FOR RELEASE: March 27, 1991, 10 a.m. (Central Time) CONTACT: Charles E. Smrt, NCAA Director of Enforcement UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS, INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS--This report is organized as follows: I. Introduction. II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. I. Introduction. In March 1988, the NCAA Committee on Infractions issued a report that found that the university had violated NCAA rules concerning extra benefits to enrolled student-athletes and other NCAA rules in the operation of the university's men's basketball program. There were numerous violations that spanned the period 1982 to 1986. Although there also were limited violations in the football program, the committee noted that the violations in the men's basketball program were "serious in nature," and "many occurred because the men's basketball coaching staff did not seek guidance concerning rules interpretations." Among the violations found was a violation of the principles of institutional control. The March 1988 infractions report stated: "Over a substantial period of time, there were repeated failures to exercise adequate institutional control over the administration of the university's men's intercollegiate athletics program. In addition to the findings set forth previously in this report, this failure of institutional control was demonstrated by: administrative procedures that allowed student-athletes to receive prepaid airline tickets; the provision of mileage expense money to the student hosts for prospective student-athletes during official visits; the disbursement of "meal money" and other very small amounts of cash in a manner that may have constituted rules violations; the provision of meals to more than one student-athlete who dined with a prospective student-athlete during the prospect's official visit in a manner that violated NCAA legislation; inadequate administrative procedures to ensure that financial aid given to student-athletes in a school year [Page 2] following the completion of their competitive eligibility was in conformance with NCAA legislation. [NCAA Constitution 3-2]" The committee also found in 1988 that the penalties imposed on the university for its violations should be mitigated because of "the thoroughness of the university's self-investigation, its cooperation in the NCAA investigation and its corrective actions (including taking disciplinary action against the involved coaches and the creation of a comprehensive compliance program)." However, one month after the committee's report in 1988, the university uncovered information during the course of an audit of its Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs (OMSSA) indicating that the then director of the program had misappropriated university funds totaling at
least $186,000. The director claimed the majority of these funds had been given to studentathletes as financial assistance. This director had briefly served as an academic adviser in 1984 to the football team and in 1986 to the men's basketball team, and he had extensive contact with student-athletes during his assignments with OMSSA. An investigation was launched by the university that eventually involved local law enforcement authorities. In November 1989, the former director was convicted on three counts of theft by swindle and has since served a term of imprisonment for these offenses. During the course of the investigation of the activities of the former director of OMSSA, additional allegations of violations surfaced involving the university's men's basketball, football and wrestling programs. The university discovered and self-reported a number of these violations in the course of its own audits of its athletics program, which were initiated as part of the university's new compliance program. By the time the university and NCAA enforcement staff concluded their inquiries, it became evident that the extent to which funds misappropriated from the university had been diverted for the benefit of student-athletes was substantial, but significantly less than the former director had claimed. As reflected in the findings in this case, approximately $3,700 was provided to studentathletes from the OMSSA special loan account [reference: Part II-A of this report]; approximately $6,700 in benefits was provided to 10 student-athletes out of a total of $44,000 in 268 transactions through the manipulation of journal voucher payments [reference: Part II-B of this report], and there was at least $9,000 in other loans and payments to student-athletes by the former director of OMSSA [reference: Part II-C of this report]. The violations in this case, including those where the then director of OMSSA were involved, primarily concerned the university's football program. The violations occurred, for the most part, prior to the university's March 1988 case. Although the improper benefits the director of OMSSA gave student-athletes began as early as 1982, there was a pattern of violations from 1982 until their discovery in April 1988. In the committee's view, the university's failure to supervise and control the activities of the involved director of OMSSA relating to studentathletes during this period of time demonstrates a failure of institutional control over the conduct of the institution's intercollegiate athletics program. Although [Page 3] there was no evidence that any other university administrator knew of or authorized the actions of the director of OMSSA, the university agreed there were signals that the university did not detect that probably would have led to an earlier disclosure of the unauthorized actions. As a result, the director of OMSSA was able to pursue an independent agenda using university resources for a considerable period of time. That agenda, it turned out, involved many more students who were not athletes than students who were. Nonetheless, these actions dragged the university's athletics program into significant violations of NCAA rules concerning extra benefits and financial aid to studentathletes. To the university's credit, the university's own audit systems eventually led to the uncovering of these problems. Once the university became aware of them, it acted swiftly to remove the director of OMSSA from the institution and brought the matters to the attention of law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution. The Committee on Infractions regards the cluster of findings of violations involving the director of OMSSA as major in nature [reference: Parts II-A, II-B, II-C and II-D of this report]. Most of
the student-athlete recipients of these benefits were football players. A total of 23 football student-athletes from 1983 through 1988 were involved. Although there are reasons to mitigate some of the penalties, as discussed subsequently, the NCAA required minimum penalties for a major rules violations were applicable to the university's football team because of these violations. The football program also violated the rules specifying the minimum academic requirements for graduate assistant coaches [reference: Part II-E of this report]. These violations gave the football program a competitive advantage over a three-year period because it gave the program the services of a large number of extra coaches that it was not entitled to use. Although the committee did not have to decide if this violation standing alone would constitute a "major" violation in light of the committee's conclusion that the other violations made the major violator penalties applicable, the committee believed this was a significant set of violations that continued through the 1989-90 academic year. The violations involving the university's men's basketball team were of a different nature. A significant violation of recruiting and extra benefit rules occurred in the recruitment and enrollment of a transfer student-athlete from another university who was a nonqualifier and who was not eligible for athletically related financial aid in 1986-87 [reference: Parts II-Q and II-R of this report]. The committee believed the circumstances under which this young man was recruited and enrolled indicated an absence of appropriate control by the men's head basketball coach over the recruiting process. No one within the basketball program adequately explained how this young man came to be recruited in violation of long-established rules regarding recruiting contacts with student-athletes at other institutions, or explained how the young man came to be assigned a dormitory room as a prospective basketball team member but did not have to pay dormitory fees from January until May. There was no information given to the committee that indicated the men's basketball program was monitoring the recruitment and enrollment of this young man to be sure correct procedures were being followed. The head coach is in a uniquely advantageous position to supervise and control the recruiting process to [Page 4] prevent violations of this nature from occurring. Although this violation occurred contemporaneously with other violations in the university's 1988 infractions case, it is different from the prior case in that it occurred under the leadership of the current basketball program. There also was a recruiting violation involving a highly visible and extensively recruited men's basketball prospect that occurred in November 1990 when the prospect was entertained by the men's head basketball coach in the coach's skybox during part of a university football game [reference: Part II-P of this report]. When an institution accepts the responsibilities inherent in recruiting at the Division I level, particularly when recruiting a major prospect, the Association's membership has every reason to expect the university's recruiters to be punctilious in avoiding a situation that creates an appearance of an attempt to gain an improper recruiting advantage through a violation of recruiting rules. Also, subsequent to the 1988 case, members of the men's basketball coaching staff provided local automobile transportation to basketball student-athletes [reference: Part II-I of this report]. Although taken separately, these violations might be viewed as secondary in nature, they are of greater concern to the committee because improper local transportation was an issue in the 1988 case, and the failure of coaching staff members to seek
guidance in interpreting NCAA rules contributed to many of the violations by the previous coaching staff. Finally, there were violations from 1986 to 1988 by the university's wrestling program. These violations arise from the inappropriate combination of practice activities of the university's varsity wrestling team with those of an outside wrestling club, which resulted in the university's coaches observing and providing instruction to ineligible student-athletes [reference: Parts II-K, II-M, II-N and II-W of this report]. The committee believed that the tandem operation of the varsity wrestling team and the wrestling club in this manner provided an improper competitive and recruiting advantage to the university. Because the violations in the three sports discussed above occurred either after September 1, 1985, or as part of a continuous pattern of violations extending beyond September 1, 1985, the committee had to determine if the violations were major. As noted earlier, the committee believed the cluster of violations related to the actions of the former director of OMSSA were major and required application of the minimum penalty schedule to the football program. Classification of the wrestling and men's basketball violations was more difficult. The information reported to the committee indicated there was a potential recruiting advantage in the recruiting violations, as well as a degree of insensitivity to compliance requirements that is inappropriate in view of the types of problems manifest in the university's 1988 infractions case. Further, the committee did not believe these violations may be classified as "inadvertent." They occurred because the basketball program used the skybox for the purpose of entertaining the basketball recruit and because the wrestling program used the wrestling club as a practice opportunity for prospects and ineligible student-athletes with the varsity team. The university's staff members who were involved may have mistakenly thought that NCAA rules permitted these arrangements (and the reasonableness of such a mistaken understanding is appropriate in deciding [Page 5] any penalty and its mitigation), but a staff member's mistake on the application of NCAA rules does not, by itself, make the violation inadvertent. However, the committee believed any advantage obtained by the basketball program in the recruitment of the prospect involved in the fall of 1990 violation was limited in light of the prompt institutional action by the director of athletics, and this violation also was isolated in nature. The 1987 violation was one that the committee believed could be regarded as part of the 1988 case for which the basketball program received appropriate penalties. Had the committee been aware of the 1987 violation when the committee determined penalties in the prior case, there would not have been any difference in the result. The wrestling violations, on the other hand, arose from a pattern of intermixing activities of the wrestling club with those of the varsity team over a significant period of time. Although any competitive advantage may have been limited, the violations are neither isolated nor inadvertent. They could not be regarded as secondary [reference: NCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.1]. If they are not secondary, they must be classified as major [reference: NCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.2]. Having concluded the football and wrestling violations are major, the penalties required by NCAA legislation for major violations [reference: NCAA Bylaw 19.4.2.2] must be imposed unless there are mitigating circumstances. The penalties for repeat major violators [reference:
