Palmetto Proving Grounds

After a quick read, the NCAA has accepted South Carolina's self-imposed penalties, which are listed below. This line was very telling for me:

"When determining the penalties, the committee noted the university’s cooperation in the investigation, which went beyond standard expectations, and the university’s self-imposed penalties. The penalties in this case include."

Only difference

The only difference I was able to detect thus far is the scholarship allocution ... It is still six scholarship reduction, but instead of going 1, 3, 2 beginning this football season, it will be no loss of scholarships for the 2012 season and three each of the following two seasons.

RELEASE

University of South Carolina, Columbia, failed to monitor its athletics program and is responsible for impermissible recruiting, extra benefits and preferential treatment, according to a decision announced today by the Division I Committee on Infractions. The violations in this case primarily involved football student-athletes and prospects.

Penalties in the case, many of which were self-imposed by the university, include three years of probation, scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions, a $18,500 fine and disassociation of two involved boosters.

According to the facts of the case, twelve student-athletes lived in local hotel while paying a daily rate of less than $15 per person, an amount that was considerably less than what was available to the general student population. In addition, nine student-athletes received special loan arrangements by deferring rent payments through an agreement with the hotel. In total, the student-athletes received approximately $51,000 in impermissible extra benefits and preferential treatment.

In addition, two boosters provided more than $8,000 from their foundation for recruiting inducements and extra benefits to football prospects and student-athletes. These boosters also were involved in recruiting contacts. The committee noted that while some of the motivation and purpose for establishing the foundation were well-intentioned, it was clear that some efforts were aimed at assisting the university in its recruitment efforts. The benefits from the boosters included cash, gift cards, entertainment and funding of multiple unofficial visits.

The committee noted the trend of an increased importance placed on unofficial visits, particularly for football and men’s basketball. Rather than utilizing school-funded official visits, unofficial visits can be utilized to circumvent certain requirements for recruits to provide academic transcripts or test scores before they visit. These expanded recruiting opportunities are often funded by a third party other than the student-athlete’s family and provide coaches with important early access to prospects.

The university failed to monitor and investigate the impermissible recruiting activity by boosters, according to the committee. Specifically, at least four athletics department employees did not recognize the potential violations.

With the exception of determining when the local hotel should be considered a booster organization, the university agreed with all of the allegations in this case, including the failure to monitor.

When determining the penalties, the committee noted the university’s cooperation in the investigation, which went beyond standard expectations, and the university’s self-imposed penalties. The penalties in this case include:

Public reprimand and censure.
Three years of probation from April 27, 2012, through April 26, 2015.
Reduction of total football scholarships by three (from 85 maximum) during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years.
Reduction of initial football scholarships by three (from the 25 maximum) during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years (self-imposed by the university).
$18,500 fine (self-imposed by the university).
Indefinite disassociation of both involved boosters and the local hotel (self-imposed by the university).
Limit of 30 official visits in football (from the 56 maximum) for the 2012-13 academic year (self-imposed by the university).
Limit of 50 official visits in men’s and women’s track and field (from unlimited maximum) for the 2012-13 academic year (self-imposed by the university).
Suspension of the head track coach during the 2012 Penn Relays (self-imposed by the university).
An assistant men’s basketball coach was withheld from recruiting in December 2011 (self-imposed by the university).
An assistant football coach was withheld from off campus recruiting during January 2012 (self-imposed by the university).

The Division I Committee on Infractions is an independent group comprised of representatives across NCAA membership and the public. The members of the committee who reviewed this case include Britton Banowsky, commissioner of Conference USA and chair of the Committee on Infractions. Other members are John S. Black, attorney; Brian P. Halloran, attorney; Eleanor Myers, faculty athletics representative and law professor at Temple University; James O’Fallon, law professor and faculty athletics representative for University of Oregon; Dennis Thomas, commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference; Rodney Uphoff, law professor for University of Missouri, Columbia; and Christopher Griffin, attorney at Foley & Lardner and the committee coordinator of appeals.