THE NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS HAS SPOKEN: UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI

The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel” or “COI”) recently issued its findings and found that the University of Mississippi (“Institution” or “UM”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. This case is the second part of a bifurcated case involving UM. This case centers on NCAA recruiting violations committed by representatives of the institution’s athletics interests, primarily supporters of its football program. The case also involves rules violations committed by six members of the football staff, failure to monitor by the head football coach and the institution’s lack of control over football staff members and boosters of its football program.

The Committee concluded that UM committed the following violations:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(h) (2009-10), 14.1.2, 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1 and 14.11.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13, and 14.10.1 (2013-14)

In 2010, the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 arranged for prospects to obtain fraudulent entrance exam scores. The prospects used the fraudulent scores to satisfy NCAA initial eligibility requirements and later practiced, received athletically related aid and competed. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. The operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 disagreed with the allegations. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

In May and June 2010, the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 arranged for student-athletes 2, 3 and 4 to obtain fraudulent ACT scores that the prospects used to meet initial eligibility standards. The actions of the two football staff members constituted unethical conduct in violation of Bylaw 10. Mississippi then used the fraudulent test scores to certify the prospects as eligible for competition and allowed them to practice, receive athletically related financial aid and compete. In doing so, the institution violated Bylaw 15 and various provisions of Bylaw 14.

Bylaw 10 governs ethical conduct in collegiate athletics. Bylaw 10.1.01 generally requires institutional staff members to act with honesty and sportsmanship. Bylaw 10.1 identifies several categories of unethical conduct, including subsection (h), which in 2009-10 prohibited staff members from engaging in fraud or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement exams. Bylaw 14 governs student-athlete eligibility. Bylaw 14.1.2 holds member institutions responsible for determining the validity of the information they use to certify eligibility, while Bylaws 14.3.2.1 and 14.3.2.1.1 set forth the requirements for initial eligibility. If a prospect does not meet the requirements, he or she cannot practice, receive athletically related financial aid or compete. Bylaw 14.11.1 requires member institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from all intercollegiate competition.38 Finally, Bylaw 15.01.5 provides that student-athletes must meet all provisions of Bylaw 14 before institutions can award them financial aid.

When the operations coordinator worked with the test supervisor to ensure that student-athletes 2, 3 and 4 attained improved scores on their second ACT exams, he failed to conduct himself with the honesty and integrity required of NCAA institutional staff members. The operations coordinator and test supervisor were long-time acquaintances. Even though the three prospects showed up as “standby” registrants the morning of the test, the test supervisor knew they were coming. She took possession of the completed tests once the examinees handed them in. Assistant coach 3 violated the same bylaws. The main recruiter for the three prospects, he instructed them before the test to only complete the answers they knew. Even though the three prospects did not complete their exams, the answer sheets for student-athletes 2 and 4 (student-athlete 3 did not make his answer sheet available) were filled in completely. All three prospects attained markedly higher scores. When the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 assisted the prospects in attaining those higher scores, they did not meet the membership’s expectations for conduct under Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1, and engaged in test fraud pursuant to Bylaw 10.1-(h).

The actions of the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 rendered the prospects ineligible and caused the institution to violate eligibility legislation. Because the ACT exam scores used by the institution to certify the prospects were invalid, Mississippi violated Bylaw 14.1.2. And because the three prospects would not have met minimum initial eligibility standards without the fraudulent scores, Mississippi violated Bylaws 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1, 14.11.1 and 15.01.5 when it allowed them to receive athletically related aid, practice and compete.

This is the second case the COI has considered in which the operations coordinator orchestrated standardized test fraud in an attempt to help prospects attain initial eligibility. In University of Louisiana at Lafayette (2016), this same operations coordinator also arranged for prospects to take their ACT exams at the test supervisor’s high school, which was hundreds of miles from their homes. The test supervisor administered the exams. As in this case, multiple answers were changed on the prospects’ answer sheets after the prospects turned them in. The prospects attained higher scores that were then used to certify their eligibility. COI concluded that the operations coordinator orchestrated test fraud and the violations were Level I. This situation, where the test supervisor or someone else completed the ACT tests for the prospects, is also analogous to cases where others perform academic coursework for student-athletes. The COI has consistently concluded that those violations are Level I. See University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding, in the women’s basketball and women’s track and field portion of this case, that a former director of basketball operations engaged in a Level I violation when he completed coursework for two prospects in five online courses); University of Southern Mississippi (2016) (concluding that members of the men’s basketball staff who completed 60 credit hours of coursework for seven prospects committed Level I violations); and Southern Methodist University (2016) (concluding that a basketball administrative assistant committed Level I violations when she competed a prospect’s online coursework and exams).

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(d), COI concluded that the violations are Level I. Individual unethical conduct is a Level I severe breach of conduct. Institutional staff members who arrange for fraudulent test scores seriously undermine the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, which is based in part on commitments to fairness, sportsmanship and honesty. By their actions, the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 provided a substantial recruiting or competitive advantage to the institution. Student-athletes 2, 3 and 4 would not have been able to enroll without attaining improved ACT scores. With the fraudulent scores, they were able to come to UM and compete for the football team.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c), 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(h) (2009-10), 14.11.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13), and 14.10.1 (2013-14)

During the summer of 2010, the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 violated the principles of ethical conduct when they arranged for a booster to provide impermissible inducements to prospects. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that violations occurred, but UM asserted that the violations are Level II. The operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 disagreed that they knowingly arranged for impermissible inducements. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

In June 2010, the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 arranged for student-athletes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to reside with booster 1 in Jackson, Mississippi, where they attended classes to complete the academic work necessary to meet initial eligibility requirements. The operations coordinator also arranged for student-athlete 7 stay with booster 1 for the same purpose. The operation coordinator’s and assistant coach 3’s actions violated Bylaws 10 and 13 and resulted in the institution violating Bylaw 14.

As stated above, Bylaw 10 requires institutional staff members to act with honesty and sportsmanship. In particular, Bylaw 10.1-(c) precludes institutional staff members from knowing involvement in providing a prospective student-athlete any improper inducements or benefits. Bylaw 13 governs recruiting. Bylaws 13.1.2.1 and 13.2.1 preclude boosters from engaging in any recruiting activities, on- or off-campus, and from providing any benefits to prospects unless explicitly allowed by NCAA rules. Bylaw 13.2.1 also precludes institutional staff members from arranging for impermissible benefits. Bylaw 13.2.1.1-(h) specifically prohibits boosters from providing, and staff members from arranging, free or reduced-cost housing for prospects. Finally, Bylaw 14.10.1 (and its predecessor, Bylaw 14.11.1) requires member institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from all intercollegiate competition.

The operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 knowingly arranged impermissible inducements for prospects. When the operations coordinator and assistant coach 3 steered student-athletes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the operations coordinator’s long-time acquaintance, booster 1, they did so knowing the prospects would stay at his home in Jackson while taking the classes the two institutional staff members hoped would allow the prospects to meet initial eligibility requirements. While in Jackson, booster 1 provided cost-free housing for the prospects and transported them to the Jackson school. His actions violated Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(h). When they made the arrangements for the prospects to stay with booster 1, the operations director and assistant coach 3 violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c), 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(h). The prospects were all rendered ineligible by their receipt of the benefits, but UM subsequently allowed student-athletes 2, 3, 4 and 7 to compete during one or more football seasons, in violation of Bylaw 14.11.1.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(d), COI concluded that the violations are Level I. In doing so, the panel considers more than the dollar amount of the inducements/benefits provided by booster 1. In this case, the operations coordinator’s and assistant coach 3’s purpose in placing the prospects with booster 1 was for the prospects to meet initial eligibility standards. Without achieving those standards, the prospects would not have been able to enroll at the institution and participate in athletics. Because the prospects successfully completed the classes they took at the Jackson school (other than student-athletes 2 and 3, who withdrew once they received their fraudulent ACT scores, see Violation A above), all but one of the six prospects were able to enroll at UM and four competed as members of the football team. Their ability to compete was due to the actions of the

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2 (2013-14)

Assistant coach 3 violated the principles of ethical conduct, and failed to cooperate in the investigation, when he communicated with other individuals who had knowledge of pertinent facts and provided false or misleading information in an interview. Because assistant coach 3 was no longer employed by UM at the time the NOA was issued, UM took no position on the allegation. Assistant coach 3 agreed that he made phone calls and sent texts, but disagreed that he provided false information and failed to cooperate. COI concluded that a Level I violation occurred.

In August 2013, after he was admonished to refrain from contacting individuals with knowledge of the active investigation, assistant coach 3 had contact with student-athlete 3, student-athlete 3’s father, student-athlete 5, student-athlete 5’s mother, booster 1 and the operations coordinator. His actions compromised the integrity of the investigation and constituted violations of Bylaw 19. In December 2013, he denied any role in steering student-athletes 2, 3 and 4 to booster 1 and directing them to only answer certain questions of their June 2010 ACT exams. His denials constituted false or misleading information in violation of Bylaw 10.

Bylaw 19.2.3 requires institutional staff members to fully cooperate with the NCAA enforcement staff and protect the integrity of investigations. Bylaw 19.2.3.2 states that a failure to satisfy the responsibility to cooperate may result in an allegation of violating NCAA legislation. As stated above, Bylaw 10 governs the ethical conduct considerations for institutional staff members. In particular, Bylaw 10.1-(d) prohibits former or present institutional staff from providing false or misleading information concerning his or her involvement in possible violations.

When assistant coach 3 contacted other individuals during the investigation, he failed to protect the integrity of the investigation. In August 2013, assistant coach 3 phoned or texted other individuals who had knowledge of the investigation after the compliance officer and/or general counsel at the institution where he was working told him no fewer than four times to keep the matter confidential. After the first two admonitions, assistant coach 3 immediately began phoning others with knowledge of the incidents that were the subject of his second interview. He eventually spoke with two student-athletes, two parents of student-athletes, booster 1 and the operations coordinator after receiving directions to keep the matter confidential. His actions were a direct failure to protect the integrity of the investigation and violated Bylaws 19.2.3 and 19.2.3.2.

The NCAA enforcement staff interviewed assistant coach 3 twice, the second time in December 2013. During that interview, he denied instructing student-athletes 2, 3 and 4 to take the June 2010 ACT exam at the Mississippi location and to only answer questions to which they knew the answers. As set forth above, he did both. In providing false and misleading information, he violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d).

Present and former institutional staff members are required to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations into possible rules violations. The failure to do so is in itself a rules violation. See Southern Mississippi (concluding that a coach who deleted relevant emails and contacted other individuals involved in an ongoing investigation violated ethical conduct and cooperation legislation); and Georgia Institute of Technology (2011) (concluding that when members of the athletics administration ignored the enforcement staff and informed a student-athlete that he was going to be interviewed, they violated cooperation legislation).

Assistant coach 3’s violations are Level I. Bylaw 19.1.1-(d) presumes that individual unethical conduct is a severe breach of conduct, while Bylaw 19.1.1-(h) classifies intentional violations as severe. Lying about severe breaches of conduct is itself a severe breach of conduct. See Southern Mississippi (concluding that a coach who lied about his Level I violations engaged in a separate Level I violation and that two other staff members who refused to cooperate in the investigation of Level I violations committed further Level I violations); and Lamar University (2016) (concluding that a coach who committed Level I extra benefit violations engaged in a further Level I violation when he refused to cooperate in the investigation). The cooperative principle is a core principal upon which the infractions process is based.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d) (2013-14)

Over two years, the operations coordinator provided false or misleading information in interviews with UM and the NCAA enforcement staff. On both occasions, he denied involvement in the violations set forth above. Because the operations coordinator was no longer employed at UM at the time the NOA was issued, UM took no position on the allegation. The operations coordinator disagreed that he provided false information. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

In December 2013 and February 2014, the operations coordinator told the NCAA enforcement staff that he played no role in arranging for prospects to take the June 2010 ACT exam in a particular location so that they could receive fraudulent scores. His statements were false and/or misleading and violated Bylaw 10.

As stated previously, Bylaw 10.1-(d) requires that former and present institutional staff members provide truthful information to the NCAA regarding their involvement in possible violations. This is a core tenet of the infractions process.

The operations coordinator steered student-athletes 2, 3 and 4 to the Mississippi test location for the June 2010 ACT exam. At least one of the prospects recalled that the operations director, along with assistant coach 3, told the prospects to not answer any question they did not know. The operations director’s long-time acquaintance took possession of the prospects’ answer sheets, at least two of which were later altered by having answers completed and/or changed. The operations director was involved in the ACT exam fraud. When he denied it, he violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d).

As with assistant coach 3, the operations coordinator’s violations are Level I. He knowingly committed the underlying ACT exam fraud violations, which were Level I, before lying about his involvement during his interviews. His denials constituted further Level I violations because he intentionally lied to the enforcement staff. See Southern Mississippi and Lamar.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4-(a), 13.1.2.5, 13.1.3.5.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b), 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 (2012-13)

Booster 2 violated NCAA recruiting rules when he assisted in recruiting four prospects to the institution by providing them and some family members with impermissible recruiting inducements and arranging contacts between family members and UM coaches. Assistant coach 2 was aware of booster 2’s activities and at times facilitated them. Other members of the football staff also had impermissible recruiting contacts with some of the prospects and their family members. UM, the NCAA enforcement staff and assistant coach 2 substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

Throughout the 2012-13 academic year, booster 2 provided impermissible benefits to four prospects when he transported them to the Mississippi campus and bowl game, paying for food, merchandise, hotels, bowl game tickets, baseball game tickets and other items. He also paid the phone bills of one prospect and another’s mother, provided tutoring for the prospects and helped Mississippi coaches set up in-home recruiting visits. His actions violated Bylaw 13. Assistant coach 2 knew of booster 2’s activities, asked him to help set up off-campus meetings and arranged for two prospects on unofficial visits to stay in a hotel room free-of-charge. His actions also violated Bylaw 13. On the two occasions when the graduate assistant had contact with prospects off-campus, he violated Bylaw 11.

Bylaw 11.7.2.2 provides that only head and assistant coaches counted within an institution’s numerical limits may contact prospects off campus. As stated above, Bylaw 13 governs recruiting. Bylaws 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1 and 13.2.1 preclude boosters from engaging in any recruiting activities, on- or off-campus, and from providing any benefits to prospects unless explicitly allowed by NCAA legislation. Bylaw 13.2.1 also precludes institutional staff members from being involved in any way in arranging for impermissible benefits. Bylaws 13.2.1.1-(b) and (e) preclude boosters and institutional staff from providing gifts of clothing and cash or like items, respectively, to prospects, while Bylaw 13.1.2.5 limits off-campus contacts with prospects to those coaches identified in accordance with Bylaw 11.7.2.2. Bylaw 13.5.3 limits institutions to providing transportation for unofficial visitors to viewing practice/competition sites and other on-campus facilities only. Finally, Bylaws 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 state institutions cannot pay prospect expenses for unofficial visit expenses, including the cost of any meals. If unofficial visitors eat with enrolled student-athletes, institutional personnel or officially-visiting prospects, they must pay for their meals.

Booster 2 provided impermissible inducements throughout the 2012-13 academic year. On seven occasions, booster 2 transported student-athletes 8, 9, 10 and/or 11 to the UM campus for unofficial visits. After meeting assistant coach 2 during the first visit, booster 2 notified him in advance of all but the final of the subsequent visits. During the visits, booster 2 provided meals for the prospects, and he also provided food for an off-campus recruiting visit assistant coach 2 and the head coach made to student-athlete 8’s residence. Booster 2 also paid all expenses for student-athletes 8 and 11 to attend the institution’s bowl game, where assistant coach 2 arranged for them to have contact with the graduate assistant and where they sat in on a team meeting. Also in 2012-13, booster 2 paid the phone bills of student-athlete 8 and student-athlete 10’s mother and, at the request of assistant coach 2, twice set up off-campus recruiting contacts between student-athlete 9’s mother and members of the football staff. On January 20, 2013, while student-athletes 10 and 11 were on unofficial visits to UM, the graduate assistant transported them to the head coach’s home, where they, along with student-athlete 10’s mother and sister, ate a free meal and had contact with members of the football staff. That same weekend, assistant coach 2 arranged for student-athletes 10 and 11 to stay cost-free in the hotel room of student-athlete 8, who was on an official visit. Throughout the academic year, booster 2 also purchased UM merchandise for some or all of the prospects, provided them with tutoring services and, on one occasion, purchased their tickets for, and concessions at, an institutional baseball game. None of the benefits and inducements provided to the prospects by booster 2 were allowable by NCAA rules. The actions of booster 2 and assistant coach 2 constituted violations of Bylaws 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b) and (e), 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2. When the graduate assistant, who was not a countable coach, visited with prospects at the bowl game site and transported them to the head coach’s home, he violated Bylaws 11.7.2.2 and 13.1.2.5.

These violations were easily avoidable had the football staff asked some simple questions regarding booster 2. Without checking with the compliance office, the Mississippi coaches, particularly assistant coach 2, made their own determination that booster 2’s involvement with the prospects was allowable due to booster 2’s status as an FCA “huddle leader.” The COI dealt with a similar situation in Syracuse University (2015), a case in which the men’s basketball coaching staff did not check the status of an individual who developed personal relationships with student-athletes and, among other things, provided them with transportation and meals. Syracuse and its coaches pointed out that the individual did not bear many of the “typical” characteristics of a booster in that he was not “flashy” or a financial donor, etc. However, member institutions are responsible for the actions of any individuals who meet the definition of Bylaw 13.02.15 (representatives of athletics interests). Institutions must vet any individual associating with prospects or enrolled student-athletes through the proper administrative channels.

Collectively, the violations are Level I. Impermissible recruiting contacts, and providing impermissible inducements and benefits to prospects, help build relationships and give offending institutions advantages over institutions that abide by recruiting rules. See Baylor University (2016) (citing University of Colorado (2002) and University of Florida (2015) in concluding that coaches who made impermissible off-campus recruiting evaluations of, and contacts with, prospects were trying to demonstrate their high regard for the prospects and establish a relationship with them, giving Baylor an advantage over institutions that comply with NCAA recruiting legislation). Baylor involved two football coaches conducting two impermissible evaluations and having one impermissible contact over the course of approximately five weeks. The violations in that case were Level II. The present matter involves far more impermissible activities that occurred over the course of almost a full academic year and involved multiple coaches, prospects and a booster. UM was gained a substantial or extensive recruiting advantage through the violations.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 (2012-13)

For a month, assistant coach 4 arranged for impermissible recruiting inducements for acquaintances of a prospect by providing inaccurate information to the assistant recruiting director, who then approved the payment of expenses for acquaintances who accompanied the prospect on his official visit. UM, assistant coach 4 and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred, although UM and assistant coach 4 asserted that the violations were Level III, and assistant coach 4 claimed that the violations resulted from miscommunication. COI concluded that Level II violations occurred.

On January 25-27, 2013, assistant coach 4 arranged impermissible recruiting inducements for non-family members of student-athlete 13. Specifically, he told the assistant recruiting director that two non-family members had a familial relationship with student-athlete 13, resulting in the assistant recruiting director approving payment for lodging and meals when they accompanied student-athlete 13 on his official visit. Assistant coach 4’s actions violated Bylaw 13.

As stated previously, Bylaw 13 governs recruiting. Bylaw 13.2.1 precludes institutional staff from any involvement in arranging benefits for a prospect’s friends or relatives unless the benefits are authorized by NCAA rules. Bylaws 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 set forth the limits on institutions providing meals, lodging and entertainment to individuals accompanying prospects on official visits. In those situations, institutions can only provide lodging to a prospect’s parents, legal guardians and spouse. Meals may be provided to those same people as well as children of the prospects. Anyone accompanying a prospect on an official visit who does not fall into one of those categories is responsible for his or her own expenses.

Assistant coach 4’s provision of inaccurate information violated Bylaw 13. He told the assistant recruiting director that student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend was student-athlete 13’s step-father and the brother’s father was student-athlete 13’s “real dad,” setting in motion the events that caused UM to provide over $1,000 in impermissible lodging and meals to those individuals. Assistant coach 4’s provision of the inaccurate information to the assistant recruiting director violated Bylaw 13.2.1and resulted in the institution violating Bylaws 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2, the violation is Level II because it allowed the institution to continue building a relationship with student-athlete 13, members of his family and others in his circle of acquaintance. See Baylor. Mississippi relied on assistant coach 4’s inaccurate information to provide impermissible lodging and meals to members of student-athlete 13’s traveling party. As a result, UM gained more than a minimal recruiting advantage over institutions that abide by the rules.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b) and 13.2.1.1-(f) (2012-13, 2013-14 or 2014-15 and 2015-16)

Over three years, assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director arranged impermissible recruiting inducements for two prospects and a third prospect’s family and acquaintances by referring them to the retail store for free gear. UM, assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director all disagreed with the allegation. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

On the weekend of January 25-27, 2013, assistant coach 4 referred the group accompanying student-athlete 13 on his official visit to the retail store, where booster 5 and/or his employees provided them with free clothing and merchandise. During the recruitment of student-athlete 1 and student-athlete 15, the assistant athletic director referred them to the retail store, where booster 5 and/or his employees provided them with free clothing and merchandise. In arranging for the inducements, assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director violated Bylaw 13.

As stated above, Bylaw 13.2.1 precludes institutional staff from any involvement in arranging impermissible inducements for prospects or their friends and family. Bylaw 13.2.1.1-(b) and (f) specifically prohibit institutional staff members from arranging for gifts of clothing and other tangible items, including merchandise.

When assistant coach 4 arranged for student-athlete 13’s group to receive free clothing and merchandise, he violated Bylaw 13. Assistant coach 4 referred the large group accompanying student-athlete 13 on his official visit to the retail store and told them to ask for booster 5. Members of the group made two trips to the retail store during the weekend and were told by booster 5 that he had spoken to assistant coach 4. Booster 5 allowed them to select up to $400 worth of free clothing and merchandise. When assistant coach 4 arranged for prospect 13’s group to receive the cost-free clothing and merchandise, he violated Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b) and 13.2.1.1-(f).

Similarly, the assistant athletic director arranged for student-athletes 1 and 15 to receive cost-free clothing and merchandise in violation of Bylaw 13. He was heavily involved in the recruitment of both prospects. When student-athlete 1 mentioned to the assistant athletic director that he wanted gear, the assistant athletic director referred him to the retail store, where he obtained approximately $400 worth of merchandise cost-free. The assistant athletic director also referred student-athlete 15 to the retail store. On approximately four of his visits to campus, student-athlete 15 went to the retail store, selected and left with approximately $500 of free items. When the assistant athletic director referred the two prospects to the retail store, where they obtained cost-free inducements not permitted by recruiting legislation, he violated Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b) and 13.2.1.1-(f).

At the hearing, the institution, assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director denied any role in arranging for any impermissible inducements at the retail store. They noted flaws and inconsistencies in the statements of student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend, student-athlete 1 and student-athlete 15 and questioned whether the boyfriend and two prospects had fabricated their stories. The different positions taken by the parties required the panel to assess credibility, which is a crucial responsibility for panels in infractions cases. In reaching its decisions, the COI has previously weighed denials of involvement in violations against other factual information in the record to assess credibility. See Southern Mississippi (concluding that a head coach’s denials of orchestrating a scheme of academic fraud were not credible when considering the information of his involvement and his actions in attempting to hide his involvement); Louisiana at Lafayette (concluding that an assistant coach’s denials of knowledge that a booster was making recruiting calls were not credible); and California State Northridge (2004) (concluding that an assistant coach’s denial that he asked another coach to change a grade was not credible, as the other person’s explanation was more plausible). When assessing credibility of individuals, the COI does not require perfect recollection. See San Jose State University (2016) (concluding that, even though a student-athlete could not recall all details of the violations and was mistaken about some facts, her explanation of the violations was credible). In this matter, as in all cases, COI assessed the credibility of the individuals, taking into consideration all relevant information.

Student-athlete 1 could not recall certain details of the incidents that resulted in this violation. He could not recall the exact trip to campus on which he went to the retail store (he believed it to be July 2014), how he arrived at the store (he believed he was driven there by booster 8) and he did not know whether a card presented to the store clerk was a credit card, debit card, gift card or something else. However, he was certain that, when he asked the assistant athletic director for Mississippi gear, the assistant athletic director steered him to the retail store, where he had an “allowance” of up to $400 in free merchandise.

Two other individuals had similar experiences at the retail store, which bolster student-athlete 1’s recollections. Student-athlete 1’s version of events—being referred by a staff member to booster 5’s retail store for free merchandise—was similar to the one offered by student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend, down to the dollar amount of gear student-athlete 13’s group obtained at the retail store. The assistant athletic director referred student-athlete 15 to the retail store for his free gear like he did for student-athlete 1. None of the three individuals knew each other at the times they gave their accounts of their trips to the retail store. Additionally, both assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director acknowledged referring the individuals to the retail store. Assistant coach 4 made a phone call to booster 5 the day following student-athlete 13’s visit weekend, and the assistant athletic director exchanged numerous phone calls not only with booster 5, whom he described as a friend, but also with booster 5’s daughter, who worked at the retail store and whose business card, with her hand-written cell phone number on the back, student-athlete 15 possessed.42 Student-athlete 15’s mother displayed the business card in a video that included some of the merchandise her son obtained at the retail store. Student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend and student-athlete 1 both provided other information that established otherwise-unknown violations in this case (including some agreed upon by the institution), while assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director were knowingly involved in a number of violations that they either did not report to the Mississippi administration, lied about, or both. In concluding that the violations occurred, COI determined student-athlete 1, student-athlete 15 and student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend to be credible on this topic.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(f), the violations are Level I. When assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director referred the prospects to the retail establishment for free gear, they did so with the intent to secure the prospects’ enrollment. Institutional staff members who arrange for prospects and their friends/families to obtain free merchandise worth hundreds of dollars convey a substantial or extensive recruiting advantage on their institution, to the detriment of institutions that abide by recruiting rules.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 16.11.2.1 (2012-13 and 2013-14)

Over two years, booster 6 provided impermissible free lodging to a student-athlete’s mother and acquaintance. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

From June 7, 2013, through May 27, 2014, after student-athlete 13 enrolled at Mississippi, booster 6 allowed student-athlete 13’s mother and her boyfriend to stay cost-free in a local hotel he owned on 10 nights and in his local rental property on two nights. In doing so, he violated Bylaw 16.

