The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that Radford University (“RU”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation.  The underlying infractions centered on recruiting and extra-benefit violations committed by one current and four former coaches, primarily in the provision of impermissible transportation, lodging, and meals.  The majority of these violations occurred in the men’s basketball program with a limited number involving the men’s tennis program.  Although the original, underlying violations were major, they were exacerbated by efforts made by members of the men’s basketball staff, led by the then head men’s basketball coach to conceal some of the violations from the institution and the NCAA.  As a result of these acts, the head basketball coach and three other members of the men’s basketball staff were found to have engaged in unethical conduct, including the provision of false and misleading information and failing to protect the integrity of the investigation.  Further, the head basketball coach was also found to have failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

Violations in this case first came to light on December 18, 2010, when, prior to an away men’s basketball game between RU and the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, the institution’s assistant director of athletics for communications noticed that an ineligible men’s basketball student-athlete had entered the basketball arena with other members of RU’s men’s basketball team. NCAA legislation precluded the institution from providing student-athlete 1 with transportation, lodging and other expenses associated with team travel.

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

1.                  Impermissible extra benefits in violation of NCAA Bylaws 16.01.1, 16.7.1.1, 16.8.1.1, 16.8.1.2, 16.11.2.1, and 16.11.2.3-(d)

On multiple occasions during 2010, members of the men’s basketball and men’s tennis coaching staffs provided impermissible benefits to several men’s basketball and two men’s tennis student-athletes.  These benefits included impermissible automobile transportation, lodging, meals and entertainment.

In May or June 2010, at the request of the head basketball coach, the director of operations transported men’s basketball student-athlete 1 from Radford to Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C. so the student-athlete could catch an overseas flight to his native country.

On November 19, 2010, the head basketball coach permitted the head tennis coach to provide automobile transportation for student-athlete 1 from Radford, Virginia to Rock Hill, South Carolina for an away men’s basketball contest in Columbia, South Carolina.  Additionally, the head tennis coach arranged for a men’s tennis student-athlete and his parents to transport student-athlete 1 the remainder of the way from Rock Hill to Columbia for the away men’s basketball contest.  Finally, at the head tennis coach’s request, the institution’s two radio broadcasters transported student-athlete 1 back to the institution after the contest.

On November 19 and 20, 2010, the head tennis coach provided impermissible transportation from Radford, Virginia to Columbia, South Carolina to two men’s tennis student-athletes so that they could attend the away men’s basketball contest.  During the trip, the head tennis coach provided impermissible meals and overnight lodging and also paid greens fees to play golf.

On November 24, 2010, the head basketball coach permitted the head tennis coach to transport student-athlete 1 round trip from Radford to Fairfax, Virginia for an away men’s basketball contest.  During the trip, the head tennis coach provided a meal to the student-athlete.

On November 26, 2010, at the direction of the head men’s basketball coach, student-athlete 1 traveled with the men’s basketball team on the team bus from Radford to Charlotte, North Carolina for an away men’s basketball contest.  During the trip, the head basketball coach also permitted student-athlete 1 to receive impermissible lodging, meals, and a ticket to an NBA game.

On December 17, 2010, at the suggestion of the head basketball coach, assistant coach A transported student-athlete 1 from the institution to Wilmington, North Carolina for an away men’s basketball contest.  While in Wilmington, the head basketball coach allowed student-athlete 1 to receive impermissible lodging and meals and participate in all team activities.

On December 19, 2010, the head basketball coach permitted student-athlete 1 to travel with the men’s basketball team on the team bus from Wilmington to Gainesville, Florida for an away men’s basketball contest.  While in Gainesville, the student-athlete received impermissible lodging and meals.

On December 26, 2010, with the knowledge of the head basketball coach and at the request of the director of operations, a men’s basketball manager transported student-athlete 1 from the Lynchburg, Virginia, airport to the institution. 

2.                  Recruiting inducements in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.5, 13.5.1, 13.5.4, and 13.5.4-(a)

From May through August 2010, the men’s basketball staff provided and arranged recruiting inducements in the form of transportation and lodging for a student-athlete, who was a prospective international student-athlete at the time.

In May 2010, at the request of the head basketball coach, an in anticipation of a student-athlete 2’s enrollment in summer school at the institution, an assistant basketball coach transported the student-athlete from a Virginia preparatory school to RU.

In May 2010, the head basketball coach and the head tennis coach arranged for two student-athletes to provide housing to student-athlete 2 during a three week period.

In June 2010, the head basketball coach arranged for transportation of student-athlete 2 from RU to Blacksburg, Virginia to take the SAT.  The head basketball coach also arranged for transportation for the student-athlete to take the ACT.

In August 2010, the head men’s basketball coach indirectly arranged one-way transportation from Charlottesville-Albemarle, Virginia Airport to RU by suggesting to the director of operations that student-athlete 2 needed transportation to Radford for initial full-time enrollment.

3.                  Unethical conduct in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.1-(a), 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d), 19.01.3, and 32.1.4

The head basketball coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by (a) providing false and misleading and incomplete information to the institution and enforcement staff during inquiries into NCAA rules violations; (b) influencing others, including men’s basketball coaching staff members and a student-athlete, to furnish false, misleading and incomplete information to the institution and enforcement staff; and (c) failing to protect the integrity of the investigation.

Between December 2009 and August 2010, the head basketball coach knowingly violated NCAA legislation through his involvement in the provision of impermissible benefits to current and prospective student-athletes.

On December 27-28, 2010 and April 14, 2011, the head basketball coach provided false, misleading, and incomplete information when interviewed regarding his involvement in NCAA rules violations including: 1) during an interview regarding student-athlete 1, he said he did not have any additional information to discuss when he knew there were additional violations relating to student-athlete 2; 2) he reported that a friend transported student-athlete 2 from his prep institution to RU; 3) he failed to disclose his knowledge of transportation of student-athlete 2 to take the SAT and ACT; 3) he failed to disclose his knowledge of the director of operation’s transportation of student-athlete 2 to the Washington, D.C. area; and 4) he failed to disclose his knowledge of the director of operation’s transportation of student-athlete 2 from an airport that was not the closest to RU’s campus.

On April 11, 13, and 22, 2011, the head basketball coach violated the principles of ethical conduct and failed to protect the integrity of the investigation by 1) meeting with basketball staff members prior to their interviews and telling his staff not to volunteer or provide information regarding student-athlete 2; 2) the head basketball coach encouraged student-athlete 2 to provide misleading information; 3) the head basketball coach had a meeting with assistant coach A where they discussed the substantive topics of his interview; 4) the head basketball coach communicated with assistant coach A using a prepaid cellular telephone to discuss the details of the investigation; 5) the head basketball coach communicated with student-athlete 2 using a prepaid cellular telephone after student-athlete 2’s interview and discussed substantive topics that were discussed; 6) the head basketball coach had a meeting with assistant coach B and the director of operations to discuss their recollection of the facts relating to transportation provided to student-athlete 1 despite being told to keep information discussed confidential.

4.                  Unethical conduct in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(d), and 32.1.4

Assistant coach B acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by providing false, misleading and incomplete information and failing to protect the integrity of the investigation by discussing the substantive information that was covered during interviews.

On December 27-28, 2010 and April 12, 2011, assistant coach B provided false, misleading and incomplete information when interviewed about his knowledge of and involvement in NCAA rules violations when 1) he was interviewed about violations relating to student-athlete 1 and indicated he was not aware of any other violations despite being aware of violations relating to student-athlete 2; and 2) he reported he did not have knowledge about student-athlete 2’s arrival at the institution despite being aware and involved in his arrival.

On April 15, 2011, assistant coach B discussed substantive information discussed in his interview with the head basketball coach despite being instructed not to do so.

5.                  Unethical conduct in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(d), and 32.1.4

Assistant coach A acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by encouraging a men’s basketball student-athlete to furnish false, misleading, and incomplete information to RU and the NCAA enforcement staff and failing to protect the integrity of the investigation by discussing the substantive information that was covered during interviews.

On April 12 and 13, 2011, assistant coach A violated NCAA legislation on ethical conduct by: 1) meeting with student-athlete 2 in preparation for student-athlete 2’s interview and encouraging student-athlete 2 to provide false and misleading information; 2) calling assistant coach B shortly after assistant coach A’s interview with enforcement (using a prepaid cellular telephone) to discuss the substantive information discussed; 3) meeting with student-athlete 2 after student-athlete 2’s interview to discuss the substantive information addressed in his interview; and 4) meeting with the head coach at a local coffee shop to discuss the substantive information addressed in his interview.

6.                  Unethical conduct in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(d), and 32.1.4

The director of operations acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by providing false, misleading and incomplete information and failing to protect the integrity of the investigation by discussing the substantive information that was covered during interviews.

On December 27-28, 2010, April 13, 2011, and April 15, 2011, the director of operations violated NCAA legislation on ethical conduct by: 1) providing false, misleading, and incomplete information when he failed to disclose his knowledge of involvement in impermissible transportation provided to student-athlete 2; and 2) failing to protect the integrity of the investigation when he participated in meetings with the head basketball coach, assistant coach A, and assistant coach B to discuss the substantive details of interview with the NCAA enforcement staff.

7.         Failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1

The head basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance in 2009-10 and 2010-11 by 1) soliciting the involvement of the men’s basketball coaching staff members in provision of impermissible benefits to student-athletes; and 2) attempting to engage staff members and a student-athlete in an attempt to cover-up NCAA rules violations.

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

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Two years of probation from February 24, 2012 through February 23, 2014.

3. RU shall vacate four men’s basketball victories earned during the 2010-11 season during which student-athlete 2 competed while ineligible.

4. Limit total grants-in-aid in the sport of men’s basketball by a combined total of two during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years.

5. RU shall pay to the NCAA a fine of $2,000, which equals the number of contests in which student-athlete 2 competed while ineligible multiplied by $500.00.

6. Reduction from 12 to 10 in the number of official paid visits that the men’s basketball coaching staff may provide to prospective student-athletes during the 2011-12 academic year.

7. Prohibition from recruiting any international prospects for a period of two-years beginning with the 2011-12 academic year.

8. The head tennis coach was suspended from coaching in two consecutive contests during the 2011 season and will be required to attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar in 2012 at his own expense.

9. The director of compliance, as well as all members of the compliance staff, shall be required to attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar in 2012.

10. The head men’s basketball coach received a five-year show-cause penalty.

11. Assistant coach A received a three-year show-cause penalty.

12. Assistant coach B received a two-year show-cause penalty.

13. The director of operations received a two-year show-cause penalty.

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