The NCAA Division III Infractions Appeals Committee has vacated two findings of violation and a show-cause penalty against a former head men’s tennis coach at MacMurray College.

Four other appealed findings of violation, including a finding of unethical conduct based on the former head coach’s involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit and improper financial aid, were affirmed.

The MacMurray case involved the awarding of impermissible financial aid to a number of tennis student-athletes during the 2000-01 through 2003-04 academic years. The recipients were selected by the former head coach and the funds were provided through a scholarship account established and funded by the coach’s father.

On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Infractions issued its report on the case, which stated that the former head tennis coach arranged for 10 student-athletes to receive $120,922.70 in impermissible grants-in-aid and $41,105.16 in impermissible financial aid between the 2000-01 and 2003-04 academic years.

The former head coach appealed those finding, but the committee affirmed both.

The former head coach also appealed three findings of violation related to NCAA extra-benefits legislation. Two were vacated on appeal and one was affirmed. Specifically, the committee vacated findings that transporting a student-athlete from the Chicago airport to campus in the fall of 2002 and allowing a student-athlete to reside in his home at no cost in December 2002 constituted extra benefits. The committee indicated that a key component of the extra-benefit legislation is whether the benefit is available to the general student body or a particular segment of the student body.

As to providing transportation, the committee determined that there were insufficient facts to conclude that a violation had occurred because the record did not contain information regarding whether such transportation was available to the general student body. Additionally, the record reflected that the students and the student-athlete received the same benefit in that five students and one student-athlete were provided housing. Therefore, the committee concluded that, in considering all the relevant facts, the provision of the housing would not be considered an extra benefit.

The committee affirmed a finding that an extra benefit was provided when on three occasions the former head coach lent money to student-athletes to assist with their purchase of textbooks, even though the student-athletes repaid the loan.

The former head coach appealed a general finding by the Committee on Infractions that he engaged in unethical conduct for knowingly violating NCAA bylaws by offering or providing improper inducements, extra benefits and financial aid to prospects and student-athletes. Although some of the violations were vacated on appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee affirmed the unethical-conduct finding.

Lastly, the former head coach appealed the four-year show-cause penalty imposed by the Committee on Infractions. If the coach were to seek athletically related employment with another NCAA institution, the show-cause penalty would have required him and the hiring institution to appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine whether his duties should be limited. The former head coach appealed the penalty as “excessive and inappropriate in light of his motive and intent.”

The Infractions Appeals Committee vacated that penalty, finding it excessive and inappropriate based on the totality of circumstances surrounding the violations. The committee stated:

“Although we recognize that the coach was the individual that selected the recipients of the scholarship that was funded by his father, the scholarships were distributed through institutional channels. Knowingly or unknowingly, these scholarships were enabled by other offices and officers at the institution. Clearly, other individuals at the institution such as the director of athletics, director of financial aid, assistant director of financial aid and director of finance, were involved with establishing the scholarship for the student-athletes. As such, these individuals should also bear a significant portion of the culpability for these violations.”

The Division III Infractions Appeals Committee members who heard this case were committee Chair Richard L. Torgerson, president of Luther College; Timothy W. Gleason, commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference; Douglas Hastad, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse; Joyce Wong, director of athletics at Eastern Connecticut State University; and John (Chad) Yowell, executive director of athletics at Wheaton College (Massachusetts).