You are on page 1of 8

APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY

PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION


December 2, 2016
I. INTRODUCTION
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of
the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and the public. The
committee is charged with deciding infractions cases involving member institutions and their
staffs.1 This case involved a text message violation committed by a former assistant football coach
at Appalachian State University.2 A panel of the committee considered this case through the
cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agreed to the primary facts and
violations, as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (SDR). The panel proposed further
penalties to the institution and the former assistant coach. Because they agreed to the violation
and penalties, there is no opportunity to appeal.
All parties agreed a former assistant coach engaged in impermissible text communications with
the mother of a prospective student-athlete. In fall 2012, the prospect and his family took an
unofficial visit to the institution. Even though the institution was not recruiting the prospect, the
former assistant coach knowingly sent the prospect's mother 416 impermissible text messages over
a four-month period. Generally, the text messages related to the admissions process and seeking
the prospect's enrollment at the institution. Others were personal in nature. The parties agreed the
conduct violated existing recruiting bylaws. The panel agrees a Level II violation occurred.
The panel accepts the parties' factual agreements and that violations occurred in this case. Based
on the timing of the violations, the panel used the current penalty guidelines. After considering
the aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel classifies the case as Level II-Mitigated for the
institution and Level II-Standard for the former assistant coach. Utilizing the penalty guidelines
and NCAA bylaws authorizing additional penalties, the panel prescribes the following core
penalties: a financial penalty for the institution and a one-year show-cause order involving
recruiting restrictions for the former assistant coach.

Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions members. Decisions
issued by hearing panels are made on behalf of the Committee on Infractions.

2 A member of the Sun Belt Conference, the institution's total enrollment is approximately 18,000. The institution sponsors nine
men's and nine women's sports. This is the institution's first major, Level I or Level II infractions case.

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


December 2, 2016
Page No. 2
__________

II. CASE HISTORY


This case originated in June 2, 2015, when the prospect's father provided the institution with copies
of text messages between a football assistant coach and the prospect's mother. Because the text
messages appeared to violate NCAA recruiting legislation, the institution began an investigation.
On June 9, 2015, the institution interviewed the former assistant coach about the text messages,
where the institution confirmed that the conduct violated recruiting legislation. On June 15, 2015,
the institution contacted the NCAA enforcement staff to detail its preliminary findings, and on
June 29, 2015, the former assistant coach resigned.
On February 18, 2016, the institution self-reported the violation to the enforcement staff. On April
7, 2016, the enforcement staff provided the institution with a verbal notice of inquiry. Beginning
in late April, the enforcement staff began conducting interviews, and on July 25, 2016, provided
the institution and former assistant coach with a draft notice of allegations. The following day, the
former assistant coach agreed to process the case through summary disposition. On August 1,
2016, the institution also agreed to summary disposition.
On October 27, 2016, the parties submitted the SDR to the COI. On November 10, 2016, a panel
of the COI considered the case. On November 14, 2016, the panel proposed additional penalties
to the institution and former assistant coach. The penalties included a required financial penalty
and an expansion of the restrictions placed on the former assistant coach by his current institution.
On November 16, 2016, the former assistant coach accepted the panel's proposed show-cause
order. The following day, the institution accepted the panel's proposed additional penalties.
III. PARTIES' AGREEMENTS
The parties jointly submitted a SDR that identifies an agreed-upon factual basis, violation of
NCAA legislation and violation level. The SDR identifies:
A. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON FACTUAL BASIS, VIOLATION AND VIOLATION
LEVEL OF NCAA LEGISLATION
[NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.4.1.2 (2012-13)]
The enforcement staff, institution and former assistant coach agreed that between
December 2012 and March 2013, the former assistant coach violated NCAA
recruiting communication legislation when he sent 416 impermissible text
messages to a prospective student-athlete's parent.

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


December 2, 2016
Page No. 3
__________
B. PARTIES' AGREED-UPON AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2-(g), the parties agreed to the following aggravating and
mitigating factors:
1. Agreed-upon aggravating and mitigating factors. [Bylaws 19.9.3 and 19.9.4]
a. Aggravating factors.
(1) Institution.
None.
(2) The former assistant coach.
Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA Constitution or
Bylaws. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(m)]
b. Mitigating factors.
(1) Institution.
(a) Prompt acknowledgment of the violation, acceptance of
responsibility and the imposition of meaningful corrective measures
and/or penalties. [Bylaw 19.9.4-(b)]
(b) An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary
violations. [Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)]
(c) Implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to
ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of institutional control
standards. [Bylaw 19.9.4-(e)]
(d) Other facts warranting a lower penalty range. [Bylaw 19.9.4-(h)]
(2) The former assistant coach.3
None.

The parties agreed that Bylaw 19.9.4-(b) Prompt acknowledgement of the violation and acceptance of responsibility should apply
for the former assistant coach. The panel determines the mitigating factor does not apply. The former assistant coach also identified
nine other factors that he believed constituted mitigation. Most of those claims did not fall into the factors identified by Bylaw
19.9.4. The panel, however, considered each of the factors under Bylaw 19.9.4-(h) Other facts warranting a lower penalty range.
The panel discusses those factors in Section V.

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


December 2, 2016
Page No. 4
__________
IV. REVIEW OF CASE
The SDR fully detailed the parties' positions in the infractions case and included the agreed-upon
primary facts, violations, violation level and aggravating and mitigating factors. After reviewing
the parties' principal factual agreements and the respective explanations surrounding those
agreements, the panel accepts the parties' SDR and concludes that the facts constitute a Level II
violation of NCAA legislation. The former assistant coach knew text messaging prospects and
their parents violated existing NCAA legislation. Regardless of the intent of those text messages,
his conduct violated Bylaw 13.
At the time of the conduct, Bylaw 13.4.1.2 prohibited text messaging.4 Specifically, coaches were
not permitted to engage in text message (or other electronic communication) with prospects or
their parents.
The former assistant coach knew he could not text prospects or their parents. He did so anyway.
He exchanged text messages with the mother of the prospect after he met her, the prospect and the
prospect's father on their unofficial visit to the institution in fall 2012. Shortly after the unofficial
visit, the former assistant coach cautioned the mother that they were not supposed to text under
NCAA rules. He justified his actions by claiming that as long as nobody knew, it was fine.
The impermissible communication continued for roughly four months and went undetected
because the football program never identified the prospect as a "recruited prospect." Therefore,
the institution's monitoring software never recognized the text messages as impermissible. The
absence of the "recruited prospect" designation, however, was not an exception to the prohibition.
He was still a prospect under the bylaws. The former assistant coach asserted that the text messages
were related to advice regarding general admission to the institution. Others were personal in
nature. Regardless, the text messages sent to the prospect's mother were still prohibited.
Previously, the COI has indicated that relationship building is a core component of recruiting. See
University of Mississippi (2016) (recognizing that recruiting is relationship building when
concluding two former track coaches committed Level II violations when they engaged in
telephone and text conversations with student-athletes at their former institutions). Similarly, the
COI has concluded that coaches who knowingly engage in impermissible text and phone activity
violate NCAA legislation. See West Virginia University (2015) (concluding that a former assistant
gymnastics coach's 151 impermissible text and telephone calls were a Level II violation); Georgia
Institute of Technology (2014) (concluding that a former assistant football coach committed a
Level II violation when he placed eight phone calls and sent 217 text messages to prospects).
The institution and former assistant coach acknowledged he committed a Level II violation.
Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2, the violation meets the definition of a Level II violation because the

Beginning on August 1, 2014, the NCAA membership permitted the use of text messaging during the recruiting process. See
Bylaw 13.4.1.4 (NCAA Division I Manual 2014-15).

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


December 2, 2016
Page No. 5
__________
violations were intentional and numerous. The violation was more serious than Level III but did
not rise to Level I.
V. PENALTIES
For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the panel accepts the parties agreedupon factual basis and violation and concludes that this case involved a Level II violation of NCAA
legislation. The panel then determined the applicable penalty classification based on aggravating
and mitigating factors. Level II violations are significant breaches of conduct that provide or are
intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial advantage or benefit, or reflects
conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate model.
In addition to the agreed-upon mitigating factors, the institution proposed four additional factors
for the panel's consideration: (1) Bylaw 19.9.4-(a) Prompt self-disclosure; (2) Bylaw 19.9.4-(c)
Affirmative Steps to Expedite Final Resolution of the Matter; (3) Bylaw 19.9.4-(f) Exemplary
Cooperation; and Bylaw 19.9.4-(g) The Violations were Limited in Scope and Represent a
Deviation from Otherwise Compliant Practices by the Institution.
Similarly, the former assistant coach proposed nine other factors for the panel's consideration.
Only one is specifically identified by the bylaws, Bylaw 19.9.4-(f) Exemplary Cooperation. The
other eight, are not contemplated by Bylaw 19.9.4. The panel, however, considered them under
Bylaw 19.9.4-(h) Other Factors Warranting a Lower Penalty Range.5
As it relates to the institution, the panel determines that the limited scope and nature of the violation
supports Bylaw 19.9.4-(g) as an additional mitigating factor. The panel does not determine that
the other proposed mitigating factors apply. Bylaw 19.9.4-(a) requires both prompt self-disclosure
and prompt self-detection. The institution was only alerted to the violation after the text messages
were provided to the institution, approximately three years after the conduct occurred. Likewise,
the panel determines the institution met its responsibilities under Bylaw 19 but those actions did
not exemplify affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter or exemplary cooperation.
As it relates to the former assistant coach, the parties proposed Bylaw 19.9.4-(b), prompt
acknowledgement of the violation and acceptance of responsibility as a mitigating factor. The
panel determines this mitigating factor does not apply. The panel acknowledges the former
assistant coach's admission that a text message violation occurred; however, he only acknowledged
it after being questioned about the texts approximately three years later. Similarly, the panel does

The former assistant coach claimed eight other factors: (1) the fact that the violations occurred three years ago; (2) he has not
previously been involved in NCAA violations; (3) the violations were isolated to a single prospect; (4) the prospect was not
designated as a recruited prospect; (5) the institution did not gain a competitive advantage; (6) he only texted the mother, not the
prospect; (7) any recruiting advantage was, at most, minimal; and (8) the conduct is now permissible.

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


December 2, 2016
Page No. 6
__________
not determine the former assistant coach's cooperation rose to exemplary or the other factors raised
by the former assistant coach warrant other facts warranting a lower penalty range.
This case involved violations that occurred after the adoption of the current version of Bylaw 19.
Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.1, the current penalty structure applies. The panel classifies the case as
Level II-Mitigated and the former assistant coach's violations as Level II-Standard.
Because the parties agreed to the facts, violation and the panel's proposed penalties, there is no
opportunity for appeal.All penalties prescribed in this case are independent and supplemental to
any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academics through its assessment
of postseason ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. The institution's corrective
actions are contained in the Appendix. After considering all information relevant to the case, the
panel prescribes the following penalties. Those penalties that were self-imposed by the institution
are so noted:
Core Penalties for Level II-Mitigated Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5)
1. Financial penalty: The institution shall pay $5,000 to the Association.6
Core Penalties for Level II-Standard Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5)
2. The former assistant coach agreed that he violated NCAA recruiting legislation when he
knowingly sent 416 impermissible text messages to the mother of a prospect. Both the
institution and the former assistant coach indicated that the institution had no interest in
recruiting the prospect. Regardless, he was still a prospect under NCAA legislation and both
he and his family expressed a strong desire to attend and play football at the institution. The
former assistant coach knew of the prospect's desire and used it as the basis to continue his
conversations. The former assistant coach knew he could not engage in text message
communication with the prospect's mother, yet continued to engage in the activity. He
cautioned the mother to not tell anyone else about the text messages.
The panel prescribes a one-year show-cause order associated with the former assistant coach.
The panel recognizes the current restrictions placed on the former assistant coach by his current
institution during fall 2016 and believes those restrictions should continue and expand
consistent with the restrictions contemplated by the penalty guidelines.7 Specifically, the panel
prescribes a cumulative year of recruiting restrictions. The COI has previously prescribed

6
7

The fine shall be paid consistent with Division I COI Internal Operating Procedure 4-16-2, Financial Penalty.

The former assistant coach's current institution identified four restrictions for the former assistant coach. He: 1) will receive
monthly, one-on-one NCAA compliance educational sessions with the compliance staff focusing on recruiting legislation
throughout the 2016-17 academic year; 2) will attend a 2017 NCAA Regional Rules Seminar at his own expense; 3) will be withheld
from all off-campus recruiting activity for 13 weeks in the fall of 2016 (September 1 to November 26, 2016); and 4) was withheld
from all recruiting communication for two weeks in September 2016 (September 1 through September 14).

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


December 2, 2016
Page No. 7
__________
tailored show-cause orders for intentional text message violations. Georgia Institute of
Technology (2014) (prescribing a one-year show-cause order prohibiting all recruiting
activities for a former assistant football coach's intentional text message violations). Therefore,
during this period, which begins on December 2, 2016, and ends on December 1, 2017, the
panel require that any institution hiring the former assistant coach restrict the former assistant
coach from all recruiting activities until August 31, 2017. The former assistant coach may
resume recruiting activities on September 1, 2017, however, the monthly one-on-one rules
education sessions must continue through the end of the show-cause period. Within 30 days
of the release of this decision or 30 days after the hiring of the former assistant coach,
whichever is later, any employing institution shall file a report with the Office of the
Committees on Infractions setting forth its agreement with these requirements or requesting a
date to appear before a hearing panel to show cause why the requirements should not apply.
Further, six months after he is hired and at the conclusion of the show-cause order, any
employing institution shall file further reports documenting fulfillment of these requirements.
Additional Penalties for Level II-Mitigated Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7)
3. Public reprimand and censure.

The committee advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of
the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods.
Any action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations
shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, prescribing more severe
penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL
Michael F. Adams
Carol Cartwright
Greg Christopher
Alberto Gonzales
Joseph Novak
Greg Sankey, Chief Hearing Officer

Appalachian State University Public Infractions Decision


APPENDIX
December 2, 2016
Page No. 1
__________
APPENDIX
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S OCTOBER 27,
2016, SUMMARY DISPOSITION REPORT (SDR)
1. The assistant coach no longer had coaching duties with the institution and subsequently
resigned.
All coaches, staff, administrators, and student-athletes are expected to understand and abide
by NCAA and Sun Belt Conference rules in regards to all aspects of employment, including,
but not limited to, recruitment; relationships with student-athletes, prospective student-athletes
and their relatives; personnel issues; rules education; and other aspects of athletics compliance.
2. University cellular devices provided for all countable coaches.
This will allow the institution, in its discretion, to more efficiently obtain electronic telephone
records for NCAA purposes. Monitoring efforts will be strengthened due to implementation
of this policy.
3. Department of athletics telephone records retention policy.
Access to telephone records in the event of investigation will be accessible for a period of no
less than four years.
4. Requirement that all telephone contacts with prospective student-athletes are documented in
Department of Athletics compliance software.
This will ensure contemporaneous documentation of each recruiting telephone contact (i.e.,
telephone calls) regardless of whether it was countable toward NCAA limitations. The
institution's documentation and monitoring procedures will also be strengthened.

You might also like