July 18, 2011
ChrisWebber_tb358_05312011.jpg
Click here to see a photo gallery of famous college sports scandals
ohiostate_tressel_inline_052611_USP
How severe were Ohio State's charges, compared to other recent investigations? For more, go visit FOXSports.com's NCAA page.
By Eric Gingrich
The Buckeye Battle Cry
-------------------
The below article includes research on six NCAA schools that are either under investigation or currently playing under sanctions, originally published at The Buckeye Battle Cry, which is not affiliated with FOX Sports or FOX Sports Ohio.
For a full chart of allegations at The Ohio State University and whether or not the charges were refuted or proven, please click here.
-------------------
There's no shortage of people who will argue about college football, especially with a handful of major programs under investigation (or recently sanctioned). Everyone has an opinion, and they're all anxious to share it.
That's part of the beauty of college football. Rivalries run deep, and they get intense.
Unfortunately, in the age of new media, the lines get blurred. Rumors become fact before they are properly sourced, and those rumors get sent around the world before they can be properly refuted.
This article is a public service for anyone who is interested in the details of the NCAA allegations of the following universities;
• Southern California
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Boise State
• Ohio State
• Georgia Tech
Each table of allegations presented is a faithful representation of the charges against the institution, along with the response provided by each university. Regardless of loyalties, readers will find it an informative and useful resource for discussing the NCAA, amateurism and the recent string of investigations that have swept the nation.
University of Southern California
The University of Southern California's Notice of Allegations (NOA) was never released to the public - they are a private institution and are not required to do so. Obviously it would be nice to have the original NCAA document, which we do have for most of the other schools present in this article. However, the USC response to the Allegations is quite thorough and does detail most of the allegations posted against the University.
USC Allegation Violations Response
1 Reggie Bush (and family) received impermissible benefits from New Era Sports and Entertainment.Assistant Coach Todd McNair committed ethics violation for having known or having the ability to know about Bush's benefits. 10.1 (d), 12.01.1, 12.1.1, 12.1.2 (a), 12.3.1, 12.3.1.2, and 30.3.5 Agreed (12.3.1.2) (1 (a)(6), 1 (a)(7)p, 1 (a)(9)p)
2 Reggie Bush (and family) received impermissible benefits from Sports Link agents. 12.3.1.2, 16.02.3, 16.11.2.1 Partially agreed (12.3.1.2) (2 (b)(1)p)
3 Todd McNair provided (a) misleading and (b) false information to the NCAA 10.1-(d) Denied
4 USC exceed the maximum number of allowed football coaches. 11.7.2 and 11.7.4 Self reported (Agreed) – Secondary
5 A representative of USC and local restaurant owner made impermissible off-campus recruiting contacts with a number of prospective student athletes. 13.01.2, 13.01.4 and 13.6.7.1 Self reported (Agreed) – Secondary*
6 OJ Mayo received extra benefits from two representatives of the university who were also affiliated with a sports agency. 12.3.1.2, 13.01.3, 13.01.4, 13.2.1, 13.2.1-(b), 13.2.1-(e), 16.01.1, 16.02.3 and 16.11.1.1 Partially agree (6 b(1), 6 b(2), 6 b(4), 6 b(5), 6 b(6), 6 b(9)p, 6 b(10), 6 b(12), 6 b(14))
7 Not released in USC’s response Unknown Unknown
8 Not released in USC's response Unknown Unknown
9 Women’s Tennis Player made 123 unauthorized calls to family members overseas at a value of $7,535 using an athletic department telephone. 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2.2 Self Reported (Agreed) – Secondary (no competitive advantage)**
10 Institution exhibited a Failure to Monitor and Lack of Institutional Control 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1 Denied (except for failure to monitor with regard to Violation 9)
* The comments were viewed as inadvertent, and not intended to be of a recruiting nature, nor did the prospects view the comments as an attempt to recruit them.
** The University viewed this as a secondary violation, but it is believed that the NCAA recorded this as a major violation.
Scope: Three sports teams (Football, Men’s Basketball, Women’s Tennis).
USC deserves a lot of credit for their response on the whole. While it clocks in at a ridiculous 169 pages, it is chocked full of delicious reading material – particularly if you’re not a huge fan of the NCAA.
For the most part, Southern Cal makes a fantastic case. In the vast majority of the allegations they denied, the NCAA clearly had a weak case – often based solely on the comments of a single source who was anything but unimpeachable. USC drives the point home that the NCAA has failed to meet their own requirements for evidence, referencing previous NCAA investigations into other programs to prove their point.
It is easy to believe that the Trojans got hammered beyond what they deserved. Clearly, though, that would require giving USC the benefit of the doubt and saying that the issues they denied were done so well enough to warrant dismissal of those charges. Ultimately, while it seems that a “failure to monitor” charge might be valid for the cases that they agreed to, the Lack of Institutional Control was certainly excessive.
But, obviously, the NCAA begged to differ.
One point worth stressing is that USC closely worked with the NCAA. While a large portion of the media has been trying hard to push the “USC fought the NCAA” meme, it’s absolutely not true. USC’s former student athletes, and the agents and representatives therein, may not have worked with the NCAA, but the university absolutely did. That is even apparently expressed in the Notice of Allegations, where the NCAA thanked USC for their help and support. In fact, pages 56 and 57 of the NCAA Public Infractions Report says this
"The committee determined that the cooperation exhibited by the institution met its obligation under Bylaws 19.01.3.3 and 32.1.4. The cooperation the institution demonstrated in this case must be weighed against the conduct and failures of the institution and its personnel as set forth in Findings B-1-(b), B-6 and B-7. The committee concluded that in light of the serious nature of the violations and the failure of the institution to detect and/or prevent them, the institution's cooperation did not warrant relief in the penalties imposed by the committee in this case."
In other words, the NCAA viewed USC's cooperation as satisfactory to the letter of the bylaws. Unfortunately for them, the crimes were too egregious to allow the NCAA to reduce the penalties against them.
One last point – making a comparison between Ohio State and USC might be completely moot. The violations are substantially different.
• USC’s violations occurred in multiple programs over the course of several years while Ohio State had only one and with a limited timeframe.
• Both Reggie Bush's family and OJ Mayo took a much larger sum of money, though Ohio State had a greater number of players breaking the rules.
• Most of the players breaking rules at Ohio State were (and are) still at Ohio State to take punishment for their actions, while in USC’s case, the players had already left.
• Finally, we know that Jim Tressel broke bylaw 10.1, while the evidence for McNair was not nearly strong enough to suggest that he really did violate bylaw 10.1.
For Buckeye fans, if you are hoping for leniency solely because Ohio State self-reported and worked with the NCAA, you could be in for a shock.
Result:
• 4 years probation
• Vacate 14 football wins from 2004-2005
• Eliminate any connection with Reggie Bush from the program
• Loss of 30 scholarships over 3 years
• 2 year Football postseason play ban (2010, 2011)
• 1 year (self imposed) Basketball postseason ban (2010)
• Basketball scholarship reduction (self imposed)
North Carolina
North Carolina’s Notice of Allegations is available online, but their response has yet to be finalized and will be submitted at a later date. For now, only the allegations and appropriate violations are listed. UNC’s responses can be added once released, but only if the response is available to the public.
The actual allegations start on page 17 of the above linked pdf.
UNC Allegation Violations Response
1 Academic fraud between the academic support center and football student athlete 10.1, 10.1-(b) and 14.11.1 Unknown
2 An academic support center tutor provided impermissible extra benefits to the tune of $3,500 to football student athletes. 16.11.2 Unknown
3 The academic support center tutor by knowingly providing improper benefits, as well as refusing to furnish information relevant to an NCAA investigation. 10.1, 10.1-(a), 10.1-(c) and 19.01.3 Unknown
4 Seven football student athletes received a combined $27,097.38 in impermissible benefits from individuals, some who trigger NCAA agent legislation. 12.1.2.1.6 and 12.3.1.2 Unknown
5 A football student athlete provided false and misleading information to the NCAA 10.1 and 10.1-(d) Unknown
6 Assistant Football Coach John Blake partnered with several agents to represent individuals in the marketing of their athletic abilities. Specifically, Blake was hired to influence Student Athletes to hire a particular agent. 11.1.4 Unknown
7 John Blake failed to report $31,000 in athletically related income to the NCAA, income that was provided by one of the agencies mentioned in Allegation 6. 11.2.2 Unknown
8 John Blake refused to furnish information relevant to an NCAA investigation, and provided false and misleading information. 10.1, 10.1-(a), 10.1-(d) and 19.01.3 Unknown
9 North Carolina failed to monitor the conduct and administration of their football program 2.8.1 Unknown
Scope: One Sport (Football)
UNC was another case (along with Ohio State) where the media expected a Lack of Institutional Control charge, but none was forthcoming. UNC did pick up the almost-as-bad charge of Failure to Monitor for the violations of their football program.
This is probably a fair charge, given what UNC is accused of. The quantity of violations committed by the football program, and the fact that one of their assistant coaches was in the back pocket of a professional sports agency puts the Tarheel program in deep trouble.
That said, the charge exists solely for one sport, making it hard to believe the entire institution lacks control.
Also worth noting is that UNC did cooperate fully with the NCAA during the investigation.
Result:
• Unknown at this time - North Carolina has not released a response to the allegations, nor has the NCAA leveled any penalties as of yet.
Tennessee
The University of Tennessee has already met with the NCAA Committee on Infractions, and they are getting closer to a resolution of the issue at hand. While Tennessee’s Notice of Allegations is available on the internet, the response, which was due on May 21st, does not appear to be. Therefore, there's no way to know conclusively how Tennessee responded to their violations.
UT Allegation Violations Response
1 In a two year period, Head Basketball Coach Bruce Pearl, associate head basketball coach Tony Jones, and assistant men’s basketball coach Steve Forbes placed 96 impermissible telephone recruiting calls. 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.3 and 13.1.3.1.7 Unknown
2 Bruce Pearl, Tony Jones and Steve Forbes did something that was completely redacted by the University of Tennessee. Redacted Unknown
3 Bruce Pearl and Tony Jones made an impermissible in-person, off-campus contact with a prospective student athlete. 13.1.1.1 Unknown
4 Bruce Pearl acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by knowingly engaging in recruiting violations, provided false and misleading information to NCAA investigators, and attempted to influence others to furnish false and misleading information. 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d), 19.01.2, 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 Unknown
5 Steve Forbes failed to provide full and complete information and failed to protect the integrity of the investigation. 10.01.1, 11.1.1, 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 Unknown
6 Assistant men’s basketball coach Jason Shay failed to provide full and completely information and failed to protect the integrity of the investigation. 10.01.1, 11.1.1, 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 Unknown
7 Tony Jones violated the principles of honesty when he failed to provide full and complete information regarding his involvement in and knowledge of violations. 10.01.1, 11.1.1 and 19.01.3 Unknown
8 Bruce Pearl failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and failed to monitor the activities of all of his assistant coaches. 11.1.2.1 Unknown
9 During the 2009-2010 academic year, former members of the football coaching staff (names redacted) engaged in impermissible recruiting activities with prospective student-athletes. 11.5.1, 11.7.1.1.1.1, [redacted], 13.02.7, 13.02.14-(c), [redacted], 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.1.1, 13.1.3.4.1, 13.1.3.5.1, 13.1.6.2, 13.11.1, 13.11.1.1 and [redacted]. Unknown
10 Head Football Coach Lane Kiffin failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the football program and failed to monitor the activities of several assistant football coaches and an athletics administrator. 11.1.2.1 Unknown
11 The institution failed to monitor the men’s basketball coaching staff telephone contacts with prospective student-athletes. 2.8.1 Unknown
12 Jason Shay did something that was heavily redacted. Redacted Unknown
Scope: Two sports (Football, Basketball)
It is impressive that Tennessee was able to avoid the Lack of Institutional Control. Failure to Monitor on two separate sports teams, the entire basketball coaching staff acting contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and both Pearl and Kiffin failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance? It almost seems like a no-brainer.
It’s possible that the complete lack of impermissible benefits charges was (as far as can be determined considering the heavy redactions) what ultimately saved Tennessee in that regard. It could also be that the NCAA thinks that Tennessee has an acceptable compliance department that just missed a few things (or, more realistically, that Pearl, Kiffin and company did a good job of concealing their activities). It's hard to know if anyone will ever know for sure, considering how fickle the NCAA tends to be in regards to penalties and violations.
The results below are not the final say against Tennessee, as the final Public Infractions Report from the NCAA has not been released. Don't expect that report for one to two months after their final meeting with the committee.
Result:
• The firing of successful head basketball coach Bruce Pearl.
• The resignation of UT’s Athletic Director Mike Hamilton.
• This set of self-imposed penalties on Bruce Pearl and the UT Basketball coaching staff.
• The disbanding of the Orange Pride, a group of UT ambassadors. They are likely the source of one of the redacted allegations, and were being investigated for improper contact with recruits.
Boise State
The Broncos are the surprise in the bunch, if only because the media reports regarding their allegations and penalties have been few and far between. BSU’s list of allegations is actually quite impressive overall.
Like Tennessee, Boise State has already faced the NCAA Committee on Infractions and therefore has filed their response to the allegations. Once again, the Boise State response is not available on the net – despite the fact that it certainly was released to the media. Like before, expect this list of responses to change if and when copy of the BSU response ever hits the internet.
BSU Allegation Violations Response
1 Back in 2005, a track and field athlete received impermissible financial aid, housing, meals and clothing, and participated in practices as a nonqualifier. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b), 13.2.1.1-(h), 14.3.1, 14.3.2.1.1, 15.01.5 and 16.11.2.1 Unknown
2 From 2005-2009 assistant coaches and staff members of the football program arranged for summer housing and transportation for 63 prospective student-athletes. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.5.1 Unknown
3 From 2005-2009, prospective student athletes of track and field and tennis (men’s and women’s for both) received impermissible housing, transportation and meals on arrival to Boise for their initial enrollment. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h), 13.5.1, 13.5.4 and 16.11.2.1 Unknown
4 A prospective student athlete received impermissible transportation, meals, housing, entertainment and travel expenses from a student athlete and the assistant coach for men’s and women’s cross country and track and field. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h), 13.5.1 and 13.7.2.1 Unknown
5 The assistant coach named in Allegation 4 acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct based on his involvement in Allegation 4, as well as by providing false or misleading information on three separate occasions. 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d) Unknown
6 The institution permitted a women’s tennis student-athlete to practice and participate in competition beyond her fourth eligible season. 14.2, 14.2.3.2.1 and 16.8.1.2 Unknown
7 The Head women’s tennis coach, an assistant women’s tennis coach, a volunteer assistant women’s tennis coach and two representatives of the institution’s interests provided impermissible benefits to a prospective student-athlete. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(b), 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.2.1.1-(h), 13.5.1, 13.7.2.1, 13.11.1 and 16.11.2.1 Unknown
8 The head women’s tennis coach, and the assistant women’s tennis coach conducted impermissible practice sessions with a prospective student-athlete, and allowed her to participate in athletics before becoming a degree seeking student of the institution. 13.2.1, 13.11.1, 14.02.7, 14.1.7, 14.1.8.1, 14.1.8.2 and 14.2.2.1 Unknown
9 The head women’s tennis coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by engaging in violations of NCAA legislation, by providing false and misleading information, and by influencing others to provide false and misleading information. 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d), 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 Unknown
10 The assistant women’s tennis coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by engaging in violations of NCAA legislation, and by providing false and misleading information. 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d) Unknown
11 The volunteer women’s tennis assistant coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading evidence to investigators, and influenced another to provide false and misleading information. 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(d), 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 Unknown
12 The women’s tennis head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance, and failed to monitor the assistant women’s tennis coach and volunteer assistant coach. 11.1.2.1 Unknown
13 The Men’s Tennis head coach arranged for a prospective student athlete to reside with a family in Boise upon his initial arrival.
13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(h) Unknown
14 A prospective student athlete received impermissible benefits and participated in a practice session with a volunteer assistant tennis coach, observed by the head men’s tennis coach. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.5.1 Unknown
15 A tennis nonqualifier was provided impermissible benefits (including use of tennis-racquet restringer) and participated in practice activities. 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.2, 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.3-(a) Unknown
16 The head coach and the assistant coach for men’s and women’s track and field assisted in the arrangement in impermissible benefits for four prospective student-athletes. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(h) and 13.5.1 Unknown
17 The head coach and the assistant coach for men’s and women’s track and field conducted impermissible practice sessions with prospective student-athletes and provided impermissible benefits. 13.2.1, 13.5.1 and 13.11.1 Unknown
18 A prospective student-athlete received impermissible benefits from another student-athlete. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.2.1.1-(f), 13.2.1.1-(h), 13.5.4 and 16.11.2.1 Unknown
19 A prospective student-athlete received impermissible benefits from an assistant cross country and track and field coach and several other student athletes, and engaged in impermissible practice activities. 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(f), 13.2.1.1-(h), 13.5.1 and 13.11.1 Unknown
20 The Institution lacked control in critical areas of NCAA compliance. 22.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01 Unknown
21 A women’s tennis student athlete was permitted to travel and received actual and necessary travel expenses when she was not eligible to do so. 16.8.1.2 Unknown
22 A mother of a women’s tennis student-athlete provided the women’s tennis student-athletes with gift bags or small gift items. 16.02.3 and 16.11.2.1 Unknown
Scope: Five sports (Men’s and Women’s Track and Field, Men’s and Women’s Tennis, Football)
This is quite an incredible list of violations. A full 22 allegations against the Boise State athletic department account for as many as three other schools on this list combined. It’s not surprising that Boise State got the dreaded “lack of institutional control” charge at the end. It spanned four different sports and more than 5 years of misdeeds.
The interesting part is that the majority of the violations occurred in “non-profit-earning” sports. Usually, the vast majority of major violations occur to the programs that have a lot riding on their success, or where there is a lot of prestige to gain or lose.
Result:
Boise State has self-imposed a large number of penalties on all five of their programs, those penalties include:
• Public Censure and reprimand.
• Three years of probation with continued improvements in rules education and compliance monitoring.
• A laundry list of other penalties including recruiting limits, practice limits and scholarship limits depending on the sport.
Ohio State
Now let's take a look at the allegations facing Ohio State. Keep in mind, the NCAA could still submit a second NoA if Ohio State finds and self reports more issues, or if they have discovered anything additional from their investigations over the last couple months.
Also, like USC, the full range of information Ohio State used to respond to the NCAA is available. That gives an opportunity to fully discuss the rationale regarding what OSU has stated.
OSU Allegation Violations Response
1 6 current and 1 former Student Athletes traded gear and memorabilia for cash and discounts on tattoos to a tattoo parlor called Fine Line Ink. Additionally, Jim Tressel knew or should have known that at least 2 student-athletes received these impermissible benefits, and failed to withhold them from competition while ineligible. 12.1.2.1.6, 14.11.1, 16.1.4 and 16.11.1.6 Self Reported (Agreed). In fact Ohio State added a 7th current SA to the list (one of those 7, Pryor, has since forgone his last year of eligibility).
2 Jim Tressel failed to deport himself with honesty and integrity when he failed to report information concerning violations of NCAA legislation. Additionally, he withheld information for 9 months regarding the violations in Allegation 1, and falsely attested that he had reported all NCAA violations when he signed the certification of compliance form. 10.1 Self Reported (Agreed).
Scope: One Sport (Football)
It's worth noting that the NCAA filed an updated Notice of Allegations on July 8th to reflect additional findings during further investigation into the program. That investigation was the result of the Sports Illustrated article and the reported findings by ESPN. The updated notice clearly indicated that the NCAA found only one point of merit in those reports, the inclusion of a 7th current player to Allegation 1. That still may change, but for the time being things seem to be winding down on this investigation.
It’s surprising in simply looking at the number of violations alleged by the NCAA at this point that anyone at all was asking for the failure to monitor charge, let alone lack of institutional control. The primary basis for that claim was the fact that Tressel lied, and committed the unforgivable “10.1” violation.
In every other case cited above where a 10.1 violation was handed down the individual in question also violated other NCAA bylaws, or other parts of the 10.1 bylaw itself. The only exception to this is Todd McNair of USC who picked up the single violation of 10.1-(d) in Allegation 3, though he also picked up additional violations in Allegation 1. Tressel's own violations most closely match to McNair's - picking up the full 10.1 violation by itself in Allegation 2, while picking up further violations in Allegation 1 for not withholding the Tat-5 from competition.
It’s also worth noting that the violations were limited to a 2 year span (2008-2010) and to only one sport. The only other program that can claim such a limited time frame, and such a limited scope, is North Carolina which clearly committed a larger set of NCAA sins - assuming they don't successfully appeal any of them.
Though it's very likely expected, this will not end with a guess as to what the NCAA is going to do to Ohio State. First off, that would be fool-hardy as even the luckiest can’t successfully predict what is going on in the NCAA’s head. Second, there’s always still the possibility of more to come – at least until the committee on infractions meet.
Result:
• The eventual forced resignation turned retirement of successful Head Football coach Jim Tressel
• A 5 game suspension for the players involved in Allegation 1
• Vacating all wins from the 2010-2011 football season (including the Sugar Bowl) (self-imposed)
• 2 years probation (self-imposed)
The University has spent an incredible amount of time and energy focusing all of the violations on Tressel himself. The entire narrative has been that of Tressel being a loose cannon and putting an unsuspecting university in the cross-hairs of an NCAA investigation. Thus far, that strategy has worked.
If the university decided to self-impose penalties on the institution – such as a post-season ban or scholarship reductions – they would, in fact, be suggesting that the institution itself is at fault. That goes directly against the narrative they’ve tried so hard to set up.
Another big issue involved with imposing a more strict set of penalties is that those penalties take effect immediately. Ohio State does not want to take a post season ban, particularly this year, if they absolutely don’t have to. By not self-imposing a ban, Ohio State in effect allows their football team to play the 2011 postseason. This occurs because the NCAA’s penalties won’t likely take effect until after the appeals are complete, almost certainly after the 2011-2012 football season.
Ultimately, Ohio State made precisely the right choice in their self-imposed penalties. They willingly sacrificed the Sugar Bowl, a game that the NCAA had declared the players eligible for and let the NCAA decide the remaining fate. Given the quantity of charges, and assuming nothing else comes down the pipe, the NCAA may see fit to accept Ohio State's decision without adding to it.
Georgia Tech
The recent release of the NCAA Public Infractions Report on Georgia Tech has brought the Yellow Jacket's violations to the forefront of the public mind. In the subsequent search for information, the Georgia Tech Response to Allegations was available, though not the notice itself. Thankfully, like USC, Georgia Tech did a good job of replicating the Notice of Allegations within their response.
GT Allegation Violations Response
1 Two Georgia Tech Football Student Athletes were provided impermissible benefits from an employee of an Atlanta based sports agency. 12.1.2.1.6 and 12.3.1.2 Denied
2 The assistant athletics director for compliance failed to protect the integrity of the investigation by telling one student athlete from Allegation 1 the issues and related matters that would be discussed during an interview. This conversation occured despite explicit instructions from the NCAA interviewer that the information could only be shared with the University President and Athletic Director. 19.01.3 and 32.1.4 Denied (The conversation occurred, but no violations were committed)
3 The institution did not withhold the two student –athletes from Allegation 1 from competition when the institution knew or had reason to know that they were ineligible. 3.2.4.3 and 14.11.1 Denied
4 One of the student-athletes from Allegation 1 violated the principles of ethical-conduct when he knowingly provided false and misleading information and failed to submit his telephone and bank records. 10.1-(a) and 10.1-(d) Denied
5 The men’s basketball program was involved in conduct, administration and evaluation of physical activity in violation of the NCAA try-out legislation. 13.11.1 and 13.11.3.2 (Major violations denied – institution claims violations are secondary)
6 Members of the men’s basketball staff provided impermissible discretionary tickets contrary to NCAA legislation. 13.8.1 Agreed (part a is secondary in nature, parts b and c have been withdrawn by enforcement staff)
7 A football student athlete was provided admission, a meal and nonperishable items at the Georgia Aquarium by two representatives of the institution’s athletics interests. 16.02.3 and 16.11.2.1 (Secondary) Self-reported (Agreed)
8 A men’s basketball student-athlete was provided impermissible discretionary tickets. 16.2.1.1 and 16.2.1.2 (Secondary) Self-reported (Agreed)
Scope: Two Sports (Football, Men's Basketball)
Results:
• Public reprimand and censure.
• Four year's probation.
• A $100,000 penalty.
• Men's basketball will have a reduction in "recruiting-person" days, a limit to 10 official visits for each of the next two academic years, and a limit in complementary tickets to individuals associated with prospective student athletes.
• Football will vacate all victories between November 24th, 2009 and the bowl game for that season (one victory: ACC Championship).
• Additional requirements in compliance education and advancement.
