ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY

The University of Mississippi – Case No. 00561

July 21, 2017

I. INTRODUCTION

This portion of the case includes 21 alleged violations in the institution's football program that occurred

over approximately five and a half years between May 2010 and January 2016. The NCAA enforcement

staff identified 15 of the allegations as Level I, one allegation as Level II and five allegations as Level III.

The facts uncovered during a fair and thorough investigation substantiated numerous violations and

revealed a culture of noncompliance infecting the football program, both internally among personnel and

externally among boosters.

The allegations include ACT exam fraud; the provision of substantial extra benefits and recruiting

inducements, including cash payments; and a range of improper recruiting tactics and booster misconduct.

Another significant factor in this case was that football personnel committed serious violations while the

investigation was ongoing. Many of the facts surrounding the underlying violations are uncontroverted.

The scope and nature of violations also demonstrate that Hugh Freeze (Freeze), head football coach, failed

to satisfy the responsibilities of a head coach and the institution failed to monitor and exercise control over

its athletics program.

The football investigation was lengthy and processing this portion of the case was delayed multiple

times as the enforcement staff and institution periodically received new information of additional

allegations. On January 22, 2016, the enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations in Case No. 189693

that contained 13 football allegations and 15 allegations involving the women's basketball and track and

field programs. On June 8, 2016, the enforcement staff withdrew the football charges after receiving

information six weeks prior of additional violations in the football program that required time to investigate.

The nonfootball allegations were bifurcated over the institution's objection. On July 25, 2016, a hearing

panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions heard Case No. 189693 involving women's
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 2

basketball and track and field. 1 On February 22, 2017, the enforcement staff reissued in this case the original

13 football allegations and eight more that stem primarily from new information the enforcement staff and

institution investigated over the last year. The enforcement staff acknowledges the institution's cooperation

and assistance with the investigation, including its efforts in uncovering factual information that

substantiated violations.

II. ALLEGATION NO. 1 – Between May and June 2010, David Saunders (Saunders), then
administrative operations coordinator for football, and Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), then
assistant football coach and recruiting coordinator, violated the NCAA principles of
ethical conduct when they engaged in fraudulence or misconduct in connection with the
June 2010 ACT exams of three then football prospective student-athletes. The fraudulent
exam scores allowed the three then prospects to satisfy NCAA initial-eligibility academic
requirements. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(h) (2009-10); 14.1.2,
14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.5 (2010-11); 14.11.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13); and 14.10.1
(2013-14)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA

legislation occurred. Vaughn denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in the alleged violations.

Saunders did not submit a response but denied knowledge of and/or involvement in the alleged violations

in his two interviews.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individuals are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 1 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). Vaughn's and Saunders' actions were intentional and/or showed reckless indifference

to the NCAA constitution and bylaws and provided, or were intended to provide, a substantial or extensive

recruiting, competitive or other advantage. Additionally, Vaughn's and Saunders' actions constituted

unethical conduct, a presumptive Level I violation, and seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of

1
Infractions Decision No. 460.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 3

the NCAA Collegiate Model. Their actions also showed a disturbing willingness to jeopardize prospects'

best interests to obtain a compettive advantage. The institution agrees the alleged violations are Level I.

Vaughn did not address level in his response and Saunders did not submit a response.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Origin of the allegation.

The investigation of this matter began with the September 26, 2013, interview of former football

student-athlete and then football student-athlete at the

The enforcement staff arranged interview to discuss matters related to Allegation No. 2; however,

unexpectedly reported information indicating that Vaughn and Saunders engaged in ACT exam

fraud to benefit him and

. The ensuing investigation uncovered information corroborating report and

also generated a separate infractions case involving Saunders committing similar ACT exam fraud at

another institution. 2

2. Background information.

Saunders coached and recruited in Mississippi for many years, developed a large network in the state

and created a program to help prospects navigate the initial-eligibility process. 3 He had multiple stints at

the institution during his career, the last being between April and December 2010, during which he was

responsible for guiding prospects and coaches on the initial-eligibility process and facilitating prospects'

admission to the institution. 4 He served in this role for seven months before accepting a coaching position

at another institution. 5

2
Infractions Decision No. 435.
3
FI113, Page Nos. 54 and 56. See NCAA-2 for the files names of FIs referenced in footnotes.
4
FI113, Page Nos. 9, 10, 14, 20, 45 and 52 through 54; and FI142, Page Nos. 3 through 5, 8 and 16.
5
FI113, Page No. 12.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 4

Vaughn came to the institution in December 2007 as an assistant coach and recruiting coordinator,

including lead recruiter in Florida. 6 He left the institution after the 2011 season and coached at two other

institutions during the pendency of this case. 7 Houston Nutt, then head football coach, reported that

Saunders and Vaughn developed a plan to help cure their academic

deficiencies and become eligible as freshmen. 8

3. The ACT exam.

The ACT exam is comprised of 215 multiple choice questions divided into four sections: English (75

questions), mathematics (60 questions), reading (40 questions) and science (40 questions). Examinees are

not penalized for wrong answers or guessing on questions. ACT developed systems to protect the integrity

of each test and handle situations in which test security may have been compromised. 9 As part of those

protections, ACT identified indicia of test fraud. June 2010 ACT exams

contain indicia of fraud, including erasing incorrect answers and replacing them with correct answers.

4. , ) ACT
testing supervisor, and the ACT exam.

taught in , Mississippi, for over 30 years, including at . She

also worked as a reading specialist and tutor for high school students in the surrounding area. 10 and

Saunders are friends who met through work as an educator and kept in contact through the years,

including to discuss the ACT exam dates and space availability at . 11 They both denied

ever discussing specific students' ACT exams. 12 However, the record indicates that and Saunders

6
FI87, Page No. 7.
7
FI87, Page Nos. 6 and 7.
8
FI142, Page No. 8.
9
FI341.
10
FI122, Page Nos. 2 through 4.
11
FI122, Page Nos. 10 through 12; and FI113, Page No. 33.
12
FI122, Page No. 11.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 5

communicated regarding taking the June 2010 ACT at . 13

The investigation did not produce information that Vaughn and knew one another.

became the ACT testing supervisor in the early 1990s and had not missed

a single administration of the exam as of February 2014. 14 She is an expert on the administration and content

of the exam, and documentation confirms she supervised the June 2010 exam at . 15 In

the summer of 2014, ACT ended role as test supervisor at .

As testing supervisor, was the custodian of the exam materials. She received the materials one

week before the exam and stored them at in a secure storage locker. She then took the

materials to her residence the night before the exam and brought them back to the

following morning for the exam. claimed she took the materials to her residence the night before

because she could not access the storage locker area on exam day; however, it should be noted that one of

the individuals who regularly assisted with administering the exam had access to that locker at all

times.

also claimed she shipped the completed answer sheets back to ACT headquarters immediately

after the exams by placing the documents in the overnight drop slot at the post office, and sent

the other exam materials (test booklets, seating charts, unused materials, etc.) back to ACT in a separate

shipment the Monday following the exam. 16 The enforcement staff was unable to corroborate

purported timing for shipping the materials back to ACT. Nevertheless, the enforcement staff asserts

had unsupervised access to the materials before and after the exam and her explanation for taking the

materials home the night before the exam is not credible.

13
FI152, Page Nos. 10 through 12.
14
FI122, Page No. 4.
15
FI8.
16
FI122, Page Nos. 4, 5, 8 and 9.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 6

and , ACT proctors and room supervisors, assisted

in administering the exam. 17 They stated that while they did not see engage in impropriety

concerning the exam, they believe it would not have been difficult for her to alter an examinee's answer

sheet after the exam because she had sole custody of the materials and there was no oversight of her. 18

The enforcement staff asserts that was involved in the fraud scheme. She had an established

relationship with Saunders and was his primary connection to . She supervised the

exam, knew its subject matter and had unfettered access to the materials before and after the exam.

Moreover, her statements lack credibility and are contradicted by credible and reliable factual information

provided by individuals with personal knowledge. There was also no one else with the level of access

required to make answer changes without detection.

5.

first took the ACT in June 2009 at near his hometown of

and received scores of 12 in English, 15 in mathematics, eight in reading and 15 in science for a

composite score of 13. 19 This score required to retake the exam to meet initial-eligibility academic

requirements.

second and final attempt of the ACT was the June 2010 exam at ,

approximately from his home. He registered in-person at the morning of

the exam as a standby examinee. 20 He had no connection to or the state of Mississippi

other than through his recruitment by the institution. received scores of 21 in English, 20 in

mathematics, 24 in reading and 19 in science for a composite score of 21. 21 This score was sufficient for

17
FI151, Page No. 2; and FI153, Page No. 2.
18
FI151, Page No. 29; and FI153, Page Nos. 6 and 31.
19
FI170; and FI349, Page No. 29.
20
FI170.
21
FI349, Page No. 28; FI355; and FI356.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 7

him to meet initial-eligibility academic requirements. More importantly, like the other prospects, this

increase represented a dramatic change from the original exam score.

Without prompting, reported that he did not legitimately earn his June 2010 exam score and

did not register or pay for the exam. 22 He also reported that Vaughn directed him, to

take this exam at as opposed to a site near their homes in and instructed

them during a phone call the night before the test to only answer questions they knew and to leave the others

blank. 23 When asked how he and the other prospects knew where to go and what time to arrive for the test,

stated, "Coach Vaughn told us what time and what testing center." 24 Vaughn's telephone records

show calls with the prospects the night before the exam, which supports account of communications

with Vaughn. 25

also reported that he followed Vaughn's instruction and only answered approximately 10

questions on the entire exam. 26 However, all 215 questions on answer sheet were populated and

there were minimal erasures, answer changes, markings or other indications of work in his materials. 27

also stated that his main purpose for taking the June 2010 exam was to increase his reading score,

a subject with which he struggled. 28 The enforcement staff notes that reading score jumped 16

points from his June 2009 to his June 2010 exam. also stated that admitted to

him that they also left a significant number of questions unanswered. 29

Further, it would be unsound to advise an examinee to leave questions unanswered as there is no

incentive for doing so and no penalty for guessing. However, intentionally leaving answers blank would

22
FI100, Page No. 9.
23
FI100, Page Nos. 8 through 10, 17 through 19, 22 and 23.
24
FI100, Page No. 23.
25
FI3; FI347; and FI348.
26
FI100, Page No. 19.
27
FI7; and FI9.
28
FI100, Page No. 8.
29
FI100, Page Nos. 20 and 21.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 8

facilitate fraud, as it would allow someone to populate the answers afterwards without leaving erasure

marks on the answer sheet.

6.

first took the ACT exam in February 2010 at in

and received scores of 11 in English, 21 in mathematics, 12 in reading and 12 in

science for a composite score of 14. 30 That score was not reported to the NCAA Eligibility Center;

nonetheless, it required him to retake the exam to meet initial-eligibility academic requirements. 31

second and final attempt on the ACT was the June 2010 exam at in

which he received scores of 19 in English, 17 in mathematics, 24 in reading and 21 in science for a

composite score of 20. 32 Like registered in person at the morning of

the exam as a standby examinee. 33 The score was sufficient for him to meet initial-eligibility requirements.

corroborated report. Specifically, he stated that Vaughn and Saunders arranged for

him, to take the exam at , and instructed them beforehand to refrain

from answering exam questions they did not know. 34 recalled that he left between 15 to 20 exam

questions unanswered, yet like each question on his answer sheet was ultimately populated. 35

Additionally, answer sheet contained a significant number of answer changes. 36 He also reported

that he did not study for the exam and neither did to his knowledge. 37

30
FI137; and FI350, Page No. 25.
31
FI344.
32
FI137; FI344; and FI350, Page No. 24.
33
FI137.
34
FI112, Page Nos. 5 through 9 and 17.
35
FI6; and FI112, Page No. 17.
36
FI6.
37
FI119, Page Nos. 27 and 28.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 9

The enforcement staff asserts that in total, 65 answers were changed on answer sheet, 53 of

which were changed from an incorrect answer to the correct answer. His answer sheet also contained other

indicia of tampering. 38

7.

ceased cooperating with the investigation, which prevented the enforcement staff from

obtaining his test booklet and answer sheet. The enforcement staff asserts that ceasing cooperation

bears negatively on his credibility. Additionally, the circumstances surrounding his June 2010 ACT exam

closely align with those surrounding and

first took the exam in February 2010 at and received scores of eight in English,

21 in mathematics, 16 in reading and 16 in science for a composite score of 15. 39 The score required him

to either retake it or take additional summer courses to satisfy initial-eligibility requirements. did

both, but withdrew from his courses once his June 2010 ACT qualifying score was released. 40

took the exam a second and final time in June 2010 at and received scores

of 17 in English, 19 in mathematics, 23 in reading and 22 in science for a composite score of 20. 41

originally registered for the exam May 7 and selected as his testing site; however, he

appeared at the morning of June 12, 2010, and took the exam as a standby examinee. 42

The enforcement staff asserts that spontaneously changing his registration from a site near his home

to , a place to which he had no prior association, is indicative of fraud. June

2010 ACT score was sufficient for him to meet initial-eligibility requirements.

38
FI6.
39
FI101, Page No. 28; FI346, Page No. 5; and FI354.
40
FI101, Page No. 12.
41
FI346, Page No. 6; and FI354.
42
FI117, Page Nos. 1 and 2.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 10

reported that Vaughn and Saunders told him he needed to take the June 2010 ACT exam to be

eligible as a freshman. 43 When asked why he took the exam in Mississippi as opposed to

reported that his father made the decision on his behalf. 44 According to phone records, Vaughn placed

multiple calls to and father in the days and weeks leading up to the exam, including during
45
their drive to from the night before the text with and

reported that he could not recall whether he left a significant number of exam questions

unanswered, which the enforcement staff does not find credible. 46 Additionally,

and , the room supervisors of June 2010 ACT exam, recalled that he left

several answers blank and did not finish the exam. 47 considered it "odd" in her experience

as room supervisor. 48

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did Saunders engage in fraudulence or misconduct in connection with the June 2010

ACT exams of and/or

2. Did Vaughn engage in fraudulence or misconduct in connection with the June 2010

ACT exams of and/or

E. Additional matters that relate to Allegation No. 1.

Vaughn's response to Allegation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are incorrectly numbered as 10, 11 and 12, which

corresponds to the numbering in the original notice of allegations in Case No. 189693.

III. ALLEGATION NO. 2 – During the summer of 2010, Saunders and Vaughn violated the
NCAA principles of ethical conduct when they knowingly arranged for Darel Thigpen
(Thigpen), then representative of the institution's athletics interests, to provide
impermissible recruiting inducements in the form of free housing, meals and

43
FI101, Page Nos. 31 and 33.
44
FI101, Page No. 9.
45
FI3; FI347; and FI348.
46
FI101, Page Nos. 23, 37 and 38.
47
FI152, Page Nos. 17, 18 and 45 through 50; and FI159, Page Nos. 3 through 5, 9 and 11.
48
FI159, Page No. 4.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 11

transportation to five then football prospective student-athletes. Additionally, Saunders
knowingly arranged for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and transportation to a
sixth then football prospect. Further, Derrick Nix (Nix), assistant football coach, was
involved in arranging for the sixth then football prospect to receive free housing, meals
and/or transportation. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c), 13.01.4,
13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.15.1 (2009-10); 14.11.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13); and
14.10.1 (2013-14)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 2-a and 2-b concerning

the provision of impermissible housing and transportation are substantially correct and violations of NCAA

legislation occurred. However, the institution disagrees the record substantiates the provision of

impermissible meals. The institution also disagrees the facts detailed in Allegation No. 2-c are substantially

correct or substantiate that Nix was involved in arranging impermissible benefits. The institution further

asserts that the alleged violations should be found as preferential treatment under NCAA Bylaw 12 rather

than impermissible recruiting inducements under Bylaw 13. 49 Vaughn asserted that his actions concerning

Allegation 2-a were not impermissible and Nix submitted similar arguments concerning Allegation No. 2-

c. Saunders did not submit a response, but denied wrongdoing in his two interviews.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individuals are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 2 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). The alleged violations involved unethical conduct by Saunders and Vaughn, a

presumptive Level I violation. Additionally, Saunders, Vaughn and Nix had knowledge of and/or

involvement in arranging for Thigpen to provide substantial or extensive impermissible benefits that were

intended to, and/or resulted in, the enrollment of prospective student-athletes. The monetary value of the

49
Finding as preferential treatment rather than recruiting inducements would negate institutional culpability.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 12

benefits was substantial or extensive and there was a substantial intrinsic value in that the prospects were

able to cure their academic deficiencies at the last minute when no other alternatives were available.

The enforcement staff also believes Saunders', Vaughn's and Nix's actions provided, or were intended

to provide, a substantial recruiting, competitive or other advantage in that the arrangements were not

available to other institutions recruiting the prospects. Their actions seriously undermined or threatened the

integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Further, when viewed alongside Allegation No. 1, their actions

reveal a comprehensive plan intended to transform nonqualifiers into qualifiers by improper means.

The institution believes the alleged violations are Level II. Vaughn did not take a position regarding

the level. Nix asserts that if he is found to have committed a violation, his culpability should be classified

as Level III. Saunders did not submit a response or otherwise take a position regarding level.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Origin of the allegation.

The enforcement staff received information that the institution's football program arranged for multiple

prospects in the 2010 signing class to live in , Mississippi, while completing summer courses at the

to become eligible as freshmen. Preliminary investigative steps

revealed that then football prospective student-athletes (

( ( and took courses at the during

the summer of 2010 while living with Thigpen in Jackson. Additional information was developed

establishing that Saunders, Vaughn and Nix made the arrangements.

2. Background information.

Saunders became acquainted with the via a prospect from the 2002 signing class whom he

previously recruited to the institution. 50 Vaughn recruited and

50
FI113, Page Nos. 15 and 16.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 13

to the institution. 51 The institution hired Nix in 2007 as an assistant coach and he remains employed in that
52
capacity. He recruited

Thigpen is a resident and operated two religiously-affiliated secondary schools in Mississippi

that were closed by the summer of 2010. Thigpen and Saunders have a longstanding relationship and

Thigpen first met Vaughn in the summer of 2010. 53 Thigpen and Vaughn exchanged multiple

communications in June and July 2010 and Vaughn visited Thigpen's home that summer while the prospects

were living there. 54

and grew up in and signed with the institution

in February 2010. They were each at-risk of not qualifying out of high school and required additional course

credits and/or improved standardized test scores to meet initial-eligibility requirements. None had any

connection to Mississippi or Thigpen prior to the summer of 2010.

Conversely, grew up in and was

similarly at risk of not qualifying out of high school due to a science credit deficiency. 55 Despite being a

had no prior connection to Thigpen or the area before the summer of

2010. The six prospects were the only individuals who lived with Thigpen during this period.56 The

enforcement staff asserts that but for Saunders, Vaughn and Nix making these arrangements, none of the

prospects would have satisfied initial-eligibility standards.

51
FI87, Page Nos. 16 through 18.
52
FI81, Page No. 7.
53
FI87, Page Nos. 14 and 15; and FI113, Page No. 28.
54
FI3, Page Nos. 38, 45, 47, 49, 65, 67 and 68; and FI87, Page Nos. 16 and 17.
55
FI81, Page No. 3.
56
FI88, Page Nos. 57 and 61.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 14

3. Factual information supporting the alleged violations.

a. Overview.

Saunders, Vaughn and Nix arranged for Thigpen to provide the six then prospects with free housing,

meals and transportation while they were enrolled at the . The enforcement staff asserts that

Saunders and Vaughn knowingly made these arrangements, which raised their culpability to unethical

conduct. The enforcement staff also asserts that while Nix played a key role in arranging

accommodations as his primary recruiter, his involvement was less than Saunders or Vaughn and did not

rise to unethical conduct.

Saunders served as the well-connected NCAA eligibility expert and primary link between the football

program and Thigpen. He communicated with the prospects and recruiting coaches in carrying out logistical

arrangements. 57 Vaughn was the primary recruiter of the five and the link between

them and Saunders and Thigpen. He also communicated with Saunders, the five prospects and Thigpen

between May and July 2010, including in June prior to their arrival at Thigpen's home. 58 Nix recruited

and served as the link between and Saunders and Thigpen.

b. Saunders, Vaughn and .

passed a science course at the . 59 and reported that they withdrew

from their courses because their June 2010 ACT exam scores were sufficient to meet initial-

eligibility academic requirements. 60 passed and

57
FI113, Page No. 46.
58
FI3.
59
FI352.
60
FI100, Page Nos. 13 and 33; and FI101, Page No. 12.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 15

courses at the . 61 completed multiple courses, including and

but did not enroll at the institution. 62

Saunders acknowledged the six prospects took courses at the in the summer of 2010 while

living with Thigpen. 63 He also reported that he spoke to Vaughn about this matter at the time and recalled

this was the only way for the prospects to cure their deficiencies. 64 However, Saunders claimed to have

only informed the prospects and their families that enrolling at the while living with Thigpen

were options. 65 The enforcement staff asserts that Saunders' characterization is a gross misrepresentation

of his knowledge and involvement.

