NCAA MEN'S FINAL FOUR

March 30, 2000

David Berst

Cedric Dempsey

Bill Saum

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Thanks, Jane. I will make my comments reasonably brief, I hope, so that we have as much opportunity for questions and interchanges as possible. As Jane indicated, I really want to talk basically about three areas. I want to talk about the basketball issues, committee report, and what will be presented at the April meeting of Management Council in Division I and Board of Directors, and what I have personally endorsed related to pieces of legislation. I'd like to talk about the deregulation proposals that have been moved through our committee process and we take it up in April to hopefully move out into the membership and what that process will be. And deregulation, we are referring to the preenrolled student-athlete legislation that we currently have, as well as post-enrolled student-athlete. And, thirdly, which I will start with, is the sports wagering initiative that the Association has been active with. I'm sure many of you did see there was a hearing of the Commerce Committee yesterday, Senator McCain's committee, which a number of us attended, and I'll give you my reflection on that and where we are related to our gambling initiatives. Let me start there. I think most of you are aware for about the last three years now we have been very proactive in federal legislation related to the Internet gambling laws in Congress. That is moving along in the House, and to be voted on by the Senate in the near future. We're pleased with the interest and response on that particular issue as it relates to the Internet gambling and also the concerns about illegal sports wagering in this country, as it relates particularly to college athletes, high school athletes and Olympic athletes. So you are aware, also, that we have been supportive and encouraged the passage of an addition to a rule from 1992 that would eliminate the legal betting that takes place presently on college sports, any betting that would take on high school sports or Olympic sports. The hearing yesterday in Washington dealt with the legislation on legal betting, on college sports. We are very encouraged by the response that we are getting from the House and from the Senate on this issue. We recognize that we have strong opposition in the gaming association, but we are somewhat confident at this point if we can get it to the floor for a vote, we will win that vote. The responses that we've had and the support we've had with both the House and the Senate is extremely encouraging to us. That is somewhat of a departure, if you will, from some earlier comments I have made. We recognized we had an uphill battle. But we feel now we're running a pretty fast pace on this, and that we do see that many members of Congress, many members of the Senate support that, as referred to yesterday -- (inaudible) -- unseemly the vote on college students. So that is the latest on that, and, again, I will be -- two pieces of legislation that will be going to the House and to the Senate and hopefully will reach them for their vote. On basketball issues, in the upcoming men's Division I Management Council in about two weeks, they will look at the proposals that had come back from our membership, as well as the proposals that were proposed by the subcommittee of the acting eligibility cabinet, and it is our hope that they will support the concept of putting of all that legislation out to our membership, and what we will propose as a timetable on -- did I skip? Did I go to amateurism? Let me backtrack, I'm sorry. I got my two areas mixed up. As we're talking about basketball issues and Division I, Division I Management Council will vote -- will take action on recommendations that have been proposed that have come out of almost a two-year study now, the Basketball Issues Committee and, in addition, the proposals that have come from different conferences throughout the country; that a Board of Directors at the end of April will take final action as to what changes would be made related to changing the culture of basketball. We have endorsed the need to change the culture in basketball. We have made three recommendations that we think are foundation to that change. There are several others that we can support, but I would prefer to address three areas that we have endorsed and share it with different segments of our membership. One is that we would endorse, providing financial aid for incoming men's and women's basketball players. I would support that we do this for a five-year period and determine whether or not we have made any improvements in graduation rates. And that has an -- as an Association, I would also support that we would have a matching grant back to the institutions from the Association's budget. I'm for that particular purpose. With that summer program, student-athletes would be required to take six units of core courses, not academic programs at all, and that there would also be a bridge program to help them adjust and be ready when the fall semester. We think this will certainly enhance their academic preparedness as they move into the year. It also gives them a good start in advance of their participation in men and women's basketball. That is the first part of the academic concept of legislation that we agreed to. We have also endorsed the concept of an initial number for recruiting in basketball, similar to what we have in football. There have been several different proposals presented, the basketball issue's proposal was really four per year. We would agree more with the SouthEastern Conference discussions that they've had, that over a two-year period there would be a limit of eight, they would not allow five in any one year. We think that is a more practical approach to the issue. We would endorse doing this in lieu of the incentive legislation that has been proposed. We think this is an incentive in itself in the fact that how many are going to have and put an emphasis on retention, will be very important to success in the programs. ...(Inaudible) I think it has the same kind of benefit to it if you are successful in retention, then obviously you will be able to move forward with a full complement of athletes. The other piece that was proposed of an incentive package, we feel that until we really better defined, if you will, the graduation rate, it makes it very difficult administratively to administer, and, secondly, it's whether or not it's a more valid approach. So if the membership wants to move in that direction, our recommendation would be that we continue to try to find a better tool, if you will, to determine successful academic programs than what we presently have. Thirdly, we have talked about the recruiting calendar, which is probably the most controversial. We will propose that we eliminate the summer evaluation period and that we delay the implementation of that legislation for a year and that we spend a year trying to rebuild a culture that is more beneficial to perspective student-athletes, and we have the right people influencing student-athletes in our future direction. So those are the four -- three pieces of legislation that we have felt that are very important as building a new cornerstone and helping begin to develop a new culture as it relates to the sport of basketball. I think the Board of Directors in Division I established the committee because they felt there were many cultural problems related to basketball that needed to be addressed, and that committee has spent almost a year in developing its proposals, and when that was put out for review by the membership, we did get a number of other proposals on variations to what the Basketball Issue's Committee had proposed. Our feeling after reviewing what had come in from our membership plus the committee, that those three pieces of legislation were critical for any significant change that addresses the academic area; it addresses the recruiting issues in the summer, issues that we had before, recognizing that as a beginning. That is not an end to that process. But we think that...(Inaudible) our current rule will not help us change the culture of the summer programs, and we want to reengage in that redefinition as soon, hopefully, as the legislation might be passed. So... That is the second piece, and then I'll go back to where I got caught off target in talking about deregulation. As I mentioned, a subcommittee of the academic eligibility cabinet spent over a year looking at preenrolled student athlete legislation that we have presently, and had forwarded a number of proposals that are somewhat dramatic in terms of change for our membership. I think it is important to put that complete package out to the membership, and our time process that we will recommend doing that is that they will put it out to the membership in April; that we will provide the opportunity for our membership and other constituent groups to have feedback, any suggestions that they have regarding the number of pieces of legislation changes that are being proposed, and that come next January at our convention, as we did this time on the basketball issues, that we would have a form and a vote and discussion on that from our membership. And a year from the April meeting of this year is when we would vote on the deregulation package. We will fall not only into that deregulation package preenroll legislation, but I would also ask that committee to view post-enroll legislation and make proposals, and, again, that same process would occur. So it would be our desire that a year from now at the Management Council Board of Directors meeting in April of 2001, we would be prepared to move forward on a voting on deregulation. I think that we're talking about significant change, change is always scary within any organization. And we feel it needs that time to be massaged, developed, altered and looked at for what might fit better and how far and how much change does our membership -- is our membership interested in accepting. So those are three areas I wanted to put on the table for discussion today. I would like to try to answer any others. We have David and Bill up here as well, as we get into some specific areas that their day-to-day efforts might have on additional insights. I think, Jane, at this point I would like to just open it up for some comments.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We had already started last year a background check on officials, and last year we had one official that was not approved as a result of that background check and process. Our Basketball Committee has also gone through a basketball -- a background check. This was at their request. We thought it would be appropriate for the Committee to also have that same kind of scrutiny. Members of our staff that deal with that area have also gone through a background check. So that is one aspect of it. We've been meeting with officials, and Bill will be meeting with the Final Four officials this week. That is something we've always been concerned about and we move forward in addressing that issue.

JANE JANKOWSKI: Next question, please?

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We have encouraged to meet with our student council, our national council in particular in Division I to discuss the concerns that the basketball athletes had expressed and to put it in the legislative process of the Association. We will be having a discussion prior to Saturday's game including our chair of the Student Athlete Council, a member, Jane, will be there along with President Kenneth Shaw of Syracuse discussing what the issues are from the basketball group, and certainly encourage the student-athlete group to look those over and work with that particular group to forward any recommendations that the current system provides.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: It would affect a coach's ability to evaluate during the summertime.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: What impact do we expect that to have is a little premature. We want to see whether or not we can work with all the organizations including the high school programs and adopting a different culture of how we run our summer programs and we'll encourage participation by all parties and then we'll know better how much of an impact it's going to have.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: What was your first question again?

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We have had discussion via conference call with all the commissioners in One A, One Double A, One Triple A, have talked about that issue. We recognize that it might not be the most possible of all the amendments. At the same time we've had some members from Division I, Triple A and Double A conferences indicate that they think it's more beneficial to One A schools. So I think there's some mixed messages that have come back from those groups. But by delaying for a year, addressing all those kind of issues, we think we can still make a major change in summer culture, and at the same time not to be detrimental to any one second of Division I. The second part, Bill, did you pick up on that?

BILL SAUM: Andy, the issue with the guardianship is something that we actually just visited with NBC about to get their output and Mr. Dempsey encouraged the NABC to join with the Agent Amateurs Subcommittee to review that. The membership told us they don't want those people involved if it's related to benefits due to athletic's talent. And it's a very intricate discussion when -- it's not as simple as to say that someone is taking care of someone because they like them. It's not that simple. It's very intricate. We -- our coaches, our athletic directors need to decide who they wish to be involved in our game, and I think over the next year to year and a half we're going figure that out.

JANE JANKOWSKI: Next question, please.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: I don't think so. In looking at that, one reason we can support that legislation is in Prop 16, we cut out a segment of partial qualifiers, if you will, that demonstrate our partial qualifiers that fall into that area on aid have done just as well as the lower end of full qualifiers, and so it's really giving those people that have demonstrated a segment of the population at least an opportunity to receive aid, so we don't feel that is really cutting, if you will.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: They will not be eligible.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: (Inaudible).

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: One complexity of the administration of it, involvement through that in a number of our services that we provide in membership, we see this as -- comes almost as another query process and becomes more expensive. And more importantly, there is a lot of disagreement in how you determine graduation rates. If the membership wishes to head in that direction, we would encourage that we do a study on trying to develop a different model for graduation rates that might be more simple to administer, and, secondly, more valid in terms of the culture. ...(Inaudible).

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Well, there's been a lot of study that's been done that's gone on that certainly as a staff we have been evaluating many of these legislative areas for a long time. And that, and also in light of certainly what no one denies as the culture that's taking place, is grounds to me that we need to change that culture. The best way to change it is to build a new culture, not tweak the present culture.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: What was your first part? Some of the stats that I saw, I think need to be examined. I think they're talking about 80 percent that said they gambled. If we poll this group here, we'd have that same kind of percentage, buying a lottery ticket. We have to evaluate what that 84 percent means. Bill, do you want to comment on the other pieces?

BILL SAUM: Sure. Let's point out first of all this was a study of men's and women's officials and football officials. 31 percent of the respondents were men's basketball officials. The study did not then determine the statics you provided, who did what. I think we also need to remember that officials are a component of a segment of society, and certainly this didn't really surprise us. This is the real life that we live in. It is inappropriate for officials to wager on college athletics. It's certainly, those individuals that officiate in our Championships in men's and women's basketball have signed a gambling affidavit as referred to by Mr. Dempsey in his opening remarks, there was an individual that was prohibited appointment because of the way he filled out that gaming affidavit last year. We now conduct background checks and we're pleased to note that the 100 background checks that we conducted this year, there were no hits on those. We have spent the last three years with the officials in many different forms. The FBI has assisted us in educating them. We meet with the supervisors of officials. Several of our conferences have actually included in their contracts with their officials language regarding sports wagering. So we're on the right track here. This is a journey, working with the officials, and we're very comfortable with the integrity of the officials and the integrity of the game in which they officiate.

JANE JANKOWSKI: Next question.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Okay. That is probably one of the most difficult of our preenrolled legislation that we have. And I think in theory, we do not disagree with that at all. I think as we were talking with the coaches a while ago, at some point -- at some point -- there is some disagreement as to where you draw the line, as to who provides the financial aid. I think it's important for us to work with coaches and important for us to work with our membership and find out, where is that comfort zone? Is it at the point when the shoe company provides aid? Are they comfortable with that? Is it -- where do you draw the line?

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Let me put that in perspective. I think that's a real overused criticism. Ladies and gentlemen, there's $3.4 billion a year spent in this country on collegiate athletics by our universities. $827 million a year spent on financial aid. That's more money than the package that we're talking about. So we do invest a lot in student athletes. The demarkation between professional sports and intercollegiate sports is where you're going to pay student athletes. I've always advocated that it's an opportunity for student athletes to have up to the full cost of attendance. Our present grant need does not provide that. On an average, it falls about $2,000 short. We certainly encourage students and institutions to encourage their students to apply for the program. We have a Student Assistance Fund. And as much as we talk about that, we need to -- I called Dick Vitale a month ago, he said what we need in the NCAA is a Special Assistance Fund so students can have that for emergencies. I said Dick, we have a Student Assistance Fund worth $10 million. I've even advocated in the next contract we increase that fund to $25 million. If you want to put it in a broad perspective, if you took all the student athletes on full aid right now and you add the $15 million, that would be going up about $1,000 per student. I'm not sure that's the best way to use those dollars. I think it would be better to base it on the individual needs the student-athletes pay. They have a great deal of flexibility in how they use that Student Assistance Fund. So I think there are a lot of opportunities for student-athletes to receive dollars up to that cost of attendance. I don't see it as demarcating from that cost of attendance limitation to outright paying student athletes. That's not our mission. That's the mission of professional athletics. If that's the choice of student athletes, that's where they should go.

CEDRIC DEMSPEY:: We have a lot of contract. We have time to work through those particular issues. Secondly, I think we will have probably more student athletes coming to school for reasons that we have outside of sports, to gain an education. We will probably lose some athletes that are using college sports strictly to showcase their wears and move on quick. They never have any intention to finish school. Their intent is to make it into the pros, stay two years and never make much progress toward a degree. That might be an avenue that they want to pursue. My biggest concern is we're going to encourage a lot of people through that system, a lot of young people, who see the professional sport outlet as their only means to move forward in life, make some contribution to society. And try that route, not having a fall back. They don't have an educational background, some educational training to assist them in other walks of life, what's going to happen to them when the vast majority of those that go into any kind of minor league program don't make it?

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Basketball is part of community athletics. The individual student-athlete should be an integral part of the student body. When you look at sport from that standpoint, I think having a czar is not necessarily the direct or right approach to use. We are a membership organization. Our organization has thrived and built and built upon input from our membership as to what's best for a particular sport. More importantly, what's best for student-athletes. So I don't see pulling out a sport and operating it independently from the rest of the sports --...(Inaudible) I think there's things we can do. We talked to the Basketball Committee today about getting more input from them, how can -- how much input they want to get involved with, and we encourage them to be a part of the change that we're talking about. I can assure you, people at this table and other staff people have worked on deregulation issues, and we've been doing it now for over four years. From a staff standpoint we've had communities working on it for over two years. We will make those necessary changes if people agree. I'm not sure coaches even agree on what changes ought to be made. I think the structure is available for those changes to be made if people participate and become involved in what changes are necessary for the good of the games.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: The support we're getting from the members of Congress, from key members of Congress. Certainly Senator McCain is a very strong force in Congress. You've seen his popularity across this country. He has a very strong passion on this. We have great support throughout a number of members of Congress. So we feel that we will win this if we can get it to the floor for a vote.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: We didn't have enough time to really go into responses along the proposals. I certainly would recognize it but I would disagree with summer evaluation. That doesn't surprise me in any way. We had a discussion on that. We talked a lot about coaches' involvement and progress and how we were able to assist them in that progress so their wish can be heard.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: You've been covering it since 1962, I would hope you agree with me it's been one of the most successful tournaments we've ever had. I don't think from that perspective that it's been bad. In fact, I had one very prominent coach yesterday say, "You know, what came out of this tournament this year is people started paying attention to what was the name on the front of the jersey, not what was the name on the back of the jersey." And that was certainly a great interest. We had as much promotion on it. I disagree with you that in intercollegiate athletics, and basketball in particular, is not in a position to change. I think it will change and it might create unrest with people. I think we will go through some pain before we have much gain. I think we are going to change this culture and make it a more positive environment for young people. We will have the right people influencing perspective student athletes as to where they ought to be interested in going to school. I think we can do that in a collegiate manner and...(Inaudible). I don't expect that it's going to be easy with some of the changes I think that are on the forefront.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: What scholarship are you talking about? The initial awards?

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Part of that is to encourage greater attention to those people you're recruiting. There's concern about runoffs, there's concern about not paying attention to their academic progress. That's why, to me, it is a very valid substitute for the incentive program. Because if you do a good job with those that you recruit, you're going to end up in a better position after four years, where you're going to be retaining one. So it's an emphasis upon retention, emphasis upon academic support to help student-athletes, and recruiting people who want to gain college education.

BILL SAUM: Your comment is inaccurate. There's been no athlete we're aware of that's been held out before a wrongdoing was decided. Our institutions are responsible for putting eligible student-athletes on the floor. If they determine that a violation has occurred, then they need to declare -- they choose whether to declare the athlete ineligible or not and request the restoration. That's what's included in the high-profile case I believe you're referring to.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: In basketball, because I think that we are not being -- carrying our responsibility in a high school federation lists their support as well, we're not carrying that responsibility to the young people and providing them with kinds of information that they should have in making choices. We have many cases where young people, we have a lot of good people, that are influencing young people. We have a lot of people who don't have that perspective student-athlete's best interest at heart.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: When you say it's well-known, either it's well-known and not paid attention to by the media. We talk about that constantly about the Student Assistance Fund, and it seems to fall on deaf ears. It's a fund that's been used for several years now. Conferences and institutions worked to provide the flexibility on the use of those funds, and it was questionable -- maybe you want to comment on this -- but as to whether or not the funds, I think if I remember on the case you talked about, could have been used for that purpose. David, do you want to talk on that?

DAVID BERST: This year all but $100,000 were actually used by various conferences, so it's certainly understood by them and I guess the major uses have been medical expenses that can't be covered somewhere else and clothing. The student-athlete that cannot afford clothing can apply and receive up to $500 worth of clothing. So that's probably one of those easy ones that you may not be aware of. I believe you're right. A real emergency involving student-athlete can be something that can be applied for for relief.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: I don't want to identify some people, I met one the other night in Indianapolis when I was talking about this. He came up to me afterwards and talked to me about it. We had a good conversation about it. As I said, there are a lot of fine coaches who are helping the youth in this country. There are also some people that don't have the best interest of the youth at heart. I don't want to identify their names, but yes, I have met some of the summer league coaches. I've met some good ones and I've met some others that would not be the kind of people that I think ought to be influencing other people.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Certainly we do hear back from student-athletes raising questions along that line. There are obviously other ways that we do find out. Staff has communication with student-athletes. We hear it through our membership, hear it through our membership committees.

CEDRIC DEMPSEY: Our Membership Committees work on the campuses, and certainly have insights into some of that, yes.

DAVID BERST: Commissioners as well. I mean and you. I mean, we have -- we see your coverage, but commissioners have the insight, coaches themselves.

DAVID BERST: Yes.

DAVID BERST: I don't know if a coach would actually say that he, himself, is guilty. But I think that they would say to you that that occurs.

JANE JANKOWSKI: That concludes our press conference this afternoon. Mr. Dempsey, Bill, David and David Price, the NCAA's Vice President for Enforcement will be available for a short time for any follow-up questions. Thank you.

End of FastScriptsâ?¦.