Friday morning, the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions issued sanctions for a Mississippi State academic fraud case that bears striking similarity to the violations that landed Missouri a one-year postseason ban, among other penalties, in January.
While the transgressions appear similar, the consequences are notably different. Unlike Missouri, Mississippi State did not receive a postseason ban.
The comparisons between the two cases are numerous: At Missouri, a tutor admitted to completing coursework for 12 student-athletes from three sports: football, baseball and softball. At Mississippi State, a tutor completed work for 10 football players and one men’s basketball player in exchange for cash payments from the athletes. Both athletics departments agreed that the violations constituted academic fraud, a Level I violation under NCAA bylaws. Both universities were also credited with prompt acknowledgement of the violations and acceptance of responsibility, as well as “exemplary cooperation.”
The biggest difference, however, is that Mississippi State addressed the potential sanctions for its violations differently than Missouri. Mississippi State reached a “negotiated resolution” with the NCAA enforcement staff assigned to its case — essentially, a plea deal. The university and the enforcement staff agreed on the facts of the case and resulting sanctions, and the Committee on Infractions agreed with the ruling, allowing both sides to skip a formal hearing or summary disposition.
That option was not available to Missouri. The NCAA enacted a provision allowing negotiated resolutions in August 2018. Missouri submitted its summary disposition report in November 2017. Instead, the Tigers's summary disposition, which included proposed penalties, was rejected by the COI. After an in-person hearing, the COI then levied much harsher sanctions, including the postseason ban, which prohibits Missouri from receiving its share of postseason revenue from the Southeastern Conference. That is expected to cost the athletics department roughly $8 million, with the school eligible to recover half of that amount if it does not violate the terms of its probation.
Friday afternoon, athletics director Jim Sterk released a statement highlighting the fact that a negotiated settlement was not available to Missouri. The statement also reaffirmed Sterk's position that Missouri's penalties were overly harsh, a stance he has aggressively maintained since the sanctions were handed down.
“In response to many questions we have received in regard to today’s NCAA infractions case decision involving another Division I institution, it is important to note that the University of Missouri did not have the opportunity to utilize the NCAA’s new negotiated resolution process because our case was already in process when the organization’s membership adopted it," the statement read. “We believe that the penalties imposed in the recently decided and factually similar case further illustrate that the penalties imposed on Mizzou were excessive and inconsistent with previous case precedent. We have never wavered from our stance or the merits of our appeal and remain hopeful it will be successful."
Had reaching a negotiated resolution been an option for Missouri, the Tigers' case might have turned out quite different. Shortly after the COI released its decision in the case, Sterk told reporters that the university and the NCAA enforcement staff were in agreement about the severity of the violations and the sanctions that should result. That is why the school proposed only probation and vacation of wins in its summary disposition.
Stu Brown, an Atlanta-based attorney who has specialized in NCAA cases for the past 20 years, said it's natural that a negotiated resolution would help the schools.
"If you can agree on penalties with the enforcement staff, you’re probably going to agree to lighter penalties than what the Committee (on Infractions) might impose," said Brown. "And certainly it has more control over that, because it’s presumed that if you and the school and the enforcement staff agree, that the Committee is going to approve it."
The fact that Mississippi State’s case was resolved through a negotiated resolution is notable for another reason: In its decision, the NCAA states that the negotiated resolution “has no precedental value.” That means, at least by the letter of the law, the NCAA Committee on Appeals cannot change Missouri’s sanctions based on the punishments prescribed to Mississippi State. Missouri presented its appeal on July 18.
Brown, however, said the sanctions presented to Mississippi State could still impact Missouri's appeal — and perhaps they should. The reason the NCAA doesn't consider a negotiated resolution precedent is because the COI is not as heavily involved as it is during a hearing or summary disposition. But, Brown said, "that doesn’t change the fact that, on its face, the cases look pretty darn similar, and therefore it’s reasonable to say, what’s good for school one should be good for school two."
Aside from the way the two cases were processed, the biggest difference between Mississippi State’s case and Missouri’s is that the COI categorized the Bulldogs’ violations as “Level I-Mitigated.” Missouri’s violations were considered “Level I-Standard.” The NCAA Bylaws contain a violation matrix, pictured below, that includes lighter punishments for Level I-Mitigated violations.
Mississippi State was cited for the same two “aggravating factors” as Missouri, including a history of past Level I violations. However, Mississippi State was credited with six additional “mitigating factors” that were not acknowledged in Missouri’s case. Those factors were “prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations” and “implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance.”
Missouri, in its summary disposition, asserted that it should qualify for the “prompt self-detection and self-disclosure” mitigating factor, but the COI disagreed. It’s reasoning, per the COI decision: “the mitigating factor requires both prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violations. While Missouri promptly self-reported the violations, it did not promptly self-detect them. The offending conduct continued for one year. But for the tutor's decision to come forward with her conduct, Missouri would not have known that the tutor was completing student-athletes' academic work.”
Brown said the NCAA could justify classifying Mississippi State's case as Level I-Mitigated and Missouri's as Level I-Standard solely because of the two additional mitigating factors in the Bulldogs' case, but another factor at play could be that Missouri classified its own violations as Level I-Standard. The COI report on Missouri's case reads: "the panel specifically notes Missouri's analysis that the case was a 'low-end standard' or 'upper-end mitigated' case. The panel agrees." However, a Missouri spokesperson said the school only conceded its violations could be Level I-Standard one time during the process, and that was in the summary disposition that the COI rejected
Brown believes Missouri's appeal likely centered on arguing that its transgressions should have been classified as Level I-Mitigated instead of Level I-Standard, especially since, like Mississippi State, the school was credited with exemplary cooperation.
"I think Mizzou would have a valid argument, a legitimate argument, to say, 'We understand that slotting the case, assigning its level, is not based just on the number of aggravating and mitigating factors, but when you consider both the quantity and the quality of aggravating and mitigating factors, not only do we have more aggravating than mitigating factors by a ratio of two to one, but our mitigating factors are pretty good. So we think it should legitimately be Level One Mitigated, and under Level One Mitigated, it’s legitimate to have zero postseason ban. And oh, by the way, that’s just what you did for Mississippi State, so in fairness you should do it to us.'"
In addition, Mississippi State may have benefitted from the fact that the tutor who committed the violations did not cooperate with investigations by the school or the NCAA. The tutor at Missouri, Yolanda Kumar, met with NCAA investigators for an interview and presented evidence to investigators. The COI report states that Kumar “felt pressure to ensure that student-athletes passed” and “believed the pay raise she received was an acknowledgement and reward by the academic staff for completing work on behalf of student-athletes.”
There was no such language in the Mississippi State report to indicate the tutor’s actions could have been encouraged by athletics department personnel. Still, Brown doesn't believe that the tutors' respective cooperation with the investigations should have impacted the outcome. After all, in its report on the Missouri case, the COI states no proof was found that Missouri encouraged Kumar to complete work for student-athletes. Both tutors were cited for Level I-Aggravated violations and given 10-year show-cause orders.
Whether one tutor cooperated or didn’t cooperate in terms of interviewing, what the underlying data showed, and what the statements from the student-athletes showed, was that this was what occurred," Brown said. "And so in either case, the tutor’s testimony really was not essential to proving what violations happened."
