UA cuts football scholarships by three

SCOTT CAIN
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
Copyright © 2000, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.

FAYETTEVILLE -- University of Arkansas athletes committed "a series" of NCAA violations by receiving extra benefits through a Dallas-area Razorbacks booster, and the university has self-imposed more penalties on the football program than originally were reported, school records show.
None of the athletes, except senior defensive end Randy Garner, compete for the Razorbacks anymore. But by accepting more than fair market wages for work done for booster Ted Harrod's two businesses, the athletes' infractions will result in penalties for the program for the next two years. Athletes were not named but are known to include former basketball players.
For 2001, Arkansas will reduce by three the number of recruits it can sign and will forfeit two scholarships overall. For 2002, it will cut two recruiting class spots and one scholarship overall.
A Division I-A school such as Arkansas can sign as many as 25 scholarship players each year as long as it doesn't go over 85, the maximum allowed. Arkansas will not be able to exceed 83 scholarships in 2001. The Hogs will be limited to 84 in 2002.
In addition, Arkansas renounced $250,000 of a $300,000 pledge by Harrod toward minor renovations and upkeep of the Broyles Center. He fulfilled $50,000 of the pledge earlier this year before university officials drew up the penalties.
Although 20-25 athletes apparently worked for Harrod from 1994-99, an investigation by the SEC and the school found that how many were overpaid could not be determined because of sloppy bookkeeping at Harrod's businesses.
Athletic Director Frank Broyles wrote in the investigation's final
report that officials turned up "a series of violations ... over an extended period of time ... which I find to be personally embarrassing."
Harrod's "poor business practices" caused the violations, Broyles wrote.
Broyles and Harrod have been close friends for more than 10 years, traveling together several times with their wives.
In a phone interview Monday with the Democrat-Gazette, Harrod acknowledged that athletes could have been overpaid but denied having any knowledge of overpayments. He said his former daughter-in-law, Karey Harrod, oversaw the company books.
Harrod also said he had not been informed that he was banned for five years and that his financial pledge had been rejected.
Throughout the investigation, which began in January and ended in June, Harrod said he and his employees cooperated with SEC representative Bill Sievers by making all records available. If Sievers found violations, then Harrod said he expected them to be minor and to receive a slap on the wrist.
"I didn't know if any action against us would be taken, maybe we couldn't employ them for a year or two or something like that," Harrod said. "But as far as banning from the program, man, that's heavy. That's SMU stuff."
On Saturday, Coach Houston Nutt said Garner had received extra benefits by accepting $100 for minimal work that the report showed to be two to three hours. Nutt also said that Garner would be suspended for the Sept. 2 season opener against Southwest Missouri State.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Garner's suspension Sunday and that the university had banned Harrod from associating with the athletic programs for five years.
The full extent of the violations and the scholarship reductions came to light Monday in a review of the investigation's six-page final report. Copies of the report, signed by Broyles, were sent July 3 to SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer and NCAA enforcement staff member Christopher Stroebel.
A copy of the report was released Monday after the Democrat-Gazette requested documents through the state's Freedom of Information Act on Thursday.
NCAA officials could not be reached for comment.
Broyles turned down an interview request, instead issuing a written statement to the Democrat-Gazette that said:
"The University of Arkansas has completed an internal inquiry regarding the issue. The University forwarded its findings to the Southeastern Conference. The Southeastern Conference reviewed the University's self-report and submitted it to the NCAA. With the NCAA review still pending, it would be inappropriate for University officials to comment further until the matter is resolved."
The NCAA is studying the case and will decide whether it needs to begin its own investigation. It also could add stiffer penalties. Arkansas has not received notification from the NCAA that a preliminary investigation is under way. If a preliminary investigation is conducted, the NCAA would follow up with a letter of inquiry detailing charges against the school.The report characterizes the violations as secondary in nature and not major, the two standards the NCAA's uses to classify infractions.
A secondary violation means only a limited competitive advantage was gained and the incident was isolated.
It is possible that because the violations continued over several years and involved perhaps as many as two dozen athletes that NCAA officials will view the matter as more than a secondary offense.
But it is clear from the size of the self-imposed penalties that Arkansas hopes it has shown a good-faith effort to police itself and that the NCAA will OK the penalties without weighing in.
The ban on Harrod extends to his family, bars his employment of athletes, and will exist for a minimum of five years. The ban started May 12, according to the report.
Harrod said he received a letter telling him not to associate with Arkansas until the matter was cleared up but knew nothing of being banished long-term.
Harrod said he talked to Broyles by phone Monday and before that had talked with him as recently as two weeks ago.
"I'm telling you, no one has told me anything," Harrod said.
Because Harrod and his former daughter-in-law are on opposite ends of a lawsuit unrelated to the SEC investigation, Harrod said he could not elaborate about the role she might have played in the NCAA violations. He said he wants to speak publicly to clear his name in the near future.
"There's nothing to hide, as far as I'm concerned," Harrod said.
In the report, Broyles' tone is, at times, apologetic and appears to reveal personal anguish.
"I accept responsibility for a serious failure in judgment in relation to my association with Mr. Harrod," Broyles wrote as part of his conclusion.
Broyles also wrote that Arkansas "implemented, maintained and enforced a system for monitoring the employment of student-athletes on a routine basis." The system was based on a model recommended by the SEC.
Broyles wrote that he "routinely" stressed with Harrod the importance of obeying NCAA rules and that Harrod assured Broyles the rules were being followed.
Business operators who employ athletes are required to sign and return a certification form to the university. But 1996 was the last time that Harrod's business returned a form to Arkansas and it was signed by Karey Harrod, the report said.
Athletes are supposed to report their jobs to the school.
"Despite our instructions in recent years, several student-athletes contacted Ted Harrod on their own initiative, obtained jobs, and failed to notify the department of their plans to work for him," Broyles wrote.
While Harrod said he believed that the athletes were being paid fair market wages, which should have been about $7.50 an hour, "his perceptions are not supported by the facts," Broyles wrote.
It wasn't until Dec. 30, 1999, during the week leading up to the Cotton Bowl, that university officials heard of any wrongdoing, and that came from media reports. News outlets reported that a minority shareholder in J&H had filed a lawsuit against Harrod, alleging that he misspent company funds, including overpaying Arkansas athletes.
Karey Harrod, who had worked in the company, made the same allegations. She was going through a divorce with Harrod's son, Ted, Jr., at the time.
The only active player mentioned in the Dec. 30 charges was defensive lineman D.J. Cooper of Mesquite, Texas, who was at Arkansas from 1995-99. Arkansas officials interviewed him Dec. 31, the day before the Cotton Bowl, and concluded that Cooper did not violate NCAA rules. He was allowed to play in the game.
The investigation began a few days later. Eventually, Sievers discovered that the 20 to 25 athletes worked for Harrod and his businesses from 1994-99. Combined, they earned between $9,700 and $11,500 during those six years.
Among the report's findings:

Football players were overpaid for work over several years. The number of players involved is not listed.

In four instances, athletes worked in the summer but were not paid until December. Such deferred payments are not permissible under NCAA rules. Also, there were no time sheets to support the hours worked for "possibly improper payments."

Harrod compensated athletes from another NCAA school in similar fashion. The school was not named.

Cooper earned some $3,000 from Harrod over 3 1/2 years. Although no time records were found, "nothing seems to indicate that he was overpaid," the report stated.

Garner received $100 for two to three hours of work the week before the Cotton Bowl.

A $150 check made out to Garner in June 1999 never reached Garner's possession. Instead, a person who is not named forged Garner's name and deposited the check in his own account.
Among the penalties not previously made public, Garner must perform 30 hours of community service. Besides being suspended from the season opener, he cannot travel Friday with the team.
The university has declared Garner ineligible and will seek his reinstatement effective Sunday, the report said.
Declaring an athlete ineligible and asking the NCAA for reinstatement is a routine procedure in infractions cases. The athletes' eligibility usually is restored.
The university also pledged to enhance what it already considered thorough rules communication with boosters and players.
None of the current coaches had close contact with Harrod or knew that players worked for him, the report said.

This article was published on Tuesday, August 29, 2000

RETURN to main page

Copyright and permissions
Copyright © 2000, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.