Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

[benatmsu]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

In the CL this morning, Veazey writes this line:

http://www.clarionledger....RTS030102/903030345/1079

That policy says a game can't be forfeited until both teams and the umpires are present. Since umpires weren't scheduled to arrive until close to game time, Nicholls' leaving Starkville at 11 a.m. ensured that all three of those scenarios could not be met.

So both teams and the umpires have to be present at the game for a forfeit to take place?
So let's say a team (team A) is 3 games out of first place going into the final weekend series against the 1st place team (team B). Team A wins both Friday and Saturday games. Game # 3, if won by Team A, would give Team A the tie breaker and the regular season League championship. A light shower falls after the game Saturday and team B's coach decides he doesn't want to risk another loss and states "well, it rained last night, so we're leaving town...". Game time rolls around and Team A and the umpires show up, but there's no team B. Team A can't win by forfeiture since Team B isn't there as well? So team A, by the NCAA rule, wins the league championship by 1 game? Maybe that's not exactly how the rule is written, but as it's explained in this article, the rule is a tad unfair it would seem.

 

[patdog]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

MSU and Bama were fighting for the last spot in the SEC tournament and going into the last game of the season (the 2 teams were playing each other that weekend), MSU had a 1/2 game lead and we had a lot of rain in Starkville. Polk did the right thing and waited hours refusing to cancel the game and finally they were able to get the game in. MSU won and got that spot in the tournament, but Polk wasn't about to back into it if he could help it.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

I guess I don't understand why there is such a fuss about this. It's one game, against a team that likely will end up dragging down your RPI by the end of the year anyway. You'll probably be able to schedule a late season midweek tilt against another 200+ RPI team to make up for it. And if you only end up playing 55 games instead of 56, what does it hurt?

I can understand discussing it, because it's a weird situation, but it was just one non-conference game against a no-name school. It's not like it's a game that meant a whole lot. If it was an SEC game, that's one thing because it could have a major bearing on whether or not you make the SEC tourney or win a division title or a conference title. But instead it's just like any non-conference rainout.

 

[Xenomorph]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

*

 

[benatmsu]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

Don't even try to deny it.
Furthermore, I was commenting on the NCAA rule. I think it sucks.

 

[Original48]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

I don't think anybody is necessarily going to go BenJarvisGreenEllis and try to find the extra yard/win at the end of the season or anything.

 

[Woof Man Jack]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

You're questioning why a topic is being discussed, then offering your discussion on it.

</p>

 

[patdog]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

Like you said, it's only one game and the NCAA selection committee would back that win out in their minds when they discussed us anyway. What pisses people off is that a coach just unilaterally decided that he wasn't going to play a game apparently with no consequences (although I'm sure we're going to wind up getting back some of the guarantee we paid them). The problem with the rules as they are written is that they're written from a perspective of both coaches actually wanting to play a game and not from a perspective of preventing a coach from ducking a game. Not to mention the fact, the Nicholls St. coach has been caught redhanded in a couple of outright lies about this whole situation.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

I agree on the dangerous precedent thing, especially as it pertains to conference games. However, I would think that the SEC would have some pretty strict rules on things like this, so I doubt you'll see an SEC team ducking a game to be able to ensure a spot in the SEC tourney or ensure a championship. And even if the SEC didn't have a rule to protect it, I'd imagine the school would face a pretty strict penalty from the SEC for backing out of a conference game.

 

[Todd4State]

Ok, I know it's been discussed to death, but one last thing on Cancelgate/Forfeitgate

This douchebag- who's team was under contract mind you- basically up and left because Cohen wanted to try to get this game in. Then he lied about several things to get out of it.

The fact is he left because he had sour grapes because he thought that our coaches- incorrectly thought mind you- were trash talking with their players.