Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by rhog1 on 10 Aug 2017
  • https://www.scribd.com/document/355930116/Case-Summary-Redacted
    Copied the summery from the Rant.  Ole Miss doesn't need Houston Nutt to take them down. The NCAA is going for the Kill here.

    - Text message information gathered during the investigation also shows Farrar communicating with football student-athletes about going to Rebel Rags

    - Evidence shows NCAA thinks Tunsil's mother has no credibility

    - The football program submitted recruiting documentation to compliance showing [redacted] and his family paid for their meals; however, as has been acknowledged, that did not occur. This is one of multiple instances in this allegation in which the football program submitted false recruiting documentation to the compliance office or failed to submit recruiting documentation altogether

    - The enforcement staff asserts that the text messages also show Farrar informed Freeze at the time he arranged transportation for for this occasion from the "young man from Raleigh." The football program did not submit documentation to the compliance office showing was on campus on this occasion.

    - The institution also acknowledged the record substantiates culpability by Farrar. Again, the football program submitted false recruiting visit documentation to compliance

    - Last, the recruiting documentation the football program submitted to the compliance office for this visit again contained inaccuracies, including regarding the prospects' transportation and lodging. The records stated that the prospects provided their own transportation and spent the night at residence halls of then football student-athletes.

    - The recruiting documentation submitted by the football program is false and purports that [redacted] paid for half of the hotel bill and his meals

    - In April 2016, the enforcement staff's football development group received information from a confidential source, unaffiliated with any institution in the Southeastern Conference, that [redacted] received a significant amount of cash from institutional representatives during his recruitment.

    - The institution, certain involved individuals and others have speculated that [redacted] fabricated statements implicating the institution to redirect attention away from his current institution. These suggestions are baseless and should be disregarded by the hearing panel. The enforcement staff finds to be credible and notes his various incentives to provide truthful information in the infractions process. Furthermore, when possible the enforcement staff tested information shared and found it to be reliable

    - Farrar claimed he did not recall the exchange but that he may have been trying to pursue romantically at the time and mentioned to initiate a conversation

    - For example, Farrar reported in his December 1, 2016, interview that he used disposable "backup" cellphones for years for recruiting purposes, including to recruit prospects in the 2015 and 2016 signing classes.

    - Further, the primary failure occurred early on when Freeze failed to vet Hughes through the compliance office. Instead, Freeze permitted his staff to rely on its own review of Hughes' association with the four then prospects and apply (incorrectly) the complex "established relationship" test (Exhibit NCAA- 10) in determining whether they should be concerned about Hughes and/or refrain from engaging him in the prospects' recruitment.

    - Freeze's handling of these matters, which spanned several months, fell short of the standards placed on head coaches to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staffs. Hughes, irrespective of his background or stated intentions, posed a clear red flag during the four then prospects' recruitment. Had Freeze satisfied his obligation to promote an atmosphere for compliance, either he or members of his staff would have known to take the obvious precaution of consulting the compliance office ? or otherwise confirming the propriety of their behavior ? before engaging Hughes in recruiting. However, nobody did so and Freeze cannot demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.

    - There was no reason for Keyes to be around the football program as frequently as he was, and certainly no justification for him being involved in recruitment. Nevertheless, Freeze failed to ascertain why Keyes was around the football offices, staff and recruits. These failures represent significant continuing compliance shortcomings and in Freeze's monitoring efforts.

    - Had Freeze reported his contacts to the compliance office in December 2013, it could have served as a meaningful example to his staff on how to handle such situations and prevented Kiffin's violation approximately five months later. Both underlying violations are indicative of a significant compliance failure in the football program, and Allegation No. 13 shows a failure in Freeze's monitoring efforts. In light of Freeze's personal involvement in this violation, he was also unable to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance in the football program.

    - The violations involve football personnel disregarding the institution's policies and expectations to take precautions to ensure their actions complied with NCAA legislation and/or reporting violations to the compliance office. The violations occurred, and recurred, over five and a half years, including during the investigation when attention to compliance should have been paramount. During this same time period, the institution failed to take meaningful action as required by the Principles to correct the behavior in its football program, which allowed additional violations to occur and illustrated a lack of institutional control.
  • #2 by supersaint on 10 Aug 2017
  • That's a beautiful poem. 
  • #3 by Hoggish1 on 10 Aug 2017
  • #4 by kodiakisland on 10 Aug 2017
  • That's a beautiful poem. 

    I usually hate long posts.  That one was great.  Wish it was longer.
  • #5 by GoHogzzGo on 10 Aug 2017
  • I usually hate long posts.  That one was great.  Wish it was longer.

