Public Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FOR RELEASE: Wednesday, July 27, 1994, 12 p.m. (Central time) CONTACT: David Swank, Chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions University of Oklahoma IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS---This report is organized as follows: I. Introduction. II. Findings of violations of NCAA legislation. III. Corrective actions and penalties. I. INTRODUCTION. This case concerned violations of NCAA extra-benefits, recruiting, eligibility, and ethical- conduct legislation involving the football program at Idaho State University. Idaho State University is a Division I-AA institution and a member of the Big Sky Conference. The university has an enrollment of approximately 11,500 students and sponsors seven men's and seven women's sports programs. A. CASE CHRONOLOGY. In late December 1993 and January 1994, rumors started circulating on campus and within the football program concerning possible academic improprieties and allegations of misconduct by student-athletes. During this period, the NCAA enforcement staff received two detailed anonymous telephone calls and one call from a former football student-athlete. These calls reported the possible violations of NCAA rules concerning academic eligibility and other [Page 2] various charges regarding the conduct of football student-athletes at Idaho State University. During this same period of time, the president's office at Idaho State University received two anonymous letters regarding the behavior of football student-athletes. One of these letters also questioned the eligibility of a football student-athlete. After receiving more concrete information on January 31, 1994, the director of athletics received permission from the university president to conduct an investigation into these allegations. He obtained the services of a retired FBI agent who has a consulting agreement for investigative work with the university and reports directly to the president. The university's investigation began on February 1, 1994, and ended on February 28, 1994. On February 18, 1994, an assistant football coach and the Holt Arena manager at Idaho State University admitted to their involvement in academic improprieties. On that date, the director of athletics reported the violations to an NCAA enforcement representative and to the Big Sky Conference commissioner. On March 14, 1994, the university submitted a self-report to the NCAA assistant executive director for enforcement and eligibility appeals. On April 7, 1994, after reviewing the initial report, the enforcement staff requested additional information. The institution responded on April 14, 1994. On April 21 and 22, 1994, two representatives of the NCAA enforcement staff visited the university's campus and conducted five interviews. Because the university and involved employees acknowledged the violations, the enforcement staff believed the summary-disposition process could be used. On May 17, 1994, the university and enforcement staff jointly submitted a summary-disposition report to the Committee on Infractions. This report described the violations that the enforcement staff, university and involved individuals agreed occurred and indicated the university's corrective actions and proposed penalties. In the report, the enforcement staff noted that the university's internal investigation, combined with the enforcement staff's inquiries, was complete and thorough and that the university had cooperated with the NCAA. All parties agreed the case was major in nature. The Committee on Infractions considered the summary-disposition report at its meeting on June 4, 1994. The committee accepted the findings of violations in the report but could not accept the penalties proposed by the university, considering that the violations in this case involved academic fraud. On June 8, 1994, the committee notified Idaho State University and a former assistant football coach of the decision to consider additional penalties. The university and coach were advised of the penalties the committee suggested and of the right to appear before the com [Page 3] mittee if they did not agree that the suggested penalties were appropriate. On June 16, 1994, the university and former assistant coach agreed to the additional penalties. B. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS. Although the major violation in this case was an isolated incident primarily involving one coaching staff member and one student-athlete, the seriousness of academic fraud and unethical conduct places this case in the major infractions area. The violations concerned: Improper academic assistance provided to a student-athlete by an assistant football coach. Unethical conduct by an assistant football coach, an athletics department staff member and a student-athlete. Impermissible participation in athletics competition by a student-athlete who was not academically eligible. Improper automobile transportation and long-distance telephone access provided to prospective and enrolled student-athletes. C. SUMMARY OF THE PENALTIES. In imposing the following penalties, the Committee on Infractions considered the corrective actions taken by the university, as detailed in Part III-A of this report. 1. The committee adopted as its own the following penalty self-imposed by the institution: Public reprimand. The university proposed limitations on initial and total financial aid awards in football. The committee did not accept these penalties, but suggested additional reductions in aid and other penalties, to which the university agreed. 2. The committee imposed the following additional penalties: Placed the university's athletics program on probation for one year. Required the continued development of the institution's athletics compliance education program. [Page 4] Reduced by four the number of permissible initial athletically related financial aid awards in football for one academic year. Reduced by four the number of total permissible athletically related financial aid awards in football for one academic year. Required forfeiture of games in which one of the ineligible football student-athletes participated. Required recertification of current athletics policies and practices. Placed a show-cause requirement for three years on a former assistant football coach. II. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION. The prospective student-athlete involved in this case had committed to attend the institution before the violations occurred. The violations involving the student-athlete prior to the beginning of classes or the start of football practice were violations of NCAA recruiting legislation. The violations that occurred after he started practice were violations of extra-benefit legislation. A. IMPROPER ACADEMIC ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO A STUDENT-ATHLETE BY AN ASSISTANT COACH. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1 AND 16.12.2.1] During the summer of 1993, an assistant football coach provided improper academic assistance to a prospective student-athlete to enable him to complete a correspondence course in children's literature through another university. The prospective student-athlete needed the course to satisfy the requirements for an associate of arts degree from the community college he had been attending. The prospective student-athlete needed the degree to be eligible for practice, competition and institutionally administered financial aid in the fall of 1993 at Idaho State University. Prior to his departure for Pocatello, Idaho, in July, the prospective student-athlete completed a few assignments for the course but he still needed to finish several additional assignments and take a final examination. After his arrival in Pocatello, Idaho, the assistant coach arranged for the completion of the prospective student-athlete's course assignments and final examination. Specifically: 1. Shortly after the prospective student-athlete's arrival in Pocatello in the summer of 1993, he provided the course assignments to the assistant football coach. These assignments required answering various questions about [Page 5] children's books and submitting book reports. Of the approximately 14 assignments required for the course, the prospective student-athlete had completed only three or four before his arrival. The assistant coach and his wife, with some limited information provided by the prospective student-athlete, answered the majority of the questions in nearly all the remaining assignments. They then typed the answers and sent them via facsimile to the university offering the correspondence course. The assistant coach also asked a football student-athlete to assist the prospective student-athlete with one of his correspondence course assignments by reviewing a book, "The Hobbit." This student-athlete developed a brief synopsis, which he provided to the assistant coach. The assistant coach typed this material and submitted it as one of the prospective student-athlete's assignments. Although the student-athlete was aware that this information would assist a prospective student-athlete in a correspondence course, he did not know how it would be used or that his report would be submitted as one of the course assignments. 2. The assistant coach and his wife also took the prospective student-athlete's final examination for the course. Several days prior to the final examination, the assistant coach asked the director of Idaho State University's Holt Arena to proctor the examination. After the arena manager accepted this responsibility, he received the examination in the mail on August 12, 1993, from the university offering the course.