YEAGER: Asked not knowing whether you will hit this in closing arguments how did you come to the years of disassociation for the three boosters?

MR. HILLIARD: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The years of disassociation for the three boosters, it was a collective analysis as it relates to what do you do with these guys?

Wendell Smith, due to his lack of cooperation in refusing to be interviewed, we felt was unacceptable and that was the reason for it. The tape itself was convincing and compelling to draw the conclusion that that event occurred and that was unacceptable and then, in addition to the fact that he refused to sit down and review the information and would only answer in essence what were written interrogatories. That leaves you no meaningful way to test our perspective of the credibility of the information.

With Keller, Keller at least sat down to be interviewed and he answered questions more than Wendell Smith did. We felt that his continuing display of his quote, "humanitarian" beliefs was again not acceptable. Thus, the seven-year mark.

Lastly, as it relates to Young, he sat down, interviewed extensively, provided information to the University and the enforcement staff. I know the enforcement staff has a position and an opinion on that. But, also sitting down and providing information contrary to legal advice, due to the events surrounding Memphis, all four lawyers were adamant about not wanting him to give any information to anybody, the University of Alabama, the NCAA, period. But, contrary to legal advice sitting down in two days of extensive interviews, we thought that was somewhat compelling, but the five-year mark for Young, to him will be a century. One day of disassociation is unacceptable, but moreover, removal from his sky box and all the trappings associated with that. Also, due to his health, I mean five years for that guy, the age and his health conditions, might as well be forever.

Having said all that, five, seven, and ten, we also fully understand and recognize that this Committee has the authority to add on to that. We respect that. So that was the collective thought analysis that everyone kind of walked through. It wasn't just, you know, why are we doing so many years here. Let's try to apply some rationale to what these people did and didn't do.

MS. ROBBINS: I intend to keep the focus of my closing statement on some of our history for this Committee and the corrective measures we have undertaken.

But first I want to take a few minutes to provide my own perspective on some of the comments made by Dr. Sorensen in his opening, because much has been said since we started this morning.

As the director of compliance at Alabama, I am probably more keenly aware than anyone at this table that one of the burdens we face in this case is not the particular allegation but the fact that we have been here before, and not very long ago.

Because most of you are not involved in either of the previous Alabama cases, I want to stress that the 1995 case was an agent case. The University received heavy sanctions and a finding of lack of institutional control.

The shake-out from that case resulted in a change in personnel at the University, including the president, the provost, the athletic director, and the head football coach, the compliance director and the faculty athletics representative.

The probationary period for the 1995 case expired in 1998. The 1998 basketball case, which resulted in a February, 1999 opinion, was an unfortunate incident. But in the end, an encouraging experience for me because the enforcement staff acknowledged and your Committee on Infractions recognized how well our boosters responded to what they heard and how the University dealt with the case. It is my understanding that our handling of the case in part was responsible for the nomination and appointment of Gene Marsh to your Committee.

I won't repeat the language from the February, 1999 opinion, but I hope you will study it when you make your decision. It is not easy to figure out how the same institution that received effusive praise in February, 1999 for proactive compliance and booster education finds itself back here today with the most widely publicized allegations linked to booster activity.

All I ask you to do is to separate their activity from the efforts the University has made, as you recognized in February, 1999. I could walk the perimeter of our campus with a rifle, yet never be in a position to police people in north Alabama who in their interviews describe themselves as crazy and to prevent their determination to stay off our radar screen.

I also cannot control high school coaches in Memphis, whose behavior has risen to the level of an indictable offense by a federal jury. What we can do is disassociate people when their improprieties surface.

Allegations Nos. 1 and 3 are essentially activities involving boosters. We have no use for those boosters. I resent what they have done to our University while they claim their love for your program. Excuse me. I have been director of compliance at Alabama since 1996. Prior to that, I worked with the Southeastern Conference where I administered the National Letter of Intent program and served as the liaison to the conference of Southeastern Conference athletics reps. It was Professor Marsh who talked me into taking this job. I wish he were in the room instead of me.

In 1996, he was new to the faculty athletics representatives job, but convinced we would be a good compliance team. I think we are. What we have done has not always been popular among some circles, to say the least. But we have never blinked and have never taken the path of least resistance. Most importantly, we have had the continuing and unwavering mandate of and support of President Sorensen and Athletics Director Mal Moore to assure compliance. I know you will consider the extent of recruiting and competitive advantage we have gained from the activities outlined in the case.

While I recognize that we would not be here today if there were not some recruiting or competitive advantage gained as a result of some of these violations, I note that we have experienced minimal recruiting or competitive advantage from the students identified in this case.

Specifically Allegations:

1) 1 and 2 involved Kenny Smith, who never enrolled.

2) No. 3 involved Albert Means, who enrolled, played little, & left after 1 semester.

3) No. 5 involved Michael Gaines, who never enrolled.

4) Nos. 7 and 8 involved Travis Carroll. The alleged acts occurred during the second year of enrollment at Alabama before he transferred to another institution and was sidelined with a shoulder injury.

5) No. 9 involved Kendall Morehead, who is currently enrolled & Eric Locke, who transferred after his freshman year.

6) No. 13 involved Harold James, who enrolled, played sparingly, and left after one semester.

Our won-loss record over the last four years, well, after today, is twenty-five and twenty-four, with only two bowl appearances. As Coach Franchione noted this morning, despite the position of the Alabama program, we have not been blessed with talent or success in recent years. We are a long way from returning to national prominence.

The self-imposed scholarship sanctions and other corrective measures we have undertaken are outlined in Tab 18 of the University's response. Given the hour, I will not walk through those items one-by-one.

As we discussed these measures on our campus, we were mindful of our status as a repeat violator, the public attention placed on this case, and the precedent established in other cases.

We have geared the corrective and remedial measures to the violations in the case. If it is true that the most effective messages are those spoken from the heart, then I hope you will understand that I cannot close today without giving a brief personal perspective on some of the notice issues included in our response and discussed during this hearing.

I don't know why a former member of the enforcement staff did not follow through on his assigned responsibility to notify the school in June of 1996 regarding activities relating to Kenny Smith. Maybe it was a turnover in personnel or something that just slipped through the cracks. At the same time, I have no doubt that Professor Marsh, who was in place at the time, would have pursued it with the same level of intensity that he does now. It is not good enough for me to hear, quote, "Who knows what would have happened," when the lack of notice took away our chance to try.

Our record on following through on leads is well known, as is our handling of confidential sources, as proved in the Michael Meyers case which took place in August 1997, which brings me to the notice issues and as they relate to Albert Means and Harold James.

It is clear that interviews with coaches of other NCAA member institutions, with Milton Kirk and with the confidential source, all prior to mid- August, 2000, brought to the enforcement staff critical information that was not shared with the institution.

The Southeastern Conference also had important information that was not shared with us. Professor Marsh and I will never understand why this information was not shared, although we understand how the sky is clear and the wisdom that follows hindsight.

I think Gene and I deserve better than what we got. At the pre-hearing conference Mark Jones stated that he thought penalties in the case were called for because, although the institution has made objection regarding lack of notice, the enforcement staff represents the membership.

I guess it is right that the enforcement staff represents the membership, so we are the membership. We are the same people and the same institution described in the February, 1990 opinion from your Committee.

I think that membership expects and deserves notice when it has been earned. We always have immediately shared all relevant information with the NCAA and the Southeastern Conference, no matter how much it was against our interest.

In fact, isn't it ironic that the very first entry in the case summary, the case chronology, which began, the enforcement staff's investigation of the University is a report the institution shared with the NCAA and the SEC regarding these compliance matters.

I don't think that attitude which has been taken here, so I ask for your consideration of the notice issue as you consider penalties. After we submitted our self-imposed penalties, some allegations were dropped, which will no doubt lead to some criticism back home when our response is released to the public in the next several weeks.

I hope that you understand that two major allegations against our former recruiting coach in Memphis were dropped due to the procedural problems resulting from the introduction of evidence from the confidential source.

Please remember that the use of evidence from the source required the approval of the University and in our case at the insistence of the faculty athletics representative. Yet, at the same time the critical information gleaned from the confidential source and interviews with the NCAA back in the summer of 2000 was not shared with the school until after both students enrolled and played.

Having seen how this has played out, I could never advise another school to do what we did against our self-interest in agreeing to the admission of the information from the confidential source.

I apologize for my emotion. I thought it would have subsided since I first learned months ago that critical information was not shared. Obviously, it will take more time.

I appreciate the work you have done in preparing for the hearing today. It is evident from your questions that you have studied the allegations and our response with great care. This has been a cooperative enterprise from the beginning, as I feel that it has been today in our discussions with you.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN YEAGER: Thank you, Marie. Mr. Kramer, would you like to offer closing comments on behalf of the Southeastern Conference?

MR. KRAMER: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman. Once, again, the day has been long and the hour is late and I feel, however, that it is important to review a very few significant facts with regard to the concerns we have reviewed over the past several hours.

The heart of this case centers around a highly publicized booster and several lesser publicized boosters' inappropriate actions. No one in this room is here to defend the alleged actions and the accepted violations of these individuals. Those violations are extremely serious. While there may be differences with regard to the details of this case, the University has accepted full responsibility for the actions of those individuals and disassociated them.

While the University may not be able to say this, I believe this process is welcomed by the University as a positive message, sending a very clear-cut message to the parasites who hang around major college athletic programs. The University in its response has also indicated the assignment of very meaningful sanctions against itself with regard to the limitations of scholarships and official visits.

As you consider those sanctions, I believe it is most important to relate those numbers to the fact that only one student-athlete involved in the significant, most significant allegation, attended this University and participated in football for a very limited period of one season.

While I will certainly, as I indicated in our discussion of Allegation 3, accept significant responsibility for not sharing all of the information that may have caused this University to take the appropriate action that might have prevented even this limited participation had they had that information at their disposal.

I believe very strongly, as I indicated during No. 3, that this University should not receive additional sanctions for this participation or competitive advantage, if any, as a result of that failure of notification. I know this institution's compliance operation and, more importantly, its commitment to compliance as well or better than any other institution in our conference.

I will state emphatically that few, if any, institutions have a stronger, more involved, more conscientious faculty representative than Gene Marsh. In addition, through the tireless efforts of Marie Robbins, the entire compliance structure and, more importantly, the culture of compliance responsibility at this institution changed.

I must state that it has become a model of commitment, as expected by this association. In large measure much of the information presented here today was developed in cooperation and as the result of that institutional commitment.

However your deliberations proceed, I believe it is of utmost importance that those two individuals in particular are appropriately acknowledged. As indicated, finding committed faculty representatives who are thoroughly involved in their responsibility for the integrity of their athletic program, and not just in signing forms and riding on the team plane, is a very rare fact.

By the same token, as I indicated to some of you yesterday, a compliance officer with the courage to say no, to ask the tough questions, and to fully accept all of the responsibilities this association expects from a person who occupies that position must be recognized by this Committee.

I am here to state without equivocation Marie Robbins is one of those rare individuals. Failure to make that recognition would not only severely damage the continued efforts to maintain the compliance culture not only of this institution but of member institutions in general.

This is a very unique and difficult case. Yet, as you proceed I believe it is critical to understand this University and most particularly its compliance staff, once informed of the issues as alleged in this case, responded with a thorough commitment, took decisive actions, and fully met its responsibilities as a member institution.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN YEAGER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Jones, any closing remarks on behalf of the NCAA staff?

MR. JONES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. It has been a long day and it has been a long year and one-half, or whatever, since starting the investigation of this case in earnest. I think we will all be glad when it is over with today. One point I did want to bring out that has been glossed over a little bit throughout the hearing today, is the contribution of Bill Seviers. He played a major part in this inquiry. He was involved in sitting through many interviews. He ran out a lot of records for us. He was a good sounding board on issues and was a good assistant to both the enforcement staff and the institution.

We really do want to thank you, Bill, for your work in behalf of the conference. You helped both of us. He also provided another very important function and that was when they were down in Memphis and he was riding with Coach Johanningmeier, safely under the speed limit I might add at all times, he served as an appropriate chaperon when they went to the Platinum Club to interview some of the dancers, so that was very important To keep him under control.

MR. JOHANNINGMEIER: You are looking at a lawsuit.

MR. JONES: This particular case, as I pointed out earlier, involves we think very serious allegations. They run towards violations involving boosters and recruiting improprieties.

We think the case is obviously very serious and we have gone further than the institution in terms of acknowledging violations in this case. I think the Committee probably has a lot of thinking to do about the allegations and then what you are going to do with the school.

Obviously, after listening to an emotional closing like we just heard, especially from someone who you have grown to have a lot respect for, and then at the same time to appear at times to be critical of you, it puts you in kind of an awkward spot. The only thing I would say is I think that - I don't share their view as to when and how we shared information. I think I have previously expounded upon that.

I think the biggest problem here for the University was the boosters. It wasn't the timing of when we shared information with them. We have great confidence in them. We think they do a good job. But we do represent the membership. I did say that and that is right. It is our job to develop the information the best way we know how and we don't take any chances in doing that, because once the information is exposed and to their own people, it can sabotage an investigation.

Having said all that stuff, I have tried to look at this institution and tried to figure out how you would be looking at them. If you go back in time when they had an infractions case in '95 and you imposed penalties and, like all institutions, at that time they made claims that we are going to get everything in order.

Then, a few years later, by golly, they have a men's basketball case that they found. They self-reported. Their booster self-reported that case to them. They self-reported it to us. I mean they did it just right. So the first big litmus test they got, they passed with flying colors. I just made a list of things that I think you might look for about an institution and what it looks like if they do the things they told you they were going to do.

Do they investigate major cases? They have done that. Do they self-report violations? Yes, they self-report violations. There are four or five in here that they self-reported during the investigation in this case. Do they educate boosters? Absolutely, they educate the boosters. There is no doubt about that. Then another inquiry comes up that is developed by the enforcement staff. Are they cooperative? Absolutely, they are cooperative. Did they acknowledge violations? Absolutely, they acknowledge violations. They didn't acknowledge as many as we think happened, but they did acknowledge some.

As a result of what they acknowledged, they imposed some very significant penalties. When you think about the violations they have acknowledged, which does not include - well, they acknowledged one, but they didn't include penalties for one, three, seven, and eight, and when you look at the penalties they imposed, they were very significant penalties.

When you throw out those allegations, the ones that they did not acknowledge were some of the more serious ones in our view. They disassociated boosters. They disassociated three or four different boosters as a result of what happened in this case.

Are they willing to take unpopular positions? Absolutely. Dennis Franchione, in case you didn't know, is a personal friend of mine, predating this case. He has told me over the telephone that he knows the grief and treatment that Gene and Marie get down there is brutal. So it is tough being down there. They are not afraid to take a stand. Do we have confidence in them when we turn information over that they will do the right thing? Absolutely, we do. They take it and they investigate it with zeal. They take that responsibility so seriously that they cannot understand any circumstances why we don't turn information over to them. Even though we have disagreed about the point, to some extent that is a good thing, because it is a measure of how committed they are to investigating the right way.

Some people would make that claim simply because they would have wanted to know earlier so maybe they could have done something other than really help enforcement. They will still tell you they are helping, but maybe not really helping. That is not the case here. They say they want something so they can have a crack at it. We can take them at their word. Yet, despite all of that, we still have Logan Young. We still have Ray Keller. We still have Jim Johnson and you still have the violations.

So it is really an odd spot. I feel sorry for them. I think they are doing everything they can do over there at the end of the table. I really do mean that. Yet, they still have some problems. I also feel sorry for some of the schools that have tried to recruit in Memphis. I think it has been very difficult for them to do that. All those are parts of the pieces that you have to consider when you go into your deliberations. I don't really know if there is any kind of guidance that we can give.

Although I did say, and although I didn't hear the Committee going that way, I do think this school has done what you are supposed to do to have institutional control. As I said earlier, I think some boosters were still out of control, but it wasn't because of effort. They gave the effort and I still think the penalties are appropriate.

But, in an odd way, I do think that the system we have here, where you do have an enforcement staff, you will end up helping the school, because I think we were able to get the kind of support and coalition of witnesses together, et cetera, that would have been difficult for them to get and obtain so that we can really get the full picture out to you.

Once again, President Sorensen, I want to thank you and thank your staff for all the help they have been in this case. It has been difficult at times. I know it has been emotional for Marie, but I know we will all move on and get past this. With that, Mr. Chairman, we have no further remarks to make.

CHAIRMAN YEAGER: Thank You. At the risk of prolonging this a little bit, we didn't think to avail ourselves of Roy's expertise, while we have him here.

But, Roy, I think obviously you know this is a very difficult case for us and you know the process the Committee goes through. I don't think anyone has any question about the University's efforts and your diligence. I think a lot of us would subscribe to your idea that you are doing everything right. Yet, we have some boosters who put you here today. I guess, is there some way to get the message?

You know, as we go to start deliberating here and trying to sort through everything, and not trying to go through the University's corrective actions, we have all that. But, I mean, relying on your experience and knowing what these guys are and looking at it globally, as the entire NCAA membership, how do we affect what obviously a very well run compliance program doesn't seem to reach?

How do we get a message to these folks? Do you have any thoughts at all?

MR. KRAMER: If I had that answer, I probably wouldn't be here, but I would say this, that it is, and that's why I said this is a very unique and difficult case to address.

This is a case that centers in its heart for what the biggest allegations are, and the very thing you are talking about, the people that I call the parasites of intercollegiate athletics. I think we do address them with the disassociation. To some of those that is a very meaningful penalty. I will say that, as I would agree with the University in one of these cases.

To others, it is not in the sense that they don't respect the NCAA as an association from the beginning, and that makes that more difficult to do. That is why I believe this institution went ahead with additional self-imposed scholarship penalties that are listed there, because the only way you wake those people up is for that group that surrounds them to realize that as a result of that responsibility, they have hurt this institution in a significant way.

I think you have to combine that part of the discussion. I think that is what this University tried to do in its response. I think they did it in a meaningful way.

Beyond that, I think we are dealing with an almost impossible area to totally control as we address the issue. We play a football game on Saturday afternoon, whether it is in Lincoln, Nebraska, or Tuscaloosa, Alabama, with 80,000 to 90,000 people there.

Hopefully, they understand what we are about, but I will tell you, having been in more of those stadiums than almost anybody in this room, as I walk out of there, I realize that is not the case and that is not their understanding of where we are in intercollegiate athletics.

I do think that we, as conferences, and we, as an association, have to do a better job. I would say this University has learned that the hard way. But to do a far better job, because I will tell you this exists out there without it being known in many, many situations and it is very difficult to get to unless you have some responsibilities with people in that University who are willing to address that in a strong way. Now, that is why I give so much credit to Gene Marsh. That is a rare individual today who will stand up to the culture of an institution and really get involved and ask the questions that need to get there.

Somehow we have to do a better job of finding those people and putting those people in our institutions across the board. Not just in this institution, but I am talking about all my other institutions or other institutions across the country.

Other than that, I don't have a whole lot of good answers for this, except to say it is one that we have to maintain a due diligence with almost every minute of every hour, because that threat is out there in many cases without any of us even knowing about it.

All you have to do is to walk down to the tunnel at the end of the stadium after a football game and look at the gathering. I am not talking about this institution. I am talking about fifty of sixty institutions across this country, and it is a very difficult thing to maintain.

CHAIRMAN YEAGER: Thank You, Roy. At this point I think we are ready to conclude the hearing. I would like to thank President Sorensen. There is kind of some standard boilerplate language about the University's efforts and stuff, but I think I speak for everyone that I think it was readily apparent the effort that the University put forth in responding to some very, very difficult issues.

I think that has been acknowledged by the staff. I think it hasn't been lost on any of us that it also went to some personal heartache for a lot of your staff.

I wanted to thank the University from the uppermost level to get us to the point today where we were able to really deal with these issues, obviously, in a very candid and frank and straightforward manner.