Below is the entire report released Thursday by the NCAA on Southeast Missouri State University athletic infractions:

I. INTRODUCTION.

This case involved the men's basketball program at Southeast Missouri State University and primarily concerned violations of NCAA bylaws governing extra benefits, recruiting, financial aid, institutional responsibility to monitor and ethical conduct.

While the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions did not find a lack of institutional control, the committee did find that the university failed to properly monitor its men's basketball program. The university did not have in place sufficient controls over the program, especially in the area of employment of student-athletes. The committee imposed a three-year period of probation and would have imposed a longer probation if not for the university's detailed self-reporting of violations and its extraordinary cooperation and participation throughout the investigation. During the period of probation, the institution will be required to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation pertaining to student-athlete admission and eligibility for financial aid and competition. The university will also be required to file annual compliance reports.

Southeast Missouri State University is a Division I-AA institution and a member of the Ohio Valley Conference. The university has an enrollment of approximately 8,200 students and sponsors seven men's and eight women's intercollegiate sports.

A. CASE CHRONOLOGY.

In March 1997, university officials received complaints from members of the men's basketball team regarding matters which did not involve potential NCAA violations, but which justified an investigation. Between March 7 and March 13, university officials formally interviewed a majority of the members of the men's basketball team. The interviews revealed several potential violations of NCAA legislation.

The institution notified the Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner of the potential violations and asked the commissioner to conduct interviews on its campus. The commissioner notified the NCAA enforcement staff of the investigation on March 18.

Also on March 18, university officials interviewed three assistant men's basketball coaches, and on March 21, the university interviewed the head coach. The coaches denied any involvement in the potential violations of NCAA legislation revealed by the student-athletes. The conference commissioner interviewed members of the men's basketball team on March 23. On April 3, the commissioner and the NCAA enforcement staff conducted joint interviews of the head coach and the assistant coaches. Also interviewed were a men's basketball student-athlete and a women's basketball student-athlete.

On April 9, the enforcement staff asked the university to provide transcripts and/or summary memoranda of interviews the university had conducted prior to April 3. The enforcement staff also requested other information pertinent to its inquiry. The institution responded to the enforcement staff's request on May 9. The institution's detailed report included transcripts of all interviews conducted to date and conclusions regarding possible violations of NCAA legislation revealed during its inquiry.

On May 14-15, the enforcement staff conducted interviews with members of the men's basketball team. The enforcement staff also interviewed two of the assistant coaches for a second time.

On May 15, the institution relieved the head coach of his duties and suspended one of the assistant coaches with the understanding that the university would not renew the assistant coach's contract. Two other assistant coaches tendered their resignations that day.

On May 28, the group executive director for enforcement and eligibility appeals sent the university's president a letter of preliminary inquiry in accordance with NCAA Bylaw 32.2. The group executive director advised the university's president that the enforcement staff was investigating possible NCAA rules violations in the provision of extra benefits to men's basketball student-athletes.

Over the course of the summer, the enforcement staff conducted additional interviews of institutional staff members. The enforcement staff also interviewed the owner and plant manager of a local Cape Girardeau business, a local realtor who managed an apartment complex, and the mother of a men's basketball student-athlete. The enforcement staff also attempted to interview one of the assistant coaches, who, upon his request, had been granted limited immunity by the chair of the Committee on Infractions. The enforcement staff placed numerous telephone calls and sent four letters to the assistant coach's attorney, but the assistant coach never consented to the interview.

On September 22, the enforcement staff sent a letter of official inquiry to the institution, the former head men's basketball coach, and two of the former assistant men's basketball coaches. The university responded to the letter of official inquiry on November 10. The head coach responded through his attorney on December 1, and one of the assistant coaches responded through his attorney on December 9. The other assistant coach responded on October 8 and 13. The enforcement staff conducted a prehearing telephone conference with the institution on December 15 and with the head coach on December 17. The assistant coaches declined the opportunity to participate in a prehearing conference.

