Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Why Alabama is allowed to be here

Posted on: January 4, 2010 4:34 pm
 
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. -- Alabama shouldn’t be playing for the BCS championship. No way.

 It says so at the bottom of the coaches’ poll in USA Today: “The AFCA (American Football Coaches Association) prohibits coaches from voting for schools on major NCAA probation.” Alabama, as you might remember, is on such major NCAA probation. Has been since June 11 when it was slapped with three years of NCAA proby for “misuse of free textbooks.”

Doesn’t sound like much and, really, it isn’t except that it was the program’s fourth major violation in 14 years. As you can read again here, Alabama has literally been eligible for the death penalty since 1995. So that makes the latest probation, historically, a big deal and in some sense Tide fans should be wary. But not this week.

They’re in the championship game here in Cali and nothing is going to change that. Why? An AFCA spokesman says “major probation” is defined by schools losing TV appearances, being banned from postseason play or losing 20 percent of its scholarships. The NCAA has unspoken and unwritten practice these days of not taking away TV appearances because it impacts other programs. So don’t expect to see that one, maybe ever.

 Losing at least 17 scholarships (20 percent of the 85 max) would be crippling and is a more common penalty than the TV or postseason stuff. Alabama’s biggest gripe this time is that it was forced to vacate 21 wins. It is appealing the penalty, essentially to save face. Four majors in 14 years can be awful demeaning if when the program is being turned around.

So Bama is here because of an asterisk. It’s not even that. It’s a definition written down (maybe) at the AFCA headquarters in Waco, Texas. That’s cool with me. Nick Saban took the time to call me in June to stress that none of the penalties impacted scholarships. I didn’t think it was a big deal at the time except for the historic significance. But this being Alabama the issue HAS to be mentioned which I’m betting it won’t many places outside of this space and here.
Category: NCAAF
Tags: Alabama
 
Comments

Since: Dec 6, 2009
Posted on: January 6, 2010 10:32 pm
 

Why Alabama is allowed to be here

I agree with you Hawk. Dodd is nothing more than an antagonist hoping to stir up trouble. That's exactly how he gets readers. Its the same reason he won't shutup about TCU, Boise State, and Cincy "getting robbed". He has actually stated that those three teams are just as good or better than Bama and Texas. Even he isn't retarded enough to actually believe that, but he writes it because he knows it pisses off people with common sense and causes them to respond to his ignorant rants...much like we're doing now. It's because he's a Notre Dame snob and has the mentality of being better than everyone else. We must forgive him his ignorance and unintelligent blabber...he can't help it.



Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: January 5, 2010 11:52 am
 

Why Alabama is allowed to be here

Try getting a clue next time.

His point, if there was one, was nothing more than "I think this is a major probation, so it should be".  He incorrectly calls it a "major probation" early in the article, then states that by definition it isn't.  Just another waste of time article that fails to make a coherent argument.  I mean, you're a moron, and even you said it better than Dodd in less than 3 lines.



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: January 4, 2010 8:33 pm
 

Why Alabama is allowed to be here

So the team ISN'T on major probation, as defined by the AFCA?  What's the problem then? Dodd's point is that major probation, as defined by the AFCA, is so weak that it may as well not exist.

And that Alabama's lengthy history of NCAA trangressions really ought to qualify them for the moniker.

Try reading the article next time.



Since: Nov 12, 2006
Posted on: January 4, 2010 8:04 pm
 

Why Alabama is allowed to be here

So the team ISN'T on major probation, as defined by the AFCA?  What's the problem then? 

There's no asterisk here.  It's like when you're asked on that job form whether you've ever been convicted of a felony - if you've been convicted of a misdemeanor you say no, right? 

Or in this case, it's like decided that the law distinguishing a felony from a misdemeanor isn't right, and calling all misdemeanors felonies.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com