NCAA slaps UO with probation.

Byline: Bob Clark The Register-Guard

The University of Oregon athletics department will be on probation for two years but otherwise received relatively light penalties Wednesday for what was officially termed a `major' violation of NCAA rules involving the recruitment of a football player 17 months ago.

Gary Campbell, an assistant coach found to have been involved in `unethical' conduct, was suspended for one week without pay and limited in his recruiting duties for a year. He already has served those penalties.

All of the penalties were self-imposed by the UO, and then accepted by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, which announced its ruling Wednesday afternoon.

Campbell violated several rules while encouraging an indecisive recruit to sign with the Ducks, including telling the recruit to lie about when he signed his letter of intent, and watching as the recruit forged his father's signature on the letter. In the end, the recruit did not enroll at Oregon.

Campbell, a Duck coach for 21 years, also received a reprimand warning that any future violation of rules `may result in his termination.'

Campbell did not respond to a telephone message seeking comment. He issued a statement through the UO media relations office to `publicly apologize to all parties affected' and said, `I accept full responsibility for my involvement and offer no excuses.'

As an additional penalty, the football staff had some limits placed on it during last winter's recruiting period. The impact of that could be considered negligible since the Ducks signed perhaps their strongest class of recruits in the school's history. During the two years of probation, Oregon must submit reports to the NCAA detailing its efforts to remain in compliance and education measures taken to prevent a recurrence.

`We felt our sanctions were more strict than similar cases,' Bill Moos, the UO director of athletics, said during Oregon's response to the NCAA action. The limited punishment `shows the NCAA realized our great record in regards to compliance ... they gave us somewhat of a break there,' he added.

The most significant part of the NCAA action may be a warning that Oregon is `subjected to provisions of (an NCAA bylaw) concerning repeat violators for a five-year period.' In that regard, the most severe penalty for a school found to have committed a second `major' violation within that five years would be the so-called `death penalty,' which would force a program to cease operating for a specified time. That action has been taken only once by the NCAA, against the Southern Methodist University football program.

`I'm not worried because I know my staff, I know the way we operate,' UO coach Mike Bellotti said. `This was a one-time deal that was a serious error in judgment.

`I'm very aware that it puts our entire university in jeopardy. It's unfortunate, and we're going to work very hard to make sure nothing like that ever happens again.'

Oregon's previous `major' violation of NCAA rules, in 1981, resulted in much more severe penalties, including forfeiture of games. Those sanctions resulted from UO football staff members being involved in gaining academic credits for players who never attended classes at other schools, and a slush fund that was used to pay for travel of players and administered by members of the football and basketball staffs.

`That was a serious violation to the university in the sense that it struck at the academic integrity of the institution because it involved credit for classes that weren't taken,' said UO Vice President for Administration Dan Williams, in comparing the previous case to this one. `This kind of violation, though serious, doesn't begin to strike at the heart of the university's academic integrity.'

Though the NCAA report didn't identify either the coach or the recruit involved, the UO named Campbell during its presentation to the media. Based on media reports at the time of the violation, the player involved was J.J. Arrington, who eventually enrolled at California and was a reserve tailback for the Bears in the 2003 season. He will be a senior this fall and a possible starter.

The violation occurred when Campbell attempted to induce Arrington, then enrolled at College of the Canyons, to sign with the Ducks.Junior college players such as Arrington can sign letters of intent during a special `midyear' period, which in 2003 ended at midnight on Jan. 15.

Though Arrington had verbally committed to California, Campbell made a final bid to lure the talented tailback to Oregon with a visit to the player's home, where a letter of intent had been sent the previous day. Campbell met with the player and his parents for an hour or more on Jan. 15, and left at 9 p.m. thinking Arrington had switched to the Ducks, while also reminding him that the letter had to be signed prior to midnight to be valid.

Campbell called Arrington again at 11:30 p.m. to make sure the letter had been signed. By now staying at a hotel near the airport where he would catch a flight the next morning, Arrington assured Campbell that the letter would be signed, the NCAA report stated. Campbell called again at 12:20 a.m. to inquire about the status of the letter and was informed then by Arrington that the recruit wanted to attend California.

Another plea from Campbell seemed to reconvince Arrington to sign with the Ducks, and Campbell `instructed the prospect,' the NCAA report states, that the letter should `reflect that it was executed prior to midnight' so it would be legal.

Campbell then drove to the hotel where the player was staying and met him in the lobby. It was 12:45 a.m., and the UO assistant was then in violation of a rule that limits how many times a coach can visit a recruit during a specified period. He told NCAA investigators he knew he was breaking the rule.

Campbell, described as `surprised' that the letter hadn't been signed, then told Arrington that if he signed with the Ducks but later wanted to attend California, Campbell would destroy the Oregon letter of intent.

`I won't say he panicked, but it was a serious error in judgment,' Bellotti said, adding that, `I don't know if it's the pressure' brought on recruiters that caused Campbell to violate rules.

`That doesn't wash, that doesn't work,' Bellotti said. `We know what the rules are and we're very aware of them.'

With Campbell in the hotel lobby, Arrington signed the letter and then forged his father's name, and indicated that both signatures were made the previous day at 9:36 p.m. Campbell witnessed the signing, also a violation, and was handed the letter of intent, which the NCAA found to be a willful involvement in the violation. The UO assistant then had a copy of the letter faxed back to Oregon, what the NCAA described as `an attempt to represent (the letter) as a valid document.'

Bellotti said he became aware of potential problems with Arrington's letter the following day, when contacted by `another coach.' Media reports at the time indicated that caller was Cal coach Jeff Tedford, a former UO assistant.

Bellotti then sought information from Campbell and informed UO officials of what he had learned, which led to the UO probing the matter, and then turning its findings over to first the Pac-10 Conference, and finally the NCAA.

In its infractions report, the NCAA found Campbell `violated the ethical conduct standards' set forth in NCAA rules, which led to the violations being termed major.

`However, the committee noted that the assistant coach was in his 19th year at the institution and had never been involved in even a secondary violation prior to this infraction. Thus, it was the committee's conclusion that, taking into account that the assistant coach had no prior record of infractions, this appeared to be a one-time lapse in judgment of a well-established assistant coach.'

Arrington also could have been penalized, the NCAA noted, stating `the falsification of a signature may result in a prospect forfeiting the first two years of eligibility,' which was all Arrington had at Cal. The infractions committee chose not to impose punitive action on Arrington, however, putting the blame on Campbell.

Bellotti said he asked the player whether he felt there had been `coercion' by Campbell to sign the Oregon letter. `He said no,' Bellotti stated, adding that the Ducks didn't see a need to penalize Arrington.

`We actually protected his eligibility, so I think that was taken into account,' Bellotti said. `The NCAA saw this as something that crossed the boundary but maybe just barely, (so) probation was enough.'

CAPTION(S):

Oregon football coach Mike Bellotti, responding Wednesday to NCAA action on a 2003 recruiting violation, said, `This was a one-time deal that was a serious error in judgment.'