The NCAA Committee on Infractions (“Committee” or “Panel”) recently issued its findings and found that Stanford University (“SU” or “Institution”) committed violations of NCAA legislation. The Panel considered this case through the cooperative summary disposition process in which all parties agree to the primary facts, violations and violation levels as fully set forth in the summary disposition report (“SDR”). Because the Institution agreed to the violations and penalties, there is no opportunity to appeal.

The enforcement staff and the Institution agreed that a then football student-athlete received extra benefits from athletics representatives during a two-year period between June 2012 and May 2014. These violations occurred in the context of what was described as a “non-traditional housing program” wherein student-athletes resided with athletics representatives and Stanford alumni during the summer months. The permissibility of this program was not in question. Further, the parties agreed that, during a four-year period from 2010 to 2014, the softball coaching staff permitted certain softball student-athletes to participate in impermissible countable athletically related activities (“CARA”). As a result of this impermissible CARA, and occasional failure to accurately record CARA hours, the head softball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Finally, the enforcement staff and the Institution agreed that the Institution failed to monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA. The parties agreed the violations are Level II. The panel concurred.

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

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 16.11.1.2-(a), 16.11.1.5-(a) and 16.11.2.1 (2011-12 through 2014-15); 16.11.2.3-(c) (2011-12 and 2012-13); and 16.11-2.2-(c) (2013-14 and 2014-15)

The NCAA enforcement staff and Institution agree that on various occasions between June 2012 and May 2014, two representatives of the institution’s athletics interests (the athletics representatives) provided extra benefits to a former football student-athlete valued at $3,488.

In January 2014, the athletics representatives purchased a bicycle for the former football student-athlete and permitted him to repay them the purchase price on a deferred payback basis. The impermissible benefit was valued at $3,091. NCAA Bylaws 16.11.1.2-(a) and 16.11.2.1 (2013-14).

In early 2014, the athletics representatives permitted the former football student-athlete and his friend to stay overnight at a family house in Stinson Beach, California, at no cost. The impermissible benefit was valued at $179. NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2011-12 through 2014-15).

Between June 2012 and May 2014, the athletics representatives provided the former football student-athlete intermittent use of an automobile on approximately 10 occasions. The impermissible benefit was valued at $58. NCAA Bylaws 16.11.2.1 (2011-12 through 2014-15); 16.11.2.3-(c) (2011-12 and 2012- 13); and 16.11.2.2-(c) (2013-14 and 2014-15).

On various dates between June 2012 and May 2014, the athletics representatives provided the former football student-athlete the following impermissible benefits: two items of clothing (shirt and shorts); small holiday gifts (snacks); use of a bicycle for fitness and recreation; a movie outing; and occasional meals at local restaurants. The total value of the impermissible benefits was approximately $160. NCAA Bylaws 16.11.1.5-(a) and 16.11.2.1 (2011-12 through 2014-15).

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 17.1.6.1 and 17.1.6.3.4 (2010-11 through 2013-14).

The NCAA enforcement staff, Institution and the former head softball coach agree that on more than one occasion from 2010 through 2014, the softball coaching staff permitted certain softball student-athletes’ participation in CARA to exceed the maximum of four hours per day and 20 hours per week. Specifically, CARA limits were violated when four to six student-athletes participated in bullpen sessions that were not counted toward the student-athletes’ daily and weekly CARA limits. On some other occasions, the softball team’s daily practice activities also exceeded CARA limits. On some of those occasions, the former head softball failed to record an accurate amount of time the softball student-athletes participated in CARA.

Violations of NCAA Division I Manual Bylaws 11.1.2.1 (2010-11 and 2011-12) and 11.1.1.1 (2012-13 and 2013-14).

The NCAA enforcement staff, Institution and the former head softball coach, agree that from 2010 through 2014, the former head softball coach was responsible for the violations outlined above. Specifically, the former head softball coach failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the softball program when he directed or supervised, or had knowledge of assistant softball coaches directing or supervising, student-athletes’ participation in CARA that exceeded NCAA legislated time limits. In addition, the former head softball coach routinely submitted inaccurate CARA reports to the compliance staff that did not reflect actual time spent in CARA.

Violations of NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2010-11 through 2014-15)

The NCAA enforcement staff and Institution agree that from 2010 through 2015, the scope and nature of the violations detailed above demonstrate that the Institution failed to adequately monitor the participation of softball student-athletes in CARA. Specifically, the Institution failed to establish compliance systems that were adequate to ensure student-athletes did not participate in CARA in excess of NCAA time limits. Further, although the Institution’s internal audit staff notified the athletics department in December 2013 that its compliance system for monitoring CARA was deficient, the athletics department failed to take appropriate action to immediately address the deficiency. NCAA Constitution 2.8.1 (2010-11 through 2014-15).

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19.9.3 and 19.9.4.

Aggravating Factors for the Institution

19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations by the Institution.

19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct.

Aggravating Factors for the Former Head Softball Coach

19.9.3-(g): Multiple Level II violations by the Institution.

19.9.3-(h): Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct.

Mitigating Factors for the Institution

19.9.4-(b): Prompt acknowledgment of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and the imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties.

19.9.4-(c): Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter.

19.9.4-(d): An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations.

19.9.4-(h): Other facts warranting a lower penalty range.

Mitigating Factors for the Former Head Softball Coach

None.

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

1. Public reprimand and censure.

2. Prohibited the softball program from conducting out-of-season countable athletically related activities following the 2014 season.

3. The former head softball coach received a one-year show cause penalty.

4. Reduced softball practice hours by 2.5 hours per week when in-season for two academic years, 2014-15 and 2015-16, (approximately a reduction of 60 hours per year or 120 hours total); and two hours per week when out-of-season for two years, 2014-15 and 2015-16 (approximately 10 hours per year or 20 hours total).

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

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 .