OM Response is out...

[ScreenCaptureThis]

http://athleticsworking.wp2.olemiss.edu/

Uh oh OM fans... :D


From WCBI since Um site is slammed - Scoobadawg

Notice of Allegations

Here is the Notice of Allegations (http://www.wcbi.com/wcbi/wp-content/uploads/Allegations-Redacted-5.26.15.pdf)

Here is the response in PDF (http://www.wcbi.com/wcbi/wp-content/uploads/Clean-Copy-of-Response-5.26.15.pdf)

[HenryGondorff]

Hold up.... You are allowed to go back in time and impose sanctions.
That 2012-2013 Women's Baskeball team is going to be heartbroken about their postseason ban

[PassInterference]

Server is slammed. Probably on purpose. Somebody copy & paste.

[Really Clark?]

Hold up.... You are allowed to go back in time and impose sanctions.
That 2012-2013 Women's Baskeball team is going to be heartbroken about their postseason ban

They actually did that correctly, back when it happened. It was reported about over 2 years ago.

[spudd21]

I can't get in, it must have crashed their site

[BossDawg]

"In fact, the University self-reported or played a central role in discovering most of the violations."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[HenryGondorff]

Letter to the Ole Miss Family

Dear Ole Miss Family:

As you know, the University of Mississippi has been cooperating with the NCAA since 2012 on a review of potential NCAA bylaw violations associated with our Department of Athletics. After almost four years and more than 265 interviews with current staff, former staff, boosters, third parties, and student-athletes, the NCAA issued a Notice of Allegations (“NOA”) to the University on January 22, 2016, alleging violations in women’s basketball, track and field, and football. According to the NCAA enforcement process, the University had 90 days to formally respond, and we submitted our Response to the Notice of Allegations (“Response”) in April. Around that same time, another involved party requested and received a 30-day extension. Because that extension has now elapsed, we are releasing our Response and the NOA to the public.

The NCAA has alleged, and we agree, that serious violations have occurred. Most of the more significant violations resulted from either (1) intentional misconduct and efforts to conceal that misconduct by former employees who face unethical conduct charges and personal sanctions; or (2) actions of individual boosters who conducted themselves contrary to rules education provided by the University. For 27 of the 28 allegations, we agree that a violation of NCAA rules occurred; however, for several of those allegations we do not agree on all of the facts. For five of those 27 violations, we believe the violation should be classified differently (e.g., the violation is alleged as a “Level II violation” but we contend the violation should be classified as “Level III”).

In response to these violations, we have taken several corrective actions and we have self-imposed significant penalties. The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“COI”) will consider our Response as it determines whether to assess penalties in addition to the penalties we have already self-imposed. We based our self-imposed penalties on the COI’s decisions in other cases and the NCAA penalty matrix released in 2012.

The University’s cooperation with the NCAA throughout this process has been exemplary. In fact, the University self-reported or played a central role in discovering most of the violations. When employees or student-athletes failed to live up to Ole Miss core values, the University took decisive action, including terminating or disciplining employees and imposing scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions. The University also disassociated itself from representatives of Ole Miss’s athletics interests — boosters — who were involved in violations. The most serious violations involve academic misconduct that occurred in football six years ago and in women’s basketball almost four years ago. Before, during and since the issuance of the NOA, we have taken a proactive approach to compliance, rules-education, and monitoring. As our Department of Athletics has grown, so has our commitment to compliance. Since 2011, we have more than doubled our compliance staff and instituted more than 100 new compliance measures.

On the first day of the 2016 NFL Draft, new information came to light involving a former football student-athlete. That very night, the University and NCAA began a joint review to determine whether bylaws have been violated, and we hope this review will be concluded soon. To ensure fairness to all parties and pursuant to COI procedure, we have asked the COI to remove the hearing from this summer’s docket until this review can be completed and closed.

The Ole Miss family expects and deserves athletics programs that compete for championships, graduate our student-athletes, and operate with integrity. From the moment we learned about possible academic misconduct in women’s basketball in 2012 until today, the University has demonstrated its values, and we are a stronger University because of our decisive actions. We believe in our coaches, staff, and student-athletes, and you have our assurance that we will continue the pursuit of excellence consistent with the University Creed and athletics core values.



Sincerely,

VitterSigwRoss

Jeffrey S. Vitter Ross Bjork
Chancellor Director of Athletics


http://athleticsworking.wp2.olemiss.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/05/NCAA_Infographic_FINAL.png

[ScreenCaptureThis]

And notice, the word "football" is used 3 times. Once to reference the previous staff, once in a non-descript manner, and once to reference Tunsil. The women's basketball team has completely and wholly been catapulted under the bus.

[starkvegasdawg]

And remember, this is the minor poot noise one.

[Pinto]

On the first day of the 2016 NFL Draft, new information came to light involving a former football student-athlete. That very night, the University and NCAA began a joint review to determine whether bylaws have been violated, and we hope this review will be concluded soon. To ensure fairness to all parties and pursuant to COI procedure, we have asked the COI to remove the hearing from this summer’s docket until this review can be completed and closed.

Someone's trying to avoid the repeat offender penalty. If things have been going on this long, they deserve repeat offender and LOI.

[ScreenCaptureThis]

And remember, this is the minor poot noise one.

And that minor poot noise consists of 16 Level 1 violations. 16!!!

[RIdog]

Looks as if they are self imposing "9 over 3" . Surely the NCAA will not buy this ? ? ?

[starkvegasdawg]

And that minor poot noise consists of 16 Level 1 violations. 16!!!

I think they better check their drawers. I think they may have shit their pants instead of just pooted.

[starkvegasdawg]

"In fact, the University self-reported or played a central role in discovering most of the violations."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

How TSUN "self discovers" facts:

http://images.performgroup.com/di/library/omnisport/81/71/tunsilbong-042816-usnews-getty-ftr_16emu3xenn5a61b5xf5pnxdfhs.jpg?t=1597178028

[TrapGame]

Here's my response to their response:

http://i.imgur.com/LdKJQc3.gif

http://static5.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_medium/1347/13479024/2975698-9900328945-tumbl.gif

[ScreenCaptureThis]

I think they better check their drawers. I think they may have shit their pants instead of just pooted.

And notice they reference the 2012 structure of imposing penalties. Here is the 2013 (new) version:

New Violation Structure
Structure focuses on conduct that threatens integrity of college sports

August 1, 2013 12:00am
The four-level violation structure ranges from severe breaches of conduct to incidental infractions. The structure, which replaces the current two-tier approach (major and secondary violations), is designed to focus most on conduct breaches that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Constitution and bylaws.

"Having four levels of violations is helpful because it allows us to distinguish between severe and significant in the new structure as opposed to simply major and secondary violations in the previous model." - Oregon State President Ed Ray, former chair of the NCAA Executive Committee who also chairs the Enforcement Working Group.

Level I: Severe breach of conduct
Violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

Level II: Significant breach of conduct
Violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; includes more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involves conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws.

Level III: Breach of conduct
Violations that are isolated or limited in nature; provide no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and do not include more than a minimal impermissible benefit. Multiple Level IV violations may collectively be considered a breach of conduct.

Level IV: Incidental issues
Incidental infractions that are inadvertent and isolated, technical in nature and result in a negligible, if any, competitive advantage. Level IV infractions generally will not affect eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.



Examples of violations

Level I
Lack of institutional control.
Academic fraud.
Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation.
Individual unethical or dishonest conduct.
Head coach responsibility violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program.

Level II
Violations that do not rise to the level of Level I violations and are more serious than Level III violations.
Failure to monitor.
Systemic violations that do not amount to a lack of institutional control.
Multiple recruiting, financial aid, or eligibility violations that do not amount. to a lack of institutional control.
Collective Level III violations.

[starkvegasdawg]

I see they also self imposed initial grants-in-aid. In a related story the opportunity fund has now had its budget tripled.

[fishwater99]

User Actions
Following

Hugh KellenbergerVerified account
‏@HKellenbergerCL
The Laremy Tunsil draft night fiasco was news to Ole Miss, and the hearing has been postponed while it is investigated.

A pattern of noncompliance within the sport programs involved.
[NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(k) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 13 involve
eight Level I and two Level II violations. These alleged violations
occurred over a four-year time period and involve two different
coaching staffs. Additionally, these alleged violations involve
unethical conduct, fraudulence in connection with college entrance
exams, substantial or extensive recruiting inducements and extra
benefits and impermissible conduct by representatives of the
institution's athletics interests.
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 14 and 19 began in May
2012, shortly after the institution hired Kenya Landers (K.
Landers), former assistant women's basketball coach, and Michael
Landers (M. Landers), former women's basketball director of
operations, and they continued until the termination of K. Landers’
and M. Landers’ employment in October 2012. Therefore, there
was not a period of time during K. Landers' and M. Landers'
employment at the institution in which they conducted themselves
in a compliant manner.
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 21 through 25 occurred
over several months between the summer of 2012 and spring of
2013.

[starkvegasdawg]

Here's my response to their response:

http://i.imgur.com/LdKJQc3.gif

http://static5.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_medium/1347/13479024/2975698-9900328945-tumbl.gif

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1378095315_laughter.gif

[fishwater99]

2. Involved party [Maurice Harris (Harris), assistant football coach]:
a. Aggravating factor(s). [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 19.9.3 (2015-
16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any aggravating factors
applicable to Harris.
b. Mitigating factor(s). [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 19.9.4 (2015-16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any mitigating factors applicable
to Harris.
3. Involved party [Chris Kiffin (Kiffin), assistant football coach]:
a. Aggravating factor(s). [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 19.9.3 (2015-
16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any aggravating factors
applicable to Kiffin.
b. Mitigating factor(s). [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 19.9.4 (2015-16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any mitigating factors applicable
to Kiffin.
4. Involved party [Derrick Nix (Nix), assistant football coach]:
a. Aggravating factor(s). [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3 (2015-16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any aggravating factors
applicable to Nix.
b. Mitigating factor(s). [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4 (2015-16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any mitigating factors applicable
to Nix.

Involved party [David Saunders (Saunders), former administrative
operations coordinator for football]:
a. Aggravating factors. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3 (2015-16)]
(1) Multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved
individuals. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(a) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10, 11 and 13 have been
identified by the enforcement staff to be Level I violations in
which Saunders had direct knowledge and/or involvement.
(2) Unethical conduct. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10, 11 and 13 involve
violations of the NCAA principles of ethical conduct.
(3) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after
substantial planning. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(f) (2015-16)]
As detailed in Allegation No. 10, Saunders knowingly participated
in an exam fraud scheme that involved three then football
prospective student-athletes taking the June 2010 ACT exam in
Waynesboro, Mississippi, including arranging for the then ACT
testing supervisor to complete and/or alter the prospects' answer
sheets in such a manner that they received fraudulent scores.
Additionally, as detailed in Allegation No. 11, Saunders arranged
for the provision of lodging, meals and/or transportation for six
then football prospects during the summer of 2010. Saunders'
actions required premeditation, deliberation and/or substantial
planning.
(4) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution
and bylaws. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation No. 10 involve fraudulence or
misconduct in connection with the ACT exams of three then
football prospects, conduct that is antithetical to the NCAA
constitution and bylaws.
b. Mitigating factor(s). [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4 (2015-16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any mitigating factors applicable
to Saunders.
6. Involved party [Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), former assistant football coach]:
a. Aggravating factors. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3 (2015-16)]
(1) Multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved
individuals. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(a) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10, 11 and 12 have been
identified by the enforcement staff to be Level I violations in
which Vaughn had direct knowledge and/or involvement.
(2) Unethical conduct and compromising the integrity of an
investigation. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10, 11 and 12 involve
violations of the NCAA principles of ethical conduct. Additionally,
Allegation No. 12 involves conduct that compromised the integrity
of the enforcement staff's investigation in violation of the NCAA
cooperative principle.
(3) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after
substantial planning. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(f) (2015-16)]
As detailed in Allegation No. 10, Vaughn knowingly participated
in an exam fraud scheme that involved three then football
prospective student-athletes taking the June 2010 ACT exam in
Waynesboro, Mississippi. Additionally, as detailed in Allegation
No. 11, Vaughn arranged for the provision of lodging, meals
and/or transportation for five then football prospects during the
summer of 2010. Vaughn's actions required premeditation,
deliberation and/or substantial planning.
(4) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution
and bylaws. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation No. 10 involve fraudulence or
misconduct in connection with the ACT exams of three then
football prospects, conduct that is antithetical to the NCAA
constitution and bylaws. Therefore, the enforcement staff has
identified this potential aggravating factor.
b. Mitigating factor(s). [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4 (2015-16)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any mitigating factors applicable
to Vaughn.

[starkvegasdawg]

User Actions
Following

Hugh KellenbergerVerified account
‏@HKellenbergerCL
The Laremy Tunsil draft night fiasco was news to Ole Miss, and the hearing has been postponed while it is investigated.

