http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... ncaaf.html

Interesting way to reward a team for going undefeated in a season where the wins "didn't count".

I wonder if something like this would happen if App runs the table this next year with nothing to work-for in post-season?

Cobb said in the press conference announcing the move they would still get rings and a banner if they had the record to win the conference...

We didn't go 12-0 with the AE, Lynch, and Richardson teams.

I see it a little bit different. OSU shouldn't celebrate their 12 - 0 season because the reason it was "ineligible" is because they did something wrong. Not the kids playing, but the administration. It's a gamble you take when you sign up to play football at any University.

The 2013 ASU Senior Class is being unfairly punished not because of any wrongdoing, but because of a stupid NCAA rule. I have no problem with putting up a banner for an undefeated season in this case.

I have no problem with them buying rings if we finish with the best record in the SoCon.

12-0 would mean we beat UGA in Athens... not holding my breath. However, I'd have no problem with rewarding the team for winning the SoCon, whether the conference recognizes it or not.

I wouldn't have a problem with hanging a banner if we have the best record in the SoCon either.

Saint3333 wrote:I have no problem with them buying rings if we finish with the best record in the SoCon.

I think it would be great to have a full blown celebration, rings and anything else they want to do (ideally a stadium party of some type) for the best (and our last) record in the SoCon.

I'm just surprised that the ring isn't looked at as a gift, however, since it didn't come from actually "winning" anything. They must not be as picky as I thought they were, or the rings don't have any real value.

Personally I would donate to something like that.

appalum2003 wrote:The 2013 ASU Senior Class is being unfairly punished not because of any wrongdoing, but because of a stupid NCAA rule.

Just out of curiosity, what is the stupid NCAA rule that is unfairly punishing our seniors?

kiddbrewer wrote:

appalum2003 wrote:The 2013 ASU Senior Class is being unfairly punished not because of any wrongdoing, but because of a stupid NCAA rule.

Just out of curiosity, what is the stupid NCAA rule that is unfairly punishing our seniors?

2-year postseason ban, which came about after Marshall's move when they loaded up on BCS castoffs and dominated IAA. They went 15-0 and won a IAA title in '96, then won the MAC in '97 and went bowling.

Of course, they also gave them fake jobs and changed their grades, but that is another discussion all together.

asumike83 wrote:

kiddbrewer wrote:

appalum2003 wrote:The 2013 ASU Senior Class is being unfairly punished not because of any wrongdoing, but because of a stupid NCAA rule.

Just out of curiosity, what is the stupid NCAA rule that is unfairly punishing our seniors?

2-year postseason ban, which came about after Marshall's move when they loaded up on BCS castoffs and dominated IAA. They went 15-0 and won a IAA title in '96, then won the MAC in '97 and went bowling.

Of course, they also gave them fake jobs and changed their grades, but that is another discussion all together.

So, Marshall exceeded the 63 schollie limit and were still able to compete for a championship?

Can't remember the exact timing or whether they went over 63 but between FBS transfers who didn't have to sit out because they were technically still 1AA, academic fraud and payment to nonqualifiers through phony jobs, they cheated their way to a seamless transition.

Later, the NCAA implemented the 2-year postseason ban on transitions to discourage the move up all together and give programs who do transition less incentive to cheat and get to a bowl game in year one.

Shocked that the NCAA still recognizes their national titles. Full NCAA report is here if you have time:
http://media.herald-dispatch.com/advert ... report.pdf

"the NCAA implemented the 2-year postseason ban on transitions"

Should be known as "Marshall Law"

I guess my point is this, if App takes on additional scholarship players, that will put us at an advantage over other schools in the FCS. And from all I am hearing, we will add more scholarships come June 1. App should not be eligible for any post season in FCS this year and rightfully so. When appalum2003 referred to the "stupid NCAA rule" I was wondering if that was what he was talking about. If so, I would have to respectfully disagree.

kiddbrewer wrote:I guess my point is this, if App takes on additional scholarship players, that will put us at an advantage over other schools in the FCS. And from all I am hearing, we will add more scholarships come June 1. App should not be eligible for any post season in FCS this year and rightfully so. When appalum2003 referred to the "stupid NCAA rule" I was wondering if that was what he was talking about. If so, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Totally agree with this post. Even if we "win" the conference, if we have more than 63 scholarship players, we shouldn't proclaim ourselves the champs.

I agree we should not be able to go to playoffs if we have more scholarships but i don't understand the first year ban when your FBS where is your advantage over others?

kiddbrewer wrote:I guess my point is this, if App takes on additional scholarship players, that will put us at an advantage over other schools in the FCS. And from all I am hearing, we will add more scholarships come June 1. App should not be eligible for any post season in FCS this year and rightfully so. When appalum2003 referred to the "stupid NCAA rule" I was wondering if that was what he was talking about. If so, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Personally, I think the NCAA should have only a year transition, or no transition at all. However, we knew the rules we made the decision, so we can't really complain about it now.

3rd wrote:I agree we should not be able to go to playoffs if we have more scholarships but i don't understand the first year ban when your FBS where is your advantage over others?

Agree. I can see the reason for not allowing a transitional team to play for an FCS title. The second year makes no sense to me. We will have no advantage over our Sun Belt conference mates and if anything, will be at a decided disadvantage. If we are able to win 6 FBS games in 2014, not allowing us to play in a bowl makes no sense.

But, as ASUMountaineer stated, we knew what we signed up for. Still a stupid rule though.

asumike83 wrote:

3rd wrote:I agree we should not be able to go to playoffs if we have more scholarships but i don't understand the first year ban when your FBS where is your advantage over others?

Agree. I can see the reason for not allowing a transitional team to play for an FCS title. The second year makes no sense to me. We will have no advantage over our Sun Belt conference mates and if anything, will be at a decided disadvantage. If we are able to win 6 FBS games in 2014, not allowing us to play in a bowl makes no sense.

But, as ASUMountaineer stated, we knew what we signed up for. Still a stupid rule though.

I think some advantage would come being able to bring in FBS transfers during our transition year who would not have to sit out a year and would have a year of experience with the team already when we join the Sun Belt. I don't think it's been brought up if we bring in FBS transfers next year('14) will they have to sit until '15 or will they be eligible? If they would be eligible that would also give us an advantage. Any advantage may be negligible but still an advantage.

BeauFoster wrote:

kiddbrewer wrote:I guess my point is this, if App takes on additional scholarship players, that will put us at an advantage over other schools in the FCS. And from all I am hearing, we will add more scholarships come June 1. App should not be eligible for any post season in FCS this year and rightfully so. When appalum2003 referred to the "stupid NCAA rule" I was wondering if that was what he was talking about. If so, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Totally agree with this post. Even if we "win" the conference, if we have more than 63 scholarship players, we shouldn't proclaim ourselves the champs.

I agree. I don't have a problem with rings, but they shouldn't claim any type of championship....maybe a "Season of Excellence" Ring