The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that Southeast Missouri State University (“SEMO” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. The case also included a former assistant women’s basketball coach. A panel of the committee considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and violations set forth in the summary disposition report (“SDR“). The panel agreed with the violations comprising the case but proposed further penalties for the institution and the former assistant women’s basketball coach. The institution and the former assistant women’s basketball coach agreed to the additional penalties.

The Committee found the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.02.5.2, 13.02.5.4, 13.02.5.5, 13.1.1.1.2, 13.1.6.2.1-(a), 13.1.6.2.1-(c), 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 (2013-14)

Between February and July 2014, the former assistant coach had multiple impermissible off-campus, in-person contacts and communications with women’s basketball prospects 1 and 2 and their family. Additionally, the former assistant coach provided the student-athletes and members of their family with at least $178 in impermissible inducements. Specifically:

On or about February 11, 2014, after evaluating prospects 1 and 2 at a high school basketball game, the assistant coach and the former head women’s basketball coach had impermissible in-person, off-campus contact with the two prospects and their parents at a restaurant in the Chicago area. The former assistant coach had previously informed prospect 1 of where he and the head women’s basketball coach planned to eat after the game. When the family arrived at the same restaurant, they seated themselves in the vicinity of the former assistant coach and the head women’s basketball coach, which allowed for approximately 30 minutes of interaction. This contact occurred during an evaluation period, on the date of competition and at a location other than the prospects’ educational institution or home, all of which made the contact impermissible. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.2, 13.1.1.1.2 and 13.1.6.2.1-(a) (2013-14).

On or about June 22, 2014, the former assistant coach had impermissible in-person, off-campus contact with prospects 1 and 2 and three members of their family for approximately 30 minutes at a hotel in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. This contact occurred during a quiet period and at a location other than the prospects’ educational institution or home, both of which made the contact impermissible. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.4 and 13.1.1.1.2 (2013-14).

On or about June 23, 2014, and during the institution’s women’s basketball elite summer camp, the former assistant coach provided prospects 1 and 2 two institutional t-shirts at no cost. NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 (2013-14).

On or about June 24, 2014, and during their official visit, the former assistant coach provided prospects 1 and 2, their brother, sister and father with at least three institutional t-shirts, water bottles and pairs of socks at no cost. NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 (2013-14).

On or about July 3, 2014, the former assistant coach provided prospect 1 access to his personal movie video account at no cost. NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 (2013-14).

On or about July 5, 2014, the former assistant coach arranged to have brief impermissible off-campus contact with prospects 1 and 2 and their family in the parking lot of a certified non-scholastic summer basketball event in which the two prospects were participating. This contact occurred during a quiet period and on the date of competition, both of which made the contact impermissible. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.4 and 13.1.6.2.1-(a) (2013-14).

Between July 6 and 12, 2014, and July 23 and 29, 2014, the former assistant coach sent multiple impermissible direct messages via Twitter to prospect 1. The direct messages were sent during the July evaluation period when all communication with prospective student-athletes was prohibited. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.2 and 13.1.6.2.1-(c) (2013-14).

On or about July 21, 2014, the former assistant coach had extensive impermissible off-campus contact with prospect 1 while she was participating in a non-scholastic event in Nashville, Tennessee. This contact occurred during a dead period when in-person recruiting contacts were prohibited. Additionally, the former assistant coach provided prospect 1 impermissible benefits when he drove her 120 miles roundtrip to shop at an outlet mall, purchased her dinner and gave her three institutional water bottles and a t-shirt for her family. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.5, 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 (2013-14).

On or about July 22, 2014, the former assistant coach had impermissible off-campus contact with prospect 1 at a restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee, for approximately one hour. This contact occurred during a dead period and on the date of competition, both of which made the contact impermissible. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.5 and 13.1.6.2.1-(a) (2013-14).

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

SEMO’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: a history of major violations by the institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(b).

SEMO’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: Prompt acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b)); affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(c)); established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)); 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)); and exemplary cooperation (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(f)).

Former Assistant Coach’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(d)); violations were premeditated, deliberate, and committed after substantial planning (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(f)); and intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution or bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

Former Assistant Coach’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: prompt acknowledgement of the violation and acceptance of responsibility (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b)).

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

1. One year of probation from February 12, 2016 to February 11, 2017. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.6, the panel prescribes one year of probation. For a Level II-Mitigated case, the Penalty Guidelines dictate no probation. However, the panel notes that this is the institution’s third major/Level I/Level II case in the past seven years and, consequently, the panel concludes the institution requires a brief period of oversight and monitoring by the Association.

2. The institution shall pay a fine of $5,000.00 within 45 days of the release of the decision.

3. Recruiting restrictions including 1) the institution utilized 74 recruiting person days (of 112 allowed) in 2014-15; 2) The institution shall be limited to 91 recruiting person days in women’s basketball for the 2015-16 academic year; and 3) The women’s basketball program shall be limited to eight official paid visits during the 2015-16 academic year.

4. Public reprimand and censure.

5. The former assistant coach received a two-year show cause penalty.

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 .