Brian Spurlock-US PRESSWIRE
U of L has released the notice of allegations sent to it by the NCAA, which details the claims of wrongdoing being levied against Cardinal football assistant Clint Hurtt.
The notice claims that Hurtt:
--Received a $2,500 interest-free loan from then Miami booster Nevin Shapiro, which he later paid back.
--Provided impermissible benefits to multiple Miami recruits. The impermissible benefits included:
1) Transportation, meals and lodging.
2) Allowing recruits to stay at his residence for no cost.
3) Taking recruits to Shapiro's residence where they hung out with other Miami football players.
4) A meal at Grazie Italian Cuisine with football recruits and players, the total value of which was deemed to be at least $529.
More damning than those allegations, however, is the one that Hurtt provided "false and misleading information" during an interview with the NCAA on Nov. 3, 2011. Unless Hurtt can prove this accusation false, he will found guilty of breaking the NCAA's 10.1 ethical conduct contract, a transgression which will likely result in a show-cause penalty.
The accusation isn't good news for Hurtt's job security.
An SI.com study of the past 177 NCAA infractions cases involving violations of Bylaw 10.1 revealed that coaches accused of such violations rarely retain their jobs.
Of the 177 cases, 172 involved coaches or athletic administrators accused of committing unethical conduct. Of those, 159 resigned or were terminated. Eighty-one cases involved coaches or athletics administrators accused of providing false or misleading information to NCAA investigators or encouraging others to lie to investigators. Of those, 78 resigned or were terminated.
Among the names included in the statistics listed above are former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel and former Tennessee basketball coach Bruce Pearl.
If Hurtt is found guilty of breaking Bylaw 10.1, then he would likely face a show-cause penalty. If that happens, then Louisville will have three options: 1) Terminate Hurtt; 2) Keep Hurtt and face sanctions from the NCAA; 3) Fight the NCAA's ruling and risk facing the same result as option two.