Vaughn acknowledged that and had to improve their

academic profiles during the summer of 2010 to be eligible that fall. 66 Similar to Saunders, Vaughn claimed

his role in these arrangements was limited to informing the prospects about what Thigpen could provide

but otherwise he stayed out of the matter. 67 Vaughn also claimed he believed at the time it was permissible

to direct the prospects to Thigpen but understood he could have no further involvement. Vaughn could not

specify how he concluded this was the threshold of permissible involvement. 68

It is also notable that Vaughn purportedly went to great lengths to avoid knowing the details of the

prospects' living arrangements. When asked how much it cost the prospects to live with Thigpen, Vaughn

stated that he "didn't know anything about that," adding that he "never asked them, didn't want to ask."69

Vaughn reiterated several times he did not want to ask for details of the prospects' stay with Thigpen because

61
FI350, Page No. 21.
62
FI74.
63
FI113, Page Nos. 22 through 25.
64
FI113, Page Nos. 25 and 46 through 49.
65
FI113, Page Nos. 19 through 22.
66
FI87, Page Nos. 16 through 20.
67
FI87, Page Nos. 20 through 22, 26 and 38 through 40.
68
FI87, Page Nos. 27 through 29.
69
FI87, Page No. 21.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 16

it was not his responsibility. 70 His rationale for avoiding these details was "because once I knew or if I

knew, then I'd be responsible to tell you that I knew how much something cost or I knew, I didn't want to

get into that at all." 71 He also reported that he did not inform the compliance office the prospects would be

living with Thigpen while enrolled at the , even though he purportedly informed them that is

where the prospects would be enrolled in summer courses. 72

The reported that Vaughn guided them through their academic deficiencies

and all but implicated Vaughn in arranging their accommodations at Thigpen's. stated that

Vaughn was the only staff member with whom he spoke regarding the and living at Thigpen's,

recalling Vaughn told him "that basically you'll be staying here with Mr. Thigpen at this house." 73

did not pay to live with Thigpen other than using his own money for food, which he believes Vaughn knew

at the time. 74 mother, stated Vaughn informed her shortly before

graduated high school that he would need to take a summer course to become eligible and informed her and

about the . 75 She also recalled speaking with Thigpen before travelled to

Mississippi and the only way she would have reached Thigpen was through Vaughn. 76 She stated that

Vaughn told her would be staying with Thigpen while he completed his courses. 77

According to Vaughn was the reason he took summer courses at the . 78 He reported

that Vaughn introduced him to Thigpen and, in addition to providing free housing, Thigpen helped him

70
FI87, Page No. 21.
71
FI87, Page No. 22.
72
FI87, Page Nos. 22, 23.
73
FI76, Page Nos. 5, 7 through 9, 10, 11, 18 and 33.
74
FI76, Page Nos. 11 through 13, 17, 32 and 33.
75
FI93, Page Nos. 3 and 4.
76
FI93, Page No. 5.
77
FI93, Page No. 7.
78
FI78, Page Nos. 8 and 9.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 17

register for his courses. 79 Further, recalled that Thigpen drove him and the other prospects to and

from the Ed. Center and neither he nor his family paid Thigpen for his accommodations. 80

recalled communicating with Saunders and Vaughn during his recruitment about his

eligibility. 81 stated that he lived with Thigpen while he took summer courses and Vaughn and

Saunders "set the whole thing up." 82 reported that he does not know how his courses were paid for,

but neither he nor his family paid for them. Nor did he pay for anything while living with Thigpen. 83 Further,

reported that he was "pretty sure" Vaughn knew he was living at Thigpen's for free because Vaughn

"arranged for us to live there." 84

reported that he lived with the other prospects at Thigpen's and Vaughn helped him get

"situated" at Thigpen's house. 85 reported that he could not recall who assisted in arranging for him

to stay with Thigpen, but noted Vaughn was the only coach from the institution involved in his recruitment

and who told him he needed additional coursework to be eligible as a freshman. 86

c. Saunders, Nix and

Nix's role in these arrangements was akin to Vaughn's, but to a lesser degree as he was only involved

with one prospect ( whereas Vaughn was involved with five. Nix recruited and

communicated with him and his family. 87 Nix learned during 12th-grade year he would need to

79
FI78, Page Nos. 9, 10 and 12 through 14.
80
FI78, Page Nos. 17 through 19.
81
FI100, Page Nos. 7 and 8.
82
FI100, Page Nos. 10 and 11.
83
FI100, Page Nos. 13 and 27 through 29.
84
FI100, Page No. 29.
85
FI112, Page No. 9.
86
FI79, Page Nos. 6 and 7.
87
FI89, Page No. 25.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 18

complete an additional course to satisfy initial-eligibility requirements and spoke to Saunders about

potential remedies, including the . 88

Nix reported in August 2013 that he informed and his family of the option; 89

however, he reported in July 2014 that he put in touch with Saunders regarding this option and
90
indicated he did not personally relay the information to Nix also claimed he did not

know was living with Thigpen until later in the summer of 2010. 91 Nix described his learning of

this arrangement as "kind of a shock." He also acknowledged that he only consulted Saunders regarding

Thigpen and did not consult the athletics compliance office regarding this matter despite knowing other

signees were living with Thigpen. 92 The enforcement staff does not find credible the notion that Nix learned

well into stay at Thigpen's that he was living there.

But for Nix's contribution, would not have enrolled at the or lived with Thigpen.

While recollection of how he came to attend the and live with Thigpen is not perfect,

his statements align with the other prospects'. stated that the only coach he spoke to was Nix and

if he spoke to a coach about the "it probably had to be coach Nix." 93 When asked how he learned

of the opportunity to live with Thigpen, stated, "I want to say probably coach Nix if I'm not

mistaken. I mean, that could be the only person that would be able to inform me about that, so I would have,

I would probably would say coach Nix." 94 also identified Nix as a possible source of how he

88
FI89, Page No. 19.
89
FI89, Page No. 22.
90
FI138, Page Nos. 3 and 4.
91
FI138, Page No. 4.
92
FI89, Page Nos. 30, 31 and 33.
93
FI81, Page No. 8.
94
FI81, Page No. 14.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 19

obtained Thigpen's address. 95 Like the other prospects, reported that he did not pay to live with

Thigpen. 96

Further, Nix exchanged multiple telephone calls with Saunders between May 6 and June 24, 2010,

which corresponds with the time period in which these arrangements were made. Also, Vaughn was

informed August 14, 2013, that the enforcement staff had requested to interview him, but Vaughn was not

informed at that time of the subject matter of the interview. However, he immediately began calling

individuals with knowledge of pertinent facts of the investigation, including Nix. 97 Vaughn and Nix

acknowledged that Nix relayed to Vaughn information he (Nix) had learned from specifically that

the subject matter of the investigation was regarding the 2010 signees and their summer courses. 98 The

enforcement staff asserts that Vaughn calling Nix and Nix relaying information regarding the investigation

indicates Nix knew pertinent details of the issues under investigation and was involved in the violations.

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did Saunders knowingly arrange for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and

transportation to and

2. Did Vaughn knowingly arrange for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and

transportation to and

3. Did Nix assist in arranging for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and

transportation to

4. What is the level of the alleged violations?

5. If the panel concludes Nix is culpable for violations, what is the level of his culpability?

6. Are the violations impermissible recruiting inducements or preferential treatment?

95
FI81, Page No. 15.
96
FI81, Page No. 14.
97
FI77; and FI343.
98
FI87, Page Nos. 11 and 13; and FI89, Page Nos. 11 through 14.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 20

E. Rebuttal information.

The institution asserted in its response that the violations should be considered preferential treatment

(rather than impermissible recruiting inducements) when assessing penalties because the student-athlete

reinstatement (SAR) requests submitted in August 2013 as part of this matter were processed as such.

At the time the institution submitted its SAR requests, the enforcement staff had not completed its

investigation and had not confirmed involvement by institutional representatives. The enforcement staff did

not object to the SAR requests as drafted by the institution to facilitate the student-athletes' prompt

reinstatement because the first contest of the season was approaching. However, additional facts came to

light later in the investigation. After completing the investigation, it was apparent that the violations were

arranged by football staff members and therefore constituted impermissible recruiting inducements. The

enforcement staff vetted the ultimate bylaw citations internally and through the NCAA academic and

membership affairs (AMA) staff, and in both instances, the Bylaw 13 citations as alleged were deemed

correct due to the institutional nexus in making the arrangements.

IV. ALLEGATION NO. 3 – Between August 14 and 31, 2013, Vaughn, former assistant
football coach, violated the NCAA cooperative principle when he communicated with
individuals with knowledge of pertinent facts regarding the enforcement staff's
investigation of the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 and 2 after being admonished
on multiple occasions to refrain from doing so to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Additionally, on December 17, 2013, Vaughn violated the NCAA principles of ethical
conduct when he knowingly provided false or misleading information regarding his
knowledge of and/or involvement in violations of NCAA legislation. [NCAA Division I
Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2 (2013-14)]

A. Overview.

Vaughn disagrees his actions in contacting individuals with knowledge of pertinent facts constituted a

cooperative principle violation and asserts that he was truthful during his December 17, 2013, interview.

The institution did not take a position regarding this allegation.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 21

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 3 is a severe breach of

conduct (Level I). The allegations involve violations of the NCAA principles of ethical conduct and

cooperation, which are presumptive Level I violations. Additionally, the responsibility to cooperate and

provide truthful information is paramount to a full and complete investigation, which the membership has

identified as critical to the common interests of the Association and preservation of its enduring values.

Vaughn and the institution did not address the identified level of the allegation.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Violation of the cooperative principle.

On the morning of August 14, 2013, the enforcement staff contacted Jason Gray (Gray), then associate

athletics director for compliance at the University of Memphis, to request an interview of Vaughn. 99 The

enforcement staff did not inform Gray as to the subject matter of the interview, except to confirm that it did

not involve the University of Memphis. The enforcement staff requested that Gray inform Vaughn of the

interview request, advise him of his right to legal counsel and admonish him not to discuss the matter with

anyone other than personal legal counsel. The enforcement staff also permitted Gray to inform the then

University of Memphis head football coach of the staff's request.

That day, Gray informed the then University of Memphis head football coach of the enforcement staff's

interview request of Vaughn and asked the head coach to direct Vaughn to contact him (Gray). At 12:04

p.m. Central time, Vaughn called Gray and Gray informed Vaughn of the enforcement staff's interview

request; Gray also summoned Vaughn to his office during the call and admonished Vaughn on the phone

99
Vaughn was an assistant football coach at the University of Memphis at the time.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 22

not to speak to anyone about the matter. 100 Immediately following this call, Vaughn called several

individuals with knowledge of pertinent facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 and 2, including Nix. 101 Nix is

named in Allegation No. 2.

Around 1:30 p.m. that day, Gray and Vaughn met in person and discussed the enforcement staff's

interview request. Gray again admonished Vaughn not to discuss the matter with anyone other than legal

counsel. 102

Shortly after this meeting, Vaughn attempted to contact Nix again and called several other individuals

with knowledge of pertinent facts. 103 At 3:05 p.m., Vaughn called Matt Ball (Ball), senior associate athletics

director for compliance, seeking information about the matter. Ball declined to share any information and

notified the enforcement staff of Vaughn's call. 104

In response, the enforcement staff immediately called Gray, who in turn called Vaughn and admonished

him for the third time in less than four hours to refrain from contacting others about this matter. This call

from Gray to Vaughn occurred at 3:40 p.m. and lasted 13 minutes. During the call, Gray provided Vaughn

the contact information for Melanie Murry (Murry), University of Memphis general counsel. 105

On August 15 at 12:35 p.m., Murry and Vaughn spoke for 21 minutes during which Murry again

admonished Vaughn about his obligation to protect the integrity of the investigation and to not speak with

others about the matter. They also spoke on the phone at other times and exchanged multiple text messages

that day. 106

100
FI108, Page Nos. 22 and 23; and FI 343.
101
FI343.
102
FI108, Page Nos. 5, 23 through 26 and 46.
103
FI343.
104
FI343.
105
FI108, Page No. 32; and FI343.
106
FI109, Page Nos. 6 through 10; and FI343.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 23

At 3:11 p.m. that day, Vaughn texted Nix "Holla at me later tonight! CV," which violated the multiple

prior admonishments. 107 At 9:52 p.m. that evening, Vaughn placed an outgoing call to Nix that lasted 14

minutes. 108 From there until approximately 11:28 p.m., Vaughn placed a series of calls and text messages

to individuals involved in the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 and 2, including and

, Nix, Saunders, and Thigpen. 109

Vaughn and Nix acknowledged in interviews that they spoke during this period about having

been interviewed by the NCAA regarding his eligibility. 110 Learning this information prompted Vaughn to

call and others. The enforcement staff submits that Vaughn's actions jeopardized the

student-athletes' eligibility and may have affected the staff's investigation of potential violations, including

the alleged ACT exam fraud issue that, at the time, had not been uncovered. Vaughn acknowledged

engaging in these communications and his purpose for doing so was to ascertain the nature of the

enforcement staff's investigation. 111

When Vaughn was initially questioned in August 2013 about this issue, he was asked to identify all the

individuals he called. While Vaughn acknowledged contacting Nix, and Thigpen, he failed to disclose

that he had also communicated with Saunders. 112 In fact, of the individuals Vaughn spoke to during this

period, he had by far the most contact with Saunders (approximately 80 minutes of talk time in four days

in addition to six text messages). 113 The enforcement staff asserts that Vaughn's failure to disclose the

Saunders communications is relevant to his credibility and violative of the cooperative principle. It is also

107
FI86 and FI343.
108
FI343.
109
FI343.
110
FI121, Page Nos. 18 through 24.
111
FI87, Page Nos. 11 through 13.
112
FI87, Page No. 13.
113
FI343.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 24

noteworthy that after his August 19 interview, Vaughn continued to communicate with Nix and Saunders

contrary to repeated instructions.

2. Knowingly providing false or misleading information.

The enforcement staff incorporates its review of the facts for Allegation No. 1. There is no genuine

dispute between the institution and enforcement staff that the facts occurred substantially as alleged.

However, during his December 2013 interview, Vaughn denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in

the violations detailed in Allegation No. 1. Specifically, Vaughn denied instructing the three then football

prospective student-athletes identified in Allegation No. 1 to take the June 2010 ACT exam at

and to refrain from answering exam questions to which they did not know the answer to

facilitate fraudulence or misconduct in connection with their exams. 114 The enforcement staff asserts that

the record overwhelmingly substantiates Vaughn's knowledge of and/or involvement in Allegation No. 1

and his statements to the contrary were knowingly false or misleading. They also hindered the enforcement

staff's effort to uncover relevant facts in a timely manner.

D. Remaining issue(s).

1. Did Vaughn violate the NCAA cooperative principle when he communicated with

individuals with knowledge of pertinent facts regarding the investigation after being

admonished multiple times to refrain from doing so?

2. Did Vaughn knowingly provide false or misleading information in his December 2013

interview when he denied knowledge of and/or involvement in the violations detailed

in Allegation No. 1?

V. ALLEGATION NO. 4 – On December 16, 2013, and February 25, 2014, Saunders, former
administrative operations coordinator for football, violated the NCAA principles of
ethical conduct when he knowingly provided false or misleading information regarding

114
FI115, Page Nos. 34 through 36 and 47 through 50.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 25

his knowledge of and/or involvement in violations of NCAA legislation. [NCAA Division
I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d) (2013-14)]

A. Overview.

Saunders did not submit a response but denied any wrongdoing in his two interviews. The institution

did not take a position regarding this allegation.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 4 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). The alleged violations involve unethical conduct, a presumptive Level I violation.

Additionally, the responsibility to provide truthful information is paramount to a full and complete

investigation, which the membership has identified as critical to the common interests of the Association

and preservation of its enduring values. Saunders and the institution did not address the level of the

allegation.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

The enforcement staff incorporates its review of the facts for Allegation No. 1. During his two

interviews, Saunders denied any knowledge of and/or involvement in the violations detailed in Allegation

No. 1. Specifically, he denied arranging for the three then football prospective student-athletes identified in

Allegation No. 1 to take the June 2010 ACT exam at and receive fraudulent scores. 115

The enforcement staff asserts that the record overwhelmingly substantiates Saunders' knowledge of and/or

involvement in Allegation No. 1 and his statements to the contrary were knowingly false or misleading.

115
FI113, Page Nos. 36 through 41; and FI123, Page Nos. 12 through 17.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 26

D. Remaining issue.

Did Saunders knowingly provide false or misleading information in his December 2013 and February

2014 interviews when he denied knowledge of and/or involvement in the violations detailed in Allegation

No. 1?

VI. ALLEGATION NO. 5 – During the 2012-13 academic year, Walter Hughes (Hughes),
then representative of the institution's athletics interests, assisted the institution in its
recruitment of four then football prospective student-athletes by engaging in recruiting
activities that promoted the football program. Hughes' activities included engaging in
impermissible recruiting contact with the four then prospects and their families, as well
as providing them with approximately $2,250 in impermissible recruiting inducements.
Maurice Harris (M. Harris), assistant football coach and recruiting coordinator, knew of
Hughes' association with the four then prospects, and at times, facilitated Hughes'
recruiting activities. Further, between January 18 and February 3, 2013, M. Harris
arranged for two of the then prospects to receive approximately $485 in impermissible
meals, lodging and transportation during visits to the institution. [NCAA Division I
Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4-(a), 13.1.2.5, 13.1.3.5.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-
(b), 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 (2012-13)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree this allegation is generally supported by credible and

persuasive factual information and violations occurred. However, the institution disputes certain facts

detailed in Allegation Nos. 5-e, 5-h, 5-j, 5-m and 5-o and argues the allegations imply M. Harris engaged

in these activities knowing his conduct violated NCAA legislation. The enforcement staff did not allege M.

Harris committed the violations detailed herein knowing it was impermissible, nor did it intend to imply as

such in crafting the allegations.

M. Harris disputes facilitating Hughes' involvement in the four prospects' recruitment or knowing at

the time that Hughes was providing impermissible inducements. He also incorporates the institution's

disagreements regarding Allegation Nos. 5-e, 5-h, 5-j, 5-m and 5-o.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 27

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 5 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). The impermissible inducements have a total monetary value of approximately $2,735,

which is substantial or extensive, and provided, or were intended to provide, a substantial or extensive

recruiting, competitive or other advantage. Hughes provided the bulk of the inducements, which the

enforcement staff asserts were intended to secure the four prospects' enrollment at the institution despite

his claims to the contrary. The enforcement staff notes that although some of the individual dollar values

detailed in the subsections below are nominal, the recurring nature of the inducements were nonetheless

significant in the recruitment of these prospects.

M. Harris at times facilitated Hughes' activities and arranged free meals, lodging and transportation for

two of the prospects in conjunction with unofficial visits. Further, facilitating third party involvement in

recruiting seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Last, the alleged

violations occurred during much of the 2012-13 academic year and were not isolated or limited. The

institution agrees this allegation is appropriately classified as Level I; however, it believes each individual

violation would be classified as Level II or III. M. Harris incorporated in his response the institution's

position regarding the level and stated in his prehearing conference his culpability is not Level I.

The enforcement staff acknowledges there are subparts to this allegation that, had they occurred in a

vacuum, would likely constitute Level II or III violations. However, the violations detailed in these 16

subparts did not occur in a vacuum; rather, they are a biproduct of approximately five months' worth of

impermissible recruiting by Hughes, M. Harris and others made toward the singular goal of benefitting the

institution's recruitment of the prospects.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 28

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

Hughes resides in , Tennessee, and was a booster at the time of the alleged violations. While

he was not a significant financial contributor to the institution, he is an avid fan of its athletics programs

and closely follows football recruiting. He was a baseball season ticketholder and regularly attended home

football games and other football-related functions prior to his disassociation. He is also involved with his

local church and does outreach and mentoring for high school students, including prospects. Hughes met

then football prospective student-athletes ( (

( and ( through these efforts.

2. Hughes' relationship with the football staff.

M. Harris was Hughes' primary contact on the football staff. They first met during the October 13,

2012, home football game and recruiting weekend. 116 Between October 16, 2012, and February 26, 2013,

M. Harris and Hughes exchanged 55 telephone calls and 208 text messages, the bulk of which Hughes

initiated. 117 Hughes also exchanged eight telephone calls and 51 text messages with Matt Luke (M. Luke),

assistant football coach, and sent one text message to Freeze during this time span. 118 M. Harris and Hughes

also exchanged numerous emails regarding the prospects. 119

M. Harris viewed Hughes as someone who could provide access to the prospects and facilitate

communication with them, as it was often challenging for the football staff to make contact with the

prospects and their families. 120 M. Luke recognized that Hughes was often around the prospects and

116
FI54, Page No. 11.
117
FI17, FI18, FI325 and FI326.
118
FI17, FI18, FI325 and FI326.
119
FI49; and FI54, Page Nos. 10, 21 and 22.
120
FI54, Page No. 10.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 29

involved in their recruitment. 121 The football staff also knew Hughes would bring the prospects to campus

for visits. 122 M. Harris stated that he was only briefly concerned about Hughes' involvement as he

considered him to have a "prior relationship" with the prospects. M. Harris reached this conclusion without

knowing the length of Hughes' relationship to the prospects or NCAA rules regarding pre-existing

relationships. M. Harris acknowledged that he should have inquired further into Hughes and knew at the

time boosters could not be involved in recruiting. 123 Neither M. Harris nor any other football staffer

consulted compliance regarding Hughes despite his involvement throughout the prospects' recruitment.

3. Allegation No. 5-a.

On October 13, 2012, Hughes provided and roundtrip transportation between

and the institution for a home football game and unofficial visit, and also provided a

meal. 124 The combined monetary value of the transportation and meal was approximately $43.125 Hughes

and M. Harris met on this occasion. 126

4. Allegation No. 5-b.

On November 10, 2012, Hughes provided and roundtrip transportation

between and the institution for a home football game and unofficial visit, and also provided

a meal. 127 The combined monetary value of the transportation and meal was approximately $43.128

Hughes notified M. Harris via email that he was planning to bring and to the institution

121
FI55, Page Nos. 5 through 7, 10.
122
FI50, Page No. 62; FI61, Page No. 21; and FI62, Page No. 21.
123
FI54, Page Nos. 14 through 18.
124
FI20, Page Nos. 1 and 2; FI21, Page Nos. 1 and 7; FI50, Page Nos. 42, 47, 96 and 97; FI51, Page Nos. 48 and 49;
FI58, Page Nos. 14 and 15; FI61, Page Nos. 23 and 24; FI62, Page Nos. 11 and 13; and FI363, Page Nos. 237 and
239.
125
FI114, Page No. 5; and FI126, Page No. 4.
126
FI50, Page Nos. 46, 115; and FI364, Page No. 1.
127
FI20, Page No. 3; FI21, Page Nos. 2, 3, 8; FI50, Page Nos. 41, 42, 50, 52 through 54, 96, 97, 116 and 117; FI51,
Page Nos. 18, 19, 48 through 50; FI62, Page Nos. 11 through 13; FI360, Page No. 23; and FI363, Page No. 195.
128
FI126, Page No. 4.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 30

on this occasion and M. Harris later texted Hughes thanking him. 129 M. Luke also acknowledged seeing

Hughes with the prospects on this occasion. 130

5. Allegation No. 5-c.

On November 24, 2012, Hughes provided and roundtrip transportation

between and the institution for a home football game and unofficial visit, and also provided the

prospects with meals on this occasion. The combined monetary value of the transportation and meals was

approximately $83. 131 Hughes notified M. Harris via text he would accompany the prospects and was with

the prospects in the locker room after the game. 132

6. Allegation No. 5-d.

In late November 2012, M. Harris tasked Hughes to arrange an in-person recruiting contact between

M. Luke and mother. 133 Specifically, on November 28, M. Harris provided Hughes with

mother's telephone number and asked Hughes to arrange the meeting. 134 M. Luke also exchanged text

messages with Hughes regarding the matter. M. Luke reported that this made him uncomfortable. 135 It

should be noted the recruiting contact between M. Luke and mother did not occur. Regardless, the

enforcement staff asserts that M. Harris used Hughes here because he believed it would help in

recruitment, a prospect with whom the football staff was struggling to connect with at the time.