NCAA Bylaw 19.4.2.3] are not appropriate. The 1988 case primarily involved violations that occurred before September 1, 1985. Moreover, many of the significant violations in the present case occurred contemporaneously with the violations addressed in the 1988 case. The committee views them as an extension of that case. If the committee had reservations about the vigor and thoroughness of the university's investigation of the 1988 case or of this case, it would be appropriate to apply the repeat violator rules, but the committee did not have such concerns. There were several circumstances about this case the committee regarded as important in deciding the penalties for these violations. a. The inability of the university to discover the violations from the activities of the then director of OMSSA prior to the 1988 case was not attributable to any lack of effort in the university's investigation in the former case. There were signals that the university missed, as discussed earlier, that allowed the violations to continue longer than they should have, but eventually the university's own auditor discovered the problems in April 1988. Thus, while the committee did not believe there were any deficiencies in the university's handling of its 1988 case, which should add to the penalties in this case, the committee also believed the evaluation of this case in setting a penalty took into account that it took a long time before the university discovered the violations committed by the director of OMSSA, although warning signs of problems were present. b. The university conducted a thorough and wide-ranging investigation of its athletics program as part of this case. Most of the findings were the result of information reported by the university and were circumstances where the university agreed a violation occurred. Much of the information about violations came to light because of the university's audit and compliance practices established as a result of the university's [Page 6] experience with the problems in the 1988 case. c. The institution took significant corrective and disciplinary actions with respect to its men's basketball and wrestling programs. d. The university conscientiously implemented a compliance program that goes beyond simply trying to employ individuals who are personally committed to rules compliance but also includes administrative checks and balances in the men's athletics department to monitor and control individual sports programs. e. The university has served an extended period of probation and institutional scrutiny of its men's intercollegiate athletics program beyond that mandated in the 1988 infractions case because the university remained on probation as a result of the discovery of the matters in this case. The university protested the length of time it has taken to bring this case to the committee for hearing. The university began its review of the matters in this report in April 1988, as previously described, and sent the NCAA its findings in June 1989 and filed a supplemental report in March 1990. The former director of OMSSA went on trial in November 1989. Prior to this trial, there were constraints on contacts with potential witnesses that limited the ability to investigate fully.
At issue in the trial were the extent of payments to student-athletes and the existence of knowledge by university administrators of the involved director's actions. The conviction for the offenses charged indicated the payments were made without university authorization, and the evidence during the trial of the amounts of payments to student-athletes indicated those amounts were substantially less than originally claimed. Subsequent to the trial and the receipt of the university's reports, the NCAA enforcement staff continued its investigation. An official inquiry was issued on December 13, 1990. The Committee on Infractions then heard the case on February 1, 1991, at its first meeting following issuance of the official inquiry. The university contended that the NCAA enforcement staff wasted time in a fruitless pursuit of witnesses who lacked credibility. The committee cannot agree. Had no effort been made by the enforcement staff to obtain direct information from individuals who not only were involved as principals in certain of the significant violations, but also had been the source of serious accusations of violations, the committee would have questioned the adequacy of the staff's investigation. The committee appreciated the institutional frustration in being unable to bring the case to a speedier resolution, particularly when there had been an extended period of time of adverse publicity surrounding the criminal investigation and trial, but the committee could not conclude from the evidence in the record that the period of time from November 1989 when the trial of the former director of OMSSA was over to December 1990 when the official [Page 7] inquiry was issued was unreasonably long for investigating allegations as potentially serious and far-reaching as this case involved. That the committee now agrees with the university that the scope of the violations is more limited in nature than originally alleged by the former director of OMSSA and others is in no small part attributable to the committee's confidence in the thoroughness of the university and NCAA investigative efforts. II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by committee. A. [NCAA Bylaws 11.02.4-(a), 15.1, 15.1.1-(c) and 15.1.1-(g)] From November 24, 1982, to January 14, 1988, the then director of the Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs (OMSSA) who also was a representative of the institution's athletics interests provided $3,743 from the OMSSA emergency loan to numerous student-athletes and a graduate assistant football coach without a regular repayment schedule being established for their loans. Several loans were not repaid and several were converted to grants. The provision of these loans to student-athletes and the graduate assistant coach who were awarded full athletics grantsin-aid resulted in the young men being awarded excessive institutionally administered financial aid. Specifically: 1. On November 24, 1982, and December 14, 1982, a student-athlete was issued a $20 check and a $150 check, respectively, for a "student emergency." The young man has not repaid these loans. 2. On September 19, 1986, the director gave a $400 check to a student-athlete. The young man has not repaid this loan, which the director converted to a grant on June 30, 1987.
3. On October 8, 1986, and February 24, 1987, the director gave a $400 check and a $150 check, respectively, to a graduate assistant football coach. On June 30, 1987, the director converted the loans to grants. In the spring of 1987 and March 1988, the assistant coach gave $50 and $40 cash, respectively, to the director as partial payment for the loans. 4. On February 12, 1987, the director gave a $120 check to a student-athlete in order for the young man to purchase an airline ticket to travel to a friend's funeral. On February 24, 1987, the young man repaid the $120 loan to the director with money he obtained from his mother. 5. On January 7, 1988, the director gave a $120 check to the student-athlete in order for the young man to purchase an airline ticket to travel to his grandfather's funeral. By February 1988, the young man repaid the loan to the director. 6. On January 22, 1988, the director gave a $190 check to the student-athlete in order for the young man to travel to a cousin's college graduation ceremony. The young man later decided not to attend the graduation ceremony and, instead, kept the money for his personal use. The young man repaid the loan by September 9, 1988. 7. On March 6, 1987, the director gave a $200 check to another student-athlete in order for the young man to travel home for spring [Page 8] break. On June 25, 1987, the young man repaid the $200 loan to the director with money he received from his brother. 8. On March 9, 1987, the director gave a $200 check to another student-athlete in order for the young man to purchase a round-trip airline ticket for travel between Minneapolis, Minnesota, and his home for spring break. In the spring of 1987, the young man repaid the $200 loan to the director with money he received from his Pell Grant. 9. On November 3, 1987, the director gave a $500 check to another student-athlete after the young man asked the director for a loan to repay a $400 university emergency loan and a $100 dormitory fee he owed. On November 6, 1987, the young man used the money the director gave him to pay the balance due on the emergency loan and the dormitory fee. The student-athlete repaid the balance to the university on the loan the director provided to him. 10. On November 10, 1987, the director gave a $128 check to another student-athlete after the young man asked the director for a loan to help pay additional rent of $128 because his roommate moved out. The loan remains unpaid. 11. On November 17, 1987, the director gave a $200 check to another student-athlete after the young man asked the director for a loan to pay a $195 electric bill. The young man used the money to pay the balance due on the electric bill. The student-athlete has not repaid the loan. 12. On December 15, 1987, the director gave a $200 check to another student-athlete after the young man asked the director for a loan to pay his expenses to travel home during Christmas break. On May 20, 1988, the young man repaid the loan to the university from money his girlfriend gave him.
13. On January 14, 1988, the director gave a $465 check to another student-athlete after the young man asked the director for money to repay a $500 university emergency loan. The young man used the money to pay part of the balance due on the emergency loan. The student-athlete repaid the $465 loan to the director in two payments ($425 on February 25, 1988, and $40 on March 15, 1988) from money he received from his scholarship check and money provided to him by his mother. B. [NCAA Bylaws 15.1 and 16.12.2.1] From 1983 to 1988, the then director of the Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs (OMSSA) who also was a representative of the institution's athletics interests provided numerous extra benefits to [Page 9] student-athletes. He authorized journal voucher payments totaling approximately $6,700 to other university departments on behalf of numerous student-athletes. Some of these student-athletes were awarded excessive institutionally administered financial aid as a result of these journal voucher payments because they also were receiving full athletics grant-in-aid awards. Specifically: 1. On January 5, 1983, $501.16 was transferred to Sanford Hall as payment for a student-athlete's 1983 winter quarter meal plan. The young man did not eat in Sanford Hall during the winter quarter. 2. On April 29, 1983, the director transferred $609 to the Office of Student Financial Aid as repayment for the young man's $600 short-term loan taken out on November 29, 1982. The student-athlete repaid the $609 loan to the director. 3. In July 1983, the director transferred $253.75 to the Office of Student Financial Aid as repayment for another student-athlete's $250 university emergency loan. 4. On July 20, 1983, the director transferred $125 to the university's Continuing Education and Extension Program as payment for a course for another student-athlete. 5. In August 1984, the director transferred $326 to two university departments ($172 to Continuing Education and Extension and $154 to Independent Studies) as payment for a studentathlete's tuition for the fall semester of 1984. The director gave $75.20 cash to the young man in order to purchase textbooks. On January 15, 1985, the director gave a $148.80 check to the young man (after deducting the $326 journal voucher tuition payments and $25.29 for books) to reimburse the young man for a $500 scholarship check the student-athlete gave to OMSSA. These payments did not result in excessive aid being awarded to the young man as he did not receive an athletics grant-in-aid award for these quarters. 6. On December 31, 1987, the director transferred $80.53 to H. D. Smith Bookstore as payment for textbooks and a notebook for another student-athlete. This payment did not result in excessive aid being awarded to the young man as he did not receive an athletics grant-in-aid award for the 1987-88 academic year.
7. On July 22, 1985; August 26, 1985, and October 7, 1987, OMSSA transferred $411.90, $393.77 and $540.66, respectively, to the university as tuition payments for the student-athlete. These payments did not result in excessive aid being awarded to the young man as he did not receive an athletics grant-in-aid award for the summer of 1985 and fall of 1987 quarters. 8. On May 13, 1983, $222.72 in OMSSA funds were transferred to Centennial Hall as payment for a student-athlete's meal contract [Page 10] for the period May 10 through June 10, 1983. This payment did not result in excessive aid being awarded to the young man as he did not receive an athletics grant-in-aid award for the spring or summer of 1983 quarters. 9. On February 2, 1987, the director transferred $505 to the Office of Student Financial Aid as payment for another student-athlete's university short-term emergency loan. 10. On February 16, 1987, the director transferred $83.72 to Centennial Hall as payment for the additional charge incurred by another student-athlete for residing in a single dormitory room during the 1987 winter quarter. The young man repaid the loan. 11. On February 27, 1987, and in May 1987, the director transferred $89.72 and $84.72, respectively, to Centennial Hall as payment for the additional charge incurred by another student-athlete for residing in a single dormitory room during the 1987 winter and spring quarters. 12. In March 1987, the director transferred $1,716.82 (that included an $800 personal loan from the director) to Pioneer Hall as payment for another student-athlete's 1986 winter and 1987 spring quarter dormitory fees. The director told the young man that he would lend $800 from his personal funds to the student-athlete in order to pay the young man's overdue 1986 winter quarter dormitory fee, and OMSSA would provide grants and loans for the student-athlete to pay his 1987 spring quarter tuition and dormitory fees. The young man repaid the $800 personal loan to the director with two payments (a $200 payment in the spring of 1987 and a $600 payment in the fall of 1987). This payment did not result in excessive aid being awarded to the young man as he did not receive an athletics grant-in-aid award for the 1986-87 academic year. 13. On or about March 7, 1988, $852 in OMSSA funds were transferred to Sanford Hall as payment for another student-athlete's 1987 fall quarter room and board charges. In February or March 1988, the young man repaid $800 in cash to the director with money provided to him by his grandfather. This payment did not result in excessive aid being awarded to the student-athlete as he did not receive an athletics grant-in-aid award for the spring of 1988 quarter. C. [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.2-(e), 13.16.1, 16.12.2.1 and 16.12.2.3-(a)] From 1982 to 1988, the then director of the Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs (OMSSA) who also was a representative of the institution's athletics interests provided numerous extra benefits to enrolled student-athletes and inducements to a prospective student-athlete, including cash, loans, local automobile transportation and [Page 11] meals. The source of funds for these benefits was either the director's personal funds or OMSSA moneys, including students' cash payments from the institution's Summer Institute Program. Specifically:
1. From the winter of 1982 to the spring of 1988, the director gave at least $2,000 to $2,500 cash from the institution's Summer Institute Program to numerous student-athletes. Specifically: a. From the winter of 1982 to the spring of 1986, the director gave at least $478 cash to one of the young men for the young man's personal use. b. On approximately one to two occasions during the 1983 winter term, the director gave $10 cash to another student-athlete after the young man asked the director for money. c. During 1983 and 1984, the director gave at least $1,000 cash to another young man. The young man used a portion of this money to pay for repairs to his automobile. d. On several occasions, from the fall of 1985 to the spring of 1988, the director gave approximately $500 to $1,000 cash to another student-athlete for the young man's personal use after the student-athlete asked the director for money. 2. From the summer or fall of 1984 to the summer of 1987, the director gave approximately $1,950 cash to two student-athletes and a prospective student-athlete. Specifically: a. On several occasions from the summer or fall of 1984 to 1986, the director gave at least $1,600 cash to one of the student-athletes after the young man asked the director for financial assistance. b. On five to six occasions during the 1986-87 academic year, the director gave $10 to $25 cash to the second student-athlete. c. On three occasions during the summer of 1987, the director gave $150, $75 and $25 cash to the prospect. 3. From July 13, 1987, to January 9, 1988, the director paid the American College Test (ACT) Student Financial Aid Services fee ($6) with personal checks for four student-athletes. Two of the young men repaid the $6 fee to OMSSA. 4. From February 1986 to 1988, the director provided loans to two student-athletes and a prospective student-athlete. Specifically: a. In February 1986, the director lent $70 to one of the student-athletes after the young man asked the director for money to pay part of a $175 outstanding telephone bill he incurred during the 1984-85 academic year. In March 1986, the young man [Page 12] repaid $50 to the director with a money order he received from his mother and cash he had left from Christmas. b. In the summer of 1987, the director lent $100 cash to the prospective student-athlete after the young man asked the director for assistance in purchasing textbooks for the 1987 Summer Institute Program in which the young man was enrolled. The prospect used the money to purchase books that cost $85 and he kept the remaining $15. In the fall of 1988, the young man repaid the loan to the university.
c. On approximately four to five occasions during the 1987-88 academic year, the director lent $5 to $20 ($50 total amount) to the other student-athlete after the young man asked the director for money in order to purchase food and do laundry. The director gave the money to the studentathlete after the director provided local automobile transportation for the young man. The student-athlete repaid these loans to the then director. 5. On numerous occasions from 1982 to 1988, the director provided local automobile transportation and numerous meals at local restaurants and in his home to several studentathletes and their friends and family. 6. On numerous occasions from 1984 to 1988, the director provided local automobile transportation and, on occasion, paid the guest fee ($4 or $7) at a health club in order for several student-athletes to work out at the facility. 7. On several occasions from 1984 to 1988, the director provided local automobile transportation to several student-athletes at no cost to the young men. 8. On or about August 20, 1987, the director purchased a round-trip airline ticket (at a cost of $385.15) for a student-athlete for travel between Minneapolis, Minnesota, and his home. After the young man returned to the university, the student-athlete repaid the cost of the airline ticket to the director from money he received from his mother during this trip. 9. During the summer of 1987, OMSSA paid the dormitory fee (at a cost of $709.43) for a prospective student-athlete who was enrolled in the 1987 OMSSA Summer Institute Program. As a condition to obtaining restoration of eligibility, the young man repaid the cost of the housing to the university through a repayment schedule. 10. On two to four occasions between 1984 and 1988, the director purchased gasoline for two student-athletes at no cost to the young men. 11. From September 1984 to December 1986, the director provided gifts to three student-athletes at no cost to the young men. [Page 13] Specifically: a. In September 1983 or 1984, the director purchased a fan (at an approximate cost of less than $20) and a radio (at an approximate cost of $50 to $60) for one of the young men after the young man told the director his apartment was empty and he could use such items. b. During the winter of 1985, the director purchased a pair of shoes (at an approximate cost of $40 to $50) for a second student-athlete after the young man told the director he did not have any money to purchase a pair of dress shoes. c. In November or December 1986, the director purchased two warm-up suits (at an approximate cost of $65 per suit) for the third student-athlete after the young man asked the director for a warm-up suit.
12. During January and February of 1988, the director arranged for a student-athlete to store his automobile in the director's garage at no cost to the young man. On two occasions, the director provided local automobile transportation between his home, the garage and the campus for the student-athlete in order for the young man to start his car. In September 1988, the student-athlete repaid the university the cost of the garage rental ($60 total). D. [NCAA Bylaw 16.12.2.1] On numerous occasions from December 1983 to January 1988, several members of the football coaching staff and an athletics trainer provided local automobile transportation to numerous student-athletes at no cost to the young men. E. [NCAA Bylaws 11.02.4 and 11.02.4-(a)] During the 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 academic years, several graduate assistant football coaches failed to meet the minimum academic requirements set forth for such employment in that these coaches were not enrolled in at least 50 percent of the institution's minimum regular graduate program of studies. These graduate assistant coaches were not admitted to a degreegranting program. Three resident graduate assistant football coaches received financial aid based upon nonresident status. Specifically: 1. For the 1987-88 academic year, six graduate assistant football coaches were not enrolled in at least 50 percent of the institution's minimum regular graduate program of studies. Two of these coaches also were not admitted to a degree-granting program. Two other coaches received financial aid based upon nonresident status, even though the young men were Minnesota residents. [Page 14] 2. For the 1988-89 academic year, three graduate assistant football coaches were not enrolled in at least 50 percent of the institution's minimum regular graduate program of studies. One of these coaches also was not admitted to a degree-granting program. A graduate assistant received financial aid based upon nonresident status, even though the young man was a Minnesota resident. 3. For the 1989-90 academic year, three graduate assistant football coaches were not enrolled in at least 50 percent of the institution's minimum regular graduate program of studies. One of these coaches also was not admitted to a degree-granting program. F. [NCAA Bylaws 16.12.2.1 and 16.12.2.3-(a)] On August 7, 1987, the then athletics trainer lent $200 cash to a student-athlete after the young man asked the trainer for financial assistance. The student-athlete has not repaid the loan. G. [NCAA Constitution 2.1] The scope and nature of the information reported by the institution in this report relating to the violations involving the then director of the Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs who
also was a representative of the university's athletics interests described in Parts II-A, II-B, II-C and II-N of this report demonstrated a lack of appropriate institutional control during the period of these violations in monitoring the administration of the institution's men's intercollegiate athletics program and the administration of a campus unit outside of the intercollegiate athletics programs, specifically the Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs, whose activities affected the university's eligibility and compliance responsibilities. H. [NCAA Bylaws 14.3.2.1.1 and 14.3.5.1.1] During the fall of 1986, members of the wrestling coaching staff provided instruction to three student-athletes during practice sessions where an outside wrestling club and the university's intercollegiate wrestling team practiced together. At this time, the young men were not eligible to practice and compete for the institution because the young men failed to meet the minimum academic requirements for freshman student-athletes. I. [NCAA Bylaws 13.12.1, 13.12.2.4 and 13.13.1.2] On several occasions from 1986 to 1988, several prospective student-athletes participated in practice sessions where an outside wrestling club and the university's intercollegiate wrestling team practiced [Page 15] together in the institution's wrestling room. On several occasions, members of the university's coaching staff observed the prospective student-athletes during these sessions and participated in workouts with prospects. Specifically: 1. On several occasions during the summers of 1986 and 1987, members of the wrestling coaching staff observed two prospective student-athletes work out with members of the outside club and the university's intercollegiate wrestling team. Members of the wrestling coaching staff also provided instruction to the young men. 2. For approximately three to four weeks during the summer of 1987, an assistant wrestling coach provided instruction to and wrestled with a prospective student-athlete prior to the young man's enrollment at the institution. 3. On several occasions during the 1987-88 academic year and fall of 1988, a prospective student-athlete who was attending a junior college near the institution practiced with members of the outside club and the university's intercollegiate wrestling team. Members of the wrestling coaching staff observed these practices, and an assistant wrestling coach provided instruction to the young man during several of these practices. J. [NCAA Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.12.1 and 13.13.1.2] During the 1986-87 academic year and the summers of 1987 and 1988, one prospective studentathlete was employed at a wrestling camp owned and operated by the head wrestling coach. A second prospect attended the coach's camp. Specifically: 1. During the 1986-87 academic year and the summers of 1987 and 1988, a prospective studentathlete was employed at the camp.
2. During the summer of 1987, a second prospective student-athlete attended the camp and participated in workouts with campers and members of the university's wrestling team, even though the young man had completed his senior year of high school. K. [NCAA Bylaw 15.5.2] The university exceeded the scholarship limits in the sport of wrestling for the 1988-89 academic year. A wrestling student-athlete had been employed for three years in the athletics department. Since the young man was a recruited student-athlete, his wages should have been counted toward the wrestling scholarship limit, which was not done. The student-athlete's wages were not counted against the wrestling scholarship limit in any of the three years he worked, and during the 1988-89 academic year, his wages made the university exceed the wrestling equivalency. [Page 16] L. [NCAA Bylaw 16.12.2.1] On numerous occasions during the 1988-89 academic year, members of the university's men's basketball coaching staff provided local automobile transportation to several student-athletes. These violations occurred notwithstanding that the March 3, 1988, infractions report to the university found that: "On numerous occasions in the years 1982 through 1986, various members of the men's intercollegiate basketball coaching staff provided local automobile transportation to student-athletes." M. NCAA Bylaws 13.01.5.1, 13.1.2.1, 13.7.5.1 and 13.7.5.2] On November 10, 1990, during the official paid visit to the university's campus by a prospective student-athlete, the men's head basketball coach allowed the young man and his father to visit a skybox at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome (Minneapolis, Minnesota) for a portion of the football game between the University of Minnesota and Michigan State University. The prospect and his father also were introduced to a representative of the university's athletics interests during the football game. N. [NCAA Constitution 2.1 and Bylaws 13.1.1.3 and 16.12.2] During December 1986 and January 1987, a member of the university's men's basketball coaching staff and an academic advisor had direct contact with a student-athlete prior to the time the young man enrolled at the university as a transfer student-athlete from another institution and without first obtaining the permission of the first institution's director of athletics. Specifically, a part-time men's assistant basketball coach and an academic advisor had several telephone contacts with the young man or his family prior to his enrollment. The part-time men's assistant basketball coach then transported the student-athlete from the Minneapolis airport to Centennial Hall on campus where the young man resided. This transportation was for the purpose of assisting the young man in enrolling at the institution.
After arriving at the university, the young man was permitted to reside in a Centennial Hall dormitory room from January 10, 1987, until June 1987, without paying any dormitory fees until May 20, 1987, because he was a recruited student-athlete in basketball. Institutional policies required a deposit and an initial payment in advance to obtain a dormitory room, unless specific waiver provisions were met. The waiver procedures were not used in the young man's case. Finally, the nature and scope of the information reported indicate a lack of appropriate control within the men's basketball program on the [Page 17] part of the men's head basketball coach over the process of recruitment and enrollment of this young man. O. [NCAA Bylaws 16.01.3 and 16.12.2.1] Beginning in the winter quarter and continuing through the spring quarter of the 1986-87 academic year, the university provided extra benefits to a student-athlete in order to assist the young man, who was a transfer student-athlete and still a 2.000 nonqualifier under NCAA legislation. Specifically, the young man received school supplies (book bag, books, paper and pencils) that were paid for by the director of the Office of Minority and Special Student Affairs (OMSSA) who also was a representative of the institution's athletics interests. P. [NCAA Bylaws 16.12.1 and 16.12.2.3-(a)] During the summer of 1985, the then head football coach gave approximately $250 cash to a student-athlete in order for the young man to pay the cost of a marketing course being offered by the Continuing Education and Extension Department. The course allowed the young man to reenroll at the university for the 1985-86 academic year and have one remaining year of competition. Although the student-athlete obtained the university's certification of eligibility in this manner, the young man had not participated in practice or competition with the team since the 1983-84 academic year and, at the time of the payment, the coach believed the young man would never be eligible to play for the university again. However, the young man did receive athletically related aid during the 1985-86 year. Q. [NCAA Bylaws 16.12.2.1 and 16.12.2.3-(a)] During January 1985, while recruiting a prospective student-athlete, the then head football coach gave $25 to $40 to the young man as reimbursement for the loss or theft of his wallet and its contents that occurred during the prospect's recent official paid visit to the university. This cash was provided to the prospect in an automobile near the young man's high school while in the presence of an assistant football coach. This cash was never repaid by the young man. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. For reasons set forth in Part I of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved major violations of NCAA legislation that are set forth in Part II of this report. Because this case involves a major violation of NCAA legislation that occurred after [Page 18] September 1, 1985, NCAA Bylaw 19.4.2.2, as adopted by the Convention of the Association, requires, "subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions in unique cases on the basis of
specifically stated reasons," minimum penalties that shall include: (a) a two-year probationary period (including a periodic, in-person monitoring system and written institutional reports); (b) the elimination of all expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport for one recruiting year; (c) a requirement that all coaching staff members in the sport be prohibited from engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one recruiting year; (d) a requirement that all institutional staff members determined by the Committee on Infractions knowingly to have engaged in or condoned a major violation be subject either to termination of employment, suspension without pay for at least one year, or reassignment of duties within the institution to a position that does not include contact with prospective or enrolled student-athletes or representatives of the institution's athletics interests for at least one year; (e) one year of sanctions precluding postseason competition in the sport; (f) one year of sanctions precluding television appearances in the sport, and (g) institutional recertification that the current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. The committee has considered the scope and nature of the violations, which are set forth in Part II of this report, as well as the extent to which there are mitigating factors that should be taken into account. As explained in Part I of this report, the committee has determined that this is a unique case where it is appropriate to impose penalties that differ from the full set of minimum penalties otherwise required by NCAA Bylaw 19.4.2.2. Further, for the reasons stated in Part I, the committee has determined that it is not appropriate to apply the minimum penalties for repeat violators to this case. The committee's penalties are as follows: A. Probation, Monitoring and Reports, Institutional Recertification and Repeat Violator Provisions. 1. Probation: The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured, and placed on probation for a period of two years from the date these penalties are imposed, which shall be the date the 15-day appeal period expires or the date the institution notifies the executive director that it will not appeal, whichever is earlier, or the date established by NCAA Council subcommittee action in the event of an appeal, it being understood that 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. 2. Monitoring and Reports: Prior to the end of this period of probation, the institution shall report in writing to the NCAA enforcement staff and the Committee on Infractions the steps it has taken to improve and maintain institutional control of its men's athletics programs in the areas of compliance involved in this report, including specifically those measures taken to supervise and monitor the administration of financial aid to student-athletes. [Page 19] 3. Institutional Recertification: The university shall recertify that its current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations. 4. Five-Year Period Subject to Repeat Violator Provisions: The University of Minnesota shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.4.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case.