NCAA and ACC moving all championships out of North Carolina

[SCMatt33]

This includes the scheduled first and second round men's basketball site in Greensboro (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17) I'm surprised that they actually went through with it, but good for them for putting action behind words. I do sincerely hope they move many to South Carolina, who came into compliance recently after their own long ban for flying the Confederate flag.

[plimnko]

too bad the ncaa hasn't grown a pair and penalized lying and cheating!!!

[jimsumner]

I don't how to respond to this without getting into proscribed territory.

But absent from the list are NCAA women's basketball tournament games and NCAA college baseball tournament games, both of which are hosted on campus.

I assume they also will get the ax.

Treading lightly, in my personal opinion, this is the logical consequence of HB2.

[SCMatt33]

I don't how to respond to this without getting into proscribed territory.

But absent from the list are NCAA women's basketball tournament games and NCAA college baseball tournament games, both of which are hosted on campus.

I assume they also will get the ax.

Treading lightly, in my personal opinion, this is the logical consequence of HB2.

The campus sites won't get the ax. The ruling only covers predetermined sites. If a team earns hosting rights by seed, like in baseball and women's basketball, they can still host. This is consistent with what they did to let South Carolina host women's basketball games before the ban was lifted there.

[Tripping William]

I don't how to respond to this without getting into proscribed territory.

But absent from the list are NCAA women's basketball tournament games and NCAA college baseball tournament games, both of which are hosted on campus.

I assume they also will get the ax.

Treading lightly, in my personal opinion, this is the logical consequence of HB2.

I, too, must hold my tongue on this. But am I safe in assuming that there will be a refund for those of us who have pre-purchased tickets for NCAA Championship games that were originally slated to occur in the state?

[Blue in the Face]

But absent from the list are NCAA women's basketball tournament games and NCAA college baseball tournament games, both of which are hosted on campus.

I assume they also will get the ax.
We'll see, but I doubt that. First, if that was the plan, I assume it would've been part of this announcement. Second, unlike neutral site events, these are home site advantages which are earned by teams based on their regular season performance. Unless they moved everything to neutral sites, it would be really unfair to take earned home games from teams in NC but not from teams everywhere else. It's one thing to take actions which punish the state economically, but another to take actions that punish individual schools competitively.

[mattman91]

too bad the ncaa hasn't grown a pair and penalized lying and cheating!!!

Couldn't spork.

It is sad that the NCAA cares more about making political statements than they do enforcing their own damn rules.

Not saying I agree with the law, but COME ON.

[SCMatt33]

Post redacted for political content

I will say, there are logistical concerns here that don't exist elsewhere. With several states having travel bans, what would happen if a public school from one of those states made the women's soccer final four and was faced with the prospect of being told they can't go?

[Tommac]

I'm surprised that the NCAA would act while related cases are still pending in the court. Seems like they would wait for the cases to be decided.

[ipatent]

It will be interesting to see where the opening round slated for Greensboro ends up. Duke probably has as many or more fans within driving distance of DC or Atlanta as it does Greensboro. I tend to think it will hurt UNC more than Duke.

[Tommac]

I'm not interested in arguing the merits of HB2, I just think the NCAA is acting hastily while the law is still being litigated in the courts. I wish they acted with such haste when pursuing the events from the past twenty years taking place in Chapel Hill.

[JasonEvans]

People, I just deleted 11 posts and handed out one major infraction. If you want to discuss this, you need to do so without being judgmental or political in your commentary. It is clear that many of you find that difficult on this issue.

[JBDuke]

People, I just deleted 11 posts and handed out one major infraction. If you want to discuss this, you need to do so without being judgmental or political in your commentary. It is clear that many of you find that difficult on this issue.

I'll add to this, since I just deleted four more emails.

Comments on the merits or lack thereof in the HB2 bill are not permitted here under the Posting Guidelines prohibition of public policy talk. However, the consequences of the bill on NCAA games in the state are fair game. So, if your post doesn't discuss how this bill impacts games in the state, it will be deleted and you may be cited for violating our Guidelines.

[JasonEvans]

I'll add to this, since I just deleted four more emails.

Comments on the merits or lack thereof in the HB2 bill are not permitted here under the Posting Guidelines prohibition of public policy talk. However, the consequences of the bill on NCAA games in the state are fair game. So, if your post doesn't discuss how this bill impacts games in the state, it will be deleted and you may be cited for violating our Guidelines.

This thread is reopened.

Again, do not discuss the merits of the NCAA's decision or your feelings about HB2. The conversation allowed here must be confined to stuff like the impact of moving the games (where will they go and how will that impact teams like Duke or UNC who may have to travel more?).

Thanks for understanding.

-Jason "I'm hoping the games get moved to Atlanta... so I can easily go see them. I suspect DC would be another good option. Perhaps somwhere in Florida as well?" Evans

[JasonEvans]

-Jason "I'm hoping the games get moved to Atlanta... so I can easily go see them. I suspect DC would be another good option. Perhaps somwhere in Florida as well?" Evans

Wait... I just saw that Orlando is already hosting. Still, Tampa or Jax or Miami could be an option. New Orleans would also seem to have potential. The NCAA has options, that's for sure.

[mattman91]

The Southern Conference is now threatening to move their men's and women's basketball tournaments away from Asheville. This would be a major blow as this event is a huge economic booster for our town.

[Tripping William]

I, too, must hold my tongue on this. But am I safe in assuming that there will be a refund for those of us who have pre-purchased tickets for NCAA Championship games that were originally slated to occur in the state?

Further to this, I exchanged emails with someone within the NCAA ticket organization who confirmed that Greensboro ticket purchasers would receive a refund. Then I got an automated email from the NCAA with the same confirmation about the refund, and a statement that there would be some kind of pre-public-sale opportunity to purchase tickets at the new location.

[SCMatt33]

I would love to see them move it to Greenville. Obviously, when planning this sort of thing, there's a lot that goes into it beyond venue availability and fan accessibility. You have things like hotels, transportation, hosting duties, etc. so you never know what obstacles there are, but on the surface it makes sense. Most obviously, the venue is about as close to Greensboro as you can get so as to not mess with geographical balance (Richmond and Colombia also have venues and are about the same distance in terms of drive time). The recent renovations done with basketball in mind for Clemson last year are also a plus for the venue. It wouldn't be too difficult for the ACC to either retain hosting duties or pass them on to or cohost with a member school in Clemson. Finally, without discussing the merits of such bans, it would be a sign of good faith to award a major event to the State of South Carolina so soon after lifting the ban there.

I've a lot of good ideas for locations proposed and presume the NCAA will rightly explore all available options, but I think this is the right move if it's workable. Looking at the venue schedule, there does appear to be a conflict with a Greenville Swamp Rabbits that Thursday (when team would have an open practice), but it should be too difficult to either change the game date or swap home games with their opponent to open it up.

[AustinDevil]

I would love to see them move it to Greenville. Obviously, when planning this sort of thing, there's a lot that goes into it beyond venue availability and fan accessibility. You have things like hotels, transportation, hosting duties, etc. so you never know what obstacles there are, but on the surface it makes sense. Most obviously, the venue is about as close to Greensboro as you can get so as to not mess with geographical balance (Richmond and Colombia also have venues and are about the same distance in terms of drive time). The recent renovations done with basketball in mind for Clemson last year are also a plus for the venue. It wouldn't be too difficult for the ACC to either retain hosting duties or pass them on to or cohost with a member school in Clemson. Finally, without discussing the merits of such bans, it would be a sign of good faith to award a major event to the State of South Carolina so soon after lifting the ban there.

I've a lot of good ideas for locations proposed and presume the NCAA will rightly explore all available options, but I think this is the right move if it's workable. Looking at the venue schedule, there does appear to be a conflict with a Greenville Swamp Rabbits that Thursday (when team would have an open practice), but it should be too difficult to either change the game date or swap home games with their opponent to open it up.
Greenville is an excellent idea and the venue looked fantastic (on TV) for the Clemson games there.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The Southern Conference is now threatening to move their men's and women's basketball tournaments away from Asheville. This would be a major blow as this event is a huge economic booster for our town.

I know a lot of people who have put years of work into the SoCon tournament here in Asheville. This would be a very unfortunate outcome, but not surprising.

[OldPhiKap]

I would love to see them move it to Greenville.


Greenville is an excellent idea and the venue looked fantastic (on TV) for the Clemson games there.

Not unless and until they get their clowns in the woods problem under control. {shudder}

[SCMatt33]

I figured this deserves its own thread in case people were no longer interested in the NCAA discussion. Per the conference website, all championships including football to be moved in 2016-17.

[swood1000]

Certain other states may have to be out of the running as well. According to The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-state-bills-discrimination_us_570ff4f2e4b0060ccda2a7a9) there are 22 states that have active bills that could be construed as discriminating against LGBT (these are bills still in the legislative process). In particular, the article mentions nine states considering legislation that bans transgender people from using public bathrooms that match their gender identity, and even criminalizes it: Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee. (I guess North Carolina is not included here because their legislation is already passed.) According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/anti-lgbt-religious-exemption-legislation-across-country?redirect=anti-lgbt-religious-refusals-legislation-across-country) most of such legislation gets voted down.

One LBGT advocate (http://www.towleroad.com/2016/01/anti-lgbt-state-lawmakers-unleash-another-tsunami-bigoted-bills-2016/) puts it like this:

6649

Not sure what the NCAA's threshold is for saying that the laws of a particular state go over the line.

[AustinDevil]

Not unless and until they get their clowns in the woods problem under control. {shudder}

Heh--but at least some of that problem is faked! Plus with media attention, there will be copycat creepy clown problems all across the nation.

[AustinDevil]

Certain other states may have to be out of the running as well. According to The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-state-bills-discrimination_us_570ff4f2e4b0060ccda2a7a9) there are 22 states that have active bills that could be construed as discriminating against LGBT (these are bills still in the legislative process). In particular, the article mentions nine states considering legislation that bans transgender people from using public bathrooms that match their gender identity, and even criminalizes it: Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee. (I guess North Carolina is not included here because their legislation is already passed.)

Not sure what the NCAA's threshold is for saying that the laws of a particular state go over the line.

I don't know if it was you or someone else, but this exact "gosh, how many states will be impacted and how will the NCAA set a threshold" strawman has been posted before, and the portions I've bolded in the excerpt above answer the question.

[Lid]

Certain other states may have to be out of the running as well. According to The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-state-bills-discrimination_us_570ff4f2e4b0060ccda2a7a9) there are 22 states that have active bills that could be construed as discriminating against LGBT (these are bills still in the legislative process). In particular, the article mentions nine states considering legislation that bans transgender people from using public bathrooms that match their gender identity, and even criminalizes it: Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee. (I guess North Carolina is not included here because their legislation is already passed.) According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/anti-lgbt-religious-exemption-legislation-across-country?redirect=anti-lgbt-religious-refusals-legislation-across-country) most of such legislation gets voted down.

One LBGT advocate (http://www.towleroad.com/2016/01/anti-lgbt-state-lawmakers-unleash-another-tsunami-bigoted-bills-2016/) puts it like this:

6649

Not sure what the NCAA's threshold is for saying that the laws of a particular state go over the line.

Here's what the NCAA said made NC unique (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17):

North Carolina laws invalidate any local law that treats sexual orientation as a protected class or has a purpose to prevent discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals.
North Carolina has the only statewide law that makes it unlawful to use a restroom different from the gender on one’s birth certificate, regardless of gender identity.
North Carolina law provides legal protections for government officials to refuse services to the LGBT community.
Five states plus numerous cities prohibit travel to North Carolina for public employees and representatives of public institutions, which could include student-athletes and campus athletics staff. These states are New York, Minnesota, Washington, Vermont and Connecticut.


I'm not familiar with the other states' laws, but presumably these points have been vetted. The last one isn't under NC's control, but the first three sure are.

[757Dukie]

too bad the soon-to-be-built arena in va beach isn't complete now. i think va beach would be a great spot for the ncaa tournament as well as the acc tournament.

[sammy3469]

Wait... I just saw that Orlando is already hosting. Still, Tampa or Jax or Miami could be an option. New Orleans would also seem to have potential. The NCAA has options, that's for sure.

I doubt they can go to Atlanta since the Hawks are home the 16th and 18th while the NCAA games would be the 17th and 19th. I guess they could try to fit them in, but that seems tight (in comparison the Magic are gone that entire weekend). Washington and New Orleans are also home on the 17th, so they're out.

For this reason, I think their options are fairly limited. There's Greenville as someone said. Perhaps Richmond and maybe Knoxville or Nashville. After that you're getting fairly afield of the general area.

[aimo]

Which means that Durham will lose the ACC baseball tourney.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Which means that Durham will lose the ACC baseball tourney.

And Greensboro the women's tournament. It has been a staple of March for a number of years now.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Of most immediate concern is the football championship. ESPN says that Orlando is the leading contender but there is a potential conflict with HS state championships

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17547270/acc-moving-neutral-site-championship-games-north-carolina-due-hb2

"A source told ESPN that Orlando has been contacted about possible interest in hosting the football title game, and the Central Florida Sports Commission confirmed Wednesday that it is interested in hosting all neutral-site events that would need to be relocated. One problem, however, is that Camping World Stadium is already scheduled to host the Florida state high school football championships on the same weekend as the ACC football title game."

[Mountain Devil]

Curious about 2 things:
1) How did the NC schools vote (the announcement didn't say the vote was unanimous)?
2) How would they have voted if the B-Ball tourney had been in Greensboro this year?

I do like the irony that the Terps are no longer around to celebrate this. THAT would have been an awesome riot.

[Olympic Fan]

Curious about 2 things:
1) How did the NC schools vote (the announcement didn't say the vote was unanimous)?
2) How would they have voted if the B-Ball tourney had been in Greensboro this year?

I do like the irony that the Terps are no longer around to celebrate this. THAT would have been an awesome riot.

I don't know the vote, but pretty sure it was a consensus, rather than a strict majority vote. Remember, this decision was made by the school presidents, not the ADs or coaches.

Interesting that Clemson president James P. Clements is the chair of the ACC Council of Presidents. He steered the debate -- although to be fair, it would be better for Clemson football to have the ACC title game in Charlotte than in Orlando or Tampa or Jacksonville (the most likely destinations).

I was at the ACC office today (talking to underlings, not the powers-that-be) and their feeling was that the law would either be struck down by the courts or repealed by the legislature before the ACC's men's basketball tournament is due to return to Charlotte in 2019 and Greensboro in 2020.

But if it's still in force ... those events will be moved too.

PS Great observation about Maryland's reaction. Somewhere, Gary Williams is raising a chicken wing and a glass of scotch in celebration!

[Tripping William]

PS Great observation about Maryland's reaction. Somewhere, Gary Williams is raising a chicken wing and a glass of scotch in celebration!

And lord knows what Lefty Driesell has on the hood of his car . . . .

[Nugget]

I suspect that the prospect of future ACC Men's Basketball tournaments not coming back to Greensboro and Charlotte might actually be difference-makers here.

Pretty much the only thing out there that unifies UNC, State and Duke.

[JasonEvans]

totally understand - however the post that started this thread implied an opinion on the law by basically saying good for the NCAA for following through...

True and good point, though I think the first post was more congratulating the NCAA on threatening to do something and then actually doing it. It was "good that the NCAA followed through and showed some spine" not "the NCAA is on the side of good" here.

Still, your point is well taken and posts similar to the first one will incur infractions going forward.


Another interesting question is what the NCAA would do if the Supreme Court reversed its 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Lets stay away from discussing hypothetical supreme court decisions in cases that are not even before the court at this time. It feels pretty darn political. Plus, there is no sign that it is anywhere close to happening as I am not aware of any case working its way through the courts that could cause a re-examination of the right to marriage.

[ricks68]

I suspect that the prospect of future ACC Men's Basketball tournaments not coming back to Greensboro and Charlotte might actually be difference-makers here.

Pretty much the only thing out there that unifies UNC, State and Duke.

I am not so sure of Duke being so unified with the Tournament being in Greensboro, considering that the fan support for us has been extremely negative for quite a few years now.:rolleyes:

ricks

[OldPhiKap]

I am not so sure of Duke being so unified with the Tournament being in Greensboro, considering that the fan support for us has been extremely negative for quite a few years now.:rolleyes:

ricks

True, although I think at this point we draw that wherever we go. And UNC fans will travel to any location, so it's not like we get a pass from them if we play in NYC or Orlando or Atlanta.

But yeah, I hate when we share an NCAA pod with UNC in Greensboro or Charlotte. Come to think of it, I just hate being close to UNC in any way, shape, form or fashion.

[YmoBeThere]

I am not so sure of Duke being so unified with the Tournament being in Greensboro, considering that the fan support for us has been extremely negative for quite a few years now.:rolleyes:

ricks

I moved from GSO in 2007, just saying...

[SoCalDukeFan]

I understand that some think the NCAA and ACC should wait to see what happens with the law. But the events need to be scheduled, arenas found etc. I understand why they are not waiting.

SoCal

[JasonEvans]

People, I don't know what it takes to get through to all of you, but debating what HB2 is about or accomplishes is NOT ALLOWED!!

I just sent 2 people on a break from the DBR and deleted another half dozen posts. If you engage in anything that even comes close to a political discussion about HB2 from now on, you will get an instant 2-day (or more) ban from the DBR. Confine the conversation to the non-political/policy aspects of this situation.

-Jason "if you are unsure about a post, feel free to send it to me or one of the other mods for pre-approval" Evans

[TKG]

Wild *** speculation on my part, but after the announcement from Swafford yesterday, I was wondering if the ACC might feel pressure to relocate the conference offices from Greensboro.

[gus]

Well, the logical extension of this is that the NCAA will eventually kick UNC and the rest on NC's schools out altogether.

Interesting problem the NCAA has decided to take on... they are willing to move venues to other states to make a political point (with no loss of $ for the NCAA), but are they so committed that they would actually remove revenue generating institutions. I mean do they really want to include institutions that are required to discriminate against LGBT's?

This isn't the first time the NCAA has banned states from hosting championships (http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13229344/ncaa-drop-postseason-ban-south-carolina-opts-remove-confederate-flag-state-capitol-grounds) based on moral/political reasons, and they haven't had to rescind the membership of all of a state's universities before.


Wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of them to allow NC NCAA members to continue to pay dues and make money for them if they are truly opposed to NC laws?

No, not really. Presumably the member universities have protections in place against discrimination (I know Duke and UNC do).


Personally I think the NCAA's action rings hollow since they really lose nothing in moving tournaments to other venues...

I don't follow your logic at all. Why does the NCAA need to lose something? If I found out a local coffee shop refused to sell to African Americans (to use an example I imagine is universally objectionable here) I'd buy coffee at one of the many other coffee shops available to me. I might even make a public stink out of it. But I'd still buy coffee somewhere.

[gurufrisbee]

I'm on the other corner of the country and this question might be over the line (if so, I apologize mods), but is the mood in NC that these things are moving the bar on the public opinion of HB2? I know it's been said that the Governor race is being seen somewhat as a referendum on HB2 in itself, but I'm wondering if all these protests/boycotts of having events in NC are actually having an impact on the long term future of this or is this the kind of thing that people either supported or opposed on it's merits and these events being cancelled are just giving the media a lot to talk about but not actually doing anything substantial among voters there.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm on the other corner of the country and this question might be over the line (if so, I apologize mods), but is the mood in NC that these things are moving the bar on the public opinion of HB2? I know it's been said that the Governor race is being seen somewhat as a referendum on HB2 in itself, but I'm wondering if all these protests/boycotts of having events in NC are actually having an impact on the long term future of this or is this the kind of thing that people either supported or opposed on it's merits and these events being cancelled are just giving the media a lot to talk about but not actually doing anything substantial among voters there.
Without getting into PPB territory, I'll say that the feeling I get here is that there is a definitive anger here in the state that is in direct correlation to the various boycotts. This comes from people on both sides of the aisle. (Although obviously more so from those that are left leaning.) This is why a vast majority of our voters want it repealed, even though a "vast majority" of voters don't necessarily disagree with the moral values under scrutiny.

In other words, there are plenty of people that support the ideas behind the bill, but don't want the bill in place, especially since they have seen the effects of the boycotts on our state.

[elvis14]

In other words, there are plenty of people that support the ideas behind the bill, but don't want the bill in place, especially since they have seen the effects of the boycotts on our state.

I think this is well said. I'd also say that IMHO (where sagerouse is looking for the H) there are lots of people that don't really know what was in the bill, they think it's just about the bathrooms. Hope that's OK to say, I'm not pushing one way or the other and not saying anything about the people. I think the financial losses (NCAA, NBA, ACC, Paypal, tons of conferences, etc) are having an effect and moving some people to be anti-HB2. I'll also say that I think this gets polarizing as well because it's also causing some people to dig in/double down (and I do wonder if they'd have that response if they knew more about the bill...some would some wouldn't I suspect).

Hope none of that is over the line.

[jimsumner]

The most interesting public reaction to the actions of the ACC comes from Richard Hudson, a Republican representative from Concord-a Charlotte suburb. Hudson calls the moves political in nature and adds "this brings into question their [NCAA and ACC] tax-exempt status. This is an avenue we intend to explore."

Empty posturing, methinks. But might be something to follow.

[oldnavy]

This isn't the first time the NCAA has banned states from hosting championships (http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13229344/ncaa-drop-postseason-ban-south-carolina-opts-remove-confederate-flag-state-capitol-grounds) based on moral/political reasons, and they haven't had to rescind the membership of all of a state's universities before.



No, not really. Presumably the member universities have protections in place against discrimination (I know Duke and UNC do).



I don't follow your logic at all. Why does the NCAA need to lose something? If I found out a local coffee shop refused to sell to African Americans (to use an example I imagine is universally objectionable here) I'd buy coffee at one of the many other coffee shops available to me. I might even make a public stink out of it. But I'd still buy coffee somewhere.

Not the same argument Jim. If the coffee shop you mentioned contributed money to your business or did business with your business, would you continue to accept their money and stay in business with them? If you simply moved your patronage to a different coffee shop claiming a moral high ground, yet you continued to deal with them in other profitable ventures, you would be a hypocrite.

The NCAA is making a hollow gesture in the sense, it is easy for them to ban tournaments from NC. They simply move to another venue. They are not out anything other than some administrative cost presumably.

The issue is money. Doesn't the NCAA generate income from NCAA games and NCAA schools located in NC? (TV contracts, fees paid, etc...) If the answer is yes, then isn't it a bit hypocritical for them to continue to collect revenue from these schools?

You can say that it isn't the schools fault or that the school has the appropriate non-discriminatory policies in place, but if they are located in the state of NC, revenue is generated by having NCAA games played here, and therefore the state benefits financially from it. Think of the travel ban NY placed on traveling to NC... why, because they know that money will be spent in NC and they want to punish NC. Same with NCAA games played in NC. Teams and fans will travel here, stay here, eat here.... all of which generates $$ for the State of NC.

If the NCAA doesn't ban other member institutions from traveling here, staying here, eating here... they are actually allowing the State to profit from their business. This is in direct conflict with what they claim to be against.

My point is, if the NCAA and ACC really wants to make a statement, then ban ALL NCAA/ACC activity in NC until they are satisfied that NC is no longer discriminating against LBGT's.

We know that they will not do this.... why? Because, unlike moving a tournament to another state, banning all activity in NC would hit them in the pocket book.... HARD.

[superdave]

The most interesting public reaction to the actions of the ACC comes from Richard Hudson, a Republican representative from Concord-a Charlotte suburb. Hudson calls the moves political in nature and adds "this brings into question their [NCAA and ACC] tax-exempt status. This is an avenue we intend to explore."

Empty posturing, methinks. But might be something to follow.

Agreed. This could be very interesting. Churches get investigated for this sort of thing. I could see hearings on the issue on Cap Hill, although I doubt the IRS would dig into the issue though, given the troubles they have been in of late.

All that being said, Congressional oversight of the NCAA for any issue (and every issue!) would be very welcome. NCAA deserves the scrutiny that the steroid industry got years back, in my opinion.

[OldPhiKap]

Not the same argument Jim. If the coffee shop you mentioned contributed money to your business or did business with your business, would you continue to accept their money and stay in business with them? If you simply moved your patronage to a different coffee shop claiming a moral high ground, yet you continued to deal with them in other profitable ventures, you would be a hypocrite.

The NCAA is making a hollow gesture in the sense, it is easy for them to ban tournaments from NC. They simply move to another venue. They are not out anything other than some administrative cost presumably.

The issue is money. Doesn't the NCAA generate income from NCAA games and NCAA schools located in NC? (TV contracts, fees paid, etc...) If the answer is yes, then isn't it a bit hypocritical for them to continue to collect revenue from these schools?

You can say that it isn't the schools fault or that the school has the appropriate non-discriminatory policies in place, but if they are located in the state of NC, revenue is generated by having NCAA games played here, and therefore the state benefits financially from it. Think of the travel ban NY placed on traveling to NC... why, because they know that money will be spent in NC and they want to punish NC. Same with NCAA games played in NC. Teams and fans will travel here, stay here, eat here... all of which generates $$ for the State of NC.

If the NCAA doesn't ban other member institutions from traveling here, staying here, eating here... they are actually allowing the State to profit from their business. This is in direct conflict with what they claim to be against.

My point is, if the NCAA and ACC really wants to make a statement, then ban ALL NCAA/ACC activity in NC until they are satisfied that NC is no longer discriminating against LBGT's.

We know that they will not do this... why? Because, unlike moving a tournament to another state, banning all activity in NC would hit them in the pocket book... HARD.

I do not think that the NCAA has the authority to prevent member institutions from conducting sporting events at the location of another member institution. If Albany does not want to come to Durham, that's up to Albany. The NCAA could not mandate that result.

Now, early NIT Tourney games typically held at the home team's location -- that might be different.

[oldnavy]

I do not think that the NCAA has the authority to prevent member institutions from conducting sporting events at the location of another member institution. If Albany does not want to come to Durham, that's up to Albany. The NCAA could not mandate that result.

Then NCAA can determine who is in the NCAA can they not?

Could the NCAA pull the membership of the schools located in NC?

If so, then what is preventing them from doing it?

[Scorp4me]

Bravo! Just another in a long line of stellar and morally upright decisions made by the NCAA in their long history of....errrr...what's that, the NCAA is usually on the wrong side? I'll get back to you on that one!

[OldPhiKap]

Then NCAA can determine who is in the NCAA can they not?

Could the NCAA pull the membership of the schools located in NC?

If so, then what is preventing them from doing it?

I have never researched it, but I don't think they have the authority to kick Duke or UNC out of the NCAA (and by extension, the ACC). Nor do I think they could punish a member institution where the institution did not break some rule. Especially in this case, where the "offending law" was duly adopted according to state law and no court has yet to rule it unconstitutional. AND Duke opposes the law, at least according to Dr. White's statement.

Have UNC or State put out statements on this? Their position is obviously a little more politically tied to the governor than a private institution like Duke.

[luvdahops]

Then NCAA can determine who is in the NCAA can they not?

Could the NCAA pull the membership of the schools located in NC?

If so, then what is preventing them from doing it?

NC schools had nothing to do with the legislation, and I don't think the NCAA is trying to punish them in any way. It is trying to punish broader commercial interests in the state, if largely symbolically, in an effort to exert political leverage.

[SCMatt33]

Then NCAA can determine who is in the NCAA can they not?

Could the NCAA pull the membership of the schools located in NC?

If so, then what is preventing them from doing it?

The bylaws prevent them from doing it. Remember, as much as "The NCAA" gets maligned for its decisions, those decisions are almost universally made by representatives of member schools. Mark Emmett is not Roger Goodell, suspending and punishing as he pleases. He didn't even have a vote on this matter (unless it was a tie, which is unlikely). Running NCAA championships is one of the few things that is charged to the NCAA as an organization by the schools, which is why it only took a simple vote of the board of governors to enact the change in venue.

From my quick reading of the bylaws (there's always exceptions and waivers buried so I could have missed something), there are only three ways to expel a member. 1) a two thirds vote of all members (not sure if all divisions or D1 only) at an annual convention. 2) failure to pay dues. 3) loss of accreditation (UNC apparently had a lot riding on that SACS decision).

[oldnavy]

The bylaws prevent them from doing it. Remember, as much as "The NCAA" gets maligned for its decisions, those decisions are almost universally made by representatives of member schools. Mark Emmett is not Roger Goodell, suspending and punishing as he pleases. He didn't even have a vote on this matter (unless it was a tie, which is unlikely). Running NCAA championships is one of the few things that is charged to the NCAA as an organization by the schools, which is why it only took a simple vote of the board of governors to enact the change in venue.

From my quick reading of the bylaws (there's always exceptions and waivers buried so I could have missed something), there are only three ways to expel a member. 1) a two thirds vote of all members (not sure if all divisions or D1 only) at an annual convention. 2) failure to pay dues. 3) loss of accreditation (UNC apparently had a lot riding on that SACS decision).

Ok, simple. Call a vote and get 2/3rds majority to say that they do not want to have any business dealings within the State of NC.

I mean, if this is such an important issue and lives are being effected and ruined because of NC's law, it should breeze right through... right? Who would vote to continue to financially support such an oppressive State government?

I hope you all realize that I do not expect this to happen. My sole point is to expose yet another example of the hypocrisy of the NCAA. They are quick to act in their self interest, especially when it costs them NOTHING to do so.

I think that if I felt strongly enough about a social issue to make a grandstanding decision such as pulling NCAA events out of the State because of the atrocities that are occurring in that State, that I would go all the way and actually pull out "ALL THE WAY".

But they won't do this. They will rationalize by stating many, many reasons why they can't, when in fact the sole reason is that it would difficult to do and it would severely damage them and their bottom line....

Not a compelling case for the NCAA as a champion of justice IMO.

[Kfanarmy]

This includes the scheduled first and second round men's basketball site in Greensboro (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17) I'm surprised that they actually went through with it, but good for them for putting action behind words. I do sincerely hope they move many to South Carolina, who came into compliance recently after their own long ban for flying the Confederate flag.

SCMatt33: For my SA, compliance with What?

[oldnavy]

NC schools had nothing to do with the legislation, and I don't think the NCAA is trying to punish them in any way. It is trying to punish broader commercial interests in the state, if largely symbolically, in an effort to exert political leverage.

I know this.

The NCAA is trying to punish the State. The point is that allowing NCAA events to continue to take place in the State in fact rewards the State by generating tax revenue from money spent by NCAA member institutions and fans following these member schools. That is the reason they moved the tournament events, they didn't want to generate revenue in the State.

So... by logical extension, they should revoke the NC schools NCAA membership so that other NCAA member schools would not travel to NC to play them or at least have no NCAA incentive to play them.

It's not going to happen, but the NCAA should be called out for making a very hollow gesture that makes them appear to be social crusaders for justice when in fact they did nothing but some easy venue moves.

A tangible action would be to cancel ALL NCAA events, including regular season games in NC, then they would have my respect.

[oldnavy]

SCMatt33: For my SA, compliance with What?

Great question!

Does the NCAA have some social or political requirements that we are unaware of?

[luvdahops]

I know this.

The NCAA is trying to punish the State. The point is that allowing NCAA events to continue to take place in the State in fact rewards the State by generating tax revenue from money spent by NCAA member institutions and fans following these member schools. That is the reason they moved the tournament events, they didn't want to generate revenue in the State.

So... by logical extension, they should revoke the NC schools NCAA membership so that other NCAA member schools would not travel to NC to play them or at least have no NCAA incentive to play them.

It's not going to happen, but the NCAA should be called out for making a very hollow gesture that makes them appear to be social crusaders for justice when in fact they did nothing but some easy venue moves.

A tangible action would be to cancel ALL NCAA events, including regular season games in NC, then they would have my respect.

Sorry, but I just don't find your extension at all logical. What you suggest would punish the schools, at least as much if not more than the State. That said, I completely agree that the NCAA's gesture is ultimately pretty hollow.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ok, simple. Call a vote and get 2/3rds majority to say that they do not want to have any business dealings within the State of NC.

I mean, if this is such an important issue and lives are being effected and ruined because of NC's law, it should breeze right through... right? Who would vote to continue to financially support such an oppressive State government?

I hope you all realize that I do not expect this to happen. My sole point is to expose yet another example of the hypocrisy of the NCAA. They are quick to act in their self interest, especially when it costs them NOTHING to do so.

I think that if I felt strongly enough about a social issue to make a grandstanding decision such as pulling NCAA events out of the State because of the atrocities that are occurring in that State, that I would go all the way and actually pull out "ALL THE WAY".

But they won't do this. They will rationalize by stating many, many reasons why they can't, when in fact the sole reason is that it would difficult to do and it would severely damage them and their bottom line...

Not a compelling case for the NCAA as a champion of justice IMO.

I don't understand your insistence that the NCAA ought to sacrifice something uneccessarily in order to make their point when they clearly can pressure and leverage without doing so.

[Kfanarmy]

I think it is fascinating that the NCAA -- an athletic institution with a non-profit status, that assists coaches, universities and their own staff in making billions of dollars each year off the backs of amateur athletes -- is attempting to reverse a law signed by a state sovereign as passed by the state legislature, in accordance with the state constitution through economic coercion. I'm guessing, if they really wanted to, state lawmakers would have a good legal argument that the NCAA has violated its charter, nullified its contracts with member universities and jeopardized revenues of network and cable sports entertainment providers within the state. Were I in the state legislature, I would move to prevent legal trade by the NCAA and associated advertisers within the state of North Carolina until such time as the NCAA publicly recognizes State sovereignty. The states rights issue here is far more important (to me) than adult individuals' bathroom preferences. When the NCAA thinks it can dictate morality to individual states, we all have a big, big problem on our hands.

[gus]

Not the same argument Jim. If the coffee shop you mentioned contributed money to your business or did business with your business, would you continue to accept their money and stay in business with them? If you simply moved your patronage to a different coffee shop claiming a moral high ground, yet you continued to deal with them in other profitable ventures, you would be a hypocrite.

Let's stop torturing my analogy. The point is, I don't understand your argument that the NCAA must somehow suffer in this or it's being hypocritical.


The NCAA is making a hollow gesture in the sense, it is easy for them to ban tournaments from NC. They simply move to another venue. They are not out anything other than some administrative cost presumably.

Yes, another venue in a state where there isn't actions by the state government causing them concern. See my South Carolina example. Why is this a hollow gesture? Are you arguing they have to do something more drastic? I think it's a perfectly reasonable "gesture". North Carolina has made it, in their view, impossible to hold neutral site events that conform to NCAA's policy of promoting "an inclusive atmosphere for all college athletes, coaches, administrators and fans". The NCAA's statement lists the reasons why (which is in the OP, and subsequently reposted by Lid) explains why. So they are moving the events they can to states that do make it possible to promote that ideal. How is that hollow or hypocritical? They did exactly the same thing with SC and its decision to fly the confederate flag.


The issue is money.

I would argue that the issue is discrimination and a lack of inclusiveness.


Doesn't the NCAA generate income from NCAA games and NCAA schools located in NC? (TV contracts, fees paid, etc...) If the answer is yes, then isn't it a bit hypocritical for them to continue to collect revenue from these schools?

No, not at all. It might be hypocritical if those schools had explicit policies promoting discrimination (and the NCAA had an easy mechanism to expel them), but I imagine they all have said the opposite. (e.g. Duke (https://today.duke.edu/2016/04/leaders-hb2), UNC (http://www.unc.edu/campus-updates/message-university-leaders-update-house-bill-2/), NCSU (https://leadership.ncsu.edu/about/chancellor/letters/hb2-update-impacts-on-nc-state/), Wake (http://news.wfu.edu/2016/04/11/media-advisory-wake-forest-university-faculty-adopt-resolution-against-hb2/), Davidson (https://www.davidson.edu/news/news-stories/160914-statement-on-ncaa-and-acc-relocating-championship-games)). Can you find an example of a university in NC praising HB2 that is a member of the NCAA? Regardless, it's clear that a vast majority of the universities promote the inclusiveness that the NCAA does, so it's hardly hypocritical to keep them as members.


You can say that it isn't the schools fault or that the school has the appropriate non-discriminatory policies in place, but if they are located in the state of NC, revenue is generated by having NCAA games played here, and therefore the state benefits financially from it. Think of the travel ban NY placed on traveling to NC... why, because they know that money will be spent in NC and they want to punish NC. Same with NCAA games played in NC. Teams and fans will travel here, stay here, eat here... all of which generates $$ for the State of NC.

Again, you're making it about money. It's not about money, it's about discrimination and a lack of inclusiveness.


If the NCAA doesn't ban other member institutions from traveling here, staying here, eating here... they are actually allowing the State to profit from their business. This is in direct conflict with what they claim to be against.

Again, you're making it about money. The NCAA isn't. So no, that's not in direct conflict to anything.


My point is, if the NCAA and ACC really wants to make a statement, then ban ALL NCAA/ACC activity in NC until they are satisfied that NC is no longer discriminating against LBGT's.

We know that they will not do this... why? Because, unlike moving a tournament to another state, banning all activity in NC would hit them in the pocket book... HARD.

Of course they won't do that, but I think you're reason is well off the mark. The won't do that because the NCAA professes to have a commitment to student-athletes*, and again, this isn't about money. It's about discrimination and a lack inclusiveness.





* yeah, I know.

[El_Diablo]

I think it is fascinating that the NCAA -- an athletic institution with a non-profit status, that assists coaches, universities and their own staff in making billions of dollars each year off the backs of amateur athletes -- is attempting to reverse a law signed by a state sovereign as passed by the state legislature, in accordance with the state constitution through economic coercion. I'm guessing, if they really wanted to, state lawmakers would have a good legal argument that the NCAA has violated its charter, nullified its contracts with member universities and jeopardized revenues of network and cable sports entertainment providers within the state. Were I in the state legislature, I would move to prevent legal trade by the NCAA and associated advertisers within the state of North Carolina until such time as the NCAA publicly recognizes State sovereignty. The states rights issue here is far more important (to me) than adult individuals' bathroom preferences. When the NCAA thinks it can dictate morality to individual states, we all have a big, big problem on our hands.

I am sure the NCAA is fully aware of the concept of state sovereignty. It does not follow, however, that North Carolina's sovereign status means it is entitled to continue to receive economic windfalls from the NCAA (from discretionary placement of tournament games) when there are plenty of other equally sovereign states out there for the NCAA to reward.

As for your suggestion that NC should prevent NCAA-related trade and related advertisers from conducting business in the state, there are clear constitutional problems with that (e.g, Dormant Commerce Clause).

[devilseven]

I wonder if there will be numerous breach of contract suits brought against the NCAA and ACC. I am sure there were contracts signed for use of facilities, etc. Or maybe they have "morality" clauses.

[SCMatt33]

I wonder if there will be numerous breach of contract suits brought against the NCAA and ACC. I am sure there were contracts signed for use of facilities, etc. Or maybe they have "morality" clauses.

I'm sure there are termination clauses in the contract with the Coliseum, but I doubt the NCAA can use morality to get out without payment. There's likely a cancellation fee. Same thing with hotels that NCAA reserved room blocks for teams. Beyond that though, I doubt the NCAA will be paying anyone out.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm sure there are termination clauses in the contract with the Coliseum, but I doubt the NCAA can use morality to get out without payment. There's likely a cancellation fee. Same thing with hotels that NCAA reserved room blocks for teams. Beyond that though, I doubt the NCAA will be paying anyone out.

Not calling you out, just using your comment to post a thought. If anyone thinks that moving the games from NC isn't a cost burden to the NCAA and the ACC, they are deluding themselves. Now they've got to pay people to facilitate the moves, to produce new marketing materials that were likely finished months ago, to re-plan countless number of events that surround each game, set up new ticketing contracts, cancel and set up new travel and lodging arrangements for more people than I'd want to count, etc. It would not surprise me in the least if the cost involved in cancelling and moving the combined events is in the upper 6 figures if not in the millions.

[TruBlu]

Not calling you out, just using your comment to post a thought. If anyone thinks that moving the games from NC isn't a cost burden to the NCAA and the ACC, they are deluding themselves. Now they've got to pay people to facilitate the moves, to produce new marketing materials that were likely finished months ago, to re-plan countless number of events that surround each game, set up new ticketing contracts, cancel and set up new travel and lodging arrangements for more people than I'd want to count, etc. It would not surprise me in the least if the cost involved in cancelling and moving the combined events is in the upper 6 figures if not in the millions.

The NCAA could just up the (potential) monetary penalty against the unc cheats by a million or two . . . or even a billion or two would be fine with me.

[sagegrouse]

I know this.

The NCAA is trying to punish the State. The point is that allowing NCAA events to continue to take place in the State in fact rewards the State by generating tax revenue from money spent by NCAA member institutions and fans following these member schools. That is the reason they moved the tournament events, they didn't want to generate revenue in the State.

So... by logical extension, they should revoke the NC schools NCAA membership so that other NCAA member schools would not travel to NC to play them or at least have no NCAA incentive to play them.
It's not going to happen, but the NCAA should be called out for making a very hollow gesture that makes them appear to be social crusaders for justice when in fact they did nothing but some easy venue moves.

A tangible action would be to cancel ALL NCAA events, including regular season games in NC, then they would have my respect.

This may be logical to you, but the logic is lost on me. The NCAA took some action, which, of course, could be escalated in the future. State, UNC, Duke and presumably most other Div I NCAA members located in North Carolina have come out against the provisions of HB2. Then, by what logic should they be expelled from the NCAA?

[oldnavy]

This may be logical to you, but the logic is lost on me. The NCAA took some action, which, of course, could be escalated in the future. State, UNC, Duke and presumably most other Div I NCAA members located in North Carolina have come out against the provisions of HB2. Then, by what logic should they be expelled from the NCAA?

What's not logical?

Does the NCAA profit* from business done in NC by NC NCAA schools? And does NC collect tax revenue from these events? *in a non-profit sort of way

If the answer is no, then I am wrong.

If the answer is yes (which it is), and the NCAA continues to do business in NC, then they are at best being selective in their protest by taking the easy, no cost to them way out. They are at worst being hypocritical by claiming to not want to funnel money into a state with laws they believe to be discriminatory, yet they are allowing hundreds of thousands of dollars to be made in the very same state by not cancelling other NCAA events.

Sure they can pull neutral site events from the state so the state will not profit from them. But the state profits from all of the non-neutral site events under the NCAA, yet the NCAA will never pull those events. Why, out of the NCAA's compassion, and commitment to fairness??? They don't want to punish schools that have done nothing wrong????

I guess they don't feel as strong about restoring or preserving LGBT's rights as they do about unfairly punishing innocent institutions. If they did, they would stop all NCAA related taxable revenue in NC.

Sure the NCAA cares about being fair to their member institutions... Think about that for a second in light of the NCAA's history.

The point is that the NCAA knows that NC profits from their events held in the state (they must because why would they boycott otherwise). They have chosen to move events that cost them nothing to move (albeit some minor administrative costs) yet they chose not to move hundreds if not thousands of NCAA events held in this same state which generate thousands if not hundreds of thousand tax dollars for NC. Some hard hitting protest, huh?

If you truly believe the NCAA is being upright and honorable, that's OK with me. I can't say with certainty that you are wrong nor can you say for certainty that I am wrong.

I see their actions as hollow and hypocritical. I believe the NCAA to be dishonest and corrupt. I believe they are politically grandstanding. I believe that are taking calculated and very measured steps to appear to be socially conscious. I think the NCAA acts solely to protect their interests, and that they believe they can gain political capital by taking these actions. I don't think that the NCAA give a rat's rear end about HB2 or LGBT rights. The NCAA could make a powerful statement if they were willing to risk anything, but they are not risking anything.

I may be wrong.

[-jk]

...Does the NCAA profit* from business done in NC by NC NCAA schools? And does NC collect tax revenue from these events? *in a non-profit sort of way...

I haven't delved deeply into the NCAA's books, but I seem to recall they make the lion's share of their money selling TV rights for the D1 Men's hoops tourney. The D1 Women's hoops tourney might also turn a profit; I'm not sure. Everything else - at all levels - runs at about break even or a loss - subsidized, mostly, by the Men's tourney.

Notably, Men's BCS football has managed to keep the bowl/championship money out of their hands.

-jk

[sagegrouse]

What's not logical?

Does the NCAA profit* from business done in NC by NC NCAA schools? And does NC collect tax revenue from these events? *in a non-profit sort of way

If the answer is no, then I am wrong.

If the answer is yes (which it is), and the NCAA continues to do business in NC, then they are at best being selective in their protest by taking the easy, no cost to them way out. They are at worst being hypocritical by claiming to not want to funnel money into a state with laws they believe to be discriminatory, yet they are allowing hundreds of thousands of dollars to be made in the very same state by not cancelling other NCAA events.

Sure they can pull neutral site events from the state so the state will not profit from them. But the state profits from all of the non-neutral site events under the NCAA, yet the NCAA will never pull those events. Why, out of the NCAA's compassion, and commitment to fairness??? They don't want to punish schools that have done nothing wrong????

I guess they don't feel as strong about restoring or preserving LGBT's rights as they do about unfairly punishing innocent institutions. If they did, they would stop all NCAA related taxable revenue in NC.

Sure the NCAA cares about being fair to their member institutions... Think about that for a second in light of the NCAA's history.

The point is that the NCAA knows that NC profits from their events held in the state (they must because why would they boycott otherwise). They have chosen to move events that cost them nothing to move (albeit some minor administrative costs) yet they chose not to move hundreds if not thousands of NCAA events held in this same state which generate thousands if not hundreds of thousand tax dollars for NC. Some hard hitting protest, huh?

If you truly believe the NCAA is being upright and honorable, that's OK with me. I can't say with certainty that you are wrong nor can you say for certainty that I am wrong.

I see their actions as hollow and hypocritical. I believe the NCAA to be dishonest and corrupt. I believe they are politically grandstanding. I believe that are taking calculated and very measured steps to appear to be socially conscious. I think the NCAA acts solely to protect their interests, and that they believe they can gain political capital by taking these actions. I don't think that the NCAA give a rat's rear end about HB2 or LGBT rights. The NCAA could make a powerful statement if they were willing to risk anything, but they are not risking anything.

I may be wrong.

Old Navy, friend, I was reacting to your view (which I may have misread) that the NCAA, if it believed in its actions, would kick out of the NCAA all of the North Carolina members. I don't understand the logic, but a couple of points. The NCAA is an entity created by the schools to enforce rules and regs created by the schools. The action to which you object was instituted by the Board, which consists primarily, but not exclusively, of reps from the schools and conferences. The Board is a committee and took some actions but didn't take other actions. It surely involved a lot of compromises. What's hypocritical? It looks to me that the NCAA just mimicked the NBA and actions by global companies that have begun to withdraw business from North Carolina. It seems like a little leverage.

I can't figure out why you would believe that the NCAA should logically kick out of the organization the North Carolina members, but maybe I am misreading your posts. The Board, which took the action referenced in the thread title, doesn't have the power to kick out members -- that requires a two-thirds vote of the entire membership. Who on the Board wants to tackle persuading 300+ college presidents to do something really dumb?

Anyhow, I enjoy your posts but am puzzled by this one.

[oldnavy]

I haven't delved deeply into the NCAA's books, but I seem to recall they make the lion's share of their money selling TV rights for the D1 Men's hoops tourney. The D1 Women's hoops tourney might also turn a profit; I'm not sure. Everything else - at all levels - runs at about break even or a loss - subsidized, mostly, by the Men's tourney.

Notably, Men's BCS football has managed to keep the bowl/championship money out of their hands.

-jk

That makes sense. But how much tax revenue is generated by NCAA events held in NC each year? My guess is probably millions. When you factor money spent on travel, lodging and food for all the NCAA teams traveling to NC to compete plus their fans... no small sum. What will the NCAA do about this revenue stream?

[gus]

They are at worst being hypocritical by claiming to not want to funnel money into a state with laws they believe to be discriminatory

Where have they made this claim?

[gep]

That makes sense. But how much tax revenue is generated by NCAA events held in NC each year? My guess is probably millions. When you factor money spent on travel, lodging and food for all the NCAA teams traveling to NC to compete plus their fans... no small sum. What will the NCAA do about this revenue stream?

Well... the NCAA can "limit" the tax revenue to NC by not having neutral-site events in NC. That is all that they can do. So they did it. Then there are schools/states that "prevent" non-essential travel to NC... like Albany (NY) to limit NC tax revenue, that's on NY, not the NCAA.

To continue, if schools in NC *really* disagree with the NC law, they can move all of their events out of NC... that is, play all of what would have been home games to the opponent's venue. That will also limit tax revenue to NC (unfortunately also limit revenue to the school, but, hey, if you really believe in something... think Ali). But, that's on the schools in NC... not the NCAA.

My *really* small "cents"...

[oldnavy]

Old Navy, friend, I was reacting to your view (which I may have misread) that the NCAA, if it believed in its actions, would kick out of the NCAA all of the North Carolina members. I don't understand the logic, but a couple of points. The NCAA is an entity created by the schools to enforce rules and regs created by the schools. The action to which you object was instituted by the Board, which consists primarily, but not exclusively, of reps from the schools and conferences. The Board is a committee and took some actions but didn't take other actions. It surely involved a lot of compromises. What's hypocritical? It looks to me that the NCAA just mimicked the NBA and actions by global companies that have begun to withdraw business from North Carolina. It seems like a little leverage.

I can't figure out why you would believe that the NCAA should logically kick out of the organization the North Carolina members, but maybe I am misreading your posts. The Board, which took the action referenced in the thread title, doesn't have the power to kick out members -- that requires a two-thirds vote of the entire membership. Who on the Board wants to tackle persuading 300+ college presidents to do something really dumb?

Anyhow, I enjoy your posts but am puzzled by this one.

Well to be totally honest, I realize what I am saying is extreme and has about as much chance of happening as Roy calling a TO in an end of game situation.

You mentioned the NBA All-Star game being moved. I find that hollow as well, because they continue to allow the Hornets to generate tons of tax money by hosting NBA games. All they did was rearrange some plans. They didn't lose money by moving the event, they still made a ton of cash on it. If the choice was to have the event in NC or not have it at all, do you think their decision would have been different?

I realize that the NCAA isn't going to suspend, or revoke any NC schools membership. I am not even saying I want them too, but to me that would be the logical step to take if the issue were important enough.

What really has the NCAA done? They moved several events to other states. Will the lose income by doing this? No, not really. They simply generate their income in a different state.

What they haven't done is move or attempt to move or suspend any of the hundreds or thousands of revenue generating events that occur as part of normal NCAA business. This is money that the NCAA is generating FOR the state of NC.

I believe they will not do this, because A) it is difficult to do and B) it would cost them money to do it.

The best analogy that I can come up with is if Business X consults and provides marketing materials for it's business associates/partners and has franchises in every state. State A passes a law that X finds objectionable. X has seminars planned in A, so X moves these seminars to other states stating that it cannot condone the actions of A, and wants to punish A economically to force a change in the law. The revenue generated by these seminars represents less than 1% of the total revenue generated by business X does in A. X doesn't lose this revenue because they hold the seminars in other locations, A does lose some money by X moving the seminars. However, X continues to generate and accept the remaining 99% of the revenue from it's franchises located in A, which also benefits A by tax revenue, without pause or comment.

What has X really accomplished? What did it cost X? Could X do more? Would doing more cost X money? Will X risk losing money for their beliefs?

Hey, again, I know this is out there... but to me the NCAA took a no risk, all reward action to grandstand on a hot topic, "politically correct" current event.

They are phonies, and the lack of substantial, sacrificial action when it is available to them, just reinforces my opinion of them.

Granted, my logic may be flawed, but it is how my mind processes these type things....

[OldPhiKap]

The NCAA will not punish UNC for two decades of hands-on, blatant, systematic cheating that undermines the very core of academic/athletic pursuits. I cannot see the NCAA now punishing UNC because of what the governor and state legislature did.

Cleveland State, however, should be very concerned right about now.

[Troublemaker]

I think it is fascinating that the NCAA -- an athletic institution with a non-profit status, that assists coaches, universities and their own staff in making billions of dollars each year off the backs of amateur athletes -- is attempting to reverse a law signed by a state sovereign as passed by the state legislature, in accordance with the state constitution through economic coercion. I'm guessing, if they really wanted to, state lawmakers would have a good legal argument that the NCAA has violated its charter, nullified its contracts with member universities and jeopardized revenues of network and cable sports entertainment providers within the state. Were I in the state legislature, I would move to prevent legal trade by the NCAA and associated advertisers within the state of North Carolina until such time as the NCAA publicly recognizes State sovereignty. The states rights issue here is far more important (to me) than adult individuals' bathroom preferences. When the NCAA thinks it can dictate morality to individual states, we all have a big, big problem on our hands.

You're giving the NCAA way too much credit. What the NCAA did was make a positive public relations move for themselves, which is a nice change of pace for the NCAA and its member institutions who typically receive negative PR and are in some danger of having to pay student-athletes in the future (http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15511859/ncaa-faces-dicey-court-decision-shape-future-lester-munson). The effects of positive PR can be largely unquantifiable. Maybe a widely-read columnist who would, around Bowl Season or March Madness (when so much $$$ gets made), write a column demanding the NCAA pay their athletes a fair share decides to shelve the column this year for another topic since the NCAA acted so right with regards to HB2. Maybe the NCAA just went up a notch in the eyes of some federal judges, who will ultimately decide the fate of the NCAA's amateurism.

So, yeah, I largely agree with oldnavy in spirit even though I wouldn't have used the exact arguments he used. The NCAA made a positive PR move for themselves at low cost and with possibly high upside. Nothing more. If, at the same time, their PR move helped bring justice to the cause of XYZ, then great. But thinking that the NCAA really cares about HB2 is, imo, playing into their PR hands.

[OldPhiKap]

So, yeah, I largely agree with oldnavy in spirit even though I wouldn't have used the exact arguments he used. The NCAA made a positive PR move for themselves at low cost and with possibly high upside. Nothing more. If, at the same time, their PR move helped bring justice to the cause of XYZ, then great. But thinking that the NCAA really cares about HB2 is, imo, playing into their PR hands.

As the old ladies say in my church every Wednesday night, "Bingo!!"

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

As the old ladies say in my church every Wednesday night, "Bingo!!"

Well, except I imagine that's exactly how the NCAA would explain it too. No one said that the general public would say "Oh crap, the NCAA is pulling out - we'd better amend our backward ways!" But, I know LOTS of people that are getting sick and tired of the slow drip of companies, organizations, etc taking large amounts of money out of our pockets. That's the sort of leverage that matters and gets people to go vote and call their representatives. Much more meaningful than sternly worded PR releases.

Additionally, to lots of people, these tournaments DO matter. And those people may not have cared about other more passive or low-profile protests by companies. So, to that end, the NCAA has already affected some change. If it weren't for the ACC/NBA/NCAA moves, it certainly wouldn't be being discussed here, right? This thread and this dialogue is indicative of at least a degree of immediate consequence from these cancellations/moves/protests, etc.

[bedeviled]

I share Troublemaker's position (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?38422-NCAA-and-ACC-moving-all-championships-out-of-North-Carolina&p=910643#post910643).


I'll ask one more time: where is the evidence that this is about money? That is the premise your entire argument is built on, and yet the NCAA has not said one single word about money.I think Gus' point actually speaks to why the NCAA should have gone further if this isn't just a PR move. And, it illustrates a dissimilarity in El Diablo's analogy - the insult, the stated reason for why the Championships can't be held in NC, is repeated at each NC event; it's not a single offense like the DUI. NCAA's statement (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17):

In its decision Monday, the Board of Governors emphasized that NCAA championships and events must promote an inclusive atmosphere for all college athletes, coaches, administrators and fans. Current North Carolina state laws make it challenging to guarantee that host communities can help deliver on that commitment if NCAA events remained in the state, the board said.

“Fairness is about more than the opportunity to participate in college sports, or even compete for championships,” said Mark Emmert, NCAA president. “We believe in providing a safe and respectful environment at our events and are committed to providing the best experience possible for college athletes, fans and everyone taking part in our championships."

So, NCAA says the decision is because NCAA events must have a safe, respectful, inclusive atmosphere for all parties and NC communities can't guarantee that. Why does this only apply to Championships, not the other events referred to in their statement?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You're giving the NCAA way too much credit. What the NCAA did was make a positive public relations move for themselves, which is a nice change of pace for the NCAA and its member institutions who typically receive negative PR and are in some danger of having to pay student-athletes in the future (http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15511859/ncaa-faces-dicey-court-decision-shape-future-lester-munson). The effects of positive PR can be largely unquantifiable. Maybe a widely-read columnist who would, around Bowl Season or March Madness (when so much $$$ gets made), write a column demanding the NCAA pay their athletes a fair share decides to shelve the column this year for another topic since the NCAA acted so right with regards to HB2. Maybe the NCAA just went up a notch in the eyes of some federal judges, who will ultimately decide the fate of the NCAA's amateurism.

So, yeah, I largely agree with oldnavy in spirit even though I wouldn't have used the exact arguments he used. The NCAA made a positive PR move for themselves at low cost and with possibly high upside. Nothing more. If, at the same time, their PR move helped bring justice to the cause of XYZ, then great. But thinking that the NCAA really cares about HB2 is, imo, playing into their PR hands.

Aren't most protests a "public relations" move by definition? A move to draw attention from the public to a cause you believe in? I know "PR move" has developed a negative connotation as being an empty gesture, but I think in this case, it is exactly what the NCAA intended.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I share Troublemaker's position (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?38422-NCAA-and-ACC-moving-all-championships-out-of-North-Carolina&p=910643#post910643).

I think Gus' point actually speaks to why the NCAA should have gone further if this isn't just a PR move. And, it illustrates a dissimilarity in El Diablo's analogy - the insult, the stated reason for why the Championships can't be held in NC, is repeated at each NC event; it's not a single offense like the DUI. NCAA's statement (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17):


So, NCAA says the decision is because NCAA events must have a safe, respectful, inclusive atmosphere for all parties and NC communities can't guarantee that. Why does this only apply to Championships, not the other events referred to in their statement?

Now, that IS interesting. I suppose the question at hand becomes - are they moving tournaments in a direct move to protect athletes from the hateful practices of the state of NC, or are they moving the tournaments to affect change through the economic leverage implicit in the direct consequence of moving the games and the "PR" I referenced above? I have assumed the latter - particularly because I don't believe there are currently any transgendered persons participating in the Men's ACC Basketball tournament (I certainly could be wrong, I suppose) and therefore there is not a student-athlete to "protect" in this instance of the ACC Basketball Tournament.

(No, I don't want to inspect the "gender" on birth certificates to verify whether my assumption is correct)

[rasputin]

I share Troublemaker's position (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?38422-NCAA-and-ACC-moving-all-championships-out-of-North-Carolina&p=910643#post910643).

I think Gus' point actually speaks to why the NCAA should have gone further if this isn't just a PR move. And, it illustrates a dissimilarity in El Diablo's analogy - the insult, the stated reason for why the Championships can't be held in NC, is repeated at each NC event; it's not a single offense like the DUI. NCAA's statement (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17):


So, NCAA says the decision is because NCAA events must have a safe, respectful, inclusive atmosphere for all parties and NC communities can't guarantee that. Why does this only apply to Championships, not the other events referred to in their statement?

I don't understand why anyone would think that, even if the NCAA were being completely virtuous about all of this, they should say that Duke and Wake Forest (private institutions who had nothing to do with the passage or enforcement of the offending statute) can't play a basketball game in North Carolina.

[bedeviled]

or are they moving the tournaments to affect change through the economic leverage implicit in the direct consequence of moving the games and the "PR" I referenced above?Good point. It does strike me as weird, though, if that's the case. It positions the NCAA as a political entity with decision-making about the best method to achieve desired policy changes (eg move Championships vs lobbying vs propoganda campaign like commercials with athlete interviews)


I don't believe there are currently any transgendered persons participating in the Men's ACC Basketball tournament (I certainly could be wrong, I suppose) and therefore there is not a student-athlete to "protect" in this instance of the ACC Basketball Tournament
But the statement reads:
-- "events must promote an inclusive atmosphere for all college athletes, coaches, administrators and fans"
-- "committed to providing the best experience possible for college athletes, fans and everyone taking part in our championships"
That includes visiting fans, scoreboard operators, vendors, Provosts, etc.

[gus]

I share Troublemaker's position (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?38422-NCAA-and-ACC-moving-all-championships-out-of-North-Carolina&p=910643#post910643).

I think Gus' point actually speaks to why the NCAA should have gone further if this isn't just a PR move. And, it illustrates a dissimilarity in El Diablo's analogy - the insult, the stated reason for why the Championships can't be held in NC, is repeated at each NC event; it's not a single offense like the DUI. NCAA's statement (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-relocate-championships-north-carolina-2016-17):


So, NCAA says the decision is because NCAA events must have a safe, respectful, inclusive atmosphere for all parties and NC communities can't guarantee that. Why does this only apply to Championships, not the other events referred to in their statement?

"other events", meaning the on-campus championships held on the member institutions with their own policies on non-discrimination and inclusiveness? I think that sort of answers itself. It's worth pointing out again that the NCAA is an association of universities, and the BoG that made this decision comprises presidents/chancellors from some of these universities.

And of course there's a PR component to this. Is anyone disputing that? But so what? Whether their motivation is to make themselves look better or their motivation is to provide "a safe and respectful environment at our events and are committed to providing the best experience possible for college athletes, fans and everyone taking part in our championships", how does that change anything? Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the reverse? If your argument that this is the wrong thing to do, fine -- but that's not what I'm objecting to.

Also, why do people insist that "doing good" has to be binary: you're all in or you're a hypocrite? Is it better to push for incremental good and perhaps get it, or to insist on absolute doctrinal rigidity and fail?

[oldnavy]

"other events", meaning the on-campus championships held on the member institutions with their own policies on non-discrimination and inclusiveness? I think that sort of answers itself. It's worth pointing out again that the NCAA is an association of universities, and the BoG that made this decision comprises presidents/chancellors from some of these universities.

And of course there's a PR component to this. Is anyone disputing that? But so what? Whether their motivation is to make themselves look better or their motivation is to provide "a safe and respectful environment at our events and are committed to providing the best experience possible for college athletes, fans and everyone taking part in our championships", how does that change anything? Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the reverse? If your argument that this is the wrong thing to do, fine -- but that's not what I'm objecting to.

Also, why do people insist that "doing good" has to be binary: you're all in or you're a hypocrite? Is it better to push for incremental good and perhaps get it, or to insist on absolute doctrinal rigidity and fail?

But not in the thousands of other events we oversee...

So accepting discrimination at all events other than "Championship" events is the way to go...

Makes perfect sense to me.

[bedeviled]

I don't understand why anyone would think that, even if the NCAA were being completely virtuous about all of this, they should say that Duke and Wake Forest (private institutions who had nothing to do with the passage or enforcement of the offending statute) can't play a basketball game in North Carolina

Hmmm. Well, the statement reads "North Carolina state laws make it challenging to guarantee that host communities can help deliver on that commitment." It's interesting that they say "communities" rather than "institutions" or "venues." So, perhaps the reasoning would be that parties attending the events interact with the community beyond participating/attending/working the game itself. That would make a stronger argument for their distinguishing championships from non-championship games, since there is probably more community involvement in tournaments. At any rate, it would be nice for Duke if we got to play home games and public institutions like UNC didn't :D

"other events", meaning the on-campus championships held on the member institutions with their own policies on non-discrimination and inclusiveness?NCAA doesn't refer to "off-campus championships" and "on-campus championships," it lists "championships" and other "events." And, it doesn't make theoretical sense to separate championships (on- or off-campus) from other events if the intent is to protect parties. WRT to your point, public member institutions are supposed to abide by the public law.

Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, or the reverse?Dang, tough question. If there is a correct answer, it's above my intellect and pay grade. :p In determining an ethical position either way, though, I think maintaining consistency is important in validating one's decision.

Also, why do people insist that "doing good" has to be binary: you're all in or you're a hypocrite?I, personally, have developed a distaste for the NCAA and its inconsistencies, so I'm sure that affects all new episodes.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But not in the thousands of other events we oversee...

So accepting discrimination at all events other than "Championship" events is the way to go...

Makes perfect sense to me.

Well, again, it depends on what their thoughts and methodology are. If you want to leverage the power (money) you yank the football and basketball championships and get people to pay attention to change the law, thus protecting your people. If you want to directly protect your people, you pull any and all events happening in the state. One is a much easier way to affect the change you seek, best I can tell.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

... I, personally, have developed a distaste for the NCAA and its inconsistencies, so I'm sure that affects all new episodes.

This is probably the most honest response I have read on here. Kudos to you.

[gus]

I, personally, have developed a distaste for the NCAA and its inconsistencies, so I'm sure that affects all new episodes.

You're not alone in that. I thought about making the effort to make the distinction between the board of governors and the enforcement division, but it's really not worth it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yes, but the PR I'm referencing is the relations between the NCAA and the public.


