NCAA MEN'S FINAL FOUR

March 25, 1999

Cedric Dempsey

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Thanks, Wally. I'd much rather do a round table if I could. I feel like I'm too far away and distant. Wally tells me this is on an uplink and I have to sit up here. We'll do the best we can, but I do want to make a few opening comments, and then be available for any questions that you might have. I might indicate also with us this afternoon, they didn't know I was going to do this, Bill Sommes is the director. More widely known as our person dealing with gambling issues, so if you want to catch Bill afterwards, I'm sure he'd be happy to talk with you. David Berst, who is our chief of staff for Division I, which deals a great deal with the legislative process that takes place in that particular division of our federated association. I was thinking about it sitting up here today, reflecting back on this time last year in San Antonio, and some of you will recall as we were sitting here last year we were getting word out of Chicago of a gambling incident at North Western University. When I think of that particular moment, and recognize that gambling is still a major issue with the Association, I can't help but reflect over this entire past year as to what has happened. It's been truly an eventful year, I think, for the National Collegiate Athletic Association. I'd just like to very quickly indicate some of those events, which I'm sure you're aware of, but just to bring back to your attention, jog your memory for some questions of our expansions on some of the ideas. Shortly after the Final Four last year, the Association in mediation with the Tarkanian plan settled that particular case after many, many years of disagreements through a variety of suits from Jerry Tarkanian. That case is behind us at this point. And we're pleased to be able to move forward rather than having to drag through the Association for the period that it did. In early May last year, a very significant decision made related to the Association and that was in regards to the restricted earnings case. The Federal Court ruled that we were in violation of Antitrust Act and a jury awarded the Plaintiffs damages, which most of you recall, was $22 million tripled. And that dollar increase shortly at the beginning of this year, as I recall, by the court up till about $74 million and at that point all of you are very well aware that the Association through mediation of the 10th Circuit Court with the Plaintiffs in that particular case we did resolve and reach a settlement on that case, and I believe that's a very important and significant settlement for us this past year. Personally, I feel it had become a very decisive element within the Association, and we needed to get it behind us and move on and I believe all of us felt comfortable with the settlement and with the issue, dealing as well as you can when we're talking about the kind of money that was involved. We recognize that it's going to have a major impact on a number of institutions, but at the same time the feedback we were having from our membership was that it was the right thing to do and we need to move forward as an association rather than have this linger on for another two to three or possibly four years before any settlement would have come out of it or another trial would have taken place and additional dollars obviously would have been involved in that process as well. So when you add that in with about June of last year, as well as May, the justice department, we reached an agreement with them to accommodate for learning-disabled student prospective student athletes. Many of the media felt this was, again, a loss to the Association. We did not feel that way at all. We felt that this was a very positive settlement through the justice department. It was a cooperative settlement with the justice department and certainly accommodating learning-disabled students and encouraging their participation in sports, was in our mind, a game of worthy association. This was another significant legal issue that we did become involved in this last year. Also in June of last year we became involved in baseball bats. I think most of you are aware, we've had two lawsuits filed against us. It was one of those cases where we knew we were going to have at least 500 in the case because in both situations the lawsuits indicated we had conspired and restrained trade with the two parties that were involved. One party indicated which conspired with the other one and vice versa. So it was likely that the court would certainly indicate that we were in violation in both areas. We feel very comfortable with where we are with that case. We've been in discussion with Eastern over the last few months, and the greatest encouragement to us is the special Blue Ribbon Committee that was put together by the board of -- the Executive Committee of the Association earlier in the year. That committee has already met and is a group of -- includes a group of researchers from physics and from mechanical engineering who understand the issues at task, and they have had one meeting primarily with an educational major with a number of bat companies, baseball companies as well -- or the balls, I should say. And we'll be meeting again in April, and we feel that it will have some recommendation prior to the June 1 date that we asked them if they could try to make some recommendation back to the executive committee by that time. Earlier this year, I think most of you are also aware, that the court upheld our appeal in the Smith Case, and basically they were saying that the NCAA is not a recipient of federal funds through dues payments that are institutions made to the Association, basically it was saying that Federal Government supports institutions who, in turn, pay dues to this association and, therefore, those dues were partially -- could partially be coming from the Federal Government. And we were pleased that the Supreme Court did uphold our appeal in that particular case. Earlier this month, I'm sure you're well aware, it's received probably as much attention as any one case that we've had in a long time, I was interested and surprised, I guess, at the little attention it was given to the settlement of the restricted earnings coach case, compared to the Cureton Case which both came down on the same day within hours of each other. As you are probably aware, that case, a decision by Third Circuit has been appealed by the Association. We've asked for a stay of the decision. That was denied at the lower court, and it is now at the Third Circuit for reaction, and we expect to hear from that court certainly within the next week to ten days, and, hopefully, we will get some time at that point to be able to handle hopefully the issue in a more orderly manner than we are presently put in to. Some people have referred to it, it's a chaotic environment at this point, since we are somewhat in doubt as to what the initial eligibility requirements we will have enforced, which has a major impact upon our April 7th signing, spring signing date for perspective athletes. So we are hopeful to have a decision from a court on that stay very shortly. At the same time, we are also looking at procedures that might be put in to place at least on a temporary basis to have some orderly process for the Association. I find very little interest within the Association not to have national legislation and procedures related to the initial eligibility requirements. I think most people have felt that it has been beneficial to intercollegiate athletics to have minimal requirements, and I will foresee that we will continue having some form of initial eligibility requirements. Our present commission will again be working on this. Our board of directors, I should say, will be addressing this issue very shortly in an attempt to have some backup approaches should we be unsuccessful with the stay. The appeal may take as long as October or so before we hear anything on the appeal, but that is a long period of time for us to go in a vacuum, if you will, as it relates to our eligibility requirements. The encouraging part that the court decision did make, that was one that they thought was certainly in order for an association of higher education like ourselves to have standards. They did not take exception to the fact that we have standards related to eligibility. They did not take exception to our core courses requirement, our 13 core course requirements. They did not take exception to the graduate or GPA, grade point average, nor did they take exception to the test scores. They took exception to where we cut off the test scores, and I think it's very important to recognize that the court did not say we could not use test scores in our initial eligibility legislation. So they felt that we needed more complete research to defend our position of the cutoff points that are used for the SAT and ACT scores. So that was something as an association we've been reviewing for the last year as a result of our most recent research that had come in related to what is referred more to as Prop 16, rather than the legislative number, so we continue to call it Prop 16. But they -- that evidence, they thought, was not supportive of the cutoff point and the Association had passed and was using under that particular proposition. Outside that, it's been a pretty quiet year. I guess I could say I've recovered totally from a heart valve transplant, going through many of those. And I feel physically pretty good. My only problem is with all this and the heart and everything else, my golf is now in a single digit handicap. But the main interesting question that's been presented to me at the appeal, like the NCAA is under siege. I don't know if they're bringing the tanks behind us or not. But that seems to be the most frequent question that is asked of me with the number of legal actions and issues that have come before the Association this past year. And I don't believe that at all. I think the question is in trying to answer it, it feels like we're in the midst of significant social, economic and maybe even cultural changes that are taking place. I also feel that the Association is undergoing a transformation at this point in time, and there have been more changes initiated with the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the past two years than have any other at one time in the history of the Association, starting with the new legislative process that was introduced two years ago, we're now in our second year of that process. I tell you, this is tough up here. (Laughing) But the legislative process is working and is being reviewed by each division. That whole approach to the governance of the Association is quite new and quite different, and we're still working our way through that particular change. When any organization the size of our national office moves, that creates a tremendous amount of change and a tremendous amount of opportunities for an association. And as we move to Indianapolis this July, we will begin to see a marked change in the way as an association we will function and operate internally, certainly related to business practices as it relates to record management, as it relates to the way we will communicate and work as a national office staff in trying to serve the Association. When you add those changes together, along with all the litigation changes that have been placed before us in this last year, there's no question that we're going through change. In a sense, when you put it all together, it's a transformation. It's not a transition and not just a change, it will be a dramatic different organization in the next two to three years than it has been as we started this decade, as we move into the new millennium, it will be much different than it was when we started in the 1990s. Yet, when I think this is all completed, I still see that the NCAA will serve the Association and some of the -- in some of the various stable responsibilities it's had in the past. We will continue to operate the championships. We have 81 national championships at this point that all 330,000 plus students strive to be a part of. I see no change in our direction with that. Obviously the major issue related to championships is still whether or not we will have a Division 1 A football playoff, and that has been discussed at different times, and it is within the membership at this point but certainly at the leadership of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. There appears to be little support for a national college football playoff in Division A. So I think our other championships are solid and will continue to grow. I think that certainly we will continue to propose, debate and vote on legislation. I don't see the Association changing in that. The process, as we become better acquainted with it in Division I, I think will probably work out that we don't try to pass legislation more times a year. I think our own membership has felt even in our attempt to be more responsive to the needs of passing legislation, having that much opportunity for legislation before the membership and trying to track it through the process has been very confusing to our membership. So I think there will be attempts and probably successful attempts to probably reduce the amount of the periods in time that we will be able to address the legislation in a voting manner. I think we will continue to be, as an association, association to enforce the rules, and adjudicate violations of the rules. It's been a strong component of the Association since it was formed, and certainly within our membership and the conference level most of them feel very comfortable with the Association handling that responsibility. I think our role in higher education has been enhanced tremendously in the last three to four years. As an association, we are much better accepted by higher education. Three years ago we were invited to join the secretarian of higher education, which gave us a voice at the table, leadership in higher education, and our cooperative relationship with them has, I think, been at an all-time high. Some of that is -- the most recent example of that is the public service announcements. We help provide an opportunity for ACE to utilize them. I think we have a very positive working relationship with higher education at this point and rightly so. It's, I think, been a step forward for the Association to be recognized by other higher education groups. I think we'll continue to provide educational leadership to assure that student athletes have a positive experience when they're in college through their participation in sport. I've been very pleased with the growth, as an example, of our life skills programs across the country. Over 300 schools now have formalized life skills programs that assist them not only athletically but certainly academically, socially, emotionally, what their needs might be to deal with the stresses that they're confronted with. I believe as an association we will continue to defend the legislation that the membership has passed and has agreed to. I think it's been, again, when you look historically, it's been pretty successful with their legislation. We've obviously had some this year, but the courts have not responded in the same manner as they have in the past. But historically the Association has been quite successful in its defense of various bylaws and association rules and regulations. Where does that take us in the future? Some of the issues I think that we have -- I'll just touch on a couple, three, that I'll bring to your attention. The research that we've been doing related to sport, there is strong evidence that college sports is more popular than ever. Our attendance is strong. The appeal of college sports has been significant in the last few years, and we feel very encouraged by our research. One of the major problems and issues that we have before us, and it's not new but it is mounting, and that is the constant balance, if you will, between educational mission at the institutional level and the financial stresses of operating programs. In order to generate the funds that are necessary to grow programs and to continue to support programs, it's been necessary for institutions to become more commercialized, to have more corporate partner support, and as we move in that direction, it obviously creates the potential of an imbalance, if you will, between those two missions that we have. I think that is something we will continue to struggle with as a part of higher education. The good part about it is that there are certainly organizations, corporations that are interested in supporting intercollegiate athletics. The bad part about it, it brings on some of the issues and problems that have developed in the last few years related to sports in general. So I think that is one that we will continue to grapple with as we move into the new millennium. It's a challenge at the institutional level; it's a challenge at the national level as to how far do we go in commercializing. There's nothing that we could -- no event that probably better depicts that than this event here. We could commercialize this event to a much greater extent than we do if we wanted to in that sense, and we keep trying to find that balance of a clean environment, if you will, and to protect the integrity of the game. But it is something we constantly wrestle with, between the need to generate the dollars. One of the things I'm very excited about and will be happy to talk more about in some discussions relates to Division I basketball issues, a special committee that's been formed. They are expected by August to come forth with some recommendations. They have been meeting, have had several meetings and expect to come back for a full meeting in the next month. We're expecting and hopeful that that group will be thinking of some of the paradigms of operation. One of the exciting parts to me is it's one of the really first times we have -- we've had over the years different legislation for different sports. It's one of the first times I think we ever looked at a sport because of its uniqueness and tried to draft legislation based on the uniqueness of that sport and not necessarily how would this legislation then affect all other sports. And Chancellor Shaw from Syracuse has tried to push the group to think outside the box, to look at new paradigms and not necessarily look at compromising kind of approaches on some of the issues, but at least put before the membership some ideas that might be a sound board for us to operate basketball. We certainly don't have the answers to that now, but I do believe that we will see some valuable information coming out of that group in the next few months. I think the greater good for higher education at intercollegiate athletics is served by one organization, and this has been discussed in the media on different occasions. It must be an organization that I feel is prepared for and leading the change that will inevitably take place, but intercollegiate athletics, in organizations driven by specific sport interests, the size of the program interests or other special interests will not serve the college athletics well. The NCAA challenges to drive at the very best leadership we have at the institutional level and to provide -- reconstruct, if you will, the Intercollegiate Athletics Association with importance of the majority in the direction it wants to move. So as trying as these times are, I don't feel that NCAA is being under siege. NCAA is in the midst of change and I see those changes as being very positive. I wanted to put some things on the table. If you want to discuss them, I'd be happy to go into greater depth.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Can you say the first part? I had a hard time hearing you.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: The Board of Directors in Division I does have the authority to put in place immediate legislation. Normally, that has been done in emergency situations or where it's been noncontroversial. But certainly under our new structure, it is within our purview to look at this issue and try to come forth with certainly some interim kind of legislation to provide the potential confusion that is present within our membership.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, certainly some of the options deal with the research that we have collected in the work of the academic ineligibility subcommittee. They had developed -- excuse me -- different models that were under consideration. The board of directors had asked them to go back and consider other models based upon the data that had been presented last summer, and so what our interest is is that that work in progress that has been going on for some time be allowed to move forward in an orderly manner. The court's decision certainly has placed it in a disorderly manner, and it would be, I think, on a long-term basis much more efficient and functional for intercollegiate athletics to be able to handle it through its normal process.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We would expect in April, when the president's commission -- I'm still using old terms, I'm sorry -- the executive committee would meet. We would hope to have an accepted process in place. The management council, at its upcoming meeting, will have some discussion related to it, and we feel quite confident that we'll be able to have a model in place that will be acceptable to the membership. Obviously, the biggest disagreement are the two extremes, and I think we all know neither extreme probably will be the model that will be used; it will be a compromise in between. The encouraging part is that both extremes felt it was difficult to begin any kind of discussions or negotiations within Division I until they knew the exact amount of money that we're talking about. That amount is now known, and we can easily put on the table for them a variety of the models, and I would be very confident that we'll come up with a process and that will be acceptable to the membership.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: That's one of the models that's been looked at, yes. And the other kind of thing we're looking at is for those institutions that might find it a real hardship is that we're looking at some models that would allow them to possibly be assessed over a longer period of time than a one-time assessment, if you will. I think there's different models that may fit different programs in a more efficient and effective way. That's what we are looking at as well.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: (Laughing).

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Even though we changed our legislative process, it is still a slow process in that sense. But I do believe by the request and the independent interest of the board of directors, we would have seen some action as we moved into the summer anyway, based upon the conversations that the board of directors had last August and October. I mean there was a considerable interest in certainly reassessing the success of Proposition 16 legislation.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, I think that's the one issue. There is certainly some interest within the basketball issues committee of posing freshmen eligibility for membership. And as you say, there's not a great interest in some other sports, but some people feel that that would be beneficial in the sport of basketball. That may be the kind of issue that the committee comes out with to raise with the membership. And, as I say, it would be a different approach for the membership to consider, something that dramatic, specific and unique to one sport. I'm not saying that they will, but that is -- I think that is one issue that will receive considerable discussion with the Basketball Issues Committee before its final recommendations are made.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, certainly we could go ahead with the core course requirement. We could arrive at a GPA, although our GPA was really tried into an equation with the test scores. It is possible probably to reach a minimum GPA level. The tricky one obviously comes in whether or not we would use test scores in a different format because the court has indicated they would want to see that that has merit and research to support what we would be doing using test scores. Some have suggested a full sliding scale concept might -- I mean that's about as lenient as you could go utilizing the test scores. So I'm sure that model will be considered in the mix. It's a little premature to speculate on where they'll come from, where the board of directors will come from on this issue. But I think they're certainly interested in maintaining some eligibility standards.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, I know John pretty well. I think it was five years ago at this time that we had a lot of discussion with a number of the black coaches related to their philosophy on the sport. And it has never totally troubled me with what John Chaney said. I say this for that reason, I believe deep down John Chaney cares about student athletes. I care about student athletes. We may have differences and disagreements on certain issues, but I do respect the gentleman for his concern, and in particular, his concern about African American student athletes. If you've ever been around him, he certainly can be harsh at times; he can be very critical at times. But I am convinced after spending a lot of time with him during five years ago and off and on since that time that John does have at heart a strong concern about his fellow race.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, I wouldn't want to speculate on that right now until one institution has finished its own investigation, and then we would obviously then look at the investigation the Association ought to do. We are constantly concerned about the integrity of the sport in a general context, and still feel very strongly about that issue.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: There has been for some time some discussion related to that and how it would work. And at this stage, I don't think anyone's found the right answer to that, but there has been some interest in approaching that and certain things we would move forward in to any negotiations on our new contract, which expires in 2002 for the men as well as the women through ESPN. I think we will want to consider that in that process.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: I don't think that will happen. I just don't think that will happen. One advantage of being my age, I was there when we didn't have it, and I have to remember why we got involved heavily into initial eligibility and continuing eligibility requirements. We were under -- we were under siege, if you will, at that point in time back in the early '80s with the expose's on student athletes who were in college and couldn't read; those who were used in a sense for four years and never made progress toward a degree. I think we had some very serious issues at that point. Certainly there was a strong interest in improving graduation rates, and through our legislation, certainly graduation rates have improved. I believe the integrity of the academic process has improved. I don't see that happening, and I don't see -- the first time you got a Conference A doing something that is less stringent or more stringent than Conference B, if I can get my order here, and you see certain conferences taking kids other conferences cannot take, there will be huge cry for national legislation.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: My best speculation on that, and I don't like speculating, but I think we will have certainly some interim legislation.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Part of that, if I understand the question correctly, is tied into freshmen eligibility. It would not be to have initial eligibility requirements. I think you'd still have continuing eligibility requirements under that model. But certainly, that is one option that a lot of people would advocate. We might be in court on that one, too.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We would hope to have, if we have to do an interim legislation if the stay is not granted, certainly something in place before April 7th.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: The Cureton (phonetic spelling) case? It did not totally catch us by surprise. Our legal counsel had indicated this was not a slam dunk; that we were going to win this case. So we were certainly looking at it not only from the legal aspect of it but what was the right thing to do as the second part. The very discouraging part to us, and the part that we will fight vigorously, is the decision of the judge related to the federal jurisdiction, related to the fact that they felt that the NYSP funds have come from the federal government indicated that in a sense we fall under Title 6 and all other titles within our federal government. That we had just, as you know, won a phase of that through the Supreme Court as it related to dues, and it was discouraging to us to see that happen because basically we're past dues on NYSP funds. Those dollars go directly through us to various institutions. No dollars stay with the Association. We have them with administration, but the dollars go out to the institutions, but we are not a recipient of any of those funds. So we will fight that one vigorously.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, a concern I had at the time we adopted Prop 16 was if you looked at it carefully, there was a small triangle of students that ended up in basically the partial qualifiers. That group has proven to be about as successful with the statistics we presently have, to be about as successful academically as the full qualifiers. I think there was a group that fell into that category that we possibly could have addressed to try to find an answer to that. That was a long debate with the old President's Commission, as to where do we have the cutoff point. I think we could have dropped it down to pick up that small segment.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: What was it? I can't remember, I don't know what the exact group was. But it's a relative -- it's basically most of the partial qualifiers that are in institutions now, which are not very many.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Thank you for coming out. I'm wondering if the attendance reflects how hard it is to get around from one side to the other here. I'd be interested in your feedback on this site. It's a different site.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: No shuttle buses, that would help.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: That's a good point. I wasn't aware of that. Thank you. As I said, David and Bill are here if you have any questions specifically for them.