The NCAA News - News and Features

November 17, 1997

Appeals panel upholds ban on UCLA postseason softball

The NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld a penalty involving the women's softball program at the University of California, Los Angeles. As a result, the UCLA softball team is ineligible for participation in the 1998 NCAA Division I Women's Softball Championship.

The university appealed one penalty in a major infractions case -- prohibition from participation in postseason competition in softball at the conclusion of the 1996-97 season. The ban, which would have been effective for the 1997 Division I Women's Softball Championship, was stayed when the institution appealed the decision.

The original decision concerning UCLA was issued by the NCAA Committee on Infractions May 6, 1997. The institution filed a notice of appeal May 7, 1997. The Infractions Appeals Committee heard the appeal separately from a former UCLA administrator's appeal of findings and a penalty stemming from the same case during its August 12, 1997, meeting.

The institution asserted that the penalty was excessive and inappropriate, based on the scope and duration of the violations upon which the penalty was based; the corrective actions taken and the penalties imposed by the institution and the Pacific-10 Conference; and the conduct, motives and personal circumstances of the individuals involved in the violations.

In considering the appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the penalty was supported by the Committee on Infractions' findings of a lack of institutional control involving a former senior associate director of athletics and former associate director of athletics and a violation of the principle of ethical conduct involving the former senior associate athletics director.

The institutional-control finding was based on the Committee on Infractions' determination that the administrators failed to monitor adequately softball financial aid awards and to apply accurately NCAA legislation during 1993-94. The unethical-conduct violation was based on that committee's determination that the former senior associate director of athletics had knowledge of and was involved in attempts during 1994-95 to arrange a tryout for softball student-athletes with the women's soccer team well after the start of the women's soccer season and to place the names of those softball student-athletes on the soccer roster, and that these attempts were deliberate actions to circumvent NCAA financial aid legislation.

The Infractions Appeals Committee also found that the Committee on Infractions, in imposing the postseason ban, appropriately weighed the institution's corrective actions against a significant competitive advantage gained by the institution and the institutional-control and unethical-conduct violations. The Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the Committee on Infractions adequately considered the institution's cooperation in the investigation in determining penalties appropriate to the violations.

In addition, the Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the penalty was appropriate because the individuals involved in the violations held positions that carried supervisory responsibility, the violations involved basic NCAA principles, the conduct amounted to flagrant violations of clearly understood rules, and the violations constituted improper attempts to gain recruiting and competitive advantages.

The institution also asserted that the penalty was inappropriate and excessive because the individuals involved in the findings of violations no longer are active in the athletics program and because the Committee on Infractions did not adequately consider the impact of the penalties on innocent student-athletes.

The Infractions Appeals Committee determined that even though the individuals involved in the violations no longer are active in the program, the significant competitive advantage gained from the violations and lack of institutional control each are adequate as factors in imposing a ban on postseason competition.

It also noted that the Committee on Infractions chose to increase a financial aid penalty by the conference against the institution rather than impose a impose a two-year postseason ban, and found that the committee adequately considered the impact of a postseason ban on innocent student-athletes in determining all of the penalties that were imposed in the case.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were Katherine E. Noble, associate commissioner, Big Sky Conference; Michael L. Slive (chair), commissioner, Conference USA; and John W. Stoepler, dean of law, emeritus, and professor of law, University of Toledo.

The full report of the Infractions Appeals Committee will appear in the December 1 issue of The NCAA Register.