So let's commence some RUEminating on the penalties and the effect ...

[Shmuley]

So here's a sample of my RUEminating on the level of penalties and what it will likely mean to their dipshit football program:

[FONT=&quot]Assumptions: 2-3 year bowl ban, 30+ scholarships over 4-5, with years 1 and 2 seeing between 10 and 15 scholarships reduced in each cycle. Just looking at their roster, they have around 20 seniors on the roster that will be gone after 2017 and about 23 or so juniors. If they get a 2-3 year bowl ban, they will have a mass exodus after the 2017 season and will only be able to sign 10-15 recruits for 2018 and 10-15 recruits for 2019 which would cripple their program because they won't have any depth. It won't matter about 2020, 2021 and 2022 only being able to sign between 20-25 recruits each year because they will be down at least 50-60 players by then and will only have mostly walk-ons because of the mass exodus that took place. It will take them much longer than it did USC to recover because no player worth anything is going to sign with them in that condition.

amiright?[/FONT]

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

I think you can start the scholarship reduction at 40 and then take bids.

 

[57stratdawg]

I understand your point, but I don't see how they only lose 30 scholarships.

 

[Xenomorph]

If the COI returns only a 90% conviction, the penalty matrix leaves their program a smoking crater until about 2025.

 

[bulldognation]

It's almost a lock that there will be a 2-yr bowl ban. And if so, then I wouldn't be surprised to see Shea Patterson transfer out. No way a 5-star jeopardizes his future draft stock by staying hitched to a dead horse. Even if he did choose to stay, he would have a horrible supporting cast around him.

So he gone.

 

[Shmuley]

I said 30+. Anything over 30 would get shifted to years 3-5 anyway. The point is that the classes for 18 and 19 will be minuscule .... like 10 guys possibly. Couple that with the mass exodus and they are in even deeper **** than could have been dreamed. We're talking MSU wet dream of the centuries. They may be looking at a 8-10 year black hole.

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

I hope Shumley is correct, but I fear the NCAA will attempt to avoid penalizing them that severely
My guess:
5 year probation
2 year bowl ban - chance of 3 year bowl ban increases every time someone in the Ole Miss Athletic Department speaks to the media between now & 9/11
30-30 scholarships over 4 years
Show Causes for Hugh Freeze, Maurice Harris, Derrick Nix, & Barney Farrar in addition Chris Vaughn & David Saunders
Vacating of all wins during the Freeze tenure & most of the Nutt tenure
LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL
It will take 10 years for Ole Miss to recover from these sanctions when you combine 4 years of scholarship reductions with massive transfers and that there 2017, 2018, & 2019 recruiting classes have already been sacrificed.

 

[Chesusdog]

And vacating wins. Like I said in another thread, vacated wins don't count as losses, but it does mean they will probably be 0-25 (0-21 sec) for Hughs tenure in Oxford.

 

[coach66]

My prediction from the start was USC type penalties, it appears they have raised

that bar considerably.

 

[paindonthurt_]

I'm thinking more like
2 year bowl ban
25 over 3 or 4
And some of what you said

It's never as good as it seems and never as bad as it seems.

 

[patdog]

After reading the excerpts from the NCAA response that have been posted, I think it's going to be even worse for them than I thought.
2-year bowl ban
45 scholarships over 3-4 years
Long-term show causes for Farrar and Freeze (won't matter much because both their careers are already over anyway)

 

[BiscuitEater]

+LOIC 'seems' like a given based on NCAA's response

+Bjork is a 'co-conspirator' and can't see any way he is still there past end of Nov.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

I agree with Coach and partly bc of how OM thumbed their nose at the NCAA,

that bar considerably.

tried to discredit Leo, smeared MSU, Mullen and other SAs, etc. etc. etc...

I'll stick with my original predictions which were USC level, but would not surprise me if it's worse. Depends on how bad the NCAA wants to punish them because they have legitimacy for SEVERE punishments. Unless they are repeat violators or hookers for recruits turns out true, I don't see the death penalty.

25-30 schollies
2-3yr bowl ban
4-5yr probation
Show causes for everyone
Limited recruiting visits, evals, prospect contact, etc.
Players can transfer out penalty free
Vacate/Forfeited wins

 

[johnson86-1]

So here's a sample of my RUEminating on the level of penalties and what it will likely mean to their dipshit football program:

Assumptions: 2-3 year bowl ban, 30+ scholarships over 4-5, with years 1 and 2 seeing between 10 and 15 scholarships reduced in each cycle. Just looking at their roster, they have around 20 seniors on the roster that will be gone after 2017 and about 23 or so juniors. If they get a 2-3 year bowl ban, they will have a mass exodus after the 2017 season and will only be able to sign 10-15 recruits for 2018 and 10-15 recruits for 2019 which would cripple their program because they won't have any depth. It won't matter about 2020, 2021 and 2022 only being able to sign between 20-25 recruits each year because they will be down at least 50-60 players by then and will only have mostly walk-ons because of the mass exodus that took place. It will take them much longer than it did USC to recover because no player worth anything is going to sign with them in that condition.

amiright?

If USC got 30 over 3, I think that is the absolute floor. My guess is two year bowl ban, 40 schollies over 4, another 2 years probation after that?

I would not be shocked if they got 45 over 5 and a 3 year bowl ban, although I would be surprised if it's that bad.

 

[Dogariffic]

Ok since we are rueing:
-Three year bowl ban... two on top of the one they already gave up.... the NCAA simply says "Thank You" to the initial year bowl ban.
-40 scholarships over 4 years!.... the NCAA has to make this worse than Southern Cal.
-Immediate transfer for everyone.... and I believe no Seniors, a few Juniors, several Sophmores and Freshmen leave... including Shea, both good receivers and the good Freshman OL.
-Also other teams may be allowed to sign over the minimum this year to accept these players so they can go where they really want. ...I don't think the NCAA waves the 85 rule here though.
-Freeze, Farrah and maybe others show cause.
- Reduced campus visits and coaches available to go off site and recruit.
-Vacated wins... a lot... but at least for everything the ACT guys were involved in.
-And yes I hope we change the plack on the Egg Bowl trophy...
Jmho

 

[Dawg1976]

9 over 3......

 

[garndawg]

OK, so we're RUE'ing, right?

I haven't put this up before, but:

DEATH PENALTY

I think the NCAA's bluff has been called. I think they know it. I think they are not bluffing.

If TSUN doesn't get the BanHammer, it will come out there were multiple advocates for it during the COI discussions. Otherwise, Dogariffic is probably closest to the compromise option.

 

[Mjoelner]

1. 40/4
2. 2 year bowl ban
3. Show causes for Freeze, Kiffen, Farrar, Nix and Hughes
4. Vacating of every Hugh Freeze win
5. Vacating of every Houston Nutt win in which the ACT players participated
6. Reduced off-campus recruiting visits
7. Reduced number of contacts with recruits
8. Removal of Bjork as AD
9. Current players allowed to transfer without sitting out a year
10. Probation for 5 years where a repeat offender would rue the day with a death penalty handed down

 

[QuadrupleOption]

I hope Shumley is correct, but I fear the NCAA will attempt to avoid penalizing them that severely

I don't think the NCAA is going to be in a forgiving mood. Ole Miss is screwed.

8 years probation
60 scholarships
Show Causes for every coach named
4 year bowl ban

And it STILL wouldn't match the penalties designated for each violation.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

50 schollys 3 Year Bowl ban, give back bowl revenue for years ineligible players played (ACT).... show causes galore

 

[AssEndDawg]

40 schollys over 4
3 year bowl ban (additional 2 years)
6 year probation (I think the NCAA is concerned about continued cheating enough to give an extended probationary period)
Show clause for all named coaches
I think they will vacate the wins impacted by the ACT scandal, but I'm not sure how they will handle the Freeze era. I think the actual findings on Ole Miss players were a little on the wimpy side. Had they nailed paying Treadwell, Tunsil or Knemdechistan then I would have no doubt but I think it is possible they don't vacate Freeze.

 

[patdog]

DEATH PENALTY

I've said this before. They won't get the death penalty. But they might wish they had.

 

[MeridianDog]

You are correct, but no one can take away that shark fin thing they got going. If I was them I would take advantage of the 10 year plague they will endure and go ahead and change the name to OM Landsharks so that when they get 5 or 6 scholarships back they will be able to use that in recruiting.

 

[MedDawg]

I think they will vacate the wins impacted by the ACT scandal, but I'm not sure how they will handle the Freeze era. I think the actual findings on Ole Miss players were a little on the wimpy side. Had they nailed paying Treadwell, Tunsil or Knemdechistan then I would have no doubt but I think it is possible they don't vacate Freeze.

The summary that came out yesterday specifically stated that OM used ineligible players for all of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 6 games of 2014. Those will at minimum be vacated. I don't know about the 2015 or 2016 seasons.

 

[MeridianDog]

2 year bowl ban - chance of 3 year bowl ban increases every time someone in the Ole Miss Athletic Department speaks to the media between now & 9/11.

Yes, but one must remember that no penalties will be addressed at the COI hearing. If they get into any sort of pissing match at that hearing the committee is fully authorized to hit them as hard as they want, based on the number of violations and the severity.

A smart stance by OM at the hearing would be, "Yes sir. No excuses sir. May we leave now, sir?"

Obviously, that will not be their position, so we'll need to just wait and see.

 

[SheltonChoked]

This will be a smoking hole. I think there is a chance they get kicked from the NCAA (especially if the Nutt lawsuit shows there were Escorts hired for players). But before I start, let's look at what enforcement said.

The football program submitted recruiting documentation to compliance showing BLANK and his family paid for their meals; however, as has been acknowledged, that did not occur. This is one of multiple instances in this allegation in which the football program submitted false recruiting documentation to the compliance office or failed to submit recruiting documentation altogether...

For example, Farrar reported in his December 1, 2016, interview that he used disposable "backup" cellphones for years for recruiting purposes, including to recruit prospects in the 2015 and 2016 signing classes....

The violations involve football personnel disregarding the institution's policies and expectations to take precautions to ensure their actions complied with NCAA legislation and/or reporting violations to the compliance office. The violations occurred, and recurred, over five and a half years, including during the investigation when attention to compliance should have been paramount. During this same time period, the institution failed to take meaningful action as required by the Principles to correct the behavior in its football program, which allowed additional violations to occur and illustrated a lack of institutional control.

The last part echo's SMU...With academic fraud, and multiple sports added to it. So this list is if they don't get kicked out...

60+ schollies over 6+ years (10 per year max)
3+ yr bowl ban
6+ yr probation
Show causes for everyone named and Bjork, and the previous AD
Recruiting visits, evals, prospect contact, etc. reduced by 60%
all current players can transfer out penalty free
Forfeited wins back to the ACT fraud time (2006?)
No out of conference football games for the bowl ban period
All listed boosters are banned from athletic events

 

[garndawg]

The last part echo's SMU...With academic fraud, and multiple sports added to it. So this list is if they don't get kicked out...

You said it better than I, but I agree. MUCH worse than SMU...

So if they're _ever_ going to use the DP again, here's your chance...

 

[Apoplectic_Objurgator]

This will be a smoking hole. I think there is a chance they get kicked from the NCAA (especially if the Nutt lawsuit shows there were Escorts hired for players). But before I start, let's look at what enforcement said.


The last part echo's SMU...With academic fraud, and multiple sports added to it. So this list is if they don't get kicked out...

60+ schollies over 6+ years (10 per year max)
3+ yr bowl ban
6+ yr probation
Show causes for everyone named and Bjork, and the previous AD
Recruiting visits, evals, prospect contact, etc. reduced by 60%
all current players can transfer out penalty free
Forfeited wins back to the ACT fraud time (2006?)
No out of conference football games for the bowl ban period
All listed boosters are banned from athletic events

If the matrix is used this is where you should start otherwise let's go back to drawing numbers from a hat.

60+ over 5
4 yr BB
10 year probation
Leadership replacement especially in compliance
Everyone gets show cause
Boosters out
Wins overturned
Wipe it clean with first hire being a former enforcement emp