2. Current Trends and Topics Division I Enforcement Atlanta: Derrick Crawford and Laura Wurtz McNab San Antonio: Derrick Crawford and Todd Shumaker

3. Agenda Case trends. Internal operating procedures. New legislation.
Southern District of New York (SDNY)/ FBI investigations.
Commission on College Basketball.
Resources.

4. Overall Case Numbers

5. Division I Cases: Most Cited NCAA Bylaws

6. Individuals Cited in Allegations

7. Individuals Cited in Allegations by Sport

8. Enforcement Internal Operating Procedures (IOPs)
Projected duration.
Limited immunity.
Guidelines for allegations.
Submission of information to Allegation Review Board (ARB).

9. IOP 1-9: Projected Duration and Scheduling Conference
What is the projected end date (IOP end date)?
Date when enforcement investigations and processing (I/P) staff expects that a notice of allegations will be issued or the summary disposition process will be confirmed.
What factors are considered to set the projected end date (IOP end date)?
Number of involved sports.
Number of potential allegations.
Number of potential involved individuals.
Other factors that inform on complexity of case.

10. IOP 1-9 (Continued)
Why is a projected end date (IOP end date) necessary?
Ensure timeliness of investigations.
Accountability for all involved parties.
What happens if the projected end date (IOP end date) is not met?
I/P staff notifies institution.
I/P staff notifies the Chair of the DI Committee on Infractions (COI).
Chair of the COI will decide whether a scheduling call with all parties is necessary to discuss delay(s).

11. Duration in Months of Division I Cases

12. IOP 1-11: Limited Immunity
NCAA Bylaws (c) and (d).
IOP detailed step by step process.
Limited Immunity Frequently Asked Questions.

13. IOP 2-4: Guidelines for Allegations
Unethical Conduct (NCAA Bylaw 10.1).
Head Coach Responsibility (NCAA Bylaw ).
Lack of Institutional Control.
Failure to Monitor.

14. IOP 2-4-1: Unethical Conduct Refusal to Furnish Information
Allegations of NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(a) Refusal to Furnish Information.
Nexus between information requested and underlying alleged violation(s);
Individual's agreement to interview or produce requested information is untimely; or
Failure or refusal to interview or produce requested information hinders ability to discover pertinent information, slows the timely progress of the matter or otherwise negatively impacts efforts to conduct a thorough investigation.

15. IOP 2-4-1: Unethical Conduct False and Misleading Information
Allegations of NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c) False and Misleading Information.
Alleged false or misleading information hinders the ability to discover pertinent information, slows the timely progress of the matter or otherwise negatively impacts efforts to conduct a thorough investigation;
Lapse in time between the provision of false or misleading information and any later corrected statement;

16. IOP 2-4-1: Unethical Conduct False and Misleading Information (Continued)
3. Any later corrected statement was secured by enforcement staff or institution, rather than being volunteered by the interviewee; or
4. Nexus between the underlying alleged violation and the provision of false or misleading information.
Unless extenuating circumstances exist, the enforcement staff will allege a violation of NCAA Bylaw 10.1-(c) when an individual attempts to influence others to furnish false or misleading information to the enforcement staff, particularly when the individual exercises some degree of oversight or authority over the other individual.

17. IOP 2-4-2: Head Coach Responsibility
NCAA Bylaw
Potential Level I or II violations in a sport program.
Presumed responsible.
Gather information that head coach (1) promoted an atmosphere of compliance and (2) monitored the activities of his or her staff.
Consider overall communications, monitoring efforts and activities that demonstrate commitment to compliance as well as the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged underlying violation(s).
Examples of factual information that may inform the enforcement staff's analysis include, but are not limited to, the following:

18. Examples of head coach commitment to compliance (IOP 2-4-2):
A demonstration that compliance is a shared responsibility by establishing clear expectations that all coaches, staff members and student-athletes will understand and comply with NCAA rules.
A demonstration that ultimate responsibility for the integrity of the program rests with the head coach, including understanding that staff actions reflect on the head coach and violations will result in clearly articulated discipline.
Establishment of a program that includes immediate reporting of actual and potential issues to the compliance staff and allowing an independent inquiry into those issues.

19. Examples of head coach commitment to communication (IOP 2-4-2):
Timely, consistent and continuing education of all coaches, staff members and student-athletes as to rules and regulations, including written agendas and documentation of subjects covered and issues discussed.
A history of consulting with the compliance staff on a regular basis and asking before acting.

20. Examples of head coach commitment to monitoring (IOP 2-4-2):
Establishment of a program of prompt and consistent review of documentation related to monitoring of forms, logs, evaluations and questionnaires within the sport programs.
History of head coach and/or the sport program staff's self-detecting and reporting potential NCAA violations to appropriate institutional personnel in a timely manner.
Frequent spot checks to uncover potential or existing compliance problems, including the head coach actively looking for and evaluating red flags, and asking pointed questions.
Regularly soliciting honest feedback to determine if monitoring systems are functioning properly, and protecting from retribution any person who reports violations or potential violations.
These examples should not be viewed as a checklist or a so-called safe harbor.

21. IOP 2-4-3: Lack of Institutional Control
History of development of guideline.
Enforcement staff does not assume that an institution violated the NCAA Principle of Institutional Control when one or more Level I or II violations may have occurred.
Common sense approach in considering the nature and scope of the violation(s) in a case, together with the institution's specific efforts to create and maintain a positive culture of compliance.
Where the institution did not have a structure in place to create a culture of compliance, or where there was a breakdown in that structure, an institutional control allegation may be appropriate.
Factors indicating institutional control include but are not limited to those outlined:

22. Lack of institutional control factors (IOP 2-4-3):
Promotion of a culture of compliance.
Oversight.
Policies and procedures.
Education and training.
Due diligence in delegating authority.
Program monitoring and review.
Enforcement, response and prevention of reoccurrence.
Risk assessment and modification.

23. IOP 2-4-4: Failure to Monitor
Institution's obligation to monitor extends beyond its athletics compliance office.
Enforcement staff will not assume that an institution violated the NCAA Principle of Rules Compliance when one or more violations may have occurred.
Enforcement staff will not consider a failure to monitor allegation based only on isolated Level III violations.
Common sense approach in considering an institution's specific efforts to monitor individuals and operations consistent with the NCAA constitution and bylaws.
Factors indicating satisfactory monitoring include but are not limited to the following:

24. Failure to monitor factors (IOP 2-4-4):
Policies and procedures.
Education and training.
Program monitoring and review.
Enforcement, response and prevention of reoccurrence:
consistently promoted, investigated (in consultation with the enforcement staff for potential Level I and/or II violations) and enforced NCAA legislation as well as conference, campus, department and other applicable policies;
took swift and appropriate action when noncompliance occurred, including reporting to the NCAA (and when appropriate, to the institution's conference office) any instance of noncompliance with NCAA legislation; and
took reasonable steps to prevent further similar non-compliant conduct.

25. Failure to monitor factors (continued):
Enforcement staff will also consider decisions of the Committee on Infractions, legislation education materials, other related factors that may inform on an institution’s monitoring efforts and applicable NAAC reasonable standards in determining whether it believes an institution satisfied its obligation to monitor. If the enforcement staff believes a failure to monitor allegation is appropriate, the allegation will identify the specific context of the types of behavior(s) it believes were monitored insufficiently.

26. IOP 2-5-1: Submission of Information to the Allegation Review Board
Purpose of the ARB.
Submission of information for ARB consideration.

27. Proposals and New Legislation
Mitigating Factor - NAAC Reasonable Standards (Proposal ).
Impermissible Contact of Four Year Transfers (Proposal ).
Elimination of Level IV Violations (effective 4/14/17).
Mitigating Factor - Absence of previous cases (effective 10/5/16).

28. SDNY/ FBI Investigations
Since 2015, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office based in Manhattan have investigated corruption in NCAA men’s basketball.
Investigation became public on September 26, 2017, when the Acting US Attorney for the SDNY announced the unsealing of three criminal complaints charging 10 individuals in connection with bribery, fraud and corruption in NCAA men’s basketball.
The investigation revealed numerous alleged bribes paid by athlete advisors, including financial advisors and business managers, among others, to associate and assistant men’s basketball coaches employed by NCAA-member institutions. The investigation also revealed alleged bribes paid directly to student-athletes that were facilitated by coaches employed by NCAA-member institutions.

29. SDNY/ FBI Investigations
The complaints referenced eight NCAA Division I institutions, seven coaches, 12 then student-athletes and one university staff member. The complaints also implicate several other individuals and entities.
NCAA was contacted by the SDNY on September 26, 2017.
NCAA retained a private law firm to aid the Association and provide legal and strategic advice.
SDNY requested that the NCAA not conduct a formal investigation until given approval to do so.
NCAA agreed to the government’s request.

30. SDNY/ FBI Investigations
Indictments were handed down by a federal grand jury in the SDNY in November 2017, formally charging several individuals with criminal offenses.
Enforcement staff granted approval by the SDNY to begin active investigations in April of this year.
Superseding indictment handed down by the federal grand jury in April New indictment disclosed the names of two additional NCAA schools previously publicly unknown.
Enforcement is continuing to work closely with our outside counsel to ensure that our investigations do not interfere with the government’s probe.

31. Commission on College Basketball
Established by the NCAA Board of Governors, Division I Board of Directors and President Mark Emmert to fully examine critical aspects of Division I men’s basketball. Specifically, the commission will focus on three areas:
Relationship of the NCAA national office, member institutions, student-athletes and coaches with outside entities.
The NCAA’s relationship with the NBA.
Creating the right relationship between the universities and colleges of the NCAA and its national office to promote transparency and accountability.

32. Commission on College Basketball
Twelve-member Commission chaired by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Commission authorized for six months and tasked with issuing recommendations to address the issues facing collegiate basketball at the end of the six-month period.
Commission issued its report and recommendations April 25, 2018.

33. Commission on College Basketball Recommendations - Enforcement
Implement independent investigation and adjudication of complex cases.
Establish two tracks for addressing rules violations:
One track for complex cases.
A second track for all other cases.
Adopt rules that require member institutions and their personnel to cooperate with NCAA investigations, with a failure to cooperate bearing significant consequences.

34. Enforcement Resources
NCAA.org Division I enforcement website:
NCAA Member Resource Guide.
Head Coach Control Brochure.
Enforcement Internal Operating Procedures.
LSDBi (NCAA Bylaw 19).
Enforcement staff.

35. Questions?

36. Thank You for Attending
We Want Your Feedback
Your input is important.
Rate this session using the survey on the Regional Rules Seminar app.