WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT. OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS---This report is organized as follows:

Transcription

1 FOR RELEASE Tuesday, Noon (Central time) CONTACT: David Swank, chair NCAA Committee on Infractions University of Oklahoma WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS---This report is organized as follows: I. Introduction. II. Findings of violations of NCAA legislation. III. Committee on Infractions Penalties. I. INTRODUCTION. This case involved the men's basketball program at Weber State University and primarily concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting, academic eligibility, extra benefits, ethical conduct and institutional control. is a Division I-AA institution and a member of the Big Sky Conference. The university has an enrollment of approximately 14,000 students and sponsors seven men's and eight women s intercollegiate sports. This is a significant case involving serious violations of NCAA rules. However, even though there were violations that involved improper assistance with correspondence courses, there was no evidence of academic fraud. The committee was encouraged by the university administration's reaction to the discovery of these violations. It conducted an appropriate investigation, instituted meaningful corrective actions and self-imposed significant penalties on the institution's athletics program.

2 Page No. 2 A. CASE CHRONOLOGY. In 1993 and 1994 the NCAA received information concerning prospective student-athletes who had enrolled in correspondence courses at Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God (Southeastern College) in Lakeland, Florida. The information was that these student-athletes were using these correspondence courses to complete their graduation requirements at the junior colleges they were attending prior to enrolling in four-year colleges. The enforcement staff was aware of 45 to 50 NCAA fouryear institutions that may have had or did have junior college graduates enrolled who had completed the junior college degree requirements using credits from Southeastern College. On October 13, 1994, the NCAA enforcement staff sent a letter to s director of athletics regarding the enforcement staff's review of the enrollment of prospective student-athletes who had earned academic credit at Southeastern College. In the letter, the staff requested the institution to identify its current student-athletes who were enrolled at Southeastern College during the summer of In a December 15 letter, the university s faculty athletics representative identified three men's basketball student-athletes who had received correspondence course credit from Southeastern College during the specified time period. The faculty athletics representative indicated that there was no evidence that the student-athletes used their Southeastern College credits to meet graduation requirements at their junior colleges. During the spring and summer of 1995, the enforcement staff conducted in-person interviews with the three student-athletes. As a result of these interviews the staff acquired information regarding potential violations of NCAA legislation. On September 26, the enforcement staff sent a letter of preliminary inquiry to the university outlining the scope of the staff's investigation and its belief that there may have been violations at the university which were major in nature. The university initiated a general inquiry to determine if NCAA rule violations had been committed. The enforcement staff s investigation continued into the fall of 1995 and winter of On April 8, 1996, the enforcement staff issued a letter of official inquiry to the university, the head men's basketball coach, an assistant men's basketball coach and a voluntary assistant men s basketball coach. On May 7, 1996, after the university and enforcement staff obtained information regarding other potential violations, the enforcement staff sent a letter to the president requesting that additional on-campus interviews be conducted. On May 31 the university s legal counsel informed the Committee on Infractions that new information had been discovered and requested that the committee grant an extension of the deadline for responding to the letter of official inquiry. The committee extended the deadline for the university and all involved parties. On August 7 and 8, the university and the head coach submitted their responses to the letter of official inquiry. On August 28, 1996, the enforcement staff and the university conducted a prehearing conference. Also on this date, the assistant men's basketball coach submitted a response to the letter of official inquiry, and the enforcement staff forwarded an amended supplemental letter of official inquiry to the

3 Page No. 3 university and the assistant coach. On September 3, the enforcement staff and counsel for the head coach conducted a prehearing conference. On September 12, the assistant coach submitted a supplemental response and on September 17, the enforcement staff and counsel for the assistant coach held a prehearing conference via telephone. The volunteer coach did not submit a written response or participate in a prehearing conference. On September 20, 1996, representatives of the NCAA enforcement staff, the institution and the Big Sky Conference appeared at a hearing before the NCAA Committee on Infractions. The head men's basketball coach, the assistant men's basketball coach and the volunteer coach involved in this case were included among those present. At the time of the hearing there were no remaining eligibility issues. B. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS. The violations found by the committee may be summarized as follows: During the summer and fall of 1994, members of the men s basketball coaching staff provided recruiting inducements and extra benefits to a student-athlete when they assisted him with and helped pay for his enrollment in correspondence courses necessary for him to become eligible under NCAA rules. During the fall quarter of 1994, the institution awarded the student-athlete athletically related financial aid even though he was ineligible. During the summer of 1993, members of the men s basketball coaching staff permitted two athletics representatives to have impermissible recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete, provided impermissible assistance with his course materials for the correspondence courses and arranged for a proctor. The head men s basketball coach also provided impermissible recruiting inducements when he assisted the prospective student-athlete with obtaining tuition money for the correspondence courses and arranging for a tutor. In early July 1992, the head men s basketball coach provided an impermissible recruiting inducement when he allowed a prospective student-athlete to reside in his home for one or two days. After the prospective student-athlete enrolled in the university, an assistant men s basketball coach mailed papers for a correspondence course on behalf of the student-athlete during the summer of The university improperly used the grade in this course to certify his continuing eligibility and permitted him to compete while ineligible during the 1993 fall quarter. During October 1991 and March 1993, the head men s basketball coach arranged for two prospective studentathletes to have improper recruiting contacts with an athletics representative following professional basketball games. On April 15, 1994, the head men s basketball coach improperly provided host money to a prospective student-

4 Page No. 4 athlete, which he knew or should have known would be used to post bail for a men s basketball student-athlete. During the summer of 1996, the head men s basketball coach employed a prospective student-athlete in his summer basketball camp. The assistant men s basketball coach involved in this case violated the NCAA standards of ethical conduct. The head men s basketball coach involved in this case violated the NCAA standards of ethical conduct. There was a lack of institutional control. There were several secondary violations. C. SUMMARY OF THE PENALTIES. In imposing the following penalties, the Committee on Infractions considered the corrective actions taken by the university, as detailed in Part III-A of this report, and the penalties proposed and self-imposed by the university. 1. The committee adopted as its own the following penalties proposed and self-imposed by the institution: Reduction by four in the number of permissible official visits in men's basketball during the academic year and by three during the academic year. Reduction by one in the number of assistant men's basketball coaches from August 5, 1996, to August 5, Limitation on the number of men's basketball coaches who may recruit off campus to a maximum of one coach from July 8, 1996, to June 30, Reduction by two in the number of permissible financial aid awards in men's basketball during the academic year. Imposition of several very significant sanctions regarding the head men s basketball coach including probation and reduction in salary. 2. Although the committee found the penalties imposed by the university were meaningful and significant penalties it determined that because of the nature of the violations, the individuals involved in the violations and the length of time over which these violations occurred that additional penalties were appropriate. The following additional penalties have been imposed by the committee: Public reprimand and censure. Four years of probation, from August 7, 1996.

5 Page No. 5 Reduction by two in the number of permissible financial aid awards in men's basketball during the academic year. Requirement that the institution send all men s basketball coaches to NCAA regional compliance seminars for a period of two years. Requirement that the institution continue to develop a comprehensive athletics compliance education program, with annual reports to the committee during the period of probation. Recertification of current athletics policies and practices. Show-cause requirement regarding the head men's basketball coach, which will prohibit him from recruiting off campus until August 5, Show-cause requirement regarding the former assistant men s basketball coach until July 1, II. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. A. IMPROPER ASSISTANCE WITH CORRESPONDENCE COURSES AND AWARDING OF ATHLETICALLY RELATED FINANCIAL AID TO AN INELIGIBLE STUDENT- ATHLETE. [NCAA BYLAWS , , , AND ] During the summer and fall of 1994, in an attempt to assist a men s basketball prospective student-athlete obtain his associate of arts degree from a two-year college, members of the university's men's basketball coaching staff violated NCAA recruiting and extra benefit legislation. This was done by assisting in arranging for and facilitating the prospective student-athlete's enrollment in correspondence courses taken from Southeastern College and paying for a course at another college. In September 1994, the university allowed the prospective student-athlete to enroll as a full-time student and receive athletically related financial aid even though he did not meet NCAA two-year college transfer regulations for nonqualifiers from high school because he had not received his associate's degree. Specifically: 1. During June and July 1994, members of the men's basketball coaching staff provided recruiting inducements to the prospective student-athlete. This was accomplished by arranging for course registration forms, examination request forms and other materials necessary to enroll in and complete three courses at Southeastern College to be sent to the college. These materials were sent by facsimile or regular mail from the university to Southeastern College at no cost to the prospective studentathlete. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff

6 Page No. 6 also arranged for university employees to serve as proctors for all of the prospective student-athlete's Southeastern College examinations. The student-athlete was taking the correspondence courses to raise his grade-point average so that he could satisfy the requirements for obtaining an associate of arts degree from his two-year college. After the prospective student-athlete enrolled at the university in the fall of 1994 as a full-time student, and while he was retaking two of the three Southeastern College courses, members of the university's men's basketball staff continued to send by facsimile and mail course-related materials to Southeastern College on behalf of the prospective student-athlete. [Bylaws , and ] 2. During the 1994 fall quarter, the institution awarded impermissible financial aid to the prospective studentathlete, even though he was an NCAA nonqualifier when he graduated from high school in 1991 and had not received an associate of arts degree prior to enrolling at the university. Under NCAA Bylaws, a nonqualifier is ineligible for institutional financial aid, practice and competition the first academic year of residence at a Division I institution unless the student-athlete has graduated from a two-year institution and met specific satisfactory-progress and grade-point average requirements. The prospective student-athlete was retaking two Southeastern College correspondence courses while he was enrolled at as a full-time student, attending classes and receiving a full athletics grant-inaid. The prospective student-athlete retook the correspondence courses in an effort to raise his cumulative grade-point average to satisfy the requirements for obtaining his associate of arts degree. The prospective student-athlete took his final examinations in the two Southeastern College courses in October and November 1994, and did not receive his associate's degree from the twoyear college until December 23, Prior to the official start date for men's basketball practice on October 15, 1994, both the head men's basketball coach and the assistant men's basketball coach were aware the student-athlete had not completed his associate s degree and withheld him from practice and competition but did nothing to terminate his financial aid. [Bylaw ] 3. During late October 1994, an assistant men's basketball coach asked a volunteer assistant men's basketball coach to permit him to use a credit card number belonging to a relative of the volunteer coach. This was done so that the prospective student-athlete could use the credit card to pay for a correspondence course from another institution. The volunteer assistant coach provided the credit card number. At the time he was aware that the credit card number would be used to pay the cost of a correspondence course that the prospective student-athlete needed to receive his associate of arts degree from a two-year college. However, in order to obtain the use of the credit card, the assistant coach assured the volunteer assistant coach that there would be no problems with NCAA rules. On October 31 the assistant coach telephoned the registration

7 Page No. 7 department at the other institution and the prospective student-athlete then used the credit card number to enroll in a U.S. History correspondence course. A total of $ was charged to the credit card for the correspondence course and related materials. The volunteer assistant coach subsequently reimbursed his relative, but neither the assistant coach nor the prospective studentathlete repaid the volunteer assistant coach. [Bylaws , and ] B. IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITMENT BY ATHLETICS REPRESENTATIVES AND IMPROPER ASSISTANCE WITH CORRESPONDENCE COURSES. [NCAA BYLAWS , , , (e), (g), , AND ] During the summer of 1993, members of the university's men's basketball coaching staff permitted impermissible recruiting contacts to occur between a men's basketball prospective studentathlete and two representatives of the institution's athletics interests. The prospective student-athlete rented lodging from the athletics representatives while he resided in Ogden that summer. While he was living in Ogden he took correspondence courses from Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God, Lakeland, Florida (Southeastern College). These courses were necessary so he could become eligible for financial aid, practice and competition under NCAA rules for the fall of 1993 at the university. The head men's basketball coach provided impermissible recruiting inducements when he assisted the prospective student-athlete with the tuition costs for several correspondence courses. He also arranged for a tutor for the prospective student-athlete at no cost. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff also provided impermissible recruiting inducements to the prospective student-athlete when they arranged for a proctor for his examinations, and assisted him in obtaining and returning his course materials for correspondence courses. Specifically: 1. During the summer of 1993, while the prospective studentathlete was completing Southeastern College course work in Ogden, Utah, members of the university's men's basketball staff arranged for improper recruiting contacts with two representatives of the university's athletics interests. Members of the men s basketball coaching staff introduced the prospective student-athlete to the athletics representatives and the prospective student-athlete subsequently rented lodging in their home from June 20 to August 12, [Bylaws and ] 2. During the summer of 1993, the head men's basketball coach loaned or arranged for the prospective student-athlete to obtain money for tuition costs for several courses at Southeastern College. The head coach employed the prospective student-athlete at his June 21-24, 1993, summer basketball camp and paid him approximately $200. On or about July 27, 1993, the head coach knowingly loaned or advanced a significant amount of money to the prospective student-athlete. The funds were sent to Southeastern College to pay for three courses. The prospective student-

8 Page No. 8 athlete repaid some of this money and ] [Bylaws (e), 3. The head men's basketball coach arranged for his son to tutor the prospective student-athlete a no cost in a math course taken from Southeastern College. [NCAA Bylaw ] 4. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff arranged for a proctor for the prospective student-athlete's Southeastern College examinations. They also sent his registration materials, final examination request documents, course papers and course examinations to Southeastern College from the university by facsimile and regular mail. [NCAA Bylaw (g)]

9 Page No. 9 C. IMPROPER LODGING PROVIDED TO A PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETE AND COMPETITION BY AN INELIGIBLE STUDENT-ATHLETE. [NCAA BYLAWS , (h), AND ] During the 4th of July weekend, 1992, the head men's basketball coach violated NCAA recruiting legislation by allowing a men's basketball prospective student-athlete to reside in his home for one or two days prior to his enrollment at the university for the academic year. During the summer of 1993, an assistant men s basketball coach provided an extra benefit to the student-athletes when he mailed required course materials for a correspondence course in which the student-athlete was enrolled. Because the university improperly used the grade received in the correspondence course in determining the student-athlete's grade-point average so he could remain in good academic standing at the university, the student-athlete competed during the 1993 fall quarter while ineligible. 1. Over the 4th of July weekend, 1992, prior to his initial enrollment at the university, the prospective studentathlete resided for one or two days at the home of the head men's basketball coach before moving into university housing for the remainder of the summer. [Bylaws and (h)] 2. During the summer of 1993, when the head men's basketball coach and the assistant men's basketball coach were recruiting in the city in which the student-athlete lived, they stopped by his home. The assistant coach picked up and mailed to Southeastern College approximately six papers for a correspondence course in which the prospective student-athlete was enrolled. The university used this course to raise the student-athlete's grade-point average to meet the institution s academic progress standards, which was necessary for him to be eligible for intercollegiate competition on behalf of the university for the academic year. The use of the correspondence course to meet satisfactory-progress requirements for the student-athlete violated NCAA legislation and the studentathlete competed while ineligible during the 1993 fall quarter. [Bylaws and ] D. IMPROPER RECRUITING CONTACTS WITH AN ATHLETICS REPRESENTATIVE. [NCAA BYLAWS AND ] In October 1991 and March 1993, during the official visits of two men s basketball prospective student-athletes to the university's campus, the head men's basketball coach took each prospective student-athlete to a professional basketball game. After the games, the head coach arranged for the prospective studentathletes to have in-person contact with a representative of the university's athletics interests who was an assistant coach of a professional basketball team and who had previously been head men's basketball coach at the university. E. IMPERMISSIBLE PROVISION OF MONEY TO A PROSPECTIVE STUDENT- ATHLETE. [NCAA BYLAWS (e), , AND (b)]

