This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

NCAA investigating Tressel's days at Y-State

Discussion in 'ESPN's 04-05 war against tOSU and Tressel' started by GoofyBuckeye, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. GoofyBuckeye

    GoofyBuckeye Nutis Maximus

    Iron and Buttocks, look for a transfer of v-cash to your account very soon
  2. Folanator

    Folanator Brawndo's got electrolytes...

    Amen. I am all for information. I can make up my own mind. Keep posting.
  3. 3yardsandacloud

    3yardsandacloud Administrator Emeritus

    I do not think that is an accurate statement Goofy.

    Here's the NCAA Public Report on the Youngstown State Investigation. You guys can argue the specifics or rumors to your heart's content. The one point I would like to make (as someone already pointed out), the NCAA does NOT sanction or penalize individuals (coaches, players, administrators). The NCAA sanctions and penalizes member institutions. Much like Maurice Clarett, the NCAA could do NOTHING to him as an individual. They CAN impose penalties on the member school if they feel that school didn't handle/puinish their individuals (coaches, players, administrators) properly. OSU penalized MC (suspension), the NCAA was satisfied and thus no penalty was handed to OSU.

    Public Infraction Report

    February 16, 2000
    Jack Friedenthal, Chair
    10:00 a.m. EST
    NCAA Division I
    Committee on Infractions
    George Washington University


    INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA---This report is organized as follows:

    I. Introduction.
    II. Findings of violations of NCAA legislation.
    III. Committee on Infractions penalties.



    This case involved the football program at Youngstown State University and primarily concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing extra benefits and institutional control. Youngstown State University is a Division I-AA institution and a member of the Mid-Continent and Gateway (football) Conferences. The university has an enrollment of approximately 11,353 students and sponsors 6 men's and 10 women's intercollegiate sports.

    This case was handled through the summary-disposition process and was reviewed by the Division I Committee on Infractions during its November 5-7, 1999, meeting. The summary-disposition process is a cooperative endeavor designed to resolve major violations of NCAA rules without an in-person hearing before the committee, and includes the member institution, involved individuals and the NCAA enforcement staff. The summary-disposition process is used when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution and involved individuals agree on the facts in an infractions case and agree that those facts constitute major violations of NCAA legislation. The institution and involved individuals also suggest appropriate penalties.

    In this case, the committee commends Youngstown State for its thorough and aggressive pursuit of information relating to the finding of violations of NCAA legislation despite the fact that these violations were beyond the four-year statute of limitations and might have resulted in the forfeiture of the institution's 1991 NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship.



    1. On numerous occasions during the period beginning August - September 1988 and continuing through the spring of 1992, a representative of the institution’s athletic interests, who was at the time a member and chairperson of the Youngstown State University Board of Trustees, gave at least $10,000 in cash and checks to a football student-athlete for his personal use.

    2. In the fall of 1988, the athletics representative instructed the football student-athlete to contact a business associate regarding the use of automobiles. The football student-athlete contacted the business associate who provided the free use of automobiles to the eligible football student-athlete.

    a. Receipt of Money

    The former football student-athlete testified that, while a trustee, the athletics representative provided him with at least $10,000 in cash and checks beginning in August or September 1988 through spring 1992. The first cash payment received by the former football student-athlete was for $150 in 1988 to attend a fair. Subsequent cash and checks were received, sometimes from the athletics representative himself and on other occasions from his business associate and employees.

    In his testimony, the former student-athlete could not always remember the particulars regarding the date, amount and circumstances of each cash payment received. However, he also received at least six checks totaling $7,600, which were introduced into evidence by the government at the jury tampering trial. The dates and amounts of those checks are as follows:

    1991?.....$1,600.00 (exact date unavailable)

    01/01/91?...$ 450.00

    12/27/91?...$ 800.00


    03/20/92?...$ 750.00


    The former student-athlete’s testimony regarding receipt of money was corroborated by other witnesses at the trial, including the booster himself. The former football student-athlete was interviewed by telephone in connection with the institution’s internal investigation. During the telephone interview the student-athlete affirmed his trial testimony.

    b. Receipt of Automobiles

    Both the former football student-athlete and a business associate of the athletics representative reported that while a trustee the booster arranged with the business associate to provide the former football student-athlete free use of automobiles. The business associate stated that he provided the former student-athlete with two or three automobiles during the time period in question.

    A number of the student-athlete’s former teammates were personally interviewed by the institution’s Internal Review Committee in connection with the institution’s internal investigation. All former players interviewed, except one, either stated that the student-athlete had a car during the football season or that they heard others talking about his having a car and speculated as to how he could afford it.


    The committee agreed with the institution and the enforcement staff that the facts contained in this finding constitute violations of NCAA legislation.

    This information first came to light in early March 1998, during a prosecution by the United States for jury tampering. The trial involved the athletics representative, then no longer a trustee, and the former Youngstown State football student-athlete. During the course of the trial, the former student-athlete testified that, while a trustee, the athletics representative had provided him with money and the use of automobiles from 1988 through 1992, a period during which the former student-athlete was a member of the institution's football team.

    B. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.8.1 and 6.4.2]

    In January 1994, the institution failed to exercise appropriate institutional control in the conduct and administration of the football program by not taking thorough and in-depth action to investigate possible violations of NCAA legislation after receiving information concerning possible violations.


    The committee concurred with the university and the enforcement staff's conclusion that violations of the NCAA constitution occurred when the university failed to take appropriate action in January 1994 to investigate reported violations of NCAA legislation after receiving information indicating violations had occurred. The two primary considerations that led to this conclusion were: (i) testimony given by the former football student-athlete in March 1998 during the aforementioned jury tampering trial, and (ii) the university's failure to properly investigate the information contained in a January 1994 letter from a former NCAA director of enforcement to the institution informing it of anonymous allegations of possible NCAA violations in the institution’s athletics program.

    Specifically, the former director of enforcement advised the institution in January 1994 that anonymous information had been received alleging the following possible NCAA violations: (i) at least thirteen football student-athletes were employed by a local business during the football season, (ii) the former football student-athlete drove an automobile during the 1991 football season provided by the business (the business was owned by the former trustee and athletics representative) and (iii) the director of athletic development provided money to non-scholarship student-athletes through the institution’s booster organization, the Penguin Club. In his letter, the former director of enforcement advised the institution that if it chose to investigate the anonymous allegations of NCAA violations and found that violations actually occurred, it would be obligated to self-report the violations to the NCAA enforcement staff.

    Upon receipt of the information contained in the letter from the former director of enforcement, the university president held a series of five meetings within the next month with institutional staff members including the faculty athletics representative, the executive director of intercollegiate athletics, the head football coach and the compliance officer. In these meetings, the executive director of intercollegiate athletics and the head football coach assured the president that these allegations were baseless.

    Despite the president’s instructions to review the anonymous allegations, the executive director of intercollegiate athletics failed to do so and sent a memorandum once again assuring the president that there was no basis to substantiate the allegations and further inquiry was not necessary. Based upon these assurances contained in the memorandum, the president advised the NCAA by letter dated February 18, 1994, that there was no basis to substantiate the allegations or to suggest that a further inquiry was appropriate.

    After the testimony in the jury tampering case and the NCAA violations revealed by the institution’s internal investigation as described in Finding II-A, it became clear that there had been at least some merit to the information received in 1994 regarding possible NCAA violations. Therefore, as part of its inquiry regarding the money and cars received by the former football student-athlete from the one-time trustee and athletics representative, the internal review committee also investigated how the institution's 1994 review had been conducted. This committee interviewed the current executive director of intercollegiate athletics/head football coach, the executive director of intercollegiate athletics at the time of the violations, the assistant athletic director/senior woman administrator at the time of the violations, who is now the associate executive director of intercollegiate athletics/senior woman administrator, and an assistant football coach who remains in that position.

    According to these individuals, the review in 1994 consisted of informal meetings among the director of athletics, the head football coach and the assistant director of athletics/senior woman administrator. Specifically, there were no interviews with other coaches, members of the football team, the former football student-athlete in question or the former trustee booster. There was no in-depth investigation of the information received in 1994 regarding possible NCAA violations. When asked why no in-depth review was conducted, the former director of athletics stated that he believed a disgruntled former employee had made the anonymous allegations to the NCAA. The head football coach agreed.


    For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved violations of NCAA legislation.


    In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered certain actions taken by the institution. among which are the following:

    1. The university received formal compliance reviews by the Mid-Continent Conference in 1998 and 1999.

    2. Athletics department staff members have attended NCAA regional compliance seminars in each of the past six years.

    3. The university has added three new administrators to the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics to assist with compliance-related activities.

    4. In 1997 the university adopted a manual that systematically delineates and reviews all policies and procedures and defines a formal approval policy process for the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics.


    The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own the following penalties proposed by the institution:

    1. The university will reduce by two the number of initial financial aid awards in the sport of football for the 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years.

    2. The university will reduce by five the number of expense-paid recruiting visits in the sport of football for the 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years.

    3. The university will publicly reprimand the former trustee and booster and permanently disassociate him from the athletics programs.

    4. The university will publicly reprimand the former football student-athlete and permanently disassociate him from the athletics programs.


    The Division I Committee on Infractions agreed with and approved of the actions taken by the institution. In striking contrast to its behavior in 1994, the institution has now been diligent and conscientiousness in its pursuit of information relating to potential NCAA violations that were committed at a time clearly beyond the statue of limitations. In consideration of the significant and meaningful self-imposed sanctions, the committee decided not to impose additional penalties, not to obligate the institution to forfeit its 1991 NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship as would normally be required in accordance with Bylaw, and not to require the institution to reimburse funds resulting from participation in this championship, as set forth in NCAA Bylaw

    Because Youngstown State University agreed to participate in the summary-disposition process, admitted to violations of NCAA rules and self-imposed penalties, there is no appeal option in this case.

    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 the penalties or any additional violations shall be grounds for 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.


    Alice Gresham Bullock

    Richard J. Dunn

    Jack H. Friedenthal (Chair)

    Frederick B. Lacey

    Gene A. Marsh

    Josephine R. Potuto

    Thomas E. Yeager



    Case Chronology

    March 4, 1998: News reporter covering jury tapering trial notified institution of possible NCAA violations involving former football student-athlete and a booster who was a former university trustee. University President met with Intercollegiate Athletics Compliance Officer. Commissioner of Gateway Football Conference, Patty Viverito, was notified of possible NCAA violation.

    March 5 and 6, 1998: University President met with Intercollegiate Athletics Compliance Officer, Vice President for Development and Community Affairs, and University General Counsel. Internal Review Committee was formed to begin the inquiry process.

    March 6, 1998: University President sent a letter to Viverito, stating intention of university to investigate alleged violation and self-report its findings to NCAA. Viverito agreed to serve as outside advisor to university and assist with development of review process and formation of necessary questionnaires. Copy of the March 6 letter was also sent to NCAA Director of Enforcement [Charles Smrt].

    March 23, 1998: University President received letter from NCAA encouraging university to provide results of internal inquiry to the enforcement staff. Internal Review Committee proceeds with the inquiry.

    June 3, 1999: Following comprehensive investigation of allegations, a report of Internal Review Committee was sent to Viverito.

    June 11, 1999: Viverito recommended that report be referred to David Price, Vice President for Enforcement and Student Athlete Reinstatement, NCAA.

    June 14, 1999: Report of Internal Review Committee was sent to NCAA.

    June 1999: Enforcement staff members were assigned to process case.

    June 22, 1999: University provided enforcement staff with additional materials relevant to alleged violation (trial transcript, etc.).

    August 10, 1999: University and NCAA enforcement staff conduct conference call regarding alleged violations. University agreed that major violations took place during the 1988-1991 time frame and elected to enter into summary-disposition process with NCAA.

    August 18 and 19, 1999: NCAA enforcement staff visited university's campus and interviewed institutional staff members. Additional guidance regarding summary-disposition process was provided and staff suggested that university continue its efforts to reach former football student-athlete [Ray Isaac], former trustee and booster [Michael Monus], and former trustee's business associate [George Turner]. After prolonged effort, university was successful in contacting and interviewing former football student-athlete and business associate.

    September - October, 1999: University and enforcement staff collaborates in drafting summary-disposition report.

    October 20, 1999: Summary-disposition report submitted to Division I Committee on Infractions.

    November 6, 1999: Summary-disposition report reviewed by Division I Committee on Infractions during its November 5-7 meeting in Indianapolis.
  4. GoofyBuckeye

    GoofyBuckeye Nutis Maximus

    great find, 3 yards. You could be right about the NCAA's power to expel a coach or a player. I was under the assumption that it can in fact rule a player ineligible, thus, the player getting expelled or suspended. As for a coach, I thought the NCAA could block him from pursuing further job in college football.

    Seems like Y-State fucked up the initial investigation. Didn't seem like they did anything at all and were forced by the NCAA to do another investigation when evidence was found. Interesting.

    Hopefully, I'll find out what the NCAA is doing interviewing former Y-State coaches as part of the OSU investigation
  5. BuckeyeNation27

    BuckeyeNation27 Goal Goal USA! Staff Member

    eat shit grad :p
  6. osugrad21

    osugrad21 Capo Regime Staff Member


    Or are you lamenting all of us with your sadistic fantasies again?
  7. Buckeyeskickbuttocks

    Buckeyeskickbuttocks Z --> Z^2 + c Staff Member

    I think he was merely recommending a dinner item.
  8. BuckeyeNation27

    BuckeyeNation27 Goal Goal USA! Staff Member

    yep. ironic isnt it :wink:
  9. GoofyBuckeye

    GoofyBuckeye Nutis Maximus

    I just remembered this which sheds light on the NCAA powers...Jim Harrick Jr. was was found in breach of the NCAA's ethical conduct statutes for coaches and has effectively been banned from coaching in the NCAA for the next seven years. Should an NCAA institution choose to hire Harrick Jr. as a coach during that period, both the school and the coach would have to go before the infractions committee to "show cause" he should be hired. The school could be subjected to recruiting limitations and other restraints.So the NCAA uses that ethical conduct statute rarely, but it can impose it.
  10. osugrad21

    osugrad21 Capo Regime Staff Member

    Duh...can't believe I missed that.

    Must be the stress going into the homestretch of Pick Em:2004:
  11. GoofyBuckeye

    GoofyBuckeye Nutis Maximus

    I also just read that Mike Dubose could have had the fate had the NCAA found more direct evidence against him when Bama got nailed.
  12. 3yardsandacloud

    3yardsandacloud Administrator Emeritus

    Goofy, I didn't mean to derail any argument of yours. Simply put, the NCAA has no direct authority over any individual. However, they can (and do) tell the school/institution what they want (in form of punishment) done. If the school doesn't comply (by punishing the individual), then the NCAA punishes the school (reduced scholarships, no TV, etc.). So the players and coaches are held accountable by the school/institution, the school/institution is held accountable by the NCAA. For instance, OSU COULD have decided NOT to suspend Maurice Clarett AT ALL last season, but (and Andy Geiger knew this) then the school would have suffered sanctions from the NCAA. There's the rub. MC could have played for us last season IF (a big if), OSU was willing to accept whatever penalties the NCAA decided to hand out. And the NCAA penalties are never worth the benefit of disregarding their wishes or (in effect) mandates.

    The only time in which the NCAA deals with players on an individual basis (I believe) is in regards to questions of eligibility. This happened this past football season with Colorado player (and Skiing star) Jeremy Bloom. The NCAA ruled him ineligible because of sponsorship money he received from Skiing. Bloom fought the NCAA in court, but eventually lost. Even at that, I believe that Colorado could have disregarded the NCAA ruling and played Jeremy Bloom ... at the threat of NCAA sanctions. Again, this is never worth the price/penalty that the NCAA will hand down to the institution.
  13. GoofyBuckeye

    GoofyBuckeye Nutis Maximus

    3 yards, maybe you didn't see my post about Harrick, Jr. He was suspended by the NCAA for 7 years for violation of the ethical conduct statute. Georgia had nothing to do with it. The NCAA took this action. Dubose at Bama nearly got nailed with the same thing.
  14. 3yardsandacloud

    3yardsandacloud Administrator Emeritus

    Hummm, I'll have to check the NCAA database on that one Goofy. Maybe coaches are held to a different standard by the NCAA. I'll scratch around a bit later and see what I find.

    Here's what I found Goofy. I bolded the pertinent part. Seems like the NCAA IS dealing with the member institution in regards to this infraction ... what do you think?:

    Thursday, August 5, 2004 Kay Hawes
    Associate Director of Media Relations


    INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Georgia on probation for four years for violations of NCAA bylaws regarding recruiting inducements, unethical conduct, academic fraud and extra benefits in the men's basketball program.

    The case centered around the actions of a former assistant men's basketball coach who was the son of the former head men's basketball coach.

    The committee found that on July 3, 2001, the assistant coach sent a wire transfer of $300 to a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, residence where a prospective student-athlete (student-athlete 1) was staying with a high-school friend and his mother. The committee found that the $300 was intended for payment of expenses incurred by the prospective student-athlete. On July 28, the prospective student-athlete made an official paid visit to Georgia that was arranged by the assistant coach. Forty-four days after the money was provided, the student-athlete enrolled at the university.

    The committee concluded that "the assistant coach provided the $300 and did so at a time when he knew that the university was recruiting the prospective student-athlete and that the money was provided for the purpose of facilitating the recruitment." The committee noted that it "found each of the several explanations of the assistant coach not credible and also found that these explanations were inconsistent."

    The committee also found that, in knowingly providing a recruiting inducement in violation of NCAA rules, the assistant coach violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct.

    In a separate matter, the committee found that the assistant coach violated NCAA principles of ethical conduct during fall 2001 in his conduct regarding a basketball coaching class he taught through Georgia's physical education and sport studies department.

    The committee found that the assistant coach conducted the class in such a manner that the grades of "A" he awarded to three men's basketball student-athletes constituted academic fraud; that he encouraged two of the student-athletes enrolled in the class to provide misleading information to institutional and NCAA investigators about the administration of the course and the grading policy; and that he provided an extra benefit to the three student-athletes by the manner in which he administered the course.

    In finding that the assistant coach committed unethical conduct as reflected in the academic fraud, the committee noted that the assistant coach provided "several different and irreconcilable statements" regarding the course requirements, grading policy and even the circumstances of his teaching the class. There were 39 students enrolled in the class, all of whom were ultimately awarded a grade of "A." Student-athlete 1 likely never attended the class, while student-athletes 2 and 3 attended only a few classes. The three men's basketball student-athletes in the class took no final exam, which the department chair required the coach to administer.

    The committee noted that there was complete disagreement between the university and the assistant coach regarding what he had been told about course requirements, including the requirement to give a final examination.

    The committee also noted that the assistant coach himself missed numerous classes, and that the physical education department chair believed that the substitute the assistant coach provided for the class was a graduate student, when in actuality the substitute was not a graduate student, but the administrative assistant for the men's basketball team.

    The committee found that the administration of the basketball coaching class resulted in an impermissible extra benefit for the men's basketball student-athletes because those students were not required to do any work for the class. They were the only students in the class to receive course credit and grades of "A" based on activities (games and practices) already required of them as members of the men's basketball team, and they neither attended class regularly nor took the final examination. The committee noted that the student-athletes already received one hour of credit for varsity basketball participation.

    The committee also found that the assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct by encouraging student-athletes 2 and 3 to provide misleading information in interviews with the university and the NCAA. The committee found that the assistant coach spoke with the student-athletes by cell phone, shortly after he had been interviewed and shortly before they were to be interviewed, describing to them a 425-point grading system that neither student-athlete had heard of previously. The committee also noted that this system did not appear on the course syllabus distributed by the assistant coach at the beginning of the semester.

    In concluding that the assistant coach had committed both academic fraud and unethical conduct, the committee noted:

    "While the varying and conflicting explanations proffered by the assistant coach lead to several versions of the course requirements for the class, the committee concluded that there was academic fraud no matter how described. If he is taken at his last word, then his description is academic fraud in that he described a sham course with no attendance requirements, no examinations, no information to students of his (425-point) grading policy, no reliable way to assess performance for purposes of awarding grades and no base of information from which to assure that all students were treated equally."

    In a separate matter, the committee found that in November and December 2001, the university permitted six men's basketball student-athletes to receive extra benefits by not requiring them to pay for long-distance telephone charges incurred while the team was competing away from home. The extra benefits totaled $1,572.66, and they were not reported to the NCAA until July 2003. Consequently, all six student-athletes competed while ineligible during a portion of the 2001-02 academic year and during the entire 2002-03 academic year.

    The committee noted that it was concerned by the "failure of university staff to follow long-standing, well-understood, and routine NCAA processes by reporting the violations, declaring the involved student-athletes ineligible and seeking their reinstatement." The committee also noted that had the violations been self-reported when they became known to the associate trainer and the head coach, the student-athletes would have been withheld from competition during the 2001-02 season. The committee also noted that the "competitive advantage gained from not reporting was significant" since the six student-athletes were top performers.

    In conclusion, the committee considered this case to be of "particular concern" as it involved coach misconduct in the context of teaching an academic course. The committee also noted that it was troubled by "the number and range of instances of unethical conduct in which the assistant coach engaged. In this regard, the committee could recall few, if any, instances in which three separate and substantively different findings of unethical conduct were made against one individual."

    Because the violations found in this case occurred within five years of the starting date of penalties associated with the 1997 Georgia football infractions case, the institution is a repeat-violator and subject to repeat-violator penalties.

    In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee acknowledged that the university cooperated fully with the enforcement staff and undertook a thorough and efficient investigation once the violations were reported by ESPN. The committee also noted that the university's most recent infractions case did not involve the men's basketball program.

    The committee also considered the institution's self-imposed penalties, its corrective actions and the nature of the violations in this case. The committee determined that the case clearly warranted the imposition of a one-year postseason ban, and credited the university for that penalty because of its action in removing the team, highly ranked at the time, from postseason competition at the conclusion of the 2002-03 season. The penalties self-imposed by the institution are so noted.


    Public reprimand and censure.

    Four years of probation beginning with the date of the hearing, April 17, 2004.

    The committee would have imposed a one-year postseason ban in men's basketball had the university not removed itself from postseason competition for the 2002-03 season.

    The institution shall reduce grants-in-aid in men's basketball by one during each of the 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years. Under current rules, this limits the institution to a total of 12 grants in men's basketball during those three years.

    The institution will vacate wins as well as team and individual records of the six student-athletes who participated in men's basketball contests while ineligible during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons. The university's records regarding men's basketball, as well as the record of the former head coach, will be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records and will be so recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons are reported, including university media guides, Internet Web sites, recruiting materials and university and NCAA archives. Also, any public reference to tournament performances during this time shall be removed, including athletics department stationery and banners displayed in public areas such as the arena where the men's basketball team competes.

    The former assistant men's basketball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain NCAA violations found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a seven-year period (April 17, 2004, to April 16, 2011), 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, which could limit his athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

    The university suspended the former assistant men's basketball coach February 28, 2003, pending the investigation, and his contract was not renewed. The committee noted that, if the former men's basketball coach were still employed at the institution, the university would have been required to show cause, in accordance with NCAA bylaws, why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. (Self-imposed by the university.)


    The university suspended the head men's basketball coach March 10, 2003, pending the conclusion of the investigation. He resigned March 27, 2003, and entered into a retirement agreement on that date. (Self-imposed by the university.)

    Because this case involved academic fraud, this report will be forwarded to the appropriate regional academic accrediting agency by the NCAA's president in accordance with NCAA Bylaw

    The associate trainer received a letter of reprimand from the university and will be required to undergo retraining on NCAA rules and procedures. (Self-imposed by the university.)

    The chair of the physical education and sports studies department received a letter of reprimand from the university. (Self-imposed by the university.)

    Two student-athletes were declared ineligible for competition until recertification by the NCAA. Also, their academic credit for the basketball course taught by the assistant coach was withdrawn.

    The university either did not renew or terminated the employment contracts of the entire men's basketball coaching staff. (Self-imposed by the university.)

    During the probationary period, the university shall continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. The university also is required to submit, to the director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions, a preliminary report that sets forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program and placing particular emphasis on: staff instruction that all violations must be reported to the compliance director; that receipt of extra benefits results in ineligibility that may be restored only through the NCAA reinstatement process; and that any coach participation in instructional programs, particularly graded programs, requires careful and regular monitoring by the appropriate academic officials. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

    As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Georgia is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, April 17, 2004.

    The members of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Andrea L. Myers, director of athletics, Indiana State University; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska College of Law; and Eugene D. Smith, athletics director, Arizona State University.
  15. GoofyBuckeye

    GoofyBuckeye Nutis Maximus

    The former assistant men's basketball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain NCAA violations found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a seven-year period (April 17, 2004, to April 16, 2011), 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, which could limit his athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period

    There ya go...another nice find, 3yards

Share This Page