Has Rick N. saved his job?

[stkelly52]

http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/2003/0609/1565178.html

The UW apparently sent out a memo to all coaches that specifically said that coaches could participate in NCAA tourny pools.

The memo ends with: "The bottom line of these rules is that if you have friends outside of ICA (Intercollegiate Athletics) that have pools on any of the basketball tournaments, you can participate,"

[Craptacular]

I'm beginning to hope they don't fire him, just to help keep me entertained.

[stkelly52]

I was listening to KJR (seattle's sports talk station) on my computer, and one of the commentators(sp?) said that he hoped that Rick kept his job because it made his job so much easier. There is always so much to talk about.

[sooner333]

He may not have saved it, but even though I really dislike him as a coach because he cheats on recruiting, I also hope he keeps his job in this situation. NCAA Basketball tournament gambling is widespread and accepted in our society. Sure, Rick is involved in college athetics, but he's not involved in college basketball, and neither was his school. It is also not feasable that he could have had another college coach throw a game for a portion of his winnings.

Basically, he had no effect on the games. The real meaning behind the rule is to make sure the representatives of the schools don't bet on college sports because they don't want the image and its illegal. But the main thing in this case is that if it were me or anybody here at the forum (except huve, if he still lurks) bet on the tournament in Washington, it would be legal and there would be no legal repercussions. That's why he should keep his job.

[stkelly52]

Something else that I wonder, if the school sanctioned this, (assuming that the memo's interpretation of the rule is incorrect) then could Washington be facing some sanctions?

[ISiddiqui]

I agree with sooner. I mean, come on, betting on a NCAA basketball tourney pool?! Who hasn't done that! I mean, the NCAA basically promotes it by having bracket shows, etc.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I agree with sooner. I mean, come on, betting on a NCAA basketball tourney pool?! Who hasn't done that! I mean, the NCAA basically promotes it by having bracket shows, etc.
That is ridiculous. They are merely showing the public how the tournament is setup. What would they need to do to prevent you from thinking they were promoting gambling? Keep all but the first round matchups secret until right before tipoff? I just don't see how you jump from "revealing tournament structure" to "promoting betting on it"

And what slick Rick did is a far cry from what "most of us" do. Virtually everyone plays a $5 office pool. Some even venture $20. Some true die hards join $100 pools at bars. Only gamblers bet $5000 on their entry.

[stkelly52]

but for a person who makes 1+ million a year, it is not much different stakes than someone who makes 12,000 a year and bets $20

[ISiddiqui]

That is ridiculous. They are merely showing the public how the tournament is setup.

Bullshit. They know what they are doing. The NCAA definetly promotes gambling in the college basketball tourney... it's how they get viewers. Otherwise who cares if Bumblefuck U. knocks off UCLA or something? I mean, really, what is the need for a tourney selection show on ESPN? And why do people watch it? It's all about gambling. They want to see what the host people say about who is prime upset material or who is ranked too low/high.

If you don't think the NCAA knows and subtly promotes gambling in the NCAA tourney, you are being naive.

And what slick Rick did is a far cry from what "most of us" do. Virtually everyone plays a $5 office pool. Some even venture $20. Some true die hards join $100 pools at bars. Only gamblers bet $5000 on their entry.

... and rich people.

[dawgfan]

A few points here:

1. The NCAA is intolerant of gambling on college athletics for a good reason - a perception by the general public that the outcome of sporting events might be tainted by outside influence deters from that sports' popularity. Thus, any activity that could remotely lead to that possibility is not allowed. Consider:

A football coach places a bet on a college basketball team of another school in the NCAA tourney. Innocent right? Not necessarily; that football coach might know one of the basketball coaches involved and call him for inside scoop on the team. If he's placed enough money on the game he might even try to apply some pressure on the decision-making of the basketball coach. Thus, the difference between you and I participating in an NCAA pool and Neuheisel doing so.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Neuheisel did any of this, but if you're the NCAA, where do you draw the line in such matters? It makes the most sense, and is the easiest to enforce if you simply say any type of wagering on NCAA sports is prohibited by any coach, player, or athletic department staffer of member institutions. Note this doesn't prevent them from placing bets on horse racing (so long as they're legal) - if Neuheisel has a jonesing to gamble he had other options.

2. The NCAA rules here are pretty much cut and dried on this issue. From the NCAA rulebook:

10.3 Gambling Activities
Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student athletes shall not knowingly:

(a) Provide information to individuals in organized gambling activities concerning intercollegiate athletics competition;
(b) Solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team;
(c) Accept a bet on any team representing the institution;
(d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g. cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or
(e) Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling.

Now, regardless of any memo Neuheisel received from UW compliance directors, it's still his responsibility to know the rules; given the NCAA's strict stance on gambling, and given that he was already on a short leash with the NCAA and his own boss, he should've double-checked that this particular memo was accurate before he participated in this pool.

3. The fact that an inter-office memo from an assistant compliance director at the UW seems to have incorrectly interpreted this rule will undoubtably bring some NCAA heat on the UW. Something to consider however: Did this compliance director make this interpretation on his own, or did he consult with someone at the NCAA before writing this memo?

People have started to throw around the term "lack of institutional control" regarding this incident; I think this is a bit of a stretch - while it's true that this memo misinterprets an important rule on ethics in NCAA athletics, it was not something that could lead to an advantage for the institution in competition in any sport. Thus, I have a hard time seeing how the NCAA could justify any kind of sanctions against the football team for this incident.

Much more likely is that the NCAA would place that staffer under suspension, and possibly the AD (Barbara Hedges) as well.

Neuheisel will almost certainly be suspended as well, unless he can find a loophole in those rules that escapes me. He has a law degree though, so I wouldn't rule that out completely.

4. KJR radio has a weird relationship with the UW; while it has the broadcast contracts for UW athletics, the morning crew that stkelly52 listened to has been notoriously unsupportive at best and antagonistic at worst with the school in general and the football team in particular. The guy that follows (Dave "Softy" Mahler) is the only admitted Husky fan of the on-air crew; the remaining hosts are mildly positive towards the program.

5. As an alumnus of the school and long-time fan of the program, I'm fed-up with Neuheisel. The last straw for me was his over lying about interviewing for the 49er job. He had an opportunity to simply say "no comment" or something equally evasive about the situation, but instead he not only lied, he went way out of his way to do so, even so far as to say at his press conference that he was "...not lying about this" and going on the air at KJR to specifically deny that he'd interviewed for the job.

Now, various people here distrust the media and will always have a tainted view of any situation involving them, but this was clearly a case of a man with no moral objection to lying to the public about his activities.

Combine that with a history of playing fast and loose with the rules, and you're left with a conclusion that as charismatic as he is, as bright and talented as he is, with as much potential as a coach and recruiter as he has, he is also someone that has some real ethical flaws.

It's too bad really - he has/had so much potential as a college coach, but he just can't seem to keep from getting himself into a mess. I want my coach to be in the headlines for all the right reasons, and that just hasn't happened enough with him. I also want a coach, a team and a program that I can be proud of; that just doesn't seem possible with him in charge.

[stkelly52]

An interesting thing to note, apparently from someone else that I heard on the radio, back around 98 or so the NCAA changed the rules to add point D "(d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g. cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or" up above, but it was not included on the NCAA's web page. Without point D, then Rick did nothing wrong (without d you could make bets, so long as you did not instigate the contact or use a bookie). If The girl from the UW who sent out the memo got her info from that site does the onus then fall on the NCAA for disseminating incorrect information?

[Samdari]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Bullshit. They know what they are doing. The NCAA definetly promotes gambling in the college basketball tourney... it's how they get viewers. Otherwise who cares if Bumblefuck U. knocks off UCLA or something? I mean, really, what is the need for a tourney selection show on ESPN? And why do people watch it? It's all about gambling. They want to see what the host people say about who is prime upset material or who is ranked too low/high.

If you don't think the NCAA knows and subtly promotes gambling in the NCAA tourney, you are being naive.



... and rich people.

So noone watches either the selection show, or any of the games for any other reason than their gambling interests. Interesting theory. Right up there with the world being flat.

[ISiddiqui]

So noone watches either the selection show, or any of the games for any other reason than their gambling interests.

Most people, I would say do exactly that. I mean, really how many people would care if there weren't brackets and office pools?! I don't give a shit about college basketball, but EVERY year I'm in the pool! And so are thousands of others who don't give a damn about college basketball. Don't tell me you've never ran into someone who doesn't care about the sport, but is filling out brackets?!

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Most people, I would say do exactly that. I mean, really how many people would care if there weren't brackets and office pools?! I don't give a shit about college basketball, but EVERY year I'm in the pool! And so are thousands of others who don't give a damn about college basketball. Don't tell me you've never ran into someone who doesn't care about the sport, but is filling out brackets?!

However, most of the people that I know don't put any money on it. All that you win in bragging rights. Perhaps that is just because of the circles that I travel in though.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by stkelly52
An interesting thing to note, apparently from someone else that I heard on the radio, back around 98 or so the NCAA changed the rules to add point D "(d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g. cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or" up above, but it was not included on the NCAA's web page. Without point D, then Rick did nothing wrong (without d you could make bets, so long as you did not instigate the contact or use a bookie). If The girl from the UW who sent out the memo got her info from that site does the onus then fall on the NCAA for disseminating incorrect information?

Wrong. You're ignoring subsection (b) which prohibits coaches, staffers and players from:

"Solicit[ing] a bet on any intercollegiate team;"

The term 'solicit' may be causing some confusion among people, but in contract/lawyer speak it simply means to place a bet. Neuheisel ponied up $5,000 on the chance of winning back more money, all on the outcome of NCAA basketball. Seems extremely clear that he violated this part of the rule.

It is Rick's responsibility as the coach to read, understand and know the rules himself. Regardless of whether a staffer misinterpreted that rule, the responsibility still lies with Rick to follow them. Had he read the rule himself, he would've seen the disparity between what is written in the NCAA guidebook and what he was told in that memo - common sense would dictate that someone in his position ought to get clarification from the source if he had any confusion on the matter. Better yet, avoid any possibility of breaking the rules by avoiding something that requires such an interpretation in the first place.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Most people, I would say do exactly that. I mean, really how many people would care if there weren't brackets and office pools?! I don't give a shit about college basketball, but EVERY year I'm in the pool! And so are thousands of others who don't give a damn about college basketball. Don't tell me you've never ran into someone who doesn't care about the sport, but is filling out brackets?!

Of course I know lots of people who participate in pools without being college basketball fans.

None of them watch the brackets show, most don't watch the games. In general, I have found that those who do not follow college basketball during the season, do not watch the selection show, even if they intend on joining a pool. The casual, fill out the pool in 5 minutes office pool player is going to gain nothing by watching the selection show.

What you are doing here is called projecting. You don't care about college basketball, so noone must. The pool is the only interest you have in college basketball, so obviously that is true for everyone.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Wrong. You're ignoring subsection (b) which prohibits coaches, staffers and players from:

"Solicit[ing] a bet on any intercollegiate team;"

The term 'solicit' may be causing some confusion among people, but in contract/lawyer speak it simply means to place a bet. Neuheisel ponied up $5,000 on the chance of winning back more money, all on the outcome of NCAA basketball. Seems extremely clear that he violated this part of the rule.

It is Rick's responsibility as the coach to read, understand and know the rules himself. Regardless of whether a staffer misinterpreted that rule, the responsibility still lies with Rick to follow them. Had he read the rule himself, he would've seen the disparity between what is written in the NCAA guidebook and what he was told in that memo - common sense would dictate that someone in his position ought to get clarification from the source if he had any confusion on the matter. Better yet, avoid any possibility of breaking the rules by avoiding something that requires such an interpretation in the first place.

I would question your interpretaion of the word "solicit" since it goes against every definition of the word in my dictionary. Every one of them begin with something like "to seek" "To seek" "To petition" "To entice" "To approach". Solicit is completly tied to the approach. Also, if it wasn't, then what would be the purpose of point c? why include it if it isn't permitted in the previous point. and why have the alternate wording "accept" instead of solicit.

[dawgfan]

The definitions you are stating are not inconsistent with what I'm saying. The difference between (b) and (c) is:

In (b), someone is prohibited from 'seeking' to, 'approaching' someone to, 'enticing' someone to place a bet. This does not mean that it only applies if you have someone else place the bet for you - it means you are actively seeking to place a bet.

Section (c) governs the rules if someone approaches you to place a bet - are you allowed to accept a bet when someone else offers one to you (no).

[ISiddiqui]

What you are doing here is called projecting. You don't care about college basketball, so noone must. The pool is the only interest you have in college basketball, so obviously that is true for everyone.

No, I am not projecting. Most people that participate in these pools are not college basketball 'fans'. They may have some passing interest in the game, or may just not care at all. But, the NCAA knows this. Knows that people bet on this tourney. I mean, really. What other sport do you have 'printable' brackets on ESPN.com?

People that bet on the games (even if it is $5) will show more interest in the games being played. Many, many, many people I know that don't care about the college basketball season will watch a game or two if the team they picked has a chance of going far. Betting makes it all the more interesting (you have a stake in this). The NCAA knows this, so they kinda wink at the whole betting going on with the brackets... and rake in the higher viewship.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by dawgfan
The definitions you are stating are not inconsistent with what I'm saying. The difference between (b) and (c) is:

In (b), someone is prohibited from 'seeking' to, 'approaching' someone to, 'enticing' someone to place a bet. This does not mean that it only applies if you have someone else place the bet for you - it means you are actively seeking to place a bet.

Section (c) governs the rules if someone approaches you to place a bet - are you allowed to accept a bet when someone else offers one to you (no).

And here you prove my point exactly. b only applys to you seeking the bet, not if someone approaches you. C specifically states that it only applys to your own university.

[stkelly52]

Dola,

Where is one of the board's lawyers when you need one?

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by stkelly52
And here you prove my point exactly. b only applys to you seeking the bet, not if someone approaches you. C specifically states that it only applys to your own university.

Wrong on multiple points.

- Neuheisel did "solicit" the bet by seeking to participate in that pool;

- Even if he had been approached rather than soliciting it as he did, he'd still be in violation of subsection (d) which states:

[You shall not] (d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g. cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value;

[Samdari]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
... and rich people.
LOL, there are not enough of these to worry about.

[ISiddiqui]

Where is one of the board's lawyers when you need one?

I'm in law school... I'll help ;).

Under the rulebook, Neuheisel (hereby refered to as N) violated D and maybe E. He did accept a bet on for an item that has a tangible value, and you could say he participated in a gambling method that organized gambling uses (or at least you can make a strong case for that... and you can weasel out of it by saying not just organized gambling uses it). A bracket can be said to be akin to a parlay card (at least I'd make the argument).

He DID NOT solicit a bet unless he started the pool and said it was $5000 to play. If he did not start the pool, then under section B, he's innocent.

However, he's DEAD guilty on D, and maybe on E.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by stkelly52
Dola,

Where is one of the board's lawyers when you need one?

Sorry stkelly52, you are wrong on this one. The crime of "solicitation" fits your description pretty well, but rules that use "solicit" just imply some active participation by the person in question. An example is going to a counter at a race track and placing a bet on a horse - the cashier asks how much and which horse and you place the bet.

Besides, you have to know your interpretation is wrong or there would be an ENORMOUS loophole in NCAA rules. How often does someone actually "solicit" (in the way you mean) in a gambling environment?

[ISiddiqui]

but rules that use "solicit" just imply some active participation by the person in question.

JG, if that's true... then why have section C, D and E, which seem unneccesary if B means any active participation? If it is what you say it means, then there would be no need to go further.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
JG, if that's true... then why have section C, D and E, which seem unneccesary if B means any active participation? If it is what you say it means, then there would be no need to go further.

Section B covers placing a bet on any intercollegiate sport;
Section C covers accepting a bet on any team from your school;
Section D covers both placing and accepting a bet of any type of value (not just cash) on any intercollegiate sport;
Section E covers betting on either collegiate or professional sports through organized gambling methods, i.e. bookies, casinos, etc.

Section D seems to be a broader version of both B and C; I'm not certain why when D was added to the bylaws it didn't supplant both B and C.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Section B covers placing a bet on any intercollegiate sport;
Section C covers accepting a bet on any team from your school;
Section D covers both placing and accepting a bet of any type of value (not just cash) on any intercollegiate sport;
Section E covers betting on either collegiate or professional sports through organized gambling methods, i.e. bookies, casinos, etc.

Section D seems to be a broader version of both B and C; I'm not certain why when D was added to the bylaws it didn't supplant both B and C.

... and rules and laws often have overlapping sections like this to try to "catch" every type of wrongdoing.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by John Galt
... and rules and laws often have overlapping sections like this to try to "catch" every type of wrongdoing.

The problem with this from a layman's perspective is that it makes you wonder what the difference is between the different clauses; you'd assume that if a clause includes all elements of earlier clauses, why not just eliminate the more specific ones in favor of the broader ones.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by dawgfan
The problem with this from a layman's perspective is that it makes you wonder what the difference is between the different clauses; you'd assume that if a clause includes all elements of earlier clauses, why not just eliminate the more specific ones in favor of the broader ones.

It is definitely a problem in that sense (and it is even a problem among lawyers), but it also reflects foresight. Most people tend to think of words having very exact, agreed upon meanings. In reality, interpretation is often subjective and words don't always match intended meaning. It is also hard for drafters to anticipate the "clever" ways people will interpret them. The result of all this is often "catch-all" clauses that try to close any unanticipated loopholes. It may sound unnecessary or strained, but it is usually better to be safe than sorry.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not certain why when D was added to the bylaws it didn't supplant both B and C.

That's what I have trouble with. If they wanted D to be a catch all, why not just eliminate B and C, and simply say any betting for cash or valued item is illegal? It would have been much simpler if that is what they meant.

[stkelly52]

I understand that rule d makes it clear that all bets are not allowed, however, if it is correct that rule d was not included on the NCAA's website of rules (not the abridged rules), then does that make the NCAA partially culpable?

[stkelly52]

Dola,

The fact that another day has gone by without a decision being made one way or another by both the UW and the NCAA makes it clear to me that the NCAA's rules are too vague.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by stkelly52
I understand that rule d makes it clear that all bets are not allowed, however, if it is correct that rule d was not included on the NCAA's website of rules (not the abridged rules), then does that make the NCAA partially culpable?

I'm not sure where this idea that rule d isn't included on the NCAA website comes from, but it's false. I searched the NCAA website today and had no problem finding the relevant section governing gambling, and the entire text of rule 10.3 including the newer provisions d and e from '97 were present on the webpage.

See for yourself here (http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2002-03/A10.pdf)

Now, I suppose it's possible that the NCAA updated this part of their site early today, but I doubt that's the case - I can't imagine why an update from 6 years ago wouldn't have been a part of the online reference forms for the NCAA site, considering that the .pdf forms they provide online are of a very recent vintage.

The rules themself seem quite clear to me - any wagering on intercollegiate sports in any form is prohibited. Unless there is some particular exception to this rule that isn't listed in this section, I can't see how it can be considered a vague rule.

As for the delay in any announcement from the UW or NCAA, the delay is likely due to a number of things:

1. The UW is likely cross-checking the inter-department memo that Neuheisel cited to find out whether the interpretation listed on there was correct or not.

2. If that interpretation was incorrect (as seems clear by reading the NCAA rules), did that misinterpretation come from the UW staffer herself, from someone elso in the UW athletic department, or did it come from someone in the NCAA?

3. The UW AD Barbara Hedges is likely conferring with University lawyers and boosters to assess what the repercussions would be of firing Neuheisel - does the University have just cause, and how airtight is their argument. In other words, can they ask him to repay his $1.5M loan, and do they owe him any buyout money. They can count on the fact that Neuheisel is likely to contest any decision that doesn't forego that loan payback, and may also seek the maximum buyout amount stated in the contract.

4. The NCAA itself is a notoriously slow-moving organization. They are likely still gathering facts and evidence in this matter. Additionally, they prefer to let member institutions provide their own solutions to infractions, and will likely wait some time to see how the UW deals with this situation on their own.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by dawgfan
I'm not sure where this idea that rule d isn't included on the NCAA website comes from, but it's false. I searched the NCAA website today and had no problem finding the relevant section governing gambling, and the entire text of rule 10.3 including the newer provisions d and e from '97 were present on the webpage.

See for yourself here (http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2002-03/A10.pdf)

Now, I suppose it's possible that the NCAA updated this part of their site early today, but I doubt that's the case - I can't imagine why an update from 6 years ago wouldn't have been a part of the online reference forms for the NCAA site, considering that the .pdf forms they provide online are of a very recent vintage.


THis is something that I heard on the radio this morning, and there was some question to why such an old rule had not been updated on the website, but I havn't heard anything else about it since. If it was based on false information then you can ignore it all. I first posed the question when I heard that.

But the interpretation of the rule (the memo that went out) was given by the assistant athletic director of the UW. I can see how the NCAA could sanction Rick, and how it could sanction the UW, but I don't see how the UW could do anything to rick, without finding themselves on the losing side of a big lawsuit for giving him permission to do something and then firing him for doing so.

[stkelly52]

Dola:

here is the source of my coments on the NCAA's web site being out of date

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/134953006_qa10.html

Isn't the NCAA Web site on gambling misleading and out of date?

One section of the Web site on gambling is out of date, omitting a key 1997 amendment to NCAA by-law 10.3 that states that coaches, players and other personnel shall not "knowingly solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value."

NCAA officials indicated yesterday that its Web site snafu won't get UW off the hook, saying the official word on all rules is the NCAA manual. It was not known if Richardson used the Web site to compose her memo.

[dawgfan]

I saw that as well. They must be referring to another part of the website, because as I've shown already, the official rules section of the website is up to date.

And, as the article points out, that doesn't exonerate the UW or Neuheisel. What might exonerate them is if it turns out that the interpretation of the rule in Dana Richardson's memo came from someone at the NCAA; I wouldn't count on that being the case though.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by dawgfan
A few points here:

1. The NCAA is intolerant of gambling on college athletics for a good reason - a perception by the general public that the outcome of sporting events might be tainted by outside influence deters from that sports' popularity. Thus, any activity that could remotely lead to that possibility is not allowed. Consider:

A football coach places a bet on a college basketball team of another school in the NCAA tourney. Innocent right? Not necessarily; that football coach might know one of the basketball coaches involved and call him for inside scoop on the team. If he's placed enough money on the game he might even try to apply some pressure on the decision-making of the basketball coach. Thus, the difference between you and I participating in an NCAA pool and Neuheisel doing so.



Not to take the other side here, but unless NCAA coaches live in an isolated bubble and only are allowed to talk to other NCAA coaches I can't see the difference between what Neuheisel did and you and I could do if participating in a pool . I mean, we could know someone on that staff and call up for some inside dirt and conceivably could try and apply some "pressure" too. What's the difference?

The difference isn't here. It's in the "perception" area totally and that's why I agree that sports staff shouldn't be laying down bets at all. Someone mentioned later in the thread that horse racing isn't against the rules but come on, getting in deep debt or friendship with a bookie or "professional gambler" at the track is definately of more concern as a possible in for corruption than taking part in an office pool based solely on the contention that you may know somebody on that staff and could apply "pressure", although I can't IMAGINE what pressure you could bring to bear against a coach of another sport anyway.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Axxon
Not to take the other side here, but unless NCAA coaches live in an isolated bubble and only are allowed to talk to other NCAA coaches I can't see the difference between what Neuheisel did and you and I could do if participating in a pool . I mean, we could know someone on that staff and call up for some inside dirt and conceivably could try and apply some "pressure" too. What's the difference?

The difference isn't here. It's in the "perception" area totally and that's why I agree that sports staff shouldn't be laying down bets at all. Someone mentioned later in the thread that horse racing isn't against the rules but come on, getting in deep debt or friendship with a bookie or "professional gambler" at the track is definately of more concern as a possible in for corruption than taking part in an office pool based solely on the contention that you may know somebody on that staff and could apply "pressure", although I can't IMAGINE what pressure you could bring to bear against a coach of another sport anyway.

For the most part, I agree with what you're saying - more than anything, the NCAA is trying to maintain a perception that its' members are not associated with gambling in any way.

However, for the sake of argument I present a couple of counter-points:

Regarding the difference between NCAA coaches contacting each other and a regular Joe who knows an NCAA coach - if a coach gives away information to someone that is involved in an organized gambling activity, they may be in violation of NCAA rules, so there's not a huge difference there.

As for what type of pressure a coach could apply to another - let's say Coach A used to coach football at the same school as Coach B who coaches basketball, and came to find out Coach B had been having an affair with a department staffer unbeknownst to Coach B's wife. Coach A moves on to another school. He then becomes involved in betting a fair amount of money on an NCAA Basketball tourney. He calls his old buddy Coach B and presses him for info. If he's really desperate to win, or is in trouble with bookies, he may blackmail Coach B with info about his affair.

Yes, this is all hypothetical longshots, but the possibility exists. That's enough for the NCAA to set up rules that, if followed, would prevent such a scenario from taking place, regardless of how far-fetched.

I may have said this before, but due to the slippery-slope possibilities here the NCAA really doesn't have much choice other than to forbid any type of gambling on collegiate sports, or involvement with bookies and casinos. Some may point out why the NCAA would look differently at Neuheisel if his bet were only $5, saying their stance is hypocritical - I don't think so. He'd still be punished, but everyone can acknowledge that a $5 bet has virtually no chance of promoting unethical behavior. A bet of a few thousand dollars on the other hand has a much greater potential for doing so. Yes, to a coach that makes $1.5M a year that may seem like chump change, but many rich people don't think like they're rich - amounts like that still mean a great deal to them.

[Axxon]

To make it clear Dawgfan, we're in agreement on the issue involved but I still don't like the example.

Coach B has an affair and Coach A knows because he used to coach another sport at the same school coach B was at. Well, who else would have that knowledge??

1. Alumni from the program/school.
2. Other department staffers and their friends.
3. Mistress A and anyone she's foolishly admitted it to.
4. Anyone in town who'd ever seen them together maybe?
5. Anyone who would cover for him during his "away from home" time.
5. Loads of other people.

My problem with your example is the lack of "exclusivity" that the relationship that Coach A and Coach B have in regards to pressure points. Your example takes a relatively common and probably commonly blackmailed on occurance and use it to show why being in the coaching ranks gives you an inside edge on pressure points with other sports coaches. So far, I haven't seen one example that truly makes profession in this case make a bit of difference.

See what I mean???

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Axxon
To make it clear Dawgfan, we're in agreement on the issue involved but I still don't like the example.

Coach B has an affair and Coach A knows because he used to coach another sport at the same school coach B was at. Well, who else would have that knowledge??

1. Alumni from the program/school.
2. Other department staffers and their friends.
3. Mistress A and anyone she's foolishly admitted it to.
4. Anyone in town who'd ever seen them together maybe?
5. Anyone who would cover for him during his "away from home" time.
5. Loads of other people.

My problem with your example is the lack of "exclusivity" that the relationship that Coach A and Coach B have in regards to pressure points. Your example takes a relatively common and probably commonly blackmailed on occurance and use it to show why being in the coaching ranks gives you an inside edge on pressure points with other sports coaches. So far, I haven't seen one example that truly makes profession in this case make a bit of difference.

See what I mean???

The difference is in domain and control. The NCAA can't stop people out of its "jurisdiction." In the blackmail story, the point-shaving coach or the loose-lips coach could be held accountable to the NCAA. The NCAA provides an additional deterrent for other coaches who would play the role of "blackmailer." And there are other hypotheticals as well.

Most importantly, it isn't about actual impropriety, but rather, the appearance of impropriety. Image is everything.

[Axxon]

We all agree it's about the perception here. My point with dawgfans example is with this statement.

"A football coach places a bet on a college basketball team of another school in the NCAA tourney. Innocent right? Not necessarily;"

I don't see where there is any more or less innocence whether it is a football coach or a plumber betting. I just don't like the example.
I agree that ANY sporting organization needs to police it's own and take a ZERO tolerance view of betting within it's ranks.

I don't see "domain and control" entering the picture as I wasn't commenting on the rights or the justification of the NCAA's policies or actions. If I led you to believe I was then I apologize. I just don't like hastily thought out justifications offered when far more substantial and meaningful reasons are available. :)

In this case though, NO example should really be needed to explain why sports personell shouldn't associate with or patronize gamblers. I mean, it's a no brainer isn't it???

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by Axxon
We all agree it's about the perception here. My point with dawgfans example is with this statement.

"A football coach places a bet on a college basketball team of another school in the NCAA tourney. Innocent right? Not necessarily;"

I don't see where there is any more or less innocence whether it is a football coach or a plumber betting. I just don't like the example.
I agree that ANY sporting organization needs to police it's own and take a ZERO tolerance view of betting within it's ranks.

I don't see "domain and control" entering the picture as I wasn't commenting on the rights or the justification of the NCAA's policies or actions. If I led you to believe I was then I apologize. I just don't like hastily thought out justifications offered when far more substantial and meaningful reasons are available. :)

In this case though, NO example should really be needed to explain why sports personell shouldn't associate with or patronize gamblers. I mean, it's a no brainer isn't it???

Where is the difference between an NCAA football coach and a plumber? If a plumber gets in trouble somehow from his betting, he has almost no chance of affecting the outcome of an NCAA game in comparison to the coach. What if the football coach loses his bet, somehow can't pay-up or is otherwise beholden to someone over his betting - now you have a possibility of that coach manipulating his own games in order to 'pay-off' any debt he owes.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Where is the difference between an NCAA football coach and a plumber? If a plumber gets in trouble somehow from his betting, he has almost no chance of affecting the outcome of an NCAA game in comparison to the coach. What if the football coach loses his bet, somehow can't pay-up or is otherwise beholden to someone over his betting - now you have a possibility of that coach manipulating his own games in order to 'pay-off' any debt he owes.

This is true but again it's not what the example tried to show. It's a damned good reason why there should be a ZERO tolerance for ANY betting by any coach PERIOD. The earlier tack was in regards to how being in the profession somehow gave you particular leverage against a coach in a different sport and thus the possibility of this misuse of fraternity was reason enough to prohibit wagering. On that one I called bullshit.

This one is solid, presumably unimpeachable, and the kind of thing I was looking for. Good job!!

[Axxon]

Oh and on the Neuheisel thing, my first thought was that if the e-mail was indeed sent then he should be reluctantly exonerated on the grounds that an employee, within reason, should be able to trust that it's employer would know and pass on all relevant job rules to it's employees.

But...

he goes on to say "I have followed the University of Washington's rules, and I believed and still believe that the University of Washington's rules are in compliance with the NCAA's rules," Neuheisel said Sunday.

Bad move as it implies that not only did he follow the letter of the e-mail but that he is knowledgable enough about the rule in question that he concurs with the university that no rule was broken and was thinking about this even as he was breaking NCAA rules.

Now, while this may help him in terms of staying on good terms with the administration it torpedo's the whole point of the e-mail which is to say that he was acting in good faith by accepting said e-mail as his guideline.

To me, it's not a very good position to take but what do I know?? Maybe he really doesn't have a choice.

[dawgfan]

I do think the average NCAA football coach has a far greater chance of influence over an NCAA basketball coach than a plumber would, but perhaps we can agree to disagree on this point.

As for the memo, I think it buys Rick some leverage in negotiating a termination settlement with the UW, but it doesn't completely exonerate him. As part of his contract with the UW, he is expected to know and follow NCAA rules. Yes, he may have gotten some bad advice from his compliance director, but it's still ultimately his responsibility to know the rules - a simple double-check of the NCAA rulebook should've thrown up huge red flags for him that joining an NCAA tourney pool was a bad idea. Given the relentless amount of anti-gambling propoganda put out by the NCAA and information plastered all over every athletic department, he should've been very skeptical over his ability to participate in that pool - especially given the fact he's such a huge target in the NCAA's eyes.

[bosshogg23]

Fired! (http://espn.go.com/ncf/news/2003/0610/1566279.html)

Was fired tonight apparently, havent seen this yet in during the discussion of the rules :)

[Craptacular]

Mike Price could move back to Wash.

[stkelly52]

The one problem that I have with everyone saying that he should know the rules is that there are so many rules in the book that i doubt even the president of the NCAA knows them all. That is the whole reason why schools have someone whose is job is compliance with the NCAA's rules. The university hired someone to make sure that the rules weren't broken, and that is the person who fell down on the job. Sure the NCAA can hold Rick responsible, but it should hold the UW MORE responsible, and I don't see that the UW can do anything to Rick (at least without paying him the full severance package of 3 million and not require him to pay back him $1.5 million loan).

[dawgfan]

There are a lot of rules in the NCAA manual, but the NCAA makes it plain and clear that gambling as related to college sports is of huge importance and is forbidden. It wouldn't have taken Neuheisel more than a few minutes to check this part of the regulations himself.

When your contract states that it is your responsibility to know and adhere to NCAA rules, I don't think you have a huge amount of wiggle room when you get fired for breaking those rules, regardless of a mistake by the compliance officer.

That said, I expect Neuheisel and his lawyer to fight for as much of a settlement as they can get on this one. The UW did screw-up, and they'll likely have to pay for it in settling his contract.