šŸ“” Ole Miss publishes its written appeal to the NCAA, still awaits COI response

TerryP

Successfully wasting your time since...
Staff
OXFORD — Ole Miss submitted its written appeal to the NCAA last Monday. The university published the document on Wednesday, and in doing so kept up with its recent aggressive tone toward the Committee on Infractions and its ruling.

ā€œThis Committee should vacate and reverse the penalties and factual findings," the appeal stated, "because the COI abused its discretion, departed from precedent, committed procedural errors, and reached factual conclusions inconsistent with the evidence.ā€

Ole Miss is appealing its 2018 postseason ban, which was added to a self-imposed '17 postseason ban, limitations on unofficial visits, and the committee's findings regarding a Lack of Institutional Control charge and the allegation that Rebel Rags, an Oxford-based retail store, provided free merchandise to recruits and family members.

The written appeal was submitted on Feb. 5. The Committee on Infractions has 30 days from that point to file its response, then the university has 14 days to submit a rebuttal.

The Committee on Infractions handed down its ruling to Ole Miss on Dec. 1. In its ruling, the committee essentially determined Ole Miss had an out-of-control booster culture, which spanned decades and cited cases from 1986 and 1994.

The use of cases which were more than two decades old as an aggravating factor bothered Jeff Vitter, Ole Miss' chancellor, and Ross Bjork, the Rebels' athletic director, when they addressed the media that day.

The written appeal hit on that point again.

ā€œAt what point does an institution get a clean slate in the infractions process? For this COI panel," the appeal stated, "the answer appears to be 'never.'"

Ole Miss argued that the addition of the '18 postseason ban was inconsistent and excessive in terms of the committee's precedent. The appeal then points to the NCAA's repeat-violator legislation, which is only applicable within a five-year period.

ā€œThis clear error of judgment renders the imposition of a second postseason ban arbitrary, capricious, or irrational,ā€ the university argued.

As a result of the postseason ban, Ole Miss had to forfeit nearly $8 million this academic year and will have to do so again next year if the ruling is upheld. That total is essentially cut in half if after five years the university is not involved in another significant infractions case.

As far as the LOIC charge, the university argued: "The COI appears to have based its LOIC finding on two impermissible factors: first, the number of violations; and, second, their unfounded belief that a particular culture of noncompliance ā€œexisted for decadesā€ at the University.ā€

The committee also limited recruits to one unofficial campus visit per year until Nov. 30, 2020. It's an unprecedented penalty, and the university contested that the COI did not adhere to its current penalty structure. The penalty is "six times longer than the most severe recruiting restriction prescribed by the NCAA Bylaws," the appeal states.

Then there are the Rebel Rags findings. Ole Miss has contested those from the start and has attempted to poke holes in the testimonies from Mississippi State's Leo Lewis and Kobe Jones, and Lindsey Miller, Laremy Tunsil's estranged stepfather.

The committee ordered Ole Miss to disassociate Rebel Rags owner Terry Warren. That's pending this appeal. The university expressed its issues with those findings as well.

ā€œFirst, the COI’s decision to credit the biased, inconsistency-riddled accounts was erroneous," the appeal stated. "The COI credited these uncorroborated stories because they were 'similar' and '[n]one of the three individuals knew each other at the times they gave their accounts.' But that was not true. Two of the individuals were, in fact, teammates (or future teammates who had already struck up a relationship) at the time of their interviews."

Ole Miss has requested an in-person appeal with the Infractions Appeals Committee over these matters.

The Infractions Appeals Committee consists of five members. Three are known: Ellen M. Ferris, who is the associate commissioner and senior woman administrator for the AAC; Patti Ohlendorf, vice president of legal affairs at Texas, and W. Anthony Jenkins, who is the chief diversity officer at Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Two more members were to be added by the end of January.

Ole Miss publishes its written appeal to the NCAA, still awaits COI response
 
They were citing cases from 86 and 94. Does the NCAA just go out of their way to make themselves look bad? They had plenty without giving the impression they are being unfair.
If they're citing cases from those two years--cases that involved Ole Miss and booster's activity--as evidence of their "out-of-control booster culture," how does that make the NCAA look bad?

