Ole Miss will win appeal....

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Watch and see.... no 2nd Year Bowl ban... maybe released today.

 

[Arloguthrie]

The NCAA hasn't even filed its response yet. Slow down turbo.

 

[BossDawg78]

Watch and see.... no 2nd Year Bowl ban... maybe released today.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. However, if they do, our bagmen better take the gloves off.

 

[o_dawgnabit]

Wouldn’t be shocked knowing the NCAA but history is not in their favor. I can’t even name a program who has won an appeal with the NCAA

 

[maroonmania]

Funniest thing would be if they win their appeal and then somehow fail to get bowl eligible. They do probably have enough offense to get to 6-6 though even with their pathetic defense.

 

[blacklistedbully]

And I can't name another program that got less than 1 scholarship lost per Level 1 violation. The NCAA is a paper tiger if you're willing to go-to-the-mattresses with lawyers.

 

[Chris Mannix]

Nothing surprises me about that investigation anymore. It’s like trying to nail jello to the wall.

 

[Wizard.sixpack]

Why? You don’t think their recruiting was affected during the investigation? Yes they got off light but let’s not pretend like they didn’t take a step back during this investigation. I wouldn’t want that kind of publicity for our program

 

[Shmuley]

It was obvious that the NCAA was after beaver. Once they got him, they were satisfied.

 

[8dog]

But they didnt. He will be a head coach within 3 years

 

[patdog]

So why did they only give him a practically meaningless 2 game suspension, then? It's obvious the NCAA just didn't give a **** about how much Mississippi or the Beaver were cheating. If Mississippi hadn't screwed the pooch on the Nutt lawsuit, he'd still be their coach today.

 

[Chris Mannix]

Freeze got off so light it’s really a joke. He will be a head coach again soon. I said this year if I was looking for an offensive coordinator he is at the top of my list, as much as I hate the son of a *****.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Disagree. I think they folded for the same reason the IRS folded vs the church of scientology. They did not want to deal with constant legal challenges, lawsuits, etc.

They would rather create the illusion of being a meaningful organization by putting the wood to schools that don't threaten them with endless legal action, or those that are less likely to fight back.

No other way to explain why they did not come remotely close to using the "mandatory" matrix. Hell they didn't come remotely close to following it for a single standard level 1 violation.

For anyone willing to go all in, and fight like hell, the NCAA enforcement division is a joke. Only the investigation, with the slight chance you could be busted is puntive, but only during the investigation. That makes it worthwhile for programs in the ******* to cheat. Why should they even care about missing a bowl or two if they get to bowls and become more relevant while they are cheating?

Does anybody really think OM is not better off now than they were before when they were going winless in the SEC?

And if they only want the coach, then schools will simply pay the coach well enough to make it worth it. Coach gets sent packing, but with several million in the bank he didn't have before. School enjoys a period of success they would not otherwise have had, and are positioned to recruit better than they were because, cheating not withstanding, they have won enough games to be considered.

 

[blacklistedbully]

Would not be on mine unless I knew I had a network of boosters who would buy who I wanted.

Freeze did not win because he was a good coach. He won because he bought some really talented players. He actually underachieved, considering his talent...but it was so much better than they had the last couple of years under Freeze that some think he was better than he really was.

 

[Chris Mannix]

Agree to disagree.

 

[Philly Dawg]

It's simpler than that. The enforcement staff that investigated OM were not the same people that got to impose penalties. I'd be willing to bet that the enforcement staff wasn't happy with the penalties.

 

[tatedog]

Would not be on mine unless I knew I had a network of boosters who would buy who I wanted.

Freeze did not win because he was a good coach. He won because he bought some really talented players. He actually underachieved, considering his talent...but it was so much better than they had the last couple of years under Freeze that some think he was better than he really was.

Ok then that limits his options to every single P5 school.

 

[Go Budaw]

Wouldn’t be shocked knowing the NCAA but history is not in their favor. I can’t even name a program who has won an appeal with the NCAA

LOL....I can name one. That school who was seeking immediate eligibility for Jeremiah Masoli in 2010. Was initially denied and then immediately overturned upon appeal a day or two later.

 

[gymdawg.sixpack]

The guy never developed a single player. So yea he'll do ok with bamas talent. But if hes forced to play clean with average talent freeze is an average coach

 

[patdog]

The numbers don't lie. His offenses put up a lot of points and won a lot of games. That's the bottom line and that's all that matters. As for being forced to play clean with average talent, the NCAA pretty much validated his recruiting methods, so there's no reason for him to change when he gets his next job. And he will win there.

 

[basedawg]

But they didnt. He will be a head coach within 3 years

Maybe, but at a mid major if any.

 

[JungRebel]

That's true if he had nothing to do with the development of any of Evan Engram, Trae Elston, Cody Core, Cody Prewitt, Fadol Brown, Jordan Wilkins, or Mike Hilton. This is one of the dumbest arguments that is continually repeated here over and over again ad naseum.

 

[JoMo MoJo]

What about Paidwell not being able to run routes in the NFL?

Beaver’s recruiting approach was to have 30 WR on schollie and sign a problem-child QB. All he wanted to do was outscore the opponent. Defense was a waste.

 

[JungRebel]

This is why the argument isn't a good one. Some players turn out better than expected, some turn out worse. The arguement for or against is subject to overwhelming confirmation bias, and it never takes into account the position coaches. Only when a coach takes a noted interest in one position and has a long track record do I put stock into it, e.g. Mullen's record in developing quarterbacks.