Michigan State coach Tom Izzo has been suspended for Saturday’s game against Prairie View A&M after committing a secondary violation in which the Spartans employed an “individual associated with a prospect” at a camp this past summer.
This is a rule that recently went into place that is intended to cut down on the number of elite camps throughout the country. Coaches are no longer able to hire a person associated with a prospect to work at a camp.
The violation occurred during the annual Michigan State Boys Basketball Camp, according to a statement released by the program. The individual was paid the usual rate of $475 for five days.
“As an institution, we believe Coach Izzo and his staff have always demonstrated a commitment to compliance and will continue to do so,” MSU athletics director Mark Hollis said. “This inadvertent secondary violation occurred in a changing landscape. We find ourselves in unchartered territory in light of this broad definition. Defining who is an IAWP can be difficult, especially when dealing with an individual that has demonstrated no influence on a prospect. It is also important to note that this is only a secondary violation, and with Coach Izzo sitting out a game, the case is closed. While the penalty seems severe for a secondary violation, this is a new mandate from the NCAA and the Basketball Focus Group by which we will abide.”
The NCAA Board of Directors strongly encouraged the use of suspensions for anyone violating the rule, and Izzo was hit with a one-game penalty.
“I’ve always placed a high importance on following the rules and pride myself on adhering to high standards of professional conduct and doing things the right way,” Izzo said. “This is an isolated and inadvertent secondary violation of a new rules interpretation. I regret that it happened.”
The reasoning to implement the rule was well-intended, but Izzo likely won’t be the only one receiving a suspension for violating it.
Coaches now can’t employ anyone that is associated or could be potentially associated with a prospect or they could be given a suspension.
The school says the NCAA has indicated the case will be closed once the suspension is served. Still, both Izzo and Hollis sounded miffed at the severity of the sanction, which Izzo called "unprecedented" for this type of situation.
Hollis said an "individual associated with a prospect" can be anybody who has communication with a prospect because of his athletic performance. Michigan State said the person employed at the camp wasn't accompanied by the prospect and didn't have any contact with the prospect while coaching at the camp.
"To our knowledge, the individual in this case is not a handler or an agent, no money was funneled to him for access to the recruit, and the individual's camp employment had no impact on the recruitment of the prospect," Hollis said. "I believe this falls into an unintended 'IAWP' violation when the individual maintained contact with the prospect for personal reasons and then was employed as a camp counselor at our camp. The prospect and the high school coach never viewed the individual as their guy or as MSU's guy."
The school didn't identify the prospect. When asked what the program could have done to avoid this violation, Hollis said: "Not have summer camps."
The school said the individual in question was paid the same amount as other camp counselors.
"I don't think that's the intent of the rule," Izzo said. "The intent of the rule, from what I understood it, was to make sure we're not paying exorbitant amounts of money to people who are bringing prospective student-athletes here. It's my total fault for not understanding every bit of the rule."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
