FB: American Southwest Conference

[jknezek]

I think the argument defending this decision is becoming circular. You rightly keep pointing to the player as being "ineligible". Because that is what is stated in the broken rules. There is no evidence that the player was "otherwise" ineligible. He is just ineligible because he got to use a stupid car. That's the part that's broke in this whole thing. There has to be a situation in which the NCAA can look at the situation and say "that is not a benefit that is worth vacating games because it didn't provide an advantage to the offending team on the field."

And since you brought up the holding penalty, I think there is a parallel here. Let's make the penalty for a holding penalty an immediate forfeit by the offending team. If you get caught holding, you forfeit the game.  Too harsh? Just follow the rules. Don't be stupid and hold during a game. The fact that you held, means you are ineligible. And the fact that you played while ineligible means your team forfeits.

He doesn't need to be otherwise ineligible. Ineligible means you can't play. Yes it's stupid it is over a beater car. But it's not the ineligible that's stupid. That makes sense. What is stupid is that a coach of 20 years in D3 gave him the car. It's stupid the young man took it as well, but young men are often stupid about lots of things. Coach's decision is inexplicable and inexcusable.

As for holding, I was using that as a demonstration of who suffers the penalty and when, not about the harshness of the penalty. So your analogy is false in the context of the discussion. A holding penalty has a clear consequence as does an ineligible player. Equating the consequences is irrelevant. Equating the immediacy of who suffers the penalty is the relevant point.

[jknezek]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

Removing coach Fred from the team for a season or two with zero contact does affect the team.

So you'd rather punish kids going forward that didn't benefit from this situation as opposed to actually leveling the punishment on those who did benefit. That seems horribly backward and solely designed to justify keeping your Championship. The holding penalty is assessed on the team that benefitted. Not the team next season.

Of course I'm arguing for the championship. Why wouldn't I!? I'd rather punish the person who was solely responsible and not those who are following the direction of those in charge. I'm not convinced that comparing off field activities to on field activities is apples to apples. But, whatever.

And what about the player who took an extra benefit? He doesn't suffer? Or do we just erase him from the games and assume UMHB played, and won, those games with 10 on the field at times? This doesn't work in  a team sport.

[UMHB03]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

Removing coach Fred from the team for a season or two with zero contact does affect the team.

So you'd rather punish kids going forward that didn't benefit from this situation as opposed to actually leveling the punishment on those who did benefit. That seems horribly backward and solely designed to justify keeping your Championship. The holding penalty is assessed on the team that benefitted. Not the team next season.

Of course I'm arguing for the championship. Why wouldn't I!? I'd rather punish the person who was solely responsible and not those who are following the direction of those in charge. I'm not convinced that comparing off field activities to on field activities is apples to apples. But, whatever.

And what about the player who took an extra benefit? He doesn't suffer? Or do we just erase him from the games and assume UMHB played, and won, those games with 10 on the field at times? This doesn't work in  a team sport.

Sure just erase that player's stats from the record books, and pretend he never played. Makes more sense than purging the record books of games and a National Championship the we all saw UMHB win on the field, and pretending they never happened

[jknezek]

Yep. We will just have to disagree. Your solution does not address the player who shouldn't have been on the field when he took the extra benefit. Good luck to UMHB. Maybe they can get #2 back #3 this season.

Your solution penalizes all players. As an educator and coach, it has been taught to me that I should focus on the one who erred, not the whole.

Is that how a holding penalty works? Or any penalty in a team sport? Ineligible player benefits the team, ineligible player caught hurts the team. As a coach in a team sport I always preach win together, lose together. That's how team sports work.

Removing coach Fred from the team for a season or two with zero contact does affect the team.

So you'd rather punish kids going forward that didn't benefit from this situation as opposed to actually leveling the punishment on those who did benefit. That seems horribly backward and solely designed to justify keeping your Championship. The holding penalty is assessed on the team that benefitted. Not the team next season.

Of course I'm arguing for the championship. Why wouldn't I!? I'd rather punish the person who was solely responsible and not those who are following the direction of those in charge. I'm not convinced that comparing off field activities to on field activities is apples to apples. But, whatever.

And what about the player who took an extra benefit? He doesn't suffer? Or do we just erase him from the games and assume UMHB played, and won, those games with 10 on the field at times? This doesn't work in  a team sport.

Sure just erase that player's stats from the record books, and pretend he never played. Makes more sense than purging the record books of games and a National Championship the we all saw UMHB win on the field, and pretending they never happened

Well... I guess football isn't a team game anymore then. Fortunately, at least for me, the NCAA is unlikely to agree. Been fun guys but I'm off to bed. Good luck the rest of the way and with the appeal. I really respect Coach, so I'm just appalled by this situation.

[QB Jock Itch]

looks like Jase Hammack is hurt again. Helped off the field with 49 left in the first half.

Nope, Hammack will be ok, at most a grade 2 MCL strain. He felt like he could have gone back in if he was needed.

[UMHB03]

looks like Jase Hammack is hurt again. Helped off the field with 49 left in the first half.

Nope, Hammack will be ok, at most a grade 2 MCL strain. He felt like he could have gone back in if he was needed.

Excellent news. Thanks for the update.

[TLU02SA]

I am seeing a lack of discussion about actual football this week.  We all understand why.  I am done talking about the UMHB/NCAA issues for the time being.  I would like to see these boards talk about some actual football.

TLU was great tonight.  Took care of an inferior opponent and is showing themselves to be very good on both sides of the football.  No let down from last week.  The first blowout for the Bulldogs this year.  Keep it going Bulldogs!

[DFWCrufan]

OK sorry I stirred the pot with the question, it was just my experience and I was truly curious. So let's move to what is important, was that a good game today or what? Things seem to be firming up for this Cru. Keep the heads up, don't get distracted, bring home the W's. Favorite play from Saturday

https://youtu.be/RnnVwMYZPEI

Looks like the Runningback Cru are developing nicely!

[Pat Coleman]

Thanks to Inkblot for the eagle eye on this. I was able to confirm it with the committee:

https://www.d3football.com/notables/2019/10/football-playoffs-welcome-change

[UMHB03]

Thanks to Inkblot for the eagle eye on this. I was able to confirm it with the committee:

https://www.d3football.com/notables/2019/10/football-playoffs-welcome-change

Nice. I'm not the biggest fan of the folks at the NCAA, especially after the events of the last week, but I'll give credit where it's due on this one. A much needed and warranted change in the interest of fairness.

[umhb2001]

Thanks to Inkblot for the eagle eye on this. I was able to confirm it with the committee:

https://www.d3football.com/notables/2019/10/football-playoffs-welcome-change

This is awesome. Thanks for sharing!

[D O.C.]

Late to the NCAA expunge, but I wonder if 2016 team had known before kick-off on the first season game that they wouldn't have still whacked everybody in their way 14 times.

[Pat Coleman]

If they had known before the 2016 season started, they could have fixed the issue with the student-athlete's eligibility and he could have been eligible and played.

[Toby Taff]

as i read the rule, he was ineligible because he received an extra benefit not available to non-athletes. Maybe the reason coach fred wasn't worried about it is because if the same situation had occurred with another college kid he knew, athlete or not he would have done the same thing. If a kid from church, an office worker, one of his kids classmates...needed help of the same type  would he have done the same? Isn't that relevant to the player eligibility? Did the AA ask that question?

[Pat Coleman]

"would have" isn't really a defense.