The NCAA levied sanctions Tuesday against the Southern Methodist University athletics program, including the men's basketball team and head coach Larry Brown. Among the stronger penalties were a postseason ban for the program for the upcoming season, the suspension of Brown for 30 percent of the team's games for the 2015-16 season and the loss of three scholarships per season over the next three years.
While the NCAA is often criticized for not prescribing meaningful or consistent penalties, here is an overview of how the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions hearing panel in this case determined the consequences for the breach of conduct that occurred within the men's basketball program.
MORE: Brown's tumultuous career | SMU penalty is guilt by association
Findings
The hearing panel made two key findings as it related to the men's basketball program. First, the panel determined a former men's basketball administrative assistant committed unethical conduct under NCAA Bylaw 10.1 when she completed pre-enrollment coursework for a student-athlete and when she influenced the student-athlete to later provide false or misleading information to the enforcement staff. As a result of her conduct, the student-athlete received fraudulent academic credit and competed while ineligible.
The findings against Brown centered around his conduct as it related to meeting the requirements of NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1. This legislation places the responsibility on a head coach to promote an atmosphere of NCAA rules compliance within his/her program, as well as to monitor the activities of his/her staff to ensure compliance with NCAA legislation. According to the hearing panel, while Brown did not have direct knowledge or involvement in the misconduct, he failed to follow up on the completion of coursework and upon learning of the misconduct he failed to report this information to the SMU compliance staff, the American Athletic Conference or the NCAA enforcement staff for more than a month.
Additionally, the panel found Brown had initially lied during his interview with the enforcement staff when he denied having any information about the conversations with the former administrative assistant and student-athlete. Brown later corrected this information during the same interview.
MORE: Committee didn't consider Brown's history of infractions
Penalty levels
When analyzing recent enforcement cases, it is important to first understand which process the panel used when hearing the case. On August 1, 2013, a revised enforcement process was implemented. The revised process was designed to provide more substantive penalties to rules-violators and to ensure a clear system when applying penalties to misconduct and would of be utilized for any case where the majority of violations occurred after October 30, 2012, which was the case here.
In order for the panel to determine the appropriate penalties for an involved party, the first step under the revised process is to determine the applicable penalty level. The panel will review the findings and any aggravating and mitigating factors and will apply one of four penalty levels for each involved party. The penalty levels range from Level I violations, which are severe breaches of conduct, to Level IV violations, which are described as incidental infractions.
Here, the panel found SMU had committed Level I violations. The panel explained an institution acts through its staff and the staff committed multiple Level I violations. The panel also concluded Brown had committed Level I violations for failing to meet his responsibilities under Bylaw 11.1.2.1 and for failing to report a potential violation to the SMU compliance office.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Once the appropriate penalty level is determined, the hearing panel will then look at the case's aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the case will be classified as Level I Mitigated, Level I Standard or Level I Aggravated. A mitigating factor is a circumstance that will lessen the gravity of the offense while an aggravating factor is a consideration that will increase the gravity of the offense.
The main factors the panel considers are outlined in NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3. In this case, the panel determined SMU would be penalized as a Level I Standard case as both aggravating and mitigating factors were present. The panel found that while the institution had a long history of major violations and individual staff members had committed unethical conduct and demonstrated a blatant disregard for NCAA legislation, the institution also had a strong history of self-reporting violations and had promptly accepted responsibility for the violations and had taken affirmative steps to expedite the matter in a timely fashion.
The panel also determined Brown would be penalized as a Level I Standard case even though they found he demonstrated a blatant disregard for NCAA legislation and had negligently disregarded a violation. The panel did not take into account Brown had previously been involved with two prior enforcement cases involving major violations.
The penalty matrix
The final step in the penalty implementation process is prescribing appropriate penalties by utilizing the new penalty matrix. Here, the panel will utilize the matrix and prescribe penalties within the appropriate range for that penalty level. For example, because SMU's case was processed as a Level I Standard case, the panel had the option of prescribing either a one or two year post-season ban. Further, the panel had the option of reducing scholarships for the men's basketball program between 12.5 to 25 percent.
For Brown, the panel could have implemented a show-cause order up to five years, which would limit his coaching or recruiting duties. Additionally, the panel had the option of suspending Brown for between 30 to 50 percent of the season due the the Bylaw 11.1.2.1 finding against him.
Justin P. Sievert, Esq. is the founder/principal of Sievert Collegiate Consulting, a professor of sports, business and labor and employment law at Davenport University and is a contributing writer on sports law and sports business issues for Sporting News. He is an attorney licensed to practice in Tennessee, North Carolina and Florida and has focused his practice on higher education and sports law. Justin has a Bachelors of Arts (B.A.) from Union College (NY), a Master's Degree in Education (M.ED) from St. Lawrence University and a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Miami (FL).