News

Ted S. Warren / Associated Press

Rick Neuheisel on June 5, the day after the NCAA grilled him about betting pools.

Related Content

• The coach fumbles
  February 17, 1999
• Dawged by lawsuits
  April 21, 1999
• 4-8, Here We Come
  November 6, 2002
• Keep Your Pants on, Steve Sarkisian. At Least For Now.
  January 29, 2009
• The education coach
  September 1, 1999

More About

• Rick Neuheisel
• University of Washington
• National Collegiate Athletic Association
• College Football
• College Basketball

Share

From beneath the ripe intercollegiate athletics mess at the University of Washington, Rick Neuheisel has emerged less soiled than was first thought. Since his June 4 fumble during questioning by NCAA investigators, the former Husky football coach has regained momentum with inadvertent assists from the university and the Pac-10 Conference. At a hearing in San Francisco next Monday, Dec. 15, before the Pac-10 Compliance and Enforcement Committee, which is reviewing the investigation into the football team's NCAA rule violations, Neuheisel says he'll make a detailed argument that he was the victim of confusing and misinterpreted rules, inequitably applied, and that UW officials and coaches have conspired to cover up the truth. Without a job or much sympathy, Neuheisel's strategy is to win in the courts of law and public opinion, salvaging his career and the $3.5 million he lost when his contract was torn up.

Among Neuheisel's presentations to the Pac-10 will be what he considers new proof of the university's unequal treatment: letters of admonishment recently sent by Athletic Director Barbara Hedges to the new head football coach, Keith Gilbertson, his assistants, and athletic department staffers. The letters state that the coach and others who participated in $5 March Madness basketball pools in recent years are receiving only admonishments because they "were unaware" of the rule against such pools. It is the same rule that Neuheisel is accused of violating with his high-stakes bets. Neuheisel intends to ask why, of 150 or so people in the athletic department, only he should have known of the rule.

In San Francisco, Neuheisel is also expected to deny that he intentionally lied about the gambling that got him sacked. During the June 4 Q&A, he denied he had gambled or shared in any proceeds. But Neuheisel says he was blindsided by questions from investigators who violated policies of fair conduct, initially misled him, and, after springing the gambling issue, refused to show him evidence or name his accuser. Neuheisel repeatedly expressed reluctance to answer questions, but three investigators continued to grill him (he opted not to walk out). At another session a few hours later that day, Neuheisel cleared the air and said he had, in fact, participated in two annual March Madness "auctions" or pools outside the UW; altogether he risked $6,400 and won $12,100. He still maintained the pools did not constitute prohibited gambling, and according to a belatedly discovered UW rules memorandum, he was right.

THE MEMO, which Neuheisel released two days after his NCAA questioning, concluded (wrongly, the NCAA says) that pool bets by UW coaches and staff were permitted outside the athletic department. Neuheisel says he now can prove he read the ruling prior to the NCAA session and that he was relying on it when he invested in the pools; ergo, he wasn't lyingat least not when he said he didn't gamble illegally. Though he did not bring up the memo during the June 4 interview, he argues, it's reasonable to assume he momentarily had forgotten it. Sitting in at the same interrogation session was the UW official who had written the memo, and she did not mention it, either.

The UW has assessed itself a few minor penalties for its sins and Neuheisel's. Those penalties will be reviewed and either accepted or added to by the Pac-10 and the NCAA, who do separate investigations. Final decisions will be made next spring. The Pac-10 reported only three minor violations in its review, but the probe can be reopened. It depends, in part, on how convincingly the ex-coach makes his plea before the conference review board next week. From interviews, public records, and legal briefs, here's an outline of the important questions Neuheisel faces and the answers he's likely to give.

DID HE GAMBLE? Yes. But he might have had a reasonable belief it was allowed. The gambling violations in 2002 and 2003 involved Neuheisel and three partners bidding to obtain a set of teams among the 64 colleges involved in the NCAA basketball playoffs leading to the Final Four. Teams were auctioned off, with top contenders sometimes drawing bids of $5,000 to $10,000 from a well-bankrolled crowd. In 2003, for example, millionaire Neuheisel was part of a high-rolling 30 to 40 people at a downtown Seattle confab, and 10 grand wasn't a lot of money to this crowd, the ex-coach says. He personally won $4,799 on a $3,610 investment in 2002 and $7,324 by risking $2,790 this year.

Neuheisel figured he could legitimately be involved in such pools if they were held outside the university. His exhibit No. 1 is the infamous memo issued by the school's rules compliance office in 1999 and reissued to coaches and other athletic department staff last March 13. In part, it notes that NCAA Bylaw 10.3 "prohibits athletic department staff members from engaging in gambling activities as they relate to intercollegiate or professional sporting events." But the memo, written by Dana Richardson, a lawyer in the compliance office, added: "The bottom line of these rules is that if you have friends outside of ICA [the intercollegiate athletic department] that have pools on any of the basketball tournaments, you can participate. You cannot place bets with a bookie or organize your own pool inside or outside of ICA."