10 Page No. 10 On April 15, 1994, during the official visit of a men's basketball prospective student-athlete, the head men's basketball coach directly provided him with $65-70 cash. This money was intended to cover the prospective student-athlete s expenses, including reimbursement for mileage, meal money and studentathlete host money. NCAA bylaws do not allow coaches to provide host money directly to prospective student-athletes. In addition, the head coach knew or should have known the money would be used to post bail for a men's basketball studentathlete. The student-athlete was going to serve as the prospective student-athlete's student host and he traveled to Salt Lake City with the head coach to pick up the prospective student-athlete. The prospective student-athlete decided to drive his own automobile to campus and the student-athlete rode with him. During the ride to campus, the police stopped the prospective student-athlete's automobile. Following an inquiry, the police arrested the student-athlete for several outstanding traffic violations and citations for failing to appear in court. The prospective student-athlete drove to campus and informed the head men's basketball coach of the student-athlete's incarceration. The head coach provided $65-70 to the prospective student-athlete, which the head coach knew or should have known would be used to pay the bail bond for the student-athlete. F. IMPERMISSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF A STUDENT-ATHLETE AT SUMMER BASKETBALL CAMP. [NCAA BYLAWS ] During the summer of 1996, a prospective men's basketball student-athlete was employed in the summer basketball camp run by the head men s basketball coach. G. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA BYLAWS , 10.1-(c) AND 10.1-(d)] An assistant men's basketball coach acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct and did not on all occasions deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. He knowingly violated NCAA legislation when he arranged for a credit card number to be provided to a prospective student-athlete, as detailed in Finding II-A-3. The assistant coach attempted to conceal the impermissible funding arrangement by asking a volunteer assistant coach to find a credit card belonging to someone else. The assistant coach also violated the principles of ethical conduct when he provided false and misleading information to representatives from the university and NCAA enforcement staff during his initial interview on November 3, The assistant coach stated that he did not know the specifics of how the prospective student-athlete paid for the correspondence course and denied knowing anything about a credit card. However, on Monday, November 6, 1995, shortly after the initial interview during a conversation with the institution s director of athletics and during his January 10, 1996, interview with representatives from the enforcement staff and institution, the assistant coach recanted his previous testimony and admitted that he had made arrangements for the prospective student-athlete to pay for the course by using a credit card number belonging to a relative of a volunteer assistant men's basketball coach. He stated that he did not acknowledge the use of the credit card

11 Page No. 11 during the November 3 interview because he did not want to admit to committing an NCAA rules violation. H. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA BYLAWS AND 10.1-(c)] The head men's basketball coach did not on all occasions deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. His knowing involvement in NCAA violations was contrary to the principles of ethical conduct. He knowingly provided a loan to a prospective student-athlete, as detailed in Finding II-B-2. The head coach also provided cash to a prospective student-athlete which he knew or should have known would be used as bail money for a studentathlete, as detailed in Finding II-E. I. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.1.1, 2.1.2, AND ] The scope and nature of the violations in this report are examples of the repeated mistakes and misunderstandings regarding NCAA legislation which contributed to a lack of institutional control. The university violated the principles of institutional control when it permitted an ineligible student-athlete to receive athletically related financial aid, as described in Finding II-A. The institution s failure to report the prospective student-athlete's enrollment and receipt of athletically related financial aid to the NCAA enforcement staff, once it was determined these violations of NCAA legislation had occurred, is further evidence of the lack of institutional control. The head men's basketball coach also failed to exercise appropriate institutional control and monitoring in the conduct and administration of the university's men's basketball program. 1. The violations contained in this report illustrate the repeated mistakes and lack of communication regarding NCAA rules that occurred over a three-year period. The university failed to educate the coaching staff regarding NCAA rules and to ensure they knew how to seek interpretations when questions arose. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff appeared to be unaware of or to misunderstand the application of several fundamental NCAA rules. This allowed many of the violations to occur. The institution also failed to monitor the activities of prospective student-athletes who moved to the Ogden area prior to their enrollment at the university to complete the necessary requirements for their NCAA eligibility. 2. The university exhibited a lack of institutional control when it permitted a prospective student-athlete to enroll at the university and receive athletically related financial aid, even though he had not obtained his associate of arts degree, as detailed in Finding II-A. The failure of the university to determine that the studentathlete was not eligible revealed a systemic flaw in the certification of initial eligibility of student-athletes. The university's certification process was fragmented and decentralized. Individuals responsible for certifying initial eligibility had no communication with university officials responsible for authorizing athletically related financial aid. As a result of this systemic flaw and a

12 Page No. 12 corresponding lack of oversight over the certification process, the prospective student-athlete was admitted to the university as a full-time student and awarded athletically related financial aid based on oral assurances from the university's men's basketball staff that only administrative issues were causing the delay in obtaining the diploma and academic transcripts from the prospective student-athlete's two-year college. The prospective student-athlete had been accepted to the university as a provisionally matriculated student pending the arrival of his junior college diploma and transcripts but that information was not shared with the individual responsible for awarding financial aid. Additionally, a November 11, 1994, memorandum from the university's compliance coordinator to the head men's basketball coach stated that the prospective studentathlete had not met the necessary NCAA requirements for transfer student-athletes and would have to repay the athletics aid he had received. However, the university did not file a formal report of the violation with either the Big Sky Conference or the NCAA enforcement staff, even though the institution's director of athletics, faculty athletics representative and eligibility supervisor received copies of the memorandum. 3. The head men's basketball coach failed to monitor members of the university's men's basketball staff and the activities of prospective student-athletes who moved to the Ogden, Utah, area prior to their initial enrollment at the institution and who were enrolled in correspondence courses in order to matriculate to the university. As a result of this general lack of oversight, violations of NCAA recruiting and extra benefit legislation occurred as detailed in Findings II-A-1, B-1, B-2, B-4 and C-1. J. SECONDARY VIOLATION: IMPERMISSIBLE ENTERTAINMENT OF PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS ] On one occasion during the summer of 1992, the head men's basketball coach provided two prospective student-athletes impermissible entertainment. K. SECONDARY VIOLATION: IMPERMISSIBLE TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED TO A PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETE. [NCAA BYLAWS AND ] During the weekend of June 19-20, 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach arranged for a neighbor to drive a men's basketball prospective student-athlete from Las Vegas to Layton, a distance of approximately 420 miles. The prospective studentathlete s airplanes from another country had been delayed and he had missed his connecting flight from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City. The prospective student-athlete was traveling to Utah to take correspondence courses from Southeastern College that were necessary for his associate of arts degree from a junior college. L. SECONDARY VIOLATION: IMPERMISSIBLE ASSISTANCE WITH A STUDENT- ATHLETE'S PAPER. [NCAA BYLAWS (a) AND ]

13 Page No. 13 During the institution's 1992 autumn quarter, the wife of the head men s basketball coach retyped a paper for a student-athlete and made grammatical, punctuation and spelling changes to the document at the request of her husband. III. COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PENALTIES. For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved several major violations of NCAA legislation. A. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE UNIVERSITY. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed corrective actions. Specifically, the university: 1. Accepted the resignation of the assistant men s basketball coach involved in this case. 2. Issued a letter of reprimand to the volunteer assistant men s basketball coach involved in this case. 3. Appointed a new faculty athletics representative who will devote more time to NCAA matters and who will be trained regarding NCAA academic standards and admission and eligibility requirements. The faculty athletics representative will make all final decisions concerning eligibility. 4. Appointed a new full-time athletics compliance coordinator. 5. Created a full-time position of athletics academic advisor. 6. Formed an Athletics Compliance Committee, which is responsible for creating a comprehensive policies and procedures manual and clarifying all institutional athletics compliance procedures. 7. Hired a new director of athletics in the spring of Implemented a procedure requiring prior review and approval by the faculty athletics representative for all correspondence courses taken from institutions other than the university or the institution currently being attended by the prospective student-athlete. 9. Prohibited student-athletes from completing course work from other institutions to meet initial eligibility requirements while residing at or near the university, unless the course work is reviewed and approved by the faculty athletics representative. 10. Implemented procedures prohibiting athletics department personnel from having any involvement in arranging for or proctoring examinations for student-athletes. 11. Prepared written job descriptions and implemented monthly rules-education classes for all coaches.

14 Page No Initiated a monthly compliance news letter and compliance training program. 13. Implemented new procedures to monitor and certify financial aid issued to student-athletes. B. PENALTIES PROPOSED AND SELF-IMPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY. The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own the following penalties proposed and self-imposed by the institution: 1. The number of expense-paid visits to the institution s campus in men s basketball shall be reduced as follows:

15 Page No. 15 a reduction of four expense-paid visits, which limits the institution to eight under current rules. b reduction of three expense-paid visit, which limits the institution to nine under current rules. 2. The number of assistant men s basketball coaches shall be reduced by one from August 5, 1996, to August 5, The number of men s basketball coaches permitted to recruit off campus at any one time shall be limited to one from July 8, 1996, through June 30, The number of athletically related financial aid awards in men s basketball shall be reduced by two during the academic year, which limits the institution to 11 scholarships under current rules. 5. The university imposed the following sanctions on the head men s basketball coach: Two years of probation. Twenty-five percent salary reduction and suspension of contractual financial incentives during the probationary period. Requirement that he attend NCAA rules compliance seminars. Requirement that he conduct rules education/training sessions for the basketball staff. Requirement that he participate in a conference presentation on rules compliance. C. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS. The Committee on Infractions agreed with and approved of the actions taken by the university, but it imposed additional penalties because of the serious nature of the violations in the case, including the involvement of the head men s basketball coach in a number of the violations and a significant lack of institutional control. However, the committee chose not to impose all of the presumptive penalties permitted under Bylaw The committee made this decision not to impose all of the presumptive penalties because of the actions taken by the university to institute appropriate corrective measures and to self-impose meaningful penalties upon its basketball program. The additional penalties imposed by the committee are:

16 Page No Public reprimand and censure. 2. Four years of probation from August 7, The number of total athletically related financial aid awards in men s basketball shall be reduced by two during the academic year, which limits the institution to 11 total scholarships under current rules. 4. During the first two years of the probation, the institution shall send all men s basketball coaches to NCAA Regional Compliance Seminars. 5. During this period of probation, the institution shall: a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of studentathletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition; b. Submit a preliminary report to the administrator for the Committee on Infractions by January 15, 1997, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and c. File with the committee's administrator annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by July 1 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on the university s compliance and education programs regarding recruiting and financial aid rules. The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties adopted and imposed by the committee. 6. The institution's president shall recertify that all of the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. 7. The head men's basketball coach involved in this case will be informed in writing by the Committee on Infractions that due to his involvement in the violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, the university shall show cause under the provisions of Bylaw (l), why it should not be subject to additional disciplinary measures if it fails to prohibit him from recruiting off campus from the date of the release of this report through August 5, The assistant men s basketball coach involved in this case will be informed in writing by the Committee on Infractions that, due to his involvement in the violations of NCAA

17 Page No. 17 legislation found in this case, if he commences employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution prior to July 1, 1997, he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures of Bylaw (l), which could limit his athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period. As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw , concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, which is September 20, Should or the men s basketball coaches who participated in the processing of this case appeal either the findings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the members of the appeals committee, with a copy to any party who may appeal. This response may include additional information in accordance with Bylaw The Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as imposing more severe sanctions in this case. Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS Richard J. Dunn Jack H. Friedenthal Roy F. Kramer Frederick B. Lacey James L. Richmond Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton David Swank (chair)