From: SCHMIDT@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jon Schmidt)
Subject: Re: The NCAA Applies its Double Standard Again
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:35:31 GMT

In article <h7F=#y@engin.umich.edu>
chyang@minorca.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
>
>        I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.  The
>circumstance in BJ HOBERT's case is extremely different.
>
>        UNLIKE RAMSEY in AUBURN, who accused and NCAA later proved that
>the AUBURN coaching staff and booster did arrange the loan for ERIC RAMSEY,
>BJ HOBERT and the BUSINESS man have repeatedly said over and over again that
>the loan was strictly on a personal thing.  The coaching staff of the
>University of Washington had not prior knowledge to this alleged incident
>at all!
>
>        Look!  The coaching staff did nothing wrong and the program should
>not be penalized because of a player's personal wrongdoing.  That is what the
>PAC-10 and The NCAA said.  There is no double standard involved in this
>at all!  It is as simple as that!
>
>        IN AUBURN, there was blatant evidence that the COACHING staff did
>violate NCAA rule, there was a tape recording done by RAMSEY proving that
>the AUBURN coaching staff arranged loot for their own players.
>
>        AUBURN was one of the premier football programs in the country
>did you think that NCAA had a double standard toward them.  I think not!
>
>        To Accuse NCAA's as having double standard in Washington's case
>is totally unethical and simply stupid.
>
>        I hope this rumor and stupid shit like this would stop!
>
>- Chung "I AM REALLY PISSED!"  Yang
 
First, gibberish, regardless of how many times you repeat it, is still
gibberish.
 
The NCAA has not yet "proved" anything in connection with Eric Ramsey's
allegations of Auburn misconduct;  the case certainly hasn't reached the
point in the process where penalties are proposed.
 
Let's review the processing of a typical NCAA infractions case:
 
 1) Information indicating possible violation received and evaluated
    by NCAA enforcement staff.
 2) Preliminary inquiry letter forwarded to institution.
 3) Investigation conducted by NCAA enforcement department.  Based on
    review of available evidence, staff determines the nature of the
    potential violation.
 4) If staff determines that the case should be closed for lack of
    evidence, that decision is reviewed and approved by Committee on
    Infractions.  Institution is notified that case is close.
 5) If a violation is confirmed and it is determined to be secondary in
    nature, an appropriate penalty is agreed upon by the assistant
    executive director for enforcement and a designated Committee on
    Infractions member.  Institution then is notified of the penalty,
    if any.  The institution may either end the case by accepting the
    penalty or it may appeal to Committee on Infractions.
 6) If a violation is confirmed and it is determined to be major in
    nature, an official inquiry with statements of allegations is
    forwarded to institution.
 7) Institution conducts investigation and prepares written response to
    official inquiry.
 8) Committee on Infractions conducts hearing involving institution's
    representatives, others who could be penalized and NCAA
    enforcement staff.
 9) Committee on Infractions' report is forwarded to institution
    indicating findings and proposed penalties.
10) If institution indicates it will accept findings and penalties in
    infractions report, the case is ended.  Otherwise, institution
    indicates it will appeal certain findings or penalties to NCAA
    Council.
11) Institution submits written appeal to NCAA Council subcommittee of
    members of that institution's division.  Committee on Infractions
    submits expanded infractions report explaining the basis for its
    findings and penalties.
12) Council subcommittee hearing involving institution's
    representatives, Committee on Infractions chair and enforcement
    staff representatives.
13) Institution notified of Council's decision on appeal.
 
The Ramsey/Auburn case just entered step 6 less than two weeks ago.
And, despite Mr Pissed's assertion, I don't think that the NCAA has yet
exhonerated Washington in the BJH case.  In fact, I believe that the
BJH/Washington case is still open and is somewhere in step 3.  So, both
of these cases are still open and we cannot yet compare their outcomes.
 
Mr Really Pissed tells us that the BJH's loan was from a businessman and
was personal, implying that such a loan wouldn't violate NCAA's rules.
Let's take a look at one of these rules.
  12.1.2 Forms of Pay.  An individual loses amateur status through
  receipt of "pay," which includes, but is not limited to, the following
  practices:
  <(a) through (k) and (m) omitted>
  (l) Preferential treatment, benefits or services (e.g. loans with
      deferred pay-back) because of the individual's athletics
      reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional
      athlete, ...
It's problematic whether the loan was based on BJH's athletics
reputation or skill.  However, the extreme size of the loan and absence
of a repayment schedule argue that the businessman was banking on BJH's
potential as an NFL quarterback for repayment.  If the NCAA finds that
BJH violated Bylaw 12.1.2, then BJH lost his amateur status and his
eligibility when he accepted that loan.  In the eyes of the NCAA, BJH
turned pro at that moment.
 
If BJH is found by the NCAA to have been ineligible, the consequences
for Washington extend quite a bit beyond the possiblity of forfeiting
a few football games.
 
You may recall when the BJH story first broke that there were quite a
few statements from members of the Washington staff, including Don James
and Barbara Hedges, along the lines of:  "I didn't know about the
situation until this week and when I found out I told so-and-so-higher-
up about it right away."  This was an attempt to demonstrate adherence
to:
 
  2.5 THE PRINCIPLE OF RULES COMPLIANCE
 
  2.5.1 Responsibility of Institution.  Each institution shall comply
  with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the
  conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs.  It shall monitor
  its programs to assure compliance and to identify and report to the
  Association instances in which compliance has not been achieved.  In
  any such instance, the institution shall cooperate fully with the
  Association and shall take appropriate corrective actions.  Members of
  an institution's staff, student-athletes, and other individuals and
  groups representing the institution's athletics interests shall comply
  with the applicable Association rules, and the member institution
  shall be responsible for such compliance.
 
Washington will be in deep kaka if the NCAA determines that anyone on
the staff was aware of BJW's likely ineligibility but did nothing about
it.  Consider that two staff members knew BJH was shopping for a loan.
Is it plausible that everyone on the staff and team failed to notice
that last year BJH's driving a Hyundai and this year he's tooling around
first in a 91 Camaro and then a brand new 92 model?  Didn't any of this
trigger some alarms?
 
And finally, there's the heavyweight of NCAA rules:
 
  2.1 THE PRINCIPLE OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY
 
  2.1.1 Responsibility for Control.  It is the responsibility of each
  member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program
  in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association.  The
  institution's chief executive officer is responsible for the
  administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including
  approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures.
 
  2.1.2 Scope of Responsibility.  The institution's responsibility for
  the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes
  responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for the
  actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities
  promoting the athletics interests of the institution.
 
The dreaded "lack of institutional control" is probably the most serious
offense possible in the eyes of the NCAA.  And yet we have many posters
and Don James himself saying that Washington can't possibly be expected
to control the activities of his players.  This reminds me of Barry
Switzer, the winingest active coach of the most dominant football
program in the country, complaining about how ridiculous it was to
expect him to control the activities of Oklahoma's boosters.  Don James
and Washington had better change their attitude soon or they're heading
for a similar fall.
 
-- 
Jon_Schmidt@stortek.com  Storage Technology Corporation
(303) 673-3581 - voice   2270 South 88th Street
(303) 673-6039 - fax     Louisville, Colorado 80028-5209