Sept. 17, 2002
Read the Public Report from the Infractions Appeals Committee
Quotes from Pres. Todd, Mitch Barnhart, Coach Morriss and the team captains
INDIANAPOLIS — The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee upheld the penalty against the University of Kentucky football program of a ban on postseason competition following the 2002 football season.
The penalty was announced January 31, 2002, by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions and was among a number of other penalties and corrective measures imposed by the committee. For a complete report issued by the Committee on Infractions on that date, see the attachment at the end of this document. The postseason ban was the only issue appealed by the university.
The case centered on violations of NCAA bylaws governing recruiting inducements, an impermissible tryout, unethical conduct and falsification of recruiting records, salary control, responsibility for the conduct of representatives of athletics interests, fiscal integrity and institutional control of recruiting funds.
Specifically, the violations included a broad pattern of providing free lodging and other inducements to football prospects, their parents and high school coaches, falsifying recruiting records, and a lack of institutional control of recruiting funds.
In its written appeal, Kentucky asserted that the penalty on a ban on postseason competition should be set aside because it is excessive and inappropriate.
The Committee on Infractions stated in its report that the penalty was based primarily on Kentucky having obtained a “significant and protracted recruiting advantage” as a result of the violations. Kentucky contended on appeal that it achieved no such recruiting advantage because few of the prospects impermissibly recruited actually enrolled in or competed for Kentucky.
In its written report the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the meaning of “recruiting advantage” is broader than achieving success in enrolling recruited student-athletes who compete successfully for an institution.
The appeals report stated: “‘Recruiting advantage’ also includes, for example, having a prospect make one of a limited number of official visits to the institution, to the detriment of other institutions that the prospect could otherwise visit. ‘Recruiting advantage’ also encompasses obtaining an enhanced reputation for the institution based on favorable communications between recruited prospects and future recruits. We conclude Kentucky construes the term ‘recruiting advantage’ too narrowly in its argument.”
In its presentation to the Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions noted that the penalty was also based on the nature, number, and extent of the recruiting violations in this case. The Committee on Infractions found that the number of violations, their scope and breadth established this case as one of the more serious ones heard by the Committee in recent years. There was evidence in the record that the motivation for these extensive and serious recruiting violations was to improperly and unfairly enhance Kentucky’s football recruitment. Based on all of this evidence, the Appeals Committee concluded the penalty should not be determined by the ultimate success of those efforts.
Kentucky also contended that the postseason competition penalty was not consistent with the results in other cases. The Appeals Committee report noted that “[t]he penalty of a ban on postseason competition has been imposed somewhat more frequently in recent cases,” and concluded that “the imposition of this penalty here is not inconsistent with the results in other recent cases.”
The Appeals Committee also examined the level of cooperation by the university during the infractions investigation as a mitigating factor in determining whether a penalty is excessive or inappropriate.
“One of the most difficult aspects of this case is the effect of the extraordinary cooperation by Kentucky in the investigation and discovery of violations in this case, and the significant corrective actions it took,” the report said. “The Committee on Infractions, in its report and presentation to this Committee, repeatedly complimented Kentucky on its overall compliance program and its cooperation in this case.”
In its presentation to the Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions emphasized the significance of the institution’s cooperation and corrective actions, but explained that the nature and extent of the violations were so serious that no further reduction in the penalty was warranted.
“We conclude the penalty was not excessive or inappropriate, notwithstanding the exemplary cooperation of the institution and its corrective actions,” the Appeals Committee report said.
The members of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Terry Don Phillips, chair, Clemson University; Noel Ragsdale, University of Southern California; Allan Ryan Jr., Harvard University; and Robert Stein, American Bar Association.
A copy of the complete report from the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee is available as an attachment below.
–30–