    Ditto
  • #6 by Poker_hog on 10 Aug 2017
  • https://www.scribd.com/document/355930116/Case-Summary-Redacted
    Copied the summery from the Rant.  Ole Miss doesn't need Houston Nutt to take them down. The NCAA is going for the Kill here.

    - Text message information gathered during the investigation also shows Farrar communicating with football student-athletes about going to Rebel Rags

    - Evidence shows NCAA thinks Tunsil's mother has no credibility

    - The football program submitted recruiting documentation to compliance showing [redacted] and his family paid for their meals; however, as has been acknowledged, that did not occur. This is one of multiple instances in this allegation in which the football program submitted false recruiting documentation to the compliance office or failed to submit recruiting documentation altogether

    - The enforcement staff asserts that the text messages also show Farrar informed Freeze at the time he arranged transportation for for this occasion from the "young man from Raleigh." The football program did not submit documentation to the compliance office showing was on campus on this occasion.

    - The institution also acknowledged the record substantiates culpability by Farrar. Again, the football program submitted false recruiting visit documentation to compliance

    - Last, the recruiting documentation the football program submitted to the compliance office for this visit again contained inaccuracies, including regarding the prospects' transportation and lodging. The records stated that the prospects provided their own transportation and spent the night at residence halls of then football student-athletes.

    - The recruiting documentation submitted by the football program is false and purports that [redacted] paid for half of the hotel bill and his meals

    - In April 2016, the enforcement staff's football development group received information from a confidential source, unaffiliated with any institution in the Southeastern Conference, that [redacted] received a significant amount of cash from institutional representatives during his recruitment.

    - The institution, certain involved individuals and others have speculated that [redacted] fabricated statements implicating the institution to redirect attention away from his current institution. These suggestions are baseless and should be disregarded by the hearing panel. The enforcement staff finds to be credible and notes his various incentives to provide truthful information in the infractions process. Furthermore, when possible the enforcement staff tested information shared and found it to be reliable

    - Farrar claimed he did not recall the exchange but that he may have been trying to pursue romantically at the time and mentioned to initiate a conversation

    - For example, Farrar reported in his December 1, 2016, interview that he used disposable "backup" cellphones for years for recruiting purposes, including to recruit prospects in the 2015 and 2016 signing classes.

    - Further, the primary failure occurred early on when Freeze failed to vet Hughes through the compliance office. Instead, Freeze permitted his staff to rely on its own review of Hughes' association with the four then prospects and apply (incorrectly) the complex "established relationship" test (Exhibit NCAA- 10) in determining whether they should be concerned about Hughes and/or refrain from engaging him in the prospects' recruitment.

    - Freeze's handling of these matters, which spanned several months, fell short of the standards placed on head coaches to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staffs. Hughes, irrespective of his background or stated intentions, posed a clear red flag during the four then prospects' recruitment. Had Freeze satisfied his obligation to promote an atmosphere for compliance, either he or members of his staff would have known to take the obvious precaution of consulting the compliance office ? or otherwise confirming the propriety of their behavior ? before engaging Hughes in recruiting. However, nobody did so and Freeze cannot demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.

    - There was no reason for Keyes to be around the football program as frequently as he was, and certainly no justification for him being involved in recruitment. Nevertheless, Freeze failed to ascertain why Keyes was around the football offices, staff and recruits. These failures represent significant continuing compliance shortcomings and in Freeze's monitoring efforts.

    - Had Freeze reported his contacts to the compliance office in December 2013, it could have served as a meaningful example to his staff on how to handle such situations and prevented Kiffin's violation approximately five months later. Both underlying violations are indicative of a significant compliance failure in the football program, and Allegation No. 13 shows a failure in Freeze's monitoring efforts. In light of Freeze's personal involvement in this violation, he was also unable to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance in the football program.

    - The violations involve football personnel disregarding the institution's policies and expectations to take precautions to ensure their actions complied with NCAA legislation and/or reporting violations to the compliance office. The violations occurred, and recurred, over five and a half years, including during the investigation when attention to compliance should have been paramount. During this same time period, the institution failed to take meaningful action as required by the Principles to correct the behavior in its football program, which allowed additional violations to occur and illustrated a lack of institutional control.

    The bolded is all you need to know.
  • #7 by Sivad on 10 Aug 2017
  • Burn Baby Burn!
  • #8 by theFlyingHog on 10 Aug 2017
  • https://www.scribd.com/document/355930116/Case-Summary-Redacted
    Copied the summery from the Rant.  Ole Miss doesn't need Houston Nutt to take them down. The NCAA is going for the Kill here.

    - Text message information gathered during the investigation also shows Farrar communicating with football student-athletes about going to Rebel Rags

    - Evidence shows NCAA thinks Tunsil's mother has no credibility

    - The football program submitted recruiting documentation to compliance showing [redacted] and his family paid for their meals; however, as has been acknowledged, that did not occur. This is one of multiple instances in this allegation in which the football program submitted false recruiting documentation to the compliance office or failed to submit recruiting documentation altogether

    - The enforcement staff asserts that the text messages also show Farrar informed Freeze at the time he arranged transportation for for this occasion from the "young man from Raleigh." The football program did not submit documentation to the compliance office showing was on campus on this occasion.

    - The institution also acknowledged the record substantiates culpability by Farrar. Again, the football program submitted false recruiting visit documentation to compliance

    - Last, the recruiting documentation the football program submitted to the compliance office for this visit again contained inaccuracies, including regarding the prospects' transportation and lodging. The records stated that the prospects provided their own transportation and spent the night at residence halls of then football student-athletes.

    - The recruiting documentation submitted by the football program is false and purports that [redacted] paid for half of the hotel bill and his meals

    - In April 2016, the enforcement staff's football development group received information from a confidential source, unaffiliated with any institution in the Southeastern Conference, that [redacted] received a significant amount of cash from institutional representatives during his recruitment.

    - The institution, certain involved individuals and others have speculated that [redacted] fabricated statements implicating the institution to redirect attention away from his current institution. These suggestions are baseless and should be disregarded by the hearing panel. The enforcement staff finds to be credible and notes his various incentives to provide truthful information in the infractions process. Furthermore, when possible the enforcement staff tested information shared and found it to be reliable

    - Farrar claimed he did not recall the exchange but that he may have been trying to pursue romantically at the time and mentioned to initiate a conversation

    - For example, Farrar reported in his December 1, 2016, interview that he used disposable "backup" cellphones for years for recruiting purposes, including to recruit prospects in the 2015 and 2016 signing classes.

    - Further, the primary failure occurred early on when Freeze failed to vet Hughes through the compliance office. Instead, Freeze permitted his staff to rely on its own review of Hughes' association with the four then prospects and apply (incorrectly) the complex "established relationship" test (Exhibit NCAA- 10) in determining whether they should be concerned about Hughes and/or refrain from engaging him in the prospects' recruitment.

    - Freeze's handling of these matters, which spanned several months, fell short of the standards placed on head coaches to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staffs. Hughes, irrespective of his background or stated intentions, posed a clear red flag during the four then prospects' recruitment. Had Freeze satisfied his obligation to promote an atmosphere for compliance, either he or members of his staff would have known to take the obvious precaution of consulting the compliance office ? or otherwise confirming the propriety of their behavior ? before engaging Hughes in recruiting. However, nobody did so and Freeze cannot demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.

    - There was no reason for Keyes to be around the football program as frequently as he was, and certainly no justification for him being involved in recruitment. Nevertheless, Freeze failed to ascertain why Keyes was around the football offices, staff and recruits. These failures represent significant continuing compliance shortcomings and in Freeze's monitoring efforts.

    - Had Freeze reported his contacts to the compliance office in December 2013, it could have served as a meaningful example to his staff on how to handle such situations and prevented Kiffin's violation approximately five months later. Both underlying violations are indicative of a significant compliance failure in the football program, and Allegation No. 13 shows a failure in Freeze's monitoring efforts. In light of Freeze's personal involvement in this violation, he was also unable to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance in the football program.

    - The violations involve football personnel disregarding the institution's policies and expectations to take precautions to ensure their actions complied with NCAA legislation and/or reporting violations to the compliance office. The violations occurred, and recurred, over five and a half years, including during the investigation when attention to compliance should have been paramount. During this same time period, the institution failed to take meaningful action as required by the Principles to correct the behavior in its football program, which allowed additional violations to occur and illustrated a lack of institutional control.
    Spiderman, is that you?

