Ole Miss Fighting Transfers

Submitted by umbig11 on

I thought I would throw this out there before April Fools Day. That way there is no confusion. Ole Miss will be fighting the "immediate eligibility" of those that are requesting transfers. Yes, that means Shea Patterson. Let's just say Ole Miss came out firing with their rebuttal to the NCAA. They are not going to admit any wrong doing or grant approvals for the players in question. 

Michigan could have been more aggressive and used more documentation that was made available to them from Shea's attorney. Furthermore, Michigan may submit additional documentation if they can (not guaranteed). They are going to need it. Shea's attorney is far less optimistic than he was a week ago. Hence the statement, he is referring all future inquiries to Michigan's David Ablauf. For the first time in weeks, I am starting to think this going to be a 50/50 decision at best.

Attorney's advising Michigan are adamant that they miscalculated the Ole Miss response. Brace yourselves for the worst and pray for the best. We know what the right thing to do is, but we are now dealing with a corrupt instituition (Mississippi) and an organization (NCAA) with a less than stellar track record in making the right decisions!

turtleboy

March 31st, 2018 at 7:08 PM ^

What, do they want a refund or something? What can they possibly hope to gain? Forcing players who won't play for you to stay gains you nothing.

UofM626

March 31st, 2018 at 7:11 PM ^

Just another example of Michigan's ignorance and pompous approach to everything. Michigan being Michigan. There approach to almost everything these days annoys the shit out of me. Especially if they didn't put on a full press for this to happen instantly. Just disappointing as always

CarrIsMyHomeboy

March 31st, 2018 at 7:13 PM ^

1. Institution cheats 2. The cheating is sufficiently documented that they are deemed guilty and sanctioned by the governing body 3. Players flee and argue they were deliberately misled about Steps #1/2, deserving immediate eligibility 4. Institution counter argues in all caps: ERRONEOUS; WE NEVER CHEATED! 5. Governing body replies "Oh, good point."

bluesparkhitsy…

March 31st, 2018 at 11:08 PM ^

Yes, but Patterson's petition apparently turns on what he was told by Ole Miss about the sanctions -- that is an issue distinct from the findings that led to the sanctions. The NCAA therefore could maintain its stance on the underlying cheating while nevertheless finding that Michigan did not carry its burden of proof with respect to what Patterson was told.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this scenario is likely.  It's certainly possible, though.

DCGrad

March 31st, 2018 at 7:14 PM ^

Would the lawyers withhold evidence against Ole Miss? You throw every possible piece of evidence out there for the NCAA and others. If the NCAA rules against Shea, UM should sue immediately for an injunction granting release and an expedited trial. No guarantee it will be granted but you have to do it. In the mean time, they better fight like hell to get any additional evidence in the record.

Rabbit21

March 31st, 2018 at 8:54 PM ^

How in the high holy fuck did they not load for hear from the start? Sorry, but not doing that was just fucking stupid. I admit I don't know the whole story but that feels fucking negligent.

jsimms

March 31st, 2018 at 9:01 PM ^

How is it good practice for michigan's lawyers to put forth 1/2 of a case?  If Michigan wanted to get a favorable ruling, then its only choice was to back up the truck and dump everything it had on mississippi

bluesparkhitsy…

March 31st, 2018 at 11:02 PM ^

As a litigator, I agree this is concerning. Without knowing the details of Michigan's submission or OM's response, I can only speculate as to the strategy, but I think these are the most likely possibilities:

First, Michigan's lawyers may have disagreed with Patterson's lawyers over the quality of the evidence.  While Patterson's lawyer is motivated only by getting eligibility for Patterson, Michigan has to also consider its reputation with the NCAA (or later, possibly a court).  If a particular piece of evidence was very compelling but impossible to verify (for example), Patterson's lawyer may have rightly pushed it while Michigan's lawyers may have rightly rejected it.

Second, Michigan's lawyers may have miscalculated by assuming a common world view between Michigan and OM -- e.g., that both institutions value the well-being of the student athlete above all else.  Here, Michigan's lawyers may have assumed OM had nothing to gain by responding and that they would value a nonresponse because of a desire not to harm Patterson. In fact, while the choice to respond was non-obvious, OM may have been motivated by a desire to hurt Patterson or Michigan, or may have placed no value on Patterson while believing a response would have some value in OM's NCAA sanctions appeal.

Third, Michigan may have miscalculated by deciding not to open a new line of attack against OM, beliving that would encourage a nonresponse.  While the NCAA penalties are directed at particular institutional violations, Michigan's allegations go beyond that by alleging Patterson was told things about the penalties that were untrue.  Michigan's reasoning may have been that  supporting these allegations with particularly damning evidence may have necessitated a response by OM, while holding its fire may encourage a nonresponse.

Regardless, this is bad news, and it may suggest that a severe miscalculation was made.

jsimms

March 31st, 2018 at 9:01 PM ^

How is it good practice for michigan's lawyers to put forth 1/2 of a case?  If Michigan wanted to get a favorable ruling, then its only choice was to back up the truck and dump everything it had on mississippi

NOLABlue

March 31st, 2018 at 10:02 PM ^

It is truly a Michigan Football thing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Oh my God the pain of being a lifelong fan but damnit I love this team

Sten Carlson

March 31st, 2018 at 10:52 PM ^

Everyone needs to relax and let the ruling play out. I don’t believe that Michigan’s attorney miscalculated anything. Quite the contrary, I think they’re being cagey, projecting weakness, and luring Ole Miss into making the one decision that is almost guaranteed to make the NCAA rule in favor of immediate eligibility. Give your opposition just enough rope to hang themselves. If Ole Miss plays nice and doesn’t comment, maybe the NCAA is placated and sympathetic. But, if they act in way that is explicitly not in the best interest of the student-athletes, and continue to refuse to express any sort of contrition, the NCAA must rule against them. Further, once they’ve taken the bait, continue to publicly claim your legal team was out manuvered and caught off guard, thus further emboldening them and encouraging them to tie that noose. Sun Tzu would be proud.

Zerodarkwolverine

April 1st, 2018 at 10:12 AM ^

Fantastic job not putting it all on the line Michigan Football people responsible. Just super. Get one shot and you fire it into the dirt.