Share This Page
WVU

Report: WVU coach ran bonus program at Oklahoma State

| Saturday, Sept. 7, 2013, 7:51 p.m.

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — WVU special teams coordinator and former Oklahoma State assistant Joe DeForest is named in an upcoming Sports Illustrated report on improprieties — including running a bonus program for performance — in the OSU program, The Oklahoman reported.

DeForest denied the charges, the newspaper reported.

WVU is not named in the SI report, but athletic director Oliver Luck issued a statement saying the school is looking into the matter to ensure its program is clean.

“West Virginia University is aware of an upcoming investigative reporting series in Sports Illustrated which — while focused on another institution — includes allegations against one of our current assistant football coaches regarding his time of employment at his previous Institution,” Luck said. “Upon learning of the pending investigative report, WVU launched an internal review to ensure the coach's full compliance to NCAA rules while at West Virginia. The NCAA has also been contacted. While our assistant football coach has denied the allegations, it is the right thing to do to look into the matter and review practices here.” SI claims that 85 percent of the alleged violations occurred from 2001-07, which means the NCAAs four-year statute of limitations has passed, The Oklahoman reported.

For most of that time, Les Miles was head coach at Oklahoma State. Miles now is head coach at LSU.

DeForest worked 11 years at OSU before coming to WVU with Dana Holgorsen in 2011.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.