The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has penalized Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi for major violations in its women’s volleyball, men’s tennis and men’s basketball programs.

Penalties for the violations include four years of probation, postseason bans, scholarship reductions, recruiting restrictions and a vacation of records.

The violations included ineligible participation, receipt of recruiting inducements, impermissible recruiting phone calls, failure to report NCAA violations and lack of institutional control. The committee also cited unethical conduct against the former athletics director and former compliance director.

The violations centered on two international student-athletes – one in women’s volleyball and one in men’s tennis – and an international prospect in men’s basketball who were involved in several categories of violations.

The committee traced the violations to four “shortcomings that contributed to a culture of noncompliance” at the university. First, the university did not establish adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with NCAA rules. That was due in large part to the university’s failure to devote the necessary resources for an effective compliance program. Second, the university failed to monitor and evaluate its athletics program to detect or deter instances of NCAA rules violations. Third, the university failed to provide adequate rules education to staff members. Finally, and the most troubling to the Committee on Infractions, university officials decided not to investigate and report information related to NCAA rules violations.

Specifically, the university allowed a women’s volleyball student-athlete to represent the university in competition during the sixth year after her initial full-time enrollment – a year beyond the permissible five-year period of eligibility.

The university also provided a former men’s tennis student-athlete with $1,500 in impermissible athletically related financial aid at the time the young man was a nonqualifier and was fulfilling a year of residence at the university. Under state law, the student-athlete’s receipt of institutional aid also allowed him to pay in-state tuition, which increased the value of the benefit significantly. Once the university became aware of the violations involving this student-athlete, it failed to declare the young man ineligible and continued to allow him to compete and receive travel expenses while ineligible.

From August 2007 through February 2008, an assistant men’s basketball coach placed at least 92 impermissible telephone calls to four two-year prospective student-athletes. The assistant coach made the impermissible telephone calls after he already had made a permissible call to the prospective student-athletes during that week.

The university also provided a prospective men’s basketball student-athlete with various recruiting inducements, including cost-free lodging and transportation, while the prospective student-athlete resided in the vicinity of the university and attempted to enroll at the school.

The committee found that the former AD and former compliance director “failed to deport themselves in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and sportsmanship normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics.” The unethical conduct charge for the former director of athletics was due to his decision not to report this violation to the conference office or NCAA. The unethical conduct and failure to exhibit exemplary conduct charge for the former compliance director was due to his attempt to enhance his own financial situation by threatening to disclose unreported NCAA rules violations during a meeting with the member of the university’s human resources staff. Specifically, he indicated he would not report the NCAA violations in exchange for a “buy out” of his employment contract/agreement, according to the committee.

The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the institution and adopted by the committee, are below. Additional details are available in the public report.

•         Public reprimand and censure.

•         Four years of probation (March 25, 2009, to March 24, 2013).

•         Reduction of three total women’s volleyball scholarships awarded (from 12 to nine) for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years.

•         Reduction of one overall equivalency awarded in men’s tennis (from 4.5 to 3.5) for the 2009-10 through 2011-12 academic years.

•         The women’s volleyball and men’s tennis teams must end the 2009-10 season with the last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and are not eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including an international tour, after that season.

•         The men’s tennis team must limit its schedule to 23 dates of competition during the 2008-09 through 2010-11 academic years. This is a two-contest reduction from the 25 maximum allowed. (Self-imposed by the university.)

•         Reductions in the number of official visits allowed in men’s basketball, men’s tennis and women’s volleyball during the 2008-09 academic year, as detailed in the public report. (Self-imposed by the university.)

•         Vacation of wins in which the involved volleyball student-athlete competed during 2005-06. (Self-imposed by the university.)

•         Vacation of all matches that the involved men’s tennis student-athlete won during spring 2005 as well as the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. (Self-imposed by the university.)

•         Restrictions regarding off-campus contacts made by the men’s basketball coaching staff.

•         No recruiting telephone calls were made by any men’s basketball coaching staff during the entire month of August 2008. (Self-imposed by the university.)

•         The two full-time assistant men’s and women’s tennis coaches are not allowed to participate in any recruiting activities through the 2009-10 academic year. (Self-imposed by the university.)

The members of the Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case include Paul Dee, lecturer of law and education at the University of Miami (Florida) and formerly the institution’s athletics director and general counsel. He is the chair of the Committee on Infractions. Other members are John S. Black, attorney; Melissa Conboy, deputy director of athletics at University of Notre Dame; Eileen Jennings, general counsel at Central Michigan University; Alfred Lechner Jr., attorney; Andrea Meyers, athletics director emeritus, Indiana State University; and Dennis Thomas, the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference and formerly director of athletics at Hampton University.