• 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