The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Notre Dame on two years of probation and reduced athletics grants-in-aid in the football program by one each for the next two years for NCAA violations involving the provision of extra benefits to student-athletes.

The committee considered two series of events in the case, which occurred between the summer of 1994 and summer of 1999. The first series of violations primarily concerned the provision of extra benefits to football student-athletes by a representative of the university's athletics interests. The second involved attempts by a student-athlete to sell complimentary tickets, the provision of extra benefits to student-athletes by a university employee, and academic fraud.

The university and the NCAA's enforcement staff contended that the violations in this case were secondary in nature. Through its deliberations, the committee concluded that the violations in both sets of violations were major.

A secondary violation is one that provides only a limited recruiting or competitive advantage and that is isolated or inadvertent in nature. All other violations, specifically including those that provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage, are major violations.

In the first set of events, a representative of the university's athletics interests provided numerous extra benefits to several football student-athletes and their friends from June 1995 to January 1998. Some of the extra benefits provided included airfare, accommodations, meals and tickets to various events in such locations as Las Vegas, New York and Chicago. The representative also provided gifts, such as a ring, a charm and camcorder to student-athletes and one of their relatives.

The individual provided other gifts before June 1995; however, the individual was not considered a representative of the university's athletics interests at that time and those activities were not considered to be NCAA violations by the committee. The provision of gifts became violations subsequent to the individual joining a university booster club in June 1995.

The committee said it concluded the violations were major because of the length of time over which they occurred, the extravagant nature of gifts and benefits that were provided to the football student-athletes, the competitive advantage gained by the university and the fact the violations were neither isolated nor inadvertent.

In its deliberations, the committee considered exchanges between the university and the NCAA's membership services group regarding an interpretation of bylaws regarding provision of benefits from an individual who is Ã’romantically involved" with a student-athlete. The committee determined that in this specific situation, gifts provided to a student-athlete during a romantic relationship were not a violation of NCAA bylaws. The committee believes, however, there are occasions when relationships are developed specifically to allow for the provision of gifts and stressed the importance of considering each situation on a case-by-case basis.

In considering whether the woman involved in the case became a representative of the university's athletics interests by joining a university football booster club, the committee said actions taken by the university made it clear that the university was aware that members of booster clubs were representatives of athletics interests.

The university previously had notified members of its basketball booster club that because of their membership, they were representatives of the university's athletics interests. The committee said it was the school's responsibility to notify individuals of all booster clubs about their status as representatives of the university's athletics interests.

A third issue deliberated by the committee was the level of seriousness of the violations. The committee concluded the violations were major because Notre Dame gained a competitive advantage by allowing a number of football student-athletes to compete while ineligible, because a number of student-athletes received a large number of gifts, and the violations were not isolated in time but occurred over a period of years.

In the second series of violations, a student-athlete attempted to sell complimentary tickets to a football game and attempted to exchange complimentary tickets for the repayment of a loan. The student-athlete also was romantically involved with a woman employed as a part-time tutor by the university who completed academic coursework for another student-athlete in exchange for a small fee, and provided various student-athletes with meals, lodging and gifts. These violations also were determined by the committee to be major in nature.

The violations found by the committee were:

n On numerous occasions from June 1995 through January 1998, a representative of the institution's athletics interests provided extra benefits to several football student-athletes and their friends that were contrary to NCAA extra-benefits legislation.

n During the fall of 1998 and summer of 1999, a university employee provided extra benefits to seven student-athletes.

n During the 1998 football season, a football student-athlete provided his girlfriend, who was a university employee, and her friend complimentary admissions to three football games to repay a loan.

n On one occasion, a student-athlete paid a university employee to prepare an academic paper for a course in which the student-athlete was enrolled.

n A secondary violation resulting from the use of long-distance telephone services by student-athletes while at a bowl game.

On June 4, 1999, representatives of the enforcement staff and the institution appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. Subsequent to the hearing, the university provided additional information to the committee about the first series of violations, and also self-reported a second series of violations. The committee agreed to merge the two cases and issue one infractions report.

As it determined penalties in the case, the committee considered correction actions taken by the university:

n Declared five football student-athletes ineligible for receiving unauthorized benefits. The university petitioned to restore their eligibility.

n Disbanded the Quarterback Club and returned all pre-paid club dues for the 1998-99 academic year.

n Informed all former club members by letter that disbanding the club did not mean they were no longer governed by NCAA legislation.

n Dissolved all of the university's smaller but similar fan organizations supporting other sports.

n Required the director of athletics to meet with the football team and staff regarding the acceptance of gifts.

n Issued a memorandum from the director of athletics to all coaches and athletics department administrators about the importance of attempting to know about the relationships their players establish and inquiring about benefits of any kind should they learn one was received.

n Convened a meeting of the athletics director and head coaches to review the memorandum.

n Conducted a meeting among the athletics director, football coaching staff and football team regarding compliance matters.

n Disassociated the representative of the institution's athletics interests formally and irrevocably from the university.

n Revised the performance evaluation procedures for football coaches, to hold them accountable for player progress off the field, including academics and personal matters.

n Developed a mandatory core life skills program geared toward developing good decision-making skills.

n Accepted the resignation of a young woman who was a university employee and involved in violations.

n Dismissed from the football team the student-athlete who had used complimentary tickets to cancel a loan.

The committee did not impose all of the presumptive penalties available, acknowledging the actions taken by the university to institute corrective measures and the fact that only one representative of the university's athletics interests and one university employee were involved in providing extra benefits.

The additional penalties imposed by the committee are:

n Public reprimand and censure.

n Two years of probation from December 17, 1999, the date of the release of the report.

n The maximum number of athletically related financial aid awards in football will be reduced by one each during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years. The institution will have a total of 84 scholarships available each of those years.

n During the period of probation, the university will implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation; submit a preliminary report establishing the compliance and education program to the NCAA; and file an annual compliance report.

n The university president will recertify in a letter to the committee that all of 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, Notre Dame 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, December 17, 1999.

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are:

Jack H. Friedenthal, committee chair and professor law, George Washington University; Frederick B. Lacey, attorney and retired judge, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae, Newark, New Jersey; James Park Jr., attorney and retired judge, Brown, Todd and Heyburn, Lexington, Kentucky; Yvonne (Bonnie) Slatton, former committee member and chair, department of physical education and sports studies, University of Iowa; David Swank, former committee chair and professor of law, University of Oklahoma; 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.