Key Points of UConn’s Response to NCAA Allegations

For months people have speculated about UConn’s response to the NCAA’s allegations of wrongdoing during the recruitment of former Husky Nate Miles.  (See Connecticut Sports Law post Will UConn Basketball Be Banned from Postseason?). 

There is no need for further speculation, as UConn has released its response to the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations.  As anticipated, UConn recommends several self-imposed penalties.  Also as anticipated, UConn does not recommend a post-season ban. 

Here are some of the key points to UConn’s response:

1.  UConn Admits Wrongdoing

In a statement posted on UConn’s athletic website, the university admits to recruiting violations and a lack of institutional oversight:

…the University determined that the men’s basketball staff engaged in impermissible telephone calls and text messages and provided game tickets to individuals contrary to NCAA legislation. Also, the University determined that a former staff member provided impermissible assistance to a prospective student-athlete. Further, it was determined that a former men’s basketball manager and later professional basketball agent provided impermissible benefits to the same prospective student-athlete. Finally, the University concluded that it failed to monitor the above referenced impermissible activities.

2.  UConn Self-Imposes Probation, Loss of Scholarship

According to Mike Anthony of the Hartford Courant, “[a]t the heart of the self-imposed punishments” are:

  •  a period of probation through the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years;
  • a reduction in the number of men’s basketball scholarships the university can award in each of those years from 13 to 12; and
  • a reduction in the number of coaches permitted to contact recruits.

Significantly, UConn did not impose a postseason ban.

3.  UConn Successfully Reduced Some of the NCAA’s Allegations

During a pre-hearing held on September 21, UConn was able to reduce, and eliminate, some of the NCAA’s charges against the university as follows:

  • the charges concerning the University’s failure to monitor and head men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun’s failure to promote an atmosphere for compliance were narrowed to a two-year period (2007-2009), rather than four years as previously alleged; and
  • all of the NCAA’s references to impermissible calls placed by associate head coach George Blaney were removed.

4.  Calhoun and UConn Deny Allegations Against Coach

The University has detailed in its Response that the available evidence does not support the enforcement staff’s charge that head men’s basketball coach Jim Calhoun “failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance”.  As Anthony writes, Calhoun alleges that he made reasonable efforts to caution Miles about accepting inappropriate benefits from Nochimson.  Further, Calhoun turned over information that he discovered on the relationship between Miles and Nochimson to UConn AD Jeff Hathaway and counsel for the university.  “Calhoun believed that the review of [Miles’] relationship with Nochimson was in the hands of experienced compliance professionals.”

UConn presents its case to the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions on October 15.  Click here (and scroll down) to access UConn’s response to the Notice of Allegations and corresponding exhibits.


  1. […] are in Indianapolis meeting with the NCAA regarding allegations of recruiting violations and the university’s response to those allegations.  Next week Connecticut Sports Law will be posting a Q&A about UConn’s response to the […]

  2. […] Key Points of UConn’s Response to NCAA Allegations […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: