[THIS REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT THE ADJUSTMENT

Transcription

1 [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 A. INTRODUCTION. This case involves a series of violations in the Arizona State University (Arizona State) baseball program over more than five years. The violations consisted primarily of recruiting infractions, including use of an impermissible recruiter and excessive telephone calls. There were also violations involving coaching staff limitations and paying student-athletes for work not performed. The violations were the result of poor record keeping, failure to monitor and a cavalier attitude on the part of the former head baseball coach to NCAA regulations. As a result, the committee finds the former head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance and the institution lacked institutional control. Arizona State devotes substantial resources to compete in intercollegiate athletics at the highest levels, particularly in the major revenue sports and in baseball. The institution has fielded a baseball team for 51 years and has one of the most successful programs in the NCAA. It has appeared in the College World Series on 22 occasions which ranks third nationally. It is also third nationally in the number of College World Series wins (61). Arizona State has five College World Series Championships. In committing the resources to compete at such a high level, the institution must devote significant resources to detect violations and monitor conduct with a focused understanding of what that effort entails, and what it will cost. In this regard, the institution fell short, as reflected in the committee's finding that the institution demonstrated a lack of institutional control. This was the Arizona State's ninth major infractions case, the most of any NCAA member institution. The institution had previous infractions cases in 2005 (football), 1997 (men's and women's indoor and outdoor track), 1988 (men's and women's indoor and outdoor track), 1986 (men's basketball), 1985 (baseball, men's gymnastics, wrestling), 1980 (football, men's track (indoor and outdoor)), 1959 (football) and 1954

2 Page No. 2 (football). Because of the 2005 case, the institution is considered a repeat violator under the provisions of NCAA Bylaw These allegations were heard at a very lengthy hearing on August 13, 2010, when officials from Arizona State, the former head baseball coach and his legal counsel, and other current and former Arizona State staff members appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. A member of the Pacific-10 (Pac-10) Conference, the institution has an enrollment of approximately 67,000 students. The institution sponsors nine men's and 12 women's intercollegiate sports. B. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. 1. RECRUITING VIOLATIONS IMPERMISSIBLE TELEPHONE CALLS. [NCAA Bylaws and ] Between January 2004 and June 2009, members of the institution's baseball staff made impermissible telephone recruiting calls (hereafter "the phone call violation"). The calls were made by the former head coach ("former head coach") and several former assistant baseball coaches. At least 490 calls were made in violation of the NCAA one-call-per-week rule, and approximately 25 impermissible calls were placed prior to July 1 following a prospective studentathlete's junior year in high school. Committee Rationale The enforcement staff and institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this finding and that the violations occurred. The former head and the former assistant coaches who were originally named in this violation disputed the number of impermissibly placed telephone calls, and asserted that any calls in violation of NCAA legislation should be classified as secondary. Although the committee did not assess individual culpability for the impermissible calls, the committee concluded that the former head coach made a number of these calls, did not adhere to institution procedures for documenting recruiting telephone calls and, in doing so, "set the tone" for these violations, as explained in Finding B-6 (failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance). This finding also is part of Finding B-7 (lack of institutional control). The committee finds that the impermissible telephone calls are major violations. These violations were first uncovered in the spring of 2009, when the NCAA requested the former head coach's telephone records from October 2006 to January This initial inquiry was related to alleged improprieties in the recruitment of a prospective

3 Page No. 3 student-athlete (who later became an enrolled student-athlete) ("the prospect") the subject of Finding B-2. In responding to that request, the institution discovered, for the first time, recruiting calls in the former head coach's telephone records that were not recorded on the call logs submitted to the compliance staff. This discovery ultimately resulted in a full audit of the baseball coaching staff's telephone records for January 2004 to June The initial audit was conducted by the institution with a "three minute filter" in determining when a call should be counted as the first countable call for a given week. This audit revealed approximately 500 impermissibly placed telephone calls. A subsequent audit without the "three-minute filter" conducted by the enforcement staff yielded nearly 1,400 impermissibly placed calls. Most of the additional calls without the "three-minute filter" were only one-minute in length. In the end, the exact number of impermissible calls was impossible to determine. In large part, this was because the baseball coaching staff did not record all of their recruiting calls in monthly call logs as the compliance office required. Notably, none of the calls actually reported on the compliance forms were violations of NCAA legislation. The former head coach made many of the impermissible (unrecorded) phone calls. The evidence showed that the former head coach did not contemporaneously document his telephone calls to prospective student-athletes. When approached by compliance office staff, the former head coach reportedly denied that he made any telephone calls to prospective student-athletes. In fact, the former head coach reported that he never completed or submitted a single monthly telephone call log during the time period of this finding. However, telephone call logs were submitted under his name. (The individual who submitted these logs was never identified.) The logs submitted for the and academic years indicate, for the most part, that the former head coach did not place any calls to prospective student-athletes. For the academic year, one telephone call log was submitted, falsely reflecting that the former head coach did not directly make telephone calls to prospects, but rather participated in calls initiated by his assistant coaches. No telephone call logs were submitted for the former head coach for the academic year. The former head coach did submit telephone calls for the academic year, but only after August 6, 2009, when the institution completed its initial telephone call audit. Contrary to the information contained in these logs and the former head coach's oral explanation to the compliance staff, his actual telephone records for this time period revealed that he did make calls to prospective student-athletes and some of those calls violated NCAA legislation. The former head coach admitted in an interview with enforcement staff that he did not keep contemporaneous records of telephone calls made to prospects, but kept a weekly list in his personal diary of prospective student-athletes that he planned to call in his personal daily planner. A review of these planners showed that he did not document

4 Page No. 4 when an actual telephone call was placed, when a voice mail message was left, or when a telephone call was dropped. 2. VIOLATIONS OF RECRUITING AND FINANCIAL AID LEGISLATION. [NCAA Bylaws , , , , , , (c) and ] In the fall of 2006, the former head coach violated NCAA recruiting legislation and initiated violations of financial aid legislation related to the recruitment of the prospect (hereafter "the prospect violation"). Specifically: a. In mid-late October 2006, the former head coach violated the NCAA onecall-per-week rule by making a total of four impermissible calls to the prospect. (1) During the week of October 15-21, 2006, (on October 18, 19 and 21), the former head coach made three impermissible telephone calls to the prospect. (2) During the week of October 22-28, 2006, (on October 24), the former head coach made one impermissible telephone call to the prospect. b. In October and November 2006, the former head coach directed a baseball staff member serving as a team manager ("manager 1"), to have impermissible telephone and in-person, off-campus contact with the prospect. Manager 1 reported the nature of his contacts with the prospect to the former head coach. Subsequent to these efforts, on November 3, 2006, the prospect changed his verbal commitment to an NCAA member institution in the Southeastern Conference and signed a National Letter of Intent (NLI) with Arizona State. Specifically: (1) During the week of October 29 to November 4, 2006, manager 1 had 12 impermissible telephone contacts with the prospect as he was not a permissible telephone recruiter for the institution. The conversations were recruiting in nature and were made at the direction of the former head coach. (2) On November 2, 2006, manager 1 had impermissible in-person, off-campus recruiting contact with the prospect on the campus of

5 Page No. 5 his two-year institution at the explicit or implicit direction of the former head coach. c. As reported by the institution, in January 2007 and during the term of the financial aid awards, the former head coach requested four studentathletes to decrease all or a portion of their athletically related financial aid for the 2007 spring term as part of the Institution's "Devil to Devil" program. The institution decreased all or a portion of the athletically related financial aid for these four student-athletes, and this aid was then provided to other student-athletes, including the prospect, who enrolled for the first time at the institution in January 2007 for the 2007 spring term. Committee Rationale The institution agreed with the facts and that, in its entirety, the violation was major. The institution believed that if the subparts were separate violations, Findings B-2-a and B-2- c should be classified as secondary. The former head coach generally agreed with the facts of Findings B-2-a and B-2-c but disputed his alleged involvement in the prospect violation. Additionally, the former head coach asserted that the entire finding should be classified as secondary. The enforcement staff believed that the finding in its entirety was major. The committee finds the violations occurred, considers them to be extremely serious and holds that, in their entirety, they are major. The infractions which form this violation were not inadvertent, and produced much more than a minimal recruiting advantage. This finding forms part of Finding B-6 (failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance). As background, the prospect was not highly recruited coming out of high school. Upon graduation from high school in 2005, the prospect enrolled at a two-year institution in Arizona. In the fall of 2006, the prospect's two-year college team played a contest against another two-year institution on Arizona State's campus. Although the former head coach and his staff were aware of the prospect prior to this contest, his performance that day resulted in the baseball staff's serious efforts to recruit him. The former head coach then became the prospect's primary recruiter and immediately began contacting him. Finding B-2-a-(1) & B-2-a-(2): The former head coach's telephone records documented that four telephone calls were placed to the prospect in violation of NCAA legislation during the latter half of October The former head coach's counsel acknowledged at the hearing that, if the findings were made in the phone call allegation, then "there is probably a violation here." The former head coach's counsel's originally contended that, if there was no "trigger call" for the week of that call (which took place on October 24),

6 Page No. 6 then there would be no violation. During the hearing, the enforcement staff consulted the institution's telephone records and reported that the "trigger call" for that week took place on October As noted in the phone call allegation, the former head coach did not keep any contemporaneous documentation that could have explained the nature of the calls Therefore he was unable to refute this allegation. As the committee ruled in the Texas Christian University case (February 28, 2008), there is no authority to create an exception to NCAA Bylaw and that in the absence of contemporaneous documentation, a telephone call placed after the permissible one call per week ("trigger call") is deemed to be a violation. Additionally, in the University of Richmond case (November 5, 2009), the committee ruled that such calls would be considered violations, regardless of the length of the call, because they occurred after the coaching staff made the permissible call for the week and because the involved individual could not produce contemporaneous documentation explaining why the call was not a violation. The former head coach similarly could not produce contemporaneous documentation explaining his calls. The committee concludes that the unauthorized calls are part of the prospect violation. Finding B-2-b: Manager 1, prior to joining Arizona State's baseball staff, had coached the prospect at his two-year institution. As a result, manager 1 had developed a personal relationship with the prospect, a fact known by the former head coach at the outset of his recruitment. During the fall of 2006, the prospect also was being recruited by several other NCAA Division I institutions, including an institution in the Southeastern Conference (SEC) ("the SEC institution"). During the weekend of October 27, 2006, the prospect took an official paid visit to the SEC institution's campus. Shortly after returning from his visit, the prospect orally committed to the SEC institution for enrollment in the fall of On November 2, 2006, at the direction of the former head coach, manager 1 drove to the prospect's two-year institution and met with him. The following day, student-athlete contacted the SEC institution and withdrew his oral commitment. Only countable coaches are permitted to have telephone and in-person, off-campus recruiting contact prospective student-athletes. Manager 1 was not a countable coach and, therefore, was not permitted to engage in recruiting activities. At the hearing, the former head coach's counsel acknowledged that the recruiting activity by manager 1 relative to the prospect was a violation, although he believed it to be 1 A "trigger call" is the one permissible call for any given week. Any call made during the week after this one permissible call would "trigger" a violation.

7 Page No. 7 secondary. Counsel for the former head coach maintained that the former head coach was not aware of the manager's recruiting activities with regard to the prospect. The committee finds that the former head coach either directed manager 1 to engage in those recruiting activities or tacitly approved them. The committee finds this violation to be part of the prospect violation. Manager 1 never denied his involvement in the recruiting of the prospect. His telephone records showed that between October 2006 and January 2007, he placed 33 telephone calls to the prospect. Manager 1 testified that the calls were placed to persuade the prospect to attend the institution and enroll at midyear in January Telephone records indicated that manager 1 and the former head coach learned of the prospect's commitment to the SEC institution on October 30, An assistant baseball coach at the SEC institution recorded on his call log a telephone conversation with the prospect on October 30, 2006, at 10 p.m. CST, which was 9 p.m. MST. The call logs noted that during this call, the prospect verbally committed. That same day, manager 1 received a telephone call from the former head coach at 9:17 p.m. MST. Immediately following this telephone call, manager 1 placed a call to the prospect at 9:19 p.m. Manager 1 then called the prospect's two-year college head coach at 9:24 p.m. The committee found it noteworthy that twice on October 31, 2006, manager 1 received a telephone call from the former head coach and immediately thereafter, manager 1 placed a telephone call to the prospect. The prospect's two-year college head coach reported that after the prospect verbally committed to the SEC institution, he (the prospect's two-year college head coach) received a call from the former head coach. The two-year college head coach reported the former head coach was upset with him about the prospect's commitment to the SEC institution. Telephone records corroborate this account. They show that on November 1, 2006, after placing a telephone call to manager 1, the former head coach initiated two telephone calls to the two-year college head coach at 12:33 p.m. and 12:46 p.m. On November 2, 2006, manager 1 had an in-person, off-campus contact with the prospect. After this contact, the prospect withdrew his commitment to the SEC institution and subsequently committed to Arizona State. This contact by manager 1 with the prospect was confirmed by both the prospect and his two-year college head coach. Telephone records and manager 1's testimony offer compelling evidence that manager 1 visited the prospect to convince him to attend Arizona State and he did so with the full knowledge and encouragement of the former head coach. This was confirmed by manager 1 who reported that the former head coach asked him to visit the prospect to persuade the young man to attend Arizona State. Manager 1's telephone records reflect that he placed nine telephone calls to the former head coach on November 2. The records show the geographic origination of the cellular telephone calls, ranging from Tempe,

8 Page No. 8 Arizona, where Arizona State is located, to the city in which the prospect's two-year college is located. Manager 1 placed three telephone calls to the former head coach between 4 and 5:43 p.m. There is a break in telephone calls during the time period during which manager 1 reportedly met with the prospect. Manager 1 then placed three more telephone calls to the former head coach between 8:15 and 8:38 p.m. These three telephone calls originated in the city where the two-year college is located. Manager 1 then placed three more telephone calls to the former head coach originating in Tempe, Arizona, between 10:03 and 10:22 p.m. Manager 1 reported these six telephone calls were to inform the former head coach of the results of his contact with the prospect. Manager 1 reported that during the in-person, off-campus contact with the prospect on November 2, he intended to persuade the prospect to retract his commitment to the SEC institution. The former head coach reported he knew that manager 1 had in-person contact with the prospect. NCAA legislation prohibits this type of recruiting contact between a non-countable coach (manager 1) and a prospective student-athlete (the prospect in this case). By directing manager 1 in these recruiting activities, or by allowing manager to 1 to be involved in the recruitment of the prospect, the former head coach rendered the manager a countable coach, which is more fully discussed in Finding B-3. Further, by allowing manager 1 to be involved in the recruitment of the prospect, a violation of NCAA legislation, the former head coach demonstrated a failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance as set forth in Finding B-6. Finding B-2-c: The prospect enrolled and competed for Arizona State during the 2007 spring season. He received numerous postseason accolades and ranked high in several Pac-10 baseball statistical categories. In short, he was an impact player on the team's successful season, which culminated in a trip to the 2007 College World Series. This history of that enrollment is as follows. The prospect signed a NLI with Arizona State on November 14, 2006, securing his enrollment in the fall of However, the former head coach reported that he wanted the prospect to enroll earlier, for the 2007 spring semester, so that he could compete at Arizona State during the spring season. The prospect decided in January 2007, after classes began, to enroll for the 2007 spring semester. The prospect's financial aid agreement entitled him to receive an institutional athletics financial aid equivalent to.32 of a full grant-in-aid. At the completion of the 2006 fall semester, Arizona State's baseball program only had.53 remaining in its scholarship equivalency limit of Financial aid agreements obligated the institution to provide the prospect, along with three other midyear replacement student-athletes, their guaranteed athletic grant-in-aid. In order to do so, the institution needed to "free up" additional equivalency funds. The former head coach reported that he solicited student-athletes to give back a portion of their existing scholarships, and four studentathletes agreed to do so. The institution then provided the prospect the promised.32 equivalency grant-in-aid for the spring 2007 semester. The practice of student-athletes

9 Page No. 9 relinquishing their scholarship monies was pursuant to the "Devil to Devil" program initiated by the former head coach in 1998, which involved student-athletes relinquishing all or parts of their grants-in-aid to be used for new incoming student-athletes. Prior to 2007, student-athletes relinquished their aid only at the conclusion of an academic year and prior to the start of a new academic year. The institution endorsed this practice and promoted it in the baseball media guide. Student-athletes who returned their aid were recognized at year-end functions and on a plaque outside the baseball facility. Because the period of a financial aid award is one academic year and no institution is guaranteed grant-in-aid for a subsequent year, the program was in compliance with the letter of NCAA rules. However, Bylaw does not allow student-athletes to terminate aid in the middle of an academic year. Additionally, a coaching staff member is not permitted to request a student-athlete to return a portion of his aid during an academic year. The institution acknowledged that the reduction of financial aid of four baseball studentathletes for the spring term of the academic year was a violation of Bylaw which states, "An institution may not decrease a prospective student-athlete's or a student-athlete's financial aid from the time the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete signs the financial aid award letter until the conclusion of the period set forth in the financial aid agreement..." This violation was self-reported to the NCAA as a secondary infraction. The issues before the committee were: 1) the extent and nature of the former head coach's involvement in this violation; 2) whether the mid-year relinquishment of four student-athletes' financial aid and the transfer of some of that aid to the prospect was connected to in his enrollment for the spring term of the academic year and; 3) whether the violation formed part of the overall prospect violation. The former head coach maintained that he had been told by the compliance office that it was permissible to reduce enrolled student-athletes' financial at mid-year and give it to incoming student-athletes. Although the former head coach was misadvised on this question of mid-year gradation of financial aid, it does not absolve him of the recruiting violations previously documented. After being told it was permissible to reduce studentathletes' financial aid at mid-year, the former head coach claimed that he solicited "volunteers" to give up their aid and four student-athletes agreed to do so. The former head coach's written response did not address the issue of his involvement in the prospect's mid-year transfer to Arizona State from his two-year institution. The prospect, his two-year college head coach, manager 1, who recruited him to Arizona State, and the former head coach all reported that the prospect initially was hesitant to transfer at mid-year to the institution because he did not want to leave his two-year college in January He wanted to finish the spring season with his twoyear college team. The former head coach, however, wanted the prospect to enroll at mid-year so that he could participate during the 2007 spring season. The former head