I'm reading that as "you were caught in '86 for your boosters being out of control." Once again, in '94, "you were caught in the same situation." Now, over 20 years after the last incident your boosters are still "out of control."

ā€œAt what point does an institution get a clean slate in the infractions process? For this COI panel," the appeal stated, "the answer appears to be 'never.'"

That quote right there sums it up for me. Remember, Ole Miss was warned by the SEC and the NCAA about what was going on and told they needed to "cease and desist." BUT, all Ole Miss did was step on the gas pedal. The answer is always going to be "never" if they don't ever stop.
 
If they're citing cases from those two years--cases that involved Ole Miss and booster's activity--as evidence of their "out-of-control booster culture," how does that make the NCAA look bad?

I'm reading that as "you were caught in '86 for your boosters being out of control." Once again, in '94, "you were caught in the same situation." Now, over 20 years after the last incident your boosters are still "out of control."



That quote right there sums it up for me. Remember, Ole Miss was warned by the SEC and the NCAA about what was going on and told they needed to "cease and desist." BUT, all Ole Miss did was step on the gas pedal. The answer is always going to be "never" if they don't ever stop.


I thought it was overkill that wasn't necessary to tag the rebels. They had two coaching regimes in their sights to warn the rebels to "cease and desist." Ole Miss was going through their 2nd investigation of the same coaching staff to warn the University to "cease and desist." As repeat offenders ourselves with the NCAA I don't want to be hearing about Albert Means the next time Bama is accused of something similar. Especially when it reminds one and all of the dubious nature of how the NCAA chose to gather their clandestine information. If you forgive, you forget. You want the IRS digging up your tax returns after their 10-year statute of limitations?

Again, the NCAA had plenty on the rebels going back to Houston Nutt but had to show through their due process they are still not willing to live up to their own rules at the same time they are burning a University for the same crime.
 
As repeat offenders ourselves with the NCAA I don't want to be hearing about Albert Means the next time Bama is accused of something similar. Especially when it reminds one and all of the dubious nature of how the NCAA chose to gather their clandestine information
If Bama was paying recruits to play football in the '80's and were sanctioned for it only to do the same less than a decade later and were sanctioned for it again...ONLY to repeat the exact same violations for the third time...past violations should play a part. The only caveat here is what you've mentioned--the way Johanningmeier went about his investigation, findings, and in the end accusations--only applicable in the Means case and it's still a large stretch to compare the two. (When was Bama warned to steer away from Means and his group?)

It is a repeat of the past no matter how you look at it and that's the reason it was mentioned in my interpretation. The last "go-around" with the NCAA in those two cases were both under Billy Brewer. His staff was sanctioned. They continued and were sanctioned again. This staff knew what was going on with the NCAA--and still kept going balls to the wall.

While this isn't a court of law or criminal proceedings it does resemble that in a sense. If a person is convicted of robbery once and did jail time, then it convicted again and served jail time, is the court suppose to look the other way on the same charge?

What's seemingly missed here is the penalty matrix fit these violations of late.

If you forgive, you forget.
In what world do people forget bad behaviors that are habitual? Did we see Ole Miss ask for forgiveness here? I haven't. There was some contrition due to no other recourse.

The forget aspect was met, in spades--by Ole Miss.
 
If Bama was paying recruits to play football in the '80's and were sanctioned for it only to do the same less than a decade later and were sanctioned for it again...ONLY to repeat the exact same violations for the third time...past violations should play a part.

What is this "less than a decade" stuff you talk about? Going back to 1986 and 1994 establishes that the NCAA was regurgitating charges that had been brought and settled 32 and 24 years ago. In football terms, ancient history. If in fact Albert Means was thrown back in our face this year that was still 16 years ago. I'm pretty sure you would be the only one in Bamaland comfortable with that witch hunt.

While this isn't a court of law or criminal proceedings it does resemble that in a sense. If a person is convicted of robbery once and did jail time, then it convicted again and served jail time, is the court suppose to look the other way on the same charge?

There is no statute of limitation on the scenario you offered in the first place.

"A statute of limitation is a law which forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago."

The IRS digging into your tax records after the 10-year statute of limitation still fits in the legal sense.

In what world do people forget bad behaviors that are habitual? Did we see Ole Miss ask for forgiveness here? I haven't. There was some contrition due to no other recourse.

