Newest on Freezus

[Schultzy]

It is not an either/or situation. You can get a show cause without a suspension. Getting a suspension is at least adding insult to injury.

EditWatch this page
Show-cause penalty
In the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a show-cause penalty is an administrative punishment ordering (for a limited time) that any NCAA penalties imposed on a coach found to have committed major rules violations will stay in effect against that coach for a specified period of time -- and could also be transferred to any other NCAA-member school that hires the coach while the sanctions are still in effect. Both the school and coach are required to send letters to the NCAA agreeing to abide by any restrictions imposed, and, report back to the NCAA every 6 months, until either the end of the coach's employment or the show-cause penalty (whichever comes first). If the school wishes to avoid the NCAA penalties imposed on that coach, the college must send representatives to appear before the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, and "show cause" (i.e., prove the existence of good reason) as to why it should not be penalized for hiring that coach.[1] The penalty is intended to prevent a coach from escaping violations that he/she had a role in committing or allowing -- which are generally applied to the school (e.g., lost scholarships, forfeited wins) -- by merely resigning and taking a coaching job at another, un-penalized school. It is currently the most severe penalty that can be brought against an American collegiate coach.

Contrary to popular belief, an NCAA member school is allowed to hire a coach who is under an ongoing show-cause order. However, the show-cause restrictions make it prohibitively difficult for a coach with a show-cause order to get another collegiate job. As mentioned above, any school that hires a coach with an outstanding show-cause order can be penalized merely for hiring him. Additionally, that school could be severely punished if such a coach commits additional violations while the show-cause order is still in effect.[2] Consequently, most schools will not even consider hiring a coach with a show-cause penalty in effect, meaning that it usually has the effect of blackballing that coach from the collegiate ranks for the duration of the penalty. Many coaches who receive a show-cause penalty never coach again, even after the penalty expires, since a large number of athletic directors and university presidents are unwilling to hire someone with a history of major violations.[3]

[Todd4State]

The rest of the sporting world that is being lied to by Ole Miss. The Ole Miss narrative has been that Freeze is safe, nothing to see here. That's simply just not true. Freeze is not only fighting for his reputation, but his job too. This isn't the first time the NCAA has leaked something either. The NCAA sees Ole Miss downplaying and lying to anyone and everyone that will listen. They can't do anything about it publicly, but they can leak info to set the record straight.

Ole Miss and Freeze are well aware of what's at stake. They just won't admit it, not even themselves. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Makes sense.

[Todd4State]

It is not an either/or situation. You can get a show cause without a suspension. Getting a suspension is at least adding insult to injury.

EditWatch this page
Show-cause penalty
In the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), a show-cause penalty is an administrative punishment ordering (for a limited time) that any NCAA penalties imposed on a coach found to have committed major rules violations will stay in effect against that coach for a specified period of time -- and could also be transferred to any other NCAA-member school that hires the coach while the sanctions are still in effect. Both the school and coach are required to send letters to the NCAA agreeing to abide by any restrictions imposed, and, report back to the NCAA every 6 months, until either the end of the coach's employment or the show-cause penalty (whichever comes first). If the school wishes to avoid the NCAA penalties imposed on that coach, the college must send representatives to appear before the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, and "show cause" (i.e., prove the existence of good reason) as to why it should not be penalized for hiring that coach.[1] The penalty is intended to prevent a coach from escaping violations that he/she had a role in committing or allowing -- which are generally applied to the school (e.g., lost scholarships, forfeited wins) -- by merely resigning and taking a coaching job at another, un-penalized school. It is currently the most severe penalty that can be brought against an American collegiate coach.

Contrary to popular belief, an NCAA member school is allowed to hire a coach who is under an ongoing show-cause order. However, the show-cause restrictions make it prohibitively difficult for a coach with a show-cause order to get another collegiate job. As mentioned above, any school that hires a coach with an outstanding show-cause order can be penalized merely for hiring him. Additionally, that school could be severely punished if such a coach commits additional violations while the show-cause order is still in effect.[2] Consequently, most schools will not even consider hiring a coach with a show-cause penalty in effect, meaning that it usually has the effect of blackballing that coach from the collegiate ranks for the duration of the penalty. Many coaches who receive a show-cause penalty never coach again, even after the penalty expires, since a large number of athletic directors and university presidents are unwilling to hire someone with a history of major violations.[3]

Angelo Mirando is just now getting back into football with Eastern Kentucky as an assistant and David Saunders has been barred to Mississippi JUCO ball as examples.

[DeviousDawg]

If the school wishes to avoid the NCAA penalties imposed on that coach, the college must send representatives to appear before the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, and "show cause" (i.e., prove the existence of good reason) as to why it should not be penalized for hiring that coach.[1] The penalty is intended to prevent a coach from escaping violations that he/she had a role in committing or allowing -- which are generally applied to the school (e.g., lost scholarships, forfeited wins) -- by merely resigning and taking a coaching job at another, un-penalized school. It is currently the most severe penalty

Key word: Allow

In the COI's eyes, a Head Coach allowing a violation is just as bad as a Head Coach committing a violation.

[Schultzy]

Angelo Mirando is just now getting back into football with Eastern Kentucky as an assistant and David Saunders has been barred to Mississippi JUCO ball as examples.

I didn't know Saunders had been barred from coaching Mississippi CC football and its hard to get barred from that. Very interesting.

[Todd4State]

I didn't know Saunders had been barred from coaching Mississippi CC football and its hard to get barred from that. Very interesting.

No- I meant barred from coaching D-I football and is therefore regulated to only being able to coach in Mississippi CC football. Although I think Pearl River CC was considering letting him go because of the ULL stuff but I'm not sure what happened with all of that. But he is still eligible to coach JUCO ball.

[Schultzy]

Key word: Allow

In the COI's eyes, a Head Coach allowing a violation is just as bad as a Head Coach committing a violation.

Yeah, people just don't understand how screwed they are with these dozens of level one violations that are captioned under the eight level one's. That's why the AL.com guy opined that he doesn't think Danny Hugh will ultimately survive this.

[mic]

If they get hit for 25 or more and a couple years bowl ban it won't matter if Freeze gets show clause or not he will get the **** out of dodge ASAP..

[Political Hack]

If they get hit for 25 or more and a couple years bowl ban it won't matter if Freeze gets show clause or not he will get the **** out of dodge ASAP..

Yep. Nobody survives that. If he brought that kind of scrutiny on their program and they don't take action to fire him, the NCAA will consider the school complicit with his actions and they will never leave Oxford again. Hell, they may as well set up a satellite office there. They're pushing close towards half a decade with the NCAA on campus.

[DancingRabbit]

If they get hit for 25 or more and a couple years bowl ban it won't matter if Freeze gets show clause or not he will get the **** out of dodge ASAP..

Was about to post the same thing. I'm fine with Hugh getting a 4-6 game suspension as long as they get lose 25+ schollies, 2 year bowl ban and get the last 2 years' wins vacated, plus get show causes for 2-4 assistants.

[Schultzy]

The assistants up there are already contacting old friends for new jobs after next season. And their buddies in the industry understand why.

[Political Hack]

I'm not sure why anyone ever thought he was somehow above a show cause.

[DeviousDawg]

If they get hit for 25 or more and a couple years bowl ban it won't matter if Freeze gets show clause or not he will get the **** out of dodge ASAP..

If that happens he might as well stay in Dodge. If he loses his job at Ole Miss you will never see him coach a snap of D1 football again.

Ever wonder why Freeze has had the best assistant coach retention rate in the history of College Football? Because no one wants a part of whats been going on in Oxford for the better part of a decade. Texas and ULL learned their lesson. If you dig deep enough, you will find dirt under every one of OM's assistants fingernails.

Ill give it to OM, they have lied about everything except for one thing, they are indeed #ALLIN. It's funny that their own slogan epitimizes everything that they are about to a T. However, when you go all in, there are two possible outcomes, win big or lose everything. OM is all in on a bluff, and the NCAA is holding a cripling river in their hand, taunting Ole Miss before dealing the final blow.

Go hard or go home, I suppose.

[ShotgunDawg]

If that happens he might as well stay in Dodge. If he loses his job at Ole Miss you will never see him coach a snap of D1 football again.

Ever wonder why Freeze has had the best assistant coach retention rate in the history of College Football? Because no one wants a part of whats been going on in Oxford for the better part of a decade. Texas and ULL learned their lesson. If you dig deep enough, you will find dirt under every one of OM's assistants fingernails.

Ill give it to OM, they have lied about everything except for one thing, they are indeed #ALLIN. It's funny that their own slogan epitimizes everything that they are about to a T. However, when you go all in, there are two possible outcomes, win big or lose everything. OM is all in on a bluff, and the NCAA is holding a cripling river in their hand, taunting Ole Miss before dealing the final blow.

Go hard or go home, I suppose.

Strong....

It's always been interesting how none of their assistants leave.

Devious, what's your best guess on Ole Miss' sanctions?

[Todd4State]

If they get hit for 25 or more and a couple years bowl ban it won't matter if Freeze gets show clause or not he will get the **** out of dodge ASAP..

I can't see anyone hiring Freeze after all of this even if he didn't get a show cause.

[Schultzy]

After the texts surfaced on draft night no assistants could possibly leave because that's an admission of guilt. Firing anyone inside the building (and they are confident about how they handle things inside the building) puts the HC in an impossible position.

[Todd4State]

Strong....

It's always been interesting how none of their assistants leave.

Devious, what's your best guess on Ole Miss' sanctions?

It's not too surprising because they have to have assistants that are going to be willing to go along with their cheating and what their main boosters want. I would imagine most coaches wouldn't want to do that so their pool is limited to guys that they have connections to like Matt Luke, Maurice Harris, Freeze, guys that have really questionable back grounds like Chris Kiffen, or guys that are basically at the end of their careers like Dan Werner and Dave Wommack. Most coaches probably don't want their ceiling to be coaching at Ole Miss. It would be like me taking an upper level management job at Enron after the whistle blew.

[JoseBrown]

If that happens he might as well stay in Dodge. If he loses his job at Ole Miss you will never see him coach a snap of D1 football again.

Ever wonder why Freeze has had the best assistant coach retention rate in the history of College Football? Because no one wants a part of whats been going on in Oxford for the better part of a decade. Texas and ULL learned their lesson. If you dig deep enough, you will find dirt under every one of OM's assistants fingernails.

Ill give it to OM, they have lied about everything except for one thing, they are indeed #ALLIN. It's funny that their own slogan epitimizes everything that they are about to a T. However, when you go all in, there are two possible outcomes, win big or lose everything. OM is all in on a bluff, and the NCAA is holding a cripling river in their hand, taunting Ole Miss before dealing the final blow.

Go hard or go home, I suppose.

They made a deal with the devil, kinda ironic, what-with Freeze and all. Too bad for them it didn't get them to Atlanta before the devil came calling...haha.. It's gonna be fun watching them go down.

[DeviousDawg]

Strong....

It's always been interesting how none of their assistants leave.

Devious, what's your best guess on Ole Miss' sanctions?

When you really look into the NOA and compare it to previous NCAA investigations, Ole Miss's self imposed sanctions are a joke. The actual sanctions should atleast double the self imposed sanctions.

When looking through the NOA, it really breaks into 4 parts, the Tunsil stuff (allegations 1-4), the Kiffin stuff (alegations 5-7), the Walter Hughes stuff (allegation 8) and the ACT stuff (allegations 10-13). Allegation 9 was a BS level III violation involving recruiting videos. The fairest way to estimate OM's sanctions would be to treat each of the 4 parts as separate investigations and add the results from each.

Part 1: Tunsil

We can compare Tunsil's allegations to our own with Redmond. We gave Redmond a $2500 discount on a vehicle. We got 4 schollies over 2 years and 2 year probation, Mirando recieved a 1 year show cause. It should also be considered that we self reported all of this and cooperately fully with the NCAA who accepted our self imposed sanctions

Ole Miss is accused of giving Tunsil $7,495 worth of free car loans in allegation #1. Allegation #2 is really just an extension of #1, it says that after Tunsil was caught using free cars, he did it again, and Ole Miss failed to monitor whether he was continuing to do it. This isn't good for them because while #2 is only a level II violation, it will most certainly make #1 become an aggravated Level I violation. Allegation #3 is a booster giving Miller $800. #4 involves free lodging and stuff for tunsils family worth $2,253. So that's a total of $10,548 worth of inducements to Tunsil and fam as well as a failure to monitor.

When compared to our 4 schollies and 2 years of probation, OM's allegations 1-4 should be worth atleast double but probably triple what we got for Redmonds stuff.

Conservative guess for allegations 1-4:

8-12 scholarships
3 years probation
1 year bowl ban


Part 2: Kiffin

These allegations aren't too serious. There were 2 level III allegations, one for talking to a recruit during spring evaluation period, one for letting a recruit stay at his house. There was also one level II allegation which involved Kiffin setting up lodging, transportation and meals for family friends of a recruit, the monitary total of the inducements was worth $1027.

Conservative guess for allegation 5-7:

1-2 scholarships
possible 1 year show cause for Kiffin but most likely a suspension of some sort.


Part 3: Walter Hughes

This one could go so many different ways. There are 16 sub violations in the Level I allegation #8. All involve Walter Hughes and recruiting inducements. Three assistant coaches (Harris, Kiffin, and Matt Luke) and Hugh Freeze are listed in this allegation. All are said to have been contacted by Hughes while knowingly committing NCAA recruiting violations. So throw ignorance on OM's part of the window for this violation, which is never good.

The total monitary value for allegation #8 was $2,250. It involved 4 current coaches, 3 recruits and one booster. If we got 4 scholarships for $2,500 worth of inducements to Redmond, involving 1 coach, 1 recruit and 1 booster with exemplary cooperation on our part, then you would have to put the lowest amount of scholarships docked for this allegation at 4.

Conservative guess for allegation 8:

4-8 scholarships
1-2 years probation
2 year show cause for Maurice Harris


Part 4: ACT scandal

Let's compare this to ULL's case, they are actually very similar. ULL had 4 level I violations, so did OM. The first one for each schools was about fixing ACT scores. ULL's involved one coach and 6 recruits. OM's involved 3 coaches and 3 recruits, one of which is still on staff in Derrick Nix, who put the recruits families in contact with Saunders and the Crager(sp?) lady to recieve free lodging, transportation and meals, similiar to Mirando's case. The second allegations for both schools involved improper inducements to recruits. ULL's was worth $6,500 while OM's was worth $1650. The last 2 allegations for both schools involved coaches lying to the NCAA during investigations, just Saunders for ULL; Saunders and Vaughn for OM.

The NCAA stated that ULL recieved the lowest possible penalties for their violations(11 scholarships over 3 years and 2 years of probation) because the University was unaware of Saunders actions and acted swiftly to fire him and self report as well as cooperate fully with the NCAA. Well, Ole Miss can't really say the same because Nix is STILL ON STAFF. There's a reason Ole Miss is fighting Nix's involvement, but they aren't going to win it. All of this leads me to believe that, if ULL recieved the lowest possible penalties that OM would atleast have to get 11 schollies for the ACT allegations.

Conservative guess for allegations 10-13:

11-14 scholarships
1-2 year show cause for Nix
8 year show cause for Vaughn
1 year bowl ban

Adding all 4 parts together for a final estimate:

24-36 scholarships
4 years of probation
2 year bowl ban
Show Causes for: Nix and Harris
Suspensions for: Kiffin, Freeze, and Matt Luke

Seems harsh, but when you really break it down into it's components I think that is a well educated and fair estimate.

[Interpolation_Dawg_EX]

Harris and Freeze are the 2 that have been at it the longest. They started out at ole miss and Harris has followed him ever since. After over 10 years in the business there's no excuse for them making "mistakes". Also, disassociating with 8 boosters is not an isolated incident, that is a network.