The NCAA News - News and Features

February 10, 1997

Former Alabama A&M soccer coach wins infractions appeal

The NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee remanded to the NCAA Committee on Infractions a finding concerning a former Alabama A&M University head men's soccer coach.

This appeal was made by the former Alabama A&M men's soccer coach after he was named in a lack-of-institutional-control violation as part of a major case involving Alabama A&M. Alabama A&M also appealed the institutional findings. Alabama A&M is an NCAA Division II member, except in the sport of soccer. As a result, the institutional appeal was submitted to the Division II Steering Committee of the NCAA Council, but the individual coach's appeal was submitted to the Infractions Appeals Committee.

The Infractions Appeals Committee addressed questions related to procedures concerning notice of allegations of NCAA rules violations and the appropriateness of the specific penalties.

The former head men's soccer coach based his appeal on (a) a procedural error that affected the reliability of the information used to support the committee's finding and (b) an assertion that the penalty was excessive or inappropriate based on the evidence.

The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the men's soccer violations were a small part of a much larger case. The case began in March 1995, with the institution's self-report of violations in women's track. Alabama A&M did not self-report violations in men's soccer until April 10, 1995, just nine days before its scheduled hearing with the Committee on Infractions. The former head men's soccer coach received a copy of the allegations April 12, submitted his response April 16 and attended the hearing April 19.

The Infractions Appeals Committee stated that procedural aspects of the case, reflected in the chronology listed in its report, affected the reliability of the information on which the Committee on Infractions based its findings against the former head men's soccer coach.

The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the institution conducted its investigation and prepared its self-report without adequately informing the former head men's soccer coach of its progress. The enforcement staff, at the hearing, agreed that the former head men's soccer coach "did not have much notice" of the allegations against him. The former head men's soccer coach had only four days to submit his response. He was further hampered because the allegations concerned events that happened 11/2 years earlier and the institution denied him access to his office in the athletics department.

The Infractions Appeals Committee further noted that because of the lateness of the self-report, there was no investigation by the enforcement staff and no prehearing conference. The Infractions Appeals Committee found factual confusion and apparent misinformation in the self-reported allegations.

With regard to the appropriateness of the penalty, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the former head men's soccer coach was found to have provided an extra benefit -- meals for his student-athletes. In response to the former head men's soccer coach's appeal, the Committee on Infractions noted that the former head men's soccer coach's contribution to the institutional control finding "was a very limited part of the finding."

Alabama A&M listed as one of its corrective actions in the case that it had terminated the athletics employment of the head men's soccer coach, "as a result of his involvement in the NCAA violations that were self-reported by us on October 24, 1994," according to a statement by the president of the institution at the hearing. Those violations were secondary violations of NCAA rules.

The Committee on Infractions did not "adopt" this action as one of its own penalties but did indicate it "agreed with and approved of" the corrective action. It did impose a "show-cause" penalty, limiting the coach's athletically related employment at an NCAA member institution for a three-year period.

The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that in defending himself, the former head men's soccer coach faced a short time period to review the allegations, prepare his response and prepare for the hearing. He also was denied access to his office and, therefore, access to relevant records and documents.

The Infractions Appeals Committee concluded that these issues raise substantial questions regarding the reliability of the information used to support the committee's findings and the appropriateness of the penalties. The case was remanded to the Committee on Infractions.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were Marshall M. Criser, attorney with Mahoney, Adams & Criser; Katherine E. Noble, assistant commissioner, Big Sky Conference; David Price, associate commissioner, Pacific-10 Conference; Michael L. Slive (chair), commissioner, Conference USA; and John W. Stoepler, dean of law emeritus, University of Toledo.

The full report of the Infractions Appeals Committee will be published in the March 3 issue of The NCAA Register.