The Baylor men's tennis team defeated UCLA 4-0 to become the National Champions for 2004.

Congratulations. From the stats it looked like it could have gone 7-0 if they had played everything out.

I don't think the Bears lost a single game in their championship run. An incredible feat!

Congratulations Bears!!


Aggie Lester Cook just won his NCAA singles match against Lindholm of Mississippi in the Round of 64 (6-1, 6-3).

Congratulations Lester!!

Ante withdrew.

Congrats to the Bears. Way to shellack the Pac-10. Very impressive run. Thanks for propping up our conference.

It just goes to show that sometimes cheaters do win.

My bad...the thumb icon should have been down!

as much as we hate to see baylor win, they have not been proven to cheat. do things that may not be the coolest with other schools, yes, but they dont cheat. they wouldnt be able to get away with it this long if it was really cheating. the court is the same length on each side no matter who is playing.

that being said, congrats to Baylor on a great year. They won the big matches they needed to win, and came through when they needed to. It is great for the big 12, you must admit

I think this is a real plus for Big 12 tennis.Until now in recruiting, Pac 10 or SEC teams could say the Big 12 was a second tier conference that could never produce a national champion. Not so anymore. I think this helps us and other teams in the conference and will make the league stronger overall.

"It just goes to show that sometimes cheaters do win."


Only Jackie Sherrill knows for sure. You know what they say about "glass houses"!

Yeah and dave bliss oh wait he cheated and didn't win at least do it right gaylor.

Real classy, junior. Bringing up that situation is the equivalent of someone making a bonfire joke.

Hey reject I made no mention of the murder, just the fact he broke NCAA rules in the running of his basketball program much like Sherill so keep your mouth shut..

And like Kermit Davis, too? Again, glass houses.

[This message has been edited by aggie11 (edited 6/6/2004 3:55p).]

Hey 91Bear....it took you 8 days to come back with THAT? How weak!!! Go back to your little bear board and pat yourself on the back there....we don't like cheaters here.

By the way...in response to the Jackie reference....Jackie got caught and was fired for it. Knoll is doing it with the BLESSING of the AD and the school President.

Now which is worse, the cheater who got caught and punished or the cheater who is allowed to continue to cheat with the support of his superiors?

Winner by a landslide: Matt Knoll....congrats BU!

Please tell me you're not trying to equate a situation where Knoll got some bad advice from a BU compliance officer and the entire situation was self-reported to the NCAA by Baylor versus all the crap that went on under Jackie Sherrill and only came to light because he got exposed by Channel 8 and the DMN.

FYI, the NCAA cleared Jackie of any wrong doings while at A&M.

Jackie's (and A&M's) problem was mainly one stupid alumnus.

Here's the NCAA public report on the Baylor tennis violations. Read it for yourself.

http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2000/2000122101in.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
December 21, 2000
Jack H. Friedenthal, chair
NCAA Division I

Committee on Infractions

George Washington University



BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA---This report is organized as follows:


Introduction.
Findings of violations of NCAA legislation.
Committee on Infractions penalties.
Appendix.



I. INTRODUCTION.
On November 3, 2000, officials from Baylor University met with the Division I Committee on Infractions and the enforcement staff in Indianapolis to address allegations of NCAA violations in the institution's football and men's tennis programs. Baylor University is a Division I-A institution and a member of the Big XII Conference. The university has an enrollment of approximately 12,000 students and sponsors eight men's and nine women's intercollegiate sports. This case originated from information that was self-discovered and self-reported by the institution to the enforcement staff. Baylor last appeared before the committee on August 11, 1995. That case involved the men's basketball program and centered on violations of NCAA bylaws relating to academic fraud, ethical conduct, transfer eligibility and institutional control.
The current case primarily concerned allegations of NCAA violations governing recruiting, extra benefits, financial aid and unethical conduct. It should be noted that a former assistant football coach was accused of providing a significant recruiting inducement to a prospective football student-athlete, potentially a major violation. This allegation came to light as a result of a conversation that another assistant football coach had with the mother of the prospective student-athlete in question. This assistant coach promptly reported the information to the head football coach who, in turn, reported it to the institution's athletics compliance office. The university then vigorously investigated the information. The committee commends the institution for expeditiously pursuing this information and reporting it to the enforcement staff, which ultimately used this information as the basis for the allegations. After carefully weighing the evidence on both sides of this charge, the committee concluded that it should not make a finding against the former assistant football coach based upon the standard set forth in Bylaw 32.7.6.2. This bylaw states, "the committee shall base its findings on information presented to it that it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs."

In reaching its decision, the committee wishes to state for the record that it utterly rejected the argument advanced by counsel for the former assistant football coach that an individual was unworthy of belief simply because that individual was a member of a particular ethnic group. Such arguments will not be tolerated by the committee.

Although no violations were found by the committee in the football program, the committee did find violations in the men's tennis program which the committee determined were major in nature. The men's tennis violations were anonymously reported to the institution by telephone.




II. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION.
A. IMPROPER FINANCIAL AID; FINANCIAL AID NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE INSTITUTION; EXCEEDING MAXIMUM EQUIVALENCY LIMITS; RECEIPT OF EXTRA BENEFIT. [NCAA Bylaws 15.01.2, 15.01.3, 15.5.3.1.1 and 16.12.2.1]
Between September 1997 and March 1999 the head men's tennis coach directed three post-eligible men's tennis student-athletes, who were each receiving full noncountable institutional financial aid grants, to make payments toward the rent expenses of two other men's tennis student-athletes both of whom were receiving only partial athletically related grants-in-aid while actively competing for the institution. As a direct result of the head men's tennis coach's statements, one post-eligible student-athlete paid approximately $850 towards the rent while the other two post-eligible student-athletes each paid approximately $225 toward the rent. The head men's tennis coach's instructions to have the housing expenses of two student-athletes paid by three other student-athletes violated NCAA legislation on financial aid limitations, as the financial aid: (a) was not administered by the institution, and (b) caused the institution to exceed the maximum equivalency awards in Division I men's tennis. Specifically:

On several occasions, the head men's tennis coach directed post-eligible student-athlete 1 to make monthly payments toward student-athlete A's rent. As a direct result of these instructions, from approximately September 1997 through March 1999, post-eligible student-athlete 1 paid approximately $50 a month towards rent for student-athlete A (approximately $850 in total).

On at least two occasions, the head men's tennis coach directed post-eligible student-athlete 2 to make monthly payments toward student-athlete B's rent. As a direct result of these instructions, from approximately January 1999 through March 1999, post-eligible student-athlete 2 paid approximately $75 a month towards the rent for student-athlete B (approximately $225 in total).

On at least one occasion, the head men's tennis coach directed post-eligible student-athlete 3 to make monthly payments toward student-athlete B's rent. As a direct result of these instructions, from approximately January 1999 through March 1999, post-eligible student-athlete 3 paid approximately $75 a month towards student-athlete B's rent (approximately $225 in total).

During the 1997-98 and 1998-99 academic years, the institution's men's tennis team exceeded the NCAA Division I legislated limit of 4.5 equivalency awards. Including the aid provided by two student-athlete's during the 1997-98 academic year, the institution's men's tennis team had a total of 4.53 equivalency awards for the 1997-98 academic year. Including the aid provided by two student-athletes to another student-athlete and the aid provided during the 1998-99 academic year, the institution's men's tennis team had a total of 4.54 equivalency awards for the 1998-99 academic year.

Committee Rationale

The committee, the institution, the enforcement staff and the head men's tennis coach (hereafter referred to as "the head coach" are in substantial agreement on the basic facts of findings II-A-1, II-A-2 and II-A-3, and that violations of NCAA legislation occurred. The post-eligible student-athletes identified above were all ineligible for competition and were either in their fifth year at the institution receiving institutionally-administered "presidential scholarships" or were on athletically related aid but medically exempted.

Although the institution and the head coach agreed with the enforcement staff on the basic facts contained in these findings, both maintain that the head coach merely suggested that the three post-eligible student-athletes make the payments, while the enforcement staff believed that the head coach directed them to make the payments. The institution and the head coach agree that for him to even suggest that the payments could be made would constitute violations, but less serious than if he had directed the payments. Ultimately, the committee concluded that the post-eligible student-athletes felt obligated to provide the money when the head coach told them they should provide financial assistance to student-athletes receiving partial grants-in-aid. By doing so, the head coach committed a major violation of NCAA legislation. In making this conclusion, the committee considered the testimony provided by several student-athletes associated with the men's tennis team at the time of the violations as well as the coach's own statements.

The head coach told representatives of the institution that he talked with the three post-eligible student-athletes telling them they would be receiving full financial aid and that they could help the tennis program by making rent payments in specific amounts to student-athletes on partial scholarship. Under the circumstances, the post-eligible student-athletes would be expected to treat the head coach's statements as directions, not suggestions.

With specific reference to finding II-A-1, post-eligible student-athlete 1 reported that on about four different occasions, either on the tennis courts or in the head coach's office, the head coach said post-eligible student-athlete 1 would be "required" to contribute toward the rent of student-athlete A. Post-eligible student-athlete 1 reported that paying part of student-athlete A's rent was "not a request" and that he had to do it. When asked what the head coach said specifically, post-eligible student-athlete 1 reported that the head coach stated, "Hey, you know, (student-athlete 1) is coming in and you have to give $50 a month," and that post-eligible student-athlete 1 responded, "All right."

With regard to finding II-A-2, post-eligible student-athlete 2 provided conflicting statements on this issue. During his interview with the institution on March 2, 1999, post-eligible student-athlete 2 reported that, in a meeting at the end of the spring 1998 semester, the head coach told him that he would like him to pay $75 per month toward student-athlete B's rent. However, in a subsequent interview with the enforcement staff, post-eligible student-athlete 2 denied that the head coach asked him to do so. The committee also noted that post-eligible student-athlete 3 and another men's tennis student-athlete who was not directly involved in these violations, both reported that they were aware that the head coach asked post-eligible student-athlete 2 to contribute to student-athlete B's rent. Based on his original testimony to the institution, and that of other student-athletes who reported that the head coach asked post-eligible student-athlete 3 to contribute to student-athlete B's rent, the committee concluded that the finding should be made as set forth above.

With reference to finding II-A-3, post-eligible student-athlete 3 reported that on two separate occasions, the head coach told him to make $75 monthly payments toward student-athlete B's rent. He also reported that post-eligible student-athlete 2 paid $75 a month toward student-athlete B's rent. During an interview with the enforcement staff, post-eligible student-athlete 3 provided the following recollection of what the head coach first said to him on the subject of contributing to the rent of actively competing student-athletes: "What I (the head coach) would like for you to do is if you could give $75 a month to the guy." The young man added, "I mean, he didn't tell me I had to, he didn't really say you don't have to if you don't want to." In his interview with the institution, post-eligible student-athlete 3 reported that the head coach required him to share his financial aid and told him that if he didn't pay the money, he would not be given the financial aid. When asked if he thought his scholarship was at risk if he did not make the payments, post-eligible student-athlete 3 reported that he did not think so, but added: "It was more like he (the head coach) was going to help me out by getting me this ("presidential" scholarship, so why wouldn't I just give that money?" Based on post-eligible student-athlete 3's testimony, the committee concluded that the finding should be made as set forth above.

A men's tennis student-athlete who was not directly involved in these violations, and referenced earlier in conjunction with the rationale for finding II-A-2, reported that during the 1998-99 academic year, he lived with two of the three post-eligible student-athletes involved in these violations. In March 1999 this student-athlete spoke to the three post-eligible student-athletes about their payments to actively competing men's tennis student-athletes. The student-athlete thought that the three made the payments because they had promised that they would help out under "a deal" that they had made with the head coach. The student-athlete reported that the head coach, who was very authoritarian and dominating, had asked the three post-eligible student-athletes to make the payments. Additionally, the young man reported that he spoke to post-eligible student-athlete 2 who reported that the head coach had advised him that when student-athlete B came to the institution, he should pay money for student-athlete B's rent. The student-athlete reported that at first, post-eligible student-athlete 2 was angry about having to contribute to the rent of student-athlete B and initially refused to make them, but ultimately gave in and did so. The student-athlete specifically recalled all three post-eligible student-athletes stating that they would not pay the money toward others' rent but that the head coach made them do it. The student-athlete reported that the three post-eligible student-athletes were not so generous that they would voluntarily contribute to the rent of other student-athletes.

Regarding finding II-A-4, the institution and the enforcement staff are in substantial agreement on the facts and that violations occurred.

As indicated earlier, the committee found this to be a major violation of NCAA financial aid legislation. It was also alleged that the head men's tennis coach violated the principles of ethical conduct through his involvement in these violations. The committee was troubled by the head coach's actions relative to these violations and firmly believed that he should have been aware that the rent payment scheme he foisted on post-eligible student-athletes was, at best, questionable under NCAA legislation, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to circumvent NCAA financial aid equivalency limits in the sport of men's tennis. This fact is brought home by wording contained in the university's Statement of Athletics Aid which each student-athlete receiving athletically related financial aid is required to sign. That document contained the following statement:

"NCAA rules regulate the total amount of financial aid a student-athlete may receive. If (a student-athlete) receive(s) a scholarship or other financial aid (including on-or off-campus earnings and loans during a term), (the student-athlete) will notify the financial aid office and Director of Compliance immediately. These funds my replace a portion of (the student-athlete's) athletics grant to meet NCAA, conference or institutional regulations."

The head men's tennis coach, as an experienced head coach, should have known that arranging for student-athletes to supplement the financial aid of other student-athletes is not permissible.

