http://assets.espn.go.com/preview/100610/espn_uscpenalties.pdf
On November 22, 2005, and while student-athlete 2 was in his junior year of high school, representative B came to the head men's basketball coach's office, introduced himself and asked if the former head men's basketball coach would like to "have" the players regarded as the number one (student-athlete 2) and number three (a then men's basketball prospective student-athlete) ("student-athlete 2's friend") ranked players in the United States. The former head men's basketball coach responded in the affirmative. Representative B told the former head men's basketball coach that his visit was on behalf of student-athlete 2 and student-athlete 2's friend, both of whom had an interest in the institution. The former head men's basketball coach knew that representative B was not a relative of student-athlete 2 or his legal guardian but, instead, was a self-described "event promoter" who had been in contact with student-athlete 2 ever since meeting the young man at a basketball tournament. Following the meeting, the former head men's basketball coach gave representative B's name and telephone number to one of his assistant coaches (the assistant men‟s basketball coach) and instructed him to stay in contact with representative B.
The assistant men's basketball coach did as directed. He also "Googled" representative B's name in mid-December 2005 and learned through a media article about the 2001 violation and that representative B had been identified as a "runner" for a sports agent in a case involving another NCAA member institution. The assistant men's basketball coach claimed he gave the article to the former head coach. The former head coach stated that he did not recall receiving the article - he believed he had received the information about representative B's background from the compliance staff - but, regardless, an entry in student-athlete 2's institutional recruiting log confirms that by December 13, 2005, the men's basketball staff was aware of representative B's background. From that point forward, institutional recruiting records reveal multiple contacts between the men's basketball coaching staff and representative B throughout the period of student-athlete 2's recruitment from late 2005 to his initial enrollment in the fall of 2007. Included in those records were 125 telephone contacts from April 2-June 1, 2006, alone.
After being told to maintain contact with representative B, the assistant men's basketball coach made an unsuccessful attempt to contact him by telephone. On December 6, 2005, while at a local high school basketball game, representative B introduced himself to the assistant men‟s basketball coach. Upon learning that the assistant men‟s basketball coach was one of the institution's coaches, representative B handed his cellular telephone to him. Student-athlete 2's friend was on the line, and the two of them talked about the institution's plans for a new arena. Two days later, representative B contacted the assistant men‟s basketball
coach by phone. This time, student-athlete 2 was also on the line. The assistant men‟s basketball coach and student-athlete 2 had a conversation in which student-athlete 2 stated that he was very interested in attending the institution. At the urging of the assistant men‟s basketball coach, student-athlete 2 called the former head men's basketball coach the following day. During the conversation, the former head basketball coach offered him a scholarship. Based on these facts, it is clear that representative B was assisting in the recruitment of student-athlete 2 to the institution, beginning with the November 22, 2005, meeting
There were further signs of possible trouble that went unheeded by the administration of the institution. On October 7, 2006, the director of athletics went to the men's basketball office after receiving an e-mail from a sports reporter looking for a response to a report that representative B was a professional sports agent and involved with student-athlete 2. When advised by the former head men's basketball coach that representative B had on numerous occasions denied he was an agent or runner, the director of athletics responded, "That's all I need to know," and left the office. No further follow-up was done.
On October 11, 2006, the director of compliance told the former head men's basketball coach of his concerns regarding potential problems in the recruitment of student-athlete 2. The director of compliance recommended that the basketball coaching staff formally end the recruitment of student-athlete 2 given the very public questions about student-athlete 2's amateur status and the young man's association with representative B and his AAU coach. The former head men's basketball coach failed to heed the advice, and the administration took no further action.
On November 22, 2005, and while student-athlete 2 was in his junior year of high school, representative B came to the head men's basketball coach's office, introduced himself and asked if the former head men's basketball coach would like to "have" the players regarded as the number one (student-athlete 2) and number three (a then men's basketball prospective student-athlete) ("student-athlete 2's friend") ranked players in the United States. The former head men's basketball coach responded in the affirmative. Representative B told the former head men's basketball coach that his visit was on behalf of student-athlete 2 and student-athlete 2's friend, both of whom had an interest in the institution. The former head men's basketball coach knew that representative B was not a relative of student-athlete 2 or his legal guardian but, instead, was a self-described "event promoter" who had been in contact with student-athlete 2 ever since meeting the young man at a basketball tournament. Following the meeting, the former head men's basketball coach gave representative B's name and telephone number to one of his assistant coaches (the assistant men‟s basketball coach) and instructed him to stay in contact with representative B.
The assistant men's basketball coach did as directed. He also "Googled" representative B's name in mid-December 2005 and learned through a media article about the 2001 violation and that representative B had been identified as a "runner" for a sports agent in a case involving another NCAA member institution. The assistant men's basketball coach claimed he gave the article to the former head coach. The former head coach stated that he did not recall receiving the article - he believed he had received the information about representative B's background from the compliance staff - but, regardless, an entry in student-athlete 2's institutional recruiting log confirms that by December 13, 2005, the men's basketball staff was aware of representative B's background. From that point forward, institutional recruiting records reveal multiple contacts between the men's basketball coaching staff and representative B throughout the period of student-athlete 2's recruitment from late 2005 to his initial enrollment in the fall of 2007. Included in those records were 125 telephone contacts from April 2-June 1, 2006, alone.
After being told to maintain contact with representative B, the assistant men's basketball coach made an unsuccessful attempt to contact him by telephone. On December 6, 2005, while at a local high school basketball game, representative B introduced himself to the assistant men‟s basketball coach. Upon learning that the assistant men‟s basketball coach was one of the institution's coaches, representative B handed his cellular telephone to him. Student-athlete 2's friend was on the line, and the two of them talked about the institution's plans for a new arena. Two days later, representative B contacted the assistant men‟s basketball
coach by phone. This time, student-athlete 2 was also on the line. The assistant men‟s basketball coach and student-athlete 2 had a conversation in which student-athlete 2 stated that he was very interested in attending the institution. At the urging of the assistant men‟s basketball coach, student-athlete 2 called the former head men's basketball coach the following day. During the conversation, the former head basketball coach offered him a scholarship. Based on these facts, it is clear that representative B was assisting in the recruitment of student-athlete 2 to the institution, beginning with the November 22, 2005, meeting
There were further signs of possible trouble that went unheeded by the administration of the institution. On October 7, 2006, the director of athletics went to the men's basketball office after receiving an e-mail from a sports reporter looking for a response to a report that representative B was a professional sports agent and involved with student-athlete 2. When advised by the former head men's basketball coach that representative B had on numerous occasions denied he was an agent or runner, the director of athletics responded, "That's all I need to know," and left the office. No further follow-up was done.
On October 11, 2006, the director of compliance told the former head men's basketball coach of his concerns regarding potential problems in the recruitment of student-athlete 2. The director of compliance recommended that the basketball coaching staff formally end the recruitment of student-athlete 2 given the very public questions about student-athlete 2's amateur status and the young man's association with representative B and his AAU coach. The former head men's basketball coach failed to heed the advice, and the administration took no further action.
