Does Jim Boeheim have valid claim in appeal against NCAA?

Justin Sievert

Does Jim Boeheim have valid claim in appeal against NCAA? image

It has been clear since Syracuse University head men's basketball coach Jim Boeheim's March 19th press conference that he does not see eye-to-eye with the NCAA enforcement staff or the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions regarding the finding that he did not adequately monitor his program or promote an atmosphere of compliance within his program. 

Boeheim, who reiterated his displeasure with the result of the NCAA enforcement case this week in an interview with ESPN, stated he is still unclear what the NCAA's expectations are regarding the monitoring responsibilities of head coaches. Boeheim said, "I'm guilty of not monitoring, which is a very nebulous term. Nobody has defined it. What does that mean?"

MORE: 2015-16 preseasn All-Americans | Syracuse coach suffers body-surfing injury | Attorney: NCAA process 'racist'

What it effectively means for Boeheim is he will have to sit out the first nine games of ACC conference play when Syracuse opens up against Pittsburgh on Dec. 30. The nine-game suspension was one of the sanctions levied by the committee that also included the loss of 12 scholarships for the basketball program over the next four years as well as the vacation of 108 wins. Boeheim has remained publicly defiant since the penalties were announced, but is there any validity in his assessment?

NCAA expectations of Division I coaches

NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.1.2.1 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. Further, the bylaw operates under a vicarious liability standard where a head coach is presumed to have knowledge of what is occurring in the program and, therefore, can be responsible for the actions of his/her staff and other individuals associated with the program.

Should the NCAA enforcement staff allege a Bylaw 11.1.2.1 violation against a head coach, which is what the NCAA enforcement staff alleged against Boeheim, the head coach must rebut this presumption of knowledge and provide evidence they promoted an atmosphere of compliance and reasonably monitored the program. In order to meet this standard, the NCAA has recommended head coaches follow a three-part approach. First, a head coach is expected to demonstrate a commitment to rules compliance through ongoing communication with his/her president or chancellor, director of athletics, sport administrator, athletics compliance staff, sports program staff and student athletes. Examples of effective communication practices include dissemination of rules-compliance resources; communication of the head coach's rules-compliance philosophy and program expectations; and discussion of how the athletics compliance staff and head coach will share responsibility for rules compliance.

Next, a head coach must demonstrate they are appropriately monitoring the program and the staff's activities. The NCAA has cited assigning specific monitoring responsibilities to coaches and athletics compliance staff members, developing written policies and procedures regarding responsibilities and reporting lines and monitoring the fulfillment of these responsibilities as effective monitoring procedures.

Finally, a head coach is expected to document the methods he/she has demonstrated, their commitment to compliance and monitoring activities. Effective documentation practices include maintaining a file of meetings notes, agendas and attendance logs, written policies and procedures regarding responsibilities and reports of investigations into alleged rules violations.

Analyzing the Boeheim appeal

In Boeheim's press conference following the announcement of the penalties, he announced he would file an appeal with the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee. Based on Boeheim's comments during that press conference, it looks like he will focus his appeal on three arguments.

First, he will argue the NCAA enforcement staff mishandled the investigation by not allowing him an opportunity to be interviewed a second time. Boeheim will claim this prevented him the opportunity to present his entire case. Next, he will argue the NCAA standards on head coach monitoring are not clearly articulated, which prevents head coaches from understanding the evidence necessary to rebut an Bylaw 11.1.2.1 allegation. Boeheim will claim he could have presented additional documentation that demonstrated his communication and monitoring activities.

Finally, he will claim the finding that he violated Bylaw 11.1.2.1 was clearly contrary to the evidence presented to the Committee on Infractions. From Boeheim's perspective, he provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption with evidence that included "monthly meetings, constant communication with compliance and daily meetings with his staff to discuss compliance issues."

The Committee on Infractions spokesman and Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky were very clear during their press conference following the case that Boeheim simply didn't do enough to rebut the presumption. During the press conference, Banowsky agreed that Boeheim provided some evidence, but the evidence was not specific or clear enough to rebut the presumption. 

"The presumption in the case was not effectively rebutted at all. In fact, the coach hired the director of basketball operations to improve the academic performance of the players. And he did it by logging into their e-mail accounts, exchanging communication with professors and, in concert with the basketball receptionist, assisted in the preparation of coursework for the players. In this case the panel felt the head coach should be held responsible for the people that report directly to him, most certainly."

The Committee on Infractions public report further explains their rationale when analyzing whether Boeheim met the Bylaw 11.1.2.1 standard.

Within that responsibility rested the presumption that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of all assistant coaches and administrators. That presumption is rebuttable. Here, the head basketball coach failed to rebut the presumption. The head basketball coach identified general rules compliance initiatives such as conversations with the director of basketball operations, assigning staff members as compliance liaisons — one of whom was the director of basketball operations — and NCAA rules meetings with the institution's compliance staff as proactive measures, which promoted an atmosphere of compliance. In practice, however, the head basketball coach operated under assumptions and he neglected to inquire and monitor his staff and student-athletes. The head basketball coach's generalized statements fail to rebut the presumption. Therefore, the head basketball coach is accountable for the violations that involved his student-athletes and staff, occurred in student-athlete academics and resulted from their interactions and engagements with the representative.

If Boeheim formally filed an appeal with the Infractions Appeals Committee, he would have done so by March 20th. Once Boeheim filed the appeal, both, he and the Committee on Infractions would have submitted a written brief. Boeheim would then have had the option to conduct a hearing in front of the Infractions Appeals Committee or base the appeal on the written submissions alone.

While we haven't heard publicly where they are in this process, the Infractions Appeals Committee has will have the ability to reverse or modify the initial finding only if Boeheim can demonstrate one of three points; the Committee on Infractions hearing panel’s finding is clearly contrary to the evidence presented to the hearing panel; the facts found by the Committee on Infractions hearing panel did not constitute a violation of the NCAA Constitution or bylaws; and/or there was a procedural error and but for the error, the Committee on Infractions hearing panel would not have made the finding of violation. 

Boeheim has been publicly laying the groundwork for his appeal since the violations. Whether the Infractions Appeals Committee agrees, only time will tell.

— 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).

Justin Sievert