Ole Miss football fans didn’t have to wait too far past the 90 days response period to get what we knew was coming. On Tuesday afternoon, the University of Mississippi officially released their response to the NCAA and the Notice of Allegations which was delivered in late February.
Tuesday afternoon might have well been just another day for many Ole Miss football fans. By today, many of us had surmised what was going to happen. The University was going to fight many of the allegations. It wasn’t so much as what we knew was going to happen today actually happened. The excitement is that it actually finally happened.
The NOA response is just a part of the procedure. A formality within the entire process. Like many other Ole Miss football fans, I have been ready for this whole thing to be over with since day one. However the fiasco has gone on for 4+ years and left us with nothing but more questions. Of course, this leaves us waiting again and Like Tom Petty says, “The waiting is the hardest part.”
Now, the University of Mississippi has released their official response. The official response basically details, with names redacted, what they had already told us on February 22, 2017. The response also gives us more waiting time. Within 60 days the NCAA Committee On Infractions will deliver their determination. Then we will know just how hard the Ole Miss football program will be strong-armed by the NCAA.
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"
Deeper Than Self-imposed Sanctions
The introduction goes on to say the University of Mississippi disagrees with the interpretation of some evidence. It also disagrees with the sufficiency of some evidence by the NCAA enforcement staff. The lengthy introduction goes on to address the most important issues within the amended NOA. These are lack of institutional control and head coach responsibility.
The response contends the University of Mississippi had satisfied its obligation to the NCAA as an institution based on specific compliance measures which were in place and used properly within this investigation. And of course, the University of Mississippi once again stands behind its football coach. As cited from the response itself,
"after careful analysis of the testimony and supporting records, the University has concluded that head football coach Hugh Freeze has met it and membership’s expectations to emphasize and promote compliance and to implement strong and comprehensive monitoring. ~Response To NOA"
These two allegations are obviously the most serious and are getting the response many Ole Miss football fans imagined. However, there are also other allegations which the University has hard-lined against as well. Allegations No.9, No.12, No.14, No.15 and allegation No.16 are also being contested by Ole Miss. As stated within the introduction these allegations,
"either lack the sufficient level of credible and persuasive support necessary for the Committee to find a violation under the Bylaw 19.7.8.3 evidentiary standard or are contradicted by the objective and verifiable evidence. ~Response to NOA"
After the staunch position we saw in the NCAA Update in February many Rebel fans were finally happy Happy to see somebody, anybody, our administration stand up to the NCAA.
Here’s Your Sign
These allegations revolve around a player known as ‘Student-Athlete No.39’ within and throughout the response. Student-Athlete No.39 was a former OM recruit and is now a player for ‘Institution No.10’ Through deductive reasoning we can figure out who this player is. Actually, if you don’t know then you’ve been living under a rock.
It seems there are concerns in S-A No.39’s interviews. The first of which was done without the knowledge of the University of Mississippi. The University was allowed to attend the second interview. However instructed by counsel, S-A No.39 refused to answer any questions by UM representatives. During this interview enforcement officials did not require Student Athlete No.39 to answer any UM questions.
The University of Mississippi was barred from taking part or even ‘listening in’ on the third and final interview. At this point a request was made for a limited interview which was denied by Institution No.10 and Head Coach No.1. Convenient isn’t it?
This investigation has been shady from the start. Enforcement officials have now allowed other individuals to impede the University of Mississippi’s investigatory efforts. Of course, you can’t expect any institution to cooperate on their on. However, I do believe it is the NCAA’s absolute responsibility to investigate the entire scope of the case. All parties involved should have proper access to interviews with individuals within the case. Interviews? Oh this is where it gets good.
Allegation No.9 Part B
Allegation No.9 contains several parts. However, Part B of Allegation No.9 is the most amusing in my opinion. It contends S-A No.39 received free merchandise from a business in Oxford. The UM response pokes holes thru this allegation based on a number of key points.
One, in different interviews S-A No.39 couldn’t keep the same story. S-A No.39 never saw or held a $400 ‘gift’ card in one interview. In another interview he was given the card and saw 400 on it. He picked out his merchandise and gave the card to the clerk. Oops.
Ole Miss Rebels Football
Two, the business in question never received a card valued over $250 within the dates in question. Three, S-A No.39 claimed once he gathered his chosen merchandise and gave the clerk his card. The clerk then rang up the merchandise and removed anti-theft devices.
Said business has never used any such type of anti-theft device on any of its merchandise. Oops. Gosh I hope he can cover the middle of the field better than his own butt.
Fourth, and my personal favorite. On the visit in question when Booster No.8 gave S-A No.39 free merchandise, S-A No.39 wasn’t alone. He was accompanied by Family-Member No.11, Family-Member No.12 and S-A No.46.
During interviews none of these persons could corroborate his story. None of his accompanying party had memory of him ever having any merchandise as described. Just wow! Even Rosetroll couldn’t make this up. Your own family can’t or won’t back your story? Yup, you messed up. Here’s your sign.
Student-Athlete No.40
As complicated as this whole investigation has been, the response is just as complicated. At this point I want to introduce you to ‘Student-Athlete No.40’. He enters this investigation in Allegation No.9 which basically surrounds Booster No.8 and his business in Oxford. Allegation No.9 Part C contends S-A No.40 obtained free merchandise from Booster No.8’s place of business.
Once again, the story has a similar script. However, S-A No.40 received a $500 dollar gift card. Guess he thinks he is worth more. Anyway, S-A No.40 took $500 of free merchandise from Booster No.8 within his place of business. Although there were purchases made during this time frame which exceeded $300, none can be credited to S-A No.40.
Also, High School Coach No.1 who provided most of said transportation to and from Oxford for S-A No. 40 disproves this accusation. As stated within the response,
"[Student-Athlete 40] never received (or purchased) any items from [Booster 8] – save a baseball cap and shirt [High School Coach 1] purchased for him – on any of their trips. ~Response To NOA"
That’s pretty damning evidence when your own high school football coaches basically says you lied. Once again the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations case has obvious holes. It seems the expert investigators of the NCAA left a few stones un-turned in their investigation. I believe this was not a simple oversight but more an act of indifference by investigators.
Once again, failure to properly perform their duties as NCAA investigators helped to omit extremely important evidence in the case. It would seem appropriate to interview a student-athlete’s main mode of transportation to and from Oxford. Especially when that mode of travel is said student-athlete’s high school football coach. Perhaps they didn’t care or just figured they had what they needed. Who knows? They certainly know.
More From Student-Athlete No.40
Of course there is more. As I’ve said before, there is always more to the story. In this case S-A No.40 stated “probably everybody” on his official visit received merchandise from Booster No.8 within his place of business. The University’s investigation once again obliterates S-A No.40’s false claims. During University of Mississippi’s investigation into these allegations, the response states,
"Fifteen former and current student-athletes and parents were asked about [Booster 8] over the course of this investigation and uniformly denied anything improper occurred. ~Response To NOA"
Of course, of those 15 interviews 4 subjects are associated with Institution 10. Student Athletes No.42 and No.46 and Family Members 11 and 12, are all currently associated with Institution 10. Finally the only other subject which made claims towards Booster No.8 was Family Member 1.
The University concluded the response with their firm stance Allegation No.9 should be dismissed in its entirety. The NCAA originally dismissed the statements of S-A No.40 and Family Member 1.
Of course, this raises questions about Student-Athletes No.39 and No.40 and how their testimony matches so closely and points to nothing but themselves falsifying information while under immunity.
Related Story: Is There More At Play Here?
Of course there are consequences a student-athlete will face once it is proven they lied to the NCAA. However, the response and the deceit contained within leave us with a couple of questions. How does it affect Institution 10 and what role did Head Coach No.1 play in the whole farce?
One thing is certain. There is always more to the story. I’m still reading the official response so there will be more to come. Stay tuned for Part 2 coming very soon.