High Point University (“High Point”) and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that from the 2014 spring semester through the 2017 fall semester, High Point failed to notify 134 student-athletes in writing that their institutional athletics aid was reduced/cancelled during the period of the award or reduced/not renewed for the following academic year. Additionally, High Point failed to notify 134 student-athletes in writing of the opportunity for a hearing regarding the reduction, cancellation or nonrenewal of institutional athletics aid. Finally, High Point and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that High Point failed to educate those institutional staff members responsible for the administration of athletics aid and adhere to its own policies and procedures for the reduction and nonrenewal of athletics aid. All parties agreed that the violations are Level II and that the case should be resolved as Level II – Standard.  The parties agreed to a resolution through the negotiated resolution process.

The parties agreed to the following violations:

 Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 15.3.5.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15); 15.3.2.3 and 15.3.4.2.1 (2013-14 through 2017-18); and 15.3.7.1 (2015-16 through 2017-18) (Level II)

 High Point and the NCAA enforcement staff agree that during the 2014 spring semester through the 2017 fall semester, High Point failed to notify 134 student-athletes in writing that their institutional athletics aid was reduced/cancelled during the period of the award or reduced/not renewed for the following academic year. Additionally, High Point failed to notify 134 student-athletes in writing of the opportunity for a hearing regarding the reduction, cancellation or nonrenewal of institutional athletics aid.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Constitution 2.8.1 (2013-14 through 2017-18) (Level II)

High Point and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that during the 2014 spring semester through the 2017 fall semester, the scope and nature of the violations detailed above demonstrated that High Point violated the NCAA principle of rules compliance when it failed to adequately monitor its obligation to provide student-athletes with written notification of the cancellation, nonrenewal or reduction of athletics aid and the hearing opportunity. Further, over a three-and-a-half-year period, High Point failed to educate institutional staff members responsible for the administration of athletics aid and adhere to its own policies and procedures for the reduction and nonrenewal of athletics aid.

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

Aggravating Factors for the Institution

19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations by the institution.

Mitigating Factors for the Institution

19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties.

19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter.

19.9.4-(h): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations.

The parties made the following agreements on penalties and other agreements:

1. Public reprimand and censure.
2. Two year of probation from April 12, 2019 through April 11, 2021.
3. Financial Penalty: High Point shall pay a fine of $15,000.00 to the NCAA.
4. The parties agreed that this case will be processed through the NCAA negotiated resolution process as outlined in Bylaw 19.5 and the Committee on Infractions (“COI”) reviewed the negotiated resolution agreement. The parties acknowledged that the negotiated resolution agreement contained agreed upon findings of fact of NCAA violations and agreed upon aggravating and mitigating factors based on information available at this time. High Point and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that, pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2, the violations identified in this agreement should be classified as Level II – Standard and have agreed upon the penalties.  High Point agreed that it will take every precaution to ensure the terms of the penalties are observed. High Point acknowledged that it has or will impose the penalties contained within the negotiated resolution agreement, and these penalties are in accordance with those prescribed in Bylaws 19.9.5, 19.9.6, 19.9.7 and 19.9.8. The OCOI will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by High Point contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations may be considered grounds for prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations.  The parties acknowledged that this negotiated resolution agreement may be voidable by the hearing panel if any of the parties were aware or become aware of information that materially alters the factual information on which this negotiated resolution agreement is based. Additionally, the parties acknowledge that this agreement will not be binding if the case is referred to the independent alternative resolution structure.

COI’s Approval of Negotiated Resolution

Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5.12, COI approved the parties’ negotiated resolution agreement. COI’s review of this agreement is limited. Panels may only reject a negotiated resolution agreement if the agreement is not in the best interest of the NCAA or if the agreed-upon penalties are manifestly unreasonable. See Bylaw 19.5.12.2. In this case, COI determined the agreed-upon facts, violations, aggravating and mitigating factors, and classification are appropriate for this process. Further, the parties classified this case as Level II-Standard. The agreed-upon penalties align with the ranges identified for core penalties for Level II-Standard cases in Figure 19-1 and Bylaw 19.9.5 and the additional penalties available under Bylaw 19.9.7. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.5.12.4, this negotiated resolution has no precedential value.

COI advised High Point that it should take every precaution to ensure the terms of the penalties are observed. COI will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by High Point contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations may be considered grounds for prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations.

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