IBJNews

NCAA puts IUPUI on probation, vacates wins in six sports

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NCAA says it has found major infractions involving all 14 sports at IUPUI.

The NCAA said Tuesday that IUPUI allowed erroneous eligibility certification for 97 student-athletes from 2003-04 through 2006-07, demonstrating a lack of institutional control and a failure to monitor by the university.

A former academic adviser was cited for unethical conduct for his refusal to cooperate with the NCAA during its investigation.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis will receive three years' probation and lose some scholarships. It will also vacate 18 victories by the men's basketball team in 2003-04; 14 wins by the women's basketball team in 2006-07; and 40 victories by the volleyball team from 2004-06.

This marks the end of a process that began almost two-and-a-half years ago for IUPUI. The school says it discovered the violations in June 2007, investigated them, and then submitted a report about them to the NCAA on Oct. 3, 2008.

That report outlined steps IUPUI had taken and identified penalties IUPUI imposed on itself. Those sanctions were adopted by the NCAA without any additional limitations being imposed on its programs.

"IUPUI is pleased that the NCAA enforcement staff and Committee on Infractions agreed with the results of its internal investigation and has accepted its corrective actions and self imposed sanctions," IUPUI spokesman Rich Schneider said in a release. "IUPUI has emerged much stronger from a compliance perspective and is confident that the corrective actions it implemented more than 16 months ago are replete with appropriate checks and balances in both the areas of academic advising for student-athletes and the monitoring of continuing eligibility to prevent future violations."

The university noted that no IUPUI student-athletes, coaches or athletics department administrators knew of the violations.

Violations involving athletes include not enrolling in a degree-seeking program, not meeting progress toward degree requirements, insufficient minimum enrollment standards and competing after graduating by re-enrolling in the same baccalaureate program. The violations resulted in some of the student-athletes practicing, competing, and receiving athletic scholarships or travel expenses while not eligible to do so.

Approximately 75 percent of the involved students were either eligible or would have been eligible had they received proper academic advising.

The committee also found that the university failed to monitor the eligibility certification process. Specifically, it failed to provide NCAA rules education and training for key university staff. Although the university had an eligibility committee in place, it did not meet during the four years of the violations.

IUPUI said the issues were resolved through the summary disposition process rather than a formal hearing because the school and the NCAA agreed on the facts in the case.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT