Wednesday, March 9, 2005
By JOHN LEVESQUE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
If the NCAA has a heart and a brain, it will promote Bill Saum and David Price, give them enormous raises and tell them they can't have anything to do with enforcing the NCAA's rules anymore.
That would please B. David Ridpath even more than the event that occurred Monday in King County Superior Court.
In the meantime, knowing that the NCAA agreed to pay Rick Neuheisel $2.5 million of a $4.5 million settlement has made Ridpath "absolutely giddy."
Ridpath doesn't like the NCAA.
More precisely, he doesn't like how the NCAA operates.
Even though his impressions of Neuheisel are of a guy who plays fast and loose with the truth, Ridpath is delighted the former University of Washington football coach has taken a bite out of the organization that purports to regulate college athletics.
"You would not believe how they jump on people and how they target people," Ridpath said yesterday from his office in Starkville, Miss.
Actually, after reading about NCAA tactics the past few weeks, I think I might.
"For years they have skewered people for not following the rules as they see them," Ridpath said. "... They hold people to a different standard, and yet when held to that same standard they throw money and try to spin themselves out of trouble."
Ridpath, an associate professor of sport administration at Mississippi State University, knows the skewer's sting as intimately as anyone. Four years ago, when he was athletic compliance director at Marshall University in West Virginia, he was run through and then slow-roasted over the NCAA's coals.
His story is fascinating because it's similar to what occurred at the UW, except for who took the fall and ended up suing the university.
In the case at Marshall, it wasn't the football coach. Bob Pruett is still going strong, even after his football program was hit with four years' probation by the NCAA. Instead, it was Ridpath, who held the position analogous to that of Dana Richardson, author of the infamous UW memo that said participation by athletic department personnel in "March Madness" basketball betting pools was permissible.
Ridpath never did anything as egregious. His "crime" was not being aware of a scam that allowed Marshall athletes to "earn" $25 an hour for doing little or no work at a company owned by a longtime booster. He had been hired to clean up a messy program, but he became the scapegoat when the university hired a pricey attorney to protect itself and its high-profile employees like Pruett.
Why do I believe him?
Because Marshall University promoted Ridpath and gave him a raise after it got slapped by the NCAA. That would tend to silence most people, but the NCAA dossier on Ridpath has a black mark next to his name, which means he isn't likely to get another job in the compliance field.
So he is suing Marshall and Pruett, he has testified before Congress and he's happy to talk to just about anyone else about the NCAA's excesses in rule enforcement. Since the NCAA doesn't have to abide by the sort of due process we're accustomed to seeing in the American system of jurisprudence, Ridpath says it is free to do just about anything it wants in investigating suspected doers of wrong.
Visions of thumb screws in a dungeon and firing squads at dawn float immediately to mind. Ridpath indicated it's not far from the truth.
"I've seen them make people cry, belittle people, use covert racism, tell lawyers to shut up and say they have no rights," he said. "It's unlike anything you've ever seen.
"They will ruin the reputations and careers of anyone who doesn't follow or who misinterprets the rules as they see them."
Ridpath said he believes he and Neuheisel were targeted because they didn't cave in.
"I was very vigorous in defending Marshall," he said, "and if you give the NCAA static, they don't like that. They will get you in the end because they know they can."
Ridpath finds particularly sweet irony in the NCAA's complaint that it wasn't able to mount a full defense in the Neuheisel trial because of a ruling by Judge Michael Spearman that arose out of a discovery that the NCAA had changed its bylaws but hadn't notified Neuheisel's defense team.
"I was not allowed to give my case, either," he said. "I was shot down as some incompetent nut job. ... When the NCAA took me down, it was a sad day for college athletics because I cared about the rules and I was shown the door."
Ridpath said nothing will change until the NCAA enforcement process is overhauled.
Starting with Price, the vice president of enforcement, and Saum, the director of gambling activities, would be fine with him.
The testimony from the trial over Neuheisel's lawsuit against the UW and the NCAA indicates Price and Saum do indeed embrace a systematic disregard for fairness and openness in investigating suspected violators and in applying punishment.
My favorite revelation from the trial involves Saum, who directed the early investigation of Neuheisel's participation in a March Madness pool in 2002.
An internal NCAA e-mail showed that Saum suggested investigators who were trying to co-opt one of Neuheisel's chums should consider going to the man's boss and saying he wasn't cooperating with the investigation.
Another favorite moment came when Price admitted the NCAA violated its own bylaw when it failed to tell Neuheisel it was going to grill him about allegations that he had taken part in auction-style betting pools.
I believe these two tactics can be found in the "Blackmail and Cheat" chapter of the NCAA Code of Investigative Behavior.
And I agree with Dave Ridpath that it's high time Price and Saum were "rewarded," the way Ridpath was, for their diligent adherence to NCAA practices and procedures.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Ohio State, NCAA, 'Shameful Six' are embarrassments
By Grant FrekingBy Grant Freking-->
freking.4@osu.edu
Published: Friday, December 24, 2010Updated: Friday, December 24, 2010 00:12-->
Updated: Friday, December 24, 2010 00:12
Two days before Christmas, six Buckeye players played the role of the Grinch. They, along with the other parties involved, have completely embarrassed themselves.
The "Shameful Six" should be embarrassed. They sold jerseys, pants, shoes, Big Ten championship rings and Gold Pants awards. In a true sense of irony, Terrelle Pryor sold his 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award. Many of them received discounted services (tattoos) in exchange for autographs.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith should be embarrassed. He said that the now-suspended players "stated in their interviews with us and with the NCAA that they felt those items were theirs, that they owned them, that they could sell them to help their families. … We were not explicit, and that's our responsibility to be explicit."
I wasn't born yesterday. Neither were the players. You'll never convince me that the players truly thought it was OK to sell those items.
I talked to Gene Smith about compliance in May. I asked him what the key to staying clear of the NCAA was. He gave me a one-word answer: "attitude."
"Our compliance office does a great job with education, not only our department but across the campus and in the community," Smith said. "So we have a compliance-conscious environment because I drive it, I talk about it all the time."
