University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT February 22, 2011
A.
INTRODUCTION. On October 15, 2010, officials from the University of Connecticut (Connecticut), along with the head men's basketball coach ("head coach") and his legal counsel; an assistant men's basketball coach ("assistant coach") and his legal counsel; a former assistant men's basketball coach ("former assistant coach") and his legal counsel; and the former director of men's basketball operations ("former operations director") and his legal counsel appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations of NCAA violations in the men's basketball program. This case resulted from the extraordinary steps taken by the institution, with the involvement of a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative") to recruit a prospective men's basketball student-athlete ("prospect"). Connecticut has one of the premier men's basketball programs in all of college athletics. Since the arrival of the head coach prior to the 1988-89 academic year, the men's basketball team has qualified for the postseason "Sweet Sixteen" or better 12 times and won NCAA Division I National Championships in 1999 and 2004. This program devotes significant resources to its men's basketball program and recruits student-athletes of the highest talent levels. One such recruit was the prospect, one of the top high school prospects in the class of 2008 and a prospective student-athlete coveted by the institution. Of the prospect's recruitment, the director of athletics stated "it was the most intense I've ever seen [the head coach] about the recruitment of any particular student-athlete." In his zeal to get the prospect admitted to the institution and eligible to compete, the head coach acquiesced in the representative's involvement in the process and overlooked indications that the representative might be involved in NCAA rules violations. In doing so, he failed to set the proper atmosphere for rules compliance in the men's basketball program. The head coach also failed to monitor the men's basketball staff. Committing the resources necessary to conduct an athletics program at the highest level carries with it a corresponding responsibility to devote the resources needed to detect possible violations and to diligently monitor the activities of the program. In this case, the institution's athletics administration failed to meet its responsibility with respect to monitoring phone records, the activities of the representative and the distribution of discretionary men's basketball tickets. The representative is an alumnus who, during his time as a student, served for three years as a manager for the men's basketball team. He also worked as a business advisor to one
University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report February 22, 2011 Page No. 2 __________
of the institution's prominent men's basketball alumni and was certified as a player's agent by the National Basketball Association (NBA). In 2007 and 2008 the representative provided numerous impermissible inducements to the prospect. Among other things, the representative paid for the prospect's registration for a standardized academic test, basketball training sessions, the cost of enrollment at a basketball academy and at least part of the expenses associated with the prospect's foot surgery. During the same period of recruitment, members of the men's basketball staff engaged in approximately 2,000 phone calls and/or text messages with the representative. The institution's coaches did not question the representative's relationship with the prospect or report it to the institution's athletics administration until November 2007, over a year after the institution's recruitment of the prospect had begun. Further violations occurred when members of the coaching staff provided complimentary discretionary tickets for men's basketball games to individuals who were not allowed to receive them and made impermissible phone calls and/or text messages to the prospect and other prospects. During the investigation, the former operations director violated the principles of ethical conduct when he provided false and misleading information to investigators. A member of the Big East Conference, the institution has an enrollment of approximately 23,600 students. The institution sponsors 10 men's and 12 women's intercollegiate sports. This was the institution's first major infractions case.
B.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. 1. IMPERMISSIBLE PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES. [NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1.2-(b), 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.2 [2009-10 NCAA Manual], 13.1.3.1.6 [2009-10 NCAA Manual], 13.1.3.4.1 and 13.4.1.2. Between April 2007 and February 2009, members of the men's basketball staff violated the provisions of NCAA recruiting legislation by exchanging 150 impermissible phone calls with and sending 190 impermissible text messages to prospective men's basketball student-athletes. Committee Rationale The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation, although the institution believed that some of the calls were allowable as "routine clerical matters" as contemplated by Bylaw 11.7.1.2-(b). The former operations director and assistant coach
did not agree that the phone calls made by them constituted violations, while the former assistant coach agreed that violations occurred but contended they were secondary. The committee finds that the violations occurred and that they are major. The institution's men's basketball coaching staff first identified the prospect as a prospect in July 2006. According to the recruiting summary sheet the institution maintained on the prospect, the first phone call made by the staff to him or someone on his behalf occurred on October 13, 2006. From April 2007 until the prospect arrived on campus in June 2008, numerous impermissible phone contacts and/or text messages were exchanged with him by members of the men's basketball staff and the former operations director. Between August 9, 2007, and June 13, 2008, the former operations director exchanged 114 phone calls (83 placed and 31 received) with the prospect and placed one call to another prospective student-athlete. He was not a permissible caller under NCAA legislation. Additionally, 43 of the phone calls to the prospect exceeded the number the institution was permitted to make per week to prospects. Further, the former operations director sent 181 prohibited text messages to the prospect and one prohibited text message to another prospective student-athlete. There was no dispute among the parties that the phone calls were made and the texts were sent. Regarding the phone calls to the prospect, the former operations director asserted in his defense that most of the communications were actually with an individual associated with the prospect ("advisor") who had been an advisor and supporter of the prospect for many years and served as the staff's main contact in his recruitment. In fact, the former operations director attached to his response to the notice of allegations an "affidavit," ostensibly made by the prospect, stating that the phone that was called actually belonged to the advisor and that the prospect only used it occasionally. The committee noted that the affidavit was not notarized or otherwise affirmed by the purported executing party, was prepared in the weeks immediately preceding the hearing and was in conflict with prior statements made by the prospect during the investigation. In an interview with the enforcement staff January 25, 2008, the prospect stated that the phone to which all the calls were made belonged to him, not the advisor. He further stated that he had received the phone from a second significant adult in his life not the advisor. As will be further detailed in Finding B-4 below, statements made by the former operations director were inconsistent and not credible. In his response to the notice of allegations and at the hearing, the former operations director stated that he received the phone number from the advisor and that the phone actually belonged to the advisor. However, during an extensive interview with the enforcement staff on October 14, 2009, he stated that he received the number from the institutional file of the prospect. In a
subsequent interview on January 19, 2010, he claimed for the first time that the phone belonged to the advisor and that "sometimes the prospect would answer." None of the other coaches ever reported similar information. Other portions of the former operations director's statements were not supported by institutional phone records, as will be detailed below. The former operations director also asserted that the calls he made to the prospect were authorized by the athletics administration and were, therefore, permissible. The prospect attended five different high schools, thus his academic records were scattered in various locations. The men's basketball staff initially hoped to get the prospect admitted for the spring 2008 semester (he graduated from high school in January 2008) which necessitated that much of the fall of 2007 be devoted to trying to gather the materials needed for his admission to the institution and eligibility for athletics competition. On November 5, 2007, the former operations director and members of the athletics administration engaged in a conference call to discuss the challenges that had to be overcome regarding the prospect's initial eligibility. It was agreed that, from that time forward, the former operations director was the "point person" in the effort. The prospect was not cleared for admission for the spring 2008 semester as his standardized test score was invalidated in early 2008. Notwithstanding the invalidated test score, the effort to get the prospect admitted to the institution and eligible for athletics competition continued. In a series of e-mail communications between the former operations director and the associate director of athletics for compliance at the institution ("compliance director") during the spring of 2008, which were attached to the former operations director's response to the notice of allegations, it was confirmed that he would remain the individual responsible for developing the materials for the prospect's admission and eligibility certification. The former operations director asserted that those communications established that he had made the calls to the prospect with the knowledge and authorization of the athletics administration. However, the language of the e-mails contains no such directive. For example, on March 7, 2008, the compliance director e-mailed the former operations director, asking him to obtain information needed to help answer questions that had been posed by the NCAA Eligibility Center. Specifically, she asked that the former operations director obtain: 1) records of attendance at each of the prospect's five high schools, including dates of each school's academic terms; 2) details regarding a learning disabled diagnosis for the prospect; 3) details regarding how the prospect received credit at one of his high schools during a term in which he was not enrolled at that school; and 4) information regarding test accommodations received by the prospect while enrolled at one of the high schools he attended.
The e-mail did not contain any directive to contact the prospect for the information. In fact, it did exactly the opposite; regarding the dates of attendance at each high school, the e-mail stated "we are asking you to contact [two high schools] to obtain this information." Not only do NCAA bylaws prohibit phone calls from an operations director to a prospect, the information sought involved credits and accommodations the young man received while enrolled at each school--official records of the schools that needed to be obtained from the high schools themselves. Nothing about the e-mail directs him to call the prospect to obtain the information. Similarly, on February 2, 2008, the former operations director sent an e-mail to the compliance director asking her to call him about questions the NCAA had regarding the prospect. The compliance director responded the following day, explaining that the NCAA had more questions. The e-mail also contained the following two statements: --"Most of which is information that we will have to get from the high schools directly." --"We will have to start contacting schools first thing in the morning." As with the March 7, 2008, e-mail, this communication not only contained no directive to contact the prospect, it specifically told the former operations director to contact the high schools to obtain the information. On May 5, 2008, the former operations director e-mailed the compliance director, asking if she had sent a Buckley Amendment form regarding the prospect's records. Fifteen minutes after receiving the e-mail, the compliance director responded that the former operations director should "[d]ownload the application and just have [the prospect] fill out the Buckley page and fax it back." While this directive necessitated that the former operations director contact the prospect directly, it did not tell him to make a telephone call to the young man. A letter to the prospect with directions to fill out the form and fax it back would have easily taken care of the task. It was not necessary for the former operations director to phone the young man to get the paperwork signed. The final e-mail attached to the former operations director's response was dated February 21, 2008, and was sent from the compliance director to the former operations director. In it the compliance director asked the former operations director three questions regarding information about standardized tests and a reading program at one of the high schools the prospect had attended. Again, it did not ask or direct the former operations director to call the young man or any of his advisors, and the information requested could have been obtained through the mail or calls to people other than the prospect. There was no answer to this e-mail contained in the former operations director's response.
The starting date (August 9, 2007) of the former operations director's 181 text messages to and 114 phone calls to and from the prospect is significant, as the prospect attended a camp on the institution's campus on August 10-11, 2007. Records show that from Thursday, August 9, 2007, at 8:25 p.m. (the date of the first located phone call from the former operations director to the prospect) through Sunday, August 12 at 9:54 p.m., 27 phone calls or text messages were sent from the former operations director to the prospect. The majority of them, 21, occurred between 9 p.m. on August 11 and 9:54 p.m. on August 12. At the hearing, the former operations director stated that the calls/texts were made to the advisor, not to the prospect, and that the dates and times of the calls proved they were not made to the prospect because he (the former operations director) was in charge of the camp and present with the campers throughout. However, the camp was in session only from 1 p.m. on August 10 to 1 p.m. August 11. Only two of the calls were made within that 24 hour period. Further, the former operations director stated in his response to the notice of allegations that the calls and texts of August 9-12 were actually communications he was having with the advisor, "who would call to discuss how [the prospect] was holding up" at the camp because the prospect was away from home. However, all the calls between the former operations director's phone and the cell phone in question were outgoing from the former operations director, meaning the former operations director received no calls from the advisor or anyone else. Further, the assertion that the advisor was calling him during the camp to check on the prospect was made for the first time in his response to the notice of allegations. He did not mention it in any previous interviews. The final call, made June 13, 2008, occurred at a significant time. On June 12, 2008, the prospect received his final certification from the NCAA Eligibility Center. Two days later, he signed a financial aid agreement and enrolled in two summer courses at the institution. The calls made by the former operations director were not permissible under the "related routine clerical task" language of NCAA Bylaw 11.7.1.2. Subsection (b) of the bylaw states that only members of the coaching staff are allowed to make phone calls to or receive calls from prospects or their families. Therefore, phone calls are by definition something more than "routine clerical tasks" related to recruiting. The former operations director was not permitted to make the calls. Exhibits attached to the institution's response established that the men's basketball staff was educated regarding who is allowed to make phone calls to prospects. The former operations director knew or should have known he was not allowed to make phone calls to prospects and that neither he (the former operations director) nor anyone else was allowed to send them text messages. The former operations director's assertions that his 181 text messages to and 114 calls to/from the prospect's phone were either made to the
advisor or done with the permission and knowledge of the compliance office were not supported by the evidence. Other members of the coaching staff were also involved in these violations. Between June 27, 2007, and April 24, 2008, the assistant coach placed 13 impermissible phone calls to three prospective student-athletes, including one to the prospect. The phone calls were impermissible because they exceeded the number of calls the institution was permitted to make per week or per month to the prospects. The assistant coach also sent eight text messages to one of the prospective student-athletes. Between October 28, 2007, and February 21, 2009, the former assistant coach placed 19 impermissible phone calls to four prospective student-athletes. The calls were impermissible because they exceeded the number the institution was permitted to make per week to the prospects. The former assistant coach also sent one text message to a prospective student-athlete. On April 4, 2007, the head coach placed an impermissible phone call to the prospect, and on June 16, 2007, he placed one impermissible phone call to a different prospect. The phone calls were impermissible because they exceeded the number the institution was permitted to make per week or per month to the prospects. Finally, on August 10, 2007, and June 5, 2008, two impermissible phone calls were placed to the prospect from an extension within the men's basketball office. The calls could not be attributed to any individual coach. The calls were impermissible because they exceeded the number the institution was permitted to make per week to the prospect. In total, 150 impermissible phone calls and 190 impermissible text messages were exchanged between members of the institution's men's basketball coaching staff and prospective student-athletes between April 2007 and February 2009. The volume of calls, as well as the duration of time over which they occurred, establish that they were neither inadvertent nor isolated. Further, the number of calls/texts resulted in more than a minimal recruiting advantage over institutions who were abiding by NCAA legislation. Therefore, the violations are major.
2.
IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENTS. [NCAA Bylaws 12.3.1.2, 13.01.4, 13.02.13, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.15.1] During 2007 and 2008, the representative provided the prospect with impermissible inducements, including 1) the payment of at least some of the expenses associated with the young man's foot surgery; 2) the cost of the prospect's enrollment at a basketball academy; 3) the registration fee for the
prospect's standardized test; and 4) strength, conditioning and basketball training sessions for the prospect. Committee Rationale The enforcement staff and institution were in agreement with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violations occurred. During the spring of 2008, the representative arranged for the prospect to have orthopedic foot surgery at a Florida facility and made two payments totaling $2,155 on the prospect's behalf for the procedure. The doctor who performed the procedure on the prospect confirmed that he was contacted by the representative regarding the surgery for the prospect. Before the surgery was performed in May 2008, the representative made two payments on the prospect's account at the doctor's office. The first one, made over the phone with the representative's credit card, was for the amount of $175 to cover an office visit. The second payment, made with a cashier's check, was in the amount of $1,980 and constituted a "surgeon's fee." According to the surgeon, the total cost of the operation totaled approximately $8,000 to $10,000. However, the surgery center, a separate facility from the doctor's office, directly billed the majority of the costs and would not confirm the amount paid for the surgical procedure or who paid it. Therefore, it could not be determined if the representative covered the full cost of the surgery. During February 2008, the representative arranged for the prospect's enrollment at a Florida basketball academy and made or arranged payment of $3,500 on the prospect's behalf for his attendance at the academy. A March 2009 media report that the representative had arranged a multi-week stay at the basketball academy led the enforcement staff to interview the director of basketball at the Florida basketball academy ("director of basketball") at the facility. The director of basketball confirmed that the representative contacted him regarding placing the prospect at the facility and that the prospect began his stay there on February 14, 2008. A $3,500 check was posted to the prospect's account the following day. The director of basketball stated that the payment was made by the representative. On May 15, 2008, the representative made or arranged payment of $65 on the prospect's behalf for a standardized test registration. The prospect was registered on that date for a June 2008 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The prepaid credit card used to pay the $65 registration fee was activated at a Glenview, Illinois grocery store that same day, approximately two hours before the registration occurred. The grocery store was approximately three miles from the representative's residence.
In the summer of 2007, the representative paid for the prospect's strength, conditioning and basketball training. Specifically, the representative arranged four to six training sessions for the prospect at a training facility and paid $300 to $400 for the sessions. The strength and conditioning trainer and owner of the training facility ("trainer") reported that the representative contacted him in 2007 to arrange the sessions and that he also paid for them. Additionally, according to the trainer, the representative provided the prospect with lodging at his home in Glenview, Illinois, and the representative or his girlfriend provided the prospect with transportation to and from the training sessions. Further, in December 2007, the representative arranged a basketball training session for the prospect at a second facility through an associate ("representative's associate"). An employee of the facility told the enforcement staff that the representative's associate contacted the facility on the representative's behalf to arrange for the prospect to practice at the facility for approximately one hour at no cost. The men's basketball staff was aware of the representative's status as a professional basketball agent and his relationship with the prospect. The coaches had frequent contact with the representative, the prospect and the advisor, and they knew of the prospect's surgery, training and limited financial resources prior to his enrollment at the institution.
3.
IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENT. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1] On February 29, 2008, the former operations director provided the prospect with an impermissible inducement when he registered the prospect for the SAT.
Committee Rationale The enforcement staff and institution were in agreement with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The former operations director disagreed with the facts and that a violation of NCAA legislation occurred. The committee finds that the violation occurred. Records establish that at 2:47:56 p.m. on February 29, 2008, an SAT Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) representative completed the prospect's registration for the May 2008 test over the phone. The SSD is the unit of the SAT that takes requests for accommodations, and individuals are allowed to register for the tests through SSD. On the same day, at 2:20 p.m., the former operations director placed a 29 minute, 40 second call to the SAT SSD. The former operations director claimed that 1) he was merely checking on the registration and was actually on hold and/or being transferred among SAT employees for most of the time; and 2) the prospect's registration for the December 2007 test, which he did not take, was transferred to the May 2008 date, thus there was no need to register the prospect on February 29.
The prospect was in fact registered for the December 2007 test, and his registration was at some later point transferred to the May 2008 test. However, the registration did not automatically transfer to the May date; at the hearing, the former operations director stated that he called the prospect on February 28 "and told him to register." Had the prospect's December registration been automatically transferred to the May date, there would have been no need for the call. The need for some action to transfer the registration is further supported by information provided by the SAT. It indicated that the December registration was cancelled and the prospect had been subsequently registered for the May test on February 29 over the phone. As stated above, records obtained from SAT show that the transfer of the registration took place at 2:47:56 p.m. on February 29. Prior to that time, the prospect was not registered for the May 2008 test. The 29 minute 40 second call on February 29 was not the only time the former operations director phoned the SAT. He made a five minute, 20-second call to SAT at 1:56 p.m. on the same day and, in total, he phoned the organization nine times between February 25 and 29. Later, between the time that the registration occurred and May 6, 2008, the date the test was administered, the former operations director exchanged 18 phone calls and 26 text messages with the person who provided the prospect with transportation to the testing site in Florida ("driver"). At the time, the prospect was residing in Florida while attending the basketball academy. A friend of the driver proctored the test. In the aggregate, these calls are additional evidence that the former operations director set up the test and registered the prospect, as there would be no need for all of the calls if the former operations director was merely checking to see if the prospect was registered for the test. For all these reasons, the committee finds that the former operations director's explanations are not credible. The former operations director's positions that he did not register the prospect for the SAT on February 29 2008, and that he was only on the phone checking on the status of the registration, were not credible to the committee. Further, the registration was completed at the time the former operations director's call to the SAT was ending. The detailed statements he made in his response and at the hearing were inconsistent with those he gave during his interview with the enforcement staff on January 19, 2010. At that time, even after being told that the call occurred on the same date that the prospect was registered for the May test, the former operations director stated that he did not know why he would have called the SAT.
4.
UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d)] On October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, the former operations director failed to deport himself in accordance with the honesty and integrity associated with the
administration of intercollegiate athletics as required by NCAA legislation when he provided false and misleading information to the NCAA enforcement staff and institution. Committee Rationale The institution agreed with some of the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The institution agreed that the former operations director denied he knew the representative's associate, but it was uncertain that denial rose to the level of unethical conduct. The institution agreed that the former operations director denied any involvement with the SAT arrangements and that the denial constituted unethical conduct. The former operations director did not agree with the facts or that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The committee finds that the violations occurred. The former operations director provided false and misleading information regarding two issues in the case: 1) whether he knew the representative's associate; and 2) whether he was involved in the SAT arrangements for the prospect. During both his October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, interviews with the enforcement staff and institution, the former operations director denied that he knew the representative's associate even though the former operations director had exchanged 16 phone calls with him between November 16, 2006, and March 26, 2007. The former operations director also sent text messages to the representative's associate on June 14, 2007, and December 25, 2007. Seven of the phone calls were of at least two minutes in duration, with two of the seven being 14 minutes or more. The purpose of the calls is unknown; in his interviews the former operations director offered no explanation for them, while in his response to the allegations he stated they were in regards to a different prospect. During the first interview, October 14, 2009, the former operations director stated "I don't even know who [representative's associate] is" when asked about him. The representative's associate was described in detail to him, including his full name, the city where he lives, and the fact that he was associated with the basketball community. The same detailed description was provided in the second interview, which took place about three months later. At that time, the former operations director stated "I don't know him." In his response to the notice of allegations, the former operations director stated that, following both interviews, he was able to recall that he knew a person by the first name of the representative's associate who had a nickname of "Boss" and was from Chicago. At the hearing, he offered that his 16 calls to the representative's associate were in regards to a prospect that he ultimately chose not to recruit. He explained the Christmas Day
2007 text as a "mass communication" to all those in his address book, but the record of the text established that it was sent exclusively to the representative's associate. The calls and texts to the representative's associate covered a period of over a year and included a personal holiday greeting. The representative's associate's name and a description were provided to the former operations director at the time of both interviews. When the former operations director claimed to remember further information following the interviews, the information he recalled about "Boss" was exactly the information that had been given to him in the interviews (with the exception of Boss' last name, which the former operations director claimed not to know). The committee concluded that the former operations director withheld the information about his knowledge of the representative's associate when interviewed on October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, and, therefore, his responses in the two interviews were false and misleading. During the same October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, interviews with the enforcement staff and institution, the former operations director also denied involvement with the prospect's SAT arrangements. For the reasons set forth in detail in Finding B-3 above, the committee concluded that the former operations director not only was involved with the arrangements, he personally registered the prospect for the test by phone on February 29, 2008. Therefore, his denials of involvement in the arrangements also constituted false and misleading information. The former operations director provided conflicting statements regarding the SAT registration. In his January 19, 2010, interview he stated that he did not know what the February 29, 2008, 29 minute 40 second call from his phone to the SAT was about. He claimed no recollection, even after being informed it was the same day that the prospect had registered for the upcoming SAT test. Yet, in his response and at the hearing, he recounted in great detail what he claimed had occurred during the call. Similarly, the former operations director gave three conflicting statements regarding the phone calls and texts that were made on the days of, the day before and the day after the August 10-11 camp that the prospect attended on the institution's campus (see Finding B-1 above).
5.
IMPERMISSIBLE ENTERTAINMENT. [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.8.1] From 2007 through 2010, members of the men's basketball staff provided 32 impermissible discretionary tickets to individuals responsible for teaching or directing an activity in which a prospective student-athlete was involved, or a friend of a prospective student-athlete.
Committee Rationale The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The former operations director, the head coach, the assistant coach and the former assistant coach all agreed that violations occurred. The former operations director believed the violations are secondary in nature. The committee finds that the violations occurred and that they are major. NCAA recruiting legislation allows institutions to provide those involved in the activities of a prospect a maximum of two complimentary admissions to home contests. The admissions must be issued through a pass list and cannot be provided for away contests or games played outside a 30-mile radius of the institution's main campus. Each coach at the institution receives a certain number of tickets prior to the basketball season to be used at their discretion. The coaches are allowed to distribute the tickets to individuals of their choosing, but they must do so in a manner consistent with NCAA rules. On 12 occasions from January 13, 2007, through January 23, 2010, members of the men's basketball staff provided a total of 29 tickets and/or admissions not issued through a pass list for away or postseason competition to various individuals who should not have received them. Three other tickets were given away for a home contest; they exceeded the maximum number allowable (two) and were not issued through a pass list. Thirty one of the admissions were provided to nonscholastic basketball coaches, while one was provided to a friend of a prospect. The head coach gave away 12 of the tickets, while the assistant coach issued seven tickets. The former assistant coach gave away 10 tickets, the former operations director gave away one ticket, and two tickets were given away by a former coaching staff member. Before violations can be deemed secondary, they must satisfy the three-pronged test of NCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.1. Specifically, a secondary violation must: a. b. c. Be isolated or inadvertent in nature; Provide or be intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and Not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit.
Additionally, multiple secondary violations by a member institution may collectively be considered as a major violation. The violations are not isolated, as they involve 32 separate violations committed over a three-year period. Neither are they inadvertent, as the men's basketball staff had been
educated regarding this issue. While each violation standing alone may be seen as secondary, their cumulative effect was to provide more than a minimal recruiting advantage.
6.
FAILURE TO PROMOTE AN ATMOSPHERE FOR COMPLIANCE. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1] The scope and nature of the violations detailed in Findings B-1 and B-2 demonstrate that between 2007 and 2009, the head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance in the men's basketball program and failed to monitor the program to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation regarding phone calls, text messages and inducements provided by the representative.
Committee Rationale The enforcement staff, the institution and the head coach were not in agreement with the facts of this finding or that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. With respect to monitoring the men's basketball staff's phone calls, the head coach and the institution asserted that the head coach did not know the calls being made by the former operations director were impermissible. Regarding the relationship between the representative and the prospect, the head coach and the institution took the position that the head coach had no reason to be aware of the inducements provided by the representative to the prospect. The committee finds that the violation occurred. Bylaw 11.1.2.1 was adopted by the NCAA membership in 2005 and was intended to ensure that head coaches are held responsible for the violations that occur in the programs they oversee. The rationale for the bylaw was stated as follows: "The head coach has an obligation to promote a culture of compliance among the entire team, including assistant coaches, other staff and studentathletes. The head coach must monitor the activities of assistant coaches and staff and determine if they are acting in compliance with NCAA rules. Too often, when assistant coaches or other administrators involved with the program are involved in serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance regarding such violations while indicating such responsibilities were entrusted to their assistants. A head coach should be presumed to have knowledge and, therefore, responsibility for the actions of those associated with his or her team whom the coach directly or indirectly supervises.
However, a violation of the proposed bylaw will occur only in major infractions cases, similar to institutional control allegations, or in very serious secondary cases. This proposal does not imply that every violation by a staff member or student-athlete involved in the head coach's program will be considered a lack of control on the part of the head coach. There is a rebuttable presumption that exists when situations indicate that the head coach has set a proper tone for compliance. Under such circumstances, the head coach would not be charged with a lack of control for activities that may result in NCAA rules violations." The head coach knew the former operations director was having phone contact with the prospect and that the calls were related to recruiting. As set forth in Finding B-1 above, the contacts made by the former operations director constituted the bulk of the 150 impermissible phone calls and 190 impermissible text messages made by the staff. Not only was the head coach aware that the former operations director was making calls, he also knew or should have known that the former operations director, as a noncountable coach, was not permitted to have phone contact with prospects. Therefore, he knew or should have known that the calls were impermissible. Once the prospect was identified in July 2006 as a prospect the institution sought to recruit, his recruitment was initially handled by a then-associate head men's basketball coach ("former associate head coach"). Following the departure of the former associate head coach in the spring of 2007, the former operations director assumed "part of the recruiting contacts" for the prospect. The head coach knew of the arrangement. According to the head coach, the former operations director was allowed to be part of the recruiting process because he "knew [the prospect], knew of [the prospect] and the people around him." The head coach justified the contacts by explaining that the former operations director was helping the prospect get his academic paperwork in order to meet admission and athletic eligibility requirements. As set forth in Finding B-1 above, NCAA rules precluded the former operations director from making such calls. The former operations director did not keep logs of his phone contacts, and the logs maintained by the rest of the men's basketball coaching staff during the same time frame were inaccurate and incomplete. Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires a head coach to monitor such activities among his or her staff. In this case, the head coach failed to meet his responsibility to ensure that his staff was abiding by telephone contact legislation and keeping track of the contacts they had. In doing so, he failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. The head coach also failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance in that he failed to monitor the relationship between the representative and the prospect and/or report it to the institution's athletics administration. This failure contributed to the violations set
forth in Finding B-2. The head coach and members of the men's basketball staff maintained a close relationship with the representative, and the head coach and his staff were aware that the representative developed and maintained a close relationship with the prospect throughout his recruitment and was interested in someday becoming his agent. In fact, the men's basketball staff provided information regarding the prospect to the representative throughout the recruitment process. The former associate head coach stated that "[the representative] was running parallel to the recruitment doing what prospective agents try to do." The head coach and his staff, all of whom were aware of the problems that agents can cause for prospective and enrolled student-athletes, failed to report indicators of possible recruiting improprieties to the compliance office. They also failed to take steps that may have deterred the provision of impermissible inducements. The head coach bears oversight responsibility for these failures, which establish a violation of Bylaw 11.1.2.1. The representative is an alumnus who was considered a member of the "family" at the institution. He served as men's basketball team manager during his time on campus and maintained contact with members of the coaching staff once he graduated in 1999. On November 22, 1999, at the point where the representative's activities rendered him an agent pursuant to NCAA legislation, the institution sent him a letter reminding him that, even though he had a long-standing, preexisting relationship with the institution, he could not be involved in certain activities. Among other things, it was specifically pointed out to him that he could not provide transportation, cash, meals, entertainment, merchandise or loans to student-athletes. The head coach, who was also head coach in 1999, received a copy of the letter. The institution knew that the representative was certified as a players' agent by the NBA in March 2006. Four months later, in July 2006, the former associate head coach observed the prospect at a summer tournament. The former associate head coach made contact with the prospect and his adult advisors shortly thereafter. In November 2006, the former associate head coach attended a tournament in which the prospect was participating and discussed the prospect with the representative, who was also attending the tournament. The representative introduced himself to the prospect and his adult advisors shortly thereafter. The following week, the prospect made an unofficial visit to the institution. During much of the period of time he served as the primary recruiter for the prospect, the former associate head coach provided information about the prospect to the representative, including the young man's background and the names of his adult advisors. Further, the men's basketball staff knew that the representative maintained regular contact with the prospect and his advisors. Finally, the staff knew that the representative was interested in someday becoming an agent for the prospect, who was
considered one of the country's top basketball prospects. The former associate head coach specifically told the head coach that the representative kept in contact with the prospect, and the head coach later spoke to the young man about the representative, telling him "be careful who you hang around with." At the hearing, the head coach stated he called the prospect "to warn him about [the representative]. I told him the Connecticut staff is the only one who has his best interest at heart." Yet, in spite of feeling the need to warn the prospect, neither the head coach nor any member of his staff discussed the matter with the athletics administration or inquired into the relationship between the representative and the prospect. The former associate head coach described the representative's interaction with the prospect as "running parallel to the institution's recruitment." The two of them regularly communicated about the prospect, with the former associate head coach saying "I allowed [the representative] inI left him in the information exchange" The representative's name and phone number appeared on the prospect's recruiting summary sheet; the former assistant coach, who took over as the primary recruiter for the prospect when the former associate head coach left the institution in the spring of 2007, stated that the presence of such information on the summary sheet normally means the person is a point of contact in the prospect's recruitment, but he had written the representative's information on the summary sheet only as a reminder to call him. The representative's name also appeared on the prospect's 2007 learning disability evaluation provided to the coaching staff as a person who should receive a copy of the report. The nexus between the coaching staff and the representative before and during the recruitment of the prospect is clear. During the period from July 2006 (when recruitment began) and June 2008, when the prospect enrolled on campus in summer courses, the institution's men's basketball coaching staff exchanged 2,081 phone calls and text messages with the representative. On November 11, 2006, while evaluating the prospect at a tournament, the former associate head coach ran into the representative and gave him the prospect's personal and contact information. The former associate head coach was aware that, shortly thereafter, the representative made contact with the prospect. From that point forward, the representative and members of the coaching staff had regular and significant contact regarding the prospect. For example, from July 2006 until he left the institution at the end of March 2007, the former associate head coach exchanged 81 phone calls and 58 texts with the representative. He acknowledged that they pertained to the prospect. The former assistant coach had no calls/texts with the representative prior to taking over the recruitment of the prospect on March 31, 2007. But from that point until June 2008, the former assistant coach and the representative had contact through 93 phone calls and 189 texts. In the six months after the prospect's June 2008 enrollment, the former assistant coach had only two phone calls with the representative. Similarly, in the year prior to the recruitment of the prospect, only 42 phone calls were exchanged between the coaching staff and the representative.
Many of the over 2,000 calls and texts occurred during the time the representative was providing the impermissible recruiting inducements set forth in Finding B-2 of this report. The institution's coaching staff knew of the prospect's limited economic resources, knew of the dangers posed by agents and knew of the representative's desire to represent the prospect, yet did not take any action to ascertain whether the relationship between the representative and the prospect - a relationship the coaching staff fostered involved any violations of NCAA regulations. In the winter and spring of 2008, the coaching staff was aware that the prospect was residing at a basketball academy in Florida and had foot surgery in Tampa, but no coach reported any of the information to the institution's athletics administration or made any inquiry into the propriety of the arrangements. Further, the coaching staff did not report to the compliance office or any other administrator that the representative - a known agent who had been issued a letter of warning by the institution in 1999 - was in regular contact with a high-profile prospect the institution was actively recruiting. Similarly, the staff did not report its regular communication with the representative. When the final report regarding the prospect's learning disability was delivered to the men's basketball coaching staff in the fall of 2007, it listed the representative as a person who should receive a copy. At that time the former assistant coach, who received the coaching staff's copy, made no inquiries regarding the appearance of the representative's name on the report. Later in the fall, on November 5, 2007, the head coach became aware of the representative's name on the report. He asked the former operations director about the matter and was told "[the representative] just liked the kid and wanted to make sure that everything was going alright." The former operations director, at the direction of the head coach, then spoke to the representative, who claimed no knowledge of why his name appeared on the report. The former operations director reported he later spoke to the advisor, but dropped the matter after being told by the advisor that the representative was to get a copy so that he could help the advisor understand it. The operations director never asked why the representative would be a person to be trusted with the information. After possessing the report for four months the coaching staff finally gave it to the compliance office, but only because the compliance office requested it so as to make it part of the prospect's academic record. But for the request by the compliance staff, it might never have received a copy of the report. As will be set forth in Finding B-8 below, the institution also failed to monitor the representative's relationship with the prospect. Bylaw 11.1.2.1 confers a duty upon head coaches to monitor their programs and establish an atmosphere for compliance. The bylaw was enacted to hold head coaches responsible for violations and establishes a presumption that they are aware of the activities of those working under them in their programs. While it does not require them to investigate
possible wrongdoing, it does require them to recognize potential problems, address them, and report them to the athletics administration. In this matter, the head coach knew of the interaction among members of his staff with the representative and, more importantly, the representative's interaction with the prospect. Even though he saw fit to "warn" the prospect, the head coach failed to talk directly with the representative - a member of the "family" - about avoiding possible improprieties. He further failed to ask anyone about the sources of support for the prospect when the young man was residing at a Florida basketball academy and having surgery. He did not require that his staff, which was in regular contact with the representative and sharing information with him, ask any pertinent questions regarding the relationship between the representative and the prospect. Finally, he failed to report the relationship to the athletics administration, specifically, the compliance office. As this committee stated in the case of Indiana University, Bloomington, Case No. M285 (2008), Bylaw 11.1.2.1 places a specific and independent monitoring obligation on head coaches. The head coach in this case did not demonstrate sufficient monitoring of his staff's activities regarding the prospect and the representative. Therefore, the head coach failed to meet his obligation under Bylaw 11.1.2.1.
7.
FAILURE TO MONITOR BY THE INSTITUTION. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1] Between 2007 and 2009, the institution failed to monitor the conduct and administration of the men's basketball program in that it failed to (a) review the men's basketball staff's phone records to ensure that the staff was not making impermissible phone contacts with prospective men's basketball student-athletes, as set forth in Finding B-1; (b) monitor the conduct of the representative and his relationship to the prospect; and (c) review discretionary tickets provided by the men's basketball staff to ensure that the staff was not violating entertainment restrictions, as set forth in Finding B-6.
Committee Rationale The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this allegation and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violations occurred. Monitoring phone records. At the time of the violations, the men's basketball coaching staff was required to submit phone logs from their recruiting summaries semi-annually. Once the records were received by the compliance staff, a review of the calls made to prospects was performed. The focus of the review was to ensure that the recorded calls did not exceed the limits set forth in Bylaw 13. However, they were not cross-referenced
with actual phone bills. If the compliance staff had cross-checked actual phone bills with the logs, the impermissible calls and texts to the prospect and the volume of communication between the men's basketball staff and the representative likely would have been detected. The violations detailed in Finding B-1 were due in large part to the men's basketball staff's failure to contemporaneously log a call and/or communicate among themselves. It appeared from the records that the men's basketball staff was cognizant of the rules governing telephone contact with prospects and by and large complied with them. The exception is the calls made by the former operations director to the prospect. The many impermissible calls between the two of them were not detected through the policy that was in place at the time. The institution acknowledged that it should have conducted a more-timely review of the recruiting records and cross-checked them with actual telephone records for the department. Its failure to do so constituted failure to monitor. Monitoring the representative. During the time frame in which the prospect was being recruited by the institution, the focus was on compiling the information necessary for him to become eligible for admission and athletics competition. There was frequent contact during this time between the compliance office, the former associate head coach (who was the initial lead recruiter for the prospect) and the former operations director regarding those issues. However, the men's basketball staff did not communicate with the compliance office regarding the representative's connection to the prospect. This was so even though the staff participated in over 2,000 phone calls/texts with the representative from July 2006 to June 2008 and was aware that the representative was involved with the prospect and hoped to someday serve as his agent. Further, in November 1999, the institution's athletics administration informed the men's basketball staff that, as the representative was at that time identified as a "business advisor" for a former institutional men's basketball student-athlete, the representative had to from that point forward be dealt with as an agent, even though he is an alumnus and former team manager. The institution also communicated with the representative at approximately the same time that he was considered an agent and was subject to certain NCAA rules in his dealing with the institution and its student-athletes. Nonetheless, no member of the men's basketball coaching staff informed the athletics administration about the representative's contacts with the prospect. As a result, no institutional staff member beyond the men's basketball staff had contact with the representative until November 2007, when his name was noticed on the prospect's disability evaluation as a person to whom a copy of the report should be sent. In March 2009, after the institution learned that a media story about the representative was going to be published, it requested an interview with him. He refused.
