rush to judgment

socalogo.gif (8739 bytes)
SoCalHoops NCAA & AAU News

Rush To Judgment: Happy Holidays
From The NCAA--(Dec. 23, 1999)

While we were busy writing about, watching and covering all the high school hoops that we could manage to see (including Vegas, the San Marcos Tournament, the Rim Rattler Holiday Tournament, several local tournaments including the La Canada-St. Francis Tournament, and the out of state stuff like the Iolani, the Oregon Holiday Invitational, and the Ft. Meyers City of Palms Classic), the NCAA was busy attempting to change the face of college, AAU and club basketball in a way that they've never attempted before. Personally we think they have taken a pretty high-handed approach, but then there's a lot we don't know about the facts of this individual case. We're talking about the half-season suspension of Missouri's Kareem Rush, the freshman brother of UCLA sophomore JaRon Rush, who is also suspended currently, albeit for apparently different (but related) reasons having to do with his involvement on a club team coached by Myron Piggie, which was funded by Missouri booster Tom Grant. JaRon's problems evidently relate more to his alleged relationship and with taking money from an agent (alleged to be LA sports agent Jerome Stanley, who steadfastly denies any involvment with Rush, but who was involved with Piggie, and Piggie's nephew, Korleone Young, who was a pro basketball player and former client of Stanley's who also happened to play on the same AAU team with the Rush brothers, Earl Watson and others, which was coached by Piggie, and bankrolled by Tom Grant. . . ad infitum, ad nasueum). . .

We really don't know what to make of the Kareem situation completely and it's possible that the level of consideration (and we use the term "consideration" in the pure legal sense, because there is no acknowledged media report which identifies whether it was money, clothing, shoes, or what Kareem actually received which was above the "allowable limit" (whatever that really is) which caused the suspension.

Still, the way a lot of commentators have generalized about the situation, if those pundits are correct, the decision (see below) could be one of the most backhanded (or maybe even underhanded), ill-conceived ways of attempting reform ever attempted by the NCAA. And it raises jurisdictional issues, questions about how the NCAA selectively enforces matters, and many, many other issues.

Here's the chronology: It seems that while we all had our backs turned for a moment, this past Tuesday, the NCAA suspended Missouri's Kareem Rush for a half a season, and ruled that he can only obtain reinstatement by fulfilling "certain conditions." His crime? Accepting "consideration" (not specified how much or in what form--cash, goods, etc--, but probably in the form of travel expenses, apparel, shoes and meal money) from his former AAU coach, Myron Piggie, currently being investigated for fraud by a grand jury in Missouri.

What this means, if there's any logic to the decision, is that the NCAA should probably (no make that definitely) suspend about 2/3 or more of the players at the Division I level, right now!! Not later, but right now. People have joked that the Kareem Rush ruling will (or should if the NCAA is to be logically and internally consistent) result in a final four of Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Brown. . . but the joke, (if there is one) would be on them, because even those teams too would find about half their players (if not more) being ruled ineligible. Which is why we just have to believe that there are other issues at work in the case of Kareem Rush.

Why do we believe that some of the pundits are just out to make ink for themselves and may be overstating the case of what the Kareem suspension means to "all of basketball," as Dan Wetzel is wont to say? Because the NCAA rules themselves expressly provide that players who participate on teams (such as AAU teams) may receive "playing apparel, equipment and actual and necessary travel, and room and board expenses" (NCAA "Guide For College Bound Student-Athletes, "Professionalism". The rules do not specify a maximum amount of apparel, or a maximum dollar value of clothing, equipment or travel and room and board (at least not that we can find anywhere that would give a prospective student athlete any more notice than what's on the NCAA website).

How much is too much? What is "above the acceptable limit?" and what is that "limit?" A new pair of shoes for every tournament? A new pair for every game? Steak and lobster dinners in Vegas after a hard fought win? What about a bigger hotel room? Pay per view movies and the ability to make long distance calls to phone home? How can this stuff get regulated, and why should it really. Is it any different that a player is given the keys to a hotel room with his AAU team as opposed to his high school team traveling to a winter tournament? Who knows. But there has to be some standard, some level which isn't vague, ambiguous and unintelligible. Believe us, if lawyers (who read stuff like this all the time) have difficulty finding a "bright-line" test for determining what the standard is, how is the average AAU or travel coach (or even a high school coach), much less a 14, 15, 16 or 17 year old player, supposed to be able to determine what the "acceptable limit" is?

