No additional protest of Shea Patterson appeal by Ole Miss

Submitted by BeatOSU52 on April 18th, 2018 at 4:24 PM





BREAKING: No Additional Protest of Shea Patterson Appeal by Ole Miss -

— Sam Webb (@SamWebb77) April 18, 2018…



"Sources informed the Michigan Insider this afternoon that Ole Miss filed its latest response with the NCAA yesterday. And while the initial objection was not rescinded, no additional objection was issued.


“They said (Patterson’s reply to the questions) didn’t ‘differ materially from the first submission,’ and because of that they had nothing additional to add,” said a source that has reviewed the Ole Miss letter. “They worded it in a way that could be interpreted as them maintaining their prior stance, but it definitely came across as a white flag of sorts. They said, ‘the University would not oppose immediate eligibility for Shea Patterson based on legitimate grounds.’ That they didn’t further argue the illegitimacy of Shea’s grounds by specifically addressing his response should be seen as a concession.”


Whether the NCAA sees it that way remains to be seen. There is still no word on a when a decision will be rendered."


So it's not official he can play.  But it's a good step towards it being so.



April 18th, 2018 at 5:01 PM ^

spend money (probably a considerable amount) on having attorneys review the material and protest the initial appeal when it literally could not help them in any way and could potential hurt them by making them look petty and anti-student-athlete (if they could look any worse).


April 18th, 2018 at 5:15 PM ^

I also really don't get the point of coming off in public as phenomenal jerks, and then just rolling over dead and getting nothing for it. It seems as though they think everyone is looking at them and saying, "what classy guys! They didn't try to block where a kid goes to college AGAIN."

Just not sure I understand much of anything that they have been doing.

M Ascending

April 20th, 2018 at 7:42 AM ^

As a litigation attorney, I can tell you that any time you are given an opportunity (or a request) to file a reply brief to the latest submission by the other side, you file a substantive reply if the case is at all in doubt.  The only times you would choose not to file the reply would be if you are so sure of victory that you can confidently say "Nothing more needs to be said," or if you have no reasonable arguments to advance in response and decide to give up the ghost.  In this case, I truly doubt that Ole Miss believes that its victory is assured, and their tepid reply seems clearly like the latter case.

That being said, I NEVER trust the NCAA to do the expected -- or right -- thing.  I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Mr Miggle

April 18th, 2018 at 7:09 PM ^

Here's a key quote.

Two days ago, Ole Miss received thorough responses from Patterson to questions from the NCAA case manager. Per NCAA rules, Ole Miss was given 10 days, until April 27, to comment or offer further remarks in opposition of Patterson being immediately eligible to play at Michigan.

Unlike the first time, Ole Miss didn't wait until the deadline to respond. It sounds like Michigan wasn't just given the chance to respond to the Ole Miss protest. They were asked specific questions, thus the optimism that a ruling won't take much longer. 





uncle leo

April 18th, 2018 at 4:30 PM ^

You could potentially read between the lines on this.

Waiver filed.

Ole Miss appeals.

NCAA comes back to Ole Miss and says, "We plan on making this kid eligible. Any further appeals? Are you going to keep going and lawyer up against us?"

Ole Miss says, "No, we give up."

That's kind of how it looks to me. Or maybe I am just being too optimistic.


April 18th, 2018 at 5:49 PM ^

eligible yet?  Seems to me like they received Shea's responses to their initial protest, they decided his responses didn't include anything they hadn't already addressed and they said "we rest our case".


April 18th, 2018 at 6:10 PM ^

Angelique’s article adds a little more into the Ole Miss point of view. Basically they responded saying they hope the NCAA follows its guidelines and applies the “year-in-residence” rule as precedent in regards to Shea Patterson’s transfer. So they are still completely against him transferring freely, they just didn’t add anything to their argument today.

Mr Miggle

April 18th, 2018 at 5:02 PM ^

Ole Miss contested some of the evidence Michigan sent in to support their initial appeal. The NCAA committee gave Michigan a chance to submit more evidence.  (That alone was a promising development.) While we're not privy to what's in Michigan's last submission, it's hard to imagine it doesn't directly address the objections from Ole Miss.

Ole Miss declined to address the new evidence. At the very least, that speeds things along. If Michigan made a strong response, as we would expect them to, then it's admitting defeat. They also waived any objection to immediate eligibility beyond contesting the claims made. They could have chosen to argue on more grounds.

uncle leo

April 18th, 2018 at 4:33 PM ^

I do not know why Ole Miss would be so damned stubborn with this. They don't play Michigan, they probably won't play Michigan, why do they care?

Perkis-Size Me

April 18th, 2018 at 6:55 PM ^

It was out of spite, honestly. If it was a backup corner or the punter, they probably wouldn’t care this much. But it’s their star QB who they think ditched them.

It’s one last middle finger to the kid on his way out.


April 18th, 2018 at 4:36 PM ^

So it sounds like this could mean one of three things:

  1. Ole Miss saw Shea's response and is waving the white flag
  2. Ole Miss was confident in their original argument and didn't feel the need to add anything else
  3. Nothing

But ultimately it's up to the NCAA regardless of how Ole Miss responded. 


April 18th, 2018 at 7:23 PM ^

I think it’s unusual and noteworthy when a party represented by a lawyer files a submission in favor of a position and then decline an opportunity to submit a further response after the other side puts in an additional submission rebutting your first brief. As a matter of advocacy that is jarring enough that it strongly signals weakness (ordinarily). That doesn’t mean the other side is necessarily going to win but it certainly doesn’t seem like a completely neutral development or one that could be interpreted in completely opposite ways.

The Oracle 2

April 18th, 2018 at 4:36 PM ^

I just finished up the Amazon series, and it reminded me again of what a devastating impact terrible QB play had on the 2017 season. Even with all the youth, that was at least a 10 win team with even decent quarterbacking. Patterson will be far more than decent. If he’s eligible, the sky is the limit.

Mineral King

April 18th, 2018 at 4:52 PM ^

He will be eligible. 100%. Yes the sky is the limit. Prepare to be watching us play for a National Championship. Shea is that good.

Also... regardless of what you here, Peters will be behind Dylan on the depth chart by 9/1. That is a guarantee as well.

Of course unforseen circumstances can always come into play regarding the depth chart, but let's not go there.

snarling wolverine

April 18th, 2018 at 5:14 PM ^

Or you're a recently-banned troll (hence the new join date) who is trying to build credibility on this site by latching on to a situation in which there are only two possible outcomes (either he's eligible or he isn't) and if the verdict comes in our favor, you'll claim you "called it."

When a guy with an actual track record as an insider (umbig11) calls you a clown, I'm inclined to believe him.



Mineral King

April 18th, 2018 at 5:20 PM ^

Is what it is man. I'm not gonna claim anything.. what does that give me? I lost my points for stating what Bosses problem was and I'm still here. You're acting like I'm going to win money or something. Stop thinking like a mad man.

If i keep getting treated like crap, I'll post even less than i already do. Some people on here deserve to here what I'm saying. Stop trying to start fights please.