Lumpy Chucklelips
02-22-2017, 10:58 PM
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/files/DI_Enf_387100_HeadCoachRes-20160208.pdf
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/files/DI_Enf_387100_HeadCoachRes-20160208.pdf