The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed the University of Illinois, Champaign, on one year of probation for impermissible inducements and extra benefits provided to a football prospect who later became a student-athlete at the university.

The case involved a booster who provided inducements and extra benefits to a student-athlete. The inducements and extra benefits began while the student-athlete was a prospect and continued after he began football practice and enrolled at the institution. The inducements and extra benefits consisted of impermissible lodging and transportation, impermissible use of a vehicle and pay for work not performed. The violations occurred between April 2003 and January 2004.

The Committee on Infractions determined that the case involved major violations of NCAA legislation and that the booster, who was a former Division I football student-athlete and therefore should have had some knowledge about impermissible benefits, misled the university.

When he was questioned by the institution's compliance officer, the booster denied being involved in providing any benefits to the young man. The committee also learned that the student-athlete provided false information regarding details of the case when he claimed that he had brought the vehicle from home and that it had been purchased by his parents. The committee found that the university gained a substantial advantage as a result of the improper recruitment and extra benefits provided to the student-athlete, which totaled $2,348 during a nine-month period.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the university's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, and recognized the institution's prompt and thorough investigation of the matter. The university also was commended for its cooperation with the NCAA enforcement staff.

Specifically, the Committee on Infractions found that the booster provided the prospect/student-athlete with free lodging at his home on two occasions and transportation during a visit to Champaign in April 2003. In July 2003, the booster provided the prospect with a job at his company and a vehicle to drive while employed. The committee learned that during the summer of 2003, the prospect was paid for work he did not perform. After the termination of the prospect's employment and the beginning of practices in August 2003, the student-athlete continued to drive the vehicle owned by the booster's company until January 2004.

In rendering its decision, the committee determined that the booster was a contributor to the university's athletics programs both monetarily and "in kind," and was known to individuals within the athletics department. The committee determined that the violations were not inadvertent and that similar benefits, such as the use of the automobile, were not provided to similarly situated employees at the company.

The booster also provided false and misleading information to university officials regarding the use of the vehicle. When interviewed by the institution's compliance officer, he denied providing a vehicle to the student-athlete. The university provided proof that it had sent letters to the booster specifically stating that providing a vehicle to a student-athlete is impermissible, yet the booster allowed the student-athlete to continue using the vehicle. The student-athlete indicated on an institutional form that he was the registered owner of the vehicle and that his mother had purchased the vehicle. That information was not true.

The university has disassociated the booster from any involvement with the school for a period of at least three years (until June 2007) and has required the booster to petition the university for reinstatement should he decide to participate as a supporter of the university's athletics program in the future. The university also notified the booster of additional penalties with regard to his future involvement with its department of intercollegiate athletics.

During its period of probation, the university shall develop and implement a comprehensive system to track incoming student-athletes and how their pre-enrollment expenses are paid; submit a preliminary report to the office of the NCAA Committees on Infractions by December 30, 2005, setting forth a schedule for establishing the system; and file with the office of the Committees on Infractions a report indicating the progress made with the program by September 15, 2006. The reports also must 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 president shall recertify in a letter to the committee that all of the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

Illinois shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on October 27, 2005.

The university has the option to submit an appeal on this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee.

The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions is chaired by Gene A. Marsh, professor of law at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. The other members of the committee who heard the case were Paul T. Dee, director of athletics at the University of Miami (Florida); Alfred J. Lechner Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Edward (Ted) Leland, director of athletics at Stanford University; James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky; Josephine R. Potuto, law professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln; and Thomas E. Yeager, commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Conference.