National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Infractions case - Temple University
The NCAA News
|
The NCAA News
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has penalized Temple University for major and secondary violations in the university’s athletics program. The case involved allegations of fraud in the men’s tennis program, erroneous student-athlete eligibility certifications, impermissible student-athlete textbook purchases, unethical conduct and the university’s failure to monitor certain aspects of its athletics program.
Penalties for the violations included a seven-year show-cause order for the former head men’s tennis coach. That means should the coach seek athletically related employment with another NCAA institution, the coach and the hiring institution must appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine whether his duties should be limited.
In addition, the university was placed on two years of probation and must vacate men’s tennis records, among other sanctions.
During the 2004-05 academic year, the former head coach knowingly and fraudulently permitted a student-athlete to practice, represent the university in intercollegiate men’s tennis competition and receive travel expenses during a time when the student-athlete was ineligible. Further, during the 2005 spring tennis season, the former head coach directed the student-athlete to compete under the name of another student-athlete who was eligible for competition but had left the team and was no longer competing.
The committee stated in its report that it was “struck by the lengths the former head coach went to conceal the fact that he was allowing an ineligible student-athlete to compete fraudulently.”
The committee listed a number of instances in which the former head coach took steps to conceal the scheme. Those included instructing the student-athlete to remain at his dorm before the team’s departure for a championship as he did not want the student-athlete to have to identify himself as the other student-athlete to the associate director of athletics, who was present to wish the team good luck. Further, the former head coach either “mumbled” the names of the student-athlete during formal pre-match introductions or requested opponents to skip formal introductions altogether. In addition, the former head coach used the assumed name when discussing the student-athlete’s progress in a match with the sports information director and engaged in other misleading activities, which are detailed in the public report.
“It also was disturbing to the committee that the former coach enlisted the involvement of a student-athlete in this scheme,” the report states. “This type of conduct by a coach is deplorable and runs counter to the very principles of fair play, honesty and sportsmanship for which the NCAA stands.”
The committee found the former head coach and the involved student-athlete violated NCAA ethical-conduct guidelines by willfully collaborating in the scheme to allow the student-athlete to participate under an assumed name while ineligible.
The second set of allegations for the university athletics department involved impermissible financial aid. The university admitted that between 2004 and 2006, 36 student-athletes were allowed to purchase textbooks not required for courses in which they were enrolled. The student-athletes reported a variety of explanations, including that they purchased the books for their own academic interests, for girlfriends or simply for sale to other students for cash.
The committee agreed with the university’s assessment that this type of abuse demonstrates the institution failed to monitor its intercollegiate athletics program. The committee found the school failed to establish an effective system for providing athletically related financial aid for books and an accountable system for monitoring the book awards.
There also was an allegation that the institution failed to monitor the actions of the former head coach to ensure the student-athlete did not practice or represent the institution in intercollegiate men’s tennis competition while he was ineligible. However, the committee considered the extreme measures the coach took to cover his tracks and that his prior professional and behavioral history gave no indication he would have become involved in such a scheme. These and other factors led the committee not to make a failure to monitor finding in that instance.
The committee also found three unrelated secondary violations, which are outlined in the public report.
In determining the penalties, the committee considered the university’s self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, as well as the university’s effort to conduct a complete and comprehensive review of the issues discovered during the course of the investigation. However, the committee expressed concern that some of the violations occurred over several years and involved several sports. The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee, are as follows:
Public reprimand and censure.
Two years of probation (May 10, 2007, to May 9, 2009).
The men’s tennis team shall end the 2007-08 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season match and not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition after that season. Moreover, during the 2007-08 academic year, the men’s tennis team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limitation in the number of tennis contests that are provided by Bylaw 17.26.5.3 and 17.26.5.5, as well as any other exceptions to the maximum number of contest limitations.
A vacation of all men’s tennis contests in which the ineligible student-athlete competed during the 2004-05 season, including both singles and doubles competitions. The individual records of the student-athlete must be vacated, as well. The institution’s records regarding men’s tennis and the record of the former head coach shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records in all publications for the affected seasons, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material and institutional and NCAA archives. Finally, any public reference to tournament performances during this time shall be removed, including, but not limited to, athletics department stationary and banners displayed in public areas such as the venues where the men’s tennis team competes.
The former head men’s tennis coach was given a seven-year show-cause penalty to conclude May 9, 2014.
The members of the Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are Josephine Potuto, law professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and chair of the committee; Paul Dee, director of athletics at the University of Miami (Florida); Eileen Jennings, general counsel at Central Michigan University; attorney Alfred “Jim” Lechner Jr.; attorney Thomas Phillips; and Dennis Thomas, the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference.
Penalties for the violations included a seven-year show-cause order for the former head men’s tennis coach. That means should the coach seek athletically related employment with another NCAA institution, the coach and the hiring institution must appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine whether his duties should be limited.
In addition, the university was placed on two years of probation and must vacate men’s tennis records, among other sanctions.
During the 2004-05 academic year, the former head coach knowingly and fraudulently permitted a student-athlete to practice, represent the university in intercollegiate men’s tennis competition and receive travel expenses during a time when the student-athlete was ineligible. Further, during the 2005 spring tennis season, the former head coach directed the student-athlete to compete under the name of another student-athlete who was eligible for competition but had left the team and was no longer competing.
The committee stated in its report that it was “struck by the lengths the former head coach went to conceal the fact that he was allowing an ineligible student-athlete to compete fraudulently.”
The committee listed a number of instances in which the former head coach took steps to conceal the scheme. Those included instructing the student-athlete to remain at his dorm before the team’s departure for a championship as he did not want the student-athlete to have to identify himself as the other student-athlete to the associate director of athletics, who was present to wish the team good luck. Further, the former head coach either “mumbled” the names of the student-athlete during formal pre-match introductions or requested opponents to skip formal introductions altogether. In addition, the former head coach used the assumed name when discussing the student-athlete’s progress in a match with the sports information director and engaged in other misleading activities, which are detailed in the public report.
“It also was disturbing to the committee that the former coach enlisted the involvement of a student-athlete in this scheme,” the report states. “This type of conduct by a coach is deplorable and runs counter to the very principles of fair play, honesty and sportsmanship for which the NCAA stands.”
The committee found the former head coach and the involved student-athlete violated NCAA ethical-conduct guidelines by willfully collaborating in the scheme to allow the student-athlete to participate under an assumed name while ineligible.
The second set of allegations for the university athletics department involved impermissible financial aid. The university admitted that between 2004 and 2006, 36 student-athletes were allowed to purchase textbooks not required for courses in which they were enrolled. The student-athletes reported a variety of explanations, including that they purchased the books for their own academic interests, for girlfriends or simply for sale to other students for cash.
The committee agreed with the university’s assessment that this type of abuse demonstrates the institution failed to monitor its intercollegiate athletics program. The committee found the school failed to establish an effective system for providing athletically related financial aid for books and an accountable system for monitoring the book awards.
There also was an allegation that the institution failed to monitor the actions of the former head coach to ensure the student-athlete did not practice or represent the institution in intercollegiate men’s tennis competition while he was ineligible. However, the committee considered the extreme measures the coach took to cover his tracks and that his prior professional and behavioral history gave no indication he would have become involved in such a scheme. These and other factors led the committee not to make a failure to monitor finding in that instance.
The committee also found three unrelated secondary violations, which are outlined in the public report.
In determining the penalties, the committee considered the university’s self-imposed penalties and corrective actions, as well as the university’s effort to conduct a complete and comprehensive review of the issues discovered during the course of the investigation. However, the committee expressed concern that some of the violations occurred over several years and involved several sports. The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee, are as follows:
Public reprimand and censure.
Two years of probation (May 10, 2007, to May 9, 2009).
The men’s tennis team shall end the 2007-08 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season match and not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition after that season. Moreover, during the 2007-08 academic year, the men’s tennis team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limitation in the number of tennis contests that are provided by Bylaw 17.26.5.3 and 17.26.5.5, as well as any other exceptions to the maximum number of contest limitations.
A vacation of all men’s tennis contests in which the ineligible student-athlete competed during the 2004-05 season, including both singles and doubles competitions. The individual records of the student-athlete must be vacated, as well. The institution’s records regarding men’s tennis and the record of the former head coach shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records in all publications for the affected seasons, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material and institutional and NCAA archives. Finally, any public reference to tournament performances during this time shall be removed, including, but not limited to, athletics department stationary and banners displayed in public areas such as the venues where the men’s tennis team competes.
The former head men’s tennis coach was given a seven-year show-cause penalty to conclude May 9, 2014.
The members of the Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are Josephine Potuto, law professor at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and chair of the committee; Paul Dee, director of athletics at the University of Miami (Florida); Eileen Jennings, general counsel at Central Michigan University; attorney Alfred “Jim” Lechner Jr.; attorney Thomas Phillips; and Dennis Thomas, the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy