INFRACTIONS APPEAL: UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, TUSCALOOSA
Sep 30, 2002
The NCAA News
The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld all findings
and penalties involving the football program at the University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa.
The penalties, which were issued February 1, 2002, by the NCAA Division
I Committee on Infractions, were imposed primarily as the result of recruiting
inducements by three representatives of the university's athletics
interests that included payments of large sums of cash to a prospective
student-athlete and his family, and to another prospect's high-school
football coach.
The institution appealed the findings regarding recruiting inducements,
impermissible recruiting contacts and impermissible benefits. Specifically,
the institution argued that the findings of those violations should be
set aside because they are contrary to the evidence, and that a procedural
error affected the reliability of the information on which the findings
were based.
The institution also appealed six of the eight penalties the Committee
on Infractions imposed as a result of the violations. The institution
argued that those penalties were excessive and inappropriate. Those penalties
include initial and overall grant-in-aid reductions in the sport of football,
a two-year postseason competition ban in football, and a five-year probation
period. The institution also was required to show cause to the Committee
on Infractions why it should not be penalized further if it fails to permanently
disassociate the three representatives from its athletics program.
In upholding the findings and the penalties, the appeals committee said
there was evidence supporting the findings of violations and that the
penalties were not excessive or inappropriate considering the university's
status as a repeat violator, and the number, nature and seriousness of
the violations.
The violations in this case involved recruiting and provision of extra
benefits to enrolled student-athletes. One violation involved the provision
of $20,000 in cash, lodging and entertainment to a prospective student-athlete
and his parents by two athletics representatives. The first installment
of $10,000 was provided to the prospect at his home in the fall of 1995.
It came in the form of $100 bills inside a grocery bag.
The second installment was provided to the prospect's father in January
1996 when he received a brown envelope containing $10,000 in cash, also
in $100 bills. One of the athletics representatives delivered the cash
on both occasions. The prospect later signed a National Letter of Intent
to attend Alabama, but failed to meet academic standards required to be
eligible to compete in his freshman season.
A second violation involved the offer and provision of a substantial amount
of cash to a high-school coach to assure that a high-school prospect from
Memphis, Tennessee, signed a National Letter of Intent in February 2000
and enrolled at the university. The high-school coach and one of his assistants
developed a scheme to market the prospective student-athlete to university
football programs for $100,000 cash and a sport utility vehicle for each coach.
The high-school coach subsequently solicited payments from NCAA member
institutions interested in recruiting the young man. Coaches from five
institutions confirmed the solicitations by the high-school coach.
Another violation occurred during the summer of 1999 when an athletics
representative provided a student-athlete with the use of an automobile.
The student-athlete used the vehicle cost-free from June until August
when it was repossessed after he had announced he would transfer from
Alabama to another university.
The infractions committee report also outlined other violations that involved
an assistant coach accepting loans from one athletics representative.
Those included violation of honesty standards, violation of employment
and salary controls and failure to cooperate.
Other findings of violations, including several secondary violations,
are discussed in the public report, which can be found at www.ncaa.org.
In arguing its case on appeal, the university contended that the violations
that occurred in 1995-96 and 1996-97 were barred by the statute of limitations.
The appeals committee concluded that the violations were not barred by
the statute of limitations based on Bylaw 32.5.2(b), which addresses situations
that begin before, and continue into, the four-year period before issuance
of the letter of preliminary inquiry. The continuing nature of this conduct
brought it within the four-year statute of limitations.
The university also challenged the infractions committee's reliance
on information from a confidential source in finding the 1995-96 and 1996-97
recruiting violations. First, the appeals committee concluded that there
was ample evidence supporting the findings, even if the infractions committee
had not relied on the information from the confidential source. Second,
the appeals committee said that, although the NCAA enforcement staff did
use evidence from a confidential source, the identity of this source was
disclosed to the institution and it had an opportunity to interview the
individual and judge the individual's credibility. The institution
agreed to allow the enforcement staff to use the evidence and submitted
a letter waiving its rights. The institution claimed the waiver related
only to allegations other than those involved in the 1995-96 and 1996-97
recruiting violations. The appeals committee concluded that if an institution
waives its rights and does so on a limited or conditional basis, it must
articulate those conditions in its waiver. There was no evidence that
the institution did so; thus, there was no procedural error.
With regard to the institution's claim that the two-year ban on postseason
competition in football was inappropriate, the institution contended that
the conduct of its athletics representatives should not result in an institutional
penalty without a showing of fault by the institution.
The appeals committee report said that "because the violations in
this case were numerous and particularly egregious, we conclude that the
imposition of such a penalty is appropriate under the facts of the case."
The appeals committee agreed with the infractions committee that in this
case, the athletics representatives were "not typical representatives"
due to their "favored access and 'insider status' "
and that this favored access and insider status created "greater
university responsibility for any misconduct in which they engage."
Finally, with regard to whether the penalties are excessive compared to
the penalties imposed in other cases involving repeat violators, the appeals
committee noted that consistency in penalties so that comparable cases
receive comparable penalties is a factor to consider in determining whether
a penalty is excessive or inappropriate. Committee members recognized
that it is difficult to meaningfully compare cases because there are so
many disparate variables in the cases.
"In this case, the Committee on Infractions carefully considered
the nature, number and seriousness of the violations, the conduct and
motives of those involved in the violations, the corrective actions taken
by the institution, the institution's exemplary cooperation and its
repeat violator status," the appeals report noted.
The appeals report also noted that the infractions committee compared
this case with the only case in which the death penalty was imposed and
appropriately distinguished this case from that one. In the hearing on
appeal, it adequately demonstrated the consistency of the result in this
case with other recent cases.
Other findings upheld
The appeals committee also upheld all findings against a former Alabama
assistant football.
The former coach appealed specific findings of violations as determined
by the infractions committee. No additional penalties were imposed in
this case.
The case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing violations of
honesty standards, as well as employment and salary controls.
During the summer of 1998, an athletics representative provided two loans
to the former assistant coach, which the coach made no effort to repay
until information about the loans surfaced during an NCAA enforcement
staff interview with the athletics representative February 27, 2001.
The assistant coach was found to have violated the NCAA's principles
of honesty and cooperation when he knowingly failed to provide complete
information during an interview with the enforcement staff and the university
about receiving financial assistance from the athletics representative.
In his written appeal, the former coach said the findings of the infractions
committee should be set aside because they are contrary to the evidence,
the facts found by the committee do not constitute violations of NCAA
rules and procedural errors affected the reliability of the information
relied on by the committee.
The former assistant coach argued that he answered the questions the NCAA
enforcement representatives actually asked and, therefore, did not fail
to make full and complete disclosure. In its report, the appeals committee
said, "On review of the record, we conclude the findings constitute
violations of NCAA bylaws and are not clearly contrary to the evidence."
The former assistant coach also argued that he was denied due process
when the infractions committee found violations that had not been charged.
Evidence of the conduct upon which the findings of violations were made
was presented at the infractions committee hearing. The appeals committee
report notes that Bylaw 19.5.3 permits the infractions committee to find
violations based on "information developed or discussed during the
hearing." Therefore, the appeals committee concluded there was no
procedural error.
The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard
the case are: Terry Don Phillips, chair, Clemson University; Noel Ragsdale,
University of Southern California; Allan Ryan Jr., Harvard University;
and Robert Stein, American Bar Association.