Maybe the "Shameful Six" just had the wrong attitude.
The NCAA should also be embarrassed.
OSU declared the "Shameful Six" ineligible when it self-reported the violations to the NCAA on Sunday. It was the NCAA who reinstated the six for the Sugar Bowl and instead suspended five of the six for the first five games of the 2011 season (Jordan Whiting is suspended for the season opener).
Why? Since 2007, OSU has not made it crystal clear that selling "apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department" is a no. Which brings us back to the players thinking they weren't breaking any rules.
It gets better.
The NCAA bought that poppycock excuse and used lingo Smith hadn't even heard of: "NCAA policy allows [lifting] penalties for a championship or bowl game if it was reasonable at the time the student-athletes were not aware they were committing violations."
To a greater extent, it's the Cam Newton excuse. Sure, there was no clear-cut proof connecting Newton to his father's pay-for-play recruitment of his son. You'll never convince me that discussion of the highest bidder didn't happen at the Newton dinner table.
And let me get this straight: current USC Trojans can't play in a bowl game because former player and Heisman winner Reggie Bush took improper benefits five years ago?
Pryor, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey and Mike Adams are all not only eligible for the 2011 NFL draft, it's a virtual certainty that all four of them would be drafted.
Now, do their suspensions look bad on their resumes? Sure. Is it a big risk entering the NFL with no collective bargaining agreement deal in place? Definitely.
But the fact that they can jump ship after the Sugar Bowl and not have to worry about their suspensions is ludicrous.
Scandal-heavy and money-hungry college football is becoming more of an embarrassment by the day.
freking.4@osu.edu
Published: Friday, December 24, 2010Updated: Friday, December 24, 2010 00:12-->
Updated: Friday, December 24, 2010 00:12
Two days before Christmas, six Buckeye players played the role of the Grinch. They, along with the other parties involved, have completely embarrassed themselves.
The "Shameful Six" should be embarrassed. They sold jerseys, pants, shoes, Big Ten championship rings and Gold Pants awards. In a true sense of irony, Terrelle Pryor sold his 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award. Many of them received discounted services (tattoos) in exchange for autographs.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith should be embarrassed. He said that the now-suspended players "stated in their interviews with us and with the NCAA that they felt those items were theirs, that they owned them, that they could sell them to help their families. … We were not explicit, and that's our responsibility to be explicit."
I wasn't born yesterday. Neither were the players. You'll never convince me that the players truly thought it was OK to sell those items.
I talked to Gene Smith about compliance in May. I asked him what the key to staying clear of the NCAA was. He gave me a one-word answer: "attitude."
"Our compliance office does a great job with education, not only our department but across the campus and in the community," Smith said. "So we have a compliance-conscious environment because I drive it, I talk about it all the time."
Maybe the "Shameful Six" just had the wrong attitude.
The NCAA should also be embarrassed.
OSU declared the "Shameful Six" ineligible when it self-reported the violations to the NCAA on Sunday. It was the NCAA who reinstated the six for the Sugar Bowl and instead suspended five of the six for the first five games of the 2011 season (Jordan Whiting is suspended for the season opener).
Why? Since 2007, OSU has not made it crystal clear that selling "apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department" is a no. Which brings us back to the players thinking they weren't breaking any rules.
It gets better.
The NCAA bought that poppycock excuse and used lingo Smith hadn't even heard of: "NCAA policy allows [lifting] penalties for a championship or bowl game if it was reasonable at the time the student-athletes were not aware they were committing violations."
To a greater extent, it's the Cam Newton excuse. Sure, there was no clear-cut proof connecting Newton to his father's pay-for-play recruitment of his son. You'll never convince me that discussion of the highest bidder didn't happen at the Newton dinner table.
And let me get this straight: current USC Trojans can't play in a bowl game because former player and Heisman winner Reggie Bush took improper benefits five years ago?
Pryor, Dan Herron, DeVier Posey and Mike Adams are all not only eligible for the 2011 NFL draft, it's a virtual certainty that all four of them would be drafted.
Now, do their suspensions look bad on their resumes? Sure. Is it a big risk entering the NFL with no collective bargaining agreement deal in place? Definitely.
But the fact that they can jump ship after the Sugar Bowl and not have to worry about their suspensions is ludicrous.
Scandal-heavy and money-hungry college football is becoming more of an embarrassment by the day.
An inside look at the NCAA's secretive Committee on Infractions
From SIUpdated: Thursday February 18, 2010 12:29PM
George Dohrmann
For three days beginning on Thursday, a 10-person NCAA committee will convene in a conference room at a hotel in Tempe, Ariz. There are more than 125 NCAA committees that meet during a calendar year and this one is no different in that its members are largely unrecognizable collegiate bureaucrats. The NCAA Web site lists three attorneys, three law professors, two conference commissioners and two athletic department officials as members of this committee, and while some of them played or coached collegiate sports, none have done so in the past 20 years.
The NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS and Major League Baseball are dictatorships when it comes to penalizing its members; a single person decides on sanctions. The NCAA has this group of 10, known as the Committee on Infractions (COI), one of the most powerful, yet least examined, entities in American sports. Most people could not name a single member of the COI or tell you how it comes to its decisions. It goes about its business in relative obscurity, its deliberations kept secret, its findings conveyed mostly via press releases. Rarely has so little been known about a group that wields such authority.
The spotlight rarely finds the COI, which makes the hearing in Tempe unique. Among the cases under review is the biggest to come before the committee in years, one that will bring media attention and fan scrutiny:
USC.
USC.
The NCAA has investigated allegations against the Trojans athletic department since 2006, one of the longest probes in the association's history. The possibility of major sanctions for the school has loomed in the background for years, the bane of its supporters and a beacon for its critics. Allegations include claims that 2005 Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush received improper benefits from multiple agents, including the use of a house for his family. Former USC basketball star O.J. Mayo, in his one season with the Trojans, also reportedly received money and gifts from an agent, and, most recently, investigators looked into a car driven by but not owned by running back Joe McKnight.
Given the profile of the school and the athletes involved it is a landmark case, one sure to stand as a litmus test for the NCAA's unique brand of justice. It also raises questions about the mysterious committee that acts as the NCAA's judge: Who are the members of the COI and how did they land on the committee? How do they review allegations like those against USC? And, perhaps most important, how do they determine what penalties, if any, to hand down?
The NCAA does not disclose the individuals who will hear a specific case, and it is common for COI members to miss a hearing and/or be replaced by a former member. Still, it is a safe bet that those judging USC in Tempe will boast impressive credentials. The COI chairperson, Paul Dee, is the former athletic director at Miami and a professor at that school. Britton Banowsky and Dennis Thomas are the commissioners of Conference USA and the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, respectively, and Missy Conboy has worked in Notre Dame's athletic department for 22 years. Temple law professor Eleanor Myers is an expert on legal ethics, and Rodney Uphoff, a professor at Missouri, is a former defense attorney who helped represent Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols.
Per NCAA guidelines, two of the 10 members must be women and three are "public" representatives, usually attorneys or former judges unaffiliated with a school or conference. The three public representatives on the COI roster are all lawyers, the most notable being Roscoe Howard Jr., a former U.S. Attorney.
Among the individuals judging USC will be Josephine Potuto, a tiny woman with red hair who teaches law at the University of Nebraska. (She confirmed to SI.com that she would be Tempe.) Potuto might be the smallest person in the room, but she will also be the most senior, having served on the committee since 1999. She is the person USC athletic director Mike Garrett, school president Steven Sample, and the others representing the school should fear the most as she is a fierce questioner and unafraid to call out school officials who attempt to massage the truth.
Hearings are closed to the public, transcripts of the proceedings are kept confidential, and COI members are forbidden from discussing cases. But Potuto's grilling of former basketball Georgia coach Jim Harrick in 2004 is legendary among followers of the COI, and in a 2008 Florida State hearing -- the transcript from which was transmitted to the university in a way that made it subject to open record laws -- she repeatedly cornered those defending the school.
When recruiting COI members, Potuto looked for people with "gravitas," which she says includes fearlessness in the face of a challenge from a high-profile coach or administrator. "My experience with Jo and the rest of the committee is that they want to be fair, but they won't do an institution any favors and they dig down pretty deep," says Michael Rogers, who represented Baylor in its 2005 hearing.
That Potuto will review a high profile case involving agents funneling money to athletes is fitting, as it was her comments on that issue that brought her to the attention of the COI. At a conference in 1998, Potuto listened as former North Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany bemoaned how agents were funneling money to basketball players. Potuto stood up and said it was interesting that a little money going to the players was such a huge concern given how much the NCAA profited off those same kids. Immediately after, a COI member approached her. "I think they liked that I was willing to challenge people who are respected in athletics," she says.
The most common way to get on the committee is to know someone on it or to impress when representing a school. Alabama law professor Gene Marsh, who served from 1999 to 2008, was asked to join after arguing on behalf of the Crimson Tide in a 1998 infractions case.
COI members will tell you it is a thankless (and unpaid) job. They meet, on average, six times a year for four days at a time. Each case requires about 20 hours of reading and a complex hearing like USC's can last 12 hours or more. "There are plenty of people who get on the committee and pull the rip cord early because they don't realize the time commitment required," Marsh says.
Not Potuto. Her longevity and embrace of the work stands out. Followers of the committee say anonymously that if they could grant her a lifetime appointment (members are limited to three, three-year terms) they would, and they predict that she will loom large during the proceedings in Tempe.
For that, USC has, coincidentally, the rule book to blame.
COI guidelines require a committee member to recuse his or herself when a school from the same conference is under scrutiny. Potuto's final term ended in 2008, but she was asked back for the USC case, likely as a replacement for Oregon law professor James O'Fallon.
In other words, the toughest person in the room wasn't even supposed to be there.
In other words, the toughest person in the room wasn't even supposed to be there.
Prior to arriving in Tempe, Potuto and the rest of the COI received a case file detailing the infractions the NCAA enforcement staff has concluded were committed by USC, as well as any response by the school. This could be called evidence -- it often includes transcripts of interviews and other supporting documents -- but the COI rarely determines whether or not a rule was broken, a common misconception. By the time a school appears before the COI it is usually in agreement with the enforcement staff on the violations committed. USC officials (who declined to discuss their case with SI.com) might take exception to the severity of some violations, but the two parties are likely to agree on the rules broken.
"One misconception is that a [COI hearing] is like a trial we would see in our judicial system," says Rogers. "It is very different." In an interview, Dee, the COI chairperson, referred to the process as "quasi-judicial" and "in a way like arbitration" and similar to an "administrative hearing," the variety of descriptors a testament to the unique nature of the COI's work.
Interpret may be the best description for what the committee does. They review the violations and then, while listening to remarks from school officials and others, they interpret the core cause of the misdeeds and whether the university's actions before and after the wrongdoing surfaced were sufficient. Thus, the task of the school officials present at a hearing is to push their own interpretation.
Interpret may be the best description for what the committee does. They review the violations and then, while listening to remarks from school officials and others, they interpret the core cause of the misdeeds and whether the university's actions before and after the wrongdoing surfaced were sufficient. Thus, the task of the school officials present at a hearing is to push their own interpretation.
In the Florida State case, university president T.K. Wetherell attempted to paint the widespread cheating by athletes in several sports as the actions of a "rogue tutor," saying: "We don't really believe they cheated. They got inappropriate help." That may seem like a clever muddling of the facts, but a rogue tutor isn't as serious in the eyes of the COI as institutionalized cheating. Though the COI sanctioned the Seminoles -- including vacating wins in 10 sports and taking away three football scholarships -- it concluded that the school did not knowingly allow athletes who cheated to compete.
At the start of a hearing, the school under review and the NCAA enforcement staff make opening remarks. Then the COI members pose questions, and it is during this period when cases are won and lost. Depending on who is among the contingent from USC (former football coach Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd, the former basketball coach, reportedly plan to attend or participate via video conference), this could be the hearing's most dramatic stretch, with Potuto and others peppering them with questions and scrutinizing their responses.
The enforcement division's exact findings regarding USC won't be made public until after the COI's decision, but the committee is expected to conclude that Bush and Mayo received improper benefits from agents. Regarding Mayo, the school did an inadequate job monitoring the basketball program, a supposition supported by the university's imposition of sanctions on the basketball team in December, including a postseason ban this season. The school allowed Rodney Guillory, Mayo's handler, into its program despite the fact that the NCAA deemed him a runner for agents in 2000 when he paid the airfare for a USC player. The COI would surely have sanctioned the Trojans if the school had not taken action against itself, and it could still penalize the program further.
USC's interpretation of violations committed by football players would appear to be very different. Garrett, the Trojans' athletic director, said last month that the school had "some arguments" to make before the COI on that front. He is not likely to challenge that rules were broken but rather whether USC should be held responsible for the actions of Bush, his family, and the agents.
It is a defense that hits at a thorny issue for the NCAA: how much to hold schools accountable for the actions of the agents who court its players? On one hand, it is unreasonable to expect a school to monitor where all of its athletes' families live, what their parents drive and whom they might be receiving money from? On the other, Bush was not just any player, and it appears the agents operated right under USC's nose. According to Yahoo! Sports, the NCAA requested a copy of a photo of sports agents Lloyd Lake and Michael Michaels posing with Pete Carroll in the locker room after a game. USC also cleared Bush in 2005 to work as a summer intern for sports marketing agent Mike Ornstein, who was reportedly allowed on the sidelines for some USC games. Ornstein, like Lake and Michaels, allegedly provided Bush with improper benefits.
Many major infractions cases often come down to simple question -- what should the school have known? In Florida State's case, the school avoided the dreaded "lack of institutional control" label, which carries the harshest sanctions, and USC will hope do the same while in the tricky position of arguing that there were institutional failings in one sport (basketball) but not in another (football).
"It is a hard sell," says one lawyer with ties to the case. "It's the "what-more-could-we-do defense, and the problem with that is what a school could have done is open to a wide interpretation."
A widely held perception about the COI is that they go soft on cheaters, particularly high-profile schools. Pick any major infractions case from the last decade -- Ohio State in 2006, Alabama in 2002 and 2008, etc. -- and you can find a large segment of people that think the cheaters got off too easy and that the COI selectively spared a big (and profitable) program.
Potuto, Dee and others say that is folly. They judge a case on its merits, they contend, the profile of a school never comes under consideration. And yet it is hard not to note that the NCAA may have already done USC a huge favor.
Potuto, Dee and others say that is folly. They judge a case on its merits, they contend, the profile of a school never comes under consideration. And yet it is hard not to note that the NCAA may have already done USC a huge favor.
In July 2008, the COI recommended sweeping changes in the severity of penalties assessed, including giving the COI the ability to impose postseason bans, hefty fines, bans on television appearances, and other penalties that hadn't been used in years. There were other recommendations, which when taken in total meant a seismic overhaul of how the NCAA penalizes cheaters.
A case like USC's, where the finding of a lack of institutional control is a real possibility, would seemingly be ripe for the deployment of the new penalties, and the perfect way to send a message to the rest of the association. "When people realize there is not a risk of severe penalties, they take chances," Dee says. "We wanted to put risk back on the table by dusting off some of these dormant penalties."
One problem: They are still dormant. Nearly 20 months after receiving the COI's recommendations, the Board of Directors has yet to ratify them. The COI may wish to throw the book at USC, but its hands will be tied by the slow-turning wheels of the NCAA machine. As a result, questions about whether justice was served will persist regardless of how the COI rules on the Trojans.
"The porridge will always be too hot or too cold," says Marsh, the Alabama law professor and former COI chair. "Some believe we are too harsh, others say too soft. No one ever says [the COI] got it just right."
At the conclusion of the hearing in Tempe, the COI will gather and begin talking through the issues until a consensus is reached on what penalties, if any, to hand down. Dee will then assign one member to write an opinion, which will be passed among the others to approve. The process takes about between eight to 10 weeks, meaning that sometime in the spring USC will know its fate. On that day, the debate over whether justice was served will rage on radio shows, blogs, and at water coolers across the country.
The COI, meanwhile, will drift back into the shadows.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Pay for Top 14 NCAA Executives Totaled Nearly $6-Million Last Year
Pay for Top 14 NCAA Executives Totaled Nearly $6-Million Last Year
By Libby Sander
As athletic departments struggled to weather the recession last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association spent nearly $6-million to compensate 14 of its highest-ranking executives, according to federal tax documents recently made public.
The highest-paid of those officials was Myles Brand, the former NCAA president who died of cancer last September while still in office.
Mr. Brand received $1,145,880 in total compensation for the fiscal year ending August 2009. The sum included $770,739 in salary and more than $200,000 in bonuses and incentive compensation, as well as other pay and benefits.
Mr. Brand took home $1,710,095 in total compensation in 2007-8, including $815,000 in retirement pay that was deferred from previous years.
Other highly paid executives last year were Thomas W. Jernstedt, the former executive vice president who announced his departure last month after 38 years at the association ($604,679); Bernard W. Franklin, executive vice president for membership and student-athlete affairs ($509,429); and James L. Isch, the former chief financial officer and NCAA interim president who was recently named its chief operating officer ($467,734).
The $6-million set aside in 2008-9 for executive compensation is just under 12 percent of the nearly $50-million the association spent on compensation for all of its employees last year, the records show. The organization, headquartered in Indianapolis, employs more than 400 people.
By comparison, the American Council on Education paid its president, Molly Corbett Broad, roughly $507,000 in total compensation last year, while most of its key employees earned between $200,000 and $300,000.
Next month Mark A. Emmert, the departing president of the University of Washington, will take over as the NCAA's next chief executive. It is not known how much the association will pay Mr. Emmert, whose compensation at Washington last year exceeded $900,000.
In all, the NCAA brought in more than $700-million in revenue last year, up from nearly $660-million the previous year. The bulk of that money—just under $590-million—came from television-rights fees. The NCAA's television contract at the time, which it replaced in April with a more-lucrative agreement, was backloaded to provide the association with greater payouts in the final years of the deal.
Other sources of income for the NCAA included championships and ticket sales (more than $75-million), membership fees (about $12-million), and rights and royalties (just below $8-million).
Much of the NCAA's money is doled out to its 1,200 member institutions and athletic conferences in the form of grants and scholarships. But those contributions vary greatly: Last year, for instance, the NCAA shared $32-million with the Big Ten Conference, in Division I-A; $4-million with the Sun Belt Conference, in Division I-AA; and $72,000 with the Old Dominion Athletic Conference, in Division III.
As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA is not required to pay taxes on its income. That has rankled some critics of spending in college sports, including a few members of Congress, who have asked the association to justify its tax-exempt status.
By Libby Sander
As athletic departments struggled to weather the recession last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association spent nearly $6-million to compensate 14 of its highest-ranking executives, according to federal tax documents recently made public.
The highest-paid of those officials was Myles Brand, the former NCAA president who died of cancer last September while still in office.
Mr. Brand received $1,145,880 in total compensation for the fiscal year ending August 2009. The sum included $770,739 in salary and more than $200,000 in bonuses and incentive compensation, as well as other pay and benefits.
Mr. Brand took home $1,710,095 in total compensation in 2007-8, including $815,000 in retirement pay that was deferred from previous years.
Other highly paid executives last year were Thomas W. Jernstedt, the former executive vice president who announced his departure last month after 38 years at the association ($604,679); Bernard W. Franklin, executive vice president for membership and student-athlete affairs ($509,429); and James L. Isch, the former chief financial officer and NCAA interim president who was recently named its chief operating officer ($467,734).
The $6-million set aside in 2008-9 for executive compensation is just under 12 percent of the nearly $50-million the association spent on compensation for all of its employees last year, the records show. The organization, headquartered in Indianapolis, employs more than 400 people.
By comparison, the American Council on Education paid its president, Molly Corbett Broad, roughly $507,000 in total compensation last year, while most of its key employees earned between $200,000 and $300,000.
Next month Mark A. Emmert, the departing president of the University of Washington, will take over as the NCAA's next chief executive. It is not known how much the association will pay Mr. Emmert, whose compensation at Washington last year exceeded $900,000.
In all, the NCAA brought in more than $700-million in revenue last year, up from nearly $660-million the previous year. The bulk of that money—just under $590-million—came from television-rights fees. The NCAA's television contract at the time, which it replaced in April with a more-lucrative agreement, was backloaded to provide the association with greater payouts in the final years of the deal.
Other sources of income for the NCAA included championships and ticket sales (more than $75-million), membership fees (about $12-million), and rights and royalties (just below $8-million).
Much of the NCAA's money is doled out to its 1,200 member institutions and athletic conferences in the form of grants and scholarships. But those contributions vary greatly: Last year, for instance, the NCAA shared $32-million with the Big Ten Conference, in Division I-A; $4-million with the Sun Belt Conference, in Division I-AA; and $72,000 with the Old Dominion Athletic Conference, in Division III.
As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA is not required to pay taxes on its income. That has rankled some critics of spending in college sports, including a few members of Congress, who have asked the association to justify its tax-exempt status.
Still-Corrupt NCAA Sanctions Ohio State
It’s cold. The roads are busy. Store lines are long. It’s late December. And the NCAA is corrupt.
In case you didn’t already know it, the NCAA really likes to contradict itself.
Today, they sanctioned five Ohio State football players for receiving improper benefits:
Pryor has to repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, a 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 Gold Pants, a gift from Ohio State. Adams, Herron, Posey, and Thomas are all required to pay lesser amounts for similar violations.
So they can’t sell stuff that was given to them? And how exactly are they supposed to pay back that much money? By receiving more improper benefits? But that’s not the real issue here. It’s that these guys are all allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl against Arkansas—a game with a $17 million payout for each team and countless sponsorship dollars for the NCAA.
Technically, the players are eligible for the bowl game because the NCAA “determined they did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred.”
Education? Really? Then what the hell were the six full-time compliance officers employed by Ohio State doing?
Despite what the NCAA says, it comes down to the money—like it always does. If Pryor doesn’t play, ratings drop and sponsors get mad. If the NCAA could find a way to let Ohio State’s starting quarterback and number-one wide receiver play in one of the highest grossing, most viewed games of the year, yet still punish both of them, they were going to. Spineless.
But at this point, we shouldn’t expect anything less.
In case you didn’t already know it, the NCAA really likes to contradict itself.
Today, they sanctioned five Ohio State football players for receiving improper benefits:
Five players were found to have sold awards, gifts, and university apparel, plus receive improper benefits in 2009. In addition to missing five games next season, [Terrelle] Pryor, Mike Adams, Daniel Herron, Devier Posey, and Solomon Thomas must repay money and benefits ranging in value from $1,000 to $2,500. The repayments must be made to a charity.This comes on the heels of a report that several players—including Pryor, the team’s star quarterback—traded autographs for free tattoos. Pryor denied that allegation on his Twitter account.
Pryor has to repay $2,500 for selling his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, a 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 Gold Pants, a gift from Ohio State. Adams, Herron, Posey, and Thomas are all required to pay lesser amounts for similar violations.
So they can’t sell stuff that was given to them? And how exactly are they supposed to pay back that much money? By receiving more improper benefits? But that’s not the real issue here. It’s that these guys are all allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl against Arkansas—a game with a $17 million payout for each team and countless sponsorship dollars for the NCAA.
Technically, the players are eligible for the bowl game because the NCAA “determined they did not receive adequate rules education during the time period the violations occurred.”
Education? Really? Then what the hell were the six full-time compliance officers employed by Ohio State doing?
Despite what the NCAA says, it comes down to the money—like it always does. If Pryor doesn’t play, ratings drop and sponsors get mad. If the NCAA could find a way to let Ohio State’s starting quarterback and number-one wide receiver play in one of the highest grossing, most viewed games of the year, yet still punish both of them, they were going to. Spineless.
But at this point, we shouldn’t expect anything less.
Dez Bryant reacts to Ohio State suspensions: 'NCAA is crazy'
Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant has moved on to the NFL, but his anger with the NCAA remains in light of the penalties assessed to Terrelle Pryor and four other Ohio State players.
The quintet of Buckeyes are suspended five games for selling awards and receiving improper benefits.
Bryant felt the wrath of the NCAA after a 12-game suspension effectively ended his college career at Oklahoma State. The penalty stemmed from him lying about a visit to the home of Deion Sanders even though it was not a rules violation.
He posted on his Twitter account: "I guess I should have got into a lot of trouble in college ... maybe I would have gotten less punishment? lol"
Since Bryant's punishment, several players have seen significantly less sanctions for rules violations, associating with agents and for not being truthful with the NCAA.
He added on his Twitter: "I lied and then came back and told the truth....I didn't take no money, was not communicating with no agents at all.. NCAA is crazy"
After leaving early for the NFL draft, Bryant was taken in the first round by the Dallas Cowboys and had 45 catches for 561 yards and six touchdowns in 12 games before suffering a season-ending broken ankle earlier this month.
"At the end of the day I was happy as hell ... Because it's a privilege to wear that star on your helmet," he tweeted.
-- Erick Smith
By Brody Schmidt, AP
Bryant felt the wrath of the NCAA after a 12-game suspension effectively ended his college career at Oklahoma State. The penalty stemmed from him lying about a visit to the home of Deion Sanders even though it was not a rules violation.
He posted on his Twitter account: "I guess I should have got into a lot of trouble in college ... maybe I would have gotten less punishment? lol"
Since Bryant's punishment, several players have seen significantly less sanctions for rules violations, associating with agents and for not being truthful with the NCAA.
He added on his Twitter: "I lied and then came back and told the truth....I didn't take no money, was not communicating with no agents at all.. NCAA is crazy"
After leaving early for the NFL draft, Bryant was taken in the first round by the Dallas Cowboys and had 45 catches for 561 yards and six touchdowns in 12 games before suffering a season-ending broken ankle earlier this month.
"At the end of the day I was happy as hell ... Because it's a privilege to wear that star on your helmet," he tweeted.
-- Erick Smith
USC football: NCAA appeal hearing set for Jan. 22, Pat Haden says
December 23, 2010 | 2:35 pm
USC's hearing before the NCAA's Infractions Appeals Committee will take place Jan. 22 in Indianapolis, Athletic Director Pat Haden said Thursday.
USC is appealing sanctions handed down last summer that included a two-year bowl ban and the reduction of 30 scholarships over three years. The school was penalized, in part, because Reggie Bush and his parents were found to have accepted prohibited extra benefits from agents and would-be sports marketers. Bush's stepfather also helped set up a fledgling sports marketing venture.
Haden; USC President Max Nikias; David Roberts, the school's vice president for athletic compliance; and the university's legal representatives are expected to attend the hearing.
USC's hearing will come approximately four weeks after the second of two controversial NCAA decisions this month.
The NCAA announced Thursday that five of six Ohio State football players who violated preferential-treatment bylaws would be suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season but that all of the players would be allowed to participate in the Jan. 4 Sugar Bowl against Arkansas.
The announcement came three weeks after the NCAA determined that Auburn quarterback Cam Newton was eligible despite the fact that his father broke NCAA rules for his role in a pay-for-play scenario when his son was being recruited from a junior college. Cam Newton later won the Heisman Trophy and will lead Auburn against Oregon in the Bowl Championship Series title game on Jan. 10.
Haden said after the Newton ruling that it was at odds with how USC's beefed-up compliance department was trying to educate athletes and their parents regarding NCAA rules. He also said that school attorneys probably would review the case.
Haden said he did not know enough about the Ohio State situation to comment.
"I'm just worried about us," he said. "It's a just reminder of the constant vigilance you must have."
-- Gary Klein
USC is appealing sanctions handed down last summer that included a two-year bowl ban and the reduction of 30 scholarships over three years. The school was penalized, in part, because Reggie Bush and his parents were found to have accepted prohibited extra benefits from agents and would-be sports marketers. Bush's stepfather also helped set up a fledgling sports marketing venture.
Haden; USC President Max Nikias; David Roberts, the school's vice president for athletic compliance; and the university's legal representatives are expected to attend the hearing.
USC's hearing will come approximately four weeks after the second of two controversial NCAA decisions this month.
The NCAA announced Thursday that five of six Ohio State football players who violated preferential-treatment bylaws would be suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season but that all of the players would be allowed to participate in the Jan. 4 Sugar Bowl against Arkansas.
The announcement came three weeks after the NCAA determined that Auburn quarterback Cam Newton was eligible despite the fact that his father broke NCAA rules for his role in a pay-for-play scenario when his son was being recruited from a junior college. Cam Newton later won the Heisman Trophy and will lead Auburn against Oregon in the Bowl Championship Series title game on Jan. 10.
Haden said after the Newton ruling that it was at odds with how USC's beefed-up compliance department was trying to educate athletes and their parents regarding NCAA rules. He also said that school attorneys probably would review the case.
Haden said he did not know enough about the Ohio State situation to comment.
"I'm just worried about us," he said. "It's a just reminder of the constant vigilance you must have."
-- Gary Klein
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
N.C.A.A. Sued Over One-Year Scholarships
A former Rice University football player who lost his scholarship for his senior year has filed a class-action lawsuit against the N.C.A.A., arguing that the one-year limit on athletic scholarships amounts to a price-fixing scheme between the association and member universities.
The lawsuit was filed Monday in United States District Court in San Francisco by the former player, Joseph Agnew. It came five months after the N.C.A.A. acknowledged that the antitrust division of the Justice Department was looking into the one-year scholarship rule.
“People look at the N.C.A.A. as kind of outside these laws, but they’re really not,” said Steve Berman, one of Agnew’s lawyers. “Here, they have entered into an agreement restraining the length of a scholarship that kids can get, and we think that’s anticompetitive and is harmful to student-athletes.”
Agnew was a highly recruited defensive back from Carroll, Tex., who enrolled at Rice in 2006 on a full scholarship, according to a copy of the complaint provided by Agnew’s lawyers.
Agnew played in all 13 of the team’s games his first season, but the head coach who recruited him, Todd Graham, left for the University of Tulsa before Agnew’s sophomore year. After losing playing time and battling injuries, Agnew was not offered a scholarship in his junior year. He appealed the decision and won, but he was denied a scholarship the next year. Agnew, who is pursuing a degree in sociology, is now required to pay his own tuition.
“He was a star athlete, and we believe that if the rule hadn’t been in place, he would have gotten multiple offers of full scholarships,” said Berman, who also represents Sam Keller, the former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback who is suing the N.C.A.A. and EA Sports in a class-action lawsuit arguing that the use of college athletes’ likenesses in video games is illegal.
Bob Williams, a spokesman for the N.C.A.A., said in a statement that the N.C.A.A. was reviewing the lawsuit, but “it should be noted that the award of athletic scholarships on a one-year, renewable basis is the more typical approach taken within higher education for talent-based and academic scholarships in general.”
In May, responding to reports that the Justice Department was investigating its scholarship rule, the N.C.A.A. released a statement explaining that “an annual review of whether an individual meets the standards of a merit award is the most appropriate way to ensure that the most deserving student-athletes receive that award each year.”
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the reported inquiry.
The lawsuit, which refers to the scholarships as tuition “discounts,” describes the rule as a “blatant price-fixing agreement” and says they are not necessary to protect the amateur status of N.C.A.A. athletes.
“By unlawfully agreeing not to offer multiyear athletics-based discounts,” the lawsuit argues, “the N.C.A.A. and its member institutions have ensured that student-athletes who are injured or who simply do not meet the school’s expectations can be cut from a team and their scholarships terminated.”
The suit argues that the N.C.A.A. is also violating antitrust rules by limiting the number of scholarships that each team can award.
Ref: The New York Times
The lawsuit was filed Monday in United States District Court in San Francisco by the former player, Joseph Agnew. It came five months after the N.C.A.A. acknowledged that the antitrust division of the Justice Department was looking into the one-year scholarship rule.
“People look at the N.C.A.A. as kind of outside these laws, but they’re really not,” said Steve Berman, one of Agnew’s lawyers. “Here, they have entered into an agreement restraining the length of a scholarship that kids can get, and we think that’s anticompetitive and is harmful to student-athletes.”
Agnew was a highly recruited defensive back from Carroll, Tex., who enrolled at Rice in 2006 on a full scholarship, according to a copy of the complaint provided by Agnew’s lawyers.
Agnew played in all 13 of the team’s games his first season, but the head coach who recruited him, Todd Graham, left for the University of Tulsa before Agnew’s sophomore year. After losing playing time and battling injuries, Agnew was not offered a scholarship in his junior year. He appealed the decision and won, but he was denied a scholarship the next year. Agnew, who is pursuing a degree in sociology, is now required to pay his own tuition.
“He was a star athlete, and we believe that if the rule hadn’t been in place, he would have gotten multiple offers of full scholarships,” said Berman, who also represents Sam Keller, the former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback who is suing the N.C.A.A. and EA Sports in a class-action lawsuit arguing that the use of college athletes’ likenesses in video games is illegal.
Bob Williams, a spokesman for the N.C.A.A., said in a statement that the N.C.A.A. was reviewing the lawsuit, but “it should be noted that the award of athletic scholarships on a one-year, renewable basis is the more typical approach taken within higher education for talent-based and academic scholarships in general.”
In May, responding to reports that the Justice Department was investigating its scholarship rule, the N.C.A.A. released a statement explaining that “an annual review of whether an individual meets the standards of a merit award is the most appropriate way to ensure that the most deserving student-athletes receive that award each year.”
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the reported inquiry.
The lawsuit, which refers to the scholarships as tuition “discounts,” describes the rule as a “blatant price-fixing agreement” and says they are not necessary to protect the amateur status of N.C.A.A. athletes.
“By unlawfully agreeing not to offer multiyear athletics-based discounts,” the lawsuit argues, “the N.C.A.A. and its member institutions have ensured that student-athletes who are injured or who simply do not meet the school’s expectations can be cut from a team and their scholarships terminated.”
The suit argues that the N.C.A.A. is also violating antitrust rules by limiting the number of scholarships that each team can award.
Ref: The New York Times
Monday, December 6, 2010
From the bleacher report
an excellent article on bleacher report
The NCAA enforcement process is unfair and inconsistent. Three recent cases involving USC’s Reggie Bush, Auburn’s Cameron Newton, and North Carolina’s ineligible athletes show that the NCAA may be corrupt.
The secret but carefully orchestrated one day ineligibility of Auburn quarterback Cam Newton for violation of the recruiting amateurism rules once again demonstrates the corrupt culture of the NCAA.
The NCAA press release made it clear that Newton violated NCAA rule 12.3.3 because his minister father, Cecil Newton, and a scouting representative shopped him for at least $180,000 compensation to a college for an athletic scholarship. So far, there is no proof that money changed hands or that Auburn knew about it according to the NCAA.
But, in the USC case, Reggie Bush was declared ineligible and games were vacated before payments were made or Bush was involved because his step-father allegedly had discussions (based solely on hearsay by a felon who lied in other testimony) with a family friend to represent Bush in the NFL after leaving USC.
So, Newton should have been declared ineligible for all Auburn games this season for the same reason since his violation was committed prior to that time.
Note that the SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2 states:
So, it is difficult to believe Newton now when he says that he didn’t know about his father, but the NCAA rules don’t require that he know to be ineligible. It is also hard to believe that he passes the Heisman “integrity” requirement.
Six North Carolina Tar Heels didn’t play this season due to the NCAA sports agent probe. The NCAA declared defensive end Robert Quinn and receiver Greg Little permanently ineligible, but none of the games they played in after the time they committed violations were vacated, unlike the USC Reggie Bush rulings.
The NCAA mistakes, unprecedented findings and sanctions against the USC Trojans seemed designed to destroy their heralded football program on the slimmest of shoddy evidence. The actions of the enforcement staff and COI (Committee of Infractions) during this time appear to be incompetent and/or dishonest.
It took the NCAA over four years to orchestrate the USC sanctions. It may have taken longer if the NCAA had not been so ridiculed about the delays.
Some members of the COI had obvious conflicts of interests. So how could all the 10 members sign off on the USC sanctions?
A possible explanation surfaced in one fan message board from a reliable source. Apparently, one of the NCAA committee members was very defensive about the USC case when talking to a booster group from the member’s school. This member said that the harshness of the penalties based on the flimsiest of evidence was not the member’s doing.
The reliable source talked to a legal expert who practices in front of the NCAA’s COI, and said this too often happens because the members depend too much on staff. In the USC case, it appears that a couple of people from the NCAA’s enforcement staff and a couple of COI members took the case over, and decided everything before the rest of the committee found out what was happening. The members then could either make a scene and walk out or quit, or go along and hope for the best.
So, it looks like the majority of the 10 committee members may have closed their eyes, and signed off on the document hoping for the best. However, the disparity between what happened to USC and what will surely not happen to any SEC or ACC school in similar situations makes this look like a bad bet.
After ganging up against USC, the news media is beginning to understand how badly the Trojans have been mistreated by the NCAA. Here are several articles about the double standard applied to USC and Auburn’s Cam Newton:
So, here are the likely changes:
Current rule: “12.3.3 Athletics Scholarship Agent. Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete for compensation in placing the prospect in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual's athletics ability or reputation.”
New rule: Same as above since there is nothing to clarify
What more is there to say about the NCAA’s willingness to rationalize and the corrupt culture that it takes to operate this way?
Is the public so passive that they will continue to allow the NCAA to represent our universities this way?
If you are sick and tired of the NCAA nonsense, write your University President and/or Athletic Director.
The secret but carefully orchestrated one day ineligibility of Auburn quarterback Cam Newton for violation of the recruiting amateurism rules once again demonstrates the corrupt culture of the NCAA.
The NCAA press release made it clear that Newton violated NCAA rule 12.3.3 because his minister father, Cecil Newton, and a scouting representative shopped him for at least $180,000 compensation to a college for an athletic scholarship. So far, there is no proof that money changed hands or that Auburn knew about it according to the NCAA.
But, in the USC case, Reggie Bush was declared ineligible and games were vacated before payments were made or Bush was involved because his step-father allegedly had discussions (based solely on hearsay by a felon who lied in other testimony) with a family friend to represent Bush in the NFL after leaving USC.
So, Newton should have been declared ineligible for all Auburn games this season for the same reason since his violation was committed prior to that time.
Note that the SEC bylaw 14.01.3.2 states:
“If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student- athlete shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of his/her college career."This is the same Cam Newton who was thrown out of the University of Florida for his arrest on charges of stealing a laptop and he may have cheated multiple times in class as well: “Report: Cam Newton left Florida after charges of academic cheating.”
So, it is difficult to believe Newton now when he says that he didn’t know about his father, but the NCAA rules don’t require that he know to be ineligible. It is also hard to believe that he passes the Heisman “integrity” requirement.
Six North Carolina Tar Heels didn’t play this season due to the NCAA sports agent probe. The NCAA declared defensive end Robert Quinn and receiver Greg Little permanently ineligible, but none of the games they played in after the time they committed violations were vacated, unlike the USC Reggie Bush rulings.
The NCAA mistakes, unprecedented findings and sanctions against the USC Trojans seemed designed to destroy their heralded football program on the slimmest of shoddy evidence. The actions of the enforcement staff and COI (Committee of Infractions) during this time appear to be incompetent and/or dishonest.
It took the NCAA over four years to orchestrate the USC sanctions. It may have taken longer if the NCAA had not been so ridiculed about the delays.
Some members of the COI had obvious conflicts of interests. So how could all the 10 members sign off on the USC sanctions?
A possible explanation surfaced in one fan message board from a reliable source. Apparently, one of the NCAA committee members was very defensive about the USC case when talking to a booster group from the member’s school. This member said that the harshness of the penalties based on the flimsiest of evidence was not the member’s doing.
The reliable source talked to a legal expert who practices in front of the NCAA’s COI, and said this too often happens because the members depend too much on staff. In the USC case, it appears that a couple of people from the NCAA’s enforcement staff and a couple of COI members took the case over, and decided everything before the rest of the committee found out what was happening. The members then could either make a scene and walk out or quit, or go along and hope for the best.
So, it looks like the majority of the 10 committee members may have closed their eyes, and signed off on the document hoping for the best. However, the disparity between what happened to USC and what will surely not happen to any SEC or ACC school in similar situations makes this look like a bad bet.
After ganging up against USC, the news media is beginning to understand how badly the Trojans have been mistreated by the NCAA. Here are several articles about the double standard applied to USC and Auburn’s Cam Newton:
- Gary Klein, L.A. Times “USC football: Pat Haden surprised by NCAA decision regarding Cam Newton” on December 1, 2010
- Dan Wetzel, Yahoo Sports “NCAA decision on Newton opens Pandora’s box” on December 1, 2010
- Staff, CollegeFootballNews.Com “CFN Analysis – the Cam Newton Ruling” on December 1, 2010
- Sports by Brooks, “If the NCAA is Right, Cecil Lied and SEC Cheated” on December 2, 2010
- Bill Dwyer, L.A. Times, “Little Reggie, Little Cam and the NCAA” on December 2, 2010
- Associated Press, “John Swofford [ACC commissioner] criticizes NCAA ruling” on December 3, 2010
So, here are the likely changes:
Current rule: “12.3.3 Athletics Scholarship Agent. Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete for compensation in placing the prospect in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual's athletics ability or reputation.”
New rule: Same as above since there is nothing to clarify
What more is there to say about the NCAA’s willingness to rationalize and the corrupt culture that it takes to operate this way?
Is the public so passive that they will continue to allow the NCAA to represent our universities this way?
If you are sick and tired of the NCAA nonsense, write your University President and/or Athletic Director.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)