The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed California State University, Fresno, on probation for four years for violations of bylaws governing academic fraud, recruiting, eligibility, financial aid (including awards and benefits), extra benefits, amateurism, coaching limitations, and playing and practice seasons legislation. The committee also found a lack of institutional control.

Although the committee required the institution to vacate the record of its performance in the 2000 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship and return 90 percent of the monies it earned for that appearance, it chose to accept the significant disciplinary actions taken by the university, including a voluntary postseason sanction in 2003, without adding additional substantive penalties.

The majority of the violations in this case centered on the men's basketball program, but there also were limited violations in both the men's soccer and women's basketball programs, as well as secondary violations involving the men's and women's basketball programs.

The committee found that during the 1998-99 academic year, a men's basketball student-athlete was awarded athletically related financial aid even though he was not enrolled in a full-time program of studies. He also was certified as eligible for competition even though he had not maintained satisfactory progress toward a baccalaureate degree. Specifically, the student-athlete was enrolled as a part-time student at Fresno State while completing the requirements for an associate degree at a junior college.

The committee noted that the involvement of a former academic advisor, as well as her position at the university, was unique. Part of her compensation was paid through the men's basketball department, and she reported to the former assistant director of athletics for academic services and to the former head men's basketball coach. In her written response, the former academic advisor indicated to the committee that she played an active role in securing correspondence courses for student-athletes.

The committee noted that there were several persons involved in the certification process for this student-athlete, including the former academic advisor, a former compliance officer, an athletics admissions specialist in the admissions office, an academic evaluator in admissions and the faculty athletics representative. None of those individuals seemed aware of the prohibition against the use of correspondence courses for the purpose of determining progress toward graduation of a junior college transfer student-athlete.

The committee found that during the summer of 2000, the former academic advisor and a former statistician violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct when the former academic advisor arranged for the former statistician to prepare 17 pieces of course work for two other student-athletes who were completing their last semesters of eligibility, as well as for a men's basketball prospective student-athlete. The course work performed by the former statistician included researching, composing and typing theme papers, article reviews and final exam papers for correspondence courses in which the student-athletes were enrolled at two other institutions. The former academic advisor notified the former statistician when the student-athletes needed papers written and paid him for seven papers completed for one of these student-athletes and the prospect. The other student-athlete paid the former statistician himself for the 10 papers prepared for him.

The provision of the papers for the two student-athletes violated NCAA extra-benefit legislation, which resulted in the two student-athletes competing while ineligible during the 2000 spring semester, including the 2000 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship. The provision of the papers for the prospect constituted academic fraud, which resulted in the prospect competing while ineligible during the 2000-01 academic year.

The committee also found that:

During the fall 2000 semester, a men's basketball student-athlete was awarded athletically related aid even though he was a nonqualifier and not enrolled in a full-time program of studies.

During the 1998-99 academic year, a men's basketball student-athlete practiced and was awarded athletically related aid even though he was a nonqualifier. When the violation became apparent in June 1999, the institution failed to report it to the NCAA and did not declare the student-athlete ineligible, permitting him to practice and compete in eight contests while ineligible.

From academic years 1995-96 to 1999-00, a representative of the institution's athletics interests and owner of a local restaurant provided meals free of charge at his restaurant to numerous men's basketball student-athletes. In addition, in July or August 1995, the vice-president for administration who was the interim director of athletics became aware of the provision of free meals but failed to recognize the necessity of reporting the violations.

During the 1999-00 academic year, an agent's representative provided improper cash stipends and travel expenses to a student-athlete and his family members. Amounts ranged from $20 to $100 after home games and included two wire transfers of $250 and $300 to the student-athlete, as well as a wire transfer of $300 to the student-athlete's grandparents to pay travel costs to a conference tournament.

During the 2000-01 season, 34 complimentary tickets to 14 Fresno State men's basketball games were provided to family members of two men's basketball student-athletes and to friends of another student-athlete. Based on the provision of these tickets, these student-athletes competed while ineligible during portions of the 2000-01 season, and two of them competed while ineligible during the entire 2001-02 season.

From academic years 1995-96 to 1997-98, a former men's basketball assistant coach, who also was initially a manager for the men's basketball team, participated in defensive drills with men's basketball student-athletes during individual skill instruction sessions at which time he gave hands-on instruction. Also, from academic years 1995-96 to 2000-01, the former assistant and another former assistant occasionally observed preseason pick-up games, and on one instance in April 2000, one of these former assistant coaches directed student-athletes in a game of four-on-four full-court basketball in violation of playing and practice seasons legislation.

During summer 2001, the former head men's basketball coach failed to report possible amateurism violations involving receipt of benefits from an agent's representative by a student-athlete who had previously been suspended for eight games by the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee for his receipt of benefits from a professional sports agency.

During the fall semester of the 2000-01 academic year, a men's soccer student-athlete practiced and was awarded athletically related financial aid even though he was a nonqualifier.

During the spring semester of the 1998-99 academic year, and while recruiting a prospective women's basketball student-athlete, a former assistant women's basketball coach tutored the prospect on at least four occasions at her office and in the prospect's home to assist in preparing her to take the SAT. The former assistant women's basketball coach also provided transportation to the prospect to take the test. The prospect did not earn a certifying score and did not enroll at the institution.

The committee also found that the university demonstrated a lack of appropriate institutional control. In finding a lack of control, the committee cited the following: failure to correctly apply financial aid legislation, failure to detect the receipt of excessive complimentary admissions by family and friends of men's basketball student-athletes; and failure to report perceived violations of NCAA rules on numerous occasions.

The committee also found that secondary violations occurred involving coaching limitations, off-campus contact, publicity of prospects and extra benefits.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The committee agreed with and adopted the actions taken by the university, noting that they represented "appropriate corrective actions and meaningful, significant self-imposed penalties."

The committee noted that the university's president "is to be commended for demonstrating the university's commitment to accepting responsibility for these violations." The committee also noted that it did not impose all of the presumptive penalties for major violations specified in Bylaw 19.6.2. However, given the nature, scope and seriousness of the violations, including the commission of academic fraud, improper academic certification practices and a failure to report evidence of violations, coupled with the significant competitive advantages gained and a lack of institutional control, the committee concluded that additional penalties were warranted.

The following penalties were imposed by the committee or were self-imposed by the university and adopted by the committee. Those penalties that were self-imposed by the university are noted.

Public reprimand and censure.

Four years of probation retroactive to December 4, 2002, with specific reporting requirements relating to rules-education initiatives, complimentary admissions policies and procedures, and compliance audits. (The university proposed a two-year period of probation beginning December 4, 2002.)

The university's men's basketball team shall be prohibited from participation in postseason competition for one year. This penalty was satisfied by the university's self-imposed ineligibility for the 2003 Western Athletic Conference tournament, the 2003 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship, and the National Invitation Tournament.

The institution shall reduce grants-in-aid in men's basketball by a total of three for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years, with at least one grant cut in each of those years. This penalty was self-imposed by the university.

The university elected to forfeit all wins by the men's basketball team for any games in which student-athletes participated while ineligible. For record-keeping purposes, the NCAA will deem these forfeited wins as being vacated. The institution decided to vacate its 2000 WAC Men's Basketball Championship, an action accepted by the conference. Regarding the 2000 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship, and pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(e), the university will vacate its team record and return any team awards. Further, the university's records regarding men's basketball, as well as the record of the former head men's basketball coach, will be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records and this shall be recorded in all publications in which men's basketball records are reported, including, but not limited to, university media guides and recruiting material and university and NCAA archives. Any public reference to tournament appearances during this time shall be removed, including athletics department stationery and banners displayed in public areas such as the arena in which the men's basketball team competes.

The university will be required to return to the NCAA 90 percent of the monies (limited to its share of conference distributions) for its appearance in the 2000 NCAA tournament. This includes future revenue generated from the 2000 tournament appearance that has not yet been distributed. Although the institution may not have had reason to know of the ineligibility of a student-athlete who had contact with an agent's representative, the institution did know of the facts giving rise to ineligibility of student-athletes who received extra benefits through academic fraud because of the participation of an institution staff member.

The university issued a written reprimand to a former assistant men's basketball coach.

The university issued a written reprimand to the faculty athletics representative.

The university issued a letter of admonishment to an assistant ticket manager.

The committee required that, during the probationary period, the university shall continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. In addition, the university will be required to develop compliance programs to monitor prospects who move to the Fresno area in the summer before full-time enrollment, and to monitor compliance with playing and practice season legislation. The university also is required to submit to the director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions a preliminary report that sets forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program and placing particular emphasis on rules education for the men's basketball staff and academic support staff in the areas of academic eligibility and academic integrity. 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, Fresno State is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3 concerning repeat violators for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case (September 10, 2003).

The members of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Paul T. Dee, director of athletics, University of Miami (Florida); Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama School of Law; Andrea L. Myers, director of athletics, Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska College of Law; and Eugene D. Smith, director of athletics, Arizona State University.