"Forget" is not legally developing amnesia toward the offense. And it hardly requires someone to ask forgiveness. It means, even if you cheated 10 years ago on your taxes, there is absolutely nothing Uncle Sam can do about it, legally.

Does any of this matter in the first place since this monstrosity we call the NCAA is defining "statue of limitation" in the same dictionary they define due-process, their very own? NO. Let me repeat that, NO. Their bylaws are so abstract and arbitrary not any of this stuff would hold up in a court of law. But college football has been willing to settle for less. Much less.

Bama was hammered in 2002 for a recruit being in the same hotel room with a booster in 1995. To begin with, there was nothing to prove money had changed hands and when the booster, who showed up unannounced arrived he was promptly asked to leave. Alabama argued that this wasn't a major violation, and besides, the NCAA's own definition of bylaws concerning 5-year "statute of limitation" was now well past that time frame. The NCAA said if the pattern shows continuance then the statute doesn't apply.

There's your smoking gun. The NCAA wouldn't touch over a 1000 athletes benefiting from offering bogus classes and promoting widespread academic corruption for over 20 years at North Carolina. But the NCAA found them a student employed by the AD at ND who tutored 3 football players and we got us some "academic corruption to rid the football world of.

Nothing more arbitrary, hypocritical, and exasperating in life than having to watch someone in charge breaking the same rules they are punishing others for. You know, do as I say, not as I do.
 
What is this "less than a decade" stuff you talk about? Going back to 1986 and 1994 establishes that the NCAA was regurgitating charges that had been brought and settled 32 and 24 years ago.
You're misreading this. Those two cases demonstrated a continuing, systematic level of cheating at Ole Miss. The NCAA cited those cases, not to add on to the penalties, but to state "you've done this once, twice, and now the third time." There are no penalties added that are tacking on to what they did--it's not a repeat violator status being brought up here. It's habitual cheating--cited.

This statute of limitations you keep bringing up here doesn't belong. Again, they aren't being sanctioned for those two past violations. Those sanctions are mentioned as solid proof they've been cheating, been caught, and continue to cheat. The 11 self-imposed scholly losses was increased by two. If those cases had anything to do with the penalties in this one we'd have seen a lot more.

Your responses read to me like you're upset the NCAA got this one right.
 
You're misreading this. Those two cases demonstrated a continuing, systematic level of cheating at Ole Miss. The NCAA cited those cases, not to add on to the penalties, but to state "you've done this once, twice, and now the third time." There are no penalties added that are tacking on to what they did--it's not a repeat violator status being brought up here. It's habitual cheating--cited.

This statute of limitations you keep bringing up here doesn't belong. Again, they aren't being sanctioned for those two past violations. Those sanctions are mentioned as solid proof they've been cheating, been caught, and continue to cheat. The 11 self-imposed scholly losses was increased by two. If those cases had anything to do with the penalties in this one we'd have seen a lot more.

Your responses read to me like you're upset the NCAA got this one right.



Are you kidding me? The only thing that will remain unsettling is that the NCAA has the absolute autonomy to interpret their brand of justice on whomever they wish to inflict it on. If you want Alabama, then go get the other teams bidding on Means. They knew who they were. If you want Notre Dame than be as indignant at the greater sin, North Carolina. If you want Baylor's hide on a wall for Title IX sexual misconduct than go get Tennessee, cause rape is rape and that's just the way the victims tend to look at it. In Ole Miss case, the NCAA had them dead to right and nothing that happened wouldn't have happened without interjecting the history of the last century.

Kinda glad the big boys at ND got their nose rubbed in it for a change. The change will eventually come with the NCAA and it won't be for this constant nonsense, unfortunately. Nothing moves the needle like money. When the power 5 teams get real tired of economically dividing up the goodies with the downtrodden, it will move college football away from the NCAA's version of football equality. When it comes time to count heads it won't be hard to recognize touchdown Jesus's group. Not after having their nose rubbed in this crap.
 
@TUSKstuff Am I kidding about what?

When this whole thing with Ole Miss started there's one thing I said over and over; don't compare what happens with Ole Miss to other schools. They aren't applicable.

I stand by what I said. According to their own penalty matrix, the sanctions handed down to Ole Miss were what they were supposed to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom