The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Georgia on probation for four years for violations of NCAA bylaws regarding recruiting inducements, unethical conduct, academic fraud and extra benefits in the men's basketball program.

The case centered on the actions of a former assistant men's basketball coach who was the son of the former head men's basketball coach.

The committee found that on July 3, 2001, the assistant coach sent a wire transfer of $300 to a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, residence where a prospective student-athlete was staying with a high-school friend and his mother. The committee found that the $300 was intended for payment of expenses incurred by the prospective student-athlete. On July 28, the prospective student-athlete made an official paid visit to Georgia that was arranged by the assistant coach. Forty-four days after the money was provided, the student-athlete enrolled at the university.

The committee concluded that "the assistant coach provided the $300 and did so at a time when he knew that the university was recruiting the prospective student-athlete and that the money was provided for the purpose of facilitating the recruitment." The committee found each of the several explanations of the assistant coach not credible and also considered the explanations inconsistent.

In a separate matter, the committee found that the assistant coach violated NCAA principles of ethical conduct during fall 2001 in his conduct regarding a basketball coaching class he taught through Georgia's physical education and sport studies department.

The committee found that the assistant coach conducted the class in such a manner that the grades of "A" he awarded to three men's basketball student-athletes constituted academic fraud; that he encouraged two of the student-athletes enrolled in the class to provide misleading information to institutional and NCAA investigators about the administration of the course and the grading policy; and that he provided an extra benefit to the three student-athletes by the manner in which he administered the course.

In finding that the assistant coach committed unethical conduct as reflected in the academic fraud, the committee noted that the assistant coach provided "several different and irreconcilable statements" regarding the course requirements, grading policy and even the circumstances of his teaching the class. There were 39 students enrolled in the class, all of whom were ultimately awarded a grade of "A." One student-athlete likely never attended the class, while the two others attended only a few. The three men's basketball student-athletes in the class took no final exam, which the department chair required the coach to administer.

The committee noted that there was complete disagreement between the university and the assistant coach regarding what he had been told about course requirements, including the requirement to give a final examination.

The committee also noted that the assistant coach himself missed numerous classes, and that the physical education department chair believed that the substitute the assistant coach provided for the class was a graduate student, when in actuality the substitute was not a graduate student, but the administrative assistant for the men's basketball team.

The committee found that the administration of the basketball coaching class resulted in an impermissible extra benefit for the men's basketball student-athletes because those students were not required to do any work for the class. They were the only students in the class to receive course credit and grades of "A" based on activities (games and practices) already required of them as members of the men's basketball team, and they neither attended class regularly nor took the final examination. The committee noted that the student-athletes already received one hour of credit for varsity basketball participation.

The committee also found that the assistant coach engaged in unethical conduct by encouraging two of the student-athletes to provide misleading information in interviews with the university and the NCAA. The committee found that the assistant coach spoke with the student-athletes by cell phone shortly after he had been interviewed and shortly before they were to be interviewed, describing to them a 425-point grading system that neither student-athlete had heard of previously. The committee also noted that this system did not appear on the course syllabus distributed by the assistant coach at the beginning of the semester.

In concluding that the assistant coach had committed both academic fraud and unethical conduct, the committee noted:

"While the varying and conflicting explanations proffered by the assistant coach lead to several versions of the course requirements for the class, the committee concluded that there was academic fraud no matter how described. If he is taken at his last word, then his description is academic fraud in that he described a sham course with no attendance requirements, no examinations, no information to students of his (425-point) grading policy, no reliable way to assess performance for purposes of awarding grades and no base of information from which to assure that all students were treated equally."

In a separate matter, the committee found that in November and December 2001, the university permitted six men's basketball student-athletes to receive extra benefits by not requiring them to pay for long-distance telephone charges incurred while the team was competing away from home. The extra benefits totaled $1,572.66, and they were not reported to the NCAA until July 2003. Consequently, all six student-athletes competed while ineligible during a portion of the 2001-02 academic year and during the entire 2002-03 academic year.

The committee noted that it was concerned by the "failure of university staff to follow long-standing, well-understood, and routine NCAA processes by reporting the violations, declaring the involved student-athletes ineligible and seeking their reinstatement." The committee also noted that had the violations been self-reported when they became known to the associate athletic trainer and the head coach, the student-athletes would have been withheld from competition during the 2001-02 season. The committee also noted that the "competitive advantage gained from not reporting was significant" since the six student-athletes were top performers.

In conclusion, the committee considered this case to be of "particular concern" as it involved coach misconduct in the context of teaching an academic course. The committee also noted that it was troubled by "the number and range of instances of unethical conduct in which the assistant coach engaged." In this regard, the committee could recall "few, if any, instances in which three separate and substantively different findings of unethical conduct were made against one individual."

Because the violations found in this case occurred within five years of the starting date of penalties associated with the 1997 Georgia football infractions case, the institution is a repeat violator and subject to repeat-violator penalties.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee acknowledged that the university cooperated fully with the enforcement staff and undertook a thorough and efficient investigation once the violations were reported by ESPN. The committee also noted that the university's most recent infractions case did not involve the men's basketball program.

The committee also considered the institution's self-imposed penalties, its corrective actions and the nature of the violations in this case. The committee determined that the case clearly warranted the imposition of a one-year postseason ban, and credited the university for that penalty because of its action in removing the team, highly ranked at the time, from postseason competition at the end of the 2002-03 season. The penalties self-imposed by the institution are so noted.