For the second time in as many days, a Pac-12 school has found itself on the receiving end of a public rebuke from the NCAA.
The Association announced in a press release that it has found UCLA offensive line coach Adrian Klemm “acted unethically… when he paid for two prospects to receive private training.” Klemm acknowledged that he had paid $2,400 toward housing and private training sessions for the unnamed recruits, but only after a former girlfriend sent a letter to the NCAA in November of 2014 alleging potential violations.
Klemm, one of the top recruiters in the conference, claimed that he did not know that was a violation of NCAA rules. “[T]he coach incorrectly believed it was permissible to pay for the training because he believed the two prospects signed National Letters of Intent,” the NCAA’s release stated. The Committee on Infractions decided that Klemm should’ve been aware such an arrangement ran counter to Association bylaws.
In March of 2015, UCLA announced that Klemm had been placed on paid suspension as unspecified NCAA rules violations had been uncovered. While he was reinstated three months later, Klemm was suspended for the first two games of the 2015 season.
The NCAA accepted the school’s self-imposed sanctions, which included the initial suspensions for the spring recruiting period/spring practice period and the first two regular-season games as well as a reduction in the number of spring football evaluation days from 168 to 150 for the spring 2015 recruiting period; and a reduction in the number of official visits from the university’s four-year average by two for the 2015-16 academic year.
In addition to those self-imposed penalties, the NCAA imposed an additional $5,000 fine and issued an official public reprimand and censure.
Personally, Klemm was slapped with a two-year show-cause. That will have no impact on Klemm as long as he remains with the Bruins. Should he be fired or leave the program for any reason within the next two years, however, he and his new employer, if at the collegiate level, would have to appear in front of the COI to “show cause” as to why the new school shouldn’t be subject to sanctions.