1. UNETHICAL CONDUCT - ACADEMIC FRAUD, PROVISION OF FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION. [NCAA Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(b) and 10.1-(d)]

Transcription

1 GEORGIA SOUTHERNUNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT A. INTRODUCTION. On October 9, 2009, officials from Georgia Southern University appeared before the Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations of NCAA violations in the men's basketball program. The violations in this case centered on unethical conduct by members of the men s basketball staff in the form of academic fraud and the provision of false and misleading information. There was also a finding of a failure to monitor by the institution. The enforcement staff did not originally allege that the institution failed to monitor, but after reviewing the institution's response and in discussions during the hearing, the committee expressed concern that the circumstances under which the violations occurred may have resulted from a failure to monitor on the part of the institution. Following the hearing, the committee deliberated on the case and determined that it would be appropriate to allege that the institution failed to monitor certain aspects of the men's basketball program. Consistent with procedure, the committee notified the institution that it would have the opportunity to respond to this new allegation, either in an in-person setting or through written submission. The institution elected to contest the allegation and submitted a written response to the committee, setting forth its position on the issue. After reviewing the response, the committee met via teleconference and, after a thorough discussion, determined that a finding that the institution failed to monitor was appropriate. The institution was notified in writing of that decision shortly thereafter. A member of the Southern Conference, the institution has an enrollment of approximately 17,750 students. The institution sponsors six men's and nine women's intercollegiate sports. This was the institution s second major infractions case; the institution appeared before the committee in 1995 for a case also involving the men's basketball program. B. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. 1. UNETHICAL CONDUCT - ACADEMIC FRAUD, PROVISION OF FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION. [NCAA Bylaws 10.1, 10.1-(b) and 10.1-(d)]

2 Page No. 2 During the academic year and 2008 summer and fall academic terms, a former assistant men's basketball coach ("former assistant coach") acted contrary to the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly engaged in academic fraud and failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standard of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by providing false and misleading information to the institution's representatives and the enforcement staff. Specifically: a. During the academic year and the 2008 summer and fall academic terms, the former assistant coach provided substantial portions of course work, and in some instances completed course work, for a men's basketball student-athlete ("student-athlete 1"). The former assistant coach submitted or provided student-athlete 1 with papers, essays, shortanswers and completed tests, and participated in online chats (as required by student-athlete 1's academic schedule) in several English and criminal justice courses during academic terms in the fall of 2007, spring of 2008, summer of 2008, and the fall of The former assistant coach completed all of student-athlete 1's requirements for the aforementioned courses from the fall of 2007 through the fall of 2008, during which semester student-athlete 1 was accused by his professors of academic dishonesty and required to take his exams in the presence of a proctor. b. During the 2008 summer and fall academic terms, the former assistant coach provided substantial portions of course work and in some instances, completed course work, for a men's basketball student-athlete ("studentathlete 2"). The former assistant coach submitted or provided studentathlete 2 with papers, essays and tests required by student-athlete 2's academic schedule in criminal justice courses during the 2008 summer and fall academic terms. In the fall of 2008, the former assistant coach provided the necessary course work in the aforementioned courses until student-athlete 2 was accused by his professors of academic dishonesty and required to take his exams in the presence of a proctor. c. During the 2008 spring academic term, the former assistant coach directed the former director of men's basketball operations ("former director of operations"), to be responsible for student-athlete 2's required academic course work for an English course and a history course. At the former assistant coach's direction, the former director of operations submitted substantial portions of course work for student-athlete 2, including writing papers, essays and short-answers, and completing tests for the aforementioned courses.

3 Page No. 3 d. The former assistant coach knowingly furnished the NCAA with false and misleading information about his involvement in and knowledge of the academic fraud allegations when questioned by the institution's representatives and the enforcement staff during his January 22 and March 24, 2009, interviews. He denied providing student-athletes 1 and 2 with papers, essays, short-answers or completed tests, and also denied participating in online chats on behalf of the student-athletes. The former assistant coach further denied directing the former assistant director to commit academic fraud for student-athlete 2. However, several men's basketball student-athletes reported their knowledge of the former assistant coach's involvement in academic fraud, and both student-athlete 1 and the former director of operations admitted that they participated in academic fraud at the direction of the former assistant coach. Committee Rationale The institution and the enforcement staff were in agreement regarding most of the facts comprising Finding B-1 and that they constitute violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that the violations occurred. The former assistant coach was clearly assigned academic oversight responsibilities for the men's basketball program. In that capacity, he obtained all of the men's basketball student-athletes' online academic account IDs and passwords at the beginning of each academic year. This enabled him to log on to the institution's Internet system posing as the student-athletes. His access included, but was not limited to, class schedules, unofficial transcript and financial information. Additionally, if a student enrolled in an online course, the ID and password were used to access the course and to participate in required online chats. In specific reference to Finding B-1-a, while the institution agrees that the former assistant coach committed academic fraud by providing substantial portions of course work for student-athlete 1 during the academic year and the summer of 2008 term, the institution believes that the former assistant coach did not complete all of student-athlete 1's work in the aforementioned courses, or that the former assistant coach committed academic fraud in any of student-athlete 1 s 2008 fall courses. In terms of the seriousness of this violation, the institution did not consider this disagreement to be "a material difference" between its assessment of Finding B-1-a and that of the enforcement staff. The former assistant coach did not submit a written response to the notice of allegations, nor did he attend the infractions hearing to personally address those allegations naming him. However, when interviewed early in the investigation, he categorically denied any involvement in academic fraud. [Note: His denial of

4 Page No. 4 involvement in these violations is the subject of the unethical conduct finding for providing false and misleading information as set forth in Finding B-1-d.] The former director of operations was instructed by the former assistant coach to commit academic fraud as well (Finding B-1-c). The former director of operations reported that the former assistant coach fashioned a systemic pattern of academic fraud on behalf of student-athlete 1. Student-athlete 1 confirmed this information and reported that this arrangement began when he first enrolled at the institution. Institution and enforcement staff investigators reviewed student-athlete 1's transcript with him (class by class) and he identified each course for which the former assistant coach provided impermissible academic assistance, including courses taken in the fall of As previously noted, this improper assistance also involved the former assistant coach posing as student-athlete 1 in online chats. This particular example of academic fraud (involving the former assistant coach and former student-athlete 1) was confirmed by other men's basketball student-athletes. One men's basketball student-athlete reported that many of these online chats occurred during an organized study hall which was often supervised by the former assistant coach. This student-athlete reported observing the former assistant coach "posing" as student-athlete 1 during the required online chats and answering questions, while student-athlete 1 worked on other course assignments. The investigation also revealed a paper turned in by student-athlete 1 which originated from a source outside the institution; specifically, the paper was traced to a high school located some distance from the institution's campus. This paper was written by a teacher at the high school who was acquainted with the former assistant coach. At the request of the former assistant coach, the teacher provided the paper to him and he, in turn, gave it to student-athlete 1. The student-athlete then submitted it for credit in an English course. The former assistant coach admitted obtaining this paper from the high school teacher. In reference to Finding B-1-b, academic fraud perpetrated by the former assistant coach on behalf of student-athlete 2, the former assistant coach denied in interviews that he committed such fraud. Student-athlete 2 denied involvement as well. Although both the former assistant coach and student-athlete 2 stated that they did not engage in academic fraud, there was considerable circumstantial evidence to the contrary. First, as described in the discussion of Finding B-1-a, the former director of operations described a pattern of academic fraud committed by the former assistant coach on behalf of student-athlete 1. This academic abuse was confirmed by student-athlete 1, and supported by other student-athletes and documentary information. As set forth in Finding B-1-c, the former assistant coach also instructed the former director of operations to perpetrate academic fraud on behalf of student-athlete 2 in a manner similar to how the former assistant coach had impermissibly assisted student-athlete 1. The former director of operations complied with these instructions for a period of time, but became frustrated

5 Page No. 5 and dismayed by his involvement in academic fraud. As a result, he abruptly resigned toward the end of the 2008 spring semester. The evidence reflected that, following the resignation of the former director of operations, the former assistant coach stepped in and continued the pattern of academic fraud on student-athlete 2's behalf. The investigation revealed that student-athletes 1 and 2 were enrolled in the same courses in the fall of Student-athlete 1 admitted that the former assistant coach was responsible for his fall of 2008 courses up until the time that student-athlete 1 (and student-athlete 2) had to take exams in the presence of a proctor for a criminal justice course. These exams were proctored due to suspicion that student-athletes 1 and 2 were collaboratively cheating in the class. This suspicion was rooted in the fact there was a great deal of similarity between the answers the two student-athletes provided in their class submissions. Their answers were remarkably similar because the former assistant coach provided the answers for both student-athletes 1 and 2. This was confirmed by student-athlete 1, who reported that student-athlete 2 received the same impermissible assistance from the former assistant coach as he did in the criminal justice course. Further evidence that the former assistant coach completed academic assignments on behalf of student-athlete 2 was obtained during questioning of the student-athlete about his courses. When asked whether he received impermissible academic assistance, student-athlete 2 was vague and evasive. He generally denied receiving impermissible academic assistance; however, when confronted with specific details of requirements for these identified courses, the student-athlete could not recall any requirements of the courses. Further, student-athlete 2 could not recall topics discussed in classes nor could he recall information on which he was tested during exams. In reference to Finding B-1-c (the former assistant coach's recruitment of the former director of operations to commit academic fraud on behalf of student-athlete 2), the former director of operations, to his own detriment, reported that he committed academic fraud on the orders of the former assistant coach. The former assistant coach denied this allegation. The committee finds that violations occurred. The former director of operations was hired for the position in the summer of His duties included monitoring study halls, spot-checking for class attendance and providing academic monitoring of his assigned student-athletes. His duties changed around the beginning of the 2008 spring academic term when the former assistant coach directed him to be responsible for two courses in which student-athlete 2 was struggling: a history course and an English course. At the behest of the former assistant coach, the former director of operations wrote papers for student-athlete 2's history course, and wrote assignments and took online exams for the young man's English course. Specifically, student-athlete 2's English course was an online world literature course. The former director of operations reported that the former assistant coach instructed him

6 Page No. 6 to log onto student-athlete 2's online academic account, using the student's ID and password, to complete the necessary assignments for the course. The former director of operations reported that he would look at the answers of the other student-athletes who were taking an alternate, but similar, online English course, or that he read the Cliff Notes to assist him in answering the questions. Student-athlete 2's history class was a world history course. The former director of operations recalled writing two or three papers, eight to 10 pages in length, and spending many hours in the library researching these papers. In particular, the former director of operations recalled composing a paper on the topic of the Ming Dynasty. At the point in the semester when this paper was due, the former director of operations reached his highest level of frustration with the academic fraud arrangement in which he was involved, and reached out to another individual for assistance in writing the paper. This individual provided the former director of operations with a paper on the Ming Dynasty; however, this paper did not meet the requirements of the course in question. The former director of operations eventually finished the paper and gave it to student-athlete 2 to submit for credit. When he provided the paper to student-athlete 2, the former director of operations suggested to student-athlete 2 that he read over the paper in case he was called on to discuss it in class. When later questioned, student-athlete 2 could not recall writing the paper. In reference to Finding B-1-d (the provision of false and misleading information by the former assistant coach), the committee concluded that the information provided by student-athlete 1 to be credible, noting that his information was corroborated by other student-athletes as well. During interviews with the enforcement staff and the institution, student-athlete 1 admitted, against his own best interests, that he received impermissible academic assistance. He reiterated this information a second time during the institution's judicial board hearing. The institution's administrative hearing resulted in student-athlete 1's suspension from the institution. Similarly, the committee concluded that the information reported by the former director of operations was credible because of the level of detail provided, and his admission against his own self-interest. Finally, as previously noted, the former assistant coach did not provide a response to the allegations made against him, nor did he attend the hearing to address those allegations in person. Bylaw states, "Failure to submit a response may be viewed by the committee as an admission that the alleged violations occurred." The committee viewed the former assistant coach's refusal to respond to the allegations or attend the hearing to be additional indicators that the violations in which he was implicated did, in fact occur, and that he provided false and misleading information in denying his involvement. 2. UNETHICAL CONDUCT ACADEMIC FRAUD. [NCAA Bylaws 10.1 and 10.1-(b)]

7 Page No. 7 During the 2008 spring academic term, the former director of operations violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he engaged in academic fraud. Committee Rationale The institution and enforcement staff were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this finding and that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The committee finds that the violations occurred. The former director of operations did not submit a response to the committee or attend the hearing. However, he acknowledged his participation in academic fraud, as documented in Finding B-1-c and the intended rationale set forth in support of that finding. 3. FAILURE TO MONITOR. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1] The institution failed to monitor the former assistant men's basketball coach for NCAA rules compliance. Specifically, the former assistant men's basketball coach was assigned oversight of the academic affairs for the men's basketball program. In that capacity, the former assistant coach was allowed to communicate directly with institution professors and instructors regarding courses in which men's basketball student-athletes were enrolled and to have access to the student-athletes' online academic accounts. The institution provided little, if any, oversight of the former men's basketball coach in these activities, even though they were aware of this assignment of responsibility. As a result, the institution failed to monitor. This failure to monitor was partially to blame for the academic fraud violations in this case. Committee Rationale As stated in the introduction of this report, the enforcement staff did not allege that there was a failure to monitor by the institution. The enforcement staff concluded that the illicit activities of the former assistant coach were done in such a surreptitious manner that it made detection by the institution very difficult, if not impossible. However, during the hearing, the committee questioned the institution about the circumstances which led to the academic fraud in this case. That discussion, coupled with the committee's posthearing deliberations, led the committee to conclude that a failure to monitor existed as it related to the former assistant men's basketball coach. The academic fraud in this case can be attributed, in large part, to the decision to assign the former assistant coach with oversight of academics for the men's basketball team, without the benefit of either instruction or supervision. As documented earlier in this report, in that capacity, the former assistant coach was allowed to have access to the student-athlete's online

8 Page No. 8 academic accounts. This provided the former assistant coach one means to commit academic fraud. He also provided other impermissible assistance, such as composing papers on behalf of student-athletes and obtaining at least one paper, which was provided to a student-athlete and used for course credit, from a source outside the institution. In addition, he similarly directed the former director of basketball operations to commit academic fraud as well. Although the institution contended that it did not fail to monitor and that the clandestine methods used by the former assistant coach (in committing academic fraud) effectively precluded detection, the institution did admit that certain aspects of the "structure" under which the academic fraud occurred was inadequate, as reflected in the following exchange which occurred at the hearing: COMMITTEE MEMBER: I don't want to belabor this point, but I think it goes to the essence of really why we are here. You know, the question I would have for the university, at your outset, (university president), you indicated that the university has taken great strides to improve its academic profile of its student-athletes over the last couple of years, and during the same time frame you are admitting 39 at- risk student-athletes. I think the record establishes that these student-athletes needed help from the time they got on your campus, and it appears to me at least that there is an insufficient structure in place to ensure that one of those studentathletes that are at risk get the help they need and, two, to ensure that the help is not improper help, because, in fact, you empowered a coach that (who) has a conflict of interest in the situation to provide that support. So, if I am misreading that, I really would like to be corrected. But it occurs to me around the time in 2007, the fall of 2007 that might have been the environment that we were dealing with. UNIVERSITY COUNSEL: I think there is no way that we can argue that the structure in place was adequate. I mean, the two things that would go against that argument would be, first of all, it didn't work, and that these events did occur and, secondly, that we have completely revamped it and we have revamped it in response to what has occurred This issue was touched upon later in the hearing during this exchange: COMMITTEE MEMBER: Thank you. It seems to me that most of the facts in this case are not in dispute. It also seems to me that there is general agreement as to how the rules apply to the facts and the violations that have been admitted. We have spent most of our time here talking about the structures and the systems that you had in place during that critical time

9 Page No. 9 frame, and whether those systems were sufficient to support your Academic Services programs, or whether there were things that you could have done differently that would have prevented this from happening and prevented us from being here. It occurs to me, just having heard all of these that, one, you had insufficient staff in the fall of 2007 through the fall of 2008 to really cover the academic service needs of the hundreds of student-athletes you have in your program, albeit you run a frugal program, but I would think that academic services would be something that would be a high priority. Two, you delegated responsibility for academics to a coach, which is, I think, a red flag for most of us up here. Three, the coach wasn't really provided any oversight, and there wasn't even a dotted line relative to these academic responsibilities. I think that the suggestion was he wasn t in meetings and he wasn't being provided guidance as to how to carry out those duties. And I don't think I heard anyone say that someone sat down with this coach at the beginning and said these are the boundaries. Don't cross them. So, that is of concern to me. Then, finally, the idea that there are significant, I think, meaningful remedial measures that have been put in place since that is evident that probably during that time frame there was a lot of slack in the program. So, what I don't understand, and I guess the question for you, first, do you feel like during this time period you did have sufficient monitoring systems in place to manage these Academic Services programs, and were they being implemented effectively? UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT: I don't think anything that we have testified to would lead you to believe other than we felt that the structure did not work. That is why we replaced it. So, I wouldn't even argue with you about that. As for the motivation of the individuals involved, I can only guess at that by looking at what happened in trying to back up and imagine what was taking place in an individual's mind (the former assistant coach) knew full well what the boundaries of ethical behavior was here. Because he chose to violate it, I know he did it. I know he did it but I can't tell you why. What we have tried to do is to step in and we have taken several measures. First of all, the fact that none of the people associated with this any longer work for us, I hope is an incredibly strong message to any who remain or who come after. Then, secondly, we have changed reporting structures, process other structures to try and deal with this, and then we have the ongoing issue of how the university generally is going to handle on-line courses as well as specifically how that might be handled in athletics. That is about the best I can do.

10 Page No. 10 In the final analysis, the committee decided to make the finding of a failure to monitor based on several factors. First, the former assistant coach was assigned oversight responsibility of academics for the men's basketball program. This responsibility went beyond normal boundaries for a coach and included unfettered access to the men's basketball student-athletes' online academic accounts and contact with professors. The former assistant coach did not receive guidance or supervision in his capacity as the academic overseer for men's basketball. This placed the coach in an inherent conflict of interest position. Further, the evidence reflected that the resources in the institution's compliance program were limited and, as a result, there was neither the time nor the personnel available to monitor the former assistant coach. These combined factors led the committee to conclude that the institution failed to monitor the former assistant coach, which in turn, ultimately resulted in the academic fraud seen in this case. C. PENALTIES. For the reasons set forth in Parts A and B of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved several major violations of NCAA legislation. This was a serious infractions case, which included academic fraud and the provision of false and misleading information, violations the committee considers to be egregious. Further, there was a finding of a failure to monitor against the institution. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. [Note: The institution's corrective actions are contained in Appendix Two.] Further, the committee considered the institution's cooperation in this case. It determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution was consistent with Bylaw , Cooperative Principle, which requires member institutions to cooperate in investigations, but did not warrant consideration by the committee for a possible reduction in penalties. The committee imposes the following penalties (the institution's self-imposed penalties are so noted): 1. Public reprimand and censure. 2. Two years of probation from, through January 19, The institution has 11 grants-in-aid in effect for men's basketball during the academic year, two less than the NCAA limit of 13. The loss of two grants is due to one self-imposed grant cut and one APR (Academic Progress Rate) mandated reduction. For , the institution has self-imposed a reduction of one grant-in-aid in men's basketball, limiting the institution to 12 scholarships for that year. The committee imposes an additional reduction of one grant-in-aid in men's basketball for the academic year, which will limit the institution to a maximum of 12 grants for that year as well. However, it should be noted that

11 Page No. 11 the aforementioned penalties are independent of and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance through its assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties. 4. During the academic year, the number of official recruiting visits for men's basketball shall be reduced by four from the maximum of 12. (Institution imposed) 5. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws (e)-(2) and (b), the institution will vacate all wins in which the two academically ineligible student-athletes competed during the and men's basketball seasons. The individual records of the former student-athletes shall be vacated as well. Further, the institution's records regarding men's basketball, as well as the record of the former head men's basketball coach will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records for the and seasons are reported, including, but not limited to institution media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institution and NCAA archives. Any public reference to these vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationery, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Finally, to ensure that all institutional and student-athlete vacations, statistics and records are accurately reflected in official NCAA publication and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA director of statistics, to identify the specific student-athlete(s) and contest(s) impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA statistics department a written report, detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document will be maintained in the permanent files of the statistics department. This written report must be delivered to the NCAA statistics department no later than forty-five (45) days following the initial Committee on Infractions release or, if the vacation penalty is appealed, the final adjudication of the appeals process. (Institution imposed) 6. All men's basketball coaches shall be required to attend an NCAA regional rules seminar in either 2010 or As a result of the academic fraud in this case, and in accordance with Bylaw , the NCAA will forward a copy of the public infractions report to the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

12 Page No Due to his involvement in academic fraud and his provision of false and misleading information to investigators as set forth in this report, for a five-year period of time commencing with the date of this report,, and concluding on January 19, 2015, any NCAA member institution employing the former assistant coach shall prohibit him from participating in any off-campus recruiting activities involving prospective student-athletes to include telephone and other electronic ( etc.) contacts. This limits the former assistant coach to on-campus recruiting activity exclusively. Further, if the former assistant coach is employed by a member institution prior to January 19, 2015, he will be required to attend, on an annual basis and his own expense, NCAA regional rules seminars that are offered between the time that he is hired and the expiration of the five-year show-cause period. Finally, consistent with the implementation of such penalties, any institution employing the former assistant coach during this five-year period shall be required to contact the office of the committees on infractions to review these restrictions. Any employing institution shall also be required to send a report to the committee each year during the show cause period. These reports shall document the institution's monitoring of the former assistant coach and confirm that he has complied with the provisions of the show cause penalty. 9. Due to his involvement in academic fraud as set forth in this report, for a twoyear period of time commencing with the date of this report,, and concluding on January 19, 2012, any NCAA member institution employing the former director of basketball operations shall prohibit him from participating in off-campus recruiting contacts involving prospective student-athletes. The former director of operations may evaluate prospects, participate in on-campus recruiting activity and have telephone contact with prospects. Consistent with the implementation of such penalties, any institution employing the former assistant coach during this two-year period shall be required to contact the office of the committees on infractions to review these restrictions. Any employing institution shall also be required to send a report to the committee each year during the show cause period. These reports shall document the institution's monitoring of the former director of operations and confirm that he has complied with the provisions of the show cause penalty. The committee wishes to recognize the cooperation exhibited by the former director of operations in the investigation of this case and the fact that he admitted to violations against his own self interests. Had the former director of operations not cooperated in the manner in which he did, a longer period of restrictions would have been imposed on him. 10. During this period of probation, the institution shall:

13 Page No. 13 a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition; b. Submit a preliminary report to the office of the Committees on Infractions by March 8, 2010, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and c. File with the office of the Committees on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by October 1 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on the proper administration of the academics programs for student-athletes. The reports must also include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and imposed by the committee. 11. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Georgia Southern University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw , concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case,. Should Georgia Southern University appeal either the findings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the appeals committee. The Committee on Infractions advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period or imposing more severe sanctions, or may result in additional allegations and findings of violations. An institution that employs an individual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to

14 Page No. 14 adhere to the penalties imposed, subjects itself to allegations and possible findings of violations. Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA legislative bodies, directly or indirectly, modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Britton Banowsky Melissa (Missy) Conboy Paul T. Dee, chair Brian P. Halloran James O'Fallon Dennis E. Thomas

15 Page No. 15 CASE CHRONOLOGY APPENDIX ONE December 1 Officials from Georgia Southern University received a letter from the father of a former student-athlete alleging academic fraud in the men's basketball program. The institution notified the Southern Conference. The institution's president appointed a four-member panel to lead the institution's investigation. December 17 The institution and enforcement staff participated in a telephone conference regarding the academic fraud allegations January 6 The enforcement staff and institution participated in a telephone conference to outline a plan for a joint investigation regarding academic fraud allegations in the men's basketball program. January 12 The enforcement staff and institution jointly interviewed a former men's basketball student-athlete. January 20, 21 and 22 The enforcement staff and institution jointly interviewed numerous student-athletes and men's basketball coaches. February 3 The enforcement staff and institution jointly interviewed the former director of basketball operations. February 5 The institution suspended the former assistant men's basketball coach, and placed him on administrative leave. The institution also suspended student-athletes 1, 2 and another men's basketball student-athlete. February 6 The enforcement staff conducted a joint telephone interview with an assistant men's basketball coach. February and March The institution reviewed the and computer records of the former assistant coach and student-athletes 1 and 2. March 4 The enforcement staff and institution jointly re-interviewed three men's basketball student-athlete (including student-athletes 1 and 2).

16 Page No. 16 March 23, 24 and 25 The enforcement staff and institution jointly interviewed an assistant football coach and a personal friend of an assistant men's basketball coach. A second interview was conducted in person with the head men's basketball coach. The enforcement staff and institution jointly conducted a second in-person interview with the former assistant coach and his counsel. March 25 The former assistant coach submitted a letter of resignation. March 26 Student-athlete 2 appeared before the institution's office of judicial affairs for academic misconduct. He was found to have committed academic dishonesty. A former student-athlete was cleared of academic misconduct and reinstated with the men's basketball program. March 30 The then head men's basketball coach and the then associate head men's basketball coach submitted their resignations. The institution accepted their letters of resignation. March 31 The former assistant coach's resignation was rejected, and the institution terminated him for cause. March 31, Student-athlete 1 appeared before the institution's office of judicial affairs for academic misconduct. He was found to have committed academic dishonesty. April 15 The enforcement staff and institution jointly conducted a second interview with the former director of operations. May 29 The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the president of the institution, the former assistant coach, the former tutor and the former director of operations. August 26 The institution submitted its response to the notice of allegations. August 27 The former assistant coach wrote a letter to the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions stating that he was not submitting a written response to the notice of allegations. September 10 The former director of operations sent an to the enforcement staff stating that he was not attending the hearing. He did not submit a response to the notice of allegations. September 23 Prehearing conference scheduled with the institution. October 9 Hearing before the Division I Committee on Infractions.

17 Page No January 20 Infractions Report No. 315 released.

18 Page No. 18 APPENDIX TWO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S AUGUST 24, 2009, RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS. 1. The former director of men's basketball operations resigned from his position April 30, 2008, prior to the end of the spring 2008 academic term. 2. Upon receiving knowledge of possible improprieties and academic fraud by the former coach, the institution immediately suspended him from his position and he was placed on administrative leave. 3. Upon receiving knowledge of possible improprieties and academic fraud by men's basketball student-athletes 1 and 2, the institution immediately suspended them from any further participation until the final results of the investigation were completed. 4. The allegations of academic fraud against student-athlete 1 were presented to and tried by the institution's Office of Judicial Affairs. Student-athlete 1 was subsequently found in violation of the Student Code of Conduct and suspended from the institution for one year. The institution has taken action to have the grades for those classes in which academic fraud occurred changed to "F s." 5. The allegations of academic fraud against student-athlete 2 were presented to and tried by the institution's Office of Judicial Affairs. Student-athlete 2 was subsequently found in violation of the Student Code of Conduct and suspended from the institution for one year. The institution has taken action to have the grades for those classes in which academic fraud occurred changed to "F s." 6. Following his second interview, the former assistant coach submitted his resignation from his position as assistant coach of the men s basketball program. His letter of resignation was not accepted by the institution and he was subsequently notified in writing that he was being terminated "for cause." 7. Upon learning the details and results of the investigation, the former head coach and the remaining members of his staff resigned from their positions within the men s basketball program. 8. To provide increased supervision, the current position of director of student-athlete services and compliance will be separated into two positions. The new director of student-athlete services (SAS) will report to the vice president for business and finance and oversee a staff of three full-time academic counselors and one graduate assistant. The new director will be charged with developing and implementing a comprehensive

19 Page No. 19 academic success plan for all sports and will provide support in the following areas: study hall monitoring, tutoring, assistance with advisement and registration and assistance with monitoring continuing eligibility. Henceforth, all study hall activities will be coordinated through the office of student-athlete services, rather than through coaches. 9. The director of compliance will also report directly to the vice president for business and finance and oversee one full-time staff member and handle the following: maintain all compliance and eligibility records, complete all APR reports, and work with the registrar's office to monitor continuing eligibility. In conjunction with the admissions office, the director of compliance will review and determine all transfer admissions eligibility. He or she will also coordinate with all sports on all undergraduate admissions issues and determine the eligibility center status for all student-athletes for all sports. 10. Training for all persons involved in academic assistance will be mandatory and will include information regarding academic misconduct and its consequences.