Answering my question with a question is not sufficient. The only document that I have knowledge of is the NOA that was issued by the NCAA. I have asked what proof does it show that Tyndall knew about the academic fraud that occurred at S. Miss and nothing has yet been shown.
I remain open-minded until someone can show that the NCAA has something other than Adam Howard's testimony that Tyndall set the whole thing up. I do know that Don Jackson submitted a 113 page appeal to the NCAA and they replied 19 hours after they were suppose to do so.
THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
"On or about October 31, 2014, the former head coach instructed the DOBO to create a document purporting to be a contemporaneous compilation of notes from a June 18, 2012, meeting between the former head coach and the USM compliance director. Once the investigation began, the former head coach used the document to justify his facilitation of the payments made to student-athletes 3 and 4 during the years they served in residence as nonqualifiers, without noting that it had been created more than two years after the June 2012 meeting. One of the initial topics investigated by the enforcement staff was the source of the funds for student-athletes 3 and 4. In his first interview on November 18, 2014, the former head coach produced and referenced a document as a justification for facilitating the payment of student-athlete 3's and 4's educational expenses by their pre-collegiate coaches. The document purportedly contained notes made by the former head coach following a conversation with the compliance director on June 18, 2012. The former head coach told the enforcement staff that he "wrote those [notes] after my conversation with [the compliance director]." The former head coach did not mention that the document, while purporting to include his contemporaneous notes from a June 2012 conversation, had actually been prepared by his DOBO within the last three weeks. A specific entry in the notes purported to show that the compliance office had approved the payment of educational expenses by nonqualifiers' pre-collegiate coaches: A non-qualifier or walk-on can have their expenses paid for by a parent, guardian, and/or former HS/Prep School Coach. If the coach and the player have the relationship where he has provided needed support for him in the past, like in the absence of a parent or guardian, the coach can provide needed support. HOWEVER, IT CAN'T BE PAID FOR BY AN AAU COACH.
The DOBO stated that he could not recall exactly when he transcribed the 2012 notes, although his pattern was to reduce notes to document form "reasonably close to the conversation." He recalled the former head coach asking him in the fall of 2014 to "get everything together" because of the NCAA investigation and that he might have "updated" the document at that time. However, computer metadata established that the DOBO created the document on October 31, 2014, the day after the enforcement staff interviewed student-athletes 3 and 4 and within eight days or less of interviewing their pre-collegiate coaches. The DOBO had no reason to construct notes from a conversation that allegedly occurred over two years earlier without instructions from the former head coach. The panel finds that the former head coach was attempting to create an impression that he had received approval from the compliance director to facilitate the payments of funds to the student-athletes by their pre-collegiate coaches. During the same timeframe the DOBO fabricated the compliance document, the former head coach also made numerous contacts by phone and through text messages with other individuals involved in the investigation. He made most of the contacts on a phone in his mother's name, which he used in an attempt to make the contacts difficult to discover. The purpose of the contacts was to influence the investigation and find out what others were telling the enforcement staff. Specifically, the former head coach contacted student-athlete 6's two-year college coach (student-athlete 6's coach); student-athlete 3's high school coach; former assistant coach B; the compliance director; and student-athlete 4's prep school coach. He made the contacts with these individuals at significant times during the investigation. For instance, he instructed assistant
coach A to call student-athlete 8 before his interview with the enforcement staff and tell the enforcement staff that he paid for his online classes. In his interview, assistant coach A admitted that he also encouraged student-athlete 8 to confirm that he completed his own coursework, but that the former head coach was mostly concerned with student-athlete 8 confirming that he paid for his own courses. The former head coach attempted to obscure these contacts. He maintained a cell phone in his mother's name that he did not divulge to the enforcement staff. During his first interview, November 18, 2014, the enforcement staff asked him about his institutional phone, personal phone, any phones he may have used while employed at USM and whether he possessed a "burner" phone. Despite this thorough inquiry, the former head coach did not mention the phone he possessed in his mother's name that he had been using extensively in recent weeks. In his second interview, held March 16, 2015, the enforcement staff again asked him about his phones. Again, the former head coach did not mention the use of the phone in his mother's name. Between the former head coach's second and third interviews, former assistant coach A informed the enforcement staff that, during the investigation, the former head coach was calling student-athlete 3's high school coach, former assistant coach B and student-athlete 4's prep school coach on a phone he maintained in his mother's name with an 859 area code. The purpose of the calls was to get updates and information about the interviews of the student-athletes at USM and others. Former assistant coach A recalled overhearing phone conversations in which the former head coach told student-athlete 3's high school coach and student-athlete 4's prep school coach what to tell the enforcement staff about their relationships with student-athletes 3 and 4."
That's all pretty damning stuff. Especially the document that metadata proved was created at the time of the investigation, not two years earlier.
"After essentially never using the area code 859 phone previously, the former head coach used it continually during the times the enforcement staff was conducting multiple interviews regarding potential violations related to the academic issues and student-athletes 3's and 4's funds. From October 28, 2014, through November 6, 2014, the precise times when the enforcement staff was conducting interviews with them (and student-athletes 3 and 4, who had played for them), the billing statement for the area code 859 phone revealed 63 calls with student-athlete 3's high school coach (plus 10 texts) and 29 calls with student-athlete 4's prep coach. Further, the billing statement shows 71 calls with former assistant coach B (plus 47 texts). The enforcement staff obtained a copy of the billing statements for September 23 through November 22, 2014. The statements revealed one text message and no calls on the phone from September 23 through October 24, 2014. However, beginning on October 25 and continuing through November 6, the former head coach used the phone extensively. The times, pattern and frequency of the phone/text contacts and attempted contacts show that the former head coach was anxious almost to the point of frantic to contact various individuals and determine or influence what information they were providing to the NCAA. On October 24, 2014, the enforcement staff informed USM that it wished to interview student-athletes 3, 4, 7, 9 and former assistant coach B. The next day, the former head coach exchanged nine text messages with student-athlete 3's high school coach between 10:52 a.m. and 11:02 a.m. They exchanged two more at 12:32 p.m. These exchanges occurred on the former head coach's personal phone. On October 28, 2014, the former head coach exchanged four phone calls and 10 text messages with student-athlete 3's high school coach on the area code 859 phone. The former head coach also made 12 calls to student-athlete 4's prep coach on the area code 859 phone and received two calls from student-athlete 4's prep coach on his personal phone. At 1:52 p.m., the former head coach called student-athlete 4's prep coach twice (for one minute each time) on the area code 859 phone. Three minutes later, student-athlete 4's prep coach returned the calls, and they engaged in a 10-minute conversation. Yet the former head coach continued to try to reach student-athlete 4's prep school coach throughout the evening and night nine times from 5:21 p.m. to 9:39 p.m. October 29, 2014, was the day before the enforcement staff arrived on campus at USM to commence interviews. The former head coach began calling student-athlete 3's high school coach at 7:06 a.m. They spoke for eight minutes and, when that call ended, the former head coach immediately tried to call him again at 7:14 a.m. He resumed his calls to student-athlete 3's high school coach at 11:48 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. and eventually spoke to him for six minutes at 5:48 p.m. His final of six calls to student-athlete 3's high school coach was at 6:13 p.m. The former head coach also made a number of calls to student-athlete 4's prep school coach on this date, beginning with a 10 minute conversation at 7:44 a.m. He made six further calls to student-athlete 4's prep school coach through the day, with the last being four minutes long at 11:06 p.m. The former head coach made a 10 minute call to the compliance director on this date, made or received eight calls from former assistant coach B and sent seven texts to former assistant coach B.17 All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. The following day, October 30, 2014, the enforcement staff interviewed student-athletes 3 and 4 on the USM campus. The former head coach had an eight minute conversation with student-athlete 4's prep school coach at 11:04 a.m. and at 11:15 a.m., began calling student-athlete 3's high school coach. From 2:16 p.m. until 10:40 p.m., the former head coach phoned student-athlete 3's high school coach 12 times, with all but one of those calls registering as one minute in length.18 The former head coach also exchanged seven calls and 12 text messages with former assistant coach B on this date, and the DOBO attempted to call the compliance director. All of the former head coach's phone and text activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. On October 31, 2014, the DOBO fabricated the purported June 18, 2012, compliance notes. The former head coach began calling student-athlete 3's high school coach at 8:25 a.m., speaking to him for five minutes at 8:26 a.m., 10 minutes at 3:47 p.m. and six minutes at 5:09 p.m. In total, the former head coach made eight calls to student-athlete 3's high school coach on this date, along with one call to student-athlete 6's coach. He also exchanged 18 phone calls and 25 texts with former assistant coach B. All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. The former head coach continued his attempts to contact former assistant coach B, student-athlete 3's high school coach and student-athlete 4's prep school coach for another week. On November 1, 2014, the former head coach tried to phone student-athlete 4's prep school coach at 7:27 p.m. He also exchanged 17 phone calls and two texts with former assistant coach B. All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. On November 2, 2014, the former head coach called student-athlete 4's prep school coach three times between 7:39 a.m. and 8:31 a.m., speaking with him for four minutes on the third attempt. The former head coach also attempted to phone student-athlete 3's high school coach at 11:46 a.m., made four calls to former assistant coach B and tried to call the compliance officer. All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. On November 3, 2014, the former head coach had two phone conversations totaling 21 minutes with student-athlete 4's prep school coach and tried to reach him on two other occasions. The former head coach also had a short phone conversation with student-athlete 3's high school coach, made three calls to former assistant coach B and had an 18-minute conversation with the compliance director. All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. In addition, student-athlete 4's prep school coach sent the former head coach two texts on his personal phone. The enforcement staff interviewed student-athlete 4's prep school coach on November 4, 2014. From 5:06 a.m. to 6:07 p.m., the former head coach tried 15 times to phone student-athlete 3's high school coach. They had two short five minute conversations throughout the day. The former head coach also tried to phone student-athlete 4's prep school coach at 10:28 a.m. and exchanged 10 text messages with former assistant coach B. All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. On November 5, 2014, the former head coach tried to reach student-athlete 3's high school coach 12 times between 8:34 a.m. and 9:36 p.m. They finally connected and had a 21 minute conversation beginning at 9:37 p.m. All of this activity occurred on the area code 859 phone. The enforcement staff interviewed graduate assistant A on November 6, 2014, and student-athlete 3's high school coach on November 7, 2014. The former head coach had service on the area code 859 phone discontinued on November 8, 2014."
That's an awful lot of sudden activity on a phone that was only used for "family matters" as SD put it, to a lot of people involved in the investigation, and then suddenly disconnected.
Believe what you want, but if it looks like crap and smells like crap, then you can bet that it is crap.
