NCAA Bylaw 11.1.1.1 eliminates plausible deniability and puts head coaches under a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard.
Instituted in 2013, Bylaw 11.1.1.1 essentially eliminates plausible deniability and puts head coaches under a guilty-until-proven-innocent standard. In order to rebut the presumption of responsibility, head coaches must prove they have fostered an atmosphere of compliance and have actively monitored their direct and indirect reports.
“They’re making sure the coaches are engaged, so they can’t turn a blind eye to it,” said Christian Dennie, a Texas-based attorney who specializes in working with schools on NCAA issues. “If they can make sure the coach is doing the right thing, they’ll probably be OK.”
So even if the NCAA finds Richardson was guilty of taking $20,000 in bribes as alleged in the federal complaint, Arizona and Miller might not be punished if the school can prove Richardson acted on his own and repeatedly misled Miller when asked repeatedly about compliance. (There are, of course, other allegations Arizona could face as a result of the complaint.)
But it’s a difficult standard to prove. Dennie said he recommends head coaches keep emails or other written records of their monitoring efforts, having been on campuses where the head coaches “don’t fully have their heads around what the requirements are.”
The exact standard of “promoting and monitoring” is also somewhat unclear itself, according to Stuart Brown, an Atlanta-based attorney who also works with schools involving NCAA issues.
“They are supposed to do both,” Brown said via email. “It is a case-by-case evaluation by the NCAA enforcement staff and then the (NCAA Committee on Infractions). Even if a coach does most or all of the ‘checklist’ coach control items, it might not be enough.
“Also, just having your assistant coaches attend compliance meetings put on by the compliance staff isn’t enough. There is supposed to be additional compliance activity by the head coach. Plus, coaches tend not to sufficiently document what compliance activities they actually do.”
In a 10-page document the NCAA called “Responsibilities of Division I Head Coaches: Understanding rules compliance and monitoring,” the NCAA lists methods of documentation and monitoring.
Among other things, it suggests head coaches “actively look for red flags of potential violations” in such areas as asking how a recruit paid for an unofficial visit to campus or checking into prospects who are at-risk academically.
It also says coaches should ask “probing” questions of staffers.
“If a coach is suspicious of a third party or handler involved in a prospective student-athlete’s recruitment, ask probing questions of assistant coaches and other staff members,” the NCAA document says. “Emphasize the program’s ethical standards, be clear about what is acceptable in dealing with third parties and keep a written record of the conversations.”
The federal complaint quoted a sports agent saying Richardson took bribes he could use to help secure a recruit in return for assurances he would try to steer current UA players toward him for professional representation.
In recent cases involving Bylaw 11.1.1.1 and its precursors, Syracuse’s Jim Boeheim and SMU’s Larry Brown were each suspended for nine games. Louisville’s Rick Pitino was scheduled to sit out five games this season before the school moved to fire him.
Brown said Boeheim’s coaching peers considered his penalty severe, and that Pitino received his punishment even though the NCAA infractions committee found he had no personal involvement and the school didn’t receive an institutional failure-to-monitor penalty.
“Both those cases caught the attention of coaches,” Brown said. “To say that the NCAA expects a head coach to be ‘continually asking’ assistants about compliance is not too much of an exaggeration.
“To be confident about rebutting the presumption of responsibility, a head coach needs to be at least regularly be educating about, asking about, and monitoring compliance in his/her program.”
Here’s how Bylaw 11.1.1.1 has played out in recent NCAA college basketball cases, with information from media reports and Dennie’s blog at bgsfirm.com:
