University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report

8/6/2019 University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report

1/30

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORTFebruary 22, 2011

A. INTRODUCTION.

On October 15, 2010, officials from the University of Connecticut (Connecticut), alongwith the head men's basketball coach ("head coach") and his legal counsel; an assistantmen's basketball coach ("assistant coach") and his legal counsel; a former assistant men'sbasketball coach ("former assistant coach") and his legal counsel; and the former directorof men's basketball operations ("former operations director") and his legal counsel

appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations ofNCAA violations in the men's basketball program.

This case resulted from the extraordinary steps taken by the institution, with theinvolvement of a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative") torecruit a prospective men's basketball student-athlete ("prospect"). Connecticut has oneof the premier men's basketball programs in all of college athletics. Since the arrival ofthe head coach prior to the 1988-89 academic year, the men's basketball team hasqualified for the postseason "Sweet Sixteen" or better 12 times and won NCAA DivisionI National Championships in 1999 and 2004. This program devotes significant resourcesto its men's basketball program and recruits student-athletes of the highest talent levels.

One such recruit was the prospect, one of the top high school prospects in the class of2008 and a prospective student-athlete coveted by the institution. Of the prospect'srecruitment, the director of athletics stated "it was the most intense I've ever seen [thehead coach] about the recruitment of any particular student-athlete." In his zeal to get theprospect admitted to the institution and eligible to compete, the head coach acquiesced inthe representative's involvement in the process and overlooked indications that therepresentative might be involved in NCAA rules violations. In doing so, he failed to setthe proper atmosphere for rules compliance in the men's basketball program. The headcoach also failed to monitor the men's basketball staff.

Committing the resources necessary to conduct an athletics program at the highest level

carries with it a corresponding responsibility to devote the resources needed to detectpossible violations and to diligently monitor the activities of the program. In this case,the institution's athletics administration failed to meet its responsibility with respect tomonitoring phone records, the activities of the representative and the distribution ofdiscretionary men's basketball tickets.

The representative is an alumnus who, during his time as a student, served for three yearsas a manager for the men's basketball team. He also worked as a business advisor to one


2/30

University of Connecticut Public Infractions ReportFebruary 22, 2011Page No. 2__________

of the institution's prominent men's basketball alumni and was certified as a player's

agent by the National Basketball Association (NBA). In 2007 and 2008 therepresentative provided numerous impermissible inducements to the prospect. Amongother things, the representative paid for the prospect's registration for a standardizedacademic test, basketball training sessions, the cost of enrollment at a basketball academyand at least part of the expenses associated with the prospect's foot surgery.

During the same period of recruitment, members of the men's basketball staff engaged inapproximately 2,000 phone calls and/or text messages with the representative. Theinstitution's coaches did not question the representative's relationship with the prospect orreport it to the institution's athletics administration until November 2007, over a yearafter the institution's recruitment of the prospect had begun.

Further violations occurred when members of the coaching staff provided complimentarydiscretionary tickets for men's basketball games to individuals who were not allowed toreceive them and made impermissible phone calls and/or text messages to the prospectand other prospects. During the investigation, the former operations director violated theprinciples of ethical conduct when he provided false and misleading information toinvestigators.

A member of the Big East Conference, the institution has an enrollment of approximately23,600 students. The institution sponsors 10 men's and 12 women's intercollegiate sports.This was the institution's first major infractions case.

B. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION.

1. IMPERMISSIBLE PHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES. [NCAA

Bylaws 11.7.1.2-(b), 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.2 [2009-10 NCAA Manual], 13.1.3.1.6

[2009-10 NCAA Manual], 13.1.3.4.1 and 13.4.1.2.

Between April 2007 and February 2009, members of the men's basketball staffviolated the provisions of NCAA recruiting legislation by exchanging 150impermissible phone calls with and sending 190 impermissible text messages to

prospective men's basketball student-athletes.

Committee Rationale

The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement with the facts of thisfinding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation, although theinstitution believed that some of the calls were allowable as "routine clerical matters" ascontemplated by Bylaw 11.7.1.2-(b). The former operations director and assistant coach


3/30


did not agree that the phone calls made by them constituted violations, while the former

assistant coach agreed that violations occurred but contended they were secondary. Thecommittee finds that the violations occurred and that they are major.

The institution's men's basketball coaching staff first identified the prospect as a prospectin July 2006. According to the recruiting summary sheet the institution maintained onthe prospect, the first phone call made by the staff to him or someone on his behalfoccurred on October 13, 2006. From April 2007 until the prospect arrived on campus inJune 2008, numerous impermissible phone contacts and/or text messages were exchangedwith him by members of the men's basketball staff and the former operations director.

Between August 9, 2007, and June 13, 2008, the former operations director exchanged

114 phone calls (83 placed and 31 received) with the prospect and placed one call toanother prospective student-athlete. He was not a permissible caller under NCAAlegislation. Additionally, 43 of the phone calls to the prospect exceeded the number theinstitution was permitted to make per week to prospects. Further, the former operationsdirector sent 181 prohibited text messages to the prospect and one prohibited textmessage to another prospective student-athlete.

There was no dispute among the parties that the phone calls were made and the texts weresent. Regarding the phone calls to the prospect, the former operations director asserted inhis defense that most of the communications were actually with an individual associatedwith the prospect ("advisor") who had been an advisor and supporter of the prospect for

many years and served as the staff's main contact in his recruitment. In fact, the formeroperations director attached to his response to the notice of allegations an "affidavit,"ostensibly made by the prospect, stating that the phone that was called actually belongedto the advisor and that the prospect only used it occasionally.

The committee noted that the affidavit was not notarized or otherwise affirmed by thepurported executing party, was prepared in the weeks immediately preceding the hearingand was in conflict with prior statements made by the prospect during the investigation.In an interview with the enforcement staff January 25, 2008, the prospect stated that thephone to which all the calls were made belonged to him, not the advisor. He furtherstated that he had received the phone from a second significant adult in his life not the

advisor.

As will be further detailed in Finding B-4 below, statements made by the formeroperations director were inconsistent and not credible. In his response to the notice ofallegations and at the hearing, the former operations director stated that he received thephone number from the advisor and that the phone actually belonged to the advisor.However, during an extensive interview with the enforcement staff on October 14, 2009,he stated that he received the number from the institutional file of the prospect. In a


4/30


subsequent interview on January 19, 2010, he claimed for the first time that the phone

belonged to the advisor and that "sometimes the prospect would answer." None of theother coaches ever reported similar information. Other portions of the former operationsdirector's statements were not supported by institutional phone records, as will be detailedbelow.

The former operations director also asserted that the calls he made to the prospect wereauthorized by the athletics administration and were, therefore, permissible. The prospectattended five different high schools, thus his academic records were scattered in variouslocations. The men's basketball staff initially hoped to get the prospect admitted for thespring 2008 semester (he graduated from high school in January 2008) whichnecessitated that much of the fall of 2007 be devoted to trying to gather the materials

needed for his admission to the institution and eligibility for athletics competition.

On November 5, 2007, the former operations director and members of the athleticsadministration engaged in a conference call to discuss the challenges that had to beovercome regarding the prospect's initial eligibility. It was agreed that, from that timeforward, the former operations director was the "point person" in the effort. The prospectwas not cleared for admission for the spring 2008 semester as his standardized test scorewas invalidated in early 2008.

Notwithstanding the invalidated test score, the effort to get the prospect admitted to theinstitution and eligible for athletics competition continued. In a series of e-mail

communications between the former operations director and the associate director ofathletics for compliance at the institution ("compliance director") during the spring of2008, which were attached to the former operations director's response to the notice ofallegations, it was confirmed that he would remain the individual responsible fordeveloping the materials for the prospect's admission and eligibility certification.

The former operations director asserted that those communications established that hehad made the calls to the prospect with the knowledge and authorization of the athleticsadministration. However, the language of the e-mails contains no such directive. Forexample, on March 7, 2008, the compliance director e-mailed the former operationsdirector, asking him to obtain information needed to help answer questions that had been

posed by the NCAA Eligibility Center. Specifically, she asked that the former operationsdirector obtain: 1) records of attendance at each of the prospect's five high schools,including dates of each school's academic terms; 2) details regarding a learning disableddiagnosis for the prospect; 3) details regarding how the prospect received credit at one ofhis high schools during a term in which he was not enrolled at that school; and 4)information regarding test accommodations received by the prospect while enrolled atone of the high schools he attended.


5/30


The e-mail did not contain any directive to contact the prospect for the information. In

fact, it did exactly the opposite; regarding the dates of attendance at each high school, thee-mail stated "we are asking you to contact [two high schools] to obtain thisinformation." Not only do NCAA bylaws prohibit phone calls from an operationsdirector to a prospect, the information sought involved credits and accommodations theyoung man received while enrolled at each school--official records of the schools thatneeded to be obtained from the high schools themselves. Nothing about the e-maildirects him to call the prospect to obtain the information.

Similarly, on February 2, 2008, the former operations director sent an e-mail to thecompliance director asking her to call him about questions the NCAA had regarding theprospect. The compliance director responded the following day, explaining that the

NCAA had more questions. The e-mail also contained the following two statements:

--"Most of which is information that we will have to get from the high schools directly."

--"We will have to start contacting schools first thing in the morning."

As with the March 7, 2008, e-mail, this communication not only contained no directive tocontact the prospect, it specifically told the former operations director to contact the highschools to obtain the information.

On May 5, 2008, the former operations director e-mailed the compliance director, asking

if she had sent a Buckley Amendment form regarding the prospect's records. Fifteenminutes after receiving the e-mail, the compliance director responded that the formeroperations director should "[d]ownload the application and just have [the prospect] fillout the Buckley page and fax it back." While this directive necessitated that the formeroperations director contact the prospect directly, it did not tell him to make a telephonecall to the young man. A letter to the prospect with directions to fill out the form and faxit back would have easily taken care of the task. It was not necessary for the formeroperations director to phone the young man to get the paperwork signed.

The final e-mail attached to the former operations director's response was dated February21, 2008, and was sent from the compliance director to the former operations director. In

it the compliance director asked the former operations director three questions regardinginformation about standardized tests and a reading program at one of the high schools theprospect had attended. Again, it did not ask or direct the former operations director tocall the young man or any of his advisors, and the information requested could have beenobtained through the mail or calls to people other than the prospect. There was noanswer to this e-mail contained in the former operations director's response.


6/30


The starting date (August 9, 2007) of the former operations director's 181 text messages

to and 114 phone calls to and from the prospect is significant, as the prospect attended acamp on the institution's campus on August 10-11, 2007. Records show that fromThursday, August 9, 2007, at 8:25 p.m. (the date of the first located phone call from theformer operations director to the prospect) through Sunday, August 12 at 9:54 p.m., 27phone calls or text messages were sent from the former operations director to theprospect. The majority of them, 21, occurred between 9 p.m. on August 11 and 9:54 p.m.on August 12. At the hearing, the former operations director stated that the calls/textswere made to the advisor, not to the prospect, and that the dates and times of the callsproved they were not made to the prospect because he (the former operations director)was in charge of the camp and present with the campers throughout. However, the campwas in session only from 1 p.m. on August 10 to 1 p.m. August 11. Only two of the calls

were made within that 24 hour period.

Further, the former operations director stated in his response to the notice of allegationsthat the calls and texts of August 9-12 were actually communications he was having withthe advisor, "who would call to discuss how [the prospect] was holding up" at the campbecause the prospect was away from home. However, all the calls between the formeroperations director's phone and the cell phone in question were outgoing from the formeroperations director, meaning the former operations director received no calls from theadvisor or anyone else. Further, the assertion that the advisor was calling him during thecamp to check on the prospect was made for the first time in his response to the notice ofallegations. He did not mention it in any previous interviews.

The final call, made June 13, 2008, occurred at a significant time. On June 12, 2008, theprospect received his final certification from the NCAA Eligibility Center. Two dayslater, he signed a financial aid agreement and enrolled in two summer courses at theinstitution.

The calls made by the former operations director were not permissible under the "relatedroutine clerical task" language of NCAA Bylaw 11.7.1.2. Subsection (b) of the bylawstates that only members of the coaching staff are allowed to make phone calls to orreceive calls from prospects or their families. Therefore, phone calls are by definitionsomething more than "routine clerical tasks" related to recruiting. The former operations

director was not permitted to make the calls.

Exhibits attached to the institution's response established that the men's basketball staffwas educated regarding who is allowed to make phone calls to prospects. The formeroperations director knew or should have known he was not allowed to make phone callsto prospects and that neither he (the former operations director) nor anyone else wasallowed to send them text messages. The former operations director's assertions that his181 text messages to and 114 calls to/from the prospect's phone were either made to the


7/30


advisor or done with the permission and knowledge of the compliance office were not

supported by the evidence.

Other members of the coaching staff were also involved in these violations. BetweenJune 27, 2007, and April 24, 2008, the assistant coach placed 13 impermissible phonecalls to three prospective student-athletes, including one to the prospect. The phone callswere impermissible because they exceeded the number of calls the institution waspermitted to make per week or per month to the prospects. The assistant coach also senteight text messages to one of the prospective student-athletes.

Between October 28, 2007, and February 21, 2009, the former assistant coach placed 19impermissible phone calls to four prospective student-athletes. The calls were

impermissible because they exceeded the number the institution was permitted to makeper week to the prospects. The former assistant coach also sent one text message to aprospective student-athlete.

On April 4, 2007, the head coach placed an impermissible phone call to the prospect, andon June 16, 2007, he placed one impermissible phone call to a different prospect. Thephone calls were impermissible because they exceeded the number the institution waspermitted to make per week or per month to the prospects. Finally, on August 10, 2007,and June 5, 2008, two impermissible phone calls were placed to the prospect from anextension within the men's basketball office. The calls could not be attributed to anyindividual coach. The calls were impermissible because they exceeded the number the

institution was permitted to make per week to the prospect.

In total, 150 impermissible phone calls and 190 impermissible text messages wereexchanged between members of the institution's men's basketball coaching staff andprospective student-athletes between April 2007 and February 2009. The volume ofcalls, as well as the duration of time over which they occurred, establish that they wereneither inadvertent nor isolated. Further, the number of calls/texts resulted in more than aminimal recruiting advantage over institutions who were abiding by NCAA legislation.Therefore, the violations are major.

2. IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENTS. [NCAA Bylaws 12.3.1.2, 13.01.4,13.02.13, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.15.1]

During 2007 and 2008, the representative provided the prospect withimpermissible inducements, including 1) the payment of at least some of theexpenses associated with the young man's foot surgery; 2) the cost of theprospect's enrollment at a basketball academy; 3) the registration fee for the


8/30


9/30


In the summer of 2007, the representative paid for the prospect's strength, conditioning

and basketball training. Specifically, the representative arranged four to six trainingsessions for the prospect at a training facility and paid $300 to $400 for the sessions. Thestrength and conditioning trainer and owner of the training facility ("trainer") reportedthat the representative contacted him in 2007 to arrange the sessions and that he also paidfor them. Additionally, according to the trainer, the representative provided the prospectwith lodging at his home in Glenview, Illinois, and the representative or his girlfriendprovided the prospect with transportation to and from the training sessions. Further, inDecember 2007, the representative arranged a basketball training session for the prospectat a second facility through an associate ("representative's associate"). An employee ofthe facility told the enforcement staff that the representative's associate contacted thefacility on the representative's behalf to arrange for the prospect to practice at the facility

for approximately one hour at no cost.

The men's basketball staff was aware of the representative's status as a professionalbasketball agent and his relationship with the prospect. The coaches had frequent contactwith the representative, the prospect and the advisor, and they knew of the prospect'ssurgery, training and limited financial resources prior to his enrollment at the institution.

3. IMPERMISSIBLE INDUCEMENT. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1]

On February 29, 2008, the former operations director provided the prospect with

an impermissible inducement when he registered the prospect for the SAT.

Committee Rationale

The enforcement staff and institution were in agreement with the facts of this finding andthat those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The former operationsdirector disagreed with the facts and that a violation of NCAA legislation occurred. Thecommittee finds that the violation occurred.

Records establish that at 2:47:56 p.m. on February 29, 2008, an SAT Services forStudents with Disabilities (SSD) representative completed the prospect's registration for

the May 2008 test over the phone. The SSD is the unit of the SAT that takes requests foraccommodations, and individuals are allowed to register for the tests through SSD. Onthe same day, at 2:20 p.m., the former operations director placed a 29 minute, 40 secondcall to the SAT SSD. The former operations director claimed that 1) he was merelychecking on the registration and was actually on hold and/or being transferred amongSAT employees for most of the time; and 2) the prospect's registration for the December2007 test, which he did not take, was transferred to the May 2008 date, thus there was noneed to register the prospect on February 29.


10/30


The prospect was in fact registered for the December 2007 test, and his registration wasat some later point transferred to the May 2008 test. However, the registration did notautomatically transfer to the May date; at the hearing, the former operations directorstated that he called the prospect on February 28 "and told him to register." Had theprospect's December registration been automatically transferred to the May date, therewould have been no need for the call. The need for some action to transfer theregistration is further supported by information provided by the SAT. It indicated thatthe December registration was cancelled and the prospect had been subsequentlyregistered for the May test on February 29 over the phone. As stated above, recordsobtained from SAT show that the transfer of the registration took place at 2:47:56 p.m. onFebruary 29. Prior to that time, the prospect was not registered for the May 2008 test.

The 29 minute 40 second call on February 29 was not the only time the former operationsdirector phoned the SAT. He made a five minute, 20-second call to SAT at 1:56 p.m. onthe same day and, in total, he phoned the organization nine times between February 25and 29. Later, between the time that the registration occurred and May 6, 2008, the datethe test was administered, the former operations director exchanged 18 phone calls and26 text messages with the person who provided the prospect with transportation to thetesting site in Florida ("driver"). At the time, the prospect was residing in Florida whileattending the basketball academy. A friend of the driver proctored the test. In theaggregate, these calls are additional evidence that the former operations director set upthe test and registered the prospect, as there would be no need for all of the calls if the

former operations director was merely checking to see if the prospect was registered forthe test. For all these reasons, the committee finds that the former operations director'sexplanations are not credible.

The former operations director's positions that he did not register the prospect for theSAT on February 29 2008, and that he was only on the phone checking on the status ofthe registration, were not credible to the committee. Further, the registration wascompleted at the time the former operations director's call to the SAT was ending. Thedetailed statements he made in his response and at the hearing were inconsistent withthose he gave during his interview with the enforcement staff on January 19, 2010. Atthat time, even after being told that the call occurred on the same date that the prospect

was registered for the May test, the former operations director stated that he did not knowwhy he would have called the SAT.

4. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(d)]

On October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, the former operations director failedto deport himself in accordance with the honesty and integrity associated with the


11/30


administration of intercollegiate athletics as required by NCAA legislation when

he provided false and misleading information to the NCAA enforcement staff andinstitution.

Committee Rationale

The institution agreed with some of the facts of this finding and that those factsconstituted violations of NCAA legislation. The institution agreed that the formeroperations director denied he knew the representative's associate, but it was uncertain thatdenial rose to the level of unethical conduct. The institution agreed that the formeroperations director denied any involvement with the SAT arrangements and that thedenial constituted unethical conduct. The former operations director did not agree with

the facts or that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The committee finds that theviolations occurred.

The former operations director provided false and misleading information regarding twoissues in the case: 1) whether he knew the representative's associate; and 2) whether hewas involved in the SAT arrangements for the prospect.

During both his October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, interviews with the enforcementstaff and institution, the former operations director denied that he knew therepresentative's associate even though the former operations director had exchanged 16phone calls with him between November 16, 2006, and March 26, 2007. The former

operations director also sent text messages to the representative's associate on June 14,2007, and December 25, 2007. Seven of the phone calls were of at least two minutes induration, with two of the seven being 14 minutes or more. The purpose of the calls isunknown; in his interviews the former operations director offered no explanation forthem, while in his response to the allegations he stated they were in regards to a differentprospect.

During the first interview, October 14, 2009, the former operations director stated "I don'teven know who [representative's associate] is" when asked about him. Therepresentative's associate was described in detail to him, including his full name, the citywhere he lives, and the fact that he was associated with the basketball community. The

same detailed description was provided in the second interview, which took place aboutthree months later. At that time, the former operations director stated "I don't know him."

In his response to the notice of allegations, the former operations director stated that,following both interviews, he was able to recall that he knew a person by the first nameof the representative's associate who had a nickname of "Boss" and was from Chicago.At the hearing, he offered that his 16 calls to the representative's associate were in regardsto a prospect that he ultimately chose not to recruit. He explained the Christmas Day


12/30


2007 text as a "mass communication" to all those in his address book, but the record of

the text established that it was sent exclusively to the representative's associate.

The calls and texts to the representative's associate covered a period of over a year andincluded a personal holiday greeting. The representative's associate's name and adescription were provided to the former operations director at the time of both interviews.When the former operations director claimed to remember further information followingthe interviews, the information he recalled about "Boss" was exactly the information thathad been given to him in the interviews (with the exception of Boss' last name, which theformer operations director claimed not to know). The committee concluded that theformer operations director withheld the information about his knowledge of therepresentative's associate when interviewed on October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010,

and, therefore, his responses in the two interviews were false and misleading.

During the same October 14, 2009, and January 19, 2010, interviews with theenforcement staff and institution, the former operations director also denied involvementwith the prospect's SAT arrangements. For the reasons set forth in detail in Finding B-3above, the committee concluded that the former operations director not only wasinvolved with the arrangements, he personally registered the prospect for the test byphone on February 29, 2008. Therefore, his denials of involvement in the arrangementsalso constituted false and misleading information.

The former operations director provided conflicting statements regarding the SAT

registration. In his January 19, 2010, interview he stated that he did not know what theFebruary 29, 2008, 29 minute 40 second call from his phone to the SAT was about. Heclaimed no recollection, even after being informed it was the same day that the prospecthad registered for the upcoming SAT test. Yet, in his response and at the hearing, herecounted in great detail what he claimed had occurred during the call. Similarly, theformer operations director gave three conflicting statements regarding the phone calls andtexts that were made on the days of, the day before and the day after the August 10-11camp that the prospect attended on the institution's campus (see Finding B-1 above).

5. IMPERMISSIBLE ENTERTAINMENT. [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.8.1]

From 2007 through 2010, members of the men's basketball staff provided 32impermissible discretionary tickets to individuals responsible for teaching ordirecting an activity in which a prospective student-athlete was involved, or afriend of a prospective student-athlete.


13/30


Committee Rationale

The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of thisfinding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The formeroperations director, the head coach, the assistant coach and the former assistant coach allagreed that violations occurred. The former operations director believed the violationsare secondary in nature. The committee finds that the violations occurred and that theyare major.

NCAA recruiting legislation allows institutions to provide those involved in the activitiesof a prospect a maximum of two complimentary admissions to home contests. The

admissions must be issued through a pass list and cannot be provided for away contestsor games played outside a 30-mile radius of the institution's main campus. Each coach atthe institution receives a certain number of tickets prior to the basketball season to beused at their discretion. The coaches are allowed to distribute the tickets to individuals oftheir choosing, but they must do so in a manner consistent with NCAA rules. On 12occasions from January 13, 2007, through January 23, 2010, members of the men'sbasketball staff provided a total of 29 tickets and/or admissions not issued through a passlist for away or postseason competition to various individuals who should not havereceived them. Three other tickets were given away for a home contest; they exceededthe maximum number allowable (two) and were not issued through a pass list.

Thirty one of the admissions were provided to nonscholastic basketball coaches, whileone was provided to a friend of a prospect. The head coach gave away 12 of the tickets,while the assistant coach issued seven tickets. The former assistant coach gave away 10tickets, the former operations director gave away one ticket, and two tickets were givenaway by a former coaching staff member.

Before violations can be deemed secondary, they must satisfy the three-pronged test ofNCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.1. Specifically, a secondary violation must:

a. Be isolated or inadvertent in nature;b. Provide or be intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other

advantage; andc. Not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit.Additionally, multiple secondary violations by a member institution may collectively beconsidered as a major violation.

The violations are not isolated, as they involve 32 separate violations committed over athree-year period. Neither are they inadvertent, as the men's basketball staff had been


14/30


educated regarding this issue. While each violation standing alone may be seen as

secondary, their cumulative effect was to provide more than a minimal recruitingadvantage.

6. FAILURE TO PROMOTE AN ATMOSPHERE FOR COMPLIANCE.

[NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1]

The scope and nature of the violations detailed in Findings B-1 and B-2demonstrate that between 2007 and 2009, the head coach failed to promote anatmosphere for compliance in the men's basketball program and failed to monitorthe program to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation regarding phone calls,

text messages and inducements provided by the representative.

Committee Rationale

The enforcement staff, the institution and the head coach were not in agreement with thefacts of this finding or that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. Withrespect to monitoring the men's basketball staff's phone calls, the head coach and theinstitution asserted that the head coach did not know the calls being made by the formeroperations director were impermissible. Regarding the relationship between therepresentative and the prospect, the head coach and the institution took the position thatthe head coach had no reason to be aware of the inducements provided by the

representative to the prospect. The committee finds that the violation occurred.

Bylaw 11.1.2.1 was adopted by the NCAA membership in 2005 and was intended toensure that head coaches are held responsible for the violations that occur in the programsthey oversee. The rationale for the bylaw was stated as follows:

"The head coach has an obligation to promote a culture of complianceamong the entire team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes. The head coach must monitor the activities of assistant coachesand staff and determine if they are acting in compliance with NCAA rules.Too often, when assistant coaches or other administrators involved with

the program are involved in serious violations, head coaches professignorance regarding such violations while indicating such responsibilitieswere entrusted to their assistants. A head coach should be presumed tohave knowledge and, therefore, responsibility for the actions of thoseassociated with his or her team whom the coach directly or indirectlysupervises.


15/30


However, a violation of the proposed bylaw will occur only in major

infractions cases, similar to institutional control allegations, or in veryserious secondary cases. This proposal does not imply that every violationby a staff member or student-athlete involved in the head coach's programwill be considered a lack of control on the part of the head coach. There isa rebuttable presumption that exists when situations indicate that the headcoach has set a proper tone for compliance. Under such circumstances, thehead coach would not be charged with a lack of control for activities thatmay result in NCAA rules violations."

The head coach knew the former operations director was having phone contact with theprospect and that the calls were related to recruiting. As set forth in Finding B-1 above,

the contacts made by the former operations director constituted the bulk of the 150impermissible phone calls and 190 impermissible text messages made by the staff. Notonly was the head coach aware that the former operations director was making calls, healso knew or should have known that the former operations director, as a noncountablecoach, was not permitted to have phone contact with prospects. Therefore, he knew orshould have known that the calls were impermissible.

Once the prospect was identified in July 2006 as a prospect the institution sought torecruit, his recruitment was initially handled by a then-associate head men's basketballcoach ("former associate head coach"). Following the departure of the former associatehead coach in the spring of 2007, the former operations director assumed "part of the

recruiting contacts" for the prospect. The head coach knew of the arrangement.According to the head coach, the former operations director was allowed to be part of therecruiting process because he "knew [the prospect], knew of [the prospect] and the peoplearound him." The head coach justified the contacts by explaining that the formeroperations director was helping the prospect get his academic paperwork in order to meetadmission and athletic eligibility requirements. As set forth in Finding B-1 above,NCAA rules precluded the former operations director from making such calls.

The former operations director did not keep logs of his phone contacts, and the logsmaintained by the rest of the men's basketball coaching staff during the same time framewere inaccurate and incomplete. Bylaw 11.1.2.1 requires a head coach to monitor such

activities among his or her staff. In this case, the head coach failed to meet hisresponsibility to ensure that his staff was abiding by telephone contact legislation andkeeping track of the contacts they had. In doing so, he failed to promote an atmospherefor compliance.

The head coach also failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance in that he failed tomonitor the relationship between the representative and the prospect and/or report it tothe institution's athletics administration. This failure contributed to the violations set


16/30


forth in Finding B-2. The head coach and members of the men's basketball staff

maintained a close relationship with the representative, and the head coach and his staffwere aware that the representative developed and maintained a close relationship with theprospect throughout his recruitment and was interested in someday becoming his agent.In fact, the men's basketball staff provided information regarding the prospect to therepresentative throughout the recruitment process. The former associate head coachstated that "[the representative] was running parallel to the recruitment doing whatprospective agents try to do."

The head coach and his staff, all of whom were aware of the problems that agents cancause for prospective and enrolled student-athletes, failed to report indicators of possiblerecruiting improprieties to the compliance office. They also failed to take steps that may

have deterred the provision of impermissible inducements. The head coach bearsoversight responsibility for these failures, which establish a violation of Bylaw 11.1.2.1.

The representative is an alumnus who was considered a member of the "family" at theinstitution. He served as men's basketball team manager during his time on campus andmaintained contact with members of the coaching staff once he graduated in 1999. OnNovember 22, 1999, at the point where the representative's activities rendered him anagent pursuant to NCAA legislation, the institution sent him a letter reminding him that,even though he had a long-standing, preexisting relationship with the institution, he couldnot be involved in certain activities. Among other things, it was specifically pointed outto him that he could not provide transportation, cash, meals, entertainment, merchandise

or loans to student-athletes. The head coach, who was also head coach in 1999, receiveda copy of the letter.

The institution knew that the representative was certified as a players' agent by the NBAin March 2006. Four months later, in July 2006, the former associate head coachobserved the prospect at a summer tournament. The former associate head coach madecontact with the prospect and his adult advisors shortly thereafter. In November 2006,the former associate head coach attended a tournament in which the prospect wasparticipating and discussed the prospect with the representative, who was also attendingthe tournament. The representative introduced himself to the prospect and his adultadvisors shortly thereafter. The following week, the prospect made an unofficial visit to

the institution.

During much of the period of time he served as the primary recruiter for the prospect, theformer associate head coach provided information about the prospect to therepresentative, including the young man's background and the names of his adultadvisors. Further, the men's basketball staff knew that the representative maintainedregular contact with the prospect and his advisors. Finally, the staff knew that therepresentative was interested in someday becoming an agent for the prospect, who was


17/30


considered one of the country's top basketball prospects. The former associate head

coach specifically told the head coach that the representative kept in contact with theprospect, and the head coach later spoke to the young man about the representative,telling him "be careful who you hang around with." At the hearing, the head coach statedhe called the prospect "to warn him about [the representative]. I told him the Connecticutstaff is the only one who has his best interest at heart." Yet, in spite of feeling the need towarn the prospect, neither the head coach nor any member of his staff discussed thematter with the athletics administration or inquired into the relationship between therepresentative and the prospect.

The former associate head coach described the representative's interaction with theprospect as "running parallel to the institution's recruitment." The two of them regularly

communicated about the prospect, with the former associate head coach saying "Iallowed [the representative] inI left him in the information exchange" Therepresentative's name and phone number appeared on the prospect's recruiting summarysheet; the former assistant coach, who took over as the primary recruiter for the prospectwhen the former associate head coach left the institution in the spring of 2007, stated thatthe presence of such information on the summary sheet normally means the person is apoint of contact in the prospect's recruitment, but he had written the representative'sinformation on the summary sheet only as a reminder to call him. The representative'sname also appeared on the prospect's 2007 learning disability evaluation provided to thecoaching staff as a person who should receive a copy of the report.

The nexus between the coaching staff and the representative before and during therecruitment of the prospect is clear. During the period from July 2006 (when recruitmentbegan) and June 2008, when the prospect enrolled on campus in summer courses, theinstitution's men's basketball coaching staff exchanged 2,081 phone calls and textmessages with the representative. On November 11, 2006, while evaluating the prospectat a tournament, the former associate head coach ran into the representative and gave himthe prospect's personal and contact information. The former associate head coach wasaware that, shortly thereafter, the representative made contact with the prospect. Fromthat point forward, the representative and members of the coaching staff had regular andsignificant contact regarding the prospect. For example, from July 2006 until he left theinstitution at the end of March 2007, the former associate head coach exchanged 81

phone calls and 58 texts with the representative. He acknowledged that they pertained tothe prospect. The former assistant coach had no calls/texts with the representative priorto taking over the recruitment of the prospect on March 31, 2007. But from that pointuntil June 2008, the former assistant coach and the representative had contact through 93phone calls and 189 texts. In the six months after the prospect's June 2008 enrollment,the former assistant coach had only two phone calls with the representative. Similarly, inthe year prior to the recruitment of the prospect, only 42 phone calls were exchangedbetween the coaching staff and the representative.


18/30


Many of the over 2,000 calls and texts occurred during the time the representative wasproviding the impermissible recruiting inducements set forth in Finding B-2 of thisreport. The institution's coaching staff knew of the prospect's limited economicresources, knew of the dangers posed by agents and knew of the representative's desire torepresent the prospect, yet did not take any action to ascertain whether the relationshipbetween the representative and the prospect - a relationship the coaching staff fostered -involved any violations of NCAA regulations. In the winter and spring of 2008, thecoaching staff was aware that the prospect was residing at a basketball academy inFlorida and had foot surgery in Tampa, but no coach reported any of the information tothe institution's athletics administration or made any inquiry into the propriety of thearrangements. Further, the coaching staff did not report to the compliance office or any

other administrator that the representative - a known agent who had been issued a letterof warning by the institution in 1999 - was in regular contact with a high-profile prospectthe institution was actively recruiting. Similarly, the staff did not report its regularcommunication with the representative.

