re: Sources are confident that the rabbit trail leads to Mullet

quote:

---

Since he doesn't know. Here's what Ole Miss has already done, and what they propose going forward.

2015 season: 1 scholarship
2016 season: 2 scholarships
2017 season: 6* scholarships (they've had 20 enroll, so they are close)
2018 season: 4 scholarships

---

I find these 2 very questionable as to whether they should count. Basically, because Ole Miss only had 84 on roster in 15 they are counting that 1 as a penalty loss, same for the 2 in 16. Weren't going to have a full roster anyway through regular attrition, so let's say those were penalties. It's a smart move by Ole Miss. Shouldn't be able to retroactively count them as a penalty.

I think the penaltiesshould all start when the COI gives verdict.

Ole Miss was what,5-7 last year? So they say, hey we are giving ourselves a bowl ban for this year and count it in their penalties. Even they were not eligible anyway due to their record.

I Think bowl bans should be placed on the next time the team is eligible to go to a bowl. If you suck and don't make one the first year of probation, then too bad, if the following year you still don't make a bowl too bad, as long as the team is still on probation then the first year they are eligible for a bowl, that is the year the ban takes place. But if the probation is 4 years, and team is never gets eligible for a bowl during those years then it would not carry over to year 5 since the team is now off probation. If the team gets a 2 year bowl ban then same thing applies. Year 1 you make a bowl game, can't go, that year 1, if year 2 &3 the records are not good enough those don't count, then in year 4 if they could make a bowl game that would be the year for the second ban. It would keep a team from tanking games at the end of the year because they are on the cusp (kinda like pro teams tanking to get a higher draft pick) because they would want to make bowls those first 2 years to get it over with.

Thoughts on doing bowl bans that way?

quote:

---

The same could be said about damn near any fanbase's posters

---

Ya, which you already said

I'm really looking forward to pay day some day.

Well what has become apparent is that Mike Sheridan was colluding with MSU people to damage Ole Miss. Keep in mind that he previously had to drop charges in previous investigation into Ole Miss after it was challenged in court due a lack of integrity. He should have never been on the case.

So basically what you are saying is th Mullen had more institutional control of the goings on at Ole Miss than Hugh Freeze did? That should make the OM crowd feel much more secure.....

quote:

---

Don't shoot the messenger

---

The smart money knows that the odds of Ole Miss having to change the speed limit on campus are MUCH greater than the odds of Mullen even being investigated.

Its not surprising that you missed the point.

quote:

---

those kids and their families will reveal who put them up to it.

---

And not surprising that you imagine this unfolding like an episode of Scooby Doo


I'm getting on a plane for the next 10 hours.

Have a Great WeekEnd SECRant!

quote:

---

You are in total denial of the truth. This is the same investigator whom used in trapping and other unethical methods to bring charges against Ole Miss involving Donte Moncrief. The charges were dropped and Mike left with egg on his face. He obviously was not objective and should have never been allowed to be lead investigator because he has a personal vendetta against Ole Miss.

---

Hmm. Maybe we should take this guy seriously. Because if Ole Miss knows anything, it's about corrupt lawyers. (Ahem, Dickie Skruggs...)