The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that the Seton Hall (“SHU” or “Seton Hall”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation.  The case was resolved through a negotiated resolution.

A men’s basketball prospective student-athlete (“prospect”) attended high school in New Jersey and later New Hampshire. He was recruited by many NCAA Division I institutions, including Seton Hall. The prospect committed to another Division I institution (“initial institution”) and enrolled in the fall of 2016. Following the completion of his freshman year, and pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3, the prospect requested that his initial institution grant Seton Hall, among other institutions, permission to contact him about transferring. On July 25, 2017, the initial institution granted multiple institutions, but not Seton Hall, permission to contact the prospect. The prospect appealed the decision to exclude Seton Hall. Because the initial institution erred by failing to provide the prospect with the requisite appeal hearing, Seton Hall received permission to contact the prospect by default. The prospect enrolled at Seton Hall on August 28, 2017.

In August 2017, the prospect’s initial institution notified Seton Hall of alleged impermissible contacts between the Seton Hall men’s basketball staff and the prospect’s mother, who resided in New York City. Seton Hall investigated the allegations with guidance from the Big East Conference. A Seton Hall compliance staff member interviewed the prospect’s mother, the former associate head men’s basketball coach (associate head coach), the senior associate director of athletics, and the head men’s basketball coach (head coach). Each of them, including the associate head coach, reported that they did not have recruiting conversations/contacts with the prospect’s mother. Following those interviews, Seton Hall concluded that no violations occurred and submitted its findings to the Big East. The Big East agreed with Seton Hall’s conclusion.

In November 2017, the NCAA basketball development staff received an allegation that Seton Hall had “tampered” with the prospect while he attended the initial institution. Specifically, the person making the allegation reported that the associate head coach had impermissible telephone contact with the prospect and/or his mother. The NCAA enforcement staff began an investigation and requested phone records from Seton Hall for all men’s basketball coaching staff members and the associate director of athletics. Upon review, the phone records revealed that the associate head coach and the prospect’s mother exchanged 156 phone calls while the prospect was enrolled at his initial institution. Further, the phone records demonstrated that after the associate head coach learned that the initial institution denied Seton Hall permission to contact the prospect, the associate head coach exchanged an additional 87 phone calls with the prospect’s mother.

The associate head coach did not report his telephone contacts with the prospect’s mother during Seton Hall’s investigation because they involved a personal relationship outside of the associate head coach and basketball, and the associate head coach believed that such communications were permissible. During the investigation, the associate head coach and the prospect’s mother explained that they had developed a strong personal relationship during the prospect’s high school career. The regular communication between the associate head coach and the prospect’s mother paused for a short time when the prospect first enrolled at his initial institution in August 2016. However, regular communication between the two picked up again later in the fall of 2016. The prospect’s mother initiated contact with the associate head coach to reconcile their friendship. During his interview with the enforcement staff, the associate head coach confirmed he frequently spoke on the phone with the prospect’s mother after and while the prospect was enrolled at his initial institution. The associate head coach said they discussed many topics, ranging from the prospect’s mother’s health issues, daily prayer, coaching strategies and the performance of the Seton Hall men’s basketball team. The associate head coach believed that because their conversations did not include the active recruitment of the prospect, they were permissible.

During his interview with the NCAA enforcement staff, the head coach said he was aware of certain conversations between the associate head coach and the prospect’s mother after the prospect enrolled at the initial institution. Specifically, the head coach recalled the prospect’s mother calling the associate head coach after a Seton Hall basketball game and during their staff meeting where she provided her analysis of Seton Hall’s performance. The head coach reported that he was not concerned about that phone call, or similar calls, because they were about Seton Hall’s team, players and coaches and not the prospect. However, the head coach did not report the calls to compliance or confirm whether they were permissible. Further, the head coach did not ensure conversations between the associate head coach and the prospect’s mother ceased. For those reasons, he is responsible for the violations and did not rebut the presumption of responsibility.

Seton Hall and the NCAA enforcement staff submitted a joint interpretation of the facts to the NCAA academic and membership affairs (“AMA”) staff in February 2019. AMA determined that the phone calls, regardless of the nature of the calls and regardless of the associate head coach’s personal relationship with the prospect’s mother, were a violation of Bylaw 13.1.1.3. The institution appealed the decision to the NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee where AMA’s decision was upheld. Seton Hall then appealed that decision to the NCAA Division Legislative Committee, which affirmed the decision.

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

Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.3 (2016-17 and 2017-18) (Level II)

 Seton Hall, the associate head coach and the NCAA enforcement staff agree that from November 16, 2016, through August 28, 2017, the associate head coach had approximately 243 impermissible contacts with the prospect’s mother. Specifically, from November 16 through July, while the prospect was enrolled at his initial institution, the associate head coach exchanged 156 impermissible phone calls with the prospect’s mother. After the prospect informed his initial institution of his intent to transfer and requested permission to contact Seton Hall, the initial institution denied the request on July 25, 2017. Even though the associate head coach learned that the request was denied, he exchanged an additional 87 impermissible phone calls with the prospect’s mother until the prospect enrolled at Seton Hall on August 28, 2017.

Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (2016-17 and 2017-18) (Level II)

Seton Hall, the head coach and the NCAA enforcement staff agree that from November 16, 2016, through August 28, 2017, the head coach is presumed responsible for the violations detailed above and did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. Specifically, the head coach did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program because he did not establish a program that included immediate reporting of actual and potential issues to compliance in that he knew about some of the phone calls detailed above between the associate head coach and the prospect’s mother while the prospect was enrolled his initial institution and failed to report to compliance. Additionally, the head coach did not demonstrate that he monitored his staff because he failed to take adequate steps to uncover potential or existing compliance problems and ensure the calls ceased.

Agreed-Upon Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19.9.3 and 19.9.4

Aggravating factors for the Institution

a.  A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(b)

b.  Multiple Level II violations by the institution. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g)

c.  Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)

Mitigating factors for the Institution  

a.  Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(c)

b.  An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)

Aggravating factors for the Associate Head Coach

a.  Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)

b.  Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)

Mitigating factor for the Associate Head Coach

a.  Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(c)

b.  The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by the associate head coach. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h)

Aggravating factors for the Head Coach

a.  Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h).

Mitigating factor for the Head Coach

a.  Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(c)

b.  The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by the head coach. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h)

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

1. Public reprimand and censure.
2. Probation: Three years of probation from November 15, 2019, through November 14, 2022.
3. Financial penalty: Seton Hall shall pay a fine of $5,000 plus one percent of the men’s basketball budget to the NCAA.
4. Scholarship reduction: During the 2020-21 academic year, the institution shall reduce the annual limit on the number of counters in men’s basketball by one for a maximum of 12.
5. Head Coach Responsibility: The head coach shall be suspended from two contests of the 2019-20 season. The provisions of this suspension require that the head coach not be present in the facility where games are played and have no contact or communication with men’s basketball coaching staff members or student-athletes during the two-contest suspension period. The prohibition includes all coaching activities for the period of time that begins at 12:01 a.m. on the day of the contest and ends at 11:59 p.m. that day. During that period, the head coach may not participate in any coaching activities, including, but not limited to, team travel, practice, video study, recruiting and team meetings. The results of those contests from which the head coach is suspended shall not count toward the head coach’s career coaching record.
6. Recruiting restrictions: Four-week ban of recruiting communication for the men’s basketball program. Specifically, the head coach, along with his staff, will serve a two-week ban in 2019-20 and a two-week ban in 2020-21.
7. Show-cause order: The associate head coach is subject to a 20-month show-cause order that includes a suspension from four contests of the 2019-20 season. The show-cause order shall run from November 7, 2019, to June 9, 2021.

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