The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions has placed Oklahoma Panhandle State University on five years probation for violations in the institution's football, baseball, men's and women's basketball and women's golf programs.

The case primarily concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing certification of eligibility, extra benefits, impermissible recruiting activities, improper inducements, unethical conduct and a lack of institutional control.

In its report, the committee noted that the violations in this case reflected a severe lack of institutional control, which can be traced to several factors, including a general lack of commitment to follow NCAA rules. The report quoted from the university interim president's testimony that "some people were not committed to following NCAA rules as closely as possible."

The committee was concerned that, although the current university administration is striving to develop an athletics program that is in compliance with NCAA legislation, the institution does not have the financial wherewithal to hire personnel and fund programs necessary to do that. The committee believed that "unless the university can devote greater resources to the administration of its athletics department, the committee suggests that the university reassess its ability to compete at the NCAA Division II level."

Oklahoma Panhandle State became an active NCAA Division II member in September 1999, after becoming a provisional member in 1995.

During the 2000-01 and 2001-02 academic years, the institution erroneously certified nine transfer student-athletes as eligible, permitted the student-athletes to practice and/or compete, and provided some of the student-athletes impermissible athletically related financial aid.

Between the academic years of 1999-00 and 2000-01, the institution improperly certified as eligible for competition two student-athletes, even though the student-athletes had not met NCAA satisfactory-progress requirements.

The committee also found that during the 1999-00 academic year, the institution certified as eligible for competition eight student-athletes, even though they were on institutional academic probation. Further, the institution deviated from institutional policy by providing some, if not all, of those student-athletes athletically related financial aid.

The committee agreed that those violations were major because multiple student-athletes were erroneously certified and multiple sports programs gained a competitive advantage when the institution permitted the ineligible student-athletes to compete. The evidence reflected that several administrators at the university were involved in creating an athletics probation policy that allowed student-athletes to compete who were not in good academic standing. Those individuals included the then-director of athletics, the former president and various coaching staff members. The evidence also showed that the faculty athletics representative objected to its implementation. The policy was created because the institution's minimum grade-point average requirements to remain in good academic standing were more stringent than the NCAA's requirement for grade-point average to be eligible for competition. The institution believed that its sports programs would lose the competitive advantage by declaring ineligible those student-athletes who meet NCAA requirements, but did not meet its own institutional requirements.

During the summer of 2001, the institution's head women's basketball coach used the owner of a recruiting service in the recruitment of a prospective women's basketball student-athlete who eventually enrolled at the university. As a result, the recruiting service owner became a representative of the institution's athletics interests and engaged in impermissible recruiting activities.

Between August 1999 and September 2000, the institution provided an extra benefit involving two grade assignments to a football student-athlete and, during the 2000-01 academic year, the institution permitted this student-athlete to compete even though he was ineligible.

With regard to the impermissible extra benefits, the former vice-president for student affairs, who later became the director of athletics and is no longer employed at the institution, provided extra benefits to enrolled student-athletes between April and June 2000. Specifically, he provided transportation from the institution's campus to Lake Meredith, Texas, to two softball student-athletes on one occasion, to two football student-athletes on six occasions, and to one football student-athlete on seven occasions. At Lake Meredith, the former vice-president for student affairs permitted the student-athletes to use his recreational motorboat for water skiing and occasionally provided meals to the student-athletes.

The report also states that the former vice-president for student affairs provided the use of his personal vehicle to one of the aforementioned student-athletes on two occasions, from April 23-30, and from May 19 to June 4, 2000. Additionally, from May 19 to June 4, 2000, the same student-athlete used the vehicle to drive to Alamosa, Colorado (a round-trip distance of about 640 miles), and had a compact disc changer installed for the former vice-president for student affairs.

Also, on May 9, 2000, the former vice-president for student affairs paid for the admission to a Colorado Rockies game for the same student-athlete and himself, and also provided meals and one night's lodging for the student-athlete.

Further, those violations occurred after the former director of athletics informed the former vice-president for student affairs that the provision of transportation and entertainment to student-athletes is impermissible under NCAA legislation. At the time those violations occurred, the former vice-president for student-affairs was only serving in that capacity and had no responsibilities in athletics.

The current head baseball coach, who was the former compliance coordinator, acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to the institution and the enforcement staff during the inquiry into alleged violations of NCAA legislation.

The former president violated the principles of ethical conduct and the cooperative principle in that he failed to follow the high standards of honesty and sportsmanship, and he failed to disclose all relevant information related to possible NCAA violations.

The scope and nature of the findings in the committee's report demonstrated a failure to exert appropriate institutional control and monitoring in the conduct and administration of all sport programs from the 1999-00 to 2001-02 academic years in that the institution failed to: (1) create and employ athletics department policies and procedures; (2) submit an accurate report of an NCAA violation; (3) create and employ NCAA rules education programs; (4) create and employ consistent procedures related to certifying and monitoring the eligibility of student-athletes; (5) monitor its sport programs to assure compliance with NCAA rules; (6) follow the institution's own corrective action related to another report to the NCAA concerning other violations; and (7) provide the enforcement staff with an authentic, accurate and complete international student-athlete form for a student-athlete.

The committee concluded that the institution failed to employ a consistent procedure as it relates to investigating and reporting rules violations, in that between July and December 2000, the responsibility of investigating and reporting changed hands on three occasions.

There were numerous secondary violations committed by the institution, including permitting student-athletes to practice and/or compete before being certified by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse; conducting impermissible tryouts on campus, providing pre-college expenses to high schools and entertaining high-school coaches; conducting preseason off-campus intrasquad games at local high schools that were publicized in advance in local newspapers and open to the media and the general public; arranging an improper inducement for a prospective student-athlete's relative by providing a resume from the student-athlete's wife to a dental office where the wife subsequently secured employment in August 2000; and conducting official preseason football practice six days before the permissible start of practice. A complete list of secondary violations can be found in the committee's report.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed corrective actions and penalties. Among the actions the university has taken or will take are the following:

Football

The institution forfeited the contest it won against Dana College in September 2000, in which three ineligible players participated.

The former head football coach was not allowed to travel off campus to recruit in the fall of 2001.

Football scholarships were reduced by one for the fall of 2001.

Baseball

No official visits were allowed for the 2001-02 academic year.

The head baseball coach was not allowed to travel off campus to recruit in the fall of 2001.

Athletics grants-in-aid were reduced by one for the 2001-02 academic year.

Softball

Equivalencies were reduced by .445 for the 2001-02 academic year.

The head softball coach was required to attend a rules compliance seminar in 2001.

Corrective actions

A brief education session for faculty is conducted at each institutional "beginning of the year breakfast." This action was instituted August 14, 2002. That session focused on NCAA Bylaws 14 and 16.

Weekly coaching staff meetings are held where NCAA rules discussions occasionally occur.

The institution plans to begin using the NCAA Compliance Assistant software soon, but must wait for other personnel to be trained and have the time to rebuild the large informational database necessary for using this software.

The student-athlete handbook is being updated and will be distributed in January 2003. It will include items about the student-athlete's right for hearing opportunities; clearer information about releases; and the student-athlete's responsibility for his or her academic eligibility.

The registrar and faculty athletics representative now have more active roles in evaluating the transcripts of both returning and prospective student-athletes and certifying eligibility. The new permanent president and new permanent athletics director will determine whether this heightened involvement will continue.

The committee agreed with and approved of the actions taken by the university, but it imposed additional penalties and ordered more corrective actions because of the serious nature of the violations in the case, including the involvement of numerous staff members, most notably that of the university's former president, in a number of the violations and an extreme lack of institutional control.

The committee chose not to impose all of the presumptive penalties permitted under Bylaw 19.6.2.1. because of the actions taken by the university to institute appropriate corrective measures and to self-impose meaningful penalties upon its athletics programs.

Further, the violations in this case were, for the most part, due to extremely poor administration of the athletics department resulting from personnel turnover and a lack of adequate funding. Because of these past problems, and considering the current situation at the university, the additional penalties and prescribed actions imposed by the committee were intended to be more rehabilitative than punitive in nature. They are:

* Oklahoma Panhandle State University shall be publicly reprimanded and censured.

* The university shall be placed on five years of probation beginning December 18, 2002, and ending December 17, 2007.

* In addition to the self-imposed penalty prohibiting the head baseball coach from recruiting off campus in the fall of 2001, the committee applies the same recruiting restriction upon the head baseball coach for the period beginning with the release of this report and ending May 31, 2003.

* The university will no longer allow coaches to certify student-athletes for competition; the faculty athletics representative shall oversee that responsibility.

* The university shall fully employ the NCAA's Compliance Assistance software no later than the beginning of the 2003-04 academic year.

* The following individuals shall attend an NCAA Regional Compliance Seminar during 2003: director of athletics, head baseball coach, head women's basketball coach, faculty athletics representative, compliance coordinator and registrar.

* Within 30 days of receipt of this report, the institution's chief executive officer shall contact the NCAA's membership services staff in writing and formally request a Compliance Blueprint Program review. Documentation of this request shall be included in the institution's preliminary compliance report, with the results of the review to be included in the institution's annual compliance report.

* During this period of probation, the institution shall:

a. Develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, 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 Committee on Infractions by February 15, 2003, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and

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 proper certification of eligibility and institutional control of its athletics program. The reports also must 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 chief executive officer 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, Oklahoma Panhandle State University 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 (December 18, 2002).

The members of the Division II Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Robertha Abney, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania; Larry Blumberg, Washburn University of Topeka; Les Brinson, North Carolina Central University; Julie Hill, University of Northern Colorado, chair; and Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Morgan, Lewis & Bochius.

A copy of the complete report from the Division II Committee on Infractions is available at www.ncaa.org.