It is a slightly cynical and highly accurate assertion. I agree 100%. One of the first principles of bidness is to apply appropriate suction.
Printable View
How bout this for a punishment.
Unc keeps the banners
Unc gets no recruiting restrictions
Unc gets no wins removed
Roy doesn't have to miss a game
Same for football same for all sports,
But 80% of revenue generated from sports that doesn't pay for athlete tuition gets taken from UNC and distributed to all other NCAA schools for 10-18 years
Watch how fast the administration will throw athletics under the bus.
Somewhere back in the fog of my memory, I seem to recollect, that while announcing games during the 2015-16 season, JB 1) parroting the notion that this was an academic not athletic issue and 2) supporting Coach William's assertion that he didn't know anything about all these paper classes. Maybe my mind is just fuzzy, but he seemed to have RWs back about as well as you could expect any non-UNC grad to have it.
Forced to choose one of these, I would go with BLPOG. However, I think Bilas is blinded by his Agenda #1, destroy the NCAA administration, such that he has neither good faith nor bad faith. Because of his agenda, he adopts an attitude of willful ignorance which cannot be reasoned with.
According to the story:
But this is misleading. The truth of the matter is that NCAA rules don’t give the NCAA the right to evaluate the academic content of a class for the purpose of saying that the academic deficiencies were so great that this class amounted to academic fraud. It’s an entirely different thing to say that this was an easy class, and Bilas doesn’t deny that an easy class reserved exclusively for athletes would be a violation. He just says that’s not what we have here. Nevertheless he does recognize the authority of the NCAA to evaluate academics for some purposes (e.g. an extra benefits analysis) which conflicts with his contrary rhetoric.Quote:
NCAA rules intentionally don’t cover academic matters like UNC’s, Bilas said, because university presidents don’t want the NCAA to govern their classrooms.
Then Bilas says that the paper classes “can’t be considered as extra benefits because the classes were available to the general student body.” But look. Obviously this begs the question as to whether a particular benefit was generally available to the institution’s students. Clearly, a benefit that is available to all students but only the athletes are told about it is not “generally available.” Consider the 2015 Wichita State case, involving these facts in brief:
From February 2012 into November 2013, the former administrative allowed 21 student-athletes to order discounted items of apparel from her VIP account. The student-athletes received a 50 percent discount from the retail price of items, which included athletics shoes and clothing as well as hunting gear and other non-athletics items. The student-athletes received a total discount of $7,594.18.
NCAA Bylaw 16.11.1.1 states that the receipt of a benefit by a student-athlete "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 family members or friends." The former administrative assistant stated that the discount was available to anyone and that she never said "no" to anyone who asked for it. However, the former administrative assistant did not advertise the discount. As a practical matter, the only people aware of the discount were those associated with the baseball program or people who the former administrative assistant told about it. The discount was not "generally available" as contemplated by NCAA Bylaw 16.11.1.1.
So clearly, what constitutes "generally available" is the question to be answered and Bilas’ statement assumes its conclusion. I wish someone would ask him this question: if a university set up a series of extremely easy classes but each semester would change the class description or number to keep the fraternities and others from catching on, and only notified the athletic academic advisors as to which classes to sign people up for this semester, would this be an extra benefit?
Perhaps Jay doesn't understand the concept of despicable as you do, because he's been VERY vocal about the existence of easy classes everywhere. He's not shy about invoking the 'everyone does it' defense. That, coupled with his elaborate, televised Huck interview, suggests perhaps he doesn't view the shenanigans over on the dump as despicable as you think.
It has always been my impression that unc appealing was more of a bullying tactic than a realistic one. Why? Well if they appeal then it would have to be in a real court which would give the ncaa subpoena power and testimonies made under oath carrying perjury penalties. Also, couldn't risk the reopening of the SACS investigation? I have to think that unc was just as dishonest with SACS as they have been with the ncaa so a court trial could uncover some of their lies. Admittedly, I'm not as knowledgeable or wide read as many on this board but I'm not sure an appeal is in unc's best interest.
There's an internal appeal process within the NCAA, which would be UNC's first avenue of appeal. That process wouldn't involve any proceedings in court. I'm not sure exactly how it would work (maybe swood or someone more well-versed knows the specifics?), but my general understanding is that UNC would have the ability to review the COI's decision and then identify findings or conclusions that they thought were wrong, and make their argument to an appeal panel (again, I'm not sure who would sit on any NCAA panel or committee that would hear an appeal by UNC).
If UNC loses their appeal within the NCAA, then their only recourse would be to file a lawsuit in court against the NCAA. They'd probably try to present their claim as a breach of contract (or something along those lines), essentially arguing that the NCAA is in a contractual arrangement with all its signatories that requires everyone to follow certain rules in the enforcement process, and the NCAA didn't follow its own rules.
Could they win such a lawsuit? Yeah, anything's possible -- but courts are often loath to inject themselves into intra-organizational disputes without some compelling evidence of bad faith or wrongdoing by one of the actors. Courts don't like to see their dockets clogged every time a disgruntled loser in an internecine dispute tries to elevate their grievance to a legal claim for breach of contract, fraud, bad faith, unfair or deceptive practices, etc.
As OldPhiKap pointed out, it is possible to appeal the matter to court in such a way as not to open themselves up to any further discovery, in particular by limiting the appeal to questions of law. They would say that even if all the facts are as the COI found them, they do not have the legal authority to take the action they did, because they acted contrary to their own rules, or because the hearing was a sham and they had already made up their minds.
For appeals to the Infractions Appeals Committee see Section 19.10 of the Division I Manual. The appeal must be made within 15 days after the Public Infraction Decision is released.
19.10.1 Basis for Granting an Appeal.19.10.1.1 Penalties. A penalty prescribed by the hearing panel, including determinations regarding the existence and weighing of any aggravating or mitigating factors, shall not be set aside on appeal except on a showing by the appealing party that the panel abused its discretion. The Infractions Appeals Committee may affirm a penalty for any reason in the record.
19.10.1.2 Findings and Conclusions. A hearing panel’s factual findings and its conclusion that one or more violations occurred shall not be set aside on appeal except on a showing by the appealing party that:(a) A factual finding is clearly contrary to the information presented to the panel;
(b) The facts found by the panel do not constitute a violation of the NCAA constitution and bylaws; or
(c) There was a procedural error and but for the error, the panel would not have made the finding or conclusion.
19.10.7 Final Decision not Subject to Further Review. Any decision of the Infractions Appeals Committee shall be final, binding and conclusive, and shall not be subject to further review by any governance body.
Typically UNC would not be able to appeal to the courts until after they had appealed to the Infractions Appeals Committee.
This case hasn't even been brought before a district court yet. The discovery process would occur there. The process, I expect, would proceed as:
1. COI
2. Appeals committee
3. US District court
4. 7th Circuit COA.
If the issue becomes, "were these classes available to everyone", I expect the NCAA will ask for 30b6 depositions.
Just to clarify, I don't believe any decision of the NCAA would be subject to direct review by a federal or state appellate court. I understand that UNC could appeal the decision of the Committee on Infractions internally to an appellate tribunal constituted by the NCAA. But the ultimate ruling of the NCAA -- either by the COI or by the NCAA appellate panel if there is such an internal appeal -- is not then "appealable" to any court within the state or federal judicial system. Appellate courts review decisions of trial courts and governmental agencies, not autonomous private organizations like the NCAA. If UNC appeals the COI decision to a higher panel within the NCAA and is dissatisfied with the results of that internal appeal, then I believe UNC's only recourse would be to seek a judicial remedy by filing an action based on some theory of relief in a state or federal trial court.
not trying to play gotcha. I just wondered if you hadn't seen that interview, because it sure made JB look like a UNC apologist (or even, denialist). As memory serves, it came out fairly soon after McCants' allegations, and JB provided a forum for Ol Roy and a bunch of players to deny them as a group, as if the power of numbers determines who is telling the truth.
He still could be right about jurisdictional matters, so I'm with you there. My other point was, however, that not only didn't he seem to have any regrets that the NCAA lacked jurisdiction, he gave Ol Roy and other players a forum to basically say McCants was "incorrect" (a kind way to put it), and declared that he believed Ol Roy over McCants. IIRC this is all while the Wainstein report was being compiled - but after we already knew of problems that had been glossed over in the Martin report.
So now that I think of it, he wasn't just anti-NCAA, he was definitely pro-UNC. He's been their advocate in the court of public opinion from a very early point, well before the worst stuff came out. And from the looks of it he hasn't backed off, though perhaps he's changed his rationale a bit from "they didn't do anything wrong" to "the NCAA can't punish UNC for what they may have done wrong."
If UNC files suit, the NCAA could counter sue - UNC has a contractual obligation to self monitor and self report. They clearly violated that. Discovery to confirm that which we all know is true - the fraud was not limited to the AA studies program. The only way to stop discovery is to not sue the NCAA.
Discovery would ensure, but the questions is its breadth. I expect UNC would attempt to limit the scope considerably. Whether it would succeed in doing so is obviously a litigation risk they would consider prior to filing any legal action.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves. The COI hearing is still 2 months away.