A portion of those violations relate to the program’s use of a subscription-based recruiting service that helped provide the school background information on prospective student-athletes. It was determined that the school’s use of the service both went beyond what was permissible by rule and resulted in the institution receiving a recruiting advantage. By exceeding what was permissible, the operator of this service became a booster of the institution. Since NCAA rules severely restrict booster involvement in the recruiting process, any action, contact or benefit this operator had with or provided to a prospect that Oregon was recruiting from 2008-2010 resulted in a series of violations.

In 2010, an important rule on recruiting services went into effect that required services to provide quarterly written reports to subscribing institutions. The University of Oregon was not able to demonstrate that the service in question complied with this component of the new rule as the required quarterly reports were not submitted. This was a violation.

In addition, non-coaching football staff members made or received numerous telephone calls to/from prospects, their parent(s) or coach(es) that were impermissible. While these calls were generally of a logistical non-recruiting nature, the calls did not fall under the narrowly defined rule exceptions that permit only certain calls. The institution did not detect these impermissible calls as they occurred and failed to properly educate the non-coaching staff members as to the narrow parameters under which they could place or receive such calls. Since the non-coaching staff members did something only a coach was permitted to do (place or receive the phone calls at issue), by rule, those non-coaches counted as coaches. Since the institution already had the maximum number of permissible coaches, adding these staff members to the coach category resulted in a violation of exceeding the permissible number of coaches within the football program.

The NCAA expects both the head coach of each program and the school to monitor the recruiting activities of its coaches. Since these violations were permitted to occur for a prolonged period of time prior to detection, the (former) head coach and the school were found to have failed to adequately monitor the recruiting activities of the football program.

As a result of these violations, the institution has been placed on probation for three years, from June 26, 2013 to June 26, 2016. Additional penalties over the probationary period include: a scholarship restriction of having one less scholarship to offer an incoming football prospect and one less overall scholarship; restrictions on coaching staff off-campus recruiting evaluations; a ten-percent reduction in official visits; a ban on the use of recruiting services and the disassociation of the recruiting service operator.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL NCAA INFRACTION REPORT