NCAA upholds its ruling to force ND football to vacate wins from 2012-2013

[Bumpdaddy]

There is already another thread started on this subject but I wanted to introduce this thread to make sure certain salient points of the NCAA's ruling and ND's response to that ruling are kept for posterity. A lot can be said about this ruling but the quick summary is this:

The NCAA ruled to uphold its original penalty. ND, led by Father Jenkins, vehemently disagrees with the ruling.

Here are the salient points Fr. Jenkins made regarding this ruling:

• The NCAA is NOT an academic association generally responsible for the academic integrity of colleges and universities. It is an association that regulates academics in certain narrowly drawn cases involving students who are athletes.
• There are two types of cases in which the NCAA imposes rules and punishments for academic infractions: 1) When a representative of the university is complicit with cheating, 2) or when a student-athlete competes while ineligible
• ND originally disagreed with several initial assessments by the NCAA but agreed to accept some of those findings to expedite the case. In doing so they agreed to accept certain mandatory penalties, and agreed to be subject to possible discretionary penalties. It is the discretionary penalties that Jenkins and ND vehemently disagree with based on previous NCAA rulings and the fact the NCAA has clarified some of their rules since this case.
• Previously, the only instances in which the NCAA imposed a penalty of vacated wins is when a coach or administrator or, more broadly, a "representative of the university" helped an athlete to cheat, or when the institution fails to monitor or lacks control over its athletics programs
• The athletes who cheated received assistance from an undergrad student who was only a part-time assistant to athletic trainers.
• At the time of its original ruling there was no rule that defined how a part-time assistant who was also a student should be classified. Were they representatives of the university or not? The NCAA had discretion.
• Since the original ruling the NCAA has defined how a part-time assistant should be classified - such assistants are NOT considered representatives of the university. In other words, when the NCAA was forced to explicitly and universally define such a person they determined such a person should never be considered a representative of the university. If the same exact circumstances were to happen today the NCAA would, by rule without having any discretion, conclude that the student who helped the 3 football players cheat would NOT have been a representative of the university and would have automatically ruled in ND's favor. Student-to-student cheating is NOT a rules violation under the NCAA guidelines and never has been.
• Even when the NCAA had discretion in how to define the part-time student assistant, historically the NCAA had NEVER defined such a person as being a representative of the university. Again, historically the NCAA had only pointed to coaches or administrators who had a role in academic advising. The part-time assistant/student had no role in academic advising.
• ND pointed out that in every similar case in which the NCAA has imposed discretionary penalties they could point to a coach, administrator, or person who served in an academic role that helped an athlete cheat. There was no such person involved in this case.
• Given the situation above, ND asked the NCAA to explain why they would go against previous history and set a precedent in this case. The NCAA refused to give an explanation.
• Regarding the 3 players who were ruled by the NCAA to be ineligible to play, at the time they played they were, indeed, legitimately eligible to play.
• It was only after ND imposed its own Honor Code that the NCAA retroactively ruled the 3 players ineligible.
• By retroactively imposing a penalty the NCAA has created two scenarios: 1) Best case, the NCAA decision creates a random outcome based on how institutions interpret their own Honor Code, 2) Worst case, the NCAA ruling creates a strong incentive for institutions to change their Honor Code to avoid sanctions from the NCAA
• Another way to state the above point: The NCAA is coercing institutions to change their Honor Codes. This is not supposed to happen under any circumstances. By the NCAA's own directive, institutions are supposed to be autonomous when it comes to their own academic standards and how it handles students who may violate those standards.
• The NCAA recently and very publicly demonstrated that they have chosen NOT to ignore academic autonomy. They used academic autonomy as a reason not to impose severe penalties on North Carolina even though, as the NCAA said, it was "more likely than not" that NC offered fraudulent classes to keep athletes eligible.
• Jenkins and ND have vowed to work with other universities to introduce and adopt NCAA legislation to ensure the universities remain academically autonomous and will result in more fair and reasonable decisions.

Here's a link to the official response letter from Father Jenkins which details the points above:

https://president.nd.edu/writings-a...m-the-president-on-the-ncaa-infractions-case/

 

[topdecktiger]

The NCAA is NOT an academic association generally responsible for the academic integrity of colleges and universities. It is an association that regulates academics in certain narrowly drawn cases involving students who are athletes.

