A former Pacific head men’s basketball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance when he violated academic misconduct and recruiting rules to get prospects eligible, according to a Division I Committee on Infractions panel. He also failed to monitor the activities of his coaching staff and violated NCAA ethical conduct rules when he encouraged others to provide false information during the investigation.

Pacific did not monitor the involvement of the former head coach, a former men’s basketball assistant coach and a former special assistant to the head men’s basketball coach in the oversight of five prospects’ distance learning coursework. Additionally, in the baseball program, the former head coach impermissibly provided an athletic training student with a $16,000 scholarship to help with the housing costs of two baseball student-athletes, including her brother.

Penalties prescribed by the panel, including those self-imposed by the university, include two years of probation for the university; a postseason ban for the men’s basketball 2015-16 season; recruiting restrictions for the men’s basketball program; scholarship reductions for the men’s basketball and baseball programs; a vacation of all games in which men’s basketball or baseball student-athletes participated while ineligible; and a $5,000 fine. The panel also prescribed an eight-year show-cause order for the former head men's basketball coach, which includes a suspension of 50 percent of the first season of his employment should an NCAA school hire him during the period; an eight-year show-cause order for a former assistant men’s basketball coach; and a seven-year show-cause order for a former special assistant to the head men's basketball coach.

The university failed to monitor the men's basketball coaching staff, which resulted in the former head coach, former assistant coach and former special assistant going to great lengths to secure the eligibility of the five academically ineligible prospects, according to the panel’s decision. The university admitted that it made a mistake when it relied only on the assurances of the men’s basketball staff that the prospects were making progress toward meeting admission and eligibility requirements.

During the summer of 2014, the former head coach instructed his staff to work with five prospects as they completed distance learning courses to earn credits they needed to be eligible to play basketball at Pacific. Throughout the rest of the summer, the coaching staff excessively involved themselves in the prospects’ distance learning courses in three ways: The former head coach provided some of the prospects with answers to coursework and exams; the former head coach, former assistant coach and former special assistant arranged for prospects to take exams without the required proctors; and the assistant coach paid for one prospect’s distance learning courses. The panel noted that all the activities gave the university a substantial recruiting and competitive advantage.