- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 29,179
- Likes
- 6,092
Gamecocks admit 5 major infractions under Holtz
- Thread starter LadyinOrange
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 29,179
- Likes
- 6,092
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 29,179
- Likes
- 6,092
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 29,179
- Likes
- 6,092
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2003
- Messages
- 29,179
- Likes
- 6,092
milohimself
RIP CITY
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Messages
- 48,891
- Likes
- 29
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2003
- Messages
- 115,087
- Likes
- 67,058
milohimself
RIP CITY
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2004
- Messages
- 48,891
- Likes
- 29
Vol67
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2004
- Messages
- 7,038
- Likes
- 1,679
July 13, 2005
South Carolina releases NCAA Investigation Info
USC Sports Information
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 ligibility 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 ofthese 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 ligibility, 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.
OldVol
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,931
- Likes
- 597
I hate to say it, because I really do like the old fellow, but everywhere Lou has been there's been some degree of investigation after he left.
He left ND with impending probation for the first and only time in their storied history and now he's left The 'Ole Ball Coach to clean up the mess and take out the garbage.
One thing I'm sure of; Steve will run a clean program once he gets it whipped into shape.
He left ND with impending probation for the first and only time in their storied history and now he's left The 'Ole Ball Coach to clean up the mess and take out the garbage.
One thing I'm sure of; Steve will run a clean program once he gets it whipped into shape.
volinbham
VN GURU
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 69,603
- Likes
- 61,684
I had an "animated" discussion with a moderator of some other board (SECTalk I think) who happened to be a Gamecock fan.
I was explaining how NCAA rules allowed benefits in some cases (e.g. family friend) and that's what was ruled in the Tee Martin case. He called this spin.
He went on about how corrupt UT was citing the Benzel-Myers stuff, the Tee stuff, etc. and produced a website documenting all the criminal activities of former and current vols. (this was before our recent additions to that list
h34r: )
I responded with a link to a similar site which detailed the criminal problems associated with Gamecock players/coaches both current and past (yes every school has a rival that has documented these things).
Well, my posting of that set really set this guy off. He blasted me and UT and said while USC may have had some players with problems but at least his school was 1) never on NCAA probation and 2) didn't have improper academic assistance to football players.
Obviously, this latest news out of Columbia gave me a little personal satisfaction
If I could find that moderator, I give him a big :neener: Looks like strike one, two and three!
I was explaining how NCAA rules allowed benefits in some cases (e.g. family friend) and that's what was ruled in the Tee Martin case. He called this spin.
He went on about how corrupt UT was citing the Benzel-Myers stuff, the Tee stuff, etc. and produced a website documenting all the criminal activities of former and current vols. (this was before our recent additions to that list
h34r: )I responded with a link to a similar site which detailed the criminal problems associated with Gamecock players/coaches both current and past (yes every school has a rival that has documented these things).
Well, my posting of that set really set this guy off. He blasted me and UT and said while USC may have had some players with problems but at least his school was 1) never on NCAA probation and 2) didn't have improper academic assistance to football players.
Obviously, this latest news out of Columbia gave me a little personal satisfaction
If I could find that moderator, I give him a big :neener: Looks like strike one, two and three!
JWVol
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 929
- Likes
- 46
How deflating this must be to the Gamecock faithful. I mean to get a big name coach like Spurrier to come to town and automatically think it is going to be the 2nd coming of the Gators success from the 90's, and then BAM . . have the mess of the dearly beloved Lou thrown all over your cake. This must really be a bad nightmare for them. Especially since they have not shared this much spotlight on their program in such a long time. Is ESPN not doing some kind of on-site pregame for their home opener? At least they will have something other than Spurrier to talk about.
VN Store
