Is Schultz on Shaky Ground as NCAA Director?

Dick Schultz’s future as executive director of the NCAA could be determined in the next few days with the resolution of an infractions case involving improper loans to student-athletes at the University of Virginia.

Schultz, formerly Virginia’s athletic director, appeared before the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions last Saturday in Chicago, the second time he has gone before the panel to discuss his role in the two-year-old case.

The committee’s findings are expected to be released by Thursday.

The case involves a series of improper loans to student-athletes by a school booster group, the Virginia Student Aid Foundation.

Most of the loans were made during Schultz’s tenure as the school’s athletic director, which began in 1981 and ended with his appointment to the NCAA’s top administrative post in 1987.

Schultz has denied that he had knowledge of the loans, but several of his former colleagues at the school have disputed his claim.

Last August, NCAA enforcement officials hired an independent fact-finder, James Park of Lexington, Ky., to look into Schultz’s role in the matter.

The matter is coming to a head just as two NCAA groups to whom Schultz must answer, the Executive Committee and Joint Policy Board, are holding regularly scheduled meetings in Monterey, Calif.

University of Nevada President Joseph Crowley, president of the NCAA, said the Executive Committee will consider Schultz’s status this week if the Committee on Infractions issues a report that suggests such consideration is warranted.

Schultz, who is attending the Monterey meetings, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: “There really isn’t any new information. Conflicting testimony is not surprising when you ask people to try to recall things that happened 10 years ago. That’s always difficult. But if some smoking gun has been uncovered, or some new piece of evidence, I’m not aware of it. It’s going to come down to who you want to believe.”

One source familiar with the case said it is possible that the Committee on Infractions could back away from the question of Schultz’s role by saying that his time as Virginia’s athletic director falls outside the NCAA’s four-year statute of limitations for rules violations. Such a finding would leave it for Park’s report to determine Schultz’s role.

Park, a lawyer and former judge who led the University of Kentucky’s investigation of its basketball program in 1988 and ‘89, completed his report early this year, but the document has yet to be made public.

If Park has determined that Schultz knew of the loans to the athletes, Schultz’s credibility would be seriously compromised.

Schultz has admitted that, while athletic director at Virginia, he received a mortgage loan from the Virginia Student Aid Foundation--a permissible perk under NCAA rules--but has said repeatedly that he had no knowledge of the foundation’s loans to athletes.

Three people who worked with Schultz at Virginia have said that he knew of the loans to athletes.

In a 131-page report released early this year, the university admitted that the foundation violated NCAA rules by providing nine no-interest loans to football players and five similar loans to graduate assistants.

The school’s report offered no conclusion as to whether Schultz knew of the loans, saying only that alleged evidence of Schultz’s knowledge is “conflicting and complex.”

Schultz first met with the Committee on Infractions in February. Eleven Virginia officials also attended that meeting in San Antonio, Tex., during which most of the issues involved in the case were considered.

Schultz later hired Phillip Tone, a prominent Chicago lawyer, to represent him. He also requested a second hearing before the committee. Both actions on Schultz’s part have fueled speculation that his job is in jeopardy.

Tone, who served on a special NCAA committee to reshape enforcement policy in 1991, would not comment on the case except to downplay his role.

“My only comment is that there’s nothing really remarkable about somebody consulting a lawyer on a matter,” he said.

“Sometimes people do that early (in a matter). Sometimes they do it toward the end, for reassurance or whatever.”