BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT APRIL 11, 2012 A. INTRODUCTION. This case 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. The summary report was reviewed by the committee during a November 2011 conference call. Following its initial review of the summary disposition report, the committee had concerns with some of the information in the report. As a result of these concerns, the committee informed the institution and the enforcement staff that the case should be considered at a full hearing pursuant to Bylaw 32.7.1.4.2 (Findings Not Approved) and Bylaw 32.7.1.4.3 (Penalties Not Approved). The institution responded with a letter dated December 1, 2011, in which it asked the committee to specify its concerns and possibly reconsider the need for a full hearing. In response, the committee provided a letter dated December 22, 2011, to the institution and the enforcement staff in which the committee asked both parties to explain why some of the recruiting violations in the summary disposition report were deemed to be secondary rather than major. The committee also took the position that the penalties proposed by the institution were insufficient given the severity of the admitted violations. The enforcement staff responded to the committee's December 22, 2011, correspondence in a letter dated January 11, 2012, and the institution responded on January 13. The committee further deliberated after reviewing the responses. In a letter dated February 23, the committee informed the enforcement staff and the institution that it accepted the explanation regarding the secondary violations. The committee agreed to the additional penalties proposed by the institution as well as all of the original penalties. Information about potential violations in this case first came to light during an October 26, 2008, interview conducted by the enforcement staff with then prospective studentathlete ("prospect 1") and the prospect's father. Both prospect 1 and her father reported information concerning their contacts with members of the women's basketball staff that were potentially impermissible under NCAA legislation. [See: Finding B-9]. This
Page No. 2 interview was prompted by prospect 1's status as an elite recruit. 1 Additionally, during a December 12, 2008, interview with another elite recruit, it was reported that members of the men's basketball staff had contacted the recruit and his father beyond the permissible number of calls permitted under NCAA legislation. As a result of the information reported during these interviews, on January 16, 2009, the enforcement staff sent a letter to the institution requesting a variety of information, including telephone records of the men's and women's basketball staffs. During a joint review of the relevant telephone records by the enforcement staff and institution, potential violations involving impermissible telephone calls and text messages were identified. [See: Findings B-1, B- 2, B-6 and B-10.] In addition to the impermissible telephone calls and text messaging in the men's and women's basketball programs, the investigation also resulted in findings of unethical conduct by a former assistant men's basketball coach and a failure by the head men's basketball coach to monitor the recruiting activities of two assistant coaches. There were also several secondary recruiting violations. The combination of major and secondary violations in this case resulted in an admitted finding of a failure to monitor by the institution. A member of the Big 12 Conference, Baylor has an enrollment of approximately 14,817 students. The institution sponsors seven men's and 11 women's intercollegiate sports. This was the institution's sixth major infractions case, the institution having appeared before the committee most recently in 2005 for a case involving the men's basketball and football programs. As a result of its 2005 case, the institution is considered a "repeat violator" under NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.1.1. The institution also had previous infractions cases in 2000 (men's tennis); in 1995 (men's basketball); 1986 (men's basketball) and 1956 (football). B. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. 1. RECRUITING VIOLATIONS IMPERMISSIBLE TELEPHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES (MEN'S BASKETBALL). [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3, 13.1.3.1.3 and 13.4.1.2] Between at least March 2007 and December 2008, members of the men's basketball staff violated the provisions of NCAA recruiting communication 1 The interview was conducted in conjunction with the then NCAA "Top Prospect Program." The program was in place for many years and charged enforcement staff members with conducting interviews with the top high school girls' and boys' basketball players and football players in the nation. The interviews were used as a tool to understand the recruiting culture of each sport and to answer any questions the prospects or their parents had about the recruiting process.
Page No. 3 legislation by placing 268 impermissible telephone calls and sending 411 text messages to prospective men's basketball student-athletes and/or their relatives. Further, between January and July 2011, members of the men's basketball staff violated the provisions of NCAA recruiting communication legislation by placing 22 impermissible telephone calls and sending 27 text messages. Specifically: a. An assistant men's basketball coach ("assistant men's basketball coach A"), committed the following violations: (1) Between March 2007 and October 2008, assistant men's basketball coach A placed 176 impermissible telephone calls to eight prospective student-athletes and/or their relatives. The telephone calls were placed after assistant men's basketball coach A or another member of the men's basketball staff had made two permissible telephone calls to a prospect in that week, one permissible call that month or prior to June 15 of the prospect's sophomore year of high school. (2) Between March and December 2008, assistant men's basketball coach A sent 17 text messages to four prospective student-athletes and/or their relatives. (3) Between January and July 2011, assistant men's basketball coach A placed five impermissible telephone calls. b. The head men's basketball coach ("head men's basketball coach") committed the following violations: (1) Between June 2007 and October 2008, the head men's basketball coach placed 76 impermissible telephone calls to 10 prospective student-athletes and/or their relatives. The telephone calls were placed after the head men's basketball coach or another member of the men's basketball staff had made two permissible telephone calls to a prospect in that week, one permissible call that month or prior to June 15 of the prospect's sophomore year of high school. (2) Between March and December 2008, the head men's basketball coach sent 11 text messages to three prospective student-athletes and/or their relatives.
Page No. 4 (3) Between January and July 2011 the head men's basketball coach placed two impermissible telephone calls and sent 13 text messages. c. A former assistant men's basketball coach ("former assistant men's basketball coach 1") committed the following violations: (1) Between October 2007 and October 2008, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 placed 15 impermissible telephone calls to three prospective student-athletes and/or their relatives. The telephone calls were placed after former assistant men's basketball coach 1 or another member of the men's basketball staff had made two permissible telephone calls to a prospect in that week or one permissible call that month. (2) Between March and December 2008, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent 383 text messages to six prospective student-athletes and/or their relatives. d. Between January and July 2011, an assistant men's basketball coach ("assistant men's basketball coach B") placed 15 impermissible telephone calls and sent 14 text messages. e. In May 2008, an assistant men's basketball coach placed one impermissible telephone call to a prospective student-athlete. The telephone call was placed after the head men's basketball coach had made two permissible telephone calls to the prospect that week. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the members of the men's basketball staff agree with this finding and that the facts constitute major violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violations occurred. As background, the violations, which occurred in 2007 and 2008, first came to light during a December 2008 interview with a then prospective student-athlete who later enrolled at another NCAA member institution. During this interview, the prospect reported that members of the institution's men's basketball staff had contacted him and his father by telephone three to four times per month during the summer of 2008 and three times per week during the fall of 2008. As a result of the information reported by the prospect, the enforcement staff requested copies of all telephone records, including text messaging, for the men's basketball staff, for the period of March 1 to May 31, 2008,
Page No. 5 and August 1 to October 31, 2008. The enforcement staff's and institution's review of the telephone records revealed numerous impermissible telephone calls placed and text messages sent by the men's basketball staff, as detailed in this finding. 2 During their May and June 2009 and February 2010 interviews with the enforcement staff and institution, the men's basketball coaching staff attributed many of the impermissible telephone calls to miscommunication among the staff, failing to contemporaneously log nonrecruiting voicemail messages and failing to log calls placed to nonscholastic coaches who were also parents of prospective men's basketball student-athletes. Regarding the impermissible text messages, the coaches reported that their telephones had software installed that allowed them to send an email from their phone to the cell phone of a prospect, and that they believed the text messages reflected on their cell phone records were sent and received as emails, based on their understanding of how the software worked. During the 2009-10 academic year, the institution began use of a software program to track and monitor recruiting telephone calls for six sports (football, men's basketball, women's basketball, cross country/track, baseball and softball). The remaining eight sports (acrobatics and tumbling, equestrian, men's golf, women's golf, soccer, men's tennis, women's tennis, volleyball) began use of the program in the 2010-11 academic year. After the software was installed, it was discovered that there were problems with the timeliness of the system's ability to compare the telephone and text messaging contact information input by the coaches with the actual telephone records imported into the software system. It was determined that the importing of the telephone and text messaging records from the service providers needed to occur on a more consistent and regular basis (monthly) in order for the institution to accurately detect potential violations from the reports generated by the software system. Additionally, it was determined that in certain circumstances, the software system was either inappropriately applying NCAA rules to particular scenarios or neglecting to apply the rules at all. Those system flaws resulted in a large number of permissible telephone calls and text messages being flagged as potential violations. In order to determine which calls and text messages were permissible, the institution directed the software provider to reconfigure the system to create accurate reports. After the reconfiguration was complete, the institution imported January through July 2011 telephone records back into the software system to determine what, if any, violations had occurred. At the conclusion of the audit, the institution discovered the violations involving the men's basketball program, as set forth in this finding. 2 In order to take into account the institution's position that many of the impermissible calls were due to the coaches failing to log voicemail messages left for prospects or their relatives, the enforcement staff removed all one-minute trigger calls in its analysis of the phone records.
Page No. 6 In reference to Finding B-1-a and assistant men's basketball coach A's impermissible telephone calls in 2007 and 2008, the calls were placed both from his office phone and institution-issued cell phone. According to assistant men's basketball coach A, many of the impermissible calls attributed to him were the result of his (1) failing to log voicemails left for prospects or their relatives, and/or (2) placing calls to parents or relatives who also served as nonscholastic or high school coaches and neglecting to log such calls when the purpose of the call was to discuss matters other than the prospects to whom the nonscholastic or high school coaches were related. However, records reflect that there was only one such individual to whom assistant men's basketball coach A placed such calls. Approximately 70 of the 176 impermissible calls were placed to this coach. Regarding the 17 impermissible text messages, all were placed on his institution-issued cell phone. Assistant men's basketball coach A maintained that, after the text messaging ban was passed by the NCAA in August 2007, he never intentionally sent a text message to a prospect. He explained that his text messages were sent to the fathers of prospective student-athletes whom he mistakenly believed were nonscholastic coaches. He stated that he did not realize that such messages were impermissible. With regard to Finding B-1-a-(3), the violations involving assistant men's basketball coach A, which occurred in 2011, the calls were primarily the result of a failure to contemporaneously note in the ACS system that the initial calls to the prospects or their parents during a given time period (i.e., week, month) were nonrecruiting voicemail messages or the result of coaches neglecting to communicate as a staff about which coach had already contacted a particular prospect during the permissible time period. In reference to Finding B-1-b and the head men's basketball coach's impermissible telephone calls placed in 2007 and 2008, they were placed both from his office phone and institution-issued cell phone. Regarding the telephone calls, according to the head men's basketball coach, many of the 76 impermissible calls were a result of failing to log voicemail messages and placing telephone calls to relatives who also served as a high school or nonscholastic coach. The head men's basketball coach explained that when he or another coach called a parent who also served as a nonscholastic coach and the conversation did not involve recruitment of the parent's son, the staff would not log the call; however, if the conversation involved the recruitment of the parent's son, then the call would be logged. Further, the head men's basketball coach said that he did not recall receiving NCAA rules education regarding how to treat a parent who also served as a nonscholastic coach; rather, he most likely asked a then assistant coach ("former assistant men's basketball coach 2") to check with compliance on how to log such calls. The head men's basketball coach speculated it was probable the compliance office would have told the coaches not to log calls placed to parents who also served as nonscholastic coaches if the recruitment of their son was not discussed. The head coach acknowledged that after
Page No. 7 looking at his staff's telephone logs, it was clear that the men's basketball staff should have done a better job logging calls. Regarding his 11 impermissible text messages sent in 2007 and 2008, all were placed on his institution-issued cell phone. The head men's basketball coach stated that any text messages that he sent were not to gain an advantage and were intended to be emails. The head men's basketball coach reported that he would send emails to a prospect's phone and that if the prospect replied by text, it showed up in the same area as his emails on his wireless device. The head men's basketball coach speculated that he could have inadvertently replied to a text instead of an email. The head men's basketball coach stated that he never knowingly sent impermissible text messages. In reference to the impermissible calls and texts placed by the head men's basketball coach in 2011, set forth in Finding B-1-b-(3), the impermissible telephone calls were the result of a failure to contemporaneously log in the software system that the initial calls to prospects or their parents during a given time period (i.e., week, month) were nonrecruiting voicemail messages, or the coaches neglecting to communicate as a staff about which coach had already contacted a particular prospect during the permissible time period. Most of the text messages sent by the head men's basketball coach were sent to a nonscholastic coach who is the father of a men's basketball prospective studentathlete. The head men's basketball coach reported that the text messages to the nonscholastic coach concerned several prospective student-athletes on his nonscholastic team and not the recruitment of the nonscholastic coach's son. The head men's basketball coach also sent two text messages to a current student-athlete at another member institution in response to a question the student-athlete sent to the head men's basketball coach about participating in pick-up games and open gyms at the institution during the vacation period. In reference to Finding B-1-c and former assistant men's basketball coach 1's impermissible telephone calls, the calls were placed from his institution-issued cell phone. According to former assistant men's basketball coach 1, the impermissible calls were the result of him forgetting to log calls that he placed while driving and failing to note on his recruiting phone log each occasion that he left a voicemail for a prospect or his parents. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 acknowledged that some of the impermissible calls may have been due to a lack of communication among the men's basketball coaches about who had already placed a telephone call to a prospect. Regarding the 383 impermissible text messages, all of those were placed on former assistant men's basketball coach 1's institution-issued cell phone. The former assistant men's basketball coach 1 explained that he believed he was sending emails rather than text messages to the prospects or the prospects' relatives' phones. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 stated that he did not believe sending emails to cell phones was a
Page No. 8 means by which to circumvent NCAA legislation prohibiting the transmission of text messages to prospects, and that even if he had known the email appeared on a prospect's cell phone as a text message, he still would have believed it to be permissible to send the message. According to former assistant men's basketball coach 1, after the text messaging ban went into effect in August 2007, the director of men's operations (current assistant men's basketball coach B) communicated with a coach on another staff and with the telephone company, and they determined that each cell phone also had an email address associated with it. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 stated that he believed former assistant men's basketball coach 2 had checked with compliance and was told it was permissible to send email to a prospect's cell phone. Former assistant men's basketball coach 2 reported that shortly after the text-messaging ban went into effect, the then director of men's operations introduced the text-to-email conversion telephone software described earlier in this finding. Regarding the use of this software, former assistant men's basketball coach 2 stated that shortly after learning of the software from the then director of men's operations, he contacted the then associate athletics director for compliance ("former compliance director") regarding the permissibility of using this software. According to former assistant men's basketball coach 2, if the former compliance director had stated that it was not permissible to use the software, the staff would not have continued to use it as a way of contacting prospects. The former compliance director reported that, shortly after the text messaging ban became effective in August 2007, he recalled the men's basketball staff asking about the use of conversion software. The former compliance director reported that he provided an email to the coaches reminding them of the rule regarding the impermissibility of sending text messages to prospective student-athletes and their relatives and informed them that, at the time, the prohibition did not contain any information regarding the use of conversion software. However, within a few days, the NCAA issued an interpretation that stated it was impermissible to use software that converted email into a text message and vice versa. The former compliance director recalled that he forwarded the interpretation to the men's basketball coaches in an email. That email was dated July 18, 2007. In reference to the impermissible calls and texts placed by assistant men's basketball coach B in 2011, as with the calls placed by the head men's basketball coach, the impermissible calls were the result of a failure to contemporaneously log in the software system that the initial calls to prospects or their parents during a given time period (i.e., week, month) were nonrecruiting voicemail messages, or the coaches neglecting to communicate as a staff about which coach had already contacted a particular prospect during the permissible time period. Just as with the head men's basketball coach, most of the text messages sent by assistant men's basketball coach B were sent to the
Page No. 9 nonscholastic coach who is the father of a men's basketball prospective student-athlete. The text messages to the nonscholastic coach related to several prospective studentathletes on his nonscholastic team and not the recruitment of the nonscholastic coach's son. This finding, along with Finding B-2, forms the basis of the finding that the head men's basketball coach failed to monitor as set forth in Finding B-5. Additionally, the institution's failure to monitor the transmission of text messages and telephone calls placed by the men's basketball staff forms part of the basis for the finding of a failure to monitor on the part of the institution, as set forth in Finding B-11. 2. RECRUITING VIOLATIONS IMPERMISSIBLE TEXT MESSAGES TO NONSCHOLASTIC COACHES. [NCAA Bylaw 13.1.6.2.2-(b)] During July 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent 126 impermissible text messages to six nonscholastic coaches while prospective student-athlete was participating in a summer certified event, during a time period in which it was prohibited to contact a prospective student-athlete's coach or any individual associated with a prospective student-athlete. a. On July 11-12, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent seven text messages to a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic coach 1") while nonscholastic coach 1 was coaching prospective student-athletes in a summer certified event. b. On July 11-12, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent 42 text messages to a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic coach 2") while nonscholastic coach 2 was coaching prospective student-athletes in a summer certified event. c. On July 12, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent eight text messages to a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic coach 3") while nonscholastic coach 3 was coaching prospective student-athletes in a summer certified event. d. On July 13 and 15, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent three text messages to a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic coach 4") while nonscholastic coach 4 was coaching prospective student-athletes in a summer certified event.
Page No. 10 e. On July 12-15, 2010, and July 22, 25, and 27-29, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent 65 text messages to a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic coach 5") while nonscholastic coach 5 was coaching prospective student-athletes in a summer certified event. f. On July 27, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent one text message to a nonscholastic coach ("nonscholastic coach 6") while nonscholastic coach 6 was coaching prospective student-athletes in a summer certified event. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff and the institution agree with the facts in this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. Although former assistant men's basketball coach 1 agrees that violations occurred, he maintains that he sent the text messages because he misunderstood the application of the rule and the permissibility of sending text messages to nonscholastic coaches under certain circumstances. The committee finds that the violations occurred. In reference to Finding B-2-a, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he sent the text messages to nonscholastic coach 1 believing that the coach was neither present at the event nor involved in nonscholastic coaching during the summer of 2010, when in fact he was. In reference to Finding B-2-b, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he initially sent the text messages to nonscholastic coach 2 in order to determine whether a recruited men's basketball prospective student-athlete was injured, so he could relay the prospect's injury status to the prospect's club coaches. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 then continued to send text messages to nonscholastic coach 2 about matters unrelated to the prospect's injury. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he mistakenly believed that it was permissible to send the text messages to nonscholastic coach 1 because the injured prospect, the only prospective student-athlete the institution was actively recruiting from nonscholastic coach 2's team, was not participating in the event. However, NCAA legislation strictly prohibits communication with any prospective student-athletes during their participation in a summer certified event, and that prohibition also applies to any nonscholastic coach who is coaching any team that includes prospects in a certified event. 3 3 On May 18, 2011, the institution and enforcement staff submitted a joint interpretation to the NCAA academic and membership affairs (AMA) staff regarding the circumstances surrounding the text-messaging communications between former assistant men s basketball coach 1 and the nonscholastic coaches detailed above. The AMA staff determined that the text messages sent to the nonscholastic coaches would be contrary to NCAA Bylaw 13.1.6.2.2- (b). In addition, the AMA staff explained that the legislation, which was originally adopted in November 2001, was
Page No. 11 In reference to Finding B-2-c, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he sent the text messages to nonscholastic coach 3 in order to get an update on a recruited men's basketball prospective student-athlete. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 stated that he sent the text messages to nonscholastic coach 3 mistakenly believing that he was not present at the event. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 admitted that he failed to ask nonscholastic coach 3 whether he would be present at the certified event or whether he was coaching at the event prior to sending the text messages. In reference to Finding B-2-d, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he sent the text messages to nonscholastic coach 4 in order to determine whether the prospect mentioned in Finding B-2-b was transferring high schools later that summer. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 stated that he sent the text messages to the nonscholastic coach believing that the coach was neither present at the event nor involved in nonscholastic coaching during the summer of 2010. In reference to Finding B-2-e, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he sent the text messages to nonscholastic coach 5 in order to get an update on a men's basketball prospective student-athlete. This prospect did not compete in nonscholastic coach 5's program, but nonscholastic coach 5 was one of the prospect's high school coaches. Nonscholastic coach 5 is one of the individuals with whom former assistant men's basketball coach 1 maintained contact during his recruitment of this prospect. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he mistakenly believed it was permissible to send the text messages to nonscholastic coach 5, because it is permissible to contact the high school coach as long as the coach is not in attendance at the event. 4 However, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 acknowledged that he failed to determine whether nonscholastic coach 5 was present at the events in which the prospect was participating, which he was. In reference to Finding B-2-f, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he sent the text message to nonscholastic coach 6 in order to respond to a text message from designed to reinforce that the July evaluation period should be for observation purposes only and not a time period when contacts or communication with outside influences are made in an effort to recruit men's basketball prospective student-athletes. Further, the AMA staff explained that since the legislation establishes a strict prohibition against communications with any prospective student-athletes during their participation in a summer certified event, such a prohibition would also apply to any nonscholastic coach who is coaching any team that includes prospects in such an event. Finally, the AMA staff explained that the legislation was not intended to be applied based on the context of the text message because such an application would not further the intent of the rule, which is that the July evaluation period is strictly an observation period. 4 NCAA legislation permits institutional coaching staff to have telephone contact with a prospective studentathlete's high school coach while the prospective student-athlete is participating in a summer certified event, provided the high school coach or administrator is not in attendance at the event (Bylaw 13.1.6.2.2.1).
Page No. 12 nonscholastic coach 6 in which nonscholastic coach 6 asked former assistant men's basketball coach 1 if the Baylor men's basketball program would have interest in purchasing nonscholastic coach 6's scouting service. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 reported that he responded to nonscholastic coach 6's text message without knowing whether the coach was engaged in coaching at a summer certified event. Efforts made by former assistant men's basketball coach 1 to conceal these violations provide the basis for the unethical conduct finding set forth in Finding B-3 and is a component of the failure to monitor charge in Finding B-5-(b). 3. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(d) and 32.1.4] Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct, in that he failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. Specifically, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 knowingly attempted to influence nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4 to furnish the NCAA with false and misleading information concerning their knowledge of and involvement in the NCAA violations referenced in Finding B-2. Specifically: a. On September 17-18, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 contacted nonscholastic coach 4 and asked him not to disclose the text messages referenced in Finding B-2-d during his September 22 interview with the enforcement staff, and if questioned about the text messages, to provide as little information as possible. Specifically, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 made the following statements in text messages that he sent to nonscholastic coach 4. (1) September 17 text message: "Just a thought. If they ask if any coaches have violated rules, please don't bring up texts. I know you and (nonscholastic coach 2) won't. Just paranoid." (2) September 18 text message: "I just want to make sure that if you can, that (nonscholastic coach 2) and you just try to say as little as possible and try to avoid text if you can. With everything last year, this would just add to it. That's all. I hope it doesn't come up or isn't elaborated on." b. On or around September 21, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 contacted nonscholastic coach 2 and informed him that he was not
Page No. 13 obligated to disclose the text messages referenced in Finding B-2-b during nonscholastic coach 2's September 21 interview with the enforcement staff because he was not governed by NCAA bylaws. c. On September 22, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 contacted nonscholastic coach 4 prior to nonscholastic coach 4's September 22 interview with the enforcement staff and asked him (1) to disclose only the text messages referenced in Finding B-2-d if the staff raised the matter during his interview and (2) not to disclose that he (assistant men's basketball coach 1) had communicated with nonscholastic coach 4 about his impending interview. Specifically, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 made the following statements in text messages that he sent to nonscholastic coach 4: Explanation of Violation (1) September 22 text message: "I really need u to make it clear to them that I didn't know actually that I didn't know, but there was no way I would have known u were coaching. Only if they bring it up." (2) September 22 text message: "Make sure you don't tell them u talked to me " and "Let me know if u got all that. U haven't talked to anyone either." The enforcement staff, the institution and former assistant men's basketball coach 1 agree with the facts in this finding and that major violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The committee finds that the violation occurred. As previously set forth in Finding B-2, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent 45 impermissible text messages to nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4 while they engaged in coaching prospective student-athletes in summer certified events. As background, on September 15, 2010, information was reported to the enforcement staff relating to the impermissible text messages former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent to nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4. In reference to nonscholastic coach 4 and the attempts made by former assistant men's basketball coach 1 to influence him to provide false and misleading information, the enforcement staff contacted nonscholastic coach 4 on September 16, 2010, to schedule an interview and disclosed that the subject matter pertained to the men's basketball prospective student-athlete mentioned in Findings B-2-b and B-2-d. Later that day,
Page No. 14 nonscholastic coach 4 contacted former assistant men's basketball coach 1 to inform him of the enforcement staff's request to conduct an interview. On September 22, 2010, the enforcement staff interviewed nonscholastic coach 4. On September 17, 18 and 22, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent the text messages outlined in Findings B-3-a and B-3-c to nonscholastic coach 4 in an attempt to influence the information nonscholastic coach 4 provided to the enforcement staff during his interview. When asked whether former assistant men's basketball coach 1 suggested what nonscholastic coach 4 should say to the NCAA, nonscholastic coach 4 responded, "I think unfortunately, yeah, he did quite a bit there were certain things (former assistant men's basketball coach 1) didn't want me to mention and there were certain things that (former assistant men's basketball coach 1) did want me to tell " In reference to former assistant men's basketball coach 1's attempt to influence nonscholastic coach 2, on or around September 21, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 contacted nonscholastic coach 2, as set forth in Finding B-3-b, in an attempt to influence the information nonscholastic coach 2 was going to provide to the enforcement staff during his interview. During a September 21, 2010, interview, nonscholastic coach 2 reported that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 became aware of the enforcement staff's request to interview him through nonscholastic coach 4, and that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 subsequently contacted him (nonscholastic coach 2) on several occasions to ask him if he thought the interview was about the text messages that were sent in July 2010, as outlined in Finding B-2-b. Nonscholastic coach 2 reported that, in the course of those conversations, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 informed him that he did not have to cooperate with the NCAA, did not have to tell the NCAA investigator about the text messages, that the NCAA could not access his cellular phone records and that he did not have to show his phone to the NCAA investigator. When asked whether former assistant men's basketball coach 1 asked him to lie to the NCAA, nonscholastic coach 2 reported: "Not necessarily lie. Just I didn't have to tell everything I knew." This finding serves as the basis for Finding B-5-(b), a finding that the head men's basketball coach failed to monitor by not reporting impermissible recruiting activity in a timely fashion to the institution's compliance office. 4. IMPERMISSIBLE USE OF TALENT SCOUTS. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.2.8 and 13.10.5] The 2007 men's basketball elite camp employed four scouting service operators who acted as talent scouts. These four scouting service operators were
Page No. 15 compensated through the head men's basketball coach's camp for evaluating prospective men's basketball student-athletes participating in the camp. The individuals acted as talent scouts and were assigned to evaluate the prospects in order to determine which young men would be members of the camp's all-star team. Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff and the institution agreed on this finding and that the facts constitute violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violations occurred. As background, at the beginning of the investigation, which resulted in this case, the NCAA enforcement staff's basketball focus group (BFG) was conducting reviews of NCAA Division I men's basketball elite camps. In January 2009, the BFG requested information pertaining to Baylor's elite camps. During the enforcement staff's review of camp employment records, it was discovered that the four members of the media had been employed by the head men's basketball coach to work his 2007 elite men's basketball camp. The head men's basketball coach explained that it was his belief in 2007 that it was permissible to have such individuals employed at the camp and that it did not become impermissible until 2008. However, the enforcement staff and institution were unable to locate any documentation or interpretation stating that it was permissible to employ members of the media at institutional camps in the summer of 2007. On June 17, 2009, two years after the violation, the NCAA academic and membership affairs staff issued an official interpretation confirming that "institutions may not arrange for the media, including recruiting or scouting services, to be present at an institutional camp or clinic by inviting members of the media to attend or providing special access for the media to observe, meet or otherwise interact with prospective student-athletes." Even if it had been permissible to employ members of the media at the camp, the individuals were talent scouts who were reimbursed for costs incurred from attending the camp, which has been prohibited by NCAA legislation since at least August 5, 2004. As a result, the employment, compensation and presence of the four individuals listed above were contrary to NCAA legislation. 5 The former compliance director stated that the compliance office did not have any monitoring duties in terms of ensuring the institutional camps were in line with NCAA rules but that his staff would " walk through the camps just see who's around." 5 The institution reviewed records of past men's basketball camps and determined that this violation occurred only in the summer of 2007. The institution's men's basketball summer camps did not employ any members of the media after the summer of 2007.
Page No. 16 This finding serves as a component of the institution's failure to monitor, as set forth in Finding B-11. 5. FAILURE TO MONITOR HEAD MEN'S BASKETBALL COACH. [NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1] The head men's basketball coach failed to monitor the activities regarding compliance of two assistant coaches involved with the program who reported directly to him, as set forth in Findings B-1 and B-2. Specifically: a. During March 2007 through December 2008, the head men's basketball coach and other members of the men's basketball staff placed at least 268 impermissible telephone calls and sent at least 411 impermissible text messages to several prospective student-athletes and their parents, as detailed in Finding B-1. b. During August 2010, the head men's basketball coach was informed by an individual associated with a nonscholastic program that a then assistant men's basketball coach (identified in this report as "former assistant men's basketball coach 1") had sent impermissible text messages to nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4. The head men's basketball coach failed to inform the institution's administration of the allegation. At that time, the head men's basketball coach was aware that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 had previously sent 383 impermissible text messages, as detailed in Finding B-1, and that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 was not permitted to engage in certain recruiting activities during the time period in which the alleged impermissible text messages were sent. Nonetheless, upon learning of the allegation, the head men's basketball coach directed former assistant men's basketball coach 1 to gather information related to the alleged impermissible text messages so that he and former assistant men's basketball coach 1 could determine if a violation had occurred. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 subsequently informed the institution's compliance staff of the alleged impermissible text messages (detailed in Finding B-2) on September 26, 2010, nearly two months after the information was reported to the head men's basketball coach and several days after former assistant men's basketball coach 1 had attempted to influence the involved nonscholastic coaches to furnish the NCAA with false and misleading information, as set forth in Finding B-3.
Page No. 17 Explanation of Violation The enforcement staff, the institution and the head coach agreed on this finding and that the facts constitute violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violation occurred. In reference to Finding B-5-a, as previously set forth in Finding B-1, the head men's basketball coach placed 76 impermissible calls to 10 prospects and/or their relatives and sent 11 impermissible text messages. Further, two of his assistant coaches, assistant men's basketball coach A and former assistant men's basketball coach 1, whom the head men's basketball coach was charged with supervising, placed 192 impermissible calls and sent 400 impermissible text messages to numerous prospects and/or their relatives. According to the head men's basketball coach, his staff communicated with each other when they telephoned a prospect in order to prevent placing impermissible calls; however, the head coach acknowledged that there may have been some instances when the men's basketball staff failed to communicate concerning who placed calls to prospects or the staff failed to log instances in which they left nonrecruiting voicemail messages. As a result, the head men's basketball coach failed to monitor telephone and text messaging activities of these assistant coaches. In reference to Finding B-5-b, on August 2, 2010, the general manager of the nonscholastic program for which nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4 coached, telephoned the head men's basketball coach and informed him that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 had sent text messages to nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4 while they were coaching in a summer certified event. When questioned about the phone call from the general manager of the nonscholastic program, the head men's basketball coach acknowledged that he recognized the information provided by the general manager required further review because a coach texting a nonscholastic coach during a summer certified event may be an NCAA violation. The head men's basketball coach explained that following his conversation with the general manager, he questioned former assistant men's basketball coach 1 about the allegation. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 explained that he had no knowledge that nonscholastic coach 4 was coaching in the certified event and that he contacted nonscholastic coach 2 in order to determine whether a prospective studentathlete was injured so he could relay the prospect's injury status to the prospect's club coaches. The head men's basketball coach reported that he subsequently contacted the general manager and told him of former assistant men's basketball coach 1's rationale for sending the text messages to the two nonscholastic coaches. In response, the general manager informed the head men's basketball coach that, based on his reading of the text messages that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 had sent, he did not believe former assistant men's basketball coach 1's explanation.
Page No. 18 The head men's basketball coach stated that he then directed former assistant men's basketball coach 1 to "gather the information" so that the two could make a decision and give it to compliance." The head men's basketball coach acknowledged that he did not inform the compliance administrators of the allegation at this time. When asked why he did not inform the administration, the head men's basketball coach replied: "Because I wasn't convinced there was a violation. If there was, we would have alerted them right away. The second thing is, I wanted to gather information to let them know whether it was a violation." The head men's basketball coach stated that he believed that former assistant men's basketball coach 1 was attempting to gather information related to the number of text messages sent, the times, dates and circumstances of the text messages. Former assistant men's basketball coach 1 attempted to obtain his cell phone records through the wireless provider for his cell phone. Ultimately, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 was unsuccessful in obtaining his phone records from the wireless carrier because the device was issued through the institution. As a result, the head men's basketball coach directed former assistant men's basketball coach 1 to request the records from the institution. At some point between September 16 and 21, 2010, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 informed the head men's basketball coach that the NCAA enforcement staff planned to conduct interviews of nonscholastic coaches 2, 4 and their club's general manager. The head men's basketball coach did not report that information to athletics administrators. During this time period, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 attempted to influence the involved nonscholastic coaches to furnish the NCAA with false and misleading information, as set forth in Finding B-3. On September, 26, 2010, nearly two months after the allegation was reported to the head men's basketball coach, former assistant men's basketball coach 1 finally notified the Baylor compliance office of the allegation made by the club general manager and to obtain his text-messaging records. Consequently, on October 18, 2010, the institution submitted a self-report to the NCAA detailing the impermissible text messages former assistant men's basketball coach 1 sent to nonscholastic coaches 2 and 4. 6. RECRUITING VIOLATIONS IMPERMISSIBLE TELEPHONE CALLS AND TEXT MESSAGES TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES (WOMEN'S BASKETBALL). [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.4 and 13.4.1.2] Between at least April and November 2008, members of the women's basketball staff violated the provisions of NCAA recruiting communication legislation by placing 74 impermissible telephone calls and sending 24 text messages to women's basketball prospective student-athletes and/or their parents. Further,
Page No. 19 between January and July 2011, members of the women's basketball staff violated the provisions of NCAA recruiting communication legislation by placing 155 impermissible telephone calls and sending 159 text messages. Specifically: a. An assistant women's basketball coach ("assistant women's basketball coach A") committed the following violations: (1) Between October and November 2008, assistant women's basketball coach A placed 38 impermissible telephone calls to five prospective student-athletes and/or their parents. The telephone calls were placed after assistant women's basketball coach A or another member of the women's basketball staff had made the permissible telephone call(s) for the applicable contact periods. (2) Between June and September 2008, assistant women's basketball coach A sent eight text messages to one prospective studentathlete. (3) Between January and July 2011 assistant women's basketball coach A placed 146 impermissible telephone calls and sent 158 text messages. b. The head women's basketball coach ("head women's basketball coach") committed the following violations: (1) Between April and October 2008, the head women's basketball coach placed 22 impermissible telephone calls to six prospective student-athletes and/or their parents. The telephone calls were placed after the head women's basketball coach or another member of the women's basketball staff had made the permissible telephone call(s) for the applicable contact periods. (2) In September 2008, the head women's basketball coach sent four text messages to a parent of a prospective student-athlete. (3) Between January and July 2011 the head women's basketball coach, placed nine impermissible telephone calls. c. Between May and October 2008, an assistant women's basketball coach placed 13 impermissible telephone calls to six prospective student-athletes