Bilas' Latest and Greatest - Pearl, Bledsoe, and UNC

[SilkyJ]

This could go into all 3 threads, or I could just start a new one. Here's Jay's latest on ESPN.com (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5603093).

Sorry, but it is an insider article. He has 3 basic topics he covers: Bruce Pearl, Eric Bledsoe, and UNC. Here's a quick snipit of where he comes down on all three topics, and I'll give more than I usually would for a premium article since Jay is a member of the board and would want it that way :cool:

(Mods, please redact if/as necessary, I'll be judicious)
(Non-Mods, PM me if you are interested in learning more :) )

Pearl: The title of the entire article is "Rules are rules, but some rules are dumb" so while Pearl broke the rules, especially with regards to phone calls, Jay does not like the limit on phone calls. He says everyone in the world can call high school athletes as much as they want...everyone except college coaches, which are hardly as bad of an influence as "everyone else" such as the media, runners, agents, etc.

Bledsoe (this one surprised me): Bilas basically says that UK (and every other institution) is capable of deciding who they want to admit to their institution and everyone else, the NCAA included, should stay out of it. If they wanted to admit Bledsoe based on their own academic standards, that's their business and fine by him.

To be clear, he's simply saying the NCAA should not be in charge of determining academic eligibility (I think -- he doesn't mention anything like the Kanter situation which is an "amateur-status" eligibility issue).

UNC: He focuses on the academic scandal and says that when "regular students" cheat it is the cheaters who are blamed. No professors or advisers are fired b/c a student cheated. But when student-athletes cheat it suddenly becomes a problem related to the head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority.

[Stray Gator]

This could go into all 3 threads, or I could just start a new one. Here's Jay's latest on ESPN.com (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5603093).

Sorry, but it is an insider article. He has 3 basic topics he covers: Bruce Pearl, Eric Bledsoe, and UNC. Here's a quick snipit of where he comes down on all three topics, and I'll give more than I usually would for a premium article since Jay is a member of the board and would want it that way :cool:

(Mods, please redact if/as necessary, I'll be judicious)
(Non-Mods, PM me if you are interested in learning more :) )

Pearl: The title of the entire article is "Rules are rules, but some rules are dumb" so while Pearl broke the rules, especially with regards to phone calls, Jay does not like the limit on phone calls. He says everyone in the world can call high school athletes as much as they want...everyone except college coaches, which are hardly as bad of an influence as "everyone else" such as the media, runners, agents, etc.

Bledsoe (this one surprised me): Bilas basically says that UK (and every other institution) is capable of deciding who they want to admit to their institution and everyone else, the NCAA included, should stay out of it. If they wanted to admit Bledsoe based on their own academic standards, that's their business and fine by him.

To be clear, he's simply saying the NCAA should not be in charge of determining academic eligibility (I think -- he doesn't mention anything like the Kanter situation which is an "amateur-status" eligibility issue).

UNC: He focuses on the academic scandal and says that when "regular students" cheat it is the cheaters who are blamed. No professors or advisers are fired b/c a student cheated. But when student-athletes cheat it suddenly becomes a problem related to the head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority.

I have enormous respect for Jay Bilas--as a former Duke player and assistant coach, as a fellow member of the legal profession, and as a sports commentator--and I have defended him for expressing opinions that were sometimes unpopular among Duke fans. In this instance, however, I disagree with Jay on all three counts:

Pearl: The purpose of limiting the number of phone calls that coaches can make to recruits is, obviously, to protect the recruits from unwanted harrassment. And Jay's analogy to the media, runners, agents, etc. cannot withstand scrutiny. While a recruit can tell the media, or agents, or runners to stop calling, or simply refuse to answer their calls, with relative impunity, a young person in high school who knows he or she is being considered for a scholarship offer is in an awkward position with respect to the college coach. The recruit doesn't want to be impolite or to offend someone who may be a major figure in the recruit's future, or for that matter in the future of present and future players from the same high school, either as the recruit's own coach or as the coach of an opponent. Moreover, the NCAA has no leverage that it can use to inhibit calls from the media, runners, agents, etc.; that hardly justifies a failure to impose reasonable restraints on those whose behavior does fall within its jurisdiction. In sum, I see nothing wrong with a rule that is designed to relieve teenagers in high school from undue pressure and harrassment while simultaneously leveling the playing field among potential "suitors." Keep in mind that the player is free to call the coaches without any limitation.

Bledsoe: The fundamental issue here, of course, is whether one subscribes to the belief--or theory, some might say--that no one should be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics unless they are qualified as legitimate college students. If there are no enforceable minimum standards to assure that every player is a genuine college student, then what we're watching is no longer, IMO, college basketball. There is never a truly "level" playing field, because some schools will always have advantages (winning tradition, TV exposure, resources and fan support, etc.), and some schools will voluntarily adopt academic standards higher than the minimum. But without a minimum standard, there can be no pretense that the competition is fair and legitimate.

UNC: Jay's attempt to distinguish the consequences of athlete cheating and ordinary student cheating is simply not borne out by experience. When athletes cheat or plagiarize on their own, without the knowledge, encouragement, or assistance of anyone in the athletic department, only the student is disciplined--a phenomenon that we have, sadly, witnessed at Duke in both basketball and football. When ordinary students cheat or plagiarize with the knowledge, encouragement, or assistance of someone on the faculty or administrative staff, punishment is typically meted out to the enablers as well as the students. If coaches and assistants and staff members aren't involved in some way, they generally are not held responsible. But if they know about cheating and do nothing to rectify the practice, why shouldn't they be held accountable for breaching their duty to ensure adherence to the rules and compliance with the requirements that the school and the NCAA deem applicable?

[Tappan Zee Devil]

T

UNC: He focuses on the academic scandal and says that when "regular students" cheat it is the cheaters who are blamed. No professors or advisers are fired b/c a student cheated. But when student-athletes cheat it suddenly becomes a problem related to the head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority.


Well - yeah but in almost every case, the "regular students" are doing it on their own. The question with the athletes is whether they are being facilitated in cheating by the professors, advisors, head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

[AZLA]

Well - yeah but in almost every case, the "regular students" are doing it on their own. The question with the athletes is whether they are being facilitated in cheating by the professors, advisors, head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

Agreed. There's a big difference between individual cheating and institutionalized cheating, and the latter typically reflects the culture established by the coach.

At one college I personally witnessed members of a football team cheating on a science exam by having one of their biggest linemen sit in front of the smaller guys, blocking the view of the instructor, and passing answers amongst each other. At another college I attended, a star basketball player failed a class needed to stay eligible after Fall Semester. So, the coach somehow convinced the administration to offer the class again over winter break for intercession. The student-athlete suddenly passed with high marks, making him eligible for the remainder of the season. Somehow, they crammed 3 1/2 month class into two weeks. Bigger issue was, the university NEVER in the history of the school, offered intercession. And there was no proof the student was ever on campus, because everyone went home for the Holidays.

How is it that University of Florida has 30 arrests on its team in five years (something like 27 players) and it doesn't become the responsibility of the coach or the program? Sooner or later you have to acknowledge and correct the issue, otherwise you're just enabling it.

What I like about Coach K is that he is one of few people who still fundamentally believes in accountability. I'm not saying no one ever cheated or committed crimes at Duke. Coach K tells his players, essentially, don't do anything as an individual that will bring shame upon the team, and that's the gist of the policy. Whereas other programs have volumes of rules that get broken over and over.

Maybe its Coach K's military background, the type of people he recruits and the level of excellence he gets his players to believe in. I do know that what's more powerful than a book of rules, is a genuine respect players have for the leadership and culture their Coach instills. I'm also confident that when players of done wrong, Coach K has held them responsible and his program responsible.

[Spam Filter]

Sometimes I wonder if Jay Bilas simply wants to be an contrarian.

Because as Stray Gator points out, Jay is completely wrong on all 3 points with almost no merit to any of his positions.

I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's a smart enough guy to know this and simply want to go against the popular opinion to raise his profile.

[4decadedukie]

Like Stray, I, too, respect Jay's accomplishments and intellect; and again like Stray, I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with him on all three of these matters. Specifically:

a) Pearl: First, the rule has some foundation – to reduce/eliminate the secondary school athlete’s (and his family’s) time devoted (or, probably wasted) and the inconvenience associated with UNSOLICITED coach-contacts. This really is no different than the prevalent commercial cold calling that drives all of us crazy in our own homes (imagine a few hundred additional solicitation calls from alleged charities and credit card mongers). In addition, there is the most critical matter of simple compliance with well-established rules and policies; it is certainly NOT the coach’s role to determine which regulations are worthy of his compliance, anymore than it is the felon’s function to decide which statutes are legitimate. Coach Pearl has a moral obligation to operate within the NCAA’s regulations and, in essence, he knowingly ignored that duty – which, obviously, places all the programs that fully adhere to the rules at a disadvantage.

b) Bledsoe: Carried to the logical end that Jay evidently advocates, ANY individual could matriculate and compete in intercollegiate athletics; there would be NO enforceable standards of academic preparation, conduct, criminality, pre-enrollment payoffs, or anything else. For someone as bright as Jay obviously is, I am astonished with the foregoing position. While there are MANY clear flaws in Jay’s position, let’s illustrate just two: (a) a pre-college athlete (or his family) receives a $1M+ “gift” from gambling interests; who will believe that point-shaving and other illicit conduct isn’t likely? and (b) an athletically gifted pre-college student is so scholastically deficient that he literally cannot perform elementary school level academic work with success; doesn’t his university acceptance make a mockery of college education, won’t it deprive a fully academically qualified freshman from a coveted seat/scholarship at that university and doesn’t it deny the primary, and essential purpose of higher-education and of intercollegiate athletics – preparation for future life by individuals who can reasonably benefit from undergraduate experiences?

c) Academic Dishonesty: Coaches and other university officials are primarily LEADERS and MENTORS. In that role, they must inspire, motivate, instruct, be examples and supervise their students/protégées in many areas. The fact that cheating may be wide-spread on college campuses does not absolve university officials of these ACCOUNTABLE responsibilities, nor does is reduce their duty to create an environment where individual athletes (or students in general, for that matter) would find academic deceitfulness to be both foolish and to undermine the most important elements of university education.

I was truly disappointed in Jay’s position of these issues (in fairness, he may have thought these matters through thoroughly). Recently, there have been several comments on DBR re a general decline in ethics and its potential implications. When Jay Bilas knowingly accedes to the “easy way out” and to questionable morality, I suspect we really are in trouble.

[Troublemaker]

Sometimes I wonder if Jay Bilas simply wants to be an contrarian.

Because as Stray Gator points out, Jay is completely wrong on all 3 points with almost no merit to any of his positions.

I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's a smart enough guy to know this and simply want to go against the popular opinion to raise his profile.

I disagree and believe Jay's arguments have a lot of merit (as does Stray's arguments, which are well-argued and interesting as usual). Jay appears to have a belief in self-governance (i.e. less NCAA involvement) where possible, and I agree with Jay as it relates to the Pearl/phone calls issue.

Re: Pearl, I agree with Jay that it really should be up to the recruits and their families to govern the phone calls they receive. Stray makes an good point about these families being in an awkward position of not wanting to offend coaches when telling them to call less, but it seems to me that those awkward situations arise all the time in life and in recruiting where every recruit eventually has to pare his list of schools down to one and along the way, that means lots of awkward phone calls to coaches who didn't make the cut. Such is life.

On the second issue, Bledsoe/admissions, I side with Stray who makes a great point about the NCAA's responsibility to ensure fair play. Bottom line, the University of Kentucky chooses to be a member of the NCAA and the SEC. If UK wants to withdraw from the NCAA so it can admit basketball players following its own GPA standards, then UK is free to do so and can field basketball teams that play thirty games against non-NCAA club teams. But the whole point is, UK wants to compete for NCAA championships, and if you're going to be a member of an association, you follow that association's rules. And usually, an athletic association's rules will try to ensure fair play and tends to accomplish that with arbitrarily set numbers -- a 2.5 GPA, 500 miles, 185 lbs, 72 holes, whatever the case may be. Such is life.

On the third issue, UNC/cheating, I agree with BOTH Jay and Stray as they are tackling different aspects of it -- with Jay, media coverage of cheating; with Stray, NCAA punishment for cheating.

[Acymetric]

Re: Pearl, I agree with Jay that it really should be up to the recruits and their families to govern the phone calls they receive. Stray makes an good point about these families being in an awkward position of not wanting to offend coaches when telling them to call less, but it seems to me that those awkward situations arise all the time in life and in recruiting where every recruit eventually has to pare his list of schools down to one and along the way, that means lots of awkward phone calls to coaches who didn't make the cut. Such is life.


Ok, but what is the recourse if a coach persists after being asked to stop? Report the coach to the police for harassment?

[JohnGalt]

Ok, but what is the recourse if a coach persists after being asked to stop? Report the coach to the police for harassment?

End your recruitment with the school. College coaches don't have enough time to be acting like that, nor do they have a long enough string. If a coach was to harass a player enough for it to be an issue, I'm sure the AD would like to know about it.

[uh_no]

End your recruitment with the school.

you want to go to kansas, kansas wants you to go there, but you don't want to commit yet

but daggum it, i wish bill self wouldn't call me every day asking how school was

[SilkyJ]

End your recruitment with the school. College coaches don't have enough time to be acting like that, nor do they have a long enough string. If a coach was to harass a player enough for it to be an issue, I'm sure the AD would like to know about it.

Shane Battier basically did this with Pitino (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html?_r=4&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=all). He allowed each school recruiting him a certain block of time to call him. Pitino called him outside that block and he dropped Kentucky from his list.

Most kids probably wouldn't be that bold, but hey, at least there's precedence!

Here's the quote from that AWESOME NYT article linked above:



In 1996 a young writer for The Basketball Times named Dan Wetzel thought it might be neat to move into the life of a star high-school basketball I'm a real wanker for saying this.player and watch up close as big-time basketball colleges recruited him. He picked Shane Battier, and then spent five months trailing him, with growing incredulity. “I’d covered high-school basketball for eight years and talked to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of kids — really every single prominent high-school basketball player in the country,” Wetzel says. “There’s this public perception that they’re all thugs. But they aren’t. A lot of them are really good guys, and some of them are very, very bright. Kobe’s very bright. LeBron’s very bright. But there’s absolutely never been anything like Shane Battier.”

Wetzel watched this kid, inundated with offers of every kind, take charge of an unprincipled process. Battier narrowed his choices to six schools — Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Michigan and Michigan State — and told everyone else, politely, to leave him be. He then set out to minimize the degree to which the chosen schools could interfere with his studies; he had a 3.96 G.P.A. and was poised to claim Detroit Country Day School’s headmaster’s cup for best all-around student. He granted each head coach a weekly 15-minute window in which to phone him. These men happened to be among the most famous basketball coaches in the world and the most persistent recruiters, but Battier granted no exceptions. When the Kentucky coach Rick Pitino, who had just won a national championship, tried to call Battier outside his assigned time, Battier simply removed Kentucky from his list. “What 17-year-old has the stones to do that?” Wetzel asks. “To just cut off Rick Pitino because he calls outside his window?” Wetzel answers his own question: “It wasn’t like, ‘This is a really interesting 17-year-old.’ It was like, ‘This isn’t real.’ ”

Of course my favorite quote from the whole article is in the very next paragraph:



Battier, even as a teenager, was as shrewd as he was disciplined. The minute he figured out where he was headed, he called a sensational high-school power forward in Peekskill, N.Y., named Elton Brand — and talked him into joining him at Duke. (Brand now plays for the Philadelphia 76ers.) “I thought he’d be the first black president,” Wetzel says. “He was Barack Obama before Barack Obama.”

[Troublemaker]

Ok, but what is the recourse if a coach persists after being asked to stop? Report the coach to the police for harassment?

Yes, if it comes to that. I would guess in the VAST majority of cases, the coach obliges after being asked a few times to stop since the whole point is to get on the recruit's good side. But, yes, in extreme cases, I'm sure every state has criminal laws that cover harassment by phone, and IMO the NCAA probably doesn't need to legislate areas that are covered by state law already.

[Troublemaker]

I was truly disappointed in Jay’s position of these issues (in fairness, he may have thought these matters through thoroughly). Recently, there have been several comments on DBR re a general decline in ethics and its potential implications. When Jay Bilas knowingly accedes to the “easy way out” and to questionable morality, I suspect we really are in trouble.

I don't believe Jay is taking morally questionable stances nor am I disappointed in him. Both the phone call and GPA arguments seem to be essentially just variations on the age-old public policy debate of how much government involvement (i.e. NCAA involvement) should there be, and I don't think there are any right or wrong answers.

Even where I disagree with Jay -- his belief that the NCAA should cease its involvement with admissions & eligibility determination -- I am basically just saying that "fairness in competition" is greater than "institutional autonomy," at least in this case. But, if someone were to believe that institutional autonomy > fairness in competition, that is merely a difference in opinion. Perhaps college athletics would be better served if the NCAA allowed each university to determine its own admissions and eligibility standards. Some programs would inevitably value winning much more than education but maybe that's their right to decide. And maybe each individual student-athlete should have a right to decide which type of program he wants to join and how much he personally values the "student" part of "student-athlete." One could argue that the status quo is just a way for programs that care about education to force their ideals on programs that don't care or wouldn't care as much about education. (But maybe that's a good thing. Like I said, it's just the NCAA version of an age-old debate.)

[whereinthehellami]

I'm having problems listening to Jay alot lately. He has sounded a bit too much like a Wallmart UNC fan and a lawyer lately. Not an appealing combo for me.

[4decadedukie]

I don't believe Jay is taking morally questionable stances nor am I disappointed in him. Both the phone call and GPA arguments seem to be essentially just variations on the age-old public policy debate of how much government involvement (i.e. NCAA involvement) should there be, and I don't think there are any right or wrong answers.

Even where I disagree with Jay -- his belief that the NCAA should cease its involvement with admissions & eligibility determination -- I am basically just saying that "fairness in competition" is greater than "institutional autonomy," at least in this case. But, if someone were to believe that institutional autonomy > fairness in competition, that is merely a difference in opinion. Perhaps college athletics would be better served if the NCAA allowed each university to determine its own admissions and eligibility standards. Some programs would inevitably value winning much more than education but maybe that's their right to decide. And maybe each individual student-athlete should have a right to decide which type of program he wants to join and how much he personally values the "student" part of "student-athlete." One could argue that the status quo is just a way for programs that care about education to force their ideals on programs that don't care or wouldn't care as much about education. (But maybe that's a good thing. Like I said, it's just the NCAA version of an age-old debate.)


With respect, few counter-points, if I may:

1) "Both the phone call and GPA arguments seem to be essentially just variations on the age-old public policy debate of how much government involvement (i.e. NCAA involvement) should there be . . . ". This does not make sense to me; obviously, the NCAA is VERY different from any government. Public entities have all sorts of powers that the NCAA does not, moreover university involvement with the NCAA is entire voluntary, whereas much governmental interaction is compulsory.

2) "And maybe each individual student-athlete should have a right to decide which type of program he wants to join and how much he personally values the "student" part of "student-athlete." Clearly, we have that today. Nothing compels a potential student-athlete who could qualify for Harvard or Stanford to attend there; he is free to go to universities that skew the balance toward the non-academic element. However -- and this is the key point -- ALL undergraduate students should be required to meet minimum scholastic standards; after all, that is what earning a baccalaureate degree really means. Jay's suggestion the there should basically be no academic/admissions baseline (however negligible) is fundamentally antithetical to what colleges have been about for endless generation, which is -- first and essentially -- academics.

In fact, that the overriding problem I have with the many of Jay's ideas (expressed in his recent ESPN piece); he is the undermining long-proven concepts that have holistically served higher education extremely well for many decades, in order to better accommodate intercollegiate athletics. It is a textbook example of the “tail wagging the dog.”
- Doing away with admissions principles and criteria might assist a few athletes, but it would emasculate the entire concept of the undergraduate acceptance process serving as a filter to ensure high (or at least appropriate) quality academics for all students.
- It might also facilitate the return to the “bad old days” when serious illicit interests manipulated college basketball results for their own criminal/selfish, financial interests.
- Setting recruiters free to have unlimited prospect contacts might help the coaches, but it would shift a large burden onto parents and kids.
- Eliminating athletic program accountability for academic honesty -- and especially for wide-spread cheating, such as UNC-CH has probably experienced -- would encourage disreputable coaches to facilitate scholastic duplicity (both explicitly and implicitly) to raise grades and to increase eligibility.

[LSanders]

Interesting thread (Thanks, SilkyJ!)

Now, for my inflation-enhanced $0.02 ...

Pearl: Jay makes a valid point. He's essentially saying that, yeah, rules are rules, but in the grand scheme of things, Pearl basically "let the parking meter run out" with the whole excessive phone call thing. Compare that to under-the-table payments, free cars, houses, jobs, etc. He's not giving Pearl a pass. He's merely making the point that no matter how black-and-white we'd like to paint the world, it's always going to be mostly gray. Certainly, Pearl was a fool to lie to the NCAA, but the sin that got him in trouble was such small potatoes you have to question why the rule's even there.

I don't find any of the arguments presented here particularly persuasive regarding the rule. Protecting recruits from harassment or being made uncomfortable at telling a big-time coach to back off? Please. The only kids getting "harassed" are the 4 and 5 star recruits. You honestly think they're worried about telling Coach A to chill when Coaches B thru Z are waiting on their doorsteps? I don't. Not for a second. The so-called protection provided by this rule is a mirage.

Bledsoe - If SilkyJ's summary fully encapsulates Jay's column, we essentially have a "state's rights" (Jay's point) vs. "federal rights" (NCAA obligation to level the playing field) argument. Interesting argument, but it has nothing to do with Bledsoe.

The Bledsoe investigation focused on whether a fraudulent transcript was concocted to enable him to meet skin-of-the-teeth admission requirements. When it comes to fraud detection/protection, the NCAA may be our best hope. The inept, possibly corrupt, Alabama school board proved, with its blind-eye rejection of the independent investigator's recommendation, that local control often means no control. That's a different issue.

Regarding the level playing field, that's a fantasy. You think K didn't appreciate Bledsoe's court skills? Yet, to my knowledge, Duke never seriously recruited him. Why? He'd never be admitted. K and his staff didn't want to waste their time.

And, let's face it, KY would admit that golden retriever from "Air Bud" if Cal told 'em the pooch'd win 'em a few extra games. [Insert your own joke here about the canine's comparative success in the classroom.]

UNC - Again, Jay's point is valid. (I'll "cheat" and borrow Woody Allen's line here.) If an individual cheats on his metaphysics exam by looking into the soul of the person sitting next to him, no one blames the professor. However, if a high-profile student, i.e., athlete, does the same thing, the media quickly points its spotlight on the highly-paid coaches because that's where the headlines are.

He's not equating individual cheating with institutional cheating, nor is he stating that coach's who create climates that encourage rule-breaking should be let off the hook. He's merely acknowledging what we already know ... That coaches and athletes operate under an umbrella of double standards and, perhaps, we too often rush to judgment.

No matter how devoted a parent you are, you can't possibly know what your son or daughter is doing 24/7. Therefore, upon what basis would you reasonably expect a coach to do for athletes what you cannot do for your own kids?

One final point ... Jay was a coach here at Duke. He's not making theoretical arguments but is explaining his point of view after walking more than a few miles in the shoes of a coach at a big-time university. You may disagree with his opinions, but his breadth of understanding of these issues shouldn't be impugned.

[BD80]

... let's face it, KY would admit that golden retriever from "Air Bud" if Cal told 'em the pooch'd win 'em a few extra games. ...

UK ALREADY HAS a canine movie star: Ashley Judd.

[Jay Bilas]

I seldom read message boards and rarely respond when I do. I have many friends that are active on and read this message board, and they will sometimes tell me what is written here and encourage me to respond. My usual response to them is that any opinion expressed on this board is just as good as mine, and the province of any fan is to state an opinion, and to do so without me chiming in. Whether a poster here likes my work or not, agrees with me or not, or thinks I am an idiot, that is fair game and I will not argue with it. I can dish it out, and I can take it, too.

This is different. I was really surprised by the wide reaction to my recent blog posts about the NCAA and its policies regarding initial eligibility and telephone calls. I have stated this same opinion many times before, but there was not the same reaction and discussion. Perhaps it is the time of year. But, the discussion was really interesting and thought provoking, and I was quite intrigued by the differing opinions on the matters. As always, reasonable minds can differ, but the discussion is a good and healthy thing.

I understand that, because there is a charge to read my blog posts, some people have responded to my positions based upon summaries and without having read it. Because I think these issues are important and can be difficult to deal with in 800 words or less, I felt it was appropriate to discuss the issue here and to further clarify my thoughts on these matter.

First, I believe strongly in education, in standards and in rules. I received an undergraduate degree from Duke and a JD from Duke Law School. I served for over two years on the NCAA Long Range Planning Committee while in college, and I played and coached college basketball. I was a national top 40 recruit and was recruited on a very high level and understand the process from the inside. I have spent my entire adult life around the game, and I believe I understand the process and the practical realities involved. All of that does not make me right. But, I feel that I do have a basis for my opinions and judgments on these matters. I do not take any position to be “contrarian” but because I believe it. But, I do not dismiss contrary opinions. These are difficult issues, and because we may differ does not mean that your arguments and positions are not reasonable and sound. I may just feel that there is a better way. But, because I may advocate a change or adjustment in a rule here or there does not mean that I do not believe in the enterprise. I do.

So, I thought that I would provide some further clarification to my opinions on these matters and to respond specifically to some of the contrary arguments made here. I thought I would do it in three parts: the telephone call rule, initial eligibility, and the academic misconduct issue. I hope that this will result in greater understanding of my thoughts, and to spur more good discussion. I believe the process could use more good and reasonable debate.

Next up, I will post on the phone call issue. Thanks for indulging me, and thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned opinions. I look forward to sharing ideas and gaining a greater understanding of these issues. I just might learn something. Best regards, Jay Bilas

[Jay Bilas]

The NCAA Rule on Telephone Calls:

First and foremost, I believe that a rule is a rule. Period. There is no reasonable excuse for the knowing violation of a rule, and there is certainly no justification for lying to the NCAA with regard to an investigation or enforcement. And, I never said, wrote or implied otherwise. Nowhere did I advocate that coaches get to determine which rules with which to comply and which rules they can ignore. Any suggestion otherwise is incorrect and without foundation.

That aside, the telephone call rule is a bad rule that has very good intentions. Many are correct in positing that the foundation of the rule is to “protect” young prospects. I am just saying that the young prospects don’t need this kind of protection from coaches, especially when they and their parents and coaches are perfectly capable of protecting themselves from agents, agents’ runners, media, recruiting analysts, and people from the high school basketball subculture. The rule criminalizes normal behavior, has too many loopholes, and has established a monitoring bureaucracy that is disproportionate to the perceived problem the rule is attempting to remedy. There is a tremendous amount of money and time invested into compliance for this rule, and university compliance staffs are spending far too much time dealing with phone bills and matching them up with recruits. Most schools have monitoring software and systems that are quite expensive and the amount of paperwork, time, and red tape in the process is disproportionate. There have been more that 700 cases of impermissible phone calls over the last five years, and the time and resources devoted to the rule far outweigh the perceived problem of “harassment”.

I was recruited during the rotary phone days with no caller ID, no voicemail, and no way to determine the importance of the call without answering. And, my family and I were able to handle it. When it got to be too much, we asked that calls be limited, we asked for it. When I whittle my list of schools down, the calls were really limited. I get to work with these young prospects as a skills instructor at the NIKE Skills Academies, and they are not stupid. They know how to avoid phone calls if they want to, and they know how to say no. Plus, if they are so spineless as to not be able to tell a coach to limit the calls, then they certainly cannot protect themselves from agents that can help them, media that can publicize them, and recruiting analysts that can rank them. If they were afraid of hurting themselves with coaches, they would certainly be hesitant to hurt themselves with others. And, if they cannot say no to phone calls (if they want to, and some don't want to), then how can they be expected to whittle their list down, or to finally come to a decision and actually commit and sign? They deserve a bit more credit than that.

Here is how the rule works in practice. Coaches are allowed to call a prospect only once or twice a week per entire staff, based upon how old the kid is. But, the kid can call the coaches whenever he likes, however many times he likes. So, the coaches e-mail the kid and tell him to call. Or, they call someone close to the kid (like the high school coach or the AAU coach or a confidant) and tell him or her to have the kid to call. That creates an obligation on the part of the kid to call (we expect them to handle that but not handle a phone call directly to them?), and it empowers people outside of the reach of the NCAA. It has, in part, created a middleman that has influence in the process. And, coaches will call recruiting analysts and media members to find out where a kid is in his decision or to provide information, and that recruiting analyst or media member can talk to the kid whenever he or she wishes. That is not a good way to do things, and certainly is not promoting good information being shared between coach and prospect.

The phone call rule implies that coaches are a bad influence on kids. They are not. And, they should not be restricted from calling kids. If you want to analogize the situation to telemarketing calls, it would be better to have a “do not call” list, but that seems extreme and an overreaction to the perceived problem of “unwanted harassment”.

The truth is, coaches will not do anything that will jeopardize their ability to get a kid. If the kid says no more calls, the coaches will comply. Shane Battier is not the only kid that has the ability to limit phone calls. It is not that difficult to do, and a lot of kids actually crave more contact with coaches, not less.

With regard to a level playing field, there is no such thing. But, to the extent that you believe that a restriction in phone calls works to move things closer to equality, it does not. A limit to the number of phone calls just works to the advantage of entrenched power in the game. A kid cannot get to know a coach very well with limited phone calls, and the coach cannot get to know the kid. It promotes mistakes, and it makes it tougher for the lesser known coaches and schools to distinguish themselves. You cannot "outwork" another program for a kid, and the restriction makes it seem like every coach has the same interest in every kid. They do not, and the kids deserve to have that information.

This isn’t about less government intrusion or some libertarian view of things. If I thought this rule worked and was good, I would say so. This is about reasonableness and effectiveness. This rule does not work, and it makes criminals out of programs that are trying to do it right, as most of them do. And, the NCAA agrees. NCAA officials have stated that the rule needs to be revisited, and has serious flaws, despite its very good intentions.

One last thing: if this rule were in place when I was in high school, I would not have chosen Duke (which may be THE reason you like the rule!!). I had never heard of Coach K when he first recruited me, and I would not have gotten to know him like I did, and to understand what he was about if he got only one phone call per week. Choosing to play for him was the best non-family decision I ever made, but if he were limited in contact, I would not have been able to distinguish him from the crowd. I think that is an important consideration.

I am looking forward to reading your responses and learning your views on the matter. Thanks again for allowing me into the discussion. Best regards, Jay BIlas

[Turtleboy]

Dang, Jay, how about a space between paragraphs? :o

[added! -jk]

[Nugget]

Thanks for the further explanations, Jay. Much appreciated.

The point about the regulatory compliance costs (both for the schools and the NCAA's enforcement staff) of the telephone call limitations is one I hadn't fully perceived.

Given the limitations that exist on resources (seen too in the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the Kelvin Sampson issues), it does seem silly to require that expenditure of compliance funds and attention on what has to be one of the most trivial things that the NCAA is asked by its member schools to regulate.

Of course, as Jay notes, given that the rules do currently exist as they do, Pearl has no excuse whatsoever for lying about non-compliance.

[JMarley50]

"
One last thing: if this rule were in place when I was in high school, I would not have chosen Duke (which may be THE reason you like the rule!!). I had never heard of Coach K when he first recruited me, and I would not have gotten to know him like I did, and to understand what he was about if he got only one phone call per week. Choosing to play for him was the best non-family decision I ever made, but if he were limited in contact, I would not have been able to distinguish him from the crowd. I think that is an important consideration."

This is a perfect example of why the rule needs to go! :D Thanks for posting Jay!

[mph]

This Jay Bilas guy only has one pitchfork so it's a little hard to take him seriously.

Kidding aside, I think Jay's argument about how limiting outgoing recruiting calls empowers middlemen is a good one and not one that I had considered. I also find his argument about the rule's effect on lesser known coaches and smaller schools compelling, even if we are one of the big guys. Given the limited impact repealing the rule would have on a prospects ability to protect himself in a world with caller ID and voicemail, it's hard to see how anyone's interests are served by the status quo.

Thanks to Jay for posting such a thoughtful response.

[Troublemaker]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your thoughts, Jay. I really enjoy what you have to say on the rare occasions that you post here, and I'm also impressed by how much you care about promoting good discussion (not that I would expect any less of you, just that I suspect many TV stars wouldn't interact with random internet fans even for the sake of promoting good discussion on issues that matter to them). You obviously care, and that's a great thing to see.

It makes me wish that you maintained a college basketball blog apart from espn.com actually. Your breadth of knowledge, personal experience, intelligence, and care for the subject matter really shine through when unencumbered by length restrictions. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy your espn.com blog already, but the additional insight you have been able to provide thus far in this thread has been awesome and illuminating to read.

[throatybeard]

How is it that University of Florida has 30 arrests on its team in five years (something like 27 players) and it doesn't become the responsibility of the coach or the program? Sooner or later you have to acknowledge and correct the issue, otherwise you're just enabling it.

Thirty-one. I think Urban is using the the Florida job as an apprenticeship for coaching the Cincinnati Bengals in the future. He'll be so well-prepared.

[4decadedukie]

Jay,

I sincerely appreciate your concern and effort in amplifying your positions; thank you so much. As I am sure you appreciate, much of my – and perhaps other DBR participants’ – confusion results from reading only synopses and commentary, as opposed to your comprehensive thoughts; therefore your posts (and those that will follow) are especially valuable.

If I may offer one MINOR recommendation, you have twice referred to “criminals” and to “criminalize” in your recent clarifying remarks, when I am sure you would agree that NCAA investigations/sanctions are not really legal proceedings. I mention this only because college basketball – most sadly – seems to have a growing issue of criminality, and I simply hope we unmistakably separate the NCAA’s administrative actions from judicial ones.

[Jay Bilas]

Initial Eligibility

Let’s get a few important facts first. Bledsoe is from Alabama, and without the questioned Algebra 3 course, Bledsoe had a 2.3 high school GPA in core courses. He took a questionable Algebra course, received an A, and was able to gain initial elgibility with a 2.5 high school GPA in core courses. The NCAA minimum standard for initial eligibility is a 2.5 GPA. Bledsoe was recruited by Memphis, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, UAB, and Rutgers, among others, and all those listed offered him a scholarship.

One thing that seems to be lost in the Bledsoe matter is the fact that we are discussing only “initial eligibility” and not admission. Kentucky (or any other school) can admit and educate Eric Bledsoe with his 2.3 GPA, and as long as he made satisfactory progress toward a degree, he could play for Kentucky. He just wouldn’t qualify to play right away as a freshman. We are just discussing the NCAA’s rule on initial eligibility. Admission is up to the school, and the NCAA has no say in the admissions process. Any school can educate and graduate any student that it wants. This has nothing to do with “criminality” (you can play any convicted felon you wish as long as he has a 2.5 in high school) and this is not about “conduct” (you can play the most vile and disgusting human being you can find, as long as he has a 2.5). This is about being able to play right away and nothing else.

My view is simple. There are 347 Division I institutions playing college basketball. Those 347 schools have very different mission statements, and very different standards. Duke and North Carolina Central both compete in Division I. But, over 90% of entering freshmen at Duke have a GPA of over 3.7. The average GPA of an entering freshman at North Carolina Central is 2.5. That is vastly different, but the two schools have different mission statements. That is okay, they can co-exist in the field of higher education. And, they can play in a basketball game without it being illegitimate, a sham or unfair.

I think both Duke, NCCU and every other school can make their own decisions on which students are qualified for admission, and which students are qualified to represent them on the field of play. Autonomous schools do not need the NCAA to tell them whom to admit (which the NCAA does not and cannot do anyway), whom to educate and how (which the NCAA does not and cannot do anyway) and whom to put in a uniform (which the NCAA can do). I think that Memphis, Kentucky, Duke, Stanford, Harvard and all the rest can make their own decisions. The practical reality is, they make nearly all of their own decisions now, anyway. A minimum GPA of 2.5 does not ensure fairness or legitimacy.

You can read my arguments on ESPN.com, but I would like to address a few arguments made on this board.

One person stated that without a minimum standard, there “can be no pretense that the competition is fair and legitimate”. While I understand the sentiment, I don’t believe that a 2.5 GPA ensures fair and legitimate competition on the basketball floor. If Duke or Northwestern chooses not to recruit Bledsoe, fine. But how is the competition legitimate at 2.5, but illegitimate at 2.3 or 2.4? And how is it legitimate if the young man plays as a sophomore with a 2.3 after simply sitting out a year? Is he not the same student with the same background and the same credentials? Do we really believe that the academic mission and standards of every institution would be universally respected for fairness and legitimacy at a 2.5 GPA but not at a 2.3?

The “tail wagging the dog” theory baffles me. Some have opined that my view of leaving initial eligibility decisions up to the individual institutions would result in chaos, make a mockery of college athletics, and some students would be admitted with no qualifications at all. That is pretty extreme. Do you really believe that the 2.5 GPA is all that stands in the way of college basketball being played by an army of illiterates? In fact, I view that argument in the same fashion that I view one of the arguments against gay marriage. Some ask whether the next step on the slippery slope of gay marriage is a man marrying a goat. I don’t find that persuasive, rather, I find it silly. I am of the view that each person is capable of determining whether and whom to marry, and the union of a same sex couple does not affect in any way the traditional marriage of another couple. If Duke doesn’t wish to marry Bledsoe, how is Duke negatively affected if Bledsoe accepts Kentucky’s marriage proposal? Are you really worried that Duke’s standards will drop precipitously because Bledsoe plays at Kentucky and will start accepting and playing functional illiterates? Of course not. Besides, Bledsoe DID play and DID compete all of last season, he did so against the likes of Vanderbilt, Stanford and Cornell, and the republic still stands. And, Duke still has its standards and its integrity intact.

I believe in standards. But, one size does not and cannot fit all with regard to academics. One person suggested that all students should have to meet certain standards, not just athletes. There is nothing wrong with that view, and if you want to do that, then do it at your school. But, my school may want to do it differently. Since this is a Duke site, let’s use Duke as an example. Duke has lofty academic standards, but there is no question that exceptions are made in the case of athletics. While the compromises in standards may be on a higher level that other compromises over the landscape of college basketball, they are compromises in standards just the same. There are very few Duke athletes in football and basketball that would have gained admission to Duke on academic credentials alone. Why can Duke make exceptions and lower its standards? Is it immoral, unethical or otherwise improper that Duke has compromised its standards for athletics? I see that as Duke’s decision, and Duke’s decision alone. There have been athletes at Duke that have gained admission over the years that have raised a few eyebrows among Duke supporters. Yet, when they have played, performed in the classroom and have graduated, they have been touted as great successes and credits to the university. However, if you looked at blind high school transcripts for those players, you would give them a “thumbs down” for admission. Well, admission is more than just a numbers game. I think that Duke should be free to make its own decisions, and I think others should be free to do the same. The same goes for the award of a uniform for athletic competition.

Kentucky’s mission statement encourages any student with a 2.0 high school GPA or better to apply for admission. Bledsoe had a 2.3 without the questioned Algebra 3 course. So, what is the problem? If Kentucky believes that Bledsoe is worth admitting and educating, why should others have a problem with that? If you say, “Duke would never recruit that kid”, then you don’t have him anyway. If I felt like initial eligibility standards were a great incentive for young people to push themselves and achieve in the classroom, I would be all for it. But, I don’t see that as the case. The public school system is a national joke and scandal, and if a college or university wants to admit, educate and play someone with the transcript of Bledsoe, that should be its decision. Kentucky was not alone.

Lastly, let’s look at the practical side. One person said that the NCAA The NCAA has had two high profile cases of initial eligibility over the past few years. The first was Derrick Rose at Memphis in 2008. Bledsoe is the other. In both cases, the NCAA Clearinghouse performed an exhaustive review of the credentials of the player. And, in both cases, the NCAA Clearinghouse cleared the player for competition. In both cases, the secondary school authorities, including testing authorities, did not flag any abnormalities in the academic records of the prospects. So, after spending all of this money to establish and staff the Clearinghouse, which costs millions of dollars per year, the Clearinghouse cleared both Rose and Bledsoe to play right away. The NCAA is not equipped to do this, and the schools all have trained professionals to make admissions decisions. Let them make those decisions on their own.

It seems no less fair to compete against a 2.3 student as it is to compete against a 2.5 student. I am not advocating doing away with standards, just letting each school’s own standards carry the day.

As always, reasonable minds can differ, and welcome reasonable disagreement. I look forward to reading your thoughtful responses or hearing your boos. Thanks again for letting me put in my two cents. Best regards, Jay Bilas

[Jay Bilas]

You are correct that there is no criminal charges punishable by governmental entities. My use of the term stems from my view that the punishment and perception of the violation of the telephone call rule is disproportionate. It is the equivalent of looking at a jaywalker or someone that exceeds the speed limit as a criminal.

Both Kelvin Sampson and Bruce Pearl have been vilified as criminals, just for making too many phone calls (and for Pearl's dishonesty in responding to the NCAA's inquiry). None of the offenses are actually criminal matters, but they are viewed as criminals. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for the question. Best, Jay Bilas

[SCMatt33]

I am not advocating doing away with standards, just letting each school’s own standards carry the day.

Maybe I'm too cynical about this issue, but is it really possible to expect schools to uphold their own standards. Without an NCAA minimum standard, there is no one to ensure that athletes who are enrolled are capable student-athletes on the collegiate level. Are there problems with the way the NCAA minimums are established and enforced? Absolutely. I don't really think that a small change in Eric Bledsoe's transcript makes a huge difference, especially if he meets UK's stated minimums to begin with. But what about Derrick Rose? The instant his SAT score was invalidated, he no longer met Memphis' minimum standard, which includes a valid SAT or ACT score.

Expecting schools to hold to their own standards seems unreasonable. This goes well beyond schools flirting with NCAA minimums, too. Top-tier schools including Ivy league schools and Duke regularly lower their admissions standards for athletes. I have a friend who received recruiting interest from Ivy league schools as a kicker, but turned them down because he knew that not only did he not have the grades to be admitted without his athletic talents, but he would probably struggle academically once he got there. I can't speak for sure about the policies of most Duke teams, but I do know a little about track. I took Coach Buehler's sports history class a few years ago and we spent a day talking about track recruitment. He mentioned that for a handful of prospective athletes every year, the team could "help them out" with admissions academically if they needed it.

Should top tier schools be allowed to use lower admissions standards for athletes if they wish? Yes. If UK wanted to admit Bledsoe with a 1.9 GPA or Memphis wanted to admit Rose without a valid SAT score I would be fine with that, too, but there needs to be a line somewhere. What's to stop a school from admitting athletes who have no business on a college campus academically, but will be gone in a year before they show a lack of progress towards a degree.

I fully agree that something should be changed with the NCAA minimum standards, but they still need to exist in some form to prevent total corruption.

As for the issue of "initial eligibility" vs. admission, I feel that while they are technically separate, they are still linked. Initial eligibility is simply the NCAA's form of admission. The difference is that if you aren't admitted by a school, you get no chance to prove your worth later, but if you don't meet the NCAA eligibility standard, you can show your improvement through classwork in college. If the NCAA insisted on keeping it's standard at 2.5, I would think that it is completely legitimate for a kid to go to school with a 2.3, concentrate entirely on academics for a year to show that he can handle a college workload and make progress toward a degree, and then play his sophomore year.

[4decadedukie]

Jay,

This abbreviated reply addresses only your comprehensive explanation (for which I thank you) of your viewpoint regarding initial eligibility/admissions criteria. With sincere respect for you, your extensive experience and expertise, your intelligence, and your decency, I am compelled fundamentally to disagree. My rationale follows:
1. For some universities, the visibility, the enhanced revenues, the increased alumni/supporter loyalty, and the augmented local political collaboration associated with a nationally prominent basketball program would be so attractive that they would renounce all admissions standards – academic, character, behavioral, and so forth – simply to produce national contenders. No “mission statement” ever envisioned this type of wholesale relinquishment of acceptance criteria.
2. Obviously, Duke, our peer-institutions, and almost all schools (in the all NCAA divisions) would never embrace this model. However, UNLV two decades ago, KU today , and some other universities seem (to me) to fit this dismal paradigm rather well; accordingly, while this depiction is awful, it is not factually unprecedented.
3. Therefore, to win regardless of the adverse implications, these colleges “race to the bottom” and, since there really are NO admissions standards, NOTHING is really off-limits. The sociopath, with an elementary school education, an appalling criminal record, and an aggregate SAT approximating 750 (under the new, three-test arrangement) is joyously admitted because he will likely be a superstar that brings (or retains) University X exceptional basketball success (obviously, I probably exaggerate here, but only to illustrate my point).
4. The potential result of this is the general diminution of undergraduate education nationwide. A baccalaureate degree may lose value and prestige, as does admission to “college” (probably not the top several tiers, but likely the mediocre and inferior schools). Higher education is increasingly ridiculed, students and parents are less eager to seek university degrees, the “value proposition” for undergraduate education is undermined, and the centuries-based (and ever-increasing) significance of consequential, demanding university education is diminished.

While I intentionally overstate #4 to better exemplify my overall argument, it is the essence of my concern with your “let every university establish its own standards” position. Intercollegiate sports – and athletics in general – are a wonderful, lifelong blessing; however, does your proposal really justify the risks associated with an academic and admissions “race to the bottom?”

[Jay Bilas]

4decadedukie: I really doubt that a 2.5 high school GPA as a minimum standard is the glue holding the entire enterprise of higher education together. I don't believet that, if left to their own devices, colleges and universities would be so blinded by the prospect of athletic success that they would "renounce all standards". With 347 colleges and universities playing Division I basketball, how many do you think are susceptible to such a breakdown of moral and ethical fiber?

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to the idea of any school having a joyous admission of a criminal sociopath with an elementary school education, since I know of no such situation over the years I have been associated with college athletics. I tend to think that is a bit extreme and not of real concern. I understand that you were taking things to the extreme to make a point, but I am not sure what the point is. I believe that most schools would be wary of a criminal sociopath, even if he were a candidate for a Rhodes Scholarship and Player of the Year. Most of the people I know in athletics don't want to deal with criminal elements.

I just don't see these horrible risks that you seem to fear. I don't see a "race to the bottom" among institutions. Kentucky admitted Bledsoe and played him. When everyone thought he had a 2.5 GPA in high school, our game's integrity was safe, but when an algebra course was questioned and his GPA would be 2.3, the foundation upon which the game stands is shaken to the point of a "race to the bottom"?

To the contrary, I see coaches and administrators every day that are proud of the kids they work with. Do they some take risks on kids that may come from disadvantaged areas and have had challenges? Sometimes, but it is done because they believe in a kid that has athletic talent and academic potential, and not because they wish to pull one over on us and sneak Al Capone in high tops past the guardians of the academy. Almost every school takes athletes that would not otherwise qualify for admission absent being a player.

But, your position is hardly unreasonable. Nobody would argue that higher standards are a good thing, and I have always agreed with Arthur Ashe that if you set the bar higher, people will strive to clear it. I would have more respect for the minimum standard if it were higher. Why just a 2.5? I understand that it is an acknowledgement that different schools have different standards, and there are several schools for which a 2.5 high school GPA is above the average admission standard for the undergraduate school enrollment. I think a 2.5 is almost arbitrary, and if a school wants to admit a 2.3 or a 2.0 student, I believe that is its decision and its decision alone.

[JohnGalt]

Jay and 4decade,

While spirited and reasonable on both accounts, this discussion has quickly boiled down to the eternal debate on how we, as a society, should be governed: by the individual or by the collective. 4decade clearly believes that by stripping certain rights from the individual and allowing the collective to govern and administer these rights, it will ensure fairness and cooperation from/for all. Conversely, Jay believes the stripping of these rights fundamentally violates that individual's legitimacy as its own sovereign self. Of course, in this instance, Jay is advocating Kentucky's (or any college's) basic right to admit (play) any man, woman, or child that it deems qualifies as a Kentucky Wildcat. They shouldn't need the NCAA, the Federal Government, or the United Nations to make a reasonable decision in that regard. 4decade makes the reasonable point that the morals and ethics within the university, will eventually give way to local corruption and the desire for success, thus destroying the basic foundation in which that institution was created and - as an extention - higher education as a whole. It's just two separate beliefs on where you place your trust within society.

Several members on this Board though seem quick to usurp the most basic and fundamental quality (or right) that any college or university (or any other academic institution) can maintain...the right to admit/play any student the institution deems appropriate for educating. Instead, it is argued that it is better left to a group of individuals within a governing body to decide for that institution in the interest of 'fairness of competition' or the 'maintaining of academic excellence' who or who should not be allowed admittance (or the right to play). I'm of the opinion that this is supremely naive and, even more so, hypocritical. In the annals of history, what entity has clearly proven itself to be most corrupt and the least fair in just about all - if not all - facets of human existence? If you answered 'the governing body' you'd be correct. This discussion is simply an extension of that. I support the right of the college to make a reasonable decision and to maintain the afforementioned basic moral fiber that has existed and will exist for millennia to come OR risk losing all legitimacy as an academic institution within society. It doesn't need a governing body - lacking in half of that moral fiber - to make these decisions in its stead.

Perhaps I'll get dinged for delving to deep into the PPB. If so, I sincerely apologize. I just thought I'd throw out my .02...

[4decadedukie]

. . . but I am not sure what the point is.

Jay and other honorable, intelligent participants:

I have carried this discussion far enough, and possibly too far; accordingly, this will be brief.

First, Jay, I recognize your positions, they are legitimate and well-founded, and I sincerely appreciate your time, effort and intellect in responding.

Second, you ask what my point is. Fundamentally, it is that standards -- of all sorts and in all enterprises -- should continuously be increased, not reduced. No policies (public or private) should be adopted that provide an incentive to diminish criteria or degrade the meaningfulness of an accomplishment – especially those achievements with enduring standing.

Finally, JohnGault and TroubleMaker, while I understand why you might believe that I favor the “collective” rather than the “individual,” NOTHING could be further from my profoundly held values, beliefs and principles. In this matter – and in all questions – I deeply want the individual entity to makes decisions and to be stringently accountable for them; however, I also hope they will generate “correct” and “perceptive” conclusions. Nothing would please me more (in the context of this issue) than all 347 Division I Basketball universities INDEPENDENTLY determining that the standard for undergraduate admissions (not just student-athletes) need to be systematically strengthened. Were that to happen (however unlikely), we just might see more students and competitors like Bill Bradley, Jay Billas, Shane Battier, and their peers.

[sagegrouse]

Jay and 4decade,

While spirited and reasonable on both accounts, this discussion has quickly boiled down to the eternal debate on how we, as a society, should be governed: by the individual or by the collective. 4decade clearly believes that by stripping certain rights from the individual and allowing the collective to govern and administer these rights, it will ensure fairness and cooperation from/for all. Conversely, Jay believes the stripping of these rights fundamentally violates that individual's legitimacy as its own sovereign self. .

Wow! Double wow! This is really out there. Usually the eternal debate is about the role of government, not the role of the "collective." Universities are a "collective," as are professional associations that accredit individuals in law. medicine, accounting, etc., etc. And, of course, so is the NCAA. Surely you do not mean to suggest that therse are inherently corrupt.

Do you recognize that institutions award degrees -- individuals don't give them to themselves? Do you want individuals to be able to practice medicine without a license or without being approved by a professional organization? I could go on forever, including drivers' licenses and other issues of public safety, fishing and hunting licenses and regulations, etc. and, in college sports the NCAA sets the "collective" rules for competition on the field and in recruiting.

Usually, in America the debate is when and whether the government should be involved. Often it's a blend. Medical schools and independent professional boards certify doctors in medical specialties, but the state makes such credentials a necessary condition for practicing medicine. The NCAA has no such legal sanction, except implocotly where states have made it illegal for sports agents to give money to college athletes.

And by the way, if you think the civil service is by definition corrupt, then your experience is very different from mine.

sagegrouse

[Jay Bilas]

First, thanks to all for your thoughtful treatment of these issues. All of these opinions are valid and valued, and I appreciate all of you letting me butt into your conversation.

A couple of things: For me at least, this is not about governance by the individual or the collective. The NCAA is a great organization that performs valuable functions in most areas. Rules are needed, but too many rules are not. An example: there is an NCAA rule that schools can provide fruit, nuts and bagels for players in the locker room before a morning workout. But, it is against the rules to provide peanut butter or cream cheese for the bagels. I think that is unnecessary and it is over-regulating something the schools can certainly decide for themselves. While an academic standard it a tad more important, I feel that decisions regarding eligibility are better made by each school according to each school's standards.

Colleges and universities admit and educate "regular" students with a 2.4 high school GPA quite often, and the earth is still on its axis. And, there are still amazing success stories, despite the current 2.5 minimum standard for INITIAL eligibility. There is a Rhodes Scholar candidate playing QB for Alabama right now, and Florida State just graduated one. This is only about the NCAA stepping out of one area it should not be in, period.

Second, I don't really see a lot of disagreement here. We all believe in standards, and we all acknowledge that different schools have different standards and levels of students. The rub is that some believe that without the 2.5 minimum, there would be chaos. I disagree. Perhaps if I thought that the NCAA could properly administer this arbitrary minimum, we would all agree, but it has proven it cannot. There have been only two high profile cases of the minimum standard that have gotten people all hot and bothered. And, the NCAA reviewed their transcripts and test scores and CLEARED them both for play, and didn't raise an issue until after the season (when the media raised the issue). Retroactive eligibility decisions and the stripping of seasons over a 2.5 or a 2.3 seems ridiculous to me. The schools know how to examine academic records better than the NCAA, and they actually know the kid. If schools are so corrupt on the high school and college level that the 2.5 minimum is all that is holding this thing together, there is a far bigger problem than any of us know. I doubt that is the case. And, if things are as bad as some say, are we to believe that Rose and Bledsoe are the only players that have been cleared to play, yet have not really been qualified by the 2.5 standard? Yet the others play, do the work in college, and in many cases, graduate.

We will continue to have amazing success stories in college athletics. Whether we have a minimum standard at 2.5, 2.0 or 3.5 will not impact that. But, if a marginal student gains entry into a college environment that can benefit that young man, I don't like the idea of the NCAA standing in the way. Rose and Bledsoe did the work as freshmen, and they are not bad kids. Rose, in fact, just represented the United States and played for Coach K in the World Championships (smart enough to represent the USA, but not smart enough to play for Memphis?). This isn't just about numbers, it is about people, and if Kentucky wants to take a chance on Bledsoe, it should be allowed to do it.

Lastly, whomever puts my name on any list with Bill Bradley and Shane Battier needs to go back to school and compete a proper education. I demand to see your transcript!

Thanks again for a great discussion. I need to get back to work! Best regards,
Jay Bilas

PS Hey, wherethehellami and Cockbeau, I shop at Target, not Walmart. And, dang, sorry about the lawyer rhetoric. I had hoped that your assertion would be rejected ab initio, but your bona fide criticism is accepted res gestae. Dang....that pesky legal education keeps getting in my way. I'll work on it, pro bono publico. Dang!

[BD80]

Totally agree sir. The lawyer rhetoric has always been a turnoff to me.

Yeah. That Constitution thing and the Declaration of Independence are downright unreadable. Too many words.

Jay - Thanks for your explanations (with more to come!), but I really take issue on your argument regarding the eligibility standard.

The NCAA does not restrict who its member schools can admit and educate, it merely restricts who can participate in athletic competition with other schools. You note that a player can be admitted with less than a 2.5 and play, if he sits out a season and demonstrates academic progress for that first year.

Each member school may have a different mission statement, but every NCAA member should (must?) list EDUCATION in that statement.

The danger in allowing any student to compete is that education is completely ignored and competitive balance skewed. Let's face it, what we are concerned about is Coach Calipari signing 5-8 top high school athletes that have no interest in school, to play college basketball for one year, and those players never setting foot in a classroom at UK. Next year, a whole group of new players - and education completely ignored. While Cal has bragged about some players who have stayed to get degrees, I haven't heard him brag about the academic strides made by Bledsoe while a "student /athlete" at Ky.

That would disrupt competitiveness in the NCAA, and would would run counter to the NCAA mission statement. Sure, the 2.5 is arbitrary, but any number will be. It has served as a decent marker of where a student is taking education seriously.

I first found the gay-marriage leading to goat-marriage remark a bit hyperbolic, but I figure it is a "too sly for me to catch" reference to the mascot a few miles down the road.

BTW props on your MC gig for the Coach Knight roast - what was the funniest moment - -that you are free to recount?

[SCMatt33]

An example: there is an NCAA rule that schools can provide fruit, nuts and bagels for players in the locker room before a morning workout. But, it is against the rules to provide peanut butter or cream cheese for the bagels. I think that is unnecessary and it is over-regulating something the schools can certainly decide for themselves.

First off, yes, I did take the time to look up this rule about fruit, nuts and bagels, and it does exist (not that I doubted it, but wanted to find the exact rule). It is Rule 16.5.2 (h) in the Divison I bylaws. The rule is aptly titled "Fruit, Nuts and Bagels" and reads as follows:

Fruit, Nuts and Bagels. An institution may provide fruit, nuts and bagels to a student-athlete at any time.
(Adopted: 4/30/09 effective 8/1/09)

I was actually a little confused by Jay's wording because when I hear those items paired with "morning," I immediately assume breakfast. This rule, though, provides for these items to be given at any time to athletes in addition to meals that are provided as part of the financial aid. So if practice obligations fall during the course of a meal, and the school provided these items in place of breakfast, they could indeed give cream cheese and peanut butter. For anyone else out there who finds this interesting (and I can't believe that I find it interesting), I have linked the DI bylaws here (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf).

Of coarse, this all ties in to Jay's larger point of the ridiculousness of many NCAA rules. But then again, one is left to wonder why peanuts are not specifically addressed here. I mean, peanuts are technically legumes and shouldn't be included, but I would see no harm in allowing them to be given. Of course, this then brings up whether derivatives of these objects are allowed, i.e. peanut butter or fruit jams and jellies. I propose that in lieu of the NCAA addressing academic and amateurism issues, they send out compliance officers to enforce the fruit, nuts and bagels rule. Then while they are all distracted, the rest of us can go about enjoying college athletics the way it was meant to be played.

[Devilsfan]

Did a previous post (about the need for paragraphs) suggest he needs a tutor for his papers?

[sagegrouse]

First off, yes, I did take the time to look up this rule about fruit, nuts and bagels, and it does exist (not that I doubted it, but wanted to find the exact rule). It is Rule 16.5.2 (h) in the Divison I bylaws. The rule is aptly titled "Fruit, Nuts and Bagels" and reads as follows:

Fruit, Nuts and Bagels. An institution may provide fruit, nuts and bagels to a student-athlete at any time.
(Adopted: 4/30/09 effective 8/1/09)

I was actually a little confused by Jay's wording because when I hear those items paired with "morning," I immediately assume breakfast. This rule, though, provides for these items to be given at any time to athletes in addition to meals that are provided as part of the financial aid. So if practice obligations fall during the course of a meal, and the school provided these items in place of breakfast, they could indeed give cream cheese and peanut butter. For anyone else out there who finds this interesting (and I can't believe that I find it interesting), I have linked the DI bylaws here (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf).

Of coarse, this all ties in to Jay's larger point of the ridiculousness of many NCAA rules. But then again, one is left to wonder why peanuts are not specifically addressed here. I mean, peanuts are technically legumes and shouldn't be included, but I would see no harm in allowing them to be given. Of course, this then brings up whether derivatives of these objects are allowed, i.e. peanut butter or fruit jams and jellies. I propose that in lieu of the NCAA addressing academic and amateurism issues, they send out compliance officers to enforce the fruit, nuts and bagels rule. Then while they are all distracted, the rest of us can go about enjoying college athletics the way it was meant to be played.

Ther is a deeper philosphical question here about how best to serve as a regulator and enforcer. A close family member worked at OSHA during the 1990s (Occupational Safety and Health Admin. in the U.S. Dept. of Labor).

At the beginning of this person's tenure, OSHA was in a frenzied regulatory approach -- much like the NCAA today -- which consisted of writing up each company visited for any violation, no matter how small. This was intended to breed respect for the law. Instead it bred contempt for small-minded people worried more about the placement of signs than worker safety. Hey guys! This is how the NCAA does business today, with low-paid minions at high school tournaments making sure there is no contact between coaches and prospects.

The alternative approach, followed earlier at OSHA, was only to focus on major violations. Minor violations were dealth with, but informally.

There was a third and better way. The agency changed course again, focusing largely on the worst violators. Most workplace accidents are concentrated in relatively few businesses, and even within inherently risky industries, like textiles and sawmills, some firms have far worse records than others. So this approach was to focus on the major presumed VIOLATORS, not just violations and crack down really hard. This was called the "Dirty Dozen" approach.

Wouldn't it be great if the NCAA did this: go after programs (or maybe even coaches) with a history of abuse and then live with them 24 hours a day until they are completely cured of wrongdoing? Let everyone else police themselves. And quit monitoring cream cheese and bagels, phone calls, and AAU tournament casual conversations.

sagegrouse

[NSDukeFan]

Yeah. That Constitution thing and the Declaration of Independence are downright unreadable. Too many words.

Jay - Thanks for your explanations (with more to come!), but I really take issue on your argument regarding the eligibility standard.

The NCAA does not restrict who its member schools can admit and educate, it merely restricts who can participate in athletic competition with other schools. You note that a player can be admitted with less than a 2.5 and play, if he sits out a season and demonstrates academic progress for that first year.

Each member school may have a different mission statement, but every NCAA member should (must?) list EDUCATION in that statement.

The danger in allowing any student to compete is that education is completely ignored and competitive balance skewed. Let's face it, what we are concerned about is Coach Calipari signing 5-8 top high school athletes that have no interest in school, to play college basketball for one year, and those players never setting foot in a classroom at UK. Next year, a whole group of new players - and education completely ignored. While Cal has bragged about some players who have stayed to get degrees, I haven't heard him brag about the academic strides made by Bledsoe while a "student /athlete" at Ky.

That would disrupt competitiveness in the NCAA, and would would run counter to the NCAA mission statement. Sure, the 2.5 is arbitrary, but any number will be. It has served as a decent marker of where a student is taking education seriously.

I first found the gay-marriage leading to goat-marriage remark a bit hyperbolic, but I figure it is a "too sly for me to catch" reference to the mascot a few miles down the road.

BTW props on your MC gig for the Coach Knight roast - what was the funniest moment - -that you are free to recount?

I think Jay makes great arguments in most of his cases and I agree with almost everything he has said. The one question I have you have addressed here. I also think that if "students" are playing in the NCAA, there should be some college education going on. I don't disagree with the schools being able to admit whoever they want to try to provide them with an education. The problem I have is if someone is brought to the school without intention of taking advantage of the college's learning environment, simply to play basketball. I don't have any reason to doubt that Bledsoe is a good person and means well, but it doesn't sound like he did the academic work expected of a student playing in the National COLLEGIATE Athletic Association. I can only say this based on what I have heard and I take that back if he did regularly attend classes and try to learn as much as he could with the intention of continuing his studies if NBA riches hadn't been an option for him.
Well said, and thanks for the discussion. I also agree with BD80 that I hope this isn't Jay's last word as I always appreciate his contributions and if possible would enjoy hearing more about the Knight roast as well.

[darthur]

I just wanted to say that I DID read the Insider article, and I found Jay's version here - especially about the phone limits - a lot more convincing. Thanks!

[SoCalDukeFan]

This could go into all 3 threads, or I could just start a new one. Here's Jay's latest on ESPN.com (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5603093).

Sorry, but it is an insider article. He has 3 basic topics he covers: Bruce Pearl, Eric Bledsoe, and UNC. Here's a quick snipit of where he comes down on all three topics, and I'll give more than I usually would for a premium article since Jay is a member of the board and would want it that way :cool:

(Mods, please redact if/as necessary, I'll be judicious)
(Non-Mods, PM me if you are interested in learning more :) )

Pearl: The title of the entire article is "Rules are rules, but some rules are dumb" so while Pearl broke the rules, especially with regards to phone calls, Jay does not like the limit on phone calls. He says everyone in the world can call high school athletes as much as they want...everyone except college coaches, which are hardly as bad of an influence as "everyone else" such as the media, runners, agents, etc.

Bledsoe (this one surprised me): Bilas basically says that UK (and every other institution) is capable of deciding who they want to admit to their institution and everyone else, the NCAA included, should stay out of it. If they wanted to admit Bledsoe based on their own academic standards, that's their business and fine by him.

To be clear, he's simply saying the NCAA should not be in charge of determining academic eligibility (I think -- he doesn't mention anything like the Kanter situation which is an "amateur-status" eligibility issue).

UNC: He focuses on the academic scandal and says that when "regular students" cheat it is the cheaters who are blamed. No professors or advisers are fired b/c a student cheated. But when student-athletes cheat it suddenly becomes a problem related to the head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority.

I am not an ESPN Insider so I am judging by what I read here.

1. I agree with Jay completely and think this is a bad rule. The more the NCAA restricts coaches from communicating with recruits, the more it opens the recruits up to the runners and other sleazeballs who inhabit the prep basketball world. This book should be interesting - http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-20100926,0,5255255.column I don't know the answer but restricting the contact from legitimate college coaches is not the answer.


2. I disagree with Jay. If you let the school set all the standards for admission then would he do the same for eligibility and let a kid just enroll and play and maybe to to PE class. It is called College Basketball and the players should have passed some minimum threshold to be being college students.

3. I disagree with Jay for the reason many others have stated.

SoCal

[left_hook_lacey]

This could go into all 3 threads, or I could just start a new one. Here's Jay's latest on ESPN.com (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5603093).

Sorry, but it is an insider article. He has 3 basic topics he covers: Bruce Pearl, Eric Bledsoe, and UNC. Here's a quick snipit of where he comes down on all three topics, and I'll give more than I usually would for a premium article since Jay is a member of the board and would want it that way :cool:

(Mods, please redact if/as necessary, I'll be judicious)
(Non-Mods, PM me if you are interested in learning more :) )

Pearl: The title of the entire article is "Rules are rules, but some rules are dumb" so while Pearl broke the rules, especially with regards to phone calls, Jay does not like the limit on phone calls. He says everyone in the world can call high school athletes as much as they want...everyone except college coaches, which are hardly as bad of an influence as "everyone else" such as the media, runners, agents, etc.

Bledsoe (this one surprised me): Bilas basically says that UK (and every other institution) is capable of deciding who they want to admit to their institution and everyone else, the NCAA included, should stay out of it. If they wanted to admit Bledsoe based on their own academic standards, that's their business and fine by him.

To be clear, he's simply saying the NCAA should not be in charge of determining academic eligibility (I think -- he doesn't mention anything like the Kanter situation which is an "amateur-status" eligibility issue).

UNC: He focuses on the academic scandal and says that when "regular students" cheat it is the cheaters who are blamed. No professors or advisers are fired b/c a student cheated. But when student-athletes cheat it suddenly becomes a problem related to the head coach, assistants, or some other higher authority.

I have had a tremendous growing respect for Jay Bilas over the years. He played a little before my time, so I never had to pleasure to see him on the floor in real time, but as a commentator, analyst, and every other aspect of his life that I know about, he makes me very proud to know he's a Duke alum.

One of the things that really got me on his side years ago, was his ability to objectively give analysis on any game, especially Duke games, and general sports issues in general. He calls a spade a spade, and you don't always get that these days.
He has taken some heat from Duke fans over the years for telling it like it is without the duke blue glasses on, but that is one of the things I love the most. I think it looks classier on us when our guy on ESPN is doing his job, which is to give the most correct and objective opinion he can. (Does anyone on the board know Jay Bilas on a personal level? I'm just curious as to how he acts in a casual setting watching Duke games.)

With all that said, I totally agree with his assessment on the issues mentioned by Pearl, Bledsoe, and UNC.

But more than anything, I feel more strongly about the Pearl issue. It drives me nuts when these coaches at distinguished universities get in trouble to phone calls and texts when the vultures of the agent and AAU world for example have free reign to call, talk and what have you before these kids can even talk to college coaches. It's crazy. I won't preach too long on it, but something needs to change about the whole system, including football.