National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Infractions case: Cheyney University of Pennsylvania
The NCAA News
|
The NCAA News
The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions penalized Cheyney University of Pennsylvania for major violations in the institution’s athletics program.
The violations include ineligible participation by football student-athletes, unethical conduct by the former head football coach, and a failure to monitor and lack of institutional control. Penalties for the violations included placing the university on three years of probation, a vacation of records, and a one-year show-cause penalty for the former football coach, among other sanctions.
The Committee on Infractions stated in its report that the case involved “a serious breach of ethical-conduct legislation by the former head coach and the failure of a long-time Division II member institution to have in effect a viable, comprehensive compliance system administered by knowledgeable personnel.”
The most serious violations took place in the football program and were knowingly committed by the former head coach. During the 2004 football season, six ineligible student-athletes, five of whom were partial qualifiers, received extra benefits in the form of travel expenses while traveling to away games.
Further, four of the six ineligible student-athletes competed in one or more of the away contests and another impermissibly participated in practice. The violations were committed at the direction of the former head coach, who had been told two years earlier after similar violations occurred that ineligible student-athletes were not allowed to travel to away contests.
One of the student-athletes said he confronted the former head coach on at least one occasion when he was told to travel to an away game even though his name was not on the list of eligible student-athletes. According to this student-athlete, the former head coach told him to “shut up,” get on the bus and prepare to participate. Another student-athlete also stated that, before a game, the former head coach had him switch his jersey number to that of an eligible student-athlete before he participated in the game.
The committee also found the university failed to withhold two student-athletes from competition during the 2005 football season even though it had acknowledged they had previously competed in away games while ineligible. That was despite the fact the school was told by the NCAA enforcement staff that the young men would have to go through the reinstatement process before becoming eligible to compete.
The university did not seek reinstatement before allowing them to compete in the 2005 football season. Further, the university again failed to withhold one of the student-athletes from competition without initiating the reinstatement process during the 2006 season.
The committee found the university failed to monitor the conduct of its coaches and the administration of its athletics programs during the summer of 2002 through September 2006, based on a lack of a system for effectively monitoring various aspects of its athletics program. Those aspects included participation by ineligible football student-athletes, purchasing health insurance for student-athletes, failure to provide the required graduation data and official visit limitation information to prospects, failure to track countable athletically related activities, publicizing oral commitments from prospects, failure to notify student-athletes regarding financial aid renewal, and the provision of benefits to enrolled student-athletes by individuals whose actions triggered the booster status.
The university did not agree that all of the violations were major. However, the committee noted in its report that “while standing alone many of the violations would be considered secondary, they are all major as part of the cumulative case.”
The committee also stated in its report that it is “dismayed that this case continues the recent trend of Division II member institutions, either through inadvertence or ignorance, failing to devote the necessary resources to effectively operate a Division II athletics program. The committee also strongly reiterates…that member institutions have the duty to establish and maintain thorough and comprehensive campus-wide compliance systems operated by trained and competent personnel. To fail to do so will, as in this case, result in the committee concluding that the institution failed to monitor its athletics program and lacks institutional control, and will be followed by the imposition of appropriate sanctions.”
In determining the penalties, the committee considered the university’s self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee, are as follows:
Public reprimand and censure.
Three years of probation (June 28, 2007, to June 27, 2010). The committee also reserves the right to extend the term of probation for an additional year if, by the end of the initial probation period, the institution’s Compliance Blueprint Review has not yet been received and implemented.
The university must complete a Compliance Blueprint Program Review during the 2007-08 academic year and abide by all recommendations by the reviewer to improve the university’s program. A compliance blueprint review is a tool provided by the NCAA membership services staff to Division II institutions and conferences to assist an institution in analyzing how well it organizes, communicates, documents and evaluates its rules-compliance efforts.
Football coaching staff are precluded from having more than one contact by telephone per week with prospects during the 2007-08 contact period, except those that are permitted by Bylaw 13.1.3.3 (self-imposed by university).
Football coaching staff are precluded from having more than one in-person contact with each prospective student-athlete beginning with the period after the 2007 football season through the 2008 National Letter of Intent signing period (self-imposed by university).
The former head coach is prohibited from performing all off-campus recruiting activities for a period of one-year beginning June 28, 2007, through June 27, 2008, at his present employing institution. The former head coach is also required to attend ethics training within one year of the date of the report. Should the present institution fail to reinforce those sanctions, it and the former head coach shall appear before the committee and show cause why it should not be penalized.
Forfeiture of one victory in 2004, two in 2005 and one in 2006 when ineligible student-athletes participated. The institution will inform the opposing schools involved in those contests, in writing, of the action and report it to the committee in its required reports. The university’s records regarding football, as well as the record of the head coaches from the 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons, will be reconfigured to reflect the university’s vacations. Finally, the vacations will be recorded in all publications in which football records for the 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material and archives.
All individuals with athletics responsibility in the offices of admission, housing, academic services financial aid, compliance and the registrar, including the faculty athletics representative and director of athletics, shall attend an NCAA Compliance Seminar before the expiration of the probation period.
Reduction of its countable hours in the football program from 20 hours to 15 hours for one week during either the spring 2007 semester or the spring 2008 semester.
The Division II Committee on Infractions consists of conference and institutional athletics administrators, faculty and a member of the public. The committee independently adjudicates cases investigated by the NCAA enforcement staff and determines appropriate penalties. The committee’s findings may be appealed to the Infractions Appeals Committee.
The members of the NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are Bruce Kirsch, chair, athletics director and vice president, Franklin Pierce College; Larry Blumberg, faculty athletics representative and chair of the math department, Washburn University of Topeka; Jean Paul Bradshaw II, attorney, Lathrop and Gage L.C; Sherry Kennemer, senior woman administrator and associate director of athletics, University of North Alabama; and Wendy Taylor May, assistant athletics director, University of California, San Diego.
The violations include ineligible participation by football student-athletes, unethical conduct by the former head football coach, and a failure to monitor and lack of institutional control. Penalties for the violations included placing the university on three years of probation, a vacation of records, and a one-year show-cause penalty for the former football coach, among other sanctions.
The Committee on Infractions stated in its report that the case involved “a serious breach of ethical-conduct legislation by the former head coach and the failure of a long-time Division II member institution to have in effect a viable, comprehensive compliance system administered by knowledgeable personnel.”
The most serious violations took place in the football program and were knowingly committed by the former head coach. During the 2004 football season, six ineligible student-athletes, five of whom were partial qualifiers, received extra benefits in the form of travel expenses while traveling to away games.
Further, four of the six ineligible student-athletes competed in one or more of the away contests and another impermissibly participated in practice. The violations were committed at the direction of the former head coach, who had been told two years earlier after similar violations occurred that ineligible student-athletes were not allowed to travel to away contests.
One of the student-athletes said he confronted the former head coach on at least one occasion when he was told to travel to an away game even though his name was not on the list of eligible student-athletes. According to this student-athlete, the former head coach told him to “shut up,” get on the bus and prepare to participate. Another student-athlete also stated that, before a game, the former head coach had him switch his jersey number to that of an eligible student-athlete before he participated in the game.
The committee also found the university failed to withhold two student-athletes from competition during the 2005 football season even though it had acknowledged they had previously competed in away games while ineligible. That was despite the fact the school was told by the NCAA enforcement staff that the young men would have to go through the reinstatement process before becoming eligible to compete.
The university did not seek reinstatement before allowing them to compete in the 2005 football season. Further, the university again failed to withhold one of the student-athletes from competition without initiating the reinstatement process during the 2006 season.
The committee found the university failed to monitor the conduct of its coaches and the administration of its athletics programs during the summer of 2002 through September 2006, based on a lack of a system for effectively monitoring various aspects of its athletics program. Those aspects included participation by ineligible football student-athletes, purchasing health insurance for student-athletes, failure to provide the required graduation data and official visit limitation information to prospects, failure to track countable athletically related activities, publicizing oral commitments from prospects, failure to notify student-athletes regarding financial aid renewal, and the provision of benefits to enrolled student-athletes by individuals whose actions triggered the booster status.
The university did not agree that all of the violations were major. However, the committee noted in its report that “while standing alone many of the violations would be considered secondary, they are all major as part of the cumulative case.”
The committee also stated in its report that it is “dismayed that this case continues the recent trend of Division II member institutions, either through inadvertence or ignorance, failing to devote the necessary resources to effectively operate a Division II athletics program. The committee also strongly reiterates…that member institutions have the duty to establish and maintain thorough and comprehensive campus-wide compliance systems operated by trained and competent personnel. To fail to do so will, as in this case, result in the committee concluding that the institution failed to monitor its athletics program and lacks institutional control, and will be followed by the imposition of appropriate sanctions.”
In determining the penalties, the committee considered the university’s self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee, are as follows:
Public reprimand and censure.
Three years of probation (June 28, 2007, to June 27, 2010). The committee also reserves the right to extend the term of probation for an additional year if, by the end of the initial probation period, the institution’s Compliance Blueprint Review has not yet been received and implemented.
The university must complete a Compliance Blueprint Program Review during the 2007-08 academic year and abide by all recommendations by the reviewer to improve the university’s program. A compliance blueprint review is a tool provided by the NCAA membership services staff to Division II institutions and conferences to assist an institution in analyzing how well it organizes, communicates, documents and evaluates its rules-compliance efforts.
Football coaching staff are precluded from having more than one contact by telephone per week with prospects during the 2007-08 contact period, except those that are permitted by Bylaw 13.1.3.3 (self-imposed by university).
Football coaching staff are precluded from having more than one in-person contact with each prospective student-athlete beginning with the period after the 2007 football season through the 2008 National Letter of Intent signing period (self-imposed by university).
The former head coach is prohibited from performing all off-campus recruiting activities for a period of one-year beginning June 28, 2007, through June 27, 2008, at his present employing institution. The former head coach is also required to attend ethics training within one year of the date of the report. Should the present institution fail to reinforce those sanctions, it and the former head coach shall appear before the committee and show cause why it should not be penalized.
Forfeiture of one victory in 2004, two in 2005 and one in 2006 when ineligible student-athletes participated. The institution will inform the opposing schools involved in those contests, in writing, of the action and report it to the committee in its required reports. The university’s records regarding football, as well as the record of the head coaches from the 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons, will be reconfigured to reflect the university’s vacations. Finally, the vacations will be recorded in all publications in which football records for the 2004, 2005 and 2006 seasons are reported, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting material and archives.
All individuals with athletics responsibility in the offices of admission, housing, academic services financial aid, compliance and the registrar, including the faculty athletics representative and director of athletics, shall attend an NCAA Compliance Seminar before the expiration of the probation period.
Reduction of its countable hours in the football program from 20 hours to 15 hours for one week during either the spring 2007 semester or the spring 2008 semester.
The Division II Committee on Infractions consists of conference and institutional athletics administrators, faculty and a member of the public. The committee independently adjudicates cases investigated by the NCAA enforcement staff and determines appropriate penalties. The committee’s findings may be appealed to the Infractions Appeals Committee.
The members of the NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case are Bruce Kirsch, chair, athletics director and vice president, Franklin Pierce College; Larry Blumberg, faculty athletics representative and chair of the math department, Washburn University of Topeka; Jean Paul Bradshaw II, attorney, Lathrop and Gage L.C; Sherry Kennemer, senior woman administrator and associate director of athletics, University of North Alabama; and Wendy Taylor May, assistant athletics director, University of California, San Diego.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy