SAINT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION AUGUST 28, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA, comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division I membership and the public, charged with adjudicating infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. 1 This case involves Saint Francis University (Pennsylvania). 2 The case also includes the institution's head football coach and a part-time assistant football coach. The committee considers this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agree to the primary facts, violations and violation levels as fully set forth in the Summary Disposition Report (SDR). Because the institution and involved individuals agreed to the violations and penalties, there is no opportunity to appeal. As detailed in the SDR, the head football coach, the part-time assistant football coach and two other assistant football coaches either personally provided, or arranged for the provision of, impermissible inducements and extra benefits to four football studentathletes and the parent of one of the student-athletes. 3 The four coaches, who often failed to attend departmental rules education sessions, provided or arranged for impermissible transportation, meals, lodging and, on one occasion, purchased an airline ticket for one of the student-athletes. The head coach and one of the assistant coaches also engaged in impermissible recruiting activities. The panel concludes that the coaches provided impermissible benefits and inducements to the student-athletes (and the parent) and that the actions of the head football coach and part-time assistant football coach constituted unethical conduct. 1 Infractions cases are considered by hearing panels comprised of Division I Committee on Infractions members. Decisions issued by hearing panels are made on behalf of the Committee on Infractions. 2 The institution, with an enrollment of approximately 1,500, is a member of the Northeast and Atlantic 10 Conferences. It sponsors nine men's sports and 13 women's sports. This is the institution's first major infractions case. 3 Because the violations committed by the other two assistant coaches were minimal, they are not considered to be at risk. The inducements and benefits were provided by the four coaches both before and after the times the student-athletes enrolled.
Page No. 2 After reviewing the parties' principal factual agreements and respective explanations surrounding those agreements, the committee accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that those agreements constitute violations of NCAA bylaws. The panel determines that this case will be processed as a Level II-standard case. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the committee determines that the following principal penalties are appropriate: two years of probation, a limit of 11 games being played by the football team in 2014, show-cause orders for the conduct of the head football coach and the part-time assistant football coach, and other penalties as detailed in the penalty section of this decision. II. CASE HISTORY On April 8, 2013, an anonymous source contacted the NCAA enforcement staff by telephone and made allegations of NCAA rules violations in the institution's football program. The source reported that an assistant football coach provided cash to four football student-athletes and that a different assistant football coach communicated with prospective student-athletes on an electronic public forum. The enforcement staff began an investigation and issued a written notice of inquiry to the institution in June 2013. On February 17, 2014, following the completion of its investigation, the enforcement staff provided a draft of the notice of allegations to the institution, the head football coach ("head coach") and a part-time assistant football coach ("part-time assistant coach."). All parties agreed to process the case through summary disposition on March 7. The enforcement staff delivered the proposed violations to the parties three days later. The parties submitted the SDR to the panel on May 2, 2014. The panel reviewed the SDR by teleconference on May 16, 2014, and accepted the violations, self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. In a letter dated May 21, and pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6.4.5, the panel proposed additional penalties to the institution, the head coach and part-time assistant coach. All three parties responded to the panel in writing on May 27, stating that they accepted the additional penalties. III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS, VIOLATIONS AND VIOLATION LEVELS OF NCAA LEGISLATION The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identifies an agreed-upon factual basis, violations and violation levels as established by NCAA legislation. The SDR identifies:
Page No. 3 1. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.2.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12) and 16.9.1 and 16.11.2.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13) (Level II) The institution; the head coach; the part-time assistant coach; and the NCAA enforcement staff agree that from the summer of 2011 through the spring of 2013, the head coach, part-time assistant coach, two additional assistant football coaches, a representative of the institution's athletics interests ("representative") and the representative's family arranged for or provided approximately $1,450 in inducements and extra benefits to four football prospective or current student-athletes ("student-athletes 1, 2, 3 and 4," respectively) and student-athlete 4's mother ("student-athlete 4's mother). Specifically: a. Prior to the commencement of the 2011-12 academic year and preseason football practice, the head coach arranged for studentathlete 4 and student-athlete 4's mother to stay at the representative's home, which resulted in the representative and his family providing approximately $338 in inducements and extra benefits to student-athlete 4 and student-athlete 4's mother. This included approximately $77 of inducements in the form of one night of lodging ($62), one meal ($11) and transportation from the representative's home to the institution (seven miles) ($4) for student-athlete 4; and approximately $261 in extra benefits to student-athlete 4's mother in the form of three additional nights of lodging ($186), roundtrip transportation from the representative's home to the institution on three occasions (42 miles), transportation from the representative's home to the Pittsburgh airport on one occasion (90 miles) ($73) and two long distance telephone calls ($2). [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 16.9.1 and 16.11.2.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. In November 2011, the part-time assistant coach purchased student-athlete 4 a $936 roundtrip airline ticket for student-athlete 4 to fly home during the institution's Thanksgiving break. [NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2011-12)] c. Prior to the commencement of the 2013 spring semester, an assistant football coach provided student-athletes 1 and 3 transportation from the Pittsburgh airport to the institution (97 miles) ($53). [NCAA Bylaws 16.9.1 and 16.11.2.1 (2012-13)]
Page No. 4 d. In April 2013, an additional assistant football coach provided student-athletes 1 and 2 transportation from the institution to the Pittsburgh airport (97 miles) ($53) and student-athlete 1 one night of lodging at his residence ($70). [NCAA Bylaws 16.9.1 and 16.11.2.1 (2012-13)] 2. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c) ( 2011-12) (Level II) The institution; the part-time assistant coach; and the NCAA enforcement staff agree that during the 2011-12 academic year, the part-time assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct when he failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by providing a $936 roundtrip airline ticket to student-athlete 4 as detailed in Violation No. 1-(b), which the part-time assistant coach should have known constituted an extra benefit. 3. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(c) (2010-11 and 2011-12) and 11.1.1.1 (as of October 30, 2012) and 11.1.2.1 (before October 30, 2012) (2010-11 through 2012-13) (Level II) The institution; the head coach; and the NCAA enforcement staff agree that from the summer of 2011 through the 2012-13 academic year, the head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct when he failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics and failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor certain activities of assistant football coaches within the football program. Specifically: a. The head coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he knowingly arranged for then football prospective student-athlete 4 and student-athlete 4's mother to receive inducements and extra benefits, as detailed in Violation No. 1-(a). [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 11.1.2.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. The head coach failed to (1) promote an atmosphere of compliance when he did not require his entire football coaching staff to participate in NCAA compliance education meetings the institution scheduled on a monthly basis and (2) monitor the activities of three
Page No. 5 of his assistant coaches who provided impermissible transportation, lodging and roundtrip airfare to football studentathletes, as detailed in Violations Nos. 1-(b) through 1-(d). [NCAA Bylaws 11.1.1.1 and 11.1.2.1 (2010-11 through 2012-13 4 )] 4. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1.2, 13.1.3.1.7and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12 and 2012-13); and 13.10.2 (2012-13) (Level III) The institution; head coach; and NCAA enforcement staff agree that from June 2012 through May 2013, the head coach and an assistant football coach participated in impermissible recruiting activities. 5 Specifically: a. Regarding the head coach's impermissible recruiting activities, from June 2012 through May 31, 2013, he sent a total of 13 impermissible text messages and completed 16 impermissible telephone calls to then football prospective student-athletes or their parent. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1.2, 13.1.3.1.7 and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] b. Regarding the assistant football coach's impermissible recruiting activities, on April 3, 2013, the assistant football coach corresponded with a prospective student-athlete for recruiting purposes through Twitter [social media], an electronic public forum. [NCAA Bylaws 13.4.1.2 and 13.10.2 (2012-13)] B. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2-(g), the parties have agreed to the following aggravating and mitigating factors: a. Aggravating factors. (1) Institution. Person of authority participated in the violations. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)] 4 On October 30, 2012, and during the period of Violation No. 3-(b), NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 (2012-13 NCAA Manual) was revised to NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 (2013-14 NCAA Manual). 5 The assistant football coach involved in these violations was a different person than the assistant football coach involved in the violations referenced in Violation A-1-d.
Page No. 6 Blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)] (2) Involved individual. (head coach) Person of authority participated in the violations. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)] Blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)] (3) Involved individual. (part-time assistant coach) b. Mitigating factors. (1) Institution. None. An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)] Imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4-(b)] In support of this mitigating factor, the institution would like to highlight that in the course of the investigation from June 2013 to the present, as matters came to light, it proactively implemented numerous corrective actions/penalties. (2) Involved individual. (head coach) None. (3) Involved individual. (part-time assistant coach) None.
Page No. 7 IV. REVIEW OF CASE The submitted SDR fully details the parties' positions in the infractions case and includes the agreed-upon primary facts, violations, violation levels and aggravating and mitigating factors. After reviewing the parties principal factual agreements and the respective explanations surrounding those agreements, the panel accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that the facts constitute Level II violations. Level II violations include, among others, violations that provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit. Because the benefits conferred by the coaches in this case were more than minimal, the violations constitute a significant breach of conduct. When the head coach, the part-time assistant coach and two other assistant football coaches provided meals, transportation and lodging (or arranged for the provision of those benefits) to student-athletes 1-4 and student-athlete 4's mother, the coaches violated long-standing, well-established rules found in NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 16.9.1 and 16.11.2.1. Those bylaws preclude institutional staff members from providing prospective and enrolled student-athletes inducements and benefits other than those expressly authorized by the legislation. The coaches claimed a lack of awareness of the rules; however, at the very least, they should have known that they could not provide the benefits to student-athletes. In this respect, the coaches could have benefitted from the departmental rules education sessions that, according to the SDR, they often chose not to attend. The coaches' provision or arranging for the provision of the benefits in this case are not permitted by NCAA legislation and therefore violated NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 16.9.1 and 16.11.2.1. The knowing involvement of the head coach in these violations was contrary to the Principles of Ethical Conduct set forth in NCAA Bylaw 10.1, particularly subsection (c), which prohibits institutional staff members from knowingly providing prospective student-athletes improper inducements and benefits. The part-time assistant coach should have known that his intentional provision of the benefits was impermissible. Therefore, his actions also violated Bylaw 10.1-(c). When the head coach and one of the assistant coaches contacted prospective studentathletes through text messages or through excessive telephone calls, they violated various NCAA Bylaw 13 recruiting prohibitions. NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1.2 provides that, generally, an institutional staff member is only allowed to call a prospective studentathlete once per week. NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1.7 prohibits an institutional staff member from initiating additional telephone calls during periods in which call limitations have been met. Further, at the time of the violations, NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 prohibited institutional staff from communicating with prospective student-athletes via social
Page No. 8 media. 6 The head coach knew he was in violation of NCAA legislation when he texted prospects. He claimed a mistaken impression of when phone calls were allowable, which once again might have been avoided had he attended rules education sessions. When the coaches called prospective student-athletes (or their family members) more than once per week and communicated by text or through social media, they were in violation of NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1.2, 13.1.3.1.7 and 13.4.1.2. Until a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent or a written offer of admission and/or financial aid from an institution, NCAA Bylaw 13.10.2 precludes coaches from commenting publicly about prospective student-athletes except to acknowledge only that they are recruiting the prospect. When an assistant football coach communicated with a prospective student-athlete through social media, a public forum, for recruiting purposes, the assistant football coach commented beyond a confirmation of his recruitment of the prospect, thereby violating NCAA Bylaw 13.10.2. Further, the panel considered the aggravating and mitigating factors agreed upon by the parties in the SDR and the arguments regarding mitigating factors on which the parties disagreed. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.2, aggravating and mitigating factors can affect the panel's prescribed penalties. Regarding the aggravating factors set forth in NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3, the panel was particularly concerned that the head coach, a person of authority, participated in what the parties agreed were violations that showed a blatant disregard for the NCAA's constitution and bylaws. In addition to the aggravating factors agreed upon by the parties, the panel determined that certain mitigating factors set forth in NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4 weighed in favor of the institution. The institution has an established history of reporting Level II/secondary violations. The panel in particular took note of the meaningful penalties and corrective measures self-imposed by the institution. The institution presented other mitigating factors, including its prompt acknowledgement of the violations, the affirmative steps it took to resolve the matter, exemplary cooperation, the unintentional nature of the violations and their limited scope. After reviewing the information in the SDR regarding the proposed additional mitigating factors, the panel concludes that, although the institution met its obligation to cooperate under NCAA Bylaw 19.2.3, its level of cooperation did not rise to "exemplary." Further, the institution's assertion that the violations were unintentional is inconsistent with its agreement that the violations involved a blatant disregard for NCAA rules. Even if the panel had found the violations to be unintentional, that would have been due at least in part to the coaches failing to take advantage of opportunities to be educated regarding the 6 The panel notes that NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 has since been amended; however, the change had no material effect on the violations of this case.
Page No. 9 relevant bylaws. The panel will not reward deliberate avoidance of rules education as a mitigating factor. Finally, as the violations involved four student-athletes (as well as one parent), four coaches and numerous individual occurrences over approximately two years, the panel does not find them to be "limited," even though the involvement of two of the coaches was minimal. In consideration of the agreed-upon violations and the determined aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the panel determines that this is a Level IIstandard case. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.1, the panel then conducted an analysis of both the former and present Bylaw 19 to determine which version provided the more lenient penalties. The panel concludes that the violations occurred and prescribes the penalties identified below in Section V. V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this report, the committee concludes that this case involved Level II-standard violations of NCAA legislation. This case was reviewed and decided pursuant to an infractions process and revised penalty structure recently approved by the membership and enacted by the Division I Board of Directors. See NCAA Bylaw 19 (Division I Manual 2013-14). Because the violations occurred both before and after October 30, 2012, the effective date of the new NCAA Bylaw 19, the panel processed the case in accordance with the new bylaw. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.1. The panel then conducted a separate analysis and made a specific determination as to whether appropriate penalties would be prescribed pursuant to the former or current NCAA Bylaw 19 penalty guidelines. Because the violations predominantly occurred before the effective date of the new bylaw, the panel reviewed whether the new penalty guidelines were more lenient and concluded that they were not. NCAA Bylaw 19.9.1. In considering the penalties under the former penalty structure, the panel used past cases as guidance and determined that penalties under former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2 are more lenient than the new Bylaw 19 penalty matrix for Level II-standard cases. 7 As all parties agreed to the factual violations, penalties and corrective actions self-imposed and those prescribed by the panel, none of the parties have an opportunity to appeal. General Administrative Penalties 1. Public reprimand and censure. 7 The institution's corrective actions are set forth in Appendix A. The sanctions it imposed upon the head coach and the part-time coach are contained in Appendix B.
Page No. 10 2. Two years of probation from, through August 27, 2016, (the institution placed its football program on probation internally for the 2014-15 academic year). 8 Penalties for the Football Program 3. The football schedule will be limited to 11 games in 2014 instead of the permitted number of 12 games. (Institution imposed) 4. Beginning November 1, 2013, part-time coaches were not permitted to recruit off campus without the approval of the assistant director of athletics for compliance, senior associate director of athletics/senior woman administrator and the director of athletics. (Institution imposed) Penalties for the Coaches' Conduct 5. The head coach violated well-known rules regarding impermissible benefits when he arranged for student-athletes and one of the student-athletes' mothers to receive lodging, meals and transportation from the representative. His actions violated the principles of ethical conduct. Further, the head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance in his program when he did not require his staff to participate in NCAA rules education and did not monitor three of his assistant coaches. Finally, the head coach engaged in impermissible recruiting activities. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.9.5.4 and 19.9.7-(k), the panel prescribes a two-year show-cause order for the head coach from, through August 27, 2016. During the term of the show cause, the panel restricts the athletically related duties of the head coach as follows: a. The head coach shall be suspended for two games during the 2014 football season. (Institution imposed) The suspension shall be for the first two conference games of the season, which the committee understands to be scheduled for October 11 and October 18, 2014. Because there is not a game scheduled for October 4, 2014, the suspension shall commence at 11:59 p.m. on October 5, 2014, and shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on the day of the second conference game. During the suspension, the head coach shall not be present in the venues where the games are played and shall have no contact with other members of the coaching staff or members of the football team. Further, during the suspension, the head coach shall not 8 Institutions may propose probationary periods but the authority to prescribe NCAA probation rests solely with the committee. Periods of probation always commence with the release of the infractions decision.
Page No. 11 participate in any activities that are defined as "coaching," including, but not limited to, team travel, recruiting, practice, video review and team meetings; b. If the head coach leaves his present employment and takes another position at a member institution during the term the show-cause order is in effect, he and the member institution shall contact the Office of the Committees on Infractions to schedule an appearance before the committee. The purpose of the appearance shall be to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause provisions of NCAA Bylaws 19.9.5.4 and 19.9.7-(k), which could limit the head coach's athletically related duties at the new member institution for a designated period. 6. The part-time assistant coach violated well-known rules regarding impermissible benefits when he purchased an airline ticket for a student-athlete. His actions violated the principles of ethical conduct. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.9.5.4 and 19.9.7-(k), the panel prescribes a one-year show-cause order for the part-time assistant coach beginning, through August 27, 2015. During the term of the show-cause, the committee restricts the athletically related duties of the part-time assistant coach as follows: a. The part-time assistant coach shall be suspended for one game during the 2014 football season. (Institution imposed) The suspension shall be for the first conference game. The suspension shall commence at 11:59 p.m. on October 5, 2014, and shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on the day of the first conference game. During the suspension, the part-time assistant coach shall not be present in the venues where the games are played and shall have no contact with other members of the coaching staff or members of the football team. Further, during the suspension, the part-time assistant coach shall not participate in any activities that are defined as "coaching," including, but not limited to, team travel, recruiting, practice, video review and team meetings; b. If the part-time assistant coach leaves his present employment and takes another position at a member institution during the term that the show cause is in effect, he and the member institution shall contact the Office of the Committees on Infractions to schedule an appearance before the committee. The purpose of the appearance shall be to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause provisions of
Page No. 12 NCAA Bylaws 19.9.5.4 and 19.9.7-(k), which could limit the part-time assistant coach's athletically related duties at the new member institution for a designated period. Other Administrative Penalties and Measures 7. The institution shall pay a $5,000 fine to the NCAA. 8. During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes' eligibility for admission, financial aid, practice or competition; b. Submit a preliminary report to the Office of the Committees on Infractions by October 15, 2014, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and c. File with the Office of the Committees on Infractions an annual compliance report indicating the progress made with this program on May 1 each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis will be placed on educating representatives of the institution's athletics interests and educating athletics staff members regarding extra benefits and inducements. The report must include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and prescribed by the panel. 9. During the period of probation, the institution shall: a. Inform prospective football student-athletes that the institution is on probation for two years and provide details regarding the violations committed. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation must be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided before a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent. b. Publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations and the affected sport programs and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions report located on the athletics
Page No. 13 department's main webpage. The institution's statement must: (i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include the length of the probationary period associated with the major infractions case; and (iii) give members of the general public a clear indication of what happened in the major infractions case to allow the public (particularly prospective student-athletes and their families) to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. A statement that refers only to the probationary period with nothing more is not sufficient. 10. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. The panel advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period or prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations. An institution that employs an individual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to adhere to the penalties prescribed, subjects itself to allegations and possible violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL Greg Christopher Chris Griffin Thomas Hill Roscoe Howard Jim O'Fallon
Page No. 14 APPENDIX A CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS REPORTED IN THE PARTIES' MAY 2, 2014, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT Compliance Staff An additional full-time compliance person was hired as the assistant director of compliance to assist with increased oversight of the football program on November 15, 2013. Compliance Software The institution purchased commercial compliance software in the fall of 2013 to enhance and assist with the compliance efforts of the department of athletics. This software program will enable the compliance office to run more effectively and efficiently through the use of technology. The institution invested resources for the software in the amount of $18,000 for the initial year with each subsequent year exceeding $20,000 per year. Compliance Meetings All compliance meetings are videotaped so that any coach who may not be able to attend, for a reason that has been approved by their sport administrator, is required now to view the videotape of the meeting. Football Staff Meetings The football staff has a weekly meeting which may include the attendance by the director of athletics, senior associate director of athletics/senior woman administrator, assistant athletic director of compliance, assistant director of compliance and any administrator who has relevant compliance informational items. Regional Rules Compliance Seminar All full-time football coaches and the part-time assistant coach will attend a regional compliance seminar in 2014. Additionally, there will be two athletics administrators with compliance responsibilities attending this seminar to monitor the coaches' attendance at the required sessions. Recruiting Telephone Calls Effective November 1, 2013, all football coaches were required to make all recruiting calls on a university issued phone, either cell or office. Recruiting Prospects from Hawaii The football staff has ceased recruiting prospects from Hawaii effective November 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. This restriction will be evaluated in April of 2015 to determine if it should be extended beyond 2015.
Page No. 15 Part-time Coaches Beginning November 1, 2013, part-time coaches were not permitted to recruit off campus without the approval of the assistant director of athletics for compliance, senior associate director of athletics/senior woman administrator, and the director of athletics.
Page No. 16 APPENDIX B INSTITUTIONAL PENALTIES AND RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THE HEAD COACH AND PART-TIME ASSISTANT COACH Compensation Restrictions As a result of the investigation, the head coach did not receive a merit pay increase in January 2014. Additionally, he did not and will not receive a guarantee incentive increase (five percent of the net revenue from guarantee games) for the 2013 and 2014 seasons. This payment for the 2013 season would have been $6,687 which is approximately 10% of his annual salary. The projected payment for the 2014 season would have been $7,500 - $9,000. Finally, the head coach did not receive a bonus of $2,000 for the 2013 season for achieving a winning record against non-guarantee opponents. This bonus will not be available for the 2014 season. To date, the head coach has not received contractual incentives of $8,687 and may not potentially receive an additional $9,500 for a total of approximately $18,187. The part-time assistant coach will not be eligible for any type of increase in salary for 2013-14. His contract expires on December 31, 2014. HEAD COACH RESTRICTIONS The head coach will be suspended for two games during the 2014 football season. RECRUITING RESTRICTIONS Telephone Calls The head coach was not permitted to make recruiting calls beginning November 1, 2013. The ban will be in effect until September 2015. Off Campus Contacts and Evaluations The head coach was restricted from off campus contacts and evaluations effective November 1, 2013. The ban will be in effect until September 2015. Assistant Coach Restriction The part-time assistant coach will be suspended for one game during the 2014 football season.