Documents show Ole Miss and the Committee on Infractions remain at odds over NCAA ruling

OXFORD — As Ole Miss' NCAA saga slowly crawls toward a conclusion, at least one thing remains fairly clear.

It's that the university and the NCAA's Committee on Infractions are still at odds over the penalties handed down to Ole Miss last December. If you needed additional proof of that, Wednesday was your lucky day.

That was when the university published the COI's response to its appeal and its rebuttal to the committee's response.

In summary, Ole Miss wants the additional postseason ban and the LOIC charge dropped, as well as the unofficial visit restrictions. It also contests the Rebel Rags allegation.

All of these arguments will be heard and sorted out by the five-person Infractions Appeals Committee.

From this point, there's a 10-day fact checking period. Once that's over, a date for a hearing with the Infractions Appeals Committee will be finalized.

The university has requested an in-person hearing.

In February, Ole Miss submitted, and later published, its written appeal to the NCAA. Within the appeal, the university argued that the COI "abused its discretion, departed from precedent, committed procedural errors, and reached factual conclusions inconsistent with the evidence.”

Previously: Ole Miss publishes its written appeal to the NCAA, still awaits COI response

As expected, the COI stood by its ruling — which included a Lack of Instutional Control charge, a second year of a postseason ban and a three-year restriction on unofficial visits — in its response.

“(Ole Miss') arguments are unpersuasive because the panel appropriately concluded that the violations occurred based on all the information in the case," the committee's response stated, "and it prescribed the penalties based on the facts of the case and the scope and breadth of the severe violations.”

There are several points of contention between the two sides. While the COI stuck by its decision, Ole Miss sought a proper explanation as to why some penalties, such as the additional postseason ban, were imposed.

“In its Response, the COI does not refer this Committee to any rationale found in the Infractions Decision for imposing the most severe competition penalty available for a Level I – Standard case," the university's rebuttal stated. "The COI did not do so because the Infractions Decision contains no such explanation. In fact, the COI simply and dogmatically declares that the penalty is appropriate because the COI says so.”

Previously: Where do things stand with Ole Miss and its appeal to the NCAA?

There's also the Rebel Rags allegation, in which former Ole Miss staffers Chris Kiffin and Barney Farrar allegedly arranged for then-recruits and current Mississippi State players Leo Lewis and Kobe Jones, and Lindsey Miller, Laremy Tunsil's estranged stepfather, to receive $2,800 worth of free merchandise from the Oxford-based outlet store.

The university has questioned the credibility of those three and their testimonies regarding Rebel Rags throughout the process. It also argued that corroboration of those testimonies from "uninvolved" and "unbiased" individuals is lacking.

The COI believed those three are credible and still does. It also stood firm in its stance on the unofficial visit restrictions, which limits recruits to one unofficial visit per year through Nov. 30, 2020.

“The panel also properly restricted unofficial visits to one per prospect per year. Bylaw 19.9.7-(1) authorizes panels to prescribe penalties appropriate to the violations," the COI's response stated. "The facts of this case demonstrated Mississippi's failure to control the unofficial visit process. Many violations occurred when prospects made multiple unofficial visits.”

Rebel Rags lawsuit: Mississippi Supreme Court denies petitions for interlocutory appeals in Rebel Rags case

Ole Miss believes the restrictions go against precedent. As it has since December, the university also criticized the committee for weighing cases from 1986 and 1994 in its decision.

The COI defended its decision in its response when it stated: "However, the institution in making the argument ignores Bylaw 19.9.3-(b)-(2), which authorizes panels to consider the similarity, severity and types of violations involved in an offending institution's previous cases. The three cases are similar, severe and include the exact same types of violations. The panel properly gave significant weight to Mississippi's history of violations.”

To which Ole Miss responded: "Before the COI issued its Infractions Decision, it gave no notice to the University that Bylaw 19.9.3-(b) was under consideration as a potential aggravating factor. As a result, the University had no opportunity to address the application of that aggravator.”

The university went as far to say the lack of notice was a "fundamental departure from the principles of justice and fair play."

Previously: What went into the NCAA's ruling on Hugh Freeze?