TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORTA. INTRODUCTION.
On February 17, 2007, officials from Temple University appeared before the Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations of NCAA violations in the university's athletics program. The case involved allegations of fraud in the sport of men's tennis, erroneous student-athlete eligibility certifications, impermissible student-athlete textbook purchases, unethical conduct and the university's failure to monitor certain aspects of its athletics program.
Although several of the potential NCAA violations in this case were self-discovered and self-reported through the efforts of the university, the most serious of the allegations, fraudulent participation by a student-athlete in the men's tennis program, was actually uncovered by another university. This occurred at the Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Tennis Championship during the weekend of April 7-11, 2005, when coaches from another Atlantic 10 member institution recognized that one of Temple's student-athletes ("student-athlete 1"), a young man they had at one time attempted to recruit, was competing for Temple but was not listed on the team's lineup for that particular match. They also noticed the name of a student-athlete ("student-athlete 2") in Temple's lineup who was not competing in the event. The other institution's coaches were familiar with student-athlete 2 because he had previously competed against their team. Once the coaches from the other institution confirmed these discrepancies, they alerted the head referee at the site who, after making some inquiries, halted the match and disqualified Temple's squad from the conference tournament. Shortly thereafter, university officials met with the head men's tennis coach ("former head coach"), determining that an ineligible student-athlete had competed under an assumed name and that serious violations of NCAA rules had occurred. The former head coach was immediately terminated. Once the university had ascertained the scope of the former head coach's intentionally fraudulent behavior, it reported the matter to the NCAA enforcement staff on July 20, 2005.
The committee was struck by the lengths the former head coach went to conceal the fact that he was allowing an ineligible student-athlete to compete fraudulently under the name of another student-athlete who was no longer on the team. These efforts are set forth in detail in Finding B-1 of this report. It also was disturbing to the committee that the former head coach enlisted the involvement of a student-athlete in this scheme. This type of conduct by a coach is deplorable and runs counter to the very principles of fair play, honesty, and sportsmanship for which the NCAA stands.
Between July 2005 and July 2006, the university and the NCAA engaged in a joint investigation of the men's tennis program. While reviewing eligibility records, the university identified secondary violations and other violations set forth in this report. On July 19, 2006, the university received the NCAA's notice of allegations, and on July 27, 2006, a supplemental notice of allegations was sent. In August 2006, the university retained outside counsel to assist in preparing and presenting a response to the NCAA's notice of allegations.
A member of the Atlantic 10 Conference, the university has a total full-time enrollment of approximately 26,000 students and sponsors 10 men's and 11 women's intercollegiate sports. This was the university's first major infractions case.
B. FINDINGS OF MAJOR VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION.
1. INELIGIBLE PARTICIPATION AND IMPERMISSIBLE TRAVEL EXPENSES. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1, 14.01.1, 14.01.3.3, 14.11.1 and 16.8.1.2]
During the 2004-05 academic year, the former head coach knowingly and fraudulently permitted student-athlete 1 to practice, represent the institution in intercollegiate men's tennis competition, and receive travel expenses at a time when student-athlete 1 was ineligible to do so. Further, during the 2005 spring tennis season, the former head coach directed student-athlete 1 to compete under the name of student-athlete 2, an eligible student-athlete who had previously left the team and was no longer competing.
Committee Rationale
The enforcement staff and the institution were in substantial agreement with the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The former head coach did not submit a response to the notice of allegations; however, in separate interviews with institutional officials and the enforcement staff, he acknowledged his actions and direct involvement in this finding. The committee finds that the violations occurred.
Student-athlete 1, a nonqualifier when he graduated from high school in 2002, transferred to the institution from a two-year college in January 2005. At the time of his transfer, the compliance coordinator informed the former head coach that student-athlete 1 was not eligible for practice or competition. This information was given during a face-to-face meeting in which both the former head coach and student-athlete 1 acknowledged they understood that student-athlete 1 was ineligible.
Student-athlete 2 enrolled in the institution in the fall of 2003. He competed as a member of the men's tennis team during the 2003-04 academic year and was expected to be a member of the team in 2004-05. However, after participating in only one tournament in the fall of 2004 and after he had been included on the men's tennis squad list, student-athlete 2 left the team to take advantage of an employment opportunity.
After student-athlete 2 left the team and upon student-athlete 1's enrollment, the former head coach allowed ineligible student-athlete 1 to practice and compete under student-athlete 2's name in 11 matches from February 5, 2005, through April 9, 2005. Moreover, student-athlete 1 traveled to away matches, was allowed to travel with the team on a spring break training trip to South Carolina and received expenses related to that travel. As set forth in the introduction of this report, the former head coach's ruse was not discovered until the Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Tennis Championships in April 2005, when coaches from a fellow Atlantic 10 Conference institution exposed the fact that student-athlete 1 was competing under student-athlete 2's name.
The university's position was that it had no reason to suspect that the former head coach would be involved in such a scheme. According to the university, the former head coach regularly attended compliance education sessions and had an "unblemished" record of integrity. The institution does not have a tennis facility for practice or competition on campus, and "home" matches often take place at other institutions or at tennis centers in the community. According to the institution, this made it difficult for staff members to detect the former head coach's deception, as he (the former head coach) made a concerted effort to conceal his scheme. For instance:
• The former head coach either mumbled the names of the student-athletes during formal pre-match introductions, or requested opponents to skip formal introductions altogether and disperse the participating student-athletes to their courts;
• The former head coach always phoned in the results of the matches and turned in the lineup card at a later time;
• The former head coach used a pencil to fill in the lineup card he provided to an opposing team's coaches during the matches on March 30, 2005, and had student-athlete 1 listed on that card; student-athlete 2 appeared on the lineup card he turned in to the sports information office;
• On April 5, 2005, the one occasion when athletics administrators attended a men's tennis match, one of the administrators in attendance, the associate director of athletics for sports information ("associate director of athletics") reported that the former head coach made an effort to conceal student-athlete 1's true identity. Specifically, the associate director of athletics reported that the former head coach, when commenting on how individual team members were faring in the match, used the first name of student-athlete 2 when referring to student-athlete 1;
• The former head coach consistently gave scores and results for student-athlete 2 to the sports information office after every match, but never mentioned student-athlete 1;
• The former head coach instructed student-athlete 1 to remain at his dorm prior to the team's departure for the Atlantic 10 championships because he did not want student-athlete 1 to be in the position of having to introduce himself as student-athlete 2 to the associate director of athletics who was present to wish the team members good luck as they left for the tournament;
• The former head coach turned in all expense sheets with student-athlete 2's name (in place of student-athlete 1) during the spring 2005 season.
A number of men's tennis team members were interviewed during the investigation. They recalled that student-athlete 1 accompanied the former head coach to the first practice in the spring 2005 semester and was introduced to them as a new teammate. None of them saw anything unusual about his practicing or competing with the team and with one exception, none of them remembered any comments being made about student-athlete 1's eligibility. One student-athlete ("student-athlete 3") remembered that the former head coach told the team at the beginning of spring practice that student-athlete 1 "wasn't eligible yet but he was trying to get him there." Student-athlete 3 said that once student-athlete 1 began participating in regular season matches, the former head coach told the rest of the squad "not to worry about it." He did not remember the former head coach specifically stating at any time that student-athlete 1 had become eligible. Student-athlete 3 said he and the other members of the team were unaware that student-athlete 1 was competing under the name of student-athlete 2.
The former head coach confirmed that he directed student-athlete 1 to compete on the university's intercollegiate men's tennis team while ineligible and entered student-athlete 1 in competition under the name of student-athlete 2, who was eligible but no longer on the team. Shortly after the discovery of this scheme, student-athlete 1 was interviewed by the institutional officials and admitted he knew that he was ineligible, but acquiesced to the plan conceived by the former head coach to have him compete under student-athlete 2's name. Student-athlete 1 did not respond to the NCAA's attempts to contact him for an interview and did not submit a response to the notice of allegations.
2. IMPERMISSIBLE FINANCIAL AID. [NCAA Bylaws 15.2.3.1 and 16.11.2.1]
During the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years, numerous student-athletes used athletically related financial aid to purchase books for courses in which they were not enrolled and three student-athletes received athletics aid to which they were not entitled. Specifically, during the 2004-05 academic year, 17 student-athletes were discovered to have impermissibly purchased textbooks prior to the fall of 2005 for courses in which they were not enrolled. During the 2005-06 academic year, 22 student-athletes used athletics aid to purchase books for courses in which they were not enrolled. In addition to these 22 student-athletes, three student-athletes were not entitled to athletics aid but were provided athletics aid to purchase books. Of those three student-athletes not entitled to aid, two purchased required books that the institution would have provided if the student-athletes had been entitled to aid, and the third student-athlete purchased required books as well as books for courses in which he was not enrolled.
Committee Rationale
The enforcement staff and the institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The committee finds that violations occurred.
The violations were discovered during the spring 2006 semester, when the university undertook a review of the course material and book purchases made with book forms issued by the athletics compliance office to student-athletes in the fall 2005 and spring 2006 semesters. During that review, the university identified numerous student-athletes who received athletic aid to purchase books or materials at university bookstores during the 2005-06 academic year contrary to NCAA rules.
Of the original violations discovered by the university, 23 student-athletes had used athletically related aid through the use of book forms to purchase books for courses in which they were not enrolled. Those actions constitute violations of NCAA Bylaw 15.2.3.1. Additionally, three student-athletes who were not entitled to receive athletically related aid for books purchased using the book forms thus constituting violations of Bylaw 16.11.2.1. Of those student-athletes committing violations, one student-athlete obtained books through the improper use of book forms both for courses in which he was enrolled and for courses in which he was not enrolled; that student-athlete's actions constitute violations of Bylaws 15.2.3.1 and 16.11.2.1, and thus counts in both categories.
Following the initial self-reports to the NCAA of the violations committed by student-athletes during the 2005-06, the enforcement staff requested that the university review the book purchases of student-athletes prior to the fall 2005 semester. The university initiated the subsequent review by first reviewing the textbook purchases in all prior semesters of attendance for those 11 student-athletes from the previous report of violations for whom the university was seeking reinstatement. Five of the 11 student-athletes were discovered to have made prior improper purchases during the 2004-05 academic year or the 2005 summer sessions. Those violations were reported to the NCAA on August 4, 2006, as part of the university's request for reinstatement of those student-athletes' eligibility.
In addition to the book purchase violations discovered for those student-athletes who had already been identified as committing similar violations in the fall 2005 and spring 2006 semesters, 12 additional student-athletes were discovered to have impermissibly purchased textbooks prior to the fall of 2005 for courses in which they were not enrolled.
Prior to the fall of 2004, the university had a system in place to ensure that book purchases by student-athletes were compliant with NCAA legislation. Student-athletes were aware that the book forms were monitored by the compliance staff and that they would have to explain any questionable purchases. The university did not experience abuse of the system until the fall of 2004, when its former compliance coordinator left the position. The university admitted that after the departure of the former compliance director, it failed to monitor book purchases resulting in the violations set forth in this finding. Details on this particular aspect of the university's failure to monitor are set forth in Finding B-5.
3. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1 and 10.1]
During the 2004-05 academic year, the former head coach violated the principles of ethical conduct inasmuch as he did not, on all occasions, deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty and integrity normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics; further, his knowing involvement in Finding B-1 of this report demonstrates a knowing effort on his part to operate the institution's intercollegiate men's tennis program contrary to NCAA legislation.
Committee Rationale
The enforcement staff and the institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. The former head coach did not respond to the allegations or appear at the hearing. The committee finds that the violations occurred.
As previously set out in Finding B-1, the former head coach engaged in unethical conduct in that he devised a scheme in which student-athlete 1 competed under student-athlete 2's name despite the fact that he (the former head coach) was specifically informed by a university official that student-athlete 1 was ineligible. The former head coach attempted to conceal this deception by reporting scores using student-athlete 2's name for every match of the season, referring to student-athlete 1 by student-athlete 2's name in the presence of an institutional administrator, and failing to inform the media relations staff that student-athlete 2 had quit the team. This conduct is particularly egregious and was exacerbated by the fact that the former head coach conspired to involve student-athlete 1 in this deception. Such action is in direct conflict with the General Principle of Honesty and Sportsmanship, which states in part that "(coaches) shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports." Moreover, the former head coach not only abdicated his responsibility to act in an ethical manner as an NCAA coach, but he also failed in his stewardship of student-athlete 1 who is at the center of this case. NCAA Principle 2.4, The Principles of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct states:
For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility.
The former head coach's actions were in direct conflict with this basic principle.
4. INELIGIBLE PARTICIPATION AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA Bylaws 10.01.1, 10.1 and 14.01.3.3-(b)]
Student-athlete 1 acted contrary to the principles of ethical conduct inasmuch as he did not, on all occasions, deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. Specifically, student-athlete 1 represented the institution in intercollegiate athletics competition at a time when he knew he was ineligible to do so.
Committee Rationale
The enforcement staff and the institution were in substantial agreement as to the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted violations of NCAA legislation. Student-athlete 1 did not respond to the allegations or attend the infractions hearing, although he did admit to university officials that he was aware that he was ineligible to compete, but did so anyway under the name of student-athlete 2. The committee finds that the violations occurred.
As set forth in Finding B-1 above, student-athlete 1 engaged in unethical conduct by representing the institution in intercollegiate athletic competition under an assumed identity. Prior to the start of the 2005 spring tennis season, student-athlete 1 and the former head coach had been informed by the compliance coordinator that student-athlete 1 was not eligible for practice or competition at the institution. Despite this, student-athlete 1 willfully made a conscious decision to collaborate in a scheme concocted by the former head coach to have him compete under student-athlete 2's name. Although the former head coach was the instigator of this scheme, student-athlete 1 had a responsibility to resist a plan that was not only contrary to NCAA bylaws and counter to what he had been expressly told by a university official, but also was against universally understood ethical standards of conduct.
5. FAILURE TO MONITOR. [NCAA Constitution 2.8.1]
The scope and nature of the reported violations in this report demonstrated that the institution failed to monitor the institution's intercollegiate athletics program by not establishing an effective system for providing athletically related financial aid for books, an accountable system for monitoring the book awards, and an effective system for monitoring the provision of athletically related financial aid for books generally, all which resulted in the award of athletics aid to student-athletes for whom such athletics aid was not permissible. Specifically:
a. Regarding the failure to establish a system for providing athletically related financial aid for books and monitoring the book awards, the athletics department did not implement measures to ensure that student-athletes used the athletic aid provided them to purchase books only for courses in which they were enrolled during the 2005-06 academic year. As a result, during the 2005-06 academic year, 22 student-athletes used athletically related financial aid to purchase books for courses in which they were not enrolled.
b. Regarding the failure to monitor the provision of athletically related financial aid for books to student-athletes to whom such aid was not permissible during the 2005-06 academic year, the institution did not have an effective monitoring program in place to track aid for books and, as a result, three student-athletes received athletics aid to which they were not entitled. Further, one of the three student-athletes purchased books for courses in which he was not enrolled.
Committee Rationale
The enforcement staff and the institution were in substantial agreement on the facts of this finding and that those facts constituted a failure to monitor. The committee finds that the violations occurred.
As previously set forth in Finding B-2, during the time that the former director of compliance was employed by Temple -- from November 1, 1999, until September 30, 2004 -- the university established a system for providing and monitoring athletically related financial aid for required course-related books (Bylaw 15.2.3) and course supplies (Bylaw 16.3.1.1.1-(c)). The purpose of the university's procedures was to ensure that student-athletes used the athletically related financial aid provided to them to purchase only books and supplies for courses in which they were enrolled. The system relied on good-faith compliance by the student-athletes, and was followed by an active post-purchase compliance review. That review appeared to work effectively for sometime.
With specific reference to Finding B-5-a, during the former director of compliance's tenure at the university, the purpose and limits of the book awards were explained to the student-athletes upon their initial enrollment at the time when the student-athletes were required to complete all initial enrollment and athletics certification forms. The student-athletes were instructed on the appropriate use of and how to fill out a "Student Athlete Book Charge" form ("book form"), and specifically were advised that the form was to be used only to purchase course-related and required books. Student-athletes were advised that a separate form was necessary to purchase other course-related supplies (calculators, art supplies, etc.), and that the additional form would only be issued by the compliance office upon review of a syllabus showing that the supplies were required. Also, the Student-Athlete Handbook for 2004-05 and 2005-06 included a description of the university's book aid policy, advised that it applied to books on a "confirmed roster" and clearly stated that using the book forms to purchase books for others was a misuse of the policy. Staff members in the compliance office were instructed on the procedures for completing and obtaining books and supplies, including the proper use of the forms developed for that specific purpose. In addition, the procedures were explained at coaches meetings at the beginning of every semester and at various times in bi-weekly compliance/academic staff meetings during the course of the year. The former compliance director also met with the management of the university's bookstore concerning the proper use of the book forms.
An effective means of accountability with regard to book purchases was established between the compliance office and the bookstore. Prior to the beginning of each semester, the compliance office prepared a list of the student-athletes who were eligible for book aid and supplies, and oversaw her staff's typing of each such student-athlete's personal information on a book form which the former compliance coordinator then signed. This was done as a tracking mechanism to assure that only student-athletes who were entitled to athletically related institutional textbook aid received a book form for use in the bookstore. The bookstore entered the information associated with the purchase of books on the proper forms supplied by the compliance office, gave the books to the student-athlete, and then forwarded a copy of the completed book form to the compliance office later in the semester. The compliance office then checked the completed book forms from the bookstore against the list of classes in which student-athletes were officially registered. Only persons in the compliance office – the former compliance director, the administrative assistant, and the assistant athletics director for student services ("director for student services") were authorized to distribute the book forms to the student-athletes. In the event that the compliance staff (primarily the administrative assistant) observed any potential discrepancy, she took the form to the former compliance coordinator who followed up with an inquiry to the student-athlete.
Following the resignation of the former compliance director in late September 2004, the university began the process of finding and hiring a replacement. Prior to her departure, the former compliance director prepared an eight-page outline of her monitoring and other duties. During the time that the director of compliance position was vacant, the athletics department assigned the primary responsibility for maintenance of the book purchase process to the director of student services, primarily because he had previously assisted in the process. The administrative assistant in the compliance office continued with her review and monitoring functions as before. For the 2005 spring semester, 2005 summer sessions I and II, and fall 2005 terms, the director for student services followed the distribution procedures that had been previously established. However, he did not check the student-athletes' individual eligibility for this aid when giving them book forms. The post-purchase review of completed book forms received from the bookstore was not accomplished in a timely manner. The latter lapse occurred due to a combination of circumstances, including an unsuccessful initial search for a new compliance director. Although the university created and filled the new position of "compliance coordinator" in February 2005, the newly hired compliance coordinator did not have prior experience with financial aid regulations concerning student-athletes and did not immediately oversee the book form process. Further exacerbating the situation was the fact that the administrative assistant in the compliance office left her position at the end of August 2005.
When the university was finally successful in hiring a new compliance director, the university was undertaking a comprehensive review of its NCAA eligibility certification procedures and analyses. The new compliance director reviewed the overall procedures for the provision of book aid, observed that they appeared to be working, and determined that her initial focus and energy needed to be on the critical eligibility-certification review of the university's student-athletes. Due to the combination of circumstances, a full review of the completed book forms was not done for student-athlete purchases occurring during the spring of 2005, the 2005 summer sessions, and fall 2005 semesters until early 2006. As evidenced by the violations cited in Finding B-2, over the course of those semesters, several student-athletes purchased books for courses in which they were not enrolled. Early in the spring 2006 semester, after the book forms had been distributed for that semester, a full compliance review of the fall 2005 book purchases was undertaken. This led to the discovery of the improper book purchases for the fall 2005 and spring 2006 semesters, which was reported to the NCAA. Upon receiving this information, the NCAA enforcement staff requested that the university also review earlier years' book purchases to determine if the abuse of this element of financial aid predated the fall 2005 semester. In response, the university reviewed book aid for the fall 2003 through fall 2005 semesters. That review uncovered some improper purchases back to the fall 2004 semester, and no violations in spring 2004.
The university admitted that between 2004 and 2006, 36 student-athletes were permitted to impermissibly purchase textbooks that were not required for courses in which they were enrolled. The student-athletes reported a wide variety of explanations, including that they had purchased the books for their own academic interests, for girlfriends, or simply for sale to other students for cash. The committee agreed with the university's assessment that this type of abuse indicates a failure to adequately monitor student-athlete purchases at the bookstore, regardless of the rationale for that failure.
In reference to Finding B-5-b, as previously set forth in Finding B-5-a, the director for student services assumed the responsibility for the distribution and monitoring of book forms after the former director of compliance's departure. As a result, in addition to the numerous textbook purchase violations resulting in Finding B-5-a above, there were three occasions when student-athletes who were not entitled to athletically related institutional aid purchased books through the bookstore using a book form. Two of these occasions were the result of a simple oversight and mistake in failing to ensure that the two student-athletes who had previously been permitted to purchase books using institutional aid were still receiving that aid. The third individual was a walk-on student-athlete who seemingly procured the book form on his own.
C. FINDINGS OF SECONDARY VIOLATIONS.
1. FAILURE TO MEET PROGRESS-TOWARD-DEGREE REQUIREMENTS. [NCAA Bylaws 14.01.1, 14.4.3.1, 14.4.3.1-(b)-(2), 14.4.3.1.3, 14.4.3.1.5-(d), 14.5.6, 14.10.1, 16.8.1.1 and 16.8.1.2]
During the 2003-04 through the 2004-05 academic years, the institution permitted two football student-athletes and a baseball student-athlete to represent the institution in intercollegiate athletics competition while ineligible to do so. Specifically:
a. During the 2004-05 academic year, the institution permitted a football student-athlete to practice and compete in 10 intercollegiate athletics contests even though the student-athlete did not meet progress-toward degree requirements. The football student-athlete completed 17 hours of degree credit during the 2003 fall and 2004 spring semesters, which left him one hour short of meeting the required 18 credit hours during the regular academic term. The institution misinterpreted the 18-credit-hour rule for the student-athlete during the 2003-04 academic year in that the student-athlete completed a course in the fall of 2003 in which he earned a grade of D. Since D grades can be used in some degree programs at the institution, the institution believed that the student-athlete could use the D grade to meet progress-toward-degree requirements. The student-athlete could not use the D grade in his degree program, but the institution nevertheless used the D grade and certified the student-athlete as eligible for the 2004-05 academic year when he was actually one credit hour short.
b. During the 2004-05 academic year, the institution permitted a football student-athlete to practice and compete in seven intercollegiate athletics contests even though he did not meet progress-toward-degree requirements. The student-athlete initially enrolled as a full-time student at Temple in the fall of 2002. In the spring and fall of 2003, the student-athlete studied at another institution. In the spring of 2004, the student-athlete was not enrolled in any collegiate institution. The student-athlete returned to Temple during the summer of 2004 after having earned 18 transferable credits at the other institution. Temple certified the student-athlete to compete in the fall of 2004 even though he had not met progress-toward-degree requirements.
c. During the 2003-04 academic year, the institution permitted a baseball student-athlete to practice and engage in intercollegiate athletics competition although the student-athlete did not meet progress-toward degree requirements. The student-athlete was a mid-year transfer to the institution from another four-year collegiate institution in the spring of 2003. In order for the student-athlete to be eligible for the nontraditional baseball season in the fall of 2003, the student-athlete needed to accumulate 24 hours of academic credit during the 2002-03 academic year, 18 of which had to be completed during the regular academic year. The student-athlete did not meet that requirement and, therefore, was not eligible for competition in the fall of 2003. The student-athlete did not meet progress-toward-degree requirements at the end of the 2003 fall term, which rendered him ineligible for competition for the 2004 spring term. Although the student-athlete was ineligible, he engaged in 17 contests during the spring of 2004.
2. IMPROPER CERTIFICATION. [NCAA Bylaws 14.01.1 and 14.10.1]
During the fall of 2005, a women's cross country student-athlete represented the institution in intercollegiate athletics competition prior to a determination being made by the appropriate institutional authorities as to whether she was eligible to do so. Specifically, the institution permitted the student-athlete to participate in a cross country competition on September 23, 2005, prior to being properly certified for intercollegiate athletics competition by the appropriate institutional authority. The student-athlete transferred to Temple for the 2005-06 academic year from another institution, but Temple was not aware of the student-athlete's transfer status and considered her a first-year student for the purposes of determining her eligibility status. Temple determined her eligibility based on final certification from the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. Following Temple's discovery that the student-athlete was a transfer student-athlete, it determined her status correctly. The student-athlete met all transfer and progress-toward-degree requirements, thus being determined eligible to participate.
3. IMPROPER CERTIFICATION. [NCAA Bylaws 14.01.1, 14.4.3.2, 14.10.1, 14.11.1 and 16.8.1.2]
During the 2005-06 academic year, a men's soccer student-athlete represented the institution in intercollegiate athletics competition at a time when he was ineligible to do so. Specifically, the young man initially enrolled in a four-year collegiate institution in the fall of 2003 and transferred to the institution in a full-time program of studies in the fall of 2004. During the summer of 2005, preceding his third year of collegiate enrollment, the young man's academic advisor and the institution's athletics compliance department certified the young man's eligibility for the 2005-06 academic year. The academic advisor's calculation was in error. It was not until the institution's athletics compliance department conducted a certification review in the spring of 2006 that the error was discovered. The young man participated in 13 contests and received travel expenses while ineligible to do so.
D. ALLEGATIONS OF MAJOR VIOLATIONS NOT FOUND BY THE COMMITTEE.
With regard to the violations set forth in Finding B-5, failure to monitor, there was also an allegation that the institution failed to monitor the actions of the former head coach to ensure that student-athlete 1 did not practice or represent the institution in intercollegiate men's tennis competition while he was ineligible.
As explained in Finding B-1, the former head coach went to great lengths to conceal the fact that student-athlete 1 was fraudulently and ineligibly competing under student-athlete 2's name. The allegation, as it was presented to the committee by the enforcement staff, maintained that, after the former head coach and student-athlete 1 had been informed that student-athlete 1 was not eligible, athletics administrators should have taken proactive measures, such as making unannounced spot checks of practices or contests, to ensure that student-athlete 1 was not engaged in activities with the team. The committee concluded that a finding of a failure to monitor in that particular context was not warranted. The fact that the coach took rather extreme measures to "cover his tracks," and that his prior professional and behavioral history gave no indication he would have become involved in such a scheme, were factors in the committee's decision not to make a finding of a failure to monitor in that instance. The committee also noted that athletics administrators, including the director of athletics, attended one of the team's matches in the spring of 2005.
However, during the course of the hearing, and in the immediate aftermath, there was a request by the committee for the university to locate documentation surrounding the administration of the men's tennis program, including travel records and practice logs. Some of these records were located, and it appeared that Temple officials did not check practice logs to verify that they were accurate, nor did the institution require that student-athletes sign the logs. It also appeared that travel records and associated meal logs were not checked to confirm that the student-athletes listed on the logs actually traveled. The committee was troubled by the fact that the enforcement staff did not seek these records during the course of its investigation. Subsequent review of these records revealed a number of irregularities, including the fact that the names of student-athletes no longer on the team continued to appear on expense forms and practice logs long after they had departed. Had the university reviewed and verified the validity of these records at the time they were generated, questions would have been raised and the former head coach's scheme may have been discovered. Moreover, had the enforcement staff pursued the issue of these records during the investigation and made an allegation that the institution failed to monitor based on the breakdown in its record review process, the committee would likely have made the finding.
E. PENALTIES.
For the reasons set forth in Parts A and B of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved several major violations of NCAA legislation. The committee acknowledged that most of the violations documented in this report were self-discovered and self-reported by the institution. It was the committee's assessment that the university made every effort to conduct a complete and comprehensive review of the issues discovered during the course of the investigation. The committee was especially appreciative that the university brought to the hearing all of its staff members with knowledge of this case. The committee was concerned, however, by the fact that some of the violations occurred over several years and involved several sports. Moreover, the committee was deeply troubled by the egregious unethical conduct by the former head coach. In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed penalties and corrective actions. [Note: The institution's corrective actions are contained in Appendix Two.] The penalties in this case are as follows:
1. Public reprimand and censure.
2. Two years of probation beginning May 10, 2007, and concluding on May 9, 2009.
3. The institution's men's tennis team shall end the 2007-08 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season match, and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition following that season. Moreover, during the 2007-08 academic year, the men's tennis team may not take advantage of the exceptions to the limitation in the number of tennis contests that are provided in Bylaws 17.26.5.3 and 17.26.5.5, as well as any other exceptions to the maximum number of contest limitations.
4. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.4-(b), the institution will vacate all contests in which student-athlete 1 competed during the 2004-05 men's tennis season (including both singles and doubles competitions). The individual records of student-athlete 1 shall be vacated as well. Further, the institution's records regarding men's tennis, as well as the record of the former head coach, will be reconfigured to reflect the vacated records and so recorded in all publications in which men's tennis records for the 2004-05 season are reported, including, but not limited to, the institution's media guides, recruiting material as well as institution and NCAA archives. Finally, any public reference to tournament performances won during this time shall be removed, including but not limited to athletics department stationery and banners displayed in public areas such as the venue where the men's tennis team competes.
5. The former head men's tennis coach has been informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a seven-year period (May 10, 2007, to May 9, 2014), he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show cause procedures of Bylaw 19.5.2.2-(l), which could limit the former head coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.
6. During this period of probation, the institution shall:
a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid, or competition;
b. Submit a preliminary report to the office of the Committees on Infractions by July 15, 2007, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and
c. File with the office of the Committees on Infractions annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by February 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on monitoring travel procedures and funding, student-athlete eligibility, and compliance with financial aid procedures, especially relating to text book purchases. The reports also must include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties.
d. The institution shall arrange a compliance review with an outside professional agency as soon as one can be scheduled. The institution shall comply with all recommendations made by the reviewer. The results of the compliance review shall be contained in the university's next compliance report following the review.
7. The above-listed penalties are independent of and supplemental to any action that has been or may be taken by the Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) through its assessment of contemporaneous, historical, or other penalties.
8. At the conclusion of the probationary period, the institution's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.
As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Temple University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, May 10, 2007.
Should Temple University appeal either the findings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the members of the appeals committee.
The Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as for imposing more severe sanctions in this case.
Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the NCAA, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA legislative bodies directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
Paul T. Dee
Eileen K. Jennings
Alfred J.Lechner, Jr.
Thomas R. Phillips
Josephine R. Potuto, chair
Dennis E. Thomas
APPENDIX ONE
CASE CHRONOLOGY
2005
July 20 – The then faculty athletics representative self-reported to the enforcement staff that former head men's tennis coach knowingly permitted a then student-athlete to practice and compete while ineligible to do so, and that the former head men's tennis coach permitted the then student-athlete to compete under the name of an eligible student-athlete during the 2004-05 tennis season.
December 19 – The then faculty athletics representative self-reported to the enforcement staff that two then football student-athletes and a then baseball student-athlete competed while ineligible to do so due to misinterpretation of progress-toward-degree requirements.
2006
January 24-26 – The enforcement staff conducted interviews related to reported violations of NCAA legislation within the institution's men's tennis program.
March 14-17 – The enforcement staff conducted interviews related to reported violations of NCAA legislation within the institution's men's tennis program and the erroneous certification of student-athletes.
June 23 – The enforcement staff sent a notice of inquiry to the institution.
June 27 – The enforcement staff sent a letter to the former head men's tennis coach requesting an opportunity to interview him regarding reported violations of NCAA legislation within the institution's men's tennis program.
July 11 – The then faculty athletics representative self-reported to the enforcement staff that 22 student-athletes used institutionally administered financial aid to purchase books for courses in which they were not enrolled. Further, three student-athletes who were not entitled to institutional financial aid were provided institutional financial aid to purchase books.
July 14 – The then faculty athletics representative self-reported to the enforcement staff that a student-athlete had practiced and competed while ineligible due to an error in the determination of progress-toward-degree requirements.
July 18 – The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the institution and to the former head men's tennis coach.
July 24 – The enforcement staff issued a notice of allegations to the former student-athlete who had competed under another student-athlete's name.
July 26 – The enforcement staff issued a supplemental notice of allegations to the institution.
August 15 – The institution submitted a request to the director of the Committees on Infractions, to postpone the institution's scheduled hearing date of October 2006 until the next available hearing date following the December 2006 hearing.
November 3 – The institution submitted a request to the director of the Committees on Infractions requesting an extension for the institution's response. The institution was granted an extension until December 4, 2006.
December 5 – The institution submitted its response to the notice of allegations.
January 12 – The institution and the enforcement staff conducted a prehearing conference.
February 17 – The institution appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions.
May 10 – Infractions Report No. 266 was released.
APPENDIX TWO
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AS LISTED IN THE INSTITUTION'S NOVEMBER 1, 2006, RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATIONS.
1. The former head men's tennis coach was terminated on April 12, 2005.
2. The assistant director of athletics for student services was issued a letter of reprimand.
3. The student-athlete who knowingly competed for the men's tennis team while ineligible was advised that he would forever remain ineligible to participate in men's tennis at the university.