The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld the penalty against the University of Kentucky football program of a ban on postseason competition after the 2002 football season.

The penalty was announced January 31, 2002, by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions and was among a number of other penalties and corrective measures the committee imposed. The postseason ban was the only issue the university appealed.

The case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting inducements, an impermissible tryout, unethical conduct and falsification of recruiting records, salary control, responsibility for the conduct of representatives of athletics interests, fiscal integrity and institutional control of recruiting funds.

Specifically, the violations included a broad pattern of providing free lodging and other inducements to football prospects, their parents and high-school coaches, falsifying recruiting records, and a lack of institutional control of recruiting funds.

In its written appeal, Kentucky asserted that the penalty on a ban on postseason competition should be set aside because it is excessive and inappropriate.

The Committee on Infractions stated in its report that the penalty was based primarily on Kentucky having obtained a "significant and protracted recruiting advantage" as a result of the violations. Kentucky contended on appeal that it achieved no such recruiting advantage because few of the prospects impermissibly recruited actually enrolled in or competed for Kentucky.

In its written report the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the meaning of "recruiting advantage" is broader than achieving success in enrolling recruited student-athletes who compete successfully for an institution.

The appeals report stated: " 'Recruiting advantage' also includes, for example, having a prospect make one of a limited number of official visits to the institution, to the detriment of other institutions that the prospect could otherwise visit. 'Recruiting advantage' also encompasses obtaining an enhanced reputation for the institution based on favorable communications between recruited prospects and future recruits. We conclude Kentucky construes the term 'recruiting advantage' too narrowly in its argument."

In its presentation to the appeals committee, the Committee on Infractions noted that the penalty also was based on the nature, number, and extent of the recruiting violations in this case. The Committee on Infractions found that the number of violations, their scope and breadth established this case as one of the more serious ones the committee heard in recent years. There was evidence in the record that the motivation for these extensive and serious recruiting violations was to improperly and unfairly enhance Kentucky's football recruitment. Based on all of this evidence, the appeals committee concluded the penalty should not be determined by the ultimate success of those efforts.

Kentucky also contended that the postseason competition penalty was not consistent with the results in other cases. The appeals committee report noted that the penalty of a ban on postseason competition "has been imposed somewhat more frequently in recent cases," and concluded that "the imposition of this penalty here is not inconsistent with the results in other recent cases."

The appeals committee also examined the level of cooperation by the university during the infractions investigation as a mitigating factor in determining whether a penalty is excessive or inappropriate.

"One of the most difficult aspects of this case is the effect of the extraordinary cooperation by Kentucky in the investigation and discovery of violations in this case, and the significant corrective actions it took," the report said. "The Committee on Infractions, in its report and presentation to this committee, repeatedly complimented Kentucky on its overall compliance program and its cooperation in this case."

In its presentation to the appeals committee, the Committee on Infractions emphasized the significance of the institution's cooperation and corrective actions, but explained that the nature and extent of the violations were so serious that no further reduction in the penalty was warranted.

"We conclude the penalty was not excessive or inappropriate, notwithstanding the exemplary cooperation of the institution and its corrective actions," the appeals committee report said.

Other penalties upheld

The appeals committee also upheld all findings and penalties against Kentucky's former recruiting coordinator who appealed specific findings of violations as determined by the Committee on Infractions.

That case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting inducements, an impermissible tryout, unethical conduct, falsification of recruiting records and institutional control of recruiting funds.

The institution accepted the recruiting coordinator's resignation as part of its self-imposed corrective actions and penalties. The Committee on Infractions imposed an eight-year show-cause order on him because of his involvement in a number of violations.

In his appeal, the former recruiting coordinator asserted that all of the findings against him should be set aside on the grounds that they are contrary to the evidence presented to the committee, do not constitute violations of the Association's rules, and that procedural errors affected the reliability of the committee's findings. He further requested that the show-cause order be vacated because it is excessive and inappropriate.

The former recruiting coordinator contended in his appeal that the findings of violations should be reversed because Kentucky did not afford him due process in its investigation of this case. Among other things, he claimed Kentucky did not give him a copy of the tape of an interview with him, as the university allegedly promised. The results of Kentucky's investigation were submitted into evidence at the hearing before the Committee on Infractions.

In its report, the appeals committee noted that any party in an investigation who has objections to the processes followed in that investigation should raise those concerns before the Committee on Infractions. In this case, the former recruiting coordinator refused to be interviewed by the NCAA and did not appear before the Committee on Infractions, nor did he raise timely objections to the process followed by Kentucky.

"His claim of prejudice as a result of Kentucky's alleged failure to give him a tape of his interview could have been cured by his personal appearance and testimony at the hearing before the Committee on Infractions so that Kentucky could respond and the Committee on Infractions could rule appropriately," the report said.

The appeals committee noted that this claim related to only one of the numerous findings of violations by the recruiting coordinator. "Based on the record before us, we conclude there was no procedural error that affected the reliability of the information that supports the committee's findings," the report said. "We also conclude that all of the findings by the Committee on Infractions against the former recruiting coordinator constitute violations and are not clearly contrary to the evidence."

The former recruiting coordinator also appealed the penalty in this case as being excessive and inappropriate. In response to his charge, the appeals committee said "an eight-year show-cause order is a severe penalty," but noted that as a guiding principle, a penalty imposed under NCAA enforcement policies and procedures should be broad and severe if the violation or violations reflect a general disregard for the governing rules.

"This case involved a large number of serious violations including academic fraud, and reflected a general disregard for the governing rules," the report said. "Accordingly, we conclude that the eight-year show-cause penalty is not excessive or inappropriate in this case."

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

A copy of both reports from the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee are available at NCAA Online (www.ncaa.org).