Editor’s note: The following is a complete transcription of the 18-minute opening statement delivered by Syracuse head coach Jim Boeheim on Thursday morning regarding Syracuse’s NCAA violations, outlined in a report released on March 6.

“As the head coach of the Syracuse University basketball team, I take great pride in what our program has accomplished on and off the court for the past 39 years. Ultimately, as head coach, I must also accept responsibility for the conduct of individuals within the program, including those that have found to have committed violations of NCAA rules as outlined in the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions recently-released report. I do regret that these violations happened, and I apologize for any harm it has brought to my players, the university, or embarrassment it has caused to our alumni, students and fans. Although this report does not find that I had personal involvement in any violations of NCAA rules, the committee on infractions has asserted that for the past 10 years, I did not promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program and I did not monitor the activities regarding compliance of those within the program. This could not be further from the truth.

You have heard this story from the NCAA’s point of view. Today, I’d like to share my perspectives. There are four key areas I want to address: head coach responsibility, allegations of academic fraud, impermissible benefits, and the athletic department’s voluntary drug-testing policy.

First, I believe in the NCAA’s head coach responsiblity bylaw and what it stands for. ‘The head coach should be presumed responsible for violations of NCAA rules that occur within their program.’ I agree fully with that responsibility. That is why as a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Baseball Coaches I voted for the implementation of the head coach responsibility bylaw in 2005. However, I also believe that a head coach should have the opportunity to rebut the presumption of responsibility stated in the head coach responsibility bylaw by demonstrating that he promoted at atmosphere of compliance within the program, and that he monitored the activities regarding compliance of those within the program. The head coach responsibility bylaw does not and was never intended to be a rule of strict liability. In our case however, the committee imposed penalties on me personally without giving credence to my efforts to promote compliance within the men’s basketball program, which is contrary to the head coach responsibility bylaw. In fact, in 2011, when the NCAA enforcement staff issued the first notice of allegations to Syracuse University, I was not charged with a violation of the head coach responsibility bylaw. Because of my non-involvement in the underlying violation and because of my devotion to promoting compliance within the men’s basketball program.

It was not until the second notice of allegations was issued to the university that I was charged with a violation of the head coach responsibility bylaw. In the intervening years the charges against the university did not change. There were still no direct violations of NCAA bylaws alleged against me. Never the less at that time, I even offered to make myself available to the NCAA enforcement staff for an additional interview to discuss the atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program. Something that the enforcement staff had not specifically asked me about in my prior interviews. But the enforcement staff declined to listen to the additional information that I had. I want to stress again, that I take responsiblity for violation of NCAA rules that occurred within the basketball program. However I believe that my effort to promote an atmosphere of compliance with the men’s basketball program was disregarded by the enforcement staff and the committee on infractions. And that ultimately resulted in my suspension for the first nine ACC games of the 2015-16 season.

What basis do I have for this assertion? Since 1992 I, along with the other members of the men’s basketball staff have participated in monthly meetings with the office of athletic compliance. My staff and I are in constant communication regarding compliance matters and I have ensured open lines of communication exist within the program with respect to compliance matters.

Both directly to me and to the office of athletic compliance. I meet with my staff on almost a daily basis to discuss compliance matters. My assistant coaches and staff memebrs know the NCAA rules and know that we must follow them.

Second, regarding academic fraud, I’m frustrated with the Committee on Infractions finding that I could not promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program. I am most disappointed the committee’s’ suggestion that academic improprieties were accepted and encouraged within the men’s basketball program. Though I take full responsibility for what has happened, I could not disagree more with this assessment, and I believe the facts support my view.

Even though many players come to Syracuse with the goal of playing in the NBA, we demand that our team members, our student-athletes are doing the required work in the classroom as well as on the court. This is why I have been a longtime proponent of the academic progress rate. With the exception of the 2008-09 academic year when we had three student-athletes withdraw from the university during the spring semester to prepare for the NBA draft, the men’s basketball program has consistently earned an APR well in excess of the minimum required by the NCAA to maintain eligibility to compete in NCAA championships.

Even before the implementation of the APR however, I worked closely with student-athlete support services to ensure that our student-athletes are appropriately focused on their academic responsibility and that they have the resources necessary to excel off the court. To this day I meet daily with our academic coordinator to discuss the academic progress and success of our student-athletes. Between 2008 and 2014, 11 of our 13 seniors graduated. We have an APR score of 1000 – a perfect score – in the last two years. I believe this shows we are paying attention to the academic welfare of our student-athlete.

In the case of academic violations involving a former student athlete it is clear that from the Infractions Report that these violations occurred because our former director of basketball operations took it upon himself  to provide impermissible academic assistance. The committee on infractions suggested I somehow did not do enough to promote compliance or monitor the activity regarding compliance of the former director of basketball operations.

This is not true. I engaged in daily meetings with this individual, regarding academic progress of all of our student athletes, and in particular, the student-athlete identified in the infractions report. When I learned that this student-athlete was permitted to seek a grade change – open to all students in his college, all students, not student-athletes – he could seek a grade change to restore his eligibility. I made it abundantly clear that the grade change should be done in accordance with university policy that apply to all Syracuse students. I was concerned with the welfare of this student-athlete but I never expected, and I certainly never encouraged, these individuals to cheat. This is not my way.

Never the less the committee on infractions assumes that because the violations occurred, it must of occurred because of my failure to promote compliance. This is an interpretation of strict liability in contrary to NCAA legislation and to my decades-long commitment to compliance and academic success. The committee on infractions suggested in this report that there was a 10-year period where I failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance, and during which student-athletes in the men’s basketball program ‘freely committed academic fraud.’ In fact, during that 10-year period, after an extensive investigation, there was one case of academic fraud in the men’s basketball program. This involved the former director of baseball operations and a receptionist in the baseball facility improperly inserting citation into a student-athletes paper.

Three other student-athletes were charged by the enforcement staff with receiving impermissible extra benefits. These student-athletes had their cases reviewed by the University’s academic integrity office and the university ultimately determined that no academic integrity violations had been established. This is far from a program where student-athletes freely committed fraud.

I note that in the same time period the Committee found that three student-athletes in the football program did commit academic fraud. These infractions did not go unnoticed, but the penalties on the football program were far less than what was imposed on the basketball program.

Does the central issue of head coach responsibility apply only to the basketball program? This illustrates the arbitrary manner in which the NCAA issues its penalties not just from school-to-school, but even within a single institution.

Third, with respect to the issues with the former employee of the Oneida YMCA, I knew this individual to be a part-time employee of the YMCA who showed an interested in working with troubled youth, and both student-athletes and non-student-athletes. There was no reason to believe that this man would provide impermissible benefits to student-athletes. In fact, before our student-athletes were permitted to spent time volunteering at the Y, this man was vetted by the office of athletic compliance. He was given strict instruction on what he was and was not permitted to do under NCAA rules. It was not until after the NCAA investigation began, that I learned that this man had provided impermissible benefits to student-athletes. I did not as the committee on infractions says, that any violations had incurred. Had I known that, I would have taken action.

Fourth, I’d like to address the university’s drug-testing policy. The university implemented this policy for the benefit of its student-athletes. Despite the fact that the university was not required to do so under NCAA legislation, we were among only  a handful of Division I schools with such a policy. Although I supported the policy, I did not write it and I had no input into its development. Likewise, I did not administer the policy nor did I have any decision making authority with respect to the administration of the policy.

I was told my the administration of the drug policy when a player could or could not practice or play in a game. Again, I fully accept as the head coach of the men’s basketball program that I am responsible for the conduct of everyone in our program, and I deeply regret that any violations occurred in our program, because one violation is one too many.

However, given the circumstance I believe the penalty imposed on the university as a whole, and me individually, are unduly harsh. I feel the NCAA is punished future and current student-athletes for the conduct of a few individuals who are no longer associated in any way with Syracuse University.

For these reasons I have chosen to appeal the committee on infractions’ decision. I believe in what we are doing at Syracuse University, and I will continue to build on the great program that we have established.

In conclusion, regarding my future. I am 70 years old. It’s obvious that there is a timeframe for me as the head basketball coach. As the chancellor indicated in his statement yesterday, I feel three years is right for me to be able to continue to do my job as well as I possibly could. The approaching completion of the investigation actually prompted me to clarify in my own mind my plans for the future and my decision to establish that timeline with Chancellor Syverud. Three years is probably longer than I was planning prior to this investigation. However, given all of these developments, it is the right time for the program.

In Mike Hopkins, we have a great coach who will be working with me every day to help inform recruits regarding the time period I will be here. They will know exactly when I will be here and when I will leave. So all of our recruits will understand what is going to happen when in most cases, coaches leave and everybody is stuck. Everybody that’s coming in knows that I will be here for three years. They committed to coming in before they knew that and they committed to staying here before they knew that. I told every recruit when I recruit them, ‘I’m coaching next year.’ After that, I can’t guarantee anything and no coach can, either. But I think we’re unique in being able to tell recruits, ‘You only have to listen to me for three years. Or two. Or one.’ And I’ve talked to several recruits obviously about this and if anybody’s concerned about our recruiting or whether we can recruit, I don’t think that’s an issue. We’re giving notice and we’ll explain that to all of our recruits. I believe the program will be in a great position when I do retire. Thank you. I’ll be glad to take your questions — as always.”

Compiled by Connor Grossman, asst. copy editor, [email protected] and Phil D’Abbraccio, sports editor, [email protected] 

Published on March 19, 2015 at 12:58 pm