WSU Conducting Internal Review Into Baseball Program

[WuShock16]

Keep in mind that we don't know yet if anything wrong was done. If a single non-athlete placed an order _or was even offered_ by Shelley or any of the other athletes, then it's arguable that no rule has even been violated. This according to:

NCAA Bylaw 16.11.1.1 (General Rule) notes that the “receipt of a benefit (including otherwise prohibited extra benefits per Bylaw 16.11.2) by student-athletes, their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA rules if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students and their relatives or friends

Why would non-WSU people (i.e. the general public) be allowed to purchase items with such a deep discount from Under Armour? UA doesn't stay in business by letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry get a discount like this. Such a discount is part of their sponsorship with WSU Baseball, so the department could certainly get access to it. I can even understand letting non-baseball athletics department staff members have discounts. However, giving the same discount to the head coach's neighbor (for example) would not be something UA would like. That's money out of their pocket. Depending on what the investigation shows as to how wide spread this was, I wonder if there could be any ramifications such as UA ending their sponsorship with Shocker Baseball.

[WuShock16]

Another thing confusing me is people saying Shelley is a state employee. Does anyone know that to be absolutely accurate? Before I get the "DUH...she works at Wichita State...of course that means she is a state employee" answer, I seem to remember hearing that the staffers in the athletics department work for WSU-ICAA, not Wichita State University. There is a difference. I think the head coaches and upper level staff (namely Eric) are state employees, but I don't think people like the secretaries work for the state. Would anyone with better connections know the answer to that?

[shocker3]

Option 3: When we identified a potential rule violation we made a copy of her hard drive and emails and asked accounting to provide us with appropriate order histories. We froze her ability to place orders but allowed her to continue day-to-day secretarial duties in order to minimize disruptions and set a precedence of cooperation for the investigation.

Instead of cooperation we now have a 3rd party attorney involved and a pissed off employ (can you blame her if it was an innocent mistake) that might just try and mislead the investigation into thinking that there's more there behind the scenes than there is -- whether out of ignorance or spite.

There are pros and cons to any way you handle this.

In my opinion, this is exactly the way it should have been handled. Shelley has been a long time, valuable employee and I think it is really odd to treat her like a hardened criminal.

[MoValley John]

Keep in mind that we don't know yet if anything wrong was done. If a single non-athlete placed an order _or was even offered_ by Shelley or any of the other athletes, then it's arguable that no rule has even been violated. This according to:

NCAA Bylaw 16.11.1.1 (General Rule) notes that the “receipt of a benefit (including otherwise prohibited extra benefits per Bylaw 16.11.2) by student-athletes, their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA rules if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students and their relatives or friends

Actually, a single transaction to a non-athlete would not even closely meet the burden, with 15,000 students, at least ahundred students would probably be needed to even closely meet the broad term of "generally available."

As I have said many times, I have four relatives currently playing D-1 sports, I have been advised that as their uncle, I can buy them lunch or anything, but I better not even provide a stick of gum to their roommates. A stick of gum to my niece/nephew's roommate would hardly constitute a violation, but each of the four schools treats compliance that strictly.

[shocker3]

Another thing confusing me is people saying Shelley is a state employee. Does anyone know that to be absolutely accurate? Before I get the "DUH...she works at Wichita State...of course that means she is a state employee" answer, I seem to remember hearing that the staffers in the athletics department work for WSU-ICAA, not Wichita State University. There is a difference. I think the head coaches and upper level staff (namely Eric) are state employees, but I don't think people like the secretaries work for the state. Would anyone with better connections know the answer to that?

The question I don't think is whether she is a state employee or not, it is whether she is classified or unclassified. And I don't really know the answer to that except to say that secretaries are the type of positions that are typically classified. Head Coaches, assistant coahces, administrative assistants, public information officers-those type of positions are usually unclassified. Unclassified employees can be fired at will (or have individual contracts). Classified employees have civil service type protection-the employer has to have "cause" to fire them.

I don't really know for sure if Shelley is classified, but based on her position in the organization I would say there is a good chance she is.

[RoyalShock]

In my opinion, this is exactly the way it should have been handled. Shelley has been a long time, valuable employee and I think it is really odd to treat her like a hardened criminal.

She was led away in handcuffs?

[Kung Wu]

Why would non-WSU people (i.e. the general public) be allowed to purchase items with such a deep discount from Under Armour? UA doesn't stay in business by letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry get a discount like this. Such a discount is part of their sponsorship with WSU Baseball, so the department could certainly get access to it. I can even understand letting non-baseball athletics department staff members have discounts. However, giving the same discount to the head coach's neighbor (for example) would not be something UA would like. That's money out of their pocket. Depending on what the investigation shows as to how wide spread this was, I wonder if there could be any ramifications such as UA ending their sponsorship with Shocker Baseball.

