So, should we withdraw the appeal on post season ban?

[okiemon]

Drew turned us down. We stopped pursuing Capel in favor of Pastner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. I mis-remembered.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dtm1997]

Drew turned us down. We stopped pursuing Capel in favor of Pastner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Capel took himself out of consideration before Pastner was ever involved.

 

[Hjacket]

If you think self-imposing a ban at a time when the post-season prospects remain somewhat bleak will have an effect on the final penalties if the appeal is denied, I would submit that you are naive. The NCAA is dumb but not stoopid. It's a meaningless gesture at this point in the season and undermines the appeal and our protestations that the punishment does not fit the crime. The lawsuit,if we lose the appeal,would like stay the penalties and play out over several years. Kicking the can down the road (if cost is fully funded) may be our best strategy.

 

[slugboy]

Capel took himself out of consideration before Pastner was ever involved.

I thought it was a “I’m not getting the job, so I’ll remove my name” situation, but being on the outside there’s no way for me to know. I think you have better info than I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dtm1997]

If you think self-imposing a ban at a time when the post-season prospects remain somewhat bleak will have an effect on the final penalties if the appeal is denied, I would submit that you are naive. The NCAA is dumb but not stoopid. It's a meaningless gesture at this point in the season and undermines the appeal and our protestations that the punishment does not fit the crime. The lawsuit,if we lose the appeal,would like stay the penalties and play out over several years. Kicking the can down the road (if cost is fully funded) may be our best strategy.

I'm not arguing for or against your point, but if you self-impose the ban now, you're serving that part of the sentence, removing the possibility of it happening next year.

Do you end up having to serve out the other penalties? Maybe.

You've eliminated having to serve the post-season ban next year though.

 

[dtm1997]

I thought it was a “I’m not getting the job, so I’ll remove my name” situation, but being on the outside there’s no way for me to know. I think you have better info than I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was the situation, but it was based on Bryce Drew being the expected head coach, not Pastner. We chased several candidates after Capel & Drew came off the list.

 

[YlJacket]

I thought it was a “I’m not getting the job, so I’ll remove my name” situation, but being on the outside there’s no way for me to know. I think you have better info than I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Depends on who/what you believe. Both sides leak some things to protect their interests and confuse what is actually going on. My personal belief was Capel wanted some things GT was not prepared to do - not sure whether that was salary or support. But I don't think anyone not named Capel or Stansbury knows exactly what happened.

 

[Hjacket]

I'm not arguing for or against your point, but if you self-impose the ban now, you're serving that part of the sentence, removing the possibility of it happening next year.

Do you end up having to serve out the other penalties? Maybe.

You've eliminated having to serve the post-season ban next year though.

Are we sure that the self imposed post-season ban prevents them for imposing a ban as part of the final determination? I am not aware that this works. Seems like a huge loophole.

 

[YlJacket]

The appeal is for the penalties already assessed. At this time supposedly the NCAA cannot apply additional penalties so theoretically if you self impose it would take care of that part of the penalties if your appeal is turned down. It would be seen by everyone for what it is so there may be a way they call BS on our self imposing the obvious but I am not sure they have that as an option (not that that stops the NCAA at times).

IMHO there are 2 things driving this at this point - One is the promise TS made to the team that we would appeal this and he likely doesn't want to go back on that promise. And second whatever the lawyers are telling him about the potential for success both with the ongoing appeal and any potential lawsuit afterward. I am really hoping we punted Larry, Curly and Moe but haven't tracked it that closely to know who our lawyers are now. He also knows if we drop the appeal at this point we will take a PR hit but that would be short lived and not sure if he really cares.

I still think the best thing for us at this point is for the NCAA to rule in the next week or so but doubt that happens.

 

[dtm1997]

Are we sure that the self imposed post-season ban prevents them for imposing a ban as part of the final determination? I am not aware that this works. Seems like a huge loophole.

They hit us with a 1-year ban from post-season play. If we announce on Saturday morning that we're not going to Greensboro and serving our 1-year ban, we'll have served our time. If they then tried to make us serve further, I agree we should sue the **** out of them.

I think the case for arguing against the recruiting sanctions can be based on different rationale, but also think there's validity to your comment that you weaken the argument if you show willingness to serve the post-season ban this late in the season.

 

[Techster]

That was the situation, but it was based on Bryce Drew being the expected head coach, not Pastner. We chased several candidates after Capel & Drew came off the list.

One has to assume Drew would have cost GT more than Pastner...and given what Drew did at Vandy, it may have been a blessing in disguise even though we already know the outcome of Pastner. Not sure GT basketball would survive a 3rd buyout with Drew's potential contract. 20/20 hindsight and all. Of course, Drew may have been a better fit at GT than Vandy...but books have been written about "what ifs".

 

[Techster]

I still think the best thing for us at this point is for the NCAA to rule in the next week or so but doubt that happens.

Disagree.

Best thing is for GT to win the ACCT, automatically qualify for the NCAAT....make the Final Four.

Of course, there are dreams, and then there's reality.

 

[lv20gt]

Are we sure that the self imposed post-season ban prevents them for imposing a ban as part of the final determination? I am not aware that this works. Seems like a huge loophole.

Sure? No. But at the very least it'd be easier to argue in court that we served the post season ban and that trying to impose another year of a ban breaks their own rules than arguing that the ruling itself was inconsistent.

This isn't like going 4-8 in football and claiming a bowl ban after losing game 7. We'd be giving up the ACCT meaning there is a concrete punishment and however slim the chance may be giving up a chance for the NCAAT and thus championship. We'd also be doing so in response to their ruling. I really doubt the NCAA wants to die on that sword if we went to court for them trying to extend the ban further.

IMO it's a better option than planning on suing them if they deny our appeal.

 

[orientalnc]

I'm not arguing for or against your point, but if you self-impose the ban now, you're serving that part of the sentence, removing the possibility of it happening next year.

Do you end up having to serve out the other penalties? Maybe.

You've eliminated having to serve the post-season ban next year though.

This is probably the most likely scenario if we think the appeal is going to be denied. And, assuming we have no intention of suing the NCAA. It seems more likely we will hang with the appeal at least through this next week. If we win both games, I think an NIT bid is a reasonable expectation. With it might come a few home games. In that case we might see getting the NIT this year as an important reward for the players and coaches who have work hard to get to the postseason.

The wildcard in this mess is the possibility of suing the NCAA if they deny the appeal in whole or part. My view of this is that the NCAA said Pastner was blameless in the violations, so I do not understand why there were any additional penalties for the trip to Arizona. We self reported, withheld the players from competition, and that seemed to be the end of it. I see the Carter violation as a completely separate issue. Again, Pastner was not blamed, so the NCAA considered LaBarrie as operating on his own with a former player to violate the rules. LaBarrie is gone and some sanction is probably due, but this lone violation seems to have been penalized far beyond the normal (or usual) penalties for something like this.

 

[GTbball2016]

Serving postseason ban now makes it so José and Moses can’t transfer freely

 

[joehamiltonfan14]

Count me in for withdrawing the ban. Can salvage next year and avoid an exodus of transfers. Hate having this hang over our heads. I’d let Stansbury talk to the team about it and see if they are understanding.

 

[lv20gt]

One thing I hope we do before either self imposing a ban or withdrawing the appeal is to get the opinion of the players and let them know the choices at hand. If the players all want to play knowing that it might mean we have to serve the ban next year it should mean something, even if the decision is ultimately made by someone else and goes against those wishes.

 

[dtm1997]

One thing I hope we do before either self imposing a ban or withdrawing the appeal is to get the opinion of the players and let them know the choices at hand. If the players all want to play knowing that it might mean we have to serve the ban next year it should mean something, even if the decision is ultimately made by someone else and goes against those wishes.

I agree we should get their input. That said, they can say yes to playing this year, serving the ban next year, having the option to leave with immediate eligibility.

To the extent you're willing to leave, you have no downside, unless GT is where you really want to be.

 

[glandon1960]

One thing I hope we do before either self imposing a ban or withdrawing the appeal is to get the opinion of the players and let them know the choices at hand. If the players all want to play knowing that it might mean we have to serve the ban next year it should mean something, even if the decision is ultimately made by someone else and goes against those wishes.

Agree - At this point, I would server the ban this year (self impose ... not sure if you would need to do that before/after ACC Tournament). From the long term health of the program - getting hit with a postseason ban next year at this point would likely lead to several players leaving and effectively destroy the progress the program has made 'getting old').

I agree TStan needs to get players input - even if he goes against their wishes.

The other sanctions being appealed are not that destructive in long term of program .. yeah they hurt, but nothing you can't work around with good success.
Even if number of scholarships is reduced, I can not see NCAA making GT kick player already signed off scholarship (rather you only let GT sign back to 11 the next season you go below 12) ... and at this point, several of the targets for next season have already been to a game on campus ... so not sure if that will be significant impact (even though that saction makes absolutely no sense to me given what we did).

The most frustrating part of this is how long it takes the NCAA to make a decision on the ruling .... It should take no more than a few weeks after GT filed the appeal for them to convene, review, and make a decision one way or the other ... leaving any program in limbo for extended period of time does that program no good.

 

[MtnWasp]

If withdrawing the appeal was clearly in the best interests of GT at this time, then the GTAA would surely have done it by now. It may be a simple matter of the GTAA giving every last second for the NCAA to come out with a decision one way or the other. There is no moratorium on the two sides communicating with each other. There could be an information flow going on. If there is a deadline for a withdraw of all or part of the appeal, there is no reason to announce a decision before the deadline.

The AJC article about Zelnak talking lawsuit is certainly an indication that there is maneuvering going on. If Stansbury generates evidence that suggests that a lawsuit will have some traction, then he has my blessings. The NCAA needs to be called on their favoritism and sticking it to smaller programs. I can live with those risks to see the NCAA called to the mat.

Otherwise, the situation is not complicated and it a decision hasn't been announced it is because there is no need to make a decision at this time. Just like the Bengals could announce who they will select with the first pick of the NFL draft at any time, but there is no need to do so at this time. Some new info could come to light.