Ole Miss defends itself to NCAA, now up to committee to decide

OXFORD - The NCAA’s enforcement staff stated its case when it wrapped up its long investigation into Ole Miss’ football program and delivered its notice of allegations to the university in February.

With the release of its response to the notice of allegations on Tuesday, Ole Miss has made its play.

And the decision of how this ultimately all plays out remains in the hands of who it always has - the Committee on Infractions.

RELATED: Kellenberger: Latest response shows just how all-in Ole Miss is with Hugh Freeze

Ole Miss certainly is in trouble. It’s staring straight at 21 allegations, 15 of which are considered Level I (which the NCAA considers the most serious). Coach Hugh Freeze has been charged with violating his head coach responsibility legislation, a Level I violation, and the university was charged with lack of institutional control, another Level I violation.

Ole Miss and its counsel tried its best to create some doubt and give the committee something to think about with its response.

And it centered around the accounts and credibility of “Student-Athlete 39,” whose name was redacted in the response, but is Mississippi State linebacker Leo Lewis.

The university consistently argued there are gaps, inconsistencies and a lack of sufficient facts to support violations in Lewis’ testimony.

In the response, the university asks: “Does an allegation of cash payments need corroboration beyond a general and inconsistent account of wrongdoing from a biased witness for the Committee to find a violation?”

A few sentences above that question, the university questioned Lewis’ motive and embedded his tweet from the day it received its notice of allegations, which was simply a GIF image of the Heath Ledger’s Joker clapping.

“[Student-Athlete 39’s] social media response to the University’s video announcing its receipt of the Notice, which seemingly celebrates the negative publicity that followed the announcement, indicates that [Student-Athlete 39] enjoyed causing the University harm,” the response said.

So Lewis’ word will essentially be pitted against Ole Miss’ and it’ll be up to the committee to decide who’s more trustworthy.

But Ole Miss has more to deal with than just Lewis. There’s also the allegations against former staffer Barney Farrar, who was involved with most of the allegations connected to Lewis.

RELATED: Attorney: Barney Farrar received assurances he'd be taken care of by Ole Miss

Farrar and former defensive line coach Chris Kiffin were alleged to arrange for two then-prospective student athletes and a family member to receive $2,800 in free merchandise.

That was Allegation No. 9, one of the new Level I violations, which Ole Miss disputes entirely. Farrar was also charged with arranging for impermissible recruiting inducements worth $2,272 in the form of transportation and hotel lodging, another Level I violation, which the university partially agreed with.

He was alleged to have knowledge of boosters giving payments to Lewis and their impermissible recruiting contact with the prospect. Farrar was also charged with providing false or misleading information to the institution or enforcement staff on Dec. 1, 2016.

He was fired a week later. Ole Miss made no mistake about singling him out as rogue party.

“Farrar is an outlier at the University,” the response said. “And does not represent the culture of “doing things the right way” that has been curated by the University’s administrative and academics leadership as well as its football head coach.”

Of course, the issue of ACT fraud, allegedly executed by former staffers David Saunders and Chris Vaughn, which took place under Houston Nutt remains an issue. Those account for four of Level I violations.

Then there’s some boosters providing free access to hunting land, free food and drinks and an instance of a booster giving a student-athlete's family member $800 at the airport, which is a holdover from the first notice.

So Ole Miss doesn’t have a clean sheet of credibility throughout this either. But the ball is in the Committee on Infractions’ court and they’ll ultimately decide how credible the involved parties – and their sides of this years-long story – really are.

ContactAntonio Morales at 601-961-7117 oramorales2@gannett.com. Follow him onTwitter.