DRAFT

PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Syracuse University Responses to NCAA Allegations and Findings

Allegation No. 1Academic Integrity Matter Involving Mens Basketball Student-Athlete
(2012)
The University reported that in January 2012, a (now former) mens basketball student-athlete
committed academic misconduct. The misconduct occurred when the student-athlete submitted
a paper in a course he already passed in an effort to improve his course grade and restore
NCAA eligibility. All Syracuse University students have the ability to seek an instructors
permission to submit additional work to improve a previous grade. The submitted paper was
prepared with assistance from two (now former) athletics employees, both of whom were aware
their actions were improper and wrong. Their actions, done in secret, went against clear
instructions that the student-athlete needed to complete the assignment on his own, and
constituted a clear violation of the Universitys academic integrity policy and NCAA rules. The
University has acknowledged their wrongful conduct and accepts responsibility for their actions.
Since this time, and prior to joining the Atlantic Coast Conference, Syracuse significantly
revamped its student-athlete academic support function, relying more on the services of full-time
staff rather than part-time employees. Since fall 2012, the University has expanded its full-time
academic support staff from five to 12 employees; increased tutoring appointments from 261
appointments per week to 790 appointments per week in fall 2014; instituted a more intensive
and proactive system for supporting student-athlete academic performance and class
attendance; increased cumulative GPA for all student-athletes to 3.06 for spring 2014 (mens
basketball improved from 2.29 in 2011 to 2.78 in spring 2014); and improved the APR
(Academic Progress Rate) for mens basketball to a perfect 1.000. The Universitys effort to
strengthen academic support for student-athletes is part of its commitment to ensure full
compliance with its own academic integrity policy and all applicable NCAA rules.

Allegation No. 2Academic Extra Benefits (2010-2012)

As a result of an internal investigation the University conducted following the discovery of
Allegation No. 1, the University found other instances in which one of the (now former) athletics
employees involved in Allegation No. 1, and one (now former) athletics tutor, may have provided
inappropriate edits on drafts of papers or take-home exams for three other student-athletes. In
one instance, the employee also may have suggested an outline for an oral class presentation.

DRAFT
PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
The available evidence consisted largely of metadata associated with the electronic files. Such
metadata evidence can be informative, as it may suggest whose computer or login ID was used
when a document was revised or saved. However, metadata also can be misleading if a student
uses another persons computer, and it often does not show the full nature of who may have
made changes to a document.
The University provided all of the available evidence to the NCAA, which consisted of hundreds
of thousands of documents. Syracuse also submitted the evidence it had uncovered for review
through the Universitys academic integrity review process that applies to all students. Under
those procedures, both at Syracuse and many other prominent institutions, the course instructor
is principally responsible for determining whether there has been a violation of the Universitys
academic integrity policy, given the nature of the assignment at issue and the type of
collaboration or assistance that may be allowed. Consistent with this process, the faculty
instructors were provided with an opportunity to review the evidence that had been found
regarding these assignments. Since the reviews were conducted, in some cases, more than a
year after the courses had concluded, the final assignments submitted by the student-athletes
were generally no longer available to compare with the other available evidence. In all but one
case, the course instructors determined not to pursue a violation of the Universitys academic
integrity policy, in part because they could not determine what work the student-athlete had
actually submitted and how that final submission compared to the other evidence.
In one instance, the course instructor did find that the facts established a violation of the
Universitys academic integrity policy. The student-athlete involved exercised his right under the
policy to appeal that determination. The appeal was heard by a three-person panel, which
reviewed the evidence and received testimony from witnesses. At the conclusion of that
hearing, the panel determined that a violation of the academic review policy was not
established.
Consistent with NCAA standards, because the Universitys academic integrity process had
concluded that violations of the policy could not be proven, the University informed the NCAA
that no academic misconduct had occurred under NCAA rules. As a result, the NCAA could not
charge the facts underlying Allegation No. 2 as academic misconduct, because it could not do
so under NCAA policy. As the NCAA determined in its April 15, 2014 Official Interpretation of
Academic Misconduct, an institution has the authority to determine whether any academic
misconduct has occurred, consistent with policies applicable to all students and prospective
students.
Instead, the NCAA Enforcement Staff in Syracuses infractions case charged the facts in
Allegation No. 2 as a violation of the NCAAs extra benefit rule, which generally prohibits
student-athletes from receiving benefits that are not available to other students. Although the
two part-time employees may have violated University policies, and the University does not
condone their actions, the University did not believe the NCAAs extra benefit rule properly
applied in this circumstance.

