Alabama State Receives Reduced NCAA Infractions Ruling, Will Serve Three Years of Probation

Alabama State University’s long-running NCAA infractions case ended with a reduced classification after the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions ruled the matter as a Level I Mitigated case instead of the more severe aggravated designation.

The decision carries the minimum financial penalty allowed for a Level I violation: a $30,000 fine plus one percent of the football program’s budget, along with three years of probation. University officials said they accept the ruling and will not file an appeal, though they remain convinced the case never warranted one of the NCAA’s highest classifications.

“This confirms what we have maintained from the outset — this case was improperly elevated,” Alabama State representative Dr. Jason Cable said. “The underlying conduct, tied to the former Sports Information Director and head coach, simply does not justify placement among the most severe cases in collegiate athletics.”

The case centered on the alteration of competition statistics for one student-athlete during the 2019 football season. Alabama State acknowledged that a former sports information director changed the athlete’s statistics on the school’s athletics website, allegedly at the direction of the former head football coach.

However, after a contested hearing, the NCAA Committee on Infractions determined there was not enough evidence to hold the former coach personally responsible for directing the changes. Alabama State said its acceptance of responsibility was based solely on the actions of its employee and not on any finding against the former coach.

University officials also emphasized that the NCAA found no lack of institutional control or failure to monitor within the athletics department.

Despite the reduced classification, Alabama State President Dr. Quinton T. Ross Jr. questioned the consistency of the NCAA’s enforcement process.

“While today’s decision is a downgrade from the Level I aggravated classification, we still believe that the scope of the penalty does not reflect the university’s involvement, or lack thereof, in this matter,” Ross said.

Ross pointed to what he called a significant disparity between Alabama State’s penalties and those issued to the University of Arizona. According to the university, Arizona, which certified the student-athlete’s eligibility and benefited competitively, received a Level III violation and a $500 fine, while Alabama State was assessed a Level I violation despite not certifying the player’s eligibility or receiving a competitive advantage.

“We believe the standards should be applied consistently across all institutions,” Ross said. “This case underscores the importance of fairness and accountability throughout the NCAA governance process.”

Ross also credited Vice President of Intercollegiate Athletics and General Counsel Kenneth Thomas for helping secure a reduction in what could have been more severe sanctions.

To address the issues identified during the investigation, Alabama State said it has already implemented several compliance measures, including revised statistical reporting procedures, expanded auditing practices, enhanced postgame reviews, and additional NCAA compliance education for athletics staff.

The university said those measures will remain in place throughout its probationary period.

With the case now officially resolved, Alabama State plans to move forward without an appeal.

“The institution is ready to begin its probationary period, fulfill all associated obligations, and direct its full energy to its student-athletes, its programs, and its future,” the university said.