NCAA Legal Issues

College Hoops "Roundtable": Thoughts on the New Scholarship Model

Raphielle Johnson — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:47:53 -0700

The first two questions in our college hoops "roundtable", where I ask some college basketball writers what their thoughts are on some of the hot topics in the game, centered around conference realignment and the new recruiting rules. This question tackles the concept of the new scholarship model, with the NCAA moving to add up to $2,000 to the value of full scholarships at the discretion of each conference. The governing body has also opened the door for multi-year scholarships, with the current being a one-year renewable setup. The Sun Belt and Metro Atlantic conferences have already said that they will abide by the new rule, and more leagues may fall in line in the near future. Here are some thoughts on the change.

Question: What are your thoughts on the initiative to raise the value of a full scholarship (adding up to $2,000 to help reach the total cost of attendance)?

Peter Robert Casey, Five-Star Basketball
Great. It should probably be more. $2,000 helps defray the rising costs of uncovered living expenses. When you accept a college scholarship, you work your butt off. Make no mistake. A full ride should be a full ride.

Rob Dauster, Ballin' is a Habit
Meh. Its a start. Its a step in the right direction. But $2,000 in a year? Think about how much you spend a year on gas. And all they get is $2,000 a year?

I think we should go to the Olympic model, personally, but whatever ends up happening, I think the players should end up getting more. But given Mark Emmert's stance against giving the players anything as recently as a year ago, I think $2,000 is a good sign.

Brian Ewart, VUHoops.com
I tend to be in favor of it. Power conferences will clearly be going toward that model, while poorer conferences might not, but will that really change the dynamic much? $2,000 isn't really enough money to live like you're in a rap video. Elite recruits will still go to elite programs, but now at least they will get to share in the wealth a little bit.

Troy Machir, Ballin' is a Habit
I don't think players should be paid. Period.

Sure, $2,000 sounds nice now, but wait ten years. I am certain they will start asking for more. Let's say they don't get paid, just a free scholarship like in the past. Guess what, they still get free swag, they still get thousands upon thousands of students and fans bowing at their feet. For four years, they get free room-and-board, a free education, and a celebrity status. After that, then they can get the money, but let's not mix it in to college. it's supposed to be a learning experience. It's suppose to be a place that prepares you for the real world. However, I do believe that the players should be able to market themselves in order to make money. If I guy wants to make money off his likeness by hosting events in the off-season, let him do it.

Ray Mernagh, NBE Sports
I like the $2,000 but if some Low and Mid-Major leagues can do it and others can't it's going to create a problem for those coaches. The high majors should get the 2K IMHO and then some.

Jon Pence, SCACCHoops.com
The $2,000 stipend is a starting point to paying athletes, but it widens the gap from the haves and have nots. Depending on a school's budget, the school may or may not be able to afford the $2,000 amount and it is by no means a requirement. Take for example a recruit deciding between Iowa and Northern Iowa. Iowa might be able to offer the player the extra $2,000 while a smaller budgeted Northern Iowa cannot. Will we see a shift away from the success of mid-major programs due to this change? Possibly.

Jon Teitel, CollegeHoops.net
Hate it. If the president of the student council and the tuba player in the school band have to pay to do their own laundry, then the star PG should as well. I understand if a homesick player wants to go home to see his mother, but if you go to college 3,000 miles away from home (as I did) then you cannot always get what you want. I have heard numerous stories of players who drive around campus in sports cars and rarely go to class, and if you give them $2,000 and hope that they spend it in a correct manner then you are pushing them down a very slippery slope. Someone is already paying for your room, board, tuition and books. In the words of Jack Nicholson from the movie A Few Good Men, "I would rather you just said ‘Thank you,' and went on your way"!

Ben Weixlmann, Heard This Blog
I think this is really a difficult rule to set in place for all NCAA schools. The schools in "Big Six" conferences can easily afford the hit to their already burgeoning revenue stream, but I worry about those schools that can't necessarily find room in their budgets. Then what happens? Do behind-the-scenes staff members get fired to cut expenses? It'll be interesting to see.

My Thoughts
Personally I like the move to attempt to bridge the gap between the value of the scholarship and the total cost of attendance. If you're going to refer to the scholarship as a "full scholarship" shouldn't it be such? What's been interesting in this new initiative is that the first two conferences to say they'd follow the model were the...Sun Belt and the MAAC, and neither of those leagues is pulling in the money that BCS AQ conferences bring in (the Sun Belt does have the advantage of bowl revenues and money for being a part of the BCS). I know many have asked about the "non-revenue" sports and whether or not they should be compensated. My answer: no. If the NCAA wants to use revenue sports to finance the base scholarship for the other sports OK, but the extras? Not on board with that.

Next question: Removing North Carolina/Kentucky, what's one game (conference or non-conference) that you're looking forward to watching this season?

College Hoops "Roundtable": Thoughts on New Recruiting Guidelines

Raphielle Johnson — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:10:35 -0700

In advance of the upcoming college basketball season, I recently had the chance to connect with some college basketball writers to discuss some of the hot-button topics in college basketball as well as college sports as a whole. The first question, which can be found here, addressed the impact that conference realignment has had on collegiate athletics. Today's question will deal more with college basketball, and specifically the changes to the recruiting rules made by the NCAA.

Question: What are your thoughts on the new recruiting rules that the NCAA has put in place? Sufficient or no, and if not what would you like changed?

Peter Robert Casey (Five-Star Basketball)
Opening up the contact rules - unlimited texts, emails, calls - was a step in the right direction. Increased contact offers the chance to strengthen player-recruit relationships and gives both parties more opportunities to determine if there's a mutually good fit. Too much contact isn't always perceived in a positive way by kids. But at least now you don't have coaches strategically trying to skirt the limits. As long as it's not abused, I think it works.

I also feel that condensing the July live period was necessary. There were too many games in too many places. The whole thing was tiring and unsightly. Hopefully, though, the new-found time for kids is spent in the gym focused on getting better, while college coaches can have more time at home with their families and back on campus with their teams. Two weekends in April should offer plenty of room for coaches to evaluate talent.
Moving permissible official visits up to January 1st of a prospect's junior year at the schools' expense, seems sensible to me. Hopefully, it cleans up some the dirty behavior that was taking place.

Rob Dauster (Ballin' is a Habit)
I like them. I think that unlimited contact from coaches could end up getting overwhelming, but I think that a coach calling and texting too often will turn a player off from the program. I think bringing April back is important to evaluating the players, and I have no problem with players getting worked out on their recruiting visits or players being allowed to make official visits earlier. Anything that allows a coach to better evaluate a) a player's ability and b) a player's personality and work ethic is a good thing.
If anything is going to be changed, I think I would open July back up to 20 days. Not having coaches on the road isn't going to prevent people from hosting these tournaments and the players from participating. You might as well allow the coaches to be there.

Brian Ewart (VUHoops.com)
I love the new recruiting rules. There is no reason to restrict kids from visiting schools officially or otherwise, so allowing those visits to start during a players' Junior year is a positive step in that direction. It's also great that coaches can evaluate players in April now and that minimal changes were done to the July open period, coaches and players both benefit from having more opportunities for live evaluation.

I'm also not worried about the phone/text rules being changed. Coaches were skirting those rules with "burner" phones anyway. Now they can go ahead and do what they were doing above-board. If a kid is feeling harassed by the calls or texts then it will be counterproductive for a coach to continue. Coaches who use the calls and texts to build a relationship, rather than to harass will benefit -- and so should the recruits, who will have a better idea of who they are committing to play for.

Troy Machir (Ballin' is a Habit)
The recent changes made by the NCAA are an indication that they are actively trying to make things better. The progress they are making may not be substantial, but at least they are showing us that they realize things need to be changes. Most of the NCAA rules are archaic. I believe that the new text/phone call rules will give some of the power back to the recruits. Certainly there is much more that can be changed in regards to recruiting, but I do think this is a good first step in the right direction.

Ray Mernagh (NBE Sports)
I like the fact that the rules allow for a more thorough relationship between recruits and coaches as well as players and coaches. I also like that coaches will have more evaluation time because that will cut down on mistakes by staffs (hopefully) and cause more kids to end up at the right level for them. I hate the fact that the communication is unlimited. I think kids with parents who can monitor it will be fine because they'll set up boundaries the way good HS coaches/parents did back in the day, and if coaches cross those boundaries they'll be out of the running for the kid. But some kids are going to go from a semi-bothersome level of calls to a bombardment of texts/calls. That's not good for anyone, least of all kids that should be allowed to be kids at least a little bit.

Jon Pence (SCACCHoops.com)
The NCAA did a nice job of addressing a problem with runners by allowing coaches to be in contact with players earlier and more frequently. Hopefully this cuts out the need for third parties. The question is what loopholes were opened? One thing that is clear is that NCAA coaches have an innate ability to push the rules to the limit. My only concern is are the players protected from schools badgering them now? The word "unlimited" scares me when it comes to phone calls and texts.

Jon Teitel (CollegeHoops.net)
I am all for harsher recruiting rules: the amount of visits/calls/texts is already ridiculous, so to rescind any limits will make it a total free-for-all. If the NCAA allows a coach to send 1,000 private messages on Facebook to a recruit but prohibits a single message about that same player to be made public, I think such a double standard will just encourage schools to do unseemly things behind the scenes with no repercussions. I have no problem with a coach attending a high school player's games, letting him make an official visit to the college campus, or giving him a few calls/emails during the year. Just keep it in check so that the kid has time to enjoy being a kid instead of a highly-prized commodity. I am also a big believer in deterrence: make the rules clear, the penalties severe, instill some fear, and no agents allowed near.

Ben Weixlmann (Heard This Blog)
At first glance, I liked them a lot. Unlike many others, I don't really worry about the unlimited contact becoming an issue. Kids can choose to ignore whomever they want. After all, they do it already. It will force college coaches to be selective about how often they contact kids. I think bringing in an April period is also a win-win. Players will have more chances to get exposure, and coaches will be able to evaluate their progress more readily.

Off the top of my head, the only gripe I have that isn't currently being addressed is having kids play for AAU teams that aren't even anywhere close to their geographic location. When I see this happening, it really makes me wonder how much pull the shoe companies have, and how much illegal activity is still going on behind the scenes of AAU basketball.

My Thoughts
I like the moves made with regards to contact periods, which in theory should allow for better relationships between coaches and prospective student-athletes. That's been a big issue with regards to only allowing coaches to be out on the road for 20 days in July as well. That essentially put a large portion of the recruiting process into the hands of third parties: be it the more accepted scouting guru or the "middle man" than many feel is the most powerful voice on the grassroots circuit (inaccurate assumption in many cases). It should also help out the kids, as playing 20 days practically non-stop does them no good, and it's not like events weren't staged in periods made off limits by the NCAA. For the phone calls and texts: it probably makes it just as important for both sides to establish clear guidelines on how often they speak which is a good thing.

Next Question: What are your thoughts on the initiative to raise the value of a full scholarship (adding up to $2,000 to help reach the total cost of attendance)?

College Hoops Tuesday Recap: Volunteers Complete Season Sweep

Raphielle Johnson — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:05:19 -0800

There comes a point in many teams' season where they're faced with a choice: fold up the tent and accept the result, or put up a fight in the face of adversity. That point for Tennessee may have come at the 13:02 mark in the second half, as a Festus Ezeli dunk extended Vanderbilt's lead to 42-31 in front of a raucous crowd at Memorial Gym. Bruce Pearl called a 30 second timeout, making sure to also send Melvin Goins, Tobias Harris and Scotty Hopson back into the game, and from that point forward the Volunteers outscored Vanderbilt 29-9 and winning by the final score of 60-51. Hopson scored a game-high 19 points while Goins (15) and Harris (10, 11 rebounds) also reached double figures for Tennessee, who moves to 7-6 in SEC play and to within a game of the Commodores for second place in the East Division.

"I was disappointed with the start of the second half," remarked Pearl. "I tried several line-up changes. We didn't guard well early. I thought that Melvin did a terrific job defensively. Melvin's toughness helped us to stay in the game."

Ezeli and John Jenkins scored 11 points apiece to lead the Commodores and Steve Tchiengang added 10 off the bench, but they went cold in the second half as the Volunteers made their charge. Vandy shot 30% from the field in the final 20 minutes, and they didn't help themselves by being outscored in the paint 20-10 and turning the ball over nine times either. Jenkins made just one of his six shot attempts in the second half, missing all four of his shots from beyond the arc. In recent years skill has rarely been questioned in regards to Kevin Stallings' team, but their toughness has. And while there have been strides made, the two losses to Tennessee (and how they've transpired) underlines how much further the Commodores have to go in that area.

"I thought we got out-toughed and out-physicalled," said Stallings. "I thought we had guys who were trying to be individual players and not team players." (quotes courtesy of Vanderbilt Athletics)

As for Tennessee the outcome was huge despite the general belief that they're a safe bet for the field of 68 due to one of the toughest schedules in the nation featuring wins over Pittsburgh and Villanova. With their next two games against Mississippi State and at South Carolina before the regular season finale against Kentucky, Coach Pearl's team can go on a run heading into the SEC Tournament provided they show up ready to go from the start. Tuesday night featured a very good comeback in notching Pearl's 200th victory, but it also may be looked back upon as the moment when Tennessee began to take full advantage of its talents.

Other Notable Happenings

1. UConn receives their punishment from the NCAA Infractions Committee.
The University of Connecticut received its punishment from the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions on Tuesday afternoon, and the penalties had some wondering if the school had gotten off light. The biggest news was that the Huskies won't be hit with a postseason ban, although looking at the case it was difficult to even figure out how the NCAA could render such a judgment. Head coach Jim Calhoun will have to sit out the first three Big East games next season although he does plan to appeal the ruling, the program loses a scholarship for each of the next two seasons and the number of available off-campus recruiting days has been cut from 130 to 90.

Other penalties include the school having to disassociate itself from agent Josh Nochimson and then-director of basketball operations Beau Archibald being hit with a two-year show cause penalty. Then-assistant Patrick Sellers was not implicated in the report. How much of a distraction will this be for the current Huskies? Not much, if at all since they won't feel a direct impact in regards to the punishment. If anything, everyone connected with the program can get back to the task at hand knowing that this chapter has been completed.

2. In Big Ten bubble news Michigan State picks up an important road win while Illinois loses at Ohio State.
It's not so much how you win but whether or not you get the positive result, and that's exactly what Michigan State did in their 53-48 win at Minnesota. The Spartans were able to make the needed plays on the defensive end in the second half, thwarting the efforts of a Minnesota zone defense that limited the Spartans' quality looks for much of the night. Kalin Lucas scored 18 points to lead the way offensively on an otherwise frigid night from the field (his teammates made 11 of 33 shots) and defensively they limited the Golden Gophers to just 37.5% shooting and forced 15 turnovers in a much-needed victory. The Spartans moved to 8-7 in conference play, gaining sole possession of fourth place in addition to gaining some (temporary) separation from the logjam directly beneath them.

One of the teams in that amalgam of bubblers is Illinois, who got off to a hot start from deep while also failing to take care of the basketball. The end result was an 89-70 loss at Ohio State despite Mike Davis and Mike Tisdale combining to score 32 points. Demetri McCamey came off the bench once again as Bruce Weber continues to look for answers with this group, and the deeper into the bag of ideas he digs it seems that the Illini get closer to a return to the NIT. Illinois made 11 of 21 shots from three but attempted just three free throws to 15 for the Buckeyes, and their 16 turnovers were a far cry from Ohio State's three. Late in the season it's the seniors who need to know what time it is, and that was a glaring difference on Tuesday night given the contributions of David Lighty (a personal 13-0 run at one point) in all areas. Will Illinois' leaders step up to the level that Coach Weber needs them to? Their tournament fate will be determined as the answer.

"If you have a David Lighty, a heart and soul that comes everyday that does what you need, we don't have that toughness and leadership," said Weber. "We need to keep fighting and have another tough game against Iowa." (quote courtesy of Ohio State Athletics)

3. Indiana State wins at Northern Iowa to move into sole possession of third place in the Missouri Valley.
After losing five straight league games the Sycamores have won their last four in Missouri Valley play (Saturday's loss to Morehead State was not a league game) including a 76-74 win over Northern Iowa on Tuesday. The win locked up the three-seed in the upcoming Missouri Valley Conference Tournament for Greg Lansing's team, their best seed since the 1999-2000 season (regular season champions). Indiana State received 40 points from their bench against a UNI squad that's had its depth tested this season, with the most recent blow being the loss of Lucas O'Rear for the season due to injury. Jake Odum and Jordan Printy scored 17 points apiece and RJ Mahurin added 11 for the Sycamores, who close with Southern Illinois at home on Saturday afternoon. The turnover numbers (17 on Tuesday) have to improve however if the Sycamores are to be a credible threat to win the automatic bid as they own a 1-3 record against Missouri State and Wichita State. But they grabbed the best possible seed on Tuesday, which is something to be proud of.

Top Three Games

1. UNC Asheville 61, Coastal Carolina 58 Matt Dickey's three-pointer that came as a result of a poor inbounds pass by the Chanticleers won it for UNC Asheville, who handed Coastal Carolina their second conference loss. Jaron Lane led the Bulldogs with 16 points while Anthony Raffa scored 15 for the Chanticleers.

2. Indiana State 76, Northern Iowa 74

3. Houston Baptist 70, Middle Tennessee 68 Andrew Gonzalez led the Huskies to their fourth win on the season with 36 points to go along with seven rebounds, three assists and two steals. James Washington III led Middle Tennessee with 21 points.

Three Notable Performances

1. G Tu Holloway (Xavier) 12 points, 15 assists and nine rebounds in Xavier's 100-62 demolition of La Salle.

2. G Chris Warren (Mississippi) 33 points in the Rebels' 79-73 loss at South Carolina.

3. F Matthew Bryan-Amaning (Washington) 24 points and 13 rebounds in the Huskies' 95-74 win over Seattle.

HOOPS TALK LIVE WEDNESDAY 6-7PM EST

College Hoops Tuesday Recap: Suspensions Doom Kansas State

Raphielle Johnson — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:41:47 -0800

Things got off to a bad start for Frank Martin's team before last night's game against UNLV tipped off as Jacob Pullen and Curtis Kelly were both suspended due to a violation of NCAA rules. The two players purchased clothing at an area department store at a discount (how much is unknown), triggering a three-game ban for Pullen while the length of time Kelly sits out remains to be seen. Definitely not good news for a team that's struggled in finding a championship level of consistency this season, and sure enough Kansas State fell to UNLV 63-59 in Kansas City for their third loss of the season. For a team that's in need of a second leader to step up next to Pullen, it does Kansas State no good to have the All-American out of the lineup as well. The Wildcats turned the ball over 23 times while assisting on just six made shots, a terrible ratio for a team that outside of Pullen really doesn't have a talent who can make things happen offensively without the aid of teammates.

"Somewhere along the lines our guys think that you can win basketball games without passing the basketball," said Coach Martin. "We had six assists and 23 turnovers and all 23 were non-aggressive turnovers. It is frustrating to watch. We battled and fought and it was nice but now we had them on their heels and we have to play. They got a baseline drive and then we cut it to one. Dead-charge and Rodney (McGruder) got out of the way. And they got a three-point play. That is not a winning play and we have got to make winning plays." (quote courtesy of Kansas State University)

Kansas State out-rebounded UNLV 43-26 with McGruder and Jamar Samuels combining for 19, but that edge didn't matter when considering the turnovers (which allowed UNLV to take three more shots despite allowing 15 offensive rebounds) and missed free throws (14-26) and their impact. Tre'Von Willis led UNLV with 16 points while Oscar Bellfield and Anthony Marshall added 11 apiece, and despite some poor shooting (2-for 13 3PT) Lon Kruger's team added another good win to their resume. But this result became more about the Wildcats as soon as news of the suspensions came out. There were already questions about this team, thought by many as ready to unseat Kansas atop the Big 12 despite the loss of Denis Clemente, due to their play leading up to last night. Now? It's time for players such as McGruder and Samuels, and even a Will Spradling at the point, to step up and be accounted for as leaders. K-State should be fine and remain a factor in the Big 12 but they've got some issues that can become even more of a problem if allowed to fester for the long haul.

Other Notable Happenings

1. Renardo Sidney suspended for today's game against Washington State.
One of the major questions many had about Renardo Sidney throughout the recruiting process, in addition to the off and on motor, was his maturity level. Well, the more things change (his now being cleared to play) the more they stay the same as the talented big was suspended for Wednesday's game against Washington State. "Conduct detrimental to the team" was the phrase used to describe the reason for head coach Rick Stansbury's move, which came after the team's Monday practice. But in a situation like this, when a school did everything imaginable to get a young man into school and kept him around through a lengthy suspension (plus augmenting the schedule to account for his return), you'd expect more out of Sidney. At the least Coach Stansbury is being proactive in dealing with this now because the Bulldogs need Sidney on the court, especially since PG Dee Bost isn't eligible until January 8th. A big stretch for Mississippi State in regards to earning an NCAA berth has already gotten off to a shaky start.

2. St. John's shows why there's need for moderation in regards to the Northwestern talk.
It should be common knowledge by this point that Northwestern is the lone team in a BCS conference to have never been to the NCAA Tournament, but that didn't stop some from taking that leap with the Wildcats during their 8-0 start to the season. But you can't ignore the fact that the Wildcats, who do have three of the top 11 scorers in the Big Ten, had yet to be truly tested by a team with anything close to NCAA Tournament-level talent going into last night's final of the MSG Holiday Festival. St. John's put on a near clinic in the second half, making 16 of 20 field goals (and didn't attempt a three-pointer) in running away 85-69 as Dwight Hardy (24 points) and MVP Justin Brownlee (21 points) led the way.

