Neuheisal

[korme]

What do you guys think about Rick Neuheisal's whole situation? I don't think his firing was justified. From what I gathered, he was in like a neighborhood march madness tourney.

That is considered betting and extreme enough to lead to his firing? Get outta here.

[Ksyrup]

In my neighborhood, we don't bet thousands of dollars. This wasn't a simple "everyone throw in a dollar and the winner gets $50" game. He bet and won thousands of dollars. Despite the fact that it was against the rules and he knew it was against the rules, had it been for small stakes, he likely wouldn't have been fired. But the amounts he bet and won make it clear this wasn't just some friendly neighborhood game.

The guy's got other issues, anyway. I'm sure this was just the thing the university was looking for to get rid of someone who was going to continue to embarrass the school.

[Fritz]

Ksyrup - at what figure do the dollar amounts become part of the issue?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
Ksyrup - at what figure do the dollar amounts become part of the issue?

Not sure what Ksyrup will say, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere below $5000 a person.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know - all I know is that they guy who UW replaced Neuheisel with admitted to doing the same thing, except he only put a couple of dollars into the pot, and either someone with the NCAA or UW said that the size of the bet was a factor, and that in his case, it was not a problem. I doubt it's an official rule, but I recall reading that back when the story broke and he was replaced by an assistant.

[GrantDawg]

Wouldn't this be enough for a player to lose his eligibility? If a player lost his eligibility for gambling, would you still be defending him?

[Fritz]

Ok, let me back up:

I understand that Neuheisal violated wagering rules. If you take a zero tollerance stance, then he [edit] should be punished[/edit].

For the folks that say something like "This wasn't a simple 'everyone throw in a dollar and the winner gets $50' game": (not to pick on the author of the statement)

1.) At what figure do the dollar amounts become part of the issue?

2.) Why this number? (Is it part of a law or regulation, is there a standard ethical practice here, do you have some personal formula, does it just feel like a lot, etc?)

---
I have no horse in this race. My interest is exploring people's point of view.

[Samdari]

I think the dollar amounts do make his actions worse, Fritz.

Someone who makes the kind of money he does will presumably not be influenced by a $1 bet. If he's got 5 grand on it, he might be. I can't put an exact line on where that number is, but to me $1 can be called 'harmless fun' and 5 grand 'gambling'. If you cannot see the difference between $1 and $5000, mail me a check for the 5k, and I'll mail you a dollar bill. Stop comparing the two, they are not the same. It technically does not matter, as people who work in NCAA athletics are forbidden from betting even that $1 on any college athletics event.

In any case, I think firing Rick was justified, as he was not fired for the gambling, but for lying to the AD. Lying to school officials investigating potential NCAA violations will (and should) get you fired every time.

[Ksyrup]

I think I just explained that. My position is premised on what either the NCAA and/or UW has done in this instance. This is from an ESPN article shortly after Neuheisel was replaced by Kevin Gilbertson:

"Since last week's news conference where Hedges announced Neuheisel's firing, it was disclosed that Gilbertson participated in a $3 NCAA basketball tournament pool inside the football office in 1999.

Hedges has said it wouldn't affect Gilbertson's candidacy as a potential interim coach. Gilbertson acknowledged the matter isn't resolved and said he couldn't recall details."

Right or wrong, it seems obvious that the amount of the "wagering" is a factor in determining not whether there has been an infraction, but the punishment. Here, Gilbertson's $3 bet is, to my knowledge, still unresolved, but considered so minor that he is still in contention for the head coaching job. Maybe he'll be reprimanded, slapped on the wrist, not invited to the school holiday party, I don't know.

Neuheisel's bet of $5K was deemed to warrant his dismissal. So I think you can draw a continuum from $3 to $5K and, taking into consideration previous issues which might also affect any decision made by a school, consider it a "sliding scale" based on the amount wagered, the number of times it occurred, etc.

To specifically answer your questions:

1. They are relevant at all times, in determining the severity of the penalty (or lack thereof).

2. To my knowledge, this isn't based on a particular rule, although there may be something generic in the code of conduct or the coach's contract which allows the university discretion in doling out punishment. There is no "magic number" that I know of. My best guess is that the university would consider each on a case-by-case basis.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating the position that the amount of the bet should matter, I'm just explaining what my understanding of the school's decision is.

[QuikSand]

Start dropping grains of sand, one by one, onto the center of a flat table. At exactly what point does it cease to be a certain number of grains of sand, and become a pile of sand?

Just because we might have trouble answering that question specifically does not necessarily mean that once the table is filled with seven pounds of sand that we don't have a pile.

[Bonegavel]

Because monetary amounts are so subjective the rule should be ZERO tolerence. As long as a person signs their contract knowing that if they accept the job they can't gamble on the games, I am fine with this.

NCAA and the NFL are becoming retarded.

[Travis]

The answer is 42 of course.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Start dropping grains of sand, one by one, onto the center of a flat table. At exactly what point does it cease to be a certain number of grains of sand, and become a pile of sand?

Just because we might have trouble answering that question specifically does not necessarily mean that once the table is filled with seven pounds of sand that we don't have a pile.

No, but it does beg the question "Does the NCAA now go after every single coach who has ever bet during his tenure as coach?"

If so, you think it's worth firing probably a good 1/3 or 1/2 of all coaches over something as miniscule as a $10 NCAA tourney pool or poker game?

If not, on what grounds was Neuheisal fired? What makes this something more than a smear campaign where you can find something "bad" about anyone if you dig deep enough into his past?

SI

[Anrhydeddu]

I think the dollar amounts do make his actions worse, Fritz.

I disagree, it is a matter of scale, I believe. For someone like Rick who, hypothetically, makes $1m per year, a $5000 bet is comparable betting $125 when your salary is $25k. Not a small amount but a different perspective.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by sterlingice
No, but it does beg the question "Does the NCAA now go after every single coach who has ever bet during his tenure as coach?"

If so, you think it's worth firing probably a good 1/3 or 1/2 of all coaches over something as miniscule as a $10 NCAA tourney pool or poker game?

If not, on what grounds was Neuheisal fired? What makes this something more than a smear campaign where you can find something "bad" about anyone if you dig deep enough into his past?

SI

The edict is against gambling on college sports, not all gambling. The poker game is not a problem, nor are trips to Vegas.

The president of UW said at a press conference that if she trusted Neuheisel, she would have stood up for him to this, but she fired him because he lied to her about interviewing for an NFL job, and he lied to her about this when it first came out. Lying to your school conducting an investigation into NCAA rules is decent grounds for firing, IMO.

BTW, most athletic departments send their employees some sort of communication every march, reminding them that it is against NCAA rules for them to gamble on college sports, in any way shape or form. I don't know what UW was doing.

[SteelerFan448]

If it was a simple baskeball pick'em poll, filling out the brackets and all, it is kinda dumb getting fired. If you have money to put into one of those, then put it in. I couldn't afford it, but if I could I'd put it in. You don't think tons of other coaches and players don't do the same? They may not have the money into that he did, but it is the SAME exact action that Neuheisal took.

[QuikSand]

I don't think it's unreasonable to have a standard that does not specify a dollar amount, but rather to try to allow "insignificant" activities (like a few bucks into the neighborhood NCAA pool) but disallow "significant" activities (like a several throusand dollar investment into a gambling ringm, even if it's of the same structure).

I do think the dollar amounts matter here, and I don't think setting a fixed, immutable dollar standard helps things that much. If you say that $100 is the limit, then you're implicitly blessing every investment of $99-- is that what you want to do?

I think that a reasonable standard is fine - that sort of thing is used all over the place in the law and in contracts. It's then left up to the coach to decide whether something is reasonable (according to whatever wording is in the rule), or whether it could be characterized that way.

If you adopt a harsh zero-tolerance policy that does not conform to practical reality, then you're stting yourself up for ridiculous double standards (like suggesting that 1/2 of all coaches should be fired because they put a buck into a pool, or they played poker once eight years ago).

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I disagree, it is a matter of scale, I believe. For someone like Rick who, hypothetically, makes $1m per year, a $5000 bet is comparable betting $125 when your salary is $25k. Not a small amount but a different perspective.

I don't think how much he makes is an issue. Think of it like this - stealing $5 is a crime that would not even be looked at by a prosecutor. Stealing 5 grand would at least merit some attention. how much the criminal makes is not an issue, only the value of the theft.

And SteelerFan, I do think that, in general, coaches do NOT participate in these pools. Most schools are smart enough to absolutely prohibit this, and constantly remind their athletic dept members that it is against the rules.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Start dropping grains of sand, one by one, onto the center of a flat table. At exactly what point does it cease to be a certain number of grains of sand, and become a pile of sand?

Just because we might have trouble answering that question specifically does not necessarily mean that once the table is filled with seven pounds of sand that we don't have a pile.

I think if you have an okay amount and a not okay amount it is reasonable to wonder about the breakpoint. You know, because you could lose your job or something.

[JPhillips]

Samdari: I think you hit the issue right on the head. Neuhiesel lied repeatedly. When they had a way to get rid of him they took it.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Samdari: I think you hit the issue right on the head. Neuhiesel lied repeatedly.

Don't give me credit, I am mindlessly regurgitating content from the UW (female official, AD? President?) who had a presser announcing their intent to fire him. She repeatedly stressed the trust issue in giving reasons.

[korme]

oops wrong thread

[dawgfan]

Shorty, one of the things you have to remember here is that the UW could fire Neuheisel for just about any reason they wanted, so long as they agreed to the terms of the buyout clauses in his contract. This is true of probably all coaching contracts. The issue here is much less about whether he should've gotten fired, and mostly about whether the UW has 'just cause' to do so, which means the UW doesn't have to buyout his contract and Neuheisel will be required to repay the loan the UW gave him upon his last extension.

The reason the UW gave for firing him was not just his participation in the Calcutta-style pool, but their contention that he initially lied to NCAA investigators regarded his participation in that pool, and the fact that they had warned him previously that further lying would not be tolerated.

If this particular incident were the only blemish on Neuheisel's record, he might have stood a chance that the UW would stand behind him. However, this is just the latest in a string of incidences where he has gotten himself into hot water. To review:

- Shortly after being hired at the UW, he and some of his staff commit 'quiet period' recruiting violations, visiting recruits in-person on a day that this was not allowed;

- Colorado officials claim Neuheisel called former Buffs players and tried to coerce them into transferring to the UW; these charges are never proven and many of the cited players dispute these allegations, but as a result of this and the quiet period violations the UW self-punishes by reducing recruiting visits for the following year and says it will not accept the transfer of any Buff players from Neuheisel's tenure to the UW (this is later challenged by QB Taylor Barton; the UW accepts his transfer and agrees to reduce their scholarship limit by 1 during his stay as punishment);

- Colorado self-investigates their football program and uncovers numerous minor recruiting violations by Neuheisel during his time there, as well as a number of other minor infractions related to recruiting visits (t-shirts/athletic apparrel taken by recruits, meal allowances slightly over budget, air-travel not properly accounted for); of the 53 minor violations cited, most involve 'bumping', where a coach visits a High School and makes improper contact with a recruit, i.e. talks loud enough to the H.S. coach for the recruit to hear, accidentally 'bumps into' the recruit while visiting the school, etc, and instances where Neuheisel sidestepped rules by calling a recruit while seated in his car outside the recruit's home and having the recruit look out the window during times when the coach can't have an in-home visit; though none of the charges by themselves are more than a minor violation, taken as a whole they constitute a major violation; Colorado self-imposes penalties as punishment, and Neuheisel is punished by being restricted from doing any off-campus recruiting for a year;

- At the subsequent AFCA conference, Neuheisel is censured by his fellow coaches for his violations at Colorado since in their view he was unrepentant about the violations;

- Neuheisel interviews with the San Francisco 49ers for their open Head Coach position, then lies to the local media about doing so, holding an official press conference stating he had not interviewed for the job and even going so far as to state "I'm not lying about this"; when confronted by evidence from a local reporter who'd seen him at the SF Airport and overheard a load cell-phone conversation Neuheisel had at the terminal, he admits his lie; even worse, UW AD Barbara Hedges claims that Neuheisel lied to her as well about the interview, though Neuheisel disputes this account; Neuheisel is warned by Hedges and the interim UW President Lee Hunstman that further indiscretions will not be tolerated

Taken in this context, and adding in the fact that the UW has appeared to under-perform over the last 2 seasons while displaying many of the same fundamental problems of which his later Colorado teams were accused of (lack of discipline, poor running game, too much focus on offense and not enough on defense and special teams) and it's pretty easy to see why the UW has had enough.

