"The panel also considered whether the head coach's own conduct - not the conduct of his staff - demonstrated that he failed to meet his responsibilities as a head coach. In particular, the panel gave careful scrutiny to the head coach's handling of the specific instances of alleged sexual assault, interpersonal violence and threats orf violence that are at the center of this case. In each instance, when the head coach received information from a staff member regarding potential criminal conduct by a football student-athlete, he did not report the information and did not personally look any further into the matter. He generally relied on the information provided to him by his staff and likewise relied on them to handle problems. His incurious attitude toward potential criminal conduct by his student-athletes was deeply troubling to the panel. As one panel member observed at the hearing when questioning the coach's lack of response to this information, 'a lot of these things that we're talking about, they're not NCAA rules violations...[or] university policy violations. They're felonies. [W]e're talking about rapes and physical assualts.'"
"The head coach failed to meet even the basic expectations of how a person should react to the kind of conduct at issue in this case. Furthermore, as a campus leader, the head coach is held to an even higher standard. He completely failed to meet this standard. However, there is no linkage between this conduct and Level I or II NCAA violations.
