Rosebowl says bowl ban coming to OM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raymond21

Ross and Freeze telling the sheep 14 scholarships over 4 years. If true , this will have little or no effect on the program.

---

This is the 4th time their story has been changed...
You can probably double the scholarships and add a year with a 2year bowl ban..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raymond21

Ross and Freeze telling the sheep 14 scholarships over 4 years. If true , this will have little or no effect on the program.

---

They've also said there was no investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Just listened to the Boneyard and Rosebowl stated that he is now convinced OM will get at least a one year bowl ban and potentially more.

Of concern, he also said that look for OM to declare a bowl ban for 2016 if they get off to a slow start. Personally, I think that's wrong and similar to declaring scholarship reductions when you miss on some players.

I think it's absurd that the NCAA would consider a bowl ban valid if a team declares it after the start of the season. Not sure there is justice there.

---

Not gonna argue with him or say he's wrong because he's been pretty much on the nose about this.

But I still don't see a bowl ban. The SEC will help them out on that. Sure Sanky can't be on the committee when the OM stuff comes up. But anybody who has ever served on something like that, as I have, will tell you the members of the committee take care of each other.

Because it may be your ass the next time and you need a little help. It's human nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raymond21

Ross and Freeze telling the sheep 14 scholarships over 4 years. If true , this will have little or no effect on the program.

---

This type of stuff is whats bull shit from the OM fanbase. OM has to go before the COI for their ruling. They have no idea how they will rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiderman

But I still don't see a bowl ban. The SEC will help them out on that. Sure Sanky can't be on the committee when the OM stuff comes up. But anybody who has ever served on something like that, as I have, will tell you the members of the committee take care of each other.

---

I think some people are putting too much stock into what the SEC can and/or will do for UM. Homeboy Slive ain't there anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Not gonna argue with him or say he's wrong because he's been pretty much on the nose about this.

But I still don't see a bowl ban. The SEC will help them out on that. Sure Sanky can't be on the committee when the OM stuff comes up. But anybody who has ever served on something like that, as I have, will tell you the members of the committee take care of each other.

Because it may be your ass the next time and you need a little help. It's human nature.

---

That's weird bc I thought the investigation kicked off bc of fellow sec schools turning om in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LockeDawg

OM has already submitted their response to the NOA, shouldn't they have already declared for a 2016 bowl ban in their initial response? Sanctions/penalties are handed down from the COI - and with the new draft night crap that hit the fan...this whole thing is still in the investigative stage and won't get to the COI for a long while. In other words, OM can declare for a '16 bowl ban if they want to but that doesn't mean the COI will accept it while things are still under investigation.

---

There's a 2nd issue, but any self imposed penalties would need to be included in the response. Unless they're planning to ban themselves from a bowl game due to the Tunsil draft night fiasco.

So any word on if they received a delay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PassInterference

Texas did one better and scheduled a end-of-season extra game at Hawaii. Did it for the same season that the bowl ban was in place.

---

Do you guys have Alzheimer's ?

#

I'm telling you 100%- they are getting a bowl ban.

I agree on the bowl ban. I would like to see one this year to slap some reality into their fans. Future bowl bans and loss of coaches will be the most impactful though.

Unrelated thought on the "hit piece". What ever happened in the Bobby Hill situation where there was a sexual assault on the big recruiting weekend? John Pitts almost lost his job at The Journal when he said he heard bigger names were involved. Never heard anything about Hill again. OM fans are crying "look at Baylor", but Oxford police and University officials seem to clear players of wrongdoing almost immediately. They can't say that about MSU when our greatest player ever gets a DUI without a positive test.

Their Bowl Ban will mean a trip to Cancun to do "Mission Work"......

Yeah....I would love to see them go to the Weed Wacker bowl this year and then get handed a 2 year bowl ban.

8 level 1 violations in football so far and many other violations in other sports ought to be end of sports at OM if the COI was doling out actual justice. It is like none of them could/would read the rules. Like Robertson said you can't take the test on the rules, pass it, then act like they were "honest mistakes" when you violate them UNLESS like their Waynesboro Academic center they had someone to take the test for them.

With a second round of violations pending OM is in the running for the dirtiest program Eva. How the NCAA responds to that we don't know? It's impossible to tell. But if they were to simply follow their matrix flat out there would be intramural sports being played on Saturday evening in the Fall under the bright lights of VHS.

Personally a bowl ban is meaningless. A steeper scholarship reduction in the neighborhood of 25 is the back breaker

The NCAA in no shape form or fashion is going to shut down the entire ole miss athletic department.

I have been saying this and will keep saying it. It's gonna be way to much for ole miss people and not nearly enough for Msu people when all is said and done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raymond21

Personally a bowl ban is meaningless. A steeper scholarship reduction in the neighborhood of 25 is the back breaker

---

Actually it is not...a bowl ban would cause a few recruits to rethink UM as a decision but most of all it would cause a # of players to transfer. The more that transfer out that first year the harder it is for UM to stay at the max # of scholarships they will be able to allow. So yes, the scholarship reduction is the biggest of all but that bowl ban could magnify the reductions...

Can someone tell me how many Level 1 infractions ULL had? I can't find the number anywhere. Someone on twitter said they just had 1. If that is true, the bears are screwed.

I thought ULL had between 3 and 5. Can anyone get some clarity on that issue. The bears have 8. I don't care that some happened under my favorite bear coach of all time (Nutt), if ULL got 3 and 11 for 3 Level 1 infractions, the bears will be at 4 and 16 at a minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raymond21

Personally a bowl ban is meaningless. A steeper scholarship reduction in the neighborhood of 25 is the back breaker

---

I agree with this, a one year bowl ban doesn't affect recruits because normally the ban occurs the year before the recruits get on campus.

If there was a choice between 4 and 15 on scholarhips plus a one year bowl ban, or 4 and 20 and no bowl ban, I go with 4 and 20 all day.

Scholarship limitations, that is how you gut a program.