The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that Howard University (“HU”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation. After the investigation concluded the case was submitted to the Committee through the summary disposition process, which is an alternative to a formal hearing before the Committee that may be utilized when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution, and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and that those facts constitute major violations of NCAA legislation.

The Committee found that HU committed the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Violations of NCAA Bylaws 15.01.2, 15.2.1, 15.2.2, 15.2.3, and 16.11.2.1

From the 2010-11 academic year through the 2013 summer academic term, the institution allowed student-athletes to spend athletics aid on impermissible items not required for their courses and permitted student-athletes to keep any unspent portion of their athletics aid that was designated solely for the purchase of required course-related items, tuition and housing. These violations occurred as the result of a lack of appropriate athletics-specific safeguards in the textbook distribution and student financial accounting system. Specifically:

a.  110 student-athletes participating in 15 sports purchased approximately $17,300 of impermissible items, which included electronic devices, assorted school supplies, personal hygiene and apparel items, and extra books, which were occasionally provided to other student-athletes.

b.  215 student-athletes participating in 15 sports received approximately $119,300 of unused athletics aid (allocated for the purchase of required course-related items, tuition and housing) in the form of cash payments, Visa cash cards, checks, direct deposits into personal banking accounts and student account credits.

Violations of NCAA Bylaw 14.11.1.

During the 2010-11 academic year and 2011 fall semester, the institution misapplied NCAA legislation governing financial aid and extra benefits, resulting in student-athletes in three sports being ineligible for competition. Athletics department administrators learned that six student-athletes used athletics aid to purchase items other than required course-related textbooks, but failed to require the student-athletes to undergo the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement process immediately after the discovery of the violations and before allowing them to compete. One football student-athlete competed in 22 contests during the 2010 and 2011 seasons while ineligible, and a second, third and fourth football student-athlete competed in eight, nine and nine contests, respectively, during the 2011 season while ineligible. Similarly, one men’s basketball student-athlete competed in 14 contests while ineligible during the 2011-12 season, and one women’s swimming student-athlete competed while ineligible in 13 meets during the 2011-12 season.

Violations of NCAA Bylaws 13.01.4, 13.02.5.3, 13.1.3.5.1.1, and 13.17.8-(c).

Between May 2011 and August 2012, in an effort to recruit men’s and women’s prospective cross country and track and field student-athletes, the head coach deliberately developed a close relationship with a Kenyan national and the founder of a Maryland-based charitable organization, who was previously identified in this decision as “athletics representative.” The head coach’s specific intention in developing the relationship with this individual was to obtain assistance from him in the institution’s recruitment of several prospects from Kenya. In the course of this effort, this individual became a representative of the institution’s athletics interests and violations of NCAA recruiting legislation ensued, involving both the athletics representative and the head coach. Specifically:

a.  From December 23, 2011, until January 2, 2012, during a designated recruiting quiet period, the head coach made impermissible off-campus recruiting contacts and evaluations with a minimum of four prospective student-athletes while in Kenya.

b.  Between April and August 2012, the athletics representative engaged in impermissible recruiting activity when, at the head coach’s request, he accepted telephone calls from two then prospective transfer student-athletes and eventual Howard University student-athletes (“student-athletes 1 and 2” respectively). During those calls, the athletics representative promoted the institution’s athletics interests by speaking to the student-athletes while they were prospects about the institution, the Washington, D.C. area and the head coach.

Violations of NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 16.11.2.1.

Between August 2011 and January 3, 2013, the head coach and the athletics representative provided approximately $11,500 in inducements and extra benefits to five track and cross country prospective student-athletes who later became student-athletes at the institution. Specifically:

           Between October 2011 and January 3, 2013, the head coach provided or arranged for the athletics representative to provide approximately $8,635 in inducements and extra benefits to a women’s track and cross country student-athlete (“student-athlete 3”). Specifically, they provided:

(1) Two hundred dollars for the cost of fees associated with women’s track and cross country student-athlete 1 obtaining a United States nonimmigrant visa;

(2) Approximately $80 for the cost of a Kenyan running training camp;

(3) One pair of running shoes valued at approximately $80;

(4) A track warm-up valued at approximately $30;

(5) Three hundred dollars to the institution for women’s track student-athlete 1’s enrollment fees; and

(6) Approximately $7,945 in living expenses associated with daily transportation to and from the institution, daily meals, a cell phone and service, clothing and lodging.  

From August 2011 through October 2012, the athletics representative provided four men’s track and cross country student-athletes a total of approximately $2,860 in inducements and extra benefits. Further, the head coach arranged for or knew about several of the inducements. Specifically:

(1) The athletics representative provided student-athlete 1 approximately $300 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Philadelphia (278 miles) ($154), approximately two nights of lodging ($64), eight impermissible meals ($77) and laundry benefits.

(2) The athletics representative provided student-athlete 2 approximately $298 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Philadelphia (278 miles) ($154); one-way transportation from Lanham, Maryland, to the athletics representative’s residence in Clarksburg, Maryland ($20); one night of lodging ($32); five impermissible meals ($57); and laundry benefits. Further, on one occasion, the head coach arranged for the athletics representative to provide student-athlete 2 with one-way transportation from the Baltimore airport to the athletics representative’s residence (48 miles) ($27).

(3) The athletics representative provided a third men’s track student-athlete (“student-athlete 4”) approximately $630 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Philadelphia (278 miles) ($154), approximately eight nights of lodging ($254), 24 impermissible meals ($219) and laundry benefits. Further, in August 2012, the head coach learned about five of the eight nights of lodging.

(4) The athletics representative provided a fourth men’s track and cross country student-athlete (“student-athlete 5”) approximately $1,631 in inducements and extra benefits, which included round-trip transportation from the institution to Ocean City, Maryland and to Philadelphia (568 miles) ($302); approximately 20 nights of lodging ($635); and 61 impermissible meals ($694). Further, in August 2011, the head coach learned about one of the 20 nights of lodging.

 Violations of NCAA Bylaws 14.3.1 and 15.01.5.

In approximately June 2011, the head coach began recruiting student-athlete 3. On June 18, 2012, the institution’s financial aid office received and processed her signed athletics grant-in-aid agreement with the institution for the 2012-13 academic year, which provided $34,764 in athletics aid for tuition, room, board, textbooks and other fees. However, at that time, student-athlete 3 was not certified as a first-year student-athlete eligible to compete and receive athletics aid. The NCAA Eligibility Center was attempting to process her certification and was awaiting receipt of her matriculation letter, which is a form, generated by the eligibility center and completed by the institution, which attests to the student-athlete’s initial enrollment date at a collegiate institution. In early August 2012, the institution’s athletics compliance office and the director of athletics instructed the head coach to cease his recruitment of student-athlete 3 due to concerns related to her eligibility. Shortly thereafter, athletics administrators requested the head coach to remove her from the women’s track and cross country student-athlete athletics grant-in-aid recipient list and submit the updated information to the institution’s financial aid office. However, the head coach failed to inform student-athlete 3 that she should not travel to the United States. Nor did he immediately remove her from the athletics grant-in-aid recipient list. On August 15, 2012, student-athlete 3 traveled to Washington, D.C., and, within days, registered for her classes online. As a result, the athletics aid was improperly disbursed to her.

 Violations of NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d), and 11.1.2.1.

Between May 2011 and November 12, 2012, the head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct when he failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the men’s and women’s cross country and track and field programs. Specifically:

a.   The head coach did not promote an atmosphere for compliance when he was involved in and arranged impermissible recruiting activity.

b.  The head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when he knowingly arranged for or provided two prospective and later current men’s and women’s track cross country and track student-athletes inducements and extra benefits.

c.   The head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly furnished false and misleading information by denying his involvement in providing the three inducements despite the fact that women’s track and cross country student-athlete 1 originally reported, and the head coach later admitted, that he provided the inducements.

Violations of NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 and 6.01.1.

 The scope and nature of the violations demonstrate that the institution failed to exercise institutional control and monitor the administration of the student-athlete textbook distribution and the student financial account system. The institution also failed to appropriately monitor the men’s and women’s cross country and track and field programs to assure compliance with NCAA financial aid, recruiting and extra benefits legislation in that the institution failed to (a) ensure at the time of implementation that the new textbook system would operate in compliance with NCAA legislation; (b) incorporate appropriate athletics specific safeguards in the textbook distribution and Banner student account system’s configuration that could have prevented violations of NCAA legislation; (c) recognize an NCAA violation, and timely and properly investigate the extent of student-athlete impermissible purchases and inappropriate credits and refunds being disbursed to student-athletes; (d) ensure that the head coach complied with NCAA legislation during his interactions with then prospective international cross country and track and field student-athletes; and (e) limit first-year student-athletes’ receipt of athletics aid to those who were academically certified by the eligibility center. Specifically:

a.  Concerning the failure to ensure the new textbook and student financial account system would operate in compliance with NCAA legislation and incorporate appropriate athletics specific safeguards, in August 2010, the institution’s office of financial aid implemented the new textbook system for the institution’s general student population. However, the institution did not (1) obtain a thorough understanding of how the new system operated, (2) consider how the system’s configuration may lead to violations of NCAA legislation or (3) incorporate appropriate safeguards toward monitoring student-athlete bookstore purchases and credits or refunds associated with unused portions of the athletics aid designated for the purchase of required course-related items. As a result, beginning in August 2010, 110 student-athletes made $17,300 in impermissible purchases during the 2010-11 academic year and 2011 fall semester, and $111,700 in impermissible account credits or refunds were disbursed to 214 student-athletes.  Additionally, during the 2012 and 2013 summer terms, the institution did not enter appropriate programming in the institution’s student financial account system to prevent the disbursement of tuition and housing athletics aid refunds to student-athletes. As a result, five student-athletes received approximately $7,600 in impermissible refunds.

b.  Concerning the failure to recognize an NCAA violation and timely and properly investigate the extent of student-athlete impermissible purchases, as of September 15, 2010, the institution learned that at least one student-athlete purchased an impermissible item (an iPod) at the bookstore while using the newly implemented online voucher system. However, it wasn’t until December 2011 that the institution realized it was required to report this violation. Further, the institution did not thoroughly investigate the total amount of impermissible items the identified student-athlete purchased at the bookstore or whether additional student-athletes purchased impermissible items until December 2011.

c.  Concerning the failure to timely and properly investigate the extent of inappropriate credits and refunds being disbursed to student-athletes, as of November 2011, the institution discovered that student-athletes were scheduled to receive inappropriate credits or refunds related to unused portions of their fall of 2011 athletics aid related book vouchers. At that time, the institution adjusted its system to prevent the disbursement of the majority of the fall of 2011 credits and refunds. However, the institution did not investigate whether credits or refunds were distributed to student-athletes during the 2010-11 academic year until being requested to do so by the enforcement staff in March 2012.  As of November 2012, the institution learned that student-athletes received impermissible refunds from their 2012 summer term athletics aid allocated for tuition and housing fees; however, it did not thoroughly investigate the refunds to determine the reason for the disbursements or whether they were permissible according to NCAA legislation.

d.  Concerning the failure relating to the head coach’s compliance with NCAA legislation, between April 2011 and November 2012, the institution was aware that the head coach recruited Kenyan international student-athletes; however, it failed to monitor his compliance with the men’s and women’s cross country and track and field recruiting calendar while recruiting abroad.

e.  Concerning the failure to limit first-year student-athletes’ receipt of athletics aid to those who were academically certified by the eligibility center, during the 2012 fall semester, the institution allowed student-athlete 1 to receive aid even though she was determined to be a nonqualifier by the eligibility center.

As a result of the aforementioned violations, the Committee penalized HU as follows:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Four years of probation from May 20, 2014, through May 19, 2018.

3. A fine of $140,000.

4. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of football by one equivalency from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the 2008-09 and 2011-12 academic years (58.19) during the 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years.

5. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of men’s basketball by a .5 equivalency from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the 2008-09 and 2011-12 academic years (12.60) during the 2015-16 academic year.

6. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of women’s swimming by a .25 equivalency from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the 2008-09 and 2011-12 academic years (6.37) during the 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years.

7. Reduce grants-in-aid in the sport of men’s cross country and track and field by two equivalences from the average annual amount awarded during the four-year period between the 2008-09 and 2011-12 academic years (11.24) during the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years.

8. Reduce the recruiting opportunities in men’s track and field and cross country by two (from seven to five) for all prospective student-athletes during the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years.

9. Reduce the recruiting opportunities in women’s track and field and cross country by one (from seven to six) for all prospective student-athletes during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years.

10. Reduce, from three to one, the maximum number of coaches in the sports of men’s and women’s cross country and track and field who may contact or evaluate prospective student-athletes off campus at any one time during the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years.

11. Permanent disassociation of the athletics representative, who, through his actions, became a representative of the institution’s athletics interests.

12. Vacation of all men’s cross country and track and field wins in which men’s track student-athletes 1, 2, 4 and 5 competed for the institution while ineligible during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 academic years. The individual records of the student-athletes shall be vacated as well. Further, the institution’s records regarding men’s cross country and track and field, as well as the record of the head men’s cross country and track and field coach during those years, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications.

13. The institution initiated a review of its athletics compliance program by the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (MEAC) office in July 2013. The institution also will initiate a review of its athletics compliance by an external agency during the 2017-18 academic year.

14. The head coach received a three year show cause penalty.

For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@bgsfirm.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .