Institution: Boston University

Date: September 03, 2026

Violation Summary: This case centered on ethical conduct violations in the men’s tennis program at Boston University (BU), which occurred when two coaches arranged for an ineligible student-athlete to compete under an assumed name. The COI resolved the coaches’ case via negotiated resolution (NR), which was approved on January 15, 2026. Pursuant to Bylaw 19.10.6, the Negotiated Resolution has no precedential value. BU agreed to the facts and violations but could not reach agreement with the enforcement staff on penalties—specifically, whether probation should be included as an institutional penalty—and therefore opted to process its case via summary disposition. All parties agreed that in October and November 2024, former head men’s tennis coach Dejan Stankovic and former assistant men’s tennis coach Jesse Frieder engaged in unethical conduct when they arranged for an ineligible student-athlete to compete under the names of other team members during three dates of competition. The team was short on eligible players due to injury, thus Stankovic and Frieder played the student-athlete despite knowing he had not been cleared through the NCAA Eligibility Center. He was also ineligible because he became a student-manager for the team prior to the November contests, thereby forfeiting any remaining eligibility. An additional violation occurred during the institution’s investigation when Stankovic failed to cooperate by instructing two student-athletes to deny any knowledge of or involvement in the ineligible competition. Additionally, the parties agreed that Stankovic violated head coach responsibility legislation due to his direct involvement in the violations. All violations were Level II.

Penalty Summary: Stankovic agreed to a two-year specific show-cause order that included a suspension from 30% of one season. Frieder agreed to a one-year specific show-cause order that included a suspension from 10% of one season. The institution agreed to a $25,000 fine and vacation of records. Following its review of the institution’s SDR, the panel accepted those penalties and proposed an additional penalty of two years of probation. The institution contested this penalty at an expedited hearing. Following the hearing, the panel maintained a probation penalty but reduced the probationary period to one year.

Involved Sports:
Men's Tennis

Case Level: II

Involved Penalties:

---