« October 7, 2013 | Main | October 23, 2013 »

3 posts from October 22, 2013

October 22, 2013

Regrets from Shapiro family; Pundits, UM, others react to UM news; NCAA/UM tidbits

WEDNESDAY BUZZ COLUMN

(We're all UM/NCAA today because of the end of the investigation, but we'll have lots of Dolphins and Heat over the coming days.)

As reaction to the NCAA’s ruling on UM poured in Tuesday, Nevin Shapiro’s father said his son --– serving a 20-year prison sentence for his role in a Ponzi scheme -- never should have opened his mouth publicly about the UM case.

“If it could have benefited him, then fine,” Larry Shapiro said by phone, sadness evident in his voice. “But it didn’t have any benefit. It hurt him. I said to him three years ago: ‘Was it worth it?’ And he got pissed off at me.’

“It wasn’t worth it! For what? What’s it led to? He stepped on a lot of toes for what? For [bleeping] nothing! What the [bleep] did it have to do with his criminal case?”

If he hadn’t spoken out about UM, “he would have been here in Miami and here with his attorney every weekend,” instead of Oakdale, La., and now Butner, N.C., Shapiro said.

“But he would have gotten killed” if he had been imprisoned “in Miami,” the father added, knowing UM fans were angry with him snitching. 

Larry Shapiro, who said he believes all of his son’s allegations were true, said Shapiro was placed in solitary confinement two years ago in Tallahassee after the NCAA story broke because “they think he’s a squealer and a rat. They put food in a slot like they do with death row inmates.”

His said Shapiro speaking to Sports Illustrated this year about his gambling on UM games “was very detrimental.”

He said prison officials and other inmates “frown on it” and that some think he’s “infamous and a rat. What they do is they goad you to try to get you to do something. If he breathes, they monitor it. Guards say, ‘Where’s Nevin?’ They have him under a microscope. They monitor everything because of the [expletive] of the UM [story]. If you respond, they put you in a room with no windows, a 4 by 6 cell.”

Shapiro, who lives in South Florida, said his son’s e-mail privileges at Butner (where the king of Ponzi schemers, Bernie Madoff, also resides) have been rescinded for 90 days because prison officials thought he was trying to circumvent the prison mailing system, which Shapiro said his son did not do.

He said he suspects his son –- who called for UM to get the death penalty -– was unhappy UM’s punishment wasn’t more severe.

UM/NCAA CHATTER

### Shapiro had accused 114 players of accepting illegal benefits. But the infractions committee concluded that 30 players and eight coaches committed major violations and said it used “photographs and statements of others” to confirm those charges. And the NCAA bemoaned that none of those 38 people “involved in the numerous major violations took any meaningful steps to report” them.

### The NCAA interviewed Shapiro 22 times – 22! – including 18 in person before it even informed UM that it was being investigated. The NCAA ended up conducting 118 interviews in all, with 81 different people.

### The NCAA concluded that “by granting [Shapiro] special access and celebrating him with the naming of a student lounge, it is clear the institution embraced him. He certainly did not ‘fly under the radar’ as the institution asserts.”

### Former UM A.D. Sam Jankovich told us: “I thought Miami might get fined. I didn’t think they would get scholarship cuts. But those committees have an ax to grind... The scholarships could hurt a little bit.”

### ESPN’s Kirk Herbstreit: “If you’re a USC or Penn State fan, you could say, ‘Why in the world did [UM] lose only nine [football] scholarships?’ If you’re a Miami fan, this is a great day.”

### ESPN’s Dick Vitale told us: “The unfair part is how long it took for a decision. I don’t think [the penalties] were that bad. I don’t see it as something that will hurt them.”

### Green Bay Packers executive and former UM star Alonzo Highsmith, whose son plays for UM, said by phone: “I’m ecstatic. I’m glad it’s over. Let’s move on. Al Golden withstood the storm. Now we can put this behind us and take our program to great heights. Tell Nevin and his fraud attorney and Randy Phillips and Tyrone Moss: ‘Nice try. Now go crawl back under a rock and lead your life as former Hurricanes who everyone hates.’” (Phillips told The Sun Sentinel that Shapiro told the truth when he accused UM of violations, and Moss reportedly corroborated Shapiro's claims to Yahoo!)

### Leonard Abess, chairman of UM’s Board of Trustees, told us: “It’s a fair result. I’m not angry with the NCAA. They have done the best job they can.”

But considering Donna Shalala said earlier this year that UM deserved no further sanctions, why not appeal? “Because it’s over. It’s time to be done with it. It would serve no purpose for anyone to appeal this.”

### Former UM basketball coach Jake Morton, the only former UM coach who received a notice of allegations but no penalty, told us: “It has been a very trying 26 months. It’s been difficult in a lot of levels: personally, professionally. I’m glad it’s over. I’m not angry. I was angry through the process, but I’m ready to move on. I don’t understand why Nevin did it. I don’t understand what his motive was. It never made any sense to me.”

Morton, who has coached previously at St. Francis, James Madison, UM (2007-11) and Western Kentucky, said he’s hopeful of returning to coaching.

### Attorney Jim Zeszutek, who represents Hill, Aubrey Hill and Jorge Fernandez, was upset about Hill and Fernandez getting two-year show/cause penalties, which will make it very difficult for either to land college coaching jobs. Fernandez is out of coaching; Hill coaches Carol City High in Miami.

"I expected Coach Hill's to drop to a secondary violation, but the NCAA seems to have ignored all the sworn affidavits we provided showing athletes were encouraged to make statements against him," Zeszutek told my colleague Michelle Kaufman.

"As for coach Fernandez, he has already been out of coaching for two years and if you add another two years to that, you are punishing him for four years. It is putting him behind the eight ball and makes it very difficult for him to get back in. I spoke to Coach Hill, and he is so frustrated, displeased and unhappy with the ruling. I will spend the next few days digesting this report, but it's very disappointing in the cases of Coach Hill and Fernandez.''

### Check out @MannyNavarro's story on the sports home page for more reaction, including prominent NCAA blogger John Infante saying UM got off lightly; USC athletic director Pat Haden complaining about his school's penalties compared with UM's; and Jay Bilas blasting the NCAA as usual.

### Missouri and former UM coach Frank Haith, who said he won’t appeal his five-game suspension, was skewered in the NCAA’s 102-page report. On more than one occasion, the NCAA said it “does not find his version of events to be credible…. The only reason [Haith] requested a third interview was he realized earlier that by telling the truth during [an earlier] interview, he had implicated not only himself, but also [a former assistant coach] in a scheme to cover up NCAA violations.”

### When Shapiro needed money, he asked Haith for a personal loan or to return his $50,000 donation. The NCAA said when Haith wouldn’t return Shapiro’s calls, Shapiro “began leaving threatening messages” and threatened to tell Miami’s athletic director that Shapiro “entertained coaches at a strip club and that he once provided coaches with $10,000 to facilitate recruitment of prospects.”

The NCAA said that Haith helped three assistants pay $10,000 to Shapiro's mother and "attempted to cover up the booster's threats to disclose incriminating information."

And there's this: The NCAA said Haith “described being embarrassed by his night at the strip club because he was married and in Miami that would have been a ‘bad deal.’”

### In a sense, Haith summed up the state of college sports with this statement to the NCAA: "Did we win enough games for the Miami supporters? I don't think they felt great about what we did there. I didn't recruit, I didn't get the five-star guys ... Let's don't be naive.... Our business is corrupt."

After we spoke, Vitale tweeted that Haith's "image has taken a major hit." Missouri is standing behind Haith, with A.D. Mike Alden saying Tuesday: "I'm proud to have Frank Haith as our men's basketball coach."

### The NCAA said after my column appeared on Aug. 29, 2010, in which Shapiro threatened to write a tell-all book about UM, the Hurricanes asked Shapiro and his attorney for information. They did not respond.

### Al Golden isn't mentioned in the NCAA's 102-page summary. Randy Shannon is referenced, but not by name; he received a letter of reprimand because multiple UM football coaches (and 32 UM coaches in all, covering 10 sports) sent impermissible text messages or made impermissible calls. UM's new policy, in effect a few years, fines coaches a minimum of $100 for each impermissible text message, and also results in a seven-day suspension. 

### An unnamed prospect that was recruited by UM told the NCAA that former coach Clint Hurtt had a “bat phone” as a second unregistered device to use when calls to recruits weren’t permitted.

Hurtt's violations are exposed in the NCAA report. Tom Jurich, Louisville's athletic director, said Tuesday that Hurtt would have been fired if he had committed these violations  as a member of the Cardinals' staff. But Jurich said Louisville will retain him because he committed the violations while working for UM. But he won't be permitted to recruit through next spring, will have his pay frozen and also received a two-year show-cause penalty.

"I apologize to the University of Miami," Hurtt said Tuesday. "It's my alma mater.... I admit the mistakes I made and will take accountability for my actions."

Please see the last two posts for a lot more UM/NCAA fallout. Now, thankfully, we can all move on: We'll have a lot of other non-NCAA stuff in the days ahead. Twitter: @flasportsbuzz

NCAA Blog Part 2: Shalala, Blake James, Committee of Infractions chair react on UM case

Updated at 12:30 p.m.: Here's what UM president Donna Shalala told our Michelle Kaufman by phone:

"Obviously, we’re happy that we finally heard from the infractions committee. We believe we had a very fair hearing with them. And while we would have preferred just to get the sanctions we already imposed, having read the report and gone through the hearing, I think what they gave us was fair.’’

“Certainly the athletic department suffered. The recruiting was directly affected by both the infractions and failure to obey the rules by our own coaches and student-athletes and our admission of those failures.

"As both Jim Larranaga and Al Golden have reported, recruiting was directly affected. Since I’m involved in the recruiting process for all the student-athletes, I can tell you the parents asked about it. So, I think, more than anything else, the athletic program suffered greatly as much by the timeline as anything else. But we were responsible, and it was very clear we broke NCAA rules and we admitted that and were penalized appropriately for it. “I haven’t felt any particular stress. I’ve been through much worse than this. But I have felt badly for our community and I think for many people in the athletic department and supporters very difficult. I have a bigger job. We just have to get up every morning and put one foot in front of the other and not obsess about when the NCAA was going to report. I am very happy for our entire community that this is done.’’

“No one likes to be criticized, but I’m sort of used to being criticized. I’ve been in public life for a very long period of time. I don’t take it personally. I know people have our best interest at heart and people were disgusted and upset. It’s part of the responsibility of a leader to take both the praise and the criticism. I don’t criticize  our fans. I understand their passion for the game, our program and the university and I want them to continue to have that passion, even when they’re mad at us.’’
“We’ve learned the best compliance system in the world can’t substitute for the good judgment of the personnel that you hire. People need to follow through on their instincts. We thought we had a very good compliance system in place.After all, we had the chairman of the NCAA Infractions Committee (Paul Dee) as our athletic director. And we had a very tough football coach and a good strong basketball coach with a good reputation, and a president who watches out for these things, and it still slipped through.  We will all go back and think about what we missed and when we missed it. More than anything else, I think we’ve learned a lot about things we needed to add, but changing the culture where people are comfortable calling us to turn things in. If you read the report, there are some very important lessons there. It’s not just having the system in place, but having the right people in place and never letting your guard down.

“I apologize to our fans, our community that this happened in the first place and we’re just got to be on a path to continuous improvement. Already doing that, but the culture has to be one in which anyone – always the cover up gets you in trouble – who commits and infraction calls us and checking and taking appropriate punishment. What we can’t do is delay and be afraid we’re going to fired if we turn ourselves in.’’

UM A.D. Blake James said UM has self-imposed scholarships -- he declined to say how many -- but hasn't told the NCAA yet. He said he will tell NCAA now and see if any will count toward the 9 UM was docked. But UM won't appeal regardless. He said the 9 can be allocated any way over the next three years. Al Golden will decide the mechanics of that.

############################################################################################

Highlights from the UM/NCAA conference call with Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky, the chairman of the committee on infractions:

 

### He said the case did not include information improperly gathered by the NCAA, but that the NCAA’s misconduct wasn’t taken into account in deciding penalties. 

 

### Banowsky reeled off a long list of UM violations at the start of the call, noting Nevin Shapiro “entertained [players] on his yacht, at nightclubs. He provided a significant amount of cash [to Vince Wilfork, among others] to sign with a sports agency of which he was a part owner.”

 

### Banowsky criticized former UM coach Frank Haith, without using his name: “He had a repsonsibility to promote an atmosphere of compliance within his program, which includes [expectation] to monitor. He failed in this responsibility.”

 

### He emphasized that “the committee did not rely solely on the statements of the booster. The vast majority of the statements made by the booster were corroborated. Morever, the institution and the counsel were in agreement most of violations occurred.”

 

### He said the “committee appreciates [UM’s] patience and cooperation.”

 

### But he blamed UM for not having a effective system in place to detect Shapiro’s behavior. That system wasn’t “effectively conveyed or monitored, which contributed to them going undetected.”

 

### He said UM’s previous self-imposed penalties helped a LOT. “The committee accepted the significance of the penalties the institution imposed on its football program. These penalties were severe and the unprecedented access [provided by] the university were taken into account. The self imposed penalties represented an indication by the university that they were taking the case very seriously. It understood it needed to respond internally. For the university to step up to impose these bowl bans is a big deal – very big deal. The fact it also prevented an ACC championship game which potentially could have led to a BCS bowl game were very big decisions – the committee appreciated those decisions.”

 

### He called this case “among the most extraordinary in the history of the NCAA.”

 

### He said “the penalties were severe for former coaches. We did lay a lot of responsibility onto the individuals in the case. It’s going to be a subject of ongoing discussion among Division 1 membership how to allocate responsibility” to coaches compared to institutions.

 

### On the NCAA’s misconduct: “I know the COI was disappointed to learn of the use of bankruptcy proceedings to learn information. It didn’t factor into the penalties.”

 

### In docking UM nine scholarships, why is the NCAA essentially taking away $700,000 in free education for students (factoring in UM’s high tuition, etc.)? “It’s in the legislation," Banowsky responded. "The membership passes the legislations and what are appropriate penalties and are not. Our responsibilities are to the Division 1 membership.”

 

### Why did it take 19 weeks since UM’s hearing for a ruling? “Typically we’re able to turn around reports in a 6 to 8 week period. Unfortunately, the case not only lasted 3 plus years but also had a lot of complexities that were extraordinary. The sheer volume of the case was enormous. Our first responsibility is do the best we can to understand the case record and get it right. We had to come up with a process to make sure information gathered [improperly] wasn’t included in the case record. Once we did our work understanding, and the basis for those findings, we didn’t consider the staff’s misconduct."

 

### On USC being docked 30 scholarships, compared to Miami’s 12 (nine football, three basketball): “Each case is unique. Folks with have a difference of opinion depending on your perspective. We don’t put cases against each other because of the unique nature of each case. We felt institutional self imposed penalties were absolultely significant, unprecedented, and the level of cooperation was commendable. That weighed into the committee’s thinking. We don’t do a great deal of comparative analysis.”

 

### On Haith and others offering conflicting testimony: “It was difficult for the committee and the enforcement staff to know what was really going on given all the conflicting information. We felt we had a responsiblity to review that and to publish that because it was information that ultimately required us to draw conclusions.”

 PLEASE SEE THE PREVIOUS POST FOR THE NCAA'S REPORT ON UM AND MORE.

 

UM-NCAA decision day: Live blog, penalties, reaction

Please check back throughout the day for news on the NCAA's ruling on the UM case and comments from the 11 a.m. news conference.

As WQAM's Joe Rose first reported this morning -- and was confirmed by Herald sources -- UM will lose three football scholarships each of the next three seasons for a total of nine. There will be no additional bowl ban. (Of course, UM already has self-imposed two.) But recruiting visits will be limited.

"No one is going crazy," a UM official said. "It's in the tolerable range."

UM will not appeal the sanctions. It will accept the penalties and move on.

Also, UM basketball will lose three scholarships over the next three years for a total of three.

Here's the NCAA release on penalties:

Football program penalties

  • Reduction of football scholarship by a combined total of nine during the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons.
  • Miami may only provide a prospect on unofficial visits complementary tickets for one home game during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons.
  • Self-imposed by the university:
  • Two year bowl ban following the 2011 and 2012 seasons, including the 2012 ACC Championship game.
  • Reduction of official paid visits for 2012-13 by 20 percent to a total of 36 visits.
  • Reduction of fall evaluations in 2012-13 by six (from 42 to 36).
  • Reduction of available contact days during the 2012-13 contact period by 20 percent.

Men’s basketball program penalties

  • Reduction in the number of men’s basketball scholarships by one during the each of the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons.

Additional penalties

  • For all sports, any staff member who sends an impermissible text to a prospect will be fined a minimum of $100 per message, and coaches will be suspended from all recruiting activities for seven days.
  • Further penalties resulting from impermissible texts and phone calls are detailed in the public report.

Here is the rest of the NCAA report:

The University of Miami lacked institutional control when it did not monitor the activities of a major booster, the men’s basketball and football coaching staffs, student-athletes and prospects for a decade, according to findings by the Division I Committee on Infractions.

Many of Miami’s violations were undetected by the university over a 10-year period, and they centered on a booster entertaining prospects and student-athletes at his home, on his yacht and in various restaurants and clubs. Approximately 30 student-athletes were involved with the booster. Several football coaches, three men’s basketball coaches and two athletics department staff members were also involved in the case. These staff members had a poor understanding of NCAA rules or felt comfortable breaking them. Furthermore, some of the coaches provided false information during the enforcement staff and university’s investigation.

Timeline

Below is a timeline of events regarding the University of Miami case.

2009

November: Miami notifies NCAA of an internal investigation into potential violations

2010

March: Miami submits a reports multiple phone and text message rules violations to the NCAA

May: Miami submits a supplement to this report with additional violations

June: NCAA enforcement staff and Miami conduct joint interviews

Fall: NCAA enforcement staff sends Miami a letter to begin the summary disposition process

2011

Feb. 23: The booster sends a letter to the NCAA detailing potential Miami violations

March 31 – May 27: The enforcement staff interviewed the booster more than 20 times

Aug. 15: NCAA enforcement staff delivers a notice of inquiry to Miami and begins conducting interviews

Aug. 30: NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff determines that eight Miami football student-athletes must sit out games and repay benefits

2012

Interviews continue. From 2011 through 2013, the NCAA enforcement staff conducted more than 70 interviews with current and former coaches, student-athletes and university administration, in addition to others connected with the case.

2013

Jan. 10: NCAA enforcement staff notifies Miami that select NCAA staff worked with the criminal defense attorney for the booster to improperly obtain information for the purposes of the investigation through a bankruptcy proceeding that did not involve the NCAA

Jan 14-17: NCAA enforcement staff notifies involved individuals of the procedural issue involving the criminal defense attorney

Jan. 23: NCAA announces external review of procedural issue

Feb. 18:  NCAA releases findings of external review

Feb. 19: NCAA enforcement staff issues a notice of allegations to Miami and the involved individuals

Feb. 21: Two former assistant men’s basketball coaches and a former assistant football coach submitted a request to dismiss the case or receive relief from the allegations

Feb 22: Committee on Infractions holds a prehearing conference with involved individuals and the enforcement staff.  Prehearing conferences are held to prevent new information from being introduced at the hearing

Feb. 27: After discussion with the full Committee on Infractions, the chair provided a structured course of action to handle the procedural issues while also detailing a plan to move the case forward fairly and efficiently. All involved people had until March 6 to respond to this plan.

March 2 – 6: Miami, one former assistant football coach and the involved basketball coaches provided their responses to the plan

March 8: The committee chair provided an amended plan based on these responses

March 19 – April 5: All involved groups submitted their responses, including additional requests to dismiss the case from the university and coaches.

April 23: Committee on Infractions issues decision regarding motion to dismiss

May 20: Miami and involved individuals submit response to the notice of allegations

May 22-23: Prehearing conferences conducted with Miami and involved individuals

June 13-14: Committee on Infractions conducts hearing with Miami, involved individuals and the enforcement staff

The former head men's basketball coach failed to meet his responsibilities as a head coach when he did not monitor the activities of his assistant coaches, and attempted to cover up the booster's threats to disclose incriminating information, according to the committee. Additionally, two assistant football coaches and one assistant men’s basketball coach did not follow NCAA ethical conduct rules.

The committee acknowledged and accepted the extensive and significant self-imposed penalties by the university. Additional penalties in this case include a three-year probation period; a reduction in the number of football and men’s basketball scholarships; recruiting restrictions; a five-game suspension for the former head men’s basketball coach; and two-year show-cause orders for two former assistant football coaches and a former assistant men’s basketball coach. If these individuals are employed at an NCAA member school during these two years, they and their current or future employer must appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine if the coach should have his duties limited.

When determining the facts of the case and appropriate penalties, the committee only considered information obtained appropriately during the investigative process and presented at the hearing. The case involved numerous, serious violations of NCAA rules, many of which were not disputed by the university. Overall, it involved 18 general allegations of misconduct with 79 issues within those allegations. These were identified through an investigation that included 118 interviews of 81 individuals. Additionally, the committee had the responsibility of determining the credibility of individuals who submitted inconsistent statements and information provided by a booster who is now in federal prison. In reaching its conclusions, the committee found, in most instances, corroboration through supporting documentation and the statements of individuals other than the booster.

Prior to the hearing, the committee addressed procedural issues raised by the university and the involved individuals connected with the enforcement staff’s use of the booster’s defense attorney to obtain information from depositions conducted in the booster’s bankruptcy case. As a result of the information being obtained in a manner inconsistent with NCAA policies and procedures, it was determined that all information stemming from the depositions would be excluded from consideration in the NCAA infractions case.  Further, the enforcement staff did not rely on any of the excluded information before or at the Committee on Infractions hearing.

The committee had no role or involvement in the enforcement staff’s investigation of the case, the internal investigation commissioned by the NCAA into the use of the booster’s attorney by the enforcement staff or in the report that resulted from the internal investigation. The committee did review arguments made by the university and the involved coaches asking that the allegations be dismissed or limited due to the procedural issues from the use of the bankruptcy depositions and other complaints about the investigation. Once all of those arguments were heard and addressed by the committee, the committee heard the case on its merits based on the remaining information.

The committee found violations in the following areas: telephone and text messages in multiple sport programs, which resulted in Miami admitting that it failed to monitor; booster involvement in the men’s basketball and football programs; Miami’s control of its athletics programs and its commitment to rules education and monitoring.

Many of the violations in the football and men’s basketball program are separate and distinct violations, with the common link of the booster. From 2001 through 2008, the booster donated and pledged approximately $500,000 to the university’s athletics program. He hosted a fundraising bowling tournament, attended by university officials, which raised $50,000 for the men’s basketball program. The committee determined the booster was extremely visible because the university granted him special access to athletics events and named a student lounge after him. Additionally, the booster entertained groups of student-athletes and operated in the public view. Knowing all of this, the university did very little to control or to monitor the conduct of the booster, the committee said.

While Miami lacked institutional control related to the conduct of the booster, it also lacked adequate policies and procedures for staff members to report potential violations without fear of consequence. Miami did not have the policies or monitoring systems to detect improper text messages and phone calls. Many staff members did not have basic knowledge of NCAA recruiting rules or felt comfortable breaking them, and the university did not have sufficient rules education in place. Had the university properly monitored its sports programs, especially the high-profile sports of football and men’s basketball, it may have identified risks sooner. The committee added that the failings of the university enabled a culture of noncompliance within the university and resulted in a lack of institutional control.

Violations involving student-athletes and prospects resulting from the booster’s activities included entertaining student-athletes and coaches at his home; housing a student-athlete at his home; access to his yacht and jet skis; providing cash prizes to student-athletes for fishing competitions; meals and entertainment at local restaurants, clubs and a bowling alley for student-athletes, prospects and their families or friends; gifts of cash, clothing and other items, including a television and gifts for student-athletes’ families and children; hotel lodging for prospects; purchasing  airline tickets; and football stadium suite access for a prospect. Additionally, the booster was an investor in a sports agency and provided a student-athlete $50,000 to influence that individual to sign with that agency.

The booster’s personal relationship with Miami athletics was not just limited to student-athletes and prospects. Several former football and men’s basketball coaching staff members also had a close relationship with the booster. These relationships allowed the booster to gain access and become more involved with prospects. Some former football assistant coaches asked the booster to assist with recruiting for the program and two former football assistant coaches asked the booster to provide personal cash loans to them. Multiple former assistant football coaches were aware that the booster was providing meals and entertaining prospects at his home; however, they did not report the violations to Miami’s compliance office.

Two former assistant football coaches did not follow NCAA ethical conduct rules when they provided prospects with free lodging, meals and transportation. Further, one of the former coaches arranged for the booster to provide benefits to prospects. Both former football coaches provided false or misleading information to Miami and the enforcement staff during the investigation as well. In some instances, the information provided by each coach directly contradicted the information provided by prospects.

Two former assistant men’s basketball coaches looked to the booster to entertain high school and nonscholastic coaches of prospects. A former assistant men’s basketball coach did not follow NCAA ethical conduct rules when he provided false information during his interviews about providing airline points for a flight to a prospect and his high school coach. Despite giving the high school coach his airline account information to purchase flights with frequent flyer miles, the former assistant men’s basketball coach stated he did not know his airline points were used. During the hearing, the former assistant men’s basketball coach then admitted that he provided false information.

When the booster began experiencing financial trouble, he requested that the former head men’s basketball coach loan him a large sum of money or that the former head men’s basketball coach return the booster’s $50,000 donation. The former head men’s basketball coach denied the booster’s request; however, a former assistant men’s basketball coach agreed to loan the booster $7,000, which the booster eventually repaid. After the booster was incarcerated in 2010, he began to threaten the former head men’s basketball coach and assistant coach and demand money. The committee determined the former head men’s basketball coach and the former assistant men’s basketball coach worked together to make sure the booster received $10,000 to end the booster’s threats.

The former head men’s basketball coach was aware of the booster’s threats and he took steps to help a former assistant men’s basketball coach to make a payment to the booster’s mother to end the threats. As the leader of a high-profile basketball program, he had a responsibility to make sure he and his staff followed the rules. However, the former coach did not meet his responsibilities and this conduct resulted in violations. The committee noted that had he asked about the basis of the threats and the former assistant coaches’ relationship with the booster, he could have recognized potential concerns or taken the issue to the compliance office.

Because the violations occurred before October 30, 2012, and the hearing occurred before the new infractions procedures took effect on August 1, 2013, the case was processed utilizing the procedures in effect at that time. The committee moved forward with the previous penalty structure, instead of the newly-adopted Level I-IV violation and penalty structure.

A full list of penalties, including those self-imposed by the university and by a coach’s current employing university can be found in the public report. Penalties in this case include:

  • Public reprimand and censure.
  • Three years of probation from October 22, 2013, through October 21, 2016.

Former assistant football coach B (as identified in the public report) penalties:

  • A two-year show-cause order from October 22, 2013 through October 21, 2015. The public report contains further details.
  • The committee also adopted penalties imposed by the coach’s current employing university, which are detailed in the public report.

Former assistant football coach C (as identified in the public report) penalties:

  • A two-year show-cause order from October 22, 2013, through October 21, 2015. The public report contains further details.

Former head men’s basketball coach penalties:

  • A suspension for the first five regular-season games of the 2013-14 season.
  • Attendance at one NCAA Regional Rules seminar at the conclusion of the 2013-14 academic year.

Former assistant men’s basketball coach B (as identified in the public report) penalties:

  • A two-year show-cause order from October 22, 2013, through October 21, 2015. The public report contains further details.

 

Members of the Division I Committee on Infractions are drawn from the NCAA membership and members of the public. The members of the committee who reviewed this case include Britton Banowsky, chair of the Committee on Infractions and commissioner of Conference USA; Greg Christopher, athletics director at Xavier University; Christopher L. Griffin, coordinator of appeals and attorney; Brian Halloran, attorney; Roscoe Howard Jr., attorney; James O’Fallon, law professor and faculty athletics representative at the University of Oregon; Dennis Thomas, commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference; and Thomas Yeager, commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Association.

 

 

The members of the committee who reviewed this case include Britton Banowsky, chair of the Committee on Infractions and commissioner of Conference USA; Greg Christopher, athletics director at Xavier University; Christopher L. Griffin, coordinator of appeals and attorney; Brian Halloran, attorney; Roscoe Howard Jr., attorney; James O’Fallon, law professor and faculty athletics re

####

Among former coaches:

### Missouri coach Frank Haith will receive a five-game suspension.

### Aubrey Hill, Clint Hurtt and Jorge Fernandez received two-year show cause penalties. Hurtt is on Louisville's staff (pending a decision by the school), but the penalty will make it difficult for Hill and Fernandez to land jobs in the next two years.

### Former assistant basketball coach Jake Morton did not get a show cause penalty.

Throughout the process heading into today, UM has remained optimistic that it would not get another bowl ban but likely would get football and basketball scholarship reductions.

UM and the former coaches were informed of their rulings at 8 a.m. Tuesday -- two hours before the public release.

More to come...