San Diego State University has been sanctioned and a number of penalties imposed by the university were adopted by the Division I Committee on Infractions as the result of violations in football. The committee recognized the significance and impact of the the university's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, and as a result, chose only to reprimand the institution and impose the presumptive two-year probationary period for a major infractions case.

The university was found to have violated NCAA bylaws governing impermissible out-of-season practice activities and a failure to monitor. There was also a violation of the extra-benefit legislation.

This case originally was reviewed through the summary disposition process during the committee's October 11-12, 2002, meeting. The summary disposition process is a cooperative endeavor that may be used when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution and involved individuals agree on the facts of an infractions case and that those facts constitute major violations of NCAA legislation. The institution also proposes penalties.

In this instance, since there was disagreement between the institution and the committee about the appropriateness of a probationary period, the institution requested an expedited hearing before the committee, which took place December 14, 2002.

According to the report, the committee categorized this case as major because the violations were neither isolated nor inadvertent. The committee also concluded that a competitive advantage was obtained through the out-of-season workouts.

San Diego State had previous major infractions cases in 1991 (women's basketball) and 1983 (men's basketball).

In addition to the out-of-season practice activities, there was an associated failure to monitor the football program and a violation of the extra-benefit legislation. The violations committed by the football coaching staff demonstrated a lack of respect for certain rules.

During the summers of 1998 through 2001, an assistant coach conducted mandatory workouts with offensive linemen. The workouts (known as "sand training") were conducted at 6 a.m. each Wednesday from late May through July. The sessions lasted about one hour and consisted primarily of conditioning activities. The assistant coach kept attendance that was periodically posted in a newsletter distributed to the offensive line.

In addition, in the summer of 2000, at least one of the sand practices (involving student-athletes with remaining eligibility) was videotaped at the assistant coach's request. The video was subsequently made available for commercial sale through the assistant coach's Web site to the general public, citing the assistant coach's institutional office telephone number as a contact source. The film was part of a three-video package videotaped on the university's campus and depicting student-athletes with remaining eligibility performing offensive lineman drills.

Also, the assistant coach wrote and distributed a newsletter that provided evidence of the organized and mandatory nature of the summer beach workouts. The newsletter included names of the student-athletes who had perfect attendance at these workouts and included the statement, "Congratulations to those with perfect sand training attendance. Your commitment is respected and admired."

The enforcement staff, the institution and the assistant coach agreed that the sand workouts occurred over a four-year period and violated basic rules governing out-of-season practice activities (that is, staff members having mandatory sessions with student-athletes).

During the spring semester of the 2001-02 academic year and before the official starting date of spring football practice on March 19, 2002, the football coaching staff conducted countable athletically related activities during a time when they were not permissible. These activities included meetings in which the diagramming of plays was discussed, 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 report, the committee the institution gained an advantage from these activities, and the institution agreed that the improper meetings and practice sessions helped the team get an early start on spring football.

During the 1998-99 through 2001-02 academic years, the assistant coach provided impermissible apparel (hats and T-shirts) to the student-athletes who played on the offensive line. According to the report, the committee stated that even though the distribution of apparel provided little, if any, competitive advantage, the violations occurred over a period of four years and was not isolated or inadvertent and thus, could not be considered a secondary violation.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The university:

Reduced the total maximum number of allowable football scholarships from 85 to 82 in the 2002-03 academic year; 85 to 83 in the 2003-04 academic year; and 85 to 84 in the 2004-05 academic year.

Eliminated (or will eliminate) 21 practice days: three days from the 2002 preseason practice schedule; four days during the 2002 football season; seven of the 15 allowable days for the 2003 spring practice; and seven of the 15 allowable days for 2004 spring practice.

Reduced the number of permissible football coaches recruiting off campus by one for a period of four days during the April 15 to May 31, 2002, evaluation period.

Removed the assistant coach from off-campus recruiting activities for a period of 17 days during the April 15 to May 31, 2002, evaluation period, and suspended him for six practice days (five without pay) during preseason practice for the 2002 season. During that time, the assistant coach was not allowed to have contact with the program. The assistant coach also was suspended for an additional five days without pay at the end of the 2002 football season. As a part of that suspension, the assistant coach was required to reimburse the university for the cost of supplies, equipment and staff time used in videotaping the sand workouts. Finally, a letter of reprimand was placed in the assistant coach's personnel file with a specific warning that involvement in any other NCAA rules violations will lead to dismissal.

Placed a letter of reprimand in the current head football coach's personnel file.

Placed letters of admonishment in the personnel files of the remaining eight football coaches as well as those of the head strength and conditioning coach.

Will require the current head football coach and the assistant coach to attend one of the spring 2003 NCAA regional rules seminars at their own expense.

There also were significant disciplinary actions taken against those who were responsible for the violations. The self-imposed penalties and disciplinary measures are consistent with those penalties and disciplinary measures for major violations as identified in Bylaw 19.6.2.2. Because of the significant impact of these self-imposed penalties, the committee chose to impose only the penalties of public reprimand and censure and the presumptive probationary period. The additional penalties are as follows:

* San Diego State University shall be publicly reprimanded and censured.

* The university shall be placed on two years of probation beginning February 25, 2003, and ending February 24, 2005.

* During this period of probation, the institution shall:

a. 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;

b. Submit a preliminary report to the director of the NCAA committee on infractions by April 15, 2003, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program;

c. File with the committee's director annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by October 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on compliance with NCAA legislation relating to playing and practice seasons; and

d. Include in the annual compliance report documentation of the university's compliance with its self-imposed penalties.

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, San Diego State 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 (February 25, 2003).

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); 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. <