I've definitely heard this story before--but my memory of those days are a bit hazy (I was a kid). Was this scholarship disparity common knowledge at the time? Or did it come out later? Was there any action taken by the NCAA? I suppose I could google the web archives and find answers to my questions, but I'd be curious if anyone here has any thoughts.
Here you go. BIG10 rules did not line up with NCAA rules. 7 of the 10 schools knowingly violated the NCAA rules, but 3 schools followed NCAA rules. Iowa, really pushed it in wrestling (many out off state recruits). The audit was for only 4 years, but the report goes from 79-91. PSU was not a BIG10 member at that time
FOR RELEASE: July 26, 1993, 2 p.m. (Central Time)
CONTACT: David Swank, Chair, NCAA Committee on Infractions
University of Oklahoma
BIG TEN CONFERENCE INFRACTIONS REPORT
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS--This report is organized as follows:
I. Introduction.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by the Committee on Infractions and as
admitted by the Big Ten Conference and the seven involved members of that conference.
III. Actions taken and penalties proposed by the Big Ten Conference and the involved seven
institutions.
VI. Committee on Infractions penalties.
I. Introduction.
In 1978, the Big Ten Conference, an associate member of the NCAA, revised its financial aid
equivalency rule for sports other than football and basketball, rendering the conference rule
inconsistent with NCAA regulations in certain instances. The amended rule excluded the extra
costs of out_of_state tuition from the computation of equivalencies.
In 1979, in a series of letters between a representative from the office of the commissioner of the
Big Ten Conference and an NCAA assistant executive director, the NCAA clearly indicated to
the Big Ten Conference office that the newly revised rule was contrary to NCAA regulations and
would have to be amended. Despite those warnings, the rule was not changed. Several of the
conference members applied the conference rule continuously from the 1979-80 through the
1990_91 academic years and, as a result, provided grants-in-aid in excess of those permitted by
NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1.
Throughout the period when the conference rule was in use, questions of its validity were raised
by a number of individuals from various member institutions. Indeed, in 1984, the conference
sponsored an amendment to NCAA legislation that would have applied the rule nationally. That
attempt, however, was defeated. There is no evidence that at any time did the NCAA or any of
its staff members inform the conference that the rule [Page 2] was in compliance with NCAA
legislation, although conference member institutions may have believed a supposition to that
effect.
On October 22, 1990, on the recommendation of the commissioner of the Big Ten Conference,
the conference rule was rescinded. On March 27, 1991, the NCAA assistant executive director
for enforcement and eligibility appeals, subsequent to a review of the equivalencies granted by
two members of the conference, wrote to the commissioner asking for information regarding the
method by which member institutions had been calculating equivalency grants-in-aid. The
commissioner responded on July 29, 1991, with a letter giving the history of the conference rule
and the practices of conference members.
On February 21, 1992, the NCAA assistant executive director for enforcement and eligibility
appeals sent a letter to the commissioner requesting that each member institution audit its records
in order to determine the actual impact of the application of the conference rule during the last
two years it had been in effect.
In accordance with that request, the conference members undertook an audit for the 1989_90 and
1990_91 academic years. The report reflected that seven member institutions (the University of
Illinois, Champaign; Indiana University; the University of Iowa; the University of Michigan;
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; Purdue University, and the University of Wisconsin,
Madison) had overawarded grants_in_aid in men's and women's equivalency sports. Three
universities (Michigan State University, Northwestern University, and Ohio State University)
either did not utilize the conference rule or did not make any overawards. The conference
requested that the violations be processed as secondary and that each institution that had made
overawards be permitted, as a penalty, to reduce by the amount of the overawards the number of
new awards over a two_year period.
On August 20, 1992, the NCAA assistant executive director for enforcement and eligibility
appeals informed the conference that the violations could not be processed as secondary and that
the NCAA enforcement staff would investigate the matter. Interviews were conducted with
current and former conference officials, institutional faculty athletics representatives, and others.
On December 9, 1992, the NCAA enforcement staff informed the conference and each of the
involved seven member schools that apparent violations of the NCAA equivalency regulations
had occurred, and recommended that the conference and the involved institutions conduct further
interviews and collect more information regarding the violations and any competitive advantages
that may have resulted. An NCAA director of enforcement suggested, and the conference and
involved institutions agreed, that the matter should be processed utilizing the
summary_disposition process.
Throughout the investigation, the NCAA enforcement staff and the conference worked in
harmony to ascertain the facts. The conference and its members were fully cooperative.
On January 20, 1993, the summary-disposition report of the conference and the seven involved
member institutions was filed with the NCAA. The report detailed the overawards that occurred
during the 1989_90 and 1990_91 academic years. The conference and its involved members
submitted a [Page 3] supplemental report detailing the overawards in the 1987_88 and 1988_89
academic years, as well as in the 1989_90 and 1990_91 academic years, plus any information
regarding overawards in any year for teams involved in NCAA championships. This
supplemental report was completed on January 22, 1993. The conference determined that the
method utilized by some of its members to complete this latter report was inaccurate and,
accordingly, submitted a corrected statement on January 29, 1993.
Following a complete review of this summary-disposition report, the Committee on Infractions
requested that the conference file a supplemental report with regard to the finding of facts and
the proposed penalties. This report was received on June 14, 1993.
II. Violations of NCAA legislation, as determined by the Committee on Infractions and as
admitted by the Big Ten Conference and the seven involved members of that conference
[University of Illinois, Champaign; Indiana University; University of Iowa; University of
Michigan; University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; Purdue University, and University of
Wisconsin, Madison].
[NCAA Constitution 3.3.4.1 and Bylaw 15.5.3.1]
During the period from the 1979_80 through the 1990_91 academic years, the conference
encouraged its conference institutions to utilize a formula for awarding institutionally
administered athletics financial aid in equivalency sports that was contrary to NCAA legislation.
The seven institutions utilized this formula, resulting in a number of overawards.
During the 1987_88 academic year, six institutions overawarded an aggregate of 16.05 grants in
men's equivalency sports, and one institution overawarded an aggregate of .59 of one grant in
women's equivalency sports.
During the 1988_89 academic year, these same six institutions overawarded an aggregate of
12.757 grants in men's equivalency sports, and two institutions overawarded an aggregate of 1.93
grants in women's equivalency sports.
During the 1987_88 and 1988_89 academic years, one of the involved seven institutions did not
make any overawards. In the 1989_90 academic year, all seven institutions overawarded an
aggregate of 18.309 grants in men's equivalency sports, and one institution overawarded an
aggregate of 1.28 grants in women's equivalency sports.
Finally, during the 1990_91 academic year, all seven institutions overawarded an aggregate of
13.17 grants in men's equivalency sports, and four institutions overawarded an aggregate of
1.475 grants in women's equivalency sports. [Pag 4]
III. Actions taken and penalties proposed by the Big Ten Conference and the involved seven
institutions.
A. The Big Ten Conference regulation that resulted in the overawarding of grants_in_aid has
been rescinded, and all member schools currently recognize their obligation to comply with
NCAA regulations regarding equivalency computations.
B. The following penalties were proposed by the Big Ten Conference and the seven involved
institutions:
1. That the Big Ten Conference be publicly reprimanded and censured.
2. That certain sports teams of the involved member institutions that realized financial aid
advantages during the 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 academic years would reduce
future grants-in-aid by a similar amount over a four-year period. This four-year period would
begin immediately or at the earliest time the institution would be able to reduce financial aid in
that sport without reducing the financial aid of currently enrolled student-athletes with remaining
eligibility. (An exception to this approach would apply if affected institutions had implemented
such reductions during the 1992-93 academic year.) The exact reductions in financial grants-inaids
associated with the proposed penalties are as follows:
a. University of Illinois, Champaign
(1) Baseball -- 1.77
(2) Men's cross country and track -- .81
(3) Men's gymnastics -- .48
(4) Men's tennis -- .33
Total -- 3.39
b. Indiana University
(1) Baseball -- 5.36
(2) Men's cross country and track -- 2.57
(3) Men's golf -- 1.00
(4) Men's soccer -- 1.73
(5) Men's swimming and diving -- 2.80
(6) Men's tennis -- 1.32
(7) Wrestling -- 1.74
(8) Women's golf -- .45
(9) Softball -- .62
Total -- 17.59
c. University of Iowa
(1) Baseball -- 6.83
(2) Men's cross country and track -- .08
(3) Men's golf -- 1.46
[Page 5]
(4) Men's gymnastics -- .28
(5) Men's swimming and diving -- 2.26
(6) Men's tennis -- 1.22
(7) Wrestling -- 7.39
Total -- 19.52
d. University of Michigan
(1) Baseball -- 1.03
(2) Men's cross country and track -- .37
(3) Men's swimming and diving -- .57
(4) Wrestling -- .60
Total -- 2.57
e. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
(1) Baseball -- 4.46
(2) Men's cross country and track -- 1.73
(3) Men's golf -- .78
(4) Men's gymnastics -- 2.09
(5) Men's swimming and diving -- .19
(6) Men's tennis -- .99
(7) Wrestling -- 1.73
(8) Softball -- .70
(9) Women's swimming and diving -- 2.65
Total -- 15.32
f. Purdue University
(1) Baseball -- .32
(2) Men's cross country and track -- 1.51
(3) Women's golf -- .44
Total -- 2.27
g. University of Wisconsin, Madison
(1) Baseball -- .210
(2) Men's cross country and track -- .417
(3) Men's golf -- .020
(4) Men's gymnastics -- .630
(5) Men's swimming and diving -- 2.344
(6) Wrestling -- .865
(7) Women's soccer -- .415
Total -- 4.901
IV. Committee on Infractions penalties.
The committee found that this case involved a major violation of NCAA legislation by the Big
Ten Conference and resulted in a series of [Page 6] secondary violations by the seven involved
members of the conference. NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.2 as adopted by the Association's membership,
requires prescribed minimum penalties in the finding of a major violation, subject to exceptions
authorized by the Committee on Infractions in unique cases.
The Committee on Infractions determined that this was a "unique" case because of the
involvement of the conference office. The committee also determined that because of a lack of
intent on the part of the individual institutions to violate NCAA regulations or to gain a
competitive advantage, the thoroughness of the investigation of the allegations, and the complete
cooperation with the NCAA enforcement staff by the conference office and the member
institutions in the processing of the case, less than the full set of minimum penalties should be
required in this case. In that regard, the actions taken by the Committee on Infractions are as
follows:
A. Adoption of the penalties proposed by the Big Ten Conference and the individual involved
institutions as set forth in Part III of this report.
B. Reduction of the NCAA grant to the conference for 1993-94 by $75,000.
The Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the conference and the institutions that when the
penalties in this case take effect, the conference and the institutions should take every precaution
to ensure that their terms are observed. The committee intends to monitor the penalties during
their effective periods, and any actions contrary to the terms of the penalties shall be considered
grounds for considering the imposition of more severe sanctions.
Should any portion of any of the penalties be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate
action by the Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions.
Should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provisions of these
penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties.
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS
Jack H. Friedenthal
Roy F. Kramer
Beverly E. Ledbetter
David Swank (chair)
RFK:cg/aj
-30-
