Sept2017INF RutgersInfractionsPublicDecision 20170922

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, NEW BRUNSWICK
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
I. INTRODUCTION
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of

the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and the public. The COI
decides infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs.1 This case involves the
football program at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick (Rutgers).2 It
centers on seven violation areas: (1) impermissible recruiting activities by a student host group;
(2) failure to follow the institution's drug-testing policy; (3) an impermissible academic benefit;
(4) an impermissible recruiting contact; (5) unethical conduct by the former assistant football
coach; (6) a violation of head coach responsibility legislation by the former head football coach;
and (7) the institution's failure to monitor aspects of its football program.
The seven violation areas, which occurred over an approximate five-year period, share the
common thread of Rutgers and individuals failing to comply with institutional policies and
compounding problems by further noncompliance with NCAA legislation. Specifically, during
the 2011-12 academic year through the fall of 2015, the institution impermissibly had members of
a football ambassador group become involved in recruiting when they served as student hosts
during prospective student-athletes' official and unofficial visits. Others associated with the group
also met with prospects off campus or engaged in impermissible publicity for prospects. In
addition, for a four-year period, the institution failed to follow its drug-testing policy by not
withholding student-athletes from competition. Rutgers failed to monitor these areas. Further, the
former head football coach arranged an impermissible academic benefit for a football student-
athlete when he violated university policy by contacting an instructor to facilitate additional work
so that the student-athlete could raise his grade. From a head coach responsibility standpoint, the
former head football coach failed to monitor the student-ambassador program and failed to
promote an atmosphere of compliance based on his contact with the instructor. Finally, a former
assistant football coach committed a recruiting contact violation when he put himself in a position
to briefly interact face-to-face with a prospect at a high school. He later committed an unethical
conduct violation when he was not forthright about his interaction. All of these violations are
Level II violations.
1Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of NCAA Division I COI members. Decisions issued by hearing panels
are made on behalf of the COI.
2 A member of the Big Ten Conference, the New Brunswick campus of Rutgers has an enrollment of approximately 36,000 students.
It sponsors 14 women's and 10 men's sports. The institution had one previous major infractions case. That case occurred in 2003
and centered on a breakdown in the eligibility certification process across 15 sports.
Rutgers University Public Infractions Decision
September 22, 2017
Page No. 2
__________
With a few minor exceptions, Rutgers agreed with the violations, including the failure to monitor.
The former head football coach agreed that he committed a violation when he arranged an
impermissible academic benefit but did not agree that he failed his responsibilities as a head coach.
The former assistant football coach agreed that he engaged in an impermissible recruiting contact
but did not agree that he provided false or misleading information when questioned about the
contact.
The panel concludes that violations occurred. Because the violations occurred both before and
after October 30, 2012, the effective date of the implementation of the new penalty structure, the
panel compared the penalty structure in place prior to October 2012 and the current penalty
structure to determine which is more lenient. The panel concludes that current NCAA Bylaws
19.9.5 and 19.9.7 (2016-17 NCAA Division I Manual) affords the institution with less stringent
penalties. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the panel classifies this case
as Level II-Standard for all parties. Utilizing the current and NCAA bylaws authorizing additional
penalties, the panel adopts and prescribes the following penalties: two years of probation, a $5,000
fine, game suspensions for the former head football coach (previously self-imposed), and show-
cause provisions for the former head football coach and the former assistant football coach. The
penalty section of this decision describes other penalties.
II. CASE HISTORY
On March 24, 2015, the enforcement staff sent a notice of inquiry to Rutgers relating to possible
violations in the women's gymnastics program.3 During its women's gymnastics inquiry, the
enforcement staff became aware of possible violations involving the institution's football program.
Specifically, the enforcement staff reviewed social media postings indicating potential recruiting
violations involving a football recruiting student host group, the football student ambassadors. On
May 1, 2015, the enforcement staff sent a letter of inquiry concerning the football student
ambassadors and social media postings that publicized the recruitment of student-athletes, a
possible violation of NCAA recruiting legislation.
In mid-August 2015, a member of Rutgers' academic support staff informed athletics department
officials that he received information about a potential NCAA violation involving the then head
football coach (head coach). The information related to the head coach allegedly contacting an
instructor regarding a student-athlete's failing grade in a course the student-athlete took during the
2015 spring semester.
From August through December 2015, the enforcement staff and institution conducted numerous
interviews with prospects, football student-athletes, football staff members and other individuals
associated with the football program. Among other issues, investigators scrutinized the football
student ambassador group and the institution's drug-testing program. During this time, the
3 In September 2015, the enforcement staff processed the gymnastics violations as Level III.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 3
__________
enforcement staff interviewed a prospective student-athlete who reported a potential recruiting

