| NEWS Ex-assistant lands South Carolina on probation for recruiting violations

[BAMANEWSBOT]

The NCAA’s committee on infractions hit South Carolina for multiple sanctions stemming from violations by a former assistant coach, the organization announced Tuesday. The assistant was not named in the probe, but I reported at FootballScoop that former Gamecocks assistant Lance Thompson was the source of the probe.

The NCAA, South Carolina and Thompson engaged in a “negotiated resolution process,” in which the parties agreed Thompson texted a sophomore recruit following his official visit, and also sent a text notifying the recruit he would be at his high school the following day and would like to meet face-to-face.

NCAA rules prohibit coaches from texting recruits until their junior year, and from face-to-face off-campus visits until their senior year.

Thompson worked as South Carolina’s assistant head coach for defense and defensive line coach from 2016-18. He is now the defensive line coach and recruiting coordinator at Florida Atlantic.

A veteran college assistant, Thompson has coached at Georgia Tech (in two different stints), UCF, LSU, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn in addition to South Carolina and FAU. He has been recognized for his work as a recruiter by ESPN and Rivals.

As part of the negotiated settlement, South Carolina has been hit with the following sanctions:

• A $10,000 fine.
• A prohibition of off-campus football recruiting activity during the first two weeks of the spring 2019 evaluation period and the first four weeks of the fall 2019 evaluation period.
• A reduction of football evaluation days by 12 for the 2018-19 academic year.
• A restriction on all telephone and text communications with football prospects for two weeks beginning Sept. 1, 2019.
• The head football coach may have only off-campus contact with 10 prospects during the fall 2019 contact period.
• One year of probation.
• One-on-one rules education for the head coach regarding NCAA contact and evaluation rules, completed in May 2019.
• The university ended the recruitment of the prospect.

Additionally, the assistant has been hit with a 1-year show-cause penalty. He will be suspended one game for the 2019 season and may not engage in off-campus recruiting during the fall 2019 evaluation period.

 

[TerryP]

The head football coach may have only off-campus contact with 10 prospects during the fall 2019 contact period.

 

[alabama mike]

That one has me scratching my head? Why the head coach when the assistant is the one to blame? Basically, Thompson, gets off with a wrist slap with a one game suspension.

 

[TerryP]

Why the head coach when the assistant is the one to blame?

It's the way the new structure for sanctions are set up: head coach pays for assistants actions. Thompson is on longer on staff at UofSC so I'm sure than came into play as well.

 

[UAgrad93]

My guess is, HC’s can no longer plead ignorance for their assistants actions.

 

[Elderfalsedemigod]

My guess is, HC’s can no longer plead ignorance for their assistants actions.

Correct Also note that LT got a 1 year show cause. I assume FAU will have to act on that in some form or fashion, yes?

 

[rocknthefreeworld]

Sounds like the NCAA took a lesson from the Enron stuff. No more plausible deniability, management is responsible for employees at all times.

 

[BamaFan334]

This is what I do not like about college athletics. I am fine with coaches leaving and taking new jobs, but an old coach doing wrong and kids still in the program getting stuck with a post-season ban is bullshit. So if they leave to get away from a penalty to no fault of there own, most likely, they have to sit out and lose a year, but the coach moves on and gets to start fresh at the new school for the most part. There is something wrong about that. How about you start fining the head coach, and then fining and suspending the coach found guilty of these rules? Hefty fines, not some bullshit petty amount that won't curb these actions. Make these guys think twice, and don't punish players that were not involved.

 

[OldPlayer]

This is what I do not like about college athletics. I am fine with coaches leaving and taking new jobs, but an old coach doing wrong and kids still in the program getting stuck with a post-season ban is bullshit. So if they leave to get away from a penalty to no fault of there own, most likely, they have to sit out and lose a year, but the coach moves on and gets to start fresh at the new school for the most part. There is something wrong about that. How about you start fining the head coach, and then fining and suspending the coach found guilty of these rules? Hefty fines, not some bullshit petty amount that won't curb these actions. Make these guys think twice, and don't punish players that were not involved.

I semi-agree with you but what if the offending coach is not longer in coaching? The NCAA has no enforcement authority. Lance Thompson does have a show cause attached to him so he won't be able to pursue other jobs (schools won't want to go through the process). The violations occurred at South Carolina so South Carolina should be punished whether or not the offending coach is there. The HC should know what is going on so he gets hit with a penalty. Any punishment at the school impacts recruiting. The easiest thing to do is not do it. In this case the remaining players are not punished since they still have the opportunity to go to a bowl game. If there was a bowl ban (as with Ole Miss), the NCAA has recently allowed players to leave without sitting out a year.

 

[BamaFan334]

I semi-agree with you but what if the offending coach is not longer in coaching? The NCAA has no enforcement authority. Lance Thompson does have a show cause attached to him so he won't be able to pursue other jobs (schools won't want to go through the process). The violations occurred at South Carolina so South Carolina should be punished whether or not the offending coach is there. The HC should know what is going on so he gets hit with a penalty. Any punishment at the school impacts recruiting. The easiest thing to do is not do it. In this case the remaining players are not punished since they still have the opportunity to go to a bowl game. If there was a bowl ban (as with Ole Miss), the NCAA has recently allowed players to leave without sitting out a year.

Then I think you have all of the coaches sign a contract with the NCAA saying wages can and will be garnished if you are no longer in coaching. Fines can be re-directed to charity.

 

[OldPlayer]

Then I think you have all of the coaches sign a contract with the NCAA saying wages can and will be garnished if you are no longer in coaching. Fines can be re-directed to charity.

There's no legal precedent to sign anything with the NCAA regarding pay. The NCAA doesn't pay the coaches and garnishing wages is usually done to reimburse other parties. I understand the desire to make it painful to those who are violating the rules, but you can't force anyone to sign such an agreement. Signing under duress invalidates the agreement.