Ole Miss Response To NCAA Notice of Allegations

UniversityofMississippi
ResponsetoNoticeofAllegations
CaseNo.189693
Enrique(Henry)J.Gimenez,Esq.
BrianP.Kappel,Esq.
Lightfoot,Franklin&White,L.L.C.
TheClarkBuilding
40020thStreetNorth
Birmingham,AL35203
MikeGlazier,Esq.
LeeTyner,Esq.
Bond,Schoenick&KingPLCC
TheUniversityofMississippi
7500CollegeBoulevard
209Lyceum
Suite910
1848UniversityCircle
OverlandPark,KS66210
University,MS38677
INTRODUCTION
In early September 2012, the University of Mississippi (the University) received a

letter from the Southeastern Conference (the SEC) providing information about potential
violations of NCAA legislation in its womens basketball program. The University promptly
begananinternalinvestigationthatresultedinthediscoveryofsignificantrulesviolations.The
UniversitynotifiedtheNCAAenforcementstaffofitsinvestigation,whichledtotheUniversity
receivingaNoticeofInquiryinOctober2012.Thisinquiryeventuallyexpandedtoincludetwo
othersportsandextendedmorethanthreeyears,withtheUniversityreceivingtheNoticeof
Allegations(theNotice)inJanuary2016.
FromthemomenttheUniversityreceivedinformationaboutpotentialrulesviolations
andinthethreeandahalfyearssince,theUniversityhasbeenguidedbyitscommitmentto
institutional integrity as reflected in its relentless efforts to discover the truth, deal with any
potentialrulesviolationstransparently,andholdthoseresponsibleaccountable.Forallofthe
alleged violations, the University and enforcement staff largely agree on the material
underlyingfacts.AsaresultofyearsofhardworkbyboththeUniversityandtheenforcement
staff,theUniversityonlycontestsoneallegationandthelevelingoffiveothers.
In light of this broad agreement, the Universitys Response focuses on: (1) those
allegationswheremorecontextishelpfultotheCommitteeonInfractions(theCommittee)in
determininganappropriateremedy;(2)thoseallegationswheretheUniversitydiffersfromthe
enforcement staff on how to most fairly characterize the underlying facts or how those facts
should be viewed under applicable NCAA rules; (3) the Universitys commitment to rules
IN1
complianceandenforcementasdemonstratedthroughoutthisprocess;and(4)thecorrective
measuresthattheUniversityhasalreadyimplemented.
The University has accepted responsibility for the violations that occurred and self
imposed meaningful penalties. While discussed in more detail below, they collectively and
generallyincludetheterminationoffourcoaches,includingtheonlytwoinvolvedheadcoaches
still employed when the violations were discovered; the disassociation of every involved
booster;apostseasonbaninwomensbasketball;adoubledigitreductionofscholarshipsin
the football program; a significant reduction in offcampus evaluation days and official and
unofficial visits in football and track and field; violationspecific rules education across all
involved sports; and a $159,325.00 financial penalty. In every one of these situations, the
University carefully weighed the appropriate range of penalties and erred toward the upper
limits.
In discerning the appropriate classification for this case, the University has sought to
balance its acceptance of responsibility with two additional, significant factors: (1) the
Universitys proactive approach to compliance issues and exemplary cooperation throughout
this process, efforts which resulted in the University discovering and selfreporting the
informationthatledtothediscoveryofmostoftheviolationsincludedintheNotice;and(2)
the fact that all but one of the 16 Level I violations arose from intentional misconduct
committed by rogue former employees or boosters outside the Universitys direct control
actingincontraventionofruleseducationprovidedtothembytheUniversity.Asaresultof
thisanalysis,theUniversityhasdeterminedthat,totheextentthecurrentpenaltyguidelines
apply,theproperclassificationisLevelIMitigatedforfootballandLevelIIStandardfortrack
IN2
and field. Although a postseason ban may be imposed in a Level I Mitigated case, the
University believes a ban is unnecessary here based upon applicable precedent1and because
themostseriousallegationsoccurredyearsago,involvingstaffandstudentathleteslongsince
separatedfromtheUniversity.2
(1)
ExemplaryCooperationTheUniversitysDiscoveryAndSelfReportingOfViolations
The University has demonstrated an extraordinary level of initiative and cooperation
throughoutthisprocess.Ateverystepoftheinvestigation,theUniversityhasbeencommitted
tofindingthetruth,nomattertheissue.Thiscommitmentanddeterminationtogetitright
iswhatledtheUniversitytoinitiatetheinquiryordiscoverthepreliminaryinformationthatled
to20ofthe28allegationsandtoparticipateasanactivepartnerwiththeenforcementstaffin
investigatingalloftheallegations.3
Infact,theinstitutionisonlyawareofoneinstance,SouthernMethodistUniversity(September29,2015),where
the Committee imposed (as opposed to an institution selfimposing) a postseason ban where the institutional
case was classified at the standard level. In that case, which was Southern Methodist Universitys tenth major
infractions case, the Committee noted that it initially arose out of false information submitted by the former
compliance director to the Committee and included the institutions decision to retain a head coach who
committedmultiplesevereviolationsandfailedinhisheadcoachresponsibility[.]Inanalyzingthatcaseaspart
ofitsevaluation,theUniversityfeelsitscircumstances,bothpresentandhistorically,aredramaticallydifferent.
2
EveniftheCommitteedeterminesthatthecaseismoreproperlyclassifiedasLevelIStandard,theUniversity
submitsthattheuniquefactsofthiscasewarrantadownwarddeparturepursuanttoBylaw19.9.6fromany
requiredpostseasonban.
3
For 10 of the allegations, the University investigated and reported violations with little involvement from the
enforcement staff until late in the process (i.e., Allegations Nos. 6, 89, and 1420). For another eight, the
Universityuncoveredandreportedtheinitialinformationthatledtothediscoveryofpotentialviolationsbythe
University and the enforcement staff acting in concert (i.e., Allegations Nos. 2128). In a third category of
violations,theinitialinformationcamefromtheenforcementstaffbuttheUniversitysexemplarycooperationand
diligentinvestigationled,inwholeorinpart,tothediscoveryoftheviolation(i.e.,AllegationsNos.12).Forthe
remainingeightallegations,theinitialinformationthatledtothediscoveryoftheallegedviolationcamefromthe
enforcement staff, and the University fully participated in and cooperated with the enforcement staff in
discoveringtheunderlyingfacts.
IN3
DiiscoveryyofAlleggations
8
20
OriginatiingPrimarilyyFromInstittutionalActtion(20)
OriginatiingFromJointorEnforccementStaff
ffAction(8)
Asoutlinedbelow,th
heUniversitysexemplarycooperationpermeatteseveryaspectofthiscase.
ofthemostsseriousviolaationswould
dnothaveb eendiscoveeredorsupportedbutfo
orthe
Severalo
persisten
nceandcreaativityofUniversitystafffandcounseel.
(A
A)
Wome
ensBasketb
ball
TheUniversittysexemplaarycooperattionbeganw
withitsresp
ponsetoarrequestfrom
mthe
SEC to lo
ook into the recruitme
ent and/or academic c redentials o
of two prosspective student
athletes.Earlyintheinquiry,th
heUniversityybecamecooncernedth
hatoneorm
moremembeersof
thecoachingstaff,allofwhomw
werehiredin
nMarch20112orlateraandhadyetttocoachaggame,
may havve committe
ed serious academic violations. TThe Universsity reacted
d aggressiveely to
addressttheseconce
ernsandtoo
okcriticalste
epstoexpanndthescopeofitsinqu
uiryandpresserve
potential evidence, such as imaging comp
puters, perfoorming emaail and document searrches,
reviewing and securring text me
essages, call history, andd other reco
ords on stud
dentathletee and
staff celll phones, re
eviewing telephone reccords, preseerving or reestoring em
mail records,, and
trackingnetworkacttivityassociaatedwithcom
mputersuseedbythewo
omensbaskketballstaff.
When
W
it becaame apparent that two staff membbers were actively destroying electtronic
recordsttocovertheirtracks,the
eUniversitysteamprom
mptlynotifieedtheenforcementstafffand
IN4
the SEC. The enforcement staff authorized the University to quickly move forward with its
investigationratherthanwaitingforNCAAinvestigatorstogetinvolved.
The Universitys extraordinary efforts to identify, locate, and preserve information
proved critical to uncovering the misconduct of the two staff members. The Universitys
investigationincludedtherecoveryofemailsanddocumentsdeletedandpresumeddestroyed
by these staff members, acts which resulted in the unethical conduct charges contained in
AllegationsNos.1518.TheUniversityseffortsalsoledtotheimpermissiblecontactandhead
coachcontrolchargesinAllegationsNos.1920.Inresponsetoitsfindingsontheseissues,the
Universityterminatedtheemploymentoftheinvolvedstaffmembersandtheheadcoach.
Although it does not change the fact that serious violations occurred in womens
basketball,theCommitteewouldnothavethebenefitofmostoftheinformationpresentedin
theNoticewithouttheUniversitysquickanddecisiveactions.Highlightingthisfact,duringan
October4,2012,call,theenforcementstaffdescribedtheUniversity'sworkasamazingand
itsactionsasthekindtheCommitteewouldrecognizeasmitigating.
(B)
TrackandField
The underlying track and field violations involve circumstances that would have been
manageable had they been addressed by the coaching staff in an appropriate and timely
manner.Forexample,theofficialvisitviolationsinvolvingmealsandlodgingwouldhavebeen
LevelIIIviolations,selfreportedintheordinarycourse,ifthecoachingstaffhadrespondedas
theUniversityexpectedthemtowhentheissuesarose.Regardlessofthenatureorreasonfor
theallegations,noneofthetrackandfieldviolationswouldhavebeenuncoveredbutforthe
Universitysactions.Morespecifically,itwastheUniversitysmonitoringprogramthatfirstled
IN5
thecompliancestafftosuspectadepartingassistantcoachmayhaveknowledgeofpotential
rules violations. The compliance staffs efforts convinced the reluctant coach to share
informationaboutpotentialinfractions,andtheUniversityssubsequentinvestigationintothe
report confirmed their existence. Although the University and the enforcement staff jointly
investigated the assistant coachs allegations, the University is confident it would have
discoveredtheseviolationsonitsownhaditnotalreadybeenworkingwiththeenforcement
staffonothermatters.
(C)
Football
The investigation into the football program involved similar University investigative
effortsresultinginmultipleselfdiscoveredviolations.Thefootballinquirybeganinthespring
of 2013 with the University investigating and establishing the facts that provide the basis for
Allegations Nos. 6, 8, and 9. The Universitys investigation into these allegations was nearly
complete when the enforcement staff joined the Universitys efforts. The University is also
responsible for discovering or developing much of the information supporting the extra
benefits violations involving two studentathletes in Allegations Nos. 1(b) and 1(c). These
violations serve as part of the predicate for Allegation No. 2. After the loaner car issue first
arose as to studentathlete StudentAthlete 1, the University discovered and selfreported
studentathlete StudentAthlete 2s separate use of a loaner car. Moreover, the Universitys
additional efforts in reviewing all of the involved dealerships loaner car records led to the
discovery that StudentAthlete 1 had use of two additional loaner cars during 2015. The
University selfreported this information to the enforcement staff, knowing these facts may
supportaLevelIallegationandpresentsignificanteligibilityissuesforthestudentathletes.
IN6
TheUniversitysinvestigation,bothonitsownandinconjunctionwiththeenforcement
staff,hasbeenthorough,comprehensive,andexhaustive.Morethan265interviewshavebeen
conducted over the course of the investigation, a number of which were conducted by the
Universityalone.TheUniversityretainedoutsidecounselexperiencedinNCAAmatterstolead
its efforts. Senior University leaders, particularly general counsel Lee Tyner, personally
participatedineveryphaseoftheinvestigation.AthleticsdirectorRossBjorkandcompliance
personnelalsospentcountlesshoursworkingwiththeenforcementstaff.TheChancellorand
former Chancellor have also been actively involved in the Universitys investigation and
decisionmaking. By the time this matter will have concluded, the University will have spent
morethan$1,500,000.00onthisinvestigation,asumthatdoesnotincludethethousands of
hoursdevotedtotheinvestigationbyUniversityprofessionals.
(2)
TheNatureOfTheViolations
Institutions are responsible for the actions of their employees and boosters. The
Committeehasrecognized,however,thattheclassificationforthecaseagainsttheinstitution
whether aggravated, standard, or mitigated should be analyzed separately based upon the
institutionsuniqueaggravatingandmitigatingfactors.Inotherwords,aninstitutionscaseis
not judged solely on the underlying misconduct of its employees or boosters, and the
Committee may consider a lower range of penalties based upon, among other things, the
institutionscomplianceeffortsandconductduringaninvestigation.(ExhibitIN1,Universityof
LouisianaatLafayette(January12,2016),at21;ExhibitIN2,UniversityofSouthernMississippi
(April8,2016),at32.)
IN7
Inthiscase,allbutoneoftheallegedLevelIviolationsresultfrom:either(1)intentional
violationsoreffortstoconcealmisconductbyformeremployeesorstudentathleteswhoface
unethicalconductchargesandpersonalsanctions(i.e.,AllegationsNos.1018,26,and28);or
(2) actions of individual boosters who conducted themselves contrary to rules education
provided by the University (i.e., Allegations Nos. 1, 34, and 8). The single remaining Level I
allegation is the head coach responsibility charge in womens basketball (Allegation No. 20),
whichispremisedontheotherLevelIviolationsinthatsport.
(3)
TheUniversityHasAppropriatelyAddressedTheViolations
The University has selfimposed appropriate penalties for the violations and
implementedcorrectiveandremedialmeasurestominimizetheriskofrecurrence.Inaddition
totheimmediate,punitiveactionstheUniversitytookduringtheearlystagesofthewomens
basketball investigation, the University imposed a postseason ban and implemented
scholarshipandrecruitingreductions.Further,theUniversityhasdisassociatedeverybooster
involved in the football allegations, imposed significant scholarship reductions and recruiting
limitations,andrequiredadditionalruleseducationforcurrentstaffmembers.Likewise,none
of the coaches involved in the track and field allegations are currently employed with the
University.TheUniversityhasalsoprovidedadditionalruleseducationtoitscurrenttrackand
field staff and imposed serious reductions in offcampus recruiting contacts and oncampus
officialvisits.
IN8
RESPONSETONOTICEOFALLEGATIONS
A.
ProcessingLevelofCase.
Based on the information contained within the following allegations, the NCAA enforcement
staffbelievesthiscaseshouldbereviewedbyahearingpaneloftheNCAADivisionICommittee
on Infractions pursuant to procedures applicable to a severe breach of conduct (Level I
violation).4
RESPONSETOPROCESSINGLEVEL:
TheUniversityagreesthatthiscaseshouldbeprocessedpursuanttotheprocedures
applicabletoaLevelIviolation.
Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.7.1 (201516), if violations from multiple levels are identified in the notice of
allegations,thecaseshallbeprocessedpursuanttoproceduresapplicabletothemostseriousviolationsalleged.
B.
Allegations.
Football.
OVERVIEW:
TherearefourcategoriesofviolationswithintheUniversitysfootballprogram:(1)the
David Saunders allegations (Allegations Nos. 1013); (2) the 201213 recruiting allegations
(AllegationsNos.6and8);(3)theLevelIIIviolations(AllegationsNos.5,7,and9);and(4)the
booster allegations (Allegations Nos. 14). Each category is independent of and different in
natureandkindfromtheothers;thesearenotsystemicviolations.TheUniversityhastaken
targetedandaggressivestepstopenalizetheindividualswhocommittedtheseinfractions,self
imposed meaningful sanctions that will deeply impact its football program, and implemented
neededcorrectivemeasuresbothduringthisnearlyfouryearinvestigationaswellasleading
uptothissubmission.
Before turning to a discussion of the violations alleged in the Notice, the University
believes a chronological overview of these four categories will promote a more complete
understandingofhoweachoftheissuesarose.
(1)
TheDavidSaundersAllegations
The underlying events that led to the first set of alleged violations occurred in the
summer of 2010, about six years ago and a year and a half before the current coaching staff
washiredinDecember2011.Theseallegationsinvolvetwomembersofapreviouscoaching
staff, former football staff member David Saunders and former assistant football coach Chris
Vaughn.Theviolationsconcernthreedistinctissues:(1)Saundersallegedlyarrangingonone
occasion for fraudulent ACT scores for three prospects; (2) Saunders and Vaughn committing
2
unethical conduct related to the investigation into testing fraud; and (3) impermissible
temporarylodging,meals,andtransportationforsixprospectsduringJuneandJuly2010.
(A)
TestingFraud
The University agrees that the testing fraud described in Allegation No. 10 occurred.
Despiteitsbestefforts,theUniversityhasbeenunabletodetermineexactlyhowthefraudwas
committed.5 However, on balance, the information developed during the course of this
investigationtendstoestablishthatformerstaffmembersSaundersandVaughnplayedarole
inarrangingforthreestudentathletestoreceivefraudulententrancetestscores,deceivingthe
UniversityaswellasACT,Inc.(ACT),andtheNCAAEligibilityCenter.
The University accepts responsibility for the actions of its former employees.
Nevertheless,theinformationdevelopedduringthecourseofthejointinvestigationestablishes
that the University acted proactively, in realtime, in response to the information it received
abouttheprospectstestsin2010.RatherthanrelyingsolelyontheNCAAEligibilityCenterto
determinethevalidityofthesestudentsacademiccredentials,theUniversityflaggedallthree
of their test results due to the significant increase over their scores from prior tests. In the
summerof2010,theUniversityrequestedthatACTreviewandvalidatetheresultsasrequired
by institutional policy and in light of the SECs policy applicable to significant test score
increases.LikeotherNCAAinstitutionsacrossthecountry,theUniversityreasonablyreliedon
ACTtotakeappropriatestepstodeterminewhetherthetestscoreswerevalid.TheUniversity
AlthoughtheUniversityisawarethatACThasconducteditsowninvestigationintothetestingsiteinquestion,
ACThasrefusedtodisclosetheresultsofthatinvestigation.Todate,ACThasnevernotifiedtheUniversitythatit
hasinvalidatedthetestscoresforthethreestudentathletesatissue.
did not admit the studentathletes, give them financial aid, or allow them to participate in
footballactivitiesuntilafterACTvalidatedthescores.
(B)
UnethicalConduct
Allegations Nos. 12 and 13 concern unethical conduct committed by Saunders and
Vaughnrelatedtotheiractionsduringtheinvestigation,yearsaftertheyhadlefttheUniversity.
Forthisreason,theviolationsarenotattributabletotheUniversityforanyreason,includingfor
purposesofinstitutionalpenalties.
(C)
ImpermissibleLodgingAndLocalTransportation
The final allegation from 2010, Allegation No. 11, pertains to benefits received by six
prospectivestudentathletesattendingasummerschoolprograminLocation1.Saundersand
Vaughn provided them or their families with the contact information for a localarea church
leader named Individual 1. During the summer, each of the prospects lived in Individual 1s
home, under Individual 1s supervision, and received local transportation to the classes from
Individual 1 and his family. Saunders and Vaughn were both aware of the prospects living
arrangements,andtheviolationsaresolelyattributabletotheirconduct.
(2)
The201213RecruitingAllegations
Thenextcategoryincludesrecruitingallegationsinvolvingtwostaffmembersin2012
13.SettingasidetheLevelIIIviolationsfromthesameyear(AllegationsNos.5and9aredealt
with separately below), two allegations relate to this time period: Allegation No. 6, which
concerns former studentathlete StudentAthlete 1s official visit; and Allegation No. 8, which
concerns benefits provided to four prospects by Individual 2 , a representative of the
Universitys athletics interests. The University discovered both of these issues as part of an
independentreviewofpotentialrecruitingviolationsinearly2013.TheUniversityinvestigated
and then reported the issues to the enforcement staff when it found sufficient evidence to
believethatviolationshadoccurred.
As explained below in more detail, both of these violations resulted, at least in part,
frommistakesmadebymembersoftheUniversitysathleticsstaffinassessingwhethercertain
actionsviolatedNCAAlegislation. TheUniversitydoesnotcondonewhathappenedineither
instanceandhasimposedappropriatepenaltiesandimplementedcorrectivemeasures.
(3)
TheLevelIIIAllegations
TheNoticeincludesthreeLevelIIIviolationsinAllegationsNos.5,7,and9,twoofwhich
dateto2013andoneofwhichoccurredin2014.TheUniversitydoesnotcontestanyofthese
allegationsandhasalreadytakenappropriatestepstoreportandaddressthemthroughregular
channels,includingstudentathletereinstatementandconferenceaction.
(4)
TheBoosterAllegations
ThethreeremainingLevelIviolations(AllegationsNos.1,3,and4)areattributableto
individuals who qualify as representatives of the Universitys athletics interests under NCAA
legislation.AllegationsNos.3and4involveviolationswhereboostersprovidedmoneyand/or
lodgingtoFamilyMember1,StudentAthlete1sformerstepfather.FamilyMember1usedhis
relationship with StudentAthlete 1 and StudentAthlete 1s mother to solicit and receive
impermissible benefits. Family Member 1s actions and the actions of these boosters were
contrarytoruleseducationtheyhadreceivedfromtheUniversity.
It is unclear whether StudentAthlete 1 knew about Family Member 1s misconduct.
StudentAthlete1andFamilyMember1wereneverclose;infact,StudentAthlete1andFamily
5
Member1wereestrangedduringsignificantstretchesoftime,includinginthemonthsleading
up to their highly publicized physical altercation in June 2015. Had it not been for this
altercation,whichresultedinFamilyMember1sdecisiontodisclosehissecretdealingsinan
effort to harm StudentAthlete 1, it is unlikely that the University or enforcement staff (or
StudentAthlete1)wouldhavediscoveredFamilyMember1sconnectiontothetwoboosters.
TheUniversityhasadmittedandaddressedtheseviolations,andStudentAthlete1hasmade
restitution for the benefits Family Member 1 received. The University has also indefinitely
disassociatedthetwoboosterswhoprovidedFamilyMember1withmoneyandlodging.
The remaining Level I violation (Allegation No. 1) involves loaner cars that booster
Business 1 provided StudentAthlete 1 and another studentathlete, StudentAthlete 2. Both

studentathletesretainedaloanercaraftertherewasnolongeralegitimatereasonforthemto
have one. StudentAthlete 1 also acquired two different loaner cars while Business 1
employeessearchedforausedDodgeChallengerhewasinterestedinpurchasing.
StudentAthlete1sconductinacceptingbenefitsfromBusiness1wascontrarytothe
extensive NCAA rules education he received from the University as a high profile student
athlete.TheevidencealsosuggeststhatStudentAthlete1avoidedthecomprehensivesystems
putinplacetomonitorvehicleuse.
Although the University does not dispute the factual basis for the violation involving
StudentAthlete 2, it notes that the infraction resulted from an initially permissible
arrangement between StudentAthlete 2 his father, and Business 1. The violation occurred
whenStudentAthlete2,afterbeingtoldbyaBusiness1employeethatonlyhisfathercould
returntheloanercar(becauseithadbeenissuedtoStudentAthlete2sfather),keptthatcar
6
for about a month after retrieving his repaired vehicle. As a result of these violations, the
UniversitydisassociatedBusiness1andoneofitsownersforathreeyearperiod,equaltothe
lengthofitsproposedprobationinthiscase.
RESPONSETOALLEGATIONS:
1.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws16.11.2.1(201415and201516),16.11.2.2(a)(2014
15)and16.11.2.2(c)(201415and201516)]6
ItisallegedthatbetweenAugust2014andAugust2015,Business1,arepresentativeof
theinstitution'sathleticsinterests,providedfootballstudentathletesStudentAthlete1
(StudentAthlete1)andStudentAthlete2withimpermissibleextrabenefitsintheform
of complimentary vehicle use. Additionally, in June 2015, Business 1 and Individual 3,
owner of Business 1 and representative of the institution's athletics interests,provided
StudentAthlete 1 with an impermissible loan. The total monetary value of these extra
benefitswasapproximately$7,495.Specifically:
a.
On at least two occasions in the summer of 2014, StudentAthlete 1 took his
personalvehicletotheBusiness1servicedepartmentforrepairs.Duringthistime
period, Business 1 loaned StudentAthlete 1 a 2012 Nissan Titan at no cost
pursuant to its loaner vehicle program available to service customers. On or
aroundAugust11,2014,whileStudentAthlete1wasinpossessionoftheTitan,
Business 1 and StudentAthlete 1 decided to forego further repairs on Student
Athlete1'svehicle,whichendedStudentAthlete1'sstatusasaservicecustomer.
However, StudentAthlete 1 kept the Titan until October 28, 2014. Student
Athlete 1's possession of the Titan from at least August 28 to October 28 was
outside the scope of Business 1 loaner vehicle program. The value of the extra
benefit was approximately $2,416. [NCAA Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2(c)
(201415)]
b.
InFebruary2015,StudentAthlete1approachedtheBusiness1salesdepartment
regardingpurchasingausedDodgeChallenger.OnFebruary16,2015,Business1
loaned StudentAthlete 1 a 2004 Chevrolet Tahoe at no cost. StudentAthlete 1
possessedtheTahoecontinuouslyfromFebruary16toMay11,2015.OnMay11,
Business 1 loaned StudentAthlete 1 a 2008 Nissan Armada at no cost because
theTahoehadbeensold.StudentAthlete1possessedtheArmadacontinuously
from May 11 to June 10, 2015. StudentAthlete 1's possession of these two
vehicleswasoutsidethescopeofBusiness1'sloanervehicleprogram.Thevalue
6
ThisallegationisthebasisforAllegationNo.2.
c.
d.
of these extra benefits was approximately $1,324. [NCAA Bylaws 16.11.2.1 and
16.11.2.2(c)(201415)]
InlateApril2015,StudentAthlete2tookhispersonalvehicletotheBusiness1
service department for repairs. Around this time, Business 1 loaned Student
Athlete 2 a 2013 Chevrolet Impala at no cost pursuant to its loaner vehicle
programavailabletoservicecustomers.AsofJuly7,2015,whileStudentAthlete
2 was in possession of the Impala, the repairs to StudentAthlete 2 personal
vehiclehadbeencompletedandpaidfor,whichendedStudentAthlete2status
asaservicecustomer.However,StudentAthlete2kepttheImpalauntilAugust
10, 2015. StudentAthlete 2 possession of the Impala from July 7 to August 10
was outside the scope of Business 1's loaner vehicle program. The value of the
extrabenefitwasapproximately$755.[NCAABylaws16.11.2.1and16.11.2.2(c)
(201415and201516)]
On June 10, 2015, StudentAthlete 1 purchased a 2010 Dodge Challenger from

Business 1 and financed the purchase through the dealership. The financing
agreement for the Challenger stated that StudentAthlete 1 paid a $3,000 cash
down payment June 10; however, StudentAthlete 1 did not make a down
payment. Rather, Individual 3 and Business 1 provided StudentAthlete 1 a
$3,000deferredpayment,interestfreeloantowardthedownpayment.Thisloan
is not generally available to car buyers of Business 1. The value of the extra
benefitwas$3,000.[NCAABylaws16.11.2.1and16.11.2.2(a)(201415)]
LevelofAllegationNo.1:
The NCAA enforcement staff believes a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on
InfractionscouldconcludethatAllegationNo.1isaseverebreachofconduct(LevelI)because
theallegedviolations(a)seriouslyundermineorthreatentheintegrityoftheNCAACollegiate
Model,(b)providedsubstantialorextensiveimpermissiblebenefitsand(c)werenotisolatedor
limited.[NCAABylaw19.1.1(201516)]
FactualInformation(FI)onwhichtheenforcementstaffreliesforAllegationNo.1:
The attached exhibits detail the factual information on which the enforcement staff relies for
Allegation No. 1. The enforcement staff incorporates the factual information referenced
throughoutthisdocument,itsexhibitsandallotherdocumentspostedonthesecurewebsite.
RESPONSE:
The University agrees that (1) the factual information contained in Allegation No. 1 is
substantially correct,7(2) a violation of NCAA legislation occurred, and (3) the violation is
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelI.
Business 1, a representative of the institutions athletics interests when the violations
occurred,isoneofthelargestvehicledealershipsandrepaircentersintheOxford,Mississippi
area.Business1hasbeenasponsoroftheUniversitysathleticsprogramsformanyyears,and
one of the dealerships owners is a representative of the Universitys athletics interests.
Business1hasrepeatedlyreceivedspecificruleseducationonNCAAlegislation,includingthe
prohibitiononprovidingfreeordiscountedgoodsorservicestoenrolledstudentathletes.(FI
No.57,FB44664579.)
ThebusinesspracticeprimarilyatissuehereisBusiness1loanercarpolicy.According
tomultipleemployeesinterviewedduringtheinvestigationandloanercarrecordsreviewedby
theUniversity,thereislittlequestionthatBusiness1loanercarpolicyismoregenerousthan
other dealerships. Business 1 provides loaner cars for customers whose vehicles are being
repaired. (FI No. 26, 8/7/15 Interview Transcript of Individual 4, at 79; FI No. 28, 8/10/15
Interview Transcript of Individual 5, at 812.) The dealership also provides loaner cars for
customers who want to purchase a vehicle.8 (FI No. 33, 8/18/15 Interview Transcript of
7
AstoAllegationNo.1(c),theUniversitynotesthatStudentAthlete2svehiclewasactuallytowedtoBusiness1
forrepairsatthedirectionofStudentAthlete2sfather(nottakeninbyStudentAthlete2).StudentAthlete2s
father requested that Business 1 provide his son with a loaner car to use while repairs to StudentAthlete 2s
vehiclewereongoing.
8
In both instances, the length of time the customer is allowed the loaner vehicle varies depending on the
customersspecificsituation.Business1salespersonIndividual6stated:
It varies just according to how long [the customers vehicle is] in the shop or
how long we've got somebody looking at a car or looking for a car for some
customer.I'vehadsomestuffforacoupleofmonthsandsomeforovernight,
youknow.It'sjustaccordingtowhatthepredicamentis.
(FINo.33,8/18/15InterviewTranscriptofIndividual6,at18.)
Individual6,at34,9,and11.)Asaresult,itiscommonforBusiness1tohavedozensofloaner
cars being used by customers at any given time. For example, when the Universitys legal
counselreviewedabankersboxofloanercarformsgeneratedbyBusiness1anditscustomers
overanapproximatelyonemonthperiodfromJuly15,2015,toAugust19,2015,theUniversity
wasabletoidentify80separateinstancesofcustomersreceivingloanercarsfromBusiness1s
sales,bodyshop,andservicedepartments.Thesecustomerscamefromallwalksoflife.The
recordsalsoreflectedloanercarsprovidedtoUniversitystudentswhowerenonathletes.
In light of its independent review of Business 1 documents confirming both the
existenceofthispolicyanditsapplication,theUniversityiscomfortablethattheseloanercar
arrangementsdidnotoriginateasknowingandintentionalviolationswhereBusiness1varied
fromestablishedbusinesspracticesbyallowingstudentathletestouseitsvehiclesatnocost.
Thus, the issue is not that StudentAthlete 1 and StudentAthlete 2 were initially provided
loanercarsfromBusiness1,butthatStudentAthlete1andStudentAthlete2keptthosecars
aftertherewasnolongeranyneedforaloaner.
(1)
StudentAthlete1
Business 1 provided three loaner cars to StudentAthlete 1 over two separate time
periods.StudentAthlete1receivedthefirstloanercar(a2012NissanTitan)sometimeinJuly
2014afterhebroughthispersonalvehicle(a2002ChevroletImpala)toBusiness1forrepairs.
While the arrangement was permissible at the outset, StudentAthlete 1s use of the Titan
became a violation when StudentAthlete 1 failed to promptly return that car after both
Business 1 and StudentAthlete 1 agreed that his Impala was unusable and beyond repair in
August. Instead, StudentAthlete 1 continued to use the Titan for approximately eight more
10
weeks(fromAugust28,2014,untilOctober28,2014)untiltheUniversityscomplianceoffice
discovered he had the car and instructed him to return it to the dealership. The University
agreesthatStudentAthlete1scontinueduseoftheTitanviolatedNCAAlegislation.
At the time, for the reasons explained more fully in the Universitys response to
Allegation No. 2, the University believed that StudentAthlete 1s use of the Titan was
permissible. This conclusion was based upon information StudentAthlete 1 provided about
how long he had used the Titan, information which the University later determined to be
inaccurate. Nevertheless, compliance personnel made clear to StudentAthlete 1 that he
shouldreturnthecartoavoidanyappearanceorsuggestionofarulesviolation(oraviolation
itself).TheUniversityissatisfiedthatStudentAthlete1understoodinlateOctober2014that
he should not accept any loaner car going forward at least not without clearing it with the
Universityscomplianceofficefirst.
A few months later in February 2015, StudentAthlete 1 returned to Business 1 to
discusspurchasingausedDodgeChallengertoreplacehisImpala.Business1didnothavea
Challenger matching StudentAthlete 1s description on its lot. Business 1 provided Student
Athlete1withasecondloanercar(a2004ChevroletTahoewith150,692miles)tousewhileit
searched for the used Challenger. StudentAthlete 1 kept the Tahoe for approximately three
monthsuntilBusiness1soldittoanotherperson.9Business1thenreplacedtheTahoewitha
thirdloanercar(a2008NissanArmadawith131,196miles)whileitcontinueditssearchfora
Challenger StudentAthlete 1 could afford. StudentAthlete 1 used the Armada for a month
Business1useditsusedvehicleinventoryasasupplyofloanercars.AlthoughtheTahoewasinStudentAthlete
1spossession,Business1continuedtoadvertiseitforsale.
11
until Business 1 found a vehicle for him to purchase (a 2010 Dodge Challenger with 100,632
miles).TheUniversityagreesthattheviolationsinAllegationsNos.1(a)and1(b)occurredas
alleged.
Finally, Business 1 violated NCAA legislation when the dealership deferred Student
Athlete1s$3,000.00downpaymentontheChallengerbythreetofourmonthsuntilStudent
Athlete1receivedhisscholarshipandPellGrantawardsandhadthefinancialresourcestopay
thefullamount.(FINo.24,8/6/15InterviewTranscriptofStudentAthlete1,at88;FINo.38,
8/27/15 Interview Transcript of StudentAthlete 1, at 4648.) The purchase price for the
Challengerwasreasonableandappropriate,andtherateofinterestStudentAthlete1agreed
topay20percentwasanythingbutfavorabletoStudentAthlete1.(SeeFINo.13,FB3828
3832.) However, it has not been reasonably established that this specific down payment
arrangement was generally available to similarly situated customers at Business 1s Oxford
dealership or that Business 1 routinely approved deferrals of similar customers down
payments.10Assuch,theUniversityagreesthattheviolationoccurred.
(2)
StudentAthlete2
The violation involving StudentAthlete 2 arose out of vastly different circumstances.
After StudentAthlete 2 vehicle was vandalized and suffered significant damage, Student
Athlete2sfatherarrangedtohavethevehicletowedtoBusiness1andrepaired.(FINo.37,
8/27/15 Interview Transcript of StudentAthlete 2, at 811.) StudentAthlete 2 and his father
10
AccordingtoBusiness1,thefinancecompanythatpurchasedStudentAthlete1sloanisarelatedcorporation
with shared ownership. Business 1 contends that it regularly defers down payments to facilitate sales financed
under highinterest rate loans through this company, particularly where the customer can identify a concrete
sourceofrepaymentintheforeseeablefuture(e.g.,ataxreturnorPellGrantdisbursement).WhiletheUniversity
believesthatthismaybetrue,Business1hasnotprovidedsufficientinformationfortheUniversitytoconclude
thatunemployedcollegestudentshavecommonlybeenapprovedforthesedeferreddownpaymentloans.
12
chose Business 1 because the family had a strong connection to the General Motors brand
through StudentAthlete 2's grandfather, a former General Motors employee. (FI No. 32,
8/18/15 Interview Transcript of StudentAthlete 2, at 12; FI No. 37, 8/27/15 Interview
Transcript of StudentAthlete 2, at 78.) The repairs were to be paid for by the familys
insurance company. (FI Nos. 34 and 35; FI No. 37, 8/27/15 Interview Transcript of Student
Athlete 2, at 8.) After StudentAthlete 2 parents attempted but could not accommodate
StudentAthlete 2 transportation needs using other familyowned vehicles, StudentAthlete 2
fatherlookedintoashorttermrentalforStudentAthlete2undertheinsurancepolicy.(FINo.
36; FI No. 37, 8/27/15 Interview Transcript of StudentAthlete 2, at 12.) While doing so,
StudentAthlete2fatherlearnedaboutBusiness1sloanerpolicyandrequestedandreceiveda
loanercarinhisnameforhissontouse.(FINo.37,8/27/15InterviewTranscriptofStudent
Athlete2,at13and16.)
After Business 1 repaired StudentAthlete 2 vehicle, StudentAthlete 2 tried to return
theloanercarbutwastoldhisfatherhadtobepresentforBusiness1toacceptitbecausethe
loaner had been issued to the father. (FI No. 32, 8/18/15 Interview Transcript of Student
Athlete2,at2125.)StudentAthlete2eventuallypickeduphisownvehiclewithoutreturning
theloanercarorarrangingforhisfathertodoso,keepingtheloanercarforapproximatelyone
month.(Seeid.)TheUniversityagreesthatStudentAthlete2failuretoreturntheloanercar
when retrieving his vehicle violates NCAA legislation, as there is no evidence that this was a
benefitgenerallyavailabletoBusiness1customers.
*
13
As a result of these violations, the University has disassociated Business 1 and the
involved owner for a threeyear period equal to the length of the Universitys proposed
probation. During the three years, Business 1 will not be permitted to participate in
promotional activities with the University. Further, Business 1 has agreed to notify the
University as soon as it learns that a studentathlete has brought in a personal vehicle for
repairs and before a loaner car is provided, and the University will provide regular notices
remindingBusiness1ofthisobligation.BothBusiness1andtheUniversityscomplianceoffice
havedesignatedcontactstoensureinformationisprovidedconsistentlyandinatimelymanner
sothattheUniversitycanpreventfuture,similarviolationsofNCAAlegislation.Inaddition,the
UniversityhasconductedandwillcontinuetoconducttargetedruleseducationwithBusiness1
employees regarding the provision of extra benefits to University studentathletes (including
repairs, sales, loaner cars, purchase loans, etc.) and general rules education with Business 1
management. The University will also provide specific rules education to studentathletes
concerningvehicleviolationsaspartofitsannualNCAAinstruction.Finally,theUniversitywill
conductextraruleseducationwithallparticipantsintheUniversityscoachesandstaffcourtesy
vehicleprogramfocusingonextrabenefitslegislationinvolvingvehicles.
2.
[NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (201415 and 201516) and NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw
12.11.1(201415)]
It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations detailed in Allegation No. 1
demonstratethattheinstitutionviolatedtheNCAAprinciplesofrulescompliancewhen
itfailedtomonitortheactivitiesofBusiness1,arepresentativeofitsathleticsinterests.
Collectively, the institution's athletics administration, athletics compliance office and

footballprogramfailedtomonitortheactivitiesofBusiness1anditsloaningofvehicles
at no cost to football studentathletes StudentAthlete 1 and StudentAthlete 2. The
institutionfailedtomonitorthatStudentAthlete1receivedimpermissibleuseofthree
14
loanervehiclesforatotalofapproximatelysixmonthsbetweenAugust2014andJune
2015,andthatStudentAthlete2receivedimpermissibleuseofaloanervehicleforover
one month between July and August 2015. Additionally, in October 2014, the
institution's athletics compliance office learned that Business 1 loaned a 2012 Nissan
TitantoStudentAthlete1duringthefallof2014.However,thecomplianceofficefailed
toadequatelyinquireintothecircumstancessurroundingStudentAthlete1'sacquisition
anduseofthevehicle,includingtheimpacttoStudentAthlete1'seligibility.Asaresult,
StudentAthlete1competedwhileineligibleinsixcontestsduringthe2014season.
Infractions could conclude that Allegation No. 2 is a significant breach of conduct (Level II)
because the alleged violation involves a failure to monitor, which is presumptively a Level II
violation.[NCAABylaw19.1.2(201516)]
FactualInformation(FI)onwhichtheenforcementstaffreliesforAllegation
No.2:
RESPONSE:
Thisallegationposestwoquestions.First,didtheUniversitysmonitoringprogramwith
respect to studentathlete vehicles fulfill its institutional obligations under NCAA legislation?
TheUniversitysmonitoringprogramidentifiedStudentAthlete1sfirstloanercar(theTitan)in
lateOctober2014,andtheUniversitysinitialreviewconcludeditdidnotconstituteaviolation.
Thatconclusionwaswrong,whichleadstothesecondquestion.DidtheUniversitysOctober
2014inquiryortheerrorthatflowedfromitfallshortoftheUniversitysobligationsunderthe
monitoringBylaws?
The University and the enforcement staff agree on the facts at the heart of both
questions,buttheUniversitydoesnotagreethattheseunderlyingfactsconstituteaviolationof
NCAA legislation and therefore denies Allegation No. 2. As described below, the Universitys
15
monitoringprogramwasrobustandworkedasintended.ThefactthattheUniversity,withthe
benefitofhindsight,wouldresponddifferentlytodaytotheinformationithadinOctober2014
doesnotconstituteafailuretomonitor.
(1)
MonitoringEffortsDuringTheRelevantPeriod
In analyzing the Universitys conduct, the starting point is whether the University
created adequate systems to monitor the particular issue studentathlete vehicles. At all
timesrelevanttothisallegation,theUniversityimplementedandadministeredastrong,robust,
and farreaching studentathlete vehicle monitoring program covering all studentathlete
vehicles.Specifically,theUniversity:(1)requiredallstudentathletestoregistertheirvehicles
each year;11(2) instructed all studentathletes to timely register any change in vehicle status
through an internal athletics database; (3) conducted regular inspections of the parking lots
most often used by studentathletes for suspicious or unfamiliar vehicles (i.e., no University
parking decal or hangtag, new or highend vehicles, etc.); (4) conducted ongoing rules
education on impermissible benefits and vehiclerelated violations; (5) implemented a
supplementalmonitoringsystemforhighprofilestudentathletesin201314withheightened
scrutinyofprominentstudentathletes,includingregularmeetingstoensurethat,inpart,there
have been no changes in vehicle status;12and (6) requested and reviewed parking services
11
Ifastudentathletefailstoprovidetherequiredregistrationpaperworkandinformationtothecompliancestaff,
the studentathlete is placed on an internal hold list. Studentathletes on the hold list do not receive
scholarshipchecksuntiltheysatisfyoutstandingdeficiencies.(FINo.54,8/11/15InterviewTranscriptofMattBall,
at39.)
12
StudentAthlete 1 was a part of this high profile program, which, in addition to vehicle monitoring, also
includedadditionaleducationonallrelevantextrabenefitslegislationandotherpertinentinformationregarding
NCAAlegislation(i.e.,changesinlivingarrangements,theuseofagents,autographs,etc.).StudentAthlete1met
withmembersoftheUniversityscompliancestaffaspartofthehighprofileprogramtospecificallydiscusshis
vehiclearrangementsonthreeoccasions:inNovember2014;inApril2015;andinMay2015.(FINo.57,FB4444
4445andFB44644465B.)
16
reports on every studentathlete to crosscheck vehicle registration information provided by

the studentathletes and to identify outstanding and/or significant parking or traffic citations
issuedtostudentathletes.13
Thisvehiclemonitoringprogramistheproductofconsiderablethoughtandeffort.To
theUniversitysknowledge,theenforcementstaffdoesnottakeissuewiththeseaspectsofthe
UniversitysmonitoringeffortsthatledtothediscoveryofStudentAthlete1sfirstloanercarin
October 2014 and StudentAthlete 2 loaner car in August 2015. Instead, the University
understandstheenforcementstafftofocus ondecisionstheUniversitymadeafteritlearned
aboutStudentAthlete1suseoftheTitaninOctober2014.
(2)
TheUniversitysMonitoringLeadsToTheDiscoveryofStudentAthlete1sFirstLoaner
Car
AsoutlinedinAllegationNo.1(a),Business1providedStudentAthlete1useofa2012
Nissan Titan before August 2014 while his personal vehicle (the Impala) was being repaired.
StudentAthlete1didnotnotifytheUniversityoftheserepairsduringthesummerof2014,nor
13
AsdescribedinmoredetailintheUniversityscorrespondencewiththeenforcementstaff(seeFINo.56),the
Universityscomplianceofficefirstbeganreceivingmanuallycompiledparkingservicesreportsonanannualbasis
in2012.AfteradatabaseupdateallowedtheUniversitytogeneratethereportselectronicallyinSeptember2014,
the compliance staff began receiving parking services reports on a monthly basis. In early 2015, however,
complianceandparkingservicesdiscoveredthatthedatabaseautomaticallytransferredcertaintrafficorparking
violationsfromtheparkingservicesdatabasetothebursarsofficedatabase(wherethechargescouldbeapplied
tostudentbills),typicallywithin30daysofissuance.Accordingly,ifastudentathletereceivedaparkingortraffic
citation early in the monthly reporting cycle, that citation could roll from the parking services database to the
bursarsofficedatabasebeforeparkingservicesgeneratedcompliancesnextmonthlyreport.Asaresult,itwas
possiblethattheoriginalmonthlyreportsprovidedelectronicallytocomplianceomittedsometrafficandparking
citations associated with studentathletes vehicles. To ensure it had all potentially relevant information,
compliance began receiving bimonthly reports from parking services beginning in May 2015. Out of an
abundanceofcaution,complianceupdatedthefrequencytoaweeklyreportthefollowingmonth.Whenareport
suggested that a studentathlete was in possession of a new or previously unregistered vehicle, the compliance
officewouldcontactthestudentathleteandinquireaboutthatvehicle.Thisadditionalcheckwasintendedasa
failsafe to confirm the accuracy of reports given by studentathletes during their initial registration with the
parkingservicesandcomplianceofficeseachfall.
17
did he register the Titan with parking services until October 2014. StudentAthlete 1 never
registeredtheTitanwithcomplianceasinstructed.BetweenAugust28,2014,andOctober1,
2014, the Titan received eight parking citations on six different dates. (FI No. 21, FB 3468.)
Based on these records, StudentAthlete 1 did not regularly park the Titan near the football
offices or facilities during this time, as the Titan was only cited once in lots where student
athletesfrequentlypark.14(Seeid.)Importantly,eventhoughthecomplianceofficereceived
monthlyreportsfromparkingservices,compliancepersonnelhadnoknowledgeofanyofthese
ticketsduringlateAugust,September,andpartofOctoberbecauseStudentAthlete1hadnot
registered the vehicle as required by the University, sought a temporary parking tag, or
otherwiseprovidedanyoneinformationthattheTitanwasassociatedwithhim.
OnOctober1,2014,StudentAthlete1parkedtheTitaninalocationwhere,forthefirst
time, it was booted. (Id.) On October 3, 2014, StudentAthlete 1 was forced to go to the
Universitys parking services department to purchase a temporary parking permit so that the
boot would be removed. This marked the first time the Titan was associated with Student
Athlete1inanyUniversityrecord.(FINo.43,FB3467.)
AroundOctober14,2014,whilereviewingthemonthlyreportfromparkingservices,the
Universitys compliance staff noted that StudentAthlete 1 had registered the Titan with the
Universitys parking services (but not the compliance office) several days earlier. While the
October report included the October 1, 2014, citation and boot, it did not include any of the
14
The othercitations were received in lotsthat were residential or faculty/staff onlyand, accordingly, were not
lotsbeingmonitoredbyrandomcompliancesweeps.
18
AugustandSeptembercitationsassociatedwiththeTitanbecausetheywereissuedatatime
whenthevehiclewasnotassociatedwithStudentAthlete1.
AfterlearningabouttheTitan,theUniversityscompliancestaffimmediatelybeganan
inquiryintothecircumstancessurroundingStudentAthlete1suseofthatcar.Thecompliance
staffsecuredtheTitansvehicleidentificationnumber(VIN)fromparkingservices,ranaVIN
report, and determined that the Titan had been registered to two individuals who were not
boosters(presumablytheindividualswhosoldtheTitantoBusiness1).(SeeFINo.56.)This
VINreportdidnotidentifyanyaffiliationwithBusiness1.(Id.)Thecompliancestaffalsobegan
looking for the Titan in areas where football studentathletes frequently park, ultimately
locating the Titan in a lot near the athletics center. The Titan had a Business 1 promotional
plateratherthanalicenseplate,suggestingthattheTitanwasaloanercarorhadbeenrecently
purchased.ThecomplianceofficethenrequestedameetingwithStudentAthlete1todiscuss
theTitan.
(3)
TheUniversitysInitialReviewAndConclusionWasReasonable
During this meeting, StudentAthlete 1 told the Universitys head of athletics
compliance, Matt Ball, that Business 1 had loaned him the Titan while his Impala was being
repaired.StudentAthlete1didnotdisclosethatBusiness1 hadalreadydeterminedthathis
vehiclewasnotrepairableorthattheImpalahadbeenintheshopformorethantwomonths.
Instead,StudentAthlete1toldBallthathehadonlybeendrivingtheTitanforafewweeks.(FI
No. 50, 7/10/15 Interview Transcript of Matt Ball, at 33) The records available to the
complianceofficeatthetimecorroboratedStudentAthlete1saccounti.e.,theonlytickets
19
includedinparkingservicesreportswerethoseissuedonOctober1,2014,andStudentAthlete
1hadobtainedaoneweektemporaryparkingpassonOctober3,2014.(FINo.56.)
Based upon the information provided by StudentAthlete 1, the compliance staffs
review of the parking services records available at the time, and verbal corroboration from
membersofthecoachingstaffthatStudentAthlete1svehicle(theImpala)wasintheshopfor
repairsatthattime,theUniversityreasonablybelievedStudentAthlete1onlyhaduseofthe
TitanforalimitedperiodinOctober.(SeeFINo.50,7/10/15InterviewTranscriptofMattBall,
at35.)TheUniversityconcludedthattheshorttermuseofaloanercarduringrepairswasnot
aviolation.Nevertheless,thecompliancestaffinstructedStudentAthlete1toreturntheTitan
to avoid the appearance of impropriety. (Id. at 3233.) They also followedup with Student
Athlete1spositioncoachandagainwithStudentAthlete1toconfirmtheTitanwaspromptly
returned.(Id.)
Withthebenefitofhindsightandadditionalinformation,theUniversitynowknowsthat
its initial conclusion was incorrect and that StudentAthlete 1 received improper benefits.
Nevertheless,theUniversityseffortsatthetimedidnotfallshortofitsobligationstomonitor
itsathleticsprogram.TheUniversitysinquirywasreasonableunderthecircumstances,aswas
its conclusion that no violation occurred. The University had no reason to believe Student
Athlete1hadbeenlessthanforthright,particularlywheretheinformationavailablefromthe
Universitysmonitoring programandcoachescorroboratedStudentAthlete1saccount.Had
theUniversityknowninOctober2014whatitknowsnow,itcouldhavepreventedadditional
violations involving Business 1 in the following months, but the University reasonably
concludedatthetimethatitsmonitoringeffortsandinquirywereeffectiveandsufficient.
20
(4)
TheUniversitysMonitoringEffortsFollowingItsDiscoveryOfStudentAthlete1sFirst
LoanerCar
Asapartofitshighprofilestudentathletemonitoringprogram,thecompliancestaff
met with StudentAthlete 1 on November 3, 2014. (FI No. 56.) StudentAthlete 1 was
specifically asked during this meeting if he had use of any vehicles. (Id.) StudentAthlete 1
reportedthathisImpalawasstillatBusiness1forrepairsandthathedidnothaveaccessto
any other cars. (FI No. 57, FB 44364437.) Around the same time, Ball observed Student
Athlete1boardingaUniversitybusneartheAcademicSupportCenter,confirmingtoBallthat
StudentAthlete 1 did not have use of a vehicle. (See FI No. 56.) Ball also inquired with
StudentAthlete1smotherinJanuaryof2015regardingherallegeduseofaFordF150truck
anddidnotfindanyevidencethatStudentAthlete1(orhisfamily)hadaccesstoothervehicles
atthattime.(SeeFINos.47and48.)
As outlined in Allegation No. 1(b), despite the previous admonition from the
compliance staff, StudentAthlete 1 began driving a second loaner car (the Tahoe) from
Business1inmidFebruary2015,whilethedealershipsearchedforausedDodgeChallengerhe
couldafford.StudentAthlete1drovetheTahoeforapproximatelythreemonthsuntilBusiness
1soldittoanothercustomer.StudentAthlete1thenobtainedathirdloanercar(theArmada),
which he drove until June 10, 2015, the date he purchased the Challenger from Business 1.
StudentAthlete1neverregisteredtheTahoeorArmadawithUniversityparkingservices,the
athleticsdepartment,orthecomplianceoffice.
Theevidencesuggeststhat,throughoutthespring2015semester,StudentAthlete1did
notdrivethesetwoloanercarsoncampuswithanyregularity.Inthefourmonthshedrovethe
21
TahoeandArmada,hereceivedonlyoneparkingcitation.15(Id.,FB38333837.)Inaddition,
recordsobtainedfromBusiness1duringthecourseoftheinvestigationindicatethattheTahoe
andArmadawerenotdrivenformanymileswhileinStudentAthlete1spossession.16
Further,StudentAthlete1didnotdisclosehisuseofthesetwoloanercarsonseveral
occasions.Specifically,StudentAthlete1failedtodisclosehisuseoftheTahoeinMarch2015
when he submitted a request for funds through the studentathlete assistance fund to help
coverthecostofgasassociatedwithdrivinghisgirlfriendscartohismothershomeinLocation
2duringspringbreak.Also,aspartofitshighprofilestudentathletemonitoringprogram,
the compliance office specifically asked StudentAthlete 1 about vehicles available to him
during interviews on April 1, 2015, and again on May 1, 2015. On both occasions, Student
Athlete1indicatedhedidnothaveuseofanycarotherthanhisgirlfriendsvehicle.(FINo.57,
FB4464, FB4465, and FB4465A4465B.) Finally, in August 2015, when the enforcement staff
and University interviewed StudentAthlete 1 about his use of the Titan, StudentAthlete 1
deniedeverhavingaccesstoanyotherloanervehicles.TheenforcementstaffandUniversity
hadnoreasontodoubtStudentAthlete1sstatementatthetime.TheUniversitylaterlearned
this statement was incorrect when it discovered and selfreported the loaner car records
obtainedfromBusiness1.
(5)
TheUniversitysMonitoringLeadsToTheDiscoveryofStudentAthlete2LoanerCar
15
ThissinglecitationfortheTahoewasneverassociatedwithStudentAthlete1andwasnotincludedinanyofthe
parkingservicesreportsbecauseStudentAthlete1neverregisteredthevehiclewithparkingservices.
16
Forexample,whenBusiness1obtainedtheTahoe,ithad150,654milesonit.(Exhibit21,FB3844.)Itwassold
with151,666milesonit.(Id.,FB3849.)Thus,StudentAthlete1putatmost1,012milesontheTahoeoverthree
months.
22
TheUniversitysmonitoringprogramuncoveredStudentAthlete2impermissibleuseof
aBusiness1loanercar.Thecomplianceofficeflaggedtheloanerduringaregular,preseason
monitoring sweep of vehicles in a studentathletes parking lot. The car had promotional,
dealershipplatesratherthananordinary,stateissuedlicenseplate,andthecompliancestaff
observed possessions in the vehicle that appeared to belong to a studentathlete. Once
discovered,theUniversityselfreportedthepresenceofthatcartotheenforcementstaff.The
compliance staff then determined that StudentAthlete 2 had registered this loaner car with
parkingservicesandreceivedashorttermparkinghangtag,althoughhehadnotnotifiedthe
complianceofficeabouthisuseoftheloaner.TheUniversityfolloweduponthisinformation,
determined that StudentAthlete 2 had kept the loaner car even after he had retrieved his
personal vehicle, instructed StudentAthlete 2 to return the loaner car to Business 1, and
reportedtheviolation.
3.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw16.11.2.1(201415)]
It is alleged that on or around August 22, 2014, Individual 7, a representative of the
institution's athletics interests, provided an impermissible extra benefit in the form of
$800cashtoFamilyMember1,stepfathertofootballstudentathleteStudentAthlete1.
theallegedviolation(a)seriouslyunderminesorthreatenstheintegrityoftheNCAACollegiate
Model, (b) provided a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit and (c) involves an
intentional violation or showing reckless indifference to the NCAA constitution and bylaws.
[NCAABylaw19.1.1(201516)]
23
RESPONSE:
substantially correct, (2) a violation of NCAA legislation occurred, and (3) the violation is
FamilyMember1allegedthathemetwithUniversityboosterIndividual7onAugust22,
2014, at the Oxford airport and that, sometime during their interaction, Individual 7 handed
him$800incash.(FINo.77,8/26/15InterviewTranscriptofFamilyMember1,at910.)This
allegationissupportedbyaseriesoftextmessagesFamilyMember1hadinAugust2014with
Individual7.(SeeFINo.69).Basedonthevolumeoftextmessages,thereisnoquestionthat
Individual7andFamilyMember1communicatedregularly,17andseveralofthetextmessages
maybereasonablyreadtocorroborateFamilyMember1saccount.Specifically,onAugust18,
2014,FamilyMember1textedIndividual7requestingthatIndividual7deliverapackageto
him.Individual7repliedthatheandFamilyMember1werestillonandthathewouldknow
more on August 21, 2014. On August 21, 2014, Individual 7 indicated in a series of text
messagestoFamilyMember1thathewasflyinghisplanetoOxfordthatday,afactconfirmed
by University flight records. The text messages do not provide any explanation for why
Individual7andFamilyMember1plannedtomeetorwhatthepackagecontained.
17
FamilyMember1andIndividual7metoneanotheratahotelwhileattendinganawayfootballgameinLocation
3,andexchangedphonenumbers.FamilyMember1alsoattendedtailgatepartieshostedbyIndividual7orhis
friends. Until Family Member 1s allegation, the University had no information indicating that there was any
relationship between Individual 7 and Family Member 1 or between Individual 7 and any member of Student
Athlete1sfamily.
24
FamilyMember1sfinancialstatements,whichheprovidedtotheenforcementstaffin
August2015,alsosupporttheallegation.OnAugust22,2014,thedayafterIndividual7flewto
Oxford,FamilyMember1openedaWalMartaccountassociatedwithaprepaidcheckingcard.
(See FI No. 68.) Upon opening the account, Family Member 1 deposited $500. (Id.) Family
Member1claimsthatheusedthe$800paymentfromIndividual7tofundthisaccount.(FINo.
77, 8/26/15 Interview Transcript of Family Member 1, at 1416.) Family Member 1 did not
makeanylargewithdrawalsfromordepositsintohisotheraccountsthatmightexplainhowhe
fundedtheWalMartprepaidaccount,andhisfinancialrecordsestablishthathedidnothave
enoughmoneyinhisaccountsatthattimetofundtheprepaidcard.(SeeFINos.62and63.)
During his interview, Individual 7 denied that he had ever given or wired money to
FamilyMember1.18(FINo.77,8/27/15InterviewTranscriptofIndividual7,at2930and42.)
When asked about Family Member 1s allegation and the text message exchanges, however,
Individual 7 was unable to explain the text messages or what the term package meant.
Individual 7 stated that he did not remember the text message and did not remember ever
meetingFamilyMember1onaThursday.(Id.at3536and46.)
Basedupontheavailableinformationandtheabsenceofanotherplausibleexplanation,
the University agrees the weight of the information supports a finding that Individual 7
provided payment of at least $500 to Family Member 1.19 The University has accordingly
18
Individual7didconfirmthathehadreceivedruleseducationmaterialsfromtheUniversityexplicitlystatingthat
boosterscouldnotprovideanyformoffinancialassistancetostudentathletes,theirfriends,ormembersoftheir
families.IncludedintheruleseducationmaterialswasalettersenttoIndividual7andotherboosterspertaining
to the University of Miami (October 22, 2013) major infractions case. Copies of representative materials are
attachedtotheUniversityslettertotheenforcementstaffdatedNovember17,2015.(SeeFINos.5657.)
19
StudentAthlete 1 and his mother were not aware of Individual 7 making any payments to Family Member 1.
Family Member 1 repeatedly told StudentAthlete 1s family that he was paying their expenses out of his own
25
disassociated Individual 7 for an indefinite period not less than the length of the Universitys
probation.
4.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw16.11.2.1(201213and201314)]
Itisallegedthaton12occasionsbetweenJune7,2013,andMay27,2014,Individual8,
a representative of the institution's athletics interests, provided impermissible extra
benefits in the form of free lodging in Oxford, Mississippi, to football studentathlete
StudentAthlete1'smother,FamilyMember2andherthenboyfriend,FamilyMember1.
Thetotalmonetaryvalueoftheextrabenefitswasapproximately$2,253.Specifically:
a.
BetweenJune7and8,2013,Individual8providedFamilyMember2andFamily
Member1withtwonights'lodgingataBusiness2inOxford.Thetotalvalueof
thelodgingwasapproximately$280.[NCAABylaw16.11.2.1(201213)]
savings. (FI No. 23, 8/6/15 Interview Transcript of Family Member 2 at 104105; FI No. 30, 8/11/15 Interview
TranscriptofStudentAthlete1,at5051.)
26
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Between October 26 and November 16, 2013, Individual 8 provided Family

Member2andFamilyMember1withthreenights'lodgingattheBusiness2.The
totalvalueofthelodgingwasapproximately$938.ThislodgingallowedFamily
Member2andFamilyMember1totraveltoOxfordandwatchStudentAthlete1
competeinthreehomefootballcontests.[NCAABylaw16.11.2.1(201314)]
OnMarch8,2014,Individual8providedFamilyMember2andFamilyMember1
with one night's lodging at the Business 2. The total value of the lodging was
approximately$128.[NCAABylaw16.11.2.1(201314)]
BetweenApril4and5,2014,Individual8providedFamilyMember2andFamily
Member1withtwonights'lodgingataresidentialrentalpropertyinOxford.The
totalvalueofthelodgingwasapproximately$303.[NCAABylaw16.11.2.1
(201314)]
OnMay10,2014,Individual8providedFamilyMember2andFamilyMember1
with one night's lodging at the Business 2. The total value of the lodging was
approximately$217.[NCAABylaw16.11.2.1(201314)]
Between May 25 and 27, 2014, Individual 8 provided Family Member 2 and
Family Member 1 with three nights' hotel lodging at the Business 2. The total
valueofthelodgingwasapproximately$386.[NCAABylaw16.11.2.1(201314)]
Model,(b)providedsubstantialorextensiveimpermissiblebenefitsand(c)werenotisolatedor
limited.[NCAABylaw19.1.1(201516)]
RESPONSE:
27
Insummerof2015,FamilyMember1allegedtotheenforcementstaffthatIndividual8,
arepresentativeoftheUniversitysathleticsinterestandownerofseveralhotelsinandaround
Oxford, had provided free lodging to him and StudentAthlete 1s mother, Family Member 2
(familymember2),in2013and2014.20FamilyMember1claimedthatIndividual8provided
the free lodging on multiple occasions at hotels owned by one of Individual 8s companies,
Business 3, and a rental home in Oxford owned by another of Individual 8s companies,
Business4.21FamilyMember1allegedthatonsomeoftheseoccasions,thehotelroomwas
listed in Individual 7s name, with Family Member 1 receiving the room key after identifying
himself as Individual 7 to someone at the front desk. In support of the allegation, Family
Member 1 provided the enforcement staff with Facebook messages between him and
Individual 8. In several of the messages, Family Member 1 asked for Individual 8s help with
lodging.(FINo.81.)InothermessagessentthedayoforthedayafterFamilyMember1had
needed the lodging, Family Member 1 thanked Individual 8 for assistance. (E.g., id.) Family
Member 1s financial records do not include any direct evidence (e.g., credit or debit card
20
ThedatesonwhichFamilyMember1receivedlodgingin2013correspondtodaysonwhichFamilyMember1
andFamilyMember2travelledtoOxfordtoseeStudentAthlete1oncampusorattendfootballgames.The2014
datescorrespondtodaysonwhichFamilyMember1wasinOxfordtopickStudentAthlete1upforspringbreak,
watch the Universitys spring football game, pick StudentAthlete 1 up for summer break, and drop Student
Athlete1offforthesummer2014term.
21
TherentalhomeinquestionislocatedonAddress1inOxford.TextmessagesbetweenFamilyMember1andan
acquaintanceofIndividual8refertoakeytheacquaintanceleftforFamilyMember1suse.Individual8stated
that he did not recall ever providing Family Member 1 a key to this home, either directly or through an
intermediary.AlthoughthetextmessagesdonotspecificallyrefertotheAddress1house,theUniversitybelieves
that the cumulative weight of (1) these text messages, (2) corresponding communications between Family
Member 1 and Individual 8, (3) Family Member 1s ability to accurately describe the interior of the home, (4)
FamilyMember2sconfirmationthatsheandFamilyMember1spentthenightatthehome,and(5)thelackofan
alternativeexplanationwouldpermittheCommitteetoconcludethatIndividual8arrangedforFamilyMember1
andFamilyMember2tospendthenightthere.
28
charges) that Family Member 1 reserved or paid for lodging on the days in question. (See FI
Nos.59,61,62,and63.)
The University and enforcement staff interviewed Individual 8 on September 3, 2015.
Individual 8 confirmed that he had received rules education from the University and
understoodthathecouldnotprovidebenefits,includingfreeordiscountedlodging,tostudent
athletes.(FINo.88,9/3/15InterviewTranscriptofIndividual8,at3031.)Theruleseducation
materialsIndividual8receivedspecificallyaddressedthelegislationprohibitingtheprovisionof
freeordiscountedlodgingtostudentathletes,prospects,theirfriends,ortheirfamilies.(SeeFI
Nos.5657(includingaletterdirectedtoOxfordareahotelsregardingtheprovisionofbenefits
to family members of prospects and studentathletes).) Individual 8 nevertheless admitted
thatheprovidedFamilyMember1withfreelodgingattheBusiness2inOxfordonacouple
ofoccasions.22(FI No.88,9/3/15InterviewTranscriptofIndividual8,at3032.)Individual 8
denied, however, that he ever provided lodging at any other location (id. at 6366), on the
other dates referenced in his Facebook exchanges with Family Member 1 (id. at 5366), or
underIndividual7sname(id.at3334).
Individual 8s admission establishes that Family Member 1 received complimentary
lodging on at least two occasions. Further, the Universitys review of Family Member 1s
financial records indicates that Family Member 1 was in the Oxford area on the other dates
identified in the allegation without any direct evidence that he had paid for hotel
accommodations.Finally,theUniversityalsoobtainedasinglehotelreceiptfromIndividual7
22
FamilyMember1laterobtainedtworeceiptsfromBusiness3andprovidedthemtotheenforcementstaff.The
hotelreceiptsshowthatFamilyMember1wasprovidedfreelodgingattheBusiness2inOxfordonOctober26,
2013,andMarch8,2014.(FINos.8485.)
29
indicating that he (or someone giving his name) had received a complimentary room at the
Business2inOxfordonNovember16,2013.(Exhibit41,Business2Receipt.)Combinedwith
FamilyMember1sclaimthatheusedIndividual7snamewhencheckingin,thisreceipt,which
correspondstooneofthedatesonwhichFamilyMember1spentthenightinOxfordwithout
conclusive evidence that Family Member 1 paid for a hotel room, provides credible evidence
that Individual 8 provided Family Member 1 with lodging on dates in addition to those
Individual8admitted.
Insum,theUniversitybelievesthattheevidenceissufficientfortheCommitteetofind
that Individual 8 provided free lodging to Family Member 1 as alleged. The University has
accordingly disassociated Individual 8 for an indefinite period not less than the length of the
Universitysprobation.
5.
Itisallegedthatinthesummerof2013,ChrisKiffin,assistantfootballcoach,provided
footballstudentathleteStudentAthlete1withtwonights'lodgingathisresidence.The
monetaryvalueoftheextrabenefitwasapproximately$33.
Infractions could conclude that Allegation No. 5 is a breach of conduct (Level III) because the
allegedviolationprovidednomorethanaminimalimpermissiblebenefit.[NCAABylaw19.1.3
(201516)]
RESPONSE:
30
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelIII.TheUniversityissatisfiedthatthisviolationisnotpartofa
patternofinfractionsorrelatedtoanongoinghousingarrangement.
6.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.2.1,13.6.7.7and13.6.8(201213)]
ItisallegedthatbetweenJanuary25and27,2013,ChrisKiffin(Kiffin),assistantfootball
coach,arrangedforthreefamilymemberswhowerenotparentsorlegalguardiansof
then football prospective studentathlete StudentAthlete 1 to receive impermissible
recruiting inducements during his official paid visit. The total monetary value of the
inducementswasapproximately$1,027.Specifically:
a.
b.
KiffinarrangedforFamilyMember3(fatherofStudentAthlete1'shalfbrother;
Family Member 4, Family Member 3 wife; and Family Member 1, Student
Athlete 1's mother's then boyfriend, to receive complimentary meals during
StudentAthlete 1's official paid visit. The total value of the meals was
approximately$709.[NCAABylaws13.2.1and13.6.7.7(201213)]
KiffinarrangedforFamilyMember3andFamilyMember4toreceivetwonights'
hotellodgingatTheInnatOleMissduringStudentAthlete1'sofficialpaidvisit.
Thetotalvalueofthelodgingwasapproximately$318.[NCAABylaws13.2.1and
13.6.8(201213)]
because the alleged violations (a) provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal
recruitingadvantage,(b)includemorethanaminimalimpermissiblebenefitand(c)aremore
seriousthanaLevelIIIviolation.[NCAABylaws19.1.2and19.1.2(a)(201516)]
31
RESPONSE:
The University agrees that the factual information contained in Allegation No. 6 is
substantiallycorrectandbelievesthataviolationofNCAAlegislationoccurred.23TheUniversity
submits that the violation is more appropriately classified as Level III based on applicable
precedent.
TheUniversitydiscoveredtheseviolationsinFebruary2013.TheUniversityconducted
interviews, reviewed relevant documentation, and then selfreported the infraction to the
enforcement staff after determining that one or more violations may have occurred.24 The
University and enforcement staff then completed a joint investigation that further
substantiatedtheviolations.
Specifically,theinvestigationconfirmedthatKiffinandStudentAthlete1becameclose
overthecourseofStudentAthlete1srecruitment.(FINo.92,3.8/14InterviewTranscriptof
ChrisKiffin,at811.)KiffinlearnedthatStudentAthlete1sbiologicalfatherwasnotinvolved
inStudentAthlete1slife.(FINo.98,5/9/13InterviewTranscriptofChrisKiffin,at9.)Kiffin
alsounderstoodthatStudentAthlete1smotherhadlivedwithamannamedFamilyMember3
for several years when StudentAthlete 1 was young, and that Family Member 3 and Family
Member 2 had a child (StudentAthlete 1s halfbrother, Family Member 5) during that time.
23
The factual Information chart summarizes Kiffins testimony on this topic as stating Kiffin described Family
Member3asStudentAthlete1sbiologicalfather.KiffinactuallydescribedFamilyMember3asStudentAthlete
1srealdad.WhilethefactualinformationchartssummarytextaccuratelyreflectsWenzelsinterpretationof
Kiffin'swords,bothBrandenWenzelandKiffinconfirmthatKiffinsexactwordswererealdad,notbiological
father.TheUniversitysubmitsthatKiffinsexactwordsarerelevanttoacompleteunderstandingofhowthese
violationsoccurred.
24
TheUniversitydeclaredStudentAthlete1ineligibleandsecuredhisreinstatementduringthesummerof2013
(i.e., prior to StudentAthlete 1s first contest). The University also provided additional rules education to the
involvedcoachingandadministrativestaffmembersandamendeditsinternalformstorequireadescriptionofthe
exactbiologicalrelationshipofeachpersonexpectedtoaccompanyaprospectonanofficialvisit.
32
KiffinknewthatStudentAthlete1referredtoandidentifiedFamilyMember3ashisdadand
consideredFamilyMember3tobehisfather,butKiffinwasalsoawarethatFamilyMember3
wasnotmarriedtoStudentAthlete1smotherduringtheUniversitysrecruitmentofStudent
Athlete1.(FINo.96,3/8/13InterviewTranscriptofChrisKiffin,at9and11.)
WhenitcametimeforStudentAthlete1sofficialvisit,StudentAthlete1askedFamily
Member3tojoinhim,andFamilyMember3inturninvitedhiswife.TheFamilyMember3s
drove to Oxford from their home in Location 4. (Id. at 10.) StudentAthlete 1s mother, her
thenboyfriend(nowexhusband)FamilyMember1,andStudentAthlete1shalfbrotheralso
attendedtheofficialvisit.TheydrovewithStudentAthlete1toOxfordfromStudentAthlete
1shometownofLocation2.(Id.)
AsStudentAthlete1sprimaryrecruiter,Kiffinwasinitiallyresponsibleforprovidingthe
informationneededtocompleteStudentAthlete1sofficialvisitpaperwork.(FINo.99,5/9/13
Interview Transcript of Branden Wenzel, at 24.) Although Kiffin ensured that the Family
Member 3s and Family Member 1 were all listed on the official visit form, he failed to
adequatelydetaileachpersonsspecificrelationshipwithStudentAthlete1.Specifically,when
the Universitys former assistant recruiting director in charge of arranging lodging for and
collecting payment from guests of prospects on official visits, Branden Wenzel, asked Kiffin
aboutFamilyMember3,KiffintoldWenzelthatFamilyMember3wasStudentAthlete1sreal
dad.(Id.at3234.)Wenzel,wholackedKiffinsdetailedunderstandingofStudentAthlete1s
relationshipwithFamilyMember3,reasonablyunderstoodKiffintomeanthatFamilyMember
3wasStudentAthlete1sbiologicalfatherinsteadofhisfatherfigure.Kiffinfailedtomakethe
distinctionclear.
33
By not providing Wenzel with clear information about StudentAthlete 1s exact
relationship with Family Member 3, Kiffin failed to meet the Universitys expectations of its
coachingstaff.Asaresult,theUniversityhasreprimandedKiffin,providedhimadditionalrules
education,andrequiredhimtoattendtheNCAAs2015regionalrulesseminar.
Because Wenzel believed Family Member 3 and his wife were StudentAthlete 1s
biologicalfatherandstepmother,Wenzelarrangedfreelodgingandmealsfortheminviolation
of NCAA rules. Similarly, Wenzel misunderstood Family Member 1 to be Family Member 2s
husbandandpermittedFamilyMember1toreceivemealsinviolationofNCAArules.(Id.at
24.)TheUniversityissatisfiedtheseviolationswerenotintentionalbutinsteadresultedfrom
miscommunication between staff members and from Kiffins failure to make certain Wenzel
clearlyunderstoodtherelationshipsinquestion.
TheUniversitybelievesthisviolationshouldbeclassifiedasLevelIII,notLevelII.Asthe
followingtabledemonstrates,theNCAAhasroutinelyprocessedsimilarviolationsinvolvingthe
provisionofmeals,lodging,andeventransportationtoaprospectsguestsduringofficialvisits
asLevelIIIorsecondary:
Case
Number
BylawCites
Decision
Date
42625
13.6.7.1,
13.6.8,13.6.9
3/16/2010
50934
13.6.7.1,13.6.9
6/28/2011
47833
13.6.9,13.6.7.7
8/15/2011
371085
13.6.7.7
6/6/2013
403845
13.6.7.7
8/16/2013
Summary
PSAsrelativereceivedimpermissiblelodgingand
mealsduringofficialvisit
TwoPSAsreceivedimpermissiblebenefitsduring
officialvisit
PSAssisterreceivedimpermissiblemealsand
lodgingduringofficialvisit
PSAssisterandbrotherinlawreceived
impermissiblemealsduringofficialvisit
PSAsauntandfamilyfriendreceived
impermissiblemealduringofficialvisit
34
PSAshostfatherslodgingandentertainment
expenseswerepaidduringthePSAsofficialvisit
withoutthenecessarylegislativereliefwaiver
PSAsmothersboyfriendreceivedthree
11/25/2013
impermissiblemealsduringofficialvisit
SisteroftwoPSAsreceivedimpermissiblemeal
1/25/2014
onofficialvisit
PSAsbrotherreceivedimpermissiblemealon
2/10/2014
officialvisit
PSAsgrandmotherreceivedimpermissiblemeals
2/24/2014
duringofficialvisit
PSAssisterreceivedimpermissiblemealduring
2/24/2014
officialvisit
PSAssisterreceivedimpermissiblemealsduring
3/17/2014
officialvisit
PSAsparentsreceivedimpermissiblemealduring
3/31/2014
officialvisit
PSAsbrotherreceivedtwoimpermissiblemeals
4/23/2014
duringofficialvisit
375645
13.6.8,13.6.9
9/24/2013
458791
13.6.7.7
485531
13.6.7.7
523111
13.6.7.7
535574
13.6.7.7
535593
13.6.7.7
533992
13.6.7.7
555953
13.6.7.7
641639
13.6.7.7
629851
13.2,13.6.7.1,
13.6.7.1.1,
13.6.9
4/25/2014
646652
13.6.7.7
5/1/2014
600411
13.6.9,13.6.8
5/2/2014
574951
13.6.7.7
5/2/2014
675033
13.6.7.7
5/13/2014
587111
13.6.9
5/28/2014
671632
13.6.7.7
6/3/2014
691554
13.6.7.7
6/18/2014
707031
13.6.7.7,13.2.1
7/28/2014
698899
13.6.7.7,13.2.1
7/30/2014
695951
13.6.7.7
7/31/2014
PSAsparentsreceivedanimpermissiblemealand
petchargeforhotelroomonofficialvisit
PSAssiblingreceivedimpermissiblemealsduring
officialvisit
ImpermissiblelodgingprovidedtoPSAs"acting
guardian"duringofficialvisit
PSAsbrotherreceivedimpermissiblemealduring
officialvisit
PSAsfamilyfriendreceivedimpermissiblemeal
duringofficialvisit
ImpermissiblelodgingwasprovidedtoPSAs
brotherduringofficialvisit
PSAshighschoolcoachreceivedan
impermissiblemealduringofficialvisit
duringofficialvisit
PSAsbrotherreceivedfourimpermissiblemeals
duringofficialvisit
PSAsbrotherreceivedimpermissiblemealduring
officialvisit
duringofficialvisit
35
717412
726346
737286
13.6.7.7
13.6.7.1.1,
13.6.9
13.6.7.1.1,
13.6.9
9/12/2014
9/25/2014
10/3/2014
726143
13.6.7.7
10/10/2014
859844
16.6.7.7.2
1/26/16
806446
13.6.4.1.2,
13.6.8
2/23/2106
870599
13.6.7.7
3/25/2016
PSAssisterreceivedimpermissiblemealduring
officialvisit
PSAsparentsreceivedimpermissiblelodging
priortoofficialvisit
PSAsparentreceivedimpermissiblelodging
expensespriortoofficialvisit
PSAsbrotherprovided3impermissiblemeals
duringofficialvisit
PSAsunclereceivedimpermissiblemealsduring
officialvisit
PSAsauntreceivedimpermissiblemealsand
lodgingduringofficialvisit
PSAsmothersboyfriendreceivedthree
impermissiblemealsduringofficialvisitunder
mistakenassumptionthatthemotherand
boyfriendweremarried
In addition, in Case Nos. 377545 (July 2013) (concerning violations for travel
arrangements during official visits valued at $1,409.20 and $503.80) and 853006 (December
2015)(concerningofficialvisittransportationexpensesvaluedat$1467.30and$1596.14),the
stafftreatedtwoofficialvisitviolationsinvolvingsignificantlyhighercombinedcashvaluesas
secondary in nature. There is no reason to deviate from this established precedent, and the
UniversityrespectfullyaskstheCommitteetoclassifythisviolationasLevelIII.
36
7.
It is alleged that on May 8, 2014, Chris Kiffin (Kiffin), assistant football coach, made
impermissible, offcampus recruiting contact with then football prospective student
athletes StudentAthlete 3 and StudentAthlete 4 at High School 1 in Location 3.
Specifically, Kiffin had a 10minute recruiting conversation with StudentAthlete 3and
StudentAthlete 4 in a private office at High School 1 during the spring of 2014
evaluationperiod.
alleged violation (a) provided no more than a minimal recruiting advantage and (b) does not
risetoaLevelIIviolation.[NCAABylaw19.1.3(201516)]
RESPONSE:
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelIII.
The University is satisfied this impermissible recruiting contact was isolated in nature
and not prearranged. Nevertheless, the University expects all of its coaches to remove
themselvesfromsuchsituationsinatimelymannerandtoimmediatelyreportthesetypesof
occurrences to compliance personnel. Because neither happened here, the University
reprimandedKiffinandselfimposedthefollowingpenalties:(1)theUniversityprohibitedKiffin
from recruiting offcampus for a period of 30 days; (2) the University prohibited football
coaching staff from having contact with StudentAthlete 3and StudentAthlete 4 for 30 days;
37
and (3) the University limited the staff to one offcampus contact with StudentAthlete 3and
StudentAthlete4.Neitherprospectivestudentathletesignedascholarshipwithnorenrolled
attheUniversity.
8.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4(a), 13.1.2.5,

13.1.3.5.1,13.2.1,13.2.1.1(b),13.2.1.1(e),13.5.3,13.7.2.1and13.7.2.1.2(201213)]
Itisallegedthatduringthe201213academicyear,Individual2,athenrepresentative
of the institution's athletics interests, assisted the institution in its recruitment of four
then football prospective studentathletes by engaging in recruiting activities that
promotedtheinstitution'sfootballprogram.Thisincludedprovidingtheprospectswith
variousrecruitinginducements.ThetotalmonetaryvalueoftheinducementsIndividual
2 provided was approximately $2,250. Additionally, Maurice Harris (Harris), assistant
football coach, knew of Individual 2' association with the prospects and, at times,
facilitated Individual 2' involvement in their recruitment. Between January 18 and
February3,2013,Harrisarrangedfortwoofthefourprospectstoreceiveimpermissible
recruitinginducementsfromtheinstitution.Thetotalmonetaryvalueofinducementsin
whichHarrisarrangedwasapproximately$485.Specifically:
a.
b.
On October 13, 2012, Individual 2 provided then football prospective student

athletesStudentAthlete5,StudentAthlete6andStudentAthlete7withround
trip transportation between Location 5, and Oxford, Mississippi,(approximately
Distance1miles)fortheprospectstoattendanunofficialvisitandhomefootball
contest at the institution. Individual 2 also provided StudentAthlete 6 with a
meal on this occasion. The value of the transportation that StudentAthlete 5,
StudentAthlete 6 and StudentAthlete 7 received was approximately $38. The
value of the meal that StudentAthlete 6 received was approximately $5.
Individual 2 met Harris on this occasion. Individual 2 also notified Harris; Hugh
Freeze (Freeze), head football coach; and Matt Luke (Luke), assistant football
coach,afterthevisitthatheprovidedStudentAthlete5,StudentAthlete6and
StudentAthlete7withtransportationtotheinstitutiononthisoccasion.[NCAA
Bylaws13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
OnNovember10,2012,Individual2providedStudentAthlete5,StudentAthlete
6andStudentAthlete7withroundtriptransportationbetweenLocation5and
Oxfordfortheprospectstoattendanunofficialvisitandhomefootballcontestat
theinstitution.Individual2alsoprovidedStudentAthlete6withamealonthis
occasion. The value of the transportation StudentAthlete 5, StudentAthlete 6
and StudentAthlete 7 received was approximately $38. The value of the meal
StudentAthlete 6 received was approximately $5. Further, Individual 2 notified
Harris prior to the visit that he was planning to drive StudentAthlete 5 and
38
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
StudentAthlete 7 to the institution on this occasion. [NCAA Bylaws 13.01.4,

13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
OnNovember24,2012,Individual2providedthenfootballprospectivestudent
athlete StudentAthlete 8, StudentAthlete 5 and StudentAthlete 7 with round
triptransportationbetweenLocation5andOxfordfortheprospectstoattendan
unofficial visit and home football contest at the institution. Individual 2 also
provided the prospects with meals on this occasion. The value of the
transportation Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete 5 and StudentAthlete 7
received was approximately $38; the value of the meals they received was
approximately$45.Further,Individual2notifiedHarrispriortothevisitthathe
was planning to see Harris at the institution on this occasion. [NCAA Bylaws
13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
Between November 28 and 30, 2012, Individual 2 engaged in telephone
communication with StudentAthlete 6's mother, at Harris' instruction, to
arrange an offcampus recruiting contact with Luke. [NCAA Bylaws 13.01.4,
13.1.2.1,13.1.2.4(a)and13.1.3.5.1(201213)]
OnDecember3,2012,Individual2attendedaninhomerecruitingvisitbyHarris
and Freeze that occurred at StudentAthlete 5's residence. Additionally, Harris
knewthatIndividual2wasplanningtoattendtheinhomevisitandbothheand
FreezeinteractedwithIndividual2duringthevisit.Further,Individual2provided
food for this occasion. The value of the food Individual 2 provided was
approximately$60.[NCAABylaws13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
In December 2012, Individual 2 paid StudentAthlete 5's cellular telephone bill,
which had a value of approximately $67. [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1(e)
(201213)]
InDecember2012,Individual2paidStudentAthlete7'smother'stelephonebill,
whichhaday[sic]valueofapproximately$120.[NCAABylaws13.2.1and
13.2.1.1(e)(201213)]
Between January 4 and 5, 2013, Individual 2 provided StudentAthlete 8 and
StudentAthlete 5 with roundtrip transportation between Location 5 and
Location6,(approximatelyDistance2miles)aswellaslodging,mealsandgame
ticketsfortheprospectstoattendtheinstitution'sbowlgame.Thevalueofthe
inducements StudentAthlete 8 and StudentAthlete 5 received was
approximately$350.Additionally,Individual2notifiedHarrispriortothetripthat
he was planning to bring StudentAthlete 8 and StudentAthlete 5 to the bowl
game.Further,onJanuary4,Harrisarrangedanoffcampusrecruitingcontactin
Location 6 between Grad Asst. 1, then graduate assistant football coach, and
StudentAthlete8andStudentAthlete5.TheoffcampuscontactbyGradAsst.1
39
occurred at the team hotel. [NCAA Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.5
and13.2.1(201213)]
i.
BetweenJanuary14and15,2013,Individual2spokebytelephonewithStudent
Athlete 6' mother, at Harris' direction, to arrange an offcampus recruiting
contactbetweenherandHarris.[NCAABylaws13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.1.3.5.1
(201213)]
40
j.
k.
BetweenJanuary18and20,2013,Individual2providedStudentAthlete8,
StudentAthlete7,andStudentAthlete7'smotherandsisterwithroundtrip
transportationbetweenLocation5andOxfordinorderforthetwoprospects
andStudentAthlete7'stwofamilymemberstoattendanunofficialvisittothe
institution.
Specifically, on January 18, 2013, Individual 2 drove StudentAthlete 8 and

StudentAthlete 7 from Location 5 to Oxford, and did the same for Student
Athlete 7 's mother and sister January 20. On January 20, Individual 2 drove
Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete 7 and Student Athlete 7 's family members
backtoLocation5.ThevalueofthetransportationStudentAthlete8,Student
Athlete 7 and Student Athlete 7 's family members received was approximately
$136.Further,Individual2notifiedHarristhathewasplanningtobringStudent
Athlete 8 and StudentAthlete 7 to the institution on this occasion and also
notifiedHarrisupontheirarrivalthathehaddrivenStudentAthlete7'smother
andsistertotheinstitution.
Additionally,onJanuary18and19,2013,HarrisarrangedforStudentAthlete8
andStudentAthlete7tostayovernightatnocostinthehotelroomatTheInnat
OleMissthattheinstitutionprovidedtoStudentAthlete5,whowasoncampus
forhisofficialpaidvisit.ThevalueofthelodgingprovidedtoStudentAthlete8
andStudentAthlete7wasapproximately$212.
Further,onJanuary20,2013,StudentAthlete11providedStudentAthlete8and
StudentAthlete 7 with roundtrip transportation between their hotel and
Freeze'sresidence(approximately11miles)inorderfortheprospectstoattenda
breakfast at Freeze's residence. The value of the transportation provided to
StudentAthlete8andStudentAthlete7wasapproximately$12.
Lastly,duringtheJanuary20breakfastatFreeze'sresidence,StudentAthlete8,
StudentAthlete7,andStudentAthlete7'smotherandsisterwereprovidedwith
acateredbreakfast.Thevalueoftheirmealswasapproximately$102.Whileat
Freeze'sresidence,StudentAthlete8,StudentAthlete7andStudentAthlete7's
familymembershadcontactwithvariousmembersofthefootballstaff,including
StudentAthlete 11 and Harris. Harris knew that Individual 2 accompanied
StudentAthlete8,StudentAthlete7andStudentAthlete7'sfamilymembersto
Freeze's residence on this occasion. [NCAA Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1,
13.1.2.5,13.2.1,13.5.3and13.7.2.1.2(201213)]
On January 26, 2013, Individual 2 provided StudentAthlete 5with oneway

transportation from Location 5 to Oxford for StudentAthlete 5 to attend an
unofficial visit at the institution. The value of the transportation to Oxford that
StudentAthlete 5 received was approximately $13. Additionally, Individual 2
notifiedHarrispriortothevisitthathewasplanningtodriveStudentAthlete5to
41
the institution on this occasion. Further, on January 27, 2013, Individual 9, a

representative of the institution's athletics interests, provided StudentAthlete
5with oneway transportation from Oxford to Location 5 . The value of the
transportationthatIndividual9providedtoStudentAthlete5wasapproximately
$13.[NCAABylaws13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
42
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
On January 30, 2013, Individual 2 hosted at his residence an offcampus

recruiting contact by Harris that was attended by Student Athlete 8, Student
Athlete 5, StudentAthlete 7 and members of the prospects' families. [NCAA
Bylaws13.01.4and13.1.2.1(201213)]
Between February 2 and 3, 2013, Individual 2 provided StudentAthlete 8 and
StudentAthlete6withroundtriptransportationbetweenLocation5andOxford
fortheprospectstoattendtheirrespectiveunofficialandofficialpaidvisitstothe
institution.ThevalueofthetransportationStudentAthlete8andStudentAthlete
6 received was approximately $43. Individual 2 notified Harris prior to the visit
that he would provide StudentAthlete 8 and StudentAthlete 6 with
transportationonthisoccasion.
Additionally, on February 2, Harris arranged for StudentAthlete 8 to stay

overnight at no cost in his own hotel room, which was originally reserved for
StudentAthlete 6' mother during StudentAthlete 6' official paid visit. The
monetary value of the lodging StudentAthlete 8 received was approximately
$159. On this occasion, Harris and Chris Kiffin, assistant football coach, were
present when StudentAthlete 8 and StudentAthlete 6 arrived at the hotel and
assisted them with checking into their rooms. [NCAA Bylaws 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1
and13.2.1,and13.7.2.1(201213)]
On March 24, 2013, Individual 2 provided Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete

5andStudentAthlete7withroundtriptransportationbetweenLocation5and
Oxford,aswellasticketsandconcessions,fortheprospectstoattendabaseball
game at the institution. The total monetary value of the inducements Student
Athlete 8, StudentAthlete 5and StudentAthlete 7 received was approximately
$126.[NCAABylaws13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
During the 201213 academic year, members of Individual 2' family provided
Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete 5and StudentAthlete 7 with academic
tutoringassistancewiththeirhighschoolcourseworkandACTexampreparation.
The total monetary value of the assistance Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete
5andStudentAthlete7receivedwasapproximately$647.Additionally,Individual
2 informed Freeze and Harris that his son was providing StudentAthlete 5with
academicassistance.[NCAABylaws13.01.4,13.1.2.1and13.2.1(201213)]
Duringthe201213academicyear,Individual2purchasedclothingandapparel
bearingtheinstitution'snameand/orlogoforStudentAthlete8,StudentAthlete
5andStudentAthlete7duringvisitstotheinstitution.Thetotalmonetaryvalue
of the inducements Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete 5and StudentAthlete 7
received was approximately $510. [NCAA Bylaws 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1 and
13.2.1.1(b)(201213)]
43
Model;(b)providedorwereintendedtoprovideasubstantialorextensiverecruitingadvantage;
(c) provided or were intended to provide substantial or extensive impermissible benefits; (d)
includebenefitsprovidedbyarepresentativeoftheinstitution'sathleticsinterestsintendedto
secure, or which resulted in, enrollment of prospects; (e) include thirdparty involvement in
recruitingviolationsthatinstitutionalofficialskneworshouldhaveknownabout;and(f)were
notisolatedorlimited.[NCAABylaws
19.1.1,19.1.1(f)and19.1.1(g)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
substantiallycorrect25andbelievesthataviolationofNCAAlegislationoccurred.Althoughthe
individualviolationswouldordinarilybetreatedasLevelIIandLevelIII,collectivelytheyriseto
at least a Level II violation. Because the football case includes other Level I violations, the
University does not contest the enforcement staffs position that these violations should be
classifiedinaggregateasLevelI.
25
WhiletheUniversityagreesthattheinformationincludedintheallegationissubstantiallycorrect,theUniversity
submitsthattheallegationcontainsonefactualerror.InAllegationNo.8(j),theenforcementstaffassertsthat
prospectivestudentathleteStudentAthlete7receivedimpermissiblelodgingandtransportationduringaJanuary
1820,2013visittocampus.Thisassertionispresumablybasedonpreliminarydocumentationproducedbythe
UniversityclassifyingStudentAthlete7svisitasanunofficialvisit.(FINo.147.)However,beforeStudentAthlete
7 arrived on campus, the Universitys football staff and compliance staff submitted and had the proper
documentationapprovedtoclassifyStudentAthlete7stripasanofficialvisit.(FINo.146)Assuch,thelodging
andmealsprovidedtoStudentAthlete7onthosedateswerepermissibleunderNCAABylaws,andthemonetary
values corresponding to impermissible benefits outlined in Allegation No. 8(j) are overstated by the amounts
attributabletoStudentAthlete7.
44
The Universitys decision not to contest leveling notwithstanding, the University notes
thatthestructureandformatoftheNoticedonotallowtheenforcementstafftoincludeallof
the background information needed to fully understand and assess these violations. The
Universityprovidesthatinformationbelow.
(1)
Individual2sInvolvementWithHighSchool2
ThestartingpointforunderstandingtheseviolationsisIndividual2.Individual2does
not fit the stereotypical mold for violations involving campus visits and related impermissible
benefits, which typically involve either a third party seeking to benefit from his association
with a prospect or a wealthy booster seeking to persuade a prospect to attend a particular
institutionbyprovidinglavishgiftsorbenefits.Individual2isneither.WhileIndividual2had
purchased season tickets a few times in the past and was undoubtedly a booster, he never
made a donation of any other type to the University, and he stopped purchasing football
seasonticketsin2009,yearsbeforetheviolationsinquestionoccurred.(FINo.174,2/13/13
InterviewtranscriptofIndividual2,at3.)
Individual 2s connection to the prospects in question arose from his work as a
volunteer with the high school they attended, High School 2, an institution largely serving
underprivileged youth. (Id. at 1618.) Individual 2 became involved with High School 2
throughhischurchaspartoftheFellowshipofChristianAthletes(FCA)program.Membersof
that church served as FCA leaders (often called huddle leaders), forming personal
relationships and mentoring students. The huddle leaders embedded themselves with
individual sports teams at High School 2, serving a role like a team chaplain or an additional
staff member. (See id. at 2628 (discussing pregame meals and postgame devotionals
45
provided by FCA huddle leaders).) Individual 2 was not only a huddle leader in this
program,hewasoneofitsprincipalorganizers.(Id.at21.)
ThroughthisinvolvementwithhischurchandtheFCAprogram,Individual2developed
strongpersonalrelationshipswithfootballplayersofallages,theirparents,andothersinthe
administrationatHighSchool2.(Id.at1920and25.)HealsohadregularcontactwithHigh
School2studentswhowerenotrecruitedtoplaycollegesports,providingadditionalattention
andcounselingtothosewhoneededapositiveinfluenceintheirlives.(See,e.g.,FINo.174,
2/13/13 Interview Transcript of Individual 2, at 87.) It was in this context that Individual 2
developedrelationshipswiththestudentathletesinquestionandtheviolationsoccurred.
Individual 2s relationship with the High School 2 students identified in this allegation
did not begin until ninth grade or later and therefore didnot satisfy the requirements of the
NCAAs preexisting relationship test. Nevertheless, Individual 2 provided the prospects with
transportationandlodging.Healsoboughtthemclothingitemsandpaidphonebills,andhe
evenarrangedforacademictutoring.AllofthesethingsviolatedNCAAlegislationasalleged.
TheUniversityisconfidentthatIndividual2didnotrealize,atleastattheoutset,thathe
wasjeopardizingthecollegiateeligibilityoftheHighSchool2prospectshehelped.26Individual
2knewhecouldnothelpaprospectivestudentathletethathehadnorelationshipwith,buthe
believed his actions were permissible because he had developed relationships with the
26
Forexample,aftertheUniversityidentifiedhimasbeinginvolvedinpotentialviolation,Individual2cooperated
fullywiththeinvestigation.HesatdownwiththeUniversityslegalcounselformorethan10hoursofquestioning;
heprovidedalldocumentationthatwasrequested,includingemailsandtextmessagesthathehadpreserved(see
FINos.114,113,124,WH0001WH0098);andhesubmittedtoareviewofhisbankrecords.
46
prospectsthroughtheFCA.27Atsomepoint,however,Individual2spassionfortheUniversity,
affectionforthestudentathletes,orboth,cloudedhisjudgment,andhisconductcrossedthe
line from permissible to impermissible. This inability to limit his involvement was most
apparentinMarch2013when,evenaftertheUniversityidentifiedhimthroughsocialmedia,
concluded he had violated NCAA legislation, and explicitly warned him that he could not
provide transportation and game tickets to prospects, Individual 2 still brought three of the
prospectsinquestiontoabaseballgameontheUniversityscampus.28Individual2sfailureto
followtheUniversitysclearinstructionscausedtheUniversitytodisassociatehimforatleast
thelengthoftheUniversitysprobation.
(2)
MauriceHarrissInteractionWithIndividual2
AssistantfootballcoachMauriceHarrisdidnotknowaboutIndividual2sinvolvement
withHighSchool2whenIndividual2firstcontactedHarrisinOctober2012.Soonthereafter,
afterHarrispersonallymetIndividual2onanunofficialvisitbyseveralHighSchool2prospects,
Harris inquired with both Individual 2 and High School 2s football coach about the nature of
Individual2srelationshipswiththoseprospects.Individual2explainedthathewasamentor
totheprospects,andHighSchool2sfootballcoachconfirmedthatIndividual2workedwithhis
athletes through the church and the FCA. (FI No. 174, 2/13/13 Interview Transcript of
27
Individual 2 recalled that he called the University and provided information that he was bringing some
prospectivestudentathletestocampusforafootballgame,buthewasunabletorecallthenameoftheperson
withwhomhespoke,andtheUniversityhasbeenunabletoidentifytheindividual.(FINo.174,2/13/13Interview
Transcript of Individual 2, at 4344; FI No. 175, 2/21/13 Interview Transcript of Individual 2, at 12.) University
phonerecordsindicatethatsuchacallwasmade.However,inlightofthelengthofthisconversation,lessthan
oneminute,theUniversityisconfidentthatIndividual2didnotprovideallofthebackgroundinformationrelevant
tothisviolationduringthecall.
28
Inthisinstance,assistantfootballcoachMauriceHarrisspottedprospectsStudentAthlete5,StudentAthlete7,
andStudentAthlete8attheUniversitysathleticsperformancecenter,learnedthattheyhadcometoabaseball
gamewithIndividual2,andreportedtheviolationtotheUniversityscompliancestaff.
47
Individual 2 , at 52 (Individual 2 as a mentor); FI No. 176, 2/26/13 Interview Transcript of

Maurice Harris, at 13 and 18.) This fact was also echoed by one of the prospects, Student
Athlete5,whotoldHarristhatheknewIndividual2throughhischurch.(FINo.176,2/26/13
InterviewTranscriptofMauriceHarris,at1314and16(StudentAthlete5describingIndividual
2astheChristianguyortheFCAguy).)
At the time, Harrisincorrectly believed that the relationship betweena volunteerFCA
huddle leader and prospective studentathletes in the FCA program was permissible under
NCAAlegislation.HarrishadcoachedataMemphisareahighschool(WhitehavenHighSchool)
for seven years and understood the role of FCA huddle leaders in Memphiss high school
football locker rooms. For that reason, Harris initially felt comfortable with Individual 2
bringingprospectsonunofficialvisits.
After making initial contact, Individual 2 frequently emailed and messaged Harris.
Harris, for the most part, did not respond. (FI No. 174, 2/13/13 Interview Transcript of
Individual2,at131.)However,afterStudentAthlete6,ahighlyregardedmemberoftheHigh
School 2 football team who had initially committed to the Institution 1, reopened his
recruitment in November 2013, Harris asked Individual 2 to help him get in contact with
StudentAthlete 6s mother so Harris could arrange for her to attend an official visit to the
Universitys campus. (FI No. 176, 2/26/13 Interview Transcript of Individual 2 , at 9 and 26.)
HarrisalsoaskedIndividual2forhelpincontactinganotherHighSchool2prospectivestudent
athlete, Student Athlete 7. Harris explained that StudentAthlete 7 came from a tough
situationathomeandcouldbedifficulttoreachbyphone.(Id.at20.)Individual2,whowas
interestedinhelpingStudentAthlete7findanotherscholarshipafteranewcoachingstaffat
48
Institution9appearedtowithdrawhisinitialoffer,waseagertohelp.Bywayofcomparison,
HarrisdidnotaskIndividual2forhelpwithStudentAthlete5andtheotherprospectinvolved,
Student Athlete 8, as Harris said he could reach StudentAthlete 5 whenever he wanted and
StudentAthlete8wasnotbeingrecruited.(Id.at10.)
Harris knew that Individual 2 was providing transportation to the prospects and
academic assistance to StudentAthlete 5 (all of which Harris mistakenly understood to be
permissible).Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatHarrisfacilitatedIndividual2sinvolvementin
therecruitmentofthesestudentathletes.TheUniversityisunawareofanyinstanceinwhich
HarrisaskedIndividual 2toprovidespecificbenefitslikemeals,clothing,ortransportationto
theprospectsortheirfamilies.Thus,whiletheUniversitydoesnotdisputetheunderlyingfact
that these benefits were provided and that Harris at least acquiesced to their provision, it
disagreeswiththeenforcementstaffsoverallcharacterizationofHarrissinvolvement.
Further,theUniversityquestionstheallegationthatHarrisarrangedhotellodgingfor
StudentAthlete 8 during StudentAthlete 6s official visit, as the evidence demonstrates that
Harris only saw StudentAthlete 6 and StudentAthlete 8 after the prospects had already
checked in, and Harris did not learn that StudentAthlete 8 had used the room intended for
StudentAthlete 6s mother until the end of StudentAthlete 6s visit. (FI No. 182, 5/9/13
Interview Transcript of Maurice Harris, at 4044.) Harris also required Individual 2 to bring
StudentAthlete8backtocampustopayformealsandlodgingStudentAthlete8receivedon
thisvisitafterdiscoveringthatStudentAthlete8hadnotreimbursedtheUniversityforthose
expenses.(Id.at4649.)Forthisreason,theUniversitybelievesthatthelanguageusedinthe
49
allegationoverstatesHarrissculpabilityforhisinvolvementintheviolations.29
(3)
TheUniversityHasTakenAppropriateCorrectiveMeasuresAgainstMauriceHarris
While the University understands the reasons for Harriss mistake with respect to
Individual 2, Harris should have consulted the compliance staff in making the initial
determination. The University also agrees that Harris erred when he continued to
communicatewithIndividual2afteritbecamecleartoHarristhatIndividual2wasafanofthe
Universitys athletics teams and was becoming overly involved in the recruiting process,
particularly after several of Individual 2s comments should have raised questions about
Individual2slevelofinvolvementwithStudentAthlete6.Atminimum,theUniversitybelieves
thatHarrisshouldhavebroughttheissuetotheattentionoftheUniversityscompliancestaff
foramorethoroughreview.Harrissfailuretoasktherightpeopletherightquestionsabout
Individual2didnotmeettheUniversitysexpectations,andHarriswasappropriatelypenalized
forhisconduct.Specifically,HarriswasrequiredtoattendanNCAARegionalRulesSeminarand
wasprohibitedfromoffcampusrecruitingforthreeweeksduringthe spring2015evaluation
period.Hehasalsoreceivedaletterofadmonishment.
(4)
TheFourProspects
Finally, in analyzing Individual 2s motivation and the Universitys response, the
Committee should consider the circumstances surrounding Individual 2s involvement with
29
The University also notes that the allegation mentions several interactions between Individual 2 and other
membersofthecoachingstaff,includingheadfootballcoachHughFreeze.AstheleadrecruiterforHighSchool2,
HarrishadtheresponsibilitytoevaluatewhetherIndividual2sinvolvementwasappropriate.Theothercoaches
mentioned in the allegation asked the right questions and relied upon Harriss understanding of Individual 2s
relationship withthe prospects in determining thattherewas no violation ofNCAA legislation. (See FI No.184,
8/20/13InterviewTranscriptofHughFreeze,at3437(FreezeaskedHarrisaboutIndividual2andcorrectlystated
thatIndividual2couldnotbepresentforhismeetingwithStudentAthlete5sfamily).)
50
each of the four High School 2 prospective studentathletes. In every case, it is clear that
Individual 2s interest in them did not begin or end with their connection to the Universitys
footballteam.
51
(A)
StudentAthlete5
StudentAthlete5verballycommittedtotheUniversityinthesummerof2012,between
hisjuniorandsenioryearsofhighschoolatHighSchool2.HedidnotconsultwithIndividual2
abouthisdecisionpriortocommitting.(FINo.180, 3/25/13InterviewTranscriptofStudent
Athlete5,at69and61.)Aftercommitting,StudentAthlete5oftenacceptedtransportation
fromIndividual2forunofficialvisitstocampus.StudentAthlete5signedaNationalLetterof
Intent(NLI)withtheUniversityinFebruary2013andiscurrentlyenrolledandamemberof
thefootballteam.
(B)
StudentAthlete7
StudentAthlete 7 was initially committed to Institution 9 but his scholarship was in

doubtafterachangeinthecoachingstaff.Individual2reachedouttothenewcoachingstaff
andrecommendedthattheycontinuetorecruitStudentAthlete7,butthenewcoachingstaff
did not respond. (FI No. 174, 2/13/13 Interview Transcript of Individual 2, at 82 and 101.)
Individual 2 attempted to help find StudentAthlete 7 a scholarship to go elsewhere, and
StudentAthlete 7 eventually committed to the University, the only other institution to offer
StudentAthlete7ascholarship.(Id.at131.)AstheUniversityanticipatedatthetimeitsigned
him, StudentAthlete 7 did not qualify academically, and he eventually enrolled at another
institution.
(C)
StudentAthlete8
The University did not actively recruit StudentAthlete 8 and did not offer him a
scholarship. Realizing that the University was not interested in recruiting Student Athlete 8,
Individual 2 attempted to get local junior college and Division II institutions to offer Student
52
Athlete 8 a scholarship, and he generally encouraged StudentAthlete 8 to pursue other

institutionsratherthanattempttowalkonattheUniversity.(Id.at130.)StudentAthlete8
neverenrolledattheUniversity.
(D)
StudentAthlete6
Although Individual 2 was not as close to StudentAthlete 6 as the others, he tried to

exert the most influence in StudentAthlete 6s recruitment. StudentAthlete 6 initially
committed to Institution 1. However, when StudentAthlete 6 reopened his recruitment,
Individual 2 hoped StudentAthlete 6 would sign with the University, which was closer to his
homeandmother.Individual2contactedHarrisandgavehiminsightsintoStudentAthlete6s
recruitment, including StudentAthlete 6s mothers concern about her son attending college
across the country. At Harriss request, Individual 2 also coordinated meetings between
members of the coaching staff and StudentAthlete 6s mother. As signing day approached,
Individual2reportedthathehadseveralfrankconversationswithStudentAthlete6abouthis
mothers concerns and the possibility of signing with the University, but StudentAthlete 6
nonethelessdecidedonInstitution1.StudentAthlete6enrolledatInstitution1andattended
summerschool beforereturningto Location5infall of 2013tohelpcareforanailingfamily
member.StudentAthlete6eventuallyenrolledattheUniversityinspringof2014andreceived
alegislativereliefwaiverfromservingayearinresidencebaseduponhisfamilycircumstances.
9.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.4.1.5and13.6.7.9(201213)]
ItisallegedthatduringtheweekendsofJanuary18,January25andFebruary1,2013,
theinstitution'sfootballprogramproducedand/orplayedthreepersonalizedrecruiting
videos to numerous then football prospective studentathletes who were visiting the
institution.Specifically,duringtheweekendsofJanuary18,January25andFebruary1,
theassistantdirectorofsportsvideoforfootball,underthedirectionoftheheadfootball
53
coach, took photographs at the institution's football indoor practice facility of visiting
prospectswearingofficialteamequipmentand/orapparelandeditedthephotographs
intoacommercialstylevideo.DuringtheweekendsofJanuary18andJanuary25,the
assistantdirectorplayedthevideosforthevisitingprospectsandtheirfamilies;thevideo
fromtheFebruary1weekendwasnotplayedfortheprospects.
54
alleged violations (a) provided no more than a minimal recruiting advantage and (b) were
isolatedorlimited.[NCAABylaw19.1.3(201516)]
RESPONSE:
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelIII.30
10.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1(h) (200910); 14.1.2, 14.3.2.1,
14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.5 (201011); 14.11.1 (201011 through 201213); and 14.10.1
(201314)]
It is alleged that between May and June 2010, David Saunders (Saunders), then
administrative operations coordinator for football, and Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), then
assistant football coach, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when they
engagedinfraudulenceormisconductinconnectionwiththeACTexamsofthreethen
footballprospectivestudentathletes.Thefraudulentexamscoresallowedtheprospects
tosatisfyNCAAinitialeligibilityacademicrequirements.Specifically:
a.
VaughninstructedthenfootballprospectivestudentathletesStudentAthlete9,
StudentAthlete10andStudentAthlete11totaketheJune2010ACTexamat
WayneCountyHighSchool(WayneCounty)inWaynesboro,Mississippi,aswell
asinstructedthethreeprospectspriortotheexamtorefrainfromansweringany
exam questions to which they did not know the answer, in order to facilitate
30
The University does not agree with the enforcement staffs statement that assistant director of sports videos
ChrisButtgenactedunderthedirectionoftheheadfootballcoach.Buttgenmentionedtheideaforthesevideos
to Freeze, telling Freeze that he (permissibly) made similar videos while employed at another NCAA institution.
Freezeapprovedthemakingofthevideosbaseduponthesecomments.
55
fraudulence or misconduct in connection with their exams. [NCAA Bylaws

10.01.1,10.1and10.1(h)(200910)]
b.
Saunders arranged for StudentAthlete 9 , StudentAthlete 10 and Student

Athlete11totaketheJune2010ACTexamatWayneCountyandarrangedfor
thethenACTtestingsupervisoratWayneCountytocompleteand/oraltertheir
examanswersheetsinsuchamannerthattheyreceivedfraudulentexamscores.
[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(h)(200910)]
StudentAthlete9's,andStudentAthlete11'sJune2010ACTscoreswereusedin
their initial eligibility academic certifications; as a result, they practiced,
competedandreceivedathleticallyrelatedfinancialaidfromtheinstitutionwhile
ineligible during the 201011 academic year; StudentAthlete 11 also competed
whileineligibleduringthe201112,201213and201314academicyears.[NCAA
Bylaws 14.1.2, 14.3.2.1, 14.3.2.1.1 and 15.01.5 (201011); 14.11.1 (201011
through201213);and14.10.1(201314)]
Model;(b)providedorwereintendedtoprovideasubstantialrecruiting,competitiveorother
advantage;and(c)involveindividualunethicalordishonestconductand(d)involveintentional
violationsorshowingrecklessindifferencetotheNCAAconstitutionandbylaws.[NCAABylaws
19.1.1,19.1.1(d)and19.1.1(h)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
TheUniversityagreesthat(1)thefactualinformationcontainedinAllegationNo.10is
substantiallycorrect,(2)thataviolationofNCAAlegislationoccurred,and(3)thattheviolation
isclassifiedappropriatelyasLevelI.
In August 2013, the enforcement staff conducted an interview with studentathlete
StudentAthlete 9, who was enrolled at another institution. During that interview, Student
56
Athlete 9 disclosed that he suspected testing fraud in connection with his June 2010 ACT in
Wayne County, Mississippi, and implicated two other prospective studentathletes, Student
Athlete 10 and StudentAthlete 11, as being potentially involved.31 Beginning in September
2013, the University and NCAA enforcement staff conducted multiple interviews of involved
studentathletes,membersoftheUniversitysformercoachingstaff,ACTadministratorsfrom
the Wayne County, Mississippi, test site, and others who might have information relevant to
allegations of ACT fraud. The University also obtained information from ACT regarding test
securityprocedures.32Finally,theUniversityreceivedpermissionfromStudentAthlete9and
StudentAthlete 10 for the University to obtain and review their test materials and answer
sheets. An analysis of these test materials and other information pertaining to contacts
betweenthestudentathletesandformerUniversitystaffmembersisattachedasExhibit102.
Even with the benefit of this exhaustive and thorough investigation, the University
remainsuncertainexactlyhowthetestingfraudwascarriedout.33Nevertheless,theUniversity
concursthat,afterthetestended,anunknownpersonalteredtheanswersheetsforStudent
31
VaughnwastheUniversitysprimaryrecruiterforStudentAthlete9,andStudentAthlete11.Asthesummerof
2010 approached, it became clear that the three prospects needed to improve their standardized test score to
meetNCAAinitialeligibilityrequirements.VaughnturnedtoSaunders,whowasknownforhispreviousworkin
theprivatesectorhelpingprospectstobecomeacademicallyeligible.Saundersadmitsthathelikelysuggestedto
atleastoneoftheprospectstoconsidertakingtheJuneACTinWayneCounty.
32
Aspartofitsscorevalidationprocess,ACTsecuritypersonnelreviewaflaggedstudentspriortestscore(s),the
testmaterialsandanswersheetforthetestinquestion,recordsfromthetestsiteadministratorsandproctors,
andanyotherfactors(i.e.,excessiveerasuremarks,evidenceofcopyingoffofanswersheetsofnearbystudents,
etc.)thatmightindicatesomeformofmisconduct.InresponsetotheUniversitysrequest,ACTEmployee1,anin
houseattorneyforACTcontactedaspartoftheUniversitysinvestigation,providedthepoliciesandprocedures
applicabletosuchascorereview,acopyofwhichisattachedasExhibit101.
33
TheUniversityunequivocallybelievesthatSaunderswasinvolvedin(andlikelyspearheaded)theacademicfraud
but, in fairness, cannot agree with the specific allegation that he directed the testing coordinator to complete
and/or alter answer sheets. Neither the University nor the enforcement staff has ever been able to determine
whoactuallyalteredorcompletedtheanswersheets.
57
Athlete 9 and StudentAthlete 10 or completed answers they originally left blank. In light of
StudentAthlete11srefusalin2015,morethanayearafterhiseligibilityexpired,toauthorize
the release of his ACT answer sheet to the University and enforcement staff, and because of
othercircumstantialevidenceindicativeoffraud,theUniversityalsoadmitstheallegationasto
him.34TheUniversityconcludesthatthisfraudwasanisolatedoccurrenceplanned,directed,
and/orcarriedoutbytworoguestaffmemberslongsinceseparatedfromtheUniversity.
SeveralkeyfactsarerelevantinevaluatingtheUniversitysactionswithrespecttothis
allegation.First,thetestscoreincreasesforthesethreeprospectsfivetoeightpointsare
plausible and could have been achieved by legitimate means. Possibly for this reason, the
NCAA Eligibility Center did not flag any of these test scores when certifying the prospects
eligibility.Yet,UniversitypolicyrequirestheUniversitytoinitiateanACTreviewwheneverany
applicants overall score increases by six or more points. In addition, under SEC Bylaws, the
UniversitymustreviewastudentathletesACTifanysubjectmatterscoreincreasesbyatleast
sixpoints.Basedonthesepolicies,theUniversitys9ACommitteerequestedthatACTvalidate
allthreetestresultsinthesummerof2010,shortlyaftertheprospectstooktheirtest.35
34
StudentAthlete11statedthathedidntrememberifhelefttestquestionsblankandbelievedthathistestresult
waslegitimate.(SeeFINo.244,10/1/13InterviewTranscriptofStudentAthlete11,at2324.)StudentAthlete11
attributedtheincreaseinhiscompositeACTscoretohardworkthatheputinwithatutor.(Id.at1419and30.)
However,theproctorinchargeofoverseeingandadministeringStudentAthlete11sACTtestrememberedseeing
a number of blanks or unanswered questions on StudentAthlete 11s answer sheet. (FI No. 271, 12/1/14
InterviewTranscriptofACTEmployee2,at26.)Atminimum,thisproctorsrecollection,combinedwithStudent
Athlete9sstatementthathewasinstructednottoanswerquestionsforwhichhedidnotknowtheanswer,raises
legitimatequestionsastowhetherStudentAthlete11completedtheentiretestonhisown.Withoutaccessto
StudentAthlete 11s answer sheet and test booklet, the University cannot make an absolute determination
whetherStudentAthlete11sscoreisvalidorfraudulent.
35
TheUniversitys9ACommittee,createdincompliancewithSECBylaw14.1.2.2,seekstoensurethevalidityof
academic credentials of incoming prospective studentathletes. The 9A Committee consists of the Universitys
Faculty Athletics Representative, Senior Associate Athletics Director for Compliance, Director of Admissions,
CertifyingOfficer(fromtheregistrarsoffice),Registrar/AssistantProvost,ViceChancellorforStudentAffairs,and
General Counsel. If the academic credentials of a potential studentathlete trigger the SEC Bylaw, then the
58
ACTvalidatedStudentAthlete9s,andStudentAthlete11stestsscoresbeforeanyof
themwereadmittedtotheUniversity,receivedfinancialaid,orpracticedorcompetedforthe
Universitys football team. (Exhibit 103, 8/19/10, 8/20/10, and 7/9/10 Letters from ACT
Employee3toJenniferA.Simmons.)TotheUniversitysknowledge,thesescoresremainvalid
asofthedateofthisResponsedespiteACTsindependentinvestigationoftheWayneCounty
testsite.
Second,theUniversityneverknowinglyallowedanyofthestudentathletestocompete
whileineligible.36WiththeexceptionofSaundersandVaughn,thereisnoevidencethatany
other University employee knew the prospects took the June 2010 ACT in Wayne County.
SaunderslefttheUniversityinDecember2010toacceptanassistantcoachpositionatanother
NCAA member institution, and Vaughn left the University in December 2011 when the new
coachingstafftookoverthatsamemonth.Evenafterallegationsoftestingfraudcametolight
inthefallof2013,theenforcementstaffinformedtheUniversitythattheinformationknownat
that time was insufficient to require withholding StudentAthlete 11 from competition and
authorized the University to continue to allow StudentAthlete 11 to compete. The
enforcement staff provided written assurances in October 2013 that, given the state of the
investigation, the University would not be at risk for knowingly playing an ineligible student
prospect is included in the required Special Report generated to determine if, to the best of the Universitys
knowledge,thetriggeringacademiccredentialsarevalid.TheUniversitysChancellorreviewsandsignstheSpecial
Report,whichmustbeapprovedbytheSECCommissionerbeforetheprospectiseligibleforcompetition.
36
StudentAthlete11wastheonlyprospectstillplayingfootballattheUniversityduringthe201314season,when
thepossibilityoftestingfraudfirstcametolight,thathadpotentiallybeeninvolvedinthetestingfraud.Student
Athlete 9 and StudentAthlete 10 lasted less than one academic year at the University. StudentAthlete 9
competedinninecontestsduringthe201011seasonbeforehewasdismissedfromtheteamforviolatingteam
rules in November 2010. StudentAthlete 10 played in two games during the 201011 season before he was
dismissedfromtheteaminMay2011.StudentAthlete9andStudentAthlete10continuedtheirplayingcareers
atjuniorcollegesbeforetransferringtootherNCAAinstitutions.
59
athlete if StudentAthlete 11 continued to compete in football contests. (Exhibit 104,

10/12/13EMailfromNCAAInvestigator1toWilliamH.King,III.)
Finally,atleastastotheUniversity,anytestingfraudthatoccurredwaslimitedtojust
onetestdate,June12,2010.Assuch,thescopeoftheviolationissubstantiallydifferentfroma
prior, similar infractions case involving Saunders decided by the Committee last year and
another complex, multiyear academic fraud scheme overseen by a head coach in a separate
infractionscasedecidedearlierthismonth.
Altogether,thecumulativeevidencemarshaledbytheUniversityandenforcementstaff
supportsafindingthattestingfraudoccurredandthatSaundersandVaughnwereinvolvedor
had knowledge of that fraud. The University took appropriate steps at the time of the
violations to flag the increased test scores for the ACTs review and fully relied upon ACTs
validationofthosescores.
11.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1(c), 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1,
13.2.1.1(h) and 13.15.1 (200910); 14.11.1 (201011 through 201213); and 14.10.1
(201314)]
It is alleged that during the summer of 2010, David Saunders (Saunders), then
administrative operations coordinator for football, and Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), then
assistant football coach, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when they
knowingly arranged for Individual 1, a representative of the institution's athletics
interests,toprovideimpermissiblerecruitinginducementsintheformofhousing,meals
and/or transportation to five then football prospective studentathletes. Additionally,
Saunders knowingly arranged for Individual 1 to provide housing, meals and/or
transportationtoasixththenfootballprospectivestudentathlete.Individual1becamea
representative of the institution's athletics interests due to Saunders and Vaughn
arranging for him to provide recruiting inducements to the prospects. Further, Derrick
Nix (Nix), assistant football coach, was involved in arranging for the sixth prospect to
receivehousing,mealsand/ortransportation.
The total monetary value of impermissible housing, meals and/or transportation

provided to the six prospects was approximately $1,750. The housing, meals and/or
60
transportationallowedtheprospectstoenrollinsummercoursestosatisfyNCAAinitial
eligibilityacademicrequirements.Specifically:
a.
Inthesummerof2010,VaughnandSaundersknowinglyarrangedforIndividual
1 to provide housing, meals and/or transportation to then football prospective
studentathletes StudentAthlete 12, StudentAthlete 9, StudentAthlete 10,
StudentAthlete 13 and StudentAthlete 11 while they were enrolled at the
Business5inLocation1.Thevalueofimpermissibleinducementsprovidedtothe
fiveprospectswasapproximately$1,460.
StudentAthlete12,StudentAthlete9,StudentAthlete10andStudentAthlete13
each received approximately $333 in housing, transportation and/or meals;
StudentAthlete11receivedapproximately$131inthosesameinducements.Asa
result, StudentAthlete 9, StudentAthlete 10 and StudentAthlete 11 competed
while ineligible during the 201011 academic year; StudentAthlete 12 and
StudentAthlete11alsocompetedwhileineligibleduringthe201112and2012
13 academic years. StudentAthlete 13 did not compete while ineligible. [NCAA
Bylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(c),13.01.4,13.1.2.1,13.2.1,13.2.1.1(h)and13.15.1
(200910);and14.11.1(201011through201213)]
b.
Inthesummerof2010,SaundersknowinglyarrangedforIndividual1toprovide
housing, meals and/or transportation to then football prospective student
athlete StudentAthlete 14 while he was enrolled in a course at the Business 5.
The value of impermissible inducements provided to StudentAthlete 14 was
approximately$290.Subsequently,StudentAthlete14competedwhileineligible
during the 201112 and 201213 academic years. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1,
10.1(c), 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1(h) and 13.15.1 (200910); and
14.11.1(201112and201213)]
c.
In the summer of 2010, Nix assisted in arranging for StudentAthlete 14 to
receive housing, meals and/or transportation while enrolled at the Business 5
whenheplacedStudentAthlete14and/orStudentAthlete14familyincontact
with Saunders and/or Individual 1 to arrange housing, meals and/or
transportation.[NCAABylaws13.2.1,13.2.1.1(h)and13.15.1(200910)]
the alleged violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate
Modelandprovided,orwereintendedtoprovide,asubstantialrecruiting,competitiveorother
advantage and a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit. In addition, the alleged
violationsinvolve(a)individualunethicalconduct;(b)benefitsprovidedbyarepresentativeof
the institution's athletics interests that were intended to secure, or which resulted in, the
61
enrollment of prospects; and (c) thirdparty involvement in recruiting violations in which

institutional officials knew or should have known about. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.1, 19.1.1(d),
19.1.1(f)and19.1.1(g)(201516)]
62
RESPONSE:
The University believes that the factual information contained in Allegation No. 11 is
substantiallycorrectandbelievesthataviolationofNCAAlegislationoccurredasdescribedin
AllegationsNos. 11(a)and11(b).37AstoAllegationNo.11(c),theUniversitydisagreesthat
theevidencesupportsafindingthatassistantfootballcoachDerrickNixassistedinarranging
foroneoftheprospectstoreceiveimpermissiblebenefits.TheUniversityalsodisagreeswith
the enforcement staffs classification of these violations as Level I and proposes that the
violationsshouldbeclassifiedasLevelII.
(1)
DerrickNixDidNotAssistInArrangingImpermissibleBenefitsForStudentAthlete14
Nix is mentioned in connection with only one of the prospects identified in Allegation
No. 11, StudentAthlete 14. The University disputes the allegation that Nix assisted in
arranging for StudentAthlete 14 to live with Individual 1 during the summer of 2010. The
UniversitydoesnotdenythatNixplacedStudentAthlete14incontactwithSaunders,anon
coaching staff member whose job duties included assisting with initial eligibility issues for
footballprospects.Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatNixassistedinarrangingforStudent
Athlete14toreceivehousing,mealsand/ortransportationfromIndividual1.
37
TheallegationreferstotheprospectsreceivingimpermissiblemealsduringtheirtimeatthehomeofIndividual
1.However,severaloftheprospectsstatedduringthecourseoftheinvestigationthattheypurchasedtheirown
foodwhilelivinginIndividual1shomeorpaidIndividual1forgasandmeals.Further,whentheUniversityand
enforcement staff agreed upon facts relevant to the reinstatement of the prospects, there was no mention of
impermissible meals. Regardless, the University does not dispute that the prospects received lodging and
transportationbenefitsduringtheapplicabletimeperiod.
63
Nix did not know who Individual 1 was when StudentAthlete 14 began living at
Individual 1s home. Nix assumed StudentAthlete 14 was living at home with his family in
Location7,andcommutingeachdaytoBusiness5campusinLocation1.Nixdidnotlearnthat
StudentAthlete 14 was staying at Individual 1s home until later thatsummer, well after any
arrangements with Individual 1 were finalized. At that point, Nix asked Saunders whether it
waspermissiblefortheprospectstobelivingwithIndividual1.Saunders,whomNixbelieved
hadexpertiseinthisarea,toldNixthatIndividual1sstatusasanownerofanonprofitmadeit
permissible.38
The only evidence supporting an allegation against Nix consists of speculative
statementsmadebyStudentAthlete14inhisAugust13,2013,interview.StudentAthlete14
statedthatheprobably[gotIndividual1saddressfrom]CoachNix,oreitherIgotIndividual
1s number and [Nix] gave it to me. Im not totally sure about that. (FI No. 229, 8/13/13
InterviewTranscriptofStudentAthlete14,at14(emphasisadded).)Thisstatementisfarfrom
conclusive; in fact, StudentAthlete 14 specifically stated he was guessing [Nix] was the one
whoinformedmeaboutthat.(Id.at14(emphasisadded).)StudentAthlete14didnothavea
specific recollection of Nix mentioning Individual 1 and speculated that Nix provided the
informationaboutIndividual1onlybecauseNixwasthecoachingstaffmemberwithwhomhe
hadthemostregularcontact.(Id.at24.)
StudentAthlete14sspeculationintheabsenceofaclearrecollectionisnotasufficient
basis to find that Nix arranged for StudentAthlete 14 to stay with Individual 1. This is
38
Nix was not alone in believing that Saunders had expertise in academic eligibility issues. (See Exhibit IN1,
UniversityofLouisianaatLafayette(January12,2016),at6.)
64
particularly true where StudentAthlete 14 s memory about other aspects of that summer is
crystal clear. For example, StudentAthlete 14 specifically remembered learning about the
possibility of taking summer classes at Business 5 from someone working for a high school
academicenrichmentprogramrunbyalocalcompany.(Id.at2021.)
In light of Nixs clear recollection that he had no knowledge of Individual 1 when
StudentAthlete 14 s living arrangements were made, that he did not assist in making any
arrangements, and that he thought StudentAthlete 14 was commuting from home, the
University does not believe the evidence supports Allegation No. 11(c). Indeed, there are
other plausible scenarios by which StudentAthlete 14 could have learned about Individual 1,
includingthepossibilitythatSaunderswhoknewIndividual1andhadalreadyinformedthe
other prospects abouthim told StudentAthlete 14 or his family about Individual 1 and the
possibilitythatStudentAthlete14learnedaboutIndividual1fromoneoftheotherprospects
whowerestudyingatBusiness5.
(2)
TheViolationShouldBeClassifiedasLevelII
This violation should be classified as Level II for two primary reasons. First, the
impermissiblebenefitswerenotofthehighdollarvaluetypicallyassociatedwithaLevelIcase.
Thesixprospectscombinedreceivedlessthan$1,750.85inimpermissiblebenefits(amaximum
of$333.03,and,inStudentAthlete11scase,substantiallyless$133).Duetothelowdollar
valueatissueforeachoftheprospectivestudentathletes,theseviolationswouldindividually
have been treated as Level III, and collectively they rise to Level II. The University has been
unable to locate any precedent where an infraction involving a similar dollar amount was
classifiedasLevelI.Additionally,Individual1hadnospecifictiestotheUniversityintermsof
65
monetarydonations,boosterclubaffiliations,orseasonticketsthataretypicallyfoundinLevel
Icases.
Second,althoughIndividual1smotivationinprovidingthesebenefitsdoesnotexcuse
theviolationsatissue,hishistoryofprovidingthesameorsimilarbenefitstoyoungmenand
womensomeofwhomwereathletes,butotherswhowerenotpriortothesummerof2010
calls into question whether the violations constitute the type of severe breach of conduct
requiredforLevelItreatment.Atthetimeoftheinvestigation,Individual1workedataNissan
Groupmanufacturingandassemblyplantandasaminister.Healsoremainedactiveinvarious
local ministries and nonprofits that operated schools providing safehavens for atrisk
students, first in Location 1, Location 8, and then back in Location 1. At various times,
Individual 1s ministries and nonprofits offered the possibility of housing with host families,
andIndividual1hadhousedoutofareastudents(athletesandnonathletes)separatefromhis
involvementwiththeschools.Individual1sconductinthepresentcaseisconsistentwiththis
priorpractice,inwhichhedidnotchargerent.
Further, when Individual 1 helped prospective studentathletes, his efforts were not
limitedtostudentswhoplannedtoattendtheUniversity;infact,Individual1providedlodging
to several prospective studentathletes committed to attending other institutions. For
example, the first studentathlete who lived with Individual 1, StudentAthlete 15, signed a
football and basketball scholarship with Institution 2 in 2003. More recently, Individual 1
helped StudentAthlete 16 , a Institution 3 signee, and StudentAthlete 17 , a signee for the
Third Party College Institution 1 who never enrolled. Individual 1s first connection with a
studentathlete committed to the University was not until 2009. And there is also evidence
66
that,evenduringthesummerof2010whenhehousedthesixUniversitysignees,Individual1
wasprovidinglodgingtoanotherfootballprospectwhoplannedtoattendtheInstitution4.(FI
No.229,8/13/13InterviewTranscriptofStudentAthlete14,at1213.)
In light of Individual 1s history of helping nonathletes and athletes alike and the
absence of an established preference for the Universitys athletes or athletics interests, the
Universitybelievesthatthiscasepresentslessthanaseverebreachofconduct.Whilethe
UniversityagreesthatIndividual1sconductviolatedNCAAlegislation,theobjectiveevidence
obtained during the course of this investigation supports Individual 1s statements that he
neverintendedtocommitaninfractionoraffecttheeligibilityoftheprospectswholivedwith
him.Thispositionissupportednotonlybytheconsistentrecollectionsofthestudentathletes
inquestion,allofwhomreportedthatIndividual1usedhishomeasateachingexampleand
imposedstrictdisciplineinanefforttoimpartlessonsonresponsibilityanddependability,but
also by the fact that Individual 1 did not repeat the same conduct with future University
recruits. In other words, this is an isolated instance of an individual with a wellestablished
practice of helping young men and women in need and does not threaten or endanger the
collegiatemodelinanywaythatwarrantsLevelIclassification.39
12.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(d),19.2.3and19.2.3.2(201314)]
39
It was for this same reason that the University treated the benefits as an amateurism issue (preferential
treatment) when seeking reinstatement for the prospects under Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6. At that time, both the
enforcement staff and StudentAthlete Reinstatement (SAR) agreed with the University and approved the
reinstatementrequestsinvokingthepreferentialtreatmentBylaw.Nonewfactsrelevanttothisallegationhave
cometolightsinceAugust2013.TheUniversitybelievesthatit,theenforcementstaff,andSARgotthisdecision
right the firsttime. Accordingly (and alternatively), theUniversity requests that the Committee reachthe same
conclusion here and address these violations for penalty purposes under Bylaw 12 and not as recruiting
inducementsunderBylaw13astheenforcementstaffhasalleged.
67
It is alleged that between August 14 and 31, 2013, Chris Vaughn (Vaughn), former
assistant football coach, violated the NCAA cooperative principle when he
communicated with witnesses of an NCAA enforcement investigation after being
admonished on multiple occasions to refrain from having such communications.
Additionally, on December 17, 2013, Vaughn violated the NCAA principles of ethical
conductwhenheknowinglyprovidedfalseormisleadinginformationtotheinstitution
and enforcement staff regarding his knowledge of and/or involvement in violations of
NCAAlegislation.Specifically:
a.
b.
Between August 14 and 31, 2013, Vaughn engaged in multiple telephone calls
and text message communications with witnesses of the enforcement staff's
investigationregardingtheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNos.10and11,after
being admonished on multiple occasions to refrain from having such
communications in order to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Additionally, during his August 19 and December 17, 2013, interviews with the
institution and enforcement staff, Vaughn acknowledged that his purpose for
engaging in the communications was to obtain information regarding the
investigation.[NCAABylaws19.2.3and19.2.3.2(201314)]
Vaughn denied during his December 17 interview that he (1) directed then
footballprospectivestudentathletesStudentAthlete9,StudentAthlete10and
StudentAthlete 11 to take the June 2010 ACT exam at Wayne County High
School(WayneCounty)inWaynesboro,Mississippi,and(2)instructedthethree
prospects to refrain from answering any exam questions to which they did not
know the answer in order to facilitate fraudulence or misconduct in connection
withtheirexams.However,thefactualsupportforAllegationNo.10showsthat
Vaughn directed StudentAthlete 9 , StudentAthlete 10 and StudentAthlete 11
totaketheJune2010ACTexamatWayneCounty,andinstructedthemtorefrain
fromansweringanyexamquestionstowhichtheydidnotknowtheanswer,in
order to facilitate fraudulence or misconduct in connection with their exams.
[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201314)]
Model and they involve (a) a failure to cooperate in an enforcement investigation and (b)
individualunethicalordishonestconduct.Further,theresponsibilitytocooperateisparamount
to a full and complete investigation, which the membership has identified as critical to the
common interests of the Association and preservation of the NCAA Collegiate Model. [NCAA
Bylaws19.01.1,19.1.1and19.1.1(d)(201516)]
68

69
RESPONSE:
The actions alleged, while clearly contrary to NCAA legislation, are associated with a
period of time after Vaughn was no longer employed by the University. Regardless of the
Committees determination, the University is not responsible for or subject to penalties as a
resultoftheallegedconduct.Thus,theUniversitydoesnottakeapositionontheallegation.
13.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201314)]
It is alleged that on December 16, 2013, and February 25, 2014, David Saunders
(Saunders),formeradministrativeoperationscoordinatorforfootball,violatedtheNCAA
principlesofethicalconductwhenheknowinglyprovidedfalseormisleadinginformation
regardinghisknowledgeofand/orinvolvementinviolationsofNCAAlegislation.
Specifically,duringhisDecember16,2013,andFebruary25,2014,interviewswiththe
institutionandNCAAenforcementstaff,Saundersdenied(a)thathearrangedforthen
footballprospectivestudentathletesStudentAthlete9,StudentAthlete10andStudent
Athlete 11 to take the June 2010 ACT exam at Wayne County High School (Wayne
County) in Waynesboro, Mississippi, and (b) knowledge of and/or involvement in
fraudulenceormisconductinconnectionwiththeirexams.
However, the factual support for Allegation No. 10 shows that Saunders arranged for
StudentAthlete9,StudentAthlete10andStudentAthlete11totaketheJune2010ACT
exam at Wayne County and arranged for the then ACT testing supervisor at Wayne
Countytocompleteand/oraltertheirexamanswersheetsinasuchamannerthatthey
receivedfraudulentexamscores.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201314)]
Modelandinvolveindividualunethicalordishonestconduct.[NCAABylaws19.1.1and19.1.1
(d)(201516)]
70
RESPONSE:
The actions alleged, while clearly contrary to NCAA legislation, are associated with a
period of time after Saunders was no longer employed by the University. Regardless of the
Committees determination, the University is not responsible for or subject to penalties as a
resultoftheallegedconduct.Thus,theUniversitydoesnottakeapositionontheallegation.
71
Women'sbasketball.
OVERVIEW:
The violations in the womens basketball program are the result of intentional and
egregiousmisconductbyformerassistantcoachKenyaLandersandherhusband,Michael,the
former coordinator of basketball operations. The University employed the Landerses for just
oversixmonths.Duringthattime,theLandersesusedpersonalcellularphonesandemailto
commit academic fraud and various contact violations and to hide those actions from the
University.Oncetheinvestigationbegan,theLandersesliedtotheUniversitysinvestigators,
instructedstudentathletestolieduringinterviews,andattemptedtodestroycriticalevidence
oftheirmisconduct.TheLandersesviolationsledtotheirterminationandtheterminationof
the womens basketball head coach before the first game of the season. The University also
declaredtwostudentathletesineligible.Bothofthesestudentathleteslosttheirgrantsinaid,
effectively ending their college careers. The Landerses actions have no place in college
athletics,andtheUniversitydideverythinginitspowertodiscoverandendtheircheating.
Circumstances leading to these violations began on March 26, 2012, when the
University hired Adrian Wiggins as head womens basketball coach. Wiggins hired Kenya
Landersashisfirstassistantcoach.Shortlythereafter,WigginshiredKenyaLandersshusband,
Michael,ascoordinatorofbasketballoperations.TheLanderseshadpreviouslyservedasco
headcoachesoftheInstitution5womensbasketballteaminLocation9,whichwonthejunior
collegenationalchampionshipin2012.TheUniversitysathleticsadministrationappropriately
vettedtheLandersesbeforetheywerehired.Asisstandardoperatingprocedureincollegiate
athletics, the University confirmed with the NCAA in March 2012 that the
72
Landerses were not subject to a show cause order and had not been named in a major
infractionscase.TheUniversitydidnotfindanyotherredflagsintheircoachinghistoriesand
therefore had no reason to suspect that the Landerses would engage in such egregious
misconduct. The University also fully researched Wiggins before he was hired, including a
standardbackgroundcheckandconversationswithrepresentativesfromhisformerinstitution
andathleticsconference.
Within a few days of their hiring, the University provided rules education to the
Landerses and Wiggins, including a review of NCAA recruiting legislation. The University also
provided institutional cellular phones and email addresses and told the coaches that all
recruitingandwomensbasketballworkshouldbeconductedusingthesephonesandaccounts.
In early September 2012, the University received an inquiry letter from the SEC
concerningtheUniversitysrecruitmentandacademicstatusofStudentAthlete18.Student
Athlete18,akeymemberoftheInstitution5nationalchampionshipteam,hadbeenselected
astheAward1.TheLandersesrecruitedStudentAthlete18tofollowthemtotheUniversity.
The SECs letter also inquired about another former prospective studentathlete, Student
Athlete19.40
The University promptly retained outside counsel and began an investigation into the
womens basketball program. Before conducting any interviews, the University identified a
secondjuniorcollegetransferprospect,StudentAthlete20,whoseacademicprofilewassimilar
toStudentAthlete18.Specifically,StudentAthlete20hadtakenanonlineclassatoneofthe
40
For StudentAthlete 18, the issues identified by the SEC concerned potential contact violations and whether
StudentAthlete 18 had fully satisfied Institution 5s graduation requirements and NCAA Division I enrollment
requirements.Therewasnosuggestionthatacademicfraudhadoccurred.ForStudentAthlete19,theonlyissue
waswhethershereceivedimpermissibletransportationduringanofficialvisittotheUniversity(therewasnovisit).
73
sameinstitutionsasStudentAthlete18.TheUniversityexpandeditsinvestigationtoincludea
reviewofStudentAthlete20sacademics.
Duringtheirinitial,backtobackinterviewsonOctober2,2012,theLanderses,Student
Athlete 18, and StudentAthlete 20 flatly denied any academic wrongdoing. During the very
first interview, however, StudentAthlete 18 acknowledged the Landerses had some
involvementinheronlinecourses,andhertextmessageswithKenyaLandersraisedsuspicions.
For this reason, immediately following StudentAthlete 18s interview, the University secured
andimagedtheLandersesUniversityissuedcomputers.DuringtheLandersesinterviewsthat
same day, the University inspected the Landerses phones and reviewed text messages with
StudentAthlete18andStudentAthlete20.TheUniversityalsorequiredKenyaLanderstolog
ontoherUniversityandpersonalemailaccount,andtheUniversitysearchedforandreviewed
emailwithoraboutStudentAthlete18andStudentAthlete20.Capturingtheserecordson
thefirstdayofinterviewsprovedcrucial.
Thefollowingday,theUniversitydiscoveredthatMichaelLandershadusedapersonal
email account to send emails to StudentAthlete 18 at her Institution 5 student email

account. These emails referenced StudentAthlete 18s online classwork and included
attachments that appeared to be assignments from those courses. In the middle of the
UniversitysreviewofStudentAthlete18sinbox,theemailsinquestionbegantodisappear.
The University took screenshots of the inbox screen before the remaining emails also
disappeared. The University immediately suspected and has since confirmed that Michael
LandersgainedaccesstoStudentAthlete18sInstitution5emailaccountanddeletedthesee
74
mailsinanefforttoconcealtheacademicfraud.Atthesametime,MichaelLanderswasalso
deletingallofthecorrespondingemailsfromhispersonalemailaccount.41
After witnessing the deletion of key evidence, the University secured and imaged all
computersandiPadsassignedtotherestofthewomensbasketballstaff.TheUniversityalso
secured and imaged the Landerses iPad and reimaged Michael Landerss computer to
determine if it had been used to log into and delete emails from StudentAthlete 18s
Institution5account.TheUniversitysOctober4,2012,reviewofthebrowsinghistoryonthe
LandersesiPadreflectedvisitstobothLandersespersonalemailaccounts.Additionally,the
browser history indicated that the Landerses had viewed emails with subject lines matching
the deleted emails observed in StudentAthlete 18s account. Meanwhile, the Universitys
information technology department was able to recover some of the attachments that the
investigative team had opened from StudentAthlete 18s Institution 5 emails before the e
mailshaddisappeared.TheUniversitymatchedtheseattachmentstoassignmentsonsyllabiit
obtainedforStudentAthlete18sonlinecourses.
MichaelLanderswasinterviewedforathirdtimethenextmorning.Hewasnotaware
that the University had viewed and recovered information from StudentAthlete 18s email
account and discovered the iPad browsing history. During the interview, the University
requiredMichaelLanderstologintohispersonalemailaccount.Onceheloggedon,because
the University had researched several methods of recovering deleted emails, the interview
team was able to recover a significant number of incriminating emails that Michael Landers
41
MichaelLandersdeletedalmosteveryemailfromhispersonalaccountpriortohissecondinterviewonOctober
3, 2012. He claimed that he deleted the emails to hide potentially embarrassing personal correspondence
unrelatedtotheinvestigation.WhentheUniversityrecoveredthedeletedemailsonOctober5,2012,itfound
theemailsbearingthesamesubjectlineandcontentasthoseobservedinStudentAthlete18sinbox.
75
believed had been permanently deleted from his account. When faced with these emails,
MichaelLandersfinallyadmittedthathehadcommittedacademicfraudonStudentAthlete18
and StudentAthlete 20s behalf. He maintained, however, that his wife, Kenya, had no
knowledge of or involvement in the fraud. The University immediately informed Michael
Landers that he was being terminated, but that the University would place him on
administrativeleavesolongashecooperatedwiththeinvestigation.
When presented with her husbands recovered emails, Kenya Landers admitted that
she had also deleted relevant information and had not been completely honest in her prior
interviews. As a result, like her husband, Kenya Landers was immediately informed that her
employment was being terminated, but that she could remain on administrative leave if she
cooperatedwiththeinvestigation.42
However, Kenya Landers continued to deny any knowledge of or participation in the
academic fraud. Despite the Universitys best efforts, none of the deleted emails from her
personal email account could be recovered. This setback notwithstanding, the University
continued to investigate Kenya Landerss involvement with StudentAthlete 18 and Student
Athlete20.
42
StudentAthlete 18 and StudentAthlete 20 refused to cooperate with the investigation during followup
interviewsconductedonOctober8and9,2012,respectively.TheUniversityimmediatelydeclaredbothineligible,
andneitherevercompetedforUniversity.StudentAthlete18lateragreedtocooperatewiththeinvestigationand
was interviewed by the University and enforcement staff on January 23, 2013. During this interview, Student
Athlete18admittedthatshehadparticipatedintheacademicfraudthatledtoherbeingcertifiedaseligible,lied
to investigators, and deleted emails and text messages as directed by Kenya Landers. StudentAthlete 18 also
confirmedthatKenyaLandershadpaidforheronlinecourses.StudentAthlete20alsoagreedtocooperateand
was interviewed on January 22, 2013. StudentAthlete 20 confirmed during her interview that she did not
complete any of the coursework for her online classes and that Kenya Landers had instructed her to deny her
involvementintheacademicfraud.
76
Byinterviewingandobtainingcourserelatedinformationfromaninstructorforoneof
StudentAthlete 20s online courses, the University developed compelling evidence of Kenya
Landersscomplicity.Whenconfrontedwiththisevidenceinherfinalinterview,sheadmitted
to securing a third party to perform StudentAthlete 20s course work and arranging for a
proctor to send the Landerses what was supposed to be StudentAthlete 20s inperson final
exam.
In light of the Universitys findings, it also placed Wiggins on administrative leave on
October22,2012,lessthanamonthbeforethefirstbasketballgameofthe201213 season.
AlthoughthereisnoinformationsuggestingWigginswasinvolvedinorawareoftheacademic
fraud,theinvestigationshowedthathefailedtomeettheUniversitysexpectationsofahead
coach in monitoring his coaching staff. Wigginss employment was terminated on March 31,
2013.
After dismissing two of its four womens basketball coaches and its coordinator of
basketballoperationslessthantwoweeksbeforetheseason,theUniversitynamedoneofthe
remaining assistant coaches as interim head coach and filled one of the assistant coach
positions and its operations position with noncoaching staff. The University did not fill the
vacant assistant coach position or hire any new womens basketball staff for the 201213
season, nor did it attempt to fill the scholarships vacated by the prospects in question. The
University selfimposed a postseason ban for 201213 season, grantinaid reductions, and
otherremedialandpunitivemeasures.
77
14. [NCAADivisionIManualBylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(b),10.1(c),13.2.1,13.2.1.1(e)and
13.15.1(201112);14.1.2and15.01.5(201112and201213)]43
ItisallegedthatbetweenMayandJune2012,KenyaLanders(K.Landers),thenassistant
women's basketball coach; Michael Landers (M. Landers), then women's basketball
director of operations; and then women's basketball prospective studentathletes
StudentAthlete 20 and StudentAthlete 18 violated the NCAA principles of ethical
conduct when they knowingly engaged in arranging fraudulent academic credit with
respect to summer online courses at twoyear institutions in which StudentAthlete 20
andStudentAthlete18wereenrolled.Additionally,K.Landersviolatedtheprinciplesof
ethical conduct when she knowingly provided StudentAthlete 18 with impermissible
recruiting inducements in the form of paying for StudentAthlete 18 's two online
summercourses.
In late May 2012, StudentAthlete 20 enrolled in three online summer courses (math,
coaching basketball and AfricanAmerican literature) that were selected by K. Landers
andM.Landers.OnMay30,2012,K.LandersenrolledStudentAthlete18intwoonline
summer courses (speech and American government) and paid for the courses using
personalfunds.ThecourseswererequiredforStudentAthlete20andStudentAthlete18
to complete their associate's degrees and satisfy NCAA twoyear transfer eligibility
requirements. Subsequently, K. Landers and M. Landers completed the online
courseworkonStudentAthlete20'sandStudentAthlete18'sbehalf.Specifically:
a.
K.LandersenrolledStudentAthlete18insummeronlinespeechandAmerican
governmentcoursesandknowinglypaidthecostsforthecourses.Thetotal
monetaryvalueofthecourseswasapproximately$630.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,
10.1,10.1(c),13.2.1,13.2.1.1(e)and13.15.1(201112)]
b.
K.LandersandM.LanderscompletedallofStudentAthlete20'scourseworkand
the vast majority of StudentAthlete 18 's coursework in their online summer
courses. However, StudentAthlete 18 personally completed the videotaped
presentations for the speech course. The coursework that K. Landers and M.
Landers completed for StudentAthlete 20 and StudentAthlete 18 included
homeworkassignments,papers,quizzesandexams.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1
and10.1(b)(201112)]
Asaresult,betweenJulyandOctober2012,StudentAthlete20andStudentAthlete18
received athletically related financial aid from the institution while ineligible. [NCAA
Bylaws14.1.2and15.01.5(201112and201213)]
43
ThisallegationisthebasisforAllegationNo.20.
78
Model;(b)providedorwereintendedtoprovideasubstantialrecruiting,competitiveorother
advantage. In addition, the alleged violations involve (a) academic misconduct, (b) individual
unethical or dishonest conduct, (c) benefits provided by a coach intended to secure or which
resulted in the enrollment of a prospect and (d) intentional violations or showing reckless
indifferencetotheNCAAconstitutionandbylaws.[NCAABylaws19.1.1,19.1.1(b),19.1.1(d),
19.1.1(f)and19.1.1(h)(201516)]
Factualinformation(FI)onwhichtheenforcementstaffreliesforAllegationNo.14:
RESPONSE:
15.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(d),19.01.3and32.1.4(201213)]
It is alleged that in October 2012, Kenya Landers (K. Landers), then assistant women's
basketballcoach,violatedtheNCAAprinciplesofethicalconductandNCAAcooperative
principle when she knowingly influenced then women's basketball studentathletes
StudentAthlete20andStudentAthlete18toprovidefalseormisleadinginformation
to, or conceal information from, the institution and NCAA enforcement staff regarding
theirknowledgeofand/orinvolvementinviolationsofNCAAlegislation.Additionally,K.
Landersviolatedtheprinciplesofethicalconductwhensheknowinglyprovidedfalseor
misleading information to the institution and enforcement staff regarding her
knowledgeofand/orinvolvementinviolationsofNCAAlegislation.Specifically:
79
a.
RegardingK.Landersviolatingthecooperativeprinciple:
(1)
(2)
b.
In October 2012, she knowingly instructed StudentAthlete 18 to delete

text messages that were relevant to the institution's and enforcement
staff's investigation of the issues detailed in Allegation No. 14. [NCAA
Bylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(d),19.01.3and32.1.4(201213)]
In October 2012, she knowingly instructed StudentAthlete 20 and
StudentAthlete 18 to (a) deny to the institution and enforcement staff
knowledge of and/or involvement in the arrangement of fraudulent
academiccreditasdetailedinAllegationNo.14and(b)falselyreportto
the institution and enforcement staff that they completed their own
summerof2012onlinecoursework.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(d),
19.01.3and32.1.4(201213)]
RegardingK.Landersknowinglyprovidingfalseormisleadinginformation:
(1) DuringherOctober2and19,2012,interviewswiththeinstitutionand/or
enforcementstaff,K.Landers(a)deniedthatshepaidforStudentAthlete
18'stwosummerof2012onlinecoursesand(b)reportedthatStudent
Athlete18paidforthecourseswithaprepaiddebitcardfundedbyher
family.
However, StudentAthlete 18 admitted during her January 23, 2013,

interviewwiththeinstitutionandenforcementstaffthat(a)shedidnot
payforheronlinecourseswithfundsfromherfamilyand(b)K.Landers
instructed her to report to the institution and enforcement staff a
fabricated story that her mother's fianc paid for the courses with a
prepaid debit card. Additionally, the purchase receipt and K. Landers'
telephone records show that K. Landers placed telephone calls to
Institution 6 on the date and time StudentAthlete 18 's courses were
purchased over the telephone. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1(d)
(201213)]
(2) During her October 2, 5 and 19, 2012, interviews with the institution
and/orenforcementstaff,K.LandersdeniedthatsheorMichaelLanders
(M.Landers),thenwomen'sbasketballdirectorofoperations,completed
StudentAthlete 20 's and StudentAthlete 18 's summer of 2012 online
coursework.
However,K.LandersadmittedlaterinherOctober19interviewthatshe
completed StudentAthlete 20's math coursework. Additionally, M.
Landers admitted during his October 5 and 19, 2012, interviews that he
completed coursework for StudentAthlete 20 's coaching and African
80
American literature courses and StudentAthlete 18 's speech and

American government courses. Additionally, StudentAthlete 20 and
StudentAthlete18admittedduringtheirJanuary2013interviewsthatK.
Landers and M. Landers completed their online coursework. Further,
emails and other documentation show that K. Landers and M. Landers
workedtogethertocompleteStudentAthlete20'sandStudentAthlete18
'onlinecoursework.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201213)]
Model and involve (a) a failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation and (b)
Bylaws19.01.1,19.1.1,19.1.1(c)and19.1.1(d)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
16.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws10.01.1,10.1,10.1(d),19.01.3and32.1.4(201213)]
It is alleged that in October 2012, Michael Landers (M. Landers), then women's
basketball director of operations, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct and
NCAA cooperative principle when he knowingly deleted documentation that was
relevant to an investigation of violations of NCAA legislation. Additionally, M. Landers
violatedtheprinciplesofethicalconductwhenheknowinglyprovidedfalseormisleading
information to the institution and NCAA enforcement staff regarding his knowledge of
and/orinvolvementinviolationsofNCAAlegislation.Specifically:
81
a.
b.
RegardingM.Landersviolatingthecooperativeprinciple,betweenOctober2and
3, 2013, M. Landers deleted emails that were relevant to the institution's and
enforcementstaff'investigationoftheissuesdetailedinAllegationNo.14after
being admonished by the institution to preserve such documentation. [NCAA
Bylaws10.1,10.1(d),19.01.3and32.1.4(201213)]
RegardingM.Landersknowinglyprovidingfalseormisleadinginformation:
(1)
During his October 2 and 3, 2012, interviews with the institution, M.

Landersdeniedthathecompletedanysummerof2012onlinecoursework
forthenwomen'sbasketballprospectivestudentathletesStudentAthlete
20orStudentAthlete18.
However, M. Landers admitted during his October 5 and 19 interviews

with the institution and/or enforcement staff that he completed
coursework for StudentAthlete 20 's coaching and AfricanAmerican
literature courses and StudentAthlete 18 's American government and
speechcourses.Additionally,StudentAthlete20andStudentAthlete18
admittedduringtheirJanuary2013interviewsthatM.LandersandKenya
Landers(K.Landers),thenassistantwomen'sbasketballcoach,completed
their online coursework. Further, emails and other documentation show
that M. Landers and K. Landers worked together to complete Student
Athlete20'sandStudentAthlete18'sonlinecoursework.[NCAABylaws
10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201213)]
(2)
(3)
During his October 3, 2012, interview with the institution, M. Landers

deniedthathedeletedemailsthatwererelevanttotheinstitution'sand
enforcementstaff'sinvestigation.However,aftertheinstitutionrecovered
theemailsduringtheinterview,M.Landersadmittedthathedeletedthe
emails.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201213)]
During his October 19, 2012, interview with the institution and
enforcementstaff,M.LandersreportedthatK.Landershadnoknowledge
of and/or involvement in completing StudentAthlete 20 's and Student
Athlete 18 's summer of 2012 online coursework. However, K. Landers
admitted during her October 19 interview that she completed Student
Athlete 20's online math coursework. Additionally, StudentAthlete 20
and StudentAthlete 18 reported during their January 2013 interviews
thatK.LandersandM.Landerswereinvolvedincompletingtheironline
coursework. Further, documentation shows that K. Landers and M.
Landers worked together to complete StudentAthlete 20's and Student
Athlete18'sonlinecoursework.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)
(201213)]
82
Model and involve (a) a failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation and (b)
Bylaws19.01.1,19.1.1,19.1.1(c)and19.1.1(d)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
17.
It is alleged that in October 2012, then women's basketball studentathlete Student
Athlete18violatedtheNCAAprinciplesofethicalconductwhensheknowinglyprovided
false or misleading information to the institution and/or NCAA enforcement staff
regardingherknowledgeofand/orinvolvementinviolationsofNCAAlegislation.
Specifically,duringherOctober2,2012,interviewwiththeinstitutionandherOctober9,
2012, interview with the institution and enforcement staff, StudentAthlete 18 stated
that she (a) personally completed the coursework for her two summer of 2012 online
courses without improper assistance from Kenya Landers (K. Landers), then assistant
women's basketball coach, or Michael Landers (M. Landers), then women's basketball
directorofoperations,and(b)paidforhertwocourseswithfundsfromherfamily.
However, during her January 23, 2013, interview with the institution and enforcement
staff, StudentAthlete 18 admitted that M. Landers completed her summer of 2012
onlinecourseworkwiththeexceptionofhervideotapedspeechpresentationsandthatK.
Landers paid for her two summer of 2012 online courses. Additionally, M. Landers
83
admittedduringhisOctober5and19interviewsthathecompletedStudentAthlete18's
coursework.Further,emailsandotherdocumentationshowthatM.Landerscompleted
StudentAthlete18'scourseworkandthatK.LanderspaidforStudentAthlete18'stwo
onlinecourses.
84
(d)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
18.
It is alleged that in October 2012, then women's basketball studentathlete Student
Athlete20violatedtheNCAAprinciplesofethicalconductwhensheknowinglyprovided
false or misleading information to the institution regarding her knowledge of and
involvementinviolationsofNCAAlegislation.
Specifically, during her October 2 and October 8, 2012, interviews with the institution,
StudentAthlete 20 stated that she personally completed her summer of 2012 online
courseworkwithoutimproperassistancefromKenyaLanders(K.Landers),thenassistant
women'sbasketballcoach,andMichaelLanders(M.Landers),thenwomen'sbasketball
directorofoperations.
However, during her January 22, 2013, interview with the institution and NCAA
enforcement staff, StudentAthlete 20 admitted that K. Landers and M. Landers
completedallofhersummerof2012onlinecoursework.Additionally,duringherOctober
19,2012,interviewwiththeinstitutionandenforcementstaff,K.Landersadmittedthat
shecompletedStudentAthlete20'smathcoursework.Further,duringhisOctober5and
19, 2012, interviews, M. Landers admitted that he completed coursework for Student
Athlete20'scoachingandAfricanAmericanliteraturecourses.Lastly,emailsandother
85
documentation show that K. Landers and M. Landers worked together to complete

StudentAthlete20'sonlinecoursework.
86
(d)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
19.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.1.3.1,13.1.3.1.4,13.1.3.4.1and13.4.1.2(201112)]
ItisallegedthatbetweenMarch28andJuly24,2012,KenyaLanders(K.Landers),then
assistant women's basketball coach, and Michael Landers (M. Landers), then women's
basketballdirectorofoperations,placed62impermissibletelephonecallsandsent320
impermissible text messages combined to 13 then women's basketball prospective
studentathletes.Specifically:
a.
Between March 28 and May 31, 2012, K. Landers placed and/or sent the
following impermissible telephone calls and text messages to then women's
basketballprospects:
ProspectsName
StudentAthlete
21
StudentAthlete
22
StudentAthlete
20
No.
of
Texts
DateRangeof
Texts
No.of
Calls
DateRangeof
Calls
18
March30May31
N/A
March30April4
N/A
March30April4
March31
87
StudentAthlete
18
StudentAthlete
19
StudentAthlete
23
StudentAthlete
24
StudentAthlete
25
StudentAthlete
26
StudentAthlete
27
StudentAthlete
28
StudentAthlete
29
155
March28May30
51
March31May23
March28March
30
March29April
11
March30April4
N/A
March30April11 0
N/A
April21
N/A
March30April4
N/A
March30April10 0
N/A
March30April4
N/A
April11April27
N/A
[NCAABylaws13.1.3.1,13.1.3.1.4and13.4.1.2(201112)]
b.
Between March 30 and July 24, 2012, M. Landers placed and/or sent the
following impermissible telephone calls and text messages to then women's
basketballprospects:
No.
DateRangeof
ProspectsName
of
Texts
Texts
StudentAthlete 24
April2May9
21
StudentAthlete 7
April16May9
22
StudentAthlete 12
April2May9
18
StudentAthlete 2
April8
19
StudentAthlete 13
April16July24
23
StudentAthlete 20
March30May9
24
StudentAthlete 2
March30April4
30
StudentAthlete 6
April8April16
88
No.of
Calls
DateRangeof
Calls
N/A
April3
May14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26
StudentAthlete
27
StudentAthlete
28
StudentAthlete
29
April16May9
March30
30
April2May20
April8
May9
N/A
[NCAABylaws13.1.3.1,13.1.3.1.4,13.1.3.4.1and13.4.1.2(201112)]
becausetheallegedviolations(a)providedmorethanaminimalrecruitingadvantage,(b)are
moreseriousthanaLevelIIIviolationand(3)werenotisolatedorlimited.[NCAABylaws19.1.2
and19.1.2(a)(201516)]
89
RESPONSE:
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelII.
20.
It is alleged that between May and June 2012, the scope and nature of the violations
detailed in Allegation No. 14 demonstrate that Adrian Wiggins (Wiggins), then head
women's basketball coach, did not fulfill the NCAA legislated responsibilities of a head
coach when he failed to monitor the activities of members of the women's basketball
staff.
Specifically, Wiggins failed to monitor the activities of Kenya Landers, then assistant
women's basketball coach, and Michael Landers, then women's basketball director of
operations,withrespecttotheirinvolvementin(a)registeringthenwomen'sbasketball
prospectivestudentathleteStudentAthlete18inhertwoonlinecoursesandpayingfor
the courses and (b) completing StudentAthlete 18's and then womens basketball
prospectivestudentathleteStudentAthlete20'sonlinecoursework.
theallegedviolationinvolvesaheadcoachresponsibilityviolationresultingfromanunderlying
Level I violation committed by individuals within women's basketball program. [NCAA Bylaws
19.1.1and19.1.1(e)(201516)]
90
RESPONSE:
91
Men'sandwomen'strackandfieldandcrosscountry.
OVERVIEW:
TheUniversityinitiatedtheinvestigationintothetrackandfieldprograminthespring
of 2013 after a departing assistant coach, Adam Judge, refused to sign the Universitys
DepartingStaffAffidavitform.Afterhisrefusal,seniorcompliancestaffarrangedtomeetwith
Judge. During this meeting, Judge outlined several potential NCAA violations. In light of the
ongoingNCAAinvestigation,theUniversityimmediatelyinformedtheenforcementstaff.
The University and enforcement staffs joint investigation began with the handful of
issues Judge raised, but it later expanded to include additional allegations. While the
investigation uncovered enough sufficiently credible information for the University to admit
Allegations Nos. 2124 and 26 in their entirety, much of the information obtained over the
course of the investigation was ambiguous or conflicting. In some instances, key witnesses
contradicted themselves or were unclear on the underlying events. In others, the University
and enforcement staff were forced to weigh one individuals adamant assertions against
someone elses equally adamant denial of the same events. With no documentary
corroborationforsomeoftheeventsinquestion,itisdifficulttorespondtosomeofthetrack
andfieldallegationswithasimpleyesorno.
That said, the University believes violations occurred. At their worst, however, the
violations were the result of a firsttime head coach in over his head who hired several
inexperienced staff members. Instead, the manner in which the coaches responded to
potentialviolations,bothatthetimetheyoccurredandduringtheinvestigation,turnedsmall
issuesintolargerones.Asaresult,theUniversityhasreplacedeverymemberofthetrackand
92
field coaching staff from the time period in which these violations occurred, requesting and
receivingformerheadtrackandfieldcoachBrianONealsresignationinJuneof2015.
21. [NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.1.1.3and13.4.1.2(201112and201213)]44
It is alleged that from June 25 to July 11, 2012, Erin Dawson (Dawson), then assistant
men's and women's track and field and cross country coach, made impermissible
recruiting contact with a women's track and field studentathlete enrolled at another
NCAAmemberinstitution.Additionally,duringthefallof2012,LenaBettis(Bettis),then
assistant men's and women's track and field coach, made impermissible recruiting
contact with a different women's track and field studentathlete enrolled at another
NCAAmemberinstitution.Specifically:
a.
BetweenJune25andJuly11,2012,Dawsonexchangedeighttextmessagesand
five telephone calls with Institution 7 women's track and field studentathlete
StudentAthlete 31 for the purpose of recruiting StudentAthlete 31 to the
institution. Dawson used a noninstitutional cellular telephone to contact
StudentAthlete31.[NCAABylaws13.1.1.3and13.4.1.2(201112)]
b.
Duringthefallof2012,Bettisexchangedbetween10and20textmessageswith
Institution8women'strackandfieldstudentathleteStudentAthlete32forthe
purpose of recruiting StudentAthlete 32 to the institution. Bettis used a
messaging application that was undetectable by the institution to contact
StudentAthlete32.[NCAABylaws13.1.1.3and13.4.1.2(201213)]
because the alleged violations (a) were intended to provide more than a minimal recruiting
advantage, (b) are more serious than Level III violations and (3) are not isolated or limited.
[NCAABylaws19.1.2and19.1.2(a)(201516)]
44
ThisallegationispartofthebasisforAllegationNo.27.
93
RESPONSE:
substantially correct and believes that a violation of NCAA legislation occurred. Based on
applicableprecedent,however,thisviolationismoreappropriatelyclassifiedasLevelIII.
The University reviewed the Bylaw 13.1.1.3 violation reports available on the NCAAs
database and specifically identified 13 cases involving facts and circumstances analogous to
thoseallegedhere.Allofthese13violationswereclassifiedasLevelIIIorsecondary:
Year
2013
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
CaseNo.
379785
384125
421385
475030
634171
664392
669452
726120
729278
753391
785786
823378
828066
Sport
Level
MensTennis
III
WomensVolleyball
Secondary
Football
III
WomensBasketball
III
WomensBasketball
III
WomensTennis
III
WomensTrack
III
WomensTrack
III
MensWaterPolo
III
WomensBasketball
IIII
Football
III
WomensCrossCountry
III
WomensSoccer
III
Basedonthisprecedent,theUniversitysubmitsthatAllegationNo.21shouldalsobeclassified
asLevelIII.
94
22.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws16.11.2.1and16.11.2.3(d)(201213)]45
ItisallegedthatonAugust11,2012,athenassistantmen'sandwomen'strackandfield
coach provided then men's track and field studentathlete StudentAthlete 33 with
impermissibletransportationfromtheLocation5InternationalAirporttotheinstitution
(approximately70miles).
InfractionscouldconcludethatAllegationNo.22isabreachofconduct(LevelIII)becausethe
allegedviolationswereisolatedorlimitedandprovidednomorethanaminimalimpermissible
benefit.[NCAABylaw19.1.3(201516)]
RESPONSE:
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelIII.
23.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.11.1and13.11.2.3(201213)]46
It is alleged that on approximately eight occasions between September 2012 and
January2013,ErinDawson(Dawson),thenassistantmen'sandwomen'strackandfield
and cross country coach, conducted impermissible tryouts of numerous then women's
track and field and cross country prospective studentathletes. Specifically, Dawson
arranged for numerous prospects to attend official team practices during their official
paid visits and observed the prospects as they ran together with then women's cross
countrystudentathletesduringthepractices.
45
46
95
recruiting or other advantage, (b) are more serious than a Level III violation and (c) are not
isolatedorlimited.[NCAABylaws19.1.2and19.1.2(a)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
appropriatelyclassifiedasLevelII.
24.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.2.1,13.7.2.1and13.7.2.1.2(201213)]47
It is alleged that between October2012 and March 2013, the track and field program
provided impermissible recruiting inducements to four then men's track and field
prospectivestudentathletesduringunofficialvisits.Specifically:
a.
b.
47
On October 12, 2012, then men's track and field prospective student athlete
StudentAthlete 34 received complimentary hotel lodging during an unofficial
visit when he stayed overnight in the hotel room the institution provided to
anotherthenmen'strackandfieldprospectwhowasonanofficialpaidvisit.The
total monetary value of the lodging StudentAthlete 34 received was
approximately$96.[NCAABylaws13.2.1and13.7.2.1(201213)]
Between February 17 and 18, 2013, then men's track and field prospective
studentathlete StudentAthlete 35 received at least two complimentary meals
duringanunofficialvisit.ThetotalmonetaryvalueofthemealsStudentAthlete
35 received was approximately $30. [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1and 13.7.2.1.2 (2012
13)]
96

c.
On March 17, 2013, then men's track and field prospective student athletes
StudentAthlete 36 and StudentAthlete 37 received complimentary hotel
lodging during an unofficial visit when they stayed overnight in the hotel room
theinstitutionprovidedtoanotherthenmen'strackandfieldprospectwhowas
on an official paid visit. The total monetary value of the hotel lodging Student
Athlete 36 and StudentAthlete 37 received was approximately $43 each.
StudentAthlete 36 and StudentAthlete 37 had taken official paid visits to the
institutionpriortoMarch17.[NCAABylaws13.2.1and13.7.2.1(201213)]
recruiting advantage, (b) provided more than a minimal impermissible benefit, (c) are more
serious than a Level III violation and (d) are not isolated or limited. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.2 and
19.1.2(a)(201516)]
Factualinformation(FI)onwhichtheenforcementstaffreliesonforAllegationNo.24:
RESPONSE:
substantiallycorrectandbelievesthataviolationofNCAAlegislationoccurred.However,this
violationismoreappropriatelyclassifiedasLevelIII.Thebenefitsinquestionwereofsucha
lowvaluethatnoneoftheinvolvedprospectswereorwouldhavebeenrequiredtogothrough
reinstatement.Further,theUniversitynotesthattwooftheprospects,StudentAthlete36and
StudentAthlete37,hadalreadysignedanNLIatthetimeoftheviolations,andonlyoneofthe
prospects, Sherrer, ever enrolled at the University as a studentathlete. Therefore, the
Universitydidnotgainarecruitingadvantage.
97
25.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaws13.1.5.7and13.1.5.7.1(201213)]48
It is alleged that on February 10, 2013, Brian O'Neal (O'Neal), then head men's and
women'strackandfieldcoach,madeoffcampusrecruitingcontactwiththenwomen's
trackandfieldprospectivestudentathleteStudentAthlete38atStudentAthlete38's
residenceforthepurposeofStudentAthlete38signingaNationalLetterofIntent(NLI)
with the institution. Additionally, at the conclusion of the inhome visit, O'Neal left
StudentAthlete38'sresidencewithhersignedNLIandprovidedittotheinstitution.
because the alleged violation provided or was intended to provide more than a minimal
recruiting advantage and is more serious than a Level III violation. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.2 and
19.1.2(a)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
TheUniversityagreesthataviolationofBylaw13.1.5.7occurredwhenONealbrought
prospectivestudentathleteStudentAthlete38ssignedNLIbacktotheUniversity.However,
thefactualinformation doesnotsupporttherelatedallegationthatONealmadeoffcampus
recruitingcontactwithStudentAthlete38forthepurposeofStudentAthlete38signingher
NLI. Regardless, the University submits that the violation should be classified according to
availableprecedentasLevelIII.
48
98
(1)
ImproperInfluence
First, the University submits that, for there to be a violation of Bylaw 13.1.5.7 in the
manneralleged,theremustbesufficientevidencetoconcludethatONealeitherintendedto
exerciseoractuallyexercisedsomeimproperinfluenceoverStudentAthlete38toinduceher
tosigntheNLIasapartofhisvisittoherhome.Theevidencedoesnotsupportthisconclusion.
The testimony from witnesses with actual, personal knowledge of his visit to the Student
Athlete 38 home corroborates ONeals recollection that he was not present when Student
Athlete38signedherNLI.(E.g.,FINo.429,6/28/13InterviewTranscriptofStudentAthlete38,
at15,17,and25;Exhibit251,495/15/15InterviewTranscriptofFamilyMember6,at6;Exhibit
252, 7/18/13InterviewTranscriptofFamilyMember7,at9.)Moreimportantly,thereisno
firsthandevidencetoestablishthatONealpressuredStudentAthlete38tosignherNLIinhis
presenceorwhilehewasonthehomevisits,whichistheprimaryconcernattherootofBylaw
13.1.5.7.(SeeExhibit251,5/15/15InterviewTranscriptofFamilyMember6,at57;Exhibit25
2,7/18/13InterviewTranscriptofFamilyMember7,at9(denyinganydiscussionwithONeal
aboutStudentAthlete38signingtheNLIduringorafterthevisit).)Becausethereisnodirect
orindirectevidencetoestablishthatStudentAthlete38wasavictimofimproperinfluence,the
UniversityisuncertainhowaviolationofthisBylawcouldbesupported.
(2)
TheAppropriateClassification
EveniftheCommitteeweretofindthattheviolationoccurredasalleged,theNCAAhas
consistently processed infractions involving NLIs as secondary or Level III. Of the seven
49
ONeals counsel conducted supplemental interviews of several witnesses during summer of 2015. With the
exceptionofaninterviewofthenassistanttrackandfieldcoachGregStringer,theseinterviewswerenotincluded
onthefactualinformationchartaccompanyingtheNotice.TheomittedtranscriptsreferencedintheUniversitys
Responseareattachedasexhibitshere.
99
instances of standalone NLI infractions the University was able to locate in the NCAA
database,50allsupportaLevelIIIclassification:
Year
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2015
CaseNo.
Sport
Level
305525
WomensVolleyball
LegislativeReliefWaiver
399425
Softball
LevelIII
394605
Softball
Secondary
528411
WomensBasketball
LegislativeReliefWaiver
641211
MensBasketball
LevelIII
715872
WomensTrack
LevelIII
853360 StrengthandConditioning
LevelIII
CaseNo.641211isanexampleofwhythisviolationisproperlyclassifiedasLevelIII.There,an
NLIinfractionwasclassifiedasLevelIIIdespitethefactthatamemberofthemensbasketball
coachingstaffwatchedaprospectivestudentathleteandhismothersigntheNLIbecausethe
coachspresencewasintendedtobeastandardrecruitingvisitunassociatedwiththeNLI.The
University believes that ONeals contact with StudentAthlete 38 is comparable to that
violation.
26.
It is alleged that in February 2014, Erin Dawson (Dawson), then assistant men's and
women'strackandfieldcoach,violatedtheNCAAprinciplesofethicalconductwhenshe
knowingly provided false or misleading information to the institution and NCAA
enforcementstaffregardingherknowledgeofand/orinvolvementinviolationsofNCAA
legislation.
Specifically, during her February 10 and February 20, 2014, interviews with the
institution and enforcement staff, Dawson reported that on the occasions in which
visiting women's track and field and cross country prospective studentathletes
participated in team runs during cross country practice, she purposefully took steps to
avoidviolatingNCAAtryoutlegislationby(a)separatingtheprospectsfromthestudent
50
TheUniversityattemptedtosearchunderallpresentandformeriterationsoftheNLIbylaw,including13.1.6.7,
13.1.5.7and13.1.5.8.
100
athletesbeforestartingtherunstopreventthetwogroupsfromrunningtogetherand
(b)placingherselfinapositionwhereshecouldnotobservetheprospectsrun.
However,thefactualsupportshows(a)Dawsondidnotseparatetheprospectsfromthe
studentathletes prior to the runs, (b) the prospects and studentathletes ran together
and(c)Dawsonobservedtheprospectsastheyran.
(d)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
27.
[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw11.1.2.1(201112and201213)]51
It is alleged that between June 2012 and February 2013, Brian O'Neal (O'Neal), then
headmen'sandwomen'strackandfieldandcrosscountrycoach,didnotfulfilltheNCAA
legislatedresponsibilitiesofaheadcoachwhenhefailedtopromoteanatmosphereof
compliance within the men's and women's track and field and cross country program
andmonitortheactivitiesofathenassistantmen'sandwomen'strackandfieldcoach.
Specifically:
51
DivisionIProposal201215wasadoptedandmadeeffectiveOctober30,2012,andspecifiedthataheadcoachis
presumedresponsiblefortheactionsofallassistantcoachesandadministratorswhoreport,directlyorindirectly,
tohimorher.Consequently,theviolationsdetailedinAllegationNos.21and23through25thatoccurredonor
after October 30, 2012, are presumptively O'Neal's responsibility and have been analyzed according to this
standard.
101

RegardingO'Nealfailingtopromoteanatmosphereofcompliance:
(1)
b.
O'Neal was aware that Erin Dawson (Dawson), then assistant women's
track and field and cross country coach, was engaged in impermissible
recruiting contact with Institution 7 women's track and field student
athleteStudentAthlete31asdetailedinAllegationNo.21,andhefailed
toreportthemattertotheInstitution.
Additionally, O'Neal was aware of and/or encouraged Lena Bettis, then

assistant women's track and field coach, to engage in impermissible
recruiting contact with Institution 8 women's track and field student
athleteStudentAthlete32asdetailedinAllegationNo.21.[NCAABylaw
11.1.2.1(201112and201213)]
(2) O'Neal approved for a then assistant men's track and field coach to
provide the impermissible transportation to then men's track and field
studentathlete StudentAthlete 33 as detailed in Allegation No. 22.
[NCAABylaw11.1.2.1(201213)]
(3) O'Nealmadeoffcampusrecruitingcontactwiththenwomen'strackand
fieldprospectivestudentathleteStudentAthlete38forthepurposeof
StudentAthlete38signingaNationalLetterofIntent(NLI)withthe
institution,asdetailedinAllegationNo.25.
Additionally, O'Neal provided StudentAthlete 38's signed NLI to the

institution.[NCAABylaw11.1.2.1(201213)]
RegardingO'Nealfailingtomonitor:
(1) O'Neal failed to monitor that Dawson was conducting impermissible

tryouts of numerous then women's track and field and cross country
prospective studentathletes, as detailed in Allegation No. 23. [NCAA
Bylaw11.1.2.1(201213)]
(2) O'Neal failed to monitor the track and field program's provision of
impermissible hotel lodging and/or meals to then men's track and field
prospective studentathletes during unofficial visits, as detailed in
AllegationNo.24.[NCAABylaw11.1.2.1(201213)]
102
because the alleged violations involve a head coach responsibility violation resulting from
underlying Level II violations by individuals within the men's and women's track and field and
cross country program and are more serious than a Level III violation. [NCAA Bylaws 19.1.2,
19.1.2(a)and19.1.2(e)(201516)]
RESPONSE:
TheUniversityagreesONealviolatedBylaw11.1.2.1asallegedbyfailingtopromotean
atmosphere of compliance as described in Allegation 27(a)(1) and by failing to monitor his
assistantcoachesasdescribedinAllegationNo.27(b).However,theUniversitydoesnotagree
thatAllegationsNos.27(a)(2)and27(a)(3)supporttheallegationagainstONeal.
TheUniversityadmittedinresponsetoAllegationNo.23thatJudgegaveimpermissible
transportation to StudentAthlete 33, but ONeals role in that violation is far from clear.
AllegationNo.27(a)(2)isbasedonaswearingmatchbetweenONealandJudge.Judgeasserts
thatONealinstructedhimtotransportStudentAthlete33fromtheLocation5airporttothe
Universityscampus.ONealdeniesheinstructedJudgetoprovidetransportationtoStudent
Athlete 33 and claims he told Judge not to do so. Telephone records show the two spoke
shortlybeforetheviolationoccurred,buttherearenoindependentwitnesseswhocanconfirm
the content of their conversation. More recent information, however, tends to support
ONealsversionofevents.
In particular, StudentAthlete 33 testified that Judge agreed to give him a ride during
theirinitialconversation,whichtookplacebeforeJudgeeverspokewithONeal.(Exhibit271,
103
6/19/15 Interview Transcript of StudentAthlete 33, at 1112.) This information undercuts

JudgesassertionthathewasmerelyfollowingONealsinstructionswhenheagreedtodrive
StudentAthlete 33 back to campus. Further, former assistant track and field coach Greg
Stringer recalled a conversation with ONeal on the date of the violation in which ONeal
reportedthathetoldJudgetheridewouldbeimpermissible.(FINo. 430,5/20/15 Interview
TranscriptofGregStringer,at1618.)Finally,formerdirectorofoperationsBasilWetherington
rememberedadisputeseveralmonthsaftertherideinquestionduringwhichJudgerequested
thatWetheringtonprovidetransportationtotwootherstudentathleteswhofoundthemselves
inapredicamentsimilartoStudentAthlete33s.(Exhibit272,5/15/15InterviewTranscriptof
Basil Wetherington, at 2122.) According to Wetherington, ONeal overheard Wetherington
and Judge arguing and stepped in to say that Judge knew what he was requesting was
impermissible based upon a prior conversation, which Wetherington understood to be a
referencetoONealtellingJudgethathecouldnotprovidetransportationtoStudentAthlete
33. (Id.) Because themajority of this evidence corroborates ONeals version, the University
doesnotbelievetheallegationissupportedbytheweightoftheevidence.
RegardingAllegationNo.27(a)(3),itisundisputedthatONealcommittedaviolationby
returningStudentAthlete38ssignedNLItotheUniversityfollowinghishomevisit.Butforthe
reasons described in its response to Allegation No. 25, the University does not believe the
available information supports a finding that ONeal went to StudentAthlete 38s for the
purpose of having her sign an NLI during the visit. The University contends that the act of
returningtocampuswithStudentAthlete38ssignedNLIisinsufficienttosupportanallegation
offailuretopromoteanatmosphereofcompliance.
104

28.
[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 10.1-(d) (2012-13 and 2013-14)]
It is alleged that on July 10 and December 12, 2013, Brian O'Neal (O'Neal), then head
men'sandwomen'strackandfieldandcrosscountrycoach,violatedtheNCAAprinciples
of ethical conduct when he knowingly provided the institution and NCAA enforcement
stafffalseormisleadinginformationregardinghisknowledgeofand/orinvolvementin
violationsofNCAAlegislation.Specifically:
a.
During his July 10 and December 12, 2013, interviews with the institution and
enforcement staff, O'Neal denied knowledge of and/or involvement in Erin
Dawson (Dawson) and Lena Bettis (Bettis), then assistant men's and women's
trackandfieldcoaches,makingimpermissiblerecruitingcontactwithInstitution
7 women's track and field studentathlete StudentAthlete 31 and Institution 8
women's track and field studentathlete StudentAthlete 32, respectively.
However, the factual support for Allegation No. 21 shows that O'Neal knew of
Dawson's impermissible recruiting contact with StudentAthlete 31 and that he
knewofand/orencouragedBettistomakeimpermissiblerecruitingcontactwith
StudentAthlete32.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201213and2013
14)]
b.
DuringhisJuly10interview,O'Nealdeniedthatheapprovedforathenassistant
men'sandwomen'strackandfieldcoachtoprovideimpermissibletransportation
to then men's track and field studentathlete StudentAthlete 33. However, the
factualsupportforAllegationNo.22showsthatO'Nealapprovedatthetimefor
the then assistant coach to provide StudentAthlete 33 with the impermissible
transportation.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201213)]
c.
During his July 10 interview, O'Neal denied that he made offcampus recruiting
contactwiththenwomen'strackandfieldprospectivestudentathleteStudent
Athlete 38 for the purpose of StudentAthlete 38 signing a National Letter of
Intent with the institution. However, the factual support for Allegation No. 25
showsthatO'NealmadetheoffcampuscontactwithStudentAthlete38forthat
purpose.[NCAABylaws10.01.1,10.1and10.1(d)(201213)]
(d)(201516)]
105
RESPONSE:
TheUniversityagreesthat(1)thefactualinformationcontainedinAllegationNo.28(a)
is substantially correct, (2) a violation of NCAA legislation occurred, and (3) the violation is
classifiedappropriatelyasLevelI.TheUniversitydoesnotagreewiththeviolationsallegedin
Allegations Nos. 28(b) and 28(c), however, for the reasons described in its responses to
AllegationsNo.25and27.
As for Allegation No. 28(b), the University believes insufficient evidence exists to
conclude that ONeal instructed Judge to provide impermissible transportation to Student
Athlete33.Forthisreason,theevidencedoesnotsupportafindingthatONealliedindenying
theaccusation.
As for Allegation No. 28(c), the University does not believe that sufficient evidence
existstoconcludethatONealliedaboutthepurposeofhishomevisit,astheultimatepurpose
ofeveryrecruitingvisitistomakeitmorelikelytheprospectwillsignanNLIattheappropriate
time. Moreover, the StudentAthlete 38 familys description of the visit is consistent with
ONealsstatementsregardinghislackofinvolvementinStudentAthlete38sdecisiontosign
herNLI.
106
C.
PotentialAggravatingandMitigatingFactors.
PursuanttoNCAABylaw19.7.1,theNCAAenforcementstaffhasidentifiedthefollowing
potentialaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsthatthehearingpanelmayconsider.
1.
Institution:
a.
Aggravatingfactors.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(201516)]
(1)
MultipleLevelIandLevelIIviolationsbytheinstitutionorinvolved
individuals.[NCAABylaws19.9.3(a)and19.9.3(g)(201516)]
TheviolationsreferencedinAllegationNos.1through4,6,8,10
through 21 and 23 through 28 have been identified by the
enforcementstafftobeLevelIorLevelIIviolations.
(2)
One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other

substantial harm to a studentathlete or prospective student
athlete.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(i)(201516)]
The violations detailed in Allegation No. 1 resulted in football

studentathletes StudentAthlete 1 and StudentAthlete 2 being
declared ineligible and withheld from nine football contests
combined.
The violations detailed in Allegation No. 14 resulted in the

institution declaring then women's basketball studentathletes
StudentAthlete 20 and StudentAthlete 18 ineligible, which
facilitatedtheirwithdrawalfromtheinstitution.Additionally,the
violationsinhibitedStudentAthlete20'sandStudentAthlete18's
sabilitytofindathleticsopportunitiesatotherinstitutions.
(3)
Apatternofnoncompliancewithinthesportprogramsinvolved.
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(k)(201516)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 13 involve

eight Level I and two Level II violations. These alleged violations
occurred over a fouryear time period and involve two different
coaching staffs. Additionally, these alleged violations involve
unethical conduct, fraudulence in connection with college
entrance exams, substantial or extensive recruiting inducements
and extra benefits and impermissible conduct by representatives
oftheinstitution'sathleticsinterests.
107
TheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNos.14and19beganinMay
2012, shortly after the institution hired Kenya Landers (K.
Landers),formerassistantwomen'sbasketballcoach,andMichael
Landers (M. Landers), former women's basketball director of
operations,andtheycontinueduntiltheterminationofK.Landers
and M. Landers employment in October 2012. Therefore, there
was not a period of time during K. Landers' and M. Landers'
employmentattheinstitutioninwhichtheyconductedthemselves
inacompliantmanner.
TheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNos.21through25occurred
over several months between the summer of 2012 and spring of
2013.
b.
Mitigatingfactors.[NCAABylaw19.9.4(201516)]
(1)
Promptselfdetectionandselfdisclosureoftheviolations.[NCAA
Bylaw19.9.4(a)(201516)]
(2)
The institution selfdetected the violations detailed in Allegation

Nos. 6, 8 and 9 and promptly reported them to the enforcement
staff.
Prompt acknowledgement of the violations, acceptance of

responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures
and/orpenalties.[NCAABylaw19.9.4(b)(201516)]
The institution promptly acknowledged several violations in this

investigation, accepted responsibility and imposed meaningful
corrective measures, including termination of certain involved
individuals, disassociation of a representative of its athletics
interests, imposition of probation and a postseason ban in
women's basketball, restricting coaches' recruiting activities and
improvingitsathleticscomplianceruleseducationandmonitoring
systems.
(3)
Affirmativestepstoexpeditefinalresolutionofthematter.[NCAA
Bylaw19.9.4(c)(201516)]
The institution was actively engaged in this investigation and

provided the enforcement staff with valuable assistance, which
helpedexpeditethefinalresolutionofthismatter.
108
Regarding the violations detailed in Allegation No. 1, the

institution identified documents and other information of which
the enforcement staff was not aware that were essential in
uncoveringtheviolationsinvolvingtheprovisionofimpermissible
loanervehiclestotwofootballstudentathletes.
Regarding the violations detailed in Allegation No. 14, the

institution identified documents and other information of which
the enforcement staff was not aware that were essential in
uncoveringtheviolationsofarrangingfraudulentacademiccredit.
During the investigation, the institution learned of potential

violations in its men's and women's track and field and cross
country program and promptly notified the enforcement staff of
theissues.
(4)
AnestablishedhistoryofselfreportingLevelIIIorsecondary
violations.[NCAABylaw19.9.4(d)(201516)]
Fromthe201011through201415academicyears,theinstitution
reported 164 secondary/Level III violations to the enforcement
staff.
RESPONSETOAGGRAVATINGANDMITIGATINGFACTORS:
Bylaw19.9.2establishesthatinprescribingpenalties,theCommitteemustexaminethe
applicableaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsforeachparty.WithrespecttotheUniversity,the
enforcement staff has included three aggravating factors and four mitigating factors in this
Notice. In the majority of cases where mitigating factors have outnumbered aggravating
factors,thecasehasbeenclassifiedasmitigated.However,theUniversityiscognizantthatthe
appropriateanalysisentailsmorethansimplycountingtheaggravatingandmitigatingfactors;
instead, each of the factors must be independently weighed. The University submits the
mitigating factors also outweigh the aggravating factors in this case, particularly when the
Committee considers the Universitys exemplary cooperation and its systems of compliance.
109
ThedominanceofmitigatingfactorscallsforthecasetobeclassifiedasLevelIMitigatedfor
thepurposeofimposingcorepenaltiesastotheUniversity.
(1)
AggravatingFactors
TheUniversityagreesthatthehearingpanelshouldconsidertheaggravatingfactorsset
out above. However, the University submits that one of the aggravating factors multiple
LevelIviolations(Bylaw19.9.3(a))shouldbeaffordedlesserweightonthesefacts.
WhiletheUniversityacknowledgesthatitisaccountableforitsemployeesunderlying
violations,theCommitteehasrecentlyrecognizedthataggravatingandmitigatingfactorsare
partyspecificandshouldbeprimarilyattributedtotheculpableparty.(SeegenerallyExhibitC
1, University of Coastal Carolina (September 1, 2015); Exhibit IN1, University of Southern
Mississippi (April 8, 2016).) Specifically, the Committee has recognized that Bylaw 10.1
violations are not automatically attributed to the institution in the penalty analysis, but are
insteadattributedtothepartywhoisdirectlyatfault.(SeeExhibitC2,SoutheasternLouisiana
University(April9,2015),at2025(holdingcoachaccountableforLevelIviolationunderBylaw
10.1whileclassifyingtheinstitutionasLevelIIStandardinassessingpenalties);ExhibitC3,St.
PetersUniversity(February2,2016),at7(same).)
Here,themajorityofLevelIviolationsflowfromtwoisolatedandshortlivedepisodes
ofintentionalmisconductthatwereactivelyconcealed,bothatthetimeoftheunderlyingacts
andduringtheinvestigation:(1)theSaundersviolationsthatoccurredinthesummerof2010
(Allegations Nos. 1013); and (2) the Landerses violations that occurred between March and
110
July2012
2(Allegation
nsNos.1418and20).52Emphasizinngtheperso
onalnature oftheviolattions,
nineofth
hese10violaationsciteB
Bylaw10.1.533
The two Leve
el I allegatio
ons in track and field (A
Allegations N
Nos. 26 and 28) also incclude
citations toBylaw10
0.1andare baseduponunethicalcconductduriinginterview
wstheUniveersity
and enfo
orcement staaff conducte
ed while invvestigating tthe underlying violation
ns. If not fo
or the
unethicalconductalllegations,trackandfield
dwouldnothaveanyLeevelIviolatio
ons.
ommittedbyyboostersaacting
ThefourremainingLevelIallegations,allinfoot ball,wereco
contrarytorulesedu
ucationprovvidedtothem
mbytheUniiversity(AlleegationsNoss.1,34,and
d8).
Breakdo
ownof1
16LevelIAllegations
1
B
Bylaw10.1C
Cited(11)
B
BoosterMissconduct(4))
11
H
HeadCoach
hControl(1)
Asdemonstra
A
atedabove,despitethe
enumberoffLevelIalleegations,thiisissimply nota
casewhe
ereaninstittutionhastu
urnedablindeyetocompliance.TThisfactisssupportedbythe
Universittys discoverry and reporting of info
ormation thaat led to most of the aallegations in
n the
Notice. The Univerrsity has been and rem
mains diligennt about itss compliancce systems, rules
52
Saunderrsworkedatth
heUniversityfforaboutnine
emonths,and theUniversityyfiredtheLan
ndersesjustovversix
monthsinttotheirtenure
e.
53
Theothe
erLevelIallegaationisagainsttformerheadwomensbaskketballcoachA
AdrianWigginss(AllegationNo.20).
Whileitdo
oesnotciteByylaw10.1,AlleggationNo.20iiswhollybaseddontheLandeersesintentionalmisconducct.But
fortheLan
nderses,Wigginslikelywould
dnotfaceanyallegations.Innaddition,AlleegationNo.19
9,aLevelIIviolation,
alsoflowsfromtheLandersesintentio
onalacts.
111
education,andenforcement.Accordingly,inlightofpriorprecedent,theUniversityrequests
thattheCommitteeconsiderthelargepercentageofLevelIviolationsbasedonindividualand
notinstitutionalmisconductwhenweighingtheBylaw19.9.3(a)aggravatingfactor.54
(2)
MitigatingFactors
Inadditiontothemitigatingfactorsidentifiedbytheenforcementstaff,theUniversity
submits that the Committee should consider two additional mitigating factors: exemplary
cooperation and the implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure
rulescompliance.
(A)
ExemplaryCooperationBylaw19.9.4(f)55
In Southeastern Louisiana University (April 9, 2015), attached as Exhibit C2, the

Committeesuggestedthataninstitutionsinternaleffortstodiscover,develop,andselfreport
violationsservesasthegenesisforexemplarycooperation.TheCommitteehasalsofocusedin
other decisions on the expenditure of substantial resources during the investigation,
particularly where institutional leaders are actively involved in the case, and when the
institution identified helpful information whether testimony or documents of which the
enforcementstaffwasunaware.TheUniversityhassatisfiedeachofthesethreerequirements.
(i)
TheInstitutionsEffortstoDiscoverandDevelopViolations
This investigation has never been one where the University occupied a secondary,
supporting, or reactive role, simply assisting the enforcement staff in gathering information
54
Inanyevent,theUniversityisnotresponsiblefortheunethicalconductofformerstaffmembersDavidSaunders
andChrisVaughncommittedwhiletheywerenotemployedbytheUniversity(AllegationsNos.1213.)
55
The University believes that the same factors that support a finding of exemplary cooperation should also be
consideredunderBylaw19.9.4(h),Otherfactswarrantingalowerpenaltyrange.
112
after the staff approached the University with potential violations. Indeed, the Universitys
stronganddecisiveactionsledtothediscoveryofthemajorityoftheallegationsintheNotice,
including all of the womens basketball (Allegations Nos. 1420), all of the track and field
allegations(AllegationsNos.2128),andseveralofthefootballallegations(AllegationsNos.1
(b),1(c),2,6,8,and9).
The fact that, in several instances, the University reported its discovery of potential
violations to the enforcement staff and then worked jointly to investigate the facts rather
thaninvestigatingallegationsonitsownfirstandthensharingitsconclusionswiththestaff
should not harm the University in the exemplary cooperation analysis. To do so would
incentivizeinstitutionstoinvestigateissuescompletelyontheirownbeforesharinginformation
withtheenforcementstafftostrengthentheirargumentforexemplarycooperation.
A chronological review of the Universitys efforts over the course of this investigation
demonstrateshowtheUniversityscooperationoverthepast44monthswasexemplary.
(a)
WomensBasketball
Although the SEC initially alerted the University to potential violations in womens
basketball,itwastheUniversitysquickandcreativeinvestigativetacticsandaggressivepursuit
of the truth in the initial days of the investigation that led to the discovery of the serious
academicfraud,unethicalconduct,andimpermissiblecontactviolationsinAllegationsNos.14
19oftheNotice.HadtheUniversitymovedatamoredeliberatepace,orbeenlessdecisivein
acting to preserve electronic data, or waited for the enforcement staff to get up to speed,
critical evidence would have been lost and violations may not have been substantiated or
113
discovered.Atthetimeabove,theenforcementstaffpraisedtheUniversityfortheseefforts,
describingthemasamazinganddeservingofrecognition.
WhentheUniversityrealizedthepotentialseriousnessoftheviolationsandsuspected
that members of the coaching staff were actively attempting to destroy crucial evidence, it
updatedtheenforcementstaffandaskedpermissiontoproceedwiththeinvestigationonits
own. The enforcement staff agreed and turned the University loose. By the time the staff
participated in interviews, the investigation was nearly complete and the violations largely
established.
Overthecourseofapproximatelytwoweeks,theUniversitydiscovered,preserved,or
recovered critical documents, located and interviewed the key witnesses, and provided all of
that information to the enforcement staff. The University also went to great effort to track
down documents from third parties to confront its former employees, forcing them to admit
theirmisconduct.Bytheendofthethirdweek,theUniversityhadcompletedtheinvestigation,
terminated an assistant coach and the director of operations, declared two studentathletes
ineligibleanddismissedthemfromtheteam,placedtheheadcoachonadministrativeleave,
andselfimposedapostseasonban.TheseeffortsandactionsdemonstratethattheUniversity
wentwellbeyondtheissuesinitiallyraisedbytheSECtoidentify,investigate,andsubstantiate
violationsofNCAAlegislation.
(b)
Football
The University also exhibited exemplary cooperation when it discovered potential
violations in football and promptly reported them to the enforcement staff. As the Notice
makesclear,theUniversityinitiallydiscoveredtheviolationsdescribedinAllegationsNos.6,8,
114
and 9, conducted initial interviews that confirmed those violations, gathered relevant
documents, and shared all of that information with the enforcement staff. In particular, the
University discovered and investigated the information that led to Allegation No. 8 during an
analysisofsocialmediafollowingaJanuary2013footballrecruitingweekend.TheUniversity
interviewed coaches and the involved booster right away. During that investigation, the
University developed the information that led to Allegations Nos. 6 and 9. The University
performed an exhaustive analysis of its internal documents related to unofficial and official
visits, conducted email searches, gathered available text messages, and moved quickly to
interview key witnesses. The University shared this information with the enforcement staff,
whichthenparticipatedinadditionalinterviewsaftermanyoftheviolationswereestablished.
TheUniversityisalsoresponsiblefordiscoveringandreportinginformationthatserves
asthebasisforAllegationsNos.1(b)and1(c)(andindirectlyforAllegationNo.2).Specifically,
itwastheUniversityscontinuedeffortsatlocatingrelevantdocumentsthatidentifiedStudent
Athlete1ssecondandthirdloanercars.TheUniversitysmonitoringprogramalsoledtothe
discoveryofStudentAthlete2sloanercar.TheUniversityknewwhenitdiscoveredandself
reported these issues that they raised significant rules violations and eligibility issues, yet it
promptlyreportedthisinformationtotheenforcementstaff.
Withregardtotheremainingallegationsinvolvingthefootballprogram,theUniversity
cooperatedfullywiththeenforcementstaffandsharedresponsibilityfordevelopingallaspects
ofthecase.TheUniversityaddedvalueandproposedandpursuedinvestigativestrategiesat
everystageoftheinvestigation.
115
(c)
TrackandField
InMay2013,theUniversitylearnedofpotentialviolationsinthetrackandfieldprogram
when the compliance office conducted an exit interview of a departing assistant coach. The
Universityactedpurposefullytoobtaininformationfromtheassistantcoach,whoinitiallywas
reluctanttodiscusstheissues.Giventhependingissuesinothersports,theUniversityshared
the information with the enforcement staff immediately rather than conduct independent
interviewstodeterminewhetherviolationsoccurred.Aswiththeothersports,theUniversity
workedhandinhandwiththeenforcementstaffinthoroughlyinvestigatingthetrackandfield
programovernearlyayear.TheUniversityshouldalsobecreditedwithdiscovering,disclosing,
andjointlyinvestigatingtheseviolations.
(ii)
ExpenditureofSubstantialResources
Aninstitutionsparticipationinanextraordinarynumberofinterviewsorthecollection,
analysis, and review of thousands of documents should be considered in determining
exemplary cooperation. (See Exhibit C4, Oklahoma State University (April 24, 2015), at 23.)
Under any reasonable analysis, the University satisfies this test. The University received the
Notice of Inquiry in the fall of 2012, and the resulting inquiry has involved more than 265
recordedinterviewsofstaff,coaches,studentathletes,boosters,familymembersandothers.
Morethantenthousandpagesofdocumentshavebeengathered(insomeinstancespreserved
orrecovered),analyzed,andsharedwiththeenforcementstaff.
Similarly, an institutions expenditure of resources in conducting an investigation
whether money or manhours has been favorably considered in awarding exemplary
cooperation.(ExhibitIN1,UniversityofLouisianaLafayette(January12,2016),at21.)Again,
116
the University clearly satisfies this factor. When the University was first alerted of potential
violations in its womens basketball program, it immediately hired outside counsel with
expertise in NCAA compliance matters to lead the investigation. In addition, general counsel
Lee Tyner directed and participated personally in every phase of the investigation, devoting
countless hours in addition to his regular duties to interviews, document searches, and
conferenceswiththeenforcementstaff.AthleticsdirectorRossBjorkhasequallybeendirectly
andintimatelyinvolvedateverystep,seekingoutanddevelopinginformationneededtomake
key decisions, including selfimposed penalties, corrective measures, and personnel and
disciplinarymatters.TheUniversityscomplianceoffice(includingheadofcomplianceMattBall
and associate athletics director for compliance Julie Owen) has also spent a tremendous
amount of time assisting in the investigation, gathering and reviewing documents, arranging
interviews, identifying issues, and developing and improving internal monitoring and rules
educationprograms.TheChancellorandformerChancellorhavealsobeenactivelyinvolvedin
the Universitys investigation and decisionmaking. The number of workhours these
individualsdevotedtodrivingthisinvestigationforwardtocompletionhasbeenextraordinary.
ThesameistrueoftheUniversitysdedicationoffinancialresources;infact,theUniversitywill
have spent nearly $1,500,000.00 in legal fees by the time it appears before the Committee.
That sum excludes the costs associated with the Universitys investment in an outside
complianceaudit,whichwillbeconductedduringthesummerof2016.
(iii)
IdentificationofHelpfulInformationofWhichtheStaffWasNotAware.
WhiletheUniversitycooperatedfullyeverystepofthewaywithregardtothoseissues
that the enforcement staff brought to its attention, in multiple instances the University
117
discovered additional violations through its own efforts. As outlined above, one critical
example is the loaner cars provided to StudentAthlete 1 and StudentAthlete 2 during the
spring and summer of 2015. Absent the Universitys efforts, these violations may not have
beendiscovered.
AsecondcriticalexamplewastheUniversitysworkinwomensbasketball.Kenyaand
MichaelLandersdeletedkeyemails,documents,andtextmessagesaspartoftheireffortsto
concealtheirdeliberateNCAAviolations.TheUniversitywasresponsibleforthepreservation
orrecoveryofmanyofthepreviouslydeletedemails,documents,andtextmessagesfromthe
Landersescomputersanddevicesandtheemailaccountsofthestudentathletes,allofwhich
confirmed their improper completion of online coursework for studentathletes. This
information,securedinpartthroughtheUniversitysimmediateinvolvementofitsinformation
technologydepartmentandresearchonwaystorecoverdeletedemails,wascriticalinproving
the academic fraud, unethical conduct, and other violations included in the Notice as
AllegationsNos.1420.
*
ItisdifficulttoimaginehowtheUniversitycouldhavecooperatedmorefullyoverthe
past 44 months. What started as a very effective threeweek investigation of womens

basketballhasturnedintoaprocessthatwillspanfouryearsbeforethisCommitteeissuesits
report.TheUniversityhasadmittedviolationswhentheyoccurredandacceptedresponsibility
for them (as the staff has noted). The Universitys insistence on going the extra mile since
September2012shouldberecognizedasexemplarycooperation.
118
(B)
ImplementationofaSystemofComplianceMethodsBylaw19.9.4(e)
A change in compliance office leadership occurred in April 2011, after some of the
violations alleged in this Notice had already occurred. Once in place, this staff created or
modifiedasubstantialnumberofprogramstoimproveand/orenhancetheUniversitysrules
education and compliance methods. A comprehensive, contemporaneous listing of these
improvements and enhancements is attached as Exhibit C5. These programs significantly
improved the Universitys institutional monitoring and rules education. The Universitys
compliance staff also set in action various processes that improved the Universitys ability to
preventordetectandreportviolationsastheyoccurred.Further,asnewissueswerebrought
totheUniversitysattentionduringthecourseofthisinvestigation,thecompliancestaffmade
additionalimprovementsorcorrectionstotheseprogramstoaddressareasofconcern.
For example, in August 2011, the compliance office began transitioning the
responsibilityforevaluatinginitialeligibilitytoitsoffice,utilizingtheUniversitysACSdatabase,
making it easier for the staff to identify potential academic issues in a timely fashion. In
November2011,thecomplianceofficealsobeganamonthlynewsletter,TheRebelConnection,
to help in booster education. Further, in February 2012, the University upgraded its new
employeeorientationandruleseducationprogram.AsreferencedearlierinthisResponse,the
University developed a vehicle monitoring program beginning in March 2012 that has been
modifiedandenhancedovertime.Ayearlater,inFebruary2013,thecompliancestaffcreated
abiweeklytimelineplanningandgoalsmeetingtoassistcoachesinidentifyinginitialeligibility
concernsforincomingsigneesinatimelymanner.InMay2013,thestaffalsoinstitutedahigh
119
profile studentathlete monitoring program to provide additional education and monitoring

forselectedindividuals.
Inadditiontoimprovingitscompliancesystems,theUniversityhascontinuedproviding
additional resources to enhance the compliance office. During the summer of 2011, the
University added an Associate Athletics Director for Compliance to assist in daytoday
operationsandenhanceeducationprogramming.Inspringof2012,theUniversityconverteda
Compliance Coordinator position into an Assistant Director for Compliance to increase
professional experience. Additionally, in the summer of 2012, the University converted an
administrative position into a Compliance Coordinator position, dedicating a fulltime staff
membertoinitialeligibility.Inlatesummerof2014,theUniversityreclassifieditsCompliance
Coordinator positions into Assistant Director for Compliance positions and added a new
Compliance Coordinator position devoted to monitoring efforts. Finally, in the summer of
2015, an additional Assistant Director of Compliance position was created and filled. These
structural changes resulted in the Universitys compliance office growing from three staff
members(oneSeniorAssociateAthleticsDirectorandtwoComplianceCoordinators)toseven
fulltimecomplianceemployees(oneSeniorAssociateAthleticsDirector,anAssociateAthletics
Director,fourAssistantAthleticsDirectors,andaComplianceCoordinator).TheUniversityhas
also taken action through its standing Committee on Institutional Compliance,chaired by the
Faculty Athletics Representative, to review the compliance program to identify opportunities
forimprovementandrecommendchanges.
Finally, the current compliance staff has encouraged and developed a culture of
compliance throughout the Universitys entire athletics program, with shared responsibilities
120
among athletics department staff and or other institutional personnel. An example of this
enhancedcompliancecultureistheHeadCoachControlmanual,attachedasExhibitC6,which
wasdistributedtoallheadcoachesduringthespring2013term,aftertheviolationsinwomens
basketball were discovered, investigated, and reported to the enforcement staff. As the
manual emphasizes, all coaches are expected to participate in a comprehensive compliance
program, including implementing communication, monitoring, and documentation plans to
ensure that the Universitys head athletics coaches are effectively communicating the
Universityscomplianceexpectationstoallstaffmembers.IntheUniversitysexperience,this
manualhadthedesiredresultofincreasingtheemphasisplacedonpreventingandreporting
complianceissuesineachofitssports,afactdemonstratedbytheUniversityshistoryofLevel
IIIandsecondaryreportingasacknowledgedbytheenforcementstaff.
Insum,thenewsystemsputinplacebythecurrentcompliancestaffareeffectiveand
promoterulescomplianceandinstitutionalandheadcoachcontrolstandards.TheUniversitys
efforts compare favorably to other institutions that have received this mitigating factor,
includingUniversityofArkansasatPineBluff(November5,2014),attachedasC7,inwhichthe
Committeecitedthisfactorinasummarydispositionreport.
2.
Involvedparty[MauriceHarris(Harris),assistantfootballcoach]:
a.
Aggravatingfactor(s).[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw19.9.3(201516)]
The enforcement staff has not identified any aggravating factors

applicabletoHarris.
b.
Mitigatingfactor(s).[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw19.9.4(201516)]
Theenforcementstaffhasnotidentifiedanymitigatingfactorsapplicable
toHarris.
121
3.
InvolvedpartyChrisKiffin(Kiffin),assistantfootballcoach]:
a.
Aggravatingfactor(s).[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw19.9.3(201516)]

applicabletoKiffin.
b.
Mitigatingfactor(s).[NCAADivisionIManualBylaw19.9.4(201516)]
toKiffin.
4.
Involvedparty[DerrickNix(Nix),assistantfootballcoach]:
a.
Aggravatingfactor(s).[NCAABylaw19.9.3(201516)]

applicabletoNix.
b.
Mitigatingfactor(s).[NCAABylaw19.9.4(201516)]
toNix.
5.
Involved party [David Saunders (Saunders), former administrative operations

coordinatorforfootball]:
a.
(1)
MultipleLevelIviolationsbytheinstitutionorinvolvedindividuals.
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(a)(201516)]
TheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNos.10,11and13havebeen
identifiedbytheenforcementstafftobeLevelIviolationsinwhich
Saundershaddirectknowledgeand/orinvolvement.
(2)
Unethicalconduct.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(e)(201516)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10, 11 and 13 involve

violationsoftheNCAAprinciplesofethicalconduct.
122
(3)
Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after

substantialplanning.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(f)(201516)]
AsdetailedinAllegationNo.10,Saundersknowinglyparticipated
in an exam fraud scheme that involved three then football
prospective studentathletes taking the June 2010 ACT exam in
Waynesboro, Mississippi, including arranging for the then ACT
testingsupervisortocompleteand/oraltertheprospects'answer
sheets in such a manner that they received fraudulent scores.
Additionally, as detailed in Allegation No. 11, Saunders arranged
for the provision of lodging, meals and/or transportation for six
then football prospects during the summer of 2010. Saunders'
actions required premeditation, deliberation and/or substantial
planning.
(4)
Intentional,willfulorblatantdisregardfortheNCAAconstitution
andbylaws.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(m)(201516)]
TheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNo.10involvefraudulenceor
misconduct in connection with the ACT exams of three then
football prospects, conduct that is antithetical to the NCAA
constitutionandbylaws.
b.
toSaunders.
6.
Involvedparty[ChrisVaughn(Vaughn),formerassistantfootballcoach]:
a.
(1)
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(a)(201516)]
(2)
TheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNos.10,11and12havebeen
Vaughnhaddirectknowledgeand/orinvolvement.
Unethical conduct and compromising the integrity of an

investigation.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(e)(201516)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 10, 11 and 12 involve

violations of the NCAAprinciples of ethical conduct. Additionally,
123
(3)
AllegationNo.12involvesconductthatcompromisedtheintegrity
of the enforcement staff's investigation in violation of the NCAA
cooperativeprinciple.

AsdetailedinAllegationNo.10,Vaughnknowinglyparticipatedin
an exam fraud scheme that involved three then football
prospective studentathletes taking the June 2010 ACT exam in
Waynesboro, Mississippi. Additionally, as detailed in Allegation
No. 11, Vaughn arranged for the provision of lodging, meals
and/or transportation for five then football prospects during the
summer of 2010. Vaughn's actions required premeditation,
deliberationand/orsubstantialplanning.
(4)
Intentional,willfulorblatantdisregardfortheNCAAconstitution
TheviolationsdetailedinAllegationNo.10involvefraudulenceor
misconduct in connection with the ACT exams of three then
football prospects, conduct that is antithetical to the NCAA
constitution and bylaws. Therefore, the enforcement staff has
identifiedthispotentialaggravatingfactor.
b.
toVaughn.
7.
Involved party [StudentAthlete 20, former women's basketball student

athlete]
a.
(1)
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(a)(201516)]
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 14 and 18 have been

StudentAthlete20haddirectknowledgeand/orinvolvement.
124
(2)
The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 14 and 18 involve
b.
Mitigatingfactor.[NCAABylaw19.9.4(201516)]
Other facts warranting a lower penalty range. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4(h)

(201516)]
StudentAthlete 20 admitted to committing the violations detailed in

Allegation Nos. 14 and 18 during her final interview with the institution
and enforcement staff. Her admissions further substantiated the
violations detailed in Allegation No. 14. Additionally, the enforcement
staff believes the factual information shows that K. Landers and M.
LandersusedtheirpositiontoinfluenceStudentAthlete20toparticipate
intheirscheme.
8.
InvolvedpartyStudentAthlete18,formerwomen'sbasketballstudentathlete]
a.
(1)
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(a)(201516)]

StudentAthlete18haddirectknowledgeand/orinvolvement.
(2)

b.
Other facts warranting a lower penalty range. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.4(h)

(201516)]
StudentAthlete 18 admitted to committing the violations detailed in

Allegation Nos. 14 and 17 during her final interview with the institution
and enforcement staff. Her admissions further substantiated the
violations detailed in Allegation No. 14. Additionally, the enforcement
staff believes the factual information shows that K. Landers and M.
125
9.
LandersusedtheirpositiontoinfluenceStudentAthlete18toparticipate
intheirscheme.
Involvedparty[K.Landers]:
a.
(1)
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(a)(201516)]

K.Landershaddirectknowledgeandinvolvement.
(2)
Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the

As detailed in Allegation No. 15, K. Landers obstructed the

enforcement staff's investigation into, as well as attempted to
conceal her knowledge of and involvement in, the violations
detailedinAllegationNo.14.
(3)

(4)

AsdetailedinAllegationNo.14,K.Landersconstructedaplanto
arrange fraudulent academic credit for StudentAthlete 20 and
StudentAthlete 18 and deliberately involved StudentAthlete 20
andStudentAthlete18inthisscheme.
(5)
One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other

substantial harm to a studentathlete or prospective student

institution declaring StudentAthlete 20 and StudentAthlete 18
ineligible, which facilitated their withdrawal from the institution.
Additionally, the violations inhibited StudentAthlete 20 and
126
StudentAthlete 18 from finding athletics opportunities at other

institutions.
(6)
Intentional,willfulandblatantdisregardfortheNCAAconstitution

arranging fraudulent academic credit, unethical conduct and
compromising the integrity of the enforcement staff's
investigation. These alleged violations are all antithetical to the
NCAAconstitutionandbylaws.
b.
toK.Landers.
10.
Involvedparty[M.Landers]:
a.
(1)
[NCAABylaw19.9.3(a)(201516)]

M.Landershaddirectknowledgeandinvolvement.
(2)
Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the

As detailed in Allegation No. 16, M. Landers obstructed the

enforcement staff's investigation into, as well as attempted to
conceal his knowledge of and involvement in, the violations
detailedinAllegationNo.14.
(3)

(4)

127
AsdetailedinAllegationNo.14,M.Landersconstructedaplanto
arrange fraudulent academic credit for StudentAthlete 20 and
StudentAthlete 18 and deliberately involved StudentAthlete 20
andStudentAthlete18inthisscheme.
(5)
Oneormoreviolationscausedsignificantineligibilityorother
substantialharmtoastudentathleteorprospectivestudent

institution declaring StudentAthlete 20 and StudentAthlete 18
ineligible, which facilitated their withdrawal from the institution.
Additionally, the violations inhibited StudentAthlete 20 and
StudentAthlete 18 from finding athletics opportunities at other
institutions.
(6)
Intentional,willfulandblatantdisregardfortheNCAAconstitution

academic misconduct, unethical conduct and compromising the
integrity of the enforcement staff's investigation. These alleged
violationsareallantitheticaltotheNCAAconstitutionandbylaws.
b.
toM.Landers.
11.
Involved party [Adrian Wiggins (Wiggins), former head women's basketball

coach]:
a.

applicabletoWiggins.
b.
toWiggins.
12.
Involvedparty[LenaBettis(Bettis),formermen'sandwomen'strackandfield
coach]:
128

a.

applicabletoBettis.
b.
Prompt acknowledgement of the violations, acceptance of responsibility
and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties.
[NCAABylaw19.9.4(b)(201516)]
Bettis admitted committing the violations detailed in Allegation No. 21,

whichlikelywouldnothavebeensubstantiatedwithoutheradmission.
13.
Involvedparty[ErinDawson(Dawson),formerassistantmen'sandwomen's
trackandfieldandcrosscountrycoach]:
a.
Aggravatingfactor.[NCAABylaw19.9.3(201516)]
TheviolationsdetailedindetailedinAllegationNo.26involveviolations
oftheNCAAprinciplesofethicalconduct.
b.
toDawson.
14.
Involved party [Brian O'Neal (O'Neal), former head men's and women's track
andfieldandcrosscountrycoach]:
a.
(1)
The violations detailed in Allegation No. 28 involve violations of

theNCAAprinciplesofethicalconduct.
(2)
Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently

disregarded the violations or wrongful conduct. [NCAA Bylaw
19.9.3(h)(201516)]
129
b.
O'Nealservedastheheadmen'sandwomen'strackandfieldand
crosscountrycoachduringthetimeperiodinwhichtheviolations
detailed in Allegation Nos. 21, 22 and 25 occurred. O'Neal was
awareofand/orencouragedtheimpermissiblerecruitingcontact
detailed in Allegation No. 21 and approved the impermissible
transportation detailed in Allegation No. 22. Additionally, O'Neal
made offcampus recruiting contact for the purpose of a then
women's track and field prospective studentathlete signing a
National Letter of Intent with the institution, as detailed in
AllegationNo.25,knowingitwasimpermissibletodoso.
toO'Neal.
130
D.
RequestforSupplementalInformation.
1.
Provide mailing and email addresses for all necessary parties to receive
communications from the hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on
Infractionsrelatedtothismatter.
TheUniversityrequeststhattheCommitteeprovideallcommunicationstothefollowing
mailingandemailaddress:
ChancellorJeffreyVitter
UniversityofMississippi
c/oEnrique(Henry)J.Gimenez,hgimenez@lightfootlaw.com
Lightfoot,Franklin&White,L.L.C.
40020thStreetNorth
Birmingham,Alabama35203
2.
Indicatehowtheviolationswerediscovered.
Theviolationswerediscoveredduringthecourseoftheinvestigationasdescribedinthe
IntroductionandOverviewsectionsofthisResponse.
3.
Provideadetaileddescriptionofanycorrectiveorpunitiveactionsimplemented
bytheinstitutionasaresultoftheviolationsacknowledgedinthisinquiry.Inthat
regard, explain the reasons the institution believes these actions to be
appropriate and identify the violations on which the actions were based.
Additionally, indicate the date that any corrective or punitive actions were
implemented.
TheviolationsinthisNoticetookplaceoveranearlysixyearperioddatingbacktoJune
2010,beforetheeffectivedateofthenewpenaltystructureonOctober31,2012.Assuch,the
Committeemustdeterminewhethertoprescribepenaltiesundertheformerorcurrentpenalty
guidelines.TheUniversitysubmitsthateachofthethreeprogramsatissueshouldbeanalyzed
independentlyand,wherethereisapotentialconflict,theCommitteeshouldapplythemore
lenientguideline.(See,e.g.,ExhibitC4,OklahomaStateUniversity(April24,2014),at12.)
131
Alloftheviolationsinthewomensbasketballprogramtookplaceorwerediscovered
prior to October 31, 2012. Therefore, the former penalty structure should apply to the
University and individuals involved in Allegations Nos. 1420. The University submits that,
underthepreviouspenaltysystem,thewomensbasketballviolationswouldbeclassifiedasa
majorinfraction.
Two of the eight track and field violations, Allegations Nos. 21 and 22, took place
entirelybeforeOctober31,2012,andthreemore,AllegationsNos.23,24,and27,occurredat
least in part prior to the effective date, meaning it is incumbent upon the Committee to
determinethemorelenientstructurefortrackandfield.Thesameistrueforfootball,where
fourofthe13violationsoccurredinoraretraceabletothesummerof2010.
TheUniversityhascarefullyreviewedprecedentunderbothpenaltyguidelinesandthe
applicableBylawsandselfimposedpenaltiesitbelievesareconsistentundereitheroption.In
particular, the University looked closely at the core penalties for a Level I Severe Breach of
Conduct under the new penalty structure and comparable major infractions cases under the
former system. It then weighed the significant mitigating factors identified in Part C, supra,
against the applicable aggravating factors and considered the Committees authority under
Bylaw19.9.6todepartfromcorepenaltieswhereextenuatingcircumstancesallow.
Totheextentthenewpenaltystructureapplies,theUniversitybelievesthattrackand
fieldismostproperlyclassifiedasLevelIIStandard.However,theUniversityhasselfimposed
penalties consistent with a higher classification. With respect to football, the University
stronglyconsideredtheapplicationofLevelIStandardpenalties,butultimatelydetermined,
on balance, that the violations should be classified as Level I Mitigated based upon recent
132
precedent. In recognition of the serious nature of the violations alleged, however, the
University settled on penalties at or near the line between Level I Mitigated and Level I
Standard.
The University also considered imposing postseason bans on track and field and
football but decided that this penalty was not warranted. In the event the Committee
considers the imposition of a range of core penalties on either program that include a post
season ban, the University submits that a departure is warranted based upon specific factors
applicable to each program. As for track and field, because the only two Level I infractions
concern unethical conduct committed during the course of the investigation, the University
believestheinstitutionalpenaltiesforthatprogramshouldnotincludeapostseasonban.As
forfootball,alloftheLevelIviolationsoccurredbecauseofintentionalmisconductbyformer
employees or boosters outside of the Universitys direct control who were acting contrary to
the Universitys expectations and rules education. Further, the most serious allegations
involvingacademicfraudwerecommittedmorethansixyearsagobylongsincedepartedstaff
membersandstudentathletes.
Specific sanctions the University has selfimposed and corrective measures the
Universityhasimplementedareasfollows:
(1)
WomensBasketball
AsaresultoftheviolationsdescribedinAllegations1420oftheNotice,theUniversity
selfimposedthefollowingpenalties:
Terminationoftheinvolvedstaffmembersandtheheadwomensbasketballcoach
Apostseasonbanforthe201213academicyear
Reductionoftwoscholarships(from15to13)forthe201314academicyear
133
Reduction of four official visits (from 12 to 8) for the 201213 academic year and two
officialvisits(from12to10)forthe201314academicyear
Reductionof20recruitingpersondays(from100to80)forthe201213academicyear
Nocallstoprospectivestudentathletes(ortheirfamilies)foreightfullrecruitingweeks
asfollows:
o NoCalls:January13,2013February2,2013
o CallsPermitted:February39,2013
o NoCalls:February10,2013March2,2013
o CallsPermitted:March39,2013
o NoCalls:March1023,2013
Twoyear prohibition on the signing of twoyear college transfer prospective student
athletes(imposedduringthe201213and201314academicyears)
TheUniversityhasalsoimplementedthefollowingcorrectivemeasures:
Added additional emphasis on academic misconduct legislation in new employee

orientations
Conducted rules education sessions with studentathletes and athletics staff regarding
academicmisconductlegislation
(2)
Football
AsaresultofAllegationNo.1,theUniversitydisassociatedBusiness1andtheinvolved
owner for a period of three years. The University also implemented the following corrective
measures:
TheUniversityscompliancestaffhasconductedandwillcontinuetoconducttargeted
ruleseducationwithBusiness1employeesregardingtheprovisionofextrabenefitsto
University studentathletes in connection with studentathlete vehicles (including
repairs, sales, loaner cars, purchase loans, etc.) and general rules education with
Business1management.
Business 1 staff will notify the University as soon as Business 1 learns that a student
athletehasbroughtinapersonalvehicleforrepairsandbeforealoanercarisprovided.
AllloanercarformswillbeprovidedtotheUniversitycomplianceofficeassoonasthe
loanercarisreturnedtoBusiness1.
Business 1 and the Universitys compliance office have designated contacts to ensure
information is exchanged consistently and in a timely manner. The University will
provideregularnoticesremindingBusiness1ofitscomplianceobligations.
TheUniversitywillalsoprovidespecificruleseducationtostudentathletesconcerning
vehicleviolationsaspartofitsannualNCAAinstruction.
134
TheUniversitywillconductextraruleseducationwithallparticipantsintheUniversitys
coaches and staff courtesy vehicle program focusing on extra benefits legislation
involvingvehicles.
As a result of Allegations Nos. 3 and 4, the University disassociated Individual 7 and
Individual8indefinitely.Innoeventwillthisperiodofdisassociationbelessthanthelengthof
theUniversitysinstitutionalprobation.
As a result of Allegation No. 6, the University required additional rules education for
ChrisKiffinandrequiredKiffintoattendtheNCAARegionalRulesSeminarheldinMay2015in
Indianapolis,Indiana.TheUniversityalsoselfimposedanearly20percentreductioninfootball
officialvisitsforthe201415academicyear(fromanaverageforthepriorfouryearsof48.25
official visits to 39) and revised its official visit form to require names and exact biological
relationshiptotherecruit.
As a result of Allegation No. 7, the University selfimposed the following recruiting
sanctions:
ProhibitedKiffinfromoffcampusrecruitingcontactsforaperiodof30days
The University was prohibited from having contact with the involved prospective
studentathletesfor30daysoncecontactwaspermissible
The University forfeited all but one of its remaining permissible contacts with each of
theinvolvedprospectivestudentathletes
ReprimandedKiffinforhisinvolvementintheviolation
AsaresultofAllegationNo.8,theUniversity:
Disassociated Individual 2 in March 2013 and will continue that disassociation for at
leasttheperiodoftheUniversitysinstitutionalprobation
RequiredMauriceHarristoattendtheNCAARegionalRulesSeminarheldinMay2015
inIndianapolis,Indiana
ProhibitedHarrisfromoffcampusrecruitingcontactforthreeweeksoutofthespring
2015evaluationperiod(April1925,April26May2,andMay39)
ProhibitedanyfurtherrecruitmentofStudentAthlete7
ReprimandedHarrisforhisinvolvementintheviolation
135
As a result of Allegation No. 9, the University conducted specific rules education for
assistant director of sports videos Chris Buttgen and provided general rules education for all
coachesandathleticsstaffmembersregardingpermissiblevideomaterials.
Finally, the University has imposed the following recruiting, scholarship, and financial
penalties:
ProhibitiononunofficialvisitsbetweenFebruary21,2016,andMarch31,2016
Reducedevaluationopportunitiesfortheentirefootballstaffby10percentduringthe
spring2015evaluationperiod(from168evaluationdaysto151)
Reducedevaluationopportunitiesfortheentirefootballstaffby12.5percentduringthe
spring2016evaluationperiod(21days)
Reducedoverallandinitialgrantsinaidbetween201516and201819asfollows:56
Academic
Year
201516
201617
201718
201819
Total
Initial
Overall
Reduction Reduction
1(84)57
3(22)
2(83)
3(22)
4(81)
3(22)
4(81)
9
11
A monetary fine of $5,000.00 plus one percent of the average total budget for the
previousthreeacademicyears,calculatedasfollows:
AcademicYear
20122013
20132014
20142015
3YearTotal
3YearAverage
Budget
$13,048,580
$16,541,193
$16,707,518
$46,297,291
$15,432,430
(1%)
$154,325
56
The University is selfimposing a reduction in overall scholarships of 12.5 percent (11 scholarships). The
Universityisreducinginitialgrantsinaidby12percent(3scholarships)eachyearbetween201617and201819.
57
The Universitys football team competed during fall of 2015 season with only 83 studentathletes receiving
grantsinaid. The Universitys intention had been to maintain an overall reduction of two grantsinaid for the
201516academicyear,butdidnotdosoaftertheNoticewasdelayed.
136
(3)
TrackandField
TheUniversityrequestedtheresignationofBrianONealinJune2015.Inaddition,in
response to Allegations Nos. 23 and 24, the Universitys compliance office conducted rules
education with the incoming track and field staff members to address NCAA official visit
legislation. The University also selfimposed the following official visit and offcampus
recruitingrestrictions:
Reducedofficialvisitsby50percentforthe201415academicyear(fromanaveragefor
thefourprioryearsof60officialvisitsto30)
Reducedoffcampusrecruitingdaysby20percentforthe201415academicyears(from
anaverageforthefourprioryearsof63.5daysto49)
(4)
Probation
The University proposes a threeyear probation beginning on the date the Committee
releases its public report for this case. The University will meet all requirements of Bylaw
19.9.5.7duringthisinstitutionalprobationaryperiod.
4.
Provideadetaileddescriptionofalldisciplinaryactionstakenagainstanycurrent
or former athletics department staff members as a result of violations
acknowledged in this inquiry. In that regard,explain thereasons the institution
believestheseactionstobeappropriateandidentifytheviolationsonwhichthe
actionswerebased.Additionally,indicatethedatethatanydisciplinaryactions
weretakenandsubmitcopiesofallcorrespondencefromtheinstitutiontoeach
individualdescribingthesedisciplinaryactions.
TheUniversityreferstheCommitteetotheinformationprovidedinresponsetoRequest
for Supplemental Information No. 3. Further, the University notes that it has taken the
followingdisciplinaryactionsagainstformercoachingstaffmembers:
(1)
WomensBasketball
KenyaLanderssemploymentattheUniversitywasterminatedinOctober2012.
MichaelLanderssemploymentattheUniversitywasterminatedinOctober2012.
137
(2)
Adrian Wiggins was placed on administrative leave on October 22, 2012, and his
employmentattheUniversitywasterminatedonMarch31,2013.
Football
(3)
HarriswasreprimandedandrequiredtoattendtheNCAARegionalRulesSeminarheld
inMay2015inIndianapolis,Indiana.
KiffinwasreprimandedandrequiredtoattendtheNCAARegionalRulesSeminarheldin
May2015inIndianapolis,Indiana.
TrackandField
TheUniversityrequestedONealsresignationonJune22,2015.
*
Copies of correspondence pertaining to the Universitys termination of the Landerses
areattachedasExhibitD41.CorrespondencetoKiffinandHarrisisattachedasExhibitD42
andD43,respectively.
5.
(1)
ProvideashortsummaryofeverypastLevelI,LevelIIormajorinfractionscase
involving the institution or individuals named in this notice. In this summary,
providethedateoftheinfractionsreport(s),adescriptionoftheviolationsfound
bytheCommitteeonInfractions/hearingpanel,theindividualsinvolved,andthe
penalties and corrective actions. Additionally, provide a copy of any major
infractions reports involving the institution or individuals named in this notice
thatwereissuedbytheCommitteeonInfractions/hearingpanelwithinthelast
10years.
TheUniversitywasinvolvedinthefollowinginfractionscases:
November17,1994
Description: Violations involving recruiting, improper inducements, extra benefits,

unethicalconductandinstitutionalcontrol.
IndividualsInvolved:
Formerheadfootballcoach
Formerassistantfootballcoach
138
Formerfootballrecruitingcoordinator
Representativeoftheinstitutionsathleticsinterests
PenaltiesandCorrectiveActions:
(2)
Publicreprimandandcensure
Fouryearsofprobation
Requirement that the University develop a comprehensive athletics compliance
education program, with annual reports to the Committee during the period of
probation
Prohibitionfromparticipatinginpostseasoncompetitioninfootballduringthe1995and
1996seasons
Prohibitionfromtelevisinganyfootballgamesduringthe1995season
Reductionby12inthenumberofpermissibleinitialfinancialaidawardsinfootballfor
the199596and199697academicyears
Reductionin16inthenumberofpermissibleofficialvisitsinfootballduringthe199596
and199697academicyears
Recertificationofcurrentathleticspoliciesandpractices
Disassociationoftworepresentativesoftheinstitutionsathleticsinterests
Showcauserequirementontheformerheadfootballcoachforfouryears
December12,1986
Description: Violations involving improper recruiting contacts, employment,
entertainment, inducements, lodging and transportation, unethical
conductandcertificationofcompliance
Headfootballcoach
Assistantfootballcoaches
Representativesoftheinstitutionsathleticsinterests
Publicreprimandandcensure
Twoyearsofprobation
Prohibition from participating in postseason competition in football during the 1987
season
Prohibitionfromtelevisinganyfootballgamesduringthe1987season
No more than 20 permissible initial financial aid awards in football for the 198788
academicyear
Institutionwillnotconductsummerfootballcampsin1987or1988
139
(3)
RepresentativeoftheUniversitysathleticsinterestswillbeprecludedfrominvolvement
intheanyactivitiesassociatedwiththerecruitmentofprospectivestudentathletesand
involvementwithenrolledstudentathletesduringtheuniversitysprobationperiod
Two involved assistant coaches precluded from participating in any offcampus
recruitingcontactseitherinpersonorbytelephonewithprospectivestudentathletes,
as well as in the offcampus evaluation of prospects, during the universitys
probationaryperiod
Duringtheprobationaryperiod,nomorethaneightfulltimecoachesshallbepermitted
toparticipateinanyoffcampusrecruitingactivitiesorintheevaluationofprospectson
behalfoftheUniversityduringtheprobationaryperiod
October27,1959
Description: Violationsinvolvingimproperrecruitinginducements
Representativeoftheinstitutionsathleticsinterests
Censureand$1,000fine(imposedbySoutheasternConference)
Oneyearofprobation
Inaddition,thefollowinginfractionsreportinvolvesanindividualnamedinthisNotice:
(1)
January12,2016UniversityofLouisianaatLayfette(ExhibitIN1)
Description: Violationsinvolvingtestingfraud,extrabenefits,andunethicalconduct
Assistantfootballcoach
Twoyearsofprobation
$5,000fine
Reductioninthenumberofinitialscholarshipsforthe201617and201718academic
years
Overallscholarshipreductionsforthe201516,201617,and201718academicyears
140
Reductionsinthenumberofpermissibleoffcampusrecruitingdaysinfallof2015and
springof2016
Limitationonthenumberofofficialvisitsinthefallof2015
Prohibitiononallrecruitingcontactsforathreeperiodduringthe201516and201617
academicyears
6.
Provide a chart depicting the institution's reporting history of Level III and
secondaryviolationsforthepastfiveyears.Inthischart,pleaseindicateforeach
academic year the number of total Level III and secondary violations reported
involving the institution or individuals named in this notice. Also include the
applicable bylaws for each violation, and then indicate the number of Level III
and secondary violations involving just the sports team(s) named in this notice
forthesamefiveyeartimeperiod.
PleaseseeExhibitD6.
7.
Provide the institution's overall conference affiliation, as well as the total

enrollmentoncampusandthenumberofmen'sandwomen'ssportssponsored.
The University is a member of the SEC. The University sponsors eight mens sports
programs (baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, tennis, indoor and outdoor track
and field) and 10 womens sports programs (basketball, cross country, golf, rifle, softball,
soccer,tennis,indoorandoutdoortrackandfield,andvolleyball).
Undergraduate campus enrollment for the fall 2015 semester was 18,084 students.
Totalcampusenrollmentforthefall2015semesterwas20,827.
8.
Provide a statement describing the general organization and structure of the

institution'sintercollegiateathleticsdepartment,includingtheidentitiesofthose
individualsintheathleticsdepartmentwhowereresponsibleforthesupervision
ofallsportprogramsduringthepreviousfouryears.
Please see Exhibit D81 for organizational charts describing the Universitys athletics
departmentadministrationoverthepreviousfouryears.ExhibitD82includesorganizational
chartsfortheUniversityscompliancestaffforthesametimeperiod.
141
9.
State when the institution has conducted systematic reviews of NCAA and
institutionalregulationsforitsathleticsdepartmentemployees.Also,identifythe
agencies, individuals or committees responsible for these reviews and describe
theirresponsibilitiesandfunctions.
TheSECcontractedforexternalcompliancereviewsforallofitsmemberinstitutionson
ascheduledcycle.AttachedasExhibitD9arereportsfromthosereviewsconductedin2006
and 2011 along with a followup letter related to the 2006 review. The University has also
initiatedareviewofitsathleticscomplianceprogramthatwillbeginnolaterthantheendof
May 2016 and will be completed in July 2016. This review will be conducted under the
supervision of the Universitys Chancellor with a working committee chaired by the Faculty
AthleticsRepresentative.
10.
Providethefollowinginformationconcerningthesportsprogram(s)identifiedin
thisinquiry:
Theaveragenumberofinitialandtotalgrantsinaidawardedduringthe
pastfouracademicyears.
AcademicYear
20112012
20122013
20132014
20142015
FourYear
Average
15
14
12
14
MensTrackand
FieldandCross
Country
10.47
11.57
12.44
12.60
WomensTrack
andFieldand
CrossCountry
16.76
15.42
17.35
17.87
13.75
11.77
16.85
Football
(Overall/Initial)
Womens
Basketball
84/25
85/25
85/25
85/25
84.75/25
The number of initial and total grantsinaid in effect for the current
academicyear(orupcomingacademicyeariftheregularacademicyear
isnotinsession)andthenumberanticipatedforthefollowingacademic
year.
142
AcademicYear
14
MensTrackand
FieldandCross
Country
9.52
WomensTrack
andFieldand
CrossCountry
14.63
15
12.6
18
Football
(Overall/Initial)
Womens
Basketball
84/25
83/22
20152016
20162017
(anticipated)
The average number of official paid visits provided by the institution to

prospectivestudentathletesduringthepastfouryears.
AcademicYear
20112012
20122013
20132014
20142015
FourYear
Average
Football
(Overall/Initial)
Womens
Basketball
42
49
50
38
10
8
10
12
TrackandField
andCross
Country
(Combined)
33
97
63
30
44.75
10
55.75
Copiesoftheinstitution'ssquadlistsforthepastfouracademicyears.
PleaseseeExhibitD101(football),ExhibitD102(womensbasketball),ExhibitD103
(menstrackandfieldandcrosscountry),andExhibitD104(womenstrackandfieldandcross
country).
Copies of the institution's media guides, either in hard copy or through

electroniclinks,forthepastfouracademicyears.
The University is providing electronic links to the relevant media guides, by sport.
CopiesofthemediaguideswillbesenttotheOfficeoftheCommitteeonInfractions.
(1)
Football
201112:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/mfootbl/specrel/2011guide.html
201213:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/mfootbl/specrel/2012guide2.html
143
(2)
(3)
WomensBasketball
201112:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/wbaskbl/specrel/201112wbaskbl
guide.html
201213:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/wbaskbl/specrel/201213media
guide.html
201314:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/wbaskbl/201314mediaguide
pdf.html
201415:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/wbaskbl/201415guide.html
TrackandField
201112:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/ctrack/specrel/2012guide.html
201213:http://www.olemisssports.com/sports/ctrack/specrel/2013guide.html
201314:http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ole/sports/ctrack/auto_pdf/2013
14/misc_non_event/2014OMTguide.pdf
201415:http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ole/sports/ctrack/auto_pdf/2014
15/misc_non_event/2015_track_guide.pdf
A statement indicating whether the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3

and 31.2.2.4 apply to the institution as a result of the involvement of
studentathletesinviolationsnotedinthisinquiry.
NoneofthestudentathletesinvolvedintheviolationsaddressedintheNoticeandthis
ResponseparticipatedinNCAAchampionshipeventsduringthetimeperiodassociatedwiththe
case.
A statement indicating whether the provisions of Bylaw 19.9.7(g) apply

to the institution as a result of the involvement of studentathletes in
violationsnotedinthisinquiry.
TheUniversityagreesthatstudentathletescompetedwhileineligibleasaresultofthe
violationsincludedinthisNoticeandthattheCommitteeshoulddeterminetheapplicationof
Bylaw19.9.7(g)toindividualandteamrecords.
144
11.
Consistent with the Committee on Infractions IOP 41621 (Total Budget for
Sport Program) and 41622 (Submission of Total Budget for Sport Program),
pleasesubmitthethreepreviousfiscalyears'totalbudgetsforallinvolvedsport
programs. At a minimum, a sport program's total budget shall include: (a) all
contractual compensation including salaries, benefits and bonuses paid by the
institution or related entities for coaching, operations, administrative and
support staff tied to the sport program; (b) all recruiting expenses; (c) all team
travel, entertainment and meals; (d) all expenses associated with equipment,
uniformsandsupplies;(e)gameexpensesand(f)anyguaranteespaidassociated
withthesportprogram.
PleaseseeExhibitD11.
Anyadditionalinformationorcommentsregardingthiscasearewelcome.
145

Ole Miss Response To NCAA Notice of Allegations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ole Miss Response To NCAA Notice of Allegations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UniversityofMississippi

In early September 2012, the University of Mississippi (the University) received a

The University has demonstrated an extraordinary level of initiative and cooperation

Allegations Nos. 12 and 13 concern unethical conduct committed by Saunders and

It is unclear whether StudentAthlete 1 knew about Family Member 1s misconduct.

Business 1 provided StudentAthlete 1 and another studentathlete, StudentAthlete 2. Both

On June 10, 2015, StudentAthlete 1 purchased a 2010 Dodge Challenger from

Collectively, the institution's athletics administration, athletics compliance office and

reports on every studentathlete to crosscheck vehicle registration information provided by

Between October 26 and November 16, 2013, Individual 8 provided Family

The University and enforcement staff interviewed Individual 8 on September 3, 2015.

Individual 8s admission establishes that Family Member 1 received complimentary

By not providing Wenzel with clear information about StudentAthlete 1s exact

[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.7.2.2, 13.01.4, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.4(a), 13.1.2.5,

On October 13, 2012, Individual 2 provided then football prospective student

StudentAthlete 7 to the institution on this occasion. [NCAA Bylaws 13.01.4,

Specifically, on January 18, 2013, Individual 2 drove StudentAthlete 8 and

On January 26, 2013, Individual 2 provided StudentAthlete 5with oneway

the institution on this occasion. Further, on January 27, 2013, Individual 9, a

On January 30, 2013, Individual 2 hosted at his residence an offcampus

Additionally, on February 2, Harris arranged for StudentAthlete 8 to stay

On March 24, 2013, Individual 2 provided Student Athlete 8, StudentAthlete

Individual 2s connection to the prospects in question arose from his work as a

Individual 2 , at 52 (Individual 2 as a mentor); FI No. 176, 2/26/13 Interview Transcript of

At the time, Harrisincorrectly believed that the relationship betweena volunteerFCA

Finally, in analyzing Individual 2s motivation and the Universitys response, the

Committee should consider the circumstances surrounding Individual 2s involvement with

StudentAthlete 7 was initially committed to Institution 9 but his scholarship was in

Athlete 8 a scholarship, and he generally encouraged StudentAthlete 8 to pursue other

Although Individual 2 was not as close to StudentAthlete 6 as the others, he tried to

fraudulence or misconduct in connection with their exams. [NCAA Bylaws

Saunders arranged for StudentAthlete 9 , StudentAthlete 10 and Student

athlete if StudentAthlete 11 continued to compete in football contests. (Exhibit 104,

The total monetary value of impermissible housing, meals and/or transportation

enrollment of prospects; and (c) thirdparty involvement in recruiting violations in which

The only evidence supporting an allegation against Nix consists of speculative

In light of Nixs clear recollection that he had no knowledge of Individual 1 when

email account to send emails to StudentAthlete 18 at her Institution 5 student email

However, Kenya Landers continued to deny any knowledge of or participation in the

In light of the Universitys findings, it also placed Wiggins on administrative leave on

In October 2012, she knowingly instructed StudentAthlete 18 to delete

However, StudentAthlete 18 admitted during her January 23, 2013,

American literature courses and StudentAthlete 18 's speech and

During his October 2 and 3, 2012, interviews with the institution, M.

However, M. Landers admitted during his October 5 and 19 interviews

During his October 3, 2012, interview with the institution, M. Landers

documentation show that K. Landers and M. Landers worked together to complete

Additionally, O'Neal was aware of and/or encouraged Lena Bettis, then

Additionally, O'Neal provided StudentAthlete 38's signed NLI to the

(1) O'Neal failed to monitor that Dawson was conducting impermissible

6/19/15 Interview Transcript of StudentAthlete 33, at 1112.) This information undercuts

One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other

The violations detailed in Allegation No. 1 resulted in football

The violations detailed in Allegation No. 14 resulted in the

The violations detailed in Allegation Nos. 1 through 13 involve

The institution selfdetected the violations detailed in Allegation

Prompt acknowledgement of the violations, acceptance of

The institution promptly acknowledged several violations in this

The institution was actively engaged in this investigation and

Regarding the violations detailed in Allegation No. 1, the

Regarding the violations detailed in Allegation No. 14, the

During the investigation, the institution learned of potential

In Southeastern Louisiana University (April 9, 2015), attached as Exhibit C2, the