When the final report regarding the prospect's learning disability was delivered to themen's basketball coaching staff in the fall of 2007, it listed the representative as a personwho should receive a copy. At that time the former assistant coach, who received thecoaching staff's copy, made no inquiries regarding the appearance of the representative'sname on the report.

Later in the fall, on November 5, 2007, the head coach became aware of therepresentative's name on the report. He asked the former operations director about thematter and was told "[the representative] just liked the kid and wanted to make sure thateverything was going alright." The former operations director, at the direction of thehead coach, then spoke to the representative, who claimed no knowledge of why hisname appeared on the report. The former operations director reported he later spoke tothe advisor, but dropped the matter after being told by the advisor that the representativewas to get a copy so that he could help the advisor understand it. The operations directornever asked why the representative would be a person to be trusted with the information.After possessing the report for four months the coaching staff finally gave it to thecompliance office, but only because the compliance office requested it so as to make it

part of the prospect's academic record. But for the request by the compliance staff, itmight never have received a copy of the report. As will be set forth in Finding B-8 below,the institution also failed to monitor the representative's relationship with the prospect.

Bylaw 11.1.2.1 confers a duty upon head coaches to monitor their programs and establishan atmosphere for compliance. The bylaw was enacted to hold head coaches responsiblefor violations and establishes a presumption that they are aware of the activities of thoseworking under them in their programs. While it does not require them to investigate


19/30


possible wrongdoing, it does require them to recognize potential problems, address them,

and report them to the athletics administration. In this matter, the head coach knew of theinteraction among members of his staff with the representative and, more importantly, therepresentative's interaction with the prospect. Even though he saw fit to "warn" theprospect, the head coach failed to talk directly with the representative - a member of the"family" - about avoiding possible improprieties. He further failed to ask anyone aboutthe sources of support for the prospect when the young man was residing at a Floridabasketball academy and having surgery. He did not require that his staff, which was inregular contact with the representative and sharing information with him, ask anypertinent questions regarding the relationship between the representative and theprospect. Finally, he failed to report the relationship to the athletics administration,specifically, the compliance office. As this committee stated in the case ofIndiana

University, Bloomington, Case No. M285 (2008), Bylaw 11.1.2.1 places a specific andindependent monitoring obligation on head coaches. The head coach in this case did notdemonstrate sufficient monitoring of his staff's activities regarding the prospect and therepresentative. Therefore, the head coach failed to meet his obligation under Bylaw11.1.2.1.

7. FAILURE TO MONITOR BY THE INSTITUTION. [NCAA Constitution

2.8.1]

Between 2007 and 2009, the institution failed to monitor the conduct and

administration of the men's basketball program in that it failed to (a) review themen's basketball staff's phone records to ensure that the staff was not makingimpermissible phone contacts with prospective men's basketball student-athletes,as set forth in Finding B-1; (b) monitor the conduct of the representative and hisrelationship to the prospect; and (c) review discretionary tickets provided by themen's basketball staff to ensure that the staff was not violating entertainmentrestrictions, as set forth in Finding B-6.

Committee Rationale

The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this

allegation and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. Thecommittee finds that the violations occurred.

Monitoring phone records. At the time of the violations, the men's basketball coachingstaff was required to submit phone logs from their recruiting summaries semi-annually.Once the records were received by the compliance staff, a review of the calls made toprospects was performed. The focus of the review was to ensure that the recorded callsdid not exceed the limits set forth in Bylaw 13. However, they were not cross-referenced


20/30


with actual phone bills. If the compliance staff had cross-checked actual phone bills with

the logs, the impermissible calls and texts to the prospect and the volume ofcommunication between the men's basketball staff and the representative likely wouldhave been detected.

The violations detailed in Finding B-1 were due in large part to the men's basketballstaff's failure to contemporaneously log a call and/or communicate among themselves. Itappeared from the records that the men's basketball staff was cognizant of the rulesgoverning telephone contact with prospects and by and large complied with them. Theexception is the calls made by the former operations director to the prospect. The manyimpermissible calls between the two of them were not detected through the policy thatwas in place at the time. The institution acknowledged that it should have conducted a

more-timely review of the recruiting records and cross-checked them with actualtelephone records for the department. Its failure to do so constituted failure to monitor.

Monitoring the representative. During the time frame in which the prospect was beingrecruited by the institution, the focus was on compiling the information necessary for himto become eligible for admission and athletics competition. There was frequent contactduring this time between the compliance office, the former associate head coach (whowas the initial lead recruiter for the prospect) and the former operations directorregarding those issues. However, the men's basketball staff did not communicate withthe compliance office regarding the representative's connection to the prospect. This wasso even though the staff participated in over 2,000 phone calls/texts with the

representative from July 2006 to June 2008 and was aware that the representative wasinvolved with the prospect and hoped to someday serve as his agent.

Further, in November 1999, the institution's athletics administration informed the men'sbasketball staff that, as the representative was at that time identified as a "businessadvisor" for a former institutional men's basketball student-athlete, the representative hadto from that point forward be dealt with as an agent, even though he is an alumnus andformer team manager. The institution also communicated with the representative atapproximately the same time that he was considered an agent and was subject to certainNCAA rules in his dealing with the institution and its student-athletes.

Nonetheless, no member of the men's basketball coaching staff informed the athleticsadministration about the representative's contacts with the prospect. As a result, noinstitutional staff member beyond the men's basketball staff had contact with therepresentative until November 2007, when his name was noticed on the prospect'sdisability evaluation as a person to whom a copy of the report should be sent. In March2009, after the institution learned that a media story about the representative was going tobe published, it requested an interview with him. He refused.


21/30


Although the institution's focus during the recruiting process was on the young man's

complicated academic situation, there was no monitoring of the men's basketball staff'snumerous communications with the representative or the representative's connection withthe prospect. The institution acknowledged that the men's basketball staff should havevoiced concern over the representative's relationship with the prospect and that theinstitution failed in its responsibility to monitor that relationship.

Reviewing the use of discretionary tickets. As set forth in Finding B-6 above, on 12occasions from 2007 to 2010 the men's basketball coaching staff disseminateddiscretionary game tickets to individuals in violation of NCAA legislation.

The coaches were generally aware of the rules regarding discretionary tickets. Because

they were personally acquainted with most of the individuals who received the tickets,and because the tickets were received at times of the year when the recipients were notinvolved in coaching activities (they were mostly summer Amateur Athletics Unioncoaches), the institution's coaches looked at the situation as one in which they wereproviding tickets to friends, not nonscholastic coaches. The coaches kept lists of whoreceived the tickets, but the compliance staff did not confirm that all who received thetickets did so in conformance with NCAA regulations. The failure to conduct the checksconstituted failure to monitor.

C. ALLEGATION OF MAJOR VIOLATION NOT FOUND BY THE COMMITTEE.

The enforcement staff alleged that the former assistant coach violated the principles ofethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to the staff in interviewsheld during the investigation. The allegedly false statements were made regarding theformer assistant coach's knowledge of how the prospect's learning-disabled evaluationwas set up and his involvement in arranging the evaluation. This line of inquiry wassignificant because it raised the possibility of the prospect receiving an impermissibleinducement.

The committee was concerned about the role the former assistant coach appeared to playin setting up the evaluation. The evaluation took place at a high school in Connecticut,

even though the prospect lived hundreds of miles away. The former assistant coach madea number of calls to the evaluator, and a close friend of the former assistant coachcontacted the prospect and his advisor to give them information regarding the evaluator.The former assistant coach's explanation about his calls to the evaluator and to his closefriend regarding the prospect and the evaluation was not plausible to the committee.

However, the enforcement staff appeared to base the allegation on speculation regardingthe legitimacy of the evaluation. The language of the allegation lacked clarity. Further,


22/30


the specific questions asked of the former assistant coach that allegedly elicited the false

responses, as well as the actual responses he gave, were not provided to the committee.Certain portions of the transcript of an interview conducted by the institution with theformer assistant coach were made part of the record and provided to the committee,which noted that the questions asked of him were compound and possibly confusing.Therefore, the committee could not conclude that he answered inconsistently or falselyduring the three interviews he participated in. Accordingly, the finding was not made.

D. PENALTIES.

For the reasons set forth in Parts A and B of this report, the Committee on Infractions

found that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. In determining theappropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposedpenalties and corrective actions. [Note: The institution's corrective actions are containedin Appendix Two.]

The committee also considered the institution's cooperation in the processing of this case.Cooperation during the infractions process is addressed in Bylaw 19.01.3 -Responsibility to Cooperate, which states in relevant part that, "All representatives ofmember institutions shall cooperate fully with the NCAA enforcement staff, Committeeon Infractions, Infractions Appeals Committee and Board of Directors. The enforcementpolicies and procedures require full and complete disclosure by all institutional

representatives of any relevant information requested by the NCAA Enforcement Staff,Committee on Infractions or Infractions Appeals Committee during the course of aninquiry." Further, NCAA Bylaw 32.1.4 Cooperative Principle, also addressesinstitutional responsibility to fully cooperate during infractions investigations, stating, inrelevant part, "The cooperative principle imposes an affirmative obligation on eachinstitution to assist the enforcement staff in developing full information, to determinewhether a possible violation of NCAA legislation has occurred and the details thereof."The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met itsobligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4 but did not rise to a level of"extraordinary." The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must beweighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel as set forth in

Section B above. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of theviolations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution'scooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Three years of probation from February 22, 2011, through February 21, 2014.(The institution proposed a two-year period of probation)


23/30


3. The institution shall reduce by one, from 13 to 12, the permissible number ofgrants-in-aid in the sport of men's basketball for the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-2013 academic years. (The institution self imposed this penalty for 2010-11 and2011-12 only)

4. The men's basketball coaching staff was prohibited from placing any calls toprospective student-athletes for the week of Sunday, November 22, 2009, throughSaturday, November 28, 2009. (Institution imposed) Additionally, the men'sbasketball staff shall not make recruiting phone calls during the 2011-12academic year until 30 days after the first date that such calls are allowable.

5. The institution reduced the number of permissible coaches allowed to maketelephone calls to prospective student-athletes by one, from three to two (notincluding the head basketball coach), for a six-month period, beginning with thedate of the institution's response to the notice of allegations. (Institution imposed)

6. The institution shall reduce by 40, from 130 to 90, the permissible number of"recruiting person days" for the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 recruiting periods.(The institution self imposed this penalty for 2010-11 only)

7. The institution shall be limited to no more than five official paid visits in the sportof men's basketball for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 academic years.

8. If still employed at this or any other NCAA member institution during June 2011,the head coach, the assistant coach and all members of the compliance staff shallattend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar which takes place during that period.All of them shall certify in writing which sessions of the seminar they attendedand, within 30 days of their return to their employing institution, the employinginstitution shall send a letter to the committee certifying the attendance of allattendees at the seminar.

9. The committee found that the former operations director exchanged almost 300impermissible phone calls and/or text messages with the prospect over

approximately a 10-month period, provided an impermissible inducement to theprospect by registering him for a standardized test, and provided false andmisleading information during interviews with the enforcement staff andinstitution on two occasions. For these reasons, the committee imposes a two-year show-cause period beginning on February 22, 2011, and ending on February21, 2013. During this period the athletically related duties of the formeroperations director shall be restricted at any employing NCAA institution as setforth below.


24/30


a. If he is employed by any NCAA member institution at the time of 2011and 2012 NCAA Regional Rules Seminars, he must attend a seminarannually and, within one month of each seminar, provide to the office ofthe Committees on Infraction a list of the sessions attended and acertification of his attendance.

b. During the term of the show-cause order, if he is employed by any NCAAmember institution, the former operations director shall be prohibited frommaking or receiving any phone calls related to the recruitment ofprospective student-athletes. This prohibition includes, but is not limitedto, calls made to or received from prospects, their families, their high

school or travel team coaches and any high school or two-year institutionattended by the prospect.

c. Any employing institution shall submit a report to the office of theCommittees on Infractions no later than March 22, 2011, or 30 days afterthe first employment of the former operations director. The report muststate the employing institution's understanding of the above-listedpenalties that are in effect at the time of his employment and itsresponsibility to monitor his compliance. Any institution at which theformer operations director is employed over the duration of these penaltiesshall also document how it will monitor his conduct to assure compliance

with these penalties. Thereafter, every six months until the end of theshow-cause period, the employing institution will submit a supplementaryreport showing how it is continuing to monitor the former operationsdirector.

d. An employing institution and the former operations director areadmonished that the above-listed penalties should be strictly construed andthat the institution must institute safeguards against the commission of anyviolations. Any violations, even if believed to be inadvertent orsecondary, must be reported immediately to the office of the Committeeson Infractions for review and possible action by the committee. Should a

violation occur, the former operations director is admonished that he mustimmediately cease the conduct, document its occurrence, and report it tothe compliance office for immediate submission to the office of theCommittees on Infractions.

Should an employing institution choose to challenge the imposition of theabove-listed penalties, it must do so by scheduling an appearance beforethe Committee on Infractions pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(l) to


25/30


show cause why it should not be penalized if it fails to comply with the

penalties.

10. The committee found that the head coach failed in his duty to promote anatmosphere for compliance and monitor his program as set forth in Finding B-6.Specifically, he knew the representative was involved with the prospect, yet hedid not monitor the relationship or report it to the compliance office. He alsoallowed members of his coaching staff to share recruiting information with therepresentative. Further, he failed to monitor the phone calls and text messagesmade by his staff and did not require them to keep contemporaneous andcomplete records of their contacts, which in part led to the violations set forth inFinding B-1. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5, if the head coach is still

employed by this or any other NCAA member institution during the 2011-12academic year, the head coach shall be suspended from all coaching duties for thefirst three conference games of the 2011-12 season. He shall not be present in thearena where the games are played and shall not have any contact with members ofhis coaching staff or any men's basketball student-athletes while the games areongoing.

11. Through the term of probation, the institution shall inform all prospective men'sbasketball student-athletes it recruits that the institution is on probation untilFebruary 21, 2014, of the violations committed and the penalties imposed on themen's basketball program. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official paid

visit to the institution's campus, the information regarding the violations, penaltiesand terms of probation must be included with other information provided inadvance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided to the prospectbefore he signs a National Letter of Intent and no later than when the institutionprovides the prospect with the academic data and information regarding teamannual performance reviews.

Further, through the term of probation the same information shall be publicizedannually in the men's basketball media guide (or by a Web posting), as well as ina general institution alumni publication to be chosen by the institution with assentof the office of the Committees on Infractions. A copy of the information

contained in the recruiting materials, media guide and alumni publication shall beincluded in the compliance reports to be submitted annually to the office of theCommittees on Infractions.

12. As set forth in Appendix Two, the institution disassociated the representative for aperiod of at least five years. However, because of the violations committed by therepresentative, the institution shall show cause why it should not be penalized


26/30


further if it fails to permanently disassociate him from the institution's athletics

program. This disassociation shall include:

a. Refraining from accepting any assistance from the individual(s) thatwould aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the supportof enrolled student-athletes;

b. Refusing financial assistance or contributions to the institution's athleticsprogram from the individual(s);

c. Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to theindividual(s), either directly or indirectly, that is not available to the public

at large; and

d. Implementing other actions that the institution determines to be within itsauthority to eliminate the involvement of the individual(s) in theinstitution's athletics program.

13. During this period of probation, the institution shall:

a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational programon NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct thecoaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department

personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for thecertification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid orcompetition;

b. Submit a preliminary report to the office of the Committees on Infractionsby May 1, 2011, setting forth a schedule for establishing this complianceand educational program; and

c. File with the office of the Committees on Infractions annual compliancereports indicating the progress made with this program by October 15 ofeach year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be

placed on monitoring recruiting contacts by coaching staffs, recordingcontemporaneously and completely all recruiting contacts made bycoaches, reviewing recruiting documentation by the office of compliance,and educating and monitoring the activities of representatives of theinstitution's athletics interests. The reports must also includedocumentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adoptedand imposed by the committee.


27/30


14. The above-listed penalties are independent of and supplemental to any action that

has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance throughits assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties.

15. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shallprovide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's current athleticspolicies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

_____________________________________________________

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case,the University of Connecticut shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3,concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the

penalties in this case, February 22, 2011.

Should the University of Connecticut or any involved individual appeal either thefindings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions AppealsCommittee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the appealscommittee.

The Committee on Infractions advises the institution that it should take every precautionto ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor thepenalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to theterms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for

extending the institution's probationary period or imposing more severe sanctions or mayresult in additional allegations and findings of violations. An institution that employs anindividual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to adhereto the penalties imposed, subjects itself to allegations and possible findings of violations.

Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason otherthan by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by theCommittee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA legislative bodies directly orindirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, thecommittee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties.

NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONSBritton BanowskyJohn S. BlackRoscoe C. Howard Jr.Eleanor W. MyersJames O'FallonJosephine (Jo) R. PotutoDennis E. Thomas, chair


28/30


APPENDIX ONE

CASE CHRONOLOGY

2009

March 25 - Yahoo! Sports published a story alleging that the institution violated NCAAlegislation in its recruitment of the prospect.

2010

January 29 - A notice of inquiry was sent to the institution.

May 21 - The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the institution and men'sbasketball coaches and requested written responses by August 20, 2010.

July 31 The former operations director, the head coach and the former assistant coachrequested, and were granted, an extension for responding to the notice of allegations untilSeptember 3, 2010.

August 31 The head coach, the former operations director and the former assistant coachrequested, and were granted, a second extension for responding to the notice of allegations until

September 7, 2010.

September 2 - The Committee on Infractions and enforcement staff received the assistant coach'sresponse to the notice of allegations.

September 7 - The Committee on Infractions and enforcement staff received responses to thenotice of allegations from the institution, the former operations director and the head coach.

September 7 The former assistant coach requested, and was granted, a third extension forresponding to the notice of allegations until September 9, 2010.

September 10 - The Committee on Infractions received the former assistant coach's response tothe notice of allegations.

September 11 - The enforcement staff received the former assistant coach's response to the noticeof allegations. The Committee on Infractions received the former assistant coach's amendedresponse to the notice of allegations.


29/30


September 13 - The enforcement staff received the former assistant coach's amended response to

the notice of allegations.

September 15 - The enforcement staff received the former assistant coach's second amendedresponse to the notice of allegations.

September 20 - The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with the headbasketball coach.

September 21 - The enforcement staff conducted prehearing conferences with the institution, theformer operations director and the assistant coach.

September 23 - The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference with the formerassistant coach.

October 15The institution and involved parties appeared before the NCAA Division ICommittee on Infractions.

2011

February 22 - Infractions Report No. 339 was released.


30/30


APPENDIX TWO

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S SEPTEMBER 2,

2010, RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS.

Disassociated the representative for at least five years. Accepted the resignations of former operations director and the former assistant coach. Hired a director of men's basketball administration (replacing the former position of

director of men's basketball operations.) As a veteran coach, this hire had has extensiveexperience in managing the day-to-day activities of a Division I men's basketball

program. He will serve as the men's basketball program's liaison to the institution'sathletics compliance and director of athletics offices.

Contracted with a technology company that offers software products for monitoringrecruiting and NCAA rules compliance, for the development of a complete telephone callmonitoring system.

Developed a plan for an annual, mandatory rules-education session for all sportsprograms concerning telephone call and text messaging legislation and complimentary/discretionary ticket distribution guidelines;

Issued letters of admonishment to the assistant coach and the head coach for telephonecall and text messaging violations detailed in Finding B-1. Will require the men's basketball staff to use the XOS ticket management software

program currently used for administering student-athlete complimentary admissions.Additionally, during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons, each member of the men'sbasketball staff will be required to: 1) leave all non-family member discretionary ticketsat the will-call ticket window for pickup; and 2) submit to the compliance office, byMay 1 following each season, a game-by-game (home and away) log of all discretionaryticket recipients.

The institution's department of athletics will have annual reviews by the institution'sOffice of Audit Compliance and Ethics. Will require the assistant coach (the staff's most active recruiting coach) and new

members of its men's basketball coaching staff to attend an NCAA Regional RulesSeminar in the spring or summer of 2011.

University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report

Documents

Transcript of University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report