CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT JANUARY 24, 2014

Transcription

1 CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT JANUARY 24, 2014 A. INTRODUCTION. The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from the NCAA Division II membership and the public charged with adjudicating infractions cases involving member institutions and their staff. This case involves Clark Atlanta University, the institution's former head men's basketball coach, an assistant men's basketball coach and a former volunteer men's basketball coach. The committee considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process, in which all parties agree to the primary facts and violations, as fully set forth in the Summary Disposition Report (SDR). 1 At issue in this case were allegations that the assistant coach and the former volunteer coach provided impermissible extra benefits to men's basketball student-athletes. The case also involved a failure by the former head coach to monitor the assistant and the volunteer coach, who reported directly to him. Specifically, the assistant coach and the former volunteer coach arranged for or directly provided approximately $5,500 to $6,250 in cash, an airline "buddy ticket" and meals. The case also involves the institution allowing three student-athletes to compete while ineligible and failing to monitor its athletics program. Finally, the parties agreed that the assistant coach and the former volunteer coach engaged in unethical conduct. The committee concludes that the parties' agreed-upon facts and violations constitute major violations of NCAA bylaws and that the following principal penalties are appropriate: two years of probation, vacation of certain contests and show-cause sanctions directed at the conduct of the former head coach, the assistant coach and the former volunteer coach. The institution, the head coach and the assistant coach, agreed to the penalties; therefore, there is no appeal option. I. CASE HISTORY The NCAA enforcement staff received a call on August 1, 2011, alleging that, during the academic year, a women's tennis student-athlete ("student-athlete 1") had 1 The institution, with an enrollment of approximately 3,900, is a member of the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SIAC). It sponsors five men's sports and six women's sports. This was the institution's first major infractions case.

2 Page No. 2 competed while ineligible. In March 2012, the staff conducted initial interviews on the institution's campus. During a subsequent investigation, the staff developed information regarding the potential provision of impermissible benefits by the men's basketball coaching staff to members of the men's basketball squad. The potential benefits included cash, an airline ticket and meals, as well as the provision of a personal identification number (PIN) to a men's basketball student-athlete ("student-athlete 2") by the assistant men's basketball coach ("assistant coach"). 2 Having the PIN allowed student-athlete 2 to register for courses in a manner that allowed him to retain his eligibility for practice and competition. The investigation further revealed that two men's basketball student-athletes had competed while ineligible in On March 29, 2012, the enforcement staff provided a verbal notice of inquiry to the institution. A year later, March 29, 2013, the staff provided proposed findings to the institution, the former head coach ("head coach"), the assistant coach and the former volunteer coach ("volunteer coach"). All parties agreed to the proposed findings, thus a summary disposition report was prepared and filed with the committee on June 20, On August 29, 2013, the committee reviewed the SDR. It accepted the findings of violations but, in letters dated September 4, proposed further penalties to the institution and all three coaches. On October 11, through an from the institution's chief compliance officer, the assistant coach agreed to the sanctions proposed by the committee. The head coach informed the Office of the Committees on Infractions by telephone on November 15, 2013, that he agreed to the sanctions against him. The volunteer coach did not agree to the proposed penalties and requested an expedited hearing pursuant to NCAA Bylaw The hearing was held via videoconference on November 15, II. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS AND VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identifies an agreed-upon predicate factual basis and violations of NCAA legislation. The SDR identifies: 1. The Assistant Coach and Volunteer Coach Provided Impermissible Benefits to Student-Athletes. [NCAA Bylaw ] 2 For purposes of this report, the former head coach and former volunteer assistant coach will be referred to as "head coach" and "volunteer coach," respectively, because they were in those positions when the violations occurred. The assistant coach remains employed as an assistant men's basketball coach at the institution.

3 Page No. 3 Between August 2011 and March 2012, the assistant coach and volunteer coach provided several men's basketball student-athletes extra benefits. Specifically: a. Between January and March 2012, the volunteer coach arranged for four men's basketball student-athletes ("student-athletes 3, 4, 5 and 6," respectively) to receive approximately $4,600 to $4,800 in cash. Student-athlete 3 received approximately $1,000, studentathlete 4 received approximately $1,100, student-athlete 5 received approximately $1,000 and student-athlete 6 received approximately $1,500 to $1,700. b. In December 2011, the volunteer coach arranged for a men's basketball student-athlete ("student-athlete 7") to obtain a roundtrip airline ticket for a discount of approximately $750 to $1,250 by securing a discounted "buddy" ticket through his sister, an airlines employee. c. Between August 2011 and March 2012, the volunteer coach used his personal funds to provide the institution's men's basketball team impermissible meals worth approximately $200 following offcampus contests. d. In December 2011, the assistant coach obtained student-athlete 2's personal identification number from the institution's registrar's office and provided it to student-athlete 2, which enabled him to register for courses in a manner outside the institution's established procedures for student registration and unavailable to nonstudentathletes, and thus, remain eligible for practice and competition. 2. The Institution Allowed Three Student-Athletes to Practice, Compete and Receive Travel Expenses While Ineligible. [NCAA Bylaws , 14.2, , , , and ] During the and academic years, student-athlete 1 competed while ineligible, and student-athlete 2 and another men's basketball student-athlete ("student-athlete 8") practiced and competed while ineligible. Specifically: a. Regarding student-athlete 1, the four-year college transfer competed in intercollegiate tennis matches during the academic year, even though she had not served a year of residence at the institution. Further, student-athlete 1 competed during the

4 Page No academic year even though she previously engaged in four seasons of intercollegiate competition and exhausted her eligibility. Additionally, during both years that student-athlete 1 competed while ineligible, the institution provided her with actual and necessary travel expenses for her participation in these competitions. Finally, the institution knew or should have known that studentathlete 1 was ineligible to compete as a result of a disciplinary suspension and having previously engaged in four seasons of competition; however, it did not withhold her. [NCAA Bylaws 14.2, , , , and ] b. Regarding student-athletes 2 and 8, during the 2012 spring semester, the student-athletes were enrolled in less than a full-time program of studies in that three of their 12 semester hours were for courses for which they previously received academic transfer credit. As a result, they practiced for approximately nine weeks and competed in 23 men's basketball contests while ineligible. Additionally, during the semester that student-athletes 2 and 8 competed while ineligible, the institution provided them with actual and necessary travel expenses for their participation in these contests. Finally, on February 6, 2012, athletics administrators learned that student-athlete 2 was not properly enrolled as a full-time student and was ineligible for practice and competition but failed to withhold him from practice and competition. [NCAA Bylaws , and ] 3. Unethical Conduct by the Volunteer Coach. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d)] Between August 2011 and July 2012, the volunteer coach violated the principles of ethical conduct when he failed to deport himself in accordance with generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by (a) knowingly providing men's basketball student-athletes extra benefits and (b) knowingly furnishing false and misleading information about his involvement in providing the extra benefits. Specifically:

5 Page No. 5 a. The volunteer coach knowingly provided cash, a discounted airline ticket and impermissible meals to men's basketball studentathletes, as detailed in Finding Nos. 1-a through 1-c. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1 and 10.1-(c)] b. During his July 12, 2012, interview with the institution and NCAA enforcement staff, the volunteer coach denied his involvement in providing the extra benefits identified in Finding Nos. 1-a through 1-c, when in fact he had. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1 and (d)] 4. Unethical Conduct by the Assistant Coach. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d)] Between December 2011 and November 2012, the assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct when he failed to deport himself in accordance with generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics by (a) knowingly providing an extra benefit to student-athlete 2 and (b) knowingly furnishing false and misleading information about his involvement in providing the extra benefit. Specifically: a. The assistant coach knowingly provided student-athlete 2 the course registration benefit detailed in Finding No. 1-d. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1, 10.1-(c)] b. During his July 12 and November 13, 2012, interviews with the institution and NCAA enforcement staff, the assistant coach denied his involvement in providing the extra benefit identified in Finding No. 1-d. [NCAA Bylaws , 10.1, 10.1-(d)] 5. The Head Coach Failed to Monitor His Assistant Coaches. [NCAA Bylaw ] During the academic year, the head coach failed to monitor whether the activities of his assistant coaches were in compliance with NCAA legislation. Specifically, the head coach failed to monitor the activities of two of his assistant coaches who provided cash, a discounted airline ticket, impermissible meals and a course registration benefit to men's basketball student-athletes, as detailed in Finding No. 1.

6 Page No The Institution Failed to Monitor the Men's Basketball and Women's Tennis Programs. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1] The scope and nature of the violations in Finding Nos. 1 and 2 demonstrate that the institution failed to monitor its men's basketball and women's tennis programs in that the institution failed to assure that (a) its men's basketball coaches were operating the program in compliance with NCAA legislation and (b) its men's basketball and women's tennis studentathletes were eligible for competition. Further, the institution failed to ensure that a violation was properly reported to the NCAA enforcement staff. Specifically: a. Regarding the institution's failure to assure its men's basketball coaches were operating the program in compliance with NCAA legislation, during the academic year, the institution failed to monitor the volunteer coach and assistant coach, which enabled the volunteer coach to provide approximately $5,550 to $6,250 in impermissible benefits to men's basketball student-athletes and the assistant coach to provide impermissible academic registration benefits to a then men's basketball student-athlete, as detailed in Finding No. 1. b. Regarding the institution's failure to assure that its men's basketball and women's tennis student-athletes were eligible for competition, during the and academic years, athletics administrators should have known that the student-athletes were ineligible for competition; however, they failed to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the relevant NCAA legislation and monitor initial and continuing eligibility, thereby allowing studentathletes to compete while ineligible, as detailed in Finding No. 2. c. Regarding the institution's failure to ensure that a violation was properly reported to the enforcement staff, in May 2012, the associate athletics director for compliance submitted a violation report related to student-athlete 2 practicing and competing while ineligible, as detailed in Finding No. 2-b, to the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (SIAC) office; however, the athletics administrator's report contained factual inaccuracies related to the reason for and the duration of student-athlete 2 s ineligibility. Further, he failed to follow proper SIAC protocol and to report the violation to the enforcement staff.

7 Page No. 7 III. REVIEW OF VIOLATIONS The submitted SDR fully details the parties' positions in the infractions case, including the agreed-upon primary facts, violations and explanations. In concluding that the facts constitute violations, the committee has fully reviewed the applicable bylaws and the jointly submitted SDR. The committee accepts the SDR and concludes that the primary facts detailed in Section III establish violations of NCAA legislation. As detailed in Section III of the decision, this case involved numerous extra benefits associated with the men's basketball program. Further, one tennis student-athlete and two men's basketball student-athletes were permitted to practice, compete and receive travel expenses while ineligible. Additionally, the assistant coach and the volunteer coach committed unethical conduct when they provided impermissible benefits to studentathletes and denied their involvement in providing those benefits when interviewed by the enforcement staff. Under Bylaw , head coaches are responsible for their respective programs. In this case, the head coach failed to monitor his assistant coaches. As a result of his failure to monitor his staff, violations involving his coaches and student-athletes occurred. The institution also acknowledged that it failed to monitor the men's basketball and women's tennis programs. Athletics department personnel misapplied NCAA legislation pertaining to disciplinary suspensions and did not recognize that, during , student-athlete 1 was competing in a fifth season. Similarly, staff members failed to apply institutional rules regarding full-time enrollment, which allowed student-athletes 2 and 7 to practice, compete and receive travel-related expenses at times they were enrolled as part-time students. When the institution reported the violation regarding student-athlete 2 competing while ineligible to the conference office, it incorrectly stated that he had only competed in one contest while ineligible. Prior to the report being made to the conference office, studentathlete 2 dropped from 12 hours (including the class he had already received credit for) to nine and played in one game while so enrolled. The institution did not recognize that he had been ineligible all semester and only reported that he had appeared in one contest impermissibly, rather than 23. IV. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this report, the Committee on Infractions concludes that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation. The committee is the independent administrative body of the NCAA charged with

8 Page No. 8 adjudicating infractions cases involving member institutions and their employees. In keeping with its mandate and in consideration of the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, the committee issues the following penalties. The committee also considered the institution's cooperation in the processing of this case. Cooperation during the infractions process is addressed in NCAA Bylaw Responsibility to Cooperate and NCAA Bylaw , Cooperative Principle. The committee finds that the cooperation exhibited by the institution was consistent with its obligation under the bylaws. The committee notes that the institution acted decisively to investigate information it received regarding possible violations, self-discovered and selfreported the violations and cooperated with NCAA investigators. As the institution, head coach, assistant coach and volunteer coach agreed to the factual findings and violations, there is no opportunity to appeal any of the factual findings. The institution, in addition to its self-imposed sanctions, agreed to the imposition of further penalties. Similarly, the head coach agreed to the imposition of the show-cause order, set forth below as Penalty V-10, and the assistant coach agreed to the imposition of the show-cause order set forth below as Penalty V-11. The volunteer coach did not agree to the imposition of his showcause order, set forth below as Penalty V-12. He, therefore, has the opportunity to appeal his show-cause order. The committee prescribes the following penalties. Those self-imposed by the institution are so noted, and the institution's corrective actions are contained in the Appendix: General Administrative Penalties 1. Public reprimand and censure. 2. Three years of probation from, through January 23, (The institution proposed a one-year probationary period for the basketball and tennis programs.) 3. The institution shall pay a fine of $5,000 to the Association. Penalties for the Men's Basketball Program 4. All men's basketball coaches will be required to attend NCAA sponsored training around issues dealing with rules compliance. (Institution imposed) 5. The men's basketball program will be limited to nine total grants-in-aid for the academic year.

9 Page No The institution shall vacate all wins in which student-athletes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 participated from the time they became ineligible through the time their eligibility was reinstated. (Institution imposed) The individual statistics of the affected student-athletes shall also be vacated. There shall be no reconfiguring of finishes for the affected teams. The vacations shall be effectuated pursuant to Bylaws (g) and and apply to regular season competition, conference tournaments and NCAA postseason competition. Further, the institution's records regarding men's basketball, as well as the record of the head coach, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution, which may subsequently hire the head coach, shall similarly reflect the vacated results in his career records documented in media guides and other publications cited above. Any public reference to these vacated results shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Finally, to ensure that all institutional and student-athlete vacations, statistics and records are accurately reflected in official NCAA publications and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA director of statistics and appropriate conference officials to identify the specific student-athletes and contests impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA statistics department a written report detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document will be maintained in the permanent files of the statistics department. This written report must be delivered to the NCAA statistics department no later than 45 days following the initial Committee on Infractions release. Penalties for the Tennis Program 7. Revocation of 2011 SIAC Championship for women's tennis. (Institution imposed) 8. The women's tennis program shall be limited to four total grants-in-aid for the academic year. 9. The institution shall vacate all individual records and performances of studentathlete 1 from the time she became ineligible through the time her eligibility was reinstated. (Institution imposed) There shall be no reconfiguring of finishes for the affected teams. The vacations shall be effectuated pursuant to Bylaws (g) and and apply to regular season competition, conference tournaments

10 Page No. 10 and NCAA postseason competition. Further, the institution's records regarding tennis, as well as the record of the head women's tennis coach at the time of the violations, will reflect the vacated records and will be recorded in all publications in which tennis records are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution which may subsequently hire the head women's tennis coach shall similarly reflect the vacated results in the coach's career records documented in media guides and other publications cited above. Any public reference to these vacated results shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Finally, to ensure that all institutional and student-athlete vacations, statistics and records are accurately reflected in official NCAA publication and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA director of statistics and appropriate conference officials to identify the specific student-athlete(s) and contest(s) impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA statistics department a written report, detailing those discussions with the director of statistics. This document will be maintained in the permanent files of the statistics department. This written report must be delivered to the NCAA statistics department no later than 45 days following the initial Committee on Infractions release. Penalties for the Head Coach's Conduct 10. The head coach failed to monitor his assistant coaches. As a result, he was unaware that they had provided impermissible benefits to members of the men's basketball team. Therefore, the committee prescribes a one-year show-cause order for the conduct of the head coach. During the year, which begins on, and ends January 23, 2015, the head coach shall attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar. Within 30 days of the release of this report or 30 days after the hiring of the head coach, whichever is later, any employing institution shall file a report with the Committee on Infractions setting forth its agreement with these restrictions or asking for a date to appear before the committee to contest the restrictions. Every six months thereafter through the end of the show-cause period, the employing institution shall file further reports detailing its adherence to these restrictions.

11 Page No. 11 Penalties for the Assistant Coach's Conduct 11. The assistant coach obtained student-athlete 2's PIN and provided it to studentathlete 2 so that student-athlete 2 could register for classes in a manner unavailable to the general student body. By doing so, student-athlete 2 was able to retain his eligibility for practice and competition. Further, the assistant coach provided false or misleading information regarding the violations. Therefore, the committee prescribes a two-year show-cause order for the conduct of the assistant coach. During this period, which begins on, and ends January 23, 2016, the committee restricts his athletically related duties at this and any employing institution as follows: a. Within 30 days of the release of the infractions report, he shall fully and truthfully divulge to appropriate institutional official how he obtained student-athlete 2's PIN; b. During the first year the show-cause is in effect, he shall attend ethics training and an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar; and c. For the full term of the show-cause order, he shall have no involvement in any academic scheduling, registration and advising of student-athletes. Within 30 days of the release of this report or 30 days after the hiring of the assistant coach, whichever is later, any employing institution shall file a report with the Committee on Infractions setting forth its agreement with these restrictions or asking for a date to appear before the committee to contest the restrictions. Every six months thereafter through the end of the show-cause period, the employing institution shall file further reports detailing its adherence to these restrictions. Penalties for the Volunteer Coach's Conduct 12. The volunteer coach arranged for student-athletes to receive cash tax refund payments. He arranged for a discount airline ticket for a student-athlete and provided impermissible meals to members of the men's basketball team. Further, he provided false or misleading information regarding the violations. Therefore, the committee prescribes a one-year show-cause for the conduct of the volunteer coach. During the year, which runs from, and ends January 23, 2015, the committee restricts his athletically related duties at any employing institution as follows:

12 Page No. 12 a. During the period the show-cause order is in effect, the volunteer coach shall attend ethics training and a Regional Rules Seminar; b. For the full term of the show-cause order, the volunteer coach will personally meet with the compliance office following every away-fromhome contest and file a written accounting of all funds he spent from the time the team departed campus until its return. Within 30 days of the release of this report or 30 days after the hiring of the volunteer coach, whichever is later, any employing institution shall file a report with the Committee on Infractions setting forth its agreement with these restrictions or asking for a date to appear before the committee to contest the restrictions. Every six months thereafter, through the end of the show-cause period, the employing institution shall file further reports detailing its adherence to these restrictions. Other Administrative Penalties and Measures 13. The institution shall request a review of its athletics compliance procedures from an outside entity familiar with NCAA compliance requirements. If necessary, the institution may contact the NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs department to obtain a list of potential reviewers. 14. 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 March 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 by November 15 each year of the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on establishing an eligibility certification system, educating coaches regarding allowable travel expenses, and establishing a system for reporting NCAA rules violations to the conference and national

13 Page No. 13 office. The report must include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and prescribed by the committee. 15. During the period of probation, the institution shall: a. Inform prospective student-athletes in women's tennis and men's basketball that the institution is on probation for three years and provide detail regarding the violations committed. The information must be provided as soon as practicable after the prospective student-athlete is recruited pursuant to Bylaw and, in all instances, before a prospective student-athlete signs a financial aid agreement or initially enrolls at the institution, whichever is earlier. 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 department's main webpage. The information shall also be included in the media guides for the involved sports and in recruiting materials (see 11.a above). 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. The institution may meet its responsibility in a variety of ways and the Office of the Committees on Infraction's approval of the statement will not be unreasonably withheld. 16. 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 Committee on Infractions 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 imposing more severe sanctions or may result in additional allegations and findings of violations. An institution that employs an

14 Page No. 14 individual while a show-cause order is in effect against that individual, and fails to adhere to the penalties imposed, subjects itself to allegations and possible findings of violations. As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Clark Atlanta University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw , concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case,. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Douglas D. Blais Jean Paul Bradshaw II Julie A. Rochester, chair Carey J. Snyder Jane Teixeira Bridget Lyons

15 Page No. 15 APPENDIX CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S JUNE 20, 2013, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT. 1. Issue written reprimand to the head coach to exercise a greater level of oversight in ensuring that all assistant coaches are aware of and operating consistent with University policies and procedures and NCAA guidelines and regulations, specifically in the area of extra benefits. 2. Issue written reprimand to the assistant coach regarding his role in assisting one of the student-athletes in obtaining his BANNER ID and PIN in his efforts to register for classes. 3. Require attendance of all tennis team coaches to NCAA sponsored training around issues dealing with player eligibility. 4. Issue written letter of reprimand to associate director of athletics for compliance for failure to appropriately follow up on eligibility issues relative to the student-athletes involved. 5. Issue written letter of reprimand to the athletic director for her lack of oversight in monitoring for athletics compliance, in particular, the issue with the tennis player's eligibility. 6. Reorganize the department so that the athletics compliance director no longer has the dual responsibility of associate athletics director and having that individual report directly to the vice president for enrollment services and student affairs, and continue to have a dotted line report to the university chief compliance officer. 7. Ensure a greater level of administrative oversight over the athletics academic advising process to ensure that university policies and procedures are followed for the advisement of all student-athletes.