I don't think I'm understanding your clarification. I'm stating that the NCAA is using this move to draw more public attention on HB2, in hopes of affecting change. You are saying that the NCAA is using this move to...? Placate the public? I don't see the advantage there.

[Olympic Fan]

The NCAA did it because the NBA did it.

The ACC did it because the NCAA did it.

I don't think there is any greater timing thought than that.

Oh c'mon ... the NCAA expressed concern about the law last spring, soon after it was passed. The NCAA sent a letter to the Greensboro Sports Authority last spring (maybe the other sites, but definitely Greensboro) saying the new law was a problem and that if it wasn't addressed there was danger of NCAA action. They waited so long to act to give North Carolina as long as possible to rescind or modify the law. They acted when they couldn't wait any longer (they needed time to find alternate sites).

The NBA actually followed a very similar timetable -- first warning of action, then waiting as long as possible for the state to take corrective action.

Nobody was blindsided by this ... even people as out of touch as Adam Gold and Joe Ovies had been talking about it for months.

[OldPhiKap]

Oh c'mon ... the NCAA expressed concern about the law last spring, soon after it was passed. The NCAA sent a letter to the Greensboro Sports Authority last spring (maybe the other sites, but definitely Greensboro) saying the new law was a problem and that if it wasn't addressed there was danger of NCAA action. They waited so long to act to give North Carolina as long as possible to rescind or modify the law. They acted when they couldn't wait any longer (they needed time to find alternate sites).

The NBA actually followed a very similar timetable -- first warning of action, then waiting as long as possible for the state to take corrective action.

Nobody was blindsided by this ... even people as out of touch as Adam Gold and Joe Ovies had been talking about it for months.

I didn't say they were blindsided. I'm saying that there are dozens of laws in dozens of states that one could draw a line in the sand over that arguably impact the basic civil rights of even a greater number of citizens. As the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled for example, voting laws in North Carolina were held to disenfranchise whole classes of voters based upon specific racial targeting. So given that there are numerous political battles to pick out there, why did the NCAA choose this one? If the NCAA is now the moral compass of college sports, shouldn't the NCAA also boycott all states whose voting laws are tinged by similar limitations for example?

Perhaps the NCAA took this position on HB2 because the NCAA cares about this issue more than others. Perhaps instead it was because there was a PR angle to it and there was safety in the shadow of the NBA's actions. I tend to believe the latter is the predominant factor for the folks in Indiana. And that in turn forced the hands of the ACC, again in my belief.

I understand that reasonable minds can differ and I do not intend to comment on the point further. And I do not offer this to discuss the relative merits or demerits of the different laws or the relative weighing of the rights implicated, which is clearly beyond the allowable. I merely point out that there are a number of political and social issues that the NCAA wholly ignores; it makes me suspicious that there is a reason beyond mere charity of heart to join one fight as opposed to the dozens of others that have similar (if not greater) impacts on student-athletes and the basic rights of our fellow man.

I think that's about as much as I can say before starting to drift towards the forbidden zone.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I merely point out that there are a number of political and social issues that the NCAA wholly ignores; it makes me suspicious that there is a reason beyond mere charity of heart to join one fight as opposed to the dozens of others that have similar (if not greater) impacts on student-athletes and the basic rights of our fellow man.


And... what is the ulterior motive you allude to? I am genuinely curious, and you cleary have an idea. I can't imagine what would be the advantage of this move if not their stated goal.

[OldPhiKap]

And... what is the ulterior motive you allude to? I am genuinely curious, and you cleary have an idea. I can't imagine what would be the advantage of this move if not their stated goal.

Not ulterior. I think it is PR because the NBA is doing it.

That does not mean that the boycott should not happen. I think that if the NBA had not moved the All-Star game, the NCAA would not have taken this action because they are a bunch of spineless jellyfish. I'll believe they have a backbone when they deal appropriately with the largest athletic cheating scandal in college sports history. Still waiting.

If my view is pessimistic, it is because of a lack of faith in the integrity of the NCAA -- not a comment on HB2.

[Richard Berg]

I don't think I'm understanding your clarification. I'm stating that the NCAA is using this move to draw more public attention on HB2, in hopes of affecting change. You are saying that the NCAA is using this move to...? Placate the public? I don't see the advantage there.
Drawing public attention to HB2 is well & good, but I doubt it's the NCAA's only motive. Sports media has a limited appetite for political stories, so this news will inevitably draw attention away from O'Bannon, UNC, Baylor, etc.

[oldnavy]

I am not going to sing the NCAA's praises because I believe that they could and possibly should do more than pull a few Championship events. If this is their "finest hour" then they are pretty pathetic. My expectations for the NCAA to do the right thing are non-existent anyway, so no surprise.

I would love to see the NCAA come out with stronger moves that would actually have them put some "skin" into the game, but I doubt they will. No, I know that they wont. They have made their gesture, and will probably leave it alone now. How hard will it be for them to hold "Championship" events outside of the state... not very. Yet they will continue to reap the benefits of their cash cows, UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, ECU, etc.. for all non-championship events, which are the VAST majority. This is the part that seems hollow and hypocritical to me. Could they not just donate the earnings from NC events to their social causes?? Probably not, may jeopardize the Tax Exempt status... but I am sure they could do something.

The NBA did the same. They moved a one time All-Star event to a different location. Has the NBA done anything as a follow up to this? I honestly do not know. I haven't heard anything about it if they have. Yet, they are making millions off the Hornets, who if I am not mistaken are located in NC and probably pay a boatload of taxes to NC.

The NCAA is corrupt to it's core. They are a money making business that hides behind an altruistic smoke screen or their own creation.

When I see how they have turned what appears to be a blind eye to the largest cheating scandal EVER... yet will jump on a minor violation with both feet and claim that they are the champions of amateurism and all that is holy and righteous.... well forgive me if I am not a fan.

[Olympic Fan]

I am not going to sing the NCAA's praises because I believe that they could and possibly should do more than pull a few Championship events. If this is their "finest hour" then they are pretty pathetic. My expectations for the NCAA to do the right thing are non-existent anyway, so no surprise.

I would love to see the NCAA come out with stronger moves that would actually have them put some "skin" into the game, but I doubt they will. No, I know that they wont. They have made their gesture, and will probably leave it alone now. How hard will it be for them to hold "Championship" events outside of the state... not very. Yet they will continue to reap the benefits of their cash cows, UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, ECU, etc.. for all non-championship events, which are the VAST majority. This is the part that seems hollow and hypocritical to me. Could they not just donate the earnings from NC events to their social causes?? Probably not, may jeopardize the Tax Exempt status... but I am sure they could do something.

The NBA did the same. They moved a one time All-Star event to a different location. Has the NBA done anything as a follow up to this? I honestly do not know. I haven't heard anything about it if they have. Yet, they are making millions off the Hornets, who if I am not mistaken are located in NC and probably pay a boatload of taxes to NC.

The NCAA is corrupt to it's core. They are a money making business that hides behind an altruistic smoke screen or their own creation.

When I see how they have turned what appears to be a blind eye to the largest cheating scandal EVER... yet will jump on a minor violation with both feet and claim that they are the champions of amateurism and all that is holy and righteous... well forgive me if I am not a fan.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You obviously believe in all or nothing. You have no room for a measured response.

Obviously, you are free to believe the NCAA should have done nothing or gone to a nuclear option. Excuse me if I think they took appropriate steps to punish THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA (which was the one that enacted the law in question) without unduly punishing the schools in the state (which had nothing to do with the law ... and in several cases -- including Duke University -- opposed it).

You're free to condemn the NCAA, ACC and NBA (not to mention all the entertainment acts and the businesses that have reacted to HB2) for their response.

But I am not the only one who thinks they acted appropriately to protest a [subject redacted to prevent my getting banned].

[Saratoga2]

My understanding is that other states may also face sanctions for policies which don't meet with NCAA expectations. I read that as a newspaper article, but there were no details.

[richardjackson199]

My apologies if this has previously been linked, but I didn't see it.

Very good interview with Coach K by WSJ. This is a different interview from the one previously linked dealing with similar subject matter. And this WSJ related link actually works without paywall.

http://www.wsj.com/video/coach-k-on-ncaa-boycott-and-national-anthem-debate/78BA7997-05D9-409E-9561-698F7F1EC9EC.html

"Coach K on NCAA Boycott and National Anthem Debate
9/13/2016 5:09PM
Duke Men's Basketball Coach Mike Krzyzewski tells WSJ's Tanya Rivero his reaction to the NCAA's boycott of North Carolina games over the state's anti-LGBT bathroom law, as well as his thoughts on athletes sitting during the national anthem."

[Duke_92]

My apologies if this has previously been linked, but I didn't see it.

Very good interview with Coach K by WSJ. This is a different interview from the one previously linked dealing with similar subject matter. And this WSJ related link actually works without paywall.

http://www.wsj.com/video/coach-k-on-ncaa-boycott-and-national-anthem-debate/78BA7997-05D9-409E-9561-698F7F1EC9EC.html

"Coach K on NCAA Boycott and National Anthem Debate
9/13/2016 5:09PM
Duke Men's Basketball Coach Mike Krzyzewski tells WSJ's Tanya Rivero his reaction to the NCAA's boycott of North Carolina games over the state's anti-LGBT bathroom law, as well as his thoughts on athletes sitting during the national anthem."

Thanks for posting. What a reasonable, compassionate person. Glad he's our coach.