In April 2016, Ole Miss self-imposed a sampler platter of sanctions in response to the NCAA’s initial 13 allegations against the program. The most serious of those: docking a handful of scholarships over the next couple seasons.
In hindsight, Ole Miss should’ve banned itself from a bowl game in 2016!
Even without 2017’s NCAA revelations, it was clear the Rebels were taking a risk.
The question at the time: should the Rebels go ahead and ban themselves from the 2016 season, to fully grovel at the NCAA’s feet and give the 2017-and-onward recruiting classes a better chance at a fresh start? That would’ve meant sacrificing any postseason spoils from QB Chad Kelly’s final season, but with the stars of that infamous 2013 recruiting class gone to the NFL draft, the Rebels were picked to finish a distant third in their own division anyway.
In August, a Clarion-Ledger analysis found a preemptive bowl ban reaaaaally might be a smart idea, especially considering the NCAA had gone back into Oxford after the sabotage of star Laremy Tunsil’s NFL draft night led to fresh questions.
The Rebels chose to proceed, and with a 28-6 lead over No. 4 Florida State in Week 1, that sure seemed like a good idea.
Ole Miss was about to put itself in national title contention. Stepping away from the Birmingham Bowl in order to preserve your future is a smart idea, but who could do that with a champio-
And then FSU roared back to win.
The same thing happened two weeks later against Alabama.
Now essentially out of the Playoff picture, the Rebels could’ve announced in September that they would skip December and January, as Andy Staples had predicted they might consider. (You can do that in the middle of a season, yeah. Miami did it in both 2011 and 2012. Obviously, the earlier in the season you do it, the more remorseful it’s gonna look. Giving up a chance at 12-0 means more than giving up a chance at 10-2, and so on.)
By the time Ole Miss was 3-4, calls grew for the Rebs to just give up on the season. And then Kelly got hurt. Launching the ejection seat around then wouldn’t have looked all that contrite, but it still would’ve given Ole Miss one more thing it could argue to the NCAA.
The Rebels’ postseason exit wasn’t assured until they got blown out by archrival Mississippi State to end the season. That also boosted MSU into the postseason despite both finishing 5-7. The Bulldogs had the superior Academic Progress Rate score, the NCAA’s tiebreaker for sub-.500 teams.
Now! With an expanded and more foreboding list of NCAA allegations, thanks to the circus around Tunsil, the 2017 bowl ban might not even cut it.
If the [NCAA] agrees with the case against Ole Miss, a two-year bowl ban is a real possibility. The Rebels self-imposed a one-year ban on Wednesday, but the difference of a season is massive; a two-year ban would allow for current scholarship players to transfer without penalty.
Ole Miss would then have to survive being eaten alive by defections in addition to any potential scholarship restrictions the COI hands out.
Rival schools are not wasting time. When contacted by SB Nation Wednesday evening, coaches on two different SEC staffs confirmed their schools will evaluate the Rebels’ roster for potential talent, in case a two-year ban allowed transfers to play immediately.
This is a nightmare scenario for elite programs with deep rosters (USC and Penn State in the last decade), but for Ole Miss it would be something worse. Despite multiple New Year’s bowl appearances, the Rebels never established depth comparable to SEC rivals like LSU or Alabama.
Simply put, they’re more fiscally fragile, operating in one of the nation’s poorest states. And unlike the Trojans or Nittany Lions, the Rebels would have to attempt a rebuild inside college football’s toughest division.
Staples writes other NCAA member schools are pressuring the governing body to make an example of the Rebels.
And as the Clarion-Ledger reported in 2016, before many of the most severe allegations were even made:
Ole Miss could also see its football program’s case tried at the highest possible level, said John G. Long, a lawyer who operates his own firm that handles NCAA cases in Austin, Texas.
‘You’re talking about boosters, you’re talking about coaches, you’re talking about academic violations, you’re talking about assistants that are lying to the NCAA enforcement,’ said Long, who isn’t part of Ole Miss’ case. ‘We’re not talking about a case here where there are some administrative mistakes and some kids were ineligible because they were in the wrong majors.
‘I find it hard to believe that they’re going to say that it’s a Level I with mitigation. A win for Ole Miss would be if it’s processed as just a standard Level I on the penalty side. I think it’s very realistic that the Committee on Infractions will … see it as an aggravated case.’
A Level I-Aggravated case carries a postseason ban of two to four years.
If there’s any way to argue the looming cloud of distractions and the minor scholarship losses contributed to Ole Miss’ disappointing 2016 on the field — the year did include three competitive losses, after all — then it would be fair to argue 2017 is the Rebels’ second bowl-ban year, but that the first one didn’t count anyway.
See More:
