Chris Young out as OSU Women’s Tennis Coach following NCAA investigation

Oklahoma State Athletics announced that head women’s tennis coach Chris Young will not return for the upcoming season. Assistant coach Henner Nehles will serve as interim head coach while a national search is conducted.

The decision follows last week’s NCAA announcement concluding its investigation into the OSU women’s tennis program. The case resulted in Level I-Mitigated violations for the university and Level I-Standard violations for Young. While the underlying infractions were deemed Level II, Young’s actions during the investigation, including failure to produce electronic communications and instructing a student-athlete to withhold information, elevated the case.

OSU says the national search will prioritize candidates with a strong commitment to NCAA compliance and the ability to build trust with student-athletes, families, alumni, and fans.

Previous: Cowgirl Tennis Upsets Oklahoma to Advance to Sweet 16

Here are the key takeaways from the NCAA's findings regarding the Oklahoma State women's tennis program: link to the NCAA findings.

Head Coach Chris Young's Violations and Lack of Cooperation

1. Impermissible Recruiting Contacts: Head Coach Chris Young engaged in impermissible communication with three transfer prospects before they had officially entered the NCAA Transfer Portal. This included an in-person contact with one student-athlete (Transfer 1) while she was still enrolled at another school, and then continued social media interactions. He also used current Oklahoma State student-athletes to relay information to Transfer 1 about transferring.
2. Indirect Recruiting: Young utilized a transfer student-athlete (Transfer 2), who had entered the portal, to pass information and recruiting messages to two other prospects (Transfer 3 and Transfer 4) who had not yet entered the portal. Both Transfer 2 and Transfer 3 ultimately transferred to Oklahoma State.
3. Failure to Cooperate: A significant violation was Young's failure to cooperate with the NCAA investigation. He instructed Transfer 2 to withhold information from enforcement staff and also failed to provide all of his own electronic communications relevant to the case. This obstruction significantly hindered the investigation and elevated the case's severity. Young later acknowledged and apologized for his conduct.
4. Head Coach Responsibility: Due to his direct involvement in the violations and his actions during the investigation, Young was found to have violated head coach responsibility rules, failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance.

NCAA Penalties

The violations were classified as Level I-Mitigated for Oklahoma State and Level I-Standard for Young, with Young's lack of cooperation being a key factor in the Level I classification. The penalties include:

1. Probation: Three years of probation for the Oklahoma State women's tennis program.
2. Financial Penalty: A fine of $35,000, plus 1% of the women's tennis program budget.
3. Recruiting Restrictions:
4. An 18% reduction in official visits for the women's tennis program.
5. Prohibition of unofficial visits for 10 weeks in spring 2025.
6. Prohibition of recruiting communications for a total of 10 weeks over the 2024-25 and 2025-26 academic years.
7. Prohibition of off-campus recruiting for 10 weeks during the 2024-25 academic year.
8. Coach's Show-Cause Order and Suspension:
9. A four-year show-cause order for Chris Young, prohibiting him from communicating with prospective transfers in December during each year of the order.
10. An additional five-week prohibition on communicating with all prospective student-athletes and off-campus recruiting activities during the second year of the show-cause order.
11. Suspension from two regular-season contests during the 2025-26 season, in addition to the 10 contests already suspended by the school (totaling approximately 50% of the regular season).

Oklahoma State must vacate team wins and records in which the ineligible student-athletes competed. The school was considered a repeat violator due to a previous Level I unethical conduct violation in its men's basketball program within the past 10 years, though the NCAA determined this case did not warrant an upward departure from core penalties due to distinct sports and scope of violations.