Olson, Peers Crying Foul Over Rule

While trying to figure out how to beat Duke for the NCAA men’s basketball championship in March, Arizona Coach Lute Olson was also thinking about next season--and the trouble his team would be in.

Olson knew that center Loren Woods, a senior, was playing his final game. And there was a good chance that starters Gilbert Arenas, Richard Jefferson and Michael Wright, all undergraduates, were also playing their last games.

“I fully expected them to go on [to the NBA draft],” Olson said.

But Olson hadn’t anticipated what happened next. His last remaining starter, sophomore Jason Gardner, also decided to test his standing for the draft, although he has not yet hired an agent and could still return to school.

Losing the entire starting lineup that finished second in the NCAA tournament is only the start of the problem, though. Because of a new NCAA rule that goes into effect in August, Olson is unable to replace all the departing players, and that’s the real problem.

The new legislation is known as “the five and eight rule.” It says that a school cannot offer scholarships to more than five players in any one year, and no more than eight in a two-year period.

The rule, approved last April, is primarily intended to discourage coaches from indiscriminately getting rid of scholarship players and bringing in new ones. Arizona and 14 other schools are chafing under that new regulation and sought waivers from the NCAA for the 2001-02 season. All were denied, according to NCAA spokeswoman Jane Jankowski.

Olson says Arizona’s situation really has nothing to do with the intent of the new rule.

In November, the Wildcats signed five players to replace departing seniors Woods, Eugene Edgerson, Justin Wessel, John Ash and Lamont Frazier.

But with the three--or four--others leaving, Arizona had nothing to offer a junior college transfer or a high school player who had until May 15 to sign with a college.

“[The rule] was not thought out,” Olson said. “It’s a rule to take care of extremes and it hurts other [programs] that have top kids that have opportunities for the NBA.

“The rationale was also to discourage guys from coming out early. Who are you kidding? If a kid is going to be able to have a contract for seven figures, we’re supposed to discourage them?”

Two other schools that sought waivers, Michigan State and Georgia Tech, are in similar predicaments.

Michigan State, which has been to three consecutive Final Fours and won the 2000 title, has five graduating players and two others who declared for the NBA draft. The Spartans signed three players in the fall but it does not appear they will sign any others this spring, according to Matt Larson of the school’s sports information office.

“As of now, we start next season with eight scholarship players,” Larson said. “We have not sought any legislative change ourselves, but there are still discussions going on.”

Georgia Tech has five graduating seniors. And when Paul Hewitt replaced Bobby Cremins as coach, two players transferred and a signed recruit asked to be released from his letter of intent.

The Yellow Jackets have six players returning--one injured--and four incoming freshmen. But they can sign only one more recruit and will max out at 11 scholarship players next season.

“Paul is being punished for the situation he inherited,” said Allison George of the Georgia Tech sports information office.

Another school, Texas Tech, has different circumstances.

The Red Raiders were completing a three-year probation for rules infractions that had cost them seven scholarships over that period.

There are nine scholarship players on the team and athletic department officials were expecting to get two scholarships back, plus the five players they were going to sign for the fall. But the NCAA said no, citing the new rule, and has turned down several Texas Tech appeals.

“There were indications to us they did not want to dilute the rule,” said Shane Lyons, associate athletic director.

Texas Tech, however, seems to have the kind of situation the NCAA had in mind when the rule was passed. When Bob Knight took over as coach in March, three players were summarily dismissed. When asked why, Lyons said, “We’ve never really said what the reasons were.”

Even so, the NCAA’s Jankowski said, because of the number of waiver requests coming in, a subcommittee reviewed the legislation to see if a change was needed.

The subcommittee held firm.

Jankowski said it determined that “before a waiver is given, it would have to be an unusual situation outside the control of the institution and the student athletes.”

That’s too vague for Lyons.

“The NCAA is not defining what constitutes an extraordinary case,” he said. “The closest thing we can figure is the type of tragedy that hit Oklahoma State. If they had lost all of their players in the plane crash, then they could have sought relief.”

To change the rule, Jankowski said, conference representatives must introduce new legislation to amend or change it. Until then, it will stand.

David Thompson, the compliance officer for the Atlantic Coast Conference, said the ACC will seek a change. His conference representative will file, by July 15, a proposal to go back to the old rule, which allowed schools to offer up to the 13-scholarship limit in any year.

The proposal would be sent to the NCAA in October, and would have to be approved by its board of directors. Any change or amendment would not take effect until the 2002-03 season.

“When this was first approved, I’m not sure everyone knew what they were voting on, or if they thought of what all the ramifications would be,” Thompson said.

Representatives from all Pacific 10 Conference schools will meet in June, and Arizona will seek more conference support for the ACC plan. When the new rule was proposed to conference members two year ago, only Arizona, Oregon, Oregon State and USC opposed it.

Pac-10 Commissioner Tom Hansen said he could not yet determine if Arizona would be able to sway the six other schools to its position.

“Despite the alarm of other coaches, this was one reform proposal that got strong backing from the [university] presidents,” Hansen said. “The problems being experienced at the coaching level may not be enough to support a change.”