I don't know how to make the link active, but it appears that Georgia has called it a season and will not participate in either the SEC or NCAA tournaments. Assuming this is true, this opens a spot in the tourney. Does the selection committee rewared a "mid-major" or does the extra at-large berth go to a "name" school that otherwise would have been excluded?
First of all I'm not too happy about the decision. Sure they needed to get rid of Harrick and I understand wanting to punish yourself to soften the NCAA punishment. But man, that was a really good Georgia team, who had worked their butt off this year, and none of the players have anything to do with it! I would've let them finish the season and do something about next year instead. They must have found some pretty good evidence that Harrick was breaking the rules to suddenly do this.
As for who is going to get that extra spot? It's going to be a name school. Probably Minnesota or Alabama.
Also in that article it said that Arkansas would now get a first round bye because they were supposed to playe Georgia. What I just heard though was that LSU (who was next after the four first bye teams Kentucky, Florida, Auburn, and Miss St.) would get the first round bye instead and the other remaining six teams would have to be re-seeded.
According to ESPN, Tennessee gets the bye to the next round, as they will re-seed the tournament.
This does suck for the Georgia players, especially the seniors. However, we don't know that they weren't doing anything equally as bad as the Cole kid yet. It will be interesting to see what other cockroaches crawl out of the light of an investigation.
All this scandal is shaping up to be as big a story as the tournament itself.
"You have the right to suffer. You have the right to feel pain. If you wish to have an attorney present, I'll hurt him too!" - The Big Bossman
The reason Georgia did this is that they had two player that they have ruled ineligible, thus probably will have to forfeit the games these players played during the season. Also, if they didn't do this now, they would probably be looking at a few years post season ban in addition to having to forfeit any money from the NCAA tourney and having their tourney record stricken. By taking the poison pill now, they hope that this will be sufficient punishment for the NCAA and any future punishment for Harrick infractions will be minimal. Now, all I'm hoping for now is the other shoe to fall at the University of Rhode Island. I wonder what the reaction their will be next year if they get put on probation for Harrick violations. Considering Barron recruited the players who quit at St. Bonaventure, perhaps his recruits will go 2 for 2 and quit at Rhode Island.
I'll pay $49.95 for the Execute Bin Laden PPV. And I'll buy one of the lottery tickets at 10 bucks a pop to be the executioner.
Originally posted by Ffej Of course- I thought no college would touch Eddie Sutton again either- but he cleaned up his act and runs a class program in Oklahoma State.
Since this thread is about dead, I'll take this and meander off-topic.
I've despised Sutton since he left Lexington with his tail between his legs and the program on the verge of ruins. I still feel that he should have had probation that matched the school's probation.
However, this brings another point to mind. UK fans seem to have relaxed on the Sutton hatred over the years. Yet, many UK fans despise King Richard for going to UL. The way I see it, Eddie left the UK program in much worse condition that it was when he "crawled" to Lexington. King Richard left the program in much better conditon that it was when he took over. Add to the fact that King Richard left UK for Boston and then came back to UL with his tail between his legs after not being succesful in Boston, I can't see the big deal about him going to UL. It's not like he left UK to go to UL.
Granted King Richard has a large ego and at times sends the vibe out that he created UK Mania, but I can't muster the passion to hate him for coaching where he is now. But, I'm a Tubby fan and have been since he's been there, so I may be pre-disposed to being laid back.
Not that it's related to the exact same kind of issue, but this isn't the first time the subject of Crawford's integrity has been questioned-- on July 1, 1998 he pleaded guilty to filing false federal income tax returns, erroneously stating income of $82,...