[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COLLEGE RECRUITING: ARE STUDENT ATHLETES BEING PROTECTED?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
92-541 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine
MARY BONO, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska HILDA L. SOLIS, California
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
Bud Albright, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Ranking Member
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
MARY BONO, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
LEE TERRY, Nebraska TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
DARRELL E. ISSA, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma (Ex Officio)
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Berst, S. David, Vice President of Division I, NCAA.......... 36
Hoffman, Elizabeth ``Betsy'', President, University of
Colorado System............................................ 32
McPherson, Donald G., Executive Director, Sports Leadership
Institute.................................................. 20
Osborne, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska.......................................... 15
Williams, David, II, Vice Chancellor for Student Life and
University Affairs, General Counsel, Professor of Law,
Vanderbilt University...................................... 26
(iii)
COLLEGE RECRUITING: ARE STUDENT ATHLETES BEING PROTECTED?
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Whitfield,
Shimkus, Shadegg, Bass, Bono, Terry, Issa, Otter, Sullivan,
Schakowsky, Towns, Green, McCarthy, and Degette.
Staff present: David Cavicke, majority counsel; Jon Tripp,
deputy communications director; Brian McCullough, majority
professional staff; Jill Latham, legislative clerk; and
Jonathan J. Cordone, minority counsel.
Mr. Stearns. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Today, my colleagues, we will consider rules governing
recruiting student athletes and the enforcement of those rules
by our Nation's colleges and universities. The subcommittee has
jurisdiction over activities in interstate commerce. The
subcommittee has had a long history of oversight of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, a member organization
of colleges and universities, whose purpose is to promote
amateur collegiate athletics.
Commerce is certainly implicated. The NCAA produces
multiple products or content, as our friends in the telecom
world call it, which is sold on cable and over the broadcast
networks for hundreds of millions of dollars each and every
year. College athletics is big business. Star football coaches
are now routinely paid millions of dollars a year, and are the
highest paid persons working for State government.
Universities jump to different conferences with the stated
purpose of producing conference title games and bigger payouts
from TV networks. Lawsuits are filed over the distribution of
money from the NCAA tournament and the Bowl championship
series.
State taxpayers are presented with bills or debt for a new
sports stadium in order to remain competitive with league
rivals. Some in college athletics have referred to this
spiraling of spending as an arms race. Amid all this commerce
and money, the question arises: what happens to the student
athlete?
In the past 5 years, the NCAA has adjudicated over 60 major
infraction cases, over 40 of which were related to recruiting.
Press reports have focused on the following recruiting
practices--the payment of a finder fee of $200,000 by a booster
to high school coach with the knowledge of some athletic
department to guarantee the enrollment of a star player in a
favored university, the recruiting of athletes with felony
convictions, and the use of strippers and allegations of
procurement of call girls for recruits.
Additionally, there is the question of what kind of
education elite athletes in football and basketball receive
after they sign their letter of intent. Graduation rates for
athletes in football and basketball are very low. Often less
than 50 percent graduate. Some universities take in the
players, use them to generate huge revenues, and then spit them
out without a degree. Most student athletes do not make it in
the ranks of professional sports.
The Washington Post and The Weekly Standard reported the
questions of an actual final exam to students at a major State
university. The class was titled Coaching Principles and
Strategies of Basketball. The multiple choice questions
included the following. How many goals are there on a
basketball court? How many points does a three-point field goal
account for in a basketball game? How many halves are there in
a college basketball game?
My colleagues, I submit that students taking courses like
this were cheated out of a real education. Perhaps less
emphasis on the commercial aspect of college sports, the
winning at any cost, the hype and the payouts from Bowl or
tournament participation, and more on the older ideal of
honorable competition among athletes who are, first and
foremost, students would be good.
Athletes in track and field, swimming, wrestling, and other
sports without a large professional following are better
integrated into college life. There are bona fide students who
happen to be good athletes. The quest for winning doesn't have
to be to the exclusion of all else.
The NCAA has detailed rules governing the recruiting and
eligibility of college recruits, and these rules are pretty
good. The enforcement side, of course, is another matter. The
NCAA has, I understand, about 12 persons dedicated to
enforcement--about one for every thousand members of the NCAA.
Oversight enforcement is the responsibility of the member
colleges and the universities. Ultimately, the president of
each institution should be held accountable for enforcing these
rules.
Today we will hear from two universities--the University of
Colorado and Vanderbilt University. We are joined by Mr. David
Williams, the Vice Chancellor of Vanderbilt, and President
Betsy Hoffman of the University of Colorado. I commend
President Hoffman for coming today to answer our questions
about the very serious allegations of misconduct at the
University of Colorado.
Our inquiry is to recruiting and its enforcement. The
supervision by the administration of the athletic department is
part of that inquiry. The allegations of criminal behavior are
appropriately examined in another forum, that of the Boulder
District Attorney and the courts themselves.
I am also delighted that my colleague Tom Osborne, a Member
of Congress representing Nebraska's 3rd District, is here. Mr.
Osborne is perhaps the greatest college football coach who did
not coach the Florida Gators.
We look forward to his insights. We will also hear from
David Berst of the NCAA and Don McPherson of the Sports
Leadership Institute. We look forward to all of your testimony
and appreciate your time.
And I would also like to welcome Bob Beauprez to the
committee from the great State of Colorado. Bob, thank you for
coming. With that----
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I thank all of the witnesses for agreeing to
testify today. And I also welcome our colleague Tom Osborne to
this committee this morning.
This is a very, very serious matter, and I think it is
important that we examine what really happens when our young
men are recruited for sports programs. It is important that
rules and structures are in place to prevent the types of
occurrences on recruiting trips that we have been reading about
too frequently in the news these days, particularly involving
alcohol, drug use, and violence against women.
I believe it is important that administrators at all
schools involved, as well as NCAA officials, take all
allegations seriously and put forth concerted efforts to truly
change what seems to have become common practice in the
business of student athlete recruitment.
We have heard a lot about the University of Colorado.
Obviously, parties that involve sex and alcohol to lure
recruits and end in sexual assault are intolerable, not to
mention illegal, beginning perhaps with underage drinking. We
know that Colorado University has a history of problems with
its recruiting practices, and allegations that recruits and
players at Colorado University have assaulted women are not
new.
I know the university has taken some steps to investigate
this situation and to reform its recruiting rules, and these
are very good first steps. However, I am concerned that it took
a great deal of media attention to spur recent actions. I hope
this will not be the end of the story and that further
proactive measures will be taken to truly reform the culture of
athletics and recruiting at that school.
I am eager to hear from Colorado's President, Dr. Elizabeth
Hoffman, about how the school plans to prevent such misconduct
and sexual violence in the future and deal with problems in a
more effective way when they do arise.
I hope that Colorado University will act in such a way that
it does become a model program. As a mother who sent my two
children to the University of Colorado, I want to say that the
remarks of Coach Barnett were absolutely unacceptable. And if I
were in charge at the university, he would have been fired.
The University of Colorado is not the only school caught up
in scandal. A quick look at the headlines from the last couple
of years reveals that the University of Iowa, the University of
Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota, to name a few, have all
been in the headlines as a result of allegations of misbehavior
and alleged sexual violence related to recruiting practices and
recruiting trips.
I am concerned about the culture in our top university
athletic programs and, indeed, a culture that persists
throughout the Nation that tolerates such violence against
women. This hearing today is very timely, as Lifetime
television and a host of national domestic violence and sexual
assault advocacy organizations are on the Hill hosting Stop
Violence Against Women Week in order to raise awareness of this
issue.
Nearly 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her
lifetime, and teens and college-age women have a higher risk of
being sexually assaulted than women in any other age group.
This briefing is entitled ``Are Student Athletes Being
Protected?'' I would like to add: are the female students and
other women who are in contact with such athletic programs
being protected? It saddens and angers me that there is no
shortage of stories we could talk about today involving sexual
assault and student athletes.
I am eager to hear Mr. McPherson's perspectives on this
issue, as a former college and professional football player,
and now as someone who has dedicated his career to ending a
culture of violence against women in sports. He brings a unique
and valuable perspective to our subcommittee.
I am also eager to hear from Mr. Berst about what the NCAA
plans to do to address what I see as one of the root problems--
an athletic culture that tolerates and perpetuates the
degradation and objectification of women. I know the NCAA has
many rules and regulations regarding the logistics of
recruiting programs, and I am encouraged by that. I am hopeful
that the new NCAA Task Force on Recruiting will go beyond
logistics and put in place standards for our student athletes
that we can all be proud of.
Finally, academics should not be left behind in this
debate. It is critical to remember that we are talking about
student athletes.
I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Williams about the
example of Vanderbilt University and what they have done to
lessen the culture of competitiveness and bring the focus back
on academics.
Again, I thank you all for being here and look forward to
hearing what you have to say.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you go over the
answers to those questions? I got 2 out of 3 right. I don't
know which----
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Shimkus. No, I am just--it is great to be here. Let me
tell you, as many folks know, I love athletics. And as Tom
Osborne can confess, I participate and play as much as
possible, even in my broken down state as it is.
Sports and competition, done properly, teach all the right
lessons--hard work, teamwork, commitment, sacrifice, working
through pain. But the big business nature of sports at all
levels--high school, collegiate, and even in professional
sports--has really corrupted this process.
I applaud the chairman for calling this hearing, and it is
our continued oversight in this area that continues to be very,
very important.
I also welcome Tom Osborne, who is loved in Nebraska and
highly respected here as the representative of the 3rd District
of Nebraska. I look forward to his testimony.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Flights on private
jets, lavish meals at fine restaurants, weekends at four-star
hotels, police escorts--while this sounds like the life of a
movie star, it was standard treatment for Willy Williams, a
sought-after high school athlete recruited to play football by
several major universities in Florida.
Unfortunately, there is more--abundant boos, illicit drugs,
strip clubs, prostitutes, and sex parties. This is not the
seedy underbelly of professional athletics or rock stars, but
the not-so-hidden practice of colleges and universities
recruiting high school athletes to play football or basketball
for them.
We do not know how pervasive these incidents are, but we do
know that far too many allegations have surfaced concerning
recruitment at far too many schools. Anyone reading the stories
about these incidents has got to wonder what in the world is
going on when coaches and administrators allow young men, some
only 16 or 17 years old, to enter into these situations.
That is why this hearing today is so important. We need to
determine whether there are systematic problems contributing to
alleged sexual assaults by recruits and student athletes and
unsavory, if not downright illegal, recruiting practices.
While the most recent publicized allegations are at my own
State university, the University of Colorado, and helped spur
this hearing, regulations of amateur athletics have long been a
concern of this committee.
And, Chairman Stearns, I want to thank you for putting
together this panel.
I also have the special privilege of welcoming our
witnesses here today. I hope they are able to help shed some
light on how pervasive current recruiting problems are and what
can be done to fix them. In particular, I would like to give a
special welcome to Betsy Hoffman, the President of the
University of Colorado.
President Hoffman, we all understand how busy you are right
now, and we really appreciate you taking your time to come and
share your insights on both CU and, most particularly, national
college recruiting programs.
I also want to acknowledge President Hoffman for announcing
last week a set of significant reforms to the recruiting
practices of the University of Colorado's football program. I
hope this is a model that she will extend to all of the
university's athletic programs.
College recruiting, however, is a nationwide practice that
demands nationwide standards. In the highly competitive
environment of Division I athletics, coaches are scouring high
schools across the country to find the most talented recruits
for their programs. This puts schools and recruits under
tremendous pressure.
Despite the national scope of recruiting and the fact that
colleges and universities across the country are recruiting
athletes far outside of their home states, the NCAA does not
seem to have clear standards as to how recruiting trips are
conducted.
We all understand this intense competition for high school
athletes. In preparing for this hearing, though, what was truly
eye-opening was to see how many allegations there were of
incidents of alcohol and drug use and sexual incidence at
colleges and universities across the country.
Allegations of the use of prostitutes, sex parties, booze,
drugs, and late nights at strip clubs have popped up all over
the place. My staff put together a chart of 22 alleged
violations around the Nation, around the country, in just the
last few years. And this is only the information in the press.
Think of how many allegations are there that have not been put
to light in the press.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put this in
the record.
Mr. Stearns. Unanimous consent, so ordered.
Examples of Reports of Sexual Assaults and Recruiting Violations by NCAA College Athletic Programs, 2000-2004
A sample of allegations of inappropriate or illegal conduct by high school recruits during college visits or
college athletes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Dates Description Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baylor University.................... 2003................... Coach Bliss paid ESPN.com
students tuition,
failed to report the
findings of drug
tests. A player was
also murdered and a
teammate was accused
of his murder. On 2/27/
04 the university
turned over the
results of an internal
investigation to the
NCAA. There will be a
hearing in front of
the NCAA infractions
committee..
California State University at Fresno 1998-1999.............. Placed on probation (10/ NCAA Press Release
24/03). A student
athlete was given
athletically related
financial aid even
though he was not
enrolled in a full
time program. He was
also found not to be
maintaining
satisfactory program
towards his degree. He
was only at CSU part
time and was
simultaneously
completing cources at
a Junior College..
Miami, University of Florida, Florida 2003-04................ Miami recruit Willie http://www.kusports.com/
State University. Williams violated his news/recruiting/story/
probation during a 109658
Jan. 30 recruiting
trip to Florida when
the linebacker
allegedly touched a
woman without her
permission, hit a man
at a bar and set off
fire extinguishers at
his hotel. Williams
was less than two
weeks from the end of
his probation, which
stemmed from felony
burglary charges in
2002..
New Mexico State University.......... June 2001 (placed on Head Coach hired a NCAA Press Release
probation). coach from a Junior
College on the
agreement that two of
his prospects would
come with him.
Southern Methodist University........ 1995................... Placed on Probation for NCAA Press Release
two years. In the fall
of 1995 an assistant
football coach met
with a father and
prospective student in
their home, which
breaks several
recruiting by laws..
Tennessee State ....................... Placed on probation for NCAA Press Release
University violations in Men's
Basketball Program.
The head coach
observed numerous pick
up games for the
purposes of selection..
University of August 2003 (placed on An assistant football NCAA Press Release
Maryland probation). coach made inperson
College Park recruiting contacts.
On five different
occasions the coach
gave a prospect of
cash ranging from $5
to $200..
University of Alabama................ 2000................... A businessmen paid high ESPN.com
school coach for the
privilege of selling
Albert Means to UA.
Alabama was put on
five year probation by
the NCAA, and reduced
the number of
scholarships by twenty
one. The businessman
and the coaches at the
high school and UA
were were involved in
a federal trial and
were prosecuted and
were incarcerated..
University of Alabama................ 2002................... University of Alabama Oregonian 2/21/04
was put on probation
after it was disclosed
that strippers
entertained recruits
at parties..
University of 4/17/03 (placed on Placed on three years NCAA Press Release
Arkansas probation). probation. A
Fayetteville businessman who
represented the
University athletics
institutes employed
two athlete both prior
and post there career
at the University..
University of Georgia................ 2001................... UGA assistant Red and Black (Univ. of
basketball coach found Georgia)
to have given friend
of recruit $300 to
entice him to go to
school..
University of Iowa................... 2004................... High school recruit had AP, 3/7/04
sexual with a female
student from the
University of Iowa..
University of Kentucky............... Placed on probation in Numerous recruiting The Courier-Journal
Jan 2001. violations within the (Louisville Kentucky)
basketball team. The
NCAA infractions
committee put the team
on probation for three
years, banned it form
the bowl for a year,
and reduced its
scholarships..
University of 2003................... Highly touted recruit http://www.kusports.com/
Minnesota Lydon Murtha spurned news/recruiting/story/
Minnesota after Gopher 109658
players took him and
three other recruits--
one of whom was 17--to
an 18-and-over strip
club during a December
campus visit. More
Minnesota recruits
later acknowledged
they had been takeen
to a strip club during
other recruiting
weekends..
University of Missouri............... Investigation launched. Point Guard Ricky ESPN.com; AP News
Sept 2003............ Clemons did not have Stories
the necessary academic
qualifications. An
investigation has been
launched..
University of Nevada-Las Vegas....... 2000................... Representative of the http://www.ncaa.org/
university's athletics enforcefrontF.html
interests provided
cash to a prospect on
numerous occasions
totaling approximately
$5,600. A
representative of the
university's athletics
interests provided
cash payments to a
prospective student-
athlete and an
enrolled men's
basketball student-
athlete..
University of Oregon................. 2003................... Father of recruit Oregonian 2/21/04
alleges that his son
was offered sex,
alcohol and marijuana
during recruiting trip
to UO..
University of 2001................... Four women in separate http://www.daily
Washington cases sued the vanguard.
University of com/vnews/
Washington and UW display.v/ART/
football players 2004/03/02/
alleging they were 404439f0d84f7
sexually assaulted.
The 2004 lawsuit
alleged that UW
negligently recruited
and supervised the
football player named
as the assailant..
University of ....................... UW faces NCAA http://www.daily
Washington allegations that a vanguard.
lack of institutional com/vnews/
control led to display.v/ART/2004/
gambling violations by 03/02/404439f
Neuheisel and other 0d84f7
athletic-department
employees. The
department is also the
subject of an internal
inquiry into the drug-
dispensing practices
of a former UW team
doctor..
University of 2004................... Running back Dwayne Cleveland Plain
Wisconsin Smith was jailed Dealer
Monday on suspicion of
sexually assaulting a
19 year old woman..
University of 2004................... UW basketball player Cleveland Plain
Wisconsin Boo Wade charged with Dealer
assault after choking
woman in her
apartment..
Virginia Tech........................ 2004................... Virginia Tech also The Virginian-Pilot
created a stir when (Norfolk, Va.)
Marcus Vick was
charged last week with
four counts of
contributing to the
delinquency of a
minor. According to
police, Vick and two
teammates served
liquor to three
underage girls at
Vick's apartment. Vick
also is accused of
having sex with one of
the 15-year-old girls..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Alabama,
Florida, Minnesota--these are just a handful of the
universities where there have been allegations of sexual
assault and/or reports of sex at recruiting parties. If this
isn't an indication that we are dealing with a deeply rooted
institutional problem, I don't know what else it would take to
make the public and lawmakers sit up and take notice.
The NCAA must commit to doing its part to not just lip
service but actually making sure that college sports programs
across the country are run with integrity, excellence, and
respect, and an eye toward the academics.
Finally, the NCAA appears to recognize there is a problem
here. I am looking forward to the testimony today about what
they intend to do about this problem.
I thank the chairman for holding this hearing again, and I
look forward to hearing all of the testimony, and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. And I thank the gentlelady.
I would remind all members, if you want to forego your
opening statement, then we would add it to your time for
questioning.
Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I inquire of the
chair, are we supposed to have 3 minutes for our opening?
Mr. Stearns. Three minutes.
Mr. Otter. Oh.
Mr. Stearns. We will add that--if you don't use----
Mr. Otter. I didn't want to get caught in an infraction
here.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Otter. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
welcome my seat-mate and colleague and freshmen classmate Mr.
Osborne to the chamber, and I look forward to hearing his
testimony as well as I do the rest of the witnesses.
Certainly, recent events surrounding the possible
violations of NCAA rules--recruiting rules--have made big
headlines. As a former college athlete, I understand the role
amateur athletics can play in an educational experience. And
for many, as it served for me, it serves as a means to
otherwise apply for an expensive college education.
The NCAA has taken great efforts to put in place a number
of rules designed to protect and preserve the amateur athlete
as well as uphold the reputation of the institution and their
membership. I am not sure what role, if any, that Congress
should play in regulating or investigating specific alleged
violations of any NCAA rules.
However, it would be appropriate for Congress to intervene
if the NCAA rules or its members create a recruiting
environment that relies on practices that violate the laws of
this land or demonstrate a propensity to wilfully impair
student athletes. At present, I believe that the NCAA has acted
appropriately when necessary to investigate and punish
violators of the NCAA rules.
As an outsider looking in, it seems to me that the onus is
on the individual collegiate institutions and on the student
athletes to abide by these regulations. When rules are broken,
consequences should follow. When rules provide to be
inadequate, then the ruling body--and in this case the NCAA--
should investigate why and act accordingly.
I believe in the lessons that are taught in the classroom,
and I also believe in the lessons that are learned on the
playing field. It is important to retain the integrity of
competition. It is an injustice to our youth when those who
have the power to influence and teach our children for the
better set examples for the worst.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses,
and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
unanimous consent to place the whole statement in the record.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
Mr. Green. And I will be very brief. One, like my
colleagues, I appreciate your calling this hearing with the
recent publicity at the University of Colorado. But, again,
this is a problem with every one of our institutions, and I
appreciate Congress looking at it. Hopefully, the NCAA will be
aggressive in dealing with this problem, not just in Colorado
but all across the country.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that Coach
Osborne probably will not have the time to explain to the
chairman all of the lessons he had taught the Gators over the
years through his practices. However, I would appreciate if
Congressman Osborne--Coach Osborne and also Professor Osborne
could help us.
As we look at collegiate sports, which is our area of
jurisdiction, I believe it is helpful to have somebody who has
seen higher education not only as an athlete and an instructor,
but also as a professor at large, to give us a contrast of what
we are looking at today as some of these alleged violations,
which we won't be dealing with, but sort of the culture of the
college campus.
I, for one, am personally concerned that we are pointing to
excesses of athletics and perhaps not looking enough at a
pervasive problem that exists on the college campus. These
allegations by athletes, although well reported, pale in
comparison to the attacks that occur on campuses around the
country, pale in comparison to the amount of alcohol and drug
abuse that is going on with non-athletes.
And so hopefully these hearings, although it is not within
our jurisdiction, will put into perspective the problems which
the NCAA will have to deal with within a culture that exists on
college campuses that without a doubt also has to be addressed.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am going to put my remarks in
the record. I thank you and Ranking Member Schakowsky for
convening this important hearing today, especially as we
celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Violence Against Women
Act.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Schakowsky for convening
this important hearing today. It is particularly timely as we recognize
and celebrate the 10th Anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act. I
cannot think of a more appropriate way to commemorate this important
week than to hear from those involved in these recruiting practices. I
am especially interested to hear from the panel on the connection
between high school and college athletes and the culture of
objectification of women. We on this committee know that in order to
effectively address this problem, we need to address the culture of
these practices as well as the enforcement of the rules governing
athlete recruitment.
The excitement of private jets and lavish parties--all of which
seems to be allowed under the NCAA's rules--is all consuming. There is
no doubt about it, college sports have become a big business and the
drive to recruit star athletes has led to a multitude of practices that
neither the Universities nor the NCAA should tolerate. As we have seen,
merely turning a blind eye to what is occurring is a poor solution.
I am eager to hear the testimony of the witnesses today and to
assess their recommendations on what else can be done to make sure that
student athletes are recruited to schools in accordance with NCAA
rules.
This issue of recruiting college athletes hits particularly close
to home for me. In my own state of Missouri, the University of
Missouri's athletics department has had its own set of problems but it
is now actively working to ensure that they are not repeated. They have
made important changes to their student host program to ensure that
high school athletes receive an idea of what it is like to be a
student, as well as an athlete, at the University of Missouri. Student
hosts are only used for on campus events and tours, not for off campus
events. Further, all of the university's student athletes are involved
in awareness-raising in terms of violence against women and are
encouraged to talk about it.
As a big 12 school, there is pressure to attract the brightest
stars in high school athletics. But that should not give them a blank
check for inappropriate tactics that expose young athletes to illegal
activity. Recognizing this, the University of Missouri has also
convened a group, chaired by a faculty member, which is reviewing the
allegations of athlete misconduct. We must recognize that the
University of Colorado is not the only educational institution to
confront recruiting infractions and poor judgment among student
athletes and those who recruit them. These practices are occurring at
universities across the country.
I commend President Hoffman and the other witnesses for taking this
important issue very seriously. I look forward to hearing from them.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of
distinct privileges this morning. One is I have three gentlemen
from Omaha Crayton Prep High School that are out here visiting
with NYLC. And we were just chatting before this hearing
started, because Crayton Prep in Omaha is known as really an
athletic powerhouse. And, in fact, people in the community are
expecting Omaha Crayton Prep to be probably the most dominant
football program in the State of Nebraska next year.
Now, these three gentlemen, I don't know if they play
football or not, but they told me they are not being recruited
for athletics, but several of their classmates are and will
have to sort through the issues that we are going to discuss
here today. Because there is a culture, not only on campuses,
as Darell had mentioned, but a competitiveness within
recruiting.
And the talk radio sports shows, they are all talking about
the University of Colorado, but really what they are also
saying is they are just the ones that have been caught so far
in these type of things. This is pervasive throughout college
athletics. And you get little bits and pieces of it.
In fact, University of Nebraska obtained a commitment from
a gentleman from the Minneapolis area who had previously
committed to University of Nebraska. This kid's name is Mertha.
And he was upset that when he went--took his official visit to
that campus--University of Minnesota--that his host took him to
a strip club. And he comes from a very Christian family, and
decommitted after that.
What upset me the most was how the local press indicted
this kid, a 17 year-old, for being mad that he was taken to a
strip club, and just ripped him apart. And I would like to
submit a Minneapolis Tribune article for the record.
Mr. Stearns. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
Mr. Terry. And I would like to hear from Tom Osborne and
our other panelists just how pervasive this is and what the
cures are. Or is it bigger than just football or athletic
recruiting, and it is something we have to deal with--the
culture of alcohol and drinking and these type of parties on
campuses today.
Now, with the last 30 seconds that I have, as a fellow
Nebraskan it is my honor to welcome to our subcommittee my good
friend, doctor, congressman, coach, Tom Osborne, who--his
values in Nebraska really defined the football program there.
And while I am sure over his nearly, what, 18 years as a coach,
were incidents with certain players, but certainly fought to
have a good culture inserted into the process, and really
recruited good kids to come to the University of Nebraska.
And over that period, yes, defenders of the program can
take pride in that, and trackers of the program over a long
career can point to one or two incidences. And I think that
speaks well of Tom Osborne and the Nebraska program.
So welcome, Congressman Osborne, to our subcommittee. We
are looking forward to your testimony.
Yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing today. You know, I have been involved in this
issue now for many, many years, with Bill Bradley. And, of
course, Tom McMillan and I passed the Student Athlete's Right
to Know.
And, of course, I have been amazed at the attitude at all
levels, in terms of even when we were working on the Student
Athlete's Right to Know, how presidents and administrators said
that they could not give this information, which was basically
asking to give the graduation rate of the athletes that attend
the university, and, of course, information that they had. And
they were really resistant and fought it in every way, which
points out why we have some of the problems today.
And I look forward to this hearing from the witnesses
today. It is important to remember that the players on the
court, the field, the track, or the diamond, are students as
well. And the vast majority of these athletes will not go on to
a career in professional sports. So it is critical that these
students receive the education and life skills needed to
succeed after a career in college athletics.
I also note that most of these students participating in
the major revenue sharing sports, like football and basketball,
often come from the most disadvantaged background in this
country. Consequently, they need the greatest support system to
succeed. The recent recruiting headlines point out that there
is pressure to do whatever it takes to win. However, fixing
this problem will not change what happens once the athlete gets
on campus and becomes a student.
I salute Mr. McPherson for his testimony today on this
issue, and, more importantly, his work in this area. Clearly,
with the millions of dollars generated by the NCAA, tournaments
and, of course, the BCS system, there is more we can do to help
our student athletes in the transition. And I think that one
thing that we need to do is make certain that they have a
strong tutorial program that when youngsters come on the campus
that they will be able to get this kind of assistance and this
kind of advice to help them to make the adjustment. And I think
that no emphasis at this point seems to be placed on that. Just
a few colleges, you know, seem to stress it, and others do not.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping today that we will hear from
our witnesses and be able to get some information as to how the
Student Athlete's Right to Know is working and to come up with
some ways and methods that we might be able to bring about some
solutions to this problem. It is widespread, let me tell you.
It is more than what meets the eye. More than what we read in
the paper is going on, and the time for it to stop is now.
And on that note, I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
appreciation to you for holding this hearing, and also my
appreciation to all of the witnesses who are here today to
testify before us and share their perspective and their
thoughts on this important issue.
As we begin the hearing, I think it is important to keep in
mind the distinction between our Nation's laws and the NCAA's
rules or bylaws that are before us. I think Mr. Berst from the
NCAA well articulated that difference in his written testimony,
and it is important for us to consider this because I believe
we have to respond differently to each of those points.
I think for this committee our first obligation is to look
at the enforcement of our Nation's laws on college campuses.
Many of the allegations that have arisen relating to sports in
the past months have been violations of law, and that is, after
all, what we have to focus on.
We must ensure, I believe, that the victims of those
crimes, if they are in fact crimes, feel they can come forward
and seek justice. And I think colleges and universities have an
important responsibility to ensure that those victims are
treated appropriately when they come forward and they are not
subjected to abuse or harassment. They need to be able to feel
they can come forward.
With regard to the NCAA and its bylaws and the rules, I am
interested in hearing how the NCAA plans to respond or is
responding to the many issues that have been raised. I think it
is important for the NCAA to recognize that it has an incentive
to police itself, because a system that's susceptible to
corruption taints not only every school and every athlete, but
I think it taints every student at those schools. And it is a
serious problem which we have to address.
Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank our panels of witnesses
and thank you for conducting this hearing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
And we are welcoming for the first time Mr. Sullivan from
Oklahoma for an opening statement. Welcome, and appreciate your
attendance.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
here, and I appreciate your putting on this hearing. I don't
really have an opening statement. I just want to thank Coach
Osborne for being here. No one knows more about this subject
than him in this room, or in Washington, or probably the
country. So I am anxious to hear what he has to say about a
solution to all these issues that we face.
Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would
like, first of all, to introduce a couple of constituents of
mine who want to see this hearing--Brittany Dorris right here,
and then Rhea Badgett, who by the way has received an athletic
scholarship to an NCAA college for golf. So she has been
recruited and knows a little bit about some of these recruiting
issues.
I know we have given a lot of accolades to our colleague
Tom Osborne. I do think we are very fortunate to have him in
the Congress and to testify on this particular issue, because
of the experiences that he has had as a head coach and
recruiting. We know he had a successful program, and we also
know that it is very difficult in today's world with all of the
pressures on college athletes and coaches and university
presidents to run a good, effective, and clean program.
I am particularly pleased with the panel of witnesses that
we have, because I think we are going to get a balanced look at
the issue. I notice that in the memo for this hearing it--our
staff pointed out--it mentioned that a University of Miami
football program signed--gave a letter of intent to a recruit
who had been charged with 10 theft charges and probation
violations.
And on the surface that looks very, very bad, but on the
other hand this may be a young man who never had really many
opportunities in life. And maybe if he gets within a structured
program of discipline, then maybe it can help him. So I think
there's a number of different ways to look at this.
I am particularly delighted that Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman is
with us today from the University of Colorado, and I know that
she has already taken steps on her own initiative there at the
university to help address some of their concerns. So we look
forward to her testimony.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. I will waive.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman waives his opening statement.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. It provides the
subcommittee with a valuable opportunity to explore numerous issues
relating to the recruitment and subsequent treatment of collegiate
athletes by the NCAA and their member institutions.
I would also like to thank the distinguished panelists that have
joined us today. Your testimony and first-hand insight is valuable in
shaping the discussion about what path to take in this arena.
Recent legal allegations have produced overwhelming public concern
over the manner in which potential athletes are recruited. However,
records show that NCAA recruiting violations have hardly been limited
in scope or extent to the experiences of a single institution. Both
Colorado University and the NCAA have responded responsibly to national
criticism by proactively initiating reforms and evaluating current
recruiting policies.
Both the NCAA and its member institutions want student athletes to
have safe and positive experiences, and I think they can work
collectively to achieve this end. Recruitment is merely the
commencement of a college athlete's career, and there are plausibly
many realms of collegiate sports which would benefit from closer
examination.
Hopefully, today's hearing will foster a continued dialogue between
the NCAA and university administrative officials resulting in
meaningful improvements to college recruiting and other NCAA policies.
I thank the Chairman again and yield back the remainder of my time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
I commend Chairman Stearns for holding this hearing. The Committee
has had a long history of oversight of intercollegiate athletics and
the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Given the allegations of
misconduct in the recruiting of high school athletes, this hearing is
both timely and important.
The NCAA will begin its national championships in basketball for
men and women in one week. This should be a time to celebrate the
student athletes and their universities as models of higher education
and fair competition.
But the recent history of scandals and serious allegations of both
improper and criminal conduct has tarnished the meaning and
significance of collegiate sports and the universities that sponsor
them. Whether these allegations are isolated or, as many suspect, more
widespread, is almost irrelevant. It may not be fair, but the actions
of a few have raised doubts about the integrity of collegiate
athletics.
We simply cannot turn our heads to the recruiting allegations that
have surfaced. The fact is today we have multiple cable networks, radio
networks, websites and other media outlets that have been built around
the sports industry because we will watch, listen or read about it.
Collegiate athletics plays a significant part of this industry,
particularly men's basketball and football. The pressure to win at any
cost under these monetary circumstances has predictable outcomes of
skirting the rules.
If we really care about the student athletes and the future of
collegiate sports, changes should occur. Higher education institutions
and the NCAA will need to decide what role their athletic programs are
designed to accomplish and stop the pretending.
I look forward to the testimony today, Mr. Chairman, to determine
what role, if any, Congress can play in ensuring the integrity of
collegiate athletics.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Thank you, Chairman Stearns and Ranking Member Schakowsky for
holding this timely hearing on recruiting practices and violations
occurring on our nation's college campuses.
With the recent events at the University of Colorado, and with
numerous other recruiting violations taking place over the past several
years, this is a growing issue that must be addressed in order to
protect both the integrity of college athletics and the students who
get caught up in these activities.
It is paramount that the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
along with the administration and athletic departments of our nation's
colleges and universities, put a stop to the types of recruiting
violations that have flooded our news.
Athletic scholarships provide financial assistance to individuals
who may not otherwise have the opportunity to obtain a higher
education.
Yet in some instances these institutions, or individuals at these
institutions, are using student athletes to advance their own interests
at the expense of the student.
Underage drinking, sexual misconduct, and bribery have no place in
our society, let alone our college campuses.
However these practices have been used, and more than likely still
are being used in some cases, to draw 17 and 18 year old athletes to a
specific sports program.
The education and well-being of student athletes should not come
second to the success of a college's sports program.
While I understand the NCAA and college administrations are
cracking down on these types of incidents, my initial reaction when I
witness situations such as the one at Colorado is that they clearly are
not doing enough.
Whether it be stricter oversight by a college's administration over
the athletic department, or stricter penalties imposed by the NCAA for
recruiting violations, we need to move beyond the current practices to
protect student athletes.
It is my hope that the NCAA will make this a top priority and that
colleges will work to prevent recruiting abuses rather than respond to
them.
Again, thank you to our Chairman and Ranking member for holding
this hearing and for your leadership on this important issue.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Stearns. With that, Mr. Osborne, we welcome you and
appreciate your taking your time, and so we would like to hear
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM OSBORNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate your
inviting me here today. We like the Gators. The Hurricanes and
Seminoles were more problematic to us than the Gators, but any
way I know where you are coming from.
So, and to be frank with you, I wasn't real excited to be
here today. But I thought maybe I could discuss a little bit
the recruiting situation as I see it. And I am certainly not
here to pass judgment on any institution, because I--one thing
I do know, that it is impossible to judge from a distance.
And we have had a lot of that going on, not this committee
but just throughout the country. And so unless you are there,
unless you are immersed in it, you really don't know what is
happening.
So, anyway, I would like to give a little perspective from
36 years of recruiting, being in the middle of the country and
a sparsely populated state, we were in probably 47, 48 states
recruiting. And we recruited against probably all 115, 116
Division I schools at one time or another. So I don't know all
about recruiting, but I have some idea.
Let me just say this. The recruiting process has improved
dramatically since the 1960's, and I am just going to run
through a few things that have changed. First of all, the
number of recruiting visits that an athlete could take is now
five. At one time it was unlimited. We recruited some guys that
had been on 14, 15, 16 recruiting visits, every weekend from
October to May. And you can imagine the amount of time that
this took.
Second, no contacts--or the number of contacts from coaches
are limited to one a week. I knew of a school back in the
1970's who had a guy rent an apartment in a town where there
was a great player. And this guy was there 5 days a week, and
he saw that player two or three times a day, and the Booster
Club gave him an award as the best booster at the end of the
season for that high school.
Now, they got the player, but that just simply doesn't
happen any more. You see them once a week, and the recruiting
season is now roughly six to 8 weeks. It used to go on 6 to 8
months. You are allowed one phone call a week after the first
of September. And, again, that went on, sometimes multiple
phone calls.
The first thing that you look at in a student athlete is
their academic requirements, and that has changed dramatically.
You have to have 13 core courses. Now, these are not P.E. or--
this is core academic courses. You have to have a 2.5 average.
You have to have a certain SAT/ACT score. And you have to also
maintain normal progress toward graduation.
So in many cases a student athlete has a more difficult
academic road to hoe than a non-athlete. A non-athlete does not
have to pass 12 hours a semester or pass 24 hours within two
semesters. And they can take a break and work. They can take a
light load. An athlete doesn't have that opportunity.
Athletes are highly regulated. Graduation rates are
published. You are drug tested 4, 5, 6 times a year, maybe 4 or
5 times by the school, once by the NCAA, once by the
conference. This is random testing. You never know when it is
going to be.
And if you take Andro hormones, or any of the drugs that we
have seen some of these Major League Baseball players take, you
are sanctioned immediately. You are out. So they don't mess
around with you. There is a great deal of media scrutiny, as we
have mentioned.
As far as the recruiting visit, it is 48 hours in length.
The host is given $30 per day. Now, I want you to get that--
understand that. The host--the person who shows the athlete
around is limited to $30. Now, if you are going to take a guy
to a movie and take him out to eat, there isn't a whole lot of
money left to hire strippers or other types of activity. So you
can follow the money.
And if somebody is violating on the amount of money they
are giving the host, then these things can happen. But it is
easy to document the amount of money that they get and where it
goes.
Each school is allowed no more than 56 recruits to come in
on official visits. The reason this is important is that they
are not going to assign more than 20, 21, 22 on the average, so
you have got about 35, 36 young men who visit a campus who
don't come to that campus. So if you want to know what happened
on the recruiting weekends, those are the guys you go see.
Those are the guys that David Berst and other people are going
to talk to, the ones who don't come to the school.
And if you find a consistent pattern of those who visited
that school over 3 or 4 years, 30, 40, 50, 60 percent, did
certain types of activities, then you can pretty well be
certain that this was a pattern of behavior that was at least
condoned. But you will find some isolated instances where
somebody didn't behave very well, because you are dealing with
fairly large numbers of people. So, anyway, I think that is
important.
Entertainment must take place within 30 miles of the
campus. And the big key in recruiting is not how you ranked in
the recruiting polls. At the end of the year, everybody rates
your class--first, second, third, fourth. The key to recruiting
is, how many of those guys are there 2 years later? And how
many of them are satisfied with their experience? And how many
of them are playing and are productive and are academically
eligible? That is when you know how your recruiting went is 2
years later.
So you don't want to go out and recruit guys that aren't
going to be with you. You don't want to go out and recruit guys
who are going to flunk out. You don't want to go out and
recruit guys who are only interested in parties, you know?
Those are not the kind of people that are going to get the job
done for you, at least that is my experience.
The NCAA does enforce rules. You know, I have heard some
statements here that the NCAA is turning their head. The NCAA
absolutely does not turn their head. Every college coach that I
know of is very concerned about the NCAA. If they come in and
investigate you, they are going to be there for 6 to 8 months.
They are going to have 2 to 3 guys on your campus, and it
is like an IRS audit. They are going to go through everything
you have got, and the report will be 1,000, 2,000, 2,500 pages,
and most of that will deal with recruiting issues. They are
looking for a competitive advantage.
And so people take these things very seriously, and almost
every school has a compliance coordinator that is--the only job
that person has is to keep track of the rules, and to make sure
every coach knows what the rules are, and hopefully that the
coach is obeying those rules. And so that is a pretty--I mean,
that is $30-, $40-, $50,000 that you are spending just for
compliance.
The rulebook is that thick. An awful lot of it has to do
with recruiting issues. The purpose of the visit is so the
recruit can evaluate the school, but also it is so the school
can evaluate the player. We would occasionally send a guy home
early. We would occasionally have the host say, ``You don't
want this guy, Coach. You know, this is not a guy that is going
to fit in here.'' And so it is a two-way street; you are
looking at them, they are looking at you.
And the most important thing is to let them know what they
are in for, because being a college athlete is not a piece of
cake. And so what you do is you--I think most schools do this.
They have a very structured visit. If you are in practice
working out for a Bowl game, or whatever, they go watch
practice and they see how hard it is.
They meet with a faculty member in their major field of
interest. Almost every school is going to do that. You are
going to meet with the academic counselors. You will probably
have a tentative schedule made out before you even leave the
campus. You will meet with the head coach, the position coach,
the trainer, the team doctor, the strength coach, the
nutritionist.
You will have a meal at the training table with the
equipment manager, tour the athletic facilities, tour the
school, tour the community, and then the important part of the
visit--and I think this is something that I would like to
emphasize with you--is you will spend time with the student
host.
And that is probably the key thing, because if that guy who
shows you around says, ``You know, I am really sorry I came
here,'' you can have everything else on that weekend go
perfectly, and it is all over. That guy is not going to come to
your school. If the student host says, ``You know, this is a
good school. You know, these guys treat you right. This is a
good place to be,'' you have got a pretty good chance.
But almost every player that goes to visit a school is
going to want to spend a little bit of time with the student
host with a coach not present, because there are things they
want to find out that that student host wouldn't say in front
of the head coach or an assistant coach.
And so what we did is we told the players--and I think most
coaches would tell them this--is, ``You stay away from alcohol.
Stay away from--if any drugs shows up, get out of there. Go to
a movie, have dinner, turn in fairly early, because we are
going to get you up at 7 the next morning, and you are going to
have all of these appointments.'' Now, maybe that doesn't
happen at every school, but most of them that I know of do. We
encouraged the parents to come wherever we could. We felt our
odds went up 50 percent if we got the parents there, because
what an 18 year-old is looking for isn't what the parents are
looking at. And I think most schools, again, want the parents
there. And you are not going to get up in the morning if you
went to--and tell your mom, well, you went to a strip club the
night before. You might not tell her anyway.
But, anyway, I think it is important to understand that we
do try to--and I think every school tries to involve parents.
And then let me just say this. From my perspective, there is no
competitive advantage to having a young man go out and get
drunk, or be involved in some type of a promiscuous situation,
be involved in a situation where there are drugs, because that
young guy is going to go home and he is going to talk to his
teammates. And he is going to talk to his coach. He may talk to
his parents; he may not.
But the kiss of death is to have a young guy come home from
a recruiting visit and say that he was engaged in all kinds of
illegal behavior. Now, this may happen on some campuses. I am
not saying it never happens.
But what I am telling you is, by and large, if you talk to
100 coaches out of Division I-A, I will bet you 98, 99 of them
would tell you the last thing they want to have happen on that
recruiting visit is something of that nature, because you are
not going to normally get that guy if the parents or the high
school coach or anybody finds out about it.
Some people think that, well, if you furnish them with some
type of illicit sexual activity or drugs or alcohol, they are
more apt to come. I don't think so. You know? You may get a few
guys like that, but you don't want those guys. You know, those
are not the people you want to get. And, furthermore, in most
cases it will finish you off. And so it is not something that
you are out to do.
Let me just say a couple other things, and then I will
desist here. I think it will be relatively easy to determine if
there has been a consistent pattern of abuses. I really believe
you can find this out. It may take a little time, but what you
do is you go interview the guys who visited the campus who
didn't come there.
And so in the last 4 or 5 years most schools have had maybe
100, 150 guys who visited in the football program, maybe 70 or
80 in the basketball program, who did not come. So you go
interview them, and say, ``When you went to School X, what did
you do, you know? What kind of things went on there?''
And if they are in no way tied to that school, most of them
are going to tell you what went on. And then again, follow the
money. You know, what happened to the dollars--the recruiting
dollars that that student host had? How much money did he get?
Did he get an illegal amount? And how did he spend it? He has
got to turn in receipts. So where did he go? What did he do?
And those are the ways I think that you can track it down
fairly easily.
And NCAA is a voluntary organization, and I think it is
very important that Congress not try to get involved in NCAA
legislation, because this is an organization where schools
consent to belong, and for us to make rules it would be very
difficult. It would be like having the Washington Redskins come
in here and write tax policy. I mean, you just don't understand
it. You know, you have to be there to know what to do.
And there are so many rules now that there are hardly any
more rules that could be written. There are going to be--there
is going to be a certain percentage of people that are going to
cheat on their taxes. There is going to be a certain percentage
of people who are going to cheat in recruiting, and that is
just going to happen. That is the way it is.
There is going to be 10 percent or 5 percent of the people
in Congress who are not ethical. There is going to be 5 or 10
percent in the clergy. There is going to be 5 or 10 percent in
the business community. And you are always going to have that.
And if you are in a high profile position like Congress or
athletics, those people who are deviant or don't do the right
thing are going to get a lot of publicity. And it is going to
paint the whole deal.
But--and, again, I am not alibiing for intercollegiate
athletics. I am just trying to tell you what I think is out
there.
Let me also mention one other thing. In 1985, sudden death
penalty was administered to SMU. And we ran into some deals
prior to that where we were competing with teams that we knew
were paying players. We knew they were cheating, and we just
figured we had to beat them anyway. But after 1985, when
sudden--when SMU got shut down for 2 years, I saw a tremendous
shift. I didn't see the cars and the clothes and the cash
anymore.
Once in a while we would see somebody that would promise or
recruit something that couldn't be delivered, like you are
going to be our starting quarterback. But that is not a
violation of NCAA rules.
But I saw a tremendous change, and I can't tell you after
1985 that I really saw any one player that was bought out from
under us, you know. Before that time I could say quite a bit.
Now, I am not saying there is no cheating, but I think it has
changed quite a bit.
And then I think, last, I would like to say this. I think
it is really important to consider the environment in which our
young people are having to operate today. The high school
campus, the college campus, compared to when most of you on the
panel went to college, there is a whole lot of things out
there. In 1962, I had never heard of crack, never heard of
meth, never heard of ecstasy.
There was a little bit of promiscuity, but not like you see
today. There was an alcohol culture, but not like you see
today. So athletes are part of the student body when they are
there. And so I think you need to look at the whole culture,
and not just isolate the athletic department.
So, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. And hopefully
I have not been out of bounds here. I have just tried to tell
you how I see it. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague very much for his
appraisal. Generally, we--I say to the members on the panel
here, we don't really go into questions to fellow members like
this. We have another panel that is waiting, so I think--he is
as busy as all of us, so we are going to let him go.
Mr. Osborne, thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. With that, we will have the panel--the second
panel come up. David Berst, Vice President of Division I, the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, please come to the
desk. Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman, President of the University of
Colorado System; Mr. David Williams, II, Vice Chancellor for
Student Life and University Affairs, General Counsel, Professor
of Law, Vanderbilt University; and Mr. Don McPherson, Executive
Director, Sports Leadership Institute, Adelphi University.
And let me thank all of you for your time. And you are here
volunteering, so you are to be commended and thanked, and we
know how busy you are. You are just as busy as all of us, and
so, again, we thank you for your time.
I think what we will do is just--if you don't mind, just
start from my left and go to my right. And, Mr. McPherson, if
you are ready, we will let you start with your opening
statement. We are going to have to have you put on the mike. I
think there is--if it is--or bring it closer to you.
STATEMENTS OF DONALD G. McPHERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SPORTS
LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE; DAVID WILLIAMS, II, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR
STUDENT LIFE AND UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS, GENERAL COUNSEL, PROFESSOR
OF LAW, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY; ELIZABETH ``BETSY'' HOFFMAN,
PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SYSTEM; AND S. DAVID BERST,
VICE PRESIDENT OF DIVISION I, NCAA
Mr. McPherson. All right.
Mr. Stearns. Yes, just bring it a little closer.
Mr. McPherson. Is it working now?
Mr. Stearns. Now I think we can hear you good.
Mr. McPherson. I am coachable.
Mr. Stearns. Coachable. Teachable.
Mr. McPherson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Representative Schakowsky and
members of the committee, for taking the time to address this
extremely important issue--one that I have, as an individual,
benefited from throughout my life as a football player, a high
school football player in New York, and a college football
player at Syracuse University.
I sit before you today not because I was a great student or
an intelligent person, but because I was a football player. My
life as an advocate trying to prevent violence against women,
my life as an advocate working with young people on very
serious issues, came about because I was a football player. I
was asked as a student athlete at Syracuse University to work
with young people on very, very important issues.
And I learned from very early on that we have a distorted
sense of the importance of athletics in our culture, to the
point where we are blinded by the people that we very often
hold up as role models, as heroes, and not holding them
accountable for the individuals that they are.
I teach a class at Adelphi University called Sport and
Civilian, and ask my students at the very beginning of the
semester if they believe that sports are good for kids, and
there is an automatic response of yes. And just like many
members here today and my fellow panel members will tell you
that sports has been a wonderful and tremendous asset in their
lives and at their institutions.
And I believe, as someone who has been around athletics for
all of my life, I am 38 years old, I have been playing football
since I was 8 years old, that sports has become a cancer in our
culture. We have this blind understanding that sports develops
character, it teaches teamwork and sportsmanship and all of
these positive things that we just assume it teaches. And if we
don't proactively teach the things that we are asking young
people to learn, it will teach them the negative things.
We are obviously here today not because of the recruiting
that is going on in intercollegiate athletics. Most student
athletes on college campuses are amazing, amazing young people.
The overwhelming majority of student athletes on college
campuses are amazing young people who are taking on a
tremendous amount in their sports, as well as academically.
We are not here to talk about those student athletes. We
are here to talk about the 22 that you mentioned. We are here
to talk about Division I-A football and basketball. That is
where the problem has always reared its head. And I think that
is the issue that needs to be addressed.
Intercollegiate athletics, higher education, and athletics,
in its current form in this country is out of control. Eight
billion dollars, a billion dollar contract, for the NCAA
tournament March Madness that is about to begin, and it is
truly madness. Of these student athletes that are playing on
Monday night during--in the middle of the semester, we are
asking these young people to generate billions of dollars in
the name of nonprofit institutions.
They know that before they come to campus. They know that
long before they come to campus, that they are the stars in the
show. And when I ask my students about whether or not they
think sports are good for kids, and we talk about young people
from a very early age, a lot of the behaviors that the NCAA and
the institutions of higher education have been trying to
address in terms of athletics are really in many cases issues
that they cannot impact.
Initial eligibility standards were created to ensure that
student athletes were capable of doing college work. The
reality is that it is our secondary and primary educational
institutions that have to ensure that young people come with
the necessary skills to matriculate in higher education.
The same thing is true with off-the-field behavior. The one
workshop that I do many times with college athletes and high
school students and union workers. And I am here this week not
only for this hearing but also with Lifetime Television to talk
about violence against women. As I talk about violence against
women and violence in general, it is learned behavior.
When I ask students what we learn from sports, and I ask
young men the worst insult they ever heard as young boys, ``You
throw like a girl.'' What message do we learn from a very early
age? That boys are supposed to be tough. Where do we--who do we
value? Why am I here today? Because I represent iconic
masculinity. I am a football player. There are people who I
have learned from who don't get the platform I get to say the
things I do, because I was a football player.
We value the tough, strong--we don't expect our student
athletes on our college campuses to be nice guys. We want them
to kick the crap out of the other team. We encourage them to do
so. They grow up in a culture that trains them to be that. And
the statement, ``You throw like a girl'' not only says that as
a man you had better be all these things, but it also says
implicit in that statement that girls are less than.
And the student athletes who come to our campus after years
and years and years of being rewarded for being those iconic
masculine figures also learn in that process the role of
women--cheerleaders baking cupcakes for student high school
football players, the recruiting process.
And the recruiting process, I don't think that anyone who
has been around athletics at the Division I-A football and
basketball level--and as someone mentioned earlier, on our
college campuses, the amount of sexual behavior that is going
on on our college campuses, in our high schools.
It is all too clear how often we are seeing these problems.
And I apologize if my comments seem somewhat scattered, but
this is a huge, huge issue, and there are no easy answers to a
very complex problem.
Mr. Stearns. I will ask you to sum up, if you would.
Mr. McPherson. I will.
Mr. Stearns. We are just trying to keep each one to 5
minutes.
Mr. McPherson. I think it is very important that when we
talk about the laws of the land versus the laws that govern
intercollegiate athletics or recruiting that the laws of the
land take precedent. And that we recognize that when student
athletes or students commit crimes against women, commit crimes
against others on campus, that they be dealt with as crimes as
such, and that we recognize that intercollegiate athletics and
programs on college campuses cannot continue to operate in
isolation from the rest of campus.
And I will close with one last point. Mr. Chairman, please
indulge me with this one last point, that the NBA and the NFL
both have rookie transition programs that they institute
because they recognize that student athletes go through 4 or 5
years on a college campus and don't come with the adequate
skills to be professional athletes. And so they put their
players, their rookies, through programs to help them with all
of the different responsibilities that they are going to have
to be a professional athlete. Colleges are failing these young
men, and those are the ones who make it.
[The prepared statement of Donald G. McPherson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald G. McPherson, Executive Director, Sports
Leadership Institute, Adelphi University
INTRODUCTION
I applaud the Committee on Energy and Commerce for examining the
issues facing college athletics. My testimony before the committee on
``College Recruiting: Are Student Athletes Being Protected?'' reflect
more than 20 years of experience in this area. I have come to learn
that the dynamics of college athletics, good and bad, are increasingly
more complex and advanced than when I was recruited by Syracuse
University in 1982. While the recruiting practices at the University of
Colorado-Boulder have come under tremendous scrutiny, and have led to
such hearings as this, I must caution the committee not to confine its
investigation to recruiting practices or guidelines. The process of
recruiting student athletes and the problems that have brought us here
today, are byproducts of the larger issues facing higher education and
its athletic entities. Further, while the welfare of student athletes
should always be taken into consideration, our institutions, student
populations and communities must also be recognized as primary
stakeholders in any discussion of athletics in the educational setting.
Failure to account for all stakeholders and perspectives will result in
a squandered opportunity to positively impact one of the great
traditions of American Culture; intercollegiate athletics.
COLLEGE ATHLETICS
College athletics does not exist in a vacuum. Furthermore, many
factors contribute to the process of recruiting prospective student
athletes. Least among these factors is the academic reputation or
integrity of a given institution. It must be noted that the
overwhelming majority of student athletes who attend college have
specific academic or (non-sport) professional goals. However, such
student athletes are not at the center of recruiting scandals or other
criminal and behavioral transgressions. The student athletes and
athletic programs that have brought us to this hearing represent a very
small and unique portion of college athletics, also with the greatest
influence. Division I-A basketball and football programs operate by a
different set of unwritten rules and under dramatically different
pressures and scrutiny than all other sports. Also, on many campuses
these programs often function in relative isolation from the larger
campus community. For the purposes of this hearing, my comments will be
directed towards, but not limited to, those institutions that
participate at the Division I-A level in basketball and football.
The title of this hearing implies that it is college student
athletes that are being hurt by the recent allegations of recruiting
improprieties, particularly at the University of Colorado-Boulder.
While I do believe that the student athletes involved will bear the
scars of this case, it is because several women have broken their
silence about sexual assaults that has forced this discussion. So the
question must be asked, who is less protected in the search for the
next All-American, the student athlete, or those whom they encounter
during their time as recruits and subsequent years on campus?
PROTECTING STUDENT ATHLETES
But first, allow me to address the question of ``protection of the
student athlete.'' The charge of exploitation of the student athlete
has become increasingly difficult to defend for the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) and it' I-A member institutions. A multi-
billion dollar television contract for the men' basketball tournament
and the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) in football are gross
illustrations of how college athletics, at this level, are no longer
the altruistic endeavor of not-for-profit institutions of higher
learning. Nevertheless, higher education insists the system is fair,
and student athletes are being fairly treated in this equation. I don't
intend to address the issue of compensation, rather, the means by which
the NCAA has sought to ensure fairness.
Initial Eligibility Standards were created in response to dismal
graduation rates of student athletes, a major concern of those who felt
the system was not fair to student athletes. Minimum standards are now
required for first year student athletes to be eligible to participate
in their sport. The problem with this process is that college athletic
programs can do nothing to ensure that our public educational systems
(grades K-12) are adequately preparing students for college work. This
has resulted in enormous resources being directed towards helping
student athletes ``catch up.'' Despite the efforts of institutions to
support student athletes, graduation rates continue to be a major
problem.
On and off the field of play, fundamental skills are the building
blocks for success. Without adequate skills in the classroom, student
athletes will cheat, fail, or worse, never attempt to succeed.
ATHLETES ON CAMPUS
When high school, and younger, students are identified as being
particularly skilled in a sport, their lives become a commodity as the
potential for a professional sports contract is recognized. For many of
these young men, higher education is not in their plans and college
sports (basketball or football) are mere ``stepping stones'' to the
next level of play where they can reap the financial benefits of their
skills.
As I travel around the country and work with college student
athletes, it' very obvious that many young men have come to college,
with little interest in being in college. In other words, they don't
recognize their place in the academic and social environment of the
entire campus community. This places the individual student athlete and
the campus community at risk.
Exacerbating this dynamic is the tremendous attention and resources
afforded the individual athlete and sport. As basketball and football
players are cheered by thousands and treated like thoroughbreds, it
should be no wonder that they exhibit a sense of entitlement. Expecting
them to ignore the dynamics around them is simply unreasonable. It'
also important to note, that student athletes at the center of a
billion dollar (entertainment) industry are well aware of the their
role as ``stars'' in the show.
ALCOHOL AND SEX
College life is full of new responsibilities and freedoms that are
often difficult for all students to manage. Fundamental skills are
necessary for success in this area as well. We must address the
attitudes and intentions of prospective student athletes before they
come to campus to ensure they have the requisite skills to manage their
new environment. Primary among the behaviors to be managed are those
that involve alcohol and sex. For many young people, the ``prevention''
message has been ``don't do it'' or the subject is simply not
addressed. The messages that young men receive about college sports,
alcohol and sex are that they are all part of the party. Beer
advertisements (around sporting events) that objectify women are staple
symbols of the experience. These messages, however, are not received
during the recruiting process of prospective student athletes. As early
as boys aspire to be athletes, they are taking in the messages of the
culture. When it comes to sexual behavior in particular, many young
people (primarily boys) are getting their messages from dangerous and
irresponsible sources, such as pornography. The lack of adequate and
accurate information has led many young people to make bad decision,
based on the bad information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The National Basketball Association and the National Football
League both use a ``Rookie Transition Program'' to help incoming
players understand their roles in the business, manage their new
freedom and wealth and make them aware of the pitfalls that can derail
and career, or life. This is done with the recognition that many of
them did not learn these lessons in college and that the professional
leagues are a very different place. Without question, each league
created their program to protect their investments, their players. The
NCAA and its member institutions should institute a similar program,
designed to help high school student athletes transition to the
pressure, scrutiny and responsibilities of being a division I-A student
athlete.
In addition, college athletic programs that function in isolation
from the larger campus community must begin to collaborate with those
campus entities that also contribute to student life (e.g., housing,
student activities, etc.). Cooperation will improve communication and
provide student athletes with a better understanding of their
responsibilities as members of the campus community. This should begin
during the recruiting process and be maintained through graduation.
CONCLUSION
The problem of sexual violence and inappropriate sexual behavior
that has sparked this discussion is not unique to college athletics or
the recruiting process. There are ongoing efforts on most college
campuses to address the problem of violence against women. By becoming
more cooperative and proactive athletics programs can have a tremendous
impact on the efforts to protect all students, including student
athletes.
Just as initial eligibility standards have not had an impact on
secondary education, simply addressing recruiting or any one aspect of
college sport, will not address the complexities of the problems facing
our student athletes or the schools and communities that send them to
our campuses.
College campuses are designed to be free, respectful and welcoming
environments. Educating student athletes about their place in this
environment should be a primary goal of the recruiting process.
Furthermore, college athletic programs need to work more closely with
the larger campus community to ensuring the protection and well being
of all students.
BACKGROUND AND EXPERTISE
In 1982 I was a two-sport high school All-America athlete. To
varying degrees and with few exceptions I was recruited by every major
college football program in the country. I accepted a scholarship to
Syracuse University where I studied psychology. As quarterback of the
football team, I compiled 22 school records and led the team to an
undefeated season in 1987. In the process, I was a consensus first team
All America selection and won more than 18 national awards as the
nation' best all around player and quarterback. After Syracuse, I spent
seven years in professional football in the National Football League
(three years) and the Canadian Football League (four years).
During my entire seven-year career, I worked with community
outreach programs in each city. Each off season, I worked with a
community based organization called Athletes Helping Athletes, Inc. in
New York. Upon retiring from football in 1994, I accepted a position at
Northeastern University' Center for the Study of Sport in Society as
co-director of Athletes in Service to America, an AmeriCorps program.
``Athletes in Service'' continues to operate on five college campuses
and adjacent communities. In 1996, I was named director of the Mentors
in Violence Prevention Program (MVP), a position I held for three
years. MVP is a gender violence prevention program designed to reach
college male student athletes and fraternity members.
Currently, I'm founder and executive director of the Sports
Leadership Institute at Adelphi University (Garden City, NY). In
addition, I continue to work in the field of sexual and domestic
violence prevention as an advocate, educator and public speaker. Since
1999, I have presented on more than 100 college campuses nation-wide. I
have worked closely with the Justice Department' Office on Violence
Against Women, the Centers for Disease Control, the Family Violence
Prevention Fund, Lifetime Television and many other national and local
violence prevention organizations. I have appeared on MTV and the Oprah
Winfrey show to discuss issues of violence against women.
For the past five years, I have worked as an announcer for college
football games on three different networks, ESPN, BET and NBC, and
created the John Mackey Award presented to college football' best tight
end.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Williams, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WILLIAMS II
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
members of this subcommittee. And thank you for having this
hearing and inviting me.
I just flew in last night from Atlanta where the
southeastern conference is having its tournament, and I just
had a meeting. I am in the position now at Vanderbilt where I
serve, not as in name but as in practice, as the Athletic
Director. And so I have just left a meeting of the athletic
directors and other members of the SCC.
And as I flew up here, I thought about the fact that it is
almost 40 years ago that I left Detroit to go to college as a
student athlete. And I thought seriously about the fact that in
all of this time what has changed and what has not changed. And
it is remarkable of what has not changed.
Throughout that career, I have been a student athlete. I
have been a high school and a middle school teacher and coach.
I have been a professor, both at the law school and at the
undergrad level. And I would submit to you just even now where
we have two of our basketball teams at Vanderbilt hopefully
headed to the NCAA tournament, I have some of those students in
my class.
And while they work very, very hard and are good students,
I think we have set up a system that just really--I am in
wonderment about the fact that we bring in kids that at some
time we call at risk, and we then set up a system with those
kids that are ones that have to, not choose to, but have to
miss the most classes.
I am the General Counsel at Vanderbilt. I have negotiated
sports contracts and sports coaches contracts. I have defended
our university in Title IX. And now, in full circle, I am now
running an athletic department at a Division I institution.
We look at all of the allegations at universities around
this country. We look at what happened recently at Baylor, at
Providence, other universities. And in my own SCC we have
presently three universities that are on some sort of probation
alone for recruiting violations.
If you look on the NCAA website alone, and you look at
major infraction violations since 1999, you will see 62. At
least 42 of those 62 have recruiting or extra benefits just in
the title, without even going to the substance.
So there is an issue, and there is a problem. And I want to
say that I think there is really five issues that need to be
looked at in this. The first is the rules. I think the NCAA
does a very, very good job as far as it can go.
I would say one thing is if you look at the manual, and as
a lawyer, you know, I always wonder where rules come from and
how rules are supposed to be implemented and developed. And I
would say that one of the problems with the NCAA rules is many
of the rules are specifically to remedy a situation that
happened. And, really, when you look even at recruiting and all
of the pages that deal with recruiting, there really is no
statement of value, no best practice, no philosophy of what we
are trying to do.
And as much as I commend Miles Brand and David for what is
happening in the task force, and I think it will be good, I
would submit to you if we are trying to get something out of
that task force within the next month or month and a half, it
has to--it is going to be specific to something that just
happened.
And that is one of the problems with the rules. Those rules
need to be revised, need to be reviewed, and we need to come up
with best practices in recruiting and other things, and some
philosophy about what we are trying to do and where we are
trying to go at.
Second, competitive advantage. One of the things that I
have learned now that I have responsibility for athletics under
our new structure at Vanderbilt is every time I talk to a coach
that is the first word that comes up. We will be--we need to be
at a competitive advantage, or if I don't do that they will be
at a competitive advantage. That whole concept of competitive
advantage is what is pushing everything--what is pushing
everything.
If one university can fly a kid on a private jet, then your
coach wants to do it. If one university is taking chartered
flights to all of their games, then my coach wants to do it.
And we have got to get to a point that the money, the
resources, or the chance or the ability to try to play outside
of the rules, because if I get caught--if I get caught--the
penalty won't be that tough, puts people at a competitive
advantage.
The NCAA talks about a level playing field. We have to
level the playing field, take some of that out of it.
Third, education. And this one really goes to recruiting to
me. I have seen too many official visits where I keep asking
the question in the old vernacular of where is the beef--where
is the education? You know, how much time in this 48 hours is
really talked about being a student? And I hate to submit to
you that in many cases the young people that come to some of
these campuses will spend more time at a downtown club than
they will dealing with educational aspects on the campus.
You know, they are students, and I would like to say that
if we are not going to bring kids to universities for student
purposes, we shouldn't be bringing them for athletics.
Fourth, institutional control and responsibility. And I
would say to you that is one of the biggest ones, especially in
recruiting, especially in athletics for that matter. The NCAA
rules are only going to be as good as the institutional control
on the campuses and at the conferences.
Now, one of the reasons why Gordon Gee, our chancellor,
changed the athletics and the structure at our campus, which is
only good--we only did it for our campus, we didn't do it for
anybody else--is because we basically saw that athletics, as an
entity, was drifting away from the mainstream of the
university, was not integrated in the mainstream in the
university.
There is a chancellor and six vice chancellors who
basically run Vanderbilt University. Athletic things that were
being done many times they didn't know about them. They might
not have cared about them, I am not sure, but we have changed,
and now nothing in athletics--nothing in athletics--will happen
without institutional control on our institution.
It has just gotten out of hand. Most presidents and most
administrators, central administrators, really don't know what
is happening over in athletics. I had one athletic director
tell me the other day, which I was just appalled--we were
talking about the use of general counsel office, and they said,
``Yes, we have general counsel. We have in-house lawyers at our
university. But athletics doesn't use them. Athletics doesn't
use them. They have their own.'' And I would say also in the
institutional control central administrations have to know what
is going on in their recruiting. What are the policies? Are
there written policies for these student hosts?
I would also add that I think it is deplorable in the
fact--and we at Vanderbilt have done it, and I plan to stop
it--that we use these young women as what we call at Vanderbilt
Gold Stars. I have never understood why we have women hosts for
our two men's teams.
Mr. Stearns. I need you to sum up, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. And, finally, the student athletes. I would
suggest that we need to start listening to them. I have talked
to a lot of student athletes, both at Vanderbilt, former
student athletes, and other schools, and tried to find out, is
all of this that we are doing in recruiting really germane to
what their needs are and what their wants are?
They tell me most of these things we do are just fluff and
really don't help make a decision.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of David Williams II follows:]
Prepared Statement of Testimony of David Williams, II, Vice Chancellor
for Student Life and University Affairs, Vanderbuilt University
The Recruiting process involves a balancing of the interests of
prospective student athletes, their educational institutions and the
Association's member institutions. Recruiting regulations shall be
designed to promote equity among member institutions in their
recruiting of prospects and to shield them from undue pressures that
may interfere with the scholastic or athletic interests of the
prospects or their educational institution.
The above statement that appears in Section 2.11 of the NCAA
Constitution establishes ``The Principle Governing Recruiting'' for
intercollegiate athletics in Division I of the NCAA. It speaks of
equity among member institutions, shielding prospects from undue
pressure and avoiding interference with scholastic or athletic interest
of the prospects and their educational institution. The question is--
``Is that what college athletic recruiting is really about and does it
hold true to this governing principle?''
In recent months the general public has become aware of allegations
of recruiting violations at major universities in this country. The
alleged use of sex, the alleged promise of future admittance and
payment to professional schools, the alleged academic arrangements
resulting in extra benefits, just may be small exceptions to an
otherwise solid system of integrity and control within college
recruiting. Or, on the other hand, it just may be a small section of a
larger problem that exists within this acknowledged big business that
is conducted by our colleges and universities.
Make no mistake of it; I am a true supporter of college athletics.
I have been and remain both a fan and an advocate of college athletics
at all divisions, including Division I. It is because of my support and
belief in what athletics can do for a university, a community, a
country and an individual that I worry about the place we find
ourselves today in college athletics, and the problems that we see and
don't see in college athletic recruiting. By looking at the NCAA
website and reviewing Major Infraction cases from February 1999 until
today, we find that forty-two of the sixty-two cases cited had some
sort of recruiting or extra benefits violations. In teaching sports law
courses over the past fifteen years, over eighty percent of the law
students that I surveyed believe that widespread recruiting violations
occur in major college athletic programs. And of course, we all hear
the stories at cocktail parties, at the sports bar, at the water cooler
at work, and when we are just hanging out with our friends about the
recruiting sidesteps that the other team (not our university) did to
gain that all important student athlete.
Well, I submit to you today that while many colleges have clean
recruiting programs and would never ever think of, or allow something
illegal (by NCAA standards) or unethical to take place, there are
others that either condone questionable behavior, look the other way so
as not to see the questionable behavior, or have athletic programs so
separate that they truly do not know that the questionable behavior is
going on right under their noses. And even if it is only a small number
of colleges, which I sincerely doubt, doesn't that violate the first
part of the governing principle of equity among the member
institutions? If University A is following the rules and recruiting
legally and ethically while University B is doing it just the other
way, does this not give University B a leg-up in the process? For an
endeavor like athletics and sports where competition on the field, the
court, the mat, the rink, the diamond or in the pool, centers on fair
play and obeying the rules, isn't it a shame that some of us use such
poor judgment to gain access to the young student athletes that must
play these games? What a negative and contradictory message we must
send to them by our actions.
While some will point the blame at money and state that money and
the need to win causes this recruiting problem, I am not convinced that
these alone are the problems. Yes, there is a huge amount of money in
college athletics, and of course we all love to win, and the coaches
feel that pressure and realize that great athletes make great teams and
great teams make successful seasons. So, in order to get those great
athletes they must be recruited and the saga begins. However, I believe
there are five other reasons why we find ourselves where we are today.
Those are NCAA Rules; the concept of competitive advantage; the need to
reestablish the importance of education; institutional control and
responsibility; and the welfare of the student athlete. I will discuss
each in my testimony.
NCAA RULES
The NCAA Manual, which is over 470 pages, has forty pages devoted
directly to recruiting, and another one hundred and ten indirectly
touching recruiting under the topics of eligibility, financial aid and
awards and benefits. If you add on the sections on institutional
control, ethical conduct and amateurism there is a great deal of rules
and statements that either directly or indirectly touch recruiting.
However nowhere in the rules is there a general philosophy of what
recruiting is about and what should be its major framework. Short of
the governing principle which appears above, there is no direction
given that states what is and what is not permissible behavior in
recruiting. Sure the Manual talks about institutional responsibility in
recruiting and outlines time periods to call and visit and make
contacts, but it does not lay out the basic theory of why and how
recruiting should occur. The one area it does become specific in is
section 13.01.2, which is entitled Entertainment and states the
following:
A member institution may provide entertainment (per Bylaw
13.5)At a scale comparable to that of normal student life and
not excessive in nature, to a prospect and his or her parents
(or legal guardians) or spouse only at the institution's campus
(or, on an official visit, within 30 miles of institution's
campus). Entertainment of other relatives or friends of a
prospect at any site is prohibited.
Section 13.5.2 adds, ``A member institution may not arrange or
permit excessive entertainment of a prospect on the campus or elsewhere
(e.g., hiring a band for a dance specifically for the entertainment of
the prospect, a chauffeured limousine, a helicopter). I wonder, would
taking a recruit to a strip club be considered excessive entertainment?
Section 13.6.2.1, which deals with air transportation, states that ``a
member institution may pay the prospect's actual round-trip
transportation costs for his or her official visit to its campus,
provided a direct route between the prospect's home and the
institution's campus is used. Use of a limousine or helicopter for such
transportation is prohibited.'' I assume that means that you can fly a
prospect to your campus in a private jet? If you look at Section
13.6.2.3.2 you will find that an institution may use its own airplane
to transport a prospect to the campus for an official visit, provided
relatives, other friends or legal guardian(s) do not accompany the
prospect. So if University A has a private jet or has a fractional
ownership of a jet, they can transport the prospect to the campus in
that jet. However, the prospect's parents cannot come along. Is this a
recruiting visit without the parents and does this mean that we might
have a university flying a seventeen year old to the campus from his/
her home in a private jet with only the prospect and the pilots?
Pretty big stuff in deciding if this is the university for you.
The NCAA rules represent an attempt to provide legislation to
remedy specific instances of bad behavior. I would not be surprised if
next we have a rule that will now outlaw the use of private jets. What
is missing is a set of rules that look at the whole picture--the goals
and the objectives. The NCAA rules need to be reviewed and revised.
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
If you have any dealings with college athletics you will come into
contact with the phrase ``competitive advantage.'' We are not talking
about an advantage on the playing field but an advantage that exists in
recruiting prospects to attend your institution. From how many charter
trips the team will be able to make, to the number of student athletes
who will be allowed to attend summer school regardless of academic
need, to the ability to have student athletes live off campus to
generate extra cash money; these are just a few of the things coaches
are concerned about that fit within the framework of competitive
advantage. The NCAA is also interested in this concept and deals with
it under the term ``level playing field.'' Well, we all want a level
playing field don't we? Or do we? Recruiting and the perks (legal and
illegal) are the essence of the problem. The rules, which need to be
revised, and the way in which we conduct our recruiting has to come to
a point where those with more money or more resources, or those willing
to bend the rules, are not placed in a position of advantage over the
others. In recruiting, the playing fields are not level and this is a
huge problem. If you can fly a young person on a private jet, allow
them to stay in a suite in the best five star hotel and dine them on
steak and lobster at the city's finest restaurant, and others must fly
them commercial, place them in a student dorm and have them eat at the
university, I fear you will have a competitive advantage. I fail to
understand what any of it has to do with the educational opportunities
our universities have to offer or the quality of our athletic programs,
but rest assured, it is impressive to many a seventeen or eighteen-
year-old prospect. We must remove the competitive advantage that does
exist within our recruiting process.
EDUCATION
How much of the recruiting actually centers on the educational
aspect of the university and the prospect's desire for an education? Of
course, if the prospect demands to see the biology labs or the library
that will happen, but what if they don't ask those questions. How much
time is spent with professors, academic support and tutoring, or seeing
a classroom? We will certainly make sure that you see the weight room
and hear how the strength coach will build you up. We will certainly
make sure you visit the locker room and see where your name will appear
in the room and on a jersey. We will make sure that you know who your
teammates will be, where the games are played and some of the hot
social spots on campus or in the neighboring communities. All fine, but
aren't you coming to college? Or maybe this is just about your athletic
ability. We need to redesign our recruiting to more clearly focus on
the educational aspect of college life. If we do not make this
important during recruiting, the prospect may believe it is not
important to us and maybe not important to them as well. A one or two
hour period on education over a forty-eight hour visit is not enough
time. I am sorry to state that most recruits will spend more time in
the downtown club than they will on the educational aspects during
their official visit. This must be changed. When undergraduates
approach me about going to law school, I do not tell them to find some
law students and go party with them. I strongly suggest that they talk
to some law professors, talk to some lawyers, and by all means read
something about the law and visit at least one of my law classes. Why
do we purposely separate or downplay the educational part of college in
the recruiting process? Are we scared it will chase the prospect away?
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILTY
One of the major parts of the NCAA structure that evolved from the
recommendations of the Knight Commission and the NCAA President's
Commission is the concept of institutional control. An athletic program
that is not integrated into the mainstream of the university is an
athletic program that is separate. An athletic program that is separate
from the university is an athletic program that is not controlled by
the institution. An athletic program that is not controlled by the
institution is an athletic program waiting for a disaster. In the area
of recruiting, who is in charge at the institution? Who sets the
standards for who gets recruited, who does the recruiting, what is
recruiting about and how do we go about doing the recruiting? What role
does the faculty play, what role do the student athletes play, and most
importantly, what role does central administration play in recruiting
and recruiting policies and procedures on our campus? I had a parent of
a prospect tell me during their young person's visit to our campus that
this was the only school where they met someone from central
administration. The parent made that statement while I was introducing
them to our Provost, Nick Zeppos, and Vice Chancellor for Public
Affairs, Michael Schoenfeld. Do we as administrators know why
recruiting is taking place? Do we know how it is being conducted? Have
we reviewed and approved the policies we have for recruiting? Or is
this just the purview of the athletic department? What is the policy
for student athletes who are to serve as hosts for a prospect? Where
can they take the prospect? Can they take a seventeen or eighteen year
old individual to a bar? A nightclub? A strip joint? Must the student
athlete host document where they went? Can they leave the city where
the university is located? I remember some years ago when a major
university was recruiting a young basketball player. On his official
visit to the campus, his student athlete host took him to a nearby
major city (which was about 30 to 40 miles away) to a party (allegedly
at the home of a booster) and on the way back they were in a car
accident. Did the athletic department know they were going the major
city? Was it prohibited? Did the university administration know they
were going to the major city? Was it ok? Would anyone have known about
this trip but for the accident? Did the student athlete host violate
any university policy or procedure, and if so what was his punishment?
University administrators must gain control of this process. It is
not enough to look the other way and leave it up to someone else. We
are in control of the university, or at least we should be. There must
be clear policies and procedures as to what can be done and what cannot
be done in recruiting, and all athletic personnel must know and
understand them. These policies and procedures need to be clear to the
student athletes and to the prospects and their parents. We need to put
these in front of each prospect and his or her parents and ask them to
comment on whether or not our host followed these rules.
I once got a call from a parent of a prospect who wanted to talk
confidentially to me about the recruiting of his child. He said the
child loved the university and really wanted to go to our school, but
had a bad experience on the official visit. It seems that the student
athlete host decided that they should go out drinking and then to a
couple of late night parties. This was something in which the prospect
was not the least bit interested. The prospect was under drinking age,
did not drink and was concerned about the place and structure of the
parties. Fortunately the prospect's hometown was not that far away, and
a call to the parents by the prospect resulted in the parents driving
down and picking up their child and returning home. They did come back
the next day to finish the visit. The parent called me, not to
complain, but was concerned that since his child did not do what the
host had planned that the host and teammates of the host might think
that the prospect was not a fun, cool person. I explained to the parent
this never should have happened and their child was just the type of
kid we wanted. One who can make their own decisions and not be led by
the group. But really, how many seventeen-year-old young people would
have, and could have, done what this one did. Another thing that we
need to look into is the use of female students as hosts for our
football and men's basketball prospects. I do not see this existing for
other sports and I only see females in this role. While we have it with
our Gold Stars at Vanderbilt, I must confess I am not at all
comfortable with it even though I know the young ladies involved and
consider them to be outstanding young folks with integrity and strong
value systems. However, I am concerned about what this says about us as
an institution and how we go about using women in selling our
institution to prospective male students and their parents.
STUDENTS
Finally, we need to ask ourselves what does all this recruiting
mean to the students and prospective students? What are they interested
in and what do they get out of this? How do they feel about these
things, and do our efforts match with their needs? To me this is
clearly in the NCAA's purview of student-athlete welfare. I have always
talked to our students, whether student athletes or other students. I
have always been concerned about our views of serving them and whether
we are giving them what they need and expect. I purposely have been
asking student athletes and more so, former student athletes, about the
recruiting process. Unlike my law school students and much of the
public, the student athlete population seems not to be as concerned
with the violations. However, I have noticed they are not as aware as
one would think about what is a recruiting violation. Most believe they
get too many calls doing the recruiting process but actually do like
the perks. However, almost none of them mention academics or the
educational aspect as something they remember or actually focus on
(however my conversations with the parents are different). The students
are concerned with who will be their teammates, do they like this group
and does the group like them. How is the coach, and what about winning
and tradition. Of course a nice visit with great food and good social
life helps, but is not the deciding factor. The NCAA rules force a
student athlete who has accepted a scholarship at one university and
attended that university to sit out a year if they decide to transfer.
I am sure there was a good reason and a situation that prompted this
rule. The explanation is that the student athlete makes the decision
based on the school, not the coach and not the team. How far from the
truth can we be? This is clearly a situation where we are not listening
to the kids. This is not the place to debate the transfer rule, nor am
I advocating that at this time, but a coach can leave and go to another
school and does not have to sit out any time. Are our rules really
supporting the kids? We need to recognize why these young people are
choosing our universities and start to address the real needs and wants
of these folks and our universities. The kids tell me yes, these
competitive advantage type things have some influence on them, but at
the end the day they want to play their sport at the college level and
hopefully attend school and receive an education. All of the rest is
just fluff and not necessary if we can truly level the playing field.
While Miles Brand has created a new NCAA Task Force on Recruiting, and
I commend him for that and for all he is doing to help intercollegiate
athletics get back on the right foot, I submit that the NCAA already
has a subcommittee on Recruiting at the Academic/Eligibility/Compliance
Cabinet level. In fact, I was just appointed to it last month. Great
committee, great folks, but in the short time I was at the first
meeting one of the major issues that we were asked to review dealt with
whether or not we should recommend the continuation of the printing of
the media guides. Whether the new task force or the old committee, we
have to start dealing with the real issues. Yes they are tough, but it
is the only way to save this great thing called college athletics. I
strongly suggest that we start by listening to the student athletes and
former student athletes to really learn about recruiting, and not just
the kids that are on the student athletic advisory boards but the
others. The ones who might be reluctant to talk, the ones with whom you
have to build trust, and the ones who might only talk with former
athletes themselves.
After all isn't this suppose to be about the kids?
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Hoffman, welcome.
STATEMENT OF BETSY HOFFMAN
Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Elizabeth
Hoffman, President of the University of Colorado, a four-campus
university system.
I would also like to thank the ranking minority member,
Congresswoman Schakowsky; Congresswoman DeGette from my home
state, thank you for introducing me; and the other members of
the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this
very important issue.
I especially want to thank Congressman Udall, who
represents the district that the University of Colorado-Boulder
campus resides in. He cannot be with us today. But I would like
to recognize Congressman McInnis and Congressman Beauprez who
did accompany me today.
I would like to begin by sharing a few facts about our
university with the subcommittee. The CU-Boulder campus is a
community of 29,000 students, most of whom are between the ages
of 18 and 23, and an outstanding faculty of over--and staff of
over 7,200. We have a great academic history. We are dedicated
to providing a superior education and opportunities for
personal growth and development for our students.
Three Nobel Prize winners and seven McArthur Genius Award
winners are current or recent CU faculty members. Among public
universities, we rank fifth in the Nation by the National
Science Foundation and first by NASA. Seventeen CU graduates
have flown in space as astronauts. A survey just published in
The Economist ranked CU-Boulder as the eleventh best public
university in the entire world.
We are building a new state-of-the-art Health Sciences
Center at the former Fitzsimmons Army Medical Base in Aurora.
The overwhelming majority of our students are intelligent,
responsible, ethical men and women who care deeply about each
other and about their university.
They want and expect a first-rate education, but recently
the outstanding achievements of our students, faculty, and
staff have been overshadowed by very troubling allegations
about our football program. Among other things, there are
allegations that sex and alcohol may have been used to lure
recruits.
At the present time, some of these matters are the subject
of a criminal investigation by the Colorado Attorney General,
and some are the subject of private civil litigation against
the University of Colorado. As of today, no criminal charges
have been filed, and there have been no findings in any court.
We do not yet know all the facts with regard to these
allegations. Much of the evidence involves issues of privacy
and confidentiality, and in a number of instances the evidence
is conflicting. Nonetheless, I want to assure this subcommittee
that we take these allegations extremely seriously, and that we
are moving rapidly and responsibly to address the situation.
We will do everything in our power to find out what did
happen and to take appropriate corrective steps. So let me tell
you some of the steps we have already taken.
First, at my urging, the Board of Regents established an
independent investigative committee to examine the allegations
related to recruiting and our athletic culture. Committee
members include, among others, two former Colorado Supreme
Court Justices, two former legislators, a former prosecutor,
and victims assistance experts.
Second, we strongly supported the Governor's naming of the
Colorado Attorney General as a special prosecutor to
investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
Third, we appointed John DiBiaggio, a nationally renowned
expert in athletic reform and former president of three
distinguished universities, to examine our athletic department
policies, practices, management, and operations, and to make
recommendations for improvement.
Fourth, we placed the head football coach on paid
administrative leave pending the outcome of these
investigations.
Fifth, we have intensified our ongoing review of our
policies and procedures, not just with regard to the football
program and recruiting, but also with regard to alcohol abuse,
sexual harassment, and sexual assault on campus.
Sixth, last week we announced what we believe to be the
Nation's most stringent set of policies and practices in
Division I-A football recruiting. The new policies and
procedures are in addition to the standards of conduct
currently in place, rules that already exceeded those required
by the NCAA.
We believe that eliminating unsupervised time on campus,
eliminating the use of student hosts, imposing an 11 p.m.
curfew, and reducing the total time of the visit from the 2
days allowed by the NCAA to 1 day will provide an enhanced
level of oversight.
We will not tolerate harassment or exploitation in our
athletic department or anywhere in our university. We are
determined to restore the confidence in the University of
Colorado's ability to create an exemplary athletic and campus
culture. We are determined to have a high level of oversight
and accountability in our football program and our athletic
department.
As we learn more from the ongoing investigations, we will
take swift and decisive action as appropriate. As painful as
this experience has been, we view it as an opportunity to set
the standard for athletic recruiting and campus culture. Our
vision is to become a national leader for culture of personal
respect and responsibility in our football and athletic
programs and throughout the campus.
Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for this
opportunity, and I will be happy to answer any questions when
the time comes.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Hoffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Hoffman, President, University of
Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the ranking minority member, Rep. Schakowsky, Rep.
DeGette from my home state of Colorado, and the other members of the
Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important
topic. I especially want to thank Representative Udall, whose district
includes the University of Colorado Boulder Campus, and Representative
McInnis from Colorado's Third Congressional District, for accompanying
me today.
Before I address the topic of this hearing, I would like to give
the Subcommittee a few facts about our great University.
The four-campus University of Colorado System is a multi-billion
dollar economic enterprise that benefits not only Colorado's citizens,
but has a track record of excellence and world-wide influence.
The CU-Boulder campus is a community of 29,000 students and an
outstanding faculty and staff of over 7,200. We have a great academic
history and mission--to be a world-class research and educational
institution that serves the citizens of Colorado and the nation. We are
dedicated to providing a superior education and opportunities for
personal growth and development for our students.
Three Nobel Prize winners, and seven MacArthur Genius Award winners
are current or recent CU faculty members. In fact, only Harvard equals
CU's record of having MacArthur awardees for each of the past four
years. Among public universities, we are ranked fifth in the nation by
the National Science Foundation and first by NASA. Seventeen CU
graduates have flown in space as NASA astronauts. That is among the
highest output of any university in the nation. We are in the process
of building a new state of the art Health Sciences Center at the old
Fitzsimons Army Medical Base in Aurora, Colorado. And these are only a
few of our accomplishments.
The overwhelming majority of our students are intelligent,
responsible, ethical men and women who care deeply about each other and
their university. They want and expect a first-rate education.
Recently, the outstanding achievements of our students, faculty,
and staff have been overshadowed by deeply troubling allegations about
our football program. Among other things, there are allegations that
sex and alcohol may have been used as recruiting tools, and that other
inappropriate or even illegal conduct has occurred.
At the present time, some of these matters are the subject of a
criminal investigation by the Colorado Attorney General and some are
the subject of private civil litigation pending against the University.
As of today, no charges have been filed. There have been no findings by
any court. We do not yet know all the facts about these allegations.
Much of the evidence involves issues of privacy and confidentiality,
and in a number of instances the evidence is conflicting.
Nonetheless, I want to assure the Subcommittee that we take these
allegations extremely seriously and that we are moving rapidly and
responsibly to address the situation. We will do everything in our
power to find out what happened and to take the appropriate corrective
steps.
Among the steps we already have taken are the following:
At my urging, the Board of Regents established an Independent
Investigative Committee to examine the allegations related to
recruiting and our athletic culture. Committee members include,
among others, two former Colorado Supreme Court justices, two
former legislators, a former prosecutor, and victim's
assistance experts--all outstanding citizens. We have
repeatedly encouraged anyone with information about these
allegations to bring it to the Independent Investigative
Committee.
We strongly supported the Governor's naming of the Colorado Attorney
General as a Special Prosecutor to investigate allegations of
criminal wrongdoing.
We appointed Dr. John DiBiaggio, a nationally renowned expert in
athletic reform and former president of three distinguished
universities, as Special Assistant reporting directly to me and
the Boulder Campus Chancellor, Dr. Richard Byyny. He will
examine our athletic department policies, practices, management
and operations and make recommendations for improvement.
We placed Head Football Coach Gary Barnett on paid administrative
leave.
We have intensified our ongoing review of our policies and procedures
not just with regard to the football program and recruiting,
but also with regard to alcohol abuse, sexual harassment and
sexual assault on campus.
Last week, we announced what we believe to be the nation's most
stringent set of policies and procedures regarding Division 1A
football recruiting. The new policies and procedures are in
addition to the standards of conduct currently in place--rules
that already exceeded those required by the NCAA. We are
determined to implement measures to make our recruiting
practices the most responsible in the country. One of the new
rules eliminated unsupervised time on campus for recruits. A
parent or coach will have to accompany each recruit during a
highly structured visit to the campus. Recruiting visits will
be only one night instead of two, and the curfew will be moved
from 1 a.m. to 11 p.m. We also eliminated the practice of using
student hosts with whom recruits had spent unsupervised time. I
have provided the Subcommittee with the complete details of
this new policy.
We will not tolerate sexual harassment or exploitation in our
athletic department or elsewhere in the University. Abusive behavior
affects not only the victim, but is harmful to the learning environment
and to the sense of community within the University.
We are determined to restore confidence in the University of
Colorado's ability to create an exemplary athletic and campus culture.
We are determined to have a high level of oversight and accountability
in our football program and athletic department. As we learn more from
the ongoing investigations, we will take swift and decisive action,
whenever appropriate.
As painful as this experience has been, we view it as an
opportunity to set the standard for athletic recruiting and campus
culture. Our vision is to become a national model for a culture of
personal respect and responsibility in our football and athletic
programs and throughout the campus.
Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee for offering me this
opportunity. We look forward to working with the NCAA and with our
colleagues at other universities to address these extremely important
issues. I am happy to respond to any questions you may have.
______
University of Colorado at Boulder Football Recruitment Policy Changes
submitted for the house subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer
protection, committee on energy and commerce
Summary
Recruitment guidelines at the University of Colorado at Boulder
have been revised several times in recent years. Changes were made in
1998 and again in 2002, resulting in improvements and further
strengthening of procedures, practices and expectations. Further
revisions were announced on March 4, 2004, as part of a new model for
football recruiting practices.
In summary, the new model will:
* Strengthen and clarify behavioral expectations for recruiting visits
* Change the schedule and timing of recruiting visits
* Require adult supervision of recruits during the entire visit
* Prohibit participation in private parties
* Establish an earlier curfew for the overnight stay.
Revised Guidelines
Specific guidelines within the new model include:
* The Head Football Coach will continue to communicate the recruiting
guidelines to student-athletes.
* Football recruiting visits to campus will occur primarily after
completion of the regular football season, with only a few
exceptions such as visits by local recruits or other
extraordinary circumstances approved by the Chancellor.
* Prior to the visit, prospective student-athletes, parents, and high
school coaches will continue to receive letters explaining all
expectations, including behavioral standards.
* Recruitment visits will be limited to one overnight stay, rather than
the current two-night stay.
* Prospective student-athletes will be supervised by their parents or a
designated coach from the time of arrival until departure. The
involvement of player hosts will be discontinued.
* On the night of arrival, curfew will be set at 11:00 p.m., rather
than the current 1:00 a.m. curfew, and will be documented by a
designated coach.
* Recruitment day will be scheduled and supervised by Athletics
Department staff and will include:
* Breakfast with coaches and players
* Meetings with faculty members and academic advisors
* Review of campus academic expectations, support services and
sportsmanship issues
* Review of campus and program policies, processes and expectations
regarding responsible alcohol use, sexual and other
assault, date rape, sexual harassment, and all aspects of
the Student Code of Conduct
* Meetings with football staff, departmental staff and players
* A mandatory exit interview will be held with each recruit who
visits the campus.
* Departure for home in the late afternoon or evening of the
recruitment day.
* Recruits already are prohibited from using alcohol or drugs. They
also are specifically prohibited from attending private parties
or entering bars or strip clubs.
* All activities attended by recruits will be planned, approved and
supervised by a designated coach.
* Coaches, student athletes and recruits continue to be required to
adhere to all NCAA regulations prior to and during a recruiting
visit.
Enforcement of Recruitment Guidelines
Sanctions for violations will be strengthened and clarified for all
involved in the recruitment process. Specific sanctions include:
* Any prospective student-athlete violating recruitment guidelines will
not be admitted to the University.
* Violations by current student-athletes or coaches will result in
disciplinary action appropriate to the level of severity of the
violation.
* Violations of recruiting guidelines by current student athletes which
could also result in violations of the CU-Boulder Student Code
of will be referred immediately to the campus Office of
Judicial Affairs for prompt investigation and adjudication.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you.
Mr. Berst.
STATEMENT OF S. DAVID BERST
Mr. Berst. Thank you. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and other--are you hearing me?
Mr. Stearns. I think you just have to bring it a little
closer to you.
Mr. Berst. Okay. Thank you. Do you have me now?
Mr. Stearns. I think it is on.
Mr. Berst. It is on now.
Mr. Stearns. All right.
Mr. Berst. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and
other distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you regarding the national
association's newly formed task force. One of the NCAA's first
principles is indeed the well being of student athletes being
of paramount importance to the association.
Headlines of the last 3 weeks, however, suggest that the
well being of students and student athletes is at risk on many
campuses. We have seen allegations of behaviors that are
morally reprehensible and organizationally unacceptable. The
University of Colorado is not the only campus where it has been
charged that recruiting practices, especially those associated
with official visits, exceeded standards for acceptable
behavior.
Let me be clear as well. The use of alcohol, drugs, and sex
as recruiting inducements cannot and will not be tolerated.
Revelations of activities that include such practices on
campuses should be a wakeup call to all campuses to reassess
standards and practices to reaffirm values and to reiterate the
expectations for behaviors and the consequences if those
expectations are not met.
The campus and its administrators are the first line of
defense. They are the ones, as President Hoffman has done this
past week, who must draw the boundaries around what a
university will and will not do in the very competitive world
of intercollegiate athletics.
When allegations relate to criminal acts or violations of
law, it was rightly pointed out that such allegations are not
within the purview of the NCAA and are rightly investigated by
campus and law enforcement authorities. The association,
however, does have a responsibility through its members to set
national policy and to govern various practices of an
intercollegiate athletics program.
Once approved, however, it is the responsibility of each
campus to apply the bylaws to local practices. The ideal would
be an NCAA--and NCAA institutions--where headlines of crimes
and violations of either laws or bylaws appear so rarely that
we are struck by their infrequency rather than their common
occurrence.
There are three important questions about why I am here
today. What is the role of the NCAA in regard to past
recruiting and recruiting visits? How has the NCAA responded?
And what will its role be in the future?
The official visit is an important event for the decision
making process for a high school athlete and the institution.
This is a time for the athlete, and hopefully the family, to
spend time on the campus, get a feel for the environment, look
over athletic facilities, meet coaches and other personnel.
NCAA rules to date largely do, in fact, address logistical
issues. These bylaws cover the length of an official visit, the
number of visits, the amount that can be spent, the radius
where entertainment can take place. There is little in the
bylaws that attempts to define the behavior of an institution
or prospect during such visits.
The NCAA rules have presupposed that institution will
employ--institutions will employ a level of common sense and
common decency to guide behavior. Failing that, however, the
NCAA should indeed step in and address both the elements of an
official visit and the expectations and accountability for
behavior.
Within a few days of the first headlines, NCAA President
Miles Brand responded by creating an ad hoc task force to
address recruiting issues and appointed me as the chair. It is
the sole role of this task force to fast track a review of the
issues of NCAA legislation to recommend solutions. The task
force intends to propose changes that ensure an adequate
opportunity for prospects to evaluate the academic, campus,
social, team, and community environments, while also requiring
standards of appropriate conduct and accountability.
The task force also begins its work with the presumption
that regardless of the actual scope of alleged misbehaviors we
should normalize the recruitment of student athletes to
approximate what other exceptional prospects receive, such as
music or art prodigies.
We do not intend to go through another recruiting season
without new standards in place. And when those standards are in
place, violations will be investigated and adjudicated swiftly.
Finally, allow me to note that university presidents will
continue to carry the burden in setting standards at the campus
level and holding institutions--individuals accountable. The
role of the NCAA as an association is to support those efforts
through effective national policy that leaves room for
institutional discretion.
In the long run, however, success will come only when those
involved in the operation of intercollegiate athletics programs
sincerely believe and support the principle that doing the
right thing is at least as important as getting the right
recruits.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of S. David Berst follows:]
Prepared Statement of S. David Berst, NCAA Vice-President for Division
I and Chair, NCAA Task Force on Recruiting
Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Collegiate
Athletic Association, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and
inform you of the Association's role regarding recruiting practices and
the newly formed task force that will review NCAA recruiting rules and
bylaws. I am David Berst, NCAA vice-president for Division I and chair
of the NCAA Task Force on Recruiting. I have been employed by the NCAA
for more than 30 years and have worked directly with the Division I
governance structure during the last five years. Division I is composed
of 329 colleges and universities and is one of three divisions within
the NCAA, a private association of approximately 1,200 four-year
institutions of higher education and athletics conferences. There are
some 360,000 student-athletes competing at these NCAA member schools.
It is the NCAA's first principle and an article of faith between
higher education and the students they serve that the well-being of
student-athletes is of paramount importance to the Association, by
which I mean to include the member institutions, the national office
staff, the governance entities and the body of bylaws that govern
intercollegiate athletics. The headlines of the last three weeks,
however, suggest that the well-being of students and enrolled and
prospective student-athletes is at risk on many campuses. We have seen
allegations of behaviors that are morally reprehensible and
organizationally unacceptable. Although the University of Colorado has
been a focal point for such allegations, it appears not to be the only
campus where it has been charged that recruiting practices--especially
those associated with official visits--exceed standards for acceptable
behavior. Let me be perfectly clear. The use of alcohol, drugs and sex
as recruiting inducements cannot and will not be tolerated.
ROLE OF THE CAMPUS
NCAA President Myles Brand has said publicly that revelations of
activities that include such practices on any campus should be a wake-
up call to all campuses to reassess their standards and practices, to
reaffirm the values of their institutions with which intercollegiate
athletics must align, and to reiterate the expectations for behaviors
and the consequences if those expectations are not met. Indeed, as the
University of Colorado has demonstrated, the campus and its
administrators are the first line of defense. They are the ones, as
President Hoffman has done this past week, who must draw the boundaries
around what a university will and will not do in the very competitive
world of athletics recruiting. One university trying to outdo another
for the attention of highly talented high school seniors is nothing
new. The success of any sports endeavor begins with the ability to
assemble athletically proficient individuals whose skills match the
needs of a team at a particular point of time. Being just one player
short in a critical spot can make the difference between an average
season and a good one and between a good season and a championship
year.
Competition for recruits has been guided primarily by NCAA bylaws
that attempt to create a ``level playing field'' for all within a
division. Even so, individual institutions have retained discretion
over recruiting practices and the length to which one school will
compete with another for a particular prospect. Indeed, there may be
disagreement from campus to campus about what the boundaries should be.
However, no one would argue that recruiting practices, or any other
practices and behaviors associated with higher education and
intercollegiate athletics, should extend to breaking the law or
abridging the morals of society.
LAWS VS. BYLAWS
Some of the allegations at Colorado and on other campuses relate to
criminal acts or violations of law. Such allegations are not within the
purview of the NCAA and are rightly investigated by the campus and law
enforcement authorities. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, charges
are drawn, arrests are made and trials are held. There is no role for
the NCAA in allegations of rape or other criminal activity.
Investigating such allegations rests entirely with law enforcement
agencies at the local, state or national levels.
The Association, however, does have the responsibility through
application of the will of its members to set national policy or bylaws
that govern the various practices of an intercollegiate athletics
program. These bylaws include standards for such activities as the
conduct and employment of personnel, amateurism, the length of playing
and practice seasons, financial aid and recruiting--to name only a few.
Proposals establishing or amending these bylaws derive entirely from
the membership of the Association. They debate and either approve or
reject every proposal. Once approved, it is the responsibility of each
campus to apply the bylaws to their local practices. The national
office staff can and does assist in the process through interpretation
of the bylaws with regard to specific case application, and the
enforcement staff is charged with investigating alleged violations of
the Association's bylaws and for presenting cases to a committee of
institutional peers for adjudication when the facts appear to support
that violations have occurred.
It is critical to understand the differences among allegations at
Colorado in the current instance or any other institution between
violations of criminal law and violations of NCAA bylaws. And yet, the
NCAA and higher education understand that there is a responsibility
within college sports to create an appropriate environment for sports
on campus. It should be an environment in which the operation of
intercollegiate athletics is aligned with institutional values, moral
precepts and respect for human kind in such a way that headlines
decrying violations of either laws or bylaws appear so rarely that we
are struck by their infrequency rather that their common occurrence.
ROLE OF THE ASSOCIATION
There are three important questions relevant to my appearance
before you today. What has been the role of the NCAA as an association
with regard to recruiting and recruiting visits? How has the NCAA
responded to the current allegations of recruiting visit abuse and what
will be its role in the future?
The official visit is an important event in the decision-making
process for a high school athlete. These athletes have likely already
been in correspondence with a number of coaches from various colleges
and universities, have probably had some of them in their homes to meet
with their parents, and have begun the process of narrowing their
search for a campus that is right for them. The official visit is the
time for the athlete, and hopefully the family, to spend time on the
campus, to get a feel for the environment, to look over the athletics
facilities, to meet the coaches and other personnel and to get to know
potential teammates.
The role of the NCAA to date in this process has been largely to
address logistical issues. (A comprehensive collection of the
Association's bylaws with regard to official visits is attached to this
testimony for the subcommittee's review.) These bylaws cover the length
of the official visit, the amount that can be spent on entertainment
for the prospect, issues around transportation, policies regarding
accompanying individuals, the cost of meals and lodging, and the role
of student hosts. Except for general language in Bylaw 13.5.2 that
addresses excessive entertainment, there is little in the bylaws that
attempts to define the behavior of the institution or prospect during
official visits. NCAA recruiting rules presuppose that institutions
will employ a level of common sense and common decency to guide
behavior. It appears that there is agreement that this is no longer
sufficient and that the NCAA should act swiftly to address both the
elements of an official visit and the expectations and accountability
for behavior.
NCAA TASK FORCE ON RECRUITING
Within a few days of the first headlines regarding allegations of
the use of sex and alcohol during recruiting visits, NCAA President
Brand responded by creating an ad hoc task force to address recruiting
issues and appointed me as chair. It is the role of this task force to
``fast track'' a review of the issues, NCAA legislation, and to
recommend solutions. The task force intends to propose changes that
ensure an adequate opportunity for prospects to evaluate the academic,
campus, social, team and community environments, while also requiring
standards of appropriate conduct and accountability. As chair, I also
asked the task force to begin its work with the presumption that
regardless of the actual scope of alleged misbehaviors, it will
consider possible changes that focus on a process appropriate for
exceptional students (e.g., music, art, mathematics prodigies) making a
visit to a prospective campus and not just prospective student-
athletes. In other words, how can we normalize the recruitment of
student-athletes to approximate what other exceptional prospective
students would experience?
Although the work of the task force has only begun--in fact, it has
had only one teleconference and will not meet in person until March
29--the process for review and consideration of alternatives began
almost immediately. A group of national office staff members have met
twice to propose options for the task force to consider. To provide
some flavor for changes under consideration, the following are examples
of discussion suggestions in five areas: transportation, meals and
lodging, entertainment, game day activities, duration of official
visit, and official visit activities.
1. Transportation.
a. Require institutions providing air transportation to and from an
official visit to use commercial transportation at coach-class airfare;
prohibit institutions from using institutional and noncommercial
airplanes.
b. Permit institutions to cover the transportation costs of any
parent or legal guardian accompanying the prospect during the official
visit.
2. Meals and Lodging.
a. Require institutions to provide lodging to prospects on official
visits that is comparable in value to lodging permitted by the
institution for institutional staff members during business trips.
b. Require institutions to provide lodging on campus.
c. Require institutions to provide meals to prospects during
official visits in institutional dining facilities used by the general
student body.
d. Require institutions to provide meals to prospects during
official visits that do not exceed the value of the meal allowed to
institutional staff members while on institutional business trips.
3. Entertainment.
a. Eliminate all off-campus entertainment.
b. Eliminate all off-campus entertainment that is not supervised by
an institutional staff member.
c. Require institutions to use host programs that are used when
providing tours to prospective students who make campus visits.
4. Game Day Activities.
a. Prohibit institutions from arranging miscellaneous, personalized
promotional activities (e.g., game-day jerseys that include the
prospect's name) during a prospect's official visit.
b. Prohibit institutions from engaging in any game-day simulations
during a prospect's official visit.
5. Duration of Official Visit.
a. Eliminate all official visits; require all visits to an
institution's campus to be self-financed by the prospect.
b. Reduce the length of the visit to from 48 hours to 24 or 36
hours.
c. Reduce the number of official visits that a prospect may take
from five to either four or three visits.
6. Official Visit Activities.
a. Require institutions to organize activities for prospective
student-athletes during official visits that are identical to
activities that are organized or arranged for prospective students in
general who make campus visits.
b. Require prospects to attend a class or academic orientation
session during an official visit.
CONCLUSION
President Hoffman and the University of Colorado took an important
and self-sacrificing step last week with new standards for official
visits. The result may be that the school has put itself at a
competitive disadvantage with other schools that do not impose similar
limits. Some of the steps President Hoffman took may be the same as
those recommended by the NCAA Task Force on Recruiting, which would
have the effect of reducing or eliminating the competitive risk to
Colorado. We will know soon. Not only is the review by the task force
being ``fast tracked,'' but so is the development of new policy. Like
other legislative or quasi-legislative bodies, the NCAA's process often
is deliberative and can appear to move slowly. The work of the task
force will move much faster. We do not intend to go through another
football recruiting season without new standards in place.
And when those standards are in place, violations will be
investigated and adjudicated swiftly. University presidents carry the
burden in setting standards at the campus level and holding individuals
accountable. The role of the NCAA as an Association is to support those
efforts through effective national policy that leaves room for
institutional discretion. In the long run, success will come only when
those involved in the operation of intercollegiate athletics programs
sincerely believe and support the principle that doing the right thing
is at least as important as getting the right recruits.
Thank you.
______
Summary of NCAA Bylaws Regarding Official Recruiting Visits
13.5.1 General Restrictions
An institution may entertain a prospect and his or her parents [or
legal guardian(s)] or spouse, at a scale comparable to that of normal
student life, only on the institution's campus (or, on an official
visit, within 30 miles of the institution's campus). It is not
permissible to entertain other relatives or friends of a prospect at
any site. For violations of this bylaw in which the value of the offer
or inducement is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual (i.e.,
prospective or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected
conditioned upon the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a
charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain
ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt
of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit.
Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual's repayment
shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff with the institution's
self-report of the violations. (Revised: 4/24/03 effective 8/1/03)
13.5.1.1 Athletics Representatives
Entertainment and contact by representatives of the institution's
athletics interests during the official visit is prohibited.
13.5.2 Excessive Entertainment
A member institution may not arrange or permit excessive
entertainment of a prospect on the campus or elsewhere (e.g., hiring a
band for a dance specifically for the entertainment of the prospect, a
chauffeured limousine, a helicopter).
13.5.3 Purchase of Game Tickets
An institution may not reserve tickets for purchase by a prospect
(or individuals accompanying the prospect) to attend one of its
athletics contests except on an official visit (see Bylaw 13.7.5.2).
Tickets may be purchased only in the same manner as any other member of
the general public. (Adopted: 1/10/92)
13.5.4 Complimentary Admissions--Conference Tournaments
Conferences approved to host an NCAA YES clinic in conjunction with
their conference championship may provide complimentary admissions to
YES clinic participants to attend the conference championship.
(Adopted: 1/14/97)
13.5.5 Professional Sports Tickets
Tickets to professional sports contests made available to a member
institution on a complimentary basis may not be provided to prospects.
13.5.6 Alumni and Friends
An institution's staff member or a representative of its athletics
interests may entertain alumni or other friends of the institution in
the home town of a prospect, provided those entertained are not friends
of any particular prospect being recruited by the institution.
13.6.2.1 General Restrictions
A member institution may pay the prospect's actual round-trip
transportation costs for his or her official visit to its campus,
provided a direct route between the prospect's home and the
institution's campus is used. Use of a limousine or helicopter for such
transportation is prohibited.
13.6.2.2 Automobile Transportation
When a prospect travels by automobile on an official paid visit,
the institution may pay round-trip expenses to the individual incurring
the expense (except the prospect's coach as provided in Bylaw 13.9.1.1)
at the same mileage rate it allows its own personnel. Any automobile
may be used by the prospect, provided the automobile is not owned or
operated or its use arranged by the institution or any representative
of its athletics interests. (Revised: 1/11/94)
13.6.2.2.1 Prospect's Friends and Relatives
A prospect's friends, relatives or legal guardian(s) may receive
cost-free transportation to visit a member institution's campus only by
accompanying the prospect at the time the prospect travels in an
automobile to visit the campus.
13.6.2.2.2 Use of Automobile
The institution or representatives of its athletics interests shall
not provide an automobile for use during the official visit by the
prospect or by a student host.
13.6.2.2.3 Coach Accompanying Prospect
Except as permitted in Bylaw 13.6.2.4, coaching staff members shall
not accompany a prospect in the coach's sport to or from an official
visit unless the prospect travels only by automobile. If such
transportation is used, the 48-hour period of the official visit shall
begin when the coach begins transporting the prospect to campus. A
coach who makes an in-person, off-campus contact (i.e., any dialogue in
excess of an exchange of a greeting) with that prospect [or the
prospect's parent(s)] during a permissible contact period prior to
transporting the prospect to campus for an official visit is charged
with a countable contact. Upon completion of the 48-hour period, the
coach shall terminate contact with the prospect immediately. (Adopted:
1/10/95 effective 8/1/95, Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 11/12/97)
13.6.2.2.3.1 Division I-AA Football Exception I-AA
In Division I-AA football, any member of an institution's athletics
department (except a volunteer coach per Bylaw 11.01.6) who has been
certified pursuant to a conference certification program may provide
such transportation for a prospect between the prospect's home or
educational institution and the member institution. (Adopted: 1/10/91
effective 8/1/91)
13.6.2.3 Air Transportation
The air fare for commercial transportation for the official visit
may not exceed coach (or comparable) class. Coaching staff members
shall not accompany a prospect to or from an official visit when air
travel is used, except as permitted in Bylaw 13.6.2.4. (Revised:1/10/95
effective 8/1/95)
13.6.2.3.1 Ticket Discounts
An institution may not arrange payment of the airline ticket to
allow a prospect [or the prospect's relatives, friends or legal
guardian(s)] to take advantage of ticket bonuses, rebates, refunds or
other benefits connected with the purchase of the ticket.
13.6.2.3.2 Institution's Airplane
An institution may use its own airplane to transport a prospect to
the campus for an official visit, provided relatives, other friends or
legal guardian(s) do not accompany the prospect.
13.6.2.3.3 Noncommercial Airplane
Whenever an aircraft (other than a commercial airplane) is used to
transport a prospect, payment for its use shall be at the established
charter rates at the airport where the craft is based. The institution
shall be prepared to demonstrate satisfactorily that such payment has
been made. (Revised: 1/10/90)
13.6.2.4 From Airport
During the official visit, any member of an institution's athletics
department staff may provide transportation for a prospect and the
prospect's parents or legal guardians between the campus and the bus or
train station or major airport nearest the campus.
13.6.2.5 To/From Site of Competition
A prospect may be transported to campus for an official visit from
the site of his or her athletics competition or the reverse
arrangement, provided only actual transportation expenses are paid and
the cost of the transportation does not exceed the cost of
transportation between the prospect's home or educational institution
and the institution's campus.
13.6.2.6 From Educational Institution
An institution may pay actual transportation costs for the prospect
to return to his or her home after an official visit that originated at
the prospect's educational institution, provided the cost of the
transportation to the legal residence does not exceed the cost of
transportation to the educational institution.
13.6.2.7 Visiting Two or More Institutions
Two or more institutions to which a prospect is making official
visits on the same trip may provide travel expenses, provided there is
no duplication of expenses, only actual and necessary expenses are
provided, and the 48-hour visit limitation is observed at each
institution.
13.6.2.8 Transportation of Prospect's Relatives, Friends or Legal
Guardian(s)
An institution shall not permit its athletics department staff
members or representatives of its athletics interests to pay, provide
or arrange for the payment of transportation costs incurred by
relatives, friends or legal guardian(s) of a prospect to visit the
campus or elsewhere; however, an institution may:
(a) Provide automobile-mileage reimbursement to a prospect on an
official visit, even if relatives or friends accompany the prospect;
however, in that event the trip shall count as an official paid visit
only for each recruited prospect in the automobile; and (Revised: 1/11/
94)
(b) Provide local transportation between its campus and the nearest
airport for the parents, relatives or legal guardian(s) of a prospect
making an official visit.
13.6.2.9 Eligibility Ramifications--Restitution for Receipt of Improper
Benefits
For violations of Bylaw 13.6.2 in which the value of the
transportation is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual
(i.e., prospective or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected
conditioned upon the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a
charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain
ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt
of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit.
Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual's repayment
shall be forwarded to the enforcement services staff with the
institution's self-report of the violation. (Adopted: 10/28/97,
Revised: 11/1/00)
13.7.5.1 General Restrictions
An institution may provide entertainment, which may not be
excessive, on the official visit only for a prospect and the prospect's
parents [or legal guardian(s)] or spouse and only within a 30-mile
radius of the institution's main campus. Entertainment and contact by
representatives of the institution's athletics interests during the
official visit are prohibited. It is not permissible to entertain other
relatives or friends (including dates) of a prospect at any time at any
site. For violations of this bylaw in which the value of the
entertainment is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual (i.e.,
prospective or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected
conditioned upon the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a
charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain
ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt
of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit.
Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual's repayment
shall be forwarded to the enforcement services staff with the
institution's self-report of the violation. (Revised: 10/28/97, 11/1/
00)
13.7.5.1.1 Meals and Lodging While in Transit
It is permissible for an institution to pay a prospect's actual
costs for reasonable expenses (e.g., meals, lodging) incurred while
traveling to and from campus on the official visit.
13.7.5.2 Complimentary Admissions
During the official visit, a maximum of three complimentary
admissions to a home athletics event at any facility within a 30-mile
radius of the institution's main campus in which the institution's
intercollegiate team practices or competes-- may be provided to a
prospect. Such complimentary admissions are for the exclusive use of
the prospect and those persons accompanying the prospect on the visit
and must be issued only through a pass list on an individual-game
basis. Such admissions may provide seating only in the general seating
area of the facility utilized for conducting the event. Providing
seating during the conduct of the event (including intermission) for
the prospect or those persons accompanying the prospect in the
facility's press box, special seating box(es) or bench area is
specifically prohibited. For violations of this bylaw in which the
individual receives an excessive number of complimentary admissions,
and the value of the excessive admissions is $100 or less, the
eligibility of the individual (i.e., prospective or enrolled student-
athlete) shall not be affected conditioned upon the individual repaying
the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice. The
individual, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the
institution has knowledge of the receipt of the impermissible benefit
until the individual repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw
remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and
documentation of the individual's repayment shall be forwarded to the
enforcement services staff with the institution's self-report of the
violation. (Revised: 1/10/90 effective 8/1/90, 1/11/94, 10/28/97, 11/1/
00 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 4/24/03)
13.7.5.2.1 Conference Tournaments
A member institution may not provide complimentary admissions to a
prospect for a postseason conference tournament. The prospect may
purchase tickets only in the same manner as any other member of the
general public. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 8/1/91)
13.7.5.2.2 NCAA Championships or Other Postseason Contests
The provision of complimentary or reduced-cost admissions to
prospects for an NCAA championship (all rounds) or other postseason
contests (e.g., bowl game, NAIA or NIT championship) constitutes
excessive entertainment and is prohibited. The prospect may purchase
these tickets only in the same manner as any other member of the
general public. (Revised: 1/10/92)
13.7.5.2.3 Purchase of Game Tickets in Same Locale
An institution may reserve tickets, only for the use of immediate
family members accompanying a prospect during an official visit and for
seat locations adjacent to the complimentary seats being provided to
the prospect. These tickets must be purchased at face value. (Adopted:
1/10/92)
13.7.5.3 Parking
An institution may arrange special on-campus parking for prospects
during an official visit. (Adopted: 1/10/92)
13.7.5.4 Cash to Prospect
The institution or representatives of its athletics interests shall
not provide cash to a prospect for entertainment purposes.
13.7.5.5 Student Host
The institution may provide the following to a student host
entertaining a prospect:
(a) A maximum of $30 for each day of the visit to cover all actual
costs of entertaining the prospect (and the prospect's parents, legal
guardians or spouse), excluding the cost of meals and admission to
campus athletics events. These funds may not be used for the purchase
of souvenirs such as T-shirts or other institutional mementos. It is
permissible to provide the student host with an additional $15 per day
for each additional prospect the host entertains; (Revised: 1/10/90
effective 8/1/90, 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96)
(b) A complimentary meal, provided the student host is accompanying
the prospect during the prospect's official visit; and (Adopted: 1/10/
92)
(c) A complimentary admission to a campus athletics event, provided
the ticket is utilized to accompany a prospect to that event during the
prospect's official visit.
13.7.5.5.1 Eligibility Ramifications--Restitution for Receipt of
Improper Benefits
For violations of Bylaw 13.7.5.5 in which the value of the benefit
to the individual (i.e., prospective or enrolled student-athlete) is
$100 or less, the eligibility of the individual shall not be affected
conditioned upon the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a
charity of his or her choice. The individual, however shall remain
ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt
of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit.
Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual's repayment
shall be forwarded to the enforcement services staff with the
institution's self-report of the violation. (Adopted: 10/28/97,
Revised: 11/1/00)
13.7.5.5.2 Multiple Hosts
If several students host a prospect, the $30 per day entertainment
money may be utilized to cover the actual and necessary expenses
incurred by the prospect and all hosts. Only one student host per
prospect may be provided a free meal if restaurant facilities are
utilized. Violations of this bylaw shall be considered a violation
committed by the conference office; however, they shall not affect the
student-athlete's eligibility. (Revised: 1/10/92, 1/16/93, 1/9/96
effective 8/1/96, 4/24/03 effective 8/1/03)
13.7.5.5.3 Nonqualifier Prohibition
The student host must be enrolled in the member institution being
visited by a prospect. A nonqualifier (see Bylaw 14.02.9) may not serve
as a student host during his or her first academic year in residence.
Violations of this bylaw shall be considered a violation committed by
the institution; however, they shall not affect the student-athlete's
eligibility. (Revised: 3/19/97, 4/24/03 effective 8/1/03)
13.7.5.5.4 Use of Automobile
The institution or representatives of its athletics interests shall
not provide an automobile for use by the prospect or the student host.
For violations of this bylaw in which the value of the offer or
inducement is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual (i.e.,
prospective or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected
conditioned upon the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a
charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain
ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt
of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit.
Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual's repayment
shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff with the institution's
self-report of the violations. (Revised: 4/24/03 effective 8/1/03)
13.7.5.6 Student Support Group Assisting in Recruiting
An institution may not provide a free meal or entertainment to a
member of an institutional student support group that assists in the
recruitment of a prospect during an official visit unless the student
is designated as the one student host for that prospect. Any additional
arrangement between the institution and members of such a support group
(e.g., compensation, providing a uniform) is left to the discretion of
the institution. (Adopted: 1/16/93)
13.7.5.7 Meals on Official Visit
The cost of actual meals, not to exceed three per day, on the
official visit for a prospect and the prospect's parents, legal
guardian(s) or spouse need not be included in the $30-per-day
entertainment expense. A dessert or after-dinner snack at the coach's
residence also may be excluded. (Adopted: 1/10/92, Revised: 1/11/94
effective 8/1/94, 1/10/95 effective 8/1/95)
13.7.5.7.1 Entertainment at Staff Member's Home
A luncheon, dinner or brunch at the home of an institutional staff
member (e.g., the athletics director, a coach, a faculty member or the
institution's president) may be held for a prospect on an official
visit, provided the entertainment is on a scale comparable to that of
normal student life, is not excessive in nature and occurs on only one
occasion. (Revised: 1/9/96)
13.7.5.7.2 Eligibility Ramifications--Restitution for Receipt of
Improper Benefits
For violations of Bylaw 13.7.5.7 in which the value of the
excessive meals is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual
(i.e., prospective or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected
conditioned upon the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a
charity of his or her choice. The individual, however, shall remain
ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the receipt
of the impermissible benefit until the individual repays the benefit.
Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per
Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the individual's repayment
shall be forwarded to the enforcement services staff with the
institution's self-report of the violation. (Adopted: 10/28/97,
Revised: 11/1/00)
13.7.5.8 Normal Retail Cost
If a boat, snowmobile, recreational vehicle or similar recreational
equipment (including those provided by an institutional staff member or
a representative of the institution's athletics interests) is used to
entertain a prospect or the prospect's parents, legal guardian(s) and
spouse, the normal retail cost of the use of such equipment shall be
assessed against the $30-per-day entertainment figure; further, if such
normal retail cost exceeds the $30-per-day entertainment allowance,
such entertainment may not be provided. For violations of this bylaw in
which the value of the offer or inducement is $100 or less, the
eligibility of the individual (i.e., prospective or enrolled student-
athlete) shall not be affected conditioned upon the individual repaying
the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice. The
individual, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the
institution has knowledge of the receipt of the impermissible benefit
until the individual repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw
remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and
documentation of the individual's repayment shall be forwarded to the
enforcement staff with the institution's self-report of the violation.
(Adopted: 1/10/92, Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96, 4/24/03 effective
8/1/03)
13.7.6 Entertainment on Official Visit for Spouse, Parent or Legal
Guardian of Prospect
A member institution shall limit entertainment, meals and lodging
on the prospect's official visit to a prospect, the prospect's parents
[or legal guardian(s)] and spouse. For violations of this bylaw 13.7.6
in which the value of the excessive entertainment, meals and lodging is
$100 or less, the eligibility of the individual (i.e., prospective or
enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected conditioned upon the
individual repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her
choice. The individual, however, shall be ineligible from the time the
institution has knowledge of the receipt of the impermissible benefit
until the individual repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw
remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1. Documentation
of the individual's repayment shall be forwarded to the enforcement
services staff. (Adopted: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/02)
13.7.7 Lodging for Additional Persons
Additional persons (e.g., prospect's brother, sister, friend) may
stay in the same room as the prospect or parents, spouse or legal
guardian(s) of the prospect, but the institution shall not pay the
costs resulting from the additional occupants. The additional occupants
shall not be prospects being recruited by the institution. For
violations of this bylaw in which the value of the offer or inducement
is $100 or less, the eligibility of the individual (i.e., prospective
or enrolled student-athlete) shall not be affected conditioned upon the
individual repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her
choice. The individual, however, shall remain ineligible from the time
the institution has knowledge of the receipt of the impermissible
benefit until the individual repays the benefit. Violations of this
bylaw remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and
documentation of the individual's repayment shall be forwarded to the
enforcement staff with the institution's self-report of the violation.
(Adopted: 1/10/92; Revised: 4/24/03 effective 8/1/03)
13.9.1 Entertainment Restrictions
Entertainment of a high-school, college-preparatory school or two-
year college coach or any other individual responsible for teaching or
directing an activity in which a prospect is involved shall be confined
to a member institution's campus and shall be limited to providing a
maximum of two complimentary admissions (issued only through a pass
list) to home intercollegiate athletics events, which must be issued on
an individual-game basis. Such entertainment shall not include food and
refreshments, room expenses, or the cost of transportation to and from
the campus. It is not permissible to provide complimentary admissions
to any postseason competition (e.g., NCAA championship, conference
tournament, bowl game). An institutional coaching staff member is
expressly prohibited from spending funds to entertain the prospect's
coach on or off the member institution's campus. (Revised: 4/3/02)
13.11.4 Prospect's Visit
A member institution shall not publicize (or arrange for publicity
of) a prospect's visit to the institution's campus. Further, a prospect
may not participate in team activities that would make the public or
media aware of the prospect's visit to the institution (e.g., running
out of the tunnel with team, celebratory walks to or around the
stadium/arena, on-field pregame celebrations). Violations of this bylaw
do not affect a prospect's eligibility; however, the violation shall be
considered an institutional violation per Constitution 2.8.1. (Revised:
1/14/97, 9/12/03)
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman.
I will be starting--opening with my questions. Mr. Berst,
you heard Mr. Williams give his five-point program, and you
heard Dr. Hoffman talk about what she intends to--she is
putting in place here.
It seemed to me if both these individuals are talking about
reform, why are you not way ahead of the curve? Why haven't you
done something a long time ago?
Now, our colleague supported the NCAA and what you are
doing. But it seems to me that there is some culpability on the
NCAA because Mr. Williams, who has got a broad background on
this, both as an athlete, as a professor of law, he has
outlined five steps. And the people I have talked to who are
not testifying today, people say that there is a need for huge
reform.
And the question is, you said we tend to promote change,
and we hope by the next fall to have in place these reforms.
Why haven't you been leading the charge? Is it because of
something that is preventing you from doing it? I guess the
main question--don't you think what Mr. Williams said, those
five points, are good, should be put in place? Just yes or no.
Mr. Berst. I have--it is a more complex answer than yes or
no.
Mr. Stearns. No, I know. But let us just take his first
one. Let us get to best practices. Let us get to philosophy
instead of talking about just general, you know, rules or
procedures. Why not talk about what we are trying to do here. I
think the No. 1 thing he said it seems like--that seems pretty
important to me.
Mr. Berst. I agree entirely, depending on the area in which
we are speaking.
Mr. Stearns. Best practices depends upon an area?
Mr. Berst. Well, if I may explain----
Mr. Stearns. Sure.
Mr. Berst. [continuing] In regard to violations of the
typical NCAA rules that you may be aware of, and the
enforcement program that is employed in regard to those bylaws,
I in fact would be proud of that system. In order to address a
culture, however, you also need the support of the various
institutions that make up your constituency in order to attack
that program.
In regard to the issues that we are talking about, the
behavior of institutional personnel, institutions have
maintained autonomy, and they have basically said to us in the
past----
Mr. Stearns. So you are saying the university is
responsible for taking care of it.
Mr. Berst. Not now I am not. I am saying that up to this
point institutions have said to us that we can handle that. I
think the recent revelations that have come about--and they far
exceed issues in intercollegiate athletics--require attention
to the cultural issues.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. Berst. And I believe it provides the opportunity for
the NCAA----
Mr. Stearns. Let me get to the cultural issues. Do you
think if a student athlete violates the rules for drugs,
alcohol, and sex, it should be one strike and you are out?
Mr. Berst. I am sorry. I am not sure where that came from.
The----
Mr. Stearns. In other words, the school would lose their
recruit because of it. I mean, do you think that is too
draconian?
Mr. Berst. No, that is an easy one. If a recruiting
violation occurs, that individual is in fact ineligible within
that----
Mr. Stearns. As it stands now.
Mr. Berst. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. Well, should the school lose something, too,
because--not just the athlete, should the school--is the school
now--something happens to the school?
Mr. Berst. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. And what happens to the school?
Mr. Berst. It is left to a nine-member group of the
Committee on Infractions, seven of which come from other
schools, two of which are public members.
Mr. Stearns. You heard Dr. Hoffman's presentation. Do you
think that perhaps the standard that she is implementing should
be the standards for all schools?
Mr. Berst. Those, in fact, will be part of the discussion
of the task force and are included among our list of options.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Hoffman, has Colorado been sanctioned by
the NCAA for violations since you took over?
Ms. Hoffman. On the basis of what happened to our previous
coach, these were different kinds of violations. We are in the
process of working through some violations that took place
under our previous coach and under our previous president.
Mr. Stearns. It was mentioned earlier that many schools
have a compliance officer, a compliance coordinator. Before you
instituted these things, did you have a compliance coordinator?
Ms. Hoffman. We have had a compliance coordinator for many
years.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Mr. Williams, is there anything you
would like to comment, based upon what Mr. Berst said?
Mr. Williams. Well, I think the NCAA has had rules, and I
think that to a certain degree he is correct in the sense that
the universities have tried to be sort of going their own way.
But I still believe that if you look at the rules, the rules--
and they are not David's fault. The rules basically have been
designed in many cases to deal with something that just
happened when there is a violation.
I will give you a good example. Everybody is up in arms
about the young man who was on jet to I think Florida State it
was. The fact of the matter is if you read the rules, there is
nothing in the rules that says you can't use a jet. However,
you can't take the kid in a helicopter.
And so I wouldn't be--you know, the way the rules have been
in the past, you know, you wouldn't be surprised if what we
will get now is, ``Well, you can't use the jet.'' I still go
back to the fact there should be philosophy. There needs to be
best practices.
On the compliance piece, I would say one of the things--you
know, any major university--and I am sure what President
Hoffman does at Colorado is we have a lot of compliance issues
at our university, and one of the questions I would always ask
universities, is your compliance person in athletics totally
separated from all of the compliance that goes on at a campus?
Our compliance officer reports to me as the General
Counsel, not the Athletic Director. In many athletic
departments we are asking the compliance officer to basically
guard over actually who they work for--the athletic people.
Mr. Stearns. My time has expired. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a
few observations and then just leave it open for the panel to
comment on. We heard earlier some testimony that, look, you
know, there are rules in place, and we are going to get more
rules in place. But you are always going to have people who
cheat in a recruiting program.
And I am concerned that accountability for this culture
that we have referred to over and over again is not directly
addressed. And I want to use as an example the comments of
Coach Barnett. I say using it as an example because I think it
is not just a matter of an individual.
And I am going to quote what he said among the sentences. A
declarative sentence--``Katie was a girl.'' This was an
allegation of Katie--I don't have--Needa? Nida? Hnida. Who
claims to have been raped. In defense of the program and
himself and against the allegations, this was the statement of
the coach. ``Katie was a girl, and not only was she a girl, she
was terrible.''
``There is no other way to say it. She couldn't kick the
ball through the uprights.'' He also said, ``It was obvious
that Katie was not very good. She was awful. You know what guys
do; they respect your ability.''
Now, what I hear from that--first of all, is this
connection--Mr. McPherson, you were saying that the worst thing
that could be said about a grade school or all the way--is that
she throws like a girl, or she plays--he--he plays like a girl.
Girl. Insult. I mean, to some this would be a non sequitur.
A girl accusing someone of rape and the response is,
``Katie was a girl.'' Yes. And what does that imply? Well, it
implies that you know what guys do. They respect your ability.
This kind of guys will be guys.
Now, I represent Evanston, Illinois, and Gary Barnett was a
hero to us in--at Northwestern. So I have a lot--I begin this
with a lot of affection and respect for Gary Barnett. But if we
are talking about culture, think of substituting the word
``girl'' for ``black.'' Would we for a minute tolerate that
person to go on paid administrative leave?
And I understand that we are talking about $1.5 million
here. We are talking about culture. Here is a person who
embodies the culture of NCAA athletics, the ultimate of a
football coach, and this is said. It seems to me that this is
the kind of thing that we say no.
SMU, the only university where the so-called death penalty
was ever instated, where their program was dismissed, it seems
to me that something more than, well, okay, we are going to put
him on leave and we are going to come up with some new rules,
and we are going--if we are serious about culture, then we
should be serious about this remark, which I think goes beyond
everything, has crossed a line where if we are serious we have
to say no, this person cannot lead. He has disqualified
himself.
Again, I know I am focusing in on this one individual, but
the words I think may encapsulate what I worry about in the
culture. I am going to stop there. Anyone who wants----
Mr. McPherson. If I may address the--from my earlier rant
about the culture, and I think that this is a tremendously
complex problem. There is the culture that you are talking
about that is pervasive, that is the very way which wraps
around athletics. That culture is a major, major part of
athletics. It is a major, major part of our society in general.
I think there is the other issue of student athletes, and I
think, again, that the NCAA has responded--as Mr. Williams has
said, has responded to things that are happening in the
aftermath. And so it is trying to--and also trying to manage a
burgeoning business of athletics, is generating more and more
money each year for the top programs.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me get to the point, though. Is it
sufficient when a remark like that is made to say that such an
individual will be on unpaid leave? Does this cross a line to
anyone on the panel?
Mr. McPherson. I have----
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask Mr. Berst.
Mr. Berst. Well, I think we are not to the last chapter of
those issues. And what the NCAA has done is used part of that
as impetus to begin what we are doing. The issue related to
women and degrading comments regarding women and worse is--is
an issue that I think is broader than athletics. It was
demonstrated possibly during that comment.
What the NCAA did is attempted to use that and other things
that have occurred to start an effort to evaluate the
competitiveness of the recruiting practices. Will we do
anything----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I really want an answer about that,
because it seems to me if such a remark is left to stand, and
up to now just a slap on the wrist, then doesn't that say
something about how aggressive we are going to be about
addressing this issue of the culture of college athletics?
Mr. Berst. Well, some of that is with--outside my
jurisdiction. My efforts are to evaluate the recruiting
culture. There still remains, obviously, the University of
Colorado's own evaluation of these issues, and, if necessary,
matters that might relate to NCAA enforcement. But those are
just not concluded.
Mr. McPherson. May I just address that one thing about that
remark? And the one thing that I--when I talk to coaches, and I
talk to coaches at large schools and small, they are no
different in many ways than some of the student athletes that
they coach with regard to their attitudes and those kinds of
remarks.
They use that kind of remark--those kind of remarks all the
time on the field. ``Let us go, ladies. Pick it up.'' That kind
of language is pervasive in sports, and I think you are getting
to--it is a much larger problem than just athletics. We don't
hire these coaches for them to be good people or to raise good
people. We don't hire them as educators. We hire them to win
ball games. Period. And they are part of a larger culture that
uses that kind of degrading of women to motivate men.
We also live in a culture that does not hold men
accountable for their violence in many ways. And I hate to
bring up an issue that kind of got way too much publicity, but
we talked so much about Janet Jackson's breast, but we didn't
talk about Justin Timberlake's hand ripping her shirt off. What
Justin Timberlake did was an assault, and yet all we talked
about was the obscenity of her breast. We didn't talk about the
obscenity of the violence.
And I think that is part of the issue that there has to be
a cultural shift in how we look at these issues, and not just
blame the victims, but hold the perpetrators responsible. And
it begins with the language that you are talking about.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first to Dr.
Hoffman, as a Husker alumni, donor to the athletic program,
season ticket holder, let me just first say that I think I
speak on behalf of most Nebraskans and Nebraska football fans
that we take no pleasure in what the University of Colorado's
football program is undergoing right now.
In fact, the better Colorado is, the better the big 12 and
better college sports. So as a college sports fan, it is
disturbing to me. But there is a rivalry between Huskers and
Colorado, and I just want you to know that we take no pleasure
in this situation.
Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Terry.
Mr. Terry. With that, I am also--you have self-imposed some
recruiting rules that when you lay those upon what Congressman
Osborne mentioned, especially with student hosts, as absolutely
an important part of the recruiting process because it is
important that a prospective student athlete understands from
the fellow peer, a student already enrolled, what the culture
is like, are the coaches really jerks, or are they really
supportive. You know, those things are important.
And yet you are going to limit student hosts, their student
contact, highly supervised, structured. You have lowered the
time on campus from 48 hours to self-imposed 24 hours. It seems
to me in a highly competitive recruiting atmosphere that you
may be injuring the football and athletic program. How do you
feel about whether or not you have reduced your athletic
department's competitiveness?
Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Terry. First of all, I think in
the current environment that is not the appropriate thing we
have to worry about right now. We really have to worry about
the educational experience of our student athletes, and that is
what we are going to focus on in our recruiting visits is
preparation for the educational experience.
But we are actually very proud of our educational
experience. Forty-two of the 43 football players who were
seniors last year or this year have either--have already
graduated or are on track to graduate this spring.
Mr. Terry. Mr. Williams, what do you think? Do those type
of self-imposed rules run the risk of reducing Colorado's
competitiveness?
Mr. Williams. Well, I think that that goes right to the
point about competitive advantage. I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if--first off, I think President Hoffman is correct.
I don't think that that should be the issue right now.
Mr. Terry. I agree.
Mr. Williams. But I think that certainly I wouldn't be a
bit surprised if a football coach or football program members
would say, ``We are going to be at a competitive disadvantage
to what might be happening at the other 11 schools in the Big
12.'' But, you know, it is something that--and this is where I
think the NCAA is going to have to come in, is they are going
to have to sort of adopt rules that puts everybody back on an
equal playing field. But, yes, I think there will be the cries
of competitive disadvantage that could come out.
This is one of those times when I think the competitive
advantage--and I would commend President Hoffman for basically
taking that step that says, you know, the welfare of our
student athletes, the welfare of our universities, are more
important than the competitive advantage.
Mr. Terry. All right. Mr. Williams, let me--I mentioned an
article. I had mentioned that it was from The Tribune, but
actually it is from The Pioneer Press. And this columnist said
in response to the Minnesota recruit that was taken to a strip
club, said, ``My biggest question is, is this the standard
procedure during recruiting visits? If so, it is no wonder the
recruiting classes have improved. It used to be you got a pizza
and a tour of the library.''
Now, his question is my question. How pervasive is this
recruiting culture throughout universities across the Nation?
What is your perception, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Well, that is a hard--I mean, I would say
that I am sure it has really gone beyond a pizza and a movie. I
mean, I think that that is clear. Even at our school it has
gone beyond that. I was somewhat surprised, quite honestly, to
find out that there were the number of schools that basically
had taken--that the host had taken students--prospects to strip
joints and places like that.
However, there is a lot of other things that go on. I mean,
there is a great example of a Midwestern university where the
recruit came on, and they turned him over to the student host.
And I think turning him over to the student host was a problem.
I actually do think that is a problem, and they ended up in the
metropolitan area closest to the university, which was 45 miles
away, which now is a violation of the NCAA.
On the way back from that to the campus they got in a car
accident. The only way anybody ever knew about this was because
of the car accident. Nobody at the university knew they were
going there, and so the things that go on have enlarged and
enlarged from the days when you had to stay right on campus for
the trip.
So, yes, I guess while I was surprised by that, I guess I
should say I shouldn't have been.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. That ends my time.
Mr. Stearns. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McPherson and Mr. Williams, both of you talked about
pressures that go on in institutions in terms of recruiting.
The pressure because we have multimillion dollar Division I
athletics programs, particularly football and basketball. And I
am wondering if--if you wouldn't agree with me. I think, Mr.
Williams, you said specifically that academic institutions that
you have seen have actually used women hosts for the male
teams. Is that right?
Mr. Williams. In many of the universities the hosts are
female students.
Ms. DeGette. And have you seen that also, Mr. McPherson?
Mr. McPherson. Yes. In fact, if you look in some of the
yearbooks and programs for the media guide, they will actually
have a picture of the hosts.
Ms. DeGette. Of the women hosts.
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And I assume they are----
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. [continuing] attractive women for the most
part.
Mr. McPherson. I haven't looked closely at the photographs,
but I would assume----
Ms. DeGette. That would just be my hunch.
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Now, those women hosts are there for the
purpose of making the college seem attractive to male athletes,
which feeds into a lot of what you are talking about--gender
issues, correct----
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. --Mr. McPherson?
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Would you say this is a widespread practice
around the country--either one of you--using female hosts?
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. Are you aware--are off-campus parties with
these women hosts also a common occurrence?
Mr. Williams. At our university they are not. It is
restricted.
Ms. DeGette. I understand. But are you aware of around the
country----
Mr. Williams. There are campuses that I am aware of where
the women hosts are part of off-campus parties.
Ms. DeGette. Now, if someone like President Hoffman
instituted some very strict rules that eliminated these female
hosts, that eliminated student hosts, that put all of these
other restrictions in place, and they did that in a vacuum,
would that put them at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting
students under the current atmosphere that is out there of
recruiting?
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And why would that be, Mr. McPherson?
Mr. McPherson. Because the reality is that student
athletes--and, again, we are talking about football and
basketball primarily, and in this case obviously football--are
not coming to a visit to go to the library.
Ms. DeGette. Right. I mean, we are being realistic about--
--
Mr. McPherson. Be realistic. They are coming to the campus
to find out whether or not this is where they want to spend the
next 4 years. And if they are being chaperoned around campus,
they are not going to get the experience that you want them to
get. You want them to go off with another member of the team or
to get a feel for what the social life is like on campus, what
life is like on that campus. That is part of----
Ms. DeGette. But--okay.
Mr. McPherson. But here is part of the problem, though. You
are asking 19 year-old students to take 18 year-old students
around the college campus.
Ms. DeGette. Right. And without supervision.
Mr. McPherson. Yes. But you know what? That is part of
being an adult. That is part of being----
Ms. DeGette. Well, I understand. I understand. But also,
you need to do it in a way that they don't take them around
campus to a striptease party and underage drinking and sexual
assault. You would agree with that, too, I am sure.
Mr. McPherson. I absolutely agree with that.
Ms. DeGette. Okay.
Mr. McPherson. However----
Ms. DeGette. Let me--I am sorry. I have a very limited
amount of time.
Mr. McPherson. That is okay.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Berst, I wanted to ask you about
something, given these comments. You said in your testimony
individual institutions have retained discretion over
recruiting practices, and you imply--and I think maybe rightly
so, that the NCAA cannot let--just like we can't legislate
morality in Congress, you can't legislate every single student
behavior.
But yet, when I look at your NCAA bylaws, there are all
kinds of really specific restrictions in the bylaws. We heard
you can't take rides in helicopters. You can't purchase game
tickets, except for under certain circumstances. You can't--
there are restrictions on automobile transportation.
It looks to me in looking at all of these rules--and I
think one of the other witnesses alluded to it--all of these
rules sort of get enacted ex post facto when something bad
happens. Someone was flying in a helicopter. Okay. Let us have
a law against that.
But I find it interesting that you are saying, but we
really can't legislate around off-campus parties with female
hostesses that involve underage drinking. I think that that is
exactly what President Hoffman is trying to get at, whether or
not you think her rules are restrictive or not. And I am just
wondering why the NCAA can't institute some rules that would
prevent this specific type of activity that seems to be
happening. And by the way, it is not just over the last 3
months, it is over the last number of years.
Why can't you do some rules that would stop that specific
kind of activity from happening, so that Dr. Hoffman's players
are on a level playing field in terms of recruiting practices
with every other college and university in the country. And
most importantly, so our student athletes are protected, and so
the women students at these institutions are protected.
Mr. Berst. That is precisely our charge. The rules that you
have in place have been built through that competitiveness of
coaches trying to think of one more thing they could do that is
within the rules that someone else hasn't thought of yet. So
you have sort of a building of rules that are very specific.
You are right. The current rules don't talk about very
specifically the behaviors and the accountability for those
behaviors. But those certainly can be adopted. You can have
strict liability.
Ms. DeGette. And let me----
Mr. Berst. You can have--there are lots of ways to do it.
Ms. DeGette. Let me ask you, is that exactly the type of
practices and rules that this committee is looking at that is
going to be coming out with recommendations next month?
Mr. Berst. That is the hope. Thank you very much.
Ms. DeGette. I look forward to seeing those
recommendations, Mr. Chairman, and I might suggest a further
hearing after those proposed rules are issued.
Mr. Stearns. I think it is a very good suggestion, yes. And
I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Bono.
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
panelists for being here today, and I have been listening for
quite some time. And I don't know if we have made any progress
in this hearing, to tell you the truth, or not. But as Mr.
Berst talked about, we are not--talked about a lot of cultural
issues. And you talked about Janet Jackson, and that was,
unfortunately, an incident where that Superbowl is more known
for the indecency than who won.
But also, we have to talk about our culture and sports. And
yesterday we saw a hockey player have his neck broken, which to
me was the most outrageous and deplorable act I think I have
seen in professional sports. And that all leads to the culture
that I believe starts in college, and I think the outrage for
what is happening in Colorado is certainly vast.
I am a product of USC. I went--I dreamed of going to USC my
entire life. My dad was on the faculty. He was a professor of
medicine. My two brothers went to USC. By the time I got to USC
guess what happened. We were on probation. We were sanctioned.
No Bowl games, no televised games, and I have got to tell you
what that does to the morale of students who dream their whole
life of attending the university. And you get there and the
excitement is not there.
And I am curious to, Dr. Hoffman, what an NCAA sanction
does in the long-term effect to university. It has to have
lingering effects. I am sure the alumni are not as willing or
as happy to contribute to the university any longer. Can you
speak a little bit about what happens after a sanction to a
university?
Ms. Hoffman. Well, first of all, let me say that the
sanction that we are under was, by NCAA standards, extremely
mild and had to do with some practices by our previous coach
that were in the range of spending a little bit of extra time
with recruits, for example. So the particular sanctions that we
are under right now have not had any perceptible impact on the
culture at the school.
As I said, the recruiting rules we put into place I think
are absolutely essential. And my hope is that we continue to
have competitive sports, but we have them in an atmosphere in
which the education of our students is the most important
thing.
Ms. Bono. I am sorry. Can you repeat it, though? I tuned
out a little bit. When you said there are no perceptible
results, or what did you say?
Ms. Hoffman. Well, the particular sanctions that we have
been working through were, by NCAA standards, relatively mild.
They had to do with voluntarily giving up a couple of
scholarships, and it had to do with infractions by our previous
coach that were of the realm of spending a little bit too much
time with specific recruits.
They were not in the realm of what USC experienced or that
SMU experienced. So I can't really speak to their having that
kind of impact.
Ms. Bono. Well, I don't know if that is good or bad in your
case, but I think it is very unfortunate that the entire
student population does suffer. And I do believe they do,
whether or not you think it is harsh or not. You know, maybe it
needs to be harsher. Obviously that is what we are talking
about today.
But, Mr. Berst, can you talk about--is this sort of a wink
and a nod for the NCAA? Or can you talk about how you go about
investigating and how many people are on your staff who look
into violations?
Mr. Berst. Well, if you are talking about the enforcement
program, actually--and we are increasing by 50 percent the
resources for that particular group. I am quite proud of the
efforts of the enforcement staff to investigate major and
secondary violations. And there is a voluntary program that a
voluntary association has that actually does investigate, has
teeth, imposes penalties, along the lines of what you are
talking about.
Those penalties are fashioned to take away the competitive
advantage that is measured in the violations. So that is a very
serious effort. What I am doing is taking advantage of an
opportunity where we are not necessarily talking about
violations; we are talking about other reprehensible behavior
that has created the opportunity within the NCAA--and I mean it
is broad-based as well--to reevaluate the recruiting practices
and the recruiting visits.
That may be a small step, but it seems to me that that is a
perfect place to begin, since we understand what it is. And we
at the same time can address the kinds of issues that we would
refer to more as cultural.
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panelists today for your sharing.
Of all the things that have been said, one thing has struck
me as really at the core of what we need to be about for these
young people, and that was the issues raised by the panelists
about how to change the culture of NCAA and recruiting, and how
to change the culture of the university. Because these are not
the same entity, but they are caught up in I think the same
need.
And, really, Mr. Berst, your remarks at the end of your
testimony were very, very prescient and important. You brought
out the fact that to do these things may indeed change the
competitive risk of a university if a school like Dr. Hoffman
heads goes it alone.
So I wonder if each of you panelists would reflect on that
question, because it seems to me it is the culture, both of the
NCAA and the rules. You have shared with us some of the ideas
the task force will consider, how that will play out in the
culture of NCAA. And yet what will it mean to the culture of
the university if you eliminate all off-campus entertainment
for a recruit, or eliminate all off-campus entertainment that
is not supervised by an institutional staff member?
You know, that wink and nod that my colleague from
California raised does concern me as well. It is cultural, and
it is bigger than any one institution. But as institutions that
have oversight and some control over these individuals for a
number of years, what is it in that bigger picture that you
think really needs to change that can be changed?
Mr. Berst. Just in regard to the rules, I think it is the
responsibility of the NCAA to help set a national floor.
Institutions then can impose more restrictions in any
particular area. And I would think that the exercise that we
are going through with regard to official visits should at
least help moderate those risks that Colorado may be taking by
doing something different than some other institutions.
But it is interesting that we suffer--we all suffer from
the notion that in the competitive world of intercollegiate
athletics you really do have to do everything everybody else
does, and that is unfortunate because that is not thinking
about how to address an official visit.
Why wouldn't we start from the notion that a parent or
guardian entrusts the child to the administration, the
institution, and the coaches for a weekend, and be confident
that they are going to return intact physically and
emotionally, and that they are going to learn something about
the academic, social, and athletic environment at the
institution.
It seems to me that is a reasonable starting place to begin
to think about this. And along the way I hope that we are able
to moderate behaviors and think differently than just through
the competitive lenses of coaches who are in competition with
each other.
Ms. McCarthy. Anyone else?
Mr. Williams. You know, I think that the--I fear that what
is starting to happen or what has happened on our campuses,
when you think of the culture of athletics, is that we might be
looking at some of the wrong indicators. And let me give you an
example.
At Vanderbilt, we have a very, very good graduation rate
for our student athletes. It generally is as high or close to
as high as the regular student body. We are proud of the fact
that we are one of the few universities where in the last 3 or
4 years we have actually had a football team that graduated at
100 percent. Now, we haven't had a winning season in a few
years, and that is a different story.
But the fact of the matter is what we decided to do was
look behind the graduation rate and look to see that even with
this graduation rate were the student athletes who graduated
actually getting the same sort of education, total education,
as the non-student athletes.
And we found out that that just was not the case, that even
though we are graduating them we probably are not--because of
what has happened in this athletic world, these young people
are not able to have the same sort of experience as other
students. And one of the real interesting things about that is
we went around, and one of the things that happens for people
who graduate from Vanderbilt is a great portion of them--there
is three things that we found out.
A great portion of them do community service. A great
portion of them study abroad at some point in time. And a great
portion of them go on to graduate and professional school. So
we looked at that, and our student athletes did do some
community service, but basically team-based. The football team
would go over to Children's Hospital, but only the football
team. They won't do that with other students.
We also found that almost none of our student athletes--
almost none of our student athletes over the last 3 or 4 years
had had the opportunity to study abroad.
And we also found out that when we talked to admissions
directors at graduate and professional schools, what they said
is, ``When we get the applications for these kids, your student
athletes, if all they have done is go to class and play a
sport, and, in fact, spend summer school--I mean, spend the
summer in summer school, they are not coming to us with study
abroad experience, with internships, those sort of things.''
And so I think that that is the culture--that we have
developed athletics because of the big business, and the
competitiveness. We have segregated out a group of kids.
Now, people will say, ``Well, no. We have gotten rid of
academic dorms, and they live with the kids.'' But if they can
manipulate the system, they will live in the dorm with other
kids, but they will live with student athletes. They eat
separate. Our academic supports are generally separate, you
know, and so they do live a separate life. That is the culture
I think we have to break down.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's----
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. No. 1, that if you have a coach--and, Mr.
McPherson, I want you to take a shot at this first, because,
after all, I am a graduate of Adelphi, so I would like for you
to answer first, and then I will move down the line.
If you have a coach that is involved in violations, then,
of course, the administration makes the decision to terminate
his contract. He leaves and goes and gets a bigger job. He
leaves the university with all of the problems, the mess that
he has created, and, of course, they might be sanctioned. All
kinds of things can happen, you know, but this coach goes and
gets another job and does just fine.
The problem is now for the university, for these kids that
have been recruited. And there seems to be no way to deal with
that. And I don't see how you can straighten a lot of this
stuff out or to--if you don't have a way of holding the coach
accountable for what occurs. How do we deal with that?
Mr. McPherson. I think that is just another indication that
the coaches are involved in high business as well. And I think
the message that is sent to the student athlete is that the
coach is going to get his, I have to get mine, so to speak. And
I think how you deal with that is by--well, let me change the
statement.
I don't know how you deal with that, and I think that,
again, that the business of intercollegiate athletics has to be
reigned in, so that we are holding coaches more accountable,
that they are part of more--a part of the campus life.
In other words, they are there as educators, not as coaches
to win ball games. And so that we are holding them to the
standard of graduation rates. We are holding them to the
standard of how well they integrate student athletes into
campus--the campus community and the greater community.
I think those have to be the types of quality experiences
that coaches are more a part of, as Mr. Williams is saying,
that enhance the experience for student athletes. Granted, the
student athletes, just by virtue of being involved in
intercollege athletics, get a tremendous experience, but they
are missing out on all of those other things. And by
integrating the coach into those other things as well, I think
you will start to see coaches who are more invested in the
educational process.
Mr. Towns. Okay. I hear you. I hear you. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Yes. I actually think that there are some--I
mean, the penalties now--if the violation is strong enough, the
penalties travel with the coach. So if the coach--if there is
a--if President Hoffman has a coach that gets major violations
while at Colorado, if Vanderbilt--if we choose to hire him,
some of those things follow that coach.
So there has been some things put into place to basically
deal with that. But I would suggest to you, once again, I think
that one of the things that we have lost sight of, or at least
I feel we have, is actually who is this about. And I--you know,
I keep going back, this should be about the kids.
But there are some rules that we have that really baffle
me, and I will give you an example of one. We have these
signing periods where kids sign, and once they sign they are
committed to our schools.
Mr. Towns. Right.
Mr. Williams. And if, in fact, they decide to go somewhere
else, or if they come to our school and it is not a right fit,
and they go somewhere else, they have to sit out a year. Okay.
Coaches can leave on Friday and be coaching on Monday at
another school. Even breaking a contract, they don't sit out
any time. So, I mean, when you think about it, who are we
really protecting here--the coaches or the kids?
Mr. Towns. Dr. Hoffman.
Ms. Hoffman. Well, could you ask me what question you would
like me to answer? I am sorry, Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Yes. I guess more in terms of my concern is the
fact that coaches, you know, are not--well, Williams is saying
now they have changed that to a degree. But I know--I can name
coaches that I know that have been involved in violations at a
university and moved to another university, and that school has
all the penalties.
And, of course, he created the mess. And I think you even
talked about the situation in Colorado that--wherein that the
coach who created the problems then moved on to another school,
but you had the problems. So I am saying to you that it seems
to me that we have to hold coaches more accountable, because if
they violate the rules and then move on, you know, without
being penalized in some kind of way.
However, Mr. Williams is saying now that that has changed
to a degree, and I think the degree he said--because I know of
situations wherein coaches have sort of had problems in one
school, and they would go get a job at another one.
Ms. Hoffman. Well, let me speak to--that particular coach
did go on to another institution. That institution was also
sanctioned, and that coach is no longer coaching college ball.
Mr. Towns. Let me raise--another piece of that would be--
and I guess Mr. Williams, which I really, you know, had some
problems with the answer, is that a lot of times these things
come out after the person has gone to another school. How do
you deal with that?
For instance, if I am at one school, and then, of course, I
do things, and then I move on, but what happened will come out
after I am gone and I have got a contract with another
university. That is the issue. I mean, so I guess, Mr. Berst,
let me go to you on this, because my time is running.
Mr. Berst. Thank you. Actually, I am the author of the
procedures that you are talking about. And you are right that
the--particularly basketball coaches were very concerned about
what you are talking about. There are ways to handle both of
those situations.
The coach does have sanctions that follow him, and the way
that it occurs is that the original institution is asked to
show cause why they should not be penalized further, or the
second institution receives the same notice if they do not
impose certain penalties on the coach.
If the coach has already left--and I say this because the
member of the association is the institution, so we have to
deal with the institutions first. But if he has already left
and there is a serious allegation involving an individual at
another institution, we notify the second institution, provide
notice and opportunities to appear and be heard and participate
in the proceedings.
But if findings are made, then, yes, the coach at the
second institution still would receive penalties. Student
athletes, in fact, are permitted to leave an institution that
is under penalty if they are going to miss opportunities to
participate in post-season play. So there is some relief there.
It is not perfect, but it does provide for some relief as well.
Mr. Towns. Will there be another round, Mr. Chairman? Thank
you.
Mr. Stearns. We are just going to--I thank the gentleman.
We are going to take quickly--for another quick round. There is
just three of us left, and sort of a wrap up, so if you will be
patient with us.
When you look, Mr. Berst, at the Division III athletes,
they seem to be relatively free of problems. Isn't that true?
Mr. Berst. No, it is not.
Mr. Stearns. It is not.
Mr. Berst. No. I would say to you that the competitive
environment in Division III, which actually is my home, is just
as intense. The money is not there, but the intensity is. And
you will see arguments about whether financial aid is
improperly provided student athletes.
Mr. Stearns. But do you see these kind of violations that
we see here?
Mr. Berst. You see----
Mr. Stearns. Are they----
Mr. Berst. No. I am sorry. You do not see----
Mr. Stearns. So Division III doesn't have----
Mr. Berst. [continuing] the same violations.
Mr. Stearns. I mean, the infractions they have are quite a
bit different than these, aren't they? They are very minor?
Mr. Berst. I agree, yes.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. And is that because there is no
scholarships, do you think?
Mr. Berst. No. I----
Mr. Stearns. Then why do you think Division III--is
Division III a possible model?
Mr. Berst. As long as you have competitive people, you are
going to have about 10 percent of the programs involved in
alleged violations, whether they look like the kind we are
talking about in I-A, or whether they are the kind that you are
talking about in Division III, you are going to have about the
same number of----
Mr. Stearns. What Division III infractions are you talking
about, that you say that they--when I asked you--I had the
impression--at least staff and I had the impression that
Division III did not have any serious problem. But you are
saying they do have infractions? Can you give me an example
what they are?
Mr. Berst. It would be charges that they are providing aid
based on athletic ability rather than simply through the normal
processes that any student would go through.
Mr. Stearns. Let me just ask sort of a basic question. You
come off, you know, not knowing a lot about this, and you say
to yourself, ``Should the NCAA even allow recruiting of student
athletes?'' Why not make them apply first, and then try out
once they get to school, like they do in high school. I mean,
is that a concept that is just not workable?
Mr. Berst. Well, I think any concept is feasible. You would
get arguments mostly from all of the schools that think
everybody would pick Duke. All of the other schools would say,
``Now wait a minute. I need some opportunity to persuade them
to come to my school.''
Mr. Stearns. Competitive--comparative advantage, so to
speak. And that is what keeps pushing the envelope here.
Mr. Berst. I think that is right.
Mr. Stearns. You know, in the last couple minutes I have, I
am trying to come up with what a solution might be, and I went
through the oversight hearings on Enron and ImClone and
questioned all of those. And one of the things that came out of
that was that the CEO had to sign the P&L statement and be
personally responsible.
I think ultimately the NCAA can do all of these rules, and
you can--Mr. Williams, you can have these five points you
talked about. But I think the president of the university
ultimately must bear the responsibility for the conduct and the
culture that is at that university.
And I would say, if that is true, if you folks agree with
me that the president ultimately, no matter what rules or
reforms you do, if the president doesn't get down and talk to
the compliance coordinator, and doesn't get out of the office
and actually talk to these folks and keep track and stand up to
the alumni association, you are going to have problems like
this.
So what would be the feasibility of something like having
the president of a university sign a document that he or she
would put her name on, like the CEO has to put on a P&L
statement, that would sign that, ``We will follow these
particular rules.'' Now, Mr. Berst, right now the president of
a university just is advised these are the NCAA rules, right?
Mr. Berst. Yes. Reasonably, yes.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. But they don't have to sign their name
or anything, do they?
Mr. Berst. Well, there is a form that is signed, but I
don't think it goes as far as you are talking about. But I
think what you are suggesting is a possibility, and, in fact,
is consistent with what we are hearing from men's basketball
coaches right now.
They are asking us to evaluate a strict liability for the
head coach to be responsible for the acts of any of their
coaches. And that is a dramatic step, but it is very similar.
Mr. Stearns. Well, trying to bring some accountability
instead of just talking wishy-washy, you know, suggestions. Let
us bring in some real accountability, and maybe we will see
some change.
I mean, Mr. Williams, what do you think of that idea?
Mr. Williams. I think it is a good idea. In fact, you know,
as the general counsel at the university, there are a number of
times when our president--our chancellor has to fix his
signature to something. And if the document comes there, it
comes up to me to advise him, and what I am going to make sure
before he signs it is that he knows what he is signing, and
that we have complied with it.
So, you know, I don't think that is as far-fetched as you
might think, because out of the Knight Commission, and even the
NCAA, it now states that institutional control is really--the
president has to be in control.
Mr. Stearns. Right.
Mr. Williams. The CEO of the university. I would submit to
you, as I said before, I am not sure that that is happening
all--at every place. And I think that is where we really have
to get after it. I mean, I think the strict liability of a head
basketball coach for the assistant coaches is good, but we are
missing something--the liability of that basketball program, of
that athletic department, rests in the CEO of the university's
office.
Mr. Stearns. Yes. Dr. Hoffman, what do you think of that
idea? I mean, you can shoot it down or not.
Ms. Hoffman. I think that is exactly what we have done. I
think----
Mr. Stearns. So you are going to sign a document saying
that you are going to comply, and you are going to bring full
accountability, and the buck stops here.
Ms. Hoffman. Well, I think we have already shown that that
is what we have done with the processes we have put in place to
try to get to the truth. And the new recruiting rules that the
chancellor and I put in place, I think that we have taken
control and brought about accountability at the CEO level.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. McPherson, what do you think of the idea?
And then I will ask Mr. Berst.
Mr. McPherson. I think we are trying to fit a square peg
into a round hole.
Mr. Stearns. Okay.
Mr. McPherson. Higher education is supposed to be this
altruistic environment where young people go to learn and to
grow and to develop, to be productive members of society. And
what we are talking about is trying to manage this business
where young people know the rules.
They are not coming to--the student athletes that we are
talking about, the people like Maurice Clarett who never had
any intention on being a student athlete at Ohio State, it was
just a way to get to the next level, and that is the attitude
that many of these student athletes are coming to campus.
And so I--with all due respect, I don't think there is much
that Dr. Hoffman can do for those young men who come to our
campus who only see it as a conduit to the NFL. And they will
play the game, they will play the rule, but they are not
interested in what is going on on the academic side of campus,
they are not interested in adhering to all the rules that--of
the institution, because their interest is making it to the
next level.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Berst, and I will just close. Go ahead.
Mr. Berst. The concept is one that I think certainly
instills responsibility at the highest level. The interesting
question to me is whether the student host who decides to take
a prospect to a strip club would avoid doing that knowing that
the president might lose his or her job.
And it is an interesting question. It is certainly a
possibility, but----
Ms. DeGette. But I bet you they would avoid going to the
strip club if they knew if they got caught they wouldn't be
getting a scholarship and going to the educational institution.
Wouldn't that be fair to say, Mr. Berst?
Mr. Berst. I would sure hope so, yes.
Mr. Stearns. All right. My time has expired.
Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McPherson, something you said earlier really got me to
thinking. And what that was was that you were concerned if--if
individual colleges or universities or anyone adopted a rule
saying no student hosts, because part of the whole experience
of getting to know an institution is getting to know the other
students and athletes that they will be on the team with. Would
that be a fair characterization of your----
Mr. McPherson. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. And I think that that is a really good point
as I sit up here and think about it. But my question to you is:
if you are going to retain the concept of student hosts, I
would assume you would retain the concept of hosts, not
hostesses, since the hosts----
Mr. McPherson. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. [continuing] are the fellow athletes, correct?
Mr. McPherson. Right.
Ms. DeGette. But then, what do you do--what can an
institution or even the NCAA do in its rules to make sure that
that student host who is hosting the prospective athlete, the
recruit, does not engage in inappropriate behavior?
I mean, because what is happening right now--and it is not
just at the University of Colorado, it is all over the country.
And I think what is happening from folks I have talked to is
that once one program starts having strip parties and underage
drinking, then everybody else hustles to do it because of the
competitive issues.
So what kind of rules can you put into place to stop those
student hosts from engaging in those kinds of inappropriate
activities?
Mr. McPherson. You would have to change the entire social
culture of college campuses.
Ms. DeGette. Well, I can't do that between now and----
Mr. McPherson. Exactly.
Ms. DeGette. I mean, that is----
Mr. McPherson. And I think that is part of the problem.
Ms. DeGette. [continuing] a real issue .I don't think you
can just say, well, you would have to change the whole culture.
I think we are dealing with such a critical problem, we have
got to put some kind of rules in place.
Mr. McPherson. But let me explain to you what is so
critically important here is that you cannot legislate the
behavior of students. And you can't tell students that they
can't party the way they are going to party. These parties are
going on.
When I was recruited to Syracuse University, I went out to
a bar and within about 5 minutes I wanted to go home because I
wasn't into that bar. I wasn't into that bar scene. And I went
back to the apartment of the student athlete who I was staying
with. It was 3 years later or 4 years later that I was on
campus that I went to my first fraternity party. I was amazed.
You don't have to go to a strip club to----
Ms. DeGette. Well----
Mr. McPherson. [continuing] see the behavior that is going
on on campus in general.
Ms. DeGette. You know, I----
Mr. McPherson. And so I--but here is the important point. I
think there needs to be education about what it means to be a
responsible adult. And that includes student athletes and non-
student athletes, and it is the entire culture. I don't think
that this environment--and I am--I think that there are--are
there parties going on? Are there sex parties going on?
Absolutely. Are there strippers being paid for? I----
Ms. DeGette. But here is the difference. Okay? What we are
talking about are not college students at fraternity parties.
We are talking about high school age recruits who are on campus
for a discrete amount of time being recruited for programs.
And with all due respect, I agree with everything you have
said today, except for right up to now. I think we have to find
some ways--I mean, the NCAA already has an extensive list of
rules, some of which are meaningless but some seem important,
on how you conduct these recruitment weekends.
And I would really urge you to think--and all of us to work
together to think about some sensible standards we can put in
place to stop this, because we are not talking about fraternity
members who are 20, 21 years old going to a party. That is a
different issue and one that I think we have to address. We are
talking about high school age recruits. So that is----
Mr. McPherson. And let me just make this point--that of all
the difficult transitions for a high school student to go into
college, academically very difficult to have the discipline to
study on your own with no one looking over your shoulder and
all of the reading that is necessary.
One of the most difficult challenges for a high school
student making the transition is socially. With the amount of
alcohol that is accessible, with the amount of freedom, it is
managing that freedom that is the first and most important
lesson a student has to make in making the transition, because
with that freedom comes a tremendous amount of responsibility.
And the recruiting process is the first opportunity that they
begin to learn that lesson.
Ms. DeGette. Well----
Mr. McPherson. And they need to learn that lesson from
students who are currently on campus.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Berst, I have a different question. You
can answer----
Mr. Berst. I would love to answer that one.
Ms. DeGette. You can answer that one, too, but let me ask
you the other question, which is, how many--I mean, we know,
for example, that only one school has gotten the so-called
death penalty saying they couldn't field a team for a specific
period of time.
I am wondering if you can tell me how many enforcement
actions the NCAA has taken against schools, say, in the last 3
years for violations of this matter, and if enforcement is part
of what your panel is considering in formulating these new
laws.
Mr. Berst. You said ``this matter.'' Do you mean the nature
of these allegations?
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Berst. I don't know that I can give you facts on which
cases involved----
Ms. DeGette. Okay. How many enforcement actions have they
taken on any subject in the last 3 years?
Mr. Berst. Well, Mr. Williams used the 60 major cases that
involve--two-thirds of which involved improper inducements,
which was usually money or like items, or extra benefits which
would be the same. Probably the other third would be academic
fraud issues for the most part and major--the last 60 major
cases.
Some of those also would involve improper entertainment or
excessive entertainment in a variety of ways, but probably very
isolated along the lines of the issues that we are talking
about.
Will our panel look at enforcement? No. I believe that
enforcement is doing what it needs to do to attempt to enforce
the rules in place. We are looking for a way to add sense to
the recruiting visit experience and to hold institutions
accountable.
On your other question, if I may, I think you can look at
it from a risk analysis. And you have to establish what the
expectations are. You have to make it clear what the
expectations are, and you have to have penalties for not
following through with those expectations, whether they are
rules or just policies, and redundant education about what
those expectations are.
Ms. DeGette. And you also have to have enforcement by the
NCAA on the institutions, correct?
Mr. Berst. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. thank you.
Mr. Stearns. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There is a
lot of problems here, you know, as I see it. No. 1, that if you
have coaches that are making 3 and 4 times the money that the
athletic director is making, and the chancellor or president,
you know, and they just--a way of sort of gaining power in a
major kind of way.
And I will just sort of give a specific example. When we
were doing the legislation for the Student Athlete's Right to
Know, the problem was that the coaches said to the chancellor,
to the academic advisor, do not send out the information. The
coaches had the power--and in some instances they would say,
``Well, our coaches do not want us to cooperate.'' I mean, they
have the power.
And so as long as you have a coach making 3 and 4 times the
money that the chancellor and the athletic director is making,
you know, how do you bring this back under control? I mean,
because in many instances I have observed that they are not
even paid the way regular staff people are paid or regular
professors are paid or regular folks on staff are paid.
They are paid from another pool of money. It had nothing to
do with the university per se. I mean, this is what I was told
when we were doing the research on it and the legislation. Is
this true?
Mr. Berst. Actually, what you are talking about I think is
part of what the Knight Commission is interested in as well, as
well as the Division I Board of Directors. The shift, if I
might, I think is that presidents clearly are in control.
During the years that you are talking about, I do think the
coaches had more ability to establish policy than probably the
presidents did.
And I think the presidents really have established control
within the NCAA. But the financial issues are serious concern I
think to all presidents within the NCAA. And we have tried to
begin by developing a data base to understand what those forces
are and where the money is spent and how much there is and how
the salaries operate, what the market forces are, in order to
at least begin to make some more intelligent decisions if you
will about issues that relate to athletics.
That is a continuing issue. I don't think there is a short
order fix to that, but I think that you have identified a clear
issue.
Mr. Towns. Dr. Hoffman? Thank you.
Ms. Hoffman. Well, Mr. Towns, I think I have demonstrated
that I have control over the coach.
Mr. Towns. Even though they make 3 or 4 times the money?
You think----
Ms. Hoffman. I have medical doctors who make almost as much
as the coach does. It has nothing to do with how much money he
makes. It has to do with who is in control, and I think I have
demonstrated that I am in control.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. I would agree with President Hoffman. I was
about to make the same point. That if you look at the 1990's,
at universities, certainly those that have medical complexes,
the coach is not going to be the highest paid. And it really
has to do with who has control of the university and the rules
and procedures.
And I would say that some of that power that goes to
coaches that you mentioned really can be taken away by moving
things away. I mean, it is--you don't have your compliance
officer report to the athletic director and the coaches. You
take your academic support and put it over in academic affairs
where it belongs, those sort of things, so you don't have any
compromise.
I mean, you have your admissions. Your last line of
admissions is the Provost's Office--the Provost of the
university. So there is ways to basically say you can make that
million and two million and make more than just about anybody
else on the campus. But the fact of the matter is you still
have to follow basic rules and procedures, and there is control
on this institution.
I would say that, as Dave said, that I think the NCAA--the
presidents have taken control of that, but I would say where
the problem is on some individual campuses. And I commend
President Hoffman, because she has said, ``I am in control
here, and this is what is going to happen here.'' More
presidents need to do that.
Mr. Towns. All right. Mr. McPherson, another question for
you. You know, you talked about the transition program that the
NBA has, and, of course, how much would it cost to institute--
actually to institute such a program generally? How much do you
think it would cost to do that on a college level?
Mr. McPherson. Oh, it would cost significantly more than
what the NBA or the NFL do, because the NFL and the NBA are
only dealing with about 60, 70 players in the NBA, 300 players
in the NFL. So it is a--would be a much greater cost, because
you are talking about all of the Division I-A schools and
football and basketball that participate, and all of the
student athletes that they are recruiting each year.
So there would be significant costs to doing so, but you
could do it conference by conference. You could do it school by
school, that schools could create some sort of program. And
some of them do. Some of them bring student athletes onto
campus prior to their freshman year to enroll them in classes,
to get them acclimated.
But they don't do that in every case, and they don't do it
for the entire student athlete population, which is necessary
to integrate these folks into--onto campus, especially with
everything that we have heard earlier, that they are not
generally on a daily basis integrated and have the
opportunities to be involved in other things that are going on
on campus.
Mr. Towns. You know, you all--actually, your school has a
counseling program--in other words, works with athletes in
terms of tutoring, and all of that. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Yes. We have an academic support program
which we found that as we move down the road that more
resources and more people need to be involved in that. And I
think as Diana said, you know, part of it for a long time I
think we--we looked purely at the academic piece. And, you
know, some schools--what I call keeping the kids eligible.
What we have found is there is as much need to deal with
the social transition, in particular for student athletes, even
more so than the non-student athletes, because of the time
allotments and the fact that they have been involved in an
endeavor that has taken so much of their time and energy.
So we have tried to expand our--I don't even like to call
it academic counsel and academic support. It involves all sorts
of things. I will give you a very interesting thing. One of the
things that we find that is so new to us now--I had lunch with
one of our academic counselors, and her cell phone rang about
five times during lunch. It was the students that she counsels.
What we are finding now is that the advent of cell phones
has--all of our student athletes have cell phones. And they
will call their counselor in the middle of the night. You know,
am I supposed to--am I really supposed to go to this class
tomorrow? Or, you know, I am supposed to go on a trip.
And so I think that the whole area of academic support is
something that we really need to really get on hand about. And,
you know, one of the things that I have always said that I
think is missing out of some of the philosophy that comes down
is really this whole adjustment and transition for these people
into the college system.
We, unfortunately I would say, spent a lot more time,
because we choose to--and I will use this word sort of
loosely--``babysitting'' student athletes where we don't do
that with any other student on the campus.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have been
very generous.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, my colleagues, for staying, and I
thank all the witnesses. We are complete with the hearing. I
would say to the--Mr. Berst, that we will look forward to the
report on April 20, the reforms that you propose. And I would
say to Dr. Hoffman, and to all the presidents of a university,
I would find out who that compliance coordinator is, and I
would sure make sure that person is on board.
And some of the testimony has been very helpful for us, and
I want to thank all of you for your time and efforts.
And the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2541.008