10 Page No. 10 coach's pressure on the prospect to enroll at the institution at mid-year is reflected in manager 1's telephone activity with the prospect. Between January 10 and 14, 2007, manager 1 placed 21 telephone calls to the prospect. The manager reported that the purpose for doing so was to persuade the prospect to enroll at midyear instead of the fall of As noted earlier in this report, the committee found that the manager's recruiting activity with the prospect was at the behest of the former head coach. For the academic year, baseball awarded of its permitted equivalency grants to student-athletes leaving.53 remaining to be awarded. At the hearing, the institution's counsel stated: There was.53 available in the spring, which was more than enough to award (the prospect) a.32. However, in addition to the prospect, there were two other incoming student-athletes who matriculated mid-year during the academic year. A total of 1.06 equivalencies were needed for that spring 2007 semester when there was only.53 available. In order for the midyear transfer student-athletes to receive their promised athletics aid, additional sources of funding were needed. In January 2007, the former head coach requested six or seven student-athletes to participate in the "Devil-to-Devil" program and return a portion of their grants-in-aid from their awards. Ultimately, four student-athletes returned all or part of their financial aid so that the additional.53 equivalency could be distributed to the prospect and the two other incoming baseball student-athletes. While the institution and the former head coach contended that there was no connection between the four student-athletes being asked to surrender a portion of their grants-in-aid and the prospect's enrollment at the institution, the committee does not agree. The former head coach stated during the investigation that he wanted the prospect to enroll at the institution at midyear. This was confirmed by the prospect, his two-year college coach and manager 1. However, the baseball program did not have the available funding necessary for the prospect and the two other mid-year enrollees. The only way to accommodate the scholarship commitments to these student-athletes was for other student-athletes to surrender their aid. The four student-athletes returning all or a portion of their grants-in-aid did not do so on their own accord. It is undisputed that the former head coach requested them to do so. Therefore, the former head coach was directly involved in this violation. It allowed him to accomplish his goal of enrolling the prospect and two other student-athletes at mid-year. The prospect's mid-year enrollment allowed him to participate in the spring 2007 season, a season in which he played an integral role in leading Arizona State to the 2007 College World Series. The committee was troubled by the practice of "encouraging" or asking student-athletes to relinquish all or parts of their financial aid in order give it to new recruits. The

11 Page No. 11 committee believes that such a practice may cause student-athletes to feel pressured into giving up their athletics aid. The institution apparently came to same conclusion. In a February 6, 2009, letter from the institution to the enforcement staff responding to a complaint from a parent of one of the baseball student-athletes who relinquished his aid mid-year, the director of athletics wrote: I therefore have concluded that some pressure may have been brought by the baseball program in November 2006 or January 2007 to persuade any scholarship baseball student-athletes who would do so, to give back a portion of their scholarships so the recovered funds could be used for recruiting other players... During the hearing, the following exchange occurred: COMMITTEE MEMBER: I understood you to say that this was the first time and the only time that you have had a mid-year Devil-to-Devil transaction that took place. My question is, was it done in order for you to provide financial aid resources to the incoming prospective student-athlete (the prospect)? INSTITUTION COUNSEL: Well, there is nothing in the record that says that, and again this is getting back, I think, to the chair's kind of read of the facts and drawing inferences from that that is what was going on. But there is nothing that I have seen in the record that says (the former head coach) asked these kids to give money back, so he could provide it to (the prospect). COMMITTEE MEMBER: But that is actually what occurred, that's what transpired, right, the outcome? INSTITUTION COUNSEL: Correct. ENFORCEMENT STAFF: Mr. Chair, if I may, (the prospect's two-year college coach), in his testimony told the institution during their investigation and the enforcement staff, he had a detailed time line of what happened with (the prospect) during the fall of He reported that on November 30, 2006, (the prospect) informed Arizona State that he was going to stay at (his two-year college). Between that time and in January, when he came to Arizona State, there were a number of calls between (manager1) and (the prospect), and (manager 1) reported the purpose of which was to persuade (the prospect) to come. Then (the prospect's two-year college coach) noted on January 11, 2007, (the prospect) informed him that he had been offered a scholarship and was going to go enroll at Arizona State during the spring of Also, (Arizona State baseball student-athletes) that were interviewed about the Devil-to-Devil program noted that the purpose for the program was to give money to recruits. Now, they weren't asked

12 Page No. 12 specifically about (the prospect), but that was the purpose for which they stated the program existed... COMMITTEE MEMBER: I mean, I look at this and I am, first of all, surprised at the practice. I am surprised that the practice would occur at midyear in clear violation of the rules. I hear that if a great baseball player that didn't want to come, but he was encouraged to come, and then he carries your team into the College World Series. To me, to draw a line and say that the first two are major but this one isn't, just seems a little inconsistent. The institution argued that the mid-year reduction in financial aid was a secondary violation because this the only time that it happened. However, the definition of a secondary violation includes the provision that the violation provides only a minimal recruiting and/or competitive advantage. It was the committee's conclusion that this reduction and transfer of financial aid was part of a major violation because it provided both significant recruiting and competitive advantages. It allowed Arizona State to recruit the prospect as a mid-year transfer, and the school gained a significant competitive advantage as the prospect was a key contributor to the success of the Arizona State baseball team, culminating in its appearance in the 2007 NCAA College World Series. Prior the former head coach's departure from Arizona State, the athletics department instituted procedures to gain more control of the program to ensure that relinquishing of financial aid by a student-athlete was truly a voluntary act. The committee notes that the institution's new head baseball coach says he does not engage in the practice of "requesting" student-athletes to give up all or portions of their financial aid for incoming student-athletes. 3. VIOLATIONS OF COACHING STAFF LIMITATIONS. [NCAA Bylaws , , , ] During the , and academic years, the former head coach employed several individuals who engaged in on-field coaching duties during practices and prior to contests in violation of the legislated limitations on countable coaches (hereafter "coaching staff limitation violation"). Specifically: a. During the academic year, two former student-athletes ("managers 2 and 3" respectively), designated by the coaching staff as student managers, engaged in on-field coaching activities during practice on more than an occasional basis. Managers 2 and 3 provided instruction to the baseball student-athletes related to technique and pitching

13 Page No. 13 mechanics, participated in pitchers fielding practice, created a scouting report that included analysis on future opponents, and hit fungoes. b. During the academic year and up until the time period of March 23 - April 15, 2007, three individuals ("manager 4"), manager 1 and manager 3, all of whom were former student-athletes designated as managers, engaged in on-field coaching activities during both practices and contests on more than an occasional basis. Managers 1 and 4 engaged in pitching to the student-athletes during batting practice and hitting fungoes and ground balls on a regular basis. Managers 1 and 4 also regularly pitched to the student-athletes during batting practice, during practice sessions and prior to contests. Additionally, manager 3 periodically sent signals to the pitchers during contests and provided coaching instruction to the pitchers, which included monitoring bullpen sessions, and critiquing pitching form and technique. c. During baseball contests held on March 23-25, March 30-April 1 and April 13-15, 2007, and, importantly, after the coaching staff had been instructed that the practice of permitting managers to perform on-field coaching duties should cease, the former head coach permitted the managers 1 and 3 to participate in on-field coaching duties prior to and during the contests when manager 1 threw batting practice prior to the games and manager 3 relayed pitching signals. d. Subsequent to the April 13-15, 2007, time period and during the fall of 2007, managers 1 and 3 engaged in on-field coaching activities during practice sessions on more than an occasional basis. Manager 1 continued to pitch to the student-athletes during batting practice. Manager 3 supervised the pitchers' throwing and conditioning program and participated in pitchers fielding practice. Committee Rationale The institution agreed with the facts of this finding but, claimed they were secondary violations. The institution claimed that Findings B-3-a, B-3-b and B-3-c should not be found by the committee due to alleged procedural errors. The institution also believed that the remaining Finding B-3-d should be classified as secondary. The former head coach agreed with the facts of Findings B-3-a, B-3-b and B-3-c but disputed the facts of Finding B-3-d. The former head coach believed that Finding B-3, taken in its entirety, was a secondary violation. The enforcement staff alleged that impermissible coaching duties performed by managers should be classified as major violations. The committee finds that the violations occurred and that they are major. These findings are part of

14 Page No. 14 Finding 6 (failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance) and Finding 7 (lack of institutional control). Background In reference to B-3-a, B-3-b and B-3-c, there was no dispute regarding the facts of these violations. In general, on-field coaching duties may be conducted only by individuals counting against the permissible coaching staff limitations as set forth in NCAA Bylaw Limited exceptions to this restriction exist. Student managers who perform traditional managerial duties are permitted to perform limited on-field activities on an occasional basis. On February 11, 1993, the NCAA Interpretations Committee issued an official interpretation of Bylaw , which stated: A manager does not have to be included in the institution's limitations on countable coaches, provided the individual is a student who performs traditional managerial duties... It is not permissible to employ or utilize a manager for the purpose of being involved only in on-court or on-field activities (e.g., pitching batting practice) without including such an individual in the institution's coaching limitations in that sport. On December 4, 2006, the membership services staff issued an educational column titled Participation of Non-coaching Staff Members in Practice. This column specified that: Student managers may perform limited on-court or on-field activities, provided they also perform traditional managerial functions (e.g., run clock at practice, laundry, and fill water bottles). Finally under no circumstances can a manager provide skill instruction without being counted in the coaching limitations. These violations first surfaced as a result of survey distributed by the Pac-10 in March The survey requested the conference member institution to disclose all members of baseball travel parties along with their titles and duties. On April 4, 2007, upon receiving the results of the survey, the conference sent an to all Pac-10 member institutions specifying the role of directors of baseball operations and managers at baseball games. The quoted the above cited December 4, 2006, educational column. Shortly after the was sent, a Pac-10 member institution contacted the conference office regarding an Arizona State baseball manager relaying signs to pitchers during a contest. The conference office then contacted assistant athletic director for compliance ("the assistant athletic director") reporting that another institution reported Arizona State managers hitting fungoes (fly balls) and throwing batting practice, explaining these

15 Page No. 15 activities were coaching activities that managers could not perform. The assistant athletic director then contacted the baseball coaching staff asking them to respond to the accusation. The baseball coaching staff informed the assistant athletic director that they thought such activities were permissible and requested that she seek clarification from the NCAA. The assistant athletic director informed the coaching staff that they were bound by the Pac-10 interpretation while waiting for an official interpretation from the NCAA. Prior to receiving such an interpretation, the conference office informed the assistant athletic director that a second member institution reported Arizona State managers engaging in impermissible activities during a contest. On May 2, 2007, the institution requested clarification from the conference office on permissible managerial duties. The conference office obtained an interpretation from the membership services staff May 2, 2007, stating in part: There is a little more latitude for the manager who performs traditional managerial duties, but that it really should be on an occasional basis... If you need an example, this should not turn into something that happens before every game as that would be a regular basis. The assistant athletic director shared this interpretation with the baseball coaching staff via . Procedural Issues The institution maintained that there was a procedural error which would preclude the committee from finding violations in Findings B-3-a, B-3-b and B-3-c. In specific reference to Finding B-3-c, the institution argued that the violation had already been processed by the enforcement staff, as the institution submitted the violations as "Level II" secondary violations to the Pac-10 office. It was the institution's position that, if the committee made a finding of a violation in this instance, the institution would be a victim of "double jeopardy" because the violation had already been discovered and processed. The committee does not agree. Level II secondary violations are reported to and processed by a member's conference office. Conferences then submit Level II secondary violations to the NCAA secondary enforcement staff in summary form. The secondary enforcement staff is not responsible for the processing of Level II secondary violations but reviews the submitted summaries, files the violations and enters the information into the Legislative Services Database. The enforcement staff action in the database reads "filed." If a Level II secondary violation prescribed penalty is not imposed, the secondary enforcement staff notifies the conference office and institution. Likewise, if a

16 Page No. 16 review of the submitted information indicates that the violation should be classified as a Level I secondary violation or a major violation, the secondary enforcement staff notifies the institution. The secondary enforcement staff is entirely dependent on the accuracy and completeness of information submitted by the institution and conference office. The secondary enforcement staff always reserves the right to revisit a submitted violation if more information becomes available at a later date. Accordingly, the inclusion of these incidents in the major infractions case does not subject the institution to double jeopardy because the secondary enforcement staff has never processed the Level II violation. (This is the reason why the enforcement staff labels these violations as "filed "without formally processing them.) Because institutions and conferences not the enforcement staff process Level II secondary violations, the staff needs the flexibility to reconsider a Level II violation at a later date and process it as a Level I secondary or major violation, if additional evidence becomes available or if a pattern of similar violations emerges. If this were not the practice, it would place the secondary enforcement staff in the position of having to investigate every submitted Level II violation report to ensure the violation was isolated and inadvertent, and that the report was accurate and complete. If such investigations were not undertaken, institutions could then submit serious violations or patterns of violations individually as Level II violations and potential major violations might go undetected. In contrast, the secondary enforcement staff does process Level I secondary infractions. With Level I infractions, the institution directly submits a report to the secondary enforcement staff containing the details of the violation, individuals involved, corrective actions taken and any other supporting documentation. The secondary enforcement staff reviews the submitted documentation and issues a determination letter to the institution. The enforcement staff action on the Legislative Services Database reads "no further action" unless the secondary enforcement staff imposes additional penalties. On July 11, 2007, the institution submitted a self-report of a Level II secondary violation to the Pac-10. The report detailed that during the periods March 23-25, March 30 through April 1, and April 13-15, 2007, three managers' main responsibilities on the field during contests were: Field preparation, bullpen maintenance, charting various statistics as directed by the head coach and administrative responsibilities, they have been involved with on-field coaching duties on more than an occasional basis. For example, at various times, the managers have participated in throwing batting practice and hitting fungoes and ground balls to studentathletes before games. On September 6, 2007, the enforcement staff received 26 Level II secondary violations from the Pac-10, including the one detailed above. On October 29, 2007, the NCAA

17 Page No. 17 secondary infractions staff sent a letter to the Pac-10 office stating, "Based on the information you have submitted, it does not appear that any further action by this office regarding the Level II cases is warranted." When the case was entered into the Legislative Services Database, the enforcement action read "Filed." The violation was not formally processed by the enforcement staff, and the staff was not precluded from including it in this major infractions case. Moreover, the enforcement staff has the authority to include violations previously self-reported by an institution into a major infractions case if those violations are similar in nature or involve the same sport as the major case. Accordingly, the committee finds that there was no procedural error committed by including these allegations in the major violations charge. The institution believed it unfair for the enforcement staff to include allegation numbers 3-a and 3-b in this finding, as it was not instructed to investigate the previous activities of baseball non-coaching staff members when it submitted it's self-report. The committee disagrees with this position. When reviewing secondary violations, the secondary enforcement staff is entirely dependent upon the information submitted by the institution and the conference office. The secondary enforcement staff is not a fact-finding, investigative body. At no time did the institution or the conference office report to the secondary enforcement staff that the baseball managers had engaged in impermissible coaching activities on any dates other than those listed in the report. It was not the responsibility of the secondary enforcement staff to ask an institution the time period of the violation. Rather, under the principles of institutional control and Bylaw Cooperative Principle, it is the express duty of the institution to provide the enforcement staff with complete and accurate information including the date and location of the violation. In this instance, in its self-report related to Finding B-3-c, the institution listed only three two-day periods under a heading "Date and Location of Violation." The institution failed to acknowledge it filed an incomplete report by not informing the secondary enforcement staff that its baseball managers had engaged in impermissible coaching activities for a longer period of time. At the time the institution discovered the violations in April 2007, the institution had an affirmative obligation to investigate such violations fully and to report such information to the enforcement staff. Unfortunately, the institution failed to do so. Thus, the committee included the violations discovered in April 2007 within the major case because they are identical to those discovered during the course of this investigation and form a pattern of violations. The committee concludes that misuse of managers resulted in major violations. The committee notes that these instances were not isolated, as the violations involved several individuals over multiple years. The former head coach should have known he was using non-coaches (managers) in coaching activities. Moreover, he continued to do so after

18 Page No. 18 being told by the compliance staff to stop. Thus an argument that this misuse of managers was "inadvertent" is not valid. Finally, the violations provided the baseball program more than a minimal competitive advantage. An indicator of a competitive advantage was the fact that two other Pac-10 institutions were concerned enough to report Arizona State's misuse of managers to the conference office. Substantive Issues The details of the violations are as follows. Manager 2 was enrolled in a full-time course of graduate study during the academic year. He reported that his duties involved being present for practice and contests. During practice, he worked primarily with the pitchers, hitting fungoes (fly balls), acting as an extra base runner and providing instruction on pitching mechanics. Manager 2 instructed the pitchers on weight transfer, gripping the baseball and their timing of a pitch. Although he reported repeating what he heard the pitching coach saying, it is impermissible under any circumstances for a sport specific non-coaching staff member to provide skill instruction to a student-athlete, as previously set forth in this report. During contests, manager 2 was in uniform and in the bullpen. While there, he received either a call or a signal from the pitching coach to inform bullpen pitchers to begin stretching and warming up during the game. Manager 2 reported compiling scouting reports for the coaching staff on upcoming opponents. He gathered statistics, watched game film and updated the previous years' report on an opponent. He also provided the coaching staff with an analysis of specific tendencies an opposing player might have. Manager 2's description of this duty was detailed and unprompted. The former head coach denied that manager 2 performed these duties to the extent that manager 2 had described. However, the information provided by manager 2 was corroborated by a baseball student-athlete ("the student-athlete"). While the studentathlete was not a pitcher and did not know the details of the work manager 2 performed during practice, the student-athlete recalled manager 2 working with the pitchers daily with stretching and throwing routines. While manager 2 had performed such duties permissibly on a daily basis during the academic year as a student assistant coach, during the academic year, the former head coach had designated him as a "student manager" thereby making his activities impermissible. During the academic year, manager 2 reported being around practice less regularly and not attending away-from-home contests due to academic obligations. However, when he was present, he always performed the described duties. Manager 2 did not report performing any traditional managerial duties. Manager 3 is a 2004 graduate of Arizona State and a former baseball student-athlete. During the academic year, manager 3 enrolled in a total of 12 credit hours. During this academic year, manager 3 worked with the student-athletes under the designation of manager. He reported his duties consisted of throwing batting practice,