INDIANAPOLIS—The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has reduced from five years to three years Alabama State University’s probation imposed by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions in 2008. The university’s probation will now end December 9, 2011.

In December 2008, the Committee on Infractions issued a report for findings of violations in the football program at Alabama State University. The case involved violation of NCAA rules for offer and inducement of prospective student-athletes, recruiting, financial aid, extra benefits, student-athlete eligibility for practice and competition, playing and practice seasons, academic fraud, supplemental fund for the coaching staff, failure to monitor by the former head coach and a lack of institutional control.

In its written appeal, the university asserted that the five-year probation imposed by the Committee on Infractions was “excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion,” which is the criteria that must be met according to NCAA rules in order for a penalty to be set aside on appeal.

The Infractions Appeals Committee has determined that an abuse of discretion in the imposition of a penalty occurs if the penalty: (1) was not based on a correct legal standard or was based on a misapprehension of the underlying substantive legal principles; (2) was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding; (3) failed to consider and weigh material factors; (4) was based on a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition was arbitrary, capricious, or irrational; or (5) was  based in significant part on one or more  irrelevant or improper factors.

In this case, when determining the penalties, the Committee on Infractions stated it considered the long period of time it took to complete the case and bring it before the committee, noting that for two and a half years there appeared to be little or no activity from the university to complete the case. However, the Infractions Appeals Committee found that the record did not support this conclusion and that substantial activity by the university occurred during this time, noting that the penalty was based on an erroneous factual determination.

The Infractions Appeals Committee further found that the Committee on Infractions did not directly address the substance or effect of the two-year probation self-imposed by the university.   The Infractions Appeals Committee noted that there was widespread public knowledge of the self-imposed probation, its substantive elements were substantial and the institution reported the status of its compliance with those elements to the NCAA through the enforcement staff and to the Southwestern Athletic Conference.  Thus, the self-imposed probation in this case carried with it the same operative elements and substantive deterrent effects as probation imposed by the NCAA.  However, the Infractions Appeals Committee stated that the Committee on Infractions is not obliged to accord every institution credit for self-imposed probation.  The specifics, objectives and impacts of self-imposed probation can vary widely from case to case and the Committee on Infractions can properly give probation and other self-imposed penalties the weight they deserve as it formulates its penalties from case to case.

As such, the Infractions Appeals Committee found the five-year probation imposed by the Committee on Infractions constituted an abuse of discretion and therefore reduced the penalty to a three-year period, ending December 9, 2011.

In considering the university’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcript of the university’s Committee on Infractions hearing; and the submissions by the university and the Committee on Infractions.

The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were: Christopher L. Griffin, Foley & Lardner LLP, chair; Susan Cross Lipnickey, Miami University (Ohio); Noel M. Ragsdale, University of Southern California; David Williams II, Vanderbilt University; and Allan A. Ryan Jr.[1], Harvard University.