FOR RELEASE: Thursday, June 23, 1994, 10 a.m. (Central time) CONTACT: David Swank, Chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions

Transcription

1 FOR RELEASE: Thursday, June 23, 1994, 10 a.m. (Central time) CONTACT: David Swank, Chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions University of Oklahoma OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS ---This report is organized as follows: I. Introduction. II. Findings of violations of NCAA legislation. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. I. Introduction. Ohio State University is a Division I institution and a member of the Big Ten Conference. It has an enrollment of approximately 57,000 students and sponsors 16 men's, 15 women's and two mixed sports. This infractions case involved the men's basketball and men's and women's track and field programs and concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting, extra benefits, eligibility for practice, and institutional control. A. Case chronology. On October 12, 1992, the NCAA enforcement staff received an anonymous telephone call reporting potential violations of NCAA rules by Ohio State University basketball coaches in the recruitment of a prospective basketball student-athlete. The allegations concerned providing cash to a high-school basketball coach to pay for a meal and allowing an impermissible in-person contact between the university's head men's basketball coach and the prospective student-athlete during his junior year. [Page 2] In the weeks following the call, the NCAA enforcement staff conducted interviews of individuals at the prospective student-athlete's high school, including the prospective student-athlete and the high school's head basketball coach. On November 20, 1992, the NCAA enforcement staff notified the director of athletics at Ohio State University about the alleged violation of NCAA contact legislation and requested that the director of athletics and the head men's basketball coach be available for interviews on November 24, Later, the university was notified about the allegation regarding the payment of a meal for the high-school basketball coach. After the November 24 interviews, the

2 institution and enforcement staff agreed that the university would investigate further the alleged illegal contact and report to the staff. In the meantime, NCAA enforcement representatives interviewed a former Ohio State assistant basketball coach who also had been identified as having been involved in the violations and who currently serves as a head basketball coach at another Division I institution. The university reported in a February 18, 1993, letter to an NCAA enforcement representative that violations of NCAA regulations had occurred and that it believed the violations were secondary based on the information it had developed. Subsequently, the enforcement staff received several more anonymous telephone calls about these alleged violations and continued interviewing individuals involved in the alleged violations. Interviews by the NCAA enforcement staff developed corroborative information supporting the conclusion that a violation of NCAA legislation had occurred. On March 15, 1993, the university declared the involved prospective student-athlete ineligible and requested restoration of his eligibility. On May 21, 1993, the NCAA eligibility staff denied the university's request. During the academic year, the prospective student-athlete enrolled in and competed at another institution. During the university's investigation of the alleged recruiting violations, other allegations related to the men's basketball program and several allegations in the men's and women's track program surfaced. The university and the enforcement staff agreed to pursue these new allegations jointly. After several interviews with current and former coaches, student-athletes, and others, they were satisfied that all of the information had been developed and that some violations of NCAA regulations had occurred. Other allegations were determined to be unfounded. [Page 3] The university and the enforcement staff concluded the investigative phase of the case in December After a complete review of the evidence and a thorough review of several NCAA Committee on Infractions' decisions involving similar issues of recruitment, extra benefits and lack of institutional control, the university and enforcement staff determined that the case represented more than isolated or inadvertent actions on the part of one of its coaches, and that those actions potentially provided a recruiting advantage. The university and enforcement staff agreed on the findings of violations and on the fact that this was a major case. They decided that this case should be processed in accordance with the summary-disposition regulations of Bylaw On March 25, 1994, with the consent of all individuals named in the findings of violations, the university and enforcement staff submitted a summary-disposition report for the Committee on Infractions' review. In the summary-disposition report, the enforcement staff indicated that the university's investigation, combined with the enforcement staff's inquiries, was complete and thorough and that the university had cooperated with the NCAA. The NCAA Committee on Infractions considered the summary-disposition report on April 16, The committee decided that it was unable to accept the findings and penalties as presented and notified the institution on May 4, 1994, of its options, including the submission of an amended set of findings and penalties.

3 The committee also questioned why an unresolved allegation in the summary-disposition report had not been further investigated. Because this allegation involved only a secondary violation, which if found to have occurred would be unlikely to affect the penalties imposed, the committee decided not to delay this report by returning the case for further investigation. On May 16, 1994, the institution submitted an amendment to the findings of violations and proposed additional penalties. On June 4, 1994, the committee reviewed and accepted the findings and penalties as amended. B. Summary of findings of violations. In men's basketball, the violations related to recruiting, and a lack of institutional control in the implementation of a monitoring program for recruiting activities and in the supervision of the coaching staff. In men's and women's track, the violations concerned extra benefits and eligibility for practice. Specifically, the committee found that: [Page 4] The men's basketball coaching staff made two impermissible, off-campus, recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete during his junior year of high school. The men's basketball coaching staff exceeded the number of permissible, in-person, recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete. A volunteer coach, who should not have been involved in off-campus recruiting, attended an offcampus dinner with a prospective student-athlete and other members of the institution's coaching staff. The men's basketball coaching staff provided improper inducements to prospective studentathletes, including meals, university bags and extra amenities. An assistant men's basketball coach on one occasion provided money to a prospective studentathlete's high-school coach and on another occasion provided a meal to the high-school coach. A representative of the institution's athletics interests had an impermissible recruiting contact with a prospective student-athlete. The head women's track coach provided impermissible transportation to an enrolled studentathlete. A volunteer assistant men's track coach provided impermissible coaching to an academic nonqualifier. There existed a general lack of institutional control caused by the failure of the university and head men's basketball coach to monitor adequately and supervise the men's basketball coaching staff. C. Summary of the penalties.

4 In determining the appropriate penalties, the Committee on Infractions considered the corrective actions taken by the university, as detailed in Part III-A of this report. 1. The committee adopted as its own the following penalties self-imposed by the institution: Public reprimand and censure. [Page 5] Probation for one year and implementation of a comprehensive athletics compliance education program. Reduction by one in the number of scholarships awarded in men's basketball for one academic year. Prohibition of the head men's basketball coach from recruiting off-campus during the July 1994 and September 1994 evaluation periods. Recertification of current athletics policies and practices. Admonishments and reprimands issued to the head coaches involved in violations. 2. The committee adopted as its own the penalties and recognized the corrective actions imposed by the institution that currently employs the former assistant men's basketball coach and the former volunteer coach involved in this case, including: Restrictions on the former assistant coach's off-campus recruiting during the July 1994 and September 1994 evaluation periods and part of the academic year. Certain compliance education activities by both the former assistant coach and the former volunteer coach. The committee also noted with approval that the institution that currently employs the former assistant coach placed him on probation for one year. II. Findings of violations of NCAA legislation. A. Impermissible, off-campus, recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete during his junior year of high school. [NCAA Bylaw ] On two occasions prior to the completion of a prospective student-athlete's junior year in high school, members of the institution's men's basketball coaching staff made impermissible inperson, off-campus recruiting contacts. [Page 6] Specifically, on October 30, 1991, an assistant men's basketball coach arranged for a dinner at a nearby, off-campus restaurant after a group from the prospective student-athlete's high school observed a men's basketball practice on the university's campus. The assistant coach, the head

5 men's basketball coach and a volunteer coach were present at the dinner with the prospective student-athlete and the other visitors from his high school. On December 9, 1991, the head men's basketball coach and the assistant men's basketball coach had an in-person conversation with the prospective student-athlete after he completed basketball practice at his high school. B. Excessive number of permissible, in-person, recruiting contacts. [NCAA Bylaw ] On September 11 and 17, and October 8, 1992, members of the coaching staff made permissible, in-person, recruiting contacts with the prospective student-athlete. As a result of these three permissible contacts and the two impermissible contacts during the prospective student-athlete's junior year described in Part II-A, the institution exceeded the limit of three permissible, inperson, off-campus contacts per prospect. C. Recruitment by an unauthorized institutional staff member. [NCAA Bylaw ] On October 30, 1991, a volunteer coach, who should not have been involved in off-campus recruiting activities, attended dinner at an off-campus restaurant with the prospective studentathlete. The head men's basketball coach and an assistant men's basketball coach also were present. Also in attendance were the high-school basketball coach, another high-school basketball student-athlete, an assistant high-school basketball coach and a high-school basketball manager. D. Improper inducements provided to prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaws , and (g)] On several occasions, the university provided prospective student-athletes with improper inducements, including meals, university bags and extra amenities in hotel rooms. [Page 7] On October 30, 1991, after dinner at an off-campus restaurant, an assistant men's basketball coach passed approximately $60 cash under the table to a high-school head basketball coach, without the knowledge of the others present. The high-school coach used the money to pay for the meal and the traveling expenses of a group from the high school, including two prospective student-athletes. After the meal, the assistant coach and the high-school group walked outside to the restaurant parking lot. The assistant coach provided four Ohio State nylon bags to the highschool coach who later provided them to members of the high-school group, including the prospective student-athletes. On December 9, 1991, after a basketball practice at the prospective student-athlete's high school, the assistant men's basketball coach drove to a local fast food restaurant, purchased food, returned to the high school and provided meals to the prospective student-athlete and the head high-school basketball coach.

6 During the past few years, the university has provided prospective basketball student-athletes on their official visits to the university with extra amenities in their hotel rooms, including concierge level rooms. E. Improper entertainment of high-school coaches. [NCAA Bylaw ] As described in Part II-D, an assistant men's basketball coach on October 30, 1991, provided money to a prospective student-athlete's high-school coach for a meal and on December 9, 1991, provided a meal to the high-school coach. F. Impermissible recruitment by a representative of the institution's athletics interests. [NCAA Bylaws and ] On October 10, 1992, during the prospective student-athlete's official visit, an assistant men's basketball coach introduced him to a former Ohio State University basketball student-athlete and representative of the university's athletics interests, who talked with the prospective studentathlete while standing outside of the university's basketball arena. [Page 8] G. Improper transportation to an enrolled student-athlete. [NCAA Bylaw ] During the spring of 1992, the head women's track coach provided automobile transportation to a women's track student-athlete from the NCAA National Indoor Track Championships meet held in Indianapolis, Indiana, to Columbus, Ohio, a one-way distance of approximately 172 miles. Although the head coach was in Indianapolis to watch one of the institution's student-athletes compete, the student-athlete was not entitled to receive institution traveling expenses since she did not qualify for the meet. H. Impermissible practice by an academic nonqualifier. [NCAA Bylaw ] During the spring of 1991, a volunteer assistant track coach provided impermissible individual instruction to a men's track student-athlete, who was an academic nonqualifier. I. Lack of institutional control. [NCAA Constitution 2.1, and 6.01] During the 1991_92 and 1992_93 academic years, the university and the head men's basketball coach failed to exercise appropriate institutional control over the men's basketball program. The university failed to implement a system in men's basketball during the academic year for monitoring recruiting activities of its coaching staff in regard to in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts; unofficial visits; or the number of telephone calls to prospective studentathletes. Once a system was implemented during the academic year, the institution's men's basketball coaching staff failed to monitor the program. The head men's basketball coach failed to supervise adequately and control his staff, as evidenced by the violations that occurred in his presence. Specifically: 1. During the academic year when several impermissible contacts were made with a prospective student-athlete, the institution did not require the men's basketball coaching staff

7 members to keep records concerning recruiting information [Page 9] (e.g., dates of contacts, evaluations, unofficial visits) on prospective student-athletes. However, in June 1992, the institution began requiring the men's basketball coaching staff to keep forms that documented information regarding the recruitment of prospective student-athletes. The coaches failed to follow these requirements and the institution did not monitor its implementation; minimal records were kept regarding recruitment of prospective student-athletes. 2. During the and academic years, the institution's men's basketball coaching staff committed several recruiting violations. Some of these violations occurred in the presence of the head men's basketball coach and under circumstances in which he should have known the violations had occurred. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. A. Corrective actions. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the Committee on Infractions considered the institution's self-imposed corrective actions. Specifically, the university: 1. Expanded the responsibilities of the university's compliance coordinator to include monitoring off-campus and on-campus recruiting activities. In addition, department-wide compliance committees have been established for the development, implementation and maintenance of institutional compliance policies and procedures. 2. Implemented a computerized monitoring system to review off-campus and on-campus recruiting activities. 3. Formalized the institution's policies on reporting rules violations and requesting rules interpretations. 4. Formalized the role of the faculty athletics representative in a job description, including shared responsibility for compliance oversight. 5. Increased monitoring for university-sponsored high-school coaches' clinics, including tighter controls on items provided to attendees. [Page 10] 6. Provided coaches with written clarification of what dining facilities are considered on-campus versus off-campus for entertaining prospects and with information regarding limitations for partial qualifiers and nonqualifiers. 7. Expanded rules education for coaches, staff and student-athletes to include information on permissible automobile transportation and extra benefits. A section on extra benefits will be added to the student-athlete handbook. 8. Centralized control of hotel arrangements for official visits and advised coaches that no extra amenities can be provided for prospective student-athletes on a visit. The university also advised

8 those hotels used to house prospective student-athletes who are on official visits concerning relevant NCAA regulations regarding impermissible benefits to recruits and parents. 9. Instructed student hosts to avoid any contact between a booster and a prospective studentathlete. 10. The university recognizes that under the provisions of NCAA Bylaws and (championships participation) a men's track student-athlete's participation in the 1992 and 1993 NCAA track championships and his eligibility in those meets is subject to review by the NCAA Division I Track Committee. 11. The university also will submit to annual in_person reviews of its compliance program during the next two academic years. B. Penalties self-imposed by the university. The committee adopts as its own the following penalties self-imposed by the university. 1. Public reprimand and censure. 2. One year of probation beginning June 4, During this period of probation, the institution shall: (a) develop and implement a comprehensive educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) on NCAA legislation to instruct coaches, the faculty athletics representative, athletics department personnel and all university staff members with re [Page 11] sponsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention or competition; (b) submit a preliminary report to the administrator for the Committee on Infractions by September 1, 1994, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and (c) file a final report by August 1, 1995, with the committee's administrator indicating the progress made during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on education and compliance with NCAA legislation involving recruitment of student-athletes. 4. During the academic year, the number of financial aid awards permitted in men's basketball will be reduced from 13 to The number of coaches permitted to recruit off-campus at any one time will be reduced from three to two during the July 5-31, 1994, evaluation period and from two to one during the September 9-26, 1994, contact period. In both cases, the head men's basketball coach shall be the coach who shall not recruit off-campus. 6. Recertification from the institution's president that all of the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. 7. The university will admonish a representative of its athletics interests concerning the rules regulating contacts between athletics representatives and prospective student_athletes.

9 8. The university will issue a written reprimand to the head men's basketball coach and freeze his salary at its current level for the academic year. 9. Each member of the men's basketball coaching staff will be required to attend at least one NCAA legislative and rules interpretation seminar by the end of the academic year. 10. The university will reprimand and admonish the former head women's track coach. 11. The university reassigned the former head women's track coach to primarily administrative duties. 12. The university will issue a written reprimand to and admonish the head men's track coach to take steps to ensure that violations do not recur within his program. [Page 12] C. Corrective actions and penalties imposed by the former assistant coach's and former volunteer coach's current institution. The committee noted with approval the following corrective actions and accepted the following penalties imposed on the former assistant men's basketball coach and former volunteer coach by the institution where they presently serve as head and assistant coaches, respectively. 1. The committee acknowledged the following corrective actions: a. The head coach has been placed on probation from May 1994 to May A formal letter was entered into the departmental personnel file for one year. b. During the period of probation, the university compliance coordinator will do a complete three-phase review of all documentation and activities in the sport of men's basketball. This review occurred in May 1994 and will continue in December 1994 and April c. The head coach and assistant coach assisted in the instruction of a mandatory five-meeting compliance education workshop for all university athletics department staff scheduled for the last week in May d. The head coach was required to attend the NCAA compliance seminar in Washington, D.C. on May 25-27, 1994, at his own expense. 2. The committee adopted as its own the following penalties: a. The head coach will be removed from off-campus recruiting for 13 days during the 26-day July 1994 period, and eight days during the 17-day period in September b. The head coach was not permitted to attend any off-campus meals with prospective studentathletes for the remainder of the year.

10 Because Ohio State University and the involved coaches agreed to participate in the summarydisposition process, admitted the violations of NCAA rules and proposed penalties that were adopted by the Committee on Infractions, the university and coaches waive the opportunity to appeal the decisions made in this case. The Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that when the penalties in this case become effective, the institution should take every precaution to ensure that their terms are observed. [Page 13] The committee intends to monitor the penalties during their effective periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as imposing more severe sanctions in this case. Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Richard J. Dunn Jack H. Friedenthal Roy F. Kramer Beverly E. Ledbetter Frederick B. Lacey James L. Richmond David Swank (chair) RJG:jmq