THE NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS HAS SPOKEN: FAYETTEVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY (DIVISION II)

Written by Christian Dennie
Tuesday, 21 November 2017 22:20

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee,” “Panel,” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the Fayetteville State University (“FSU” or “Institution” or “Fayetteville State”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation. The core violations in this case revolved around two ineligible women’s basketball transfer student-athletes the Institution allowed to enroll through a program titled “special visiting student program.” Neither were eligible for financial aid and, as a result, a booster paid institutional charges incurred by the student-athletes. These payments constituted impermissible benefits under NCAA rules. The former head women’s basketball coach and her husband, Fayetteville State’s former director of intramurals, were directly involved in arranging the benefits. The head coach also allowed the two student-athletes to engage in impermissible practice activity.

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

Violations of NCAA Bylaws 16.02.3, 16.11.2.1 and 16.01.1 (2014-15)

During the fall 2014 semester, the head coach and the intramurals director involved a booster in the provision of extra benefits consisting of payment of institutional expenses incurred by two student-athletes. Partially as the result of these impermissible payments, one of the student-athletes competed while ineligible during the spring 2015 semester. Fayetteville State and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. The head coach and the intramurals director, for the most part, did not agree to the violations. The COI concludes that the head coach and the intramurals director committed a major violation.

On two occasions, first in August 2014 and again in September 2014, the head coach and the intramurals director requested and/or permitted a booster to pay thousands of dollars in institutional expenses incurred by two student-athletes who were enrolled in classes at the institution. The head coach’s and the intramurals director’s actions resulted in violations of Bylaw 16, benefit legislation.

Bylaw 16 governs benefits for enrolled student-athletes, including prohibiting student-athletes from receiving extra benefits. An extra benefit is defined in Bylaw 16.02.3 as any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a booster to provide a student-athlete a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Bylaw 16.11.2.1 prohibits boosters from providing student-athletes with any extra benefit. Finally, Bylaw 16.01.1 specifies that receipt of an extra benefit by a student-athlete renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition.

The booster paid the outstanding institutional charges incurred by the two student-athletes. The booster’s own statements and documents uncovered during the investigation establish the payments. The institution located cancelled checks written by the booster totaling over $12,500 that he used to pay the two student-athletes’ debts. These payments constituted impermissible benefits and are violations of Bylaws 16.02.3 and 16.11.2.1.

The head coach and the intramurals director were involved in these payments. The head coach had a history of asking the booster to provide funds in support of the program and the head coach asked him to pay the two student-athlete’s outstanding charges. On both occasions, first in August 2014 and later in September 2014, he drove to the institution’s campus. There, the intramurals director accompanied him to the finance office where the booster wrote checks to pay the student-athletes’ outstanding charges. The intramurals director admitted to accompanying the booster to the finance office. Further, after initially denying knowledge of how the two student-athletes’ charges were paid, the head coach ultimately admitted to being aware of the payments.

The committee concluded that the head coach requested the booster make the payments on behalf of the student-athletes. In doing so, she violated Bylaws 16.02.3 and 16.11.2.1. The COI notes that, although the head coach denied that she directly asked the booster to make the payments, she ultimately admitted to knowing about the booster’s payments approximately a month after the booster paid student-athlete 1’s charges and contemporaneous to when he paid student-athlete 2’s charges. Even if the COI had concluded that the head coach did not expressly ask the booster to make these impermissible payments, by knowing about the payments and not taking any action to stop or report them, that would also have been a violation of Bylaws 16.02.3 and 16.11.2.1.

Likewise, the intramurals director admitted that he accompanied the booster to the finance office on both occasions the booster paid the charges. In doing so, he permitted the booster to make these payments. By permitting the booster to make these payments, the intramurals director also violated Bylaws 16.02.3 and 16.11.2.1.

Finally, because of the payments made by the booster, both student-athletes were ineligible for competition. Student-athlete 2 competed in 12 contests while ineligible during the spring 2015 semester in violation of Bylaw 16.01.1.6 Student-athlete 1 did not compete.

This case demonstrates the danger of mixing boosters and student-athletes. Involvement of boosters in violations of NCAA legislation has, for decades, been an issue in Division I. However, booster involvement in Division II infractions cases is unusual. In the past ten years, only one Division II infractions case included booster involvement in the provision of extra benefits. See Abilene Christian University (2009) (concluding that boosters provided impermissible extra benefits in the form of gift cards, cash, merchandise, food and clothing items to 15 track and field student-athletes). Despite the unusual nature of this type of violation in Division II, the committee cautions the Division II membership to be vigilant in preventing boosters from providing impermissible benefits or recruiting inducements to student-athletes.

Violations of NCAA Bylaws 14.5.4.2 and 14.5.4.2.4 (2014-15)

During the 2014-15 academic year, the head coach allowed two student-athletes to practice who were ineligible for practice and competition. Further, Fayetteville State permitted student-athlete 2 to compete while ineligible during the spring 2015 semester. Fayetteville State, the NCAA enforcement staff and the head coach substantially agreed to the facts and that a violation occurred. The COI concludes that major violations occurred.

On several occasions during the fall 2014 semester, the head coach allowed the two student-athletes to practice even though they were not allowed to practice under both NCAA legislation and institutional policies.7 Additionally, Fayetteville State permitted student-athlete 2 to compete while ineligible during the spring 2015 semester. This conduct violated Bylaw 14.

Bylaw 14.5.4.2 establishes the requirements for two-year transfers to be eligible to practice, compete and receive financial aid at a member institution. Among the requirements is a 2.00 grade-point average (GPA) at the two-year institution(s) and at least 12-semester or 12-quarter hours of transferable degree credit. In tandem with Bylaws 14.5.4.2 and 14.5.4.2.4 specifies that nonqualifiers who do not meet the requirements set forth in Bylaw 14.5.4.2 may not compete, practice or receive any athletics aid at the certifying institution during their first academic year in residence.

The two student-athletes were deficient in one or more of the above academic requirements. Among these deficiencies, student-athlete 1 had no transferrable credit hours and student-athlete 2 did not have the requisite GPA. When the head coach allowed the two ineligible student-athletes to practice during the fall 2014 semester, she violated Bylaws 14.5.4.2 and 14.5.4.2.4. She also violated the institution’s policies pertaining to special visiting students that prohibited the two student-athletes from practicing. Finally, because Fayetteville State allowed student-athlete 2 to compete in 12 contests during the spring 2015 semester, it also violated Bylaws 14.5.4.2 and 14.5.4.2.4.

Ensuring that all student-athletes, including transfer student-athletes, meet eligibility requirements is an important responsibility of the membership, regardless of divisional affiliation. In past cases, the COI has concluded that ineligible practice and/or competition by student-athletes who did not satisfy NCAA two-year college transfer requirements constitutes major violations. See Eastern New Mexico University (2015) (concluding the institution permitted 11 student-athletes who did not satisfy NCAA two-year college transfer requirements to practice and/or compete and receive travel expenses and/or athletically related financial aid during their first academic year of residence); University of West Georgia (2011) (concluding that five student-athletes in four sports had not satisfied two-year transfer requirements); and Miles College (2011) (concluding that thirty-nine student-athletes practiced and competed while ineligible and/or received impermissible athletically related financial aid even though they failed to meet two-year transfer requirements).

Violations of NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d) (2014-15 and 2015-2016); and 11.1.2.1 (2014-15)

The head coach acted in an unethical manner and did not promote an atmosphere for rules compliance in three main ways: she requested and permitted a booster to pay institutional expenses for two ineligible student-athletes; she allowed two ineligible student-athletes to engage in practice; and she provided false or misleading information to the institution. The enforcement staff and Fayetteville State substantially agreed on the facts and that a major violation occurred. The head coach agreed to some of the underlying facts, but disagreed that her conduct was unethical or that she failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. The committee concludes that the head coach committed major violations.

During the fall 2014 semester, the head coach engaged in unethical conduct and failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when she requested a booster to provide over $12,500 in impermissible payments for two ineligible student-athletes, when she allowed the two ineligible student-athletes to engage in practice and when she provided false or misleading information to the institution during its internal inquiry. The head coach’s involvement in these violations violated Bylaws 10 and 11, ethical conduct and head coach responsibility legislation.

The NCAA membership set standards for the type of behavior expected of those involved in intercollegiate athletics. Bylaw 10.01.1 generally requires all institutional staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner, while Bylaw 10.1 identifies behaviors that constitute unethical conduct. Among those behaviors considered unethical is knowing involvement in providing an enrolled student-athlete an improper extra benefit or improper financial aid, as specified in Bylaw 10.1-(c). Further, Bylaw 10.1-(d) requires institutional staff members to provide full and truthful information regarding their knowledge of matters relating to possible NCAA rules violations. Bylaw 11.1.2.1 establishes an affirmative duty on head coaches to promote an atmosphere for rules compliance in their programs.

The head coach engaged in unethical conduct in two ways. First, she knowingly involved a booster in payments on behalf of two student-athletes in violation of Bylaw 10.1-(c). Second, during the institution’s internal investigation, she provided a false or misleading written statement to the director of athletics when interviewed about the booster’s payment. Her provision of false or misleading information violated Bylaw 10.1-(d).

Cases that include coaches involving boosters in violations are unusual in Division II. In fact, no previous Division II cases over at least the past ten years included coaches unethically involving boosters in the provision of recruiting inducements or benefits, as seen in this case. However, the COI has considered cases in which head coaches engaged in unethical conduct when they became directly involved in the provision of impermissible benefits or recruiting inducements. Cases involving head coaches engaging in unethical conduct by providing impermissible benefits or recruiting inducements include Gannon University (2016) (concluding that the head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he provided a $3,000 impermissible benefit by funneling athletics aid from one student-athlete to another); and East Central University (2015) (concluding that the head men’s basketball coach engaged in unethical conduct when he directly engaged in and directed others to engage in impermissible recruiting activities, including the provision of recruiting inducements).

As leaders of young people and role models, coaches must act ethically and be truthful when questioned by their employing institution and/or the NCAA. Over the past few years, the COI has encountered several instances of head coaches providing false or misleading information. Providing falsehoods during investigations invariably exacerbates the seriousness of cases. See West Texas A&M University (2016) (concluding that the head football coach engaged in unethical conduct when he provided false or misleading information to the institution when he denied knowledge of an assistant coach providing an impermissible loan to a student-athlete); Chadron State College (2013) (concluding that the head football coach provided false or misleading information to the institution when he denied knowledge of outside bank accounts used for athletics purposes and when he provided false or misleading information regarding his involvement in providing impermissible benefits of cash to two student-athletes); and University of California, San Diego (2013) (concluding that the head women’s rowing coach engaged in unethical conduct when she provided false or misleading information when she denied her involvement in having student-athletes falsify documents associated with travel and competition). Similar to these cases, the head coach engaged in unethical conduct by providing false or misleading information to the institution when questioned about the booster’s payments on behalf of the two student-athletes.

In addition to engaging in unethical conduct, the head coach violated head coach responsibility legislation. Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires head coaches to promote an atmosphere for compliance. In this case, the head coach knowingly involved a booster in impermissible payments on behalf of the two student-athletes and she allowed them to participate in practice, being aware that they were not allowed to do so. Consequently, she failed to set the proper tone of compliance and violated Bylaw 11.1.2.1.

For the last decade, the membership has made it clear that head coaches have a heightened responsibility to properly administer their programs within the parameters of NCAA rules and regulations. Despite this expectation, the Committee has considered several cases in recent years involving head coach responsibility failure. These cases often involved violations of well-known NCAA rules. See Seattle Pacific University (2017) (concluding that the head women’s soccer coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when he violated bylaws associated with the financial administration of his institution’s soccer camp); Lenoir Rhyne University (2016) (concluding that the head men’s basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance by directly engaging in and allowing others to engage in the impermissible recruiting activities); Gannon University (concluding that the head swimming coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when he provided a $3,000 impermissible benefit by funneling the aid from one student-athlete to another); and University of California, San Diego (concluding that the head women’s rowing coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance when she knowingly permitted student-athletes to compete and receive travel expenses while ineligible). Similarly, in this case, the head coach violated well-known benefit legislation when she involved a booster in the payment of institutional charges on behalf of the two student-athletes, thus demonstrating that she failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance.

Violations of NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c) (2014-2015)

During the 2014-15 academic year, the intramurals director violated the principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly permitted a booster to pay institutional expenses incurred by two student-athletes who were ineligible to practice, compete and receive financial aid. Fayetteville State and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. The intramurals director did not agree. The COI concludes that the intramurals director committed a major violation.

The parties all agree that intramurals director accompanied the booster to the finance office on two separate occasions where the booster paid over $12,500 in institutional expenses incurred by the two ineligible student-athletes. The intramurals director’s conduct violated Bylaw 10.

Bylaw 10.01.1 generally require all institutional staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner while Bylaw 10.1 identifies behaviors that constitute unethical conduct. Among those behaviors considered to be unethical conduct is knowing involvement in providing an enrolled student-athlete an improper extra benefit or improper financial aid, as specified in Bylaw 10.1-(c).

The intramurals director had extensive experience in intercollegiate athletics. He was a former student-athlete. Further, he served as a Fayetteville State assistant football coach for nine years and one year as a volunteer assistant women’s basketball coach. He knew the booster, a former football teammate, was a representative of the institution’s athletics interests. Moreover, the intramurals director was aware that the two student-athletes were “special visiting students” and, as such, were not eligible for institutional financial aid.

As a long-time former NCAA coach, the intramurals director knew, or certainly should have known, that NCAA legislation prohibits boosters from providing either recruiting inducements to prospects, or benefits to enrolled student-athletes. The intramurals director believed the two student-athletes were, in fact, student-athletes and not prospects, and he claimed that he was unaware the booster’s payments on behalf of the student-athletes were impermissible. Regardless whether the student-athletes were student-athletes or prospects, the booster’s payments on their behalf were obvious violations of well-known NCAA legislation. Therefore, the COI found not credible the intramural director’s claim that he didn’t know the booster’s payments were impermissible. Consequently, the COI concludes that his actions in accompanying the booster to the finance office and permitting him to make payments on behalf of two ineligible student-athletes constitutes unethical conduct and violates Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1-(c), a major violation.

Violations of NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2014-15 and 2015-2016)

From August 2014 to December 2015, Fayetteville State failed to monitor aspects of its athletics program. Specifically, the Institution failed to monitor in two main ways: not providing adequate compliance education to representatives of the institution’s athletics interests and not engaging in heightened monitoring and awareness required by the enrollment of two ineligible transfer student-athletes who were precluded from engaging in practice. Fayetteville State did not agree that it failed to monitor. The COI concluded the Institution committed a major violation.

During at least a two-year period, the institution failed in its obligation to monitor in two ways: failing to provide adequate rules education for boosters and failing to monitor the activity of two ineligible student-athletes. In failing to provide compliance education to boosters and in monitoring the two ineligible student-athletes, the institution violated Constitution 2.8.1.

Constitution 2.8.1 requires that each member institution comply with all rules and regulations of the Association and monitor its programs to ensure compliance. The Constitution also establishes that the institution exercise control over the conduct of the institution’s intercollegiate athletics programs.

From at least August 2013 to December 2015, Fayetteville State failed to provide adequate NCAA rules education to boosters. The booster at the center of this case reported that he did not realize that his payments on behalf of the two student-athletes were impermissible. He did not receive compliance education regarding what representatives of athletics interests can and cannot do under NCAA rules. Fayetteville State admitted that its “NCAA rules education program for constituents external to the Athletics Department needs to be stronger.”

NCAA rules education is a key element of a comprehensive compliance program. Inadequate education has been a component of either a lack of institutional control or a failure to monitor in several Division II infractions cases in recent years. See Central State University (2016) (concluding that the institution lacked control when, among other failures, it did not provide accurate NCAA rules education regarding key topics); Eastern New Mexico University (concluding that the institution lacked control, when, in addition to other failures, it did not provide appropriate NCAA rules education in the area of eligibility certification); Morehouse College (2015) (concluding that the institution failed to monitor when, among other shortcomings, it failed to provide adequate NCAA rules education and training to institutional staff members to ensure that the athletics programs operated in compliance with NCAA rules); and University of Alaska, Fairbanks (2014) (concluding that the institution lacked control when, among other issues, it failed to provide adequate NCAA rules education regarding eligibility certification requirements to institutional personnel and staff outside of the athletics department who were responsible for the certification of student-athletes’ academic eligibility). In this case, Fayetteville State did not provide adequate rules education to boosters.

Fayetteville State also failed to monitor the two ineligible student-athletes relative to their practice activity. Institutional personnel, including the head coach, the compliance director and the director of athletics were all aware that the two student-athletes were “special visiting students” and ineligible to practice, compete and receive financial aid. The compliance director stated that he warned the head coach on at least two occasions not to allow the two to practice. The first occasion was shortly after the two enrolled and the second was in response to rumors he heard that the two may be practicing. However, at the hearing, when questioned by the COI, the compliance director admitted that he did not investigate the rumors that the two student-athletes were practicing with the team.

Ensuring that ineligible student-athletes do not engage in practice and competition is a basic responsibility for all member institutions. The COI has considered cases that included impermissible practice by ineligible student-athletes in the context of either a failure to monitor or lack of institutional control. See Lane College (2008) (concluding the institution lacked control and failed to monitor when numerous student-athletes were permitted to practice, compete and receive athletically related financial aid while ineligible); and Miles College (concluding that the institution lacked control and failed to monitor when it failed to establish a system for monitoring the eligibility of student-athletes to practice, compete and receive athletically related financial aid). In this case, the head coach and athletics administrators were keenly aware that the two student-athletes were not eligible to practice with the team. Nevertheless, the head coach allowed the two student-athletes to practice and rumors that the two were practicing circulated in the athletics department. However, Fayetteville State failed to follow up on these rumors to ensure that the two did not engage in practice. This lack of action demonstrated a failure to monitor, a major violation.

The Committee assessed penalties against FSU and penalized FSU as follows:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Two years of probation from November 14, 2017, through November 13, 2019.

3. Fayetteville State shall pay a financial penalty of $2,500 to the Association.

4. Disassociation: Fayetteville State shall disassociate the booster in this case for a period of two years to coincide with the probationary period. The disassociation shall include: (a) Refraining from accepting any assistance from the booster that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes; (b) Refusing financial assistance or contributions to the institution’s athletics program from the booster; (c) Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the booster, either directly or indirectly, that is not available to the public at large; and (d) Implementing other actions that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the booster in the institution’s athletics program during the two-year period.

5. Fayetteville State shall undergo a Division II Compliance Blueprint Review to take place once during the two-year probationary period. The results of the Blueprint Review shall be included in one of the institution’s two annual compliance reports.

6. Fayetteville State shall vacate all regular season and conference tournament wins (if any) in which student-athlete 2 competed.

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