Accordingly, the effort was intended to provide a recruiting advantage.

129
FI22, Page No. 1; and FI364, Page No. 1.
130
FI55, Page No. 13.
131
FI114, Page No. 5.
132
FI51, Page Nos. 51 through 53; FI58, Page No. 15; FI60, Page No. 10; FI61, Page No. 27; FI361, Page No. 2;
FI362, Page Nos. 45 and 48; FI363, Page No. 181; and FI364, Page No. 5.
133
FI54, Page Nos. 25 and 26.
134
FI364, Page Nos. 6 through 8.
135
FI24, Page Nos. 1 through 7; and FI55, Page Nos. 14 and 15.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 31

7. Allegation No. 5-e.

On December 3, 2012, Freeze and M. Harris made an in-home visit to see and his family. 136 M.

Harris arranged the visit. M. Harris and Freeze knew in advance that Hughes would be present and Freeze

expressed no concern at the time. 137 Hughes attended approximately five to 10 minutes of the visit, took

photographs and provided food worth approximately $60. 138 Hughes reported in his initial interview that

after the two coaches arrived at the home, everyone sat and congregated inside for approximately five

minutes, and as he (Hughes) stood to take photographs before leaving, the coaches replied "already?" 139

Hughes then took photographs and left the home. The enforcement staff asserts that this interaction, while

brief, shows Freeze or M. Harris knew in advance Hughes would be at the home, and according to Hughes'

initial statements, did not show discomfort by his presence. This visit was not logged in the compliance

monitoring system, which M. Harris called an oversight. 140 The football staff failed to log other contacts

with these prospects as well.

8. Allegation No. 5-f.

In December 2012, Hughes paid cellphone bill, which had a monetary value of approximately

$67. 141 This payment allowed to reactivate his phone and continue communicating with the football

staff during the peak of his recruitment.

136
FI27; FI124; and FI125.
137
FI50, Page Nos. 50 and 51; FI64, Page Nos. 49 and 50; FI363, Page Nos. 157 and 158; and FI364, Page Nos. 14
and 15.
138
FI51, Page No. 71; FI54, Page No. 29; FI60, Page Nos. 60 and 61; FI61, Page No. 52; FI114, Page No. 5; and
FI360, Page Nos. 19 through 21.
139
FI50, Page No. 52.
140
FI131, Page No. 9.
141
FI61, Page No. 63; FI114, Page No. 5; and FI363, Page No. 129.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 32

9. Allegation No. 5-g.

In December 2012, Hughes paid mother's telephone bill, which had a monetary value of

approximately $120. 142 This payment served a recruiting benefit.

10. Allegation No. 5-h.

Between December 3 and 17, 2012, Hughes notified M. Harris multiple times that he was bringing

and to the institution's bowl game in Birmingham, Alabama. 143 M. Harris acknowledged

Hughes' plan at the time, but also informed Hughes that the football staff could not have in-person contact

with the prospects in Birmingham. 144 Between January 4 and 5, 2013, Hughes provided and

with roundtrip transportation between and Birmingham and meals, lodging and game

tickets, which had a combined monetary value of approximately $350. 145 Hughes and the prospects also

publicized their trip on social media. 146

and also reported meeting with football staff in Birmingham, including Freeze and

Chris Kiffin (Kiffin), then assistant football coach, and attending a defensive team meeting at the invitation

of Tray Scott (T. Scott), then graduate assistant football coach. 147 M. Harris acknowledged putting Hughes

and prospects in touch with T. Scott, which he called a mistake, and denied knowledge that they met with

football staff or attended a team meeting. 148 The enforcement staff asserts that even assuming M. Harris did

not know at the time the prospects met with T. Scott and other football staff, his connecting the prospects

to the staff while they were driving to Birmingham was an obvious indicator contact was likely to occur.

142
FI50, Page No. 84; and FI51, Page No. 64.
143
FI22, Page No. 4; FI54, Page No. 31; FI114, Page No. 5; FI131, Page No. 3; and FI364, Page Nos. 13, 21, 22 and
27 through 30.
144
FI364, Page No. 22.
145
FI50, Page Nos. 123 through 125; FI51, Page Nos. 11, 55, 60 and 61; FI60, Page Nos. 29 and 30; and FI61, Page
Nos. 31 and 32.
146
FI362, Page No. 19; and FI363, Page Nos. 75, 77, 86 and 123.
147
FI60, Page Nos. 30 through 32; and FI61, Page Nos. 32 and 33.
148
FI64, Page No. 45; FI131, Page Nos. 5 through 8; and FI364, Page No. 30.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 33

It is also notable that (1) the contact was not logged in the recruiting monitoring system until after the

violation was discovered and (2) the Southeastern Conference and the institution's compliance office both

advised the football program against having contact with prospects in Birmingham due to the likelihood

that noncoaches (like T. Scott) would have contact and thereby commit violations. 149

11. Allegation No. 5-i.

Between January 14 and 15, 2013, Hughes communicated with , at M. Harris' direction,

to arrange an in-person recruiting contact between her and M. Harris. 150

12. Allegation No. 5-j.

a. Transportation from Hughes.

Between January 18 and 20, 2013, Hughes provided and

with roundtrip transportation between and the institution for an unofficial visit. Hughes

drove the prospects from to the institution January 18 and returned them to January 20.

He drove between and Freeze's Oxford, Mississippi residence

January 20. 151 The combined monetary value of the transportation was approximately $136. The record

shows M. Harris knew Hughes was providing this transportation. 152

The institution asserts that took an official paid visit on this occasion. However, the record

shows that this was an unofficial visit. Among other things, M. Harris stated that never took an

official paid visit and was on an unofficial visit. 153 also purchased his meals, indicating he was

on an unofficial visit. This matter is addressed further in the enforcement staff's rebuttal.

149
FI27; FI339, Page Nos. 1455 through 1457.
150
FI364, Page Nos. 44 through 46.
151
FI54, Page Nos. 35 through 37; FI58, Page No. 20; FI60, Page No. 11; FI64, Page No. 34; FI361, Page No. 3;
FI363, Page No. 36; FI364, Page No. 38; and FI367, Page No. 2.
152
FI364, Page Nos. 48, 52 and 53.
153
FI29; and FI54, Page No. 36 and 38.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 34

b. Hotel lodging from M. Harris.

Between January 18 and 20, 2013, M. Harris arranged for and to stay two nights

in the hotel room the institution provided who was on an official paid visit at the time. 154 The

combined monetary value of the impermissible lodging was approximately $212. 155 The prospects knew in

advance M. Harris made these arrangements and M. Harris denied knowing this was impermissible. 156

It should be noted that on October 12, 2012, the institution committed a similar violation in the same

program. As corrective action, the institution provided rules education to the football staff regarding a

prospect on an unofficial visit staying overnight in the hotel room of a prospect on an official paid visit.157

Branden Wenzel (Wenzel), then assistant recruiting director, acknowledged the football staff received the

education and knew this rule. 158

c. Transportation from T. Scott.

On January 20, 2013, T. Scott provided and with roundtrip transportation between

the institution and Freeze's home to attend a breakfast function for prospects and their families. 159 The

combined monetary value of the transportation was approximately $12. It is unclear who directed T. Scott

to provide the transportation. T. Scott driving the two unofficial visitors to Freeze's residence constituted

an off-campus recruiting contact violation.

154
FI58, Page Nos. 18 through 20 and 24; FI60, Page Nos. 11 through 13; FI61, Page Nos. 36 and 37; and FI64, Page
No. 26.
155
FI28.
156
FI64, Page Nos. 20 and 34.
157
FI339, Page No. 1546.
158
FI66, Page Nos. 18, 19, 27, 28 and 39.
159
FI60, Page No. 18; and FI132, Page Nos. 8 and 9.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 35

d. Breakfast at Freeze's residence.

On January 20, 2013, and Hughes attended the

breakfast function at Freeze's residence. 160 and reported that Hughes met with all of the

football coaches on this occasion, including Freeze, and M. Harris reported that Freeze knew Hughes was

at his residence and did not express any concern about it at the time. 161 Freeze denied knowledge that

Hughes was at his home. 162 M. Harris acknowledged the football staff again committed an off-campus

recruiting contact violation due to and being on unofficial visits at the time. 163 Again,

the football staff did not record these recruiting contacts in the compliance monitoring system.

13. Allegation No. 5-k.

During the weekend of January 26, 2013, took an unofficial visit to the institution. 164 Hughes

provided with one-way transportation from to Oxford January 26 and received

transportation back to January 27 from Carla Belk (Belk), representative of the institution's

athletics interests. 165 and Belk communicated via social media in arranging the transportation. The

combined monetary value of the transportation was approximately $26. 166 Hughes also informed M. Harris

in advance that he was bringing to the institution on this occasion. 167

160
FI54, Page No. 37; FI58, Page Nos. 22 and 23; FI60, Page Nos. 18 and 19; FI61, Page Nos. 37 and 38; and FI66,
Page Nos. 41 through 44.
161
FI60, Page Nos. 18 and 19; FI61, Page No. 39; and FI64, Page No. 50.
162
FI90.
163
FI54, Page Nos. 58 and 59.
164
FI21, Page No. 9.
165
FI36, Page No. 1; FI46, Page Nos. 2 through 4; FI51, Page Nos. 54 and 72; FI61, Page Nos. 41 and 42; FI69; and
FI363, Page No. 18.
166
FI114, Page No. 5.
167
FI364, Page Nos. 60 and 61.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 36

14. Allegation No. 5-l.

On January 30, 2013, M. Harris conducted an in-home recruiting visit with

and the prospects' families at Hughes' residence and at Hughes' invitation. 168 Hughes

and M. Harris made the arrangements approximately four days before the visit and M. Harris reported that

he conducted this visit at Hughes' residence out of convenience. 169 Again, this contact was not logged in

the compliance monitoring system. 170

15. Allegation No. 5-m.

a. Transportation from Hughes.

Between February 2 and 3, 2013, Hughes provided and with roundtrip transportation

between and Oxford to attend a recruiting weekend. was on an unofficial visit and

an official paid visit. 171 M. Harris acknowledged knowing accompanied and

publicized the visit on social media. 172 Hughes and M. Harris also communicated regarding

arrival at the institution. 173 The combined monetary value of transportation Hughes provided the

prospects was approximately $43. 174

Hughes expressed in an email to his friends his hope that official paid visit would cause him to

decommit from another institution and commit to the institution. 175 This shows Hughes' intent to gain a

recruiting advantage and steer the prospects to the institution.

168
FI50, Page Nos. 108 and 109; FI54, Page Nos. 38 through 40; FI58, Page No. 26; and FI61, Page Nos. 54 through
56.
169
FI22, Page Nos. 8 and 10; FI54, Page No. 40; and FI364, Page Nos. 61, 62, 64 and 66.
170
FI130; FI131, Page Nos. 9 and 10; FI323; and FI324.
171
FI60, Page Nos. 19 and 20; FI62, Page Nos. 12 and 18; and FI361, Page Nos. 10 and 11.
172
FI45; FI64, Page No. 39; and FI363, Page No. 9.
173
FI364, Page Nos. 67 and 68.
174
FI126, Page No. 4.
175
FI22, Page No. 12.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 37

b. Lodging from M. Harris.

The institution provided two hotel rooms for his official paid visit, one of which was reserved

for stayed in the room by himself February 2 as did not make the

trip. The lodging had a monetary value of approximately $159. 176 and reported that M.

Harris and Kiffin assisted them with checking into their rooms. 177 While M. Harris acknowledged that

accompanied on his official paid visit and stayed at the same hotel, he claimed he was

unaware how received his own hotel room. 178

16. Allegation No. 5-n.

On March 24, 2013, Hughes provided and with roundtrip transportation

between and Oxford to attend a baseball game at the institution, and also provided the prospects

with meals, concessions and game tickets. 179 The combined monetary value of the inducements was

approximately $126. 180 Notably, M. Harris reported this matter to the compliance office at the time.

17. Allegation No. 5-o.

During the 2012-13 academic year, Hughes' family provided and with

academic tutoring assistance for their high school coursework and ACT exam preparation. 181 Hughes

informed Freeze and M. Harris via email that his family was assisting the prospects in this regard. 182 M.

Harris acknowledged this and stated that it did not concern him. 183 The combined monetary value of the

assistance was approximately $647. 184

176
FI47, Page Nos. 1 and 2; and FI60, Page Nos. 21 and 22.
177
FI60, Page Nos. 22 and 23; and FI62, Page Nos. 18 and 19.
178
FI64, Page Nos. 26 and 39.
179
FI60, Page Nos. 24, 25, 69 and 70; and FI64, Page Nos. 7, 13 and 57.
180
FI114, Page No. 5.
181
FI58, Page Nos. 7 and 8; FI60, Page Nos. 33 and 34; and FI61, Page Nos. 13 through 15.
182
FI22, Page No. 6; FI54, Page No. 64; and FI64, Page No. 56.
183
FI54, Page No. 65.
184
FI114, Page No. 5.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 38

Freeze reported that he had no knowledge of Hughes or his family providing academic support to any

of the four prospects. 185 Regarding emails from Hughes, Freeze reported that Hughes emailed him "maybe

twice," he did not respond and "probably didn't read them." Freeze also stated "I don't get my emails. My

secretary does all of that." 186

18. Allegation No. 5-p.

During the 2012-13 academic year, Hughes purchased clothing and apparel bearing the institution's

name and/or logos for and during their multiple trips to Oxford. 187 Hughes

and the prospects often publicized these occasions via social media. 188 The combined monetary value of

the gear was approximately $510.

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did M. Harris facilitate Hughes' involvement in the football program's recruitment of

and

2. Did Hughes' presence for a portion of in-home recruiting visit by Freeze and

M. Harris, as detailed in Allegation No. 5-e, constitute a violation?

3. Did M. Harris arrange impermissible recruiting contact of and by

T. Scott and other football staff as detailed in Allegation No. 5-h? Relatedly, did M.

Harris know at the time the contact had occurred?

4. Did M. Harris arrange for and to stay in a hotel room the

institution provided for official paid visit as detailed in Allegation No.

5-j? Relatedly, was on an official paid visit or unofficial visit on this

occasion?

185
FI90, Page No. 37.
186
FI90, Page Nos. 26 through 28.
187
FI58, Page Nos. 17 and 26; FI60, Page Nos. 10 and 26 through 28; and FI61, Page Nos. 56 through 59.
188
FI363, Page Nos. 107 and 108.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 39

5. Did M. Harris arrange for to stay in a hotel room the institution provided

to family for official paid visit as detailed in Allegation No. 5-m?

6. Did Freeze know at the time that Hughes and/or Hughes' family was providing

academic tutoring assistance as detailed in Allegation No. 5-o?

7. If the hearing panel concludes M. Harris is culpable for violations, what is the level of

his culpability?

E. Rebuttal information.

• While the enforcement staff did not allege M. Harris knowingly committed violations, he should

have known his actions were problematic. The enforcement staff also notes M. Harris was trained to consult

the compliance office on these matters and his failure to do so should be considered when determining his

culpability for Hughes' activities.

• The institution asserts that took an official paid visit on the occasion detailed in

Allegation No. 5-j; however, the enforcement staff asserts that was on an unofficial visit on this

occasion. M. Harris, primary recruiter for reported that was on an unofficial visit and

never took an official paid visit. M. Harris also acknowledged that because was on an unofficial

visit, the football staff committed a violation by having in-person contact with him and his family at Freeze's

residence on January 20. also paid for his meals, which he would not have done on an official

paid visit.

VII. ALLEGATION NO. 6 – During the weekend recruiting visits of January 18 and 25, and
February 1, 2013, the assistant director of sports video for football (assistant director),
with the knowledge and approval of Freeze, produced three personalized recruiting
videos that showed multiple then football prospective student-athletes and members of
their families wearing and displaying official team equipment and apparel. Additionally,
during the January 18 and 25 weekend recruiting visits, the assistant director played the
videos for the then football prospective student-athletes and their families and did so with
Freeze's knowledge and approval. The video produced during the February 1 weekend
recruiting visit was not played. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.4.1.5 and 13.6.7.9
(2012-13)]
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 40

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA

legislation occurred. However, the institution disagrees with the enforcement staff's decision to name

Freeze and asserts that he has no culpability for the violations and naming him was unfairly prejudicial and

procedurally improper. Freeze agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations occurred, but

disagrees with the enforcement staff's characterization of his involvement.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level III
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.3] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 6 is a breach of conduct

(Level III). The alleged violations were limited and provided no more than a minimal recruiting advantage.

The institution and Freeze agree the alleged violations are appropriately classified as Level III.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

On three consecutive recruiting weekends in early 2013, Chris Buttgen (Buttgen), assistant director of

sports video for football, filmed visiting prospects, prospects' family members and football staff (including

Freeze) posing in team equipment and apparel, and edited the images into a pseudo television

commercial/recruiting video. 189 Buttgen suggested the idea to Freeze in a staff meeting leading up to the

recruiting weekends and Freeze approved it. 190 However, the football staff failed to consult the compliance

office as to whether it was permissible. Freeze acknowledged approving the idea and claimed he directed

his staff to vet it through the compliance office. He stated that he assumed someone had done so, but did

189
FI30; FI31; FI32; FI33; FI34; FI53, Page Nos. 15 through 17; FI56, Page Nos. 7 and 8; FI327; and FI328.
190
FI56, Page Nos. 8 and 9.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 41

not verify. 191 The football staff who would have carried out this instruction to consult compliance did not

clearly specify receiving an instruction, nor did they know whether anyone consulted compliance. 192

The activity was noted on the January 18 weekend itinerary as "Weight Room/Training Room/Buttgen"

and "Chris Buttgen" for the following weekend. 193 The activity was not identified on the February 1

weekend itinerary. 194 It is also important to note that filming did not occur in a weight room or training

room as indicated on the itinerary, but rather the football program's indoor practice facility. The

enforcement staff submits the vague activity description listed on the itineraries contributed to the violations

initially being undetected by compliance.

The enforcement staff also asserts that (1) the activities would not have occurred but for Freeze's

approval; (2) Freeze either failed to instruct his staff to consult compliance before engaging in the activities,

or if he did give such an instruction, failed to communicate it clearly; and (3) Freeze failed to take any

action during the three-week period when the violations were occurring to verify the videos had been

approved by compliance. It is also significant that compliance previously advised the football program

against this type of activity, which should have created a heightened awareness and diligence by Freeze and

his staff when they acted on Buttgen's idea. 195

D. Remaining issue.

Does the factual information substantiate culpability by Freeze for these violations?

191
FI90, Page Nos. 134 and 135.
192
FI52, Page Nos. 21 and 22; FI53, Page No. 25; and FI56, Page No. 19.
193
FI35, Page No. 4; and FI42, Page No. 1.
194
FI48, Page No. 11.
195
FI339, Page No. 1314.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 42

E. Rebuttal information.

The institution argues Freeze should not be named in the allegation, and the allegation should not be

used to support a show-cause order because the original notice of allegations did not contain a head coach

responsibility charge. 196 Freeze submitted similar arguments in his response. 197

The enforcement staff asserts that these claims are without merit and notes it is expressly authorized by

NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions Internal Operating Procedures 3-12-13 et. seq. to amend

allegations. The enforcement staff did so here after re-examining Freeze's role in the violations and

revisiting how it impacted the head coach responsibility violation discussed later.

While the enforcement staff does not allege head coach responsibility violations in cases involving only

Level III violations, the staff may (and has) cited Level III violations as support for head coach

responsibility allegations in Level I and II cases. Indeed, the enforcement staff cited a Level III violation in

connection with the head coach responsibility violation alleged in the institution's track case. 198 The

institution did not raise this objection then. The weight this Level III violation has on Allegation No. 20 is

for the hearing panel to determine, but the conduct is relevant when determining whether a head coach

satisfied the obligation of promoting compliance and monitoring staff members.

Last, since the original notice of allegations was issued in Case No. 189693, the enforcement staff

added a section to the document template titled "Involved Individual(s)." The section is intended to identify

for the hearing panel and involved parties when the enforcement staff considers an individual "at-risk" in

an allegation. It is not intended to express a position as to whether a penalty is warranted.

VIII. ALLEGATION NO. 7 – Between January 18 and 20, 2013, the football program arranged
an impermissible recruiting inducement in the form of free access to hunting land owned
by a representative of the institution's athletics interests for then football prospective
student-athlete ( during his official paid visit. Additionally,

196
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Page Nos. 24 and 25, Footnote No. 29.
197
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561_HFreeze_FreezeNOAResponse, Page Nos. 36 and 37.
198
Allegation No. 27-a-2 in the June 8, 2016, revised notice of allegations, Case No. 189693.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 43

between December 2013 and January 2014, the football program arranged impermissible
extra benefits in the form of similar hunting land access for while he was a football
student-athlete. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.6.7.1 (2012-13); 16.11.2.1
(2013-14)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA

legislation occurred.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level III
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.3] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 7 is a breach of

conduct (Level III). The alleged violations were limited and provided no more than a minimal recruiting,

competitive or other advantage. The institution agrees the alleged violation is Level III.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

was an elite prospect in the class of 2013.

