You are on page 1of 91

Coach Hugh Freeze

Response to Notice of Allegations


Case No. 00561

W.G. Watkins
Courtney Hunt
Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP
200 South Lamar Street, Suite 100
Jackson, MS 39201

Counsel to Coach Hugh Freeze

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
I. The Head Coach Responsibility Standard ............................................................................................................ 7
II. Procedural History ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
III. The Hugh Freeze Compliance Program .............................................................................................................. 16
Compliance Efforts Quantified ............................................................................................................................... 17
Promoting an Atmosphere of Compliance ........................................................................................................ 18
1. Process with his Staff ............................................................................................................................. 18
2. Process with StudentAthletes ........................................................................................................... 24
3. Process with Alumni and Boosters ................................................................................................... 24
4. Examples of Coach Freezes Promotion of an Atmosphere of Compliance ...................... 25
Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
1. Staffing and Collaboration .................................................................................................................... 27
2. Monitoring Systems to Actively Seek Red Flags .......................................................................... 28
3. Elite Athletes .............................................................................................................................................. 29
4. Special Efforts to Detect Issues .......................................................................................................... 29
5. Issues Detected and Addressed ......................................................................................................... 30
Documenting Compliance ........................................................................................................................................ 34
IV. Response to Allegations ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Response to Allegation No. 6. ................................................................................................................................. 36
Response to Allegation No. 12. ............................................................................................................................... 38
1. First Interview ............................................................................................................................ 40
2. Second Interview ....................................................................................................................... 40
General Response to Allegation No. 20. .............................................................................................................. 45
Response to Allegation No. 20(a) .......................................................................................................................... 45
Response to Allegation No. 20(b) ......................................................................................................................... 47
Response to Allegation No. 20(c) .......................................................................................................................... 47
Response to Allegation No. 20(d) ......................................................................................................................... 48
Response to Allegation No. 20(e) .......................................................................................................................... 51

ii

1. Coach Freeze Promoted An Atmosphere of Compliance and Monitored His Staff On


This Particular Issue ............................................................................................................................... 51
2. The Factual Allegations Are Unsubstantiated .............................................................................. 53
Response to Allegation No. 20(f) ........................................................................................................................... 57
Response to Allegation No. 20(g) .......................................................................................................................... 58
Response to Allegation No. 20(h) ......................................................................................................................... 59
Response to Allegation No. 20(i) ........................................................................................................................... 60
1. As in Wichita State, Coach Freeze Reasonably Relied on a Trusted and Competent
Assistant and Appropriately Monitored Farrar. ......................................................................... 61
2. There Were No Significant Red Flags in Recruitment. ............................................... 72
Response to Aggravating and Mitigating Factors ........................................................................................... 75
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

iii

Introduction

Hugh Freeze has steadfastly promoted an atmosphere of compliance within his program and

monitored his staff consistent with the responsibilities placed on him as a head coach under Bylaw

11.1.1.1. The allegations before this Committee are inconsistent with Coach Freezes character and

his clearly articulated expectations for members of his staff. These allegations do not arise because

of a failure by Coach Freeze to properly educate and monitor his staff, but, if true, reflect particular

staff members deceit or carelessness. These choices have irreparably damaged Coach Freezes

reputation and put him and his program at risk for penalties that could have a lifetime effect.

As will be developed more fully in this response, Coach Freeze was not asleep at the wheel.

Rather, from the moment he became aware of the enactment of Bylaw 11.1.1.1., Coach Freeze

accepted the responsibility imposed under it to create an atmosphere of compliance and to

implement and continuously improve upon a system that would recognize red flags and act

appropriately on them. As the multitude of witness interviews, compliance documents, and

available information unanimously reveal, Coach Freeze has built a robust and ever changing

compliance program that is second to none in his profession. His program has been developed over

a 12year career through constant communication with his university leaders, athletic directors, his

compliance officers, and his staff. Coach Freeze recognizes that compliance is a responsibility

shared with the compliance department and the university administration. Working with them, he

provides rules education tailored to the football calendar, his staffs activity, and any new

compliance issues that arise. He has personally developed written questions for monitoring elite

athlete recruitment and routinely asks pointed questions to his coaching staff, the compliance staff,

his players, prospects and their families.

Coach Freeze routinely interacts with the Universitys administration and offers an open

invitation to Compliance into all parts of his program, instructing his staff to communicate directly

with them. As Coach Freeze said in his December 2016 interview, I say it a thousand times to our

guys, you win the right way. If there is ever a moment that anything you . . . are about to do would

raise a question to anyone, you stop and call compliance.

For Coach Freeze, following the rules and running his program the right way is fundamental

to his identity and he has done it at every stop of his college football career. When he returned to

the University as head coach in 2012, it was his character that convinced the University that Coach

Freeze was the right man for the job. Coach Freezes integrity has continued to define his program.

The best evidence of who Coach Freeze is and what he has done to demonstrate his commitment to

rules compliance, is the testimony of the people who know him best, those who have worked with

him dayin and dayout, through wins and losses. These voices harmoniously describe Coach

Freezes commitment to promoting an environment in which compliancedoing things the right

waytakes precedence, and underscores his belief in fairness and honesty.


20052007


I came to know Hugh Freeze, first as a football administrator in 2005, David Wells
and later as an assistant football coach in 2006 and 2007. 19942011: Senior Associate
Athletics Director for Compliance
* * * * * * (University of Mississippi)
On several occasions while Hugh served as an assistant coach, he took
the initiative to call me with questions about compliance legislation, 2011present: Special Assistant to
Athletics Director for Compliance
including issues involving on and offcampus. He was very conscien (University of Mississippi)
tious and expressed his desire to understand what was and was not
permissible, stating he did not want to violate any rules unintention
ally. In a profession where some may attempt to circumvent the intent (Exhibit 1, Wells Affidavit)
of rules, when given a disagreeable interpretation, and continue to
argue, Hugh was always civil and understanding when given an
unfavorable interpretation. To my knowledge, that was his attitude
with all members of the compliance staff.
* * * * * *
In my current parttime capacity with Athletics, I monitor countable
athletically relative activities and have occasionally visited football
practices unannounced. Hugh has never objected to me being present
and has demonstrated a welcoming attitude, even when practices
were listed as closed.

20082009

When I became the Athletic Director at in 2008,


the football head coach position was open, and I went through a
search and hired Hugh.
* * * * * *
I never had any issues with Hugh and/or his staff when it came to
following the NAIA rules.
* * * * * *
He was always very thorough, asked questions. And, if I didnt know
the answer, I would find out the answer for him.
* * * * * *
I really dont know much detail about the situation at Ole Miss, but I
do know its gotten a lot of publicity, but I would not hesitate
personally to hire Coach Freeze because I feel like I know his
character and how he deals with things, and I would not hesitate to
hire him.


20102011

I guess my first contact . . . with Coach Freeze was he was hired as our
offensive coordinator in 2010. . . . and the following year I ended up
hiring Coach Freeze as the head coach.
* * * * * *
Coach Freeze was always extremely compliant with everything. You
always had confidence in what they were doing. If they did have
questions they would always ask first before pursuing something or
moving in any direction.
* * * * * *
Ive had the opportunity . . . working with some excellent head
coaches, hall of fame coaches. You know, itd probably be close to 100.
Ive been at five different institutions and over a course in college of
probably 35 years, probably would be in that range. . . . Coach Freeze
was always an easy individual to work with. Again, very honest and
forthright and I would put him at the top [in terms of compliance and
intergrity] with all of those that I have worked with previously, you
know, and specifically at the Division 1 level at the
, as well as there at .

I was his compliance director for his first nine to ten months as a
Division I head coach.
* * * * * *
During the time from Coach Freezes appointment as head coach until
the time I left , Coach Freeze and I spoke three to four
times a day, seven days a week. He was extremely conscientious and
had questions all the time. He was aware of his responsibilities and
wanted to make sure he was doing everything right. If the answer to
his question was ever no, he would not push back he would accept
it and comply. . . . He not only wanted to know the rules, he also wanted
to know best practices for compliance and did more than was required.
* * * * * *
Coach Freeze required his football staff to have monthly compliance
meetings, and everyone had to attend. At these meetings, he asked a
tremendous number of questions himself and reinforced the messages
I gave. He was also very open to having Compliance around the football
office.
* * * * * *
I know Hugh Freeze to be a man of good character and the utmost
integrity. Coach Freeze stands out among the head football coaches I
have worked with in my career for his commitment to doing things
the right way.


[Pete Boone and I] did make that decision together that he would 2012present

retire . . . which left me in the position of needing to lead the search

for the new head football coach. . . . I was assuming responsibility for Dr. Dan Jones
that part of the Athletic Directors role.

20092015: Chancellor

* * * * * * (University of Mississippi)
I [assured him] that in the first 34 years he would not be evaluated
2015present: Interim Chair
on wins and losses . . . . That what we would look for was a program
Department of Medicine; Director of
run with integrity . . . that playing by the rules, cutting no corners was
Clinical and Population Science
crucial in my view of a successful head football coach. (University of Mississippi Medical
Center)
* * * * * *

We never had one conversation that made me uneasy about his
approach to compliance. Just as running a clean program was impor (Exhibit 5, 5/15/17 Jones Interview)
tant [to me], it was equally important to him. . . . We would have four
scheduled [quarterly] appointments in my office that was specifically
with compliance, but Hugh and I averaged seeing each other 23
times a week.
* * * * * *
I was in meetings with he and his staff where he talked about the
importance of compliance and following the rules . . . but I heard in
my presence many times him emphasize to his staff the importance
of following all of the compliance rules, the big ones, the small ones,
everything in between.
* * * * * *
I would be very very happy to be his Chancellor and for him to be my
head football coach again.

I would say I interact with . . . Coach Freeze, probably every day. Ross Bjork
2016present: Vice Chancellor for
* * * * * * Intercollegiate Athletics
Ive been working full time in college athletics since 1996, and Ive (University of Mississippi)
never been around a head coach of a major program whos more
20122016: Director of Athletics
active, whos more involved, whos more concerned about running a (University of Mississippi)
program the right way, at the highest level than Coach Freeze. He sets
20102012: Director of
clear expectations to his staff. . . . And so the level of detail, the level of Intercollegiate Athletics
interaction with the compliance staff, proactively, Ive never seen any (Western Kentucky University)
body operate at the level Coach Freeze does and be as active as he is in
the compliance world, in the integrity world and making sure we run
the program, you know, with the highest standards. (FI No. 139, 7/16/14 Bjork
Interview, at 19, 21)
* * * * * *
I have not lost any faith, nothing has really shaken my confidence in
him as our head coach and how he runs the program and the tone that
he sets. Ive seen it directly. Ive seen it in the conversations that weve
had. Ive seen it in the phone calls that hell make to Matt [Ball] or Julie
[Owen in Compliance] asking questions directly . . . . And so complete
confidence in Coach Freeze running a high profile program with high
stakes and doing it the right way at the highest level.
* * * * * *
[W]hen the head coach control bylaw was revised and put in place,
Coach Freeze took an active role in making sure he was doing the right
things, that our program was doing the right things.
5


[Coach Freeze and his staff communicate with Compliance] multiple Matt Ball
times a day. . . . I would say mostly them calling us [to ask] recruiting
2011present: Senior Associate
questions, eligibility questions, financial aid questions.
Athletics Director for Compliance
(University of Mississippi)
* * * * * *

20072011: Director of Compliance
[There are] instances where something came up at their meeting and
(University of Oklahoma)
theyre trying to figure out what the answer to [a question] is,

whether its about recruiting or leading up to signing day . . . and they

said, lets just call them cause you can tell youre on speakerphone (FI No. 111, 12/11/13 Ball

and theres like multiple people in the room and its usually between Interview, at 11315)
8 and 9:30 in the morning.

* * * * * *
[Coach Freeze is] a lot more involved than previous head coaches for
football that Ive dealt with, just in terms of minutia. I think its
probably because of , [you] dont have an army of people to
do things for you, , you dont have an army of people to
do things for you. Youve got to do it yourself. Thats the only reason
Im guessing that thats kind of his mindset of how involved he should
be as the head coach . . . its just different than what Ive seen, dealt
with before.

I have worked for 16 head coaches in my career and I ranked them Dan Werner
116 on who talked more about doing things the right way, who is 20122016: Offensive Coordinator
encouraging and demanding the staff all the time to make sure they are (University of Mississippi)
abiding by NCAAA rules, who is the stickler for compliance and who Present: Offensive Analyst
preached to his staff constantly about the importance of compliance, (University of Alabama)
Hugh Freeze is number one. He would say if you break a rule, it would
19862007: Assistant Coach
hurt every family in that room and that was not something he was (Various schools, including University
willing to risk. of Miami, FL; Auburn University;
Louisiana Tech University; and
* * * * * *
University of Mississippi)
This guy fired me. I could easily be bashing him, but I am for what is
right and all I can tell you is what I heard from him in regards to
playing by the rules and compliance literally every single day in staff (Exhibit 6, Straight talk from three of
meetings. . . . Hugh set the tone for compliance and he monitored it to Freezes former assistants, 3/6/17)
the best of his ability.

We had mandatory compliance meetings all the time and every Dave Wommack
recruiting meeting, which were frequent, Hugh would tell us to do it by 20122016: Defensive Coordinator
the rules and do it the right way. (University of Mississippi)

* * * * * * 2011: Defensive Coordinator


He was always on the upandup with compliance and with monitoring (Arkansas State University)
our activities the best you can as a head coach. . . . How do you monitor 19792009: Assistant Coach
nine assistants and an alumni base 24 hours a day? He was as good as I (Various schools, including Georgia
have ever worked for or seen doing that part of his job the best he Tech; University of South Carolina;
University of Arkansas; and University
humanly could. of Southern Mississippi)

(Exhibit 6, Straight talk from three of


Freezes former assistants, 3/6/17)
6

Quantitatively and qualitatively, these voices speak with remarkable similarity about his

commitment to integrity and doing things the right way. From 2005 until today, open lines of

communication and humility with the compliance department have characterized Coach Freezes

daily coaching life. Among the dozens of people interviewed in this investigation, not one person

has questioned his commitment to compliance. While Coach Freeze accepts the incredible

responsibility of being a head coach, he does not accept that, based on the facts before the

Committee, he violated Bylaw 11.1.1.1.

I. The Head Coach Responsibility Standard

Coach Freeze understands the gravity of the allegations levied against his program. Coach

Freeze is charged with a Level I Aggravated1 violation based on the actions of certain staff

members, pursuant to Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (Head Coach Responsibility):

Responsibility of Head Coach. An institutions head coach is presumed to be


responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or
indirectly, to the head coach. An institutions head coach shall promote an
atmosphere of compliance within his or her program and shall monitor the activities
of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or
indirectly, to the coach. NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1.

The Committees task is not simply to determine whether violations occurred during Coach

Freezes tenure as the head football coach. While Bylaw 11.1.1.1 presumes Coach Freeze is

responsible for the violations of those who reported to him, it allows him to rebut the presumption

of responsibility by showing that 1) he promoted an atmosphere of compliance within the program,

and 2) he monitored the activities of staff members who report, directly or indirectly to him.

The committee is charged with looking beyond the facts of the violations and into the

environment in which they occurred. In one of its publications describing how head coaches may

rebut the presumption of responsibility, the NCAA noted that there is no checklist that will always

1 Coach Freeze is not named as an involved individual in any Level I or II allegations. He is charged with two

Level III allegations: Allegation 6 based on his alleged approval of an impermissible recruiting video; and
Allegation 12 based on an alleged recruiting bump with . Coach Freeze does not take those
allegations lightly, and they are specifically addressed in Section V.

prevent a Bylaw 11.1.1.1 allegation. Importantly, under Bylaw 11.1.1.1, neither the number of

allegations nor the number of staff members involved is conclusive in determining if a head coach

has failed to adequately promote compliance within the program and/or monitor his staff. Every

situation is unique, and cases are analyzed based on the specific circumstances. (NCAA

Responsibilities of Division I Head Coaches: Understanding rules compliance and monitoring). This

Committee is tasked with weighing the objective evidence of Coach Freezes compliance efforts to

determine whether they meet the NCAA memberships expectations of head coaches.

The interpretation of Bylaw 11.1.1.1 in this case will have farreaching implications for coaches

across the country. The standard for head coach responsibility must be one that not only ensures

head coaches are invested in compliance but also sets a standard that is attainable by head coaches,

real people, acting in good faith.

The standard for Bylaw 11.1.1.1 is reasonableness

Bylaw 11.1.1.1 does not create socalled strict liability. (Working Together to Protect the

Game, Winter 2016, attached as Exhibit 7). In other words, a head coach is not automatically

responsible for the violations of his staff. Instead, he is presumed responsible but rebuts the

presumption by demonstrating that he made reasonable efforts to (1) promote an atmosphere of

compliance and (2) monitor his staff. The rule was designed to set reasonable expectations and it

does not require a head coach to be allknowing or allseeing. (Id.). A head coach also does not

need to prove that he has created a perfect system or that he has done more than any other coach in

the country to promote compliance and monitor his staff.

The history of the rule sheds light on its intent. The adoption of the original Head Coach

Responsibility bylaw over a decade ago did not change the expectations for head coaches;2 head

2 Head Coach Responsibility was first adopted in 2005, as Bylaw 11.1.2.1. The Bylaw was revised in 2012, and

renumbered to Bylaw 11.1.1.1, to clarify the rules focus on responsibility and not a head coachs knowledge of
violations.

coaches were always expected to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor their staff.3

Given that the underlying expectations of head coaches have remained the same over time, it is

worth noting the Committees commentary:

This is not to imply that every violation by an assistant coach involves a lack
of institutional control. If the head coach sets a proper tone of compliance
and monitors the activities of all assistant coaches in the sport, the head
coach cannot be charged with the secretive activities of an assistant
bent on violating NCAA rules.

(Principles of Institutional Control at 4).4

The rule recognizes that if a staff member deliberately chooses to engage in misconduct, despite

extensive rules education and clear expectations to do the right thing, there are ways for him to

evade the watchful, monitoring eye of his head coach. If a head coach (in connection with University

Compliance) has promoted rules compliance and taken reasonable steps to spot issues, he cannot

be accountable for actions that staff members have intentionally hidden. He cannot correct or

punish what he cannot know.

No coaching staff can function without some measure of trust between the head coach and his

assistants. Although a head coach cannot escape liability by blindly trusting his assistants to be

compliant, it is impossible for him to have his assistants under surveillance every minute of every

day. Indeed, assistant coaches are professionals, whose rules compliance is inherent to their job

security and future success. At some point, after proper training and the head coach clearly stating

his expectations, he must release them to do their jobs, supervising them as much as reasonably

possible.

3 As this Committee has noted, the amendment to the language of Bylaw 11.1.1.1 in 2012 also did not have

any material effect on the application of the presumption and the committee has consistently held head
coaches to the same standard. (University of Mississippi (2016) Public Report, at 20 n.29).
4 DI Athletic Directors Association 2013.

Recent Interpretations

In two recent cases, the Committee on Infractions has addressed Head Coach Responsibility

allegations based solely on the actions of an assistant coach or staff member. Those two cases,

Wichita State University (2015) and University of Mississippi (2016), provide a helpful framework

for the Committee.

Wichita State University

Wichita State involved an administrative assistant serving in the role of a director of

operations for the Wichita State baseball program. (See Wichita State University (2015) Public

Report, at 3). At the time of the relevant conduct, she had served in that role for approximately 20

years and had worked for the head coach even before that as administrative assistant/baseball

operations director.

In discussing the assistant, the Committee noted that she had a fairly good working knowledge

of NCAA rules. The Committee found that she was given proper rules education, based on

(1) attendance in weekly baseball staff meetings where rules issues were discussed; (2) receipt of

emails and newsletters regarding compliance; and (3) attendance at a Wichita State compliance

department education program one year prior to the violations. Further, the Committee determined

that the baseball head coach (her direct supervisor) promoted an atmosphere of compliance by

(1) regularly attending meetings with rules discussions; (2) insisting his staff follow NCAA rules;

(3) asking rulesrelated questions to the compliance office; and (4) meeting with his athletics

director to discuss head coach responsibilities. (Id. at 79).

Based on his experience with her, the head coach considered her a trusted and competent

employee in terms of compliance. (Id. at 9, 14). There was nothing in their past relationship that

would cause the head coach to think that she would do anything other than follow the rules. This

trust, though reasonable, was misplaced. Despite her training and work experience, over the course

10

of two years, the assistant allowed 21 studentathletes to order merchandise at a 50% discount that

was not available to the public.

The enforcement staff charged the head coach under Bylaw 11.1.1.1. After the hearing in the

case, the Committee found that the head coach had met his obligations because: (1) he insisted she

comply with NCAA rules; (2) she was a trusted and competent employee who knew the rules; (3)

she attended meetings with rules education components; (4) he instructed her to call compliance

with any questions; (5) he checked the teams apparel account; and (6) all institutional employees

agreed he took compliance seriously. (Id. at 1415).

Ironically in Wichita State, unlike in this case, the head coach actually saw the violation. He saw

the players ordering apparel. When he asked his assistant what was going on, he was told that the

players were ordering Christmas presents. In response, he instructed her pointedly to ensure that

the players are paying for the merchandise and paying the same price . . . you sell it to other people

for. (Id. at 6). She assured him that she was making sure of that. (Id.). The Committee found that

this exchange was an example of appropriately reminding his trusted, rulescompliant assistant

that the players should not receive any extra benefit. Although he could have asked more follow up

questions, the Committee still found that he properly promoted compliance and monitored his

assistant. Thus, the standard for determining the Head Coach Responsibility standard is not

whether the coach could have done more but whether his actions were reasonable.

University of Mississippi (womens basketball)

The University of Mississippi case involving womens basketball also presented a Head Coach

Responsibility charge based solely on the actions of assistants. There, a new womens basketball

head coach was hired on March 28, 2012. Following his initial press conference, the new head coach

hired a wife and husband team to be his assistant basketball coach and director of basketball

operations, respectively. They had no previous NCAA administrative experience, having worked at

a junior college.

11

Based on the following level of rules training, the enforcement staff did not allege that the

head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance:

Participation in at least one rules education meeting with the compliance office.
Structured staff meetings, wherein NCAA rules were discussed almost daily, over the
course of 15 days in April 2012.5
Attendance at a Universitywide athletics compliance meeting.
Requirement for staff member to selfreport at least one improper recruiting contact.

The two new staffers immediately began recruiting one of their former players and another

junior college player they knew. Both recruits had significant academic challenges to gain eligibility,

and indeed, those challenges were significant enough that the head coach brought their academic

red flags to the attention of his direct supervisor. Once the head coach decided to recruit both

prospective studentathletes, he did not seek any specific information on how they would qualify

academically, what classes they were taking, or how they were progressing in those classes.

Instead, he received only general updates from his two, new staff members. He defended that

practice by explaining that he considered his staff members head coaches of assigned areas and

trusted they would do the right thing. (University of Mississippi, at 8).

In fact, in May 2012, his staff members were completing coursework for both prospective

studentathletes to be submitted online; personally selecting courses for the prospects; and paying

for those classes. They also arranged for an exam proctor to provide a copy of a test to them in

advance and submitted it on behalf of one of the recruits.

The Committee noted that the head coach was aware of the academic challenges that posed a

red flag but took no steps to monitor their progress or ensure their admission complied with NCAA

bylaws. (Id. at 22). Instead, he accepted general updates that they were going to qualify. He relied

on staff members despite the fact that he had just formed a new staff without any benefit of years

of trust and rules compliance, unlike the head coach in Wichita State. (Id.). Because the head coach

allowed his new staff members, who came from a junior college and not from another NCAA

5 Outside of those meetings, the head coach did not schedule formal, structured staff meetings.

12

institution, to operate unchecked, the Committee found the head coach failed to monitor his staff

appropriately. (Id. at 23).

In terms of relying appropriately on staff members, those cases represent the extremes. Wichita

State demonstrates that a head coach with a history of promoting compliance can rely on answers

from a trusted and competent staff member with a long history of rules education and

compliance. University of Mississippi demonstrates that a head coach may not delegate compliance

issues unchecked to new staff members with no history of NCAA rules education and compliance.

The unique facts of each case determine whether steps taken by a head coach to monitor staff are

reasonable.

II. Procedural History

The procedural history in this case validates Coach Freezes compliance program. Beginning in

spring 2013, the University investigated possible rules violations involving prospects in the 2013

recruiting class and, with cooperation from the football staff, established facts that serve as the

basis, at least in part, for Allegations 2, 5, 6, 8, and 19. The University selfreported those violations.

After over three years of a joint investigation, on January 22, 2016, the University received a

Notice of Allegations (NOA1) containing allegations against three sports programs at the

University: womens basketball, track and field, and football. Included in those allegations were

Head Coach Responsibility charges against the head coaches of the womens basketball team

(failure to monitor) and the track and field team (failure to promote and monitor) based on

underlying violations by their staff and/or the head coach. Obviously, the enforcement staff

considered the same allegation against Coach Freeze.

NOA1 contained no allegations of any type against Coach Freeze despite the fact that there were

a number of allegations against members of his staff. In other words, as of January 22, 2016, the

13

enforcement staff agreed that Coach Freezes compliance efforts rebutted the presumption of

responsibility for the alleged violations by his staff.6

The enforcement staff renews investigation

Based on other events, NOA1 allegations against the football program were withdrawn in order

to conduct a new, discrete investigation. In lateJuly and earlyAugust 2016, the enforcement staff

conducted interviews with four studentathletes currently enrolled at other institutions:

, , 7

, and . All four studentathletes had been

recruited by Coach Freezes staff.8

and did not allege any violations during their recruitment by the University.

, who was provided limited immunity, supplied the basis for Allegation 7, involving access to

hunting land on his official visit and during his year at the University. That alleged Level III

allegation does not name Coach Freeze personally; however, it is included as a basis for the Head

Coach Responsibility charge against him.9

Unlike , , and , , who was also provided limited immunity with regard

to recruiting violations solely by the University, claimed that he was paid cash and provided

transportation, meals, lodging, and merchandise by University boosters, all of which was allegedly

initiated by or done with the knowledge of a former football staff member, Barney Farrar.10

6 NOA1 violations involving football staff included two Level I, one Level II, and two Level III charges. By the

enforcement staffs Guideline, Level III violations do not trigger a Head Coach Responsibility allegation.
Notably, over half of the subparts for Allegation 20 are based on Level III underlying allegations. According
to the Guideline, then, these should not serve as the basis for the charge against Coach Freeze.
7 signed with the University in 2013 but transferred to following his freshman year.
8 , , and were four star prospects in their respective signing classes. Each was
considered an elite prospect. is currently a walkon kicker at e.
9 Again, based on the NCAAs Guideline, Level III allegations such as this one should not trigger a Head Coach

Responsibility charge. (See Exhibit 8, NCAA Guidelines at 2).


10 Coach Freeze disputes that testimony is accurate or truthful, particularly with regard to Allegation
16, portions of Allegation 14, and by extension portions of Allegation 17. Yet, Coach Freeze has never had an
opportunity to question on those claims, which are central to the Head Coach Responsibility charge in

14

was interviewed three times. During those interviews, he confirmed that no other

University staff member, aside from Farrar, was involved. (FI No. 232, 8/10/16 s Int., at 36).

On November 16, 2016, Farrar was placed on administrative leave. He was interviewed on

December 1, 2016. One week later, he was released from his contract.

Finally, on December 20, 2016, Coach Freeze was interviewed by the staff and informed for the

first time abou allegations.11 With regard to Farrars participation in violations, Coach

Freeze was stunned and disgusted, remarking at one point, I want to vomit. (FI No. 288, 12/20/16

Freeze Int., at 156). Following Coach Freezes interview, in discussions with the enforcement staff,

he requested the opportunity to interview . Through counsel, refused.

Second Notice of Allegations

On February 22, 2017, the second Notice of Allegations (NOA2) was issued. Based on the new

investigation, NOA2 included one allegation directly involving Coach Freeze (Allegation 12),

claiming impermissible inperson recruiting contact between Coach Freeze and at his high

school. NOA2 also included serious allegations of recruiting inducements (Allegations 9, 14, 16, and

17), none of which involve the actions or knowledge of Coach Freeze but were focused on the

initiation and knowledge of Farrar, along with actions by University boosters.

this case.







Following his interview, Coach Freeze submitted over 1,400 pages of compliancerelated records, detailing
communications between the football staff and University compliance, weekly staff meetings with rules
education, monthly football staff meetings dedicated to compliance, annual meetings between Coach Freeze
and football staff members to discuss compliance expectations, and more. (See FI Nos. 296300, Action Plan
and 20132016 Compliance Binders of Freeze). This was one of the largest individual document productions
by any party in this investigation and provided documents that the enforcement staff did not previously
possess. Coach Freeze also produced a memorandum discussing his compliance efforts and providing
examples of how he rebutted his presumed responsibility for allegations likely to result from the
related investigation. (See FI No. 301 & 302, 1/10/17 Freeze Statement). These compliancerelated records
provide objective evidence of Coach Freezes extensive efforts with regard to compliance and monitoring.

15

NOA2 now included a Head Coach Responsibility charge (Allegation 20) based on allegations

from NOA1, the related Level III charge, the /Freeze Level III bump, and the

/Farrar allegations. Despite no new evidence, NOA2 also included revised factual statements

for three NOA1 allegations to increase Coach Freezes role and charged him personally in one

allegation (NOA2 Allegation 6).12 In all, five of the allegations from NOA1 are now used as a basis for

the Head Coach Responsibility charge despite the earlier decision that Coach Freeze had rebutted

the presumption of responsibility as to any violations alleged in NOA1.13

Coach Freeze takes all violations with his program seriously and recognizes that each of them

reflects on him. Yet, he respectfully contends that the two new Level III allegations did not tip the

scale in favor of bringing a Head Coach Responsibility charge, meaning the only true explanation for

the Bylaw 11.1.1.1 charge is the /Farrar allegations.

III. The Hugh Freeze Compliance Program

Coach Freeze is head coach of a football operation that includes 30 staff and 120 student

athletes. About 1,500 prospects participate in campus visits and summer camps, most with family

members and/or friends in tow. There are also hundreds of thousands of alumni and fans, for

whom Coach Freeze is not officially responsible, but who nevertheless are capable of violations that

he takes personally. Compliance in a program of this size is a vast responsibility.

Accordingly, Coach Freeze has a robust and active compliance program, developed through

close relationships with his chancellors and athletic director. He has implemented it through

12 Coach Freeze addressed in a procedural request the substantive prejudice that resulted from bifurcating

the NOA1 charges and allowing the enforcement staff to revise these charges without any additional
investigation or even a single new fact. He incorporates that procedural request submitted to the Chief
Hearing Officer and restates his request for relief. (See Exhibit 9, 5/4/17 Freeze procedural request).
13 The NOA1 allegations cited as a basis for Head Coach Responsibility in NOA2 are: Allegation 5 (activities of

a booster NOA1 Allegation 8); Allegation 6 (recruiting videos NOA1 Allegation 9); Allegation 8 (food and
lodging provided to the family members of a student athlete NOA1 Allegation 6); Allegation 10 (lodging
provided to a student athlete NOA1 Allegation 5); and Allegation 13 (impermissible recruiting contact with
prospective student athletes NOA1 Allegation 7).

16

consistent communication with the compliance staff, and he has communicated it to his on and off

field staff through ongoing and timely rules education and consistent messaging.

The following provides a great deal of information, examples, and commentary reflecting Coach

Freezes active collaboration with the administration on compliance initiatives. It is only a sample,

like looking through a window, without a full view of the landscape. Nevertheless, it is indicative of

a coach fully engaged in the shared responsibility of compliance.

Compliance Efforts Quantified

The objective evidence of Coach Freezes efforts, seen in the accumulation compliance

numbers, is remarkable:

627 Instances of rules education provided to the football program from the 201314
academic year through December of the 201617 year, including:

414 Instances of proactive education


21 Notifications, and
192 Responses to questions not including simple yes/no answers.14

67
Selfreported violations stemming from Coach Freezes monitoring of his
program.

15

6x
Increase under Coach Freeze in the number of football staff dedicated to
monitoring recruitment compliance.
o
16

He has also requested a Compliance officer to be physically located in the


football facility.17

1,442 Pages of detailed records of his compliance efforts maintained by Coach Freeze,
compiled from 20132016.18


14 (See Football Compliance Education Tracker, attached as Exhibit 10).

15 (See Football Reported Violations, attached as Exhibit 11).

16 (FI No. 288, 12/20/16 Freeze Int., at 188).

17 (Id,. at 171).

18 (See FI Nos. 296300).

17

Promoting an Atmosphere of Compliance

Promoting an atmosphere of compliance is a part of Coach Freezes daily routine, and it

pervades everything he does as a head coach. The following is a sampling of the ways in which

Coach Freeze fulfilled this responsibility.

1. Process with his Staff

Before hire

Coach Freeze begins the compliance process even before staff members are hired. He
talks to prospective employees about integrity and compliance in job interviews,
making it clear that he expects everyone on his staff to do things the right way.19

He also vets potential hires by asking the SEC and other coaches about their compliance
records. Based on these recommendations alone, he has chosen not to pursue several
candidates based on uneasy feedback about them.20

Throughout the Year

Coach Freeze requires his entire staff, not just countable coaches, to attend rules
education meetings.21

He tells his staff that everyone in the room, their families, the institution, the players,
and the fans are counting on them to do things the right way.22

He emphasizes that compliance is the top priority for example, that there is no
pressure to sign a recruit, but that the pressure is to do things the right way.23

He tells them in no uncertain terms that they will be looking for another job if they
break the rules, and that they do not need to take that risk to their careers or their
families.24

19 (FI No. 116, 12/17/13 Freeze Int., at 74)(Before theyre hired, I go through the job description that I

anticipate them having and its part of that is the NCAA compliance, and Im very clear in the hiring process
where I stand on that and what integrity means to us.).
20 (FI No. 288, at 158).

21 (FI No. 111, 12/11/13 Ball Int., at 6).

22 Former assistant coach Dan Werner attested to this, saying He would say if you break a rule, it would hurt

every family in that room and that was not something he was willing to risk. (Fired Ole Miss OC Dan Werner
defends Hugh Freeze, says hes a stickler for compliance, available at
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2017/03/fired ole miss oc dan werner d.html); (Affidavit of Wesley
McGriff, attached as Exhibit 12).
23 (Exhibit 12).

24 (See Id.); (FI No. 65, 05/09/13 Kiffin Int., at 18).

18

It is his constant refrain that coaches, staff, and volunteers should contact compliance
directly if they are considering doing something and there is any question of whether it
complies with NCAA regulations. The compliance director has heard him say this
repeatedly, and Coach Freezes assistants affirm this. 25

Coach Freeze welcomes the Compliance staffs presence in the football offices and at
games and practices.26

Yearly

All football staff, including noncoaching staff not engaged in recruitment, are required
to pass the NCAA recruiting exam to ensure they are knowledgeable about the rules.27

All football staff sign a Staff Expectations form written by Coach Freeze (see sample,
attached as Exhibit 13) stating that:

o The staff members actions reflect on the head coach, the program, the athletics
director, and the University, and that Coach Freeze expects them to act in a
manner that reflects positively on each. They are always [to] do things the
right way and do the right thing. They are to abide by NCAA and SEC
legislation, as well as the Universitys policies and procedures.

o They are to bring up any potential issues with the football staff, and seek
interpretation from Compliance.

o They are cautioned that just because another school is doing something does not
mean that they may.

o All documentation and forms will be completed in an accurate and timely


manner.

o They are to report any potential issues they learn about to Coach Freeze, even if
they are not personally involved. He also expects selfreporting of any mistakes.

Coach Freeze has individual meetings with each staff member twice per year. During
these meetings, his compliance expectations and any needs for improvement are
discussed.28

25 (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball); (see also FI No. 288, at 25); (Exhibit 12); (FI No. 65, at 18); (8/12/15

Farrar Int., at 8)(This interview was not included in the Factual Information, though it is available on the Box
portal. We are unable to produce it for the Committee, because we are unable to download or print
documents from Box. We have access to review only.).
26 (See FI No. 111, at 119)(The other thing he [Coach Freeze] said, he goes you guys [Compliance] are

welcome theyve opened the door and said youre more than welcome any time you want to come and that
was since day one.).
27 (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball).

28 (FI No. 116, 12/17/13 Freeze Int., at 16).

19

Monthly

Coach Freeze requires his staff to attend monthly rules education meetings with
Compliance29, during which:

o Compliance focuses on rules that are relevant to upcoming events the


recruitment periods that are about to begin, or seasonal concerns related to the
studentathletes to ensure that everyone has the latest rules and guidance
fresh in their minds as they go about their responsibilities.30

o They discuss recent developments such as new legislation, and infractions cases
at other schools so they can learn from others experiences and be reminded of
the importance of compliance31

o The Compliance Director confirms that there are always at least two to three
questions. The questions come from both Coach Freeze and his staff.32

o Coach Freeze also emphasizes points from the Compliance training for his staff,
and often tells them that there is zero tolerance and they will be looking for a
new job if they dont follow the rules.33

o There are written records of these meetings, as well as signin sheets showing
attendance by all staff, including Coach Freeze.34

Weekly

Coach Freeze devotes a part of his weekly staff meetings to reviewing specific rules
from the NCAA handbook, or a compliance ruling that has been emailed out.35

o Coach Freeze personally leads these discussions.36

o If there is a question, he will call Compliance from the staff meeting to make sure
they have the right answer.37

At all staff meetings, which occur daily during some periods of the year38, Coach Freeze:

29 (FI No. 111, at 6).

30 (FI No. 158, 11/25/14 Kiffin Int., at 3).

31 (See, e.g., FI No. 297, at 7983).

32 (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball.)

33 This has been the case since Coach Freeze started as head coach, according to the compliance director.

34 (See, e.g., FI No. 300, at 122123).

35 (FI No. 116, at 75).

36 (Id.)

37 (Id,. at 76)([W]hen something comes up, Ill get him [Matt Ball] on the phone right now and I want us to

have the answer Id just like for everybody to hear the answer).
38 (See FI No. 90, 8/20/13 Freeze Int., at 95).

20

o Asks about compliance issues related to the topics of discussion39

o Calls Compliance as needed for questions40

o Reiterates to his staff that they are to do things right, and if there is ever a
question, to stop and call Compliance.41

On the Road Recruiting

Coach Freeze helps his assistant coaches avoid troublesome situations on the road that

could lead to rules violations.

When his coaches are on the road recruiting, Coach Freeze calls them regularly to check
in and to remind them that he expects them to do everything the right way.42

He ensures they are prepared to handle bumps if they occur, and has created a
document with instructions, attached as Exhibit 14.

o He instructs his coaches to have a line prepared to escape from any such
encounters without violating the rules.

o He also tells them that if they have a feeling that a high school coach may not
follow the rules, to meet them in the parking lot instead of entering the school,
to avoid impermissible contact with prospects.

He instructs his staff that just because another school is doing something does not mean
that they can or should. They are to stay within the rules, and ask Compliance about any
gray areas.43

He also encourages his coaches to avoid meeting prospects at restaurants since it can be
awkward and difficult to have them pay for their own food. 44

o If they do go to a restaurant, he tells his coaches they are to inform the prospect
and the prospects family in advance that they will have to get separate checks.45

39 (Exhibit 12)(Anytime we are talking about anything, if it relates to compliance, hell say something about

it.).
40 (Id.)(Another thing about Coach Freeze is that he never proceeds on assumptions about the rules. If

theres a question that were not sure about, he would say, Lets go to the source, and he would call
Compliance.).
41 (FI No. 288, at 138)(And the last thing I always say anything that would raise a question, stop and call

compliance.).
42 (Exhibit 12).

43 (FI No. 297, at 306)(Simply because another school is doing something does not mean we will do the same

or that the action is not subject to interpretation.); (FI No. 65, 05/09/13 Kiffin Int., at 18)([Freeze] said, I
know how this conference is. Were not doing it. I dont want a a single one of you to get caught up in it. If I
hear about it you will be let go. Call Matt, call Julie if you have a question on the road.).
44 (FI No. 288, at 176); (FI No. 298, at 291).

21

o During his own home visits, Coach Freeze tells his staff not to arrange restaurant
meals with the prospects.46

In home visits, Coach Freeze often urges prospects and their families to avoid taking any
inducements, and to let him know if they are offered anything by someone affiliated
with the University.47

Official and Unofficial Visits

The Compliance trainings described above include many visitrelated topics, ensuring
that all staff members involved in recruiting are well educated about the rules.48

Student workers who help on game days or other aspects of recruitment weekends are
trained annually by Compliance.49

Prior to each weekend that prospects will be visiting, Coach Freeze goes over each
prospect in the football recruiting meeting.50

o He expects each prospects primary recruiter to report all the details of the visit
how he will be coming to campus, who will be accompanying him, what their
relationship is to the prospect. For unofficial visitors, this also includes their
plans for lodging and meals.51

o He places strong emphasis on ensuring that unofficial visitors pay for their own
meals.52

o He also confirms with his staff that Compliance has been given the itinerary for
the weekend and approved it.53

They know from experience that he expects them to truthfully report


that everything has been approved by Compliance.54

45 (Id.)

46 (Id.)

47 (FI No. 116, at 61)(In my meeting, either in home or depending on whos present in the home or either in

the, in my closing meeting on their official visit, I go into detail about the pitfalls of recruiting and urge them
strongly, please, please, its an insult to you if theres any, any, any kind of incentive that is ever offered to you.
And if its from our people, you need to let me know immediately. But, man, dont jeopardize yourself. I have
that discussion with every recruit that we bring on a visit.)(Note: Quote is mistakenly attributed to Matt Ball
on the transcript.).
48 (See, e.g., FI No. 297, at 64); (FI No. 298, at 179180, 199, 247, 255, 263).

49 (See, e.g., FI No. 297, at 8492.)

50 (FI No. 116, at 9.)

51 (FI No. 288, at 178179); (FI No. 298, at 2).

52 (FI No. 65, at 13)(stating that Coach Freeze makes clear to the whole staff that they are to make sure very

person is paid for).


53 (FI No. 116, at 56.)

54 (See Id.)

22

On game day:

o When prospects arrive at the stadium on game day, they must check in and
complete their visit form. 55

o They receive a different colored lanyard based on whether they are on an official
or unofficial visit (or a nonprospect who is a high school player).56

o The colors of the lanyards enable the football staff as well as Compliance staff,
who are on site, to know which visitors may receive free food and which must
pay.57

o Before, during, and after the game, Compliance staff and football staff keep
watch over the prospects to prevent contact between them and alumni or other
boosters who may be present.58

On the Saturday night of visit weekends, Coach Freeze checks in with his staff to ask if
everything is going okay or if there are any issues.59

Each official and unofficial visitor must have a form completed, which captures the
visitors transportation, meals, lodging, and people who are accompanying him.60

o These forms are verified and signed by the visitor and a member of the football
staff.61

o The forms are submitted to Compliance at the close of the visit weekend to be
checked and approved.62

o Coach Freeze checks in with his staff after visits, to ask if there were any red
flags, whether any issues were reported to Compliance, and whether the
documentation was submitted to Compliance.63

o Coach Freeze follows up with Compliance to verify that there were no red
flags.64

55 (5/10/17 phone call with Matt Ball.)

56 (Id.)

57 (Id.)

58 (Id.)

59 (FI No. 116, at 10).

60 (See FI No. 288, at 110); (FI No. 296, at 209211).

61 (See FI No. 296, at 209211).

62 (FI No. 111, at 120).

63 (FI No. 296, at 215).

64 (FI No. 164, at 1, 8).

23

Following visit weekends, Coach Freeze asks his staff the same questions he asked pre
visit about each prospect, asking about how they got to campus, who drove them, who
accompanied them, etc.65

o His staff knows through repeated experience to expect Coach Freezes questions
both before and after each visit, and their attention is therefore turned to
compliance matters throughout the visit process.

Coach Freeze routinely talks to the prospects about turning away any inducements they
may be offered, because they are an insult to them and could jeopardize their
eligibility.66 This promotes an atmosphere of compliance not just within his own
program but the NCAA as a whole.

2. Process with Student-Athletes

At the start of fall camp, the first item on the agenda following freshmen movein is a
compliance meeting. Coach Freeze introduces the Compliance staff to the team, and has
them present about NCAA rules and compliance.67

He brings in representatives from the NFL to educate his players about the dangers of
dealing with agents and third parties.68

Coach Freeze utilizes special procedures for enhanced education and monitoring of elite
athletes, understanding that they are the most likely to be presented with opportunities
that turn out to be rules violations. Based on the procedures, attached as Exhibit 15:

o Elite athletes have a meeting with Compliance to be introduced to the program.

o They receive at least one extra rules education training per semester, in addition
to team compliance meetings.

o Their vehicle and offcampus housing information are monitored.

o Their complimentary ticket usage is monitored.

o The parents or guardians of elite athletes also receive rules education mailing
and emails.69

3. Process with Alumni and Boosters

Football alumni playing in the NFL receive a package at the beginning of each season.
The package contains University gear, along with a letter inviting them to return to

65 (FI No. 288, at 177179).

66 (FI No. 116, at 61).

67 (FI No. 297, at 105); (FI No. 116, at 8788).

68 (FI No. 203, 8/8/15 Freeze Int., at 39).

69 (FI No. 340, Elite and High Profile StudentAthlete Program, at 35).

24

campus for a game, requesting that they notify the school if they are coming, and
reminding them of the NCAA rules that apply to them.70

o The prior notification of their presence allows Compliance and the football staff
to prepare to prevent them from coming into contact with visiting prospects.71

Coach Freeze and Compliance both remind prominent alumni football players not to get
involved in recruitment.72

Coach Freeze had Compliance create and distribute an educational postcard to boosters
on his behalf, in addition to the letter they already distributed, to tell them not to be
involved in recruitment.73

Coach Freeze speaks to alumni groups and emphasizes the programs core values and
that they want to do things the right way.74

4. Examples of Coach Freezes Promotion of an Atmosphere of Compliance

It is impossible to comprehensively list the ways Coach Freeze has promoted an

atmosphere of compliance. However, we provide a few specific examples to provide a better

sense of the atmosphere of compliance in his program:

Coach Freeze demonstrates his seriousness about compliance by interrupting the flow of

work to immediately address compliance issues. For example, the compliance director recalls

that in February or March 2012, soon after Coach Freeze started as head coach, there were a

number of phone violations flagged by ACS, the compliance software, because many people

forgot that there was a nocontact day in the middle of a contact period. The compliance

director took a printout of the violations to Coach Freeze to let him know that he would be

addressing the issue with each of the individual coaches on the list. However, Coach Freeze had

other ideas. He called the entire staff together on the spot and went through the violations one

by one with the compliance director in front of everyone. He emphasized to the staff that they

70 (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball).

71 (Id.).

72 (See FI No. 203, at 76); (FI No. 288, at 4142 and 171).

73 (FI No. 288, at 171).

74 (FI No. 90, at 111).

25

were to do it correctly, following the call limits, not calling on nocontact days, and logging calls

in ACS. Since then, he has continued to be adamant about calling through ACS and abiding by

the rules. The compliance director affirms that phone violations have decreased like a funnel

since Coach Freeze started, and most violations now are accidental, such as pocket dials.75

* * * * *

The compliance director says that he could send the most junior member of the compliance

staff to deliver a message and the football staff would comply they have never gotten any push

back from Coach Freezes staff. The compliance director says that when his staff is in the

football facility, they cant walk down the hall without getting two or three questions; the

football staff does not close their doors when Compliance comes by. The questions come from

many people throughout the football staff, not just one or two or a handful of people.76 This

eagerness to ask questions and the automatic deference to Compliance is due to the atmosphere

of compliance Coach Freeze has established and modeled.

* * * * *

In addition to promoting an atmosphere of compliance within his own program, Coach

Freeze has promoted an atmosphere of compliance across the institution as a whole.

Immediately after learning about the new head coach responsibility rule, Coach Freeze initiated

a meeting between himself, the chancellor, athletics director, and compliance director, to

discuss their joint expectations for the integrity and compliance of the football program.77

Coach Freeze also asked that the University create a head coach manual that would

document its compliance philosophy, and a form for staff to sign indicating their understanding.

75 (7/24/13 document from Matt Ball, attached as Exhibit 16); (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball).

76 (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball).

77 (FI No. 111, at 30)(when he was driving back from that meeting [head coaches meeting where the new

head coach responsibility bylaw was presented for the first time] my best recollection is he was driving
back from that meeting in midFebruary and he said, hey, we need to set up a meeting, coach Freeze told me,
we need to set up a meeting with Ross and the chancellor to go over this And so that kind of got the ball
rolling.); (FI No. 116, at 71).

26

The University agreed and created the manual and form.78 The manual was distributed it to all

head coaches in May 2013 at a head coaches meeting. After the athletics director and

compliance director addressed the head coaches, Coach Freeze also spoke, emphasizing how

significant the rule was and sharing some information he had received at the SEC coaches

meeting.79

Monitoring

Coach Freeze constantly monitors his staff, looks for red flags, takes quick personal action

as he learns of issues, and immediately notifies Compliance of concerns. As previously stated,

his monitoring has led to the discovery and selfreporting of 67 violations.

1. Staffing and Collaboration

Coach Freeze understands that he has ultimate responsibility for the compliance of his
program, and he himself invests significant effort into monitoring, as described below.

He also clearly communicates and constantly reiterates to his staff that each of them is
to be attentive to compliance issues and watch for red flags.80

During his time as head coach, he has increased the size of the staff dedicated to
monitoring recruitment from one to six.81

He has assigned specific staff members to monitor recruiting contacts, initial eligibility,
amateurism, and telephone contacts, and to serve as the primary liaison to Compliance
on those issues.82

Coach Freeze also embraces Compliances support and assistance in monitoring.

o He has established an opendoor policy for Compliance, encouraging them to come


to the football practice facility regularly, which they do.83

o He welcomes their presence at staff meetings, practices, or anywhere else.84

78 (FI No. 116, at 41).

79 (FI No. 116, at 6970).

80 (FI No. 65, at 18).

81 (FI No. 288, at 188).

82 (Id., at 171).

83 (See FI No. 111, 12/11/13 Ball Int., at 119).

84 (Id.)

27

o He also gives Compliance direct access to his staff without restriction.85

2. Monitoring Systems to Actively Seek Red Flags

Coach Freeze constantly instructs and reminds his coaches to call prospects through
ACS, and to enter all relevant information into ACS. This ensures that each contact is
logged and that violations are prevented or caught.86

o In addition, the football staffs cell phone bills are run through ACS each month, to
ensure that all recruitmentrelated calls were captured in ACS. This allows any calls
that were made outside ACS to be caught.87

Coach Freeze calls his coaches when they are on the road to see how things are going
and if there are any issues out of sight is not out of mind for him and he monitors them
no matter where they are.88

He meets regularly with the staff members who monitor recruitment, asking about any
red flags or issues, and reminding them to do things the right way.89

Coach Freeze has individual meetings with each staff member twice per year, in which
compliance is an important topic.90

In conjunction with the Compliance Department, he monitors trends and potential hot
button issues, especially those that are relevant to the current season of the recruiting
calendar, and directs targeted education and training to his coaches on those issues.91

He has built into the culture of the football program that they are to call Compliance any
time they see any red flag, or have any question about a potential issue.92

Official and Unofficial Visits. Coach Freezes extensive systems to monitor compliance on
official and unofficial visits before, during, and after the visits were described above.

o Additionally, Coach Freeze engages in informal conversation with prospects to ask


questions about how they got to campus, whether they are staying overnight, where

85 (See FI No. 288, at 171).

86 (Exhibit 12).

87 (4/5/17 meeting with Matt Ball).

88 (Exhibit 12).

89 (See, e.g., FI No. 288, at 45, 116).

90 (FI No. 116, at 16).

91 (See, e.g., FI No. 297, at 64); (FI No. 298, at 179180, 199, 247, 255, 263).

92 (FI No. 111, at 120)(I think theyve done a really good job [notifying compliance staff when concerns or

red flags occur related to suspected NCAA violations]. Sometimes they bring stuff to our attention that
theyre not sure if its a violation, but just for us to check on, to have on the radar.).

28

they are staying, where they are eating, etc. He encourages his staff to do the
same.93

3. Elite Athletes

He also implemented a program for elite or highprofile athletes, who are selected based on

factors including their recruiting rankings and draft projections. These elite athletes receive

additional, targeted education, as described above. With regard to monitoring:

For prospects, Coach Freeze has established a more detailed checklist of questions,
attached as Exhibit 17, that are discussed before and after visits.

o The list includes pointed questions about how the prospect got to campus, where
they are staying, whether they ate any meals at the complex, whether there were
any third parties, and if there were any red flags.

o This ensures his staff is paying close attention to each detail of the visits and
catching any issues.

o The final item on the list is a reminder: Compete for them, but anything that would
raise a question, Stop! Call compliance.

Monitoring for studentathletes includes monitoring of vehicle information, offcampus


leases, and extra attention to their guests on the comp ticket lists.94

4. Special Efforts to Detect Issues

Coach Freeze does not hide his head in the sand or look the other way to avoid seeing

problems. Rather, he genuinely wants to know about any problems in his program and actively

looks for red flags as demonstrated by his invitations to report issues.

Coach Freeze routinely asks prospects to let him know if anyone offers them any sort of
inducements.95

In June 2013, after a tweet by with a general allegation of violations,


Coach Freeze called a team meeting and asked the athletics director and compliance
director to attend. All three addressed the team and told them that if there was any

93 (FI No. 288, at 179).

94 (FI No. 299, at HF1164).

95 (FI No. 116, at 61)(I go into detail about the pitfalls of recruiting and urge them strongly, please, please, its

an insult to you if theres any, any, any kind of incentive that is ever offered to you. And if its from our people,
you need to let me know immediately. But, man, dont jeopardize yourself. I have that discussion with every
recruit that we bring on a visit.)(Note: Quote is mistakenly attributed to Matt Ball on the transcript.).

29

truth to the allegations in the tweet, anyone who had knowledge was to speak to the
athletics director or the compliance director immediately.96

5. Issues Detected and Addressed

Coaches and Staff

Coach Freeze heard a rumor that assistant coach Wesley McGriff had talked to a fireman
about a recruit. Coach Freeze immediately called McGriff, severely admonished and
chastised him about it, and told him he did not need to go outside the rules. When
McGriff told him that he hadnt done that, Coach Freeze followed up to find out whether
that was any truth to the rumor.97

On one occasion in August 2012, a noncoaching staff member acted very excitable at
the first practice of the season. He was not coaching, but might appear to be to someone
observing from a distance who was unable to hear what he was saying. Recognizing this
as a potential issue, Coach Freeze discussed with noncoaching staff the need to ensure
that they were not coaching.98

When Coach Freeze saw former assistant Farrar using a second cell phone, he
immediately called him into his office, along with Farrars direct manager to serve as a
witness, and pointedly asked if he was using a nonuniversity phone for recruiting
calls.99

Third Parties

When third parties have been placed on Compliances watch list, Coach Freeze has called to

notify them that they are not to bring prospects to campus. He discusses these third parties in

his staff meetings so that everyone is aware, and can be on the lookout.

Coach Freeze and his staff have caught at least eight third parties with prospects,
reporting them to Compliance to investigate and provide a ruling on whether they were
permissible.100

This is also how , the third party at the center of Allegations 5 and 20a,
was caught on campus after he had been banned. One of Coach Freezes assistants who

96 (See Exhibit 16).

97 (Exhibit 12).

98 (See Exhibit 16).

99 (FI No. 288, at 157158).

100 (See FI No. 298, at 34)(naming the third parties and describing the circumstances and actions taken); (FI

No. 288, at 138139).

30

had been instructed to watch out for noticed him when he came to campus for a
baseball game, and reported him to Compliance.101

On at least five occasions, Coach Freezes staff has asked Compliance whether various
individuals other than a prospects parents (a guardian, a principal, a school coach who
was the prospects guardian, a guidance counselor, and the best friend of a parent) could
accompany the prospect on a visit.102

Recruits

Specifically related to the allegations in this case, Coach Freeze learned that

mother told Farrar over the phone that two other institutions had offered tens of

thousands of dollars each. Upon learning this, he immediately asked Farrar pointed questions

about how he had responded, to ensure he had handled it appropriately. He is unsure whether

he reported the mothers claims to Compliance at that time since rumors are rampant and they

had no evidence to corroborate her claims. Soon after, however, a Snapchat video surfaced, of

flashing a large amount of cash after signing day. He immediately reported the video to

Compliance and Farrars account of the phone conversation.103 At that time, he also learned

that Farrar had recorded the phone call with mother, so he immediately reported that

fact to Compliance and the athletics director, and forwarded the recording. He also listened to

the recording to confirm that Farrar had responded in the way he had initially reported to

Coach Freeze, and was satisfied on that point.104

* * * * *

One important recruiting weekend in January 2013, the official visit agenda included a visit

to the Grove, an area on campus where fans tailgate, and which the football team walks through

before games. The festive scene at the Grove is a significant part of the game day experience at

the University. Fans learned of the plan and began to mobilize through social media and

101 (FI No. 288, at 138).

102 (FI No. 298, at 5).

103 (FI No. 288, at 101103).

104 (Id., at 105106).

31

message boards to plan a welcome for the prospects. After learning of the fans plans, Coach

Freeze decided they would not go to the Grove after all to avoid possible violations.105

* * * * *

On another occasion, Coach Freeze learned that a highprofile defensive back from a junior

college was coming to a game. He also knew that this player had been allowed to see coaches at

other schools, which was not allowed since he was in his first year of junior college.

Recognizing the potential for an issue, Coach Freeze called him in advance to explain that his

coaches could not see him, so that he would not seek them out. As an extra safeguard, he also

had someone from Compliance at the gate to ensure he did not get in.106

* * * * *

Coach Freeze has on numerous occasions reached out to alumni to ask them not to get

involved in recruiting. For example, he reached out to r after made some

Twitter comments related to Ole Miss and recruiting, asking him not to tweet about recruiting

or tweet at recruits.107 He reminded on more than one occasion about the rules,

because he was highly sought after by prospects and liked to engage with them and share his

enthusiasm about the University.108

Student-athletes

In January 2013, questions arose about studentathletes use of Twitter during an official

visit weekend. Knowing there were more visits planned for the following weekend, Coach

Freeze called a team meeting that very day to go over the information Compliance had provided

105 (See Exhibit 16).

106 (FI No. 116, at 90).

107 (See Exhibit 16).

108 (FI No. 288, at 62).

32

on the topic, to make sure the studentathletes knew the rules about recruiting and prospects to

head off any potential issues.109

* * * * *

In March 2013, there were rumors that studentathletes were planning to go to a lake house

over spring break. Coach Freeze called a team meeting, with the compliance director present,

to instruct them that they were not to go to a lake house unless it was their families. If they had

another situation that they thought might be allowed by the rules, they were to contact the

compliance director. Coach Freeze followed up with the compliance director later to ask if any

of his studentathletes had come to him.110

* * * * *

In June 2015, the local police were called for an altercation between and his

stepfather . Coach Freeze was out of the country, but learned that an agent was

on the scene.111 He immediately called the to make sure he was not doing anything

improper.112 He also called the agent and pointedly asked whether he had done anything to

jeopardize . He let him know that he had warned his players about the pitfalls of dealing

with agents, and told him that he was not welcome at agent day until Coach Freeze consulted

Compliance.113 In the end, no violations were found.

109 (See Exhibit 16).

110 (See Exhibit 16).

111 (FI No. 203, 08/08/15 Freeze Int., at 67).

112 (Id. at 70.)

113 (Id. at 6.)

33

Documenting Compliance

As recommended by the NCAA, Coach Freeze has extensively documented his efforts to

promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor his program. On the record are 1,142 pages

of compliance documents (HF00011142), in five volumes, which he has compiled over four

years. These pages include:

PowerPoint slides that were presented to his staff, studentathletes, and student
workers; meeting notes that include Coach Freezes personal admonishments to follow
the rules; and signin sheets showing that he and his staff were consistently present for
rules education.

Procedures and instructions written by Coach Freeze to target specific danger zones for
compliance, such as elite athletes, bumps, and restaurant meals.

Emails between the football staff and Compliance about the application of rules to
specific situations.

Documentation of each staff members understanding that Coach Freeze and the
Universitys leadership expect them to operate according to the rules, and that they are
to play a role in reporting any issues they become aware of.

* * * * *

Coach Freezes documents comprise one of the largest entries into the record in this case,

and clearly show extensive, painstaking efforts to ensure compliance in his program.

As previously addressed, the standards set forth in the precedent do not require perfection.

What they do require are reasonable efforts by head coaches to educate their staff on

compliance; and to monitor issues that they are, or have reason to be, aware of, with the level of

monitoring appropriate to a staff members experience and record. Based on the volumes of

objective evidence he has produced, as well as the consistent testimonies of all who have

worked with him, Coach Freeze has exceeded these standards.

34

IV. Response to Allegations

A. Processing Level of Case.



Based on the information contained within the following allegations, the NCAA enforcement staff
believes this case should be reviewed by a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on
Infractions pursuant to procedures applicable to a severe breach of conduct (Level I violation).114

Response To Processing Level:

Coach Freeze agrees.

B. Allegations.115

Response to Allegations:

6. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.4.1.5 and 13.6.7.9 (201213)]

It is alleged that 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 Hugh Freeze (Freeze), head football coach, produced three personalized
recruiting videos that showed multiple then football prospective studentathletes 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 studentathletes 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.

Level of Allegation No. 6:

The NCAA enforcement staff believes a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on
Infractions could conclude that Allegation No. 6 is a breach of conduct (Level III) because the
alleged violations (1) were isolated or limited and (2) provided no more than a minimal
recruiting, competitive or other advantage. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.3, 19.1.3(a) and 19.1.3(b)
(201617)]

Involved Individual(s):

114 Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.7.1 (201617), if violations from multiple levels are identified in the notice of

allegations, the case shall be processed pursuant to procedures applicable to the most serious violations alleged.
115 On January 22, 2016, the NCAA enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations in Case No. 189693 that

contained 13 allegations involving the football program. On June 8, 2016, the enforcement staff issued an
amended notice of allegations in Case No. 189693 with the 13 football allegations withdrawn as a result of a
June 2, 2016, decision by Gregory Christopher (Christopher), NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions chief
hearing officer, to bifurcate that case following the discovery of potential additional football violations. Those 13
allegations have been reissued in this case pursuant to Christopher's June 2, 2016, letter.

35

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could enter a showcause order pursuant to
NCAA Bylaw 19.9.8(i) regarding Freeze's involvement in Allegation No. 6.116

Factual Information (FI) on which the enforcement staff relies for Allegation No. 6:

The attached exhibit details the factual information on which the enforcement staff relies for
Allegation No. 6. The enforcement staff incorporates the factual information referenced
throughout this document, its exhibit and all other documents posted on the secure website.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 6.

Coach Freeze agrees that the factual information contained in Allegation No. 6 is substantially

correct but disputes the characterization of his involvement. Coach Freeze agrees that a violation of

NCAA legislation occurred and the violation is classified appropriately as Level III.

As a threshold matter, this allegation appeared in NOA1 based on the same facts and

information and did not include a charge against Coach Freeze individually. The enforcement staff

chose to bring the charge against Coach Freeze individually in NOA2 based on the same Factual

Information used in NOA1. The enforcement staff took this action in spite of their stated position to

revisit charging decisions if new, pertinent information arises. [Duncan May 4 letter in response

to University]. Nowhere in the NCAA manual or IOPs is the enforcement staff precluded from

revisiting a charging decision upon discovery of new, pertinent factual information. Id. (emphasis

added). The entire universe of information for this charge has remained the same for years because

the University selfreported the violation in 2013 and turned over its internal investigation

materials to the NCAA. The NCAA conducted its followup interviews and investigation shortly

thereafter. No new, pertinent factual information led to this change, yet the charge was revised to

refocus it against Coach Freeze.

Coach Freeze has never denied knowing of the filming of prospective student athletes (PSAs)

and of the limited viewing of those same videos by the PSAs and their families during three

recruiting weekends in January and February 2013. When his associate director for sports video

116 This allegation forms part of the bases for the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 20 and 21.

36

raised the idea for the video, Coach Freeze responded: [G]et it, make sure its approvable, make

sure its approved and absolutely do it. FI No. 116, at 56. Because of this request, when the

activity was incorporated into the final visit itinerary, Coach Freeze believed it had been approved

by Compliance.117 Further, Coach Freeze has set up a system whereby all activities during recruiting

weekends are presented to Compliance for approval, and, if not approved, are not conducted.

Finally, the University selfreported it when they discovered the violation while interviewing the

associate director for sports video about unrelated matters.

Although Coach Freeze thought that he was dealing with an approved activity, in hindsight, as

he put it, obviously, that [was] wrong and we turned ourselves in and we reported ourselves and

wont do it again. Id. An inadvertent, minor, selfreported violation that, even according to NOA2,

was isolated or limited and provided not more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other

advantage, and was conditionally approved by Coach Freeze pending approval by Compliance,

should not serve as the basis for a Level III charge against Coach Freeze, much less a potential show

cause order.


12. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.1 (201314)]

It is alleged that on December 3, 2013, Hugh Freeze (Freeze), head football coach, made an
impermissible inperson, offcampus recruiting contact with then football prospective
studentathlete at in
, Mississippi. Specifically, Freeze engaged in a fiveto10minute inperson
recruiting contact with , then a high school , at .

Level of Allegation No. 12:

The NCAA enforcement staff believes a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on
Infractions could conclude that Allegation No. 12 is a breach of conduct (Level III) because
the alleged violation (1) was isolated or limited and (2) provided no more than a minimal
recruiting, competitive or other advantage. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.3, 19.1.3(a) and 19.1.3(b)
(201617)]

117 Additionally, the video did not raise any additional red flags to Coach Freeze because his associate director

for sports video told him that the same activity was occurring at and had been done
at . In addition, was, at the time, promoting a recruit using an image of him in a e
uniform. See FI 90 at 134; see also FI 56 at 8.

37


Involved Individual(s):

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could enter a showcause order pursuant to
NCAA Bylaw 19.9.8(i) regarding Freeze's involvement in Allegation No. 12.118

Factual Information (FI) on which the enforcement staff relies for Allegation No. 12:

The attached exhibit details the factual information on which the enforcement staff relies for
Allegation No. 12. The enforcement staff incorporates the factual information referenced
throughout this document, its exhibit and all other documents posted on the secure website.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 12.

Coach Freeze strongly disagrees with the factual information contained in Allegation No. 12,

and he does not believe that a violation of NCAA legislation occurred. He does agree that the

allegation is classified appropriately as Level III.

Coach Freeze is charged with violating Bylaw 13.1.1.1, which prohibits certain offcampus

contacts. A facetoface encounter at during r year would

generally be considered a contact in violation of 13.1.1.1. However, under Bylaw 13.02.4, if the

encounter was not prearranged and the staff member does not engage in any dialogue in excess

of a greeting and takes appropriate steps to immediately terminate the encounter, it is not a

contact and therefore not a violation.

Coach Freeze was present for the entirety of the event that produced this allegation. He does

not have to rely on what others say or how they interpret the facts, because he was there.

Accordingly, Coach Freeze can unequivocally say that no violation occurred during his visit with

Coach at on December 3, 2013. As has been demonstrated

herein, Coach Freeze knows well the rules regarding bumps. With his knowledge of the rules and

the facts of this allegation, Coach Freeze simply did not violate the bump rule with .

These are the undisputed facts surrounding this incident:

118 This allegation forms part of the bases for the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 20 and 21.

38

1. entered Coach office while the two of them were talking.

2. Coach Freeze did not ask for s to come to Coach s office and did not
know that s was going come to the office.

3. Coach Freeze, Coach , and agree that the encounter between Freeze
and was brief.

4. Coach Freeze is knowledgeable about the rules regarding illegal contact and
bumps like the one he encountered with and has an established protocol for
dealing with these situations.

5. Coach Freeze took steps to end the encounter.

The dispute is over the length and content of the meeting. Coach Freeze and Coach

have consistent stories, and their descriptions of both length and content are complementary and

describe something that the NCAA, like Coach Freeze, does not even consider a contact.

Coach Freeze, Coach , and agree that the encounter was brief. Coach Freeze says

that the meeting was under a minute. Coach says it was very brief, it couldnt have

been a minute or two, and it was [j]ust basically an introduction in which just kinda smiled

and shook his head and was taking it all in. When asked a second time by the enforcement staff,

Coach reaffirmed it could not have been more than two minutes. Regardless of whether the

meeting was one minute or two, there is no doubt that the meeting was brief.

Knowing that he could not visit with , Coach Freeze immediately told a version of

his standard statement for these situations that he couldnt talk to him but looked forward to

recruiting him and watching him play. (FI No. 288, 12/20/16 Freeze Int., at 163). His statement

was consistent with the training he gave his coaches and with the actions of a head coach complying

with the rules. (See FI No. 300, at HF1372). In the handout Coach Freeze put together on bumps, he

instructs his staff not to prearrange visits, not to allow a highschool coach to pin them in with

recruits, and tells them that they are allowed only to say hello and give a general greeting. Id. He

even warns his staff that they should be prepared to hold meetings with coaches in the parking lot if

the staff member feel[s] a coach might not want to comply with rules. Id.

39

The enforcement staff cross examined Coach , informing him that had said the

encounter lasted 10 minutes and that Coach Freeze had said it lasted one minute, attempting to

force Coach to serve as, in their words, a tiebreaker between his former player, for

whom he had expressed affection, and Coach Freeze. Coach , obviously uncomfortable, tried

to harmonize the two versions rather than call either party a liar, and ended up saying the

encounter could have lasted three to five minutes but, with the caveat, thats been three years

and reiterating it was a brief, short meeting. After three tries at making the meeting something

that it was not, the staff concluded the interview.

is the only person who tells a different story, and he tells a variety of versions.

Importantly even s agrees that they met briefly and that Coach Freeze really didnt wanna

keep talking to me and was trying to end the meeting. (FI No. 266, 11/18/16 Int., at 123).

1. First Interview

In his first interview with the enforcement staff, he stated that he met with Coach Freeze and

Coach in April or May of his junior year. (It is indisputable that the meeting was in

December 2014). According to I shook his hand and then we kind of got acquainted and it

was like 20 to 30 minutes before class and after that I just went to class. (FI No. 232, 08/10/16

Int., at 46). He recalls Coach Freeze telling him that he was the first coach to come see you

and described the conversation as recruiting in nature. (Id., at 48). He acknowledged that neither

Coach Freeze nor Coach told him to keep the meeting a secret.

2. Second Interview

In his second interview, s recalled that the visit might have been in August of his senior

year and that Coach Freeze was extremely early in the year. (FI No. 266, at 121). recalled,

we just kinda meet and greeted for a little. (Id., at 122). On his second telling, s said that they

met for about 10 minutes, and that was it. (Id.) This was of course 20 minutes less than his initial

40

estimate in his first interview. s could not remember the content of the conversation but he

recalled that it wasnt long and that Coach Freeze was trying to end the meeting. (Id., at 123).

All parties agree that the meeting was brief. Coach and Coach Freeze agreed that the

meeting took place on December 3, 2013, a date that is backed up by the documentary evidence

gathered by the enforcement staff. s thought that it took place in April, May, or August, either

in the spring of his junior year or the fall of his senior year. Coach and Coach Freeze

thought that the encounter was nothing more than an introduction, that Coach Freeze said some

version of what all coaches say in a bump situation, and that it lasted no more than a couple of

minutes. recalled that it took 10, 20, or 30 minutes, depending on the version of his story.

does not remember specifics, and nothing he remembers could possibly fill up 10

minutes of conversation, much less 2030 minutes. Rather, the conversational content he recalls

would fit within the length of the encounter that Coach Freeze and Coach describe.

had dozens of conversations with different coaches, and his recollection of this encounter is foggy,

flawed, and inconsistent with the two other parties. As was discussed above, the standard for the

committee to find an infraction is clear and convincing.119 Here, the Committee should not allow

the unclear and unconvincing patchwork that is account of events to saddle Coach Freeze

with a Level III violation and a potential showcause order in the face of the consistent versions of

Coach Freeze and Coach .

20. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1 (October 13 through 29, 2012); 11.1.1.1 (October 30,
2012, through 201516)]120

119 (Mock NCAA inquiry sheds light on confusing enforcement process, 05/13/2011, available at

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/05/mock ncaa inquiry sheds light.html).


120 On October 30, 2012, and during the period of Allegation No. 20, adopted proposal 201215 changed NCAA

Bylaw 11.1.2.1 to 11.1.1.1 and substantively revised it in the following manner:



It shall be the responsibility of an An institution's head coach is presumed to be
responsible for the actions of all assistant coaches and administrators who report,
directly or indirectly, to the head coach. An institution's head coach to shall promote an
atmosphere for of compliance within the his or her program supervised by the coach and to

41


It is alleged that between October 2012 through January 2016, Hugh Freeze (Freeze), head
football coach, 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, 17a
and 17b and did not rebut that presumption. Specifically:

a. Regarding Allegation No. 5, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program and did not demonstrate that he monitored the
activities of his staff. Maurice Harris (M. Harris), assistant football coach and recruiting
coordinator, facilitated and engaged in violations concerning the recruitment of then
football prospective studentathletes
, and , including (1)
involving a then representative of the institution's athletics
interests, in their recruitment; (2) permitting and facilitating recruiting contact
with, and provision of recruiting inducements to, the four then football prospective
studentathletes; and (3) arranging free hotel lodging for and in
conjunction with unofficial visits to the institution. M. Harris failed to ensure that his and
recruiting activities complied with NCAA legislation. Additionally, Allegation No. 5
details other instances in which football staff members failed to ensure their activities
concerning the recruitment of , , and complied with
NCAA legislation. Lastly, Freeze at times knew of and witnessed these activities but failed
to consult the athletics compliance office regarding whether the activities were
permissible. [NCAA Bylaws 11.1.2.1 (October 13 through 29, 2012); 11.1.1.1 (October 30,
2012, through 201213)]

b. Regarding Allegation No. 6, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program and did not demonstrate that he monitored the
activities of his staff. Freeze approved of the assistant director of sports video for football
(assistant director) producing personalized recruiting videos involving visiting then
football prospective studentathletes and their families during the January 18 and 25, and
February 1, 2013, weekend recruiting visits and playing the videos during the visits. Freeze
reported that he instructed his staff, including the assistant director, to present the video
idea to the athletics compliance office for approval. However, neither the assistant director
nor any other football staff member reported receiving that instruction and no football
staff members consulted the athletics compliance office regarding whether the idea was
permissible. Freeze also acknowledged that he did not confirm with the assistant director
or any other football staff member whether the video idea had been approved by the
athletics compliance office. Further, the video activities were not clearly described on the
official paid visit itineraries submitted to the athletics compliance office. [NCAA Bylaw
11.1.1.1 (October 30, 2012, through 201213)]

c. Regarding Allegation No. 7, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program and did not demonstrate that he monitored the
activities of his staff. The football program arranged for then football prospective student
athlete to receive free access to hunting land owned by a
representative of the institution's athletics interests during his official paid visit, a

shall monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other
administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.

