OT: Miami Sanctions

[tcf15]

Here's what Frank Haith was accused of doing:

When the booster began experiencing financial trouble, he requested that the former head men’s basketball coach loan him a large sum of money or that the former head men’s basketball coach return the booster’s $50,000 donation. The former head men’s basketball coach denied the booster’s request; however, a former assistant men’s basketball coach agreed to loan the booster $7,000, which the booster eventually repaid. After the booster was incarcerated in 2010, he began to threaten the former head men’s basketball coach and assistant coach and demand money. The committee determined the former head men’s basketball coach and the former assistant men’s basketball coach worked together to make sure the booster received $10,000 to end the booster’s threats.​

The former head men’s basketball coach was aware of the booster’s threats and he took steps to help a former assistant men’s basketball coach to make a payment to the booster’s mother to end the threats. As the leader of a high-profile basketball program, he had a responsibility to make sure he and his staff followed the rules. However, the former coach did not meet his responsibilities and this conduct resulted in violations. The committee noted that had he asked about the basis of the threats and the former assistant coaches’ relationship with the booster, he could have recognized potential concerns or taken the issue to the compliance office.​

Here is Frank Haith's penalty:

• A suspension for the first five regular-season games of the 2013-14 season.
• Attendance at one NCAA Regional Rules seminar at the conclusion of the 2013-14 academic year.

Here are Missouri's first five regular-season games:

11/8 Southeastern Louisiana​

11/12 Southern Illinois​

11/16 Hawaii​

11/23 Gardner-Webb​

11/25 Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)​

 

[upstater]

Calhoun was hit a lot harder for what Nochimson did AND Calhoun never had any monetary dealings with Nochimson. In fact, the UConn AD--having been alerted to Nochimson's relationship with Miles by Calhoun--actually wrote a letter to the NCAA with a photocopied duplicate of a letter sent to Miles telling him that he needed to disassociate himself from Nochimson immediately. The letter was written in 2007, fully two years before Miles arrived on campus and before the investigation.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

You can bet that scheduling was done with the pending suspension in mind.

Just reiterates what we already know. Big time football programs can literally do whatever they want.

 

[tcf15]

Pages 20-26 go into detail about Haith's violations: Link

By the end of 2009, the booster's financial circumstances had worsened dramatically, and he began calling on friends and associates to loan him money. In or around November 2009, the booster requested that the former head men's basketball coach loan him a "large sum" or that the former head men's basketball coach return the $50,000 donation, which the booster had made to the institution the previous year. The former head men's basketball coach denied the booster's request for a personal loan and suggested that the booster talk to the then director of athletics about the institution returning the donation. When interviewed, former assistant men's basketball coach A, describing the booster to be in a "real panic," stated that he loaned the booster $7,000. He and the booster agreed that the booster eventually repaid the $7,000 loan.

In April 2010, the booster was incarcerated. In June 2010, he called the former head men's basketball coach and again demanded money. When the former head men's basketball coach and former assistant men's basketball coach A refused to take his calls, the booster began leaving threatening messages. The booster reported that his threats were two-fold. He threatened to tell the then director of athletics that he had entertained the coaches at a strip club and that he once provided the coaches with $10,000 to facilitate the recruitment of a prospect.

Former assistant men's basketball coach A's story provided during his interview regarding the substance of the threats and his efforts to repay the booster is not credible. Likewise, the former head men's basketball coach told more than one account about the threats and what he did to end the threats. These accounts are inconsistent and not credible:

• Former assistant men's basketball coach A denied receiving money from the booster in connection with the recruitment of a student-athlete. He stated that the booster's threats concerned only the strip club.
• Former assistant men's basketball coach A admitted calling the booster's bodyguard to arrange a meeting with the booster's mother. He further admitted that he provided the booster's mother with an envelope of cash. He stated the amount in the envelope was $5,000 ($3,200 summer camp advance received from the former head men's basketball coach the same day and additional $1,800 cash he had at home).
• When asked about the camp advance during his interview, former assistant men's basketball coach A said that he may have asked the former head men's basketball coach for money but could not recall and did not believe that he asked for any specific amount. He also stated that he believed the former head men's basketball coach gave him a camp advance because the former head men's basketball coach had given former assistant men's basketball coach B a camp advance. Former assistant men's basketball coach A said he was "not going to say no to money." The committee does not believe that the former head men's basketball coach did not know anything about the threats because he decided to give all three coaches advances at precisely the time that former assistant men's basketball coach A wanted to "pay the booster back."
• The enforcement staff and the institution interviewed the former head men's basketball coach on October 6, 2011, September 5, 2012, and September 25, 2012. Each time the former head men's basketball coach gave a different explanation as to why he wrote the camp advance checks.
• During the October 6, 2011, interview, the former head men's basketball coach said that in or around May or June 2010, the three former assistant men's basketball coaches had personal obligations and were "financially struggling."
• During his September 5, 2012, interview, the former head men's basketball coach spoke briefly about his staff's financial problems in the summer of 2010. He thought he recalled one or two former assistant coaches, including former assistant men's basketball coach A, asking him for financial assistance. He stated that, in response, he wrote camp advance checks to all three former assistant coaches on June 10, 2010.
• However, as the September 5 interview continued, the former head men's basketball coach's story began to change. He stated that the reason he wrote the camp advance checks was that former assistant men's basketball coach A asked for help repaying the booster, and he then also wrote checks for the other two coaches.
• The former head men's basketball coach stated that, at the time he wrote the camp advance checks, he knew that the booster threatened to talk about the evening they visited the strip club. He also knew that the booster claimed to have "helped secure [a prospect's] commitment."
• The former head men's basketball coach described being embarrassed by the night at the strip club because he was married, and in Miami, that would have been a "bad deal." He said that he discounted the booster's claim of having helped recruit a specific high-profile prospect because he was certain that the booster did not know the prospect or his family.

At one point during the September 5, 2012, interview, the enforcement staff asked theformer head men's basketball coach to clarify his recollection about what former assistant men's basketball coach A told him in 2010. The former head men's basketball coach stated that former assistant men's basketball coach A "mentioned" the threats:

Enforcement representative: When [former assistant men's basketball coach A] was relaying to you in 2010 about the threats that [the booster] was making –​

​

Former head men's basketball coach: That's correct.​

​

Enforcement representative: --specifically involved with the night out that, that you guys had with him, did [former assistant men's basketball coach A] say anything about, about [the booster] making threats about telling anyone that you guys were paying for players?​

​

Former head men's basketball coach: Oh, yea. I meant, I said that. I said he mentioned that.​

​

Enforcement representative: Okay. So that was part. It wasn't just about the night out that you guys had?​

​

Former head men's basketball coach: No. But the purpose of me wanting to make sure was that, you know, paying him back.​

​

Enforcement representative: But [the booster] was making threats about other. Because I think [enforcement staff member] asked you was he making threats about anything else other than that night?​

​

Former head men's basketball coach: I thought I pretty well … I thought I answered that. You know, I'm pretty sure I said that I knew of that.​

​

Enforcement representative: Okay. All right. I might not be clear about that.​

​

Representative from Institution B: He did say that. But I did have a follow-up to it and I'm glad you went back to it. And that was do you remember what the specific threat [former assistant men's basketball coach A] told you [the booster] –​

​

Former head men's basketball coach: It was a general, it was a general statement that, you know, that "I helped you guys get, secure [the prospect's] commitment."​

​

Representative from Institution B: Okay.​

​

Enforcement representative: About that, what did you say to [former assistant men's basketball coach A] during that time period when he's telling you about the threats?​

​

Former head men's basketball coach: Well, [former assistant men's basketball coach A], when [former assistant men's basketball coach A] is telling me, he's saying, "This guy's, you know, he's lost his, he's off his rocker and he's just making all these allegations." I mean that, that was, that's how, that's how the conversation went.​

Based principally on the statements made during the September 5, 2012, interview, the committee makes a factual conclusion that the former head men's basketball coach knew that former assistant men's basketball coach A "wanted to pay the booster back some money" and that the former head men's basketball coach agreed to help former assistant men's basketball coach A with that payment.

The booster in two separate interviews stated that he provided $10,000 cash to former assistant men's basketball coach A in order to secure the commitment of a specific high profile prospect. He indicated the request was initially made by the second booster on behalf of former assistant men's basketball coach A.

Additionally, the former head men's basketball coach and former assistant men's basketball coach A agreed and did pay the booster $10,000, not $5,000. The facts surrounding the timing of the camp advance checks are more than a coincidence. First, the former head men's basketball coach went beyond his normal practice: He wrote a camp advance check for each coach in the amount of $3,200 and paid a camp advance to his coaches before camp started. Each former assistant coach cashed his check on the same day and at the same bank branch. Taken together, the camp advance checks totaled $9,600. The information supports a factual conclusion that former assistant men's basketball coach A collected $3,200 from each of the other two coaches once they cashed their camp advance checks. Former assistant men's basketball coach A then added cash that he had at home for the full payment to the booster. The former head men's basketball coach did not write the camp advance checks to all three assistant coaches for the sake of parity. The committee makes a factual conclusion that the former head men's basketball coach and former assistant men's basketball coach A worked together to ensure that the booster received a large cash payment and that this payment would end the booster's threats.

The booster's version of the story is also corroborated by the phone records of the former head men's basketball coach and former assistant men's basketball coach A. On the same day the former head men's basketball coach wrote the advance checks and former assistant men's basketball coach A delivered the cash to the booster's mother, there were multiple calls from former assistant men's basketball coach A to a high-profile prospect and the former head men's basketball coach. Similarly, on the same day and at approximately the same time the cash was delivered to the booster's mother, there were calls from the former head men's basketball coach, the high-profile prospect and from former assistant men's basketball coach A. The calls took place before and after former assistant men's basketball coach A delivered the cash. Given the amount of communication that took place around the time the cash was delivered, the committee reaches a factual conclusion that the former head men's basketball coach did know that former assistant men's basketball coach A intended to and did deliver a significant amount of cash to the booster's mother on the day the delivery took place, June 10, 2010

On September 25, 2012, the enforcement staff interviewed the former head men's basketball coach a third time. The former head men's basketball coach requested the interview because he claimed that some of the statements he made during the second interview were "inaccurate" and that he was "confused about the timing of what [he] knew when [he] knew it." During his third interview, the former head men's basketball coach's story about the events in 2010 changed significantly.

There is additional information to support a factual finding that former assistant men's basketball coaches B and C were active participants in the plan to pay the booster $10,000 and cashed their respective checks, knowing that they would give the cash to former assistant men's basketball coach A. Neither coach disclosed his involvement nor his knowledge about the circumstances surrounding the camp advances during the investigation. Instead, they offered explanations that were not credible. Former assistant men's basketball coach C claimed that he needed the amount for his child's school tuition, which was not due nor paid by former assistant men's basketball coach C for another 47 days. Former assistant men's basketball coach B claimed that he needed precisely that sum, $3,200, to have his home air conditioning unit repaired.

With respect to the loans between the booster and former assistant men's basketball coach A, and the money was alleged to be used to secure a prospect's commitment to the institution, the former head men's basketball coach claimed that he did not know about those events in June 2010. Instead, the former head men's basketball coach claimed that he learned about those events the evening before the Yahoo! article was published on August 16, 2011. He further stated that former assistant men's basketball coach A never requested a specific amount of money to pay the booster and that he had no explanation why he said during the September 5 interview that former assistant men's basketball coach A had requested a specific dollar amount. Further, contrary to statements in his September 5 interview, the former head men's basketball coach stated that he did not know in June 2010 that former assistant men's basketball coach A provided or intended to provide any money to the booster. He again said that he learned about former assistant men's basketball coach A's payment to the booster the night before the article was published.

The former head men's basketball coach maintained that he was confused and "blown away" by the enforcement' staff's theory of the case. The only reason the former head men's basketball coach came forward and requested a third interview on September 25 was he realized earlier that, by telling the truth during the September 5 interview, he had implicated not only himself, but also former assistant men's basketball coach A, in a scheme to cover up NCAA violations. The committee finds the former head men's basketball coach's September 25 version of events and his explanation (or lack thereof) for the significant changes in his statements of facts not persuasive.

 

[CL82]

I like how they chose to focus on the extortion about the violations rather than the actual violations in making there determination. Very creative!

Now, I have to go take a walk and cool off before the urge to hop in the car, drive the NCAA corporate offices and start punching people in the face becomes too strong to resist.

 

[Scot-e]

About equal to a UCONN NCAA penalty for us passing gas in an elevator.

 

[upstater]

Apparently, they can't use the info they got from the lawyer, because they culled it unethically.

This is why they are now looking into the info they culled from Nate Miles' doctor, who gave it to them in violation of HPAA. They will now eliminate all penalties to do with the foot injury/surgery, and give UConn a one-off. This is why Ollie authorized a bag man to hand Jessie Govan $6k last weekend.

 

[Fishy]

UConn is now allowed to award one mid-range Honda Accord to a recruit in the 2015 class.

Given that Miami banned itself from two bowls and given that they were indeed tagged with a lack of institutional control, it's not awful

I think Haith got off very easily.

Also, kind of our bad luck that Clint Hurtt, the dude who brought Bridgewater to Louisville from Miami, is only now getting a show-cause.

 

[Dove]

About equal to a UCONN NCAA penalty for us passing gas in an elevator.

Stairs. Passing gas on the stairs

 

[rip7774]

UConn is now allowed to award one mid-range Honda Accord to a recruit in the 2015 class.

Given that Miami banned itself from two bowls and given that they were indeed tagged with a lack of institutional control, it's not awful

I think Haith got off very easily.

Also, kind of our bad luck that Clint Hurtt, the dude who brought Bridgewater to Louisville from Miami, is only now getting a show-cause.

I live in Fla. and know a lot about this case and Fishy is right on re: UM football, they missed two bowls and believe me, the NCAA dragging their heels for 30 months has hurt their recruiting a ton with negative recruiting done by UF mostly and many other schools. Coach Shannon (prior to Golden) wanted nothing to do with Shapiro and that helped UM I'm sure as well as the self-imposing and Shalala's connections but UM was hurt bad by 2 1/2 years of other schools saying they would get PSU sanctions. I know a lot on here equate UM football to SEC but they are a small school and they graduate kids in small classrooms (lack of fraud like UNC SeC etc). The NCAA loves going after non trad powerhouses like UConn & Miami. They clear Cam Newton in days with a smoking gun and UNC as well.

Haith got off easy is right. The basketball program was in bed w Shapiro while Shannon for all his faults (there were a million of them) despised Shapiro and instructed players/coaches to stay away.

Hurtt is shady as well and got off. Surprised he is still coaching.

 

[upstater]

I know a lot on here equate UM football to SEC but they are a small school and they graduate kids in small classrooms (lack of fraud like UNC SeC etc).

I can sympathize with everything else you wrote, but while touring that campus, I was told point blank by an administrator that the football guys don't take classes in the fall. Now, I personally don't have a problem with that, but it is against NCAA rules. I think what UNC did is worse than what Miami was doing, but I don't think UMs academic side passes muster.

 

[Fishy]

Haith got off easy is right. The basketball program was in bed w Shapiro while Shannon for all his faults (there were a million of them) despised Shapiro and instructed players/coaches to stay away.

This is absolutely correct.

They only scraped the tip of the iceberg with Haith.

 

[rip7774]

That's interesting, I would b surprised if that is true. UM has small classes and a lot of folks on campus/admin that could give a rats u know what about football. Not saying u r wrong but I would b surprised. It's not like Penn State (where I went) that everyone in community is all in, businesses etc bc they r only show in town. Arrests aren't swept under rug, something like Sandusky was more likely to happen (although hopefully a one time disaster) at a school like PSU because everyone has vested interest and if fb dies, the town/economy does so it's swept under the rug.

I really don't think the football players get a free pass there like in the SEC, they pass on a lot of questionable grade guys that all miraculously make it in at schools like FSU. I follow the state of Fla HS recruiting for fb quite a bit although not as much as 5-10 years ago at all.

 

[upstater]

That's interesting, I would b surprised if that is true. UM has small classes and a lot of folks on campus/admin that could give a rats u know what about football. Not saying u r wrong but I would b surprised. It's not like Penn State (where I went) that everyone in community is all in, businesses etc bc they r only show in town. Arrests aren't swept under rug, something like Sandusky was more likely to happen (although hopefully a one time disaster) at a school like PSU because everyone has vested interest and if fb dies, the town/economy does so it's swept under the rug.

I really don't think the football players get a free pass there like in the SEC, they pass on a lot of questionable grade guys that all miraculously make it in at schools like FSU. I follow the state of Fla HS recruiting for fb quite a bit although not as much as 5-10 years ago at all.

Regardless of Sandusky, not sure any arrests are kept quiet. But that's a whole other story.

The stuff about UM football was unsolicited, and I think UMiami has every reason to try to keep football alive.

Also, the economic impact of football is vastly overblown. We are talking about 7 weekends. There are a million ways you can expend $50 million a year (average football budget) to generate more income for your town. But again, a side argument to all this. Don't forget about

 

[rip7774]

I live basically next to the UF campus and arrests are Absolutely kept quiet or dismissed quickly.

Re: PSU, there is nothing there but that college. If that program died, the town would. 100K alums coming back 7x a year is a huge deal.

UM football is not like that and I suspect that admin was one of the many anti-football guys I alluded to. It's just not a football school first and foremost the way PSU is.

Again not trying to argue just pretty intimately involved here. The NCAA hurt UM with their cloud for 2 1/2 years.

 

[upstater]

I live basically next to the UF campus and arrests are Absolutely kept quiet or dismissed quickly.

Re: PSU, there is nothing there but that college. If that program died, the town would. 100K alums coming back 7x a year is a huge deal.

UM football is not like that and I suspect that admin was one of the many anti-football guys I alluded to. It's just not a football school first and foremost the way PSU is.

Again not trying to argue just pretty intimately involved here. The NCAA hurt UM with their cloud for 2 1/2 years.

We will disagree on this forever.
Arrests aren't kept quiet at PSU. It's a school where players are suspended for the year for drinking beer (look up EZ Smith).
You're right about there being nothing but a college at PSU, but it's bizarre to say that if the football program died, the town would too. We are talking about 50,000 students and a lot of employees. Over 100,000 people live there quite apart from football.
And, no, 100k alums don't come back 7x a year. 30k of the 50k are students, another 30k are town residents. About 40k come back. But as I said, you could find better investments for that money if you wanted.
PSU is a state school. It's going to exist regardless of football. UMiami has every reason to maintain a national profile, and football has been a pretty good vehicle for that purpose. UMiami still retains some of its commuter college past. Most students are now from elsewhere in Florida and outside the state, but a huge population is still local and does not live on campus.

 

[suzyq]

Not sure I would characterize this as "sanctions". Miami got a mosquito bite. Big shock .

 

[HooperScooper]

And Durand Scott laughs all the way to the bank.

Or maybe not since the payment he took is relatively small compared to the reduction in salary he's now experiencing by playing in Spain as compared to the NBA. Kid, you could have been in the NBA if you didn't take the money at Miami and went to UConn instead.

 

[Jerry1714]

You can bet that scheduling was done with the pending suspension in mind.

Just reiterates what we already know. Big time football programs can literally do whatever they want.

Tell that to USC, Alabama, SMU and Penn State

 

[Jerry1714]

Not sure I would characterize this as "sanctions". Miami got a mosquito bite. Big shock .

2 year bowl ban, one ACC championship ban, and scholarship reductions a mosquito bite? That must be a damn big mosquito.

People need to consider what Miami self imposed as part of their sanctions. Haith got off easy sure, but this entire investigation was a complete cluster F by the NCAA and given the negligence on their part they could only do so much.

 

[tcf15]

Haith, Pearl lie to NCAA, but Haith gets 5 games and Pearl show cause?

 

[upstater]

2 year bowl ban, one ACC championship ban, and scholarship reductions a mosquito bite? That must be a damn big mosquito.

People need to consider what Miami self imposed as part of their sanctions. Haith got off easy sure, but this entire investigation was a complete cluster F by the NCAA and given the negligence on their part they could only do so much.

Negligence didn't stop them in UConn's investigation.

 

[Jerry1714]

Negligence didn't stop them in UConn's investigation.

You are letting your feeling cloud the facts. NCAA investigators were fired over the way they handled the Miami situation.

 

[upstater]

You are letting your feeling cloud the facts. NCAA investigators were fired over the way they handled the Miami situation.

The investigators did the same thing in the UConn investigation that they did in the Miami investigation. Firing is a sign of CYA, which is what this is all about. Nocera in the NY Times even drew the parallels between the Miami investigation and UConn in an article. In both instances, you had the NCAA inducing professionals to violate either the tenets and ethics of their profession (in Miami's case, ethics of law) or else federal law (in UConn's case, the doctor violated HPAA).