Question About Bilas

[KYtotheCore]

I've noticed a smattering of comments throughout the board that indicate Jay Bilas isn't as respected as I assumed from several in your fanbase, which is a little surprising to say the least. Has he become less-tolerable, or are there other factors at play? Just curious . . .:confused:

[sagegrouse]

I've noticed a smattering of comments throughout the board that indicate Jay Bilas isn't as respected as I assumed from several in your fanbase, which is a little surprising to say the least. Has he become less-tolerable, or are there other factors at play? Just curious . . .:confused:

I think the world of Jay Bilas and so does ESPN, which has made him its #1 basketball commentator. He has some critics on this Board, both in terms of a perceived anti-Duke bias and his announcing style. His critics can speak for themselves.

[KYtotheCore]

I love the guy. He seems to keep any bias in check, but that's probably why I like him so much. It would seem that he should have a Duke-heavy agenda, but not so much. Is that why he appears to be anti-Duke to his Blue Devil critics?

[FerryFor50]

I love the guy. He seems to keep any bias in check, but that's probably why I like him so much. It would seem that he should have a Duke-heavy agenda, but not so much. Is that why he appears to be anti-Duke to his Blue Devil critics?

I don't think people think he's anti-Duke; I think people feel that he tries a little too hard to show he's *not* a Duke homer. I think most rational people know he's fond of his school.

[OldPhiKap]

Big fan of Bilas here. He is outspoken, which some do not like when he says something perceived as anti-Duke or pro-UNC. C'est la vie.

Congrats on the win last night btw. KY is ahead of Duke this early in the season and KY looks very solid. Both will grow a lot during the season. Hope for a rematch in March.

[bedeviled]

I find him to be a blow-hard. I think he states things (foul / no foul, chances of winning, NCAA philosophies) as if they are obvious facts that you would understand if you were smart enough. Despite most subjects having reasonable grey areas, differences of opinion, and complexities to them, his statements frequently feel to me like he sees the world as having arguments for which he must position himself as being clearly right. It's especially frustrating that he presents things as black and white when he, himself, manipulates and parses subjects so much.

In short, he's the type of guy who begins his side of discussions with "Listen, what you need to realize is..."

ETA: I suppose it feels especially condescending or like he's gone out of his way to emphatically state something negative when he's talking about Duke because we subconsciously expect him to be more supportive whereas other people get to dismiss his condescension as just him being a "homer."
Also, congrats on the win and good luck in Dec, Jan, and Feb ;)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I like Bilas fine enough as an announcer, but I LOVE him holding the NCAA's feet to the fire. They are a living example of an institution that has zero accountability.

[n8lbs]

Condescending, talks too much, seems to think that he's the smartest person in any room he walks into.

[arnie]

Condescending, talks too much, seems to think that he's the smartest person in any room he walks into.

Is pompous and believes Roy Williams has integrity.

[weezie]

Well, I like him. Dude has to make a living.
He's respected by the people he works with and he has a sense of humor, which is in short supply in some quarters.

He's also appeared here, as I recall, and he's been very gracious. He's also good looking and that carries weight with weezie.

[Duke95]

Jay Bilas' ego to acumen ratio is way out of proportion.

If he were really interested in holding anyone's "feet to the fire" out of principle, he'd be on UNC's case just has much as he's on the NCAA's. He's a Duke alum, great. But he's an opportunist.

[weezie]

... seems to think that he's the smartest person in any room he walks into.

lol, that is probably true considering the rooms he walks into.

[OldPhiKap]

lol, that is probably true considering the rooms he walks into.

True. I mean, he's sitting with Seth Greenberg and Hubert Davis a lot . . . .

[KYtotheCore]

Big fan of Bilas here. He is outspoken, which some do not like when he says something perceived as anti-Duke or pro-UNC. C'est la vie.

Congrats on the win last night btw. KY is ahead of Duke this early in the season and KY looks very solid. Both will grow a lot during the season. Hope for a rematch in March.

Agreed, and thank for the congrats. Enjoyed the game, and have no doubt as the season progresses Duke will return to being. . . Duke. K may not have the timing down just yet with this group, but he has great material to work with. Plumlee - :eek: what a hoss.

[weezie]

True. I mean, he's sitting with Seth Greenberg and Hubert Davis a lot . . . .

That's got to qualify for battle pay right there.

[75Crazie]

Bilas has lost a lot of credibility with me, due to his persistent defense of Carolina basketball in the face of ever-growing evidence of wide-scale fraud. I truly believe he is interested in preserving the ESPN hype factory of Duke/Carolina basketball, at the expense of sweeping the warts of that rivalry under the rug.

[BD80]

Big fan. I think Jay is the most well-prepared and most knowledgeable announcer/analyst in the business.

To those who think he is too opinionated, how often is he wrong? Yes, he defends ol' roy. How many that criticize Jay for that have a personal relationship with roy? Jay knows roy. His opinion is formed by a personal relationship. And it is an opinion.

I wonder of it is the "older" crowd that likes Jay and the "younger" folk who lose patience with him. And "older" doesn't necessarily require personal recollection of the Spanish Inquisition.

[sagegrouse]

Bilas has lost a lot of credibility with me, due to his persistent defense of Carolina basketball in the face of ever-growing evidence of wide-scale fraud. I truly believe he is interested in preserving the ESPN hype factory of Duke/Carolina basketball, at the expense of sweeping the warts of that rivalry under the rug.

I wouldn't characterize it that way, although I admit to bending over backwards to support Jay. He's in a business: sometimes, per his role, he is given a lot of editorial discretion, as in his defense of the athletes and his strong opinions about the NCAA; sometimes, he needs to go along with what's good for ESPN. Carolina is one of the top four teams in MBB, and ESPN has a major contract with the ACC. (It has negligible contractual ties to the NCAA -- CBS and Turner have March Madness, which is the primary source of NCAA revenue.) Jay has been a bit quiet about the UNC scandal and generally supportive of Roy Williams. Heck, maybe they are friends; the other basketball coaches seem to like Roy.

Jay is extremely well-spoken, as befitting his background and smarts; he is perhaps the most forceful adult voice in sports commentary. I am proud he is a Blue Devil (as is his wife and daughter).

But, KYtothecore wanted to know why folks at DBR were down on Bilas, so I apologize for hijacking the thread.

Sage

[uh_no]

I find him to be a blow-hard. I think he states things (foul / no foul, chances of winning, NCAA philosophies) as if they are obvious facts that you would understand if you were smart enough. Despite most subjects having reasonable grey areas, differences of opinion, and complexities to them, his statements frequently feel to me like he sees the world as having arguments for which he must position himself as being clearly right. It's especially frustrating that he presents things as black and white when he, himself, manipulates and parses subjects so much.

In short, he's the type of guy who begins his side of discussions with "Listen, what you need to realize is..."

ETA: I suppose it feels especially condescending or like he's gone out of his way to emphatically state something negative when he's talking about Duke because we subconsciously expect him to be more supportive whereas other people get to dismiss his condescension as just him being a "homer."
Also, congrats on the win and good luck in Dec, Jan, and Feb ;)

Fully agree.

The thing that bothers me, though, isn't that he has those opinions, as there are a ton of blow hards that comment on games....but that he talks about them CONSTANTLY while commentating.

Block/Charge call? Better complain about the rules.
Player who woke up this morning? Better complain about NCAA amatuerism policies.


I'll listen to his opinion, but I don't want them shoved down my throat while I'm trying to watch, and want insightful analysis on AN ACTUAL BASKETBALL GAME!

leave the other stuff for later.

[Edouble]

I've noticed a smattering of comments throughout the board that indicate Jay Bilas isn't as respected as I assumed from several in your fanbase, which is a little surprising to say the least. Has he become less-tolerable, or are there other factors at play? Just curious . . .:confused:

Jay is not a Duke homer, so why should I afford him the luxury by being one myself?

Just 'cause Jay went to Duke, he doesn't get a pass.

Early on, he went so far out of his way to not be perceived as pro-Duke, it got a little ridiculous. He has cooled a bit in that department, but now he can't go five minutes without mentioning how abhorrent the NCAA has become. His soft stance on carolina makes him look like a hypocrite with an agenda.

[devildeac]

Big fan. I think Jay is the most well-prepared and most knowledgeable announcer/analyst in the business.

To those who think he is too opinionated, how often is he wrong? Yes, he defends ol' roy. How many that criticize Jay for that have a personal relationship with roy? Jay knows roy. His opinion is formed by a personal relationship. And it is an opinion.

I wonder of it is the "older" crowd that likes Jay and the "younger" folk who lose patience with him. And "older" doesn't necessarily require personal recollection of the Spanish Inquisition.

And nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...

[oldnavy]

All announcers are bad and all refs are bad!

Now please excuse me while I go chase some no good kids off my lawn!

[camion]

All announcers are bad and all refs are bad!

Now please excuse me while I go chase some no good kids off my lawn!

And don't even get me started on the music today. :mad:

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

His soft stance on carolina makes him look like a hypocrite with an agenda.

Playing devil's advocate here, (har) but why does everyone seem to think that Bilas's NCAA stance is somehow incongruent with his stance on the UNC scandal? Doesn't the way they have handled whatever was happening UNC support Jay's stance that the NCAA is a money-grubbing, inconsistent dinosaur or an organization that selectively enforces and evaluates situations and transgressions wherever it is convenient?

You can argue whether Jay is right be believe Old Roy, but I'd wager Jay has more information of the scandal and far more familiarity with Williams than most of us here. We are fans and we can be indignant about what we see or don't see, but if Jay really believes that Roy was a patsy of some sort, can't we affors him that right, even if we disagree?

The NCAA is a poor excuse for a governing body, and when it finally either outlives its usefulness or makes massive changes Jay will rightfully get lots of credit.

[BD80]

And don't even get me started on the music today. :mad:

What? The music today is from the 70s and 80s!



And I mean 70 year-olds like the Stones, Springsteen, Billy Joel, Journey etc. Even Metallica is coming out with a new album! The lead is quoted as saying "If the Stones can play when they're in their 70s, so can we!" Not kidding, he really said that.

[WillJ]

Not a fan of Bilas' announcing, which I find overbearing.

[whereinthehellami]

IMO there is no way to defend Bilas's defense of Roy Williams. It is disgusting what UNC has gotten away with for so long of a time. Whistleblowers, emails, texts, and reports. It is all there for anyone to see. There is absolutely no way Roy (a control freak) did not know.

[Indoor66]

Not a fan of Bilas' announcing, which I find overbearing.

I agree - overbearing - he just doesn't know when to shut up. He detracts from the game with his constant harping about whatever occurs to him. He is becoming a better spoken Vitale - all schtic.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

IMO there is no way to defend Bilas's defense of Roy Williams. It is disgusting what UNC has gotten away with for so long of a time. Whistleblowers, emails, texts, and reports. It is all there for anyone to see. There is absolutely no way Roy (a control freak) did not know.

That's all well and good and that's your opinion and I think I agree with you (though perhaps not as vehemently). But my point is, Jay's entitled to his own opinion, and more importantly, it's not incongruous with his stance on the NCAA.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I am generally a fan of his as he is a smart, well-spoken guy who knows a lot about basketball and cares about it too. I appreciate his sense of humor and that he can make fun of himself, though the jokes about his playing career have gotten stale. I can't blame him for wanting to make a living, but he has become overexposed - the basketball season is long, and there is only so much of him that I can take. He could have a long, successful career ahead of him so he should slow down a bit, but I'm sure ESPN feels otherwise. My other problem with him is that he often comes off like a politician - I feel like he walks into each broadcast with a list of talking points that are tangentially related to the given game and needs to get at least some of them in. Jay - beware of Dickie V syndrome!

[madscavenger]

What? The music today is from the 70s and 80s!
.................................................. ...............................

They stopped making music in 1972.

[madscavenger]

All announcers are bad and all refs are bad!

Now please excuse me while I go chase some no good kids off my lawn!

Use pepper spray, and voila, one and done.

[ramdevil]

I generally find most of the top announcers for ESPN college basketball to be annoying. So I would say that it's not that I don't like Bilas - I prefer Mike Gminski and Alaa Abdeldaby (and Brad Daugherty - come back to basketball Brad).

ramdevil

[OldPhiKap]

And don't even get me started on the music today. :mad:

You call that "music"?

[MCFinARL]

They stopped making music in 1972.

Or 1959.

[Indoor66]

They stopped making music in 1972.

The music died February 2, 1959.

[MChambers]

I like Jay, but he has his weaknesses (as do all of us). He's still one of my favorite announcers, up there with Gminski and Dan Bonner.

He does tend to harp on rule issues, and that gets tiresome. (Is he still talking about the 10 second count not resetting after a timeout?).
But I'd rather have him than 95% of the possibilities.

[rsvman]

He might be, and probably is, the smartest guy in every room he walks into, which is fine. The problem is not that he's the smartest guy in the room, the problem is that one can ascertain that he knows he's the smartest guy in the room.

I also agree with the idea that he seems to think that every opinion he holds either is, or should be, a self-evident fact to everybody.


Having said all that, I don't really dislike Jay, and I don't usually get too annoyed by him when he is doing one of our games. I think there are many others who are much worse.

[BLPOG]

That's all well and good and that's your opinion and I think I agree with you (though perhaps not as vehemently). But my point is, Jay's entitled to his own opinion, and more importantly, it's not incongruous with his stance on the NCAA.

I used to be a big fan of Jay despite his somewhat tiresome counter-homerism. IIRC, he once responded to people on this forum who questioned his Duke loyalty, which I didn't doubt myself. I'm not a fan anymore, specifically because of his statements about the UNC scandal. Jay is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to his own facts. There are some areas of speculation regarding the extent of UNC's cheating. There are also many, many, concrete, well-documented, totally irrefutable pieces of factual information that Jay has ignored or sometimes denied outright.

[Jeffrey]

I'll take the Duke grads over any other school's announcers. If he sticks with it, Shane will rock!

[The Gordog]

Jay is not a Duke homer, so why should I afford him the luxury by being one myself?

Early on, he went so far out of his way to not be perceived as pro-Duke, it got a little ridiculous. He has cooled a bit in that department, but now he can't go five minutes without mentioning how abhorrent the NCAA has become. His soft stance on carolina makes him look like a hypocrite with an agenda.

These above are my 3 main complaints.

I liked Jay just fine as a person and he is always gracious at reunions when he bothers to come (we were the same year.) He clearly loves Duke in that he is active in the alum community and sent his daughter there. But let's not confuse hard worker with smart. He's definitely the former, and that's admirable, but the latter is pretty hard to tell. His persona is that he thinks he's very smart. His position on Roy and UNCheat undermine that assessment IMO. And honestly, who among us could become so famous and not lose a bit of our humility. I can forgive that.

[budwom]

^ good post.

I find it truly unforgivable that Jay has repeatedly misstated the facts surrounding the Notice of Allegations against unc. He has said time and time again that
unc basketball was not specifically named, and this is completely and undeniably false. Why he persists in doing so is beyond me, though I suspect it has
something to do with his ongoing (and by now embarrassing) Jihad against the NCAA.

[53n206]

During his announcing the Duke – Kentucky game he referred to Duke as "we". But instantly changed it to "they". He still one of us.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

^ good post.

I find it truly unforgivable that Jay has repeatedly misstated the facts surrounding the Notice of Allegations against unc. He has said time and time again that
unc basketball was not specifically named, and this is completely and undeniably false. Why he persists in doing so is beyond me, though I suspect it has
something to do with his ongoing (and by now embarrassing) Jihad against the NCAA.

Not trying to be difficult, but please explain for me the connection between his belief in Roy's innocence with his disdain for the NCAA. Seems folks here seem to see his blind eye towards UNC as both a by-product of his vendetta against the NCAA while also being contradictory to his stance against the NCAA.

I feel at best it is irrelevant to his issues with the NCAA. At worst, it reflects clearly his belief that the NCAA is a bunch of bureaucrats who don't know what they are regulating.

[bob blue devil]

Not trying to be difficult, but please explain for me the connection between his belief in Roy's innocence with his disdain for the NCAA. Seems folks here seem to see his blind eye towards UNC as both a by-product of his vendetta against the NCAA while also being contradictory to his stance against the NCAA.

I feel at best it is irrelevant to his issues with the NCAA. At worst, it reflects clearly his belief that the NCAA is a bunch of bureaucrats who don't know what they are regulating.

His position vs ncaa in general is that the student-athlete is being taken advantage of. UNC is probably the starkest example possible of an organization taking advantage of student athletes, yet he is defending it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

His position vs ncaa in general is that the student-athlete is being taken advantage of. UNC is probably the starkest example possible of an organization taking advantage of student athletes, yet he is defending it.

Thanks. That makes sense to me.

[CDu]

I'm also annoyed with his attack on the NCAA for punishing coaches for violations. He has repeatedly said "Well, why not lay blame on the presidents? Why not the athletic directors?" As though Jim Boeheim (for example) is somehow subsidiary to the AD or even the president at Syracuse. It may be true that Boeheim falls below those two on an org chart, but I am quite confident that he holds more clout than either of those two people at Syracuse. Same with Coach K at Duke. Kevin White is only K's boss in theory - Coach K holds all the power.

If there was an academic (or other) scandal involving the basketball program at Duke (thankfully I don't think there will be), I would find it laughable to suggest Dick Brodhead be the one penalized. Jay is being willfully ignorant on that issue, I think. Because at the heart of this, it is a basketball issue, and a basketball issue is the domain of the basketball coach. As Coach K likes to say, he is the CEO of the basketball program and all things that entails.

The annoying part is that Bilas clearly knows basketball. But unfortunately he has become too soapboxy about his causes. And on top of that, he comes across as incredibly arrogant and know-it-all-ish.

[Atlanta Duke]

During his announcing the Duke – Kentucky game he referred to Duke as "we". But instantly changed it to "they". He still one of us.

Jay stuck with "they" for this NYT article this week:)

Kentucky and Duke Are Looking More Alike All the Time

But in reality, the coaches and their programs provide about as much of a contrast as their respective shades of blue — which is to say almost none at all.

“It’s just stylistic,” said Jay Bilas, an ESPN analyst who played on Krzyzewski’s first Final Four team and was an assistant coach for his first two national championships. “They’re both basically doing the same thing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/sports/ncaabasketball/kentucky-duke-john-calipari-mike-krzyzewski.html?ref=ncaabasketball

[gumbomoop]

His position vs ncaa in general is that the student-athlete is being taken advantage of. UNC is probably the starkest example possible of an organization taking advantage of student athletes, yet he is defending it.

I have been critical of Bilas as a game color guy, as he talks too much. He's playing a caricature of himself: over-the-top intelligence which increasingly comes across, to me, as smugness. The humor worked for awhile, but now is tedious.

On the separate issue of his vendetta v. NCAA and whether he's inconsistent where UNC is concerned, I don't actually recall whether he's defended UNC ("it"). He has certainly defended Roy Williams. Has Bilas in fact stated anything like, "It's an academic not an athletic scandal"? Has he said anything like, "I don't know how the heck that outrageous mess in Chapel Hill happened. My only point is that I believe Coach Williams when he says he knew nothing about it"? Has he defended the Heel bball program, as opposed to maintaining a circumspect silence in advance of the NCAA's decision? Has he stated or implied that anyone in the athletic bailiwick other than Roy was ignorant of the purpose of the scam and how it worked?

In hopes of being clear, I am trying here to ask "neutral" questions. I just don't know/remember what, if anything, Jay has publicly opined on the larger issues of UNC's corruption.

[elvis14]

I used to like Jay but didn't like his anti-Duke stance. Call it trying too hard to not be Duke biased if you want but anti-Duke is just that. I'm sure he's a great guy. I'm sure he's very smart. I'm sure I'm kinda done hearing Jay on TV. I don't have any new reasons but the one's listed are enough: anti-Duke, Pro-UNCheat, Pro-Roy, arrogance, NCAA rants repeated over and over. Tuesday was just crazy, if I didn't know it was Jay I would have sworn they found a UK fan out of the stands to announce and that Duke was down by 30. Enough already.

[nyesq83]

Highly (absurdly) successful, globally recognizable, and frequently a pain in Azeck,

believes he is Forever Duke-y but Oh so much MORE than that, since he has outgrown us, as the world is bigger place.


I go in peace.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099817/

[bob blue devil]

I have been critical of Bilas as a game color guy, as he talks too much. He's playing a caricature of himself: over-the-top intelligence which increasingly comes across, to me, as smugness. The humor worked for awhile, but now is tedious.

On the separate issue of his vendetta v. NCAA and whether he's inconsistent where UNC is concerned, I don't actually recall whether he's defended UNC ("it"). He has certainly defended Roy Williams. Has Bilas in fact stated anything like, "It's an academic not an athletic scandal"? Has he said anything like, "I don't know how the heck that outrageous mess in Chapel Hill happened. My only point is that I believe Coach Williams when he says he knew nothing about it"? Has he defended the Heel bball program, as opposed to maintaining a circumspect silence in advance of the NCAA's decision? Has he stated or implied that anyone in the athletic bailiwick other than Roy was ignorant of the purpose of the scam and how it worked?

In hopes of being clear, I am trying here to ask "neutral" questions. I just don't know/remember what, if anything, Jay has publicly opined on the larger issues of UNC's corruption.

interesting question. hopefully, someone will either have a better memory than me or is willing to go back and find some quotes.

i'm not sure if this solves your parsing (and it is probably stating the obvious), but the intersection of the evil unc i mention and bilas's defense is obviously unc men's basketball, and by defending men's basketball he would be defending unc (not only is mens basketball a subset of unc, but it has also been acting in complete coordination with the broader unc in its perpetration of and its handling of this). assuming you agree with this, then i believe you are asking - could he be pro roy, but not necessarily pro unc men's basketball?

there are a number of items that make such a nuanced point difficult - i'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg:
- bilas has towed the unc party line that men's basketball is not named in the noa - this is simply a false pro unc men's basketball statement, and doesn't require parsing between roy and unc men's basketball
- roy is the unquestioned leader of unc basketball - he's pushing the agenda and culture, so there's not a lot of room to say he's good but his organization is something other than good; going down this path the only way you give roy a pass is by saying he is the victim of a couple of bad actors; call this the rogue dr. j & debbie defense, which has been proven false to anyone who has paid attention
- roy is guilty (either he did know or he should have known, and, by the way, he did know), so you can't say roy = good to begin with; by taking this position bilas is being willfully ignorant of the facts of the case; if you recognize roy is guilty, then, again, it doesn't make sense to parse between roy and unc men's basketball - they are the same guilty actor

so, ultimately, and as others have stated, the only way bilas's views on this matter are defensible is if he is unaware of the facts of the case. given his job and the responsibilities that come with that job, that is an indictment in and of itself.

[weezie]

Y'know, this is becoming a bit over-wrought. Some folks are acting like Jay is an ex-spouse. Such personal offense being taken---I don't mean by anybody immediately prior to this post but just in general.

Yes, he's a public figure, yes he has given some opinions that are unpopular but we are now thumping and pounding one of our own because he's showing a bit of legal training in always considering the opposite point of view. He's a lawyer, that's what they do.

He's also a man who wore the "uniform" so to speak, a real Cameron board-trodding Blue Devil. I take a back seat to no one in loathing the fans, the teams and scene down the road but so many players have said that the rivalry is not the same when you are actually playing the games. Heated, intense, sure but they respect each other and that's their special right. So maybe Jay is coming from that angle and just feels bad about the whole stinking mess. Or maybe he really doesn't care and is just filling air time.

On DBR, we're being hit with infractions for not being reverential enough of our presidential candidates. Every syllable is examined for political correctness. I wonder why we have so many pages filled with invective about a fellow Duke grad?

OK, bring on the disagreement. I know some people will be irritated and for that I'm sorry but gee whiz, the season is just beginning and we'll be seeing a lot of Jay...which is ok by me.

[Indoor66]

Y'know, this is becoming a bit over-wrought. Some folks are acting like Jay is an ex-spouse. Such personal offense being taken---I don't mean by anybody immediately prior to this post but just in general.

Yes, he's a public figure, yes he has given some opinions that are unpopular but we are now thumping and pounding one of our own because he's showing a bit of legal training in always considering the opposite point of view. He's a lawyer, that's what they do.

He's also a man who wore the "uniform" so to speak, a real Cameron board-trodding Blue Devil. I take a back seat to no one in loathing the fans, the teams and scene down the road but so many players have said that the rivalry is not the same when you are actually playing the games. Heated, intense, sure but they respect each other and that's their special right. So maybe Jay is coming from that angle and just feels bad about the whole stinking mess. Or maybe he really doesn't care and is just filling air time.

On DBR, we're being hit with infractions for not being reverential enough of our presidential candidates. Every syllable is examined for political correctness. I wonder why we have so many pages filled with invective about a fellow Duke grad?

OK, bring on the disagreement. I know some people will be irritated and for that I'm sorry but gee whiz, the season is just beginning and we'll be seeing a lot of Jay...which is ok by me.

I hear you weezie but Bilas still talks too much and in a manner that comes across as speaking down to his audience. I find it tiresome and almost offensive. I prefer broadcasts where he is not involved.

That said, if you knew me you would know that PC is not my style.

[Kfanarmy]

He's undoubtedly a smart and knowledgeable man. Unfortunately I think he's slowly turning into Vitale -- unable to let a moment go by without his voice imprinted on it, over the top praise of the top $ making programs, and, I believe dishonestly, unable to voice criticism about coaches/programs that have large bottom lines. I've begun turning the volume off when he is announcing some games.

[allenmurray]

Like virtually all ESPN personalities he has adopted a schtick - an ESPN persona. I can no longer tell where Jay Bilas ends and ESPN begins. It is endemic there. I know what Wilbon will say before he opens his mouth. I know all of Vitale's jokes. The game day crew is so predictable it is like watching a re-run of I Love Lucy that you have seen 25 times. For a while Bilas avoided that. Now he has his own ESPN persona - he has become one of the ESPN cast with his own predictable schtick. He is good at it, and he is knowledgeable. But he is no longer original.

[ChillinDuke]

Fully agree.

The thing that bothers me, though, isn't that he has those opinions, as there are a ton of blow hards that comment on games...but that he talks about them CONSTANTLY while commentating.

Block/Charge call? Better complain about the rules.
Player who woke up this morning? Better complain about NCAA amatuerism policies.


I'll listen to his opinion, but I don't want them shoved down my throat while I'm trying to watch, and want insightful analysis on AN ACTUAL BASKETBALL GAME!

leave the other stuff for later.

Exactly.

- Chillin

[devil84]

Y'know, this is becoming a bit over-wrought. Some folks are acting like Jay is an ex-spouse. Such personal offense being taken---I don't mean by anybody immediately prior to this post but just in general.

Yes, he's a public figure, yes he has given some opinions that are unpopular but we are now thumping and pounding one of our own because he's showing a bit of legal training in always considering the opposite point of view. He's a lawyer, that's what they do.

He's also a man who wore the "uniform" so to speak, a real Cameron board-trodding Blue Devil. I take a back seat to no one in loathing the fans, the teams and scene down the road but so many players have said that the rivalry is not the same when you are actually playing the games. Heated, intense, sure but they respect each other and that's their special right. So maybe Jay is coming from that angle and just feels bad about the whole stinking mess. Or maybe he really doesn't care and is just filling air time.

On DBR, we're being hit with infractions for not being reverential enough of our presidential candidates. Every syllable is examined for political correctness. I wonder why we have so many pages filled with invective about a fellow Duke grad?

OK, bring on the disagreement. I know some people will be irritated and for that I'm sorry but gee whiz, the season is just beginning and we'll be seeing a lot of Jay...which is ok by me.

Go, Weezie! No disagreement here!

There's also the fact that if he wants to remain an ESPN analyst, he may have to come up with a personality that speaks to many more viewers than just Duke fans, and maybe the viewers like the anti-homer, extra large personality. Seems like lots of ESPN guys are extra large personalities (I kinda prefer them low-key, smart, and actually talking about the game we're watching, but that's just me). Then there's the ESPN party line, which is strangely quiet on Carolina's foibles. Like most of the rest of us who want to keep our jobs, perhaps it's best if we don't stir the pot by espousing views that run counter to our bosses.

Jay was a teammate of mine. He's a loyal Blue Devil. He's also extremely smart. He certainly has to realize that if he isn't terribly popular with even a large fraction of Duke fans, that's such a tiny percentage of the viewers that it won't hurt him at all if the rest of America loves him. He does call 'em like he sees 'em...however, I'd bet that sometimes he sees 'em so that it keeps his employer happy. I have no inside information on what his current views are, but I'd bet that he also might be taking the lawyer perspective of not discussing the trial until after the verdict has come down. Once the NCAA rules -- which is his pet project in other ways -- we'll probably hear a lot about it, as it won't be able to be ignored. Until then, I personally think he's kinda smart to take the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" (or "keep the ESPN execs happy") perspective on this.

I just can't get all bent out of shape that he had a couple of quotes that ignore the scandal/praise Roy and that he's not a Duke Blue homer and he talks too much. He's paid to talk! I find Vitale's Duke-love tiresome, as I do his incessant talking about games that we're not watching, or what he did with someone unrelated to basketball last week BAY-BEEEEEE! If we get Bilas, we don't get Vitale. I'll take it.

[CDu]

Once the NCAA rules -- which is his pet project in other ways -- we'll probably hear a lot about it, as it won't be able to be ignored. Until then, I personally think he's kinda smart to take the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" (or "keep the ESPN execs happy") perspective on this.

The thing is, he's not taking the "don't say anything at all" approach. He's taking the "defend coach/program and attack NCAA" approach, even in the face of facts.


I just can't get all bent out of shape that he had a couple of quotes that ignore the scandal/praise Roy and that he's not a Duke Blue homer and he talks too much. He's paid to talk! I find Vitale's Duke-love tiresome, as I do his incessant talking about games that we're not watching, or what he did with someone unrelated to basketball last week BAY-BEEEEEE! If we get Bilas, we don't get Vitale. I'll take it.

I actually don't care whether he's a Duke homer or not. I prefer impartiality from analysts. My annoyance (and it's really just an annoyance, not a hate) is that he's always forcefeeding one of his agendas rather than focusing on the game. He's become very much like Vitale in that regard. Not as useless as a color commentator yet, but heading in that direction. For a guy with as much basketball knowledge as he has, I would prefer his analysis of the game rather than hearing him stand on his soapbox (which he extends WAY too far).

I'm proud that a Duke alum has such a prominent position at ESPN. But that doesn't mean I have to appreciate his commentary just because he once wore my shade of blue.

[gumbomoop]

interesting question. hopefully, someone will either have a better memory than me or is willing to go back and find some quotes.

i'm not sure if this solves your parsing (and it is probably stating the obvious), but the intersection of the evil unc i mention and bilas's defense is obviously unc men's basketball, and by defending men's basketball he would be defending unc (not only is mens basketball a subset of unc, but it has also been acting in complete coordination with the broader unc in its perpetration of and its handling of this). assuming you agree with this, then i believe you are asking - could he be pro roy, but not necessarily pro unc men's basketball?

Yes, I may well be over-parsing and over-nuancing. Maybe because I don't much enjoy his over-busy game analysis, I might be bending over backwards in wondering whether Bilas's defense of Roy automatically means he thinks Roy and the University were victims of a very small group of misguided academics anad support staff dupes.

Clearly the scam is by orders of magnitude more important than color commentary. So if he has even once implied that the dimensions of the scam have been overstated, not good. I just don't know whether he's ever addressed, even briefly, those dimensions. I very vaguely recall a Gameday discussion, but I don't recall what he said.

We'll know more about his stance on UNC when the NCAA finally announces its decision. Whatever they decide, Bilas and lots of folks will have at it.

[sagegrouse]

Use pepper spray, and voila, one and done.

I have had some experience (!) with said substance. Uhh,... do not use in a closed space and make sure you are upwind.

[allenmurray]

We'll know more about his stance on UNC when the NCAA finally announces its decision.

I predict he will blame the whole thing on the fact that the players are not paid and we haven't collectively recognized the evil that is the NCAA and the wonderfulness and self-sacrificial nature of all coaches. Again, because that is part of his adopted ESPN persona. It is as predictable as Sheldon knocking on Penny's door three times.

Knock, knock, knock, "Penny?" Knock, knock, knock, "Penny?" Knock, knock, knock, "Penny?"

"Pay the players, Pay the players, Pay the players."

[sagegrouse]

The thing is, he's not taking the "don't say anything at all" approach. He's taking the "defend coach/program and attack NCAA" approach, even in the face of facts.


CDu, I'm a little puzzled by your "defend... attack" comment. AFAIK, Jay has never "attacked" or even criticized the NCAA for going after UNC on the subjects raised in the NOA. His beef with the NCAA is primarily on raking in revenues and not sharing with the athletes and then the matters of the rules of play. On Roy, I have heard him say, "I believe him," with respect to Roy's denying knowledge of any wrongdoing. To me, it sounds like a character witness. I have not heard him defend UNC on the NCAA investigation. But maybe you have heard things I haven't.

[dudog84]

While trying to do my bit (research) for the thread, I typed in "bilas unc scandal" at youtube and nothing came up. However, I did re-discover this. I know it was put up a while ago on another thread but it just never gets old. And some may have missed it. If you can watch this without tears of laughter then there is something wrong with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NphUCLR2sEQ

[ChillinDuke]

Go, Weezie! No disagreement here!

There's also the fact that if he wants to remain an ESPN analyst, he may have to come up with a personality that speaks to many more viewers than just Duke fans, and maybe the viewers like the anti-homer, extra large personality. Seems like lots of ESPN guys are extra large personalities (I kinda prefer them low-key, smart, and actually talking about the game we're watching, but that's just me). Then there's the ESPN party line, which is strangely quiet on Carolina's foibles. Like most of the rest of us who want to keep our jobs, perhaps it's best if we don't stir the pot by espousing views that run counter to our bosses.

Jay was a teammate of mine. He's a loyal Blue Devil. He's also extremely smart. He certainly has to realize that if he isn't terribly popular with even a large fraction of Duke fans, that's such a tiny percentage of the viewers that it won't hurt him at all if the rest of America loves him. He does call 'em like he sees 'em...however, I'd bet that sometimes he sees 'em so that it keeps his employer happy. I have no inside information on what his current views are, but I'd bet that he also might be taking the lawyer perspective of not discussing the trial until after the verdict has come down. Once the NCAA rules -- which is his pet project in other ways -- we'll probably hear a lot about it, as it won't be able to be ignored. Until then, I personally think he's kinda smart to take the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" (or "keep the ESPN execs happy") perspective on this.

I just can't get all bent out of shape that he had a couple of quotes that ignore the scandal/praise Roy and that he's not a Duke Blue homer and he talks too much. He's paid to talk! I find Vitale's Duke-love tiresome, as I do his incessant talking about games that we're not watching, or what he did with someone unrelated to basketball last week BAY-BEEEEEE! If we get Bilas, we don't get Vitale. I'll take it.

The bolded is exactly the problem. When Bilas first burst onto the ESPN scene, he seemed exactly contra this. He was the refreshing non-ESPN-ite who had actual analysis that made sense and added value. He increased my enjoyment of the product - the TV shows, the basketball games, general college basketball.

As time has gone on, he has (unfortunately) lost a lot of that initial luster. He has sort of been pulled by the ESPN "gravity" and become shockingly similar to the rest of them with a shtick, a persona, and a "brand." Listen, I love Disney, and I love capitalism. So I get it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it in this context.

Sports are supposed to be different than business. And I understand full well that they are (in many respects) a business - mainly at the high levels. But the underlying value of sports, the underlying premise, the thing that we love about them, and the thing that made us so enthralled with them when we were kids (and perhaps still - although my knee is finicky these days), is that they are sports. They are a game, they are competition. There are rules and you the person/team that has mastered them on any given day better than the other guy wins. It's so simple. Yet it's so hard. It's a wonderful concept - to so many of us. So to see a guy like Bilas, who so appropriately and clearly voiced his thoughts in a way that resonated with so many here, fall into what I perceive as the ESPN/business soul sale is almost maddening.

To some it's about the UNC thing. To others (myself included to some extent) it's about the repetitive, predictable talking points. But I think the thing that inherently bothers so many around here is that he was initially so different and versatile and now seems so similar and predictable.

- Chillin

[CDu]

CDu, I'm a little puzzled by your "defend... attack" comment. AFAIK, Jay has never "attacked" or even criticized the NCAA for going after UNC on the subjects raised in the NOA. His beef with the NCAA is primarily on raking in revenues and not sharing with the athletes and then the matters of the rules of play. On Roy, I have heard him say, "I believe him," with respect to Roy's denying knowledge of any wrongdoing. To me, it sounds like a character witness. I have not heard him defend UNC on the NCAA investigation. But maybe you have heard things I haven't.

His defense of the UNC bball program has been repeated comments in multiple media outlets (twitter most prominently) that the reports have no mentions of the bball program, which is false.

[duke blue brewcrew]

While trying to do my bit (research) for the thread, I typed in "bilas unc scandal" at youtube and nothing came up. However, I did re-discover this. I know it was put up a while ago on another thread but it just never gets old. And some may have missed it. If you can watch this without tears of laughter then there is something wrong with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NphUCLR2sEQ

Highly entertaining, thanks for the Friday laugh!

[luvdahops]

The bolded is exactly the problem. When Bilas first burst onto the ESPN scene, he seemed exactly contra this. He was the refreshing non-ESPN-ite who had actual analysis that made sense and added value. He increased my enjoyment of the product - the TV shows, the basketball games, general college basketball.

As time has gone on, he has (unfortunately) lost a lot of that initial luster. He has sort of been pulled by the ESPN "gravity" and become shockingly similar to the rest of them with a shtick, a persona, and a "brand." Listen, I love Disney, and I love capitalism. So I get it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it in this context.

Sports are supposed to be different than business. And I understand full well that they are (in many respects) a business - mainly at the high levels. But the underlying value of sports, the underlying premise, the thing that we love about them, and the thing that made us so enthralled with them when we were kids (and perhaps still - although my knee is finicky these days), is that they are sports. They are a game, they are competition. There are rules and you the person/team that has mastered them on any given day better than the other guy wins. It's so simple. Yet it's so hard. It's a wonderful concept - to so many of us. So to see a guy like Bilas, who so appropriately and clearly voiced his thoughts in a way that resonated with so many here, fall into what I perceive as the ESPN/business soul sale is almost maddening.

To some it's about the UNC thing. To others (myself included to some extent) it's about the repetitive, predictable talking points. But I think the thing that inherently bothers so many around here is that he was initially so different and versatile and now seems so similar and predictable.

- Chillin

Excellent post. This represents my view of Jay also. Seeing him devolve into just another ESPN talking head seemingly in love with his own schtick has been hugely disappointing. He's so much better than that. And, as others have pointed out, his statements on the UNC scandal can simply not be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of the facts, and seem like just another indication of the extent to which Jay has sold his soul.

[English]

CDu, I'm a little puzzled by your "defend... attack" comment. AFAIK, Jay has never "attacked" or even criticized the NCAA for going after UNC on the subjects raised in the NOA. His beef with the NCAA is primarily on raking in revenues and not sharing with the athletes and then the matters of the rules of play. On Roy, I have heard him say, "I believe him," with respect to Roy's denying knowledge of any wrongdoing. To me, it sounds like a character witness. I have not heard him defend UNC on the NCAA investigation. But maybe you have heard things I haven't.

Let me preface this editorial with my feeling that Jay is a top-notch basketball analyst when he sticks to it (excepting his ad nauseam references to charge/block). He is a great representative of Duke, and I have no doubt he's a fantastic all-around guy.

Sage, I think you're right, as far as I know, that Jay hasn't attacked the NCAA for setting its sights on UNC in this whole mess. Although, to be fair, it may be the only thing he's neglected to attack them on at any meaningful point over the better part of the last half decade. I'm supremely pessimistic that, once the NCAA COI renders its decision on the UNC violations, I will want to hear anything that Jay has to say on the matter in perpetuity. If I thought I was pessimistic about the severity of the sanctions, my expectation of the response from Bilas is even far less rosy--I anticipate a very legalese analysis of the decision, followed by a dissertation on why the NCAA 1) was wrong; 2) took too long; 3) is punishing the wrong people; 4) is denying players compensation; 5) is focusing on the wrong ills; 6) has no place in sport; and on and on.

That said, tangential to the UNC mess, Jay has made it his latest in the series of NCAA rebukes to redress the NCAA for attempting to manage the eligibility of high school athletes matriculating to college (through its Clearinghouse). Jay firmly believes that it should be the responsibility/authority of the institution, alone, to determine the standards upon which applicants are deemed fit for acceptance (and subsequently allowed to join its athletic teams). So, the NCAA should butt out when, say, a flagship state school decides to give out academic exceptions to profit-sport athletes like candy on Halloween, because said flagship determined that those students are fit to complete the requirements of a college curriculum to its standard. Now, Jay likes to cite Stanford or Harvard or whatever prestigious university supports his point because, after all, who would argue that the NCAA knows better than the Stanford admissions office what an acceptable Stanford applicant looks like on paper. Jay further supports his argument by pointing to the single-digit number of high-profile players who are stuck in NCAA Clearinghouse limbo and saying "NOT FAIR! NCAA, be gone!"

What I have never understood about this argument is, Jay neglects to mention the absurdly high number of profit-sport athletes (primarily in football...I think, largely in the SEC) who initially receive acceptance into college and ultimately cannot satisfy even the uber-modest NCAA standard of qualifying for sports participation--some take a PG year, some go to juco, many never make it to D-1. Are we to believe that those student-athletes would be able to compete in their sport, with all the time requirements entailed, while also completing the requirements in the classroom even though they couldn't (or chose not to) do that in high school? Yet, they received acceptance to college. Again, let me rephrase--the institution decided that, despite the deficient academic record of these students, they were fit for acceptance on the grounds that they were athletes. Doesn't this very argument encourage a system like the rotten, fetid UNC AFAM/ASPSA program that takes dozens of un- and under-qualified students and does whatever it can to just get them through while capitalizing on the very thing that Jay stands so firmly against (i.e., as long as they make the school money through sport, we can just grease the wheels toward their eligibility). Mary Willingham would like a word with you about that, Jay.

To my eye, and this is only my opinion, his stance on this seems opportunistic--he takes a situation that has an occasional national spotlight (e.g., Chieck Diallo right now), and uses it to lambast the NCAA and call for a reduction in NCAA purview even at the expense of the (his?) larger picture. Anything to rail, publicly, against this student-athlete-robbing machine.

[CDu]

To my eye, and this is only my opinion, his stance on this seems opportunistic--he takes a situation that has an occasional national spotlight (e.g., Chieck Diallo right now), and uses it to lambast the NCAA and call for a reduction in NCAA purview even at the expense of the (his?) larger picture. Anything to rail, publicly, against this student-athlete-robbing machine.

The other issue is that what Bilas is arguing for is, in my opinion, kind of counter to the idea of collegiate athletics altogether. Athletic departments, in general, don't make a ton of profit. Only a select few (maybe 50) are profitable, and only a select few are cash cows. Jay is suggesting that athletes in the revenue sports be paid (even modestly). But that would, for many schools, either result in a talent disparity (unable to pay their players) or a closing of non-revenue sports (in order to pay those revenue-sport athletes). So what we would see is that the non-revenue sports (whose athletes are, for the vast majority, those who actually quality academically for said school) disappear in order to pay kids who in many cases aren't qualified to go to the school. This would be especially true at better academic schools, where the percentage of revenue-sports athletes that would qualify is undoubtedly lower than that at some lesser-quality academic schools.

That notion just doesn't sit well with me. Why should we be trying to penalize athletes in non-revenue sports just to pay players who in many cases wouldn't be qualified to go to the school?

There needs to be reform, no doubt. I'm just not sure that Bilas is looking at the entire picture. Or that he cares about the entire picture.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that all revenue-sport athletes are unqualified for college. That is obviously not the case as there are many very strong student athletes. And I'm not against the idea of having underqualified kids getting higher education opportunities (the opposite, in fact). I'm just not sure that I agree with the idea of further rewarding revenue sport athletes at the expense of non-revenue sport athletes.

[oldnavy]

The other issue is that what Bilas is arguing for is, in my opinion, kind of counter to the idea of collegiate athletics altogether. Athletic departments, in general, don't make a ton of profit. Only a select few (maybe 50) are profitable, and only a select few are cash cows. Jay is suggesting that athletes in the revenue sports be paid (even modestly). But that would, for many schools, either result in a talent disparity (unable to pay their players) or a closing of non-revenue sports (in order to pay those revenue-sport athletes). So what we would see is that the non-revenue sports (whose athletes are, for the vast majority, those who actually quality academically for said school) disappear in order to pay kids who in many cases aren't qualified to go to the school. This would be especially true at better academic schools, where the percentage of revenue-sports athletes that would qualify is undoubtedly lower than that at some lesser-quality academic schools.

That notion just doesn't sit well with me. Why should we be trying to penalize athletes in non-revenue sports just to pay players who in many cases wouldn't be qualified to go to the school?

There needs to be reform, no doubt. I'm just not sure that Bilas is looking at the entire picture. Or that he cares about the entire picture.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that all revenue-sport athletes are unqualified for college. That is obviously not the case as there are many very strong student athletes. And I'm not against the idea of having underqualified kids getting higher education opportunities (the opposite, in fact). I'm just not sure that I agree with the idea of further rewarding revenue sport athletes at the expense of non-revenue sport athletes.

I've said it before and I will say it again.... anyone who doesn't think that the players that are on full scholarships to play ball are not being "paid" must not have had to pay for a college education (or two in my case). Boo freakin' hoo.... little Bobby isn't getting a pay check in addition to the free education... I'm crying a river over here as I fill out the loan application for son number two.

[75Crazie]

I've said it before and I will say it again... anyone who doesn't think that the players that are on full scholarships to play ball are not being "paid" must not have had to pay for a college education (or two in my case). Boo freakin' hoo... little Bobby isn't getting a pay check in addition to the free education... I'm crying a river over here as I fill out the loan application for son number two.
And I've said it before and will say it again ... anyone who believes that any significant percentage of athletes attending the major college athletic programs are actually getting a college education, and actually care whether or not they are getting a college education, is deluding himself. Until there is a viable alternative to college (that is, a real farm system) for progression into the NBA or NFL, one that pays a modicum of a living wage and presents a realistic path to the major league sport, we will continue to have this satellite athletic system where athletes are only peripherally associated with and enslaved to the college.

[oldnavy]

And I've said it before and will say it again ... anyone who believes that any significant percentage of athletes attending the major college athletic programs are actually getting a college education, and actually care whether or not they are getting a college education, is deluding himself. Until there is a viable alternative to college (that is, a real farm system) for progression into the NBA or NFL, one that pays a modicum of a living wage and presents a realistic path to the major league sport, we will continue to have this satellite athletic system where athletes are only peripherally associated with and enslaved to the college.

Really? You are equating college athletes on scholarship to slavery?

How many of these as you call "enslaved" athletes have a chance at ever, EVER making a single penny playing professionally? They may be deluded into thinking they are going to the show, but in fact the VAST majority of them don't. Not sure what the significant percentage of athletes who care about getting an education is, but I will bet you the house that it is MUCH higher than the percentage that will ever see a paycheck from a professional team.

So, if they want to waste the opportunity to actually prepare themselves for a career then that is on them but it certainly doesn't mean that the opportunity they were given is without value.

[CDu]

And I've said it before and will say it again ... anyone who believes that any significant percentage of athletes attending the major college athletic programs are actually getting a college education, and actually care whether or not they are getting a college education, is deluding himself. Until there is a viable alternative to college (that is, a real farm system) for progression into the NBA or NFL, one that pays a modicum of a living wage and presents a realistic path to the major league sport, we will continue to have this satellite athletic system where athletes are only peripherally associated with and enslaved to the college.

How about we steer clear of the term enslaved. The situation of the revenue sport athlete is far from perfect. But it is incredibly far from slavery.

1. Athletes are not suffering. They have all of their expenses (save for any elective decisions) paid for. They get lavished with gear, all the food they want, and clothes (of the athletic variety).
2. They get access to contacts that can help them financially later in life.
3. They get free tuition, free tutoring, and an opportunity for a degree that many would never otherwise have a chance at. That some/many don't consider that of value is not the fault of the schools. That is a choice kids make, because:
4. They DO have other options. Bballers can try to play overseas, or can play in the D-league, or semi-pro leagues. Footballers can go to Canada, the Arena league, or semi-pro. Those options aren't as appealing, but they exist. Athletes ELECT in to the college system because, warts and all, offers the best package of benefits. In MANY ways other than actual paychecks, the college system is a far superior option.

And while they are in school, athletes are treated like kings in most ways other than a paycheck. And that is assuming everything is on the up and up and that these kids aren't also benefiting financially.

[75Crazie]

Really? You are equating college athletes on scholarship to slavery?
In a word, yes. I see very little difference conceptually between an early 1800s plantation, which "hires" workers to perform tasks that benefit the bottom line of the plantation and "pays" those workers by giving them free room and board, and a college that "recruits" athletes to represent it in games that benefit the brand and bottom line of the college (and lines the pockets of those that make those games available to the public at large)and "pays" those athletes by giving them a diploma (as long as they pay lip service to the facile requirement of attending classes). The one salient difference appears to be that there is a path for betterment for the best performers out of the slavery of college sports.

[oldnavy]

In a word, yes. I see very little difference conceptually between an early 1800s plantation, which "hires" workers to perform tasks that benefit the bottom line of the plantation and "pays" those workers by giving them free room and board, and a college that "recruits" athletes to represent it in games that benefit the brand and bottom line of the college (and lines the pockets of those that make those games available to the public at large)and "pays" those athletes by giving them a diploma (as long as they pay lip service to the facile requirement of attending classes). The one salient difference appears to be that there is a path for betterment for the best performers out of the slavery of college sports.

Ok then... :confused:

[CDu]

In a word, yes. I see very little difference conceptually between an early 1800s plantation, which "hires" workers to perform tasks that benefit the bottom line of the plantation and "pays" those workers by giving them free room and board, and a college that "recruits" athletes to represent it in games that benefit the brand and bottom line of the college (and lines the pockets of those that make those games available to the public at large)and "pays" those athletes by giving them a diploma (as long as they pay lip service to the facile requirement of attending classes). The one salient difference appears to be that there is a path for betterment for the best performers out of the slavery of college sports.

Uhhh... NO!

1. Slaves did not have a choice to opt into the system.
2. Slaves did not have an option to opt out at any time.
3. Slaves did not get a chance to move on to better lives afterwards.

There is very very little similarity.

[pfrduke]

We've gone down a road that we don't need to go down - this discussion has run its course.