The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (“COI” or “Committee”) is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and the public.  COI accepted the Negotiated Resolution of the case involving the University of Central Florida (“Central Florida” or UCF”).

The Committee concluded UCF committed the following violations of NCAA rules:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1-(h), 13.5.1, 13.11.1, and 14.2.1 (2017-18) (Level II)

The institution, the head coach, and enforcement staff agreed that during the 2017 fall semester, the head coach and the assistant coach impermissibly permitted the prospect to engage in practice, tryout and team activities with the women’s cross country and women’s track and field programs. Additionally, the assistant coach arranged or provided the prospect $853 in impermissible lodging and transportation. Specifically:

1. From October 11 through December 1, 2017, the assistant coach directed and allowed the prospect to participate in at least 32 cross country practices with the institution’s women’s cross country program prior to the prospect’s full-time enrollment at the institution. Additionally, the head coach allowed the prospect to compete in an intra-squad meet. The head coach occasionally observed the prospect’s presence immediately after the assistant coach’s cross country practices, but mistakenly believed she was eligible to be on and practice with the assistant coach’s club team. Finally, the head coach and the assistant coach allowed the prospect to attend team meetings. These activities took place prior to the prospect’s full-time enrollment at the institution and occurred despite the coaches having been informed by the institution’s compliance department that the prospect was ineligible to participate in practice activities. The prospect’s participation in practice would be considered a physical activity where she demonstrated her athletics ability and would therefore be considered impermissible try-out activities. NCAA Bylaws 13.11.1, 14.2.1 (2017-18).
2. From October 11 through December 1, 2017, the assistant coach arranged for a women’s cross country student-athlete to provide lodging for the prospect prior to her initial enrollment at the institution. As a result, the prospect stayed in on-campus housing on at least 28 occasions, free of charge. The monetary value of the impermissible lodging totaled $845. NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1-(h) (2017-18).
3. From October 11 through December 1, 2017, the assistant coach transported the prospect on at least five occasions to restaurants in the institution’s locale. The monetary value of this benefit totaled $11. NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.5.1 (2017-18).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.1.1 (2017-18) (Level II)

The institution, the head coach and enforcement staff agreed that during the fall of 2017, the head coach is presumed responsible for the violations detailed above and she did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. The head coach did not demonstrate that she promoted an atmosphere for compliance due to her personal involvement and failed to monitor the assistant coach. Specifically:

1. The head coach was aware that the prospect was in the locale of the campus, yet the head coach failed to promote compliance by inquiring about or monitoring the prospect’s lodging and transportation activities. Furthermore, the head coach entered the prospect into an intra-squad meet and was aware of her participation in practices and team meetings but did not prevent or stop these impermissible activities. NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (2017-18).
2. The head coach failed to monitor the assistant coach relative to his interactions with the prospect, as outlined above. NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (2017-18).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(a), 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2 (2017-18 and 2018-19) (Level I)

It is uncontested that after his employment with the institution ended in the fall of 2017 and continuing to the present, the assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct and failed to cooperate when he refused to participate in an interview with the enforcement staff regarding his knowledge of or involvement in violations of NCAA legislation despite being requested to do so on multiple occasions.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19.9.3 and 19.9.4.

Aggravating Factors for the Institution

1. A history of Level I, Level II or major violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(b).
2. Multiple Level II violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g).
3. Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation(s) or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h).Mitigating Factors for the Institution

1. Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violation(s). NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(a).
2. Prompt acknowledgement of the violation(s), acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b).
3. An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d).
4. Implementation of a system of compliance methods. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(e).

Aggravating Factors for the Head Coach

1. Multiple Level II violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g).
2. Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation(s) or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h).

Mitigating Factors for the Head Coach

1. Prompt acknowledgement of the violation(s) and acceptance of responsibility. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b).
2. The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by the involved individual. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h).

Aggravating Factors for the Assistant Coach

1. Multiple Level I violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(a).
2. Unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e).
3. Multiple Level II violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g).
4. Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation(s) or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h).
5. Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust. NCAA Bylaw 19.3.3-(j).
6. Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m).

 Mitigating Factors for the Assistant Coach

1. The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by the involved individual. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h).

 The Committee penalized UCF as follows:

1. Probation: One year of probation from July 19, 2019, through July 18, 2020.
2. Financial penalty: The institution shall pay a fine of $5,000 to the NCAA.
3. Scholarship reductions: During the 2019-2020 academic year, the institution shall reduce the number of scholarships by 2 percent in women’s cross country (the institution will only award 17.64 equivalency prospects that year instead of the legislatively permitted 18 equivalency prospects).
4. Recruiting restrictions: The institution imposed an eight-week ban on all off-campus recruiting for women’s cross country between January 3 and March 7, 2018.
5. Public reprimand and censure.
6. The head coach will be subject to a one-year show cause order with partial restrictions. This show cause order shall run from July 19, 2019, through July 18, 2020.
7. The assistant coach is subject to a five-year show cause order restricting him from all athletically related duties. The show cause shall run from July 19, 2019, to July 18, 2024.

For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@bgsfirm.com.