The institution thus was forced to conduct its investigation under a set of rules, procedures, and policies which, if they existed, the institution was not allowed to see and, as stated above, was at no time aided by the NCAA in the university's pursuit of information pertaining to the validity of any of the allegations.

After a period of time during which the university spent tens of thousands of dollars and during which the attorney general's staff contributed countless hours of time, the university finally assembled its response to the various allegations presented to it by the NCAA.

A single set of responses to the more than 70 allegations required two full packing crates and included sworn statements in the form of affidavits, depositions, photocopies of canceled checks, payment vouchers, and any empirical evidence that the university was able to discover.

In many instances, the specific events to be investigated were so old and the individuals involved so widely scattered that the university was not in a position to either corroborate or to deny the allegation. In many instances, the materials presented by the university clearly indicated that the allegation had no substance whatever.

At the hearings before the infractions committee, the university was surprised to note that the NCAA staff presented no empirical evidence whatever against the university. The NCAA staff presented no affidavits or depositions but, rather, in every instance, the staff relied upon hearsay to make its case. In every instance the staff would present to the infractions committee their recollections of conversations held with various informants based on memoranda they had prepared at some point in time after conducting the interview. It was at the hearing itself that the sources of the various allegations were identified, and although by accident the university had talked with most of the sources and, in fact, was able to present sworn statements from these individuals contradicting the information presented by staff, no opportunity was presented for crossexamining or interviewing those sources who apparently gave conflicting information to the NCAA and to the university.

In some instances, presumably based upon the information presented to the staff and ultimately to the committee by the university, the staff withdrew the charge pending against the university.

In those instances, however, where the staff persisted in pressing the charge against the university, the infractions committee, composed of eminently responsible academicians, was left with the dilemma of choosing between the recollections of conversations with informants presented to it by the staff and the abundant material gathered by the attorney general's office presented to it by the university. In most instances, the infractions committee chose to believe the staff. The appeal to the council was at best a charade, since such limited time was allowed the university to present its case that there was insufficient time to present even the most significant highlights of those particular allegations which we chose to appeal. The council upheld the findings of the infractions committee.

Following the actions of the council, the university found it necessary to take action against certain individuals who allegedly were members of the university's athletic interests and against its head basketball coach. In each instance, a due process hearing was held

on the UNLV campus, but the outcome of such due process hearings was preordained since the university had no option but to accept the findings of the NCAA and to take the recommended action. As I indicated previously, the action taken by the university against its head basketball coach is currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.

It is unfortunate that by the very nature of the NCAA proceedings and the subsequent penalities that are visited upon an institution, many innocent people actually become the victims of the process. The UNLV basketball team last year, as well as the team that the university will present during this coming academic year, are on probation. Not one of the individuals playing on last year's team nor playing on this year's team has in any way been involved in NCAA infractions, yet they must suffer the penalties of lack of exposure and lack of possibility of postseason play spite of the fact that they have not engaged in any wrongdoing.

It seems to me that a change in attitude is required on the part of the NCAA to more effectively prevent abuses in intercollegiate athletics. There must be a change of emphasis to where prevention becomes the focal point of the energies of the infractions committee and of the enforcement staff rather than punishment of institutions that have committed sins.

At the present time, there seems to be no guideline for the NCAA to follow with respect to the issuance of a letter of official inquiry; that is, it appears some institutions are issued such letters after one or two alleged violations, but for other institutions files are evidently maintained until many dozens of such allegations are received by the NCAA. Furthermore, there appear to be no set standards differentiating between "major" and "minor" infractions, and no set standards by which penalties are assessed pursuant to the gravity of the infraction.

It would be far better if the NCAA were to inform its member institutions of the very first complaint received by the NCAA and ask that the institution investigate this complaint and report back to the NCAA in an effort to keep intercollegiate athletics clean. A school such as UNLV never would have been forced to spend the tens of thousands of dollars and the thousands of hours of time investigating more than 70 allegations had the NCAA acted in a timely fashion and presented the institution with an opportunity to correct its mistakes at the time when the very first mistakes occurred. Further, there becomes a point in time when an infraction becomes so stale and penalty so pointless that some type of statute of limitations should be imposed. Ünder present association methods, a condition exists whereby institutions must live with the possibility that the NCAA could well maintain a file on the institution, and that at any moment the NCAA could exercise its option of activating the file and starting an investigation. The aura of secrecy that surrounds these files is reprehensible. Each institution surely has the right to know what information the NCAA has collected concerning the institution, and the NCAA-in the true spirit of cooperation and in the spirit of preventing abuses of its rules should act at a very early point to help the institution run the

kind of intercollegiate athletic program called for by the NCAA constitution.

Mr. Moss. Thank you, Doctor.

The next statement will be by Mr. Jerry Tarkanian of the athletic department.

TESTIMONY OF JERRY TARKANIAN

Mr. TARKANIAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jerry Tarkanian. Thanks to a State court injunction, I am still head basketball coach at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I am grateful that you have invited me to appear before your committee, and I appreciate your having an interest in my thoughts and experiences concerning the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its enforcement program.

First of all, let me say that I believe intercollegiate athletic competition needs a governing body such as the NCAA, and I also believe that the NCAA has made many positive contributions to college sports these past years. I believe as strongly, however, that such an organization must be equally just and fair to all of its members, to individuals employed by its membership, and to all student athletes.

I have read where individuals have voiced opinions about how fairly they were treated by the NCAA enforcement staff. I would be satisfied, too, if I felt I had been treated fairly, but this is the very crux of the problem. Is everyone treated with equal justice and fairness by the enforcement program of the NCAA?

NCAA representatives have been quoted in the media that a charge presented by the enforcement staff is generally disregarded if there is no evidence to support it, that information pertaining to a school being investigated is kept confidential, that phone calls are not taped or electronically recorded by NCAA investigators without the caller's knowledge.

If this is true, then I can say that my own personal experience indicates the NCAA enforcement branch is not equally fair and just in the manner in which it conducts its investigations and hearings. This lack of equality, this lack of justice can cause horrendous effects upon the lives of individuals involved. This effect is not only upon coaches and other employees of the member institutions but, more importantly, upon the student-athletes themseles, the very individuals for whom all of this is about and for whom the NCAA is designated to be a protective agency and without whom, in fact, there would not be a need for NCAA or for a single college coach. Too often these student-athletes are the "silent witnesses" to decisions that affect the inner core of their being, even perhaps their future livelihood, and they have very little with which to protect themselves.

I believe that part of the problem with the NCAA enforcement procedures arises out of how the enforcement staff interprets substantive rules of the association.

This large, somewhat nebulous leeway area of interpretation causes many problems. While we, of course, do need rules and regulations, they should be such that any coach or player can interpret them accurately and live by them. Sometimes you can call the NCAA office for

an interpretation and even they can't give it to you until they discuss it with others or look for additional information, and sometimes you get two different interpretations from two different NCAA staff members.

Perhaps, through these hearings, the NCAA membership might realize the problems that exist and move toward making the rules more livable and certainly more practical. Perhaps they might start by adopting fewer rules that are clearly defined.

Such rules should be in the best interests of the student-athletes. I personally think that many of the rules and their interpretation lack any amount of humanism. For example, it could be a violation if a booster has a player over for dinner during a family holiday when the player is separated from his own family, if the coach takes a player to lunch, if the coach loans the player a jacket, if a new player arrives and doesn't have a place to stay so he stays a few days with the coach or another player, if a player has dinner with the coach and his family, if a coach gives a player a ride home after practice, or to work, or to class and so forth.

