STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE OUT OVERSICHT AM INVESTIGATIONS COLITTER By Charles M. Meinas Big Eight Conference My name is Chuck Neinas, and since the fall of 1971 I have served as commissioner of the Big Eight Conference, which is comprised of the following universities: Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. 11 Prior to my association with the Big Eight Conference, I was employed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association for a period of ten years from August, 1961, until October 1, 1971. My purpose for appearing before this Committee today is to offer suggestions which I believe are designed to improve the NCAA's enforcement program. It would be my hope that we can avoid the enactment of federal legislation or the establishment of a governmental bureaucracy which would be counterproductive in the administration of intercollegiate athletics. Although the hearings have centered on the NCAA's enforcement program, it should be recognized that the NCAA is important to the conduct of college athletics. There are many benefits which have accrued to the colleges and universities because of the CAA, including the championship events program, the promotion of college athletics, the establishment of playing rules, and research designed to improve equidment and playing conditions in the best interests of the athlete. The "CAA has taken a leadership role, and rightfully so, in attempting to improve the United States Olynpic Committee and has sought a more effective administration of amateur athletics at all levels in this country. Fortunately, the NCAA has taken an active role in representing the college viewpoint in the halls of Congress. This witness has, on more than one occasion, been in contact with senators and congressmen from the six-state area embracing the Big Eight Conference membership. To criticize the NCAA for assuming a leadership role in advancing the position of its membershin is unfair, especially in view of the fact that other organizations whose position may differ from that of the NCAA are equally, if not more, active in attempting to present their viewpoints to Congress. There is a definite need for a national college sports organization. If the "CAA were ruled out of business today, a new organization would be required to take its place tomorrow. There is a need to establish basic rules for eligibility and competition. It also should be noted that many of the "CAA rules have been developed for the protection of the student-athlete. Obviously, I could be categorized as a member of the athletic establishment. As the chief executive officer of a major athletic conference, however, I take umbrage at the statements of some previous witnesses who indicate that there is a lack of sensitivity or understanding of the problems of the student-athlete. The main charge to those of us involved in intercollegiate athletic administration is to develop an appropriate competitive atmosphere and to provide the athletes and coaches every opportunity to achieve success within the rules which are established by the colleges and universities themselves. We hope that those who are engaged in college athletics will gain from their educational opportunities and thus become contributors to the society in which we live. When IICAA officials testify, it would be helpful in understanding the problems related to enforcement if they would outline the evolution of the Association's enforcement program. A description of how the NCAA initially became involved in enforcement operations and the changes which have transpired through the years could assist in evaluating the current program. One of the difficulties confronting the NCAA today is that it is frequently misunderstood, both internally and externally. As some of you may be aware, there is a desire on the part of a segment of the NCAA membership to restructure the organization so that it will be more responsive to the needs and desires of its members, and in particular, those involved with a major athletic program. One of the problems which involves the membership, as well as the NCAA staff, is overlegislation. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency on the part of both the NCAA policy-making Council and the Association's own membership to assume that national legislation can solve all problems. The result has been the adoption of some rules which I feel are impractical and, in some instances, unenforceable. We must Realistically, the NCAA is currently in a "no-win" situation relative to enforcement. I am not sure that anyone involved in an enforcement operation, including the Big Eight Conference, can develop a perfect system that will satisfy everyone. be responsive to the public, the media, college presidents, athletic administrators, and coaches who want strict enforcement of the rules and the elimination of abuses in intercollegiate athletics.. Also, there are those who desire adherence to the rules, but believe that the NCAA's enforcement activity is impractical, that its procedures are unfair, and that the penalties developed do not fit the violations. The objective is to provide effective, but fair, enforcement of the rules. The Big Eight Conference attempts to operate a fair and objective enforcement program, but we are not without our own problems. Admittedly, our task is somewhat It is also a fact that the imposition of simpler because of the smaller membership. penalties on one of your own family is frequently a painful task. However, we believe that an effective Conference enforcement program can be of assistance to our membership, and in this regard we have the complete support of the chief executive officers of our member institutions. Again, because of the more compact membership, we have enjoyed a cooperative effort on the part of Conference member institutions during the investigative process. The result is that the Conference probably has a greater opportunity to operate in a relatively harmonious atmosphere than has the NCAA. There has been a social change on the campuses of the colleges and universities, and the NCAA must be cognizant of these adjustments which have occurred in the past decade. Some of us may be concerned about the age of permissiveness that has developed since the campus unrest of the sixties. It is fairly well established, however, that current institutional patterns of dealing with disciplinary matters have been subject to close scrutiny which has resulted in greater emphasis on due process than in times past. Consequently, some college presidents have questioned NCAA procedures in view of what has transpired on their own campuses. It was against this backdrop that the Rig Fight Conference proposed a resolution to the 1977 ICAA Convention, which was cosponsored by the Missouri Valley Conference. Because of the extent of other business, the Association's membership did not act upon the resolution. Simply stated, the resolution called for the "CAA Council to www www appoint a special committee of persons not otherwise associated with the Association's enforcement activities to (1) review the investigative practices and procedures of the NCAA enforcement program; (2) consider the fairness of these practices and procedures: and (3) make recommendations to the CAA for written publication of such practices and procedures and adherence to fundamental principles of fairness. The Committee would report on its recommendations at the annual Convention of the NCAA. At the 1978 NCAA Convention, the Association's Council placed before the membership guidelines defining the NCAA's investigative practices and procedures, which were subsequently voted upon and adopted by the membership. Although some individuals criticized the procedures, it marked the first time that the NCAA had published and developed investigative guidelines for the edification of its membership. This was a positive act to inform the membership as to how the investigative process operates. - There are other recommendations and suggestions which I have advanced to the CAA which may be of interest to the Committee. Some of the suggestions are similar to those offered by other witnesses who have appeared before this Committee namely, Jack Fuzak of Michigan State University and the immediate past president of the NCAA and Mickey Holmes, the commissioner of the Missouri Valley Conference. It is important that the NCAA Committee on Infractions be divorced from the enforcement staff. Those of us involved in college athletics have a high regard for the gentlemen who comprise the NCAA Committee on Infractions. They serve without remuneration, and each and every one has an excellent background and academic credentials. However, close association between the enforcement staff and the Committee |