NCAA Division I Enforcement
Hot Topics
Session Overview
• Trending violations.
• Enforcement policies and procedures update and
enforcement activities after investigative phase, but
prior to issuance of a Notice of Allegations.
• Case studies of trending violations and how those
violations are analyzed.
Trending Violations
Trending Violations
•
•
•
•
Responsibility of Head Coach
Impermissible Recruiting Contacts
Extra Benefits
Academic Misconduct
Responsibility of Head Coach
• NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.1.1 - Responsibility of
Head Coach
• Key Points:
• Presumption of responsibility for the actions of all
institutional staff members who report, directly or
indirectly, to the head coach.
• Two Prongs:
• Promote an atmosphere of compliance.
• Monitor the staff's activities.
• Rebuttal of presumption
• Communication
• Monitoring
• Documentation
• http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/HeadCoachResponsibility_081214%2
8LWM%29.pdf
Responsibility of Head Coach
• Key Takeaways:
• The head coach and staff have an obligation to report
potential rules violations and actual rules violations to the
administration.
• The head coach has an obligation to ensure that his/her
program's monitoring systems are operating properly.
• The head coach and staff have an obligation to consult with
compliance staff to determine if their actions are consistent
with NCAA rules.
• The head coach and staff have an obligation to identify
situations where circumstances could result in NCAA
violations, alert compliance and monitor the situation
closely.
Impermissible Recruiting Contacts
• A contact is any face-to-face encounter between a
prospective student-athlete or the prospective studentathlete's parents, relatives or legal guardians and an
institutional staff member or athletics representative
during which any dialogue occurs in excess of an
exchange of a greeting. (Bylaw 13.02.4)
• Generally, off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be
made with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal
guardians) before July 1 following the completion of
his/her junior year in high school or the opening day of
classes of his/her senior year in high school (as
designated by the high school), whichever is earlier.
(Bylaw 13.1.1.1)
Impermissible Recruiting Contacts
• Interpretations and educational columns:
• Staff interpretation- Contact with Prospective
Student-Athlete (September 30, 1988)
• Educational Column- Impermissible Contact
Outside of the Contact Period (November 8, 1999)
Extra Benefits
• Any special arrangement by an institutional employee or
representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide
the student-athlete or his/her family members or friends with
a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
• Was the benefit provided by an institutional employee or representative?
• Was there intent?
• Was this benefit advertised to the general student body?
• Level of the Violation
•
•
•
•
Was there intent?
What was the value of the benefit?
Length of time it was received?
Competitive/recruiting advantage gained?
Academic Misconduct
• "Academic Misconduct" is an umbrella term which
encompasses violations of an institution's policies related to
academic honesty and integrity by a prospective or enrolled
student-athlete or institutional staff member (April 16, 2014
educational column).
• Deference to the Academy: Institution is given discretion to
follow it's internal policies to make a determination if
academic misconduct took place.
• Bylaw 16.11.2.1 – Extra benefit analysis is appropriate if the assistance
received by the student-athlete is not needed for eligibility purposes. By
definition it must be an institutional staff member which is very specific.
Enforcement Policies and
Procedures Update
Enforcement Internal Operating
Procedures
• Article 19 Procedures
• Enforcement Internal Operating Procedures
(IOPs)
• Published at www.ncaa.org/enforcement
Current State of Charging Decisions
• Lack of institutional control.
• Unethical conduct.
• Head coach responsibility.
Development of Charging Guidelines
• Lack of institutional control.
• Unethical conduct.
• Head coach responsibility.
Internal Review of Allegations Prior to
Issuance of Notice of Allegations
Internal Review of Allegations
• Investigative team constantly reviews potential violations throughout
investigation.
• Rigorous auditing of potential violations prior to issuance of Notice of
Allegations.
• Audits by investigative team, academic and membership affairs staff, review
board and enforcement executives/office of legal affairs.
• Soundness of Allegations
• Violation Levels
• 19.1.1 through 19.1.4
• Aggravating/Mitigating Factors
• 19.9.3 and 19.9.4
• What is the difference between violation level and
aggravation/mitigation?
• Goals and Key Considerations
Processing of Allegations
• Finalizing allegations and issuing the Notice of
Allegations.
• 19.7.1
• Notice Of Allegations issuance = case moves to jurisdiction of the
Committee on Infractions.
• Processing options.
• Institution and individual(s) response.
• 19.7.2
• Enforcement reply.
• 19.7.3
• Pre-hearing conference.
• 19.7.4
• Hearing before Committee on Infractions.
• 19.7.7
Case Studies of Trending
Violations
Case Study No. 1: Responsibility of
Head Coach
Review of Head Coach Control
• A head coach is presumed responsible for the actions of
all institutional staff members who report directly or
indirectly to the head coach.
• A head coach can rebut that presumption by
demonstrating he/she:
• Promoted an atmosphere of compliance within his or her
program.
AND
• Monitored the activities of all institutional staff members
that report directly or indirectly to the head coach.
(Bylaw 11.1.1.1)
Facts
• The assistant volleyball coach provided gift cards
and clothing to volleyball prospective studentathletes valued at over $2,500.
• The assistant volleyball coach impermissibly
contacted prospects on 45 occasions via telephone
and text message prior to the first permissible date
of contact.
• The assistant volleyball coach provided false or
misleading information during an interview with
the enforcement staff and institution when she
denied providing inducements to the prospects.
Additional Facts
• The assistant coach reported that the head coach was aware
that she sometimes used her roommate's phone to make
recruiting calls.
• The assistant coach reported she does not log calls when she
uses her roommate's phone.
• The assistant coach reported that she "knows the rules."
• The head coach reported that the compliance staff provides
regular rules education to her staff and she doesn't conduct
meetings with her staff about NCAA legislation because her
staff "knows what she is about."
• The assistant coach reported that the head coach is always on
them to recruit "program changing players" and the head
coach monitors how often they communicate with top
prospects.
Audience Poll
Do you believe that the head coach promoted an
atmosphere of compliance?
A. Yes
B. No
Audience Poll
Do you believe that the head coach monitored her
staff?
A. Yes
B. No
Audience Poll
Do you believe that the head coach rebutted the
presumptive responsibility for the violations?
A. Yes
B. No
Facts that make the analysis difficult
• The head coach relied on compliance to provide
all rules education.
• The head coach's monitoring efforts were
limited.
• The violations by the assistant coach were
concealed.
Case Study No. 2: Impermissible
Recruiting Contacts
Bylaw 13.02.4
A contact is any face-to-face encounter between a
prospective student-athlete and an institutional staff
member or booster during which a dialogue occurs in
excess of an exchange or greeting.
Any such
encounter that is prearranged or takes place at the
prospect's school is impermissible, regardless of
whether conversation occurs.
Bylaw 13.1.1.1
Off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with
a prospect before July 1 following the completion of
his or her junior year in high school, or the opening
day of classes of his or her senior year in high school,
whichever is earlier. (Football)
Facts of Case Study No. 2a
• The prospect at issue is a junior attending Alternative High
School No. 1 and playing football at High School No. 2.
• The assistant football coach visits High School No. 1 where he
has in-person contact with the prospect.
• Contact was arranged by a third party (a recruiting analyst),
who accompanied the assistant coach to High School No. 1
and sent a text to the prospect to come outside and meet the
coach.
• The in-person conversation lasted approximately two
minutes, during which the prospect gave the coach his social
media contact information.
Audience Poll
Do you believe that a violation was committed?
A. Violation
B. No violation
Audience Poll
Is this violation Level II (Significant Breach of
Conduct) or Level III (Breach of Conduct)?
A. Level II
B. Level III
Facts of Case Study No. 2b
• The prospect at issue is a high school junior.
• The assistant football coach visits the prospect's
high school where they have in-person contact.
• Contact was facilitated by the prospect's high
school coach, who sent a text to the prospect to
come to his office and meet the coach.
• Once the prospect arrived, he and the coach step
into another room and speak for 10 minutes.
Audience Poll
Do you believe that a violation was committed?
A. Violation
B. No Violation
Audience Poll
Is this violation Level II (Significant Breach of
Conduct) or Level III (Breach of Conduct)?
A. Level II
B. Level III
Case Study No. 3: Unethical Conduct
and Extra Benefits
Bylaw 10.1-(c)
Knowing involvement in offering or providing a
prospective or enrolled student-athlete an
improper inducement or extra benefit or improper
financial aid.
Bylaw 10.1-(d)
Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing
others to furnish the NCAA or the individual's
institution false or misleading information
concerning an individual's involvement in or
knowledge of matters relevant to a possible
violation of an NCAA regulation.
Facts of Case Study 3
• A booster of Institution X initiates contact with
an assistant football coach at Institution X, to let
him know about a talented prospect in booster's
locale.
• The assistant football coach is already recruiting
the prospect, and he and the booster develop a
friendly relationship.
• The booster contacts the prospect and also
develops a relationship with him.
Facts of Case Study 3
• During the next eight months, the booster exchanges 120 phone
calls with the prospect.
• The booster also provides the following inducements:
• $100 on two-occasions (which involved in-person off-campus
contact at a pregame tailgate during the prospect's official paid
visit);
• $300 visa gift card;
• $60 Institution X jacket;
• Use of a rental car to make an unofficial visit to Institution X;
• A car to the prospect's mother at a $2,000 discount; and
• A promise of $6,000 if the prospect declined to take an official
paid visit to Institution Y.
• The booster and football coach also exchange numerous phone
calls with each other, which included 25 calls on or near the
times and dates of calls and contacts between the booster and the
prospect.
Facts
• The prospect reported the violations.
• The booster denied providing the inducements.
• The assistant football coach denied having
knowledge of contact between the booster and
the prospect or of any recruiting inducements.
• The booster and the assistant football coach
exchanged 150 phone calls with each other,
which included 30 calls on or near the times and
dates of calls and contacts between the booster
and the prospect.
Audience Poll
Should the assistant football coach be charged
with unethical conduct?
A. Yes
B. No
Audience Poll
Is this violation Level I (Severe Breach of
Conduct) or Level II (Significant Breach of
Conduct)?
A. Level I
B. Level II
Case Study No. 4: Academic
Misconduct
Bylaw 10.1-(b)
Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent
academic credit or false transcripts for a
prospective or an enrolled student-athlete.
Facts of Case Study 4a
• During the spring semester, a university instructor
provided academic assistance to five football
student-athletes in another instructor's course when
she completed online quizzes and exams for the
student-athletes.
• The institution discovered the academic misconduct
two weeks later and issued failing grades to the
student-athletes.
• The institution's academic integrity committee
reviewed the matter and determined misconduct
occurred.
Audience Poll
Is this a violation of 10.1-(b) (i.e. it must be
reported to the NCAA enforcement staff)?
A. Yes
B. No
Audience Poll
Why does the violation have to be reported to the
NCAA?
A. Institutional staff member involvement.
B. Student-athlete involvement in arranging
fraudulent academic credit.
C. Competition while ineligible.
D. A and B.
E. A, B and C.
Audience Poll
Is this violation Level I (Severe Breach of
Conduct) or Level II (Significant Breach of
Conduct)?
A. Level I
B. Level II
Facts of Case Study 4b
• During one semester, a university instructor
provided academic assistance to three studentathletes when she provided answers to some
questions to online quizzes and exams and
assisted in the completion of some questions to
online quizzes and exams.
• The assistance the instructor provided
amounted to 25% of the required coursework.
• The institution's academic integrity committee
determined that the assistance provided by the
instructor was not significant enough to
constitute academic misconduct.
Audience Poll
Is this a violation of 10.1-(b)?
A. Yes
B. No
Audience Poll
Why doesn't the institution have to provide the
matter to the NCAA?
A. The instructor provided incorrect answers.
B. The institution's academic integrity unit
determined that no fraud occurred.
C. The student-athletes weren't at fault for the
instructor's actions.
Open Dialogue/Questions
Open Dialogue
• What is on your mind?
• What are your biggest issues?
• How can the enforcement staff help?
Contacts and Resources
• If you need help or advice:
• Contact the enforcement staff.
• Contact your conference office.
• Contact the NCAA Academic & Membership Affairs hotline
317/ 917-6003.
• Visit the NCAA website (www.ncaa.org) – follow links to
enforcement information and databases.