NCAA News Archive - 2004

« back to 2004 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Infractions case: Villanova University


Jul 19, 2004 4:48:18 PM


The NCAA News

The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed Villanova University on probation for two years for violations of bylaws governing recruiting, extra benefits and impermissible contact, primarily in the men's basketball program.

The case revolves around multiple recruiting and extra-benefit violations that occurred over a two-year period from fall 2001 to March 2003. Although the violations might have been deemed secondary if considered on an individual basis, the committee concluded that "in combination, the violations caused this case to rise to the level of 'major' in nature."

The committee disagreed with the institution's assertion that the violations were unintentional, inadvertent and provided no more than a minimal recruiting advantage -- a characterization that could have resulted in a finding that the violations were secondary in nature. Instead, the committee concluded that "this case reflected a men's basketball staff that pushed the limits with respect to certain aspects of recruiting legislation, particularly while recruiting 'blue chip' prospects. In some cases, those bounds were exceeded and recruiting violations ensued."

The committee also noted that "although these were not egregious violations in the relative sense, they were, when viewed as an aggregate, significant and represented an attempt to gain a recruiting advantage."

The committee found that during an official visit of a prospect in October 2001, members of the institution's men's basketball coaching staff arranged contact, or failed to take adequate steps to prevent contact, between representatives of the institution's athletics interests and the prospect. The committee also found that the institution publicized the prospect's visit to campus and also arranged contact between the prospect and an NBA team's head coach -- at the NBA team's practice facility -- all in violation of NCAA rules. The committee was "concerned that the institution's men's basketball staff attempted to use every available opportunity to show prospects that there is a close NBA connection to the institution." The committee noted that it "is permissible for an institution to compete in professional team venues, but it is not permissible to use professional coaches in any fashion for recruiting purposes."

The committee also found that during the same weekend in October 2001, the institution's men's basketball coaching staff was involved in:

  • Making impermissible in-person contacts with a prospective student-athlete at the home of the head coach;

  • Permitting or arranging contact between a prospect and several representatives of the institution's athletics interests at a men's basketball alumni reception;

  • Publicizing the unofficial visits of two prospective student-athletes;

  • Making impermissible recruiting contacts with prospects and parents at a local hotel, a local restaurant and an NBA practice facility;

  • Arranging impermissible local transportation for prospective student-athletes;

  • Providing and arranging entertainment for a prospective student-athlete through men's basketball student-athletes; and

  • Arranging for student-athletes to engage in impermissible recruiting contacts with prospective student-athletes.

    The committee also found that members of the men's basketball coaching staff permitted student-athletes to engage in impermissible recruiting activities, including permitting them to: participate in telephone calls placed to a prospect from the coaches' offices; send correspondence to a prospect at the institution's expense; and engage in a recruiting contact with a prospective student-athlete at the site of the prospect's summer-league game.

    The committee also found that from August 2001 through March 2003, 19 student-athletes in five sports used an institutional telephone access code to place free local and long-distance telephone calls totaling more than $5,800. The violations resulted in numerous student-athletes having to be withheld from multiple contests to reinstate their eligibility.

    The committee also found that:

  • During summer 2001, men's basketball staff members permitted or arranged contact between representatives of the institution's athletics interests and two prospects.

  • During fall 2000 through summer 2001, men's basketball coaching staff members engaged in numerous impermissible recruiting contacts with prospective student-athletes and a nonscholastic team coach.

    * The head men's basketball coach and members of the men's basketball coaching staff arranged or permitted impermissible transportation for a cousin of a prospect.

  • During summer 2001, a men's basketball assistant coach directed a prospect to shoot a basketball and then provided technical comments, all in violation of NCAA tryout legislation.

  • During fall 2001, men's basketball coaching staff members arranged for the production of a highlight video for two prospects.

    In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties, its corrective actions and the nature of the violations in this case. The penalties self-imposed by the institution are so noted.

  • Public reprimand and censure.

  • Two years of probation beginning with the announcement of the decision (July 8, 2004). (The institution had proposed a one-year period of probation.)

  • The removal of four recruiting opportunities from the men's basketball program for the period beginning November 21, 2002, and ending March 15, 2003. (Self-imposed by the university.)

  • Two letters of admonishment from the university's administration to the head coach, all other coaches involved in the violations, and the director of basketball operations.

  • The institution's compliance coordinator and the men's basketball staff are required to attend an NCAA compliance seminar in 2005. Documentation of attendance at this seminar, to include all sessions relating to recruiting, shall be included in the institution's 2005 annual compliance report.

  • 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 adherence to NCAA recruiting legislation and the monitoring of recruiting activities in the men's basketball 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, Villanova 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 (July 8, 2004).

    The members of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Gene A. Marsh, acting chair of the committee and professor of law, University of Alabama School of Law; Richard Dunn, professor of English and chair of the English department, University of Washington; Andrea L. Myers, director of athletics, Indiana State University; Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska College of Law; and Yvonne "Bonnie" Slatton, professor of physical education and sport science, University of Iowa.


    • © 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
    Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy