The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of the Pacific (“UP” or “Institution” or “Pacific”) committed violations of NCAA legislation.  This case involved the men’s basketball and baseball programs at UP. The basketball violations centered on academic misconduct and impermissible recruiting inducements. They involved three members of the men’s basketball staff, including the former head men’s basketball coach (head basketball coach). The sole baseball violation concerned the former head baseball coach’s provision of impermissible athletically related financial aid to a student trainer.

The Committee concluded that UP committed the following violations:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(b), 16.8.1 (2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15), 14.11.1 (2011-12) and 12.11.1 (2014-15)

During the summers of 2011 and 2014, the head basketball coach provided four prospects with already-completed coursework and exams for their distance learning courses and directed them to submit the work as their own. This constitutes academic misconduct in violation of Bylaw 10. Pacific then used the fraudulent credit the prospects received for these courses to certify their eligibility and permit them to compete and receive travel expenses as part of the men’s basketball team. In doing so, Pacific violated Bylaws 12 and 16.

Bylaw 10 governs ethical conduct in collegiate athletics, with Bylaw 10.01.1 generally requiring student-athletes and those employed by or associated with an institution’s athletics programs to act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times. Bylaw 10.1 identifies several categories of unethical conduct, including knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit (Bylaw 10.1-(b)).13 An April 2014 official interpretation of Bylaw 10.1-(b) explains that an institution has the authority to determine whether academic misconduct has occurred consistent with its own policies applicable to all students. In the area of eligibility, Bylaw 12.11.1 (formerly Bylaw 14.11.1) places an affirmative obligation on institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition. Furthermore, if a student-athlete is ineligible to compete, Bylaw 16.8.1 prohibits the Institution from providing the student-athlete with competition-related expenses.

In providing completed coursework and exams to the academically ineligible prospects he recruited, the head basketball coach failed to conduct himself with the honesty and integrity required of staff members working at NCAA member institutions. His actions were contradictory to the minimum standards of conduct contemplated by Bylaws 10 and 10.01.1. The head basketball coach knew the prospects were academically deficient when he recruited them; yet, he pursued them anyway and disregarded NCAA ethical conduct standards to ensure they met transfer requirements and attained eligibility. This conduct began in 2011 when the head basketball coach’s wife completed a paper assignment for prospect 4 and continued to an even greater extent in the summer of 2014.14 That summer, the head basketball coach spearheaded a more organized and comprehensive effort to ensure prospects successfully completed their distance learning courses. This included pairing each prospect with a member of the coaching staff who would shepherd the prospect through the course and “get it done.” With respect to the prospects the head basketball coach assigned to himself, he maintained a binder of already-completed coursework and exams that he distributed to the prospects on multiple occasions and directed them to submit as their own work. This violated Pacific’s academic policies and resulted in the prospects obtaining fraudulent academic credit. The head basketball coach’s actions constituted academic misconduct and violated Bylaw 10.1-(b).

The head basketball coach’s conduct also caused Pacific to violate eligibility and benefits legislation. When the coach arranged for prospects 1 through 4 to receive fraudulent academic credit, he rendered them ineligible. See Bylaw 12.11.2. Consequently, Pacific had an affirmative obligation pursuant to Bylaws 14.11.1 (2011-12) and 12.11.1 (2014-15) to withhold the prospects from competition. Furthermore, pursuant to Bylaw 16.8.1, the prospects’ ineligibility meant that Pacific could not provide them with travel and competition expenses. When Pacific used the fraudulent credit the prospects received in their summer courses to certify their eligibility and then permitted them to compete and receive travel expenses as part of the men’s basketball team, the institution violated Bylaws 12.11.1, 14.11.1 and 16.8.1.

