(02-20-2018 11:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 06:50 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Vacating wins and championships is stupid imo. It's like getting a DUI and your punishment was having to pretend the fun you had that night didn't happen and you aren't allowed to tell anyone about what you did at the bar. You have the punish the future, not the past.

I disagree. The real value of a national title isn't the in-the-moment locker room celebration with the hats and t-shirts. It's the long-run legacy of what you've accomplished as a program. It's the banner on the ceiling and the trophy in the trophy case.

E.g., I have a friend who is a life-long Steelers fan. When the Patriots lost to the Eagles the other day, he posted "still the only one with SIX" on his Facebook page. That's the value, the long term bragging rights.

If you have to take those banners down and send the trophy back, then it really didn't happen.

UL understands that, which is why they would have been glad to give up a bunch of scholarships going forward and suffer a ban on upcoming tournaments to keep their banner and trophy.

I don't think your first point and my overall message necessarily conflict; history will be relevant towards the long-term legacy of a program, but recent history that can be shaped by NCAA sanctions is the larger determinant imo. IIRC SMU never had to vacate all the seasons they were noncompliant, they were just put on the death penalty instead; had the NCAA just told them "hey those pony express seasons didn't exist bye bye" and then let them go on with their business as usual (presumably meaning they were able to maintain the program) how many people would've cared? It doesn't take away the memories people had in the moment when those wins occurred and in this scenario it wouldn't negatively affect their future like we saw in real life. And honestly college sports are so corrupt nowadays that I think a decent contingent may simply ignore vacated wins because "everybody cheats so why should I act like we were never champions?"

The Death Penalty, as suffered by SMU, seems to be its own thing. IMO there is a widespread belief that the NCAA will never use it again, that SMU proved it was "too nuclear". SMU hasn't yet fully recovered from it, 30 years later.

As for the larger point about the shift from forward punishments (lost scholarships) to backward-looking (like vacating wins), I don't think it's so much of a shift as it is now they do both, whereas 20 years ago it was all forward (losing future scholarships, bowl bans), and IMO that's a good idea. UofL got hit with both, they not only lost their 2013 title, they have turn in a TON of money, probably $15 million, and they had a post-season ban and lost scholarships as well.

As for the "changing history" argument, to me, that doesn't hold water. E.g., imagine if a week after the World Series of Poker, it was found out that the winner had somehow hid cards up his sleeve to win (I know that's not really possible with today's technology but what if ...). Would everyone just say "well, can't do anything about it! He's still the champ! We all saw him rake in all the chips and we all saw the confetti come down and the pretty girls surround him while he popped the champagne bottle!"

Of course not, he'd be stripped of his title and sued for all the money and everyone would agree with that.

When people say you can't undo the You-Tube videos of the team celebrating, IMO they are just really saying they disagree with the punishment, that what UL did didn't really merit being stripped.

Funny, after 6 years, even locally, no one knows whom the ineligible players were that cost the banners from 2012 and 2013 to come down.Guessing You can still put up the same banners, just remove the letters NCAA. What could They do anyway.

(02-21-2018 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 01:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 07:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 06:34 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The NCAA doesn't sponsor an FBS championship.

No, but the BCS did, and the BCS stripped USC of its 2004 national title, and USC had to send the crystal football back.

One good thing about what happened today is it refutes the belief that the NCAA would never actually strip away a basketball national title.

The question was whether the NCAA does. The BCS is its own entity and it wasn't even the BCS, it was the polls that crowned them. In college football's case, it's not wholly earned (let alone that it still is technically a mythical title) as in college basketball where each team controls their own destiny.

The question before yesterday was whether the NCAA does, and that question has been answered. But during the USC case, there was speculation about whether the BCS would strip USC of its title. It was a thing to discuss. And it turned out they would. The BCS, not the polls, stripped USC of its title and USC had to return the crystal football. There was nothing mythical about any of that - in 2004, USC was awarded the BCS trophy, in 2011, it was confiscated. I visited USC in 2008 and saw that trophy. It had pride-of-place, right in the center of their football trophy room. But if you go now it's not there anymore:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/06/...l-20110607

And yet again, it has nothing of do with the NCAA, which uses playoffs to determine its champions.

