« PreviousContinue »
Additional material submitted for the record by-Continued
Letter dated September 5, 1975, from Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.,
president, Michigan State University to Warren S. Brown,
179 Letter dated September 12, 1975, from Warren S. Brown, assistant
executive director, NCAA, to Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.,
Michigan State University under date of July 17, 1975.--- 945
dent, Mississippi State University to Walter Byers, executive
133 Letter dated October 15, 1975, from John A. Fuzak, faculty rep
resentative, NCAA, to Warren S. Brown, assistant executive
233 Letter dated October 21, 1975, from Dean Rinehart, attorney, to
Walt Buers, NCAA, re investigators interview of personnel of
594 Letter dated November 5, 1975, from Warren S. Brown assistant
executive director, NCAA to John A. Fuzak, Michigan State
231 Letter dated November 22, 1975, from Warren S. Brown,
assistant executive director, NCAA, to Joseph_T. Dixon, Jr.,
Henson & Tully re NCAA's interview with Mrs. Bernice Barker. 1337
counsel, University of Nevada System to Walter Byers, execu-
1412 Letter dated January 4, 1977, from Walter Byers, NCAA, to Dr.
Harold L. Enarson, president, Ohio State University respond-
427, 1028 Letter dated June 7, 1977, from Bill Musselman, manager, Inter
national Tours of Stillwater, Inc., to Keith McMillin re NCAA
570 Letten dated September 6, 1977, from Charles Alan Wright to
Dean Arthur R. Reynolds, University of Northern Colorado re article from the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled, "NCAA Blows the Whistle on Las Vegas Basketball and Coach Jerry Tarkanian”.
1332 Letter dated November_7, 1977, from Lana Jeanne Tyree,
attorney, to Walter Byers, executive director, NCAA re Clarence Wright...
596 Letter dated December 7, 1977, from Walter Byers, National
Collegiate Athletic Association to Dr. Donald H. Baepler, University of Nevada re Congressman Santini and his identification as a member of the UNLV booster group-
60 Letter dated August 8, 1978, from Chairman Ňoss and Congress
man Lent to J. Neils Thompson, University of Texas re recommendations presented to the subcommittee from various witnesses and a letter in reply from Mr. Thompson, dated August 31, 1978.
877 Letters to Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., president, Michigan
State University from various people re Coach Charles Butler-- 201 Memorandum, case No. 443—University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
report of a December 10, 1976 telephone conversation initiated by the writer with Norman Sloan, basketball coach, North Carolina State University -
Additional material submitted for the record by-Continued
Memorandum dated April 1, 1975, re case No. 520-Mississippi Page
151 Memorandum dated April 16, 1976, from Warren S. Brown to
Dave Berst re case No. 520-Mississippi State University ---- 32
Dave Berst re case No. 520 Mississippi State University with
34 Memorandum dated December 10, 1976, from Warren S. Brown to
NCAA Committee on Infractions re memorandum from Jerry
1394 Memorandum dated June 27, 1977, from Brent Clark to Bill Hunt,
Dave Berst, and Hale McMenamin re active and preliminary
16 Memorandum re the May 23, 1977, staff meeting signed by
William B. Hunt, February 22, 1978.
Bernard Wunder, and Benjamin Smethurst to Chairman Moss
70 News release dated January 25, 1976, re Michigan State Univer
sity placed on NCAA probation with penalty to be imposed
161 News release dated March 9, 1976, re University of Minnesota placed on NCAA probation..
270 News release dated October 21, 1976, re University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, placed on NCAA probation.
283 News release from NCAA dated May 11, 1976, re University of Denver placed on NCAA probation..
612 Opinion in the Buckton case cited at 366 Fed. Sup. 1152, 1973, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.
669 Opinion No. Civ. A. No. 76-A-510 in the U.S. District court,
D. Colorado, July 16, 1976, Colorado Semninary (University of
308 Santini, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada, statement...
26 Tyree, Lana, attorney, Oklahoma City, Okla., comments re NCAA lobbying activities.
581 Ward, Erwin C., attorney, formerly representing Mississippi State
University in proceedings before the NCAA, biographical data on
119 Appendix 1--Letter dated November 22, 1978, from J. Neils Thompson president, and Edgar A. Sherman, secretary-treasurer, NCAA in response to a number of questions posed during the hearing
1453 Appendix II—Letter dated November 27, 1978, from Michael Scott, counsel
NCAA in response to a number of questions posed during the hearing-- 1480
NCAA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met,
pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John E. Moss, chairman, presiding
Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will be in order.
This morning we explore a subject area that is wholly novel to this subcommittee, the world of intercollegiate sports. The overriding issue we examine, however, is not novel at all. Quite simply, it is fairness. Does the organization that regulates and polices virtually all serious intercollegiate athletic activity in the country operate in a way that does not offend our sense of fairplay?
That question has not been asked and answered in a congressional or any other public forum in three-quarters of a century,
The organization, of course, is the National Collegiate Athletic Association. It was founded, largely under the auspices of President Theodore Roosevelt, in 1906, after utilization of the “flying wedge" in college football had resulted in an unconscionable number of injuries,
even deaths. The NCAA managed to eliminate that hazard to life and limb, and went on to greatly enhance the atmosphere in which colleges and universities compete with one another in the sports arena. I have no reason to doubt that the association continues to do so today.
But the nature of the organization has changed greatly over the years. Responding to a post-World War II growth of recruiting and scholarship abuses among colleges and universities, the NCAA in 1952 for the first time established an enforcement apparatus, set up a permanent executive staff and a national headquarters, and appointed a full-time executive director, Walter Byers, who has been there ever since.
Since that time the membership of the association has more than doubled to well over 800 members. The NCAA today regulates and polices the activities of members employing over 6,000 coaches, with athletic budgets of over one-half billion dollars. It negotiates television contracts which now range over $35 million a year, and dictates who, when, and through what medium 100 million fans witness collegiate sporting events.
In other words, it's a big business with the power to affect many aspects of interstate commerce. And that is why we are here today. The subcommittee's investigation began 4 months ago. Not an avid sports fan myself, though surrounded by many, and one always keenly interested in fairness in both the public and private sectors, I was approached by the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Santini, and fully 70 of our colleagues, who requested that we examine the NCAA's enforcement procedures. They were prompted by allegations of unfairness, arbitrariness, inequality, secrecy, and other abuses of excessive power which they and I felt deserved scrutiny in an official and public forum for the first time. For after all, this is a private organization, responsible to no one outside itself, with powers normally reserved to governments.
What we did not fully appreciate at the time was the extraordinary attention our effort would receive, the passions it would generate, and the high-pitched air of controversy in this room today.
A lot of public ink has been spilled in the last few days. Yesterday's New York Times quotes Walter Byers as saying: “We're happy to cooperate with the subcommittee ***," but that in his opinion the member colleges of the NCAA show "a general lack of concern or a ho-hum attitude” toward these hearings.
We, of course, welcome Mr. Byers cooperation. We fought hard enough to get it.
But a lack of concern? Hardly! Our own field investigators, time after time and at member institutions all over the country, encountered expressions of the kind of fear and anxiety we customarily associate with intimidation. The fears have been sometimes specific, sometimes vague; but the theme has been consistent. People are afraid of being perceived, or perhaps misperceived, as cooperating with this subcommittee. I anticipate we will have some of that today, tomorrow, and in the weeks ahead.
Much of the press controversy in recent days has surrounded our first witness this morning, Brent Clark. A former NCAA field investigator, Mr. Clark resigned from NCAA in December of last year. Well after that, and with no prior contact to or from Mr. Clark, our staff, whose investigation had been nearly completed, interviewed Mr. Clark in Kansas City.
It was obvious, after this interview, that Mr. Clark would be a witness before this subcommittee. His testimony today we would have received in any event. Contrary to what appeared in Saturday's Washington Star, he will be under oath and fully subject to penalties for perjury, as will every other witness who testifies in this series of hearings.
As it happens, we were able to marry some interests that go quite beyond anything having to do with the NCAA investigation. His interest in working in the Nation's Capital, for the Congress, and his wide-ranging enthusiasm for subject areas of longstanding importance to this subcommittee, and his superior educational qualifications prompted me to invite Mr. Clark to join our staff. He did so on February 1.
I am not unmindful that some individuals may be concerned about the appearances involved. But that is all they are-appearances. Moreover, anyone who questions Mr. Clark's employment on this subcommittee staff, should take the matter up with me, not Mr. Clark.