Northwestern made just 42.8% of their two-point shot attempts and for a team that shoots the three as much as they do (27 attempts against St. John's) the Wildcats need that percentage to be in the 50% range (51.1% average) in order to be successful. Offensively Northwestern needs more from Luka Mirkovic (1-6 FG, 2 points) on a consistent basis and he may have been bothered by the Red Storm's athleticism in the paint (Justin Burrell especially). Defensively they were poor in the second half as St. John's was able to get about any look it wanted, but it's not all doom and gloom for the Wildcats despite the troubling aspects of last night's loss. The trio of Drew Crawford, John Shurna and Juice Thompson can get it done offensively and it's rare that Northwestern defends as poorly as they did on Tuesday. But they need all hands on deck upon entering Big Ten play as the six teams ahead of them in the projected pecking order will be tough outs for Northwestern. In order for this group to reach heights never scaled by the program performances like Tuesday's will have to be few and far between.

3. Tennessee may be in serious danger of having their season spiral out of control.
SEC teams, outside of Kentucky and Vanderbilt, have shown themselves incapable of dealing with prosperity this season. But what Tennessee has done since knocking off Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago borders on being a complete nosedive instead of a blip on the radar screen. USC did the honors on Tuesday, knocking off the Volunteers in Knoxville 65-64 despite not scoring the final 2:13 of the game. Tennessee shot just 38.3% from the field and turned the ball over eighteen times, nullifying a 38-23 rebounding edge as a result. Scotty Hopson hasn't been the same since that win over Pitt, shooting 1-for-5 from the field and scoring just eight points. While the mental toughness of this group was widely praised following their big win in light of the Bruce Pearl suspension you have to wonder what's going on with Tennessee. It's one thing to struggle and get knocked off in an upset, but something more has seemed afoul in losses to Oakland, Charlotte and USC. Hopefully the Vols can figure out (and solve) the issue before this turns into a complete train wreck.

Top Three Games

1. Austin Peay 86, Morehead State 85 (OT) The Eagles were able to erase a four-point deficit in the final 7.8 seconds of regulation, but all that did was delay the inevitable as Dave Loos' squad moves to 4-0 in OVC play. TyShawn Edmondson led the Governors with 22 points while Melvin Baker added 19 and 10 rebounds, and Demonte Harper led the Eagles with 34 points.

2. Valparaiso 103, Oakland 102 The Golden Grizzlies haven't won since knocking off Tennessee, falling in the Lou Henson Award Tournament final to the Crusaders. Brandon Wood (35 points) and Cory Johnson (33) led the way for Homer Drew's squad while Reggie Hamilton (26 points) and Larry Wright (24) combined to score 50 for Oakland.

3. Army 88, Brown 86 Jeremy Hence led the Black Knights with 21 points and eight rebounds as a Mitch McDonald layup with 21 seconds remaining gave Army an 86-84 lead. A pair of Nathan Hedgecock free throws sealed the game with six seconds left after a Peter Sullivan (24 points) missed three.

Three Notable Performances

1. G Brandon Wood (Valparaiso) 35 points, seven rebounds and four assists in the Crusaders' win over Oakland.

2. G/F Marshon Brooks (Providence) 25 points, 12 rebounds, five assists and four steals in the Friars' 84-76 win over Sacred Heart.

3. G Demonte Harper (Morehead State) 34 points, four rebounds and three assists in the Eagles' 86-85 loss at Austin Peay.

Tim Floyd out at USC

Raphielle Johnson — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:13:19 -0700

The lasting image of Tim Floyd's tenure at USC won't be the celebration following the Trojans' run to the Pac-10 tournament title. Instead, it will be an alleged payment of $1,000 to a runner and the mass exodus of key players this offseason. With a program severely hampered by the NCAA's ongoing investigation, Coach Floyd turned in a letter of resignation to athletic director Mike Garrett on Tuesday afternoon as reported by the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi. Floyd is a native of Mississippi and according to sources the allegations had taken a toll on the coach.

"As of 1 p.m. today, I am resigning as head basketball coach at the University of Southern California," wrote Coach Floyd in the letter. "I appreciate the opportunity afforded me by the university, as well as the chance to know and work with some of the finest young men in college athletics. Unfortunately, I no longer feel I can offer the level of enthusiasm to my duties that is deserved by the university, my coaching staff, my players, their families, and the supporters of Southern Cal."

"I always promised my self and my family that if I ever felt I could no longer give my full enthusiasm to a job, that I should leave it to others who could. I intend to contact my coaching staff and my players in coming days and weeks to tell them how much each of them means to me. I wish the best to USC and to my successor."

Things took a turn for the worse back on May 12th due to an investigation by Yahoo! Sports, with Louis Johnson, once a friend of OJ Mayo, alleging that Floyd gave runner Rodney Guillory $1,000 to funnel to Mayo. Guillory, who worked for the Bill Duffy Sports Agency, eventually delivered the prospect to Duffy's agency when he declared for the NBA Draft. The NCAA combined the investigation of Mayo with that of former football star Reggie Bush, who is alleged to have received illegal benefits in the six-figure range while playing for the school.

Floyd leaves USC with a record of 85-50 over four seasons at the school, and an overall mark of 328-180 in sixteen seasons at the collegiate level. Coach Floyd also had head coaching stints in the NBA with Chicago and New Orleans, but it remains to be seen what his next move could be. Last year Kelvin Sampson left Indiana amidst an NCAA investigation and became an assistant for the Milwaukee Bucks. According to Garrett the Trojans will begin their search for a new head coach immediately, and it remains to be seen what happens in regards to roster turnover.

Incoming freshmen Lamont Jones (Harlem, NY) and Derrick Wiliams (La Mirada, CA) have signed letters of intent, while Evan Smith (Calabasas, CA) remains a verbal commitment. Having already lost the highly-touted Noel Johnson, it wouldn't be a surprise if USC also had to deal with Jones' camp requesting a release from his LOI. According to Adam Zagoria that's exactly what's going to happen. And with it being unknown what the end result of the investigation will be, expect a long, tough search for a new head coach.

Recruiting Impact

Lamont Jones: Arizona, Florida and Memphis have been named as the three schools he's looking at right now. There was a report when "Momo" signed with USC that he was told by the staff that a visit to Arizona would result in them taking their offer off of the table. As with Noel Johnson the Trojans could very well release Jones with the string attached that he cannot attend another Pac-10 school.

Derrick Williams: Williams had concerns about the situation before Floyd resigned, telling the Pasadena Star-News' Scott Dixon that he was still "trying to get more information about USC and the O.J. Mayo stuff and investigation". According to scout.com, Williams also held offers from Arizona State, Marquette, Nevada, San Diego and Santa Clara.

Question: Who do you think will be the next head coach at USC?

FAMU Fires Mike Gillespie

Ed Matisik — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:29:06 -0700

Florida A&M University announced on Tuesday, August 14th that men’s head basketball coach Mike Gillespie was immediately relieved of his duties. Gillespie had been placed on paid administrative leave by Florida A&M in May after his arrest for misdemeanor stalking of a former girlfriend. Gillespie was arrested on May 25th after he was observed driving past his former girlfriend’s house after having received repeated warnings from the Tallahassee Police Department for making several unwanted visits to her home and workplace. Gillespie, who is married, has been on paid administrative leave since his arrest.

University president James Ammons said in a statement released by Florida A&M on Tuesday that “This employment action is in the best interest of the Men’s Basketball Program and the University.” While Gillespie’s termination is effectively immediately, the University indicated that he will remain on paid administrative leave through November 2nd. Athletic Director Nelson Townsend stated that Florida A&M will immediately form a committee to hire a new coach “early in the fall.” The school did not indicate what would happen to Gillespie’s assistant coaches, including his son Mike Gillespie, Jr., who served as his father’s top assistant.

Florida state prosecutor Gina Cappleman has stated that she intends to offer Gillespie probation with certain currently unspecified conditions at a case management hearing scheduled to be heard on August 29th. Gillespie has been wearing an ankle monitoring bracelet as a condition of his release from custody in May.

During his six seasons with the school, Florida A&M compiled a record of 60-64, won two Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference Championships, and made two NCAA tournament appearances in 2004 and 2007. This past season he led the Rattlers to their first 20-win season since 1989-1990. Prior to his tenure at Florida A&M, Gillespie was the head coach of a community college in Tallahassee and Division II power St. Leo’s College (Fla.).

Camp time for college football, and my thoughts on the text message ban

Raphielle Johnson — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:59:09 -0700

To quote Rakim, "It's been a long time", but with the beginning of fall camp for many of the nation's college football programs I'm back. By the end of the weekend players should be arriving, beginning preparations for a season slated to begin August 30 for some. Not sure how many of you like to sit down and watch footage from conference media days, but you usually end up hearing something quite interesting. From the one journalist who seemed to have one purpose for attending SEC Media Days (to ask each coach how the text messaging ban would affect them), to new Stanford head coach Jim Harbaugh stating that this year's USC team may be the "best team in the history of college football" (this didn't make Coach Carroll too happy...and the UCLA contingent was quite chapped as well, given they beat the Trojans last year), the opening show for college football doesn't seem to disappoint.

With four bonafide Heisman candidates and a bowl record last season of 5-0, Big East members and their fans rightfully beamed with pride at their media event in Newport, RI. But of course, honeymoons can be short-lived, as seen in the rumors of a Big East program being the 12th member of the Big Ten. Of course, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was sure to call Mike Tranghese to make sure that he knew the Big Ten wasn't the cause of this speculation. I don't see the Big Ten adding a new member any time soon, and wouldn't Notre Dame make more sense that Rutgers from a geographical perspective, as well as rivalries (ND already plays Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue and Penn State)?

The ACC was almost in damage control mode, and the media didn't make the same mistake in picking Wake Forest to finish last this time around. The defending champions are predicted to finish fourth in the ACC Atlantic. Many like Florida State to win that division, due to another year under the belts of quarterbacks Drew Weatherford and Xavier Lee along with five new additions to the coaching staff (most importantly offensive coordinator Jimbo Fisher and offensive line coach Rick Trickett). I don't agree with that pick, but you'll have to wait a bit to see who I like to take that division. But I like Virginia Tech to win the league, and if they can pull off a win at LSU, maybe even make a run to the national championship game.

In the Big Ten, the pundits like Michigan to finish ahead of Wisconsin, and I'm thinking that the quarterback position has a lot to do with that. Michigan has the experienced Chad Henne to call the signals while the Badgers counter with the young Tyler Donovan. But don't sell Wisconsin short, because with the "Wisconsin Winnebago" P.J. Hill in the backfield, they can pound opponents into submission. Team to watch in this league: Illinois. There's a lot of talent in Champaign now thanks to the recruiting efforts of Ron Zook, including sophomore QB Juice Williams. Can they make a bowl? Who knows, but things may be looking up for the Illini program.

If you're looking for quarterbacks that can crash the national scene this year, check out the Big 12. Everyone knows Colt McCoy, and you'll probably remember Nebraska's Sam Keller from his days at Arizona State, but how about Missouri's Chase Daniel and Iowa State's Bret Meyer? Texas A&M's Stephen McGee and Texas Tech's Graham Harrell? Kansas State's Josh Freeman and Oklahoma State's Bobby Reid? This league has quite a few talented signal-callers, and I like Daniel to make a national splash this season. But don't be surprised to see any of the other players listed above making noise this season either.

The Pac-10 is being hailed by many as "USC and those other guys", but don't sell this league short, as it could be the best league in America right behind the SEC. While it would be a stretch to say that nine teams have a chance to win the league, it wouldn't be crazy to say that nine have a shot at bowling this year. I only leave out Stanford, and they may have earned themselves a 50-plus point beating when they visit USC on October 6th with the aforementioned comment. But this league has some real power, not the sarcastically mentioned "juggernauts" by LSU head coach Les Miles a short time ago. My player to watch: Cal RB Justin Forsett, who becomes the Bears' feature back with the departure of Marshawn Lynch.

Of the BCS conferences, this leaves the vaunted SEC, which welcomes back Nick Saban. Coach Saban will in fact be the new head coach at Alabama, making the Bayou Bengals' trip to Tuscaloosa all the more interesting this season. I only wish it was the other way around, just to see how the LSU fans welcomed back their former coach. Guess we'll just have to wait until 2008. While LSU is the prohibitive favorite to win the West (and the SEC itself), good luck picking the winner of the East.

Florida, even with heavy losses on the defensive side of the ball, has plenty of weapons on offense to defend their crown. Georgia also has a lot returning on offense, but they have some holes to fill in the secondary (especially with Paul Oliver going into the NFL's supplemental draft due to his academic ineligibility). Tennessee should also be improved, looking to end the eight year drought between SEC titles. South Carolina and Kentucky are also expecting big things this season, and Vanderbilt has a shot to be bowl eligible this season. I don't think it would be a stretch to call the SEC East one of the toughest divisions in sports, let alone college football.

That's all for now, but fans of non-BCS leagues do not fret; I haven't forgotten about you and your programs. Expect more on leagues like the Mountain West, MAC, WAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt (Independents too) in the coming days, but my early pick for one of the top ten games of the year in all of college football this season: TCU at BYU on November 8th. Not only could the Mountain West be on the line, but a possible BCS bid could end up in the hands of the winner with an undefeated season. But both have intriguing non-conference matchups with Texas (TCU) and Arizona (BYU) respectively to navigate. BYU's solid stable of wideouts battling Arizona's talented secondary will be a duel to watch on the season's opening Saturday. Until next time, take care. And look for more content to be added to chnfootball.com in the coming weeks.

Almost forgot...my thoughts on the text messaging ban throughout college athletics that went into effect on August 1st. Some changes will need to be made when the committee gets together August 9th to discuss this rule. I originally thought that the rule was made specifically for college football, making it all the more surprising that the Ivy League set this legislation into motion. Hard-working recruiters such as Ron Zook (Illinois) and Urban Meyer (Florida) will have to find another way to get in contact with recruits for the time being.

The NCAA may mean well (save kids from having to pay astronomical cell phone bills), but many providers allow you to pay a small amount to receive and send unlimited text messages. For example, AT&T allows customers to pay up to $24.99 for 1500 messages per month, or you can go for a smaller message addition and just pay another $5 to have unlimited texting (from other AT&T customers of course). I, for one, don't think that text messages will break youngsters' piggy banks (especially when many plans only charge you for sending messages), and it makes it much easier to not talk to someone when you choose not to. It's prety rude to hang up on someone, so being able to simply delete their message makes things a lot easier.

In the end, I see a text messaging "dead period" put in place, similar to what the NCAA does with phone calls now. This would make the most sense. You can't postpone the future, so you may as well do your best to embrace it. Or at least live with it. Good night.

Court of Justice: FAMU Coach Arrested

Ed Matisik — Mon, 28 May 2007 17:22:13 -0700

Florida A&M men’s head basketball coach Mike Gillespie, Sr. was arrested Friday, May 25th on a misdemeanor stalking charge by officers of the Tallahassee (Fla.) Police Department.

In the arrest report issued by the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD), the arresting officers stated that an unnamed woman had complained several times to the TPD since early 2005 about Gillespie’s alleged stalking behavior. She called the TPD again on May 15, 2007, and stated that Gillespie had made unwanted “advances” toward her, but she refused to file formal charges in the hope that Gillespie would stop contacting her. Gillespie had been contacted by the TPD on several occasions over the past two years regarding the women’s allegations and he was warned to stop his behavior.

Police arrested Gillespie Friday morning after the woman called the TPD and stated that Gillespie had tried to contact her at work on Thursday and, again, at home early on Friday. David McCranie, a spokesman for the TPD, stated that the police decided to arrest Gillespie on Friday after he refused to “tell his side of the story.” Gillespie was released by the TPD late Friday afternoon on a $1,000 bond after a judge ordered him not to attempt to contact the woman and required him to wear a GPS-monitored ankle bracelet.

Tim Jansen, Gillespie’s attorney, denied the woman’s charges, stating that, “It didn’t happen.” Jansen claimed that the TPD had acted prematurely by failing to contact and question prior to the arrest. McCranie denied Jansen’s allegations, and stated that Gillespie simply refused to speak with them and that, “This was a clear case of stalking.”

The relationship, if any, between the woman and Gillespie is presently unknown. Gillespie, 56, is married and has two adult children, one of whom, Mike Gillespie, Jr., serves as his top assistant coach.

Florida A&M University (FAMU) released a statement over the weekend in which it stated that the university’s general counsel and president would meet with Gillespie and review the charges against him.

The FAMU men’s basketball team finished the 2006-2007 season with a 21-14 record. The Rattlers finished second in the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference regular season standings and won the MEAC tournament, but lost to Niagara University in the opening round of the 2007 NCAA tournament.

Gillespie, who just completed his sixth season at FAMU, has had a measure of success in turning around the FAMU men’s basketball program. Gillespie has a overall record of 90-94 at the school, but he has led the team to two MEAC championships and two NCAA tournament appearances. In addition to their appearance in this year’s NCAA tournament, the Rattlers defeated Lehigh in the opening round of the 2004 NCAA tournament before losing to #1 Kentucky, 96-76.

Court of Law: Legality of Coaches Using Physical Force

Ed Matisik — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:35:32 -0800

IS A COACH PERMITTED TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE AS PART OF HIS COACHING STYLE?

WERE BOBBY KNIGHT’S ACTIONS AGAINST MICHAEL PRINCE PROHIBITED?

During a stoppage in play in Texas Tech’s win over Gardner-Webb on November 13, 2006, Tech’s men’s basketball coach Bobby Knight called sophomore forward Michael Prince over to the sideline to talk to him. Knight was seen hitting Prince’s chin with his hand while speaking to him. The incident received immediate national attention because the network ESPNU was broadcasting the game and Knight has built a reputation of often being crude, out-of-control, and having a propensity to use violence and foul language against student-athletes, referees, reporters, fans, university administrators, and members of the general public.

During his forty-year coaching career, Knight has thrown an LSU fan into a garbage can, fired a starter’s pistol at a member of the press, been convicted of assaulting a Puerto Rican police officer then evaded an extradition order issued by the Puerto Rican government, made a joke about sexual violence to reporter Connie Chung, kicked his son—and then Indiana University Assistant Coach Patrick Knight—during a game, been fined $30,000 by the NCAA for verbally abusing a media relations volunteer for having made a mistake related to his attendance at a press conference, been cited for hunting without a license after having shot a hunting partner in the back, “motivated” student-athletes with used toilet paper, assaulted an IU student who did not use the title “coach” when addressing him, and been involved in numerous other incidents of violence and intimidation against others. But Knight is also clearly one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time: he has won more games than any other Division I coach in NCAA history, won three national championships and eleven Big Ten championships while at Indiana, and coached his teams to almost 30 NCAA tournament appearances.

Knight was fired from his head coaching position at IU, after almost 30 years at the school, for “a pattern of unacceptable behavior”, but was hired by Texas Tech as its men’s basketball coach in 2001. Knight had not been involved in any controversies at Tech until the incident with Michael Prince in November of last year.

Knight’s critics immediately jumped at the opportunity to blast his coaching style again, seeing Knight’s actions as an “assault” of Prince and just one more example of his self-admitted temper problems. But the furor was not as intense and prolonged as it had been in the past, perhaps because many members of the media, the Texas Tech administration, and even Michael Prince and his family, simply saw a coach use relatively harmless physical contact—which some characterized as nothing more than a physical gesture—in disciplining one of his student-athletes.

But the question remains: How far may a coach go in using physical force to discipline or motivate student-athletes? What rules or laws restrain a coach’s actions against his or her own players?

NCAA and Conference Rules

Surprisingly, neither the rules of the NCAA nor the Big XII Conference address this matter in great detail.

A spokesperson for the NCAA stated that the NCAA does not have any rule, regulation, or by-law which address the use of physical force in disciplining student-athletes during practices—that the disciplining of players during practices is a matter left entirely up to member institutions. The spokesperson stated that the conference would have authority, if it chose to exercise it, over the disciplining of a coach for using physical force against one of his own players during regular season games. However, the spokesperson stated that in NCAA championship tournaments, a referee has the authority and discretion to assess fouls or expel any coach who uses physical force against a player—including one of his or her own student-athletes—and the NCAA could issue, at most, a letter of reprimand to that coach.

A spokesperson for the Big XII Conference stated that the Conference has chosen not to address a coach’s authority over student-athletes, and considers the matter to be entirely controlled by a member institutions rules and policies.

It seems that almost all conferences follow the Big XII Conference’s policy. Only one other conference seems to have addressed a coach’s use of physical force during a game, although not during practice time. One of the major conferences in NCAA Division I men’s and women’s ice hockey is Hockey East. Article XII, Section 11 of the Hockey East Code of Conduct defines “unsportsmanlike conduct” during an intercollegiate athletic event as including, among other things, “Any coach [who] acting in an official capacity strikes or physically abuses...student-athletes.” The penalty for violating this rule is “penalties as deemed appropriate by the Commissioner” of Hockey East. It must be noted that the rule does not define “strike” or “abuses”, and that it applies to all “student-athletes”, not just those on the opposing team.

However, the Hockey East rule would generally not seem to include the low-level of contact used by Bobby Knight against Michel Prince. Then, again, it would also not be unreasonable to interpret Knight’s “touching” of Prince’s chin a “strike” if the Hockey East’s rule were applied to the incident quite literally. The Knight/Prince incident would, therefore, probably not be considered a violation of the Hockey East rule since Knight’s action was not clearly violent and was even ambiguous as a disciplinary measure. However, it is clear that a physical action taken by a coach against one of his or her own student-athletes which exceeds that used by Knight could result in disciplinary action taken against the coach by the conference—at least in Hockey East.

Institutional Rules

The NCAA and the Big XII Conference—like most conferences—do not take a stance on the use of physical force by a coach in disciplining student-athletes, and take the stance that the matter is up to the individual academic institutions. But what do institutional disciplinary codes and rules say about coaches disciplining student-athletes?

Texas Tech University System Board Rule 03.02 states:

Colleges and universities that are tax-supported must function in accordance with

the public trust and the actions of faculty, staff and students within them must be

consistent with the execution of that trust. A breach of trust includes, but will not

be limited to…the use of force or violence…[and] physical abuse of any person on

TTU system-owned or controlled-property or at TTU system-sponsored or supervised

functions or conduct which threatens or endangers the health or safety of any such person.

Another section of the rules states that any person who violates Rule 03.02 may, as determined by TTU, be subject to punishments ranging from a letter of reprimand to “separation from the TTU system.”

Again, the Knight/Prince incident would not appear to rise to the level of physical contact prohibited by Rule 03.02. While it is apparent Knight used some level of physical “force,” it would not appear to rise to the level of “violence” nor does “physical abuse” appear to be involved, and the action clearly did not “threaten[ ] or endanger[ ] the health or safety” of Prince.

However, the TTU rule could prove troublesome for coaches who use physical force in practices or games to discipline student-athletes. If his or her use of the physical force constituted physical abuse of a student-athlete or if the coach’s use of force caused injury—or had the potential to cause injury—to a student-athlete, the coach’s actions would most likely violate Rule 03.02 and could subject that coach to discipline by TTU.

State Laws Prohibiting Assault

Beyond the disciplinary codes of educational institutions, we must then turn to the general laws of the states to determine whether a coach may use physical force to discipline a student-athlete.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.01 defines misdemeanor assault as occurring when a person:

- intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily harm to another…; or,

- intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury…; or,

- intentionally or knowingly causes bodily contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

The Texas Penal Code, which is typical of most state laws on assault, raises a particular assault to the level of a felony if the victim is a public servant, a private security officer, a vulnerable victim, such as the elderly, or if the victim is a member of the alleged assailant’s family. The Penal Code also provides for increased punishment of the assailant, as a misdemeanor, if the assault was committed by a person not involved in a sporting event against a participant in a sporting event during that sporting event, or later if the assault was based on the participant’s performance during the sporting event; this section, however, would not apply to the Knight/Prince incident because both Knight and Prince were participants in the Texas Tech/Gardner Webb game.

Again, it would appear that Knight did not violate Texas law: Knight did not cause bodily harm to Prince, he did not threaten Prince with bodily harm, and Prince has stated that he did not regard Knight’s “bodily contact” with him as “offensive or provocative.” However, coaches should be aware that if they cause bodily harm to a student-athlete during practice or a game—and the code does not require that extensive bodily harm occur—or even threaten it, they could commit criminal assault under their state’s laws. Further, even if the physical contact or force used by the coach against a particular student-athlete is minimal, coaches should be aware that simple “bodily contact” could be considered assault if the student-athlete regards that contact as “offensive or provocative.”

State Anti-Hazing Laws

All of the states have also passed laws specific to academic settings, including laws prohibiting the use of violence to maintain order and discipline in on campus student groups. While these laws, known generally as “anti-hazing laws,” are generally aimed at eliminating the hazing activities conducted by fraternities and sororities, they can, and have been, construed to cover situations in which coaches or student-athletes use some sort of physical force against a student-athlete. The Texas anti-hazing statute, Texas Public Education Code Sec. 37.151, which is typical of most state statutes, defines “hazing” as:

any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, occurring on or off the campus of an educational institution, by one person alone or acting with others, directed against a student, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in an organization. The term includes:

(A) any type of physical brutality, such as whipping, beating, striking, branding, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or similar activity;

            (B) any type of physical activity, such as sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a small space, calisthenics, or other activity that subjects the student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the mental or physical health or safety of the student;

            (C) any activity involving consumption of a food, liquid, alcoholic beverage, liquor, drug, or other substance that subjects the student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the mental or physical health or safety of the student;

            (D) any activity that intimidates or threatens the student with ostracism, that subjects the student to extreme mental stress, shame, or humiliation, that adversely affects the mental health or dignity of the student or discourages the student from entering or remaining registered in an educational institution, or that may reasonably be expected to cause a student to leave the organization or the institution rather than submit to acts described in this subdivision; and

            (E) any activity that induces, causes, or requires the student to perform a duty or task that involves a violation of the Penal Code.

The Texas anti-hazing statute is made applicable to colleges and universities in the state under Texas Education Code Sec. 51.936.

Under Texas law, hazing is a misdemeanor if it does not result in serious bodily injury, is a misdemeanor with enhanced punishment if the hazing results in serious bodily injury, and is a felony if it results in the death of the victim. Texas Education Code Sec. 37.154 prohibits any real or purported consent by the victim from being used as a defense by the alleged perpetrator.

The first question to be addressed is whether an anti-hazing statute, like that of Texas, is applicable to the coach of a varsity athletic team when disciplining a student-athlete. The statute’s very terms state that it applies to a “person” who directs his or her actions against a “student” for the purpose of allowing the student to maintain membership in an organization. As a coach is a person directing his or her actions against a student-athlete and, if the student fails to acquiesce to the coach’s actions he or she could lose a spot on the team’s roster, it would appear that the hazing statute does, in fact, apply to coaches in their disciplining of student-athletes.

The question, therefore, becomes whether the coach’s actions constitute activities that could constitute “hazing” under the statute. It is obvious that the anti-hazing statute’s range of prohibited activity is broader than that of the assault statute or even institutional and conference rules: the statute does not simply require that physical force be used or threatened against a person, but includes “any activity” that threatens the victim with “ostracism...mental stress, shame, or humiliation” or “adversely affects the mental health or dignity of the student.” Failure to comply with such hazing activities may be “reasonably expected to cause a student to leave the organization.”

It does, therefore, seem quite plausible for a coach to be prosecuted under an anti-hazing statute if he or she simply engages in disciplinary actions against a particular student-athlete that cause “mental stress, shame, or humiliation” and those disciplinary actions could reasonably be “expected to cause a student to leave” the team—or lose a scholarship. It would also appear that a coach would not have a defense available to him or her that the student had consented to such disciplinary actions because the student understood, in advance, that such disciplinary actions may be used by a coach or student-athletes during practices or games as all “consent” defenses are prohibited by statute.

Did Bobby Knight’s actions against Michael Prince constitute a violation of the Texas anti-hazing statute? While Knight, as coach of a varsity athletic team—a recognized Texas Tech student group—could be subjected to the jurisdiction of the statute, it would seemingly be a great stretch to find that his light “punch” of Prince on the chin was calculated by Knight to subject Prince to “mental stress, shame, or humiliation” that could reasonably be expected to cause Prince to quite the team.

If, however, a coach committed an act like Knight’s “punch” of Prince as part of a larger, regular pattern of activity calculated to induce “mental stress, shame, or humiliation” in a student-athlete such that he or she would comply rather than risk losing a scholarship or a roster spot, then such an action, or actions, could probably be prosecuted under a state anti-hazing statute. In other words, anti-hazing statutes may well be the greatest challenge to a coach’s disciplinary authority over student-athletes for those coaches who use a more physical or “in-your-face” disciplinary style.

Cases

Reported examples of coaches being punished for disciplining student-athletes are very limited. A search of the state and federal court case databases of the United States found no cases in which a college-level coach was prosecuted under an anti-hazing statute. Further, most disciplinary proceedings of coaches, as university employees, are generally not publicly available. However, the following state and federal court cases were found involving a coach’s use of force in disciplining student-athletes:

In Neal v. Fulton County Board of Education, 229 F.3d 1069 (11^th Cir. 2000), Durante Neal, a high school freshman and member of the Tri-Cities (Ga.) High School varsity football team, was slapped in the face by another member of the team, Royonte Griffin, during practice. Tommy Ector, the head coach of the football team, told Neal that “you need to learn how to handle your own business.” Neal took this to mean that he should defend himself against Griffin’s slap. Neal obtained a weight lock, put it into his gym bag, and struck Griffin with it. Neal and Griffin immediately began to fight. Ector, and Tri-Cities High School principal Herschel Robinson, both of whom were in the immediate area, initially watched the fight the did not intervene. After a few minutes, Ector went over to the fight, dumped the contents of Neal’s gym bag on the ground and shouted repeatedly, “What did you hit him with? If you hit him with it, I am going to hit you with it.” Ector then picked up the weight lock and struck Neal in the left eye. Neal’s eye was knocked completely out of its socket, “leaving it destroyed and dismembered” and he was in severe pain. Ector still failed to intervene in the fight. Neal eventually received medical treatment, but he was permanently blinded in his left eye.

Neal sued Ector and the local school district for excessive use of corporal punishment, alleging that Ector’s actions were “so excessive as to shock the conscience” and violate his rights to be free of excessive corporal punishment under the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ector and the school district asked the federal court in Atlanta to dismiss Neal’s suit, claiming that Ector’s actions did not constitute the use of corporal punishment. The court, however, found that Ector’s actions did constitute corporal punishment and may have violated Neal’s rights under the 14^th Amendment. Apparently, the case was settled prior to trial.

People v. Nelson, 58 Cal. App.4^th 193, 67 Cal. Rptr.2d 899 (Cal. App. 1997), was a criminal prosecution of a coach of a junior college women’s basketball team who allegedly punched one of his players in the mouth during a practice session. During a practice session of the Harbor Community College (HCC) of California women’s basketball team during early 1995, Lewis Nelson, the head coach, became upset when on of his players, Tammy Miles, did not “push the ball up the court” as he had ordered. In punishment for this failure, Nelson ordered the entire team to “run suicides,” that is, sprint from the basketball court’s baseline to the center court line numerous times. Lameisha Pittman, another HCC player, was allowed to sit down because she suffered from sore feet. After practice resumed, angry words were exchanged between Miles and Pittman and they began to fight. Nelson stopped the practice and allowed his team and coaches to watch the fight for, witnesses estimated, two to six minutes. Miles, bleeding, returned to the locker room and practice resumed. However, Latrice Polk, another HCC player, refused to return to practice and walked away from the court. Nelson ordered her to return to practice, but Polk said that Nelson let the fight continue too long and that he should have stopped it. Nelson shouted to Polk, “Get your ass back on the court!” and “You’re just a big baby!” Polk shouted “You’re the baby!” back to Nelson, then sat down on some bleachers in order to remove her shoes. Nelson walked over to Polk and, according to varying witness accounts, either punched her in the head several times or grabbed her “to calm her down.” The incident ended with Polk suffering from “a black eye, a cut lip, a bloodied ear, a lump on the back of her head, and numerous scratches. Several witnesses stated that Polk suffered the injuries due to Nelson’s punches, while other stated she suffered the injuries when she fell down the bleachers some time after Nelson released her.

Nelson was prosecuted for battery with serious bodily injury and battery on school property. The Los Angeles County jury found sufficient evidence to convict Nelson of the battery on school property charge, but found him not guilty on the battery with serious bodily injury charge. Nelson was sentenced to one year’s probation and ordered to pay a $500.00 fine.

Conclusion

Did Bobby Knight violate any rule or law by lightly “punching” Michael Prince during Texas Tech’s game against Gardner Webb? No—despite the claims of his critics to the contrary. But, generally, coaches could be punished or even prosecuted if their disciplining of players crosses over a vaguely-defined line that seems to separate more excessive discipline from that which many coaches engage in every day. However, coaches, players, and schools should be aware that the anti-hazing statutes of the various states may be used against coaches who engage in physical—or even psychological—punishment of student-athletes.

Court of Law: Legality of Coaches Using Physical Force

Ed Matisik — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800

IS A COACH PERMITTED TO USE PHYSICAL FORCE

AS PART OF HIS COACHING STYLE? WERE BOBBY KNIGHT’S ACTIONS

AGAINST MICHAEL PRINCE PROHIBITED?

But the question remains: How far may a coach go in using physical force to discipline or motivate student-athletes? What rules or laws restrain a coach’s actions against his or her own players?

NCAA and Conference Rules

Surprisingly, neither the rules of the NCAA nor the Big XII Conference address this matter in great detail.

Institutional Rules

Texas Tech University System Board Rule 03.02 states:

Colleges and universities that are tax-supported must function in accordance with

the public trust and the actions of faculty, staff and students within them must be

consistent with the execution of that trust. A breach of trust includes, but will not

be limited to…the use of force or violence…[and] physical abuse of any person on

TTU system-owned or controlled-property or at TTU system-sponsored or supervised

functions or conduct which threatens or endangers the health or safety of any such

person.

State Laws Prohibiting Assault

Beyond the disciplinary codes of educational institutions, we must then turn to the general laws of the states to determine whether a coach may use physical force to discipline a student-athlete.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.01 defines misdemeanor assault as occurring when a person:

n intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily harm to another…; or,

n intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury…; or,

n intentionally or knowingly causes bodily contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

State Anti-Hazing Laws

any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, occurring on or off the campus of an

educational institution, by one person alone or acting with others, directed against a

student, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the

purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or

maintaining membership in an organization. The term includes:

(A) any type of physical brutality, such as whipping, beating, striking, branding,

electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on the body, or similar activity;

(B) any type of physical activity, such as sleep deprivation, exposure to the

elements, confinement in a small space, calisthenics, or other activity that subjects

the student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that adversely affects the mental or

physical health or safety of the student;

(C) any activity involving consumption of a food, liquid, alcoholic beverage, liquor,

drug, or other substance that subjects the student to an unreasonable risk of harm or that

adversely affects the mental or physical health or safety of the student;

(D) any activity that intimidates or threatens the student with ostracism, that subjects

the student to extreme mental stress, shame, or humiliation, that adversely affects the

mental health or dignity of the student or discourages the student from entering or

remaining registered in an educational institution, or that may reasonably be

expected to cause a student to leave the organization or the institution rather than

submit to acts described in this subdivision; and

(E) any activity that induces, causes, or requires the student to perform a duty or task that

involves a violation of the Penal Code.

The Texas anti-hazing statute is made applicable to colleges and universities in the state under Texas Education Code Sec. 51.936.

Cases

Conclusion

Did Bobby Knight violate any rule or law by lightly “punching” Michael Prince during Texas Tech’s game against Gardner Webb? No—despite the claims of his critics to the contrary. But, generally, coaches could be punished or even prosecuted if their disciplining of players crosses over a vaguely-defined line that seems to separate more excessive discipline from that which may coaches engage in every day. However, coaches, players, and schools should be aware that the anti-hazing statutes of the various states may be used against coaches who engage in physical—or even psychological—punishment of student-athletes.