journal of ncaa compliance ncaa sanctions alaska-anchorage coach tim moser, former head coach of the...

Route To: ____/____/____/____ May-June 2014

Journal of

NCAA ComplianceA spor ts l aw per iod ica l by Hackney Pub l i ca t ions

IN THIS ISSUE

Journal of NCAA Compliance is a publication of Hackney Publications. Copyright © 2014.

jonc

2 Duncan Promoted To Top Enforcement Post, Credited with Being a ‘Leader’Jonathan Duncan was officially named the NCAA’s vice presi-dent of enforcement over the spring.

3 Follow-Up Monitoring Is Key in Complying with RulesWhen conducting an NCAA rules compliance review for a school, an important area of analysis involves the school’s poli-cies and procedures for effectively monitoring compliance areas.

4 Personnel Moves

5 UMKC’s Robert Greim: Pressure ‘Just As High’ For DI Non-Football SchoolsNo stranger to the compliance world, Robert Greim has served as the Manager of Compliance for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) for the past six years.

6 DI Board Endorses NCAA RestructuringOn April 24, 2014, the Division I Board of Directors endorsed the division governance restructuring plan drafted by the division’s Steering Committee on Governance. The restructur-ing plan is purported to more effectively respond and adapt to changes in the division; allow student-athletes a greater voice in decision-making; and increase the autonomy of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC – the division’s five biggest football conferences.

7 After Much Ado, Leticia Romero Will TransferLeticia Romero, a 5-foot-8 guard who starred at Kansas State University last season, will transfer to Florida State University to play basketball.

8 Harris Beach’s Collegiate Sports Law PracticeHarris Beach PLLC has launched a national Collegiate Sports Industry Team, which will “provide a broad range of legal services related to the compliance and operational issues of run-ning a college athletic program.”

8 Probation Called a MisunderstandingThe NCAA has placed the University of Wisconsin, River Falls on a year-long probation after it found the school failed to monitor financial aid and scholarship programs.

9 Compliance Digest

• Ex-Sooner, Girlfriend Required To Sign Affidavits On Legitimacy Of Relationship

• Football Star Verbally Commits To Clemson After Tennessee Retracts ‘Offer’

•Hawaii Athletic Director Says University Is Under Investigation

•NCAA Rule Change Allows For Mandatory Summer Workouts

•NCAA: No More Immediate-Eligibility Hardship Transfer Waivers

•Sacramento State Football Coach Resigns, Possibly Due To Alleged Violations

•Mississippi State Cleared By NCAA In Alabama Investigation

•Council Approves Unlimited Meals, Snacks For Division I Athletes

•NCAA On Baylor Assistant: No Evidence Of Wrongdoing

•Confusion Over Mizzou’s Violations Report

12 NCAA Sanctions Alaska-Anchorage CoachTim Moser, former head coach of the University of Alaska Anchorage women’s basketball team, used his own money to help two players pay for housing costs during the 2011 season, according to the NCAA.

12 NCAA Contacted By Florida Bar about Attorney Under ProbeA recent media has surfaced that the NCAA has been contacted by the Florida Bar Association concerning its investigation of the attorney representing booster Nevin Shapiro in the Univer-sity of Miami’s 2009 impermissible benefits case.

May-June 2014 / 2

Journal of NCAA Compliance Copyright © 2014 Hackney Publications (hackneypublications.com)

jonc

Journal ofNCAA COMPLIANCE

HOLT HACKNEy Editor and Publisher

CADIE CARROLL Assistant Editor

MARK JONES Ice Miller LLP

CHRISTIAN DENNIE Barlow Garsek & Simon, LLP

CHUCK SMRT The Compliance Group Contributing Writers

THE ROBERTS GROUP Design Editor

Please direct editorial or subscription inquiries to Hackney Publications at:

P.O. Box 684611 Austin, TX 78768 (512) 716-7977 [email protected]

Journal of NCAA Compliance is published monthly by Hackney Publications, P.O. Box 684611, Austin, TX 78768. Postmaster send changes to Legal Issues in Collegiate Ath-letics Report. Hackney Publications, P.O. Box 684611, Austin, TX 78768.

Copyright © 2014 Hackney Publications. Please Respect our copyright. Reproduc-tion of this material is prohibited without prior permission. All rights reserved in all countries.

“This publication is designed to provide ac-curate and authoritative information in re-gard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of a competent professional should be sought” — from a Declaration of Princi-ples jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations.

jonc

Jonathan Duncan was officially named the NCAA’s vice president of enforcement over the spring.

Duncan joined the NCAA in March 2013 as the interim vice president of en-forcement, after serving the association for 15 years as outside counsel with Spencer Fane Britt & Browne, LLP and Husch Blackwell.

“As interim vice president of enforce-ment, Jon led the team through a difficult time, and the enforcement team, and national office as a whole, grew and benefited from his service.” said Mark Emmert, NCAA president. “As Jon’s term as interim vice president drew to a close, I knew he was the best person to continue leading our enforcement team.”

Jim Isch, NCAA chief operating offi-cer, added that “over the past year,” he has “watched Jon lead his team with excep-tional integrity and poise. His leadership reestablished the confidence of his staff and of the membership. I look forward to his continued success.”

As interim vice president of enforce-ment, Duncan focused on completing an in-depth review of all department poli-cies and procedures, consulted with the membership about what they envision for the enforcement department and provided staff with new tools, training and other resources to develop investigative skills.

“Our team provides a valuable resource to the membership — satisfying our charge to uphold integrity and fair play by conducting investigations that are fair, accurate, collaborative and timely,” said Duncan.

He elaborated on this membership-first approach recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

“We’re professional service providers working for our clients—the colleges and universities in the membership,” he

told the paper. “The membership owns the bylaws, and the membership owns the outcomes through the Committee on Infractions. Our charge is that narrow part in the middle between potential violations and presenting the case.”

Duncan certainly had the pedigree for the job.

At Spencer Fane and Husch Blackwell, education and sports were the core of his work. He first represented the NCAA in litigation in 1998. Since then, he has served as a legal advisor for the NCAA and offered legal counsel to NCAA com-mittees, working groups and task forces.

Duncan is a graduate of William Jewell College, now part of Division II, and graduated from the University of Kansas School of Law in 1995, where he was a published member of the Kansas Law Review. After law school, he spent two years working as a law clerk for the Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Experts Like What They See in DuncanAt least two seasoned attorneys believe

the NCAA has found the right person for the job.

“Jon’s apparent commitment to the integrity of the enforcement process and his willingness to listen and engage in meaningful discussions, on issues large and small, have been evident to us dur-ing his interim status,” Richard Evrard of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC told Sports Litigation Alert. “We look forward to the continuation of Jon’s leadership of the enforcement staff.”

Meanwhile, Chuck Smrt of The Com-pliance Group said he has found Duncan to be “a fair person, who listens and considers the positions of the institution and all involved parties.” n

Duncan Promoted To Top Enforcement Post, Credited with Being a ‘Leader’

http://www.hackneypublications.com/

3 / May-June 2014

Copyright © 2014 Hackney Publications (hackneypublications.com) Journal of NCAA Compliance

jonc

See FOLLOW-UP on Page 4

By Stuart L. Brown, Esq., of Ice Miller LLP

When conducting an NCAA rules com-pliance review for a school, an important area of analysis involves the school’s policies and procedures for effectively monitoring compliance areas like extra benefits that can negatively affect student-athlete eligibility.

Without exception, schools understand the importance of avoiding a student-athlete’s receipt of extra benefits that jeopardizes the student-athlete’s eligibility and places the school at risk of having to vacate contests in which the student-athlete competed. Consequently, most schools do a good job of conducting beginning-of-the-year meetings with student-athletes to provide education about agents, boost-ers, and extra-benefits rules and to collect student-athletes’ information about areas of concern. Unfortunately, after a beginning-of-the-year meeting, many schools do not perform as well in terms of follow-up throughout the academic year.

When student-athlete eligibility and the vacation of contests are at stake, it is important for a school to have a system for regularly monitoring and updating relevant information and assessing compliance with extra benefits rules. Through work-ing with schools in all NCAA divisions in conjunction with major infractions cases, compliance reviews, and benchmarking studies about compliance structures and monitoring techniques, Ice Miller has observed a variety of compliance follow-up best practices at schools where assuring that student-athletes comply with NCAA extra benefits rules is both a high priority and a challenging task. Below are some techniques used by compliance staffs throughout the academic year to provide follow-up monitoring of student-athletes’ compliance with extra benefits legislation in the areas of car registration, off-campus housing arrangements, cell phones, and employment.

Car registration

A school’s beginning-of-the-year compli-ance forms typically ask whether a student-athlete has access to a personal car and, if so, the make and model and the car, who owns it, and how it was purchased. Follow-up procedures used by Division I schools include the following:

● Work with the campus public safety of-fice and provide the office with a list of student-athletes. Ask the public safety office provide car information for each parking pass request during the year by a named student-athlete. This allows the compliance office to compare informa-tion and determine whether a student-athlete has reported inconsistent car information that requires further review.

● Periodically (at least once each semester) obtain from the public safety office a list of student-athletes who have received tickets (parking or otherwise) on cam-pus. This allows the compliance office to determine whether the ticketed student-athlete was using a car registered with the compliance office.

● For student-athletes that submit their state vehicle registration, some schools utilize the student-athlete opportunity fund to pay for on-campus parking permits. The public safety office gives the purchased permits directly to the compliance office for the compliance office to place in the student-athletes’ cars. This provides the compliance office the ability to actually see the student-athletes’ cars and confirm reported information on registration documents.

off-Campus Housing

Extra benefits violations involving student-athlete housing regularly arise from booster-landlords allowing reduced rental rates, agent subsidizing housing, or teammates allowing student-athletes to share housing space for free. A school’s beginning-of-the-year compliance forms typically ask where

a student-athlete lived during the summer and is living during the regular academic year, with whom the student-athlete lived and is living, how much rent the student-athlete paid/pays, and any sources for rent payments beyond school-provided allotments. Follow-up procedures used by Division I schools include the following:

● Obtain a copy of the student-athlete’s lease signed by the landlord. Periodically, (at least once each semester) obtain a cancelled check documenting rent actually paid.

● Obtain from each reported landlord a form confirming the information pro-vided by student-athletes; or phone each reported landlord to verify the reported information.

● Conduct internet research to determine the cost of housing in a student-athlete’s off-campus housing complex or sur-rounding area to determine whether the student-athlete appears to be paying reasonable rent.

Cell pHones

Many schools do not view student-athletes’ cell phones as a serious extra benefits concern. However, trends suggest that the provision of cell phone service and data plans to student-athletes is becoming a more regular way for agents, boosters, and other third parties to develop relationships with student-athletes. Cell phone monitoring efforts used by Division I schools include the following:

● At the beginning-of-year meeting, each student-athlete completes a form listing cell phone numbers, service providers, and payment methods. The theory is that student-athletes who know their school is monitoring cell phone services will be less likely to use phones provided by third parties.

● Spot check cell phone numbers provided

Follow-Up Monitoring Is Key in Complying with Rules


May-June 2014 / 4


joncFollow-Up Monitoring Is Key in Complying with RulesContinued From Page 3

by student-athletes against contact num-bers coaches have for team communica-tion. If the numbers differ or change during the year, conduct an in-person follow-up with the student-athlete.

● Request cell phone bills from student-athletes to determine who is paying for the service. As an incentive to provide the bills, use the student-athlete op-portunity fund to reimburse a portion of the monthly bill if the requested documentation is submitted.

student-atHlete employment

A school’s beginning-of-year compliance forms typically ask a student-athlete to re-port employment information such as place of employment, payment, hours worked, and name of supervisor. Many schools then submit copies of the student-athletes forms to the named employers for verification of information. Generally, these steps should

provide sufficient oversight and follow-up. However, given the serious consequences of a student-athlete receiving work related extra benefits from a booster, some Divi-sion I schools take the following additional precautions:

● Require a student-athlete’s head coach to sign an employment approval form. This holds the student-athlete account-able to the head coach for missing or incorrect information and keeps the coach informed of the student-athlete’s activities.

● If an employer employs an elite student-athlete or multiple student-athletes (particularly from the same sport), the compliance office visits the employer. During the visit, the compliance office provides NCAA rules education to the employer and verifies that student-athletes are actually performing the reported work.

● Establish limits on the number of student-athletes who can work for a single employer.

ConClusion

The above-mentioned techniques show just a few ways that Division I schools can conduct follow-up monitoring regarding compliance with extra-benefits legislation throughout the academic year. The specific techniques may not be practical at every NCAA school. However, the key lesson is that promoting and assuring compliance with extra-benefits rules requires more than just education and information gathering in a beginning-of-the-year meeting with student-athletes. Conscientious follow-up is the key to avoiding extra-benefits viola-tions and minimizing the negative impact on a school (e.g., vacation of wins, failure to monitor finding, etc.) if any such violation that may occur. n

Florida State Director of Athletics Stan Wilcox has announced the hiring of Cindy Hartmann to the newly created position of Deputy Director of Athletics for Administration at FSU. Hartmann, who has served as Associate Athletic Di-rector for Compliance at Duke for the past five years, will join FSU’s executive athletic staff with primary responsibility for human resources. “Cindy brings a wealth of experience at a number of fine institutions to Florida State,” said Wil-cox. “Her expertise in the area of human resources will be a great complement to our current staff and fulfill a need that is often overlooked in college athletics administration. In addition, her experi-ence as a former student-athlete will be important.”

University of Arkansas Vice Chancellor and Director of Athletics Jeff Long has announced that Julie Cromer has been named Senior Associate Athletic Director for Administration and Sports Programs and Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) at the school. Cromer joins the depart-ment after spending the past four years at Indiana University and previously working at the NCAA, the Midwestern Collegiate Conference, South Alabama and Wright State University. Cromer will assume SWA duties from longtime coach and athletics administrator Bev Lewis who is retiring from Razorback Athletics in June. “Julie brings a breadth of intercollegiate athletics experience in-cluding accomplished tenures at Indiana University and the NCAA,” said Long.

“Throughout her career, Julie has served at the institutional, conference and national levels to promote the growth, develop-ment and well-being of student-athletes. She is a great addition to our team and will be a tremendous benefit to our pro-gram serving more than 460 Razorback student-athletes.”

The Horizon League has announced that former NCAA enforcement director Julie Roe Lach has been hired as deputy com-missioner. Roe Lach was fired in early 2013 as the NCAA’s top enforcement officer reportedly for her involvement in paying a third-party attorney to obtain informa-tion outside the scope of the NCAA during an investigation of rules violations at the University of Miami.

Personnel Moves


5 / May-June 2014


jonc

By Cadie Carroll

No stranger to the compliance world, Robert Greim has served as the Manager of Compliance for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) for the past six years.

Prior to his time with the Kangaroos, Greim spent time in the University of Wyo-ming athletic department, working as the assistant director of the office of academic support, affording him critical insight into what has been a simmering hotspot in the compliance world.

Greim isn’t finished building out his resume either. A holder of bachelor’s (2000) and master’s (2002) degrees, both from Southwest Missouri State, he is currently a Doctoral candidate in Higher Education Administration at UMKC.

Finally, Greim takes the profession seri-ously, participating as an active member of the National Association for Athletics Compliance, where he serves as chair of the Reasonable Standards Supplemental Materials Subcommittee.

Given our respect for his obvious trajec-tory, we recently visited with him for an exclusive interview to talk about how he got into compliance and what challenges he sees facing DI non-football institutions. Here’s what he had to say:

Question: How did you first get in-volved with athletics compliance?

Answer: I’ve worked in DI Athletics for almost 20 years. I was a manager and video coordinator for an FCS football program. I then worked in academic support for athletics. My AD at the time did not feel my existentialist approach worked for DI academic support, but thought it would be perfect for compliance, so I moved over in 2008.

Q: What would you say is your favorite part of your job?

A: Helping students through the waiver process, particularly in cases where the stu-

dent meets what we feel is the intent of the bylaw but perhaps not the exact language.

Q: What would you say is the biggest challenge facing DI non-football compli-ance directors today?

A: Staffing; we have one full-time person responsible for educating, monitoring, documenting, reporting, and interpreting rules for 200+ student-athletes, 60+ staff members, all campus constituents, PSAs, and boosters.

Q: Can you give us a couple strategies you have employed to help navigate these challenges?

A: Three things: (1) We are fortunate to have established a successful intern/gradu-ate assistant program with seven individuals leaving our program going directly into full-time DI jobs over the past six years. (2) We have created a climate where coaches are comfortable asking questions knowing our office will not just immediately say “no”, but rather, will try to find a way to help them accomplish whatever goal they have in a permissible way. In the cases where the answer ends up an absolute “no”, we at least offer an explanation that helps coaches understand why they can’t do what they had hoped. (3) We have an outstanding group

of Compliance Liaisons from Financial Aid, Admissions, the Registrar’s Office, and the International Student Affairs Office. These professionals meet with Athletics Compli-ance, Athletics Academic Support, and Athletics Business every month acting as our vehicle for institutional control and serving as an advisory board for our policies and procedures. I’ve found it very beneficial to my office to regularly voice my appreciation of these individuals to their supervisors and to the public. We split the cost of sending these employees to the NCAA Regional Rules Seminar between their office and the Faculty Athletic Representative’s budget. We also recognize them each year at a home basketball contest and present them with athletics polo shirts. These small gestures go a long way in reinforcing positive, produc-tive relationships.

Q: What is one of the biggest mis-conceptions people have about DI non-football programs?

A: That the steaks aren’t as high or the pressure isn’t as great on us as it is at FCS or FBS institutions. However, we are expected to satisfy the same requirements and turn around interpretations and case manage-ment in the same timeframe, but usually with less technology and fewer employees.

Q: Tell us about one of the defining moments in your career:

A: I believe my biggest moment was join-ing the National Association for Athletics Compliance (NAAC) Reasonable Stan-dards Committee. This forward-thinking group of professionals understands the need to collaborate through dialogue, share best practices, and strategically distill the legisla-tion to a point where all practitioners know how to educate their staffs and monitor and document behavior while supporting our colleagues professionally and personally. n

UMKC’s Robert Greim: Pressure ‘Just As High’ For DI Non-Football Schools

Robert Greim


May-June 2014 / 6


jonc

By Bridget E. Niland and Brian C. Mahoney, of Harris Beach

On April 24, 2014, the Division I Board of Directors endorsed the division gov-ernance restructuring plan drafted by the division’s Steering Committee on Governance. The restructuring plan is purported to more effectively respond and adapt to changes in the division; allow student-athletes a greater voice in decision-making; and increase the autonomy of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC – the division’s five big-gest football conferences.

responsiveness, student-atHlete representation

Under the proposed plan, the Board of Directors (composed primarily of univer-sity presidents) would continue to lead the division, with additional representation by the chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, the chair of the Council (a tentative name for a proposed new group), a Senior Woman Administrator and the most senior Division I member of the Faculty Athletics Representatives As-sociation’s executive committee.

Sixty percent of the 38 member Council would be composed of athletic directors, and include the following mem-bership: one member from each confer-ence plus two voting student-athletes and four commissioners (one from each of the following: the five largest Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences, the remaining FBS conferences, the Football Championship conferences and the re-maining conferences).

The Board of Directors would pri-marily focus on oversight and strategic issues, while the Council would assume responsibility for day-to-day policy and legislation. The Council would also be the final voice on shared-governance rule-making decisions.

Three bodies would assist the Council and comprise the proposed “working level” of the division – an academics-focused group, a championships-focused group and a legislative group. The Council would be tasked with determining the implementation details for each of these groups.

football ConferenCe autonomy

Details of the plan propose allowing the Big Five conference to independently ad-dress issues in areas known as “permissive legislation.” This category includes several increasingly hot button issues for NCAA athletes such as: continuing education and medical care; expanded insurance cover-age, including policies that protect future earnings; and increased academic support, particularly for at-risk student-athletes.

Other categories in the proposal, known as “actionable legislation,” were tabled for discussion and include more complicated issues, such as lessening time demands on athletes; allowing athletes to pursue careers other than their sport; and imposing new limitations in the areas of recruiting and staff size.

expeCted timeline

Members should expect to receive informa-tion on how to submit feedback in the near future, and the comment period is expected to remain open until late June. The board is expected to vote on final recommenda-tions in August.

On the current timeline, the transition to new governance structure is expected to commence this fall. Current councils and cabinets will be maintained through January 2015, with the new Council and board expected to begin their terms at the 2015 NCAA Convention.

potential impaCt

If adopted, the new governance structure

could cause membership shifts within the NCAA. In particular, schools classified as Football Bowl Subdivision but belonging to conferences other than ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC, could be faced with deciding whether to stay in a classification in which they will be subject to operating rules determined solely by the five power conferences. If such schools opt not to operate under this governance model, the movement within Division I could be significant as they will have to reclassify to the Football Championship Subdivision, a membership model strategically different from FBS.

A second impact of the proposal is the administrative changes that a new Division I governance model may bring to NCAA Rules Compliance. Leaders for the five conferences have noted publicly that the interpretation and waivers of legislation adopted under the new model may be done by individuals in the five conference offices. Currently, interpreta-tions and legislative support is provided to NCAA member institutions by the NCAA national office staff, specifically its Academic and Membership Affairs (AMA) department. This would dissolve the single source interpretation and leg-islative support model that has existed in the NCAA for over 60 years. To best serve coaches and administrators, NCAA Rules Compliance staff at member schools could be positioned to track interpretations and activity from two entities.

These proposed changes are the latest in what is trending toward a significant remake in the oversight of collegiate sports. We will continue to monitor devel-opments and provide up-to-date analysis of the issues associated with NCAA and NAIA membership decisions. n

DI Board Endorses NCAA Restructuring — Final OK Ahead


7 / May-June 2014


jonc

Leticia Romero, a 5-foot-8 guard who starred at Kansas State University last sea-son, will transfer to Florida State University to play basketball.

While that may seem like a minor news item, the developments leading up to the event were anything but minor.

Kansas State University was criticized loudly and often for its handling of the process.

The controversy began when the school fired its women’s basketball coach, Deb Pat-terson, in March after a disappointing sea-son. Shortly thereafter, Romero requested a transfer. The school’s athletic director and then an appeals committee initially denied the request, and communicated that the decision was final.

In a release published on May 22, the school noted:

“Under university policy, the Appeals Committee’s decision is final and binding, and there is no university procedure to reexamine one of those decisions. Thus, the university process concludes with the Appeals Com-mittee’s decision. Also, the final and binding nature of these decisions does not allow for them to be overturned by university administrators.

“The transfer release and appeal policy of the department of intercollegiate athletics is included in the handbook provided to every student athlete at Kansas State University:

‘Except for the most compelling of circumstances, which place an undue burden on the student athlete, it is the policy of the department of in-tercollegiate athletics not to grant a release for purposes of a transfer or provide the one-time transfer excep-tion (NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10).

‘A scholarship student athlete who seeks a transfer from Kansas State

University, to another institution for the purpose of continuing athletic participation at that institution, must receive a release from the director of athletics prior to contact with athletics representatives of other institutions (NCAA Bylaw 13.1.1.3). A student athlete may seek a release through the sport administrator of his/her team.

‘If a student’s request for transfer is denied, the student will be notified in writing of his/her right to appeal (NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10.1) and the steps necessary to request the hearing. The hearing will take place in front of an Appeals Committee to be assembled by the vice president of student life and comprised of indi-viduals from the institution’s main campus and outside of athletics. The ruling of the Appeals Committee is final and binding.’”

When Romero hired an attorney in May and criticism mounted, things started to change.

Kansas State announced a policy change in how it processes transfer requests. It then implemented the policy retroactively to give Romero her release.

Shortly thereafter, Kansas State an-nounced that it had changed its policy to allow decisions to be reversed.

Dan Fitzgerald, of Brody Wilkinson PC, recently suggested some key “takeaways” from the controversy in his blog Connecti-cut Sports Law (http://ctsportslaw.com/):

“1. The idea that student-athletes can be punished because of tampering by coaches is ridiculous. If Kansas State believed that its former coaching staff was trying to influence Romero, it should have addressed it with the coaches and/or NCAA. Punishing Romero was the easy way out and

After Much Ado, Leticia Romero Will Transfer to Florida State

pesante Joins Hofstra

Hofstra University Vice President and Director of Athletics Jeffrey A. Hathaway has announced that Ariel “AP” Pesante has joined the Hofstra staff as the assistant director of athletics for NCAA education and compliance services.

He arrived at Hofstra after spending the previous year as the University of Hartford’s Assistant Athletic Director for Administra-tion and Compliance. At Hartford, Pesante oversaw the program’s drug testing program as well as all camps and clinics.

He also monitored campus visits for prospective student-athletes and conducted rules education sessions for athletic depart-ment members. He assisted in the oversight of budget and scheduling for men’s basket-ball and served on the athletics oversight council.

flat-out wrong.

“2. Athletic director John Currie had the ability to avoid this mess, but he didn’t. However, he deserves some credit for having the courage to reverse his decision and push for a release once he investigated the facts.

“3. Romero was represented by Don Jackson, an Alabama sports attor-ney. There is no doubt in my mind that Romero needed an attorney to represent her in this matter and At-torney Jackson was clearly successful.

“4. Recruits need to look closely at a school’s history in dealing with transfer requests.”

Mechelle Voepel, a influential columnist for espnW.com, added:

“All of this was unnecessary,” she wrote. “K-State should have released Romero from her scholarship in April, when she made a reasonable request to leave after coach Deb Patterson was fired.” n


http://ctsportslaw.com/author/ctsportslaw/

http://ctsportslaw.com/

May-June 2014 / 8


jonc

Harris Beach PLLC has launched a national Collegiate Sports Industry Team, which will “provide a broad range of legal services related to the compliance and operational is-sues of running a college athletic program.”

The firm’s team is composed of attorneys from several disciplines, who will address issues related to NCAA regulations, Title IX compliance, student-athlete eligibility, club sports, coach-player conduct, sponsorships and contractual arrangements, staffing and personnel, risk management and liability issues, drug testing, hazing and other high-visibility topics. The team also includes a college NCAA faculty athletics representa-tive and independent NCAA consultant on Division I membership issues.

Leading team is Brian C. Mahoney, a partner of the firm, who practices in the Government Compliance and In-vestigations Team and the Business and Commercial Litigation Practice Group. Mahoney handles NCAA matters including compliance and student-athlete eligibil-ity issues. He regularly advises clients on

matters related to corporate compliance and government investigations as well as federal and state regulatory actions. His trial practice includes representing individuals, businesses and institutions. Mahoney is a former college basketball player at St. John Fisher.

“College sports is a vast and ever chang-ing business that faces new and evolving regulatory and legal challenges for all involved,” said Mahoney. “This team for-malizes our prior experience in this field and will advise clients on those evolving issues that can affect institutions and their reputations.”

Joining Mahoney on the team are: ● Abbie Eliasberg Fuchs ● Roy R. Galewski ● Tracie L. Lopardi ● David P. Martin ● Donald J. Martin ● Michael J. Masino ● Joanna L. Silver ● Karl J. Sleight

● Joan P. Sullivan ● Mitchell Pawluk (associate) ● Marnie E. Smith (associate)

Founded in 1856, Harris Beach is among the country’s top law firms as ranked by The National Law Journal. Harris Beach and its subsidiaries provide a full range of legal and professional services for clients across New York state as well as nation-ally and internationally. Clients include Fortune 500 corporations, privately-held companies, emerging businesses, public sector entities, not-for-profit organizations and individuals. Principal industries Harris Beach represents include education, energy, financial, food and beverage, health care, insurance, manufacturers, medical and life sciences, real estate developers, and state and local governments and authorities. The firm’s over 200 lawyers practice among of-fices throughout New York state in Albany, Buffalo, Ithaca, New York City, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse, Uniondale and White Plains, as well as in New Haven, Connecticut and Newark, New Jersey. n

Harris Beach Launches Collegiate Sports Law Practice

The NCAA has placed the University of Wisconsin, River Falls on a year-long probation after it found the school failed to monitor financial aid and scholarship programs.

According to the Division III Com-mittee on Infractions, staff members used athletic ability as a criterion for financial aid allowance from the 2007-08 through 2011-12 academic years. As a result, five student-athletes, both current and former, received a total of $4,090 in improper benefits.

Additionally, the committee found that former head football coach John O’Grady helped arrange the scholarship packages.

A full list of penalties includes:

● Public reprimand and censure ● One year of probation from April 23,

2014 through April 22, 2015 ● Level Two review from the NCAA Com-

mittee on Financial Aid

Required attendance at an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar by the athletic director, head football coach, director of financial aid and other involved staff

Outside audit of student-athlete employ-ment practices and scholarship awarding processes

University spokesman Blake Fry said the violations were unintentional and a result of athletic staff misunderstanding NCAA rules.

“Every now and then something happens

when you have such complex regulations,” Fry said. “We’re a little disappointed that this was cited as a major violation. We had not known of a precedent where there was a violation involving student-athletes who no longer had any eligibility.”

In 2011, O’Grady was replaced by Matt Walker. Fry says the current staff at UWRF has no connection to any of the reported violations.

O’Grady went on to serve as an as-sistant coach at both the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and the University of Wisconsin-Stout, and was recently brought on as a tight ends coach for the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater – the defending D-III national champions. n

Wisconsin-River Falls Calls Probation a Misunderstanding


9 / May-June 2014


joncComplianCe digest

See COMPLIANCE DIGEST on Page 10

ex-sooner, girlfriend required to sign affidavits on legitimaCy of relationsHip

Gabe Ikard played center for the University of Oklahoma football team and signed with the Tennessee Titans as an undrafted free agent this May. The name may sound familiar, as he was one of three Sooners who came forward after having been served excess pasta at a graduation banquet.

The scandal now known as PastaGate was self-reported by the university and landed OU with a secondary violation. The pun-ishment? Each player had to donate the value of the extra pasta, $3.83, to charity.

Unfortunately for Ikard, this wouldn’t be his last run in with the Oklahoma compliance department. Before signing with the Titans, the All-Big 12 center revealed both he and his girlfriend were required to sign affidavits confirming the authenticity of their relationship.

The 6-foot-4, 304-pound center had been seen sitting courtside with his girlfriend at numerous Oklahoma City Thunder games. The affidavits were allegedly used to confirm the Academic All-American had been given the tickets because of his relationship and not his football status.

“They kind of drafted it themselves,” Ikard told SoonerScoop.com before the draft. “We had to sign a signed affidavit that she was not dating me just because I was a football player.”

But just as he did with the pasta scandal, Ikard is handling the situation with a laugh.

“They did some digging and I’m actually compliant official with my girlfriend,” he said. “I said she just likes big guys, just accept it.”

football star verbally Commits to Clemson after tennessee retraCts ‘offer’Clayton Cleveland High School defensive end Sterling Johnson learned a big lesson in college recruiting earlier this year: Sometimes a verbal scholarship offer isn’t always an offer.

The 6-foot-5, 271-pound prospect decided he wanted to play for Tennessee after receiving ‘offers’ from many top schools including Florida State, Alabama and Florida.

The term ‘offer’ is used liberally, as NCAA rules prohibit uni-versities from making written scholarship offers until August of a player’s senior year, and commitment cannot become official until the following February when signing an NLI.

Upon making the phone call to submit his verbal commitment, Johnson learned Volunteers coach Butch Jones wanted to reevaluate him after their summer football camp and then decide whether or not to make an official offer.

“They (Tennessee) dropped it on me out of the blue,” John-

son told the media. “Never a hint of this. I told them a month ago that they were my leader, and they seemed excited about me coming then.”

After the tie-up with Tennessee, the four-star recruit decided to attend Clemson that same night, announcing his decision on Twitter to his 2,850 followers.

“I would like to thank all the schools who have offered but, It’s official, I am verbally committed to Clemson university ! #Tigers,” he wrote.

Johnson was in a situation many recruits find themselves in this time of year. College coaches must actively recruit if they hope to gain even a fraction of their top prospects, which sometimes means making more verbal ‘offers’ than you intend to solidify during a player’s senior year.

The Clemson Tiger commit, who is ranked among the top 25 defensive end prospects, said he knew Tennessee was out after talking to the coaches. He says he understands the situation but felt misled and betrayed.

“I had prayed about this decision and to me, God worked out the way it is supposed to be,” Johnson said. “I love Clemson and really like Coach Swinney. Clemson wasn’t my first choice, but it was the best choice.”

Although Johnson seems excited to begin his college football career with the Tigers, nothing is official and both Johnson and Clemson can go back on the ‘offer’ with no penalty.

Hawaii atHletiC direCtor says university is under investigation

The athletic department at the University of Hawaii is under investigation for possible NCAA rules violations, according to published reports.

In a statement made by UH Director of Athletics Ben Jay, the potential violations were acknowledged but no other information was provided.

“In light of the ongoing investigation and our obligation to state and Federal laws, we are not able to discuss or share information about the investigation,” Jay told the media.

Just last March the NCAA was at the university as its men’s basketball program, along with assistant coach Brandyn Akana, was under investigation. Since no information on the new inves-tigation is available, it is unclear whether the two are connected.

nCaa rule CHange allows for mandatory summer workouts

Football coaches at major colleges can now require players to take


May-June 2014 / 10


jonc

See COMPLIANCE DIGEST on Page 11

part in up to eight hours a week of mandatory summer activities.Last December, the NCAA modified its bylaws which previously

conaidered any organized team summer workouts as voluntary. While not required, coaches now have the power to make summer sessions mandatory for players, which can include activities from weight training, conditioning, and a maximum of two hours of film study per week.

In 2012 the NCAA allowed men’s basketball coaches eight hours a week over the summer to work with their players. In 2013 the same rule was enacted for women’s basketball.

The NCAA backed its new bylaw by saying it “recognizes the importance of the accrued academic benefits of summer school attendance… Student-athletes who enroll in summer school, particularly early in their academic careers, ten to experience en-hanced academic success during their collegiate enrollment” and that the “relationship between coach and student-athlete” will see benefits as well.

nCaa: no more immediate-eligibility HardsHip transfer waivers

Late last April, collegiate sport’s governing body made a decision affecting hardship transfer student-athletes looking to gain im-mediate eligibility with their new university.

The NCAA will no longer allow instantaneous eligibility for transfer students with hardships, as it had done in the past under certain circumstances.

Previously, student-athletes who transferred universities due to strenuous life or family hardships were given immediate eligibility to participate with their new team, unlike normal transfers who are required to sit out a year.

Although that is no longer the case, the Division I Leadership Council proposed a sixth year of eligibility for student-athletes who needed it to help them reach their four years of allowed playing eligibility.

That way, student-athletes transferring due to a hardship will still be able to play for the allowed four years, while also taking time to adjust to their new school and deal with the strenuous circumstances.

Amy Huchthausen, commissioner of the America East Con-ference and chair of the subcommittee that examined the issue, agreed that hardship transfers would benefit from the extra year to focus on coursework.

“We hope this change will encourage student-athletes who must transfer based on hardships to focus on the circumstances

prompting the transfer during their first year and adjust to their new school, while giving them a season back to complete their eligibility,” she said.

saCramento state football CoaCH resigns, possibly due to alleged violations

Marshall Sperbeck, former head football coach at Sacramento State, unexpectedly stepped down late last April after the onset of an internal NCAA investigation of potential violations.

Sperbeck and Sacramento State administrators agreed on a mutual separation deal that prohibits either party from revealing why the coach resigned.

The internal investigation began with an anonymous 10-page letter sent to the university and the NCAA allegedly detailing how Sperbeck violated rules, namely exceeding phone call limits and showing up at a practice during a coaching “dead days” period.

Athletic director Terry Wanless said Sperbeck, who had two years left on his contract, “resigned for personal reasons” and wouldn’t say whether or not he stepped down as a result of the pending investigation.

“At some point in time, he may choose to make it known why [he resigned],” Wanless said. “But we are not going to say anything.”

Sperbeck was 35-44 over seven seasons at Sac State, leaving the university with two winning records (6-5 in 2010 and 2012) but no Football Championship Subdivision playoff berths.

Jody Sears will take on Sperbeck’s duties at interim coach for the upcoming season. Sears joined the Hornets last spring as a defensive coordinator after serving as head coach at Weber State for two seasons.

mississippi state Cleared by nCaa in alabama investigation

The NCAA in no longer investigating Mississippi State University for any role it may have played in an alleged extra benefits case involving players at Alabama.

Last September, Alabama, Mississippi State and Tennessee were included in a report that slated former Crimson Tide defensive lineman Luther Davis as a middle-man for agents and NFL draft prospects.

Shortly after, Yahoo! Sports reported five players in the SEC had received extra benefits while playing college ball, based on text messages from Davis, who was allegedly working as a runner.

While information on the case as a whole continues to develop, sources say the NCAA is considering the matter closed as it con-cerns Miss State.

ComplianCe digest

Continued From Page 9


11 / May-June 2014

Copyright © 2014 Hackney Publications (hackneypublications.com) Legal Issues in Collegiate Athletics

joncComplianCe digest

CounCil approves unlimited meals, snaCks for division i atHletes

Student-athletes competing at the Division I level are now allowed to receive unlimited meals and snacks thanks to a decision by the NCAA’s Legislative Council last April.

A large part of the decision is that the rule applies to both walk-ons and scholarship athletes, as part of an effort to meet the nutritional needs of all student-athletes.

Mary Mulvenna, associate commissioner of the America East Conference and chair of the Legislative Council, said the decision emphasizes the association’s commitment to its student-athletes.

“Today we took action to provide meals to student-athletes incidental to participation,” she said. “I think the end result is right where it needs to be.”

In addition to the ruling on meals and snacks, council members also voted on other student-athlete well-beings rules, including:

Requiring strength and conditioning coaches to be certified from a nationally accredited certification body

Requiring a school staff member certified in CPR, first aid and arterial external defibrillation to be present at all physical, count-able athletically related activities

Reducing the penalty for a first positive test for street drugs during championships (penalty reduced to half a season from a full season)

Requiring football players to rest for at least three hours between practices during the preseason (film review and team meetings are allowed during the rest period)

All adopted proposals will take effect August 1, except the proposal requiring strength and conditioning coaches to hold nationally accredited certification, which will take effect August 1, 2015 to allow coaches time to gain that certification.

nCaa on baylor assistant: no evidenCe of wrongdoing

The NCAA is no longer investigating allegations that Baylor assistant coach Kendal Briles had impermissible contact with a prospective football player, the university announced in April.

“The facts did not support that any violation occurred,” said Ian McCaw, Baylor’s athletic director.

Although the case is closed on Briles, university officials say they are still worried about potential false allegations made against their coaching staff, which they believe are coming from rival schools and recruiters.

“We are also concerned about the unfortunate and seemingly

unfair impact unsubstantiated claims can have on a student-athlete or prospect, individual coach and staff as well as an entire sports program,” McCaw added. “We are also committed to holding ac-countable those who make unsubstantiated claims as best we can and will work within the appropriate channels to do so.”

Confusion over mizzou’s violations report

Last March the University of Missouri released its list of viola-tions reported in 2013, which comes as a routine duty for athletic departments every year.

However, a closer look at Missouri’s report shows something out of the ordinary. Of the 37 violations, four were reported as Level I violations, considered “the most egregious” by the NCAA.

The reason for this may come as a result of the recent switch to a new enforcement structure, which took place in August 2013. Prior to the new model, violations were classified under an older structure as either major or secondary, with two categories of secondary violations.

Level II secondary violations were usually reported to the uni-versity’s conference – not the NCAA. Level I secondary violations were more serious infractions reported to the NCAA, with more stringent guideline for reinstatement of an ineligible athlete.

With the new enforcement model, violations are categorized according to the following structure:

● Level I – Severe Breach on Conduct ● Level II – Significant Breach of Conduct ● Level III – Breach of Conduct ● Level IV – Incidental Infraction

The violations Missouri reported as “Level I” included:

● Baseball staff supervising a facility while being used by prospects over four summers

● Women’s track and field staff sending texts to prospects ● Football coach responding to a prospect’s txt ● Student-athlete using his photo for promotional materials

None of those violations quite reach the level of a “severe breach of conduct,” as described by the new enforcement model’s Level I violation. They do, however, align more closely with the old enforcement model’s Level I secondary violation, which would now be classified as Level III violations.

Seems as though the new enforcement structure threw some officials a curve ball, but if anything this serves as a lesson to pay close attention when reporting violations.

Continued From Page 10


May-June 2014 / 12


jonc

Tim Moser, former head coach of the University of Alaska Anchorage women’s basketball team, used his own money to help two players pay for housing costs during the 2011 season, according to the NCAA.

After Moser resigned in the spring of 2012 without explanation, the NCAA launched a year-and-a-half long investiga-tion that found the former coach guilty of paying players, the association said in its report.

Athletic director Keith Hackett said the school became aware of the impermissible benefits after a player who had received money from Moser came to athletic staff with questions about her scholarship.

Upon further investigation it was discov-ered the player believed she was on a full ride because of the supplemental payments Moser had made, when in fact she was only on a partial scholarship.

According to the final report, Moser, along with assistant coach Elisha Harris, fed a total of $7,320 over four instances to the bank accounts of two players without them knowing.

“After promising the two student-

athletes ‘full ride’ scholarships, but being unable to deliver funds covering a full grant-in-aid, the head coach provided money to the volunteer coach and instructed her to deposit it into the accounts,” the report said.

The payments were confirmed by the university in early May.

A full list of sanctions handed down by the NCAA includes:

● $5,000 fine ● Public reprimand and censure ● Two years probation beginning May

2014 (self-imposed) ● External audit of the UAA athletic

department (self-imposed) ● Forfeiture of one-half the wins from

2011 season (record stood at 30-5) ● Loss of roughly three-quarters of a full

scholarship for the women’s basketball team for one season (reduction from 10 scholarships to 9.26 scholarships)

University chancellor Tom Case said the incident “was a terrible mistake by two individuals” and that UAA would do its best to ensure it never happened again.

“We’ll take our medicine,” Case said of the penalties, the worst of which in his

opinion being the scholarship reduction. “We regret our current and future teams will suffer.”

Harris, who once played for Moser and now serves as an assistant coach at Salt Lake Community College, rejected that she and Moser paid players.

“We wrongfully paid a promised scholar-ship to two players,” Harris said. “One of these players was a redshirt and the other barely played… This did not help us win a single game that season.”

Moser, who now serves as an assistant coach at Colorado State, apologized for the incident in a statement released through the university.

“I was motivated by the desire to do right by the student athletes,” he said. “I exercised poor judgment in my honest desire to fulfill what had been promised to two student-athletes. The choice I made was wrong, and I fully accept responsibility for having made that decision.”

This is the third time Alaska-Anchorage has committed a major violation of NCAA rules. In 1978 and 1984, men’s basketball players were found to have received imper-missible benefits as well. n

NCAA Sanctions Alaska-Anchorage Coach For Paying Players

A recent media has surfaced that the NCAA has been contacted by the Florida Bar As-sociation concerning its investigation of the attorney representing booster Nevin Shapiro in the University of Miami’s 2009 impermissible benefits case.

The Florida Bar is exploring whether attorney Maria Elena Perez committed a range of ethical and rules violations in the course of representing the Ponzi-scheming Shapiro.

Perez, a graduate of Miami, allegedly as-sisted the NCAA during its investigation of the university’s athletic department. While

representing Shapiro—a Miami booster—during his bankruptcy proceedings, she proposed to the NCAA that she could use her subpoena power to retrieve information the association could in turn use for its investigation, according to reports.

After an external review by the NCAA, it was determined members of the enforce-ment staff accepted Perez’ offer, even after warnings from legal staff. Julie Roe Lach, a former enforcement director for the NCAA, allegedly gained permission to spend roughly $20,000 on Perez to obtain the information the association would otherwise not have been able to get.

According to records, Perez received payment of $18,325 from the NCAA, which she billed for “paralegal services” at an attorney’s rate.

The information obtained through Perez was eventually thrown out of the NCAA’s investigation, but Perez could still face probation, reprimand, suspension, or disbarment by the Florida Bar as a result of her procedural errors.

The Florida Bar’s complaint can be found here:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/14/14-733/Filed_04-14-2014_Petition.pdf n

NCAA Contacted By Florida Bar about Attorney Under Probe


http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/14/14-733/Filed_04-14-2014_Petition.pdf



journal of ncaa compliance ncaa sanctions alaska-anchorage coach tim moser, former head coach of the...

Documents