However, the committee also recognized it is possible that the head coach may have been confused on this issue as a result of a conversation he had with the institution's compliance coordinator. Specifically, on or around May 1997 the compliance coordinator and the head coach met in the compliance coordinator's office. During this meeting, they spoke about financial aid equivalency programs at other institutions and about student-athletes who receive a scholarship for full room and board, and used a portion of that scholarship to help pay rent for other student-athletes or have other student-athletes live with them cost-free. The compliance coordinator reported that he asked the head coach if this type of arrangement was going on with the men's tennis team at the institution. The compliance coordinator reported that the head coach told him that this type of arrangement was not going on with his team. The head coach then asked him about the NCAA rules on this. The compliance coordinator reported that he told him that there was "nothing in the rules that is going to prevent, if (a student-athlete) is short on money, there is nothing saying that his roommate, who is a student-athlete, can't help pay for rent, can't buy him hamburgers or can't give him money, you know. I mean, there's nothing, the rules are not going to prevent that from happening. They do not go that far, to police that far down." NCAA Bylaw 15.01.3 does not allow one student-athlete to pay the housing of another student-athlete, despite what the compliance coordinator and the institution may have thought. Because these violations could be attributable partially to the misleading and suggestive statement by the compliance officer to the head men's tennis coach regarding what is permissible financial aid, the committee decided that a finding of a violation of ethical conduct against the head coach was not warranted.

SECONDARY VIOLATION
[NCAA Bylaws 2.8.1, 13.6.3, 13.7.1.2.1, 13.7.1.2.3.1, 13.7.1.2.3.2, 13.7.2 and 13.7.2.1]

In April or May 1997 when a prospective men's tennis student-athlete visited the institution, the institution failed to comply with NCAA legislation regarding official paid visits. Specifically, the institution did not provide the prospect a five-visit limitation letter, did not obtain the prospect's academic transcript and standardized test scores, and did not limit the visit to 48 hours.

Committee Rationale

In April or May 1997 the prospect informed the institution's head men's tennis coach that he was going to travel from his home in Europe to Waco, Texas, to visit the institution, study English and take standardized entrance exams (TOEFEL and ACT) at his own expense. When the prospect arrived in Waco, the head men's tennis coach met him at the airport and drove him to the apartment of three enrolled men's tennis student-athletes. [Note: The head men's tennis coach's provision of transportation to the prospect turned the intended unofficial visit into an official paid visit under NCAA Bylaw 13.6.3.] The head men's tennis coach informed the prospect that he could stay in the apartment of the three enrolled student-athletes during his visit. This visit lasted four to five days, and during the visit the prospect met with the men's head tennis coach and members of the men's tennis team, visited the institution's campus, studied English and took two standardized tests. The institution did not provide the prospect a letter explaining he was limited to five official paid visits, nor did the institution obtain academic transcripts or standardized test scores prior to this official paid visit. Finally, the institution failed to limit the official paid visit to 48 hours, as the prospect stayed in the apartment of the three enrolled student-athletes for four to five days at no expense before leaving Waco to return to his home in Europe.




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 major violations of NCAA legislation.

A. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN AND PENALTIES SELF-IMPOSED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

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


Declared two student-athletes ineligible and withheld them from two matches and required both student-athletes to repay the money they received from the rent subsidies.

Conducted rules education with the men's tennis team.

Issued a letter of reprimand to be included in the head men's tennis coach's permanent record.

Required the head men's tennis coach to attend one of the NCAA compliance seminars at his own expense; and

Reduced the available financial aid in men's tennis for the 2000-01 academic year by twice the dollar amount of the total value of excess aid received by the two student-athletes.
B. 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 serious nature of the violations in the case, including the involvement of the head men's tennis coach in the violations. Because this case was within the "five-year window" of its previous infractions case, the institution could have been subject to "repeat violator" penalties under Bylaw 19.6.2.3.2. However, because the violations found in this case were limited in number and scope, and were dissimilar to the violations found in the previous case, the committee decided not to impose any of the "repeat violator" penalties. Further, the committee chose not to impose all of the presumptive penalties permitted under Bylaw 19.6.2.1. The committee made this decision not to impose all of the presumptive penalties because of the actions taken by the university to institute appropriate corrective measures and to self-impose meaningful penalties upon its men's tennis program. Nevertheless, the committee believed that additional penalties and corrective actions were warranted because the case involved serious violations of financial aid legislation and the fact that the institution is making a second appearance before the committee in a relatively short period of time. The additional penalties imposed by the committee are:


Public reprimand and censure.

Two years of probation from December 21, 2000, (the date of the report release).

In addition to the university's self-imposed reduction of available financial aid in men's tennis during the 2000-01 academic year equal to twice the dollar amount of the total value of excess aid received by the two student-athletes involved in finding II-A, the university shall further reduce grants-in-aid by an additional one equivalency during the 2001-02 academic year. Under current rules, the institution's men's tennis program will be limited to 3.5 total equivalencies during the 2001-02 academic year.

The university shall issue a letter of reprimand to be included in the permanent record of the assistant director of athletics for compliance.

During this period of probation, the institution shall:

Continue to develop and implement a comprehensive educational program on NCAA legislation, including seminars and testing, to instruct the coaches, the faculty athletics representative, all athletics department personnel and all university staff members with responsibility for the certification of student-athletes for admission, retention, financial aid or competition. Further, as a part of its compliance effort, the university will periodically review the financial arrangements of student-athletes who reside in off-campus housing.

Submit a preliminary report to the director for the NCAA infractions committees by February 15, 2001, setting forth a schedule for establishing this compliance and educational program; and

File with the committee's director annual compliance reports indicating the progress made with this program by November 15 of each year during the probationary period. Particular emphasis should be placed on the administration and awarding of financial aid for student-athletes, particularly foreign student-athletes, who are competing in equivalency sports.

The reports must also include documentation of the university's compliance with the penalties (adopted and) imposed by the committee.

At the conclusion of the probationary period, the university's president shall provide a letter to the committee affirming that the university's current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations.

_____________________________________________________

As required by NCAA legislation for any institution involved in a major infractions case, Baylor 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, December 21, 2000.

Should Baylor University or the coach who participated in the processing of this case appeal either the findings of violations or penalties in this case to the NCAA 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 Association, the penalties shall be reconsidered by the Committee on Infractions. Should any actions by NCAA legislative bodies 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 COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS


Richard J. Dunn
Jack H. Friedenthal (Chair)
Gene A. Marsh
James Park Jr.
Yvonne (Bonnie) L. Slatton


APPENDIX
CASE CHRONOLOGY:
1999
* On or about February 28 - A female anonymously contacted the assistant director of athletics for compliance at the institution, with information of men's tennis student-athletes paying the rent of other student-athletes.

* March 17 - The institution reported to the NCAA enforcement staff violations in connection with the men's tennis program and sought the reinstatement of two then student-athletes both of whom had received supplemental payments from former teammates to subsidize their off-campus rent payments.

* April 27 - An assistant football coach at the institution, spoke to the mother of a prospective student-athlete on the telephone and became aware of the allegation that a former assistant football coach had provided money to her.

* July 27 - The institution submitted a follow-up report to its March 17, 1999, report to the enforcement staff in connection with the violations in the men's tennis program.

* August 9 - The institution reported to the NCAA enforcement staff the possible violation by the former assistant football coach's and sought the reinstatement of the prospective student-athlete whose mother had allegedly received $540 cash from the former assistant football coach. [Note: On February 28, 2000, the institution withdrew the reinstatement request, explaining to the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff that the prospect had stopped repaying the sum allegedly received by the prospect's mother and that the institution was no longer recruiting the young man.]

* November - The enforcement staff sent a letter of preliminary inquiry to the president of the institution.

2000

* August 8 - The enforcement staff issued letters of official inquiry to the president of the institution, the former assistant football coach and the head men's tennis coach.

* September 25 - The institution submitted its response to the letter of official inquiry.

* September - The head men's tennis coach submitted his response to the letter of official inquiry.

* October 3 - The former assistant football coach submitted his response to the letter of official inquiry.

* October 6 - A prehearing conference was conducted with the institution and the enforcement staff.

* October 6 - A prehearing conference was conducted with the head men's tennis coach's attorney and the enforcement staff.

* October 10 - A prehearing conference was conducted with the former assistant football coach's attorney and the enforcement staff.

* October 19 - The institution submitted an amended response to the letter of official inquiry.

* November 3 - The institution, the former assistant football coach and the head men's tennis coach appeared before the Division I Committee on Infractions.

* December 21 - Infractions Report No. 179 is released.

Case No. M161
Baylor University

I am not about to throw the first stone, because our university does not have a clean record.

Congratulations to Baylor. I watched them play twice this year, and they had an incredible team.

I've read and understand the report "pasted" above, but I don't understand those on this thread who feel the BU team is still "cheating". So... the NCAA let a team that is "cheating" just win the individual and team NCAA championships?

Thanks True Grit. Well said.

I hope not! No matter, Baylor had a great team this year and probably will next year as well. Our playing level is high but their level is currently higher. We need to pull our playing level up to theirs and let the NCAA worry about who's cheating, if anyone.