Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 1584068, member: 966"]
What are you guys saying here? That JB has a case because he shouldn't have been suspended at all? Because he wasn't directly involved?

Sounds like the NCAA is only acknowledging that the ACC-only suspension was unwarranted — that it was overreaching and without justification to have specified CONFERENCE games. What would JB be filing an injunction/suing FOR?

As much as I hate blaming the NCAA for everything, the acc- only suspension always seemed most ridic. Capriciously punitive and entirely without foundation. As if any of the charges had anything to do with conference cereus non-conference games.

Wonder what JB would have done if they had originally offered him the choice: five ACC games or ANY 10 games. The rationalization possibly being that conference games are more important and represent a stiffer penalty. Which only semi-answers my question above... If 'stiffness' was the criteria, then a larger number of games overall would be a compensation.

So, what happens if he files for an injunction? What's that mean? They have to let him coach during the evaluation period? And then if they don't decide until March, he could have to serve during the tournament? Is this a Brady-style thing?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?