Mercer failed to monitor cross country program

Download the Sep. 2021 Mercer University Public Infractions Decision

The Mercer women's cross country program committed recruiting violations, according to a decision released by a Division I Committee on Infractions hearing panel. Additionally, the former women's cross country and track and field head coach violated head coach responsibility rules, while a former assistant coach violated ethical conduct rules. As a result of these violations, Mercer failed to monitor its women's cross country program.

The violations in this case occurred when an international prospect — who was required to enroll at Mercer midyear to satisfy enrollment requirements — arrived in September in Macon, Georgia, where she lived and trained with the team prior to her planned enrollment in January, at the suggestion of the former assistant coach. During that time, the former head coach and assistant coach arranged for or provided $1,383 in improper recruiting inducements, including cost-free travel and housing, team gear, tickets to home football games and lodging to attend an out-of-town cross country competition. Because of these inducements, the prospect later competed and received expenses while ineligible after she enrolled at Mercer in the spring semester.

The prospect also participated in several workouts with the team prior to her enrollment. Because these workouts were arranged by or supervised by the former head coach and former assistant coach, they constituted impermissible tryouts. 

The committee noted in its decision that after the first practice in which the prospect participated, the compliance department informed the former assistant coach that such workouts were impermissible. The school subsequently self-reported the violation and admonished the assistant coach. However, the assistant coach continued to allow the prospect to attend practices for another two weeks  before individually training with the prospect and arranging for her to practice with current and former student-athletes outside of formal practices. Because each observed the prospect at multiple practices, the former head coach and former assistant coach had multiple impermissible in-person contacts and evaluations with the prospect.

Approximately a month after her arrival, in October, two current student-athletes expressed concerns to the compliance department that the prospect was living with them cost-free at the former assistant coach's direction, and — for the first time — the  school met with the prospect, who acknowledged her living arrangements with the student-athletes in Macon had been cost-free. The school informed her that she would need to pay rent to the students with whom she was living but also agreed to provide her with a hotel room by means of an official visit. The school did not contact its conference or the NCAA to inquire about whether the official visit arrangement would be permissible.

Despite learning of the problematic conduct in October, the school did not self-report additional violations until July of the following year, at which point the prospect had enrolled and gone on to compete in the spring and subsequent fall terms. In its self-report to the NCAA, the school noted that it had conducted an internal investigation and concluded that the prospect ultimately paid for her lodging. However, during the enforcement staff's investigation, the former assistant coach acknowledged that he had directed the prospect and student-athletes to be dishonest if asked about the prospect's stay. 

The panel concluded that the assistant coach violated NCAA ethical conduct rules because he knowingly provided impermissible inducements to the prospect and instructed the prospect and other student-athletes to provide false or misleading information during the school's investigation.

The panel also concluded that the former head coach violated head coach responsibility rules because he was personally involved in or knew about the violations, failed to report the issues to the compliance staff and failed to monitor his staff's involvement.  The panel specifically noted that Mercer's director of athletics spoke with the former head coach about his responsibilities as a head coach and the director of athletics' concern that the head coach was delegating crucial responsibilities to the assistant coach. 

Finally, the panel concluded that Mercer failed to monitor its women's cross country program because the school did not adequately gather facts, address the prospect's continued presence on campus or report violations in a timely manner. As a result of the school's inadequate identification of potential issues and timely response to those issues, additional violations — including two semesters of ineligible competition — occurred.

The committee classified the case as Level I-standard for the school, Level I-aggravated for the former assistant coach, and Level II-standard for the former head coach. The committee used the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to prescribe the following measures: 

• Three years of probation. 
• A $5,000 fine plus 1% of the budget for the women's cross country and women's track and field program budgets (self-imposed). 
• A one-year postseason ban for the women's cross country program, implemented in the 2020-21 academic year (self-imposed).
• A reduction in the total number of scholarships awarded in women's cross country and women's track and field by 5% during the 2022-23 academic year (self-imposed).
• A reduction in the number of official visits for the women's cross country and track and field programs by 12.5% and a seven-week ban on official visits during the 2021-22 academic year.
• A 12.5% reduction — or a seven-week ban — on all recruiting communications for women's cross country and women's track and field during the 2021-22 academic year.
• A reduction in off-campus recruiting activities by 12.5% and a seven-week ban on off-campus recruiting activities in women's cross country and women's track and field during the 2021-22 academic year.
• A three-year show-cause order for the former assistant coach.
• A one-year show-cause order for the former head coach.
• A vacation of records of contests in which student-athletes participated while ineligible. 
• A seven-day reduction in the women's cross country playing season (from 144 days) during the 2021-22 academic year (self-imposed).

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 Jody Conradt, retired women's basketball head coach and special assistant to athletics at Texas; Rich Ensor, commissioner of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference; Thomas Hill, senior vice president emeritus at Iowa State; Gary L. Miller, president at Akron; Kay Norton, president emerita of Northern Colorado; and Dave Roberts, special assistant to the athletics director at Southern California and chief hearing officer for the panel.