DRAFT
PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
The disagreement over the scope of the extra benefit rule was a principled one. Since the
NCAA recognizes that academic institutionsnot the NCAAshould determine whether
academic misconduct occurs, the University believed that it was improper for the NCAA to then
second-guess that determination by faculty by charging the identical alleged conduct as an
extra benefit. This was particularly true because there was no suggestion, by the NCAA or
anyone else at any time, that the Universitys investigation and academic integrity review that
was undertaken for the assignments at issue had been anything but rigorous. There was no
allegation or evidence that the student-athletes involved had received any preferential treatment
in connection with the application of the Universitys academic integrity review process.
Moreover, the University maintained that even if the extra benefit rule could apply, the evidence
was inadequate to prove a violation. This was because actual course work physically submitted
for credit generally could not be located by the instructor or the University, due to the length of
time between when the course was taught and when the review was undertaken. Without this
evidence, it was impossible to know whether that offer of assistance had been accepted or used
by the student-athlete. This same failure of proof would apply in other contexts of the extra
benefit rule. Generally, a violation of the NCAAs extra benefit rule cannot be based on
evidence that someone attempted to provide a benefit to a student-athlete; there must be
evidence that the benefit actually was accepted by the student-athlete. That type of evidence
was lacking.
Ultimately, in January 2015, two NCAA committees involved in rules interpretation concluded
that an extra benefit violation could be established on the type of facts alleged by the NCAA in
Allegation No. 2. It was after the adverse rulings of these committees that Syracuse determined
to self-impose a postseason ban on the mens basketball team.
Syracuse takes its responsibilities to maintain academic integrity extremely seriously, and it
does not condone what the tutor and mentor involved in this allegation may have done.
Syracuse provides substantial training to the individuals who mentor and tutor student-athletes
regarding the type of assistance that is permissible and what is not. Both of the individuals
involved in this allegation had received such training, had acknowledged the rules, and had
made a commitment to follow them. As discussed above, in response to Allegation No. 1, the
University took significant steps to strengthen academic support services for student-athletes.
Syracuse is committed to ensuring that its student-athletes receive only appropriate support for
the coursework.
Allegation No. 3Failure to Cooperate by Former Employee
This allegation was not charged against the University.
Allegation No. 4Failure to Follow the Terms of the Universitys Drug Education and
Deterrence Program (2001-2009)
NCAA rules do not require Division I athletic programs to maintain a drug testing or
rehabilitation program. However, the University has had a drug testing program in place for
many years. The University itself discovered and self-reported to the NCAA that between 2001
3

DRAFT
PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
and 2009, there were instances in which the drug testing program within the Athletics
Department was administered in a manner inconsistent with the actual written terms of the
policy in place at the time.
Although the University acknowledges that the practices of the Athletics Department did not
comport at all times with the written terms of the drug testing program, the University maintains
these violations were not intended to, and did not, create a competitive advantage for any team.
The University voluntarily adopted its drug testing and treatment policy. At any time, Syracuse
could have simply amended the program to more accurately conform to the actual practices of
the Department. Additionally, the positive drug tests at issue in this violation all involved
marijuana. While concerning, it is not a performance-enhancing drug.
Additionally, the Universitys investigation uncovered that these deviations from written policy
terms were inadvertent and were largely driven by efforts to monitor for drug use and provide
rehabilitative treatment for student-athletes who had used marijuana. Further scrutiny also found
the written policy to be overly long, complex, and confusing to apply. It lacked clear procedures
for certain aspects of administering the policy, and in other ways the written policy was not
consistent with long-time practices of the Department dating back to 2001. In some instances,
the manner in which the Athletics Department was administering drug tests was actually stricter
than what the policy provided.
Since first disclosing this violation to the NCAA, the University never changed its position that
violations of its drug testing and rehabilitation program had occurred. However, the University
did take steps to protect the privacy of student-athletes in compliance with federal law. In 2009,
after these violations were uncovered, the University completely revamped its drug testing
program. There have been no further violations of the policy.
Allegation Nos. 5, 6, 8Extra Benefits and Outside Income Provided By Local YMCA
Employee (2004-2005)
The University discovered, reported, and admitted the violations that arose in relation to an
employee at the Rome, New York YMCA. The payments made by this YMCA employee
occurred a decade ago, in 2004 and 2005.
The Athletics Department makes great efforts to educate its players and staff members about
the extra benefits rule, and to be careful to avoid violating the extra benefits rule by accepting
gifts or favors by boosters. In this particular case, the Athletics Department repeatedly worked to
ensure the YMCA employee understood and followed NCAA rules. Despite these compliance
efforts, violations of NCAA rules occurred.
The YMCA employee was not employed by Syracuse University. He did not make financial
donations to the University, he was not a season ticket holder and he had no involvement in
recruiting. He was a state worker and a part-time employee of a local YMCA. His affiliation with
the University arose when in 2004 he began to mentor a mens basketball player. An extensive
investigation by the University, and then by the NCAA, did not show that anyone within the
Athletics Department knew that he was providing inappropriate payments to players.
4

DRAFT
PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Notably, these payments had nothing to do with recruiting. Instead, the YMCA employee viewed
the payments as compensation for services the student-athletes had provided to the YMCA.
Nonetheless, the University accepts that these payments and other benefits were a violation of
the rules, and it takes responsibility for the violations that occurred. Both the YMCA employee
and the Rome YMCA were disassociated from the University years ago in the wake of the
Universitys discovery of what occurred.
Allegation No. 7Exceeding the Permissible Number of Complimentary Tickets (20032007)
The University agrees that the above described YMCA employee received an impermissible
number of complimentary admissions tickets to mens basketball home and postseason games,
in violation of the NCAAs limitation on complimentary tickets. But this violation was entirely
inadvertent. It occurred as a result of a misunderstanding of whether he was or was not part of
the group of individuals, including high school basketball coaches, who may only receive a
limited number of complimentary tickets. Compliance training on this issue has been
strengthened since the violation was discovered and there now is greater scrutiny given to the
list of individuals who receive complimentary admissions.
Allegation No. 9Failure of Three Mens Football Student-Athletes to Comply with the
Work Requirements of an Internship (2005-2007)
Between 2005 and 2007, three student-athletes received academic credit in the same course
for internships at the YMCA. The student-athletes misrepresented the nature or amount of work
they performed at the YMCA. The University subsequently rescinded credit for this course
through its academic integrity review process. These athletes did not participate in any NCAA
competition after the violation, and there was no evidence that the instructor had any reason to
know about the violation. The University self-reported this violation to the NCAA and agrees with
the finding that it constitutes a violation.
Allegation No. 10Head Coach Responsibility
The University strongly disagrees with the finding that Coach Boeheim failed to promote an
atmosphere of compliance within his program and failed to monitor the compliance of those who
report to him. Coach Boeheim has built a lengthy and accomplished career as head coach of
the Syracuse mens basketball team, with a strong record of overall compliance during the
course of five decades.
After an investigation of nearly eight years, examining hundreds of thousands of records dating
back as far as 2001, there is no evidence that Coach Boeheim was personally involved in, or
actually aware of, any violation of NCAA rules. There is no support in the record for the finding
that Coach Boeheim failed to promote and maintain an atmosphere of compliance within his
program. Throughout literally hundreds of witness interviews, no person questioned Coach
Boeheims commitment to compliance.

DRAFT
PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
In fact, there is abundant evidence that Coach Boeheim has emphasized and demanded
compliance within his program. Witnesses affirmed in interviews that Coach Boeheim has taken
compliance with NCAA rules very seriously. They affirmed that, for the past two decades, Coach
Boeheim has conducted regular meetings with members of the Compliance Office, so that both
he and his staff can be educated about NCAA rules. He and his coaching staff take tests
regarding the information covered in compliance meetings. Witnesses affirmed that Coach
Boeheim regularly and routinely raises concerns to the Compliance Office, and that he follows
the guidance of that office.
In his nearly 40 years serving as Head Coach of the mens basketball team for Syracuse, Coach
Boeheim has demonstrated that he is a person of character. He is a coach who expects
excellence and integrity, both on and off the basketball court. His teams success on the
basketball court is complimented by the positive, supportive and countless ways that he has
shaped the lives of his players. He has a steadfast commitment to the academic integrity of his
student-athletes. Coach Boeheim has set a proper tone of compliance; he monitors and takes
actions to ensure compliance; and the violations here did not occur because of any failure by
him to monitor, or because of any disrespect for compliance. The University believes the NCAA
was wrong to find that he failed in his responsibilities.
Allegation No. 11Institutional Control
The University also strongly disagrees with the NCAAs finding that the University failed to
exercise institutional control and did not adequately monitor the conduct and administration of
its athletics programs. Although the lengthy investigation revealed violations of NCAA rules, it
also established that Syracuse University is committed to compliance and has rigorous controls
in place, which it has significantly enhanced as a result of the violations that occurred.
The evidence showed, time after time, efforts by the Athletics Department and the Office of
Athletics Compliance to ensure that all coaches, staff, student-athletes, and other relevant
individuals understood and complied with NCAA rules. Academic support staff received
extensive training on NCAA rules. The individuals involved in Allegation 1 were specifically
instructed that the Athletics Department could not participate in the efforts by the student-athlete
to restore his eligibility through the submission of additional coursework. The two academic
support employees involved in Allegation 2 were properly trained regarding the tutoring
assistance they could provide. The YMCA employee specifically was instructed by the Director
of Compliance that he could not provide extra benefits to student-athletes, and the YMCA
employee provided repeated assurances that he would not. These were not institutional
violations, but violations committed by individuals who had been adequately trained or
instructed and had provided express, reliable assurances that they understood the rules and
would follow them, and unfortunately proactively chose not to comply.
Syracuse University values and prioritizes compliance with NCAA rules. The University is
committed to constantly improving and enhancing its policies and processes. As a result,
Syracuse has made significant enhancements to its compliance function in the wake of the
events covered by the Committees report.
6

DRAFT
PRIVILEGED AND HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Allegation No. 12Unapproved Appearances at Charity Events (2004-2007)
The University discovered and self-reported to the NCAA that between 2004 and 2007, some
student-athletes appeared at promotional and charity events without signing an adequate
release or obtaining prior approval. These violations were inadvertent and procedural in nature.
Years ago, the University clarified its approval forms and has instituted new procedures that will
ensure compliance with this rule going forward.
Allegation No. 13Participation in Outside Competition (2005)
The University discovered and self-reported this violation to the NCAA. A womens basketball
student-athlete participated in an unauthorized charity basketball game, in violation of NCAA
rules. The purpose of the game was to raise money for worthy charities, and the student-athlete
received no financial or other benefit for participating. She did not participate in NCAAsanctioned competition following the violation.
Allegation No. 14Extra Benefits (Transportation) by Syracuse Staff (2004-2005)
The University discovered and self-reported these violations to the NCAA, but the violations
were extremely minor. Two student-athletes were given impermissible complimentary
transportation. These rides enabled one student-athlete to volunteer for a non-profit
organization and allowed the other student-athlete to attend class.

###