The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld the penalty that imposes a one-year postseason ban on the University of California, Berkeley, football program.

The committee, however, reduced the penalty that imposed a reduction of nine grants-in-aid during the 2002-03 through 2005-06 academic years, and it found that the institution did not demonstrate a lack of institutional control with regard to some portions of the academic fraud violation.

The penalties were issued June 26, 2002, by the Division I Committee on Infractions. The case involved violations of NCAA bylaws governing ethical conduct (academic fraud), academic eligibility, the obligation to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition, extra benefits, improper recruiting inducements and lack of institutional control.

The case originated because of academic improprieties involving two football student-athletes in 1999. Later, it was determined that a number of football student-athletes received extra benefits through incidental expenses of varying amounts while staying at hotels for competitions from 1997 through 2001. Three prospective student-athletes were involved in recruiting violations during the 2000-01 academic year when they received incidental expenses while staying at a hotel for an official visit. They later competed for the institution while ineligible.

The academic fraud violation occurred when two football student-athletes received credit for courses in which they did not attend a sufficient number of sessions or complete sufficient academic work to receive credit. In August 1999, the two enrolled retroactively in spring semester classes and received passing grades from the professor who taught the courses.

Between 1997 through the 2001 football seasons, 38 football student-athletes received incidental hotel expenses ranging from nominal amounts to more than $300 while the team traveled for competition. Of those, 27 competed while ineligible.

The Committee on Infractions found that a lack of institutional control occurred because California failed to adequately investigate allegations of academic fraud after repeated indications that the violations had occurred. In addition, the initial report the university submitted to the Pacific-10 Conference office was in part misleading and inaccurate.

The Committee on Infractions considered the university a repeat offender because the violations occurred within five years of a previous major infractions case. That case, involving the men's basketball program, was concluded in 1997.

Because of the number, the scope and the length of time in which the violations occurred, the pattern of violations put them in the major violations category.

Though the university was considered a repeat offender, the Committee on Infractions did not impose any of the repeat-violator penalties because the actions taken by California and the Pacific-10 institute appropriate corrective measures and meaningful penalties.

California appealed the findings of the violation of lack of institutional control involving the actions of a former faculty athletics representative and argued that the findings were contrary to the evidence presented, and that some of the facts found by the Committee on Infractions do not constitute a violation of NCAA legislation.

The institution contended that the former faculty athletics representative's actions to alert the professor who taught the course of possible academic fraud were appropriate and did not demonstrate a lack of institutional control. California did acknowledge, however, that it failed to exercise institutional control regarding the conduct and administration of its athletics program in that it failed to investigate adequately the remainder of the violations despite repeated warning signs that violations may have occurred.

The Division I Infractions Appeals Committee agreed that the former faculty athletics representative's actions were explicit enough to alert the instructor to the possibility of academic fraud and set aside the finding of a lack of institutional control as it applied to that professor's actions.

The institution also asserted that two of the penalties assessed against it -- a ban on postseason competition and a reduction in the permissible number of initial grants-in-aid by nine -- should be set aside as excessive or inappropriate.

California argued that the postseason ban will affect innocent student-athletes and that the student-athletes who engaged in the academic fraud are no longer with the institution. The Infractions Appeals Committee said that it has consistently recognized that, in most cases, postseason bans will affect those who were not involved in the violation, but the NCAA's legislation provides that a ban on postseason competition is a presumptive penalty for a major violation.

Furthermore, the Committee on Infractions emphasized that a principal basis for the penalties imposed was the institution's status as a repeat violator. Accordingly, California must accept, as it has, its responsibility for its failure to institute adequate institutional controls, and recognize that its failure to do so resulted in these violations and the penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions. Therefore, the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee upheld the penalty of a postseason ban.

The Infractions Appeals Committee agreed, however, that a reduction in the permissible number of initial football grants-in-aid by a total of nine during the 2002-02 through 2005-06 academic years was excessive.

The Pacific-10 required the university to reduce the number of initial counters in football by a total of four during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic year in any combination. The university also was required to reduce the total number of football counters by four during the same two-year period. The university imposed the reduction of four initial and total counters during the 2001-02 academic year.

The Infractions Appeals Committee noted favorably the Pacific-10's mandating responsibilities for institutional control, and considers the grant-in-aid reductions imposed by the conference to be reasonable and sufficient.

The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Terry Don Phillips, chair, Clemson University; Christopher Griffin, attorney; William P. Hoye, University of Notre Dame; Allan A. Ryan Jr., Harvard University; and Rodney K. Smith, University of Memphis.

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