The 111-page document goes into specific detail about what exactly happened and what went wrong with each violation. I’ll summarize what USC submitted to the NCAA.

The Whitney Hotel:

For the most part, South Carolina is claiming that what happened at the Whitney was an unintentional mistake, or “a good faith error in judgment.”

Twelve student-athletes were able to stay at the hotel for extended periods of time at a discounted rate, paying less than $15 a night. Also, nine of the student-athletes postponed their payments, which the NCAA terms an impermissible loan. The total for the extra benefits amounts to $47,000.

Since the Athletics Program had a relationship with the Whitney, as it had paid for newly hired coaches to stay there for an extended period of time, the NCAA calls it an extra benefit instead of just preferential treatment.

Jamie Blevins, the general manager of the Whitney, made a special arrangement with the student-athletes to pay $900 a month for a two-bedroom suite. Jennifer Stiles, the Director of Compliance Services at the time, spoke with Blevins, who assured her that the athletes were not getting a preferential rate.

Furthermore, Blevins drew up leases for the athletes that they submitted to Compliance Services, which was a requirement for all student-athletes who were living off-campus. Stiles compared the rates to other two-bedroom apartments in the area and found that the rates were not out of the ordinary. As a student who lives in a two-bedroom apartment, I can confirm this.

USC acknowledges that Stiles should have looked into the daily rates at the hotel; however, Blevins had non-athletes staying at the hotel for the same long-term rate that he gave the student-athletes. Similarly, Blevins had allowed other guests/residents to build up large amounts of unpaid rent.

As a result, South Carolina admits that four football players competed while ineligible for the 2009-2010 season. Once the investigation began, USC instructed the athletes to move out and promptly pay their unpaid rent.

The response goes on to detail the relationship between the Whitney and USC. The hotel was a member of the Gamecock Club and was “representative of the university’s interests,” according the to NCAA guidelines.

Several coaches and staff members were aware that student-athletes were staying at the Whitney, but in the response, South Carolina states that their knowledge of the situation was limited and they did not know specific details about the living arrangements.

The SAM Foundation:

The more troubling of the two instances in the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations was the activities of the Student-Athlete Mentoring (SAM) Foundation.

The co-founders of SAM are Steven Gordon and Kevin Lahn, two USC graduates. Lahn had given South Carolina over $190,000 and was a football season ticket holder, according to the response, which classifies him as a booster. Gordon was not on record for ever donating to the university.

The allegations by the NCAA are that through SAM, Lahn and Gordon made impermissible recruiting contacts and provided recruiting inducements to prospective student-athletes, as well as extra benefits to USC student-athletes, totaling $8,000.

Some of the allegations include introducing prospective student-athletes to USC coaches, funding unofficial visits, buying gift-cards for prospective student-athletes and their parents, and hosting parties through SAM, which provided meals and entertainment.

Furthermore, while on visit to USC, Lahn paid for transportation, drinks, and entertainment to one athlete’s parents at a private party he financed. Lahn also sent an email to USC’s director of development for student affairs, which was eventually forwarded to Stiles. In the email, Lahn requested that University President Harris Pastides meet with the athlete’s mother during the athlete’s official visit in order to convince the mother that USC is a good institution to enroll in. We’ll get to the email later.

The total number of impermissible benefits to the athlete that Lahn referenced in the email totaled $2,700. Prior to South Carolina receiving the NCAA notice in Septemeber, the NCAA ruled that freshman wide receiver Damiere Byrd received about $2,700 in impermissible benefits through his involvement with the Delaware-based SAM Foundation. Byrd was ruled ineligible for the first four games of the 2011 season.

The allegations go on to detail how Lahn and Gordon would bring big groups of athletes to the university and introduce certain athletes to assistant coaches. They also brought athletes to participate in football individual camps. During one of the camps, USC offered a student-athlete associated with the SAM Foundation a scholarship.

As part of its corrective actions, South Carolina will no longer open the individual football camps to non-scholastic teams.

Lahn and Gordon also hosted a dinner cruise on Lake Murray, where there were over 30 SAM prospective student-athletes, including those that USC was recruiting. In addition to the prospective student-athletes, Lahn permitted 16 members of the men’s and women’s track and field team, including coach Curtis Frye, on the dinner cruise. Through this, Frye had an impermissible off-campus recruiting contact with a USC prospective student-athlete while on the cruise.

In the response, South Carolina explains that the SAM Foundation’s mission is to provide mentoring and support for inner-city high school students, both academically and playing on the field. USC also writes in the response that SAM funded trips for prospective student-athletes to at least eight other universities with similar benefits to those they received while visiting USC.

South Carolina argues that while the athletes received impermissible benefits through the SAM Foundation, the benefits were not an exchange for students to go to USC. The prospects were not aware they were violating NCAA legislature. Only one SAM student has ever verbally committed and taken an official visit to the university.

South Carolina goes on to explain the benefits that one athlete received, saying that the gift cards were not purchased specifically for the athlete, but rather the athlete and his parents won the gift cards at a Halloween party hosted by Lahn. Other guests won similar prizes. Furthermore, the athlete’s father said that he generally paid for his and his son’s meals on unofficial visits.

In regards to SAM paying for athletes to come and participate in football individual camps at USC, the response details that South Carolina found it permissible for SAM to fund that trip, but the dinner cruise was deemed to be an excessive entertainment. Also, South Carolina only recruited a few of the athletes that made the trip, as the rest were not Division I caliber athletes.

In regards to the track athletes on the dinner cruise, the response states that several of the track students thought that the trip was a community outreach opportunity to interact with the SAM students and encourage them to attend college. In the past, the team would hold off-campus meal events around the same time as a team-building experience before the NCAA championships, and so the coaches thought the event to be permissible when it wasn’t.

Specifically, the violation occurred because the dinner cruise ($33.50 per person) was funded by an individual that represents the athletics’ interests of the university. Also, there was confusion among the track staff as to whether the trip was cleared with Compliance Services, and the response gives the impression that it wasn’t properly brought to Compliance’s attention.

In the response, South Carolina writes, "there is no question that Frye knew in advance about the dinner cruise and that prospective student-athletes would be present on the boat." The report goes on to say that Frye decided to attend the dinner cruise because he knew that a group of male high school students would be on the boat and he wanted to make sure his female student-athletes were treated properly. 

The Email:

A few days before the official visit of a USC prospective student-athlete, Lahn sent the email that he wanted Pastides to meet with the athlete’s mother. In the email, Lahn also stated that he would be sitting with the athlete’s mother at the football game during the visit.

According to the response, the email made clear that Lahn was involved in the athlete’s recruitment and wanted to convince the athlete to attend USC. South Carolina did not show Pastides the email, and so, he never met with the athlete’s mother. Lahn was instructed to not have involvement in the athlete’s official visit, but had extensive contact with the athlete’s parents during the visit.

Later in the response, USC acknowledges that the violations that occurred during the athlete’s official visit could have been avoided if the athlete’s parents had been informed of Lahn’s email and had been briefed on what is unacceptable contact with Lahn.

The athlete’s parents denied any knowledge of Lahn’s email and said they did not sit with Lahn at any time during the football game. Stiles had quarterback coach G.A. Mangus handle the situation with Lahn after the email, since Mangus was the main recruiter for the athlete. Stiles admitted that had she known the full extent of Lahn’s involvement, she would have handled the situation differently.

Boynton’s, Mangus’, and Frye’s involvement:

Assistant basketball coach Michael Boynton was recruiting an athlete for the basketball team that was associated with Lahn. Boynton stated that when he first met Lahn and the prospective student-athlete, he was not aware of Lahn’s status as a representative of USC’s athletics interests.

Though Boynton would later realize Lahn’s status as someone representative of USC’s athletics interests, Boynton did not continue recruiting the prospective student-athlete, and so he did not consider the student-athlete’s involvement with Lahn.

Similarly, Mangus had a relationship with Gordon in recruiting a prospective student-athlete and was aware of Gordon’s relationship with athlete. Both were reprimanded as a result of knowing the impermissible contact and not reporting it.

Frye was reprimanded for allowing his athletes to attend the dinner cruise where they received impermissible extra benefits. Furthermore, he had impermissible off-campus recruiting contact with a prospective student-athlete on the dinner cruise.

What now?

South Carolina will have to appear before a committee on infractions in Los Angeles from Feb. 17-18. The committee can either accept USC’s self-imposed sanctions or add to them. Since USC had violations in 2005, it is subject to a repeat violator offense.