Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 8, 1993 TAG: 9305080216
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bill Brill
DATELINE: DURHAM, N.C. LENGTH: Medium
But, if as Schultz said, "You are what you are perceived to be," his value as a leader will have been damaged irreparably if it is determined he knew of illegal loans to student athletes during his tenure as athletic director at Virginia.
The NCAA announced Friday the decision on its leader was being delayed until Tuesday so copies of the independent study of Schultz by Kentucky attorney James Park could be prepared for the media.
Thursday afternoon, after the pronouncement of penalties in the case involving activities of the Virginia Student Aid Foundation, I was told by two people that Schultz knew of the loans.
All along, Schultz has maintained he did not know, although conceding perhaps he should have. "There is no smoking gun," he has said repeatedly.
"The Park report arrives at a different conclusion from the NCAA," one UVa employee told me. "People here think Schultz is going to resign."
Another person with close contacts to the case said, "Dick Schultz knew about the loans."
If they are correct, then that old devil perception will have unloaded on the man who has done more than anybody to restore integrity into big-time college sports.
I'll be honest: It made me sick. I have been a lifelong advocate of the ongoing attempt to ensure that student-athlete is not an oxymoron. That things are far, far better now than they were 10 or 20 years ago can mostly be attributed to the leadership of Schultz.
As a tireless intermediary who has helped bring understanding to both sides - the academic and athletic administrations - Schultz has nurtured the NCAA to a point now of legitimate reform.
It is accurate to say that too many tough decisions have been made in the area of cost-cutting and that some have been aimed at the wrong targets. (The fat in athletic departments is in the hallways, not on the playing fields. There are too many assistant athletic directors, not coaches or players.)
But while the many changes haven't necessarily righted a floundering ship, they have helped dramatically to keep it from listing too far.
Presidents clearly are in control, as they should be. Academic requirements have been enhanced dramatically and grow stiffer annually.
If the NCAA leadership is wrong in its endorsement of restricted-earnings coaches and misguided in opposing a football playoff, it nevertheless is a far more productive organization today than it was when Schultz came aboard in 1987.
Because he had been a basketball coach at Iowa, he understood coaching needs. Because he had been an athletic director at Cornell and Virginia, he understood the tough business climate.
Schultz helped negotiate the $1 billion basketball deal with CBS and then prodded until the payment method to the member schools was made more equitable.
It is needless for me to say that he has done a great job or that I hope what I have heard is wrong. I also was told by Doug Tucker of The Associated Press at the Final Four that he had learned from an NCAA source that Schultz was in trouble because of the UVa investigation.
What frightens me now is that there is no obvious, enlightened choice to replace Schultz if indeed he leaves his job.
As with all cyclical events, the danger is going too far the other way. I see all sorts of signs that is happening within the NCAA.
Even the Presidents Commission had agreed to a 1993 waiver on the restricted-earnings basketball coach because of the problems it has created. They were willing to wait until the '94 convention, when the designation could have been changed or eliminated.
But the NCAA Council voted to reject that stance, taking an even harder line in regard to the third assistant coach by immediately closing some loopholes. Lawsuits are anticipated, something neither side needs.
I hope Schultz can survive, that the Park report vindicates him. If not, I fear for the NCAA's direction.
by CNB