The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel”) recently issued its findings and found that Southern University (“SU” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. This case centered on an expansive, systemic breakdown in the eligibility certification process at SU that caused numerous violations of multiple NCAA bylaws. The Institution also violated financial aid legislation when it improperly awarded financial aid in multiple sports. Further, the Institution failed to comply with penalties prescribed by the NCAA’s Committee on Academic Performance (“CAP”) because the Institution had failed to attain academic performance standards. Collectively, these failures demonstrate that the Institution lacked control over certain aspects of its athletics program.

The Panel classified this case as Level I-Aggravated. The violations straddled the October 30, 2012, implementation of the new penalty structure. In conducting an analysis of when the violations took place, the Panel concluded that the violations predominately occurred before implementation of the new structure’s effective date. Consequently, the case requires a comparison of the penalty structure in effect prior to October 2012 and the current penalty structure to determine which penalty structure is more lenient. The Panel concluded that former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2 (2012-13 NCAA Division I Manual) afforded the Institution with less stringent penalties for a Level I-Aggravated case.

The Committee found SU committed the following violations of NCAA legislation:

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 12.1.1.1.3 and 14.5.4.15 (2010-11 through 2014-15); 12.11.1 (2014-15); 14.1.7.1 (2012-13 through 2013-14); 14.1.8.1 (2010-11 through 2011-12); 14.1.8.2 and 14.5.5.1 (2010-11); 14.2.1 and 14.2.1.1 (2009-10, 2011-12 through 2012-13); 14.3.1, 14.11.1 and 16.8.1.2 (2009-10 through 2012-13); 14.3.3.1 (2012-13); 14.4.3.1, 14.4.3.2 and 14.4.3.3 (2009-10 through 2014-15); 14.4.3.1.6(2011-12 through 2014-15); 14.4.3.1.7 (2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15); 14.4.3.1.8 (2011-12 through 2012-13); 14.5.4.2 (2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12); 14.5.4.2.1 (2012-13 through 2014-15); 14.10.1 and 16.8.17 (2013-14)

The Institution improperly certified over two hundred student-athletes during a six-year period. In doing so, the Institution allowed student-athletes to compete while ineligible and receive impermissible travel expenses.

The core of expansive violations in the case rests with eligibility certification failures. Beginning in the 2009-10 academic year and continuing through the 2014-15 academic year, the Institution improperly certified as eligible for practice and/or competition 218 student-athletes on 439 instances in 15 sports. As a result, 188 student-athletes received travel expenses while ineligible. Surrounding the certification failures is the Institution’s conduct that violated numerous, interrelated portions of NCAA Bylaws 12, 14 and 16.

Regarding basic principles of amateurism certification and eligibility, NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.3 requires student-athletes to receive a final certification of amateur status from the NCAA Eligibility Center prior to his or her request for final certification of eligibility or initial full-time enrollment at an NCAA Division I institution (whichever occurs earlier). Regarding institutional responsibility relating to eligibility and competition, NCAA Bylaw 12.11.1 obligates institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition.

NCAA Bylaw 14 outlines core academic requirements for student-athletes to be eligible for practice and competition. NCAA Bylaw 14.3.1 sets forth the academic requirements for an entering freshman to be eligible for financial aid, practice and competition (a “qualifier”) and provides that the NCAA Eligibility Center must certify eligibility. If a student-athlete is not a qualifier in his or her first year at an institution, NCAA Bylaw 14.3.3.1 allows such student-athletes a fourth season of intercollegiate competition if, at the beginning of the fifth academic year following the student-athlete’s initial, full-time collegiate enrollment, the student-athlete has completed at least 80 percent of his or her designated degree program.

Regarding program, hours and years to compete, NCAA Bylaws 14.1.7.1 and 14.1.8.1 require student-athletes to be enrolled in a minimum full-time program of studies to be eligible to practice. Similarly, NCAA Bylaw 14.1.8.2 requires that, to be eligible for competition, a student-athlete shall be enrolled in at least 12 semester or quarter hours. A student-athlete must complete four years of competition within five calendar years as set forth in NCAA Bylaw 14.2.1. For purposes of starting this “five-year clock,” NCAA Bylaw 14.2.1.1 specifies that a student-athlete shall be considered registered at a collegiate institution when the student-athlete initially registers in a regular term for a minimum full-time program of studies and attends the first day of classes for that term.

Beyond program, hours and years to compete requirements, NCAA bylaws establish progress-toward-degree benchmarks. NCAA Bylaw 14.4 sets progress-toward-degree requirements with specific requirements for competition identified in NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3. To maintain eligibility, NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1 requires a student-athlete to complete a required number of semester hours toward his or her designated degree beginning with the student-athlete’s second year of enrollment and prior. Similarly, NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.2 requires a student-athlete to have completed certain percentage benchmarks toward his or her degree upon entering the third, fourth and fifth year of enrollment. Further, NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.3 requires a student-athlete to meet minimum grade-point averages beginning with the second year of enrollment. These minimums are indexed to the institution’s overall cumulative grade-point average (GPA) required for graduation on an increasing scale beginning at 90 percent at the start of the second year of enrollment and concluding at 100 percent by the start of the fourth year. NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.6 sets forth an additional academic requirement for football. Specifically, a football student-athlete who does not successfully complete at least nine semester hours during the fall term and earn the Academic Progress Rate eligibility point for the fall term shall not be eligible to compete in the first four contests the following playing season. NCAA Bylaws 14.4.3.1.7 and 14.4.3.1.8 require that a student-athlete’s credit hours under progress-toward-degree requirements shall be based on hours earned or accepted for degree credit in a student-athlete’s degree program. The bylaws also requires a student-athlete to declare a major by the beginning of the third year of enrollment. By that time, the credits used to meet the progress-toward-degree requirements must be applicable to the student-athlete’s designated degree program. The bylaws also outline academic requirements if a student-athlete changes his or her major.

NCAA Bylaw 14.5 outlines eligibility requirements for transfer student-athletes. Regarding two-year college transfers, NCAA Bylaw 14.5.4.1 sets forth the requirements for a student-athlete who was a qualifier to attain eligibility the first year at the certifying member institution. These requirements include a minimum residency of one semester at the two-year institution, at least a 2.5 GPA and 12 hours of transferrable-degree credit hours. On the other hand, NCAA Bylaws 14.5.4.2 and 14.5.4.2.1 outline requirements for a two-year transfer who was a nonqualifier to be eligible the first year of residency. Specifically, a nonqualifier must have graduated from the two-year college, completed a minimum of 48 semester hours that include transferable math and English credits, attended the college for at least three semesters (or four quarters) and have at least a 2.5 GPA. Regarding four-year college transfers, NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.1 requires a student-athlete transferring from a four-year institution to fulfill a residence requirement of one full academic year before being eligible.

As it relates to Institutions’ responsibilities, NCAA Bylaws 14.11.1 and 14.10.1 obligate institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition. Finally, NCAA Bylaws 16.8.1.2 and 16.8.1 permit institutions to provide actual and necessary travel expenses only to eligible student-athletes.

The scope and breadth of the Institution’s conduct in this case implicates these numerous, interrelated NCAA bylaws. The case, however, starts with certification failures. Over the course of six years, the Institution improperly certified 218 student-athletes in all its sports programs. These failures violated provisions of NCAA Bylaw 12 (amateurism and general athletics eligibility), NCAA Bylaw 14 (academic eligibility) and NCAA Bylaw 16 (benefits). The clear majority of the violations were concentrated in NCAA Bylaw 14.

Over a five-year period, the Institution failed to obtain final certification of amateur status from the NCAA Eligibility Center for 65 student-athletes. When the Institution did not certify the amateurism status of these student-athletes, it violated NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.3. Also within NCAA Bylaw 12 is the requirement for institutions to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition. The Institution failed to withhold ineligible student-athletes from competition on numerous occasions, violating NCAA Bylaw 12.11.1 (2014-15 Division I Manual).

The Institution also violated numerous provisions of NCAA Bylaw 14 relating to seasons of competition, initial academic eligibility, continuing eligibility/progress-toward-degree eligibility and transfer eligibility. On two occasions the Institution allowed student-athletes to compete for more than four years, the maximum allowed under NCAA legislation. The Institution also allowed one student-athlete to compete after she exhausted her four seasons of competition. It also improperly calculated the start of another student-athlete’s five-year eligibility period (the “five-year clock”). The Institution’s errors caused the student-athlete to compete after he exhausted his four seasons, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.2.1 and 14.2.1.1.

The Institution also allowed student-athletes to compete who did not qualify for initial eligibility. Only qualifiers can receive financial aid, and engage in practice and competition. When the institution allowed six nonqualifier student-athletes to practice and compete, it violated NCAA Bylaw 14.3.1. Further, student-athletes who were initial nonqualifiers (but later obtained eligibility) must have completed 80 percent of their degree program to get a fourth season of eligibility. When the institution allowed a fourth year of eligibility for a nonqualifier who had not completed 80 percent of a degree program, the institution violated NCAA Bylaw 14.3.3.1.

The Institution committed additional violations when it allowed some student-athletes to practice and compete who were not enrolled full-time. To be eligible for practice, student-athletes must be enrolled full-time as defined by the institution. To engage in intercollegiate competition, student-athletes must also be enrolled full time, but the full-time enrollment cannot be less than 12 hours. When the Institution allowed five student-athletes to practice while enrolled less than full time at the Institution, it violated NCAA Bylaws 14.1.7.1 and 14.1.8.1. Further, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaw 14.1.8.2 when it allowed one student-athlete to compete while enrolled less than full time at the Institution.

The Institution also committed violations in the area of academic progress. Beginning in the 2009-10 academic year and continuing through the 2014-15 academic year, the Institution allowed student-athletes to compete who did not meet various credit hour requirements and benchmarks needed for continuing eligibility and progress-toward-degree under NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3. When six student-athletes failed to pass 24 semester hours of academic credit prior to the start of their second year of collegiate enrollment, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.4.3.1-(a) and 14.4.3.1.7. Further, when 77 student-athletes failed to complete 18 semester hours of academic credit during the preceding regular two semesters, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.4.3.1-(b) and 14.4.3.1.7 (or NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.8). Finally, when 56 student-athletes failed to complete six semester hours of academic credit during the preceding regular term, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.4.3.1-(c) and 14.4.3.1.7 (or NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.8).

The Institution committed additional violations of progress-to-degree legislation unique to football. When, over the course of four years, 10 football student-athletes failed to complete at least nine semester hours during the fall term or did not earn an Academic Progress Rate (“APR”) eligibility point for the fall term, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.1.6.

Some student-athletes were allowed to compete who failed to meet the minimum grade-point average (GPA). These minimums are indexed to the institution’s overall cumulative GPA required to graduate (for all students). When, over a six-year period beginning with the 2009-10 academic year, 17 student-athletes failed to maintain the minimum GPA, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.3.

The Institution also violated several provisions of academic eligibility legislation governing transfer student-athletes under NCAA Bylaw 14.5. The violations involved both two-year college transfers and four-year college transfers.

With regard to two-year college transfers, beginning in the 2010-11 academic year and continuing through the 2014-15 academic year, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaw 14.5.4.1-(c). It did so when it impermissibly certified as eligible five two-year college transfer student-athletes who were qualifiers. They did not, however, complete an average of at least 12 semester or quarter hours of transferable-degree credit for each full time academic term at the two-year college. Further violations of NCAA Bylaw 14.5 occurred involving two-year transfers who were nonqualifiers. Beginning in the 2009-10 academic year and continuing through the 2014-15 academic year, the institution violated NCAA Bylaws 14.5.4.2 and 14.5.4.2.1 and their subparts when it impermissibly certified seven two-year college transfer student-athletes who were nonqualifiers. The violations involved four areas for the two-year transfers: 1) five of the seven failing to graduate from a two-year institution; 2) three of the seven failing to complete a minimum of 48 semester hours of transferable-degree credit; 3) one failing to attend a two-year college as a full-time student for at least three semesters or four quarters; and 4) one failing to achieve a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.5.

Regarding four-year college transfers, the Institution violated NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.1 during the 2010-11 academic year when a four-year transfer student-athlete competed for the Institution without fulfilling the one full academic year residence requirement.

Finally, student-athletes who were ineligible received impermissible travel expenses. When, over a six-year period, the Institution provided actual and necessary travel expenses to 188 student-athletes who were ineligible, it violated NCAA Bylaws 16.8.1.2 (2009-10 through 2012-13) and 16.8.1 (2013-14).

Pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1, the Panel concluded that the violations are Level I because it seriously undermines and threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, includes many student-athletes participating over multiple years while ineligible and provided the Institution with a substantial or extensive competitive advantage. Further, the Institution’s actions are contrary to the fundamental responsibility of a Division I member institution to maintain institutional control and to certify the eligibility of all student-athletes under the terms and conditions of the NCAA constitution and bylaws.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws15.02.4.1, (2011-12 through 2013-14), 15.02.4.2 (2014-15), 15.5.3.1.1, 15.5.3.1.2, 15.5.4 and 15.5.6.2 (2011-12 through 2014-15)

Over a four-year period, the Institution exceeded grant-in-aid and counter limits when it failed to properly apply financial aid legislation to tuition waivers provided by the state.

The Institution exceeded financial aid limits in the sports of baseball, women’s track, men’s track, football and softball when it did not properly account for a state-mandated student-athlete financial aid waiver when determining some student-athletes’ financial aid packages. This failure resulted in the Institution exceeding annual equivalency limits in men’s track, women’s track, softball, football and baseball. It also caused the Institution to exceed the limit on the total number of counters in baseball. This failure resulted in violations of NCAA Bylaw 15.

NCAA Bylaw 15 governs financial aid for student-athletes. A fundamental responsibility of NCAA member institutions is the proper application of financial aid rules and regulations. NCAA Bylaws 15.02.4.1 and 15.02.4.2 identify the various sources of funds that qualify as “countable” institutional financial aid. Among these sources are tuition waivers as specified in NCAA Bylaws 15.02.4.1-(a)-(3) and 15.02.4.2-(a)-(3). Louisiana state law provides all state institutions a non-resident tuition fee waiver for any out-of-state student-athlete receiving athletics aid. The non-resident fee waiver allows a student-athlete to pay in-state tuition rather than the more expensive out-of-state tuition.

NCAA Bylaw 15.5 sets forth the maximum institutional grant-in-aid limitations by sport. Specifically, NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1.1 identifies the maximum grant-in-aid equivalencies in various men’s sports, while NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1.2 does the same for women’s sports. NCAA Bylaw 15.5.4 sets the equivalency limit for baseball and limits the number of “counters” that are allowed in baseball. NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.2 sets equivalency and counter limits Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) football.

The Institution violated several provisions of NCAA Bylaw 15 when it failed to count in-state tuition waivers in determining some student-athletes’ financial aid packages. This failure resulted in the Institution exceeding equivalency limits in the sports of men’s track, women’s track, softball, football and baseball. It also exceeded the maximum number of counters in baseball. When the Institution did not properly account for the out-of-state tuition waiver, causing the Institution to exceed the grant-in-aid equivalency limits in men’s track, it violated NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1.1. Similarly, when it exceeded the equivalency limits in women’s track and softball, it violated NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1.2.

Further, when the Institution exceeded the grant-in-aid equivalencies limits in FCS football, it violated NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.2. Finally, when the exceeded equivalency and counter limits in baseball, it violated NCAA Bylaw 15.5.4.

The misapplication of financial aid legislation resulting in the over-awarding of grants-in-aid and overages in counters is a significant breach of conduct because the violations were not isolated and they provided the Institution with more than a minimal recruiting and competitive advantage. The Panel concluded the violations are Level II pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.1.2.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 14.8.1.1 (2014-15 and 2015-16)

Over the course of three semesters beginning in the fall of 2014, the Institution did not fulfill practice and competition limitations levied by the CAP for failures to achieve performance standards required by the academic performance program.

Beginning with the 2014-15 academic year and concluding in the fall of 2015, the Institution did not comply with penalties in the form of limitations on practice time and competitions prescribed by the CAP. These penalties resulted from the institution’s failure to satisfy the appropriate academic standards required under the academic performance program. The NCAA notified the institution of these penalties in a May 6, 2014, email. But the Institution did not inform the coaches of the limitations, so they were not implemented. This conduct violated NCAA Bylaw 14.

NCAA Bylaw 14.8.1.1 requires the CAP to notify an Institution when it fails to satisfy the appropriate academic standards as outlined in the academic performance program. If required, the Institution shall then apply the applicable penalty pursuant to the policies of the academic performance program. When the Institution failed to comply with penalties prescribed by the CAP, it violated NCAA Bylaw 14.8.1.1.

The failure to apply penalties prescribed by CAP is a significant breach of conduct because the violation compromises the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, was not isolated and provided the Institution with more than a minimal recruiting and competitive advantage. Further, the purpose of limiting the Institution’s countable athletically related activities (“CARA”) is for the Institution to substitute that time for academic programing. By failing to comply with these limits, the Institution also failed to substitute this time for academically related activities. The Panel concluded the violation is Level II pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.1.2.

Violations of NCAA Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1, and 6.01.1 (2009-10 through 2015-16 Division I Manual)

The Institution failed to monitor its athletics department and exhibited a lack of institutional control in three areas. First, the Institution failed to monitor the athletics eligibility certification process. Second, the Institution failed to properly apply financial aid legislation. Third, the Institution did not comply with penalties prescribed by CAP.

From the 2009-10 through the 2015-16 academic years, the Institution lacked control when it improperly certified the academic eligibility of 218 student-athletes. The improper certifications of eligibility were due to several factors, including a lack of training and/or understanding of NCAA eligibility legislation, a faulty student information system and the lack of involvement by individuals outside of athletics in the certification process. The Institution also lacked control when it failed to treat an out-of-state tuition waiver as countable aid when determining student-athletes financial aid packages. Finally, the Institution demonstrated a lack of control when it did not fulfill penalties prescribed by CAP. These failures violated NCAA Constitution Articles 2 and 6.

NCAA Constitution 2.1.1, 2.8.1 and 6.01.1 require that each member institution comply with all rules and regulations of the Association, monitor its programs to ensure control over all aspects of it intercollegiate athletics program. The Constitution also establishes that the Institution’s administration or faculty, or a combination of the two, exercise control and responsibility over the conduct of the institution’s intercollegiate athletics programs. The Institution failed in this regard.

The eligibility certification failures occurred in large part because individuals responsible for athletics certification often did not have the background or expertise necessary to perform these tasks. They lacked the rules education to fully understand the complexities of the NCAA eligibility certification process and there was no opportunity, or time, to develop internal systems to apply the rules. Some athletics department staff members responsible for eligibility certification indicated that they often performed several jobs within the department. They also reported that they often felt overworked and did the best job they could with limited resources. The Institution should have devoted more resources, time and training to ensure that the eligibility certification process worked.

A faulty student information system also contributed to eligibility certification errors. When the institution made an abrupt transition to a new information system, many computer coding errors occurred, often resulting in the incorrect recording of students’ (including student-athletes’) majors. This rendered the Institution incapable of generating accurate academic records for all students. The Institution’s academic record keeping was so flawed that during the APP review the institution could not compile the documents (e.g., transcripts and certification forms) necessary for AMA to determine whether the Institution had properly academically certified student-athletes.

A lack of assistance or involvement from other campus departments was another weakness in the eligibility certification process. Eligibility certification had no checks and balances outside of athletics. Athletics department staff members often handled eligibility certification exclusively with little or no assistance or collaboration from staff members outside of athletics. The Institution would have been better served by more closely involving other departments, most notably the registrar, in the certification of eligibility.

A failure to properly account for an out-of-state tuition waiver was also indicative of a lack of institutional control. The Institution failed to treat this waiver as countable aid. As a result, the institution exceeded equivalency limits in five sports and surpassed the allowable counters in one of the five sports, baseball. In this case, the Institution’s financial aid department should have verified student-athletes’ eligibility for non-resident fee waivers.

Finally, the Institution demonstrated a lack of institutional control when it failed to comply with practice and competition penalties prescribed by the CAP. The information relating to these penalties was conveyed to the Institution in an email from the NCAA’s AMA staff to several individuals within the institution’s administration. However, due to frequent staff turnover and poor communication protocol, the coaches of sports affected by the penalties were never informed of them. Given the on-going issues with eligibility certification, the Institution should have been in a state of heightened awareness and sensitivity to compliance with legislated requirements and appropriately reacted to the penalties prescribed by the CAP.

The Panel has concluded that extensive failures to certify eligibility demonstrate a lack of institutional control under the NCAA Constitution. See University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (2014) (concluding that, over five academic years, the institution erroneously certified 124 student-athletes for competition when it failed to apply NCAA Bylaw 14 progress-toward-degree, degree credit hours, nonqualifier status and two-year transfer requirements. As a result, the institution permitted ineligible student-athletes to practice, compete and receive travel expenses while ineligible); and Southeastern Louisiana University (2013) (concluding that, over five academic years, the institution erroneously certified 137 student-athletes for competition when it failed to apply NCAA Bylaw 14 progress-toward-degree, minimum credit hours for eligibility, and two-year transfer requirements. The Institution permitted 136 of the 137 ineligible student-athletes to practice, compete and receive travel expenses while ineligible). The violations in this case are comparable—if not greater—to those cases.

The Panel concluded that the facts demonstrate Level I violations of NCAA bylaws because the way the Institution administered its athletics program seriously undermined and threatened the NCAA Collegiate Model. Further, pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1-(a), a lack of institutional control is considered an example of a Level I violation.

As a result of the foregoing, the Committee penalized SU as follows:

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Five years of probation from November 16, 2016, to November 15, 2021.

3. The Institution shall pay a $5,000 fine.

4. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in women’s soccer by one award during the 2016-17 academic year and by one award during the 2017-18 academic year.

5. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in softball by 1.5 awards during the 2016-17 academic year, by 1.5 awards during the 2017-18 academic year and by .78 award during the 2018-19 academic year. (Institution imposed.)

6. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in baseball by 2.3 awards during the 2016-17 academic year, by 2.3 awards during the 2017-18 academic year and by 2.3 awards during the 2018-19 academic year.

7. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in football by five awards during the 2016-17 academic year, by five awards during the 2017-18 academic year and by five award during the 2018-19 academic year.

8. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in women’s volleyball by one award during the 2016-17 academic year and by one award during the 2017-18 academic year.

9. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in men’s track by 2.11 awards during the 2016-17 academic year, by 2.11 awards during the 2017-18 academic year and by 2.1 awards during the 2018-19 academic year.

10. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in women’s track by 3.6 awards during the 2016-17 academic year, by 3.6 awards during the 2017-18 academic year and by 3.6 awards during the 2018-19 academic year.

11. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in men’s basketball by 1 award during the 2016-17 academic year, by 1 award during the 2017-18 academic year and by 1 award during the 2018-19 academic year.

12. The Institution is reducing and will reduce, the number of total number of athletically related financial aid awards in women’s basketball by 1 award during the 2016-17 academic year, by one award during the 2017-18 academic year and by one award during the 2018-19 academic year.

13. Over the course of the six years this case encompassed, hundreds of student-athletes competed while ineligible at the institution. Therefore, pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.9.7-(g) and 31.2.2.3, the Institution shall vacate all regular season and conference tournament records and participation in which the ineligible student-athletes detailed in this decision participated.

For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@bgsfirm.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .