The NCAA News - News & Features

Michigan State receives four years of probation

Part of this case involved situations in which representatives of the institution's athletics interests, or boosters, provided recruiting inducements and improper extra benefits. One of these individuals did not intend to become a representative of the university. Members of the football coaching staff took advantage of his prominence in a community in a prime recruiting area and sought his help with recruiting. The actions of the coaching staff changed his efforts from those of a supportive community leader to those of a booster and thus into NCAA rules violations.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions heard this case June 1, 1996. Representatives of the university, the Big Ten Conference and the NCAA enforcement staff appeared before the committee. An assistant football coach and an enrolled student-athlete also were present for the hearing.

The athletics student advisor who was involved in this case also was present for part of the hearing but left without fully responding to the allegations in which he was named. The committee gave him an opportunity to submit additional information following the hearing, which he did. The university and the NCAA enforcement staff also were given opportunities to respond to this additional information in writing, which they also did.

The student-athlete's eligibility was affected by the findings in this report. The Committee on Infractions notified the university of that fact on August 19. The Committee on Infractions also provided written information to the NCAA Eligibility Committee, including several mitigating factors. On August 23, the university requested restoration of the student-athlete's eligibility, which was restored August 28 by the Eligibility Committee.

The violations found by the committee included:

* The athletics student advisor violated the principles of ethical conduct when he assisted three student-athletes in obtaining academic credit or grade changes needed to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics. In one case, he offered improper inducements to a faculty member and a tutor to assist a student-athlete. When two instructors first refused to change the grades, he arranged for submission of fraudulent medical information, on the basis of which the instructors made special arrangements for the student-athlete to submit late course work and examinations. One of the faculty members was induced to backdate a university grade-change form so that it would appear the student-athlete had met Big Ten Conference satisfactory-progress rules. The student advisor also assisted the student-athlete in submitting fraudulent papers. For another student-athlete, the athletics student advisor contacted and offered inducements to faculty members and staff at a community college in an attempt to have grades changed. The athletics student advisor encouraged a third student-athlete to misrepresent symptoms of mental-health problems to secure a medical excuse so that he could withdraw from a course.

* The representative of the institution's athletics interests referred to above provided extra benefits and recruiting inducements. He paid costs of airline transportation, local transportation, lodging, meals, tickets to a football game and $100 each for spending money to five prospective student-athletes to visit the institution. During the visit the five prospects had in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with an assistant football coach and a football administrative assistant.

* The same representative of the institution's athletics interests provided cash and meals to three prospective student-athletes and offered improper assistance to a relative of one of the prospects. He also provided cash and other benefits to three student-athletes on numerous occasions and had improper recruiting contacts with a prospect and his mother.

* A second representative of the institution's athletics interests provided recruiting inducements and extra benefits to a student-athlete. The benefits included employment at a higher wage than others doing the same work, occasional meals, cash and other benefits.

* A third representative of the institution's athletics interests provided extra benefits to a football student-athlete, including the use of a car and assistance in renting a car.

* There was a lack of institutional control.

In determining appropriate penalties, the committee considered Michigan State's corrective actions, including:

* Placed the football program on probation for two years, starting December 1, 1995.

* Reassigned and eventually terminated the athletics student advisor involved in this case.

* Assigned the office of student-athlete support services to report to the office of the provost.

* Assigned full-time compliance responsibilities to the individual who had handled these responsibilities along with other duties in the past.

* Initiated a systematic audit of the academic progress of student-athletes each term.

* Required the university's office of internal audit to annually audit the compliance program and report on it to the president. The compliance office also will provide the president with an annual compliance report and the president will meet with the director of athletics, other senior staff, coaches and the office of internal audit regarding the compliance program.

* Ordered the development of a computer-based athletics compliance management information system.

* Established a procedure for the office of the registrar to conduct a second review of forms processing grade changes for student-athletes.

* Implemented monitoring procedures to detect any recruiting inducements or extra benefits being received by prospective and enrolled student-athletes.

* Continued its educational program to inform boosters about NCAA rules. Issued a letter of warning to a booster and a local hotel.

The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own penalties self-imposed by the university, including:

* Reduction by two in initial football scholarships during the 1996-97 academic year, to 23 initial scholarships.

* Reduction by six in total football scholarships during the 1996-97 academic year, to 79 total scholarships.

* Reduction by eight of expense-paid visits to the institution's campus in football during the 1995-96 academic year, to 48 official visits.

* Reduction by one of the number of football coaches permitted to recruit off campus during December 1995 and January 1996.

* Disassociation of three representatives of the university's athletics interests. The committee adopted the disassociation provided that it shall be for at least the institution's probationary period.

* Prohibition against off-campus recruiting by an assistant football coach during December 1995 and from May 1, 1996 through April 30, 1997.

* Forfeiture of five football games from the 1994 season.

* Recertification of the university's athletics policies and practices.

The Committee on Infractions imposed penalties, including:

* Four years of probation, from December 1, 1995.

* Reduction by seven of initial football scholarships during the 1997-98 academic year, to 18 initial scholarships.

* Reduction by one of the number of football coaches permitted to recruit off campus during December 1996 and January 1997.

* Continued development and implementation of a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation.

* If the former athletics student advisor seeks employment in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (July 1, 1995, to July 1, 1998), he and the involved institution will be asked to appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine if his athletically related duties should be limited.

If the athletics student advisor had still been employed in athletics at the institution, the university could have been subject to additional penalties had it failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. As required by NCAA legislation for any institution in a major infractions case, Michigan State is subject to the NCAA's repeat-violator provisions for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, June 1, 1996.

Should either Michigan State or the former athletics student advisor wish to appeal this decision, they must submit a written notice of appeal to the NCAA executive director no later than 15 days from the date that Michigan State received the infractions report. The Infractions Appeals Committee, a separate group, hears such appeals.

The members of the Committee on Infractions who heard this case are Richard J. Dunn, divisional dean of humanities, University of Washington; Jack H. Friedenthal, dean of the school of law, George Washington University; Roy F. Kramer, commissioner, Southeastern Conference; Frederick B. Lacey, attorney, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae, and a retired judge; Beverly F. Ledbetter, vice-president and general counsel, Brown University; James L. Richmond, retired judge and attorney; and committee chair David Swank, professor of law, University of Oklahoma.

The complete report of the Committee on Infractions will be published in the October 7 issue of The NCAA Register.