Interesting tidbits from ncaa response --> penalty matrix to the max!!!

[WSOPdawg]

Some interesting tidbits I found, leading me to believe the new penalty matrix is going to get a work-out

1) Because a Head Coach Control Violation was not alleged in the 1st NOA, TCUN challenges the NCAA by saying they can't include it now (attempting to bring a school of law in to play). The NCAA's response is as follows:

PAGE 107:"The enforcement staff disagrees and restates the arguments in its May 2, 2017, letter to the hearing panel's chief hearing officer, specifically that (1) Committee on Infractions Internal Operating Procedure ... expressly authorizes the enforcement staff to amend allegations; (2) any other model would invite significant mischief and be entirely unworkable in practice; and (3) there is no appetite in the membership to move toward an infractions model where partially-informed charging decisions are forever binding


2) Regarding Lack of Institutional Control, the NCAA states:

PAGE 108: "the underlying violations are attributable to a culture of noncompliance and mindset that gaining recruiting and competitive advantages trumps adherence to Association rules. They also demonstrate an inability by the institution to execute existing policies or consistently follow the compliance procedures that were in place. The continuation of violations over several years, including during this investigation, also shows the institution failed to take meaningful action to curb misconduct in its football program or reinforce the message that compliance is a required and non-negotiable part of representing the institution. Meanwhile outside of football, two other sport programs at the institution were also involved in multiple, serious NCAA violations. Even on a large campus, it is unusual to see the high volume and serious nature of violations like those at issue here. Obviously, something was wrong at the institution...

PAGE 109: Three head coaches also failed to meet their obligations to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staffs. These serious shortcomings at the highest level of multiple sports demonstrate a lack of institutional control."

"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."

[Dolphus Raymond]

The fact that the NCAA found that Ole Miss continued to violate the rules during the course of the investigation is the most damning finding of the investigation. This made the LOIC charge a slam dunk.

[SailingDawg]

Death Penalty?

[AlmostPositive]

Death Penalty?

You will need to wait for the hookers for kids findings...

[Mimi's Babies]

Death Penalty?

OM is going to WISH they had SELF IMPOSED the death penalty before this is OVER>.....

[Mimi's Babies]

Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 100

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.
The enforcement staff incorporates its review of the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 5 through 10, 12
through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b. Allegation Nos. 9-b and 9-c, 12 through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b are underlying
violations that occurred between the 2013-14 and 2015-16 academic years while the investigation was
ongoing. The primary considerations in charging this allegation were the presumption of responsibility,
information detailed below, and Freeze's inability to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of
compliance and monitored his staff. The continued misconduct by football personnel during the
investigation, including increasingly egregious violations, was also considered and further highlighted
Freeze's failure to curb his staff's illicit behavior or maintain vigilance over his program.

. Rebuttal information. (Page 105)
NCAA head coach responsibility legislation presumes a head coach is responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach. Notably, this case includes multiple staff members who reported directly or indirectly to Freeze that appeared comfortable committing NCAA violations. Freeze could rebut the presumption by demonstrating that he both promoted an atmosphere of compliance and monitored his staff. He failed to do both. The atmosphere was anything but compliant and Freeze?s monitoring efforts, as noted above, were many times deficient.

This mess just became WORSE.

[Mimi's Babies]

ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 115
1. Position of Freeze.
Freeze disagrees with Bylaw 19.9.3-(k).
508 Additionally, he requested the hearing panel consider five
mitigating factors: Bylaw 19.9.4-(a), prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations; Bylaw
19.9.4-(b), prompt acknowledgement of the violations and acceptance of responsibility; Bylaw 19.9.4-(d),
an established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations; Bylaw 19.9.4-(e), implementation
of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of head coach
control standards; and Bylaw 19.9.4-(f), exemplary cooperation.

2. Position of the enforcement staff.
The enforcement staff did not identify any mitigating factors applicable to Freeze because the facts and
circumstances did not warrant any. Freeze did not self-detect and/or self-disclose any of the violations in
this case or promptly acknowledge the violations in which he is named nor accept responsibility for them.
Additionally, the football program under his supervision does not have an established history of self reporting
Level III or secondary violations; it self-reported only 12 of 62 such violations from the 2012-13
academic year through February 22, 2017.509 Further, Freeze was unable to demonstrate that he promoted
an atmosphere of compliance or monitored his staff, and therefore did not implement a system of
compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of head coach control standards.
He also did not meet the high standard required for exemplary cooperation.

[redstickdawg]

Death Penalty?

that is the underlying meaning of the point below: this defines DP.
he continuation of violations over several years, including during this investigation, also shows the institution failed to take meaningful action to curb misconduct in its football program or reinforce the message that compliance is a required and non-negotiable part of representing the institution. Meanwhile outside of football, two other sport programs at the institution were also involved in multiple, serious NCAA violations. Even on a large campus, it is unusual to see the high volume and serious nature of violations like those at issue here. Obviously, something was wrong at the institution...