Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 12, 1988)
• We Deliver • 846-5273 • to Dont miss fi&M LflTE NITE t Thursday. Friday and Saturday Nights open til 2 am aan Slaak Housa 108 Collage Main Call about Salivary w • We Deliver • 846-5273 • Southwood Valley Pool 764-3787 Winter Pool Hours Monday-Friday 5:30-6:30 a.m. Adult Lap Swim 9:00-1 1:00 General Public 1 1:00-1:00 Adult Lap Swim 1:00-7:00 General Public Saturday-Sunday 1 1 :00-1 :00 Adult Lap Swim 1 :00-6:00 General Public Orthopaedic ssociotes Douglas M. Stauch, M.D V P.A. James B. Giles, M.D., P.A. Mark B. Riley, M.D. Board Certified Are Pleased to Announce the Relocation and Expansion of their Office to Brazos Valley Medical Plaza 1602 Rock Prairie Road, Suite 360 College Station, 693-6339 (Eft. 9/12/88) On active staff at both local hospitals ARTHROSCOPY • ARTHRITIS TOTAL JOINT REPLACEMENT SPORTS MEDICINE LUMBAR DISC SURGERY HAND SURGERY & FOOT DISORDERS TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH ' EAST BYPASS ROCK PRAIRIE RD C?5[ HUMANA Effective September 12, 1988 THE CAPTAIN’S Half Shell Oyster Bar Oyster 206 E. Villa Maria 775-9079 m ■ o CM > ■ CC (0 ■o ■ ■a TLm LL 3 (/» ■ C fS O X 3 w s TO ■ mm o >■ ■ >% 0) CL CL (0 (/) CL "3 o c < Lh 3 3 X 0) STUDENT HA5RCARE SAVINGS! COUPON SAVINGS I i I l OFF STUDENT CUT Reg. $8 1 I I MasterCuts family t laircutters I I $4 OFF STUDENT CUT I 1 Page 4/The Battalion/Monday, September 12, 1988 Reg. $8 r i $ i i 5 MasterCuts I family haircut tecs l OFF ANY PERM ~I MasterCuts j Yamfly haircuttos * MasterCuts family haircutters POST OAK MALL 693-9998 NCAA infractions report blasts^ Texas A&M’s football program (Con MISSION, Kan. (AP) — Here is the Texas A&M infractions report, by the National Colle giate Athletic Association Committee on Infrac tions, as released Friday by S. David Berst, NCAA director ofenforoement. This report is organized as follows: I. Introduction. II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as deter mined by committee. III. Committee on Infractions penalties. I. Introduction In 1985, newspaper artides were published that contained allegations of violations of NCAA legislation in the Texas A&M University intercol legiate football program. Although the university began its own investigation at mat time, only a few violations were discovered. and In March 1988, following a preliminary inquiry id investigation by the NCAA, an official in quiry (which set forth a variety of alleged but not seif-reported violations of NCAA legislation) in the sport of football during the 1989-90 aca demic year; a two-year probationary period, and a requirement to file reports regarding the disd- e inary actions taken against certain staff mem- ks and the steps taken to assert institutional control over its football program. II. Violations of NCAA legislation A. Significant violations of NCAA legislation. 1. The scope and nature of the violations examined and found in this case by the Commit tee on Infractions demonstrate that the universi ty did not exerdse appropriate institutional con trol over the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. The university's assistant football coaches, student-athletes and representatives of its athletics interests engaged in a variety of activities that demonstrated that these indivi duals had little knowledge of, or regard for, NCAA standards. Assistant football coaches, student-athletes who served as hosts for the official visits of prospects and representatives of the uni versity’s athletics interests collectively engaged in actions such as: offering prospects and their relatives improper inducements to attend the university, using language with prospects or their relatives that could be understood to imply that the prospects or relatives would receive im proper inducements or benefits; engaging in Improper contacts with prospects (due to the number, place or persons present at such con tacts); providing extra benefits to students- athletes (by at least one assistant coach), and conducting improper practice sessions, nnois was submitted to the university. The university then conducted an in-depth in vestigation in order to respond to the official in quiry, and on Aug. 13,1988, the NCAA Commit tee on Infractions met with university rep resentatives, including the new president, Wi liam H. Mobley, in order to consider the uni versity's response to the alleged violations. Following this hearing, me Committee on In fractions deliberated in private and found that members of me university’s football coaching staff, student-athletes in the sport of football and representatives of the university’s athletics in terests had violated NCAA legislation. Certain assistant football coaches offered or ave improper inducements to prospective stu- ent-athletes, used language when communi cating with prospects or their relatives that reasonably could be interpreted by those per sons as offers of substantial improper induce ments or benefits, and engaged in contacts with prospective student-athletes mat violated NCAA legislation due to the number or location of those contacts or the persons who were present at the contacts. The committee also found that student- athletes at the university and representatives of me university's athletics interests engaged in similar activities. In several instances, the com mittee found that enrolled student-athletes at the university received benefits that violated NCAA legislation These various findings are set form in Part il of this report. Of equal importance to me specific violations of NCAA legislation found are the committee's findings regarding willful violations of the princi ples of ethical conduct (as defined by NCAA leg islation) by two assistant football coaches and the university's failure to exercise appropriate control over its football program. These findings also are set forth in Part II of this report. These two assistant football coaches enoaged in unethical conduct by knowingly and willfully providing false or misleading informa tion regarding alleged violations of NCAA legis lation. The committee believes that this unethical conduct is one symptom of the university's fai lure to establish appropriate institutional control. Further, the scope and nature of the violations found in this case demonstrate me university's past failure to adequately educate, control or monitor its football coaching staff, student- athletes and representatives of its athletics in terests. The university submitted a variety of docu ments to the committee in an effort to demon strate that, in prior years, it had adopted proce dures to ensure that its football program com plied with the terms of NCAA legislation. The violations found in this case, however, show that these procedures were not implemented in a manner that accomplished that result. In fact, the university's assistant football coa ches, student-athletes and institutional rep resentatives who were involved in this case ap peared to have little knowledge of, or little re gard for, NCAA standards. Texas A&M University has one individual serving as both its head football coach and di rector of athletics. Although mere is nothing in herently improper in mis organizational struc ture, such an arrangement does not diminish the university's responsibility to exercise institu tional control over its football program. If such an administrative structure is contin ued. the university must ensure that there is adequate administrative supervision and moni toring of the football program to prevent a recur rence of violations in that program. >d Will serve i After I actions that were designed to gain control over the university's athletics program in general and its football program in particular. The committee believes mat President Mo bley’s actions provide a basis for mitigating the penalties in mis case. Absent President Mo bley's actions, the penalties imposed on the university's football program would have been more severe. Nevertheless, the committee determined that significant penalties should be imposed on the university’s football program. This case invotves findings regarding numerous and serious viola tions of NCAA legislation. Although many of the prospective student- athletes who were involved in recruiting viola tions did not enroll at Texas A&M University, committing a violation of NCAA legislation is not made less serious by the fact that a prospect did not enroll at the university after receiving an im proper inducement. Moreover, a number of prospects who were offered recruiting inducements did enroll and compete. The violations found in this case re garding enrolled student-athletes or prospects who later enrolled at the university, when cou pled with me university’s lack ot institutional control over its football program, resulted in a significant competitive advantage for the uni versity’s football team. Further, if the university and its director of ath letics had adequately monitored the football program, many of the violations found in this case would have been discovered and self- reported. The university then would have had to declare certain football team members ineligible to compete for Texas A&M University in both regular and postseason competition. One of these team members who received substantial extra benefits was instrumental to the team’s successes in recent years. Finally, there were the ethical conduct viola tions that were committed by key members of the football staff. These violations involved sup plying false and misleading information during the course of the investigation, as well as during the hearing before this committee by one coach. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee on Infractions imposed the penalties that are set forth in Part III of this report. These penalties in clude: a prohibition regarding postseason com petition by the university's football team during the 1988-89 academic year; restrictions on re cruiting activities during the 1988-89 academic year; a limitation on the number of initial grants- in-aid that may be provided to student-athletes f football during These violations, for the most part, appear not to have been discovered by the director of athle tics, who also is the head football coach. Al though this individual had formally established some educational and monitoring systems, these systems did not, in fact, function in a manner that gave the Institution appropriate control of its intercollegiate football program. Inadequate monitoring and reporting systems In the football program resulted in the failure to report violations to the NCAA, and, therefore, student-athletes who should have been de clared ineligible for competition were allowed to compete for the university’s intercollegiate foot ball team. 2. In late January or early February 1985, dur ing a visit to the home of a prospective student- atnlete, an assistant football coach parked a Datsun 280ZX automobile in front of the young man's home and allegedly told the prospect that the car could be his (the prospect's); further, the assistant coach reportedly told the young man to think about this statement before making a final dedsion regarding a collegiate institution. The language used by the assistant coach led the prospect reasonably to believe that he was being ottered an automobile at no cost to him as an inducement to attend the institution. (NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b)). 3. In January 1985, during a telephone con versation with the brother of a prospective stu dent-athlete, an assistant football coach allege dly stated that the head football coach could ar range employment for his wife; further, during this same telephone conversation, the assistant coach reportedly stated that if the prospect would attend the institution, arrangements would be made for the young man’s father to receive medical treatments, and finally, during this telephone conversation, the assistant coach also told the brother that the prospect would be well taken care of if the prospect attended the institution. (NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(d)). 4. An assistant football coach 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, this assistant coach allegedly demonstrated a knowing and willful effort on his part to operate the university’s intercollegiate football program contrary to the requirements and provisions of NCAA legislation by his in volvement in the violations set forth in Parts II- A-2 and ll-A-3 of this report. Also, in a Jan. 22, 1988, interview by two NCAA enforcement representatives, the assis tant coach allegedly provided false and mislead ing information concerning his involvement in and knowledge of the violations set lorth in Pari ll-A-3 of this report; further, during the course ol the hearing before the Committee on Infractions on Aug. 13, 1988, the assistant coach reported ly made false statements in that he denied in volvement in the violations set forth in Parts II- A-2, ll-A-3 and ll-B-11 of this report. (NCAA Constitution 3-6-(al-(1l-(iii) and 3-6-(a)-(1)-(iv)). 5. An assistant football coach 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, during interviews on June 12. 1985, and Dec. 16, 1987, by three NCAA enfor cement representatives, this assistant coach al legedly provided false and misleading informa tion concerning his involvement in and knowl edge of the violation set forth in Part ll-A-6 of this report. The assistant coach admitted in the hearing before the Committee on Infractions that he had willfully and knowingly withheld in formation regarding the events described in Part ll-A-6 of this report from both the university and the NCAA until after the NCAA's official inquiry, which included that allegation, was received by the university. (NCAA Constitutior 3-8-(a)-(1)-(iv)). 6. An assistant football coach reportedly im peded another university’s ability to contact a prospective student-athlete, on Feb. 12. 1985, the day prior to the National Letter of Intent sign ing date, by entertaining the young man at an apartment that was owned by a representative of the university’s athletics interests. Specifically, although the prospect already had committed verbally to attend the institution, the young man had agreed to meet coaches representing another NCAA institution at his home during the late afternoon of Feb. 12; fur ther, earlier in the day, the assistant coach ar ranged to meet the young man in the afternoon at a professional football team practice session, and after this practice, the prospect followed the assistant coach to the apartment in question where he was served refreshments and allowed to make telephone calls, thereby providing the young man with temporary accommodations where he could avoid contact with the recruiters from the other university. More importantly, the assistant coach allege dly failed to report this violation to the head foot ball coach, who also is the director of athletics, and the assistant coach intentionally provided misleading information to members of the NCAA staff and to the institution when he was questioned regarding his recruitment of this prospect. (NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b)-(1)). 7. During a period beginning on Dec. 22, 1983, and ending on Oct. 19. 1984, a rep resentative of the university's athletics interests allegedly arranged for a student-athlete to receive approximately $4,150 for employment at a warehouse owned by the representative during the 1983 Christmas vacation, 1984 spring break and the summer of 1984; further, the student-athlete received an advance pay ment for part of the wages, and the young man did not work the actual number of hours for which he was compensated, and finally, even for those hours he did work, the approximate $15 hourly wage was excessive for the type of work (cleaning a printing press) he was to per form. In this regard, the university had a duty to monitor this work, and this violation should have been detected and self-reported by the universi ty. This young man should have been declared ineligible for both regular-season and postsea son competition. Instead, he remained an im portant member of the team through the 1986 season. (NCAA Constitution 3-1-(f) and 3-1-(fl)-(5)). 8. During the 1986-87 academic year, a pros pective student-athlete was reportedly contac ted in person, off campus for recruiting pur poses on two occasions by a representative of the university's athletics interests; further, at a meeting a few days before the date for signing a National Letter of Intent, the representative al legedly offered an improper recruiting induce ment (an automobile at a discount rate) to the young man, and finally, the head football coach, who also was the director of athletics, became aware of the representative’s activities, but did not report this information to the NCAA enfor cement staff. Although the director of athletics told another university administrator about this incident, he failed to inform the administrator of the uni verse's duty to report this violation to the NCAA. In fact, this matter was not reported to the NCAA. (NCAA Constitution 3-2, and Bylaws 1-1-(b) and 1-2-fb)). 9. On several occasions during the 1983-84 academic year, a representative of the uni versity's athletics interests allegedly provided cash to a student-athlete, and he also arranged food and lodging for the young man and his brother. Specifically: (a) in September 1983, the representative refxjrtedly mailed a check for $100 to the young man for gas money; (b) in December 1983, the representative gave the young man a $100 check for Christmas shop ping, and (c) while the young man and his brother were traveling home for the Christmas vacation and became stranded at an airport, the representative contacted a friend and arranged for the young men to be provided lodging at a hotel near the airport. This violation was self- reported by the university. (NCAA Constitution B.^^Jtlier alleged violations of NCAA legisla tion. 1. In January 1987, during the official paid visits of two prospective student-athletes, an en rolled student-athlete at the university who served as the student host for these visits re portedly told these prospects that they would receive boots and jewelry after signing a National Letter of Intent. (NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b)). 2. On Sept. 29, 1984, while two prospective student-athletes were making unofficial visits to the university's campus, each young man was provided with a pair of white high-top Converse football Shoes at no cost to them, actions for which the university accepts responsibility. (NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(b)-(1)). 3. During the period February to June 1985, a representative of the university's athletics inter ests reportedly provided legal services at no cost to a prospective student-athlete and made in-person recruiting contacts with the young man; further, in May and June 1985, the rep resentative provided six tickets to two profes sional football games (at a value of $13 per ticket) to the prospect. (NCAA Bylaws 1-1-(b)-(1) and 1-2-(b)). 4. During the 1984-85 academic year, white recruiting two prospective student-athletes, a representative of the university's athletics Inter ests allegedly made an in-person, off-campus recruiting contact with the young men at tneir high school campus after a football game. Also, the university reported that the young men's high school coach received two meals during the prospects’ official paid visits at no cost to the coach. (NCAA Bylaws 1 -2-(b) and 1 -9-(m)). 5. In April or May 1984, in response to a request by a student-athlete, a then assistant football coach aJIeqedlv provided the student- athlete $100 cash for his personal use; further, the assistant coach reportedly gave the young man this cash with the understanding that the young man would repay the coach at a later date, although no such payment was made The university also has reported that the assistant coach made at least one cash loan ($25), which was repaid, to a student-athlete. (NCAA Consti tution 3-1-(g)-(5)). 6. During the period January 1985 to January 1987, during the official paid visits of at least nine prospective student-athletes to the uni versity's campus, the young men's student hosts allegedly purchased or gave the pros pects articles of clothing (sweat shins, sweat pants and hats). (NCAA Bylaws 1-1-(b)-(1) and 1-9-(j)-(2)). 7. In Fet 1-2-(aJ-(l)and1-2-(a)-(5)). 12. Dunng the 1984-85 academic ' 1-2-(a)-(1)-(i)). ■ The in 13. The institution’s certification of com pliance form for the 1984-85 academic year was reportedly erroneous in that the findings set forth in this report indicate that the institution's football program was not in compliance with NCAA legislation at the time the form was signed; further, with full knowledge at the time that certain practices of the university's intercol legiate football program were not in compliance with NCAA legislation, two assistant football coaches attested on statements filed with the chief executive officer of the institution that they had reported to the chief executive officer their knowledge of and involvement in any violations of NCAA legislation involving the institution when, in fact, they had not done so, and finally, based upon information provided by these indi viduals, and without intent to do so, the institu tion's then chief executive officer erroneously certified on July 16, 1985, the institution’s com pliance with NCAA legislation. (NCAA Bylaws 5-6-(d)-(3) and 5-6-(d)-(4)). 14. During the period 1976 to 1985, nu merous student-athletes allegedly sold their complimentary football tickets to teammates, friends, family members, members ol the uni versity's athletics equipment staff and other un identified individuals at costs that were in viola tion of NCAA legislation. This violation was self reported by the university. (NCAA Constitution 3-l-(a)-(3) and 3-1-(g)-(3)). 15. During the 1986-87 academic year, the head football coach reportedly asked a rep resentative of the university’s athletics interests to invite the father of two prospective student- athletes to a luncheon, although such enter tainment is not permitted under NCAA rules. This violation was self-reported by tne universi ty. (NCAA Bylaw 1-1-(a)). 16. In the summer of 1986, two rep resentatives of the university's athletics inter ests allegedly met with a prospective student- athlete at a restaurant in order to discuss the university. This violation was self-reported by the university. (NCAA Bylaw 1-2-(b)). III. Committee on Infractions penalties A. The university shall be publicly repri manded and censured, and placed on probation for a period of two years from the date these penalties are imposed, which shall be the date the 15-day appeal period expires or the date the university notifies the executive director that it will not appeal to the NCAA Council, whichever is earlier, or the date established by Council ac tion as a result of an appeal by the university to the Council, it being understood that should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate -holarshi ie 1989-t _ , In a pi action ot the Association, the penatefey, a v-M reconsidered by the Committee on 1 B. The university's interalleje Sf: n lista team shall end its 1988 seasonw®r< r ogi am- _• .... i—. r eg U iarly scheduled, ■. e w of its last regularly scheduled, contest, and the institution shall to partiapate in any postseasonlooiiUCn as Ution during the 1988 89 academicyti nles or t C. During the 1989-90 acadero. Jbi „ s ..j more than 20 student-athletes in football shall be recipients of iniiial ir. “yYh e, < - J related finandal aid (as set forthinOu|JBk„iII ; has boon arranged or awarded by Mk . , University firow.nli ■ D. No more than 75 prospeciwhovvt athletes in the sport of footballsh4!-J|H ex ist cial paid visits to the university sea-;.. , , , i a one-’/ear period beginning wiifi r« : , day of dasses tor the 1988 89acade*(|jfflBion. the university ni < E. During the 1988 89 academc,.J^ar • * more than eight full-time fooibail coa/Otni11>> 11 1 be permitted to participate in olf-campj The 12 mg activities (evaluation and in-cei-MHp,. (()l tacts); further, in the event NCAAIessiMM gardmg the permissible total ol L " as ‘ ches who may perform recruitingardhjif activities changes during the penodi:i ; ^*'j ie , airy, the university shall be limited< than the permissible total ol lul-m^H 1 '''' 111 who may perform such duties; andfor i coaches designated to represem ^-'fMcase ebruary or March 1985, a prospective student-athlete received a box containing several hats and T-shirts with Texas A&M prin ted on them. The university admitted that these items would have been sent to the prospect by either staff members or other persons for whose actions the university was responsible (NCAA Bylaw l-l-(b)-(l)). 8. In April 1985, numerous prospective stu dent-athletes who had signed National Letters of Intent to attend the university were introduced at the half time ol the university's spring football game (NCAA Bylaw 1-4-(b)). 9. During the summers of 1982 through 1984, at least two persons who then were members of the football coaching staff allegedly conducted workouts on at least four occasions each sum mer and, on occasion, discussed game stra tegies and tactics with prospective and enrolled student-athletes who visited the office after viewing films. (NCAA Bylaws 1-6-(a) and 3-1-(aM2)). 10. Dunng the 1984-85 academic yea/, while recruiting a prospective student-athlete, the head football coach and an assistant football coach allegedly contacted the prospect in per son, off campus in excess of the permissible three occasions at the young man s high school. (NCAA Bylaws 1-2-(a)-(1) and 1-2-(a)-(5)). 11. During the 1984-85 academic year, while recruiting a prospective student athlete, an as sistant football coach reportedly contacted the prospect in person in excess of the permissible three occasions at the young man's high school; further, an assistant football coach provided false information during the hearing before the Committee on Infractions by denying that this violation occurred when there was no reasona ble basis for such a denial. (NCAA Bylaws in off-campus recruiting during ihstn not include any coach found bytrieC on Infractions to have beemnvolveor conduct in this infractions case. F. The Committee on Infractions ad part of its penalties the university 1 disassociate from its athletics o representatives of its athletics wore involved in violations ol NCAA .;- G. The Committee on Infraction; Texas A&M University to showcaussri dance with Section 7-(b)-(l2Hi) olrt] Procedure Governing the NCAA Erd Program (page 246. 1988 89 NCMj why additional penalties should notUrj upon the university if it does nottakecd action in regard to two assistam locti ches for thi- r involvement in vioia::;i case as set forth in this report. NOTE: The Committee on Inlracto’i suspends this show-cause order. oas« the following disciplinary actions university regarding these coaches li varsity's actions include: (1) a protos| the off-campus recruitment of pro; dent-athletes during the l968-89ar by either coach, (2) the inability ol ere to participate in any mem compensi; the 1988-89 academic year. (3) > administrative probation for the m each coach's tenure at the umveraij jects each coach to terminapon lorn violation ot NCAA legislation; (4) mot each assistant coach's active <. football program by the university a director, and 15) a review ol each a volvement in this case, and histuiuri bon in the football program, with the )unng the 1984-85 academic year, while recruiting a prospective student-athlete, the head football coach and two assistant football coaches reportedly contacted the young man in person, off campus for recruiting purposes on more than the permissible number of occasions at and away from the young man's educational institution. (NCAA Bylaws 1-2-(a)-(i) and the unrversity prior to a decision r«p;:J renewal of each coach's contract H The Committee on Infractions adopts the university's action head football coach, which consatni him on administrative probation br r» the institution Is placed on probation I. The institution shall suomiiwfiae' the NCAA enforcement staff byJtiyl and July 30, 1990, regarding tne:(1) ken by the university during the pna year to establish appropnate inscttito’ over its intercollegiate football progr cor dance with the plan set forth ty Pi William Mobley during the nstitutoni a nee before the committee; (2j ittf* disassociate or otherwise sever with former student-athletes who don not. fuUy cooperate with the mstitum enforcement staff in the investigationiT tonng of the football program, and(3j tation of the actions referred to in Par.! E, F. G and H ol this report. NOTE: Should Texas A&MUnivari: either the findings of violations or t penalties in this case to the NCAA Cor Committee on Infractions will expanded infractions report to be mi the Council who will consider be acM expanded report will include additions bon in accordance with Section 6olM Procedure Governing the NCAA En Program A copy of the comminee'i be provided to you prior to be univenv pea/ance before the Council and. ai NCAA procedures, will be releasedi b Also, the Committee on Infractions advise the university that when be this case become effective, the should take every precaution to ensure terms are observed; further, be tends to monitor the penalties duringtw live periods, and any action contray terms of any of the penalties shall be grounds for extending the university tionary period, as well as lo consider' more severe sanctions in bis case NOTIFICATION AS REQUIRED 81 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES NOTE: The following is notification cable NCAA legislation as required by 7-(h) of the Official Procedure Govi NCAA Enforcement Program andlS k penalty proposed by the NCAA Cornifl Infractions upon the university. Please note that in accordance wibifii isions of Section 5-(d) of be NCAA Mb'? procedures, the institution shall infoml* assistant football coaches who were b violation of ethical conduct legislation case of their opportunities lo appealtaf institution be ebical conduct nndinosf tions involving bem, as well as ol tunities (along wib personal legal cart appear before the NCAA Council sub®*’ of Division I members at the timeilco'>' such an appeal. Also, bis is notice ior< versify that it will be considered a repeat under NCAA enforcement proceduresil* 1 ior violation is found wibin a five-year pel lowing the starting date of be penaines' case Accordingly, a finding of a major ie dunng this penod would result in cons^ of possible penalties as set (orb in Sec/ of be enforcement procedures. NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTOc Thomas J. Niland Jr JohnF.Nowak Patricia A. O'Hara Milton R Schroedei Alan Williams (chair) Sherrill addresses specific charges By Hal L. Hammons Sports Editor Editor’s note: Athletic Director Jackie Sherrill gave direct attention to the specific charges in the NCAA report. Here the “significant” charges and some of the “other” charges are listed with Sherrill's comments. “Significant violations” 1. Institutional control. “I’m responsible for the program. I’m supposed to see that things run properly. The big issue is institutio nal control. Ultimately it resides with the athletic director and the presi dent. 2. A Datsun 280 ZX was parked outside a recruit’s house, and an as sistant coach told the recruit a car like it could be his. “When we went to the NCAi was a different model car. Fiu] ferent people have placed five! ferent cars in that place.” 3 Insinuations that a pro'l wife would be given ajobandbi ther would get medical treatmef “Number three was tied dni to one they took out.” 4. Lying to investigatorsb'lfj sistant coach involved in chat;’ and 3. 5. Lying to investigators h' other assistant (admitted at cofj tee hearing). “It’s unfortunate we’re not court of law. Unfortunately w {C put people on the stand." Hi w 8: $] M M 7: $S Be M 6- $2 I- Cl T> 6 Ti 6 $: Si Si 5 $ W w 7 A W 8: S: Bi Ti 7- $1 See Charges, page 6