The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed Chicago State University on probation for two years for violations in the women's basketball program involving out-of-season practice activities, practice-time limitations, recruiting violations and ethical conduct. The committee also placed the former head coach under a show-cause order until July 2009.

This was the university's first major infractions case.

The committee found that members of the women's basketball coaching staff arranged mandatory individual skill-instruction workouts and impermissible pick-up games during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years. During the 2002-03 academic year, the team exceeded the time limits for athletically related activities and the head coach encouraged, permitted and, on occasion, directed student-athletes to miss class time for practice activities. The committee found specifically that:

During the 2001-02 and 2002-03 preseasons, the head coach arranged individual mandatory skill-instruction workouts for the members of the women's basketball team. The student-athletes did not initiate or request the individual skill instruction as required by NCAA legislation.

During the preseason period of the 2002-03 academic year, the head coach organized pick-up games and received accounts of the student-athletes' attendance and performance through the team's three captains.

* During the 2002-03 basketball season, the women's basketball coaches conducted practices that exceeded the daily and weekly time limits for athletically related activities.

During the 2002-03 academic year, the head coach encouraged or permitted several student-athletes to miss class time for practice activities.

The committee also found that during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 academic years, members of the women's basketball coaching staff directed student-athletes to place impermissible telephone calls to prospective student-athletes, publicized a prospect's visit to the institution, provided an inducement to a prospective student-athlete and engaged in impermissible contact with a prospective student-athlete. The committee also found that the head coach directed a student-athlete and two assistant coaches to deliver and retrieve a National Letter of Intent to a prospective student-athlete.

The committee concluded that these recruiting violations were major in nature because the violations were not isolated but rather committed over the course of two academic years; the violations were not inadvertent as the head coach knew or should have known the telephone calls, inducement and delivery and retrieval of a National Letter of Intent were contrary to NCAA legislation; and the violations provided more than a minimal recruiting advantage. The committee noted that when all the recruiting violations were viewed together, "the head coach's disregard for NCAA legislation created a pattern of recruiting violations, which resulted in a major violation."

The committee also found that through the 2001-02 to 2002-03 academic years, the head coach failed to deport herself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics because of her involvement in the violations.

The committee determined that the head coach violated the principles of ethical conduct by her "deliberate failure" to adhere to the show-cause restrictions on her athletics duties as previously imposed by the committee in its 2002 report concerning violations at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. At that time, the committee ordered the head coach to refrain from engaging in any coaching activity during the first seven days of practice of the 2002-03 season. It was noted that the head coach did not comply with that order, but instead observed the practices, received accounts of the practices, attended one practice and stayed in the athletics building during other practices -- all actions contrary to the committee's instructions.

Secondary violations of bylaws involving permissible recruitment activities for enrolled student-athletes, enrollment requirements for student-athletes participating in practice and squad list requirements also were found.

As the committee sought to apply penalties in this case, it took into account many different factors. The committee noted that the head coach was under a show-cause order resulting from violations of NCAA legislation at the institution where she was previously employed. Because some of the violations in this case were similar to those in which the head coach was involved at the previous institution, the committee considered making a finding of a lack of institutional control. After a thorough review of all the evidence and taking into consideration the university's presentation at the hearing, the committee decided against making such a finding, noting that "any system designed to provide institutional control, no matter how well-conceived, organized and implemented, can be under-
mined for a period of time by an individual determined to violate NCAA rules."

The committee also considered several mitigating factors in its determination of penalties, including the university's cooperation in the investigation and its self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. It was noted that none of the coaches involved in the violations remain employed by the university and that the university had made significant strides in rules education and in its commitment to compliance. As a result of these mitigating factors, the committee did not impose all of the presumptive penalties for major violations. However, given the nature, scope and seriousness of the violations, particularly as they related to student-athlete welfare issues, the committee concluded that additional penalties were warranted.

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.

Two years of probation beginning December 18, 2003.

The number of official visits in the women's basketball program shall be limited to no more than eight for the 2003-04 academic year, and no more than nine for the 2004-05 academic year. (This penalty was self-imposed by the university.)

At the beginning of the current academic year (2003-04), the institution's women's basketball team delayed the start of preseason basketball practice by seven days. (This penalty was self-imposed by the university.)

The number of evaluation days in the women's basketball program was reduced from 40 to 38 for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 academic years. (This penalty was self-imposed by the university.)

The head coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that due to her involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if she seeks employment of affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution, she and the involved institution must appear before the Division I Committee on Infractions to show cause as to why her duties should not be limited. This show-cause period begins December 18, 2003, and ends July 1, 2009. (This period represents an extension of five years beyond the expiration date of the coach's previous show-cause provision.)

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 out-of-season practice, student-athlete welfare, and monitoring of athletics programs, particularly as it relates to playing and practice seasons. 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, Chicago State is 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, 2003).

The members of the Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa; Andrea Myers, director of athletics, Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky; and Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.