Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 15, 1993 TAG: 9305150045
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: B4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Bill Brill
DATELINE: DURHAM, N.C. LENGTH: Medium
The loss of Schultz at this most tumultuous period for college athletics is a tragedy, not only personal because of the man's leadership qualities, but because it so clearly didn't need to happen at all.
What happened with the Virginia Student Aid Foundation is not a case of rampant rules-breaking for gain.
In fact, there was nothing gained. No recruiting advantages. No stashing of players. No benefits to the school or its athletic program.
But what the Park report, now digested, should remind us is of how much things have changed, and how misguided they were in the past.
There will be no attempt here to deify Schultz, or claim that he has been mistreated by the report.
It comes down to whom you believe, and obviously investigator James Park believed disgruntled football player Willie Snead and his mother.
What puzzled me before continues to be unexplained. If Schultz, a veteran administrator who knew NCAA rules, knew of the loans to athletes, why didn't he report them immediately?
He had nothing to gain by keeping quiet. The players would have temporarily been ruled ineligible, then had their eligibility restored upon payment of the loans.
Also unexplained is if Schultz knew of the loans and insisted that they be stopped, why were they started again shortly after he departed Virginia for the NCAA?
The violations that brought about the two-year probation were made on Jim Copeland's watch, and nobody suggested he knew of the loans. Or, why the loans were made.
But what the Park report does is point out how Virginia used the VSAF, just as surely as other college used their booster groups which were not under the university umbrella.
Park points out that the school was able to pay its football and basketball coach through VSAF, which, as a private entity, was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
I can recall many times over the years when this newspaper sought to determine the salaries of the various coaches, and how the athletic directors fought it.
The Park report also makes vividly clear the power of VSAF executive director Ted Davenport, who had been with the organization since its inception.
Davenport's power, Park wrote, was control of tickets. As Virginia grew in athletic prowess, as it regularly headed to a bowl game or NCAA tournament, tickets became a more valuable priority.
But the school did not control the seating. VSAF did. Park stresses that Schultz attempted to take control of the ticket assignments, was fought by VSAF, and failed.
The purpose of foundations was to serve as a fund-raising arm of the athletic department. As programs grew, needs grew. Booster groups suddenly were raking in millions, and with that money came power.
The deeper we get into the reform movement, the more we will find schools in control of their foundations. But not until 100 percent of booster organizations are controlled by the athletic department should this be considered a success. No fund-raising group should be private. It simply is too dangerous. Many a coach has been fired by these organizations, rather than by the school, and even more such foundations have been asked to pay off dismissed employees.
I have a lot of friends who are VSAF members. I asked one of them a year ago how he worked within the system so effectively. "I learned to play the game," he said. That meant he played by Ted Davenport's rules.
Was Davenport a crook? No way. Was he a crotchety curmudgeon who made rules as he went and defied anyone to change them? Yes.
Nobody wrote checks for VSAF except Davenport. Audits didn't pick up on the loans, because nothing less than $2,500 was individually listed, and no loan was that large.
Was Davenport overly protective of VSAF? Absolutely.
It is interesting to note that during Davenport's control of the Birdwood golf course, rules became so strict you would have thought you were playing Augusta National. Did anybody suggest perhaps it was too restrictive for a college course? I doubt it, but the college owned the course.
In more than 30 years of service to UVa - Davenport truly served, like Oliver North - the VSAF director built up an enormous power base. It was because of this power that the NCAA is losing its finest leader.
Nobody questions the good that booster groups have done. But this was an unfortunate way to prove beyond any debate that they must be under the school umbrella; the director must be an employee of the athletic department reporting to the athletic director. Good people who wanted only to help made poor judgments. Now we are all paying for those mistakes.
by CNB