INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has issued a supplemental report for Indiana University and the major violations found in its men’s basketball program. This report specifically impacts the penalty findings for one of the former assistant coaches in the case and was issued as a result of his request for reconsideration from the committee.
The case involved multiple violations of telephone recruiting rules, unethical conduct by two coaches, including the former assistant coach, and a failure to monitor by the former head coach and the university. The violations were committed by a head coach serving penalties imposed on him for similar violations in a prior case.
On November 25, 2008, the day of the release of the public report, the former assistant coach made contact with the committee to object that it made a finding of unethical conduct on a different basis than what was alleged by the NCAA enforcement staff.
Specifically, the former assistant coach challenged the committee’s consideration of the 94 calls he made that exceeded the monthly phone limited imposed by the committee when finding the unethical conduct allegation against him. In addition, the former assistant coach took exception to the fact that the original public report from the committee stated that he provided false and misleading information during the investigation. Instead, he argues that the original allegation by the enforcement staff only contends that he provided false and misleading information to the university by submitting false telephone recruiting call documentation on multiple occasions.
In response to these assertions, the committee agreed to revise the report language and reviewed the matter to ensure that its penalties were warranted based on the findings properly made and the evidence before it. The revised report language is further detailed in the public report.
Upon reconsideration of the record, and particularly the former assistant coach’s statements at the hearing, the committee stated in its supplemental report that it “continues to find that the former assistant coach A lacks credibility. The committee found, and finds, that the former assistant coach A’s violations are serious and warrant the imposition of significant penalties.”
However, to ensure the penalties are properly based on the formal allegations and independent of any potential inclusion of improper information, the committee revised the former assistant coach’s penalties as follows:
• The period in which the show-cause order is in effect will be 30 months from Nov. 25, 2008, rather than three years. The period will end on May 24, 2011, rather than on Nov. 24, 2011 as originally imposed.
• The period during which the former assistant coach must comply with the telephone penalties and documentation as detailed in the original public report will be in effect is Nov. 25, 2010, to May 24, 2011, rather than to Nov. 24, 2011, as originally imposed.
• The former assistant coach must attend the 2009 and 2010 NCAA Regional Rules seminars, but not the 2011 Regional Rules seminar, as originally imposed.
All other penalties set forth in the original infractions report shall remain in effect.
The members of the Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are Josephine (Jo) R. Potuto, the Richard H. Larson Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law and chair of the committee at the time the Indiana case was heard; Eileen Jennings, general counsel at Central Michigan University; Alfred Lechner, Jr., attorney; Dennis Thomas, the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and formerly director of athletics at Hampton University; Ted Leland, the vice president for advancement at the University of the Pacific, and formerly the director of athletics of, among others, Stanford University; Gene Marsh, James M. Kidd Sr. Professor of Law at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa School of Law; Andrea Meyers, athletic director emeritus, Indiana State University; and James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky.
-30-
