July 8, 2004
Villanova director of athletics Vince Nicastro and head men's basketball coach Jay Wright recently answered questions regarding the announcement of a major penalty levied by the NCAA against the Men's Basketball program. This penalty includes a two-year period of NCAA probation for the program but does not affect eligibility for postseason competition or the individual eligibility of any student-athletes.
Questions dealing with administrative matters were directed to Nicastro. Those related to basketball issues were asked of Wright. In cases where it was appropriate, both responded.
Q: Can you summarize briefly how this process began?
NICASTRO: It's a process that has lasted almost two years. In the summer of 2002 we were notified by a member of the NCAA Enforcement Staff and, at the same time, through our Conference office, that there were some concerns about information that had been provided in the "Top Prospect" interviews the NCAA conducts with incoming student-athletes. There were also a few anonymous letters sent to us, here at Villanova, at about the same time. Based upon all this information, the NCAA decided there was enough information for them to send someone out to campus to investigate further.
Q: What was Villanova's response?
NICASTRO: Any time we have an issue, whether the NCAA is involved or it's something we discover through our own processes, we immediately engage our Compliance staff and the University's General Counsel. In this case, we also engaged outside counsel, Mike Glazier of Bond, Schoeneck and King. Mike is one of the country's preeminent authorities on NCAA rules and regulations. In addition, we immediately began our own internal investigation. In this case, because the NCAA enforcement staff was involved, it became a joint review.
We have worked cooperatively with the NCAA. We provided our staff, our student-athletes and all of the information they were looking for. We did it as a joint review where we developed the framework of the information needed and identified who needed to be interviewed. We did that in a short and very intense period of time during the fall of 2002.
Q: Is this related to the telephone access code incident of 2003 that impacted the men's basketball program?
NICASTRO: The telephone access code incident is included in this because it took place while this review was underway. As a matter of procedure, any incidents that occur when a review is underway are included in the review. The difference here is that the telephone access code issue was self-discovered by the University. It was not part of the investigation by the Enforcement staff. We self-reported immediately and took all the corrective and punitive measures that were appropriate.
I should point out that while the majority of this report concerns recruiting, the telephone access code issue did not involve recruiting. It is viewed by the NCAA as an "extra benefit" to current student-athletes.
Collectively, however, it didn't help in terms of processing this case.
Q: You mentioned anonymous letters. Do you know where the outside allegations came from?
NICASTRO: No, and it's not something that we spent a lot of time looking into. We have information brought to our attention in a number of ways. It is not unusual for a school to get telephone calls or have allegations thrown at them from various sources. You have an obligation to follow up on them. Most of the time, there is nothing to them. It might be a misinterpretation of the rules, where another school believes you are violating a rule. For the most part, you look into it and file it with the NCAA with no further action.
Q: The NCAA cited multiple recruiting violations in its report. How did so many accumulate?
NICASTRO: There were a number of factors involved and which need to be considered.
First, if you look at those violations there are a number of them which were very close calls as to how a specific rule can be applied or interpreted. However, one of the things we have learned in this process is how different people will give you very different interpretations of the very same rule. We need to be more aware as to how a rule could be applied.
From an institutional perspective, we are also pleased that there weren't any ethical conduct issues or institutional control citations. It was simply a case of there being too many secondary violations.
And that brings me to the second factor you need to consider. We contested many of these violations. Specifically, where the NCAA states there were three violations because one incident involved three athletes, we took the position that it was just one violation. That's how the NCAA arrived at the final number of violations in their report.
WRIGHT: The incidents in question took place over a considerable period of time and we deal with literally hundreds of these kinds of interpretations throughout the course of a year. Every school deals with similar issues on a daily basis. It's the nature of the business. However, like every school, when mistakes occur, we self-report them.
But this is still a serious matter. We have made great enhancements to our Compliance systems and procedures to make sure that this doesn't happen again.
Q: Is it an important distinction to recognize that the NCAA found the staff to have conducted itself in an ethical manner?
NICASTRO: As Villanova's Athletic Director I am very proud that after an exhaustive two-year review, the NCAA found no evidence of an ethical conduct violation. The coaching staff was very forthright and open when questioned by the NCAA, as was our administrative staff. From the first moment a question was raised, we were as cooperative as we could be. I am extremely proud of the way our coaches, staff, and University personnel conducted themselves under what was a great deal of scrutiny.
WRIGHT: There are positives and negatives to every situation. Obviously you don't want to be in this situation. However, on the positive side it is very important for our University and our staff that everyone understand that everything was done in an ethical fashion. That is an important point for our young men (our student-athletes) to understand. Our guys went through this also. These young men chose Villanova for the right reasons and I'm glad the NCAA pointed that out in its report.
Q: The NCAA stated that "this case reflects a men's basketball staff that pushed the limits." However, isn't it the responsibility of the athletic department and coaching staffs to understand the rules?
NICASTRO: Absolutely, and in fact, we've had a strong emphasis on that at Villanova for many, many years. However, we are dealing with a very complex environment. The reality of working within the NCAA rules, or any regulatory system, is that rules and the application of those rules are subject to interpretation. The coaches are dealing with a difficult and complex environment. Quite often, decisions are made on the road and the coaches are making these decisions as they go. Every interaction they have with everyone is subject to this and there are perhaps hundreds or thousands of those that happen in a recruiting cycle. In some cases, the NCAA has found that we made the wrong calls. We have done what we needed to do to and taken the corrective actions to see to it that this doesn't happen again.
WRIGHT: I think we have always had a good understanding of the NCAA rules and it is our responsibility to do so. It's my responsibility as head of this program to have a good grasp of that. What we now have a better feel for is how the NCAA interprets some of its rules. We now incorporate everybody in this, from our Compliance staff to the Big East, in every little issue that we are involved in. That's something we had always done in the past but I think this is a lesson in just how attentive you have to be about every detail.
Q: Can you specify what some of those moves have been?
NICASTRO: One of the major issues in the compliance area is our ongoing educational efforts. Specifically, with the men's basketball program, in addition to the normal training we provide for our own internal staff, we have also brought in outside experts, and we require coaches to attend NCAA Rules seminars.
In addition, we have ramped up our resources in our compliance area. We have added staff and operational support. We have changed our reporting structure so that the University's general counsel is more involved. We have retained outside counsel, not only to handle this case, but to assist us in planning and compliance programming.
We have done a number of things to make sure that everything is in place so that, within the resources of a university of this size, we can make sure this doesn't happen again.
Q: Are you disturbed by the fact that there have been two major incidents with the NCAA in each of the past two years?
NICASTRO: We hold ourselves to a very high standard in terms of how we play within the rules. To have a couple of situations like this is very disappointing to us. I think everyone understands, and certainly we do, that when you are involved with a national caliber program like ours, a lot of people take notice. Those are the waters that we swim in. We have all learned from this situation that we have to do everything within our power to make sure that these types of incidents do not occur.
Q: Does this incident tarnish Villanova in some way?
NICASTRO: While this is certainly not a positive, on the whole I don't think so. And that's because the body of work at Villanova over the years speaks for itself. The Villanova tradition is something of which everyone here is very proud. This is one instance in a long history of great success in competition both on the court and in off- the-court comportment.
I know that we are going to do everything we can to help people understand that those high standards are very important to us all.
WRIGHT: I think the long history of this school and the basketball program speaks for itself. I am very proud that the NCAA acknowledged the ethical conduct of our staff and that we were recognized for our intention to do things the right way. The quality of our people, the quality of our program and our University will remain strong and be better for this.
Q: Do you feel the necessary safeguards are now in place?
NICASTRO: I do. However, you can never be 100 percent certain of anything because this environment is incredibly complex and competitive. It's not just that the rules are complex. Villanova has 600 student-athletes and more than 50 coaches on staff. We have people all over the country doing things. We do the best we can with the resources we have, and we have put the right people and systems in place to avoid a repeat of this situation.
I also think that the key is how do you respond to things when they happen? I think we have handled them in an exemplary way. We were honest and open in all our dealing with the NCAA, and our coaches handled themselves with great integrity in the process. It was a process where you are challenged. We were under a lot of pressure and extreme scrutiny. Even though this did result in a major violation, I feel good about the way our people handled an extremely difficult process.
Q: In light of the fact that this began in 2002, why wasn't news of this revealed prior to this point?
NICASTRO: There are two reasons for that. The first is that when these issues were raised, we believed they were secondary violations. Secondary violations are not uncommon in any Division I program. Often they are reported to the NCAA and there is no public announcement of them, particularly if they do not affect a student-athlete's eligibility or playing status. Our intent was to contest this and our hope was the NCAA would also see these as secondary violations.
The other part of the answer is that there is a confidentiality policy in these cases. You are not permitted by the NCAA to speak about the case publicly. Our staff, coaches and those involved did a great job of maintaining that and it really helped the process.
Q: What are the future ramifications of this for Villanova athletics?
NICASTRO: It's a good question and I think I could say with some degree of humility and confidence, that the Villanova athletic program has come out of this stronger and even better. We have heightened awareness of these issues across the board, not just in men's basketball. We have reinforced to our staff, our coaches, and our student-athletes the importance of playing, not only within the letter of the law, but within the spirit and intent of the rules. Where there was previously a high level of awareness, we have now gone beyond that to make sure that something like this does not happen again.
Q: How does this impact the men's basketball program?
WRIGHT: I think the men's basketball program comes out of this with even greater resolve to win and continue our great tradition. This situation does not inhibit, in any way, the ability of our program or our student athletes to be successful. However, you need to understand that the greatest impact has already occurred during the past few years when our coaches, staff, and players were asked a lot of questions and were subjects of this joint review. It was important to answer every question the NCAA asked honestly and we did that.
I am proud of the way everyone has handled this. I am proud of the way our University has handled it. The report shows that our coaching staff acted in an ethical manner. We will continue working with our Compliance staff to better understand the implications of every move we make.
Q: Do you anticipate that this situation will impact recruiting?
WRIGHT: I don't think it will negatively impact recruiting because the NCAA says these are secondary violations, many of which were self-reported. Again, this situation does not inhibit, in any way, the ability of our program or our student athletes to be successful. It's important to remember that the integrity of our staff and our University was found to be strong. The types of players we recruit know us well and they know what our program is all about. They know what we are all about. They know we try to do things the right way. I think they will continue to be interested in Villanova University and our basketball program.
Q: How aware are the current student-athletes of this situation and what has been their reaction?
WRIGHT: While they haven't really been involved on a daily basis, this has probably been in the back of their minds for two years. They went through their interviews almost two years ago and then there has been a year of waiting. They have just been going to classes and playing basketball. I really don't think at this point it has a great affect on them. I know I am proud of the way they have conducted themselves.
Q: You mentioned that Villanova believed these to be secondary violations. How strenuously was that point pursued with the NCAA?
NICASTRO: We pursued every avenue available to us in this process. We immediately hired Mike Glazier, who is the preeminent counsel in terms of representing institutions in NCAA enforcement matters. We put a tremendous amount of resources into this case, not only with outside counsel, but with our own staff.
We did everything we could to present this as a case as one of secondary violations. And while the NCAA agreed in concept that these were secondary violations, they chose to label this as a Major infractions case because of the number of secondary violations involved.
Q: Does the penalty fit the transgression in your view?
NICASTRO: While I disagree with the NCAA's conclusion, we are a part of the NCAA and accept its findings on this issue. As members of the NCAA, we must abide by the bylaws and procedures. We worked together with the NCAA and they have accepted essentially all the actions we recommended. Many of the sanctions were self-imposed along the way as part of our own corrective measures.
WRIGHT: While I'm certainly not happy, as a member of the NCAA I must abide by the rules. I hope this situation not only makes our program better and stronger but also all of college athletics.
To me, this one of those cases that NCAA President Dr. Myles Brand has been talking about. Last year I attended a meeting where Dr. Brand mentioned the need to streamline this process so that it can focus more on the major issues facing college athletics rather than on minor rules mistakes made in good faith. I hope we can work together to make college basketball better and, if this helps with that, it will be a positive in the long run.
Q: The coaching staff documented its activity on many of the issues in question. Did that appear to carry any weight with the enforcement staff?
NICASTRO: It certainly did. We believe these weren't violations committed by a blatant disregard for the rules. Our coaching staff did not act in a cavalier way. They were engaged with our Compliance staff, they were engaged with the conference office and actively documented what they were doing. Collectively, that evidence carried a lot of weight. There wasn't disregard for the rules. There was knowledge of the rules and there was a conscientious approach to documenting what they were doing. It was just that, in the end, the application was incorrect.
WRIGHT: Any time you are in a situation like this, you think you did a lot of things the right way. We believed we were doing that. We checked with our Compliance office in many cases and in some situations even went to the Big East office for assistance. Our Compliance staff and the Big East staff confirmed that we were doing things the right way. It later was determined by the NCAA that there were mistakes made in some of those cases.
In some cases these were our mistakes. This just shows you the ambiguity of some of these rules. You just have to learn to operate in a much clearer fashion within the rules.
Q: Will this change the way you recruit?
WRIGHT: I don't think so. I go back to the fact that the NCAA indicated that we operated in an ethical manner. It is a matter of including every person in our Compliance office in every little thing we do. That's the best you can do.
Every program in the country has secondary violations. You are going to have them. You report them, as we did in this case. You just have to hope they are minimal.
Q: So it can happen that a University representative can contact an outside expert at the conference level or elsewhere and they too may have an inaccurate sense of the rule?
NICASTRO: Absolutely and that happened. You can see in the report (at ncaa.org) a couple of times where we went to an outside organization, in this case the Big East Conference office, which we do frequently for interpretive advice, and it was ultimately cited as incorrect by the NCAA.
I don't mean to sound repetitive, but the rules are complex and are interpreted and applied in many different ways on many different campuses. We saw many times throughout the course of this process where we had some of the preeminent rules experts in the room and they couldn't come to an agreement on whether a certain situation was or was not a violation. There are a lot of technicalities to this and those types of disagreements are not uncommon.
Q: If you had a message for Villanova fans, what would that be?
NICASTRO: We are disappointed that this happened. All of us at Villanova appreciate the values that are a part of this University's fabric. Throughout this process, our administrative and basketball staffs were forthright and cooperative. We have ramped up our resources to address these types of situations. I look forward to a bright future in men's basketball and for all of our programs here.
WRIGHT: I take responsibility for our program. We take the Villanova tradition and the integrity of Villanova very seriously. This was a case where our basketball staff acted ethically and with the correct intentions. While I do not agree with the NCAA's conclusion, we accept the NCAA's position and are going to do a better job in the future. Our basketball program will be stronger in the future for having gone through this.
