The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Pittsburgh (“Institution” or “UP” or “Pitt”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. Pitt; its head football coach; and NCAA enforcement staff agreed with the violations detailed below. The parties agreed that this case should be resolved as Level II – Mitigated for the institution and Level II – Standard for the head football coach. The former head men’s basketball coach (head basketball coach) and former director of men’s basketball operations (director of operations) (who at one point was also an assistant coach) are not currently involved in intercollegiate athletics and informed the NCAA enforcement staff they would not participate in the resolution of this case. The enforcement staff believes the case should be resolved as Level II – Aggravated for the former head basketball coach and Level I – Aggravated for the former director of operations.
Pitt, head football coach and NCAA enforcement staff believed negotiated resolution was appropriate due to the agreement on the facts, violations, level classification and penalties. Additionally, consistent with NCAA Bylaw 19.5.12.1.1, the enforcement staff has included the violations and proposed penalties involving the nonparticipating director of operations and head basketball coach. Both of them have indicated that they will not participate in the processing of this case, and the enforcement staff asks the hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to process the uncontested violations concerning the head basketball coach and post- separation violations concerning the director of operations as part of this negotiated resolution.
The Committee concluded that Pitt committed the following violations:
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.1.1-(b), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2015-16 through 2017-18) (Level II)
From June 2016 through March 2018, the head basketball coach instructed and permitted three noncoaching staff members to engage in impermissible activities. As a result, the men’s basketball program exceeded the permissible number of countable coaches.
Between June 2016 and June 2017, the head basketball coach instructed and permitted the director of men’s basketball operations, and the men’s basketball video coordinator/director of analytics, to provide technical or tactical instruction to men’s basketball student-athletes during summer skill-related instruction sessions, preseason practices, regular season practices, film sessions, scouting report briefings and at halftime of competitions.3 They and regularly coached student-athletes during this period. NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.1.1-(b), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2015-16 and 2016-17).
Between May 2017 and March 2018, the head basketball coach instructed and permitted the men’s basketball video coordinator/director of analytics and special assistant to the head men’s basketball coach to provide technical or tactical instruction during summer skill-related instruction sessions, preseason practices, regular season practices, film sessions, scouting report briefings and at halftime of competitions. They regularly coached student-athletes during this period. NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.1.1-(b), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2016-17 and 2017-18).
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.4.1.8 and 13.4.1.8.2 (2016-17), 13.6.7.9 and 13.7.3 (2016-17 and 2017-18), 13.4.1.9 and 13.4.1.9.2 (2017-18) (Level II)
Between May and September 2017, the men’s basketball program produced personalized recruiting videos for 12 men’s basketball prospective student-athletes and showed the videos to the prospects during their official or unofficial visits to the institution’s campus.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.1.1 and 19.2.3 (2015-16 through 2017-18) (Level II)
Between June 2016 and March 2018, the head basketball coach violated the responsibility to cooperate and head coach responsibility legislation, as he is presumed responsible for the violations detailed above and did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. Specifically, the head basketball coach did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere for compliance because of his involvement in directing noncoaching staff members to perform coaching duties, his failure to cease these violations after being warned by athletics department administrators, his use of a system to avoid the detection of violations and his noncooperative directive to delete video confirming violations had occurred. Additionally, he did not demonstrate that he monitored his staff within the men’s basketball program because of his failure to determine whether the creation and display of personalized recruiting videos was permissible.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.1.1-(b), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2015-16 through 2017-18) (Level II)
Between August 2015 and November 2017, the head football coach instructed or was present at the football practice facility when three then quality control staff members engaged in impermissible activities. As a result, the football program exceeded the permissible number of countable coaches.
From August 2015 through November 2016, the head football coach was present at the football practice facility when a quality control staff member assisted in drills for football student-athletes during spring football practices, preseason camps and regular season practices.6 The quality control staff member was involved in drills for about five to 12 minutes per practice almost daily during the August 2016 preseason camp and occasionally during spring and regular season practices and the August 2015 preseason camp. NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2015-16 and 2016-17).
In August 2017, the head football coach was present at the football practice facility when a quality control staff member assisted in drills for football student-athletes during preseason camp. The quality control staff member was involved in drills almost daily for about five to 12 minutes per practice. NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2017-18).
From September 2015 through November 2017, the head football coach was present at the football practice facility when a quality control staff member held play cards for football student-athletes on the scout team. This activity occurred three days per week for approximately 40 minutes per day during the team’s regular season practices. NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.1.1-(b), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2015-16 through 2017-18).
Between October 22 and November 23, 2017, the head football coach asked a quality control staff member to assist the offensive line coach in coaching offensive lineman football student-athletes. The quality control staff member engaged in impermissible coaching activity with student-athletes two times per week for approximately 20 minutes per day over the course of the season’s final five weeks. NCAA Bylaws 11.7.1, 11.7.1.1, 11.7.1.1-(a), 11.7.3 and 11.7.6 (2017-18).
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.1.1 (2015-16 through 2017-18) (Level II)
Between August 2015 and November 2017, the head football coach is presumed responsible for the violations detailed in Agreed-Upon Findings of Fact No. 4 and did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. Specifically, the head football coach did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere for compliance when he instructed a noncoaching staff member to assist in coaching student-athletes. Additionally, he did not demonstrate that he monitored his staff within the football program when he did not prevent noncoaching staff from performing impermissible duties.
Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3 (2018-19 and 2019-20) (Level I)
On March 7, 2019, and continuing to the present, the director of operations violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct and failed to cooperate with the NCAA enforcement staff when he refused to participate in an interview requested by the enforcement staff.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19.9.3 and 19.9.4
Aggravating Factors for the Institution
19.9.3-(b): A history of Level I, Level II or major violations;
19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations by the institution;
19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;
19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospect; and
19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.
Mitigating Factors for the Institution
19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgment of the violations, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties;
19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter;
19.9.4-(e): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws; and
19.9.4-(i): Other factors warranting a lower penalty range.
Aggravating Factors for the Head Basketball Coach
19.9.3-(d): Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation;
19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;
19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations by the assistant coach;
19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;
19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.
Mitigating Factors for the Head Basketball Coach
The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h).
Aggravating Factors for the Head Football Coach
19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations by the individual; and
19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violations or related wrongful conduct.
Mitigating Factors for the Head Football Coach
19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violation and acceptance of responsibility; and
19.9.4-(h): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations.
Aggravating Factors for the Director of Operations
19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct and failing to cooperate; and
19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.
Mitigating Factors for the Director of Operations
The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h).
As a result of the foregoing, the Committee penalized Pitt as follows:
For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@bgsfirm.com.