msza

The thing about going undefeated is that the team's potential is unknown. If a team goes undefeated in 13 games, you have no real basis of knowing how long that team could go without a loss, whereas when a team has a loss, you do have that predictive basis.

With a 12-1 team, you can say, "that's a 92% win percentage so over a hundred games, they'd probably lose 8." But with a team that is 13-0, you're still at 100% after 100 games.

That's why you respect the undefeated record -- deference to potential.

Even if FSU gets shellacked in its bowl game, the committee has made a mistake.

Raise your hand if you had to remember who we were playing today and when you checked you immediately thought, "Oh nice, we're gonna be 7-4."

[Raises hand]

I'm not able to watch the game (maybe not such a bad thing). Is there any chance we win this?

If the guys overlooked this weekend's game, I can't say I'm surprised. I looked at the schedule this morning and thought, "Oh good, we're gonna be 7-4."

I'd like to see us pull out a profoundly undeserved win due to some combination of the other team's boneheaded mistakes and our own dumb luck.

Say, it's the ten year anniversary of the last time a reigning back-to-back champion paid JH a visit...

Just now, W.E.D said:

UGA isn't a great team.  They are no where near as good as they've been the last two years

Well, unless we end up beating them. Then they are amazing.

Just now, Shadow Tiger said:

Hope not taking the fg earlier doesn't come back to haunt us.

Basically like saying "I hope not stopping for a drink at that oasis doesn't come back to haunt me" when you're lost in the desert. 

Hello my old friend 'heading into the 4th quarter with a chance.'

Come on Peyton...be the thorne in the bulldog's paw.

I'll see myself out...

Taking bets on whether we have more failed third down conversions than pass attempts.

UM has more yards and first downs in this game. Just not the right ones.

18 minutes ago, mcgufcm said:

Just to be clear, you're still being a bit misleading. A significant number of those Level 1s occurred under Coach Nutt. That included penalties for two staffers helping a group of players cheat on the ACT and either lying in interviews or refusing to provide information (both of which are independent violations).

In addition, you claim that the NCAA opinion is proof that Freeze couldn't recruit without cheating, but that decision involved a finding of paying ONE player... a guy who didn't sign at Ole Miss. Zero findings that payments were made to Tunsil or Treadwell or Nkemdiche, etc. So if we're just taking what the NCAA says and not making assumptions, it's kinda proof that Freeze did recruit stars without cheating.

Fair, I don't know exactly how many L1s occured under Nutt v Freeze, but it's widely reported that many were under Freeze.

As for your second point, you may have me mixed up with someone else as I never made the argument Freeze cant recruit without cheating. There is someone on here slinging mud at every coach in the SEC/country during the Freeze OM era, saying they all have violated the same NCAA laws Freeze has. I simply asked for evidence for these claims, which he has declined to provide.

14 minutes ago, mcgufcm said:

He didn't have multiple violations. Hugh Freeze had one violation for failure to monitor his staff. Nothing else.

You're right, one violation for him for failing to oversee a program that got hit with 15 Level 1 violations. 

And now that he's showed up to AU an admin on this site is baselessly accusing others including our own former HC Gus of the same poor conduct.

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And that brings me back around to this response I had the last time you asked it:

I'll see your "is there tangible evidence of other schools cheating" and raise you an "is there tangible evidence that Hugh Freeze was involved in the cheating at Ole Miss or knew it was going on?" 

We can speculate on it I suppose, but if you wish to speculate on whether Freeze *really* knew what some of his assistants and boosters were really doing, then it shouldn't be too hard to do the same on how major college football operated in the modern age, prior to NIL.  If you don't wish to speculate on that latter, then you can't really be consistent and speculate on the former either.

You're certainly welcome to blithely believe that it was just happening there and the rest of the SEC wasn't doing things of the same nature.  I don't find it remotely plausible, but you do you.

 

Thank you and yes of course you are welcome to make baseless accusations against others in an attempt to normalize Hugh's multiple violations.

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I have since clarified to make sure you understood what I was trying to convey.  Ole Miss under Hugh Freeze, was not doing anything that Alabama under Nick Saban, LSU under Les Miles, Auburn under Gus Malzahn, Georgia under Mark Richt, Ohio State under Urban Meyer, Oklahoma under Bob Stoops, FSU under Jimbo Fisher and so on were all doing.

So in the end, I am accusing Auburn of doing the same things that Ole Miss did at the time.

And the report says exactly what I told you it said - that Hugh himself did not commit the violations.  His violation was in not monitoring his program closely enough so that he would have known and discovered what some boosters and staff were up to.
 

Thank you for the clarification. That brings me back to my original question: Do you have any tangible basis for your accusation that Gus and the others you mention violated NCAA legislation as Hugh did, or are you just assuming?

2 minutes ago, Hank2020 said:

You are not just “reaching” here, it takes a very long rope to ties these assumptions together,IMO.

It's a very simple deduction.

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I didn't say that Gus or any specific head coach did anything.  I am saying that every major college football program, including Auburn, was doing the same s*** Ole Miss was when Hugh Freeze was there.  Maybe the head coach at a given program knows, maybe he doesn't.  Maybe the boosters are keeping it on the downlow better some places than others.  But it was happening absolutely.  The NCAA didn't find any actual evidence Freeze was committing these violations or that he actually knew about them.  I'd say the same is true most other places as well.  In other words, Ole Miss wasn't winning because they somehow gained an advantage their opponents didn't enjoy.

First of all, you said in defense of Hugh that he was "doing the exact same things all his SEC rivals were doing to find success." One cannot read this without coming to the conclusion that you are referring to Gus and every other SEC head coach at the time of Hugh's tenure at OM.

The first sentence in the report you quote above reads, "the head coach also violated NCAA head coach responsibility legislation because he failed to monitor his program's activities..."   This says in no uncertain terms that Hugh violated NCAA legislation. 

So when one puts it all together, you've accused Gus of violating the same NCAA rules that Hugh did.

Just now, NWALA Tiger said:

Bro, people have been cheating for 50 years or longer. Surely u get that. Have I seen it with my own eyes. Dang sure have. AU wasn't involved in that particular  case

I fully understand that coaches at all levels violate the rules in a myriad of ways. That doesn't mean every coach has violated every rule that Hugh Freeze was found to have violated.

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Ok.  I'll see your "is there tangible evidence of other schools cheating" and raise you an "is there tangible evidence that Hugh Freeze was involved in the cheating at Ole Miss or knew it was going on?"  Because that isn't what the NCAA infractions report said.  He was cited for a few minor violations but the bulk of what got him in trouble was "failure to monitor."  The report says it over and over in different places.  A few samples:
 

...the head coach also violated NCAA head coach responsibility legislation because he failed to monitor his program's activities surrounding the recruitment of prospects. Members of his staff knowingly committed recruiting violations, submitted false information on recruiting paperwork and failed to report known violations. Among their violations, staff members provided a highly-regarded prospect impermissible inducements and benefits on numerous unofficial visits he made to campus. The head coach did not exercise sufficient oversight into what the staff members were doing. He did not meet his responsibility to monitor the activities that resulted in violations. His failure to monitor is a Level I violation.

 

Although the bulk of booster activity involved the head coach's staff and occurred during his tenure, issues involving the football program predated his arrival. 

 

The violations in this portion of the institution's infractions case occurred in the football program. The violations involved boosters and team staff members, including coaches, and fall into one or more of four areas: (A) through (D) ACT exam fraud and unethical conduct; (E) through (N) multiple instances of boosters and/or football team staff members, sometimes working in concert, providing impermissible benefits and inducements to prospective and enrolled student-athletes, resulting in unethical conduct by football team staff members and ineligible participation by the student-athletes; (O) failure of the head coach to monitor his staff; and (P) the institution's lack of control over its football program.

Throughout his tenure as head football coach at Mississippi, the head coach failed to monitor certain aspects of his staff's involvement in the recruiting process for his program. Specifically, he failed to monitor the interactions of certain staff members with prospects, both on- and off- campus, and their interactions with his program's boosters. As a result, members of his staff, sometimes in concert with boosters, arranged for free transportation, lodging, meals, and merchandise. On other occasions, boosters provided prospects or their companions with cash. When the head coach did not discover these activities through sufficient monitoring, he violated Bylaw 11.

 

We can speculate on it I suppose, but if you wish to speculate on whether Freeze *really* knew what some of his assistants and boosters were really doing, then it shouldn't be too hard to do the same on how major college football operated in the modern age, prior to NIL.  If you don't wish to speculate on that latter, then you can't really be consistent and speculate on the former either.

Thanks for the detailed response.

Though it may seem like a minor quibble, I want to clarify that I did not use the word "cheating" as you've implied. You can read my post where I asked, "is there tangible evidence that all of his SEC rivals were also violating the same NCAA clauses he was? Was Auburn doing this also?", and to which you replied with an apparently emphatic, "Yes."

Given Gus's tenure at AU overlapped with Hugh's at OM you've accused Gus (not to mention every other coach in the conference/country) of committing these same infractions.

Gus has his weaknesses as coach but this is the first accusation I've heard of him violating NCAA rules. Are you basing it on anything specific?

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You want documentation that all the major teams in college football prior to NIL were paying players?  Is this a serious question?

 

Yes.

If it's a serious accusation, then yes it's a serious question.

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

By which we say "cheating" when we actually mean "doing the exact same things all his SEC rivals were doing to find success."  Ok.

I promise I'm not being snarky but is there tangible evidence that all of his SEC rivals were also violating the same NCAA clauses he was? Was Auburn doing this also?

Because he did it at Ole Miss, which is a historical cellar dweller.

1 minute ago, LetsGoBigBlueLetsGo said:

There's a LOT of virtue signaling going on here, lmao. Win football games, that's it. He knows he needs to keep his nose clean.

I don't think that's the appendage people are worried about.

There's the Gus Bus, the Lane Train, and now...the Hugh Pew?

Wait, that's not gonna work...