Started By
Message

re: OM fan on their 247 site confirms it's gonna get worse

Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:43 pm to
Posted by SCLSUMuddogs
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2010
6860 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:43 pm to
quote:

Cardinal sin, not carnal sin


In this case it seems to work both ways
Posted by rebeloke
Member since Nov 2012
16094 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:44 pm to
Very fake news
Posted by RT1941
Member since May 2007
30214 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:45 pm to
quote:

It actually does allow for some discretion. Written right into the matrix

quote:

It does, mitigating factors can play a big role in reducing charges, but the contrary is also true


IIRC, the amended NOA allegations related to Freeze noted that they found no mitigating factors to reduce the Level 1 infractions and the FTM charge.
Posted by Remulan
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2014
782 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:56 pm to
quote:

what's the point in a bowl ban if you're most likely gonna have losing records anyways


The bowl ban stops them from receiving their share of the SEC bowl money that is split up between the schools, so it does have an effect even if they don't win a game during those years.
Posted by Nuts4LSU
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
25468 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:58 pm to
quote:

No- if one team forfeits they are not credited with winning a game, but the other team does not get credited with the win. I guess assumption becomes the game didn't happen.



Wrong. With a forfeit, the other team wins the game. Forfeits are rare these days with the NCAA, though. Instead, they like to "vacate" wins. When that happens, the cheating team who won the game has the win taken away, but the team who lost to the cheating team still has the loss. It's stupid, but that's how they do it.
Posted by RT1941
Member since May 2007
30214 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 2:59 pm to
quote:

carnal sin
quote:

Cardinal sin, not carnal sin.

If it's later found that Hugh was fricking around with whore's and involved with gambling, then it would cover both wouldn't it?
Posted by tigerfoot
Alexandria
Member since Sep 2006
56262 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:07 pm to
quote:

1. Freeze's philandering was not a shock to insiders - they heard the rumors. Freeze denied them when confronted.
you say this

then
quote:

2. From an OM perspective, who cares about Freeze now? He gone.


You seem to not connect the two. A blind eye to bad behavior is not a good thing, no matter how many times you say it.
Posted by Rhino5
Atlanta
Member since Nov 2014
28898 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:09 pm to
quote:

All i will say is this... (QB) Bo Wallace loves "Picking Winners" and enjoys Western Union

Maybe that's why Bo would seemingly look great and then like a bag of shite the next play.
Posted by Dr RC
The Money Pit
Member since Aug 2011
58061 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:18 pm to
quote:

Maybe that's why Bo would seemingly look great and then like a bag of shite the next play.


It would certainly explain why he was so bad vs TCU in the Peach Bowl and why Freeze refused to pull him.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 3:19 pm
Posted by cypressbrake3
Member since Oct 2014
3681 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:31 pm to
quote:

If it's later found that Hugh was fricking around with whore's and involved with gambling, then it would cover both wouldn't it?



Decent attempt to cover up your lack of knowledge, but in your original post, you were referring only to "illegal gambling including point shaving" when you incorrectly used the term "carnal sin."

Posted by Sailin Tiger
Member since Jul 2014
1461 posts
Posted on 7/21/17 at 3:35 pm to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 7Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter