|
Articles
|
Lack of "Institutional Control" A trap, scenario, sentence, interpretation and kudos By: Malamute, 26 June 2003
I know sportswriters have deadlines to meet, have papers to sell, and have mouths to feed. But some of their coverage of the Neuheisel imbroglio has been ridiculous. Mind you, I'm not into conspiracy theories; I just want to set the record straight, while adding some fairness and balance to the media's stories concerning the embattled coach at the UW. Setting the Trap Six months ago, the Seattle Times set the trap for Neuheisel’s 49ers interview with its “Coach Rick Hamlet” editorial, which was voiced on its main editorial page (Dec 14, 2002) in response to the firing of Bob Toledo at UCLA. The anonymously written editorial assumed that Rick Neuheisel was bound for UCLA--or at least, interviewing for the job--although it lacked the facts to back up the allegation. In effect, during the midst of recruiting season, the editorialist set a trap for the talented Neuheisel, knowing that he was on every school's without-a-coach-interview list. It played to the "skippy" image they had tagged on Neuheisel after he left Colorado to coach at Washington. “This story line is getting old,” the editorialist wrote. “Thank the coach for whipping all the Northwest schools, forgive him for a dumb loss to Michigan, and bid him farewell.” However, in the mind of the Times, it was okay for Mike Price, WSUs coach to seek other opportunities. “Cougar coach Mike Price is a different matter. His solid reputation and patient success naturally attracts attention. He has made Washington State University proud, and he has earned the right to seek new challenges and other coaching opportunities. But Price is the coach we want to stay put. His teams play hard for him and he runs a clean program." In effect, according to the editorial, Neuheisel should get out of Dodge; however, it was not kosher for him to be interviewing for a job like Price, which was okay for Price, but not for the "schmoozer" at the UW. Not only did the editorial set a new low in journalism for double standards, in retrospect, it fell flat on its face when Mike Price's "opportunity" led to his ouster as Alabama’s football coach because of his soiree at Artey's Angels. Supposedly, the jokes surrounding the jettisoning of Price at Alabama led to the outing of Neuheisel’s gambling endeavor by some disturbed Washington State Cougar fan, who allegedly sent over 100 e-mails to the NCAA alerting them of the basketball pool. That caustic editorial, along with other news stories having that effect, created an impossible situation for Washington's multi-talented head coach, who had won the right to interview with other teams that might have offered him a better job than he had at Washington. And two months later, what appeared to be a better job opportunity came along when Neuheisel interviewed with the San Franciso 49ers. Unfortunately, Neuheisel, who had been asked by 49ers management not to reveal the interview, "plunked" himself down "just six feet away" from Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter John Lesvesque in an Alaskan Airlines departure area at the San Francisco airport. Springing the Trap None of the media questioned John Levesque’s culpability in the 49ers incident. Levesque eavesdropped on the conversation Neuheisel had with his mother and father on a cell phone as he sat in the departure area, and then sandbagged Neuheisel later in the week. I'm not talking about the eavesdropping, which is okay in my mind.. The lack of candor is what bothers me. Here’s what Levesque wrote, “When I greeted Neuheisel at the San Francisco airport Sunday -- we happened to be on the same flight back to Seattle -- I didn't let on that I'd overheard his conversation. I simply asked if I'd be incorrect in reporting that he had been in San Francisco interviewing with the 49ers. He said absolutely, positively, I'd be wrong. He said he cut short a ski vacation in Sun Valley to play golf with some fraternity brothers, a reunion of sorts.” Why didn't Levesque tell Neuheisel he'd overheard him talking about the job, instead of trapping him by asking him whether he had interviewed? Coach Neuheisel was boarding the plane at that time and had little time to think, with a confidentially agreement in mind. In a story appearing the Post-Intelligencer later in the week, Levesque sprung the trap by writing, "My story, though I'm loath to share an overheard conversation with readers, remains the same. In a phone call to his mother Sunday night, Neuheisel discussed his meeting with the 49ers and said: 'It went well.'" Neuheisel’s suspension might not have happened if Levesque had been forthright with the coach at the airport, and he still would have had his story, only a little earlier in the week; hence, his culpability. The Scenario An article in the Seattle Times said that “The (NCAA) investigators were acting on a tip that Neuheisel put up $5,000 and won some $20,000 in taking Maryland in an auction-format pool on the 2002 men's basketball tournament.” As it turned out the amount of money wagered and won by Neuheisel was less then reported, but that didn’t stop the media from stating those inflated numbers--as if they were facts--in stories covering the investigation that appeared all across the country. They knew these numbers came from a tipster and shouldn't be trusted. The inflated amount, wagered and won, allowed a Seattle Times reporter, Bud Withers, to concoct a scenario involving the Oklahoma basketball team. “As Oklahoma entered the NCAA tournament this year, its All-American guard, Hollis Price, had a strained groin. Let's say Neuheisel has a good buddy on the Oklahoma football staff who happened to hear from Price's coach that the injury was worse than publicized. Do we really need a college coach who's about to toss thousands into a pool soliciting injury information from another?” In a news story later on, it is revealed that Nueheisel bet $3,610 in the 2002 pool, according to one writer's source. For a man making $1.2 million per year that equates to $150 for a person making $50,000 annually. Reportedly, Neuheisel won $4,799 in that pool. The Withers' scenario assumes the tossing of "thousands
into a pool" would motivate the solicitation of information on the condition of
Hollis Price. In effect, Neuheisel tossed $150 into the pool, hardly enough
money in his case to warrant any solicitation. The Interpretations Most of the media alleges part d of NCAA Bylaw 10.3 was broken by Neuheisel. The part of the NCAA manual that deals with gambling states that coaches, staff members and 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.' However, there are two interpretations of part d that have been bandied about.. Call them the “guilty” and “not guilty” interpretations. A number of lawyers interpret the rule differently, based on the words “accept” and “solicit,” which appear in part d. The “guilty” interpretation is proffered by much of the media; the “not guilty” interpretation is omitted from most of the coverage. Fox NW is the only media outlet, as far as I know, that presented the "not guilty" interpretation. One talk radio host, while lambasting Neuheisel, said that the coach broke part e of the rule, stating that it says you cannot "Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics." Conveniently, he left out the last part of the sentence, which says, "through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling." A flood of e-mails pointing out the deception forced him to read the sentence in its entirety an hour later. But even then, he tried to waffle his way out of the predicament, which was somewhat amusing, if not pitiable. The Sentence The last sentence of UW Assistant Athletic Director Dana Richardson’s e-mail was also left out of some of the media's coverage. That key sentence, “You cannot place bets with a bookie or organize your own pool inside or outside of ICA'' lends credence to the “not guilty” interpretation. If he had organized his own pool, Neuheisel would have solicited and accepted bets, which part d of NCAA bylaw 10.3 disallows. To its credit, Fox NW is the only media outlet to my knowledge that carried the last sentence of the Richardson memo in its report. What most of the media reported with respect to the email was, "The bottom line of these rules is that if you have friends outside of ICA (intercollegiate athletics) that have pools on any of the basketball tournaments, you can participate." They left out the "you-cannot-place-bets" sentence. Its omission made Ms. Richardson look like some sort of blithering idiot--in that she performed a cursory parsing of 10.3 rather than a studied one--which she is far from being. Grad Rates Last week, the American Football Coaches Association recognized Washington as one of 31 programs to post a graduation rate of better than 70 percent for the freshman class of 1997-98. Rick Neuheisel deserves much credit for the remarkable turnaround in graduation rates, but much of the media failed to cover this story, although Fox NW did. This table shows the percentage of athletes who received degrees from the UW (football) within six years of entering as freshman.
Richard Linde (a.k.a., Malamute) can be reached at malamute@4malamute.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rick Neuheisel has never had his
fair day in the court of public opinion. The media have behaved arrogantly since
they broke the basketball-pool story, having twisted some facts, ignored some
others, and just plain run off at the “mouse” with incorrect facts. In other
words, they lacked "Institutional Control."