From our perspective, there must have been more at work to what Kareem received than just what some of the pundits and other commentators are assuming. At least we have to believe there was, otherwise, nothing makes any sense. But since when was that a prerequisite with the NCAA. . . . if everything made sense, the NCAA wouldn't have a reason for it's own existence except to administer the Tournament.

But whatever was involved in the Kareem situation, and whatever consideration he received and whatever form it took, there have been many and varied reactions to the NCAA's lightning quick enforcement ruling.

First, let's start with the official press release from Missouri issued on the subject this past Tuesday while we were in Las Vegas at the Reebok Holiday Prep Classic. . . and speaking of that tournament, and others, who, pray tell, do you think paid for most of the teams to get to the tournament? Reebok is not the highest of the high profile shoe companies, at least not in comparison to adidas and Nike, but they don't have their name appended to this tournament for nothing. It's pretty much common knowledge that the sponsors of the Reebok event provided travel and in some cases (perhaps all) accomodations of the teams participating (albeit in a much reduced amount this year which meant the absence of some the high profile teams, like Oak Hill, and others, who demand and receive more in the way of travel stipends for their appearances than the "ordinary" high school teams). It ain't, as Andy Katz says below, because of bake sales and car washes that teams travel from Alaska to tournaments, to Hawaii, or across the country to showcase a single player or a group of players to the assembled scouts and college coaches. Nope, it doesn't just happen . . . .

But back to what we really know: Here's where all the events started on Tuesday, with the Missouri press release:

NCAA Rules on Kareem Rush Eligibility Status

Mizzou Will Appeal Decision

Dec. 21, 1999

St. Louis, Mo. - The NCAA has ruled that University of Missouri freshman forward Kareem Rush can regain his eligibility based on the fulfillment of certain conditions. The decision was rendered today by the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff.

Rush will be required to repay the amount of money he received from an AAU coach, prior to his enrollment at Missouri, which has been deemed as an impermissible benefit. The dollar figure is yet to be determined, and Rush will have the length of his eligibility to complete the payment. The money will go to the charity or charities of his choice.

The reinstatement staff has also ruled that Rush must be withheld from 50 percent of Missouri’s competition during the 1999-2000 season. The exact number of games is also yet to be determined, based on a number of factors.

The University will have the opportunity to appeal to the NCAA Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement. The University plans to submit the appeal tomorrow (Dec. 22), and anticipates the appeal being heard next week.

Interestingly, the NCAA Infractions and Enforcement people didn't issue any press release. Not a word. Not a peep.

But as soon as the news hit, it created a lot of controversy. ESPN's Andy Katz wrote a scathing piece yesterday, and we're only going to excerpt that portion of it that deals with the Rush decision. We're not sure we agree with the alarmists, because there are always going to be violations of rules, but as we noted above, the question here is not so much a simple violation, it's the apparent fact that there is no real guideline, no bright-line standard for players, coaches and others to follow. Anyway, here's Katz' take on the subject:

NCAA ruling on Rush opens can of worms

By Andy Katz
ESPN.com

The NCAA's half-season suspension of Missouri freshman Kareem Rush for accepting extra benefits as a 15-year old AAU player sets a dangerous precedent for the NCAA, high school and AAU basketball, and the majority of elite college basketball players.

If the NCAA maintains this harsh a stand against Rush (Missouri is appealing the NCAA ruling which was handed down on Tuesday), it must look at the entire sport and, in the end, could suspend a number of high-profile players for the same reasons. Extra benefits in high school and AAU summer basketball are as common as the Nike and Adidas sneakers the players wear on a daily basis. How do you think players in Alaska and West Virginia get to California for a tournament? Who do you think is paying for high school teams playing in Honolulu right now? Do you think they had bake sales and car washes?

"Based on this ruling, they should shut down college basketball for half the season," said a notable youth basketball organizer, who requested that his name not be used. "This might be the most dangerous decision the NCAA has ever made. No one ever told these kids that taking meal money from an AAU coach would effect their college eligibility. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. I don't know where it says that if high school kids take money from an AAU coach they're inelgibile."

Rush admitted accepting extra benefits while playing for an AAU team coached by Myron Piggie in Kansas City prior to enrolling at Missouri. The benefits, nothing more than a few basketball-related gifts (sneakers, gear, etc.) and travel expenses, came to light during an ongoing federal investigation into Piggie for alleged tax evasion.

Federal authorities passed on the information to Missouri, which had an obligation, according to the NCAA, to suspend Rush, declare him ineligible and seek his reinstatement (the allegations against Rush's older brother JaRon at UCLA involve accepting money from an agent -- a clear NCAA violation). But singling out Rush and the few others that played for Piggie (Oklahoma State's Andre Williams is still suspended for the same reason) doesn't wash away the problem.

"The majority of players at a high level get extra benefits," said Sonny Vaccarro, director of Adidas' summer basketball. "This is absurd. The NCAA has no jurisdiction. Go to the Las Vegas tournament and there are 250 teams with their parents there. Every kid is there somehow. It's not illegal."

Sources have told ESPN.com that the NCAA wants to tackle the issue and rid the sport of the professionalism that goes on before players get to college. The problem is how. One source told ESPN.com that it's not practical and would be impossible to take it on across the board. In the Rush case, the NCAA is using the FBI and IRS to get information on players like Rush. The federal authorities are expected to review their findings with the NCAA next Wednesday.

Sources at UCLA say the school has been irked that it found out about JaRon Rush's activity in an unsolicited conversation with federal authorities. But NCAA spokesperson Wally Renfro said schools have an obligation to act on any information they receive, regardless of where it comes from and how it's delivered. Suspending Kareem Rush sends a message. The larger statement is coming out in a new book, entitled, "Sole Influence," in which co-authors Dan Wetzel and Don Yaeger expose what they charge is corruption by Nike and Adidas in AAU and high school basketball. "Until a kid gets suspended, they couldn't put a face on this crime," said Wetzel, who is also managing editor of Basketball Times. "Everyone said this was a bad system but didn't show why. But we were able to show Marvin Stone (now at Kentucky) getting a car to go to high school. We showed that in places like Huntsville, Ala., and Kansas City, that things like this happen.

"A pandora's box has been opened," Wetzel adds. "The colleges are addicted to the shoe money and they've allowed the AAU and high school culture to be professionalized. You can't have shoe companies throwing a collective eight million (dollars) into a pot of amateur basketball and not let it get to the players. If the (NCAA) wants to say playing on these high-level teams makes you a professional athlete, then they'll have a Final Four with Yale, Howard, Sac State and Texas-Arlington."

Wetzel agreed with Vaccaro and said: "If Kareem Rush's level of guilt earns him half a year suspension, then 75 percent of the country should, too. Obviously they can't do that but something has to be done if they want to get serious about it."

Shutting the summer down isn't the answer. Plenty of schools need summer recruiting to find players who aren't on high-profile teams. Getting rid of the extra benefits in high school wouldn't be answered by changing the summer calendar. How does that limit the trips like Compton's Dominguez High to Hawaii this week?

"What we show in Sole Influence is the shoe companies have created a level of opportunity to make it extremely profitable for guys like Joel Hopkins (at Mt. Zion Christian in Durham, N.C.) to make $150,000 a year because he coached Tracy McGrady for one season," Wetzel said. "Nike legitimized Myron Piggie by giving him money to get players. There's no surprise that he ended up selling complimentary shoes. He's a hustler. There are thousands of guys like Myron Piggie. It's the system that creates the Myron Piggies."

If the NCAA continues looking into extra benefits, plenty of high-profile, top-25 teams could be without players. "It's going to continue, there's no way it can't," Wetzel said. "The NCAA isn't going to lower the threshold of the crime. This system is way, way out of control and will effect every level of basketball."

Wetzel may be an alarmist, may be exaggerating, or he may be simply adding more fuel to the fire simply to spur sales of his own lurid "expose" book, but there's no question that the NCAA (or at least some among the enforcement staff) want to alter the face of the summer AAU scene, or at least control some of the people involved in it, at least to get rid of those influences that the NCAA considers "unsavory." Just who those people are other than the Myron Piggies of the world is not completely clear, but we're sure we'll be hearing a lot more on this subject in the next few months. Wetzel attacks the shoe companies, attacks Nike and adidas, and it's easy to do that because they are easy targets. Certainly there is nothing laudable about Nike giving a guy like Piggie unfettered control of a substantial sum of money without placing some restrictions on its use or providing some mechanism for accountability. Still, at least in principle, we have to ask what really is the difference, so long as there is accountability and some measure and level of responsibility for the welfare and education of the student-athletes (or prospective student athletes) if a shoe company sponsors a team. It's a hard thing to try to draw the line on what's good and what's bad when there are so many shades of gray. Was Piggie "bad"? Well, we have no personal knowledge, but everyone sure seems to think so. That's not what George Raveling thought, but then even he can be wrong sometimes too. The real question though is whether someone, somewhere, shouldn't step up and say, "Ok, we'll be responsible for maintaining an organziational level of compliance among AAU and club tournament teams that prohibits the kind of thing that got a Kareem Rush suspended." Whether such an approach is feasible, or even desireable, is an open question. After all, while many people assume that the Marvin Stone situations are typical, we're willing to bet that among the top 600 player prospects in the country, the kind of thing that Wetzel is talking about as "being out of control" probably only really involves a tiny, tiny fraction of such players. Not everyone violates the NCAA rules, even if the standard seems to be virtually undefinable or unidentifiable. Some of the kids just go out to play basketball, and they find themselves on these club and high profile teams because it's the best way to be seen. Nothing more and nothing less.

Ok, now that we've rambled on and on, what, if anything did Kareem Rush have to say about his suspension? The Kansas City Star had an article which featured his reaction to the suspension and some other observations about the money and the conduct that may have been at the base root of his problems, and his recruiting experiences (to which he simply refers obliquely as just not being "right"):

Kareem Rush struggles to handle NCAA sanctions

By MIKE DeARMOND - The Kansas City Star
Date: 12/22/99 22:15

ST. LOUIS -- It was a low blow for Kareem Rush on a high night for Missouri.

By halftime of the Tigers' 78-72 upset of No. 15 Illinois on Tuesday, Rush had received the news. He would be banned from playing in half of MU's games this season, which coach Quin Snyder estimated would be the next 11, and he would have to pay back a to-be-determined amount of money he received from his former AAU basketball coach that the NCAA says was above allowed expenses.

Missouri filed an appeal Wednesday but doesn't expect any decision on it until next week at the earliest. But if the NCAA's decision is upheld, Rush will miss facing Kentucky and Winthrop to end the non-conference season and then, in Big 12 play, both games against Iowa State and Colorado, and single games against Kansas State, Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M and Nebraska.

His first game back would be Feb. 12 against Texas.

"It kind of hit me hard," Rush said Tuesday. "I just took it, took it in stride. I'm just going to go for it and hopefully get back in 11 games and play well.

"I'm not going to sit here and bad-mouth the NCAA. I'm just going to get better over these next 11 games, cheer my team on and hopefully be the same player as when I left."

NCAA rules governing financial benefits during AAU play leave plenty of room for interpretation. MU athletic director Mike Alden touched on that Tuesday.

"We haven't seen anything like this before," Alden said. "I think this is the first time they've ever ruled on something like this before. From our standpoint, it caught us a little bit by surprise."

You don't need to ask Alden whether he thinks the ruling was fair. MU coach Quin Snyder wasn't happy about it, either. "We got a slightly different ruling than we had anticipated," Snyder said. "My job in this thing is to support Kareem. It's unfortunate, but we're moving forward from it."

Rush said he wondered about the money and travel involved for the elite AAU teams on which he and brother JaRon, who is suspended at UCLA, played while in high school. "As a junior I kind of felt that maybe something ain't right," he said. "I heard of JaRon's recruitment. It was a part of my life that happened that I'm not really happy about. But I'm just going to look to the future and cheer my team on."

Obviously we haven't heard the last of this issue, not by a long shot. Stay tuned. And Happy Holidays, even to the enforcement folks. . er, the Scrooges . . . at the NCAA.