Allegation #8 Head Coaches Responsibility

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

I think folks are overlooking an important sentence and part of this allegation.

Bjork...."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."


The Meriam-Webster dictionary defines rebutted, or rebut, as

-to contradict or oppose by formal legal argument, plea, or countervailing proof. Remember that word, you will see it again.


So what are people overlooking and exactly what does this mean for Freeze?

First you have to look at NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 itself, which states that a head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. The head coach will be held accountable for violations in the program unless he or she can rebut the presumption of responsibility.

Before the NCAA imposes an allegation that the head coach did not promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor the activities of his or her staff, the NCAA has to investigate the violation, substantiate that a violation did occur, substantiate that a member of the athletics staff was involved and then decide whether the bylaw is appropriate to involve the head coach.

In making this decision, the enforcement staff will consider all the facts, as well as information provided by the head coach and his counsel. Read that sentence again...

So before the enforcement staff includes this allegation in the NOA, they have already talked to the head coach about the allegation and given him an opportunity to provide information to "rebut" the allegation.

So when Bjork says they are going to fight this allegation, he really means that Freeze will try AGAIN to rebut it. They've done it once and it wasn't enough for them to take it out. You don't really think they're going to do it the second time around do you? And here's something else to think about...the COI will hear the second rebuttal from Freeze. But they already know the enforcement staff has heard all the facts and heard Freeze's first rebuttal and still left it in the NOA.

So what's next?

If the COI concludes that Freeze DID NOT satisfy his head coach responsibility obligations and did not promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor the activities of his or her staff, the following could happen....

Freeze could receive a show-cause and be suspended for up to an entire season for Level I violations and up to half of a season for Level II violations. The length of the suspension is determined by the Committee on Infractions and depends on the severity of the violation(s) committed, the level of the coach?s involvement and any other aggravating or mitigating factors identified in Bylaw 19.9.

...the level of the coach's involvement....wasn't HEY HUGH named in the first NOA as taking a booster on a recruiting trip with him? ....up to a season for level 1 violations and depending on their severity....how many did they have? 15 or so, I think. ...How severe? Did I read the number 15,000 with a $ sign in front of it? .....exactly how many coaches were involved in the first NOA? I think I remember about 4 names. And I'm not sure any of those were who Bjork was talking about today when he said, "We have concluded that a recently terminated staff member was personally involved in Level I violations while he was employed by our program". A recently terminated staff member represents "1" to me. Seems to me there were several more involved.

So, in conclusion, I think ole Hugh is up shit creek if you ask me.

Sorry...meant to link this if you were interested where my info came from.

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/fi...s-20160208.pdf

[EngDawg]

A few more weeks collecting their considerable salarys. That's all Hugh, Bjork, and co. can look forward to at this point.

[TrapGame]

If Freeze was under a court martial this would be dereliction of duty.

[Thick]

Really good post with good research too. I don't see how he could possibly survive this, but I really don't understand why OM woukd waste their time and resources on a HC that is now damaged goods to say the least.

[Maroon Wizardry]

If freeze were on the board of directors or was a CEO of a company he would go to bowtie prison

[Perpetual Underachiever]

I think folks are overlooking an important sentence and part of this allegation.

Bjork...."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."

Incredible catch by you, but I interpret it a little differently. What I get from it is that the University disputes the charge, but Freeze does not...Making it appear the University has his back, while setting him up perfectly to become the sacrificial lamb he has always wanted to be. This would honestly be a brilliant move by the university. It builds trust with future head coach candidates by showing that the University will stand behind their man, and it gives Freeze his ideal out.

Am I misreading something?

[blacklistedbully]

I think y'all are reading too much into this. Bjork clearly states, "according to the NCAA" Freeze did not rebut. The actual definition of rebut includes, "prove that an accusation is false". And he goes on to say they are looking forward to having another chance to "rebut" that allegation in front of the COI.

To me, that's just Bjork saying the NCAA investigators didn't accept what Freeze said, so they, along with Freeze will try again when they have that COI hearing. Don't think there's anything Machiavellian in that statement.

[Mjoelner34]

http://gridironnow.com/hugh-freezes-...nged-ole-miss/

Funny how he was on top of things and in charge before becoming Sgt. Schultz.

“I have to set the tone. My assistants follow. And we all follow the plan I created for recruiting. We do not deviate."

[Perpetual Underachiever]

I think y'all are reading too much into this. Bjork clearly states, "according to the NCAA" Freeze did not rebut. The actual definition of rebut includes, "prove that an accusation is false". And he goes on to say they are looking forward to having another chance to "rebut" that allegation in front of the COI.

To me, that's just Bjork saying the NCAA investigators didn't accept what Freeze said, so they, along with Freeze will try again when they have that COI hearing. Don't think there's anything Machiavellian in that statement.

FINE. I might as well take this off now...



I still think this would be their best move. Publicly show support of your coach through the appeals process, with both parties fully aware that he will be taking the fall eventually.

[Jack Lambert]

If Freeze was under a court martial this would be dereliction of duty.

But he wants us to think he was just Authorize Absence which falls under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Basically a slap on the wrist.

[smootness]

Freeze is absolutely done. That is pretty obvious.

[Boodawg]

OM is just waiting for the Show Cause so they don't have to pay Hugh Freeze his buyout. Maybe?

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

OM is just waiting for the Show Cause so they don't have to pay Hugh Freeze his buyout. Maybe?

This....plus how do you fight the LOIC if you fire your head coach? Doesn't firing your head coach qualify as admitting guilt? Vitter and Bjork are waiting on the NCAA to give them no other choice but to fire him.

[fader2103]

In Hugh's contract Cause for termination is " any material violation by Employee of any law, regulation, rule, bylaw, policy or constitutional provision of the United States, State of Mississippi, IHL, the University, THE NCAA, The sec or other athletic conference including any such violation that may have occurred prior to Employee's employment with the University. that in the reasonable and good faith judgement of the University reflects adversely upon the University or its Athletic Program.


This mean UM or the IHL could terminate freeze without paying the rest of his contract.

[starkvegasdawg]

http://gridironnow.com/hugh-freezes-...nged-ole-miss/

Funny how he was on top of things and in charge before becoming Sgt. Schultz.

“I have to set the tone. My assistants follow. And we all follow the plan I created for recruiting. We do not deviate."

Hey Hugh!

[blacklistedbully]

In Hugh's contract Cause for termination is " any material violation by Employee of any law, regulation, rule, bylaw, policy or constitutional provision of the United States, State of Mississippi, IHL, the University, THE NCAA, The sec or other athletic conference including any such violation that may have occurred prior to Employee's employment with the University. that in the reasonable and good faith judgement of the University reflects adversely upon the University or its Athletic Program.


This mean UM or the IHL could terminate freeze without paying the rest of his contract.

But Hugh knows where all the bodies are buried. The Network will take care of him.

[Jack Lambert]

In Hugh's contract Cause for termination is " any material violation by Employee of any law, regulation, rule, bylaw, policy or constitutional provision of the United States, State of Mississippi, IHL, the University, THE NCAA, The sec or other athletic conference including any such violation that may have occurred prior to Employee's employment with the University. that in the reasonable and good faith judgement of the University reflects adversely upon the University or its Athletic Program.


This mean UM or the IHL could terminate freeze without paying the rest of his contract.

I doubt it. They hired him to cheat.

[NYDawg]

Yeah, I don't see any way that Freeze can seriously argue that he "promoted an atmosphere of compliance and monitored the activities of his or her staff," when Barney was caught dead to rights...so much so that OM isn't even going to bother contesting the charges against him. Barney wasn't some rogue booster or work study student who had zero contact with Freeze; he was his right-hand-man when it came to recruiting, and he's the one staffer that Hugh regularly credited for their classes on signing day.

[Mimi's Babies]

Incredible catch by you, but I interpret it a little differently. What I get from it is that the University disputes the charge, but Freeze does not...Making it appear the University has his back, while setting him up perfectly to become the sacrificial lamb he has always wanted to be. This would honestly be a brilliant move by the university. It builds trust with future head coach candidates by showing that the University will stand behind their man, and it gives Freeze his ideal out.

Am I misreading something?

Every employer IS responsible for the actions for his/her employers.....

[Mimi's Babies]

I doubt it. They hired him to cheat.

How much of this mess was going on when Freeze was at OM the 1st time.