Mar 24, 2010 11:45:25 AM

An illustration of factors and issues that can affect the timeline for processing an NCAA infractions case:

• On March 1, 2009, the NCAA enforcement staff receives a telephone call from a jilted girlfriend of a football student-athlete at State University. The girlfriend alleges that an assistant football coach and a professor at State U. provided test answers to her ex-boyfriend and three of his friends on the football team before a test being administered during the fall semester of 2008.
• During the conversation with the girlfriend, the investigator tries to elicit as much detail as possible to preliminarily assess the credibility of the allegation and to determine the motivation of the girlfriend for reporting the violation. The woman agrees to provide her information "on the record," which means that the enforcement staff can use that information to support any subsequent allegation that is brought against State U, its staff members or student-athletes.  After the conversation with the girlfriend, the investigator conducts some initial research about the school and individuals there and discovers that two football student-athletes transferred from State U. to other NCAA member schools in December 2008. 
• On March 9 and March 11, 2009, the investigator interviews these former student-athletes at their new institutions (one in the state of Tennessee and the other in Florida) to gather background information about State U. that may be relevant to the case, including their knowledge (if any) about the reported test fraud. During those interviews, the former athletes indicate that a one-time tutor in the athletics department was specifically assigned to the football team during the relevant period and would be the person that could provide the most information about the specific academic processes and procedures at State U. Unfortunately, the student-athletes have no idea where that tutor went after leaving State U. in January 2009. Both of the former athletes corroborate key parts of the initial information reported by the girlfriend and indicate that all football student-athletes were required to take the specific course at issue. 
• After these interviews, the investigator returns to the office to process the information obtained from the former student-athletes and to attempt to locate the former tutor. The investigator finds an address in Missouri for the tutor, and on March 17, 2009, the investigator travels to Missouri to attempt to secure an interview. The former tutor initially agrees to sit down with the investigator the next day, but then fails to show up at the appointed time and place. The investigator makes some additional unsuccessful attempts to secure the interview with the former tutor and on March 19 returns to the office.
• The investigator then tracks down two former State U. football student-athletes who graduated in 2008. The first graduate dodges the investigator's calls for a couple of weeks but when the investigator shows up unannounced at the graduate's home in New York on April 7, the athlete corroborates the girlfriend's claims about the academic improprieties. The second graduate, who lives in California, also corroborates the story during an interview on April 13, but asks to be treated as a confidential source, which means that the enforcement staff cannot identify this person during the processing of the case or use the specific information provided by the confidential source as the basis for an allegation.
• Based on the level of corroboration provided since March 1, the investigator contacts State U. on April 19 and requests that the institution produce documents, including registrar records and academic files for a number of the football student-athletes. The investigator needs to review these State U. records in preparation for the on-campus interviews that will occur during the next phase of the investigation. The investigator must provide State U. with sufficient time to comply with the records request. In this instance State U. is given until May 19 to produce the records. On May 3, State U. contacts the investigator and indicates some of the records must be located at an off-site warehouse. Therefore the production will be delayed by several weeks. The investigator grants State U an extension to June 2 to produce the documents.
• While waiting on the records from State U., the investigator receives a call from the former tutor in Missouri and she agrees to an interview. On May 18, the investigator again travels to Missouri, and the tutor provides the investigator with significant information relating to the inner workings of the academic services department at State U. In addition, the former tutor indicates that she overheard the football student-athletes talking about receiving answers to a test during fall 2009.
• State U.'s documents are received on June 2 and the review of those documents is completed by June 17. After formulating an interview strategy, the investigator contacts State U. on June 21, to schedule on-campus interviews of the alleged involved persons and other persons who might have information relevant to the case. The investigator plans to conduct 12 interviews while on campus, and the investigator asks State U. to allot three days for the interviews and one additional day for meetings with other institutional personnel and for the collection of additional documents. The investigator requests that the campus interviews begin June 28. 
• During the interviews, the assistant coach and professor deny any knowledge about the academic improprieties. The involved football student-athletes also deny involvement or knowledge, but they corroborate key bits of information in the girlfriend's original report. After completing the on-campus work, the investigator returns to the office to evaluate the evidence obtained and to determine what next steps (for example, additional information or interviews) are needed.  While evaluating the evidence, the investigator will discuss the information reported, analysis of possible violations and any procedural issues with fellow enforcement staff members. If additional investigation is required, a similar process as described above could begin anew.
• Once the investigation is complete, and if the enforcement staff concludes that major infractions have occurred, the investigator will prepare a notice of allegations which provides formal notice to State U. regarding the allegations that will be presented to the NCAA Committee on Infractions. After receiving the notice of allegations, institutions have 90 days in which to submit a response.