The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Southern Mississippi (“USM” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. It centers on the head coach and members of his coaching staff engaging in a plan of academic fraud designed to assist two-year college prospective student-athletes in attaining admission to the institution and eligibility to compete. Within six weeks of becoming employed at the institution, the head coach directed one of his assistant coaches and two graduate assistant managers to complete online academic coursework for the prospects. Other members of the staff were aware of the fraud and the associate head coach helped facilitate it. The staff members eventually completed online coursework for seven prospects over two academic years. Once the staff members completed the work, either they or the prospects submitted it for credit. A majority of the prospects used the credits to attain immediate eligibility for competition upon their transfer to the institution. The head coach violated NCAA ethical conduct, cooperation and head coach responsibility legislation when he planned and directed the academic fraud. One of the institutional coaches and one of the graduate assistant managers involved in the academic fraud declined to submit to interviews or otherwise cooperate in the investigation.

The Committee found the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(b), 10.1-(c), 14.01.1 and 16.8.1 (2011-12 through 2014-15 Division I Manual); 14.11.1 (2012-13 Division I Manual); 13.2.1 and 14.10.1 (2013-14 Division I Manual) and 12.11.1 (2014-15 Division I Manual)

From June 2012 through May 2014, the former head coach, former associate head coach and graduate assistants A and B were knowingly involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit for seven prospective student-athletes. The institution, enforcement staff and graduate assistant A substantially agreed to the facts and that Level I violations occurred. The former head coach agreed that academic fraud occurred, but did not agree that he knew of the activities, orchestrated them or was involved in any way. The former associate head coach and graduate assistant B did not respond to the notice of allegations. The panel concludes that Level I violations occurred and that the former head coach, the former associate head coach and graduates assistants A and B were involved in the violations.

The former head coach, former associate head coach and graduate assistants A and B violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when they knowingly arranged fraudulent academic credit for seven prospective student-athletes. Arranging fraudulent academic credit is a violation of NCAA ethical conduct legislation. Texas Christian University (2005) (unethical conduct for a head coach to direct members of his staff to engage in academic fraud); Purdue University (2007) (an assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct when she wrote portions of a paper for a student-athlete); University of New Mexico (2008) (two coaches who enrolled student-athletes in online courses and arranged for them to receive credit in those courses engaged in unethical conduct); Arkansas State University (2011) (the director of technology engaged in unethical conduct when he changed a failing grade to a passing grade for a student-athlete, resulting in fraudulent academic credit); and Weber State University (2014) (a math instructor engaged in unethical conduct when she completed quizzes, tests and exams for student-athletes). The former head coach violated NCAA extra benefit legislation when he paid for the cards used to pay for online courses for one prospect. The actions of the coaching staff resulted in five of the student-athletes participating while ineligible and the institution providing the prospects with impermissible benefits. The panel concludes that the coaching staff members violated NCAA Bylaws 10 and 13 and caused the institution to violate provisions of NCAA Bylaws 12, 14 and 16.

NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 require institutional staff members to act ethically and with honesty at all times. NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(b) precludes staff members from knowing involvement in academic fraud, while subsection (c) precludes staff members from knowingly providing improper inducements or extra benefits to prospective or enrolled student-athletes. The cited NCAA Bylaw 12 and 14 provisions obligate member institutions to permit only eligible student-athletes to compete. Similarly, NCAA Bylaw 16.8.1 limits the institutions to providing expenses related to competition to only eligible student-athletes. NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 limits institutional staff members to providing only those inducements and benefits expressly allowed by the legislation to student-athletes.

Within weeks of their arrival at the institution, the former head coach, former associate head coach, former assistant coach A and the two graduate assistants formulated and began executing a plan to complete online academic coursework for prospective student-athletes. Former assistant coach A and graduate assistant A both admitted that they completed online coursework for multiple prospects. Computer metadata confirmed that graduate assistant A, along with graduate assistant B, were involved in the fraud. The scheme continued for the two years the staff served at the institution, during which time the staff members arranged for fraudulent academic credit for seven prospects. Their actions violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(b).

When student-athlete 8’s advisor told the former head coach that someone would have to pay for student-athlete 8’s online courses, the former head coach purchased prepaid credit cards to cover the costs. He passed the cards to former assistant coach A, who in turn gave them to the graduate assistants. The graduate assistants used the cards to cover the fees for student-athlete 8’s online courses. When the former head coach purchased the cards and caused them to be used for student-athlete 8’s course registrations, he provided an impermissible benefit in violation of NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 13.2.1. Due to the actions of the men’s basketball staff members, the institution allowed student-athletes 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 to compete and receive competition-related expenses while ineligible, in violation of NCAA Bylaws 12.11.1, 14.01.1, 14.10.1, 14.11.1 and 16.8.1.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 14.01.1, 14.3.2.1.1, 15.01.2, 15.01.3 and 16.8.1 (2012-13 through 2014-15 Division I Manuals); and 14.10.1 (2013-14 Division I Manual)

During the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years, the institution allowed student-athlete 3’s high school coach and student-athlete 4’s prep school coach to provide funds to two nonqualifiers to pay toward their tuition, room and board during their years in residence. The institution violated NCAA eligibility and extra benefit legislation when it subsequently allowed student-athlete 3 to compete while ineligible. The institution substantially agreed to the facts and that Level II violations occurred. The enforcement staff asserted that the former head coach provided the funds and that Level I violations occurred. The panel concludes that Level II violations occurred.

The institution violated NCAA financial aid legislation when it allowed student-athlete 3’s high school coach to provide funds for student-athlete 3’s tuition, room and board expenses. Similarly, the institution violated NCAA financial aid legislation when it allowed student-athlete 4’s prep school coach to provide funds for student-athlete 4’s tuition, room and board expenses. The institution violated NCAA eligibility and extra benefit when it allowed student-athlete 3 to compete and receive competition-related expenses while ineligible.

NCAA Bylaws 15.01.2 and 15.01.3 restrict the sources from which student-athletes may receive financial aid not administered by the institution. A student-athlete receiving aid from an unpermitted source is not eligible for intercollegiate athletics. Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 15.01.3 (a) states that student-athletes cannot receive aid other than that administered by the institution unless the aid is received from one upon whom the student-athlete is naturally or legally dependent. NCAA Bylaw 14.3.2.1.1 limits nonqualifiers to nonathletics institutional aid based on financial need only. NCAA Bylaws 14.01.1 and 14.10.1 obligate member institutions to withhold all ineligible student-athletes from competition, while NCAA Bylaw 16.8.1 limits the institution to providing expenses related to competition to only eligible student-athletes.

During the academic years that student-athletes 3 and 4 served in residence as nonqualifiers, student-athlete 3’s high school coach and student-athlete 4’s prep school coach gave them $6,314.14 and $2,198.25, respectively, that they used to pay educational expenses. Although they had relationships with the young men and their families, student-athlete 3’s high school coach and student-athlete 4’s prep school coach were not the student-athletes’ parents, guardians or otherwise legally or naturally responsible for them. Therefore, when the institution allowed the coaches to provide funds to cover the student-athletes’ tuition, room and board expenses during their year-in-residence as nonqualifiers, it violated NCAA Bylaws 14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.3. Because the student-athletes were rendered ineligible for competition by their receipt of the aid, the institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.01.1, 14.10.1, 15.01.2 and 16.8.1 when it subsequently allowed student-athlete 3 to compete and receive expenses related to competition.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.1.1 (2013-14 Division I Manual); and 10.01.1. 10.1, 10.1-(d) and 19.2.3 (2014-15 Division I Manual)

The former head coach engaged in a number of actions designed to thwart the investigation. Specifically, he acted in an unethical manner, failed to cooperate with the investigation and/or failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he: (1) deleted emails pertinent to the enforcement staff’s inquiry; (2) provided false or misleading information during his three interviews with the enforcement staff and institution; (3) contacted other interviewees and individuals with knowledge of the investigation; and (4) directed the involvement of members of his coaching staff in a pattern of academic fraud. The enforcement staff and institution substantially agreed on the facts and that Level I violations occurred. The former head coach agreed that he deleted emails and contacted other individuals, but he did not agree that he did so in an effort to hinder the investigation. He also agreed that he was responsible for the actions of his staff members under NCAA head coach responsibility legislation, but did not agree that he directed a plan of academic fraud, was aware of it or provided false information regarding the fraud. The former head coach’s conduct violated NCAA Bylaws 10 and 11. The panel concludes that the Level I violations occurred.

The former head coach violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when he deleted emails and provided false or misleading information during his interviews. His deletion of emails, as well as contacting other individuals during then investigation, constituted a failure to cooperate. Finally, the former head coach violated head coach responsibility legislation when he planned and implemented an academic fraud scheme.

The former head coach’s conduct violated a number of NCAA bylaws. NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 generally require all institutional staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. Subsection (a) of NCAA Bylaw 10.1 requires all institutional staff members to furnish information relevant to the investigation of possible NCAA rules violations to the enforcement staff upon request. NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d) requires institutional staff members to provide full and truthful information regarding their knowledge of matters relating to possible NCAA rules violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3 requires that all institutional staff fully and completely disclose any information relevant to potential NCAA rules violations and protect the integrity of investigations. NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 holds head coaches responsible for the conduct of members of their coaching staffs. It bestows an affirmative duty on head coaches to promote an atmosphere for rules compliance in their programs and monitor all those who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach.

The former head coach failed to disclose information relevant to the investigation when he knowingly deleted potentially relevant emails. Institutional staff members have a duty to provide all information relevant to investigations into potential NCAA rules violations. Boise State University, (2011) (a head coach who failed to provide full and complete information violated NCAA cooperation and ethical conduct legislation); University of Tennessee (2011) (a head coach who provided incomplete information failed to cooperate); Radford University, (2012) (a head coach failed to cooperate, as well as engaged in unethical conduct, when he told members of his staff and a student-athlete to withhold information and lie during interviews); and Northeastern University, (2014) (head coach engaged in unethical conduct and failed to cooperate when he refused to consent to an interview). During the former head coach’s first interview, the enforcement staff asked him about an email it possessed from his account at an institution where he formerly worked. The email related to student-athlete 7’s academic situation, which was relevant to the investigation. The former head coach stated that the email account was still active and left the interview knowing that the enforcement staff would be interested in reviewing other emails in that account. Even though he had retained those emails for a number of years, the former head coach deleted all emails from the account shortly before the interview. He stated that he would be embarrassed if anyone had seen their content. Subsequently, the emails could not be retrieved for review. The former head coach’s deletion of the emails violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3.

Regarding the former head coach’s provision of false or misleading information, he denied any knowledge of, or participation in, the academic fraud perpetrated by members of his staff in all three of his interviews. Yet he had overseen the creation of the scheme, hiring graduate assistants A and B to implement the academic fraud within weeks of beginning his own employment at the institution. An institutional staff member who provides false or misleading information in an interview engages in unethical conduct. Purdue University (2007) (an assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct when she denied her participation in academic fraud during an interview); Indiana University (2008) (head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he lied during an interview); University of Oklahoma (2011) (coach engaged in unethical conduct when he failed to divulge knowledge of a violation and later lied about it); Ohio State University (2011) (unethical to provide false information about a known violation); and University of Central Florida (2012) (a coach denying awareness of a known violation engaged in unethical conduct). The two graduate assistants and former assistant coach A completed multiple assignments in numerous online courses for seven prospective student-athletes over a two-year period, and the former associate head coach facilitated the academic fraud regarding student-athlete 6. The members of his staff involved in the fraud made regular reports to the former head coach, and he twice paid for graduate assistants to travel to locations where prospects were located so as to complete academic work for them. When the former head coach denied in his interviews that he knew of or was involved in the academic fraud, he violated NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1-(d).

In addition to engaging in unethical conduct, the former head coach did not meet his obligation to fully cooperate and protect the integrity of the investigation when he contacted other individuals during the investigation. The Committee on Infractions dealt with a similar situation in Georgia Institute of Technology (2011), a case in which members of the athletics administration informed a student-athlete that he was going to be interviewed about a particular subject. In speaking to the obligations of member institutions and their employees to maintain the integrity of investigations, the committee stated:

The NCAA lacks subpoena power and other investigative tools and processes available to governmental investigating entities. Because of this, the successful adjudication of infractions cases is heavily dependent on the good faith efforts and, most importantly, the full and complete cooperation of member institutions and the involved parties under investigation by the enforcement staff. It is only through such cooperation that complete information can be gathered and analyzed by the enforcement staff, which allows the Committee on Infractions to reach just and fair conclusions regarding the facts of cases and to impose appropriate sanctions, if necessary. The bylaws are proposed and enacted by the NCAA members as mutual expectations for membership. They are a statement of the obligations that members have voluntarily undertaken to promote the core values of the NCAA including ethical conduct, honesty and rules compliance upon which the NCAA was founded.

See also University of Tennessee (2011) (head coach engaged in unethical conduct and failed to cooperate when he asked prospects not to divulge a violation and asked one of their fathers to lie); and Radford University (2012) (head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he met with his staff and a student-athlete, discussed topics from interviews and told them to lie and to not volunteer information).

Information from former assistant coach A, as well as the pattern, timing and frequency of the former head coach’s calls and texts (many on an undisclosed phone in his mother’s name), demonstrate that the former head coach contacted individuals during the investigation to influence information to be reported by individuals and to find out what others were telling the enforcement staff. Further, the former head coach had former assistant coach A contact student-athlete 8 in an attempt to influence the information he provided to the enforcement staff. These attempts by the former head coach to obscure the truth, as well as his deletion of the emails, violated his duty to cooperate and protect the integrity of the investigation, as required by NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3.

Finally, the former head coach did not set a tone for rules compliance in his program or otherwise meet his responsibilities as a head coach. Head coaches violate NCAA head coach responsibility legislation when they do not make rules adherence the foundation of their programs. Indiana University (2008) (head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he did not monitor his staff’s rules compliance); University of Connecticut (2011) (head coach who did not take steps to stop or report known rules violations violated his responsibilities); University of Tennessee (2011) (head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he asked prospects and a prospect’s father to withhold information); and University of Central Florida (2012) (head coach failed to discourage, stop or report impermissible activities by boosters). The former head coach sent a message that strict adherence to rules compliance was not a high priority in his program when he: (1) planned and implemented a scheme to involve members of his coaching staff in academic fraud; (2) deleted emails pertinent to the investigation; (3) contacted interviewees during the investigation; and (4) instructed former assistant coach A to contact student-athlete 8 and tell him to lie. Further, although he monitored the actions taken by the staff members as they engaged in academic fraud, the duty to monitor includes a responsibility to set the proper tone for rules compliance. The former head coach acknowledged that he was responsible for the actions of his staff under NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1. His actions further demonstrate that he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and failed to monitor his staff, as also required by the bylaw.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3 (2014-15 Division I Manual)

Student-athlete 4’s prep school coach failed to cooperate in the investigation when he refused to deliver requested bank records to the NCAA enforcement staff. The records were relevant to the investigation of the NCAA rules violations involving student-athlete 4. The institution and enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that a Level I violation occurred. Student-athlete 4’s prep school coach agreed that the enforcement staff requested his banks records and that he would not produce them, but he does not agree that he failed to cooperate with the investigation. The panel concludes that a Level I violation occurred.

Student-athlete 4’s prep school coach violated NCAA cooperation legislation when he refused to produce certain bank records when requested to do so by the enforcement staff. The records were relevant to the investigation, as they may have contained information regarding the source of the funds provided to student-athlete 4. At the time of the request, student-athlete 4’s prep school coach was coaching at an NCAA member institution, and was therefore subject to all NCAA bylaws.

Student-athlete 4’s prep school coach’s failure to cooperate violated NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3, which requires all institutional staff members to cooperate fully in NCAA investigations. Although student-athlete 4’s prep school coach submitted to interviews and produced requested phone records, he refused to produce bank records that, by his own admission, likely contained information relevant to the payment of funds to student-athlete 4. The enforcement staff requested the records on multiple occasions and informed student-athlete 4’s prep school coach of his responsibility under NCAA bylaws. When his wife objected to producing the records on privacy grounds, the enforcement staff offered multiple reasonable accommodations to minimize the intrusion. Student-athlete 4’s prep school coach continued to refuse to produce the records. His refusal violated his duty to cooperate under NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3 (2014-15 Division I Manual) and 19.7.2 (2015-16 Division I Manual)

Graduate assistant B and the former associate head coach engaged in unethical conduct when they refused to submit to an interview during the investigation. They failed to cooperate in the investigation when they did not file responses to the notice of allegations. The institution and enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that Level I violations occurred. The panel concludes that Level I violations occurred.

Graduate assistant B violated NCAA ethical conduct and cooperation legislation when he refused to interview with the enforcement staff and did not file a response to the notice of allegations. His conduct violated his responsibilities under NCAA Bylaws 10 and 19.

Subsection (a) of NCAA Bylaw 10.1 requires all current and former institutional staff members to furnish information relevant to an NCAA investigation when requested to do so by the NCAA. NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3 requires all current and former institutional staff members to cooperate in developing full information regarding possible NCAA rules violations. Finally, NCAA Bylaw 19.7.2 grants the panel the authority to consider a party’s failure to submit a response to a notice of allegations as an admission that the violations occurred.

The enforcement staff requested that graduate assistant B submit to an interview numerous times. When graduate assistant B refused to interview, he violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(a). Further, the enforcement staff provided him with a notice of allegations and gave him the opportunity to respond. His failure to respond, even after the NCAA enforcement staff had secured the authority to offer him limited immunity, constituted a violation of NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.2, the panel considers his failure to file a response as an admission that he committed the violations.

As did graduate assistant B, the former associate head coach violated NCAA ethical conduct and cooperation legislation when he refused to interview with the enforcement staff and did not file a response to the notice of allegations. His conduct violated his responsibilities under NCAA Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3.

The enforcement requested that the former associate head coach submit to an interview four times. When the former associate head coach refused to interview, he violated NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(a). Further, the enforcement staff provided him with a copy of the notice of allegations and gave him an opportunity to respond. His failure to respond constituted a violation of NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.2, the panel considers his failure to file a response as an admission that he committed the violations.

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

Aggravating Factors for the Institution

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

19.9.3-(b): A history of Level I, Level II or major violations;

19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violations or related wrongful conduct;

19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete; and

19.9.3-(k): A pattern of noncompliance within the sports program involved.

Mitigating Factors for the Institution

19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement and 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-(d): Established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations; and

19.9.4-(f): Exemplary cooperation.

Aggravating Factors for the former head coach

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

19.9.3-(b): A history of Level I, Level II or major violations;

19.9.3-(d): Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violations;

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of the investigation, failing to cooperate during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;

19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;

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 prospective student-athlete;

19.9.3-(j): Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust;

19.9.3-(k): A pattern of noncompliance within the sports program involved; and

19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for the former head coach

The panel identified no mitigating factors for the former head coach.

Aggravating Factors for student-athlete 4’s prep school coach

19.9.3-(e): Failing to cooperate during the investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information.

Mitigating Factors for student-athlete 4’s prep school coach

The panel identified no mitigating factors for student-athlete 4’s prep school coach.

Aggravating Factors for graduate assistant B

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

19.9.3-(d): Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violations;

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of the investigation, failing to cooperate during the investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;

19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;

19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;

19.9.9-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for graduate assistant B

The panel identified no mitigating factors for graduate assistant B.

Aggravating Factors for the former associate head coach

19.9.3-(d): Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violations;

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of the investigation, failing to cooperate during the investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;

19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate, or committed after substantial planning;

19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;

19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for the former associate head coach

The panel identified no mitigating actors for the former associate head coach.

Aggravating Factors for graduate assistant A

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of the investigation, failing to cooperate during the investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;

19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate, or committed after substantial planning;

19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;

19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for graduate assistant A

The panel identified no mitigating factors for graduate assistant A.

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

1. Probation: Three year probationary period to run consecutive to the present probation in Major Infractions Case No. 181513. This probation shall commence on January 30, 2017, and run through January 29, 2020.

2. Competition Penalties: The men’s basketball team shall end its season with the last scheduled regular season game and be banned from the postseason competition for two academic years. The panel adopts the institution’s self-imposed postseason bans for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons.

3. Financial Penalties: The institution shall pay a financial penalty of $5,000 plus an amount equal to one percent of the average total budget for the men’s basketball budget over the previous three years (institution imposed).

4. Scholarship Reductions: The men’s basketball program shall reduce the number of grants-in-aid for men’s basketball by a total of five. The program reduced by one the number of grants it awarded during the 2014-15 recruiting cycle. It shall further reduce grants by a total of four over the next three years (institution imposed).

5. Head Coach Restrictions: The former head coach engaged in unethical conduct when he planned and orchestrated a scheme of academic fraud involving seven prospective student-athletes over two years. He involved members of his staff in the scheme and directed their activities. Further, he failed to fully disclose information relevant to the investigation and took affirmative steps to obstruct the investigation. Finally, he failed in his duty to promote an atmosphere of compliance and to monitor the activities of the staff who reported directly and indirectly to him. Specifically, the former head coach deleted relevant emails; provided false or misleading information regarding his knowledge of, and role in, the academic fraud; had the DOBO fabricate a fraudulent compliance document; and contacted interviewees and others involved in the investigation in an attempt to influence the investigation and learn what others were saying to the enforcement staff. Therefore, the former head coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that the panel prescribes a 10-year show-cause order pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.5. The show cause period shall run from April 8, 2016, through April 7, 2026.

6. Graduate assistant A knowingly committed academic fraud when he completed multiple on-line academic assignments for prospective student-athletes. While graduate assistant A admitted to involvement in the scheme, he was not fully forthcoming about his role and did not appear at the hearing. Therefore, graduate assistant A will be informed in writing by the NCAA that the panel prescribes a six-year show-cause order pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4. The show-cause period shall run from April 8, 2016, through April 7, 2022. If graduate assistant A is employed by an NCAA member institution during the term of the show cause, he and the member institution shall schedule an appearance before a panel of the committee to determine whether he should be subject to the show-cause provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4.

7. Graduate assistant B knowingly committed academic fraud when he completed multiple online academic assignments for prospective student-athletes. Further, he refused to cooperate with the investigation. He resigned his job at a member institution just days before the enforcement staff was scheduled to interview him. Therefore, graduate assistant B will be informed in writing by the NCAA that the panel prescribes a seven-year show-cause order pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4. The show-cause period shall run from April 8, 2016, through April 7, 2023. If graduate assistant B is employed by an NCAA member institution during the term of the show cause, he and the member institution shall schedule an appearance before a panel of the committee to determine whether he should be subject to the show-cause provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4.

8. Student-athlete 4’s prep school coach failed to fully cooperate in the investigation. Although he submitted to interviews and provided phone records to the enforcement staff, he refused to provide bank records that had a potential bearing on the source of the payments to student-athlete 4. Therefore, student-athlete 4’s prep school coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that the panel prescribes a two-year show cause pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4. The show cause period shall run from April 8, 2016, through April 7, 2018.

9. The former associate head coach facilitated the academic fraud involving student-athlete 6 by providing student-athlete 6’s computer log-on information to graduate assistant A, who then completed some of the online coursework. Further, the former associate head coach did not cooperate in the investigation. Therefore, the former associate head coach shall be informed in writing by the NCAA that the panel prescribes an eight-year show-cause order pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4. The show-cause period shall run from April 8, 2016, through April 7, 2024. If the former associate head coach is employed by an NCAA member institution during the term of the show cause, he and the member institution shall schedule an appearance before a panel of the committee to determine whether he should be subject to the show-cause provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4.

10. Recruiting restrictions.

a. The institution will reduce the number of official visits its men’s basketball team may conduct in the 2015-16 academic year by three (institution imposed);

b. The institution will self-impose a prohibition from hosting any unofficial visits for a period of 10 weeks prior to the beginning of the fall 2016 academic semester, during times in which unofficial visits are otherwise permissible per the NCAA recruiting calendar (institution imposed);

c. The institution will restrict recruiting communications with prospective student-athletes by ten-weeks prior to the beginning of the fall 2016 academic semester (institution imposed); and

d. The institution will reduce the off-campus recruiting person days in men’s basketball during the 2015-16 academic year by 25 (institution imposed).

11. Public reprimand and censure.

12. Vacation of records. When graduate assistants A and B and former assistant coach A completed on-line academic coursework for student-athletes 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9, the student-athletes became ineligible for competition. When student-athlete 3’s high school coach and student-athlete 4’s prep school coach provided them with impermissible financial aid, those two student-athletes were also rendered ineligible. However, student-athlete 4 later competed under a grant of limited immunity. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.9.7-(g) and 31.2.2.3, the institution shall vacate all regular season and conference Further, if any of the student-athletes competed in the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championships at any time they were ineligible, the institution’s participation in the championship shall be vacated. The individual records of the student-athletes shall also be vacated. Further, the institution’s records regarding men’s basketball, as well as the record of the former head coach, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which men’s basketball records are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution which may subsequently hire the former head coach shall similarly reflect the vacated wins in his career records documented in media guides and other publications cited above. Head coaches with vacated wins on their records may not count the vacated wins to attain specific honors or victory “milestones” such as 100th, 200th or 500th career victories. Any public reference to these vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear.

13. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.10, the NCAA president may forward a copy of the public infractions decision to the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

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 .