1 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and the public. The COI decides infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. 1 This case involved the men's swimming program at The Ohio State University and centered primarily on recruiting violations and the failure of the former head men's swimming coach to promote an atmosphere of compliance. 2 A panel of the COI considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process, in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and violations as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR). The panel proposed additional penalties to Ohio State, which the institution accepted. The panel did not propose any additional penalties for the former head coach. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6, neither party may appeal. The violations in this case stemmed from a prospective student-athlete's presence on Ohio State's campus prior to enrollment. The prospect, an international men's swimming student-athlete, could not enroll at Ohio State for the fall 2016 semester due to delayed high school test scores. Thus, in September 2016, he moved to Columbus, Ohio, to train with the Ohio State Swim Club while waiting to enroll for the coming spring semester. As the COI has repeatedly warned, a prospect's presence in an institution's locale prior to enrollment creates an increased risk for violations of NCAA legislation. Here, the prospect's presence in Columbus led to recruiting violations falling into two categories: impermissible inducements and an impermissible tryout. As it relates to inducements, a former assistant men's swimming coach impermissibly arranged for the prospect to live in an off-campus house with five men's swimming student-athletes. Additionally, men's swimming student-athletes provided the prospect with access to the men's swimming varsity locker room and nutrition station, free use of Ohio State's recreational facility and approximately 25 meals from a campus dining facility. The meals and access to institutional facilities constituted impermissible recruiting inducements worth approximately $758. With respect to the second category of recruiting violations, the former head coach conducted an impermissible tryout when he observed the prospect swimming in the institution's aquatics facility and asked him to demonstrate his butterfly technique for another prospect. The panel concludes that the recruiting violations are Level II. 1 Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of NCAA Division I COI members. Decisions issued by hearing panels are made on behalf of the COI. 2 A member of the Big Ten Conference, The Ohio State University has a total enrollment of approximately 66,000 students. It sponsors 17 women's sports, 16 men's sports and three co-educational sports. This was Ohio State's sixth major, Level I or Level II infractions case. Ohio State had previous major, Level I or Level II infractions cases in 2011 (football), 2006 (men's basketball), 1994 (men's basketball and men's and women's track), 1978 (football) and 1957 (football).
2 Page No. 2 The parties agreed that the former head coach did not rebut the presumption of responsibility for these violations. Specifically, he knew the prospect was on campus but failed to notify the compliance office or take appropriate steps to ensure the prospect's living arrangements and oncampus activities complied with NCAA legislation. These actions and inactions, as well as the former head coach's personal involvement in the impermissible tryout violation, demonstrate his failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men's swimming program. This is a Level II violation of head coach responsibility legislation. The panel accepts the parties' factual agreements and concludes that violations occurred. Because the violations occurred after October 30, 2012, the current penalty structure applies. After considering applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel classifies this case as Level II-Mitigated for both Ohio State and the former head coach's violations. Utilizing the current penalty guidelines, the panel adopts and prescribes the following core penalties: a $5,000 fine, a two-week ban on off-campus recruiting for the men's swimming program and a two-contest suspension for the former head coach. II. CASE HISTORY The violations in this case came to light in late September 2016, after an academic advisor for men's swimming met with an international prospect (prospect) to discuss his attempts to enroll at Ohio State. During the meeting, the academic advisor became concerned about the prospect's presence on campus prior to enrollment and contacted Ohio State's compliance office. On September 27, 2016, the academic advisor and the prospect met with the director of compliance to discuss the situation. Following that meeting, the compliance staff conducted an investigation, which included formal interviews of the prospect and the former head men's swimming coach (head coach). 3 The compliance staff determined that the prospect's presence on campus had led to Level III violations of NCAA recruiting legislation. Accordingly, Ohio State submitted a self-report to the enforcement staff on October 27, In November 2016, the Level III/secondary enforcement staff transferred the case to the Level I/II/major enforcement staff for review. The enforcement staff provided a verbal notice of inquiry to Ohio State on December 6, Between December 15, 2016, and April 5, 2017, Ohio State and the enforcement staff conducted a joint investigation. The enforcement staff held a teleconference with Ohio State and the head coach on April 12, 2017, to verbally review the draft notice of allegations (NOA) and discuss options for processing the case. On April 18, 2017, Ohio State and the head coach agreed to process the case via summary disposition. The enforcement staff provided the parties with access to a draft NOA and related documents on May 12, The head coach retired from Ohio State on June 30, 2017, at the end of his 28th year as the institution's head men's swimming coach.
3 Page No. 3 On August 21, 2017, Ohio State, the head coach and the enforcement staff submitted the SDR to the COI. 4 A panel of the COI reviewed the SDR on September 15, On September 19, 2017, acting pursuant to Bylaw and COI Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) , the chief hearing officer requested additional information from the enforcement staff regarding the parties' agreements. One week later, the enforcement staff provided the panel with clarifying information regarding the extent of the former assistant men's swimming coach's involvement in the recruiting violations and the head coach's monitoring of the former assistant coach. 5 The panel proposed additional penalties to Ohio State on October 3, The additional penalties included the minimum $5,000 fine required by the penalty guidelines (see Bylaw and Figure 19-1), as well as public reprimand and censure. On October 8, 2017, Ohio State accepted the additional penalties. III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS, VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION AND VIOLATION LEVELS Ohio State, the head coach and the enforcement staff jointly submitted an SDR that identified an agreed-upon factual basis, violations of NCAA legislation and violation levels. 6 The SDR identified: 1. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws ( and ), (g) and ( )] (Level II) The institution and enforcement staff agree that between July and September 2016, members of the men's swimming program violated recruiting legislation regarding the prospect. As a result, the prospect received approximately $758 in impermissible recruiting inducements and was involved in an impermissible tryout. Specifically: a. In July 2016, a then assistant men's swimming coach (assistant coach) arranged for the prospect to live in an off-campus house with five former and then men's swimming student-athletes. Thereafter, the prospect lived 4 Pursuant to COI Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) , future hearing panels may view violations established through the summary disposition process as less instructive than a decision reached after a contested process. 5 The panel's questions and the enforcement staff's response are discussed in greater detail in Part IV below. 6 This decision provides the agreed-upon factual basis, violations of NCAA legislation and violation levels exactly as stated in the SDR, except for shortening references to the parties.
4 Page No. 4 in the house from September 1 to October 31, [Bylaw ( and )] 7 b. In September 2016, the prospect received approximately $758 in impermissible recruiting inducements. Specifically: (1) During September 2016, men's swimming student-athletes provided the prospect the access code to the men's swimming varsity locker room, which the prospect used for approximately 15 days. Additionally, because of this access, the prospect obtained approximately six free nutritional items from the athletics department's Fuel Stop, a nutrition station located within the institution's aquatics facility and available only to student-athletes. [Bylaws and (g) ( )] (2) During September 2016, the prospect had free use of the institution's recreational facility for approximately one month without purchasing the required membership. [Bylaws and (g) ( )] (3) During September 2016, various men's swimming student-athletes provided the prospect approximately 25 free meals at an on-campus dining facility using allocations from their meal plans. [Bylaws and (g) ( )] c. In September 2016, the head coach impermissibly observed the prospect swimming when he instructed the prospect to show his butterfly technique to another prospective student-athlete, who was touring the institution's on-campus aquatics facility with the head coach. [Bylaw ( )] 2. [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw ( and )] (Level II) The institution, head coach and enforcement staff agree that from July through September 30, 2016, the head coach is presumed responsible for the violations detailed in Violation No. 1 and did not rebut the presumption. The head coach failed to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere for compliance regarding the prospect's living arrangements and presence on campus. Specifically: 7 Although the arrangement of housing was impermissible, the prospect paid the appropriate portion of the required monthly rent and utilities. As such, there is no monetary value for the impermissible recruiting inducement.
5 Page No. 5 a. During July 2016, the head coach was included on an electronic group message sent by an assistant swimming coach to members of the men's swimming team seeking off-campus housing for the prospect. Further, on or about August 28, 2016, the head coach received an from the institution's swim club regarding the prospect's intention to move to the institution's locale prior to his enrollment in order to train with the institution's swim club. However, at no point prior to the prospect's arrival on campus did the head coach follow up with the prospect or seek guidance from compliance to ensure the prospect's living arrangements were permissible under NCAA legislation. [Bylaw ( and )] b. On or about September 2, 2016, the head coach met with the prospect at the institution's aquatics facility but failed to notify the compliance office of the prospect's presence on campus. Thereafter, the head coach again saw the prospect in the aquatics facility and, as noted in Violation No. 1-c, instructed him to demonstrate his butterfly technique to another men's swimming prospective student-athlete. However, the head coach again failed to notify the compliance office of the prospect's presence on campus or seek guidance regarding whether his observation of the prospect swimming was a violation of NCAA legislation. [Bylaw ( and )] c. From August 30 through September 30, 2016, the head coach failed to ensure that the prospect's living arrangements and on-campus activities complied with NCAA legislation. As a result, and as outlined in Violation No. 1-b, the prospect received approximately $758 in impermissible recruiting inducements. [Bylaw ( and )] B. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS Pursuant to Bylaw (g), the parties agreed to the following aggravating and mitigating factors: Ohio State: 1. Aggravating factors [Bylaw ] a. A history of Level I, Level II or major violations. 8 [Bylaw (b)] b. Person of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation(s) or related wrongful conduct. [Bylaw (h)] 8 Ohio State had previous major infractions cases in 2011, 2006, 1994, 1978 and 1957.
6 Page No Mitigating factors [Bylaw ] Head coach: a. Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violation(s). [Bylaw (a)] b. Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties. [Bylaw (b)] c. An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations. 9 [Bylaw (d)] d. The violations were unintentional, limited in scope and represent a deviation from otherwise compliant practices. [Bylaw (g)] 1. Aggravating factors [Bylaw ] a. Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation(s) or related wrongful conduct. [Bylaw (h)] 2. Mitigating factors [Bylaw ] a. Prompt acknowledgment of the violation and acceptance of responsibility. [Bylaw (b)] b. The violations were unintentional, limited in scope and represent a deviation from otherwise compliant practices. [Bylaw (g)] c. The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by the individual. [Bylaw (h)] IV. REVIEW OF CASE The SDR fully detailed the parties' positions in this case and included the agreed-upon primary facts, violations, violation levels and aggravating and mitigating factors. After reviewing the parties' principal factual agreements and respective explanations surrounding those agreements, the panel accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that Level II violations occurred. This case centers on recruiting violations at Ohio State by members of the men's swimming program and the head coach's failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the program. The case arose from a scenario the COI has repeatedly warned can lead to violations: the prospect's presence in the institution's locale prior to enrollment. The recruiting violations included inducements and an impermissible tryout. These violations supported the parties' agreed-upon head coach responsibility violation. 9 Ohio State self-reported 154 Level III or secondary violations from the academic year to the present, an average of 30.8 violations per year.
7 Page No. 7 Recruiting Violations Ohio State's recruiting violations began in July 2016, when the assistant coach impermissibly arranged for the prospect to live in an off-campus house with five men's swimming studentathletes. The violations continued when the prospect arrived in the institution's locale in September 2016 and members of the men's swimming team provided him with recruiting inducements, including free meals and access to institutional facilities. Around this same time, the head coach conducted an impermissible tryout of the prospect when he observed him swimming and asked him to demonstrate his technique for another prospect. The inducements and tryout violated recruiting legislation under Bylaw 13. Recruiting offers and inducements are generally prohibited pursuant to Bylaw Bylaw identifies specific examples of prohibited inducements, including free or reduced-cost services, rentals or purchases of any type (Bylaw (g)). With respect to tryouts, Bylaw prohibits member institutions from conducting any physical activity at which a prospect demonstrates his or her athletic ability except as otherwise permitted by the bylaws. In July 2016, the assistant coach sent an electronic group message to all members of the men's swimming program including coaches, student-athletes and trainers to ask whether anyone had a spare room for the prospect during the fall 2016 semester. One student-athlete responded that he and his four roommates, who were current and former men's swimming student-athletes, had an extra room in their house. The assistant coach gave the student-athlete's contact information to the prospect, who then sent a text message to the student-athlete to make arrangements to move in. The prospect arrived in Columbus on September 1, 2016, and immediately moved in with the five student-athletes. He paid approximately $500 for his portion of the rent and utilities, which the parties agreed represented his fair share of the costs. Although there was no monetary value to the benefit, the assistant coach's arrangement of housing constituted an impermissible recruiting inducement in violation of Bylaw The housing arrangement and the prospect's proximity to Ohio State's campus facilitated additional impermissible recruiting inducements. Men's swimming student-athletes provided the prospect with access to the varsity men's swimming locker room and Ohio State's recreational facility. Through his locker room access, the prospect also obtained nutritional supplements from the athletic department's nutrition staff. Additionally, rather than forfeiting the unused meals on their meal plans, men's swimming student-athletes gave their extra meals to the prospect. This resulted in the student-athletes providing the prospect with approximately 25 free 10 In its September 19, 2017, letter, the panel asked the enforcement staff to clarify why the SDR did not name the assistant coach as an involved individual. The staff, in consultation with the other parties, explained that the assistant coach's limited role in the housing violation did not rise to the level normally associated with putting an individual at risk for a show-cause order. Specifically, the staff explained that the assistant coach merely inquired as to housing availability and then facilitated contact between the men's swimming student-athlete and the prospect. He did not pressure the student-athletes to house the prospect, nor did he involve himself in the details of the living arrangement. The staff also noted that the assistant coach accepted a head coaching position at another NCAA member institution on or around August 30, 2016, and was largely absent from campus by the time the more significant recruiting violations took place in September 2016.
8 Page No. 8 meals. The access to Ohio State's facilities, free meals and nutritional supplements were impermissible recruiting inducements in violation of Bylaws and (g). The final recruiting violation concerns the head coach's impermissible tryout of the prospect. In early September 2016, the head coach came across the prospect swimming in the varsity pool during open swim time. He approached the prospect and asked him to demonstrate his butterfly technique for another men's swimming prospect who was touring the facility with the head coach. When the head coach witnessed the prospect demonstrate his athletic ability, he conducted an impermissible tryout in violation of Bylaw As several past cases demonstrate, there is an increased risk of violations when a prospect moves to the institution's locale prior to enrollment. See, e.g., University of South Florida (2017) (concluding a former assistant coach provided impermissible recruiting inducements to two prospects who stayed in the locale of campus prior to enrollment); and Boise State University (2011) (concluding coaches and others provided impermissible recruiting inducements to multiple prospects in multiple sports who traveled to the locale of campus prior to enrollment). The COI has repeatedly warned the membership of potential pitfalls that can occur in these circumstances. See Radford University (2012) (citing twelve previous cases in which the COI warned of the elevated risk of violations when prospects arrive early on campus). Specifically, the COI has explained that prospects who are on campus prior to enrollment are "responsible for all of their meals and lodging expenses," and "[t]hese situations can result in impermissible inducements/benefits being supplied by someone associated with the institution[.]" University of Kansas (2006). This case provides yet another example of the risks associated with a prospect's early arrival on campus. Pursuant to Bylaw , the parties agreed and the panel concludes that the recruiting inducements and impermissible tryout are Level II violations because they provided the institution with more than a minimal but less than a substantial recruiting advantage. Furthermore, the inducements were not isolated or limited in nature, as they occurred throughout the month of September In previous cases, the COI has concluded that the provision of recruiting inducements of a similar nature constituted Level II violations. See Sam Houston State University (2017) (concluding Level II violations occurred when a head women's tennis coach provided a prospect with tennis rackets, free membership in the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, tournament entry fees and transportation); University of California, Los Angeles (2016) (concluding a Level II violation occurred when an associate head football coach arranged for two prospects to receive housing and training services for three weeks at a private training facility); and Coastal Carolina University (2015) (concluding a Level II violation occurred when a head men's golf coach arranged for a prospect to have free individual golf lessons and access to a fitness center). Likewise, the COI has concluded that impermissible tryouts constitute Level II violations of recruiting legislation. See Grambling State University (2017) (concluding that a Level II violation occurred when a prospect living in the institution's locale practiced with the women's track team for a two-week period) and Coastal Carolina (concluding a Level II violation
9 Page No. 9 occurred when the head men's golf coach witnessed a prospect demonstrate his abilities during five individual golf lessons). Here, where the prospect participated in an impermissible tryout at the request of the head coach and various individuals provided him with access to facilities and meals, a Level II classification is consistent with these past cases. Head Coach Responsibility The recruiting violations in this case support the parties' agreed-upon head coach responsibility violation. The head coach was aware of the prospect's presence on campus, but did not alert the compliance office and did not ensure that the prospect's housing arrangement and on-campus activities complied with NCAA legislation. The panel concludes that this conduct was inconsistent with the head coach's responsibility under Bylaw 11 to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men's swimming program. The panel also considered whether the head coach failed to monitor his staff, but defers to the parties' agreement regarding the head coach's monitoring obligation. Bylaw 11 governs the conduct and ethics of athletics personnel. Bylaw establishes an affirmative duty for head coaches to monitor their staff members and promote an atmosphere of compliance within their programs. Head coaches are presumed responsible for violations in their programs but may rebut this presumption by demonstrating they promoted an atmosphere of rules compliance and monitored their staff members. The head coach did not demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere of compliance and therefore did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. First, the head coach knew or should have known that the prospect was planning to move to Columbus prior to enrollment, but he did not seek guidance from the compliance staff regarding the permissibility of the prospect's living arrangement. 11 Second, even after he met with the prospect on campus on or around September 2, 2016, the head coach did not report the prospect's presence to the compliance staff or seek guidance. Nor did he do so after observing the prospect swim later that month. The head coach twice instructed the prospect to report to the compliance staff; however, he acknowledged that he did not adequately follow-up with the prospect and should have personally escorted him to the compliance office. Finally, from August 30 through September 30, 2016, the head coach failed to ensure that the prospect's on-campus activities complied with NCAA legislation. The head coach's lack of oversight enabled members of the men's swimming program to provide the prospect with approximately $758 in impermissible recruiting inducements. In short, the head coach's lack of rigor and oversight regarding the prospect's presence on campus did not meet the high standards to which the membership holds head coaches. 11 During his interviews with Ohio State and the enforcement staff, the head coach reported that he was not aware of the prospect's plans to move to Columbus and was surprised to see him on campus in September The head coach acknowledged, however, that he was included in electronic communications including the assistant coach's group message seeking housing for the prospect that should have alerted him to the prospect's plans. Accordingly, the parties agreed that the head coach knew or should have known about the prospect's move.
10 Page No. 10 In light of the assistant coach's involvement in the housing arrangement, the panel also considered whether the head coach failed in his Bylaw duty to monitor his staff. In its September 19, 2017, letter to the enforcement staff, the panel requested clarification regarding the staff's decision not to allege a failure to monitor. The staff responded that the most significant violations in this case occurred once the prospect arrived in Columbus and after the assistant coach was no longer on campus. Thus, in the enforcement staff's view, the head coach was in the best position to prevent the recruiting violations that occurred after the prospect arrived on campus. Pursuant to COI IOP 3-9, the panel defers to the parties' agreements and does not conclude that the head coach failed to monitor the assistant coach. The assistant coach had only a minimal role in the recruiting violations, the bulk of which occurred after he left Ohio State to accept a new coaching position. The panel concludes that the most significant recruiting violations in this case were attributable to the head coach's failure to promote an atmosphere of rules compliance as it relates to the prospect's presence on campus. As an experienced coach with a career spanning over three decades, the head coach should have been aware of the increased risk of violations when a prospect moves to the institution's locale prior to enrollment. Consistent with Bylaw and previous cases, the head coach responsibility violation is Level II because it resulted from underlying Level II violations. See Bylaw (citing, as a specific example of a Level II violation, a head coach violation resulting from underlying Level II violations); Sam Houston State (concluding a head women's tennis coach who committed multiple Level II recruiting and extra-benefits violations also committed a Level II head coach responsibility violation); and Florida International University (2017) (concluding a head women's basketball coach who committed a Level II violation when he provided an impermissible $600 cash benefit to one of his student-athletes also committed a Level II head coach responsibility violation). Thus, as the underlying recruiting violations in this case are Level II, the head coach's Bylaw violation is likewise Level II. V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the panel accepts the parties' agreed-upon factual basis and violations and concludes that this case involved Level II violations of NCAA legislation. Level II violations are significant breaches of conduct that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, including violations that involve more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit. Pursuant to Bylaw , the panel prescribes penalties under the current penalty structure because the violations in this case occurred after October 30, In considering penalties, the panel first reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to Bylaws , and
11 Page No to determine the appropriate classifications for the parties. The panel then used the current penalty guidelines (Figure 19-1) and Bylaw to prescribe penalties. 12 The parties agreed to two aggravating factors and five mitigating factors for Ohio State. The panel determines that all seven factors apply. With respect to the head coach, the parties agreed to one aggravating factor and three mitigating factors. The SDR notes that the head coach agreed only in part to the identified aggravating factor, Bylaw (h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. Specifically, the head coach agreed that he negligently disregarded the potential for a violation when he did not alert the compliance staff to the prospect's presence in the institution's locale. He did not agree, however, that he condoned or participated in any activities that lead to the violation. Because Bylaw (h) uses the disjunctive "or," the head coach's agreement to negligent disregard is enough for the aggravating factor to apply. Accordingly, the panel determines that this aggravating factor and all three agreed-upon mitigating factors apply to the head coach's conduct. 13 The panel assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors by weight and number. Based on its assessment, the panel classifies this case as Level II-Mitigated for Ohio State and for the head coach's violations. Because Ohio State and the head coach agreed to the facts, violations and proposed penalties, they will have no opportunity to appeal. All penalties prescribed in this case are independent and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the NCAA Division I Committee on Academics through its assessment of postseason ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. In prescribing penalties, the panel considered Ohio State's corrective actions, which are set forth in the Appendix. After considering all information relevant to this case, the panel prescribes the following penalties (self-imposed penalties are so noted): Core Penalties for Level II-Mitigated Violations (Bylaw ) 1. Financial penalty: Ohio State shall pay a $5,000 fine Recruiting restriction: Ohio State suspended off-campus recruiting for a two-week period that began on October 24, (Self-imposed.) 12 The membership recently adjusted and expanded the ranges in the penalty guidelines related to scholarship reductions and the duration of postseason bans, probation and show-cause orders. The adjusted guidelines became effective on August 1, Because the panel considered this case after that date, the panel used the adjusted guidelines to prescribe penalties. 13 With respect to Bylaw (g): Violations were unintentional, limited in scope and represent a deviation from otherwise compliant practices, the panel notes that the head coach intentionally asked the prospect to demonstrate his butterfly technique to another prospect. Nevertheless, the panel determines that this mitigating factor applies for two reasons: (1) the tryout was an isolated and limited incident; and (2) the majority of the other recruiting violations for which the head coach is presumed responsible were unintentional. 14 The fine shall be paid consistent with COI IOP , Financial Penalty.
