Jim Harbaugh

[ivan brunetti]

I'd rather the National Championships since that's why you play the games.

Michigan is 1 and 3 vs Utah so Utah > Michigan ?

Idiot 🤣

43 games is a bit larger of a sample size.

 

[Golson5]

43 games is a bit larger of a sample size.

Point is the same. Utah > Michigan. 3 - 1

 

[BGI User 1596]

Point is the same. Utah > Michigan. 3 - 1

Ouch!

 

[ivan brunetti]

Point is the same. Utah > Michigan. 3 - 1

Two games under .500.

ND is EIGHT games under .500.

As 1596 would comment: ouch.

 

[Golson5]

Two games under .500.

ND is EIGHT games under .500.

As 1596 would comment: ouch.

Cornell 12

Michigan 6

Cornell > Michigan

OUCH !!!

 

[tbonesays]

I’ve never seen a college QB that can throw like Tom Brady.

So what.

You implied that the coaches and the administration knew, now you’re saying it was just the players.

You’re also ignoring the details behind the ruling that declared them ineligible, a spurious and absurd ruling by the NCAA

He knows, he just wants to say "ineligible players" as many times as he can. It's a purely circular statement like saying criminals did something illegal.

Why do some Big 10 Football fans hang out here and troll this Forum?

Why?

Apparently this board moderates the ND fans a lot more than other passersby fans.

 

[Patrish]

So what? He was ineligible and he played.

The coaches and administration knowing or not knowing does not matter. Ineligible player(s) participating equals automatic vacating of wins. It is just that simple.

Of course it matters, if the coaches and administrators don’t know that a player is ineligible, how can they possibly sit him out?

It’s not as simple as you’d like to make it for a number of reasons

The players involved were officially found to be ineligible AFTER they played, NOT before they played.

And the student involved in the tutoring was NOT an employee or representative of the university.

The NCAA’s ruling was an enormous departure from prior precedent, which held that the party involved had to be an employee or representative of university.

In this case, it was a student, NOT an employee or representative of the university.

You’d have to be a total moron to equate the reason for the vacating of the wins in2012-2013 and the blatant and premeditated cheating on the part of Michigan’s coaches

But maybe you’re that stupid

 

[Patrish]

8 - 2.5

You can't come back from that. There's nothing you can say. Game. Set. Match.

8 - 2.5

And don’t forget 1993, when Notre Dame had the same record as Florida State, and Notre Dame beat Florida State rather easily, and yet Florida State was voted the national championship as a sympathy vote for Bobby Bowden

Notre Dame beat Florida State
Florida State did not beat Notre Dame

 

[BGI User 1596]

Cornell 12

Michigan 6

Cornell > Michigan

OUCH !!!

Ouch!

 

[ivan brunetti]

Of course it matters, if the coaches and administrators don’t know that a player is ineligible, how can they possibly sit him out?

It’s not as simple as you’d like to make it for a number of reasons

The players involved were officially found to be ineligible AFTER they played, NOT before they played.

And the student involved in the tutoring was NOT an employee or representative of the university.

The NCAA’s ruling was an enormous departure from prior precedent, which held that the party involved had to be an employee or representative of university.

In this case, it was a student, NOT an employee or representative of the university.

You’d have to be a total moron to equate the reason for the vacating of the wins in2012-2013 and the blatant and premeditated cheating on the part of Michigan’s coaches

But maybe you’re that stupid

So if a player cheats to help his team, the team shouldn't be punished? That is your reasoning? If it isn't proven that the coaches knew of the cheating, the team should be allowed to benefit from the cheating?

You are an idiot.

Also, Florida State and ND did not have the same record, dummy. ND ended the year 11-1, and FSU ended at 12-1. Florida State played more ranked opponents. And ND's loss was worse.

1993 NCAA Division I-A football season - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Patrish]

So if a player cheats to help his team, the team shouldn't be punished? The player should be punished not the team.

That is your reasoning? No that’s your convoluted reasoning.

If it isn't proven that the coaches knew of the cheating, the team should be allowed to benefit from the cheating? Unfortunately, yes., you can’t punish the coaches if they didn’t know

Whereas with Michigan, the coaches were cheating

You are an idiot. That could be, but I’m a hell of a lot smarter than you

Also, Florida State and ND did not have the same record. Florida State played more ranked opponents. And ND's loss was worse. They had identical records., and Notre Dame beat Florida State head-to-head

1993 NCAA Division I-A football season - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org