The Division I Committee on Infractions has imposed a one-year postseason ban in football and placed the University of California, Berkeley, on probation for five years because of violations in the university's football program.

The violations involved bylaws governing ethical conduct through academic fraud, academic eligibility, obligation to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition, extra benefits, recruiting, and institutional control.

The committee also 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.

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.

The university conducted an internal investigation into the matter in the fall of 1999 and reported to the Pacific-10 Conference that no violations occurred. The conference then initiated its own inquiry, which concluded in 2001 when the conference reported violations to the NCAA's enforcement staff. During the conference probe, the university conducted a second investigation that confirmed the conference's allegations. The Pac-10 commended the university for the thoroughness of its second investigation.

In January 2002, just before the university's scheduled appearance before the Committee on Infractions, the conference office reported additional possible violations pertaining to the improper receipt of hotel incidental expenses by student-athletes. The hearing was postponed and the university later provided a self-report of the violations to the NCAA enforcement staff.

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 noted that had the violations been considered as isolated incidents, they would have been considered secondary violations. But 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.

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

The committee said it also was concerned that the football staff and business office knew that football student-athletes had received extra benefits but did not notify the compliance office. The football staff also failed to recognize that eligibility reinstatement was required for those who received extra benefits.

The committee considered a number of corrective actions and penalties self-imposed by California, in addition to penalties imposed by the Pac-10. Those actions are:

The university will identify a certain date, early in each semester, after which no student-athlete may drop or add a course without prior review and written approval through the student-athlete's athletic study center advisor and by the faculty athletics representative.

The university's enrollment system will be amended to ensure that college administrators and the registrar's office are aware when a drop or add petitioner is a student-athlete, so the college and registrar may ensure compliance with the faculty athletics representative's approval requirement on the form used to effect the drop or add.

The position description of the assistant athletics director for compliance will be amended to more fully describe and specify authority for investigating and reporting potential NCAA and Pac-10 violations.

The athletics study center advising staff will be required to maintain detailed and comprehensive records of all meetings and discussions related to any interim change in a student-athlete's academic course load and other matters that may impact the student-athlete's eligibility.

Each college and the office of the registrar will be required to maintain copies of all petitions and related paperwork for approved adds and drops by the institution's student-athletes.

The retroactive add procedures will be modified to ensure appropriate substantive review and approval by a responsible level of authority in the dean's office.

Findings of academic violations by any university faculty member will be subject to the institution's misconduct procedure for appropriate action.

In compliance with NCAA guidelines, the professor in this case will be disassociated from further involvement with the university's athletics programs. A letter of this disassociation has been sent to the involved professor.

The findings of academic violations by the two student-athletes involved in this case were forwarded to the university's student conduct office for appropriate action. No punitive action was taken because both no longer attend the university.

Letters of admonishment will be issued to those institutional officers identified as sharing responsibility for the failure to adequately investigate possible NCAA rules violations and to ensure that a complete and accurate investigation report was submitted to the Pac-10 office.

The Pac-10 Conference imposed the following corrective measures and penalties:

The university will adopt a compliance oversight plan and organizational structure that clearly delineates the communication lines and division of responsibilities among all persons with compliance oversight responsibility, including the assistant vice-chancellor for legal affairs, the faculty athletics representative, the athletics director, the assistant athletics director for compliance and the director of eligibility.

The university will be required to issue a follow-up report to the conference's compliance and enforcement committee after two years, describing how that structure is working and report any changes made in organization, structure or responsibilities.

The university was placed on conference probation for one year beginning on March 8, 2001.

The university was required 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 university will issue letters of reprimand to the current faculty athletics representative and to the assistant athletics director for compliance.

The university will forfeit its September 25, 1999, victory against Arizona State University because of the contributions by the two involved student-athletes to that victory.

The Committee on Infractions accepted the penalties imposed by California and the conference but imposed additional penalties because of the university's recent infractions history and a significant lack of institutional control. Though the university was considered a repeat offender, the committee did not impose any of the repeat-violator penalties because of the actions taken by California and the Pac-10 institute appropriate corrective measures and meaningful penalties.

The Committee on Infractions imposed the following additional penalties:

The university will be reprimanded and censured.

The university will be placed on probation for five years beginning March 8, 2001, and concluding March 7, 2006. The committee considered the five-year probationary period to have begun March 8, 2001, the date of the Pac-10 infractions report, and the starting date for the one-year conference probationary period, for which the committee credited the university.

The institution's football team will end its 2002 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and will not be eligible to participate in any bowl game or take advantage of the exemption for preseason competition.

In addition to the conference-imposed reduction of four initial grants and four total counters in football that were taken during the 2001-02 academic year, the institution will further reduce the permissible limit of initial grants in the sport of football by a total of nine during the 2002-03 through 2005-06 academic years, with no less than two grant cuts in any given year.

The university will vacate its team record as well as any individual records of the two student-athletes who participated in football contests while academically ineligible during the 1999 season. In conjunction with the penalty, the university's records regarding football will be reconfigured to reflect the vacation of the 11 contests in which the two student-athletes competed during the 1999 season. This vacation of performances will be recorded in all publications in which football records for that season are reported, including, but not limited to, university media guides, recruiting material, and university and NCAA archives.

The university president is required to forward a copy of the public infractions report to the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

During the probationary period, the university will continue to develop and implement a comprehensive education program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, California is subject to the NCAA's repeat-violator provisions for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case (June 26, 2002).

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Paul Dee, athletics director, University of Miami (Florida); Craig Littlepage, athletics director, University of Virginia; Gene Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; Andrea Myers, athletics director, Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney and retired judge, Frost Brown Todd, Lexington, Kentucky, and Josephine Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

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