The Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, on probation for four years, reduced grants-in-aid, official visits and evaluation opportunities in men's basketball, and imposed show-cause penalties against three former university employees for various violations of NCAA legislation.

Most of the violations occurred within the men's basketball program and involved bylaws governing academic fraud, extra benefits, academic eligibility, unethical conduct and lack of institutional control. The violations centered on academic fraud involving three former employees -- the head men's basketball coach, an academic counselor and a secretary -- and at least 18 men's basketball student-athletes.

Those three former employees are subject to NCAA "show-cause" requirements for various lengths of time. A show-cause penalty requires any NCAA institution seeking to employ an individual subject to show-cause provisions to appear before the Committee on Infractions. The committee determines whether the individual's athletically related duties should be limited for a specified time.

The Committee on Infractions, in its public report, said the violations it found were among the most serious to come before it in 20 years. "The violations were significant, widespread and intentional. More than that, their nature -- academic fraud -- undermined the bedrock foundation of a university and the operation of its intercollegiate athletics program," the report states.

In the first finding involving academic fraud, unethical conduct and provision of extra benefits, the committee agreed with the conclusions of the university and the NCAA's enforcement staff that from 1994 to 1998, the former secretary completed approximately 400 items of course work for at least 18 men's basketball student-athletes. The finding states that the secretary's involvement with the preparation of work for the student-athletes was arranged primarily by the academic counselor with the knowledge of the head men's basketball coach. As a result of this academic fraud, ineligible student-athletes competed for the university's men's basketball team from 1994 through 1999.

In determining that the former head coach knew and was involved in the academic fraud, the committee cited nine factors, among them a $3,000 payment on June 25, 1998, from the former head coach's personal funds to the secretary.

Among 16 additional findings of major violations of academic fraud, unethical conduct, provision of extra benefits, failure to comply with eligibility requirements, impermissible special arrangements and other bylaws, were these examples:

The sister of the secretary, who was a tutor, wrote at least 32 papers for one student-athlete during the 1996 fall quarter, 14 papers for a second student-athlete during the 1997 summer session, and two papers for a third student-athlete during the 1998 winter quarter.

In December 1995, the academic counselor and two men's basketball student-athletes told a course instructor that one of the student-athletes needed a passing grade to remain eligible. They requested to be present while the instructor graded the final exam and were refused. Upon learning later in the day that the student-athlete would receive a grad of "F," they asked the instructor to issue an interim grade of incomplete with the expectation the student-athlete would achieve a "C" grade after completing past-due assignments and extra-credit work. The instructor agreed, saying she felt intimidated.

During the 1997 fall quarter, two men's basketball student-athletes were admitted into the university's Inter-College Program. One student-athlete was entering his fourth year and needed admission to a specific degree program to remain eligible. The second needed to complete a degree program by the end of the spring quarter of his fourth year to be eligible for competition in his fifth year. The status of the individuals as student-athletes affected the decision to permit their enrollment.

On several occasions during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 academic years, the head coach provided cash to two men's basketball student-athletes. The amounts ranged from $100 to $220. Another student-athlete received money from a member of the men's basketball coaching staff.

From 1993 to June 1999, the former head coach paid a monthly car lease for the academic counselor without the knowledge of university administrators. This occurred after the senior associate director of men's athletics denied the coach's request to provide a courtesy car to the academic counselor.

The committee also found that the former head coach violated the principle of ethical conduct by committing violations alleged, providing false and misleading information, and directing four former student-athletes to provide false and misleading information.

The former academic counselor was found to be in violation of the principle of ethical conduct. He also failed to cooperate with the NCAA and university investigations.

The committee also found a lack of institutional control and monitoring in the conduct and administration of the university's athletics program. Specifically, the university failed to control the men's basketball program and its former head coach, failed to monitor activities of some of its athletics department employees after receiving information that should have prompted closer supervision, and failed to take adequate action to investigate academic fraud.

In addition, the committee outlined seven secondary violations of NCAA legislation involving recruiting, eligibility and extra benefits legislation that occurred between 1995 and 1999. Among these violations was one that occurred in September 1996. A staff member in the office of the vice-president for student development released a hold on a student-athlete's fall registration even though the individual had not satisfied requirements, so the student-athlete would be eligible to compete in the football team's opening game.

As it determined appropriate penalties to impose, the Committee on Infractions considered the following self-imposed penalties and corrective actions taken by the university:

The university sought and obtained the resignation of the head coach and did not renew the contracts of his assistants.

The university imposed a postseason ban following the 1999-00 season for the men's basketball team.

For the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years, the total number of grants-in-aid in men's basketball were reduced by three (from 13 to 10). Further, over the next three academic years (2001-04) the university proposed to reduce the total number of grants-in-aid in men's basketball by a total of four, with a reduction of at least one in each academic year. At the end of the four-year period, there would be a total reduction of seven scholarships.

For each of the next three academic years (2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03), the university proposed to reduce the number of official visits from 12 to eight.

For each of the next three academic years (2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03), the university proposed to reduce the number of evaluation days from 50 to 40.

For each of the next three academic years (2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03), the university proposed to reduce the number of in-person recruiting contacts for each prospect from five to four.

For three summers (2000, 2001 and 2002), the university proposed to reduce the number of coaches permitted to evaluate off-campus during the summer evaluation period from three to two.

For three summers (2000, 2001 and 2002), the university proposed to reduce the number of July evaluation days from 23 to 18.

Pursuant to Bylaw 31.2.2.5, the university decided to return to the NCAA an amount equal to 90 percent of the monies it has received or is scheduled to receive from the Big Ten Conference for participation in the 1994, 1995 and 1997 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championships. In each of these tournaments the university competed with ineligible student-athletes as identified by institutional and NCAA investigation.

The Committee on Infractions commended the university for the integrity and comprehensiveness of its investigation, its complete and accurate self-report, its willingness to accept responsibility and commitment toward critical self-examination and restructuring to avoid repeat violations.

The committee noted, however, that the university did not discover the academic fraud through its own monitoring processes, and its thorough investigation after discovery of violations contrasted with its significant failure to monitor before discovery.

Because of the scope and severity of violations and because the university received significant penalty concessions in recognition of its thorough investigation in a 1991 case, the committee determined that additional penalties were warranted.

The committee said it seriously considered imposition of a postseason ban in men's basketball for the 2000-01 season, but ultimately concluded that the university president's action, combined with the scope of the investigation mitigated a ban.

Additional penalties imposed by the committee are:

Public reprimand and censure.

Four years of probation from October 24, 2000.

The total number of grants-in-aid in men's basketball will be reduced by five for the 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 academic years, with a reduction of at least one, from 13 to 12, in each of the years. (The university proposed a reduction of four grants-in-aid during the three academic years, with a reduction of at least one scholarship each year.)

Official paid visits in men's basketball will be reduced by six for the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years, limiting the university to six official visits under current rules. (The university proposed a limit of eight visits for three academic years, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03. The committee noted that the university had only averaged eight official paid visits in men's basketball over the past four academic years.)

For the 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years, the number of evaluations will be reduced by 25 percent from the maximum number allowed. (The university had proposed that for those same academic years the number of evaluation days be reduced from 50 to 40 with the number adjusted to reflect future changes in NCAA legislation governing evaluation days.)

Regarding the 1994, 1995 and 1997 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournaments, and the 1996 and 1998 National Invitational Tournaments (NIT), and pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(e)-(2), the university will vacate its team record as well as the individual records of any student-athlete who engaged in academic fraud as set forth in this report. The university's records regarding men's basketball as well as the record of the former head men's basketball coach will be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records and so recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records for the 1993-94 through the 1998-99 seasons are reported, including, but not limited to university media guides and recruiting material and university and NCAA archives. Any public reference to tournament performances won during this time will be removed, including, but not limited to, athletics department stationary and banners displayed in public areas such as the arena in which the men's basketball team competes.

The former head coach and the former academic advisor will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to their involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if they seek employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a seven-year period from October 24, 2000, to October 23, 2007, they and any involved institution will be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to show-cause procedures which could limit athletically related duties of the head coach and academic advisory at any such institution for a designated period.

The former secretary will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to her involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if she seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during the five-year period from October 24, 2000, to October 23, 2005, she and any involved institution will be subject to show-cause procedures.

The university will show cause why it should not be penalized further if it fails to disassociate from its athletics program the owner of a local automobile dealership, who also is a representative of the university's athletics interests, based upon his refusal to cooperate with the investigation as set forth in finding II-P. The length of the disassociation will be for at least the university's probationary period and will include: refraining from accepting any assistance from him, including aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes, the support of enrolled student-athletes or providing benefits for athletics department personnel; refusing his financial assistance or contributions (in kind or in cash) to the university's athletics program; ensuring that no athletics benefits or privilege, including preferential tickets, are provided to him, either directly or indirectly, that are unavailable to the public at large, and implementing other actions that the university determines to be within its authority to eliminate his involvement in the university's athletics program.

During the probationary period, the university will continue to develop and implement a comprehensive education program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Minnesota 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, October 24, 2000.

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Jack Friedenthal, committee chair and professor of law, George Washington University; Richard J. Dunn, professor of English, University of Washington; Frederick B. Lacey, attorney and retired judge, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Newark, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; James Park Jr., attorney and retired judge, Frost, Brown Todd LLC, Lexington, Kentucky; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Thomas E. Yeager, commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association.

A copy of the complete report from the Division I Committee on Infractions is available on NCAA Online at www.ncaa.org.