December 18, 2019: University of Houston
Summary Disposition
Key Takeaways
Level: Level II-Mitigated for Houston, Level I-Aggravated for Tutor, Level II-Aggravated for women’s volleyball Coach
Facts: This case involved four violations: academic misconduct committed by athletics department tutor and his failure to cooperate, impermissible CARA violations in women’s volleyball program and head coach responsibility violation for the women’s volleyball head coach.
Violations 1 and 2 (Academic Misconduct and Failure to Cooperate) An academic tutor wrote four papers on behalf of two football SA’s in exchange for cash The conduct was limited to a month and a half. After leaving Houston, the tutor refused to participate in an interview unless he received money in exchange and even inquired if the enforcement staff had employment opportunities. The Senior Associate AD for compliance discovered the potential violations when she received information that a former tutor contacted a graduate student teaching assistant about writing a student-athletes paper in exchange for money. Houston determined the conduct violated its academic misconduct policy. As a result of the academic misconduct, one of the student-athletes competed while ineligible.
Violations 3 and 4 (CARA and Head Coach Responsibility) The head women’s volleyball coach required student-athletes to participate in summer camps and “pre-practice” individual workouts for approximately 30 minutes prior to practice. The coach monitored the activities and the staff sometimes participated in them and these workouts occurred over three years resulting in an overage of 39 hours of CARA. Because the head coach was directly involved in the violations and did not create a culture of compliance where student-athletes felt comfortable reporting violations, she received a head coach responsibility charge. The panel applauded Houston’s efforts as they self-imposed meaningful and intentional penalties and corrective measures. Houston received exemplary cooperation for identifying and self-reporting the conduct within two months of the first occurrence and also applauded their efforts for self-imposing vacation of records and a reduction in permissible CARA by 2 hours during fall 2019 championship for women’s volleyball, no CARA hours for 17 days in Spring 2019, and only participated in two of the possible four dates of competition in Spring 2019. Additional corrective actions included: volleyball head coach and assistants relieved of their duties, tutor precluded from working in the athletics department at any capacity, increased education and training with a focus on playing and practice seasons, included practice log questions in the annual time management review, increased education on academic misconduct, increased education with tutoring staff, increase monitoring of CARA, increase education on head coach responsibility, practices logs sent to team weekly, expand exit interview process.
Violations Found The Division I Committee on Infractions cited violations in the following areas:
Penalties
Institutional Core Penalties
Tutor Core Penalties
Head Coach Core Penalties
Additional penalties:
December 20, 2019: Texas Christian University
Summary Disposition
Key Takeaways
Level: Level II-Mitigated for TCU, Level II-Standard for Former Swimming and Diving Coach Facts: This case involved violations in two unrelated areas: (1) impermissible student-athlete employment compensation in the football and men’s and women’s basketball programs; and (2) coaching staff limitations and CARA violations in the men’s and women’s swimming and diving programs. The head swimming and diving coach also received a head coach responsibility charge as a result of his personal involvement in the violations.
Violation 1 (Student-Athlete Employment) For a period of four years, 33 football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball student-athletes received compensation for work not performed at the institution’s Physical Plant Summer Maintenance program. The student-athletes found they could take advantage of the unsupervised payroll system and would leave to attend class or workouts, but not clock out. The excess payments ranged between $74 and $2,687 per student-athlete, and totaled $19,796 over the four years.
Violations 2 and 3 (Staffing, CARA and Head Coach Control) The parties agreed that the head swimming and diving coach committed a number of actions in violation of Bylaws 11 and 17. First, the head coach instructed the manager and graduate assistant to provide instruction during in-season organized practice time on a regular basis, which caused the program to exceed countable coaches. The head coach also exceeded CARA hours on a number of occasions when he (1) failed to include team meetings towards permissible CARA hours; (2) arranged for the student-athletes to complete additional workouts that were not recorded on the CARA logs; (3) failed to ensure accurate recording of CARA; and (4) failed to provide a day-off on a number of occasions. Since the head coach was directly involved in the violations, the head coach failed to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.
Vacation of Records The panel spent a significant amount of time discussing why they decline to prescribe a vacation of records penalty. Bylaw 19.9.7-(g) gives the COI the option to prescribe a vacation of wins and records when student-athletes compete while ineligible. First, athletics staff were unaware of the violations because they occurred outside of athletics. Second, the case did not involve a failure to monitor or institutional control violation. Third, the violations did not include any athletics staff members and athletics staff was not even involved in arranging the employment. And finally, TCU’s compliance office provided employment related education to their student-athletes.
Violations Found The Division I Committee on Infractions cited violations in the following areas:
Penalties
Institutional Core Penalties
Head Coach Core Penalties
Additional Penalties
November 15, 2019: Seton Hall University
Negotiated Resolution
Key Takeaways
Level: Level II-Standard for all parties (Seton Hall, Head Men’s Basketball Coach, Associate Head Coach)
Facts: This case involved transfer tampering violations that occurred when Seton Hall’s associate head men’s basketball coach had multiple impermissible contacts with a prospect at another Division I institution. At the time this violation occurred, Bylaw 13.1.1.3 prohibited institutions from contacting student-athletes until the student-athlete’s current institution gave written permission. Here, the initial institution denied the prospect’s request to contact Seton Hall, but the initial institution did not provide the prospect with an appeal hearing so Seton Hall was permitted to contact him by default. Prior to receiving this permission to contact, Seton Hall’s associate head coach was in regular contact with the prospect’s mother. The pair had developed a strong relationship during the prospect’s recruitment out of high school and the associate head coach did not think the contacts were impermissible. The prospect’s initial institution brought the violations to Seton Hall’s attention. Seton Hall’s compliance staff interviewed the associate head coach, senior associate AD, the head coach and the prospect’s mother and concluded that no violations occurred because they reported there were not recruiting conversations or contacts with the prospects mother. A few months later, the NCAA basketball development staff received an allegation that Seton Hall had tampered with the prospect while he attended the initial institution. The NCAA enforcement staff investigated phone call logs and revealed that the associate head coach had 156 calls with the prospect’s mother while he was enrolled at the initial institution. The head coach was aware of the contacts, but did not report to compliance or confirm that the calls were permissible. The associate head coach and the prospect’s mother did not discuss the prospect’s recruitment, so the head coach was not concerned that the calls might be impermissible. The parties submitted a joint interpretation of the facts to AMA. AMA found that the calls, regardless of their content or the associate head coach’s personal relationship with the mother, were a violation of Bylaw 13.1.1.3.
Violations Found The Division I Committee on Infractions cited violations in the following areas:
Penalties
Institutional Core Penalties
Associate Head Coach Core Penalties