Appendix B, NCAA Public Infractions Report
RELEASE: Tuesday, July 12, 1994, 1:30 p.m (Central time)
CONTACT: David Swank, Chair, NCAA Committee on
University of Oklahoma
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS ---This report is organized as
II. Findings of Institutional Violations of NCAA
III. Admissions of Individual Violations of NCAA
Legislation for which no Institutional Responsibility was Found.
IV. Committee on Infractions Penalties.
This case concerned violations of NCAA legislation
involving amateurism, recruiting, extra benefits, financial aid, and
institutional control in the football program at the University of Washington.
The University of Washington is a Division I_A institution and a member of the
Pacific_10 Conference. The university has a total enrollment of nearly 34,000
students and sponsors 12 women's and 11 men's sports.
This was an especially difficult case for the NCAA
Committee on Infractions. In part, this was because of the nature of the
violations, but also because it required the committee to evaluate the proper
role of conference investigations and adjudications involving major violations
of NCAA rules. The University of Washington and the Pacific_10 Conference
expended a great deal of time and effort in investigating violations of
conference and NCAA legislation involving the university's football program.
At the conclusion of an eight-month investigation, the conference imposed what
it considered to be the appropriate penalties resulting from these violations.
It is important to recognize the very significant role
that conferences play in compliance efforts. The NCAA and, in particular, the
Committee on Infractions appreciate the involvement of conferences in the
investigation of major infractions cases. In this case the Pacific-10
Conference did an outstanding job in its investigation. However, it is the
responsibility of the Committee on Infractions to attempt to achieve
consistency on a nationwide basis in penalties imposed on an institution
involved in the violation of NCAA legislation, recognizing that each case has
a unique set of circumstances. No matter how important conference
investigations are in resolving infractions cases, penalties imposed at the
conference level which are not consistent with penalties imposed by the
Committee on Infractions on other institutions may result in additional
penalties being imposed by the committee.
In this case, had the Pacific_10 Conference penalties not
been levied before the Committee on Infractions had an opportunity to consider
the case, the committee's penalties might well have been substantially
different than those that were actually imposed. After reviewing the evidence
presented by the University of Washington at the expedited hearing and given
the nature of the conference's penalties, the committee was reluctant to levy
substantial additional penalties upon the university simply to achieve
national uniformity. Because the committee did not want the university to
suffer unduly and did not want to extend further this already lengthy
infractions case, the committee accepted most of the conference's penalties
and imposed only a few additional penalties.
In the future, however, although the Committee on
Infractions may accept findings of violations found by a conference, it will
not adopt conference penalties that are inconsistent with NCAA penalties. The
committee explicitly reserves the right to impose its own penalties,
independent of any conference penalties that may have already been imposed,
although it will consider any penalties that the conference wishes to propose
along with the institution's proposed penalties. Conferences are always free
to impose their own additional penalties after the NCAA's case is concluded.
Postponing conference action places a greater
responsibility upon the NCAA enforcement staff to investigate and the
Committee on Infractions to adjudicate infractions cases as expeditiously as
possible. It also places a greater responsibility on the institution which has
discovered a violation to promptly involve the NCAA enforcement staff in its
investigation. If this is done, the case can be brought before the Committee
on Infractions at the conclusion of the first investigation rather than
waiting for additional independent investigations to be made by the
institution and the enforcement staff. [Page 3]
A. CASE CHRONOLOGY.
On November 4, 1992, a reporter for a Seattle newspaper
contacted the University of Washington with information about loans a
businessman allegedly had made to a football student_athlete. The university
immediately began an inquiry and contacted the Pacific_10 Conference staff for
assistance. The institution initially determined that the loans were based, at
least in part, on the student_athlete's professional football potential. On
November 12, 1992, the university declared the student_athlete ineligible for
competition. Although this violation caused the scrutiny of the university's
football program which eventually uncovered other violations of NCAA
legislation, the Pacific_10 Conference, NCAA enforcement staff and Committee
on Infractions, while agreeing with the institution that there were violations
of NCAA rules by the student-athlete which resulted in his ineligibility, did
not find any institutional involvement in the loans.
On December 9, 1992, a Los Angeles newspaper published
articles alleging additional violations of NCAA legislation by individuals
involved with the university's football program. On December 14, 1992, the
Pacific_10 Conference notified the university that it had initiated a formal
inquiry in accordance with conference compliance and enforcement procedures.
The university then retained outside independent special counsel to
investigate the allegations cooperatively with the conference investigator.
The university's special counsel and the Pacific_10
Conference investigator conducted numerous joint interviews and provided
regular status reports on the investigation to the NCAA enforcement staff. The
investigation took eight months and included more than 200 interviews of
approximately 125 individuals.
On March 2, 1993, the NCAA enforcement staff issued a
letter of preliminary inquiry. During March and April, the enforcement staff
participated in numerous interviews of student_athletes and coaches.
The Pacific_10 Conference issued a notice of charges on
June 22, 1993, and the university submitted its written response to the notice
of charges on July 30, 1993. The Pacific_10 Conference compliance and
enforcement committee conducted a hearing on August 9 and 10, 1993. Following
the hearing, the committee made findings of violations and determined proposed
penalties. The Pacific_10 Council reviewed the compliance and enforcement
committee's findings of violations and proposed penalties on August 21, 1993,
and decided to increase the prohibition on postseason bowl_game participation
from one year to two years and to reduce the television_revenue penalty from
two years to one year. The Pacific_10 presidents and chancellors affirmed the
council's actions by telephone conference on August 22, 1993. The Pacific_10
Conference announced to the news media its findings of violations and
insti[Page 4] tutional penalties on August 22, 1993, and released its written
infractions report on August 23, 1993. The NCAA enforcement staff received a
copy of the conference infractions report.
In October 1993, the enforcement staff met with
representatives of the university and conference to review the investigation
and obtain additional information. Shortly thereafter, the NCAA
summary_disposition process began.
On January 31, 1994, the University of Washington and the
NCAA enforcement staff jointly submitted a summary_disposition report to the
NCAA Committee on Infractions. This report contained a description of the
violations that the enforcement staff and the university agreed occurred and
the corrective actions and penalties taken by the institution and those
imposed by the Pacific-10 Conference.
In the report, the enforcement staff indicated that the
university's internal investigation, combined with the conference's and
enforcement staff's inquiries, was complete and thorough and that the
university had cooperated with the NCAA. The enforcement staff and the
institution agreed with the findings of violations contained in the
summary_disposition report and that the case was major in nature.
The NCAA Committee on Infractions first considered the
summary_disposition report at its meetings on February 5 and 6, 1994. After
reviewing the findings of violations and supporting information in the
summary_disposition report, the committee was concerned about institutional
control of the summer and vacation jobs program and the loans to the
student_athlete. The committee asked the university and enforcement staff to
provide more information on several aspects of the investigation involving
those issues. The university submitted a supplemental response on March 9,
1994, and the NCAA enforcement staff provided additional information on March
18, 1994, which included information from the Pacific-10 Conference.
The Committee on Infractions considered these
supplemental materials at its April 16, 1994, meeting and determined that it
was still unable to accept the findings as presented in the
summary_disposition report. On April 27, 1994, the committee notified the
university of its options regarding the findings of violations. The committee
was aware of the university's desire to conclude this case as quickly as
possible. As a result, in its letter the committee also proposed suggested
penalties that would be appropriate if the university decided to submit an
additional finding regarding institutional control.
On May 6, 1994, the university notified the committee of
its decision to amend the summary_disposition report to include the
institutional control finding but that it did not agree that the suggested
additional penalties were appropriate. The university requested the
opportunity for an expedited hearing on the penalties. [Page 5] On June 5,
1994, university, conference and NCAA enforcement representatives appeared
before the committee at an expedited hearing on the penalties in Kansas City,
B. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS.
Because this case was considered under the
summary-disposition procedure, the findings of violations are those admitted
by the university.
Six representatives of the university's athletics
interests were involved in the violations, in addition to prospective, current
and former student_athletes. No members of the university's coaching or
athletics administration staff are named in a finding of a violation.
The violations concerned:
A representative of the university's athletics interests
provided substantial extra benefits to a number of enrolled student-athletes
by paying them for work not actually performed.
A representative of the institution's athletics interests
paid excessive compensation to prospective student_athletes.
A representative of the institution's athletics interests
provided prospective and enrolled student_athletes with impermissible meals.
A representative of the institution's athletics interests
offered a prospective student_athlete and his friend improper benefits.
A representative of the institution's athletics interests
made an impermissible, off_campus recruiting contact with a prospective
Two representatives of the institution's athletics
interests made impermissible recruiting contacts with prospective
student_athletes who already had announced their intentions to attend other
institutions and encouraged them to change their commitments to the other
institutions and to attend the University of Washington.
Several hotels supplied improper benefits to prospective
student_athletes on their official visits.
The institution provided excess financial aid to a
student_athlete as a result of his employment during the academic year. [Page
There was lack of institutional control regarding the
monitoring of the summer jobs program and the disbursement of cash to football
student_athletes hosting prospective student_athletes on their official
In addition to these institutional violations, one
student-athlete was involved in the violation of NCAA rules which resulted in
his ineligibility for athletics competition. These violations did not involve
the institution since it was not established that institutional personnel were
aware of them or that representatives of the institution's athletics interests
These violations concerned:
The loss of amateur status resulting from improper loans
based in part upon the student-athlete's athletics potential.
Preferential treatment based on individual athletics
Compensation based on athletics reputation and
remuneration for radio appearances.
C. SUMMARY OF THE PENALTIES.
After considering the admitted findings submitted by the
university, the extensive supporting information provided by the university
and the conference, which included the corrective actions taken by the
university as detailed in Part IV-A of this report, and the additional
information provided at the expedited hearing, the committee imposed its
The penalties imposed, which are in excess of those
imposed by the institution and the conference, reflect the committee's finding
of a significant lack of institutional control over the summer jobs program in
the Los Angeles area. Had the athletics department and, in particular, the
members of the football coaching staff made even the most cursory examination
of that jobs program during the 10 years of its operation, they would have
discovered the violations. They could have promptly brought to a halt the
actions of the representative of the university's athletics interests, who was
almost openly paying student-athletes for work not performed. At the same time
the Los Angeles program was operating without controls, the athletics
department staff was operating a fairly well-controlled program in the Seattle
area. Violations arising out of the Seattle program were generally isolated
and few in number. Since a significant number of football student-athletes
were recruited from the Los Angeles area each year and many of them were
employed by one representative of the university's athletics interests, the
university's monitoring program should have been extended to that area despite
the distance from the institution's campus. [Page 7]
The penalties imposed by the university, the conference
and the Committee on Infractions are as follows:
1. The committee adopted as its own the following penalty
self_imposed by the institution:
Disassociation, for at least the duration of the
university's NCAA probation, of the four representatives of the institution's
athletics interests named in findings of major violations.
2. The committee adopted the following penalties imposed
by the Pacific_10 Conference:
Public reprimand and censure.
Ban on postseason competition in football for the 1993
and 1994 seasons.
Reduction in the number of permissible official visits in
football during the 1993_94 and 1994_95 academic years.
Reduction in the number of permissible initial
grants_in_aid in football during the 1994_95 and 1995_96 academic years.
3. The committee imposed the following additional
Placed the university's athletics program on probation
for two years.
Required the continued development of the institution's
comprehensive athletics compliance education program.
Required the continued improvement of its system of
distributing materials on NCAA rules to all representatives of the
institution's athletics interests and alumni.
Limited to four the number of televised regular-season
football games during either the 1994 or the 1995 season, at the university's
Required recertification of current athletics policies
and practices. [Page 8]
II. FINDINGS OF INSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF NCAA
A. EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION PAID TO NUMEROUS
STUDENT_ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS 12.4.1 AND 220.127.116.11]
From approximately the summer of 1980 to the spring of
1989, a representative of the institution's athletics interests, who was
well-known to the football staff, employed numerous student-athletes at the
Los Angeles office of a real estate development company. He had become a
representative by providing such employment to student-athletes and by being
actively involved in the recruitment of football prospective student-athletes
for the university when such practice was permissible under NCAA legislation
During the period in question, a substantial number of
the student-athletes employed by the representative received significant
compensation for hours or days they did not work.
Because the real estate company had ceased operations,
and payroll records were not available at the time of the investigation, it
was impossible to determine the exact total of unearned compensation, but
based upon interviews with the involved student-athletes the excessive
payments in this finding were approximately $30,000.
B. EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION PAID TO A STUDENT_ATHLETE. [NCAA
BYLAWS 12.4.1 AND 18.104.22.168]
During the summers of 1991 and 1992, a representative of
the institution's athletics interests employed a student_athlete at his
company in Los Angeles. During his employment, the student_athlete received
wages that were not commensurate with the work he performed. Specifically, the
student_athlete worked approximately 23 hours a week for nine weeks and
received a salary of $400 a week, an overpayment of approximately $1,445.
C. IMPERMISSIBLE MEALS PROVIDED TO PROSPECTIVE AND
ENROLLED STUDENT_ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1 AND 22.214.171.124]
During the summers of 1989, 1990 and 1991, a
representative of the institution's athletics interests provided two
student_athletes with approximately one free meal per day during their
employment at a golf course prior to and subsequent to their enrollment in the
institution. Specifically, in the summer of 1989, both student_athletes
received free meals while they were prospective student_athletes. One of the
student_athletes also received free meals during the summers of 1990 and 1991
when he was an enrolled student_athlete. The other student_athlete received
free meals during the summer of 1991 when he was an enrolled student_athlete.
D. EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION PAID TO PROSPECTIVE
STUDENT_ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS 12.4.1. AND 13.2.1]
During the summers of 1988 and 1989, an owner of a golf
course who also is a representative of the institution's athletics interests
directed the general manager of the golf course to pay two prospective
student_athletes an hourly wage that was approximately 20 percent more than
the hourly wage paid to other employees with like experience and
responsibilities. The value of the free meals in Part II_C and the excessive
wages in this part totaled approximately $850 for one student_athlete. Since
the institution did not petition for the restoration of the other
student_athlete's eligibility, his benefit was not calculated.
E. OFFER OF IMPROPER BENEFITS TO A PROSPECTIVE
STUDENT_ATHLETE. [NCAA BYLAW 13.2.1]
During January and February 1989, a representative of the
institution's athletics interests led a prospective student_athlete to believe
that if he enrolled at the institution he would be "taken care of" through the
provision of unspecified extra benefits.
F. OFFER OF IMPROPER BENEFITS TO A PROSPECTIVE
STUDENT_ATHLETE'S FRIEND. [NCAA BYLAW 13.2.1]
During January and February 1989, a representative of the
institution's athletics interests talked by telephone to a friend of a
prospective student_athlete. The representative led her to believe that if she
accompanied the prospective student_athlete to the institution, he would help
her secure a job, an apartment with a roommate, and enrollment in a local
G. IMPERMISSIBLE OFF_CAMPUS RECRUITING CONTACT BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSTITUTION'S ATHLETICS INTERESTS. [NCAA BYLAWS
13.01.5.1 AND 126.96.36.199]
In August 1989, a representative of the institution's
athletics interests contacted a prospective student_athlete outside the locker
room following the student_athlete's participation in a high school all_star
H. IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITMENT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
INSTITUTION'S ATHLETICS INTERESTS. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.01.5.1, 188.8.131.52 AND
In January 1989, a representative of the institution's
athletics interests contacted a prospective student_athlete and encouraged him
to change his verbal commitment to attend another university and to enroll in
the University of Washington. After returning to [Page 1 Seattle following his
first year in college the student_athlete worked for the representative during
the summer of 1990. The representative continued encouraging the prospective
student_athlete to transfer to the University of Washington.
I. IMPERMISSIBLE RECRUITMENT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
INSTITUTION'S ATHLETICS INTERESTS. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.01.5.1 AND 184.108.40.206]
In January 1991, a representative of the institution's
athletics interests contacted a prospective student_athlete and encouraged him
to change a verbal commitment to attend another university and to enroll in
the University of Washington.
J. IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS PROVIDED TO PROSPECTIVE
STUDENT_ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1 AND 13.4.2_(g)]
During the past few years, several Seattle hotels
provided extra amenities in the hotel rooms assigned to prospective
student_athletes on their official paid visits to the institution.