A pattern of noncompliance within the sport programs involved.
[NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(k) (2015-16)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 13 involve
eight Level I and two Level II violations. These alleged violations
occurred over a four-year time period and involve two different
coaching staffs. Additionally, these alleged violations involve
unethical conduct, fraudulence in connection with college entrance
exams, substantial or extensive recruiting inducements and extra
benefits and impermissible conduct by representatives of the
institution's athletics interests.
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 14 and 19 began in May
2012, shortly after the institution hired Kenya Landers (K.
Landers), former assistant women's basketball coach, and Michael
Landers (M. Landers), former women's basketball director of
operations, and they continued until the termination of K. Landers’
and M. Landers’ employment in October 2012. Therefore, there
was not a period of time during K. Landers' and M. Landers'
employment at the institution in which they conducted themselves
in a compliant manner.
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 21 through 25 occurred
over several months between the summer of 2012 and spring of
2013.

This may be the dagger.

[fishwater99]

http://athleticsworking.wp2.olemiss.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/05/Allegations-Redacted-5.26.15.pdf

[lefty96]

Well this is certainly. . . shall we say substantial?

[starkvegasdawg]

Well this is certainly. . . shall we say substantial?
Nafoom saying it was nothing major. What they were expecting. Nothing to see here.

[spbdawg]

#

[Political Hack]

Between August 14 and 31, 2013, Vaughn engaged in multiple telephone calls and text message communications with witnesses of the enforcement staff's investigation regarding the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10 and 11, after being admonished on multiple occasions to refrain from having such communications in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Additionally, during his August 19 and December 17, 2013, interviews with the institution and enforcement staff, Vaughn acknowledged that his purpose for engaging in the communications was to obtain information regarding the investigation. [NCAA Bylaws 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2 (2013-14)]

Yowsers. That's gonna hurt. "Exemplary cooperation". Lmao.

[Coach34]

Nafoom saying it was nothing major. What they were expecting. Nothing to see here.

They have not ever said once they "expected" Freezus to have 3 Level 1 violations against him. They also tried to say the Tunsil draft night stuff was already known about- the President's letter clearly said they didnt

[Political Hack]

LOIC?

The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 13 involve eight Level I and two Level II violations. These alleged violations occurred over a four-year time period and involve two different coaching staffs. Additionally, these alleged violations involve unethical conduct, fraudulence in connection with college entrance exams, substantial or extensive recruiting inducements and extra benefits and impermissible conduct by representatives of the institution's athletics interests.

[lefty96]

Nafoom saying it was nothing major. What they were expecting. Nothing to see here.

I guess if there is a 2nd letter it will just say "everything else" to save paper and time.

[starkvegasdawg]

Between August 14 and 31, 2013, Vaughn engaged in multiple telephone calls and text message communications with witnesses of the enforcement staff's investigation regarding the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10 and 11, after being admonished on multiple occasions to refrain from having such communications in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. Additionally, during his August 19 and December 17, 2013, interviews with the institution and enforcement staff, Vaughn acknowledged that his purpose for engaging in the communications was to obtain information regarding the investigation. [NCAA Bylaws 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2 (2013-14)]

Yowsers. That's gonna hurt. "Exemplary cooperation". Lmao.

NCAA gonna say, "Scuse me while I whip this out." Just wish I could photoshop Freeze's and Bjork's head on here.

http://i.imgur.com/CGlKp5B.gif

[TrapGame]

Three level 1 violations on Freeze and Tunsil's Draft Night Confessional still being investigated but NAFOOM says there's nothing to see here.

Yeah, right.

https://godofall.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/nothing-to-see-here.gif

[Really Clark?]

No Bo Scharbough in this either, I do believe.

[BeardoMSU]

http://www.wcbi.com/wcbi/wp-content/uploads/Clean-Copy-of-Response-5.26.15.pdf

Page 5 and 6 are clearly about Tunsil and Step Dad. Geeze, that is some sugar coated bullshit.

"It is unclear whether Student‐Athlete 1 knew about Family Member 1?s misconduct.**
Student‐Athlete 1 and Family Member 1 were never close; in fact, Student‐Athlete 1 and Family
Member 1 were estranged during significant stretches of time, including in the months leading
up to their highly publicized physical altercation in June 2015. Had it not been for this
altercation, which resulted in Family Member 1?s decision to disclose his secret dealings in an
effort to harm Student‐Athlete 1, it is unlikely that the University or enforcement staff (or
Student‐Athlete 1) would have discovered Family Member 1?s connection to the two boosters."

[ScreenCaptureThis]

I guess if there is a 2nd letter it will just say "everything else" to save paper and time.

That made me laugh, almost as much as the self-imposed penalties from the football side of things. That many level one infractions = a few recruiting visits taken away, a few schollys, and a disassociation with a booster (but only for 3 years). 9 over 3 would be HARSH compared to what they've done to themselves, and 9 over 3 is probably the punishment for just the level 2 and 3 infractions.

This one is going to be good for a very, very long time. The 2nd letter:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/OCgTKYSVnf7iM/200.gif

[Political Hack]

This has to be a violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Is this the longest NOA ever? Anyone ever had more allegations?

[ScoobaDawg]

Added links for both NAO and response to first post.

[BrunswickDawg]

Don't the fines paid in these cases normally correlate to the value of the impermissible benefits??? If so, that $159,000+ is a shocking number.

[Really Clark?]

That made me laugh, almost as much as the self-imposed penalties from the football side of things. That many level one infractions = a few recruiting visits taken away, a few schollys, and a disassociation with a booster (but only for 3 years). 9 over 3 would be HARSH compared to what they've done to themselves, and 9 over 3 is probably the punishment for just the level 2 and 3 infractions.

This one is going to be good for a very, very long time. The 2nd letter:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/OCgTKYSVnf7iM/200.gif

Well they did up it themselves to 11 over 4, counting one back. There is no way the NCAA is going to give them the same as ULL who had just ONE Level 1 violation for the school and 3 for Saunders. I still can't get over 16 Level 1's in total. BTW, multiple Level 1's for a school is automatic aggravated penalty structure which means higher percentages for scholarship reductions, game suspensions, etc. The COI can reduce it from aggravated if they feel there are enough mitigating circumstances. I just can't see how this many Level 1's and the NCAA accepts the same reduction as ULL.

[spiral]

I think the NCAA should have simply used the quote from the movie 300. I think it sums up what they are saying:

"This will not be over quickly. You will not enjoy this."

[Really Clark?]

Don't the fines paid in these cases normally correlate to the value of the impermissible benefits??? If so, that $159,000+ is a shocking number.

No. It is a percentage of the school's atheletic budget. But for reference ULL's financial penalty was $5,000. Also, UNM didn't self impose vacating wins like ULL did either. Also remember guys, the final ruling on ULL added additional scholarship reductions, probation period, fine, etc.

[notsofarawaydawg]

http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/sixpaksux/mademyday_zpsejr9cbnc.jpg

[SheltonChoked]

How many wins did TSUN used to have from 2010 to 2013?


The number now is 0.

[ILOATHEBears]

They have not ever said once they "expected" Freezus to have 3 Level 1 violations against him. They also tried to say the Tunsil draft night stuff was already known about- the President's letter clearly said they didnt

With a head coach having 3 level 1s what's the chance of a show cause

[WinningIsRelentless]

With a head coach having 3 level 1s what's the chance of a show cause
Coach34 has a better chance of being ole miss head football coach this time next year than Hugh. That is the chance

[BrunswickDawg]

With a head coach having 3 level 1s what's the chance of a show cause

The big thing I see is that there is almost no punitive action taken on the current staff. No way the NCAA lets them keep a staff intact with that many charges against it.

[coastdoglover]

The big thing I see is that there is almost no punitive action taken on the current staff. No way the NCAA lets them keep a staff intact with that many charges against it.

Just remember. when you self impose , you are admitting guilt. They are using their typical lawyer rhetoric to make it not look so bad. I cant imagine how they can not get worse than ULL. We shall see.

[rem101]

So since 2011 they've made 127 improvements in compliance. Yet they've had 11 of the 13 football infractions since then, 8 of which are level 1?

[PSYCHO(thesis)DEFENSE]

Sitting on my the beach in Charleston, listening to the waves, drinking South Carolina's finest craft brews & watching UNM get roasted over a spit while their sheep claim they're just bobbing for apples over a cozy fire. Leisure at its finest.

[SailingDawg]

How many wins did TSUN used to have from 2010 to 2013?


The number now is 0.

I want the Egg Bowl trophy back.