Notice of allegations: What happens next, possible penalties and what could help USC
When South Carolina athletics director Ray Tanner first spoke publicly about the NCAA notice of allegations his school’s basketball program received, he said he didn’t have the exact timeline for next steps.
According to attorney Don Jackson of The Sports Group, it’s not likely something that will wrap up in the short term.
“From the time of the service of the notice of allegations, they’ve got 90 days to respond to the Committee on Infractions,” Jackson told The State. “And at that time, they’ll lay out the university’s defense, if there were mitigating factors, if there were facts that didn’t support the allegations there was a Level 1 violation.
“If there was a Level 1 violation, I feel fairly certain that they may make an argument that there might be factors that should lessen the sanctions against the university.”
The notice alleged that former Gamecocks assistant coach Lamont Evans took money in the form of bribes in exchange for trying to sway former USC point guard P.J. Dozier and influence him to sign with a specific agency when he left college for the pros.
The allegation is of a Level 1 violation, the most serious possible.
The NCAA’s penalty guidelines list possible program punishments for Level 1 violations as postseason bans, scholarship reductions, recruiting visit restrictions, probation and financial penalties.
After USC’s initial response to the notice is made, the NCAA will have a chance to respond. At that point a hearing date with the NCAA Committee on Infractions will be set.
That might not happen until late summer or early in the fall, according to Jackson. After that hearing, the school would have to wait for a decision and then either accept or appeal it. (Having gone in front of the Committee on Infractions and the appeals committee, Jackson said the appeals committee rarely modifies the initial ruling.)
Jackson, whose firm The Sports Group is based in Montgomery, Alabama, has represented hundreds of athletes in eligibility and amateurism matters. South Carolina’s notice of allegations is relatively limited in scope compared with the one sent to North Carolina State, he said, as it focused solely on the former Gamecocks assistant coach.
“There were no findings of failure to monitor, lack of institutional control, or no potential coach control penalties for the head coach,” Jackson said. “The Level 1 allegation was strictly limited to the assistant coach’s conduct.”
Evans coached at South Carolina under Frank Martin from 2012 to 2016 before leaving for Oklahoma State. After a large-scale FBI investigation into college basketball, Evans ultimately ended with a plea bargain and three months in prison.
The fact there is no mention in the notice of money going to a student-athlete is notable — if there were such accusations, that could make a player ineligible and trigger the mechanism of vacating wins. Dozier was part of South Carolina’s 2016-17 Final Four run, but Jackson said the notice shows no findings that any of the money made its way to a player.
The lack of other such serious allegations such as failure to monitor, lack of institutional control or coach control penalties helps the school.
“That puts the university in a position where they can make a very compelling argument that a postseason ban or even a scholarship reduction would be an excessive penalty here,” Jackson said. “Based on the allegation and the way this was charged, this was a charge was isolated to one individual’s conduct.”
Jackson made a point to note the notice indicated Evans’ actions didn’t fall under an umbrella of head coach responsibility that the NCAA has imposed, i.e. the actions were clandestine and hidden from everyone.
All of this, he said, “puts the university in a position where when the university can argue that a scholarship reduction or postseason ban would be, based on case precedent, an excessive penalty.”
Martin said Saturday night that he had no worry about how this would reflect on the program of if any games might be vacated.
“None,” Martin said. “Absolutely zero. In moments like this, I would think that people would trust in leadership. And the guy that leads our program is as ethical a man as I’ve ever been around in Ray Tanner. I think you guys should know that better than me. And the people that I answer to, it’s all about ethics here.”
The NCAA lists its penalties in three categories: aggravation, standard, mitigation. Standard Level 1 violations carry a baseline postseason ban and scholarship reduction, but the mitigation category is built around the case the school will make.
Jackson said South Carolina’s case could be based around arguing that there was no way the staff or school could or should have discovered Evans’ actions.
It will likely be a while before all this shakes out. Nothing can be 100 percent ruled out, and what comes down on USC relies on a few key things.
“It depends on the level of mitigation that they can establish to potentially provide all of the reasons as to why they should not be hit with significant penalties,” Jackson said. “A Level 1 violation is an extremely serious violation, but the thing that’s fairly unique about this is that this Level 1 violation was solely isolated to one individual. There’s no widespread conduct.
“I think there’s a reasonable argument that penalties of that nature would be excessive.”
The notice of allegations
A look at the language in the notice via the NCAA:
“Based on the information contained within the following allegation, the NCAA enforcement staff believes this case should be reviewed by a hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions pursuant to procedures applicable to a severe breach of conduct (Level I violation).”
Allegation: “It is alleged that from at least August 2015 through March 2016, Lamont Evans (Evans), then assistant men’s basketball coach and lead recruiter, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when he knowingly solicited and received benefits in order to influence a student-athlete and his family to meet with and retain ASM Sports, a professional athlete agency. Specifically, Evans accepted approximately $5,856 of supplemental pay in the form of bribes from Christian Dawkins (Dawkins), a runner for ASM Sports, in exchange for Evans’ agreement to arrange meetings with then men’s basketball student-athlete P.J. Dozier (Dozier) and his family and influence them to retain ASM Sports.”
Level of Allegation No. 1: “The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could conclude that Allegation No. 1 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I) because the violations (a) provided or were intended to provide a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit to a staff member, (b) involved unethical conduct, (c) were intentional or showed reckless indifference to the NCAA constitiution and bylaws, (d) seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model and (e) demonstrated egregious conduct inconsistent with the affirmative responsibility and behavioral expectations of college coaches. [NCAA Bylaws 19.01.5,19.1.1, 19.1.1-(d) and 19.1.1-(h) (2019-20)]”
Involved Individual: “The enforcement staff believes a hearing panel could enter a show-cause order pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.9.5.4 regarding Evans’ involvement in Allegation No. 1.”
