to make a false claim as long as someone else also does it (basically, two wrongs make a right)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valhalla Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 My bad. It would be as right as the one they claim in 1935 from the Williamson system. Claiming anything but the AP is stupid in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-town12 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 So are we saying that it's okay to make a false claim as long as someone else also does it (basically, two wrongs make a right)? Back in the day, IMO if you had multiple news sources announce you as the champion you had a better claim. If only one source give you the nc, that is iffy to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Back in the day, IMO if you had multiple news sources announce you as the champion you had a better claim. If only one source give you the nc, that is iffy to me. So you admit A&M's championships are "iffy"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justafan903 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Only one they claim is 1939 I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-town12 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 So you admit A&M's championships are "iffy"? No. I said if you only had one random news source proclaiming you as the champion that made it "iffy". The only instance for this happening with A&M's NCs is 1927, and they were awarded it by Sagarin, who most claim to be somewhat credible. They were also undefeated in '27, something 1 of the only other 4 NC claiming teams can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 No. I said if you only had one random news source proclaiming you as the champion that made it "iffy". The only instance for this happening with A&M's NCs is 1927, and they were awarded it by Sagarin, who most claim to be somewhat credible. They were also undefeated in '27, something 1 of the only other 4 NC claiming teams can say. From an article about A&M's retroactive championships: In 1919, either Harvard or Illinois won the title, depending on who you talked to. But the National Championship Foundation, which was formed in 1980, polled its voters to choose retroactive championships for every year dating back to 1869. For 1919, they declared a three-way tie between Harvard, Notre Dame, and Texas A&M. The Billingsley Report, the creation of programmer Richard Billingsley, also retroactively declared champions beginning in 1996, including the undefeated 1919 Aggies. It is purely mathematical, arguably quite flawed, and has become an actual component of the BCS Standings. In 1927, Illinois was the closest thing to a consensus champion those confusing 1920s could offer. But the Sagarin Ratings, the computer formula devised in the 1980s by Jeff Sagarin and more familiarly used for basketball, declared the Aggies the national champs that year. So you're telling me all of those seasons multiple outlets named A&M the NC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-town12 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 From an article about A&M's retroactive championships: In 1919, either Harvard or Illinois won the title, depending on who you talked to. But the National Championship Foundation, which was formed in 1980, polled its voters to choose retroactive championships for every year dating back to 1869. For 1919, they declared a three-way tie between Harvard, Notre Dame, and Texas A&M. The Billingsley Report, the creation of programmer Richard Billingsley, also retroactively declared champions beginning in 1996, including the undefeated 1919 Aggies. It is purely mathematical, arguably quite flawed, and has become an actual component of the BCS Standings. In 1927, Illinois was the closest thing to a consensus champion those confusing 1920s could offer. But the Sagarin Ratings, the computer formula devised in the 1980s by Jeff Sagarin and more familiarly used for basketball, declared the Aggies the national champs that year. So you're telling me all of those seasons multiple outlets named A&M the NC? I was going by a list I found on the internet that listed the publications that named NC. You didn't link your article, so I don't know what context to take from your quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now