SoCalHoops College News
SoCalHoops College News
NCAA Report On Cal State
Fullerton Violations--(May 2, 1999)
We meant to post this earlier, but since we took the weekend off, this is the best we can do. As most everyone knows by now, Cal State Fullerton has been placed on probation. And it's a pretty heavy probation too, for what seemed like some minor violations. We'll be posting up a shorter summary simultaneously, so if you don't want to wade through the official report, then look elsewhere.
However, for you detail freaks, rather than just post a small blurb and potentially misinterpret what the NCAA has done, we've posted the entire NCAA report from the Infractions Committee. The report is also available at the NCAA's official administrative website, and if you are so inclined, you can also listen to the telephone conference call where the sanctions against Fullerton were announced at this link (note, it's a RealMedia G2 recording, so you'll need a RealMedia player).
In any event, the report is pretty long, so if you know what you're looking for, just skim through to the juicy parts. The bottom line is that Fullerton got whacked pretty good for some violations that occurred many years ago, under a former coach, and the only ones who will pay the real price for those violations are current students and future prospective student-athletes, none of whom had anything to do with the problems. In our view, there's got to be a better way to exact punishment, and perhaps Bob Holland should have been spanked instead of Fullerton (well, the report does note some lack of school controls, so maybe the discipline meted out to the school wasn't entirely undeserved).
In any event, here it is, in its entirety, the official report from the NCAA Infractions Committee.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON PUBLIC INFRACTIONS
REPORTOVERLAND PARK, KANSAS---This report is organized as follows:
I.Introduction.
II.Findings of violations of NCAA legislation.
III.Committee on Infractions penalties.This case involved the men's basketball program at California State University and primarily concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting of prospective student-athletes and providing those prospects with improper inducements.
California State University, Fullerton, is a Division I institution and a member of the Big West Conference. The university has an enrollment of approximately 14,437 students and sponsors seven men's and nine women's intercollegiate sports.
A. CASE CHRONOLOGY.
On October 13, 1994, the NCAA enforcement staff sent a letter to numerous institutions, including California State University, Fullerton (Cal State Fullerton), requesting information about the enrollment of prospective and enrolled student-athletes in correspondence courses at a junior college and the subsequent transfer of credit to certain four-year institutions necessary for eligibility certification. In a November 11, 1994, letter, the director of athletics identified two men's basketball student-athletes and a former prospective student-athlete who had been enrolled at the junior college during the summer of 1993.
Over the next several months, the enforcement staff communicated with the junior college to obtain documentation about the courses. On February 1, 1996, the initial interview for this case occurred when the enforcement staff interviewed a former prospective student-athlete, who reported several possible violations of NCAA legislation during his recruitment by the university. On July 25, 1996, a men's basketball student-athlete and a former men's basketball student-athlete were interviewed by the staff and both outlined potential violations of NCAA legislation. On August 7, 1996, at the request of the enforcement staff, a former assistant men's basketball coach was provided limited immunity by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 32.3.7. The former assistant coach was interviewed by the enforcement staff on August 7, 21 and 23, 1996, and May 12 and August 20, 1997, and jointly by the staff and the university on February 12 and March 26, 1997. The assistant coach outlined potential violations of NCAA legislation in his interviews.
On December 2, 1996, pursuant to Bylaw 32.2.2.4, the enforcement staff hand delivered a letter of preliminary inquiry to the president and met personally with the president, formally notifying the university that the enforcement staff had initiated a preliminary inquiry into the university's men's basketball program. In early December 1996, the enforcement staff and the university began to conduct joint interviews, and each party fully cooperated with and assisted the other. Additionally, a six-month status letter was sent to the university on May 28, 1997. During the period February 1996 to October 1997, the enforcement staff conducted over 130 on- and off-campus interviews in attempts to corroborate the information reported by a former assistant coach and both former and present student-athletes, as well as other information developed as the inquiry continued.
On December 4, 1996, the head men's basketball coach and an assistant men's basketball coach were interviewed by the NCAA enforcement staff. The enforcement staff reinterviewed the head coach on August 14, 1997, and the former head coach on October 14, 1997, to discuss with them information collected during the course of the investigation and to afford them the opportunity to respond. In early June 1997 and extending through January 1998, the enforcement staff attempted to schedule a second follow-up interview with an assistant coach, but he was unwilling to participate in a second interview.
On October 24, 1997, the enforcement staff issued a letter of official inquiry to the university, and all or portions of the letter of official inquiry were sent to members of the men's basketball coaching staff. The letter requested that the university and all involved parties submit responses to the letter by December 12, 1997. The time period for the parties to submit a response was abbreviated because of the university's desire for the case to be heard by the Division I Committee on Infractions during its January 31 through February 1, 1998, meeting.
On November 12, 1997, in a letter to the administrator for the Division I Committee on Infractions, the university, through its legal counsel, requested that the response date be extended to January 27, 1998. In this letter, the university stated: "We had some difficulty determining an appropriate location for the enforcement staff's records and, consequently, have not yet received those records, let alone begun to review them and further investigate the allegations made in the letter of official inquiry."
On November 13, 1997, the enforcement staff sent all pertinent records/information developed and/or secured during this investigation to a custodial agent in Fullerton, California.
On December 4, 1997, in a letter to the administrator for the committee from the university's legal counsel, the university again filed an extension request that its response date be extended to February 28, 1998. In the said letter, the university stated: "University administrators have been accessing the information contained in the enforcement staff records and determining the extent of additional investigative actions which the university will be required to take. Based upon this assessment, and taking into account the upcoming holidays and intercession in which the university will be closed, we are now modifying the request made in my earlier letter to you to ask that our response date be extended to February 28, 1998."
On December 9, 1997, the Division I Committee on Infractions granted the university an extension to submit a response to the letter of official inquiry to February 28, 1998. On December 9, all involved parties were notified that the committee had granted the university's request for an extension.
On February 17, 1998, the university, by letter to the administrator for the committee, requested that its response date be extended from February 28 to April 24, 1998. Specifically, the university stated in its request: "The reason for our needing a later date stems from the number of interviews we have had to conduct, some of which, for the sake of the coaches' schedules, have been delayed to the end of the basketball season, as well as the fact that we are attempting to secure additional student-athlete records for the junior college, and to confer with a handwriting expert and receive his recommendation."
On February 24, 1998, the Division I Committee on Infractions granted by letter the university's extension request but limited the extension response date to March 31, 1998. On February 24, all involved parties were notified that the committee had granted the university's request for an extension.
In a February 27, 1998, letter to the chair of the Division I Committee on Infractions, the president requested that the committee reconsider its denial of the university's request for a response date of April 24.
In a March 11, 1998, letter to the president, the chair of the committee advised the president that the committee would extend the university's response date by 10 days to April 10, 1998. On March 11, all involved parties were notified that the committee had granted an additional 10-day extension to the university's response date.
In an April 3, 1998, letter, the president notified the committee that the university would be "unable to respond to the NCAA letter of official inquiry by April 10, 1998, for the reasons set forth in our letter to you dated February 27, 1998." On April 8, 1998, the committee extended the university's response date to April 13, 1998, and all involved parties were notified of the extension. On April 8, 1998, the head men's basketball coach submitted his response to the letter of official inquiry.
On April 11, 1998, the university submitted its initial response to the letter of official inquiry. The response was not complete and the enforcement staff was unable to discern all of the university's positions on the allegations outlined in the letter of official inquiry. It was denoted in the accompanying letter that the "materials are far from complete and that a more thorough response would be forthcoming." On April 29, the university submitted its second response to the letter of official inquiry.
On April 29, 1998, legal counsel for a former assistant men's basketball coach sought permission by a letter to the director for the infractions committees to allow the assistant coach to file a response to the letter of official inquiry notwithstanding the fact that the April 13 deadline had passed. On May 1, 1998, the committee granted the assistant coach's request to file a response and the committee gave the assistant coach until May 11 to file his response. On May 11, 1998, the assistant coach filed his response to the letter of official inquiry.
During the week of May 18, 1998, a director of enforcement and an enforcement representative attempted to schedule a prehearing conference with university officials sometime in early June. On May 19, 1998, executive vice-president at the university advised the director of enforcement by telephone that due to several conflicts with the schedules of university officials who would be involved in the prehearing conference, it would be impossible to schedule the prehearing conference during the month of June. Moreover, the executive vice-president informed the director of enforcement that the first available date when all university officials could attend a prehearing conference would be July 24. The enforcement staff agreed to the July 24 prehearing conference date with reservation.
On July 13, 1998, an enforcement representative advised the university that the enforcement staff would be unable to proceed with the July 24 prehearing conference because the staff was involved in prehearings and other preparation for the August Division I Committee on Infractions hearing. On July 23, 1998, the enforcement staff and the university agreed to August 27 as the scheduled date.
On August 27, 1998, the enforcement staff and university representatives conducted a prehearing conference by telephone. On August 28, 1998, the enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference by telephone with a former assistant men's basketball coach's legal counsel. The assistant coach did not participate. On September 3, 1998, the enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference by telephone with the head men's basketball coach.
On September 4, 1998, the enforcement staff received the university's third and final response. Also on this date, a former assistant men's basketball coach submitted his response to the letter of official inquiry.
Legal counsel for the former head men's basketball coach filed his response to the letter of official inquiry on September 25, 1998, the day of the hearing.
At the time of the hearing, there were no eligibility issues remaining. The involved student-athletes identified in the letter of official inquiry have either exhausted their eligibility, left the institution or did not enroll at the institution.
Following the initial hearing held on September 25, 1998, and after reviewing the evidence submitted, the committee was concerned that there were possible additional violations of NCAA bylaws by the former director of athletics, the former head men's basketball coach and the present head men's basketball coach. The possible additional violations concerned a lack of institutional control and a failure to monitor by all three individuals. The three individuals and their present institutional employers were given notice that the committee had scheduled an additional hearing to consider whether there had been violations of the bylaws involving institutional control and a failure to monitor. The individuals and their institutions were invited to submit additional information concerning these allegations. Responses were received the former director of athletics on November 3, 1998; the former head men's basketball coach on November 6, 1998; and the present head men's basketball coach on November 12, 1998. All three individuals appeared before the committee on November 14, 1998, to address the issues of a lack of institutional control and a failure to monitor.
B. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS.
The violations found by the committee may be summarized as follows:
There was a lack of institutional control.
The institution failed to adequately monitor its athletics programs.
An assistant men's basketball coach violated the NCAA standards of ethical conduct.
The institution provided improper inducements to prospective student-athletes in the form of cash, housing, transportation, payment for books and tuition, assistance in completing academic work and assistance in registration in other colleges.
The institution provided free medical services to a prospective student-athlete.
The institution provided prospective student-athletes with access to training facilities and provided improper entertainment in the form of tickets to professional sports events, amusement parks and comedy clubs.
Prospective student-athletes were employed at summer camps operated by the head coach of the men's basketball program.
The institution provided extra benefits to student-athletes.
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 which had been self-imposed or proposed by the institution:
Reduction in permissible official visits in men's basketball for two years.
Restrictions on the head men's basketball coach's off-campus recruiting activities.
Reduction in grants-in-aid in men's basketball for two years.
A moratorium on recruiting junior college prospective student-athletes.
2.The committee found the penalties imposed by the university meaningful and significant.
However because of the nature of the violations, the number of violations, the individuals involved in the violations and the length of time over which these violations occurred, and the recruiting/competitive advantage gained from the violations, the committee imposed the following additional penalties:
Public reprimand and censure.
Four years of probation.
Reduction in the number of permissible evaluation days for three years.
Extending by one year the amount of time the institution may not recruit junior college prospective student-athletes.
Denial of the men's basketball program's option to take advantage of the exceptions to the limitations in the number of basketball contests.
Forfeit all men's basketball games in which ineligible student-athletes participated.
Requirement that the institution develop a comprehensive athletics compliance education program, with annual reports to the committee during the period of probation.
Require the men's basketball coaching staff to attend an NCAA compliance seminar for one year and the head coach for two years.
Recertification of current athletics policies and practices.
Show-cause requirement regarding the former assistant men's basketball coach for three years.
II. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION.
A. IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS AND BENEFITS TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES IN PROVIDING CASH, PAYING PRECOLLEGE EXPENSES AND ASSISTING IN REGISTRATION. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1, 13.2.2-(e), 13.16.1 AND 13.16.1.1]
In mid-October 1993, in an effort to assist a then men's basketball prospective student-athlete in obtaining his associate of arts degree from a junior college, an assistant men's basketball coach violated NCAA recruiting legislation by assisting in arranging the registration and paying the costs of tuition and textbooks for the prospective student-athlete's enrollment in three correspondence courses at a second junior college. On April 15, 1994, a member of the men's basketball coaching staff authored and mailed a letter to a secretary in the records department at the junior college that requested a refund from the junior college for the prospective student-athlete's tuition and textbook costs. The assistant coach requested that the young man's refund be sent to a residence which was that of an assistant men's basketball coach. The prospective student-athlete had never resided at that address. Specifically:
1.In mid-October 1993, a prospective student-athlete needed to earn at least nine credit hours to receive his associate of arts degree from a junior college and to be eligible for competition at the university. An assistant men's basketball coach informed the prospective student-athlete about the correspondence courses offered by a second junior college. On or about October 4, 1993, the assistant coach completed the prospective student-athlete's junior college enrollment application and enrolled the prospective student-athlete in three correspondence courses at the second junior college. The assistant coach identified and selected the courses in which the prospective student-athlete was to enroll at that junior college. [Bylaw 13.2.1]
2.On October 30, 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach purchased three money orders totaling $646 to pay for the prospective student-athlete's tuition and textbook costs at the second junior college and subsequently mailed the money orders to the institution to secure the prospective student-athlete's enrollment in the courses. On November 15, 1993, all course materials for the prospective student-athlete were mailed by that junior college to the address listed on the prospective student-athlete's application, which was the assistant coach's address. [Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.2.2-(e), 13.16.1 and 13.16.1.1]
The prospective student-athlete left the Fullerton area in late November or early December 1993 and returned to his home residence. The young man did not earn any credit hours by way of correspondence courses from the second junior college. On April 15, 1994, a member of the men's basketball coaching staff authored a letter to a secretary in the admissions department at that junior college seeking a refund for the tuition and book costs for the prospective student-athlete's enrollment at the junior college. The author requested that the prospective student-athlete's refund be sent to the assistant coach's residence. On June 16, 1994, the junior college mailed to the assistant coach's home address a refund check in the amount of $611.80. The prospective student-athlete never received a refund check.
B. IMPROPER INDUCEMENT TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES IN PAYING PRECOLLEGE EXPENSES, ASSISTING IN COURSE REGISTRATION AT JUNIOR COLLEGES, PROVIDING HOUSING AND PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1, 13.2.2-(h), 13.16.1 AND 13.16.1.1]
Between July and August 1993, in an effort to assist a men's basketball prospective student-athlete in obtaining his associate of arts degree from a junior college, an assistant men's basketball coach violated NCAA recruiting legislation by assisting in the registration and arranging, facilitating and paying for a student-athlete's tuition and textbook costs for one three-hour-credit correspondence course at another junior college. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff also arranged for or proctored exams for this course and paid various mailing costs for course-related documents.
On or about July 20, 1994, in an effort to assist a men's basketball prospective student-athlete in obtaining his associate of arts degree from a junior college, an assistant men's basketball coach paid the costs of the prospective student-athlete's tuition and textbooks for two correspondence courses at an NCAA member institution.
1.At the completion of the spring semester of 1993, a student-athlete needed to complete one mathematics course in order to receive his associate of arts degree from a junior college in order to become eligible for competition at the university. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff informed the student-athlete of a mathematics course offered at a second junior college and arranged for a course application to be sent to the basketball staff. On July 13, 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach completed the student-athlete's enrollment application at the second junior college and enrolled him in the mathematics course. [Bylaw 13.2.1]
2.On or about July 13, an assistant coach purchased a money order in the amount of $235.95 to pay for the student-athlete's tuition and textbook costs at the second junior college in which the student-athlete was now enrolled for the correspondence course and subsequently mailed the money order to secure the student-athlete's enrollment in the course. [Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.16.1 and 13.16.1.1]
3.On August 21, an assistant coach served as a proctor and administered a mathematics course examination for a men's basketball student-athlete. Following the examination, the assistant coach mailed the completed examination answer sheet and test validation certificate for the mathematics course to the second junior college. [Bylaw 13.2.1]
4.In late August 1993, in an effort to expedite the student-athlete's receipt of his associate of arts degree from a junior college, an assistant men's basketball coach, who is now the head coach coordinated the charge card payment for the over-night mail costs associated with having the student-athlete's official transcript sent from a second junior college to the junior college from which the student-athlete was to receive his associate's degree. The transcript from the second junior college contained credit for the mathematics course which was required for completion of the student-athlete's associate's degree. The charge card used to pay for the costs was that of the mother of a men's basketball student manager, who had possession of the card at the time. The total overnight mail costs were approximately $11.50.
5.At the conclusion of the summer of 1994, a prospective student-athlete needed to complete nine credit hours to receive his associate of arts degree from a junior college to be eligible for competition at the university. On or about July 20, the assistant coach purchased two money orders ($38 and $500) to pay for the prospect's tuition and book costs at the NCAA member institution and subsequently mailed the money orders to the institution to secure the prospect's enrollment in the courses.
6.During late July 1994, the assistant coach provided one-way, cost-free automobile transportation to a prospective student-athlete from the prospect's residence to Fullerton, California, an approximate one-way distance of 500 miles. Upon the arrival of the assistant coach and the prospect in Fullerton, the assistant coach provided the prospect one day of free housing at his residence.
C. IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES IN PAYING PRECOLLEGE EXPENSES AT JUNIOR COLLEGES AND ASSISTING IN REGISTRATION AT THOSE JUNIOR COLLEGES. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1, 13.16.1 AND 13.16.1.1]
During the summer of 1993, in an effort to assist two men's basketball prospective student-athletes in obtaining their associate of arts degrees from two junior colleges, an assistant men's basketball coach paid a portion of the tuition costs for the young men's enrollment at two additional junior colleges.
In addition, in late May 1993, an assistant men's basketball coach who is now the head men's basketball coach facilitated two prospective student-athletes' enrollment at one of the junior colleges by completing both of their applications for admission. In late August 1993, a member of the men's basketball coaching staff assisted in the enrollment and paid the tuition costs of $59 in order that one of these prospective student-athletes could attend another junior college.
During that summer of 1993, one of the prospective student-athletes was enrolled in a total of six courses at various junior colleges, this included three courses from one junior college, two courses from another junior college], and one course from a third junior college.
During the same time period, the other prospective student-athlete also was enrolled in a total of six courses, including four courses at one junior college, and two courses at a second junior college. Specifically:
1.On or about June 7, an assistant men's basketball coach provided an undetermined amount cash to each of the two prospective student-athletes the day the young men registered and paid for a portion of their respective tuition costs at one of the junior colleges. An assistant coach, who is now the head coach provided improper assistance to the prospective student-athlete by completing the young men's applications for admissions in late May and in one case, signing the student-athlete's name on the junior college application.
2.On or about June 30, a men's basketball coaching staff member provided one of the prospective student-athletes with cash to help pay a portion of that young man's course costs and also provided the other prospective student-athlete with cash to help pay a portion of that prospective student-athlete's course costs for his tuition at the other junior college.
3.During the 1993 fall semester one of the prospective student-athletes was enrolled in one three-credit-hour course and one one-credit-hour course at one of the junior colleges. On or about August 23, a member of the men's basketball coaching staff provided the prospective student-athletes cash the day the young man registered in order to assist him in the paying the cost of his courses.
D. PROVIDING IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES BY PROVIDING CASH PAYMENTS AND PROVIDING HOUSING. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1, 13.2.2-(e) AND 13.2.2-(h)]
1.During the summer of 1993, members of the men's basketball coaching staff provided a men's basketball student-athlete and two prospective men's basketball student-athletes with various amounts of cash, including individual payments of up to $100 per week.
2.During the summer of 1993, coaching staff members arranged the lodging for four prospective student-athletes at the Fullerton apartment of a men's basketball student-athlete. The young men did not pay their appropriate share for the rent when residing with the student-athlete. Two prospective student-athletes moved into the student-athlete's apartment during the first week of June, while another prospective student-athlete moved into the apartment in question on July 8 and another prospective student-athlete on July 21, 1993. One of the prospective student-athletes resided with the student-athlete the duration of the summer. Three of the student-athletes moved out of the student-athlete's apartment at the beginning of August 1993.
E. IMPROPER INDUCEMENT TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES BY PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1 AND 13.6.1]
On numerous occasions during the summer and early fall of 1993, members of the men's basketball coaching staff provided automobile transportation in the southern California area to several men's basketball prospective student-athletes while the young men were living in the Fullerton area prior to their intended fall enrollment at the university. Specifically:
1.In June, July and August 1993, two assistant men's basketball coaches, using a truck belonging to former assistant men's basketball coach and current head coach, provided round-trip transportation on a regular basis to two prospective student-athletes from the apartment in which the young men were residing in Fullerton to two junior colleges in order to enable the prospective student-athletes to attend their respective courses at the junior colleges. One assistant coach provided this transportation on those occasions when the other assistant coach was unable to do so.
From late August until mid-October 1993, the two assistant coaches provided round-trip automobile transportation on a regular basis to one of these prospective student-athletes from the young man's apartment to a third junior college to enable the prospective student-athlete to attend his course at that junior college.
2.During the summer of 1993, an assistant coach provided automobile transportation to four prospective student-athletes on an undetermined number of occasions to take them to various places in the Fullerton/Orange County area, including, but not limited to, fast-food restaurants, night clubs, barbershops, grocery stores and Laguna Beach.
3.On two occasions during the summer of 1993, a men's basketball manager and now current administrative assistant was approached by two prospective student-athletes during a summer basketball camp session conducted on campus where the basketball manager was employed. The two student-athletes asked the manager if he could transport them to a junior college so that they could attend classes in which they were enrolled. The basketball manager provided round-trip transportation to the prospects from the campus to the junior college. The manager reported that a member of the coaching staff was aware that he was transporting the prospects to the junior college.
4.On one occasion in late August 1993, a basketball student manager provided a prospective student-athlete with round-trip transportation from Fullerton to San Diego at the instruction of a member of the men's basketball coaching staff. On one occasion during the summer of 1993, the student manager provided the prospect with round-trip transportation from Fullerton to a junior college he was attending.
F. IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES BY PROVIDING IMPROPER ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE, PERMITTING ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY TELEPHONES, PROVIDING MEALS, PERMITTING ACCESS TO TRAINING FACILITIES AND BY PROVIDING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1, 13.2.2-(g), 13.2.7, 13.6.1]
During the summer and fall of 1993, prior to and following the enrollment of several men's basketball prospective student-athletes, members of the men's basketball coaching staff arranged for or provided assistance to the prospects while they were living in the Fullerton area that was contrary to the NCAA recruiting inducement and extra-benefit legislation. This assistance facilitated the young men becoming eligible upon their enrollment at the institution. Specifically:
1.From mid-July through mid-August, an assistant men's basketball coach supervised study halls on an undetermined number of occasions in the athletics department conference room located on the university's campus for men's basketball prospective student-athletes. None of the prospective student-athletes were enrolled in the university's summer term during that summer.
On several occasions during that summer, an assistant men's basketball coach supervised and monitored two of the prospect's summer school study sessions at his parents' home in a local city.
During the fall semester, a prospective student-athlete attended several regularly conducted study hall sessions for enrolled men's basketball student-athletes at the university. The study hall sessions took place on the university's campus and were supervised by an assistant coach. [Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.7]
2.On several occasions during that summer, two assistant men's basketball coaches allowed the prospective student-athletes access to and usage of the coaching staff's office computers to type an unspecified number of academic assignments for courses in which the young men were enrolled. On at least 10 occasions during that summer, an assistant coach allowed a prospective student-athlete access to and use of his personal laptop computer to type an unspecified number of academic assignments. [Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.7]
3.On numerous occasions during that summer, an assistant coach provided tutoring to a prospective student-athlete for the junior college correspondence course (Basic College Mathematics) the prospect was taking by reviewing, correcting and explaining corrections he made to various homework assignments and practice examinations the prospective student-athlete completed. The assistant coach provided the tutoring in an on-campus conference room. [Bylaw 13.2.1 and 13.2.7]
4.During that summer, an assistant coach provided two prospective student-athletes with meals at his parents' home in a local city while the young men were in between classes at a junior college. During the 1993-94 academic year, an assistant coach provided frequent free meals at his apartment located in Fullerton to several enrolled student-athletes. [Bylaws 13.2.1, 16.12.1.6 and 16.12.2.1]
5.On numerous occasions during that summer, four prospective student-athletes were provided access to the university's athletics department weight room. [Bylaw 13.2.1]
6.In late August, a prospective student-athlete went to the university health center and received a full physical and an electro-cardiogram (EKG) workup. The prospective student-athlete subsequently revisited the health center in September to receive minor treatment for an undetermined medical problem. In mid-November, while still not enrolled at the institution, the head athletics trainer provided medical treatment for the prospect. [Bylaws 13.2.1 and 13.2.2-(g)]
G. IMPROPER RECREATION ACTIVITIES PROVIDED FOR PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAW 13.12.2.3]
During the period from the summer of 1993 through the 1997-98 academic year, members of the men's basketball coaching staff organized pickup practice games on more than one occasion in which prospects participated and were observed by coaches.
H. EMPLOYING PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES AT COACH'S SUMMER CAMP. [NCAA BYLAW 13.13.1.5.1]
During the summer of 1994, three prospective student-athletes were employed at two of the head men's basketball coach's basketball camps.
I. IMPROPER INDUCEMENT TO A PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETE IN PROVIDING TUTORIAL ASSISTANCE. [NCAA BYLAW 13.2.1]
During the summer and fall of 1993, members of the men's basketball coaching staff arranged for a prospective student-athlete to receive free tutorial assistance in an SAT Princeton Review course at no cost to the young man.
J. IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES IN PROVIDING EXCESSIVE ENTERTAINMENT. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1 AND 13.5]
Over the period 1992-93 through the 1997-98 academic year, members of the men's basketball staff purchased tickets to professional baseball, hockey and basketball games, amusement parks, and comedy clubs and provided them to student hosts and prospects while the prospects were on their official paid visits.
K. EXTRA BENEFITS TO STUDENT-ATHLETES BY PERMITTING ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY TELEPHONES. [NCAA BYLAW 16.12.1.6 AND 16.12.2.1]
On numerous occasions during the summer of 1993, several prospective student-athletes were provided access to telephones in the men's basketball coaching staff's offices for personal long-distance telephone calls at no cost to the young men. During the fall semester, a student-athlete made personal long-distance telephone calls from the coaching staff's offices at no cost to the young man.
During the period from the summer of 1993 until the present, members of the men's basketball team had access to and utilized the telephones located in the coaching staff's offices to make calls mainly to locations within the southern California area. Members of the men's basketball coaching staff had knowledge of this use. [Bylaw 13.2.1]
L. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.1.1, 2.8.1 AND 6.01.1]
During the summer and fall of 1993, the university lacked appropriate institutional control in its men's basketball program due to its failure to adequately monitor the activities of four prospective student-athletes who moved to the Fullerton area prior to their initial enrollment at the institution and who were enrolled in courses in order to matriculate to the university, specifically:
Although the institution was aware that the prospective student-athletes would be moving to the Fullerton area in the summer and needed to obtain significant additional course credit to be eligible in the fall, the institution made no efforts to monitor their lodging, employment or course enrollment in correspondence courses or at area community colleges. As early as August, some information was being provided to the institution concerning possible violations. By November, this information indicated the involvement of coaching staff members proctoring exams, allowing the young men to utilize study facilities, to participate in practice sessions, and to receive treatment at the university health center and athletics training room.
M. FAILURE TO MONITOR AND A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.1 AND 2.8.1]
The director of athletics failed to monitor and provide adequate institutional control and failed to identify and review information concerning possible violations of NCAA legislation when it came to his attention. In August 1993, the faculty athletics representative and the director of academic services provided information to the director of athletics about possible recruiting inducements being provided to the four prospects. However, rather than interviewing in mid-September the four prospects or other individuals who may have had contact with the prospects, the director of athletics met only with the head men's basketball coach, his basketball coaching staff and the faculty athletics representative to discuss the activities of the prospects and took no further action.
N. FAILURE TO MONITOR AND A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL BY THE FORMER HEAD MEN'S BASKETBALL COACH. [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.1 and 2.8.1]
The former head coach failed to monitor and provide adequate institutional control over the activities of the prospective student-athletes upon their arrival at the university campus in that he did not know their employment status and the means by which they were traveling to classes. He also did not supervise the activity of his staff members who were providing improper assistance to prospective student-athletes for the purpose of establishing the prospects' academic eligibility for the ensuing academic year.
As a result of his failure to monitor, student-athletes were permitted to participate while ineligible. Members of the men's basketball staff were aware that these student-athletes had received improper inducements and extra benefits but still permitted their participation on the men's basketball team.
O. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaw 10.1]
An assistant coach violated the provisions of the ethical conduct legislation by paying tuition and textbook costs, providing automobile transportation and lodging to a prospective student-athlete as stated in Finding II-B.
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 a number 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. Among the corrective actions the university has taken or will take are the following:
1.The men's head basketball coach will attend an NCAA regional compliance meeting for two years (particularly with respect to recruiting rules) at his own expense due to his involvement in these infractions.
2.Following such meetings, the head basketball coach will conduct a seminar for all basketball coaches and staff which summarizes points made at the compliance meetings.
3.The director of compliance will be required to attend the head coach's seminars. [Note: The institution had originally proposed that the director of compliance be "invited" to the seminars, but the committee believed that director should be required to attend.]
4.The athletics department will file with the president's office reports on the overall compliance program, with special emphasis on the men's basketball program, on the following schedule: six months, 12 months, 24 months.
5.The Athletics Advisory Council standing committee on rules compliance will continue the current practice of monthly compliance meetings.
6.The university will develop, through the university Athletics Advisory Council Rules Compliance Committee, policies and procedures for early preliminary review of the academic standing of junior college prospective student-athletes who were not qualifiers out of high school.
B. PENALTIES PROPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own the following penalties proposed by the institution:
1.Reduce by two the number of permissible official visits in men's basketball during the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years.
2.Restrict the head basketball coach during the period from December 1, 1998, through November 30, 1999, from conducting off-campus recruiting activities, including but not limited to the following activities: evaluations, home visits, off-campus meals/entertainment of recruits during their official visit.
3.Reduce by two the number of permissible athletics grants-in-aid in men's basketball during each of the 1999-00 and 2000-01 academic years.
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 present head coach in a number of the violations and the significant lack of institutional control.
The committee chose not to impose all of the presumptive penalties permitted under Bylaw 19.6.2.1. 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 university self-imposed a number of penalties which were accepted by the committee, but which the committee enhanced by adding additional time periods during which the penalties would be imposed. The additional penalties imposed by the committee are:
1.Public reprimand and censure.
2.Four years of probation from November 14, 1998, the date of the hearing.
3.During the 1999-00 academic year, the men's basketball team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limitation in the number of basketball contests that are provided in Bylaws 17.3.3.1, 17.3.5.2 and 17.3.5.3, regarding preseason contests and other exceptions to the maximum number of contest limitations.
4.Prohibit the awarding of initial grants-in-aid in men's basketball to junior college transfer student-athletes during the period from December 1, 1998, through November 30, 2001. [Note: The university had originally proposed a prohibition of junior college recruiting for a period of two years.]
5.Reduce the number of permissible evaluation days from 40 to 30 for three years. If the institution self-imposed this penalty upon itself for 1998-99, this period shall extend to the 2000-01 academic year. If it did not impose the penalty during 1998-99, the period shall extend to 2001-02. [Note: The university had originally proposed the reduction in evaluation days for a period for two years.]
6.Forfeit all men's basketball contests in which ineligible men's basketball student-athletes participated.
7.During this period of probation, the institution shall:
a.Develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the director of athletics, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition;
b.Submit a preliminary report to the director for the NCAA infractions committees by July 1, 1999, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and
c.File with the committee's director annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by November 1 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on compliance with recruiting requirements. The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.
d.Require all members of the men's basketball coaching staff to attend an NCAA Regional Compliance Seminar for one year, and the head men's basketball coach will be required to attend at his own expense for two years.
8.The institution's president shall recertify in a letter to the committee that all of the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
9.If the assistant men's basketball coach had still been employed in athletics at the institution, the university would have been required to show cause in accordance with Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(l) why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him.
10.The former assistant men's basketball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (June 13, 1997, to June 13, 2000), 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 19.6.2.2-(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, California State University, Fullerton, shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, November 14, 1998.
Should California State University, Fullerton, the men's basketball coaches or the former director of athletics who participated in the processing of this case appeal either the findings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA Division I 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 32.10.5.
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 DIVISION I COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
Richard J. Dunn
Jack H. Friedenthal
Frederick B. Lacey
James Park Jr.
Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton
David Swank (chair)
Thomas E. Yeager
©Copyright 1997-1999 All rights reserved
Questions? Comments? Need Information?
E-mail: jegesq@socalhoops.com
