The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Mississippi (“UM” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. This case involved two athletics programs – women’s basketball and track and field – and eight involved individuals at the UM. The women’s basketball violations centered on academic fraud while the track and field violations involved impermissible tryouts, inducements, transportation and recruiting. The violations in both programs were complicated by some staff and student-athletes attempting to cover up the conduct by providing false and misleading information and/or failing to cooperate. Both former head coaches also failed to fulfill their head coaching responsibilities.

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

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(b), 10.1-(c), 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(e) and 13.15.1 (2011-12); 14.1.2 and 15.01.5 (2011-12 and 2012-13)

Starting in late spring 2012, the former assistant basketball coach, former director of basketball operations and two student-athletes knowingly committed academic fraud in a number of online summer courses. Both student-athletes needed the courses for eligibility. Additionally, the former assistant basketball coach enrolled and paid for one of the student-athlete’s courses. Based on the completion of these courses, the Institution enrolled the student-athletes and provided them with athletically related aid. The Institution and two former women’s basketball staff members agreed to the majority of the facts and that Level I violations occurred.

The former assistant basketball coach, former director of basketball operations and student-athletes 1 and 2 committed unethical conduct when they knowingly arranged for fraudulent academic credit in a total of five online summer courses. The former assistant basketball coach also committed unethical conduct when she knowingly enrolled and paid for student-athlete 1’s courses. Further, the Institution impermissibly awarded the student-athletes athletically related aid. The conduct violated NCAA Bylaws 10, 13, 14 and 15.

NCAA Bylaw 10 outlines ethical conduct. NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1 requires institutional staff members and student-athletes to act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times. Among other examples, NCAA Bylaw 10.1 defines the knowing arrangement of fraudulent academic credit and the knowing provision of inducements as unethical conduct. Those examples are memorialized in NCAA Bylaws 10.1-(b) and (c), respectively. NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 prohibits institutional staff members from providing inducements or financial aid to prospects unless the provision is expressly authorized. NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1.1-(e) expressly prohibits providing cash or like items. NCAA Bylaw 14.1.2 places an affirmative responsibility on member institutions to determine the validity of the information on which a student-athlete’s eligibility is based. Finally, NCAA Bylaw 15.01.5 requires that student-athletes meet all NCAA Bylaw 14 requirements prior to receiving institutional aid.

The former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach did not operate with the honesty and integrity expected of staff members working at NCAA member institutions. Their actions were contradictory to the minimum standards of conduct contemplated by NCAA Bylaw 10 and 10.01.1. The former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach knew they could not complete academic work for student-athletes 1 and 2. However, to ensure that the elite student-athletes completed their associate’s degrees, they intentionally disregarded ethical conduct standards when they completed five online summer courses for student-athletes 1 and 2. Their efforts went to such lengths that they identified and arranged for a past acquaintance to serve as a straw proctor for one of student-athlete 2’s exams. The proctor provided the former assistant basketball coach with the exam ahead of time and the former assistant basketball coach arranged for it to be completed. Student-athlete 2 admitted that she did not sit for nor had knowledge of the exam, which was purportedly completed 180 miles away from student-athlete 2’s home. Student-athletes 1 and 2 were aware and complicit in the activity as it related to their courses. Based on their varying levels of participation and knowledge, all four violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(b) when they arranged for student-athletes 1 and 2 to receive fraudulent academic credit.

The former assistant basketball coach also committed unethical conduct when she knowingly enrolled and paid $630 for student-athlete 1’s online summer courses. Her conduct violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c) and constituted an impermissible inducement under NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e). Finally, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.1.2 and 15.01.5 when it failed to determine the validity of student-athlete 1’s and 2’s eligibility and, based on fraudulently obtained courses, awarded them athletically related aid.

While each case is unique to its facts and circumstances, the Committee has recently concluded that institutional staff members who complete online coursework for prospective or current student-athletes commit Level I violations. University of Southern Mississippi (2016) (concluding that Level I academic misconduct violations occurred when members of the men’s basketball staff completed over sixty-credit hours of online coursework for seven prospective student-athletes); Southern Methodist University (2016) (concluding that a Level I academic misconduct violation occurred when a basketball administrative assistant obtained an incoming student-athlete’s username and password and completed all of the his assignments and exams for an online course); Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that a Level I violation occurred when the former director of basketball operations and former basketball receptionist completed an extra credit paper for a student-athlete seeking a grade change over one year after he had completed the course); and Weber State University (2014) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when a math instructor obtained five student-athletes’ usernames and passwords and completed online quizzes, tests and exams, resulting in fraudulent academic credit).

