Additional material submitted for the record by-Continued Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, etc.-Continued Letter dated September 5, 1975, from Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., Letter dated October 15, 1975, from John A. Fuzak, faculty rep- Letter dated November 5, 1975, from Warren S. Brown assistant Page 179 945 133 233 594 231 1337 1412 427, 1028 Letter dated January 4, 1977, from Walter Byers, NCAA, to Dr. Letten dated September 6, 1977, from Charles Alan Wright to Letter dated November 7, 1977, from Lana Jeanne Tyree, Letter dated December 7, 1977, from Walter Byers, National Letters to Dr. Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., president, Michigan 570 1332 596 60 877 201 1443 Additional material submitted for the record by-Continued Memorandum dated April 1, 1975, re case No. 520-Mississippi Memorandum dated April 16, 1976, from Warren S. Brown to Memorandum dated May 22, 1976, from Warren Brown re the Memorandum dated June 27, 1977, from Brent Clark to Bill Hunt, cases... Memorandum re the May 23, 1977, staff meeting signed by News release dated January 25, 1976, re Michigan State Univer- News release dated March 9, 1976, re University of Minnesota Page 151 32 1022 34 1394 16 24 70 161 270 News release dated October 21, 1976, re University of Minnesota, 283 News release from NCAA dated May 11, 1976, re University of 612 669 Opinion in the Buckton case cited at 366 Fed. Sup. 1152, 1973, 681 308 Santini, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 26 Tyree, Lana, attorney, Oklahoma City, Okla., comments re NCAA lobbying activities. 581 119 Ward, Erwin C., attorney, formerly representing Mississippi State University in proceedings before the NCAA, biographical data on educational, military, and professional background... Appendix I-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 hearingAppendix II-Letter dated November 27, 1978, from Michael Scott, counsel NCAA in response to a number of questions posed during the hearing-- 1480 1453 NCAA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 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. |