In this case, there appears to be no qualitative distinction in the record that would
warrant the extent of the departure from prior precedent that was undertaken by the
Committee on Infractions in this case. Therefore, the reduction by nine of football
grants-in-aid is excessive.

This committee, while recognizing the authority of the Committee on Infractions,
respectfully finds that in this case the Committee on Infractions failed to consider and
weigh the material factors of the precedent set in prior cases. Therefore, the Committee
on Infractions’ increase of the reduction in football grants-in-aid from three to nine
imposed a penalty that was excessive such that it constituted an abuse of discretion. For
that reason the Infractions Appeals Committee believes it is appropriate to remand to the
Committee on Infractions for reconsideration of the appropriate penalty

Hopefully the second time around, we can get a more fair penalty like the three scholarship reduction we self-imposed.

The Committee therefore concluded and reported to said initial committee of the first part, that all committee recommendations are remanded to the main wheel which subjugates BSU’s offer of three football grants-in-aid to increase its penalty to nine. However, the committees consulted the supreme wheel after it was determine no nine could be found on said supreme wheel or or could it determine a three exists on said big wheel. Therefore, after careful consideration and countless spins it was determine that BSU must accept a five grants-in-aid penalty. instead of nine.