Your name is David Berst, and you are the head of the NCAA`s enforcement division. That makes you the Supercop of college sports, and those who work for you, the sleuths who must ferret out the facts behind the charges that constantly come your way. Each day, in fact, your office gets approximately 10 calls or letters charging some coach or school with cheating, and at any one time you can have as many as 25 schools on probation, as many as 40 investigations going on, as many as 500 secondary matters being handled by correspondence.
It is no wonder, then, that your division has grown since 1972, the year you took on your oft-thankless job. Back then, there was just you in the office and two investigators in the field. But now, in this age of big bucks and big pressure, your annual budget is $1.9 million and you coordinate the activities of five in-office supervisors, six secretaries and 15
investigators.
Everyone, publicly at least, applauds your aim, which is making sure there is some sort of integrity in college athletics. That world can be a cesspool-you know that, coaches know that, the public knows that, even those often-oblivious university presidents now admit they know that. Those last, in fact, started pushing for stiffer penalties back in 1985, and their concerns resulted in the adoption of the Death Penalty. Now, with scandals still swirling about them, they are ready to act again, and they promise to be prime players at the NCAA convention that opens Sunday in Dallas.
The rules adopted there, they will just be added to the cornucopia you and your staff must already try to enforce. That is one complaint you often hear, there are just too many rules and too many of them are picayune, and you do not necessarily disagree with that contention. ”I think the rules should be simplified, and I think that will occur over the next few years,” you say. ”But I hasten to add that schools placed on probation are not put on for violating some technical rule. They`re put on because they`ve offered money or like items, or because they`ve falsified academic records.”
But, you`re reminded, you have people like LSU basketball coach Dale Brown. ”I don`t want to feel like I have to take a shower everytime I turn around,” he says, and that leads to the perception that these nit-pick rules are a problem.
”I agree with that,” you say. ”But that`s also something used as a rationalization by someone caught in serious violation. They say, `Good grief. I got in trouble because of this humanitarian gesture.` In fact, they got in trouble for a serious violation.”
More Top Picks Best Neck Massagers For Cervical Pain Under Chin
You have most recently caught the North Carolina State basketball program breaking serious rules, and it was slapped with two years probation. Before that, harsh penalties were leveled against Kentucky basketball and Oklahoma football, and here you point to those examples to refute another criticism you hear. There are sacred cows out there who are untouchable, that is the criticism, and, you admit, ”It is only very recently that the perception has changed. Now we`re enjoying the perception that we`re going after everybody. And we are.”
But your critics, they just won`t stop. So even though you may be enjoying a favorable perception in that one area, in another, you are still being vilified. Take your methods. UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, for one, claims that they are unfair, and that he was denied due process when you investigated him.
You are normally measured in your responses, but here you emote. ”I disagree with that vehemently,” you say. ”I think the NCAA goes through hoops to ensure fairness. Yes, a few individuals have talked of the star chamber, and it`s easy to conjure up that image. But it`s simply not true.”
What about those who think you should have greater power, say subpoena power? Or those who think you should go undercover and tap phones and misrepresent yourself while collecting information?
”All those would be aids,” you admit, ”but I don`t think they`re appropriate measures to take-though I could be corrected. If the membership thinks we should do something unscrupulous to catch the unscrupulous, then it could be considered. That`s something that`s been advocated by (Indiana basketball coach) Bobby Knight, for instance. He says, `You`ll never be effective unless you do what they do.` I hope that`s wrong, and I think to a degree we`ve been reasonably successful because we`re receiving increased cooperation from institutions.”
But your best sources of information-the coaches themselves-are still reluctant to rat on a lodge brother.
”That`s really no different from other areas of society. We don`t rat on another person even though we know he`s cheating on his income tax. That`s just something that may be too much to expect. On the other hand, we talk about holding coaches to high standards of conduct, and maybe we ought to hold those individuals to tell all they know about the evils in intercollegiate athletics.”
Here, as always, you refuse to discuss what evils you might be uncovering in an individual investigation, and so you offer up only your standard, non-committal reply when asked about Illinois and its recruitment of Deon Thomas. But then, when asked about cheating in general, you are more responsive.
”There are,” you say, ”a large majority of people who say any great player is being cheated on. But the feedback I get from coaches is (rule violations) may be down a little bit. I don`t know whether they`re trying to feed me a line, or if that`s right. The complaints we receive are a little down, and the number of investigations we`re working on are a little down. I don`t know if that means the sources are further underground, or if coaches think there`s more of a personal risk in doing this kind of thing.”
But aren`t all the pressures on coaches also pushing them to break rules? ”I don`t know that it`s necessarily to break rules. I think it`s simply to make sure you don`t leave any rule untested in your pursuit of a particular athlete. See, our biggest problem runs to the fundamental attitudes of the people involved, and the public for that matter. It`s an acceptance of some level of violations of NCAA rules. Everyone has a different view on that, but it seems to me what we`re after is an attitude of compliance with those rules.”
But to get that attitude, Coach A is going to have to believe Coach B is thinking the same way, and you don`t have that trust now.
”I agree with that. I think coaches have to feel they`re more a part of developing legislation so that it`s legislation they have agreed to in advance, and not something that`s simply being imposed on them. In my perfect world, we would place emphasis on developing a better plan for rules.”
But, given the nature of coaches, can you ever have rules enough to completely clean it up?
”No. We haven`t been able to do that in society, and so I think there will always be some individuals who are going to cheat. But I think we`ve got to remain effective enough to do something when we catch a person who jumps over the line.
”I recognize that we`re viewed by some like the IRS. But I still think the vast majority are rooting us on, hoping we can have an impact.”