Started By
Message
re: OM's NOA Inside
Posted on 5/27/16 at 5:48 pm to DaBama
Posted on 5/27/16 at 5:48 pm to DaBama
quote:
I'd be shocked if they don't come back with significantly harsher penalties.
This is a proposal of the absolute minimum that Ole Miss thinks they could get away with.
The NCAA will almost certainly come back and impose far more severe sanctions.
0
Posted on 5/27/16 at 5:50 pm to pankReb
quote:
we've likely been working with them regarding our self imposed sanctions
Pank. Pank. Pank. You're only hurting yourself with all the denial. Time to admit you have a severe problem. You haven't even got to the 1st step yet.
Posted on 5/27/16 at 6:05 pm to CoonassBulldog
quote:
9 over 3 is what Freeze is prying to Baby Jesus for.
FIFY
Posted on 5/27/16 at 6:15 pm to 1loyalbamafan
Hilarious if the ol pissers end up vacating that fluke win over the gumps last fall. Bowties twisted and dockers clenched taught between arse cheeks.
Edit - And note to A&M fans - the clenched arse cheeks is not a sexual reference. Just felt it my duty to point that out to the sheep "hurters".
Edit - And note to A&M fans - the clenched arse cheeks is not a sexual reference. Just felt it my duty to point that out to the sheep "hurters".
Posted on 5/27/16 at 6:28 pm to KoachKletus
Well, Ole Piss did have that memorable Cotton Bowl victory.
They can hang that banner.
They can hang that banner.
Posted on 5/27/16 at 6:54 pm to ctiger69
Ugh...200 pages to read
I really wil read it, and I am a lawyer. I'll fill up my little yellow pad with my observations and post after a weekend of boring reading
I am not intimately familiar with penalties for like offenses though, so I lack an opinion there. I've just followed cases like Bama and UK in the early 2000s. I really just want to compare the allegations (usually make things sounds epicly bad) versus responses (usually minimize and "explain" how rules weren't violated, how they were only innocently violated, or novel arguments about applications of the rules apply)
Sometimes the responses sound much more reasonable than the rules. Other times they look like hollow attempts to fill pages and bill time
Who at the Rant should I bill for this? I will work for beer and pretzels
I really wil read it, and I am a lawyer. I'll fill up my little yellow pad with my observations and post after a weekend of boring reading
I am not intimately familiar with penalties for like offenses though, so I lack an opinion there. I've just followed cases like Bama and UK in the early 2000s. I really just want to compare the allegations (usually make things sounds epicly bad) versus responses (usually minimize and "explain" how rules weren't violated, how they were only innocently violated, or novel arguments about applications of the rules apply)
Sometimes the responses sound much more reasonable than the rules. Other times they look like hollow attempts to fill pages and bill time
Who at the Rant should I bill for this? I will work for beer and pretzels
Posted on 5/27/16 at 6:59 pm to Blawdawg
The fact that any lawyer would be an active member of this board is terrifying
Posted on 5/27/16 at 6:59 pm to Big4Dawg
Just saw this. Lol at the OM posters who tried to convince everyone that it all happened under Nutt
Posted on 5/27/16 at 7:00 pm to DocHoliday11
.
This post was edited on 5/27/16 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 5/27/16 at 7:01 pm to lefty08
We are humans too lefty. Lol
Although sharks won't attack me at the beach out of professional courtesy
Literally, reading the Rant is what I'm doing after lawyering all day and having to stay in a hotel before going home. Thank god for hotel bars
Although sharks won't attack me at the beach out of professional courtesy
Literally, reading the Rant is what I'm doing after lawyering all day and having to stay in a hotel before going home. Thank god for hotel bars
Posted on 5/27/16 at 7:18 pm to Blawdawg
quote:
I really wil read it, and I am a lawyer. I'll fill up my little yellow pad with my observations and post after a weekend of boring reading
I am not intimately familiar with penalties for like offenses though, so I lack an opinion there. I've just followed cases like Bama and UK in the early 2000s. I really just want to compare the allegations (usually make things sounds epicly bad) versus responses (usually minimize and "explain" how rules weren't violated, how they were only innocently violated, or novel arguments about applications of the rules apply)
Sometimes the responses sound much more reasonable than the rules. Other times they look like hollow attempts to fill pages and bill time
Who at the Rant should I bill for this? I will work for beer and pretzels
You are apparently new to the practice, I can tell. Your enthusiasm and levity gives you away. You will read the rant to escape your hell in 5 years, instead of making it a matter of jurisprudence
Posted on 5/27/16 at 8:01 pm to pankReb
quote:
I never said that it wasn't possible. I'm just pointing out the hilarity in the nature of everyone here to automatically assume the worst possible scenario.
If ole miss gets the death penalty...it will have zero effect on my life. But it seems like the lives of some posters on here are hanging by a thin thread.
sweet melt, bro.
Posted on 5/27/16 at 8:04 pm to RTRLSD
Here's a gem from the Mississippi Board:
quote:
The impermissible benefits can be found on any campus it happens. A lot those happened early on in CHF hire, when the staff was not fully aware and needed better training. Ole Miss has since hired several new compliance officers and made a ton of improvements.
Posted on 5/27/16 at 8:05 pm to Rhymenoceros
10 years is relatively new compared the dinosaurs I see. God help me if I'm still doing this stuff in 20 years
Posted on 5/27/16 at 8:42 pm to Blawdawg
That was wishful thinking and rantards on here. It could have tons worse they didn't really find shite. Ole Miss hoping for not tons more
Posted on 5/27/16 at 8:48 pm to KTownRebel
quote:
KTownRebel
quote:
feggit
quote:
fuqboi
Let's all take a moment to assess the primary defendant here, and realize just who we're dealing with. It appears it's either a 13 year old boy or someone with a severe case of 1995Hondacivicwithaloudexhaustpipe syndrome.
This post was edited on 5/27/16 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 5/27/16 at 9:52 pm to pivey14
Death penalty baw
Posted on 5/27/16 at 10:07 pm to Chris Warner
One of the violations stated was Freeze and Maurice Harris in a recruits home. A booster shows up( major violation because they all converse). Then said booster pays kids $67 cell bill and Mommas $120 phone bill! Do rebels believe that the NCAA thinks gat this was just a one time accident?!! It shows them a fricking PATTERN !!!!! The scholarship reductions are going to be very severe and you can bet your arse in a post seasons ban. Freeze won't be fired but it wouldn't shock me. This is serious shite! And there will be multiple coaches fired.
Posted on 5/27/16 at 10:15 pm to SouthOfHere
The firing of Saunders....Know he was fired from Ole Miss, but was it specifically because of the ACT cheating while he was at Ole Miss?Cause you'd think that would be something that would have been public. Instead, we find out he did this years later AFTER being caught at ULL.
This post was edited on 5/28/16 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 5/27/16 at 10:17 pm to SouthOfHere
so there is something that said Freeze was present?
Page 13 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News