University of Washington - Home

Three reports announce institutional actions.

March 4, 1999

Seattle - The following three reports were compiled by Robert H. Aronson, the University of Washington's Faculty Athletic Representative and Professor of Law. The reports were distributed to members of the media at a press conference on March 4 at the University of Washington. The reports were sent to Dan Coonan, Assistant Commissioner for Governance and Enforcement at the Pacific-10 Conference as part of Washington's investigation into three self-reported football violations in January, 1999.

Report No. 1

March 1, 1999

Dan Coonan Assistant Commissioner for Governance & Enforcement Pacific-10 Conference 800 South Broadway, Suite 400 Walnut Creek, California 94596

RE: Violation by Head Football Coach

Dear Dan:

This letter constitutes the University of Washington's self-report of a violation of NCAA rules prohibiting coaches from conducting a "test/tryout" of a prospect.

Facts

In January, 1999, during prospective student-athlete Domynic Shaw's 48-hour official visit to the campus, he shot a series of three-point baskets with head football coach Rick Neuheisel. Evidently, as a "joke," they agreed that, if Neuheisel made more three-pointers, Shaw would come to the University of Washington next year. If Shaw made more three-pointers, he would go somewhere else. They shot approximately four sets of five three-pointers. Neuheisel was aware that it was impermissible to conduct a "tryout" of a prospect, but believed that since they were in their street clothes, there was no running, jumping, guarding, or similar athletics activity, and because Shaw was a football prospect, for whom the ability to shoot outside shots would be irrelevant, their activity did not constitute a "tryout."

Violations of NCAA Legislation

Bylaw 13.12.1 states that an institution "shall not conduct . . . any physical activity (e.g., practice session or test/tryout) at which one or more prospects . . . reveal, demonstrate or display their athletics abilities in any sport . . . ."

University's Corrective Action

The University's Faculty Athletics Representative counseled Neuheisel concerning how strictly the NCAA has interpreted Bylaw 13.12.1. Because of the lack of intent to assess athletics ability, or real effect in so assessing such ability, the University believes that no additional corrective actions are necessary for this violation. However, it was considered, in conjunction with two other violations involving Neuheisel, in determining the corrective measures concerning Neuheisel and the need for a substantial NCAA rules counseling and compliance effort for the football program. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Aronson Faculty Athletics Representative and Professor of Law

Report No. 2

March 1, 1999

Dan Coonan Assistant Commissioner for Governance & Enforcement Pacific-10 Conference 800 South Broadway, Suite 400 Walnut Creek, California 94596

RE: Violations by Head Football Coach

Dear Dan:

This letter constitutes the University of Washington's self-report of a violation of NCAA rules that prohibits contacting student-athletes at a four-year institution unless permission is received from the student-athletes' athletic director.

Facts

On January 28, 1999, University of Colorado Director of Compliance Karen Morrison faxed a letter to University of Washington Senior Associate Athletic Director Ralph Bayard informing him that "Mr. Rick Neuheisel . . . ha[d] telephoned many University of Colorado enrolled student-athletes and their parents, and discussed the option of their transfer to the University of Washington." Upon investigation into this potential infraction, Bayard spoke with Neuheisel, who informed Bayard that he had telephoned a number of his former players from Colorado. According to Neuheisel, however, he did not discuss the possibility of transfer with any of the student-athletes contacted.

As part of the University's investigation into the quiet period violations (see the University's self-report of March 1, 1999), Faculty Athletics Representative Robert Aronson and Pac-10 Assistant Commissioner Dan Coonan interviewed Neuheisel on February 8, 1999. According to Neuheisel, he was given permission by Colorado Athletic Director Dick Tharp to meet with his former football players following Neuheisel's decision to leave Colorado to become head football coach at the University of Washington. The meeting took place on Monday, January 11. However, when Neuheisel called to say that his plane was one-half hour late, Tharp released the players and many of them had left by the time Neuheisel arrived and spoke to the team.

After reading a prepared statement, Neuheisel spoke with a number of players at the meeting. That same evening, Neuheisel called several additional players to say goodbye and wish them well in the future. Neuheisel, after returning to Washington during the following week, came back to Colorado to wind up his affairs for the move. On Monday, January 18, Neuheisel telephoned several additional former players from his home in Boulder. According to Neuheisel, the gist of all the calls was the same: he explained why he had decided to leave Colorado, said he still had confidence in them as people and as players, urged them to stick together, and stated that he would "be there for them" if they ever had problems. He never mentioned transferring or the University of Washington. He had developed close relationships with many of his former players and was calling for the purposes of closure. He did not believe he was violating NCAA "tampering" rules because he had no intent to suggest or encourage any of them to transfer, and never said anything that could be reasonably construed to encourage any of them to transfer.

The only time that the issue of transferring was raised occurred during a telephone call between Neuheisel and Colorado Director of Football Operations Jerry Nevin on Monday, January 11. While Neuheisel was on the phone with Nevin (who was in the Colorado football offices), Colorado student-athlete Taylor Barton walked in, determined that Nevin was speaking with Neuheisel, and asked if he could speak with him. According to Nevin, Barton was extremely agitated. He had heard that, when the head coach of a football program leaves, all players are released to transfer to other institutions. He said that a number of team members had called other schools to enquire about transferring. Barton wanted to transfer to Washington. Neuheisel states that he calmed Barton down, told him that things would work out, that Barton should stay at Colorado, wait to see who would be hired as the new coach, and compete for the starting quarterback job in Spring practice. Neuheisel also told Barton that the players were misinformed about the NCAA rules and that they were not "released" to transfer to other schools. He said they should "stick together," and that they would be a great team. He told Barton that he (Neuheisel) could not speak with Barton about transferring without the permission of Colorado. Nevin confirmed Neuheisel's account to the extent that, following the telephone call, Barton was no longer talking about transferring to Washington, but was instead talking about staying at Colorado, waiting to see who the new coach would be, and looking forward to competing for the quarterback job in Spring practice.

On February 24, 1999, Colorado Director of Compliance Karen Morrison faxed to Washington a copy of a letter dated February 19, 1999 and addressed to Ralph Bayard, Senior Associate Athletic Director at Washington. The letter listed nine Colorado football student-athletes that Colorado's investigation identified as having been called by Rick Neuheisel after he had accepted the head coaching position at Washington. The letter also claimed: "According to two of these student-athletes, Taylor Barton and Tyler Brayton, as related to staff and other students-athletes prior [to] and during our internal investigation of these contacts, Mr. Neuheisel spoke to them about his new position at the University of Washington and discussed their opportunity to play football there in the future."

As noted above, Rick Neuheisel states unequivocally that he did not discuss transferring to Washington with anyone other than Taylor Barton, who both initiated the phone conversation and first raised the issue of transferring. Although Jerry Nevin could only hear Barton's end of the conversation, he is convinced that Neuheisel's account of the conversation is accurate because after he hung up, Barton was substantially more positive about staying at Colorado.

Neuheisel's calls were impermissible because he had not been given permission by the Colorado Athletic Director. However, in light of the above circumstances, Washington believes there is no credible evidence to suggest that the calls were intended to "tamper" with Colorado student-athletes or encourage them to transfer to Washington.

Bob Hauck also made several calls to his players at Colorado. According to Dan Coonan's interviews with Hauck, Hauck made about a dozen calls, all within a day or two of the January 11 meeting. According to Hauck, all of the players he contacted were ones with whom he had a personal relationship - those he personally recruited or for whom he was their position coach. He neither encouraged nor discussed transferring to Washington, but simply said goodbye to the players and wished them well. Although Hauck had made the decision to leave Colorado and accept a position as an assistant coach at Washington, he had not as yet left his position at Colorado. It is not clear whether, under these circumstances, Hauck's calls constituted even a technical violation; but, to the extent they did, they were of a very minor nature.

Violations of NCAA Legislation

Bylaw 13.1.1.3 states that a coach "shall not make contact with the student-athlete of another four-year collegiate institution . . . without first obtaining the written permission of the first institution's athletics director . . . ."

University's Corrective Action

Although unrelated to the quiet period recruiting violations (see the University's self-report of March 1, 1999), and of a much less substantial nature, these violations were taken into consideration in determining the corrective measures taken and penalties imposed in connection with the entire course of conduct during the January 11-31 period. The University believes that the compliance structure established, and in particular the assurance that all decisions with potential compliance implications will be cleared through the Faculty Athletics Representative and the Compliance Office, will prevent such violations in the future. The reprimands sent by the Athletic Director to Neuheisel and Hauck include language about these, as well as the quiet period, violations. The sanctions placed on Neuheisel and the program, including suspension from twenty evaluation days and reduction of permissible official visits by six, reflect consideration of this violation.

The University is convinced that Neuheisel's calls to his former players were based on good intentions, were understandable under the circumstances, and were not intended to obtain any recruiting advantage. However, to avoid even the perception of a recruiting advantage, the University will not permit any Colorado football player enrolled as of January 11, 1999 to compete for the University of Washington at any time in the future, even if transfer is sought by a Colorado player and permission is granted by the University of Colorado.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Aronson Faculty Athletics Representative and Professor of Law

Report No. 3

March 1, 1999

Dan Coonan Assistant Commissioner for Governance & Enforcement Pacific-10 Conference 800 South Broadway, Suite 400 Walnut Creek, California 94596

RE: Violations by Assistant Football Coaches

Dear Dan:

This letter constitutes the University of Washington's self-report of a violation of NCAA rules prohibiting coaches from making in-person recruiting contacts during a recruiting "quiet period." Facts

On January 31, 1999, five University of Washington assistant football coaches contacted eight prospective football student-athletes off-campus. As the Sunday prior to the dead period surrounding the initial National Letter of Intent signing date, January 31 was a quiet period. The five assistant coaches were Keith Gilbertson, Randy Hart, Bob Hauck, Tim Hundley, and Wayne Moses. The eight prospects were: John Anderson of Boynton, Florida; Clayton Hathorne of Menlo Park, California; Kevin Mack of Oxnard, California; Chris Massey of Moreno Valley, California; Domynic Shaw of Oakland, California; Jerome Stevens of Oxnard, California; Adam Wade of Moreno Valley, California; and Daniel Waldrop of Compton, California. Anderson, Hathorne, Massey, Shaw, and Stevens had previously made oral commitments to the University of Washington. Mack subsequently signed a NLI with Oregon, while Wade signed a NLI with Colorado State, and Waldrop signed a NLI with Nebraska.

On Monday, February 1, high school coach Ron Garringer called Coach Neuheisel and informed him that another collegiate institution was upset with Neuheisel for recruiting impermissibly the day before. Concerned, Neuheisel and the assistant coaches obtained a copy of the NCAA Manual (the coaches had not yet unpacked following their recent hiring, see discussion below) and determined that they had, in fact, impermissibly contacted prospects in-person during a quiet period. Neuheisel immediately reported the violation to Athletic Director Barbara Hedges and Ralph Bayard, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Academics and Compliance. Bayard reported the violation to Faculty Athletics Representative Rob Aronson, and to the Pac-10. An investigation into the nature and extent of the circumstances involved was initiated by Aronson, Dan Coonan, Assistant Commissioner of the Pac-10 Conference, and subsequently by the NCAA. Due to the Pac-10 meetings in San Diego from February 4-7, I was unable to conduct extensive interviews of the involved coaches until February 8. At my request, the interviews were conducted jointly with you. The University declared ineligible the five prospects who signed a NLI with the University and petitioned the NCAA for reinstatement of their eligibility.

The following factual summary is based on my interviews with Neuheisel and the assistant coaches, Compliance Director Dana Richardson's interviews with the five prospects who signed a NLI with the University, reports from you concerning your interviews with the University of Washington's coaches, the involved prospects and their relatives and high school coaches, and information from the NCAA concerning its independent investigation of the case.

In late December, 1998, the University terminated the contracts of head coach Jim Lambright and his entire staff. The coaches cleaned out their offices, although they were told they would be kept on the payroll until June 30, 1999, as per their contract. On January 11, 1999, Rick Neuheisel was hired as the new head coach, and the five involved assistant coaches were hired by January 14. Since they had only two weeks before the NLI initial signing date to complete the University's football recruiting, they spent almost all of the intervening time on the road.

On Saturday, January 30, Neuheisel and the five assistant coaches met and discussed making a last visit to a number of recruits on what they believed to be the last permissible recruiting day. They were aware that the period from midnight, January 31, until the signing date on February 3, was a dead period, during which no recruiting (other than telephone calls) was permissible. They were concerned whether the midnight deadline meant that they were only required to stop recruiting, or that they also had to be back on campus at that time. Their NCAA Manuals had not yet been unpacked. There were no Manuals, recruiting schedules, or other compliance materials in the offices because the prior staff had thrown out everything when they cleared out their offices. The coaches did, however, retrieve a flyer sent out by the Pac-10 (attached) indicating the February 1 beginning of the dead period ban on in-person recruiting activities. Believing that January 31 was the last day on which in-person recruiting was permitted, it was determined that the five assistants would go out on that day.

Bob Hauck visited with John Anderson in Florida. Anderson had orally committed to Washington in December and had renewed his commitment to attend the University following the hiring of Neuheisel as head coach. However, it was Neuheisel's belief that every committed prospect should receive a personal visit from a coach. When Hauck indicated that he would be visiting Anderson in Florida, Anderson stated that he and his father were going to attend the Super Bowl in Miami and had an extra ticket if Hauck wanted to join them. Hauck did in fact attend the Super Bowl with the Andersons.

Wayne Moses met with Domynic Shaw and Clayton Hathorne in California. He met with Shaw for about five minutes. Shaw had previously orally committed to Washington and assured Moses that he still intended to come to Washington. Moses also spent a short period of time with Hathorne, who had previously orally committed to Washington. Moses visited Hathorne because none of the coaches under Lambright had previously been to Hathorne's home.

Randy Hart met with Jerome Stevens in California. Stevens had orally committed to Washington on his most recent official visit. He was not being recruited by any other Division I program. While Hart was at Stevens' home, another recruit, Kevin Mack came over to visit. Mack had orally committed to Oregon. Hart knew that Mack was coming over to visit Stevens, but did not arrange for him to do so. Hart was in Stevens' home for about thirty minutes before Stevens and Mack left to attend a Super Bowl party. Hart asked if Mack still intended to go to Oregon. When Mack replied that he was "80% sure," Hart said that he might call him again as long as Mack wasn't 100% sure.

Keith Gilbertson met with Daniel Waldrop in California. Waldrop had called the previous Friday and stated that he was coming to Washington. However, when Gilbertson was told to meet Waldrop at his aunt's house, Waldrop's parents weren't there, Waldrop showed up about fifteen minutes late, and he did not seem very interested, Gilbertson surmised that Waldrop's commitment was shaky at best. Gilbertson stayed for 30-40 minutes and left. Waldrop subsequently signed a letter of intent with Nebraska.

Tim Hundley met with Chris Massey and Adam Wade, both of Moreno Valley, California. Massey had orally committed to Washington the previous week. Wade had orally committed to Colorado State. Hundley spent about an hour with Wade and about an hour with Massey. Massey reconfirmed his prior oral commitment to Washington. Wade subsequently signed a NLI with Colorado State. Violations of NCAA Legislation

Bylaw 13.02.4.3 states that "[n]o in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts or evaluations may be made during the quiet period." Under Bylaw 30.11.5, "[t]he Sunday prior to the dead period surrounding the initial date for signing the applicable National Letter of Intent" is designated as a quiet period.

Factors Considered in Determining University's Corrective Action

The University takes the quiet period violations very seriously. The rule prohibiting in-person recruitment on the Sunday before the dead period preceding the initial NLI signing date is intended to avoid some of the predatory recruiting practices that used to exist just prior to the signing date. As the last day before the dead period preceding the signing date, in-person recruiting has the potential of a significant recruiting advantage, and can result in an atmosphere of suspicion and alarm on the part of institutions that adhered to the quiet period restrictions.

At the same time, however, my investigation found substantial mitigating factors, as indicated below. As the attached "Summary of Range of Institutional/Conference Action" (prepared by Dana Richardson) indicates, there has been a wide range of corrective actions taken and penalties imposed in recent (past few years) similar cases. It appears that the two most significant factors in determining the severity of penalties (as opposed to corrective and educational measures to prevent any future occurrence) are: (1) whether the conduct was knowing and intentional, and (2) whether there was a significant recruiting advantage.

Unintentional Nature of Conduct

There is no excuse for Neuheisel to suggest that his assistant coaches contact prospects during a quiet period. And there is no excuse for the coaches not to be aware of the recruiting calendar rules. Although the rule prohibiting in-person contact on the day before the dead period preceding the NLI signing date has only been in effect since 1996, all of the coaches had recruited during that period and understood the importance of knowing the rules. They should have known that in-person recruiting on that day was not permissible. Given their experience and the importance of the rule, it might be presumed that they did in fact know about the rule. My interviews with the coaches, along with a number of unusual circumstances, however, have convinced me that the coaches were not aware that they were violating the rules.

First, during the past three years, the Washington and Colorado football programs had completed their in-person recruiting prior to the last Sunday before the dead period preceding the NLI signing date. Since both programs had received sufficient oral commitments to deem recruiting on that date unnecessary, they had no reason to consider whether off-campus recruiting was permitted on that day. Therefore, each of the coaches indicated that the issue of whether recruiting on that date was permissible had never come up before. Both Neuheisel and Moses remembered talking about going out "Super Bowl Sunday" while they were assistant coaches at UCLA, but that was before the rule prohibiting in-person recruiting on that date had been adopted by the NCAA. Gilbertson had been coaching in the NFL the past few years.

Second, most of the prospects contacted had already orally committed to Washington. Several were not even considering other institutions. There would be no motive to violate an important recruiting rule intentionally in order to meet with those particular prospects. Also, it is inconceivable that they would believe that they could violate the rule without a substantial number of people finding out about it. In fact, Tom Cable, an assistant coach at Colorado, called Daniel Waldrop while Keith Gilbertson was at the house. Cable spoke with Gilbertson for some time and never questioned why Gilbertson was there during a quiet period. Likewise, while Wayne Moses was on the road in California, he spoke with an assistant coach from San Diego State and Steve Fairchild from Colorado State. Neither coach asked why Moses was out recruiting during a quiet period.

Third, because the coaches were in transition (the coaches who came from Colorado had not moved into their offices and did not have places to live yet), they did not have their normal recruiting materials, let alone had a recruiting system been put in place. Chuck Heater was going to be the recruiting coordinator, but had not had time to set up any system. Ralph Bayard, Dana Richardson and I had planned a meeting with the new coaches to discuss compliance and set up a recruiting system. But, because the coaches had not been on campus for more than a day or two at a time, the meeting had not yet occurred. The only information the coaches had was the flyer sent out by the Pac-10 indicating the commencement of the dead period at midnight on January 31.

It bears repeating that, although the above circumstances support the coaches' statements that the violations were unintentional, they do not alter the fact that the coaches should have known about the rule.

Absence of Recruiting Advantage

Three of the prospects contacted on January 31 signed a NLI with institutions other than Washington. All of the other five prospects contacted had previously orally committed to Washington. While there has been little, if any, question concerning four of those prospects, coaches at other institutions have asserted that Chris Massey was still undecided on January 31. However, coaches at Washington stated that Massey had orally committed to Washington the previous week. Dan Coonan interviewed Chris Massey, his parents, his sister, and his high school coach. Those interviews confirm that Massey and his family agree that he had committed to Washington the previous week and was not influenced by the contact on January 31. His high school coach indicated that the coach told his players to tell all programs that they were "still in the mix," until the players had actually signed a NLI. Because football programs often changed directions, found other more desirable prospects at the player's position, or for some other reason lost interest in the player, it was important not to "burn one's bridges" by indicating that the player had committed to a particular program. That would help to explain why a number of coaches believed that they still had a chance to sign Massey prior to January 31.

At the same time, the widespread adverse publicity occasioned by the violations, combined with substantial negative recruiting by representatives of other institutions, created a substantial recruiting disadvantage prior to the NLI signing date, a disadvantage that is likely to exist to some extent in subsequent years. Coaches from rival programs called the prospects and told them that they would be ineligible - either for the entire 1999-2000 season, or permanently - if they signed a NLI with Washington. Chris Massey indicated that the only time he wavered in his commitment to Washington was when he feared that he would be ineligible if he came to the school. Almost all of the prospects called the Pac-10, the NCAA, and Washington to find out if they really would be declared ineligible (they were told that they would be), and when, if ever, their eligibility would be restored (they were told that restoration would have to be determined at a later date). The positive response in Washington and the region to the hiring of Rick Neuheisel only a month before was replaced with accusations and condemnation.

Again, the negative repercussions of the recruiting violations neither excuse nor mitigate the violations. But they do diminish any recruiting advantage that might have occurred due to the violations.

University's Corrective Measures and Penalties

The University is determined that similar violations will not occur in the future. Athletic Director Hedges, Faculty Athletics Representative Aronson, Senior Associate Athletic Director Bayard, and Compliance Coordinator Richardson have met on a number of occasions, including a joint two-hour meeting with all football staff members (including administrators, secretaries, volunteers, and other personnel), during which we discussed the seriousness of the violations, the importance of compliance, a review of the penalties imposed on the program in 1992-93, and our commitment to avoid such problems in the future. Procedures are being established to make certain that all decisions affecting recruiting will be made in conjunction with compliance personnel. We plan to provide all coaches with a recruiting calendar clearly indicating quiet periods, dead periods, when telephone calls, contacts and evaluations are permitted, etc. We will meet regularly with Chuck Heater, who will serve as recruiting coordinator, to establish systems to ensure compliance with all recruiting rules. In addition, we have enlisted the assistance of our travel coordinators to check that all travel arrangements comply with University and NCAA rules.

In the past, we have avoided violations regarding telephone calls, the number of coaches engaged in recruiting, travel, etc. We believe that our systems are basically effective. One way in which the system broke down was that, due to the hectic situation occasioned by the staff change only two weeks prior to the initial NLI signing date, the new coaches had not been instructed concerning the University's compliance system. In the future, no coach will be permitted to recruit until he has met with our compliance team and the University is confident that he understands and will comply with the system established to avoid recruiting violations. Once we have ensured that any new coaches will not recruit until they fully understand our system, including its checks and balances, we are confident that violations like those in this case will not be repeated.

The five prospective student-athletes who signed National Letters of Intent with the University were declared ineligible and the University petitioned to restore their eligibility. Following an investigation that included interviews with the prospects, the NCAA restored the eligibility of each of the prospects.

Despite the fact that the coaches had only been on the staff for two weeks and had not yet established an effective compliance system, and despite the mitigating factors noted above and the absence of any significant recruiting advantage, we have determined that the seriousness of the violations warrants meaningful penalties. Therefore, the Athletic Director will place a letter of reprimand in the file of each of the five assistant coaches. The University will withhold each of the five assistant coaches from four weeks of off-campus recruiting activities during the 1999-2000 recruiting period. One-half of that time (two weeks) will occur during the spring (May) evaluation period, and each of the five coaches will be limited to ten of the twenty otherwise allowable evaluation days. The other one-half of the recruiting ban (two weeks) will occur during the contact period (December-January). In addition, the University will reduce the number of official, on-campus recruiting visits by six next year one for the violations by each of the assistant coaches, and one for Coach Neuheisel.

Head coach Rick Neuheisel did not recruit off-campus during the quiet period. He has, however, taken full responsibility for sending out the other coaches. In addition, although not of the seriousness of the quiet period recruiting violation, Neuheisel violated NCAA regulations by calling his former players at Colorado without obtaining the permission of the University of Colorado. That violation is being reported in a separate self-report, but was a factor in the sanctions the University has imposed on Neuheisel and the program. The Athletic Director will place a letter of reprimand in Coach Neuheisel's file. Although he did not recruit off-campus during the quiet period, he will be withheld from two-thirds of the permissible off-campus recruiting days (twenty of the twenty-nine otherwise available evaluation days) during the 1999-2000 spring and fall evaluation periods.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Aronson Faculty Athletics Representative and Professor of Law