    http://www.elitedawgs.com/showthread.php?58064-Some-BOOMS-concerning-the-response
  • #9 by Seebs on 10 Aug 2017
  • Reading this takes me back to my Penthouse Forum days. Borderline Erotic. I never thought this would happen to me ...
  • #10 by DoctorSusscrofa on 10 Aug 2017
  • So now Miss St starts getting better recruits instead of Ole Miss. And we still finish 23-33 in the recruiting wars and 10th in the SEC. it never fails. One of our key rivals gets nailed and another key rival picks up the slack.
  • #11 by HoggusMaximus on 11 Aug 2017
  • So now Miss St starts getting better recruits instead of Ole Miss. And we still finish 23-33 in the recruiting wars and 10th in the SEC. it never fails. One of our key rivals gets nailed and another key rival picks up the slack.
  • #12 by longpig on 11 Aug 2017
  • .
  • #13 by Justifiable Hogicide on 11 Aug 2017
  • "Are You Ready?"
    It sounds like the NCAA is Ready to Roll.
  • #14 by Nosboar Accubond on 11 Aug 2017
  • Spiderman, is that you?

    http://www.elitedawgs.com/showthread.php?58064-Some-BOOMS-concerning-the-response
    Hmmmm... either they are one in the same person, or ole Spidey got straight ripped off...
  • #15 by smb on 11 Aug 2017
  • That's a beautiful poem.
    I like this answer.
  • #16 by Mike_e on 11 Aug 2017
  • Did anyone else her the theme from Dragnet while reading that?


    Daaah da dum dumph, Daaah da dum dumph daaaaa  LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.

    Just the facts y'all.
  • #17 by southeasthog on 11 Aug 2017
  • The bolded is all you need to know.

    This part is also going to hurt.

    - The violations involve football personnel disregarding the institution's policies and expectations to take precautions to ensure their actions complied with NCAA legislation and/or reporting violations to the compliance office. The violations occurred, and recurred, over five and a half years, including during the investigation when attention to compliance should have been paramount. During this same time period, the institution failed to take meaningful action as required by the Principles to correct the behavior in its football program, which allowed additional violations to occur and illustrated a lack of institutional control.
  • #18 by Steef on 11 Aug 2017
  • It would suit me fine if the NCAA  sent everyone in Oxford home and padlocked the doors.

    But they didn't do that to Penn State...who literally deserved it ten times more than anyone ...maybe in collegiate history.

    So I am in "believe it when I see it" mode.
  • #19 by ThisTeetsTaken on 11 Aug 2017
  • It would suit me fine if the NCAA  sent everyone in Oxford home and padlocked the doors.

    But they didn't do that to Penn State...who literally deserved it ten times more than anyone ...maybe in collegiate history.

    So I am in "believe it when I see it" mode.
    Exactly. 
  • #20 by rhames on 11 Aug 2017
  • It would suit me fine if the NCAA  sent everyone in Oxford home and padlocked the doors.

    But they didn't do that to Penn State...who literally deserved it ten times more than anyone ...maybe in collegiate history.

    So I am in "believe it when I see it" mode.



    While what happened at Penn State was a tragedy, the NCAA really had no governing power to enforce punishment. When they tried, Penn State sued and the ncaa backed off

    So not apples to apples


    As for what the NCAA will do to ole miss, I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything earth shattering.
  • #21 by rljjr on 11 Aug 2017
  • So in September (I think that's right) when the NCAA announces its findings and punishment, will Ole Miss also lose its AD and President? Just the AD?
  • #22 by clutch on 11 Aug 2017


  • While what happened at Penn State was a tragedy, the NCAA really had no governing power to enforce punishment. When they tried, Penn State sued and the ncaa backed off

    So not apples to apples


    As for what the NCAA will do to ole miss, I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything earth shattering.

    Yeah it was more of a legal situation. Multiple people are paying with jail time for that terrible situation up there. I was much happier to see that in their situation. I'd rather the guilty parties, and those who overlooked the situation instead of taking action, spend time behind bars than the football team lose scholarships and bowl games in a situation of that caliber.
  • #23 by rhames on 11 Aug 2017
  • Yeah it was more of a legal situation. Multiple people are paying with jail time for that terrible situation up there. I was much happier to see that in their situation. I'd rather the guilty parties, and those who overlooked the situation instead of taking action, spend time behind bars than the football team lose scholarships and bowl games in a situation of that caliber.


    Totally agree
  • #24 by Steef on 11 Aug 2017


  • While what happened at Penn State was a tragedy, the NCAA really had no governing power to enforce punishment. When they tried, Penn State sued and the ncaa backed off

    So not apples to apples


    As for what the NCAA will do to ole miss, I wouldn't get my hopes up for anything earth shattering.

    The NCAA really has no governing power period. So any univ can make them "back off".

    Im all for all schools to stop pretending they matter.

    Until that happens though..."lack of unstitutional control" is "lack of institutional control".

    It IS apples to apples, because that apple has no real definitiin, except whatever NCAA says it means.

    Penn State had it in spades. Now NCAA says Ole Miss had it too.

    I agree the transgressions are extremely different. But its not my fault NCAA uses a generic term to cover anything.
  • #25 by rhames on 11 Aug 2017
  • The NCAA really has no governing power period. So any univ can make them "back off".

    Im all for all schools to stop pretending they matter.

    Until that happens though..."lack of unstitutional control" is "lack of institutional control".

    It IS apples to apples, because that apple has no real definitiin, except whatever NCAA says it means.

    Penn State had it in spades. Now NCAA says Ole Miss had it too.

    I agree the transgressions are extremely different. But its not my fault NCAA uses a generic term to cover anything.


    Sorry but you're wrong. At the very bases the ncaa is a rules committee. Now they may suck at enforcing the rules but they had no real power to do anything in the Penn State case.


    It's kind of like saying it's up to border control to deal with North Korea. The ncaa has no jurisdiction to handel legal cases.

    That's why they haven't touched Baylor.


    I agree with you that there is no reason to believe the ncaa will do anything of significance I just don't think you can use Penn State as an example. Now maybe North Carolina.....


    Fyi. Here is the definition:

    Institutional control refers to the efforts institutions make to comply with NCAA legislation and to detect and investigate violations that do occur. NCAA member institutions are obligated to maintain appropriate levels of institutional control.
  • #26 by redleg on 11 Aug 2017
  • I can see the NCAA adding an additional year to Ole Miss' self-imposed bowl ban, making it two years with no bowls, plus two years of ineligibility for the SEC title.
    I can also see Ole Miss being hit with lost scholarships over the next 3-5 classes, possibly to the tune of 3-5 per class.
    It would also be reasonable to say the NCAA might allow the upper classmen to transfer without restrictions to any school they wished, due to the bowl and SEC title bans.
    I also wouldn't be shocked to see the Ole Miss AD get fired.
  • #27 by jackflash on 11 Aug 2017
  • great read but still going to wait and see if the NCAA has any balls here
  • #28 by rhog1 on 11 Aug 2017
  • Hmmmm... either they are one in the same person, or ole Spidey got straight ripped off...
    Whoever spiderman is he must have got ripped off. I saw this on the rant and thought it was too good of a read not to share.  Also whatever Ole Miss gets North Carolina Deserves double for the crap they pulled. They were willing to sacrifice the academic reputation of their university just to win some games.   
  • #29 by Michael D Huff AIA on 11 Aug 2017
  • It would suit me fine if the NCAA  sent everyone in Oxford home and padlocked the doors.

    But they didn't do that to Penn State...who literally deserved it ten times more than anyone ...maybe in collegiate history.

    So I am in "believe it when I see it" mode.

    I totally agree with the bolded part of your post.  There are SO many instances of schools running afoul of the rules and getting away with it WITHOUT any sort of penalty because the NCAA can't/won't do their jobs as a rule enforcing entity.  Penn State should not ever have a football team again.  Miami should have had the 'death penalty', but got nothing close to the penalty they deserved because the NCAA botched their own investigation.  Now we have Ole Miss dead to rights....what will happen?
  • #30 by hobhog on 11 Aug 2017
  • Sounds ominous for sure. A second year bowl ban is the thing everyone is watching for. That would allow players to transfer with no penalty and would kill recruiting. Would also make it hard to hire coach.

    Anything less than another bowl ban and they will be up and runnin in 2-3 years.
  • #31 by go hogues on 11 Aug 2017
  • Sounds ominous for sure. A second year bowl ban is the thing everyone is watching for. That would allow players to transfer with no penalty and would kill recruiting. Would also make it hard to hire coach.

    Anything less than another bowl ban and they will be up and runnin in 2-3 years.
    yep
  • #32 by rhog1 on 11 Aug 2017

  • Anything less than another bowl ban and they will be up and runnin in 2-3 years.

    Not true crippling scholarship reductions would also keep them down for a while.  But I think they get both heavy scholarship reductions and another year bowl ban.
  • #33 by RyeHogFan on 11 Aug 2017
  • "Are You Ready?"
    It sounds like the NCAA is Ready to Roll.

    That's just beautiful man 😂
  • #34 by JethroB. on 11 Aug 2017
  • I can see the NCAA adding an additional year to Ole Miss' self-imposed bowl ban, making it two years with no bowls, plus two years of ineligibility for the SEC title.
    I can also see Ole Miss being hit with lost scholarships over the next 3-5 classes, possibly to the tune of 3-5 per class.
    It would also be reasonable to say the NCAA might allow the upper classmen to transfer without restrictions to any school they wished, due to the bowl and SEC title bans.
    I also wouldn't be shocked to see the Ole Miss AD get fired.