Bylaw 16 details who may provide benefits to enrolled student-athletes and in what amounts. Bylaw 16.11.2.1 sets forth the general rule that student-athletes shall not receive any extra benefits. “Extra benefits” are defined as any special arrangement by institutional employees or boosters to provide student-athletes or their relatives and friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.

When he provided 12 nights of free lodging to student-athlete 13’s mother and boyfriend, booster 6 violated Bylaw 16. Booster 6 initially became acquainted with student-athlete 13’s family through assistant coach 4. When student-athlete 13’s mother and her boyfriend came to the vicinity of the institution, booster 6 allowed them to stay in either his hotel or his rental property cost-free. The record does not reflect that this arrangement was available to the public at-large or the general student body at Mississippi, and NCAA rules do not allow boosters to provide free lodging to student-athletes’ families. Therefore, booster 6’s actions violated Bylaw 16.11.2.1.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(f), the violations are Level I. They occurred over the course of a year and violated well-known rules. The benefits had a value of over $2,000 and provided a substantial or extensive advantage.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.5, 13.2.1, 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1.2 (2013-14 and 2014-15) and 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 (2014-15)

Over nearly a year, the assistant athletic director knowingly arranged impermissible recruiting inducements for prospects and friends of one of the prospects. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred, although UM had minor disagreements with some facts. The assistant athletic director substantially agreed that he arranged transportation for prospects on two occasions and that he was responsible for any free meals they had on their visits. He disagreed that he arranged for free lodging for prospects and those accompanying them. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

From March 2014 through January 2015, the assistant athletic director attempted to attract two prospects to Mississippi by arranging impermissible inducements in conjunction with their visits. Specifically, he arranged cost-free hotel rooms, transportation and meals for the prospects as well as family and friends of one of the prospects. His actions violated Bylaw 13.

As previously noted, Bylaw 13 governs recruiting. Bylaws 13.1.2.1 and 13.1.2.5 preclude anyone other than authorized institutional staff members from having on- or off-campus, in-person recruiting contacts with prospects, while Bylaw 13.2.1 prohibits institutional staff members or boosters from providing or arranging any benefits or inducements to prospects that are not expressly permitted by NCAA rules. Bylaws 13.5.3, 13.7.2.1, 13.7.2.1.2, 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8 set forth specific limits to what an institution or its staff members may provide or arrange for prospects visiting campus. For unofficial visits, an institution may not provide transportation other than that necessary to view local practice/competition sites and other institutional facilities and cannot pay any expenses other than tickets to watch a home athletic event. Prospects making unofficial visits can only eat with officially-visiting prospects and/or enrolled student-athletes if they pay the cost of the meal. On official visits, institutions are limited to providing lodging to a prospect’s parents, legal guardians and spouse. Institutions may provide lodging and entertainment to those same people and prospects’ children.

The assistant athletic director arranged impermissible inducements and benefits for student-athlete 1 on numerous occasions during his recruitment because he was a prized recruit. When the assistant athletic director arranged, either directly or indirectly for student-athlete 1 and his companions to stay cost-free at a local hotel on unofficial visits in August, September, October and on two occasions in November 2014, he violated Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.7.2.1. The assistant athletic director also caused violations of Bylaws 13.7.2.1 and 13.7.2.1.2 when student-athlete 1 and his companions ate free during the visits. The assistant athletic director’s actions allowed student-athlete 14 to eat at no cost on his July and August 2014 visits, violating the same bylaw provisions. The assistant athletic director also arranged for cousin 1 to stay cost-free with student-athlete 1 in his hotel room during the latter’s official paid visit in January 2015 and to receive free meals, in violation of Bylaws 13.6.7.7 and 13.6.8. The football program also provided impermissible cost-free meals to student-athlete 1 and his parents in March 2014.

Regarding transportation, the assistant athletic director arranged for booster 8 to drive student-athlete 1 roundtrip to campus and back in June and August 2014 and to drive student-athlete 14 roundtrip for the August visit. When he arranged the free roundtrip transportation, the assistant athletic director violated Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.5, 13.2.1, 13.5.3 and 13.7.2.1. Booster 9’s transportation violated the same bylaws. Even though student-athlete 1 phoned booster 9 directly in July to transport him from another institution’s football camp to Mississippi, the assistant athletic director set that violation in motion when he arranged contact between student-athlete 1 and booster 10, booster 9’s boss. Without the assistant athletic director’s actions, student-athlete 1 and booster 9 would not have known each other. The assistant athletic director knew booster 9, had contact with her during this time and admitted at the hearing that he “could have” known she was spending the weekend driving student-athlete 1 over 300 miles. The assistant athletic director is also responsible for arranging that violation.

Student-athlete 1 arranged his visits to campus through the assistant athletic director. When student-athlete 1 wanted to visit the institution, he spoke to the assistant athletic director. Thereafter, when he arrived at the campus, he and his traveling companions stayed in cost-free hotel rooms and ate free meals. On two occasions, the assistant athletic director arranged for a booster to transport prospects hundreds of miles to and from campus. On another occasion, a different booster, who was connected to student-athlete 1 through the assistant athletic director, transported student-athlete 1 over 300 miles. On at least two occasions, someone in the football program—either the assistant athletic director or someone else—falsified visit paperwork to make it appear as if student-athlete 1 paid his own expenses to visit.

Providing impermissible benefits or inducements to prospects violates NCAA recruiting legislation. See Southern Methodist (concluding that a golf coach violated Bylaw 13 when he provided reduced-cost equipment and institutional merchandise to four prospects); and Southeastern Louisiana University (2015) (concluding that a coach violated Bylaw 13 when he arranged for prospects to receive cost-free housing). While the COI concluded that Level II violations occurred in Southern Methodist and Southeastern Louisiana University, the violations in this case rise to Level I due to the assistant athletic directors’ intentional and reckless involvement of boosters in the recruitment of a prized prospect.

Pursuant to Bylaws 19.1.1-(f), (g) and (h), the violations are Level I. The assistant athletic director committed the violations intentionally over a significant period with an intent to secure the enrollment of student-athletes 1 and 14. He also involved boosters in the violations.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e) 2013-14 and 2014-15)

Booster 11 provided cash and free food and drinks to a prospect and his companions. UM agreed that the prospect and his companions had contact with booster 11 in his establishment and “likely” had free food and drinks while there, but disagreed that booster 11 made cash payments to the prospect. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

When student-athlete 1 visited the Mississippi campus from August 2014 through January 2015, booster 11 provided, or had his employees provide, free food and drinks to student-athlete 1, cousins 1 and 2 and student-athlete 1’s friend when they visited his establishment. Further, on two or three occasions, booster 11 gave student-athlete 1 $100 or $200 cash, for a total of $200 to $600. The actions of booster 11 violated Bylaw 13.

This is another violation of Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e), which prohibit boosters from arranging or giving any benefits or inducements to prospects and their relatives and friends, unless those benefits or inducements are expressly allowed by NCAA rules. Gifts of cash are specifically prohibited, while the bylaws do not allow boosters to give free food and drinks to prospects and those accompanying them on unofficial visits. When booster 11 (or, in his absence, his employees) provided free food and drinks to student-athlete 1, his two cousins and his friend, he violated Bylaw 13.2.1. When he gave student-athlete 1 anywhere from $200-$600 in “cash handshakes,” he violated Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e).

As set forth above and all other contested allegations, the panel had to assess the credibility of the individuals involved because they disputed what happened. See Southern Mississippi, Louisiana at Lafayette and California State Northridge. Booster 11 lacks credibility. As acknowledged by the institution, he lied about knowing the assistant athletic director and booster 8. He further lied about knowing and contacting student-athlete 1. On the other hand, student-athlete 1 and the three individuals who accompanied him were clear about receiving free food and drinks at the establishment, that booster 11 was excited to see student-athlete 1 and that student-athlete 1 and booster 11 interacted. Student-athlete 1 described “cash handshakes” that occurred on two or three occasions, and records showed that booster 11 was in contact with him as national signing day was imminent. COI considered why this booster was in contact with this prospect and found that he was trying to recruit student-athlete 1 to UM. COI concluded that the violation occurred as described by student-athlete 1.

Pursuant to Bylaws 19.1.1-(f) and (g), the violation is Level I. Booster 11’s actions were intentional, occurred over a period of months and were intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting advantage by convincing student-athlete 1 to enroll at Mississippi. Further, the violation was a severe breach of conduct of a kind that threatens to undermine the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2 (2013-14); 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4-(a), 13.1.2.5, and 13.1.3.5.1 (2013-14 and 2014-15); 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e) (2013-14 and/or 2014-15)

Throughout student-athlete 1’s recruitment, Boosters 9 and 10 assisted the institution in his recruitment by communicating with him and providing cash payments. The assistant athletic director initiated the contacts and facilitated the impermissible inducements. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed that boosters 9 and 10 had impermissible contact with student-athlete 1, but UM disagreed that the boosters paid him thousands of dollars. The assistant athletic director disagreed that he initiated contact, facilitated the inducements or was aware of them. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

From March 30, 2014, through February 3, 2015, booster 9 and her employer, booster 10, had multiple telephone, text message and personal contacts with student-athlete 1. The contacts were initiated by the assistant athletic director. During at least some of those contacts, boosters 9 and 10 provided student-athlete 1 with impermissible recruiting inducements in the form of cash payments totaling between $13,000 and $15,600. The boosters provided the inducements in an attempt to secure student-athletes 1’s commitment to attend Mississippi. When the boosters had off-campus contact with student-athlete 1, they violated Bylaw 11. When the assistant athletic director facilitated the boosters’ communications and contacts with student-athlete 1, and when the boosters, with the assistant athletic director’s knowledge, provided cash inducements to student-athlete 1, boosters 9 and 10 and the assistant athletic director violated Bylaw 13.

Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.1.2.1 and 13.1.2.5 limit off-campus contact with prospects to authorized institutional personnel who are counted within the legislated numerical limits on coaches. Bylaws 13.1.2.4-(a) and 13.1.3.5.1 prohibit boosters from phoning prospects, particularly for recruiting-related reasons. Bylaw 13.2.1 prohibits institutional staff members and boosters from making any arrangements, directly or indirectly, for any benefits or inducements to prospects that are not specifically authorized by NCAA legislation. Bylaw 13.2.1.1-(e) specifically prohibits institutional staff and boosters from arranging or providing cash payments to prospects.

Besides their frequent contacts with student-athlete 1, boosters 9 and 10 provided him cash on multiple occasions. Sometime before or during his first unofficial visit to the institution, student-athlete 1 told the assistant athletic director that he wanted to be paid for committing to attend Mississippi. During the first unofficial visit, the assistant athletic director had his first known phone contact with booster 10, gave him student-athlete 1’s phone number and told student-athlete 1 to expect a phone call. The next day, booster 9 called student-athlete 1 for the first time. In the ensuing months, booster 9 had phone and text contact with student-athlete 1 and personally met with him to deliver cash payments from her boss, booster 10. The payments were made in amounts of $500 to $800 on six to seven occasions, totaling from $3,000 to $5,600. Throughout this time, the assistant athletic director maintained contact with booster 9, sometimes explicitly discussing student-athlete 1 and his recruitment. As national signing day approached, student-athlete 1 told booster 10 that he wanted $10,000 to sign with UM. In response, booster 10 personally met student-athlete 1 off-campus and delivered the payment in $100 bills. NCAA rules did not authorize boosters 9 and 10 to have off-campus contact with prospects, therefore, when they contacted student-athlete 1, they violated Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.1.2.1 and 13.1.2.5. When the boosters and student-athlete 1 spoke by phone for recruiting reasons, the boosters violated Bylaws 13.1.2.4-(a) and 13.1.3.5.1. NCAA legislation prohibits institutional staff from initiating contact between boosters and prospects for recruiting. The bylaws expressly forbid any institutional staff and boosters from giving cash to prospects. Paying prospects for their enrollment or play is completely contrary to the foundational principles of the NCAA collegiate model. Therefore, when the assistant athletic director facilitated the payments to student-athlete 1, and when boosters 9 and 10 made the payments, the three of them violated Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e).

Due to the conflicting positions taken by the various individuals involved in these violations, the panel again assessed credibility. See Southern Mississippi, Louisiana at Lafayette and California State Northridge. The panel determined that booster 9 and booster 10 lack credibility. Booster 9 denied ever meeting with, communicating with or even knowing student-athlete 1, yet he was able to identify her cars (both of them) and her phone records showed 78 calls and/or texts between them from March 30, 2014, (the last day of student-athlete 1’s first unofficial visit to Mississippi) through September of that year. She offered no explanation for the communications. Likewise, student-athlete 1 was able to identify booster 10’s car. Booster 10 denied having the assistant athletic director’s phone number, yet records showed calls between them. Booster 10 called student-athlete 1 multiple times on February 3, 2015, and could offer no reasonable explanation regarding his text message of the same date (also sent to the assistant athletic director), in which he implored student-athlete 1 to call him “immediately” regarding student-athlete 1 possibly attending an institution other than Mississippi. In the text, booster 10 referenced a meeting he and student-athlete 1 had and that student-athlete 1 “swore to [booster 10] on your daughter” and “owed” him. Booster 10 offered no reasonable explanation as to the meaning of the text, while student-athlete 1 explained that it referred to the $10,000 payment booster 10 made to him earlier that day.

The assistant athletic director likewise lacked credibility. As is set forth elsewhere in this decision, he knowingly committed NCAA violations and provided false information during the investigation. He had a second, secret phone that he used in his recruitment of prospects, even though institutional policy required him to make all recruiting phone calls on institutional phones. He initiated the contact and communications between boosters 9 and 10 and student-athlete 1, then stayed in contact with them throughout student-athlete 1’s recruitment. In two of his texts to booster 9, he directly referenced student-athlete 1.

To the contrary, COI found student-athlete 1 credible. He was able to identify both boosters’ vehicles. Records confirmed regular contact between him and booster 9. And at the crucial time when prospects can sign NLIs, booster 10 communicated with him a number of times, including the text message referring to student-athlete 1 “owing” him and which institution he might attend. Later, student-athlete 1 posted images of himself with a large amount of cash on social media. He explained that the cash came from boosters 9 and 10. Student-athlete 1’s version of the facts was credible, while the versions advanced by the boosters were not.

Pursuant to Bylaws 19.1.1-(d), (f), (g) and (h), the violations are Level I. The “disturbingly questionable” actions taken by an institutional staff member and boosters to deliver thousands of dollars of cash to a prospect unquestionably provided this institution a substantial or extensive recruiting advantage and threatened to undermine the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c) (2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17)

The assistant athletic director violated the principles of ethical conduct in over two years when he knowingly arranged impermissible recruiting inducements and arranged recruiting contact and communication between boosters and student-athlete 1 for the purpose of cash payments. Later, he also committed ethical conduct violations when he provided false information in his interview regarding his knowledge of, and involvement in, the violations. UM partially agreed with the facts but disputed that boosters 9 and 10 made cash payments to student-athlete 1. The assistant athletic director agreed that he arranged impermissible transportation for prospects on unofficial visits and provided false information about it in his interview. He also agreed he was responsible for the provision of meals. He denied arranging free lodging for prospects, arranging impermissible contact among boosters 9 and 10 and student-athlete 1 and knowing about booster 9’s and 10’s payments to student-athlete 1. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

The assistant athletic director arranged impermissible free hotel lodging for student-athlete 1 and those accompanying him on his visit, as well as student-athlete 14. He also arranged impermissible free meals and transportation to campus for the two prospects. Further, he arranged contact between boosters 9 and 10 and student-athlete 1 after student-athlete 1 expressed a desire to get paid for his commitment to play football; the boosters subsequently provided student-athlete 1 with approximately $13,000 to $15,600 in cash payments. Finally, in his interview with the enforcement staff on December 1, 2016, the assistant athletic director was not truthful regarding his involvement in the violations. His actions violated Bylaw 10.

As stated in Violations IV.C and D, Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1 generally require all institutional staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. In 2013-14 and 2014-15, Bylaw 10.1- (c) specifically provided that an institutional staff member who is knowingly involved in providing improper inducements and benefits to prospects engages in unethical conduct. Since the academic year 2016-17, Bylaw 10.1-(c) reads in part that an institutional staff member who provides false or misleading information regarding violations of NCAA rules engages in unethical conduct.

The assistant athletic director acted unethically when he arranged impermissible inducements/benefits and was untruthful in his interview. He acknowledged at the hearing that he arranged for booster 8 to transport student-athlete 1 to Mississippi for unofficial visits in June and August 2014 and student-athlete 14 on the August occasion, also for an unofficial visit. He also accepted responsibility for impermissible meals. The enforcement staff interviewed the assistant athletic director on December 1, 2016, at which time he denied arranging the transportation. When he arranged for impermissible transportation for the prospects and later denied doing so, the assistant athletic director violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c).

During the same interview, the assistant athletic director denied arranging for impermissible lodging for student-athlete 1 and/or his companions on six occasions from August 2014 through January 2015. However, student-athlete 1 informed the assistant athletic director whenever he was coming to the UM campus. When he arrived, he stayed in hotels and did not have to pay. Either personally or though someone else, the assistant athletic director arranged the hotel stays. When he arranged the lodging, and denied it in his interview, he violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c).

As detailed above, the assistant athletic director contacted booster 10 after student-athlete 1 asked for money in exchange for his commitment to Mississippi. Booster 9, booster 10’s employee, contacted student-athlete 1 just a day after the assistant athletic director called booster 10, and thereafter had regular contact with him. Booster 9 paid student-athlete between $3,000 and $5,600 over the ensuing months, and booster 10 paid him $10,000 on February 3, 2015. All the while, the assistant athletic director was in contact with boosters 9 and 10. He set up the payments, was aware of them, and provided false or misleading information in his December 1, 2016, interview when he denied any knowledge or involvement with them. His conduct violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c).

Pursuant to Bylaws 19.1.1-(d), (f), (g) and (h), the assistant athletic director’s unethical conduct is a Level I violation. See Southern Mississippi (concluding that, among other things, a coach engaged in Level I violations when he provided false or misleading information during his interview); University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding that coaches engaged in Level I unethical conduct when they denied their involvement in other violations); Georgia Southern University (2016) (concluding that an athletics staff member engaged in Level I unethical conduct when she told a false story regarding other violations); University of Central Florida (2012) (concluding that a coach engaged in unethical conduct when he denied awareness of a known violation); and Ohio State University (2011) (concluding that a coach engaged in unethical conduct when provided false information about a known violation).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 16.11.2.1 (2014-15)

Booster 7 provided an impermissible cash benefit to student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that the violation occurred. COI concluded that a Level I violation occurred.

In August 2014, booster 7 gave $800 cash to student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend. After student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend met in 2013, they stayed in contact and exchanged messages. In one message, the boyfriend requested a “package” from Booster 7. Four days later, booster 7 game the boyfriend $800 cash. In doing so, he violated Bylaw 16.

As identified above, Bylaw 16 governs allowable benefits for student-athletes. Bylaw 16.11.2.1 prohibits student-athletes from receiving benefits not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. The legislation does not authorize cash payments from boosters to individuals associated with enrolled student-athletes.

Booster 7 impermissibly provided cash to student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend as part of his effort to persuade student-athlete 13 to enroll at Mississippi. Booster 7 and student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend became acquainted through assistant coach 4 in 2013 and had periodic contact thereafter. On August 22, 2014, after booster 7 and student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend exchanged texts a few days earlier about the boyfriend needing a “package,” booster 7 gave him $800 cash. Booster 7’s payment violated Bylaw 16.11.2.1.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(h), the violation is Level I. This was an intentional violation that demonstrated a reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 12.11.1 (2014-15); 16.11.2.1 (2014-15 and 2015-16); 16.11.2.2-(a) (2014-15) and 16.11.2.2-(c) (2014-15 and 2015-16)

Over two years, booster 12 and his car dealership provided the impermissible benefits of complimentary vehicle use to two prospects and an impermissible loan to one of the prospects. UM and the NCAA enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that violations occurred. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

From August 2014 through August 2015, booster 12 and his car dealership allowed student-athletes 13 and 16 to use “loaner” automobiles free-of-charge in violation of the dealership’s policies. Additionally, booster 12 and his dealership did not collect student-athlete 13’s $3,000 down payment on a vehicle he purchased, even though his finance agreement required that he pay that amount at the time of purchase. Booster 12 and his dealership violated Bylaw 16, resulting in the institution violating Bylaw 12.

As stated above, Bylaw 16.11.2.1 precludes boosters from providing extra benefits to student-athletes. Specific examples of impermissible benefits are listed in Bylaw 16.11.2.2-(a) and (c) and include loans of money and use of automobiles. Student-athletes who receive impermissible extra benefits are rendered ineligible for competition. Bylaw 12.11.1 requires institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition unless and until their eligibility is restored.

Booster 12 and his car dealership provided student athletes 13 and 16 impermissible benefits over the course of two years. From August 11, 2014, to October 28, 2014, after student-athlete 13’s status as a service customer ended, booster 12 and his dealership allowed him to use a loaner car in violation of dealership policy. Later, when student-athlete 13 inquired about purchasing a vehicle from the dealership in February 2015, booster 12 and his dealership allowed him to drive two vehicles at no cost, one from February 16, 2015, to May 11, 2015, and the other from May 11, 2015, to June 10, 2015. This was again contrary to dealership policies. Similarly, beginning July 7, 2015, after the dealership completed repairs to student-athlete 16’s vehicle and his status as a service customer ended, booster 12 and his dealership allowed him to use a loaner vehicle cost free until August 10, 2015. When booster 12 and his dealership allowed the student-athletes to use the vehicles free-of-charge, they violated Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2-(c).

Booster 12 and his dealership also violated dealership policies by allowing student-athlete 13 to purchase a vehicle on June 13, 2015, without paying the $3,000 down payment as required by his purchase agreement. The actions of booster 12 and the dealership converted the $3,000 down payment into a loan, in violation of Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2-(a). See University of Mississippi (1994) (concluding that a booster provided a student-athlete an impermissible loan surrounding the student-athlete’s purchase of a car).

The actions of booster 12 and his dealership also rendered the student-athletes ineligible for competition. However, prior appealing for the restoration of student-athlete 13’s eligibility, UM allowed him to participate in six football contests during the fall of 2014, in violation of Bylaw 12.11.1.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(h), the violations are Level I. They were intentional, provided a substantial or extensive to the student-athletes and institution, and illustrated a reckless indifference to NCAA bylaws. They were severe breaches of conduct that provided the institution a substantial or extensive advantage.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1 (October 13-29, 2012); and 11.1.1.1 (October 30, 2012, through 2014-15)

For over three years, the head coach was responsible for recruiting and booster violations that occurred in the UM football program. The head coach fell short of his monitoring responsibilities when members of his staff committed intentional violations and deliberately involved boosters in the recruitment of prized prospects. UM and the head coach disagreed that the head coach violated head coach responsibility legislation. COI concluded that a Level I violation occurred.

Throughout his tenure as head football coach at UM, the head coach failed to monitor certain aspects of his staff’s involvement in the recruiting process for his program. Specifically, he failed to monitor the interactions of certain staff members with prospects, both on- and off-campus, and their interactions with his program’s boosters. As a result, members of his staff, sometimes in concert with boosters, arranged for free transportation, lodging, meals, and merchandise. On other occasions, boosters provided prospects or their companions with cash. When the head coach did not discover these activities through sufficient monitoring, he violated Bylaw 11.

Bylaw 11.1.1.1 sets forth the responsibility of head coaches. It holds head coaches responsible for the conduct of their staff members (those who report, either directly or indirectly, to the head coach) and imposes an affirmative duty to promote an atmosphere of rules compliance in their programs. The bylaw presumes the head coach responsible for staff members’ violations, although a head coach can rebut the presumption.

Because the head coach failed to monitor his staff in certain situations, he did not rebut the presumption that he was responsible for their violations. A head coach’s duty to monitor is an ongoing responsibility and cannot be delegated to others. See California State University, Sacramento (2015) (concluding that a former head coach was responsible for his assistant’s recruiting violations, even though the violations were of a short duration); Syracuse (concluding that the head coach was responsible for violations that occurred during student-athletes’ interactions with a booster); University of Connecticut (2011) (concluding that head coaches are obligated to identify potential problems, address them, and report them to the athletics administration); and Indiana University, Bloomington (2008) (concluding that head coaches have specific and independent monitoring obligations). The head coach did not meet his responsibility in this case.

The extensive violations committed by football staff members, including the staff violations involving boosters during the head coach’s tenure, became the responsibility of the head coach. The violations regarding prospects are set forth above and Level III violations below. They establish a pattern of staff members and boosters committing recruiting violations with the intent to procure the enrollment of prospective student-athletes. Over the head coach’s tenure, numerous violations occurred in his program. The violations were committed by his administrative staff, coaches, prospects his program recruited, enrolled student-athletes and boosters who had access to his program. The head coach did not identify them. Many of the violations surrounded coveted, high-profile prospects and student-athletes. These violations cut against and undermine core principles of the collegiate model.

Assistant coach 2 used booster 2 to assist in recruiting. Booster 2 operated freely and in plain sight of the head coach and the football program. The head coach and assistant coach 2 knew booster 2 as an FCA “huddle leader” during the year booster 2 frequently transported four prospects and members of their families to campus. Like the head coach in Syracuse, the head coach had an obligation to ascertain whether booster 2 met the definition of an institutional athletics representative. On the first visit in October 2012, booster 2 introduced himself to the head coach, assistant coach 2 and assistant coach 5 and informed them he had transported the prospects. From that point into February 2013, booster 2 transported the prospects to Mississippi, set up contacts at the request of assistant coach 2 and had personal and phone contact with members of the football staff, including the head coach. Booster 2 and the head coach interacted during the head coach’s in-home visit with student-athlete 8 in December 2012, and twice in January 2013—at Mississippi’s bowl game and at the head coach’s home. Booster 2 also emailed the head coach that he and his family were providing tutoring services to the prospects. On at least four occasions, the football staff failed to log contacts with booster 2 and some or all of the four prospects into the recruiting monitoring system, and the staff never checked with the compliance office to verify booster 2’s status.

The head coach was responsible for ensuring that his staff conducted all recruiting activities in his program consistent with NCAA rules and properly reported. But he did not confirm booster 2’s status (or have any member of his staff make the confirmation). Likewise, he did not ensure that all recruiting activities were logged as required. By his failure to monitor, he did not rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the violations that ensued. He failed to meet his monitoring obligations under Bylaw 11.1.1.1.

The head coach also bears responsibility for which his staff committed. Assistant coach 4 provided inaccurate information to the assistant recruiting director about the relationship of the people accompanying student-athlete 13 on his visit, resulting in the institution paying expenses for individuals in violation of recruiting rules. The head coach reviewed visit paperwork with his coaches after each visit weekend and paid particular attention to elite prospects, of which student-athlete 13 was one. Yet his review and discussions with assistant coach 4 following student-athlete 13’s visit apparently did not reveal the correct relationships of those who accompanied student-athlete 13 on the trip. Similarly, the assistant athletic director on numerous occasions arranged impermissible transportation and lodging for student-athlete 1, another elite prospect. The head coach’s review of the paperwork for all of those occasions did not cause him to question any of the information, which on more than one occasion was forged and/or falsified by members of his football program. The head coach’s failures to uncover correct information regarding student-athlete 13’s and student-athlete 1’s visits constituted failure to monitor, rendering him unable to rebut his responsibility for the violations per Bylaw 11.1.1.1.

Level III violations also support the head coach’s failure to monitor and his responsibility for the violations. The head coach approved the use of recruiting videos even though the compliance office recommended against it. The head coach told his staff to clear the use of the videos with the compliance office, but never followed up to make sure they had, despite knowing that the compliance office prohibited earlier videos. Violations occurred under similar circumstances, when the head coach failed to ensure that student-athlete 12’s use of booster 4’s hunting land was permissible. Assistant coach 4 did not log his impermissible contacts with two prospects or report the contacts to the compliance office. The head coach had a responsibility to be aware of what his assistant coach was doing while recruiting away from campus. Because the head coach did not ensure that the recruiting videos and use of the hunting land were permissible, and because he did not ascertain what his assistant was doing while visiting a high school, he failed to rebut his responsibility for the violations under Bylaw 11.1.1.1.

In addition, the head coach was responsible for the other violations his staff committed involving boosters and prospects. UM had two previous infractions cases involving control of boosters before the head coach’s tenure. However, once he accepted the position of head football coach, the head coach became responsible for the actions of his staff and their intentional involvement of boosters in the recruitment of prospects. Assistant coach 4 and the assistant athletic director used boosters to funnel impermissible inducements and benefits to student-athletes 1, 13 and 15 and/or individuals associated with them. The violations occurred on multiple occasions throughout the institution’s recruitment of the prospects. At the hearing, the head coach detailed how he reviewed visit paperwork, revised forms, invited the compliance personnel to football staff meetings and constructed a coaches’ compliance manual. However, he was unprepared for the efforts made by boosters to insert themselves into the program despite recognizing what he termed as the “craziness” of UM’s boosters when he arrived at UM. He had a responsibility to ensure that his staff did not use boosters to commit rules violations, and he was presumed responsible once they did. While the actions he took regarding rules compliance were admirable, he did not rebut the presumption of responsibility for the actions of his staff intentionally involving boosters. The head coach did not confirm the status and activities of boosters or ascertain the circumstances surrounding prospects who made numerous trips to campus and who they associated with during their recruitment. Therefore, he is responsible for those violations under Bylaw 11.1.1.1.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(e), the violation is Level I. Bylaw 19.1.1-(e) identifies Bylaw 11.1.1.1 violations by a head coach resulting from underlying Level I violations by an individual within the head coach’s program as an example of a Level I violation. See Syracuse (concluding that the head coach’s responsibility violation was Level I when the most severe underlying violations were Level I). The head coach’s subordinates, at times working with program boosters, engaged in multiple Level I violations. The head coach is responsible for those violations, as he did meet his monitoring obligations under Bylaw 11.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1 (2009-10 and 2011-12 through 2015-16); 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 (2009-10 and 2012-13 through 2015-16)

Over five years, UM failed to exercise control of the conduct and administration of its football program because football staff members felt they could continually commit recruiting rules violations, not report known violations and involve boosters in violations. The football program was able to involve boosters in violations because UM fostered a culture that enabled unconstrained and undeterred booster involvement in the recruiting process. UM disagreed that it lacked control of the football program. COI concluded that Level I violations occurred.

From 2010 through 2015, the institution lacked control of the culture of the football program, in two main areas: (1) the recruiting process and (2) booster activities. The football staff committed multiple and intentional violations throughout the head coach’s tenure. Throughout the same period and due to the institutional culture, UM football boosters engaged in knowing NCAA rules violations that the institution did not control. Finally, UM lacked control and monitoring of the “loaner” cars used by two student-athletes. The lack of control and monitoring violated Articles 2 and 6 of the NCAA Constitution.

The Constitution requires member institutions to control and monitor their intercollegiate athletics programs so as to ensure those programs operate in compliance with NCAA legislation. Constitution sections 2.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1 all state the responsibility of institutions to control their athletic programs, while sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 also make member institutions responsible for the actions of institutional boosters, including outside individuals, organizations and other entities.

UM failed to control its football program, specifically, the recruiting process. The culture of the football program going back decades was such that football staff members felt they could repeatedly and intentionally violate NCAA rules. The violations in this case date to 2010, when assistant coach 3 and the operations coordinator directed three prospects to engage in test fraud and arranged for a booster to impermissibly house them and two other prospects during the summer. The violations continued once the head coach was hired and as the investigation was occurring, as members of the football staff falsified recruiting paperwork (or did not file required paperwork at all), failed to ask pertinent questions of the compliance staff, did not report known violations, arranged impermissible inducements for prospects and their families, involved institutional boosters in severe violations and lied to or did not cooperate with investigators.

Assistant coach 2 made his own determination that booster 2 could transport four prospects to campus visits for most of a full academic year. Other members of the football staff, including the head coach, had contact with booster 2, both on- and off-campus, but no one took the time to ask the compliance office if his activities were permissible. Assistant coach 4 continually engaged in rules violations—arranging impermissible inducements of meals, lodging and merchandise, making impermissible contacts, allowing a student-athlete to stay in his home and introducing those associated with student-athletes to boosters who provided them with impermissible benefits. The assistant athletic director had a second, secret phone he used for recruiting purposes. On multiple occasions he arranged impermissible transportation, lodging and merchandise for visiting prospects, and he recruited boosters for a scheme to pay no less than $13,000 to student-athlete 1. The institution has recently taken action trying to gain control of this culture (see Corrective Actions, Appendix One), but its failure to control and change the culture through the years the violations occurred fell short of its obligations to control the football program under Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1. See University of Southern California (2010) (concluding that an institution’s violations were at least in part due to a general campus environment that made compliance efforts difficult); and University of Alabama (2002) (concluding that the institution’s past history and culture of noncompliance among prominent boosters contributed to the violations in the case).

The culture of rules violations was shared by institutional boosters, resulting in UM also failing to exercise control over them. This case involved a total of 12 boosters, all but two of whom (booster 3, who gave a prospect a ride on one occasion; and booster 4, whose hunting land the football staff allowed a prospect to use) were knowing participants in conduct that violated NCAA rules. Boosters 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10, acting at the request of, or with the knowledge of, football staff members, engaged in Level I severe breaches of conduct on multiple occasions. Booster 5’s retail store provided hundreds of dollars of free merchandise to prospects or their family members. The actions of boosters 9 and 10 were particularly egregious, as they schemed with the assistant athletic director to funnel thousands of dollars to student-athlete 1. Other boosters engaged in Level I severe breaches of conduct seemingly without prompting by the football staff—booster 6 allowed the family of student-athlete 13 to stay free 12 nights in his properties; booster 7, who was introduced to student-athlete 13’s family by assistant coach 4, provided an $800 cash payment to student-athlete 13’s mother’s boyfriend; Booster 11 provided free food, drinks and cash to student-athlete 1 at his restaurant; and booster 12 and his automobile dealership allowed two student-athletes to use vehicles at no cost for months. This institution failed to exercise control over its boosters, in violation of Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1, 6.01.1, 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.

The culture that fostered the booster violations existed at UM literally for decades and continued well into and through the investigation in this case. This institution had prior infractions cases in 1986 and 1994 with facts strikingly similar to the present matter. Both prior cases featured booster involvement in recruiting, with the boosters providing prospects with impermissible inducements such as clothing, transportation, lodging and offers of financial assistance and an automobile. The boosters were encouraged by some members of the football staff. In the 1994 case, the COI noted that the 1986 case did not cause UM to increase its vigilance. Instead, UM “continued, at least within the football program, an attitude of business as usual.” That attitude remained and permeated the football program’s boosters in this case. That attitude must change, at this and all other member institutions where such environments exist.

Finally, UM lacked control over, and did not sufficiently monitor, the process through which two student-athletes received and retained “loaner” vehicles from booster 12 and his dealership. Both student-athletes drove the vehicles on campus and were ticketed, but UM failed to have in place a process to detect their use of the cars. Once the institution discovered student-athlete 13’s use of the vehicle, it took his word for how long he used it and did not investigate how he came to be in possession of it. Had the institution properly investigated his use of the first loaner, it would have been able to limit his violations and likely avoid the later violation involving student-athlete 16. UM failed to control and monitor this aspect of its athletics program, in violation of Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1, 6.01.1, 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.

While COI specifically identified it would remain mindful of the case’s procedural history, COI cannot ignore the fact that Level I and Level II violations occurred at the same time in women’s basketball and women’s track and field. Those violations included academic fraud, intentional unethical conduct, failure to cooperate, recruiting violations (including tampering with student-athletes at other institutions), and head coach responsibility failures. See Infractions Decision No. 460, Case No. 189693. The head coaches of both sports were cited for failing to monitor their assistants, and the head women’s track coach also failed to promote an atmosphere of rules compliance in his program. While the football violations set forth in this decision are enough to establish the lack of institutional control, the women’s basketball and women’s track and field violations also demonstrate that this institution failed to exercise control over its athletics program.

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(a), the violation is Level I. Bylaw 19.1.1-(a) includes lack of institutional control among the violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Level III Violations

IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENTS. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.15.1 (2009-10). In the summer of 2010, assistant coach 1 referred student-athlete 7 to the Jackson school, which in part led to booster 1 providing student-athlete 1 with impermissible inducements. Assistant coach 1’s actions assisted in arranging for the impermissible inducements and benefits.

IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING VIDEOS. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.4.1.5 and 13.6.7.9 (2012-13). On three official visit weekends during January and February 2013, the video assistant, with the knowledge and approval of the head coach, produced three personalized recruiting videos that showed multiple prospective student-athletes and members of their families wearing and displaying official team equipment and apparel. On two of the three weekends, the video assistant played the videos for the prospects and their families, also with the knowledge and approval of the head coach.

IMPERMISSIBLE ENTERTAINMENT BY A BOOSTER AND EXTRA BENEFITS. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.6.7.1 (2012-13) and 16.11.2.1 (2013-14). In January 2013, the football program arranged for student-athlete 12 to have access to booster 4’s private hunting land on his official visit. Later, when student-athlete 12 was enrolled at UM during the 2013-14 academic year, the football staff arranged for him to have access to booster 4’s private hunting land on two or three occasions.

IMPERMISSIBLE BENEFITS. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2012-13). On two occasions during the summer of 2013, assistant coach 4 allowed student-athlete 13 to stay overnight at his house free-of-charge.

IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING CONTACT. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.1 (2013-14). On December 3, 2013, the head coach had an impermissible recruiting contact with student-athlete 1, a high school junior, at his high school. The head coach positioned himself in the high school coach’s office prior to student-athlete 1 arriving at the office in response to a summons from his high school coach, making contact likely. After student-athlete 1 came to the high school coach’s office, the head coach engaged him in a face-to-face conversation in excess of a greeting.

IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING CONTACTS. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.1 (2013-14). On May 8, 2014, assistant coach 4 had impermissible recruiting contacts with two high school prospects at their high school. A high school coach summoned the two prospects to a private room to meet with assistant coach 4, who spoke to the prospects for approximately 10 minutes. Assistant coach 4 did not record the interaction on his recruiting logs or report it to the UMadministration.

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

Aggravating Factors for UM

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-(c): Lack of institutional control;

19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations;

19.9.3-(i): One or more of the 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 sport program involved.

Mitigating Factors for UM

19.9.4-(a): Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations;

19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violations, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties;

19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter; and

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

Aggravating Factors for the Operations Coordinator

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-(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): The violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning; and

19.9.3-(m): The violations were intentional, willful and demonstrated a blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for the Operations Coordinator

None.

Aggravating Factors for Assistant Coach 2

None.

Mitigating Factors for Assistant Coach 2

19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violations and acceptance of responsibility;

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

19.9.4-(i): Other factors warranting a lower penalty range.

Aggravating Factors for Assistant Coach 3

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations;

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

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

19.9.3-(m): The violations were intentional, willful and demonstrated a blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for Assistant Coach 3

None.

Aggravating Factors for Assistant Coach 4

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations; and

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

Mitigating Factors for Assistant Coach 4

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

Aggravating Factors for the Assistant Athletic Director

19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I 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): The violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning; and

19.9.3-(m): The violations were intentional, willful and demonstrated a blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Mitigating Factors for the Assistant Athletic Director

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

Aggravating Factors for the Head Coach

None.

Mitigating Factors for the Head Coach

19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violations and acceptance of responsibility; and

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 UM as follows:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Three years of probation from December 1, 2017, through November 30, 2020.

3. UM shall pay a financial penalty of $5,000 plus 1% of its average football budget for three years, which was calculated at $179,797.

4. UM shall end the 2017 football season with its last regular season game and shall not participate in postseason competition. UM shall also end the 2018 football season with its last regular season football game and shall not participate in postseason competition.

5. UM has reduced, and shall reduce, football grants-in-aid by greater than 15% as outlined below: 1) Academic year 2015-16: Overall reduction: 1; Initial reduction: 0 ; 2) Academic year 2016-17: Overall reduction: 2; Initial reduction: 3; 3) Academic year 2017-18: Overall reduction: 6; Initial reduction: 4; and 4) Academic year 2018-19: Overall reduction: 4; Initial reduction: 3. The overall reduction shall be 13 grants, 10 initial grants.

6. The recruiting restrictions shall be: 1) UM reduced official visits in the sport of football by nearly 20% for the 2014-15 academic year, based on the previous four-year average; 2) UM reduced the number of evaluation opportunities for the full football staff by 10% during the spring 2015 evaluation period (from 168 days to 151) and by 12.5% during the spring 2016 evaluation period; 3) UM prohibited all unofficial visits in fall 2017 from September 1 through October 19 and in fall 2016 for five weeks. Additionally, for the full term of probation, Mississippi shall limit all prospective student-athletes in the sport of football to one unofficial campus visit per academic year; and 4) Mississippi prohibited assistant coach 2 from off-campus recruiting for 21 days and assistant coach 4 for 30 days.

7. Any member institution hiring the head coach as a head football coach during a one-year period, December 1, 2017, through November 30, 2018, shall suspend the head coach for the first two conference contests of the 2018 football season.

8. The operations coordinator received an eight-year show cause penalty.

9. Assistant coach 3 received a five-year show cause penalty.

10. Assistant coach 4 received a two-year show cause penalty.

11. The assistant athletic director received a five-year show cause penalty.

12. Assistant coach 5 received a five-year show cause penalty.

13. The graduate assistant received a three-year show cause penalty.

14. Pursuant to former Bylaw 19.9.7(g) and Bylaw 31.2.2.3, UM shall vacate all regular season and postseason wins in which ineligible student-athletes competed from the time they became ineligible through the time they were reinstated as eligible for competition through either the student-athlete reinstatement process or a grant of limited immunity.

15. UM disassociated boosters 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. It has represented that the disassociation is in accordance with Bylaw 19.9.7-(i) and includes additional restrictions. For boosters 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the period of disassociation is indefinite and includes exclusion from institutional facilities and home athletics events. Boosters 11 and 12 cooperated at least in part with the institution, which therefore disassociated them for three years. During their three-year disassociation periods, UM also excluded them from institutional facilities and home athletics events. Additionally, UM shall disassociate booster 5 for a period of not less than three years. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7-(i), the disassociation shall include: 1) Refraining from accepting any assistance from booster 5 that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes; 2) Refusing financial assistance or contributions to Mississippi’s athletics program from booster 5 or his business interests; 3) Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to booster 5, either directly or indirectly, that is not available to the public at large; and 4) Implementing other actions that Mississippi determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of booster 5 in the institution’s athletics program.

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