NCAA Investigation

In December 1999, the daughter-in-law and two former business partners of Ted Harrod, Sr., owner of J&H Trucking in Dallas, Texas claimed that during the mid and late1990s Harrod offered summer employment to Arkansas athletes at his Dallas, Texas company. During the course of the divorce of Ted Harrod, Jr and his wife Karey, and a pending lawsuit involving shareholders in J&H, allegations were levied that Harrod had “employed” athletes, paid them excessive wages, and paid them for hours they did not work. The opposing parties also alleged that these activities were done with the express knowledge of Frank Broyles.

Harrod, a North Little Rock native, was a major contributor to the Arkansas athletic programs, specifically a “Broyles-Matthews” donor. He had an exit named in his honor at Bud Walton arena and had recently pledged $300,000 towards the renovation and maintenance of the Frank Broyles Complex.

Not only was he a big-time booster, he was a close personal friend of Frank Broyles and his wife. Harrod and his wife traveled with the Broyles’ around the world with the teams during athletic events, the families often vacationed together, and they stayed in Broyles home during Fayetteville games. Broyles served as Harrod’s best man when he married his second wife in 1989. Because of his close personal relationship with Broyles, he was given free access to the sidelines during athletic events, he and his son, Harrod, Jr. donned in “coaches apparel," and was also given unlimited access to the locker rooms during sporting events. Reportedly, Harrod, Sr. occasionally flew on the team charter to sporting events.

The allegations came to light one week prior to the 2000 Cotton Bowl, and since a current player was allegedly involved a preliminary “investigation” was conducted prior to the Cotton Bowl by Jesse Branch, the Arkansas compliance director. In essence, the department talked to the current player involved and the player denied the allegations. No players were suspended for the Cotton Bowl, although it was later discovered that five current players may have received improper compensation, including Marvin Caston, the current Arkansas football compliance officer.

In January, after the game, the UofA notified the SEC of their concerns that an infraction may have occurred related to the allegations and the school and the conference began a joint investigation.

The department required all athletes employed during off-season to report their employment activities to the athletic department and the compliance department was responsible for monitoring athlete employment to insure they were in fact working for fair market value and the employers were maintaining proper records. However, the athletic department denied they were aware that Harrod employed 20 athletes in his Dallas firm during the late 1990s.

During the initial six-month investigation, Arkansas concluded that 20-25 athletes worked for Harrod from 1994-1999 and may have received more than “fair market wages.” Due to the company’s poor record keeping, it was impossible to determine the extent of the over-payments, but the final report forwarded to the SEC and the NCAA in July 2000 stated there had been a “series” of violations. Arkansas self-reported the violations as a secondary violation to the NCAA and self-imposed penalties.

The report stated that Arkansas had in place a system to monitor the employment of student-athletes on a routine basis that followed the recommendations by the SEC. Businesses who employ athletes are required to sign and return a certification regarding athlete employment and athletes are required to self-report their employment.

Broyles stated further in the report to the NCAA that through the course of their close relationship he had often stressed to Harrod the importance of following the NCAA regulations with regard to employment of the athletes and Harrod assured Broyles that the rules were being followed.

However, Harrod’s company had sent no employment certification form to Arkansas since 1996. Further, Broyles and the department maintained that they were unaware of the fact that 20+ athletes had personally contacted Harrod in Dallas, Texas and obtained employment. Reportedly, not one student-athlete notified the compliance department of their employment, in spite of repeated instructions to do so.

Broyles stated in the original report that while the violations were “personally embarrassing” due to his close relationship with Harrod, the company’s poor business practices and shoddy record keeping caused the violations. He accepted responsibility for a serious failure in judgment only with regard to his “association” with Harrod.

The report also stated that none of the current coaches had knowledge of the player’s employment off-season and none had close contact with Harrod. Houston Nutt denied ever being involved in the matter. However, the staff should certainly have been aware of the nature of Harrod’s relationship with Broyles and the program considering Harrod and his son were fixtures in their “coach’s apparel” both on the sidelines during games and in the locker rooms on a regular basis during this time. Also, Nutt and Harrod had become acquainted during Nutt’s tenor as an assistant at Arkansas, and during the hiring process in 1997 Nutt had called Harrod and talked with him about the process.

The report concluded that the violations were secondary in nature, and not major, the two standards the NCAA would use to classify any violations or infractions committed by a school.

Arkansas maintained their determination that the violations were “isolated” and therefore secondary in nature. However, it is interesting that within the same report, Arkansas admitted that there were a “series” of violations which occurred over an extended period of time, it involved as many as 20 athletes, allegedly not one athlete reported their employment, Harrod had not filed an employee form since 1996 even though Broyles said he repeatedly spoke with Harrod regarding the importance of following the NCAA rules regarding employment of athletes and Broyles and Harrod were close, personal friends.

While Arkansas’ initial penalty proposal was not listed in the final report, faculty representative Howard Brill did forward a letter to Chancellor John White on June 29, 2000 stating that SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer strongly urged Arkansas to accept more responsibility and impose stiffer penalties and not place all the blame on Harrod’s poor business practices. He urged officials to stiffen the self-imposed penalties in order to prevent the Committee on Infractions from opening the matter. He feared the NCAA might elect to investigate both the employment and the department’s supervision of student-athlete jobs with an individual who was both a booster and a close personal friend of Broyles.

As a result of that plea, Arkansas self-imposed penalties which included minor scholarship reductions for 2001 (2 scholarships and 3 recruiting class signees) and 2002 (1 scholarship and 2 signees) and the one game suspension of the only player accused who still remained on the team in 2000. Further, Ted Harrod, Sr. was banned from Arkansas athletics for 5 years and his pledge of $300,000 was forfeited, although it was later discovered that the department had already accepted $75,000 of that pledge.

On December 7 2001, seventeen months after the University and the SEC submitted their joint findings, the NCAA sent a “preliminary letter of inquiry” to Arkansas. The letter put the institution on notice that the NCAA would be conducting an additional investigation. A preliminary investigation is initiated to determine if an official inquiry is warranted and whether a secondary or major violation has occurred.

The letter stated, “At this time, the possible violations primarily involve the provision of extra benefits to numerous student athletes by athletic representatives, and the recruiting practices of members of the football coaching staff. Please note that new information often is developed during an investigation that leads to expanded inquires.” In reference to the University appeal to “fairness” regarding the extended period of time which had elapsed, the NCAA responded that “you should be aware that the delay occurred mainly due to the fact that it took some time to locate and interview some principals, and it took some encouragement for others to submit to an interview with the enforcement staff.”

After the University of Arkansas’ documents related to their initial investigation were obtained through the state’s Freedom of Information Act in 2002, it revealed allegations that had not been previously made public. Accusations of loans to a player’s parent for legal fees, free gasoline and long distance calls by players from J&H Truck Services, meals bought for basketball players, payments to players who never actually worked and the fact that Frank Broyles specifically knew about Harrod’s improper payments to players. While these accusations could never be substantiated by documentation, neither could the reports of players being overpaid. However, the University acknowledged and admitted the latter in their self-report. To stipulate that Broyles or the staff had knowledge of the improprieties would have resulted in crimpling penalties.

In response to the NCAA preliminary letter of inquiry, the University hired a $155-an-hour consultant, The Compliance Group, to assist them during the NCAA investigation.

In May 2002, University officials and the NCAA enforcement staff met after the preliminary investigation by the NCAA. The University hoped to accelerate the process through a “summary disposition process” that would reduce the cost and time involved in infraction cases and avoid an official letter of inquiry. According to the NCAA guide, the NCAA and the University would jointly prepare a summary disposition report which would outline the violations which occurred and detail the proposed penalties. The NCAA Infractions Committee would then review the disposition and either accept the findings and recommendations and close the case, or reject the findings and recommendations, at which time the NCAA would issue an official letter of inquiry and the committee would hold a hearing.

By agreeing to a summary disposition, the University of Arkansas must acknowledge that a major violation occurred and they would have to justify the extent of their self-imposed sanctions. The rational for Arkansas agreeing to classify the violations as major was the fact that the UofA failed to detect that a major booster overpaid players over an extended period of time.

Ultimately in the joint report filed in July 2002, the NCAA enforcement staff and Arkansas determined through their investigation that the infractions were more egregious than originally self-reported by the UofA two years prior. The enforcement staff found, and Arkansas concurred, that the violation of overcompensation of 20 players in the amount of $4300 by J&H Truck Service should in fact be classified as a major violation rather than a secondary violation. Both agreed that the university failed to properly monitor student-athlete employment and further it was reported that Athletic Trainer Dean had received a salary supplement of $21,000 from Harrod and other individuals to off-set the financial burden created by the DEA investigation of Weber’s dispersal of prescription narcotic drugs to athletes in 1995.

In the joint report, the enforcement staff stated they could find no solid proof that Broyles had direct knowledge of the over-payments although he and the department should have monitored the situation closely considering Broyles relationship with Harrod. Nor could they find proof to substantiate claims that money was given to athletes who did not work for Harrod. The university did acknowledge that, regardless of the information they provided J&H regarding NCAA rules pertaining to student-athlete employment, “for a variety of reasons it should have done a better job of monitoring the company in order to detect any overcompensation to student-athletes.” The University staff maintained they were unaware that Harrod employed athletes in 1998 and 1999.

As a result of the joint investigation and in the joint report, Arkansas explained in detail the reasoning for each self-imposed penalty. The program expanded the scholarship reductions and committed to increase its job-monitoring program. They agreed to increase the requirements for educating athletes and boosters regarding employment and they agreed to hire an outside firm to develop a monitoring system for boosters who employ athletes.

The University would further ban all boosters and other nonessential people from the sidelines during games and the locker rooms.

They extended their ban on Harrod’s involvement with Arkansas athletics to seven years.

No action was taken regarding the improper payment to Weber although it was classified as a violation.

Although typical of the Infractions Committee, Arkansas officials did not impose a probationary period for the program, although they did consider it. They concluded that the extensive length of time the program was investigated constituted a probationary period.

They did not limit off-campus recruiting or penalize the current coaching staff, citing the fact that the current coaching staff was unaware of the violations that occurred in 1998 and 1999. However, one could conclude that considering Harrod was a very prominent and present booster during those years and it was the staff's responsibility to know about and monitor the players employment, the staff could have some responsibility in the matter.

They did not impose a postseason ban because players who may have benefited from the overcompensation were no longer members of the team nor did the violations reflect a “lack of institutional control.”

Upon receipt, the NCAA Infractions Committee reviewed the summary disposition report and in September issued a list of follow-up questions to the University. The committee questioned their efforts to obtain Harrod’s business records in order to determine the extent of the overpayments, they questioned their initial investigation prior to the 1999 Cotton Bowl and they questioned the extent of Broyles knowledge related to the matters, as well as additional questions.

One of their questions related specifically to the players involved who participated in the 1999 Cotton Bowl. Marvin Caston was one of 5 players specifically mentioned who may have been ineligible for the bowl game if school officials had knowledge of the overpayments at the time. Caston is currently the Compliance Director for the University of Arkansas football program.

Arkansas responded to the 21 different inquiries in a 92-page response.

In November 2002, the NCAA sent the University of Arkansas an official letter of inquiry. This letter placed the University on notice that the Infractions Committee basically had additional concerns regarding the investigation. The University sent an additional 155-page response to the allegations outlined in the letter of inquiry, basically reiterating the original statements made in the summary disposition report and the response to the committees inquiries in September. On January 18, 2003 University of Arkansas officials and the NCAA Committee on Infractions met to discuss the case.

In the final disposition of the case, the Infractions Committee stated and levied these additional penalties:
1. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured.
2. The university shall be placed on three years of probation beginning April 17, 2003, and concluding April 16, 2006.
3. In addition to its self-imposed reduction of total grants-in-aid in football through the 2004-05 academic year, the university shall also reduce total football grants-in-aid by two for the 2005-06 academic year, thus limiting the institution to no more than 83 total grants-in-aid in football for five years (2001-02 to 2005-06). (Note: The institution annually awarded 85 grants-in-aid during the previous four years prior to the imposition of the reduction in total scholarships starting with the 2001-02 academic year.)
4. The number of expense paid visits to the institution's campus in the sport of football shall be limited to 50 for the 2003-04 academic year. Further, the university shall not "bank" any of the unused visits from the 2003-04 academic year and add them to the total visits available in the 2004-05 academic year. (Note 1: NCAA Bylaw 13.7.1.6 specifies that Division I-A football programs are permitted up to 56 official paid visits per year. Note 2: The institution averaged 54.6 visits during the four-year period starting with the 1998-99 academic year and concluding with the 2001-02 academic year.)
5. During this period of probation, the institution shall:
a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition;
b. Submit a preliminary report to the director of the committees on infractions by May 30, 2003, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and
c. File with the committee's director annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by January 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on adherence to NCAA legislation with regard to the employment of student-athletes, the monitoring of such employment, and compliance with NCAA legislation relating to outside income for institutional staff members. The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.
6. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's chancellor shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case.
The NCAA Infraction Committee’s report in entirety is published at
http://www.ncaa.org

http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2003041701in.htm
on the NCAA web-site.