The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld a two-year period of probation against San Diego State University.

The two-year probationary period was announced February 25, 2003, by the Division I Committee on Infractions and was among a number of other penalties and corrective measures imposed by the committee and the institution. The university appealed only the probationary period. Probation and public reprimand and censure were the only penalties imposed by the committee. The remainder were penalties self-imposed by the institution.

This case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing impermissible out-of-season practice activities and extra benefits. There also was a finding by the Division I Committee on Infractions that the institution failed to monitor the football program.

Specifically, the Committee on Infractions found that during the summers of 1998 through 2001 an assistant coach conducted mandatory workouts with offensive linemen. The assistant coach kept attendance that was periodically posted in a newsletter distributed to the offensive line. Names of student-athletes who had perfect attendance were listed in the newsletter.

In addition, in the summer of 2000, at least one of the practices (involving student-athletes with remaining eligibility) was videotaped at the assistant coach's request by the institution's video coordinator assistant. The video was subsequently made available for commercial sale through the assistant coach's Web site to the general public, and the Web site listed the assistant coach's institutional office number as a contact source. Two other videos also were taped on the university's campus and depicted student-athletes with remaining eligibility performing drills specific to the offensive line.

Also, during the spring semester of the 2001-02 academic year and before the official starting date of spring football practice (March 19, 2002), the football coaching staff conducted countable athletically related activities during a time when they were not permissible. These activities included meetings discussing the diagramming of plays, sessions that involved pass-protection drills, and participation of members of the football team in position-specific 11-on-11 activities designed to simulate game or practice situations.

In its appeal before the Infractions Appeals Committee at a hearing August 18, 2003, San Diego State asserted that the imposition of probation against the university for two years, ending in February 2005, should be set aside because it was excessive and inappropriate. The institution did not contest the findings of the Division I Committee on Infractions nor its determination that violations occurred.

The university contended the probation was excessive given the nature and character of the violations, the institution's self-imposed penalties and cooperation in the investigation, and the Division I Committee on Infractions' failure to adequately articulate its rationale for imposing probation. The institution also expressed concern regarding the "stigma" of probation.

The Infractions Appeals Committee acknowledged the institution's cooperation and self-imposed penalties, but it concluded that the penalty was appropriately tailored to the facts of the case.

"We understand San Diego State's concern regarding the stigma of probation, particularly in light of the institution's acceptance of responsibility and its self-imposed penalties. Nevertheless, the violations were serious and included a failure to monitor," the Infractions Appeals Committee wrote in its decision affirming the penalty.

The Infractions Appeals Committee also noted that while the Committee on Infractions has the discretion to waive the presumptive penalty, it is not required to do so. "In its decision, the Committee on Infractions explained that probation was imposed because of the serious nature of the out-of-season practice violations and the fact that the violations impacted student-athlete welfare and safety issues," the appeals committee said.

The Infractions Appeals Committee also noted that the Committee on Infractions identified the failure-to-monitor violation in further support of the probation penalty.

The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Terry Don Phillips, chair, director of athletics, Clemson University; Christopher L. Griffin, attorney, Tampa, Florida; William P. Hoye, associate vice-president and deputy general counsel, University of Notre Dame; Noel M. Ragsdale, professor of law, University of Southern California; and Allan A. Ryan Jr., director of intellectual property, Harvard Business School Publishing.

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