NCAA Division I Enforcement Hot Topics
Session Overview Trending violations. Enforcement policies and procedures update and enforcement activities after investigative phase, but prior to issuance of a Notice of Allegations. Case studies of trending violations and how those violations are analyzed.
Trending Violations
Responsibility of Head Coach Impermissible Recruiting Contacts Extra Benefits Academic Misconduct
Responsibility of Head Coach NCAA Division I Bylaw Responsibility of Head Coach Key Points: Presumption of responsibility for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. Two Prongs: Promote an atmosphere of compliance. Monitor the staff's activities. Rebuttal of presumption Communication Monitoring Documentation 8LWM%29.pdf 8LWM%29.pdf
Responsibility of Head Coach Key Takeaways: The head coach and staff have an obligation to report potential rules violations and actual rules violations to the administration. The head coach has an obligation to ensure that his/her program's monitoring systems are operating properly. The head coach and staff have an obligation to consult with compliance staff to determine if their actions are consistent with NCAA rules. The head coach and staff have an obligation to identify situations where circumstances could result in NCAA violations, alert compliance and monitor the situation closely.
Impermissible Recruiting Contacts A contact is any face-to-face encounter between a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student- athlete's parents, relatives or legal guardians and an institutional staff member or athletics representative during which any dialogue occurs in excess of an exchange of a greeting. (Bylaw ) Generally, off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before July 1 following the completion of his/her junior year in high school or the opening day of classes of his/her senior year in high school (as designated by the high school), whichever is earlier. (Bylaw )
Impermissible Recruiting Contacts Interpretations and educational columns: Staff interpretation- Contact with Prospective Student-Athlete (September 30, 1988) Educational Column- Impermissible Contact Outside of the Contact Period (November 8, 1999)
Extra Benefits Any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his/her family members or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Was the benefit provided by an institutional employee or representative? Was there intent? Was this benefit advertised to the general student body? Level of the Violation Was there intent? What was the value of the benefit? Length of time it was received? Competitive/recruiting advantage gained?
Academic Misconduct "Academic Misconduct" is an umbrella term which encompasses violations of an institution's policies related to academic honesty and integrity by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or institutional staff member (April 16, 2014 educational column). Deference to the Academy: Institution is given discretion to follow it's internal policies to make a determination if academic misconduct took place. Bylaw – Extra benefit analysis is appropriate if the assistance received by the student-athlete is not needed for eligibility purposes. By definition it must be an institutional staff member which is very specific.
Enforcement Policies and Procedures Update
Enforcement Internal Operating Procedures Article 19 Procedures Enforcement Internal Operating Procedures (IOPs) Published at
Current State of Charging Decisions Lack of institutional control. Unethical conduct. Head coach responsibility.
Development of Charging Guidelines Lack of institutional control. Unethical conduct. Head coach responsibility.
Internal Review of Allegations Prior to Issuance of Notice of Allegations
Internal Review of Allegations Investigative team constantly reviews potential violations throughout investigation. Rigorous auditing of potential violations prior to issuance of Notice of Allegations. Audits by investigative team, academic and membership affairs staff, review board and enforcement executives/office of legal affairs. Soundness of Allegations Violation Levels through Aggravating/Mitigating Factors and What is the difference between violation level and aggravation/mitigation? Goals and Key Considerations
Processing of Allegations Finalizing allegations and issuing the Notice of Allegations Notice Of Allegations issuance = case moves to jurisdiction of the Committee on Infractions. Processing options. Institution and individual(s) response Enforcement reply Pre-hearing conference Hearing before Committee on Infractions
Case Studies of Trending Violations
Case Study No. 1: Responsibility of Head Coach
Review of Head Coach Control A head coach is presumed responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report directly or indirectly to the head coach. A head coach can rebut that presumption by demonstrating he/she: Promoted an atmosphere of compliance within his or her program. AND Monitored the activities of all institutional staff members that report directly or indirectly to the head coach. (Bylaw )
Facts The assistant volleyball coach provided gift cards and clothing to volleyball prospective student- athletes valued at over $2,500. The assistant volleyball coach impermissibly contacted prospects on 45 occasions via telephone and text message prior to the first permissible date of contact. The assistant volleyball coach provided false or misleading information during an interview with the enforcement staff and institution when she denied providing inducements to the prospects.
Additional Facts The assistant coach reported that the head coach was aware that she sometimes used her roommate's phone to make recruiting calls. The assistant coach reported she does not log calls when she uses her roommate's phone. The assistant coach reported that she "knows the rules." The head coach reported that the compliance staff provides regular rules education to her staff and she doesn't conduct meetings with her staff about NCAA legislation because her staff "knows what she is about." The assistant coach reported that the head coach is always on them to recruit "program changing players" and the head coach monitors how often they communicate with top prospects.
Audience Poll Do you believe that the head coach promoted an atmosphere of compliance? A.Yes B.No
Audience Poll Do you believe that the head coach monitored her staff? A.Yes B.No
Audience Poll Do you believe that the head coach rebutted the presumptive responsibility for the violations? A.Yes B.No
Facts that make the analysis difficult The head coach relied on compliance to provide all rules education. The head coach's monitoring efforts were limited. The violations by the assistant coach were concealed.
Case Study No. 2: Impermissible Recruiting Contacts
Bylaw A contact is any face-to-face encounter between a prospective student-athlete and an institutional staff member or booster during which a dialogue occurs in excess of an exchange or greeting. Any such encounter that is prearranged or takes place at the prospect's school is impermissible, regardless of whether conversation occurs.
Bylaw Off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with a prospect before July 1 following the completion of his or her junior year in high school, or the opening day of classes of his or her senior year in high school, whichever is earlier. (Football)
Facts of Case Study No. 2a The prospect at issue is a junior attending Alternative High School No. 1 and playing football at High School No. 2. The assistant football coach visits High School No. 1 where he has in-person contact with the prospect. Contact was arranged by a third party (a recruiting analyst), who accompanied the assistant coach to High School No. 1 and sent a text to the prospect to come outside and meet the coach. The in-person conversation lasted approximately two minutes, during which the prospect gave the coach his social media contact information.
Audience Poll Do you believe that a violation was committed? A.Violation B.No violation
Audience Poll Is this violation Level II (Significant Breach of Conduct) or Level III (Breach of Conduct)? A.Level II B.Level III
Facts of Case Study No. 2b The prospect at issue is a high school junior. The assistant football coach visits the prospect's high school where they have in-person contact. Contact was facilitated by the prospect's high school coach, who sent a text to the prospect to come to his office and meet the coach. Once the prospect arrived, he and the coach step into another room and speak for 10 minutes.
Audience Poll Do you believe that a violation was committed? A.Violation B.No Violation
Audience Poll Is this violation Level II (Significant Breach of Conduct) or Level III (Breach of Conduct)? A.Level II B.Level III
Case Study No. 3: Unethical Conduct and Extra Benefits
Bylaw 10.1-(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid.
Bylaw 10.1-(d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual's institution false or misleading information concerning an individual's involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation.
Facts of Case Study 3 A booster of Institution X initiates contact with an assistant football coach at Institution X, to let him know about a talented prospect in booster's locale. The assistant football coach is already recruiting the prospect, and he and the booster develop a friendly relationship. The booster contacts the prospect and also develops a relationship with him.
Facts of Case Study 3 During the next eight months, the booster exchanges 120 phone calls with the prospect. The booster also provides the following inducements: $100 on two-occasions (which involved in-person off-campus contact at a pregame tailgate during the prospect's official paid visit); $300 visa gift card; $60 Institution X jacket; Use of a rental car to make an unofficial visit to Institution X; A car to the prospect's mother at a $2,000 discount; and A promise of $6,000 if the prospect declined to take an official paid visit to Institution Y. The booster and football coach also exchange numerous phone calls with each other, which included 25 calls on or near the times and dates of calls and contacts between the booster and the prospect.
Facts The prospect reported the violations. The booster denied providing the inducements. The assistant football coach denied having knowledge of contact between the booster and the prospect or of any recruiting inducements. The booster and the assistant football coach exchanged 150 phone calls with each other, which included 30 calls on or near the times and dates of calls and contacts between the booster and the prospect.
Audience Poll Should the assistant football coach be charged with unethical conduct? A.Yes B.No
Audience Poll Is this violation Level I (Severe Breach of Conduct) or Level II (Significant Breach of Conduct)? A.Level I B.Level II
Case Study No. 4: Academic Misconduct
Bylaw 10.1-(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete.
Facts of Case Study 4a During the spring semester, a university instructor provided academic assistance to five football student-athletes in another instructor's course when she completed online quizzes and exams for the student-athletes. The institution discovered the academic misconduct two weeks later and issued failing grades to the student-athletes. The institution's academic integrity committee reviewed the matter and determined misconduct occurred.
Audience Poll Is this a violation of 10.1-(b) (i.e. it must be reported to the NCAA enforcement staff)? A.Yes B.No
Audience Poll Why does the violation have to be reported to the NCAA? A.Institutional staff member involvement. B.Student-athlete involvement in arranging fraudulent academic credit. C.Competition while ineligible. D.A and B. E.A, B and C.
Audience Poll Is this violation Level I (Severe Breach of Conduct) or Level II (Significant Breach of Conduct)? A.Level I B.Level II
Facts of Case Study 4b During one semester, a university instructor provided academic assistance to three student- athletes when she provided answers to some questions to online quizzes and exams and assisted in the completion of some questions to online quizzes and exams. The assistance the instructor provided amounted to 25% of the required coursework. The institution's academic integrity committee determined that the assistance provided by the instructor was not significant enough to constitute academic misconduct.
Audience Poll Is this a violation of 10.1-(b)? A.Yes B.No
Audience Poll Why doesn't the institution have to provide the matter to the NCAA? A.The instructor provided incorrect answers. B.The institution's academic integrity unit determined that no fraud occurred. C.The student-athletes weren't at fault for the instructor's actions.
Open Dialogue/Questions
Open Dialogue What is on your mind? What are your biggest issues? How can the enforcement staff help?
Contacts and Resources If you need help or advice: Contact the enforcement staff. Contact your conference office. Contact the NCAA Academic & Membership Affairs hotline 317/ Visit the NCAA website ( – follow links to enforcement information and databases.