Where would Jay Bilas be without his Duke degree ! College BB gave him a free education, which he used very wisely, and launched him into a public forum. I hope he remembers where he came from and how he got there.
Printable View
Where would Jay Bilas be without his Duke degree ! College BB gave him a free education, which he used very wisely, and launched him into a public forum. I hope he remembers where he came from and how he got there.
Sure, Jay, as a trial attorney, is an advocate not a judge. He strongly defends a position.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob blue devil
He remembered it long enough to send his daughter to Duke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pghdukie
i still really don't get what you are saying - are you arguing that his own morality is not bound to the positions he defends? i think a key difference here is that, in a court, a trial attorney's position is well understood to be an advocate. as a talking head, isn't he representing that he is putting forward his actual views? if he was arguing that slavery should be reinstated because one race is superior to another, shouldn't we take him at his word and let that position determine our perception of his character?Quote:
Originally Posted by sagegrouse
Attachment 7580
Jeremiah Francis, a four-star floor general from the Class of 2019, announced via Twitter that he had made a verbal commitment to the Tar Heels.
Francis - about continuing your academic career, there may be a problem ...
Two thoughts (IMO pearls of wisdom) related to this UNC sanctions/Bilas discussion:
1. Buy as little ESPN as possible if he bothers you. For the 2-3 months/year I have ESPN, I would pay extra never to hear their analysts and just watch my few games. I'm a Duke alum first followed by a Reds fan and a Bengals fan. I'm completely left out of their focused demographic. Part of the anti-cable revolution is already catering to this sentiment (MLB Network if you can tolerate watching this Reds team). The COI is stocked with lawyers and law professors that shouldn't be paying one bit of attention to the sports media BTW.
2. One of the happy days in your life will be if/when you are know only working for fun. It's Jay's private business whether this is fun for him and whether he thinks he is at that point yet. Idealistic pursuits can be part of the "fun" of practicing law. The COI is comprised of people in the same situation, and any final decision will minimize UNC's public threat of a legal appeal if the COI has minimally competent lawyers. (UNC is not the PSU situation.) Extreme early retirement or your own version of it is worth 5 minutes of your time on Google.
I'll renew my request for Charlie Rose to offer his take on CBS. He works for a Duke grad and has the same qualifications as Jay. :)
Jay is an advocate by training and nature -- therefore, he argues like heck on any position that he holds. That doesn't explain his position, but -- in my view -- the over-the-top intensity of his arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob blue devil
I disagree with much of Jay's arguments -- especially that the NCAA lacks the jurisdiction to punish Carolina 'cuz these are "academic" offenses, subject to oversight by the accreditation agency (SACSOC). (Of course, there is Boxill and a bunch of other stuff that seems clearly covered.) Why would Jay's positions, in any sense, be "immoral?"
Also, we need to remember that the talking heads on TV are in show biz.
Not really. It's getting off topic, of course, so I won't go into detail. Suffice to say some schools do a better job of keeping the "student" in the "student/athlete" model. Duke, all evidence suggests, is well in the "better job" category (by APR, graduation rates, etc). So, while the NCAA can be attacked for treating the student/athlete ideal with a cynical wink, some of its member institutions deserve ample criticism for abandoning the student part of the student/athlete, while some schools do a commendable job (although no school, including Duke, is likely to be able be perfect in maintaining the academic-athletics balance while competing for championships in major revenue sports).Quote:
Originally Posted by bob blue devil
i agree that duke probably does a better job than most. i worry that is a shades of gray argument, and not exactly a strong endorsement of duke. it feels like one of those, "but everyone else stole more than i did" arguments. also, as a member of a supposedly corrupt organization, doesn't duke have a moral obligation to speak out and/or affect change? isn't its apparent silence a tacit endorsement of the ncaa? fwiw, i don't think the ncaa is corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by davekay1971
Members of the COI; here's a link:
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/comm...me=1INFRACTION
I see just a handful of attorneys. Others may have some legal background, however the Committee is nowhere in the neighborhood of being "stacked".
Here's a list of the Appeals Committee:
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/comm...eName=1APPEALS
Finally, a link to an ABA document, The NCAA Infractions Enforcement Process - Role of Counsel. https://www.americanbar.org/content/...thcheckdam.pdf This covers the enforcement process in substantial detail and should clear up a lot of questions that have been raised (some over and over again). It is quite long, but worth reading to the end.
A few tidbits:
Page 6 - "NCAA bylaws prohibit a school from publicly commenting about the
merits of the allegations."
Page 8 - "At the hearing itself, legal counsel can serve as the primary presenter of the
school's position regarding each allegation and the primary responder on behalf of the
school to questions from the Committee."
Page 9 - "Post-Hearing Phase
After the Committee on Infractions hearing, the Committee usually takes ten to
twelve weeks to publish its finding. Under current NCAA procedures, schools and
coaches receive only twenty-four hour notice that the finding will be released and do not
actually learn the result of the Committee's deliberations until the day on which the
finding is released. The Committee's finding includes a description of the violations that
the Committee determined occurred, a classification of the violations as secondary or
major, and a list of sanctions imposed upon the school and any coach found
responsible for a violation. Upon the publication of the Committee's finding, a school or
coach has only fifteen days in which to file notice of intent to appeal any part of the finding
finding. The appealing party can agree to an appeal based upon written submissions
only or can request an appeal hearing. In either case, once the Infractions Appeals
Committee acknowledges receipt of the notice of intent to appeal, the appealing party
has only one month to submit its appeal. Then, similar to the Committee on Infractions
hearing process, the Committee has approximately one month to submit a document
supporting its finding, and the appealing party has a brief final opportunity to submit
additional information before the Infractions Appeals Committee hearing."
Page 10 - "When a school learns the results of the Committee's deliberations, the school
has only a few hours to analyze the finding and determine whether and, if so, how to
publicly respond when the finding is published."
From The Intersection Between Litigation and NCAA Enforcement Procedures
By Joseph L. Champion and Patrick F. Estill
Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP contained therein:
Page 12 - " As a threshold matter, it is important to understand the workings and purpose of the
NCAA. The NCAA is the governing body of college athletics. Its primary purpose is to draw and
maintain a clear line between intercollegiate, or “amateur,” athletics and professional sports.1
Among the NCAA’s tasks in maintaining this line are promulgating minimum academic
standards for member institutions and prohibiting compensation of participating athletes. Article
2 of the NCAA constitution provides the “basic principles” that NCAA rules should advance,
including: institutional control and responsibility; student-athlete well-being; ethical conduct;
sound academic standards; nondiscrimination and diversity; competitive equity; and a
commitment to amateurism.2".
Page 14 - "However, NCAA enforcement procedure differs significantly from
procedure in traditional civil or criminal litigation.9"
Page 18 - "The cooperative principle “imposes an affirmative obligation on each institution to
assist the enforcement staff” in the" investigation process.25 Failure to cooperate could result
in further sanctions for individuals and institutions."
Page 21 - "32.6.3 outlines the four-year statute of limitations for allegations, with a few exceptions
(violations affecting student-athlete eligibility, cases involving a “pattern of willful violations,”
and those involving a blatant disregard for the NCAA’s fundamental principles)."
From “Demystifying the NCAA Enforcement and Investigation Process”, also contained therein:
Page 24 - "1) Sources of Information
a)Enforcement receives information from a variety of sources including:
i) Violation calls.
ii) Emails, faxes, regular mail.
iii) Contacts in the collegiate and professional sports worlds (e.g., media, agents, coaches, parents and
players ).
iv) Monitoring of blogs, message boards, Twitter, Facebook and media reports.
v) Self‐reports from institution."
Page 24 - "c) Potential Interviewees
i) Enforcement will cast a wide net in developing the list.
ii) It will include anyone who may have knowledge that could help develop full information."
iv) Monitoring of blogs, message
v) Self‐reports from institution."
Okay, it looks like i'm getting carried away, but you get the picture. There's this and a whole lot more. Note: I am not an attorney. Context or
specificity may come into play. Read it yourself. Definitely worth a read.
I was mostly riffing on the "Period.", just trying to have a little fun. I should have added blithering. Perhaps idiot was a bit much, but public figures ask for (and often deserve) it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronBlue
However, when your Holy Grail (am I using that correctly?) is the mistreatment of student-athletes, it is truly idiotic to defend probably (inarguably?) the worst mistreatment of student-athletes in the history of college sports. The NCAA is far from perfect, but at least they're trying to ensure a level playing field and that the athletes get some kind of an education since most won't be making big bucks as pros.
So when someone's acts and statements are idiotic, I guess they're an idiot.
Bete noire is phrase I was looking for, not Holy Grail. I took Spanish, not French.
I will buy into this thought when he begins bashing ESPN for their exploitation of student athletes to the detriment of their health and academic pursuits (such as causing schools to schedule noon games in the south during the extreme heat of early fall, and causing schools to schedule late night basketball games during school week, etc.). If he has bashed ESPN in the past, I must have missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronBlue
Right. You can't be on one side arguing that the NCAA is taking advantage of student athletes and not acknowledge that UNC did the same, or much worse. Where is the screaming on behalf of the student athletes who made UNC so much money but got little to nothing (including a decent education) in return.Quote:
Originally Posted by dudog84
The fact they're not complaining about it tells one something as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen
The panel for the UNC case is not that full list. It is a subset as shown in the letters from the NCAA to UNC:Quote:
Originally Posted by madscavenger
Quote:
You were notified in a letter dated September 26, 2016, of the hearing panel of the Division I COI that was
generated to hear this case. As a reminder, the panel consists of the following individuals:
Dr. Carol Cartwright, president emerita, Kent State and Bowling Green State Universities;
Mr. Alberto Gonzales, dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of Law, Belmont University College of Law;
Ms. Eleanor Myers, associate professor of law emerita and interim associate dean for students at Temple University,
Mr. Joseph Novak, retired football coach, Northern Illinois University;
Mr. Larry Parkinson, director, Office of Enforcement, for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, public member, Washington, D.C.;
Ms. Jill Pilgrim, attorney and co-founder of Precise Advisory Group, public member, New York, New York; and
Mr. Greg Sankey, commissioner, Southeastern Conference, and chief hearing officer
If this was posted elsewhere, I'm sorry, but I didn't see any mention here of the fact that Louisville filed its appeal Friday:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...es-escort-case
As far as I can tell, Louisville is appealing on the grounds that the NCAA was too harsh. It's hard to find any argument that the NCAA violated any by-laws or misinterpreted the facts of the case.
I note two factors that might be relevant when UNC makes it's appeal this fall:
-- Louisville insists that it should have been given credit for taking swift and decisive action on its own (self-imposed postseason ban in 2016; some scholarship reductions). Obviously UNC, which h has refused to address its scandal, can't use this one.
-- Louisville argues that no national title has ever been vacated. I can't see why this is grounds for appeal. The NCAA HAS vacated Final Four appearances (heck, John Calipari has had Final Fours vacated at two different schools!). It will be interesting to see how this part of the appeal turns out, since that could definitely apply to at least two UNC national championships.
i was under the impression that the panel consisted of 10. Thanks for the correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigWayne
several reasons; off the top of my head:Quote:
Originally Posted by sagegrouse
* it represents a willful disregard for the truth by someone with the capacity and resources to understand the truth
* he is acting to support the attempts of the wicked to evade justice
* as a supposed expert whose job is to purvey information to the masses, he has an obligation to be informed, transparent and intellectually honest in his accounts (despite the profession of journalism existing at its current low level, distortion is still immoral)
... i'm sure there are more!
Y'know, if my boss were a UNC grad/fan, and I had looked at the available sources and determined I thought they might be hammered severely, what would I do? I think I might discuss every single point where there might be even the tiniest glimmer of hope for them. I might even create an elaborate reason, or several of them, why they shouldn't even be charged with anything. I might even share their outrage. IOW, I might have conversations that boil down to, "I totally agree, my esteemed UNC alumn of a boss, Carolina should not be charged with anything, and I really think Carolina could skate because <insert a variety of elaborate reasons>."
The schadenfreude when they get any penalty at all, especially if they get hammered, will be worth it.
Imagine if I could do that to the entire fan base. :cool:
(I'm not saying this is what Bilas is doing -- but I really, really like the idea. Alas, I don't have a UNC fan of a boss.)