INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has reduced an initial 10-year show-cause order to a six-year show-cause order on a former assistant men’s basketball coach at California State University, Northridge, and has upheld a three-year show-cause order issued to a former assistant men’s volleyball coach who also was employed at Cal State Northridge.
The penalties against Cal State Northridge and the individuals involved were issued March 30, 2004, by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions.
The Committee on Infractions case involved violations of bylaws concerning ethical conduct, extra benefits and academic fraud in the sport of men’s basketball. The committee found that, during the fall semester of the 2002-03 academic year, a former assistant men’s basketball coach violated the provisions of NCAA ethical conduct legislation and participated in academic fraud in an attempt to ensure the academic eligibility of a former student-athlete. The former assistant men’s basketball coach knowingly arranged or attempted to arrange for a student-athlete to be enrolled in and receive course credit in two kinesiology courses, even though the student-athlete never attended class or otherwise completed the course requirements.
The committee also found that the former assistant men’s basketball coach contacted the instructors of the two courses—an assistant baseball coach and a former assistant men’s volleyball coach—at the conclusion of the semester to attempt to persuade them to assign grades in their courses for the student-athlete, who had never attended any of the classes. The committee found that the former assistant men’s volleyball coach had violated NCAA ethical conduct legislation when he provided the assistant men’s basketball coach with an advance copy of the final examination from the course, along with another student’s answer sheet to complete the examination. The former assistant men’s volleyball coach also awarded a grade of “A” in the course to the student-athlete, despite the fact that the student-athlete neither attended the course nor met the course requirements.
In his written appeal, the former assistant men’s basketball coach asserted that some of the findings of the violations against him be set aside on the grounds that procedural errors affected the reliability of the information used to support the committee’s findings. He asserted that the committee did not consider a facsimile submission, which the former assistant men’s basketball coach sent to the committee the day before the hearing. He further requested that the 10-year show-cause order be reduced because it was excessive.
In considering the former assistant men’s basketball coach’s appeal, the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeal Committee acknowledged that the facsimile was submitted less than 10 days prior to the Committee on Infractions’ hearing and the assistant men’s basketball coach’s counsel acknowledged that the Committee on Infractions’ initial decision not to consider the late facsimile was not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Infractions Appeals Committee did not find procedural error with regard to that claim.
Regarding the 10-year show-cause order, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed past cases involving academic fraud and determined that a 10-year show cause penalty is nearly unprecedented. Since 1994, there has been only one other case in which a show-cause penalty of this length has been imposed. Although the Infractions Appeals Committee considered the Cal State Northridge case to be of a serious nature, as are all academic fraud cases, it acknowledged that the 10-year show-cause order was excessive when compared to other academic fraud cases. Therefore, the Infractions Appeals Committee issued a six-year show-cause order for the former assistant men’s basketball coach. The six-year show-cause order will expire on March 29, 2010.
The show-cause order states that if the former assistant men’s basketball coach seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically-related position at an NCAA member institution during the six-year show-cause period, he and any involved institution will be requested to appear before the I Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures, which could limit the coach’s athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period of time.
The former assistant men’s volleyball coach asserted in his appeal that his three-year show cause order be reduced because it was too excessive. In considering the former assistant men’s volleyball coach’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee acknowledged that the Committee on Infractions took the factors raised by the former assistant men’s volleyball coach into consideration in assessing his penalty and considered all appropriate factors in determining the penalty, which it imposed. Therefore, the Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the three-year show-cause order imposed on the former assistant men’s volleyball coach was not excessive, and upheld the original decision. The three-year show-cause order will expire June 20, 2006.
The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Christopher Griffen, Foley & Lardner legal firm; Terry Don Phillips, Clemson University; Noel M. Ragsdale, University of Southern California; William Hoye, University of Notre Dame; and Allan J. Ryan Jr., Harvard University.
-30-
