With SEC Media Days over, Ole Miss is only a month away from opening the 2016 college football season. However, while the football program's focus is solely on its opening game against the Florida State Seminoles, Hugh Freeze may be facing an additional battle.
Freeze's program is alleged to have committed 13 NCAA rules violations, including multiple Level 1 violations, which are levied for "severe breaches of conduct." Additionally, former Ole Miss offensive tackle Laremy Tunsil admitted to receiving impermissible benefits from an Ole Miss football staff member during the NFL Draft.
BENDER: Judgment can't come soon enough for Freeze, Rebels
While Freeze has denied any intentional wrongdoing and has called the violations "mistakes", many have speculated he could face sanctions under the NCAA's revised enforcement process via the new penalty matrix.
What NCAA compliance expectations of head coaches tell us
NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.1.1 places the responsibility on the head coach of a program to promote an atmosphere of NCAA rules compliance within his or her program, as well as to monitor the activities of his or her staff to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation. The NCAA expects head coaches to keep detailed documentation of these efforts.
Further, Bylaw 11.1.1.1 presumes a head coach has knowledge of what is occurring in his or her program and, therefore, a head coach can be held responsible for the actions of staff members or other individuals associated with the head coach's program. This essentially means that if a violation occurs, it is the responsibility of the coach to prove his or her innocence rather than the NCAA proving the coach's guilt.
MORE: Top 16 programs since 2000
As a result, a head coach who ultimately is found to have failed to meet his or her responsibilities under Bylaw 11.1.1.1 may receive a game suspension that corresponds to the severity of the violation (i.e., Freeze's involvement in a Level I violation would result in a longer game suspension than being involved in a Level II or III violation) or even a show-cause order should the violation be severe enough.
Here, Freeze was not alleged to have breached his Bylaw 11.1.1.1 responsibilities despite being present when some of the alleged violations occurred. While this does not guarantee Freeze will escape sanctions, it seems to indicate his outcome may not be too severe. Specifically, if Freeze is presumed to have knowledge of any violations occurring within his program and will be penalized for violations that occurred if he cannot rebut this presumption, the failure of the NCAA to make this allegation would seemingly be removing his duty to rebut his presumed knowledge of the alleged violations.
So while some expect this ongoing case to slow Ole Miss' progress during Freeze's tenure, the early indication is that Freeze's personal outcome may be less severe than what many expect.
Justin P. Sievert, Esq. is the founder/principal of Sievert Collegiate Consulting, a professor of sports law at the University of Tennessee, and is a contributing writer on sports law and sports business issues for Sporting News. He is an attorney licensed to practice in Tennessee, North Carolina and Florida and has focused his practice on higher education and sports law. Justin has a Bachelors of Arts (B.A.) from Union College (NY), a Master's Degree in Education (M.ED) from St. Lawrence University and a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Miami (FL).