OUCH. Inside Higher Ed notes, "NCAA Rule Breaking at Northern Illinois." The specifics:

The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed Northern Illinois University on probation for one year for limited violations in women’s basketball, mostly related to extra benefits given to a student-athlete by a faculty member. This was the university’s first major infractions case.

Well, the specifics aren't real specific.

The extra benefits began in December 2003, concluded in June 2004 and totaled nearly $2,000, according to the public report from the committee.

The committee noted that the relationship with the faculty member began after a former assistant director of athletics placed the student-athlete in contact with the professor for mentoring due to personal difficulties the student-athlete was experiencing at the time.

According to the infractions committee’s report, the former assistant director of athletics provided a cursory explanation of NCAA guidelines to the faculty member, specifically that student-athletes cannot receive benefits beyond what any student at the university could expect to receive.

However, the former assistant director of athletics did not monitor the relationship; follow-up regarding potential extra benefits being received by the student-athlete; report the potential for extra benefits to appropriate staff at the university; and provide the faculty member any in-depth NCAA rules education prior to and during the relationship with the student-athlete.

As a result, the committee cited the assistant director of athletics for failure to monitor the situation. It noted the student-athlete should have realized the benefits were improper as well.

I had coverage of this story when it broke. The Association takes a somewhat dimmer view of the case than the university did.

While the university considered the violations to be secondary in nature, the committee concluded the violations were major. Even though the student-athlete’s relationship with the faculty member was not based on athletics and the faculty member had a history of being generous with others, those facts were mitigating factors only related to possible penalties, the committee said.

The committee added that it took into account mitigating factors when considering penalties in the case.

“The violations were in the context of a relationship conceived out of a concern for the welfare of a student-athlete, and the faculty member who provided the extra benefits did not have an athletic motivation in her actions,” the committee wrote in its report.

The player in question has since left the school, there has been a coaching change in women's basketball, and the kids have been performing well off the court.