Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. ALLEGATION NO. 1 Saunders and Vaughn engaged in ACT exam fraud on behalf
of and [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and
10.1-(h) (2009-10); 14.1.2, 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.5 (2010-11); 14.11.1 (2010-
11 through 2012-13); and 14.10.1 (2013-14)] ................................................................................. 5
III. ALLEGATION NO. 2 Saunders, Vaughn and Nix arranged for Thigpen to provide
impermissible housing, meals and transportation to
and [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-
(c), 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.15.1 (2009-10); 14.11.1 (2010-11
through 2012-13); and 14.10.1 (2013-14)] ...................................................................................... 6
IV. ALLEGATION NO. 3 Vaughn violated the cooperative principle and knowingly
provided false or misleading information regarding Allegation No. 1. [NCAA Division
I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2 (2013-14)] ...................................... 8
VI. ALLEGATION NO. 5 Hughes made impermissible recruiting contact with and
provided various impermissible recruiting inducements to
and M. Harris knew of and at times facilitated Hughes' recruiting activities
and arranged impermissible hotel lodging for and [NCAA
Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4-(a), 13.1.2.5,
13.1.3.5.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b), 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 (2012-13)]
....................................................................................................................................................... 10
VII. ALLEGATION NO. 6 The football program produced and/or played impermissible
personalized recruiting videos and did so with Freeze's knowledge and approval.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.4.1.5 and 13.6.7.9 (2012-13)] ........................................... 12
VIII. ALLEGATION NO. 7 The football program arranged impermissible hunting trips
for on land owned by a booster. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 and
13.6.7.1 (2012-13); 16.11.2.1 (2013-14)] ...................................................................................... 13
IX. ALLEGATION NO. 8 Kiffin arranged impermissible hotel lodging and meals for
family members who were not parents or legal guardians of during his official
paid visit. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 (2012-13)] ................. 14
i
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Table of Contents
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
__________
XIV. ALLEGATION NO. 13 Kiffin made impermissible recruiting contact with and
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.1 (2013-14)] ................................................... 19
ii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 1
April 2010 The institution hired David Saunders (Saunders) as administrative operations
coordinator for football.
May and June 2010 Saunders and Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), then assistant football coach and
recruiting coordinator, engaged in fraudulence or misconduct in connection with the June 2010
ACT exams taken by then football prospective student-athletes (
( and ( (Allegation No. 1).
Summer of 2010 Saunders, Vaughn and Derrick Nix (Nix), assistant football coach, arranged
for then football prospective student-athletes (
( ( and to live with Darel Thigpen
(Thigpen), then representative of the institution's athletics interests, while enrolled in summer
courses in Jackson, Mississippi (Allegation No. 2).
December 5, 2011 The institution hired Hugh Freeze (Freeze) as head football coach.
October 2012 to March 2013 Walter Hughes (Hughes), then representative of the institution's
athletics interests, engaged in impermissible activities in recruiting then football prospective
student-athletes ( (
( and ( and Maurice Harris (M. Harris), assistant football
coach and recruiting coordinator, facilitated Hughes' involvement and arranged free hotel
lodging for and (Allegation No. 5).
October 17, 2012 The NCAA enforcement staff issued a verbal notice of inquiry to the
institution in Case No. 189693 regarding potential violations in women's basketball.
January to February 2013 The football program made impermissible recruiting videos
(Allegation No. 6); the football program arranged an impermissible hunting trip for then
football prospective student-athlete ( (Allegation No. 7); Chris Kiffin
(Kiffin), then assistant football coach, arranged impermissible hotel lodging and meals in
conjunction with then football prospective student-athlete ( official
paid visit (Allegation No. 8); and Kiffin arranged for ( then boyfriend
to mother, ( to receive free merchandise from Rebel Rags,
LLC (Rebel Rags) (Allegation No. 9).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 2
February to August 2013 The institution and enforcement staff investigated issues detailed
in Allegation Nos. 5, 6 and 8.
March to May 2013, July to August 2015, February to March 2016, August 2016 to January
2017 The enforcement staff and institution investigated issues detailed in Allegation No. 9.
June 2013 to May 2014 Chan Patel (Patel), then representative of the institution's athletics
interests, provided impermissible lodging to and (Allegation No. 11).
August 2013 to December 2014 The enforcement staff and institution investigated issues
detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 4.
August 14 to 31, 2013 Vaughn communicated with individuals with knowledge of pertinent
facts of the enforcement staff's investigation (Allegation No. 3).
December 3, 2013 Freeze made impermissible, in-person recruiting contact with then football
prospective student-athlete ( (Allegation No. 12).
December 16, 2013, and February 25, 2014 Saunders knowingly provided false or misleading
information to the enforcement staff and institution during interviews (Allegation No. 4).
December 17, 2013 Vaughn knowingly provided false or misleading information to the
enforcement staff and institution during an interview (Allegation No. 3).
December 2013 to January 2014 The football program arranged impermissible hunting trips
on land owned by a booster for then football student-athlete
March 2014 to February 2015 Barney Farrar (Farrar), then assistant director for high school
and junior college relations, arranged for to receive free merchandise from Rebel Rags
(Allegation No. 9); Farrar arranged impermissible recruiting inducements for then football
prospective student-athlete ( and/or friends and family
(Allegation Nos. 14 and 17); Farrar initiated and facilitated impermissible recruiting contact of
by and , then representatives of the institution's
athletics interests, and knew and provided with cash payments (Allegation
Nos. 14, 16 and 17); and (4) Lee Harris (L. Harris), then representative of the institutions
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 3
athletics interests, provided with cash payments and provided and his friends and
family with free food and drinks (Allegation No. 15).
May 8, 2014 Kiffin made impermissible, in-person recruiting contact with then football
prospective student-athletes ( and ( (Allegation No.
13).
August 22, 2014 Michael Strojny (Strojny), then representative of the institution's athletics
interests, provided $800 cash to (Allegation No. 18).
August 2014 to August 2015 Cannon Motor Company (Cannon Motors), then representative
of the institution's athletics interests, provided then football student-athlete and football
student-athlete ( impermissible loaner vehicles. Additionally, Cannon
Motors and Michael Joe Cannon (Cannon), owner of Cannon Motors and then representative
of the institution's athletics interests, provided an impermissible $3,000 loan (Allegation
No. 19).
October to December 2014 The enforcement staff and institution investigated issues detailed
in Allegation No. 13.
July to September 2015 The enforcement staff and institution investigated issues detailed in
Allegation Nos. 9, 10, 11, 18 and 19.
September 2015 to January 31, 2016 Farrar arranged for then football prospective student-
athlete ( to receive free merchandise from Rebel Rags (Allegation No. 9).
January 22, 2016 The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations in Case No. 189693.
March 17, 2016 The enforcement staff issued a verbal notice of inquiry to the institution in
Case No. 00561.
April 2016 The enforcement staff's football development group began receiving information
of additional potential violations in football.
April 28, 2016 Information surfaced regarding potential additional violations involving
that the enforcement staff and institution required additional time to investigate.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 4
June 2, 2016 The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions bifurcated Case No. 189693,
severing the women's basketball and track and field portions of the case from the football
portion of the case.
June 8, 2016 The enforcement staff issued a revised notice of allegations in Case No. 189693
that contained only the women's basketball and track and field allegations.
July 25, 2016 The Committee on Infractions heard Case No. 189693.
Late July 2016 The enforcement staff's football development group provided the investigative
team information of potential additional violations, including and
August 2016 to February 2017 The enforcement staff and institution investigated issues
detailed in Allegation Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 14 through 17.
December 21, 2016 Representatives from the institution and Southeastern Conference visited
the NCAA national office for a pre-notice of allegations conference.
February 22, 2017 The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations in Case No. 00561.
May 23, 2017 The institution, Farrar, Freeze, M. Harris, Kiffin and Nix submitted their
responses to the notice of allegations.
June 19, 2017 The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with the institution.
June 23, 2017 The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with Freeze.
June 28, 2017 The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with Vaughn.
July 5, 2017 The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with M. Harris.
July 6, 2017 The enforcement staff conducted prehearing conferences with Nix and Farrar.
July 12, 2017 The enforcement staff conducted prehearing conferences with Kiffin and
Saunders.
July 21, 2017 The enforcement staff submitted its reply and statement of the case.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 5
II. ALLEGATION NO. 1 Saunders and Vaughn violated the principles of ethical conduct
when they engaged in fraudulence or misconduct in connection with the June 2010 ACT
exams of and [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1
and 10.1-(h) (2009-10); 14.1.2, 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.5 (2010-11); 14.11.1 (2010-11
through 2012-13); and 14.10.1 (2013-14)]
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
B. Position of Saunders.
Saunders did not submit a response to the notice of allegations, but denied knowledge of and/or
C. Position of Vaughn.
B. Position of Saunders.
Saunders did not submit a response to the notice of allegations but denied knowledge of and/or
C. Position of Vaughn.
D. Position of Nix.
Nix asserts that if he committed a violation, his culpability should be considered Level III.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 2 is a severe breach
1. Did Saunders knowingly arrange for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and
transportation to and
2. Did Vaughn knowingly arrange for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and
transportation to and
3. Did Nix assist in arranging for Thigpen to provide free housing, meals and
transportation to
5. If the panel concludes Nix is culpable for violations, what is the level of his culpability?
A. Position of institution.
The institution did not take a position regarding the alleged violations.
B. Position of Vaughn.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 3 is a severe breach
1. Did Vaughn violate the NCAA cooperative principle when he communicated with
individuals with knowledge of pertinent facts regarding the investigation after being
2. Did Vaughn knowingly provide false or misleading information in his December 2013
in Allegation No. 1?
A. Position of institution.
The institution did not take a position regarding the alleged violations.
B. Position of Saunders.
Saunders did not submit a response to the notice of allegations, but denied knowledge of and/or
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 4 is a severe breach
Did Saunders knowingly provide false or misleading information in his December 2013 and February
2014 interviews when he denied knowledge of and/or involvement in the violations detailed in Allegation
No. 1?
VI. ALLEGATION NO. 5 Hughes made impermissible recruiting contact with, and
provided impermissible recruiting inducements to, and
Additionally, M. Harris knew of Hughes' association to the four prospects and
at times facilitated Hughes' recruiting activities. M. Harris also arranged impermissible
hotel lodging for and [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2,
13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4-(a), 13.1.2.5, 13.1.3.5.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b), 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.5.3,
13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 (2012-13)]
A. Position of institution.
The institution generally agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation
occurred. However, it disputes certain facts detailed in Allegation Nos. 5-e, 5-h, 5-j, 5-m and 5-o.
B. Position of M. Harris.
M. Harris denies facilitating Hughes' involvement in the four prospects' recruitment or knowing at the
time that Hughes was providing them with impermissible inducements. M. Harris also incorporates the
institution's disagreements regarding Allegation Nos. 5-e, 5-h, 5-j, 5-m and 5-o.
M. Harris believes his culpability for the alleged violations is not Level I.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 5 is a severe breach
and
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 12
2. Did Hughes' presence for a portion of in-home recruiting visit by Freeze and
T. Scott and other football staff as detailed in Allegation No. 5-h? Relatedly, did M.
occasion?
5. Did M. Harris arrange for to stay in a hotel room the institution provided
6. Did Freeze know at the time that Hughes and/or Hughes' family was providing
7. If the hearing panel concludes M. Harris is culpable for violations, what is the level of
his culpability?
VII. ALLEGATION NO. 6 The football program produced and/or played impermissible
personalized recruiting videos on three occasions and did so with Freeze's knowledge and
approval. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.4.1.5 and 13.6.7.9 (2012-13)]
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
However, it asserts Freeze has no culpability for the violations and naming him was unfairly prejudicial
B. Position of Freeze.
Freeze agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations occurred but disagrees he is culpable.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 6 is a breach of
Does the factual information substantiate culpability by Freeze for these violations?
VIII. ALLEGATION NO. 7 The football program arranged impermissible hunting trips for
on land owned by a booster. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.6.7.1
(2012-13); 16.11.2.1 (2013-14)]
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 7 is a breach of
None.
IX. ALLEGATION NO. 8 Kiffin arranged impermissible hotel lodging and meals for family
members who were not parents or legal guardians of [NCAA Division I Manual
Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 (2012-13)]
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
B. Position of Kiffin.
Kiffin agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 8 is a significant
X. ALLEGATION NO. 9 Kiffin arranged free merchandise from Rebel Rags for
and Farrar did so for and [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1,
13.2.1.1-(b) and 13.2.1.1-(f) (2012-13, 2013-14 or 2014-15 and 2015-16)]
A. Position of institution.
The institution disagrees the facts are substantially correct or violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
B. Position of Farrar.
C. Position of Kiffin.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 9 is a severe breach of
merchandise from Rebel Rags during January 2013 official paid visit?
2. Did Farrar arrange for to receive approximately $400 worth of free merchandise
from Rebel Rags during a recruiting visit to the institution between March 28, 2014,
merchandise from Rebel Rags over four recruiting visits to the institution between
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and a violation of NCAA legislation occurred.
B. Position of Kiffin.
Kiffin agrees the facts are substantially correct and a violation of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 10 is a breach of
None.
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 11: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 18
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 11 is a severe breach
None.
A. Position of institution.
The institution disagrees the facts are substantially correct or that a violation of NCAA legislation
occurred.
B. Position of Freeze.
Freeze disagrees the facts are substantially correct or a violation of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude Allegation No. 12 is a breach of conduct
(Level III).
December 3, 2013?
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
B. Position of Kiffin.
Kiffin agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 13 is a breach of
None.
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 14: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The enforcement staff and institution agree the facts regarding Allegation Nos. 14-a through 14-d, 14-
h and 14-i are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The institution disagrees
with the facts regarding Allegation Nos. 14-e, 14-f and 14-g.
B. Position of Farrar.
Farrar agrees the facts regarding Allegation Nos. 14-b and 14-d concerning transportation are
substantially correct and violations occurred as well as acknowledges responsibility for the portions of
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 21
Allegation No. 14 concerning meals. However, Farrar disagrees with the facts regarding Allegation No. 14-
c concerning transportation and Allegation Nos. 14-d through 14-i concerning hotel lodging.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 14 is a severe breach
1. Did Farrar arrange free transportation for in conjunction with a summer football
2. Did Farrar arrange free transportation for in conjunction with a summer football
3. Did Farrar arrange free transportation and hotel lodging for and as
detailed in Allegation No. 14-d? Relatedly, did Farrar arrange free transportation for
on this occasion?
4. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in conjunction with an
unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-e? Relatedly, did the football program
5. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in conjunction with an
unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-f? Relatedly, did the football program
6. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for and in conjunction with an
unofficial visit as detailed in Allegation No. 14-g? Relatedly, did the football program
8. Did Farrar arrange free hotel lodging for during official paid visit as
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 15: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees and L. Harris had an in-person and telephone contact during his
recruitment. The institution also agrees and his companions received free food and drinks from L.
Harris' restaurant and bar on at least one occasion. However, the institution does not believe the facts
substantiate L. Harris provided the food and drinks or cash payments to and/or his companions.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 15 is a severe breach
Did L. Harris provide between $200 and $600 in impermissible cash payments to on two or three
occasions between March 28, 2014, and January 25, 2015? Relatedly, did L. Harris provide and his
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 16: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts regarding Farrar initiating and facilitating and
impermissible recruiting contact with are substantially correct and that violations of NCAA
legislation occurred. However, the institution disagrees that the facts concerning and alleged
The institution believes the violations concerning and impermissible recruiting contact
B. Position of Farrar.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 16 is a severe breach
cash payments? If so, did Farrar know at the time and provided the
payments?
XVIII. ALLEGATION NO. 17 Farrar violated the principles of ethical conduct when he
knowingly committed violations of NCAA legislation and knowingly provided false or
misleading information regarding Allegation Nos. 14 and 16. [NCAA Division I Manual
Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c) (2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17)]
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 25
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 17: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts regarding Allegation Nos. 17-a, 17-c and 17-d are substantially correct
and that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. Additionally, the institution agrees the facts regarding
Allegation Nos. 17-b and 17-e, aside from the facts concerning impermissible cash payments, are
The institution agrees the violations are Level I despite its disagreement regarding certain alleged facts.
B. Position of Farrar.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 17 is a severe breach
1. Did Farrar knowingly arrange impermissible transportation and/or hotel lodging for
and
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Case No. 00561
July 21, 2017
Page No. 26
in conjunction with recruiting visits to the institution, including visits in June, July and
August 2014?
conjunction with six unofficial visits to the institution between August 15 and
4. Did Farrar knowingly initiate and facilitate impermissible recruiting contact and
communication of by and
5. Did Farrar know at the time that and provided with impermissible
cash payments?
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 18: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and a violation of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 18 is a severe breach
None.
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 19: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The institution agrees the facts are substantially correct and violations of NCAA legislation occurred.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 19 is a severe breach
None.
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 20: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
B. Position of Freeze.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 20 is a severe breach
Did Freeze rebut the presumption of responsibility for the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 5
through 10, 12 through 14, 16, 17-a and 17-b by demonstrating that he promoted an atmosphere of
XXII. ALLEGATION NO. 21 The institution failed to exercise institutional control and
monitor the conduct and administration of its athletics program. [NCAA Constitution
2.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1 (2009-10 and 2011-12 through 2015-16); and NCAA Constitution 6.4.1
and 6.4.2 (2009-10 and 2012-13 through 2015-16)]
Alleged Level of Allegation No. 21: Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation).
A. Position of institution.
The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 21 is a severe breach
Did the institution fail to demonstrate institutional control and monitor the conduct and administration
of its athletics program as evidenced by the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 16, 17-a,
17-b and 18 through 20, and Finding Nos. IV-C and IV-H in Committee on Infractions Decision No. 460?