Some of today's rules basically eliminate much of the personal interaction between a coach and athlete and, in this day and age, so many student-athletes, as well as other students, need that extra interaction, some special, considerate action, that extra personal warmth that shows that a coach and his family do care. I am not talking about expensive actions, but through the interpretation of current NCAA rules, they could be called extra financial benefits by NCAA investigators.

A coach and an athlete become very, very close. The relationship that you develop there when you are in competition together is strong; you have to have a personal interest. I really believe that. I don't believe you can coach an athlete and get results unless you do have a personal interest. Yet, if you do have a personal interest and if you do any of the things that I mentioned above, it is a violation.

I believe if you were to follow these rules to the letter, a coach would have to coach his team from say 3 to 5 and not see them again until 3 o'clock the next day. I don't believe that you can be effective coaching in that manner.

Please understand me, I do not think that a student athlete should receive any better care or treatment than any other student should expect, but the student athletes should not be forced to take anything less. I feel that often a strict application of the NCAA rules and interpretations deprive the student athlete of what every other student should expect from a good college education, and from a good college educator.

While I am a college basketball coach, I am also a college educator. If I were a mathematics professor and one of my students came to me with a personal problem, spent the night in my home, and used by phone to call his parents, I think I would be considered a good, caring educator. But, I am a basketball coach, and if I did the same thing I could be accused by the NCAA and branded a cheat, for providing "extra financial benefits" for student athletes.

I just do not think this is fair to a coach or to student athletes. Why should I be deprived of caring for my students like any other good college educator would care for their students? Why should my

students be deprived of that care? I am not talking about cash payments for play, new cars, or jobs where the student doesn't have to work or falsification of grades. This is wrong, and I have never been involved in such activities and never will be.

When this committee hears testimony, as I understand they already have, that virtually every college athletic program is in violation of the NCAA rules, I believe that this is what they are talking about.

No coach, including myself, worth calling an educator can turn his back on a student, even if he is an athlete as well, who comes to him in need. Any organization that interprets its rules to prohibit such human and civilized activity is wrong. I have said it before and I will continue to say it because I believe it as strongly as I believe anything.

Why have I had to suffer what I have suffered over the last 6 years at the hands of the NCAA? I honestly do not know. I have always been candid in my criticisms of the NCAA. I will be candid today. It is true that I have written articles in the early 1970's criticizing what I felt was the unfair NCAA discipline of several small colleges. I hate to think that my willingness to speak out caused my troubles. I have been a successful coach and, I believe, a fair coach who has always tried to live up to high ideals of amateur athletic competition. Maybe I have been too successful and this has caused both suspicion and perhaps jealousy. I doubt whether I will ever really know why this has happened.

I first started coaching basketball in 1957 and coached at three high schools and two junior colleges, all in California, before accepting an offer in the late 1960's to be the head basketball coach at Cal State at Long Beach. I accepted and stayed there until accepting my present job at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas in the spring of 1973.

In the early 1970's I first heard about comments allegedly made by NCAA investigators about my relationship with black athletes. I was told that the NCAA investigators were accusing me of exploiting black athletes. I did not take these reports too seriously. This came at a time when national articles praised me for my close rapport with black athletes and at a time when black athletes and their parents were highly positive in numerous public statements about me.

Further, as assistant to the dean of students at both Pasadena City College and Long Beach University, I had been instrumental in working with blacks toward redress of their grievances through positive, not negative means, and I was complimented for my contribution to the overall campus atmosphere by Dr. Stephen Horn, the Long Beach president. In fact, I was selected professor of the year at Long Beach State for my involvement in student activities.

NCAA investigators visited the Long Beach campus in the fall of 1972 to question student-athletes. After they left, our athletic director informed me that he had been told that if any charges were to be made, the school would be notified in about 30 days. Approximately 6 months later we still had not received any word from the NCAA and assumed that everything was all right.

It was about this time that I accepted a very secure and attractive position with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I told Long Beach officials that I accepted the Nevada job and no one told me Long Beach might be in trouble with the NCAA. I left Long Beach in mid-March