UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3

[budwom]

A few interesting facts:
1) Jay's boss at ESPN is a UNC grad
2) ESPN recently let go over 100 on-air personalities
3) Jay has been a consistent defender of UNC's interests
4) Jay was not let go.

I'm not saying they have anything to do with each other...just putting it out there No doubt, he wants to see the NCAA embarassed and weakend.

It is a slightly cynical and highly accurate assertion. I agree 100%. One of the first principles of bidness is to apply appropriate suction.

[Skitzle]

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.

[MarkD83]

A few interesting facts:
1) Jay's boss at ESPN is a UNC grad
2) ESPN recently let go over 100 on-air personalities
3) Jay has been a consistent defender of UNC's interests
4) Jay was not let go.

I'm not saying they have anything to do with each other...just putting it out there No doubt, he wants to see the NCAA embarassed and weakend.

Perhaps more relevant is jay like most reporters needs access to those he reports about. Jay does not need access to the NCAA. Also the COI will make a judgement based on the documents they have not anyone's opinion

[Kfanarmy]

I don't think he has ever once made excuses for UNC or even suggested that what they did was anything less than despicable. I believe that he truly sees the UNC case as beyond the scope of the NCAA. And the reason he is advocating for UNC to get off, is that he wants to see the NCAA embarrassed.

I think projecting into this any sort of UNC-apologist behavior ignores the degree to which Jay loathes the NCAA. I am also willing to admit that - given his legal background - he might be correct about the NCAA's inability to win, should UNC appeal (and should the NCAA ever hand down penalties).

...

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.

[BigWayne]

But I believe he speaks in good faith, and I appreciate his views, because when I conclude he's wrong about this issue, it heartens me to know that I've considered the reasoned viewpoint of someone whose views I respect and still concluded he's wrong. It's not a character issue with Jay; just a disagreement.

I think that he is not speaking in good faith. That perception, more than anything else, might be the reason why so many folks on the board think less of him now. Arguing in good faith requires that a person hear out and consider other sides to the argument (pretty much what you suggested in your post people should do). Bilas' statements clearly reflect that he has not reviewed (or has otherwise dismissed) the actual facts. He also pushes his position in a loud and vociferous manner that is not conducive to calm rebuttal or discussion. He isn't interested in hearing any other point of view.

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.

[swood1000]

Jay Bilas: NCAA officials ‘breaking their own rules’ to punish UNC in athletics scandal
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...156649234.html

According to the story:

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.

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.

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?

[English]

I don't think he has ever once made excuses for UNC or even suggested that what they did was anything less than despicable.

Snip.

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.

[yancem]

I don't think he has ever once made excuses for UNC or even suggested that what they did was anything less than despicable. I believe that he truly sees the UNC case as beyond the scope of the NCAA. And the reason he is advocating for UNC to get off, is that he wants to see the NCAA embarrassed.

I think projecting into this any sort of UNC-apologist behavior ignores the degree to which Jay loathes the NCAA. I am also willing to admit that - given his legal background - he might be correct about the NCAA's inability to win, should UNC appeal (and should the NCAA ever hand down penalties).

I like Jay. I don't agree with everything he says, and I don't think the NCAA is as evil as he does, but I also appreciate that someone is willing to hold their feet to the fire.

The NCAA is a fickle organization, as it showed again this week. It seems to have a tendency to check the wind before making any proclamations. People were disgusted with the Louisville case, so they handed down stricter penalties than simply for the dollar amount of the benefits. People everywhere were understandably appalled by the Penn State case several years ago, so the NCAA stepped in and made a big deal over their penalties - even though I still don't understand what grounds they were penalized under.

Mind you - I am not excusing any of these actions. I am just saying that a meter maid can't give speeding tickets any more than state trooper can toss you in jail for poor fashion choices. I don't call animal control to complain about workplace safety issues.

I still find UNC's actions almost as repugnant as Louisville's. The systematic cheating scandal ought to mortify everyone associated with the athletic programs affected. If the NCAA can prove players would have been otherwise ineligible, banner should come down. The decades long abuse of athletes should hang around the neck of the university almost as much as their obscene methods of attempting to skirt the consequences.

I just don't fault Jay for disagreeing with me.

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.

[Tom B.]

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.

[swood1000]

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.

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.

[swood1000]

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.

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.

[cspan37421]

So, among the various things he has said and done, how are we to explain Jay interviewing Roy in front of 11 former players:

https://www.tarheelblog.com/2014/6/9...ts-allegations

IMO... THAT was despicable.

Yep.
Mtn.Devil, have you not seen that interview before?

[Henderson]

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.

Yep. I don't know about North Carolina courts, but appellate courts typically take the certified transcript from below, and that's it. They don't typically seek or even permit new evidence.

[Duke95]

Yep. I don't know about North Carolina courts, but appellate courts typically take the certified transcript from below, and that's it. They don't typically seek or even permit new evidence.

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.

[Stray Gator]

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.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yep.
Mtn.Devil, have you not seen that interview before?

Uh, not sure what you want me to say. You got me?

I am not dying on a hill here - just acknowledging that Bilas hates the NCAA and could be right about jurisdiction issues.

I had forgotten that interview, yes.

[cspan37421]

Uh, not sure what you want me to say. You got me?

I am not dying on a hill here - just acknowledging that Bilas hates the NCAA and could be right about jurisdiction issues.

I had forgotten that interview, yes.

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."

[bob blue devil]

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). ...

thanks for reminding folks. i think it's easy to try to minimize and forget exactly what jay has been saying, since most of us are inherently biased to be jay apologists. but the facts are what they are.

[niveklaen]

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.

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.

[Duke95]

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.