The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel”) recently issued its findings and found that Southern Methodist University(“SMU” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. In this case, the former head men’s golf coach committed several violations relating to recruiting and unethical conduct that occurred due to his stated desire to increase the stature of the men’s golf program and his failure to seek guidance from the institution’s athletics compliance office. The former head men’s golf coach impermissibly contacted prospective student-athletes and provided impermissible inducements to them in the form of institutional golf apparel and equipment. In addition, he failed to take appropriate action upon learning that a representative of the institution’s athletics interests improperly communicated with prospective student-athletes on the institution’s behalf. When interviewed during the investigation, the former head men’s golf coach provided false information. The panel concludes that the unethical conduct violation was Level I and the recruiting violations were Level II. Collectively, the panel classifies the head coach’s violations as Level I – Aggravated.

The violations in the men’s basketball program centered on academic fraud and unethical conduct. A former men’s basketball administrative assistant, hired by the head men’s basketball coach, engaged in unethical conduct by impermissibly assisting a highly recruited prospective student-athlete to obtain fraudulent academic credit. The former men’s basketball administrative assistant committed an additional act of unethical conduct when she provided false or misleading information during the investigation and failed to cooperate in later stages of the investigation. The head men’s basketball coach failed to report the incident of fraudulent academic credit after it had been brought to his attention, and he initially lied about the underlying violations when interviewed by the enforcement staff. The panel concludes that the head men’s basketball coach’s violations were severe breaches of conduct and classifies them as Level I – Standard.

Although the case involved Level I violations, the panel did not conclude there was a lack of institutional control or a failure to comply with the terms of probation. The institution had engaged in compliance efforts that satisfied its probation terms, and the falsified documents did not go beyond the former compliance director.

The Committee found the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Impermissible Recruiting Communications in Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.4.1, 13.4.1.2 (2012-13 and 2013-14 NCAA Division I Manual).

Over a period of approximately 10 months, the former head men’s golf coach had multiple impermissible recruiting contacts with several men’s golf prospects and several parents of prospects. The institution, the former men’s golf coach and the enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that the violation occurred. The panel concludes that a Level II violation occurred.

The former head men’s golf coach and an assistant golf coach violated NCAA recruiting legislation when they knowingly engaged in 64 impermissible recruiting contacts with 10 men’s golf prospects and seven parents of men’s golf prospects. While a substantial competitive advantage did not result from his violations of recruiting legislation, his actions resulted in a significant competitive advantage and involved conduct that could have undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Accordingly, the former head men’s golf coach and the assistant golf coach violated NCAA Bylaw 13. Both the institution and the former head men’s golf coach argued the violations were Level III.

NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1 generally prohibits member institutions and their staffs from contacting prospects and their families or legal guardians prior to July 1 after the completion of the prospects’ junior years or the first day of classes their senior years, whichever date is earlier. Here, the former head men’s golf coach and an assistant golf coach engaged in 64 impermissible early contacts with prospects, some of whom were nationally ranked prospects at that time. Moreover, 54 of the 64 impermissible contacts occurred a year or more prior to the first permissible date for written, telephone, or texting communications. Specifically, between January 30 and September 30, 2013, the former head men’s golf coach and an assistant made 28 impermissible telephone calls to six men’s golf prospects and six parents of men’s golf prospects. In its written response, the institution and the former head men’s golf coach acknowledged these actions violated NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1.

Similarly, when the former head men’s golf coach sent impermissible email communications to prospects and their families he violated NCAA recruiting legislation. Specifically, the former head men’s golf coach knowingly sent 16 impermissible emails to five men’s golf prospects and three men’s parents of men’s golf prospects. Both the institution and the former head men’s golf coach substantially agreed these impermissible contacts occurred resulting in violations of NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2.

Finally, between July 9 and September 19, 2013, the former head men’s golf coach knowingly sent 20 impermissible text messages to three men’s golf prospects and four parents of men’s golf prospects, despite the fact that such text messages were clearly prohibited at the time. As a result, the former head men’s golf coach and the institution admitted in their written responses and at the hearing that these actions violated NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2. Early and regular personal contacts with prospects and their families are vital aspects of the recruiting process in any sport. The COI has addressed these issues in a number of recent cases. See University of Florida, Infractions Decision No. 417 (2015); West Virginia University, Infractions Decision No. 416 (2015). For example, the COI noted in the University of Florida case, that early impermissible contacts by member institutions and their staffs “confer advantages upon those who engage in the contacts to the detriment of those who are abiding by the rules.” In both of the foregoing cases, the COI concluded that the impermissible communications provided more than a minimal competitive advantage. The panel similarly concludes that more than a minimal competitive advantage was gained by the early contacts in this case.

The former head men’s golf coach admitted his conduct was knowing and intentional. He acknowledged at the hearing that the institution provided him “phenomenal” rules education on recruiting legislation updates, yet he still engaged prospects in impermissible communications. Candidly, he expressed an inability to say “no” when it was most needed and most appropriate to do so as it pertained to rules compliance. He also mentioned on several occasions during the hearing that he just did not ask the proper questions beforehand and regretted not doing so. At the hearing, he was contrite and remorseful. The former head men’s golf coach noted he wanted to be the “best college golf coach of all time.” Such a goal must also include a thoughtful and careful dedication to rules compliance.

The panel cautions coaches and staff to avail themselves early and often of the institution’s athletics compliance staff and resources when it comes to rules compliance. Violations like these are preventable. The panel concludes the facts found constitute Level II violations of NCAA bylaws because the violations provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial recruiting advantage and were more serious than Level III violations.

Impermissible Inducements in Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 (2012-13 through 2013-14 NCAA Division I Manuals)

Over six months in 2013, the former head men’s golf coach provided impermissible inducements to four men’s golf prospects when he offered institutional merchandise and golf equipment for a significantly reduced cost. The panel concludes that Level II violations occurred.

When the institution permitted the former head men’s golf coach to provide significantly reduced cost institutional merchandise and golf equipment to prospects, it violated NCAA recruiting legislation. Between March 11 and September 19, 2013, the former head men’s golf coach provided impermissible inducements to four prospects in violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.

Generally, NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1 govern the use of offers and inducements in the recruiting process. Both bylaws prohibit the use of offers or inducements to prospective student-athletes that are not generally available to prospective students in general. NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1.1 provides a non-exhaustive list of specifically prohibited offers or inducements to prospective student-athletes. At the hearing, the institution and the former head men’s golf coach substantially agreed the violations occurred. Both the institution and the former head men’s golf coach argued the violations were Level III.

Over the course of six months in 2013, the former head men’s golf provided a plethora of significantly reduced cost institutional merchandise and golf equipment to four men’s golf prospects. These items included belt buckles, hats, shirts, towels, head covers, alignment rods, golf balls, and a backpack. The approximate value of the impermissible merchandise received by the prospects was at least $777. The former head men’s golf coach admitted that his reduced cost sales to the prospects were impermissible. The enforcement staff argued that NCAA legislation was clear on the subject of merchandise sales to prospects. While NCAA legislation may permit a prospect to receive free equipment and apparel directly from a manufacturer or distributor under certain circumstances, such apparel would not include the institution’s logos or other specific institutional identifiers.

Ultimately, the former head men’s golf coach conceded that he “should have been more attentive to detail” regarding the merchandise sales. He admitted repeatedly that he should have gone to the institution’s athletics compliance staff and asked if his actions were consistent with NCAA legislation but failed to do so. He did know that he could not give away the merchandise for free but did not know how much he could sell the merchandise for and be compliant with NCAA legislation. But again, he never asked anyone who could help with answering that question. He also acknowledged that the institution did not provide him any rules education on merchandise sales, and he never asked for any. This was consistent with a troubling pattern for the former head men’s golf coach in this case. At every juncture when he needed to do the right thing, often by just asking a mere question or just saying “no,” he routinely failed to do so. While the former head men’s golf coach initially discounted the recruiting value of the significantly reduced institutional merchandise and golf equipment, he later conceded that there was no doubt to the value of having these prospects wearing and utilizing the institution’s logoed merchandise.

The panel concludes the facts as found constitute Level II violations of NCAA bylaws because they provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial recruiting advantage and were more serious than Level III violations.

Impermissible Recruiting Activities by a Representative of the Institution’s Athletics Interests in Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4, and 13.1.3.5.1 (2012-13 through 2013-14 NCAA Division I Manuals)

The representative assisted the institution in the recruitment of nine men’s golf prospects by promoting its men’s golf program while the former head men’s golf coach was aware of his activities. The institution substantially agreed the violation occurred. The panel concludes that a Level II violation occurred.

The former head men’s golf coach violated NCAA legislation when he knowingly permitted the representative to engage in impermissible recruiting contacts to promote the institution’s men’s golf program with at least nine men’s golf prospects. The representative’s and the former head men’s coach’s actions resulted in a significant competitive advantage and involved conduct that could have undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Accordingly, the institution via the former head men’s golf coach violated NCAA Bylaw 13. The institution argued these were Level II violations standing alone and did constitute collective Level I violations. The former head men’s golf coach admitted the violations occurred but argued they were only Level III. The factual bases for these violations are substantially undisputed by the parties.

NCAA Bylaw 13.1.2.1 generally prohibits representatives of an institution’s athletics interests from contacting prospective student-athletes and their relatives or legal guardians, except in very limited circumstances detailed in the bylaws. Here, the representative was a local guy who ran junior golf tournaments and who established a friendly relationship with the former head men’s golf coach. He facilitated contact and communication between the former head men’s golf coach and several highly regarded prospects and their families. Specifically, between June and September 2013, the former head men’s golf coach knew of and allowed the representative to contact prospects and their relatives on the institution’s behalf or received forwarded contact information from the representative serving as an intermediary for the men’s golf program. When the former head men’s golf coach allowed his friend and the local junior tournament director to engage in recruiting activities on behalf of the institution’s golf program he became a representative of the institution’s athletics interests. The institution and the former head men’s golf coach substantially agreed these actions violated NCAA Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4, and 13.1.3.5.1. The panel concludes he violated NCAA recruiting legislation.

As with the other recruiting violations, the former head men’s golf coach expressed regret at his “mistakes,” and knew that he should have asked questions about the representative’s activities. But yet again he failed to avail himself of the ample counsel and resources at his disposal in the institution’s athletics compliance office. These repeated failings could have been avoided by the former head men’s golf coach by focusing on compliance. Most troublesome is that he knew the rules, had received appropriate rules education from the institution, and knew better but still decided not to follow the rules. Regardless of motivation, the end result here is the same – multiple intentional serious violations of NCAA recruiting legislation. The former head men’s golf coach confidently expressed how he did not need the representative’s assistance in recruiting. By all measures the former head men’s golf coach was correct. He had recently won two Division I men’s golf championships as a head coach at his previous institution, without the help of the representative, making his violations all the more distressing.

The panel concludes the facts found constitute Level II violations of NCAA bylaws because the violations provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial recruiting advantage and were more serious than Level III violations.

Unethical Conduct by the Former Head Men’s Golf Coach in Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 10.01.1 (2012-13 and 2013-14 NCAA Division I Manuals) and 10.1-(d) (2013-2014 NCAA Division I Manual)

The former head men’s golf coach engaged in unethical conduct when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the enforcement staff during its investigation. The institution agreed the former head men’s golf coach was not completely forthcoming in his initial interview with the enforcement staff and that if the panel found a violation it would be Level I. The former head men’s golf coach disputed a violation occurred. The panel concludes that a Level I violation occurred.

The former head men’s golf coach violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when he knowingly denied having any knowledge of the representative’s impermissible recruiting activities on behalf of the institution. His actions seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Accordingly, the former head men’s golf coach violated NCAA Bylaw 10.

NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1 generally provides that institutional staff shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times and shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play in competition. NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d) defines unethical conduct as knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning an individual’s knowledge or involvement in possible violations of NCAA legislation.

Here, the former head men’s golf coach was asked in his initial interview if he had any knowledge of the representative’s recruiting activities. He acknowledged that he knew the representative but repeatedly said he had no knowledge of his efforts on behalf of the institution. However, between June 24 and September 6, 2013, the former head men’s golf coach and the representative exchanged over 35 emails in which the representative identified prospects he was working to bring to the institution’s men’s golf program. Yet, the former head men’s golf coach claimed he was unaware of the representative’s activities until September 5 or 6 when the institution’s senior athletic director for compliance called and asked him about the issue. Indeed, he said in his initial interview that “[he] knew nothing about this issue” and he was “certain that [he] had no, that was the first, the first time I had ever – was made aware of this, of this email.” Unfortunately for him, the number and nature of the emails he exchanged with the representative belie that testimony.

The panel did not find credible the assertion that the former head men’s golf coach could not remember the representative saying in an email on September 6, 2013: “Coach we need to get [prospect] locked down so let me know your thoughts. I will lean on [another prospect] as well later this weekend.” (Emphasis supplied). Earlier in the same email, the representative said, “[w]hen I explained our direction and talent at SMU he has now moved SMU to the top of his list.” (Emphasis added). The representative is clearly speaking in terms of the collective possessive pronouns “we” and “our” when referring to the former head men’s golf coach, the institution, and the institution’s men’s golf program. Similarly, in another email dated July 16, 2013, the representative sent the former head men’s golf coach an update on successfully getting a prospect to visit the institution and he responded back to the representative, “Perfect! You the man. Thx as always. Any more word from the [another prospect’s family] [.]” The former head men’s golf coach’s responses and engagement with the representative were more than just perfunctory. In this exchange, the former head men’s golf coach praised the representative’s efforts for getting a prospect to visit the institution’s campus and then asked him about the status of another desired prospect. These multiple communications occurred regularly over a period of two and a half months immediately prior to his initial interview with the enforcement staff, the last email of which was received on September 6, 2013, not even three weeks prior his interview.

For a coach who confidently stated that he could name “the top 40 or 50 [prospects] in the class during that time” the panel did not find credible the assertion that he could not recall the numerous communications he had with the representative. At the hearing, the former head men’s golf coach maintained that he did not lie to the enforcement staff and simply could not recall his communications with the representative. He reiterated that he made a “mistake” and should have asked the right questions but did not. He knew the representative had “crossed the line” and should have consulted with athletics compliance but he did not. He knew he should have said “no” to the representative’s efforts but was “too nice, too polite, and just didn’t do it.”

When the former head men’s golf coach stated that he knew nothing of the representative’s recruiting activities on behalf of the institution, he provided false or misleading information to the enforcement staff. In doing so, he violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1-(d), which require institutional staff to always be honest and maintain a high level of integrity as well as refrain from providing false or misleading information when it concerns potential rules violations. The former head men’s golf coach had a troubling pattern of committing “mistakes,” not asking questions, and not remembering key facts. This pattern was troublesome because by his own account, the institution provided “phenomenal” athletics compliance support and resources.

The panel concludes the facts found constitute Level I violations of NCAA bylaws because the violations involved conduct that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. The panel also concludes the foregoing Level II violations in men’s golf are viewed collectively as Level I. See NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1(i).

Unethical Conduct by the Former Compliance Director in Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 (2012-13 and 2013-14 NCAA Division I Manuals)

The former compliance director engaged in unethical conduct when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the institution as part of its probation compliance documentation in Infractions Decision No. 343 that was submitted to the COI. The enforcement staff argued the violation was Level I. The institution was unsure whether a violation occurred because the rules education sessions actually occurred, but if the panel found a violation it should be Level III. The panel concludes that a Level II violation occurred.

The former compliance director violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when he knowingly altered probation compliance documents and had the documents unwittingly submitted by the institution as evidence of its compliance to the COI. His actions involved conduct that undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Accordingly, the former compliance director violated NCAA Bylaw 10.

NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1 generally provides that institutional staff shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times and shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play in competition. NCAA Bylaw 10.1 provides several bases for unethical conduct all of which are not listed in the bylaw. In this case, the former compliance director altered the sign-in sheets for two rules education sessions by using a sign-in sheet from a previous month that contained signatures of the women’s track and field coaches by changing the date of the meeting in the header.

The former compliance director intentionally falsified documents that were eventually submitted to the COI as demonstration of the institution’s compliance with its probation in Infractions Decision No. 343. He also chose not to participate in the infractions process to discuss and account for his actions. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.2, the panel concludes that the former compliance director’s failure to submit a timely response was an admission that the violation occurred. Institutional staff members who administer intercollegiate athletics are held to a high standard of conduct at all times. The former compliance director’s actions fell short of meeting that standard.

The irony is that the rules education sessions for which he doctored sign-in sheets actually occurred. He inadvertently failed to obtain contemporaneous signatures from the attending coaches on the date the sessions occurred, a minor gaffe made worse by his cover-up to his superiors at the institution. The institution agreed that the former compliance director falsified the documents but does not believe his actions are necessarily a violation since the rules education sessions actually occurred. When the former compliance director failed to have sign-in sheets available at the two rules sessions for track and field coaches, he committed an error of omission. When he acted to perpetrate a fraud on the COI by manufacturing documentation and having it intentionally submitted in the institution’s probation compliance report, his error of omission transformed into one of commission. The panel refused to countenance such behavior, especially from someone who is expressly responsible for advising and guiding others on how to obey the rules. He violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 when he failed to deport himself in accordance with generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship in the administration of intercollegiate athletics.

The panel concludes the facts found constitute a Level II violation of NCAA bylaws because the violation involved conduct that undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Unethical Conduct by the Former Administrative Assistant in Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1(a), 10.1(b), 10.1(d), and 19.2.3 (2012-13 and 2014-15 NCAA Division I Manual)

The former administrative assistant engaged in unethical conduct when she knowingly facilitated the receipt of fraudulent academic credit by the student-athlete in a pre-enrollment online course. She further engaged in unethical conduct when she influenced the student-athlete to provide false or misleading information to the enforcement staff. The institution and the enforcement staff substantially agreed the violation occurred and that it was Level I. The panel concludes that a Level I violation occurred.

The former administrative assistant violated NCAA unethical conduct legislation when she knowingly arranged for the student-athlete’s fraudulent receipt of academic credit for a pre-enrollment online course. When the specter of being caught for her misconduct appeared imminent, she knowingly influenced the student-athlete to provide false or misleading information to the enforcement staff. The institution substantially agreed that the former administrative assistant was knowingly involved in arranging for the fraudulent receipt of academic credit. Her actions severely undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Accordingly, the former administrative assistant violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(b) and 10.1-(d).

NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1 generally provides that institutional staff shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times and shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play in intercollegiate competition. NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(b) defines unethical conduct as knowingly arranging for fraudulent academic credit for a prospective student-athlete. Additionally, on April 16, 2014, NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs published an official interpretation to NCAA Bylaw 10 on reporting academic misconduct. The official interpretation provides in pertinent part: “If an institution determines academic misconduct has occurred, the following standards apply: … (2) Student-Athlete or Prospective Student-Athlete. An institution is required to report a violation of Bylaw 10.1-(b) any time a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete, acting alone or in concert with others, is involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts, regardless of whether such conduct results in an erroneous declaration of eligibility.” (Emphasis added). The official interpretation made the issue of whether the student-athlete actually needed the course for admission or initial eligibility moot.

The former assistant men’s basketball coach advised the student-athlete to enroll in the online summer course as a “Plus 1” option for raising his core grade-point average in an effort to meet NCAA initial eligibility requirements. The panel was very concerned that the former assistant men’s basketball coach was advising a prospect on academic issues. Indeed, he advised the student-athlete to take a course he ultimately did not need because the student-athlete had an honors course from his first high school recalculated which gave him additional credit. The panel was also very troubled that academic advising was being administered by athletics staff in this case. Academic advising should be done by the institution’s trained experts in the field and not left to coaches or sport specific staff. While it was unclear how the former administrative assistant obtained the student-athlete’s online course account information and email login and password, it is clear that she completed all of the coursework for him.

She obtained the student-athlete’s username and password to his online course account. All of the course assignments, discussions, and exams were completed by her between June 17 and July 3, 2013, a period of 17 days. Forensic analysis of the metadata supplied by the online school revealed that the former administrative assistant was the author and editor of every assignment submitted by the student-athlete. The student-athlete ultimately received a grade of “A-” for the course. As a result of the student-athlete receiving fraudulent academic credit for the online course, he competed while ineligible during his freshman season at the institution, regardless of whether he ultimately needed the course for initial eligibility. When the basketball administrative assistant completed all of the student-athlete’s online coursework she engaged in unethical conduct and violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(b). Similarly, when she obtained the student-athlete’s online account information and submitted the completed coursework to the online school on behalf of the student-athlete, she was dishonest and violated NCAA Bylaw 10.01.1.

NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d) defines unethical conduct as knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual’s institution false or misleading information concerning an individual’s knowledge or involvement in possible violations of NCAA legislation. Here, not only did the former administrative assistant arrange for academic fraud, she then compounded her misconduct by fabricating a story in an attempt to cover up her misdeeds and the academic fraud. She knowingly influenced the student-athlete to furnish false or misleading information to the enforcement staff in an effort to keep her job. The student-athlete admitted that the former administrative assistant approached him at the institution’s basketball facility about one week prior to his second interview with the enforcement staff on August 4, 2014. During that encounter, she revealed to him for the first time that she had completed all of the coursework for his online class. He also revealed that in the week prior to his second interview, she asked him to lie to the enforcement staff about how the online course was completed. She encouraged him to tell the enforcement staff that he completed the online course himself and that he only came over to her house to work on his assignments and that she only tutored him. Rather than taking responsibility for her own actions, she unethically tried to influence and coopt a young enrolled student-athlete to furnish false or misleading information to the NCAA. When the former administrative assistant knowingly influenced the student-athlete to provide false or misleading information to the enforcement staff, she violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d).

During the investigation the former administrative assistant sat for two interviews with the enforcement staff. In her first interview she offered one version of events surrounding the completion of the student-athlete’s online course: that he did the work himself. In her second interview she confirmed this story. However, when confronted with a different version of events supplied by the student-athlete that had her completing the course for him, she confirmed the essential elements of the student-athlete’s story. After she prematurely ended the interview and refused to answer any further questions, she then refused to further cooperate in the infractions process. Her actions violated NCAA Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3.

NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(a) specifically deems it an act of unethical conduct for an institutional staff member to refuse to furnish pertinent information about a possible violation of NCAA legislation when asked to do so by the NCAA or the institution. NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3 imposes an affirmative obligation on current and former institutional staff members to cooperate fully with the enforcement staff, the COI, and Infractions Appeals Committee in an infractions case. The obligation to cooperate fully requires institutions and individuals to protect the integrity of investigations and to make a full and complete disclosure of any relevant information, including any information requested by the enforcement staff or relevant committees.

In her August 4, 2014, interview, the former administrative assistant was asked about the student-athlete’s online coursework and how it was completed. She stated that the student-athlete came over to her house to use her laptop to complete his online coursework. She claimed that he did all of this own work and that she only tutored him if he asked for help. In her second interview on September 9, 2014, she again confirmed that story. That is until she was confronted with the student-athlete’s version of events from his second interview.

In his second interview, the student-athlete indicated that he did none of the work for his online class and that the former administrative assistant informed him in an impromptu meeting that she had completed the coursework for him. Once confronted with the student-athlete’s version of events, the former administrative assistant confirmed, through her counsel, that version of events and terminated the interview. After terminating the interview without answering any further questions to assist the investigation, she refused to cooperate any further in the infractions process. When the former administrative assistant knowingly provided false or misleading information to the enforcement staff and the institution about her involvement in the completion of the student-athlete’s online course she violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(a). When she refused to abide by her enduring obligation to cooperate in this infractions case, she violated NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3.

The panel concludes the facts found are Level I violations of NCAA bylaws because the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Head Coach Responsibility in Violation of NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15 NCAA Division I Manuals) and NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1 (2012-13 NCAA Division I Manual) and 11.1.1.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15 NCAA Division I Manual)

The head men’s basketball coach failed to report possible rules violations in his program. He then lied when initially asked about his knowledge of possible violations in his program and failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance within his program, though he later corrected that information in the same interview with the enforcement staff. The enforcement staff argued that both violations are Level I. The institution acknowledged that he failed to notify it when he initially became aware of potential violations in the men’s basketball program. The institution argued that if the panel found a failure to report violation that it was Level II. However, the institution disagreed that the head men’s basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and took no position on level.

The head men’s basketball coach failed to report violations of NCAA legislation after he learned the student-athlete did not complete the work for his pre-enrollment online class. In doing so, he failed to identify and report instances of noncompliance within his program. His actions involved conduct that seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Accordingly, the head men’s basketball coach violated NCAA Constitution 2.8.1.

NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 generally requires institutional staff to identify and report any instances of noncompliance with NCAA legislation to the NCAA. Here, the head men’s basketball coach learned of rules violation within his program between July 25 and August 4, 2014. During that time both the student-athlete and the former administrative assistant informed him that the student-athlete did not complete the coursework for his online class. Yet, for over one month, and not until his September 9, 2014, interview did he disclose his knowledge of the violations. The COI has previously dealt with several cases where head coaches have failed to report violations on their watch. The head men’s basketball coach’s conduct was similar to the conduct of the head football coach in The Ohio State University, Infractions Decision No. 358 (2011). In that case, the head football coach was informed by a local attorney that some football student-athletes sold athletic awards, apparel, and equipment to a local tattoo parlor owner. The head football coach did nothing with that information and failed to report it to anyone in athletics compliance at the institution. The Ohio State University (concluding a violation of unethical conduct by the head football coach under NCAA Bylaw 10.1). As mentioned in Ohio State, the COI was extremely concerned by the conduct of the former head football coach in that case and the same concerns are expressed here by the panel about the conduct of the head men’s basketball coach. The fact is he initially lied to the enforcement staff when queried about the possible violations. While he claimed to deeply care about the people involved in violations in this case and a desire to protect them, he exhibited no concern for or attention to rules compliance. While he subsequently came forward in that interview with his knowledge of the violations, the damage was done.

He failed to inform not only the Association, but never informed his own compliance staff, the institution’s director of athletics or its president. He told no one, and he did nothing with the information disclosed to him by two individuals in his program. This was unacceptable conduct from the head men’s basketball coach and while he was contrite at the hearing, he nonetheless made a severe error in failing to report the violations in his program. When he failed to report violations of NCAA legislation in his program, he violated NCAA Constitution 2.8.1.

The head men’s basketball coach’s failure to report violations is also a part of a greater failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Between June 2013 and September 2014, he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance within his program when: the former administrative assistant committed academic fraud on behalf of the student-athlete; he failed to report possible violations; and he lied to the enforcement staff about his knowledge of possible violations. His actions or omissions violated NCAA Bylaws 11.1.2.1 and 11.1.1.1.

NCAA Bylaws 11.1.2.1 and 11.1.1.1 generally require a head coach to promote an atmosphere of compliance within his or her program and monitor the activities of all institutional staff who report directly or indirectly to the head coach. Within the legislation there is a presumption that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of all assistant coaches and staff that report directly or indirectly to them. The presumption is rebuttable. Head coach responsibility legislation has been in existence for more than 10 years and the committee has decided several cases under the legislation. Some of the more recent cases have addressed a head coach’s responsibility to recognize potential problems, address them, and report them to athletics administration. See, e.g., University of Connecticut, Infractions Decision No. 339 (2011) (concluding the head men’s basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he did not identify potential problems, address them, and report them). Other cases have identified the need for head coaches to seek information related to potential violations. See, e.g., University of Miami, Infractions Decision No. 390 (2013) (concluding the former head men’s basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he did not inquire and report all compliance concerns, questions, or violations). In this case, the head men’s basketball coach failed to rebut the presumption of head coach responsibility because he did none of the things identified in some of the prior cases to adequately do so.

While the head men’s basketball coach spoke generally or philosophically of doing things the right way in his program, he specifically failed to recognize, address, or report violations in his program when he was informed by two members of his program. When he was informed by the student-athlete that he had not completed the coursework for his online class, the head men’s basketball coach did nothing with that information. Shortly after receiving the news from the student-athlete, the former administrative assistant told him that she completed the coursework for the student-athlete. Still, he chose to do nothing with that information. Moreover, a third member of his program, the former assistant men’s basketball coach, learned of the academic fraud in a phone call and did not report the violation to him. While not charged with a failure to report violation in this case, the former assistant men’s basketball coach’s failure to inform the head men’s basketball coach about the academic fraud indicated an atmosphere of noncompliance within the program. He did not pose any questions to the former assistant men’s basketball coach who recruited the student-athlete about what he may have known about the academic fraud in his program. He failed to pose any questions to his athletics compliance staff about what he should have done to report the possible violations. Combined with the former administrative assistant’s commission of academic fraud and unethical conduct in the investigation, the message of doing things the right way in the men’s basketball program was lost. In short, his program exhibited a culture of noncompliance that resulted in several major violations.

While he did not have any role in the commission of the violations of his staff, he is presumed responsible for their actions. He failed to ask any questions of the former administrative assistant’s about her relationship with the student-athlete. The student-athlete would regularly visit with her in the basketball offices when the student-athlete came to campus to play open gym basketball. She regularly babysat the student-athlete’s toddler son in the basketball offices in the summer prior to his enrollment at the institution. Yet, this did not raise any concerns from the men’s basketball head coach. The panel reiterates that it is incumbent upon head coaches to recognize or identify potential problems within their programs and address them in a timely fashion. When the head men’s basketball coach did not report violations in his program and then lied about it, he set the wrong tone and he violated his responsibility as the leader of his program to promote an atmosphere of compliance. When two members of his staff who report directly to him either committed violations or failed to inform him of violations, as head coach he is responsible for their actions unless he has rebutted that presumption. He has failed to do so here. When he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance in his program he violated NCAA Bylaws 11.1.2.1 and 11.1.1.1.

The panel concludes the facts found constitute Level I violations of NCAA bylaws because the violations involved conduct that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

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

SMU’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: a history of major violations by the institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(b)); unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation and refusing to provide all relevant or requested information (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e)); 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)).

SMU’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)) and affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(c)); and an established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)).

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

Former Administrative Assistant’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved individual (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(a)); obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal investigation (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(d)); unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation and refusing to provide all relevant or requested information (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e)); violations were premediated, deliberate, and committed after substantial planning (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(f)); and intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

Former Administrative Assistant’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: none.

Former Head Golf Coach’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation and refusing to provide all relevant or requested information (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e)) and intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

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

Former Compliance Director’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: unethical conduct, failing to cooperate during an investigation and refusing to provide all relevant or requested information (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e)).

Former Compliance Director’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).

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

1. Three years of probation from September 29, 2015 to September 28, 2018.

2. SMU shall pay a financial penalty of $5,000.00 plus 1% of the total budget for the men’s basketball program and men’s golf program.

3. Both the men’s basketball and men’s golf programs shall be banned from postseason competitions for one year commencing the 2015-16 academic year.

4. Scholarship reductions from the average number awarded over the previous four academic years: the men’s golf program shall reduce the number of scholarship equivalencies offered by 25 percent for each year for a period of three years commencing in the 2016-17 academic year and continuing through and including the 2018-19 academic year; the men’s basketball program shall reduce the number of scholarships by nine over a period of three years to commence with the 2016-17 academic year and continue through the 2018-19 academic year. The institution is given credit for the two scholarships it will reduce in the upcoming 2015-16 academic year (Institution imposed). Thereafter, the institution is given flexibility to determine how to implement the remaining seven scholarship reductions in men’s basketball over the remaining probationary period.

5. The institution shall limit official visits to two in men’s basketball. The institution shall reduce recruiting communications with prospective student-athletes by 12.5 percent in the men’s basketball program in the 2015-16 academic year and is prohibited from communicating with prospective student-athletes for a period of seven weeks in the spring of 2016. Further, the institution shall reduce off-campus recruiting period days in men’s basketball by 20 (Institution imposed).

6. The institution shall reduce recruiting communications with prospective student-athletes by 12.5 percent in men’s golf in the 2015-16 academic year and is prohibited from communicating with prospective student-athletes in men’s golf for a period of seven weeks in the spring of 2016. Further, the institution shall limit its off-campus recruiting of prospective student-athletes in men’s golf by 12.5 percent. (Institution imposed).

7. Public reprimand and censure.

8. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7(g), the institution shall vacate all wins in which the student-athlete participated while ineligible during the 2013-14 academic year.

9. The institution shall show cause why it should not be penalized further if it fails to permanently disassociate the representative from the institution’s athletics program based on his involvement in the violations in the men’s golf program as set forth in this decision.

10. The institution shall cease all apparel and merchandise sales to prospective student-athletes in the men’s golf program for a period of three years.

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. The head men’s basketball coach shall be suspended from his coaching responsibilities for 30 percent of the men’s basketball season to commence at the start of the 2015-16 basketball season, not including any exhibition games. During the period of suspension, the head men’s basketball coach is prohibited from performing all coaching and recruiting activities and may not have any contact with members of his basketball staff, student-athletes, and prospective student-athletes

13. The former head men’s golf coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that should he be employed or affiliated in an athletically related position at another NCAA member institution during a five-year period, with one year of credit for the year he has already been separated from the institution, for a total of four years from September 29, 2015, through September 28, 2019, within 30 days of the former head men’s golf coach’s hiring, that employing institution shall ask for a date to appear before a hearing panel to show cause why the restrictions on all athletically related duties should not apply.

14. The former administrative assistant will be informed in writing by the NCAA that should she be employed or affiliated in an athletically related position at another NCAA member institution during a five-year period from September 29, 2015, through September 28, 2020, within 30 days of the former administrative assistant’s hiring, that employing institution shall ask for a date to appear before a hearing panel to show cause why the restrictions on all athletically related duties should not apply.

15. The former compliance director will be informed in writing by the NCAA that should he be employed or affiliated in an athletically related position at another NCAA member institution during a two-year period from September 29, 2015, through September 28, 2017, within 30 days of the former compliance director’s hiring, that employing institution shall ask for a date to appear before a hearing panel to show cause why the restrictions on all athletically related duties should not apply.

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 .