Ole Miss has received an amended notice of allegations stemming from a nearly four year long NCAA investigation. The school received a notice of allegations in January 2016 that had 13 charges related to the football program. The amended portion of the notice of allegations contains eight new charges, bringing the total to 21.
“Earlier today, our outside legal counsel received the university’s notice of allegations dealing with the football program,” Chancellor Jeff Vitter said in a YouTube video the school put up today.
Ross Bjork outlined the new allegations into three categories in the video:
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.
Ole Miss will forfeit a portion of its SEC postseason revenue, an amount totaling approximately $7.8 million. Among the new charges, the NCAA has charged Ole Miss with a lack of institutional control, a level one charge it will dispute. The school has announced a self-imposed bowl ban for the 2017 football season.
The school has 90 days to respond to this and Vitter said that will likely happen in late May.
Fans react:
So since #Olemiss is self imposing a bowl ban next year, can I get my student tickets cheaper?? #priorities
— Michael Bullock (@Mbullock77) February 22, 2017
Why do schools accused of cheating “self impose” sanctions prior to an appeal of innocence? Isn’t that clear admission of guilt? #OleMiss
— Michael Saks (@MichaelSaks) February 22, 2017
Starting to make sense how #OleMiss jumps from a mediocre program to a contender over night a few years ago…. #SEC @finebaum
— Alex Wiginton (@AlexWig) February 22, 2017
#OleMiss has been charged with the dreaded Lack of Institutional Control by the NCAA. The school said it will fight that charge.
— Bruce Feldman (@BruceFeldmanCFB) February 22, 2017
#OleMiss did one phenomenal job of making sure the 1 year ban came AFTER signing day. Kudos to the cheetahs on the grove for that.
— Keep Jimmy Buckets (@CJSOUSA14) February 22, 2017
Ole Miss is the perfect sacrificial lamb for what is ultimately a pretty hollow attempt by the NCAA to punish illicit recruiting practices.
— Eli Marger (@Eli_Marger) February 22, 2017
That’s the craziest part. Someone hacked Laremy tunsil’s twitter on draft night trying to hurt him but he prospered and Ole Miss came down
— Mark Allen (@mypostdemise) February 22, 2017
Our sources told us in January NCAA investigators want a two-year bowl ban and multiple show-causes on Ole Miss coaches.
— Neal McCready (@NealMcCready) February 22, 2017
The @NCAA investigation of Ole Miss football is the modern day Salem witch trials.
— William J. Fisher (@Fishissippi) February 22, 2017
Player supposedly takes money from Ole Miss. Then doesn’t sign with Ole Miss, wonder why that was ??
— Mitch Tidwell (@mtidwell14) February 22, 2017
Hugh Freeze: “Contrary to the allegations, I have strong record of promoting compliance & monitoring my staff.” #OleMiss
— Bruce Feldman (@BruceFeldmanCFB) February 22, 2017
Re: Ole Miss; total of $21,507 in impermissible benefits; Or, the rough equivalent of 4 days’ pay for Mark Emmert, @NCAA President
— Mark Woods (@mcwoods8) February 22, 2017
@ClayTravis So if a prospect takes money from Ole Miss and attends another school shouldn’t that other school be looked at? Just saying
— Nick James (@NickJam54531190) February 22, 2017
The university released a video providing an update on the NCAA case, which you can watch here. Further updates to this story are to come.
