StPaulHusker Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Shocked that someone found out the facts? 2 Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I can't get the link to work right now .... must but a lot of people trying to look: Quote Link to comment
GSG Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I just got an eSECpn update on my phone saying that Ole Miss has self-imposed a double-digit scholarship reduction Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Ole Miss has self-imposed a postseason ban in women's basketball and double-digit reductions in scholarships for football as part of its response to an NCAA notice of allegations that was released Friday morning. In its 154-page response to the NCAA, Ole Miss officials said the school "accepted responsibility for the violations that occurred and self‐ imposed meaningful penalties." The Rebels received a notice of allegations from the NCAA in late January, but have released very little details of the investigation. Among the other penalties self-imposed by Ole Miss, according to the report: "The termination of four coaches, including the only two involved head coaches still employed when the violations were discovered; the disassociation of every involved booster; a post‐season ban in women's basketball; a double‐digit reduction of scholarships in the football program; a significant reduction in off‐campus evaluation days and official and unofficial visits in football and track and field; violation‐specific rules education across all involved sports; and a $159,325.00 financial penalty." "In every one of these situations, the University carefully weighed the appropriate range of penalties and erred toward the upper limits," the report said. The Rebels were accused of 28 NCAA violations, according to the report, including 16 Level One violations, the report said. "The fact that all but one of the 16 Level I violations arose from intentional misconduct committed by rogue former employees or boosters outside the University's direct control acting in contravention of rules education provided to them by the University," the report said. "Although a post‐season ban may be imposed in a Level I -- Mitigated case, the University believes a ban is unnecessary here based upon applicable precedent and because the most serious allegations occurred years ago, involving staff and student‐athletes long‐since separated from the University." ESPN Quote Link to comment
GSG Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/736211758474534913 Quote Link to comment
FrankWheeler Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Why are scholarship reductions a valid penalty? its pushing the punishment onto the athletes and not the coaches, administrators, and boosters that are orchestrating the breaking of the rules. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 So I guess they just won't replace a couple guys that the cut... Quote Link to comment
Mike Mcdee Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/736211758474534913 What did this one say? Looks like it's been taken down. Quote Link to comment
GSG Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/736211758474534913 What did this one say? Looks like it's been taken down. It was along the lines of this one: But I think he changed the numbers Quote Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 So I guess they just won't replace a couple guys that the cut... When I first read "double digit scholarship reductions" I assumed it meant a 10 or more reduction in a single year. What they are self-imposing isn't nearly as severe when you spread it over three years (since the 2015-2016 "reduction" isn't really a reduction at all). Quote Link to comment
GSG Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 So I guess they just won't replace a couple guys that the cut... When I first read "double digit scholarship reductions" I assumed it meant a 10 or more reduction in a single year. What they are self-imposing isn't nearly as severe when you spread it over three years (since the 2015-2016 "reduction" isn't really a reduction at all). This. Their "self-imposed" sanctions are a freakin joke Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.