(02-21-2018 07:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 06:50 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Vacating wins and championships is stupid imo. It's like getting a DUI and your punishment was having to pretend the fun you had that night didn't happen and you aren't allowed to tell anyone about what you did at the bar. You have the punish the future, not the past.

I agree with you on the wins. But taking down that banner and not being able to advertise in your programs and publications? That is a big deal.

Any recruit is gonna know about it except maybe some international recruit, so that's null and void.

(02-21-2018 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 06:50 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Vacating wins and championships is stupid imo. It's like getting a DUI and your punishment was having to pretend the fun you had that night didn't happen and you aren't allowed to tell anyone about what you did at the bar. You have the punish the future, not the past.

I disagree. The real value of a national title isn't the in-the-moment locker room celebration with the hats and t-shirts. It's the long-run legacy of what you've accomplished as a program. It's the banner on the ceiling and the trophy in the trophy case.

E.g., I have a friend who is a life-long Steelers fan. When the Patriots lost to the Eagles the other day, he posted "still the only one with SIX" on his Facebook page. That's the value, the long term bragging rights.

If you have to take those banners down and send the trophy back, then it really didn't happen.

UL understands that, which is why they would have been glad to give up a bunch of scholarships going forward and suffer a ban on upcoming tournaments to keep their banner and trophy.

I don't think your first point and my overall message necessarily conflict; history will be relevant towards the long-term legacy of a program, but recent history that can be shaped by NCAA sanctions is the larger determinant imo. IIRC SMU never had to vacate all the seasons they were noncompliant, they were just put on the death penalty instead; had the NCAA just told them "hey those pony express seasons didn't exist bye bye" and then let them go on with their business as usual (presumably meaning they were able to maintain the program) how many people would've cared? It doesn't take away the memories people had in the moment when those wins occurred and in this scenario it wouldn't negatively affect their future like we saw in real life. And honestly college sports are so corrupt nowadays that I think a decent contingent may simply ignore vacated wins because "everybody cheats so why should I act like we were never champions?"

The Death Penalty, as suffered by SMU, seems to be its own thing. IMO there is a widespread belief that the NCAA will never use it again, that SMU proved it was "too nuclear". SMU hasn't yet fully recovered from it, 30 years later.

As for the larger point about the shift from forward punishments (lost scholarships) to backward-looking (like vacating wins), I don't think it's so much of a shift as it is now they do both, whereas 20 years ago it was all forward (losing future scholarships, bowl bans), and IMO that's a good idea. UofL got hit with both, they not only lost their 2013 title, they have turn in a TON of money, probably $15 million, and they had a post-season ban and lost scholarships as well.

As for the "changing history" argument, to me, that doesn't hold water. E.g., imagine if a week after the World Series of Poker, it was found out that the winner had somehow hid cards up his sleeve to win (I know that's not really possible with today's technology but what if ...). Would everyone just say "well, can't do anything about it! He's still the champ! We all saw him rake in all the chips and we all saw the confetti come down and the pretty girls surround him while he popped the champagne bottle!"

Of course not, he'd be stripped of his title and sued for all the money and everyone would agree with that.

When people say you can't undo the You-Tube videos of the team celebrating, IMO they are just really saying they disagree with the punishment, that what UL did didn't really merit being stripped.

The poker analogy doesn't quite work imo. It's apples to oranges really.

Louisville...still National Champs in my mind.

I was there and saw it with my own eyes.

F the NCAA

Pitino. Petrino, Paterno

What a crew.

@MattNorlander
“I feel awful for what has happened. I’ve run a clean program all my life.” — Rick Pitino just now, speaking in Manhattan.

(02-21-2018 03:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @MattNorlander
“I feel awful for what has happened. I’ve run a clean program all my life.” — Rick Pitino just now, speaking in Manhattan.

Yeah right, you and the rest of 'em.

(02-21-2018 03:23 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  @MattNorlander
“I feel awful for what has happened. I’ve run a clean program all my life.” — Rick Pitino just now, speaking in Manhattan.

Pitino said that during a statement he made today at his lawyer's office.

If your ophthalmologist has told you that you need to do more eye rolls to strengthen your vision, then you'll want to go read the rest of what Pitino had to say.

(02-21-2018 02:14 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 06:50 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Vacating wins and championships is stupid imo. It's like getting a DUI and your punishment was having to pretend the fun you had that night didn't happen and you aren't allowed to tell anyone about what you did at the bar. You have the punish the future, not the past.

I disagree. The real value of a national title isn't the in-the-moment locker room celebration with the hats and t-shirts. It's the long-run legacy of what you've accomplished as a program. It's the banner on the ceiling and the trophy in the trophy case.

E.g., I have a friend who is a life-long Steelers fan. When the Patriots lost to the Eagles the other day, he posted "still the only one with SIX" on his Facebook page. That's the value, the long term bragging rights.

If you have to take those banners down and send the trophy back, then it really didn't happen.

UL understands that, which is why they would have been glad to give up a bunch of scholarships going forward and suffer a ban on upcoming tournaments to keep their banner and trophy.

I don't think your first point and my overall message necessarily conflict; history will be relevant towards the long-term legacy of a program, but recent history that can be shaped by NCAA sanctions is the larger determinant imo. IIRC SMU never had to vacate all the seasons they were noncompliant, they were just put on the death penalty instead; had the NCAA just told them "hey those pony express seasons didn't exist bye bye" and then let them go on with their business as usual (presumably meaning they were able to maintain the program) how many people would've cared? It doesn't take away the memories people had in the moment when those wins occurred and in this scenario it wouldn't negatively affect their future like we saw in real life. And honestly college sports are so corrupt nowadays that I think a decent contingent may simply ignore vacated wins because "everybody cheats so why should I act like we were never champions?"

The Death Penalty, as suffered by SMU, seems to be its own thing. IMO there is a widespread belief that the NCAA will never use it again, that SMU proved it was "too nuclear". SMU hasn't yet fully recovered from it, 30 years later.

As for the larger point about the shift from forward punishments (lost scholarships) to backward-looking (like vacating wins), I don't think it's so much of a shift as it is now they do both, whereas 20 years ago it was all forward (losing future scholarships, bowl bans), and IMO that's a good idea. UofL got hit with both, they not only lost their 2013 title, they have turn in a TON of money, probably $15 million, and they had a post-season ban and lost scholarships as well.

As for the "changing history" argument, to me, that doesn't hold water. E.g., imagine if a week after the World Series of Poker, it was found out that the winner had somehow hid cards up his sleeve to win (I know that's not really possible with today's technology but what if ...). Would everyone just say "well, can't do anything about it! He's still the champ! We all saw him rake in all the chips and we all saw the confetti come down and the pretty girls surround him while he popped the champagne bottle!"

Of course not, he'd be stripped of his title and sued for all the money and everyone would agree with that.

When people say you can't undo the You-Tube videos of the team celebrating, IMO they are just really saying they disagree with the punishment, that what UL did didn't really merit being stripped.

The poker analogy doesn't quite work imo. It's apples to oranges really.

Since you didn't explain why it's apples/oranges, I'll speculate: It's because in the Poker case you think stripping is appropriate while for whatever reason in UL's case you don't think it's appropriate. You think they really did fairly win that national title.

But one thing seems clear: Titles can indeed be stripped. The notion that because "we all saw them win it on the court" (or field, or track, etc.) that it can't be stripped is just wrong and nobody really believes that. We all believe it, depending on whether we agree that stripping fits the crime.

(02-21-2018 02:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Louisville...still National Champs in my mind.

I was there and saw it with my own eyes.

F the NCAA

the ncaa will probably vacate their decision to vacate anyway, what a shiteshow.

(02-21-2018 06:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 02:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Louisville...still National Champs in my mind.

I was there and saw it with my own eyes.

F the NCAA

the ncaa will probably vacate their decision to vacate anyway, what a shiteshow.