12 Page No Head coach restriction: Ohio State suspended the head coach from coaching activities for two contests on November 11 and 12, (Self-imposed.) Additional Penalties for Level II-Mitigated Violations (Bylaw ) 4. Public reprimand and censure. The COI advises Ohio State that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The COI will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by Ohio State contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations may be considered grounds for prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL Norman C. Bay Alberto Gonzales Stephen A. Madva Vince Nicastro Joe Novak David M. Roberts, Chief Hearing Officer Sankar Suryanarayan 15 The panel did not prescribe a show-cause order for the head coach because his sole violation in this case was a violation of head coach responsibility legislation.
13 APPENDIX Page No. 1 APPENDIX OHIO STATE'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE AUGUST 21, 2017, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT 1. Ohio State declared the prospect ineligible. If he attends Ohio State, the institution will request that his eligibility be restored by the student-athlete reinstatement staff. 2. Ohio State provided the former head coach with a letter of reprimand. 3. Ohio State required the former head coach to meet with the director of athletics, who communicated the institution's commitment to promoting an atmosphere of compliance. 4. Ohio State will provide an educational reminder to all coaches regarding the steps to take when a prospect arrives on campus prior to triggering student-athlete status.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION DECEMBER 20, 2017 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of the NCAA
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION JUNE 27, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals
HOWARD UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT MAY 20, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, MEDIA CONTACT Stacey Osburn Associate Director of Public and Media Relations 317/917-6117 BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY INFRACTIONS APPEAL DECISION RELEASED INDIANAPOLIS The NCAA
FOR RELEASE Friday, Noon (Central time) CONTACT: David Swank, Chair NCAA Committee on Infractions University of Oklahoma UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS---This report
FOR RELEASE Tuesday, Noon (Central time) CONTACT: David Swank, chair NCAA Committee on Infractions University of Oklahoma WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS---This report
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION MARCH 6, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from
For Release Monday a.m., December 20 Contact: Dave Cawood UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY PIACED ON PROBATION MISSION, Kans.--The University of Kentucky has been placed on probation for two years by the National
1 An institution may reimburse a golf student-athlete for the cost of mileage to a course off-campus where the team is practicing during the team's declared playing season. 2 When may an institution provide
1 A coaching staff member may receive expenses from an institution to engage in recruiting activities on behalf of the institution while serving in his/her capacity as a local sports club coach. 2 An institution
1 May a prospective student-athlete participate in a tryout after high school graduation and before September 1? A) No, student-athlete is limited to one tryout. B) Yes, the student-athlete can participate
Department of Athletics Compliance Manual Georgetown College s responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DIVISION I INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE Los Angeles, California This report is filed in accordance with NCAA Bylaw 32.11 and is organized as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES AND INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE 2018-19 NATIONAL LETTER OF INTENT (SIGNED DURING THE 2017-18 SIGNING PERIODS) THE BASICS: APPLICABLE NLI SPORTS: An institution may only issue National
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT JUNE 26, 2013 I. INTRODUCTION On April 20, 2013, officials from the University of Oregon, 1 (Oregon) including the former head football coach ("former head
1 Any solicitation of a prospective student-athlete or a prospective student-athlete's relatives [or legal guardian(s)] by an institutional staff member or by a representative of the institution's athletics
Academic Year 2011-12 Summary of NCAA Regulations NCAA Division II For: Purpose: Student-athletes. To summarize NCAA regulations regarding eligibility of student-athletes to compete. DISCLAIMER: THE SUMMARY
The University of Virginia Department of Athletics Office of Compliance Policy and Procedures Manual Created 7/1/05 Rev 090717 UVA COMPLIANCE OFFICE POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Table of Contents Section
1 A prospective student-athlete is eligible for a tryout, provided the tryout date is outside of his or her sport's traditional season, following June 15 preceding a student-athlete's. A) Freshman year
2016-9 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND PROCESS -- DIVISION I LEGISLATIVE PROCESS -- PROCESS FOR AREAS OF AUTONOMY -- SUBMISSION DEADLINES 2016-10 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND PROCESS -- DIVISION I LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
NCAA DIVISION I: NEW LEGISLATION 2013 NCAA REGIONAL RULES SEMINAR SESSION OVERVIEW Review of NCAA Division I proposals adopted in the 2012-13 legislative cycle. Best practices. Questions. ATHLETICS PERSONNEL
Form 1 UNOFFICIAL VISITATION FORM Prospect s Name: Sport: Parent(s)/Legal Guardian Name: Date of Arrival: Transportation Description: Date of Departure: Accompanied by: Lodging: Hotel Dorm Other COMPLIMENTARY
1 An institution's basketball coach may recruit on behalf of the institution while serving in his/her capacity as a local AAU basketball coach while receiving expenses from the local AAU basketball team.
[THIS REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD RESULTING FROM THE DECISION OF THE NCAA DIVISION I INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE] ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT
(Updated: May 8, 2012) This document contains questions and answers to assist the NCAA membership in applying the legislation adopted through NCAA Proposal Nos. 2011-99, 2012-2 and 2012-3. NCAA Division
BOOSTER & PROSPECT CONCEPTS: Frequently Asked Questions for Boosters 1. Q: What is a representative of Texas A&M s athletic interests (commonly known as a booster)? A: A representative of Texas A&M University's
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING Sports Agents and Financial Advisors University of North Carolina Department of Athletics RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CAROLINA STUDENT-ATHLETES 2007-2008 INTRODUCTION The
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT MARCH 12, 2012 A. INTRODUCTION. On October 28, 2011, officials from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a former assistant
GOVERNANCE The following text outlines Liberty University s rules interpretations process, rules education program, as well as the means by which secondary and major violations are reported and investigated.
Division: I Proposal Number: 2016-116 Title: ATHLETICS PERSONNEL AND RECRUITING -- FOOTBALL RECRUITING MODEL Status: Adopted Final Intent: In football, to revise legislation related to camps and clinics;
University of Iowa Information for Former Student- Athletes Athletic Compliance Services University of Iowa S240 Carver Hawkeye Arena 1 Elliot Drive Iowa City, IA 52242 (319) 335-9598 www.compliance.hawkeyesports.com
This page left blank intentionally. Summary The Camps and Clinics audit was included in the Arizona State University (ASU) annual audit plan for Fiscal Year 2016. This audit is historically completed on
Follow us on Twitter! @GaelsCompliance Saint Mary s College Coaches & Athletic Administration Newsletter February 2015 IMPORTANT DATES February 1 (11:59p.m.PST) SMC Admissions Deadline for Fall 2015 enrollees
2016 2017 IUPUI Department of Intercollegiate Athletics Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis UNIVERSITY ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION... 5 INDIANA UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT... 5 IUPUI
U N I V E R S I T Y O F A L A B A M A A T H L E T I C S C O M P L I A N C E GUIDE FOR CRIMSON TIDE SUPPORTERS @BamaCompliance 1 A LETTER FROM COMPLIANCE Dear Crimson Tide Supporters, We are very grateful
UTPB Compliance NCAA Compliance: The Basics Overview This is a general compliance presentation intended to cover the basicncaa Bylaws. Not all NCAA Bylaws will be covered. Please refer to the NCAA Manual
Camps and Clinics Presented By Maureen Harty Agenda Events involving prospective studentathletes hosted on an institution s campus. Coach involvement with events involving prospective student-athletes.
Test D: 2792396 1 The institution is organizing its summer men's basketball camp and has called many prospective student-athletes to invite them to the camp. Given the institution made phone calls to prospective
Academic Year 2010-11 Student-Athlete Statement Division I For: Action: Due date: Required by: Purpose: Effective : Student-athletes. Sign and return to your director of athletics. Before you first compete
The following information is provided by the NCAA: A Guide for the College-Bound Student Athlete NCAA Division I Recruiting You become a "prospective student-athlete" when you start ninth-grade classes.
I. INTRODUCTION UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT OCTOBER 22, 2013 On June 13-14, 2013, officials from the University of Miami appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions ("the
1 A coach may be involved as a participant or in instructional coaching activities in the same sport for a local sports club or organization located in the institution's home community in which all prospective
Membership What is included in my Campus Recreation membership? If you are a community member or UAlbany affiliate (Alumni, Spouse/Partner of a faculty/staff member, or UAlbany retiree) your Campus Recreation
DIVISION I MANUAL August 2016-17 THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 6222 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222 317/917-6222 NCAA.org July 2016 [ISSN 1093-3174] Text Prepared By: NCAA Academic
University of Southern California Contact Information NCAA Compliance 101 for USC Student-Athletes Office of Athletic Compliance Dave Roberts Vice President for Athletic Compliance Dave.Roberts@usc.edu
2017-18 NCAA division i MANUAL EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2017 THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 6222 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222 317/917-6222 NCAA.org July 2017 [ISSN 1093-3174] Text
U SPORTS 2018-2019 LETTER OF INTENT (LOI) IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY The U SPORTS Letter of Intent is NOT an offer of admission, nor is it an indication that one will be provided. Admission requirements
Policies and Procedures 40.10.7 Recruiting Regulations Policy Number: 40.10.7 Name: Recruiting Regulations Origin: Ad Hoc Working Group Approved: December 2015 Approval Process: Board of Directors Revision
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-PAN AMERICAN OFFICE OF AUDITS & CONSULTING SERVICES NCAA Compliance-Eligibility Audit Report No. 14-04 OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDITS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS - PAN AMERICAN 1201 West
NCAA RULES AND REGULATIONS GUIDEBOOK FOR PARENTS, ALUMNI, FRIENDS, SEASON TICKET HOLDERS AND DONORS OF MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY FROM THE MICHIGAN TECH DEPARTMENT OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS To
COMPLIANCE PLAN PRACTICE NAME Table of Contents Article 1: Introduction A. Commitment to Compliance B. Overall Coordination C. Goal and Scope D. Purpose Article 2: Compliance Activities Overall Coordination
RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY BY THE COMPLIANCE GROUP FOR OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY October 20, 2014 I. BACKGROUND A. Retention of The Compliance Group (TCG) 1. Release of Sports Illustrated Articles In early
COMPLIANCE NEWS March 21, 2014 March 27, 2014 RECRUITING CALENDER Baseball Men s Basketball Women s Basketball Football Mar 21 Mar 27: Quiet Period Cross Country/Track Women s Volleyball Tip of the Week
OUR LADY OF THE ASSUMPTION SCHOOL ATHLETIC PROGRAM GUIDELINES 2014-2015 GENERAL INFORMATION I. THE ATHLETIC PROGRAM IS PART OF THE PAROCHIAL ATHLETIC LEAGUE A. The mission of the Parochial Athletic League
WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM Policy Name: Vendor Conduct Policy Page 1 of 8 Original Date: June 9, 2009 Reviewed by: Kathy DeLacio Date of Review: Date of Revision: May 21, 2013 Revision: 2 Document
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO PANEL: Tanya Dion, RN Catherine Egerton Terry Holland, RPN Ashleigh Molloy Susan Roger, RN Chairperson Public Member Member Public Member Member
Athletic Financial Aid Rules Mandated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Eligibility of Student-Athlete for Athletic Financial Aid The student-athlete is an undergraduate with eligibility
NCAA Division III Bylaw 13.02.9 Representative of Athletics Interests or Booster. A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual who is known (or who should have been known)
1 Outside of the contact period, a member of the football coaching staff may speak at a banquet at which prospective student-athletes are in attendance, provided. A) t is not a dead period and the coach
Regulatory Council for Community Association Managers Telephone Conference Meeting Wednesday, December 6, 2007 @ 9:00 A.M. EST. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Mr. Millard
NCAA RECRUITING TERMS & DEFINITIONS RECRUITING TERMS & DEFINITIONS PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETE You become a prospective student-athlete when: You start ninth-grade classes; or Before your ninth-grade year,
FOOTBALL HEAD COACH EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between the University of Montana ( UM or University ) and Coach Robert L. Hauck Jr. ( Coach ) for the employment of Head Football
Grand Valley State University Section I Administrative Responsibilities Director of Intercollegiate Athletics... 2 Faculty Athletics Representative 4 Senior Associate Athletic Director/Senior Woman Adminstrator..
La Sierra University Athletic Department Drug Testing and Rehabilitation Program 1 I. Introduction As a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), La Sierra University student-athletes
OSPREY FANS NCAA COMPLIANCE FOR BOOSTERS 1 Welcome to The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Home of the Ospreys. As a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Stockton is dedicated
2016-17 NCAA division iii MANUAL EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2016 CONSTITUTION OPERATING BYLAWS ADMINISTRATIVE BYLAWS A THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 6222 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
15 Chapter 3: Membership Guidelines & Standards of Conduct A. Membership Guidelines Sport Clubs Eligibility Blinn Student Eligibility Insurance Intramural Sports Eligibility B. Sport Clubs Standards of
Guidelines for Conflict of Interest Issues Related to Clinical Studies in Artificial Organs Attached Documents 1. Guidelines for Conflict of Interest Issues Related to Clinical Studies in Artificial Organs
The Report on Athletic Program Participation Rates and Financial Support Data Submitted October 15, 2015 The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act Survey (EADA) was designed to make prospective students and
Table of Contents Introduction 2 Department Mission Statement 2 Definition & Goals of Club Sport Program 2 Creating a Club 3 Position Descriptions 4 Membership & Eligibility 6 Code of Conduct 7 Finance
Coaches Compliance Meeting February 17, 2015 Integral to ASU s focus on integrity is athletics compliance following the rules of the NCAA and Pac-12 Conference. Recruiting/Scouting Services Scholarship
S E C C O N S T I T U T I O N A N D B Y L A W S 2017-2018 SECSPORTS.COM 2017-2018 SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE CONSTITUTION & BYLAWS CONSTITUTION OPERATING BYLAWS ADMINISTRATIVE BYLAWS 2201 Richard Arrington
UNB RECREATIONAL SERVICES SPORT CLUB PROGRAM 2013-2014 Emergency Names and Numbers Gansheng Xu Director, Recreation Services 453-5049 James Cress, Manager of Recreation Sports 458-7041 UNB Security 453-4830
Shoreline Community College Athletic Department 2016-17 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Reporting of Institutional Data for the NCAA Gender Equity Survey NCAA Analysis of Revenue and Expenses