Ryan Robbins writes: >I don't think people realize that the NCAA isn't some independent >regulating body that arbitrarily places rules and regulations on >its members. Its members ARE the NCAA; they approved each and every >rule and regulation. There's no reason for anyone to whine. If the >schools thought the rule was stupid, they never would have approved >it or they would have repealed it. In light of this discussion, it might be interesting to read a few excerpts from the book "Undue Process: The NCAA's Injustice For All", written by Don Yaeger and published in 1991. I do not know if or how things may have changed since the book was published, but I am always interested to hear from anyone in the know or anyone with a contradictory view. I certainly got the impression from reading this book that in many ways, the members have little say in how the NC$$ is run. And as far as not being an "independent regulating body that arbitrarily places rules and regulations on its members", well, read the latter half of the second excerpt and see if you agree. These excerpts are given here without permission. I found the book at Barnes & Noble at a reduced price about two years ago; they may still have copies available. p. 48 The NCAA's enforcement staff - no one else - determines which schools will and will not be investigated. The staff, after its decision to do some initial poking around, eventually takes a recommendation to the Committee on Infractions. If the committee likes what it hears, it allows the staff to continue its investigation with a formal blessing known as a letter of preliminary inquiry. The letter to the university says little more than that NCAA investigators soon will be on campus. It gives the school no clue as to what the school may have done wrong, and doesn't even say what sport is being investigated. Any time such power is vested in a group of bureaucrats that is accountable to no higher authority, the potential for, and the perception of favoritism is inherent. END EXCERPT p. 90-91 Debate on all those rules can, and often does, become tedious. Reporters at the 1989 convention amused themselves by counting the number of times University of Arkansas Athletic Director Frank Broyles dozed off to sleep. When the count had reached six, the legendary coach was roused for good by a thunderous applause. The reason for the applause? Someone asked that debate on an issue be limited. In this convention setting - a room filled with two thousand bored, mostly graying, middle-class, white males - rules are passed that affect the lives of student-athletes - a group of young and, in the case of the "money sports", mostly black males. "No wonder the rules read as they do," former Marquette basketball coach Al McGuire said. Every NCAA meeting, McGuire once said, "should be held in a fourth floor tenement house in Brooklyn." Even NCAA insiders question the ability of such a diverse and diverted group to provide intelligent leadership in the tumultuous world of intercollegiate athletics. "I'm concerned that our membership comes [to the convention] not as informed as it could be or should be, that we don't take a serious look at elements of legislation that have far-ranging effects," said Southeastern Conference Commissioner Roy Kramer, a member of the powerful Committee on Infractions. Duquesne University Athletic Director Brian Colleary said the doldrums of NCAA business is often the reason the organization "passes so many bad rules. The truth is, a lot of these rules have gotten through because you get a thousand guys in a hot room listening to boring debate. Then they call for a vote and the guy next to you holds up his [voting] paddle, so you hold up yours. You don't have any idea what it means." The situation is even more confusing once the convention is over. That's when it becomes the responsibility of NCAA staff to begin interpreting the meaning of the new rules. That's also when the unelected staff exerts great influence over the organization's membership. "You want to buy a kid a Christmas present, a kid you know well on a personal basis," said Lonny Rose, a University of Miami sports law professor. "You can't because that's a violation. Now, who makes that rule? The schools vote on that rule, but how that rule is interpreted is a legislative services or enforcement decision. What the schools actually voted on were no extra benefits. It was the staff that decided that a Christmas gift was an extra benefit. It is an interpretation of the rule. Those are decisions made administratively. I think the NCAA should be like the federal government. Whenever it decides it is going to issue a regulation which interprets a law passed by Congress, it should put it out for public comment for 60 days. Say this is the rule and this is how we're going to enforce it. Who is going to be in a better position to comment on how things will be practically received than the people who are being asked to comply?" "You want to talk about unbridled authority?" asked former NCAA investigator J. Brent Clark. "You've got a kid fresh from law school who's got an NCAA Manual and 48 hours later, he's giving interpretations." That authority grew immensely in 1989. The NCAA Council, in a decision that still is unknown to many members, agreed that the extra-benefits rule - which prohibits giving anything to a student-athlete that is not given to the entire student body - can now be extended for the life of the athlete. "Cradle to grave enforcement," a member of the Council called the ruling, which states that if a coach or booster gives a former student- athlete anything he wouldn't give anyone off the street, it will now be an NCAA violation. "We probably have 15,000 former student-athletes around the country," said University of Nevada-Las Vegas Assistant Athletic Director Mark Warkentein. "And now we have to worry about any of them getting anything that might in any way be construed to have been given to them because they were a student-athlete. That's impossible to control. How can the NCAA realistically expect that?" END EXCERPT --- --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93