The NCAA informed me to forgot about the games in San Antonio...they never happened. The NCAA told me I never met Memphis fans for the pregame BBQ at kpigout's

(02-21-2018 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I don't think your first point and my overall message necessarily conflict; history will be relevant towards the long-term legacy of a program, but recent history that can be shaped by NCAA sanctions is the larger determinant imo. IIRC SMU never had to vacate all the seasons they were noncompliant, they were just put on the death penalty instead; had the NCAA just told them "hey those pony express seasons didn't exist bye bye" and then let them go on with their business as usual (presumably meaning they were able to maintain the program) how many people would've cared? It doesn't take away the memories people had in the moment when those wins occurred and in this scenario it wouldn't negatively affect their future like we saw in real life. And honestly college sports are so corrupt nowadays that I think a decent contingent may simply ignore vacated wins because "everybody cheats so why should I act like we were never champions?"

The Death Penalty, as suffered by SMU, seems to be its own thing. IMO there is a widespread belief that the NCAA will never use it again, that SMU proved it was "too nuclear". SMU hasn't yet fully recovered from it, 30 years later.

As for the larger point about the shift from forward punishments (lost scholarships) to backward-looking (like vacating wins), I don't think it's so much of a shift as it is now they do both, whereas 20 years ago it was all forward (losing future scholarships, bowl bans), and IMO that's a good idea. UofL got hit with both, they not only lost their 2013 title, they have turn in a TON of money, probably $15 million, and they had a post-season ban and lost scholarships as well.

As for the "changing history" argument, to me, that doesn't hold water. E.g., imagine if a week after the World Series of Poker, it was found out that the winner had somehow hid cards up his sleeve to win (I know that's not really possible with today's technology but what if ...). Would everyone just say "well, can't do anything about it! He's still the champ! We all saw him rake in all the chips and we all saw the confetti come down and the pretty girls surround him while he popped the champagne bottle!"

Of course not, he'd be stripped of his title and sued for all the money and everyone would agree with that.

When people say you can't undo the You-Tube videos of the team celebrating, IMO they are just really saying they disagree with the punishment, that what UL did didn't really merit being stripped.

I don't think it really applies because of the context of each sport. A poker player cheats individually, basketball violations affect a team; I don't think you can suddenly act like any World Series-winning team with a steroid-user is automatically illegitimate. Also as you mention no one can really cheat like that in poker nowadays, but on the other hand the perception for college basketball/football is that everyone's hands are dirty; as such, people may agree that Louisville cheated, but are more likely to react with a disheartened shrug than outrage unless you're a Michigan fan who's disappointing memories of that evening aren't all the sudden turned to joy with this decision.

What you're left with in this case is whether you hand down punishments that directly affect the future, or punishments on the past that could affect perceptions that only indirectly affect the future. If you talk to a USC fan, I'm guessing that the pain they felt from a few mediocre seasons in the post-Carroll era stemming from their punishment was greater than being told that their memories of Bush and Leinart dominating the gridiron in front of their eyes never happened when it clearly did happen, just under sketchy circumstances. Here you have punishments primarily attempting to affect the future of UL basketball, but anything relating to the past is mostly symbolic imo.

Anyways, Louisville isn't getting the death penalty or anything but it'd be pretty funny if the NCAA handed it to them but allowed the clean players to compete collectively as 'Student Athletes from Louisville' ala IOC.

Louisville...needs to lose the trophy and can't find it to give to the bastards in Indy.

https://www.nunesmagician.com/2018/2/21/...louisville

(02-20-2018 05:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 02:35 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 02:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  the games happened and we can't just take them out our memory.

Similarly, though, there's no reason the NCAA has to continue to certify the results once it's clear Louisville didn't abide by the guidelines required to participate in NCAA-sanctioned competition. They didn't say that everyone has to forget the games ever happened, bit they're perfectly within their rights to pull their endorsement of the games based on the conduct of a participant.

Understandable, though they aren't consistent. When is the last time they vacated a title? Have they ever done so?

And again, an asterisk does just fine. I wish organizations would pull records from stats that really were disserviced, such as the home run record. Unless they hired players off the street or paid their players NBA/semi-pro level salaries this is ridiculous.

I didn't read the article, did Michigan get crowned champion? If not, it's a sham.

Wichita St. had as good a claim.

(02-21-2018 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 06:50 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Vacating wins and championships is stupid imo. It's like getting a DUI and your punishment was having to pretend the fun you had that night didn't happen and you aren't allowed to tell anyone about what you did at the bar. You have the punish the future, not the past.

I disagree. The real value of a national title isn't the in-the-moment locker room celebration with the hats and t-shirts. It's the long-run legacy of what you've accomplished as a program. It's the banner on the ceiling and the trophy in the trophy case.

E.g., I have a friend who is a life-long Steelers fan. When the Patriots lost to the Eagles the other day, he posted "still the only one with SIX" on his Facebook page. That's the value, the long term bragging rights.

If you have to take those banners down and send the trophy back, then it really didn't happen.

UL understands that, which is why they would have been glad to give up a bunch of scholarships going forward and suffer a ban on upcoming tournaments to keep their banner and trophy.

I don't think your first point and my overall message necessarily conflict; history will be relevant towards the long-term legacy of a program, but recent history that can be shaped by NCAA sanctions is the larger determinant imo. IIRC SMU never had to vacate all the seasons they were noncompliant, they were just put on the death penalty instead; had the NCAA just told them "hey those pony express seasons didn't exist bye bye" and then let them go on with their business as usual (presumably meaning they were able to maintain the program) how many people would've cared? It doesn't take away the memories people had in the moment when those wins occurred and in this scenario it wouldn't negatively affect their future like we saw in real life. And honestly college sports are so corrupt nowadays that I think a decent contingent may simply ignore vacated wins because "everybody cheats so why should I act like we were never champions?"

The Death Penalty, as suffered by SMU, seems to be its own thing. IMO there is a widespread belief that the NCAA will never use it again, that SMU proved it was "too nuclear". SMU hasn't yet fully recovered from it, 30 years later.

As for the larger point about the shift from forward punishments (lost scholarships) to backward-looking (like vacating wins), I don't think it's so much of a shift as it is now they do both, whereas 20 years ago it was all forward (losing future scholarships, bowl bans), and IMO that's a good idea. UofL got hit with both, they not only lost their 2013 title, they have turn in a TON of money, probably $15 million, and they had a post-season ban and lost scholarships as well.

As for the "changing history" argument, to me, that doesn't hold water. E.g., imagine if a week after the World Series of Poker, it was found out that the winner had somehow hid cards up his sleeve to win (I know that's not really possible with today's technology but what if ...). Would everyone just say "well, can't do anything about it! He's still the champ! We all saw him rake in all the chips and we all saw the confetti come down and the pretty girls surround him while he popped the champagne bottle!"

Of course not, he'd be stripped of his title and sued for all the money and everyone would agree with that.

When people say you can't undo the You-Tube videos of the team celebrating, IMO they are just really saying they disagree with the punishment, that what UL did didn't really merit being stripped.

An even bigger problem was collateral damage. The death penalty harmed all of SMU's conference mates and contributed to the death of the Southwest Conference. Rice is still paying for SMU's cheating in the 80s.

(02-21-2018 09:39 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Louisville...needs to lose the trophy and can't find it to give to the bastards in Indy.

https://www.nunesmagician.com/2018/2/21/...louisville

That's a fascinating story.

(02-21-2018 07:36 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 09:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 11:01 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I don't think your first point and my overall message necessarily conflict; history will be relevant towards the long-term legacy of a program, but recent history that can be shaped by NCAA sanctions is the larger determinant imo. IIRC SMU never had to vacate all the seasons they were noncompliant, they were just put on the death penalty instead; had the NCAA just told them "hey those pony express seasons didn't exist bye bye" and then let them go on with their business as usual (presumably meaning they were able to maintain the program) how many people would've cared? It doesn't take away the memories people had in the moment when those wins occurred and in this scenario it wouldn't negatively affect their future like we saw in real life. And honestly college sports are so corrupt nowadays that I think a decent contingent may simply ignore vacated wins because "everybody cheats so why should I act like we were never champions?"

The Death Penalty, as suffered by SMU, seems to be its own thing. IMO there is a widespread belief that the NCAA will never use it again, that SMU proved it was "too nuclear". SMU hasn't yet fully recovered from it, 30 years later.

As for the larger point about the shift from forward punishments (lost scholarships) to backward-looking (like vacating wins), I don't think it's so much of a shift as it is now they do both, whereas 20 years ago it was all forward (losing future scholarships, bowl bans), and IMO that's a good idea. UofL got hit with both, they not only lost their 2013 title, they have turn in a TON of money, probably $15 million, and they had a post-season ban and lost scholarships as well.

As for the "changing history" argument, to me, that doesn't hold water. E.g., imagine if a week after the World Series of Poker, it was found out that the winner had somehow hid cards up his sleeve to win (I know that's not really possible with today's technology but what if ...). Would everyone just say "well, can't do anything about it! He's still the champ! We all saw him rake in all the chips and we all saw the confetti come down and the pretty girls surround him while he popped the champagne bottle!"

Of course not, he'd be stripped of his title and sued for all the money and everyone would agree with that.

When people say you can't undo the You-Tube videos of the team celebrating, IMO they are just really saying they disagree with the punishment, that what UL did didn't really merit being stripped.

I don't think it really applies because of the context of each sport. A poker player cheats individually, basketball violations affect a team; I don't think you can suddenly act like any World Series-winning team with a steroid-user is automatically illegitimate. Also as you mention no one can really cheat like that in poker nowadays, but on the other hand the perception for college basketball/football is that everyone's hands are dirty; as such, people may agree that Louisville cheated, but are more likely to react with a disheartened shrug than outrage unless you're a Michigan fan who's disappointing memories of that evening aren't all the sudden turned to joy with this decision.

What you're left with in this case is whether you hand down punishments that directly affect the future, or punishments on the past that could affect perceptions that only indirectly affect the future.

I think the bold part confirms my point: Claims about "you can't change the past" are really just expressions of a belief that the stripping isn't justified. It's not that we can't change the past (the poker example proves we can), it's that in the case of UL hoops or USC football, you don't think stripping those titles is justified, that everyone else is doing it, UL just got caught, or that the cheating involved doesn't rise to the level needed to strip, as it does in the poker case.

As for the second paragraph here, again, it's not "either/or". As the NCAA is showing, you can do both - punish the future by stripping scholarships and implementing recruiting bans, post-season bans, etc., and also punish the past by stripping the titles. UofL got hit with both.

(02-21-2018 06:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 06:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 02:18 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Louisville...still National Champs in my mind.

I was there and saw it with my own eyes.

F the NCAA

the ncaa will probably vacate their decision to vacate anyway, what a shiteshow.

The NCAA informed me to forgot about the games in San Antonio...they never happened. The NCAA told me I never met Memphis fans for the pregame BBQ at kpigout's

Not saying this applies to you, because I've never seen you express it. But two funny things about the stripping seem notable to me:

1) When the NCAA used to just "punish the future" by taking away stuff like scholarships and implementing post-season bans, critics would yell "why are they punishing *today's* players who had nothing to do with the cheating from 5 years ago? This isn't fair! Why should players X, Y, and Z on this year's team miss the NCAA tournament because of what cheater coach B did four years ago or because player A who's now in the NBA took a payment? They're long gone!"

But now that the NCAA has turned to the practice of vacating and stripping past accomplishments, these same critics are yelling "this is crazy! You can't change the past! We all saw team X win that title on the field! You can't erase our memories!"

That's weird.

2) There's also a lot of critics posting that stripping titles is "symbolic", that it has no impact on the here-and-now, it's a silly meaningless exercise.

But IMO, the howling by UofL (and Notre Dame last week) proves otherwise. If getting stripped doesn't hurt, why are these schools that get stripped howling so loud about it? Pitino and Postel et al haven't been complaining about the loss of schollies, they have been complaining about the loss of the title and having to return the banner. That's what is bothering them, and deeply.

The national media seems to know this: none of the headlines the last few days have been "NCAA upholds scholarship losses and four year probation for UofL", all of the headlines have been "UofL loses 2013 title". That shows you that the loss of the title isn't "symbolic", it is very real, and hits a school where it hurts the most, in its legacy.

So i say ... strip away.