Baylor's first scrimmage

[SoonerNorm]

Now that is a fair analysis.

How often have we seen such a push turn out to have some underlying "less than honest" factors? You have to wonder about why Baylor has been so successful lately. The last time they managed this, we later learned they were violating NCAA rules to make it happen. Will this turn out to be true this time too? Time will tell.

While I don't know anything about the Chou family, I do not believe the Cox family would tolerate any actions by the Baylor coaching staff that were outside the lines. Once Lauren committed, it is pretty easy to see why other great players want to play at Baylor.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

While I don't know anything about the Chou family, I do not believe the Cox family would tolerate any actions by the Baylor coaching staff that were outside the lines. Once Lauren committed, it is pretty easy to see why other great players want to play at Baylor.

I certainly wasn't suggesting they gave anyone cash, cars, etc. The things they did before were actions by the coaches - not the recruits. Much like what "you know who" did on the OU men's team a few years back.

Zebras don't usually change their stripes.

It will be fun watching these girls play at Baylor. Especially if we beat them several times.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I certainly wasn't suggesting they gave anyone cash, cars, etc. The things they did before were actions by the coaches - not the recruits. Much like what "you know who" did on the OU men's team a few years back.

Zebras don't usually change their stripes.

It will be fun watching these girls play at Baylor. Especially if we beat them several times.

If the coaching staff doesn't do anything that induces a player to come to that school, is there a chargeable violation? Perhaps so but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Some here thought Kim should have been kicked out of basketball for sitting next to other parents when her daughter played on the same team. The NCAA didn't see it as s big deal.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

If the coaching staff doesn't do anything that induces a player to come to that school, is there a chargeable violation? Perhaps so but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Some here thought Kim should have been kicked out of basketball for sitting next to other parents when her daughter played on the same team. The NCAA didn't see it as s big deal.

I am truly surprised that anyone would defend violating NCAA rules as "no big deal". I would bet if Sherri got us penalized for infractions the response would be vastly different. But if cheating is Ok for some - well I disagree. I want our coaches to stay within the rules.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I am truly surprised that anyone would defend violating NCAA rules as "no big deal". I would bet if Sherri got us penalized for infractions the response would be vastly different. But if cheating is Ok for some - well I disagree. I want our coaches to stay within the rules.

I'm not defending anything. Look at what the NCAA did to Baylor...not much. If they thought the infraction was serious they would have punished them a lot more than they did.

 

[skilledserv]

I'm not defending anything. Look at what the NCAA did to Baylor...not much. If they thought the infraction was serious they would have punished them a lot more than they did.

The two that deserved the punishment got it. That's why McKinney and Patterson aren't there anymore. It wasn't Mulkey who did anything wrong

 

[SoonerNorm]

The two that deserved the punishment got it. That's why McKinney and Patterson aren't there anymore. It wasn't Mulkey who did anything wrong

I read there was an allegation that Kim sat next to parents of Griner and perhaps other parents during AAU games in which Kim's daughter played. If true, that seemed like a minor infraction to me. Of course some on this board thought it was worse than if Kim bought them all cars.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

Universities are allowed a limited number of contacts with a player and that player's family. Kim violated that by choosing to sit with the parents of players she was recruiting.

It would be very easy to sit by parents of the players she was NOT recruiting, but she chose to violate the rule. No one forced it. It was a choice she made. When she walked in the gyms she looked around and was free to decide where she would sit - and who she would sit with. She chose to use the time as a recruiting contact - which was a recruiting violation. The NCAA is the one who said she broke the rules by choosing - of her own free will - to do that. I can guarantee you there are many, many coaches who would go out of their way to avoid breaking the rules. They might not agree with the rule, might think it was silly, etc. But they would still have enough respect for the integrity of the organization, their university, and the recruiting rules to go ahead and do the right thing.

I agree that the punishments were not as severe as some would have suggested. But the committee that works that for the NCAA has not had many cases where women's coaches flaunted the breaking of rules. I believe they did lose a scholarship or two, had restrictions on the time Kim and others could recruit, etc. I do not recall the exact punishment handed out, but it was not just a "go and sin no more" thing. The NCAA is doing everything possible to build interest in the women's game, and I suspect they did not want to ban Baylor and Griner from any major participation - so the nature of the punishment was what it was. That last sentence is an assumption - not a publicized fact reported by the NCAA.

There are some well known situations going on across the country as we speak involving women's basketball teams. it will be interesting to see how they are handled.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Universities are allowed a limited number of contacts with a player and that player's family. Kim violated that by choosing to sit with the parents of players she was recruiting.

It would be very easy to sit by parents of the players she was NOT recruiting, but she chose to violate the rule. No one forced it. It was a choice she made. When she walked in the gyms she looked around and was free to decide where she would sit - and who she would sit with. She chose to use the time as a recruiting contact - which was a recruiting violation. The NCAA is the one who said she broke the rules by choosing - of her own free will - to do that. I can guarantee you there are many, many coaches who would go out of their way to avoid breaking the rules. They might not agree with the rule, might think it was silly, etc. But they would still have enough respect for the integrity of the organization, their university, and the recruiting rules to go ahead and do the right thing.

I agree that the punishments were not as severe as some would have suggested. But the committee that works that for the NCAA has not had many cases where women's coaches flaunted the breaking of rules. I believe they did lose a scholarship or two, had restrictions on the time Kim and others could recruit, etc. I do not recall the exact punishment handed out, but it was not just a "go and sin no more" thing. The NCAA is doing everything possible to build interest in the women's game, and I suspect they did not want to ban Baylor and Griner from any major participation - so the nature of the punishment was what it was. That last sentence is an assumption - not a publicized fact reported by the NCAA.

There are some well known situations going on across the country as we speak involving women's basketball teams. it will be interesting to see how they are handled.

Are you aware that Sherri, as well as many other coaches, have also violated NCAA rules? Not saying that makes it right to do so but it also shouldn't condemn a coach who steps outside the lines either.

 

[sybarite]

The NCAA has enough silly rules that you can't help from breaking them. But, thre are rules, and there are rules. Moire than that, there are attitudes.

Nothing that Sherri has done has caused great concern by the national press. I don't know of another women's coach who has been the topic of a negative series of articles in the negative press. The NCAA is extremely weak in some situations, and they are not a measure of ethics. Theirs are in question.

After Sherri develops a program in which players hit opponents with fists, pull opponent's hair, leave the bench for fights with opponents, and fouls players who are out of bounds, we'll discuss Sherri and Kim in the same story. For now, the discussion of Mulkey as having any innocence had better be about Nancy.

 

[skilledserv]

I read there was an allegation that Kim sat next to parents of Griner and perhaps other parents during AAU games in which Kim's daughter played. If true, that seemed like a minor infraction to me. Of course some on this board thought it was worse than if Kim bought them all cars.

She did sit next to them.....her daughter played on the same team. Other coaches in the big 12 have done the same thing. It's not illegal but i agree it doesn't look good

 

[SoonerNorm]

She did sit next to them.....her daughter played on the same team. Other coaches in the big 12 have done the same thing. It's not illegal but i agree it doesn't look good

At least one person here just knew the NCAA was going to create a new Kim Mukley rule because of that incident. :ez-laugh:

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

She did sit next to them.....her daughter played on the same team. Other coaches in the big 12 have done the same thing. It's not illegal but i agree it doesn't look good

Have never heard that before. Are you able to name several of them (and their kids) or is that just chatter?

I think some of you need to read the rules about recruiting violations. They are very stringent - and sometimes do seem harsh. But that has proven necessary due to the ethical failures of some coaches.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Have never heard that before. Are you able to name several of them (and their kids) or is that just chatter?

I think some of you need to read the rules about recruiting violations. They are very stringent - and sometimes do seem harsh. But that has proven necessary due to the ethical failures of some coaches.

Not all recruiting violations are considered serious. The ones Sherri has committed were considered minor.

 

[sybarite]

Actually, it is illegal. There is no exception in the NCAA rules that say that you can contact a recruit or his/her parents beyond the prescribed number of times if your son or daughter happens to be on the same team. It just limits contacts----period. Name the other Big Twelve coaches who have done that. Voepel and Jenkins were alarmed that any coach (anywhere) had stepped into trying to get around the rule by claiming an exception for being a parent. If such and exception were valid, Kim would certainly have her child enrolled at some school that had a highly-rated prospect just so she could visit every game and happen to run into the prospect while visiting her daughter in the locker room. Are accidental contacts even permitted?

 

[skilledserv]

Have never heard that before. Are you able to name several of them (and their kids) or is that just chatter?

I think some of you need to read the rules about recruiting violations. They are very stringent - and sometimes do seem harsh. But that has proven necessary due to the ethical failures of some coaches.

I sat and watch Texas do it last year

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

I sat and watch Texas do it last year

Interesting. Can you give some details? Which coach's child? Which coach? Which recruit's parents was the coach sitting with? etc.

And the statement was made that more than one big-12 coach does this. Do you know of any others - taking your word that Texas is doing this?

One question that came to mind is that not many WBB basketball coaches have daughters who are highly recruited. Does anyone know of any Big-12 coaches who have had this set of circumstances arise in recent years?

Coaches get a limited number of contacts. If it happened once under these circumstances I wonder if that could just count as one legal contact?

 

[True Colors]

I am truly surprised that anyone would defend violating NCAA rules as "no big deal". I would bet if Sherri got us penalized for infractions the response would be vastly different. But if cheating is Ok for some - well I disagree. I want our coaches to stay within the rules.

Will anyone defend the following NCAA rules violations as "no big deal"?

http://newsok.com/article/3934985

The violations range from the routine, coaches sending texts or making calls outside of the designated allowed contact times, to the absurd. Three athletes had to donate $3.83 each to a charity of their choice in order to be reinstated after they were served more than the allowable portion at a graduation banquet.

The violations included a recruit on an official visit charging wireless Internet access at the hotel to the school through her hotel bill, a hand-drawn picture on an envelope sent to a player who was verbally committed and a voluntary practice on a travel day.

In each case, the school presented its proposed corrective actions and punishment to deal with the violations. In most cases, the NCAA accepted those actions, though in a few cases the NCAA added additional corrective action.

Most involved limiting recruiting contact with the involved recruit or all recruits for a period of one to four weeks and the coaching staff of the sport involved given additional rules education.

Here's a breakdown of the violations:

BASEBALL

July 15-Aug. 19, 2012

Violation: Assistant baseball coaches Aric Thomas and Jack Giese and coordinator of baseball operations Ryan Gaines sent numerous text messages to a recruit. The coaches mistakenly believed the recruit had submitted a financial deposit. Resolution: The baseball staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with all recruits for two weeks beginning May 19, 2013. The three were given detailed rules education regarding recruiting and text messaging.

Sept. 5-13, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Aric Thomas made an impermissible phone call on Sept. 5. Assistant coach Jack Giese made one impermissible call on Sept. 13. Combined the two exceeded the one call per week to recruits outside of a contact period. Resolution: The baseball coaching staff were prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with recruits for two weeks beginning May 19. The assistants were provided with detailed rules education regarding recruiting and phone calls.

Sept. 10, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Jack Giese made a phone call to a recruit after another staff member had already used the allowed phone call per week outside of the contact period. Giese also called the recruit three additional times after he was unable to reach the recruit on his earlier contacts. Resolution: The school declared the recruit ineligible for competition at the school and asked the NCAA for reinstatement and prohibited the baseball coaching staff from initiating phone calls to any recruit for two weeks beginning May 19. The coaching staff was also given detailed rules education.

Oct. 23, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Jack Giese sent one impermissible text message to a recruit that he intended to be sent to the recruit's junior college coach. Resolution: The baseball coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls and written correspondence for two weeks beginning Feb. 27, 2013, and the baseball staff was provided detailed rules education.

