The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (“COI” or “Committee”) is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and public. The COI is charged with deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. This case involves the men’s basketball program at the University of Utah (“UU” or “Utah”) engaging in impermissible recruiting activities and the head coach failing to meet his responsibilities. A panel of 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”). The panel adopted the parties’ self-imposed penalties and proposed further penalties.  The head men’s basketball coach contested the panel’s proposed suspension. Following an expedited hearing per Bylaw 19.6.4.5 and consistent with the applicable penalty range for head coach suspension penalties, the panel declines to prescribe a suspension in this case. All other parties agreed to the proposed additional penalties; therefore, none of the parties have an opportunity to appeal.

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

Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.02.5.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.6.2.6.1, 13.6.7.1, 13.14.1 and 13.14.4 (2017-18) (Level II)

 The institution, head coach, associate head coach and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that from April 25 through May 1, 2018, the head coach, associate head coach and two assistant men’s basketball coaches conducted impermissible on and off-campus recruiting activities.

A.  On April 25, 2018, during a designated quiet period, an assistant men’s basketball coach made an impermissible recruiting evaluation at a two-year college located in another state. NCAA Bylaw 13.02.5.4 (2017-18).

B.  On April 26, 2018, during a designated quiet period, the head coach, associate head coach and the two assistant coaches made an impermissible recruiting contact with the prospect at his high school in another state. NCAA Bylaw 13.02.5.4 (2017-18).

C.  On April 30 and May 1, 2018, the associate head coach, in coordination with the community college head coach, who became a representative of the institution’s athletics interests, arranged and used impermissible funds provided by the two-year college to pay for the prospect’s transportation, meals and lodging during his official paid visit to the institution after the institution exhausted its number of permissible men’s basketball official paid visits for that period. The associate head coach’s actions in coordinating the prospect’s visit included frequent conversations and text message exchanges with the two-year college coach and the prospect’s high school coaches about scheduling the prospect’s flights, organizing his schedule and local transportation and facilitating his hotel lodging. Further, the head coach was generally aware that the associate head coach was coordinating the unofficial visit with the two-year college, and he and the two assistant coaches were present for the visit and interacted with the prospect. Additionally, the community college head coach joined the prospect on his visit to the institution and at a meal with the men’s basketball coaching staff, which constituted impermissible in-person recruiting contact. NCAA Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.6.2.6.1, 13.6.7.1, 13.14.1 and 13.14.4 (2017-18).

Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.11.1 (2017-18) (Level III)

The institution and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that on July 17, 2018, a then men’s basketball prospective student-athlete, who was also the head men’s basketball coach’s son, participated in summer athletics activity that was organized and observed by the men’s basketball coaching staff.

Violation of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (2017-18) (Level II)

The institution, head coach and NCAA enforcement staff agreed that from April 25 through May 1, 2018, the head coach is presumed responsible for the violations detailed  above and did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. Specifically, the head coach did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance and monitored his staff in connection with these recruiting violations because he personally participated in the violations detailed above and did not proactively evaluate potential NCAA rule implications by reviewing a recruiting calendar or consulting with athletics compliance staff regarding the impermissible recruiting evaluation detailed above despite having knowledge of the recruiting activity before it occurred.

Agreed-Upon Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19.9.3 and 19.9.4

Aggravating factors for the Institution

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

Mitigating factors for the Institution  

A.  Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(a).

B.  Prompt acknowledgment of the violation, acceptance of responsibility, and imposition of meaningful corrective measures. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b).

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

Aggravating factors for the Head Coach

A.  Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation(s) or related wrongful conduct. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h).

Mitigating factor for the Head Coach

A.  Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(a).

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

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

Aggravating factors for the Associated Head Coach

A.  Other facts warranting a higher penalty range. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(n).

Mitigating factor for the Associate Head Coach

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

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

1. Public reprimand and censure.
2. Probation: Two years of probation, to run consecutive to the probation in Case No. 00767. This will extend the probation period through May 22, 2021.
3. Financial penalty: The institution shall pay a fine of $5,000. The fine will come directly from the men’s basketball budget.
4. Recruiting restrictions: (a) Utah prohibited all four countable men’s basketball coaches from engaging in off-campus recruiting for a five-day period and over the course of a weekend from July 11-15, 2018. This represented the next off-campus recruiting opportunity following the quiet period violation; Utah reduced in-person recruiting days for men’s basketball from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year; Utah implemented a three-week ban on unofficial visits and complimentary admissions in the sport of men’s basketball beginning November 2, 2018; and Utah reduced the number of official visits in men’s basketball by two in 2018-19, representing an eight percent reduction in visits, based on the four-year average.
5. The associate head coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that the panel prescribed a one-year show-cause order pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.5.4. The terms of the show-cause are as follows: (a) Utah shall suspend the associate head coach from all coaching and recruiting activities for one week; (b) the associate head coach shall attend the 2019 NCAA Regional Rules Seminar. (Self-imposed.) As part of its annual compliance reports, Utah shall certify all sessions of the seminar attended by the head coach; and (c) the associate head coach shall not engage in any off-campus recruiting activities during the month of July 2019.
6. When the community college head coach assisted the men’s basketball staff in the recruitment of the prospect, he became a representative of Utah’s athletics interests pursuant to Bylaw 13.02.15-(c). His actions assisted the Utah men’s basketball coaching staff in circumventing NCAA recruiting legislation, which resulted in a recruiting advantage for the institution. Therefore, pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7-(i) and COI Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) 5-15-7, Utah shall disassociate the community college head coach for one year. The terms of the disassociation are as follows: (a) Utah shall not accept any assistance from the community college head coach that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes; (b) Utah shall not accept any financial assistance for the athletics program from the community college head coach; and (c) Utah shall ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the community college head coach that is not generally available to the public at large; and (d) For the period of the disassociation, no member of the Utah men’s basketball staff shall have any on- or off-campus contact or interaction with the community college head coach. Utah is reminded that, as the community college head coach is a representative of Utah’s athletics interests, he is subject to all limitations on individuals similarly designated.
7. Utah shall prohibit all members of the men’s basketball coaching staff from any on-campus interaction with men’s basketball coaches from the community college head coach’s institution that is unrelated to permissible complimentary admission to home contests, consistent with NCAA legislation. Specifically, the community college men’s basketball coaches shall not participate in any official or unofficial visits on the Utah campus for a minimum of one year, attend practice or informally meet with Utah men’s basketball coaches in any institutional facility. Further, for a minimum of one year, Utah will not recruit any prospects from the community college.

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