NCAA Report on UK Football Case, Part III

Committee on Infractions penalties...


For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved numerous major violations of NCAA legislation.


In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed corrective actions and penalties. Among the actions the university has taken or will take are the following:


  1. The university assigned an associate athletics director to administrative oversight duties of the football program at the university.

  2. One person will no longer have complete control of recruiting; the entire staff will handle these duties.

  3. The university hired a new administrative assistant to work with the current head football coach. Her duties will include the handling of all the money for camps and clinics, and she will be the only person permitted to make hotel reservations on behalf of the football program. She was properly trained on NCAA restrictions and polices on paying for phone calls, movies and other incidental expenses.

  4. The institution has hired a new director of football operations. His duties will include being responsible for the on-campus duties of coordinating official and unofficial visits.

  5. Rules education sessions will include student workers. All full-time staff members and student workers will be required to attend.

  6. The associate director of athletics is now supervising the football equipment manager.

  7. The compliance office is compiling a camp manual for the use of all sports. This manual will incorporate all of the areas into one guide for the coaches. It will include a checklist to assist the coaches in their preparation for camp.

  8. Each camp director has been required to submit a written report to the compliance office. This report lists every camper, how much they paid and how they paid. An additional written report lists the camp coaches, their titles and how much they are compensated. An additional requirement will be for the camp director to schedule a meeting with the assistant athletics director for compliance to review these reports before camp proceeds are disbursed.

  9. All the university's camps are now required to channel their finances through the accounting office of the athletics department.

  10. The assistant athletics director for compliance is now more visible in the football offices, training faculties, practice areas and weight rooms. An educational meeting for football signees who are in Lexington during the summer prior to their initial full-time enrollment was conducted by the assistant athletics director for compliance.

  11. At the university's president's suggestion, a "compliance line" 1-800 telephone number was installed for employees, student-athletes and representatives of the university's athletics interests to report an incident or concern.

  12. There will be no study halls or any other types of academic support provided outside the direct supervision of the CATS personnel.

  13. The assistant athletics director for compliance must meet each fall with the booster organizations that are affiliated with the university. During this meeting, NCAA prohibitions applicable to booster involvement with the student-athletes and prospects are emphasized. In the fall of 2001, a discussion of improper involvement with the coaching staff and the prohibition against providing supplemental income to any athletics department staff members was discussed.

  14. The assistant athletics director for compliance will travel with the football team to the away contests. She will monitor complimentary admissions and assist in controlling locker room access.


  1. The university will reduce the permissible limit of 25 initial scholarships in the sport of football in 2002-03 to 16, in 2003-04 to 18, and in 2004-05 to 22.

  2. The university will reduce the number of official visits to 36 in 2001-02 and to 40 in 2002-03. The university has averaged 47 official visits in the sport of football over the past four years out of the permissible 56.

  3. For the next two years, the university will reduce the number of permissible football coaches to recruit off campus in a given week from seven to six.

  4. The former recruiting coordinator's resignation was accepted on November 20, 2000.

  5. The former head football coach's resignation was accepted on February 9, 2001.

  6. The former recruiting assistant was dismissed from her position.

  7. Student worker 2 was reassigned.

  8. Assistant football coach 1, who provided transportation on one occasion and a meal on two occasions to a prospective student-athlete, will be required to attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar at his own expense in the spring of 2002. The university believed that this requirement is appropriate based on assistant football coach 1's activities documented in this case.

  9. Athletics representative 1 was disassociated for a period of three years.

  10. Athletics representatives 4 and 7 were disassociated for a period of five years.

  11. A local restaurant and its manager were disassociated for a period of five years.


The Committee on Infractions agreed with and approved of the actions taken by the university, but it imposed additional penalties because of the serious nature of the violations in the case, including egregious and blatant violations of recruiting legislation.

The committee imposed the presumptive penalties permitted under Bylaw that directly related to the violations in this case. The committee's overall assessment of the penalty was tempered, however, by the actions taken by the university to institute appropriate corrective measures and to self-impose meaningful penalties upon its football program. It was clear to the committee that once made aware of violations, the university acted swiftly and decisively to punish those responsible and conduct a thorough and complete self-investigation. The committee was especially impressed with the efforts of the university's assistant director of athletics for compliance in her conduct of the university's self-investigation of the issues set forth in this report and with the compliance education program she has established. During the hearing, the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference commended the compliance director for her "deep commitment to the integrity of intercollegiate athletics," an assessment shared by the committee.

For all the reasons set forth in the body of the report, the committee concluded that this case demonstrated a failure of institutional control and, in consequence, that not only was such a finding warranted but that the absence of such a finding would have sent an unfortunate signal regarding the responsibility of a university to have both an adequate compliance program in place and to provide active monitoring. Typically, a finding of institutional control also results in the imposition of additional penalties. In considering all the facts and circumstances in this case, especially the efforts of the institution's compliance director, the committee determined that possible additional penalties resulting from the finding of a lack of institutional control were not appropriate.

Nonetheless, the committee imposed additional sanctions on the university primarily because of the significant and protracted recruiting advantage the committee believed was derived from the numerous and blatant violations of NCAA recruiting legislation committed by the recruiting coordinator. Several of the prospects involved in the violations eventually enrolled at the university. This number might have been even larger had the university not discontinued their recruitment in the fall of 2000 when these disclosures came to light. The additional penalties imposed by the committee are as follows:

  1. The university shall be publicly reprimanded and censured.

  2. The university shall be placed on three years of probation beginning January 31, 2002, and concluding on January 30, 2005.

  3. The institution's football team shall end its 2002 season with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any bowl game or take advantage of the exemption provided in Bylaw for preseason competition.

  4. In addition to the self-imposed limit reducing the number of initial grants in the sport of football in 2002-03 to 16, in 2003-04 to 18, and in 2004-05 to 22 (a total of 19 grants), the university shall also reduce the total number of football counters available under Bylaw from 85 to 80 during each of those years.

  5. The former recruiting coordinator will be 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 the period of time commencing with the date this report was released (January 31, 2002) and concluding on January 30, 2010, he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Division I Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures of Bylaw, which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

  6. In accordance with Bylaw, had the university failed to disassociate the athletics representatives identified in its list of self-imposed penalties, it would have been required to show-cause why it should not be subject to additional sanctions. During the respective periods of disassociation the institution shall:

    1. Refrain from accepting any assistance from the individuals who would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;

    2. Refuse financial assistance or contributions to the institution's athletics program from the individual(s);

    3. Ensure that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the individual(s), either directly or indirectly, that is not available to the public at large; and

    4. Implement other actions that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual(s) in the institution's athletics program.

  7. The university shall obtain signature control of all booster club accounts that support the university's athletics department.

  8. During this period of probation, the institution:

    1. Shall 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;

    2. Submit a preliminary report to the director of the NCAA infractions committees by March 15 setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and

    3. File with the committee's director annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by November 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on proper adherence to recruiting legislation and the control of the institution's booster clubs to include education initiatives undertaken with respect to representatives of the institution's athletics interests.

    4. The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.

  9. 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, the University of Kentucky shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, January 31, 2002.

Should Kentucky or the individuals involved 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. This response may include additional information in accordance with Bylaw 32.10.5. A copy of the report would be provided to the institution prior to the institution's appearance before 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 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 Association, 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.


    Paul T. Dee
    Jack H. Friedenthal
    Josephine R. Potuto
    Yvonne "Bonnie" Slatton
    Thomas E. Yeager, chair

AllWildcats Top Stories