UNC Athletics Scandal: NCAA response

[TampaDuke]

"guided in part by a former member of the NCAA enforcement staff"

To whom does this refer? This is a relation which has heretofore eluded me.

I'd venture a guess that it's a reference to UNC's attorney, Rick Evrard.

[Ian]

Oh I definitely don't agree with him. Misguided/uninformed I can buy. Immoral I cannot. I was just arguing against the "immoral" comment, not that Bilas is in any way right on this issue.

The point is that he's deliberately mistating the facts (also calling "lying") in an effort to get them off on a technicality. That's does seriously calls into question his character.

[sagegrouse]

"guided in part by a former member of the NCAA enforcement staff"

To whom does this refer? This is a relation which has heretofore eluded me.

Rick Evrard and Bob Kirchner, of Bond, Schoeneck & King in Overland Park, Kansas are the attorneys for UNC. Evrard spent seven years as an NCAA investigator. Presumably, Rick is the one egging UNC on -- I am sure contesting charges generates a lot more billable hours than negotiating a settlement, but I am probably just cynical.

[OldPhiKap]

I'd venture a guess that it's a reference to UNC's attorney, Rick Evrard.

Rick Evrard and Bob Kirchner, of Bond, Schoeneck & King in Overland Park, Kansas are the attorneys for UNC. Evrard spent seven years as an NCAA investigator. Presumably, Rick is the one egging UNC on -- I am sure contesting charges generates a lot more billable hours than negotiating a settlement, but I am probably just cynical.

Thanks to you both. Did not know that.

[devildeac]

"guided in part by a former member of the NCAA enforcement staff"

To whom does this refer? This is a relation which has heretofore eluded me.

I was aware of this relationship/strategy but cannot recall this particular name.

Edit: I see a couple folks upthread provided the name, so a sincere thank you to them.

[swood1000]

That's what I assumed (and should have stated so); Jay invites abuse on the topic and it would be uncouth not to accommodate him. Because it actually does bug me when Jay goes into his Tar Heel boot-licking routine I thought the "Jay's a blithering idiot" theme needed a more nuanced discussion and your post provided a nice jumping off point. The posts that followed mine provided some of that nuance. I don't think Jay deserves the cover that "we'll just have to agree to disagree" provides, which tends to be where more superficial conversations end. He's dead wrong. It's kind of fitting as well that he's a Dukie...to your point.

I don’t think that Bilas is licking Tar Heel boots, or is trying to curry favor with them. I think he would take the same approach no matter what school it was. In this, my position is similar to the one taken by sagegrouse. I think that Bilas’s position is driven by (a) his hatred for the NCAA and for the system that does not allow athletes to be remunerated, and (b) his belief that all schools have high grade/low content classes to which athletes are steered, and that the peculiarities of the UNC classes do not amount to a substantive difference (i.e. high grade/low content classes should be treated the same no matter how they come about).

Bilas does engage in some clear distortions of the truth. One is when he says that the paper classes “can’t be considered as extra benefits because the classes were available to the general student body.” It is obvious that if a benefit is available to all but only the athletes are told about it, then the benefit is not available to the general student body, but this does not seem to register with him.

There is another distortion. Bilas doesn’t deny that an easy class reserved exclusively for athletes would be a violation. But in this 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. Bilas keeps saying that the NCAA is violating its own rules and is essentially charging that the academic standards for the paper classes were too low. He might have a point if the extra benefits angle did not hold water. But it does hold water. Bilas is like a person with a thinking disorder whose conclusions are all rational given the truth of a central delusion (that these facts could not constitute extra benefits).

I believe that fundamentally Bilas is upset because he thinks that the dirty little secret and underlying reality is that all schools have high grade/low content classes, and the athletic counselors at all schools steer the athletes to these classes, in effect giving athletes greater access by virtue of their institutional memory that is not available to the general student population (although fraternities and sororities also are able to maintain this kind of institutional memory). Bilas asks this question: “What is the practical difference between one of the UNC paper classes and the kind of classes offered at Michigan and Auburn? Those classes were probably equivalently high grade/low content, and athletes were steered to them.” Bilas is saying that high grade/low content classes in which nothing is learned are equivalent to each other and shouldn’t be treated differently simply because of the factors peculiar to the UNC paper classes, which he would say really just amount to getting caught, especially when (he is convinced) everybody does it.

The problem is, though, that a paper class factory run by non-faculty, to which the academic administration turned a blind eye are factors that are not irrelevant. Furthermore, the fact that the sports administration was shown to have actively taken advantage is also significant, regardless of his belief that sports administrations everywhere do the same thing. “Getting caught” is an important element even though Bilas may believe that everybody does it. Where is the demonstration that high grade/low content classes are so pervasive in universities everywhere? Did the “equivalent” classes at other universities result in those universities admitting that there had been significant academic fraud and being placed on probation by its accrediting agency? Were the “equivalent” classes described, by a formal investigation, as resulting in consistently high grades that the grader awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality? Were the “equivalent” classes characterized by the chairman of the department in charge of those classes as involving “lax grading standards”? Had the department in charge of the “equivalent” classes been told by a dean to discontinue them because they were academically dubious? Had experts examined papers written in “equivalent” classes and declared that the students used large amounts of “unoriginal” content?

Bilas’s position is that even though we answer “no” to these questions he “knows” that the UNC paper classes were nevertheless equivalent to high grade/low content classes everywhere. But not only does Bilas not demonstrate that such classes are widespread, he fails to show that the other factors, especially the demonstration of a complicit administration, should make no difference, and that high grade/low content is the only relevant factor. More is needed than simply his say so. However I would describe his position primarily as in error rather than as immoral, distorted as it is. He just needs to do more than ask us to adopt his assumptions and his conviction that the NCAA is evil.

[bob blue devil]

I don’t think that Bilas is licking Tar Heel boots, or is trying to curry favor with them. I think he would take the same approach no matter what school it was. In this, my position is similar to the one taken by sagegrouse. I think that Bilas’s position is driven by (a) his hatred for the NCAA and for the system that does not allow athletes to be remunerated, and (b) his belief that all schools have high grade/low content classes to which athletes are steered, and that the peculiarities of the UNC classes do not amount to a substantive difference (i.e. high grade/low content classes should be treated the same no matter how they come about).

Bilas does engage in some clear distortions of the truth. One is when he says that the paper classes “can’t be considered as extra benefits because the classes were available to the general student body.” It is obvious that if a benefit is available to all but only the athletes are told about it, then the benefit is not available to the general student body, but this does not seem to register with him.

There is another distortion. Bilas doesn’t deny that an easy class reserved exclusively for athletes would be a violation. But in this 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. Bilas keeps saying that the NCAA is violating its own rules and is essentially charging that the academic standards for the paper classes were too low. He might have a point if the extra benefits angle did not hold water. But it does hold water. Bilas is like a person with a thinking disorder whose conclusions are all rational given the truth of a central delusion (that these facts could not constitute extra benefits).

I believe that fundamentally Bilas is upset because he thinks that the dirty little secret and underlying reality is that all schools have high grade/low content classes, and the athletic counselors at all schools steer the athletes to these classes, in effect giving athletes greater access by virtue of their institutional memory that is not available to the general student population (although fraternities and sororities also are able to maintain this kind of institutional memory). Bilas asks this question: “What is the practical difference between one of the UNC paper classes and the kind of classes offered at Michigan and Auburn? Those classes were probably equivalently high grade/low content, and athletes were steered to them.” Bilas is saying that high grade/low content classes in which nothing is learned are equivalent to each other and shouldn’t be treated differently simply because of the factors peculiar to the UNC paper classes, which he would say really just amount to getting caught, especially when (he is convinced) everybody does it.

The problem is, though, that a paper class factory run by non-faculty, to which the academic administration turned a blind eye are factors that are not irrelevant. Furthermore, the fact that the sports administration was shown to have actively taken advantage is also significant, regardless of his belief that sports administrations everywhere do the same thing. “Getting caught” is an important element even though Bilas may believe that everybody does it. Where is the demonstration that high grade/low content classes are so pervasive in universities everywhere? Did the “equivalent” classes at other universities result in those universities admitting that there had been significant academic fraud and being placed on probation by its accrediting agency? Were the “equivalent” classes described, by a formal investigation, as resulting in consistently high grades that the grader awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality? Were the “equivalent” classes characterized by the chairman of the department in charge of those classes as involving “lax grading standards”? Had the department in charge of the “equivalent” classes been told by a dean to discontinue them because they were academically dubious? Had experts examined papers written in “equivalent” classes and declared that the students used large amounts of “unoriginal” content?

Bilas’s position is that even though we answer “no” to these questions he “knows” that the UNC paper classes were nevertheless equivalent to high grade/low content classes everywhere. But not only does Bilas not demonstrate that such classes are widespread, he fails to show that the other factors, especially the demonstration of a complicit administration, should make no difference, and that high grade/low content is the only relevant factor. More is needed than simply his say so. However I would describe his position primarily as in error rather than as immoral, distorted as it is. He just needs to do more than ask us to adopt his assumptions and his conviction that the NCAA is evil.

swood, thank you for this commentary. i agree with a lot of what you said, but simply come to a different conclusion. i believe his distortions are immoral and call into question his character/integrity. i understand if you and others have a more forgiving perspective on this matter. i firmly believe people who put themselves out as and who are accepted as public experts should be held to the highest standards of accountability for steering the rest of us sheep in the right direction.

[swood1000]

swood, thank you for this commentary. i agree with a lot of what you said, but simply come to a different conclusion. i believe his distortions are immoral and call into question his character/integrity. i understand if you and others have a more forgiving perspective on this matter. i firmly believe people who put themselves out as and who are accepted as public experts should be held to the highest standards of accountability for steering the rest of us sheep in the right direction.

If Bilas is being immoral then he is stating that his motivation is X when he is conscious that it is really Y. Typically the actual motivation will be self-serving. I see a possibility that he believes that the fundamental iniquity of the NCAA and its system, together with his belief that it's unfair to charge one university with something that everybody does, gives him license to make conscious misstatements concerning the elements of extra benefits. What do you think his motivation might be?

[swood1000]

Here’s what Bilas said in this video clip:

“Given the unprecedented actions that the COI has taken to prosecute the case, they’ve shown themselves as wanting to do anything they can to achieve a certain result. No committee has ever done what this committee has done in prosecuting a case. They’ve already violated their rules multiple times. There is a rampant conflict of interest with the Commissioner of the SEC remaining in place on the committee that is hearing this case. It‘s not even a reasonable discussion to have as to whether a conflict exists, and nobody’s doing anything about it. I think they’ve made their minds up already but I could be proven wrong there. We’ll wait and see what happens.”

What exactly is the conflict of interest with the Commissioner of the SEC? Bilas apparently is saying that the NCAA is so corrupt that they brazenly assigned a person to a COI panel who clearly has a “rampant conflict of interest.”

What rules has the COI violated multiple times? What shows them as wanting to do anything they can to achieve a certain result? After a hearing they said:

"The ultimate conclusion whether any type of NCAA academic rules violations occurred is an issue to be resolved at a hearing on the merits. The panel intends to explore those issues whether under the current or another amended notice. See NCAA Bylaw 19.7.7.4."

Here’s what Bylaw 19.7.7.4 says:

19.7.7.4 Scope of Inquiry. When an institution and/or involved individual appears before a hearing panel to discuss a response to the notice of allegations, the hearing shall be directed toward the general scope of the notice of allegations but shall not preclude the panel from concluding that any violation occurred based on information developed or discussed during the hearing. In any case, the panel may make specific factual findings based on information presented by the parties or at a hearing even if different from the notice of allegations.

How was this Bylaw violated? All they did was give advance notice that they intend to explore issues not contained in NOA-2, as authorized by this Bylaw. They didn’t announce a conclusion. Is it improper of the COI to come to the conclusion that an additional violation may have occurred, based on information discussed during the hearing, as permitted by 19.7.7.4?

These are the types of things that tell me that Bilas sees the NCAA as evil incarnate, and is predisposed to see their actions as utterly corrupt. He says he could be "proven wrong" that the members of the COI have made up their minds already. Is there any way he could be "proven wrong" other than by finding UNC not guilty?

[Stray Gator]

There was a time when I defended Jay Bilas here and posited that the views he expressed, while sometimes unpalatable to Duke fans, were deserving of respect. That position was predicated on the belief that he simply perceived the facts differently or felt obliged to portray (perhaps "posture" would be a more appropriate term) himself as an objective commentator without allegiance to any particular program. But in light of his public comments regarding the NCAA's actions on multiple issues of misconduct that have occurred at UNC over the past few years -- starting with his parroting of Roy Williams' complaints about the NCAA "dragging its feet" in ruling on UNC's appeal of P.J. Hairston's suspension, and then refusing to acknowledge that he was mistaken (or misled) when the truth emerged that UNC had never appealed the suspension -- I no longer find legitimate justification for some of his positions.

It may not be fair to label Bilas as "immoral," but I believe it's accurate to characterize his moral vision as obstinately myopic with respect to the misbehavior of UNC in particular, and the enforcement of NCAA rules generally. Since assuming the role of principal media advocate for UNC and Roy Williams, his opinions have increasingly conformed to the transparent rationalizations being fabricated by UNC and its apologists, which rest on a view of the facts so slanted and selective as to border on the obtuse. His defense of UNC reminds me somewhat of Charles Lindbergh's stubbornly persistent advocacy of non-intervention in Europe even as late as 1940 and 1941, after Germany's invasion of neighboring countries and persecution of Jews became widely known and the propaganda campaign could no longer conceal its government's true intentions.

If Bilas believes that the NCAA ought to be reformed or replaced or even disbanded entirely, I respect his right to argue that position. After a career of almost 40 years litigating civil cases and handling appeals in state and federal courts, I can certainly appreciate a commitment to forceful advocacy. But in my opinion the bounds of forceful advocacy do not encompass, nor excuse, the advance of a position that is predicated on a knowing distortion of the facts, to the point of subverting the truth.

The incontrovertible truth is that (a) UNC, or some officials and employees at UNC, engaged in a fraudulent scheme that enabled UNC athletes, including some who were in the basketball program during the tenure of Roy Williams, to maintain their eligibility by registering and receiving credit for courses that had no genuine academic content; and (b) as a result, UNC allowed athletes to play who should not have been eligible, thereby denying UNC's opponents of a fair opportunity to compete. Given those facts, it follows that all of the benefits UNC or its coaches, players, officials, and fans obtained from any games in which such athletes competed -- including records, titles, trophies, banners, coaches' bonuses, and revenues from any source attributable to the "wins" -- were ill-gotten gains, which should properly be deemed "fruit of the poisonous tree" and forfeited.

In my opinion, that is the only correct, and morally appropriate, remedy -- regardless of whether the scheme that UNC created and perpetuated for more than two decades could somehow be cast through artful crafting as a practice not strictly or technically constituting a violation of NCAA rules. What UNC did was undeniably a perversion of the spirit of fair play; it cheated UNC's opponents; it was wrong; and it warrants punishment -- if one can consider the mere correction of the record as a penalty. While I have no problem with the NCAA imposing prospective sanctions, such as scholarship reductions and bans from post-season competition and fines, that would not rectify the wrongdoing. If the NCAA fails to revoke the wins and remove the titles and require the banners to be taken down, then those who perpetrated and profited from the fraud will have escaped with complete impunity. And by any reasonable standard, I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice.

[budwom]

^big bueno on that one, Stray.

[devildeac]

There was a time when I defended Jay Bilas here and posited that the views he expressed, while sometimes unpalatable to Duke fans, were deserving of respect. That position was predicated on the belief that he simply perceived the facts differently or felt obliged to portray (perhaps "posture" would be a more appropriate term) himself as an objective commentator without allegiance to any particular program. But in light of his public comments regarding the NCAA's actions on multiple issues of misconduct that have occurred at UNC over the past few years -- starting with his parroting of Roy Williams' complaints about the NCAA "dragging its feet" in ruling on UNC's appeal of P.J. Hairston's suspension, and then refusing to acknowledge that he was mistaken (or misled) when the truth emerged that UNC had never appealed the suspension -- I no longer find legitimate justification for some of his positions.

It may not be fair to label Bilas as "immoral," but I believe it's accurate to characterize his moral vision as obstinately myopic with respect to the misbehavior of UNC in particular, and the enforcement of NCAA rules generally. Since assuming the role of principal media advocate for UNC and Roy Williams, his opinions have increasingly conformed to the transparent rationalizations being fabricated by UNC and its apologists, which rest on a view of the facts so slanted and selective as to border on the obtuse. His defense of UNC reminds me somewhat of Charles Lindbergh's stubbornly persistent advocacy of non-intervention in Europe even as late as 1940 and 1941, after Germany's invasion of neighboring countries and persecution of Jews became widely known and the propaganda campaign could no longer conceal its government's true intentions.

If Bilas believes that the NCAA ought to be reformed or replaced or even disbanded entirely, I respect his right to argue that position. After a career of almost 40 years litigating civil cases and handling appeals in state and federal courts, I can certainly appreciate a commitment to forceful advocacy. But in my opinion the bounds of forceful advocacy do not encompass, nor excuse, the advance of a position that is predicated on a knowing distortion of the facts, to the point of subverting the truth.

The incontrovertible truth is that (a) UNC, or some officials and employees at UNC, engaged in a fraudulent scheme that enabled UNC athletes, including some who were in the basketball program during the tenure of Roy Williams, to maintain their eligibility by registering and receiving credit for courses that had no genuine academic content; and (b) as a result, UNC allowed athletes to play who should not have been eligible, thereby denying UNC's opponents of a fair opportunity to compete. Given those facts, it follows that all of the benefits UNC or its coaches, players, officials, and fans obtained from any games in which such athletes competed -- including records, titles, trophies, banners, coaches' bonuses, and revenues from any source attributable to the "wins" -- were ill-gotten gains, which should properly be deemed "fruit of the poisonous tree" and forfeited.

In my opinion, that is the only correct, and morally appropriate, remedy -- regardless of whether the scheme that UNC created and perpetuated for more than two decades could somehow be cast through artful crafting as a practice not strictly or technically constituting a violation of NCAA rules. What UNC did was undeniably a perversion of the spirit of fair play; it cheated UNC's opponents; it was wrong; and it warrants punishment -- if one can consider the mere correction of the record as a penalty. While I have no problem with the NCAA imposing prospective sanctions, such as scholarship reductions and bans from post-season competition and fines, that would not rectify the wrongdoing. If the NCAA fails to revoke the wins and remove the titles and require the banners to be taken down, then those who perpetrated and profited from the fraud will have escaped with complete impunity. And by any reasonable standard, I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice.

From your keyboard to the members of the COI in Nashville this week for their thorough review. Very well stated.

[bob blue devil]

If Bilas is being immoral then he is stating that his motivation is X when he is conscious that it is really Y. Typically the actual motivation will be self-serving. I see a possibility that he believes that the fundamental iniquity of the NCAA and its system, together with his belief that it's unfair to charge one university with something that everybody does, gives him license to make conscious misstatements concerning the elements of extra benefits. What do you think his motivation might be?

a couple of points: 1) you assert a definition for "immoral" - i'm not sure of your basis and do not accept the definition; 2) i've been cautious with respect to speculating on jay's motives, because i'd have no real basis for that speculation (of course i could make some guesses, but i've found it difficult to get into the heads of bad actors). fwiw, i'm asserting that intentionally distorting the truth should be presumed to be immoral; i'm also asserting that intentionally seeking to support the wicked in their evasion of justice should be presumed to be immoral. of course its never that simple, but that's my launching point when building the metaphorical tally of whether someone is a moral vs. immoral actor. if jay were doing these things with the greater purpose of curing cancer, well then, yes, you could probably tip the scales of that tally the other way. i just don't see the weight of evidence on the other side in this case.

[OldPhiKap]

. . . obstinately myopic . . .

Stray Gator shows yet again why he has one of the best post:quality ratios on DBR. As one who has defended Bilas repeatedly, SG's post articulates my thoughts exactly.

And Stray's conclusion should be given the heft it deserves:



"If the NCAA fails to revoke the wins and remove the titles and require the banners to be taken down, then those who perpetrated and profited from the fraud will have escaped with complete impunity. And by any reasonable standard, I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice."



Amen, I say to you, Amen.

[MartyClark]

Stray Gator shows yet again why he has one of the best post:quality ratios on DBR. As one who has defended Bilas repeatedly, SG's post articulates my thoughts exactly.

And Stray's conclusion should be given the heft it deserves:

"If the NCAA fails to revoke the wins and remove the titles and require the banners to be taken down, then those who perpetrated and profited from the fraud will have escaped with complete impunity. And by any reasonable standard, I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice."

I'm an attorney. I want Stray Gator to defend me if I get sued.

[thedukelamere]

If the NCAA fails to revoke the wins and remove the titles and require the banners to be taken down, then those who perpetrated and profited from the fraud will have escaped with complete impunity. And by any reasonable standard, I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice.

Is it too late to start a GoFundMe for a billboard somewhere on I-40?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Is it too late to start a GoFundMe for a billboard somewhere on I-40?

You know, I said I was legitimately going to look into that and never did. I would be willing to inquire once we know the outcome. Either way, we could tailor a nice message somewhere around exit 270 for full effect.

[moonpie23]

it's gotta be the banners with 05 and 09 with the crossed out circle...

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

it's gotta be the banners with 05 and 09 with the crossed out circle...

I'm guessing it would have to be slightly more subtle or the ad company might not sell the billboard.

[devildeac]

Is it too late to start a GoFundMe for a billboard somewhere on I-40?

Perhaps tomorrow around exits 216A/B/C on I-40 adjacent to this airport:



https://www.flynashville.com/Pages/default.aspx