The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has overturned a postseason ban for Eastern Washington University’s football program, saying that the competitive advantage the school gained through the violations was not as significant as the Committee on Infractions had claimed.

The February 2009 case involved violations of impermissible participation by ineligible student-athletes in practice activities, the use of too many countable coaches, failure to monitor by the former head coach, and a lack of institutional control and failure to monitor by the university.

The Committee on Infractions assessed three years of probation, a postseason ban, financial aid reductions, coaching limitations and recruiting restrictions, among others, on the program.

The university appealed that the postseason ban penalty should be set aside.

The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the Committee on Infractions based the postseason ban “substantially on (the Committee on Infractions’) judgment” that the violations provided the university with a significant competitive advantage. However, the Infractions Appeals Committee found that the violations in the case did not justify that conclusion. Rather, it noted that “while the violations provided some competitive advantage, the conclusion that the advantage was ‘significant’ was a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition of the postseason ban was arbitrary.”

In support of this decision, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that of the 13 persons involved in the impermissible practice violations, most never competed for the team, or competed in a limited capacity. The appeals committee also said that except for one student-athlete, none of the student-athletes competed until after their eligibility had been reinstated. Regarding the coaching limitation violations, the appeals committee noted that all but two of the coaches were students who performed primarily administrative duties and who could have been properly classified as student-assistant coaches had they been enrolled in the required amount of units. Had this occurred, the other two impermissible coaches, who also performed very limited coaching duties, would not have caused the university to exceed its limits.

For a penalty to be set aside, NCAA bylaws require that the penalty must be excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion. The Infractions Appeals Committee has determined that an abuse of discretion in the imposition of a penalty occurs if the penalty:

• Was not based on a correct legal standard or was based on a misapprehension of the underlying substantive legal principles;
• Was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding;
• Failed to consider and weigh material factors;
• Was based on a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition was arbitrary, capricious or irrational; or
• Was based in significant part on one or more irrelevant or improper factors.

In considering the university’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcript of the university’s Committee on Infractions hearing; and the submissions by the university and the Committee on Infractions.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were Christopher L. Griffin, Foley & Lardner LLP, chair; Susan Cross Lipnickey, Miami University (Ohio); Noel M. Ragsdale, University of Southern California; David Williams II, Vanderbilt University; and Jack Friedenthal, professor of law at George Washington University.