While each case is unique to its facts and circumstances, the COI has concluded time and again that institutional staff members who provide coursework for prospective or enrolled student-athletes commit Level I violations. See University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding that a Level I academic misconduct violation occurred when the former director of basketball operations and former assistant basketball coach completed coursework for two prospects in five online courses); University of Southern Mississippi (2016) (concluding that a Level I academic misconduct violation occurred when members of the men’s basketball staff completed over sixty credit hours of coursework for seven prospects); Southern Methodist University (2016) (concluding that a Level I academic misconduct violation occurred when a basketball administrative assistant obtained an incoming student-athlete’s username and password and completed all of his assignments and exams for an online course); Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that a Level I academic misconduct violation occurred when the former director of basketball operations and former basketball receptionist completed an extra credit paper for a student-athlete seeking a grade change over one year after he had completed the course); and Weber State University (2014) (concluding that a Level I academic misconduct violation occurred when a math instructor obtained five student-athletes’ usernames and passwords and completed online quizzes, tests and exams for them).

Consistent with these cases, the panel concludes that the academic misconduct violation is Level I. See also Bylaw 19.1.1 (listing academic misconduct as an example of a Level I severe breach of conduct). The head basketball coach’s conduct seriously undermined and threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. The violation was also intended to give—and did give—Pacific a substantial recruiting and competitive advantage. The head basketball coach’s academic misconduct helped to ensure prospects 1 through 4 successfully completed their summer coursework and attained eligibility to compete for the institution.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 13.2.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15)

During the summer of 2014, members of the men’s basketball coaching staff violated principles of ethical conduct when they knowingly provided impermissible recruiting inducements to prospects enrolled in distance learning courses. The inducements included allowing prospects to take exams without proctors and paying for one prospect’s distance learning courses. Pacific and the enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that violations occurred. The head basketball coach agreed that the proctoring violation occurred but denied that he was responsible for the violation or that he acted unethically. The assistant coach and special assistant did not participate in the process. The Panel concluded that Level I violations occurred.

Throughout the summer of 2014, the head basketball coach, assistant coach and special assistant provided recruiting inducements to six prospects when they arranged for individuals to pose as proctors for the prospects’ distance learning courses, but permitted the prospects to take exams outside the presence of those proctors. Additionally, the assistant coach provided a further inducement when he paid for prospect 5’s distance learning courses. These violations were a result of the head basketball coach’s directive to his staff to “get it done” when it came to ensuring that all prospects successfully completed their coursework that summer. The coaching staff’s conduct violated Bylaws 10 and 13.

As identified above in Section IV.A., Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 generally require institutional staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. Subsection (c) of Bylaw 10.1 identifies the knowing provision of recruiting inducements as unethical conduct. Recruiting inducements are prohibited pursuant to Bylaw 13.2.1, which restricts institutional staff members from providing inducements or financial aid to prospects unless expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.

The head basketball coach acknowledged at the infractions hearing that he did not follow proper proctoring procedures during the summer of 2014. He knew the prospects’ distance learning institutions did not allow coaches to proctor exams. Nonetheless, he permitted the special assistant to serve as proctor rather than the outside individuals he and the assistant coach had engaged. The head basketball coach admitted that he knew it was a violation but trusted the special assistant to proctor the exams properly.  As he explained at the hearing, “I was getting things done. I was on the road recruiting, and my thing was get it done.”

When the head basketball coach interfered with testing procedures and allowed prospects to take exams without the required proctors, he provided an impermissible recruiting inducement in violation of Bylaw 13.2.1. Because he knowingly provided this inducement, he acted unethically in violation of Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c). Likewise, the assistant coach and special assistant acted unethically through their knowing involvement in the proctor violations. With respect to the assistant coach, he arranged for his friend to pose as a proctor—including forging his friend’s signature on exam documents—without requiring him to supervise any actual exams. Meanwhile, the special assistant permitted prospects to take exams with minimal or no supervision in violation of the distance learning institutions’ policies. The three coaches’ interference with exam procedures provided a benefit to the prospects in that it allowed them freedom to access outside resources to help with their exams. For example, one prospect stated that the absence of a proctor allowed him to take his history exam using his course materials, despite clear instructions on the exam cover sheet prohibiting students from using books or notes.

