clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

BREAKING: BYU Basketball hit with NCAA Sanctions

New, 1 comment

The Nick Emery saga has reached a conclusion

NCAA Basketball: Utah State at Brigham Young Jeff Swinger-USA TODAY Sports

After a year-plus investigation, the NCAA released a report detailing sanctions placed on the BYU Basketball program. The NCAA stated the sanctions are due to “four Brigham Young boosters providing more than $12,000 in complimentary all-inclusive vacations, cash, meals, golf and the use of a car to a men’s basketball student-athlete”. The student-athlete is not named in the report, but it is evident that the athlete named is Nick Emery.

Here are the penalties for BYU and what they mean:

  • “Two years of probation from Nov. 9, 2018, through Nov. 8, 2020.” This DOES NOT eliminate BYU from post season consideration. In short, BYU will be on notice during this time period and needs to be on good behavior for the next two years in order to avoid worse sanctions.
  • “A vacation of records in which the student-athlete participated while ineligible.” The biggest impact from this penalty is that Dave Rose will likely lose some of his wins from the time that Nick played while ineligible. Nick played in 47 of BYU’s 48 wins during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 seasons. The report states that “BYU acknowledged that the student-athlete participated in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 men’s basketball seasons while ineligible... BYU shall vacate all regular season and conference tournament records and participation in which the ineligible student-athlete detailed... The institution’s records regarding its men’s basketball program, as well as the records of the head coach, shall reflect the vacated records and shall be recorded in all publications in which such records are reported.” In short, BYU will have to vacate the wins from these two seasons.
  • “A reduction of one men’s basketball scholarship, served during the earliest possible academic year (self-imposed by the university).” This is where the sanctions start getting tangible. Losing one of the 13 allotted scholarships hurts BYU for however long the restriction is in place.
  • “Recruiting restrictions detailed in the public report.” The report states that BYU will a) be limited to 14 official visits over the 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 academic years, b) be prohibited from any unofficial visits during a two-week period between September 1, 2018, and November 30, 2018, c) prohibited from two weeks of communication with recruits during the 2018-2019 academic year — Overall, nothing major for the program.
  • “A disassociation of one of the boosters (self-imposed by the university).” Well duh.
  • “A $5,000 fine (self-imposed by the university).” Pocket change.

You can read the entire report from the NCAA here.

Here is the response from BYU, where they plan to repeal the decision:

“We are disappointed with the decision announced today by the NCAA Committee on Infractions (COI). The COI review is the result of a BYU self-report to the NCAA. From the beginning, BYU has considered the possible infractions a serious matter, and we have cooperated in every way with the NCAA review. There was no institutional knowledge of or involvement in the infractions. In fact, the NCAA found that Coach Rose promotes an atmosphere of compliance and monitors the program.

“The vacation-of-records penalty is extremely harsh and unprecedented given the details of the case. For more than two decades, the NCAA has not required an institution to vacate games in similar cases where the COI found there was no institutional knowledge of or involvement in the violation by either the coaching staff or other university personnel. In fact, this sanction includes the most severe vacation-of-record penalty ever imposed in the history of NCAA Division I basketball for infractions that included no institutional knowledge or involvement. In addition, in the case most similar to this situation, appropriate penalties were imposed, but no wins were vacated. BYU believes the vacation-of-records penalty is unfair and not consistent with recent NCAA precedent. The university plans to appeal the decision.”