Bilas tries to explain the inexplicable

[JRowland]

Jay Bilas went on KSR today. When I heard that was happening I made it a point to tune in and listen because I wanted to see how he would address his recent tweet. If you didn't see (or are living under a rock), Bilas said there's a conflict of interest for SEC commissioner Sankey because he's on the infractions committee for UNC and he said that ESPN's 30-for-30 on Calipari missed UK's academic achievements. It was an inexplicable take and just the latest example of Bilas defending powerful people and institutions under scrutiny for scandals and rule breaking.

Matt Jones asked Bilas about that quote, his second question, and here's what Bilas said:

"No, it had nothing to do with whether he could be fair. It had to do with conflict of interest. You can have a conflict of interest and still be fair. ... but I don't think people perceive fairness comes. It was just to point out ... it has nothing to do with Greg Sankey. ... it has to do with just good business. You don't have conflicts of interest."

He went on to say there is "more than a perception" of a conflict of interest.

Jones then asked, fairly, where the line is. Is it a perceived conflict because UK and UNC are supposedly rivals. Bilas didn't really give a clear answer. He then went on to say it didn't have anything to do with Kentucky and UNC, even though he's the one who brought Kentucky up in his tweet about a conflict of interest.

Bilas then went on to say that no sitting commissioner should be on the committee ... "if you want to have a trustworthy process."

In short, he never gave a good explanation for why he mentioned Kentucky in the context of Sankey's "perceived" conflict of interest in the tweet. He never gave a good explanation for why he believes there's a "perceived" conflict of interest.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

The position of commissioner is irrelevant. Why would it be ok for a school president or AD, but not the conference commissioner? Bilas is grasping at straws and throwing out anything he can think of, hoping for a dumb jury.

 

[Wall Knight Teague]

Bilas has become an insufferable douchebag. He has completely frittered away all of his credibility defending the guilty cheaters at UNC.

 

[JRowland]

How many things would be radically altered if we applied an extremely loose interpretation of "perceived" bias/conflict in college sports?

 

[Blueisbest]

Bilas needs to quit being an ACC apologist in general and UNC and Duke in particular.. UNC has been cheating for more than 20 years and it is time to pay the piper.

 

[Ghettobird]

I wish Matt would have said to Bilas say this outloud, "2 decades of fake classes, fake grades, fake majors, fake college degrees all designed to keep football and BASKETBALL players eligible"

Now defend that!

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Always remember that Bilas is a lawyer and will defend his position till the end even if his opinion is refuted. I think he got caught in a bad comment but, his ego won't allow him to admit it.

 

[mrschwump]

Jay Bias is just another thing that's wrong with college basketball.

 

[CatEye2010]

How many things would be radically altered if we applied an extremely loose interpretation of "perceived" bias/conflict in college sports?

Bilas, in his role as ESPN/ACC defender, is laying the groundwork for a :"the COI was biased" defense if/when the hammer falls. Shameful.

 

[trav55]

How many things would be radically altered if we applied an extremely loose interpretation of "perceived" bias/conflict in college sports?

Well, to simply answer, it would be every single case. Basically, if you have a relationship with academics or athletics, with jay bilas' logic, you have a conflict of interest.

 

[docholiday51]

That is standard lawyer talk relating to conflict of interest or the "appearance of conflict" whether it exists or not.I would argue who better to sit on a committee than commissioners of major conferences.They represent all the schools in a conference and are the most direct link between their respective conferences and the NCAA.Who would be in a better position to safeguard compliance with NCAA rules and ensure uniform administration of rules and guidelines for all concerned?

 

[westerncat]

Bilas is bought & paid for by ESPN.

 

[Mojocat]

I thought he articulated it pretty well.

He said no sitting administrator - no one affiliated with a member school - should sit in judgment of another school. Why? because they all, at some level, compete with one another - and because of that, there is the appearance of a conflict. Someone watching all of this might reasonably think "Sankey is the Commissioner of the SEC. He naturally wants SEC schools to do better in athletics. It may help SEC schools if UNC is in some form of trouble. He therefore has an interest in this outcome. I wonder if he gave UNC a fair shot?" There is the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. As Bilas said, that doesn't mean Sankey won't necessarily be fair, just that reasonable people might wonder if he's being fair. Which you can't have if you want the process to be trusted.

The reference to UK was just an example - he was saying only someone who has an interest in UK basketball would even think to make the point that Sankey made. If he is interested in touting UK basketball, that means he has a rooting interest, which means - back to the first point - a reasonable person might wonder if the whole thing is shady.

So, as I say, I think he explained himself pretty well. I have two questions:

1. Has he always said this, or is he only making this case now that UNC is in hot water?

2. I was under the impression that the only people involved in NCAA assessments and judgments are representatives from member schools. It's not like sometimes you have someone from a school or a conference and in other cases you might have a lawyer or judge or business person deciding the outcome. It's only reps from member schools. If so, for Bilas to get his way they'd have to tear down the whole system and decide a new way to judge cases. It's not just in this UNC case is there a potential conflict - in every single case there is the same thing. They'd have to find a whole new way to adjourn matters.

 

[JRowland]

That is standard lawyer talk relating to conflict of interest or the "appearance of conflict" whether it exists or not.I would argue who better to sit on a committee than commissioners of major conferences.They represent all the schools in a conference and are the most direct link between their respective conferences and the NCAA.Who would be in a better position to safeguard compliance with NCAA rules and ensure uniform administration of rules and guidelines for all concerned?

Exactly.

What's disappointing about his take is it's such a fringe interpretation (with no apparent precedent on his part, so far as I can tell) that the only way for me to interpret it is standard UNC defense spin. This was a PR move, not a legitimate legal move, on UNC's part -- to attack Sankey. That Bilas is joining in to give it credence really illustrates that he's in the tank on it.

 

[Cantwaitfor8]

I thought he articulated it pretty well.

He said no sitting administrator - no one affiliated with a member school - should sit in judgment of another school. Why? because they all, at some level, compete with one another - and because of that, there is the appearance of a conflict. Someone watching all of this might reasonably think "Sankey is the Commissioner of the SEC. He naturally wants SEC schools to do better in athletics. It may help SEC schools if UNC is in some form of trouble. He therefore has an interest in this outcome. I wonder if he gave UNC a fair shot?" There is the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. As Bilas said, that doesn't mean Sankey won't necessarily be fair, just that reasonable people might wonder if he's being fair. Which you can't have if you want the process to be trusted.

The reference to UK was just an example - he was saying only someone who has an interest in UK basketball would even think to make the point that Sankey made. If he is interested in touting UK basketball, that means he has a rooting interest, which means - back to the first point - a reasonable person might wonder if the whole thing is shady.

So, as I say, I think he explained himself pretty well. I have two questions:

1. Has he always said this, or is he only making this case now that UNC is in hot water?

2. I was under the impression that the only people involved in NCAA assessments and judgments are representatives from member schools. It's not like sometimes you have someone from a school or a conference and in other cases you might have a lawyer or judge or business person deciding the outcome. It's only reps from member schools. If so, for Bilas to get his way they'd have to tear down the whole system and decide a new way to judge cases. It's not just in this UNC case is there a potential conflict - in every single case there is the same thing. They'd have to find a whole new way to adjourn matters.

Is there any end to this application of perception of conflict though? Could this not be universally applied to nearly every legal matter? I thought there were holes in his "defense" of his statements. His conflict of interest happens to be working for ESPN who has a defined ACC bias with tons of UNC Alumni in powerful positions. Finally, UNC's "investigation" into the matter themselves demonstrated numerous counts of actual conflicts of interest yet they saw no problem there. It's a weak attempt at an ACC homer who's income is based on UNC and DUKE being untouchable. He's covering his rear here...

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

I really wish Matt had asked if there was an appearance of COI at ESPN, given that the head of the network is a Tar Hole grad and that network has been almost completely silent about the UNCheat scandal.

 

[GonzoCat90]

My favorite part of his argument is that Jay Bilas thinks this is what will make people question the fairness and integrity of the NCAA.

 

[Blue Bigfoot]

If Matt had a set, he would have asked Jay if his boss being a Carolina alum, was creating a conflict of interest and altering his opinion of the Carolina scandal. Jay is full of it, .and grasping at straws.

 

[Big_Blue79]

I thought he articulated it pretty well.

He said no sitting administrator - no one affiliated with a member school - should sit in judgment of another school. Why? because they all, at some level, compete with one another - and because of that, there is the appearance of a conflict. Someone watching all of this might reasonably think "Sankey is the Commissioner of the SEC. He naturally wants SEC schools to do better in athletics. It may help SEC schools if UNC is in some form of trouble.

But as with most things in life, degrees matter. The supposed appearance of conflict here is so tenuous that its application would quickly devolve into the absurd; it is not a "reasonable" thing to think. For Jay, he's okay with it here because he will talk himself in circles to 1) defend UNC, and 2) bash the NCAA. I used to think Jay was a pretty "real" guy, but even though I agree with a lot of his NCAA takes generally, he is unable to admit to being wrong. He's turning from smart, lawyerly Jay into TV personality Jay (it's not a lawyer thing unless it's your client that you have a duty to zealously represent; any lawyer who is blind to the realities of the situation involving third parties is a bad lawyer).

Also, his hilarious Twitter explanation that the subject of the article (Sankey's comments on 30 for 30) had literally nothing to do with the supposed conflict of interest (which he says is inherent in Swankey's job itself) exposes that he will use anything to push his narrative. A zealous lawyer will do that for a client, but UNC is not Jay's client. What's his excuse?

 

[Blueworld_3.0]

Matt should have asked Bilas if he was as vocal when the NCAA came down so tough on Penn State even though the scandal there was clearly outside the prevue of an Academic Association.
To be clear, I'm not defending PSU, I am saying that precedent was set in that case to allow the NCAA to basically regulate in ANY case against a member institution. Member schools allowed the NCAA to do it and now the genie is out of the bottle, or at least should be.

 

[FusterCluck]

Bilas needs to quit being an ACC apologist in general and UNC and Duke in particular.. UNC has been cheating for more than 20 years and it is time to pay the piper.

It almost seems that ESPN's entire purpose right now is to serve as protector of the ACC (especially the conference darlings as the bastard stepchild UL seems to be left twisting alone in the wind here with their many, many misgivings)... Isn't that odd? Looking at the top brass at ESPN, that conclusion isn't a crazy assertion.

 

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

He should be a politician. He has already mastered the art of speaking a whole lot without saying a word.

 

[TeoJ]

So he talked like a lawyer explaining nothing.

 

[Rolf Russman]

Is it not the case that sitting university/athletic administrators also have positions on the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Selection Committee? But they have no conflict of interest there?

Riiiiight.

 

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

I wish Matt would have said to Bilas say this outloud, "2 decades of fake classes, fake grades, fake majors, fake college degrees all designed to keep football and BASKETBALL players eligible"

Now defend that!

Don't forget the illegal benefits in the form of Rental Cars, Dental appliances, etc.

 

[spotter34]

If there was only circumstantial evidence and the NCAA ended up hammering UNC then the thought of a fair process might be worth an appeal but with all the evidence and testimony of former players and professors this should be a pretty open and shut case. I wish we had fought this hard against some of our charges when we got hammered in the late 80's. Casey ended up winning a huge law suit because of being falsely accused. We just shut up and said do what you want with us. Now days most hearings and cases always seem to be fought like the Clinton's example of "it depends on what your definition of is is". Personally, I'm sick of hearing about this. They are not going to have any type of meaningful punishment, if any.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

Is it not the case that sitting university/athletic administrators also have positions on the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Selection Committee? But they have no conflict of interest there?

Riiiiight.

Well, that is apples and oranges, because they are required to be out of the room when their school is discussed.

 

[FusterCluck]

Is there any end to this application of perception of conflict though? Could this not be universally applied to nearly every legal matter? I thought there were holes in his "defense" of his statements. His conflict of interest happens to be working for ESPN who has a defined ACC bias with tons of UNC Alumni in powerful positions. Finally, UNC's "investigation" into the matter themselves demonstrated numerous counts of actual conflicts of interest yet they saw no problem there. It's a weak attempt at an ACC homer who's income is based on UNC and DUKE being untouchable. He's covering his rear here...

Bravo. Bilas' words make him an absolute hypocrite given UNC's own actions.

Straw man with hollow words who marches in lock-step with his orders.

CNN would flipping LOVE Jay.

 

[Soupbean]

Always remember that Bilas is a lawyer and will defend his position till the end even if his opinion is refuted. I think he got caught in a bad comment but, his ego won't allow him to admit it.

That's the jest of it. When they start parsing words this is the case everytime

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Bilas is correct that it does present a bad appearance. That amounts to a conflict in judicial canons, not here.

Bilas had no reason at all to bring UK into that point.

Bilas should never attempt to make a point about conflicts, not anymore.

I lost all respect for him the first moment he started defending fake classes

 

[JRowland]

Bilas is correct that it does present a bad appearance. That amounts to a conflict in judicial canons, not here.

Bilas had no reason at all to bring UK into that point.

Bilas should never attempt to make a point about conflicts, not anymore.

I lost all respect for him the first moment he started defending fake classes

I agree with you on most of it and I'm still failing to see how it presents a bad look, especially given precedent. Is there an historical precedent for commissioners demonstrating bias towards other institutions before the infractions committee? Why exactly can the SEC commissioner not fairly rule in a case on UNC? What bias has Sankey ever demonstrated?

This is like a tin-foil cap paranoid mob mentality. It's imagining a worst case scenario (i.e. "We don't have any evidence Sankey or anyone is biased, and it really doesn't look bad, but it could conceivably be a factor).

It was not a serious legal move by UNC, it was a PR move.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Sadly, I've lost almost all respect for Bilas. He's done it to himself.

 

[Rolf Russman]

Well, that is apples and oranges, because they are required to be out of the room when their school is discussed.

Uhhhhh. . . well, yes, but that's only half of it. Aren't they IN the room when rivals are being discussed? And, really, aren't all the top tier teams rivals of each other?

 

[king of cali]

1. Has he always said this, or is he only making this case now that UNC is in hot water?

This is what I believe to be the case. If it was UNC under the microscope then he wouldn't say a word. Where was Bilas when Paul Dee, who had rampant cheating in his athletic department say in judgment of USC. Or when member from Notre Dame and Washington sat on that same committee? You don't think they had an interest in USC being brought down. There wasn't a peep from Bilas then.

 

[Sawnee Cat]

I thought he articulated it pretty well.

He said no sitting administrator - no one affiliated with a member school - should sit in judgment of another school. Why? because they all, at some level, compete with one another - and because of that, there is the appearance of a conflict. Someone watching all of this might reasonably think "Sankey is the Commissioner of the SEC. He naturally wants SEC schools to do better in athletics. It may help SEC schools if UNC is in some form of trouble. He therefore has an interest in this outcome. I wonder if he gave UNC a fair shot?" There is the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. As Bilas said, that doesn't mean Sankey won't necessarily be fair, just that reasonable people might wonder if he's being fair. Which you can't have if you want the process to be trusted.

The reference to UK was just an example - he was saying only someone who has an interest in UK basketball would even think to make the point that Sankey made. If he is interested in touting UK basketball, that means he has a rooting interest, which means - back to the first point - a reasonable person might wonder if the whole thing is shady.

So, as I say, I think he explained himself pretty well. I have two questions:

1. Has he always said this, or is he only making this case now that UNC is in hot water?

2. I was under the impression that the only people involved in NCAA assessments and judgments are representatives from member schools. It's not like sometimes you have someone from a school or a conference and in other cases you might have a lawyer or judge or business person deciding the outcome. It's only reps from member schools. If so, for Bilas to get his way they'd have to tear down the whole system and decide a new way to judge cases. It's not just in this UNC case is there a potential conflict - in every single case there is the same thing. They'd have to find a whole new way to adjourn matters.

Funny, he did not have the position he is taking now before the investigation involved UNC or the ACC. Now he comes up with all of these "conflicts".

When UK was being investigated about 30 years ago ESPN personnel were demanding the death penalty. And UK was cooperating with the NCAA. But with UNC the NCAA is the culprit in Jay Bilas's eyes.

 

[Jakarii]

He's right. Sec commissioner not any conference commissioner should be on the board. Should be people who aren't affiliated with any college or conference. Just makes sense and likely more fairness

 

[Hjack]

Well, that is apples and oranges, because they are required to be out of the room when their school is discussed.

Their presence in the room is a minor consideration. Just like the House and Senate, deals, influence, comments have their influence in the hotels, conference rooms, restaurant, and other areas. Voting takes place in the actual room, but decisions and negotiations are most times made prior to a formal vote.

 

[TankedCat]

the challenge of gaining context in reading quotes in the twitterverse.

Bilas uses UK as an example but cannot explain the reasoning behind it - thus creating a backlash that he could have avoided by not saying anything at all.

 

[coolioo1]

Bilas is a real lawyer and one point is that you don't want a verdict to be taited by either real or unreal issues due to conflicts of interest. this happens all the time in organizations....look at our current administration....everyday there is a question of conflicts of interest even if that conflict is real or perceived

 

[Blueaz]

I thought he articulated it pretty well.

He said no sitting administrator - no one affiliated with a member school - should sit in judgment of another school. Why? because they all, at some level, compete with one another - and because of that, there is the appearance of a conflict. Someone watching all of this might reasonably think "Sankey is the Commissioner of the SEC. He naturally wants SEC schools to do better in athletics. It may help SEC schools if UNC is in some form of trouble. He therefore has an interest in this outcome. I wonder if he gave UNC a fair shot?" There is the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. As Bilas said, that doesn't mean Sankey won't necessarily be fair, just that reasonable people might wonder if he's being fair. Which you can't have if you want the process to be trusted.

The reference to UK was just an example - he was saying only someone who has an interest in UK basketball would even think to make the point that Sankey made. If he is interested in touting UK basketball, that means he has a rooting interest, which means - back to the first point - a reasonable person might wonder if the whole thing is shady.

So, as I say, I think he explained himself pretty well. I have two questions:

1. Has he always said this, or is he only making this case now that UNC is in hot water?

2. I was under the impression that the only people involved in NCAA assessments and judgments are representatives from member schools. It's not like sometimes you have someone from a school or a conference and in other cases you might have a lawyer or judge or business person deciding the outcome. It's only reps from member schools. If so, for Bilas to get his way they'd have to tear down the whole system and decide a new way to judge cases. It's not just in this UNC case is there a potential conflict - in every single case there is the same thing. They'd have to find a whole new way to adjourn matters.

the member institutions volunteered to be in the NCAA and agreed to the terms...it is run by the member institutions...of course they have an "interest" in a proper outcome. (even though, we have all seen huge inconsistencies over the years). He is trying to BS, BSers...and it isn't being bought. There can always be the appearance of potential conflict...almost every situation can through the six degrees of Kevin Bacon and have "an appearance"