42

speciallyarranged activity provided only to . Freeze was aware that would


be taken hunting during his official paid visit, but failed to confirm that the activity had
been approved by the athletics compliance office. Additionally, hunting trip was
not documented on the official paid visit paperwork submitted to the athletics compliance
office. Further, the football staff arranged similar hunting land access for on two or
three subsequent occasions when he was enrolled as a football studentathlete. However,
in those instances, the football staff also failed to consult the athletics compliance office
regarding whether the arrangements were permissible. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (October 30,
2012, through 201213)]
d. Regarding Allegation No. 8, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program and did not demonstrate that he monitored the
activities of his staff. Chris Kiffin (Kiffin), then assistant football coach, was the lead
recruiter for then football prospective studentathlete . As lead
recruiter, Kiffin arranged official paid visit and was responsible for providing the
then assistant recruiting director with complete and accurate information prior to the
visit regarding who would be accompanying , as well as specifying each person's
relationship to . Kiffin knew in advance of official paid visit that
father to half brother; , wife; and
, mother's then boyfriend, would be accompanying
on this occasion. However, Kiffin provided the then assistant recruiting director with
inaccurate information regarding these individuals' relationship to while also
arranging for them to receive free meals and hotel lodging. Further, these individuals were
visible throughout visit and Kiffin and Freeze interacted with them multiple times.
However, the football staff never consulted the athletics compliance office regarding
whether providing the meals and lodging was permissible. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (October
30, 2012, through 201213)]

e. Regarding Allegation No. 9, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program and did not demonstrate that he monitored the
activities of his staff. Kiffin arranged for to receive free merchandise from
a representative of the institution's athletics interests, and Barney Farrar
(Farrar), then assistant athletic director for high school and junior college relations for
football, arranged similar free merchandise for then prospective football studentathletes
and These alleged violations (1) transpired over a three
year period, (2) occurred during marquee recruiting visits, (3) involved two elite then
football prospective studentathletes and a then family member of another elite then
football prospective studentathlete and (4) involved a popular store located near the
institution owned by a representative of its athletics interests. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1
(October 30, 2012, through 201213, 201314 or 201415 and 201516)]

f. Regarding Allegation No. 10, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program. Kiffin provided with two nights' lodging
at his residence but failed to consult Freeze or the athletics compliance office regarding
whether doing so was permissible. Additionally, was an elite then football student
athlete and required greater monitoring. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (October 30, 2012,
through 201213)]

g. Regarding Allegation No. 12, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program. Freeze made an impermissible, inperson
recruiting contact of during his year of high school, which is a wellknown

43

violation of NCAA legislation. Even though the recruiting contact lasted between five and
10 minutes, Freeze could have avoided it entirely and/or mitigated the length of the
interaction. Additionally, Freeze should have immediately reported the matter to the
athletics compliance office; however, he failed to take any of these steps. [NCAA Bylaw
11.1.1.1 (201314)]

h. Regarding Allegation No. 13, Freeze did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere
of compliance within the football program and did not demonstrate that he monitored the
activities of his staff. Kiffin made an impermissible, inperson recruiting contact of then
football prospective studentathletes and during their
year of high school. Kiffin had multiple opportunities to avoid the impermissible contact
and/or mitigate the length of the interaction. Additionally, he should have immediately
reported the matter to Freeze and the athletics compliance office, but failed to take any of
these steps. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (201314)]

i. Regarding Allegation Nos. 14, 16, 17a and 17b, Freeze did not demonstrate that he
promoted an atmosphere of compliance within the football program and did not
demonstrate that he monitored the activities of his staff. Farrar knowingly facilitated and
engaged in violations concerning recruitment, including (1) knowingly arranging
impermissible meals, transportation and/or lodging for and friends and
family in conjunction with recruiting visits; (2) knowingly arranging for
and representatives of the institution's athletics interests, to engage
in impermissible recruiting contact of ; and (3) knowing at the time that and
provided impermissible cash payments to . Additionally, Freeze (1)
acknowledged that he suspected was seeking impermissible inducements as a
condition of his recruitment and (2) had reason to know at the time that Farrar was
involving , a representative of the institution's athletics interests, in
recruitment as was frequently present at football facilities and football
related activities surrounding recruiting visits. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (201314 and
201415)]

Level of Allegation No. 20:

The NCAA enforcement staff believes a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on
Infractions could conclude that Allegation No. 20 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I)
because the alleged violation (1) involves a head coach responsibility violation resulting from
underlying Level I, II and III violations and (2) seriously undermined or threatened the
integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.1, 19.1.1(e) and 19.1.1(i) (2016
17)]

Involved Individual(s):

The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could enter a showcause order pursuant to
Bylaw 19.9.5.4 regarding Freeze's involvement in Allegation No. 20.121

Factual Information (FI) on which the enforcement staff relies for Allegation No. 20:

121 This allegation forms part of the basis for the violation detailed in Allegation No. 21.

44

The attached exhibit details the factual information on which the enforcement staff relies for
Allegation No. 20. The enforcement staff incorporates the factual information referenced
throughout this document, its exhibit and all other documents posted on the secure website.

GENERAL RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20.

Coach Freeze disagrees that he failed to rebut the presumption of responsibility for the

underlying Allegations. Specifically, he responds to each subsection below.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(a)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation No. 20(a). Coach Freeze agrees, however, that the factual

information contained in Allegation No. 5 is substantially correct. He also agrees with the

enforcement staffs original decision to not include a Head Coach Responsibility charge in NOA1. No

new evidence, facts, or documents have been obtained to support the addition of this charge to

NOA2.

As to the underlying charge, Coach Harris simply made an error in judgment.122 He believed

that had a preexisting relationship with the three prospects from

that Coach Harris was recruiting. He believed this to be true because was

the FCA leader for that school and was deeply involved in their personal and spiritual lives. Mr.

did not fit the classic image of a booster.

As to the Head Coach Responsibility charge, there is no dispute that Coach Freeze held regular

mandatory compliance meetings, which Coach Harris attended, nor that Coach Harris understood

Coach Freezes compliance expectations. In addition, Coach Harris, like all of the other coaches,

signed a contract at the beginning of each season with Coach Freeze that among other things he

would abide by the rules of the NCAA and the SEC. (See Exhibit 13). Coach Harris, who began

coaching in the NCAA in 2004, was an experienced coach who knew the rules, and knew that he

could not ask boosters to provide rides or other benefits to prospects. Coach Freeze created an

122 In his interview, Coach Harris admitted that he should have followed up. (FI No. 54, at 18).

45

atmosphere where it was well understood that Compliance should be asked any time there was a

questionable situation. An isolated mistake by Coach Harris in failing to ask Compliance about

is not an indictment of the system.

Coach Freezes compliance system caught the mistake. In their search, they found that

had previously purchased baseball tickets. Once this was found, Coach Freeze responded quickly

with a meeting with Coach Harris, and the University selfreported the event. Upon learning of this

Coach Freeze personally informed Coach Harris and admonished him for allowing this to happen.

Coach Harris was further required to attend a regional NCAA rules seminar. Since this event in

2013, Coach Harris has not had any other significant rules violations. This is the way the system

should work.

The allegation makes reference to two emails to Coach Freeze from . Coach Freeze does

not remember receiving either of them. Coach Freezes secretary reads his emails and decides

which ones he should read and perhaps respond to. The emails were buried in the

thousands of emails that are sent to Coach Freezes public account. He did not read them because

his secretary did not believe them to be significant. It would be physically impossible from a time

standpoint for Coach Freeze to read all of the emails he gets to his public account. The s

emails were treated no differently than the others received on that day. They were reviewed by

Coach Freezes secretary and discarded.

Lastly Coach Freeze has been very clear about what happened at the inhome visit with

. He recalls presence at the house before the visit occurred and tha

was there for five minutes. (FI No. 90, 08/20/13 Freeze Int., at 37). Coach Freeze emphatically

said that definitely did not stay for my visit and that he remembered telling Coach Harris

This dude cant be in the visit. (Id., at 34). Coach Freezes account is consistent with what

everyone else who has been interviewed who was present for the visit.

46

In summary, Coach Harris made a mistake in his failing to identify as a booster. This

was an unintentional good faith error in judgment. The system caught it and reported it. Coach

Harris was reprimanded. Coach Freeze did not allow to attend the inhome visit, and he

personally told Coach Harris of Coach Harris mistake when it was discovered. He personally

reprimanded Coach Harris, and Coach Harris learned from his mistake. As a result of this incident,

Coach Freeze further tightened the approach to third parties and who they are.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(b)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation No. 20(b). With regard to Allegation No. 6, Coach Freeze

incorporates his previous response. As discussed, Coach Freeze provided rules education training

for all his staff. He had a specialized sports video staff member (Chris Buttgen), who said in his

interview that he knew the rules on publicizing recruiting visits but that he did not think that the

specific internal use of this video violated NCAA Bylaws. Coach Freeze directed Buttgen to get the

video approved and that the activity be placed on the agenda. That agenda was reviewed and

approved by Compliance. Based on this, Coach Freeze believed that the video activity was

approved.

The video was a mistake, but it was due not to a lack of promotion or monitoring and therefore

should not serve as a basis for a Bylaw 11.1.1.1 violation. He sought approval for Compliance before

the videos were made and, because it was on the final visit itineraries, reasonably believed they

were approved. He and the University discovered and reported the violation, investigated how it

occurred, and cooperated with the NCAA in ascertaining the pertinent facts.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(c)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation 20(c). In the hectic planning leading up to the biggest

recruiting weekends of the year, Coach Freeze was still personally involved in the discussions

regarding what activities recruits would enjoy during their time in Oxford. Coach Freeze holds pre

and postvisit meetings with his coaching staff to discuss activities for recruits. Wenzel, the former

47

compliance liaison, was tasked with reviewing visit itineraries with the Compliance Director. This

violation occurred because Coach Freeze thought Compliance had approved the activity, along with

everything else on the weekend itinerary.

To add context, prior to the visit by , Coach Freeze wanted to take a player fishing on a

private lake next to his house. As was his custom, he sought approval from Compliance before the

fishing trip. The Oxford lake in question was owned by the lotowners surrounding the lake, many

of whom were boosters. Compliance approved the activity. Hunting and fishing are both favorite

pastimes in Mississippi, and there was no distinction in Coach Freezes mind between the two

activities. Likewise, it would not have raised any red flags to hear that was hunting around

Oxford while he was a student.

This isolated, minor instance is an exception, not the norm, and it should not serve as a basis for

a head coach responsibility charge. Coach Freeze promoted compliance through constant and

consistent education efforts regarding recruiting activities and put in place a system to prevent

violations such as this one from occurring. The NCAA does not require perfection from its coaches,

nor that they be allseeing or allknowing. It requires reasonableness, and Coach Freeze was

reasonable even as he was incorrect.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(d)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation 20(d). Additionally, while Coach Freeze agrees that the factual

information contained in Allegation No. 8 is substantially correct and that a violation of NCAA

legislation occurred, the violation is improperly classified as a Level II violation and should be

classified as Level III. At most, Allegation No. 8 amounts to a breach of conduct that is isolated or

limited in nature, provided no more than a minimal advantage, and provided only a minimal

benefit. He also agrees with the enforcement staffs original decision to not include a Head Coach

Responsibility charge in NOA1. No new evidence, facts, or documents have been obtained to

support the addition of this charge to NOA2.

48

Coach Freeze promoted an atmosphere of compliance and monitored the activities of his staff in

a multitude of ways, including many that were specifically targeted to the types of issues at hand.

He also objects to the insinuation that his interactions with family during the visit meant

that he was somehow complicit or knowingly turned a blind eye to the violation. That is simply

untrue. What is true is that has a complicated family situation. He has never had a

relationship with his biological father. The man he considers his father and refers to as dad is

r, his halfbrothers father and mothers former boyfriend. r and his mother lived

together for a couple of years from the time was three months old, and halfbrother,

r, grew up in the same house with . At the time of his recruitment, s

mothers thenboyfriend was , who lived with them, and appeared to be his step

father.

Coach Kiffin did not follow up with Compliance regarding the specifics of s relationship

with . He knew that he was expected to provide, then later verify, these details with

Compliance, but he failed to do so.

Coach Freeze promoted an atmosphere of compliance and monitored his staff specifically as it

relates to people accompanying prospects on official visits. The football staff, including Kiffin,

received comprehensive rules education on the topic to ensure that they knew which guests costs

could be covered by the school and which needed to pay. Coach Freeze told them: I want every

single person that needs to be paid for, I want it documented and paid for. FI 65 at 13.

They also had a thorough process to track who was coming with each prospect and

communicate that information within the coaching staff and to Compliance. The official visit form

includes the names of those who are coming and their relationships to the prospect. Coach Freeze

goes over these forms with the recruiting coaches prior to the visit and reviews them again after the

visit. Kiffin testified that the recruiting coach would tell Branden what family members would

accompany recruits on their visits. Id. at 9. Kiffin continued that the coaches would then go over

49

the schedule one more time as a staff before the visit to make sure that the information was still

valid. Id.

With regard to his interactions with the family, Coach Freeze acknowledges meeting and

interacting with and r and during official visit. Having

established the thorough documentation and verification system described above, which included

consultation with the Compliance office, it was reasonable for Coach Freeze to believe that the

relationships were properly vetted and that any payments that might be required were received,

just as he mandated. The compliance environment and monitoring structure were firmly in place;

in this instance, a unique and complicated set of family relationships simply slipped through.

This situation changed the way Coach Freeze and his staff deal with nontraditional families to

ensure that no impermissible parties were paid for by the university. Following discovery of this

violation, Coach Freeze insisted that his staff obtain proof of marriage from the parent and step

parent of one prospect, and guardianship documents for another prospect to demonstrate that his

grandparents were his legal guardians. Requesting documents like these is not only awkward; it

also is a recruiting turnoff, and could place the University of Mississippi at a disadvantage to other

schools that are not being so stringent with the same recruits. Nevertheless, Coach Freeze has

taken these steps, because he wants to win the right way and if he can only have one or the other,

he chooses compliance.

Under the current rule, this would not be a violation. In late 2013, the NCAA changed its rule

about which family members could receive free meals on official visits, by adopting Proposal 2013

33FBS. Under the new rule, which is still in effect today, up to four people who are family

members or have the equivalent of a family relationship may permissibly receive meals. The rule

change shows that the Association decided the former rule was unnecessarily strict and did not

adequately fit the many forms families take.

50

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(e)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation No. 20(e) and disagrees with the factual information

contained in Allegation No. 9. Coach Freeze disputes that a violation of NCAA legislation occurred.

1. Coach Freeze Promoted An Atmosphere of Compliance and Monitored His Staff On This
Particular Issue

In his August 2015 interview, Coach Freeze was asked whether recruits or their families

received gear from s, a local retail store specializing in Ole Missthemed clothes. Coach

Freeze denied that any such arrangement existed. The questions were brief and there was no

mention in the interview of any specific allegation of wrongdoing. Because it was the first time he

had heard of a potential violation involving s, Coach Freeze did not let the issue fade

away. Instead, as is his custom, Coach Freeze confronted it head on.

He called Compliance to ask whether there was any information to support a claim that recruits

or their families had received free gear from . He also discussed it with his Athletic

Director, asking whether the claim had merit, whether the administration could take steps to

ensure that no such arrangement existed or would exist, and whether anything needed to be done

with his staff. Coach Freeze was assured by the Compliance staff and the Athletic Director that they

had investigated the issue and were not aware of any evidence to support the allegation.

Coach Freeze has been assured that the allegation is unfounded.

Nevertheless, Coach Freeze addressed his staff about how to advise families concerning retail

stores selling Ole Miss apparel. Knowing that recruits or their families often want to purchase Ole

Miss apparel on their visits to campus or as they left Oxford, Coach Freeze was clear about what the

staff could and could not do:

Do Provide the recruit or their families all options that existed in Oxford to buy Ole Miss
gear , , , etc.

Do Not Go with the recruit of his family, call the store, or follow up with the store to find out
if a prospect bought apparel there.

51

Coach Freeze confirmed with Compliance that these instructions were appropriate and rules

compliant. Then, he repeated to his staff, [a]fter my first interview . . . or whenever

came up, I was quite clear with my staff our involvement . . . . You give them the options if they

choose to go there. (FI No. 288, 12/20/16 Freeze Int., at 8182).

In his December 2016 interview, the enforcement staff detailed a new allegation made by

, claiming former staff member Barney Farrar arranged for him to receive free merchandise

from . Upon hearing this allegation for the first time, Coach Freeze was stunned. He

commented, I would have fired Barney on the spot if thats true. (Id. at 80). Coach Freeze was also

told of a claim by s that Farrar played some role in s receiving free merchandise from

s on multiple occasions. Coach Freeze had addressed this particular issue in staff

meetings and repeatedly told his staff to have zero involvement. We could give them the address

and we can give them where the locations are, and that is it. (Id. at 81).

Indeed, Farrar was asked what he could and could not do for prospects and repeated Coach

Freeze instructions almost verbatim:

I've had prospects not just , I've had a lot of prospects [ask], where
would you go? Sunday would . . . the only place would be that is
open. But I've all I've always offered , and you
know, you can go to on , but it's going to be a little more
expensive now, and usually they are on all campuses.

When asked whether his commentary would have been limited to just recommending places,

Farrar confirmed that would have been it. (FI No. 274, 12/01/16 Farrar Int., at 84). Not only was

Farrar aware of Coach Freezes instructions on this particular issue, there is no question that both

he and Kiffin knew that they could not arrange for free apparel for prospects. Something so

fundamental to amateurism is almost selfevident. Nevertheless, Compliance presentations

reiterated the obvious. (See, e.g., FI No. 298, at HF0911).

If this allegation occurred, there were no red flags for Coach Freeze. No one claims to have seen

s, , or with new Ole Miss apparel, certainly not hundreds of dollars in apparel. No

52

one claims that a coach ever accompanied them to the store. There were no outward signs of a

violation for Coach Freeze to detect. The first time he could have known about the

allegation was at his 2015 interview, and he acted immediately.

In spite of the allegation that two of his staff members secretly arranged for prospects to

receive free apparel, Coach Freeze has met the NCAAs expectations for a head coach. When he

learned of the possibility of a violation, he communicated with his Athletic Director and Compliance

about the potential issue. He was assured that there was no corroborating evidence to support the

claim. He was assured by the University, after discussions with the owner of , that no

prospects had received free apparel.

Coach Freeze reiterated his expectations to the staff his expectations on this specific issue. He

gave them the bounds of what they were and were not allowed to do when a prospect or his family

was looking to purchase University apparel. His staff knew not only the rule against providing

clothing but also Coach Freezes rule, following his 2015 interview, against directing them

specifically to any particular store. After the issue was raised in his interview, he did not turn a

blind eye.

If this allegation is true, Coach Freeze was deceived by his assistants. The football staff was

taught one thing, and Kiffin and Farrar did another, even after specific direction by Coach Freeze to

the contrary.

While Coach Freeze clearly took reasonable steps to promote compliance and monitor his staff,

he also recognizes that he has to take full responsibility for the integrity of the staff. After receiving

NOA2 and being able to review testimony on this issue for the first time, Coach Freeze believes that

the facts, read in their entirety, do not support Allegation No. 20(e).

2. The Factual Allegations Are Unsubstantiated

For Allegation No. 9, NOA2 relies on three witnesses who claim to have received free apparel

from : , s, and . There is no other corroborating

53

evidence. In other words, no witness recalled seeing any of the three with hundreds of dollars of

new Ole Miss apparel. None of the three could provide even one of the hundreds or thousands (in

case) of dollars in free apparel. Although r, s, and claim they gave away most

of the free apparel, no witness recalled receiving anything from any of them. , , and

s also were not there together. Instead, the s allegation attempts to have the three

stories corroborate one another, but the testimony between r, s and s is inconsistent.

Put simply, there is no corroborating documentary or testamentary evidence to support the

allegation.

a)

When NOA1 was issued, had already provided the testimony upon which the

s allegation is based. However, the s allegation was not included in NOA1. This

allegation is one of many baseless statements made by in the fallout of his

relationship with mother. Following separation from mother, he met with

NCAA staff members for hours, telling the staff of alleged serial violations and corruption within the

program. What is clear from the hours the enforcement staff spent with r is that he

cannot be trusted.

story is uncorroborated by any eyewitness or documentation, and it is directly

contradicted by every other person involved: , his mother , his half

brother , and dad. Each disclaims allegation.

testimony also stands in contrast to the testimony of several other high profile recruits

and their family members who denied receiving free gear from . The owner of

s adamantly denies s allegation. In short, not one eyewitness or document lends support

to claim while several expressly deny it.

54

b)

In a February 2016 interview, signee alleged that during the

course of his recruitment he, and anyone with him, received free apparel from during

trips there on at least four occasions. According to , he was instructed to ask for an employee

named Emily who would authorize him to receive roughly $500 worth of free apparel each visit.

s claimed that Barney Farrar provided that instruction. Specifically s described going to

s following his official visit along with all or a number of prospects on their official visit

that weekend and receiving free apparel at the same time.

s was a three star prospect in the 2016 signing class; his official visit weekend was

January 29, 2016. Simply put, was not as highly regarded as many other players visiting that

weekend. For example, five star prospect took his official visit that weekend.

was interviewed and asked whether he received free apparel from s.

who also signed with , denied ever receiving free apparel from . Indeed,

not one of the prospects on their official visit that weekend corroborates story.

Additionally, was very specific about asking for Emily. Neither nor told a

similar method for receiving free apparel. In response to requests by the enforcement staff and the

University, the owner of reviewed years of employee information and confirmed that

the store has never employed anyone named Emily. On top of that, despite claim that he

received thousands of dollars in free apparel, not one witnessfamily or friendsaid they saw

s get large amounts of University apparel, wear it, or knew what happened to any of the

merchandise he allegedly received.

c)

In three interviews in 2016, signee claimed to have received $400

worth of free apparel from during one visit to Ole Miss. claimed Barney Farrar

55

arranged for his trip to after had repeatedly asked for apparel. He claimed

drove him to the store.

, however, cannot recall when he went to , only that he went alone was

not really sure what happened to any of the apparel he received. He claimed he might have taken

a picture but his phone was destroyed. In his second interview, he recalled giving a baseball

jersey to a friend, but the friend was never interviewed. (FI No. 265, 11/18/16 Int., at 8889).

mother and stepdad were interviewed, but they were not asked if they ever saw him with

bags of University apparel. They did confirm that never claimed Farrar gave him a sweatshirt

or shoes. (FI No. 240, 10/11/16 Int., at 6). Thus, no witness or document

corroborates testimony.

On the other hand, several witnesses contradict account. mother and stepdad,

who were with s for his first visit to the University in March 2014, did not recall ever

receiving anything from the football staff or boosters.

, cousin, accompanied on unofficial visits to the University. He

was interviewed and asked whether he recalled receiving free Ole Miss apparel.

said he never saw receive Ole Miss apparel and could not recall him ever providing gear to

anyone. (FI No. 246, 10/25/16 Int., at 31, 4243). He also explained that when he and

visited Oxford, he was never apart from and never visited . (Id. at 32).

another of cousins, drove to Oxford on a number of occasions and

accompanied him on visits. He was interviewed and denied seeing or hearing about receiving

free Ole Miss apparel. He never saw receive Ole Miss hoodies, jackets, or anything like that.

(FI No. 244, 10/24/16 Int., at 40). also did not see with Ole Miss apparel at any

time, and he did not recall give or sell it to others. (Id. at 39, 8384). In fact, never even

saw wearing Ole Miss apparel other than the tshirt and shorts he received at a football camp.

(Id. at 84).

56

not only contradicted s but also lamented that he did not receive free apparel. I

wish we could have gotten some of that cool stuff. (Id. at 41). In other words, he wanted Ole Miss

apparel but admitted that he never received any. If story is true, that all he had to do was

mention it to Farrar, it flies in the face of reason to believe he never would have provided it to

or . Not one of his family members corroborated story in any way.

* * * * * * *
Despite the fact that the allegation is simply not true, as previously discussed, Coach

Freeze took reasonable steps to address the potential issue immediately following his 2015

interview. This action is, in fact, another example of his dedication to compliance. If a violation

occurred, Coach Freeze should not be responsible for the secretive activities of Kiffin and Farrar,

ruleseducated staff members, which they have continued to deny to this day.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(f)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation 20(f). He also agrees with the enforcement staffs original

decision to not include a Head Coach Responsibility charge in NOA1. No new evidence, facts, or

documents have been obtained to support the addition of this charge to NOA2.

Coach Kiffin, through his training and experience, knew that he could not provide any prospect

impermissible extra benefits, including free or subsidized housing. From his first orientation

meeting with Compliance, he was given the admonition that [a] studentathlete cannot accept free

or reduced cost room and/or board from any UM employee or booster. (Kiffin orientation form,

attached as Exhibit 18).

Kiffins mistake ran counter to the atmosphere of compliance established by Coach Freeze, an

atmosphere in which Coach Freeze told his staff time and time again that they are to be above

reproach and if at any time there is any issue or any question you'd better not do anything if

there's a question. You call Matt Ball or you call Julie [Compliance]. (FI No. 116, 12/17/13 Freeze

Int., at 19). Kiffin failed to understand that falling asleep on his couch on two occasions after

57

watching a movie or playing video games counted as free or reduced cost room and/or board.

(See FI No. 199, 08/06/15 Kiffin Int., at 4445).

Despite this being a fundamental rule, Coach Freeze still provided Kiffin with education about

the prohibition on providing free or reduced rate housing or have detected two inadvertent nights

that spent at Kiffins house since had a dorm room on campus. It is hard to believe

that any head coach requires his studentathletes to report where they slept each night while on

campus.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(g)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation No. 20(g). In addition, Coach Freeze disagrees with the factual

information contained in Allegation No. 12. Coach Freeze disputes that a violation of NCAA

legislation occurred.

There was no reason for Coach Freeze to report his encounter with to Compliance

because no violation occurred. The Universitys Compliance Director confirms that there was not at

the time (nor is there now) any requirement or expectation that a coach report an unplanned,

unintentional encounter with a prospect unless there was reason to believe a violation occurred or

the circumstance was in some way unusual. That was not the case here, and therefore there was no

reason for him to report the matter.

In order to prevent impermissible, inperson recruiting contacts, Coach Freeze has worked with

the Compliance office to educate and instruct his staff on how to avoid such contacts. Each member

of his staff receives calendars that are colorcoded to show appropriate contact periods. Coach

Freeze preaches to his staff that they are to do everything they can to avoid bumps. He instructs his

coaches on how to handle a bump should one occur: they are to have a line prepared in their minds

to express that they cannot speak to the prospect, and to quickly end the chance meeting. (See, e.g.,

FI No. 298, at HF0852 and HF0911). As Kiffin testified on May 9, 2013, Coach Freeze told them that

58

they were not going to, you know, push the envelope at all in regards to the bump rule. (FI No. 65,

05/09/13 Kiffin Int., at 18).

Coach Freeze has instructed his staff to leave a school if they are uncomfortable and feel that

they are being trapped, even if it compromised their recruitment efforts, and even if other schools

stayed. Again, Coach Freeze wants to win the right way, and will always choose compliance.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(h)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation No. 20(h). Additionally, Coach Freeze agrees that the factual

information contained in Allegation No. 13 is substantially correct, that a violation of NCAA

legislation occurred, and that the violation is properly classified as Level III. Due to the similarity of

the allegations, Coach Freeze incorporates his response to Allegation No. 20(g) to address the head

coach responsibility issues related to these contacts by Kiffin. It is indisputable that Kiffin knew

both the rules regarding a bump and how Coach Freeze wanted his coaches to handle such an

occurrence. In his November 25, 2014 interview Kiffin said:

MS: All right. And are there any restrictions on inperson contact with a prospect
during these spring evaluation periods as far as you understand?
CK: Yes, its obviously not a contact period so you are not to have contact with the
student athletes at the school, or at all.

MS: And do you and the other members of the football staff receive NCAA rules
education from compliance on evaluation periods?
CK: Yes sir, we usually cover periods before, right before that period, about to go
into effect.

MS: So is it fair to say that you feel fully informed from the institution, from
compliance on what you are allowed and not allowed to do during the spring?
CK: Yes sir.

CK: I think the proper thing to do in my mind is if the coach said, Heres Johnny.
Shake his hand, would be to shake his hand and say, Johnny, Im not allowed to
talk to you during this period. Its an evaluation period. But at least we look
forward to seeing you in the future, or something like that.

(FI No. 158, 11/25/14 Kiffin Int., at 34).

Kiffins statements show unequivocally that Coach Freeze had clearly communicated the rules

regarding contact periods and what to do if a bump occurred. Further, Kiffin confirmed that Coach

59

Freeze told him there would be consequences for any coach who refused to obey the rules. (FI No.

65, 05/09/13 Kiffin Int., at 18). When this came to light, Kiffin was prohibited from recruiting off

campus for a period and from having contact with these particular recruits. Neither of the recruits

signed with Ole Miss.

As for monitoring, multiple coaches confirmed that Coach Freeze checked in with them while

they were on the road, seeking updates and reminding them about compliance issues. In a text

message to the entire staff sent during the evaluation period, Coach Freeze reminded them: We

are NOT in a contact period!! Do not have any extended visit with any prospect!!! (FI No. 260, at

FB6722).

RESPONSE TO ALLEGATION NO. 20(i)

Coach Freeze disputes Allegation 20(i). With respect to the underlying Allegations 14, 16, 17(a),

and 17(b), the enforcement staff alleges Coach Freeze failed to promote an atmosphere of

compliance and failed to monitor his staff based on allegedly intentional violations by one former

staff member, Barney Farrar. In other words, the enforcement staff is not alleging Farrar did not

know the rules regarding staff members providing transportation, meals, and lodging on unofficial

visits or staff members initiating booster contact with prospects. In fact, the enforcement staff has

specifically alleged that Farrar knew the rules and intentionally violated them (Allegation 17(a) and

17(b)). Coach Freeze agrees that some factual information for the underlying allegations is

substantially correct. However, he disputes that any of Farrars deceitful acts should result in a

finding of a Bylaw 11.1.1.1 violation.

To recruit s, Coach Freeze relied heavily on a veteran assistant coach with no history of

compliance issues, a firm grasp of NCAA rules, and a clear understanding of Coach Freezes

expectation that his staff follow those rules. Where violations occurred, they prove the depth of

Farrars deceit, not a failure of Coach Freeze to promote an atmosphere of compliance or to monitor

his staff. Farrar chose to conceal those violations from Coach Freeze and, indeed, attempted to hide

60

those violations from the enforcement staff. Coach Freeze vetted Farrar before hiring him, provided

extensive rules education, presented a consistent expectation of rules compliance, and confronted

Farrar in the only instance where a red flag might have arisen during his tenure.

1. As in Wichita State, Coach Freeze Reasonably Relied on a Trusted and Competent


Assistant and Appropriately Monitored Farrar.

As discussed earlier, in Wichita State and University of Mississippi, this Committee provided the

framework to determine whether a head coach could reasonably rely on his staff members to

comply with the rules and to provide honest responses to direct questions. In Wichita State, the

Committee determined that recognizing a potential issue, appropriate followup and a long history

of rules education and compliance may effectively rebut a coachs presumed responsibility.

(University of Mississippi (2016), at 21, discussing Wichita State). The Wichita State report also

makes clear that a staff members history of rules knowledge and compliance are relevant to

determining whether a head coachs monitoring efforts are reasonable and sufficient. (See Wichita

State (2015), at 10, 15). The Committee specifically stated:

When he observed studentathletes gathered around the [staff members]


desk and learned they were ordering Christmas presents, he appropriately
reminded his longtime, trusted, rulescompliant assistant to ensure the
studentathletes did not receive any benefit. In hindsight, he should have
asked further followup questions. However, his failure to do so in one
instance does not negate decades of monitoring his assistant and setting the
proper atmosphere for rules compliance in his program.

(Id. at 15). By contrast, as shown in University of Mississippi, a head coach with a staff that has been

together for only two or three months cannot reasonably treat his staff members as head coaches

of assigned areas, delegate compliance issues that he identified as red flags, and allow them to

operate unchecked without specific observation or supervision.

This case is nearly identical to Wichita State. In fact, Farrars history of compliance exceeds that

of the staff member in that case, and the contemporaneous rules education provided by Coach

Freeze and the University covered the rules Farrar is charged with intentionally violating here.

61

Coach Freeze did his due diligence on Farrar, including vetting his compliance history, before

hiring him. Once on staff, Farrar had a track record of rules compliance. Farrar was provided

extensive and consistent rules education and understood Coach Freezes clear expectations with

regard to following NCAA rules. Moreover, when Coach Freeze saw potential issues involving Farrar

and , he responded appropriately and relied reasonably on assurances from his trusted and

competent staff member.

Coach Freeze properly vetted Farrars extensive work history

When he was hired in December 2011, Farrar had worked as an onfield or offfield coach at

NCAA Division I programs for 26 years. He spent four years, in both onfield and offfield roles, at

the under Coach . He worked for one season as an

offfield coach at under Coach . He spent one season in an offfield role at the

University of Mississippi under Coach . Prior to that, he worked for sixteen years as an

onfield coach under Coach at (12 years) and (four

years). He started his career in college football in the mid80s at working for Coach

As one member of the enforcement staff observed, Thats a lot of experience. (See FI No. 226,

03/23/16 Farrar Int., at 3).

Before Coach Freeze hired Farrar, he contacted two of Farrars past head coaches to find out

what they had to say about him. Coach , Farrars most recent employer at the time and

a person with whom Coach Freeze had a good relationship, highly recommended him. Next, Coach

Freeze contacted who also highly recommended Farrar. (FI No. 288, 12/20/16

Freeze Int., at 159). recommendation, in particular, was important both because Farrar

had worked for him for 16 years and because is renowned in college football for his

integrity and rulescompliant programs.123 Coach Freeze took those recommendations to heart with

For example, when he left to take over at in 1990, a former rival


at was quoted as saying, He ran his program with honesty and integrity. couldnt have

62

the knowledge that Farrar had zero significant NCAA infractions or allegations in his 26 years on

the job.

Also, Coach Freeze had spent one year working on the same staff as Farrar. In 2006, Coach

Freeze was Tight End Coach under Coach Orgeron at the University of Mississippi; Farrar joined

that staff in an offfield capacity. Although they did not work closely together, Coach Freeze

remembered Farrar, a native Mississippian with ties to local high schools and junior colleges, as a

tireless worker and considered him a good fit for an offfield high school/junior college relations

position. Based on Farrars long track record of compliance with NCAA rules, high

recommendations from trustworthy sources, and Coach Freezes experience on staff with Farrar, it

is reasonable that Coach Freeze trusted Farrars competence and reputation as a man who followed

NCAA rules.

Farrars role as offcampus recruiter

Farrar was hired into an offfield administrative role (Assistant Director for High School and

Junior College Relations) on December 12, 2011. Shortly thereafter, Dan Werner was hired as

Offensive Coordinator. Due to familyrelated circumstances, Werner was very limited in his ability

to travel for recruiting.124 In the light of that circumstance, the Universitys Compliance Department

petitioned the SEC to allow Farrar to substitute as an offcampus recruiter whenever Werner was in

the office, which was the majority of the time. Werner only went on recruiting evaluations or visits

for particular prospects. On April 12, 2012, the SEC granted the exception with the understanding

picked a better guy for the job. is the epitome of what the coaching profession should be. (See
, , at 314 (2014)). Similarly, at the
time coached at , the parent of a studentathlete discussed the recruiting process with . That
parent explained, We knew of the respect had in the academic and professional worlds and
the respect and football had as a program of integrity and doing things the right way,
despite the fact that college football had become, in the words of one Big 12 recruiter, just business. (See
, ). In
2015, won the for career
services that were outstanding in the advancement of the best interests of football.
124 Werner had been out of college football since 2007, following the death of his wife, in order to better care

for his disabled son.

63

that Farrar and Werner would not be on the road at the same time. In this way, Farrar permissibly

held an offfield operational job but served as an offcampus recruiter. This exception continued in

place until Farrar and Werner were released by the University (for unrelated reasons) on

December 8, 2016.

Farrar was educated on the rules and had a clear understanding of Coach Freezes expectation of
compliance with those rules.

Allegation 20(i) comprises allegedly intentional violations by Farrar that occurred during the

recruitment of during the 201415 recruiting calendar. At that time, Farrar had coached or

served in offfield administrative roles in NCAA Division I football programs for approximately 29

years. He had served on Coach Freezes staff without any allegations of significant rulescompliance

issues for over two full years. Indeed, when Coach Freeze was made aware of potential violations by

other staff members due to the University and enforcement staffs joint investigation from 2013

14, Farrar was not even mentioned as being potentially involved in any violations. Despite the

ongoing investigation, he was not interviewed by the enforcement staff until August 2015 (six

months after the alleged violations with ).

Put another way, if Coach Freeze looked at his staff, Farrar might have been the most

experienced and most trustworthy staff member he had. There is simply no question that Farrar

knew the rules against (1) arranging transportation, meals, and/or lodging for prospects on

unofficial visits; (2) involving boosters in recruitment of a prospect; and (3) paying of cash to

prospects by boosters. Rules against coaches providing direct benefits to prospects and initiating

booster contact to provide cash payments are so fundamentally at odds with NCAA rules on

amateurism that they should be second nature to a coach with 30 years of rulescompliant work

history. Nevertheless, it is important to look at the rules education that Farrar was provided on

these issues and the expectation that was consistently communicated to him.

From the time Farrar started working on Coach Freezes staff, he was educated on the rules he

later intentionally broke. For example, his New Coach Compliance Orientation included rules

64

education on recruiting, including what constitutes a violation on official and unofficial visits.

(Farrar orientation form, attached as Exhibit 19). Specifically, Farrar attended weekly staff

meetings in which rules education or compliance issues were discussed regularly. Farrar also

attended the mandatory monthly compliance meetings conducted by the Compliance Department

for the football staff. Farrar also received daily emails or texts from Julie Owen in Compliance. As

both Coach Freeze and Farrar independently stated, Farrar had the same rules education as any on

field coach. (See FI No. 226, at 56; FI No. 288, at 45, 182 (commenting that Farrar got the same

treatment which is very thorough that my other coaches got, but again he had done this for years

and years and years, so its not like this was something new to him)).

Coach Freeze also made his expectation for rules compliance clear. In Farrars words:

Coach Freeze is the first guy since to be sincere, since that


Ive worked for when you know . . . He expects us to follow the rules. And he
expects us to be honest with him. . . . He makes sure that when were in
compliance meetings that we know what the rule is . . . there is no leeway
there. It is what it is and hes Yes, he expects us to understand and know
the rules well.

(FI No. 226, at 7). As noted, other members of the staff and every administrator that has ever

worked with Coach Freeze say the same thing. Setting that expectation is the reason Coach Freeze

requires each coach to pledge to follow the rules. As he explained:

I actually make every staff member I go around the room, they all have to
sign an agreement that theyre going to comply that weve come up with, but
I make them verbalize that to the whole staff. I put them on the spot in front
of everybody in here, can we depend upon you to not put us at risk and to do
what is right. And not to worry about the scoreboard or who wins and who
loses at recruiting or this or that . . . that we can depend upon them in
[following the rules], and thats its important to me.

(Freeze December 20, 2016 Interview, at 123).

Each year, Farrar signed the Staff Expectations Form to which Coach Freeze alluded. (See, e.g.,

(FI No. 298, at HF0960). In it, he pledged to conduct [himself] within the boundaries of NCAA and

SEC legislation. Unquestionably, Farrar understood that he was expected to comply with NCAA

rules.

65

Coach Freeze also made clear his expectation that any member of the staff who encountered a

gray area should contact the Compliance Department and ask whether their actions were

permissible. Coach Freeze explained to the enforcement staff:

I say it a thousand times to our guys, you win the right way. If theres ever a
moment that anything you see or are about to do would raise a question to
anyone, you stop and call Compliance.

(FI No. 288, at 25). Based on Coach Freezes repeated refrain, he told the story of a staff member

doing exactly as instructed on a recruiting visit in 2015. When multiple staff members were making

an inhome visit with a prospect, they stopped and called the Compliance group to get approval

before going into the house. (See FI No. 288, at 136). Farrar explained that Coach Freeze encourages

the staff to have a relationship with the Compliance Department and affirmed that the staff had

an open line where he was comfortable going directly to Compliance with any question. (See FI

No. 274, 12/01/16 Farrar Int., at 78). Coach Freeze also put this expectation of communication

with Compliance into writing. In recruiting elite athletes, Farrar and the staff were told to

[c]ompete for them, but anything that would raise a question, Stop! Call compliance. (Exhibit 17).

Allegations 14, 16, and 17(ab) involve allegedly intentional violations that occurred during the

recruitment of during the 201415 recruiting calendar. In the weeks following Signing Day

2014, the end of the 201314 recruiting cycle, Coach Freeze and University Compliance

immediately began educating coaches and staff members about new NCAA rules as well as

reinforcing old ones. (See FI No. 298, at HF0682). In a prior year, when unofficial visits were picking

up, Farrar attended a presentation at a staff meeting led by the Compliance Department addressing

unofficial visits, specifically lodging, meals, and transportation for visiting athletes. Specifically, he

was asked and answered correctly the following question about what may be provided to a recruit:

66

While he obviously knew it to be true, he continued to receive education. On July 25, 2014,

Farrar attended a meeting in which he was told it was [n]ot permissible to reserve hotel rooms for

unofficial visitors. (FI No. 298, at HF0872). At a September Compliance meeting, Farrar and other

staff were told they [c]annot engage nonscholastic 3rd parties in recruiting and that doing so is a

violation that can result in suspension. (Id. at HF0886). In November, Farrar attended a meeting

where the staff was specifically told that it is a violation for third parties to provide [i]mpermissble

benefits to prospects . . . [if the] institution knows about or is involved with those benefits. (Id. at

HF0906).

In other words, while Farrar was (1) apparently arranging for transportation, meals, and

lodging, (2) allegedly initiating contact between boosters and , and (3) allegedly aware s

was receiving cash from boosters, he was being warned specifically in Compliance meetings, with

the same coaches to whom he had sworn to follow the rules, that the very illicit behaviors in which

he was allegedly engaged were violations. He was also affirming in writing that he would conduct

himself within NCAA and SEC rules while at the same time allegedly violating those rules. There is

67

no question that Coach Freeze and the Universitys Compliance Department were providing rules

education on the exact violations at issue in Allegation 20(i).

Additionally, there is no question that Farrar knew the relevant rules. Along with all other

football staff members, Farrar was required to take the annual coaching test to determine whether

he knew the rules. As part of his New Coach Orientation, he took the test and scored 28 of 30. In

what turned out to be his last season (2016), Farrar took the test and scored a perfect 30 of 30.

These documents demonstrate that Coach Freeze clearly set forth his expectations for Farrar.

They also show that Farrar knowingly and willingly acknowledged Coach Freezes expectations for

rules compliance. He knew unequivocally that it was his responsibility and duty to abide by NCAA

and SEC legislation. As Farrar said, he was responsible to know the rules, to abide by them, and if at

any time he did not know what the rules were or was in a gray area, he was to seek interpretation

from the Compliance staff.

Farrar had an extensive, 30year coaching history in the NCAA without any significant

compliance issues. He had superior recommendations from past head coaches who are men of

integrity. He had years on Coach Freezes and Coach Orgerons staffs at the University without any

major compliance issues. He had extensive rules education. He had a clear understanding of Coach

Freezes expectation for rules compliance and communication with Compliance. Based on all of that,

Farrar is exactly like the staff member profiled in the Wichita State case, and Coach Freeze had

every reason to consider Farrar a trusted and competent coach that he could rely on.

Coach Freeze specifically monitored Farrar

Although Farrar was a trusted and competent staff member and Coach Freeze consistently

promoted an atmosphere of compliance, he was diligent to continue to monitor Farrars work as

best he could. For example, Farrars phone records were checked on a monthly basis to determine

whether he had an impermissible contact with prospects. (Affirmation of Recruiting Activities

Statement, Exhibit 20). Nothing about Farrars use of his institutional phone raised a red flag.

68

Moreover, in 2014, Coach Freeze saw Farrar using a personal cellphone and felt like he was

trying to hide it. As Coach Freeze explained, it is not unusual for college coaches to have personal

phones because they change jobs and have private conversations on noninstitutional phones.

There is no rule against having a second phone. However, Coach Freeze felt like Farrar was hiding it

from him, which was strange. He immediately called him on it. Coach Freeze pulled Farrar into his

office with Director of Football Operations (and Farrars immediate supervisor) John Miller as a

witness to ask whether Farrar was using that nonUniversity phone for recruiting calls. Farrar

assured me absolutely not. No way. (See FI No. 288, 12/20/16 Freeze Int., at 158).125 Coach Freeze

strongly admonished Farrar that personal phones could not be used for recruiting. Farrar affirmed

his understanding and adamantly assured Coach Freeze that he was not using the phone for

anything other than personal reasons.

Despite this clear communication of the rules and specific efforts at monitoring, Farrar

explained to the enforcement staff that he sometimes used a backup phone on the road to

communicate with prospects or their family during permissible contact periods. He claimed that he

had never heard that all calls to and from recruits had to be made with an institutional phone. (FI

No. 274, at 1718). Farrars actions and statements clearly contradict the direct representations he

made in writing and to Coach Freezes face upon pointed questioning. Like the head baseball coach

in Wichita State, when an apparent issue came up, Coach Freeze asked pointed questions and relied

on a trusted and competent staff member to tell him the truth. Coach Freeze reasonably relied on

Farrars response.

Coach Freeze questioned and Farrar regarding visits

was considered an elite athlete by Coach Freeze and the staff, and his recruitment was

subject to the elite athlete checklist established by Coach Freeze. As part of Coach Freezes efforts to

125 This encounter was also documented in compliance records. (Exhibit 21, 2014 Compliance Notebook

Monitoring Example 13, at HF0628).

69

closely monitor visits by an elite prospect, when the staff was aware a prospect would be visiting

the University, Coach Freeze and the recruiting coaches would meet before and after the prospects

visit to determine, among other things, if there were any red flags during the visit. Coach Freeze

also encouraged his staff to talk with elite prospects about their transportation arrangements,

lodging or overnight plans, and third parties accompanying them on the visit.

Coach Freeze recalled at least two instances where he personally asked informal questions to

about his transportation arrangements. On both occasions, told Coach Freeze that he

was either driven by a cousin, , or that he drove himself. (FI No. 288, at 1345, 148).

Additionally, in both instances, the information provided in Coach Freezes postvisit meeting with

recruiting coaches and on Unofficial Visit forms matched response to Coach Freeze.

Following his December 2016 interview, Farrar admitted that provided s rides.

He appears to also have been aware that , a student football volunteer who also had

rules education for her position, was involved in providing rides to s and (another

elite prospect). Farrar also allegedly arranged for to provide a ride from another

institution to summer camp at the University. Yet, Farrar never brought these facts to Coach

Freezes attention.

The fact that Coach Freeze did not know of any alleged violations regarding

transportation, meals, and lodging is significant because the elite athlete checklist, in place for

recruitment, posed the following questions, among others:

1. How did they get here? Any red flags? Is form correct and accurate? Who
drove you?
2. Any third party issues? Any red flags?
3. Lodging? Are you staying overnight? If so, who is paying?
Relationship? Dormaccurate form?
4. Any meals in complex? Get money, make receipt, document.

(See FI No. 298, at HF0625). Despite this checklist, Farrar never raised any red flags regarding

transportation arrangements, lodging, meals, or contact with third parties. The checklist and

the postvisit discussions did raise red flags with other elite prospects during the same time period.

70

As Farrar confirmed in his interview, if he wanted to have provide transportation

for or anyone else) he would want to ask Matt Ball about [it] before . . . involving .

(FI No. 274, at 65). Although Farrar knew he should have cleared the rides with Compliance, he did

not contact Compliance and did not bring it to Coach Freezes attention as a potential red flag, nor

did he make any effort to review or correct Unofficial Visit forms.

Coach Freeze immediately reported evidence of potential violations

Finally, at the end of recruitment, Coach Freeze was told by Farrar that family had

been offered cash payments by other schools. At the time, Coach Freeze did not know that the

conversation had been recorded. However, Coach Freeze believes he informed Compliance of

mothers statement at that time; however, he is not certain, explaining that they often hear

crazy things like that but very seldom have any kind of proof. (FI No. 288, at 102).

Shortly after Signing Day, Coach Freeze learned of a Snapchat video of holding large

amounts of cash, apparently shopping for a new vehicle. He immediately forwarded the video to

Compliance and told them (either for the first or second time) about mothers statement

because the video lent some validity to the story. Around the same time, Coach Freeze also learned

that Farrar had recorded his conversation with mother. Coach Freeze reported that fact to

Compliance as well. He followed up a couple of times with Compliance on these issues but was told

that the SEC office may not give them an update unless the issue involved the University.

Aside from his repeated communication with Compliance, this incident is noteworthy for Coach

Freezes monitoring of Farrar. When Farrar first told him of the conversation, Coach Freezes

immediate reaction was to ask what he had said in response. Coach Freeze was assured that Farrar

did not offer any money and warned mother that she should be careful about jeopardizing

eligibility. When Coach Freeze learned that the conversation was recorded, he listened to

hear what Farrar had said. The recording matched Farrars representation. These actions only

71

served to reinforce Coach Freezes trust in Farrar and demonstrate his monitoring of Farrar and

recruitment.

Coach Freeze made pointed efforts at monitoring Farrar. There simply is no system to monitor

when a ruleseducated staff member with no history of compliance issues decides to intentionally

deceive the head coach. No matter how welldesigned Coach Freezes monitoring system, at some

level he must still trust his staff. Although Coach Freeze had every reason to trust Farrar, he

continued to monitor him by asking probing questions. Coach Freeze made reasonable efforts to

question Farrar about his use of a personal phone, to question s about his transportation

arrangements, to review any potential red flags with Farrar and other coaches recruiting s.

His efforts are precisely the type of monitoring approved in the Wichita State case and, in fact, serve

as an example of what the NCAA wants from its head coaches. This is, in no way, similar to the

general updates relied upon in the University of Mississippi womens basketball case.

2. There Were No Significant Red Flags in Recruitment.

The enforcement staff identified two areas, outside of the alleged intentional violations by

Farrar, where Coach Freeze allegedly failed to act on red flags. In reality, neither of the issues cited

by the enforcement staff amount to red flags that called for Coach Freeze to take steps beyond those

detailed above.

Coach Freezes suspicion did not call for any additional action

First, the enforcement staff points to Coach Freezes statement that he had a suspicion or

feeling that was seeking impermissible inducements. What Coach Freeze said specifically

was that mentioned how he hoped his mom would be able to move to a new house and that

said he did not have a car to travel from to Oxford. Coach Freeze explained that

he had trouble connecting with because he believed acted like an entitled person. He

also explained that those feelings were not a reason to stop recruiting s. Instead, Coach

Freezes hope was that bringing to the University would help him mature beyond that

72

attitude of entitlement. Officials from the Compliance Department have confirmed that feelings or

suspicions like this one are not a reason to discontinue recruiting a prospect.

Coach Freeze had no reason to suspect impermissible involvement by

Second, the enforcement staff claims Coach Freeze had reason to know that Farrar was

involving in recruitment because was present at the Universitys football

facilities. As an initial point, Coach Freeze knows who s is but does not have a personal

relationship with him. More importantly, at the time of recruitment, worked in the

1810 Grill, the restaurant inside the Manning Center, where Coach Freeze and his staff have their

offices. In other words, he was present because he worked in the building. While working at the

Grill, would occasionally accompany another worker to deliver breakfast to Coach Freeze in

his office. That is one of the few times Coach Freeze recalls seeing s in the football facility.

Coach Freeze was aware that is the cousin to former University players

and s. Coach Freeze has no memory of s being around the practice facility outside

of his job responsibilities at the 1810 Grill or when he accompanied former Ole Miss and current

NFL player when would return for visits. never had direct access to

the coaches offices or the players locker room.

Although it is alleged, Coach Freeze is currently unaware of any example of being present

for footballrelated activities during recruiting visits or camps.

At his interview in December 2016, Coach Freeze was shown, by the enforcement staff, three

group text messages on which Coach Freeze was included and which reference . (FI No. 241,

at 38, 47; FI No. 260, at 63). The only text of the three that implies is in direct communication

with a prospect involves talking to s, his cousin. The two other texts refer to

along with , also his cousin. Understandably, no red flags were raised in Coach

Freezes mind by a reference to in these contexts.

73

With regard to the / texts, Coach Freeze explained that their opinion about

recruitment was nothing more than that, their opinion. Those text messages refer to social

media posts and the swirling rumor mill around recruitment. Nothing in those texts

indicates that either or was involved in the recruitment of . Coach Freeze

explained that those texts would have raised a red flag if they had addressed a prospect in another

state, but not with regard to a prospect in southern Mississippi.

Further, Coach Freeze has taken a number of steps to direct not to involve himself in

recruiting in Mississippi. Coach Freeze has personally talked to on multiple occasions

about that topic. He has made clear his expectation that should not insert himself into the

recruitment of players and secured his agreement not to initiate contact with prospects. In addition

to Coach Freeze, Compliance has talked with about how to comply with NCAA bylaws

regarding former players and recruiting. Coach Freeze believes that , like many Mississippi

high school players, idolized and apparently reached out to him during the recruiting

process. The relationship between and was natural because of the

geographic proximity ( s) between their hometowns ( for ; for

) and their common interest in SEC football. For Coach Freeze , also from southern

Mississippi, is an extension of his cousin, .

As detailed above, if the violations alleged against Farrar are true, they were intentionally done

and concealed from Coach Freeze. There were no red flags that should have tipped Coach Freeze off

to a staff member arranging impermissible benefits for , initiating booster involvement in

recruitment, and ignoring alleged cash payments to s.

C. Potential Aggravating and Mitigating Factors.



Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.1, the NCAA enforcement staff has identified the following potential
aggravating and mitigating factors that the hearing panel may consider.

3. Involved party [Hugh Freeze (Freeze), head football coach]:

a. Aggravating factor(s). [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 19.9.3 (201617)]

74


(1) A pattern of noncompliance within the sport program(s) involved. [NCAA Bylaw
19.9.3(k) (201617)]

The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 5 through 10, 12 through 14, 16, 17a, 17b
and 20 involved Freeze and/or football personnel who reported to Freeze and
occurred over a threeyear period, including during the NCAA enforcement staff's
investigation. Additionally, the alleged violations involved failures by Freeze to
promote an atmosphere of compliance within the football program and monitor the
activities of his staff.

b. Mitigating factor(s). [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 19.9.4 (201617)]

The enforcement staff has not identified any mitigating factors applicable to Freeze.

RESPONSE TO AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS:

No Aggravating Factors Exist

Coach Freeze strongly denies that Aggravating Factors exist. Relying on Bylaw 19.9.3(k), the

NOA claims that a pattern of misconduct exists within the football program. However, Coach

Freezes efforts to promote compliance and monitor his staff are as robust as any in the country.

Coach Freeze has not engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Instead, throughout his time at Ole Miss

he has diligently and faithfully attempted to promote an atmosphere of compliance with his staff

while monitoring their activities. He responded to concerns that he picked up on throughout the

investigation. He has not turned a blind eye to the concerns for compliance. Indeed, when the

enforcement staff weighed whether to bring a Bylaw 11.1.1.1 charge in NOA1, they did not do so

because Coach Freezes robust and meaningful compliance efforts were enough to rebut the

presumption of responsibility.

Based on Coach Freezes wellorganized and methodical approach to compliance, there should

not be an aggravating factor.

Several Mitigating Factors Exist

Conversely, several mitigating factors exist. As has been exhibited within this response, Coach

Freeze has led and encouraged a staff to promptly selfdetect and disclose violations. Bylaw

19.9.4(a). Indeed, the football staff has selfreported 67 violations during Coach Freezes tenure,

75

including parts of Allegations Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, and 19 in NOA2. Additionally, Coach Freeze has led

efforts to remedy the behavior leading to those violations, producing meaningful corrective

measures that have reduced violations over time. Bylaw 19.9.4(b) and (d). He has implemented a

system whereby compliance methods are designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of

the institutional/coaches control standards. Bylaw 19.9.4(e).

That Coach Freeze prioritized the role of compliance on his staff is beyond dispute. Coach

Freeze has provided over 1,400 pages of compliance records retained by him during his tenure at

Ole Miss, demonstrating proactive measures he put in place to promote an atmosphere of

compliance and monitor his staff. In spite of the overwhelming weight of this evidence, if the

Committee finds a violation occurred, then whatever penalty the Committee chooses to deliver

should be mitigated by these overwhelming efforts. Coach Freeze was not asleep at the switch, he

was active and engaged.

Finally, Coach Freeze has been exemplary in his cooperation throughout the investigation.

Bylaw 19.9.4 (f). He has provided the documentation that the enforcement staff did not otherwise

have access to, provided candid responses to hours of questions over multiple interviews, and

complied with every request made of him and/or his staff.

In Spite of Coach Freezes Commitment to Compliance, This Investigation Has Taken a Toll on
Both the Ole Miss Program and Coach Freeze.

In the January 2016 Notice of Allegations, after a threeyear investigation, Coach Freeze was not

accused of direct rules violations or charged with indirect responsibility under Bylaw 11.1.1.1. After

yet another year of investigation, he is not accused of being personally involved in a Level I or II

violation. Further, the overwhelming evidence shows that Coach Freeze consistently promoted an

environment of compliance and took substantial steps to monitor the program. He modeled and

emphasized the significance of compliance through his leadership and example, by doing the job the

right way.

76

In spite of all this, Coach Freeze has already paid a steep price for this fouryear investigation,

which has affected both his program and his reputation. With regard to the program, the

investigation has impacted the team from a competitive standpoint by affecting both the

atmosphere of the current team and multiple recruiting classes. In Coach Freezes own words, Its

caused strains on relationships that I never thought would be strained . . . . And it was just like

walking on eggshells around the building, and youre in the dark on most of it and it makes you

makes me want to fight with Lee Tyner and Henry and guys you know because youre just in the

dark and youre trying to run a program. And you have no clue whats going on. (FI No. 288, at

191). Predictably, this impacted the team on the field. Again, Coach Freeze explained, Ive never

had a losing season until this year. Theres a lot of reasons for the losing season, I think, and some

of it has to do with the cloud thats over us. Thats been difficult. Id. at 190.

Further, the uncertainty of what may come coupled with Coach Freezes inability to discuss the

ongoing investigation has hurt recruiting classes. As he put it, I mean you cantyou have no

wayno finality to tell a recruit or his parents, while every other school is telling them everything

under the sun. Just theits very hard to manage your team when difficulty comes and theres

constantly articles coming out and youre losing recruits, and they really would like to come to our

environment, I believe that. But you cant give them any finality. (Id. at 19091). The fouryear

investigation impacted recruiting class after class and strained relationships within the program.

This has been a de facto sanction in itself.

More importantly, the investigation has punished Coach Freeze personally because it has been

used to attack his integrity and tarnish his reputation. In his December 2016 interview, he

emotionally described the personal impact of the investigation: Man, Ive got my family. And well

be fine whether we win on the scoreboard or not. But taking a hit to your integrity and to your

name is difficult. (Id. at 190).

77

Coach Freezes tireless efforts to promote a culture of compliance and to monitor his staff to

ensure compliance are more than sufficient to rebut the presumption that he is responsible for the

rules violations alleged in NOA2 against members of his staff. Whether intended or not, Coach

Freeze has been punished by the damage to his reputation, which cannot be undone. In the light of

the mountain of objective evidence of Coach Freezes compliance efforts, it would be fundamentally

unfair to add to that punishment for failing to promote compliance with NCAA rules or monitor his

staff responsibly.

For all the reasons stated herein, the Committee should find that Coach Freeze has not violated

NCAA legislation.

D. Request for Supplemental Information



Coach Freeze does not believe that responses to these requests are necessary except as set forth

below. As to the other requests, Coach Freeze adopts the responses of the University.


1. Walter G. Watkins, Jr.
wg.watkins@formanwatkins.com
200 S. Lamar Street, Suite 100
Jackson, MS 392014099
Office: 6019608608
Cell: 7692324021

5. Coach Freeze has no prior Level I or Level II violations. Coach Freeze has no previous
involvement in a major infractions case.

78

Appendix

Dr. Dan Jones


200915: Chancellor (University of Mississippi)
(Exhibit 5, 5/15/17 Jones Interview)

I was generally skeptical as I am with all people who wear their religion on their sleeve more
than I do now. In giving you my background, I noted that I was a medical missionary for
seven years, and so being now in a secular roleChancellor of the University of Mississippi,
Ole MissIm very sensitive to people trying to take advantage of that religious label to try
to approach me with religious talk thats not sincere because of my background. And so I had
my antenna up very very high on that with Hugh, and Ill say in the first conversation I was
completely convinced but more so in our long term relationship that weve had.
* * * * * *
One of the things that I remember very clearly saying to him was that if we formed a
relationship I would assure that in the first 34 years he would not be evaluated on wins and
losses that I would not allow an Athletic Director to make shortterm decisions on wins and
losses, that that would come later. That what we would look for was a program run with
integrity. . . . that playing by the rules, cutting no corners was crucial to my view of a
successful head football coach.
* * * * * *
We never had one conversation that made me uneasy about his approach to compliance. Just
as running a clean program was important [to me], it was equally important to him. . . . I
would say that one thing we share in common is having integrity a critical part of our
leadership style.
* * * * * *
[W]e would have four scheduled [quarterly] appointments in my office that was specifically
[to do] with compliance, but Hugh and I averaged seeing each other 23 times per week.
* * * * * *
[D]uring recruiting season, when we got to that phase of recruiting season for on campus
visits, I was part of on campus visits. He wanted the athletes and the parents to see me. He
wanted them to see the relationship the football program had with the University. . . . [H]e
wanted them to see the relationship the football coach had with the Chancellor of the
University. And he wanted . . . me to see his relationship with the athletes and their families.
* * * * * *
[Through the investigation], I never had any doubt about his personal commitment to
understand the truth and his personal commitment to following the rules. And to do
everything in his power to see that his staff followed the rules as well. . . . No doubt. You
know I was in meetings with he and his staff where he talked about the importance of
compliance and following the rules . . . I heard in my presence many times him emphasize to
his staff the importance of following all of the compliance rules, the big ones, the small ones,
everything in between.
* * * * * *
Joyful. I would be very very happy to be his Chancellor and for him to be my head football
coach again.

Ross Bjork
2012present: Vice Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics; Director of Athletics
(University of Mississippi)
(FI No. 139, 7/16/14 Bjork Interview)

[Meeting with coaches] Facetoface it averages about once every other week. . . . They can go
anywhere from five minutes, up to an hour at the most. . . . I would say I interact with some
coaches differently. Coach Freeze, probably every day.
* * * * * *
Ive been working full time in college athletics since 1996, and Ive never been around a head
coach of a major program whos more active, whos more involved, whos more concerned
about running a program the right way, at the highest level than Coach Freeze. He sets clear
expectations to his staff. . . . And so the level of detail, the level of interaction with the
compliance staff, proactively, Ive never seen anybody operate at the level Coach Freeze
does and be as active as he is in the compliance world, in the integrity world and making sure
we run the program, you know, with the highest standards.
* * * * * *
I have not lost any faith, nothing has really shaken my confidence in him as our head coach
and how he runs the program and the tone that he sets. Ive seen it directly. Ive seen it in
conversations that weve had. Ive seen it in phone calls that hell make to Matt or Julie asking
questions directly. And so, complete confidence in Coach Freeze running a high profile
program with high stakes and doing it the right way at the highest level.
* * * * * *
[W]hen the head coach control bylaw was revised and put in place, Coach Freeze took an
active role in making sure that he was doing the right things, that our program was doing the
right things, that he understood, you know, the areas of responsibility for staff that reported
directly or indirectly. He was the one really probing within our athletic department on what
this all meant as it relates to head coaches. And so that interaction and [his] questions led to
a meeting . . . it was spring of 2013 where we met with the Chancellor, myself, Coach Freeze,
and Matt [Ball], and went over the bylaw, went over the expectations. . . . Ive never seen a
coach more active for a high profile program than Coach Freeze as it relates to this.


Matt Ball
2011present: Senior Associate Athletics Director for Compliance (University of Mississippi)
(FI No. 111, 12/11/13 Ball Interview)

[Coach Freeze and his staff communicate with Compliance] multiple times a day. . . . I would
say [it is] mostly them calling us [to ask] recruiting questions, eligibility questions, financial
aid questions.
* * * * * *

[S]hortly after we started, it was probably February 2012 maybe. We got a . . . phone call and
we figured out all the . . . things we needed to track down, potential violations for phone calls.
And I took it over to [Coach Freeze] and obviously he just started and we didnt know each
other that well, and I said, Coach, this is how we do it. I said, Im going to go meet with your
coaches, go to their office and meet with them. Were going to talk about what happened on
all these phone calls, all these issues. And he said, do you want me to go with you? I said, no,
unless you really just want to. And he said, well, lets go.
And so we went down there and he went down the hall and started calling each one of them
out of the office, and he called every coach, even the ones not involved, into the war room,
and he sat there with the form in front of everyone and said that, and talked about the
expectation to do the right thing, and then he called the coaches by name and he said, heres
what theyre saying, what happened on this call? What happened here? We just went right
down the list. And so even the coaches that werent on the list had to sit there and listen to it.
There was a quicker way to get the answers but obviously we ended up writing a lot of that
up, but that was, I guess thats another, I just thought of that off the top . . . another story.
* * * * * *
Yeah, a lot, sometimes in which, I dont know, hopefully this doesnt become public, but, you
know, sometimes he, I, when we dealt with certain issues or something like that, something
thats gone on since the beginning, he knows that, hey this persons responsible for this and
he kind of facilitates us meeting with that person or group of people on his staff to make sure
somethings done and hes come back and said, hey, is everything working out right in that
area. And I know hes, my sense is hes talked to them and they say, oh, yeah, yeah,
everythings good and hes trying to . . . verify that what theyre telling him is right.
* * * * * *
[O]n football game day, sometimes after the game is over, hell just ask, hey, did everything
go okay today. . . . hes trying to monitor them, is get independent information from someone
outside football.
[A]fter the May [2013] all staff meeting . . . Ross asked the head coaches to hang around after
that and we passed out and talked about, went through it and talked about what it meant. . . .
[D]uring that meeting, Coach Freeze spoke up to the other head coaches and said if you
havent heard about this, youd better get on board because the SEC talked to us in February
about this and this is viewed very seriously and you know, you need to make sure youre
following whats in here and ask if you have questions, so he gave a little speech to the
coaches.
* * * * * *
[M]y recollection is he was driving back from [the SEC meetings] in midFebruary and he
said, hey, we need to set up a meeting, Coach Freeze told me, we need to set up a meeting
with Ross and the Chancellor to go over this because thats one of the things that were
supposed to do, Im supposed to do to fulfill this. And so that kind of got the ball rolling. I
think we had that meeting in early March cause the Chancellors schedule didnt allow it
before that or something.
* * * * * *

[W]eve met about the head coach control manual and talked through that in particular and
what he should do in all those areas or in, not all those areas but, you know, going through
our manual what he should do in several of those areas at least.
* * * * * *
Outside of the formal meeting settings, the nature is definitely, theyre contacting us. I mean,
well send out proactive, you know, the regular proactive schedule of emails . . . that were
always going to do and information through that means. And sometimes, theyll call back
with specifics. . . . theyre going to, you know, if they want something, theyre going to
proactively come seek us out.
* * * * * *
One of the things the he said from the very beginning is, when he got there . . . I told,
potentially we told him thats what we did was meet with the staff once a month and so hes
never really pushed back on that or anything. Hes been good with that. The other thing, was
he said, he goes, you guys are welcome. . . . they say, hey, you guys are welcome to come to
these staff meetings. We have these staff meetings every morning. You can come every day if
you want to. You dont have to present. . . . But theyve opened the door and said youre more
than welcome any time you want to come and that was since day one.
* * * * * *
[T]heyve done a really good job. Sometimes they bring stuff to our attention that theyre not
sure if its a violation, but just for us to check on, to have on the radar.



Tom Allen
2017present : Head Coach (Indiana University)
(Exhibit 6, Straight talk from three of Freezes former assistants)

What drew me to want to work for Coach Freeze is the connection we had and the values we
shared. The things that were important to me family, faith and mentoring young men
were very important to him. It was very obvious to me that he and I were similar in our
beliefs.
* * * * * *
Hugh had his family right in the thick of the program and he allowed us and encouraged us to
do the same things. The kind of environment he created for us as a staff was something I am
emulating at Indiana. . . . Its hard to do in this profession, but Hugh gave me the blueprint
and I am grateful for that.

Maurice Harris
2012present : Tight Ends Coach (University of Mississippi)
(FI No. 64, 5/9/13 Harris Interview)

If we have any questions about the rules handbook, see Matt Ball before you do it. . . . Or talk
to Matt Ball before you do it. Dont do it. And this is now, you know. Really been put an
emphasis on it because of everything that were going through, you know. If you have any
question he dont care. Now he doesnt care how minor it is. See Matt Ball and talk to Matt
Ball before you do it. . . . Dont go off your prior knowledge, call.

Matt Luke
2017present : Co-Offensive Coordinator/Offensive Line Coach (University of Mississippi)
(8/20/13 Luke Interview)

I mean, hes very clear that it affects all our families. I mean, thats the and he said more,
but thats the one that strikes close to home for me because it affects not only you, but it
affects all our families and . . . . I dont know another way to put it, but hes made it very clear
in those meetings that it does affect our family and hes a coach that allows our families to be
around and hes said on numerous occasions that, ya know, you dont gotta do this. This is, ya
know, itll affect your family.
* * * * * *
[H]es big on documenting. Hey, lets document everything. Lets just make sure, ya know,
everythings documented.

Wesley McGriff
2016present : Defensive Coordinator (University of Mississippi)
(Exhibit 12, McGriff Affidavit)

[D]uring the past two decades I have worked under five other head football coaches in NCAA
Division I. Id say that all of them were conscientious about the NCAA rules, but Coach Freeze
stands out. He is constantly on us about this not only in staff meetings, but also on a
constant daily basis whenever he has the opportunity. For example, if were talking about
something related to a recruit, hell interject and say, Make sure all that gets entered into
ACS. Any time were talking about anything, if it relates to compliance, hell say something
about it.
* * * * * *

The environment Coach Freeze has established in the football program never makes you feel
like you need to break the rules. He is very clear that he expects us to do the right things
according to the rules, and that is the first priority. Hes encouraging rather than threatening
about it he always tells us you dont have to break the rules. He regularly says your career,
your family, and the families of everyone else in the room are all counting on you to do the
right things do no jeopardize that.
* * * * * *
Of the head coaches Ive worked with, Coach Freeze is definitely the most diligent about
calling or texting while Im on the road to check in with me. He tells me that I dont need to
put my career on the line by compromising on the rules, and reminds me not to be tempted
or enticed by boosters or anyone else. Ive never felt tension between the rules and doing my
job Coach Freeze makes it very clear that theres no pressure to sign kids; the pressure is to
do things the right way.
* * * * * *
Back in 2012, Coach Freeze heard a rumor that Id communicated with a [booster] about a
recruit. Freeze called me and severely admonished and chastised me about it, and reminded
me I didnt have to do that. He really chewed me out about it. I let him finish before telling
him that I hadnt done anything like that. Coach Freeze said he was going to look into it, and
he did. He found out it was someone else, so he came back and apologized to me.


Derrick Nix
2008present : Running Backs Coach (University of Mississippi)
(FI No. 89, 8/20/13 Nix Interview)

Well we talk about you know first of all taking care and doing the rules the right way and
doing things the right way and representing and giving it first the right way. . . . He
emphasizes that over and over again. But he said if anything ever comes up: phone call,
something on the road, you call it in immediately and [Compliance] know.
* * * * * *
Just an actual example? You know I know if we ever have a kid thats coming unofficially . . . If
the group hes with doesnt look right . . . turn it in or let somebody be aware. Find out who
was with this kid and if its not your standard mom, dad, family that theres an outside guy
thats kind of foreign to being with this kid and should be at this school or whatever else to
make sure we kind of notify everybody about whats going on. Thats something that I can
think of off the top of my head right now.

Dan Werner
20122016 : Offensive Coordinator (University of Mississippi)
(Exhibit 6, Straight talk from three of Freezes former assistants)

I have worked for 16 head coaches in my career and I ranked them 116 on who talked more
about doing things the right way, who is encouraging and demanding the staff all the time to
make sure they are abiding by NCAAA rules, who is the stickler for compliance and who
preached to his staff constantly about the importance of compliance, Hugh Freeze is number
one. He would say if you break a rule, it would hurt every family in that room and that was
not something he was willing to risk.
* * * * * *
This guy fired me. I could easily be bashing him, but I am for what is right and all I can tell
you is what I heard from him in regards to playing by the rules and compliance literally
every single day in staff meetings. . . . Hugh set the tone for compliance and he monitored it
to the best of his ability.



Dave Wommack
20122016 : Defensive Coordinator (University of Mississippi)
(Exhibit 6, Straight talk from three of Freezes former assistants)

We had mandatory compliance meetings all the time and every recruiting meeting, which
were frequent, Hugh would tell us to do it by the rules and do it the right way.
* * * * * *
There was something different about him. I didnt know him, but I felt comfortable with him
immediately. I was skeptical because I had been in the SEC and ACC and wasnt sure if I
wanted to coach in the Sun Belt. But after I met him, I knew he was special. He was sincere.
He is a man of faith, true faith. . . . He was about more than just coaching football, he was
about building men and teaching young men about life and the right way to live it.
* * * * * *
He was always on the upandup with compliance and with monitoring our activities the best
you can as a head coach. . . . How do you monitor nine assistants and an alumni base 24 hours
a day? He was as good as I have ever worked for or seen doing that part of his job the best he
humanly could.



Barney Farrar
20122016 : Assistant Athletic Director for High School & Junior College Relations
(University of Mississippi)
(FI No. 226, 3/23/16 Farrar Interview; 8/12/15 Farrar Interview)

Coach Freeze is the first guy since to be sincere, since that Ive worked for
when you know the He expects us to follow the rules. And he expects us to be honest with
him. And those would be two general rules he asks of us. He makes sure that when were in
compliance meetings that we know what the rule is stating and if theres no leeway here
theres no leeway there. It is what it is and hes Yes, he expects us to understand and know
the rules well.
* * * * * *
I mean, he wants us to have a relationship with Matt [Ball] and Julie [Owen]. And any time
we have functions that we can invite them with I say the Bowl. We try to invite them. We
want them around us as much as possible. We want them . . . weve all go to work together so
we all need to be around each other and enjoy each other.
* * * * * *
Hes going to keep us with it through Im sure we make notes over what was went over in
the compliance meeting. He makes sure that happens. Those notes are filed. Every time we
have a meeting theyre written up, typed up . . . and theyre taken to his secretary. We have
notes of every meeting that we went over compliance.
* * * * * *
Hes going to text you, call you daily. And you know he wants to know where youre at, what
youre doing, how you would you know how its going. If you get to see this person or dont
get to see that person you know during a contact period. . . . Hes on top of it.
* * * * * *
Ive worked for six head coaches. Coach Freeze, nobody cares about his name more. We
wanted to handle this exactly correct. He said, make sure you run through Compliance with
this. If its strictly the right way, thats the way we want to do it, so thats what I did. I called
Matt and Julie.




In His Own Words

Hugh Freeze
2012present : Head Coach (University of Mississippi)
(FI No. 90, 8/20/13 Freeze Interview; FI No. 116, 12/17/13 Freeze Interview;
FI No. 288, 12/20/16 Freeze Interview )

I called that meeting immediately after the February 14th meeting with the SEC head
coaches, with our Compliance office, our Chancellor, our AD I did all that stuff and I
documented all of that stuff, and I know when I go through the job description before fall
camp every single year, I reiterate again to those guys, I want you to look at what number
one is under your job description. And it is to comply, totally, with all NCAA rules and
regulations.
* * * * * *
I go through and I talk to them about all those things and what my expectations are in
regards to protecting the brand of our program and me and my name and my familys name
and them and their familys name. Why would you ever want to put your family at risk? I
mean, I talk to them pretty straight. And if you put my family at risk, you will be looking for a
job. And Ive told them that. . . . I want them to understand there is no doubt. And if we cant
win doing it right, Ill go fishing.
* * * * * *
My family, my wife, my kids, your wife, your kids, man, we depend upon each other. This is
the discussion I have with them. I have to have your help on this. I cannot see all of the
recruiting, all of the third parties. All of who is with them. I cant possibly do all of that, and
you are putting me in a bind and everyone in this room at risk if you choose to do that. And I
actually make every staff member I go around the room, they all have to sign an agreement
that theyre going to comply that weve come up with. But I make them verbalize that to the
whole staff. I put them in there on the spot in front of everybody in here. Can we depend
upon you to not put us at risk and to do what is right. And not worry about the scoreboard or
wins and who loses at recruiting or this or that. And I make them verbalize that to the staff
that we can depend upon them in that. And thats its that important to me.
* * * * * *
The people that are involved in his recruiting and the recruiting staff are going to be asked,
how are they planning on getting here? Are there any red flags with that? Is the form that
they filled out accurate and correct? Who drove them? Any thirdparty issues, any red flags
with that? Lodging, are they staying the night? Where are they staying, what is the
relationship? If it is the dorm, is it accurate? Any meals in complex, get the money, make the
receipt, and document it. . . . And the last thing I always say, compete for them, but anything
that would raise a question, stop and call compliance.
* * * * * *

These are possible third parties that my staff has identified to me that we have called
compliance on: was a r that brought kids to campus. We werent sure if
he could or not, so in our meeting, I caught it. who is a , I caught him.
, in , r, some trainer in . s, next
door neighbor of . , r because of the early issue
with s when he was identified as part of the staff to one of my coaches which
led to all of those problems we had three of those come up: ,
r,
* * * * * *
I mean shows up for his official visit. Hes got a stepmom with him. We
dont know if shes really the stepmom. We get compliance involved. , third
party roaming around our place, booster. I call Matt Ball. He was hanging out and talking to
one of my coaches.



10

You might also like