The NCAA’s ongoing investigation into the Ole Miss football program took an unexpected twist last week, when Rebel Rags, a retail store selling branded Ole Miss merchandise, sued Lindsey Miller, the stepfather of former Ole Miss player Laremy Tunsil, as well as two current Mississippi State players and former Ole Miss recruits, Leo Lewis and Kobe Jones.
The suit stems from the NCAA’s second notice of allegations against the school, in which it was alleged that university employees provided nearly $3,000 worth of impermissible benefits to the defendants in the form of merchandise from the store.
The lawsuit includes claims of defamation, commercial disparagement and civil conspiracy. See Rebel Rags LLC v. Miller, et al., L17-244 (Lafayette Cnty., Miss. 2017).
The civil conspiracy claim involves allegations that numerous parties, including the named defendants and several John Does, “conspired to concoct a false narrative” related to the provision of improper benefits.
It is further alleged that the store had knowledge of the arrangement of impermissible benefits. The NCAA’s notice of allegations lists the store, and its owner Terry Warren, as “Booster 8” and “Booster 9” respectively.
The merchandise scheme is part of a sweeping investigation into the football program, which faces allegations of 21 total violations, including 13 Level I violations, the most serious under the NCAA’s penalty structure.
Ole Miss recently responded to the notice of allegations, as did head coach Hugh Freeze, and former staffer, Barney Farrar, upon whom much of the blame is being placed as the school stands by Freeze.
Freeze is being charged with violations of head coach responsibility regulations, and the school is being charged with the serious allegation of lack of institutional control. Ole Miss has already self-imposed a bowl ban for 2017, deducted seven scholarships from the program and will forfeit its share of Southeastern Conference bowl revenue.
The school will likely appear before the NCAA infractions committee in the coming months and could face additional penalties.
The recently filed lawsuit, however, could impact the timing and progress of the investigation. The lawsuit filed by Rebel Rags is intended to clear its name from any wrongdoing in connection with the scandal. The store denies the veracity of the allegations, and it is possible that the NCAA may wait to see how the case plays out before rendering a decision in the infractions case.
The lawsuit could provide a forum in which many of the key players in the NCAA’s investigation are forced to testify under oath with full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
Much of the lawsuit centers upon allegations made by Lewis, which Rebel Rags and Ole Miss assert were embellished or changed during the course of the investigation. Lewis has been granted immunity by the NCAA, but the NCAA does not have the power to immunize against civil liability.
Lewis and Jones have not spoken publically about the suit, but Miller has vowed to vigorously defend against the allegations. Via its response to the NCAA, Ole Miss has also denied the allegations related to merchandise from Rebel Rags.
Rebel Rags certainly has an economic interest in steadfastly disputing the allegations of provision of improper benefits. Rebel Rags relies entirely on its ability to sell officially licensed Ole Miss merchandise, and that could be jeopardized by the allegations. Already, customers have threatened to boycott the store and are blaming the store for putting the football program at risk.
Interestingly, the lawsuit filed by Rebel Rags will compel sworn testimony and discovery where the NCAA’s process cannot. Specifically, Ole Miss is generally limited to a defense via the NCAA’s administrative process due its voluntary membership in the association. If Rebel Rags successfully proves that the allegations against it were false and defamatory, it could boost Ole Miss’s chances to escape significant further penalty from the NCAA.
If the NCAA does wait for the lawsuit to play out before handing down punishment against Ole Miss, it will assuredly learn from its missteps of the past. A similar situation arose several years ago surrounding the University of Miami football program. In that case, the key player was booster Nevin Shapiro. Shapiro was also going through numerous other legal proceedings at the time of the investigation, including personal bankruptcy.
The NCAA ultimately admitted to wrongdoing by way of providing questions to Shapiro’s attorney that were not related to the bankruptcy case, but rather, were related to the NCAA’s investigation. Shapiro’s attorney even billed the NCAA for her services.
The NCAA conducted its own internal investigation into the incident, finding wrongdoing on the part of investigators. Miami ultimately benefited in that the penalties rendered by the NCAA were far lighter than most expected due its own misconduct.
This time around, expect the NCAA to remain on the sidelines unless or until it is compelled to become involved in the suit.
Rebel Rags may not be the only party to bring litigation related to the Ole Miss case, either. Former head coach Houston Nutt has publically stated that he is displeased with his portrayal by the school, believing that the school has attempted to portray the incidents as mainly occurring under his watch. Nutt has demanded a public apology, and via his attorney, has vowed to file his own defamation claim against the school if not received.
This case may serve as an example to those that provide statements to the NCAA. While not under oath, lying to investigators, placing or misplacing blame and misconstruing facts can have serious consequences.
There is still much to be determined in the Ole Miss saga, but the pending lawsuit is likely to play a large role in how and when this matter is resolved.