The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld findings and penalties involving the men's basketball program at Purdue University. The committee also vacated one finding and upheld others pertaining to an assistant basketball coach at the university.

In upholding the decisions of the Division I Committee on Infractions, the appeals committee also reviewed and modified the amount of a financial penalty to be assessed from Purdue's share of revenues from participation by an ineligible player in the 1996 Division I Men's Basketball Championship.

The Committee on Infractions' penalty stated the university would be required to reimburse the Association an amount equal to 90 percent of monies already received as revenue distribution from the 1996 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship, and that the institution not be permitted to receive an amount equal to 90 percent of its share of monies yet to be distributed by the Association for participation in the 1996 tournament.

The committee reviewed whether the university should return the entire distribution from its participation in the tournament or only its share after dividing the distribution with other Big Ten Conference universities.

The committee modified the amount Purdue is to return to only the share of revenues it actually received or is scheduled to receive from the conference. Several factors were considered in making the modification: the nature of the violations, the contributions by the ineligible student-athlete toward the success of the team, and the university's investigation and corrective actions.

The university appealed four findings and five penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions. The appeal asserted that findings of recruiting and extra-benefits violations associated with an impermissible loan to a prospective student-athlete and extra benefits provided to the family of a student-athlete by a representative of the institution's athletics interests were contrary to the evidence presented in the case.

Upon a review of the record, the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the findings of the Committee on Infractions were not clearly contrary to the evidence, the standard required by NCAA Bylaw 32.10.2(a).

The Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the record contained evidence from witnesses and documentation to support the promise of improper payment of tuition for the prospect and that a loan to the prospect was one not available on the same terms to other customers of the bank. The committee also found sufficient evidence to support the finding that a representative of the university's athletics interests provided moving expenses, housing and employment for the mother of a student-athlete.

In addition to the penalty pertaining to a share of revenues from the men's basketball tournament, the penalties appealed were two years of probation; reduction of official visits from 12 to four for two years; forfeiture of 24 basketball contests from the 1995-96 season; and disassociation of two representatives of the university's athletics interests for a specified time.

The university contended that some of the penalties were excessive and others should be vacated if the underlying findings of the Committee on Infractions were vacated.

Because it affirmed findings in the case regarding Purdue, the appeals committee upheld the penalties.

Specifically regarding the reduction of expense paid visits from 12 to four, the university argued that a 66 percent reduction in visits was excessive. However, the Committee on Infractions responded that it had used the university's actual average visits of 5.5 for the past four years as the basis for its penalty, a reduction of less than 30 percent. The Infractions Appeals Committee agreed the penalty was not excessive.

The appeals committee vacated one finding appealed by an assistant basketball coach pertaining to the coach's involvement in arranging for the mother of a student-athlete to move to the Indianapolis area. The panel agreed that a procedural error affected the reliability of information connecting the assistant coach to the finding.

The NCAA's enforcement staff conducted an interview with the mother of a student-athlete. NCAA bylaws prescribe that interviews be tape-recorded; this interview was not recorded.

"In this case, the enforcement staff did not tape-record the interview because the witness appeared nervous," the appeals committee wrote. "We hold that is not a sufficient excuse for failure to tape-record the interview."

The committee said failure to tape-record rendered the information inadmissible; therefore, when information from the interview was eliminated, there was not sufficient evidence to connect the assistant coach to the violation. The committee, however, said other evidence provided enough support to affirm the same violation against the university.

Other findings appealed by the assistant coach were upheld. Those findings were that the assistant informed a prospect's mother that her son's prep school tuition would be paid; that the coach arranged for the prospect to meet a representative of the university's athletics interests who subsequently provided an improper loan; and that the coach violated provisions of ethical conduct. The appeals committee said witness testimony, documentation and other evidence supported the findings of the Committee on Infractions. The coach did not appeal a show-cause penalty imposed in the case.

The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Katherine E. Noble, Georgia Institute of Technology; Terry Don Phillips, Oklahoma State University; Michael L. Slive, chair, Conference USA; Rodney K. Smith, University of Arkansas, Little Rock; and Robert A. Stein, American Bar Association.

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).