•  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 19.5.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, May 4, 2004.

The members of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions who heard this case are: Thomas Yeager, committee chair and commissioner, Colonial Athletic Association; Indiana State University; James Park Jr., attorney, Lexington, Kentucky; and Josephine R. Potuto, professor of law, University of Nebraska College of Law Paul T. Dee, director of athletics, University of Miami; Alfred J. Lechner, Jr., attorney, Princeton, New Jersey; Gene A. Marsh, professor of law, University of Alabama School of Law; Andrea L. Myers, director of athletics.

Click here for the first part of this story  Football. Is it time to reduce the number of football scholarships? 

Baseball I Basketball I Bowling I Cross Country I Fencing I Field Hockey I Football I Golf I Gymnastics I Ice Hockey I Lacrosse  Rowing I Skiing I Soccer I Softball I Swimming I Tennis I Track and Field I Volleyball I Water Polo I Wrestling