You are here

Maryland basketball programs violated NCAA rules

University and NCAA utilized negotiated resolution to process violations

Download the June 2019 University of Maryland Negotiated Resolution

The University of Maryland and the NCAA enforcement staff agreed that the men’s basketball program exceeded the number of permissible countable coaches, while the women’s basketball staff utilized impermissible recruiting aids with prospects, according to a negotiated resolution agreement approved by a Division I Committee on Infractions panel. 

This case was processed through the new negotiated resolution process. Since Maryland and the enforcement staff agreed on the violations, the level of those violations, the classification and penalties, the process was able to be used instead of a formal hearing or summary disposition. The Division I Committee on Infractions reviewed the case to determine whether the resolution is in the best interest of the NCAA and whether the agreed-upon penalties are appropriate. Negotiated resolutions may not be appealed and do not set case precedent for other infractions cases.

According to the agreement, the men’s basketball program exceeded the number of allowable coaches when the director of player personnel, who is now an assistant coach, coached a student-athlete on his shooting form 10 times during a three-month period. The assistant coach reported that he knew coaching the student-athlete was a violation and that he offered the sessions without informing the coaching staff. He also delivered oral scouting reports to the men’s basketball team eight times at the direction of the head men’s basketball coach. Both the assistant coach and the head coach understood the assistant coach in his role as director of player personnel could not coach during practices but did not realize film room presentations were impermissible.

Maryland and the enforcement staff agreed that the women’s basketball staff used recruiting booklets with personalized covers for 17 prospects on their unofficial visits. The head coach said she did not correctly understand the rules about what could be reviewed in person during visits. Additionally, an assistant coach sent 150 personalized tangible items to prospects, contrary to NCAA rules.

Maryland and the enforcement staff used ranges identified by the Division I membership-approved infractions penalty guidelines to agree upon Level II-Standard penalties for the assistant coach and Level II-Mitigated penalties for the school. Those penalties, approved by the Committee on Infractions, are detailed below: 

  • A two-year show-cause order for the assistant coach. During that period, he must attend two NCAA Regional Rules Seminars. Because the university suspended the assistant coach from 15 practices and six games during the 2018-19 season, his athletically related duties are not restricted during the show-cause period. 
  • Reduction of men’s basketball countable athletically related activities by one hour per week during the off-season and a reduction by two hours per week in-season (self-imposed by the university).
  • The compliance office must attend at least one men’s basketball practice per week, travel to at least four regular-season away games and all postseason games, attend at least nine men’s basketball film review sessions and provide additional education (self-imposed by the university).
  • Letter of reprimand issued to the head men’s basketball coach by the university (self-imposed by the university).
  • Reduction in the number of women’s basketball official visits by three visits per year from 2018-19 through 2020-21 (self-imposed by the university). 
  • Reduction of one women’s basketball scholarship from 2018-19 through 2020-21 (self-imposed by the university).
  • Prohibition on distributing women’s basketball recruiting materials for one week each month during the 2018-19 year (self-imposed by the university).
  • One year of probation.
  • A $5,000 fine.

Members of the Committee on Infractions are drawn from NCAA membership and members of the public. The members of the panel who reviewed this case are Norman Bay, attorney in private practice; Thomas Hill, chief hearing officer for the panel and senior vice president emeritus at Iowa State; and Stephen A. Madva, attorney in private practice.