Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2nd-place teams to Arky now national champs?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by gh
    In T&FN's eyes, this is indeed a "procedural" ruling. My NCAA history, for example, lists Isaac Curtis and Billy Mullins in their proper places in the '70 and '78 results, with a footnote that they were subsequently declared ineligible by the NCAA.
    So it's a matter of timing. If the ruling comes a week BEFORE the meet, you don't run; you can't count. But if it comes a week AFTER the meet, it does. Timing is everything!

    Comment


    • #17
      I haven't read everything on the subject, but did they just by fiat take away the national titles, or did they remove Gay and rescore?

      (here's the count as I had it in a thread last year: <<In '05 Arkansas beat Florida 60–49 for NCAA title. Gay scored 6 points in the 200 and Hogs 10 in the 4x1 on which he ran, so knock him off there.....

      In '04 Arkansas beat Florida 65.5–49. Gay scored 10 in the 100, 5 in the 200, 4 in the 4x1....>>)

      And are they actually changing champs, or just "vacating," which I believe they've done in some instances in the past?

      Comment


      • #18
        In looking the NCAA's Championships Recordbook, I see that the '78 titles in the 400 and 4x1 are both listed as "vacated"; i.e., no replacement after yanking the later-ineligible Billy Mullins.

        I also note that in the '81 version of my NCAA History that the '78 team title is listed as "officially vacated," but the NCAA now lists the runners-up to USC as owning it.

        So no idea what Florida might get out of this whole deal.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gh
          In looking the NCAA's Championships Recordbook, I see that the '78 titles in the 400 and 4x1 are both listed as "vacated"; i.e., no replacement after yanking the later-ineligible Billy Mullins.

          I also note that in the '81 version of my NCAA History that the '78 team title is listed as "officially vacated," but the NCAA now lists the runners-up to USC as owning it.

          So no idea what Florida might get out of this whole deal.
          Even knowing the answer to these questions does not clear up all of the confusion. Did Florida get the title because the re-scored meet put them in first or because Arkansas was pulled out. Re-scoring the meet would differentially affect different teams if it were carried through all of the events that Gay participated in. If Florida is the champ because Arkansas was yanked without reference to the score, then if Florida is number 1, who is now number 2, etc. Note that some versions of the Marion Jones situation have been saying that the Silver (and Bronze) medalists might not be promoted but that the 4th place would get a Bronze.

          Comment


          • #20
            I wonder how much money it cost Mike Holloway in bonuses. Could he sue Arkansas for lost income?

            Comment


            • #21
              Well, let's be careful here. These are supposed to be student-athletes, not pros. There are loads of mega-talented kids out there that never become eligible for NCAA I athletics. Any of those ineligible kids actually competing could or would change the face of a National Championship by winning or at least scoring. If the only way Tyson Gay was eligible was through academic fraud, then I contend the "crime" was very significant.
              That crime may have led to depriving a team or individual the moment of a lifetime. It is that moment - or the hope of that moment - and not the trophy, that keeps most athletes and coaches in collegiate athletics.

              Originally posted by tafnut
              I'm a Gator fan, but this all seems silly to me. I understand that the NCAA says that Arkansas broke the rules and has to forfeit the title. But Gay ran those races and won them, and revisionist history doesn't change that. Punish the institution, but not the individuals. If the 'crimes' were more significant, I'd acquiesce, but not for what actually happened. Let the punishment fit the crime.

              Comment

              Working...
              X