Mississippi has mounted a vigorous defense of coach Hugh Freeze, who is facing the same primary Level I allegation as Pitino. He was charged as one of 21 allegations against the football program in an NCAA Notice of Allegations that the school released publicly for the first time last week, along with its response to that NOA.
Four years ago, the NCAA revised a rule and upped the ante on coach responsibility for what happens on their watch. In 2015-16, the impact of that revision was felt: nine-game suspensions were applied to basketball coaches Jim Boeheim of Syracuse and Larry Brown of Southern Methodist for violations within their programs. Despite that precedent, both Louisville and Ole Miss have gone to bat for their head coaches.
āOle Miss has laid out a position similar to what Louisville laid out with Coach Pitino,ā said Stu Brown, an Atlanta-based attorney who has represented both coaches and schools in NCAA cases. āBoth are able to do that because, in essence, the head coach was not individually charged with substantial misconduct. Pitino was not charged with anything, and Freeze is charged with two Level IIIs [an impermissible recruiting contact and knowledge of an impermissible recruiting video] one of which they are disputing.
āThat gives them grounds to be more supportive of their coach. They have to decide: for win-loss, financial and political reasons, is the coach someone the school wants to save? If a school was looking for a reason to get rid of a coach, having him charged with lack of coach control would at least give the school the opportunity to say, āWe canāt defend you.ā If coach is winning, if coach is popular, if coach is raising revenue, coach gets supported.ā