The COI has previously concluded that institutional staff members acted unethically when they arranged for straw man proctors. See Mississippi (concluding that two women’s basketball staff members violated Bylaw 10 when they arranged for an acquaintance to pose as proctor for a student-athlete’s exam in order to provide the staff members with an advance copy of the exam); and Long Beach State University (2008) (concluding that an assistant men’s basketball coach violated Bylaw 10 when he obtained a correspondence exam for a student-athlete, forged the name of a friend as proctor for the exam and allowed the student-athlete to take the exam unsupervised).

The assistant coach also committed unethical conduct when he knowingly paid for a prospect’s distance learning courses. The assistant coach made four payments of $325 each for prospect 5’s courses at the University of Idaho. The assistant coach made these payments using a prepaid debit card that was in prospect 5’s name, but which the assistant coach funded. This conduct violated Bylaw 10.1-(c) and constituted an impermissible recruiting inducement under Bylaw 13.2.1. See Southern Mississippi (concluding that the former head men’s basketball coach violated Bylaws 10 and 13 when he purchased a prepaid credit card and directed his staff to use the card to pay for a student-athlete’s online courses); and Mississippi (concluding that an assistant women’s basketball coach violated Bylaws 10 and 13 when she knowingly enrolled and paid $630 for a student-athlete’s online summer courses).

The three coaches’ recruiting inducements and unethical conduct are Level I violations of NCAA bylaws because they provided or were intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting advantage as well as a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit. The COI has previously concluded that the knowing provision of impermissible academic inducements or benefits constitutes a Level I violation. See Mississippi (concluding a Level I violation occurred where, among other violations, the assistant coach paid for a student-athlete’s online courses); and Lamar University (2016) (concluding a Level I violation occurred when a head coach gave student-athletes money for textbooks and tuition).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15)

In 2014 and 2015, the head basketball coach provided impermissible recruiting inducements when he arranged for athletics representatives to sponsor student visa applications for three international prospects. Pacific and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that a violation occurred. The head basketball coach agreed that the conduct occurred, but denied that his involvement constituted a violation of NCAA legislation. The Panel concluded that a Level II violation occurred.

By his own admission, the head basketball coach coordinated with athletics representatives in 2014 and 2015 to arrange financial sponsorship for three international prospects’ student visa applications. These sponsorship arrangements violated the Bylaw 13.2.1 prohibition against recruiting offers and inducements as set forth above.

The head basketball coach acknowledged that in May 2014, he arranged for athletics representatives to provide financial sponsorship for the student visa applications of two international prospects. He also acknowledged making the same arrangement for a third prospect one year later. The prospects did not communicate with the athletics representatives, had no role in obtaining their financial support and, in the case of two of the prospects, had never even met their respective “sponsors.” The head basketball coach’s solicitation of the sponsorship arrangements was a benefit to the men’s basketball prospects that was not otherwise available to non-student-athletes. Accordingly, the head basketball coach’s conduct constitutes an impermissible recruiting inducement in violation of Bylaw 13.2.1. See St. Mary’s College of California (2013) (concluding a Bylaw 13.2.1 violation occurred when a former assistant men’s basketball coach made financial arrangements to sponsor an international prospect’s student visa application).

Despite admitting to this conduct, the head basketball coach argued that the panel should not hold him responsible for a violation of Bylaw 13.2.1 because the sponsorship arrangements were approved by the assistant admissions director. However, the assistant admissions director was not educated on NCAA rules, nor did he review student-athletes’ I-20 forms for NCAA compliance issues. More to the point, there is no “knowledge” component to Bylaw 13.2.1. In other words, an individual can violate Bylaw 13.2.1 even when he or she believes in good faith that a particular benefit is permissible. See University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (2016) (concluding that an associate head football coach violated Bylaw 13.2.1 when he provided housing and training services to two prospects, notwithstanding his belief that such benefits were permissible because the prospects had signed NLIs). Thus, the head basketball coach’s reliance on the assistant admissions director’s approval does not excuse him of the Bylaw 13 violation. The responsibility to adhere to this bylaw runs to both the head basketball coach and the institution.

