A-10 commissioner: NCAA penalties against Umass unfortunate

violations as mistakes that were “inadvertent and unintentional.”

The NCAA is stripping Public criticism of a COI Massachusetts of victories in decision ANDNCAA enforcemen’s basketball and womment by college administraen’s tennis for overpaying 12 tors has become common athletes about $9,100 in fiin recent years. In cases innancial aid over three years, volving football, both Notre prompting criticism of the Dame and Missouri loudly penalty fromthe Atlantic 10 complained their cooperConference commissioner. ation with the NCAA and

The NCAA announced proactive compliance led Friday the Committee on to harsh penalties for viInfractions had imposed olations uncovered by the a two-year probation on schools.

Umass that will end OctoSimilarly, Bamford said ber 2022 in addition to vathe NCAA’S investigation cating results involving athwas initiated byumass. The letes who received what school was looking into poswere determined to be a tosible violations in basketball tal of 13 inappropriate paythat occurred under former ments. coach Derek Kellogg. Bam

The school will also pay a ford said Umass was conself-imposed fine of $5,000. cerned players had inappro

Umass plans to appeal priately received free tickets the committee’s decision to to on-campus concerts, but vacate results from 2014it turned out to be a non-is17 that include 59 basketsue. ball wins and an Atlantic 10 Instead, the financial aid Conference championship in problems were found. women’s tennis. The NCAA said four

A-10 Commissioner BerUmass athletes received a nadettemcgladeandumass higher housing rate after athletic director Ryan Bamthey moved to less- expenford both took issue with sive off- campus housing, the vacation penalty for and eight continued to rewhat the COI conceded was ceive a telecomfee for those a “misunderstanding,” acwho live in on-campus after cording to thencaa’s news theymoved to off. One athrelease. lete received both.

Mcglade said the decision The NCAA determined was “unfortunate.” Umass officials, coaches and

“I think there’s a misapathletes were unaware of the propriation and maybe we overpayments at the time, are at a point in time where but they still caused the aththe association ( NCAA) letes to compete while inelneeds to have a reset, quite igible. frankly,” Mcglade said. “To The committee said a forhave a set of student-athletes mer associate athletics directhat had no involvement in tor’smisunderstanding of fiamistake/violation that has nancial aidrules andadminbeen acknowledged ... and istrative error resulted in the yet to penalize them by the violations. The committee vacation of contests seems didnotfind a failure tomoninordinately punitive and itor infraction because 98% not in the spirit of what we of the time during the period do as an association.” where the overpayments oc

Bamford referred to the curred, Umass appropriately doled out financial aid.

Dave Roberts, COI chief hearings officer and special assistant to the athletic director at Southern California, said previous case precedent based on ineligible competition by athletes led to the penalty of vacating results.

“We look at a multitude of factors, not just the dollar amount involved,” Roberts said. “The number of students involved. The number of competitions involved. The duration of detection. Many, many factors.”

Bamford said Umass could have easily restored the athletes’ eligibility by havingthempayback the excess aid if anyone had been aware of overpayments.

Mcglade said the use of ineligible players does not have to automatically trigger a vacation of contests penalty from the COI. Discretion is allowable, she said.

“If it’s an administrative, institutional mistake then penalize the institution. If that’s a higher dollar value (fine) or additional years of probation or whatever,” she said. “That’s where the penalty should fall. It shouldn’t fall on the backs of student- athletes when there was no advantage that was gained and/ or knowledge (of the violation).”

Bamford added: “There’s got to be some subjectivity to matters like this.”

According to the NCAA’S report, Umass and NCAA enforcement had agreed to a negotiated resolution of the case. Because it did not include a penalty of vacated results, a COI panel rejected the agreement, sent the case back to enforcement and held a hearing to resolve the case and hand down penalties.