The NCAA News - News FeaturesDecember 2, 1996
Weber State receives probation for four years
The NCAA Committee on Infractions placed Weber State University on probation for four years for NCAA rules violations concerning recruiting, academic eligibility, extra benefits, ethical conduct and institutional control in its men's basketball program.
The committee noted that while there were violations that involved improper assistance with correspondence courses, there was no evidence of academic fraud. The committee acknowledged the university's response to the violations, including its investigation, corrective actions and self-imposed penalties.
The NCAA Committee on Infractions heard this case September 20, 1996. Representatives of the university, the Big Sky Conference and the NCAA enforcement staff appeared before the committee. The head men's basketball coach, the assistant men's basketball coach and the volunteer coach involved in this case were also present for the hearing.
The violations found by the committee included:
During the summer and fall of 1994, members of the men's basketball coaching staff helped a student-athlete with his enrollment in correspondence courses from one college and paid for a course at another college. He needed to pass these courses to graduate from junior college and become eligible for NCAA competition. That assistance is an improper recruiting inducement and extra benefit under NCAA rules. During the 1994 fall quarter, the university awarded the student-athlete a scholarship even though he was ineligible because he had not received his associate's degree before he enrolled at the university. Both the head men's basketball coach and the assistant men's basketball coach were aware the student-athlete had not completed his associate's degree. They withheld him from practice and competition but did nothing to terminate his financial aid.
During the summer of 1993, members of the men's basketball coaching staff allowed two boosters to have impermissible recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete. They also provided impermissible assistance with his course materials for correspondence courses and arranged for a proctor. The head men's basketball coach also helped the prospect get tuition money for several correspondence courses and arranged for a tutor, which are impermissible recruiting inducements.
In early July 1992, the head men's basketball coach allowed a prospective student-athlete to stay in his home for one or two days before enrolling, an impermissible recruiting inducement. After the prospect enrolled in the university, an assistant men's basketball coach mailed papers for a correspondence course on behalf of the student-athlete during the summer of 1993. The university improperly used the grade in this course to certify his continuing eligibility and let him compete while ineligible during the 1993 fall quarter.
During October 1991 and March 1993, the head men's basketball coach arranged for two prospective student-athletes to have improper recruiting contacts with a booster who was an assistant coach of a professional basketball team, following professional basketball games.
On April 15, 1994, the head men's basketball coach improperly provided $65 to $70 to a prospect during his expense-paid visit. The money was intended to cover the prospect's expenses, including reimbursement for mileage, meal money and student-athlete host money. NCAA bylaws do not allow coaches to provide host money directly to prospects. In addition, the coach knew or should have known the money would be used to post bail for a men's basketball student-athlete, an improper extra benefit.
The assistant men's basketball coach involved in this case violated NCAA standards of ethical conduct. He knowingly violated NCAA rules when he arranged for a credit card number to be provided to a prospect, for use in paying for a correspondence course. The assistant coach attempted to conceal the impermissible funding arrangement and later provided false and misleading information to university representatives and the NCAA enforcement staff, before admitting to his involvement.
The head men's basketball coach involved in this case violated NCAA standards of ethical conduct. He knowingly provided a loan to a prospective student-athlete and provided cash to a prospective student-athlete, which he knew or should have known would be used for bail money.
The scope and nature of the violations in this report are examples of the repeated mistakes and misunderstandings regarding NCAA legislation that contributed to a lack of institutional control. The university permitted an ineligible student-athlete to receive an athletics scholarship. The institution's failure to report this situation to the NCAA enforcement staff, once it was determined these violations occurred, is further evidence of the lack of institutional control. The head men's basketball coach also failed to control and monitor appropriately the administration of the men's basketball program.
There were several secondary violations.
In determining appropriate penalties, the committee considered Weber State's corrective actions, including:
Accepted the resignation of the assistant men's basketball coach involved in this case.
Issued a letter of reprimand to the volunteer assistant men's basketball coach involved in this case.
Appointed a new faculty athletics representative who will devote more time to NCAA matters and who will be trained regarding NCAA academic standards and admission and eligibility requirements. The faculty athletics representative will make all final decisions regarding eligibility.
Appointed a new full-time athletics compliance coordinator.
Created a full-time position of athletics academic advisor.
Formed an Athletics Compliance Committee.
Hired a new director of athletics in the spring of 1995.
Now requires prior review and approval by the faculty athletics representative for all correspondence courses taken from institutions other than the university or the institution a prospect currently attends.
Prepared written job descriptions and implemented monthly rules-education classes for all coaches. Also initiated a monthly compliance newsletter and compliance training program.
Prohibited athletics department personnel from arranging or proctoring exams for student-athletes.
Implemented new procedures to monitor and certify financial aid issued to students.
The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own penalties self-imposed by the university, including:
Reduction by two in men's basketball scholarships during the 1996-97 academic year, to 11 scholarships.
Reduction by four in the number of expense-paid visits to the institution's campus in men's basketball during the 1996-97 academic year, to eight official visits, and by three during the 1997-98 academic year, to nine.
Reduction by one of the number of assistant men's basketball coaches from August 5, 1996, to August 5, 1997.
Limitation on the number of men's basketball coaches who may recruit off campus to a maximum of one coach from July 8, 1996, through June 30, 1997.
Imposition of several significant sanctions on the head men's basketball coach, including two years probation and a reduction in salary.
The Committee on Infractions imposed penalties, including:
Four years of probation, from August 7, 1996.
Reduction by two in the number of men's basketball scholarships during the 1997-98 academic year, to 11 scholarships.
Requirement that the institution send all men's basketball coaches to NCAA regional compliance seminars for a period of two years.
Develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation.
Recertification of current athletics policies and practices.
If the former assistant men's basketball involved in this case starts employment in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution before July 1, 1997, 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 head men's basketball coach is allowed to recruit off campus before August 5, 1997, he and the university will be asked to appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine if additional disciplinary measures are warranted.
As required by NCAA legislation for any institution in a major infractions case, Weber 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, September 20, 1996.
Should either Weber State or the men's basketball coaches who participated in the processing of this case 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 of this release. The NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, a separate group of people, 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; James L. Richmond, retired judge and attorney; Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton, chair of the department of physical education and sports studies, University of Iowa; and committee chair David Swank, professor of law, University of Oklahoma.
The complete report of the Committee on Infractions will appear in the January 6 issue of The NCAA Register.
|
