Legend [18278]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20155
Joined: 2/4/01
|
Complete list of U$C Violations- Lets put it in the HOF
Jul 13, 2005, 5:04 PM
|
| View Original Thread |
|
Nothing would be better than to have this list in the HOF for all time
USC and the NCAA enforcement staff have agreed that the institution committed the following violations
of NCAA legislation:
1. Nature of Violation: Recruiting (Improper Benefit); Participation by Ineligible Student-Athlete.
Description of Violation: During the summer of 2001, the former senior associate athletics director for
academic support services arranged for impermissible tutoring assistance for 2 football prospective student-
athletes who had signed National Letters of Intent with USC but who had enrolled in a two year college in
order to earn academic credits necessary to be admitted to USC. The student-athletes were admitted to USC
in the fall, 2001. USC self-reported the violation to on September 11, 2001, declared the student-athletes
ineligible, and required them to make restitution for the value of the tutoring they received. However, the
self-report failed to state that the student-athletes had competed in 2 contests while ineligible, and understated
the amount and value of the tutoring. As a result, the student-athletes competed while ineligible in 2001 and
2002 [Note: student-athlete #1 competed in a total of 11 contests; student-athlete #2 competed in a total of
24 contests]. A corrective self-report was submitted on September 9, 2003.
Type of Violation: Major
USC Self-Reports: USC self-reported the violation on September 11, 2001 and September 9, 2003.
2. Nature of Violation: Ethical Conduct
Description of Violation: The former senior associate athletics director acted contrary to the principles
of ethical conduct in that (1) he arranged and then knowingly allowed impermissible tutoring assistance to
be provided to 2 football prospective student-athletes, (2) knowingly allowed the institution's director of
compliance to prepare and submit an incomplete and inaccurate self-report of the tutoring incident to the
conference office and to the NCAA, and (3) created an environment that discouraged the reporting of possible
NCAA rules violation by his subordinates.
Type of Violation: Major
USC Self Reports: USC self-reported the impermissible tutoring assistance on September 11, 2001 and
September 9, 2003.
3. Nature of Violation: Extra Benefit; Participation By Ineligible Student-Athlete
Description of Violation: A football student-athlete received an impermissible extra benefit when he was
administratively reinstated from academic suspension by an academic dean at the beginning of the spring
semester of 2002 contrary to USC's reinstatement policies. As a result, the student-athlete competed in 12
contests in 2002 while ineligible.
Type of Violation: Major
USC Self-Reports: USC self-reported the potential violation on September 2, 2003.
4. Nature of Violation: Recruiting (Impermissible Contact)
Description of Violation: A former governor of South Carolina who was also a representative of USC's
athletics interests had impermissible contact with up to 12 prospective student-athletes on January 15, 2000
during half-time of a USC men's basketball game, and with 1 prospective student-athlete on November 17,
2001 on the sideline prior to kickoff at a USC football game. [Note: USC had previously self-reported 2
impermissible contacts between the former governor and prospective student-athletes on February 4, 2002.]
Type of Violation: Secondary
USC Self-Reports: USC self-reported the violation on June 26, 2003.
5. Nature of Violation: Recruiting (Presence of Media During Recruiting Contact; Comments Before
Signing)
Description of Violation: The former head football coach had a recruiting contact with 2 prospective
student-athletes while a member of the media was present. A former assistant football coach made
impermissible comments regarding a prospective student-athlete's intention to attend USC.
Type of Violation: Secondary
USC Self-Reports: USC self-reported the violation on January 26, 2004.
6. Nature of Violation: Recruiting (Official Paid Visits)
Description of Violation: A prospective student-athlete was transported by his student host beyond the
allowable 30 mile radius of USC's campus during his official paid visit so as to pick up a second prospective
student-athlete who was also being recruited by USC. The second prospect accompanied the first prospect
back to campus and spent the night in the room provided by USC to the first prospect, thus constituting an
official paid visit to USC. The second prospect had already taken his one allowable official paid visit to USC.
[Note: neither prospective student-athlete signed a National Letter of Intent with USC.]
Type of Violation: Secondary
USC Self-Reports: No self-report has been filed by USC.
7. Nature of Violation: Summer Camp Brochure
Description of Violation: Prior to the 2002 summer football camp, USC distributed a camp brochure that
included information unrelated to specific camp events and activities. [Note: A change in NCAA legislation
effective August 1, 2003 made a brochure similar to the 2002 brochure permissible.]
Type of Violation: Secondary
USC Self-Reports: USC self-reported the violation on September 30, 2002.
8. Nature of Violation: Voluntary Athletically Related Activities (Summer Workouts); Requirement for
Practice
Description of Violation: On some occasions from 1999 to 2002, the former head strength and
conditioning coach for football conducted summer workouts for football student-athletes that 5 student-
athletes considered to be non-voluntary. USC's football coaching staff allowed 1 football student-athlete to
practice for 1 to 2 weeks at the beginning of football season in 2001 despite the fact that he was not enrolled
in a full-time program of studies.
Type of Violation: Major
USC Self-Reports: No self-report has been filed by USC.
9. Nature of Violation: Extra Benefit
Description of Violation: Athletics department employees provided local transportation to a football
student-athlete that exceeded the "occasional basis" for transportation permitted by NCAA legislation.
Type of Violation: The NCAA enforcement staff regards this violation to be major. USC regards this
violation to be secondary.
USC Self-Reports: No self-report has been filed by USC.
10. Nature of Violation: Institutional Control
Description of Violation: USC demonstrated a lack of appropriate control and monitoring of (a) its
program for investigating and reporting NCAA rules violations in that it failed to conduct adequate and
complete investigations into the impermissible provision of tutoring assistance to prospects (Violation No.
1 above), and the impermissible recruiting contacts between the former governor of South Carolina and
prospects (Violation No. 4 above), and (b) its academic readmission process as it related to the readmission
of an academically suspended football student-athlete (Violation No. 3 above).
Type of Violation: Major
USC Self-Reports: No self-report has been filed by USC.III.
USC's Position Statement (as contained in the Summary Disposition Report).
The institution is deeply disturbed that violations have occurred. President Andrew A. Sorensen and the
outgoing Director of Athletics, Dr. Mike McGee, have overseen an extensive review of the institution's rules
compliance and monitoring program and have directed that everyone associated with the athletics program
recommit their best efforts to assuring compliance with all NCAA rules and regulations. Section H contains
a report of the corrective actions taken by the institution as a result of the institution's review.
The institution agrees that by definition, this is a major infractions case as a result of the violations described
in Finding Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10. In Finding Nos. 1 and 2, the former senior associate athletics director for
academic support services became too personally involved with the efforts of two incoming two-year college
prospective student-athletes to earn summer credits so as to establish eligibility upon their fall enrollments.
Specifically, the former administrator arranged tutoring services for the young men, and then, upon learning
that the tutoring support was not permitted by the rules because the young men technically were still prospects
(they had signed commitments but had not yet enrolled), he failed to discontinue the tutoring assistance and
to disclose immediately the violation. Further, once he disclosed the violation, the former administrator failed
to ensure that the full facts of the matter were reported. As a result, the two student-athletes had their
eligibility reinstated based in part on inaccurate and incomplete information and they subsequently competed
for a period of time while ineligible.
Also, as noted in Finding No. 2, some employees in the former administrator's unit felt he created an
environment in contradiction to stated departmental policy in which they were not free to report compliance
concerns without first reporting them to him. Such an environment is not acceptable. The institution finds
no excuse for the former administrator's conduct and agrees that for the reasons referenced, his conduct
exhibited unethical behavior as defined by NCAA legislation. As a consequence, the institution arranged for
his employment at the institution to end. The institution does ask that the Committee recognize that while
the former administrator acted inappropriately, the two involved student-athletes did complete their own
academic work and were unaware that their eligibility had been improperly reinstated. Further, the institution
filed a corrected self-report with the NCAA upon discovering that its initial eligibility reinstatement request
had contained inaccurate and incomplete information. The institution also calls to the Committee's attention
the fact that significant personality and philosophical issues existed between the former administrator and
those members of his staff who provided testimony about the environment created by the former
administrator. These differences resulted in the former administrator making personnel changes within his
staff affecting the employment of these individuals by the institution. While the institution does not dispute
that the violations as stated in Finding No. 2 occurred, the institution believes the Committee should be aware
of the context within which these individuals provided testimony against the former administrator when
considering the tone and content of their comments.
The institution also acknowledges that as described in Finding No. 3, an academic dean deviated from
institutional readmission procedures in readmitting a student-athlete from an academic suspension. As a
result, the student-athlete competed while ineligible due to what amounts to an extra benefit. Fortunately, the
investigation revealed that the dean acted as she did for reasons that had nothing to do with the young man's
status as a student-athlete, and because she had a good-faith belief that she had the authority to reinstate the
young man on her own.
Because of these violations and the fact that the full facts were not detected by the institution through its own
monitoring systems, the institution also agrees that its control and monitoring systems should have been better
in those areas. See Finding No. 10.
Finally, with regard to the other violations contained in this report, they are secondary in nature with the
exception of Finding No. 8, which relates to out-of-season conditioning sessions. It is noteworthy, however,
that the enforcement staff has concluded that the strength and conditioning staff member in charge of the out-
of-season workouts did not knowingly and willfully commit violations. Regardless of whether violations are
secondary or are unintentional, the institution has initiated the steps necessary to better ensure that even these
types of violations are a rare occurrence.
IV. NCAA Enforcement Staff Position Statement (as contained in the Summary Disposition Report).
While this case involves a number of different types of violations, at least one theme emerged from three of
the violations of this case. That theme involved efforts to keep or get several top football student-athletes
eligible, but done so in violation of NCAA rules. A key person in some of these efforts was Tom Perry, the
then senior associate athletics director for academic support services. One witness reported that Perry had
an attitude of getting things done any way he could. In the situations described in Finding No. 1 involving
Perry's efforts to get a tutor to help two prospects in their classes, which were necessary for their eligibility,
and in Finding No. 9 involving student-athlete and the transportation provided to ensure that attended class
to maintain his eligibility, those efforts of Perry resulted in NCAA violations. Particularly troubling to the
enforcement staff is Perry's violation of the NCAA principles of ethical conduct, as noted in Finding No. 2.
In that situation, Perry, as one of the institution's top athletics administrators, engaged in three distinct
violations of the principles of ethical conduct. It should be noted that Perry cooperated with the enforcement
staff.
In addition to Perry's conduct, there is the significant finding that the institution failed to exercise appropriate
institutional control in three instances as noted in Finding No. 10.
Regarding Finding No. 8 involving Pat Moorer, the institution's strength and conditioning coach, the
enforcement staff notes that Moorer was the primary actor in the finding, which the enforcement staff
considers to be a major violation. However, the enforcement staff does not believe that Moorer's conduct was
such that an unethical conduct charge was warranted. Also, Moorer cooperated with the institution and the
enforcement staff during this inquiry. The enforcement staff further notes that the institution has taken some
disciplinary action regarding Moorer related to this finding. Nevertheless, because Moorer was the primary
actor in a major violation, the enforcement staff was required to notify him that he is considered to be at risk
as the committee could impose a show cause order related to him.
V. Other Issues.
In addition to the above violations of NCAA legislation involving the football program, on February 9, 2005
USC self-reported a violation involving 6 baseball student-athletes. While not a part of the football
investigation, the matter has been included in the "Review of Other Issues" section of the summary
disposition report for the consideration of the Committee on Infractions.
Nature of Violation: Extra Benefit
Description of Violation: 6 baseball student-athletes received an extra benefit from a representative of
USC athletics interests who owns a Columbia-area public golf course and who waived greens and cart fees
for the student-athletes.
Type of Violation: The NCAA enforcement staff regards this violation to be major. USC regards this
violation to be secondary.
USC Self-Reports: USC self-reported the violation on February 9, 2005.
Corrective Actions Taken By USC.
USC has taken the following corrective actions in response to the violations of NCAA legislation outlined
in the summary disposition report:
An outside compliance consultant, Collegiate Sports Practice Group of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC,
has been retained (a) to conduct a thorough review of the institution's athletics compliance systems and assist
with the development of an enhanced athletics compliance monitoring program to ensure that each office on
campus that regularly comes into contact with an athletics related matter is thoroughly educated on applicable
NCAA legislation and clearly informed of the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of that office, and (b)
to develop written policies and procedures for the investigation of possible NCAA violations of the reporting
of confirmed violations.
USC will develop enhanced educational programs on out-of-season practice time issues, media presence
during the recruiting process and the activities of student hosts. The out-of-season practice time program will
be implemented during the 2005 summer. Compliance programs related to media presence and student host
offerings will be incorporated into the educational offerings at the beginning of the 2005-06 academic year.
Athletics tutors will be required to sign a written affiant statement acknowledging that he/she has
undergone training on and understands NCAA rules and regulations. The athletics Tutor Manual will be
edited to remove any references to the permissibility of a tutor providing occasional local transportation, and
USC issued an Institutional Policy Update clarifying that such activities are prohibited.
USC will amend its official visit procedures to have both the visiting prospective student-athlete and the
student host sign a form at the completion of the visit documenting all activities that occurred during the visit,
the persons present and any monies that were expended.
USC will amend its summer camp procedures to require a pre-approval process (including brochures and
other printed materials) as well as a post-camp audit of attendees, employees and expenditures.
Proposed Penalties.
USC has proposed that the Committee on Infractions impose the following penalties as a result of the
violations of NCAA legislation outlined above:
1. A 2-year period of probation effective with the date of the submission of the summary disposition report.
A limitation of 50 on the number of permissible expense paid campus visits in the sport of football for
both the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. This represents a reduction of six from the legislatively
allowed maximum of 56 per year.
A limitation of 2 fewer total financial aid awards in the sport of football than otherwise permitted by
NCAA legislation for both the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years.
|
|
50
