Yet, there are instances in which the University disagrees with the enforcement staff?s interpretation of the evidence or its sufficiency. Most importantly, the University contests the allegations concerning institutional control and head coach responsibility (Allegations Nos. 20-21). The University has consistently satisfied each of the four pillars of institutional control:
(1) "adequate compliance measures exist";
(2) "they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them";
(3) "they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed"; and
(4) "on learning of a violation, the institution takes swift action."
The above statement is the cornerstone upon which the rest of the 100+ pages of BS is built. This is everything, this is their final stand and there only hope at saving Freeze, Bjork, the Football program, and the integrity of their athletic department as a whole. They are #ALLIN on the fact that they can prove the above statement to the COI, knowing that if they can not, everything that they have built, from the restructuring of the leadership of their university to the formation of the Network and the self conceived idea that OM Football is a National Power, will come crashing down like a house of cards. They are using these pillars to hold up their House of Cards, unfortunately, they have failed to understand just how cracked, weathered, and poorly built these pillars truly are. Let's peel back the multiple layers of duct tape they have covering and "protecting" these pillars, one piece at a time, until it is clear that they have already internally crumbled to a fine dust, just waiting to collapse with a final crushing blow from the hands of the COI.
The Lie: "The University has CONSISTENTLY SATISFIED EACH of the four pillars of institutional control."
-3 words: consistently, satisfied, each... these 3 words should be highlighted, defined, and understood by all before we can go any further. Oxford Dictionaries defines these 3 words as:
1. consistently- "in every case or on every occasion; invariably"
2. satisfied- "adequately meet or comply with"
3. each- "to, for or by every one of a group"
-Now that we have a better understanding of these words, let's rephrase the lie.
The Lie(repharased): "The University, in every case and on every occasion, has adequately met and complied with every single one of the four pillars of institutional control."
Well, when you put it that way, the University is claiming that not once have they violated any of the four pillars of institutional control. With that said, let's look at the 4 pillars, and determine through the NOA, exactly as the COI will, if they have violated any or all of these four pillars. We will do it, mostly, through one allegation, Allegation #20, the Freeze is 17ed allegation.
Remember, OM claims that they have adequately met and complied with each of the 4 pillars in EVERY CASE, well here are some cases that disagree.
Case I- From allegation 20(a), referencing allegation #5:
-"M. Harris failed to ensure that his and [Booster 2?s]recruiting activities complied with NCAA legislation. Additionally, Allegation No. 5 details other instances in which football staff members failed to ensure their activities concerning the recruitment of [Student-Athlete 8], [Student-Athlete 5], [Student-Athlete 6] and [Student-Athlete 7] complied with NCAA legislation. Lastly, Freeze at times knew of and witnessed these activities but failed to consult the athletics compliance office regarding whether the activities were permissible."
Case II- From allegation 20(b), referencing allegation #6
-"Freeze also acknowledged that he did not confirm with the assistant director or any other football staff member whether the video idea had been approved by the athletics compliance office. Further, the video activities were not clearly described on the official paid visit itineraries submitted to the athletics compliance office"
Case III- From Allegation 20(c), referencing allegation #7
-"Freeze was aware that [Student- Athlete 49] would be taken hunting during his official paid visit, but failed to confirm that the activity had been approved by the athletics compliance office. Additionally, [Student-Athlete 49's] hunting trip was not documented on the official paid visit paperwork submitted to the athletics compliance office."
Case IV- From Allegation 20(d), referencing allegation #8:
-"However, Kiffin provided the then assistant recruiting director with inaccurate information regarding these individuals' relationship to [Student-Athlete 1 ] while also arranging for them to receive free meals and hotel lodging. Further, these individuals were visible throughout [Student-Athlete 1's] visit and Kiffin and Freeze interacted with them multiple times. However, the football staff never consulted the athletics compliance office regarding whether providing the meals and lodging was permissible."
Case V- From Allegation 20(e), referencing allegation #9
-"These alleged violations (1) transpired over a three-year period, (2) occurred during marquee recruiting visits, (3) involved two elite then football prospective student-athletes and a then family member of another elite then football prospective student-athlete and (4) involved a popular store located near the institution owned by a representative of its athletics interests.
Case VI- From Allegation 20(f), referencing allegation #10
-"Regarding Allegation No. 10, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance within the football program. Kiffin provided [Student-Athlete 1] with two nights' lodging at his residence but failed to consult Freeze or the athletics compliance office regarding whether doing so was permissible. Additionally, [Student-Athlete 1] was an elite then football student-athlete and required greater monitoring.
Case VII- From Allegation 20(g), referencing allegation #12
-"Freeze made an impermissible, in-person recruiting contact of [Student-Athlete 39] during his junior year of high school, which is a well-known violation of NCAA legislation. Even though the recruiting contact lasted between five and 10 minutes, Freeze could have avoided it entirely and/or mitigated the length of the interaction. Additionally, Freeze should have immediately reported the matter to the athletics compliance office; however, he failed to take any of these steps."
Case VIII- From Allegation 20(h), referencing allegation #13:
-"Kiffin made an impermissible, in-person recruiting contact of then football prospective student-athletes [Student-Athlete 4] and [Student-Athlete 3] during their junior year of high school. Kiffin had multiple opportunities to avoid the impermissible contact and/or mitigate the length of the interaction. Additionally, he should have immediately reported the matter to Freeze and the athletics compliance office, but failed to take any of these steps."
Case IX- From Allegation 20(i), referencing allegation #14, #15, and #17a-b:
-"Additionally, Freeze (1) acknowledged that he suspected [Student-Athlete 39] was seeking impermissible inducements as a condition of his recruitment and (2) had reason to know at the time that Farrar was involving [Booster 13], a representative of the institution's athletics interests, in [Student-Athlete 39?s] recruitment as [Booster 13] was frequently present at football facilities and football-related activities surrounding [Student-Athlete 39?s] recruiting visits."
Case X- From Allegation 21(c), referencing allegation #19:
-"The violations detailed in Allegation No. 19 demonstrate that the institution failed to monitor the activities of the football program. In October 2014, the athletics compliance office learned that [Booster 3] had loaned a vehicle to then football student-athlete [Student-Athlete 1] but failed to adequately inquire into the circumstances surrounding [Student-Athlete 1's] acquisition and use of the vehicle to determine whether violations of NCAA legislation had occurred."
Case XI- From Allegation 21(a), referencing allegation #1,#2, #5-16, #17a-b:
-"The alleged violations involve multiple constituents of the football program, including football personnel, representatives of the institution's athletics interests, football student-athletes and football prospective student-athletes and their families, and include a range of misconduct. Additionally, the alleged violations transpired over several years, including during the NCAA enforcement staff's investigation. Further, the alleged violations included intentional, and at times secret, acts in violation of NCAA legislation, as well as recurring failures by football personnel to ascertain whether their actions were permissible."
Well, that's a whole lot of shit, but now that we have our references, let's go back to the pillars. Remember! OM said themselves in their response(this is why their response is so great! they have proved that it's all lies and they did nothing wrong!) that they adequately met and complied with each and every on of the four pillars on every occasion and in each case.
Pillar I: "adequate compliance measures exist"
-In cases I thru X, violations occurred that were of a repeating nature, and were not caught by the compliance department or relayed to the compliance department by a staff member.
-in case V, a violation occurred over a 3 year period, yet the compliance department did not catch the violations being committed by members of the staff and boosters of the university.
-in cases V, VI, violations involving elite student athletes occurred, which by NCAA law, require greater monitoring and over watch due to their elite status. The compliance department failed to catch these violations.
-in case X, the compliance department learned of a violation, but failed to monitor the situation and allowed the violation to continue to occur.
-in case XI, violations occurred over a span of multiple years, as well as during the ongoing investigation, yet they compliance department failed to stop the violations.
Pillar (2): "They are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be made aware of them":
-In cases I thru IX, violations occurred by staff or boosters, yet were not relayed to the compliance department to check if they fall within the realm of compliance, nor did the compliance department monitor and catch the violations so that they could relay to the staff that they were not within the realm of compliance.
-In case XI, recurring failures by football personnel to ascertain whether their actions were permissible, therefore they were not made aware of them by the compliance staff, nor was the compliance staff made aware of them by the football personnel.
Pillar (3): "they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed"
-This Pillar leans directly upon Pillars (1) and (2), and violations of this pillar can be found in all 11 cases. Because adequate compliance measures did not exist, and the violations were not allowed to be found and there fore appropriately conveyed to those who need to be made aware, it is obvious that the violations were not monitored to ensure that such measure were being followed.
-In fact, Case XI itself dismantles this pillar from it's foundation: "the alleged violations included intentional, and at times secret, acts in violation of NCAA legislation, as well as recurring failures by football personnel to ascertain whether their actions were permissible".... If they were being monitored, inentional violations of NCAA would not occur, neither would recurring failures by football personnel to ascertain whether their actions were permissible. If anything, these violations were being monitored, but in a way so that they would not as easily be caught by the NCAA.
Pillar (4): "On learning of a violation, the institution takes swift action":
-Case X alone destroys this Pillar, "In October 2014, the athletics compliance office learned that [Booster 3] had loaned a vehicle to then football student-athlete [Student-Athlete 1] but failed to adequately inquire into the circumstances surrounding [Student-Athlete 1's] acquisition and use of the vehicle to determine whether violations of NCAA legislation had occurred." The institution had learned of a violation, yet failed to adequately inquire into it, thus continuing to allow it. As we know, Tunsil was an elite athlete and required more monitoring, yet after the institution learned of his loaner cars, they not only stopped it, but allowed him to receive 2 new ones months after learning of the initial violation.
-In cases VII and VIII, Freeze and Kiffin both committed impermissible contact violations that are assumed by the NCAA to be known by all coaches, yet failed to immediately report the violation, or for that matter report them at all.
-In cases I, II, III, and IV, Freeze either directly witnessed or was directly made aware of violations, yet failed to report said violations to the compliance department.
-Barney Farrar and Chris Kiffin were both implicated in level 1 violations yet were allowed to coach the 2016 season for OM.
-Maurice Harris, Matt Luke, Derrick Nix and Hugh Freeze all have been implicated in Level 1 violations and still remain on staff at OM.
Never forget, with all of this public information, OM still claims that they adequately met and complied with each of the 4 pillars of institutional control in every case and on every occasion. I'll go out on a limb and make a few predictions, and I feel veryyyyy comfortable with all of them.
1. OM will fail in removing even one of the violations from the NOA, that means the LOI sticks, as does the Head Coach Responsibility.
2. The COI will laugh at their BS response, and punish OM even more for acting as if they have complied with NCAA rules outside of a few violations they could not have caught, and have exhibited exemplary cooperation. Exemplary cooperation does not exist in a 4 year investigation. Exemplary cooperation would mean that they turn everything over when the NCAA comes knocking, and then the NCAA could leave and both parties could move on with the penalties portion of the investigation. They have hid anything and everything they have thought they possibly could, stalled and deflected in every way possible, this is not exemplary cooperation, it's actually quite the opposite!
3. The case will not be ruled as Level-1 Standard against the institution as OM claims it should be in their response, it will be ruled level I-aggravated, the worse possible ruling in todays matrix.
4. OM will receive atleast 1-2 extra years of bowl ban.
5. OM will be on probation for at least 6 years.
6. The scholarship penalty will be absolutely no less than 30, and most likely closer to 40-45 over a 5-6 year period.
7. Once the COI rules, Hugh Freeze will never coach D1 football again. The suspension talks needs to stop, multi year show cause with baggage that he will never be able to shed. ATLEAST a 3 year show cause, probably double that.
7. The Network will reorganize, and unless the leadership at OM can put an end to it in the next 3-4 years, the Network will get caught again, and the DP will be staring them right in the face.
I've thoroughly enjoyed watching OM self destruct, lie after lie, looking more and more stupid, I've also thoroughly enjoyed trolling them while also speaking truth(yes, truth, just wait for the penalties to come out shit birds). They will say we are obsessed, that they wouldn't care if the tables were turned, because they are so much better than us it doesn't matter if we are in NCAA trouble, doesn't affect them. Well that's just another lie to add to the long list. Though they will never admit it, and laugh at this statement, the reason they are in this trouble is because we were kicking there ass and rubbing it in. They couldn't handle it, couldn't endure another day of it, so they went #ALLIN. They could not stand that we were better, and we were acting like it. The sad fact they are going to have to face when it's all said and done, recruiting rankings aside:
Hugh Freeze's Record at OM: 39-25
Mullen's Record in same period: 40-25
LOL at Ole Miss, you're judgement awaits.
