The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has reversed the imposition of an additional one-year ban on postseason competition against the University of Michigan's men's basketball program for 2003-04. The institution appealed the additional one-year ban as excessive, noting that it had self-imposed a postseason ban for the 2002-03 season.

In a decision announced May 8, 2003, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions had imposed a second year to the postseason ban imposed by the institution. That penalty was among a number of other penalties and corrective measures imposed by the committee and the institution. The institution appealed both the second year of the postseason ban and a finding in which the Division I Committee on Infractions found that a student-athlete in the case received "inducements" as well as benefits.

This case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing extra benefits provided by a representative of athletics interests and amateurism in the men's basketball program. The violations themselves centered on the provision of more than $600,000 in cash and other benefits to at least four men's basketball student-athletes by a now-deceased representative of athletics interests. The representative of athletics interests' funds were derived from an illegal gambling enterprise he operated for many years at automobile assembly plants in Detroit, where he was employed.

Specifically, the Division I Committee on Infractions found that from spring 1992 through spring 1999, the representative of athletics interests provided recruiting inducements and extra benefits in the form of cash, clothing, jewelry, transportation, lodging, meals and other like benefits totaling about $616,000 to at least four student-athletes. In accepting benefits while student-athletes, those individuals nullified their amateur status. The representative of athletics interests considered those benefits as loans, and he intended the student-athletes would repay him once they became well-paid professional basketball players after their Michigan careers had ended. The Division I Committee on Infractions found that:

Student-athlete A and his family received a total of $280,000 in extra benefits from the representative between 1988 and 1993.

Student-athlete B and his family received a total of $160,000 in inducements and extra benefits from the athletics representative between 1994 and 1998.

Student-athlete C and his family received a total of $105,000 in extra benefits from the athletics representative between 1995 and 1998.

Student-athlete D and his family received a total of $71,000 in extra benefits from the athletics representative between 1995 and 1999.

In its hearing before the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee August 17, 2003, Michigan challenged the portion of the finding in which the committee determined that student-athlete C received inducements as well as benefits. The institution contended that this finding was erroneous because the evidence established that student-athlete C received no money or other benefits before his enrollment at the institution. In its response before the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee, the Division I Committee on Infractions explained that it had made a clerical error and agreed with the institution that the reference to inducements in that finding should be deleted.

Michigan also challenged the additional year of a postseason ban in men's basketball imposed by the Division I Committee on Infractions, asserting that it should be set aside as excessive and inappropriate. The institution did not contest any additional finding of facts of the Division I Committee on Infractions nor its determination that violations occurred.

The Division I Infractions Appeals Committee noted that NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.1 sets forth presumptive penalties for major violations and includes postseason bans. Therefore, the committee concluded that "such a ban is an appropriate penalty and the sole issue before the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee is whether the second year of the postseason ban is excessive."

The committee further articulated that a review of recent decisions upholding a postseason ban revealed the presence of one or more of the following factors: repeat-violator status, lack of institutional control or academic fraud, none of which was present in this case. The committee also pointed out that the NCAA bylaw governing presumptive penalties for a major violation provides for postseason bans, particularly in those cases in which individuals involved in the violations remain active in the program; or a significant competitive advantage results from the violations; or when the violations reflect a lack of institutional control. The committee concluded that none of these elements were present in this case.

Central to the committee's decision was the institution's efforts to cooperate, which extended to insisting that the representative of athletics interests cooperate with institutional and NCAA investigations as part of his federal criminal plea agreement.

"Without the athletics representative's cooperation pursuant to the plea agreement, the identities of the individuals involved and the amounts of the loans never would have been established and there likely would have been no NCAA enforcement case," the committee wrote. "The institution's extraordinary efforts transcended 'cooperation,' and strongly mitigate against imposition of the second year of the postseason ban."

The Division I Infractions Appeals Committee also noted that it disagreed with the Division I Committee on Infractions over the point of whether the violations provided a competitive advantage.

"In this case," the committee wrote, "the Division I Committee on Infractions concluded that the violations provided Michigan with 'a staggering competitive advantage' over other member institutions. We disagree. The applicable bylaw requires a causal connection between the violation and the competitive advantage. Examples of this would include improper recruiting inducements or academic fraud where the student-athlete would not have attended the institution, or would not have been able to compete, but for the improper assistance derived from the violation. In this case, the opposite is true. Here, the student-athletes would have attended the institution, and would have competed in the sport, even absent the violation. Therefore, the competitive advantage did not 'result from' the violation."

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