- 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.

ETA: Full credit goes to Spiderman's post on Elitedawgs

This post was edited on 8/12/17 at 5:10 pm