Interesting Tweet regarding UNC

[fordman84]

The time is almost upon us. I can't decide if I should be excited or if I should brace myself for them just getting a slap on the wrist.

safe money


Few lost scholarships, one year postseason ban, and a fine.

 

[Lumbee09]

Yup. 15 scholarships, 1-year bowl ban.

 

[hunzworth]

Charles Robinson ‏ @CharlesRobinson
Reply
RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorite
· Close Open Details UNC football sanctions: Bowl ban in 2012, 3-yr probation, docked 15 scholarships over 3 yrs. John Blake 3-yr show cause, no recruiting.2:36 PM - 12 Mar 12 via web · Details
Reply RetweetedRetweet
Delete
FavoritedFavorit

 

[vtpoop]

Certainly not as much as I expected, but not a slap on the wrist either.

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

The fact that the ineligible players, cheating coaches, and others are gone has removed the improper advantages of their football team. The university was slow to do so, but none-the-less, they mitigated many of their dirty deeds. That's the real importance to the product on the field.

These NCAA penalties are logical public reprimands for the program and institution. Carolina is down and scorned short-term but not doomed to pull the ACC down long-term. Really, that is what we should want, and for that I think there is now closure to this chapter.

 

[Ballboy534]

I still think the rest of the conference should hold a closed door meeting excluding UNCheat and Swofford in order to levy an extra year ban.

 

[Ballboy534]

Let the bastards reap what they sowed back in the '80s

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

I empathize with the what happened to Clemson. It wasn't right then, but that's more reason to remove Swofford than it is to hurt UNC. I wouldn't mind holding a portion of their share of bowl revenue (along with Miami's) for the bowl ban. That's lost money and media coverage for the conference.

 

[Lumbee09]

Anybody know how bowl revenue sharing works now? UNC shouldn't get any revenue, in my opinion, but I'm not the ACC.

 

[vtpoop]

I still think the rest of the conference should hold a closed door meeting excluding UNCheat and Swofford in order to levy an extra year ban.

Agreed 100 percent

 

[NickVT10]

Anybody know how bowl revenue sharing works now? UNC shouldn't get any revenue, in my opinion, but I'm not the ACC.

Agreed

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

Anybody know how bowl revenue sharing works now? UNC shouldn't get any revenue, in my opinion, but I'm not the ACC.

Socialism. Bowl teams get a travel budget, supposedly enough to cover standard costs. The rest of the money is equally spread. In theory, Duke got the same as Clemson this season. Same with the NCAAT. I'll see if I can find a link.

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

Socialism. Bowl teams get a travel budget, supposedly enough to cover standard costs. The rest of the money is equally spread. In theory, Duke got the same as Clemson this season. Same with the NCAAT. I'll see if I can find a link.

Here's a link. In fact, Clemson, like Virginia Tech previously, got less to their bottom line than Duke by playing in Miami. That needs to be fixed.

Orange Bowl costs exceed allowance; ACC says Clemson still made money on bowl trip | The Post and Courier - Charleston, South Carolina

 

[NickVT10]

The question is will UNC get bowl revenue during their bowl ban. I agree they should not get anything and also agree teams that do not make a bowl should get less since they don't have expenses

 

[Lumbee09]

Socialism. Bowl teams get a travel budget, supposedly enough to cover standard costs. The rest of the money is equally spread. In theory, Duke got the same as Clemson this season. Same with the NCAAT. I'll see if I can find a link.

Oh yea. I'm aware that the money gets spread evenly throughout the ACC. Teams that go to bowls are usually hurt by this. However, seeing that UNC isn't even eligible to make a bowl (thus providing revenue to ACC), it doesn't seem fair that they should get a split. Duke, in theory, has a chance to make a bowl so they are more deserving of a cut of the revenue than UNC.

 

[ACC_HOKIES]

Oh yea. I'm aware that the money gets spread evenly throughout the ACC. Teams that go to bowls are usually hurt by this. However, seeing that UNC isn't even eligible to make a bowl (thus providing revenue to ACC), it doesn't seem fair that they should get a split. Duke, in theory, has a chance to make a bowl so they are more deserving of a cut of the revenue than UNC.

I would suggest to the ACC that they calculate the "damages" of Carolina and Miami bowl bans (straight up bowl revenue losses, media coverage and associated sponsorship, general reputation, etc.), to spread to the other schools. I predict both schools to receive equal payout as if nothing happened.

 

[Lumbee09]

I would suggest to the ACC that they calculate the "damages" of Carolina and Miami bowl bans (straight up bowl revenue losses, media coverage and associated sponsorship, general reputation, etc.), to spread to the other schools. I predict both schools to receive equal payout as if nothing happened.

It would be a nice way for the ACC to give further penalties. Much more than the meager $50000 fine they got. But alas, it won't happen. Especially with swofford running the show..

 

[Hokie200proof]

So... if I'm ready this right (and I might not be)... they got about the same, maybe a little less than OSU?

And beyond the improper benefits that UNC and OSU were both guilty of, they were accused of cheating, grade fixing, etc?








WTF?

 

[Taz_Hokie]

My guess is the one thing UNC had going for them was that they sat kids for an entire season while Tressell let his kids play.

 

[Ballboy534]

Doesn't hurt to have the commish be an ex-AD either