Why should we count victories where we agree . . .

Why should we count victories where we agree . . .
by IrishJosh24 (2024-04-25 13:13:08)
Edited on 2024-04-25 13:13:46

In reply to: Not just Kelly posted by NDQuebec

Some of the players were ineligible? Yes, we should "take" those wins away from Brian Kelly, and we should "take" them from the student-athletes who participated in the games. It's unfortunate for student-athletes who did nothing wrong. But we can't claim wins for games where players were ineligible.

And, for the record, we always knew that to be true. We volunteered to vacate those wins if players were ineligible. Then we agreed they were ineligible. And we appealed the NCAA's order to vacate the wins anyway. Predictably, we lost.

In any event, the new AD would not be acknowledging the NCAA's order "voluntarily." The order says the games shouldn't be counted in any win totals, which is why ND invented the shamrock-asterisk to note that it was, in fact, counting vacated victories in win totals. The new AD should just stop that silly practice.

We don't need a shamrock-asterisk. We shouldn't count the wins.

And, as the OP said, would you also like Bevacqua to

fight to keep the wins vacated? The point of my post is that it is a silly thing to say. And I like the * thingy and hope that Bevacqua keeps it, which I am sure he will. Some act like they are holier than thou.

The irony

Of discussing people acting holier than thou, but then pointing to the * is hilarious.

The * is textbook holier than thou, I know better behavior.

You are a moron *

So are you, and an obnoxious one at that. *