Honest Question: 19-21 Record in SEC Play

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, Warnugget said:

I just spent 5 minutes on a google search that gave me all the information I need. If it wasn’t so easy to find I’d post it for you. You’re obviously more interested in throwing your energy into blind hatred of our new HC, so I’ll just mute you and leave you to it. 😂

I do not hate the man at all.  Again, please stop lying.

[Mims44 1,885]

14 minutes ago, msza said:

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?

 

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes.

 

And you dare call yourself a titan of tigers?

 

 

Msza, the truthful answer is Auburn is not, has not, and never will cheat in any form or fashion for any reason. We are so far removed from any wrongdoing that really, it shouldn't ever be looked into. We're kinda like... above suspicion to be honest. Just don't question it.

[AUINSY 2,228]

32 minutes ago, gr82b4au said:

His record was the reason why I did not want him. Or Lane. 
But you cannot deny that the turn around for Arkansas state, Ole Miss, and liberty were pretty amazing. 
The question I have is, can he do it quickly at Auburn? Because our roster is not good. And can he still recruit?

The reality is we're in a unique time where he's got the ability to bring on half a team or more (45 players?) in one offseason. We'll be able to see really quickly, like within the next 8-16 weeks if he can or not. And he's now got the boost of NIL and donor backing to boot. I like our chances. What a time to be alive!

[smackydoodle 200]

19 minutes ago, Warnugget said:

Because nobody is talking about why we should hire Houston Nutt. We’re talking about what Freeze did at Ole Miss after what he inherited. If HF had started at Ole Miss 2 years earlier then this would be a relevant conversation. As it stands, he inherited a team that hadn’t won an SEC game in 2 years. 

He's bringing up the record of Ole Miss prior to Hugh Freeze. Houston Nutt was the coach of Ole Miss prior to Hugh Freeze. That's why he's being brought up. Hey, by the way, if we want to talk about what coaches were left with, we wanna talk about the guy that came after Hugh Freeze or nah?

[Warnugget 127]

3 minutes ago, smackydoodle said:

He's bringing up the record of Ole Miss prior to Hugh Freeze. Houston Nutt was the coach of Ole Miss prior to Hugh Freeze. That's why he's being brought up. Hey, by the way, if we want to talk about what coaches were left with, we wanna talk about the guy that came after Hugh Freeze or nah?

If you think that Matt Luke is relevant, then by all means, talk away. 😂

[Zinzan 123]

Look, there are good things and bad things to look at in regards to Hugh Freeze. The OP here specifically asked why he should be excited about the hire. Can’t ya’ll naysayers just let the things to be excited by stand without trying to shoot them down? There are plenty of other threads that are themed to shoot the man down. 
 

Looking at the positive, I’m expecting QB development, an improved passing game, an offensive identity, better OL recruiting, and more effort from the HC in recruiting across the board. I expect if defenses load the box and make our QB beat them, we won’t be as helpless as we have been the past couple seasons. 
 

[smackydoodle 200]

1 minute ago, Zinzan said:

Look, there are good things and bad things to look at in regards to Hugh Freeze. The OP here specifically asked why he should be excited about the hire. Can’t ya’ll naysayers just let the things to be excited by stand without trying to shoot them down? There are plenty of other threads that are themed to shoot the man down. 
 

Looking at the positive, I’m expecting QB development, an improved passing game, an offensive identity, better OL recruiting, and more effort from the HC in recruiting across the board. I expect if defenses load the box and make our QB beat them, we won’t be as helpless as we have been the past couple seasons. 
 

OP asked for discussions outside of sunshine pumpers regarding HF's record and here you are requesting we do the exact opposite.

[BigBlueWDE 1,136]

4 hours ago, Tampa Tiger said:

I've tried to have some honest discussions on a Facebook group full of sunshine pumpers, but everyone just thinks it's a great hire, etc. 

I'm really trying to understand with honest discussion (without discussing his past off the field baggage, call him Coaching Candidate X), why I should be excited about a guy that went 19-21 in the SEC and just one 10th, and two 17th AP finishes?  

I think it was the gradual build-up of the program over there. He started with a dumpster fire, then gradually went 7 wins, then 8 wins, then 9 wins, then 10 wins and split 1-1 in the Peach & Sugar bowls, of course with the back-to-back victories over the Saban empire at its peak. We always say stuff like "if he could do that Ole Miss, imagine what he can do at Auburn" and it's true to an extent, but I think Auburn fans would be VERY happy with just a carbon-copy repeat performance of that demonstrated success. And of course I'm optimistic that he can truly do better at Auburn than that 3rd tier SEC school in MS.   

[DAG 34,003]

5 minutes ago, Zinzan said:

Look, there are good things and bad things to look at in regards to Hugh Freeze. The OP here specifically asked why he should be excited about the hire. Can’t ya’ll naysayers just let the things to be excited by stand without trying to shoot them down? There are plenty of other threads that are themed to shoot the man down. 
 

Looking at the positive, I’m expecting QB development, an improved passing game, an offensive identity, better OL recruiting, and more effort from the HC in recruiting across the board. I expect if defenses load the box and make our QB beat them, we won’t be as helpless as we have been the past couple seasons. 
 

stop sunshine pumping bro [yellow font]

[smackydoodle 200]

9 minutes ago, Warnugget said:

If you think that Matt Luke is relevant, then by all means, talk away. 😂

So we can discuss Freeze bringing a program back up from the ashes, but not him leaving them in ashes. Gotcha. Let's pump that sunshine baby!

[Warnugget 127]

2 minutes ago, smackydoodle said:

OP asked for discussions outside of sunshine pumpers regarding HF's record and here you are requesting we do the exact opposite.

He was asking for “why he should be excited”. I’m sure you didn’t mean to leave that part out. Now tell us what Houston Nutt’s first two years at Ole Miss and Matt Luke’s tenure afterwards would have anything to do with that🤣

[TitanTiger 20,508]

Just now, msza said:

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

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.

[Warnugget 127]

1 minute ago, smackydoodle said:

So we can discuss Freeze bringing a program back up from the ashes, but not him leaving them in ashes. Gotcha. Let's pump that sunshine baby!

Like I said, talk away. Tell us how Matt Luke is relevant. Nobody is going to stop you.

[Warnugget 127]

1 minute 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.

I hope smackydoodle reads this before he continues on the Matt Luke tangent. 

[Sizzle 3,920]

Folks keep saying “but he did it at Ole Miss” if OM was such as a terrible program then we really messed up not hiring Kiffin. He got them to a 10 win season last year and had them in the top 10 rankings at one point this year.
 

If Freeze’s accomplishments make him a good coach then Kiffin must be a top 5 coach in all of CFB 

[Warnugget 127]

6 minutes ago, smackydoodle said:

So we can discuss Freeze bringing a program back up from the ashes, but not him leaving them in ashes. Gotcha. Let's pump that sunshine baby!

We’re only bringing up records and accomplishments in a thread that seemed to ask for them. I wonder if there’s a term for someone that is the exact opposite of a sunshine pumper?🤡

[TitanTiger 20,508]

23 minutes ago, smackydoodle said:

Well, you were talking in historical terms and stopped at the two bad examples. People are wanting to act like HF accomplished something never before seen at Ole Miss, yet just two seasons before he was hired it happened. 

I didn't "stop" at two bad examples.  I gave the relevant ones.  How good Ole Miss was three years before he arrived really doesn't matter when the two most recent seasons they were a combined 6-18 overall and 0-16 in the SEC.

And no one said he did things that had never been done before.  We are saying that 1) it's very hard to win big there and 2) getting to 10 wins there is almost a monumental feat.  It hadn't happened but one other time since Vaught retired for the first time in 1970.  In the last 48 years of Ole Miss football since Vaught left the second time, they've had non-winning seasons 26 of them.  

[smackydoodle 200]

2 minutes ago, Warnugget said:

Like I said, talk away. Tell us how Matt Luke is relevant. Nobody is going to stop you.

I understand that wins is literally the only thing that matters to a lot of you. It only matters what he did while there, not what he left behind. That's fine. Oh, don't let me forget to add this: 🤣 and a 😂 and maybe a 😆

[Warnugget 127]

2 minutes ago, Sizzle said:

Folks keep saying “but he did it at Ole Miss” if OM was such as a terrible program then we really messed up not hiring Kiffin. He got them to a 10 win season last year and had them in the top 10 rankings at one point this year.
 

If Freeze’s accomplishments make him a good coach then Kiffin must be a top 5 coach in all of CFB 

“Top 5 coach in all of CFB” is a huge stretch that nobody is implying. I do think that they’re very comparable as far as coaching ability goes. 

[TitanTiger 20,508]

3 minutes ago, Sizzle said:

Folks keep saying “but he did it at Ole Miss” if OM was such as a terrible program then we really messed up not hiring Kiffin. He got them to a 10 win season last year and had them in the top 10 rankings at one point this year.
 

If Freeze’s accomplishments make him a good coach then Kiffin must be a top 5 coach in all of CFB 

Kiffin is a really good coach.  I would have been excited to get him.  I do think if people give CHF a chance, we'll probalby be even happier with him in the long run.

[Warnugget 127]

1 minute ago, smackydoodle said:

I understand that wins is literally the only thing that matters to a lot of you. It only matters what he did while there, not what he left behind. That's fine. Oh, don't let me forget to add this: 🤣 and a 😂 and maybe a 😆

I thought you wanted to talk about Matt Luke. Apparently you’re more interested in insulting people for not hating on Freeze. 😂😂🤣🤣🤡

[smackydoodle 200]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I didn't "stop" at two bad examples.  I gave the relevant ones.  How good Ole Miss was three years before he arrived really doesn't matter when the two most recent seasons they were a combined 6-18 overall and 0-16 in the SEC.

And no one said he did things that had never been done before.  We are saying that 1) it's very hard to win big there and 2) getting to 10 wins there is almost a monumental feat.  It hadn't happened but one other time since Vaught retired for the first time in 1970.  In the last 48 years of Ole Miss football since Vaught left the second time, they've had non-winning seasons 26 of them.  

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ole Miss was ever a powerhouse. I'm just saying Houston Nutt was 1 win away from doing the monumental feat twice in four years. Yes, the wheels fell off extraordinarily fast and HF picked it back up but the story just isn't that black and white in my opinion. Either way, I think now that the laughing emoji posters have started targeting me again I'm bailing out. Thanks for moderating the forum as always @TitanTiger

[msza 228]

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?

[NWALA Tiger 3,535]

3 minutes ago, msza said:

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?

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

[TitanTiger 20,508]

4 minutes ago, msza said:

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?

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.