EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT NOVEMBER 8, 2012

Transcription

1 EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT NOVEMBER 8, 2012 A. INTRODUCTION. This case involves the women's basketball program at Eastern Michigan University 1 and was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative endeavor in which the Committee on Infractions reviews infractions cases submitted in written form. This process is used as an alternative to a formal hearing, and may be utilized only when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and that those facts constitute major violations. 2 A majority of the violations in this case concern the staff of the women's basketball program (i) requiring women's basketball student-athletes to participate in countable athletically related activities which exceeded practice hour limitations over a three year period and (ii) arranging for prospective student-athletes to participate in open gym sessions in violation of NCAA tryout legislation. The then head women's basketball coach ("former head coach") was cited for a failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program. Finally, the institution's athletics department failed to monitor the women's basketball program to ensure compliance with time limits for countable athletically related activities. These violations were ongoing and took place during the through academic years and the intervening summers of 2007 through The committee has emphasized that the limitations on playing and practice hours exist to safeguard student-athlete well-being and prohibit unfair competitive advantages from occurring. University of Memphis, Case No. M223 (2005); Ball State University, Case No. M326 (2010). Excessive participation in athletically related activities detracts from time that can be devoted to academic work and, in extreme cases, can lead to any number of dangerous medical conditions. The committee was particularly troubled by comments in the record. For example, the former head coach told student-athletes who complained about excessive practices or sought to leave early to study that they were "soft," and that 1 A member of the Mid-American Conference, Eastern Michigan University has an enrollment of approximately 23,000 students. The institution sponsors nine men's and 12 women's intercollegiate sports. This was the institution's second major infractions case; the institution appeared before the committee in 1972 for a case involving the men's basketball program. 2 The involved individual in this case is the former head coach, who submitted an extensive response in these proceedings and executed the Summary Disposition Agreement Form confirming that she had reviewed the report and agreed that the factual findings were "substantially correct" and that violations of NCAA legislation had occurred.

2 Page No. 2 they had "the rest of [their lives] to retake a class. As another example, a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic assistant coach") told a student-athlete late for practice that practice was more important than going to class. The nonscholastic assistant coach also refused a request by student-athletes that they leave practice early as they had a six-hour drive home. [Note: These practices violated NCAA bylaws. See Finding B-2 of this report.] Instead, he had them stay until 7 p.m. Student-athletes feared reprisals from their head coach and, as a consequence, lied to compliance staff when questioned about whether summer workouts were voluntary. In February 2010, two student-athletes told a professor/faculty compliance associate ("professor") that they were exhausted from excessive practices. As detailed in this report, from at least summer 2007 and continuing until July 27, 2010, the institution received information about potential practice violations. On July 27, 2010, a student-athlete who was in the process of transferring to another institution discussed her concerns with the professor. The investigation that led to the violations then ensued. The institution strategically targeted its investigation into the women's basketball program on August 23, 2010, by concurrently interviewing the student-athletes and the coaching staff at two different locations on campus. The institution later interviewed two former women's basketball student-athletes, the athletics trainer and the sport administrator for women's basketball. All persons interviewed were told of their ethical obligation to provide truthful information, signed statements affirming their understanding of the ethical conduct rule, were instructed that they were not to discuss their interview with anyone, and were actively monitored throughout the interview time to ensure that no one shared information about the content of the interviews. The institution submitted its self-report to the enforcement staff on September 24, 2010, along with self-imposed sanctions. The enforcement staff and the institution then conducted an inquiry of the women's basketball program from February 7, 2011, through January 4, The institution was fully cooperative throughout the course of the investigation. The committee reviewed the summary report submitted by the enforcement staff during its August 2012 meeting. In a letter to the institution dated August 23, 2012, the committee proposed further penalties. On August 29, 2012, the institution informed the committee that it agreed to the imposition of the further sanctions. In an August 24 letter to the former head coach, the committee proposed a two-year show-cause order. In an message dated September 5, counsel for the former head coach informed the committee that the former head coach accepted the show-cause order. (See Penalty C-5.) The factual findings and the committee's determinations of violations and penalties are detailed here.

3 Page No. 3 B. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. 1. PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS. NCAA Bylaws: Countable athletically related activities; Voluntary athletically related activities; Daily and weekly hour limitations (Playing Season); Computation and Recording of Hour Limitations - Countable athletically related activities prohibited after competition; Computation and Recording of Hour Limitations - Hour limitation record; Required day off. During the through academic years, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in countable athletically related activities that exceeded the daily and weekly practice hour limitations during the regular basketball playing season. Further, the coaches failed to record accurately the practice hours on the countable athletically related activities (CARA) forms. Specifically: a. During the academic year, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in countable athletically related activities on numerous occasions that exceeded the daily and weekly practice hour limitations. (1) During the 2009 fall semester, the student-athletes practiced more than four hours per day approximately three times per week, which resulted in the student-athletes practicing a minimum of 23 hours per week. During the 2010 winter semester, the student-athletes practiced more than four hours per day on a less frequent basis than during the 2009 fall semester, which still resulted in the student-athletes practicing a minimum of 23 hours per week every other week. In both the 2009 fall semester and the 2010 winter semester the practice time exceeded the allowable 20 hours per week. (2) During the academic year, some members of the women's basketball team were required to participate in individual conditioning workouts for approximately 30 minutes in the training room on Sunday (their day off) with the trainer, which resulted in the student-athletes accumulating additional hours of countable athletically related activities and, on numerous occasions, not having a day off for the week as required by NCAA legislation.

4 Page No. 4 (3) On November 24, 2009, the women's basketball coaching staff required the student-athletes to participate in countable athletically related activities after a competition when they had to watch the game film after the Temple University (Temple) basketball game. b. During the and academic years, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in countable athletically related activities on numerous occasions that exceeded the daily and weekly practice hour limitations. Specifically, during the and playing seasons, the women's basketball student-athletes practiced more than four hours per day, four times per week, which resulted in the student-athletes practicing a minimum of 22 hours per week, exceeding the limit allowable under NCAA rules. c. During the through academic years, the coaches failed to record accurately the student-athletes' daily and weekly countable practice hours on the CARA forms. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the former head coach were in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. In addition, numerous student-athletes and the basketball staff reported that the team practiced more than four hours per day and more than 20 hours per week during the former head coach's tenure. The committee finds that the violations occurred. Regarding Findings B-1-a-(1) and B-1-b, the institution interviewed 10 current studentathletes and two former student-athletes who each gave detailed accounts about the ways in which the team's practice hours exceeded the daily and weekly practice hour limitations, during the , and academic years. The assistant basketball coaches and the athletics trainer also reported that team practices often lasted more than four hours during the same time period. The student-athletes reported that for practices conducted during the basketball season, the former head coach required them to arrive 15 minutes early in order to shoot 100 free throws and to practice three-point shooting prior to the start of basketball practice. According to a former assistant coach ("former assistant coach 1"), student-athletes who did not complete 100 free throws before the start of basketball practice had to stay and complete them after practice. While the coaches kept a daily written record of the student-athletes' free throws and three-point shots made, the coaches, incorrectly, did not consider these activities as countable athletically related activities. Consequently, the

5 Page No. 5 activities were not properly calculated in daily and weekly totals of countable athletically related activities. This factual finding is also the basis for Finding B-1-c. The former head coach stated that, as the head coach, she understood that she was expected to know, understand and apply the rules. The former head coach has taken full responsibility for the violations, though she believed the violations were the result of her mistaken understanding and application of the playing and practice-seasons legislation. She stated that even in this instance, she believed she was following the rules when she required or "expected" student-athletes to report to practice 15 minutes prior to the official start time. According to the former head coach, she was not alone when implementing the so-called "15 minute rule," in that her coaching colleagues at the institution, the conference and across the country were also "expecting" student-athletes in their respective programs to report early for practice. Although one student-athlete stated that practice started on the half hour and another described the shooting drills as voluntary, several student-athletes corroborated former assistant coach 1's account. The former head coach conceded that she and the women's basketball program benefitted from the additional practice and preparation time, and as such, obtained a competitive advantage by violating the playing and practice-seasons legislation. In addition, former assistant coach 1, another former assistant coach ("former assistant coach 2") and the athletics trainer ("athletics trainer"), reported that the team practiced more than four hours per day during the academic year because (i) the coaching staff did not start the practice clock until the former head coach arrived and actual practice and skill instruction began; (ii) the former head coach lacked a coaching plan and was not organized or efficient in the way she conducted practice; or (iii) the former head coach, although often warned by the assistant coaches as the practice time approached the four-hour limitation, ignored or failed to end practice. Members of the women's basketball team recounted instances when the assistant coaches advised the former head coach that practice was approaching or exceeding time limits. According to at least one student-athlete, the former head coach acted as though she did not care about time restrictions. When one student-athlete discussed with the assistant coaches her concerns about exceeding practice time, they informed her that there was nothing they could do because the former head coach made those decisions. A former director of basketball operations ("former director of basketball operations 1") reported that he also warned the former head coach when the team was near the four-hour limit, but without success. Former assistant coach 1 reported that the coaching staff met with the former head coach and voiced their concerns about reducing the team's daily practice hours during the through academic years. Former assistant coaches 1

6 Page No. 6 and 2 believed that the former head coach "normally stopped" practice as they approached the four-hour threshold, but that sometimes she would continue practice and then would talk with the student-athletes afterward for an additional 15 to 30 minutes. Former assistant coach 1 stated that while the former head coach acknowledged that the coaches were right about the team's practice hours, the former head coach consistently failed to reduce the team's daily practice hours. The student-athletes verified the team's daily practice hours by checking the time on their cell phones when they returned to the locker room at the conclusion of practice. Former assistant coach 1 could not recall how often the team exceeded 20 hours per week. In fact, former assistant coach 1 reported that he did not keep accurate CARA logs as required by NCAA Bylaw , which is the basis for Finding B-1-c. The committee concludes that former head coach repeatedly disregarded her staff and ignored the bylaw requirements. The parties agree and the committee accepts the summary disposition report and makes factual findings that student-athletes practiced a minimum of 23 hours per week during the fall 2009 semester and every other week during the winter 2010 semester. Similarly, the parties agree and the committee finds that student-athletes were required to participate in countable athletically related activities over the and playing seasons that resulted in a minimum of 22 hours per week. With regard to Finding B-1-a-(2), seven student-athletes (former and current) reported that they were required to participate in individual conditioning workouts on the team's day off during the academic year. The extra conditioning workouts took place in the training room with the athletics trainer on Sundays. The workouts were mandatory for those student-athletes who did not play at least 20 minutes during each game in a particular week. Two student-athletes reported that they rarely played in games and had to complete the extra conditioning workouts every Sunday. The athletic trainer confirmed that the student-athletes who played limited minutes during a game did meet with her in the training room on Sundays. The athletics trainer described the additional workouts as a way for those student-athletes to maintain their fitness with the rest of the team. In reference to Finding B-1-a-(3), eight student-athletes (former and current) and former assistant coach 1 said the team watched film for at least one hour after the Temple basketball game on November 24, According to the student-athletes, the film session started at 10 p.m. and lasted at least two hours. All parties agree that during the film session, the former head coach instructed the student-athletes to take notes about (1) what the team could have done to win the game, (2) what the team did wrong and (3) what the team could do to improve. Also, a student-athlete said the former head coach spoke throughout the film session. Not only was the film session a countable athletically

7 Page No. 7 related activity, but in this case it was a post-game activity that is specifically prohibited by NCAA rules. The former head coach acknowledges that overages occurred and accepts responsibility for her actions and the resulting violations as set forth in Findings B-1 and B-2 (discussed below). The institution self-detected and self-reported the violations detailed in Finding B-1-a- (1)-(3) to the enforcement staff in a letter dated September 24, The violations detailed in Finding B-1-b were discovered after the enforcement staff and institution began the cooperative inquiry. 2. PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS. NCAA Bylaws: Countable athletically related activities; Voluntary athletically related activities; Out of season athletically related activities; Summer practice. During the summer vacation periods of 2007 through 2010, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in countable athletically related activities including training and conditioning with the strength and conditioning coach, as well as various basketball activities. The coaches knew which studentathletes attended the workouts and that coaches and basketball operations personnel punished student-athletes on occasions if they did not attend a workout. Specifically, during the summers of 2007 through 2010, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in countable athletically related activities of weight training and conditioning at least three times per week with the strength and conditioning coach and basketball activities at least four times per week. Further, during the summers of 2007 through 2010, basketball staff members occasionally observed student-athletes participating in basketball activities from the gymnasium doors, and the former head coach provided basketball instruction and advice to student-athletes participating in basketball activities. In addition, during the summer of 2007, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in skill instruction, basketball drills and conditioning activities with a third party on campus. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the former head coach were in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred.

8 Page No. 8 With respect to the summers of 2007 and 2008, the time outside of the playing season, 10 student-athletes (former and current), former assistant 1, a third former assistant women's basketball coach ("former assistant coach 3") and former director of basketball operations 1, reported that student-athletes were required to participate in weight training, conditioning and basketball activities. These were activities that were not initiated or requested by the student-athletes. Instead, they were required by the coaching staff and the student-athletes' attendance and participation in these activities were recorded. For instance, one student-athlete reported that the former head coach told her she could attend a family funeral, but she had to make up the missed workout upon her return to campus, which she subsequently did. According to another student-athlete, because you had to "pay a price," no one missed a summer workout in 2007, unless one had a "great excuse." Also, former assistant coach 1 and former director of basketball operations 1 reported that the coaching staff either called student-athletes or student-athletes had to report to the basketball offices to explain why they did not attend summer workouts. Regarding the mandatory summer workouts in 2009 and 2010, 12 student-athletes (former and current) reported that they had to participate in summer workouts of weight training and conditioning and basketball activities in 2009, while 11 student-athletes (former and current) said their participation in summer workouts was required in As in previous summers, these workouts constituted countable athletically related activities and were clearly not voluntary as required by NCAA Bylaws and Student-athletes' attendance and participation was noted and reported out to the coaching staff. Finally, those student-athletes who did not attend or who did not meet expectations were subjected to threats of reduced playing time or disciplinary workouts from the coaching staff and the athletics trainer. For instance, four student-athletes reported that, during the summer of 2010, they overslept and missed a Friday 7 a.m. 1.5-mile run. As punishment, the head strength and conditioning coach ("head conditioning coach") required the four student-athletes to clean the weight room for approximately 50 minutes that day, in addition to having to make up the missed 1.5-mile run the following Monday. On another occasion, a studentathlete who missed a summer workout had to "bear crawl" across the football field as her teammates watched. The former head coach was said to have watched the disciplinary workout from her office window, an allegation she denied stating that the assistant strength and conditioning coach alone punished the student-athletes for missing summer workouts. The same student-athlete missed another workout and was similarly disciplined as the assistant strength and conditioning coach and her teammates watched. One student-athlete said it was a difficult drill, and no one missed another summer workout thereafter. Another student-athlete felt frustrated because she had to get permission from the former head coach to take time off and likened the summer

9 Page No. 9 workouts to regular season practices. The former head coach reportedly told the studentathlete that she could not start for the team if she did not achieve a designated time for the 1.5-mile run during the summer. The former head coach has denied making the statement to the student-athlete. Former assistant coaches 1 and 2 also reported that student-athletes were required to participate in weight training, conditioning and basketball activities during the summers of 2009 and However, former assistant coach 2 said student-athletes were only required to participate in basketball activities when prospective student-athletes were present. According to former assistant coach 2, the assistant coaches monitored and were able to confirm student-athlete participation during the summer months when they heard the sound of the basketball hitting the auxiliary gym floor from the basketball offices. Former assistant coach 1 also reported that it was the norm for a student-athlete who missed a summer workout to receive a call, text message or from a coach inquiring about her whereabouts. According to former assistant coach 1, on one occasion, a student-athlete told the former head coach that another student-athlete was not present for basketball activities during a prospect's visit to campus. The former head coach instructed former assistant coach 1 to call the student-athlete, pick her up, and bring her to the gym. Former assistant coach 1 said the former head coach felt that it was important for student-athletes to participate in basketball activities when prospective student-athletes were present, as she thought it would make a good impression on prospective student-athletes if the entire team was present during their visits. 3 Another student-athlete reported that she had a judicial court date during summer workouts and former head coach asked her to reschedule her court date in order to avoid missing a workout. The student-athlete refused. The student-athletes reported that once the institution's athletics compliance office started contacting the student-athletes about practice hours and workouts sometime in 2010, the former head coach had the student-athletes sign a contract or form indicating that the summer workouts were voluntary. The former head coach claimed that the form was created to inform a new and young team about voluntary and mandatory activities. She denied that the contract was in response to the institution's athletics office inquiry. Further, the head conditioning coach said he always notified the coaches if a studentathlete missed or was going to miss a summer workout because the coaches came to his office or sent him an daily, inquiring about the student-athletes' attendance and performance at summer workouts. The head conditioning coach stated that he also provided the student-athletes' mile-run times to the program's then director of basketball operations ("former director of basketball operations 2") at the end of every week 3 The participation of prospective student-athletes in this instance is not the subject of these Findings. However, it is discussed more fully as a violation of NCAA Bylaw (See Finding B-3, below).

10 Page No. 10 because the basketball coaching staff required the student-athletes to run the mile within a specified time. The head conditioning coach said that he did not know that reporting the student-athletes' performance or attendance record to the coaches constituted a violation. He stated that no one told him that coaches could not inquire about studentathletes' performance during the summer. Regarding the coaching staff observing student-athletes participating in basketball activities during the summers of 2007 through 2010, 12 (former and current) studentathletes, former assistant coaches, former director of basketball operations 1 reported that the violations occurred. Former director of basketball operations 1 and former director of basketball operations 3 reported that the violations occurred. Former director of basketball operations 1 reported that the former head coach returned to the basketball offices after observing open-gym play one day and said, "They are they are playing down there. This young lady is looking good." In addition, seven (former and current) student-athletes, former assistant coach 1, and former director of basketball operations 1 said that the former head coach provided basketball instruction and advice to the studentathletes participating in basketball activities during the summers of 2007 through A student-athlete reported that the former head coach told her during a water break, "We recruited you because you can run the floor, so you need to run the floor." The studentathlete said the former head coach yelled at her if she did not follow instructions. During another water break, the former head coach told two student-athletes to "get their shots higher." Overall, several student-athletes reported that the coaches observed open-gym play during the summer months at least 50 percent of such days, for time periods ranging from 20 minutes up to two hours. Student-athletes reported that the former head coach and former assistant coach 2 observed open-gym play more often than former assistant coach 1 and a fourth former assistant women's basketball coach ("former assistant coach 4"). Finally, regarding the required workouts with a third party, four student-athletes (former and current) and former assistant coach 3 reported that the student-athletes were required to participate in skill instruction, basketball drills and conditioning activities with a former men's basketball student-athlete and nonscholastic assistant coach ("nonscholastic assistant coach") during the summer of According to former assistant coach 3, the summer workouts with the nonscholastic assistant coach started approximately two weeks after the institution hired the former head coach, and student-athletes were disciplined if they did not attend the workouts. Former assistant coach 3 also said she overheard the nonscholastic assistant coach discussing with the former head coach the names of student-athletes who attended. The former associate director of athletics for external affairs ("former associate director of athletics") confirmed that the nonscholastic assistant coach conducted the summer workouts with the student-athletes at the request of the former head coach.

11 Page No. 11 The student-athletes shared their concerns regarding excessive countable athletics activity with the coaching staff, the athletics compliance staff, and other persons connected to the institution during the relevant times. A representative of the institution's athletics interest ("the representative"), for example, said he spoke with a student-athlete about the nonscholastic assistant coach's summer workouts. It was in this conversation with the representative that the student-athlete reported that she and two others were denied permission by the nonscholastic assistant coach to leave practice early because of a six-hour drive home. Another student-athlete, who was injured and was not practicing, reported that the nonscholastic assistant coach told her: "You practice over injuries. It is not that bad, not that serious." Sometime after her conversation with the nonscholastic assistant coach, the student-athlete reported the summer workouts to the athletics compliance office. According to the student-athlete, the former head coach learned about that conversation and told the student-athlete that her actions were inconsistent with those of a leader because she went to the compliance office instead of the coaches about the nonscholastic assistant coach's summer workouts. The former head coach also told another student-athlete that she could not talk to the compliance office about the summer workouts because that would negatively affect the team. The institution conducted an investigation into the nonscholastic assistant coach's summer workouts in The institution determined that violations did not occur because the student-athletes said the workouts were voluntary, and the institution's athletics compliance office did not have any information that the nonscholastic assistant coach reported back to the former head coach regarding the workouts. The enforcement staff's investigation, on the other hand, revealed that the student-athletes were required to participate in the nonscholastic assistant coach's summer workouts, and that he reported back to the former head coach regarding his workouts with the student-athletes. The enforcement staff's investigation also indicated that the student-athletes feared the former head coach and were not otherwise forthcoming to the compliance office when describing the nonscholastic assistant coach's summer workouts as voluntary. Thus, the committee concludes that the student-athletes' original statements that the summer workouts were voluntary were false. The institution self-detected and self-reported the violations detailed in the findings related to the summers of 2009 and 2010 to the enforcement staff in a letter dated September 24, The violations detailed in the findings related to the summers of 2007 and 2008 were discovered after the enforcement staff and institution began the cooperative inquiry. 3. TRYOUTS. NCAA Bylaws: Prohibited activities; Definition of "prospective student-athlete" for tryout-rule purposes; Permissible activities recreational activities.

12 Page No. 12 During the summer of 2007 through the academic year of , the women's basketball coaching staff violated the NCAA tryout legislation when it arranged for then prospective student athletes, who were making their official and unofficial visits to the institution's campus, to participate in basketball activities with current student-athletes. In addition, the basketball staff members occasionally observed prospective student-athletes and student-athletes participating in basketball activities from the gymnasium doors. Further, during the through academic years, then head women's basketball coach provided basketball instruction and advice to student-athletes participating in basketball activities. Finally, the former head coach provided basketball instruction and advice to one prospect in 2007 and two prospective student-athletes in 2008, while they were participating in basketball activities. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the former head coach are in agreement with the facts of this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. In addition, numerous student-athletes reported that during the former head coach's tenure, the coaching staff arranged for prospective student-athletes to participate in basketball activities with current student-athletes during their official and unofficial visits to the institution's campus. The committee finds that the violations occurred. During the summer of 2007 through the academic year, numerous studentathletes (former and current), former assistant coaches and former director of basketball operations 1, reported that the coaching staff arranged for prospective student-athletes to participate in basketball activities with current student-athletes during their official and unofficial visits to campus. Former assistant coach 1 stated that he knew that arranging for prospective student-athletes to participate in basketball activities during their official visits was in violation of NCAA legislation. See NCAA Bylaw Recreational Activities. He stated that he did it at the former head coach's direction because she felt that it was important. 4 The former head coach said the women's basketball staff also provided the director of athletics and the former associate director of athletics, the prospective student-athletes' official and unofficial visit itineraries (which included the time period for open-gym play) prior to their visits to campus from 2007 to Merely notifying a prospective student-athlete of an opportunity to play in open-gym 4 Additional evidence of the coaching staff's involvement with organizing open-gym opportunities for prospective student-athletes, as reported by former assistant coach 2, was stated above in Finding B-2. Former assistant coach 2 stated that student-athletes were required to participate in basketball activities when prospective student-athletes were present.

13 Page No. 13 during her visit is permissible under NCAA rules. However, the basketball staff violated the bylaw when they organized or observed open-gym play. A then prospective student-athlete reported that she brought her athletics gear because former assistant coach 2 told her about open-gym play during a phone conversation prior to her visit. Former assistant coach 2 reported that the prospect's participation in basketball activities was a part of the official visit itinerary because it was an opportunity for the prospects to spend time with the student-athletes and for the coaching staff to determine if they were a good fit for the women's basketball program. According to the former head coach, she made general comments to student-athletes and prospective student-athletes participating in open-gym play during the summer and her comments were not intended to provide a competitive advantage. The student-athletes, however, described the open gym sessions and the former head coach's role quite differently. Consistent with former assistant coach 2's version of events, the student-athletes were aware that the coaches used the open gym opportunity to observe and evaluate a prospective student-athlete and to provide basketball instruction and advice. One student-athlete remembered that the former head coach had once compared the studentathlete's style of play during open gym to her prior observed style of play as a prospect and remarked that the student-athlete was not the same explosive player. Another student-athlete stated that the former head coach once called her over to the gymnasium door and told her to give the basketball more often to a prospect during opengym play. Former assistant coach 1 said the former head coach spoke with all the student-athletes as they exited the gym for water breaks during open-gym play. The institution self-detected and self-reported the violations detailed in the findings related to the academic year to the enforcement staff in a letter dated September 24, The violations detailed in the findings relating to the summers of 2007 and 2008 and through academic years were discovered after the enforcement staff and the institution began the cooperative inquiry. 4. PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS. NCAA Bylaws: Voluntary athletically related activities; (a) Weekly hour limitations-outside the playing season; ( and NCAA Manuals); Outof-season athletically related activities; (Note: Bylaws cited with no designation of manual year refer to the NCAA Division I Manual)

14 Page No. 14 During the through academic years, women's basketball student-athletes were required to participate in preseason and postseason countable athletically related activities of skill instruction, weight training and conditioning activities, and basketball activities that exceeded the weekly eighthour limitation by at least one hour. In addition, the coaches occasionally observed student-athletes participating in preseason and postseason basketball activities. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the former head coach are in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. Although the former head coach agreed that violations occurred, she challenged the former director of basketball operations 1's version of events because the former director of basketball operations 1 was not a coach and, according to the former head coach, was not present at basketball practices from start to finish in 2008 and The committee has determined that the violations occurred. Numerous student-athletes, former assistant coach 1 and former director of operations 1 reported that the student-athletes were required to participate in preseason and postseason workouts during the former head coach's tenure that exceeded the weekly eight-hour limitation by at least one hour. Further, all agree that the coaches occasionally observed the workouts. According to the student-athletes, the team exceeded the eight-hour time limit because the former head coach required them to participate in skill instructions, weight training and conditioning and basketball activities during preseason and postseason. Former director of basketball operations 1 reported that the former head coach instructed the coaches to monitor student-athlete attendance at the workouts. When members of the team made a collective decision not to participate in basketball activities during the 2010 postseason, the student-athletes received a text message from former assistant coach 1 that read, "You guys need to come play open-gym play." The team reported to the gym for basketball activities and thereafter did not miss basketball activities unless they had permission from the former head coach. Regarding preseason workouts, 14 student-athletes (former and current) confirmed that the team was required to participate in countable athletically related activities during the preseason and that those activities exceeded the weekly eight-hour limitation by at least one hour. Former assistant coach 1, who used a stopwatch and kept a written record of the team's daily practice hours, stated that the team's preseason workouts exceeded eight hours in 2008 and totaled 11 or 12 in Former director of basketball operations 1 stated that the team's preseason workouts totaled 12 hours per week in 2007 and According to former director of basketball operations 1, the team's skill instruction sessions turned into practice-type basketball drills. Such sessions consistently exceeded

15 Page No. 15 the one-hour limitation per session by 10 to 15 minutes. Former director of basketball operations 1 said the student-athletes also had to participate in mandatory weight training and conditioning and basketball activities during preseason. Regarding postseason workouts, seven student-athletes (former and current) reported that the team was required to participate in countable athletically related activities that exceeded the weekly eight-hour limitation by at least one hour. Former director of basketball operations 1 stated that the team's postseason countable athletically related activities totaled 10 to 12 hours in 2008 and 12 hours in With respect to the coaching staff's impermissible observations of the workouts, seven student-athletes (former and current) reported that the coaching staff occasionally observed the student-athletes participating in preseason and postseason basketball activities during the academic years of through Former assistant coach 1 confirmed that the coaches occasionally observed student-athletes participating in basketball activities in In addition, two student-athletes (former and current) said the former head coach occasionally provided basketball advice to student-athletes participating in basketball activities during the preseason and postseasons. According to a student-athlete, the former head coach stood at the gymnasium door during preseason basketball activities in 2008 and told the student-athletes to "Pass the ball up the sideline." Further, a student-athlete reported that if she had a turnover or had missed a shot during basketball activities and took a water break, the former head coach would explain why the turnover or missed shot occurred or what she should have done. The student-athlete stated that she stopped taking water breaks during basketball activities, because she did not want to talk to the former head coach about her play. The violations detailed in this finding were discovered after the enforcement staff and institution began the cooperative inquiry. 5. CONDUCT AND EMPLOYMENT OF ATHLETICS PERSONNEL. NCAA Bylaw: Responsibility of Head Coach. From the spring of 2007 through August 23, 2010, the former head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the women's basketball program. Specifically: a. The former head coach failed to abide by the daily and weekly practice hour limitations and provide at least one day off per week without countable athletically related activities for some members of the women's basketball team, as detailed in Finding B-1.

16 Page No. 16 b. The former head coach required student-athletes to participate in countable athletically related activities after a competition, as detailed in Finding B-1. c. The former head coach required student-athletes to participate in individual extra cardio workouts on Sunday (their day off), as detailed in Finding B-1. d. The former head coach required student-athletes to participate in weight training and conditioning activities and basketball activities during the summer vacation period. The former head coach also observed studentathletes participating in basketball activities and provided basketball instruction and advice to student-athletes during the summer vacation period, as detailed in Finding B-2. e. The former head coach required student-athletes to participate in skill instruction, conditioning and various basketball activities with a third party on campus, as detailed in Finding B-2. f. The former head coach arranged impermissible tryout activities for prospective student-athletes on campus. The former head coach also observed prospective student-athletes and student-athletes participating in basketball activities and provided basketball instruction and advice to prospective student-athletes, as detailed in Finding B-3. g. The former head coach required student-athletes to participate in preseason and postseason countable athletically related activities that exceeded the maximum eight hours per week. The former head coach also observed student-athletes participating in preseason and postseason basketball activities and provided basketball instruction and advice to student-athletes, as detailed in Finding B-4. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the former head coach are in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. Based on the information reported in Findings B-1 through B-4, it is agreed that the former head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the women's basketball program from the spring of 2007 through August 23, 2010, as follows:

17 Page No. 17 First, during the spring of 2007, a student-athlete complained about the team's summer workouts with a third party (the nonscholastic assistant coach) to the compliance office. The former head coach chastised the student-athlete for going to the compliance office about the workouts and told the team that the workouts were permitted per NCAA legislation. The institution's compliance staff reported that the former head coach told them that the workouts were voluntary for student-athletes' participation and that the third party did not report back to her regarding the workouts. Second, according to former assistant coach 1, former director of basketball operations 1, and numerous student-athletes, the basketball staff consistently told the former head coach when the team's practice time was approaching the four-hour limit, but she ignored the warnings and continued conducting basketball practice. Third, former assistant coach 1 and former director of basketball operations 1 reported that the basketball staff collectively met with the former head coach on several occasions about reducing the team's daily practice hours during the academic years of through At times, the former head coach admitted that the basketball staff was right about the team's practice hours, but she consistently failed to conduct the team's practices within the NCAA daily and weekly practice hour limitations. Fourth, the former head coach required the student-athletes to arrive 15 minutes early for practice to participate in activities of stretching, free throws and three-point shots. This activity took place before the former head coach arrived on the basketball court. The former head coach did not consider those activities as countable athletically related activities. In addition, on the occasions when former assistant coach 1 started basketball practices without the former head coach, the former head coach did not properly consider and account for the practice time prior to her arrival. Fifth, the former head coach required the student-athletes to participate in summer workouts. Occasionally the strength and conditioning staff or the directors of basketball operations punished student-athletes who missed a workout. Sixth, the former head coach also regularly required the coaching staff to arrange for prospective student-athletes who were making their official and unofficial visits to campus to participate in basketball activities with current student-athletes. The studentathletes had to participate in the basketball activities, unless the former head coach gave them prior permission to miss the workout. Seventh, the student-athletes reported that the former head coach prohibited them from talking with others, including their parents, about the operation of the women's basketball program, which the former head coach has denied. According to the student-athletes, the former head coach intimidated the student-athletes and the coaching staff, all of whom

18 Page No. 18 were too afraid to talk with the compliance office about the team's practice hours. Finally, the former head coach required the student-athletes to regularly participate in countable athletically related activities that violated NCAA legislation for more than a two-year period. In consideration of all the findings discussed above, the committee finds that the former head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the women's basketball program as required by NCAA Bylaw THE PRINCIPLE OF RULES COMPLIANCE. NCAA Constitution 2.8.1: Responsibility of Institution. During the through academic years, the scope and nature of the violations detailed in Findings B-1 through B-4 demonstrate that the athletics department failed to monitor its women's basketball program to assure compliance regarding time limits for countable athletically related activities. Specifically: a. During the spring of 2008, the former associate director of athletics, conducted exit interviews of three former women's basketball studentathletes, who reported that the team practiced from 25 to more than 30 hours per week, not including film review, but she failed to conduct a thorough investigation into women's basketball practice hours and failed to provide the information regarding potential violations of NCAA legislation to compliance. That failure resulted in the women's basketball team being able to continue practicing more than four hours per day and 20 hours per week during the and academic years in violation of the NCAA daily and weekly practice hour limitations. b. During February 2010, the professor told the former associate director of athletics during a phone conversation that two women's basketball student-athletes, who were enrolled in her course, complained that the team practiced too much. The former associate director told the director of athletics and the former head coach about her conversation with the professor, but she failed to conduct a thorough investigation into women's basketball daily practice hours and failed to provide the information about potential violations of NCAA legislation to compliance. That failure resulted in the women's basketball team being able to continue practicing more than four hours per day and 20 hours per week from February to September 2010 in violation of the NCAA daily and weekly practice hour limitations.