The case centered around the violations committed by one assistant coach regarding one prospect and a series of impermissible contacts and violations associated with the administration of a National Letter of Intent (NLI) over a two-day period in January 2003. Though the NLI is not administered by the NCAA, there are NCAA rules regarding the proper execution of the NLI.
This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative endeavor that may be used in place of a formal hearing when the NCAA enforcement staff, the member institution and involved individuals agree to the facts of an infractions case and also that those facts constitute major violations. In the summary disposition process, penalties are proposed by the involved institution. In this case, the committee reviewed the summary disposition report that was jointly submitted by the institution and the NCAA enforcement staff, accepting the findings in the report as well as the university's proposed penalties.
The committee found that the knowing and intentional nature of the assistant coach's conduct violated NCAA ethical standards, and for that reason the case was considered "major." However, the committee also noted that the assistant coach was in his 19th year at the institution and had never been involved in even a secondary infraction prior to this case. It was the committee's conclusion that this violation, though serious, appeared to be an uncharacteristic one-time lapse in judgment of a well-established assistant coach. The committee also noted that institutional personnel noticed that there was a problem with the NLI the day after it was faxed to the university.
The institution, the NCAA enforcement staff and the assistant football coach agreed with the committee's findings and that the facts constituted a violation of NCAA legislation. As noted earlier, the case was resolved through the summary disposition process. The committee accepted the university's proposed penalties and corrective actions and decided not to impose any additional sanctions. The penalties proposed by the university and adopted by the Division I Committee on Infractions are:
Public reprimand and censure.
Two years of probation beginning May 4, 2004, the committee's date of consideration of the case.
The assistant football coach was suspended without pay for one week during the 2003-04 academic year. He also was placed on probation for one year at the institution and had a letter of reprimand included in his personnel file
The university did not allow the assistant football coach involved in this case to engage in any off-campus recruiting activities until January 2004. Additionally, he was permitted to engage in off-campus recruiting only one of the three permissible contact weeks in January 2004.
The university restricted the number of coaches allowed off campus during the 2003-04 recruiting cycle in football. Typically seven coaches are allowed to engage in off-campus recruiting during a contact period. The institution withheld one of the seven off-campus recruiting coaches during two of the permissible contact weeks.
The university terminated the recruitment of the prospective student-athlete involved in this case.
During the probationary period, the university shall continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation and submit periodic reports to the NCAA. The university also is required to submit, to the director of the NCAA Committees on Infractions, a preliminary report that sets forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program. The institution also must file annual compliance reports indicating progress made with the program and placing particular emphasis on monitoring of recruitment by the football program and adherence to the rules and regulations of the National Letter of Intent program. At the end of the probationary period, the university's president will 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 Oregon is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 22.214.171.124, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, May 4, 2004.
* NOTE: The complete 5-page NCAA News Release from Wed., June 23, 2004 can be found at on the www.NCAA.org website at http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2004/2004062301in.htm
NCAA Press Release
eDuck Top Stories
Break Out Performance Not Quite EnoughBERKELEY, CALIF. – Freshman Justin Herbert threw for 258 yards and six touchdowns, but it was his last attempt that sealed Oregon’s fate when Cal linebacker Jordan Kunaszyk…
Ducks Struggling Trailing 31-14BERKELEY, CALIF. – The Oregon Ducks hoped having two weeks off would give them some chance at breaking a four-game win streak but at the half, it is business as usual for an inept…
eDuckYesterday at 9:23 PM
Matt Lubick on WednesdayOregon offensive coordinator Matt Lubick answers media questions about the offense and the run game as Oregon prepares for California on Friday. Kickoff for the game is 7:30 p.m.…
eDuckWednesday at 2:14 PM
Oregon Student Films Getting Dunked OverAn Oregon student filmed Jordan Bell jumping over him during a dunk contest.
ScoutWednesday at 7:05 AM