What matters most in this case was the effective steps taken by the university.

I want to put this case in perspective. It involves only one booster and one student-athlete in a program where the chancellor, the athletic director and others have a strong commitment to rules compliance.

They cut six and still had 83, just two below the limit. We thought it best to apply the loss of six overall, from 85 to 79.

I don't think anyone should be comfortable with the fact that coaches are going into classrooms and sitting down.

It raises the stakes, there's no doubt about that.

But there are no automatic penalties. We always look at facts and specifics.

No staff members were involved in the violation. The school did everything about as right as it could in this case.

The former head coach's purpose in providing these inducements and benefits was to gain an unfair competitive advantage, ... These impermissible activities were used to recruit, retain and ensure the eligibility of a significant number of world-class student-athletes.