Southern Methodist University has been placed on probation for two years and reductions have been made in the number of coaches permitted to recruit off-campus and the number of official visits allowed in football for violations of NCAA legislation involving the football program.

Among other penalties imposed by the Division I Committee on Infractions, a former assistant football coach was placed under a seven-year show-cause order, and the university will be required to vacate its team record for 10 games in the 1998 football season for which an ineligible player was used. A show-cause penalty requires any NCAA institution seeking to employ an individual subject to show-cause provisions to appear before the Committee on Infractions. The committee determines whether the individual's athletically related duties should be limited for a specified time.

The violations involved bylaws governing recruiting, extra benefits, academic fraud and unethical conduct and were discovered and self-reported by the university.

The academic-fraud violation, which occurred in 1997 and 1998, was considered by the Committee on Infractions as the most serious of the violations. The committee said a number of the other violations would, if considered individually, be classified as secondary or less serious in nature; however, the cumulative effect of the violations brought them to the level of major.

The academic-fraud violation involved a prospective student-athlete and a former assistant coach. Through a series of events, it was arranged on two occasions for other individuals to use the identity of the prospective student-athlete to take the American College Test (ACT), a college entrance exam, on his behalf. The Committee on Infractions determined that the former assistant coach suggested the student-athlete participate in academic fraud, had knowledge of and was involved in the testing scheme, and had reason to know that the prospect, who eventually became a student-athlete at Southern Methodist, was ineligible to compete because of academic fraud. Further, the committee concluded that the assistant coach agreed to pay the first individual to take the test on the prospect's behalf.

A number of other violations also involved the former assistant coach, including a finding of unethical conduct. The committee concluded that the former assistant encouraged a student-athlete to provide false and misleading information to university staff involved in a review of the allegations.

Other violations included impermissible recruiting contacts, expenses and activities and recruiting inducements. For example, in the fall of 1995, the assistant football coach and the father of an enrolled student-athlete arranged for a prospect and his family to meet the assistant in the student-athlete's home. The meeting occurred at a time in the recruiting calendar when such meetings are prohibited, and it was inappropriate for the father of the enrolled student-athlete to be involved in such a meeting.

The former assistant football coach disputed the information in many of the findings. He provided a written response to allegations but did not participate in the NCAA's hearing on the matter, which was conducted September 23, 2000. Specifically regarding the unethical-conduct finding, the former assistant said he did not knowingly or unknowingly commit a violation. However, the committee concluded that findings demonstrated the former assistant coach knowingly attempted to circumvent NCAA legislation.

As it determined appropriate penalties to impose, the Committee on Infractions considered the following self-imposed penalties and corrective actions taken by the university: