The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Missouri, Columbia, on probation for three years and imposed limits on recruiting, scholarships and official visits for violations in the men's basketball program.

The case involved numerous recruiting violations, impermissible extra benefits and a charge of failure by the institution and the head men's basketball coach to adequately monitor the men's basketball program for rules compliance.

The university stressed that the majority of violations were isolated or inadvertent, a claim the committee rejected. The committee pointed out that the university already had an experienced and knowledgeable compliance staff in place when the head coach and his new staff began working at the institution in April 1999.

"The men's basketball staff had the benefit of extensive rules education and proper compliance procedures," the committee said. "Nevertheless, the men's basketball staff took risks and pushed the limits with respect to recruiting legislation, particularly while recruiting top prospects. In too many cases, the limits on permissible recruiting activity were exceeded.

"Viewed individually, the violations were not egregious, but when viewed in the aggregate, the violations were significant and represented an attempt to gain unfair recruiting advantages."

The committee made particular mention of how the Missouri men's basketball staff "took risks" in recruiting a certain young man at the center of this case. The young man, who was referenced in the infractions report as "the two-year college prospect," was recruited from a junior college and had a "troubled past," the committee said. While attending Missouri, the young man was arrested and convicted of battering his friend. After being removed from the team, he made several "highly-publicized" allegations of NCAA rules violations against the university's men's basketball staff, according to the committee.

The University of Missouri System president referenced the risk involved in recruiting this particular student-athlete at the infractions hearing in August, the committee noted in its report. Specifically, the president said: "There is no doubt that considerable risk was taken in the recruitment of (the two-year college prospect). It was a risk that was not worth taking and will not be taken again."

In its public report, the committee outlined its findings in this case, including several recruiting violations from the 1999-00 to 2002-03 academic years. The committee also found that the former associate head coach violated NCAA principles of honesty when he did not provide complete information on expense vouchers regarding the affiliation of many individuals.

The former associate head coach was found to have purchased meals for 10 individuals affiliated with Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) and other non-scholastic basketball teams on about 38 occasions from 1999 to 2002. Those individuals were involved in teaching or directing Missouri prospects on these teams. Total cost of those meals for those individuals and the former associate head coach was $5,241.15.

The committee noted that if the individuals had been correctly identified on the expense vouchers, "the compliance staff would have immediately recognized that there was a violation and the practice could have been stopped." The committee also noted that "although the case is very close," the evidence did not support a finding of unethical conduct against the former associate head coach.

Recruiting violations by the former associate head coach involved providing transportation for two prospects and their coach to visit campus in June 2001; impermissible contact with a recruit's father at the AAU Super Showcase in Orlando, Florida, in July 2002; impermissible contact with a prospect in summer 1999 after an AAU event; and impermissible contact with two prospective student-athletes after he attended one of their practices and was introduced to them by their head coach.

Other violations in this case involved multiple impermissible telephone contacts by the men's basketball staff from 1999 to 2003. Those contacts involved calls to a prospect attending another four-year institution by the head coach, a former assistant coach ("former assistant coach A") and the director of basketball operations, even though they had not received permission from the institution to contact the recruit. Calls also were made to six other prospects by the men's basketball staff, including the former associate head coach. The university asserted that the violations were inadvertent mistakes caused by lack of communication. The committee disagreed, saying the calls "were part of a pattern of recruiting violations."

The committee mentioned in its public report that numerous violations of NCAA recruiting legislation took place at Missouri specifically during the recruitment of the two-year college prospect.

Former assistant coach A visited the prospect at the College of Southern Idaho and attended one of his practices during 2000-01, even though the visit was not allowable because the recruit was an NCAA nonqualifier and in his first year at the two-year institution. Former assistant coach A also called the prospect more than once between January and April 2002, and he arranged for the prospect to stay with a men's basketball student-athlete at no cost for about two weeks in Columbia, Missouri. The head coach also violated NCAA guidelines by visiting with the two-year college prospect after a College of Southern Idaho game in St. George, Utah, in February 2002.

Other violations of NCAA bylaws in the Missouri case involved men's basketball and institutional staff members providing impermissible extra benefits to the two-year college prospect after he enrolled at the university. Specifically:

• In fall 2002, the head coach gave the two-year college prospect a pair of Oakley cross-training shoes, a pair of Oakley flip flops and two pairs of Oakley pants. In February 2003, the head coach's wife gave the prospect a belated Christmas gift including a Nike winter coat and Nike book bag. Total value of the items was about $485. In addition, in the 2002-03 academic year and with the head coach's approval, the head coach's wife provided the two-year college prospect food items in their home on various occasions, in violation of the occasional-meal legislation.

• After the two-year college prospect was arrested for battery, the director of basketball operations facilitated the payment of the prospect's $1,000 bail bond by collecting money from men's basketball student-athletes and delivering it to the bail bondsman.

• In July 2003, former assistant coach A let the close friend of the two-year college prospect stay at his home overnight at no charge while the friend was in Columbia, Missouri, to visit the prospect in the Boone County Jail. The former assistant coach provided transportation for the friend between his home, the Hearnes Center and the Boone County Jail. The men's basketball manager, meanwhile, provided the friend transportation between the St. Louis International Airport and Columbia

• In 2002-03, an athletics department tutor/mentor provided the two-year prospect transportation in excess of the local transportation legislation, which involved about 20 trips between Reality House and campus while the prospect was serving probation.

• Multiple men's basketball student-athletes, including the two-year college prospect, received meals at restaurants as part of a prospective student-athlete's official paid visit, even though the student-athletes were not the designated host.

• An allegation that the former associate head coach provided $250 to the two-year college prospect in fall 2002 was not found by the committee after a review of the evidence.

The committee determined that the university "demonstrated a failure to adequately monitor" for NCAA rules compliance in the men's basketball program when the head coach "failed at times" to maintain rules compliance among his staff. Specifically, the head coach failed to adequately monitor for impermissible telephone calls, impermissible contacts with recruits, meals for student-athletes during official visits and improper lodging arrangements for a prospective student-athlete.

In its public report, the committee noted the head coach's comments during the infractions hearing about his responsibilities to monitor his program: "... And I was not as hands-on as I think I need to be. I also think, and I don't offer these as excuses, but by way of explanation, I think that is what the question was, do I think it is an aspect of my job that, one, I don't know if I realized how big it was. I think I realized it was important. I didn't realize the magnitude and the level of attention to detail and the emphasis that I needed to place on it as a head coach, to assure that everything is getting tied down, and that there isn't a disconnect."

The committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions and has imposed the following penalties:

• Missouri shall be publicly reprimanded and censored.

• The university is placed on probation for three years starting November 3, 2004, and ending November 2, 2007, (the university placed the men's basketball program on a two-year probation that began July 1, 2004).

• All men's basketball coaching staff members are prohibited from engaging in any off-campus recruiting activities for one year starting November 3, 2004, and ending November 2, 2005. That prohibition applies to all off-campus appearances where prospects may be in attendance, including exceptions provided in NCAA Bylaw 13.1.9. (The university prohibited the head coach from off-campus recruiting for seven days during the July 2004 evaluation.)

• The university reduced the number of available scholarships in men's basketball from 13 to 12 for 2005-06 and further stipulated that no more than two initial scholarships could be awarded for that academic year. Additional penalties imposed by the committee include reducing scholarships from 13 to 11 for 2006-07. The university may decide to reduce the number of scholarships by two in 2005-06 rather than 2006-07, which would allow it to reduce scholarships by one (from 13 to 12) in 2006-07.

• The university must reduce the number of official expense-paid visits in men's basketball from 12 to nine for 2004-05 and 12 to nine in 2005-06. The university has the option of delaying this penalty by one year and imposing the reductions in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

• The university issued two letters of admonition, a letter of reprimand and a public letter of reprimand to the head coach for his involvement in this case. The university has also stated that the head coach's employment contract will not be renegotiated, amended or extended during a two-year period that began July 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2006. The head coach's base salary has been frozen for that two-year period. The head coach was restricted from all recruiting for a three-week period in February and March 2003, and he was restricted from off-campus recruiting for seven consecutive days from July 16-26, 2004. In addition, the head coach made a formal, public apology May 11, 2004.

• The university issued a letter of admonishment to the former associate head coach July 2, 2003, and he was placed on paid administrative leave as of May 11, 2004. He resigned effective June 25, 2004.

• The university issued two letters of admonishment to former assistant coach A in March and July 2003. He was placed on paid administrative leave as of May 11, 2004, and resigned effective May 26, 2004.

• The university issued a letter of admonishment to the director of basketball operations on July 2, 2003, and a letter of reprimand August 2, 2004.

• The university issued a letter of admonishment to a financial aid compliance coordinator March 4, 2004.

During the period of probation, the university shall do the following:

• Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition.

• Submit a preliminary report to the office of the NCAA Committee on Infractions by January 15, 2005, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and

• File with the office of the Committee on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating progress made with this program by August 15, of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on adherence to NCAA recruiting legislation, particularly recruiting contacts, as well as legislation relating to extra benefits. The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.

• At the end of the probationary period, the university's chancellor shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all NCAA regulations.

As required for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Missouri is subject to the repeat-violator bylaw for a five-year period beginning November 3, 2004, the effective date of the penalties in this case.

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