National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- February 15, 1999

Infractions appeal: University of Louisville

The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has vacated a finding and penalty imposed by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions against the University of Louisville men's basketball program and a former assistant men's basketball coach.

Specifically, with the university's appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee determined the university had not received adequate notice that a finding involving a violation of an NCAA bylaw governing extra benefits might be considered a major violation. As a result, it concluded that the NCAA's repeat violator rule should not be applied. The Infractions Appeals Committee has vacated the university's penalty prohibiting postseason competition in men's basketball during the 1998-99 season.

In a separate appeal by the former assistant men's basketball coach, the Infractions Appeals Committee reached the same conclusion regarding the extra-benefits violation. As a result, a three-year, show-cause penalty levied against the former assistant coach by the Committee on Infractions was determined to be excessive and has been reduced to the time of the penalty already served.

A show-cause penalty requires any NCAA member institution seeking to employ an individual subject to show-cause provisions to appear before the Committee on Infractions. The Committee on Infractions determines whether the individual's athletically related duties should be limited for a designated period of time.

The Committee on Infractions issued its report on Louisville September 22, 1998. The men's basketball program violations in the case stemmed from an arrangement for the father of a men's basketball student-athlete to stay at a local motel at a discounted rate and from the use of a credit card by a former assistant coach to assure that the motel account would be paid. Because one of the violations occurred within five years of the penalties in another case involving the university, the Committee on Infractions found that NCAA repeat-violator rules applied.

Louisville and the former assistant coach filed a notice of appeal October 7, 1998, and the written appeals were received in November. The Infractions Appeals Committee heard the case January 14, 1999.

Louisville raised four issues in its appeal:

  • The Committee on Infractions incorrectly determined that the university and its men's basketball program are subject to the repeat-violator provisions of Bylaw 19.6.2.3 and then relied in significant part on the repeat-violator penalties to impose the ban on postseason competition in the men's basketball program.

  • The university was not provided adequate notice that the violations alleged against the men's basketball program might be found to be major violations and that the Committee on Infractions might apply the repeat-violator provisions to the case.

  • The postseason ban is excessive and inappropriate based on all the evidence and circumstances when compared with previous infractions case decisions and under the penalty review standards of the Infractions Appeals Committee.

  • The Committee on Infractions' stated reasons for imposing a postseason ban on competition in the men's basketball program are not supported by the record in this case.

    In his appeal, the former assistant men's basketball coach raised these issues:

  • The show-cause penalty imposed is excessive and inappropriate based upon the evidence and the circumstances and when compared with previous infraction case decisions.

  • The former assistant men's basketball coach was not provided adequate notice that the Committee on Infractions considered his alleged violations to be major violations. The procedural error affected the reliability of the information upon which the findings were based.

  • The findings that the former assistant men's basketball coach arranged for the student-athlete's father to receive a discount at the motel is contrary to the evidence and should be set aside.

    In both appeals, the Infractions Appeals Committee did not determine that findings of the violations regarding the motel discount arrangement and use of credit card were contrary to the evidence. However, the Infractions Appeals Committee said the issue was whether the violations were major or secondary in nature. The Infractions Appeals Committee also cited ambiguity in current legislation and suggested that a clearer standard to distinguish major violations from secondary infractions would be helpful.

    The university and former assistant coach argued they did not receive adequate notice that the Committee on Infractions would consider the violations major, and entered the hearing relying on characterizations of other representatives, including the NCAA enforcement staff, that the violations would be treated as secondary.

    The Infractions Appeals Committee determined the Committee on Infractions did not abuse its discretion to determine if a vio-lation is major or secondary. However, the Infractions Appeals Committee said lack of adequate notice was a serious procedural error that disadvantaged Louisville and the former assistant coach.

    As a result, the Infractions Appeals Committee vacated the finding that the violation regarding use of the credit card was a major infraction. Consequently, in the university's case, the repeat-violator rule is not applied, and the Infractions Appeals Committee overturned the university's postseason competition ban.

    The Infractions Appeals Committee affirmed all other penalties in the university's case.

    In the former assistant coach's appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee considered the nature of the violations, the absence of finding of unethical conduct, his lack of involvement in any other infractions, the decision to vacate the finding that the extra-benefits violation regarding credit card use was a major violation and a comparison to other cases where show-cause penalties have been applied. The committee concluded the three-year show-cause penalty was excessive and reduced the length to the time of the penalty already served.

    The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Katherine E. Noble, Big Sky Conference; Terry Don Phillips, Oklahoma State University; Robert A. Stein, acting chair, American Bar Association; and Marilyn V. Yarbrough, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

    A copy of the complete report from the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee is available upon request or online at NCAA Online (www.ncaa.org).