Editor’s Note: This is part one in a series of articles about the NCAA investigation.The Nicholls intercollegiate athletic program is likely to face probation among other penalties as a result of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s investigation that began in August, University President Stephen Hulbert said.

Hulbert said the probation could be as short as one year, which he says is unlikely, or as long as two to three years for the academic fraud involving football and men’s basketball players. University officials will represent Nicholls before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions Feb. 11 in San Diego. A final ruling will be issued to the University following the hearing.

“We, as an institution, and our supporters need to understand that the violations were so flagrant,” Hulbert said. “I know there will be punitive action taken against Nicholls State and its intercollegiate program.”

Academic fraud
Three primary issues are at the core of the allegations issued by the NCAA. The first is academic fraud by student-athletes and coaches involving Brigham Young University correspondence courses. Hulbert said this resulted when former staff of the University apparently generated coursework and grades dishonestly. Two men’s basketball players and 20 or more football players were involved in the academic dishonesty incident.

Hulbert said three former Nicholls employees played a part in the academic dishonesty. Ricky Blanton, former men’s head basketball coach; Jeff Richards, former football offensive coordinator; and Jennifer Thompson, former athletics academic adviser, were implicated in the incident, Hulbert said. Thompson resigned at the end of the spring 2004 semester, and Blanton resigned in October.

Richards was fired, along with former head football coach Daryl Daye. However, Daye was not implicated in the academic fraud but fired for “failing to maintain proper controls of his assistant coach.”

The incident was uncovered when the registrar received information on student-athletes who wished to be credited for summer correspondence courses. The past academic history of the students raised questions about the appropriateness of the coursework.

Initial dishonesty
The second issue at stake is the initial dishonesty of some involved student-athletes; as the University understands this was based on the advice of former staff.

“From the outset, we found out that this primarily involved academic integrity, and we’d do everything we could to protect the rights of the students, especially since they had been treated in such an inappropriate way,” Hulbert said. “However, that was complicated by levels of student-athlete dishonesty in interviews and testimony.”

Administrative oversight
Further investigation uncovered a third issue-the apparent administrative oversight by Nicholls in determining that correspondence courses from Brigham Young University were appropriate for NCAA eligibility purposes. These correspondence courses are appropriate for transfer to Nicholls, but not for eligibility purposes.

The NCAA Division I Operating Bylaws state “correspondence courses taken from an institution other than the one in which a student-athlete is enrolled as a full-time student shall not be used in determining a student’s academic standing or progress toward degree.”

However, student-athletes may use correspondence courses from an authorized in-state institution in the determining of their NCAA eligibility, NCAA bylaws explain. The approved institution for Nicholls athletes is Louisiana State University.

The University and its athletic department failed to catch that Brigham Young University correspondence courses had been incorrectly declared appropriate for NCAA eligibility purposes for some student-athletes. The only reason some of the student-athletes were academically eligible at the start of this semester was because of the Brigham Young University credits, which Nicholls should not have counted in determining their academic status.

As a result, one or two volleyball players participated in NCAA competitions while they were actually ineligible, Hulbert said. He said nothing by the volleyball coach or players represented anything inappropriate. Academic fraud was not involved whatsoever. The NCAA initiated this policy change two years ago, and the University was not aware of the change, Hulbert said.

“It is a reflection of a lack of institutional control,” he said. “Some of our policies weren’t strong enough to facilitate monitoring of what was going on in the athletic program.”

NCAA allegations
These core issues were outlined in a set of allegations from the NCAA that was released to Nicholls on Oct. 29. This document resulted from interviews, discussions and reviews of documents by Nicholls and NCAA compliance. Hulbert said everything the NCAA found in the original set of allegations had been documented in Nicholls’ investigation prior to the full NCAA investigation.

On Nov. 22 the NCAA amended the original statement of allegations adding an issue in the recruitment of an international student-athlete. The allegation said the student Nicholls recruited had previously played for a professional team. However, Hulbert said the NCAA staff has advised the University that this allegation is being withdrawn.

“After exhausted investigations by the NCAA and the University, there is no indication that the young man in question played in a professional capacity,” Hulbert said. “We are basically in agreement with the allegations now that they have withdrawn the allegation having to do with the recruitment of an international athlete.”

Hulbert said the NCAA allegations will be accessible to the community in the upcoming weeks in Ellender Memorial Library and through the Nicholls web page. Because of various state and federal laws that protect students, any information that could lead to the identity of a student will be blacked out.

The University’s response to the allegations will also be made public. The response was submitted to the NCAA Jan. 19. Hulbert said the 1,000-page response includes one volume of the actual response and four volumes of exhibits. He said the length of the investigation is a positive reflection of the University.

“Normally investigations of this nature can take up to two years to reach the NCAA Committee on Infractions,” Hulbert said. “Ours was uncovered in the end of the first week in August and is going before the Committee on Infractions Feb. 11.”

Possible punishments
The University is now preparing for the Feb. 11 hearing and the NCAA rulings. Hulbert said it is hard to predict what effect the NCAA punishments will have on the athletic program.

He said it is difficult to discuss what probation could mean for the athletic program because the NCAA probation rulings have a variety of severities. Probation is a monitoring period in which the University reports what is being done to correct the deficiencies, he said.

The University must also exhibit to the NCAA that institutional control and oversight is present from the coaching staff, athletic administration and senior University administrators.

Nicholls is also likely to be issued a monetary fine for allowing student-athletes, who were academically ineligible, to compete. Hulbert said he is not sure of how much this could cost the University, which is also expected to lose scholarships, recruitment time or practice times at the beginning of the season.

“The NCAA looks at similar situations, the extent of the violations and how the institution responded when making a decision,” Hulbert said. “I can guarantee that every indication we’ve had from the NCAA is that they are impressed with how direct and responsive we have been in addressing this situation.”

The University has received preliminary NCAA rulings on the student-athletes involved in the academic fraud incident, which include loss of additional eligibility beyond this year, according to Hulbert.

The affected students have been notified of the University’s actions in this investigation and the punishments the NCAA have determined.

Hulbert said he has not received any NCAA document formally identifying a certain number of men facing punishment or their individual loss of eligibility or other situations.

He said the University is able to appeal NCAA rulings the Nicholls administration believes to be overly punitive. Hulbert said he expects to represent Nicholls State athletics and answer any questions at the hearing and then move on from there.

“We have now reached the point where we believe we have represented the University, the intercollegiate athletic program, particularly the sports affected, and the student-athletes to the best of our ability,” Hulbert said.