been a dynamic leader for the NCAA. I think one of the problems that confronts the NCAA is the fact that there is a rotation principle among the committees, and as normally would happen, as personnel revolves off the committee, the staff provides the only continuity. Therefore, it is only natural that staff input takes on increased importance. And I think that the NCAA Council, for example, and executive committee, have come to rely heavily on Mr. Byers' advice, but his track record is pretty good.

As far as the members of the enforcement staff, those with whom I am personally acquainted, they are young men of high integrity, and that would include the former chief of the infractions division, Warren Brown, who is one of the finest men I know.

Mr. LENT. Do you know Mr. Hunt and Mr.

Mr. NEINAS. Not as well as Warren Brown, but I have admiration for Bill Hunt.

Mr. LENT. How about Mr. Berst?

Mr. NEINAS. I do not know Dave as well as I know Warren, either, but Dave seems to be a good, sound person.

Mr. LENT. I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

This is the part that bothers me somewhat with respect to the NCAA procedures. There is a procedure under which a student athlete who is charged with violations of NCAA rules is required to be declared ineligible, I believe, by the university to which he has matriculated. I just wonder if you had any feeling as to whether that procedure ought to be maintained or whether there ought to be some change in it. Mr. NEINAS. I think there should be a change, sir.

Mr. LENT. How would you change that?

Mr. NEINAS. I think that the individual should have the opportunity to be heard by those who are actually going to judge his case. I think Jack Fuzak, the immediate past president of the NCAA, elaborated upon that in his statement. I would support what he said. I know a case where a young man was confronted with this and he believed he had done nothing wrong. He did not understand why he had to be declared ineligible in the first place, and I tried to explain to him that this was a procedure and that in all probability his eligibility was going to be restored. And he did not accept that very well. He believed he was completely innocent of the charge and therefore could not understand why he had to be declared ineligible before he could become eligible.

Mr. LENT. Might you not run into a situation where a student involved in some very flagrant and well-publicized violation could not be declared ineligible until after all of the due process, hearings appeals, and so forth, would be actually out on the field playing, being a hero, the touchdown king, and at the same time have been pretty well acknowledged to have been guilty of these gross violations? Might not this sort of a scenario undermine the NCAA?

Mr. NEINAS. I think you have to develop more expedient procedures. Again, I would point out the fact that the thrust of expediency could be accommodated with greater cooperation.

Mr. LENT. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. Once again we have a vote in progress on the floor, adoption of the rule on the transportation appropriation bill. We will

suspend for approximately 15 minutes in order to permit the members

to vote.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. Moss. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Santini.

Mr. SANTINI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join you in your observations about the quality and caliber of Mr. Neinas' testimony and the contribution that it represents to this record. I am particularly impressed with the balance of your evaluation processes, in view of the fact that most logically because of longstanding friendships and associations it would be very natural in your situation to be somewhat defensive or protective and to cut one's eyes off from what one might see with regard to any shortcomings or deficiencies in the operation.

I think you have managed to keep your eyes very much open and I, this individual member, am very much impressed with your testimony. I am going to use it as a basis for two, three, four recommendations as we sit down to discuss the content of our report to the Congress.

In your statement you speak of the problem of overlegislating, with the result that some rules are impractical and unenforceable. Do you have any specific recommendations that you might make on how to rectify that situation?

Mr. NEINAS. To a degree, I think the NCAA has already done some of that, in that it passed a rule last convention that would now require six institutions to sponsor an amendment to the constitution and bylaws. I think to a degree this will help.

Also, I think it would take some self-discipline on the part of the membership. If one has a particular problem in this area, they have a tendency to say, "Well, let's make a national rule and try and solve it."

If you want an example of the type of rule which I believe is unenforceable and impractical it is the three-contact rule, which was enacted to curb the number of opportunities that a representative of an institution has to contact a student, at least off campus. You may contact such student three times. But an interpretation says that normal civility may prevail, if you run into them. So the coaches call that a bump. So as a result you have more bumps than contacts.

Mr. SANTINI. I understand, that's a good illustration. What do we do, Commissioner, about the situation of the existent rules that are either impractical, confusing in direction, interpretation, or unenforceable?

Mr. NEINAS. I believe first of all the NCAA Council is made up of people who are dedicated to collegiate athletics and have good standing within the community of higher education. But I believe that there would have to be a review of the rules. I think one of the things that is confusing, Congressman, is that in one particular situation you might find in one section where it is permissible to do something, but then three or four sections later you find out that it is not permissible. I am not a great legislator myself, but obviously there has to be some review.

Mr. SANTINI. Could this not be a matter that the commission or the committee that you have recommended be created could address specifically with regard to whatever rule, housecleaning, would appear to be in order after their review? And could they not return to the coun

cil with a recommendation for a consolidation and clarification of the existing rules?

Mr. NEINAS. I would not want to burden the committee, I suggest, with that responsibility. I think if they have the opportunity to conduct a review of the enforcement procedures and practices, that would be sufficient for one committee, and I am not one to suggest a lot of committees. But that might be necessary, to have just an NCAA constitution and bylaw review committee.

Mr. SANTINI. But you would make that separate and independent from the committee that you have recommended on page 10 in the testimony?

Mr. NEINAS. I certainly would.

Mr. SANTINI. As the situation presently exists, one violation of any one of these rules, no matter how trivial, can lead to maximum penalties, each extending to the sports program of the entire university. Sports programs and athletes in no way connected to that one violation can be prohibited from championship competition and receive other sanctions as well.

My question addresses the potential inequities or inconsistencies with. the punishments assessed. What would you do or recommend with regard to that problem area?

Mr. NEINAS. I wish I could help you, sir, but the Big Eight Conference is guilty of the same type of penalty structure. We impose a probation with sanctions upon institutions in the sport, and as a result those who may not have been involved in the violation are deprived from postseason competition, for example. I think there has been a general tendency to try to make the penalties more specific, to concentrate on the guilty coach, the guilty outside party, try to deprive an athlete knowingly involved and willingly involved in a violation from his opportunity to compete. This is one of the problems that we have, to be specific, and yet we run into some legal complications. The coaching profession does not have a system whereby they could debar someone, for example. I firmly believe most coaches are pretty good, honest people. They are the salesmen of college athletics. But we need to address ourselves to this, and I am sorry I do not have more specific ideas. If you have some I would be willing to listen to them. One of the changes that we have done in our conference is to impose economic sanctions. We just adopted that type penalty not too long ago. We feel that will certainly get the attention of the institution, its administration, and also allow the administration to go to perhaps some overzealous friends and alums and say "Look, it is going to cost us money unless you make sure that you behave by the rules."

Mr. SANTINI. You have generally, I think, pinpointed the basic problem related to the punishment now imposed by suggesting there ought to be a focus; major offenses, minor offenses.

Could we not, Commissioner, in the context of exercising that focus, define in one category or sequence potential infractions, major; define in the other category minor, and in that definition process, as the offenses are presently defined in the rules and regulations, would have not then also suggest a category of punishments that would be appropriate for major violations and a category of punishments appropriate that could be imposed for minor violations?

Concededly there would have to be some considerable breadth of discretion, but it does seem to me we would ourselves come somewhat closer to a fairer kind of balancing of the punishments or having the punishments fit the infraction, if you will, than we have under the existing system, where any minor infraction such as a $12 discount for purchase of clothing in a circumstance of contested evidence-I am alluding now to the Mississippi State case example, which was the one infraction charged against the one football player-was used as the basis for an initial punishment of 2 years probation or suspension from participating in the athletic program there.

I suspect what went on behind the scenes in that was an intensive belief that there was much more in the way of substantive evidence that just couldn't be proved, that therefore we are going to use this one minor offense as a justification for a very, very serious kind of punishment imposition. I think that is inherently unfair and it is inconsistent with any factfinding process. But I am struggling myself with an effort here with the members of the committee and our chairman to try to figure out how we could recommend an improvement in that situation.

Mr. NEINAS. I wish I could be of assistance to you but I am afraid maybe I cannot. I would say this, by not having the penalties previously defined as to the category of violation, you must remember the enforcement program is supposed to serve as a deterrent. If the penalties are defined in accordance with a certain violation, there may be greater temptation to try some of the so-called minor violations and, as a result, by not announcing in advance what the penalty might be, you hope that you have better adherence to the rules.

Mr. SANTINI. Also, you have the danger of, or potential danger of arbitrary exercise of judgment in that context. In every other system of civil or criminal process, be it administrative or otherwise, we seem to be very precise and I can appreciate that there are circumstances here that may not lend themselves to that same precision of punishment and penalty, but I sure would like to get it a little more coherent and consistent.

Whatever the instances of human abuse in terms of punisher, you would be able to confine or limit that kind of abuse. We shall pursue that as well.

I was most interested in your commission or committee recommendation, and the question that immediately suggested itself to me, Commissioner, is: Supposing as part of this committee's report we recommend such a commitment, supposing in consequence absolutely nothing is done in response to that recommendation, what then would you suggest to the committee should be our course of recommendation or action?

Mr. NEINAS. Well, I would still dislike Federal intrusion into this area. I would hope that the colleges and universities themselves could take it upon themselves to initiate such a committee to investigate.

You could always bring it up, a member of the NCAA could always bring it before the membership in terms of a resolution. It properly, however, should be brought to the attention of the membership by the NCAA policymaking council. That would be the appropriate vehicle.

Mr. SANTINI. I am much concerned that we have an alternative course of action available in the event that there does not appear to be a willingness or that there is a stonewalling, if you will, of any of the substantive changes or recommendations that you made. I think I have the adverse precedent of your efforts, Big 8, and the efforts of the Missouri Valley Conference, to propose some substantive changes at the last annual meeting, and somehow, as you characterized it, that the rush of business did not permit consideration of those changes.

A suspicious observer might feel there were other motives as well involved in terms of resisting the possibility of change there. Some good changes were made in the last annual meeting, but if you would contribute what additional thought or objective judgment that you can. to what we do in the event that whatever recommendation came out was ignored completely, and what our response in that context should be, I would appreciate that, Commissioner.

I have very much benefited from your testimony and I am very glad there are people like you out there who care enough to come forward and share your thoughts and ideas and experience with us.

Thank you.

Mr. NEINAS. Thank you, Congressman Santini.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Luken.

Mr. LUKEN. Mr. Neinas, I do not intend to go over the suggestions that you have made for changes in any detail. You have summarized possible changes in the NCAA procedure very well, and we have had previous witnesses who have given similar thoughts. Obviously there are possible changes, alternatives.

There is always the question of separating the prosecutor from the judge, and there is an element of that in this case. So I would like to pursue just a couple of points now, particularly since you have indicated that you are apprehensive about Federal involvement. I am not apprehensive of Federal involvement per se in just anything, but here we have a private organization and if we are going to deign to tell them what to do, we had better be pretty sure of our ground; not only our constitutional grounds but also our grounds of whether what we are proposing is actually going to be beneficial.

I am not sure that Solomon and all his wisdom can suggest, as you have indicated, just exactly what the NCAA should do here. They should attempt some changes, but we cannot be sure that those are necessarily going to be beneficial.

With regard to the legislation that you are apprehensive about, have you thought about what forms that legislation might take?

Mr. NEINAS. I would assume that if Congress does get involved and legislation is passed, there would be probably some type of a governmental structure involved in college athletics. I think that we have enough ability and dedication to solve these problems ourselves and that collegiate athletics can function in a more appropriate manner without having the Federal Government looking over your shoulder. Mr. LUKEN. Do you mean a governmental structure that is Federal agency-directed?

Mr. NEINAS. Correct.

Mr. LUKEN. I think we assume everybody would be very apprehensive about that; if we start getting into the NCAA I do not know