We think about college football 24/7 so you don't have to.

The Countdown

A bottom-to-top assessment of the F.B.S. landscape heading into the 2012 season.

Need to Know

U.C.F. Not Considering “Pulling” Appeal

A quick follow-up post go with today’s U.C.F. preview. The university has indeed appealed the one-year postseason ban imposed yesterday by the N.C.A.A., which if not appealed would have taken place during this coming season, the program’s last as part of Conference USA. If U.C.F. wins its appeal – it is not appealing the one-year ban placed on the men’s basketball program, only the one upon the football program – it will not suffer any postseason ban whatsoever, as you might think. If it loses the appeal, however, the Knights will be ineligible for postseason play in 2013, when the program joins the Big East.

A comment underneath the U.C.F. preview implied that the program could have it both ways – could put forth an appeal but pull back on the appeal whenever it so chose:

“If we head into the season, still in the appeal process, at a less than acceptable record (I believe anything less than the Liberty Bowl would be less than acceptable in this case) we have the option to drop the appeal and take our postseason ban this year. However, if the cards line up for a conference championship and the Liberty Bowl (or more), then we will continue with the appeal process and head into the Big East guns blazing. From this perspective, I believe it’s a win-win situation.”

If so, U.C.F. could hold this chip in its back pocket. If all goes according to plan, if the Knights finish with nine or more wins and atop the East division, the university could aim for one final conference title and a double-digit win finish and accept the ban in 2013. This would be in November or late October, for example. But if the Knights start slow, dropping out of the Conference USA race in October, the university could drop its appeal and accept the postseason ban in this coming season.

Yes, it would be a win-win situation. But it’s not one that U.C.F. is discussing. According to a university spokesman, pulling back on the appeal at some point during the season “is not an option that we have considered or are considering.”

Instead, the university is moving ahead with the appeal with one goal in mind: proving that the N.C.A.A.’s case lacks significant merit. If U.C.F. can illustrate that its punishment does not fit the crime – and George O’Leary has already been “cleared,” in this sense – it will gain a measure of compensation after being accused of some fairly damaging rules violations.

The compensation, in this case, would be a somewhat cleaner reputation, not to mention no postseason ban in either 2012 or 2013. That would be a win for O’Leary, the football program, athletic director Todd Stansbury and university president John Hitt.

Again, this means that U.C.F. is putting all its eggs in one basket; there will be no stepping away now that the university has started the appeal process. But would this “pulled-back” option even be allowable under N.C.A.A. rules? I’ve asked the N.C.A.A. for comment but have yet to get a response. I’ll update when I get a verdict.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Home  Home

Comments

  1. Mike of UCF says:

    Here’s some more info Paul, from the UCF rivals site, with Marc Daniels on his morning show. He interviews the attorney that won the appeal for Alabama State against the NCAA

    http://goo.gl/LBdsg

    Paul: I shortened the link so it didn’t run into the sidebar along the right.

  2. BC$ says:

    Isn’t 2013 the last BCS year that would give the Big East Champ an auto-bid to one of the top paying BCS bowls?

    Why not just take the the ban in 2012 and be eligible for the big payout in 2013? Let’s cut the crap, these teams are jumping conferences for no other reason than access to this cash. Why jeopardize that?

    Even if Central Florida were to win whatever division it’s in and possibly get to double-digit wins with a conference championship game win and that bowl appearance it’s petitioning for, it wouldn’t be a BCS (money) bowl.

    It seems that the only reason not to “pull back” would be in the case of an undefeated season. The risk then, of course, would be the (rigged) polls and whether or not Central Florida would be ranked high enough in those to end up where it needs to be in final BCS standings to get that BCS auto-bid. And of course, where it needs to be would be dependent on how many other undefeated and/or 1-loss teams would be out there.

    It almost seems like the best PR move would be to “take the high road” and accept the bowl ban and “go for the gold” (Olympics reference) in 2013.

    I’m starting to feel dirty as a college football fan, but what am I supposed to do? Where is there to go? I left Boxing for this.

  3. Mike of UCF says:

    Paul, UCF has officially filed for the appeal, and per the president, all proceedings will be concluded by the end of this season. He mentioned an “expedited appeal”, and from what I understand the appeal will begin and end in this season. If we win, we win, and no postseason ban. If we lose, it is attributed to this final season in C-USA play and will not rollover into the Big East era.

Leave a Comment