The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed California State University, Northridge, on probation for three years for multiple violations, including violations of bylaws concerning ethical conduct, extra benefits and academic fraud in men's basketball. The violations that formed the basis of this case were self-discovered and self-reported by the university.

Penalties imposed in the university's previous infractions case, dated June 1, 2000, were within five years of the violations in this case, subjecting the institution to enhanced penalties under the NCAA repeat-violator clause as set forth in NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3.2. The committee concluded, however, that the circumstances in this case did not warrant imposing such penalties.

The committee found that during the fall semester of the 2002-03 academic year, a former assistant men's basketball coach violated the provisions of NCAA ethical-conduct legislation and participated in academic fraud in an attempt to ensure the academic eligibility of a former student-athlete. The former assistant basketball coach knowingly arranged or attempted to arrange for a former student-athlete to be enrolled in and receive course credit in two kinesiology courses, even though the student-athlete never attended class or otherwise completed the course requirements.

The committee also found that in the process of attempting to arrange enrollment and credit in the course, the former assistant basketball coach misled the interim chair of the kinesiology department as to the reason the classes were being added so late in the semester. When the interim chair received the forms, they contained false and misleading statements in the student's justification box that was added by the student-athlete with the assistant basketball coach's knowledge. The justifications falsely indicated that the student-athlete had tried to add the classes earlier in the semester and had attended each class all semester.

The committee also found that the former assistant basketball coach contacted the instructors of the courses -- an assistant baseball coach and an assistant men's volleyball coach -- at the end of the semester to attempt to persuade them to assign grades in their courses for the student-athlete, who had never attend any of the classes. The assistant baseball coach noted that the student-athlete's name had never appeared on an official roster and that he had never attended class, and the assistant baseball coach refused to assign him a grade.

The committee also found that a former assistant men's volleyball coach, who also taught one of the kinesiology courses, violated NCAA ethical-conduct legislation when he provided the assistant basketball coach with an advance copy of the final examination from the course, along with another student's answer sheet, to compete the examination. The assistant volleyball coach also awarded an "A" in the course to the student-athlete despite the fact that the student-athlete neither attended the course nor met the course requirements.

The committee also found that during a separate incident in the fall semester of the 2002-03 academic year, the assistant basketball coach violated the NCAA provisions of ethical conduct by attempting to obtain a grade change for the same student-athlete in a psychology course to ensure the young man's eligibility for the spring semester.

Finally, the committee found that the assistant basketball coach provided false and misleading information during two interviews with the NCAA enforcement staff and the institution.

The committee concluded that there were "serious deficiencies" in the university's compliance system, but noted that those deficiencies were offset by the "due diligence of the university, and in particular, its faculty athletics representative in detecting academic fraud and promptly reporting it to the NCAA."

The committee commended the faculty athletics representative for detecting the fraud and promptly reporting it to the NCAA, thus avoiding the university gaining a competitive advantage by placing an ineligible student-athlete into competition.

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

As indicated earlier, because the violations in this case occurred within five years of the starting date for the penalties imposed in the institution's previous case, the institution was subject to enhanced penalties in accordance with NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3.2. However, the committee concluded that the circumstances did not warrant additional penalties. The committee noted that the violations in this case were distinct from those in the previous case. They involved a different sport and the violations were provoked by the "intentional acts of one assistant basketball coach" involving a single student-athlete. The committee also noted that the due diligence of the faculty athletics representative was a mitigating factor in determining not to apply repeat-violator penalties.

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 continuance of probation that will end June 1, 2007. (The institution had proposed a probationary period ending June 1, 2004, which would have been one year from the expiration date of the institution's previous probationary period.)

The grant-in-aid previously assigned to the involved student-athlete was withdrawn from the men's basketball program and was not reassigned to any other student-athlete for the 2003-04 academic year. (Self-imposed by the university.)

For the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years, the permissible number of grants-in-aid for initial and overall counters in the men's basketball program shall be reduced by one. (The university had proposed a reduction of one grant in men's basketball for only the 2004-05 academic year.)

The university declared the involved student-athlete ineligible as a result of his involvement in this case. In addition, the student-athlete's participation in this matter was referred to the institution's appropriate associate vice-president for student affairs for disciplinary review and action. Also, because of the student-athlete's involvement in this matter, the institution did not petition the NCAA to reinstate his eligibility. (Self-imposed by the university.)

The institution terminated the employment of the involved assistant men's basketball coach, effective June 30, 2003.

The institution terminated the employment of the involved assistant volleyball coach and kinesiology instructor, effective June 30, 2003.

The institution restricted the employment of the involved assistant baseball coach and kinesiology instructor to coaching only.

The institution reprimanded the head men's basketball coach for his failure to provide oversight to the assistant basketball coach in this matter.

The assistant basketball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, he is subject to a show-cause order for a 10-year period. If he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a 10-year period beginning with the date of the release of this report (March 30, 2004) and ending March 29, 2014, he and any involved institution shall be requested to appear before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures, which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

The assistant volleyball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, he is subject to a similar show-cause order that extends from March 29, 2004, through June 20, 2006 (three years from the date of his release from the university).

Because this case involved academic fraud, the NCAA president will forward this report to the appropriate regional academic accrediting agency in accordance with NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.7.

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 sets forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program and placing particular emphasis on NCAA legislation relating to monitoring programs and educational measures designed to enhance academic integrity within the institution's athletics programs. 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, Cal State Northridge 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 (March 30, 2004).

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