The NCAA Division III Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld all penalties against the Salem State College men's soccer program, including two years of probation, a ban on postseason competition by its men's soccer program for the 2003-04 season, a prohibition against using legislated maximum contest exemptions in men's soccer, and the elimination of all off-campus recruiting activities in men's soccer during the 2003-04 academic year.

The committee also upheld all findings issued by the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions involving a former head men's soccer coach at Salem State. The coach remains subject to a one-year show-cause penalty.

The penalties were announced February 5, 2003, by the Division III Committee on Infractions and were among a number of other penalties and corrective measures imposed by the committee and the institution.

The case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing extra benefits, financial aid, unethical conduct and occasional meals.

Specifically, the violations included a finding that the head coach, volunteer coach and the girlfriend (and business partner) of the volunteer coach arranged for or provided loans in the amount of $11,900 to the student-athlete for the purpose of assisting him in paying his tuition. The loans also exceeded the amount of tuition owed by $1,254, and the student-athlete kept the additional amount for his personal use.

The committee also found that the head coach had provided more than occasional meals, providing meals three or four times per week to the student-athlete, who was renting an apartment in the head coach's home.

In its written appeal, Salem State asserted that the penalties should be set aside because they were excessive or inappropriate. The institution did not contest the finding of facts of the Division III Committee on Infractions nor its determination that violations occurred.

Salem State contended that its thorough and prompt investigation of the alleged violations, its self-reporting and its imposition of sanctions on the coaches and student-athletes involved, as well as its implementation of measures to ensure such violations were not repeated, were not considered as mitigating factors by the Committee on Infractions.

The Infractions Appeals Committee acknowledged the institution's self-reporting, cooperation and full disclosure during the NCAA investigation, but it concluded that an institution must ultimately be held responsible for its institutional staff members and representatives. The Infractions Appeals Committee also concluded that "the imposition of minimum presumed sanctions in such a serious case strongly implied that the Committee on Infractions had considered the institution's actions as mitigating factors."

Salem State also contended, in its appeal of the ban on postseason competition, that the violations at issue in the case did not demonstrate a lack of institutional control. The Infractions Appeals Committee, in upholding the ban, "affirmed the appropriateness of the postseason ban and recruiting restrictions imposed by the Committee on Infractions."

The Infractions Appeals Committee acknowledged the unfortunate consequence that innocent student-athletes will be negatively impacted by the penalties imposed in the case. But, the committee also noted that it "agreed with the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee in the University of Kentucky and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, appeals reports stating that 'the imposition of penalties involves a balancing of interests. Almost every ban of competition impacts some innocent individuals...the regrettable consequences of this penalty are appreciated fully...so that there will not be a recurrence of the facts that gave rise to the violations.' Since innocent student-athletes often will be adversely affected by the errors and misconduct of coaches and other officials of NCAA member institutions, this places a special responsibility on colleges and universities to assure compliance with NCAA requirements."

Coach appeal

The former coach appealed all of the findings in which he was named, including violations of NCAA bylaws governing extra benefits, financial aid, unethical conduct and occasional meals.

In his written appeal, the former head coach challenged several findings of the fact regarding violations of extra benefits and violations of financial aid legislation through provision of an impermissible loan. He claimed he had no knowledge of a $4,000 loan provided to the student-athlete by the girlfriend/business partner. The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the former coach admitted at the Committee on Infractions hearing that he became aware of the loan once the student-athlete approached him regarding an outstanding bill.

The former head coach also argued that the provision of the $7,900 loan to the student-athlete was not a violation of NCAA extra-benefit legislation. More specifically, he contended that the provision of the loan was due to his personal relationship with the student-athlete and his mother and was not related to the athletics ability of the student-athlete. The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that "NCAA legislation regarding extra benefits does not provide any relief based on motive. The provision of the loan is a violation regardless of motive."

The former head coach also appealed the Division III Committee on Infractions' finding of unethical conduct, based on his belief that the findings and violations stated above were invalid. Based on the affirmation of the findings of the violations, the Infractions Appeals Committee also affirmed the finding of unethical conduct.

In addition, the former head coach challenged the findings of the Committee on Infractions as to the frequency with which he provided meals to the student-athlete in his home. In his written appeal, the former coach stated that the student-athlete ate at his residence three or four times per year, not three or four times per week as noted by the Committee on Infractions. The former head coach indicated that his wife was mistaken in her assessment of the number of times the student-athlete was provided a meal in his home, and he also argued that the provision of meals was based on his personal relationship with the student-athlete and not because of the student-athlete's athletics ability.

The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that it was not within its purview to make determination of fact or to assess credibility of witnesses. And while the former head coach submitted a letter from his wife revising her estimate, the committee noted that the Committee on Infractions made a determination that the wife's first estimate of the number of meals was credible. The Infractions Appeals Committee further noted that the former head coach had not demonstrated that the findings regarding the meals were clearly contrary to the evidence.

Although the former head coach appealed the findings and not the penalty imposed against him, the Infractions Appeals Committee did review all of the findings and penalties to ensure completeness of the record.

The Division III Committee on Infractions had, as part of the penalties imposed in this case, determined that should the former head coach seek employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at any NCAA member institution during a one-year period (February 5, 2003, through February 5, 2004), he and any involved institution would be subject to the show-cause procedures of NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(k), which could limit his athletically related duties during that period.

The Infractions Appeals Committee concluded that all the penalties, including the show-cause, were appropriate under Bylaw 19.5.2, which prescribes penalties for major violations.

The members of the Division III Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the cases are: Phillip Stone, chair, Bridgewater College (Virginia); Jennifer Braaten, Ferrum College; Douglas Hastad, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse; Joyce Wong, Eastern Connecticut University; and Chad Yowell, Wheaton College (Massachusetts).

The complete reports are available at www.ncaa.org.