UA would have NO qualms with every Tom, Dick, and Harry ordering a very large order through WSU at WSU's discounted prices. I promise you those discounted prices are still higher than the distributors' prices they gladly sell to on a daily basis. It's why they offer volume discounts in the first place ... to make quantity sales.

[Kung Wu]

Another thing confusing me is people saying Shelley is a state employee. Does anyone know that to be absolutely accurate? Before I get the "DUH...she works at Wichita State...of course that means she is a state employee" answer, I seem to remember hearing that the staffers in the athletics department work for WSU-ICAA, not Wichita State University. There is a difference. I think the head coaches and upper level staff (namely Eric) are state employees, but I don't think people like the secretaries work for the state. Would anyone with better connections know the answer to that?

I was wondering the same thing.

[Aargh]

Too many wadded panties.

When you have an investigation and there is a person at the center of the investigation, you remove that person. Period. The end. You don't base that level of business decision on emotion or sentiment. It doesn't matter if it's the most respected employee or the worst scofflaw. You remove them for at least the duration of the investigation.

If that person is allowed to remain in the environment that's being investigated it creates the appearance of a cover-up. That can't be allowed. "She'd never do that" doesn't cut it to anyone who doesn't know her. The appearance is created to those outside the inner circle.

If it's UnderArmour's policy that all students at WSU had access to discounts, that should result in a favorable resolution for the baseball program. It might not matter if the availability of discounts to all students wasn't know to all students.

If that's not UA's policy, then someone has to take a fall, and it's got to be either Shelley or Gene. It's not possible to take the stance that both were without fault. It seems odd that Gene couldn't find this in 20 years, but Butler could find it in 2 weeks.

[Kung Wu]

Actually, a single transaction to a non-athlete would not even closely meet the burden, with 15,000 students, at least ahundred students would probably be needed to even closely meet the broad term of "generally available."

I don't think either of us can say whether it meets the burden. It creates a clear line of argument that the discounts weren't exclusive to athletes only, and therefore Shelley had the mindset that she wasn't breaking any rules. Unfortunately it's unlikely that non-athlete students ordered anything, so the point is probably moot. But still, we don't know for sure whether she offered it to others so we don't for sure whether the rule was actually broken. I think we can assume it was, and then it
comes down to intent and whether the rule was purposefully broken (which we know it probably wasn't).

Edit: Oh on the "generally available" thing ... that's sort of relative. If she flippantly asked five kids who happened to be standing in her office one day, two of them athletes and three of them not, then it was made "generally available" to everyone in the room and not specifically to the athletes. It doesn't haven't be advertised to 15,000 students.

As I have said many times, I have four relatives currently playing D-1 sports, I have been advised that as their uncle, I can buy them lunch or anything, but I better not even provide a stick of gum to their roommates. A stick of gum to my niece/nephew's roommate would hardly constitute a violation, but each of the four schools treats compliance that strictly.

Yeah, believe me I know of and appreciate the paranoia of schools about the Gestapo -- urr -- NCAA.

[shockmonster]

She was led away in handcuffs?

I have heard rumors that Gene used handcuffs too. Especially on that famous ski trip. It's difficult to ski with handcuffs on.

[MoValley John]

I don't think either of us can say whether it meets the burden. It creates a clear line of argument that the discounts weren't exclusive to athletes only, and therefore Shelley had the mindset that she wasn't breaking any rules. Unfortunately it's unlikely that non-athlete students ordered anything, so the point is probably moot. But still, we don't know for sure whether she offered it to others so we don't for sure whether the rule was actually broken. I think we can assume it was, and then it
comes down to intent and whether the rule was purposefully broken (which we know it probably wasn't).

Edit: Oh on the "generally available" thing ... that's sort of relative. If she flippantly asked five kids who happened to be standing in her office one day, two of them athletes and three of them not, then it was made "generally available" to everyone in the room and not specifically to the athletes. It doesn't haven't be advertised to 15,000 students.



Yeah, believe me I know of and appreciate the paranoia of schools about the Gestapo -- urr -- NCAA.

Gestapo, good word for the NCAA.

If anything comes of this investigation, my guess it will be very minor. Its not like they were signing autographs for tattoos. It was kids on PARTIAL scholarship actually paying for clothes. They just paid a little less.

[Ricardo del Rio]

I don't disagree. The Vball assistant coach should not be employed by WSU. Gene should have been fired long ago and the baseball program cleaned up. The person in charge of compliance probably should be fired. But In today world and environment I guess that is easier said than done.

The compliance person is a lady. No way she will be fired.

[Ricardo del Rio]

It is always helpful to gather facts, before making any determinations.

With respect to hanging Shelley out to take the fall, the University should tread lightly or it might find itself in a big mud puddle of litigation.

[Kung Wu]

Gestapo, good word for the NCAA.

If anything comes of this investigation, my guess it will be very minor. Its not like they were signing autographs for tattoos. It was kids on PARTIAL scholarship actually paying for clothes. They just paid a little less.

I hope so. The NCAA wields way too much power and their well known inconsistent rulings are frustrating.