THE GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION SEPTEMBER 4, 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 deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs. 1 This case involves the Georgia Institute of Technology. 2 It also involves the institution's former assistant football coach. 3 The committee, through a seven-member panel, considers this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agreed to the primary facts, violations and violation levels, as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR). Further, the institution and the involved individual agree to the penalties; therefore, there is no opportunity to appeal. The institution, the assistant football coach and the enforcement staff are parties to the case. The institution is presently on probation for past infractions in its football and men's basketball programs. 4 The current case centers on impermissible telephone and text communications that occurred in a number of the institution's athletics programs but predominately in the institution's sports of football and men's and women's basketball. Specifically, for approximately one year, the institution's football and men's basketball programs engaged in numerous impermissible telephone related communications. The football program staff placed 37 impermissible telephone calls and sent 221 impermissible text messages. Similarly, the men's basketball program staff placed 209 impermissible telephone calls and sent 20 impermissible text messages. Additionally, over an 18-month period, the women's basketball program staff engaged in a continuous 1 Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions members. Decisions issued by hearing panels are made on behalf of the Committee on Infractions. 2 A member of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the institution's total enrollment is approximately 21,500. The institution sponsors nine men's sports and eight women's sports. This is the institution's fourth infractions case. The institution also had previous infractions cases in 2011 (football and men's basketball), 2005 (football, men's and women's cross country, men's and women's track indoor and outdoor, men's and women's swimming) and 1989 (football). 3 For purposes of this decision, the former assistant football coach will be referred to as "assistant football coach," because he held that position when the violations occurred. He is no longer employed by the institution. 4 As a result of the violations, the committee issued Infractions Decision No. 345 and prescribed a four-year probationary period, fine, recruiting restrictions in men's basketball and vacation of victories in football. The committee also prescribed educational and reporting requirements.
Page No. 2 pattern of telephone-related recruiting violations and failed to report some of those violations after becoming aware of them. The assistant football coach is considered "at risk" for his part in the football program's violations. He personally accounted for 225 impermissible communications. The assistant football coach agreed that he placed eight impermissible telephone calls and sent 217 impermissible text messages. Further, from 2010 to 2011, a number of the institution's sport programs also engaged in impermissible telephone-related activity. Cumulatively, members of the four sports programs placed three impermissible calls and sent 31 impermissible text messages. The violations occurred in the men's and women's swim and dive, volleyball and baseball programs. The institution and the assistant football coach did not dispute the facts and violations. Further, the institution agreed that all of these violations demonstrate that the institution failed to monitor its sport programs to ensure compliance regarding telephone communication with prospective student-athletes from March 2011 through March 2012. In part, the institution's failure to monitor resulted from a compliance officer misadvising coaching staff members about documentation requirements and the institution's failure to follow its established telephone monitoring procedures. Finally, during the course of the case's investigation and apart from the violations giving rise to the institution's failure to monitor, coaching staff members in five of the institution's sport programs placed 12 impermissible telephone calls and sent 12 impermissible text messages. These violations involved coaching staff members from the softball, women's tennis, men's and women's swim and dive, football and men's basketball programs. The panel accepts the parties' SDR. The panel concludes that the parties' agreed-upon facts and violations constitute violations of NCAA bylaws. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel prescribes the following principal core and administrative penalties and corrective measures: an additional two years of probation; enhanced rules education; notification and publication requirements and a one-year showcause order for the assistant football coach's conduct. II. CASE HISTORY Violations in this case began at the institution in March 2011 and occurred in the football and women's basketball programs. On April 15, 2011, the institution appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions for major violations that occurred in the
Page No. 3 institution's football and men's basketball programs. Three days later, the first impermissible call occurred in the men's basketball program. The following month, women's basketball assistant coaches discovered that they committed telephone call violations, but did not report the violations to the compliance staff or their head coach. In January 2012, the institution discovered possible NCAA recruiting communication violations in the institution's football program. The institution retained counsel and initiated an investigation into the potential violations. In August, the institution met with the enforcement staff to discuss the results of its investigation and discuss next steps. The institution and counsel continued to investigate possible recruiting violations until March 2013, when the institution submitted a self-report to the NCAA enforcement staff. In July, the enforcement staff joined the institution in a cooperative inquiry. The following month the enforcement staff issued a verbal notice of inquiry. Six months later, the enforcement staff provided a notice of allegations to the institution and the former assistant football coach. The institution, assistant football coach and the enforcement staff agreed to use the summary disposition process. On May 13, 2014, roughly 21 months after the institution first alerted the enforcement staff of discovered violations, the parties jointly submitted the SDR to the committee. A panel reviewed the SDR on June 25, 2014. In a June 27 letter, the panel requested additional information. The panel requested a report from a 2013 outside audit that the institution identified, but did not provide, in an exhibit to the SDR. Three days after the request, the institution's counsel supplied the report. In a July 9 letter, the panel requested further written documentation. The panel requested documentation demonstrating the institution's response to the 2013 audit. The following week counsel submitted the requested information. In determining penalties, the panel reviewed the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The panel also considered the restrictions and corrective measures placed on the assistant football coach by his current employing institution. After full consideration, the panel determined that the case warranted additional penalties. On July 23, 2014, the panel proposed additional, as well as standard administrative penalties, to the institution and assistant football coach. On July 30, both the institution and the assistant football coach accepted the additional proposed penalties.
Page No. 4 III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS, VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION AND VIOLATION LEVELS The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identifies an agreed-upon factual basis and violations of NCAA legislation. The SDR identifies: 1. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.2 and 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12) (Level II) The NCAA enforcement staff, institution and the assistant football coach, agree that between March 2011 and February 2012, the assistant football coach and other members of the football coaching staff violated NCAA recruiting communication legislation by sending 221 impermissible text messages and placing 37 impermissible telephone calls to 35 prospective student-athletes. Specifically: a. Between April 7, 2011, and January 8, 2012, the assistant football coach sent 217 impermissible text messages to 18 prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. Between March 24, 2011, and January 4, 2012, four members of the football coaching staff sent a total of four impermissible text messages to three prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] c. Between March 2011 and February 2012, eight members of the football coaching staff placed a total of 37 impermissible telephone calls to 17 prospective student-athletes. Specifically: (1) Of the 37 total impermissible telephone calls, 20 occurred due to calls placed after a member of the coaching staff already made one permissible call to the prospective student-athlete during the legislated time period. Some of the violations were due to systemic logging failures wherein a member of the football coaching staff placed an impermissible call after another coaching staff member placed an earlier permissible call but failed to log the prior call and/or document why a call should not be a countable recruiting call. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)]
Page No. 5 (2) Of the 37 total impermissible telephone calls, 17 occurred due to calls placed prior to the permissible time to contact the prospective student-athlete. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] 2. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.3 and 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12) (Level II) The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that between April 2011 and March 2012, members of the men's basketball coaching staff violated NCAA recruiting communication legislation by sending 20 impermissible text messages and placing 209 impermissible telephone calls to 44 men's basketball prospective student-athletes. Specifically: a. Between April 2011 and March 2012, four members of the men's basketball staff sent a total of 20 impermissible text messages to 10 prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. Between April 2011 and March 2012, four members of the men's basketball staff placed a total of 209 impermissible telephone calls to 44 prospective student-athletes. Specifically: (1) Of the 209 total impermissible telephone calls, 204 occurred due to calls placed after a member of the coaching staff already made one permissible call to the prospective student-athlete during the legislated time period. Some of the violations were due to systemic logging failures wherein a member of the men's basketball coaching staff placed an impermissible call after another coaching staff member placed an earlier permissible call but failed to log the prior call and/or document why a call should not be a countable recruiting call. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.3 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] (2) Of the 209 total impermissible telephone calls, five occurred due to calls placed prior to the permissible time to contact the prospective student-athlete. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.3 (2010-11 and 2011-12)]
Page No. 6 3. NCAA Division I Manual Constitution 2.8.1 and Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.4 and 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 through 2012-13) (Level II) The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that between March 2011 and September 2012, members of the women's basketball staff violated NCAA recruiting communication legislation by sending 15 impermissible text messages and placing 215 impermissible telephone calls to 39 prospective student-athletes. Additionally, members of the women's basketball staff became aware that some of those calls were impermissible and failed to report those violations. Specifically: a. Between March 2011 and March 2012, five members of the women's basketball staff sent a total of 14 impermissible text messages to five prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. Between March 2011 and March 2012, five members of the women's basketball staff placed a total of 206 impermissible telephone calls to 31 prospective student-athletes. Specifically: (1) Of the 206 impermissible telephone calls, 70 occurred due to calls placed after a member of the coaching staff already made one permissible call to the prospective student-athlete during the legislated time period. Some of the violations were due to systemic logging failures wherein a member of the women's basketball coaching staff placed an impermissible call after another coaching staff member placed an earlier permissible call but failed to log the prior call and/or document why a call should not be a countable recruiting call. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.4 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] (2) Of the 206 impermissible telephone calls, 128 occurred due to calls placed once per week during the months of April and May 2011, when the recruiting communication legislation permitted only one call per month. In May 2011, three assistant women's basketball coaches became aware that they had violated recruiting communication legislation over this one-month period but failed to alert the head women's basketball coach of the violations and/or report the matter to the compliance staff. The violations were not discovered by the institution until January 2012.
Page No. 7 [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 and Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.4 (2010-11)] (3) Of the 206 impermissible telephone calls, eight occurred due to calls placed prior to the permissible time to contact the prospective student-athlete. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.4 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] c. Between March and September 2012, the violation pattern of the women's basketball staff continued when, after the discovery of the previous year's violations, four members of the women's basketball staff sent one impermissible text message and placed nine impermissible telephone calls to seven prospective studentathletes. The impermissible calls occurred due to calls placed after a member of the coaching staff already made one permissible call to the prospective student-athlete during the legislated time period. Some of the violations were due to systemic logging failures wherein a member of the women's basketball coaching staff placed an impermissible call after another coaching staff member placed an earlier permissible call but failed to log the prior call and/or document why a call should not be a countable recruiting call. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.4 and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] 4. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12) (Level III) The NCAA enforcement staff and the institution agree that from 2010 through 2011, coaches from three different sport programs (sport programs not identified in Allegation Nos. 1, 2 or 3) violated NCAA recruiting communication legislation by sending 31 impermissible text messages and placing three impermissible telephone calls to three prospective student-athletes. Specifically: a. In March and September 2011, a men's and women's swimming and diving coach sent a total of 28 impermissible text messages to a prospective student-athlete. [NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. In August 2010, an assistant women's volleyball coach sent three impermissible text messages to a prospective student-athlete. In addition, the assistant women's volleyball coach placed two impermissible telephone calls to the prospective student-athlete.
Page No. 8 The calls were placed after the coach had already placed one permissible call to the prospective student-athlete during the legislated time period. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.4.1.2 (2010-11)] c. In September 2010, an assistant baseball coach placed one impermissible telephone call to a prospective student-athlete. The call was placed after the coach had already placed one permissible call to the prospective student-athlete during the legislated time period. [NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1 (2010-11)] 5. NCAA Division I Manual Constitution 2.8.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12) (Level II) The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that the scope and nature of the violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 4 demonstrate that the institution failed to adequately monitor its sport programs to ensure compliance regarding telephone communication with prospective student-athletes from March 2011 through March 2012. Specifically: a. In 2011, a member of the compliance staff misadvised coaching staff members in that after the institution received new electronic monitoring software, the compliance staff member informed the coaching staffs that they were no longer required to maintain contemporaneous records to document the placement of telephone calls. Partly as a result, the violations outlined in Allegation Nos. 1 through 4 occurred. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] b. From May 2011 to January 2012, the institution failed to follow its established compliance system to monitor telephone calls. Partly as a result, the violations outlined in Allegation Nos. 1 through 4 occurred. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12)] 6. NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.1, 13.1.3.1.2, 13.1.3.1.3 and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12 and 2012-13) (Level III) The NCAA enforcement staff and institution agree that between March 2012 and March 2013, coaches from five different sport programs violated NCAA recruiting communication legislation by sending 12 impermissible text messages and placing 12 impermissible telephone calls to 19 prospective student-athletes. Specifically:
Page No. 9 a. Four members of the football coaching staff sent a total of 10 impermissible text messages and placed five impermissible telephone calls to 12 prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.2 and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] b. Two members of the men's basketball coaching staff placed a total of two impermissible telephone calls to two prospective studentathletes. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.3 and 13.4.1.2 (2011-12 and 2012-13)] c. One member of the softball coaching staff placed one impermissible telephone call to a prospective student-athlete. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.1.3.1.1 (2012-13)] d. One member of the women's tennis coaching staff sent one impermissible text message and placed three impermissible telephone calls to two prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.4.1.2 (2012-13)] e. Two members of the men's and women's swimming and diving coaching staff sent one impermissible text message and placed one impermissible telephone call to two prospective student-athletes. [NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1 and 13.4.1.2 (2012-13)] B. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2-(g), the parties agreed to the following aggravating and mitigating factors: 1. Agreed-upon aggravating and mitigating factors. [NCAA Bylaws 19.9.2 and 19.9.4] a. Aggravating factors. (1) Institution. (a) Bylaw 19.9.3-(b). A history of Level I, II or major violations by the institution. Specifically, the institution had a major infractions case involving men's basketball and football in 2011.
Page No. 10 (b) (c) Bylaw 19.9.3-(g). Multiple Level II violations by the institution or involved individual. Specifically, as outlined in Allegation Nos. 1, 2 and 3, this case involves a significant number of text message and telephone call violations in three sport programs. The violations within each sport program would constitute a Level II violation in and of themselves, therefore resulting in multiple Level II violations in the overall case. Bylaw 19.9.3-(m). Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. Specifically, as outlined in Allegation No. 1-a, the assistant football coach demonstrated a blatant disregard for NCAA legislation in that he was aware that NCAA legislation prohibited the transmission of text messages to prospective student-athletes, and despite this knowledge, he sent numerous impermissible text messages to prospective student-athletes. In addition, three women's assistant basketball coaches demonstrated a disregard for NCAA legislation when they discovered that they had committed violations but did not report the violations to the head coach or compliance staff. (2) Involved Individual the assistant football coach. (a) Bylaw 19.9.3-(m). Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. Specifically, as outlined in Allegation No. 1-a, the assistant football coach demonstrated a blatant disregard for NCAA legislation in that he was aware that NCAA legislation prohibited the transmission of text messages to prospective student-athletes, and despite this knowledge, he sent numerous impermissible text messages to prospective student-athletes.
Page No. 11 b. Mitigating factors. (1) Institution. (a) (b) Bylaw 19.9.4-(b). Prompt acknowledgement of the violations, acceptance of responsibility and (for an institution) imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties. Specifically, the institution promptly contacted the enforcement staff after it discovered violations, acknowledged the violations and accepted responsibility, including the shortcomings in monitoring. The institution then commenced an independent inquiry and later selfreported all of the violations detailed in this report. The institution also promptly imposed meaningful corrective measures and penalties. Bylaw 19.9.4-(d). An established history of selfreporting Level III or secondary violations. Specifically, the institution has consistently reported secondary violations in the past and reports, on average, approximately 15 violations each year. (2) Involved Individual the assistant football coach. Bylaw 19.9.4-(b). Prompt acknowledgement of the violation [and] acceptance of responsibility. Specifically, when questioned by the institution and enforcement staff, the assistant football coach promptly acknowledged his involvement in the violations. He did not attempt to deny or minimalize his involvement. The assistant football coach also accepted responsibility for the violations by resigning his employment at the institution, turning down opportunities to explore immediate college coaching opportunities and removing himself from college football coaching and recruiting for a full calendar year.
Page No. 12 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 those facts constitute Level II and III violations. Level II violations include, among others, violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting advantage. These Level II violations represent the institution's significant breach of conduct because the conduct in the football, men's and women's basketball programs was intended to provide or provided more than a minimal recruiting advantage. While the violations centered on Level II and III impermissible telephone calls and text messages, the panel notes significant circumstances surrounding the present case. For example, some of the conduct involved intentional violations or coaches' conscious decisions not to report violations after discovering them. Further, the panel notes the time period of the violations. Specifically, the first violations occurred in the football and men's basketball programs in March and April 2011, respectively. In April 2011, the institution appeared before the committee for earlier major violations that occurred in these programs. The panel notes that significant violations occurred at the institution in multiple programs both before and after the institution's infractions hearing and that the institution permitted these violations to continue during the probationary period. Given the proximity in time between the two cases and the repetition of involved programs, the institution permitted numerous significant breaches of conduct to occur during a time when the institution should have been improving, developing and implementing comprehensive rules education and monitoring systems. The panel emphasizes the importance of probation as a time for the institution to make enhancements in its compliance culture and operations. As authorized by NCAA Bylaw 19.3.6-(e), the committee will monitor the institution's progress closely. The institution permitted eight of its sport programs to commit violations when the institution should have been enhancing its monitoring and compliance efforts. The institution's programs violated NCAA legislation by placing impermissible telephone calls and/or sending impermissible text messages. Generally, NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1 prohibits telephone calls to prospective student-athletes or their relatives prior to July 1 following the prospective student-athletes' junior year of high school. Thereafter, calls are limited to one call per week. As they existed at the time of the violations, NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1.2, 13.1.3.1.3 and 13.1.3.1.4 identified exceptions for football, men's basketball and women's basketball, respectively. 5 These exceptions identified the first 5 Per NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1.3 (2011-12), the telephone calls placed in 2011 and 2012 were considered to be impermissible at that time. The recruiting communication legislation was amended in March 2012 (effective June 2012) to state that calls may be
Page No. 13 permissible opportunity for coaches to place a telephone call to prospective studentathletes or their relatives and the limits on telephone calls thereafter. As it existed at the time of the violations, NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2 prohibited all text messaging. Institutional coaching staff members violated these bylaws from 2010 through 2011 and again from March 2012 through March 2013. Coaching staff members from the institution's softball, women's tennis, men's and women's swim and dive, volleyball, baseball, football and men's basketball programs placed 15 impermissible telephone calls and sent 43 impermissible text messages. 6 Coaches placed the telephone calls either prior to the first permissible telephone call date or they exceeded the limit of permissible telephone calls thereafter. Some of these telephone calls occurred because of "pocket dials" or after a coach already called but did not speak with a prospective student-athlete. The coaches did not record these calls with contemporaneous documentation. When coaches placed calls prior to the first permissible date or placed calls that exceeded the legislated limit, those calls violated NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1 and its corresponding exceptions. Further, when coaches sent prospective student-athletes text messages, those messages violated NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2. The panel agrees that these violations are Level III. Similarly, the institution's football and men's and women's basketball programs engaged in 258, 229 and 230 impermissible telephone communications over approximately a year and a half. 7 The institution's impermissible communications included both telephone calls and text messages. With respect to telephone calls, the institution's violations involved coaching staff members placing calls to prospective student-athletes prior to the permissible time to call or after another staff member had already made a permissible call. Coaching staff members also sent prospective student-athletes text messages. When coaching staff members exceeded the legislated number of telephone calls or called individuals prior to the permissible time to do so, those calls violated NCAA Bylaws 13.1.3.1, 13.1.3.1.2 (football), 13.1.3.1.3 (men's basketball) and 13.1.3.1.4 (women's made to men's basketball prospective student-athletes at the institution's discretion subsequent to June15, after the prospective student-athlete's sophomore year in high school. The change does not affect the violations detailed in the Parties' Agreements III- A-6., which occurred in May 2012. Per NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.1.4 (2011-12), the telephone calls placed in 2011 and 2012 were considered to be impermissible at that time. The recruiting communication legislation was amended in January 2013 (effective August 2013) to state that calls may be made to women's basketball prospective student-athletes at the institution's discretion after September 1 of the prospective student-athlete's junior year in high school. 6 Because these violations occurred from March 2012 through March 2013, the parties separated these impermissible communications in the football and men's basketball programs from the Level II violations that occurred from 2011 to 2012 and processed them as separate Level III violations in the SDR. 7 The violations in football occurred from March 2011 through February 2012. The violations in men's basketball occurred from April 2011 through March 2012. The violations in women's basketball occurred from March 2011 through September 2012.
Page No. 14 basketball). Further, when coaching staff members sent prospective student-athletes text messages, those messages violated NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.2. The institution's violations resulted from the conduct of coaching staff members, and the panel is troubled by the actions taken by assistant coaches in the football and women's basketball programs. The assistant football coach agreed that he placed impermissible telephone calls and sent impermissible text messages. He further acknowledged that he knew that NCAA bylaws restricted telephone communication and prohibited text messaging, but that he did not know that the institution monitored his text message activity. He explained that had he known of the institution's monitoring, he would not have sent the text messages. The panel is very concerned that, as identified in the agreedupon aggravating factors, the assistant coach knew that he was committing violations and yet chose to blatantly disregard NCAA legislation prohibiting text messaging. Likewise, the panel notes the intentional decision by three of the institution's former assistant basketball coaches to not report discovered violations. NCAA Constitution 2.8.1, in part, requires institutional staff members to comply with NCAA legislation, places ultimate responsibility of staff members' compliance on the institution and requires the institution to report any noncompliance. The coaches discovered that they placed impermissible telephone calls and made a conscious decision not to report those violations. When the coaches identified the violations and chose not to report them, their conduct violated NCAA Constitution 2.8.1. These coaches were not "at risk" for the agreed-upon violations. Failure to report known violations threatens the collegiate model and in light of this conduct, the panel considered whether to reject the SDR. But after considering the totality of the institution's corrective actions and measures to address the coaches' conduct and the length of time that has passed as a result of the investigation, the panel ultimately determined not to reject the SDR. The institution further violated NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 when, from March 2011 through March 2012, it failed to monitor its sport programs to ensure compliance regarding telephone communication with prospective student-athletes. Contributing to the violations, a compliance staff member misadvised coaching staff members that the institution received new electronic monitoring software and coaches did not need to maintain contemporaneous records documenting placed telephone calls. Similarly, the institution failed to follow its established monitoring system for telephone calls. Partly as a result of these failures, impermissible telephone communication violations occurred and the institution failed to monitor telephone communications between coaching staff members and prospective student-athletes. These failures violated NCAA Constitution 2.8.1.
Page No. 15 V. PENALTIES For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this report, the panel concludes that this case involved violations of NCAA legislation. Because violations occurred before and after October 30, 2012, the effective date for new NCAA Bylaw 19, the panel processed the case in accordance with that new bylaw. The panel then conducted a separate analysis and made a separate determination as to whether to prescribe penalties under the former NCAA or current NCAA Bylaw 19 penalty guidelines. Because the violations occurred before the effective date, the panel reviewed whether the new penalty guidelines were more lenient and concluded that they were not in this case. When reviewing a case under the new penalty guidelines, the panel assesses aggravating and mitigating factors by weight as well as number. Considering that this case involved intentional violations and an institution that is presently on probation, the panel determined that former NCAA Bylaw 19 provided the institution with more lenient penalties. The institution and the assistant football coach agreed to the facts, violations, as well as, the panel's proposed penalties and corrective measures; therefore, there is no opportunity to appeal. See also Appendix for the institution's corrective actions. All of the penalties prescribed in this case are independent and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance through its assessment of postseason ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. After considering all information relevant to the case, the committee prescribes the following: General Administrative Penalties: 1. Public reprimand and censure; 2. An additional two years of probation. (the institution similarly proposed a twoyear probationary period) [Note: the institution is currently on probation for major infractions in 2011. As a result of the institution's most recent violations, the institution will remain on probation until June 13, 2017.]; 8 Penalties Prescribed on the Assistant Football Coach's Conduct 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. 16 3. The panel acknowledges that the institution that currently employs the assistant football coach identified the following significant institutional actions with respect to its employee, the former assistant football coach: a. A one-month suspension from all spring recruiting duties, during which the assistant football coach will be barred from having in-person, telephonic, written, and electronic contact with prospective studentathletes (and their parents/legal guardians), and during which his institutional phone will be taken away; b. Required monthly rules educational meetings for a minimum of one year, which will include regular reviews of his phone records to ensure compliance with NCAA recruiting regulations; and c. Required attendance, at the assistant coach's own expense, of a 2014 Regional Rules Seminar with a focus on recruiting topics; 4. The assistant football coach sent 217 impermissible text messages over a ninemonth period when he was aware that NCAA legislation restricted text messaging and indicated that he would not have sent the text messages had he known that the institution was monitoring his text messages. The panel was troubled by the intentional nature of these violations. Therefore, the committee prescribes a oneyear show-cause order on the assistant football coach. The committee prohibits the assistant football coach from conducting any and all recruiting activities as defined by NCAA Bylaw 13.02.13 (2013-14 Division I Manual) from September 4, 2014, to September 3, 2015. Within 30 days of the release of this report, the assistant football coach's present employer shall file a report with the NCAA Office of the Committees on Infractions setting forth its agreement with these restrictions or requesting a date to appear before a hearing panel to show cause why the restrictions should not apply. Should the assistant football coach become employed at another NCAA institution during the show-cause period, then within 30 days of the assistant football coach's hiring that employing institution shall file a report with the Office of the Committees on Infractions setting forth its agreement with the show-cause order or asking for a date to appear before a hearing panel to show cause why the restrictions should not apply. Further, the assistant football coach's employing institution shall file with the NCAA Office of the Committees on Infractions a statement detailing its adherence to these restrictions. The employing institution shall file these statements on January 15, 2015, and on July 15, 2015.
Page No. 17 Institutional Penalties and Measures Self-Imposed by the Institution 5. The institution identified a series of "corrective and punitive actions" selfimposed as a result of the violations discovered in the investigation. The panel adopts the institution's self-imposed penalties. The self-imposed penalties and the institution's corrective and punitive actions are contained in the Appendix. Other Administrative Penalties and Measures 6. During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation to instruct 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 NCAA Office of the Committees on Infractions by November 15, 2014, including setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program related to the violations in this case; c. File with the NCAA Office of the Committees on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by April 15 of each year during the probationary period. Continued emphasis should be placed on policies and procedures relating to agents and agent activity, in addition to policies and procedures pertaining to withholding student-athletes from competition when potential violations are discovered. Additional emphasis should be placed on the monitoring of all recruiting activities. The reports must also include documentation of the institution's compliance with the penalties adopted and prescribed by the committee. This reporting requirement is in addition to the reporting requirement from the institution's 2011 major infractions case; however, for convenience, the institution shall only be required to submit one annual compliance report. 7. During the period of probation, the institution shall: a. Inform prospective student-athletes in the affected sport programs that the institution is on probation for a total of six years as a result of two infractions cases. The institution shall explain the violations committed in both infractions cases. If a prospective student-athlete takes an official
Page No. 18 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 that includes the types of violations and the affected sport programs and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions decision located on the athletic department's main webpage. The information shall also be included in institutional media guides and in an alumni publication. The institution's statement must: (i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include the length of the probationary period associated with the major infractions cases; and (iii) give members of the general public a clear indication of what happened in the major infractions cases 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. 8. 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 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, prescribing more severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and findings of violations. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL Greg Sankey (Chief Hearing Officer) John Black Lloyd Carr Greg Christopher Thomas Hill Joel Maturi James O'Fallon
Page No. 19 APPENDIX The Georgia Institute of Technology has put in place corrective and punitive actions and selfimposed penalties in response to this matter. The following details these actions: 1. The institution increased the size of its compliance staff from two or four permanent employees plus a paid intern since the beginning of this investigation. 2. The institution devoted substantial time and resources to work with its monitoring software vendor to ensure the system in place is functional and providing accurate reports. The institution also simplified its telephone monitoring system by requiring all sports to utilize the same recruiting software system to ensure consistency in monitoring and reconciliation across all programs. The institution now has one of the most comprehensive telephone call and text message monitoring systems in the country. The institution has devoted considerable effort and expense to ensure that any potential telephone call and text message violations are discovered and investigated in a timely manner. 3. The institution held a mandatory rules education session that focused on recruiting telephone contacts and was conducted by outside counsel on February 22, 2012. 4. The institution hired an outside consultant to conduct an audit and review of the compliance program in January 2013 to determine if there were other ways in which it could improve this area. Football 5. Approximately one week after learning of the assistant football coach's violations, the institution ended its recruitment of a prospective student-athlete. This occurred less than two weeks prior to national signing day. The prospective student-athlete, who had been verbally committed to the institution for 11 months before the institution ended its recruitment, is currently enrolled at another institution in the same conference. 6. The entire football staff was prohibited from making any telephone calls to prospective student-athletes from September 1, 2012, to September 15, 2012. 7. The football head coach was prohibited from making telephone calls to prospective student-athletes for the entire month of September 2012. 8. On January 13, 2012, the institution placed the assistant football coach on administrative leave approximately three weeks before national signing day. The institution decided to
Page No. 20 terminate his employment on January 20, 2013, but the assistant football coach resigned before this occurred. Men's Basketball In late August 2012, the institution self-imposed the following penalties on the men's basketball program in response to the violations discussed above. 9. The men's basketball staff was prohibited from initiating any telephone or text message contacts with any prospect from September 1, 2012, through September 15, 2012, (with the exception of telephone contact related to the logistics of previously scheduled official visits). The staff was prohibited from contact with any prospect via email or social media or indirectly via third parties such as high school or non-scholastic coaches during this period. These dates were selected, as opposed to dates after the 2012 early signing period, because they occurred during a critical time in the recruiting cycle. The ban on communication of any type during this period had a greater negative impact on the institution's men's basketball staff given that the NCAA legislation restricting telephone and text message contact was rescinded on June 15, 2012, allowing unlimited telephone and text message contacts. 10. The men's basketball staff was limited to one phone call and one text per week to all prospects from September 16 through September 30. The staff was prohibited from contact with any prospect via email or social media during this period or indirectly via third parties such as high school or non-scholastic coaches during this period. As stated above, these limitations had a greater negative impact on the institution's men's basketball staff given that other institutions were allowed unlimited telephone and text message contact with prospective student-athletes during this time. 11. The number of evaluation and recruiting days for men's basketball was reduced by 20 percent for the period from September 1, 2012, through May 31, 2013. 12. An assistant coach received a letter of admonishment and was suspended from all coaching activities for one conference game during the 2012-13 season. 13. An assistant coach received a letter of admonishment and was suspended from all coaching activities for one conference game during the 2012-13 season. 14. An assistant coach received a letter of reprimand and was suspended from all coaching activities for one conference game during the 2012-13 season. 15. The head coach received a letter of reprimand.
Page No. 21 Women's Basketball At the conclusion of the investigation, the institution imposed the following sanctions on its women's basketball program: 16. Upon discovery of their failure to report potential telephone violations that occurred in April and May 2011, two assistant coaches were suspended from all recruiting activities in July and August of 2012. 17. The two assistant coaches received no salary increase for the 2012-13 academic year. 18. The two assistant coach's employment contracts, which expired on June 30, 2012, were not renewed. They worked on a month-to-month basis thereafter. One of the assistant coaches resigned her employment on September 11, 2012. The other assistant coach worked on a month-to-month basis until his contract was renewed on August 31, 2012. He no longer works for the institution. 19. An assistant coach received a letter of admonishment and was suspended from all coaching activities for three conference games during the 2012-13 season. 20. An assistant coach received a letter of admonishment and would have been suspended from all coaching activities for three conference games during the 2012-13 season had she not resigned her employment. 21. The entire staff was prohibited from making any phone calls to prospective studentathletes from September 1, 2012, through September 15, 2012, and October 1, 2012, through October 15, 2012. These dates were selected, as opposed to dates after the 2012 early signing period, because they occurred during a critical time in the recruiting cycle. 22. The number of recruiting and evaluation days for women's basketball was reduced by 20 percent for the period September 1, 2012, to May 31, 2013. 23. The head coach received a letter of reprimand. Other Sports Spot Checks The institution took the following steps in response to the violations in the sports of swimming and diving, volleyball and baseball: 24. The institution conducted extensive rules education sessions on NCAA recruiting contact legislation on February 22, 2012, and in September 2013 and October 2013. 25. The institution increased in its monitoring expectations related to recruiting contacts.
Page No. 22 Violations after March 2012 The institution took the following steps in response to the 35 violations after March 2012 in the sports of women's basketball, men's basketball, football, softball, women's tennis, swimming and diving: 26. Rules education on NCAA recruiting contact legislation in September 2013 and October 2013. a. Football See recruiting limitations listed above. b. Men's Basketball See recruiting limitations listed above. c. Women's Basketball See recruiting limitations listed above. d. Women's Tennis In addition to the rules education above, the coach received a letter of admonishment and will be prohibited from initiating telephone calls or electronic message for one week (August 1-7, 2014) after NCAA legislation allowing unlimited calls and text messages takes effect. e. Swimming and Diving With regard to the October 26, 2012, text message violation, the entire staff was prohibited from having any recruiting contact with the prospective student-athlete for two weeks. The staff also received the rules education mentioned above.