USA Today rips Ole MIss

Submitted by Mr Grainger on April 10th, 2018 at 12:50 PM

Interesting reading ...

First, a take from Dan Wolken at The USA Today regarding Ole Miss's pettiness when it comes to Patterson's transfer: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2018/04/10/ole-miss-declining-support-shea-patterson-still-wont-face-up-its-crimes/502471002/

Also, Patterson's attorney goes off in a piece by Angelique: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2018/04/10/ole-miss-objecting-pattersons-eligibility-request/33695789/

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't notice that Angelique's story had already been shared below. My bad.

Comments

Boulderine

April 10th, 2018 at 1:05 PM ^

Yet the NCAA is illogical, as many have pointed out. I tend to be pessimistic about his eligibility, but it seems no one really knows how this will go down because the NCAA is a crapshoot.

Also I’m sure many are aware, but RCMB is blatantly against Shea’s 2018 eligibility. They think it’s shady Michigan up to no good. Funny to contrast the USA Today article with their sentiment.

Boulderine

April 10th, 2018 at 1:14 PM ^

Their lazy “out of our jurisdiction” ruling on the UNC scandal was a joke.

They also continue to extract billions annually by promoting the lie of amateurism in the big money sports. Football and basketball players trying to make it as professionals focus almost entirely on athletics as if it is their job.

FauxMo

April 10th, 2018 at 1:09 PM ^

Damn, Billy Tom Johnson is gonna be BUSY today!*

*Billy John Thompson is the one dude in Mississippi that can read.** He will therefore have to relay all the details of this story to other angry Ole Miss fans interested in learning what this story is all about. That will take most of his time, and thus he will be busy. 

**He can only read because his parents are from Tennessee.***

***Tennessee is less Red Necky than Mississippi. 

 

mGrowOld

April 10th, 2018 at 1:10 PM ^

Did anyone other than Michigan's attornies expect Ole Miss to respond any other way?

Think about it - if they were to take the position of not opposing the immediate transfer are they not basically admidting guilt to any NCAA violations while simultaniously admidting they KNEW about the infractions in advance?  Dont they almost have to oppose these requests if they want to retain any hope of defending themselves against potenial NCAA sanctions?

Shitty for the players but to me anyways the Ole Miss response to date is exactly what i'd expect them to do.  Why were we surprised by this?   What did we expect them do to?

KungFury

April 10th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^

And that was probably the smartest move. I’m going to guess that most of the allegations Michigan made against them were things that were publicly known because they admitted to wrongdoing and trying to deflect blame. Because of their response, we now send them everything we have, which I would guess include additional evidence that corroborates some of the previous problems and probably some new evidence that the NCAA wasn’t aware of.

DrMantisToboggan

April 10th, 2018 at 1:36 PM ^

This - I think 75% of the legally inclined (lawyers, compliance officers, etc.) would have advised Ole Miss to say nothing, that is to neither support nor object. I suppose you could argue that expecting Ole Miss to do the advisable thing was a mistake? However, I also suspect that Michigan didn't want to egg Ole Miss on into objecting by submitting the worst information they had when Ole Miss hadn't originally planned to respond. A bit of game theory, I suspect, althought Ole Miss seems petty enough that they could have planned on objecting all along.

ESNY

April 10th, 2018 at 1:28 PM ^

Smart move would have been to sit on the sidelines and remain silent.  Simliar to the article, I can't think of one benefit to Ole Miss objecting besides sheer pettiness.  They have already admitted they orchestrated a huge effort to lie and mislead everyone about the issue.  Just sit on the sidelines, take your lumps and try to move forward rather than rehashing an issue that they already admitted

Section 1.8

April 10th, 2018 at 1:31 PM ^

Yours is the sort of comment I keep looking for.

The question that I think both of us have is a serious/technical Bylaws question, and it is: Would there be any negaitive inference for Ole Miss if they had issued no response?  Or if they somehow waived each of the transfer applicants individually, while denying whatever parts of the Notice of Allegations that remain at issue?

I don't know; but what keeps getting overlooked is that this is not any sort of denial of a transfer request.  Shea transferred; that's done.  This is about escaping the usual one-year sit-down as with most D-1 transfers.

 

Mr Miggle

April 10th, 2018 at 1:34 PM ^

against Ole Miss and imposed various penalties. That's actually been very relevant to the transfers. If Ole Miss had gotten a two year bowl ban instead of one, then Patterson would have automatically been eligible immediately. Maybe the NCAA wishes now they had done that.

You're not completely wrong. Ole Miss is fighting the claims because they are appealing the NCAA penalties. It puts them in a much weaker position, though. The NCAA has already rejected their arguments once. They aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt now.

Steeveebr

April 10th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^

That's an interesting question... let me pose you another:

 

Does anyone expect an employed attorney not to represent their client by responding to the Ole Miss response and blasting it to pieces?  I think you are expecting everyone to expect Ole Miss' response to the request but forgetting we should expect this exact response from the attorneys responding to Ole Miss.

 

 

Anchew

April 10th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^

Ole Miss = Sparty in the way that innocent are continually being victimized by the institution that refuses to do the right thing. They aren't kidding anyone who has a lick of intelligence. Even the media has picked up on this.

Anchew

April 10th, 2018 at 2:16 PM ^

have you not paid attention how MSU has handled itself in the aftermath of nassar and reports about the culture surrounding their basketball/football programs. i wasnt comparing what actually happened at ole miss and msu to be the same, just how they are trying to save face

Steeveebr

April 10th, 2018 at 3:59 PM ^

I'm saying that comparing Ole Miss to MSU isn't even close.  MSU is in its own unique territory regarding its public display of disdain for victims and protectionism.  Not even PSU went where MSU has gone.

 

Denying is one thing, but if they came out and blamed Patterson and said, "What'd he expect?"  That'd be more like what MSU has done.

rockydude

April 10th, 2018 at 1:44 PM ^

Do you think that seeing articles, not here or the Daily, but unbiased national newspapers pointing out what dirtballs they are will help them see the light?

I’m going to say no. Can you think of any community colleges, say in E Lansing, that have chosen to close ranks and choose to deny the slightest guilt, even when trapped in the corner?

I think Ole Miss will go the PSU/MSU route and act like complete dicks until the bitter end, at which their trustees and alumns, will pace around in circles.

Why does everyone pick on us, they ask. Why don’t people like us? A handful of violations and a bad attitude, and everyone is out to get us And just because we try to prevent kids that we lied to from going to the school of their choice, were the jerks? Unfair, we say!

Gotta go. Got me some battles to reenact like this one with the NCAA.

Perkis-Size Me

April 10th, 2018 at 1:58 PM ^

Self-preservation. If Ole Miss supports Patterson's transfer, it implies they agree they did something wrong. But honestly, considering the sanctions have more or less already come down (and they could've been a whole lot worse), if I were Ole Miss I'd just cut bait with the situation and move on. I don't know what they have to gain out of making sure Patterson is ineligible next season. They still have a bowl ban and their reputation is already damaged. Why continue to drag your university's name through the mud? 

I wonder if they would've cared this much if it was, say, the long-snapper transferring. Or a backup DB. But it's their former star QB. It feels a whole lot like Ole Miss is doing this simply out of spite. 

unWavering

April 10th, 2018 at 2:45 PM ^

What does Ole Miss gain by denying Patterson's request? What's their angle here?

And why on earth would the NCAA even have to consider waiving his transfer redshirt?

Dayday

April 10th, 2018 at 3:21 PM ^

I hope the ncaa is taking notice and doesn't embarrass itself once again with a poor decision.the public is quite aware of the shenanigans. it's time to get a decision right.

charblue.

April 10th, 2018 at 3:41 PM ^

on behalf of its membership, not on behalf of student-athletes whose interests are only relevant as their behavior, needs and rights relate directly to the member program whose missionary requirements are the primary function of the organization. That is why the organizatioin conducts investigations, but it takes no enforcement action not thoroughly vetted and signed off on by peer members. It acts and responds in the same way Congress does. It makes a big show without producing a significant amount of institutional change.

 

Jeff09

April 10th, 2018 at 5:07 PM ^

Good. They should be publicly shamed for this garbage, and it seems like they are. Good on the media for not letting this die down quietly