GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS DECISION
September 26, 2019

I.

INTRODUCTION

The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) is an independent administrative body of
the NCAA comprised of individuals from the Division I membership and public. The COI decides
infractions cases involving member institutions and their staffs.1 This case centered on inducement
and benefit violations involving men's basketball staff and two different boosters in the Georgia
Institute of Technology's men's basketball program. The conduct giving rise to the violations fell
into two areas: (1) a former assistant coach orchestrating inducements and benefits from a booster
during a highly touted prospect's official visit; and (2) another booster's involvement with two
Georgia Tech men's basketball student-athletes and a potential transfer student-athlete after the
booster was welcomed into the program by the head men's basketball coach.2 The case also
involved the assistant coach's unethical conduct violation for not being truthful and attempting to
influence a student-athlete to change his story during the investigation.
Both sets of violations occurred because men's basketball coaching staff members invited outside
individuals into their program. They permitted these outside individuals to interact with their
student-athletes, and those actions resulted in Level I and Level II violations.
The first set of violations stemmed from a highly touted prospect's official visit. During the visit,
the assistant coach orchestrated contact between the prospect, his student-athlete host and a notable
booster, who was formerly a successful Georgia Tech men's basketball player. The evening began
by visiting the booster's home and then involved trips to a local strip club and a local
restaurant/lounge. The booster arranged for the prospect and host to enter the strip club without
paying a cover charge, and he provided each with $300 cash for use inside the club. Later, the
group visited a lounge owned by a local professional athlete where the prospect and host ate but
did not pay for the meal. Additional violations occurred when the booster impermissibly texted
the prospect the following day. The violations are Level I.
Relatedly, the assistant coach committed unethical conduct violations when the enforcement staff
investigated the events of the official visit roughly one year later. The assistant coach provided
1

Infractions cases are decided by hearing panels comprised of COI members. Decisions issued by hearing panels are made on
behalf of the COI.
2

A member of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Georgia Tech has a total enrollment of approximately 32,000 students. It sponsors
nine men's and eight women's sports. This is the institution's fifth Level I, Level II or major infractions case. Georgia Tech had
prior major infractions cases in 2014 (football and men's and women's basketball), 2011 (football and men's basketball), 2005
(football, men's and women's cross country, men's and women's indoor and outdoor track, men's and women's swimming) and 1989
(football).

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 2
__________
false and misleading information when he denied any knowledge of and involvement in the
violations. The assistant coach also attempted to influence the student-athlete host to modify what
he had reported to the enforcement staff. He later denied those attempts in a subsequent interview.
The assistant coach's unethical conduct violations are Level I.
This case also involved extra benefit and inducement violations resulting from a different booster's
special access to the Georgia Tech men's basketball program through his then-friendship with the
head coach. Through that unique access, the booster developed relationships with men's basketball
student-athletes. He provided over $2,400 in benefits to two Georgia Tech student-athletes and to
a potential transfer student-athlete from the head coach's previous institution. The booster
provided the two Georgia Tech student-athletes with shoes, clothing, meals and expenses
associated with a trip to the booster's home in Arizona. The booster also provided the potential
transfer student-athlete with shoes and purchased roundtrip airfare with the intent for him and his
brother to visit. He also engaged in impermissible recruiting activity when he repeatedly texted
the student-athlete attempting to influence him to transfer to Georgia Tech. The violations are
Level II.
The panel classifies this case as Level I-Standard for Georgia Tech and as Level I-Aggravated for
the assistant coach's violations. Utilizing the current penalty guidelines and NCAA bylaws
authorizing additional penalties, the panel adopts and prescribes the following penalties: four years
of probation, a fine of $5,000 plus two percent of the budget of the men's basketball program,
scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, vacation of records, disassociations for the two
boosters involved in the violations and the assistant coach, and a three-year show-cause order for
the assistant coach. The penalties section details these and other penalties.

II. CASE HISTORY
The case originated on September 20, 2017, when the NCAA enforcement staff interviewed the
prospect about his recruitment to Georgia Tech. Shortly thereafter, a friend of the head men's
basketball coach and Georgia Tech booster had a falling out with the head coach. On October 2,
2017, the booster informed the head coach of potential rules violations rendering two of his
student-athletes ineligible. The head coach immediately informed his compliance officer and sport
supervisor and Georgia Tech began investigating the matter. On November 1, 2017, the
enforcement staff provided Georgia Tech with a verbal notice of inquiry.
The enforcement staff and Georgia Tech investigated from November 2017 through February
2019. During that time, Georgia Tech and the enforcement staff sought and received a joint
interpretation from the NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs (AMA) staff and related
appellate bodies, which confirmed the date the head coach's then-friend became a booster.3 On
3

Georgia Tech appealed the AMA staff's interpretation to the NCAA Division I Interpretations Committee, which determined that
the head coach's then-friend became a booster in summer 2016. Georgia Tech then appealed that decision to the NCAA Division
I Legislative Committee, which determined that he became a booster when he provided a meal to two Georgia Tech student-athletes
in the fall of 2016. The meal occurred on November 11, 2016.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 3
__________
February 15, 2019, the enforcement staff provided Georgia Tech and the former assistant men's
basketball coach (assistant coach) with a notice of allegations. Over the next few months, the
parties submitted timely written submissions pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.7.
Throughout the month of July, the chief hearing officer resolved multiple procedural issues and
requests. On August 13, 2019, the chief hearing officer declined the assistant coach's untimely
request to submit additional written materials because the request did not comply with the 30-day
prior to a hearing deadline contemplated by Bylaw 19.7.5 and COI Internal Operating Procedure
(IOP) 4-16. The panel held an in-person infractions hearing on August 22, 2019.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The facts of this case are straightforward and largely agreed-upon by the parties. Georgia Tech
hired the head coach in early April 2016 after a successful tenure at a different Division I
institution. The Georgia Tech men's basketball coaching position was the head coach's second
head coaching job and the first at an autonomy five institution. Within seven months after the
head coach's arrival at Georgia Tech, two boosters would involve themselves with prospective and
current student-athletes in the men's basketball program.
Highly Touted Prospect's Official Visit
With an eye on improving Georgia Tech's recruitment of in-state talent and increasing its overall
competitiveness, Georgia Tech turned its recruiting efforts to a local five-star prospect. The
prospect, who was ranked in the top five to 10 nationally for the 2017 graduating class, publicly
announced his top four schools in September 2016—Georgia Tech was among the finalists.
Although the head coach was involved, the assistant coach was the prospect's primary recruiter.
Georgia Tech arranged for the prospect to take his official paid visit from November 4 through 6,
2016.
At the August in-person infractions hearing, the head coach and assistant coach downplayed the
magnitude of having such a high-profile prospect on campus, claiming that his visit was a standard
visit. Neither, however, could deny the "buzz" or the public attention that came with having the
prospect on campus. Georgia Tech's counsel also acknowledged the importance of the visit.
Demonstrating the visibility and importance of the prospect's visit, and although not on the
itinerary, counsel revealed that the prospect and his parents met and spoke with Georgia Tech's
president during the visit.
Outside of typical visit activities, other events included the prospect and his student-athlete host's
(host) visit to a booster's (booster) home, a trip to a strip club and a free meal at a lounge owned
by a local NBA player. These activities occurred in the evening of November 5 and early morning
of November 6, 2016 and were not listed on the itinerary. The assistant coach orchestrated the
entire night's activities.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 4
__________
After initially denying any involvement, the assistant coach admitted in his second interview with
the enforcement staff and at the in-person hearing that he contacted the booster to get them into
the strip club without incident. This was not just any ordinary booster. The booster is a notable
former Georgia Tech men's basketball student-athlete and, at the time, a member of the local NBA
team. After calling the booster, the assistant coach drove the prospect and his host to the booster's
home. The booster gave them a tour of his home, which included viewing his expansive shoe
collection. Thereafter, the assistant coach drove the prospect and the host to an Atlanta strip club,
where they met the booster and he arranged for the group to enter the club without paying a cover
charge. Once inside, the booster provided both the prospect and the host with $300 a piece to
spend at the club.4 The prospect and the host used all of the cash at the strip club.
After leaving the strip club, the assistant coach drove the prospect and host to a lounge owned by
another NBA player who, at the time, played in Atlanta. In his second interview with the
enforcement staff, the assistant coach acknowledged that the same group was at the lounge.
Although there was a post-game afterparty that advertised the attendance of local NBA players
and celebrities, the group did not interact with any notable attendees.5 Rather, they ate—but did
not pay for the food—and left. In his interview, the host reported that the assistant coach asked
him not to talk about what had occurred on the official visit. Specifically, the assistant coach
cautioned the host to not accidentally bring it up in conversation with teammates or friends. The
host abided by that instruction until asked about the evening a year later in an interview with the
enforcement staff.6
Investigation into the Prospect's Official Visit
On November 20, 2017, the enforcement staff interviewed the host about the prospect's official
visit. The interview began at 8:22 a.m. and lasted until 9:46 a.m. In the interview, the host
confirmed details about what occurred during the official visit. Immediately following the
interview, the host sent a text message to the assistant coach stating that he needed to talk with
him in person. However, the assistant coach told the host he was at the doctor.
Concerned about what he had just told the enforcement staff, the host went to the office of the
associate athletics director for finance and administration (associate athletics director) around
10:30 a.m.7 The associate athletics director reported that the host was distressed about what he
reported in his interview and concerned it may have negative consequences for the assistant coach.
4

The assistant coach denied seeing the booster provide the prospect and host with money. However, both the prospect and the host
confirmed that the booster provided them with cash. The host specifically recalled receiving three to four stacks of singles and that
the booster provided the same to the prospect.
5

Although they did not interact at the lounge, the booster texted the prospect the following day encouraging him to attend Georgia
Tech.
6

After the events during the official visit, the host competed as a member of the Georgia Tech basketball program in the 2016-17
and 2017-18 seasons.
7

The associate athletics director for finance and administration is the sport supervisor for the men's basketball program. As sport
supervisor, the associate athletics director was involved in the logistics of scheduling interviews for identified men's basketball
student-athletes.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 5
__________
The host came to Georgia Tech because of the assistant coach and the two maintained a personal
relationship. During the conversation, the host recapped what he told the enforcement staff and
that he needed to speak with the assistant coach. The associate athletics director instructed him to
"hold off" on contacting the assistant coach and the host agreed to do so. The host left the associate
athletics director's office around 10:50 a.m. for class.
At 11:16 a.m., the enforcement staff began its interview with the assistant coach. During the
interview, the enforcement staff asked the assistant coach about the evening events on the official
visit. The assistant coach denied facilitating any contact between the prospect and the booster. He
also denied taking the prospect to the strip club. The assistant coach's interview ended at 12:27
p.m.
Three minutes after the assistant coach's interview ended, the associate athletics director received
a text message from the host stating that he needed to see the associate athletics director "ASAP"
because the assistant coach was trying to get in touch with him. The associate athletics director
immediately went to his office where the host was already waiting.
In their interviews with the enforcement staff, the host and associate athletics director detailed the
events that occurred throughout the rest of the day. The associate athletics director confirmed
those events during the hearing. The host informed the associate athletics director that the assistant
coach tried to contact him via Snapchat, an application where information is designed to disappear
after receipt.8 The host reported that the assistant coach sent him a message asking what he had
reported to the enforcement staff. The associate athletics director and host discussed whether the
host should attend film and practice that afternoon. The host decided to go and avoid the assistant
coach. Prior to a film session, the assistant coach pulled the host aside and suggested they go shoot
around. During that time, the assistant coach told the host that he needed to change his story and
tell the NCAA that he was intimidated and confused. The assistant coach urged the host to call
Georgia Tech's chief compliance officer. Instead, the host called the associate athletics director
and told him what happened. The associate athletics director removed him from practice.
That afternoon, the assistant coach called the enforcement investigator and continued to deny his
involvement in the conduct. The following day, the assistant coach changed his mind. He notified
the enforcement staff that he needed to correct his statements and tell the truth. On November 29,
2017, the enforcement staff conducted a second interview. During that interview, the assistant
coach acknowledged that he lied about the events that took place during the prospect's official
visit. The assistant coach also denied contacting the host and asking him to change his story.
Instead, the assistant coach stated that it was the host who tried to talk to him about the interview
and the host may have fabricated his story. However, the timeline and credible statements made

8

At the hearing, counsel for the assistant coach suggested that by following a number of steps one could retrieve confirmation of
correspondence between two individuals using the application. Counsel conceded, however, that the substance of those messages
may not be attainable. Neither the enforcement staff nor Georgia Tech were aware of this capability, and the assistant coach's
counsel never attempted to retrieve the information.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 6
__________
by the associate athletics director and host in their interviews do not support the assistant coach's
position.
Another Booster's Involvement in the Men's Basketball Program
About a week after the prospect's official visit in November 2016, another outside individual, who
became a Georgia Tech booster, began interacting with Georgia Tech men's basketball studentathletes. Although new to the Georgia Tech program, the individual was not new to the head
coach. In fact, as he had previously done at his past institution in the mid-2000's, the head coach
welcomed this booster into his program with open arms. At the infractions hearing, the head coach
identified that he was motivated out of kindness based on the booster's claimed personal
circumstances and the booster did not display any red flags nor was he "a basketball guy."
Throughout their relationship, the head coach repeatedly cautioned the booster never to provide
anything to his student-athletes. Despite this caution, over the course of the next year, the booster
would provide two Georgia Tech student-athletes and a potential transfer student-athlete with a
total of $2,424 worth of shoes, clothing, meal expenses, transportation and lodging. During spring
2017, he also frequently engaged in recruiting contacts with the potential transfer student-athlete
via text and telephone.
The booster and the head coach became closely acquainted during the head coach's tenure at his
previous institution. The relationship began through email exchanges where the booster reached
out and told the head coach that he had saved his life back in 2007.9 In their communications, the
booster also claimed that he was terminally ill and only had six months to live and he wanted to
be part of a sports team. The head coach granted that request in what he viewed to be akin to a
charitable gesture. Over the next ten years, that relationship would develop into a friendship with
the head coach and his family. During that time, the booster and his girlfriend took multiple trips
to visit the head coach and his family. On these trips they attended practices and games. After
entrenching himself in the head coach's previous program, the head coach welcomed the booster
into the Georgia Tech program, too.
The head coach was roughly seven months into his tenure at Georgia Tech when the booster
wanted to stop in Atlanta on a trip to New York. He visited the head coach, where, over the course
of approximately 10 days, he attended practices and three or four home games.
During this visit, the booster officially became a representative of Georgia Tech's athletics interest
when he purchased a meal for two Georgia Tech men's basketball student-athletes at a local Atlanta
steakhouse on November 11, 2016. The booster's relationship with those two student-athletes
would continue over the next year and he would continue to provide them with gifts and benefits.
Those gifts and benefits included shoes in February 2017, an all-expense paid trip to the booster's
home in Arizona in April 2017, and clothing in August 2017. The booster also provided one of
the student-athletes an additional pair of shoes in September 2017. The total amount associated
with these gifts and benefits was $1,423. The booster told both student-athletes to never tell the
9

In his interview with the enforcement staff, the head coach stated that he helped the booster get treatment when the booster was
going through a tough time in his life.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 7
__________
head coach. Both student-athletes competed in the 2016-17 season after the cost-free meal at the
steakhouse.
In his interview and at the infractions hearing, the head coach stated that both the booster and the
student-athletes knew what they could and could not do, and the booster knew how important
following the rules was to him. As far as access, the head coach indicated that the booster would
attend practice, ride the bus with the team and interact with the student-athletes—including what
the head coach described as engaging in typical fan behavior like asking for pictures with the
players. The head coach believed the booster was never around the players without him being
present. However, the head coach later learned that the booster would leave the practice facility
with him but would then circle back to the facility after the head coach was gone.
While the booster was developing relationships with the head coach's new program, he continued
to maintain relationships with individuals in the head coach's former program. One of those
individuals was a student-athlete considering transferring from the head coach's previous
institution. While the booster maintained a personal friendship with the transfer student-athlete
and helped him through personal issues, their conversations turned from mentoring to recruiting
in early February 2017. Specifically, on February 6, 2017, the booster sent text messages to the
transfer student-athlete and invited him and a guest out to his home for a cost-free four-to-five-day
trip. In the same text string, he mentioned that one of the Georgia Tech student-athletes who he
provided gifts and benefits to was also coming out to visit him and suggested he come out then to
"hang with him." The booster also mentioned that he recently purchased some shoes for one of
the Georgia Tech student-athletes for an upcoming game and offered to purchase a pair for the
transfer student-athlete. Four days later, the booster purchased a pair of shoes costing $118 for the
potential transfer student-athlete. The shoes arrived on February 14, 2017.
Around the same time, the booster made the head coach aware of his communications with the
potential transfer. But the head coach did not report any concerns to Georgia Tech's compliance
office. Instead, the head coach reminded the booster about NCAA rules and that the potential
transfer's focus should be on his current athletic and academic responsibilities. When asked at the
infractions hearing why he did not inform compliance, the head coach stated that he did not believe
the booster triggered booster status. The panel also asked the Georgia Tech representatives if the
head coach handled the situation properly. The chief compliance officer stated that both she and
the director of athletics agreed that "the situation was not handled properly."
Although the transfer student-athlete was in the middle of his season, the booster continued to have
routine communication with him and introduced the idea of transferring to Georgia Tech, even
stating "[y]ou want to visit GT… You got it! I will have a red carpet rolled out for you. . . [the
head coach] is calling me later to discuss your situation. This is your ticket to the NBA!" Other
exchanges were more direct. For example, the booster stated, "Listen carefully… [the head coach]
told me that you would be very much welcomed to GT. He cannot be involved at this stage due
to NCAA rules. All you have to do is tell me that you want to visit and you will have one….
Coach can communicate with you through me. Let's just say that I am your 'Family friend –
Advisor.'"
Recruiting conversations continued throughout the spring.
The recruiting

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 8
__________
communications continued up to and past April 11, 2017, when the booster followed through on
his offer and purchased two roundtrip airline tickets for the transfer student-athlete and his brother
to visit the booster. The booster asked the transfer student-athlete to hold off on making any
decisions regarding his transfer until his trip to visit the booster.
Also on April 11, 2017, Georgia Tech contacted the transfer student-athlete's institution and,
consistent with the rules at the time, requested permission to contact him. The other institution
granted the request. The head coach attempted to call the potential transfer twice, but they never
spoke. One of the assistant coaches also tried to contact the transfer student-athlete. Later that
evening, the booster again made the head coach aware of his communication with the transfer
student-athlete. Although the head coach stated that he knew the booster would not do anything
against the rules, he asked the booster to keep him in the loop on the transfer student-athlete
because he did not want to waste his time. The booster ended the conversations stating, "He will
be a Yellow Jacket if YOU want him. Period."
A week later, the head coach informed the booster that he was no longer attempting to contact the
transfer student-athlete. The head coach also asked the booster not to try to convince the transfer
student-athlete to come to Georgia Tech. The following day, the transfer student-athlete
committed to another institution. The booster sent a series of text messages to the transfer studentathlete asking him to confirm whether it was true and expressing his frustration and
disappointment.10 The booster cancelled the roundtrip airfare.
Although the head coach was generally aware of the booster and transfer student-athlete's ongoing
relationship and conversations, select text messages in the record demonstrate that he mentioned
following NCAA rules and not actively recruiting the transfer student-athlete.11 Additionally, in
his interview and at the infractions hearing, the head coach repeatedly stated that he never sensed
any "red flags" about the booster's activities and that the booster, his staff and his student-athletes
knew how important the rules were to the head coach.
On October 2, 2017, when their friendship abruptly ended, the booster informed the head coach
that his two best players were ineligible and involved in a scandal. The head coach took action.
He encouraged the booster to tell him if any players were involved in NCAA violations and
immediately emailed the associate athletics director and chief compliance officer. The head coach
requested that they attend practice and ask the team if any of them had accepted any gifts, money
or anything else against NCAA rules. The head coach also texted his team and instructed them to
tell him if they ever received anything from the booster. Both of the student-athletes responded
that they had received shoes from the booster. The head coach then disclosed this to the associate
athletics director and chief compliance officer.

10
11

Despite the transfer student-athlete's commitment to the other institution, the booster continued texting him through May 6, 2017.

The head coach has a personal process whereby he deletes text messages daily after responding and completing conversations.
He also has a personal process whereby he forwards some texts to his wife. The head coach forwarded some of the texts from his
conversations with the booster to his wife. Those texts were retrieved during the investigation.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 9
__________
A few days later, the student-athletes told the head coach about their visit to the booster's home.
Again, the head coach reported it to the associate athletics director and chief compliance officer.
In his interview and at the infractions hearing, the head coach reported that the booster became
aggressive towards him and his program and that aggression prompted him to contact law
enforcement. In his interview and at the infractions hearing, the head coach stated that the booster's
actions were motivated by a scheme to extort him for money.

IV. ANALYSIS
The underlying violations occurred in the men's basketball program over about a year and stemmed
from men's basketball staff members inviting two outside individuals into their program to interact
with student-athletes and a prospect. Both individuals triggered booster status and their unique
access resulted in them providing a prospect, student-athletes and a potential transfer studentathlete with benefits and inducements. The violations also involved the assistant coach's failure
to meet ethical conduct standards and his responsibility to cooperate during the investigation. The
case involved three violations: (A) a booster's involvement in impermissible recruiting activity,
inducements and extra benefits during a prospect's official visit; (B) the assistant coach's unethical
conduct and failure to cooperate; and (C) another booster's provision of extra benefits and
inducements.
A. IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING ACTIVITY, INDUCEMENTS AND EXTRA
BENEFITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROSPECT'S OFFICIAL VISIT [NCAA
Division I Manual Bylaws 12.11.1, 13.1.2.1, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(e), 13.6.7.1, 13.6.7.4,
16.8.1, 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2 (2016-17)]
In early November 2016, the assistant coach orchestrated interaction between a highly touted
prospect, his host and a notable Georgia Tech booster on the prospect's official visit that resulted
in a series of violations. Those violations included a trip to the booster's home; a trip to a strip
club; provision of cash and a meal; and the booster sending impermissible text messages. Georgia
Tech agreed that the violations occurred and that they were Level I. The assistant coach agreed
that the violations occurred but asserted they were Level III. The panel concludes that the
violations are Level I.
1. NCAA legislation relating to impermissible recruiting activity, inducements and
extra benefits.
The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.
2. On a significant prospect's official visit, the assistant coach contacted a notable
booster to arrange a trip to the booster's home and attendance at a strip club,
which also resulted in the prospect and his host receiving cash, an impermissible
meal and the booster engaging in additional recruiting communication with the
prospect.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 10
__________
From November 4 through 6, 2016, one of the top men's basketball prospects in the country took
an official paid visit to Georgia Tech and, as a result of the assistant basketball coach directly
involving a notable booster, serious recruiting inducement and extra benefit violations occurred.
By involving the booster (a notable former Georgia Tech men's student-athlete) the assistant coach
set in motion a series of events that included: visiting the booster's home; attending a strip club
without paying a cover charge; the booster providing the prospect and his host with cash to use at
the strip club; and receiving a free meal at a lounge the group visited after the strip club. The
booster also sent impermissible text messages to the prospect the following day. As a result of the
violations, Georgia Tech permitted the host to play while ineligible. The conduct resulted in Level
I violations of Bylaws 12, 13 and 16.
Bylaw 13 generally outlines recruiting conduct. Bylaw 13.1.2.1 limits recruiting activity to
authorized institutional staff members and specifically prohibits boosters from recruiting. Taken
together, Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(e) prohibit institutional staff members and boosters from
providing inducements, including cash, to prospects that are not generally available. Bylaws
13.6.7.1 and 13.6.7.4 prohibit boosters from providing entertainment and cash to prospects on
official visits. Similar restrictions apply to current student-athletes. For example, Bylaws 16.8.1,
16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2 place restrictions on providing extra benefits to student-athletes. Bylaw
12.11.1 obligates institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition.12
Despite knowing that boosters could not be involved in recruiting, the assistant coach elevated the
perceived importance of the highly touted prospect's official visit by intentionally contacting a
booster to engage in a series of impermissible activities on the prospect's official visit. The booster
was a former successful Georgia Tech men's basketball player and, at the time, was on the roster
of the local NBA team. Further, the assistant coach contacted the booster with the intent of using
the booster's status to gain inconspicuous access to the strip club (which he also knew was
impermissible). The evening began at the booster's home, carried on with adult entertainment at
a local strip club and concluded at a lounge where the prospect and his host ate for free. It also
involved the booster providing a total of $600 to the prospect and host to use at the strip club and
additional recruiting contact between the booster and prospect via text message the following day.
When the assistant coach involved the booster in recruiting activities, violations of Bylaws
13.1.2.1, 13.6.7.1 and 13.6.7.4 occurred. Similarly, when the assistant coach set in motion events
that led to the booster's involvement in recruiting, inducements and extra benefits, violations of
Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1-(e), 16.8.1, 16.11.2.1 and 16.11.2.2 occurred. 13 Finally, the host became
ineligible as a result of the extra benefits he received. When Georgia Tech permitted him to play

12

13

Pursuant to Constitution 6.4.2, institutions are subject to penalties for any violation of NCAA legislation by a booster.

Separate and apart from the assistant coach's conduct during the investigation, the panel observed that unlike Louisville, the
enforcement staff did not allege that the assistant coach's conduct violated standards of conduct outlined in Bylaw 10. Although
there are factual differences between the two cases (e.g., directly providing versus orchestrating), those differences appear to be
minimal. The assistant coach acknowledged in his second interview and at the infractions hearing that he knew his actions were
against the rules and his intent in calling the booster was to get the prospect (and host) into the strip club. However, a Bylaw 10.1
violation was not alleged, and the panel does not decide that issue here. Nor does the panel make additional allegations pursuant
to Bylaw 19.7.7.4.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 11
__________
while ineligible, the institution failed to fulfil its obligation to withhold an ineligible student-athlete
from competition under Bylaw 12.11.1.
Adult entertainment has no place in the NCAA Collegiate Model. It is particularly abhorrent in
the recruiting process where coaches and others in a position of trust are responsible for the wellbeing of high school students visiting their campus. The COI has previously concluded that such
activity is inexcusable and results in Level I violations. See University of Louisville (2017)
(concluding that Level I violations occurred when a director of operations arranged striptease acts
and prostitution for prospects, student-athletes and others in a university dormitory); see also
University of Miami (2013) (concluding, under the former infractions structure, that major
violations occurred when a booster provided impermissible benefits to student-athletes when he
purchased their admission, entertainment and beverages at strip clubs); and University of Alabama
(2002) (concluding, under the former infractions structure, that major violations occurred when
prospects on official visits and their student hosts were entertained by strippers on campus).
Although more limited than Louisville, the nature of the conduct still results in Level I violations.
Therefore, pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(f) and (g), the panel concludes the violations are Level I.
B. UNETHICAL CONDUCT AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE [NCAA Division I
Manual Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and 19.2.3 (2017-18)]
The assistant coach failed to meet standards of ethical conduct and his responsibility to cooperate
when the enforcement staff investigated the events surrounding the prospect's official visit. The
assistant coach provided false and misleading information on two occasions and attempted to
influence the host to also provide false and misleading information. The assistant coach agreed
that he was not truthful in his first interview while maintaining that he never attempted to influence
the host to change his story. The assistant coach believed his conduct could be classified as Level
III. The panel concludes that the violations are Level I.
1. NCAA legislation relating to unethical conduct and cooperation.
The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.
2. The assistant coach lied in both of his interviews and attempted to persuade the
host to change his story.
The assistant coach lied in his interviews with the enforcement staff. He also tried to get the host
to lie as part of a cover up. This conduct was clearly contrary to the obligations and responsibilities
of institutional employees. The assistant coach's behavior resulted in Level I violations of Bylaws
10 and 19.
Bylaw 10 establishes ethical conduct standards. Bylaw 10.01.1 requires all staff members to act
with honesty and sportsmanship. Bylaw 10.1 outlines specific behavior that is considered
unethical conduct, identifying knowingly furnishing false and mislead information or influencing
others to do so as an example under Bylaw 10.1-(c). Bylaw 19.2.3 obligates all current and former

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 12
__________
institutional employees to cooperate with the objectives of the Association and its infractions
program. This includes making full and complete disclosures of all relevant information when
requested by the enforcement staff.
On November 20, 2017, the enforcement staff interviewed the assistant coach about the prospect's
official visit. He denied any involvement in the events that transpired. Later, the assistant coach
contacted the enforcement staff and requested the opportunity to sit for a second interview. In the
second interview, he admitted that he had lied. However, he also denied attempting to persuade
the host to modify what he reported to the enforcement staff. The assistant coach suggested that
the host lied in his interview. The facts and statements made by both the host and the associate
athletics director, however, do not support the assistant coach's version of events.
The enforcement staff interviewed the host first. Concerned about what he reported, he attempted
to contact the assistant coach but was unable to do so. The host immediately went to the associate
athletics director and expressed sincere concern for the assistant coach. Shortly thereafter, the
enforcement staff interviewed the assistant coach. Within three minutes of the completion of the
assistant coach's interview, the host contacted the associate athletics director and reported that the
assistant coach was attempting to contact him, later identifying that it was via an application
designed to delete communications after they are read. Later the associate athletics director
removed the host from practice after the host reported the assistant coach confronted him and told
him to contact the chief compliance officer and tell her that he needed to change his story.
It is simply not credible that the host lied in his interview. The timeline of events and credible
statements made by the host and associate athletics director support that after learning the subject
matter of the enforcement staff's inquiry, the assistant coach attempted to contact the host and
persuade him to tell a fabricated story—first through an application and then in-person at practice.
The associate athletics director reported that the host was distressed and genuinely concerned about
what his actions could mean for the assistant coach. Further, the host provided information against
his interest, describing his personal receipt of extra benefits and personal involvement in the
violations that occurred. The assistant coach admitted he lied in his first interview and the panel
concludes that he then attempted to persuade the host to change his story and lie. When the
assistant coach denied these attempts in his second interview, he further provided false and
misleading information. The assistant coach's actions violated Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 10.1-(c) and
failed to meet the responsibility of staff members under Bylaw 19.2.3.
The COI has consistently concluded that individuals who lie, attempt to influence others to lie
and/or fail to meet their responsibility to cooperate commit Level I violations. See University of
the Pacific (2017) (concluding that Level I violations occurred when a head coach and assistant
coach were untruthful in their interviews and the head coach attempted to influence others to
provide false and misleading information) and University of Mississippi (2016) (concluding that
Level I violations occurred when two former women's basketball staff members denied their
involvement in academic misconduct violations, personally deleted or instructed a student-athlete
to delete relevant information and told the student-athlete to tell a false story). The assistant coach
failed to understand the gravity of the situation. By lying during the investigation and attempting

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 13
__________
to influence a student-athlete to lie, he made his involvement in the official visit violations much
worse. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.1-(c) and (d), the panel concludes the violations are Level I.
C. INDUCEMENTS, EXTRA BENEFITS AND IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITING
CONTACTS [NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 13.1.1.3, 13.1.2.1, 13.1.3.5.1, 13.2.1
and 13.2.1.1-(b) (2016-17), 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.2 and 16.11.2.2-(d) (2016-17 and 201718)]
The head coach granted his friend—who became an institutional booster—unique access to his
basketball program and, using that access, the booster provided two Georgia Tech student-athletes
and a potential transfer student-athlete with over $2,400 in extra benefits and inducements. The
booster also engaged in impermissible recruiting activity. The enforcement staff alleged the
conduct as Level II violations. Georgia Tech agreed that violations occurred but disputed the level.
The panel concludes that Level II violations occurred.
1. NCAA legislation relating to inducements, extra benefits and recruiting contacts.
The applicable portions of the bylaws may be found at Appendix Two.
2. Utilizing his unique access, over the course of approximately one year, the booster
developed personal relationships with men's basketball student-athletes and
provided those student-athletes with impermissible gifts and engaged in
impermissible recruiting contacts.
From fall 2016 through early fall 2017, the booster provided impermissible benefits and
inducements to two Georgia Tech men's basketball student-athletes and a student-athlete at the
head coach's previous institution who was considering transferring to Georgia Tech. Through
unique and unparalleled access provided to him by the head coach, the booster fostered personal
relationships with men's basketball student-athletes and advanced those relationships by providing
or arranging for cost-free shoes, clothing, meals, travel and lodging totaling $2,424. The booster
also overextended his personal relationship with the transfer student-athlete at the head coach's
previous institution by regularly attempting to recruit him to Georgia Tech. The booster's activity
resulted in violations of Bylaws 13 and 16 for Georgia Tech. Those violations are Level II.
Among other things, Bylaws 13 and 16 prohibit boosters from recruiting and providing
inducements and extra benefits. As it relates to recruiting activity, at the time of the conduct,
Bylaw 13.1.1.3 prohibits institutional staff and boosters from contacting student-athletes at another
institution until expressly granted permission by the student-athlete's current institution. After
receiving permission, all other recruiting restrictions apply. Bylaw 13.1.2.1 only permits
authorized institutional personnel to engage in recruiting activity and Bylaw 13.1.3.5.1 expressly
prohibits boosters from engaging in telephonic communication with student-athletes. Regarding
inducements, Bylaw 13.2.1 prohibits boosters from providing inducements and specifically
prohibits the provision of clothing or equipment under Bylaw 13.2.1.1-(b). As it relates to current

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 14
__________
student-athletes, Bylaws 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.2 and 16.11.2.2-(d) prohibit boosters from providing
extra benefits and, specifically, providing transportation.14
The head coach asserted that he originally opened the doors of his former program to the booster
(although, not a booster at that time) in what he viewed as a charitable gesture based on the
booster's professed troublesome circumstances. The head coach provided the same type of
treatment at Georgia Tech. The booster used his access to develop friendships with men's
basketball student-athletes and advanced those friendships by providing them with and arranging
for impermissible gifts. The booster triggered Georgia Tech booster status when, during a roughly
10-day visit, he took two Georgia Tech student-athletes out for a free meal at a local Atlanta
Steakhouse. This meal, as well as the shoes, clothing, and cost-free trip to the booster's home,
resulted in $1,423 in extra benefits expressly prohibited by Bylaws 16.11.2.1, 16.11.2.2 and
16.11.2.2-(d). Standing alone, these violations are Level II.
Georgia Tech's violations also included the booster's impermissible recruitment of a potential
transfer student-athlete as well as his provision of and arrangement for impermissible inducements
to a transfer student-athlete from the head coach's previous institution. Although the head coach
had departed, the booster maintained relationships with those affiliated with the head coach's
former basketball program. With respect to one student-athlete, the booster maintained a personal
friendship. In early February 2017, while the student-athlete was still competing in the 2016-17
season, the booster introduced the idea of transferring to Georgia Tech. The contact occurred prior
to Georgia Tech requesting permission to contact and the booster informed the head coach about
the possibility of the prospect transferring. The booster's aggressive recruiting continued with
regular communication, resulting in violations of Bylaws 13.1.1.3, 13.1.2.1 and 13.1.3.5.1.
The booster also provided the transfer student-athlete with shoes and arranged for him and his
brother to visit the booster and his girlfriend by purchasing roundtrip airfare in violation of Bylaws
13.2.1 and 13.2.1.1-(b). In light of the conversation surrounding the booster's purchase of the
ticket and the fact that the booster cancelled the ticket as soon as he found out the transfer studentathlete committed to a different institution, the panel concludes the booster's intention for the trip
was motivated by a recruiting purpose. The violations are also Level II.15

14
15

Pursuant to Constitution 6.4.2, institutions are subject to penalties for any violation of NCAA legislation by a booster.

The extra benefit, inducement and recruiting contact violations were significantly aided by the booster's personalized access to
the head coach's basketball programs. Additionally, the booster made the head coach aware of his ongoing conversations with the
potential transfer student-athlete. The panel observes that this case involved the grouping of certain activity around certain dates
(e.g., on April 11, 2017, the booster communicated with the transfer student-athlete, the booster communicated with the head coach,
Georgia Tech requested permission to contact, the head coach attempted to call the transfer student-athlete and the booster
purchased roundtrip airfare for the transfer student-athlete and his brother), as well as the absence of information related to the head
coach and booster's communication. The panel was not presented with a Bylaw 11.1.1.1 head coach responsibility allegation.
Based on the information contained in the record (or the absence of information in the record), the panel does not decide that issue
here. Nor does the panel make additional allegations pursuant to Bylaw 19.7.7.4.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 15
__________
Although each case is unique, the facts and circumstances of this case align with recent contested
cases involving Level II extra benefit and inducement violations. See University of Connecticut
(2019) (concluding that Level II extra benefit violations occurred when a trainer, who was an
institutional booster and occasionally invited to campus to attend games by the head coach,
provided free basketball training sessions to three student-athletes valued at $1,152) and University
of Mississippi (2017) (concluding that, among other violations, an individual Level II violation
occurred when a booster provided family members of a student-athlete with roughly $2,000 of free
lodging).16 Mississippi also involved inducement and benefit violations at the other ends of the
spectrum. See Mississippi (concluding that a Level I violation occurred when a booster provided
a student-athlete's mother's boyfriend with $800 and the football program arranged for a studentathlete to access a different booster's hunting land on his official visit and later as an enrolled
student-athlete). The facts and circumstances of this case align with the COI's past cases involving
Level II violations.
While informative, the value of the benefit is only one of the factors the COI considers when
determining the appropriate level. Here, the value was relatively low but not outside the ranges of
Level II violations in past cases. But this case also involved the booster's intentional efforts to
develop relationships with men's basketball student-athletes to benefit the head coach's program.
The violations provided were not isolated or limited. They occurred for roughly one year and
involved three pairs of shoes, clothing, meals, and two planned cost-free trips. Further, they
provided (or were intended to provide) more than a minimal benefit to the student-athletes.
Therefore, pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.2, the panel concludes the violations are Level II.17

V. PENALTIES
For the reasons set forth in Sections III and IV of this decision, the panel concludes that this case
involved Level I and Level II violations of NCAA legislation. Level I violations are severe
breaches of conduct that undermine or threaten the integrity of the Collegiate Model and provide
or are intended to provide substantial or extensive advantages or benefits. Level II violations are
significant breaches of conduct that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but
less than a substantial or extensive advantages or benefits.
In considering penalties, the panel first reviewed aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to
Bylaws 19.9.2, 19.9.3 and 19.9.4 to determine the appropriate classifications for Georgia Tech and
the assistant coach. The panel then used the current penalty guidelines (Figure 19-1) and Bylaws
19.9.5 and 19.9.7 to prescribe penalties.

16
17

Portions of the Connecticut case are presently under appeal. Connecticut has not appealed this Level II violation.

The panel also notes that as of October 15, 2018, the membership has specifically identified "a violation of Bylaw 13.1.1.3 as it
relates to contact with a student-athlete" as an example of Level II violations in Bylaw 19.1.2. Although not directly applicable to
this case, it is informative on the severity of Bylaw 13.1.1.3 violations.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 16
__________
The panel determined that the below-listed factors applied and assessed the factors by weight and
number. Based on its assessment, the panel classifies this case as Level I-Standard for Georgia
Tech and Level I-Aggravated for the assistant coach.
Aggravating Factors for Georgia Tech
19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations by the institution;
19.9.3-(b): A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution;
19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation
or related wrongful conduct;
19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility; and
19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws.
Georgia Tech agreed that Bylaws 19.9.3-(a), (b), (h) and (i) applied to its case but requested that
each receive minimal weight. The panel does not give minimal weight to these factors based on
Georgia Tech's past infractions history and the facts and circumstances detailed in this case. The
panel also determines that Bylaw 19.9.3-(m) applies to Georgia Tech.
The panel assigns significant weight to Bylaw 19.9.3-(b), A history of Level I, Level II or major
violations by the institution. This is Georgia Tech's fifth major, Level I or Level II infractions
case. More importantly, it is the third case in the past eight years. Although Georgia Tech's most
recent case involved less significant recruiting text message and phone call violations, some of
those violations occurred in the men's basketball program. That case also involved admitted
failures in this institution's monitoring systems. Georgia Tech's 2011 case also had an element
involving impermissible tryouts in the men's basketball program but centered on preferential
treatment to a high-profile football student-athlete and the institution's failure to cooperate. Taken
together, these cases show a pattern of compliance issues at Georgia Tech with specific issues that
continue to arise within the men's basketball program. As such, the panel assigns significant
weight to Bylaw 19.9.3-(b).
The COI has recently applied significant weight when recurring issues resulted in multiple cases
over multiple years. See Florida A&M University (2019) (applying significant weight to Bylaw
19.9.3-(b) when FAMU had three cases involving similar issues over roughly a twenty-year
period) and San Jose State University (2018) (applying significant weight because the COI
concluded similar violations occurred in a case just two years prior).18 The panel also recently
declined to apply minimal weight to Bylaw 19.9.3-(b) when requested by an institution due to the
institution's recent infractions history in the same program. See Connecticut (rejecting
Connecticut's argument for minimal weight because its prior case occurred a few years before the
events in this case, involved the same program and similar violations).19 Consistent with the COI's
past rationale, the COI declines to apply minimal weight. Rather, based on the number of cases
18

The panel notes that FAMU is presently on appeal but for issues separate from the weight applied to Bylaw 19.9.3-(b).

19

Portions of Connecticut are presently under appeal. Connecticut has not appealed its aggravating and mitigating factors.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 17
__________
involving the men's basketball program over the past eight years, the panel applies significant
weight to this factor.
The panel also declines to apply minimal weight to Bylaws (a), (h) and (i). With respect to Bylaw
19.9.3-(a), Multiple Level I violations by the institution, this case involved multiple intentional and
significant Level I violations committed by the assistant coach while he was acting in his official
capacity. Institutions remain responsible for the actions of their employees—particularly when
they are operating within the scope of their employment. See University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(2017).
For the same reasons Bylaw 19.9.3.-(h), Persons of authority condoned, participated in or
negligently disregarded the violations, does not warrant minimal weight. In addition to Georgia
Tech's shared responsibility for the assistant coach's actions, the assistant coach was the prospect's
primary recruiter and a primary reason the host chose to attend Georgia Tech. He was also the
individual who orchestrated the events of the official visit. Likewise, the assistant coach had an
obligation to be truthful when interviewed as a member of the men's basketball coaching staff.
Further, he attempted to contact that host throughout the day and specifically asked him to change
his testimony after the host reported to practice. Based on those actions, the factor is attributable
to Georgia Tech and does not deserve minimal weight. The COI has regularly attributed the full
factor to institutions when coaching staff members engage in violations. See Connecticut and
DePaul University (2019).20
The panel also attributes normal weight to Bylaw 19.9.3-(i), One or more of the violations caused
significant ineligibility. After being invited into the basketball program by members of the
coaching staff, both boosters engaged in conduct that resulted in student-athletes' ineligibility. All
three student-athletes then competed while ineligible over two men's basketball seasons. The
scope and breadth of that conduct is not minimal, and neither is the weight the panel attributes to
this factor. See Mississippi (2017) and Monmouth University (2018).
Finally, the panel attributes Bylaw 19.9.3-(m), Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the
NCAA constitution or bylaws, to Georgia Tech. At the in-person infractions hearing, the panel
specifically asked the parties whether this factor should be limited to the assistant coach. The
enforcement staff indicated that based on its interpretation of past COI decisions, it did not believe
the factor applied to the institution for purposes of penalties. The panel disagrees with that
assessment. As mentioned above, the assistant coach was operating in his official capacity as an
assistant coach for Georgia Tech. In that capacity, he intentionally involved a booster in recruiting
and orchestrated a prospect's visit to a strip club when he knew he could not. He further willfully
did not tell the truth and misled investigators when being interviewed about those events and
attempted to persuade the host to change his story prior during team activity. The COI has
previously attributed this factor to institutions when employees commit intentional violations

20

Portions of Connecticut are presently under appeal. Connecticut has not appealed its aggravating and mitigating factors

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 18
__________
while acting in their official capacity. See University of Oregon (2018); Louisville; and Southern
Methodist University (2016).
Mitigating Factors for Georgia Tech
19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and imposition
of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties.
19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter; and
19.9.4-(d): An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations.
The panel applies normal weight to all three factors. The panel specifically commends the
institution for taking swift action once the head coach learned that the booster he welcomed into
his program may have committed violations.
Georgia Tech proposed two additional mitigating factors: Bylaw 19.9.4-(a), Prompt self-detection
and self-disclosure of the violations, and Bylaw 19.9.4-(f), Exemplary cooperation. The panel
determines that neither applies.
The panel does not apply Bylaw 19.9.4-(a) because Georgia Tech did not uncover violations
related to the prospect's official visit nor did it uncover the violations committed by the booster
whom the head coach welcomed into his program. Despite knowledge of and involvement in the
conduct by the assistant coach and host, neither disclosed the conduct and the institution's
monitoring systems did not detect the conduct. Further, Georgia Tech did not uncover the conduct
related to the friend of the head coach and booster. Again, student-athletes who knew the conduct
was wrong did not disclose the receipt of extra benefits to their coaches or administration. The
violations came to light due to the fallout between the head coach and booster and, according to
the head coach, were only disclosed as part of the booster's plan to extort him. Georgia Tech
cannot take credit for the booster's personal scheme against the head coach as a means of detecting
the violations. The panel acknowledges and appreciates the efforts related to the assistant coach's
unethical conduct, but those efforts alone do not establish Bylaw 19.9.4-(a). Institutions are not
required to uncover all violations, but self-detecting one of the three allegations in this case does
not warrant applying Bylaw 19.9.4-(a) as a mitigating factor. The COI has previously declined to
apply the factor when both prompt self-detection and self-disclosure are not present. See
California Polytechnic State University (2019) and University of Hawaii at Manoa (2015).21
Similarly, the panel determines that Bylaw 19.9.4-(f) does not apply to this case. Georgia Tech
acknowledged the significant overlap in Bylaws 19.9.4-(c) and (f) and the heightened standard for
Bylaw 19.9.4-(f). The facts and circumstances of this case support Bylaw 19.9.4-(c) but do not
rise to Bylaw 19.9.4-(f). Generally, Georgia Tech asserted that it: (1) retained outside counsel; (2)
its counsel risked potential danger by visiting the friend/booster's home to conduct an interview;
(3) facilitated an investigation into matters unrelated to this case; (4) led efforts with the
21

The panel notes that Cal Poly is on appeal for issues separate from the application of aggravating and mitigating factors.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 19
__________
institution's information technology department to review and consolidate phone email records;
and (5) brought information related to the friend/booster to the enforcement staff's attention.
The arguments are largely misplaced and do not align with the COI's past analysis when assessing
Bylaw 19.9.4-(f). See Northern Colorado (2017) (determining that the factor applied when the
institution searched coaches' offices, inventoried the items found, imaged computer drives and
email accounts, and obtained student-athletes' coursework submitted to other institutions when
investigating potential academic violations) and Oklahoma State University (2015) (determining
that the factor applied when, over 11 months, Oklahoma State assisted the enforcement staff in
reviewing over 50,000 emails and other records and conducting roughly 90 interviews). The panel
recognizes and appreciates Georgia Tech's efforts related to searching and consolidating phone
records and emails, but those efforts support expediting final resolution of the matter. The
additional efforts do not support exemplary cooperation.
Aggravating Factors for the Assistant Coach
19.9.3-(a): Multiple Level I violations by the assistant coach;
19.9.3-(d): Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal a violation;
19.9.3-(e): Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate
during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;
19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation
or related wrongful conduct;
19.9.3-(i): One or more violations caused significant ineligibility;
19.9.3-(j): Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of position of trust; and
19.9.3-(m): Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution or bylaws.
At the hearing, counsel for the assistant coach agreed that if the COI concluded that the assistant
coach lied in his interview, attempted to influence the host to modify his story and then provided
false and misleading information about those attempts, then all aggravators apply.22 The panel
concludes that those violations occurred and that the facts and circumstances surrounding those
violations support the application of all seven aggravating factors.
Mitigating Factor for the Assistant Coach
19.9.4-(h): The absence of prior conclusions of Level I, Level II or major violations by the
assistant coach.
All the penalties prescribed in this case are independent and supplemental to any action the NCAA
Division I Committee on Academics has taken or may take through its assessment of postseason
ineligibility, historical penalties or other penalties. In prescribing penalties, the panel considered
22

Counsel for the assistant coach conceded at the hearing that if COI concluded those violations occurred, Bylaw 19.9.3-(f),
Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning, would also likely apply. The COI declines to
apply that aggravator to the assistant coach's conduct.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 20
__________
Georgia Tech's cooperation in all parts of this case and determines it was consistent with Georgia
Tech's obligation under Bylaw 19.2.3. The panel also considered Georgia Tech's corrective
actions, which are contained in Appendix One. The panel prescribes the following penalties (selfimposed penalties are so noted):
Core Penalties for Level I-Standard Violations (Bylaw 19.9.5)
1. Probation: Four years of probation from September 26, 2019, through September 25, 2023.
2. Competition penalty: During the 2019-20 academic year, the men's basketball program shall
end its season with the last regular-season contest and shall not participate in postseason
conference or NCAA tournament competition.
In accordance with Bylaw 14.7.2-(c), the COI recommends that the NCAA Division I
Committee for Legislative Relief waive the one-year residency requirement for transferring
student-athletes whose institution was placed on probation which included a postseason ban
penalty.
3. Financial penalty: Georgia Tech shall pay a fine of $5,000 plus two percent of the budget for
the men's basketball program.23
4. Scholarship reductions: Georgia Tech shall reduce the number of grants-in-aid awarded in
men's basketball by seven percent (or one grant-in-aid) during each year of probation.
Specifically, Georgia Tech shall be limited to no more than 12 grants-in-aid for the 2019-20,
2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 academic years. If Georgia Tech has already awarded its full
allotment of grants-in-aid for the 2019-20 academic year, it is permitted to take two grant-inaid reductions in either the 2020-21, 2021-22 or 2022-23 academic year.
5. Recruiting restrictions:
Georgia Tech shall restrict recruiting in men's basketball during each academic year of the
four-year probationary term (i.e., 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23)24:
a. An eight-week ban on unofficial visits, including no scheduled unofficial visits and no
complimentary tickets.

23

Georgia Tech self-imposed a $5,000 fine. The fine from the budget for the program must be calculated in accordance with COI
IOPs 5-15-5-4 and 5-15-4-1.
24

The recruiting restrictions represent a 15 percent reduction in recruiting visit, recruiting communication and off-campus
recruiting opportunities rounded to the nearest whole number.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 21
__________
b. A three-visit reduction from the permissible number of official visits.25
c. An eight week ban on recruiting communications.
d. A reduction of 19 recruiting-person days from the permissible number of recruiting-person
days in men's basketball.26
Core Penalty for Level I-Aggravated Violation (Bylaw 19.9.5)
6. Show-cause order: The assistant coach admitted orchestrating the events that led to severe
Level I violations on a highly touted prospect's official visit. Specifically, the assistant coach
admitted that he contacted a well-known former Georgia Tech men's basketball player and
booster to get the prospect, his host and him into a local strip club without incident. His direct
involvement of the booster in the prospect's official visit was a violation in and of itself but set
off a chain of Level I violations. The assistant coach failed to fulfill his obligation to cooperate
and did not meet ethical obligations when he originally lied about his involvement in the
official visit violations, attempted to persuade the host to change his truthful story and then
lied about those attempts. Therefore, the assistant coach will be informed in writing by the
NCAA that the panel prescribes a three-year show-cause order pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.5.4.
The show-cause period shall run from September 26, 2019, through September 25, 2022.
During that time period, any employing institution shall prohibit the assistant coach from
engaging in any athletically related duties. If the assistant coach obtains employment or
affiliation with another NCAA member institution during the show-cause period, the
employing institution shall, within 30 days of hiring him, be required to contact the Office of
the Committees on Infractions (OCOI) to make arrangements to show cause why the penalty
should not apply or notify the OCOI that it will abide by the show-cause order and fulfill
reporting requirements.
Although each case is unique, the show-cause order is consistent with those prescribed in prior
cases. See East Tennessee State University (2018) (concluding Level I-Aggravated violations
for head coach responsibility and unethical conduct and prescribing a five-year show-cause
order restricting the coach from all athletically related activities.) and University of the Pacific
(2017) (concluding Level-Aggravated violations occurred for an assistant coach knowingly
providing improper recruiting inducements, failing to cooperate in the investigation and
providing false and misleading information and prescribing an eight-year show-cause order

25

Georgia Tech self-imposed a reduction of four official visits for each of the 2017-18/2018-19 and 2018-19/2019-20 rolling two
years periods. To the extent that Georgia Tech has served the reduction of those eight total official visits, Georgia Tech may credit
those visit reductions towards the additional official visit restrictions prescribed by the panel. Georgia Tech must transparently
document when and how it utilized the credited official visits in its annual reports submitted to the Office of the Committees on
Infractions (OCOI). Georgia Tech will need to calculate the three visit reductions from the applicable rolling two-year periods.
26

Georgia Tech self-imposed a reduction of 14 recruiting person days for the 2018-19 men's basketball recruiting cycle. Therefore,
Georgia Tech may credit those restrictions towards the additional recruiting person day restrictions prescribed by the panel. Georgia
Tech must transparently document when and how it utilized the credited days in its annual reports submitted to the OCOI.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 22
__________
from all athletically related activities). Like these cases, the show-cause order falls within the
membership-approved penalty guidelines.
Additional Penalties for Level I-Standard Violations (Bylaw 19.9.7)
7. Public reprimand and censure through the release of the public infractions decision.
8. Vacation of team and individual records: Ineligible participation in the men's basketball
program occurred as a result of violations in this case. Therefore, pursuant to Bylaws 19.9.7(g) and 31.2.2.3 and COI IOP 5-15-6, Georgia Tech shall vacate all regular season and
conference tournament records and participation in which the ineligible student-athlete
competed from the time he became ineligible through the time he was reinstated as eligible for
competition.27 This order of vacation includes all regular season competition and conference
tournaments. Further, if the ineligible student-athlete participated in NCAA postseason
competition at any time he was ineligible, Georgia Tech's participation in the postseason
contests in which the ineligible competition occurred shall be vacated. The individual records
of the ineligible student-athlete shall also be vacated. However, the individual finishes and
any awards for all eligible student-athletes shall be retained. Further, Georgia Tech's records
regarding its athletics programs, as well as the records of head coaches, shall reflect the vacated
records and be recorded in all publications in which such records are reported, including, but
not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material, electronic and digital media plus
institutional, conference and NCAA archives. Any institution that may subsequently hire the
affected head coach shall similarly reflect the vacated wins in his career records documented
in media guides and other publications cited above. Head coaches with vacated wins on their
records may not count the vacated wins toward specific honors or victory "milestones" such as
100th, 200th or 500th career victories. Any public reference to the vacated records shall be
removed from the athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any
other forum in which they may appear. Any trophies awarded by the NCAA in men's
basketball shall be returned to the Association.
Finally, to aid in accurately reflecting all institutional and student-athlete vacations, statistics
and records in official NCAA publications and archives, the sports information director (or
other designee as assigned by the director of athletics) must contact the NCAA Media
Coordination and Statistics office and appropriate conference officials to identify the specific
student-athletes and contests impacted by the penalties. In addition, the institution must
provide the NCAA Media Coordination and Statistics office with a written report detailing
those discussions. This written report will be maintained in the permanent files of the NCAA
Media Coordination and Statistics office. This written report must be delivered to the office
no later than 14 days following the release of this decision or, if the institution appeals the
27

Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7-(g), the COI may prescribe vacation of records when a student-athlete competes while ineligible.
Among other examples, vacation is particularly appropriate when a case involves serious intentional violations or the direct
involvement of a coach or booster. See COI IOP 5-15-6. None of these factors, however, are necessary for the COI to prescribe
the penalty. See Brigham Young University, NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee Report No. 506 (2019). The COI
has consistently prescribed vacation in cases in which impermissible recruiting inducements and extra benefits resulted in ineligible
competition. See DePaul; Brigham Young University (2018); and Louisville.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 23
__________
vacation penalty, at the conclusion of the appeals process. A copy of the written report shall
also be delivered to the OCOI at the same time.
9. The Level I recruiting violations occurred during a high-profile prospect's official visit in
conjunction with the men's basketball competition. Therefore, during the first two years of
probation (the 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years), Georgia Tech shall be prohibited from
scheduling any official visits in conjunction with home men's basketball competitions.28
10. Disassociation: Georgia Tech notified the assistant coach in writing on May 15, 2019, that
Georgia Tech disassociated him for a three-year period ending on May 14, 2022. (Selfimposed.) Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7-(i), the disassociation shall include:
a. Refraining from accepting any assistance from the assistant coach that would aid in the
recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
b. Refusing financial assistance or contributions to Georgia Tech's athletics program from the
assistant coach;
c. Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the assistant coach, either
directly or indirectly; and
d. Implementing other actions that Georgia Tech determines to be within its authority to
eliminate the involvement of the assistant coach in the institution's athletics program.
11. Disassociation: Georgia Tech placed disassociation restrictions on the former Georgia Tech
men's basketball student-athlete and booster by limiting his involvement in any recruiting
activity from April 2, 2019 through April 1, 2020. During that time period the booster is
prohibited from having any arranged in-person contact with any Georgia Tech prospects or
from being utilized by Georgia Tech in any otherwise permissible manner as part of its
recruitment of student-athletes. Additionally, the booster is prohibited from accessing any
Georgia Tech athletics facility in which a Georgia Tech prospect is known by any Georgia
Tech athletic department representative to be present. (Self-imposed.)
Additionally, Georgia Tech shall disassociate the booster for a period of three years beginning
with the release of this infractions decision on September 26, 2019 and ending on September
25, 2022.29 Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7-(i), the disassociation shall include:
28

Although under the previous penalty structure, this penalty is similar to the visit restrictions prescribed by the COI in Miami,
which specifically placed two years of additional restrictions on unofficial visits, an area where a significant amount of the
recruiting violations occurred. In this case, because the conduct in Violation No. 1 occurred during an official visit in conjunction
with a home contest, the COI prescribes additional recruiting restrictions in that area.
29

The panel prescribes a three-year disassociation to correspond with the time period and restrictions of Georgia Tech's selfimposed disassociation of the assistant coach. The assistant coach and the booster both were involved in the impermissible Level
I violations that occurred on during the prospect's official visit, and therefore, the panel determines the length of their disassociation
should be the same.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 24
__________

a. Refraining from accepting any assistance from the booster that would aid in the recruitment
of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
b. Refusing financial assistance or contributions to Georgia Tech's athletics program from the
booster or his business interests;
c. Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the booster, either directly or
indirectly or his business interests; and
d. Implementing other actions that Georgia Tech determines to be within its authority to
eliminate the involvement of the booster in the institution's athletics program.
12. Disassociation: Georgia Tech disassociated the friend of the head coach and Georgia Tech
booster on December 7, 2017. (Self-imposed.)30 Pursuant to Bylaw 19.9.7-(i), the
disassociation shall include:
a. Refraining from accepting any assistance from the booster that would aid in the recruitment
of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;
b. Refusing financial assistance or contributions to Georgia Tech's athletics program from the
booster or his business interests;
c. Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the booster, either directly or
indirectly or his business interests; and
d. Implementing other actions that Georgia Tech determines to be within its authority to
eliminate the involvement of the booster in the institution's athletics program.
13. During the period of probation, Georgia Tech shall:
a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA
legislation to instruct coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department
personnel and all institutional staff members with responsibility for recruiting and
certification legislation;
b. Submit a preliminary report to the OCOI by November 15, 2019, setting forth a schedule
for establishing this compliance and educational program;

30

Georgia Tech self-imposed a permanent disassociation of the booster. Pursuant to COI IOP 5-15-7, the COI does not prescribe
periods of disassociation for longer than 10 years but does not prohibit institutions from self-imposing a period of disassociation
for a period longer than 10 years. Georgia Tech also self-imposed a security restriction prohibiting the booster from accessing the
Georgia Tech campus, or any off-campus facilities owned by Georgia Tech, including facilities utilized for Georgia Tech athletics
events.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
September 26, 2019
Page No. 25
__________
c. File with the OCOI annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this
program by August 15 during each year of probation. Particular emphasis shall be placed
on rules education and monitoring related to official and unofficial visits and booster
involvement in recruiting activity.
d. Inform prospects in the men's basketball program in writing that Georgia Tech is on
probation for four years and detail the violations committed. If a prospect takes an official
paid visit, the information regarding violations, penalties and terms of probation must be
provided in advance of the visit. Otherwise, the information must be provided before a
prospect signs an NLI; and
e. Publicize specific and understandable information concerning the nature of the infractions
by providing, at a minimum, a statement to include the types of violations and the affected
sport programs and a direct, conspicuous link to the public infractions decision located on
the athletic department's main webpage "landing page" and in the media guides for men's
basketball. The institution's statement must: (i) clearly describe the infractions; (ii) include
the length of the probationary period associated with the case; and (iii) give members of
the general public a clear indication of what happened in the case to allow the public
(particularly prospects and their families) to make informed, knowledgeable decisions. A
statement that refers only to the probationary period with nothing more is not sufficient.
14.

Following the receipt of the final compliance report and prior to the conclusion of
probation, Georgia Tech's president shall provide a letter to the COI affirming that Georgia
Tech's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA
regulations.
_____________________________________________________

The COI advises Georgia Tech and the assistant coach that they should take every precaution to
ensure that they observe the terms of the penalties. The COI will monitor Georgia Tech while it
is on probation to ensure compliance with the penalties and terms of probation and may extend the
probationary period, among other action, if Georgia Tech does not comply or commits additional
violations. Likewise, any action by Georgia Tech or the assistant coach contrary to the terms of
any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for prescribing more
severe penalties and/or may result in additional allegations and violations.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL
Greg Christopher
Stephen Madva
Joel Maturi, Chief Hearing Officer
Kay Norton
David M. Roberts
E. Thomas Sullivan

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
APPENDIX ONE
September 26, 2019
Page No. 1
__________
APPENDIX ONE
GEORGIA TECH'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED IN ITS
RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS

Georgia Tech implemented numerous meaningful corrective actions in response to each of the
three allegations in the NOA.
Allegation 1
While the institution implemented no corrective actions with respect to Allegation 1, the head
coach asks all prospects, involved staff members and student-athlete hosts specific questions about
their entertainment activities, and any involvement of adult entertainment, following each official
visit. Additionally, the head coach now personally provides rules education and instruction
regarding adult entertainment to student hosts prior to the initiation of official visits.
Allegation 2
Georgia Tech implemented corrective actions related to unethical conduct legislation in response
to violations contained in Allegation 2. While Georgia Tech previously educated athletics staff
members on ethical conduct obligations as part of its normal rules education functions, the
university provided additional rules education to coaches and athletic staff members in response
to Allegation 2. Specifically, additional rules education covered unethical conduct legislation, and
the various ways that University employees can violate the principles of unethical conduct and
failure to cooperate.
Allegation 3
Georgia Tech implemented compliance systems to enhance its monitoring of booster activities in
response to the friend of the head coach and booster's conduct. Specifically, Georgia Tech
implemented a procedure where the Compliance Office now pre-reviews and approves the travel
party for away contests. Additionally, the University implemented a monitoring system requiring
the Compliance Office to review post-travel trip expenses, including the attendee list for all meals
associated with team travel. Finally, Georgia Tech implemented a compliance system to enhance
monitoring related to complimentary tickets. Specifically, the University now requires the
Compliance Office to review complimentary ticket request from staff members. Finally, staff
members are now required to disclose information about their relationship with the third parties
who they request tickets for.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
APPENDIX TWO
September 26, 2019
Page No. 1
__________
APPENDIX TWO
Bylaw Citations
Division I 2016-17 Manual
12.11.1 Obligation of Member Institution to Withhold Student-Athlete From Competition.
If a student-athlete is ineligible under the provisions of the constitution, bylaws or other regulations
of the Association, the institution shall be obligated to apply immediately the applicable rule and
to withhold the student-athlete from all intercollegiate competition. The institution may appeal to
the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for restoration of the student-athlete's eligibility
as provided in Bylaw 12.12 if it concludes that the circumstances warrant restoration.
13.1.1.3 Four-Year College Prospective Student-Athletes. An athletics staff member or other
representative of the institution’s athletics interests shall not make contact with the student-athlete
of another NCAA or NAIA four-year collegiate institution, directly or indirectly, without first
obtaining the written permission of the first institution’s athletics director (or an athletics
administrator designated by the athletics director) to do so, regardless of who makes the initial
contact. If permission is not granted, the second institution shall not encourage the transfer and the
institution shall not provide athletically related financial assistance to the student-athlete until the
student-athlete has attended the second institution for one academic year. If permission is granted
to contact the student-athlete, all applicable NCAA recruiting rules apply. If an institution receives
a written request from a student-athlete to permit another institution to contact the student-athlete
about transferring, the institution shall grant or deny the request within seven business days (see
Bylaw 13.02.1) of receipt of the request. If the institution fails to respond to the student-athlete's
written request within seven business days, permission shall be granted by default and the
institution shall provide written permission to the student-athlete.
13.1.2.1 General Rule. All in-person, on- and off-campus recruiting contacts with a prospective
student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians shall be made only
by authorized institutional staff members. Such contact, as well as correspondence and telephone
calls, by representative of an institution’s athletics interests is prohibited except as otherwise
permitted in this section.
13.1.3.5.1 Representatives of Athletics Interests. Representatives of an institution’s athletics
interests (as defined in Bylaw 13.02.15) are prohibited from making telephonic communications
with a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians.
13.2.1 General Regulation. An institution’s staff member or any representative of its athletics
interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for or giving or
offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to a prospective student-athlete or his or her
relatives or friends, other than expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. Receipt of a benefit by
a prospective student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation
if it is determined that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s prospective

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
APPENDIX TWO
September 26, 2019
Page No. 2
__________
students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g.,
international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.
13.2.1.1 Specific Prohibitions. Specifically prohibited financial aid, benefits and arrangements
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(b) Gift of clothing or equipment;
(e) Cash or like items.
13.6.7.1 General Restrictions. An institution may provide entertainment, pursuant to Bylaw
13.6.7.5, on the official visit for a prospective student-athlete and up to four family members
accompanying the prospective student-athlete within a 30-mile radius of the institution’s main
campus. Entertainment and contact by representatives of the institution’s athletics interests during
the official visit are prohibited. It is not permissible to entertain friends (including dates) of a
prospective student-athlete at any time at any site.
13.6.7.4 Cash to Prospective Student-Athlete. The institution or representatives of its athletics
interests shall not provide cash to a prospective student-athlete for entertainment purposes.
16.8.1 Permissible. An institution, conference or the NCAA may provide actual and necessary
expenses to a student-athlete to represent the institution in practice and competition (including
expenses for activities/travel that are incidental to practice or competition). In order to receive
competition-related expenses, the student-athlete must be eligible for competition.
16.11.2.1 General Rule. The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term “extra
benefit” refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the
institution’s athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her family members or
friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
16.11.2.2 Other Prohibited Benefits. An institutional employee or representative of the
institution’s athletics interests may not provide a student-athlete with extra benefits or services,
including, but not limited to:
(d) Transportation (e.g., a ride home with a coach), except as permitted in Bylaw 16.9.1, even if
the student-athlete reimburses the institution or the staff member for the appropriate amount of the
gas or expense.

Division I 2017-18 Manual
10.01.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member
institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating studentathletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a
whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play
and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.

 Georgia Institute of Technology – Public Infractions Decision
APPENDIX TWO
September 26, 2019
Page No. 3
__________
10.1 Unethical Conduct. Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a
current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work
for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for
such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(c) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual’s
institution false or misleading information concerning an individual’s involvement in or
knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation.
16.11.2.1 General Rule. The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term “extra
benefit” refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the
institution’s athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her family members or
friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
16.11.2.2 Other Prohibited Benefits. An institutional employee or representative of the
institution’s athletics interests may not provide a student-athlete with extra benefits or services,
including, but not limited to:
(d) Transportation (e.g., a ride home with a coach), except as permitted in Bylaw 16.9.1, even if
the student-athlete reimburses the institution or the staff member for the appropriate amount of the
gas or expense.
19.2.3 Responsibility to Cooperate. Current and former institutional staff members or
prospective or enrolled student-athletes of member institutions have an affirmative obligation to
cooperate fully with and assist the NCAA enforcement staff, the Committee on Infractions and the
Infractions Appeals Committee to further the objectives of the Association and its infractions
program. The responsibility to cooperate requires institutions and individuals to protect the
integrity of investigations and to make a full and complete disclosure of any relevant information,
including any information requested by the enforcement staff or relevant committees. Current and
former institutional staff members or prospective or enrolled student-athletes of member
institutions have an affirmative obligation to report instances of noncompliance to the Association
in a timely manner and assist in developing full information to determine whether a possible
violation has occurred and the details thereof.