Hugh Freeze is named in the NOA!

[1bigdawg]

There was another article that says, "while Freeze is not named in the NOA..." I get sooo tired of this BS.

This article says that Hugh Freeze was not named in the notice of allegations. That is not true according to the notice that Ole Miss published along with their response to the first NOA. In Violation 8, Freeze is mentioned in section e and j on pages 9 and 11 of the NOA, http://www.wcbi.com/wcbi/wp-content/...ed-5.26.15.pdf. In e he has was present at a recruiting visit with a booster also present. In j, a recruit, his family and a booster were at a breakfast at Freeze's home.

If anyone knows how to contact Dennis Dodd or even is a "member" of CBS Sports and can comment, please correct this BS. We have to fight to counter the UNM spin machine.

[ShotgunDawg]

Doesn't matter. He'll have a show cause soon no matter what media writes

[Coach007]

And a level 1

[Really Clark?]

To be completely fair, he is not wrong in the pure sense that the NCAA did not specifically charge Freeze with an infraction in the first NOA. Yes he was named but that was under the Harris infraction charge. Why they did not have enough to charge Freeze and Matt Luke for that matter, I suspect they felt this was mainly flowing through Harris and Freeze and Luke were caught up in the violation. The statements given in the interviews and lack of evidence of prior knowledge probably left the investigators stymied to push for a direct charge to Freeze. Was Harris instructed to take all the blame? I believe that is a likely scenario. Was the Miami case blow back making the investigators hesitant to level charges against someone that could be argued and dismissed? I believe this was also a factor. I believe what we are seeing in the NOA's will be only what the NCAA believe are slam dunk infractions and pure volume and type of infractions are plenty to get the COI to the penalties they think are appropriate.

[confucius say]

To be completely fair, he is not wrong in the pure sense that the NCAA did not specifically charge Freeze with an infraction in the first NOA. Yes he was named but that was under the Harris infraction charge. Why they did not have enough to charge Freeze and Matt Luke for that matter, I suspect they felt this was mainly flowing through Harris and Freeze and Luke were caught up in the violation. The statements given in the interviews and lack of evidence of prior knowledge probably left the investigators stymied to push for a direct charge to Freeze. Was Harris instructed to take all the blame? I believe that is a likely scenario. Was the Miami case blow back making the investigators hesitant to level charges against someone that could be argued and dismissed? I believe this was also a factor. I believe what we are seeing in the NOA's will be only what the NCAA believe are slam dunk infractions and pure volume and type of infractions are plenty to get the COI to the penalties they think are appropriate.

Op said "named." You are saying "charged" with an infraction. Big difference.

[DancingRabbit]

Op said "named." You are saying "charged" with an infraction. Big difference.

True.

But in one respect, Freeze was charged in last year's NOA. I think the "failure to monitor" charge in allegation 2 falls at the feet of Freeze.

[Really Clark?]

Op said "named." You are saying "charged" with an infraction. Big difference.

But he was referencing Dennis Dodd article and this was the quote "Like the coaches above, Freeze was not specifically named, according to the school in the latest amended notice. However ?"

Dodd is just going by what the school is saying first and if the NOA does not list an infraction directly tied to a coach, then that is coach is technically not NAMED in the NOA. Their name appearing in the facts portion of the infraction does not mean that they are named with an infraction or charged with an infraction. The problem is going to be that Freeze technically does not have to be named with a direct infraction and still be punished with the new Head Coach responsibility revision. And that was part of the premise of Dodd in the article.