This article has gone through two separate iterations in its lifetime already. This most recent version finalizes the condition of Ohio State by analyzing their final Public Infractions Reports, and looking at the final penalties handed down by the NCAA. I also add one more school, Michigan, as yet another example of the NCAA’s methods and mentalities. You’ll still find the original article here if you so desire.
This article will continue to be updated as a few more investigations pan out. We’re still waiting on the North Carolina Public Infractions Report, which should be out soon. LSU may have another Notice of Allegations coming, and we’re just waiting on Oregon’s NOA before adding them to the mix.
There’s also the possibility that Penn State will get an NOA up here considering the letter sent them by the NCAA after the Sandusky issue dropped. As unfortunate of a situation as that is, it would also be essentially unprecedented in NCAA history, and absolutely worthy of a spot on this list.
Update: H/T 11Ws. Thanks!
This is the article you have all been waiting for. Rather than just looking at all of the allegations leveled at Ohio State like I did a couple weeks ago, I now list every single allegation leveled by the NCAA at several different schools.
This article is a public service for anyone who is interested in the details of the allegations for a number of different schools including: Southern California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Boise State and Ohio State. Each table of allegations is a faithful representation of the allegation posed against the institution along with the response provided by the University for each. I hope that everyone who reads this will find it an informative and useful resource for discussing the NCAA, amateurism and the recent string of investigations that have swept the nation.
This is not a short article, so you may want to take it in slowly and in pieces. Reading it in one sitting may cause any number of complications that we hold no responsibility for including, but not limited to; excessive optimism, finger pointing, extreme laughter and glassy-eye dazes.
I also point out that what is included in each table is entirely factual information based off the documents provided by either the NCAA or the university in question. So too with the “results” of the investigation at the end of the discussion for each school. The discussions themselves are entirely a matter of writer’s opinion and should be taken as such.
For an in depth look at each allegation and the violations therein,
The violations refer to the particular code in the NCAA bylaw handbook . This isn’t the current handbook, but the one for 2009-2010. Despite that, the majority of the pertinent rules for this article should remain unchanged.
The responses say “Agreed” if the university agrees to the allegation in full, “Denied” if the university finds no substantial evidence to support the allegation, “Partially Agreed” if some parts of the Allegation are confirmed by the institution, and “Unknown” if we don’t have a copy of the Response to Allegations.
When the response is “Partially Agreed”, the allegations that the university has agreed to will be listed. First will be the appropriate violation, followed by all of the allegations appropriate to that violation. If a “p” follows any particular allegation listing, that emphasizes that only a part of that particular allegation was agreed to.
The University of Southern California’s Notice of Allegations (NOA) was never released to the public – they are a private institution and are not required to do so. Obviously it would be nice to have the original NCAA document, which we do have for all of the other schools present in this article. However, the USC response to the Allegations, which happens to be quite thorough, does detail most of the allegations posted against the University.
A big hat tip goes out to Paragon SC at the USC blog Conquest Chronicles for helping me get the facts completely straight here. That blog has an excellent rundown of articles and pdf files regarding the investigation into SC and is well worth a look (“USC vs. the NCAA” – left sidebar, halfway to the bottom). Paragon SC has also agreed to sit down with us for an upcoming podcast, so stay tuned for that!
|1||Reggie Bush (and family) recieved impermissible benefits from New Era Sports and Entertainment.
Assistant Coach Todd McNair commited ethics violation for having known or having the ability to know about Bush’s benefits.
|10.1 (d), 12.01.1, 12.1.1, 12.1.2 (a), 12.3.1, 188.8.131.52, and 30.3.5||Agreed (184.108.40.206) (1 (a)(6), 1 (a)(7)p, 1 (a)(9)p)|
|2||Reggie Bush (and family) received impermissible benefits from Sports Link agents.||220.127.116.11, 16.02.3, 18.104.22.168||Partially agreed (22.214.171.124) (2 (b)(1)p)|
|3||Todd McNair provided (a) misleading and (b) false information to the NCAA||10.1-(d)||Denied|
|4||USC exceed the maximum number of allowed football coaches.||11.7.2 and 11.7.4||Self reported (Agreed) – Secondary|
|5||A representative of USC and local restaurant owner made impermissible off-campus recruiting contacts with a number of prospective student athletes.||13.01.2, 13.01.4 and 126.96.36.199||Self reported (Agreed) – Secondary*|
|6||OJ Mayo received extra benefits from two representatives of the university who were also affiliated with a sports agency.||188.8.131.52, 13.01.3, 13.01.4, 13.2.1, 13.2.1-(b), 13.2.1-(e), 16.01.1, 16.02.3 and 184.108.40.206||Partially agree (6 b(1), 6 b(2), 6 b(4), 6 b(5), 6 b(6), 6 b(9)p, 6 b(10), 6 b(12), 6 b(14))|
|7||Not released in USC’s response||Unknown||Unknown|
|8||Not released in USC’s response||Unknown||Unknown|
|9||Women’s Tennis Player made 123 unauthorized calls to family members overseas at a value of $7,535 using an athletic department telephone.||220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168.2||Self Reported (Agreed) – Secondary (no competitive advantage)**|
|10||Institution exhibited a Failure to Monitor and Lack of Institutional Control||2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1||Denied (except for failure to monitor with regard to Violation 9)|
* The comments were viewed as inadvertent, and not intended to be of a recruiting nature, nor did the prospects view the comments as an attempt to recruit them.
** The University viewed this as a secondary violation, but it is believed that the NCAA recorded this as a major violation.
Scope: Three sports teams (Football, Men’s Basketball, Women’s Tennis).
USC deserves a lot of credit for their response on the whole. While it clocks in at a ridiculous 169 pages, it is chocked full of delicious reading material – particularly if you’re not a huge fan of the NCAA.
For the most part, USC makes a fantastic case regarding the issues that it denied wrong doing. In the vast majority of those denied allegations, the NCAA clearly had a weak case – often based solely on the comments of a single source who was anything but unimpeachable. USC drives the point home that the NCAA has failed to meet their own requirements for evidence, referencing previous NCAA investigations into other programs to prove their point.
It is easy to believe that USC got hammered beyond what they deserved. Clearly, though, that would require giving USC the benefit of the doubt and saying that the issues they denied were done so well enough to warrant dismissal of those charges. Ultimately, while it seems that a “failure to monitor” charge might be valid for the cases that they agreed to, the Lack of Institutional Control was certainly excessive.
But, obviously, the NCAA begged to differ.
One thing that is definitely worth impressing upon the reader is that USC closely worked with the NCAA! While the mainstream media has been trying hard to push the “USC fought the NCAA” meme, it’s absolutely not true. USC’s former student athletes, and the agents and representatives therein, may not have worked with the NCAA, but the University absolutely did. That is even expressed (apparently) in the Notice of Allegations, where the NCAA thanked USC for their help and support. In fact, pages 56 and 57 of the NCAA Public Infractions Report says this
The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4. The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel as set forth in Findings B-1-(b), B-6 and B-7. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution’s cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case.
In other words, the NCAA viewed USC’s cooperation as satisfactory to the letter of the bylaws. Unfortunately for USC, the crimes were too egregious to allow the NCAA to reduce the penalties against them.
One last point – making a comparison between Ohio State and USC might be completely moot. The violations are substantially different.
As Buckeye fans, if you are hoping for leniency solely because Ohio State self-reported and worked with the NCAA, you could be in for a shock.
*** Officially, the vast majority of the benefits provided in the Reggie Bush part of the scandal were officially given to his parents and family.
The actual Allegations start on page 17 of the provided pdf.
|1||Academic fraud between the academic support center and football student athlete||10.1, 10.1-(b) and 14.11.1||Agreeed*|
|2||An academic support center tutor provided impermissible extra benefits to the tune of $3,500 to football student athletes.||16.11.2||Self-Reported (Agreed)|
|3||The academic support center tutor by knowingly providing improper benefits, as well as refusing to furnish information relevant to an NCAA investigation.||10.1, 10.1-(a), 10.1-(c) and 19.01.3||Agreed|
|4||Seven football student athletes received a combined $27,097.38 in impermissible benefits from individuals, some who trigger NCAA agent legislation.||22.214.171.124.6 and 126.96.36.199||Agreed**|
|5||A football student athlete provided false and misleading information to the NCAA||10.1 and 10.1-(d)||Agreed|
|6||Assistant Football Coach John Blake partnered with several agents to represent individuals in the marketing of their athletic abilities. Specifically, Blake was hired to influence Student Athletes to hire a particular agent.||11.1.4||Agreed|
|7||John Blake failed to report $31,000 in athletically related income to the NCAA, income that was provided by one of the agencies mentioned in Allegation 6.||11.2.2||Agreed|
|8||John Blake refused to furnish information relevant to an NCAA investigation, and provided false and misleading information.||10.1, 10.1-(a), 10.1-(d) and 19.01.3||Agreed|
|9||North Carolina failed to monitor the conduct and administration of their football program||2.8.1||Agreed (with mitigated circumstances claimed)|
*The tutors in question claim that they did not believe that their actions constituted academic fraud at the time.
** The University corrects some of the NCAA figures for this violation on page 4-7 of their response.
Scope: One Sport (Football)
UNC was another case (along with Ohio State) where the Media expected a Lack of Institutional Control charge, but none was forthcoming. However, UNC did pick up the almost-as-bad charge of Failure to Monitor for the violations of their football program.
I believe this is probably a fair charge. Given the quantity of violations committed by the football program, and given the fact that one of their Assistant Coaches was in the back pocket of a professional sports agency, it seems the UNC Athletic Department missed the boat.
That said, considering the charge exists solely for one sports team, I highly doubt the institution lacks control. It’s more likely that certain details escaped their notice due to clever concealment by a coach and sneaky sports agency.
Also worth noting is that UNC did cooperate fully with the NCAA during the investigation.
Result: North Carolina has finally released their Response to the Allegations. Included in that document are a string of self-imposed penalties that include:
The University of Tennessee has already met with their Committee on Infractions, meaning that they are getting closer to a resolution of the issue at hand. While Tennessee’s Notice of Allegations is available on the internet, the response, which was due on May 21st, does not appear to be. However, with the recent release of the Tennessee Public Infractions Report, we can now determine Tennessee’s responses with a little careful reading.
Something else interesting that we were able to correct here is that the NCAA is not as vociferous about redaction as Tennessee is. This means that places that were originally considered “redacted” are now available to us. These have been marked, and changed accordingly.
|1||In a two year period, Head Basketball Coach Bruce Pearl, associate head basketball coach Tony Jones, and assistant men’s basketball coach Steve Forbes placed 96 impermissible telephone recruiting calls.||188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206.3 and 220.127.116.11.7||Agreed|
|2||Bruce Pearl, Tony Jones and Steve Forbes has impermissible, in-person, off-campus contact with three prospective student-athletes and their families in Bruce Pearl’s home, and provided an impermissible meal and impermissible transportation.*||18.104.22.168, 13.2.1, 13.5.3, and 22.214.171.124.1*||Agreed|
|3||Bruce Pearl and Tony Jones made an impermissible in-person, off-campus contact with a prospective student athlete.||126.96.36.199||Agreed|
|4||Bruce Pearl acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by knowingly engaging in recruiting violations, provided false and misleading information to NCAA investigators, and attempted to influence others to furnish false and misleading information.||10.1-(c), 10.1-(d), 19.01.2, 19.01.3 and 32.1.4||Agreed|
|5||Steve Forbes failed to provide full and complete information and failed to protect the integrity of the investigation.||10.01.1, 11.1.1, 19.01.3 and 32.1.4||Agreed|
|6||Assistant men’s basketball coach Jason Shay failed to provide full and completely information and failed to protect the integrity of the investigation.||10.01.1, 11.1.1, 19.01.3 and 32.1.4||Agreed|
|7||Bruce Pearl violated the principles of honesty when he failed to provide full and complete information regarding his involvement in and knowledge of violations.||10.01.1, 11.1.1 and 19.01.3||Agreed (Head Coach disagreed with finding B-1, but agreed with B-2)|
|8||Bruce Pearl failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and failed to monitor the activities of all of his assistant coaches.||188.8.131.52||Agreed|
|9||During the 2009-2010 academic year, former members of the football coaching staff (names redacted) engaged in impermissible recruiting activities with prospective student-athletes.||11.5.1, 184.108.40.206.1.1, [redacted], 13.02.7, 13.02.14-(c), [redacted], 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168.1, 22.214.171.124.1, 126.96.36.199.1, 188.8.131.52, 13.11.1, 184.108.40.206 and [redacted].||Agreed (secondary)|
|10||Head Football Coach Lane Kiffin failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the football program and failed to monitor the activities of several assistant football coaches and an athletics administrator.||220.127.116.11||No Violation**|
|11||The institution failed to monitor the men’s basketball coaching staff telephone contacts with prospective student-athletes.||2.8.1||No Violation**|
|12||Jason Shay did something that was heavily redacted.||Redacted||No Violation**|
* These were originally redacted in the Tennessee Notice of Allegations.
** These are no longer present in any obvious way in the Public Infractions Report. It is not immediately clear if these were removed, or deemed secondary in nature.
Scope: Two sports (Football, Basketball)
I’m actually fairly impressed that Tennessee was able to avoid the Lack of Institutional Control. Failure to Monitor on two separate sports teams, the entire basketball coaching staff acting contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and both Pearl and Kiffin failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance? It almost seems like a no-brainer.
It’s possible that the complete lack of impermissible benefits charges was (as far as we can tell considering the horrific redactions) what ultimately saved Tennessee in that regard. It could also be that the NCAA thinks that Tennessee has an acceptable compliance department that just missed the boat on a few things (or, more specifically, that Pearl, Kiffin and company did a good job of concealing their activities). I doubt we’ll ever know for sure, considering how fickle the NCAA tends to be in regards to penalties and violations.
I was surprised how much redacting Tennessee had done compared to Ohio State and UNC (names) and USC (replacing names with non-descriptive identifiers) and Boise State (both, depending on the document you look at). A Tennessee staffer must have handed a black sharpie to their 6 year old and let them go to town. Given what the Dispatch put together a couple of years ago, I suppose no-one should be surprised by Tennessee’s strong-arming method of redaction.
In the PIR, the NCAA states that the biggest violations were those committed by the Basketball team and it’s head coach. Considering the extent of the lying that Bruce Pearl engaged in, that doesn’t come as too much of a shock. However, the reason why Tennessee may have avoided the Lack of Institutional Control charge, and at the same time, the reason why Kiffin got off, is interesting.
In the sport of football, it was alleged that major violations occurred in the conduct of the program, including recruiting activities undertaken by student interns. The committee concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support findings of major violations. However, the committee was troubled by the number and nature of the secondary infractions by the football coaching staff during its one-year tenure at the institution. From January 2009 through October 2009 the staff committed 12 violations, all connected to recruiting. Some of the violations received nationwide publicity and brought the football program into public controversy. This is not a record of which to be proud. Nevertheless, because the violations individually were secondary and most were isolated, the committee, in the end, determined not to make a finding of a major violation.
So it is possible for the NCAA to believe that there is insufficient information available to press major charges on some violations. That the committee was “troubled by the number and nature of the secondary infractions” makes it seem like they would have gone the extra mile to give Tennessee a more extreme punishment. Give the NCAA a little credit here for showing something akin to self-restraint. Though, I imagine that will not comfort USC fans in the slightest.
Also, since cooperating with the NCAA is such a critical part of these investigations, it’s worth pointing out that Tennessee did work closely with the NCAA. In fact, the Infractions Report states,
The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4. The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case is in stark contrast to the conduct and failures of the former men’s basketball coaching staff.
Since we have the PIR the results listed below are considered complete for the violations committed.
Plus a bevy of other smaller self-imposed or conference-imposed penalties stretching back before the 2010 Academic year.
The Broncos are the surprise in the bunch, if only because the media reports regarding their allegations and penalties have been few and far between. BSU’s list of allegations is actually quite impressive overall, as you will see shortly.
Like Tennessee, Boise State has already faced the NCAA Committee on Infractions and therefore has filed their response to the allegations. Unfortunately, again, the Boise State response is not available on the net – despite the fact that I know for certain that it was released to the media. Despite that, though, Boise State’s Public Infractions Report has been made available, and we can ascertain their responses from that.
|1||Back in 2005, a track and field athlete received impermissible financial aid, housing, meals and clothing, and participated in practices as a nonqualifier.||13.2.1, 18.104.22.168-(b), 22.214.171.124-(h), 14.3.1, 126.96.36.199.1, 15.01.5 and 188.8.131.52||Agreed (Finding B1-d had mitigating circumstances)|
|2||From 2005-2009 assistant coaches and staff members of the football program arranged for summer housing and transportation for 63 prospective student-athletes.||13.2.1, 184.108.40.206-(h) and 13.5.1||Agreed|
|3||From 2005-2009, prospective student athletes of track and field and tennis (men’s and women’s for both) received impermissible housing, transportation and meals on arrival to Boise for their initial enrollment.||13.2.1, 220.127.116.11-(h), 13.5.1, 13.5.4 and 18.104.22.168||Agreed|
|4||A prospective student athlete received impermissible transportation, meals, housing, entertainment and travel expenses from a student athlete and the assistant coach for men’s and women’s cross country and track and field.||13.2.1, 22.214.171.124-(h), 13.5.1 and 126.96.36.199||Agreed|
|5||The assistant coach named in Allegation 4 acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct based on his involvement in Allegation 4, as well as by providing false or misleading information on three separate occasions.||10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d)||Agreed|
|6||The institution permitted a women’s tennis student-athlete to practice and participate in competition beyond her fourth eligible season.||14.2, 188.8.131.52.1 and 184.108.40.206||Agreed|
|7||The Head women’s tennis coach, an assistant women’s tennis coach, a volunteer assistant women’s tennis coach and two representatives of the institution’s interests provided impermissible benefits to a prospective student-athlete.||13.2.1, 220.127.116.11-(b), 18.104.22.168-(e), 22.214.171.124-(h), 13.5.1, 126.96.36.199, 13.11.1 and 188.8.131.52||Agreed (The now-former coaches denied the allegations)|
|8||The head women’s tennis coach, and the assistant women’s tennis coach conducted impermissible practice sessions with a prospective student-athlete, and allowed her to participate in athletics before becoming a degree seeking student of the institution.||13.2.1, 13.11.1, 14.02.7, 14.1.7, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168||Agreed (The now-former men’s coach denied the allegation, the now-former women’s coach did not respond)|
|9||The head women’s tennis coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by engaging in violations of NCAA legislation, by providing false and misleading information, and by influencing others to provide false and misleading information.||10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d), 19.01.3 and 32.1.4||Agreed (The now-former coach denied the allegation)|
|10||The assistant women’s tennis coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by engaging in violations of NCAA legislation, and by providing false and misleading information.||10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d)||Agreed (The now-former coach denied the allegation)|
|11||The volunteer women’s tennis assistant coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading evidence to investigators, and influenced another to provide false and misleading information.||10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), 19.01.3 and 32.1.4||Agreed|
|12||The women’s tennis head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance, and failed to monitor the assistant women’s tennis coach and volunteer assistant coach.||22.214.171.124||Agreed|
|13||The Men’s Tennis head coach arranged for a prospective student athlete to reside with a family in Boise upon his initial arrival. The individual paid rent to the family during his stay.*||13.2.1 and 126.96.36.199-(h)||Agreed|
|14||A prospective student athlete received impermissible benefits and participated in a practice session with a volunteer assistant tennis coach, observed by the head men’s tennis coach.||13.2.1, 188.8.131.52-(h) and 13.5.1||Agreed|
|15||A tennis nonqualifier was provided impermissible benefits (including use of tennis-racquet restringer) and participated in practice activities.||184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124-(a)||Agreed|
|16||The head coach and the assistant coach for men’s and women’s track and field assisted in the arrangement in impermissible benefits for four prospective student-athletes.||13.2.1, 126.96.36.199-(h) and 13.5.1||Agreed|
|17||The head coach and the assistant coach for men’s and women’s track and field conducted impermissible practice sessions with prospective student-athletes and provided impermissible benefits.||13.2.1, 13.5.1 and 13.11.1||Agreed|
|18||A prospective student-athlete received impermissible benefits from another student-athlete.||13.2.1, 188.8.131.52-(e), 184.108.40.206-(f), 220.127.116.11-(h), 13.5.4 and 18.104.22.168||Agreed|
|19||A prospective student-athlete received impermissible benefits from an assistant cross country and track and field coach and several other student athletes, and engaged in impermissible practice activities.||13.2.1, 22.214.171.124-(f), 126.96.36.199-(h), 13.5.1 and 13.11.1||Agreed|
|20||The Institution lacked control in critical areas of NCAA compliance.||22.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01||Disagreed|
|21||A women’s tennis student athlete was permitted to travel and received actual and necessary travel expenses when she was not eligible to do so.||188.8.131.52||No Violation**|
|22||A mother of a women’s tennis student-athlete provided the women’s tennis student-athletes with gift bags or small gift items.||16.02.3 and 184.108.40.206||No Violation**|
* This last statement is partially redacted, so take it with a grain of salt. However, the statement does best fit based on the additional information provided.
** These violations are no longer present in the Public Infractions Report.
Scope: Five sports (Men’s and Women’s Track and Field, Men’s and Women’s Tennis, Football)
This is quite an incredible list of violations. A full 22 allegations against the Boise State athletic department account for as many as three other schools on this list combined. It’s not surprising that Boise State got the dreaded “lack of institutional control” charge at the end. It spanned four sports teams and more than 5 years of misdeeds.
The interesting part is that the majority of the violations occurred in “non-profit-earning” sports. Usually you see the vast majority of major violations occurring to the programs that have a lot riding on their success, or where there is a lot of prestige to gain or lose. It’s refreshing to see another group of athletes and coaches go rogue.
You may have noticed that I was very kind to USC during the course of this article, but a bit harsher to the other three. This is primarily due to two factors.
It’s worth noting that the Public Infractions Report lists only 18 violations for Boise State rather than the full 22. It’s difficult to tell which of the violations were left out, and if some of the violations were combined with others. I have left it as is, but note that two of the violations above that are listed as “agreed” to are not necessarily there any longer – it is very hard to know for certain.
Also worth pointing out is this little tidbit from the Infractions Committee on the historical nature of these violations. The committee quoted a previous committee looking into violations at Southeast Missouri State University which said,
As early as 1998 (University of Cincinnati) the committee has warned, repeatedly, of the elevated risk of violations when prospects are on campus prior to their first full-time enrollment. The committee also has emphasized, repeatedly, that institutions have a concomitant heightened obligation to be vigilant in tracking these prospects to assure compliance with NCAA Bylaws [BYU (2008); Arkansas (2007); West Virginia (2007); Kansas (2006); Savannah State (2006); Missouri (2004); Wisconsin (2001); UNLV (2000); Arkansas, Little Rock (1999); Cal St. Fullerton (1999)]. Such heightened vigilance includes (i) rules education (ii) procedures in place which are reasonably calculated to track prospects and to assure rules compliance, and (iii) monitoring with follow-through to assure such procedures are followed. Failure to exercise such heightened vigilance demonstrates a lack of institutional control.
And that’s how Boise State picked up the Lack of Institutional Control charge.
Boise State has self-imposed a large number of penalties on all five of their programs, those penalties include:
Even though we’ve already seen it a hundred times before, let’s look at the allegations facing Ohio State.
As I mentioned in the earlier versions of the article, additional allegations were always possible with a continued investigation. The NCAA handed down another couple of violations which I have added to the table below.
Also, like USC, we have access to the full range of information Ohio State used to respond to the NCAA, along with their response to the new allegations. That gives us an opportunity to discuss our thoughts regarding what OSU has said.
|1||6 current and 1 former Student Athletes traded gear and memorabilia for cash and discounts on tattoos to a tattoo parlor called Fine Line Ink. Additionally, Jim Tressel knew or should have known that at least 2 student-athletes received these impermissible benefits, and failed to withhold them from competition while ineligible.||220.127.116.11.6, 14.11.1, 16.1.4 and 18.104.22.168||Self Reported (Agreed). In fact Ohio State added a 7th current SA to the list (one of those 7, Pryor, has since forgone his last year of eligibility).|
|2||Jim Tressel failed to deport himself with honesty and integrity when he failed to report information concerning violations of NCAA legislation. Additionally, he withheld information for 9 months regarding the violations in Allegation 1, and falsely attested that he had reported all NCAA violations when he signed the certification of compliance form.||10.1||Self Reported (Agreed).|
|3||Robert DiGeronimo, a representative of the institution’s athletics interests, arranged for the provision of extra benefits to nine football student-athletes worth a total of $2,405 in the form of compensation for work not performed and cash payments.||12.4.1, 22.214.171.124-(a), 16.02.3, and 126.96.36.199||Agreed|
|4||The institution failed to adequately monitor Robert DiGeronimo, including his interaction with and employment of football student-athletes, as set forth in allegation 3.||2.81||Agreed|
Scope: One Sport (Football)
The NCAA filed an updated Notice of Allegations on July 8th to reflect additional findings during further investigation into the program. That investigation was the result of the Sports Illustrated article and the reported findings by ESPN. The updated notice clearly indicated that the NCAA found only one point of merit in those reports, the inclusion of a 7th current player to Allegation 1.
Also, as mentioned above the table, the NCAA found more violations in the form of Robert DiGeronimo. These violations came as a shock to many, as they were completely unrelated to the original Tat-5 situation. They were the final straw that broke the camel’s back on the failure to monitor charge. Ohio State ultimately paid dearly for the compliance office’s, and athletic department’s, inability to monitor and reign in DiGeronimo.
Interestingly, in their response to the new allegations, the University readily agrees that they failed to properly monitor DiGeronimo,
The University was aware of DiGeronimo and believes it took significant actions to separate DiGeronimo from its program in the mid 2000s….However, the institution acknowledges that had it taken additional measures to determine whether DiGeronimo had interactions with student-athletes away from institutional facilities, the likelihood of these current violations occurring would have been reduced.
Obviously, the NCAA has come forward with the Public Infractions Report against Ohio State. They refrained from commenting on whether or not Ohio State’s cooperation led to a reduction in the charges considered as they have in other cases,
The Committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4.
They did, however, comment on how the repeat violator status played into the role in determining the penalties for the school.
Bylaw 19.4.2(g-5) specifies that an institution’s status as a repeat violator is an additional aggravating factor in the imposition of competition restrictions such as a postseason ban. The committee considered additional penalties that were not imposed, including a multiple season postseason competition ban, and more severe scholarship reductions. The committee chose not to impose such additional penalties after weighing the aggravating factors and the overall seriousness of the case in light of other recent major infractions cases where a multiple year postseason was imposed.
They meant “multiple year postseason ban was imposed”, but you can’t always expect the NCAA to get everything right.
The recent release of the NCAA Public Infractions Report on Georgia Tech has allowed us to enhance this article to include their allegations. In the subsequent search for information, we were able to find the Georgia Tech Response to Allegations, though not the Notice itself. Thankfully, like USC, Georgia Tech did a good job of replicating the Notice of Allegations within their response.
|1||Two Georgia Tech Football Student Athletes were provided impermissible benefits from an employee of an Atlanta based sports agency.||188.8.131.52.6 and 184.108.40.206||Denied|
|2||The assistant athletics director for compliance failed to protect the integrity of the investigation by telling one student athlete from Allegation 1 the issues and related matters that would be discussed during an interview. This conversation occured despite explicit instructions from the NCAA interviewer that the information could only be shared with the University President and Athletic Director.||19.01.3 and 32.1.4||Denied (The conversation occurred, but no violations were committed)|
|3||The institution did not withhold the two student –athletes from Allegation 1 from competition when the institution knew or had reason to know that they were ineligible.||220.127.116.11 and 14.11.1||Denied|
|4||One of the student-athletes from Allegation 1 violated the principles of ethical-conduct when he knowingly provided false and misleading information and failed to submit his telephone and bank records.||10.1-(a) and 10.1-(d)||Denied|
|5||The men’s basketball program was involved in conduct, administration and evaluation of physical activity in violation of the NCAA try-out legislation.||13.11.1 and 18.104.22.168||(Major violations denied – institution claims violations are secondary)|
|6||Members of the men’s basketball staff provided impermissible discretionary tickets contrary to NCAA legislation.||13.8.1||Agreed (part a is secondary in nature, parts b and c have been withdrawn by enforcement staff)|
|7||A football student athlete was provided admission, a meal and nonperishable items at the Georgia Aquarium by two representatives of the institution’s athletics interests.||16.02.3 and 22.214.171.124 (Secondary)||Self-reported (Agreed)|
|8||A men’s basketball student-athlete was provided impermissible discretionary tickets.||126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 (Secondary)||Self-reported (Agreed)|
Scope: Two Sports (Football, Men’s Basketball)
Georgia Tech’s case is quite fascinating when compared to the other schools. Considering the violations the school committed, the Yellow Jackets were not in any serious trouble. They had players take only about $300 in impermissible benefits and were allowed to play despite the football coaches being made aware of the situation. The basketball team also continued to run non-scholastic basketball camps despite the recent rules addition prohibiting those events.
For the most part, by themselves, these would be generally considered secondary violations. Failing to withhold the players would be considered major – as would hindering the investigation – but even these are pretty minor violations and resulted only in Georgia Tech being forced to vacate the ACC Championship game.
The amazing part is that Georgia Tech failed to work with the NCAA to such an extent that the NCAA noted it in the Public Infractions report,
Because the committee finds violations of both the cooperative principal (Bylaws 19.01.3 and 32.1.4) and the conditions and obligations of membership (Bylaws 184.108.40.206 and 14.11.1), this case provides a cautionary tale of conduct that member institutions should avoid while under investigation for violations of NCAA rules.
The statement goes on to accuse the Yellow Jackets of compounding the problem of their violations by not cooperating, and may very well have lead to stiffer penalties than they ordinarily would have received. This should be viewed as an informative lesson into why it is important to comply with the NCAA.
Like many other’s before them, LSU successfully managed to be overly heavy-handed in their redactions of the allegations placed on them by the NCAA.
While we do have the LSU Notice of Allegations, the response to those allegations is not available, and was probably redacted in its entirety – not unlike Tennessee’s, I imagine. Thankfully, the NCAA provided the Public Infractions Report, so we can compose as complete a list as possible.
|1||The institution provided impermissible automobile transportation for a recruit.||13.51. and 13.5.3||Agreed|
|2||A student-worker of the institution provided impermissible lodging to a prospective student-athlete.||220.127.116.11-(h)||Agreed|
|3||Members of the institution’s football staff made 25 impermissible recruiting phone calls.||18.104.22.168.2, 22.214.171.124.7, and 126.96.36.199.1||Agreed|
|4||Three members of the institution, but not members of the football staff, made more than 3,400 phone calls to prospects, parents,high school coaches, or administrators. No record was made of the call, so it is assumed that these were recruiting in nature.||188.8.131.52, and 184.108.40.206.1||Agreed (with some haggling over how many calls were designed for recruitment).|
|5||A former assistant coach failed to deport himself in accordance with the high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics.||10.01 and 10.1||Agreed (The former assistant denies the allegation)|
Scope: One Sport (Football)
Interestingly, LSU was cited in the media as an example of exactly what a school is supposed to do when cooperating with the NCAA. In fact, LSU is exactly the opposite of Georgia Tech in this regard. Whereas Georgia Tech was essentially yelled at for not assisting the NCAA, LSU was lauded,
The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4 and that the institution’s compliance office should be commended for its pursuit of the truth regarding prospect 1′s summer living arrangement.
This is pretty effusive praise coming from the NCAA. They go on to say,
The committee lauds the institution’s compliance office for its efforts to investigate and uncover the violations. The compliance office, and particularly the senior associate director of athletics, continued to ask questions regarding prospect 1′s living arrangements throughout the summer of 2009 and into the fall. It refused to certify prospect 1′s eligibility and allow him to depart for an away contest on September 3, 2009, because those questions had not yet been answered. Had prospect 1 been allowed to travel and compete before the investigation into his pre-enrollment activities was complete, the institution would likely have committed further serious violations. Because the compliance office was proactive, fully investigated and cooperated with the enforcement staff to uncover the full range of the violations, the institution is entitled to relief as set forth in Penalty C-2 below. Further, the committee imposed no additional penalties on the institution.
The NCAA clearly likes their committees to be proactive, and take a strong position on questionable situations.
Just as I was updated this article to include the recent information regarding UNC and LSU, South Carolina was issued their Notice of Allegations due to the “Hotel Gate” situation. That’s another addition to our who’s-who party of College Football!
Note that since South Carolina was just delivered their Notice of Allegations, their response is not yet available.
|1||The Whitney Hotel, an agency of the University’s interests, provided extra benefits of $47,000 to 12 student athletes in the form of reduced rent. The hotel also made special arrangements with 9 student athletes to pay their rent at later dates – an impermissible loan.||16.02.3, 220.127.116.11, and 18.104.22.168-(a)||Unknown|
|2||From Spring 2009 to February 2011, Kevin Lahn and Steve Gordon, both representatives of the University’s interests, made impermissible recruiting contacts, provided impermissible recruiting inducements to prospective student-athletes, and provided extra benefits to student-athletes. All benefits totaled over $8,000.||13.01.3, 13.01.4, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, 13.2.1, and 188.8.131.52||Unknown|
|3||The institution violated the principles of rules compliance by not sufficiently monitoring housing arrangements at the Whitney Hotel, nor the activites of Kevin Lahn and Steve Gordon.||2.8.1||Unknown|
Scope: Three Sports (Football, Men’s and Women’s Track and Field)
South Carolina’s violations are pretty significant. Most surprising is the Whitney Hotel Allegations. Apparently the Hotel was providing room for football players and women’s track and field athletes at the tune of $14.59 per night for more than 400 nights in some cases. If you do the math, that comes out to a discount of approximately $41.32 per night. In one case that works out to more than $19,200 in extra benefits for a single player on the team – who was occupying a two bedroom suite on his own. Talk about a sweet deal.
Despite the wording of that last charge being a little unusual, that still seems to be a “failure to monitor” charge. All of the failure to monitor charges above are violations of NCAA Constitution part 2.8.1, and that’s exactly what toUSC was handed down. This is probably a reasonable level of punishment considering how expansive the violations were, but how little the coaches seem to have known about it.
Unknown at this time.
This wouldn’t truly be a party if I didn’t include our friends from up north. Their investigation has been entirely completed, so adding in their allegations isn’t much of an issue, and we can analyze the violations and penalties in full. You can find their Notice of Allegations, Response, and Public Infractions Reports by following those links.
One thing I will note is I was immediately impressed with the ease with which I was able to locate the available documents for the Michigan violations. With most of the schools (Ohio State and USC excluded) if I could find the appropriate document it was usually buried deep in some dark recess of the internet. Michigan’s was quite easy to find, so I have to give them credit for stepping up and making the information so readily available.
|1||From January 2008 through September 2009, the institution’s football program exceeded the permissible limit on the number of coaches by five.||184.108.40.206.1, 220.127.116.11.1.1, 11.7.2, and 18.104.22.168||Agreed|
|2||For the same time period, the institution’s football program violated NCAA legislation governing playing and practice seasons by allowing football staff members to monitor and conduct voluntary summer workouts, conduct impermissible activities outside the playing season, required athletes to participate in summer conditioning for disciplinary purposes, and exceeded time limits for countable athletically related activites.||17.02.1, 17.02.13, 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199-(b), 188.8.131.52.1.1, 184.108.40.206.4, 17.9.6-(a)-(1)-(b), and 17.9.6-(a)-(2)-(b)||Agreed|
|3||Alex Herron, graduate assistant football coach, failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standard of honesty and sportsmanship by providing false and misleading information to the institution and enforcement staff when questioned about his involvement in and knowledge of violations outlined in Allegation 2.||10.01.1, 10.1, and 10.1-(d)||Agreed|
|4||Rich Rodriguez, head football coach, failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and failed to adequately monitor the dtuies and activities of the quality control staff members, a graduate assistant coach, and a student assistant coach.||220.127.116.11||Denied|
|5||The athletics department failed to adequately monitor its football program to assure compliance regarding the limitations on the number, duties, and activities of countable football coaches, and the time limits for countable athletically related activities.||2.8.1||Agreed|
Scope: One Sport (Football)
These were particularly egregious charges; two cases of failure to monitor, both acknowledged by the University. They were so egregious that the NCAA even made note of it while discussing the school’s cooperation. In fact, this almost looks copy-and-pasted from the USC public infractions report,
The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4. The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel as set forth in the findings. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution’s cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case.
There was also the matter of whether Michigan would be considered a repeat violator per NCAA Bylaw 18.104.22.168. The committee declined to impose enhanced penalties for several reasons, including the length of time since the Basketball violations (the case was in 2003, but the violations ended in 1999), and that the violations were in a different sport.