The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed Auburn University on probation for two years for multiple violations of NCAA recruiting legislation in men's basketball.

This case revolved around activities conducted by the university's men's basketball staff with basketball club teams and individuals associated with amateur teams composed of high-school-aged prospective student-athletes.

The committee found that the evidence in this case demonstrated that the university's men's basketball staff became involved with two amateur teams and two individuals associated with the teams -- a businessman who provided financial support (the "team sponsor") and a self-described "sports agent" who had befriended a member of one of the teams.

The committee found that from January 2000 through August 2001, in an effort to recruit a prospect, members of the Auburn men's basketball staff made a deliberate effort to develop a close relationship with the team sponsor of the prospect's amateur team and the sports agent who had befriended the prospect. The committee found that in the course of these relationships and attempts to recruit prospects, the team sponsor became a representative of the university's athletics interests. Specifically:

A former assistant coach and the sports agent traveled to the institution's campus to attend a home basketball game at the team sponsor's expense. The tickets were booked for the sports agent and the prospect by the wife of the former assistant coach, an employee of a local travel agency, and then charged to the team sponsor's credit card. In conjunction with the visit, the former assistant coach provided round-trip automobile transportation between the airport and the institution's campus. Also, the committee noted evidence reflecting that the hotel reservation was made by someone associated with the men's basketball program who had direct knowledge that the team sponsor would pay for the room.

Between March 5, 2001, and July 18, 2001, the team sponsor wired money or arranged for money to be wired to the sports agent on six occasions with the intention that the money be delivered to the prospect or used on his behalf. The wire transfers ranged in amounts from $200 to $2,000 and totaled $3,125.

On July 2, 2001, the team sponsor purchased electronics equipment valued at $643.97 for the prospect. The team sponsor also paid to have the equipment installed in the prospect's vehicle at an additional cost of $50.

During the spring and summer of 2001, the team sponsor provided air travel, meals and lodging expenses for the sports agent so he could accompany the prospect to tournaments in Nevada and North Carolina while the prospect was competing as a member of an amateur team.

The committee noted that telephone records reflected frequent contact by the university's men's basketball staff with the team sponsor. The records also showed patterns of contact by the former assistant coach with both the team sponsor and the sports agent in the weeks leading up to the weekend trip. In the committee's view, "these records were evidence that the team sponsor was operating as a representative of the university's athletics interests."

The committee also found that beginning in the summer of 1999 through August 2001, in an effort to recruit another prospect, the team sponsor made improper recruiting contacts, offers and inducements to the prospect and his mother. Also, the team sponsor's inducements resulted in the young man receiving three expense-paid visits to the institution's campus. Specifically:

Beginning in the summer of 1999 and continuing through the summer of 2001 and while the prospect played for the team sponsor's two amateur teams, the team sponsor encouraged the prospect to attend the university to play basketball.

In the summer of 1999, the team sponsor drove the prospect to the university, where he met the men's basketball coaching staff for the first time. Afterward, a men's basketball assistant coach attended the amateur team's practices and, on at least one occasion, told the prospect that the institution was interested in him.

In September 1999, the team sponsor provided round-trip automobile transportation between Huntsville and the university's campus (240 miles one way) and one night's lodging at the University Hotel in order for the prospect and his mother to attend a university football contest.

* In the fall of 1999 and after the prospect had turned 16, his mother asked the team sponsor to help her find an inexpensive car she could buy for her son. The team sponsor referred her to a friend at a local car dealership. The mother selected a car that cost $6,324.65. The team sponsor subsequently told her he had taken care of everything and she should pick up the vehicle. In December 1999, the mother returned to the dealership, signed papers and took possession of the car at no cost to her. The team sponsor later told her he had paid for the vehicle.

On the weekend of January 5-6, 2001, the team sponsor provided round-trip automobile transportation between Huntsville and the university's campus, one night's lodging and meal expenses to the prospect and his mother to attend a men's basketball contest.

* During part of the summer of 2001, the team sponsor supplied $65 in cash per week to the prospect for spending money. On one occasion, the team sponsor gave $300 to the prospect's mother to purchase school clothes for the prospect.

The committee noted that on the trips set up by the team sponsor, the prospect met the men's basketball coaches and toured the coaches' offices. Also, the prospect's mother stated that each time the group stayed in the University Hotel on campus, where reservations were initially made in the name of the men's basketball department, she and her son interacted with the men's basketball coaches.

The committee noted that the close relationship between the university's men's basketball coaches and the team sponsor was reflected on the University Hotel registration cards as well as, in at least one instance, by the institutional phone records of the men's basketball staff.

The committee found that because the team sponsor was a representative of the university's athletics interests, his involvement in facilitating and financing trips to the university for the prospect and his mother violated NCAA recruiting legislation. The committee also concluded from the evidence that the men's basketball staff facilitated and coordinated these trips with the team sponsor.

The committee also found that since the team sponsor's actions in the provision of cash for the prospect and his mother could not be exclusively linked to his recruitment by the institution, the university's culpability was reduced.

In determining appropriate penalties, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions.

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 so noted.

Public reprimand and censure.

A two-year period of probation beginning April 27, 2004, and ending April 26, 2006.

A reduction of total grants-in-aid in men's basketball by one (from 13 to 12) for both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years. (The university had proposed a reduction of one initial grant-in-aid and one total grant-in-aid for only the 2004-5 academic year.)

A reduction in the number of official paid visits in men's basketball from 12 to nine for the 2003-04 academic year and from 12 to nine in the 2004-05 academic year (self-imposed by the university).

A reduction in the number of off-campus evaluations from 40 to 35 for both the 2003-04 and 2004-05 academic years. The number of coaches allowed to recruit off-campus was reduced from three to two for the July 2004 evaluation period (self-imposed by the university).

During the probation period (April 27, 2004, to April 26, 2006), the men's basketball staff shall cease recruiting prospective student-athletes (through the amateur team program) who play for the team sponsor named in the report. This penalty permits the recruitment of prospects directly and through their families and high-school coaches. But it prohibits any contact or involvement by the men's basketball coaching staff with the team sponsor as it relates to recruitment of players on his teams. During this period, any contact with the team sponsor regarding prospective student-athletes other than incidental and/or unavoidable contact is prohibited. (The university had proposed that this prohibition end December 15, 2005.)

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. The university also is required to submit to the director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions a preliminary report that establishes a schedule for creating this compliance and educational program. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program and placing particular emphasis on adhering to NCAA recruiting legislation, particularly the recruitment of prospects competing on amateur teams. The report also must include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties imposed and adopted by the committee. 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, Auburn 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 (April 27, 2004).

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Paul T. Dee, athletics director at the University of Miami (Florida); Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Andrea L. Myers, athletics director at Indiana State University; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Eugene D. Smith, athletics director at Arizona State University.