The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has adopted the self-imposed penalties and corrective actions taken by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, for violations of NCAA bylaws governing both initial- and continuing-eligibility certification and financial aid. As a result of these violations, the committee agreed with the university that a lack of institutional control existed within the athletics program.

In addition to the self-imposed penalties, which include two years of probation and a reduction in the athletics financial aid awards by a total of 20 scholarships in 10 sports, the committee chose only to add the penalty of public reprimand. The committee concluded that the breadth and impact of the university's self-imposed penalties were substantial. The committee commended the university for detecting and vigorously pursuing the violations.

The case was adjudicated through the summary-disposition process, a cooperative endeavor involving the enforcement staff and an institution, which allows an infractions case to be reviewed by the committee on the written record, thus avoiding an in-person hearing. There must be agreement between the institution, the enforcement staff and, ultimately, the committee, with regard to the findings in a case, and the committee must agree that the penalties self-imposed by the institution are meaningful and significant, such as in the case of Rutgers.

The violations involved no fewer than 40 athletes in 15 sports during the period beginning with the 1997-98 academic year and continuing through the 2000-01 academic year. The committee noted that the genesis of the violations dated back about 20 years, when the institution implemented a plan for certification that failed in theory and practice to create adequate procedural guidelines for the individuals charged with certifying student-athlete eligibility. The system resulted in three groups, each supporting a separate aspect of the certification process, but with no overall coordination among the three groups. In the end, the compliance officer and academic support staff were unclear of their respective duties and responsibilities, which further weakened the inherently flawed system.

The committee acknowledged the complexities of the curriculum that exist within each college at the institution; however, the committee noted this institutional arrangement should have heightened the institution's sensitivities to the increased possibility that certification errors might occur. The committee said one of the most troubling aspects of this case was the lack of knowledge by key members of the institution regarding NCAA initial-, continuing- and transfer-eligibility legislation.

According to the report, in summer 2000, the assistant director of athletics for compliance and the director of athletics discussed the possibility of using an outside consultant to review the compliance systems that were in place (including athletics academic eligibility certification) and make recommendations for improvement on those systems, as well as to identify any possible rules violations. This review would satisfy the university's obligation under NCAA Bylaw 22.2.1.3-(e) to conduct an evaluation of the division's rules compliance program once every three years.

Over the course of the next two years, two outside consultants and (later) the enforcement staff, reviewed the institution's athletics administration, with a particular focus on the eligibility certification process and the administration of athletically related financial aid. At the end of this complete and comprehensive review, it was concluded that there were serious deficiencies in the design, function and maintenance of the university's athletics academic eligibility certification and financial aid system, much of which was due to inadequate rules knowledge by the multiple offices involved in the process. As a result of these discoveries, appropriate and meaningful corrective actions were undertaken to address these problems.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee accepted the following self-imposed penalties:

Recertification to the NCAA of full compliance with all of the Association's rules and regulations;

A two-year period of NCAA probation, during which the university will provide annual written reports to the NCAA explaining and affirming its compliance with academic athletics eligibility requirements and detailing its audit of student-athlete records to validate compliance; and

Over the next two academic years a reduction in the athletics financial aid awards by a total of 20 from the average number of athletics financial aid grants-in-aid provided over the past four years (1998-99 through 2001-02) in the following 10 sports and by the following amounts: football (four initial grants); men's basketball (one); baseball (one); field hockey (one); men's golf (two); men's lacrosse (four); men's soccer (four); men's track and field (one); softball (one); and women's tennis (one).

The committee also considered the corrective action already taken by the university in its final review. The university has done the following:

Developed a formal athletics academic eligibility-certification process, including job descriptions and timelines for completion of specific tasks by the individuals involved in the process;

Changed the reporting line for the athletics academic counseling staff to a university vice-president outside of athletics, replaced the head of that staff, filled vacancies among the athletics academic counselors and conducted an intensive training program for all members of that staff;

Created a director of student-athlete certification position in the registrar's office to assure that the determination of continuing academic eligibility for athletics is certified by an appropriate university official outside of athletics, and hired an experienced, well-qualified individual to fill the position;

Filled the assistant athletics director for compliance vacancy with an experienced and competent individual; created and filled an assistant director of compliance position;

Implemented an annual compliance educational program for coaches, administrators and staff, conducted/coordinated by the athletics compliance office, with particular emphasis on continuing academic eligibility issues;

Allocated funding and mandated that athletics academic counselors, compliance staff members and the director of student-athlete certification attend NCAA regional rules seminars; and

Reduced the number of initial grants-in-aid in football by one for the 2001-02 academic year in light of the determination that the initial grant-in-aid limit was exceeded by one during the 2000-01 academic year.

The institution has agreed that the continuing pattern of improper eligibility certifications, even though many could be considered secondary if viewed individually, clearly demonstrated a significant deficiency in properly applying NCAA rules and exercising institutional oversight.

This case involved the ineligible participation of a minimum of 40 student-athletes in at least 15 sports. The committee concluded that these violations provided more than a minimal competitive advantage. Based on these factors, all parties agreed that this case was major in nature and the following additional penalties and requirements are warranted:

The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured.

During its two-year period of probation, which began April 1, 2002 (the date of the university's self-report to the NCAA), and ends March 31, 2004, the institution shall:

Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition;

File with the committee's director annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by August 15, 2003, and by March 15, 2004. Particular emphasis should be placed on the implementation of proper procedures for certification of initial and continuing eligibility. The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.

At the end of the probationary period, the institution's president shall 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, Rutgers shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case (June 17, 2003).

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Alfred J. Lechner, attorney; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; Andrea Myers, athletics director, Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney, Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Eugene D. Smith, athletics director, Arizona State University.