March 4, 2013

Violation: Assistant baseball coach Aric Thomas provided a meal to three coaches of recruits during a recruiting trip to San Diego. The value of the meal was $40 per person. Thomas said he misunderstood the rule. Resolution: All prospective recruits associated with the coaches were declared ineligible for competition at the school. If the school recruits one of the involved players, the coaches will have to repay the value of the meal to a charity by the coaches before the player(s) being reinstated. Thomas was not reimbursed for expenses incurred during the trip. Thomas and the coaching staff were provided detailed rules education.

May 16, 2013

Violation: Former head coach Sunny Golloway scheduled an impromptu voluntary practice for pitchers and catches on May 16, a day the team was traveling to an away game. Golloway did not realize that no countable athletically related captivities could occur on a designated off day, regardless of whether or not they were voluntary. The violation was discovered about 10 minutes into the practice, which immediately ended. Resolution: The baseball staff was given rules education regarding countable athletically related activities. In addition, the NCAA mandated pitchers and catchers on the team be given an additional day off.

FOOTBALL

Feb. 1, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Bruce Kittle sent congratulatory text to a student-athlete who had signed with OU.

Feb. 1, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Cale Gundy sent two congratulatory text messages to a student-athlete who had signed with OU.

May 14, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Jackie Shipp sent a text message to a recruit who was a junior at the time.

Sept. 12, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Bruce Kittle sent contact information for one recruit to another recruit, who was a junior at the time, when he meant to send it to assistant coach Josh Heupel.

Resolution: For the four violations above, the football staff was precluded from having any written or telephone contact with recruits for two weeks and Kittle, Gundy and Shipp were provided detailed rules education. Contact for the three assistants involved was self-imposed. The NCAA expanded the noncontact period to the whole staff.

July 19, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Bruce Kittle pocket-dialed a recruit a day after receiving a permissible text message from the recruit. Resolution: Football staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with the recruit involved for four weeks and the recruit was declared ineligible for competition at the school barring NCAA reinstatement (self-imposed).

Summer 2012

Violation: Online payments for summer football camps for two high school players were returned for insufficient funds. Attempts by the athletic department, football front office personnel and camp accountant to contact the responsible parties were unsuccessful. Resolution: The student-athletes were declared ineligible until restitution has been made. Coaches and camp directors were provided detailed rules education (self-imposed).

Aug. 13, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Mike Stoops returned a phone call after receiving a call from the recruit that same day. Resolution: Stoops was prohibited from initiating phone calls to recruits for two weeks beginning June 15. Stoops was provided detailed rules education regarding impermissible phone calls.

Aug. 20-Sept. 6, 2012

Violation: A former athlete performed coaching activities while not enrolled as a graduate student. The former athlete graduated from the school, but his GPA was not high enough to enroll in the University Graduate College, so he instead enrolled in undergraduate hours to boost his GPA. Resolution: The school removed the person involved from his coaching position and reassigned him to a non-coaching role. The school added a weekly report to determine the full-time status of all graduate assistants with coaching duties. The person's financial stipend as a GA was not reallocated to another individual.

Sept. 26-Dec. 24, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Tim Kish sent replied to a text message from a recruit on Sept. 26. On Dec. 12, assistant coach Mike Stoops sent a text message to a recruit during the week of the recruit's official visit. On Dec. 14, Kish sent three text messages to a recruit and one to another during official visits. On Dec. 24, Kish sent one holiday greeting text to friends and family and inadvertently included a recruit. Resolution: Kish and Stoops were prohibited from initiating phone calls and correspondence with any recruit for two weeks beginning Jun 16, 2013, and the football coaching staff was provided with detailed rules education. The NCAA extended the two-week ban from initiating contact to recruits to include the entire football staff.

Nov. 5, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Bruce Kittle made a five-minute call to a recruit who was a junior. He claimed it was a pocket dial, but the length of the call led to it being self-reported. Resolution: The recruit was declared ineligible for competition at the school until the NCAA reinstates it and the football staff was provided rules education, though Kittle was no longer employed by the school when the violation was resolved.

Jan. 9, 2013

Violation: Former assistant Jackie Shipp sent a total of three text messages to one or more recruits before written or financial commitment. Resolution: The coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with recruits for two weeks beginning June 30. The coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or written correspondence with the recruit for two weeks beginning Sept. 1.

Jan. 20-22, 2013

Violation: Assistant coach Tim Kish visited a recruit and his parents at their home on Jan. 20. Assistant Bobby Jack Wright visited the recruit's high school head coach Jan. 22. When the coach informed Wright of Kish's visit, Wright left immediately without having contact with the recruit. Resolution: The department reduced the 2013-14 football contact period by two days and conducted rules education with Wright and the football coaching staff. The NCAA ruled the recruit ineligible for competition at the school until eligibility is restored by the organization.

Jan. 21, 2013

Violation: Assistant coach Tim Kish sent three text messages to a recruit's father before written or financial commitment. Kish said he was asking directions to the home for permissible contact. The recruit signed with OU. Resolution: The football coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with any recruit for two weeks beginning Aug. 12. The coaching staff was provided detailed rules education regarding the use of electronic correspondence.

Feb. 14, 2013

Violation: Assistant coaches Tim Kish and Jackie Shipp contacted the same recruit on back-to-back days. Shipp called the recruit on Feb. 13, then Kish followed with a phone call the next day, exceeding the limits on phone calls. The call was made after Shipp had accepted new employment. Resolution: Kish was prohibited from initiating phone calls to recruits for two weeks beginning June 16. The coaching staff was provided detailed rules education regarding recruiting and phone calls. In addition, the NCAA determined the entire coaching staff would be prohibited contact with recruits by telephone for one week.

Feb. 26, 2013

Violation: Assistant coaches Mike Stoops and Cale Gundy sent two text messages to recruits before written or financial commitment. Stoops responded to an incoming text with “Thanks.” Gundy replied to a text message instead of replying by Facebook message. A Facebook message would've been permissible. Resolution: The coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls and written correspondence with the recruits for two weeks beginning Sept. 1. The staff was also provided detailed rules education.

March 9, 2013

Violation: A first-year, non-qualifying junior-college athlete attended a junior day event at the school, at the invitation of assistant coach Bill Bedenbaugh. Resolution: The department reduced the number of off-campus contacts with the recruit. The staff was given detailed rules education regarding unofficial visits and emphasized the importance of completing an unofficial visit request form before the invitation to campus. The NCAA also ruled the athlete ineligible at the school until restored by the NCAA.

June 2, 2013

Violation: Assistant coach Mike Stoops sent a text message to a recruit before his signing a National Letter of Intent, a written offer of admission or financial aid or receipt of a financial deposit. Stoops accidentally sent a return text while reviewing incoming text messages. Resolution: The football coaching staff was prohibited from initiating any contact with the recruit for two weeks beginning Dec. 15. The coaching staff was given rules education regarding text messages.

July 28, 2013

Violation: Assistant coach Cale Gundy and director of player personnel Reed Case exceeded permissible phone calls per week to a Tulsa player that decided to transfer to OU as a walk-on. Gundy and Case believed the calls were allowed because the transfer was already enrolled at the school for the fall. Resolution: The department provided additional rules education regarding telephone contact with recruits as well as transfers.

July 31, 2013

Violation: A student-athlete was awarded financial aid for a period of less than one academic year when the player wasn't on pace to graduate after the semester. The academic adviser did not notify the compliance department of the change in graduation status. Resolution: The player signed a revised financial aid agreement that included the spring semester and the academic services staff were given rules education.

Aug. 2, 2013

Violation: Assistant coach Jay Norvell made an impermissible phone call to a former Texas football player seeking to transfer to OU. Norvell called the player twice on Aug. 2. He believed he could initiate more than one phone call per week. The player eventually enrolled at Arizona. Resolution: The coaching staff was given rules education on the topic of transfers phone calls and recruiting.

Oct. 3, 2013

Violation: The football staff mailed an envelope to a recruit, who was already verbally committed, that included an image that was more than the school's name and logo. The envelope included a hand-drawn picture with the handwritten addressee information. Resolution: The coaching and administrative staffs were given rules education regarding permissible recruiting materials. Also, now all envelopes must be approved by the department before use.

GOLF

Jan. 22, 2013

Violation: An athlete practiced with the golf team from Jan. 8-22 without having completed the NCAA Drug Testing and NCAA Student-Athlete Statement. Resolution: The golf coaching staff was given rules education regarding the involved rules as well as school and NCAA policies and procedures for all incoming student-athletes.

ROWING

Jan. 8, 2013

Violation: Assistant women's coach John Gartin sent a text to a recruit. The text was meant for someone else. Resolution: The rowing coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls and correspondence with the recruit for two weeks beginning Feb. 1, 2013 and the staff was provided detailed rules education.

MEN'S BASKETBALL

April 13, 2013

Violation: Head coach Lon Kruger commented on an unsigned recruit during the television broadcast of the school's spring football game. The recruit signed April 19. Resolution: Kruger was given detailed rules education regarding publicity.

April 17, 2013

Violation: Athletic department administrator Michael Alford tweeted congratulation to head coach Lon Kruger and OU basketball after a recruit committed to the school. The recruit signed with OU that same day. Alford deleted his tweet within five minutes. Resolution: The department provided detailed rules education regarding publicity.

SOCCER

July 19, 2012

Violation: Assistant women's coach Kacey Burke sent four text messages to a recruit before written or financial commitment. Burke responded to a text sent by the recruit, related to a camp. The recruit signed with OU. Resolution: The women's soccer coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls and written correspondence with all recruits for two weeks beginning Aug. 1. The staff was provided detailed rules education regarding camp communication.

Oct. 14, 2012

Violation: Assistant women's coach Kacey Burke inadvertently sent a text message to a recruit's father after the father texted Burke congratulations following a game. The recruit later signed with the school. Resolution: The soccer coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls and correspondence with recruits for one weeks beginning May 24, 2013, and the staff was provided detailed rules education.

May 8, 2013

Violation: A recruit, staying in the Embassy Suites on an official visit, ordered Internet service for $9.95. Assistant women's coach Graeme Abel did not notice the additional expense on the bill. Resolution: The recruit was ruled ineligible for competition at the school until repayment for the bill is made to the charity of her choice. The coaching staff was provided detailed rules education regarding additional lodging expenses. The form given to recruits on official visits was modified to include mention of additional lodging expenses.

SOFTBALL

Aug. 16, 2012-Sept. 24, 2012

Violation: Director of softball operations Sharon Bell sent 13 text messages intended for current player to a recruit. Resolution: Softball staff was prohibited from initiating any correspondence with the recruit for four weeks beginning Sept. 30, 2013 and Bell was provided detailed rules education.

Nov. 5, 2012

Violation: A recruit was invited to an unofficial visit during an NCAA recruiting dead period for softball. Head coach Patty Gasso realized the mistake during the visit, ended the visit at that time and self-reported the violation. Resolution: The unofficial visit was counted as one of the school's permissible off-campus contacts and reduced the number of allowed off-campus contacts with the recruit by one. The NCAA also ruled the athlete ineligible for competition at the school until her eligibility is restored by the organization.

TRACK AND FIELD

April 18, 2013

Violation: Assistant track coach Brian Blutreich sent a text message to an assistant track coach to request an email address. After the email address was sent to him by another number, he replied with “thanks.” He was replying to the recruit. Resolution: The track staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with the recruit for two weeks beginning June 19. Blutreich was given detailed rules education.

VOLLEYBALL

July 18, 2013

Violation: Head coach Santiago Restrepo and assistant Erik Peterson inadvertently sent five text messages to a recruit when replying to a group text. The texts weren't directed at the recruit. Resolution: The coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls and correspondence to all recruits for two weeks beginning Oct. 2. The coaching staff was provided detailed rules education regarding use of electronic correspondence in recruiting.

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL

April 16, 2013

Violation: Assistant coach Pam DeCosta made a phone call to a recruit's parent before the permissible date, asking for the recruit's schedule. Resolution: The recruit was declared ineligible for competition at the school and the school requested her reinstatement. The coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls to the recruit for two weeks beginning Sept. 1. The coaching staff was provided detailed rules education.

WRESTLING

July 25, 2012

Violation: Assistant coach Michael Lightner sent an impermissible text message. He sent another three impermissible messages on or around Aug. 18. In addition, assistant trainer Christopher Watson sent four impermissible texts from Aug. 14-17 and assistant coach Jared Frayer sent one impermissible text Aug. 19. All texts, which were administrative in nature, were sent to a wrestler who all three believed had signed a housing agreement and paid a deposit, making contact permissible. Resolution: The wrestling staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with all recruits for two weeks beginning May 26, 2013. The three were given detailed rules education regarding recruiting and text messaging.

Oct. 27, 2012

Violation: Assistant wrestling coach Jared Frayer sent a text message to a recruit's mother before written or financial commitment. Frayer believed he was texting a former wrestler. Resolution: The wrestling staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence with any recruits for two weeks beginning July 20. The coaching staff was given detailed rules education regarding electronic correspondence.

July 4, 2013

Violation: Two wrestlers ate meals at a booster's home. The meals were valued at $10 each. Resolution: The athletes have donated the value of the meals, $40 and $10, to charities of their choice. All student-athletes and coaches, as well as the involved booster, were given additional extra-benefit education.

July 17, 2013

Violation: Assistant wrestling coach Michael Lightner made a phone call to a recruit on July 14. Head coach Mark Cody made two additional calls on July 17. Cody said he misunderstood the rule, which allows unlimited phone calls on the day of an off-campus contact. Resolution: The coaching staff was prohibited from initiating phone calls or correspondence to recruits for two weeks beginning Dec. 8. The coaching staff was given detailed rules education regarding off-campus contact exception for phone calls.

OTHER

December 2012

Violation: A student-athlete who was a midyear transfer and not eligible for competition was given two team awards. The awards included a watch valued at $99 for the teams' NCAA second-round participation and a ring valued at $179 for the Big 12 Championship. Resolution: The athlete returned the watch in new condition and donated the amount of the ring to charity.

May 10, 2013

Violation: Three current student-athletes received food in excess of NCAA regulation at a graduation banquet. The three had graduated from the school but returned for an additional season of competition. The players were provided pasta in excess of the permissible amount allowed. Resolution: The three were required to donate $3.83 each (the cost of the pasta serving) to a charity of their choice in order to be reinstated. The department provided rules education to applicable athletics department staff members.

Sept. 19, 2013

Violation: Director of Student-Athlete Academic Services James Troxel exchanged impermissible text messages with a football player from Iowa Western Community College who was on the OU campus. The athlete had previously been at Nevada, where Troxel had previously worked. Resolution: Academics and Student Life Department personnel were provided rules education regarding telephone contact with prospective recruits. The player was declared ineligible for competition at the school.

 

[skilledserv]

Interesting. Can you give some details? Which coach's child? Which coach? Which recruit's parents was the coach sitting with? etc.

And the statement was made that more than one big-12 coach does this. Do you know of any others - taking your word that Texas is doing this?

One question that came to mind is that not many WBB basketball coaches have daughters who are highly recruited. Does anyone know of any Big-12 coaches who have had this set of circumstances arise in recent years?

Coaches get a limited number of contacts. If it happened once under these circumstances I wonder if that could just count as one legal contact?

TCU did the same thing 2 years ago......I'm not here to get anyone in trouble but it is done