NCAA Gives UCLA Mild Rebuke

In what was termed part “public lashing,” and appeared to be part slap on the wrist, UCLA on Thursday was put on three years’ probation by the NCAA Committee on Infractions for violations committed by its men’s basketball program during Jim Harrick’s regime as coach.

Although committee chairman David Swank termed the violation of rules regarding recruiting, extra benefits and ethical conduct under since-fired Harrick as “major violations,” the NCAA handed down only minor penalties.

The Bruins won’t lose any postseason berths, scholarships or television appearances.

What they will lose is half of their recruiting visits for the next couple of seasons. UCLA’s total of official, expense-paid visits will drop from 12 a year to six in each of the next two academic years. But as the NCAA itself pointed out, UCLA has used only seven a year the last four seasons and doesn’t figure to need as many in the next two years because it has a young team. Brandon Loyd will be the only scholarship senior next year, and Kevin Daley the only scholarship junior.

“I thought we got hit appropriately,” Athletic Director Peter Dalis said. “We did some things we shouldn’t have been doing.”

The NCAA publicly credited UCLA for “swift and decisive actions . . . including appropriate corrective measures and the termination of the head coach’s employment.”

Some of the specific violations, as cited by the NCAA and acknowledged by the school:

* During the summer of 1996, four recruits--Baron Davis, Earl Watson and Jason and Jarron Collins--received more than the allowed one phone call a day from the Bruin coaching staff.

* Youth coach Pat Barrett received improper numbers of tickets to UCLA games, and a 1995 national championship ring, improperly paid for by Harrick.

* From 1995-97, 10 players received free food at a Westwood sandwich shop.

* During the 1995-96 season, several potential recruits received tickets to Laker games, paid for by their player-hosts.

* Players Cameron Dollar and Charles O’Bannon each received a free meal on Oct. 11, 1996, during a recruiting visit by the Collins brothers and Watson.

* Harrick violated ethical codes of conduct by filing a false expense report on that meal to cover up the presence of Dollar and O’Bannon, lying about it to school officials and then trying to get assistant coach Michael Holton to lie, too.

That expense report, for $1,085, led to Harrick’s firing on Nov. 6, 1996, and prompted the UCLA investigation that started the NCAA process.

While not specifically saying that Harrick’s firing lessened the sanctions against UCLA, Swank said the committee realized that UCLA already had punished itself severely by firing him two weeks before the start of the 1996-’97 season and a week before the early-signing period of recruits.

“That was a significant institutional penalty, and the committee did consider that,” Swank said.

The committee also noted that the players who received the Laker tickets and free meals already had made restitution.

Harrick, who could not be reached for comment, was hired by Rhode Island last May and coached the school to its first appearance in the Elite Eight last March.

Harrick was questioned by the committee last Sunday, and the committee, noting that he lost his job and was out of basketball for a year because of his firing, did not specifically sanction him.

“I don’t see any major violations,” said Robert Tanenbaum, an attorney for Harrick. “Where are the major violations?

“But we don’t need to rehash it. Jim is all about reconciliation--he’s made an excellent start at Rhode Island and has a chemistry there with the people and administration that he never had at UCLA.”

Said Dalis, “As far as Jim’s concerned, we need to put that behind us. Jim had a hell of a year, a very successful year at Rhode Island. . . . I don’t see any reason for Jim to be punished any further.

“Jim’s original penalties were the consequences of his own actions. That’s done now. We need to move on.”

Dalis did say that, despite the violations, Harrick might still be coaching at UCLA if he had not tried to cover up the dinner in question.

“I doubt whether Jim would’ve been dismissed [otherwise],” Dalis said. “And he wouldn’t have lied, so I don’t know if there would’ve been an ethical conduct issue [for the NCAA to sanction].

“In an ideal world, I guess nothing would ever happen and we’d all be happy. But that’s not the way it ever is.”

More symbolically, UCLA, in a bit of a surprise to both the school and the Pacific 10 Conference, will have to endure the stain of being put on probation, and three years of scrutiny.

The Pac-10 uncovered most of the violations before reporting them to the NCAA. The conference also sent UCLA a private letter of reprimand and required coaches and administrators to attend compliance classes, then report back to the conference.

The NCAA found no further infractions, but decided it needed to go further in penalties than the Pac-10.

“Double-adjudication is what I call it,” Dalis said.

Dalis said that NCAA’s own investigators recommended that the violations be termed “secondary,” which probably would have ruled out probation.

But the Infractions Committee overruled the recommendation, and, viewing all of the infractions at once, decided it was a “major” case deserving probation.

One official from the Pac-10 said the NCAA clearly wanted to serve UCLA notice, without inflicting much tangible damage.

“It was pretty much a public lashing of UCLA,” the official said.

Even though UCLA was also put on three years’ probation in May 1997 for violations in its softball program, the basketball violations did not trigger the NCAA’s “repeat violator” provision for severe sanctions because they occurred before the previous probation was handed down.

In effect, UCLA’s probation will be extended to April 30, 2001. If any violations are discovered to have taken place from May 1997, through April, 30, 2001, UCLA will fall under the harsh terms of the “repeat violator” provisions--the harshest of which is the famous, but seldom-used “death penalty.”

More likely, said Swank, if further violations are found during that probation window, postseason berths, scholarships and TV appearances will be affected.

Dalis said he felt relieved that the recriminations from the Harrick investigation and firing were finally over.

“I had pretty much known it had come to closure last December [when the NCAA closed its investigation],” he added. “Now the committee finished what it needed to do to put closure to it.”

UCLA has been sanctioned twice in less than two years but Dalis said he was not sure there was much more the athletic department could do to monitor itself.

“Basically, you’re talking about how people operate on a human level,” he said. “Are they willing to do what you ask them to do or are they not?”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

What It Means for UCLA

* Extends probationary period to April 30, 2001. UCLA is currently on probation for violations in softball.

* Reduction by six of official visits for basketball recruits the next two academic years.

* Requires recertification of athletics policies and practices.

* Requires UCLA to continue to develop a comprehensice athletics compliance education program.

NCAA Penalties

The Committee on Infractions accepted the following disciplinary actions taken by UCLA and the Pacific 10:

* Termination of the employment of the men’s head basketball coach on Nov. 6, 1996.

* Private letter of reprimand from the conference.

* Requirement that all full-time men’s basketball coaches attend an NCAA compliance seminar.

* Compliance review conducted by the conference during the 1997-98 academic year.

* Expansion of the university’s rules education program to include educating student-athletes regarding extra-benefit legislation.

* Provision of annual compliance reports to the conference.

The Committee on Infractions imposed the following sanctions:

* Three years of probation.

* Reduction by six the number of permissible official visits in men’s basketball during each of the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 academic years.

* Recertification of current athletic policies and practices.

* Requirement that the school continue to develop a comprehensive athletics education program and that it include representatives of its athletics interests with annual reports to the committee during the period of probation.

* Requirement that the former head men’s basketball coach’s current employer expand its monitoring of recruiting and submit a report to the committee by May 1, 1999.