OM NCAA response via YouTube

[fishwater99]

So did the NCAA investigate Tunsil's draft night goings on and find them to be untrue? Or is there more to come? It's really hard to tell.

Ha to be more to come... #3 letter coming ??

[Bama_Dawg]

Ha to be more to come... #3 letter coming ??

That'll be for the next administration to handle.***

***- but not really

[Political Hack]

Tunsil stuff could be tied up in a civil/legal matter, which is also possibly the case with the ACT stuff. Barring them counting the ULaLa NOA as part of the COI hearing, that hasn't even come up yet.

[Dawgology]

Yeah I think there is still more to come. Incidentally, they READ the allegations to us instead of releasing the NOA. His wording was very specific. The NOA "included" these allegations. Never is it said that that is all that's on the NOA. Again, we will get to see what they edited out when the full document is released. This is definitely a controlled message release right now.

[WSOPdawg]

Setting aside those four allegations, the university will contest the following allegations in full:

5. Allegation number five ? It is alleged that one former staff member (Former Staff Member B) arranged for a friend of the family of Prospective Student-Athlete D to receive impermissible merchandise from a store owned by a booster on one occasion in 2013 and that Former Staff Member A arranged for Prospective Student-Athletes B and E (both student-athletes enrolled at another institution) to receive merchandise in 2014, 15, and 16. The value of the alleged impermissible recruiting inducements is approximately $2,800 and is charged as a Level I violation.

7. Allegation seven ? It is alleged that a booster provided money, food and drinks to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions at the booster?s restaurant on two-to-three unspecified dates between March 2014 and January 2015. The value of the alleged inducements is between $200 and $600. This allegation is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.

Those some expensive tacos in allegation #7; Allegation #5 must be the sting they did on Rebel Rags.

[Reason2succeed]

Yeah I think there is still more to come. Incidentally, they READ the allegations to us instead of releasing the NOA. His wording was very specific. The NOA "included" these allegations. Never is it said that that is all that's on the NOA. Again, we will get to see what they edited out when the full document is released. This is definitely a controlled message release right now.

But they said the investigation was over...AGAIN?!?

[HSVDawg]

Yeah I think there is still more to come. Incidentally, they READ the allegations to us instead of releasing the NOA. His wording was very specific. The NOA "included" these allegations. Never is it said that that is all that's on the NOA. Again, we will get to see what they edited out when the full document is released. This is definitely a controlled message release right now.

I guess my question is how could it get any worse? There may be more to the story but what is out there is already enough to punish them under the fullest extent of the NCAA's guidelines. When you have both LOIC and the head coach being directly charged with a Level I failure to legislate, it can't get any worse. There is no way they slide on both of those, and either one just by itself is enough for multi-year bowl ban, 30+ schollies, and a guaranteed show cause.

[stalkingpoon]

1. The first allegation ? it is alleged that a prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete A) went hunting near campus on private land owned by a booster during his official visit in 2013 and on two or three occasions after he enrolled, and that the access to this land was arranged by the football program. This has been alleged as a Level III violation.

2. The second allegation ? it is alleged that between March 2014 and January 2015, a former staff member (Former Staff Member A) impermissibly arranged for recruiting inducements in the form of lodging and transportation for one prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete B) (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions on several visits to campus and for the impermissible transportation of another prospective student-athlete (Prospective Student-Athlete C) on one occasion. The total value of the lodging and/or transportation between the two prospective student-athletes is alleged to be $2,272. It is also alleged that the football program provided approximately $235 in free meals to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and Prospective Student-Athlete C and the friends of Prospective Student-Athlete B during recruiting visits in this same timeframe. The allegation is alleged as a Level I violation.

3. Third, it is alleged that Former Staff Member A violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly committed NCAA recruiting violations between March 2014 and February 2015 and when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the institution and enforcement staff in 2016. This is charged as a Level I violation.

In the fourth allegation, we agree that evidence exists to support some ? but not all ? of the events alleged.

4. In the fourth allegation, it is alleged that between April 2014 and February 2015, Former Staff Member A initiated and facilitated two boosters having impermissible contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). It is further alleged that these two boosters provided Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) with impermissible cash payments during that timeframe and that Former Staff Member A knew about the cash payments. The value of the alleged inducements according to the NCAA is between $13,000 and $15,600. This is charged as a Level I violation.

The university believes there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to conclude that the impermissible contact outlined in the fourth allegation occurred. However, we are still evaluating whether there is sufficient credible and persuasive evidence to support the alleged payments and will make that determination over the course of the next 90 days.

Setting aside those four allegations, the university will contest the following allegations in full:

5. Allegation number five ? It is alleged that one former staff member (Former Staff Member B) arranged for a friend of the family of Prospective Student-Athlete D to receive impermissible merchandise from a store owned by a booster on one occasion in 2013 and that Former Staff Member A arranged for Prospective Student-Athletes B and E (both student-athletes enrolled at another institution) to receive merchandise in 2014, 15, and 16. The value of the alleged impermissible recruiting inducements is approximately $2,800 and is charged as a Level I violation.

6. Number six ? It is alleged and we will contest that, in 2014 a current football coach had impermissible, in-person, off-campus contact with Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution). This allegation is charged as a Level III violation.

7. Allegation seven ? It is alleged that a booster provided money, food and drinks to Prospective Student-Athlete B (who enrolled at another institution) and his companions at the booster?s restaurant on two-to-three unspecified dates between March 2014 and January 2015. The value of the alleged inducements is between $200 and $600. This allegation is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.

8. 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.

9. Finally, allegation nine ? It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations demonstrate that the university lacked institutional control and failed to monitor the conduct and administration of its athletics program. This charge replaces the more limited failure to monitor charge in the January 2016 Notice of Allegations. This is charged as a Level I violation that we will contest.

So this names Student Athlete B and E but who are A,C, &D? I'm sure there are more as well.

[West Tn Dawg]

Go to 17:45 and start watching Freezus! He looks into the camera on every word except one at the 17:50 mark.
When he says this one particular word he immediately looks away from the camera. I hate a hypocrite!

[Bass Chaser]

So this names Student Athlete B and E but who are A,C, &D? I'm sure there are more as well.

Thank you. This means there are at least 5 Student- Athletes. How many more are there?

[biscuit]

this is gold. liars

[Boodawg]

It's just bizarre that the Chancellor of the university is sitting up there locked hand in hand with Bjork and Freeze. When does the University, as an institution of higher learning, take precedent over winning football games? If this was my school, I'd be ****ing pissed. That place is a damn cult.

+1. Exactly.