. On August 12, 2016, the enforcement staff interviewed

after receiving information he received impermissible recruiting inducements and extra benefits from the

institution. The enforcement staff requested and received limited immunity for from the vice chair

of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. The enforcement staff conducted interview

independently and without prior notice to the institution to protect against compromising the integrity of

the investigation and discouraging willingness to cooperate fully.

reported receiving free access to deer hunting land owned by a booster on his official paid visit

in January 2013 and on two or three subsequent occasions in late 2013 or early 2014 when he was enrolled

at the institution. 199 He recalled that the football staff arranged this access and some accompanied him on

199
FI233, Page Nos. 22 and 23.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 44

the hunting outings. 200 Following interview, the enforcement staff notified the institution of the

issue, provided his interview transcript and requested that the institution complete the investigation of this

matter. The institution interviewed select football staff and reviewed phone records and other documents,

which corroborated report. 201

Shortly after the institution completed its fact-gathering, the enforcement staff and institution submitted

a joint interpretation request to AMA to determine the permissibility of these arrangements (Exhibit NCAA-

3). AMA determined arranging hunting land access during official paid visit was impermissible

and noted that it could not determine whether arranging such access when he was a student-athlete was

permissible because the facts submitted did not indicate whether the institution had made the access

generally available to its student body (Exhibit NCAA-4). The institution agreed in its response the hunting

land access during time as a student-athlete was impermissible. 202

D. Remaining issues.

None.

IX. ALLEGATION NO. 8 – Between January 25 and 27, 2013, Kiffin arranged
approximately $1,027 in impermissible recruiting inducements in the form of free hotel
lodging and meals for family members who were not parents or legal guardians of then
football prospective student-athlete ( during his official paid visit.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 (2012-13)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff, institution and Kiffin agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of

NCAA legislation occurred.

200
FI233, Page Nos. 24 through 29.
201
FI17; FI18; FI234; and FI235.
202
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Page No. 25.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 45

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level II
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.2] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 8 is a significant

breach of conduct (Level II). The alleged violations have a monetary value of approximately $1,027, which

is more than minimal, and allowed the football program to host three additional members of family

during his official paid visit, a recruiting benefit other institutions recruiting him did not receive. Further,

the inducements provided, or were intended to provide, more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or

other advantage and allowed the football program to enhance its relationship with other members of

family who were instrumental in his college decision. The institution and Kiffin believe the violations are

Level III.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

grew up in with ( and

( was not involved in his recruitment.

( was dating at the time and was somewhat involved in recruitment, as

was ( and (

considered and parental figures in his life.

Kiffin recruited and learned early in the process the dynamics of family, including the
203
absence of his biological father and presence of and the The facts demonstrate that

Kiffin knew the would play a role in decision. 204 reported that he told Kiffin early

203
FI57, Page No. 4; and FI59, Page Nos. 7, 9 and 46.
204
FI59, Page Nos. 9 and 47.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 46

on that was a "father figure" and not his "real dad." 205 He also reported telling Freeze during his

official paid visit that was not his father. 206

2. official paid visit.

Kiffin worked with Wenzel in arranging official paid visit. Kiffin informed Wenzel that

and the would accompany and claimed he told Wenzel at the time that was
207
boyfriend and the were parent-type figures but had no legal relationship to

Wenzel's account differs from Kiffin's. According to Wenzel, it is the primary recruiter's responsibility

to inform him in advance of all visiting prospects and their companions. Wenzel reported that he completed

the compliance paperwork for official paid visit and noted the names and relationships of

companions using information from Kiffin. 208 Wenzel also specifically recalled that Kiffin told him

was father and was his stepfather. 209 The paperwork lists as "step-dad,"

as "dad" and as "step-mom." 210 Wenzel knew the rules governing what the institution

could and could not provide certain family members of prospects and stated he would not have provided

or the with meals and/or lodging had he been accurately informed of their true relationship
211
to On visit, the and received meals valued at $709 and the

received two nights' lodging valued at $318. 212 All five of companions were visibly present at the

activities during this recruiting weekend.

205
FI68, Page Nos. 7 and 9.
206
FI68, Page Nos. 9 and 12.
207
FI59, Page No. 10; and FI65, Page Nos. 10, 11, 27, 28, 36, 37 and 45.
208
FI66, Page Nos. 23 and 24.
209
FI66, Page Nos. 24 through 26, 33 and 34.
210
FI37, Page No. 2.
211
FI66, Page Nos. 33 and 34.
212
FI37, Page Nos. 6, 7, 22 and 43; FI38, Page Nos. 1 through 10; FI39, Page No. 2; FI41, Page No. 2; and FI80, Page
No. 2.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 47

D. Remaining issue.

What is the level of the alleged violations?

E. Rebuttal information.

The institution and Kiffin cited other Level III/Secondary violation cases as support for their argument

that this violation should be Level III. However, the facts and circumstances surrounding this allegation are

distinguishable from those cases.

X. ALLEGATION NO. 9 – Between January 25 and 27, 2013, and between March 28, 2014,
and January 31, 2016, Kiffin and Barney Farrar (Farrar), then assistant athletic director
for high school and junior college relations for football, respectively, arranged
approximately $2,800 in impermissible recruiting inducements in the form of free
merchandise from Rebel Rags, LLC (Rebel Rags), a representative of the institution's
athletics interests, for two then football prospective student-athletes and a then family
member of another then football prospective student-athlete. [NCAA Division I Manual
Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b) and 13.2.1.1-(f) (2012-13, 2013-14 or 2014-15 and 2015-16)]

A. Overview.

The institution, Kiffin and Farrar dispute this allegation entirely and assert that and

( and ( falsely reported

receiving free merchandise and falsely accused them and Rebel Rags of wrongdoing.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individuals are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 9 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). This allegation involves the provision of approximately $2,800 worth of impermissible

recruiting inducements, a substantial or extensive monetary amount that provided, or was intended to

provide, a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage. This allegation also involves

a booster engaging in recruiting violations that Kiffin and Farrar knew about, and includes conduct that

seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Last, the alleged violations
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 48

occurred multiple times over a three-year period and were not isolated or limited. Because the institution,

Farrar and Kiffin dispute the allegation, they did not address the level.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Rebel Rags.

Rebel Rags is a retail store located approximately two miles from the institution that sells merchandise

affiliated with the institution. Terry Warren (Warren), representative of the institution's athletics interests,

founded and owns the business and runs its day-to-day operations. 213 He follows the football program

closely, including regarding recruiting. 214 Warren's family also works for the business, including
215
,

2. Allegation No. 9-a.

a. Origin of allegation.

On June 26, 2015, and were involved in a physical altercation that resulted in criminal

charges. Five days after this incident, contacted the NCAA national office customer service center

and alleged that and his family received significant impermissible inducements and extra benefits

from institutional representatives. On July 3, 2015, the enforcement staff football development group

interviewed and he reported that Kiffin arranged for him, and members of family

to receive free merchandise from Rebel Rags during January 2013 official paid visit. He reiterated

this report during his July 9 interview with the enforcement staff's investigative team. 216

During the investigation of this and other allegations by the enforcement staff determined

was a consistently credible and reliable source of information. The reported violations shared by

213
FI206, Page Nos. 1, 2 and 5; and FI318.
214
FI206, Page Nos. 4, 5 and 12; and FI270, Page Nos. 4 through 7.
215
FI206, Page Nos. 3 and 4.
216
FI184, Page Nos. 12 through 15 and 50; and FI188, Page Nos. 70 and 71.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 49

not included in the notice of allegations were withheld due to a lack of corroboration, not because of

credible or reliable information that undermined accounts or veracity.

b. receipt of free merchandise.

reported that on the first night of official paid visit (January , 2013), Kiffin told

him and members of family that he arranged for them to receive free merchandise and they were

to go to Rebel Rags to receive it. 217 reported that he and went to Rebel Rags the next day

and met Warren. 218 He recalled Warren saying that he had spoken to Kiffin about them and watched Warren

tell his staff to permit them $400 worth of merchandise at no cost. 219 A review of football staff cellphone

records showed Kiffin called Warren January (the day after visit) and Farrar exchanged four

calls with Warren between January 22 and 24. 220

reported that he and shopped the store and were not charged for their items, which he

attributed to being a "superstar" recruit. 221 The enforcement staff asserts that report

mirrors the accounts in Allegation Nos. 9-b and 9-c.

Kiffin, Warren, and acknowledged during interviews that the family visited Rebel Rags,

but all denied knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation. 222 and claimed they found

Rebel Rags without input from the football staff. 223 Warren similarly denied knowledge of how the family

found his store. 224 The enforcement staff asserts that these statements are aimed at breaking the link between

217
FI184, Page No. 13; FI188, Page Nos. 70 and 71.
218
FI188, Page No. 70.
219
FI184, Page No. 13.
220
FI17, Page No. 658; and FI359.
221
FI184, Page Nos. 13 and 14; and FI188, Page No. 71.
222
FI59, Page No. 17; FI68, Page Nos. 43 through 45; FI197, Page Nos. 43 and 44; FI 198, Page No. 16; FI199, Page
Nos. 16 through 20; FI206, Page Nos. 22 through 24; and FI270, Page No. 43.
223
FI197, Page Nos. 41 and 42; FI198, Page Nos. 14 and 15.
224
FI206, Page No. 11.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 50

the football staff and the family's visit to Rebel Rags. Notably, Kiffin acknowledged that he directed the

family to Rebel Rags, which reported. 225

Kiffin would not likely admit to directing the family to Rebel Rags if he had not done so and it is highly

unlikely the family coincidentally located Rebel Rags as portrayed. This was and his family's

first trip to Oxford and their activities throughout the official visit were carefully scripted by the football

program. There were stores on campus, including along the guided tour route, where the family could have

purchased merchandise. The enforcement staff asserts that Kiffin sending the family off-campus to Rebel

Rags was done purposefully because of the store's willingness to provide free merchandise.

Further, reported that and purchased his lone Rebel Rags item (a hat) and

reported that paid for their merchandise with cash. 226 denied purchasing any

merchandise from Rebel Rags and records do not reflect any purchases. 227 signed an affidavit May

16, 2017, in which she denied receiving free merchandise from Rebel Rags and stated, "the only Ole Miss

apparel which, ( or my two sons and took home was purchased by me." 228

This statement contradicts her prior statements that she did not personally pay for this merchandise.

3. Allegation No. 9-b.

a. Origin of allegation.

In April 2016, the enforcement staff football development group received information that institutional

representatives provided significant impermissible recruiting inducements to On July 28, 2016, the

enforcement staff requested limited immunity on behalf, which was granted August 1, 2016.

On August 10, 2016, the enforcement staff's investigative team initially interviewed and later

interviewed him again concerning this case November 18 and December 13, 2016. Among reported

225
FI184, Page No. 13; and FI199, Page Nos. 17 and 18.
226
FI68, Page Nos. 43 through 45; FI197, Page Nos. 43 through 45; and FI198, Page Nos. 14 through 16.
227
FI23, Page No. 6; FI26, Page Nos. 1 and 2.
228
CMerkel_CO_RebelRagsDocsPart2_051817_OleMiss_00561, Page No. 16.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 51

information was that Farrar arranged for him to receive $400 worth of merchandise from Rebel Rags at no

charge during a recruiting visit to the institution. The enforcement staff asserts that consistently

provided credible and reliable information during this investigation, and his report regarding how he

received the merchandise matches those of and

b. receipt of free merchandise.

reported that he asked Farrar for "gear" during a recruiting visit to the institution, and in response,

Farrar directed him to Rebel Rags and said he would receive $400 worth of merchandise at no cost. 229

reported that he went to Rebel Rags and a female employee allowed him to shop the store and take items

he wanted without paying. 230 He reported that he walked out with approximately $400 worth of free

merchandise on this occasion. 231

took unofficial visits to the institution on nine weekends between March and November 2014

and an official paid visit January through 2015. 232 He could not specifically recall on which of these

visits he went to Rebel Rags, but remembered he did not have a companion on this visit and it may have

been on his July 2014 unofficial visit and summer football camp. 233 was accompanied by his mother

and stepfather in March 2014, and by cousins and/or friends on all other visits except for ones in April,

June and July 2014. They all denied ever accompanying to Rebel Rags or witnessing him receive

free merchandise. 234 ( friend, reported that had "a lot" of institutional

gear at his home. 235

229
FI232, Page Nos. 12 through 16 and 44; FI265, Page Nos. 83 through 85.
230
FI232, Page Nos. 12 through 14; and FI265, Page Nos. 85 through 88.
231
FI232, Page Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 44; and FI265, Page No. 83.
232
FI245, Page Nos. 4, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 through 24; and FI260, Page Nos. 9, 50, 52, 53, 55, 60, 62, 87.
233
FI232, Page Nos. 15 and 17; and FI265, Page No. 83.
234
FI240, Page No. 6; FI244, Page Nos. 27, 28, 30 and 61; FI246, Page Nos. 26, 34; and FI266, Page No. 50.
235
FI266, Page No. 71.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 52

Farrar denied knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation and stated that although he may have

recommended Rebel Rags to as a place where he could purchase gear, he never arranged for

to receive anything for free. 236 Between March 28, 2014, and January 25, 2015, Farrar exchanged 61 phone

calls with Warren and , 19 of which occurred when was visiting the institution. 237 Text

message information gathered during the investigation also shows Farrar communicating with football

student-athletes about going to Rebel Rags. 238

4. Allegation No. 9-c.

a. Origin of allegation.

Surrounding National Signing Day 2016, football development received information that the institution

engaged in possible violations of NCAA legislation in its recruitment of multiple prospects in that class,

including After analyzing the information, football development interviewed on

February 13, 2016, regarding his recruitment by the institution and whether he received impermissible

inducements. reported that on multiple visits to the institution, Farrar arranged for him to receive

free merchandise from Rebel Rags. The enforcement staff did not seek limited immunity for

b. receipt of free merchandise.

reported that Farrar arranged for him to go to Rebel Rags and receive $2,000 worth of

merchandise at no cost on his official paid visit and three unofficial visits ($500 of merchandise per visit).239

reported that each time he went to the store, a female employee allowed him to shop for items and

leave without paying. 240 The enforcement staff asserts that is credible and his report matches the

accounts in Allegation Nos. 9-a and 9-b. Additionally, on June 30, 2017, an attorney representing

236
FI274, Page Nos. 83 through 85, 97 and 98; and FI312, Page No. 7.
237
FI359.
238
FI260, Page Nos. 93 and 94.
239
FI225, Page Nos. 17 through 22, 29 and 30.
240
FI225, Page Nos. 19 and 20.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 53

and his family provided the enforcement staff with a video he filmed showing some of the merchandise

received on these occasions. 241 Also shown in the video is one of Rebel Rags business

cards with her cellphone number handwritten on the back.

took unofficial visits to the institution November and 2014; April September and

and November and 2015; and an official paid visit between January and 2016. 242 He could

not recall on which unofficial visits he went to Rebel Rags. 243

Farrar exchanged 88 phone calls with Warren between November 30, 2014, and December 5, 2015,

including on November 2014, and April 2015, which coincided with unofficial visits. 244

He also exchanged 26 phone calls with between November 17, 2014, and January 31, 2016,

including November and 2014; November 2015; and January and 2016, which coincided

with unofficial visits and his official paid visit. 245

Farrar denied knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation and stated that while he did not direct

to Rebel Rags at any point, if asked, he would have recommended Rebel Rags to purchase

merchandise because it was cheaper than the institution's book store. 246

5. Analysis of information.

The enforcement staff determined the independent, matching reports from and

were compelling and corroborative of one another and show the systematic way in which Kiffin and

Farrar arranged the provision of free merchandise. The enforcement staff also notes that has no

connection to or and and did not have a meaningful connection to each

other during this period that would suggest collusion. The information they provided was also contrary to

241
RebelRagsGearVideo_063017_OleMiss_00561.
242
FI315, Page Nos. 1 through 7 and 9 through 11.
243
FI225, Page Nos. 21 and 22.
244
FI309; and FI359
245
FI309; and FI359.
246
FI226, Page Nos. 30 through 33; FI274, Page Nos. 85 through 87; and FI312, Page No. 7.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 54

their own interests (with or without limited immunity). As noted previously, the enforcement staff

determined and were credible and reliable sources of information and

and reports yielded multiple violations acknowledged by the institution. Conversely, there are

multiple instances in this case that cast doubt on the credibility of Kiffin, Farrar, and The

information in this case also demonstrates that both Farrar and knowingly provided false or

misleading information to the enforcement staff and/or the institution.

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did Kiffin arrange for to receive approximately $400 worth of free

merchandise from Rebel Rags during January 2013 official paid visit?

2. Did Farrar arrange for to receive approximately $400 worth of free merchandise

from Rebel Rags during a recruiting visit to the institution between March 28, 2014,

and January 25, 2015?

3. Did Farrar arrange for to receive approximately $2,000 worth of free

merchandise from Rebel Rags over four recruiting visits to the institution between

September 4, 2015, and January 31, 2016?

XI. ALLEGATION NO. 10 – During the summer of 2013, Kiffin provided impermissible
extra benefits in the form of two nights' free lodging at his residence to The
monetary value of the lodging was approximately $33. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw
16.11.2.1 (2012-13)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff, institution and Kiffin agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of

NCAA legislation occurred.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 55

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level III
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.3] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 10 is a breach of

conduct (Level III). The lodging has a monetary value of $33 and constitutes no more than a minimal

impermissible benefit. The institution and Kiffin agree the violations are Level III.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

then stepfather, reported stayed at Kiffin's home for an extended period of

time in the summer of 2013. 247 noted this was the first time had lived away from home and

that Kiffin provided housing to alleviate his homesickness and quell any desire to leave the institution. 248

denied staying overnight at Kiffin's residence during this period; however, Kiffin again

corroborated report and confirmed that stayed at his house once or twice. 249 Kiffin denied

housing for an extended period. 250

D. Remaining Issues.

None.

E. Additional matters that relate to Allegation No. 10.

• Although the enforcement staff determined to be a credible source of information in this

case, there was insufficient corroboration to allege that stayed at Kiffin's for an extended period.

• The enforcement staff did not allege that knowingly provided false or misleading

information regarding this violation after he denied receiving the lodging because he amended his

statements during a subsequent interview.

247
FI188, Page Nos. 23 through 26.
248
FI188, Page No. 24.
249
FI198, Page No. 55; FI199, Page No. 45; and FI208, Page No. 2.
250
FI199, Page No. 46.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 56

XII. ALLEGATION NO. 11 – Between June 7, 2013, and May 27, 2014, Chan Patel (Patel),
then representative of the institution's athletics interests, provided impermissible extra
benefits in the form of 12 nights' free lodging in Oxford to and
The monetary value of the lodging was approximately $2,253. [NCAA Division I Manual
Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2012-13 and 2013-14)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree that the facts are substantially correct and that violations of

NCAA legislation occurred.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 11 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). The alleged violations have a monetary value of $2,253, and involve 12 nights of free

hotel lodging or similar overnight accommodations in the locale of the institution, which are substantial or

extensive extra benefits. Five of the nights were in conjunction with home football games or football-related

activities at the institution, which are dates typically in high demand. Additionally, Patel knew or should

have known that his provision of these benefits was impermissible and involvement seriously undermined

or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Further, the violations occurred multiple times

and were not isolated or limited. The institution agrees the alleged violations are Level I.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

Patel owns several hotels and rental properties and is a prominent businessman in the Oxford area; the

institution's athletics program, including football, used his hotels for hosting prospects. 251 Patel knows

and acknowledged they communicated during the period of these violations. 252

251
FI222, Page Nos. 14 through 19; and FI 329.
252
FI222, Page Nos. 30 and 31.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 57

reported that he and stayed for free at Patel's properties on multiple occasions,

including several home football games. 253 reported that their rooms were sometimes registered

under the name of Michael Strojny (Strojny), then representative of the institution's athletics interests, to

conceal that they were the guests. 254 Strojny is the individual involved in Allegation No. 18 and a friend of

Patel's.

reported that always paid for their accommodations during these trips. 255 However,

the record does not support her assertion, nor does the enforcement staff find to be credible.

denied paying for the accommodations with personal funds but rather assistance from representatives

of the institution. 256 Patel acknowledged he provided with complimentary lodging at his properties

on more than one occasion. 257

2. Allegation No. 11-a.

Facebook messages and other documents show Patel provided and with two nights'

free hotel lodging between June 7 and 9, 2013. 258 bank account statements show he was in

Oxford during this time span but do not show charges for lodging. 259 The combined monetary value of the

lodging was approximately $280. 260

253
FI184, Page Nos. 5 through 7, 23, 24, 27 and 52; FI188, Page Nos. 16, 19 through 25, 37, 40 through 42, 44 through
46 and 50; and FI190, Page Nos. 15 through 19.
254
FI188, Page Nos. 20 through 23.
255
FI197, Page Nos. 34, 35 and 92.
256
FI188, Page Nos. 22 through 26 and 31 through 33.
257
FI222, Page Nos. 31 and 32.
258
FI71, Page No. 1.
259
FI67, Page No. 2.
260
FI357, Page No. 6.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 58

3. Allegation No. 11-b.

Facebook messages indicate Patel provided and with free hotel lodging October 26

and November 9 and 16, 2013. 261 The lodging allowed them to stay overnight in Oxford and watch

compete in three home football games. The combined monetary value of the lodging was approximately

$938. 262 Patel admitted to providing lodging for the October stay, but denied doing so in November. 263

bank statements do not show charges for lodging during this period. 264

4. Allegation No. 11-c.

Facebook messages indicate Patel provided and with free hotel lodging March 8.265

bank statements do not show charges for lodging. 266 The monetary value of the lodging was

approximately $128. 267 Patel admitted providing lodging on this occasion. 268

5. Allegation No. 11-d.

Facebook messages and other documentation indicate Patel provided and with two

nights' free lodging between April 4 and 5, 2014, at his rental property at 1534 Tyler Cove in Oxford. 269

and also admitted to staying at the house and provided a detailed description of its interior

and exterior. 270 The free lodging allowed them to stay overnight to watch participate in the spring

football game. The combined monetary value of the lodging was approximately $303. 271 bank

261
FI71, Page Nos. 3 and 4.
262
FI357, Page No. 6.
263
FI222, Page Nos. 49, 50 and 53 through 57.
264
FI67, Page Nos. 13 through 15; FI95, Page Nos. 1 through 3.
265
FI71, Page Nos. 4 and 5.
266
FI67, Page No. 24.
267
FI357, Page No. 6.
268
FI222, Page Nos. 58 and 59.
269
FI71, Page Nos. 5 and 6; FI128, Page Nos. 1 and 2; and FI129, Page No. 1.
270
FI184, Page Nos. 27, 28, 53 and 54; FI188, Page Nos. 23 and 45 through 50; FI190, Page Nos. 17 and 18; FI197,
Page Nos. 114 through 117, 131 and 132; FI217, Page Nos. 20 through 23.
271
FI357, Page No. 6.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 59

statements show he was in Oxford during this period but do not show charges for lodging. 272 Patel denied

that or ever stayed at this property. 273

6. Allegation No. 11-e.

Facebook messages indicate Patel provided and with free hotel lodging May 10,

2014. 274 bank account statements show he was in Oxford during this time span but do not show

charges for lodging. 275 The monetary value of the lodging was approximately $217. 276

7. Allegation No. 11-f.

Facebook messages indicate Patel provided and with two nights' free hotel lodging

between May 25 and 27, 2014. 277 bank statements do not show charges for lodging. 278 The

monetary value of the lodging was approximately $386. 279

D. Remaining issues.

None.

