The Division I Management Council recently approved new procedures for the Division I Committee on Infractions to use to impose fines instead of forfeitures in secondary and major infractions cases.

The policies are designed to bring uniformity to a process that the Committee on Infractions felt had been implemented unevenly in the past. Formerly, for secondary violations involving an ineligible student-athlete, forfeitures were required for contests in which the ineligible student-athlete participated. However, considerable confusion existed regarding how the forfeitures were applied.

First, there was no specific requirement that the team's record be adjusted or that the institution even count the contest in which the ineligible student-athlete competed as a loss, which resulted in an uneven application of the penalty. In fact, some institutions and conferences did not recognize forfeiture as having any effect on either teams' records.

Second, when forfeiture was imposed after the involved team's season had ended, it had little, if any, effect on the outcome of a team's season or postseason play. However, when forfeiture was imposed during the sport season and, depending on how the institution and its conference applied forfeiture, it sometimes had unintended consequences on conference championships and postseason opportunities.

Finally, because some conferences have their own enforcement procedures, it became apparent that some institutions' violations would rarely be processed during the sport season, while other institutions' violations would be processed during the season, thus creating further disparity in the impact of the penalty.

Now, however, the Committee on Infractions will use the imposition of fines to replace the forfeitures penalty in team sports. For secondary violations involving an ineligible student-athlete, the committee generally will impose a fine of $500 per contest per student-athlete up to a cap of $5,000 (the maximum permitted under the bylaws). In individual sports, the contest results will continue to be adjusted by deduction of the points earned by the ineligible competitor(s), but fines will be imposed in the same manner as for team sports.

The Committee on Infractions has had the authority to impose financial penalties for secondary violations since the mid-1980s, so the fine is not a new penalty that just became available to the committee. It does, however, represent a shift in penalty philosophy for violations in which ineligible student-athletes compete.

"With secondary violations, the system of fines takes the place of what in some situations was being done with forfeitures," said Josephine Potuto, the faculty athletics representative at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Potuto, who also is a member of the Committee on Infractions, chaired a subcommittee that developed the procedures for the Management Council to review. "Fines were the best way for the committee to meet its goals in terms of addressing the problems created by those types of violations and what could not be done or what was not being accomplished with forfeitures."

New policy more consistent

Potuto noted other inconsistencies with forfeitures, including that fact that a forfeit was a penalty only if the team won the contest, which means the same violation may result in a penalty in one instance, but not in others. Also, in some cases, forfeiture inappropriately punished a specific team if an individual not associated with the program was responsible for the violation (for example, registrar, associate athletics director, faculty athletics representative).

Under the new procedures, fines will be imposed on the institution, not the individual sport's budget. This covers violations by an individual not associated with the program and permits institutional discretion as to whether and how to assess a fine against an individual sport. The involved institution also will be required to report the violation to its conference, which will have the discretion to impose forfeiture.

Colonial Athletic Association Commissioner Tom Yeager, who chairs the Committee on Infractions, said that conferences are in a better position to judge the contribution of an ineligible student-athlete to the outcome of a contest and determine whether an institution should be required to forfeit a contest since that determination may have an impact on conference standings and championships.

"There was a real problem in the past with forfeitures in that they were inconsistently applied," Yeager said. "Sometimes the result far exceeded a violation with a limited instance of ineligible participation. The committee thought forfeitures and vacating performances still should apply in major cases, but it might not be appropriate any longer in secondary violations."

Forfeiture a 'hollow' penalty

The Committee on Infractions also wanted to implement a standard for imposing fines in major infractions cases, something that had not existed before.

The committee will take several factors into account in determining the amount of any fines in major cases, including the number and nature of the violations, contributions toward team success by the ineligible student-athlete(s), and the amount of revenue, if any, generated by the institution's postseason participation.

In the event an ineligible student-athlete(s) participated in an NCAA championship that has revenue distribution, the amount of the fine will be limited to no more than the share the offending institution actually received or is scheduled to receive from its parent conference. If the institution does not have a conference affiliation, the fine could be up to 90 percent of the institution's share of the revenue it received or will receive.

Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner Dan Beebe, who chaired the Management Council subcommittee that reviewed the Committee on Infractions' proposal, said the recommendations were enough of a departure from what had been done in the past that there was a need for the Council's review.

"We wanted to have some dialogue with the committee to gain a comfort level with what they were suggesting," Beebe said. "Everyone agreed that the idea of fining rather than trying to figure out forfeiture penalties made sense. The Committee on Infractions justifiably wanted out of the business of trying to figure out whether teams should forfeit. The fines were an appropriate alternative."

Yeager said the fines provide a penalty that will "capture the attention of the institution and at the same time not affect the ultimate outcome of a contest."

"Forfeiture still remains an option for major cases," he said, "but for secondary cases, it had become a hollow penalty."

The new procedures already have been used in several secondary infractions cases thus far. Potuto said that though the shift represents a change from past policy, she expects the membership will reach a comfort level in time.

"Any time you make a change of this nature there is bound to be some anxiety," she said. "But once we get through this first year, I think schools will be comfortable with the procedures."