....that if the NCAA does decide to hit the football program with a one-year bowl ban at some point, the school can't just appeal and keep sending teams to bowl games until the appeals are done or it realizes it can't get into a big enough bowl game and decides to "self-impose" the bowl ban at that point.

The NCAA recently changed its policies so that if a team receives a postseason ban, it has to serve it while it is appealing the decision. Never mind if the appeal would have resulted in the ban being rescinded but the team had to serve the ban anyway.

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 6:11:45 PM UTC-6, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> ...that if the NCAA does decide to hit the football program with a one-year bowl ban at some point, the school can't just appeal and keep sending teams to bowl games until the appeals are done or it realizes it can't get into a big enough bowl game and decides to "self-impose" the bowl ban at that point.
>
> The NCAA recently changed its policies so that if a team receives a postseason ban, it has to serve it while it is appealing the decision. Never mind if the appeal would have resulted in the ban being rescinded but the team had to serve the ban anyway.

It would only matter if the team is invited to the CFP. Otherwise, who cares?

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 4:11:45 PM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> ...that if the NCAA does decide to hit the football program with a one-year bowl ban at some point, the school can't just appeal and keep sending teams to bowl games until the appeals are done or it realizes it can't get into a big enough bowl game and decides to "self-impose" the bowl ban at that point.
>
> The NCAA recently changed its policies so that if a team receives a postseason ban, it has to serve it while it is appealing the decision. Never mind if the appeal would have resulted in the ban being rescinded but the team had to serve the ban anyway.

That's begging a lawsuit, but the alternative is something like what Auburn did for it's last Natty: If we can't have it, no one will.

Easiest solution would be to take full control of FBS football, but no one wants to do thaaaaaaaaaaat...

Mike

> > The NCAA recently changed its policies so that if a team receives a postseason ban, it has to serve it while it is appealing the decision. Never mind if the appeal would have resulted in the ban being rescinded but the team had to serve the ban anyway.
> That's begging a lawsuit, but the alternative is something like what Auburn did for it's last Natty: If we can't have it, no one will.

Um...huh? The bit about Auburn needs to be explained.

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 6:43:54 AM UTC-8, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > The NCAA recently changed its policies so that if a team receives a postseason ban, it has to serve it while it is appealing the decision. Never mind if the appeal would have resulted in the ban being rescinded but the team had to serve the ban anyway.
> > That's begging a lawsuit, but the alternative is something like what Auburn did for it's last Natty: If we can't have it, no one will.
> Um...huh? The bit about Auburn needs to be explained.

There were allegations all over the SEC that the Cam Newton Heisman team was literally bought and paid for with so much under the table money, if it ever got out, they'd be so Reggie Bush'd, it's not even funny.

Mike