The Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has ruled on two cases involving Howard University.

The first ruling is a reduction of the period of probation against Howard from five years to three. The university's probationary period will end November 27, 2004. The second is the committee's upholding of all findings and a show-cause penalty issued by the Division I Committee on Infractions involving a former head women's basketball coach at Howard.

The Committee on Infractions issued the findings and penalties in the first case November 27, 2001. The case involved the baseball, men's and women's basketball, and men's and women's swimming programs, and concerned violations of bylaws governing recruiting, extra benefits, academic eligibility, academic fraud, ethical conduct and a lack of institutional control.

Howard appealed the penalty of a five-year probationary period, contending that it was excessive and inappropriate. University officials argued that the Committee on Infractions gave insufficient consideration to the institution's cooperation with the investigation when it imposed the penalty. The institution noted that all of the violations found in men's and women's basketball and men's and women's swimming were the result of a comprehensive investigation and self-reporting by the institution. The institution also argued that the five-year probation was three years longer than the legislatively prescribed presumptive penalty, equal to the maximum probationary period imposed in any prior case by the Committee on Infractions and longer than imposed in other cases where the violations were more severe. The committee argued that the facts in each case are different and that it is difficult to compare cases.

The Infractions Appeals Committee decided that the factor of institutional cooperation was not properly weighed and the maximum penalty of five years probation was excessive and inappropriate. The committee cited a previous appeal involving the University of Mississippi in which it set forth factors to determine whether a penalty is excessive or inappropriate. In that case, the committee stated, "where an institution fully accepts its membership obligations and makes every effort to participate and assist the enforcement process, its conduct must be a significant factor in determining and imposing penalties. Failure to accord such cooperation substantial weight in determining penalties would be a disincentive to the fullest possible institutional cooperation."

In the case involving the former women's basketball coach at Howard, the former coach appealed all findings the Committee on Infractions set forth in its November 27, 2001, report. Those findings were violations of bylaws governing impermissible recruiting inducements and unethical conduct. The former coach also appealed a show-cause penalty imposed by the Committee on Infractions that ends in April 2003, contending that it was excessive and inappropriate.

The Committee on Infractions concluded in its findings that the coach improperly paid for airline tickets for a prospective student-athlete to visit the university when she knew that the prospect did not have appropriate test scores and transcripts on file required before a visit could occur. In addition, the committee found that the former coach provided false information about the purchase of the tickets and approached student-athletes on her team to request that they provide false information.

The Infractions Appeals Committee considered the coach's specific arguments pertaining to the findings and the penalty. The coach contended, for example, that a procedural error affected the reliability of the information used by the Committee on Infractions, that the committee did not deliberate properly and that it made findings based on procedurally improper credibility determinations. The Infractions Appeals Committee said there was no evidence to support the claim.

The coach also said that the findings of the Committee on Infractions were contrary to the evidence provided. She challenged the evidence by denying the allegations. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing the coach had before the Committee on Infractions, the Infractions Appeals Committee said that findings were not contrary to the evidence.

The Infractions Appeals Committee also considered the appeal of the 16-month show-cause penalty as excessive or inappropriate. The committee said that because the coach was involved in several recruiting violations and unethical conduct, the penalty was neither inappropriate nor excessive.

The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the cases are: Michael L. Slive, chair, Conference USA; Terry Don Phillips, Oklahoma State University; Noel Ragsdale, University of Southern California; Allan Ryan Jr., Harvard University; and Robert Stein, American Bar Association.

Copies of the complete reports in both cases from the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals committee are available upon request or online at NCAA Online (www.ncaa.org).