INDIANAPOLIS---Former University of Oklahoma football student-athletes Rhett Bomar and J.D. Quinn must sit out a season while losing a season of eligibility and pay back thousands of dollars in improper pay as part of having their eligibility reinstated, the NCAA announced today.

After reviewing all of the facts presented by the institution, with the latest of those received yesterday (October 31), the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff reinstated both student-athletes with the following conditions.

Bomar, a sophomore now enrolled at Sam Houston State University, must sit out the 2006-07 season of competition while being charged with a year of eligibility. This means he will have two seasons of remaining NCAA eligibility assuming he meets all other eligibility requirements for student-athletes transferring to Division I-AA programs. In addition, Bomar must pay $7,406.88 to a charity of his choice for receiving wages for work not performed from an employer considered a representative of the institution’s athletic interests. 

Quinn, a sophomore now enrolled at University of Montana, will also be required to sit out the current season of competition while being charged a year of eligibility. This means he will also have two seasons of remaining NCAA eligibility, assuming he meets all other eligibility requirements for student-athletes transferring to Division I-AA programs. He must pay $8,137.17 to a charity of his choice as well for receiving wages for work not performed from the same employer.

According to the facts of the case submitted by Oklahoma, both student-athletes knowingly and willfully violated NCAA rules in connection with these violations.

“The NCAA reinstatement staff has assessed the facts presented by Oklahoma and agrees with its contention that both Mr. Bomar and Mr. Quinn willfully violated NCAA rules regarding preferential treatment and benefits,” said Jennifer Strawley, NCAA director of membership services and student-athlete reinstatement. “The NCAA strives to ensure equitable treatment and fair competition for student-athletes, and the fact that the student-athletes knowingly were paid thousands of dollars for work they did not perform was a significant factor when determining the sanctions.  Further, the high level of culpability and responsibility exhibited by both student-athletes warrants a significant sanction that reflects the seriousness of the violations.”

The school has stated that both of the student-athletes clocked in and were paid for work they did not perform, including times when they were attending class, eating dinner or at football practice. In addition, the university reported that the student-athletes began the practice of clocking one another in and out, dependent on who arrived first and left last each day.

In addition, the university reported that the student-athletes failed to notify or receive approval from the institution’s compliance staff for their employment during the 2005-06 academic year. Both student-athletes also failed to complete and sign the required notification form for work during the academic year.

In determining the amounts that each student-athlete did not earn, the institution utilized personal testimony, benchmarking against the pay of others who had similar schedules, as well as work schedules, practice schedules and other available documentation. The institution has also stated it considered all mitigating factors affecting the student-athletes in its calculation.

During the reinstatement process, the NCAA staff considers a number of factors, including guidelines established by the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, any relevant case precedent, the student-athlete’s responsibility for the violation, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the institution.

Each of the universities involved can appeal the decision to the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee, an independent committee comprised of representatives from NCAA member colleges, universities and athletic conferences.