The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel”) recently issued its findings and found that California State University, Sacramento (“CSU” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. The Committee considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and violations, as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR). The panel then proposed further penalties to the institution, the former assistant football coach and the former head coach. All three parties agreed to the panel’s proposed penalties; therefore, there is no opportunity to appeal.

The agreed-upon violations centered on the institution’s football program and fell into four categories: (1) the institution’s failure to follow its substance abuse policy; (2) the former assistant football coach’s impermissible recruiting; (3) non-voluntary summer activities; and (4) head coach responsibility. The parties agreed, and the panel determines, that all violations were Level II.

The Committee found the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.2, 14.01.3, and 31.2.3.4-(e)

The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agreed that during the 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years, the institution failed to follow institutional policies and procedures concerning student-athlete drug use. As a result, five then football student-athletes and one current football student-athlete, who tested positive for banned substances, were permitted to engage in intercollegiate athletics competition without being subjected to the required corrective or disciplinary actions mandated by the institution’s established Intercollegiate Athletics Substance Abuse Policy (substance abuse policy).

On January 25, 2010, the athletics department became aware through the institution’s drug-testing program of a then football student-athlete’s (“student-athlete 1”) use of a street drug. However, the athletics department failed to follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 1 to compete in the contest immediately following his first positive test. Additionally, the institution permitted student-athlete 1 to participate throughout the 2010 football season, even though he did not serve the initial suspension mandated by the substance abuse policy.

On May 10, 2012, the athletics department became aware through the institution’s drug-testing program of a football student-athlete’s (“student-athlete 2”) use of a street drug. However, the athletics department failed to follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 2 to compete in the contest immediately following his first positive test. Additionally, the institution permitted student-athlete 2 to participate in the next two contests of the 2012 season, even though he did not serve the initial suspension mandated by the substance abuse policy.

On December 10, 2012, the athletics department became aware through the institution’s drug-testing program of a then football student-athlete’s (“student-athlete 3”) use of a street drug. However, the athletics department failed to follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 3 to compete in the contest immediately following his first positive test. Additionally, the institution permitted student-athlete 3 to participate in all 12 contests during the 2013 season, even though he did not serve the initial suspension mandated by the substance abuse policy.

On October 28 or 29, 2013, the athletics department became aware through the institution’s drug-testing program of a then football student-athlete’s (“student-athlete 4”) use of a street drug. However, the athletics department failed to follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 4 to compete in the contest immediately following his positive test. Additionally, the institution permitted student-athlete 4 to participate in the next three contests of the 2013 season, even though he did not serve the initial suspension mandated by the substance abuse policy.

On January 13 and October 13, 2013, the athletics department became aware through the institution’s drug-testing program of a then football student-athlete’s (“student-athlete 5”) use of a street drug. However, the athletics department failed to follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 5 to compete in the contest immediately following his first positive test. Additionally, the institution permitted student-athlete 5 to participate in the next contest of the 2013 season, even though he did not serve the initial suspension mandated by the substance abuse policy. Further, after his second positive test in October 2013, while student-athlete 5 did not participate in any additional contests of the 2013 season, the institution did not follow institutional procedures when it permitted him to compete in the first seven contests of the 2014 season.

On May 8 and October 13, 2013, the athletics department became aware through the institution’s drug-testing program of a then football student-athlete’s (“student-athlete 6”) use of a street drug. However, the athletics department failed to follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 6 to compete in the contest immediately following his first positive test. Additionally, the institution permitted student-athlete 6 to participate in the next contest of the 2013 season, even though he did not serve the initial suspension mandated by the substance abuse policy. Further, after his second positive test in October 2013, the institution did not follow institutional procedures when it permitted student-athlete 6 to compete in the next five contests of the 2013 season and the first seven contests of the 2014 season.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.02.5.2, 13.1.3.1, and 13.4.1.2

The NCAA enforcement staff, the institution, the assistant coach and the head coach, agreed that during 2011 through 2014, the assistant coach violated provisions of NCAA recruiting legislation.

In November 2012 and November 2013, the assistant coach made impermissible in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with multiple then football prospective student-athletes, even though it was an evaluation period and such contacts were prohibited.

In May 2013, the assistant coach made an impermissible in-person, off-campus recruiting contact with a football prospective student-athlete at his high school for approximately 15 to 20 minutes, even though it was an evaluation period and such contacts were prohibited.

During January 2011 through February 2014, the assistant coach sent 97 impermissible text messages and placed 47 impermissible phone calls to 19 then football prospective student-athletes.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 17.02.13, 17.1.6.2.1.2, and 17.9.6.2

The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach, agreed that during the summers of the 2010-11 through 2013-14 academic years, the institution’s football program violated the provisions of NCAA voluntary athletically related activity legislation when it required football student-athletes to participate in weight training and conditioning activities. Specifically, (1) football student-athletes were sometimes required to report back to a coach regarding their failure to attend these activities; (2) football student-athletes’ attendance and participation in these activities (or the lack thereof) was recorded and reported to the head coach, as well as assistant football coaches; (3) football student-athletes were sometimes subjected to a penalty when they failed to participate in or were late to these activities; and (4) the head coach provided recognition to student-athletes based on their attendance or performance in these activities.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 11.1.2.1 and 11.1.1.1

The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the head coach, agreed that during the 2011-12 through 2013-14 academic years, the head coach was responsible for the actions of the football program that resulted in the violations detailed above. Specifically, the head coach (1) failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the football program when he had knowledge of and participated in the violations detailed above and (2) failed to monitor the activities of the then assistant coach detailed above.

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

The panel accepted the parties’ agreed-upon factual basis and violations and concluded that this case involved Level II violations of NCAA legislation. Because the violations in this case predominately occurred before the effective date of the current penalty structure, the panel reviewed whether the new penalty guidelines were more lenient and determined that they were for this case. After determining the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel classifies this case as Level II-Standard for the institution and Level II-Aggravated for both the former assistant football coach and the former head football coach. When conducting its penalty analysis, the panel reviewed former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2 and past cases as guidance. Under former NCAA Bylaw 19, the panel considered the flexibility to prescribe penalties under former NCAA Bylaw 19 and length of penalties previously prescribed in similar cases. The panel determined that the former penalty structure would have been more stringent. Therefore, the panel prescribes penalties under current NCAA Bylaw 19 and the penalties guidelines.

CSU’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: multiple Level II violations by the institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g)) and persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)).

CSU’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b)); an established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)); and implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of institutional/coaches control standards (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(e)).

Head Coach’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)) and intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

Head Coach’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: none.

Assistant Coach’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

Assistant Coach’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: none.

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

1. One year of probation from November 4, 2015 to November 3, 2016.

2. CSU shall pay a financial penalty of $5,000.00.

3. The institution shall reduce initial counter limits in football from the maximum of 30 by two for both the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years

4. The institution will reduce the number of financial aid awards (equivalencies) in football by one from the budgeted amount in both the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years.

5. The former head football coach was prohibited from recruiting off-campus in April and May during the spring 2014 evaluation period.

6. The former assistant football coach was prohibited from recruiting off-campus in April and May during the spring 2014 evaluation period.

7. The football program is prohibited from recruiting off-campus during its bye week in fall 2014 and during its bye week in fall 2015.

8. The number of days available for the spring 2014 evaluation period was reduced to 65 days based on a 20 percent reduction from the average number of days utilized by the football program during the previous two spring evaluation periods.

9. Public reprimand and censure.

10. During the summers of 2014 and 2015, the football program was not allowed to take advantage of NCAA Bylaw 17.1.6.2.1.5.2, which would allow the institution to require participation in summer workouts when students are in summer school.

11. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19 the head men’s basketball coach shall have a two-year show-cause order from September 29, 2015, through September 28, 2017.

12. Fall 2014 and spring 2015 countable athletically related activities for the football program was reduced by two hours per week during the 20 hour per week segments.

13. Show-cause order: The former assistant football coach committed intentional recruiting violations when he had numerous impermissible off-campus recruiting contacts in 2012 and 2013 and sent and placed impermissible text messages and phone calls. The impermissible off-campus contacts exceeded an exchange of greetings and, at times, discussed prospects’ interest in the institution, the institution’s interest in prospects, future contacts and potential scholarship offers. The panel was troubled by the intentional nature of these violations and determined that the former assistant football coach’s violations were Level II-Aggravated. Therefore, the panel prescribes a two-year show-cause order for any member institution employing the former assistant football coach. Any institution employing the former assistant football coach must restrict him from any and all recruiting activities as defined by NCAA Bylaw 13.02.13 (2015-16 Division I Manual) from November 4, 2015, to November 3, 2017.

14. Show-cause order: The former head coach had knowledge of and participated in voluntary workout violations over the 2010 through 2014 summers. Further, the former head coach instructed the former assistant football coach to take recruiting trips and knew that those trips would likely result in impermissible face-to-face communications with prospective student-athletes. Further, the former assistant coach documented his interactions in 2012 and provided them to the former head coach. The former head coach failed to take any appropriate action. The former head coach neither instructed the former assistant football coach that the contacts were impermissible nor did he report the violations to compliance. Rather, a year later, the former head coach instructed the former assistant coach to take similar recruiting trips. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19, the former head coach shall be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in violations of NCAA legislation, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (November 4, 2015, through November 3, 2018), he and the hiring institution shall be required to appear before a panel to consider whether the member institution shall be subject to the show-cause order set forth in NCAA Bylaw 19, which could limit his athletically related duties at the hiring institution for designated period.

15. Game suspensions: The former head coach agreed that he violated his NCAA Bylaw 11 head coaching responsibilities. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19 and Figure 19-1, should the former head coach become employed in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the three-year show-cause period, the former head coach shall be suspended from 30 percent of one season.

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 .