NCAA Violations at the University of Miami: A Comprehensive Analysis Example

Introduction

The case entails claims of significant infringements for the sporting team members and coaching personnel of the institution. Most of the claims revolved around great incentives to enlist in the programs and additional advantages. The orchestrator of many of the allegations was the booster, Nevin Shapiro. He gave a substantial donation to the institution to support the two programs and thus had significant influence. However, he got involved in personal and financial practices with the coaches, giving them presents and monetary credit. Also, he charmed his way to the student-athletes and prospects by hosting them at his private residence and giving them gifts, foodstuffs, and entertainment. While in prison for involvement in the Ponzi scheme, the booster contacted the enforcement team to report that he had know-how regarding the infringement of NCAA bylaws (Times-Union & AP, 2011). Therefore, this essay will provide a vivid description of the case by outlining and discussing the pertinent NCAA legislation, the enforcement process employed, case findings, and the parties involved.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Pertinent NCAA Legislation

The violations conducted by the booster and the coaches contravened pertinent NCAA regulations, as depicted in the bylaws. The booster gave impermissible recruitment inducement to the prospects and student-athletes by future sporting agencies and officials in charge of their athletic interests. Also, some assistant coaches provided the student-athletes with impermissible incentives (Kulha, 2011). The provision of extra advantages contravenes Article 16 of the NCAA constitution, which contains the operating bylaw that a student-athlete is not entitled to additional benefits, awards, or excessive expenses. Those who receive such are rendered ineligible to participate in the competition for the sport they acquired the benefit. The bylaw prohibits a representative of the institution's athletic interests from engaging in the provision of extra benefits. More so, the provision of impermissible incentives when recruiting prospects was against Article 13, where the bylaw indicates that a representative of the institution's athletic interests does not have the mandate to recruit prospective student-athletes unless allowed by the NCAA. Giving impermissible recruitment inducements affects an individual's eligibility because only an amateur student-athlete is viable as per Article 12 of the bylaws. There is a limit to which the institution may offer a grant-in-aid, which is usually not compensation for the athlete's skills. The football coaching staff sent text messages to prospects, yet the bylaw 13.4.1.2. stipulates that electronic mail and facsimiles are the appropriate modes of transmitting correspondence electronically.

The former coach and the entire institution failed to regulate and monitor the assistant coaches' operations to prevent them from receiving impermissible supplemental compensation from outside sources. Two former assistant coaches received additional pay from the booster alongside presents and other financial aid (NBC 6 South Florida, 2013). These actions contravened article 13 of the bylaw, where section 11.3.2.2. stipulates that an external source is prohibited from reimbursing or offering supplemental pay to a staff member in the athletics department without any specified achievement (“University of Miami Public Infractions Report, 2013”). The head coach did not ensure a favorable surrounding to encourage compliance with the NCAA regulations, which is a requirement per the bylaw 11.1.2.1. Thus, he was liable for all the illegal actions performed by the assistant coaches. The assistant coaches engaged in unethical conduct, contrary to Article 10 of the operating bylaws, section 10.1. They engaged in the improper inducement of prospective student-athletes, knowing it was against the NCAA regulations. Also, the failure to provide relevant information regarding the investigation of a possible infraction of the association’s rules gave false details (“University of Miami Public Infractions Report, 2013”). Besides, they even tried to hide the threats they received from the promoter that he would divulge incriminating information. The institution failed to exercise control and responsibility for the behavior of its staff, booster, and student-athletes as required by the NCAA Constitution section 6.01.1.

Enforcement Process Used

The University of Miami informed the NCAA that they were conducting internal investigations on potential infringement of the regulations and presented several text messages and phone calls (NBC 6 South Florida, 2013). The institution and enforcement staff from the NCAA undertook joint interviews of the staff members, and the university received communication to start disposition. The booster informed enforcement staff of his knowledge of the violations, and the former interviewed him gave out a notice of inquiry to the institution, and conducted independent interviews. The NCAA reinstatement staff for student-athletes found out that eight student-athletes had received extra benefits and were ineligible for the game. The enforcement team gave the institution notice of the alleged violations found and the parties involved (NBC 6 South Florida, 2013). Some of the assistant coaches presented a request to dismiss the case, but the committee disapproved. The infractions committee and the enforcement team held a prehearing session to ensure no new information emerged during the hearing. All those involved gave their response to participate in the outlined course of action. The final hearing took place between the institution, involved individuals, enforcement staff, and the committee.

Case FindingsThe case comprised several severe infringements of the NCAA regulations, most of which the institution affirmed. Unethical conduct claims totaled 18 while there were 79 concerns therein (“University of Miami Public Infractions Report, 2013”). The enforcement team obtained information taken into consideration by the committee via legitimate means of investigation, which entailed 81 persons going through 118 interrogations (Sherman, 2013). The committee adhered to acquiring credible information by validating the individuals' statements with the supporting evidence in the documents.

Involved Parties

In this case, the individuals involved were the “student-athletes,” the promoter, the prospective recruits, and the coaches involved in training the basketball and football teams for men. The student-athletes accepted extra benefits given to them by the promoter and the coaching staff with knowledge of the act's illegality. The assistant coaches went ahead to issue the incentives to the student-athletes and the prospects against the operations bylaws (NBC 6 South Florida, 2013). Besides, the booster offered awards to the assistant coaches and student-athletes and impermissible recruitment inducements to the prospects.

In this case, the stakeholders are the student-athletes, the coaching staff, the booster, the institution’s administrators, prospective student-athletes, and the families of all the parties stated.

Implications

The short-term implications of the case are that some of the student-athletes who had received extra benefits were excluded from the competition of the games for which they obtained incentives. More so, the assistant coaches and the head coach involved in the violations received a suspension. In the long run, the institution will experience a decline in the number of student-athletes joining and a decline in scholarships awarded (Ellis, 2013).

Corrective Measures and Penalties

One of the corrective measures used is tightening the restrictions on conducting recruitment to avoid impermissible inducements when hiring student-athletes. There was a notable lessening of the scholarships awarded to prospective students in the football and basketball teams, and the university was put on probation for a period of three years (Axon, 2013). The coach of men’s basketball received a five-game suspension while the assistant coaches involved in the infractions were given show-cause orders for two years. The institution faced public censure and reprimand. The university imposed some penalties, including decreasing fall evaluations, official paid visits, available contact days, and a bowl ban for two years.

Conclusion

All in all, the individuals involved were “student-athletes,” the promoter, the prospective recruits, and the coaches involved in training the basketball and football teams for men. The violations conducted by the booster and the coaches contravened pertinent NCAA regulations, as depicted in the bylaws. The booster gave impermissible recruitment inducement to the prospects and student-athletes by future sporting agencies and officials in charge of their athletic interests. Also, some assistant coaches provided the student-athletes with impermissible incentives the university should put into place policies and procedures that safeguard whistleblowers. It should also design mechanisms for monitoring the communication made by the coaches and the booster via phone calls or text messages. The institution must educate the staff regarding the regulations and operations bylaws of the NCAA.

References

Axon, R. (2013, October 22). NCAA on Shapiro case: Miami losing football, hoops scholarships. Retrieved from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2013/10/22/ncaa-announces-sanctions-miami-hurricanes-infractions-case-nevin-shapiro-loss-ofscholarships/3146343/

Ellis, Z. (2013, October 22). Miami football to lose nine scholarships over three years, no bowl ban from NCAA. Retrieved from SI: https://www.si.com/campus-union/2013/10/22/miami-hurricanes-ncaa-sanctions

Kulha, A. (2011, August 17). Nevin Shapiro: 5 most shocking allegations linked to Miami booster. Retrieved from Bleacher Report: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/809464-nevin-shapiro-5-most-shocking-allegations-linked-to-miami-booster

NBC 6 South Florida (2013, June 13). NCAA opens hearing on alleged University of Miami violations. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/ncaa-opens-hearing-on-alleged-university-of-miami-violations/1940339/

Sherman, R. (2013, March 27). NCAA botched Miami investigation in more ways than previously thought. Retrieved from SB Nation: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/3/27/4154708/ncaa-botched-miami-investigation-mark-emmert-donna-shalala

Times-Union & AP. (2011, August 16). Ponzi scheme architect says he gave illicit benefits to 72 Miami players. The Florida Times-Union. https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20110816/SPORTS/801246082

University of Miami Public Infractions Report. (2013, October 22). Retrieved from NCAA: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Miami%20Public%20Inf%20Rpt.pdf