July 15, 2005

Kansas Releases Self-Report To NCAA - Football

July 15, 2005

Football Report in PDF Format
Download Free Acrobat Reader

FOOTBALL
SELF-REPORT OF VIOLATIONS

VIOLATION 1

During the summer of 2003, XXX and XXX provided former football prospective student-athletes XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX with assistance in enrollment and scheduling correspondence courses in order for the prospective student-athletes to obtain required course work to graduate from their respective two-year institutions.

NCAA BYLAW 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

13.2.1 General Regulation. An institution’s staff member or any representative of its athletics interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for or giving or offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to the prospect or the prospect’s relatives or friends, other than expressly permitted by NCAA regulations . . .

OVERVIEW

During the summer of 2003, several two-year college transfer football prospective student-athletes were present on the campus of the University prior to their official enrollment at the University. These prospective student-athletes were working to complete credit hours necessary for their transfer to the University from their respective two-year colleges. During this time, the prospective student-athletes received academic advice and assistance from XXX, XXX, assistant football coach Clint Bowen, associate director of athletics for student support services Paul Buskirk, and/or former associate director of career and degree counseling Michael Norwood in enrolling in correspondence courses. The evidence indicates that XXX and XXX provided improper assistance, and Bowen, Buskirk and Norwood provided permissible advice concerning enrollment and scheduling of correspondence courses.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation and its assessment of the credibility of the information provided revealed that a violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 occurred to the extent that XXX and XXX provided improper assistance to the prospective football student-athletes when they facilitated the enrollment of the prospects in correspondence course work.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

XXX, XXX and Bowen each reported that they assisted with enrolling or advising former football prospective student-athletes XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX regarding correspondence courses during the summer of 2003. Of the former prospective student-athletes questioned, several indicated that they had received help from either XXX or Buskirk. Buskirk reported that he was asked by the football coaching staff what involvement, if any, they could have with assisting the two-year college transfer prospective student-athletes. Buskirk reported that he had several email exchanges with the compliance office explaining the extent to which coaches could assist prospective student-athletes with their enrollment in correspondence courses. See Exhibit 2.

Coaching Staff

XXX reported that Buskirk and Norwood advised him and the other football coaches and prospective student-athletes regarding which correspondence courses each of them needed to fulfill NCAA two-year college transfer requirements, and the numbers of hours each prospective student-athlete was lacking. XXX reported that he was in contact with Buskirk and Norwood prior to the prospective student-athletes’ enrollment to make sure that they would be enrolling in courses that they needed to gain eligibility for the fall semester. XXX admitted that he had direct involvement with several prospective student-athletes and their enrollment in correspondence courses, but did not elaborate on his role in those cases. He reported that he worked with former prospective student-athletes XXX, XXX and XXX in their enrollment and scheduling of correspondence courses.

According to XXX, head football coach Mark Mangino gave him the task of monitoring the football prospective student-athletes during the summer of 2003. Mangino denies telling XXX to monitor the prospects. According to Mangino, the role of XXX is to provide assistance to each of the position coaches and to be available for the position coaches when they have a need. Mangino reported that because of his oversight of the entire football program, he acknowledges his responsibility for all of his coaches’ activities.

Bowen reported that he had conversations with Buskirk and Norwood about correspondence courses available online through Brigham Young University (BYU), and indicated that Buskirk and Norwood were aware of the courses that the prospective student-athletes needed to graduate from their respective two-year colleges. Bowen indicated that he personally helped enroll former prospective student-athlete XXX in a history correspondence course in early June.

XXX reported that he researched online courses and recommended enrollment in certain classes and, more specifically, that he had talked with a teacher at Robert Morris University about enrolling XXX in a course through that institution. Additionally, XXX noted that he had helped enroll XXX in an online course through BYU when he discovered that XXX was failing a course offered through a different institution.

XXX did not confirm that XXX had helped him enroll. Instead, he said he thought that it had been Buskirk who had worked with enrolling him in courses through BYU. Buskirk reported that he agreed that the course would satisfy University requirements but that he did not enroll XXX in the course. XXX also recalled that Buskirk had enrolled him in a course through his previous institution (XXX) upon his arrival at the University that summer. Buskirk reported that he did not enroll XXX in the course.

Buskirk reported that in the spring of 2003, he learned from the football coaching staff that several two-year college prospective football student-athletes would be enrolling in the fall of 2003. Buskirk believed that each prospect was on target to obtain in their spring terms all of the requisite credits for them to be immediately eligible upon enrollment in the fall. At the completion of the spring term, Buskirk learned that several of the prospects had not obtained the requisite credits to be immediately eligible and he was asked to review each of their transcripts for an evaluation of what each of them needed to gain eligibility over the summer. Buskirk provided an evaluation to the football staff about each prospect’s deficiencies and made recommendations on academic courses they could take through correspondence and in accordance with NCAA regulations to become academically eligible in the fall. Additionally, Buskirk obtained from the University’s compliance office and the NCAA information on the permissible activities that University athletics department administrators could participate in with prospective student-athletes during the summer. Buskirk provided this information by email to the academic support staff and verbally to the football coaching staff.

Former Prospective Student-Athletes

Former prospective student-athlete XXX reported that the prospective student-athletes were introduced to all football personnel and “academic people” when they got to campus that summer. He indicated that Buskirk and Norwood helped him understand what he needed to complete to become eligible for the fall, but that he enrolled in and paid for all the courses on his own and without assistance from any coach or advisor.

Former prospective student-athlete XXX explained that he enrolled in online courses during the summer and prior to his arrival at the University with the assistance of his father. He added that once he arrived at the University, he had some interaction with Buskirk and the other prospective student-athletes who had inquired about the correspondence courses offered by BYU in which he was enrolled.

Former prospective student-athlete XXX indicated that he met with Buskirk upon his arrival at the University to determine what courses he needed to enroll in to graduate from his two-year college and become eligible for the fall semester. XXX did not report who assisted him in his enrollment.

XXX and XXX both reported that at the beginning of the summer of 2003, as a part of their duties, they were assigned to work with the prospective football student-athletes who were enrolled in summer correspondence courses and be certain that they were doing all of their work. According to XXX, as the summer began, he and XXX found several schools that offered courses that the prospects could enroll in to obtain their required courses. XXX reported that he let the prospects use his computer in the office to find the correspondence courses and enroll in them. XXX recalled that he suggested to some of the prospects that they use his computer to enroll in the correspondence courses.

Based on the reports from the student-athletes, XXX, XXX and the academic advisors, it appears that a violation of NCAA legislation occurred when at least three two-year college prospective student-athletes received assistance from XXX and XXX in registering and enrolling in BYU correspondence courses using a University computer during the summer of 2003.

VIOLATION 2

XXX and XXX and assistant coach Clint Bowen monitored the daily studies of several prospective student-athletes in their completion of online correspondence course work. Also, prospective student-athletes were permitted to use the coaches’ offices and computers in completing their course work.

NCAA Bylaw 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

OVERVIEW

During July and August 2003, former two-year college prospective student-athletes XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX used computers in the Wagnon Student-Athlete Center and the football coaches’ offices to work on correspondence courses that they needed in order to establish their eligibility at the University. XXX, XXX and assistant coach Clint Bowen monitored the prospective student-athletes to ensure that they were studying and working on their course work.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation and assessment of the credibility of the information provided revealed that violations of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 occurred.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

There is no conflict in the evidence regarding this violation. All individuals questioned with regard to this issue stated that Bowen, XXX and XXX were monitoring the prospective student-athletes enrolled in correspondence courses to ensure that the prospects were completing their assignments and progressing in their classes. Additionally, all assistant coaches and former prospective student-athletes confirmed that the prospective student-athletes were permitted to use the computers in both the Wagnon computer lab and the coaches’ offices throughout the summer of 2003 for completing online homework assignments and tests. [For specific statements from individuals, please reference the chart attached as Exhibit 3 to this Self-Report.]

VIOLATION 3

XXX and XXX permitted former prospective student-athletes XXX, XXX and XXX to share answers in completing their online course work for correspondence courses.

NCAA Bylaw 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

OVERVIEW

In the monitoring of study sessions, XXX and XXX permitted prospects XXX, XXX and XXX to share answers and complete assignments together for BYU course GEOG 101 – Global Environment. These assignments were later determined to be the chapter-end “speedback” quizzes that the prospective student-athletes were required to submit for a grade.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation and assessment of the credibility of the information provided revealed that a violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 occurred.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

While there was not a great amount of evidence to support the allegation, it was significant that XXX reported that XXX permitted XXX, XXX and XXX to work together in completing online assignments. He added that he believed they were printing off tests and assignments and then working together to get the correct answers before submitting them to BYU. These assignments were actually printed versions of the “speedback” quizzes that XXX, XXX and XXX were required to submit electronically to BYU for a grade.

XXX stated that the prospective student-athletes would not share exam answers, but would work together in completing homework assignments. He added that the prospective student-athletes got together to study for a few exams, but never had the answers to those exams prior to taking them. (XXX was not enrolled in the GEOG 101 course, but was enrolled in PL SC 110, a Political Science course offered by BYU, with former prospective student-athlete XXX.)

XXX claimed that he received answers to “speedback” assignments for the correspondence course he was enrolled in with XXX and XXX (BYU, Geology 101, Global Environment). “Speedback” assignments were the daily/weekly chapter-end assignments, similar to quizzes, that a student completes online to exhibit comprehension of various chapters of the course. These assignments are completed online and submitted electronically to the corresponding institution, which then provides immediate feedback as to which answers are correct/incorrect. A grade for the “speedback” assignment is given accordingly and factored into the student’s final grade.

XXX reported that he recalled that XXX and XXX would print out the “speedback” assignments that XXX or XXX had already completed, and then tell XXX to use their answers to complete the assignments, which he would do to receive credit. XXX admitted that he would sometimes see the former prospective student-athletes working together to complete printed “speedbacks,” which he believed to be assignments, but no other individuals interviewed had knowledge of the information regarding XXX’s claim.

XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX reported that they did their homework assignments together on several occasions. Each of them believed that working on the exams together was permissible.

XXX stated that he used “pre-printed quizzes” to complete all of his online course work. He claimed that XXX and XXX would print off XXX’s online assignments with the answers so that he could use those answers for his assignments to pass a given course.

XXX reported that he did some work with XXX, but generally did all of his own work for the correspondence courses. XXX reported that he did work together with XXX on one or two occasions where he and XXX exchanged answers on “speedback” chapter tests. XXX explained that the “speedback” tests were the exams at the end of each chapter that you had to pass in order to move to the next chapter. Both XXX and XXX reported that they procrastinated on their work during the summer and had to scramble to get all of their work done at the end of the summer term.

VIOLATION 4

XXX and XXX, assistant coach Clint Bowen and Lawrence Free State High School teacher Jama Crady, a former student-athlete at the University and representative of the University’s athletics interests, who served as a proctor for the prospective student-athlete’s exams, made some of the arrangements for prospective student-athlete’s study times at the University’s coaches’ offices and for a test proctor. Also, XXX, XXX and Crady transported some of the prospective student-athletes from campus to the high school and back to campus on a few occasions.

NCAA Bylaw 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

OVERVIEW

During July and August 2003, XXX, XXX and Bowen took responsibility and arranged for a proctor (Jama Crady) for the prospective student-athletes’ examinations, arranged for the corresponding institution to mail mid-terms and final exams to Crady, and arranged for and provided transportation for the prospective student-athletes to/from the Lawrence Free State High School (approximately four miles) where they took proctored correspondence course exams.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation, and assessment of the credibility of the information provided, revealed that violations of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 took place with respect to these issues.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

XXX, XXX, Bowen and Crady all confirm that they were involved in making accommodations for the prospective student-athletes’ testing, transportation, etc. XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX also confirmed that they received rides from XXX, XXX and Crady to and from Lawrence Free State High School for the purpose of taking examinations in correspondence courses.

Arrangement for Proctor and Examinations

When XXX learned that they would be responsible for monitoring several two-year college prospective student-athletes while they completed correspondence course work, they consulted with the University’s Testing Center to determine the Center’s availability and access for the prospects to take exams in the center. The prospective student-athletes utilized the Testing Center on the first few occasions, but the coaches soon realized that they needed greater flexibility to coordinate the prospects’ examinations with their work and workout schedules.

Consequently, according to XXX, early in the summer of 2003, Crady was contacted by either him or Clint Bowen and asked if she was willing to serve as a proctor for several prospective student-athletes’ correspondence course examinations. Crady and Bowen both reported that they were friends, but each believed that it was XXX who initially contacted her regarding the arrangement. Crady could not be certain how she was initially approached about the tutoring arrangement, but thought that she was out one night socially and saw Bowen and XXX. She participated in a conversation with them and somehow the topic of her being a high school teacher came up. She reported that soon after that, at Bowen and XXX’s request, she agreed to serve as a tutor for several football prospective student-athletes.

Crady reported that she had never proctored correspondence examinations before, and specifically remembered proctoring exams for XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX during the summer of 2003. Crady reported that she administered the tests in her classroom at Free State High School by following the directions provided to her with the students’ examinations from BYU. Crady reported that she recalled that most, if not all, of the exams came from BYU. Crady explained that whenever she received an examination, she would call XXX’s offices and they would set up a time for the student to take the exam with her at the high school. Crady reported that she was not compensated in any way for her services as a proctor.

XXX reported that they would typically call BYU and request mid-terms/final examinations on behalf of the prospective student-athletes because they were not responsible enough to do so themselves. He added that XXX and XXX took it upon themselves to help the prospective student-athletes gain eligibility for the upcoming season, and that making these arrangements was part of the “team effort” to do so.

XXX reported that he made his arrangements for his correspondence course work. XXX stated that he would call BYU when he needed to take a test and he would have it sent to Crady at Free State High School. XXX indicated that he became aware of Crady’s services through either XXX or Buskirk. He said that Crady would contact Buskirk or XXX, who would then contact XXX, when she received the test and it was available for XXX to take. XXX drove his own car and did not receive any rides from either XXX, XXX or Crady. Buskirk reported that he never spoke with Crady during the summer of 2003 regarding this or any other matter.

XXX indicated that XXX “gave him Crady’s name” and that she proctored his exams at Free State High School. He stated that he was required to fill out forms prior to the tests indicating that she was the proctor administering the examination. XXX reported that he had his own car at that time, and that he drove himself to and from the high school. XXX added that on one occasion XXX rode with him to the high school to take an exam.

XXX stated that he received all information regarding proctoring from XXX. He added that “someone” would call him when he needed to go to Free State High School to take a test. He did not elaborate further. XXX did not drive a vehicle at this time. He did not comment on whether he received a ride from XXX, XXX or Crady.

XXX reported that he never met Crady, but he understood that she would get the tests to XXX so that XXX could help the prospective student-athletes complete them.

XXX reported that he failed one of his mid-term exams in Geography 101. He recalled that on one occasion, XXX or XXX had reordered from BYU the mid-term that he previously had failed so that he could retake it to improve his grade. [BYU allows students to take a mid-term examination twice and will accept the highest grade for credit toward the course.] XXX reported that he did not take the second mid-term and told Crady to send it back because he was upset that they had requested the second mid-term through his account without consulting him. XXX eventually failed the course and no credit was given to him.

Transportation

XXX and XXX both reported that they transported some of the prospective student-athletes to either the University’s testing center or to Free State High School to take mid-term and final examinations. Neither of them could recall specifically who they transported nor how many times they went. XXX and Crady reported that Crady transported a prospective football student-athlete back from Free State High School following his test on at least one occasion. Crady believed that she transported XXX but could not be certain. Crady confirmed returning a prospective student-athlete to campus on one occasion. Bowen stated that he did not personally transport any of the prospective student-athletes to a testing site at any time, but was aware that XXX and XXX had done so.

As previously noted, none of the former prospective student-athletes questioned indicated that they had received rides from a coaching staff member. Each stated that they rode with each other, drove themselves or rode with friends.

VIOLATION 5

On August 7, 2003, XXX served as a proctor for two or three prospective student-athletes and administered, on the University’s campus, an examination for correspondence courses being taken by the prospective student-athletes.

NCAA Bylaw 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

OVERVIEW

On at least one occasion, XXX administered a proctored examination to two or three prospective student-athletes on the University’s campus when he was not qualified under the correspondence course procedures to do so.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation, and assessment of the credibility of the information provided, revealed that a violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 took place with respect to this issue.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

XXX reported that on one occasion, he requested and obtained from Crady examinations in correspondence courses in which prospective student-athletes were enrolled, and administered them on the University’s campus at the Wagnon Center. XXX reported that this practice occurred when Crady was scheduled to leave town for vacation and was unable to schedule a time for the former prospective student-athletes to take the exams with her at Free State High School. He could not recall which prospective student-athletes took those tests.

XXX indicated that he followed the instructions for a proctor that were included with the examinations; however, he acknowledged that he knew that as a coach he was not supposed to administer the exam.

Crady reported that on one occasion, she gave two or three packets of tests to XXX to administer to certain prospective student-athletes when she was going on vacation. She explained that she told him at that time how to proctor the exams. Crady recalled that the prospective student-athletes were getting near the time when they had to have the correspondence course credit in order to be eligible to practice with the team.

XXX and Bowen denied having any knowledge of XXX’ actions. XXX reported that he did not know whether XXX or Bowen knew that he administered the exams.

Of the former prospective student-athletes questioned, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX, XXX and XXX, none reported that they had taken an exam at the Wagnon Center with XXX serving as proctor.

VIOLATION 6

On approximately August 7, 2003, XXX provided then prospective student-athletes XXX and XXX with tutoring, study assistance, and answers to a correspondence course examination.

NCAA Bylaw 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

OVERVIEW

Prospective student-athletes XXX and XXX received tutoring, study assistance, and answers to a final examination on at least one occasion from XXX in his dorm room at Oliver Hall, a residence hall on the University’s campus.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation, and assessment of the credibility of the information provided, revealed that a violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 and 10.1-(b) occurred.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

For a summary of the statements made by each former prospective student-athlete regarding this issue, please See Exhibit 3.

XXX and XXX both reported a specific instance where XXX helped them complete either a mid-term or final by providing them the answers while they were with XXX in his dorm room in Oliver Hall. XXX reported that he believed XXX also was present on this occasion, but neither XXX nor XXX reported that XXX was in XXX’s room during this session.

XXX denied administering an examination and/or providing any answers to assignments or exams to any of the prospective student-athletes who were taking courses during the summer of 2003. However, XXX reported that on a few occasions, he allowed some of the prospective student-athletes to study in his dorm room at Oliver Hall after “lights out.” He stated that sometimes he would help them study their course work, but did not provide improper assistance.

XXX denied knowledge of prospective student-athletes studying in a coach’s dorm room, and also denied ever providing prospective student-athletes with answers to examinations. Bowen denied ever providing answers to examinations or assignments to prospective student-athletes. Further, Bowen reported that he was unaware that XXX and XXX were assisting the prospects improperly.

XXX reported that he studied on one occasion in XXX’s dorm room after “lights out,” but was alone in the room with XXX. He believed that assistant football coach Dave Doeren, XXX’s XXX, approved, and thus had knowledge, that he was studying in XXX’s room that night. He added that XXX never gave him a test or provided him with any answers to a test.

XXX reported that XXX had the tests from his correspondence course, and that he helped XXX complete both the mid-term and the final for both of his classes. (XXX did not pass any of the tests he took that summer.) He added that he was certain that the tests were to be proctored, but that XXX never stated whether the practice was permissible, nor did he ask that they not discuss the practice.

XXX reported that XXX retrieved the mid-term from Crady and then XXX worked with him and XXX on getting all of the answers to the exam. XXX received a `D’ on the mid-term.

VIOLATION 7

XXX and/or XXX mailed correspondence examinations to Brigham Young University on behalf of several prospective student-athletes who had taken the examinations.

NCAA Bylaw 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

OVERVIEW

On at least one occasion, XXX and/or XXX sent through the University’s mailroom proctored exams to Brigham Young University (BYU) instead of the designated proctor (Crady) who was listed as administering and submitting the examinations. In these instances, either XXX and/or XXX administered the examinations to the prospects on the University’s campus and thereafter sent them to BYU.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation and assessment of the credibility of the information provided revealed that violations of NCAA Bylaw 13.2 occurred.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

Regarding the examinations that XXX claimed to have administered for Crady while she was on vacation, Crady reported that she assumed that XXX or XXX submitted the completed exams to BYU because she never got them back. XXX reported that he did not know what happened with the exams after he gave them to the prospective student-athletes.

Bowen reported that XXX had informed him that he was in possession of several examinations that needed to be returned to the prospective student-athletes’ corresponding institution. Bowen stated that XXX told him that Crady had dropped them off because she did not have time to send them back to BYU through Federal Express. Bowen indicated that he told XXX not to send them in, and was unsure why XXX had brought them back to the University. These exams were determined to be those that XXX admittedly administered on the University’s campus, as discussed above in a separate violation summary.

The University believes that these packages were sent through the University’s athletics business office and that either XXX or XXX facilitated the delivery.

XXX indicated that he believed XXX returned his examination to BYU after he completed it in his dorm room. (See above violation.) XXX denied knowledge of the issue.

XXX stated that he took one of his examinations at Free State High School, with Crady serving as a proctor, and then returned it to BYU. XXX stated that Crady signed and sealed everything and then gave it to him to return. He added that he had additional course work to turn in to BYU, and that he sent it all in at once. (XXX also was enrolled in a course through BYU that required the weekly submission of assignments and worksheets.)

There was also indication from Bowen and Buskirk that XXX had attempted to mail either his own examinations or assignments to BYU from the University’s business office. In July 2003, JoAnn Zerr, an employee in the business office, found a package from a prospective student-athlete and informed Terry Hines, then associate athletics director for compliance, who told her that the business office could not pay for mailings for prospective student-athletes. Hines sent Buskirk the pieces of mail from the prospect. He learned from XXX that he had been asked to mail his own work back to BYU and XXX told him that he did not have time to mail it, so he dropped it off in the University’s athletics department mail basket. Buskirk was unsure what was contained in the envelopes.

Bowen stated that he saw two red envelopes in Buskirk’s office and was informed that XXX had tried to mail them from the University. He was unsure how they had gotten there and who had told XXX to mail them.

The packages were given back to XXX and he mailed them.

VIOLATION 8

Former assistant coach Tyrone Dixon provided clothing to former student-athlete XXX on two separate occasions – once when XXX was a prospective student-athlete, and once when he was an enrolled student-athlete.

NCAA BYLAW 13

13.2 OFFERS AND INDUCEMENTS

13.2.2 Specific Prohibitions

Specifically prohibited financial aid, benefits and arrangements include, but are not limited to, the following:
…
(b) Gift of clothing or equipment;

NCAA BYLAW 16

16.12.2.1 GENERAL RULE

The student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. The term “extra benefit” refers to any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide the student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends with a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.

OVERVIEW

XXX and Tyrone Dixon XXX. Dixon was an assistant football coach at the University when he learned XXX was a prospective student-athlete. During Dixon’s recruitment of XXX, and then again after he enrolled and began attending classes at the University, Dixon provided articles of clothing to XXX.

CONCLUSION

The University’s investigation, and the assessment of the credibility of the information provided, revealed that violations of NCAA Bylaws 13.2.2-(b) and 16.12.2.1 took place with respect to these issues.

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

XXX was recruited by the University during the spring of 2003. XXX transferred to the University after having been enrolled at XXX. XXX reported that Dixon provided him with a rain jacket, sweatshirt and baseball cap (each bearing the KU logo) during his recruitment.

XXX indicated that he received the gifts from Dixon while in his home. According to XXX, Dixon stopped by to have XXX review and sign some application papers when he asked Dixon about obtaining some “KU stuff.” XXX stated that Dixon went to his rental car and returned with the rain jacket, sweatshirt and baseball cap, all of which had been previously worn.

XXX reported that he gave the baseball cap to his mother’s husband and the sweatshirt and rain jacket to his brother. (XXX was not available to be interviewed XXX.) XXX also reported that he never wore any of the gifts given to him by Dixon.

Dixon reported that he visited XXX on at least two occasions during XXX’s recruitment, and that he met with XXX’s mother on at least one occasion. Dixon reported that although he could not recall specifically whether he provided any articles of clothing to XXX during his recruitment, he stated that, “… I may have given it to him … XXX may have gotten it off of me; he may be right.” Further, Dixon said that, “… I may have given it to him, yes, I’ll agree to that.”

Dixon also admitted to providing XXX with 16 shirts that Dixon personally owned and had previously worn. Both XXX and Dixon stated that during the first or second day of training table during the University’s preseason practices, XXX came to dinner wearing a T-shirt that was not consistent with the dress code. Dixon stated that head football coach Mark Mangino admonished XXX about his T-shirt in front of the team and that XXX was embarrassed. Later that evening, XXX and Dixon talked about the dress code and XXX confided in Dixon that he did not have any better clothing than what he was wearing that night.

Dixon reported that he went home that evening and looked through his own wardrobe for old shirts XXX could wear to training table that fit the dress code. He collected 16 old shirts and brought them to campus the next day and gave them to XXX. XXX never wore the shirts. (XXX delivered the 16 shirts to the University after he first reported this information and was asked to return the shirts.)