This is the same argument North Carolina made, so keep that in mind.

 

[tbonesays]

• Virtue is its own punishment.

 

[HDK]

This is the same argument North Carolina made, so keep that in mind.

Yes, and somehow it was not a violation for North Carolina's administration to run fraudulent classes to which it directed scores of mostly black student athletes, but it is a violation if a part-time trainer, who has no official academic role, cheated with a couple of players. And by the way, I think if you read the Jenkins letter, he mentions that that those players's grades were adjusted and they were not ineligible!

 

[NDSMC78]

ND self-reported the violations and this is the end result. Another example of no good deed going unpunished.

 

[impossibilityofreason1]

Jenkins is right. The NCAA is an f’n joke. Jenkins just has more class in his scathing views. Still f the NCAA.

 

[AdvanSix]

Keep your collective chins up. There is absolutely no shame in being the 7th winningest program (885) in CFB history.

 

[NDAFArly]

Keep your collective chins up. There is absolutely no shame in being the 7th winningest program (885) in CFB history.

No one cares about Michigan.

Everybody, literally everybody that isn’t an idiot (like you) is siding with ND.
Even a Federal Court has stated they are interested in hearing this case if ND chooses to file a lawsuit.

Oh, I hope you enjoy your last day here, you are about to be banned...

 

[NDAFArly]

For those of you who are curious, EVERYBODY (even ND haters like CBS, ESPN, the SEC Network, etc...) are taking ND’s side.

A few large law firms have offered their services (not that ND needs them) for a federal lawsuit.

ESPN has stated the NCAA just signed their own death warrant.
CBS is saying the NCAA might just have started the beginning of their own ending:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...e-could-be-the-tipping-point-of-an-avalanche/

This case is reaching non-athletic news agencies & has Major University Presidents asking the legitimacy & point of the NCAA.

Experts are saying ND’s response just ruined the NCAA.

 

[Fifthhorseman25]

For those of you who are curious, EVERYBODY (even ND haters like CBS, ESPN, the SEC Network, etc...) are taking ND’s side.

A few large law firms have offered their services (not that ND needs them) for a federal lawsuit.

ESPN has stated the NCAA just signed their own death warrant.
CBS is saying the NCAA might just have started the beginning of their own ending:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...e-could-be-the-tipping-point-of-an-avalanche/

This case is reaching non-athletic news agencies & has Major University Presidents asking the legitimacy & point of the NCAA.

Experts are saying ND’s response just ruined the NCAA.

Hopefully this does bring an end to the NCAA. They have been a joke for years. This team gets no penalty because we can make $$ off of them. This team gets a major penalty because we can't make any $$ off of them. F!!!!!!!!! THE NCAA.

They care about $$ and that is it. They do not give a rats azz about the "student athlete"........

Bring back the BOZ ncaa t-shirts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NDAFArly]

Hopefully this does bring an end to the NCAA. They have been a joke for years. This team gets no penalty because we can make $$ off of them. This team gets a major penalty because we can't make any $$ off of them. F!!!!!!!!! THE NCAA.

They care about $$ and that is it. They do not give a rats azz about the "student athlete"........

Bring back the BOZ ncaa t-shirts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The legal people interested (the federal judge, the large law firms) have said they are interested in the case because the NCAA JUST RULED that they are not to be involved with how Universities handle academics or punishment, yet they did just that now.
So they ruled in two different ways with UNC & ND, when UNC lied, covered up, cheated for 18 years, then told the NCAA to mind their own business. ND handled a situation they didn’t even need to & admitted to it. And the school had no involvement, yet UNC not only had involvement, they created it & covered it up.

ND could destroy the NCAA in federal court, win easily & get the wins back. But I think they are going to take the high road & let the NCAA look stupid, & just let other schools use this as an excuse to leave the NCAA.

 

[tbonesays]

IMO the UNC analogy is flawed because it appeared to invoke the condemnation of the entire department. If a College wants to offer a degree in "Video Gameology" then it's not the NCAA's jurisdiction to call BS. (It's really nobody but the court of public opinion, because people cannot agree on what constitutes "real education").

Now if a tutor finished the Madden exam for an athlete then we have a clear violation in the NCAA's field. I'm not saying the NCAA handled either matter very well but that we shouldn't blur the line between distinct concepts

 

[HDK]

Hopefully this does bring an end to the NCAA. They have been a joke for years. This team gets no penalty because we can make $$ off of them. This team gets a major penalty because we can't make any $$ off of them. F!!!!!!!!! THE NCAA.

They care about $$ and that is it. They do not give a rats azz about the "student athlete"........

Bring back the BOZ ncaa t-shirts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would imagine the NCAA makes plenty of money off ND too, so I don't think that is it. I think it is more a bunch of buffoons trying to make themselves look strict.

I, for one, hope ND both sues and puts the wheels in motion for a new athletic association among other like minded universities.

 

[beachcardinal]

There is already another thread started on this subject but I wanted to introduce this thread to make sure certain salient points of the NCAA's ruling and ND's response to that ruling are kept for posterity. A lot can be said about this ruling but the quick summary is this:

The NCAA ruled to uphold its original penalty. ND, led by Father Jenkins, vehemently disagrees with the ruling.

Here are the salient points Fr. Jenkins made regarding this ruling:

• The NCAA is NOT an academic association generally responsible for the academic integrity of colleges and universities. It is an association that regulates academics in certain narrowly drawn cases involving students who are athletes.
• There are two types of cases in which the NCAA imposes rules and punishments for academic infractions: 1) When a representative of the university is complicit with cheating, 2) or when a student-athlete competes while ineligible
• ND originally disagreed with several initial assessments by the NCAA but agreed to accept some of those findings to expedite the case. In doing so they agreed to accept certain mandatory penalties, and agreed to be subject to possible discretionary penalties. It is the discretionary penalties that Jenkins and ND vehemently disagree with based on previous NCAA rulings and the fact the NCAA has clarified some of their rules since this case.
• Previously, the only instances in which the NCAA imposed a penalty of vacated wins is when a coach or administrator or, more broadly, a "representative of the university" helped an athlete to cheat, or when the institution fails to monitor or lacks control over its athletics programs
• The athletes who cheated received assistance from an undergrad student who was only a part-time assistant to athletic trainers.
• At the time of its original ruling there was no rule that defined how a part-time assistant who was also a student should be classified. Were they representatives of the university or not? The NCAA had discretion.
• Since the original ruling the NCAA has defined how a part-time assistant should be classified - such assistants are NOT considered representatives of the university. In other words, when the NCAA was forced to explicitly and universally define such a person they determined such a person should never be considered a representative of the university. If the same exact circumstances were to happen today the NCAA would, by rule without having any discretion, conclude that the student who helped the 3 football players cheat would NOT have been a representative of the university and would have automatically ruled in ND's favor. Student-to-student cheating is NOT a rules violation under the NCAA guidelines and never has been.
• Even when the NCAA had discretion in how to define the part-time student assistant, historically the NCAA had NEVER defined such a person as being a representative of the university. Again, historically the NCAA had only pointed to coaches or administrators who had a role in academic advising. The part-time assistant/student had no role in academic advising.
• ND pointed out that in every similar case in which the NCAA has imposed discretionary penalties they could point to a coach, administrator, or person who served in an academic role that helped an athlete cheat. There was no such person involved in this case.
• Given the situation above, ND asked the NCAA to explain why they would go against previous history and set a precedent in this case. The NCAA refused to give an explanation.
• Regarding the 3 players who were ruled by the NCAA to be ineligible to play, at the time they played they were, indeed, legitimately eligible to play.
• It was only after ND imposed its own Honor Code that the NCAA retroactively ruled the 3 players ineligible.
• By retroactively imposing a penalty the NCAA has created two scenarios: 1) Best case, the NCAA decision creates a random outcome based on how institutions interpret their own Honor Code, 2) Worst case, the NCAA ruling creates a strong incentive for institutions to change their Honor Code to avoid sanctions from the NCAA
• Another way to state the above point: The NCAA is coercing institutions to change their Honor Codes. This is not supposed to happen under any circumstances. By the NCAA's own directive, institutions are supposed to be autonomous when it comes to their own academic standards and how it handles students who may violate those standards.
• The NCAA recently and very publicly demonstrated that they have chosen NOT to ignore academic autonomy. They used academic autonomy as a reason not to impose severe penalties on North Carolina even though, as the NCAA said, it was "more likely than not" that NC offered fraudulent classes to keep athletes eligible.
• Jenkins and ND have vowed to work with other universities to introduce and adopt NCAA legislation to ensure the universities remain academically autonomous and will result in more fair and reasonable decisions.

Here's a link to the official response letter from Father Jenkins which details the points above:

https://president.nd.edu/writings-a...m-the-president-on-the-ncaa-infractions-case/

When a student athlete receives extra benefits, whether from money or improper academic support, they are ineligible at the point of receipt. It is accepting the benefit that makes the athlete ineligible, not the resulting grade when discovered.

BTW the NCAA changed its rules just before the SC case to hold that past decisions made in similar cases had no effect on current decisions. SC was the first school reviewed under the rule change and it was used to justify more severe penalties than were given in such situations before.

Finally, using logic concerning the NCAA is a waste of time. This is an organization that the California Court of Appeal found to be so divorced from fairness as to be malicious. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...isregarded-the-truth-in-reggie-bush-usc-case/

 

[Bumpdaddy]

When a student athlete receives extra benefits, whether from money or improper academic support, they are ineligible at the point of receipt. It is accepting the benefit that makes the athlete ineligible, not the resulting grade when discovered.

When it comes to academic support the NCAA has been fairly clear on this issue - if the improper academic support came from another student, i.e., student-to-student cheating, it is not an NCAA violation and never has been. If the improper academic support came from a representative of the university the NCAA has discretion to impose a penalty. There was no rule in place that stated the part-time assistant should have been considered a representative of the university. In all previous cases in which the NCAA used its discretion to label someone a "representative of the university" that person was either a coach, an administrator, or someone who served in an academic role. The part-time assistant in question was none of those things. And, again, since then the NCAA has actually defined such a person and they've stipulated such a person is NOT to be considered a representative of the university. This wasn't a rule change as much as it was a rule clarification. Rule change or not, the previous rule didn't state that a part-time assistant had to be considered a representative of the university, so after the rule was clarified and established the NCAA can't now say "at the time we had to go by the rules as they were stated, so we were forced to uphold our ruling" because the original ruling was discretionary anyway. There was nothing in their rules that compelled them to do what they did. Therefore, when the rule was officially clarified, they definitely should have looked back at that discretionary decision and ruled reasonably upon the appeal. They didn't do that.

I agree with everything else you said. The NCAA is completely divorced from fairness and is committed to being nothing but malicious.

 

[tbonesays]

And the NCAA is legally a private club and can screw over its own members as it sees fit. Although Beach's link shows they have to watch out for other crimes. Vacated wins are not something for which you call in the lawyers.

 

[beachcardinal]

And the NCAA is legally a private club and can screw over its own members as it sees fit. Although Beach's link shows they have to watch out for other crimes. Vacated wins are not something for which you call in the lawyers.

True since they are a private association they are not required to offer due process.

 

[NDskins]

This is the same argument North Carolina made, so keep that in mind.

UNC didn't admit any guilt, ND admitted to some violations and self reported. Lesson learnt, always plead not guilty and look the other way.

 

[IRISHJD98]

Pretty strong statement from Jenkins. Having recoginzed Notre Dame handled the probelm the right way, Notre Dame trusted the NCAA to exercise its discretion in a fair manner. Without transparency and a reasoned explanation, the NCAA's apparently capricious exercise of discretion is a serous breach of trust. So Jenkins is going to seek the aid of other member institutions and propose legislation to limit the NCAA's discretion in the future.

IMO, Jenkins and Notre Dame saw the result from the appeal coming (the NCAA is presently defending a lawsuit brought by Arkansas Tech to restore 200 men's and women's victories and vacating ND's would have been bad optics for that case -there was action on that case this week so the timing of this decision came as no surprise to me).

My guess is that Jenkins and Notre Dame were already are working on and gathering support for major reforms. And I can't imagine Jenkins would issue a statement like this without already knowing Notre Dame has a significant amount of support from other university presidents.

We'll start getting our wins back on the field September 1st, and the outcome of the Arkansas Tech case may be instructive for Notre Dame.

 

[IRISHJD98]

And the NCAA is legally a private club and can screw over its own members as it sees fit. Although Beach's link shows they have to watch out for other crimes. Vacated wins are not something for which you call in the lawyers.

Actually, Arkansas Tech has a case against the NCAA pending in federal court solely over vacated wins. Its set for trial in July.

 

[Bumpdaddy]

IMO the UNC analogy is flawed because it appeared to invoke the condemnation of the entire department. If a College wants to offer a degree in "Video Gameology" then it's not the NCAA's jurisdiction to call BS. (It's really nobody but the court of public opinion, because people cannot agree on what constitutes "real education").

Now if a tutor finished the Madden exam for an athlete then we have a clear violation in the NCAA's field. I'm not saying the NCAA handled either matter very well but that we shouldn't blur the line between distinct concepts

Your example is not a good analogy. The issue regarding NC wasn't that they were offering easy/joke courses. The issue was they were fraudulent courses. The courses didn't teach anything. The NCAA agreed the courses were fraudulent but they said that, since those fraudulent courses were also offered to regular students, those courses weren't considered an improper benefit for just student-athletes. Just looking at this from the NCAA's perspective, that conclusion brings up 3 significant problems:

1. The NCAA had discretion in the NC case just as they had in ND's case, meaning they conceivably could have ruled a number of different ways, including punishing NC, as long as they gave proper reasoning for their judgement.
2. The NCAA agreed the courses were fraudulent. How does anyone, student-athlete or regular student, earn a legitimate grade through fraudulent/non-courses? If athletes earned grades they should not have received (again, these weren't real courses) why wouldn't the NCAA use their discretion to retroactively rule those athletes ineligible as they did with ND?
3. The key part of the NCAA's ruling was the fact NC offered those fraudulent courses to non-athletes as well. However, the NCAA also said it was "more likely than not" those fraudulent courses were created specifically to keep athletes eligible. There was no equal consideration for regular students when creating those courses. The primary purpose of those courses was to benefit student-athletes above all. Why didn't the NCAA use their discretion to make that point and conclude that athletes did, indeed, receive improper benefit?

The real problem with the ND and NC rulings is that both rulings were completely wrong. ND did the right thing and didn't deserve to be punished, NC did everything egregiously wrong but got away scot free. I think some people see it as, "well, if they didn't punish NC they shouldn't punish ND." Or, "if they punished ND they should have punished NC." No. The NCAA should have used reason and fairness in both cases but in both cases they did neither. So at least they are consistent in that way.

 

[tbonesays]

The NCAA agreed the courses were fraudulent but they said that, since those fraudulent courses were also offered to regular students, those courses weren't considered an improper benefit for just student-athletes.

TY. That's the first smile I grinned today.

 

[bizzybecknd]

This is a very curious/brutal ruling.. I have ties to the Academies, I can tell you cheating (student to student) is rampant, especially among the athletes. To me, this is standard amongst all universities and can't imagine what goes on at the Bama's and Oh St.'s of the world. Does it make it right? No but it's far from an institutional problem. The X factor lies in the fact they considered a part time athletic trainer an employee. This should be an example of institutional control not the latter. Unreal

 

[IRISHJD98]

This is a very curious/brutal ruling.. I have ties to the Academies, I can tell you cheating (student to student) is rampant, especially among the athletes. To me, this is standard amongst all universities and can't imagine what goes on at the Bama's and Oh St.'s of the world. Does it make it right? No but it's far from an institutional problem. The X factor lies in the fact they considered a part time athletic trainer an employee. This should be an example of institutional control not the latter. Unreal

And a 2016 rule change ensures that future instances like this will be treated as student to student cheating governed by the schools, rather than an extra benefit from an athletic representative.

 

[irish4life888]

Keep your collective chins up. There is absolutely no shame in being the 7th winningest program (885) in CFB history.

Yet meatchicken still sucks and self imposed it's own penalty with most over paid college coach in Harbaugh LOL! Oh and 37-0!

 

[tbonesays]

Your example is not a good analogy. The issue regarding NC wasn't that they were offering easy/joke courses. The issue was they were fraudulent courses. The courses didn't teach anything. The NCAA agreed the courses were fraudulent but they said that, since those fraudulent courses were also offered to regular students, those courses weren't considered an improper benefit for just student-athletes. Just looking at this from the NCAA's perspective, that conclusion brings up 3 significant problems:

1. The NCAA had discretion in the NC case just as they had in ND's case, meaning they conceivably could have ruled a number of different ways, including punishing NC, as long as they gave proper reasoning for their judgement.
2. The NCAA agreed the courses were fraudulent. How does anyone, student-athlete or regular student, earn a legitimate grade through fraudulent/non-courses? If athletes earned grades they should not have received (again, these weren't real courses) why wouldn't the NCAA use their discretion to retroactively rule those athletes ineligible as they did with ND?
3. The key part of the NCAA's ruling was the fact NC offered those fraudulent courses to non-athletes as well. However, the NCAA also said it was "more likely than not" those fraudulent courses were created specifically to keep athletes eligible. There was no equal consideration for regular students when creating those courses. The primary purpose of those courses was to benefit student-athletes above all. Why didn't the NCAA use their discretion to make that point and conclude that athletes did, indeed, receive improper benefit?

The real problem with the ND and NC rulings is that both rulings were completely wrong. ND did the right thing and didn't deserve to be punished, NC did everything egregiously wrong but got away scot free. I think some people see it as, "well, if they didn't punish NC they shouldn't punish ND." Or, "if they punished ND they should have punished NC." No. The NCAA should have used reason and fairness in both cases but in both cases they did neither. So at least they are consistent in that way.

that being said I disagree that it's a bad analogy. The NCAA was clearly tiptoeing around the idea of a 'fraudulent course' since they haven't the ability to distinguish it from a run of the mill jock major, or getting an A in being a good citizen. And the "available to non-athletes" argument is vacuous because any university can negate any impermissible benefit by including one regular student.

 

[ivan brunetti]

This is a very curious/brutal ruling.. I have ties to the Academies, I can tell you cheating (student to student) is rampant, especially among the athletes. To me, this is standard amongst all universities and can't imagine what goes on at the Bama's and Oh St.'s of the world. Does it make it right? No but it's far from an institutional problem. The X factor lies in the fact they considered a part time athletic trainer an employee. This should be an example of institutional control not the latter. Unreal

Paycheck = employee. Whether she worked 40 hours per week or not is beside the point.

 

[BoomRShine]

Oh and 37-0!

What does 37-0 mean? Are you referring to the 2014 game which was won by Notre Dame 31-0?

Anyway, most lopsided results:

2007: Michigan 38-0
2003: Michigan 38-0
2014: Notre Dame 31-0
2006: Michigan 47-21
1943: Notre Dame 35-12
1902: Michigan 23-0
1898: Michigan 23-0
1888: Michigan 20-0
__________________________
Shutouts:

Michigan: 7
2007: Michigan 38-0
2003: Michigan 38-0
1902: Michigan 23-0
1900: Michigan 7-0
1899: Michigan 12-0
1898: Michigan 23-0
1998: Michigan 8-0

Notre Dame: 1
2014: Notre Dame 31-0
__________________________
10+ point wins/2+ score wins:

Michigan: 12
2013: Michigan 41-30 (too bad ND can't vacate this loss)
2007: Michigan 38-0
2006: Michigan 47-21
2003: Michigan 38-0
1991: Michigan 24-14
1981: Michigan 25-7
1978: Michigan 28-14
1942: Michigan 32-20
1902: Michigan 23-0
1899: Michigan 12-0
1898: Michigan 23-0
1888: Michigan 26-6

Notre Dame: 5
2014: Notre Dame 31-0
2008: Notre Dame 35-17
1998: Notre Dame 36-20
1987: Notre Dame 26-7
1943: Notre Dame 35-12
__________________________
Overall record:

Michigan 24-17-1

Anyway you look at it, Michigan has dominated the series.

 

[Bumpdaddy]

Paycheck = employee. Whether she worked 40 hours per week or not is beside the point.

Employee does not mean "representative of the university." "Representative of the university" is the only designation that matters. Previously the NCAA didn't have a definition for what a full-time student, part-time employee was . They have since:

Full-time student, part-time employee with no role in academic advising ≠ "Representative of the university"

 

[irish4life888]

What does 37-0 mean? Are you referring to the 2014 game which was won by Notre Dame 31-0?

Anyway, most lopsided results:

2007: Michigan 38-0
2003: Michigan 38-0
2014: Notre Dame 31-0
2006: Michigan 47-21
1943: Notre Dame 35-12
1902: Michigan 23-0
1898: Michigan 23-0
1888: Michigan 20-0
__________________________
Shutouts:

Michigan: 7
2007: Michigan 38-0
2003: Michigan 38-0
1902: Michigan 23-0
1900: Michigan 7-0
1899: Michigan 12-0
1898: Michigan 23-0
1998: Michigan 8-0

Notre Dame: 1
2014: Notre Dame 31-0
__________________________
10+ point wins/2+ score wins:

Michigan: 12
2013: Michigan 41-30 (too bad ND can't vacate this loss)
2007: Michigan 38-0
2006: Michigan 47-21
2003: Michigan 38-0
1991: Michigan 24-14
1981: Michigan 25-7
1978: Michigan 28-14
1942: Michigan 32-20
1902: Michigan 23-0
1899: Michigan 12-0
1898: Michigan 23-0
1888: Michigan 26-6

Notre Dame: 5
2014: Notre Dame 31-0
2008: Notre Dame 35-17
1998: Notre Dame 36-20
1987: Notre Dame 26-7
1943: Notre Dame 35-12
__________________________
Overall record:

Michigan 24-17-1

Anyway you look at it, Michigan has dominated the series.

It was 37-0 you Meatchicken. The big10 refs called back that last touchdown just to save face for you. Fact is we beat you like a redhead stepchild. Dominated the series? Even if you did count all the wins from the 17th century its not domination you buffoon! You know you are desperate when you're pimping wins from the horse and carriage days! Go back to your own board loser!

 

[irish4life888]

Paycheck = employee. Whether she worked 40 hours per week or not is beside the point.

Ya but now the NCAA does not consider them an institutional rep. They classified them in 2016. So If the exact same thing happened today per NCAA rules ND would be fine. That is BS and you know it.

 

[irish4life888]

Employee does not mean "representative of the university." "Representative of the university" is the only designation that matters. Previously the NCAA didn't have a definition for what a full-time student, part-time employee was . They have since:

Full-time student, part-time employee with no role in academic advising ≠ "Representative of the university"

Careful using facts and logic here is a recipe for retaliation!

 

[ivan brunetti]

Ya but now the NCAA does not consider them an institutional rep. They classified them in 2016. So If the exact same thing happened today per NCAA rules ND would be fine. That is BS and you know it.

But it did not happen today. It is not BS; it is the NCAA ruling. Case closed.

 

[NDSMC78]

But it did not happen today. It is not BS; it is the NCAA ruling. Case closed.

Yeah, it is BS.

 

[irish4life888]

But it did not happen today. It is not BS; it is the NCAA ruling. Case closed.

99.9% of the college football world disagree with you. Only the. 01% ignorant ND Haters agree with you.

 

[tbonesays]

At least student trainer is a lot closer to being a University Representative than Kim Dunbar. IIRC she was a $25 booster.

 

[Ara64]

Screw the NCAA! I'm not vacating a thing and I agree that the P-5 teams should leave the NCAA.Total BS.

 

[ivan brunetti]

99.9% of the college football world disagree with you. Only the. 01% ignorant ND Haters agree with you.

The Rock's House poll:

https://ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=260849;d=this

 

[IRISHJD98]

The Rock's House poll:

https://ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=260849;d=this

Posting a link to the biggest bunch of collection of self-loathing ND fans that can be found on the internet reinforces his point. They're haters, and they agree with you.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Posting a link to the biggest bunch of collection of self-loathing ND fans that can be found on the internet reinforces his point. They're haters, and they agree with you.

Predominantly made up of well educated Notre Dame alumni. Rock's House may be a lot of things, but a collection of "Notre Dame haters" they are not.

Also, Swarbrick initially said ND would agree to vacate the games if that was what the NCAA ruled.