The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Hawaii, Manoa (“UH” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.

This case involved the men’s basketball program at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. It centered on the former head men’s basketball coach permitting and instructing his director of operations to participate in coaching activities, failing to report a possible extra benefit violation, and providing false or misleading information in his statements during the investigation. The case also involved unethical conduct by a former assistant men’s basketball coach. The former assistant men’s basketball coach altered a financial responsibility document in an attempt to facilitate the admission of a student-athlete to the institution. He provided an iPad to another student-athlete and provided false information during the investigation regarding the device.

The former head men’s basketball coach committed Level II violations of NCAA legislation when he permitted and instructed his director of operations to engage in coaching activities, provided false or misleading information about those activities and failed to report a possible NCAA rules violation to the administration. The former assistant men’s basketball coach committed Level II violations when he provided an extra benefit to a student-athlete, provided false information about the benefit and altered a financial responsibility form on behalf of another student-athlete.

This case also provides a cautionary tale regarding the interaction between coaching staffs and institutional compliance offices. The relationship between the former head men’s basketball coach and the director of compliance at this institution was tense to the point of being nearly dysfunctional. Communication between the two was poor and overshadowed by an ongoing personality conflict. Had they worked more collaboratively in their dealings, at least some of the violations in this case would likely not have occurred.

The institution agreed with all of its violations. The former assistant men’s basketball coach agreed with all the violations concerning him. With regard to the former head men’s basketball coach, he disagreed with the facts and that violations occurred. He took no position regarding level. Although violations occurred, the panel concludes they are all Level II. The panel classifies this case as Level II – Aggravated for the institution, the former head men’s basketball coach and former assistant men’s basketball coach.

The Committee found the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.1.1.1.1.1 and 11.7.4 (2011-12 Division I Manual)

Director of Basketball Operations (“DOBO”) 1 violated NCAA athletics personnel legislation when he participated in scouting sessions and provided on-court coaching instruction to men’s basketball student-athletes during the 2011-12 academic year. The panel concludes that DOBO 1 engaged in coaching activities during scout and practice sessions, thereby becoming a countable coach in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.

During the 2011-12 academic year, NCAA Bylaw 11.7.1.1.1.1.1 precluded all noncoaching staff members with sport-specific responsibilities from participating in instructional and on-court activities with student-athletes. The bylaw explicitly barred directors of operations from participating in such activities. NCAA Bylaw 11.7.4 limited men’s basketball staffs to four members. When DOBO 1 presented information during scout sessions, rebounded for the post players and offered them on-court instruction during practice, he was in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.7.1.1.1.1.1. His actions rendered him a fifth countable coach and caused the men’s basketball staff to exceed by one the number of allowable coaches, in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.7.4.

While each individual instance of DOBO 1’s presenting during scout sessions and coaching may have been a Level III violation, the cumulative effect of the violations rises to Level II. DOBO 1 was a long-time, experienced NCAA Division I coach. By imparting his expertise during scout sessions and giving skill instruction to student-athletes on the floor at practice, DOBO 1 gave this institution the advantage of a fifth member of the coaching staff. This was more than a minimal advantage over institutions who complied with the rules regarding coaching staff limits.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 14.11.1, 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.3-(c) (2012-13 Division I Manual) and 14.10.1 (2013-14 Division I Manual)

The representative became a representative of the institution’s athletics interests in the spring of 2012 when he purchased tickets to a men’s basketball banquet and made a donation to the men’s basketball program. Subsequently, he violated NCAA legislation when he allowed student-athlete 3 to use his Porsche sports utility vehicle for two days in the fall of 2012. The panel concludes that the representative provided an impermissible benefit to student-athlete 3 in violation of NCAA Bylaw 16.

NCAA Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.3-(c) prohibit representatives of an institution’s athletics interests from providing any benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation to a student-athlete. NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.3-(c) specifically excludes the use of automobiles from the types of benefits a student-athlete can receive. NCAA Bylaws 14.10.1 (2013-14) and 14.11.1 (2012-13) obligate member institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition.

When the representative allowed student-athlete 3 to use his vehicle, he violated NCAA Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.3-(c). Student-athlete 3 was rendered ineligible from the time he took possession of and used the representative’s car. His eligibility was not restored prior to him competing in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years. Therefore, he competed during those two seasons while ineligible, in violation of NCAA Bylaws 14.10.1 (2013-14) and 14.11.1 (2012-13).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.1 (2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 Division I Manuals); 11.1.2.1 (2011-12 and 2012-13 Division I Manuals); and 10.1-(d) (2014-15 Division I Manual)

The former head coach violated NCAA ethical conduct and head coach responsibility legislation when he: (a) instructed DOBO 1 to make presentations in scout sessions and permitted him to engage in on-court coaching activities during the 2011-12 season; and (b) failed to report his knowledge of student-athlete 3 using the representative’s vehicle and influenced members of the men’s basketball team not to report the violation. The former head coach also acted unethically when he provided false information about DOBO 1’s activities during the investigation. The panel concludes that the former head coach violated NCAA ethical conduct and head coach responsibility legislation. NCAA Bylaw 10.1 requires institutional staff members to act in an ethical manner at all times. NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires head coaches to establish the proper atmosphere for rules compliance in their programs.

The former head coach was aware that directors of operations are not allowed to perform coaching functions. Nonetheless, he instructed DOBO 1 to make presentations during scout sessions and allowed him to coach on the court. In doing so, the former head coach acted in violation of NCAA Bylaw 10.1. His actions also demonstrated that rules compliance was not of utmost importance in the administration of his program, in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1.

The former head coach failed to report student-athlete 3’s use of the representative’s vehicle and commented to his team members that they should keep the matter “in house.” The former head coach’s initial response when he learned that student-athlete 3 was driving the representative’s Porsche was appropriate – he would not let student-athlete 3 continue to drive the car, and he chastised student-athlete 3 and, later, the representative. These actions by the former head coach demonstrate his awareness that there was at least a potential problem with student-athlete 3 driving the vehicle. However, instead of reporting the matter to the athletics administration, the former head coach made his own determination that a rules violation had not occurred. Further, he instructed his team to keep the matter “in house,” among themselves. While members of the team stated in their interviews that they did not take this to mean that they should hide the matter from the compliance office, the failure of the former head coach to report the matter to his administration, coupled with his admonishment regarding keeping the matter “in house,” was unethical in violation of NCAA Bylaw 10.1. His actions also established that strict adherence to full rules compliance was not a high priority in his program, in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1.

Finally, during his October 17, 2014, interview with the institution and enforcement staff, the former head coach failed to divulge that DOBO 1 engaged in on-court instruction with student-athletes throughout the 2011-12 academic year. Similarly, while the former head coach acknowledged in his December 10, 2014, written statement that DOBO 1 engaged in coaching activities on “a few occasions early in the year,” he did not provide full and truthful information regarding the extent of the activities and his role in permitting and directing them. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d), his failure to be fully forthcoming constituted unethical conduct. Many of the violations in this case could have been avoided had the former head coach and director of compliance maintained a professional relationship. Had their strained relationship not resulted in the director of compliance conducting men’s basketball business by email, not attending practice for two years or being “lax” in other duties, she may well have been able to prevent DOBO 1 from engaging in any coaching activities in the time before she made the potential issue known to the coaching staff. Conversely, if the former head coach had informed the compliance office of student-athlete 3’s use of the representative’s vehicle, rather than talking to a former director of athletics, the compliance office could have gathered the appropriate information and conducted a proper investigation of the incident long before student-athlete 3 competed while ineligible for two academic years. In significant part because the former head coach relied on his own conclusion and/or a short conversation student-athlete 3 may have had with the compliance office, this case now involves student-athlete 3 competing for two seasons while ineligible.

The committee consistently requires head coaches to affirmatively address potential rules issues within their programs. University of Connecticut (2011) (concluding that NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires coaches to recognize potential problems, address them and report them to the athletics administration); University of Miami (2013) (concluding that NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires coaches to seek information related to potential violations). This case bears many similarities to The Ohio State University (2011). In that case, a head football coach received information regarding possible NCAA rules violations by members of his team. The head football coach recognized that the situation presented potential NCAA rules issues. However, rather than reporting the situation to his compliance office or other administrators, he chastised the involved student-athletes and took no further action. The student-athletes subsequently competed while ineligible. When the athletics administration eventually learned of the rules violations, the head football coach lost his job and the institution vacated a number of victories by a successful football program.

While the former head coach’s position is that he looked into student-athlete 3’s use of the representative’s vehicle, concluded that the representative was not a “booster” and, therefore, no NCAA violations occurred, his actions did not go far enough. He confronted student-athlete 3 and the representative. He lectured his team on the pitfalls of accepting favors from outsiders and even mentioned that coaches can lose their jobs over such incidents. However, he then urged the members of the team to keep the matter among themselves. His next step should have been to take the matter to the compliance office so that the athletics administration could have investigated the situation. His failure to do so, and director of compliance’s failure to be fully engaged with the men’s basketball program, were significant factors in the violations.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.1-(c) and 16.11.2.1 (2012-13 Division I Manual); 10.1 (2012-13 through 2014-15 Division I Manual); and 10.1-(d) (2013-14 and 2014-15 Division I Manual)

Former assistant coach 1 violated NCAA extra benefit and ethical conduct legislation when he knowingly allowed prospect 5 to retain the iPad prospect 5 received from former assistant coach 1’s wife. He further violated ethical conduct legislation when he failed to divulge the details surrounding prospect 5’s receipt of the iPad in two interviews with the institution and enforcement staff. Finally, former assistant coach 1 violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when he altered student-athlete 1’s Supplemental Information form. Former assistant coach 1’s actions violated NCAA Bylaws 16 and 10.

NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 precludes institutional staff members from providing benefits to student-athletes not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation, while NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c) includes the knowing provision of impermissible benefits to student-athletes in the definition of unethical conduct. As NCAA legislation does not allow coaches to give free electronic devices to student-athletes, the former assistant coach violated NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 when he allowed prospect 5 to keep the iPad. When he failed to truthfully divulge his knowledge of how prospect 5 came to possess the iPad, he violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c).

Finally, former assistant coach 1 engaged in unethical conduct when he altered the Supplemental Information Form for Undergraduate International Applicants on behalf of student-athlete 1 to make it appear that the student-athlete had the requisite financial resources to be admitted into the institution. NCAA Bylaw 10.1 precludes institutional staff members from acting in an unethical manner. While the bylaw sets forth 10 specific means of committing unethical conduct, those examples are not exclusive of all other possible actions. When former assistant coach 1 altered student-athlete 1’s financial form in an attempt to facilitate student-athlete 1’s admission to the institution, he acted in an unethical manner.

Level III Violations

Impermissible Tryouts in violation of NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.11.1 and 13.11.2.2-(a) (2010-11). Between April 30 and May 1, 2011, one or more member of the men’s basketball coaching staff was present in the gym for a period of time while prospects 1 and 2 participated in a scrimmage with enrolled student-athletes. The presence of the coaching staff members constituted an impermissible tryout of the prospects.

Impermissible Tryout in violation of NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.11.1 and 13.11.2.2-(a) (2010-11). Between May 5 and May 7, 2011, one or more member of the men’s basketball coaching staff observed for a period of time while prospect 3 participated in a scrimmage with enrolled student-athletes. The observations by the coaching staff members constituted an impermissible tryout of the prospective student-athlete.

Impermissible Tryouts in violation of NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.11.1 and 13.11.2.3 (2011-12). Between November 4 and 5, 2011, one or more member of the men’s basketball coaching staff conducted impermissible tryouts of prospects 4 and 5 by putting them through individual workout drills and observing them in a basketball scrimmage.

Impermissible Inducements and Benefit in violation of NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.6.6 and 16.11.2.1 (2013-14). On three instances from August 28 to December 19, 2013, the men’s basketball coaching staff arranged for prospects 6 and 7 and student-athlete 1 (while still a prospect) to have access to a hotel concierge lounge on their official paid visits. The lounge was not generally available to all hotel guests. Prospects 6 and 7, along with a parent, ate two or fewer complimentary meals in the lounge. On the third occasion, student-athlete 10, who accompanied student-athlete 1 to the lounge, ate a complimentary meal.

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

UH’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: Multiple Level II violations by the institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g)); persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violations or related wrongful misconduct (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)); one or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(i)); conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(j)); and a pattern of noncompliance within the sports program involved (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(k)).

UH’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)); and established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)).

Former Head Coach’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(d)); unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e)); multiple Level II violations by the institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g)); persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violations or related wrongful misconduct (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)); one or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(i)); conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(j)); and a pattern of noncompliance within the sports program involved (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(k)); and intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution or bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

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

Former Assistant Coach 1’s Aggravating Factors were as follows: obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(d)); unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(e)); multiple Level II violations by the institution (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(g)); one or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(i)); conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(j)); and a pattern of noncompliance within the sports program involved (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(k)); and intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution or bylaws (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)).

Former Assistant Coach 1’s Mitigating Factors were as follows: None.

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

1. Three years of probation from December 22, 2015 to December 21, 2018.

2. The men’s basketball team shall end its season with the last scheduled regular season game and be banned from postseason competition during the 2016-17 academic year. The panel declines to prescribe this penalty for the present academic year due to the timing of the release of this decision.

3. The institution shall pay a one-time fine of $10,000 (institution imposed) plus an amount equal to one percent of the average total budget for the men’s basketball program over the previous three years.

4. The men’s basketball program shall award no more than 11 grants-in-aid for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years (institution imposed one grant cut each for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic year). The institution may credit its 2016-17 grant cut to the cuts to be imposed during that academic year.

5. The former head coach received a three-year show cause penalty.

6. The former assistant coach 1 received a two-year show cause penalty.

7. The institution shall prohibit members of the men’s basketball coaching staff from conducting on-campus evaluation of prospective student-athletes for the first five official visits of the 2015-16 academic year in which an on-campus evaluation would otherwise be permissible.

8. Public reprimand and censure.

9. Student-athlete 3 received an impermissible benefit when he used the representative’s vehicle in the fall of 2012. Former assistant coach 1 provided an impermissible benefit to prospect 5 when he allowed prospect 5 to retain an iPad free of charge. The receipt of the benefits rendered student-athlete 3 and prospect 5 ineligible for competition. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.9.7-(g) and 31.2.2.3, the institution shall vacate all regular season and conference tournament wins in which student-athlete 3 and prospect 5 competed from the time they became ineligible through the time they were reinstated as eligible for competition.

10. The institution shall reduce the maximum number of countable athletically related activity (CARA) hours by one hour per week during the 2015-16 men’s basketball season. The reduction will total 19 hours, which the institution estimated is double the amount of hours it exceeded CARA limits during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years.

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 .