-
Originally Posted by
StatesboroBlues
Where is the rule or example that backs this? USCw contradicts this...it would have to be a special ruling for the 16 class to transfer in that scenario. Which may happen considering...
So 2 additional years?
-
Originally Posted by
msstate7
So 2 additional years?
As I understand it, it's just 2 total. OM already gave themselves one year. All the NCAA has to do is add one more year to it.. Maybe I'm wrong though.
-
Originally Posted by
mstatefan91
As I understand it, it's just 2 total. OM already gave themselves one year. All the NCAA has to do is add one more year to it.. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Just because they get a second year banned doesn't mean the NCAA will allow transfer. That is a separate decision on their part. That is what they have done in the past so I guess it is safe to assume they will do it again.
-
Originally Posted by
mstatefan91
As I understand it, it's just 2 total. OM already gave themselves one year. All the NCAA has to do is add one more year to it.. Maybe I'm wrong though.
You are correct it's 2 total.
-
The bowl ban should only count if you actually have a record to go to a bowl. Bowl ban when you are 4-8 on the season? How can that be considered a missed bowl? Its just like the scholarships. Just because UM couldn't fill a class a couple years ago should have nothing to do with the scholarship reductions. If I were the NCAA, I would figure out what they need to do to serve out their punishment, and then add it directly on their "self-imposed" penalties. I wouldn't even consider those as part of the penalty. What penalty did they actually already pay. I would argue, nothing.
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
Lord McBuckethead
The bowl ban should only count if you actually have a record to go to a bowl. Bowl ban when you are 4-8 on the season? How can that be considered a missed bowl? Its just like the scholarships. Just because UM couldn't fill a class a couple years ago should have nothing to do with the scholarship reductions. If I were the NCAA, I would figure out what they need to do to serve out their punishment, and then add it directly on their "self-imposed" penalties. I wouldn't even consider those as part of the penalty. What penalty did they actually already pay. I would argue, nothing.
A bowl ban means they don't get to participate in the revenue distribution the SEC gives out from the bowl money generated. Its crippling.
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
msstate7
So 2 additional years?
2 additional years would allow the unredshirted 16 class to transfer based on precedent. 16 redshirts and after would be a special case scenario...
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
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.
Reply With Quote