The Dirty End of the Stick
Paradox, Hypocrisy and Obfuscation
By: Malamute, 17 June 2003

Although Rick Neuheisel exercised poor judgment by entering a March Madness basketball pool, it doesn't alter the fact that he is getting the dirty end of the stick. At the same time, Barbara Hedges exercised good judgment in firing him, and most likely will end up getting the dirty end of the stick.

The twisted events surrounding the canning of Rick Neuheisel are full of paradoxes, hypocrisies and lamentableness.

His sacking is as paradoxical as Michael J. Fox's time travels in his "Back to the Future" trilogy. Barabara Hedges is firing Neuheisel because, as she said in her letter to him, “I have determined that just cause exists for your termination regardless of the ultimate conclusion on that issue (the NCAA gambling issue)." Fact: Yet, if the gambling issue had not arisen, he would still be Washington’s head football coach.

Unless a miracle occurs, the former head coach won't be traveling back to the past to undo his gambling soirees.

Columnist Casey Anderson ("Cash Cow Crusade") points out another paradox. "The University of Washington’s head football coach was recently fired because he, like the rest of the country, participated in what the NCAA considers a highly illegal college basketball tournament pool...Reality check; if it were not for gambling, a massive amount of the NCAA’s revenue would cease to exist. "

Bob Franz (San Francisco Examiner, "Bad Decision Made") agrees with Anderson, pointing to the hypocrisy of it all when he says, "The NCAA knows that without tournament pools, the interest level and the television ratings for their event would plunge like Enron stock.

Yet, University of Washington Athletic Director Barbara Hedges' decision to terminate Neuheisel was the correct one. His lie about the 49ers interview and his initial lie to NCAA investigators on the gambling issue, before being forthcoming on both of them, undermine his credibility. Furthermore, his secondary NCAA rules violations at Washington and Colorado weighed in her decision, as did his lack of remorse for those violations, which led to his censure by the American Football Coaches Association.

If Washington had fought the NCAA on the gambling issue, it would have caused irrevocable harm to the University due to negative media coverage. The bottom line is that Rick Neuheisel exercised poor judgment by participating in a sports pool involving high stakes gambling.

Paradoxically, Neuheisel and his lawyers believe that no major NCAA rules were broken, and they may be correct. 

Part d of NCAA bylaw 10.3 is under contention; part d states “Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student-athletes shall not knowingly solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value (Revised: 9/15/97).

The key words of this provision are solicit and accept.

Neuheisel did not solicit or accept a bet; instead he participated in a March Madness basketball pool over the past two years and, as a member of a four-person team in an auction format, bid for the right to have one of the teams in the Final Four represent his interests.

The pool administrator solicited and accepted bets. In my opinion, that’s why University of Washington Assistant Athletic Director Dana Richardson wrote in her e-mail, “You cannot place bets with a bookie or organize your own pool inside or outside of ICA.'' If he had organized his own pool, Neuheisel would have solicited and accepted bets.

To the person, in their coverage of the Richardson e-mail, the media omitted the sentence, “You cannot place bets with a bookie or organize your own pool inside or outside of ICA." That sentence tends to clarify the NCAA rule on gambling, with solicit and accept being key words in its interpretation.

What is the bottom line of all these paradoxes, hypocrisies and obfuscations?

Paradox: Neuheisel apparently was fired for misdeeds other than gambling; however, if he hadn’t gambled he would still be the head coach at Washington.

Paradox: The heir apparent to Neusheisel, UW offensive coordinator Keith Gilbertson, allegedly wagered $3.00 in a basketball pool, which took place in 1999 and which the NCAA says is against rules.

Paradox: Although she talks about high-stakes gambling in her letter to Neuheisel, Barbara Hedges is not firing Neuheisel because of the amount of money wagered. Yet, the NCAA deems the amount of money wagered to be significant, even though some of the winnings were donated to charity.

Hypocrisy: NCAA schools derive much of their revenues ($360 million in 2003) from the televising of March Madness, where viewer interest is generated by viewer participation in sports pools.

Obfuscations: The media left a key sentence out of its coverage of the Richardson memo that tends to clarify the NCAA rule, and the NCAA, most likely, won’t clarify its rule on gambling because of its history of bludgeoning schools for violating ambiguously written rules.

Bottom line: Although Rick Neuheisel exercised poor judgment by entering the pool, it doesn't alter the fact that he is getting the dirty end of the stick. At the same time, Barbara Hedges exercised good judgment in firing him, and most likely will end up getting the dirty end of the stick. The majority of respondents in a Seattle P-I poll favor her removal.