Ole Miss Football: UM Releases Official Response To NOA, Part I

Same Place, Different Time, But Details

Ole Miss Rebels Football

Honestly, pretty much the same place we were February 22 when we were updated by Chancellor Vitter, AD Bjork and Head Coach Hugh Freeze.

However, now we have a whole lot more paper to process while we wait. Plus the reading is very intriguing and very compelling. For Ole Miss football the revelations contained within surely strengthen their own case.

Along with the long response we obviously have certain aspects we can take away from the document. The devil is in the details. So let’s look at the details and see what we can gather from the whole document.

What We Know

First, the University’s official response is lengthy and very complicated. It is almost impossible to follow if you don’t have some healthy knowledge of the case. In effort to present the whole NOA in an informative and understandable format this will be Part 1 of a series of pieces. Each piece will focus on what I believe to be the most important observations.

Also, because of civil actions being taken by some parties named within the response, I will stick with the redacted version. Of course, you will be able to figure it out I promise. Part 1 is good but it gets better. Part 1 explains the introduction in part. It also details of who and what I believe to be the NCAA’s two main figures in trying to prove the most serious allegations. Those allegations target Ole Miss on lack of institutional control and head coach responsibility.

And So We Begin

The response is 125 total pages in length and very wordy. It includes an introduction which acknowledges ‘former’ staff wrongdoing and disassociation with ‘former’ boosters. These violations are deemed  to be “multiple, intentional acts of misconduct” within the first few lines.

The introduction goes on to express the seriousness of the violations. It also states the belief of UM the self-imposed sanctions offered by the University of Mississippi should be enough to satisfy the NCAA. As stated within the introduction itself,

"A postseason ban which necessitates the loss of nearly $8,000,000 in SEC revenue; a double-digit reduction of scholarships; a more-than 10 percent reduction in off-campus evaluation days in each of two years; a nearly 20 percent reduction in official visits; a more-than three month prohibition on unofficial visits; the refusal to grant a staff member’s request for a multi-year contract; the disassociation of involved boosters, including a prohibition on attending University home athletic events and a restriction on entering all athletic facilities; violation-specific rules education; and a $179,797 financial penalty. ~Response To NOA"