Hey DWKB, is Kansas in any trouble on this?

[Russ Smith]

Roy Williams said he made a "mistake" when he approved gifts to graduating players and others who had used up their eligibility while coach at Kansas, but denied there was any intentional wrongdoing.

"We wanted a program that would positively represent the university and the integrity of our basketball program was always very important to me," Williams said in a statement Saturday. "I am deeply saddened to say there was evidently a mistake."

Williams -- now the coach at North Carolina -- issued the statement to respond to a report by Kansas outlining NCAA rules violations in its athletic department. Williams was out of town and was unavailable for further comment, said Steve Kirschner, a spokesman for North Carolina.

After conducting an internal review, the school said Williams -- who won the national championship last April in his second season in Chapel Hill, N.C. -- approved payments made by three representatives of the university's "athletics interests."

The school said Dana Anderson, Joan Edwards and Bernard Morgan gave cash and clothing to graduating players and others who had exhausted their eligibility. Payments went back as far as 1998, though no player was said to have received more than $400.

Williams said there was a "communication problem" with the school's compliance department, leading him to believe a gift was permitted. The violation falls under the NCAA's "extra benefit" rule and specifies that once athletes enroll, they are barred for life from receiving gifts from fans.

"I did not know the rule that once you're a student-athlete, you are a student-athlete until death," Williams said.

"Kansas never gained a recruiting or competitive advantage -- the students had completed their eligibility and it was seen as a graduation gift. I have never promised anything to a prospective student-athlete, including playing time."

The violations, which Kansas reported to the NCAA last month, were among several involving three programs, ending in 2003. The school responded to violations in the football and women's basketball programs by reducing scholarships, but the men's basketball violation will be addressed through extra education about the rules regarding gifts.

No other sanctions against the program are planned.

North Carolina chancellor James Moeser and athletic director Dick Baddour also issued statements in support of Williams, while Bob Frederick -- the former athletic director at Kansas who hired Williams -- added his praise.

"He ran a model program at Kansas in every respect," Frederick said in a statement. "If there was a mistake in this matter, it was a communications mistake, because Roy Williams would never knowingly violate a rule. And everyone who worked around him at that time knows that to be the case."

Williams was also critical of media reports of the violations, saying "sensational headlines do not portray a true picture of what took place.

"I love the University of Kansas and hate that this situation developed," he said. "I feel strongly that this does not paint a proper picture of my 15 years there. I am personally very hurt by what has happened. My integrity and reputation are extremely important to me and the initial media reports of these incidents have in some instances been extremely harsh."

 

[Dback Jon]

It should be a violation - if not, what's to stop an athletic department from making promises to athletes for gifts/money after they use up their eligibility.

 

[Russ Smith]

Well the story says that no sanctions are forthcoming. A friend of mine who's a UNC fan pointed out that if not worded correctly, the rule could make it impossible to say hire an ex player as a coach as is so common. but clearly that's not what Roy was doing, he was simply allowing gifts to ex players and yeah to me that sounds a bit like it ought to be a violation.

Apparently this is like a year old, but they must have just made a ruling because ESPN put up this story.

 

[DWKB]

It should be a violation - if not, what's to stop an athletic department from making promises to athletes for gifts/money after they use up their eligibility.

A) because these nice old people only gave gifts to graduates. Used up eligability isn't the whole story.

B) do you really think "Yeah, and you'll get a couple hundred $'s from one of our alums after you're here 4 years and graduate with a degree" would have much of an effect in the days of 1 and done recruits?

 

[Dback Jon]

A) because these nice old people only gave gifts to graduates. Used up eligability isn't the whole story.

B) do you really think "Yeah, and you'll get a couple hundred $'s from one of our alums after you're here 4 years and graduate with a degree" would have much of an effect in the days of 1 and done recruits?

Not at that level, no - but where do you draw the line? Agreed with Russ that it is hard to regulate - the booster giving a post-graduation job to an athlete, etc.

The problem to me is if it is routine - all graduating athletes know they are getting some sort of payout at the end - to me, that is wrong.

 

[DWKB]

Not at that level, no - but where do you draw the line? Agreed with Russ that it is hard to regulate - the booster giving a post-graduation job to an athlete, etc.

The problem to me is if it is routine - all graduating athletes know they are getting some sort of payout at the end - to me, that is wrong.

Sure, but teams like Cincinnati and Arkansas would never have to worry about it. Gotta graduate your athletes before they get the gift.

The athlete that you would use cash to recruit wouldn't stay for 4 years and graduate. They'd make the jump to pro ball for a real payout.


I'm saying it's a common sense issue. The people in question were a 70 year old couple. The gifts were nominal, and the efforts made by the athlete to get the nominal gifts were not even equivalent to the pay. It totals like $25 a semester "payout".

 

[Russ Smith]

Sure, but teams like Cincinnati and Arkansas would never have to worry about it. Gotta graduate your athletes before they get the gift.

The athlete that you would use cash to recruit wouldn't stay for 4 years and graduate. They'd make the jump to pro ball for a real payout.


I'm saying it's a common sense issue. The people in question were a 70 year old couple. The gifts were nominal, and the efforts made by the athlete to get the nominal gifts were not even equivalent to the pay. It totals like $25 a semester "payout".

I guess it sounds like one of those slippery slope deals. But in this case the NCAA clearly didn't think it was a big deal so you have to assume they were right.