Rosebowl says bowl ban coming to OM

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.

So they start off 2-3 and self impose a Birmingham Bowl ban? Genius. But, hey, if I were in their shoes I may do that also. Hopefully the NCAA will say "thanks but no thanks, we will decide".

What about vacated W's?

I like Bama's strategy...receive a bowl ban and plan an opener AT HAWAII the next year. THAT is genius.

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.

---

They will not get to count the past recruiting season but they can chose to take the bowl band this year or not. I think OSU screwed themselves by not taking it the first year after it was announced. They were 6-6 and went to a bowl game. The next year they were 12-0 and had to stay home. Bama got to go to the BCS NC that year and won.

Miami really screwed themselves. They did not go to a bowl for two seasons waiting on the ncaa to announce punishment. But once it came it was behind them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lambert

They will not get to count the past recruiting season but they can chose to take the bowl band this year or not. I think OSU screwed themselves by not taking it the first year after it was announced. They were 6-6 and went to a bowl game. The next year they were 12-0 and had to stay home. Bama got to go to the BCS NC that year and won.

Miami really screwed themselves. They did not go to a bowl for two seasons waiting on the ncaa to announce punishment. But once it came it was behind them.

---

Yes, but if you can take it the first year its announced then you get by with essentially NO effect on recruiting. It really won't affect anyone other than current players that way.

If the loss of scholarships come hard and heavy the bowl bans won't matter in a few years.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic

If the loss of scholarships come hard and heavy the bowl bans won't matter in a few years.

---

True - by year 3 they will have a diminished roster with very little depth to get them through this conference let alone bowl eligibility.

Vacated wins are totally meaningless. I would take our 9 and 2 season with Bruce Threadgill at quarterback all over again. All of those wins were vacated. Furthermore, we passed on claiming an SEC championship when Florida wins were vacated under Charlie Pell. Emery Bellard would have no part of winning a championship anywhere but on the field. All you get is a bunch of *'s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbow

Vacated wins are totally meaningless. I would take our 9 and 2 season with Bruce Threadgill at quarterback all over again. All of those wins were vacated. Furthermore, we passed on claiming an SEC championship when Florida wins were vacated under Charlie Pell. Emery Bellard would have no part of winning a championship anywhere but on the field. All you get is a bunch of *'s.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benbow

Vacated wins are totally meaningless. I would take our 9 and 2 season with Bruce Threadgill at quarterback all over again. All of those wins were vacated. Furthermore, we passed on claiming an SEC championship when Florida wins were vacated under Charlie Pell. Emery Bellard would have no part of winning a championship anywhere but on the field. All you get is a bunch of *'s.

---

Those wins weren't vacated. The were forfeited. That is a MAJOR difference.

Rosebowl and Coach34 have an awful lot riding on this whole probation deal. I would love nothing more than to see them proven right. Wake me up when it hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original48

I like Bama's strategy...receive a bowl ban and plan an opener AT HAWAII the next year. THAT is genius.

---

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.

A good time to consider believing any Ole Miss source would be when any one of them tells the truth for the first time about anything to do with this topic.

They will be hammered. It is in our best interests that their minions not see it coming.


After the penalties, a decade of disgrace and bad football, only one of which will matter to the Bears.

He wasn't stepping very far out on a limb with that call. I think most people with half a brain and a zip code outside Lafayette County realize that, with 8 Level 1 infractions, a bowl ban is a foregone conclusion. The only question is if it will be one year or multiple years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HSVDawg

He wasn't stepping very far out on a limb with that call. I think most people with half a brain and a zip code outside Lafayette County realize that, with 8 Level 1 infractions, a bowl ban is a foregone conclusion. The only question is if it will be one year or multiple years.

---

exactly. They may get 2 years- 1 is a certainty

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Yes, but if you can take it the first year its announced then you get by with essentially NO effect on recruiting. It really won't affect anyone other than current players that way.

---

They are not Ohio State. Bowl ban will kill recruiting for them. The lose of scholarships and the real possibility of senior transferring due to the post season ban will kill them.

They haven't told the truth, yet.