INDIANAPOLIS – The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee has overturned the postseason ban for Eastern Washington University’s football program.

In February 2009, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions issued a report for NCAA rules violations in the football program. The case involved violations of impermissible participation by ineligible student-athletes in practice activities, the use of too many countable coaches, failure to monitor by the former head coach, and a lack of institutional control and failure to monitor by the university.

The penalties assessed by the Committee on Infractions for the violations included three years probation, a postseason ban, financial aid reductions, coaching limitations and recruiting restrictions, among others.

In its written appeal, the university asserted that the postseason ban penalty should be set aside. For a penalty to be set aside, NCAA bylaws require that the penalty must be excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.  The Infractions Appeals Committee has determined that an abuse of discretion in the imposition of a penalty occurs if the penalty:   (1)  was not based on a correct legal standard or was based on a misapprehension of the underlying substantive legal principles; (2) was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding; (3) failed to consider and weigh material factors; (4) was based on a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition was arbitrary, capricious or irrational; or (5) was based in significant part on one or more irrelevant or improper factors.

In determining the penalties, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that the Committee on Infractions based the postseason ban “substantially on [the Committee on Infractions’] judgment” that the violations provided the university with a significant competitive advantage. However, the Infractions Appeals Committee found that the violations in the case did not justify that conclusion. Rather, it noted that “while the violations provided some competitive advantage, the conclusion that the advantage was ‘significant’ was a clear error of judgment, such that the imposition of the postseason ban was arbitrary.”

In support of this decision, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that of the 13 persons involved in the impermissible practice violations, the majority never competed for the team or competed in a limited capacity. As another important factor in its decision, the Infractions Appeals Committee also noted that, except for one student-athlete, none of the student-athletes competed until after their eligibility had been reinstated. Regarding the coaching limitation violations, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that all but two of the coaches were students who primarily performed administrative duties and who could have been properly classified as student-assistant coaches had they been enrolled in the required amount of units.