The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Miami (“Miami”) committed major violations of NCAA legislation. At issue were 18 allegations with 79 subparts that primarily involved widespread and significant recruiting inducements and extra benefits. Many of the allegations centered around a known representative of the institution’s athletics interests (“booster”) freely entertaining numerous prospects and student-athletes at his home, on his yacht and in various public settings. The booster paid for entertainment, food and various gifts. This booster also was a significant donor of the football and men’s basketball programs and had a visible presence around the programs. He had personal and financial dealings with some members of those coaching staffs and provided coaches with gifts and loans. The former head men’s basketball coach, two former assistant basketball coaches, and four former assistant football coaches were all individually at risk under NCAA bylaws.

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

 1. Recruiting violations in Miami’s football program by a representative of Miami’s athletics interests in violation of NCAA Bylaws 12.3.1.2 (2006-07 and 2009-10), 13.2.2(h) (2007-08), 13.01.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1(f), 13.2.1.1(g), 13.2.1.1(h), 13.5.1, 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1, 13.7.2.1.1, 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.3(d) (2008-09)

 The booster provided impermissible benefits or inducements on numerous occasions from 2002 through 2010 to student-athletes and prospects which violated NCAA bylaws that preclude athletics representatives from providing meals, cash, lodging, transportation and other benefits to student-athletes and prospects. During the investigation, the NCAA enforcement staff interviewed the booster on twenty different occasions.

 The booster was a major donor to Miami’s athletics programs. The booster hosted student-athletes at his home, on board his yacht and at Miami restaurants, nightclubs, and strip clubs. He also hosted and entertained football prospects at his home, and Miami restaurants, nightclubs, and a bowling alley. Additionally, the booster hosted high school coaches, family members and friends of the student-athletes and prospects at his home and at Miami restaurants. When hosting, the booster provided one or more of the following: meals and beverages or the cost of meals and beverages, admissions or fees associated with VIP access at Miami nightclubs and strip clubs, bowling fees and ground transportation. Finally, the booster also had access to and contact with a prospect on the sideline at a home football contest during the prospect’s official visit.

 The booster provided impermissible benefits of cash and clothing to one or more student-athletes. The booster’s impermissible benefits also included, but were not limited to, a used washer and dryer, air transportation for the friend of a student-athlete, access to football stadium seating and a television. The booster provided lodging at his home for a student-athlete. He provided the cost of lodging at a Miami-area hotel for the family of a student-athlete and his sibling, and the family’s associate and his spouse. Because the booster provided student-athletes, prospects, their families and friends with benefits and inducements, he violated NCAA bylaws relating to extra benefits and inducements. Further, when the booster had in-person, on or off-campus recruiting contacts with prospects, their relatives or legal guardians, the booster engaged impermissible recruiting activity and violated NCAA bylaws prohibiting representatives from engaging in such activity and contact.

 2. Impermissible benefits provided and activities conducted by a representative of Miami’s athletics interests who triggered NCAA agent legislation in violation of NCAA Bylaws 12.3.1.2 and 16.11.2.1 (2005-06)

 Over the course of approximately two or three years, the booster triggered NCAA agent legislation and provided student-athletes with significant impermissible benefits in an effort to identify and secure new clients for a sports agency representing players. Specifically, the booster, on behalf of the sports agency, sought to market the athletic abilities of Miami’s football student-athletes. The impermissible benefits included cash, meals, and entertainment.

 The booster became an investor in a sports agency in 2003. He arranged meetings with his partner, a registered sports agent, and Miami’s more high-profile student-athletes. He also provided meals and in one instance $50,000.00 in an effort to secure student-athletes as clients for the agency. Because the booster, acting on behalf of the sports agency, provided these benefits for the purpose of encouraging those student-athletes to seek representation from the sports agency, his actions violated NCAA bylaws.

 3. Miami’s failure to control or prohibit outside source from providing supplement pay to former assistant football coaches in violation of NCAA Bylaws 11.3.1 and 11.3.2.2 (2008-09)

From August 2006 through November 2006 and in July 2009, the booster provided impermissible supplemental compensation to former assistant football coaches A and B. The institution failed to control the amount of salary former assistant football coaches A and B would receive consistent with NCAA bylaws. Miami’s initial employment terms with the former assistant football coach A, by definition, dictated that there would be no compensation for the position. During the three-month period, however, former assistant football coach A accepted cash in the amount of $1,700.00 and meals from the booster, an outside source. Additionally, former assistant football coach B requested and accepted a $2,500.00 loan from the booster. The booster did not charge interest on the loan. Both coaches indicated they did not know such compensation constituted a violation of NCAA bylaws.

4. Impermissible benefits or inducements provided to prospective student-athletes by former assistant football coaches and their attendant unethical conduct in connection with those benefits or inducements in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.01.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1(e), 13.2.1.1(f), 13.2.1.1(g), 13.2.1.1(h), 13.5.1, 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1.1, 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.3 (2008-09), 10.1(c) (2009-10), 10.1(d) (2011-12)

During one or more unofficial visits taken between 2008 and 2009, former assistant coaches B and C provided prospective student-athletes with cost-free lodging, meals and transportation. On at least one unofficial visit, the prospects did not stay with student-athletes as former assistant football coaches B and C may have intended. Instead, former assistant football coaches B and C provided one or more nights lodging and meals for the prospects.

With respect to local transportation, during one unofficial visit, former assistant football coaches B and C also provided or arranged the transportation for prospects to the booster’s home. Having seen or been a passenger in former assistant football coach B’s vehicle, prospects were able to identify the “black truck.” Two prospects further identified former assistant football coach C as the individual who met them at the gas station. Former assistant football coach C then drove them in former assistant football coach B’s vehicle to Miami’s campus.

Former assistant football coach B also arranged for the booster to interact with prospects on one or more unofficial visits and provided the prospects with impermissible benefits and inducements. Specifically, former assistant football coach B, who had already established a relationship with the booster, arranged for student-athletes, prospects and the booster to dine at an Italian restaurant. Because of the former assistant football coach B’s arrangements, he secured the booster’s payment for the meal.

Former assistant football coaches B and C committed unethical conduct by knowingly providing prospects with improper inducements and extra benefits. Additionally, former assistant football coach B arranged for the booster to provide extra benefits and inducements to prospects.

5. Impermissible benefits or inducements provided to prospective student-athletes by the former equipment manager who was at times a representative of the institution’s athletics interests in violation of NCAA Bylaws 16.11.2.3(d) (2007-08), 13.2.1.1(b), 13.2.1.1(f), 13.5.1, 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1, 16.11.2.1 (2008-09), 13.01.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1(g) (2008-09 and 2010-11)

From 2004 through 2011, the former equipment manager provided impermissible benefits or inducements to four prospects. Specifically, the former equipment manager provided meals, entertainment, transportation, and football gear and apparel. From fall 2007 through fall 2008, the former equipment manager provided impermissible benefits to football student-athletes. Miami’s former equipment manager had access to institutional-issued gear and he provided the gear valued at approximately $177.00 to three prospects. Also, during the winter of 2009 and summer of 2010, the former equipment manager provided transportation to and meals at a bowling alley. On four separate occasions, the former equipment manager provided roundtrip ground transportation for a prospect between his home and Miami’s campus. During another prospect’s unofficial visit, the former equipment manager escorted the prospect to the booster’s stadium suite. Additionally, on different occasions during 2008, the former equipment manager, with or at the direction of the booster, provided small groups of football student-athletes with entertainment and transportation to restaurants. He also drove a student-athlete to different car dealerships in the Miami area.

6. Impermissible benefits or inducements provided to prospective student-athletes by enrolled student-athletes in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.01.2, 13.1.1.1, 13.2.2(f), 13.2.2(h), 13.5.2.6, 13.6.2.2.1, 13.6.7.1.1, 13.6.8 (2007-08), 13.1.2.1, 13.2.7, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1(g), 13.5.1, 13.5.3, 13.6.7.4, 13.7.2.1 (2008-09)

In 2008, football student-athletes provided impermissible benefits or inducements to prospects during official and unofficial visits to Miami. A student-athlete, serving as a student-host, arranged for four prospects to gain admission to a nightclub and to receive beverages at the nightclub at no cost. On two other occasions, student-athletes, serving as student hosts, provided prospects with the institution’s entertainment reimbursement (“host money”). The student host confirmed that he assisted four prospects in gaining admission to a Miami nightclub during their unofficial visit to the institution. The student host also reported that they had access to free drinks while in the nightclub that evening. Two prospects confirmed the admission benefit that they received when they attended a Miami nightclub.

7. Recruiting violations in the institution’s men’s basketball program by a representative of the institution’s athletics interests and former assistant basketball coaches in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.01.2, 13.2.1, 13.5.2.6, 13.6.8, 13.8.1, 13.8.2 (2008-09)

During the 2008-09 academic year, former assistant men’s basketball coach A arranged for the booster to meet the high school coaches of one prospect and a nonscholastic coach of another prospect in order to promote the men’s basketball program and facilitate the recruitment of highly recruited prospects. Additionally, former assistant men’s basketball coach B arranged for the booster to promote and assist the men’s basketball program.

Former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B provided both transportation and entertainment to two high school coaches who accompanied a prospect on his official visit. The entertainment included a visit to the home of the booster and a Miami nightclub, where the booster paid for access and drinks. Both former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B knew the booster was an avid fan and supporter of the basketball program, and it is reasonable to conclude that introducing the high school coaches at the time of the highly recruited prospect’s official visit was meant to affect the prospect’s decision-making and otherwise facilitate recruiting.

When the former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B provided transportation and entertainment to two high school coaches, they violated NCAA recruiting bylaws. Further, when the booster arranged the access and paid for the high school coaches’ drinks, the booster provided the coaches with an impermissible material benefit. In a separate instance, former assistant men’s basketball coach A arranged for the booster to have contact and recruiting conversations with the nonscholastic coach and another prospect. Because former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B involved the booster in recruiting activities and the booster provided entertainment and material benefits the institution violated recruiting legislation.

8. The provision of extra benefits by a former assistant men’s basketball coach and the attendant unethical conduct in connection with those benefits in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1(c), 10.1(d), 13.8.1, 13.8.2, 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.3, (2010-11 and/or 2011-12)

The recruiting violations involve three instances of former assistant men’s basketball coach B providing airline reward miles to secure transportation for a student-athlete, the student-athlete’s high school coach and the mother of another men’s basketball student-athlete. Former assistant men’s basketball coach B initially admitted one and denied the other two instances of violations. Ultimately, he admitted all three instances of violations.

Former assistant men’s basketball coach B admitted that he shared his airline account information with a student-athlete’s high school coach so that the high school coach could secure flights for himself and the student-athlete in August 2010. Former assistant men’s basketball coach B also admitted that he redeemed airline reward miles to secure a flight in January 2011 for the mother of another men’s basketball student-athlete. The August 2010 flights were valued at $955.00 each. The January 2011 flight was valued at $483.00. Any recruiting advantage was arguably minimal because the student-athletes with a direct or indirect connection to the violations were already enrolled, and one high school coach received the third ticket. Nonetheless, the impermissible benefits provided to a student-athlete, a high school coach, and a relative of another student-athlete on three separate occasions were significant and the impermissible benefits were neither isolated nor inadvertent.

When interviewed, former assistant men’s basketball coach B admitted his knowing involvement in the violation that resulted when he secured the January 2011 flight for the relative of a student-athlete. During interviews, he repeatedly denied knowing how his airline account was accessed to provide flights for the student-athlete and his high school coach. At the hearing, former assistant men’s basketball coach B changed his position indicating that he would no longer “protect” the high school coach and the student-athlete. Former assistant men’s basketball coach B admitted his knowing involvement in the violation that resulted when he permitted the high school coach to access his airline account to secure the August 2010 flights for them. By admitting that his goal was to protect those involved, the Committee concludes that former assistant men’s basketball coach B knowingly provided false information during his interviews. By providing extra benefits and providing false information, former assistant men’s basketball coach B committed unethical conduct.

9. Institution’s failure to control or prohibit outside source from providing supplemental pay in violation of NCAA Bylaws 11.3.1, 11.3.2.2 (2008-09)

In September 2008, the booster paid former assistant men’s basketball coach A $6,000.00. Miami failed to control the amount of salary former assistant men’s basketball coach A should receive consistent with the bylaws. Regardless of whether former assistant men’s basketball coach A believed the $6,000.00 to be a gift or a loan, it was additional income to former assistant men’s basketball coach A. The $6,000.00 supplemented, or was in addition to, what he received from the institution and should have been reported as supplemental pay.

10. The former head men’s basketball coach’s failure to promote atmosphere for compliance in violation of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 (2010-11)

In June 2010, the former head men’s basketball coach was aware of the booster’s threats and the former head men’s basketball coach took steps to assist former assistant men’s basketball coach A in making a payment to the mother of the booster to prevent that from happening.  

As the leader of a high profile, revenue-generating sport program, the former head men’s basketball coach had a responsibility to encourage rules education and for he and his coaches to abide by those rules. He must inquire and report all compliance concerns, questions or violations. There were instances during the relevant time period where he failed to meet his responsibilities and the conduct of former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B resulted in violations. For example, former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B arranged for entertainment and provided the transportation for high school coaches visiting Miami. When asked at the hearing whether he advised the former assistant men’s basketball coaches about permitted or prohibited activities the former head men’s basketball coach stated “not to my knowledge.”

The former head men’s basketball coach was aware that the booster was a major donor to the institution who had been heavily involved with the football program. The former head men’s basketball coach and former assistant men’s basketball coach A interacted with the booster in an effort to build a “donor relationship” with him. And yet there is nothing in the record to show that he recognized potential concerns or inquired with the athletics compliance office about the permissible limits of that donor relationship.

The former head men’s basketball coach admitted that he should have known about the relationships the former assistant men’s basketball coaches had with an individual who was “involved” with or a “supporter” of the men’s basketball program. The former head men’s basketball coach failed to talk to former assistant men’s basketball coaches A and B. Again, had he inquired into their relationships with the booster he could have recognized potential concerns or inquired with the athletics compliance staff.

The former head men’s basketball coach was aware of the booster’s threats in June 2010. Former assistant men’s basketball coach A relayed the booster’s threats and his demand for money to the former head men’s basketball coach. The former head men’s basketball coach knew and was concerned that the booster would disclose that he and former assistant men’s basketball coach A visited a strip club with the booster and/or that the booster would suggest that the men’s basketball program was involved in a scheme to pay for a prospect’s commitment. To the former head men’s basketball coach, either or both threats would prove to be personally and professionally damaging. In response to the threat, the former head men’s basketball coach wrote checks to all three former men’s basketball assistant coaches. His intentions were to provide former assistant men’s basketball coach A with funds to deliver to the booster’s mother.

It appears that the former head men’s basketball coach did not seek additional information from former assistant men’s basketball coach A concerning the threats or his relationship with the booster. In response to the threat, based in fact or fiction, the former head men’s basketball coach could have inquired into the nature of an unlikely relationship between one of his assistant coaches and a booster or he could have immediately alerted the compliance office.

Because the former head men’s basketball coach failed to consult with the athletics compliance office with regard to the general relationships between the booster and the coaching staff he did not promote an atmosphere for compliance. Additionally, the former head men’s basketball coach knew about the booster’s threats at the time they were made in June 2010. Because he did not inquire further into the basis for the threats, the relationship between the booster and former assistant men’s basketball coach A or alert Miami’s compliance office of potential NCAA violations, he did not promote a compliant program.

11. The institution’s coaching and athletics staff members engaged in impermissible recruiting communications with prospective student-athletes in violation of NCAA Bylaws 11.7.12 (2007-08), 131.1.3.1 (2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10), 13.1.3.1.1 (2006-07, 2007-08, and 2009-10), and 13.4.1.2

Between May 2007 and February 2010, members of Miami’s football coaching staff sent 120 impermissible text messages and placed 24 impermissible telephone calls to prospects. Former assistant football coach A sent 41 impermissible text messages and placed two impermissible calls. Former assistant football coach D sent 30 impermissible text messages and placed one impermissible call. Also, coaches in seven sports made 36 impermissible telephone calls to 14 prospects. Coaches in 10 sport programs (other than football) sent 31 impermissible text messages to 13 prospects.

12. Lack of institutional control in NCAA Constitution 2.8.1, 6.01.1

From 2002 through 2010, Miami failed to exercise institutional control and failed to monitor the administration of football and the men’s basketball programs. Miami also failed to exercise control and failed to monitor the conduct of the highly recruited prospects, enrolled student-athletes, and coaching staffs in those high-profile programs. Miami did very little to control or to monitor the conduct of the booster. In fact, it was the institution that encouraged the booster to become connected to those sport programs, but provided no oversight to identify any potential concerns or violations. Additionally, Miami failed to monitor football and all of its other sports programs to ensure compliance with telephone and text-messaging legislation. None of the eight coaches or the approximately 30 student-athletes involved in the numerous major violations in this case took any meaningful steps to report the events. The failures of the coaches and student-athletes were either the result of a lack of understanding of the rules, or an attitude of indifference towards compliance. Miami’s failings enabled a culture of noncompliance to exist within the institution.

In assessing whether a member lacks institutional control, the Committee considers whether adequate compliance measures exist; whether those compliance measures were appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them; whether the compliance measures are monitored to ensure they are followed; and whether upon learning that a violation may have occurred, the institution takes timely and appropriate action. The failure to implement proper policies, procedures and an internal monitoring system is one measure the Committee has identified as an indicator that an institution lacks control over its intercollegiate athletics program. In this case, policies that the institution did have in placed were disregarded or unevenly applied.

The Committee identified the following failures in the compliance program: 1) monitoring efforts failed to detect and deter a number of violations that occurred during football contests, including but not limited to prospects access to suite areas, interactions between booster and prospects, and the receipt of extra benefits and inducements; 2) Miami did not routinely compare telephone logs and telephone bills to determine whether the coaching staff was properly recording and logging telephone contacts; 3) Miami did not report a single violation relating to the booster’s impermissible recruiting and benefits during the relevant time period; 4) the booster visibly entertained small and large groups of student-athletes, but there were no monitoring systems or internal controls to stop such activities; 5) there was a lack of documentation to track and monitor the distribution of institutional gear and a failure to monitor these activities; 6) Miami’s rules education was inadequate being that eight coaches and 30 student-athletes were involved in violations but failed to report the same; and 7) Miami failed to amend its policies and procedures to combat identified risks.

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

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Three years of probation from October 22, 2013 through October 21, 2016.

Football

3. Reduction of financial aid awards by a combined total of nine during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 academic years.

4. During the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years, Miami shall be limited in providing complimentary admissions for a maximum of one home athletics event.

5. Miami self-imposed post-season bans for the 2011 and 2012 seasons.

6. Miami self-imposed a reduction of official paid visits by 20% in 2012-13.

7. Miami self-imposed a reduction in fall evaluations from 42 to 36 in 2012-13.

8. Miami self-imposed a reduction in contact days by 20% in 2012-13.

9. Former assistant football coach B received a two-year show cause penalty. He further is required to 1) participate in monthly rules-education sessions for one year beginning in July 2011, 2) prohibited from off-campus recruiting for two weeks in spring 2011, 3) prohibited from off-campus recruiting for the fall 2011 evaluation period, 4) implemented a five month suspension from all football activities; 5) prohibited from all recruiting activity during the remainder of the fall 2013 and spring 2014; 6) two-year freezes in compensation from May 20, 2013 through May 20, 2015, 7) required to attend NCAA Regional Rules Seminar in 2014 and 2015; and 8) a “zero tolerance” policy on all violations during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 years.

10. Former assistant football coach C received two-year show cause penalty.

Men’s Basketball

11. Reduction of financial aid awards by a combined total of three during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 academic years.

12. The former head men’s basketball coach shall be suspended from all coaching duties for the first five regular season games of the 2013-14 season.

13. The former assistant men’s basketball coach B received a two-year show cause penalty.

14. For all sports, effective April 1, 2010, any institutional staff member who send an impermissible text message to a prospect will be fined a minimum $100.00 per message, and coaches shall be suspended from all recruiting activities for seven days to begin immediately on discovery.

15. For each sport involved in a text message or impermissible telephone call violation (football, men’s and women’s swimming, women’s soccer, baseball, men’s and women’s diving, men’s indoor and outdoor track, and women’s volleyball), the institution has taken the following punitive actions with respect to those coaches or staff members employed at the time of the action:

Football

— Issued letters of reprimand for the then director of football operations, former head football coach, and former assistant football coach D.

— Issued letters of admonishment to former assistant football coach C and four other assistant football coaches.

— Reduced the number of coaches who may recruit off campus from seven to five for the 2010 spring evaluation period.

— Limit the number of official paid visits for the 2010-11 academic year to 35, a reduction of four from the three-year average of 39.

— Suspended former assistant football coach D from off-campus recruiting activities for the 2010 spring evaluation period.

— Prohibited any salary increases or bonuses for former assistant football coach D related to the success of the team that would be awarded during the period of January 1 to December 31, 2010.

Women’s Swimming and Diving

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a two-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letters of admonishment to the head women’s diving coach and the head women’s swimming coach.

Women’s Soccer

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a one-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

Baseball

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a two-week period during the August 2010 contact period.

— Issued letters of admonishment to the head men’s baseball coach and the assistant baseball coach.

Women’s Indoor and Outdoor Track

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a two-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letters of admonishment to director of track and field/cross country; and then assistant women’s track and field coach.

Volleyball

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a one-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letter of admonishment to the head women’s volleyball coach.

Women’s Basketball

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a two-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letters of admonishment to the head women’s basketball coach and the assistant women’s basketball coach.

Men’s Indoor and Outdoor Track

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a one-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letter of admonishment to the assistant men’s track and field coach.

Women’s Rowing

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a one-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letter of admonishment to former assistant to then assistant women’s rowing coach.

Men’s Basketball

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a one-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letter of admonishment to former assistant men’s basketball coach B.

Women’s Tennis

— Prohibited all recruiting activities by all staff members with all prospects for a one-week period during the 2010 calendar year.

— Issued letter of admonishment to former assistant men’s basketball coach B.

Administration

— Issued letter of admonishment to a former associate athletics director for compliance.

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 .