SMU statements on NCAA Infractions

[PonyPride]

Earlier today, SMU received a report from the NCAA Committee on Infractions regarding alleged violations in our Department of Athletics dating to 2013. The issuance of the report concludes another step in a process that began in 2013 and included a Notice of Inquiry in May 2013, a Notice of Allegations issued in November 2014 and an appearance by SMU leadership before the Committee on Infractions in June 2015.

The Committee on Infractions found that three former staff members committed violations of NCAA Bylaws - one within the athletics compliance department, one within the men’s basketball program and one in the men’s golf program. The Committee also found that Head Men’s Basketball Coach Larry Brown failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance in the program. The full COI report can be found at http://www.smu.edu/news/ncaa.

SMU is reviewing the full report to determine if the University will appeal any findings and/or penalties. We are particularly concerned about sanctions that are punitive against student-athletes who were not involved in any infractions. According to NCAA Bylaws, SMU has 15 days to notify the Committee on Appeals or an intention to file an appeal.

The NCAA noted SMU’s “prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility, imposition of meaningful corrective measures, and affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter.”

The University

The Committee on Infractions determined that the University fulfilled its terms of a probation stemming from a 2011 compliance issue and that the University did not lack institutional control. During the investigation, a former director of compliance admitted that he neglected to collect attendance documents for two compliance educational sessions that had, in fact, taken place. The former employee photocopied attendance documents from previous sessions and submitted them to replace the missing documents. The employee was terminated in April 2013.

Despite its confidence in its policies and system, in 2011, the University and the Department of Athletics commissioned a full external review of its compliance training and education programs, its reporting policies for coaches and staff and its overall monitoring of our programs. In recent years, SMU has added two full-time staff members to the compliance department as well as a full-time intern and has upgraded its compliance software to allow for real-time monitoring and audits. The compliance department has also communicated daily with all staff, coaches and student-athletes throughout the year on compliance education and related matters.

The University is pleased that the Committee acknowledged the comprehensive and robust compliance system in place at SMU. The University recognizes the need to be particularly diligent in this area, and is confident that it meets or exceeds industry standards, with regular oversight and reporting involving a variety of campus constituents.

Men’s Basketball

The Committee found that a former administrative assistant in the men’s basketball office completed an online course from National University Virtual High School on behalf of a prospective student-athlete who had verbally committed to SMU. The Committee found that the former employee exhibited unethical conduct in her duties while at SMU and during the investigation. The online course was ultimately deemed not necessary for the eligibility of the student. SMU respects and agrees with the Committee’s decision that academic misconduct occurred and that the employee had acted in an unethical manner. The incident was isolated and carried out by an individual acting in conflict with the University’s clearly-stated expectations and standards and without the Head Coach’s knowledge. It is important to emphasize that this transgression did not involve SMU coursework or faculty.

The administrative assistant resigned in September 2014. In addition, the University imposed several proactive sanctions, including reducing by two the number of scholarships available for men’s basketball for the 2015-2016 school year, as well as placing recruiting restrictions on the men’s basketball coaching staff, a reduction in the number of official and unofficial visits by prospective student-athletes, restrictions on the number of communications between men’s basketball staff and prospective student-athletes and restrictions on the number of days that men’s basketball staff can recruit off campus. The University also restricted the number of complimentary tickets available to prospective student-athletes.

In addition, the Committee imposed a one-year postseason ban on men’s basketball; restricted nine scholarships over the next three years (though the self-imposed two scholarship reductions will count toward that limit), and increased recruiting restrictions.

Because the Committee determined that a student-athlete competed while ineligible in 2013-2014, the Committee has vacated victories from the 2013-2014 season.

The Committee also found that Coach Brown failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program and did not report a potential violation of NCAA rules. The Committee suspended Coach Brown for 30% of the upcoming season’s games, and he will be prohibited from any contact with the program during his suspension. Coach Brown was also issued a two-year show cause penalty with requirements to fulfill the show-cause detailed in the report. Coach Brown also must attend NCAA rules seminars for two years.

The University is in agreement, as is Coach Brown, that he should have reported a conversation that occurred during the investigation to the Department’s compliance office or other SMU officials. However, the University disagrees with the conclusion of the Committee that Coach Brown failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

While we accept responsibility for violations, the individuals responsible for the infractions have been held accountable both by the University and by the Committee on Infractions. To punish the student-athletes in the men’s basketball by prohibiting a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete in the postseason is simply wrong. It is not what our system of governance should be about and we are considering our response.


Men’s Golf

With regard to Men’s Golf, the Committee found—and the University’s agrees—that a former head golf coach had impermissible contact with prospective student-athletes, impermissibly gave or sold at a discount equipment and apparel to prospective student-athletes and was aware of impermissible third-party contact with prospective student-athletes. In addition, the Committee found that the former head coach exhibited unethical conduct in not being truthful during the investigation.

The coach resigned in August 2014. In addition, the University self-imposed sanctions on the men’s golf program, including the reduction of 12 percent of available scholarships (or .54 of a full scholarship) for the 2015-2016 school year. In addition, recruiting restrictions were placed on the coaching staff limiting the number of official and unofficial visits by prospective student-athletes, restricting the number of communications between the coaching staff and prospective student-athletes, and restricting the number of days in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 that the coaching staff can recruit off campus.

The Committee imposed further penalties on golf, imposing a postseason ban for the 2015-16 season, increasing the reduction of scholarships to 25% of available scholarships over the next three years and imposing additional recruiting restrictions. Finally, the Committee issued a five-year show-cause for the former men’s golf coach.

The University strongly disagrees with the postseason ban for men’s golf as the discipline is punitive for every student-athlete and coach, none of whom were involved in the infractions.



Statement from President Gerald Turner:
“When these allegations first came to light, the University cooperated fully with the NCAA, accepted responsibility, imposed corrective measures and took strong action when it believed that our employees failed to live up to the core values of SMU. Our compliance program is among the best in the nation, but we acknowledge that even the strongest compliance programs can fall short when individuals act in an unethical manner. SMU has a proud history of academic and athletic excellence, and we are committed to full compliance with NCAA bylaws and with our ethical standards. Moving forward, we know that we can—and will—do better.”


Statement from Director of Athletics Rick Hart:
“SMU is committed to academic and athletic excellence, and we take seriously any conduct that is counter to our mission and to our values. I am saddened for our men’s basketball and men’s golf student-athletes – especially our seniors – who work hard to earn the right to compete in the postseason. It is unfair to penalize these students. Under President Turner’s directive, we cooperated fully with the NCAA, took swift action in regards to employees who violated rules, and sought the truth no matter where the path took us. We adhered to our values in taking action and, as a result, are a stronger athletics department.”


Statement from Head Men’s Basketball Coach Larry Brown:
“Leading the SMU men’s basketball program is an honor and a responsibility that I take very seriously. That duty incudes helping our young men develop into people of character and to ensuring that we pursue our goals with integrity. I am saddened and disappointed that the Committee on Infractions believes that I did not fully fulfill my duties and I will consider my options to challenge that assertion in the coming days. I truly believe that our program has dedicated itself unwaveringly to the ideals of academic integrity and NCAA compliance. Still, there was a violation in our program and I take responsibility for that and offer my sincere apologies to the University community.”

[Stallion]

we had to vacate 2013-2014 victories to

[smusic 00]

It's a good, strong initial response. Sounds like an appeal of the post season ban is forthcoming.

[Puckhead48E]

I would hope that they had already planned for this as a potential worst-case scenario outcome. I would like to see them come out calm but firm in a statement (at 1400) that they understand the importance of these violations, which is why they reported them, but will strongly use all means available to correct an excessive and overreaching punishment that far exceeds anything similar in nature.

I am still on the fence about listing other schools violations and their punishment to show the fact that we get punished far more heavily than anyone else...really think the lawyers need to say that to provide that degree of separation from the school in re badmouthing other institutions whose members could be on the appeals board.

Really think most just want the school to show a steely reserve to correct this attack and not crumble.

[Top Twenty]

I agree...the University's statement, as opposed to Dr. Turner's and Rick Hart's, certainly prepares the battlefield for an appeal.

[skyscraper]

All of this

While we accept responsibility for violations, the individuals responsible for the infractions have been held accountable both by the University and by the Committee on Infractions. To punish the student-athletes in the men’s basketball by prohibiting a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete in the postseason is simply wrong. It is not what our system of governance should be about and we are considering our response.

[Fresno Mustang]

Email sent out to SMU Webmail accounts:


Dear Members of the SMU community:

As you know, SMU is fully committed to ethical behavior by every member of our community. Accordingly, when we are presented with conduct that is not only contrary to who we are, but which impacts all who serve and love this institution, we will take immediate corrective action.

To that end, I am disappointed to inform you that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Committee on Infractions has determined that three former members of SMU’s athletics’ staff and Men’s Basketball Coach Larry Brown violated NCAA bylaws. SMU disagrees with some of the Committee’s conclusions and penalties. As we consider an appeal, we are particularly concerned about sanctions that are punitive against student-athletes who were not involved in the infractions. We are committed to moving forward in the best interests of our student-athletes and the University.

The full Committee on Infractions report – as well as our official response – can be found at http://www.smu.edu/news/ncaa.

We believe that our compliance model meets or exceeds industry standards, with regular oversight and reporting involving a variety of campus constituencies. In fact, in 2011, the University and the Department of Athletics commissioned a full external review of our compliance training and education programs, our reporting policies for coaches and staff, and our overall monitoring of athletics programs. We added two full-time compliance staff members and a full-time intern, and we upgraded our compliance software for more real-time monitoring and auditing. However, we can do better—and we will. As this case shows, even the best compliance programs are not immune from individual acts of misjudgment and misbehavior.

We regret any infraction of NCAA bylaws. When these potential allegations first came to light, the University cooperated fully with the NCAA, accepting responsibility, imposing corrective measures and taking decisive action.

SMU has a strong history of academic and athletic excellence. We are committed to ethical behavior in all our programs, including full compliance with NCAA rules. As a proud member of the American Athletic Conference and the NCAA, we value our responsibility as a member institution to act ethically and to follow the letter and spirit of all bylaws.

Moving forward, we will continue our commitment to integrity and to the values on which this institution was founded more than a century ago.

Sincerely,
R. Gerald Turner
President

[RGV Pony]

I agree...the University's statement, as opposed to Dr. Turner's and Rick Hart's, certainly prepares the battlefield for an appeal.

Is this type of appeal different from say an appeal in the 5th circuit or any other US appellate wherein the facts of the case were the facts of the case and the appeal isn't about retrying what was heard by the committee? If so we have to hang out hat on some kind of precedent being violated and since there has been a change in rules, there's not much precedent? Otherwise some procedural irregularity would need to have occurred.. And if not, affirmed?

[mrydel]

If not an appeal, has anyone ever sued the NCAA for punishment to players who have not been involved in the infractions? This has long been the case but I would think there should be some standing against punishing the innocent. That could at least open up the post season.

[Stangs1970]

If North Carolina was hand slapped for what they did and we acted as defined herein, we should fight this inside the NCAA. However, if they are going to take a knee and run the clock on this season causing us to miss post season play we should exhaust all legal remedies.

I have had it with their picking at us when over the years we have seen what state schools get away with in this joke of an association.

Gerald Turner,
Do not be afraid to fight this harshly.

[Junior]

"Consider an appeal"? That had better just be lip service to the weaklings out there. I hope Hart was just trying to say "You bet your [deleted] we're going to appeal!".

[Stallion]

yes basic due process. Initial hearing or trial is a fact finding body. Appellate Court or appellate tribunals generally don't hear evidence although it is some times admissible with newly discovered evidence-but rare. The facts in this case seem pretty well established any way at least after Brown admitted "I lied". The Appellate Court is more concerned with applying established facts to the law and precedent.

[smusportspage]

yes basic due process. Initial hearing or trial is a fact finding body. Appellate Court or appellate tribunals generally don't hear evidence although it is some times admissible with newly discovered evidence-but rare. The facts in this case seem pretty well established any way at least after Brown admitted "I lied". The Appellate Court is more concerned with applying established facts to the law and precedent.

The "lie" was corrected was it not?

[JasonB]

Yes, within the same interview in fact.

I thought it was a good statement. We will file an appeal at the last possible minute to make the appeal process play out as long as possible would be my guess.

[Puckhead48E]

Looking at the punishment, I really think the NCAA has decided to act like a small-town DA trying to mete out justice as he sees fit to best reward himself. NCAA kills us with penalties that far exceed precedent or any foreseeable standard. They throw on all the additional crap just to make sure they have bargaining chips. Now we appeal, and much of this disappears...but not before our entire recruiting class has been destroyed and the seeds have been sown for other programs to always mention "remember that SMU is on probation and the next investigation will definitely lead to lack of institutional control charges and a huge hit." This is the same reason that they waited so long, but were so public, about our punishment. They wanted to ensure they could impact recruiting for this season without offering any ability to respond by the university.

The entire process should be up for review during the appeal and follow-on suit. Need to hit them hard and hold them publicly accountable for not supporting student athletes or holding large programs accountable, thus creating an unequal playing field. There has to be the potential for a good sized suit.