The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that the Texas Tech University (“Tech”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation. The case primarily pertains to 926 impermissible text messages sent to 62 prospective student-athletes (“prospect”) and 25 impermissible text messages sent to the parent of a prospect. After the investigation concluded the case was submitted to the Committee through the summary disposition process, which is an alternative to a formal hearing before the Committee that may be utilized when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution, and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and that those facts constitute major violations of NCAA legislation.

The violations at issue were detected by Tech when its telephone and text-message monitoring system identified 49 text messages sent to prospects by members of Tech’s coaching staff. On July 15, 2009, after the conclusion of Tech’s self-investigation, Tech submitted a self-report to the NCAA enforcement staff. Subsequently, on January 19 and 20, 2010, the NCAA enforcement staff conducted on-campus interviews. After the conclusion of the investigation, all parties agreed that major violations occurred and submitted the same to the Committee for review.

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

1. Impermissible Text Messages in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.4.1.2

     a. Between August 2007 and November 2008, the men’s golf coaching staff, including the head men’s golf coach and a former assistant golf coach, sent approximately 399 impermissible text messages to 6 prospects and 25 impermissible text messages to the parent of a prospect.

          i. The men’s golf coaching staff acknowledged receiving significant rules education regarding the August 2007 change to text message legislation.

          ii. The men’s golf coaching staff explained that the majority of the text messages occurred because of their failure to identify who was considered a prospect and the “culture” of recruiting in men’s golf.

          iii. The men’s golf coaching staff stated they believed the majority of the text messages were only “informational” in nature or occurred after prospects had verbally committed or resulted from a misunderstanding regarding permissible communication while a prospect was on a visit.

          iv. The men’s golf coaching staff indicated there was confusion relating to text message legislation when they were not actively recruiting a prospect.

          v. The men’s golf coaching staff believed a prospect could receive unlimited text messages when the prospect was on a visit (similar to unlimited telephone calls during this time).

         vi. The men’s golf coaching staff misunderstood the legislation and believed it was permissible to send text messages for “logistical” or “informational purposes,” such as arranging campus visits and assisting with the application process.

2. Failure to Promote an Atmosphere of Compliance in violation of NCAA Bylaws 11.1.2.1

    a. The Committee found that the head men’s golf coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the men’s golf program regarding text messaging legislation and failed to adequately monitor the activities of his former assistant coach related to impermissible text messaging. The head men’s golf coach failed to seek clarification from the Tech compliance staff on whether text messages were permissible in specific situations. As a result, the head men’s golf coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

3. Impermissible Text Messages in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.4.1.2

     a. Between August 2007 and November 2008, the softball coaching staff, including the former head softball coach and two former assistant softball coaches, sent approximately 293 impermissible text messages to 10 prospects.

         i. The softball coaching staff acknowledged that they knew they could not send text messages to prospects.

         ii. The former head softball coach attempted to justify text messages she sent by indicating that half of the text messages were sent to one prospect with whom she had a longstanding personal relationship and such text messages were sent when the prospect was experiencing a personal crisis. The investigation confirmed that the prospect at issue was experiencing a personal crisis.

        iii. The former head softball coach indicated many of the impermissible text messages took place when she was at a softball tournament surrounded by people, thus text messaging was the “easy way” to communicate.

       iv. The former assistant softball coach indicated she was confused about whether a coach could text message a prospect after the prospect had verbally committed and/or signed an NLI.

       v. The former assistant softball coach rationalized the text messages he sent by articulating that the text messages were “informational” or “logistical” only and not recruiting in nature.

       vi. The softball coaching staff believed that text messages were unlimited during times in which telephone calls would be unlimited.

4. Failure to Promote an Atmosphere of Compliance in violation of NCAA Bylaws 11.1.2.1

    a. The Committee found that the former head softball coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the softball program regarding text messaging legislation and failed to adequately monitor the activities of her assistant coaches related to impermissible text messaging. The former head softball coach acknowledged an occasion during which she and a former assistant softball coach were picking up a prospect from the airport and a text message was sent to the prospect. This incident, as well as her direct involvement in impermissible text messages resulted in a finding that the former head softball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

5. Impermissible Text Messages in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.4.1.2

    a. Between August 2007 and February 2009, the football coaching staff, including the former head football coach, multiple assistant football coaches, and a football recruiting secretary, sent approximately 234 impermissible text messages to 45 prospects.

        i. The football coaching staff acknowledged receiving significant rules education regarding the August 2007 change to text message legislation.

        ii. A former assistant football coach indicated he sent text messages, but did so primarily where he did not have cellular phone service. Additionally, many of the text messages were initiated in order to arrange times to telephone prospects, to provide information regarding official visits and transfers, and to respond to holiday greetings. Also, the former assistant coach indicated he text messaged a prospect because the prospect had exceeded his monthly cell phone time limits and text messaging was the only other option for communication.

       iii. A former assistant football coach noted the majority of the text messages were sent to prospects who orally committed and/or signed an NLI, but then had to attend junior college to attain initial academic eligibility.

       iv. A former assistant football coach believed he could send text messages after the prospect signed an NLI. The present rule allows for coaches to text message after the NLI is signed, but the violations at issue took place prior to the January 2008 change in legislation.

       v. A former assistant football coach stated the majority of the text messages he sent were to inform prospects that he could not respond to text messages, and at the time, he did not believe it was a violation to respond in that manner.

       vi. Members of the football staff indicated they sent text messages for “logistically purposes” associated with official visits and they believed such communication was appropriate.

      vii. The former head football coach stated he did not deliberately send text messages to prospects, but may have inadvertently responded to “blind” text messages relating to victories, holidays, and messages from other well-wishers. As such, the former head football coach indicated he would respond to these messages with a short message of thanks, but did not notice to whom he was responding.

6. Secondary Violations in violation of NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1.2, 131.3.1, 13.1.3.4.1, and 13.4.1.2

    a. Between April 2007 and March 2010, 23 athletics department employees and the spouse of the current head baseball coach committed secondary violations of NCAA recruiting legislation by sending impermissible text messages, making impermissible phone calls prior to July 1 following the completion of the prospect’s junior year, making impermissible telephone calls in violation of the one call per week rule, and the golf program provided impermissible automobile transportation to 2 prospects during their unofficial visits.

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

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Two years of probation from January 7, 2011 through January 6, 2013.

3. Suspended all recruiting activities for men’s golf for 1 month.

4. Reduced by 1 the number of men’s golf coaches who may engage in off-campus recruiting activities for an additional 17 months.

5. Restricted the former assistant golf coach’s off-campus recruiting activities for 12 months.

6. Restricted the head golf coach’s off-campus recurring activities for 7 months.

7. Reduced the number of official paid visits for men’s golf from 4 to 2 for 1 year.

8. Reduced the number of allowable scholarships from 4.5 to 4.35 for the 2010-11 academic year.

9. Banned the head men’s golf coach and former assistant golf coach from any electronic and written communication with all prospects for 2 months excluding logistics.

10. Banned the head men’s golf coach from initiating electronic or written communication to all prospects for 2 months.

11. Banned the former assistant men’s golf coach from initiating electronic or written communication to all prospects for 6 months.

12. Required the head men’s golf coach and former assistant golf coach to forego any incentive payments in 2009-10 related to the success of their team.

13. Directed that the text messaging function of the head golf coach’s cell phone be disabled for 2 months.

14. Directed that the text messaging function of the former assistant golf coach’s cell phone be disabled for 4 months.

15. Reduced the number of official paid visits for prospects in football by 4 from the four-year average of 44 for the 2009-10 year.

16. Reduced the number of allowable scholarships from 85 to 84 for the 2009-10 academic year.

17. Reduced the number of football coaches who could engage in off-campus recruiting during the spring evaluation period for 3 weeks in the spring of 2009.

18. Restricted a former assistant football coach from off-campus recruiting activities for 3 weeks in the spring 2009 and 4 weeks in spring 2010.

19. Banned a former assistant football coach from making recruiting telephone calls for one month.

20. Banned a former assistant football coach from initiating electronic or written communication with all prospects for 3 months.

21. Banned former assistant football coaches from initiating electronic or written communication with all prospects for 1 month.

22. Banned the football program from initiating any electronic or written communication with all prospects, excluding logistics relating to campus visits from September 15 through October 14, 2009.

23. Directed that the text messaging function of a former assistant football coach’s cell phone be disabled for 2 months.

24. Reduced the number of softball evaluation days by 15 over 3 years.

25. Limited the number of official visits paid by Tech for softball to 7 for 1 year.

26. Banned the softball program from initiating any electronic or written communication with all prospects for 1.5 months, excluding logistics related to campus visits.

27. Reduced the number of grant-in-aid equivalencies from 12 to 11.7 for the 2009-10 academic year.

28. The Committee also penalized the baseball, women’s volleyball, football, men’s golf, softball, and women’s basketball programs for secondary violations.

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