|
Articles
|
Oh, hum, business as usual By Malamute, 3 March 2004
Faced with a batch of tough questions, I've decided to go from easiest to hardest to answer. -- Why did Mike Williams leave USC? The Los Angeles Times’ Chris Dufresne writes jokingly that one of the reasons Williams is turning pro is because he doesn’t want to travel to Pullman and Corvallis any more. -- What do former UW president William Gerberding, former AD Barbara Hedges, and former coach Rick Neuheisel have in common? Going back 10 years or so in UW history, the three amigos (Gerberding, Hedges, and Neuheisel) are the most reviled. Fans and members of the media skewer them at every opportunity. Why? For one, Gerberding and Hedges failed to fight the part of the sanctions levied by the Pac-10 on the UW in 1993 that involved a two-year bowl ban. Coach Don James wanted a one-year ban and resigned, as he said he would do, because neither Gerberding nor Hedges tried to remove the extra year. Neueisel is blamed for anything that goes wrong, will go wrong and has gone wrong on the UW and Colorado campuses, even though he is one and five years removed from those institutions, respectively. -- Were their regimes all bad? Let’s give credit where credit is due. Guard Nate Robinson is one of the big reasons that UW basketball is now on the upswing. People should credit Gerberding with Robinson’s recruitment because he hired Hedges, who hired Neuheisel, who recruited Robinson, who opted for basketball after being recruited for football. Also, give Hedges credit for hiring basketball coach Lorezno Romar who coaches Nate. Romar has changed the direction of the basketball program, turning it 180 degrees to the north after it was headed south for so many years. -- Why did Brent Myers leave Washington for ASU? On January 15, Brent Myers signed on for a second stint as Huskies’ offensive line coach, but lasted only three weeks before he accepted a job at Arizona State. Supposedly, Keith Gilbertson was angry with Myers’ defection, claiming Myers was taking a “concocted” job at ASU. Why did Myers leave? Here are some possible reasons, none of which may be correct. a. Did Myers want to get out of Dodge before the gunslingers at the NCAA put more bullet holes in the UW football program? Allegedly, Myers was one of the coaches who participated in the basketball pools run by Ikaika Malloe in 2001 and 2002. In its “Notice of Allegations” recently cited, the NCAA wants to determine if their was an attempt to cover up the extent in betting in basketball pools within the UW athletic department by asking for the identities of all other staff members involved in "prohibited gambling activities prior to, at the time of, and subsequent to their participation." According to recent press reports, Malloe has told the NCAA that Gilbertson tried to get him to change his story about the betting pools. Malloe claims Gilbertson participated in the pools. Gilbertson has denied the allegations, and the Pac-10 chose not to pursue it. b. Poor recruiting? Only one of the five offensive linemen recruited by Washington in 2004 made the Tacoma News Tribune’s Western One Hundred. The UW lost out on the two best offensive linemen in the state, Aarron Klovas (Oregon) and Andy Roof (WSU). Myers, who was to have coached the offensive line again, is reviled by fans on Internet message boards for the UW’s disastrous running game in 2002, which averaged a paltry 75 yards per game. c. He wanted to coach with Koetter for more money? "As I told Coach Gilbertson, it was a great opportunity to get back with a guy I have a serious history with," Myers told the media. "I did it because I always envisioned coaching with Dirk (Koetter) again, and the opportunity to be a co-coordinator is something I wanted." Myers is also getting a raise in pay. -- How severe will the NCAA's punitive sanctions be? According to most people, the most serious charge made against Washington involves a “lack of institutional control,” which the NCAA defines as major, the one which the NCAA and Pac-10 used to torpedo the football program in 1993. Penalties for major violations (see the Division I manual, 19.5.2.1) can include sanctions precluding post season competition, particularly in those cases which involved individuals remain active within the program, a significant competitive advantage results form the violation, or the violation(s) reflect a lack of institutional control (loic). Other sanctions are possible, the most severe of which can include a reduction in athletic scholarships, financial penalties and a one-year reduction in the number of expense-paid visits to a university by potential recruits. Since most of the major players in the violations have left the school (e.g., Dana Richardson, Barbara Hedges, Rick Neuheisel) and since no competitive advantage was gained, it would seem that the UW needs to negotiate down the charge involving lack of institutional control, lest it be charged as a repeat violator. However, it should be noted that in its cover letter to the UW, the NCAA considers all of the violations listed to be potential major violations, unless noted as secondary violations. The violations involve (1) participation by athletic department personnel in the men’s basketball pools in March 2000, 2001 and 2002, (2) undercharging for boat rides to the former coach’s home, along with illegal contact made by the captaining booster with recruits during the boat ride, and (3) the charge involving lack of institutional control. Hence, the UW must likely contend with the possibility of having to downgrade three potential major violations, unless I’ve missed something during my reading of the NCAA’s cover letter and allegations. The odds are against the Huskies, since at least one of the potential major allegations will most likely be classified as major in severity. That’s the way the NCAA does business. In its cover letter, the NCAA also notes the possibility of enhanced penalties (the so-called death penalty) for repeat violators, within a five-year period, noting the Huskies were penalized last July 16 for breaking rules in the men's basketball program. In addition to the penalties for the major infractions, a repeat violator can incur four additional penalties, of which the first two are the most severe: (a) A prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation, which in the UW’s case would be football. Furthermore, coaching staff members would be prohibited from involvement directly or indirectly in any coaching activity at that institution during the period. (b) The elimination of all initial grants-in-aid for the sport, i.e., football, for a two-year period. (c) The requirement that all institutional staff members serving on the Board of Directors, Management Council, Executive Committee of the Association resign those positions, it being understood that all institutional representatives shall be ineligible to serve on any NCAA committee for four years. (d) The requirement that the institution relinquish its voting privilege in the Association for a four-year period. These penalties are subject to exceptions authorized by the Committee on Infractions on the basis of specifically stated reasons. The UW will need to submit a written response, stating the reasons it should not be charged with the repeat violator’s penalties. My guess is that the UW will be charged as a repeat violator, with some sort of probationary period meted out, rather than receiving an inculcation of the full meaning of the NCAA's power and its aforementioned penalties. In addition to restricted recruiting visits and the requirement for a myriad of bureaucratic overhauls in the athletic department, look for a one-year bowl ban and loss of grants-in-aid, say, 5 to 10 scholarships, especially if the loic sticks, and a 2-year probationary period. Why? Because that's the way the NCAA does business. Will the UW fight the penalties? No--you guessed it--because that's the way the UW does business. Richard Linde (a.k.a., Malamute) can be reached at malamute@4malamute.com |
|
|
Mal opens his mailbag and answers some burning questions
that have proved bothersome lately. He tackles questions involving Brent Myers,
Mike Williams, the three amigos, and the potential set of penalties likely to be levied
against Washington by the NCAA.