1 / 40

DIVISION I ENFORCEMENT CURRENT TRENDS AND TOPICS INDIANAPOLIS: DERRICK CRAWFORD AND MASON PIKE

DIVISION I ENFORCEMENT CURRENT TRENDS AND TOPICS INDIANAPOLIS: DERRICK CRAWFORD AND MASON PIKE DENVER: DERRICK CRAWFORD AND RUSSELL REGISTER. Agenda. Case trends. Southern District of New York (SDNY)/ FBI investigations. Board-adopted reforms . Internal operating procedures (IOPs).

elam
Download Presentation

DIVISION I ENFORCEMENT CURRENT TRENDS AND TOPICS INDIANAPOLIS: DERRICK CRAWFORD AND MASON PIKE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DIVISION I ENFORCEMENT CURRENT TRENDS AND TOPICS INDIANAPOLIS: DERRICK CRAWFORD AND MASON PIKE DENVER: DERRICK CRAWFORD AND RUSSELL REGISTER

  2. Agenda • Case trends. • Southern District of New York (SDNY)/ FBI investigations. • Board-adopted reforms. • Internal operating procedures (IOPs). • Resources. YTD as of March 31, 2019

  3. Overall Case Numbers YTD as of March 31, 2019

  4. Division I Cases: Most Cited NCAA Bylaws YTD as of March 31, 2019

  5. Division I: Individuals Named in Allegations Includes top five in each category for underlying allegation data only August 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019

  6. Southern District of New York (SDNY)/FBI investigation • Status of defendants. • Recent trials and sentencings.

  7. Status of Defendants James "Jim" Gatto (Adidas Executive) • Found guilty of felony conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. • Sentenced to nine months in prison, payment of restitution, etc. Merl Code (Adidas Consultant) • Found guilty of felony conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. • Sentenced to six months in prison, payment of restitution, etc. Christian Dawkins (Aspiring Agent) • Found guilty of felony conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. • Sentenced to six months in prison, payment of restitution, etc.

  8. Status of Defendants Anthony Bland • Pled guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit bribery. Book Richardson • Pled guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit bribery. Lamont Evans • Pled guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit bribery.

  9. Recent Trials/Upcoming Sentencings • Trial of Merle Code and Christian Dawkins • Began April 22, 2019. • Trial of Rashaan Michel • Scheduled to begin June 17, 2019. • Sentencing of Chuck Person • Pled guilty to a bribery conspiracy charge. • Sentencing scheduled for July 9, 2019. YTD as of March 31, 2019

  10. Board-Adopted Reforms • Enforcement certification and approvals group (ECAG). • Independent investigators and decision-makers. • More efficient, binding enforcement system.

  11. Board-Adopted Reforms ECAG

  12. Board-Adopted Reforms ECAG ECAG is a team within the NCAA enforcement staff dedicated to administering NCAA Bylaws 12.02.1.2, 13.1.7.5.3, 13.14.3, 13.18, 13.19 and17.31.4.

  13. Board-Adopted Reforms The ECAG is a team dedicated to granting certification/approval to basketball events, college basketball leagues, recruiting/scouting services in the sports of basketball and football and men's basketball agents. To accomplish this task, ECAG is responsible for evaluating these services/activities, ensuring that established standards are maintained and enforcing NCAA legislation and requirements.   The purpose of CAG certification/approval is as follows:   • Basketball Leagues: Currently enrolled NCAA Division I student-athletes (SAs) are permitted to participate. [Bylaw 17.31.4] • Nonscholastic Basketball Events: NCAA Division I coaches are permitted to attend and observe prospective student-athletes (PSAs) who participate in NCAA-certified nonscholastic events. Men's events are certified in April and July; women's events are certified in April, May and July. [Bylaw 13.18 and 13.19]

  14. Board-Adopted Reforms • Scholastic Basketball Events: NCAA Division I coaches are permitted to attend and observe PSAs who participate in NCAA-certified June scholastic events. These events must be hosted/operated by state high school coaches' associations, high school athletics organizations and two-year college organizations and must be held on the campuses of educational institutions. The National Federation of State High School Associations, the National Junior College Athletic Association and the California Community College Athletic Association are authorized to certify events for their membership; NCAA certification is only available to qualifying entities that are NOT part of the other authorized associations. Criteria for all processes is similar. [Bylaw 13.1.7.5.3]

  15. Board-Adopted Reforms • Recruiting/Scouting Service Approval: NCAA Division I coaches are permitted to purchase the service as a resource for the recruiting process in the sports of basketball and football. [Bylaw 13.14.3] • Agent Certification: National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) registered agents who are permitted to enter into an agent agreement with eligible SAs or two-year college PSAs. [Bylaws 12.02.1.2] Information on each of the ECAG subject areas can be accessed at www.ncaa.org/ECAG.

  16. Board-Adopted Reforms Creation of agent certification program for men's basketball: • Need for earlier professional advice. • Information will be sought one way or another. • NCAA agent certification process will help ensure agents meet standards and interactions are transparent. There are limitations to who can be represented and which agents are eligible for NCAA certification. (Go to CBR Part 2 for more info.)

  17. Board-Adopted Reforms Enhanced Certification Criteria for Nonscholastic Events/Teams • Annual financial disclosures for teams/nonscholastic events. • Audit an appropriate percentage of teams/nonscholastic events. • Adopt aspects of the USA Basketball/NBA Youth Guidelines. • Improved education for PSAs. • Increased insurance requirements for events.

  18. Board-Adopted Reforms Independent Investigators and Decision-Makers

  19. Board-Adopted Reforms Independent Investigators and Decision-Makers Changes to the investigations and infractions process create independent groups to prevent conflicts of interest. Cases deemed complex will be eligible for this independent process. Examples of complex cases include alleged violations of core NCAA values, such as prioritizing academics and the well-being of student-athletes; the possibility of major penalties; or adversarial behavior. Multiple parties will be able to request a case be deemed complex: school representatives, NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions members or NCAA enforcement staff. The new groups include:

  20. Board-Adopted Reforms Independent Accountability Oversight Committee This committee, composed of three public members of the NCAA Board of Governors and the chair and vice chair of the Division I Board of Directors, will oversee the entire independent enforcement and infractions processes. One of the public members will lead the group. In addition to general oversight, this committee will nominate members for the new independent groups listed below and work with the Division I Board of Directors on policies and procedures for the independent enforcement and infractions processes.

  21. Board-Adopted Reforms Infractions Referral Committee When a school, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions or NCAA enforcement staff requests a case enter the new independent process, this committee reviews and makes decisions on those requests. The committee's five members will include one Independent Resolution Panel member, one Division I Committee on Infractions member, one Division I Infractions Appeals Committee member, and the Division I Council chair and vice chair.

  22. Board-Adopted Reforms Complex Case Unit This independent investigations group will include both external investigators with no school or conference affiliations and select NCAA enforcement staff. Independent investigators are a key part of the new process. Once a case is referred, unit members will decide whether further investigation of the facts is needed and, if it is, conduct the investigation and shepherd the case through its review by the Independent Resolution Panel.

  23. Board-Adopted Reforms Independent Resolution Panel This group will review the findings from the Complex Case Unit and the school's response to those findings, and then oversee the case hearing and decide penalties. The panel will consist of 15 members with legal, higher education and/or sports backgrounds who are not affiliated with NCAA member schools or conferences. Each case will be handled by a panel of five of the 15 members. This committee will have the ability to expand upon allegations presented by the Complex Case Unit if deemed appropriate. This is a change from the current infractions process. These new structures and processes are effective August 1, 2019.

  24. Board-Adopted Reforms More Efficient, Binding Enforcement System

  25. Board-Adopted Reforms Responsibility to cooperate As a term of employment, school presidents and athletics staff must commit contractually to full cooperation in the investigations and infractions process. Full cooperation means reporting violations in a timely manner; sharing all knowledge and documents requested in a timely manner; providing access to all electronic devices, social media and other technology; and maintaining confidentiality. The chair of the Division I Committee on Infractions or the Independent Resolution Panel can impose immediate penalties when schools or individuals do not cooperate (including loss of revenue or postseason opportunities). These bodies can consider lack of cooperation as admission of a violation. This new rule is effective immediately, and associated language must be included in contracts or appointments executed on or after Aug. 8, 2018. The penalties will be effective February 1, 2019.

  26. Board-Adopted Reforms Use of Outside Facts/Importation People charged with investigating and resolving NCAA cases can accept information established by another administrative body, including a court of law, government agency, accrediting body or a commission authorized by a school. This will save time and resources previously used to confirm information already adjudicated by another group.

  27. Board-Adopted Reforms Negotiated Resolution When schools and NCAA staff agree on the facts of a case, they can work together on a resolution, including appropriate penalties, if any. This change will reduce legal fees and minimize drawn-out adversarial situations. Agreed-upon resolutions are subject to approval by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions.

  28. Board-Adopted Reforms Stronger Accountability, Penalties To deter future violations, presidents, coaches and staff have stronger, clearer accountability expectations and face increased penalties if they break the rules. Changes include:

  29. Board-Adopted Reforms Stronger President and Chancellor Accountability University presidents and chancellors will be personally accountable for their athletics program following the rules. Presidents and chancellors join all athletics staff members in affirming the athletics program meets obligations for monitoring rules compliance, which is required to be eligible for the postseason. Also, schools are required to cooperate fully during NCAA investigations and take appropriate corrective action.  This rule change is effective in all three divisions August 1, 2019.

  30. Board-Adopted Reforms Penalties Those who break the rules face stronger penalties, including longer postseason bans (up to five years), longer head coach suspensions (could extend beyond one season), longer employment limitations for coaches and staff who violate rules (potential for lifetime show-cause orders), increased recruiting restrictions and the loss of all revenue associated with the Division I NCAA Men's Basketball Championship. These stronger penalties are effective immediately.

  31. Enforcement IOPs • IOPs for Divisions II and III. • Negotiated Resolution (IOP 2-9).

  32. IOPs for Divisions II and III In the fall of 2018, the enforcement staff developed IOPs for Divisions II and III. Purpose is to provide member institutions and involved individuals with basic information regarding the enforcement staff's investigation and processing functions.  IOPs are modeled after Division I IOPs.

  33. Division I - Negotiated ResolutionIOP 2-9 NCAA Bylaw 19.5.12. The enforcement staff may negotiate a resolution with an institution or involved individual about alleged violations and proposed penalties. The negotiated resolution is subject to approval by a hearing panel and must resolve all known violations for which the agreeing party may be subject to penalty pursuant to Bylaw 19.9. IOP 2-9-1. Decisions about whether to use the negotiated resolution process are made on a case-by-case basis. There are several factors that suggest a case may not be appropriate for negotiation (e.g. not all parties agree to pursue negotiated resolution).

  34. Negotiated ResolutionIOP 2-9 (Continued) IOP 2-9-2. The enforcement staff, an institution or an involved individual may propose to process a Level I or II case using the negotiated resolution process. If the parties agree then it must be memorialized before the parties proceed. IOP 2-9-3. The parties may request in writing that a COI hearing panel preliminary assess whether the agreed upon penalties are manifestly unreasonable.

  35. Negotiated ResolutionIOP 2-9 (Continued) IOP 2-9-4. The enforcement staff may require the parties to agree on reasonable deadlines for completion of the negotiated resolution report. IOP 2-9-4-1. Failure by a party to adhere to the deadlines may serve as a basis for the other parties to withdraw their consent to the negotiated resolution process.

  36. Negotiated ResolutionIOP 2-9 (Continued) IOP 2-9-5. Any party may withdraw from the negotiated resolution process. If any party withdraws, the enforcement staff will issue a summary disposition report or notice of allegations for any allegations not resolved through the negotiated resolution process. If there are violations that include only institutional involvement, the institution and the enforcement staff may negotiate a resolution for those violations pursuant to Bylaw 19.5.12.1.2. IOP 2-9-8. A rejected negotiated resolution may be considered as factual information and included in a subsequent notice of allegations or summary disposition report.

  37. Resources NCAA.org Division I enforcement website: • NCAA Member Resource Guide. • Head Coach Control Brochure. • Enforcement Internal Operating Procedures. • Understanding NCAA Academic Misconduct Rules. LSDBi (Bylaw 19). Enforcement staff.

  38. Questions?

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

More Related