The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of South Carolina, Columbia (“Institution” or “USC”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.  COI considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process, in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and violations as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (“SDR”).  COI proposed an additional penalty to USC. Because USC accepted the additional penalty and the panel did not propose additional penalties to the involved assistant football coaches, the parties may not appeal.

Longstanding personal relationships between a USC assistant football coach and two (2) in-state high school coaches are at the center of the recruiting violations. This assistant coach and another USC assistant coach impermissibly contacted and tried out prospects that the high school coaches handpicked for the assistant coaches. The assistant coaches leveraged these relationships to create a built-in recruiting advantage at the high school. The violations allowed USC to make the critical decision to stop recruiting the prospects and focus elsewhere. This case is yet another example of how impermissible contacts and tryouts—no matter how few or brief—provide recruiting advantages to the detriment of institutions that comply with NCAA legislation. Even further, this case demonstrates that NCAA legislation does not “bend” for personal relationships between college recruiters and high school coaches.

The violations stemmed from the assistant coaches’ two (2) separate visits to the high school to otherwise permissibly observe a football class during an evaluation period. At the request of the assistant coach they had known for years, the high school head football coach and strength and conditioning coach handpicked four prospects to perform drills for the assistant coach. The strength coach then conducted the drills exclusively for the assistant coach, who asked the strength coach to execute certain drills. Earlier in the day, the assistant coach praised one of the prospects on his 40-yard dash time and told him he should attend USC’s football camp. One week later, the strength coach pulled three (3) of the same four (4) prospects aside to perform drills for the other assistant coach. Like before, the strength coach conducted the drills exclusively for the assistant coach, who instructed the strength coach on how to execute the drills and commented to the prospects about their performance. None of the prospects had completed their junior year in high school. The parties agreed Level II contact and tryout violations occurred.

The Committee concluded that USC committed the following violations:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.02.5.2, 13.1.1.1, 13.11.1 and 13.17.4.1 (2015-16) (Level II)

The NCAA enforcement staff, USC, and the assistant coaches agreed that in May 2016, and during an evaluation period, the assistant coaches conducted impermissible tryouts and had impermissible recruiting contacts with prospects at a high school.

On May 10, 2016, assistant coach 1 observed a regularly scheduled football class at the high school for evaluation purposes. However, assistant coach 1 conducted an impermissible tryout when the high school strength and conditioning coach pulled four prospects aside so assistant coach 1 could observe their participation in drills. Additionally, assistant coach 1 asked the strength coach to conduct position-specific drills with the prospects that the rest of the class did not perform. Further, assistant coach 1 had impermissible in-person, off-campus recruiting contact with one of the prospects when he spoke to him about his speed and told him he should attend USC’s football camp. Assistant coach 1’s contact with the prospect was impermissible because it occurred before the completion of his junior year in high school and was outside a permissible contact period in football. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.2, 13.1.1.1, 13.11.1 and 13.17.4.1 (2015-16).

On May 17, 2016, a week later, assistant coach 2 conducted an impermissible tryout when he observed the same football class as assistant coach 1. Similar to assistant coach 1’s impermissible tryout, the strength coach pulled three of the same four prospects aside so assistant coach 2 could observe their participation in drills. Assistant coach 2 asked the strength coach to adjust certain drills that the rest of the class did not perform. During the tryout, assistant coach 2 had impermissible in-person, off-campus recruiting contact with the prospects when he made comments about their performance and execution of the drills. Two (2) of the three (3) prospects perceived that assistant coach 2 taught them the drills. Assistant coach 2’s contact with the prospects was impermissible because it occurred before the completion of their junior year in high school and was outside a permissible contact period in football. NCAA Bylaws 13.02.5.2, 13.1.1.1, 13.11.1 and 13.17.4.1 (2015-16).

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

Aggravating Factors for USC

A history of Level I, Level II or major violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(b).

Mitigating Factors for USC

Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective actions and penalties. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b).

An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations.  NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d).

Assistant Coach 1 Aggravating Factors

None.

Assistant Coach 1 Mitigating Factors

Prompt acknowledgement of the violation and acceptance of responsibility. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b).

The absence of prior Level I, Level II or major violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h).     

Assistant Coach 2 Aggravating Factors

None.

Assistant Coach 2 Mitigating Factors

The absence of prior Level I, Level II or major violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(h).

As a result of the foregoing, the Committee penalized USC as follows:

1.  Public reprimand and censure.

2.  USC shall pay a $5,000 fine.

3.  Recruiting restrictions: (a) The football program shall not recruit any of the prospects involved in the violations in this case; (b) The football program shall reduce fall evaluation days by four, from 42 to 38, during the fall 2017 evaluation period; (c) No members of the football staff shall engage in off-campus recruiting activities at the high school involved in the violations in this case from September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018; (d) Assistant coach 1 shall be suspended from off-campus recruiting activities for 42 days during the fall 2017 evaluation period; and (e) Assistant coach 2 shall be suspended from off-campus recruiting activities for 42 days during the fall 2017 evaluation period.

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