	products recent interviews FastScripts archive about ASAP Sports

Our Clients:

Browse by Sport

Find us on

Subscribe to RSS

Click to go to
Asaptext.com

View our
e-Brochure

NCAA MEN'S FINAL FOUR

March 30, 2006

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

JIM HANEY: Good afternoon. Joining you today, Oliver Purnell, Jim Burson, Tubby Smith, Willis Wilson, Jim Boeheim. I'm Jim Haney, executive director of the NABC.
About this time last year, we were heavily involved in NCAA legislation, working on a recruiting and access package, which was significant for us in terms of the breadth of that package, all the legislation involved in it, the amount of work required to move it through the legislative process, both on the part of coaches as well as administrators on campus as well as the NCAA itself and its staff.
This year is a much different year. We do -- not only don't we have volumes of legislation, we don't have much legislation at all. Some of the issues that were so important to us a year ago have now been addressed.
What I want to do today was share with you a little bit about what coaches are doing beyond just coaching their teams, update you on some of the outreach programs we have, touch a little bit about some of the things that are happening within the NCAA legislative process that affect basketball.
Let me start with Coaches Versus Cancer. It's a program that we started about 13 years ago. There's over $26 million of money that has been raised for cancer research. As you're probably aware, we designate a weekend in February where we ask coaches to wear sneakers during games to try to bring a greater awareness to not only Coaches Versus Cancer, but cancer and the effort to raise money for cancer research.
This year, there were actually over three thousand coaches, it's estimated, at the high school, junior college, collegiate level, head coaches, assistant coaches who participated in that program.
In addition, I guess in a way, though we can't take credit for the birth, there was a Referees Versus Cancer as well this past year. Over that same weekend, $28,000 were raised through referees for the battle against cancer.
We also have a program that we don't necessarily manage ourselves, but it's out of our academic committee, called Reading With the NABC. There's also a component for math as well that was just birthed a year ago.
In that program, we have over 350 coaches and their teams going into elementary schools to read and talk about healthy lifestyles, just trying to promote the importance of academics.
This past year we were working on a project called Developing the Whole Player, and in cooperation with Character Counts, we've developed some brochures to talk about core values and how to coach players with a team approach, teach, enforce, advocate and model so that we can impact players and coaches at all levels.
We also have Ticket To Reading Rewards, which is a program started three years ago. It's just as it sounds, an incentive-based reading program for middle school-aged kids. It has fostered tremendous results. In Chicago it was determined that 75% of the schools that participated in the program showed an improvement in reading level of one full year in the students who participated.
That program is in 15 cities, including Chicago, Boston, Houston, Richmond, Durham, other places around the country. Our hope is that will continue to grow because it's having a great impact.
Finally a program that was started about four years ago, One Nation, One Flag, One People, where coaches and their teams stay on the court for the national anthem, and in an act of sportsmanship shake hands after the playing of the national anthem. I think as you're aware that is part of the NCAA men's basketball championship protocol.
We're very excited about the outreach programs. We think we're having an impact on young people's lives. These are just some of the programs, because these are ones that the NABC is directly involved with, yet coaches are involved in Special Olympics, other programs that are dear and important to them.
On the NCAA legislative side, a couple of things there. The Academic Progress Rate. We were in the second year of that, of that being publicized in terms of trying to give a real-time analysis of how our student-athletes are doing academically. As you know, there was a list from the NCAA in terms of the number of schools who fell below the cut line. It continues to be a work in progress. There's two more years before the cut line is in place now rises, I want to say, to a 9.25.
Finally, in terms of certified events, we continue to champion the elimination of the two and four rule. That's something that has sort of been in process for about four years, different looks from different groups. But we're hopeful that in the upcoming management council and board of directors there will be a change to that legislation that will allow coaches to schedule games in certified events. As long as no more than one school from each conference is playing it, it would really be significant in terms of giving freedom to coaches to schedule.
That's an overview of some of the things that are going on for us. We want to answer questions that you may have for us. If you'd direct your questions to a specific coach, obviously they'll respond appropriately. We open the floor to you.
Q. Coach Purnell, I wanted to see if you could talk about the APR. I know basketball ended up being one of the sports that was, I guess, most greatly affected by scholarship penalties in this first go-around, kind of what coaches' experiences of it have been, what you're looking at to work with it in the future.
OLIVER PURNELL: Well, there's certainly concern from the coaches as they look at the APR and how it will affect programs down the line. Originally, the APR was designed to address graduation rates, first of all. Obviously, everybody wants that to be up. Then there's retention, having the student-athletes come back. And then eligibility. Every scholarship athlete, you have an opportunity to get two points. One is if you're eligible to come back, and then if you come back.
I would say that the only real resistance as far as coaches are concerned is being able to continue to discipline your program in such a way that it's in the best interest of the young men as well as your program. But everybody is for standards, everybody is for graduation rates, and we're looking for those to continue to get better because of the APR.
As we move along to the point where penalties could start to be imposed, we want to make sure that we're doing that in a right way that doesn't negatively affect your programs, our ability to run them and discipline kids.
Q. Jim and Tubby, can you speak to what you think the effect of the new 19-year-old rule will be, just talk about what you think the impact of that is going to be on college basketball.
TUBBY SMITH: Well, I don't know that it's -- as far as college basketball, you're going to have outstanding young men and student-athletes that come into your program.
You know, it's going to add some value I think to that particular individual that need that year of maturity, year of experience. Maybe at that juncture he'll realize that maybe the value of furthering his education is going to be more beneficial than going into the NBA.
I think it's early yet. We're into the first year of it. I see it as a very positive step and appreciate the professional ranks, professionals reaching out to say, this is certainly a compromise, we'd like to see it as a two-year type rule, but it wasn't, so now we have to deal with it. I don't know if there's anybody dealing with it at this junction in college basketball.
As far as having a player, it doesn't -- we'll see how it goes. It will be, like everything else, evaluated as it goes on.
JIM BOEHEIM: I think it's a good rule. I think it would have been better at two with some kind of an out for -- some kind of a LeBron James rule or something for that kind of kid. But I think some kids will get to college and realize it might be good to be here for two years or three. I think it's a good rule. I think it will prove to be beneficial to everybody in the long run.
Q. Tubby, I heard such coaches say, given everything that's happened it's probably time to retire that "mid-major" label. Would you agree with that?
TUBBY SMITH: Oh, yes. I've been in that mid-major position before at Tulsa. We were considered, I guess, giant-killers. Couldn't be happier for George Mason. In the profession, seeing a coach, Jim Larranaga, who is a class guy, you want to see him, he's done things the right way. That's what you hope those kids -- this is what it was all about when the NCAA instituted a lot of the rules, the scholarship limitations. This is where we are now with parity and programs like Albany, George Mason, go right down the line, the Missouri Valley Conference, four teams getting to the NCAA. That's a by-product of all the rules that have been instituted, all the legislation that has gone down over the last 10 years with the NCAA that pertains to college basketball in particular.
Q. Coach Boeheim, I wanted to see if you could talk about conference tournaments and then the way they move along into the NCAA tournament. As the conferences expand, it becomes a real issue. Do you put 16 teams in the Big East? Do you maybe start the tournament earlier so you're not exhausted when you get to wherever you have to get to?
JIM BOEHEIM: Well, I think we need to get 16 teams in. Coaches have talked about it. The problem was we didn't want people to play four games, but this year the two teams that got to the finals played four games anyway.
We just want to make sure we don't win the conference tournament next year. That's the only thing I'm concerned about. Every time we win it, we lose in the first round. Every time we lose -- three times we've lost early in it, we've gone to the Final Four (laughter).
Everybody needs to play in our tournament. There's only two teams that end up playing four games anyway. This year it wasn't any of the top four seeds. It really had no effect on anybody. I think the one dangerous thing is the three teams that got the first-round byes all lost in the first round. I think it's a disadvantage when you're sitting there for two days, the other teams that are pretty good in our league get to play, I think they get a little bit of an advantage there.
I've seen it both ways: once when we were sitting, then when we played the first day the last two year, this year anyway. I think it's an advantage.
Really the interesting thing to me is I've noticed over the last few years, there's not that much of a relationship with how you play in a conference tournament, how you play in the NCAA. I mean, there can be. But for us there certainly hasn't been. For a number of other teams this year that won the conference tournament, it didn't turn out that way. It's because that's college basketball. It's that close.
Q. How about the scheduling thing in terms of maybe doing them earlier?
JIM BOEHEIM: I don't think that's an issue. You finish -- the two teams that finish, finish Saturday night, you don't play till Thursday or Friday. I don't think that's a big issue. I'm much more interested in expanding the NCAA tournament than I am of worrying about the day we play or don't play the Big East tournament.
I think this year more than ever has proven there are teams that might not get in or just barely get in that can win games. In the past, years ago, I think there was always teams that maybe wanted to get in, but you really knew they couldn't win any games in the tournament if they got in. In college basketball today -- you know, we increased this tournament field every year for a long time. Now we haven't increased it in a very long time, yet the quality of teams has tremendously increased and the number of teams has increased. Really, the quality of teams has increased so much that if it wasn't a logistical problem, I think we would have expanded the tournament a long time ago. I think we need to get by that somehow.
Q. Jay Wright brought up the context of the tournament being such a barometer for success of a season that it would relieve some pressure on coaches. I'm curious as to how widely held that position is. Is it something the NABC could wind up taking a position on?
JIM HANEY: I'd say the answer to that is yes. We have not discussed it. We have a Division I head coaches meeting tomorrow. That could be part of that discussion. We have another one in July. You know, based on the fervency of the conversation, how much interest there is, may be indicative of when we talk about it and for how long.
At this point I think the topic of expansion is a fairly new one. But clearly it's come up. I feel confident that it will need to be addressed.
Q. Jim Boeheim, how wide a tournament do you want? Do you have a number?
JIM BOEHEIM: No, I don't want a doubling-type thing. I think there should be some teams added. I think somebody's got to look at it that knows a lot more about the scope of how it works, how you work this out.
I'm not looking at it like one or two. I'm not looking at 20 either. I think there should be an expansion of the tournament. Whatever seems to fit.
For Steve's question, I don't think this should be related to, you know, the coaches are going to be looked at as more successful. I think the reason we should expand the tournament is because there's more teams that can really compete in the tournament and do well in the tournament. I think that's the reason for looking at and expanding the field.
Q. Is there anyone that has a strong feeling, either agreeing with Coach Boeheim, it should be expanded, or anybody that would strongly disagree that it should not be expanded?
OLIVER PURNELL: I would strongly agree it should be expanded just for the reasons stated. They're deserving teams. George Mason could have easily been left out of the tournament. Obviously, they're a deserving team. If you expand it, you decrease the possibility of leaving out more deserving teams.
WILLIS WILSON: I definitely think the point has been made there's good teams out there, the quality of basketball from top to bottom is better than it's been.
The other thing I'd point out, I think Jim touched on it, the fact that NCAA men's basketball Division I has grown to 330 schools. That's a lot of schools, from the time the field grew to 64, it's increased by one. From that same period, Division I basketball has grown significantly during that time.
JIM HANEY: We appreciate the opportunity to visit with you. Enjoy Indianapolis.

End of FastScripts...

ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297