DEPAUL UNIVERSITYPUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISIONJuly 23 2019INTRODUCTIONT - PDF document

1 DEPAUL UNIVERSITYPUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECI
DEPAUL UNIVERSITYPUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISIONJuly 23, 2019INTRODUCTIONThe NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions(COI)is an independent administrative body of the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and public. The COI decides infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs.This case involvedrecruitingand Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of COI ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. and prescribes the following penalties:hree years of probation, fine ofplus one percent of the budget of the mens basketball programrecruiting restrictions, vacation of recordsthreecontest suspension for the head coach and a threeyear showcause orderfor the associate head coachThe penalties section of this decision details these and other penalties. CASE HISTORYTheinvestigation that led tothis casebeganshortly after the prospectannounced inNovember 2017 that he would transfer to another institution.Prior to transferringthe prospectinformedthe athletics directorthat the assistant DOBOstayed at his homein the spring ofto monitor thecompletion of his courseworkAfter investigating the matterDePaulsubmitted a Level III violation report regardingimpermissible offcampus contactThe enforcement staff issued notice of inquiry on April 5, 2018, following its interview of the prospectThe enforcement staff and institutionconducted interviewsfrom May through October 2018Theenforcement staff issued the notice of allegations (NOA) on October 26, 2018. DePaulthe head coach and the associate head coachsubmitted their responses on January 24, 2019.The enforcement staff issuedits written reply and statement of the case on March 25, 2019.The panel held the hearing via videoconference on May 16, 2019.FINDINGS OF FACTThe events that form thebasis of the underlying violationsoccurred during a roughly twoweek period in April and May 2016. At the associate head coachdirection, the assistant DOBOtraveledout of stateto livewith the prospectto ensure that he completed NCAA core coursesand became immediately eligible to competeThe factsrelating to thisarrangement arelargely not in dispute. The prospect was a top high school recruit. He received interest from several NCAA institutionbut injured his knee during his final basketball seasonhigh schoolBecause hebelieved theinjury would negatively impacthis ability to compete immediately in college, he attendeda sport institute after he graduated rehab his injury and assess his options.He then played his postgraduate year at thesport institutewhere he was ranked as a fourstar recruitand top centerAlthough the prospectgraduated from high school, he needed to complete three core courses successfully to b

2 ecomea qualifier. Therefore, while he tr
ecomea qualifier. Therefore, while he trained at the sport institute,enrolled Thehead coach adopted DePaulresponsehis ownThechief hearing officerrequestthe assistant DOBOformer director of mens basketball operations (DOBO)and formerassistant mens basketball coach(assistant coach) participate in thehearingvia videoconferenceThe sport instituteis anonscholastic trainingacademy. Its basketball team competes against scholastic and nonscholastic teams during the traditional basketball season ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. in the necessarycourses onlineOnce the 201516 basketball season ended, the sport instituteand its dormitories closed.The prospectspent theremainder of the spring 2016 semester at home finishing his online coursesDePaul began recruiting the prospectin the spring of 2016and intensely recruited him due to a need"in the worst way possible"for sizethe teamPrior to his official visit, the formerassociate athletics director for compliance(associate compliance director)evaluatedthe prospecttranscripts.On February 1, he sent an email to the head coach and associate head coachregarding the prospectacademiprofileIn this email, the associate compliance directorinformed themhis serious concernthat the prospect wouldnot meet NCAA academicrequirements to be immediatelyeligiblecompeteHe described the prospecttranscriptas particularly problematicNonetheless, DePaul continued to recruit the prospectThe prospect signed his NLIwith DePaulon April 13,Shortly after the prospectsigned his NLI, the associate head coachbecame worriedthat the prospect would notsuccessfullycompletetheonlinecourseworkrequired to be immediatelyligibleto competeThe prospect needed to completebetween 16 anassignments and prepare for the midterm and final exams in just one month. At the time, had completed only one or two assignments and experiencedseveral distractions in or around his home that prevented him from completing courseworkThe associate head coachthoughtthe distractions would not allowthe prospectfinishhis assignmentsHe thus senthe assistant to live with the prospectremove the distractions andensure that the prospect successfully completed the workThe associate head coachknewthat the arrangement was impermissible. The associate head coach directed the assistant DOBOuse the assistant coach's car totravel to the prospect's home andlive with him. He cautioned the assistant DOBOthat he would have to be a parental figure because the prospects grandmotherwho wasliving with andtaking care of the prospectcould notdo so. He also told the assistant DOBO that the arrangement needed to remain confidential. The associate head coach assumed that the visit would last a week but acknowledged

3 it could takelonger. The assistant arr
it could takelonger. The assistant arrived at the prospecthomeon April 23he assistant DOBOlived with the prospect until May 4, 2016a total of 12 days. During this stay, the assistant DOBOidentifiedand plannedfor completion of thecourseworknecessaryfor the prospectto be immediately eligible to compete. He monitored the prospect's prograndlimited the prospect'sextracurricular activities until he completed the work. Finally, he made surethat the prospecttook proctored tests, setting up a favorable time to take the tests and ensuring that the prospect completedthe tests via webcahishomeThe assistant DOBOconsistentlyreported back to the associate head coachTheassistant coach and DOBOknew of the arrangementbut did notreport to the head coachor compliancestaff.The assistantwho was part of the arrangementalso did not report a violation ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. The assistant coachbecame aware of the arrangement while the assistant DOBOwas living with the prospectWhen he returned from a recruiting trip, the assistant coach noticed that his car and the assistant DOBO were He then spoke with the assistant DOBO phone. During the call, the assistant DOBO told theassistant coach that the associate head coachsent him to stay at theprospecthometo monitor the prospect. To make theassistant DOBO aware that the arrangement may not have beenpermissible, the assistant coach toldthe assistant DOBOthat he neededto checkwith the head coach and associate head coach about the permissibility f the arrangement. The assistantcoach statedduring the investigationand at the hearing that theassistant DOBOadvised himthat he checked with bothandthatthe arrangement was permissible.The assistant DOBO, however, never spoke with the head coach regarding the arrangementThe assistant coach acknowledged that he was not sure the arrangementwas a violationut did not raise the issue withthe head coach or compliance staffbecause he accepted that the assistant DOBO told him it was permissibleHe also did not speak with the associate head coach. The assistant coach reported to both the head coach and associate head coach. TheDOBObecame aware of the arrangement when the assistant called himon his way to live with the prospectThe assistant , who reported to both the DOBO and head coach,expressed concernto the DOBO about going to the prospecthome. The DOBO, like the assistant coachtatedduring the investigationand at the hearing that he toldthe assistant to speak with the head coachabout the arrangementAfter the call, theDOBOconfirmed the details of the arrangementwith the associate head coach. The DOBO, however,did not follow up with the assistant to verifythat he spoke with the head coach. The DOBOacknowledged that hewas aware th

4 at the assistant offcampus contact with
at the assistant offcampus contact with the prospectwas not permissibleBut he did not inform the head coach, whom he reported to,or the compliance staff about the arrangementbecause he was worried that doing so would hurt his career, including future job opportunitiesHe further explainedat the hearing thathe did not want to beconsidereddisloyalput staffmembersat odds with each otheror get in the way of a decision made the associate head coachRelatedlyhe did not understand the process for reporting violations and indicatedthat the head coach never made sure thatknewthe processLike the other two staff members, the assistant DOBOdid not check withthe head coach or compliance staff about the permissibility of the arrangementThe assistant thought the arrangement was permissible, as the associate head coach had advised him. But the associate head coach's desire to keep the arrangement confidentialshould have alerted the assistant DOBO to tell the head coach or compliance staff about the arrangementNonetheless, as was thecase for theDOBO, the assistant DOBO chose not to raise the issue because he thought doing so would hurt him professionallyThe assistant DOBOclarified at the hearing that hewanted to stay in his laneHe also explained that his career would be injeopardy if he undermined theassociate head coachandfeared that the associate head coachwould find outhe talked with the head coach. ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. The assistant DOBOas well asthe DOBO and assistant coachknew that theassociate head coach wielded significant authority in theprogramThe assistant DOBO stated that the associate head coach called the shotsThe DOBO described this asunchecked power. The assistant coach explained howhe associate head coachused hispowerto demand things his way and intimidate otherstaff members, including the assistant DOBO.In accordance with statements by the assistant DOBO, DOBO and assistant coach, the associate head coachs conduct caused division among the staffand staff members to be fearful of him. The head coach, however, dd not recognize this or the culture of silencein his programThe head coach alsodid not trackon the assistant DOBOprolongedabsence from the office to stay at the prospecthomeHe did notconfer with his staff, look for red flags or otherwise askquestionsabout the absenceInstead, the head coach explainedthathe did not micromanage and trusted thatthe assistant DOBOwas absenthe was absentforthe right reasons. Having worked with the assistant DOBOat another institution, thehead coach claimedthat itwastypical for the assistant to be away for periods of time to visit family.The head coach maintained that he did not become aware of the arrangement until after the prospect reported in Novem

5 ber 2017.Because of theassistant DOBO's
ber 2017.Because of theassistant DOBO's presenceat his home, the prospect successfully completed his coursework and was certified as a qualifier. The prospect enrolled at DePaul in the fall of 2016. He played in 25 games during the 201617 season.IV. ANALYSISThe violations occurredin the men's basketball programduring the spring of 2016Theviolations are Level II and fall intotwoareas:(A)knowing arrangement for a noncoaching staff member to provide impermissiblebenefitto a prospect, which resulted inimpermissible contact, impermissible coaching activityandineligible competition and expensesandthe head coachfailure topromote an atmosphere of complianceand monitor his programUNETHICAL CONDUCTIMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING BENEFITSIMPERMISSIBLE PRECOLLEGE EXPENSES, IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING CONTACT, IMPERMISSIBLE COACHING ACTIVITYNELIGIBLE COMPETITIONAND EXPENSES [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, (c), 11.7.6, 12.11.1, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.5(k), 13.15.1.9 and 16.8.1(201the spring ofthe associate head coach knowingly arranged for the assistant to monitor the prospect to ensurethathe metinitialeligibility requirementsThe arrangement resulted inrecruiting, coaching activity, andcompetition and expenses violationsDePaulonlydisputed therecruiting benefits allegationThe associate head coach agreed that he violated ethical Theenforcement staff could have cited Bylaw 11.7.1.1) in the 201Manual but did not. The bylaws cited in this decision are the bylaws included in the NOA. ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. conduct legislationThe panel concludes that DePaul and the associate head coach committedLevel II violations. NCAA legislation relating to unethical conduct,impermissiblerecruiting benefits,impermissible precollege expenses, impermissible recruiting contact, impermissible coaching activityand ineligible competitionand expensesThe applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two. The associate head coach knowinglyarranged for the assistant DOBOto provide impermissiblerecruiting benefitto the prospectwhich resulted in impermissible recruiting contact that caused DePaul to exceed countable coach limitsand led to ineligiblecompetition and expensesThe associate head coach directed theassistant DOBOto travel to and live with the prospectto monitor hiscompletion of courseworkWhile living with theprospectin lateApril and earlyMay of 2016, the assistant DOBOhad impermissible recruiting contactthat caused himto become a countable coachTheprospect alsocompeted and received expenses while ineligible.The ociatehead coach's conduct violatedBylaw 10 while the recruitingbenefitand contact violated Bylaw 13.The additionalcountablecoach, provision of expenses tothe pro

6 spectafter his enrollment at DePaul, and
spectafter his enrollment at DePaul, andineligible competition violated Bylaws 11, 16 and , respectivelyBylaw 10 requires staff members to conduct themselves in an ethical manner. In accordance with Bylaw 10.1(c), staff members must not knowingly involvthemselves inoffering or providing a prospect with an improper inducement.Bylaw 13 governs recruitingand, through Bylaw 13.2.1prohibits staff memberfrom giving benefits to a prospectthat are not generally available to other prospects. Bylaw(k)and 13.15.1.9 specificallyprohibiexpenses for academic servicesto assist a prospect in completinginitialeligibility requirements.Bylawand 13.1.2.5alsoprovide that only authorized staff members may recruitoffcampus.Related to these bylaws, Bylaw 11.7.6 limits mens basketball programs to four coaches. Bylaw 16.8.1 permits institutions to provide expenses to eligible studentathleteswho represent the institution in practice and competition.Institutions, however,must withhold ineligible studentathletes from competition pursuant to Bylaw 12.11.1.In need of size on the teamhe associate head coach was concernedthat the prospectwho had just signed an NLIwould not meetinitialeligibility requirements. He thusknowingly arranged forthe assistant travel to the prospect's home andlive with himto monitor the completion of his corecourseworkTheassistant helpedthe prospect for 12 days by identifying anplanning for completion of hiscoursework, monitoringhisprogresslimiting extracurricularactivities and ensuringhe tooktests.This assistanceallowedthe prospectto dedicate the appropriate time forcoursework. As a result, the prospect met initialeligibility requirements.Theprospect then competed andreceivedexpenses while ineligible because of the benefit. The associate head coachintentional conductviolated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1and10.1(c)The benefits provided by the assistant DOBO violated Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1(k) and 13.15.1.9. he ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. ineligible competitionand expensesresulting from the benefitsviolatedBylaws 12.11.1 andThe assistant DOBO impermissibly contacted the prospect during his stay with the prospect becausehe was a noncoaching staff member with sportspecific responsibilities and notcertified to recruit off campus. As a result of the contact, the assistant DOBO became a countable coach and DePaul exceeded the limitation of four mens basketball coaches. DePaul thus alsoviolated Bylaws 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.5 and 11.7.6.DePaul only disputed thatimpermissiblerecruiting benefitoccurredThe institutionarguedthat the assistant DOBOdid not give the prospect impermissible benefitsbecause he did not actually completethe prospectcoursework.This, however,is irrelevant. The completion of coursework is not ne

7 cessary for impermissible benefitsto occ
cessary for impermissible benefitsto occur whenan institutiona recruiting inducementprovides expenses for academic services to help a prospectmeet initialeligibility requirementsSee St. Johns University (New York) (2018)(concluding that an impermissiblerecruiting benefit occurred when thehead womens volleyball coach provided roundtrip transportation for prospectto take the SATUniversity of Mississippi (2017) (concluding that impermissiblerecruitinbenefits occurred when thefootballoperations coordinatorand assistant football coach arranged for a boosterprovide housing, meals and transportation for prospects so that they could attend classes);andRadford University (2012) (concluding that impermissiblerecruiting benefitoccurred when theheadmens basketballcoach indirectly arranged roundtrip transportation for a prospect to take the SAT and ACT)Like in these cases, consistent with the bylaws, recruiting benefitviolations occurred when the assistant monitoredthe prospect to ensure that he completed coursework necessary to be eligible to competeIn accordance with Bylaw 19.1.2, the violations are Level IIbecause theyprovided more than minimal but lessthan substantialor extensiveadvantageandbenefithe benefitsoccurred for nearly two weeksand allowed the prospect to be immediately eligible to competeLikewise, had the prospect paid for the assistance he received from the assistant DOBO, the significant number of hours the assistant DOBO spent with the prospect would have resulted in more than a minimal expense.Theassistant DOBOtime with the prospectalsoallowedDePaul's countable coaches to engage in other coaching activities, such as onor offcampus recruiting. he panel considered whether the violations rose toLevel I. The circumstances this casehowever,more closely followrecent cases in which the COI concluded that Level II violations occurred when coaches knowingly violated legislationto help a studentathletemeet eligibility requirementsSee Prairie View A&M University (2017) (concluding that assistant men's basketball coachviolated ethical conduct legislation when heknowinglyarranged for a friend to pay approximately $500 for aonline course studentathlete needed to regaineligibility, which resulted in ineligiblecompetition and expenses) and Florida International University(2017) (concluding that the head women's basketball coach violated ethical conduct legislation when he knowinglyprovided $600 in cash to a studentathlete to enroll in a course needed for continuing eligibilityhich resulted in ineligiblecompetition and expenses). Like in these cases, the violatioresulted in more than minimal but less than substantial advantages and benefits. ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. HEAD COACH RESPONSIBILITY [NCAA Div

8 ision I Manual Bylaw 11.1.1(201he head c
ision I Manual Bylaw 11.1.1(201he head coach failed topromote an atmosphere of complianceand monitor his staffDePauland the head coach disputed the allegation. The panel concludesthat the head coach committed a Level IviolationNCAA legislation relating to head coach responsibility. The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.The head coach violated head coach responsibility legislation throughhisfailure to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor his staffThe head coach did not meethislegislatedhead coach responsibilitiesHe did not promote an atmosphere of compliancewhenmultiplemens basketball staff members failed to report the arrangement for the assistant to live with the prospectThe head coach also failed to monitor his staff whenhe didtrackthe assistant DOBO's prolonged absenceThe head coachconduct violated Bylaw 11. Bylaw 11.1.1.1 establishes two affirmative duties for head coaches: (1) to promote an atmosphere of complianceand(2) to monitor individuals in their program who report to them. Thebylaw presumes that head coaches are responsible for the actions of their staff members.A head coach may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that he or she promoted an atmosphere ocompliance and monitored his or her staff.The head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance becausethree staff members knew that the associate head coach sent theassistant DOBO to live with theprospect but did not report the violation orquestioits permissibilityAlthough he was not sure whether the arrangement was permissible, the assistant coach took no action beyondtellingthe assistant DOBO to checkwith the head coach and associate head coachEvenmore troublinghe knewthat thecontact was a violationbut did not report it because he did not want to disloyal,causetensionget in the way of the associate head coachor otherwise hurthis careerHe alsodid not know the process for reporting violationsFinallythe associate head coachs desire to keep the arrangement confidential should have alerted the assistant DOBO to reportthe arrangement.But he did nothingbecause hewas concernedfor his futurewanted to stay in his laneand was afraid of the associate head coach.This culture of silence pervaded the program. Ensuring thatstaff members arecomfortablereporting, or know howto reportviolations is fundamentalto any complianceprogramEven with a staff membera determined wrongdoer as described by DePaulintentionally violating legislationand exercising his authority to demand thingshis way, there were numerous opportunities for other staff members to stop or prevent the violations. But the head coach was detach. He was unaware thatstaff members were afraid to ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. report viola

9 tions or ask questionsanddid not recogni
tions or ask questionsanddid not recognize the associate head coach's undue influenceover staff membersThis in and of itself demonstratesa lack of head coach controlThe head coach also failed to monitor his staff. Hedidnot confer with staff members, actively look for red flags or otherwise ask questionsabout the assistant DOBO'sroughlytwoweek absenceInstead, the head coachtrustthat theassistant DOBOunannounced absence was for the right reasons. Head coaches must verifynot just trustthat staff members complywith legislation. See University of Oregon (2018) (concluding that the head mens basketball coach failed to monitor the director of operatiwho impermissibly involved himself in studentathletesworkouts while the head coach was away) and California State University, Sacramento (2018) (concluding that the head men's tennis coach did not meet his monitoring responsibility when he failed tosupervise his assistant coach's recruiting efforts and involvement in arranging housing for studentathletes). Lack of knowledge is not an excuse. See Southern Methodist University(2015)(concludingthat the head men's basketball coach violated head coach responsibility legislatioin part, when he did not ask questions about his administrative assistant's relationship with studentathletedespite multiple red flags).Here, had the head coach checked in with the assistant DOBO asked appropriate questions, he may have stopped or preventedthe violationsThehead coach largely relied on his rack record to argue that he rebutted the presumptionAt the hearing, ointed to several examples of how he purported to promotecompliance. These included hisparticipation in an NCAA ethicscoalition, required staff attendance at compliance meetings and communication with the compliance staff to report violations or ask for advice.The panel recognizes these and other efforts but the head coach needed to do morecreated an environment where staff members did not report violations or consult withthe compliancestaff but chose to remain silentThe head coach did not ensure that one of thesestaff membersknewthe process for reporting violations. Likewise, the head coach did not trackthe assistant DOBOprolongedabsencefrom the officeHe thus failed to meet his responsibility to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor staff in accordance withBylaw 11.1.1.1. This case is different than those in which the COI concluded that the head coach rebutted hispresumed responsibility.In University ofthePacific(2017), a legitimate misunderstandingbetweenthe head baseball coachand an associate athletics directorcaused the violation at issueThe COI concludedthatthe head coach rebutted his presumed responsibility because he promoted an atmosphere of compliance.Likewise, in ichita State University(2015)

10 the head baseball coachs administrative
the head baseball coachs administrative assistant provided impermissible benefits to studentathletes when she allowed them to purchase apparelat discounted prices through an institutional account withan apparel providerThe head baseball coachknew that studentathletes were ordering from the account but failed to ask followquestions after his administrativeassistant misinformedhim that the studentathletes were not purchasing the itemsat a discountThe COI concluded that the head coachs failure to follow updid notnegatedecadesof monitoring his assistant and setting the proper atmosphere for compliance. Unlike inPacificand Wichita Statethree staff members failed to report violationIn addition, the head coach did not monitor his staffwhen he did not track on the assistant DOBO's absence to stay at the prospect's homeThere was no legitimate ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. misunderstanding or decades of monitoringhe head coach simply did notensurea compliant programIn accordance with Bylaw 19.1.2(e), head coach responsibility violations can beLevel II when the underlying violations are Level II. The COIhas regularly applied the bylaw to Level head coach responsibility violationsSee Oregon (concluding that Level II head coach responsibility violations occurred whenthe head mens basketball coach failed to monitor the director of operationsinteractions with studentathletes and the head womens basketball coachfailed to monitor his staff and was personally involved in violations)and University of Utah (208) (concluding that a Level II head coach responsibility violation occurred when thehead baseball coach instructed and permitted his director of operationsto engage in impermissible coaching activity).Like in these cases, the head coach responsibility violation is Level IIbecause the underlyingviolations are Level IIV. PENALTIEFor the reasons set forth in Sections IIIandof this decision, the panel concludes that this case involved Levelviolations of NCAA legislation.Level II violations are significant breaches of conduct that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive advantage, including violations that involvemore than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.In considering penalties, the panel first reviewedaggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to Bylaws 19.9.2, 19.9.3 and 19.9.4 to determine the appropriate classificationfor DePaul, the head coachand the associate head coachThe panelthen used the current penalty guidelines (Figure 1) and Bylaws 19.9.5 and19.9.7 to prescribe penalties.The panel determined that the belowlistedfactors applied and assessed the factors by weight and number. Based on its assessment, the

11 panel classifiesthis case as Level IStan
panel classifiesthis case as Level IStandardfor DePaulLevel Mitigated for the head coach's violation and LevelII Aggravatedfor theassociatehead coachs violationAggravating Factors for DePaul(b):A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution(f)Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;(g): Multiple Level II violations by the institution(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violationor related wrongful conduct; and(j): Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust. DePaul agreed with Bylaw 19.9.3(f)Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planningdisagreed with Bylaw 19.9.3), Multiple Level II violations by the ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. institution, andargued that the panel should not give the other factorsfull weight. DePaul acknowledgedthatBylaw 19.9.3(b)A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institutionappliedbut argued that the panel should give the factorminimal weightbecause of the length of time between cases. DePaul disagreed with Bylaw 19.9.3(g)because it contended that multiple Level II violations did not occur. In the alternative, DePaul argued that the panel should givethe factor minimal weight because the same conduct caused the violationsLikewise, DePaulsubmittedthat Bylaw19.9.3(h)Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conductand 19.9.3(j)Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trustshould be given the weight of only one factor because the factors resulted from the same conduct by the associate head coachThe panel assignsBylaw 19.9.3A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institutionminimal weight. DePaulpriormajorcasesoccurred in1994 and 1974. Both cases involved the mens basketball program butlargelydifferent violations.In determining the weight to assign the factor, the COI regularly evaluates the number of prior cases, years between cases and similarities ofthe violations inprior casesto the case at issueThe COIoftengivesthe factor minimal weightwhen several years pass between casesSee Alabama A&M University(2018) (giving the factor minimalweight because of the amount of time since theprior cases in 1996 and ) and University of San Francisco(2018) (giving the factor minimalweight because only one prior case occurred in the previous25 years).Like in these cases, the panel assigns the factor minimal weight because years passed since the most recent case.The panelalsodetermines that Bylaw 19.9.3(g), Multiple Level II violations by the institutionappliesThe panel recognizes that many

12 of the violations resulted from the unet
of the violations resulted from the unethical arrangement by the associate head coach.Nonetheless, multiple Level II violationsunethical conduct, impermissiblerecruiting benefits, impermissible precollege expenses, impermissible recruiting contact, impermissible coaching activity, ineligible competition and expenses, and head coach responsibilityoccurred in this case. In addition,the head coachs failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor his staffdid not result from the arrangementit allowed the arrangement to continue undetectedThe panelthusgivethe factor more than minimal weight.The panelalso does not assign Bylaws 19.9.3(h), Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct, and 19.9.3(j), Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trustthe weight of one factoras requested by DePaulWhile the bylaws may involve similar underlying conduct, thefactors are separate and distinct as defined by the membership. See University ofHawaiiat Manoa(2015)(applying both factors to the institution)The panel applies both factorsbecause the associate head coachwas a person of authority whocondoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation his conduct demonstrated an abuse of a position of trust. With respect to Bylaw 19.9.3(h), the panel emphasizes that institutions are responsible for their employeesparticularly coaches. Although the associate head coach condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation, the COI has regularly applied the factor to both institutions and involved individuals. See Oregon(determining that the factor applied to the institution and the involved individualwhose conduct ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. resulted in the factor) and Hawaii(same). Like in these casesthe associate head coach acted on behalf of DePaulwhen he knowingly violated the legislation.Mitigating Factors for DePaul(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter;and(d): An established history of selfreporting Level III or secondary violations.DePaul identified two additional mitigating factors: Bylaw 19.9.4(b)Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penaltiesand Bylaw 19.9.4(e)Implementation of a system of compliance methodsdesigned to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of institutional/coaches' control standards (e.g., National Association of Athletics Compliance Reasonable StandardsThe panel determines that neither factorappliesThe panel does not apply Bylaw 19.9.4(b) because DePaul did not promptly acknowledgeand accept responsibility forall violations. Although DePaul c

13 ontested the recruiting benefits and hea
ontested the recruiting benefits and head coach responsibility violationstheCOI has applied the factor in priorcases in which a party contests some allegations. See University of Tennessee at Chattanooga(2018) (determining that the factor applied when the head mentennis coach contested violations bt repeatedly acknowledged his shortcomingsand accepted responsibility).The panel recognizes thatDePaul tooksomecorrective action to addresshead coach control. However,nlike in Tennessee at ChattanoogaDePaul never acceptedfull responsibility for the head coach responsibility violation. DePaulcontinued to contendthrough the hearing that the associate head coach acted to undermine the head coachand that the head coach was not at faultThe head coach, however, could havstopped or prevented the violations if he promoted an atmosphere of compliance or monitored his staff. Bylaw 19.9.4(b) does not apply. Withrespect to Bylaw 19.9.4(e), DePauldid not demonstrate that it implemented a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of control standards. The COI has regularlyappliedthe mitigating factor when the compliance systemwas in place at the time of the violations detectedthe violations. See North Carolina Central University(2018) (determining that the factor did not apply because the institution implemented complianceimprovements after the violations);Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick(2017)(determining that the factor did notapply because the violations went undetected over many years); and University of Missouri, Columbia(2016)(determining that the factor did not apply because improvements and enhancements made to thesystem should have been in placeprior to the violationsThe panel acknowledgesthat DePaul has emphasized rules education, monitoring and accessibilityof the associate compliance director, andother elements of itscompliance programDePaul did not show, however, that thecompliance methodswere in place at the time of the violationsand detected the violations. Bylaw 19.9.4(e) thus does not apply. DePaulselfreported Level III violations from the 201314 through 201718 academic years. ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. Aggravating Factors for the Head CoachNoneMitigating Factor for the Head Coach(h): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violationsby the head coach Like DePaul, the head coach argued that Bylaw 19.9.4(b), Prompt acknowledgement of theviolation, acceptance of responsibility and meaningful corrective measures and/or penaltiesappliedas a mitigatingfactorHe contended that he immediately acknowledged that a violation occurred and took corrective measures. The

14 panel, however, does not apply Bylaw 19.
panel, however, does not apply Bylaw 19.9.4(b) to the head coach. Although he acknowledged that some violations occurred, hedisputedthe head coach responsibility violation.He did not acknowledge his shortcomings or accept responsibility eitherhis response to the or at the hearingInstead, he assigned all the fault tothe associate head coach. Even with the associate head coachintentionally violating legislation, the head coach ran a program where staff members were afraid to reportviolationsor ask questions. The head coachdid not recognize this cultureof silenLike with DePaul, the factor does not apply to the head coach. Aggravating Factors for the Associate Head Coach(e):Unethical conduct(f)Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct(j): Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust; and(m): Intentional, willful orblatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.The associate head coachdisagreed thatBylaw 19.9.3(h)Persons of authority condoned,participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conductapplied.The panel, however, applies the factor. As a person of authority,the associate head coach condoned, participated in and negligently disregarded the violation. Mitigating Factors for the Associate HeadCoach (b): Prompt acknowledgment of the violation and acceptance of responsibility; and ): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by the associatehead coach. The enforcement staff and associate head coach agreed on the mitigating factors. ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. All the penalties prescribed in this case are independent andsupplemental to any action the NCAA Division I Committee on Academics has taken or may take through its assessment of postseason ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. In prescribing penalties, the panel considered DePaulcooperation in all parts of this case and determinesit wasconsistent with DePaulobligation under Bylaw 19.2.3. The panel also considered DePauls corrective actions, which are contained in Appendix One.The panel prescribes the following penalties (selfimposed penalties are so noted):Core Penalties for Level IStandardViolations (Bylaw 19.9.5)Probation: Threeyears of probation from July , through July , 2022Financial penalty:DePaulshall pay a fine of $5,000 plusone percent of the budget for the mens basketball programRecruiting restrictions: A reduction of six recruitingperson days from the permissible number of recruitingperson days in

15 men's basketball during the 201718 acade
men's basketball during the 201718 academic year. (Selfimposed.)A reduction of six recruitingperson daysfrom the available number of ruitingperson daysmen's basketball in April 2019(Selfimposed.)Core Penaltyfor Level IMitigatedViolation (Bylaw 19.9.5)Head coach restriction: Although not directly participating in the impermissible recruiting benefits, thehead coach violated head coach responsibility legislation when he failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance and monitor his staff. Bylaw 19.9.5.5 and the Figure 1 penalty guidelines contemplate head coach suspensions to address head coach responsibility violations. Therefore, the head coach shall be suspended from the first three regular season contestsof the 2019seasonThe provisions of this suspension require that the head coach not be present in the facility where games are played and have no contact or communication with men's basketball coaching staff members or studentathletes during the threecontestsuspension period. The prohibition includes all coaching activities for the period of time that begins at 12:01 a.m.n the dayof thecontest and ends at 11:59 p.m. that dayDuring that period, the head coach may not participate in any coachingactivities, including, but not limited to, team travel, practice, video study, recruiting and team meetings. The results of those contests from which the head coach is suspended shall not count towardthe head coach's career coaching record. The fine from the budget for the program must be calculated in accordance with COI Internal Operating Procedures (IOPs)and 51. Thethreecontestsuspension 10 percent of thetypicalmens basketball seasonin accordance withBylaw 17.3.5 ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. Although each case is unique,theduration and nature of thesuspensionareconsistent with suspensionsprescribed in prior cases. See The Ohio State University(2017)concludingthata Level IIMitigated head coach responsibility violation occurred and prescribing a twocontest suspension for thehead men's swimming coach who failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance)Like in prior cases, the circumstances of this case warrant athreecontest suspensionwith prohibition of coaching activities the dates of the contests. Thesuspensionfallswithin the rangefor Level IIMitigated head coach responsibility violationsthe membershipapproved penalty guidelines. Core Penaltyfor Level Aggravatediolatio(Bylaw 19.9.5)Showause rder: The associate head coachviolated the principle of ethical conductwhen he knowingly violated recruiting legislationTherefore, shall be subject to a threeyear showcause order fromJuly 23, 2019,July 22, 2022Pursuant to COIIOP 51, if the associate head coachseeks empl

16 oyment or affiliation with any athletica
oyment or affiliation with any athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the threeyear showcause period, any employing institution shall be required to contact the Office of the Committees on Infractions (OCOI) to make arrangements to show cause why restrictions on all athletically related activity should not apply.Although each case is unique, the showcause order consistent with those prescribed in priorSee Prairie View A&M concluding that aLevel IIAggravated ethical conduct violation occurredand prescribing a twoyear show order for an assistant men's basketball coach who knowingly arranged payment for an online course a studentathlete needed to regain eligibility) and University of California, Los Angeles(2016) (concluding that a Level IIAggravated ethical conduct violation occurred anprescribing a twoyear showcause order and required attendance at aNCAA Regional Rules Seminarfor an associate head football coachwho arranged for and provided impermissible expenses for prospectsLike in these cases, the showcause order falls within the membershipapproved penalty guidelines. Additional Penalties for Level IStandardViolations (Bylaw 19.9.7)Public reprimand and censurethrough the release of the public infractions decisionVacation oeam and individual records: neligible participation in the menbasketballprogram occurred as a result ofviolations in this case.Therefore, pursuant to Bylaws 19.9.7(g) and 31.2.2.3and COI IOP 5DePaulshall vacate all regular season and conference tournament records and participation in which the ineligible studentathlete competed from the time he became ineligible through the time he wasreinstated as eligible for competition.This Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7the COImay prescribe vacation of records when studentathlete competewhile ineligible. Among other examples, vacation is particularly appropriate when a case involves serious intentional violations or the direct involvement of a coach. See COI IOP 56. None of these factors, however, are necessary for the COI to prescribe the penalty. See North Carolina Central UniversityNCAA Division I Infractions Appeals CommitteeReport No. 499 (2018)he COI has consistently prescribedvacation in cases in which theinstitution provided impermissiblerecruiting benefitsthat resulted in ineligible competitionSee San Francisco; University of Louisville andRadford ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. order of vacation includes all regular season competition and conference tournaments. Further, if the ineligible studentathlete participated in NCAA postseason competition at any time he ineligible,DePauls participation in the postseason contests in which the ineligible competition occurred

17 shall be vacated. The individual recor
shall be vacated. The individual records of the ineligible studentathlete shallalso be vacated. However, the individual finishes and any awards for all eligible studentathletes shallbe retained. Further, DePauls records regarding its athletics programs, as well as the records of head coaches, shallreflect the vacated records and be recorded in all publications in which such records are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution that may subsequently hire the affected head coachshall similarly reflectthe vacated wins in hiscareer records documented in media guides and other publications cited above. Head coaches with vacated wins on their records may not count the vacated wins toward specific honors or victory milestonessuch as 100or 500career victories. Any public reference to the vacated recordsshall be removed from the athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Any trophies awarded by the NCAA in men's basketball shall be returned to the Association.Finally, to aid in accurately reflecting all institutional and studentathlete vacations, statistics and records in official NCAA publications and archives, the sports information director (or other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics office and appropriate conference officials to identify the specific studentathletes and contests impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must provide the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics office with a written reportdetailing those discussions. This written reportwill be maintained in the permanent files of the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics office. This written report must be delivered to the office no later than 45 days following the release of this decisionor, if the institution appeals the vacation penalty, at the conclusion of the appeals process. A copy of the written report shall also be delivered to the at the same time.During theperiod of probation, DePaushall: Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation to instruct coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all institutional staff members with responsibility for recruiting and certification legislationSubmit a preliminary report to the OCOI bySeptember setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program;File with the OCOI annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program June 1during each year of probation. Particular emphasis shall be placed on r

18 ules educationrelated to recruiting, coa
ules educationrelated to recruiting, coaching activity, ethical conductand head coach responsibility ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionJulyPage No. Inform prospectin the menbasketballprogramin writing that DePaulis on probation for hreeyearsand detail the violations committed. If a prospect takes an official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation must be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided before a prospectsigns an NLI; andPublicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations and the affected sport programs and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions decision located on the athleticdepartments main webpage landing pageand in the media guides for men's basketballThe institutions statement must:(i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include the length of the probationary period associated with the case; and (iii) give members of the general public a clear indication of what happened in the case to allow the public (particularly prospectsand their families) to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. statement that refers only to the probationary period with nothing more is not sufficient.Following the receipt of the final compliance report and prior to the conclusion of probation, DePauls president shall provide a letter to the COI affirming that DePauls current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.The COIadvises DePaul, the head coachand the associate head coachthat theyshould take every precaution to ensure that theyobserve the terms of the penalties. The will monitor DePaulwhile it is on probation to ensure compliance with thepenalties and terms of probation and may extend the probationary period, among other action, if DePauldoes not comply or commits additional violations. Likewise, ny actionby DePaul, the head coachor the associate head coach contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for prescribing more severe penalties and/or may result inadditional allegations and violations.NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANELNorman BayJody ConradtJason LeonardJoel MaturiJoseph NovakDave Roberts, Chief Hearing OfficerSarah Wake ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionAPPENDIX ONEJulyPage No. APPENDIXONE DEPAULCORRECTIVE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS Theathletics department and the mens basketballprogram implemented a variety of new policies to assist in the area of head coach controlas well as sport administrator oversight:Recruiting and University Bus

19 iness Travel: Per existing versity polic
iness Travel: Per existing versity policy, head coachesare responsible for preapproval of all niversityrelated travel. In this revised policy, headcoaches will also be responsible for auditing of all niversityrelated travel for allindividuals who report to the head coach.Head coaches are to conduct reviews ofexpense reports at intervals determined appropriate by the coach and the sportadministrator. This policy has been expanded so that head coaches will work moreclosely with their assistants to know when, where and why they are traveling on behalf ofDePaul, with confirmation after the fact to verify that the staff member has gonewhere he/she had been approved to This policy clarifies specific reportingrequirements that enhance the existing policy to add an additional layer of oversight inaddition to existing policy.This revised policy has been added to thethletics taffandbook. Thispolicy was effective December 1, Vacation/Sick Requests: Head coaches are required to document their preapproval ofallvacation requests to include the ssistant irector of usiness when approval has beengranted.The previous thletics epartment policy did not specify how head coacheswere to communicate absences, and the update has clarified the specific process include use of DePaul email and inclusion of the ssistant irector of usiness.This policy was ffectiveDecember 1, 2018s Basketball Specific Items: The title ssociate ead oachis no longer used bythe mens basketball programThe ead oach, in an effort to clarify the scope of hisown position, made the choice to eliminate any element of confusion regarding who isultimately responsible for the operations of the mens basketball program. Additionally, theassistant coaching staff underwent a complete change as did the makeup of threemembers of the operations staff.This was effective beginning the19 academic yearRules Education: Thecurrentassociate athletics director for complianceconducted a ruleseducationsession for all DePaul head coaches on December 10, 2018.The meeting startedwith a statement from the athletics director, where she clearly stated DePaulcommitment to NCAA compliance and reiterated the residents desire for the same.In thismeeting, the new policies werediscussed at length.The purpose of thsession was to provide guidance on best practices for creating, maintaining and documenting aculture of compliance within each head coachs program.All head coaches were required toattend, and the session was videotaped for those not in attendance.In addition, sportsadministrators were required to attend. The ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionAPPENDIX ONEJulyPage No. session was also attended by the athletics director and the nterim associate athletics director for compliance. During the meeti

20 ng, the head coach shared his experience
ng, the head coach shared his experience inimplementing the policies. Head coach responsibility also was discussed at anOctober 2018 allstaff compliancemeeting. ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionAPPENDIX TWOJulyPage No. PPENDIX TWO Bylaw Citations Division I 201516 Manual 10.01.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship.Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating studentathletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as awhole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.10.1 Unethical Conduct.Unethical conduct by a prospectiveor enrolled studentathlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:(c)Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled studentathlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid;11.1.1.1 Responsibility of Head Coach.An institutions head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. An institutions head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance within his or her program and shall monitor the activities of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.11.7.6 Limitations on Number of Coaches and OffCampus Recruiters. There shall be a limit on the number ofcoaches (other than graduate assistant coaches per Bylaws 11.01.3 and 11.01.4, undergraduate assistant coaches per Bylaw 11.01.5 and volunteer coaches per Bylaw 11.01.6) who may be employed by an institution and who may contact or evaluate prospective studentathletes off campus in each sport as follows:Sport LimitBasketball, Mens.................................. 412.11.1 Obligation of Member Institution to Withhold StudentAthlete FromCompetition.If a studentathlete is ineligible under theprovisions of the constitution, bylaws or other regulations of the Association, the institution shall be obligated to apply immediately the applicable rule and to withhold the studentathlete from all intercollegiate competition. The institution may appeal to the Committee on StudentAthlete Reinstatement for restoration of the studentathlete's eligibility as provided in Bylaw 12.12 if it concludes that the circumstances warrant restoration.13.1.2.1 General Rule. All

21 inperson, onand offcampus recruiting co
inperson, onand offcampus recruiting contacts with a prospective studentathlete or the prospective studentathlete's relatives or legal guardians shall be made only by authorized institutional staff members. Such contact, as well as correspondence and telephone ��DePaul University Public Infractions DecisionAPPENDIX TWOJulyPage No. calls, by representatives of an institution's athletics interests is prohibited except as otherwise permitted in this section.13.1.2.5 OffCampus Contacts or Evaluations. Only those coaches who are identified by the institution, in accordance with Bylaws 11.7.4.2, 11.7.5.2and 11.7.6, may contact or evaluate prospective studentathletes off campus. Institutional staff members (e.g., faculty members) may contact prospective studentathletes for recruiting purposes in all sports, on campus, or within 30 miles of campus duringthe prospective studentathlete's official visit.13.2.1 General Regulation. An institution's staff member or any representative of its athletics interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for or giving or offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to a prospective studentathlete or his or her relatives or friends, other than expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. Receipt of a benefit by a prospective studentathlete or his or her relatives or friends isnot a violation of NCAA legislation if it is determined that the same benefit is generally available to the institution's prospective students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.13.2.1.1 Specific Prohibitions. Specifically prohibited financial aid, benefits and arrangements include, but are not limited to, the following:(k) Expenses for academic services (e.g., tutoring, test preparation) to assist in the completion of initialeligibility or transfereligibility requirements or improvement of the prospective studentathlete's academic profile in conjunction with a waiver request.13.15.1.9 Academic Services. An institution shall not provide academic expenses or services (e.g., tutoring, test preparation) to assist a prospective studentathlete in completing initialeligibility or transfereligibility requirements or in improving his or her academic profile in conjunction with a waiver request.16.8.1 Permissible.An institution, conference or the NCAA may provide actual and necessary expenses to a studentathlete to represent the institution in practice and competition (including expenses for activities/travel that are incidental to practice or competition). In order to receive competitionrelated expenses, the studentathlete must be eligible for competition