The real question as stated earlier is whether the UW has 'just cause' for firing Neuheisel. The key points here are:

1) Did Neuheisel lie to the NCAA investigators?
Considering that Hedges was present at the questioning along with other UW officials and the 2 NCAA investigators, there are plenty of witnesses available to corroborate Hedges' contention. It's hard to believe that she'd make this contention if it weren't true, given the number of people available to dispute it if it weren't. Her claim is that when Neuheisel was initially questioned about the pool and his participation, he at first claimed that he was there but was only a 'spectator'. Only after taking a break from the questioning and calling an advisor did Neuheisel confess his participation. Neuheisel's lawyers contend that Neuheisel was blindsided by the line of questioning (which is true - the NCAA told Neuheisel, Hedges and the UW that they wanted to question him about minor recruiting violations), and that he didn't fully understand what they were asking him about. They contend he though they were asking if he'd organized this pool.

2) How culpable is Neuheisel for participating in this tournament?
Neuheisel has produced documents that show that the UW athletic deparment had circulated a memo in 1999 and 2002 that, while pointing out that gambling was prohibited, also contained a section that (incorrectly) gave the OK for NCAA tournament pools among friends and family. It was also revealed that sections of the NCAA's website concerning gambling and college athletics were outdated and contained incorrect information at the time this investigation became public (though it should be pointed out that the online rulebook was and has always been up-to-date).

3) Did the NCAA tamper in this process when key officials made statements to the press regarding this situation?
Neuheisel's lawyers have argued that statements made by NCAA officials, including comments by NCAA President Myles Brand that intimated he though the UW should fire Neuheisel were prejudicial and forced the UW's hand, even though all the facts of the case had not been revealed. Indeed, the NCAA has still not finished their investigation of the matter and has as of yet not rendered any official judgement on Neuheisel and whether he will be suspended.

So, who's to blame here?

Obviously Neuheisel has made some mistakes in the past. Not one of them by themselves have been a major issue, and it's not that hard to come to the conclusion that he's been a target of opposing coaches and the NCAA for some time due to a personality and style that rub some the wrong way, not to mention the perception that he hadn't paid his dues and was riding his slick toungue and good looks to a wildly overpaid contract. But taken as a whole, you see a pattern of someone who has continually danced around the rules and the truth. Whether or not he read the UW memo before participating in the pools in 2001 and 2002 is to certain point irrelevant; it's still his responsibility to know and follow NCAA rules. The fact that he has been in the public crosshairs only boosts the idea that he should have acted with extreme caution in regards to something that involves large amounts of money being wagered on the NCAA tournament. Put simply, he excercised poor judgement. Should that cost him his buyout clause?

The UW obviously was in error in allowing those memos in 1999 and 2002 to circulate without being rescinded and corrected. Hedges has acknowledged that she didn't fully read these memos. It is her responsibility to hire competant people to staff her offices and to keep on top of what they do; this was a major lapse, and taken with other issues during her tenure and her age (65) she may be asked to retire when the new UW President is finally named. Does that memo mean that the UW has some culpability and owes Neuheisel his buyout clause? Maybe - Hedges tried in the first few days after this all went down to negotiate a settlement with Neuheisel, but he stuck to his principles and refused to resign, forcing Hedges to make the call of termination 'with cause'.

The NCAA in my opinion acted poorly in allowing the comments from its officials in the wake of this investigation before all the facts had been presented. Myles Brand certainly put tremendous pressure on the UW with his comments.

Neuheisel's appeal has run out and now the lawsuits will begin. He probably has a very good case against the NCAA for damages; whether or not he can prevail against the UW for damages is less certain.

[Anrhydeddu]

That was an excellent analysis, dawg. Maybe Rick ought to be a politician, esp. if he likes interns.

[Airhog]

I would think that it should only apply to gambling on NCAA events. I think coaches should be free to play poker, or whatever they fancy. Obviously it depends on how much a coach makes. A coach that makes 1million a year probably doesnt see a 5k bet as that big. Otoh, a coach that only makes 100k a year probably does.

[WSUCougar]

See, the Huskies' problem is that they didn't let their coach leave to go to an SEC school, where he could do strippers n' stuff. And rack up killer room service bills. Etc.

[dawgfan]

Airhog - there are no restrictions on gambling for members of the NCAA on things other than athletics. You can play poker or the slots or what not to your heart's content.

As far as the amount relative to the salary goes, one thing you have to keep in mind is that people that make a large salary don't necessarily change their thinking about spending commensurate with their income - i.e. newly rich people often still think in the miserly ways of their previous experiences when they weren't rich. Another thing to consider is that people with large salaries can still live beyond their means and rack up large debts. There is much speculation that Neuheisel is over-extended on his lakefront house, and if forced to sell now and repay his $1.5M loan that he'd be in serious debt. Had he lost that $5,000 bet, who's to say he might not have been a good target for bookies and other shady characters to target.

[Anrhydeddu]

I have come to believe that Rick is a pathological liar, one that would automatically lie without even realizing it sometimes.

[Ksyrup]

You mean like the various notes of his initial meeting with UW demonstrate?



Former coach wasn't up front about pool participation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEATTLE -- Handwritten notes of a meeting between former Washington football coach Rick Neuheisel and NCAA and Pac-10 officials show Neuheisel initially lied about his involvement in a high-stakes gambling pool.

The notes were among a stack of documents released under public disclosure laws to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which reported on them Thursday. They are from a June 4 meeting that eventually led to Neuheisel's firing.

Washington athletic director Barbara Hedges fired Neuheisel for breaking NCAA gambling rules by participating in the neighborhood pools during the past two NCAA basketball tournaments. She said he wasn't forthcoming when first questioned by NCAA investigators.

University spokesman Jim Daves told The Associated Press on Thursday he had no comment on the report, and Neuheisel's lawyer, Bob Sulkin, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

At the June 4 meeting were Hedges; two NCAA agents, Lori Williams and Rachel Newman; a Pac-10 enforcement officer, Ron Barker; and the Washington's NCAA compliance officer, Dana Richardson. According to the notes, taken by several participants, Neuheisel was shown a photo of Al Hodge, one of the participants in the gambling pool. He said he didn't recognize the man.

Told it was Hodge, Neuheisel relayed the following: "He's a neighbor. His daughter is in his son's class. Spent July 4th with him on Whidbey Island, acquaintance, probably haven't spoken on the phone."

Asked whether Hodge participated in a pool on the men's NCAA basketball tournament, and whether former NBA star Jack Sikma was involved, Neuheisel's response was that he "thinks so, (but) don't know who sets it up. (Neuheisel) thinks they auction off teams to groups who bid."

Did Neuheisel take part? He at first denied it, the notes show, but said he watched the proceedings in downtown Seattle "a couple nights before the main draw began."

Did he bet on Maryland last year? "No," Neuheisel said.

Did he participate in a group that bet? "No."

What were the possible winnings? "I don't know."

At that point, Neuheisel said he wanted to know more before continuing the meeting. Newman told him she "had specific info [Neuheisel] had bet on Maryland and participated in the past two years, put up $7,000 and won $25,000."

Neuheisel replied that he "was there, but didn't participate, never placed a bet on any team." But he added that he "thinks his friends did own Maryland." Asked who the friends were, the notes say, Neuheisel replied that he didn't want to say.

Neuheisel did acknowledge, however, that he might have participated in a $5 March Madness pool in 1999, his first year at Washington.

Several hours later, Neuheisel met again with the officials, plus Karin Nyrop, an assistant state attorney general. This time, he was more forthcoming.

Asked why there were inconsistencies from the morning questioning in the later interview, Neuheisel said he was "confused." Then he admitted the winnings were received by checks this year, and in cash in 2002. He also acknowledged he didn't bring money to the bid nights and "so borrowed from friend both years."

Neuheisel said he "didn't consider it gambling because it was just friends, no organized gambling involved. ... It was just a social event."

The NCAA has sought to root out all forms of gambling among college coaches, players and athletics staff.

Neuheisel's firing became official on Monday. Offensive coordinator Keith Gilbertson took over as head coach.