Actually, we've been on probation twice...

#27
#27
footballref said:
Will someone please summarize... :)
Click to expand...

Here is a brief synopsis.....

Public Infraction Report

FOR RELEASE: September 18, 1991, 1:30 p.m. (Central Time)
CONTACT: James A. Marchiony, Director of Communications
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, INFRACTIONS REPORT
by the NCAA Committee on Infractions
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS--This report is organized as follows:
I. Introduction.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
I. Introduction.
This case originated when the NCAA enforcement staff received an anonymous letter that
questioned whether the university was violating NCAA legislation in the operation of a summer
football camp. After several interviews were conducted, the assistant executive director for
enforcement concluded that sufficient information had been collected to issue an official inquiry
to the university on April 8, 1991. This official inquiry alleged violations of three different types:
(a) violations of recruiting rules, primarily related to impermissible recruiting contacts and the
arrangement of credit for an airline ticket for a prospect to attend the university's summer
football camp by a former assistant football coach; (b) violations of NCAA ethical-conduct
legislation by the same former assistant coach, and (c) violations of NCAA legislation that
require a member institution to operate any summer football camp in a manner that is open to the
public (i.e., a university may not operate a summer football camp that is exclusively reserved to
recruits for the university's football team).
The university filed its written response with the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on
Infractions on June 10, 1991, in which it basically admitted the alleged violations in categories
(a) and (b) above, subject to minor revisions, and disputed that its operation of the summer
football camp in question violated NCAA legislation. The former assistant coach also submitted
a written response on June 25, 1991, after receiving an extension of time from the committee for
the former coach to review the institutional response to the allegations relating to him. The
NCAA enforcement staff held prehearing conferences with institutional representatives on June
2, 1991, and with legal counsel for the former assistant coach on July 11, 1991, to review the
information the staff would present [Page 2] at the hearing. To resolve issues that were identified
during these prehearing conferences, several interviews with various individuals were conducted
prior to the hearing. The NCAA enforcement staff, an institutional representative and legal
counsel for the former assistant coach jointly participated in these interviews in order to establish
a common base of understanding in regard to the information given by the various interviewees.
On August 11, 1991, the committee conducted a hearing in this case, which was attended by
institutional representatives, the former assistant coach and his legal counsel, and members of the
NCAA enforcement staff. Inasmuch as the assistant coach no longer was employed at an NCAA
member institution, his appearance at and participation during the hearing was voluntary as the
NCAA could not otherwise have compelled his appearance before the committee.
Based on the information presented at the hearing by all the parties, as described in Part II of this
report, the committee has found that the university's football program violated recruiting rules
substantially as alleged and admitted by the university. The committee also found that the former
assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct that NCAA rules require institutional
coaching personnel and other representatives to meet. The former assistant coach's involvement
in the violations in this case demonstrated a knowing effort to operate the university's football
program contrary to NCAA rules, and the former assistant coach encouraged a principal in the
case to report false and misleading information.
The committee did not find the former assistant coach violated the ethical-conduct standards
pertaining to the provision of false and misleading information during the course of an NCAA
investigation. All parties agreed that during the assistant coach's initial interview with an NCAA
enforcement representative, which occurred in the presence of representatives of the university,
the former assistant coach gave false and misleading information in response to some of the
questions seeking information relevant to possible NCAA violations in which he was involved.
Further, at the beginning of this interview, the NCAA investigator specifically called the former
assistant coach's attention to the provision of the NCAA bylaws applicable to giving false and
misleading information during an investigation of possible NCAA violations and indicated to the
assistant coach the seriousness of the consequences that could result from a violation of this
bylaw. A separate NCAA bylaw (Bylaw 32.3.6) also places an additional duty on the NCAA
enforcement staff, however, to inform an individual prior to the interview that the purpose of the
interview is to obtain information about the individual's personal involvement in NCAA
violations when that, in fact, is the purpose of the interview. The record before the committee did
not establish that the NCAA investigator had given the assistant coach the notification required
by this bylaw.
Because the notice called for in Bylaw 32.3.6 was not given, the committee believed it was not
appropriate under the circumstances of this case to find that the assistant coach violated the rules
of ethical conduct in Bylaw 10.1-(d) by giving false and misleading information during this
initial interview. Among the circumstances that led the committee to this conclusion were: (1)
the assistant coach was not represented by personal [Page 3] legal counsel during this interview;
(2) there was no doubt that one purpose of this interview was to question the assistant coach
about his personal involvement in possible NCAA violations; (3) given the prominence of
alleged violations relating to the operation of the university's summer football camp, the
committee could not conclude from the record that the former assistant coach otherwise
understood that a purpose of the interview was to inquire into matters where he was personally
involved in allegations of NCAA violations, and (4) after the initial interview, the former
assistant coach promptly consulted personal legal counsel and was prepared to correct the false
and misleading statements.
The violations alleged in category (c) above related to the university's operation of a summer
"senior" football camp. The committee concluded that the information presented did not establish
a violation of NCAA legislation. The only remaining issue about this "senior" camp at the time
of the hearing was whether it was open to the public as required by Bylaw 13.13.1.2. Under the
relevant NCAA legislation, it is permissible for an institution to invite particular prospects to its
camp as long as the camp is open to all entrants limited only by the number and age of the camp
participants. The university operated two types of summer football camps. One type was its
Johnny Majors football camps, which the university advertised through a printed camp brochure,
as well as in other ways. There was no claim that these camps violated NCAA rules. The other
type, and the camp at issue in this case, is the university's "senior camp," which is held for a
shorter period of time (over a weekend), is less costly to the camp participants, and is fully
acknowledged by the university to be aimed at attracting high school seniors-to-be who have
ambitions of pursuing football participation after completing high school. The enforcement
staff's theory in presenting this allegation was that the university, in effect, operated the senior
camp as an exclusive tryout and recruiting camp for prospects due to the university's limited
advertising to the general public of the availability of the camp and reliance on invitations to
individual prospects to attract camp participants. There was no contention that the university
improperly denied access to its senior camp to an applicant, only that the failure to advertise the
camp as a practical matter limited its availability primarily to those whom the university
regarded as prospects for its football team.
If the information presented at the hearing had supported this theory, the committee would have
found that a violation occurred. However, the enforcement staff did not sustain its burden of
proving that the university failed to give the public adequate notice through information
disseminated orally and personally by the coaching staff to high school programs throughout the
area of the general availability of the senior camp. In view of the information from the university
indicating there was widespread knowledge among area high school football programs of the
availability of the senior camp to all entrants, the committee concluded that no violation
occurred.
The committee was troubled by the fact that while the university publicized its Johnny Majors
football camps with an attractive promotional brochure, the senior camp was not mentioned in
this brochure and was not promoted through the use of any written materials describing the
availability of the camp. Conducting the senior camp in this manner is, in the committee's
opinion, a questionable practice that the university [Page 4] would be well-advised to
discontinue. In future cases involving this issue, absent clarifying legislation or interpretations
from the appropriate NCAA bodies, the committee will regard an institution that fails to promote
all of its development camps in the same manner to the appropriate age-group audience as
having the burden of demonstrating the target age group had adequate information of the
availability of the camp to the general public. Had this approach been applied in this case, the
committee would have found a violation of Bylaw 13.13.1.2 occurred in the conduct of the
"senior" camp. The committee did not apply this approach to the university in this case in view
of the efforts taken by the institution to obtain advice from its conference office on the
requirements for its summer camp and the lack of clarity in the existing bylaw on the obligations
of a member institution to advertise the availability of its camps.
Although the committee did not find a violation relating to the football camp, the committee
concluded that this was a major case under Bylaw 19.02.2. There were a series of recruiting
violations, including arranging an airline ticket on a credit basis for a prospect to attend the
university's football camp, that were knowingly committed by a member of the university's
football coaching staff for whose conduct the university is responsible. Moreover, the
university's compliance and rules-education program did not require newly employed coaching
staff members to participate in any rules-compliance orientation or demonstrate familiarity with
NCAA recruiting rules before recruiting for the university.
Although this is a major case, it is unique. The university fully cooperated in the processing and
investigation of this case. It acknowledged violations when the evidence supported such
conclusions and admitted that a member of its coaching staff violated the principles of ethical
conduct in Bylaw 10.01.1. The university took timely corrective and disciplinary actions that
included dismissing its assistant football coach, suspending its senior football camp, and self-
imposing substantial recruiting and athletics grant-in-aid penalties. For these reasons, as
explained in Part III of this report, the committee did not apply the full schedule of minimum
penalties that Bylaw 19.4.2.1 otherwise requires in the case of a major violation.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
A. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1]
During the spring and summer of 1989, during the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete, a
then assistant football coach arranged for the young man to receive a round-trip airline ticket on
a credit basis from a Knoxville area travel agency in order for the young man to travel to the
university's campus to attend the institution's summer football camp.
Specifically, during a telephone conversation with the prospect, the assistant coach asked about
the young man's interest in attending the institution's football camp. The prospect stated he could
not afford the airline ticket price(s) as quoted to him and his mother during their inquiries. The
assistant coach responded that he would gather [Page 5] information about costs of possible
airline flights. The assistant coach contacted a travel agent at a travel agency in Knoxville and
arranged a round-trip airline ticket for the young man between the prospect's home town and
Knoxville at a cost of $231. The travel agent sent the airline ticket to the assistant coach who, in
turn, mailed the ticket, via overnight mail service, from the football office to the young man who
then utilized the ticket to attend the football camp. After the young man arrived on campus, he
provided an envelope to the assistant coach with the cash necessary to pay the cost of the airline
ticket, and the assistant coach forwarded the cash to the travel agency. The young man did not
have any in-person or telephonic conversations with the travel agency concerning the flight
arrangements or payments.
B. [NCAA Bylaws 13.02.3 and 13.1.1.1]
In February and May 1989, a then assistant football coach made in-person, off-campus recruiting
contacts with two prospective student-athletes at the young men's high schools prior to the
completion of the young men's junior year in high school. Specifically, in February 1989, the
assistant coach contacted one prospective student-athlete at the conclusion of the young man's
high school basketball practice at his high school, and in May 1989, the assistant coach contacted
another prospective student-athlete in the hallway at his high school prior to the young man's
first class period.
C. [NCAA Bylaws 13.02.3, 13.1.1.1, 13.1.4 and 13.6.1]
In May and June 1989, during the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete, a then assistant
football coach violated NCAA legislation involving recruiting contacts and the provision of local
automobile transportation. Specifically:
1. On at least two occasions in May 1989, the assistant coach made in-person, off-campus
recruiting contacts prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school with the
prospect's parents and, on at least one occasion, the young man's sister at the prospect's high
school baseball games.
2. On one occasion in June 1989, during the university's summer football camp, the assistant
coach provided automobile transportation in the Knoxville area to the prospect's sister between
the World's Fair Convention Center/Downtown Holiday Inn, the Hyatt Hotel and/or the College
Inn restaurant.
3. On two occasions in June 1989, during the university's summer football camp, the assistant
coach made in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with the young man's parents and sister at
two different restaurants in Knoxville. [Page 6]
D. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d) and 19.01.2]
The former assistant football coach involved in this case failed to deport himself in accordance
with the generally recognized high stand-ards normally associated with the conduct and
administration of intercollegiate athletics in that the assistant coach's involvement in the findings
of violations in this report and his attempts to encourage a principal in this case to report false
and misleading information to university and NCAA enforcement staff members were contrary
to the principles of ethical conduct. Specifically:
1. The assistant coach demonstrated a knowing effort on his part to operate the university's
intercollegiate football program contrary to the requirements and provisions of NCAA legislation
by his overall involvement in the findings of violations in this report.
2. The assistant coach encouraged a principal in this case to report false and misleading
information in that following an interview on December 14, 1990, with the assistant coach by an
NCAA enforcement representative, the assistant coach was requested by the enforcement
representative not to contact a former employee of a travel agency in Knoxville, Tennessee.
However, the assistant coach subsequently contacted the travel agent, asked her about the
information contained in Part II-A of this report and then requested that the travel agent not
mention the assistant coach's contact with her if she was asked by the NCAA enforcement staff.
E. [NCAA Bylaws 30.3, 30.3.3 and 30.3.5]
Based upon the violations in this report, the institution's Certification of Compliance form for the
1988-89 academic year was erroneous in that the institution's football program was not in
compliance with NCAA legislation. On August 2, 1989, a then assistant football coach attested
on a statement filed with the chief executive officer of the institution that he had reported to the
chief executive officer his knowledge of and involvement in any violations of NCAA legislation
involving the institution when, in fact, he had not done so. Based upon information provided by
the assistant coach, and without intent to do so, the then president erroneously certified on
August 28, 1989, the university's compliance with NCAA legislation.
F. The university also self-reported several secondary violations related to the recruitment of two
prospective student-athletes by an assistant football coach.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
For the reasons set forth in Part I of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case
involved a major violation of NCAA legislation that occurred after September 1, 1985. NCAA
Bylaw 19.4.2.2, as adopted by the Association's membership, requires prescribed minimum
[Page 7] penalties, "subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions in unique
cases on the basis of specifically stated reasons," that include: (a) a two-year probationary period
(including a periodic, in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports); (b) the
elimination of all expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one
recruiting year; (c) a requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from
engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one recruiting year; (d) a requirement that all
institutional staff members determined by the Committee on Infractions knowingly to have
engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject either to termination of employment,
suspension without pay for at least one year or reassignment of duties within the institution to a
position that does not include contact with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or
representatives of the institution's athletics interests for at least one year; (e) one year of
sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport; (f) one year of sanctions precluding
television appearances in the sport, and (g) institutional recertification that the current athletics
policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
The Committee on Infractions determined that this case was a "unique" case in which the
institution should receive less than the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by
NCAA legislation. The important mitigating factors in this case included: prompt detection of
violations, thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the
processing of the case, and initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions.
The university's corrective and disciplinary actions included the following measures:
a. On December 17, 1990, the university suspended the then assistant coach from all coaching
duties because of a violation of NCAA regulations. On March 25, 1991, after consultation with
the Southeastern Conference office, the university permitted the assistant coach to return to
coaching duties pending completion of the university's investigation of the issues in this case. On
June 7, 1991, after receipt of the NCAA official inquiry and completion of the university's
investigation, the university determined that the assistant coach had violated NCAA legislation
concerning ethical conduct and that his employment as assistant coach would be terminated.
b. Although the university discovered no evidence that its head football coach or any other
athletics department staff member was aware of the violations committed by the assistant coach,
the university acted to strongly reemphasize the need for the head coach to exercise control over
recruiting and other administrative activities by directing that the football program leave unfilled
the full-time coaching position held by the former assistant football coach. This penalty
accelerates the reduction in the number of full-time assistant coaches (and the number of coaches
that may engage in off-campus recruiting) from nine to eight that recent NCAA legislation will
require of all institutions on August 1, 1992.
c. For the same reasons as stated in paragraph b above, the university has limited the football
program to a total of 85 overall [Page 8] grants-in-aid in the 1992-93 academic year and 85
overall grants-in-aid in the 1993-94 academic year. This action accelerates by two years the
reduction to 85 in overall football grants-in-aid that recent NCAA legislation will require of all
institutions for the 1994-95 academic year.
d. Although the university took the position it had operated its football camp program in
compliance with NCAA rules, it suspended its senior camp pending the resolution of this case.
e. The university's president advised the institution's coaches and athletics administrators that
future salary adjustments and other personnel actions would depend upon their continued and
increased attention to adherence to NCAA, conference and institutional rules and regulations.
The committee adopted these actions by the university and incorporated them into its penalty in
this case. The committee also noted that the university's self-imposed restrictions on the number
of coaches who may engage in recruiting and serve as full-time coaches and the grant-in-aid
limitations for the football program would apply regardless of whether the pending NCAA
legislative restrictions in these areas are relaxed by future NCAA Conventions.
In addition, the following actions were taken by the committee:
A. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a
period of two year(s) from the date these penalties are imposed, which shall be the date the 15-
day appeal period expires or the date the institution notifies the executive director that it will not
appeal, whichever is earlier, or the date established by NCAA Council subcommittee action in
the event of an appeal by the university to the Council, it being understood that should any
portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate
action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions.
Further, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA
Bylaw 19.4.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date
of the penalties in this case.
B. During this period of probation, the institution shall: develop and implement a comprehensive
educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) to instruct coaches and athletics department
personnel on NCAA legislation; submit a preliminary report by December 2, 1991, setting forth
a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program, and file annual progress
reports with the NCAA enforcement staff on July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993. The program
developed by the university should specifically address the procedures the institution will follow
to assure itself that members of its coaching staff have appropriate training and testing in
recruiting rules before engaging in recruiting for the university. [Page 9]
C. If the former assistant coach involved in this case had been employed at the institution at the
time of the hearing in this case, the institution would have been required to show cause in
accordance with Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l) why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had
failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. Because of the institution's actions with
respect to the former assistant coach, the committee did not take such action in regard to the
university.
D. Due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, the
former assistant coach involved in this case will be informed in writing by the NCAA that in the
event he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member
institution during a three-year period (September 18, 1991, to September 18, 1994), he and the
involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions in order for
the committee to consider whether that member institution should be subject to the show-cause
procedures of Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l), which could limit the former coach's athletically related duties
at the new institution for a designated period. (Had the former assistant coach not cooperated in
the processing of this case, the committee would have imposed at least a five-year period during
which he would have been subject to this show-cause procedure.)
E. Because of the institutional corrective and disciplinary actions described previously, the
committee did not impose additional penalties involving restrictions on postseason competition,
television appearances, expense-paid visits by prospective student-athletes and off-campus
recruiting. Had the university not taken the actions it did to correct the violations, discipline the
assistant coach who was primarily involved and self-impose penalties on its football program,
the committee would have considered imposing the penalties in these categories required by
Bylaw 19.4.2.2.
F. The institution shall recertify that all of its current athletics policies and practices conform to
all requirements of NCAA regulations.
[NOTE: Should the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, appeal either the findings of violations
or proposed penalties in this case to the NCAA Council subcommittee of Division I members,
the Committee on Infractions will submit an expanded infractions report to the members of the
Council who will consider the appeal. This expanded report will include additional information
in accordance with Bylaw 32.8.5. A copy of the committee's report would be provided to the
institution prior to the institution's appearance before the Council subcommittee and, as required
by Bylaw 32.8.6, would be released to the public.
Also, the Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that when the penalties in this
case become effective, the institution should take every precaution to ensure that their terms are
observed; further, [Page 10] the committee intends to monitor the penalties during their effective
periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties shall be considered grounds
for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as to consider imposing more severe
sanctions in this case.
Finally, should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of
these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and
reconsider the penalties.]
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
Milton R. Schroeder
Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton
David Swank
D. Alan Williams (chair)
DAW:cg/jsm
-30-



----------------------------------------


Public Infraction Report

FOR RELEASE: September 18, 1991, 1:30 p.m. (Central Time)
CONTACT: James A. Marchiony, Director of Communications
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, INFRACTIONS REPORT
by the NCAA Committee on Infractions
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS--This report is organized as follows:
I. Introduction.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
I. Introduction.
This case originated when the NCAA enforcement staff received an anonymous letter that
questioned whether the university was violating NCAA legislation in the operation of a summer
football camp. After several interviews were conducted, the assistant executive director for
enforcement concluded that sufficient information had been collected to issue an official inquiry
to the university on April 8, 1991. This official inquiry alleged violations of three different types:
(a) violations of recruiting rules, primarily related to impermissible recruiting contacts and the
arrangement of credit for an airline ticket for a prospect to attend the university's summer
football camp by a former assistant football coach; (b) violations of NCAA ethical-conduct
legislation by the same former assistant coach, and (c) violations of NCAA legislation that
require a member institution to operate any summer football camp in a manner that is open to the
public (i.e., a university may not operate a summer football camp that is exclusively reserved to
recruits for the university's football team).
The university filed its written response with the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on
Infractions on June 10, 1991, in which it basically admitted the alleged violations in categories
(a) and (b) above, subject to minor revisions, and disputed that its operation of the summer
football camp in question violated NCAA legislation. The former assistant coach also submitted
a written response on June 25, 1991, after receiving an extension of time from the committee for
the former coach to review the institutional response to the allegations relating to him. The
NCAA enforcement staff held prehearing conferences with institutional representatives on June
2, 1991, and with legal counsel for the former assistant coach on July 11, 1991, to review the
information the staff would present [Page 2] at the hearing. To resolve issues that were identified
during these prehearing conferences, several interviews with various individuals were conducted
prior to the hearing. The NCAA enforcement staff, an institutional representative and legal
counsel for the former assistant coach jointly participated in these interviews in order to establish
a common base of understanding in regard to the information given by the various interviewees.
On August 11, 1991, the committee conducted a hearing in this case, which was attended by
institutional representatives, the former assistant coach and his legal counsel, and members of the
NCAA enforcement staff. Inasmuch as the assistant coach no longer was employed at an NCAA
member institution, his appearance at and participation during the hearing was voluntary as the
NCAA could not otherwise have compelled his appearance before the committee.
Based on the information presented at the hearing by all the parties, as described in Part II of this
report, the committee has found that the university's football program violated recruiting rules
substantially as alleged and admitted by the university. The committee also found that the former
assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct that NCAA rules require institutional
coaching personnel and other representatives to meet. The former assistant coach's involvement
in the violations in this case demonstrated a knowing effort to operate the university's football
program contrary to NCAA rules, and the former assistant coach encouraged a principal in the
case to report false and misleading information.
The committee did not find the former assistant coach violated the ethical-conduct standards
pertaining to the provision of false and misleading information during the course of an NCAA
investigation. All parties agreed that during the assistant coach's initial interview with an NCAA
enforcement representative, which occurred in the presence of representatives of the university,
the former assistant coach gave false and misleading information in response to some of the
questions seeking information relevant to possible NCAA violations in which he was involved.
Further, at the beginning of this interview, the NCAA investigator specifically called the former
assistant coach's attention to the provision of the NCAA bylaws applicable to giving false and
misleading information during an investigation of possible NCAA violations and indicated to the
assistant coach the seriousness of the consequences that could result from a violation of this
bylaw. A separate NCAA bylaw (Bylaw 32.3.6) also places an additional duty on the NCAA
enforcement staff, however, to inform an individual prior to the interview that the purpose of the
interview is to obtain information about the individual's personal involvement in NCAA
violations when that, in fact, is the purpose of the interview. The record before the committee did
not establish that the NCAA investigator had given the assistant coach the notification required
by this bylaw.
Because the notice called for in Bylaw 32.3.6 was not given, the committee believed it was not
appropriate under the circumstances of this case to find that the assistant coach violated the rules
of ethical conduct in Bylaw 10.1-(d) by giving false and misleading information during this
initial interview. Among the circumstances that led the committee to this conclusion were: (1)
the assistant coach was not represented by personal [Page 3] legal counsel during this interview;
(2) there was no doubt that one purpose of this interview was to question the assistant coach
about his personal involvement in possible NCAA violations; (3) given the prominence of
alleged violations relating to the operation of the university's summer football camp, the
committee could not conclude from the record that the former assistant coach otherwise
understood that a purpose of the interview was to inquire into matters where he was personally
involved in allegations of NCAA violations, and (4) after the initial interview, the former
assistant coach promptly consulted personal legal counsel and was prepared to correct the false
and misleading statements.
The violations alleged in category (c) above related to the university's operation of a summer
"senior" football camp. The committee concluded that the information presented did not establish
a violation of NCAA legislation. The only remaining issue about this "senior" camp at the time
of the hearing was whether it was open to the public as required by Bylaw 13.13.1.2. Under the
relevant NCAA legislation, it is permissible for an institution to invite particular prospects to its
camp as long as the camp is open to all entrants limited only by the number and age of the camp
participants. The university operated two types of summer football camps. One type was its
Johnny Majors football camps, which the university advertised through a printed camp brochure,
as well as in other ways. There was no claim that these camps violated NCAA rules. The other
type, and the camp at issue in this case, is the university's "senior camp," which is held for a
shorter period of time (over a weekend), is less costly to the camp participants, and is fully
acknowledged by the university to be aimed at attracting high school seniors-to-be who have
ambitions of pursuing football participation after completing high school. The enforcement
staff's theory in presenting this allegation was that the university, in effect, operated the senior
camp as an exclusive tryout and recruiting camp for prospects due to the university's limited
advertising to the general public of the availability of the camp and reliance on invitations to
individual prospects to attract camp participants. There was no contention that the university
improperly denied access to its senior camp to an applicant, only that the failure to advertise the
camp as a practical matter limited its availability primarily to those whom the university
regarded as prospects for its football team.
If the information presented at the hearing had supported this theory, the committee would have
found that a violation occurred. However, the enforcement staff did not sustain its burden of
proving that the university failed to give the public adequate notice through information
disseminated orally and personally by the coaching staff to high school programs throughout the
area of the general availability of the senior camp. In view of the information from the university
indicating there was widespread knowledge among area high school football programs of the
availability of the senior camp to all entrants, the committee concluded that no violation
occurred.
The committee was troubled by the fact that while the university publicized its Johnny Majors
football camps with an attractive promotional brochure, the senior camp was not mentioned in
this brochure and was not promoted through the use of any written materials describing the
availability of the camp. Conducting the senior camp in this manner is, in the committee's
opinion, a questionable practice that the university [Page 4] would be well-advised to
discontinue. In future cases involving this issue, absent clarifying legislation or interpretations
from the appropriate NCAA bodies, the committee will regard an institution that fails to promote
all of its development camps in the same manner to the appropriate age-group audience as
having the burden of demonstrating the target age group had adequate information of the
availability of the camp to the general public. Had this approach been applied in this case, the
committee would have found a violation of Bylaw 13.13.1.2 occurred in the conduct of the
"senior" camp. The committee did not apply this approach to the university in this case in view
of the efforts taken by the institution to obtain advice from its conference office on the
requirements for its summer camp and the lack of clarity in the existing bylaw on the obligations
of a member institution to advertise the availability of its camps.
Although the committee did not find a violation relating to the football camp, the committee
concluded that this was a major case under Bylaw 19.02.2. There were a series of recruiting
violations, including arranging an airline ticket on a credit basis for a prospect to attend the
university's football camp, that were knowingly committed by a member of the university's
football coaching staff for whose conduct the university is responsible. Moreover, the
university's compliance and rules-education program did not require newly employed coaching
staff members to participate in any rules-compliance orientation or demonstrate familiarity with
NCAA recruiting rules before recruiting for the university.
Although this is a major case, it is unique. The university fully cooperated in the processing and
investigation of this case. It acknowledged violations when the evidence supported such
conclusions and admitted that a member of its coaching staff violated the principles of ethical
conduct in Bylaw 10.01.1. The university took timely corrective and disciplinary actions that
included dismissing its assistant football coach, suspending its senior football camp, and self-
imposing substantial recruiting and athletics grant-in-aid penalties. For these reasons, as
explained in Part III of this report, the committee did not apply the full schedule of minimum
penalties that Bylaw 19.4.2.1 otherwise requires in the case of a major violation.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
A. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1]
During the spring and summer of 1989, during the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete, a
then assistant football coach arranged for the young man to receive a round-trip airline ticket on
a credit basis from a Knoxville area travel agency in order for the young man to travel to the
university's campus to attend the institution's summer football camp.
Specifically, during a telephone conversation with the prospect, the assistant coach asked about
the young man's interest in attending the institution's football camp. The prospect stated he could
not afford the airline ticket price(s) as quoted to him and his mother during their inquiries. The
assistant coach responded that he would gather [Page 5] information about costs of possible
airline flights. The assistant coach contacted a travel agent at a travel agency in Knoxville and
arranged a round-trip airline ticket for the young man between the prospect's home town and
Knoxville at a cost of $231. The travel agent sent the airline ticket to the assistant coach who, in
turn, mailed the ticket, via overnight mail service, from the football office to the young man who
then utilized the ticket to attend the football camp. After the young man arrived on campus, he
provided an envelope to the assistant coach with the cash necessary to pay the cost of the airline
ticket, and the assistant coach forwarded the cash to the travel agency. The young man did not
have any in-person or telephonic conversations with the travel agency concerning the flight
arrangements or payments.
B. [NCAA Bylaws 13.02.3 and 13.1.1.1]
In February and May 1989, a then assistant football coach made in-person, off-campus recruiting
contacts with two prospective student-athletes at the young men's high schools prior to the
completion of the young men's junior year in high school. Specifically, in February 1989, the
assistant coach contacted one prospective student-athlete at the conclusion of the young man's
high school basketball practice at his high school, and in May 1989, the assistant coach contacted
another prospective student-athlete in the hallway at his high school prior to the young man's
first class period.
C. [NCAA Bylaws 13.02.3, 13.1.1.1, 13.1.4 and 13.6.1]
In May and June 1989, during the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete, a then assistant
football coach violated NCAA legislation involving recruiting contacts and the provision of local
automobile transportation. Specifically:
1. On at least two occasions in May 1989, the assistant coach made in-person, off-campus
recruiting contacts prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school with the
prospect's parents and, on at least one occasion, the young man's sister at the prospect's high
school baseball games.
2. On one occasion in June 1989, during the university's summer football camp, the assistant
coach provided automobile transportation in the Knoxville area to the prospect's sister between
the World's Fair Convention Center/Downtown Holiday Inn, the Hyatt Hotel and/or the College
Inn restaurant.
3. On two occasions in June 1989, during the university's summer football camp, the assistant
coach made in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with the young man's parents and sister at
two different restaurants in Knoxville. [Page 6]
D. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d) and 19.01.2]
The former assistant football coach involved in this case failed to deport himself in accordance
with the generally recognized high stand-ards normally associated with the conduct and
administration of intercollegiate athletics in that the assistant coach's involvement in the findings
of violations in this report and his attempts to encourage a principal in this case to report false
and misleading information to university and NCAA enforcement staff members were contrary
to the principles of ethical conduct. Specifically:
1. The assistant coach demonstrated a knowing effort on his part to operate the university's
intercollegiate football program contrary to the requirements and provisions of NCAA legislation
by his overall involvement in the findings of violations in this report.
2. The assistant coach encouraged a principal in this case to report false and misleading
information in that following an interview on December 14, 1990, with the assistant coach by an
NCAA enforcement representative, the assistant coach was requested by the enforcement
representative not to contact a former employee of a travel agency in Knoxville, Tennessee.
However, the assistant coach subsequently contacted the travel agent, asked her about the
information contained in Part II-A of this report and then requested that the travel agent not
mention the assistant coach's contact with her if she was asked by the NCAA enforcement staff.
E. [NCAA Bylaws 30.3, 30.3.3 and 30.3.5]
Based upon the violations in this report, the institution's Certification of Compliance form for the
1988-89 academic year was erroneous in that the institution's football program was not in
compliance with NCAA legislation. On August 2, 1989, a then assistant football coach attested
on a statement filed with the chief executive officer of the institution that he had reported to the
chief executive officer his knowledge of and involvement in any violations of NCAA legislation
involving the institution when, in fact, he had not done so. Based upon information provided by
the assistant coach, and without intent to do so, the then president erroneously certified on
August 28, 1989, the university's compliance with NCAA legislation.
F. The university also self-reported several secondary violations related to the recruitment of two
prospective student-athletes by an assistant football coach.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
For the reasons set forth in Part I of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case
involved a major violation of NCAA legislation that occurred after September 1, 1985. NCAA
Bylaw 19.4.2.2, as adopted by the Association's membership, requires prescribed minimum
[Page 7] penalties, "subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions in unique
cases on the basis of specifically stated reasons," that include: (a) a two-year probationary period
(including a periodic, in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports); (b) the
elimination of all expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one
recruiting year; (c) a requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from
engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one recruiting year; (d) a requirement that all
institutional staff members determined by the Committee on Infractions knowingly to have
engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject either to termination of employment,
suspension without pay for at least one year or reassignment of duties within the institution to a
position that does not include contact with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or
representatives of the institution's athletics interests for at least one year; (e) one year of
sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport; (f) one year of sanctions precluding
television appearances in the sport, and (g) institutional recertification that the current athletics
policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
The Committee on Infractions determined that this case was a "unique" case in which the
institution should receive less than the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by
NCAA legislation. The important mitigating factors in this case included: prompt detection of
violations, thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the
processing of the case, and initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions.
The university's corrective and disciplinary actions included the following measures:
a. On December 17, 1990, the university suspended the then assistant coach from all coaching
duties because of a violation of NCAA regulations. On March 25, 1991, after consultation with
the Southeastern Conference office, the university permitted the assistant coach to return to
coaching duties pending completion of the university's investigation of the issues in this case. On
June 7, 1991, after receipt of the NCAA official inquiry and completion of the university's
investigation, the university determined that the assistant coach had violated NCAA legislation
concerning ethical conduct and that his employment as assistant coach would be terminated.
b. Although the university discovered no evidence that its head football coach or any other
athletics department staff member was aware of the violations committed by the assistant coach,
the university acted to strongly reemphasize the need for the head coach to exercise control over
recruiting and other administrative activities by directing that the football program leave unfilled
the full-time coaching position held by the former assistant football coach. This penalty
accelerates the reduction in the number of full-time assistant coaches (and the number of coaches
that may engage in off-campus recruiting) from nine to eight that recent NCAA legislation will
require of all institutions on August 1, 1992.
c. For the same reasons as stated in paragraph b above, the university has limited the football
program to a total of 85 overall [Page 8] grants-in-aid in the 1992-93 academic year and 85
overall grants-in-aid in the 1993-94 academic year. This action accelerates by two years the
reduction to 85 in overall football grants-in-aid that recent NCAA legislation will require of all
institutions for the 1994-95 academic year.
d. Although the university took the position it had operated its football camp program in
compliance with NCAA rules, it suspended its senior camp pending the resolution of this case.
e. The university's president advised the institution's coaches and athletics administrators that
future salary adjustments and other personnel actions would depend upon their continued and
increased attention to adherence to NCAA, conference and institutional rules and regulations.
The committee adopted these actions by the university and incorporated them into its penalty in
this case. The committee also noted that the university's self-imposed restrictions on the number
of coaches who may engage in recruiting and serve as full-time coaches and the grant-in-aid
limitations for the football program would apply regardless of whether the pending NCAA
legislative restrictions in these areas are relaxed by future NCAA Conventions.
In addition, the following actions were taken by the committee:
A. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a
period of two year(s) from the date these penalties are imposed, which shall be the date the 15-
day appeal period expires or the date the institution notifies the executive director that it will not
appeal, whichever is earlier, or the date established by NCAA Council subcommittee action in
the event of an appeal by the university to the Council, it being understood that should any
portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate
action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions.
Further, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA
Bylaw 19.4.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date
of the penalties in this case.
B. During this period of probation, the institution shall: develop and implement a comprehensive
educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) to instruct coaches and athletics department
personnel on NCAA legislation; submit a preliminary report by December 2, 1991, setting forth
a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program, and file annual progress
reports with the NCAA enforcement staff on July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993. The program
developed by the university should specifically address the procedures the institution will follow
to assure itself that members of its coaching staff have appropriate training and testing in
recruiting rules before engaging in recruiting for the university. [Page 9]
C. If the former assistant coach involved in this case had been employed at the institution at the
time of the hearing in this case, the institution would have been required to show cause in
accordance with Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l) why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had
failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. Because of the institution's actions with
respect to the former assistant coach, the committee did not take such action in regard to the
university.
D. Due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, the
former assistant coach involved in this case will be informed in writing by the NCAA that in the
event he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member
institution during a three-year period (September 18, 1991, to September 18, 1994), he and the
involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions in order for
the committee to consider whether that member institution should be subject to the show-cause
procedures of Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l), which could limit the former coach's athletically related duties
at the new institution for a designated period. (Had the former assistant coach not cooperated in
the processing of this case, the committee would have imposed at least a five-year period during
which he would have been subject to this show-cause procedure.)
E. Because of the institutional corrective and disciplinary actions described previously, the
committee did not impose additional penalties involving restrictions on postseason competition,
television appearances, expense-paid visits by prospective student-athletes and off-campus
recruiting. Had the university not taken the actions it did to correct the violations, discipline the
assistant coach who was primarily involved and self-impose penalties on its football program,
the committee would have considered imposing the penalties in these categories required by
Bylaw 19.4.2.2.
F. The institution shall recertify that all of its current athletics policies and practices conform to
all requirements of NCAA regulations.
[NOTE: Should the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, appeal either the findings of violations
or proposed penalties in this case to the NCAA Council subcommittee of Division I members,
the Committee on Infractions will submit an expanded infractions report to the members of the
Council who will consider the appeal. This expanded report will include additional information
in accordance with Bylaw 32.8.5. A copy of the committee's report would be provided to the
institution prior to the institution's appearance before the Council subcommittee and, as required
by Bylaw 32.8.6, would be released to the public.
Also, the Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that when the penalties in this
case become effective, the institution should take every precaution to ensure that their terms are
observed; further, [Page 10] the committee intends to monitor the penalties during their effective
periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties shall be considered grounds
for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as to consider imposing more severe
sanctions in this case.
Finally, should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of
these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and
reconsider the penalties.]
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
Milton R. Schroeder
Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton
David Swank
D. Alan Williams (chair)
DAW:cg/jsm
-30-
 
#34
#34
Let me guess, Kiffin turned em in this time?...You just KNOW they will try and find someone to pass off the blame on besides themselves....The VOLnation and Phil Fulmer laugh at you Bammers...Pathetic cheaters that you are.
 
#36
#36
CrimsonKid said:
So Tennessee isn't the perfect University you all try to make it out to be.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read any of that, you'd realize that what Tennessee did involved one athlete and one coach. And I'm pretty sure all that exchanged hands were a few free phone cards, and an airplane flight.

23 and 17 years ago.

You guys have been on probation since 4 years after our last violation.
 
#38
#38
oUTKickedCoverage said:
Public Infraction Report

FOR RELEASE: September 18, 1991, 1:30 p.m. (Central Time)
CONTACT: James A. Marchiony, Director of Communications
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, INFRACTIONS REPORT
by the NCAA Committee on Infractions
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS--This report is organized as follows:
I. Introduction.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
I. Introduction.
This case originated when the NCAA enforcement staff received an anonymous letter that
questioned whether the university was violating NCAA legislation in the operation of a summer
football camp. After several interviews were conducted, the assistant executive director for
enforcement concluded that sufficient information had been collected to issue an official inquiry
to the university on April 8, 1991. This official inquiry alleged violations of three different types:
(a) violations of recruiting rules, primarily related to impermissible recruiting contacts and the
arrangement of credit for an airline ticket for a prospect to attend the university's summer
football camp by a former assistant football coach; (b) violations of NCAA ethical-conduct
legislation by the same former assistant coach, and (c) violations of NCAA legislation that
require a member institution to operate any summer football camp in a manner that is open to the
public (i.e., a university may not operate a summer football camp that is exclusively reserved to
recruits for the university's football team).
The university filed its written response with the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on
Infractions on June 10, 1991, in which it basically admitted the alleged violations in categories
(a) and (b) above, subject to minor revisions, and disputed that its operation of the summer
football camp in question violated NCAA legislation. The former assistant coach also submitted
a written response on June 25, 1991, after receiving an extension of time from the committee for
the former coach to review the institutional response to the allegations relating to him. The
NCAA enforcement staff held prehearing conferences with institutional representatives on June
2, 1991, and with legal counsel for the former assistant coach on July 11, 1991, to review the
information the staff would present [Page 2] at the hearing. To resolve issues that were identified
during these prehearing conferences, several interviews with various individuals were conducted
prior to the hearing. The NCAA enforcement staff, an institutional representative and legal
counsel for the former assistant coach jointly participated in these interviews in order to establish
a common base of understanding in regard to the information given by the various interviewees.
On August 11, 1991, the committee conducted a hearing in this case, which was attended by
institutional representatives, the former assistant coach and his legal counsel, and members of the
NCAA enforcement staff. Inasmuch as the assistant coach no longer was employed at an NCAA
member institution, his appearance at and participation during the hearing was voluntary as the
NCAA could not otherwise have compelled his appearance before the committee.
Based on the information presented at the hearing by all the parties, as described in Part II of this
report, the committee has found that the university's football program violated recruiting rules
substantially as alleged and admitted by the university. The committee also found that the former
assistant coach violated the principles of ethical conduct that NCAA rules require institutional
coaching personnel and other representatives to meet. The former assistant coach's involvement
in the violations in this case demonstrated a knowing effort to operate the university's football
program contrary to NCAA rules, and the former assistant coach encouraged a principal in the
case to report false and misleading information.
The committee did not find the former assistant coach violated the ethical-conduct standards
pertaining to the provision of false and misleading information during the course of an NCAA
investigation. All parties agreed that during the assistant coach's initial interview with an NCAA
enforcement representative, which occurred in the presence of representatives of the university,
the former assistant coach gave false and misleading information in response to some of the
questions seeking information relevant to possible NCAA violations in which he was involved.
Further, at the beginning of this interview, the NCAA investigator specifically called the former
assistant coach's attention to the provision of the NCAA bylaws applicable to giving false and
misleading information during an investigation of possible NCAA violations and indicated to the
assistant coach the seriousness of the consequences that could result from a violation of this
bylaw. A separate NCAA bylaw (Bylaw 32.3.6) also places an additional duty on the NCAA
enforcement staff, however, to inform an individual prior to the interview that the purpose of the
interview is to obtain information about the individual's personal involvement in NCAA
violations when that, in fact, is the purpose of the interview. The record before the committee did
not establish that the NCAA investigator had given the assistant coach the notification required
by this bylaw.
Because the notice called for in Bylaw 32.3.6 was not given, the committee believed it was not
appropriate under the circumstances of this case to find that the assistant coach violated the rules
of ethical conduct in Bylaw 10.1-(d) by giving false and misleading information during this
initial interview. Among the circumstances that led the committee to this conclusion were: (1)
the assistant coach was not represented by personal [Page 3] legal counsel during this interview;
(2) there was no doubt that one purpose of this interview was to question the assistant coach
about his personal involvement in possible NCAA violations; (3) given the prominence of
alleged violations relating to the operation of the university's summer football camp, the
committee could not conclude from the record that the former assistant coach otherwise
understood that a purpose of the interview was to inquire into matters where he was personally
involved in allegations of NCAA violations, and (4) after the initial interview, the former
assistant coach promptly consulted personal legal counsel and was prepared to correct the false
and misleading statements.
The violations alleged in category (c) above related to the university's operation of a summer
"senior" football camp. The committee concluded that the information presented did not establish
a violation of NCAA legislation. The only remaining issue about this "senior" camp at the time
of the hearing was whether it was open to the public as required by Bylaw 13.13.1.2. Under the
relevant NCAA legislation, it is permissible for an institution to invite particular prospects to its
camp as long as the camp is open to all entrants limited only by the number and age of the camp
participants. The university operated two types of summer football camps. One type was its
Johnny Majors football camps, which the university advertised through a printed camp brochure,
as well as in other ways. There was no claim that these camps violated NCAA rules. The other
type, and the camp at issue in this case, is the university's "senior camp," which is held for a
shorter period of time (over a weekend), is less costly to the camp participants, and is fully
acknowledged by the university to be aimed at attracting high school seniors-to-be who have
ambitions of pursuing football participation after completing high school. The enforcement
staff's theory in presenting this allegation was that the university, in effect, operated the senior
camp as an exclusive tryout and recruiting camp for prospects due to the university's limited
advertising to the general public of the availability of the camp and reliance on invitations to
individual prospects to attract camp participants. There was no contention that the university
improperly denied access to its senior camp to an applicant, only that the failure to advertise the
camp as a practical matter limited its availability primarily to those whom the university
regarded as prospects for its football team.
If the information presented at the hearing had supported this theory, the committee would have
found that a violation occurred. However, the enforcement staff did not sustain its burden of
proving that the university failed to give the public adequate notice through information
disseminated orally and personally by the coaching staff to high school programs throughout the
area of the general availability of the senior camp. In view of the information from the university
indicating there was widespread knowledge among area high school football programs of the
availability of the senior camp to all entrants, the committee concluded that no violation
occurred.
The committee was troubled by the fact that while the university publicized its Johnny Majors
football camps with an attractive promotional brochure, the senior camp was not mentioned in
this brochure and was not promoted through the use of any written materials describing the
availability of the camp. Conducting the senior camp in this manner is, in the committee's
opinion, a questionable practice that the university [Page 4] would be well-advised to
discontinue. In future cases involving this issue, absent clarifying legislation or interpretations
from the appropriate NCAA bodies, the committee will regard an institution that fails to promote
all of its development camps in the same manner to the appropriate age-group audience as
having the burden of demonstrating the target age group had adequate information of the
availability of the camp to the general public. Had this approach been applied in this case, the
committee would have found a violation of Bylaw 13.13.1.2 occurred in the conduct of the
"senior" camp. The committee did not apply this approach to the university in this case in view
of the efforts taken by the institution to obtain advice from its conference office on the
requirements for its summer camp and the lack of clarity in the existing bylaw on the obligations
of a member institution to advertise the availability of its camps.
Although the committee did not find a violation relating to the football camp, the committee
concluded that this was a major case under Bylaw 19.02.2. There were a series of recruiting
violations, including arranging an airline ticket on a credit basis for a prospect to attend the
university's football camp, that were knowingly committed by a member of the university's
football coaching staff for whose conduct the university is responsible. Moreover, the
university's compliance and rules-education program did not require newly employed coaching
staff members to participate in any rules-compliance orientation or demonstrate familiarity with
NCAA recruiting rules before recruiting for the university.
Although this is a major case, it is unique. The university fully cooperated in the processing and
investigation of this case. It acknowledged violations when the evidence supported such
conclusions and admitted that a member of its coaching staff violated the principles of ethical
conduct in Bylaw 10.01.1. The university took timely corrective and disciplinary actions that
included dismissing its assistant football coach, suspending its senior football camp, and self-
imposing substantial recruiting and athletics grant-in-aid penalties. For these reasons, as
explained in Part III of this report, the committee did not apply the full schedule of minimum
penalties that Bylaw 19.4.2.1 otherwise requires in the case of a major violation.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee.
A. [NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1]
During the spring and summer of 1989, during the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete, a
then assistant football coach arranged for the young man to receive a round-trip airline ticket on
a credit basis from a Knoxville area travel agency in order for the young man to travel to the
university's campus to attend the institution's summer football camp.
Specifically, during a telephone conversation with the prospect, the assistant coach asked about
the young man's interest in attending the institution's football camp. The prospect stated he could
not afford the airline ticket price(s) as quoted to him and his mother during their inquiries. The
assistant coach responded that he would gather [Page 5] information about costs of possible
airline flights. The assistant coach contacted a travel agent at a travel agency in Knoxville and
arranged a round-trip airline ticket for the young man between the prospect's home town and
Knoxville at a cost of $231. The travel agent sent the airline ticket to the assistant coach who, in
turn, mailed the ticket, via overnight mail service, from the football office to the young man who
then utilized the ticket to attend the football camp. After the young man arrived on campus, he
provided an envelope to the assistant coach with the cash necessary to pay the cost of the airline
ticket, and the assistant coach forwarded the cash to the travel agency. The young man did not
have any in-person or telephonic conversations with the travel agency concerning the flight
arrangements or payments.
B. [NCAA Bylaws 13.02.3 and 13.1.1.1]
In February and May 1989, a then assistant football coach made in-person, off-campus recruiting
contacts with two prospective student-athletes at the young men's high schools prior to the
completion of the young men's junior year in high school. Specifically, in February 1989, the
assistant coach contacted one prospective student-athlete at the conclusion of the young man's
high school basketball practice at his high school, and in May 1989, the assistant coach contacted
another prospective student-athlete in the hallway at his high school prior to the young man's
first class period.
C. [NCAA Bylaws 13.02.3, 13.1.1.1, 13.1.4 and 13.6.1]
In May and June 1989, during the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete, a then assistant
football coach violated NCAA legislation involving recruiting contacts and the provision of local
automobile transportation. Specifically:
1. On at least two occasions in May 1989, the assistant coach made in-person, off-campus
recruiting contacts prior to the completion of the young man's junior year in high school with the
prospect's parents and, on at least one occasion, the young man's sister at the prospect's high
school baseball games.
2. On one occasion in June 1989, during the university's summer football camp, the assistant
coach provided automobile transportation in the Knoxville area to the prospect's sister between
the World's Fair Convention Center/Downtown Holiday Inn, the Hyatt Hotel and/or the College
Inn restaurant.
3. On two occasions in June 1989, during the university's summer football camp, the assistant
coach made in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with the young man's parents and sister at
two different restaurants in Knoxville. [Page 6]
D. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d) and 19.01.2]
The former assistant football coach involved in this case failed to deport himself in accordance
with the generally recognized high stand-ards normally associated with the conduct and
administration of intercollegiate athletics in that the assistant coach's involvement in the findings
of violations in this report and his attempts to encourage a principal in this case to report false
and misleading information to university and NCAA enforcement staff members were contrary
to the principles of ethical conduct. Specifically:
1. The assistant coach demonstrated a knowing effort on his part to operate the university's
intercollegiate football program contrary to the requirements and provisions of NCAA legislation
by his overall involvement in the findings of violations in this report.
2. The assistant coach encouraged a principal in this case to report false and misleading
information in that following an interview on December 14, 1990, with the assistant coach by an
NCAA enforcement representative, the assistant coach was requested by the enforcement
representative not to contact a former employee of a travel agency in Knoxville, Tennessee.
However, the assistant coach subsequently contacted the travel agent, asked her about the
information contained in Part II-A of this report and then requested that the travel agent not
mention the assistant coach's contact with her if she was asked by the NCAA enforcement staff.
E. [NCAA Bylaws 30.3, 30.3.3 and 30.3.5]
Based upon the violations in this report, the institution's Certification of Compliance form for the
1988-89 academic year was erroneous in that the institution's football program was not in
compliance with NCAA legislation. On August 2, 1989, a then assistant football coach attested
on a statement filed with the chief executive officer of the institution that he had reported to the
chief executive officer his knowledge of and involvement in any violations of NCAA legislation
involving the institution when, in fact, he had not done so. Based upon information provided by
the assistant coach, and without intent to do so, the then president erroneously certified on
August 28, 1989, the university's compliance with NCAA legislation.
F. The university also self-reported several secondary violations related to the recruitment of two
prospective student-athletes by an assistant football coach.
III. Committee on Infractions penalties.
For the reasons set forth in Part I of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case
involved a major violation of NCAA legislation that occurred after September 1, 1985. NCAA
Bylaw 19.4.2.2, as adopted by the Association's membership, requires prescribed minimum
[Page 7] penalties, "subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions in unique
cases on the basis of specifically stated reasons," that include: (a) a two-year probationary period
(including a periodic, in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports); (b) the
elimination of all expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one
recruiting year; (c) a requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from
engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one recruiting year; (d) a requirement that all
institutional staff members determined by the Committee on Infractions knowingly to have
engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject either to termination of employment,
suspension without pay for at least one year or reassignment of duties within the institution to a
position that does not include contact with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or
representatives of the institution's athletics interests for at least one year; (e) one year of
sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport; (f) one year of sanctions precluding
television appearances in the sport, and (g) institutional recertification that the current athletics
policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
The Committee on Infractions determined that this case was a "unique" case in which the
institution should receive less than the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by
NCAA legislation. The important mitigating factors in this case included: prompt detection of
violations, thorough investigation and reporting of violations to the NCAA; cooperation in the
processing of the case, and initiation of strong disciplinary and corrective actions.
The university's corrective and disciplinary actions included the following measures:
a. On December 17, 1990, the university suspended the then assistant coach from all coaching
duties because of a violation of NCAA regulations. On March 25, 1991, after consultation with
the Southeastern Conference office, the university permitted the assistant coach to return to
coaching duties pending completion of the university's investigation of the issues in this case. On
June 7, 1991, after receipt of the NCAA official inquiry and completion of the university's
investigation, the university determined that the assistant coach had violated NCAA legislation
concerning ethical conduct and that his employment as assistant coach would be terminated.
b. Although the university discovered no evidence that its head football coach or any other
athletics department staff member was aware of the violations committed by the assistant coach,
the university acted to strongly reemphasize the need for the head coach to exercise control over
recruiting and other administrative activities by directing that the football program leave unfilled
the full-time coaching position held by the former assistant football coach. This penalty
accelerates the reduction in the number of full-time assistant coaches (and the number of coaches
that may engage in off-campus recruiting) from nine to eight that recent NCAA legislation will
require of all institutions on August 1, 1992.
c. For the same reasons as stated in paragraph b above, the university has limited the football
program to a total of 85 overall [Page 8] grants-in-aid in the 1992-93 academic year and 85
overall grants-in-aid in the 1993-94 academic year. This action accelerates by two years the
reduction to 85 in overall football grants-in-aid that recent NCAA legislation will require of all
institutions for the 1994-95 academic year.
d. Although the university took the position it had operated its football camp program in
compliance with NCAA rules, it suspended its senior camp pending the resolution of this case.
e. The university's president advised the institution's coaches and athletics administrators that
future salary adjustments and other personnel actions would depend upon their continued and
increased attention to adherence to NCAA, conference and institutional rules and regulations.
The committee adopted these actions by the university and incorporated them into its penalty in
this case. The committee also noted that the university's self-imposed restrictions on the number
of coaches who may engage in recruiting and serve as full-time coaches and the grant-in-aid
limitations for the football program would apply regardless of whether the pending NCAA
legislative restrictions in these areas are relaxed by future NCAA Conventions.
In addition, the following actions were taken by the committee:
A. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a
period of two year(s) from the date these penalties are imposed, which shall be the date the 15-
day appeal period expires or the date the institution notifies the executive director that it will not
appeal, whichever is earlier, or the date established by NCAA Council subcommittee action in
the event of an appeal by the university to the Council, it being understood that should any
portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate
action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions.
Further, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA
Bylaw 19.4.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date
of the penalties in this case.
B. During this period of probation, the institution shall: develop and implement a comprehensive
educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) to instruct coaches and athletics department
personnel on NCAA legislation; submit a preliminary report by December 2, 1991, setting forth
a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program, and file annual progress
reports with the NCAA enforcement staff on July 1, 1992, and July 1, 1993. The program
developed by the university should specifically address the procedures the institution will follow
to assure itself that members of its coaching staff have appropriate training and testing in
recruiting rules before engaging in recruiting for the university. [Page 9]
C. If the former assistant coach involved in this case had been employed at the institution at the
time of the hearing in this case, the institution would have been required to show cause in
accordance with Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l) why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had
failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. Because of the institution's actions with
respect to the former assistant coach, the committee did not take such action in regard to the
university.
D. Due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, the
former assistant coach involved in this case will be informed in writing by the NCAA that in the
event he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member
institution during a three-year period (September 18, 1991, to September 18, 1994), he and the
involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions in order for
the committee to consider whether that member institution should be subject to the show-cause
procedures of Bylaw 19.4.2.1-(l), which could limit the former coach's athletically related duties
at the new institution for a designated period. (Had the former assistant coach not cooperated in
the processing of this case, the committee would have imposed at least a five-year period during
which he would have been subject to this show-cause procedure.)
E. Because of the institutional corrective and disciplinary actions described previously, the
committee did not impose additional penalties involving restrictions on postseason competition,
television appearances, expense-paid visits by prospective student-athletes and off-campus
recruiting. Had the university not taken the actions it did to correct the violations, discipline the
assistant coach who was primarily involved and self-impose penalties on its football program,
the committee would have considered imposing the penalties in these categories required by
Bylaw 19.4.2.2.
F. The institution shall recertify that all of its current athletics policies and practices conform to
all requirements of NCAA regulations.
[NOTE: Should the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, appeal either the findings of violations
or proposed penalties in this case to the NCAA Council subcommittee of Division I members,
the Committee on Infractions will submit an expanded infractions report to the members of the
Council who will consider the appeal. This expanded report will include additional information
in accordance with Bylaw 32.8.5. A copy of the committee's report would be provided to the
institution prior to the institution's appearance before the Council subcommittee and, as required
by Bylaw 32.8.6, would be released to the public.
Also, the Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that when the penalties in this
case become effective, the institution should take every precaution to ensure that their terms are
observed; further, [Page 10] the committee intends to monitor the penalties during their effective
periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties shall be considered grounds
for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as to consider imposing more severe
sanctions in this case.
Finally, should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of
these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and
reconsider the penalties.]
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
Milton R. Schroeder
Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton
David Swank
D. Alan Williams (chair)
DAW:cg/jsm
-30-



----------------------------------------


Public Infraction Report

FOR RELEASE

CONTACT:

Immediately

Charles E. Smrt

October 9, l986

Assistant Director of Enforcement



UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION

MISSION, KANSAS--The National Collegiate Athletic Association's Committee on
Infractions announced today that the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, has
been placed on probation for a period of one year for violations occurring in
the sport of football.
Remedial actions taken by the university also were adopted by the NCAA in the
case and included the severance of relations between two representatives of
the university's athletics interests and the athletics department, a reprimand
of the head football coach and implementation of new programs by the
university to enhance monitoring and compliance procedures.
The university will be required to submit a report to the NCAA at the
conclusion of the l986-87 academic year regarding the progress of its efforts
to establish controls that would avoid similar violations in the future.
No sanction regarding postseason competition or television appearances was
imposed in the case.
The violations considered by the Committee on Infractions were reported by the
university following its investigation of published reports of alleged
violations occurring in the university's football program. The NCAA conducted
additional inquiries in the matter but did not uncover further irregularities.
The significant violations in the case involved one football team member who
received improper benefits from an outside booster during the young man's
enrollment, as well as several additional team members and their relatives who
-more-

UNIV. OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION
October 9, l986
Page No. 2
__________

received lodging on numerous occasions in a motel owned by a second outside
booster.
"There have been numerous newspaper reports over the past year alleging a
variety of extra benefits to enrolled student-athletes at the University of
Tennessee," said Frank J. Remington, chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions.
"Investigation of the statements allegedly made by former student-athletes who
were quoted for the most part did not substantiate the newspaper accounts.
"Where evidence of violations was found," continued Mr. Remington, "the
university was forthright in its admission of responsibility and has taken
significant remedial action on its own. Therefore, the committee believed that
the university's remedial actions should be adopted by the NCAA, and that a
one-year probationary period would be appropriate to monitor the
implementation of administrative controls that will reduce the opportunity for
similar violations in the future."
In closing, Mr. Remington stated that "the committee notes with appreciation
the cooperation of the university in this case, and particularly the candor
and commitment to rules compliance demonstrated by President Edward J.
Boling."
The violations considered in the case in determining NCAA penalties involved
extra benefits to student-athletes, failure to apply properly an eligibility
rule and certification of compliance with NCAA legislation.
The following is the complete text of the penalties in the case and a summary
of the violations.


Penalties To Be Imposed Upon Institution

1.
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, shall be publicly reprimanded
and censured, and placed on probation for a period of one year, effective
October 9, 1986, it being understood that should any of the penalties in this
-more-

UNIV. OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION
October 9, l986
Page No. 3
__________


case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the
Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the NCAA; further, at the
conclusion of the probationary period, the NCAA enforcement staff shall review
the athletics policies and procedures of the university.
2.
The Committee on Infractions also voted to accept the remedial actions
previously taken by the university (as described in the following paragraphs)
and reserves jurisdiction to ensure that the stated terms of these paragraphs
are implemented fully and satisfactorily.

a.
The university's athletics department has severed all contact with
two representatives of the university's athletics interests and excluded them
from participating in all athletics department activities (other than as a
regular ticket holder and member of the audience at athletics events). Also, a
donation contributed to the athletics department by one of the representatives
in conjunction with a fund drive was returned.

b.
The head football coach was reprimanded by the institution for
failing to self-report an incident involving a student-athlete's use of a
vehicle owned by a representative of the university's athletics interests.
This written reprimand, together with his future compliance administration,
will be carefully considered in the coach's annual performance appraisal.

c.
All head coaches will continue to enhance their efforts to advise
players and coaches of NCAA regulations pertaining to receipt of extra
benefits, specifically addressing the prohibition placed on receipt of
boosters' benefits such as free motel rooms, automobile use, credit card use,
clothing, restaurant meals and cash gifts of any type.

d.
A comprehensive educational program for boosters has been
developed and implemented by the director of athletics.

e.
The director of athletics shall develop additional programs for
initial and continuous monitoring of compliance activities. Specific
directives and expectations will be incorporated into the job descriptions of
athletics department personnel, and annual evaluations of personnel will
include an assessment of each employee's adherence to compliance expectations.

f.
Improved instructions regarding the use of the complimentary
admissions pass list will be incorporated into the team orientation programs
for student-athletes participating in basketball and football. Further, a more
precise monitoring system will be devised by the athletics department ticket
office personnel.


Summary of Violations of NCAA Legislation

1.
Violations of NCAA legislation governing the provision of extra benefits
to student-athletes [NCAA Constitution 3-1-(g)-(5), 3-2 and 4-2-(a)] -- (a) On
-more-
UNIV. OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, PLACED ON NCAA PROBATION
October 9, l986
Page No. 4
__________



several occasions during the 1984-85 academic year, a representative of
the university's athletics interests provided a student-athlete the personal
use of automobiles (including a 1984 Porsche, 1983 Jaguar and 1965 Corvette)
at no cost to the young man; further, during the 1985-86 academic year, the
representative permitted the student-athlete to charge the cost of gasoline to
the representative's credit card, and finally, during the second half of the
summer of 1984, the representative provided the student-athlete meals and
lodging in his home at no cost to the young man; (b) on several occasions
during the enrollment of a student-athlete (1980 to 1984), the same
representative provided the student-athlete the personal use of a Chevrolet
Blazer at no cost to the young man, and (c) on numerous occasions during a
period beginning in the 1976-77 academic year and continuing to the 1983-84
academic year, a representative of the university's athletics interests
provided lodging for several student-athletes and their relatives at a local
motel at no cost to them; further, some assistant coaches knew that such cost-
free lodging was being provided.
2.
Additional violations of NCAA legislation [NCAA Constitution 3-l-(g)-(5)
and 4-2-(a), and Bylaws 5-6-(d) and 5-6-(d)-(5)] -- (a) A student-athlete was
permitted to participate in intercollegiate football competition during the
1985 football season, even though the head football coach was aware that a
representative of the university's athletics interests had provided the young
man the use of several vehicles and consequently was ineligible; (b) with full
knowledge at the time that certain practices of the university's
intercollegiate football program were not in compliance with NCAA legislation,
the head coach attested on August 30, 1985, on a statement filed with the
chief executive officer of the university that he had reported to the chief
executive officer his knowledge of and involvement in any violations of NCAA
legislation involving his institution when, in fact, he had not done so, and
(c) the committee notes that the university previously has acknowledged to the
NCAA Eligibility Committee violations of NCAA legislation concerning
complimentary admissions, and the university has taken prompt and appropriate
action. The Eligibility Committee invited the Committee on Infractions to
review these matters to determine if any further action should be taken. The
Committee on Infractions has done so and commends the university for the
manner by which it handled this situation.
/cg














-30-
Click to expand...

BUMP! (just a little light reading to help put you guys to sleep):p

Sleep well VN, as for tommorrow...

GO VOLS !!!:rock:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top