Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 (/thread-13109.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 (/thread-13109.html)
Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - FarmBoy - 11-22-2016
Votre Dame to vacate wins in 2012-2013 due to trainer's actions
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons
Bummer Domers. . . . - cardcrimson - 11-22-2016
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/11/22/notre-dame-ncaa-violations-student-trainer/94280000/
Fitting. So much else bad there too. . . .
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - stupac2 - 11-22-2016
The wins may be gone, but Lennay Kekua will forever live on in our hearts.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - PalmTree - 11-22-2016
(11-22-2016, 11:42 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:The wins may be gone, but Lennay Kekua will forever live on in our hearts.
Thanks - I'd almost forgotten to remember her.....
Re: Bummer Domers. . . . - Hurlburt88 - 11-22-2016
Monstrous, and I hope also as the nail in the coffin for Kelly despite the large buy-out. ND administration prides itself on trying to be moral while striving for academic and athletic excellence simultaneously, and this very public repudiation has got to make at least some top admins take pause. We'll see the extent of the self-delusion by what happens with Kelly IMO
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - Spiny_Norman - 11-22-2016
It appears that N.otre Dame has been vacating victories this year the way the played down the stretch of their losses.
Maybe this entire season has been a self-imposed bowl ban.
No. Stanford still lost the game. - jacketree - 11-22-2016
Notre Dame just didn't win. Maybe. "The school must vacate the victories in which the players appeared while ineligible. It is not clear how many of the 21 games those players participated in." Kelly mentioned Oklahoma, Wake Forest, and "All Those Teams." Either Stanford doesn't rise to the level of being named, which would be odd given the fairly epic nature of the finish in 2012 (I mean what was so noteworthy about beating flippin' Wake Forest?), or maybe those players that cheated didn't play against Stanford in 2012.
"Monstrous" is going a little far isn't it? A student trainer helped some football players cheat without anyone's prior knowledge. But they eventually figured it out and dealt with it. I bet they win their appeal for the vacated wins. I mean the NCAA being completely fair and honest across the spectrum of their discipline and all.....
Also, this is the same level of violation (Level II) that Stanford was convicted of (if that's the right term) earlier this year and Stanford didn't have to vacate any wins for games in which Cajuste played. Same $5,000 fine. I think we can only be on a low to medium height horse on this one.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - terry - 11-22-2016
Vacating No.tre Dame's win in 2012 does not have any effect on Stanford's record. According to the NCAA's Statistics Policies and Guidelines:
"The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics and the opponents records are not affected by this action."
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - JohnR34231 - 11-22-2016
(11-22-2016, 01:37 PM)terry link Wrote:Vacating No.tre Dame's win in 2012 does not have any effect on Stanford's record. According to the NCAA's Statistics Policies and Guidelines:
"The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics and the opponents records are not affected by this action."
So, in other words, nobody won the 2012 game. Interesting.
Vacating wins always struck me as a little silly. If you won the game you won the game. The NCAA, despite all its powers, can't change history.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - fullmetal - 11-22-2016
Not like they can take away USB's national championship berth earned by that Stanford "non-win" now...I mean, that team was a fraud on the field as well to some extent. What a snoozer of a NCG.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - stupac2 - 11-22-2016
(11-22-2016, 01:19 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Also, this is the same level of violation (Level II) that Stanford was convicted of (if that's the right term) earlier this year and Stanford didn't have to vacate any wins for games in which Cajuste played. Same $5,000 fine. I think we can only be on a low to medium height horse on this one.
My understanding is that Cajuste didn't play in any games between the time of his impermissible benefits and his punishment for accepting them. Either way I think "sweetheart loan for a bike and a couple movie tickets" is a different thing from "academic fraud", whatever the NCAA thinks be damned.
(11-22-2016, 01:44 PM)JPRI link Wrote:So, in other words, nobody won the 2012 game. Interesting.
Vacating wins always struck me as a little silly. If you won the game you won the game. The NCAA, despite all its powers, can't change history.
Is it at all surprising that the NCAA does something monumentally silly?
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - Mick - 11-22-2016
(11-22-2016, 12:45 PM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:Monstrous, and I hope also as the nail in the coffin for Kelly despite the large buy-out. ND administration prides itself on trying to be moral while striving for academic and athletic excellence simultaneously, and this very public repudiation has got to make at least some top admins take pause. We'll see the extent of the self-delusion by what happens with Kelly IMO
You're talking about a faith based institution. Self-delusion will run pretty deep.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - Papa John - 11-22-2016
So should the subject of this topic be changed, lest the CARDboard be labeled a fake new site? N.otre Dame did not win the 2012 game, but Stanford, officially speaking, still lost it.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - JJJ - 11-22-2016
(11-22-2016, 03:41 PM)Papa John link Wrote:So should the subject of this topic be changed, lest the CARDboard be labeled a fake new site? N.otre Dame did not win the 2012 game, but Stanford, officially speaking, still lost it.
Good point, but I'm wondering how many people in the outside world consider us a news site, either real or fake... I think we're safe. 8)
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - jacketree - 11-22-2016
(11-22-2016, 02:36 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:My understanding is that Cajuste didn't play in any games between the time of his impermissible benefits and his punishment for accepting them. Either way I think "sweetheart loan for a bike and a couple movie tickets" is a different thing from "academic fraud", whatever the NCAA thinks be damned.
Ah, good point; thanks for the correction.
Still I don't think a student trainer helping student athletes cheat rises to the level of "academic fraud", not as it does for UNC, which had nothing vacated of which I am aware.
FWLIW, as a Stanford TA I caught two football players cheating on an exam I graded. Pretty universal activity. If the trainer hadn't been involved, nothing would have happened here. I guess that is somewhat the point, but hardly the stuff of a 30 for 30 expose.
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - Hurlburt88 - 11-22-2016
I wonder if ND is starting to get caught in the cumulative impact of multiple issues here. We have listed them many times over Kelly's tenure--could be that NCAA is taking notice of the trend also. For the sake of college athletics in general, I sincerely hope Purple-face exits ignominiously and sincere attempts made to tighten things up.Â
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - Hurlburt88 - 11-22-2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrQ-EgjJZskÂ
Maybe Purple-Face can take a page from Jackie Chiles
et tu mizzou - JJJ - 11-23-2016
Slightly OT but still somewhat related:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/former-missouri-tutor-says-she-took-entire-courses-for-student-athletes-210650444.html
Re: Well, we can definitively say that Stanford didn't lose that game in SB in 2012 - fullmetal - 11-23-2016
Wow, that's going to be ugly. And I think there are going to be plenty of angry Mizzou fans who will unfairly blame Yolanda directly.