The Panel concluded this is a Level II violation because it occurred over two years and involved multiple prospects; therefore, it was not isolated or limited in nature. Additionally, the inducements provided the prospects with more than a minimal but less than a substantial benefit. The violation and level are also consistent with recent cases decided by the COI. See Sam Houston State University (2017) (concluding that a Level II violation occurred when a head women’s tennis coach provided a prospect with approximately $600 worth of recruiting inducements, including tennis rackets, tournament entry fees and cost-free housing); and UCLA (concluding that the associate head coach’s provision of housing and training services constituted a Level II recruiting inducement violation).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(a), 10.1-(d) and 19.2.3 (2015-16 and 2016-17)

During the past two years, the head basketball coach, assistant coach and special assistant violated principles of ethical conduct and did not meet their obligations under the cooperative principle when they failed to furnish information relevant to an investigation and refused to participate in interviews. Furthermore, both the head basketball coach and the assistant coach acted unethically when they knowingly furnished false or misleading information during their interviews. In the head coach’s case, he also influenced other individuals to provide false or misleading information. Neither the assistant coach nor the special assistant responded to the allegations. The head basketball coach acknowledged that he failed to cooperate for nearly one year, but denied all unethical conduct allegations. Pacific and the enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that the violations occurred. The Panel concluded that Level I violations occurred.

Beginning in October 2015, the head basketball coach engaged in three modes of unethical conduct related to the investigation in this case: (1) for approximately one year, he refused to provide information requested by Pacific and the enforcement staff and to sit for an additional interview; (2) he knowingly provided false or misleading information when, during his interview, he denied awareness of the academic misconduct and recruiting inducement violations; and (3) he knowingly influenced other individuals to furnish false or misleading information during their interviews. The head basketball coach’s conduct violated Bylaws 10 and 19.

Bylaw 19.2.3 places an affirmative obligation on current and former institutional staff members to cooperate fully with the enforcement staff. If a current or former institutional staff member refuses to furnish information relevant to an investigation, that refusal can be deemed unethical conduct under Bylaw 10.1-(a). Relatedly, a staff member who knowingly furnishes or influences others to furnish false or misleading information acts unethically pursuant to Bylaw 10.1-(d). These bylaws are fundamental to the effectiveness of the membership’s infractions process.

From January 20, 2016, to December 27, 2016, the head basketball coach failed to cooperate with the investigation in this case. He refused multiple requests from the enforcement staff to provide bank and telephone records and to participate in a second interview. At the infractions hearing, the head basketball coach explained that he stopped participating on the advice of his former attorney and due to a lack of financial resources. After he received the NOA, the coach hired a new attorney, provided most of the requested records and sat for a second interview on March 8, 2017. While the panel appreciates the head basketball coach’s re-engagement in the process, the nearly year-long gap in his participation hindered the investigation and delayed the resolution of this matter. The cooperative principle is a core tenet on which the entire infractions process depends. When the head basketball coach did not participate in the investigation for nearly a year, he violated that principle and acted unethically in contravention of Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3.

The head basketball coach also acted unethically when he was untruthful during his December 9, 2015, interview with Pacific and the enforcement staff. The coach denied providing prospects with answers to coursework and exams despite substantial information in the record demonstrating his involvement in that violation. Specifically, multiple prospects stated that the head basketball coach gave them photocopies of answers. Moreover, email correspondence between the coach and his staff demonstrated an orchestrated effort to handle the prospects’ coursework that summer. And the materials provided by the anonymous informant mirrored coursework submitted by the prospects in their distance learning courses. Regarding the 2011 violation, metadata associated with the coursework supported the head basketball coach’s involvement in academic misconduct. When the coach denied any role in the academic misconduct violations, he provided false information and violated Bylaw 10.1-(d).

He compounded this violation by also denying any knowledge of or involvement in the proctoring violations. During his first interview, the head basketball coach professed a general lack of knowledge regarding who was proctoring the prospects’ exams. He also denied forging signatures or asking others to forge signatures on the exam supervisor forms. At the hearing, however, he acknowledged that he knew the proctors he had engaged were not actually supervising the prospects’ exams and he condoned it. He also admitted instructing one of his staff members to forge a proctor’s signature on an exam supervisor form. Again, this is false information that violates his responsibility under the bylaws to be truthful.

Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the head basketball coach further violated Bylaw 10.1-(d) when he influenced two other individuals—prospect 1 and proctor 1—to provide false or misleading information to Pacific and the enforcement staff. With respect to prospect 1, factual information in the record demonstrates that the athletics representative contacted the prospect prior to his March 29, 2017, interview and urged him to falsely state that it was the special assistant, not the head basketball coach, who provided him with completed coursework and exams for his distance learning math course. The athletics representative was a close friend of the head basketball coach and it is difficult to see how he could have known how and when to contact prospect 1 without the head basketball coach’s involvement. Thus, it appears that the head basketball coach was acting through his friend to influence the investigation in this case. As it relates to proctor 1, the head basketball coach directly interfered with the investigation when he contacted the proctor—who was another close friend—and asked him to falsely state that he proctored exams during the summer of 2014.

The head basketball coach’s actions are the very essence of unethical conduct. By influencing prospect 1 to lie, he put the prospect’s eligibility at risk in order to serve his own interests. He also hindered the investigation, causing other parties to devote additional time and resources to this case. This conduct falls well below the baseline of honesty and ethical conduct the membership expects of institutional staff members, particularly those entrusted with setting an example for developing student-athletes. The panel concludes that in influencing prospect 1 and proctor 1 to provide false or misleading information, the head basketball coach acted unethically and violated Bylaw 10.1-(d).

Consistent with Bylaw 19.1.1 and past cases, the head basketball coach’s unethical conduct and failure to cooperate are Level I violations. See Bylaw 19.1.1-(c) and (d) (identifying failure to cooperate and individual unethical or dishonest conduct as examples of Level I severe breaches of conduct); Southern Mississippi (concluding that the former head men’s basketball coach engaged in Level I unethical conduct when he deleted emails relevant to the investigation, provided false or misleading information during his interviews and contacted other interviewees with knowledge of the investigation); Mississippi (concluding that women’s basketball staff members engaged in Level I unethical conduct when they denied their involvement in academic misconduct and instructed a student-athlete to delete information relevant to the investigation and give a false statement); and Georgia Southern University (2016) (concluding that a former assistant compliance director engaged in Level I unethical conduct when she developed a false story to explain her violation, persuaded a student-athlete to relay that false story during the investigation and refused to participate in further interviews).

For the past two years, the assistant coach and special assistant have engaged in unethical conduct relating to the investigation in this case. The assistant coach provided false or misleading information concerning his involvement in the violations and, since January 20, 2016, has refused to participate in additional interviews with the enforcement staff and Pacific. Since August of 2015, the special assistant has refused to participate in any aspect of the investigation. The conduct of the assistant coach and special assistant violated Bylaws 10 and 19.

On December 9, 2015, the assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct when he furnished false or misleading information during his interview with Pacific and the enforcement staff. Specifically, he denied any involvement in paying for prospect 5’s distance learning courses. This is belied by substantial information in the record. As discussed above in Part IV.B., the assistant coach’s cell phone and bank records, university IT logs and information obtained from the debit card issuer all support the panel’s conclusion that the assistant coach funded a prepaid card that he used to pay for prospect 5’s distance learning courses during the summer of 2014. By denying his involvement in this violation, the assistant coach knowingly provided false or misleading information in violation of Bylaw 10.1-(d). Furthermore, by refusing to participate in a second interview as the enforcement staff twice requested, the assistant coach did not meet his obligation to fully cooperate under Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3. Likewise, when the special assistant refused to participate in the investigation in any capacity—including ignoring several interview requests—he, too, failed in his obligation to cooperate and furnish relevant information under Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3. Consistent with Bylaw 19.1.1-(c) and (d) and the cases cited above, the assistant coach’s and special assistant’s unethical conduct and failure to cooperate are Level I violations.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.1.1 (2013-14 through 2015-16)

For approximately two years, the head basketball coach failed in his responsibilities to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program and to monitor the assistant coach and special assistant, who reported to him. Pacific and the enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that the violation occurred. The head basketball coach disputed the allegation. The Panel concluded that a Level I violation occurred.

During the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years, the head basketball coach failed to meet his responsibilities as a head coach. In recruiting academically ineligible prospects and then violating NCAA ethical conduct and recruiting legislation to secure their eligibility, he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program. Furthermore, he did not monitor the activities of the coaching staff, who reported to him. Indeed, he admitted at the hearing that he let the assistant coach and special assistant “get out of control.” The head basketball coach’s conduct violated Bylaw 11 head coach responsibility legislation.

Bylaw 11.1.1.1 establishes two affirmative duties for head coaches: (1) to promote an atmosphere of rules compliance; and (2) to monitor those individuals in their program who report to them. With respect to the latter, the bylaw presumes that head coaches are responsible for the actions of those who report to them. A head coach may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that he or she promoted an atmosphere of compliance and monitored his or her staff.

Here, the head basketball coach failed to rebut the presumption. With respect to monitoring, he acknowledged at the hearing that he “let a couple assistant coaches get out of control and . . . didn’t stop it.” The factual information in the record bears this out. In a July 2014 email to his staff, the head basketball coach informed them that it was their “job to get it done” with regard to the prospects’ summer distance learning courses. He then largely left them to their own devices to do so. Thus, motivated to do whatever it took to secure the prospects’ eligibility for the coming academic year, the assistant coach paid for one prospect’s distance learning courses. In addition, both he and the special assistant allowed multiple prospects to take their exams unproctored. The head basketball coach claimed he had no knowledge of the former violation. With respect to the latter, he was both aware of and condoned the use of straw man proctors for the prospects’ exams despite knowing it was a violation. He stated that he thought the special assistant was proctoring the exams and trusted him to do it properly. The COI has previously concluded that head coaches failed to monitor where they did not stop and report known violations and/or over-relied on staff members. See Grambling State University (2017) (concluding that a head women’s track coach did not rebut the presumption of responsibility where he failed to make inquiries regarding a prospects’ housing arrangements and did not stop and report known recruiting violations); and Syracuse (concluding that a head coach does not meet his monitoring responsibility by simply delegating responsibility to staff members and trusting them to follow rules without ever checking up on them). In light of the head coach’s conduct and his own acknowledgement of a lack of control over his staff members, the panel concludes that he failed to monitor the assistant coach and the special assistant during the summer of 2014.

Additionally, the head basketball coach’s personal involvement in the violations and indifference to NCAA legislation demonstrate that he did not promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program. When the head basketball coach engaged in academic misconduct and knowingly permitted prospects to take exams unsupervised, he set the wrong tone for his program. He created an environment where the overriding concern was to “get it done”—not to get it done properly and in compliance with the rules.

The coach briefly discussed his history of compliance at the hearing, noting that he committed no previous violations during his 23-year coaching career. When asked about his specific efforts to promote compliance, he spoke in general terms about the basketball staff’s monthly meetings with the compliance staff, as well as coaching retreats once or twice a year where compliance was discussed at the start of each meeting. The panel acknowledges the coach’s lack of previous violations and his generally positive relationship with the compliance staff prior to the events giving rise to this case. The information provided by the head basketball coach is not sufficient, however, to rebut the presumption of responsibility, particularly where he has acknowledged letting his staff get “out of control” and considering his personal involvement in Level I violations as the leader of his program. Accordingly, the panel concludes that the head basketball coach failed to meet his responsibility to monitor his staff and promote an atmosphere of compliance.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1, this is a Level I violation because it resulted from underlying Level I violations. See Southern Mississippi (concluding that the former head men’s basketball coach committed a Level I head coach responsibility violation when he planned and implemented an academic fraud scheme); Mississippi (concluding that the former head women’s basketball coach committed a Level I head coach responsibility violation when he failed to monitor his staff, allowing their academic misconduct to go undetected); Lamar (concluding that a head men’s golf coach committed a Level I head coach responsibility violation when he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance due to his direct, knowing involvement in providing impermissible financial aid and benefits); and Saint Peter’s University (2016) (concluding that a head swimming coach committed a Level I head coach responsibility violation where he demonstrated indifference to NCAA rules by permitting student-athletes to compete while ineligible and then influenced them to lie about it).

Violations of NCAA Division I Constitution 2.8.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15)

During the summer of 2014, Pacific failed to monitor the activities of the men’s basketball coaching staff related to prospects’ distance learning courses. Pacific and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that the violation occurred. The Panel concluded that a Level II violation occurred.

During July and August of 2014, the institution failed to monitor the activities of the head basketball coach, assistant coach and special assistant as it related to their oversight of five prospects’ distance learning courses.18 As a result, the coaching staff went to great lengths to secure the eligibility of five academically ineligible prospects, including providing three prospects with answers to coursework and exams and permitting all five to take exams unsupervised. In failing to monitor this activity, Pacific violated Constitution 2.8.1.

Constitution 2 generally sets forth core principles for institutions conducting intercollegiate athletics programs. Constitution 2.8.1 requires an institution to abide by all rules and regulations, monitor compliance and report instances of noncompliance.

Pacific’s compliance staff knew that five men’s basketball prospects with academic deficiencies were living in the institution’s locale and taking distance learning courses during the summer of 2014. The institution was also aware that these courses needed to be completed in a short period of time and required exam proctors. While four of the prospects were only one or two classes shy of meeting transfer and eligibility requirements, one prospect needed a total of seven courses to meet NCAA progress-toward-degree requirements. In its response to the NOA, Pacific stated that it was mindful of these deficiencies and checked in regularly with the men’s basketball staff to ensure the prospects were making progress toward meeting the requirements necessary for admission and eligibility. However, the institution also admitted that it made a mistake when it merely relied on the assurances of the staff without looking behind those assurances.

The COI has previously noted that there is a heightened risk of violations when prospects who are not enrolled at the institution move to the institution’s locale. See Long Beach State (stating that “institutions have a duty to monitor the activities of prospects in the vicinity of campus in the summer prior to initial enrollment”); Boise State University (2011) (explaining that the need for heightened awareness when un-enrolled prospects are on campus “is borne out of recognition of the competitive advantage gained when institutions do not adhere to the applicable NCAA legislation”). Here, with five academically ineligible prospects in the institution’s locale—including one with significant academic deficiencies—Pacific did not provide adequate oversight or monitoring.

The Institution’s failure to monitor the men’s basketball program resulted in academic violations and impermissible recruiting inducements that compromise the integrity of the Collegiate Model. The Panel concluded Pacific’s failure to monitor is a Level II violation. See Bylaw 19.1.2-(b) (presuming failure to monitor violations are Level II unless the failure is substantial or egregious); Grambling State (concluding the institution committed a Level II violation when it failed to monitor its initial eligibility and progress-toward-degree certification processes); Stanford University (2016) (concluding the institution committed a Level II violation when it failed to monitor the participation of student-athletes in countable athletically related activities); University of Missouri, Columbia (2016) (concluding the institution committed a Level II violation when it failed to monitor the men’s basketball program, allowing multiple recruiting and extra-benefit violations to go undetected).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 16.11.2.1 (2013-14)

In 2014, the former head baseball coach provided impermissible athletically related aid to the sister of a baseball student-athlete. Pacific and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that the violation occurred. The baseball coach agreed that the conduct occurred but denied that his involvement constituted a violation of NCAA legislation. The panel concludes that a Level II violation occurred.

In June of 2014, the baseball coach provided $16,000 in impermissible athletically related aid to a student trainer, who also happened to be the sister of a baseball student-athlete. The baseball coach intended for the aid to benefit the baseball student-athlete and one of his teammates, both of whom shared a house with the student trainer. The student trainer performed no work for the baseball program in exchange for the aid. Accordingly, the athletically related aid constituted an impermissible extra benefit in violation of Bylaw 16.

Bylaw 16 governs awards, benefits and expenses for enrolled student-athletes. With respect to benefits, Bylaw 16.11.2.1 sets forth the general rule that a student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The bylaw defines an “extra benefit” as any special arrangement by an institutional employee or athletics representative to provide a student-athlete or his or her family members or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.

In his response to the notice of allegations and at the infractions hearing, the baseball coach acknowledged that the aid he provided to the student trainer was intended to indirectly benefit the two baseball student-athletes by offsetting their housing costs. He also acknowledged that the student trainer performed no work for the baseball program in exchange for the aid. Thus, the student trainer was merely a conduit to channel aid to the two baseball student-athletes. When the baseball coach provided the student-athletes with aid outside of the permissible distribution structure, he provided an impermissible benefit in violation of Bylaw 16.11.2.1. See Lamar (concluding a head men’s golf coach violated Bylaw 16.11.2.1 when he provided student-athletes with aid outside of their financial aid agreements).

While the baseball coach acknowledged that the conduct occurred as alleged, he argued in his response to the NOA and at the hearing that he should not be held responsible for a violation of Bylaw 16.11.2.1 because he had cleared the arrangement with the institution’s senior associate athletic director. This is essentially the same argument the head basketball coach made with respect to his responsibility for the Bylaw 13 violation surrounding student visa sponsorships (see Part IV.C. above). The baseball coach’s argument fails for the same reason. Bylaw 16.11.2.1, like Bylaw 13.2.1, has no knowledge component. If the conduct occurred—as the baseball coach conceded it did—then there is a Bylaw 16.11.2.1 violation regardless of the baseball coach’s legitimate belief that the conduct was permissible. The responsibility runs to both the baseball coach and the Institution.

The baseball coach’s actions provided more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit to the two baseball student-athletes. Accordingly, consistent with Bylaw 19.1.2 and past COI decisions, the Panel concluded this is a Level II violation. See Missouri (concluding a Level II violation occurred where an athletics representative provided student-athletes with extra benefits and inducements totaling $10,436, including housing, cash, transportation, and gym access); Arkansas State University (2016) (concluding a Level II violation occurred where a former director of basketball operations provided a student-athlete with extra benefits in the form of excessive apparel worth $5,165).

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

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

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): An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations; and

19.9.4-(f): Exemplary cooperation.

Aggravating Factors for the Head Basketball Coach

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

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

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an 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; and

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

Mitigating Factors for the Head Basketball Coach

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

Aggravating Factors for the Assistant Coach

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an 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; and

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

Mitigating Factors for the Assistant Coach

None.

Aggravating Factors for the Special Assistant

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an 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-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete; and

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

Mitigating Factors for the Special Assistant

None.

Aggravating Factors for the Baseball Coach

None.

Mitigating Factors for the Baseball Coach

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

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

1.  Public reprimand and censure.

2.  The Institution shall pay a $5,000 fine.

3.  Two years of probation from September 20, 2017, through September 19, 2019.

4.  The Institution ended the 2015-16 men’s basketball season with its last regular season game and did not participate in postseason conference or NCAA tournament competition.

5.  The men’s basketball program reduced by six the total number of permissible grants-in-aid for the 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years.  Additionally, the baseball program reduced the number of baseball equivalencies by .57 for the 2015-16 academic year, which amounts to a two-for-one reduction for the value of the extra benefit provided.

6.  The Institution reduced the number of official visits in the men’s basketball program to a total of five for the 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years. This is a reduction of seven off the permissible number.

7.  The Institution limited the number of off-campus recruiting person days in the men’s basketball program to no more than 90 days, averaged over the 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years. This is a reduction of 40 off the permissible number.

8.  The Institution prohibited the men’s basketball coaching staff from initiating telephone calls, contact via social media and written correspondence with prospects for a 10-week period during the 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years.

9.  The head men’s basketball coach received an eight (8) year show cause penalty.

10. The assistant basketball coach received an eight (8) year show cause penalty.

11. The special assistant received a seven (7) year show cause penalty.

12. The Institution shall vacate all regular season and conference tournament records and participation in which the ineligible student-athletes competed from the time they became ineligible through the time they were reinstated as eligible for competition.

13. The Institution has disassociated both the special assistant and the athletics representative.

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 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .