JSU football coach candidates


Status
Not open for further replies.
Both Johnnie and L.C. admitted to making mistakes at TSU. But still, neither one were found guilty of major violations. The violations they were found guilty of weren't even enough for them to be fired.




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:

Wednesday, January 5, 2000 Jane Jankowski
Public Information Coordinator II




TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY PLACED ON PROBATION, GRANTS-IN-AID REDUCED IN SEVERAL SPORTS


INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA---Tennessee State University has been placed on probation for three years and grants-in-aid have been reduced in several sports for violations of NCAA legislation governing financial aid, recruiting, extra benefits, institutional control and ethical conduct.

One aspect of the case involved financial aid violations that occurred from the 1993-94 through 1996-97 academic years. During this time, 34 student-athletes in the sports of football, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's track, women's volleyball, women's tennis, and softball received athletics financial aid that exceeded full grants-in-aid limits. The total dollar amount was $16,542. The university also exceeded team limitations on financial aid equivalencies in three sports during the same period.

The violations were self-reported by the university. It was determined that the excess awards occurred because some financial aid sources were not included in the calculation of institutionally administered financial aid and there was no coordination between the athletics and financial aid departments to include all sources of aid.

Many of the amounts over awarded were small, but the committee determined the violations were major because there was a pattern of neglect in the management of financial athletics aid and because of the large total dollar amount involved. The university proposed financial aid penalties for some of the violations in 1997, and they were accepted by the NCAA, but the university took no action to impose them.

Among other violations, the university failed to provide appropriate written notice to many student-athletes about the renewal or nonrenewal of their athletics aid during two academic years, improper transportation and complimentary tickets were provided to student-athletes in the football program, and improper recruiting contacts were made by members of the football coaching staff.

For example, in mid-1996, football staff members contacted an enrolled student-athlete at another university to encourage the individual to transfer to the university without first obtaining a release allowing such a conversation to occur.

The committee also found a lack of institutional control, specifically with the conduct and administration of the university's football program. The university failed to monitor distribution of the head football coach's complimentary tickets; failed to complete squad list forms, which led to excess financial aid awards to student-athletes; and failed to investigate possible NCAA rules violations.

In addition, the committee determined that an assistant football coach failed to cooperate and violated the provisions of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to university investigators and the NCAA's enforcement staff.

The university imposed a number of corrective actions, which were considered by the committee. Among the actions, the university:


Placed the athletics department directly under the control of the institution's president rather than to the office of the vice-president for student affairs.

Terminated the former compliance coordinator effective June 21, 1999, and hired a replacement.

Issued a letter of reprimand to the head football coach and barred his participation in one conference football game in the fall of 1998. The coach was placed on probation from 1998 to 2000 and is required to attend NCAA rules compliance seminars for two years. The head coach's salary was frozen for the 1999-00 academic year and he is not permitted to recruit off-campus for the 1999-00 academic year.

Issued a letter of reprimand and placed an assistant coach on probation beginning in the fall of 1998. The coach was suspended for one conference football game in 1998. Effective July 1, 1999, the assistant coach was removed from his coaching position and reassigned to a department outside of athletics. His employment status was to be reviewed in December 1999.

Reassigned a former director of athletics to a position outside of athletics. Terminated the succeeding director of athletics in January 1999. On August 16, 1999, appointed a new director of athletics.

Reorganized the athletics department and implemented new policies and procedures.

Established a new policy on financial aid procedures.

Implemented new procedures to track and monitor countable aid to prevent over-awarding.


Revamped the university's complimentary ticket policy to track all ticket authorization and disbursements.

Hired an associate athletics director for compliance.

Implemented a rules education program with monthly newsletters, rules seminars, and an NCAA compliance Web site.

Determined to hire a compliance assistant to support the compliance coordinator.

Created the position of coordinator of scholarships, responsible for coordinating financial aid for athletics.

Installed NCAA compliance software to monitor financial aid awards.

Required athletics and financial aid personnel to attend NCAA training seminars on financial aid.
The committee adopted as its own the following penalties proposed or self-imposed by the university:


Reduce by three the number of official paid recruiting visits for football to 38 for the 1999-00 and 2000-01 academic years.

Reduce by two the number of football grants-in-aid to be awarded during the 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years.
The Committee agreed with and approved of the university's actions but imposed the following additional penalties:


Public reprimand and censure.

Three years of probation from January 5, 2000.

A further reduction in the number of official paid visits for football to 36 during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years.

The institution will further reduce grants in football by .56 during 2000-01; 2 during 2001-02; and 1.65 during 2002-03 to account for the football grant reductions pledged to be imposed in 1997 but which were never applied. Therefore, based upon the average number of football equivalencies at the university for the past five years - 60.3 - the university will be limited to 57.8 equivalencies for 2000-01; 56.3 for 2001-02; and 56.8 for 2002-03.

In men's golf, reduce grants-in-aid equivalencies by .02 for one year no later than the 2000-01 academic year.

In men's tennis, the institution will reduce grants-in-aid equivalencies totaling .96 for one year no later than 2001-02.

The university will continue to develop and implement a comprehensive education program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA.

The university's president will recertify in a letter to the committee that all of 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, Tennessee State is subject to the NCAA's repeat-violator provisions for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, January 5, 2000.

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Jack Friedenthal, committee chair and professor of law, George Washington University; Richard J. Dunn, professor of English, University of Washington; Frederick B. Lacey, attorney and retired judge, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Newark, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; James Park, Jr., attorney and retired judge, Brown, Todd & Heyburn, Lexington, Kentucky; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Thomas E. Yeager, commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association.

A copy of the complete report from the Division I Committee on Infractions is available on NCAA Online at www.ncaa.org.


--30--
JMJ:blb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
majiksity said:
Both Johnnie and L.C. admitted to making mistakes at TSU. But still, neither one were found guilty of major violations. The violations they were found guilty of weren't even enough for them to be fired.




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:

Wednesday, January 5, 2000 Jane Jankowski
Public Information Coordinator II




TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY PLACED ON PROBATION, GRANTS-IN-AID REDUCED IN SEVERAL SPORTS


INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA---Tennessee State University has been placed on probation for three years and grants-in-aid have been reduced in several sports for violations of NCAA legislation governing financial aid, recruiting, extra benefits, institutional control and ethical conduct.

One aspect of the case involved financial aid violations that occurred from the 1993-94 through 1996-97 academic years. During this time, 34 student-athletes in the sports of football, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's track, women's volleyball, women's tennis, and softball received athletics financial aid that exceeded full grants-in-aid limits. The total dollar amount was $16,542. The university also exceeded team limitations on financial aid equivalencies in three sports during the same period.

The violations were self-reported by the university. It was determined that the excess awards occurred because some financial aid sources were not included in the calculation of institutionally administered financial aid and there was no coordination between the athletics and financial aid departments to include all sources of aid.

Many of the amounts over awarded were small, but the committee determined the violations were major because there was a pattern of neglect in the management of financial athletics aid and because of the large total dollar amount involved. The university proposed financial aid penalties for some of the violations in 1997, and they were accepted by the NCAA, but the university took no action to impose them.

Among other violations, the university failed to provide appropriate written notice to many student-athletes about the renewal or nonrenewal of their athletics aid during two academic years, improper transportation and complimentary tickets were provided to student-athletes in the football program, and improper recruiting contacts were made by members of the football coaching staff.

For example, in mid-1996, football staff members contacted an enrolled student-athlete at another university to encourage the individual to transfer to the university without first obtaining a release allowing such a conversation to occur.

The committee also found a lack of institutional control, specifically with the conduct and administration of the university's football program. The university failed to monitor distribution of the head football coach's complimentary tickets; failed to complete squad list forms, which led to excess financial aid awards to student-athletes; and failed to investigate possible NCAA rules violations.

In addition, the committee determined that an assistant football coach failed to cooperate and violated the provisions of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to university investigators and the NCAA's enforcement staff.

The university imposed a number of corrective actions, which were considered by the committee. Among the actions, the university:


Placed the athletics department directly under the control of the institution's president rather than to the office of the vice-president for student affairs.

Terminated the former compliance coordinator effective June 21, 1999, and hired a replacement.

Issued a letter of reprimand to the head football coach and barred his participation in one conference football game in the fall of 1998. The coach was placed on probation from 1998 to 2000 and is required to attend NCAA rules compliance seminars for two years. The head coach's salary was frozen for the 1999-00 academic year and he is not permitted to recruit off-campus for the 1999-00 academic year.

Issued a letter of reprimand and placed an assistant coach on probation beginning in the fall of 1998. The coach was suspended for one conference football game in 1998. Effective July 1, 1999, the assistant coach was removed from his coaching position and reassigned to a department outside of athletics. His employment status was to be reviewed in December 1999.

Reassigned a former director of athletics to a position outside of athletics. Terminated the succeeding director of athletics in January 1999. On August 16, 1999, appointed a new director of athletics.

Reorganized the athletics department and implemented new policies and procedures.

Established a new policy on financial aid procedures.

Implemented new procedures to track and monitor countable aid to prevent over-awarding.


Revamped the university's complimentary ticket policy to track all ticket authorization and disbursements.

Hired an associate athletics director for compliance.

Implemented a rules education program with monthly newsletters, rules seminars, and an NCAA compliance Web site.

Determined to hire a compliance assistant to support the compliance coordinator.

Created the position of coordinator of scholarships, responsible for coordinating financial aid for athletics.

Installed NCAA compliance software to monitor financial aid awards.

Required athletics and financial aid personnel to attend NCAA training seminars on financial aid.
The committee adopted as its own the following penalties proposed or self-imposed by the university:


Reduce by three the number of official paid recruiting visits for football to 38 for the 1999-00 and 2000-01 academic years.

Reduce by two the number of football grants-in-aid to be awarded during the 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years.
The Committee agreed with and approved of the university's actions but imposed the following additional penalties:


Public reprimand and censure.

Three years of probation from January 5, 2000.

A further reduction in the number of official paid visits for football to 36 during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years.

The institution will further reduce grants in football by .56 during 2000-01; 2 during 2001-02; and 1.65 during 2002-03 to account for the football grant reductions pledged to be imposed in 1997 but which were never applied. Therefore, based upon the average number of football equivalencies at the university for the past five years - 60.3 - the university will be limited to 57.8 equivalencies for 2000-01; 56.3 for 2001-02; and 56.8 for 2002-03.

In men's golf, reduce grants-in-aid equivalencies by .02 for one year no later than the 2000-01 academic year.

In men's tennis, the institution will reduce grants-in-aid equivalencies totaling .96 for one year no later than 2001-02.

The university will continue to develop and implement a comprehensive education program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA.

The university's president will recertify in a letter to the committee that all of 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, Tennessee State is subject to the NCAA's repeat-violator provisions for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, January 5, 2000.
-
Click to expand...

This is a great example of what I was talking about.

See, this is how people get confused about this stuff. They see crap such as this and automatically brand Cole and other coaches as cheaters.

But if you look close at what Majik has posted here and if you understand the rules and the way the NCAA enforcement process works, you'll realize pretty quick that there's not much there.

First, out of the few things that dealt with the football coaches, there was only one major violation. That, of course, was providing false information to the university's investigator. But even with that, if you know how it came about, it doesn't seem nearly as bad. Without going into details, what led to that violation was that the coach said one thing and the NCAA ruled something else happened and then hit the coach with another penalty. For example, say a guy pleads not guilty to something in court but the jury eventually finds him guilty. This penalty is like the judge then coming back and slapping another charge on him for pleading not guilty.

All of the other stuff didn't even approach major violation status. The contacting another player at another university happens all the time. The line between what is tampering and what isn't is so blurry it's almost comical. And in every instance in which this is alleged, there's a whole story behind what happened. There has to be. Otherwise, you're talking about a group of coaches who are sitting in their offices calling up every decent player at every school in the country. It doesn't work like that. Almost 100 percent of the time, the student-athlete in question makes contact first. Does that excuse the coaches if they broke the rules? No. But at least you know that you're not talking about a bunch of guys who are just blatantly flaunting the rules.

Past that, you've got complimentary tickets. At TSU. Come on.

Then you look at the penalties imposed. Now, here's where things get really tricky. At first glance, you'd think that the NCAA agreed that the head football coach should be suspended and that an assistant coach should be suspended and later reassigned. But that's not the way it works.

See, the NCAA does NOT reduce self-imposed penalties. It never gives anything back. If a university imposes 20 scholarship cuts because the head coach gave the players a set of No. 2 pencils, the school is going to lose 20 scholarships. All the NCAA will ever do is find a coach guilty or not guilty of specific charges. So, it's likely that the NCAA agreed that the assistant coach in question should be suspended. But with the head coach, since he was never mentioned in any of the violations, who knows? What we do know is that a year later, the NCAA sent a letter to ASU saying there was nothing to prevent it from hiring L.C. Cole.

Another good indication of just how insignificant the violations were at TSU are the penalties. A total of six scholarships cut over three years. That's nothing. It's so far away from major penalty status that it can't even see it. And not one coach was placed on the NCAA "Show Cause" list, which would require any school seeking to hire that coach to first obtain approval from the NCAA. Almost every coach who has been found guilty of major NCAA violations is placed on this list. So, if the Coles were so dirty, why weren't they?

I also find it more than a little odd that Majik, an ASU fan, is on here taking shots at Cole. You want to talk about sticking a knife in somebody's back. All Cole did for ASU was take over a program that was an absolute joke and turn it into a six-year winner. He did it all, contrary to popular belief, without violating NCAA rules and with little or no support from the ASU administration.

I'm betting that somewhere around midseason of next year, after a few games without Cole's players, a lot more ASU people will realize just what he did for that school and that program.
 



TheReporter said:
You've got to wonder how that happens every year. And then you look at the other programs at Tuskegee and what's happened to them since Comegy has been AD.
Click to expand...
That's the key right there Reporter. Comegy might try to come if he's the AD and our other programs may lack the support. And that is something that we really dont need.
 
TheReporter said:
I also find it more than a little odd that Majik, an ASU fan, is on here taking shots at Cole. You want to talk about sticking a knife in somebody's back.

I'm betting that somewhere around midseason of next year, after a few games without Cole's players, a lot more ASU people will realize just what he did for that school and that program.
Click to expand...
~snicker~
 
Comegy, Cole interview at JSU

Cole defends NCAA record, presents plan for rebuilding fallen program

By Mark Alexander
[email protected]

L.C. Cole figured his past run-ins with the NCAA would come up Tuesday during his interview for the Jackson State football coaching job.

He was right. And, he said, prepared.

"I felt like my back was against the wall," Cole said. "I felt like that was the main focus of my interview. They wanted to clear their minds on all of that and feel comfortable. And I understand that.

"I felt like they asked some very good questions about the NCAA stuff, and I feel like I answered those. I explained everything to them."

Cole was successful as a head coach at Tennessee State and Alabama State but trouble followed him at both stops. He is now the defensive coordinator/associate head coach at Lane College in Jackson, Tenn.

Cole is one of three finalists for the JSU job. The others are Tuskegee Institute coach Rick Comegy, who interviewed Tuesday, and Alcorn State offensive coordinator John McKenzie, who is scheduled to interview today.

Comegy would not comment Tuesday.

JSU is looking for a replacement for James Bell, who was fired with three games remaining this past season. Bell went 8-23 in 2 1/2 seasons. His three-year contract paying $85,000 per year expires Dec. 31.

read full story here
 
TheReporter said:
I just don't know how much what he's done at Tuskegee will help him at a school like Jackson State. There are a whole different set of rules at the I-AA level.
Click to expand...

Soooooo many people don't get this. You would be amazed at the flack I get when I tell people that the recruiting is THAT different.
 
Say what you all want about the Coles, but I will stand up right now and say that L.C. as the head coach at JSU WILL put a good product on the field. The behind the scenes stuff can be mitigated by putting "others" in charge of things that appears to be his "weakness". Let the man coach football and identify the type of players he needs. Comegy's good...real good, and I can't really comment on his brand of ball, but I have seen the product LC puts on the field and if he gets the talent he needs... Lawd, Lawd, Lawd.... :shame: :shame: :shame: ...we will all (HBCU's) be in some hellified trouble!!
Either way, ...JSU with Comegy or Cole will bring back a new kind of RESPECT for Tiger football ...and LAWD don't let them boys get back to the old school way of scoring till you drop!!! WHOO-HOOO!!! It'll be step up or get run over!! Spears is trying that at GSU, but these boys may take it to a whole different level!!! At least you guys (JSU) have a good final three...er, two!
 
I do agree that with the recruiting power in the name of Jackson State and the recruiting ability of LC Cole, you all will be smoked weekly for years.
 
Jaguar Diehard said:
Say what you all want about the Coles, but I will stand up right now and say that L.C. as the head coach at JSU WILL put a good product on the field. The behind the scenes stuff can be mitigated by putting "others" in charge of things that appears to be his "weakness". Let the man coach football and identify the type of players he needs. Comegy's good...real good, and I can't really comment on his brand of ball, but I have seen the product LC puts on the field and if he gets the talent he needs... Lawd, Lawd, Lawd.... :shame: :shame: :shame: ...we will all (HBCU's) be in some hellified trouble!!
Either way, ...JSU with Comegy or Cole will bring back a new kind of RESPECT for Tiger football ...and LAWD don't let them boys get back to the old school way of scoring till you drop!!! WHOO-HOOO!!! It'll be step up or get run over!! Spears is trying that at GSU, but these boys may take it to a whole different level!!! At least you guys (JSU) have a good final three...er, two!
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I think LC Coles will bring back a winning attitude to JSU. I also think that if we have a compliance officer and an AD in place to monitor and keep a firm grip on what is going with the team rules then LC will do just fine. I really wanted Harold Jackson for the HC at JSU but that is not going to happen so I will go with LC Cole. I am still not hyped over Comegy, but I will support whomever the committee suggest to President MAson.
 
Tigerpride said:
I do agree that with the recruiting power in the name of Jackson State , you all will be smoked weekly for years.
Click to expand...

Didn't you say something similar with Bell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top