The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has agreed to place the University of Oregon on probation for two years for violations of bylaws governing recruiting and unethical conduct in the football program.

The case centered around the violations committed by one assistant coach regarding one prospect and a series of impermissible contacts and violations associated with the administration of a National Letter of Intent (NLI) over a two-day period in January 2003. Though the NLI is not administered by the NCAA, there are NCAA rules regarding the proper execution of the NLI.

This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative endeavor that may be used in place of a formal hearing when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and also that those facts constitute major violations. In the summary disposition process, penalties are proposed by the involved institution.

In this case, the committee reviewed the summary disposition report that was jointly submitted by the institution and the NCAA enforcement staff, accepting the findings in the report as well as the university's proposed penalties.

The committee found that the institution issued the prospect an NLI (and a letter awarding athletics aid for the 2003 spring term) that was sent via overnight mail to the prospect's home January 14, 2003. On January 15, the assistant coach traveled to the prospect's hometown in a distant state to meet with the prospect and his parents in a final attempt to recruit him. Up to that point, the prospect was seriously considering either Oregon or the University of California, Berkeley. The home visit by the coach lasted approximately 60 to 90 minutes. By 9 p.m. that night, the assistant coach was returning to his hotel about an hour away from the prospect's home.

At about 11:30 p.m., the assistant coach telephoned the prospect to inquire if the NLI had been executed. By then, the prospect was staying at a nearby hotel since he had a flight the next morning departing from that city to return to his junior college. The prospect assured the assistant coach that the NLI would be signed. Less than an hour later, at 12:20 a.m. January 16, the assistant coach again called the prospect to inquire about the status of the NLI. During this call, the prospect evaded the question and informed the assistant coach that he wanted to attend California. The assistant coach attempted to convince the prospect to go to Oregon instead, assuring him that if he changed his mind later, the assistant coach would destroy the NLI. Aware that it was then past the midnight deadline for a junior college transfer to sign an NLI, the assistant coach instructed the prospect that the NLI should reflect that it was executed prior to midnight. At the conclusion of the call, it was agreed that the assistant coach would drive over to the prospect's hotel to pick up what the assistant coach assumed was an executed NLI. When the assistant coach arrived at the prospect's hotel at 12:45 a.m. January 16, the prospect met him in the lobby, which was an additional violation of recruiting contact legislation.

When the assistant coach arrived at the prospect's hotel, he was surprised to find that the prospect had not signed the NLI. The assistant coach reminded the prospect that the document had to be dated before midnight January 15. The prospect signed the document, forged his father's signature and falsely indicated that both signatures were executed at 9:36 p.m. January 15. Once the NLI was completed, the prospect handed it to the assistant coach, who returned to his hotel and faxed it to Oregon. The time and date on the NLI indicates that it was faxed at 3:26 a.m. Eastern time January 16, 2003.

The committee found that the assistant coach had had multiple contacts with the prospect, violating NCAA legislation limiting such contact to one per week. The committee also found that the coach was present when the prospect executed his NLI to attend the university, also a violation. The committee also found that the assistant coach accepted an NLI that he knew to be invalid for two reasons: it was executed after midnight of the last permissible signing date for midyear junior college transfers in football; and the document contained the forged signature of the prospect's father. Despite direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the NLI's execution, the assistant football coach faxed the invalid document to the institution, the first step in representing the NLI as a valid document.

The committee found that the knowing and intentional nature of the assistant coach's conduct violated NCAA ethical standards, and for that reason the case was considered "major." However, the committee also noted that the assistant coach was in his 19th year at the institution and had never been involved in even a secondary infraction prior to this case. It was the committee's conclusion that this violation, though serious, appeared to be an uncharacteristic one-time lapse in judgment of a well-established assistant coach. The committee also noted that institutional personnel noticed that there was a problem with the NLI the day after it was faxed to the university.

The institution, the NCAA enforcement staff and the assistant football coach agreed with the committee's findings and that the facts constituted a violation of NCAA legislation. As noted earlier, the case was resolved through the summary disposition process. The committee accepted the university's proposed penalties and corrective actions and decided not to impose any additional sanctions. The penalties proposed by the university and adopted by the Division I Committee on Infractions are:

Public reprimand and censure.

Two years of probation beginning May 4, 2004, the committee's date of consideration of the case.

The assistant football coach was suspended without pay for one week during the 2003-04 academic year. He also was placed on probation for one year at the institution and had a letter of reprimand included in his personnel file.

The university did not allow the assistant football coach involved in this case to engage in any off-campus recruiting activities until January 2004. Additionally, he was permitted to engage in off-campus recruiting only one of the three permissible contact weeks in January 2004.

The university restricted the number of coaches allowed off campus during the 2003-04 recruiting cycle in football. Typically seven coaches are allowed to engage in off-campus recruiting during a contact period. The institution withheld one of the seven off-campus recruiting coaches during two of the permissible contact weeks.

The university terminated the recruitment of the prospective student-athlete involved in this case.

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 monitoring of recruitment by the football program and adherence to the rules and regulations of the National Letter of Intent program. 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, the University of Oregon 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, May 4, 2004.

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