Since we ended up with someone with a history as well, why not Howland? Here is what I found, anyone got anything else or a better picture of what happened?
From the fall of 2006 through April 2009, the head mens coach, an assistant coach and other members of the mens basketball staff had knowledge of, and at times directed or encouraged, impermissible recruiting activities of the booster. This booster, a university alumnus and financial contributor, was involved in the recruitment of more than 30 prospective student-athletes. His activities included evaluations, telephone contact, arranging workouts, assisting in the arrangement of official and unofficial visits, and offering improper recruiting inducements for prospective student-athletes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The booster also arranged airline transportation and provided a loan for the cost of flights for two family members of a mens basketball student-athlete.During this time, the head coach and the booster exchanged 87 telephone calls and text messages, most of which included information regarding prospective student-athletes. Additionally, the two exchanged more than 200 e-mails, some in which the booster provided details of evaluations and contacts with prospective student-athletes. The committee found that the scope and nature of the violations demonstrated the head mens basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. Specifically, the head coach allowed and encouraged the boosters assistance with the recruitment of student-athletes. The head coach also directed his staff to interact with the booster regarding recruitment efforts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by : The penalties in this case include: Public reprimand and censure. Two years of probation from August 25, 2010, through August 24, 2012. Reduction of one athletics scholarship in mens basketball, from 13 to 12, for the 2011-12 academic year (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction in the number of remaining recruiting days by 30 for the 2009-10 academic year. The head coach must assume 10 of those days (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction in the number of recruiting days by 15 for the 2010-11 academic year. The head coach must assume five of those days (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction of three official visits, from 12 to nine, for the 2010-11 academic year (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction in the number of permissible telephone calls to each senior prospective student-athlete from two per week to one per week during the 2009-10 academic year (Self-imposed by the university).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the fall of 2006 through April 2009, the head mens coach, an assistant coach and other members of the mens basketball staff had knowledge of, and at times directed or encouraged, impermissible recruiting activities of the booster. This booster, a university alumnus and financial contributor, was involved in the recruitment of more than 30 prospective student-athletes. His activities included evaluations, telephone contact, arranging workouts, assisting in the arrangement of official and unofficial visits, and offering improper recruiting inducements for prospective student-athletes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The booster also arranged airline transportation and provided a loan for the cost of flights for two family members of a mens basketball student-athlete.During this time, the head coach and the booster exchanged 87 telephone calls and text messages, most of which included information regarding prospective student-athletes. Additionally, the two exchanged more than 200 e-mails, some in which the booster provided details of evaluations and contacts with prospective student-athletes. The committee found that the scope and nature of the violations demonstrated the head mens basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance. Specifically, the head coach allowed and encouraged the boosters assistance with the recruitment of student-athletes. The head coach also directed his staff to interact with the booster regarding recruitment efforts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by : The penalties in this case include: Public reprimand and censure. Two years of probation from August 25, 2010, through August 24, 2012. Reduction of one athletics scholarship in mens basketball, from 13 to 12, for the 2011-12 academic year (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction in the number of remaining recruiting days by 30 for the 2009-10 academic year. The head coach must assume 10 of those days (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction in the number of recruiting days by 15 for the 2010-11 academic year. The head coach must assume five of those days (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction of three official visits, from 12 to nine, for the 2010-11 academic year (Self-imposed by the university). Reduction in the number of permissible telephone calls to each senior prospective student-athlete from two per week to one per week during the 2009-10 academic year (Self-imposed by the university).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
