Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:06 pm to 1999
So nothing new from Tunsil draft night...That just reopened the case so they could investigate other shite they didn't find in the first NOA.
Dammit whoever dropped that shite.
Dammit whoever dropped that shite.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:06 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:
NCAA usually allows players to play immediately after transferring from messes like this.
I'm not sure they do for a self-imposed ban.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:06 pm to JustGetItRight
Tell them to prove that money was involved and if they can't, sue them for costing the university millions of dollars with no hard proof
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:08 pm to VOLcano
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:09 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Tell them to prove that money was involved and if they can't, sue them for costing the university millions of dollars with no hard proof
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:09 pm to Henry Jones Jr
Um. The NCAA usually has its hands in the air because of no proof. I've got some bad news for you re: proof if they're hitting you with LOIC.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:10 pm to VOLcano
?@BryanDFischer
Based on penalty structure, Hugh Freeze could miss from a 1/3 to a full season of games given his Level I charge.
Based on penalty structure, Hugh Freeze could miss from a 1/3 to a full season of games given his Level I charge.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:11 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Tell them to prove that money was involved and if they can't, sue them for costing the university millions of dollars with no hard proof
Ole Miss recruiting well should be proof enough.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:11 pm to Cowbells
quote:
Based on penalty structure, Hugh Freeze could miss from a 1/3 to a full season of games given his Level I charge.
Translation: he better dust off the out of bounds plays for JV girls basketball
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:12 pm to JustGetItRight
1. The first allegation – it is alleged that a prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete A) went hunting near campus on private land owned by a booster during his official visit in 2013 and on two or three occasions after he enrolled, and that the access to this land was arranged by the football program. This has been alleged as a Level III violation.
2. The second allegation – it is alleged that between March 2014 and January 2015, a former staff member (Former Staff Member A) impermissibly arranged for recruiting inducements in the form of lodging and transportation for one prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete B) (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions on several visits to campus and for the impermissible transportation of another prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete C) on one occasion. The total value of the lodging and/or transportation between the two prospective student-athletes is alleged to be $2,272. It is also alleged that the football program provided approximately $235 in free meals to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and Prospective Student-Athlete C and the friends of Prospective Student-Athlete B during recruiting visits in this same timeframe. The allegation is alleged as a Level I violation.
3. Third, it is alleged that Former Staff Member A violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly committed NCAA recruiting violations between March 2014 and February 2015 and when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the institution and enforcement staff in 2016. This is charged as a Level I violation.
In the fourth allegation, we agree that evidence exists to support some – but not all – of the events alleged.
4. In the fourth allegation, it is alleged that between April 2014 and February 2015, Former Staff Member A initiated and facilitated two boosters having impermissible contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). It is further alleged that these two boosters provided Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) with impermissible cash payments during that timeframe and that Former Staff Member A knew about the cash payments. The value of the alleged inducements according to the NCAA is between $13,000 and $15,600. This is charged as a Level I violation.
The university believes there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to conclude that the impermissible contact outlined in the fourth allegation occurred. However, we are still evaluating whether there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to support the alleged payments and will make that determination over the course of the next 90 days.
Setting aside those four allegations, the university will contest the following allegations in full:
5. Allegation number five – It is alleged that one former staff member (Former Staff Member B) arranged for a friend of the family of Prospective Student-Athlete D to receive impermissible merchandise from a store owned by a booster on one occasion in 2013 and that Former Staff Member A arranged for Prospective Student-Athletes B and E (both student-athletes enrolled at another institution) to receive merchandise in 2014, 15, and 16. The value of the alleged impermissible recruiting inducements is approximately $2,800 and is charged as a Level I violation.
6. Number six – It is alleged and we will contest that, in 2014 a current football coach had impermissible, in-person, off-campus contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). This allegation is charged as a Level III violation.
7. Allegation seven – It is alleged that a booster provided money, food and drinks to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions at the booster’s restaurant on two-to-three unspecified dates between March 2014 and January 2015. The value of the alleged inducements is between $200 and $600. This allegation is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.
8. Another Allegation that we will contest is number eight – It is alleged that the head football coach violated head coach responsibility legislation. This allegation is not based upon personal involvement in violations by Coach Freeze but because he is presumed responsible for the allegation involving his staff that occurred between October 2012 and January 2016. Although we disagree, according to the NCAA, Coach Freeze has not rebutted the presumption that he is responsible for his staff’s actions. This is charged as a Level I violation.
9. Finally, allegation nine – It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations demonstrate that the university lacked institutional control and failed to monitor the conduct and administration of its athletics program. This charge replaces the more limited failure to monitor charge in the January 2016 Notice of Allegations. This is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.
It's a lot, but I bolded all the significant info.
2. The second allegation – it is alleged that between March 2014 and January 2015, a former staff member (Former Staff Member A) impermissibly arranged for recruiting inducements in the form of lodging and transportation for one prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete B) (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions on several visits to campus and for the impermissible transportation of another prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete C) on one occasion. The total value of the lodging and/or transportation between the two prospective student-athletes is alleged to be $2,272. It is also alleged that the football program provided approximately $235 in free meals to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and Prospective Student-Athlete C and the friends of Prospective Student-Athlete B during recruiting visits in this same timeframe. The allegation is alleged as a Level I violation.
3. Third, it is alleged that Former Staff Member A violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly committed NCAA recruiting violations between March 2014 and February 2015 and when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the institution and enforcement staff in 2016. This is charged as a Level I violation.
In the fourth allegation, we agree that evidence exists to support some – but not all – of the events alleged.
4. In the fourth allegation, it is alleged that between April 2014 and February 2015, Former Staff Member A initiated and facilitated two boosters having impermissible contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). It is further alleged that these two boosters provided Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) with impermissible cash payments during that timeframe and that Former Staff Member A knew about the cash payments. The value of the alleged inducements according to the NCAA is between $13,000 and $15,600. This is charged as a Level I violation.
The university believes there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to conclude that the impermissible contact outlined in the fourth allegation occurred. However, we are still evaluating whether there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to support the alleged payments and will make that determination over the course of the next 90 days.
Setting aside those four allegations, the university will contest the following allegations in full:
5. Allegation number five – It is alleged that one former staff member (Former Staff Member B) arranged for a friend of the family of Prospective Student-Athlete D to receive impermissible merchandise from a store owned by a booster on one occasion in 2013 and that Former Staff Member A arranged for Prospective Student-Athletes B and E (both student-athletes enrolled at another institution) to receive merchandise in 2014, 15, and 16. The value of the alleged impermissible recruiting inducements is approximately $2,800 and is charged as a Level I violation.
6. Number six – It is alleged and we will contest that, in 2014 a current football coach had impermissible, in-person, off-campus contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). This allegation is charged as a Level III violation.
7. Allegation seven – It is alleged that a booster provided money, food and drinks to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions at the booster’s restaurant on two-to-three unspecified dates between March 2014 and January 2015. The value of the alleged inducements is between $200 and $600. This allegation is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.
8. Another Allegation that we will contest is number eight – It is alleged that the head football coach violated head coach responsibility legislation. This allegation is not based upon personal involvement in violations by Coach Freeze but because he is presumed responsible for the allegation involving his staff that occurred between October 2012 and January 2016. Although we disagree, according to the NCAA, Coach Freeze has not rebutted the presumption that he is responsible for his staff’s actions. This is charged as a Level I violation.
9. Finally, allegation nine – It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations demonstrate that the university lacked institutional control and failed to monitor the conduct and administration of its athletics program. This charge replaces the more limited failure to monitor charge in the January 2016 Notice of Allegations. This is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.
It's a lot, but I bolded all the significant info.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:13 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
Has there ever been a coach that has got to stay if their team got a one year bowl ban?
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:14 pm to Cowbells
Well, at least we have a baseline. Money forfeit and a single year of bowl ban. I'm guessing the NCAA would impose three years so they settle at two to encourage schools to be proactive.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:14 pm to UMRealist
Ole Miss has to clean house with Freeze and Bjork both being gone. Bjork was terrible at handling this investigation.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:16 pm to GreyReb
quote:
Bowls are shite now tim the Final Four in place. Watch us win the West the one year we can't actually go to Atlanta.
SEC rules are that Ole Miss imposing a bowl ban means they will forfeit post season revenue, about $7.8 million.
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:17 pm to sicboy
quote:
Keep in mind: Ole Miss will fight these charges. That said, sources told @RebelGrove in January the NCAA investigators want major penalties.
The question is what's major?
3 year postseason ban?
Loss of like 15-20 scholarships over 3-4 years?
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:18 pm to rich4pres
quote:
Has there ever been a coach that has got to stay if their team got a one year bowl ban?
It's usually two years (Ohio State got off lucky).
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:19 pm to rockiee
quote:
Ya but it is unlikely that the NCAA is not going to tack more on
This is NOTHING against Ole Miss but if they nab a school for lack of institutional control and only give the bowl ban then the NCAA need to disband asap.
This post was edited on 2/22/17 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:20 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:Probably 2 if I had to guess.
3 year postseason ban?
quote:add on 3 years and 15 scholarships to the penalties we already have.
Loss of like 15-20 scholarships over 3-4 years?
Posted on 2/22/17 at 4:20 pm to thunderbird1100
quote:
Loss of like 15-20 scholarships over 3-4 years?
That's the elephant in the room (hush, Gumps, for once we're not talking about you.) I can't remember a school ever self-imposing a significant scholarship hit (and for good reason, that kills a program much worse than bowl bans) but the NCAA is going to have its own ideas. As usual.
Page 2 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News