    This sounds legit to me. I'll still believe it when i see it. They've shown a history of being soft when it came to certain schools.
  • #35 by JethroB. on 11 Aug 2017
  • Burn Baby Burn!

    Get yo popcorn ready!
  • #36 by onebadrubi on 11 Aug 2017
  • Anyone else want to start drawing a different conclusion on Bielema's after comment defined as "because they are in on everyone already from hard work" about Florida is just like Ole miss?

    hmmmmm
  • #37 by Rock City Razorback on 11 Aug 2017
  • Burn Baby Burn!

    Ole Miss Inferno! Followed by the hit, You Dropped a Bomb on Me.
  • #38 by Steef on 11 Aug 2017
  • Expect a wrist slapping
  • #39 by tusksincolorado on 11 Aug 2017
  • 3 year bowl ban on top of the current ban....for 5 1/2 years of non-compliance.

    12 scholarships for 2018.

    15 scholarships for 2019.

    17 scholarships for 2020.

    elimination of 2 full time on the field coaching positions for 3 years.

    limited number of recruiting visits till 2021.

    show cause for "Beaver" Freeze.

    bye- bye Bork.

    Ole Miss will be the sacrificial lamb for the SEC.

    The rest of the college football world hates the SEC....blood, pitchforks, fire, and MSU redneck pleasants has surrounded Oxford...THEY ARE DONE!
  • #40 by KlubhouseKonnected on 11 Aug 2017
  • 3 year bowl ban on top of the current ban....for 5 1/2 years of non-compliance.

    12 scholarships for 2018.

    15 scholarships for 2019.

    17 scholarships for 2020.

    elimination of 2 full time on the field coaching positions for 3 years.

    limited number of recruiting visits till 2021.

    show cause for "Beaver" Freeze.

    bye- bye Bork.

    Ole Miss will be the sacrificial lamb for the SEC.

    The rest of the college football world hates the SEC....blood, pitchforks, fire, and MSU redneck pleasants has surrounded Oxford...THEY ARE DONE!

    No way
  • #41 by GuvHog on 11 Aug 2017
  • 3 year bowl ban on top of the current ban....for 5 1/2 years of non-compliance.

    12 scholarships for 2018.

    15 scholarships for 2019.

    17 scholarships for 2020.

    elimination of 2 full time on the field coaching positions for 3 years.

    limited number of recruiting visits till 2021.

    show cause for "Beaver" Freeze.

    bye- bye Bork.

    Ole Miss will be the sacrificial lamb for the SEC.

    The rest of the college football world hates the SEC....blood, pitchforks, fire, and MSU redneck pleasants has surrounded Oxford...THEY ARE DONE!

    The NCAA should shut the Ole Miss football program down for this year, ban them from post season play next year, and reduce scholarships for the next 2 years.
  • #42 by FraggleHog on 11 Aug 2017
  • 3 year bowl ban on top of the current ban....for 5 1/2 years of non-compliance.

    12 scholarships for 2018.

    15 scholarships for 2019.

    17 scholarships for 2020.

    elimination of 2 full time on the field coaching positions for 3 years.

    limited number of recruiting visits till 2021.

    show cause for "Beaver" Freeze.

    bye- bye Bork.

    Ole Miss will be the sacrificial lamb for the SEC.

    The rest of the college football world hates the SEC....blood, pitchforks, fire, and MSU redneck pleasants has surrounded Oxford...THEY ARE DONE!

    Doubt they will send the pleasant rednecks from Starkville...
  • #43 by Potosihog on 11 Aug 2017
  • Interesting read related to how all this came out.  Not sure I believe the line about Nutt not being interested in a pound of flesh from Freeze but an interesting read none the less.

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20145148/ole-miss-rebels-hugh-freeze-ouster-result-odd-pairing-houston-nutt-attorney-mississippi-state-bulldogs-writer
  • #44 by elviscat on 11 Aug 2017
  • Here is the competed response:ScribdExplore
    Search
    No search results.

    Enforcement Staff Reply - Redacted
    Uploaded by mtjrolemiss
    Related Interests
    Test (Assessment)SportsAct (Test)National Collegiate Athletic Association
    Rating and Stats
    4
    0
    22K views
    5/5 score
    Document Actions
    Download
    Save for Later
    Other Actions
    SHARE OR EMBED DOCUMENT
    Embed
    Description: NCAA Enforcement Staff's Reply - Redacted
    View More
    NCAA Enforcement Staff's Reply - Redacted
    Copyright: All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Recommended Documents
    Documents About Sports
    document
    Milwaukee Brewers 2013 Media Guide
    by jen_rogers295
    document
    2009 Miami Dolphins Media Guide
    by Miami Dolphins
    document
    HOSOI
    by Christian Hosoi
    More From mtjrolemiss
    document
    Errata and Replacement Page - Redacted
    by mtjrolemiss
    document
    2016 Noa w Boosters Visible
    by mtjrolemiss
    document
    COI Appearance Letter
    by mtjrolemiss

    You are on page 1of 117

    Screen Reader Compatibility Information

    Due to the method this document is displayed on the page, screen readers may not read the content correctly. For a better experience, please download the original document and view it in the native application on your computer.
     
     
    ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY The University of Mississippi Case No. 00561 July 21, 2017
    I. INTRODUCTION
    This portion of the case includes 21 alleged violations in the institution's football program that occurred over approximately five and a half years between May 2010 and January 2016. The NCAA enforcement staff identified 15 of the allegations as Level I, one allegation as Level II and five allegations as Level III. The facts uncovered during a fair and thorough investigation substantiated numerous violations and revealed a culture of noncompliance infecting the football program, both internally among personnel and externally among boosters. The allegations include ACT exam fraud; the provision of substantial extra benefits and recruiting inducements, including cash payments; and a range of improper recruiting tactics and booster misconduct. Another significant factor in this case was that football personnel committed serious violations while the investigation was ongoing. Many of the facts surrounding the underlying violations are uncontroverted. The scope and nature of violations also demonstrate that Hugh Freeze (Freeze), head football coach, failed to satisfy the responsibilities of a head coach and the institution failed to monitor and exercise control over its athletics program. The football investigation was lengthy and processing this portion of the case was delayed multiple times as the enforcement staff and institution periodically received new information of additional allegations. On January 22, 2016, the enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations in Case No. 189693 that contained 13 football allegations and 15 allegations involving the women's basketball and track and field programs. On June 8, 2016, the enforcement staff withdrew the football charges after receiving information six weeks prior of additional violations in the football program that required time to investigate. The nonfootball allegations were bifurcated over the institution's objection. On July 25, 2016, a hearing  panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions heard Case No. 189693 involving women's
     
    ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY Case No. 00561 July 21, 2017 Page No. 2  basketball and track and field.
    1
     On February 22, 2017, the enforcement staff reissued in this case the original 13 football allegations and eight more that stem primarily from new information the enforcement staff and institution investigated over the last year. The enforcement staff acknowledges the institution's cooperation and assistance with the investigation, including its efforts in uncovering factual information that substantiated violations.
    II. ALLEGATION NO. 1 Between May and June 2010, David Saunders (Saunders), then administrative operations coordinator for football, and Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), then assistant football coach and recruiting coordinator, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when they engaged in fraudulence or misconduct in connection with the June 2010 ACT exams of three then football prospective student-athletes. The fraudulent exam scores allowed the three then prospects to satisfy NCAA initial-eligibility academic requirements.
    [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(h) (2009-10); 14.1.2, 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.5 (2010-11); 14.11.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13); and 14.10.1 (2013-14)]
     A. Overview.
    The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred. Vaughn denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in the alleged violations. Saunders did not submit a response but denied knowledge of and/or involvement in the alleged violations in his two interviews.
    B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I [NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individuals are in agreement.
    The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 1 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I). Vaughn's and Saunders' actions were intentional and/or showed reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws and provided, or were intended to provide, a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage. Additionally, Vaughn's and Saunders' actions constituted unethical conduct, a presumptive Level I violation, and seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of
    1
     Infractions Decision No. 460.

     
    ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY Case No. 00561 July 21, 2017 Page No. 3 the NCAA Collegiate Model. Their actions also showed a disturbing willingness to jeopardize prospects'  best interests to obtain a compettive advantage. The institution agrees the alleged violations are Level I. Vaughn did not address level in his response and Saunders did not submit a response.
    C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.
    1.
     
    Origin of the allegation. The investigation of this matter began with the September 26, 2013, interview of former football student-athlete and then football student-athlete at the The enforcement staff arranged interview to discuss matters related to Allegation No. 2; however, unexpectedly reported information indicating that Vaughn and Saunders engaged in ACT exam fraud to benefit him and . The ensuing investigation uncovered information corroborating report and also generated a separate infractions case involving Saunders committing similar ACT exam fraud at another institution.
    2
     2.
     
