Quick question about Leo & Kobe...

[Junction John]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but if the Rebelrags "litigation" is still hanging around when September comes, is there any chance we (Mullen and/or Bracky) hold the players out while it's pending? Seems like we've done stuff like that before, out of an ABUNDANCE of (read: too much) caution. That would really piss me off, but it sounds like something we might do.

Just a thought, but I could see some UMiss dipshits thinking that is a win for them. Hell, I wouldn't bet against that being one of Terry Funk's motives. Then he can always say he was the one who made Leo sit out.

 

[Drebin]

I'm sure the NCAA will provide guidance on what to do.

I heard that we asked if Leo should sit for the Egg Bowl or our bowl game and the NCAA told us we were good.

 

[EthelTheBulldog]

Lawsuits take sooooo long. Assume it would take years to settle this

 

[msstatelp1]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but if the Rebelrags "litigation" is still hanging around when September comes, is there any chance we (Mullen and/or Bracky) hold the players out while it's pending? Seems like we've done stuff like that before, out of an ABUNDANCE of (read: too much) caution. That would really piss me off, but it sounds like something we might do.

Just a thought, but I could see some UMiss dipshits thinking that is a win for them. Hell, I wouldn't bet against that being one of Terry Funk's motives. Then he can always say he was the one who made Leo sit out.

Everyone that is "worried about Leo or Kobe", please quit buying into the Rebel ********. They did nothing wrong as it relates to Mississippi State. They were given immunity from the NCAA for anything related to their recruitment by OM . The civil suit by the RR douche is nothing but an attempt.to harass them and get them to change their story. We have no reason to hold them out of any games.

 

[GloryDawg]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but if the Rebelrags "litigation" is still hanging around when September comes, is there any chance we (Mullen and/or Bracky) hold the players out while it's pending? Seems like we've done stuff like that before, out of an ABUNDANCE of (read: too much) caution. That would really piss me off, but it sounds like something we might do.

Just a thought, but I could see some UMiss dipshits thinking that is a win for them. Hell, I wouldn't bet against that being one of Terry Funk's motives. Then he can always say he was the one who made Leo sit out.

What would be the grounds to hold them out? If they had done anything wrong that they did not get immunity for I pretty sure they would not have been on the field last season. Also those two pot head brothers Ole Miss football players that got sued for beating up that guy at the party, did that ever get settled?

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Believe me, with Brackey on the job, if we had done anything wrong, we would already self imposed a 5 Year Bowl ban and had our own hostage video...

 

[Xusuromohses]

^^ This. It's such an MSU thing to do to get worked up over this but a significant portion of our fans are certainly worried about it.

 

[MSU601Dawg]

According to the OM Response to the NOA, Leo admitted to taking 10K from another institution in his last interview.

I understand Leo has immunity individually for anything he was given by Ole Miss, but does that still apply once he admitted to taking 10K from another institution which could presumably have been MSU?

And if he did say it was MSU, does Leo's immunity also mean that MSU has immunity for that infraction? I would think it might not

 

[DerHntr]

The NOA does not say that #39 admitted to an additional $10k from another university. Therefore, the only ones saying that is OM. I won't believe it until the NCAA says it. OM has consistently lied about this entire investigation from day one.

(I could be wrong and it is in the actual NOA, but I didn't see it.)

 

[patdog]

The NOA does not say that #39 admitted to an additional $10k from another university. Therefore, the only ones saying that is OM.

Amazing to me, with their long history of outright lies in this case, how many people just take that little nugget and run with it. Even if he did admit to taking $10K from us or any other school, the NCAA cleared him for the Egg Bowl and our bowl game when we specifically asked them if we should hold him out. That whole issue is a complete non-factor.

 

[thf24]

According to the OM Response to the NOA, Leo admitted to taking 10K from another institution in his last interview.

I understand Leo has immunity individually for anything he was given by Ole Miss, but does that still apply once he admitted to taking 10K from another institution which could presumably have been MSU?

And if he did say it was MSU, does Leo's immunity also mean that MSU has immunity for that infraction? I would think it might not

If we or anyone else other than OM gets in trouble as a result of information divulged in the immunity interview, the NCAA will never be able to use it again. They'd lose the trust and cooperation of both the players and non-targeted schools. Unless the NCAA never intends to use the immunity tactic again, it's not going to happen.

 

[ckDOG]

Immunity is limited to the SA. Hence, limited immunity.

According to the OM Response to the NOA, Leo admitted to taking 10K from another institution in his last interview.

I understand Leo has immunity individually for anything he was given by Ole Miss, but does that still apply once he admitted to taking 10K from another institution which could presumably have been MSU?

And if he did say it was MSU, does Leo's immunity also mean that MSU has immunity for that infraction? I would think it might not

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/...entResources_LimitedImmunityFAQs_20161220.pdf

IF he admitted to taking $10k from another institution, the other institution is not immune to penalties.

A couple of things: 1) I suppose the NCAA could just look the other way. As others have mentioned, this rule has no teeth unless you can get the SA to talk. What SA is going to talk if their current institution will have repercussions? 2) If our attorney(s) allowed questions not related to OM be asked or Lewis to answer them, then we have the weakest representation on the planet. 3) There's also no telling how OM is spinning what was said in the interviews until we actually have the transcripts to read.

I'm a little worried about it - Emstate and all. However, track records on this whole ordeal are pretty consistently indicating that OM is full of it and has constantly manipulated reality in their favor.

 

[Junction John]

I'm assuming you guys aren't referring to my post. Or, you didn't understand my point.

I'm not "worried" that Leo or Kobe messed up, or that OM is going to get off scot-free, etc. I know RR is a douche (I've known that for years), and I can guess why he did what he did.

I just think there's at least a chance that Brackey would suggest we hold out two players with "pending litigation" in the background... Which, as I said in the original post, would piss me off.

 

[johnson86-1]

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/...entResources_LimitedImmunityFAQs_20161220.pdf

IF he admitted to taking $10k from another institution, the other institution is not immune to penalties.

A couple of things: 1) I suppose the NCAA could just look the other way. As others have mentioned, this rule has no teeth unless you can get the SA to talk. What SA is going to talk if their current institution will have repercussions? 2) If our attorney(s) allowed questions not related to OM be asked or Lewis to answer them, then we have the weakest representation on the planet. 3) There's also no telling how OM is spinning what was said in the interviews until we actually have the transcripts to read.

I'm a little worried about it - Emstate and all. However, track records on this whole ordeal are pretty consistently indicating that OM is full of it and has constantly manipulated reality in their favor.

I'm not really worried about it because I can't believe that the NCAA would be willing to trash immunity as a tool going forward. I'd like to think we would have done more to keep our student athletes out of it if we weren't given very strong assurances that MSU would be de facto immune, but our handling of the Redmond situation doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[MSU601Dawg]

Amazing to me, with their long history of outright lies in this case, how many people just take that little nugget and run with it. Even if he did admit to taking $10K from us or any other school, the NCAA cleared him for the Egg Bowl and our bowl game when we specifically asked them if we should hold him out. That whole issue is a complete non-factor.

I find it hard to believe that OM would put that in the OFFICIAL response (that Leo admitted to taking 10K from another institution) if it weren't in the interview transcripts.

It wasn't in the official NOA, but all of the "evidence they used to prove the allegations" weren't included either, nor were the interview transcripts which Ole Miss was privvy to.

There's a difference in the admin leaking misleading statements before official docs are released and what has actually been released officially.

With the way the OM response read, Ole Miss referred to the school that Leo got 10K from as "another institution" as opposed to directly naming the school something like "Institution 10" like MSU was referred to in other parts of the document. So that leads me to believe Leo didn't name the school (MSU or LSU) in the interview or OM would've referred to that school directly.

Either way, I recommend reading the document... while I think Leo told a lot of truth, he did waffle on some things and OM did a great job of making him look not credible and poking holes in his stories. He changed his story on when he received the 10K (said 1:30 initially, then said between 4 and 6 later), doesn't have anyone that can corroborate the RR gear, can't produce it (or a pic of it), family never saw it, and the friend he said he gave it to won't corroborate it

 

[DerHntr]

I agree that they referenced the transcript of his interview. So, like my post said before: I'd admit if I was wrong. It happens at least once a day.

 

[patdog]

I don't. Their OFFICIAL response isn't intended to be factual. Any more than a lawyer's arguments in court are intended to be factual. They're intended to present the case for the client and to try to discredit any witnesses against them. So yeah, they're absolutely not going to be above taking a statement by Lewis out of context or claiming inconsistencies in his testimony that aren't really there.

 

[yakalot2]

I'm assuming you guys aren't referring to my post. Or, you didn't understand my point.

I'm not "worried" that Leo or Kobe messed up, or that OM is going to get off scot-free, etc. I know RR is a douche (I've known that for years), and I can guess why he did what he did.

I just think there's at least a chance that Brackey would suggest we hold out two players with "pending litigation" in the background... Which, as I said in the original post, would piss me off.

Sorry, accidentally hit the RR button....

 

[amcdan2000]

They keep bringing up "the tape". Why has no one told that the NCAA already had it, nothing of value on it, and it didn't name any other schools. If he got the merchandise why would he come to State with it. I think they are really counting on the worthless tape.

 

[mount lefroy]

According to the OM Response to the NOA, Leo admitted to taking 10K from another institution in his last interview.

I understand Leo has immunity individually for anything he was given by Ole Miss, but does that still apply once he admitted to taking 10K from another institution which could presumably have been MSU?

And if he did say it was MSU, does Leo's immunity also mean that MSU has immunity for that infraction? I would think it might not

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and bet the 10 large wasn't from us that Leo was referring to. Could we have given him some? Well sure. Bags and wads.

That story is the viagra in their zima right now but that's only because it serves their cra cra narrative.

The best part is that now that they went all jilted girlfriend on everyone, the NCAA has a vested interest in the validity of Lewis and Jones testimony even if they think there are inconsistencies. If RR is disassociated on any OTHER evidence than Leo's and Kobe's, the lawsuit starts circling the bowl.

No, holding them out is not what the NCAA wants. It weakens their stance. We are the windshield in this metaphor.

 

[ckDOG]

Makes me feel better.

So that leads me to believe Leo didn't name the school (MSU or LSU) in the interview or OM would've referred to that school directly

You're right. They would have referenced the school directly if he did. He answered genetically - as was likely advised. The NCAA has what they want. He didn't jeopardize any other institution. His limited immunity still applies and there's no further investigation bc that's not the NCAA's focus. Sucks for OM, but they are the school that's pissed off the NCAA. They can deal with it bc nobody else cares to save them.

 

[Dogariffic]

Leo has immunity. Whatever he told them he has immunity.

 

[josebrown]

I'm assuming you guys aren't referring to my post. Or, you didn't understand my point.

I'm not "worried" that Leo or Kobe messed up, or that OM is going to get off scot-free, etc. I know RR is a douche (I've known that for years), and I can guess why he did what he did.

I just think there's at least a chance that Brackey would suggest we hold out two players with "pending litigation" in the background... Which, as I said in the original post, would piss me off.

I don't see what "pending litigation" from RebelFags would have to do with eligibility. So I say eligibility issues have been put to rest and we will not hold them out.