XIII. ALLEGATION NO. 12 – On December 3, 2013, Freeze made an impermissible in-person,
off-campus recruiting contact with at
in . [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.1 (2013-14)]

A. Overview.

The institution and Freeze dispute this allegation.

272
FI67, Page No. 27.
273
FI222, Page Nos. 61 and 62.
274
FI71, Page No. 6.
275
FI67, Page No. 32.
276
FI357, Page No. 6.
277
FI71, Page No. 6.
278
FI67, Page No. 35.
279
FI357, Page No. 6.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 60

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level III
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.3] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 12 is a breach of conduct

(Level III). While the alleged violation lasted approximately 10 minutes, it provided no more than a minimal

recruiting advantage and does not rise to a Level II violation. The institution did not address the identified

level. Freeze disputes this allegation but agrees that if found, it would be Level III.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

was a class of 2015 prospect and a junior at at the time of this alleged violation.

His high school coach, ( reported that he became a highly-regarded recruit

around the week of Thanksgiving 2013. 280 final football game of the 2013 season was

November 22, 2013. recruiting file shows Freeze visited for an evaluation of

December 3, 2013. 281

2. Freeze's impermissible recruiting contact of

reported that one morning before class during his junior year, summoned him to the

football offices at and he encountered and Freeze in office. 282 He

reported that he and Freeze shook hands and the three of them met for approximately 10 minutes.

considered their conversation recruiting in nature. 283 reported that he left office after

approximately 10 minutes because he felt Freeze wanted to end their conversation.284 However, neither

or Freeze reported that was asked to leave.

280
FI289, Page No. 17.
281
FI245, Page No. 1.
282
FI265, Page No. 122.
283
FI232, Page Nos. 45, 46 and 48; FI265, Page Nos. 122 and 123.
284
FI232, Page Nos. 123 and 124.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 62

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff, institution and Kiffin agree the facts are substantially correct and a violation of

NCAA legislation occurred.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level III
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.3] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 13 is a breach of

conduct (Level III). While the alleged violation lasted approximately 10 minutes, it provided no more than

a minimal recruiting advantage and does not rise to a Level II violation. The institution and Kiffin agree

the alleged violation is Level III.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

This issue was discovered during an interview of regarding a possible impermissible recruiting

contact committed by another NCAA member institution. However, during the interview, reported

information that indicated Kiffin engaged in an impermissible recruiting contact.

2. Kiffin's impermissible recruiting contact of and

reported that Kiffin visited him at in the spring of 2014 and they spoke for

approximately 10 minutes. 293 He reiterated this report in a second interview. 294 recalled

summoned him and to meet with Kiffin and

their meeting occurred in a private meeting room near the main office. 295 stated that he believed

the meeting "wasn't by accident." 296

293
FI155, Page No. 6.
294
FI161, Page No. 5.
295
FI155, Page No. 6; and FI161, Page Nos. 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14.
296
FI161, Page No. 10.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 63

Kiffin reported that he twice visited during the spring 2014 evaluation period.297

Initially, Kiffin did not recall any instances during the 2014 spring evaluation period in which he engaged

in a conversation longer than 30 seconds with a prospective student-athlete at the prospect's high school. 298

However, when questioned about specifically, Kiffin acknowledged that he spoke with

and for approximately 10 minutes during his May 8 trip to . 299 He

acknowledged this conversation was beyond what he considers to be permissible. 300

Kiffin had ample opportunity to prevent and/or mitigate the length of this impermissible contact. He

did neither. He also did not report this interaction when initially asked, did not record it on the recruiting

log submitted to the compliance office or tell compliance of the interaction. 301

D. Remaining issues.

None.

XV. ALLEGATION NO. 14 – Between March 28, 2014, and January 25, 2015, Farrar
arranged approximately $2,272 in impermissible recruiting inducements in the form of
transportation and/or free hotel lodging for then football prospective student-athletes
( and as well as friends and family. Additionally,
Farrar at times used individuals outside the football program to arrange the
transportation and lodging. Further, the football program provided approximately $235
in free meals to and friends and family during recruiting visits.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.5, 13.2.1, 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2
(2013-14 and 2014-15); and 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 (2014-15)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 14-a through 14-d, 14-

h and 14-i are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The institution disagrees

with the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 14-e, 14-f and 14-g.

297
FI158, Page Nos. 9 and 10.
298
FI158, Page Nos. 8 and 9.
299
FI158, Page Nos. 11, 12 and 14 through 16.
300
FI158, Page No. 17.
301
FI330, Page No. 1.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 64

Farrar agrees the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 14-b and 14-d regarding transportation are

substantially correct and violations occurred. Farrar also acknowledged responsibility for the portions of

Allegation No. 14 concerning the provision of free meals to and ( cousin.

Farrar disagrees with the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 14-c regarding transportation and 14-d through

14-i regarding hotel lodging.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 14 is a severe breach of

conduct (Level I). This allegation involves the provision of approximately $2,500 in impermissible

recruiting inducements, a substantial or extensive monetary amount that provided, or were intended to

provide, a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage. This allegation also involves

boosters engaging in recruiting violations with Farrar's knowledge, and includes intentional or reckless

conduct that seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Last, the

alleged violations occurred multiple times and were not isolated or limited. The institution agrees the

alleged violations are Level I. Farrar did not address the level of the violations.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

a. recruiting timeline and visit history to the institution.

recruitment began in earnest in late November 2013 after his junior year season. He verbally

committed to , decommitted three months later and verbally

committed to the institution around . 302 initially kept his commitment to the

302
FI274, Page No. 27.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 65

institution secret and then announced it publicly one month later. 303 He decommitted from the institution

and signed with February 4, 2015. 304

visited the institution approximately 10 times between March 2014, and January 2015.

He was accompanied by ( his mother, and ( his

stepfather, on his first visit. accompanied on his fall of 2014 unofficial visits and official paid

visit and ( his cousin, and also accompanied him on the unofficial visit

in late November 2014. The table below lists confirmed visit dates and respective companions. 305

&
Confirmed Visits Yes No No No
Unofficial 1: 3/ /14 - 3/ /14 No No No No
Unofficial 2: 4/ /14 - 4/ /14 No No No No
Camp: 6/ /14 - 6/ /14 No No No No
Camp: 7/ /14 - 7/ /14 No Yes No No
Unofficial 3: 8/ /14 - 8/ /14 No Yes No No
Unofficial 4: 9/ /14 - 9/ /14 No Yes No No
Unofficial 5: 10/ /14 - 10/ /14 No Yes No No
Unofficial 6: 10/ /14 - 11/ /14 No Yes Yes Yes
Unofficial 7: 11/ /14 - 11/ /14 No Yes No No

and his companions provided credible and reliable information concerning their receipt of free

meals, transportation and/or lodging on these occasions. The enforcement staff also directs the hearing

panel to its review of the factual information in Allegation No. 16 concerning Farrar's lack of credibility

and requests the panel to consider those facts when assessing Farrar's denials.

b. Arya Keyes (Keyes), then representative of the institution's athletics interests.

Keyes is from Raleigh, Mississippi, and is a cousin of a former football student-athlete at the institution.

Despite significant efforts by the institution and enforcement staff, Keyes declined to cooperate with the

303
FI274, Page No. 27; and FI284, Page Nos. 57 and 58.
304
FI241, Page Nos. 22 and 78; FI265, Page No. 82; and FI274, Page No. 28.
305
FI244, Page Nos. 5 through 15; FI245; FI246, Page Nos. 6 through 9; FI262; and FI266, Page Nos. 8 through 10.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 66

investigation. Keyes also harassed , former football volunteer, during the

investigation to deter her from cooperating. 306 The enforcement staff requests that his failure to cooperate

and harassment of be considered when assessing his and Farrar's role this allegation.

Farrar reported that he first met Keyes when he (Farrar) worked at the University of Southern

Mississippi and came to know him "pretty well" and talked with him "a good number of times." 307 Between

August 13, 2013, and August 14, 2014, Keyes worked for an independent contractor the institution used

for its food services operation. He was never employed by the institution. 308

In his December 1, 2016, interview, Farrar denied involving Keyes in recruiting activities, including

transporting to and from the institution. 309 On January 19, 2017, Farrar submitted a written statement

amending certain portions of his interview. He wrote that he "must have mentioned" that did not

have a ride to the institution's elite camp in June 2014 and was aware that Keyes provided transportation to

on this and one other unspecified occasion. 310 Farrar clarified further in his written response when

he admitted knowing at the time that Keyes provided transportation as detailed in Allegation Nos.

14-b and 14-d. 311 The enforcement staff asserts that Farrar's decision to involve Keyes in recruitment

went beyond these two instances of impermissible transportation and was designed to carry out the

behaviors and violations alleged here. Factual information in the record supports this assertion.

Farrar's communication with Keyes began February 24, 2014. Between then and the date signed

(February 4, 2015), he exchanged 946 phone calls with Keyes on his institutional cellphone.312 Keyes' social

media activity also shows him at football facilities on December 5, 2014; and January 7 and 20, and

306
FI276, Page Nos. 30, 31, 48 and 49; FI277; FI278; FI279; FI280; FI281; and FI282.
307
FI274, Page Nos. 60 and 154 through 156.
308
BKappel_CO_AKeyesDatesEmptInstFoodSvcContractor_062117_OleMiss_00561
309
FI274, Page Nos. 43 through 47, 53, 54, 57, 62, 64, 65 and 107.
310
FI312, Page No. 4.
311
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561_BFarrar, Page No. AL14-3.
312
FI359.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 67

February 2 and 3, 2015 (Exhibit NCAA-5). Keyes' social media activity and institutional parking records

show he was frequently on campus after recruitment ended.

reported that Keyes was always at the indoor practice facility and described him as Farrar's

"right-hand man." 313 Wenzel reported that Keyes was seen around football facilities "a couple times a week"

and talking "a lot" with Farrar in his office." 314 Wenzel also saw Keyes interacting with Farrar's prospects
315
during visits, including reported that Keyes was "always around" the football program and

a primary contact whenever he planned to visit the institution.316 and each reported

that Keyes was around the program and believed Keyes was "hosting" them on their visit in late

November 2014. 317

2. Allegation No. 14-a.
318
took his first visit to the institution March through 2014, with and

They each reported that the football program provided free meals, specifically a dinner on the Saturday

night of the visit. 319 The football program submitted recruiting documentation to compliance showing

and his family paid for their meals; however, as has been acknowledged, that did not occur. This is

one of multiple instances in this allegation in which the football program submitted false recruiting

documentation to the compliance office or failed to submit recruiting documentation altogether.

313
FI276, Page Nos. 13, 16, and 45.
314
FI319, Page Nos. 18 through 21 and 24.
315
FI319, Page No. 22.
316
FI232, Page Nos. 12 and 20.
317
FI244, Page No. 88; FI246, Page Nos. 22 and 31; and FI266, Page Nos. 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 30, 33 and 36.
318
FI232, Page No. 19; FI240, Page Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 14; FI245, Page Nos. 4 through 8; and FI260, Page No. 83.
319
FI232, Page No. 11; FI240, Page Nos. 13, 14 and 16; and FI265, Page No. 8.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 68

3. Allegation No. 14-b.

The institution obtained text messages from Farrar's institutional cellphone showing attended the

football program's elite camp, which occurred June through 2014. 320 Texts also show Farrar arranged

transportation to the camp for from a "young man from Raleigh (Mississippi)," whom the

enforcement staff, institution and ultimately Farrar identified as Keyes. 321 The enforcement staff asserts

that the text messages also show Farrar informed Freeze at the time he arranged transportation for

for this occasion from the "young man from Raleigh." The football program did not submit documentation

to the compliance office showing was on campus on this occasion.

4. Allegation No. 14-c.

and attended the institution's football camp July and 2014. 322 Recruiting

documentation shows and were provided a meal for which they purportedly reimbursed the

institution. 323 denied paying for meals provided by the football program when he visited and

reported similar information. 324 The institution acknowledged this reimbursement did not occur.

also reported that , then representative of the institution's athletics interests,

provided transportation for this occasion and that he discussed it with Farrar. 325 Although denied doing

so, report that left early from a camp at that weekend supports

statement, as does other credible and reliable information. 326 called seven times July and

Keyes once July and Farrar's text messages indicate he knew of the transportation (Exhibit NCAA-6). 327

320
FI260, Page No. 9.
321
FI260, Page Nos. 52 and 53.
322
FI236, Page Nos. 4 through 6; and FI245, Page Nos. 9 through 12.
323
FI245, Page No. 10.
324
FI232, Page No. 20; and FI275, Page Nos. 56 and 57.
325
FI265, Page Nos. 61 and 62.
326
FI266, Page Nos. 69 and 70; and FI304, Page No. 43.
327
FI260, Page Nos. 53, 60 and 87; and FI294.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 69

The institution also acknowledged the record substantiates culpability by Farrar. Again, the football

program submitted false recruiting visit documentation to compliance.

5. Allegation No. 14-d.

and visited the institution August through 2014, in conjunction with the football
328
program's annual "Meet the Rebels" event. accompanied They each reported receiving

transportation from Keyes on this occasion. also accompanied them to campus as they used her

vehicle. 329 It is unknown how Keyes transported the prospects home as he and others identified as possibly

having knowledge of pertinent facts refused to cooperate.

reported that either Farrar or Keyes asked her to provide this transportation. She also stated that

Farrar was aware of it and Keyes attempted to give her $300 or $400 from Farrar as compensation. 330

Farrar's phone records also show communication with and Keyes at the time, which the enforcement

staff believes shows Farrar knew of these arrangements. 331 and Keyes picked up in

first, then drove to where they picked up and and then drove to the

institution.

recalled that she dropped Keyes and the prospects off at either the indoor practice facility or the

Inn at Ole Miss. 332 and reported that they were dropped off at the Inn at Ole Miss where they

stayed that weekend at no cost. 333 could not recall where he stayed. and also reported

that the football program provided free meals on this occasion and reported similar information. 334

328
FI236, Page Nos. 7 through 10.
329
FI244, Page Nos. 12, 13, 15, 21, 67, 68, 70 and 71; FI265, Page Nos. 14 through 21 and 28; FI275, Page Nos. 9
through 20; and FI276, Page Nos. 12 through 15, 17 through 22 and 24.
330
FI276, Page Nos. 12, 15, 16, 52, 53, 54, 56 and 57.
331
FI359.
332
FI276, Page Nos. 25 and 26.
333
FI244, Page Nos. 22, 66, 71 and 72; and FI265, Page Nos. 21 through 24.
334
FI232, Page No. 20; FI244, Page Nos. 30, 31, 84 and 85; and FI275, Page Nos. 56 and 57.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 70

Last, the recruiting documentation the football program submitted to the compliance office for this visit

again contained inaccuracies, including regarding the prospects' transportation and lodging. The records

stated that the prospects provided their own transportation and spent the night at residence halls of then

football student-athletes. 335 Interviews with and the football student-athletes

identified on Residence Hall Overnight Guest Registration Forms confirm and did not stay

overnight at those locations. 336

6. Allegation Nos. 14-e, 14-f and 14-g.

reported that accompanied him on multiple visits to the institution and reported

similar information. 337 Their statements, coupled with recruiting file, show they came to the

institution for home football games on the weekends of September October and October 2014.338

also reported that he informed Farrar or Keyes when he planned to visit. 339

and reported staying at a hotel off a roundabout near campus on these occasions, which

was subsequently identified as the . 340 also reported that he and always stayed

in a hotel when they made these visits. 341 reported that neither he nor paid for these hotel

rooms and they were arranged by Farrar. 342 recalled Farrar saying on these occasions that he (Farrar)

335
FI236, Page No. 10; and FI245, Page No. 15.
336
FI237, Page Nos. 27 through 30; FI244, Page No. 70; FI252, Page No. 5; FI253, Page No. 13; and FI265, Page No.
13.
337
FI232, Page Nos. 19 and 20; and FI244, Page Nos. 6 through 10, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24.
338
FI245, Page Nos. 17 through 19; and FI260, Page Nos. 50, 61.
339
FI232, Page No. 20.
340
FI232, Page Nos. 17 and 18; FI 244, Page Nos. 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 47 and 81; and FI265, Page Nos. 43 through
48.
341
FI244, Page No. 19.
342
FI232, Page No. 18; and FI265, Page No. 57.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 71

had a room for at the . 343 reported that he did not pay for the rooms and never

saw pay, either. 344

also recalled other details, including that when they arrived at the hotel, would check in,

obtain the room key and make statements such as "they got us a room," indicating someone in the football

program made the arrangements. 345 did not have a credit or debit card during this period. 346 Further,

reported that the football staff provided food at no charge on these occasions and reported

similar information. 347

7. Allegation No. 14-h.

was accompanied by and on his unofficial visit the weekend of

November 2014. 348 Each reported information that established they stayed two nights at the

on this occasion. 349 As noted previously, reported that Farrar directed him to the hotel when he

visited. 350 reported that food was made available to them when they arrived at the football offices,

which they ate, and they interacted with Farrar and Keyes when they arrived. 351 did not recall

any food being present on this occasion. 352

343
FI265, Page No. 57.
344
FI244, Page Nos. 20 and 21.
345
FI244, Page Nos. 20, 21 and 47.
346
FI284, Page No. 35.
347
FI232, Page No. 20; FI244, Page Nos. 30, 31, 84 and 85.
348
FI232, Page Nos. 19 and 20; FI244, Page Nos. 6 through 10; FI265, Page No. 53; FI266, Page Nos. 8 through 10.
349
FI244, Page Nos. 40, 41 and 65; FI246, Page Nos. 14 through 16; FI265, Page Nos. 54 through 56; and FI266,
Page Nos. 8, 9, 13 and 16 through 23.
350
FI265, Page No. 57.
351
FI266, Page Nos. 11, 12, 13, 17 and 23.
352
FI246, Page Nos. 22 and 27.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 72

8. Allegation No. 14-i.

was accompanied by on his official paid visit the weekend of January 2015, and they

both stayed in a hotel room at the Inn at Ole Miss. recalled receiving free meals on this occasion,

and stated that he never saw pay for his meals. 354 The recruiting documentation submitted by

the football program is false and purports that paid for half of the hotel bill and his meals.

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did Farrar arrange free transportation for in conjunction with a summer football

camp as detailed in Allegation No. 14-b?

2. Did Farrar arrange free transportation for in conjunction with a summer football

camp as detailed in Allegation No. 14-c?

3. Did Farrar arrange free transportation and hotel lodging for and as

detailed in Allegation No. 14-d? Relatedly, did Farrar arrange free transportation for

on this occasion?

4. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in conjunction with an

unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-e? Relatedly, did the football program

provide and with free meals on this occasion?

5. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in conjunction with an

unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-f? Relatedly, did the football program

provide and with free meals on this occasion?

353
FI241, Page No. 38; FI244, Page Nos. 6 through 8 and 17; and FI245, Page Nos. 21 through 24.
354
FI244, Page Nos. 34, 48 and 49; and FI265, Page No 70.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 73

6. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in conjunction with an

unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-g? Relatedly, did the football program

provide and with free meals on this occasion?

7. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in

conjunction with an unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-h?

8. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for during official paid visit as

detailed in Allegation No. 14-i?

XVI. ALLEGATION NO. 15 – Between March 28, 2014, and January 25, 2015, Lee Harris (L.
Harris), then representative of the institution's athletics interests, provided between $200
and $600 in impermissible recruiting inducements in the form of cash payments and free
food and drinks to and friends and family. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws
13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e) (2013-14 and/or 2014-15)]

A. Overview.

The institution agrees and L. Harris had an in-person and telephone contact during his

recruitment. The institution also agrees and his companions received free food and drinks from L.

Harris' restaurant and bar on at least one occasion. However, the institution does not believe the facts

substantiate L. Harris provided the food and drinks or cash payments to and/or his companions.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 15 is a severe breach of

conduct (Level I). This allegation involves the provision of several hundred dollars' worth of cash payments,

free food and alcoholic drinks to by a then representative of the institution's athletics interests

intended to influence recruitment. The monetary value of the inducements is substantial or extensive

and provided, or was intended to provide, a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other

advantage. Additionally, L. Harris' misconduct was intentional or showed reckless indifference to the

NCAA constitution and bylaws and seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 74

Collegiate Model. Further, the alleged violations occurred multiple times during recruitment and

were not isolated or limited. The institution did not address the identified level as it disputes this allegation.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

L. Harris graduated from the institution and is a financial contributor to its athletics program. He is also

a season ticketholder for football and men's basketball. 355 He is the founder and owner of Funkys Pizza and

Daiquiri Bar (Funkys), a popular establishment located on the downtown square in Oxford. 356 L. Harris

also has a close personal relationship with Freeze and social relationships with others football staff

members. 357

2. L. Harris' credibility.

L. Harris made several statements that are contradicted by the factual information in the record, and

accordingly, undermine his credibility. For example, L. Harris denied having an association or

communicating with Farrar, Keyes and and friends and family. 358 However, L. Harris'

cellphone records show he (1) exchanged 12 phone calls with Farrar between October 15, 2014, and

February 4, 2015; (2) called January 31 and February 3, 2015; (3) texted February 3; and (4)

received a call from Keyes February 4, 2015. 359 There is also credible and reliable information detailed

subsequently that establish Farrar, Keyes, and friends and family interacted with L. Harris in-

person during the period of the alleged violations. The enforcement staff respectfully suggests that these

discrepancies are relevant when assessing L. Harris' credibility.

355
FI261, Page Nos. 32, 33 and 34.
356
FI261, Page No. 2.
357
FI261, Page Nos. 3 and 4.
358
FI261, Page Nos. 4, 6, 19, 20 and 37.
359
FI366, Page Nos. 1 through 6.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 75

3. L. Harris' alleged provision of impermissible cash payments.

a. account.

The primary factual information demonstrating that L. Harris' provided cash to is

interview statements. During his initial interview, reported that the owner of Funkys, a man he

described as a "white guy, kind of stocky, broad shoulders, blonde headed," gave him two or three cash

payments of between $100 and $200 during visits to Funkys. 360 In his second interview, recalled the

man's first name was "Lee" and positively identified L. Harris by his photo as the individual who provided

the cash. 361 The enforcement staff also submits the physical description provided in his initial

interview matches L. Harris. Although could not recall on which specific recruiting visits L. Harris

gave him money, he was clear that it occurred two or three times. 362

reported that he first met L. Harris during a recruiting visit while they were at the football facility

and they formed "kind of [a] tight" relationship during his recruitment. 363 In first interview, which

took place more than six months before the enforcement staff obtained L. Harris' phone records,

reported that L. Harris texted him shortly before National Signing Day 2015. 364 He reported similar

information in his second interview. 365 Conversely, approximately three months before the enforcement

staff obtained his phone records, L. Harris reported that he would be shocked if there was a record of

communications with and he could not offer a proactive explanation for any such communications

in the event they were discovered. 366 L. Harris' cellphone records show he texted February 3, 2015,

360
FI232, Page Nos. 21, 22, 43; and FI265, Page Nos. 72, 73 and 82.
361
FI265, Page Nos. 78 and 79; FI267, Page Nos. 10 and 11.
362
FI265, Page No. 72.
363
FI232, Page No. 22; and FI265, Page No. 73.
364
FI232, Page No. 22. National Signing Day 2015 was February 4, 2015.
365
FI265, Page No. 82.
366
FI261, Page No. 21.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 76

in addition to making phone calls to him. These discrepancies illustrate why is more credible and

reliable than L. Harris.

b. companions' accounts.

reported that he and visited Funkys every time he accompanied on a recruiting trip

to the institution. 367 and similarly reported that they visited Funkys with and

twice during their trip to Oxford in November 2014. 368 These three men also identified L. Harris by his

photograph as the owner of Funkys and reported seeing him interact with inside the establishment.369

and reported that Keyes introduced to L. Harris and accompanied them to

Funkys, including facilitating their entering the establishment. 370 also recalled two occasions when

he saw L. Harris at Funkys with and recalled L. Harris acted "real excited to see and would "be

like all up on him, talking to him and stuff." 371

reported that he never observed an exchange of money between and L. Harris and

never mentioned receiving money from L. Harris. 372 and reported

similar information. 373 Notably, reported during his first interview that he did not tell anyone about
374
receiving money from L. Harris and stated in his second interview that he may have told

did not specifically recall mentioning the money to and was simply unsure if they ever discussed it.

As there is no corroboration for telling about the money, the enforcement staff believes the

most reliable conclusion to draw from the record is kept this matter to himself.

367
FI244, Page No. 86.
368
FI246, Page Nos. 22 through 25; and FI266, Page Nos. 36 and 37.
369
FI244, Page No. 35; FI246, Page Nos. 36 and 37; and FI266, Page Nos. 36 through 39.
370
FI244, Page No. 56; FI265, Page Nos. 74 and 77; and FI266, Page Nos. 27, 29 through 34 and 45.
371
FI244, Page Nos. 36 and 56.
372
FI244, Page Nos. 35, 37, 38 and 55 through 57.
373
FI240, Page Nos. 9, 26, 34 and 35; FI246, Page Nos. 25, 26 and 37; and FI266, Page Nos. 37 and 51.
374
FI232, Page No. 23; and FI265, Page Nos. 73 and 74.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 77

c. L. Harris' account.

L. Harris denied ever providing with cash and submitted various documents and photos he claims

rule out the possibility of him doing so. 375 The enforcement staff does not believe the documents refute the

allegation and notes there are recruiting visits by that are unaddressed by the documents.

4. L. Harris' alleged provision of impermissible food and alcoholic drinks.

In addition to L. Harris' alleged provision of cash, reported that he and his companions always

received free food and/or alcoholic drinks when visiting Funkys. 376 also reported that he and

received free alcoholic drinks every time they visited Funkys and and similarly reported

receiving free alcoholic drinks and/or pizza during their visits to Funkys in November 2014. 377 Conversely,

L. Harris denied providing free drinks to and/or his companions; however, the enforcement staff

again asserts that his credibility and reliability are lower than the credibility and reliability of
378
and

D. Remaining issue.

Did L. Harris provide between $200 and $600 in impermissible cash payments to on two or three

occasions between March 28, 2014, and January 25, 2015? Relatedly, did L. Harris provide and his

companions with free food and drinks on these occasions?

XVII. ALLEGATION NO. 16 – Between April 2014 and February 3, 2015, ,
then representative of the institution's athletics interests, assisted the institution in its
recruitment of by engaging in recruiting activities that promoted the institution's
football program. activities included engaging in impermissible recruiting
contact and communication with and providing him between $13,000 and $15,600
in impermissible cash payments. In addition to his recruiting activities, arranged
for to make recruiting contact with and deliver multiple cash payments.
Further, Farrar initiated and facilitated and recruiting contact and
communication with and knew at the time that and provided

375
FI261, Page No. 6; FI305, Page Nos. 1 and 2; and FI306, Page Nos. 1, 5, 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.
376
FI232, Page No. 22; and FI265, Page No. 75.
377
FI244, Page Nos. 34 through 37 and 57; FI246, Page Nos. 22 through 25 and 35; and FI266, Page Nos. 28 through
30, 32, 36 and 45.
378
FI261, Page No. 6.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 78

with cash payments. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2 (2013-14); 13.1.2.1,
13.1.2.4-(a), 13.1.2.5 and 13.1.3.5.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15); 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e) (2013-14
and/or 2014-15)]

A. Overview.

The institution agrees Farrar initiated and facilitated and impermissible recruiting contact

of However, the institution disputes the facts concerning and alleged provision of

cash payments to and asserts knowingly provided false and/or misleading information in

reporting that he received money from them. Farrar disputes any knowledge of and/or involvement in

violations concerning recruitment.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 16 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). This allegation involves the provision of between $13,000 and $15,600 in cash

payments to from then representatives of the institution's athletics interests intended to secure his

enrollment. The monetary value of the inducements is substantial or extensive and provided, or were

intended to provide, a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage.

Additionally, Farrar's, and misconduct was intentional or showed reckless indifference

to the NCAA constitution and bylaws and seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA

Collegiate Model. Further, the impermissible recruiting contact and cash payments occurred multiple times

during recruitment and were not isolated or limited. The institution contests Allegation Nos. 16-b

and 16-c and asserts Allegation No. 16-a is Level II. Farrar did not address the level of this allegation.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 79

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

a. Origin of the allegation.

In April 2016, the enforcement staff's football development group received information from a

confidential source, unaffiliated with any institution in the Southeastern Conference, that received a

significant amount of cash from institutional representatives during his recruitment. Other confidential

sources subsequently reported similar information. Accordingly, an investigative team was assigned in late

July 2016 to review these reports. Prior to April 2016, recruitment had never been under review by

the enforcement staff.

The institution, certain involved individuals and others have speculated that fabricated

statements implicating the institution to redirect attention away from his current institution. These

suggestions are baseless and should be disregarded by the hearing panel. The enforcement staff finds

to be credible and notes his various incentives to provide truthful information in the infractions process.

Furthermore, when possible the enforcement staff tested information shared and found it to be

reliable.

b. and

is an attorney based in the suburb of He is an alumnus of the institution and

was a football season ticketholder and donor at the time of the violations. 379 He claimed he occasionally

served as Farrar's legal counsel and did not associate with other football staff members. 380 During a time

period encompassing February 3, 2015, he owned a black 2012 BMW 750LI. 381 reported that a

379
FI272, Page Nos. 3 through 5, 7 and 8.
380
FI272, Page Nos. 11 and 12.
381
FI272, Page No. 10.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 80

-area lawyer, a white male named " ," met him in on this date and gave him

$10,000 cash while they met inside the man's black BMW sedan. 382 subsequently identified

by his photograph as being " ." 383

employs as a paralegal. She had served as his paralegal for approximately five years at the

time of the violations and her connection to this case is due entirely to her role as employee.384

Throughout 2014, drove a silver Acura sedan or occasionally her husband's red Hummer SUV. 385

reported that on six to seven occasions during his recruitment, employee, a woman named

" ," met him at various locations in the area and gave him between $500 and $800 cash.

reported that she drove either a silver Acura sedan or a red Hummer on those occasions. 386 He

subsequently identified by her photograph as being " ." 387 Notably, gave these descriptors

for and prior to the enforcement staff or institution identifying them.

2. Witness credibility.

The enforcement staff asserts that is a credible and reliable source of information and showed

himself to be materially correct and consistent regarding the information he reported. Conversely, the

enforcement staff asserts that Farrar and lack credibility entirely. The enforcement staff also

highlights the institution's similar assessment as to their lack of credibility. 388 Although each denied any

knowledge of and/or involvement in this allegation, the enforcement staff asserts that their denials are

382
FI232, Page No. 24.
383
FI265, Page Nos. 108 through 110; and FI267.
384
FI272, Page Nos. 8 and 9; FI274, Page No. 48; and FI304, Page No. 9.
385
FI304, Page Nos. 6 and 7.
386
FI265, Page No. 61, 65 and 66.
387
FI303; and FI321.
388
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Page No. 47.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 81

contrary to the body of credible and reliable information in the record from various sources. 389 Accordingly,

the enforcement staff respectfully suggests that the hearing panel assign their statements little or no weight.

a.

During her January 11, 2017, interview, denied (1) discussing prospects or recruiting with Farrar,

(2) meeting or becoming acquainted with prospects whom Farrar recruited, (3) that Farrar involved her in
390
recruitment or (4) that she communicated with Each statement was contradicted by

credible and reliable information in the record. The enforcement staff presented this information to

and sought her response, but she consistently failed or refused to provide a credible explanation or plausible

theory. Her explanations for the following text messages with Farrar illustrate her lack of credibility. 391

April 21, 2014

Farrar: Don't Want to bother you. Just need to ask you a couple of questions about

K. I'm gonna call. Gotta a meet pastor.

Farrar: Do ur thing. Ill Text and see if you are available when I leave this practice at
Shannon.

August 17, 2014

Farrar: He's in & wants to keep it quiet

Yep. I kno

Farrar: Awesome!!!

Godmom is great. Lol

Is it done, yet

389
FI272, Page Nos. 33 through 36, 38, 39, 45 through 47, 49, 62, 65 and 78; FI274, Page Nos. 104 through 107, 114
through 117, 126, 127 and 131 through 133; and FI304, Page Nos. 44 and 45.
390
FI304, Page Nos. 12, 13 and 45.
391
FI260, Page No. 59.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 82

Farrar: He's in & wants to keep it quiet. That's what I meant yes it is done he committed.
Just wants to keep it quiet.

claimed the April 21 exchange was about " ," her cousin, who was never involved in

this investigation. 392 Farrar claimed he did not recall the exchange but that he may have been trying to

pursue romantically at the time and mentioned to initiate a conversation. 393 The enforcement

staff asserts that neither explanation is credible, but notes Farrar at least conceded that the text messages

concerned

claimed the August 17 exchange with Farrar used coded language to arrange a secret romantic

getaway at a casino hotel in Philadelphia, Mississippi. 394 Farrar again differed from claim and

reported that the exchange was about verbal commitment to the institution. 395 The enforcement staff

and institution agree the exchange concerned recruitment, specifically the verbal commitment he

secretly gave to the institution that weekend.

interview took place in law office. Although was not inside the interview room,

he was present in his office. After responded to questions about the text messages, entered the

room, interrupted the questioning and asked if could be excused to assist him with a client matter. 396

left the interview at request. Upon re-entering the meeting room five minutes later and

resuming the interview, without prompting, changed her story and stated that the August 17 exchange
397
concerned This was the first time name had been mentioned by anyone in the interview.

The enforcement staff is concerned that may have influenced responses to interview questions

to rehabilitate her credibility.

392
FI304, Page Nos. 16 through 21.
393
FI274, Page Nos. 112 and 113.
394
FI304, Page Nos. 26 through 28.
395
FI274, Page Nos. 118 through 121.
396
FI304, Page No. 29.
397
FI304, Page Nos. 30 and 34.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 83

When the enforcement staff challenged new explanation for the August 17 exchange and asked

how it could possibly be reconciled with her initial explanation, she modified again, stating that it concerned

both the romantic getaway with Farrar and commitment. 398 This further harmed credibility in

the enforcement staff's view, and again, the institution determined was not credible.

There are other instances in the interview that diminish credibility. For example, she reported

that the name " had no meaning to her as of April 2014; however, cellphone records

show voluminous communications with her as of March 30, 2014 (Exhibit NCAA-6). 399 When the

enforcement staff informed that initiated nearly 80 combined phone calls and text messages to

her between March 30 and September 24, 2014, the only statement she uttered was "I just don't recall

that." 400

b. Farrar.

Allegation No. 17 details Farrar's knowing provision of false or misleading information regarding

Allegation Nos. 14 and 16, and illustrates his lack of credibility. The enforcement staff asserts that Farrar

showed his lack of credibility at other times during the investigation. Although the enforcement staff opted

not to allege unethical conduct concerning these various instances, they nonetheless bear on his credibility.

For example, Farrar reported in his December 1, 2016, interview that he used disposable "backup"

cellphones for years for recruiting purposes, including to recruit prospects in the 2015 and 2016 signing

classes. 401 However, he specifically denied using such devices in his August 12, 2015, March 23 and May

9, 2016, interviews, and stated that the only phone he used was his institutional cellphone (Exhibits NCAA-

7 and NCAA-8). 402 These clearly contradictory statements damage Farrar's credibility significantly. Also

398
FI304, Page No. 34.
399
FI294; FI304, Page No. 33.
400
FI304, Page Nos. 41 and 42.
401
FI274, Page Nos. 4 and 10.
402
FI226, Page No. 2;
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 84

on December 1, he claimed ignorance of the institution's established policy that all recruiting phone calls

occur on institutional phones. 403 This policy has been consistently communicated to the entire football staff,

including Farrar, since they arrived.

c.

reported that he communicated with Farrar as his attorney, but denied talking about football

prospects, including stated that any recruiting conversations with Farrar were "general" in

nature. 404 The enforcement staff notes denials are contradicted by credible and reliable information

in the record, as well as own statements. For example, the enforcement staff highlights a February

3, 2015, text message sent to Farrar at 4:04 p.m. Central time. lack of credibility is illustrated

in the following claim as to the message's meaning and his rationale for sending it: 405

I need you to call me immediately. We met and agreed upon
things and now I see a former coach of yours on the LSU board saying he
spoke with you after school and you are going to LSU? What is going on?
You swore to me on your daughter. Please call me. You owe me that.
Thanks

claimed the message concerned a purported encounter with at the institution in the summer

or fall of 2014 and a telephone call he received from shortly thereafter in which supposedly

sought guidance about a domestic issue concerning his newborn daughter and the child's mother. 406

stated that he had no specific purpose for sending the message other than to be a "smart ass" and use "his

[ words back at him." 407

Regarding the statement in the message of "we met and agreed upon things," offered no

explanation other than it concerned his claimed encounter with in Oxford several months prior and

403
FI274, Page Nos. 10, 11, 18 and 19.
404
FI272, Page Nos. 12 through 15 and 49.
405
FI258.
406
FI272, Page Nos. 55 through 61, 81 and 82.
407
FI272, Page No. 58.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 85

he used a "poor choice of words." 408 Regarding the statement in the message "give me a call, you owe me

that," stated that it concerned his willingness to refer to an attorney to address these purported

domestic concerns. 409 offered no credible explanation as to why needed to contact him

"immediately" or what "owed" him.

reported that he never called to discuss a domestic issue and his telephone records show

no calls to during this time period. 410 also reported that he received this text message and

multiple phone calls from approximately an hour or two after receiving the $10,000 from but

never replied or answered. 411 explained that the text message concerned their meeting in

BMW that day and asked for him to promise on his daughter's life he would sign with the

institution. 412 also indicated his intention at the time was to obtain the $10,000 from and then

sign with another institution. 413 Farrar texted another individual at 6:44 p.m. February 3 "[s]ounds like went

south to me on which shows his awareness that would be signing elsewhere. 414

The enforcement staff asserts that the message clearly shows referencing his meeting with

that day and belief they had arranged terms securing commitment to the institution. The message

also shows expressing surprise and dismay in reading online that was flirting with other

schools and he likely had wasted $10,000.

made other dubious claims ostensibly to downplay his connection to Farrar, including denying

that he had Farrar's telephone number. 415 As shown in the record, and Farrar began communicating

408
FI272, Page No. 60.
409
FI272, Page Nos. 81 and 82.
410
FI284, Page No. 45; and FI294.
411
FI265, Page Nos. 103 through 105.
412
FI265, Page Nos. 104 through 107; and FI284, Page Nos. 45 and 46.
413
FI265, Page No. 106.
414
FI241, Page No. 22.
415
FI272, Page No. 16.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 86

March 29, 2014, (the day before first contacted and exchanged 12 calls between then and June

7, 2015. initiated five of those calls to Farrar's number. 416 Relatedly, Farrar and began

communicating April 10, 2014, and exchanged 10 calls between then and December 13, 2014. 417 The

enforcement staff notes Farrar may have exchanged other calls with and through his use of

disposable cellphones.

3. Allegation No. 16-a.

reported that Farrar initiated his contact with and and facilitated it as his recruitment

proceeded. When asked how came into the picture, stated "Barney brought him into the

picture." 418 Specifically, reported that (1) Farrar gave his cellphone number and said "be

expecting a call"; (2) called and informed him " would be contacting him, which she did; and

(3) Farrar would periodically ask if he needed anything, around which time he would reconnect with

or . 419 also reported that Farrar brought up in conversations, which he understood as Farrar

knowing of his contact with her. 420 He also stated that Farrar was smart in his communications about the

contact and payments and would "speak in code." 421 When asked why Farrar did this, reported that

Farrar knew of his living situation, including that and

he may have indicated he needed money. 422

reported that his dealings with and began a "couple" months after his daughter's birth,

which was January 2014. 423 Consistent with his recollection, AT&T cellphone records show he

416
FI359.
417
FI359.
418
FI284, Page No. 51.
419
FI232, Page Nos. 25 through 27 and 42; FI265, Page Nos. 111 through 113; and FI284, Page No. 63.
420
FI284, Page No. 63.
421
FI232, Page No. 43.
422
FI232, Page Nos. 42, 43; and FI284, Page Nos. 51 and 52.
423
FI232, Page No. 34.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 87

initiated 78 combined telephone calls and text messages to between March 30 and September 24,

2014. 424 As noted previously, Farrar's communications with and began March 29 and April 10,

respectively. 425 Further, an email between Farrar and , representative of the institution's

athletics interests and client of shows was on Farrar's radar as of February 25, 2014 (Exhibit

NCAA-9). 426 Last, the enforcement staff notes the institution agrees Allegation No. 16-a is supported by

credible and persuasive factual information, which includes statements. 427 However, the

enforcement staff also highlights that although the institution has acknowledged this impermissible contact

and communication occurred, it offered no plausible alternative as to why and would have

communicated with and vice versa, if not to arrange for the provision and receipt of cash payments.

4. Allegation No. 16-b.

reported that placed him in contact with by telling him during a telephone call early

in their communication that his employee " (later identified as would contact him. 428

reported that his contact with began around late March 2014, which comports with his phone records.

sole purpose for communicating with was to obtain money from her. He reported that they

arranged meetings via telephone call or text message, and on approximately six to seven occasions,

primarily during his senior year of high school, gave him $500 to $800 cash. 429 He stated that they

424
FI294; AT&T could only provide outgoing phone call and text message records absent a subpoena.
stopped using his AT&T account by October 14, 2014, and transitioned to a C Spire Wireless account. C Spire
Wireless retains phone call and text message records for 18 months; as this matter came to light after the retention
window had closed, those records are unavailable.
425
FI359.
426
On September 15, 2016, the enforcement staff and institution interviewed at law office and
represented during the interview.
427
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Page No. 47.
428
FI232, Page Nos. 26 and 27
429
FI232, Page Nos. 27, 33 and 44; and FI265, Page No. 96.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 88

usually met in the area, but met at least once in . 430 As indicated previously,

correctly identified vehicles, which bolstered his credibility in the enforcement staff's view. 431

stated that gave him the money to induce him to sign with the institution and that he and

Farrar discussed his receipt of these payments at the time. 432 also reported that he may have

mentioned the money to but could not recall with certainty. 433 also stated that he handled his

recruitment independently and did not show the money to anyone else. 434

reported that he suspected received impermissible money during his recruitment, but had

no first-hand knowledge of actual transactions. 435 was being recruited at the same time as and

recalled saying he was considering the institution because they promised to "take care" of him.

also stated that a lawyer in wanted to choose the institution "real bad" and gave him money

as an enticement. 436 recalled these conversations occurred before he and signed their Letters

of Intent in February 2015. 437 stated that did not discuss how he spent the money, but he

noticed changes in clothes. 438 reported that although he saw with money during his

recruitment, he did not know or suspect at the time that received impermissible cash payments. 439

5. Allegation No. 16-c.

reported that sometime after 1:35 p.m. Central time February 3, 2015, while it was daylight, he

met in the parking lot of the Hampton Inn in , entered the front passenger seat of

430
FI265, Page Nos. 90 through 92.
431
FI265, Page Nos. 61, 65, 66 and 92 through 94; and FI304, Page Nos. 6 and 7.
432
FI232, Page No. 36; and FI265, Page No. 117.
433
FI232, Page Nos. 28 and 36.
434
FI232, Page Nos. 7 and 8; and FI265, Page No. 126.
435
FI244, Page No. 39.
436
FI266, Page Nos. 57 through 60 and 65 through 68.
437
FI266, Page No. 58.
438
FI266, Page Nos. 62 and 63.
439
FI246, Page Nos. 28, 29 and 33.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 89

black BMW sedan, and accepted $10,000 cash in a wad of one hundred dollar bills. 440 reported that

he had left for the day prior to meeting the record confirms was in school

that morning. 441 reported that he contacted in the days before their meeting and asked for

$10,000 before National Signing Day and agreed after expressing apprehension initially. Once

agreed, they arranged the meeting. 442

As discussed previously, reported that sent him a text message later that day identical to

the one sent Farrar, referencing their meeting and requesting an immediate call back to discuss

college choice after learning online that was considering other institutions. 443

reported that he did not communicate with after this meeting but stated that he believed

called the following morning. 444 reported receiving a call from an unnamed

man around 6 a.m. February 4, 2015, who asked whether had mentioned him; she also stated that the

man promised her $50,000 if signed with the institution and he was "good for it." 445 reported

that he believed Farrar knew of the $10,000 as he suspected Farrar and were "plotting" together. 446

6. use of the money.

affirmed he did not have a bank account at any point when he was receiving these payments and

stated that he never deposited any portion of the funds into any type of account; rather, he kept the money

on-hand or in his bedroom at home. 447 reported that he (1) contributed money towards his daughter's

childcare needs, (2) made several purchases during shopping trips to Jackson, (3) paid his cellphone bills,

440
FI232, Page Nos. 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 44 and 45; FI265, Page Nos. 97 and 98; FI284, Page Nos. 48 and 49;
FI308; FI313; and FI321.
441
FI241, Page Nos. 69 and 79.
442
FI232, Page No. 25; and FI265, Page Nos. 98 through 100.
443
FI258.
444
FI265, Page Nos. 105 and 106.
445
FI240, Page Nos. 27 through 29.
446
FI232, Page No. 26.
447
FI232, Page No. 28; FI265, Page No. 126; FI283; and FI284, Page No. 17.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 90

(4) gave his mother money while she and her husband relocated to another residence in in

March 2015 and (5) made a cash down payment on the purchase of a 2012 Chrysler 300. 448 As to the vehicle

down payment, and the vehicle purchase documentation establish alone made a $6,885 cash

down payment March 24, 2015. 449 also reported that gave her as much as $3,000 for their

relocation and daughter's childcare needs; could not recall how much he gave his mother

toward the home but speculated it was around $1,000. 450

7. Snapchat video.

In March 2015, posted a video to his Snapchat account showing various clips, including him

displaying a large handful of cash and wearing a gold watch, new jeans and expensive sneakers. 451 The

video in the case file is a recording of Snapchat clips playing on another mobile device.

reported that this bootlegged version was posted to YouTube in the days after his Snapchat post and he

does not know who was behind it. 452 The enforcement staff first learned of the video (in either form)

November 18, 2016, shortly before interview when the institution's outside counsel presented the

bootleg copy to during his interview. The enforcement staff interviewed about the video

December 13, 2016. He acknowledged displaying "a few thousand" dollars in the initial clip, which he

stated was a portion of the money he received from and he also reported that he kept additional

money from at the time in his bedroom. 453

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did Farrar initiate and facilitate and impermissible recruiting contact of

448
FI232, Page Nos. 28 through 32 and 35; FI265, Page Nos. 119 and 120; and FI284, Page No. 18.
449
FI239; FI240, Page Nos. 23, 24, 35 and 36.
450
FI240, Page Nos. 30 through 32 and 38; and FI284, Page No. 41.
451
FI264; FI284, Page Nos. 4, 8 and 9.
452
FI284, Page Nos. 8 through 10 and 13.
453
FI284, Page Nos. 16 through 18.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 91

2. Did and provide between $13,000 and $15,600 in impermissible

cash payments? If so, did Farrar know at the time and provided the

payments?

3. What is the level of the alleged violations?

E. Rebuttal information.

submitted documents that he and the institution claim rule out the possibility of a meeting

between and February 3 after left school. 454 The enforcement staff asserts that the

documents do not show claims, nor would they rule out this meeting if they did. Regarding the three-

word email sent from February 3 at 2:52 p.m. Central time, no IP address will

identify the specific device used or the user of any particular device. Similarly, the experiment run by the

institution's outside counsel's information technology consultant using its current hardware and software

should not reasonably be relied on as probative here. 455

XVIII. ALLEGATION NO. 17 – Between March 28, 2014, and February 3, 2015, Farrar violated
the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly committed violations of
NCAA legislation, including knowingly arranging impermissible recruiting inducements
for then football prospective student-athletes. Additionally, on December 1, 2016, Farrar
violated the principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly provided false or misleading
information to the institution and enforcement staff regarding his knowledge of and/or
involvement in violations of NCAA legislation. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1,
10.1 and 10.1-(c) (2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17)]

A. Overview.

The institution agrees the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 17-a, 17-c and 17-d are substantially correct

and violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The institution also agrees the facts detailed in Allegation

454
FI365; and _CO_ Docs_051917_OleMiss_00561; and NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561,
Page No. 52.
455
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Exhibit 16-2.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 92

Nos. 17-b and 17-e are substantially correct and constitute violations, except for any facts pertaining to

impermissible cash payments. Farrar disputes this allegation entirely.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 17 is a severe breach of

conduct (Level I). This alleged violation involves Farrar knowingly arranging and facilitating impermissible

recruiting contact of a then prospective football student-athlete by then representatives of the institution's

athletics interests, and knowing at the time that the boosters were providing significant cash payments

intended to secure the prospect's enrollment at the institution. Farrar's actions were intentional or showed

reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws; they were not isolated or limited, and provided,

or were intended to provide, a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage. Farrar's

actions also constituted unethical conduct, which is a presumptive Level I violation, and seriously

undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Neither the institution or Farrar

specifically addressed the level of this alleged violation.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

The enforcement staff incorporates its review of the facts related to Allegation Nos. 14 and 16.

1. Allegation No. 17-a.

The enforcement staff asserts that the facts detailed in Allegation No. 14 establish Farrar's actions also

violated the principles of ethical conduct because he knowingly arranged for and to receive

impermissible transportation and/or hotel lodging.

2. Allegation No. 17-b.

The enforcement staff asserts that the facts detailed in Allegation No. 16 establish Farrar's actions also

violated the principles of ethical conduct because he knowingly initiated and facilitated recruiting contact
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 93

of by and Also, Farrar knew at the time that and provided with

impermissible cash payments.

3. Allegation No. 17-c.

During his December 1, 2016, interview, Farrar denied knowledge of and/or involvement in arranging

transportation in conjunction with recruiting visits to the institution, including visits in June, July

and August 2014 specifically. 456 Also during the interview, Farrar denied knowledge of and/or involvement

in arranging for and/or Keyes to provide with transportation for his June, July, or August 2014

visits or any others. 457 However, credible and reliable factual information demonstrates the underlying

events occurred and Farrar's denials were false or misleading.

4. Allegation No. 17-d.

During his December 1 interview, Farrar denied knowledge of and/or involvement in arranging free

hotel lodging for and his companions for his six unofficial visits that occurred between August 15

and November 30, 2014. 458 Again, credible and reliable factual information demonstrates the underlying

events occurred and Farrar's denials were false or misleading.

5. Allegation No. 17-e.

During his December 1 interview, Farrar denied knowledge of and/or involvement in (1) initiating

and/or facilitating and impermissible recruiting contact and communication with and

claimed if such contact occurred, it went on without his knowledge; (2) offering or providing

impermissible inducements, including money; and (3) or providing money to or that he

in any way facilitated such payments or communicated with about the payments. 459 Additionally,

456
FI274, Page Nos. 42 through 45, 54, 57 and 64.
457
FI274, Page Nos. 42 through 45, 49, 51, 52, 54 and 55.
458
FI274, Page Nos. 58, 64 through 67, 69, 71 through 75 and 78.
459
FI274, Page Nos. 104 through 107, 114 through 117, 127, 131 and 132.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 94

Farrar reported during his December 1 interview that as of February 3, 2015, he had no reason to believe

that and interacted or reached an agreement as to college choice. 460 He also denied

knowledge of providing with $10,000 cash February 3 or that and met on that

occasion. 461 However, credible and reliable factual information demonstrates the underlying events

occurred and Farrar's denials were false or misleading.

D. Remaining issues.

1. Did Farrar knowingly arrange impermissible transportation and/or hotel lodging for

and

2. Did Farrar knowingly provide false or misleading information when he denied

knowledge of and/or involvement in arranging impermissible transportation for

in conjunction with recruiting visits to the institution, including visits in June, July and

August 2014?

3. Did Farrar knowingly provide false or misleading information when he denied

knowledge of and/or involvement in arranging free hotel lodging for in

conjunction with six unofficial visits to the institution between August 15 and

November 30, 2014?

4. Did Farrar knowingly initiate and facilitate impermissible recruiting contact and

communication of by and

5. Did Farrar know at the time that and provided with impermissible

cash payments?

460
FI274, Page Nos. 126 and 127.
461
FI274, Page Nos. 132 and 133.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 95

6. Did Farrar knowingly provide false or misleading information when he denied

knowledge of and/or involvement in (1) arranging impermissible recruiting contact and

communication of by and and (2) and providing

with impermissible cash payments?

XIX. ALLEGATION NO. 18 – On or around August 22, 2014, Strojny provided an
impermissible extra benefit in the form of $800 cash to [NCAA Division I
Manual Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2014-15)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA

legislation occurred.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 18 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I). This alleged violation involves the provision of $800 cash, a substantial or extensive

extra benefit. Additionally, Strojny committed an intentional violation as he knew providing money in this

manner was impermissible. Further, a booster providing cash to a family member of a student-athlete is

conduct that seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. The institution

agrees the alleged violation is Level I.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

and Strojny first met and began communicating with one another in August 2013. 462 Key

factual information supporting this allegation is a text message exchange between and Strojny

from August 18, 2014, referencing a "package" that stated was the $800 cash gift from Strojny. 463

462
FI217, Page Nos. 2 through 4.
463
FI141, Page No. 5; and FI217, Page No. 8.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 96

The exchange also shows they agreed to meet Friday, August 22 in Oxford. stated that was the

day he received the money from Strojny. 464

As of August 22, was overdrawn in his bank accounts by more than $100 and mother

had a near $0 balance in her accounts. 465 However, made a $500 cash deposit to his Walmart

money card account August 22 that he claims he funded with the money from Strojny. 466 Although Strojny

denied ever providing with cash, he was unable to explain what he and were referencing

with respect to the "package" nor could he offer any other information that refuted the allegation. 467 Neither

the institution nor the enforcement staff believe Strojny's denial is credible.

D. Remaining issues.

None.

XX. ALLEGATION NO. 19 – Between August 2014 and August 2015, Cannon Motor
Company (Cannon Motors), then representative of the institution's athletics interests,
provided impermissible extra benefits in the form of complimentary vehicle use to
and football student-athlete ( Additionally, in June 2015,
Cannon Motors and Michael Joe Cannon (Cannon), owner of Cannon Motors and then
representative of the institution's athletics interests, provided with an
impermissible loan. The approximate monetary value of the extra benefits was $7,495.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 12.11.1 (2014-15); 16.11.2.1 (2014-15 and 2015-16);
16.11.2.2-(a) (2014-15); and 16.11.2.2-(c) (2014-15 and 2015-16)]

A. Overview.

The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts are substantially correct and that violations of

NCAA legislation occurred.

464
FI141, Page Nos. 6 through 9; and FI217, Page No. 9.
465
FI67, Page Nos. 45 through 47; FI120, Page No. 9; and FI147, Page No. 22.
466
FI149, Page No. 29; and FI217, Page Nos. 14 and 15.
467
FI220, Page Nos. 34 through 36, 42 and 46.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 97

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 19 is a severe breach of

conduct (Level I). The alleged violations have a monetary value of approximately $7,495 and include the

provision of free loaner vehicle use for extended periods of time, which are substantial or extensive extra

benefits. Additionally, the benefits were provided by then boosters Cannon and Cannon Motors to two high-

profile football student-athletes. Their participation in this arrangement seriously undermines or threatens

the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Further, the violations recurred for approximately one year

and involved loaning four different vehicles over that time span. The institution agrees the alleged violations

are Level I.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

1. Background information.

Cannon Motors operates several dealerships in Mississippi, including in Oxford, and Cannon is an

alumnus of the institution and a former football student-athlete. The dealership administers a loaner vehicle

program to its service and repair customers and prospective buyers. 468 A repair customer who receives a

loaned vehicle from Cannon Motors is expected to return it once the work on his or her personal vehicle is

completed. 469 The expectations as to when a prospective buyer must return a loaner vehicle are less defined.

2. Allegation No. 19-a.

Cannon Motors first loaned a 2012 Nissan Titan (Titan) around May 6, 2014, when he brought

his personal vehicle in for repairs and loaned it to him on other occasions during that spring and summer. 470

use of the Titan from May 6 through August 28 was permissible because he was an active repair

468
FI212, Page Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 12.
469
FI204, Page No. 29.
470
FI133; FI134; FI135; FI136, Page No. 34; FI198, Page Nos. 65 and 66; and FI200, Page Nos. 44 and 45.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 98

customer; however, his use of the vehicle from August 28 through October 28 was impermissible because

he had opted to forgo repairs to his vehicle at that time. 471 The enforcement staff and institution agree

impermissible use of the Titan had a monetary value of approximately $2,416. 472

3. Allegation No. 19-b.

From February 16 through June 10, 2015, had impermissible use of a 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe

(Tahoe) and a 2008 Nissan Armada (Armada). drove the Tahoe from February 16 through May 11

and the Armada from May 11 through June 10. 473 Cannon Motors originally loaned the vehicles

because he was a prospective car buyer, but allowed him to keep using the vehicles even though he decided

not to purchase the vehicles. 474 extended use of the Tahoe and Armada was outside the scope of

Cannon Motors' loaner vehicle program and therefore impermissible. The enforcement staff and institution

agree the combined monetary value of this vehicle use was approximately $1,324. 475

4. Allegation No. 19-c.

On June 11, 2015 Cannon Motors loaned a 2013 Chevrolet Impala (Impala) because his

personal vehicle was in for repairs, which were finalized July 7. 476 However, he kept the loaner until August

10, which was impermissible. 477 The enforcement staff and institution agree the monetary value of this

vehicle use was approximately $755. 478

471
FI156; FI157; FI187; FI189, Page Nos. 26 through 29, 31 and 33; FI198, Page Nos. 68 and 77 through 84; FI200,
Page No. 6; and FI208, Page Nos. 8, 33 and 41.
472
FI357, Page No. 2.
473
FI168, Page Nos. 1 and 2; FI171, Page No. 1; FI198, Page No. 85; and FI212, Page No. 51.
474
FI169, Page No. 1; FI212, Page Nos. 29 through 31, 44 through 51 and 57; and FI219, Page No. 8.
475
FI357, Page No. 3.
476
FI177, Page No. 1; FI178, Page No. 10; FI185, Page Nos. 2 through 4; FI213, Page No. 1; and FI216, Page Nos. 1
through 4.
477
FI205, Page Nos. 1 through 4; and FI337, Page Nos. 2, 8, 16, 19, 24.
478
FI333, Page No. 2.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 99

5. Allegation No. 19-d.

purchased a used vehicle from Cannon Motors June 10 and financed the purchase through the

dealership. Documentation shows paid $3,000 cash as a down payment on the purchase date. 479

However, the documentation was inaccurate because reported that he put no money down at the time

of purchase but had reached an undocumented side agreement with the dealership to make the down

payment several months later. 480 A promissory note obtained shows agreed to pay the $3,000 down

payment by October 15, 2015, constituting an extra benefit. 481

D. Remaining issue.

None.

XXI. ALLEGATION NO. 20 – Between October 2012 through January 2016, Freeze violated
NCAA head coach responsibility legislation as he is presumed responsible for the
violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 5 through 10, 12 through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b and
did not rebut that presumption. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1 (October 13
through 29, 2012); 11.1.1.1 (October 30, 2012, through 2015-16)]

A. Overview.

The institution and Freeze dispute this allegation.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution and involved individual are in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 20 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I) as it involves a head coach responsibility violation arising from underlying Level I, II

and III violations.

479
FI181, Page Nos. 1 through 5.
480
FI198, Page No. 88.
481
FI182, Page No. 1; and FI357, Page No. 5.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 100

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

The enforcement staff incorporates its review of the facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 5 through 10, 12

through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b. Allegation Nos. 9-b and 9-c, 12 through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b are underlying

violations that occurred between the 2013-14 and 2015-16 academic years while the investigation was

ongoing. The primary considerations in charging this allegation were the presumption of responsibility,

information detailed below, and Freeze's inability to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of

compliance and monitored his staff. The continued misconduct by football personnel during the

investigation, including increasingly egregious violations, was also considered and further highlighted

Freeze's failure to curb his staff's illicit behavior or maintain vigilance over his program.

1. Allegation No. 20-a.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violation detailed in Allegation No. 5, and includes

instances in which Freeze knew of and witnessed Hughes' activities but failed to take appropriate action to

ensure compliance. Specifically, Hughes (1) emailed Freeze regarding his transporting

and to the institution for recruiting visits and providing tutoring assistance; (2)

attended a portion of an in-home visit of by Freeze and M. Harris; (3) transported and

to the institution's 2013 bowl game and hosted them on this occasion; and (4) attended a recruiting

visit function at Freeze's home January 20, 2013. Freeze failed to address any of these actions at the time.

Further, the primary failure occurred early on when Freeze failed to vet Hughes through the compliance

office. Instead, Freeze permitted his staff to rely on its own review of Hughes' association with the four

then prospects and apply (incorrectly) the complex "established relationship" test (Exhibit NCAA- 10) in

determining whether they should be concerned about Hughes and/or refrain from engaging him in the

prospects' recruitment.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 101

Freeze's handling of these matters, which spanned several months, fell short of the standards placed on

head coaches to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staffs. Hughes, irrespective of his

background or stated intentions, posed a clear red flag during the four then prospects' recruitment. Had

Freeze satisfied his obligation to promote an atmosphere for compliance, either he or members of his staff

would have known to take the obvious precaution of consulting the compliance office – or otherwise

confirming the propriety of their behavior – before engaging Hughes in recruiting. However, nobody did

so and Freeze cannot demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.

2. Allegation No. 20-b.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violations detailed in Allegation No. 6 in which the

football program produced and/or displayed recruiting videos to prospects during visits. Freeze approved

this activity but failed to take clear and sufficient action to ensure it was permissible. The football program

knew or should have known the activity was risky as the compliance office had advised against such videos

previously. 482 Further, the activity was omitted from and/or falsely described in documentation the football

program submitted to the compliance office. The responsibility for the football program failing to consult

the compliance office, disregarding prior guidance from compliance on this subject and including errors or

misrepresentations in important documentation rests with the head coach. In light of these facts and the

many violations in his program, Freeze was unable to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of

compliance or that he monitored his staff. He is therefore responsible for the underlying violations.

3. Allegation No. 20-c.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violations detailed in Allegation No. 7 in which the

football program arranged hunting trips for on a booster's land during his official paid visit and as

a student-athlete, a benefit that Freeze should have known posed a red flag for the program. Freeze knew

482
FI339, Page No. 1314.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 102

the activity was arranged during official paid visit, but failed to ensure it was permissible. Further,

the January 2013 hunting trip was not listed on recruiting visit documentation submitted to the

compliance office, nor did anyone in the football program vet this or the subsequent hunting trips through

compliance. These errors further reveal significant deficiencies in the atmosphere of compliance in the

football program and Freeze's failure to demonstrate sufficient monitoring efforts.

4. Allegation No. 20-d.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violations detailed in Allegation No. 8 in which Kiffin

arranged hotel lodging and meals for several members of family during his official paid visit.

was an elite prospect and Kiffin and the football program spent weeks preparing for his and his family's

arrival. 483 Among these preparations were conversations between Kiffin and other football staff members

regarding family dynamics, the persons who would accompany him and their accommodation

needs. 484 Kiffin and the football staff knew in advance who would accompany

Additionally, and his five companions were visible throughout the visit and Freeze, Kiffin and

other football staff interacted with them multiple times. reported that he explained his family

dynamics to Kiffin before the visit and to Freeze during the visit. 485 However, at no point did anyone in the

football program consult the compliance office as to whether providing lodging and meals to entire

travel party was permissible. Freeze and his staff had ample time and opportunity to vet official

paid visit arrangements through the compliance office, but did not do so. Freeze also ignored red flags

during the visit. As the head coach, Freeze is responsible for these failures and did not demonstrate that he

promoted an atmosphere of compliance or monitored his staff.

483
FI59, Page Nos. 8 through 10.
484
FI65, Page Nos. 10, 11, 27 and 28.
485
FI68, Page Nos. 9, 12 and 14.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 103

5. Allegation No. 20-e.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violations detailed in Allegation No. 9 in which Kiffin

arranged free merchandise for while Farrar did the same for and Notably, Farrar

engaged in these activities multiple times while the football program was under NCAA investigation.

Additionally, the provision of free merchandise occurred on several occasions over a three-year period,

involved elite prospects and occurred very near the institution. Kiffin's and Farrar's actions again show the

ongoing significant compliance failures in Freeze's program and his insufficient monitoring efforts.

Although the enforcement staff provided Freeze multiple opportunities to explain his efforts to promote

compliance and monitor his staff, he was simply unable to demonstrate that he satisfied the legislated

obligations of a head coach.

6. Allegation No. 20-f.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violation detailed in Allegation No. 10 in which Kiffin

permitted to stay overnight at his home. This violation occurred shortly after the discovery and

investigation of the violations detailed in Allegation No. 8, also involving Kiffin. This is another instance

in which Kiffin provided a benefit, albeit nominal, and failed to consult anyone as to its permissibility

or otherwise inform the compliance office or Freeze it occurred. Kiffin’s questionable conduct demonstrates

a continuing significant compliance deficiency in the football program and is inconsistent with Freeze's

position that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.

7. Allegation Nos. 20-g and 20-h.

These allegation subparts pertain to the underlying violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 12 and 13 in

which Freeze and Kiffin had impermissible, in-person recruiting contact with prospects during their junior

year. Early recruiting contacts, even though Level III, are violations of fundamental NCAA legislation.

Freeze and Kiffin could have easily avoided contacting the prospects or making recruiting-related
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 104

statements. They also could have mitigated the length of their interactions with the juniors. They failed on

all counts. They also neglected to report their impermissible contacts to the compliance office.

Had Freeze reported his contacts to the compliance office in December 2013, it could have served as a

meaningful example to his staff on how to handle such situations and prevented Kiffin's violation

approximately five months later. Both underlying violations are indicative of a significant compliance

failure in the football program, and Allegation No. 13 shows a failure in Freeze's monitoring efforts. In

light of Freeze's personal involvement in this violation, he was also unable to demonstrate that he promoted

an atmosphere of compliance in the football program.

8. Allegation No. 20-i.

This allegation subpart pertains to the underlying violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 14, 16, 17-a

and 17-b in which Farrar knowingly engaged in violations during recruitment and used boosters to

commit those violations. Farrar involved Keyes, and in recruitment and knew they were

providing impermissible inducements, including large sums of cash. Further, these violations occurred on

the heels of other booster recruiting violations and at a time when awareness and diligence by the entire

football staff regarding third-party involvement in recruiting should have been high. Farrar's flagrant

misconduct further exposes the significant compliance failure in Freeze's program.

Additionally, there were multiple red flags during recruitment that were or should have been

apparent to Freeze but were ignored. Group text messages taken from Farrar's institutional cellphone to

which Freeze was a party discussed Keyes' involvement in and other prospects' recruitment. 486 As

discussed previously, Keyes was frequently present at football facilities with Farrar during

recruitment and was never employed by the institution. His employment with an outside food service

486
FI241, Page Nos. 38 and 47; and FI260, Page Nos. 51, 62 and 63.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 105

provider used by the institution ended in August 2014. 487 There was no reason for Keyes to be around the

football program as frequently as he was, and certainly no justification for him being involved in

recruitment. Nevertheless, Freeze failed to ascertain why Keyes was around the football offices, staff and

recruits. These failures represent significant continuing compliance shortcomings and in Freeze's

monitoring efforts.

Further, Freeze acknowledged that he suspected was seeking an impermissible inducement of

some kind during his recruitment; 488 nevertheless, Freeze's program continued recruiting Freeze also

suspected Farrar was using an unauthorized cellphone for recruiting, but other than purportedly asking

Farrar whether he was using such a device, Freeze failed to act. 489 Farrar reported that he used disposable

cellphones for years, including to communicate with colleagues.

Any of these revelations should have drawn more attention from Freeze and involved the compliance

office, but that did not occur. This pattern of misconduct arose more than a year into the football

investigation, and Freeze's inaction shows a continuing significant compliance deficiency in his program

and monitoring efforts.

NCAA head coach responsibility legislation presumes a head coach is responsible for the actions of all

institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach. Notably, this case includes

multiple staff members who reported directly or indirectly to Freeze that appeared comfortable committing

NCAA violations. Freeze could rebut the presumption by demonstrating that he both promoted an

atmosphere of compliance and monitored his staff. He failed to do both. The atmosphere was anything but

compliant and Freeze’s monitoring efforts, as noted above, were many times deficient.

487
BKappel_CO_AKeyesDatesEmptInstFoodSvcContractor_062117_OleMiss_00561.
488
FI288, Page Nos. 46 through 49.
489
FI288, Page Nos. 159 through 162.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 106

D. Remaining issue.

Did Freeze rebut the presumption of responsibility for the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 5

through 10, 12 through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b by demonstrating that he promoted an atmosphere of

compliance and monitored his staff?

E. Rebuttal information.

• The institution and Freeze submitted documentation purporting to show that he rebutted the

presumption of responsibility for the underlying violations. 490 However, a significant portion of the

documents were materials the compliance office provided proactively to the football program as part of its

rules education efforts. There are numerous other documents that, while required by the compliance office,

do not pertain to head coach responsibility. There are others that inform on the culture Freeze promoted

and efforts to monitor, but the enforcement staff determined those documents were insufficient to rebut the

presumption of responsibility for the underlying violations. Specifically, the enforcement staff had

difficulty reconciling the content of self-serving written materials with the actual behavior of Freeze and

other staff members, including the many violations outlined above.

• The institution and Freeze asserted that Level III violations should not be considered in connection

with head coach responsibility allegations. The enforcement staff respectfully disagrees and notes that

although head coach responsibility allegations are not made in cases involving only Level III violations,

the enforcement staff may (and has) cited Level III violations as support for head coach responsibility

allegations in Level I and II cases. In fact, the enforcement staff cited a Level III violation in the head coach

responsibility allegation involving the former head men's and women's track and field and cross country

coach in Case No. 189693. 491 It is noteworthy that the institution did not object in that case but does so

490
FI296; FI297; FI298; FI299; FI300; FI301; and FI302.
491
Allegation No. 27-a-2.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 107

here. Program violations, regardless of the level, inform on the culture of compliance under a head coach.

This panel may assign whatever weight it believes is appropriate to the Level III violations.

• The institution and Freeze also assert that the enforcement staff is precluded from citing any

football allegations included in the original notice of allegations in Case No. 189693 as support for this

allegation because the staff did not allege a head coach control violation in January 2016. The enforcement

staff disagrees and restates the arguments in its May 2, 2017, letter to the hearing panel's chief hearing

officer, specifically that (1) Committee on Infractions Internal Operating Procedure 3-12-3 et. seq.

expressly authorizes the enforcement staff to amend allegations; (2) any other model would invite

significant mischief and be entirely unworkable in practice; and (3) there is no appetite in the membership

to move toward an infractions model where partially-informed charging decisions are forever binding. 492

The discovery of additional violations involving Freeze and/or his staff that were investigated over the

last year demonstrably changed the charging analysis as to whether Freeze rebutted the presumption of

responsibility. The enforcement staff exercised its discretion in January 2016 not to allege a head coach

responsibility violation based on Allegation Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10 and 13, that decision does not foreclose the

staff from making a different decision based on more complete information at this time.

XXII. ALLEGATION NO. 21 – The scope and nature of the violations detailed in Allegation
Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 16, 17-a, 17-b and 18 through 20, and Finding Nos. IV-C and IV-H in
Committee on Infractions Decision No. 460 493 demonstrate that between May and June
2010 and from May 2012 through January 2016, the institution failed to exercise
institutional control and monitor the conduct and administration of its athletics program.
[NCAA Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1 (2009-10 and 2011-12 through 2015-16); and
NCAA Constitution 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 (2009-10 and 2012-13 through 2015-16)]

492
JDuncan_CO_StaffRspCOIMay2Letter_050417_OleMiss_00561, Page No. 3.
493
On October 7, 2016, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions found that the former head women's basketball
coach failed to monitor the activities of his staff and that the former head men's and women's track and field and cross
country coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor the activities of his staff. Those matters
were separated from the football allegations at issue here over the institution's objection. Had the committee not
decided those matters previously, the allegations and pertinent factual information would have been included in this
notice of allegations.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 108

A. Overview.

The institution disputes this allegation.

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I
[NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1] and if the institution is in agreement.

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 21 is a severe breach

of conduct (Level I) because lack of institutional control is a presumptive Level I violation and the

widespread institutional failures here seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA

Collegiate Model.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

The enforcement staff incorporates its review of the factual information detailed in Allegation Nos. 1,

2, 5 through 16, 17-a, 17-b and 18 through 20. An institution's athletics program operates through the actions

of its representatives, including its coaches and boosters. Compliance with NCAA legislation in

administering an intercollegiate athletics program is a shared responsibility among these and other

stakeholders. Although much of that responsibility rests with an institution's compliance office, others must

also fulfill their respective obligations to achieve institutional control. This includes an institution-wide

commitment to, among other things, rules education, compliance, monitoring and reporting.

Here, the institution maintained NCAA compliance policies and procedures and updated them

periodically. It sought out and employed experienced administrators during the relevant time period. It

educated its stakeholders on NCAA legislation, including on many of the rules that were broken in this

case. There is no one person or administrative error that is the root cause of these violations; rather, they

stem from a series of breakdowns. More broadly, the underlying violations are attributable to a culture of

noncompliance and mindset that gaining recruiting and competitive advantages trumps adherence to

Association rules. They also demonstrate an inability by the institution to execute existing policies or

consistently follow the compliance procedures that were in place. The continuation of violations over
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 109

several years, including during this investigation, also shows the institution failed to take meaningful action

to curb misconduct in its football program or reinforce the message that compliance is a required and non-

negotiable part of representing the institution. Meanwhile outside of football, two other sport programs at

the institution were also involved in multiple, serious NCAA violations. Even on a large campus, it is

unusual to see the high volume and serious nature of violations like those at issue here. Obviously,

something was wrong at the institution.

Additionally, the violations include instances in which football personnel and/or others charged with

compliance responsibilities either insufficiently responded to red flags or failed to address them altogether,

resulting in monitoring failures. Three head coaches also failed to meet their obligations to promote an

atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staffs. These serious shortcomings at the highest level of

multiple sports demonstrate a lack of institutional control.

1. Allegation No. 21-a.

The Committee on Infractions' Principles of Institutional Control (Principles) provide as follows:

[If] an institution does not make clear that individual violations of NCAA rules will result
in disciplinary actions against the involved individual, and if it does not actually discipline
those who are found to have violated such rules, it has opened the door to permitting further
violations. In such a case, future violations of an individual nature will constitute failures
of institutional control (Exhibit NCAA-11).

Essentially, an institution must take meaningful action to create a culture of compliance among its

representatives to curb future misconduct and maintain institutional control.

The facts and circumstances surrounding Allegation Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 16, 17-a, 17-b and 18 through

20 involve a range of misconduct, including intentional and secret acts that violated core NCAA legislation

and values. The violations involve football personnel disregarding the institution's policies and expectations

to take precautions to ensure their actions complied with NCAA legislation and/or reporting violations to

the compliance office. The violations occurred, and recurred, over five and a half years, including during
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 110

the investigation when attention to compliance should have been paramount. During this same time period,

the institution failed to take meaningful action as required by the Principles to correct the behavior in its

football program, which allowed additional violations to occur and illustrated a lack of institutional control.

2. Allegation No. 21-b.

The Principles also state "[i]n a situation in which adequate institutional policies exist, at least on paper,

a practical, common-sense approach is appropriate in determining whether they are adequately monitored

and enforced by a person in 'control'."(See Exhibit NCAA-11). Monitoring compliance is a shared

responsibility for member institutions and it does not fall solely to the compliance office. Coaches must

also monitor one another in good faith to ensure compliance.

The facts and circumstances surrounding Allegation Nos. 5 through 9, 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b include

multiple instances where red flags were either insufficiently addressed or ignored altogether and resulted

in serious violations. The football staff was responsible for the bulk of these monitoring failures. Allegation

Nos. 5, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 17-b involve open and persistent interaction among football personnel, boosters,

student-athletes and prospects facilitated by certain football staff members and unaddressed by the others.

Allegation Nos. 6 and 7 involve the football staff arranging activities and entertainment for football

prospects and their families at or near the institution that were not vetted as to their permissibility.

Allegation Nos 5, 8 and 14 involve the football staff repeatedly arranging impermissible

accommodations for football prospects and their families in conjunction with recruiting visits, with no one

asking whether it was permissible despite being educated in this area. These allegations also include

multiple disturbing instances of coaches submitting false information to the compliance office in important

recruiting documentation. Allegation Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16 and 17-a involve football staff providing

impermissible benefits over an extended period of time and actions that were never scrutinized.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 111

3. Allegation No. 21-c.

This allegation details monitoring failures primarily by the compliance office. Also, the football staff

should have carefully monitored these issues, but did not.

a. Fall of 2014.

Between August 28 and October 1, 2014, received eight tickets for illegally parking the Titan

that displayed a "CANNON" dealer plate. 494 The tickets were not initially linked to because he had

not registered the vehicle with the institution. He drove the vehicle on campus, including to football

facilities for an extended period of time. On October 1, parking services placed an immobilizing device on

the Titan, likely due to the high volume of tickets accumulated and lack of registration. 495

On October 3, purchased a temporary parking pass to remove the immobilizer, which then linked

the eight tickets to him. 496 At this time, the compliance office was still unaware that was driving the

Titan. Between October 14 and 28, he received five more tickets attached to the Titan, which were linked

to him at issuance. 497 Notably, parking services and the compliance office did not communicate about these

tickets, as there was no system for doing so at the time.

During the week of October 20, the compliance office learned was driving the Titan and

questioned him about the vehicle. stated that it was a Cannon Motors loaner vehicle he had possessed

for two weeks. 498 The compliance office directed to return the vehicle out of concern others may

perceive it as a violation, and he did so shortly thereafter. 499 Despite this concern, the compliance office

neither conducted further inquiry nor examined whether claimed two-week use of the vehicle was

494
FI187, Page No. 1.
495
FI187, Page Nos. 38 through 49.
496
FI187, Page No. 2.
497
FI187, Page Nos. 1.
498
FI189, Page Nos. 27 and 33.
499
FI189, Page Nos. 25 through 29; FI198, Page Nos. 69 and 70; and FI202, Page Nos. 20 through 23.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 112

accurate and/or permissible. 500 Had it done so, the compliance office likely would have confirmed this

violation much sooner, prevented ineligible competition and prevented the subsequent loaner

vehicle violations involving and

b. Spring of 2015.

On February 16, 2015, Cannon Motors loaned the Tahoe, which he drove until May 11.

did not register this vehicle and it too displayed only the "CANNON" dealer plate. The vehicle was ticketed

on campus March 11. 501 On May 11, traded the Tahoe for the Armada from Cannon Motors, which

he drove until June 10. He did not register the Armada with the institution and the vehicle was never

ticketed.

On March 20, requested $575 through the special assistance fund (SAF) to drive to Florida.

Although he did not have a vehicle on-file at the time, he received the money a week later. 502 On April 1

and May 1, met with the compliance office as part of its high-profile student-athlete program and

completed forms asking several questions, including regarding his vehicle access. wrote that he did

not have access to a vehicle, which was untrue. 503 The compliance office did not verify the information on

forms, nor did it notice the discrepancy in claiming he did not have a vehicle just days after

requesting $575 to drive to Florida.

c. Summer of 2015.

had impermissible use of the Impala from July 7 through August 10, 2015. He drove it on

campus frequently and it displayed only the "CANNON" dealer plate. 504 He also drove his personal vehicle.

purchased a parking pass June 8 and parking services ticketed the Impala and personal

500
FI189, Page Nos. 33 through 36.
501
FI171.
502
FI136, Page No. 7.
503
FI340, Page Nos. 45 and 47.
504
FI337, Page No. 6.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 113

vehicle multiple times between July 7 and August 10. 505 dual vehicle registrations and

simultaneous parking tickets should have alerted the institution to potential concerns, but it did not. The

compliance office discovered the Impala August 10 during a sweep for vehicles displaying the "CANNON"

dealer plate stemming from the investigation of loaner vehicle issues.

4. Allegation No. 21-d.

The Principles state "[a] head coach has a special obligation to establish a spirit of compliance among

the entire team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes." Additionally, "a failure by

head coaches to control their teams, alone or with the assistance of a staff member with compliance

responsibilities, is a lack of institutional control." (See Exhibit NCAA-11). Finding Nos. IV-C and IV-H in

Infractions Decision No. 460 state that the former head women's basketball coach and former head men's

and women's track and field and cross country coach, respectively, failed to fulfill head coach responsibility

legislation, and Allegation No. 20 details Freeze's failures in this regard. The enforcement staff asserts that

these significant shortcomings by head coaches across multiple sports contributed to the institution's failure

to create a culture of compliance in, and exercise control over, its athletics program.

D. Remaining issue.

Did the institution fail to demonstrate institutional control and monitor the conduct and administration

of its athletics program as evidenced by the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 16, 17-a,

17-b and 18 through 20, and Finding Nos. IV-C and IV-H in Committee on Infractions Decision No. 460?

XXIII. ADDITIONAL MATTERS RELATED TO THE CASE

None.

505
FI337, Page Nos. 1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 19 and 24.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 114

XXIV. POTENTIAL AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

The enforcement staff directs the hearing panel to the statement of the case for a summary of

aggravating and mitigating factors identified and the parties' respective positions. Additionally, the

enforcement staff incorporates the information in the notice of allegations and this document regarding the

applicability of aggravating and mitigating factors.

A. Institution.

1. Position of the institution.

The institution agrees with three of the aggravating factors: Bylaws 19.9.3-(a), 19.9.3-(g), 19.9.3-(i)

and 19.9.3-(k) and disagrees with Bylaw 19.9.3-(c). 506 The institution also requested that the hearing panel

consider two additional mitigating factors: Bylaw 19.9.4-(e), implementation of a system of compliance

methods designed to ensure rules compliance; and Bylaw 19.9.4-(f), exemplary cooperation. 507

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff believes Bylaw 19.9.4-(e) is not warranted and notes the institution failed to

exercise institutional control and monitor, which runs counter to this mitigating factor. Further, while the

institution met its obligation to cooperate under Bylaw 19.2.3 and provided valuable assistance in the

investigation, it did not meet the high standard for exemplary cooperation.

B. Involved individual [Farrar].

1. Position of Farrar.

Farrar did not address aggravating or mitigating factors in his response.

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff has nothing further to add.

C. Involved individual [Freeze].

506
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Page Nos. 108 through 110.
507
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561, Page Nos. 110 through 115.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 115

1. Position of Freeze.

Freeze disagrees with Bylaw 19.9.3-(k). 508 Additionally, he requested the hearing panel consider five

mitigating factors: Bylaw 19.9.4-(a), prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations; Bylaw

19.9.4-(b), prompt acknowledgement of the violations and acceptance of responsibility; Bylaw 19.9.4-(d),

an established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations; Bylaw 19.9.4-(e), implementation

of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of head coach

control standards; and Bylaw 19.9.4-(f), exemplary cooperation.

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff did not identify any mitigating factors applicable to Freeze because the facts and

circumstances did not warrant any. Freeze did not self-detect and/or self-disclose any of the violations in

this case or promptly acknowledge the violations in which he is named nor accept responsibility for them.

Additionally, the football program under his supervision does not have an established history of self-

reporting Level III or secondary violations; it self-reported only 12 of 62 such violations from the 2012-13

academic year through February 22, 2017. 509 Further, Freeze was unable to demonstrate that he promoted

an atmosphere of compliance or monitored his staff, and therefore did not implement a system of

compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of head coach control standards.

He also did not meet the high standard required for exemplary cooperation.

D. Involved individual [M. Harris].

1. Position of M. Harris.

M. Harris requested the hearing panel consider seven mitigating factors, specifically his (1) cooperation

with the investigation, (2) attending an NCAA Regional Rules seminar, (3) caution and inquisitiveness, (4)

508
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561_HFreeze_FreezeNOAResponse, Page No. 78.
509
Final_NOA_022217_OleMiss_00561, Page No. 38.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 116

reporting information that led to discovering the violations detailed in Allegation No. 5-n, (5) not fully

appreciating the resources available to assist him in maintaining compliance, (6) culpability being based on

a single misguided assumption and (7) penalties already assessed by the institution. 510

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff did not identify any mitigating factors applicable to M. Harris because the facts

and circumstances did not warrant any and notes the items listed by M. Harris are not listed as mitigating

factors in Bylaw 19.9.4.

E. Involved individual [Kiffin].

1. Position of Kiffin.

Kiffin requested the hearing panel consider his "cooperation and acceptance of self-imposed penalties

as mitigating factors," as well as "the unintentional and limited scope of his admitted violations as well as

Kiffin's otherwise compliance practices." 511

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff did not identify any mitigating factors applicable to Kiffin because the facts and

circumstances did not warrant any. The enforcement staff also notes the scope of violations in which Kiffin

is named is broad and Kiffin did not consistently exhibit rules compliance during his tenure at the institution.

F. Involved individual [Nix].

1. Position of Nix.

Nix requested the hearing panel consider Bylaw 19.9.4-(g), the violations were unintentional, limited

in scope and represent a deviation from otherwise compliant practices. 512

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

510
NOAResponse_5.23.17_OleMiss_00561_MHarris, Page Nos. 12 and 13.
511
NOAResponse_5-23-17_OleMiss_00561_CKiffin, Page No. 2.
512
NOAResponse_052317_OleMiss_00561_DNix, Page Nos. 17 and 18.
ENFORCEMENT WRITTEN REPLY
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 117

The enforcement staff did not identify any mitigating factors applicable to Nix because the facts and

circumstances did not warrant any. The enforcement staff alleged Nix assisted in arranging significant

impermissible recruiting inducements to a then football prospect that were provided as part of a wide-

ranging plan cure the prospect's academic deficiencies. The extent to which he otherwise exhibited

compliant practices is outweighed by his role in this violation.

G. Involved individual [Saunders].

1. Position of Saunders.

Saunders did not submit a response to the notice of allegations or otherwise communication a position

regarding aggravating or mitigating factors.

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff has nothing further to add.

H. Involved individual [Vaughn].

1. Position of Vaughn.

Vaughn did not address aggravating or mitigating factors in his response.

2. Position of the enforcement staff.

The enforcement staff has nothing further to add.

National Collegiate Athletic Association
July 21, 2017 MWS:jcd