    Background information. Saunders coached and recruited in Mississippi for many years, developed a large network in the state and created a program to help prospects navigate the initial-eligibility process.
    3
     He had multiple stints at the institution during his career, the last being between April and December 2010, during which he was responsible for guiding prospects and coaches on the initial-eligibility process and facilitating prospects' admission to the institution.
    4
    He served in this role for seven months before accepting a coaching position at another institution.
    5
     
    2
     Infractions Decision No. 435.
    3
     FI113, Page Nos. 54 and 56. See NCAA-2 for the files names of FIs referenced in footnotes.
    4
     FI113, Page Nos. 9, 10, 14, 20, 45 and 52 through 54; and FI142, Page Nos. 3 through 5, 8 and 16.
    5
     FI113, Page No. 12.

    Recommended Documents
    Documents About Sports

    document
    Milwaukee Brewers 2013 Media Guide
    document
    2009 Miami Dolphins Media Guide
    document
    HOSOI
    document
    NFL Deflategate appeal
    document
    The DTH presents the 2014-15 Basketball Tab
    document
    Black Tenting Entry Test 2017
    document
    Fitness Guide 62-65
    document
    Kluwe Investigation
    document
    Proposed MMA judging criteria
    document
    Fitness Guide 50-53
    document
    2015 SF Giants Media Guide
    document
    Complaint
    document
    The Daily Tar Heel Football Preview for 2014 Season
    document
    2010 Dispatch Sports Review
    document
    Golfing - The Santa Fe New Mexican
    document
    High School Baseball All-Stars 2010
    document
    CU uses fake depth chart to troll Michigan
    document
    High School Football Preview 2012
    document
    High School Football Preview 2011
    document
    Justice Mudgal's Ipl Probe Committee Report Final Feb 9 (Final Submitted to Court, Locked) (1)
    document
    MLB letter to Joe Tacopina
    document
    Star Advertiser 2010 Football Preview
    document
    Deflate-Gate Investigation
    document
    Early Look at Jays' Starting Nine
    document
    2012 All-State Softball Teams and MVPs
    document
    Now I Can Die in Peace by Bill Simmons (Excerpt)
    document
    2013 NCAA tournament bracket
    document
    2012 Utah All-State boys' basketball teams
    document
    2010 Toronto Star high school basketball all-stars
    document
    Iowa NCAA violations
    carousel next
    More From mtjrolemiss

    document
    Errata and Replacement Page - Redacted
    document
    2016 Noa w Boosters Visible
    document
    COI Appearance Letter
    document
    Case Summary - Redacted
    document
    2017 NOA With Boosters 12 and 14 Redacted
    document
    2017 NOA RESPONSE With Boosters 12 and 14 Redacted
    document
    2016 Response w Boosters Visible
    document
    Ole Miss Response to NCAA Notice of Allegations
    document
    2017 Notice of Allegations (Redacted)
    document
    University of Mississippi Athletics Compliance Assessment
    document
    2016 University of Mississippi Response to NOA (Redacted)
    document
    2017 University of Mississippi Response to NOA (Redacted)
    document
    NCAA Notice of Allegations - Ole Miss
    document
    2016 University of Mississippi Notice of Allegations (NOA)
    carousel next
    Footer Menu
    ABOUT
    About Scribd
    Press
    Our blog
    Join our team!
    Contact Us
    Join today
    Invite Friends
    Gifts
    LEGAL
    Terms
    Privacy
    Copyright
    SUPPORT
    Help / FAQ
    Accessibility
    Purchase help
    AdChoices
    Publishers
    Social Media
    Scribd - Download on the App StoreScribd - Get it on Google Play
    Copyright 2017 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Mobile Site.Site Directory.Site Language:
    English
    Sign up to vote on this title
    UsefulNot useful
  • #45 by sowmonella on 11 Aug 2017
  • Thanks Elviscat. That certainly cleared it all up.
  • #46 by ricepig on 11 Aug 2017
  • Thanks Elviscat. That certainly cleared it all up.

    How did you vote on the title?
  • #47 by sowmonella on 11 Aug 2017
  • How did you vote on the title?
    Present.
  • #48 by tusksincolorado on 11 Aug 2017
  • No way

    Just wishful thinking...I want to have this happen so Barner will have something to think about going forward!
  • #49 by AP85 on 11 Aug 2017
  • Nothing will happen here
  • #50 by FraggleHog on 11 Aug 2017
  • Nothing will happen here

    They don't just slap down the "lack of institutional control" label and not do anything
Pages:
Actions