OT: Ole Miss Gets Additional One-Year Bowl Ban, Other Sanctions

We might as well start paying our recruits now too.  The consequences seem to be minor.

What does four years of probation mean?  If there is only a two year bowl ban, what does the two additional years of probation entail?  Is probation just concurrent with the reduction in scholarships?

And Hugh Freeze would only be suspended two games if another program picks him up?  What the hell is that? Why can't any crooked head coach ever get punished by the NCAA?

It looks like any player can transfer without having to sit out a year.

It states because of a two year bowl ban players are eligible to transfer without having to sit out a year of eligibility and can play immediately.

Only seniors can transfer without sitting out a year. (LINK)  I'm decidedly with the interpretation that the NCAA is counting the self-imposed bowl ban from this year towards one of the two years. Thus, they have one year of the ban remaining.

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osborne confirmed to ESPN that Ole Miss seniors will be allowed to transfer without penalty because of the postseason ban for 2018.

Ultimately, Ole Miss during the Hugh Freeze era got a New Years Six bowl win and back-to-back victories over Alabama.  Since Freeze took over they are 4-2 against their instate rival.

Their punishment is missing a couple of PIzza Bowl caliber post season crap fests and having to take only 22 players in their next class instead of 28.  If I'm an Ole Miss fan, I'll delightedly take that trade.  No way in hell is this punishment a significant enough deterrent to keep anyone from dabbling in the payola market.  Which is why the market exists. 

To me, this doesn't feel all that draconian despite what (addmittedly usually biased) media personalities are calling it.  Ole Miss basically skipped a crappy bowl game this year, will not be eligible next year when they'll likely be just as bad, and lose a fair number of scholarships but it's also over a 4-year span.  They didn't get bombed back into the stone age, and considering this is the SEC and they've been busted for similar transgressions before, my guess is that they'll be back to paying recruits and flouting rules as soon as possible.  This won't really deter them too much.

I'm not going to re-litigate the arguments for paying players, but if the worst a program has to look at for blatantly doing so or having fake classes to keep them eligible is a couple years without shitty bowl games and some scholarship restrictions, sure seems worth it.

anyone highly rated that went to Ole Miss is almost certainly guilty of getting paid by boosters. We're good enough as is. Why bring those complications in and risk vacating something

this is a pretty light penalty that will dissuade only those who believe in following the rules to begin with.

At this point, any program that makes the cold rational return-on-investemnt decision that it is better off to just cheat and pay the very small consequences if they get caught . . . is not wrong.

If you are Ole Miss, you are going to miss some bowl games anyway if you are not cheating.  You might as well miss a couple of bowl games at the hands of the NCAA and have back-to-back victories over Alabama to show for it.

Why does he get the shortest show-cause of all the coaches?

And are they satisfied that he was calling escort services just for himself, and not buying them for the recruits?

Why does he get the shortest show-cause of all the coaches? Eleven months, while some assistants got up to five years? Isn't he the most guilty of lacking "institutional control"??

And are they satisfied that he was calling escort services just for himself, and not ordering them up for the recruits? Because that would make him worse than Pitino, right?