INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division II Infractions Appeals Committee has upheld the findings of unethical conduct and a two-year show cause penalty for the former head football coach at University of Central Oklahoma.

This case centered on NCAA rules violations for failure to monitor and unethical conduct. The NCAA Division II Committee on Infractions found that the former head coach failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. This violation was based on the former head coach knowingly encouraging a student-athlete to provide the university with false and misleading information during the investigation. It was also found that the former head coach knowingly committed other rules violations, allowed his assistants to commit violations and failed to set a proper tone of rules compliance in his program.

The former head coach appealed the unethical conduct finding of violation and two-year show cause penalty to the Infractions Appeals Committee. Under this show cause penalty, should the former head coach seek athletically related employment with this or any other NCAA institution during the two-year time period, he and the hiring institution must appear before the Committee on Infractions to determine whether his duties should be limited.

In his written appeal, the former head coach asserted that the finding of unethical conduct against him should be set aside on the grounds it was clearly contrary to the evidence presented to the Committee on Infractions. He also claimed the show cause penalty was excessive or inappropriate.

Throughout his written appeal and rebuttal, the former head coach pointed to various documents or interviews contained in the custodial file that he believes contradict the credibility of the witnesses on which the Committee on Infractions relied in making this finding. However, many of the documents or interviews he references were not part of the record before the Committee on Infractions. Because of this, these documents and interviews could not be considered on appeal. The former head coach had the opportunity to request the inclusion of these documents and interviews in the record before the Committee on Infractions during its hearing, but he did not.

In considering the former head coach’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcripts of the university’s hearing before the Committee on Infractions; and the submissions by the former head coach and the Committee on Infractions in preparation for this appellate decision.

In light of the evidence in the record, the Committee on Infractions’ determinations of credibility and the appeals submissions, the Infractions Appeals Committee affirmed the finding of an unethical conduct violation. The Infractions Appeals Committee also upheld the penalties against the former head coach, noting they were neither excessive nor inappropriate.