On January 31, 1998, representatives of the NCAA enforcement staff, the institution, and the Ohio Valley Conference appeared at a hearing before the Committee on Infractions. The head men's basketball coach involved in this case appeared in person and with his attorney. The assistant coaches named in the official inquiry declined to attend. There were no remaining student-athlete eligibility issues at the time of the hearing.

B. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS.

The violations found by the committee may be summarized as follows:

* During the 1994-95 through 1996-97 academic years, the university's men's basketball coaching staff provided extra benefits to student-athletes and recruiting inducements to prospective student-athletes in the form of excessive compensation, loans, cash payments, and transportation.

* During the summers of 1994, 1995 and 1996, several student-athletes and prospective student-athletes received above-market wages from a representative of the institution's athletics interests for employment arranged by the head men's basketball coach.

* During August 1996, in conjunction with practice sessions for the men's basketball team's upcoming foreign tour, the coaching staff permitted four prospective student-athletes to participate in practice activities, and provided three of the prospective student-athletes and an ineligible student-athlete with impermissible lodging and meals.

* During the 1995-96 academic year, the institution exceeded NCAA financial aid limits in men's basketball and provided financial aid to an ineligible men's basketball student-athlete.

* There was a lack of appropriate monitoring in the men's basketball program.

* The head men's basketball coach and two of the assistant men's basketball coaches involved in this case violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct.

* There was a secondary violation involving extra benefits.

C. SUMMARY OF THE PENALTIES.

In imposing the following penalties, the Committee on Infractions considered the corrective actions taken by the university, as detailed in Part III-A of this report, and the penalty self-imposed by the university.

1. The committee adopted as its own the following penalty self-imposed by the institution:

* Reduction by one in the number of financial aid awards in men's basketball during the 1997-98 academic year.

2. The committee found the penalty imposed by the university meaningful and significant. However, because of the involvement of the head coach in the violations and the potential recruiting and competitive advantage gained from the violations, the committee imposed the following additional penalties:

* Public reprimand and censure.

* Three years of probation.

* Reduction by one in the number of permissible financialaid awards in men's basketball during the 1998-99academic year.

* Requirement that the institution continue to develop acomprehensive athletics compliance education program,with annual reports to the committee during the periodof probation.

* Requirement that the institution send specifiedindividuals to an NCAA compliance seminar.

* Requirement that all coaches and athletics departmentpersonnel attend a one-day on-campus complianceseminar.

* Recertification of current athletics policies andpractices.

* Show-cause requirements regarding the former head men'sbasketball coach and one of the assistant coaches forthree years.

* Show-cause requirement regarding a second assistantmen's basketball coach for one year.

II. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION.

A. IMPERMISSIBLE EMPLOYMENT, TRANSPORTATION, CASH PAYMENTS AND LOAN. [NCAA BYLAWS 12.4.1-(a), 13.6.1, 13.6.4, 16.10.2.3, 16.12.2.1, 16.12.2.3 AND 16.12.2.3-(a)]

During the 1994-95 through 1996-97 academic years, members of the men's basketball staff provided numerous extra benefits to men's basketball student-athletes and recruiting inducements to prospective student-athletes. Specifically:

1. On or about September 1, 1995, the head men's basketball coach arranged for a men's basketball student-athlete to receive compensation as a manager for the men's basketball team. At the time, the student-athlete was serving his year of residency after transferring from another institution, and could not receive an athletics grant-in-aid due to the institution having reached its annual grant-in-aid limit for men's basketball. During the fall semester of the 1995-96 academic year, the student-athlete received compensation for work he did not actually perform. The head coach personally completed the student-athlete's time sheets, and signed both his and the student-athlete's names on the documents without the student-athlete's knowledge. [Bylaws 12.4.1-(a) and 16.12.2.1]

2. On or about October 12, 1995, a member of the men's basketball coaching staff provided $1,100 in cash to the men's basketball student-athlete named in Finding II-A-1. Because he was not receiving athletically related aid during the fall semester of the 1995-96 academic year, the student-athlete had obtained a loan through the institution's financial aid office. The loan was insufficient to cover all of the student-athlete's school expenses, however, and he was unable to meet his financial obligations to the university. The financial aid office informed the men's basketball office on October 11 that the university was placing the student-athlete on financial suspension and terminating his residence hall meal privileges.

On or about October 12, a member of the men's basketball coaching staff gave the student-athlete $1,100 in cash and instructed him to take the funds to the university's bursar's office and return with a receipt. The student-athlete complied with the request and shortly thereafter delivered the receipt to a member of the men's basketball staff.

Later, the student-athlete gave five of the nine paychecks he had received for his employment as a team manager (see Finding II-A-1) to an assistant men's basketball coach as partial repayment of the $1,100 loan. The assistant coach ultimately cashed four of the checks and deposited one into his (the assistant coach's) personal checking account. [Bylaws 16.12.2.1 and 16.12.2.3-(a)]

3. On or about May 1, 1995, in response to a request from a men's basketball student-athlete, the head men's basketball coach gave the student-athlete approximately $200 in cash to assist the student-athlete in the payment of a delinquent telephone bill. [Bylaw 16.12.2.1]

4. On or about May 15, 1996, the men's basketball coaching staff arranged for the payment of $700 to a local real estate company. The $700 payment covered the first month's rent ($350) and security deposit ($350) for an apartment two student-athletes were renting at an apartment complex managed by the real estate company. In addition, on or about May 16, an assistant men's basketball coach provided cash to one of the student-athletes to pay the first month's furniture rental for the apartment. [Bylaw 16.12.2.1] 5. On or about September 1, 1996, an assistant men's basketball coach loaned $200 to a men's basketball student-athlete to enable the student-athlete to pay fines on two speeding tickets he had received in late August 1996. In late October or early November, after receiving funds from his Pell Grant, the student-athlete repaid the assistant coach the $200. [Bylaw 16.12.2.3-(a)]

6. On numerous occasions during the summer of 1995, an assistant men's basketball coach provided transportation for two men's basketball student-athletes between the student-athletes' apartment and their place of employment, a round-trip distance of about four miles. [Bylaw 16.10.2.3]

7. In the early summer of 1994, an assistant men's basketball coach provided a prospective student-athlete with automobile transportation from the St. Louis, Missouri, airport to Cape Girardeau, Missouri (approximately 130 miles). The prospective student-athlete had signed a National Letter of Intent with the institution and was traveling to Cape Girardeau shortly after graduation from high school in order to obtain summer employment arranged by the head men's basketball coach. During the 1994-95 academic year, after the prospective student-athlete had begun his freshman year, an assistant men's basketball coach provided the student-athlete round-trip automobile transportation between the institution's campus and the St. Louis airport in order for the student-athlete to travel to his hometown during a school break. [Bylaws 13.6.1 and 13.6.4]

B. EMPLOYMENT AT ABOVE-MARKET WAGES PROVIDED TO STUDENT-ATHLETES AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS 12.4.1-(b) AND 13.2.1]

During the summers of 1994, 1995 and 1996, several men's basketball student-athletes and prospective student-athletes were employed at a local business and received an hourly wage higher than that paid to other employees performing similar tasks. The head men's basketball coach., through arrangements made with the owner of the business, a representative of the institution's athletics interests, obtained summer employment for the student-athletes and prospective student-athletes at the local business. The student-athletes and prospective student-athletes, who performed unskilled labor, were paid $10 per hour under the guise of a "management-trainee" program. Other temporary workers who engaged in similar work at the business were paid $5 to $6 per hour.

The following men's basketball student-athletes and prospective student-athletes were employed in this fashion:

Gross ApproximateDateStudent-Athlete EmploymentTotal GrossNumber PeriodPaid Overpayment

Summer1994 1* 6/20-7/23 $2,095.50$838

Summer1995 2 5/15-7/22 $3,363.50 $1,346

Summer 3 5/21-8/16 $3,085$1,2341996 4* 5/20-8/10 $3,443$1,377

* Prospective student-athlete at the time.

C. PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE ACTIVITIES BY PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES AND LODGING AND MEALS PROVIDED TO PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES AND AN INELIGIBLE STUDENT-ATHLETE. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.2.1, 13.12.1, 13.12.1.1, 16.12.2.1 AND 30.7.2.1]

During early August 1996, in conjunction with practice sessions for the men's basketball team's European tour August 10-21, the men's basketball coaching staff provided a student-athlete with lodging and meals although the student-athlete was not eligible to participate in the tour. Four prospective student-athletes also participated in these practice activities, and three of the prospective student-athletes received impermissible meals and lodging. Specifically:

1. A men's basketball student-athlete had just completed his year of residency after transferring from another institution. Since he had not been eligible for competition the preceding academic year, the student-athlete could practice with the team but could not receive any expenses, such as meal money or free dormitory housing, associated with practice activities. Nevertheless, the student-athlete was allowed to reside at Myers Hall, a university dormitory, for 12 days free of charge while he practiced. (The residence halls were not open to nonstudent-athletes at the time.) The student-athlete also received meal money for this period of practice. [Bylaw 16.12.2.1]

2. NCAA legislation prohibits prospective student-athletes from practicing or receiving expenses. Violations of this legislation occurred when four men's basketball prospective student-athletes participated in practice sessions, three of the prospective student-athletes received meal money in association with the practice sessions, and one of the prospective student-athletes received free dormitory housing. [Bylaws 13.2.1, 13.12.1, 13.12.1.1 and 30.7.2.1]

D. EXCESSIVE FINANCIAL AID IN MEN'S BASKETBALL. [NCAA BYLAWS 14.3.1, 15.5.1, 15.5.1.2.4, 15.5.1.6 AND 15.5.4.1]

1. During the 1995-96 academic year, the institution exceeded the NCAA limit of 13 athletics grants-in-aid in men's basketball. On August 30, 13 men's basketball student-athletes had received athletics grants-in-aid. The impermissible employment of a men's basketball student-athlete in the institution's athletics department (see Finding II-A-1) caused the student-athlete to be a counter under NCAA legislation. This raised the number of men's basketball student-athletes receiving athletically-related financial aid to 14.

2. The institution also provided athletics financial aid to a men's basketball student-athlete who was not certified. One of the men's basketball student-athletes who received an athletics grant-in-aid for the 1995-96 academic year was not an academic qualifier and had not been certified by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. The institution rescinded the ineligible student-athlete's grant-in-aid when its initial-eligibility waiver request was denied on October 16. However, because the student-athlete had not withdrawn from the team prior to the start of classes, he was considered a counter for the remainder of the academic year.

E. LACK OF MONITORING. [NCAA CONSTITUTION 2.8.1]

The scope and nature of Findings II-A-1 and II-B demonstrate a lack of appropriate monitoring of the institution's men's basketball program from the summer of 1994 through the summer of 1996.

The university failed to monitor the head men's basketball coach's employment of a student-athlete. Had the institution been more attentive, it should have discovered that the student-athlete did not actually perform the work reported by the head coach. Numerous individuals in the basketball program were aware that the only work the student-athlete performed consisted of videotaping some of the men's basketball games. In addition, poor communication between the basketball office, the financial aid office, and the compliance staff resulted in the university's failure to recognize that the student-athlete's work arrangement constituted athletically related aid.

The university also failed to monitor the employment of prospective and enrolled student-athletes at a local business. The institution failed to monitor the circumstances of the student-athletes' employment, particularly the student-athletes' rate of pay and the education of the owner of the business, a representative of the institution's athletics interests, regarding NCAA rules on student-athlete employment.

The university's other violations, which occurred over three academic years and involved the provision of extra benefits and excessive financial aid and the participation of prospective student-athletes in practice activities, also support the finding of the university's lack of monitoring.

F. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA BYLAWS 10.01, 10.1-(c), AND 10.1-(d)]

The head men's basketball coach failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. He violated the principles of ethical conduct by: (a) knowingly violating NCAA legislation; and (b) providing false and misleading information to the enforcement staff and the institution when questioned about possible violations of NCAA legislation. Specifically:

1. The head men's basketball coach knowingly violated NCAA legislation as set forth in Findings II-A-1 and 3 of this report. [Bylaws 10.01 and 10.1-(c)]

2. The head men's basketball coach initially provided false and misleading information to the university and the enforcement staff when questioned about his involvement in Findings II-A-1 and 3. When questioned during an April 3, 1997, interview with university officials, the Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner and an NCAA enforcement representative about a men's basketball student-athlete's employment in the athletics department, the head coach reported that the student-athlete earned the pay documented on his time sheets by performing managerial tasks, such as laundry, and by occasionally videotaping men's basketball contests. While the student-athlete videotaped eight men's basketball contests during the time in question, the student-athlete, his teammates and two former student managers reported that the student-athlete never engaged in any other team manager work.

The head coach also denied, in a March 21, 1997, interview with the university's executive vice-president, giving $200 in cash to a men's basketball student-athlete in the spring of 1995. Several men's basketball student-athletes reported, however, that the head coach made reference to providing the funds to the student-athlete while addressing the team following the loss of a 1996 home contest. [Bylaw 10.1-(d)]

G. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA BYLAWS 10.01, 10.1-(c) AND 10.1-(d)]

An assistant men's basketball coach failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. He violated the principles of ethical conduct by: (a) knowingly violating NCAA legislation; and (b) providing false and misleading information to the enforcement staff and the institution when questioned about possible violations of NCAA legislation. Specifically:

1. The assistant men's basketball coach knowingly violated NCAA legislation as set forth in Findings II-A-4 and 5 of this report. [Bylaws 10.01 and 10.1-(c)]

2. The assistant men's basketball coach provided false and misleading information to the university and the enforcement staff when questioned about his involvement in Findings II-A-4 and 5. During a May 14, 1997, interview with the institution's assistant director of athletics for compliance and an NCAA enforcement representative, the assistant coach denied providing cash to a men's basketball student-athlete for payment of one month's furniture rental. The student-athlete reported that the assistant coach provided the funds, however, and the assistant coach acknowledged that he was present when the furniture was delivered.

The assistant coach also denied, during an April 3, 1997, interview with university officials, the Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner and an NCAA enforcement representative, loaning $200 to a men's basketball student-athlete. The student-athlete described the loan transaction in detail to officials, however, and the student-athlete's roommate, another men's basketball student-athlete, independently confirmed his account. [Bylaw 10.1-(d)]

H. UNETHICAL CONDUCT. [NCAA BYLAWS 10.01, 10.1-(a), 10.1-(c), 10.1-(d) AND 19.01.3]

An assistant men's basketball coach failed to deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics. He violated the principles of ethical conduct by: (a) knowingly violating NCAA legislation; (b) providing false and misleading information to the enforcement staff and the institution when questioned about possible violations of NCAA legislation; and (c) failing to cooperate with an NCAA inquiry. Specifically:

1. The assistant men's basketball coach knowingly violated NCAA legislation as set forth in Finding II-A-2 of this report. A men's basketball student-athlete gave five of the paychecks he had received for his employment as a team manager (see Finding II-A-1) to the assistant coach as partial repayment of the loan he had received from a member of the men's basketball coaching staff. The assistant coach deposited the first check in his personal checking account and cashed the remaining four checks. [Bylaws 10.01 and 10.1(c)]

2. The assistant men's basketball coach provided false and misleading information to the university and the enforcement staff when questioned about his involvement in Finding II-A-2. During an April 3, 1997, interview with the institution's executive vice-president, the Ohio Valley Conference Commissioner and an enforcement representative, the assistant coach denied ever seeing any of the men's basketball student-athlete's paychecks. The assistant coach continued to deny ever seeing any of the student-athlete's checks during an April 9 interview with the university. Bank records and university fiscal documents later revealed that the assistant coach cashed four of the checks and deposited one into his checking account. [Bylaws 10.01 and 10.1-(c)]

3. The assistant men's basketball coach refused to furnish information relevant to the investigation of possible violations of NCAA regulations when requested to do so by the NCAA. During the spring of 1997, the assistant coach was interviewed twice by the university, and once by the university, a conference official and a member of the enforcement staff. The enforcement staff later sought to interview the assistant coach again regarding new evidence. At the assistant coach's request, the chair of the Committee on Infractions granted the assistant coach limited immunity with regard to the additional interview and any new violations it might reveal. The enforcement staff contacted the assistant coach's attorney on 10 occasions during the spring and summer of 1997 in attempts to schedule the interview, but the assistant coach refused to cooperate. [Bylaws 10.1-(a) and 19.01.3]

I. SECONDARY VIOLATION: EXTRA BENEFITS, INCLUDING AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTATION, PROVIDED TO STUDENT-ATHLETES. [NCAA BYLAWS 13.6.1 AND 16.12.2.1]

During the summer of 1996, several men's basketball student-athletes were allowed to store personal items at no cost in the institution's basketball facility. Further, two assistant men's basketball coaches assisted the student-athletes in transporting these items.

III. COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PENALTIES.

For the reasons set forth in Parts I and II of this report, the Committee on Infractions found that this case involved several major violations of NCAA legislation.

A. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE UNIVERSITY.

In determining the appropriate penalties to impose, the committee considered the institution's self-imposed corrective actions. Among the actions the university has taken or will take are the following:

1. Terminated the employment of the head men's basketball coach on May 14, 1997.

2. Refused to renew the employment contracts of the three assistant men's basketball coaches in June 1997.

3. Instituted the monitoring of student-athlete employment.

4. Expanded the university's rules education program to include educating representatives of the institution's athletics interests regarding NCAA legislation.

5. Established an athletics liaison position in the university's financial aid office.

6. Expanded the rules education program for athletics administration, compliance staff, and coaching staff.

7. Instituted the monitoring of team practice sessions to insure that practices are conducted in accordance with NCAA bylaws.

8. Changed the reporting structure for the athletics department by requiring that the assistant athletics director for compliance and student services report to the executive vice-president as well as the athletics director on issues related to NCAA compliance.

9. Established a compliance committee consisting of representatives from both within and outside the athletics department.

10. Enhanced the monitoring of recruiting to include maintenance of detailed recruiting notebooks.

11. Shifted the assistant athletics director for compliance and student services' advising duties to another position in order to allow the assistant athletics director to concentrate on compliance and monitoring activities.

12. Stated its intention to participate in a compliance review to be conducted by the Ohio Valley Conference.

B. PENALTIES SELF-IMPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

The Committee on Infractions adopted as its own the following penalty self-imposed by the institution:

* The university reduced by one the number of financial aid awards in men's basketball for the 1997-98 academic year.

C. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS.

The Committee on Infractions agreed with and approved of the actions taken by the university, but it imposed additional penalties because of the involvement of the head men's basketball coach in the violations and the potential recruiting and competitive advantage gained from the violations.

The committee chose not to impose all of the presumptive penalties permitted under Bylaw 19.6.2.1 because the institution promptly self-disclosed the violations to the NCAA enforcement staff, cooperated fully with and participated in the investigation, instituted appropriate corrective measures and self-imposed a meaningful penalty upon its basketball program.

The additional penalties imposed by the committee are:

1. The institution shall be subject to public reprimand and censure.

2. The institution shall be on probation for three years, beginning January 31, 1998, the date of the hearing.

3. The number of total athletically related financial aid awards in men's basketball shall be reduced by one scholarship during the 1998-99 academic year, which limits the institution to 12 total scholarships under current rules. If the university is unable to impose this penalty for the 1998-99 academic year, it may seek leave from the committee to impose the reduction during the 1999-2000 academic year.

4. During the period of probation, the institution shall:

a. Continue to develop and implement a comprehensiveeducational program on NCAA legislation, includingseminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, thefaculty athletics representative, all athleticsdepartment personnel and all university staff memberswith responsibility for the certification ofstudent-athletes for admission, retention, financialaid or competition;

b. Submit a preliminary report to the director for theinfractions committees by June 1, 1998, setting forth aschedule for establishing this compliance andeducational program; and

c. File with the committee's director annual compliancereports indicating the progress made with this programby December 15 of each year during the probationaryperiod. Particular emphasis should be placed on themonitoring of student-athlete employment and theeducation of athletics representatives. The reportsmust also include documentation of the university'scompliance with the penalties adopted and imposed bythe committee.

5. The institution shall send the men's basketball coaching staff, the director of athletics and the faculty athletics representative to an NCAA compliance seminar before the end of the 1998-99 academic year.

6. The institution shall require all coaches and athletics department personnel to attend a one-day on-campus compliance seminar before the end of the 1998-99 academic year. The seminar shall include specific instruction on financial aid matters relating to student-athlete employment.

7. The institution's president shall recertify in a letter to the committee that all of the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

8. If the head men's basketball coach or either of the assistant coaches named in Findings II-G and II-H had still been employed in athletics at the institution, the university would have been required to show cause in accordance with Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(l) why it should not be subject to additional penalties if it had failed to take appropriate disciplinary action against them.

9. The head men's basketball coach will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (January 31, 1998, to January 1, 2001), he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures of Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(l), which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

10. The assistant men's basketball coach named in Finding II-G will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a one-year period (January 31, 1998, to January 31, 1999), he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures of Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(1), which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

11. The assistant men's basketball coach named in Finding II-H will be informed in writing by the NCAA that, due to his involvement in certain violations of NCAA legislation found in this case, if he seeks employment or affiliation in an athletically related position at an NCAA member institution during a three-year period (January 31, 1998, to January 1, 2001), he and the involved institution shall be requested to appear before the Committee on Infractions to consider whether the member institution should be subject to the show-cause procedures of Bylaw 19.6.2.2-(l), which could limit the coach's athletically related duties at the new institution for a designated period.

* * * * *

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Southeast Missouri State University shall be subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 19.6.2.3, concerning repeat violators, for a five-year period beginning on the effective date of the penalties in this case, January 31, 1998.

Should Southeast Missouri State University or the men's basketball coaches who participated in the processing of this case appeal either the findings of violations or penalties to the NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee, the Committee on Infractions will submit a response to the members of the appeals committee, with a copy to any party who may appeal. This response may include additional information in accordance with Bylaw 32.10.5.

The Committee on Infractions wishes to advise the institution that it should take every precaution to ensure that the terms of the penalties are observed. The committee will monitor the penalties during their effective periods, and any action contrary to the terms of any of the penalties or any additional violations shall be considered grounds for extending the institution's probationary period, as well as imposing more severe sanctions in this case.

Should any portion of any of the penalties in this case be set aside for any reason other than by appropriate action of the NCAA, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA Conventions directly or indirectly modify any provision of these penalties or the effect of the penalties, the committee reserves the right to review and reconsider the penalties.

NCAA DIVISION ICOMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS

Alice Gresham Bullock

Richard J. Dunn

Jack H. Friedenthal

Frederick B. Lacey

James Park Jr.

Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton

David Swank (chair)

Thomas E. Yeager