Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79

Thread: Patterson considering transferring?

  1. #1
    General Public Political Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    General Public
    Posts
    17,287
    vCash
    7178

    Patterson considering transferring?

    His family wanted him to play immediately, which is likely because they know they need to save his RS season for a possible transfer pending the announcement of sanctions.

    Freeze isn't a dummy. He knows burning that RS would likely result in Patterson leaving next year after sanctions are announced. It would allow Patterson to use the RS season as his "sit out" season. Would make life a lot easier for the kid.

    I wonder how Freeze was justifying this to his family. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during those conversations. Ole lying Hugh at it again.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,406
    vCash
    3700
    He should have never gone there in the first place. For multiple reasons. It was documented that they were being investigated at that time. Even Archie's kid was smart enough to not go there during an investigation.

    Patterson could be hoping that the NCAA will let him transfer without penalty due to the probation so he may come out good in the end.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    164
    vCash
    3100
    I would think they wanted him to play early when they first signed. Now, it seems a RS year would be the way to go and have the ability to transfer after sanctions. If they are bad enough to transfer than you are probably looking at a bowl ban as being part of the sanctions. Wouldn't most transfers get to leave without having to sit in this situation...seems that is the way I remember USC and others.

    Edited: Todd beat me to my line of thinking...
    Last edited by StatesboroBlues; 09-15-2016 at 10:14 AM.
    "Eat a Peach"

  4. #4
    General Public Political Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    General Public
    Posts
    17,287
    vCash
    7178
    Quote Originally Posted by StatesboroBlues View Post
    I would think they wanted him to play early when they first signed. Now, it seems a RS year would be the way to go and have the ability to transfer after sanctions. If they are bad enough to transfer than you are probably looking at a bowl ban as being part of the sanctions. Wouldn't most transfers get to leave without having to sit in this situation...seems that is the way I remember USC and others.
    NCAA makes that decision case to case, but these kids knew coming in that Ole Miss was under a serious NCAA investigation. They still signed. They had their chance. I'd think the NCAA is a little tighter with this than they were with USC because of the timing, publicity, and how long it's taken to conduct the investigation. It isn't like this is coming out of nowhere at this point.

    If he RS this year he can only play 3 years after transferring. If he doesn't , he could play his year, RS, and still play 3. It's the difference in an entire season. Nobody in their right mind would want to give up 12-15 games of college when the NFL is in play.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    431
    vCash
    3100
    The saving grace on them signing while OM is under investigation was manipulated by Freeze. It is well documented the players were lied to about the severity of the investigation. This will be their out to transfer.

  6. #6
    Senior Member messageboardsuperhero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,209
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Political Hack View Post
    NCAA makes that decision case to case, but these kids knew coming in that Ole Miss was under a serious NCAA investigation. They still signed. They had their chance. I'd think the NCAA is a little tighter with this than they were with USC because of the timing, publicity, and how long it's taken to conduct the investigation. It isn't like this is coming out of nowhere at this point.

    If he RS this year he can only play 3 years after transferring. If he doesn't , he could play his year, RS, and still play 3. It's the difference in an entire season. Nobody in their right mind would want to give up 12-15 games of college when the NFL is in play.
    Or maybe the NCAA is aware of the lies that were told to the recruits about the seriousness of the investigation and let's them go. The recruits knew UM was under investigation, but it's hard to say they knew about the seriousness of it when you have players quoted as being told by Hugh Freeze that it was all old stuff, nothing to do with him, etc.

    Combine that with the obvious BS that was leaked to the media before signing day- how can you say the recruits that signed with UM knew how bad it could get?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,694
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Political Hack View Post
    NCAA makes that decision case to case, but these kids knew coming in that Ole Miss was under a serious NCAA investigation. They still signed. They had their chance. I'd think the NCAA is a little tighter with this than they were with USC because of the timing, publicity, and how long it's taken to conduct the investigation. It isn't like this is coming out of nowhere at this point.

    If he RS this year he can only play 3 years after transferring. If he doesn't , he could play his year, RS, and still play 3. It's the difference in an entire season. Nobody in their right mind would want to give up 12-15 games of college when the NFL is in play.
    To play devil's advocate, the Forde article didn't come out until February of 2016 and Patterson enrolled after December of 2015. At that time, the "women's basketball and track" narrative was still being spread, and I don't know that any recruits had reason to believe anything different.

  8. #8
    Senior Member mcain31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    639
    vCash
    3700
    Maybe one of the players will sue the C-L for not informing the public of the investigation in a timely manner
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." James "Mad Dog" Mattis, General/USMC August 2006

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9,940
    vCash
    3200
    I think he transfers after OM has to promote an interim, or hires a replacement. He may not play a single snap at OM.

  10. #10
    General Public Political Hack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    General Public
    Posts
    17,287
    vCash
    7178
    Quote Originally Posted by HSVDawg View Post
    To play devil's advocate, the Forde article didn't come out until February of 2016 and Patterson enrolled after December of 2015. At that time, the "women's basketball and track" narrative was still being spread, and I don't know that any recruits had reason to believe anything different.
    The timing is key for him. Didn't realize he was an early enrollee.

    They could clear them all to transfer, but I just see this as being different than USC. The length of the investigation alone will work against it. The one thing that the NCAA won't consider is players saying "but Hugh lied to me." They'll probably laugh and say "yeah, we've met him too."

  11. #11
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,674
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops View Post
    I think he transfers after OM has to promote an interim, or hires a replacement. He may not play a single snap at OM.
    Talk about not getting any bang for your buck.

  12. #12
    Senior Member gtowndawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Memphis area
    Posts
    2,205
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe View Post
    Talk about not getting any bang for your buck.
    Oh, they got their bang all right. Crootin' rankings an all.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    164
    vCash
    3100
    Edited: was said above.
    "Eat a Peach"

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,845
    vCash
    3400
    Quote Originally Posted by Political Hack View Post
    The timing is key for him. Didn't realize he was an early enrollee.

    They could clear them all to transfer, but I just see this as being different than USC. The length of the investigation alone will work against it. The one thing that the NCAA won't consider is players saying "but Hugh lied to me." They'll probably laugh and say "yeah, we've met him too."
    Depends on whether the NCAA wants to put more of the punishment on the school or the players. If they make it hard for people to transfer, they allow UM to benefit more from their cheating and may end up not punishing the players that much either. If they all stay, UM will be pretty decent over their career and they'll at worst end up missing two bowls, which a lot of players will do just by virtue of the team not being that good. If they let the players leave with no penalty, it will hurt UM that much more nad make other schools that more hesitant to copy their game plan.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Hattiesburg
    Posts
    1,060
    vCash
    3005
    The almighty power of this got them on campus.......


  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    164
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnson85 View Post
    Depends on whether the NCAA wants to put more of the punishment on the school or the players. If they make it hard for people to transfer, they allow UM to benefit more from their cheating and may end up not punishing the players that much either. If they all stay, UM will be pretty decent over their career and they'll at worst end up missing two bowls, which a lot of players will do just by virtue of the team not being that good. If they let the players leave with no penalty, it will hurt UM that much more nad make other schools that more hesitant to copy their game plan.
    Exactly...scholarship reductions are magnified when you have transfers. The team does not have the ability to make up for those scholarships along with your normal transfers, players giving up football, and graduation.

    I will try and find the article that was written about USC talking about this very issue. They had very little transfer (even though it was given, I think one RB to Penn State maybe) and it made a huge difference in the program.
    Last edited by StatesboroBlues; 09-15-2016 at 11:15 AM.
    "Eat a Peach"

  17. #17
    Senior Member WSOPdawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,955
    vCash
    10342450941
    I LOVE THIS SUBJECT MATTER!!!

    I fully expect the NCAA to allow the Bears' players to transfer without penalty after the hammer drops, which should further decimate their program. Now, if we can only get the hammer to drop by mid-February 2017 (which I'm not holding my breath on).

  18. #18
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,674
    vCash
    3500
    Can Dan start having late night calls with Little? We could use some Oline help.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    8,817
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe View Post
    Can Dan start having late night calls with Little? We could use some Oline help.
    Little couldn't crack our lineup then. We'll be loaded with 3* developmental guys that Hev has turned into NFL prospects ***

  20. #20
    Paysite Policeman Dawg-gone-dawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    5,204
    vCash
    3100
    This title indicates that he is really considering transferring but it should be "Will he consider transferring?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.