Although the institution's focus during the recruiting process was on the young man's complicated academic situation, there was no monitoring of the men's basketball staff's numerous communications with the representative or the representative's connection with the prospect. The institution acknowledged that the men's basketball staff should have voiced concern over the representative's relationship with the prospect and that the institution failed in its responsibility to monitor that relationship. Reviewing the use of discretionary tickets. As set forth in Finding B-6 above, on 12 occasions from 2007 to 2010 the men's basketball coaching staff disseminated discretionary game tickets to individuals in violation of NCAA legislation. The coaches were generally aware of the rules regarding discretionary tickets. Because they were personally acquainted with most of the individuals who received the tickets, and because the tickets were received at times of the year when the recipients were not involved in coaching activities (they were mostly summer Amateur Athletics Union coaches), the institution's coaches looked at the situation as one in which they were providing tickets to friends, not nonscholastic coaches. The coaches kept lists of who received the tickets, but the compliance staff did not confirm that all who received the tickets did so in conformance with NCAA regulations. The failure to conduct the checks constituted failure to monitor.
C.
ALLEGATION OF MAJOR VIOLATION NOT FOUND BY THE COMMITTEE. The enforcement staff alleged that the former assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to the staff in interviews held during the investigation. The allegedly false statements were made regarding the former assistant coach's knowledge of how the prospect's learning-disabled evaluation was set up and his involvement in arranging the evaluation. This line of inquiry was significant because it raised the possibility of the prospect receiving an impermissible inducement. The committee was concerned about the role the former assistant coach appeared to play in setting up the evaluation. The evaluation took place at a high school in Connecticut, even though the prospect lived hundreds of miles away. The former assistant coach made a number of calls to the evaluator, and a close friend of the former assistant coach contacted the prospect and his advisor to give them information regarding the evaluator. The former assistant coach's explanation about his calls to the evaluator and to his close friend regarding the prospect and the evaluation was not plausible to the committee. However, the enforcement staff appeared to base the allegation on speculation regarding the legitimacy of the evaluation. The language of the allegation lacked clarity. Further,
the specific questions asked of the former assistant coach that allegedly elicited the false responses, as well as the actual responses he gave, were not provided to the committee. Certain portions of the transcript of an interview conducted by the institution with the former assistant coach were made part of the record and provided to the committee, which noted that the questions asked of him were compound and possibly confusing. Therefore, the committee could not conclude that he answered inconsistently or falsely during the three interviews he participated in. Accordingly, the finding was not made.
D.
PENALTIES. For the reasons set forth in Parts A and B of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. [Note: The institution's corrective actions are contained in Appendix Two.] The committee also considered the institution's cooperation in the processing of this case. Cooperation during the infractions process is addressed in Bylaw 19.01.3 Responsibility to Cooperate, which states in relevant part that, "All representatives of member institutions shall cooperate fully with the NCAA enforcement staff, Committee on Infractions, Infractions Appeals Committee and Board of Directors. The enforcement policies and procedures require full and complete disclosure by all institutional representatives of any relevant information requested by the NCAA Enforcement Staff, Committee on Infractions or Infractions Appeals Committee during the course of an inquiry." Further, NCAA Bylaw 32.1.4 Cooperative Principle, also addresses institutional responsibility to fully cooperate during infractions investigations, stating, in relevant part, "The cooperative principle imposes an affirmative obligation on each institution to assist the enforcement staff in developing full information, to determine whether a possible violation of NCAA legislation has occurred and the details thereof." The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4 but did not rise to a level of "extraordinary." The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel as set forth in Section B above. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution's cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case: 1. 2. Public reprimand and censure. Three years of probation from February 22, 2011, through February 21, 2014. (The institution proposed a two-year period of probation)
3.
The institution shall reduce by one, from 13 to 12, the permissible number of grants-in-aid in the sport of men's basketball for the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 20122013 academic years. (The institution self imposed this penalty for 2010-11 and 2011-12 only) The men's basketball coaching staff was prohibited from placing any calls to prospective student-athletes for the week of Sunday, November 22, 2009, through Saturday, November 28, 2009. (Institution imposed) Additionally, the men's basketball staff shall not make recruiting phone calls during the 2011-12 academic year until 30 days after the first date that such calls are allowable. The institution reduced the number of permissible coaches allowed to make telephone calls to prospective student-athletes by one, from three to two (not including the head basketball coach), for a six-month period, beginning with the date of the institution's response to the notice of allegations. (Institution imposed) The institution shall reduce by 40, from 130 to 90, the permissible number of "recruiting person days" for the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 recruiting periods. (The institution self imposed this penalty for 2010-11 only) The institution shall be limited to no more than five official paid visits in the sport of men's basketball for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 academic years. If still employed at this or any other NCAA member institution during June 2011, the head coach, the assistant coach and all members of the compliance staff shall attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar which takes place during that period. All of them shall certify in writing which sessions of the seminar they attended and, within 30 days of their return to their employing institution, the employing institution shall send a letter to the committee certifying the attendance of all attendees at the seminar. The committee found that the former operations director exchanged almost 300 impermissible phone calls and/or text messages with the prospect over approximately a 10-month period, provided an impermissible inducement to the prospect by registering him for a standardized test, and provided false and misleading information during interviews with the enforcement staff and institution on two occasions. For these reasons, the committee imposes a twoyear show-cause period beginning on February 22, 2011, and ending on February 21, 2013. During this period the athletically related duties of the former operations director shall be restricted at any employing NCAA institution as set forth below.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
a.
If he is employed by any NCAA member institution at the time of 2011 and 2012 NCAA Regional Rules Seminars, he must attend a seminar annually and, within one month of each seminar, provide to the office of the Committees on Infraction a list of the sessions attended and a certification of his attendance. During the term of the show-cause order, if he is employed by any NCAA member institution, the former operations director shall be prohibited from making or receiving any phone calls related to the recruitment of prospective student-athletes. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, calls made to or received from prospects, their families, their high school or travel team coaches and any high school or two-year institution attended by the prospect. Any employing institution shall submit a report to the office of the Committees on Infractions no later than March 22, 2011, or 30 days after the first employment of the former operations director. The report must state the employing institution's understanding of the above-listed penalties that are in effect at the time of his employment and its responsibility to monitor his compliance. Any institution at which the former operations director is employed over the duration of these penalties shall also document how it will monitor his conduct to assure compliance with these penalties. Thereafter, every six months until the end of the show-cause period, the employing institution will submit a supplementary report showing how it is continuing to monitor the former operations director. An employing institution and the former operations director are admonished that the above-listed penalties should be strictly construed and that the institution must institute safeguards against the commission of any violations. Any violations, even if believed to be inadvertent or secondary, must be reported immediately to the office of the Committees on Infractions for review and possible action by the committee. Should a violation occur, the former operations director is admonished that he must immediately cease the conduct, document its occurrence, and report it to the compliance office for immediate submission to the office of the Committees on Infractions. Should an employing institution choose to challenge the imposition of the above-listed penalties, it must do so by scheduling an appearance before the Committee on Infractions pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(l) to
b.
c.
d.
show cause why it should not be penalized if it fails to comply with the penalties. 10. The committee found that the head coach failed in his duty to promote an atmosphere for compliance and monitor his program as set forth in Finding B-6. Specifically, he knew the representative was involved with the prospect, yet he did not monitor the relationship or report it to the compliance office. He also allowed members of his coaching staff to share recruiting information with the representative. Further, he failed to monitor the phone calls and text messages made by his staff and did not require them to keep contemporaneous and complete records of their contacts, which in part led to the violations set forth in Finding B-1. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5, if the head coach is still employed by this or any other NCAA member institution during the 2011-12 academic year, the head coach shall be suspended from all coaching duties for the first three conference games of the 2011-12 season. He shall not be present in the arena where the games are played and shall not have any contact with members of his coaching staff or any men's basketball student-athletes while the games are ongoing. Through the term of probation, the institution shall inform all prospective men's basketball student-athletes it recruits that the institution is on probation until February 21, 2014, of the violations committed and the penalties imposed on the men's basketball program. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official paid visit to the institution's campus, the information regarding the violations, penalties and terms of probation must be included with other information provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided to the prospect before he signs a National Letter of Intent and no later than when the institution provides the prospect with the academic data and information regarding team annual performance reviews. Further, through the term of probation the same information shall be publicized annually in the men's basketball media guide (or by a Web posting), as well as in a general institution alumni publication to be chosen by the institution with assent of the office of the Committees on Infractions. A copy of the information contained in the recruiting materials, media guide and alumni publication shall be included in the compliance reports to be submitted annually to the office of the Committees on Infractions. 12. As set forth in Appendix Two, the institution disassociated the representative for a period of at least five years. However, because of the violations committed by the representative, the institution shall show cause why it should not be penalized
11.
further if it fails to permanently disassociate him from the institution's athletics program. This disassociation shall include: a. Refraining from accepting any assistance from the individual(s) that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes; Refusing financial assistance or contributions to the institution's athletics program from the individual(s); Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the individual(s), either directly or indirectly, that is not available to the public at large; and Implementing other actions that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual(s) in the institution's athletics program.
b.
c.
d.
13.
During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition; Submit a preliminary report to the office of the Committees on Infractions by May 1, 2011, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and File with the office of the Committees on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by October 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on monitoring recruiting contacts by coaching staffs, recording contemporaneously and completely all recruiting contacts made by coaches, reviewing recruiting documentation by the office of compliance, and educating and monitoring the activities of representatives of the institution's athletics interests. The reports must also include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and imposed by the committee.
b.
c.
14.
The above-listed penalties are independent of and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance through its assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. _____________________________________________________
15.
As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, the University of Connecticut shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, February 22, 2011. Should the University of Connecticut or any involved individual appeal either the findings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the appeals committee. The Committee on Infractions advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period or imposing more severe sanctions or may result in additional allegations and findings of violations. An institution that employs an individual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to adhere to the penalties imposed, subjects itself to allegations and possible findings of violations. Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA legislative bodies directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Britton Banowsky John S. Black Roscoe C. Howard Jr. Eleanor W. Myers James O'Fallon Josephine (Jo) R. Potuto Dennis E. Thomas, chair
APPENDIX ONE CASE CHRONOLOGY 2009 March 25 - Yahoo! Sports published a story alleging that the institution violated NCAA legislation in its recruitment of the prospect.
2010 January 29 - A notice of inquiry was sent to the institution. May 21 - The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the institution and men's basketball coaches and requested written responses by August 20, 2010. July 31 The former operations director, the head coach and the former assistant coach requested, and were granted, an extension for responding to the notice of allegations until September 3, 2010. August 31 The head coach, the former operations director and the former assistant coach requested, and were granted, a second extension for responding to the notice of allegations until September 7, 2010. September 2 - The Committee on Infractions and enforcement staff received the assistant coach's response to the notice of allegations. September 7 - The Committee on Infractions and enforcement staff received responses to the notice of allegations from the institution, the former operations director and the head coach. September 7 The former assistant coach requested, and was granted, a third extension for responding to the notice of allegations until September 9, 2010. September 10 - The Committee on Infractions received the former assistant coach's response to the notice of allegations. September 11 - The enforcement staff received the former assistant coach's response to the notice of allegations. The Committee on Infractions received the former assistant coach's amended response to the notice of allegations.
September 13 - The enforcement staff received the former assistant coach's amended response to the notice of allegations. September 15 - The enforcement staff received the former assistant coach's second amended response to the notice of allegations. September 20 - The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with the head basketball coach. September 21 - The enforcement staff conducted prehearing conferences with the institution, the former operations director and the assistant coach. September 23 - The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with the former assistant coach. October 15 The institution and involved parties appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions.
2011 February 22 - Infractions Report No. 339 was released.
APPENDIX TWO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S SEPTEMBER 2, 2010, RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS. Disassociated the representative for at least five years. Accepted the resignations of former operations director and the former assistant coach. Hired a director of men's basketball administration (replacing the former position of director of men's basketball operations.) As a veteran coach, this hire had has extensive experience in managing the day-to-day activities of a Division I men's basketball program. He will serve as the men's basketball program's liaison to the institution's athletics compliance and director of athletics offices. Contracted with a technology company that offers software products for monitoring recruiting and NCAA rules compliance, for the development of a complete telephone call monitoring system. Developed a plan for an annual, mandatory rules-education session for all sports programs concerning telephone call and text messaging legislation and complimentary/ discretionary ticket distribution guidelines; Issued letters of admonishment to the assistant coach and the head coach for telephone call and text messaging violations detailed in Finding B-1. Will require the men's basketball staff to use the XOS ticket management software program currently used for administering student-athlete complimentary admissions. Additionally, during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons, each member of the men's basketball staff will be required to: 1) leave all non-family member discretionary tickets at the will-call ticket window for pickup; and 2) submit to the compliance office, by May 1 following each season, a game-by-game (home and away) log of all discretionary ticket recipients. The institution's department of athletics will have annual reviews by the institution's Office of Audit Compliance and Ethics. Will require the assistant coach (the staff's most active recruiting coach) and new members of its men's basketball coaching staff to attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar in the spring or summer of 2011.

University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT February 22, 2011

2011 February 22 - Infractions Report No. 339 was released.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen