So, Is Ole Miss In Danger of Death Penalty?

I’m not versed in this enough to know, but I am curious about this(probably like others). Sounds like their program is on the ropes, but how bad is it? Death penalty like SMU is a total program killer for many years. From what I’m reading, Ole Miss’ penalties are supposed to be steep, but don’t sound like what SMU got.
Thoughts?

Most think the NCAA will never give the Death Penalty again. I tend to agree with that thought. I think the penalties will be hard, but no more than say USC got a few years ago. Just my opinion.

I agree with Greghog. Stiff penalties, but nothing like the “death penalty” given to SMU. Ole Miss, however, can’t recover from stiff penalties the way some program like USC or Alabama can. OM could be down for 8-10 years after all this. And I mean “down” by Ole Miss standards. I also think Freeze could be toast.

All depends on the NCAA infractions committee final action. I believe no death penalty. However, More scholarships taken away… how many dunno. Another year of Bowl ban…maybe… Freeze gone… no way…,Ole Miss will survive and be competitive within two years. Just my take.

A couple of things on the death penalty:

  • It is given to repeat offenders of major rules violations. For instance, SMU was being sanctioned by the NCAA for something like the third time in seven years when it was given the death penalty. I don’t think Ole Miss falls into that category.

  • As others have pointed out, the NCAA is not likely to administer that punishment again because of what it did to SMU. Kentucky basketball in the 1950s really is the only major program to survive the death penalty. There are several instances over the past 15 years that shows the NCAA probably has shelved the penalty.

I truly believe the closest the NCAA has come to dropping the death penalty hammer on any program since SMU was, believe it or not, Bama in 2002. Bama had repeat violations when they were hammered in the Albert Means/Logan Young mess. The Committee on Infractions said at the time that the Tide narrowly escaped, largely due to good cooperation with the NCAA, as opposed to the stonewalling that SMU had done. (Man, how college football would have changed if they’d gotten the DP for a year or two.)

Here’s a report from the time:

<LINK_TEXT text=“http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-0 … th-penalty”>http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-02-02/sports/0202020309_1_alabama-committee-on-infractions-death-penalty</LINK_TEXT>

Bama escaped the death penalty because they were Bama. They learned from the sanctions & refined their cheating. Had they been OM or us…

[quote=“Rzbackangler”]

All depends on the NCAA infractions committee final action. I believe no death penalty. However, More scholarships taken away… how many dunno. Another year of Bowl ban…maybe… Freeze gone… no way…,Ole Miss will survive and be competitive within two years. Just my take.
[/quote] Most “experts” believe OM will need to fire Freeze to lessen penalties. Bjork probably gone too.

The death penalty does not have to be as devastating as everybody thinks SMU’s was. I frankly do not know why it’s still not used. Ole Miss, for example, probably deserves it.

The SMU administration excessively overcompensated for having received the death penalty, and took extreme measures to make sure good athletes could not be admitted unless they met university wide student admission requirements. That is what killed SMU football for many years, and, frankly, is still hurting it some.

Had SMU not overreacted to the NCAA sanctions, it could have resumed playing decent football a lot quicker and nowadays might actually still be in a decent conference. But that’s not what happened.

Alabama has been cheating since the 30’s and 40’s. Bama has used the last 75 years to establish a network of boosters and relationships with high school administrations and coaches. The 90’s penalty on Bama didn’t impact their network at all, so they can recover from any penalty. 75 years of cheating created an image and prestige that Saban bolstered to a point they don’t have to cheat like AU, TN, UF, OM, A&M, etc.

Life without parole is fine with me…

[quote=“HogTreat”]

Alabama has been cheating since the 30’s and 40’s. Bama has used the last 75 years to establish a network of boosters and relationships with high school administrations and coaches. The 90’s penalty on Bama didn’t impact their network at all, so they can recover from any penalty. 75 years of cheating created an image and prestige that Saban bolstered to a point they don’t have to cheat like AU, TN, UF, OM, A&M, etc.
[/quote] so they just have to give Chargers now

It would be a serious mistake to think Bama’s recent success means they don’t have to resort to cheating anymore. I’ll leave it at that.

I meant to say that they don’t have to cheat like/AS MUCH as AU, TN, OM, etc…They still cheat and we are on the same page there…

I wouldn’t go that far. It is quite possible they win precisely because their skill at skirting the rulebook is so advanced. My friend and I specifically discussed them. His view is that Bama doesn’t buy recruits, but they know they’ll be well compensated upon arrival.

Most any place you go in the country you are going to find fans who take care of players, and that is not just at D-I schools, and it’s not anything new. A lot of times those fans don’t donate to the athletic programs or school. Most of the financial stuff is small time, a good meal, fill up a car, some new clothes, twenty bucks, a free beer, etc. Some of the stuff probably is not even a technical NCAA violation. Not every player on every team gets the help-but usually there is a way if there is a need and the player is known in the community.

The players are going to meet these people out in the community, and older players are going to tell new team mates about who to see/maybe make an introduction. The athletic department need not be involved, though most every one from the AD down knows it is going on. It is all pretty harmless and at the end of the day because no body is getting a competitive advantage from these things, it is just common practice. If the NCAA starts poking around, they usually can dredge up some of this stuff, but it hardly means a school is dirty, it just means the “amateurism” system is a joke.

The problems start when coaching staffs and people with loose money work together to create organized financial packages to get and retain players. Now there is a competitive advantage, and the team starts to look like a semi-pro organization. I say semi-pro because almost all of these schemes are still paying relatively little money to relatively few players. Even the guy that gets a $50k SUV for his two or three years of service is not getting rich, he just is well off compared to the guys on other teams who are not getting paid. The NCAA has to go after this behavior, not based on some noble idea of amateur athletics, but for the same reason the NFL can’t let a team pay players extra dough under the table if they sign/re-sign. It gives that school an unfair advantage.

To be honest, reducing scholarships in a severe way is more devastating than death penalty. I saw that at Oklahoma State. They did not have enough players to field a competitive team. If they reduce Ole Miss scholarships the way I think the NCAA is going to do it, the Rebels will be reduced to a walk-on program at too many positions. It’s devastating.

Good. May it endure for a decade.

SMU actually received only a one-year suspension from play, but voluntarily extended it to two years. The NCAA was going to allow SMU to compete in the second year as long as it played all games away (no home games). SMU decided not to do that. Afterward, SMU more-or-less deemphasized football. Now, much later, it has been trying to recover.

I think OM goes “scorched earth” and takes MSU down with them… the $ involves LB Leo Lewis…he says he got $15k from OM and then went to State…how much did State pay him?