Antonio Morales of The Clarion-Ledger reported that Ole Miss was informed they will learn their NCAA fate at 8:30 a.m. Friday morning, December 1, 2017. The ruling will be released to the public around two hours later, or 10:30.
Everyone thinks Ole Miss will either be excited or deflated by the ruling. The NCAA could hammer Ole Miss, or they could accept the self-imposed sanctions.
Steven Godfrey, a reporter for SBNation.com, wrote an article detailing what happened in Covington at Ole Miss’ COI hearing. Neal McCready of RebelGrove.com elaborated, and so did Ben Garrett of the Ole Miss Spirit.
The Ole Miss Spirit also released the video tape where Leo Lewis’ mother alleges LSU and Mississippi State offered large sums of cash for Leo’s services.
All of the revelation attempts today have inspired me to play a game: lets debunk or confirm popular theories and rumors. It sounds fun, right? Plus, someone has to do it.
1.Ole Miss Cheated Like Mad
This notion is laughable. Ole Miss is not innocent, but they were not huge cheaters. If they were, they are the worst cheaters ever seeing as they lost on player such as Leo Lewis, Jeffrey Simmons, Nigel Knott, Cam Akers, and etc. However, they are not the worst cheaters in the world because they landed players like Laremy Tunsil, Robert Nkemdiche, Shea Patterson, Laquon Treadwell, A.J. Brown, and Greg Little. Also, the NCAA investigated Ole Miss for years and the only alleged instance of giving cash to a recruit happened in 2015. Ole Miss cheated like everyone else does, and they got sloppy.
2.The Leo Lewis Situation is Complicated
Leo is either credible or he isn’t. Lewis can’t be credible for parts of his testimony. You do not get to pick and choose credibility.
3. The NCAA will allow Deontay Anderson immediate eligibility no matter what
No, they will not. Anderson himself has said that Freeze didn’t lie to him, even though now he says he did. Anderson retained a lawyer to help him, but you can’t convince me the NCAA gives him immediate eligibility unless Ole Miss receives a two-year bowl ban. The NCAA simply does not want to open that can of worms.
4. Ole Miss is not “Repentant”
This statement is pure lunacy, plain and simple. Ole Miss self-imposed a bowl ban, among numerous other sanctions. However, Ole Miss exercised their right to fight some violations they contest, whether it be in its entirety or just the level of the allegation. It is ironic for people that have preached the NCAA’s “process” to be saying this. Ole Miss is following the NCAA’s process. Why would Ole Miss repent for something they claim is inaccurate? It just doesn’t make sense.
5. Ole Miss knew of sanctions when they hired Matt Luke
False, that is not how the process works.
6. Withholding the Ruling saved the Egg Bowl from added toxicity
What? This notion is laughable at best. Did they care about the rivalry when they were interviewing players of a rival team? No, they did not. Yes, I know the COI didn’t investigate Ole Miss. Anyways, caring about the rivalry now was a horrible notion. Also, it was a severe case of too little, too late because the damage had been done.
7.Hugh Freeze will receive a 5 to 7 year show-cause penalty
Louisville provided prostitutes to players and Rick Pitino wasn’t punished that severely. Case closed.
Now, as we all wait for this unnecessarily long process to conclude on Friday, take a look at mine and Chandler Hemphill’s predictions for Ole Miss NCAA Fate.
“Okay, bowl ban first. You have the two obvious scenarios, 1 year and 2 years. Everyone associated with Ole Miss is hoping for a 1-year bowl ban, which they have already self-imposed. I really don’t know if I could guess either way on that.
I could see scenarios for both. If the NCAA truly wants to demolish the Ole Miss Football program, the 2-year bowl ban is definitely the way to go. It would be almost catastrophic. On the other hand, if it is true they are leaning more towards punishing the adults rather than the kids, then I could see a one-year bowl ban. No player on this roster has anything to do with an allegation in either NOA, so you can make the argument of, who are you punishing with a 2 year ban? No on knows, though.
As for scholarships, I don’t see a reason for more than 25. 25 is extremely hindering and gets most point across without completely crippling the program. I think you could see some wins from the Nutt era vacated, because of the academic fraud. Freeze and Farrar will get show causes, to what extent I do not know. I feel like Farrar’s should be more extreme. Especially since Ole Miss is still arguing Freeze ran a compliant program. I feel anything else is purely speculation.”
“The biggest question surrounding the COI hearing is whether or not the one-year bowl ban Ole Miss self-imposed will be increase to two years. I think the NCAA will increase Ole Miss Bowl ban to a two-year bowl ban. I don’t really buy the argument of it hurts the players more than the coach because with a two-year bowl ban comes a transfer waiver. The players will be able to transfer without penalty if they so desire.
The other argument for keeping a one-year bowl ban centers around discrediting Leo Lewis. However, the NCAA could decide they don’t believe Lewis and still hand out a two-year bowl ban. The NCAA has a text message from a booster to Barney Farrar that details an alleged deal between the booster and Lewis. The text was accidentally sent to Farrar instead of Lewis and Farrar never turned it over. The text was sent after Lewis signed with Mississippi State.
Also, they will increase the scholarship reduction from 10 to somewhere around 15-20 and increase the fine by a sizable margin. In addition, I expect some wins to be vacated from the Nutt era. Nutt’s staff committed academic fraud and because of this played ineligible players. The NCAA almost has to vacate something. Finally, I fully anticipate Hugh Freeze to receive a small show-cause penalty.”