Things I was told last night re: Ole Miss trio

Submitted by GhostofJermain… on December 10th, 2017 at 7:50 AM

I was told last night that Shea and Anderson will announce their commitments before they leave today, and that both are going to enroll in January.  John Falk was at the hoops game and was giving all the recruits a tour of the locker room.  One of the parents (not sure who) said they have never seen anything like the red carpet Michigan rolls out.  

I asked about VJ as well.  Was told that they did not have a great read on VJ like they did the other two.  Also VJ had some friends and family visiting him from his Saint Mary's days, he was yucking it up with Bigs 2.0, and I thought he was having a great time and would be coming as well. I did talk directly to him and wished him well, I have not seen him since 2015 and he has grown and bulked up, he told me that his dad had Megatron visit the dolphins practice a few times this year, and that his father still keeps in touch with CJ as well as many other lions players and coaches. He also said he misses being in the D, and he was not sure if he was going to go on any more visits, but did admit many schools reaching out.  One other thing that did happen during the game: Nico, DPJ, and Black rolled in late all together and I must admit they looked like 3 NFL players, also looked like great friends.  

Lastly, in regards to Barrett and Patterson (OL).  I did not see much of them, I think Barrett arrived late and was doing pictures and some catching up.  Patterson I never saw, but I think he was with the coaches and at Schem Hall.  All the attention was on Casear and the group of guys he was running around with that included Shea and others. 

The vibe at Crisler and around lunch and dinner was awesome.  They may all commit (5), but the coaches have been told for a fact that Anderson and Shea are in and enrolling early.  

One last thing.  The coaches, on JH orders are being very careful with the Ole Miss kids.  When in doubt refer to compliance, and this may have something to do with why Shea and Anderson have not made it offical yet.  Not saying that for sure, but they are all being extra careful.  Yesterday, I saw 3x the coaches and staff huddle up to talk about something in regards to the recruits etc.  

 

 

 

Comments

JonnyHintz

December 10th, 2017 at 10:09 AM ^

Why would you stick around a program on bowl ban, with reduced scholarships, that just went 6-6, the coach you committed to is gone, and the QB who took over for you after your injury put up better numbers (higher comp%, better QB Efficiency, better TD:INT).

Aside from assured immediate eligibility, I don’t see much benefit to sticking it out at Ole Miss

Mr Miggle

December 10th, 2017 at 10:50 AM ^

Why would he transfer here after missing spring practice? It would hurt his chances of winning the starting job and of being as productive as he could be. Returning to Ole Miss isn't the ideal  path to the NFL. The team that lost 66-3 to Bama isn't getting better. Starting for Jim Harbaugh could be that path. There's a cost to waiting, a potential cost to deciding now.

Anderson has an attorney that already successfully sued Ole Miss for Houston Nutt. He's making the same arguments here and the other side is afraid of bad publicity and court cases. Patterson may not know what the NCAA ruling is going to be, but he has a teammate who's confident. The sentiment in the media isn't any different. In other words, he has reason for optimism.

 

gruden

December 10th, 2017 at 1:00 PM ^

I don't know about every company but generally they don't go through your records for individual calls unless given a reason to do so.  Corporate cell phones usually draw red flags for overages, like lots of international calls, excessive data, etc. (stuff that shows up on the balance sheet)
 

Cell phones belonging to public institutions are a different animal because call logs are part of public records that can be examined via FOIA requests.  What Freeze was doing was plain stoopid.  Why he didn't have a personal cell phone for his secret life of sin is beyond me.  I guess religious hypocrites get so accustomed to turning a blind eye to their own behaviors end up overlooking a lot of important details...

Don

December 10th, 2017 at 8:16 AM ^

That's what I was referring to.

I have no doubt that the Michigan staff will be completely on the up-and-up during the visit here; it's what the Ole Miss players might have received/done during their recruitment to Ole Miss and while they were on the team down there that should concern the staff.

In other words, if they persuade one of them to transfer to Michigan and then it comes out that he received illegal inducements of any sort while at Ole Miss, it will put Michigan in a very uncomfortable position.

Don

December 10th, 2017 at 8:54 AM ^

So what? 

If you honestly believe that UM getting transfers who are later revealed to have received illegal inducements from a program that just got dinged by the NCAA won't look bad, you're really naive about how the media—and our opponents—will frame that. It doesn't matter that Michigan wouldn't be in any NCAA danger themselves—big parts of the college football world outside of Ann Arbor would start screaming that MIchigan offered inducements of its own. The staff—and the AD's office—is going to do everything they can to make sure that scenario won't be happening.

Michigan is far more concerned about being seen as running a squeaky clean program than many other programs like, for example, the ones in EL and Columbus. That's why the worst thing the program has ever gotten in trouble for (since the end of the Kipke years) is too much stretching.

It would be a dereliction of due diligence for the Michigan staff to not try to make sure that there are no problems along those lines, and I assume they have already done that to the extent they can. The trouble is, people lie about things like this all the time when it's something that's against the rules.

The doublethink is always strong at MGoBlog. When an SEC team successfully recruits a HS kid away from Michigan, the standard response is "SEC bagmen" regardless of who the recruit is. But now that it looks like we may recruit a kid away from the SEC, suddenly everybody is assumed to be automatically clean as a whistle, no questions asked. 

 

Mr Miggle

December 10th, 2017 at 9:13 AM ^

It's also been examined by UM Compliance. It would be understandable if UM avoided them altogether. An abundance of caution for the program's reputation I can understand.

But they were extended offers and brought up for official visits. That's not when you'd be investigating them. And you wouldn't task the coaches with that job. Their job is to sell recruits on the school and the program and to answer their questions.

It's also not why you'd go into huddles in public. There's really no way to fit that into your concerns. The coaches could certainly talk that over later in private. The urgency of them huddling obviously has to do with what they could say to the players about something that they brought up.

Patterson saying he would try to bring one of his OTs along, that would be something to be very careful in talking about.

Magnus

December 10th, 2017 at 8:56 AM ^

It would be pretty ballsy of any school to offer illegal incentives to get players who are transferring away from a school that offered illegal incentives. The reason those players are leaving Ole Miss/the SEC is because the NCAA got their old school in trouble.

Michigan isn't squeaky clean. Every program has its issues. It would be pretty dumb for any of us to assert that there have never ever ever been any hundred dollar handshakes going on at Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, etc.

If Patterson (or any of these guys) gets in trouble at a later date for payments they took from Ole Miss boosters or something, then it's going to look bad for Ole Miss for a long time, and only perhaps briefly for Michigan. I don't think the world is going to turn on Michigan for something like that.

JonnyHintz

December 10th, 2017 at 10:21 AM ^

The issue doesn’t fall with the school at that point. The issue becomes, the player accepted benefits. That player is now ineligible. Any game that player participates in, would have to be vacated. Transferring to another school doesn’t make the kid eligible again. He’s still an ineligible player due to his receiving improper benefits.

HAIL-YEA

December 10th, 2017 at 10:49 AM ^

That would be a new precedent I think. Has a school ever had to vacate wins for a kid recieving improper benefits at a previous school? 

It would have to be a really large amount of money to force us to vacate anything. I doubt Ole Miss is going to admit to more violations just to hurt Michigan because they would be hurt way worse, the whole discussion seems like a silly thing to think about.

EGD

December 10th, 2017 at 10:58 AM ^

A large amount of money could result in a player being ruled ineligible and the team having to vacate any wins he participated in. The player would also be unable to participate in future games. If it's a small amount of money, there would probably be a suspension.

JonnyHintz

December 10th, 2017 at 11:44 AM ^

Most players who received improper benefits don’t transfer from their school. It would only be unprecedented because the situation hasn’t occurred yet.

But the NCAA rules are crystal clear. Any player found to have received improper benefits is ineligible for competition. Any competition that player participated in, is automatic vacated. Again, that player transferring does not erase the fact that he is ineligible due to accepting improper benefits. Michigan WOULD have to vacate all wins in games where Patterson was a participant.

Whether Michigan violated NCAA rules or not, is irrelevant. Fact would be, Michigan used an ineligible player. Those wins would not count.

Mr Miggle

December 10th, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^

Jamal Crawford was ruled to have received improper benefits before he came to Michigan. He was suspended mid-way thtrough his freshman season. We didn't have to vacate any of the games he played in before their ruling came down. 

Receiving improper benefits does not automaically make players ineligible. It's against the rules and subjects a player to penalties. Sometimes there isn't even a suspension. They may just have to return the money, likely to a charity. Other times they rule it's not their fault, (Cam Newton)  and nothing is done.

Making them ineligible is the worst case scenario. Vacating games is done as part of  the penalties against the school for their involvement. I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen in a case anything like this one. 

I think we can be certain that UM Compliance has already been in contact with the NCAA. I'd also bet we got a different response than if we had asked about signing Brian Bowen away from Louisville.

JonnyHintz

December 10th, 2017 at 1:06 PM ^

I’m not saying that’s what will happen. The NCAA determines whether or not the player is deemed ineligible. I’m saying that if the NCAA decides that Patterson received improper benefits and that he’s ineligible, that follows through to his participation in athletic events at both schools. The fact that the infractions occurred at Ole Miss and not Michigan has nothing to do with the players eligibility and the school’s use of an ineligible player.

HAIL-YEA

December 10th, 2017 at 1:14 PM ^

noone is saying otherwise, that is true of every athlete. Ole Miss just went through a full cavity search investigation, there is no reason for us to think Patterson is a higher risk to be ruled ineligable than any other player we have. Yes it is possible, many things are possible but the discussion is silly and at this point it seems like trolling.

Mr Miggle

December 10th, 2017 at 1:35 PM ^

was found to have received improper benefits, all of the games he participated in are autoimatically vacated. That was clearly incorrect.

Your assertion that penalties would apply to a new school is speculative, no more automatic than your last one. Since there has already been an investigation, I think it's highly improbable that we would get hit for using them if something turned up later from their time at Ole Miss.

At some point the NCAA has to clear players for transfer and clear the way for schools to accept them. They've encouraged transfers from Ole Miss by seniors. They aren't going to hold future penalties over the transfer destinations without a very good reason. If they had one, our compliance people would have been told.

 

Mr Miggle

December 10th, 2017 at 1:46 PM ^

The NCAA has rules in place to help players transfer away from schools hit with major sanctions. The idea that these players are toxic, take them at your own risk types runs completely counter to that idea. The NCAA isn't expecting schools like Michigan to investigate the Ole Miss players. That was their job and Ole Miss's and it's been completed.

 

JonnyHintz

December 10th, 2017 at 1:09 PM ^

Whether you believe me or not, is irrelevant. Check the NCAA rule book. It’s crystal clear what their rules are on the use of players deemed ineligible. If the NCAA decides at a later date that Patterson received improper benefits and says he’s ineligible, they will retroactively vacate wins from every event that he participated in. That would affect both Ole Miss and Michigan.

JonnyHintz

December 10th, 2017 at 1:18 PM ^

The rules are crystal clear. The NCAA determined in the case of Cam Newton that he personally had no involvement and was unaware of the situation. He wasn’t held responsible in the eyes of the NCAA, and thus never ruled to have been ineligible in previous competition.

The rules are crystal clear. What you have to note, is the fact that the NCAA is the ruling body. They can alter the conditions of their own rules as they see fit, as they did in the Cam Newton situation. If they find Patterson received improper benefits, that doesn’t automatically mean they will say he’s ineligible. It doesn’t automatically mean they will hold him accountable for the actions.

But the rules are clear that the participation of an ineligible athlete in an event results in the vacancy of that game

BossHawgzGoinHam

December 10th, 2017 at 2:18 PM ^

Well if he was still in the SEC I would say no. I mean Cam Newton's dad admitted to getting paid for his kid to go to Auburn and the NCAA never did a damn thing about it. Now that he's at Michigan I imagine Finebaum and every other SEC lover would talk a lot of poop about Michigan. Everybody has to realize though if you want to play for championships shit is going to happen that you might not like and u might not be use to. If we as fans wants Michigan to stay the same way it's always been then you better stop bitching about losing football games. Roster turnover is something that we will see more and more of if we are going to continue to try and compete at a championship level.