The Panel concluded that the violation is Level I because the conduct seriously undermined and threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. The violation was also intended to give the Institution a substantial advantage. At the time of the academic fraud, the student-athletes would have had to successfully complete additional summer courses to earn their associate’s degrees and be deemed eligible to enroll at the institution. Further, both were elite two-year transfers that could have made an extensive impact on the women’s basketball program.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 (2012-13)

In multiple interviews conducted in fall 2012, two former women’s basketball staff members and two student-athletes provided false and misleading information. The staff members also failed to fulfill their obligations under the cooperative principle. The student-athletes did not file a response or participate in the hearing. However, in their final interviews, they admitted they had previously not been truthful. The Institution and two former women’s basketball staff members agreed to the majority of the facts and that Level I violations occurred.

The former director of basketball operations, former assistant basketball coach and student-athletes 1 and 2 committed unethical conduct when they stated that the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach were not involved in the academic fraud. Further, the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach violated the NCAA cooperative principle when they instructed and/or personally deleted information relevant to the investigation and instructed student-athlete 1 to tell a false story. The student-athletes’ conduct violated NCAA Bylaw 10. The former director of basketball operations and the former assistant basketball coach violated NCAA Bylaws 10, 19 and 32.

NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 require institutional staff members and student-athletes to act with honesty and sportsmanship and ethical conduct. Among other examples, NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d) identifies knowingly furnishing or influencing others to furnish false or misleading information as unethical conduct. At the time, NCAA Bylaws 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 required all institutional representatives to fully cooperate with investigations and placed an affirmative obligation on individual subjects to assist the enforcement staff in developing information.

The Institution (and later the enforcement staff) interviewed the former director of basketball operations and the former assistant basketball coach a total of five times. Similarly, they interviewed student-athlete 1 on four occasions and student-athlete 2 on three occasions. Originally, each denied the involvement of the former director of basketball operations or the former assistant basketball coach in the summer online courses. Likewise, the former assistant basketball coach and student-athlete 1 claimed that student-athlete 1 and her family enrolled and paid for her summer online courses. All were untrue. They were orchestrated lies attempting to conceal known violations and thwart the investigation.

As the Institution (and later the enforcement staff) continued the investigation, they uncovered concrete factual information refuting the interviewees initial claims, including emails intentionally deleted by the former director of basketball operations. When presented with this information, the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach reversed course, acknowledged their involvement in the academic fraud and admitted they previously provided false information in earlier interviews. Ultimately, they also acknowledged culpability in their joint response. Similarly, in their October 2012 interviews, student-athletes 1 and 2 consistently stated they had completed their online coursework and student-athlete 1 identified that she and her family enrolled in and paid for her online courses. Later, in their January 2013 interviews, student-athlete 1 and student-athlete 2 admitted that they had not been truthful when they were interviewed in October. Further, student-athlete 1 acknowledged that the former assistant basketball coach enrolled her in and paid for her courses and instructed her to tell a false story regarding the payments and coursework. She also instructed student-athlete 1 to delete text messages relevant to the investigation.

When the former director of basketball operations, former assistant basketball coach and student-athletes 1 and 2 intentionally provided false and misleading information, they committed unethical conduct and failed to act in accordance with the honesty, sportsmanship and integrity required in NCAA Bylaw 10. All four violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d). Their intentional lying undermined one of the core responsibilities required of employees and student-athletes at member institutions. Likewise, when the former director of basketball operations deleted emails and the former assistant basketball coach instructed student-athlete 1 to tell a false story and to destroy relevant factual information, they failed to meet their obligations under the cooperative principle. These acts also violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), as well as, NCAA Bylaws 19.01.3 and 32.1.4.

While each case is unique, the Committee has consistently concluded that current and former institutional staff members must be truthful and cooperate with the enforcement staff’s investigation. Georgia Southern University (2016) (concluding that the former compliance officer’s denial and then refusal to participate in further interviews constituted a Level I unethical conduct violation); and Southeastern Louisiana University (2015) (concluding that a head coach committed a Level I violation when he provided false information when he inaccurately described the duties performed by a volunteer coach in his program).

Ethical conduct and the cooperative principle are bedrock standards of conduct and principles on which the NCAA Collegiate Model and infractions process are based. All NCAA member institutions and staff must undertake these responsibilities with the utmost commitment. The former director of basketball operations, former assistant basketball coach and student-athletes failed to fulfill these obligations of membership and seriously undermined and threatened the NCAA Collegiate Model. The Panel concluded their violations are Level I.

Violations of NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.2.1 (2011-12)

During spring 2012, the former head basketball coach did not fulfill his head coaching responsibilities when he failed to monitor two staff members’ activities surrounding two student-athletes’ online coursework. The Institution substantially agreed to the facts and that a Level I violation occurred. The former head basketball coach disagreed that he violated head coach responsibility legislation. The Panel concluded that the former head basketball coach committed a Level I violation.

From late May through June 2012, the former head basketball coach failed to monitor his former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach, allowing their academic fraud to go undetected. The former head basketball coach knew student-athletes 1 and 2 faced academic challenges, yet paid little, if any, attention to his staff members monitoring of their academic status. His conduct violated NCAA Bylaw 11.

On April 28, 2005, the NCAA membership adopted and placed specific responsibilities on head coaches and memorialized those expectations in NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1. Those responsibilities, however, were not new. Prior to the adoption of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1, head coaches held monitoring responsibilities under NCAA Constitution 2.8.1. The adoption of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 placed a responsibility on head coaches to promote an atmosphere for compliance and monitor the activities of those who report directly and indirectly to the head coach. A coach can be held responsible for failures in either or both requirements.

Head coaches are presumed responsible for the actions of their staff. That presumption is rebuttable. The presumption was rooted in numerous cases in which head coaches routinely claimed ignorance to violations while indicating that such responsibilities were entrusted to their assistants. In response, the membership passed an affirmative obligation on all head coaches to promote an atmosphere for compliance and monitor their staffs.

The Committee has consistently required coaches to affirmatively promote an atmosphere for compliance, monitor the activities of their staffs and has held coaches accountable for the activities of their staffs. In each of these cases, the head coach at issue was unable to rebut his presumed responsibility. Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 and NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 held the head men’s basketball coach responsible for the violations involving his student-athletes and staff that occurred in student-athlete academics and resulted from their interactions and engagements with a representative of the institution’s athletics interest); and California State University, Sacramento (2015) (concluding that the former head football coach was responsible for his former assistant coach’s recruiting violations under NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 (and later 11.1.1.1)).

Further, in concluding head coaches violated NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1, the committee has identified specific expectations and obligations of all head coaches under the bylaw. University of Miami (2013) (concluding that NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 holds head coaches responsible for conduct of their staff and requires that head coaches seek information related to potential violations); University of Connecticut (2011) (concluding that NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires coaches to recognize potential problems, address them and report them to athletics administration); and University of Indiana, Bloomington (2008) (concluding that NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 places a specific and independent monitoring obligation on head coaches). The Panel recognized that each case is unique. But the overarching principle that head coaches must be held accountable for conduct in their programs remains constant for all head coaches in the NCAA.

Here, the former head basketball coach failed to rebut the presumption. He claimed ignorance of the academic fraud orchestrated and carried out by two of his staff members, claiming that he had entrusted and delegated the academic, recruiting and compliance responsibilities to his former assistant basketball coach. At the hearing, the former head basketball coach identified a number of actions that he undertook during his short tenure at the Institution to promote compliance. He identified that during roughly the first two weeks of April 2012, he and his staff met every day. And while his philosophy was not to hold formal meetings, he had an open door policy and talked about rules every day. He provided further examples about promoting an atmosphere for compliance by identifying conflicts and bringing them to his supervisor and reporting (or requiring) a staff member to report an impermissible contact. He also indicated that he required his staff to attend institutional athletics compliance meetings. As identified at the infractions hearing, the enforcement staff did not believe, nor allege, that he failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. It only alleged that he failed to monitor two staff members who, based on this lack of oversight and monitoring, committed academic fraud for student-athletes 1 and 2 over a five-week period. Outside of receiving general updates, the former head basketball coach could not demonstrate his specific monitoring efforts of his two former staff members. Therefore, he failed to rebut his presumed knowledge and responsibility. He remains accountable for their actions.

Recently, the Committee concluded that two head coaches specifically failed to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities and meet the membership’s expectations of head coaches. Syracuse University (2015) (concluding, in addition to failing to promote an atmosphere for compliance and among other monitoring failures, the head men’s basketball coach failed to monitor his director of basketball operations and a basketball receptionist’s involvement in student-athletes’ academics who he knew encountered academic difficulties) and California State University, Sacramento (2015) (concluding, in addition to failing to promote an atmosphere for compliance, the former head football coach failed to monitor his assistant coach who engaged in impermissible recruiting contacts; some of the those contacts (impermissible in-person contacts) were limited to only three months). That is not to say that the presumption cannot be rebutted.

The Committee has also identified that recognizing a potential issue, appropriate follow-up and a long history of rules education and compliance may effectively rebut a coach’s presumed responsibility. Wichita State University (2015) (concluding that the enforcement staff did not demonstrate a violation when the former head baseball coach identified student-athletes standing around his former receptionist ordering merchandise, specifically inquired into the circumstances, informed the receptionist of relevant NCAA legislation and demonstrated that he and the institution educated her during her twenty plus years with the former head coach).

The former head basketball coach knew (and approved) his staff was recruiting two student-athletes who had encountered academic difficulties. The circumstances were unfamiliar and uncomfortable to the former head basketball coach. The Panel recognized his preliminary response of discussing his concerns with his direct supervisor. His responsibilities, however, did not end there. He had a responsibility – particularly, considering his initial concerns – to monitor student-athlete 1’s and 2’s recruitment and ensure that they fulfilled their academic requirements. The former head basketball coach relied on his two staff members and their general updates. Further, in his interviews, response and at the infractions hearing, the former head basketball coach consistently indicated that it was not his responsibility to monitor prospects’ academics and he only involved himself in academics once student-athletes were on campus. The Panel agreed that it was reasonable to delegate duties to his staff members. But those delegated responsibilities cannot remain unchecked.

Like the former head coach in California State University, Sacramento, the former head basketball coach’s failure to monitor was limited to a short period of time. The duty to monitor, however, is an ongoing duty. During a significant portion of the short time when the academic fraud occurred, the former head basketball coach was not physically in Oxford, Mississippi. The former head basketball coach identified that he had both previously scheduled commitments (e.g., camps, Women’s Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA) Ethics seminars, SEC new coaches training, etc.) and was responsible for moving his family across the country. The Panel recognized that coaches, particularly those who are transitioning to new opportunities, have to complete previous commitments. That, however, does not excuse the responsibilities they inherit the moment they become the head of a program.

When he accepted the position of head women’s basketball coach at the institution, he was aware of his professional and personal obligations. He was also aware of the need to build out his basketball roster and that his staff was recruiting prospects with academic challenges. Being unfamiliar with those circumstances and physically being away from campus, the former head basketball coach should have increased his monitoring efforts rather than delegating them without proper supervision. He was not required to conduct a formal investigation into every class and assignment. But his absence, lack of inquiry and complete delegation and reliance on the former assistant basketball coach and former director of basketball operations allowed them to operate unchecked and commit academic fraud.

For these reasons the former head basketball coach failed to rebut his presumed responsibility. His circumstances are different than those in Wichita State University. He was aware of student-athlete 1’s and 2’s potential academic challenges, yet was unable to establish any specific measures that he initiated to ensure their recruitment and admission complied with NCAA bylaws. Further, the former head basketball coach had just formed a new staff. Unlike the case in Wichita State University, the former head basketball coach did not benefit from years of camaraderie, trust and a clear understanding of the former head basketball coach’s expectations for compliance. As such, the initial months in charge of the program presented an important opportunity to establish effective monitoring procedures and compliance-related expectations. The former head basketball coach did not seize that opportunity.

As a result of his inattention to his former director of basketball operations’ and former assistant basketball coach’s involvement in student-athlete 1’s and 2’s online courses, the former head basketball coach failed to fulfill the responsibilities and expectations identified by the NCAA membership. These failures, albeit only for a limited time period, resulted in severe academic violations that cut to the core of the NCAA Collegiate model. The former head basketball coach violated NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1. The Panel concluded that the violation is a Level I violation because it results from an underlying Level I violation within the sport program and from the direct actions of staff members over whom the former head basketball coach was responsible for monitoring.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.4, 13.1.3.4.1 and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12)

From the press conference announcing the former head basketball coach through summer 2012, the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach engaged in impermissible telephone-related contacts. The Institution and two former women’s basketball staff members agreed to the majority of the facts and that Level II violations occurred.

Between March 28 and July 24, 2012, the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach placed 62 impermissible telephone calls and sent 320 impermissible text messages to 13 prospects. They previously coached, recruited or otherwise knew the majority of the prospects. The telephone-related activity violated existing NCAA Bylaw 13.

At the time of the violations, NCAA Bylaw 13 more strictly regulated telephone contacts for women’s basketball staff members. Generally, NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1, prohibited telephone calls prior to July 1 after the prospect’s junior year. NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1.4 created an exception for select times of the year in women’s basketball. NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.4.1 only permitted the head coach and specifically identified staff members who have passed the certification exam to engage in authorized telephone-related activity. NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 prohibited all text messaging.

On March 28, 2012, the institution’s new women’s basketball staff was in place. At that point, the former director of basketball operations and the former assistant basketball coach had verbally and officially accepted positions on the former head basketball coach’s staff, respectively. After the press conference, the women’s basketball staff received preliminary rules education, including education on permissible recruiting. In their interviews, the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach acknowledged they continued to contact prospects but indicated that the majority were personal and/or mentor-based contacts rather than recruiting. Regardless, and based on their new employment status with the institution, their communication with prospects was regulated by NCAA recruiting legislation. As a result, when they continued to call young women considered prospects of the institution they violated NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.4. Likewise, and because text messages were prohibited, they violated NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 when they cumulatively sent 320 text messages to prospects. Finally, the former director of basketball operations was not authorized to engage in telephone-related recruiting activity. When he placed telephone calls and sent text messages to prospects those contacts violated NCAA 13.1.3.4.1.

The Panel concluded that the impermissible contacts are a Level II violation because recruiting is based on relationship building. Even if not aggressively recruiting all 13 prospects, the contacts continued and strengthened relationships that provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal recruiting advantage.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.4, 13.1.3.1.4.1 and 13.1.3.4.2 (2011-12)

In 2012, assistant track coach 1 made impermissible recruiting contact with a student-athlete who was enrolled at another NCAA member institution. Additionally, assistant track coach 2 made impermissible recruiting contact with another student-athlete who was enrolled at another NCAA member institution. The Institution, enforcement staff and former assistant track coaches 1 and 2 substantially agreed on the facts and that Level II violations occurred.

Former assistant track coaches 1 and 2 violated NCAA recruiting legislation when they recruited student-athletes at their former institutions to transfer to Mississippi. The actions of the two former assistant track coaches constituted tampering with the enrolled student-athletes of another program. The conduct violated certain provisions of NCAA Bylaw 13.

NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3 precludes athletics staff members of member institutions from contacting student-athletes at other four-year institutions without first obtaining written permission from the director of athletics at the institution where the student-athlete is enrolled. Without that permission, institutional staff members are not allowed to encourage the student-athlete to transfer. During the time period that the violations occurred, NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 prohibited institutional staff members from sending text messages to prospective student-athletes.

In this case, former assistant track coach 1 did not have written permission from the director of athletics at her former institution to contact student-athlete 3, whom former assistant track coach 1 had coached while working at her previous institution where student-athlete 3 was enrolled. Nonetheless, the day after she accepted a coaching position at the institution, former assistant track coach 1 began a series of phone calls and text messages with student-athlete 3. At least some of the communications related to student-athlete 3 possibly transferring. Former assistant coach 1 asked student-athlete 3, who was not considering a transfer until former assistant track coach 1 broached the subject, to make a visit to the institution and indicated that student-athlete 3 would receive a favorable financial aid package. When former assistant track coach 1 contacted student-athlete 3 about a transfer without first having obtained written permission, she violated NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3. Because some of her contacts with student-athlete 3 were through text messages, former assistant track coach 1 also violated NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2.

Similarly, once former assistant coach 2 arrived at the institution, she exchanged approximately 20 text messages and/or phone calls with student-athlete 4, whom she had coached at her previous institution. Former assistant track coach 2 made the contacts without written permission from the director of athletics at her former institution. In approximately half of the contacts, former assistant track coach 2 talked to student-athlete 4 about possibly transferring to the institution. Former assistant track coach 2’s actions also violated NCAA Bylaws 13.1.1.3 and 13.4.1.2.

Tampering with student-athletes at other institutions is strictly prohibited by NCAA legislation. In University of Florida (2015), citing University of Colorado (2002), a panel of this committee stated that contacts exceeding the boundaries of permissible recruiting are a serious matter to the membership. Impermissible contacts confer advantages upon those who engage in the contacts to the detriment of those who are abiding by the rules. The Panel concluded that former assistant track coaches 1 and 2 committed Level II violations when they attempted to induce student-athletes at other institutions to transfer to UM.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.11.1 (2012-13)

On approximately eight occasions from September 2012 into January 2013, former assistant track coach 1 conducted impermissible tryouts of 20 women’s track and field and cross country prospective student-athletes when she arranged for the prospects to attend official team practices during their official paid visits and observed the prospects as they ran together with enrolled women’s cross country student-athletes during the practices. The Institution, enforcement staff and former assistant track coach 1 substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. The Institution and enforcement staff agreed that the violations were Level II. Former assistant track coach 1 asserted that the violations were Level III. The Panel agreed that the violations occurred and are Level II.

Former assistant track coach 1 violated NCAA tryout legislation when she observed the prospects running with enrolled student-athletes during a practice she conducted during the prospects’ official paid visits to campus. NCAA Bylaws preclude coaches from conducting any physical activity at which prospects display their athletics abilities. The Panel concluded that former assistant track coach 1’s conduct violated NCAA Bylaw 13.

NCAA Bylaw 13.11.1 prohibits coaches from conducting any physical activity at which one or more prospective student-athletes demonstrate or display their athletics ability. From October 2012 into January 2013, prospective student-athletes on their official paid visits ran with enrolled student-athletes at practices organized by former assistant coach 1. The Panel recognized that former assistant coach 1 was concerned for the safety and welfare of the prospective and enrolled student-athletes when she followed behind them in the team van during their runs on the rural road. The Panel further acknowledged that she did not time the prospects or critique their performances. However, when she observed the prospects running with the enrolled student-athletes, she conducted impermissible tryouts in violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.11.1.

NCAA rules preclude coaches from conducting tryouts of prospective student-athletes visiting campus. When former assistant track coach 1 observed the prospects as they ran at a practice she organized, she committed Level II violations of NCAA tryout legislation.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d) (2013-14)

In February 2014, former assistant track coach 1 violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when she knowingly provided false or misleading information to the institution and NCAA enforcement staff regarding her knowledge of and/or involvement in violations of NCAA legislation. The enforcement staff and Institution substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. Former assistant track coach 1 did not agree to the facts or that violations occurred. The Panel concluded that former assistant track coach 1 committed a Level II violation.

Former assistant track coach 1 violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when she stated she took precautions to avoid having prospects run with enrolled student-athletes on the rural weekend runs. Specifically, during her February 10 and February 20, 2014, interviews with the institution and enforcement staff, former assistant track coach 1 reported that she took appropriate precautions. She indicated that on the occasions in which visiting women’s track and field and cross country prospects participated in team runs during cross country practice, she purposefully took steps to avoid violating NCAA tryout legislation by (a) separating the prospects from the student-athletes before starting the runs to prevent the two groups from running together; and (b) placing herself in a position where she could not observe the prospects run. The Panel concluded that former assistant track coach 1 provided false or misleading information in violation of NCAA Bylaw 10.

NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1-(d) articulate the membership’s expectation that all coaches conduct themselves with honesty, sportsmanship and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. Failure to do so constitutes unethical conduct. Among other things, coaches (and all institutional staff members) are required to furnish full and truthful information to the NCAA or the staff member’s institution when questioned regarding possible NCAA rules violations.

An institutional staff member who provides false or misleading information in an interview engages in unethical conduct. Purdue University (2007) (concluding that an assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct when she denied her participation in academic fraud during an interview); Indiana University (2008) (concluding that a head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he lied during an interview); University of Oklahoma (2011) (concluding that a coach engaged in unethical conduct when he failed to divulge knowledge of a violation and later lied about it); Southeastern Louisiana University (2015) (concluding that a head coach provided false information when he inaccurately described the duties performed by a volunteer coach in his program).

Former assistant track coach 1 acknowledged that the weekend runs occurred, prospects and enrolled student-athletes ran together and she could see the prospects at times. She claimed that the prospects were held back and not allowed to start with the enrolled student-athletes and that the two groups ran separately, with the prospects behind the van she was driving so that she did not observe them. However, everyone else interviewed about the runs confirmed that the prospects and enrolled student-athletes started the runs at the same time, ran together as a group and that former assistant coach 1 followed the group in the van. When former assistant track coach 1 claimed that she separated the prospects from the enrolled student-athletes before the runs began, and had the prospects run behind the van so as not to observe them, she provided false or misleading information in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d).

As stated above, ethical conduct is a bedrock principle of the NCAA Collegiate Model and infractions process. All NCAA member institution staff members must provide full and complete information when interviewed by their institutions or the NCAA enforcement staff. Former assistant track coach 1 failed to fulfill these responsibilities. The Panel concluded that, in doing so, she committed a Level II violation.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 11.1.2.1 (2011-12 and 2012-13)

In 2012, the former head track coach did not fulfill the NCAA legislated responsibilities of a head coach when he failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance in his program by (1) not reporting former assistant track coach 1’s recruiting activities to the institution; and (2) allowing and/or encouraging former assistant track coach 2 to engage in impermissible recruiting activities. The former head track coach further failed to fulfill the responsibilities of a head coach when, from October 2012 into January 2013, he failed to monitor former assistant track coach 1’s activities regarding weekend runs with prospects and enrolled student-athletes. The enforcement staff and institution substantially agreed to the facts and that a Level II violation occurred. The former head coach did not agree to the facts or that a violation occurred. The Panel concluded that the former head track coach committed a Level II violation.

In 2012, the former head track coach did not promote an atmosphere for rules compliance in his program when he was aware of his assistants recruiting student-athletes at other institutions but did not report them to the institution’s compliance office. Further, from October 2012 into January 2013, the former head coach failed to monitor one aspect of his program when he did not ensure that former assistant track coach 1 was conducting the rural weekend runs consistent with NCAA legislation. The former head track coach did not meet his responsibilities as a head coach as required by NCAA Bylaw 11.

Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1, head coaches are responsible for promoting an atmosphere for rules compliance in their programs. They are also responsible for monitoring the activities of all assistant coaches who report to them. The former head track coach was aware that former assistant track coach 1 was in contact with student-athlete 3 about a possible transfer to the institution. Not only was he aware that former assistant track coach 2 was in contact with student-athlete 4 about a possible transfer, he encouraged the contacts. By not reporting former assistant track coach 1’s contacts to the institutional administration, and by his awareness and encouragement of former assistant track coach 2’s contacts, he demonstrated that rules compliance was not of utmost importance in his program, in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1.

Further, the former head track coach was aware that prospective student-athletes accompanied enrolled student-athletes to the rural national park weekend practice location when the prospects came to campus on official paid visits. He was also aware that former assistant track coach 1 transported both the prospects and enrolled student-athletes to the site and it was not unusual for prospects to join enrolled student-athletes for long runs. The former head track coach did not visit the practice location during the fall of 2012. To his credit, he stopped the practice of prospects running with enrolled student-athletes once advised to do so by the compliance office in the fall of 2013. However, he should have ensured, either by inquiring of former assistant track coach 1 or through personal observation, that the runs from the fall of 2012 into January 2013 were conducted consistent with NCAA recruiting legislation. His failure to do so constituted a failure to monitor the actions of former assistant track coach 1, contrary to NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1.

Head coaches violate NCAA head coach responsibility legislation when they do not make rules adherence the foundation of their programs. Indiana University (2008) (concluding that a head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when he did not monitor his staff’s compliance with NCAA rules); University of Connecticut (2011) (concluding that a head coach who did not take steps to stop or report known rules violations violated his responsibilities). When the former head track coach allowed his two assistants to seek transfers of student-athletes at other institutions, knowing that such activities were not permitted, he demonstrated that rules compliance was not of utmost importance in the administration of his program. Further, he did not meet his head coach responsibilities when he failed to ensure that former assistant track coach 1 was conducting weekend practices in full compliance with NCAA rules. The Panel concluded that his failures constituted Level II violations.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d) (2012-13 and 2013-14)

In 2013, the former head track coach violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly provided the institution and NCAA enforcement staff false or misleading information regarding his knowledge of and/or involvement in the impermissible recruiting activities of former assistant track coaches 1 and 2. The enforcement staff and institution substantially agreed on the facts and that Level I violations occurred. The former head track coach did not agree to the facts or that a violation occurred. The Panel concluded that the violations occurred and are Level II.

The former head track coach violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation in two interviews when he denied awareness of former assistant track coach 1’s impermissible recruiting activities and denied an awareness of, as well as encouragement of, former assistant track coach 2’s impermissible recruiting activities. The former head track coach’s denials violated NCAA Bylaw 10.

NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d) provide that an institutional staff member engages in unethical conduct when he or she provides false or misleading information to the institution or NCAA enforcement staff during an investigation of possible NCAA rules violations. See also Indiana University (2008) (concluding that a head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he lied during an interview); University of Oklahoma (2011) concluding that an assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct when he failed to divulge knowledge of a violation and later lied about it); Ohio State University (2011) (concluding that a head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he provided false information about a known violation); and University of Central Florida (2012) (concluding that a coach who provided false information about a known violation engaged in unethical conduct). The former head track coach was aware that former assistant track coaches 1 and 2 were making contact with student-athletes at the coaches’ former institutions and talking to the student-athletes about possibly transferring to UM. Further, he encouraged former assistant track coach 2 to contact student-athlete 4 about transferring to the institution. However, in his July and December 2013 interviews, he denied knowing of the violations and encouraging them. The panel considered all factual information and the statements made by parties at the infractions hearing. The Panel concluded that when the former head track coach denied knowledge of his assistants’ recruiting activities and denied he had requested former assistant coach 2 to recruit student-athlete 4, the former head coach engaged in Level II unethical conduct in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d).

Level III Violations

Impermissible Transportation. On August 11, 2012, former assistant track coach 3 provided a men’s track and field student-athlete with impermissible transportation from the Memphis International Airport to the institution (approximately 70 miles). NCAA Division I Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.3-(d) (2012-13).

Impermissible Lodging. On October 12, 2012, a men’s track and field prospective student-athlete received complimentary hotel lodging during an unofficial visit when he stayed overnight in the hotel room the institution provided to another then men’s track and field prospect who was on an official paid visit. The total monetary value of the lodging was approximately $96. NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.7.2.1 (2012-13).

Impermissible Meals. On February 17-18, 2013, a men’s track and field prospective student-athlete received two complimentary meals during an unofficial visit. The total monetary value of the meals was approximately $30. NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 (2012-13).

Impermissible Lodging. On March 17, 2013, two men’s track and field prospective student-athletes received complimentary hotel lodging during an unofficial visit when they stayed overnight in the hotel room the institution provided to another men’s track and field prospect who was on an official paid visit. The total monetary value of the hotel lodging was approximately $43 each. NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.7.2.1 (2012-13).

As a result of the foregoing, the Committee penalized UM as follows:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Three years of probationary from October 7, 2016 to October 6, 2019.

3. The Institution reduced the total number of athletically related financial aid awards in women’s basketball by two awards during the 2013-14 academic year.

4. The Institution reduced the number of official paid visits in the women’s basketball program by four (from 12 to eight) during the 2012-13 academic year and two (from 12 to 10) during the 2013-14 academic year.

5. The Institution reduced the number of official paid visits in the track and field program by 30 (from 60 to 30) during the 2014-15 academic year.

6. The Institution self-imposed a one-year postseason ban for the women’s basketball program during the 2012-13 academic year.

7. The Institution reduced the number of recruiting-person days in women’s basketball by 20 recruiting-person days (from 100 to 80) during the 2012-13 academic year.

8. The Institution reduced the number of recruiting-person days in the track and field program by 14.5 during the 2014-15 academic years (from 63.5 to 49).

9. The Institution prohibited the women’s basketball staff from initiating telephone contact with prospects and their families for eight weeks during the Spring 2013 semester.

10. The Institution prohibited the women’s basketball program from signing two-year college transfer prospects during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years.

11. The former head basketball coach received a two-year show cause penalty.

12. The former assistant basketball coach received a six-year show cause penalty.

13. The former director of basketball operations received a six-year show cause penalty.

14. The former head track coach received a one-year show cause penalty.

15. The former assistant track coach 1 received a one-year show cause penalty.

16. The former assistant track coach 2 received a one-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 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .