The Miami (Florida) women's basketball head coach violated NCAA rules when she facilitated impermissible contact between two prospects and a booster, according to an agreement released by the Division I Committee on Infractions. In facilitating the contact, the head coach also violated rules on publicity before signing and, because of her direct involvement, she violated head coach responsibility rules.
The head coach met the booster at a university event for administrators, staff, donors and potential donors. Although the head coach did not personally know the booster, she was aware that he was a prominent businessman and involved in name, image and likeness activities with student-athletes at the school. At the event, the booster and his family approached the coach to talk about the prospects' upcoming visit to the university. The head coach later called the booster to learn more about him and his work, unaware that the booster had already been in touch with the prospects' agent, until the booster informed the coach that the prospects' agent had initially declined a meeting during their upcoming visit to campus. Regardless, the booster informed the head coach that he was "here to help" and wanted women's basketball to be "huge" at Miami.
The university, head coach and enforcement staff agreed that the head coach asked an assistant coach to contact the prospects and let them know that the booster was a legitimate businessperson, and the prospects agreed to meet with him. The head coach then notified the booster that the prospects were willing to meet with him during the visit, and the booster worked with the prospects' agent to arrange a formal meeting. Ultimately, the prospects and their parents had dinner at the booster's home. During the visit, the parties did not discuss NIL opportunities, but the booster promoted the school by speaking about his children's experiences as student-athletes at Miami, and his admiration for the school and the surrounding community.
The head coach's involvement in arranging contact between the prospects and a booster violated NCAA recruiting rules. Boosters are not authorized recruiters and cannot have in-person, off-campus contact with prospects, and when the prospects visited the booster's home, it violated recruiting rules. Similarly, when the booster provided the prospects with a meal, it violated inducement rules.
The university, head coach and enforcement staff also agreed that the coach's discussion with the booster about the prospects violated NCAA recruiting rules pertaining to publicity before the recruits signed with the school.
Finally, the parties agreed that the coach violated head responsibility rules because of her direct involvement in the violations and because she did not consult with the compliance department.
This case was processed through the negotiated resolution process. The process was used instead of a formal hearing or summary disposition because the university, enforcement staff and head coach agreed on the violations and the penalties. The Division I Committee on Infractions panel reviewed the case to determine whether the resolution was in the best interests of the Association and whether the agreed-upon penalties were reasonable. Negotiated resolutions may not be appealed and do not set case precedent for other infractions cases.
Though the panel ultimately approved the negotiated resolution, it was troubled by the limited nature and severity of the agreed-upon penalties — namely, the absence of a disassociation of the involved booster. In approving the decision, the panel also provided cautionary guidance to the NCAA membership.
"Boosters are involved with prospects and student-athletes in ways the NCAA membership has never seen or encountered. … In that way, addressing impermissible booster conduct is critical, and the disassociation penalty presents an effective penalty available to the Committee on Infractions," the panel said.
However, because this case was processed prior to Jan. 1, the panel could not presume that activities around NIL resulted in an NCAA violation. The panel also concluded that, given the facts and circumstances in this case, the absence of the dissociation did not render the penalties unreasonable.
Finally, the panel noted in its decision that because this decision is a negotiated resolution, the penalties do not have precedential value, and the committee will strongly consider disassociation penalties in future cases involving NIL-adjacent conduct.
The university, enforcement staff and head coach used ranges identified by the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to agree upon Level II-mitigated penalties for the university and Level II-mitigated penalties for the head coach. The decision contains the full list of penalties as approved by the Committee on Infractions, including:
- One year of probation.
- A $5,000 fine plus 1% of the women's basketball budget.
- A 7% reduction in the number of official visits in women's basketball during the 2022-23 academic year.
- A reduction of nine recruiting-person days in women's basketball during the 2022-23 academic year.
- A three-week prohibition against recruiting communications by women's basketball staff beginning with the open date of the Transfer Portal (from March 13 through April 2, 2023).
- A 10% suspension (three games total) for the head coach, served during the first three contests for the 2022-23 season.
Members of the Committee on Infractions are drawn from the NCAA membership and members of the public. The members of the panel who reviewed this case are Gary Miller, chief hearing officer and president at Akron; Dave Roberts, special advisor to Southern California; and Cassandra Kirk, chief magistrate judge in Fulton County, Georgia.
