From left, chancellor Jeff Vitter, athletic director Ross Bjork and head coach Hugh Freeze

Ole Miss released its response to the Feb. 22, 2017, NCAA Notice of Allegations on its football program on Tuesday.

Click THIS LINK for the full Ole Miss response

THIS IS THE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT RELEASED BY THE UNIVERSITY AT 2 p.m. CT Tuesday:

June 6, 2017

Today, the University of Mississippi is releasing the February 22, 2017 Notice of Allegations and the university’s Response to the Notice.

As stated in February when the Notice of Allegations was issued, we have cooperated fully with the NCAA enforcement staff over the more than four-year-long process. The university has concluded several violations of NCAA bylaws occurred, and we have taken responsibility for those violations. We have self-imposed significant sanctions on our football program including a postseason ban for the 2017 season, a reduction in available scholarships and recruiting days, and an $8 million forfeiture of SEC postseason revenue.

Although we agree several violations occurred, we do not agree that credible and persuasive evidence supports all of the allegations in the Notice. Our Response details our position on each allegation, and we look forward to appearing before the Committee on Infractions.

Please note: the university intended to release the Notice and Response with only the names and other personally identifiable information of student-athletes redacted. However, due to a case pending before the Mississippi Ethics Commission, the names of third parties have also been redacted. The university will revisit the disclosure of involved third parties after we receive more direction from the Ethics Commission.

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The University of Mississippi (the “University”) has a duty to its faculty, students, alumni and supporters, to fellow members of the Southeastern Conference (the “SEC”) and the NCAA, and to the public at large to operate its athletics programs in a manner consistent with the highest principles of intercollegiate athletics. This duty includes the obligation, whenever the University learns of potential conduct that transgresses those principles, to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether that may result in adverse findings or potential sanctions. Simply put, the University’s commitment to integrity, honesty, and fairness in all endeavors requires that it “get it right.”

This same spirit has guided the University’s response to the 2016 and 2017 Notices of Allegations.

Consistent with its commitment to getting it right, the University has conducted an exhaustive and thoughtful examination of the evidence. Based upon that review and the high evidentiary standard prescribed by Bylaw 19.7.8.3, the University has concluded that significant violations occurred in connection with its football program over a period of years, including during this investigation. These violations, which include multiple, intentional acts of misconduct by (now former) University employees and (now disassociated) boosters, are serious. As described in this response, the University has held those responsible accountable – many in unprecedented, public ways – and has taken institutional responsibility for what has occurred. The University firmly believes its bold corrective actions will make a meaningful and permanent difference.

In taking responsibility for what has occurred, the University has self-imposed significant and appropriate penalties. To determine the appropriate measure for those penalties, the University considered the breadth and scope of the violations along with two other factors: (1) the fact that all but three of the Level I allegations (i.e., Allegations Nos. 5, 20, and 21) were the result of intentional misconduct specifically intended to evade monitoring systems implemented by the University, the athletics department, and the head football coach; and (2) the University’s proactive approach to compliance, including its efforts to detect and investigate potential violations, and its exemplary cooperation throughout this four-plus-year process. Based upon these factors, the proper classification for this case is Level I – Standard. The University has accordingly imposed meaningful Standard core penalties. As detailed below, these penalties include: a post-season ban, which necessitates the loss of nearly $8,000,000 in SEC revenue; a double-digit reduction of scholarships; a more-than 10 percent reduction in off-campus evaluation days in each of two years; a nearly 20 percent reduction in official visits; a more-than three month prohibition on unofficial visits; the refusal to grant a staff member’s request for a multi-year contract; the disassociation of involved boosters, including a prohibition on attending University home athletic events and a restriction on entering all athletic facilities; violation specific rules education; and a $179,797 financial penalty. See Part D.3 for additional self-imposed penalties.

Yet, there are instances in which the University disagrees with the enforcement staff’s interpretation of the evidence or its sufficiency. Most importantly, the University contests the allegations concerning institutional control and head coach responsibility (Allegations Nos. 20-21). The University has consistently satisfied each of the four pillars of institutional control: (1) “adequate compliance measures exist”; (2) “they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them”; (3) “they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed”; and (4) “on learning of a violation, the institution takes swift action.” See Exhibit IN-1, Division I Committee on Infractions’ Principles of Institutional Control (the “Principles”). It has myriad compliance measures in place, many of which have detected or prevented violations. Those measures have been bolstered over time as a result of evolving national best practices and “hot-button” issues, self-evaluation of areas to improve, and analysis of major infraction reports from across the country. The University has also improved its compliance systems based on lessons learned during this investigation. Because an institutional control charge was not included in the 2016 Notice based upon substantially similar facts, it appears this charge rests on the increased number of allegations, which has never been – and should not be – this Committee’s focus. Instead, the question before the Committee in evaluating the institutional control charge is whether the University had appropriate policies and procedures in place at the time of those violations, and if so, did the University implement and enforce those policies. Second, after careful analysis of the testimony and supporting records, the University has concluded that head football coach Hugh Freeze has met it and membership’s expectations to emphasize and promote compliance and to implement strong and comprehensive monitoring.