contact violation involving the former assistant football coach (the assistant coach).
In mid-February 2016, the institution submitted a self-report to the enforcement staff regarding the
head coach's contact with the instructor. Following the submission of this self-report, from March
through November 2016, the enforcement staff and institution continued the joint investigation.
On December 19, 2016, the enforcement sent a notice of allegations to the president of Rutgers,
the head coach, the assistant coach and the former director of sports medicine (director of sports
medicine), who oversaw the institution's drug-testing program. On April 19, 2017, following
several extension requests, the parties submitted responses to the notice of allegations. On June
16, 2017, the enforcement staff submitted its reply and statement of the case to the hearing panel
and the parties in the case. A panel of the COI conducted an in-person hearing on July 14, 2017.
Institutional officials, the head coach, the assistant coach and the director of sports medicine
attended the hearing. On July 19, 2017, the panel sent a letter to Rutgers and the enforcement staff
regarding the appropriateness of an aggravating factor cited by the enforcement staff. On July 24,
2017, the parties responded with their positions relative to the aggravating factor. Also on July
19, 2017, the panel sent a letter to the NCAA's Academic and Membership Affairs (AMA) staff
requesting an interpretation regarding the panel's ability to vacate records when an institution fails
to suspend student-athletes for positive drug tests, in violation of its own policy. On August 1,
2017, the AMA staff responded with its interpretation. The panel heard the case on the merits and
based its decision on the full information in the record.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The problems at Rutgers span approximately five years and touch on four main substantive areas:
(1) a football student ambassador group (football ambassadors); (2) institutional drug-testing
policy; (3) contact between the head coach and an instructor; and (4) contact between the assistant
coach and a prospect. Within each of these areas, individuals and Rutgers failed to adhere to
institutional policies and did not act in ways consistent with expectations.
Football Student Ambassador Group
The problems with the football ambassadors were a byproduct of a number of underlying failures
in implementation, education, reporting lines and oversight surrounding the group. For
approximately five years, the group assisted with all areas of recruiting and individuals associated
with the group involved themselves with off-campus recruiting activities and publicity of
prospects. The football ambassadors operated inconsistently with Rutgers policy.
The football ambassador activities came to light as the result of social media postings brought to
the attention of the enforcement staff during the spring of 2015. Rutgers and the enforcement staff
began an investigation of the institution's football ambassadors in May 2015. The investigation
September 22, 2017
Page No. 4
__________
revealed that the football ambassadors existed from approximately 2011 through the fall of 2015.
This group operated independently from the Scarlet Ambassadors, Rutgers' official student-
hosting organization. The program employed approximately 26 ambassadors during this period,
and all but three were female. Rutgers permitted the football ambassadors to assist the football
staff with all aspects of recruiting, including hosting prospects during official and unofficial visits,
football practices and home football games.
Rutgers also used social media to publicize the recruitment of football student-athletes.
Specifically, on numerous occasions between August 2014 and August 2015, a football
ambassador and a volunteer on the operations staff commented publicly beyond confirming
recruitment. Also, through a social media website, they publicized visits to the institution's campus
of at least 19 football prospects.
In addition to on-campus contacts with prospects through hosting activities on official and
unofficial visits, two football ambassadors, on two separate occasions, had contact with prospects
off-campus. Specifically, on or around March 16, 2015, two football ambassadors had prearranged
off-campus recruiting contact with two prospects in Orlando, Florida. Further, on or about April
3, 2015, the same two football ambassadors had prearranged recruiting contact with four prospects
at an off-campus restaurant and a dorm room on campus.
Prior to the fall of 2015, Rutgers provided little, if any, compliance education to the members of
the group.
In addition to lack of education, the involvement in recruiting and hosting functions was a result
of Rutgers embedding the group within the football program. The football program organized and
directed the group, including selecting its members. The football ambassadors exclusively assisted
in the recruitment of football prospective student-athletes and the football recruiting staff
supervised the group. The director of recruiting, who reported to the head coach, was the
individual with direct oversight of the group.
As the head of the football program, the head coach knew the football ambassadors assisted with
these visits, including interacting with prospects and their families. Moreover, the head coach
acknowledged that he was aware of the Scarlett Ambassadors, the institution's official student host
group administered through the undergraduate admissions office. The head coach recalled that his
predecessor attempted to use the Scarlett Ambassadors for tours, but that "didn't work great" and
"didn't fit the needs of what our [prospects] were looking for." Even with this understanding, the
head coach never had a conversation with his predecessor or the compliance office regarding the
permissibility of the structure or function of the football ambassador program. Further, he never
evaluated the program. At the infractions hearing, the head coach acknowledged that he was
responsible for all aspects of the football program, including the football ambassador program,
stating "I think when you are the head football coach, everything falls on your plate and ultimately
I'm responsible for it."
September 22, 2017
Page No. 5
__________
From a university-wide policy perspective, Rutgers used football ambassadors in a manner that
was inconsistent with its policy for providing campus visits or tours to prospective students in
general. Namely, the football student-ambassadors program was not affiliated with, nor
administered by the institution's Office of Enrollment Management, the unit responsible for
providing campus visits or tours. The football ambassadors performed both administrative and
hosting duties, but it is only the hosting duties and related off-campus contacts with prospects that
implicated NCAA recruiting legislation.
The Institution's Drug-Testing Policy
For over a decade, Rutgers had written policies and procedures for its student-athlete drug-testing
program. Rutgers updated and modified its written policies and procedures for its student-athlete
drug-testing program in 2005. Among the stated goals of the program as reflected in the 2005
policy was to identify and effectively intervene with drug users and alcohol abusers, and inform
student-athletes of applicable drug-testing regulations. Rutgers enacted various policies,
procedures and programs in support of these goals.
Rutgers acknowledged that at times, however, it failed to follow the program's requirements.
Specifically, Rutgers failed to notify appropriate athletic department personnel of positive tests,
implement corrective and disciplinary actions and identify student-athletes who had positive tests.
Further, institutional staff failed to notify a few student-athletes of positive tests.
Rutgers agreed that it did not follow its own drug-testing policies and procedures at various times
during the period from September 11, 2011, to the fall of 2015 by falling short of meeting the
policy's notification and identification requirements. The institution's violations of drug-testing
policies involved a total of 32 student-athletes who tested positive for banned substances. Many
of these football student-athletes were permitted to compete without being subjected to the
corrective or disciplinary actions mandated by the institution's drug-testing policy. Specifically,
on several occasions, medical staff did not notify the director of athletics of positive tests, or
involve the director of athletics in determining the penalties for football student-athletes who tested
positive, as required by the institution's drug-testing policy. In addition, due to failures on the part
of the medical staff, the football staff and the administration, Rutgers did not implement corrective
actions or disciplinary actions in some instances. And Rutgers neglected to have the director of
athletics document in writing the reasons for an alteration of any penalty, as the policy required.
Further, the drug-testing policy required treatment contracts to be used when student-athletes
tested positive an additional time (or times). However, the medical staff did not execute treatment
contracts for approximately 30 student-athletes. Moreover, approximately 15 football student-
athletes triggered positive drug tests that were not appropriately classified as first or subsequent
violations of the program. The medical staff and the football staff allowed 14 of these student-
athletes to compete without serving certain penalties, such as game suspensions, as required under
the policy. Finally, on a few occasions, personnel failed to notify student-athletes of their positive
drug tests in violation of the policy.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 6
__________
Head Coach Contact with a Faculty Member
In 2015, the head coach contacted an instructor in an attempt to arrange additional course work for
a football student-athlete in an effort to raise that student-athlete's failing grade and maintain his
eligibility. The head coach's actions violated university policy.
During the spring 2015 semester, a football student-athlete was performing poorly in a course.
The student-athlete had several meetings with his academic advisors and then met directly with
his instructor to address the situation. The instructor provided the student-athlete an opportunity
to complete an additional assignment to make up for a failed quiz on which he had allegedly
cheated. The student-athlete did not complete the assignment and he received a final grade of "F."
He needed to pass the course in order to be eligible for the 2015 football season.
In late May 2015, shortly after the instructor posted the student-athlete's failing grade, the student-
athlete contacted the instructor and requested the opportunity to complete additional work and pass
the course. The instructor refused the student-athlete's request, citing the missed opportunities she
gave him to earn extra credit during the semester. An administrator in the athletic support office
subsequently notified the head coach of the student-athlete's "F" in the course and that he would
not be eligible for the 2015 season.
On July 30, 2015, the head coach used his personal email account and contacted the instructor
regarding the student-athlete's performance in the course. In the email, the head coach stated, "If
there was any work that could be done to earn a grade change, I would be willing to have it done
during football hours . . . ." Later that same day, the head coach arranged a personal meeting with
the instructor. Before meeting with the instructor, the head coach had an August 3, 2015, telephone
conversation with an administrator in the Academic Support Office regarding the process for
changing final course grades. During this conversation, the head coach informed the academic
support administrator that he was going to "reach out" to the student-athlete's instructor. The head
coach's and the academic support administrator's account of the conversation varied. At a
minimum, the administrator warned the head coach that contacting the instructor "was (not) a good
idea."
Despite the academic support administrator's admonition, the head coach had a face-to-face
meeting with the instructor on August 5, 2015, in an effort to arrange additional course work for
the student-athlete so that he could attain a passing grade in the course. At the hearing, the head
coach said that, at the time, he was not aware that institutional policy prohibited coaches from
contacting faculty members, and he did not inform anyone in the athletics department of the
meeting. The instructor initially acquiesced to the head coach's request to allow the student-athlete
to complete additional work. Within a short time, the student-athlete submitted an initial draft of
a paper to the head coach. After accepting some grammatical and punctuation suggestions from
the head coach, the student-athlete emailed a final version of the paper to the instructor.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 7
__________
On August 7, 2015, the head coach met with the academic support administrator and informed her
that he thought the student-athlete's grade in the dance appreciation course was going to be changed
and thus he would be eligible for the 2015 season. The academic support administrator reported
she immediately left the meeting and told the head coach that she "(didn't) want any part of this."
The academic support administrator reported to her supervisor what the head coach had said during
the August 3, 2015, telephone call and the August 7, 2015, in-person meeting. Rutgers
administrators had concerns with what had occurred, so the institution conducted a review of the
matter. The student-athlete's instructor later decided that she would not accept the student-athlete's
additional course work. Accordingly, his failing grade stood, and he was ineligible for the 2015
football season.
The institution's internal investigation concluded that the head coach's contact with the instructor
violated institutional policy and likely NCAA legislation. The institution's policy prohibiting
contact between coaches and academic faculty was a subject covered in rules compliance sessions
for several years at Rutgers.
Assistant Coach's Off-Campus Recruiting Contact and His Lack of Candor
In 2014, the assistant coach visited a football prospect at his high school during his sophomore
year. The assistant coach put himself in a position to engage with the prospect and then did interact
with him. The assistant coach chose to make matters worse by not being forthright about what he
did.
In August 2015, the enforcement staff interviewed a football prospect from Pennsylvania. The
prospect reported that in the spring of 2014 and during his sophomore year the assistant coach
visited him at his high school. The prospect recalled that his high school coach pulled him from
class and informed him that there was "someone here to see [him]." The prospect stated that he
left the class and had a "minute, two minutes at the most" face-to-face interaction with the assistant
coach. The prospect's high school coach corroborated the student-athlete's account of the assistant
coach's visit. On the same day of this visit, the prospect posted a tweet thanking Rutgers and the
assistant coach specifically for visiting him at his high school. The assistant coach's recruiting
logs confirm that he visited the prospect at his high school on May 14, 2014.
The assistant coach was not forthright with the enforcement staff about his actions at the high
school with the prospect. The enforcement staff interviewed the assistant coach on two occasions:
on December 16, 2015, when he was still employed at Rutgers and again on August 3, 2016, when
he was no longer at the institution. During his December 2015 interview, the assistant coach
denied speaking with the prospect during the visit in question. He also failed to disclose that he
had had a face-to-face encounter with the prospect during the visit. Additionally, during his 2015
interview, when questioned about the number of times he saw the prospect face-to-face, the
assistant coach replied that he only saw the prospect in-person on the Rutgers campus and
continued to deny that he had any in-person contact with the prospect at his high school. At the
beginning of his second interview in August 2016, he stated that he reviewed the transcript of his
September 22, 2017
Page No. 8
__________
previous interview and did not have anything to change. However, after being asked by the
enforcement staff if the prospect's high school coach brought the prospect to the assistant coach
during the May 2014 visit, he admitted that he had a face-to-face encounter with the prospect but
"did not speak to the young man." He maintained that position in his written response and at the
hearing.
IV. ANALYSIS
The violations in this case center primarily on the football program and fall into seven areas: (A)
impermissible recruiting activity by members of a football student host group and a football staff
member; (B) violations of the institution's drug-testing policy; (C) an arrangement by the head
football coach for an impermissible academic extra benefit provided to a student-athlete; (D) an
impermissible recruiting contact; (E) unethical conduct by the assistant coach for providing false
or misleading information; (F) failure of the head coach to meet his responsibility to monitor the
football student host program and to promote an atmosphere of compliance; and (G) failure to
monitor by the institution. These violations share the common thread of Rutgers and individuals
not grasping the importance of adhering to institutional policies and compounding problems by
further noncompliance with NCAA legislation.
A. IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING ACTIVITY BY STUDENT HOST GROUP

[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.6.7.5 and 13.7.2.1.8 (2011-12 through 2015-
16); 13.1.2.1, 13.1.2.1.1 and 13.4.1.4.1 (2014-15); and 13.10.2.1 and 13.10.2.4 (2014-
15 and 2015-16)]
Rutgers permitted members of the football ambassadors group to conduct impermissible recruiting
and hosting activities over approximately five years. Also, some associated with the group
engaged in impermissible recruiting and publicity outside of the group's activities. The institution
and enforcement staff substantially agreed to the facts and that violations occurred. The panel
agrees with the parties' position that violations occurred. These violations are Level II.
1. NCAA legislation relating to recruiting.
The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.
2. For approximately five years, the institution violated NCAA legislation when
it used a football ambassador group for recruiting purposes, and some
associated with the group and football program engaged in impermissible off-
campus recruiting and publicity of prospects.
During the 2011-12 academic year through the fall of 2015, Rutgers permitted members of the
football ambassadors group, or those associated with the group, to operate in noncompliance with
NCAA rules in three areas. First, football ambassadors impermissibly served as student hosts
September 22, 2017
Page No. 9
__________
during football prospects' official and unofficial visits and became involved in recruiting activities.
These actions were inconsistent with university policy. Second, some individuals associated with
the group impermissibly met off campus with prospects. Finally, others associated with the group
and the football program impermissibly publicized the recruitment of prospects. Rutgers fell short
in implementation, education, reporting lines and oversight of the football student ambassadors.
These are significant violations. The conduct violated Bylaw 13.
Bylaws 13.6.7.5 and 13.7.2.1.8 govern the use of student hosts on official and unofficial visits and
prohibit the use of student hosts in a manner inconsistent with the institution's policies. Both
Bylaw 13.6.7.5, regarding official visits, and Bylaw 13.7.2.1.8, pertaining to unofficial visits,
require student hosts to be either a current student-athlete or a student who is designated in a
manner consistent with the institution's policies for providing campus tours or visits to prospective
students in general. Bylaw 13.4.1.4.1 allows communication with prospects only through
electronic mail and facsimile. Further, Bylaw 13.1.2.1 requires that all in-person, on- and off-
campus recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete shall be made only by authorized
institutional staff members, i.e. coaches. Bylaw 13.10.2.1 prohibits institutions from publicizing
the recruitment of a prospect beyond simply confirming that the institution is recruiting the
student-athlete. More specifically, Bylaw 13.10.2.4 forbids member institutions from publicizing
a prospective student-athlete's visit to the institution's campus.
Members of the football ambassador group were neither student-athletes nor regular students
operating under regular campus-visit policy. When the football ambassadors engaged in the
conduct involving visits, they violated Bylaws 13.6.7.5 and 13.7.2.1.8. In addition, the football
student-ambassador group also engaged in impermissible off-campus recruiting activity arranged
through text messaging and/or social media communication that violated Bylaws 13.1.2.1 and
13.4.1.4.1. Finally, members of the football ambassador group and a football staff member
publicized the recruitment of prospective student-athletes in a fashion that violated Bylaws
13.10.2.1 and 13.10.2.4.
The COI has concluded in the past that violations occurred under similar circumstances. See
Oklahoma State University (2015) (concluding that a student host group engaged in impermissible
hosting activities during official and unofficial visits to campus by prospective football student-
athletes and their families).
In a related way, off-campus contacts between members of the football ambassador group arranged
through impermissible electronic communications also violated recruiting legislation. In this
instance, members of the football ambassadors arranged off-campus contacts through text
messaging and other social media, which Bylaw 13.4.1.4.1 expressly prohibits. When the football
ambassadors, who were not authorized to recruit, met with prospective student-athletes on two
occasions off campus, Rutgers violated Bylaw 13.1.2.1.
In another way connected to the football ambassadors group, a football ambassador and football
staff member committed recruiting violations relating to the publicizing of recruiting information.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 10
__________
When a football ambassador and the football director of recruiting commented publicly beyond
confirming recruitment and publicized visits to the institution's campus of at least 19 football
prospects on social media, Rutgers violated Bylaws 13.10.2.1 and 13.10.2.4.
Rutgers allowed the football ambassador group to function in a way that violated NCAA
legislation, despite the membership being on notice for several years that use of such student
hosting groups was impermissible. The NCAA published multiple education columns on this issue
over the past 13 years, most recently in 2015. These education columns placed the Association on
notice regarding the most current legislation on the proper use of student hosts. The educational
columns were based on Bylaws 13.6.7.5 and 13.7.2.1.8, among others, and their official and staff
interpretations. The educational columns were made public and widely circulated and utilized by
institutional compliance staff.
Even in light of commonly-known rules and concerns surrounding student-host groups, Rutgers
took certain actions and failed to take others that led to these violations. Rutgers failed to
appropriately educate members of the group and Rutgers personnel. Rutgers also chose to embed
the group within the football program. Oversight of the group ultimately fell on the head coach.
In this environment, it is not surprising that the group's use and the actions of some associated with
the group crossed boundaries and ran afoul NCAA rules and Rutgers' own institutional policies.
The violations in this case are Level II violations of NCAA bylaws because they provided or were
intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial recruiting advantage. The
Level II classification is consistent with the decision in Oklahoma State. Both cases involved
impermissible recruiting activities by groups that did not comport with each institutions' policies
for providing campus tours or visits to prospective students in general.
B. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE INSTITUTION'S DRUG-TESTING

POLICY [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 10.2 (2011-12 through 2015-16)]
Rutgers failed to follow its own drug-testing policies and procedures for a number of student-
athletes over a multi-year period. Some of those student-athletes who had tested positive for
banned substances then competed in contravention of Rutgers' drug-testing policy. Rutgers and
the enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts and that violations occurred. The panel
agrees with the parties' position that violations occurred. These violations are Level II.
1. NCAA legislation regarding knowledge of use of banned drugs.
The applicable portions of the bylaw may be found at Appendix Two.
2. For approximately five years, Rutgers violated NCAA legislation when it

failed to comply with its drug-testing policy requirements for 32 student-
athletes, resulting in 14 football student-athletes competing without being
subject to mandated corrective or disciplinary actions.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 11
__________
At various times from September 2011 to the fall of 2015, Rutgers fell short of meeting its drug-
testing policy for 32 student-athletes by not adhering to the policy in three principal areas: (1)
notification; (2) proper identification of positive tests; and (3) implementation of required
corrective or disciplinary action. These failures to the follow the policy involved multiple athletics
personnel across the athletics department. As a result, Rutgers allowed 14 football student-athletes
who tested positive for banned substances to compete without being subject to corrective or
disciplinary action required by the policy. These are significant violations. The failure to comply
with the drug-testing policy violated Bylaw 10.
Bylaw 10.2 addresses compliance with institutional policy on drug abuse. The bylaw specifically
requires athletics personnel who have knowledge that a student-athlete used a banned substance to
comply with their institution's drug-testing policy.
Rutgers did not implement notice requirements under its drug-testing policy in several ways. At
times, the medical staff did not notify the director of athletics of positive tests. Further, on a few
occasions, Rutgers did not inform student-athletes of a positive drug test. The process also failed
when medical personnel and/or the head coach did not notify and involve the director of athletics
in determining the penalties, or alteration of required penalties, for football student-athletes who
tested positive.
Rutgers did not adhere to its drug-testing policy in a second way when 15 student-athletes had
positive drug tests that were not appropriately classified as first or subsequent violations of the
drug-testing policy.
Rutgers also failed to implement required corrective or disciplinary action under its drug-testing
policy. Specifically, the drug-testing policy required treatment contracts to be used when student-
athletes tested positive an additional time (or times). Treatment contracts outlining mandatory
treatment requirements, expectations and future possible sanctions were not utilized for
approximately 30 football student-athletes after their first positive test as required by the
institution's drug-testing policy. Moreover, of the 15 student-athletes who had initial positive tests
(or subsequent violations) and were not properly identified by Rutgers, 14 of them were permitted
to compete without being subject to timely corrective or disciplinary actions, including game
suspensions, required by the policy.
Under Bylaw 10.2, Rutgers was required to comply with its drug-testing policy, and it did not do
so within these three areas. Because of these collective failures, Rutgers fell short in complying
with its drug-testing policy, affecting numerous student-athletes. When Rutgers did not implement
its drug-testing policy, it violated Bylaw 10.2.
Consistently over time, the COI has concluded that institutions that fail to implement drug-testing
policies violate Bylaw 10.2. See University of Miami (1995) (concluding that the institution failed
to follow its drug-testing policy and permitted three football student-athletes to compete without
being subject to the required disciplinary measures specified in the policy); Baylor University
September 22, 2017
Page No. 12
__________
(2005) (concluding that that the institution did not follow its drug-testing policy when three
student-athletes failed a drug test, but the results were not reported to the appropriate university
office as the policy required); Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that the institution failed to
follow its written drug-testing policy when, following positive drug tests, the head coach men's
basketball coach did not contact parents of student-athletes and when counselors released student-
athletes back to competition without ensuring that student-athletes no longer used banned
substances); Oklahoma State University (2015) (concluding that the institution violated its drug-
testing policy when it permitted five football student-athletes to participate in competition who
should have been withheld from competition because they failed institutional drug tests; and
California State University, Sacramento (2015) (concluding that, similar to Oklahoma State, the
institution violated its drug-testing policy when it permitted five football student-athletes to
participate in competition who should have been withheld from competition because they failed
institutional drug tests). This case has some differences from past cases, but all share the common
thread of a failure to follow institutional drug-testing policies.
The panel concludes that these violations are Level II. Level II violations are significant breaches
of conduct. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2, significant breaches of conduct are those that may
compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model or that provided or were intended to
provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial recruiting advantage. In this case, the
violations of the drug-testing policy compromised the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model
because such violations undermine the Association's commitment to drug-free and fair
competition. Moreover, Rutgers did not implement proper disciplinary actions, including game
suspensions, for some football student-athletes who tested positive for banned drugs. In failing to
do so, it gained more than a minimal recruiting advantage over institutions that complied with
drug-testing policies and withheld offending student-athletes. The Level II classification is
consistent with the decisions in Oklahoma State University (2015) and California State University,
Sacramento (2015), both of which involved failures to comply with punitive actions required by
their respective policies, including failures to withhold from competition student-athletes who
tested positive.
C. THE HEAD COACH'S ARRANGEMENT FOR AN ACADEMICALLY-

RELATED EXTRA BENEFIT [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2014-
15 and 2015-16)]
During the summer of 2015, the head coach provided an impermissible extra benefit to a football
student-athlete when he contacted the student-athlete's instructor to arrange for him to complete
additional coursework. The institution, the head coach and the enforcement staff substantially
agreed on the facts and that the violation occurred. The panel agrees with the parties' position that
the violation occurred. The violation is Level II.
1. NCAA legislation relating to extra benefits.

September 22, 2017
Page No. 13
__________
2. The head coach provided an impermissible extra benefit when, during the
summer of 2015, he arranged for a student-athlete to complete additional
coursework after the conclusion of the academic term so that the student-
athlete could gain eligibility for the 2015 football season.
During July and August 2015, the head coach violated NCAA legislation when he arranged for a
football student-athlete to receive an impermissible academically-related extra benefit.
Specifically, the head coach contacted the student-athlete's course instructor to arrange extra work
for the football student-athlete so that he could pass the course and be eligible for the 2015 football
season. The head coach agreed to the facts of the violation, but claimed that he was not aware of
the institution's policy prohibiting contact between coaches and faculty members. The head
coach's conduct violated Bylaw 16.
Bylaw 16 governs benefits for enrolled student-athletes. Bylaw 16.11.2.1 is the general rule that
a student-athlete shall not receive any "extra benefit." An extra benefit is "any special arrangement
by an institutional employee or representative of the institution's interest that is not expressly
authorized by NCAA legislation."
Two months after a football student-athlete failed a dance appreciation course in which he was
enrolled during the 2015 spring semester, the head coach contacted the course instructor using his
personal email account and asked her to permit the student-athlete to complete extra work that
would allow him to pass the course and retain his eligibility. He later personally met with the
instructor to finalize the arrangement. The instructor initially agreed to the head coach's request.
The head coach stated that he was not aware that institutional policies prohibited coaching staff
from contacting faculty members regarding student-athletes' academic issues. However, this
policy was a topic covered in rules compliance sessions for several years at the institution.
As a result of the head coach's conduct, the student-athlete received a benefit not generally
available to the general student body and not authorized by NCAA legislation. The impermissible
benefit was the "special arrangement" to ensure the student-athlete's eligibility. And it was made
possible by the head coach's request and his involvement in the academic affairs of one of his
student-athletes.
A similar violation occurred in a case involving the University of Georgia (2014). In Georgia, on
the final day of classes for the 2013 fall semester, the head swimming coach contacted a professor
in an attempt to arrange an independent study class that could be added to the student-athlete's fall
semester schedule. This resulted in an impermissible benefit for the student-athlete. As in this
case, the Georgia swimming coach made this arrangement to maintain the student-athlete's
academic eligibility. Consistent with the decision in Georgia, the panel concludes that the head
coach's conduct resulted in an impermissible benefit and a Level II violation.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 14
__________
D. THE ASSISTANT COACH'S IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING CONTACT

[NCAA Division I Manual Bylaw 13.1.1.1 (2013-14)]
During May 2014, an assistant football coach had impermissible, off-campus recruiting contact
with a football prospective student-athlete, who was a high school sophomore at the time, at the
prospect's high school. The institution and the enforcement staff substantially agreed on the facts
and that the violation occurred. The assistant coach agreed that he had face-to-face contact with
the prospect, but did not agree that he engaged in a conversation. The panel concludes that the
contact occurred and that the assistant coach and the prospect spoke to one another. This violation
is Level III.
1. NCAA legislation relating to recruiting contacts.
2. The assistant coach engaged in an impermissible recruiting contact with a

prospective student-athlete who was high school sophomore at the time.
On May 14, 2014, the assistant coach visited a high school in Pennsylvania. During the visit, the
assistant coach spoke with the high school's head football coach. The high school coach pulled a
sophomore prospective student-athlete from class to meet with the assistant coach. The assistant
coach had face-to-face contact with the prospective student-athlete and engaged in a conversation
with him. This contact violated Bylaw 13.
Bylaw 13.1.1.1 prohibits off-campus recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete (or his
or her relatives or legal guardians) before July 1 following the completion of his or her junior year
in high school. In this instance, the assistant coach violated Bylaw 13.1.1.1 because the
prospective student-athlete with whom he had contact was a high school sophomore at the time.
Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.3, the panel concludes that this violation is Level III because it was isolated
and did not provide the institution with more than a minimal advantage.
Similar violations occurred in recent cases involving the University of Alabama (2017) and
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (2016). In Alabama, an assistant football coach
initiated an in-person contact with a prospective student-athlete at the prospect's high school during
an evaluation period, prior to the end of the prospect's junior year, a violation of Bylaw 13.1.1.1.
In UCLA, the associate head football coach had impermissible off-campus contact during an
evaluation period with two prospective student-athletes who were juniors in high school, also a
violation of Bylaw 13.1.1.1. In both Alabama and UCLA, as in this instance, the panels determined
that the impermissible recruiting contacts were Level III.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 15
__________
E. THE ASSISTANT COACH'S UNETHICAL CONDUCT [NCAA Division I

Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 (2015-16 and 2016-17); 10.1-(d) (2015-16); 10.1-(c)
(2016-17)]
The assistant football coach engaged in unethical conduct when he provided false or misleading
information during the investigation. The institution and the enforcement staff substantially agreed
on the facts and that the violation occurred. The assistant coach disagreed that he provided false
or misleading information. The panel concludes the violation occurred and it is Level II.
1. NCAA legislation relating to ethical conduct.
2. On two occasions, the assistant football coach engaged in unethical conduct

when he provided false or misleading information to the NCAA enforcement
staff and institution.
In two separate interviews, the assistant football coach violated NCAA principles of ethical
conduct when he knowingly provided false or misleading information to the enforcement staff and
institution regarding his impermissible contact with a sophomore prospective student-athlete. The
conduct violated Bylaw 10.
Bylaw 10 requires coaches, student-athletes and others involved with intercollegiate athletics to
conduct themselves in an ethical manner. Included in this legislation is Bylaw 10.01, the general
principle of ethical conduct that requires individuals at member institutions to practice honesty and
sportsmanship at all times. Conversely, Bylaw 10.1 identifies behaviors that constitute unethical
conduct. Among these behaviors is the knowing provision of false or misleading information to
the enforcement staff and institutions, as specified in Bylaws 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d).4
During interviews conducted on December 16, 2015, and August 3, 2016, the assistant coach
provided false and misleading information when he denied having any impermissible
communication or contact with the prospective student-athlete during his 2014 visit to the
prospect's high school. He also stated that the only time he saw the prospect face-to-face was on
the Rutgers campus during visit(s). Contrary to the assistant coach's assertions, the prospect
reported that the assistant coach visited him at his high school in the spring of 2014 and they spoke
to each other. The prospect recalled that his high school coach summoned him from an art class
to meet with the assistant coach and the meeting lasted approximately one to two minutes. On the
day of this contact, the prospect posted a tweet thanking the institution and the assistant coach for
visiting him. The assistant coach's recruiting logs confirm that he visited the prospect at his high
4 When the assistant coach was first interviewed, in December 2015, Bylaw 10.1-(d) identified the provision of false or misleading
information as unethical conduct. That bylaw changed to 10.1-(c) in the 2016-17 Division I Manual and applied when the
enforcement staff interviewed the assistant coach a second time, in August 2016.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 16
__________
school on May 14, 2014. The prospect's high school coach corroborated the prospect's account of
his contact with the assistant coach and conversation.
In his written response and at the hearing, the assistant coach ultimately admitted that he had
impermissible contact with the prospect. However, the assistant coach claimed that he did not
initiate the contact nor speak to the prospect during the encounter. Based on the information
presented to the panel, including the accounts of the May 2014 visit by the prospect and his high
school coach, the contemporaneous tweet by the prospect regarding the visit and the assistant
coach's recruiting logs, the panel concludes that the assistant coach knowingly provided false or
misleading information regarding the recruiting contact, violating Bylaws 10.1-(c) and 10.1-(d).
When he provided untruthful information, the assistant coach did not act with honesty and thus
violated Bylaw 10.01.1.
The COI has previously decided cases involving the provision of false or misleading information
as Level II violations. See University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding that an assistant track
coach committed a Level II violation when she provided false or misleading information to the
institution and the enforcement staff when questioned about prospects' participation in weekend
runs with enrolled student-athletes); and San Jose State University (2016) (concluding that a head
women's basketball coach committed a Level II violation when he provided false or misleading
information regarding a transfer student-athlete's participation in team activities during her year in
residence).
F. HEAD COACH RESPONSIBILITY [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1

(2011-12 and 2012-13) and 11.1.1.1 (2012-13 through 2015-16)]5
For approximately five years, the head coach failed in his responsibility to monitor the football
recruiting operations staff relative to the football ambassador program and failed to promote an
atmosphere of compliance within the football program.
The institution disagreed that the head coach failed to monitor the recruiting operations staff;
however, the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that the head coach failed to promote an
atmosphere of compliance when he contacted an instructor and arranged for a student-athlete to
receive an extra benefit. The head coach disagreed that he either failed to monitor or failed to
promote an atmosphere of compliance. The panel concludes that the head coach both failed to
monitor and failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance, a Level II violation.
1. NCAA Legislation related to head coach responsibility.
5 During the period of this violation, the head coach responsibility legislation citation changed from Bylaw 11.1.2.1. to 11.1.1.1.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 17
__________
2. The head coach failed to monitor the football operations staff relative to the
football ambassador group and failed to promote an atmosphere of
compliance when he arranged an impermissible academic benefit for a
student-athlete.
For approximately five years, the head coach failed to monitor the football recruiting operations
staff, which had direct oversight of the football ambassador group. This lack of oversight led to
recruiting violations committed by the football ambassador group. Further, the head coach failed
to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he violated university policy and contacted an
instructor to make a special academic arrangement for a student-athlete. This conduct violated
Bylaw 11.
Bylaw 11.1.1.1 and its predecessor, Bylaw 11.1.2.1, create a presumption that head coaches are
responsible for the actions of their subordinates. See Syracuse University (2015) (concluding that
the bylaw places a duty upon a head coach to monitor the activities of all staff and administrators
who report directly or indirectly to the head coach); University of Miami (2013) (concluding that
the bylaw holds head coaches responsible for the conduct of staff); and Indiana University,
Bloomington (2008) (concluding that the bylaw places a specific and independent monitoring
obligation on head coaches). The monitoring responsibility applies to all assistant coaches and
program staff members who report, either directly or indirectly, to the head coach. That
presumption is rebuttable.
Here, the head coach failed to rebut the presumption as it relates to the football ambassadors. From
the 2011-12 academic year through the fall of 2015, the head coach took a casual approach to
compliance as it relates to the student ambassador program. He exercised little, if any oversight
of the group, permitting the recruiting staff to administer the program with no supervision. The
panel noted that, upon being promoted to head coach, the head coach never had a conversation
with the previous head football coach or compliance office regarding the structure or function of
the football ambassador program and its permissibility under NCAA legislation. In addition, the
head coach acknowledged that there were no written procedures pertaining to the football
ambassadors and their activities. As the individual who had ultimate oversight of all aspects of
the football program, it is implicit that the head coach was also responsible for the actions of
football ambassadors and, ultimately, the violations they committed. At the hearing, the head
coach appeared to recognize this, acknowledging during the discussion of the football ambassadors
that he was responsible for all aspects of the football program.
The head coach also violated head coach responsibility legislation when, using his personal email
account, he contacted a faculty member to arrange for the provision of an impermissible academic
benefit for a student-athlete who had failed a course the previous semester. He later met in-person
with the instructor. The head coach did so in an effort to gain the student-athlete's eligibility for
the 2015 football season. Institutional policy prohibits coaches from contacting academic faculty
and staff regarding student-athletes. The head coach admitted that he is responsible for knowing
September 22, 2017
Page No. 18
__________
the rules and a violation occurred, but maintained that he did not knowingly violate this policy
when he contacted the student-athlete's instructor.
As detailed earlier in this decision, a very similar violation occurred in a 2014 case involving the
University of Georgia. In Georgia, the head swimming coach contacted a professor in an effort to
make a special academic arrangement for a men's swimming student-athlete in order to ensure the
student-athlete's eligibility. The Georgia panel concluded that this action violated head coach
responsibility legislation. Consistent with the decision in Georgia, the panel concludes that the
head coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance, a Level II violation, when he contacted
the student-athlete's instructor and made an impermissible academic arrangement.
G. THE INSTITUTION'S FAILURE TO MONITOR [NCAA Division I Manual

Constitution 2.8.1 (2011-12 through 2015-16)]
Over a five-year period, the institution violated the principle of rules compliance when it failed to
monitor its football program and ensure compliance with its football student-ambassador program
and institutional drug-testing policy. The institution and the enforcement staff agreed on the facts
and that the violation occurred. The panel agrees with the parties' position that the violation
occurred. The violation is Level II.
1. NCAA legislation related to institutional responsibility to monitor its athletics

program.
The applicable portion of the Constitution may be found at Appendix Two.
2. For a five-year period, the institution failed to ensure that the football student
ambassadors' recruiting activities were permissible. Further, during the same
period, the institution failed to ensure it followed its established institutional
drug-testing policy with respect to 32 football student-athletes.
During the 2011-12 through 2015-16 academic years the institution failed in its duty to monitor in
two ways: (1) it failed to ensure that the football student-ambassadors' recruiting activities were
permissible; and (2) it failed to follow its established drug-testing policy with respect to 32 football
student-athletes. The institution's failure to monitor violated NCAA Constitution 2.8.1.
NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 requires that each member institution comply with all rules and
regulations of the Association, monitor its programs to ensure control over all aspects of it
intercollegiate athletics program. The Constitution also establishes that the institution's
administration or faculty, or a combination of the two, exercise control and responsibility over the
conduct of the institution's intercollegiate athletics programs. The institution failed in this regard
as it related to the monitoring of its football ambassador program and proper adherence to its drug-
testing policy.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 19
__________
Regarding the monitoring of the football ambassador program, the institution's Office of
Enrollment Management was responsible for providing campus visits or tours to all prospective
students, including prospective student-athletes. NCAA legislation requires that athletics host
groups be administered in a manner consistent with the institution's policy for providing campus
visits or tours to prospective students in general. The university failed to monitor by not integrating
the football ambassadors with the Office of Enrollment Management, in accordance with
university policy. Further, even though athletics compliance staff members were present on many
unofficial visit weekends and most official visit weekends to observe the group's activities, the
monitoring failed to detect the infractions set forth in Violation A. Moreover, there was little, if
any, oversight of the group by senior football staff members, specifically, the head coach. Finally,
the institution did not provide rules education to the football staff or ambassadors regarding the
"do's and don'ts" of such programs. This occurred despite the fact that the Association published
numerous Educational Columns on this topic and that the Division I COI issued an infractions
decision that included a Level II violation involving a student host group.
The institution also failed to monitor relative to compliance with its own drug-testing policy. As
detailed in Violation B, between September 2011 and the fall of 2015, the institution failed to
ensure that it adhered to its drug-testing programs written protocol regarding: (1) notification of
positive tests to the Director of Athletics and involving the Director of Athletics in the penalty
phase of the program; (2) failing to identify positive tests in accordance with the program's
procedures; and (3) not subjecting student-athletes to the prescribed penalties of the program. As
a result, 14 student-athletes were permitted to compete without being subjected to the corrective
or disciplinary actions mandated by the institution's drug-testing policy.
V. VIOLATIONS NOT DEMONSTRATED
The enforcement staff alleged that the director of sports medicine was personally responsible for
many of the drug-testing policy failures detailed in Violation B. The enforcement staff also
implicated the head coach in these violations as it related to his head coach responsibility failure.
Although the former director of sports medicine may well have borne some responsibility for the
violations of the drug-testing policy, the panel concludes that the drug-testing policy failures were
the result of shortcomings across several units in the athletics department, including sports
medicine, football and the administration. Therefore, the panel concludes that responsibility for
the drug-testing policy violations should not be assessed to any individual(s). Using the same
rationale, the panel also concludes that the drug-testing policy violations should not be a
component of the head coach responsibility failure involving the former head football coach.
VI. PENALTIES
For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the panel concluded that this case
involved six Level II violations and one Level III violation of NCAA legislation. Level II
September 22, 2017
Page No. 20
__________
violations are significant breaches of conduct that may compromise the integrity of the Collegiate
Model. Level III violations are breaches of conduct that are isolated or limited in nature and
provide no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage.
Because the violations in this case straddled the implementation of the current penalty structure,
the panel conducted an analysis of when the violations predominated. The panel determines that
the violations predominated after October 30, 2012, the adoption date of current NCAA Bylaw 19.
Therefore, the penalty guidelines that went into effect on August 1, 2013, apply.6
In considering penalties, the panel first reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to
Bylaws 19.9.2, 19.9.3 and 19.9.4 to determine the appropriate classification for the parties. In
addition to the agreed-upon aggravating and mitigating factors, many aggravating and mitigating
factors were contested by the parties.
With regard to the institution's aggravating factors, the enforcement staff proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-
(b), a history of Level I, Level II or major violations, which the institution contested. Rutgers had
only one previous major case, in 2003. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(b) does
not apply. The enforcement staff also proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-(h), participation/condoning by
persons of authority, which the institution contested. The panel notes that the head coach
participated in a violation when he made an impermissible academic arrangement with an
instructor. He also condoned the activities of the football ambassadors, which resulted in
recruiting violations. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(h) is applicable. Further,
the enforcement staff proposed, and the institution initially agreed to Bylaw 19.9.3-(i), significant
ineligibility or other substantial harm to student-athletes. After the hearing, the panel asked the
enforcement staff and the institution to clarify their positions relative to this potential aggravating
factor. The enforcement staff confirmed its belief that this aggravating factor applied. The
enforcement staff took this position because, in its view, the institution's failure to abide by its
drug-testing policy resulted in student-athletes neither receiving the preventative and rehabilitative
measures the policy was intended to provide, nor being deterred from drug use because of lack of
punitive action. On the other hand, the institution reversed its earlier position, arguing that, while
some harm may have accrued to a few student-athletes, the aggregate affect was not substantial.
Both the enforcement staff and the institution agreed that significant ineligibility did not result. In
considering the respective positions of both parties, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(i)
does not apply. Finally, the enforcement staff proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-(k), a pattern of
noncompliance within the football program, which the institution contested. The panel noted that
the violations involving the football ambassadors occurred over a five-year period and that the
head coach was directly involved in the provision of an academically-related extra benefit. Based
on these violations and the time period over which they occurred, the panel determines that Bylaw
19.9.3-(k) applies.
6The membership recently expanded the ranges of the penalty guidelines related to scholarship reductions and the duration of
postseason bans, probation and show-cause orders. The adjusted guidelines became effective on August 1, 2017. Because the
panel considered this case prior to that date, it used the guidelines that went into effect on August 1, 2013.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 21
__________
In reference to the institution's mitigating factors, in addition to the agreed-upon mitigating factors
set forth in Bylaws 19.9.4-(a) and 19.9.4-(d), Rutgers proposed Bylaw 19.9.4-(e), implementation
of measures to ensure rules compliance, to which the enforcement staff did not agree. The panel
notes that the drug-testing policy violations occurred over many years, as did the recruiting
violations associated with the football ambassadors. Both areas of violations went undetected by
the compliance office during that time. Therefore, Bylaw 19.9.4-(e) does not apply. The
institution also proposed Bylaw 19.9.4-(f), exemplary cooperation. The institution's actions met,
but did not exceed, its legislated expectations. Consequently, the panel determines that Bylaw
19.9.4-(f) does not apply.
With regard to the head coach's aggravating factors, the enforcement staff proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-
(d), obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation, which the head coach
contested. The panel notes that the head coach informed an academic administrator that he planned
to contact the student-athlete's instructor regarding the dance appreciation course the student-
athlete failed in the 2015 spring semester. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)
does not apply. The enforcement staff also proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-(f), premeditation, deliberation
or substantial planning, which the head coach also contested. The head coach both emailed and
personally met with the student-athlete's dance appreciation instructor as part of his plan to have
the student-athlete regain academic eligibility for the 2015 football season. He also reviewed extra
course work the student-athlete submitted to the instructor. Consequently, the panel determines
that Bylaw 19.9.3-(f) applies. In addition, the enforcement staff proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-(g),
multiple Level II violations, which the head coach contested. The panel notes that the head coach
committed a Level II violation when he impermissibly contacted the student-athlete's dance
instructor in an attempt to arrange an academically-related extra benefit. His head coach
responsibility failure was also a Level II violation. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw
19.9.3-(g) applies. Additionally, the enforcement staff proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-(h), persons of
authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful
conduct, to which the head coach disagreed. The panel notes that the head coach participated in a
violation when he contacted the student-athlete's dance appreciation instructor in an effort to have
the student-athlete regain his eligibility. He also disregarded his obligation to oversee the activity
of the football ambassadors. Consequently, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(h) applies.
Finally, the enforcement staff proposed Bylaw 19.9.3-(j), abuse of a position of trust, which the
head coach contested. Because of the leadership position and the trust placed in the position of
head football coach, it was incumbent upon the head coach to abide by the rules of the Association
and to instill an atmosphere of compliance. In this instance, the head coach failed to do so.
Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(j) applies.
In reference to the head coach's mitigating factors, he proposed Bylaw 19.9.4-(e), implementation
of measures to ensure rules compliance, to which the enforcement staff disagreed. The panel notes
that the head coach had ultimate responsibility and oversight of the football ambassadors. This
group was involved in recruiting violations that occurred over approximately five years. Further,
the head coach committed a violation when he contacted a student-athlete's instructor to arrange
an extra benefit. He also failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Therefore, the panel
September 22, 2017
Page No. 22
__________
determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(e) does not apply. In addition, the head coach proposed Bylaw
19.9.4-(g), the violations were unintentional, limited and deviated from compliant practices. The
panel concludes that the head coach knew, or should have known that contacting a student-athlete's
instructor to arrange an extra benefit was against university policy and violated NCAA rules.
Consequently, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(g), is not applicable. Finally, the head
coach proposed Bylaw 19.9.4-(i), other factors warranting a lower penalty range. Under this
bylaw, the head coach focused on what he claimed were failures on the part of the institution and
the former director of athletics for the violations which occurred. However, the panel concludes
that the head coach bore responsibility for several violations in this case, including a failure to
oversee the activities of the football ambassadors, his involvement in providing an academic extra
benefit for a student-athlete and his head coach responsibility failure. Therefore, the panel
determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(i) does not apply. However, the panel determines that two
mitigating factors apply to the head coach: (1) Bylaw 19.9.4-(c), affirmative steps to expedite final
resolution of the matter; and (2) Bylaw 19.9.4-(h), the absence of prior conclusions of Level I,
Level II or major violations committed by the involved individual. With regard to Bylaw 19.9.4-
(c), the panel notes that the head coach is no longer coaching collegiately, but attended the hearing
nonetheless and candidly addressed the panel's questions. Further, during the hearing, he admitted
some responsibility for the violations in which he was named. Regarding Bylaw 19.9.4-(h), the
head coach had no previous involvement in major/Level I/Level II violations of NCAA legislation,
thus this bylaw applies.
Regarding the assistant coach's aggravating factors, the enforcement staff proposed one; Bylaw
19.9.3-(e), unethical conduct for providing false or misleading information. Because the assistant
coach denied that he provided false or misleading information regarding his contact with a high
school sophomore prospect, he disagreed with this aggravating factor. The panel concludes that
the assistant coach provided false or misleading information to the enforcement staff and Rutgers
when questioned about this contact. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(e) applies.
In reference to the assistant coach's mitigating factors, he proposed Bylaw 19.9.4-(g), violations
were unintentional, limited and deviated from compliant practices. The panel notes that the
assistant coach had more than 20 years of collegiate coaching experience. He knew, or certainly
should have known, that contacting a high school sophomore prospect is contrary to NCAA
recruiting legislation. He also knew, or should have known, that providing false or misleading
information is a serious breach of conduct. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(g)
does not apply as a mitigating factor. The assistant coach also proposed as a mitigating factor
Bylaw 19.9.4 (i), other factors warranting a lower penalty range. Specifically, the assistant coach
cited the fact that he is unemployed and has not been employed by an NCAA institution since
2015, when Rutgers terminated the entire football staff. The panel notes that it is common for
institutions to release coaching staffs and that the assistant coach's employment circumstances are
not unique. Therefore, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(i) is not applicable. However, as
the panel determined with the head coach, it similarly determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(h), the
absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations applies to the assistant coach.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 23
__________
The panel made this determination based on the fact that the assistant coach had no previous
involvement in major/Level I/Level II violations of NCAA legislation.
Following its determination of the aggravating and mitigating factors. the panel then assessed the
applicable penalty classification. In doing so, the panel considered the aggravating and mitigating
factors by weight as well as number. This case involved violations that occurred over a five-year
period. After considering all information relevant to the case, the panel determined that the nature
and effect of the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors were essentially balanced for each
of the parties. Therefore, the panel classifies the case as Level II-Standard for all parties.
Aggravating Factors for Rutgers
19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations;

