So UConn has been accused of violating eight NCAA rules (seven really. One is a double-violation). Where do the Huskies go from here?
Well, judging by the previous pace of this investigation, everything will move slowly.
– Let’s take a look at the allegations.
So why are these “major violations”?
According to Rick Evrard, the lawyer who represents UConn in NCAA-related matters, there aren’t many degrees of rules.
“It (the NCAA rulebook) says that secondary violations are isolated or inadvertent, and they provide neither a recruiting or competitive advantage,” Evrard said. “There’s kind of four different elements to the definition of secondary violations. The next sentence in that definition says that all other infractions, or all other violations, are major.
“So if you move out of the scope of secondary violations, you become involved with every other major case that has ever come down the pike,” Evrard continued. “Now you are major. There’s no levels of major. That’s something that is unfortunate for many institutions.”
– The phone call/text message stuff? I’m not sure that amounts to a lot.
There were 160 calls and 191 texts found to be impermissible over a four-year period? That isn’t likely a bombshell.
And most of those impermissible calls (114) have been attributed to the recently departed Beau Archibald.
Andre LaFleur supposedly made 13 improper calls during that period. Pat Sellers, according to the NCAA, made 19. George Blaney, though he’s referred to only as “then assistant and current associate head men’s basketball coach” made five. Tom Moore, though he’s referred to only as “then associate head men’s basketball coach”, made four. Jim Calhoun allegedly made two. Two more calls were attributed only to the men’s basketball office and not a specific person.
– Each of the eight allegations has its own degree of severity but perhaps the most surprising is the one accusing UConn itself of providing a recruit with extra benefits.
There have been reports and some pieces of evidence that Josh Nochimson, apparently in an attempt to gain his favor, provided Nate Miles with extra benefits in the form of meals, travel, lodging, etc. UConn is essentially responsible for what a person with its athletic interests does, but Nochimson isn’t a UConn employee.
Friday, I’ll admit, was the first time I’ve heard UConn itself accused of providing Miles or anyone else extra benefits.
Now, an impermissible benefit can take many forms. It can be everything from a club sandwich to a corvette.
The specifics are redacted from the version of the Notice of Allegations UConn made public Friday.
Now former (one week former, it seems) UConn director of basketball operations Beau Archibald is accused of providing someone (Nate Miles?) with something on Feb. 29, 2008.
The allegation makes references to the “results of such an exam” and “the score he achieved.” So are we talking about fees to take a test? Are we talking about a cab right to get to a test location? Did Archibald give Miles $10 for lunch? Did he give Miles $300 for a plane ticket? We don’t know. We’ll see.
– The idea that the UConn staff “knew or should have known” about the benefits Nochimson was providing due to their knowledge of him as a professional agent might be a tough one to fight for the Huskies.
It’s pretty clear they knew Nochimson was an agent (former UConn compliance director Bill Shults apparently sent a memo to the basketball staff on Nov. 22, 1999, to advise them of Nochimson’s status as an agent…and former UConn AD Lew Perkins sent a letter to Nochimson advising him of NCAA legislation applicable to providing benefits).
It’s pretty clear the UConn coaches kept in touch with Nochimson. And it’s becoming pretty clear they knew Nochimson and Miles were _ for lack of a better term _ hanging out.
– As for the fact that Sellers and Archibald “provided false and misleading information” to NCAA staff would seem to be a problem for themselves more than the school. Though those potential violations do feed into the charges leveled against Calhoun and AD Jeff Hathaway in regards to promoting “an atmosphere of compliance.”
UConn isn’t accused of having the old “lack of institutional control.” It’s kind of the next step down.
“Failure to monitor is kind of a lesser degree of failure to control the institution. Lack of institutional control is the commonly used term,” Evrard said. “If an institution is systemically problematic with regard to evaluating its own systems and its own coaches, then you’re going to get a lack of institutional control charge.”
– The investigation found that between 2007 and 2008 the UConn coaches provided 26 impermissible tickets. That, in and of itself, doesn’t seem like a huge deal.
– Oh, and if you’re waiting for the NCAA or UConn or anyone to talk to Nochimson or Miles, it’s unlikely.
If you’re not affiliated with a school (coach, player, etc.) and don’t have any plans to return to a school, you have no obligation to talk to NCAA investigators (or UConn ones, for that matter).
“You hope that student athletes will be cooperative with the process,” Evrard said. “I think both the institution and the enforcement staff in all instances that we’re involved in want to get to the bottom of the information regardless of how it looks and what it means. The only way to really evaluate the case and what it means is to get to the bottom of the information. If violations have occurred in this case or any other case, our advice to institutions is to move forward with that. The best thing you can do is clean house and get things done properly.”
– All in all, this could turn out to be a major problem for the basketball program. There’s also a chance this could turn into a little hurdle. We’ll have to wait and see (yet again).
- Neill
