The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld all findings issued by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions involving a former head men's basketball coach at Stetson University.

The former coach appealed the classification of violations as major, and certain alleged procedural irregularities leading to the Committee on Infractions' decision as set forth in its May 9, 2002, report. Those findings related to violations of bylaws governing extra benefits, recruiting, out-of-season practice and failure to monitor. There were no penalties imposed against the former head coach.

Among the violations, the Committee on Infractions found that the former head coach and members of his staff watched men's basketball student-athletes engage in basketball activities before the official start date of practices and that the coaching staff requested visiting coaches attending a clinic to observe the student-athletes in basketball activities and to provide written and oral evaluations to the staff. These activities, the Committee on Infractions concluded, made each of the visiting coaches a countable basketball coach and, therefore, placed the university over the limit for coaches for the team.

During a November 9 hearing, the Infractions Appeals Committee considered the former coach's arguments pertaining to the findings and to the alleged procedural irregularities. The former coach contended that violations were misclassified as major when they were actually only secondary violations. He contended that since the violations were "isolated or inadvertent," they should be considered as secondary violations.

However, NCAA Bylaw 19.02.2.1 defines a violation as secondary "that is isolated or inadvertent in nature, provides or is intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit." In other words, all three elements must be present for a violation to be considered as secondary. If, for instance, a violation provides a more than minimal recruiting or competitive advantage, it is still a major violation even if it were isolated or inadvertent in nature.

The Infractions Appeals Committee affirmed the findings of violations and their classification as major.

The former coach also objected to certain alleged procedural irregularities of the investigative process and the accuracy and completeness of the evidence presented to the Committee on Infractions. For instance, he contended that he was denied the opportunity to be present at the university's interviews of various witnesses and that "fragmented" evidence was presented to the Committee on Infractions.

The appeals committee noted that the former coach was present and fully participated during the Committee on Infractions hearing, was able to listen to taped recordings and review transcripts of all interviews, and had the opportunity to provide a more comprehensive presentation of the evidence. Accordingly, the Infractions Appeals Committee found it unnecessary to rule on the former coach's procedural objections to the investigative and hearing processes.

Finally, the former coach objected to the denial of his request for the appointment of a hearing officer pursuant to Bylaw 19.1.3-(d). This bylaw states that the Committee on Infractions has the "sole discretion to determine whether to use a hearing officer in the infractions process." The appeals committee found no abuse of that discretion by the Committee on Infractions.

The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Terry Don Phillips, chair, Oklahoma State University; Christopher L. Griffin, an attorney with the law firm Foley & Lardner in Tampa, Florida; William P. Hoye, University of Notre Dame; Noel M. Ragsdale, University of Southern California; and Allan Ryan Jr., Harvard University.

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