19.9.3-(h) Participation/Condoning by persons of authority; and
19.9.3-(k) Pattern of noncompliance within the football program.
Mitigating Factors for the Rutgers
19.9.4-(a): Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations; and

19.9.4-(d): Established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations.
Aggravating Factors for the Head Coach
19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;

19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations;
19.9.3-(h): Person of authority condoned/participated in the violations; and
19.9.3-(j): Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust.
Mitigating Factors for the Head Coach
19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter; and

19.9.4-(h): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed
by the involved individual.
Aggravating Factors for the Assistant Coach
19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct
Mitigating Factors for the Assistant Coach
19.9.4-(h): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations committed by
the involved individual.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 24
__________
All of the penalties prescribed in this case are independent and supplemental to any action that has
been or may be taken by the Committee on Academics through its assessment of postseason
ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. The institution's corrective actions are
contained in Appendix One. The panel prescribes the following penalties. Those proposed or self-
imposed by the institution are so noted:
Core Penalties for Level II Standard Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5)
1. Probation: Two years from September 22, 2017, through September 21, 2019;7
2. Financial Penalties: Rutgers shall pay a financial penalty of $5,000. (Self-imposed) 8
Recruiting restrictions:
3. The institution shall reduce in the number of permissible, off-campus recruiting days by a total
of 10: five days in the fall evaluation period and five days in the spring evaluation period during
the 2017-18 academic year (Self-imposed)
4. The institution shall limit the football program to 36 official visits (for high school seniors and
transfer students) in football during the 2017-18 academic year, a reduction by four from the
average number of visits used during the four most recent academic years and 26 fewer than
permitted under NCAA legislation (Self-imposed)
5. The institution shall prohibit telephone calls, contact via social media, and written
correspondence with prospective student-athletes for a one-week period during the 2017-18
academic year. (Self-imposed)
Head Coach Restrictions
6. Rutgers suspended the head coach for three contests during the 2015 football season. (Self-
imposed)
Show-cause Orders
7. The head coach failed to monitor the football student ambassador program and failed to comply
with institutional policy when he contacted an instructor to arrange an impermissible academic
benefit for a student-athlete. In committing these violations, he also failed his responsibility
as a head coach. The panel determined that the head coach's violations were, taken together,
Level II-Standard. Therefore, pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.5.4, the panel prescribes a one-year
7 The institution proposed a one-year period of probation.

8 The fine shall be paid in accordance with COI Internal Operating Procedure (IOP) 4-15-2.
September 22, 2017
Page No. 25
__________
show-cause order for the head coach that shall be in effect beginning with the date of this
decision, September 22, 2017, and concluding on September 21, 2018. The head coach shall
be informed in writing by the NCAA that if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically
related position at an NCAA member institution during the one-year show-cause period, any
employing institution shall be required to contact the OCOI to make arrangements to show
cause why restrictions on his athletically related activity should not apply.
8. The assistant coach committed a Level III recruiting contact violation when he engaged in an
impermissible off-campus recruiting contact with a prospective student-athlete who was a high
school sophomore at the time. More significantly, on two occasions, the assistant coach
provided false or misleading information to the enforcement staff and the institution when
questioned about the contact. The panel determined that the assistant coach's violations were,
taken together, Level II-Standard. Consequently, the panel prescribes a show-cause order for
any member institution(s) employing the assistant coach. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.5.4, the
panel prescribes a one-year show-cause order that shall be in effect beginning with the date of
this decision, September 22, 2017, and concluding on September 21, 2018. During this period,
any institution employing the assistant coach must restrict him from all off-campus recruiting
activities as defined in Bylaw 13.02.14 (2016-17 Manual). Should the assistant coach become
employed at a member institution during the show-cause period, that employing institution
shall, within 30 days of his hiring, file a report with the Office of the Committees on Infractions
setting forth its agreement with the recruiting restrictions of the show-cause order. Further,
every six months thereafter through the end of the show-cause order, any employing institution
shall file reports detailing its adherence to these restrictions. Any employing institution that
wishes to contest this order shall contact the OCOI to make arrangements to show cause why
the recruiting restrictions should not apply.
Additional Penalties for Level II-Standard Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7)
9. Public reprimand and censure.
10. During the period of probation, the institution shall:
a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA

legislation to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics
department personnel and all institution staff members with responsibility for NCAA
recruiting and certification legislation;
b. Submit a preliminary report to the OCOI by November 15, 2017, setting forth the
institution's plans to implement compliance measures to address the violations in this case
and its compliance educational program;
c. File with the OCOI annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this
program by August 15 during each year of probation. Particular emphasis shall be placed
September 22, 2017
Page No. 26
__________
on full adherence to the institution's drug-testing policies, and compliance with NCAA
recruiting legislation;
d. Inform in writing prospective student-athletes in football that the institution is on probation

for two years and detail the violations committed. If a prospective student-athlete takes an
official paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation
must be provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided
before a prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent; and
e. Publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions
by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations and the affected
sport programs and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions report located on the
athletic department's main or "landing" webpage. The information shall also be included
in the football media guides and in an alumni publication. The institution's statement must:
(i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include the length of the probationary period
associated with the infractions case; and (iii) provide a clear indication of what happened
in the infractions case.
Other penalties as appropriate:
11. Consistent with NCAA regulations, the institution is prohibited from organizing any student
group to exclusively assist in recruiting prospective student-athletes. Any student host group
used for prospective student-athletes must be administered through the institution's admissions
office, consistent with policies and procedures for campus tours or visits by prospective
students in general. All members of the student host group who serve as hosts for prospective
student-athletes must have the majority of their hosting activity with prospective students in
general and not with prospective student-athletes.
12. Following the receipt of the final compliance report and prior to the conclusion of probation,
the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the institution's
current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
_____________________________________________________
September 22, 2017
Page No. 27
__________
The COI advises the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that it observes the
terms of the penalties. The COI will monitor the penalties during their effective periods. Any
action by the institution contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations
may be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, prescribing more
severe penalties or may result in additional allegations and violations.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL

Norman Bay
Greg Christopher
Bobby Cremins
Thomas Hill
Gary L. Miller, Chief Hearing Officer
Sankar Suryanarayan
APPENDIX ONE
September 22, 2017
Page No. 1
__________
APPENDIX ONE
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE INSTITUTION'S
APRIL 19, 2017, RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS.
1. The University has established a policy that prevents student workers in the football program
from serving simultaneously as members of the football student support group that assists with
on-campus recruiting visits and from being involved in any recruiting activities outside of their
responsibilities within the football office.
2. The football program now uses members of the University's Scarlet Ambassador group, which
is comprised of students who provide campus visits to prospective students in general and is
under the management of the University's Office of Enrollment Management (the University
unit responsible for providing campus visits or tours to the prospective students generally).
The Office of Athletic Compliance now requires all Scarlet Ambassadors who serve as hosts
to attend a rules education meeting before the impending football season, as well requiring
those working each game to attend an additional rules education session prior to each home
football contest.
3. In August 2016, Rutgers instituted a new, comprehensive drug-testing policy, as well as

overhauled oversight and reporting lines of the drug-testing program and, in October 2016, a
new interim Chief Medical Officer assumed oversight of the drug-testing program while the
University searches for a new Chief Medical Officer.
4. The head football coach was fined $50,000.
5. A ban on external communications with media, sponsors and donors was placed on the head
football coach during the pendency of the three-contest suspension.
6. A letter of reprimand was delivered to the head coach.
7. The head football coach was terminated at the conclusion of the 2015 football season.
8. The assistant football coach was relieved of his duties.
9. In November 2015, a new Director of Athletics was hired.
10. In March 2016, a new Senior Vice President and General Counsel was hired.
11. In August 2016, the University hired a Senior Vice President for Enterprise Risk Management,
Ethics and Compliance (ERM). ERM has also added an institutional compliance officer
focused on the Department of Athletics, and the Department of Athletics has added a Chief
APPENDIX ONE
September 22, 2017
Page No. 2
__________
Compliance Officer, two new Directors of Compliance, and a new Coordinator of Student-
Athlete Services and has committed a designated compliance staff member to work with the
football program.
12. A robust rules-education program has been implemented, including monthly NCAA rules
education during the academic year for coaching staffs, and the Office of Athletic Compliance
and ERM have constructed a program to educate specific groups on various NCAA policies,
institutional policies, and federal/state regulations.
13. Head coaching contracts have been revised to include specific language regarding
responsibilities in academics and compliance.
14. The duties of members of the football host/hostesses program have been revised and regular
compliance meetings with all program student workers are held.
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 1
__________
APPENDIX TWO
Constitution and Bylaw Citations
Division I 2011-12 Manual
2.8.1 Responsibility of Institution. Each institution shall comply with all applicable rules and
regulations of the Association in the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs. It shall
monitor its programs to assure compliance and to identify and report to the Association instances
in which compliance has not been achieved. In any such instance, the institution shall cooperate
fully with the Association and shall take appropriate corrective actions. Members of an institution's
staff, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing the institution's athletics
interests shall comply with the applicable Association rules, and the member institution
shall be responsible for such compliance.
10.2 Knowledge of Use of Banned Drugs. A member institution's athletics department staff
members or others employed by the intercollegiate athletics program who have knowledge of a
student-athlete's use at any time of a substance on the list of banned drugs, as set forth in Bylaw
31.2.3.4, shall follow institutional procedures dealing with drug abuse or shall be subject to
disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2.
11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. It shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach
to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to
monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators
involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.
13.6.7.5 Student Host. The student host must be either a current student-athlete or a student
designated in a manner consistent with the institution's policy for providing campus visits or tours
to prospective students in general. . .
13.7.2.1.8 Student Host. A student host used during an unofficial visit must either be a current
student-athlete or a student who is designated in a manner consistent with the institution's policies
for providing campus visits or tours to prospective students in general.
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 2
__________
11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. It shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach
to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to
monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators
involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.
11.1.1.1 Responsibility of Head Coach.9 An institution's head coach is presumed to be

responsible for the actions of all assistant coaches and administrators who report, directly or
indirectly, to the head coach. An institution's head coach shall promote an atmosphere of
compliance within his or her program and shall monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and
administrators involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.
to prospective students in general . . .
9 During the time period of this case, the head coach responsibility legislation citation changed from NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1. to
11.1.1.1. However, the current legislation, which states that a head coach is presumed responsible for the actions of all assistant
coaches and administrators who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach was effective October 30, 2012, and therefore,
applicable during part of the time period of Allegation No. 6. Prior to October 30, 2012, Bylaw 11.1.2.1 stated, "It shall be the
responsibility of an institution's head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach
and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who
report directly or indirectly to the coach."
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 3
__________
11.1.1.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. An institution's head coach is presumed to be responsible

for the actions of all assistant coaches and administrators who report, directly or indirectly, to the
head coach. An institution's head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance within his or
her program and shall monitor the activities of all assistant coaches and administrators involved
with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach.
13.1.1.1 Time Period for Off-Campus ContactsGeneral Rule. Off-campus recruiting

contacts shall not be made with an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) before July
1 following the completion of his or her junior year in high school (July 7 after the junior year in
high school in women's ice hockey and July 15 after the junior year in high school in women's
gymnastics), or the opening day of classes of his or her senior year in high school (as designated
by the high school), whichever is earlier. U.S. service academy exceptions to this provision are set
forth in Bylaw 13.16.1.
to prospective students in general. . .
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 4
__________

13.1.2.1.1 Off-Campus Recruiters. An institutional staff member is not permitted to recruit off
campus until he or she has been certified on an annual basis as to knowledge of applicable
recruiting rules per Bylaw 11.5.1.1.
13.1.2.1 General Rule. All in-person, on- and off-campus recruiting contacts with a prospective
student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete's relatives or legal guardians shall be made only
by authorized institutional staff members. Such contact, as well as correspondence and telephone
calls, by representatives of an institution's athletics interests is prohibited except as otherwise
permitted in this section. Violations of this bylaw involving individuals other than a representative
of an institution's athletics interests shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution
2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the prospective student-athlete's eligibility.
13.4.1.4.1 ExceptionCross Country/Track and Field, Football and Swimming and Diving.
In cross country/track and field, football and swimming and diving, electronically transmitted
correspondence that may be sent to a prospective student-athlete (or the prospective student-
athlete's parents or legal guardians) is limited to electronic mail and facsimiles. All other forms of
electronically transmitted correspondence (e.g., Instant Messenger, text messaging) are prohibited.
13.10.2.1 Comments Before Commitment. Before the signing of a prospective student-athlete to

a National Letter of Intent or an institution's written offer of admission and/or financial aid or
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 5
__________
before the institution receives his or her financial deposit in response to its offer of admission, a
member institution may comment publicly only to the extent of confirming its recruitment of the
prospective student-athlete. The institution may not comment generally about the prospective
student-athlete's ability or the contribution that the prospective student-athlete might make to the
institution's team; further, the institution is precluded from commenting in any manner as to the
likelihood of the prospective student-athlete committing to or signing with that institution.
13.10.2.4 Prospective Student-Athlete's Visit. A member institution shall not publicize (or
arrange for publicity of) a prospective student-athlete's visit to the institution's campus. Further, a
prospective student-athlete may not participate in team activities that would make the public or
media aware of the prospective student-athlete's visit to the institution (e.g., running out of the
tunnel with team, celebratory walks to or around the stadium/arena, on-field pregame
celebrations).
to prospective students in general.
16.11.2.1 General Rule. The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "extra
benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the
institution's athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her family members or friends
with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
10.01.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member
institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-
athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 6
__________
whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play
and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
10.1 Unethical Conduct. Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a

current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work
for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for
such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the
individual's institution false or misleading information concerning an individual's
involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA
regulation;

to prospective students in general.
13.10.2.1 Comments Before Commitment. Before the signing of a prospective student-athlete to

a National Letter of Intent or an institution's written offer of admission and/or financial aid or
before the institution receives his or her financial deposit in response to its offer of admission, a
member institution may comment publicly only to the extent of confirming its recruitment of the
prospective student-athlete. The institution may not comment generally about the prospective
student-athlete's ability or the contribution that the prospective student-athlete might make to the
institution's team; further, the institution is precluded from commenting in any manner as to the
likelihood of the prospective student-athlete committing to or signing with that institution.
APPENDIX TWO
September 22, 2017
Page No. 7
__________
13.10.2.4 Prospective Student-Athlete's Visit. A member institution shall not publicize (or
arrange for publicity of) a prospective student-athlete's visit to the institution's campus. Further, a
prospective student-athlete may not participate in team activities that would make the public or
media aware of the prospective student-athlete's visit to the institution (e.g., running out of the
tunnel with team, celebratory walks to or around the stadium/arena, on-field pregame
celebrations).
16.11.2.1 General Rule. The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term "extra
benefit" refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the
institution's athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her family members or friends
with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
10.01.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member
institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-
athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a
whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play
and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
10.1 Unethical Conduct. Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a

current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work
for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for
such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(c) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the
individual's institution false or misleading information concerning an individual's
involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA
regulation.

Sept2017INF RutgersInfractionsPublicDecision 20170922

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sept2017INF RutgersInfractionsPublicDecision 20170922

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sept2017INF RutgersInfractionsPublicDecision 20170922

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, NEW BRUNSWICK

PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION

The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of

II. CASE HISTORY

enforcement staff interviewed a prospective student-athlete who reported a potential recruiting

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

Football Student Ambassador Group

The Institution's Drug-Testing Policy

Head Coach Contact with a Faculty Member

Assistant Coach's Off-Campus Recruiting Contact and His Lack of Candor

A. IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING ACTIVITY BY STUDENT HOST GROUP

1. NCAA legislation relating to recruiting.

The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.

B. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE INSTITUTION'S DRUG-TESTING

1. NCAA legislation regarding knowledge of use of banned drugs.

The applicable portions of the bylaw may be found at Appendix Two.

2. For approximately five years, Rutgers violated NCAA legislation when it

C. THE HEAD COACH'S ARRANGEMENT FOR AN ACADEMICALLY-

1. NCAA legislation relating to extra benefits.

The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.

D. THE ASSISTANT COACH'S IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING CONTACT

1. NCAA legislation relating to recruiting contacts.

The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.

2. The assistant coach engaged in an impermissible recruiting contact with a

E. THE ASSISTANT COACH'S UNETHICAL CONDUCT [NCAA Division I

1. NCAA legislation relating to ethical conduct.

The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.

2. On two occasions, the assistant football coach engaged in unethical conduct

F. HEAD COACH RESPONSIBILITY [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1

1. NCAA Legislation related to head coach responsibility.

The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.

G. THE INSTITUTION'S FAILURE TO MONITOR [NCAA Division I Manual

1. NCAA legislation related to institutional responsibility to monitor its athletics

The applicable portion of the Constitution may be found at Appendix Two.

V. VIOLATIONS NOT DEMONSTRATED

Aggravating Factors for Rutgers

19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations;

Mitigating Factors for the Rutgers

19.9.4-(a): Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations; and

Aggravating Factors for the Head Coach

19.9.3-(f): Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;

Mitigating Factors for the Head Coach

19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter; and

Aggravating Factors for the Assistant Coach

19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct

Mitigating Factors for the Assistant Coach

Core Penalties for Level II Standard Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5)

2. Financial Penalties: Rutgers shall pay a financial penalty of $5,000. (Self-imposed) 8

Head Coach Restrictions

7 The institution proposed a one-year period of probation.

Additional Penalties for Level II-Standard Violations (NCAA Bylaw 19.9.7)

9. Public reprimand and censure.

10. During the period of probation, the institution shall:

a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA

d. Inform in writing prospective student-athletes in football that the institution is on probation

Other penalties as appropriate:

NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL

3. In August 2016, Rutgers instituted a new, comprehensive drug-testing policy, as well as