K. EXCESS FINANCIAL AID TO A STUDENT_ATHLETE. [NCAA
BYLAWS 15.1 AND 15.2.6]
During the first week of the 1991 spring quarter, a
representative of the institution's athletics interests employed a
student_athlete who was enrolled in the university but was not yet attending
classes. The representative provided the student_athlete with $200 for that
week of work. The student owed a debt to the institution, and both the
representative and the student_athlete thought that the unpaid obligation
canceled his enrollment, but it did not. Since the student_athlete was
enrolled in the university and since this employment by a representative of
the university's athletics interests was during an academic term, the $200 in
wages is counted as institutionally administered financial aid. This payment,
when combined with his athletics grant_in_aid for the quarter, provided him
with $200 more than the permissible amount of financial aid.
L. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.1
AND BYLAWS 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124 AND 126.96.36.199]
During the 1980s, the institution demonstrated a lack of
institutional control by the failure of the university, through its
administration, athletics department staff and the football coaching staff, to
monitor adequately the summer jobs program in the Los Angeles area, resulting
in numerous student_athletes receiving pay for work not performed.
During the 1987_88 through 1991_92 academic years, the
institution also demonstrated a lack of institutional control in the disburse
[Page 11] ment of and accounting for cash provided to football
student_athletes who were serving as hosts for the prospective
student_athletes during their official paid visits to the institution. By a
variety of methods, including using substitute and blank meal receipts,
student hosts and prospective student_athletes received benefits and/or
excessive entertainment not permitted by NCAA legislation. Student hosts
occasionally provided cash or souvenirs to prospective student_athletes,
retained a portion of the entertainment or meal money, and submitted falsified
receipts for amounts higher than the cost of the meals for the purpose of
keeping the excess cash. Specifically:
1. During the 1987_88 and 1988_89 academic years, a
student_athlete regularly purchased souvenirs for prospective student_athletes
or provided them with a portion of the entertainment and meal money he
received from the institution.
2. On three or four occasions between 1987 and 1990, a
student_athlete shared entertainment and meal money with prospective
student_athletes when he served as student host. For example, during a
prospective student_athlete's January 13_14, 1989, official paid visit, the
student host provided the prospective student_athlete with approximately $80,
which the prospective student_athlete used, in part, to purchase a sweat suit.
3. During January 19_21, 1990, a student_athlete provided
a prospective student_athlete with approximately $80, which the prospective
student_athlete used to purchase souvenirs.
4. During January 17_19, 1992, a student_athlete provided
cash to a prospective student_athlete.
III. ADMISSIONS OF INDIVIDUAL VIOLATIONS OF NCAA
LEGISLATION FOR WHICH NO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WAS FOUND.
In addition to the institutional violations, the
university admitted that one student-athlete had violated NCAA rules which
resulted in his being declared ineligible by the university. As a result of
these significant violations the university did not request restoration of
eligibility for the student-athlete. The Committee on Infractions did not find
any institutional responsibility for these violations. However, the discovery
of improper loans began the scrutiny of the university's football program.
These individual violations were as follows: [Page 12]
A. LOSS OF AMATEUR STATUS BY RECEIVING IMPROPER LOANS. [NCAA
On April 19, 1992, May 14, 1992, and July 24, 1992, a
student-athlete received loans of $25,000, $15,000, and $10,000, respectively,
from an individual who was not a representative of the university athletics
interests. He made the loans in part based on the student-athlete's potential
earnings as a future professional football player. The loans were arranged by
the lender's son-in-law. The son-in-law, who also was not a representative of
the university's athletics interests, had been acquainted with the
student-athlete since his sophomore year in high school. The lender had not
met the student-athlete prior to the time the initial loan was negotiated.
There was no evidence the institution's personnel knew about the loans or the
B. PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BASED ON ATHLETICS REPUTATION.
[NCAA BYLAW 12.1.2-(m)]
On one occasion in January 1992, two individuals provided
the student-athlete with free golf fees and breakfast at a golf course in
Washington. These two individuals were not representatives of the
institution's athletics interests.
C. COMPENSATION BASED ON ATHLETICS REPUTATION AND
REMUNERATION FOR RADIO APPEARANCE. [NCAA BYLAWS 188.8.131.52 AND 12.5.3.]
In January 1992, after the institution's participation in
the 1992 Rose Bowl, a Seattle-based radio station provided a student-athlete
with a jacket at no cost, with the intention of taking advantage of his
athletics reputation to generate publicity for the station.
IV. COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PENALTIES.
For the reasons set forth in this report, the Committee
on Infractions found that this case involved several major violations of NCAA
As indicated in the introductory section, the committee
had difficulty in determining the appropriate penalties under the
circumstances of this case. The committee ultimately weighed the importance of
imposing penalties that are consistent on a national level with the effect of
the conference penalties on the university. The committee particularly
considered the financial impact of the penalties. [Page 13]
The Pacific-10 Conference's television penalty allowed
the university's football team to appear in six televised games during the
1993 football season but prevented the university from receiving approximately
$939,000 in revenue which would have resulted from its participation in those
football games. However, the conference's action did not prevent the
university from receiving more than $660,000 in revenue from other games
broadcast under the conference's football television contract.
The Pacific-10 Conference ban on postseason games
prohibited the university's football team from playing in postseason games but
permitted the university to receive its share of the conference's postseason
revenues. As a result, the university received approximately $575,000 from the
conference's participation in the 1994 Rose Bowl.
Because the committee did not wish to unduly penalize the
university, it accepted most of the conference penalties. The committee did
not accept the conference probationary period, but imposed a two_year NCAA
probationary period from the date of the committee's expedited hearing of this
case. The committee also imposed a modified football television ban for one
The committee wishes to emphasize that in the future it
will not accept conference penalties that do not conform to NCAA standard
penalties, and will impose penalties warranted by the seriousness of the
violations in attempting to achieve consistency on a national level.
Following are the corrective actions and penalties
adopted and imposed by the Committee on Infractions in this case:
A. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE UNIVERSITY.
In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the
committee considered the institution's self_imposed corrective actions.
Specifically, the university:
1. Hired a senior associate director of athletics for
compliance and internal operations.
2. Expanded its significant efforts to educate a
particular group of boosters to include a broader range of individuals. In
addition, the university has changed the format of its booster publication to
feature a regular compliance column.
3. Disbanded in the summer of 1993 the Husky Hunter
organization, which consisted of approximately 400 participants, to minimize
the potential for future violations.
4. Implemented for the summer of 1993 a monitoring system
for jobs procured for prospective and current student_athletes through
representatives of the university's athletics interests for summer and
vacation periods. Prospective and current student_athletes may receive
assistance in securing jobs through the intercession of coaches or
representatives [Page 14] of athletics interests only if the jobs are obtained
through the jobs program. The monitoring system includes agreements signed by
both the employers and the student_athletes indicating knowledge of and
agreement to abide by NCAA rules governing the employment of current and
The university's jobs program clearly informs employers
that student_athlete employees are entitled only to benefits received by other
comparable employees and notifies employers and student_athletes that
student_athletes may only be paid at a rate commensurate with the rate in that
locality for similar employment. In addition, the university's monitoring of
jobs secured through representatives of the university's athletics interests
includes in_person random checks of employment situations to verify compliance
with NCAA legislation.
5. Contacted local hotels and requested them not to
provide amenities to prospective student_athletes on official visits unless
those same amenities are available to all guests.
6. Implemented several changes to the system for
providing student hosts with money during official visits. Student hosts are
no longer permitted to receive cash in excess of the $20 per day entertainment
money. Coaches must be present and must pay for the prospective
student_athlete's and host's meals or the prospective student_athlete and host
must eat at a restaurant where an account has been established for recruiting
meals. In addition, if a receipt is lost, the responsible staff member must
certify the pertinent information from the official visit meal.
7. Took steps, prior to the discovery of improper loans
to a student_athlete, to monitor student_athlete outside financial aid by
implementing in the fall of 1992 a form requiring student_athletes to report
any aid that they were receiving from sources other than athletics
scholarships or parents. The issue of outside aid was discussed extensively
with student_athletes, including members of the football team at the August
1992 rules meeting conducted by the former faculty athletics representative.
Despite the university's efforts to monitor outside financial aid received by
student_athletes, a student_athlete signed the outside aid form at the time of
the rules meeting and did not report the loans that initiated the
8. Improved its monitoring and rules-education efforts
for student_athletes. The university implemented, beginning with the 1993_94
academic year, a comprehensive check_in/check_out system designed to gather
information from student_athletes on all types of issues, including outside
aid and loans, motor vehicles, and summer employment. Each student_athlete is
required to complete a check_in for [Page 15] the fall and a check_out during
the spring. The information provided by student_athletes is monitored by the
university's compliance coordinator to determine whether there are potential
9. Barred boosters and alumni from the football team's
locker room after home and away games.
10. Planned the development of a student_athlete code of
conduct and a student_athlete handbook.
B. PENALTIES SELF_IMPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own the
following penalty taken by the institution:
1. Disassociation of the four representatives named in
findings of major violations. The committee accepted this penalty with the
understanding that the disassociation will last at least the duration of the
university's NCAA probation and that the university will take the following
actions: (a) the institution shall not accept any assistance from the
individuals that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student_athletes
or the support of enrolled student_athletes; (b) the institution shall refuse
all financial assistance or contributions for the institution's athletics
program from the individuals; (c) the institution shall ensure that no
athletics benefits or privileges are provided to the individuals, either
directly or indirectly, that are not available to the public at large; and (d)
the institution shall take such other actions against the individuals that the
institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement
of the individuals in the institution's athletics program in any manner.
C. PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE PACIFIC_10 CONFERENCE.
The committee adopted the following penalties that the
Pacific_10 Conference imposed:
1. Public reprimand and censure.
2. The university's football team shall conclude its 1993
and 1994 seasons with the playing of its last regularly scheduled, in_season
contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason
3. The number of official visits in football shall be
limited to 35 during the 1993_94 academic year and to 40 during the 1994_95
academic year. If NCAA Bylaw 184.108.40.206_(a) is amended during this two_year
period, the committee may adjust this penalty. [Page 16]
4. The university shall be limited to 15 initial
grants_in_aid in football per year during the 1994_95 and 1995_96 academic
years. If NCAA Bylaw 220.127.116.11 is amended during this period, the committee may
adjust this penalty.
D. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
Although the Committee on Infractions agreed with and
approved of the actions taken by the institution and accepted some of the
conference penalties, the committee decided to impose additional penalties.
After receiving notification of the additional penalties, the institution,
pursuant to Bylaw 18.104.22.168.3, elected to participate in an expedited hearing
on the penalties.
The university, conference and enforcement staff appeared
before the Committee on Infractions at an expedited hearing on June 5, 1994.
After the hearing, the committee decided to impose the following penalties:
1. Two years of probation from June 5, 1994, if the
institution does not appeal, or the date established by NCAA Infractions
Appeals Committee action in the event of an appeal by the university.
2. During this period of probation, the institution
shall: (a) continue to improve, develop and implement its comprehensive
educational program (e.g., seminars and testing) on NCAA legislation to
instruct coaches, the faculty athletics representative, athletics department
personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the
certification of student_athletes for admission, retention or competition; (b)
submit a preliminary report to the administrator for the Committee on
Infractions by September 1, 1994, setting forth a schedule for establishing
this compliance and educational program; and (c) file with the committee's
administrator two annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with
this program. The first report shall be filed by July 15, 1995, and the second
report is due 30 days after the conclusion of the probationary period.
Particular emphasis should be placed on the athletics department's job
3. During the period of NCAA probation, the university
shall continue to improve its system of distributing educational materials
concerning NCAA rules to all representatives of its athletics interests and
alumni. A report of these actions shall be submitted at the same time the
university submits its report on the compliance and education program. [Page
4. The institution's football team shall be limited to
appearing in a maximum of four telecasts during either the 1994 or 1995 season
except for the closed_circuit television exception provided for in Bylaw
22.214.171.124.1. This television limitation shall include live, delayed and cable
broadcasts. Because the university already may have made commitments for the
1994 football season, the university may select the year that this penalty
5. Recertification from the institution's president that
all of 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 Washington shall be
subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 126.96.36.199, concerning repeat violators,
for a five_year period beginning on the effective date of the period of
Because the university agreed to participate in the
summary_disposition process and agreed to the findings of violations in this
report, the university has waived the right to appeal the findings. Should the
university appeal the penalties imposed 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 will be
provided to the institution prior to its appearance before the appeals
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 intends to 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 Conventions 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
Jack H. Friedenthal
Roy F. Kramer
Frederick B. Lacey
Beverly E. Ledbetter
James L. Richmond
Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton
David Swank (chair)