By the way, I should clarify - when I say "I thought he articulated it well", I don't necessarily mean I agree with him or even that he successfully made his case. I just mean, at least after listening to him I understand what he's trying to say. After his tweets the other day, I had no clue what he meant.
Bilas tries to explain the inexplicable
- Thread starter JRowland
- Start date
Lawyer or not mentioning Kentucky means it's personal in some way, he can use all of his big words and not change anybody's mind about him saying that. He went to school in the ACC and so did his boss so he has to try harder to show Skipper he's on their side. I would say his comments om the matter assured he would not be one of the one hundred or so losing their jobs.
In the midst of major layoffs at ESPN, suddenly saying things to cower the favor of the UNC alumni CEO could keep me in employment. Bilas, Greenburg and the crew are playing the cards to keep the check imo.
I see that the COI has members from other conferences as well: ACC, AAC, B12, P12, OVC, Horizon, WCC, Ivy. I suppose all of those guys should step down too.
If we're to take "King" Bilas words as he said, then is it not a "Conflict of interest" when there is a CBB committee selecting the NCAA Tournament? I mean some AD's are more friendly with others and some don't get along or have taken ass kickings in the past, and may hold grudges.
Dare I say is it a conflict of interest when Duke alums are swarming the airwaves to cover CBB and former ACC alums (Skipper (UNC) at ESPN and McManus (Duke) at CBS) run the networks that cover the sport the most? I mean Bilas, Williams, Gminski, Spanarkel, Hill (who has no business being assigned the top broadcast team for NCAA Tournament/Final Four), Seth Davis, how many of these guys do you need? And if there is a "favorable draw" for instance for a school (Cough---Duke) then it would be very easy to sweep under rug when said personalities are all on the air and either defend NCAA committees or ignore the issue altogether. Now god forbid that Duke had to play South Carolina in SC--then it's "unfair"--as same gentlemen trumped for Duke to be a #1 seed due to winning the ACC Tournament--which we're all told is as difficult as walking into a live combat zone with no weapon.
What happens when you choose to go to the "look at me side" of the world is exactly what you ask, people will look/listen and then you will be ripped to shreds. Despite what media heads think, majority of the CBB fans in the country tune into watch the teams/players play, and to see the best even put forward. To mess up a tournament is to put your best teams in one bracket (they've done this repeatedly) and yet we've got the talking heads in Bristol and NYC telling us "that's not the case". Ok--anyone think the South Regional was more enjoyable to watch and better basketball then the Final Four? (my hands are raised and I'm a fan--not a UK fan). However that would go against the agenda to protect Duke getting a favorable draw--again if we're to analyze their team last year, one issue was Coach K put together a shitty non conference schedule and didn't prepare his team for the tough road/neutral site games you know are ahead in a tough league. (See Jay, people can be unbiased and fair and still speak to an issue without an agenda)
We're told this league "isn't very good or deep" and this league is this--well when you have employed a majority of people from said league--then of course we'll hear that. Facts are, sports are about matchups, coaches can improve their teams during course of a season, and with pod placement of NCAA, it's often about where you play early in tournament. Yet the "Conflict of Interest" is at work (Jay, there's that phrase you have been throwing out) and here's a conflict of interest for you to think about, what is NOT a conflict of interest? Making a 30/30 about the "Death of the Big East" only to see them win a NC within 3 years of said show--you know the one you lost tv rights to? Having ACC honks ignore issues of academic fraud, widespread rules being broken, and ignoring it--because you know the head of a company is a former alum and huge booster/fan of said team involved? Now that team is say.....Texas Tech or Baylor with their issues (we know they have them btw, just saying what's different is it's involving crime and not white collar cheating/crimes that UNC is/has participated in).
Conflict of interest is pathetic. It's publicly saying Greg Sankey is incapable of being fair and judging a program based on fact. It's accusing an adult of being agenda driven. Or as Jay tried to clear up today "bad look". It has nothing to do with Kentucky.....so why did Jay bring up Kentucky--when all Sankey did was mention he'd have liked the 30/30 on Calipari to mention how his 1 and done guys return to go to school and academics are not ignored. So that factors into widespread academic fraud in what manner exactly?
Those who want to be king--be wary of the crown. Public pays attention and will call you on the bullshit you spew. People are paying attention, they just have a difference of opinion and want to know why a school being investigated for the biggest crime a University can make is being allowed to succeed and not punished? Saying Roy Williams didn't know anything is like any big time coach getting caught. Now accuse Roy Williams of "not knowing what is going on with his players, they are not working hard in offseason" and you get the "I know what's going on with them at all times.......etc......" but shit goes bad/negative and "I didn't know, how would I know..." this wasn't an agent setting up a kid or family with a home in Philly, this was fake classes being taken by kids so they could stay eligible on Campus--in Chapel Hill, and Roy is in charge of all--but he doesn't know? Pitino doesn't know strippers are hooking for his recruits? They ALL KNOW, but a Duke educated, former lawyer is going to tell us Greg Sankey is incapable of "understanding". Sure.
Bilas needs to be let go or quit. It's a conflict of interest to listen to this bullshit any longer. He's incapable of not pushing agendas and being a fair, honest analyst. Now I say this knowing it won't happen, but to point out what a pompous, self righteous prick this guy has become and how you can punch holes through this crap--and for Matt Jones to give him a forum to continue to dig a deeper hole, I say thanks--because it is a joy to watch this dickhead get exposed for what he's always been.
Dare I say is it a conflict of interest when Duke alums are swarming the airwaves to cover CBB and former ACC alums (Skipper (UNC) at ESPN and McManus (Duke) at CBS) run the networks that cover the sport the most? I mean Bilas, Williams, Gminski, Spanarkel, Hill (who has no business being assigned the top broadcast team for NCAA Tournament/Final Four), Seth Davis, how many of these guys do you need? And if there is a "favorable draw" for instance for a school (Cough---Duke) then it would be very easy to sweep under rug when said personalities are all on the air and either defend NCAA committees or ignore the issue altogether. Now god forbid that Duke had to play South Carolina in SC--then it's "unfair"--as same gentlemen trumped for Duke to be a #1 seed due to winning the ACC Tournament--which we're all told is as difficult as walking into a live combat zone with no weapon.
What happens when you choose to go to the "look at me side" of the world is exactly what you ask, people will look/listen and then you will be ripped to shreds. Despite what media heads think, majority of the CBB fans in the country tune into watch the teams/players play, and to see the best even put forward. To mess up a tournament is to put your best teams in one bracket (they've done this repeatedly) and yet we've got the talking heads in Bristol and NYC telling us "that's not the case". Ok--anyone think the South Regional was more enjoyable to watch and better basketball then the Final Four? (my hands are raised and I'm a fan--not a UK fan). However that would go against the agenda to protect Duke getting a favorable draw--again if we're to analyze their team last year, one issue was Coach K put together a shitty non conference schedule and didn't prepare his team for the tough road/neutral site games you know are ahead in a tough league. (See Jay, people can be unbiased and fair and still speak to an issue without an agenda)
We're told this league "isn't very good or deep" and this league is this--well when you have employed a majority of people from said league--then of course we'll hear that. Facts are, sports are about matchups, coaches can improve their teams during course of a season, and with pod placement of NCAA, it's often about where you play early in tournament. Yet the "Conflict of Interest" is at work (Jay, there's that phrase you have been throwing out) and here's a conflict of interest for you to think about, what is NOT a conflict of interest? Making a 30/30 about the "Death of the Big East" only to see them win a NC within 3 years of said show--you know the one you lost tv rights to? Having ACC honks ignore issues of academic fraud, widespread rules being broken, and ignoring it--because you know the head of a company is a former alum and huge booster/fan of said team involved? Now that team is say.....Texas Tech or Baylor with their issues (we know they have them btw, just saying what's different is it's involving crime and not white collar cheating/crimes that UNC is/has participated in).
Conflict of interest is pathetic. It's publicly saying Greg Sankey is incapable of being fair and judging a program based on fact. It's accusing an adult of being agenda driven. Or as Jay tried to clear up today "bad look". It has nothing to do with Kentucky.....so why did Jay bring up Kentucky--when all Sankey did was mention he'd have liked the 30/30 on Calipari to mention how his 1 and done guys return to go to school and academics are not ignored. So that factors into widespread academic fraud in what manner exactly?
Those who want to be king--be wary of the crown. Public pays attention and will call you on the bullshit you spew. People are paying attention, they just have a difference of opinion and want to know why a school being investigated for the biggest crime a University can make is being allowed to succeed and not punished? Saying Roy Williams didn't know anything is like any big time coach getting caught. Now accuse Roy Williams of "not knowing what is going on with his players, they are not working hard in offseason" and you get the "I know what's going on with them at all times.......etc......" but shit goes bad/negative and "I didn't know, how would I know..." this wasn't an agent setting up a kid or family with a home in Philly, this was fake classes being taken by kids so they could stay eligible on Campus--in Chapel Hill, and Roy is in charge of all--but he doesn't know? Pitino doesn't know strippers are hooking for his recruits? They ALL KNOW, but a Duke educated, former lawyer is going to tell us Greg Sankey is incapable of "understanding". Sure.
Bilas needs to be let go or quit. It's a conflict of interest to listen to this bullshit any longer. He's incapable of not pushing agendas and being a fair, honest analyst. Now I say this knowing it won't happen, but to point out what a pompous, self righteous prick this guy has become and how you can punch holes through this crap--and for Matt Jones to give him a forum to continue to dig a deeper hole, I say thanks--because it is a joy to watch this dickhead get exposed for what he's always been.
Of course he won't give a straight answer, that's what being a lawyer is all about. He argued his point and never allowed himself to be pinned down on anything. Defend your argument but don't give anyone an opportunity to nail you to the cross using your own words.
I usually defend Bilas but in this case, I agree that he is wrong and he should admit it and move on. I think his training has clouded his memory that he is not in a court of law but a court of public opinion. In the latter, it's ok to admit being at fault.
I usually defend Bilas but in this case, I agree that he is wrong and he should admit it and move on. I think his training has clouded his memory that he is not in a court of law but a court of public opinion. In the latter, it's ok to admit being at fault.
Jones made a good point yesterday, when Enis Cantor eligibility was being review, the president of the University of Washington was the head of that committee and UofW was were Enis decommitted from, now that is a conflict of interest. Jay Bilas is just being an ACC homer and can't really talk his way out if this one.
UK's president at the time was David Roselle , who was a Duke grad if I remember correctly. Maybe that's why it wasn't fought harder??
Don't like Bilas and yes his response was b.s., but the man sure knows who writes his checks and how to survive those layoffs.
I haven't listened but it sounds like Matt's typical softball interview when he talks to one of the big boys. He is afraid they won't come back on his show if he makes them mad.
My opinion of Bilas continues to darken. Used to think he was a real gift to college basketball broadcasting.
It's because he is should full of it. He quit being straight when ESPN gave him the lead spot. Now he's just like Vitale was. Walk the company line and never call out a school other coach. I no longer listen to him because he talks right from his marching orders.
Last edited:
if you use his interpretation of conflict of interest then the only way to take that out of it would be to have people who didn't go to college, has never watch any sports their entire life, and has no particular attachment to the state or community in which they live. everyone who is not being bias on this issue can see that UNC should get their program shutdown if it was truly about "student athletes" and "academic integrity"
I believe it is a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one, when someone who has a financial interest in the outcome of the UNC case is making public statements that appear to be attempts to influence the outcome of the investigation. Bilas has a biased opinion in this case.
I don't remember Bilas being too upset when Mark Emmert ruled Enes Kanter permanently ineligible after Terrence Jones de-commited from the school where Emmert was president and committed to UK and I don't remember him criticizing the NCAA for allowing Duke to skate in both the Corey Maggette and Lance Thomas cases.
If Bilas wants to be seen as fair and unbiased he needs to be consistent in his statements. If he can't do that, he needs to just shut up and be quiet.
I don't remember Bilas being too upset when Mark Emmert ruled Enes Kanter permanently ineligible after Terrence Jones de-commited from the school where Emmert was president and committed to UK and I don't remember him criticizing the NCAA for allowing Duke to skate in both the Corey Maggette and Lance Thomas cases.
If Bilas wants to be seen as fair and unbiased he needs to be consistent in his statements. If he can't do that, he needs to just shut up and be quiet.
I think Bilas is right. Sankey is not just ON the COI - - he is the Chairman of the COI. There is one ACC representative and Sankey is ours. Bilas is really only suggesting that if Sankey remains as Chairman of the infraction committee and UNC gets a tough conviction, there will be a conflict of interest APPEARANCE, particularly to UNC fans and some ACC fans. And that is true. He's not attacking Sankey. He's only saying that the perception of conflict of interest will take place, however Sankey votes (which we are unlikely to find out). I don't think UNC gets away with this, so I'd rather have Sankey recuse himself from the case so that Carolina fans can't use him as an excuse. The ACC rep from Notre Dame should recuse herself too. This type of recusal is common in both business and government.
Last edited:
This thread is indicative of what's wrong with the world today. There's no room for divergent opinions. It's either you agree with me or you're an idiot, a puppet, biased, whatever.
I don't agree with Jay in this case. But I also don't think his opinion is crazy either - it just happens to be different from mine, and that's OK. The reality is, in this day and age, a conference commissioner has one goal, and one goal only -- make as much money as possible for his/her member institutions. It's why we've had all the conference realignments, individual networks, etc.
If UNC - who is the defending national champion in basketball and still the premier program in the ACC -- is severely damaged, that hurts the ACC brand, which in turn helps the brand of the SEC and other conferences. That's not outlandish. Now I would hope -- and believe -- that Sankey is above that, but I also don't believe a guy who thinks otherwise is an idiot. There doesn't have to actually be a conflict of interest to disrupt the process; just the appearance of one is often enough.
I don't agree with Jay in this case. But I also don't think his opinion is crazy either - it just happens to be different from mine, and that's OK. The reality is, in this day and age, a conference commissioner has one goal, and one goal only -- make as much money as possible for his/her member institutions. It's why we've had all the conference realignments, individual networks, etc.
If UNC - who is the defending national champion in basketball and still the premier program in the ACC -- is severely damaged, that hurts the ACC brand, which in turn helps the brand of the SEC and other conferences. That's not outlandish. Now I would hope -- and believe -- that Sankey is above that, but I also don't believe a guy who thinks otherwise is an idiot. There doesn't have to actually be a conflict of interest to disrupt the process; just the appearance of one is often enough.
Overall, I don't think Bilas necessarily is "in the tank" for anyone (be it UNC, the ACC, or even ESPN). I think he's a legitimate sports journalist operating in a flawed system. The system exerts remarkable pressure on journalists to explore contrary positions, if only to give voice to unique (and thereby marketable) takes on current issues.
In some ways, this pressure is good. Most issues are complex, and having competing perceptions about the root causes and impact of the issue can be valuable to those trying to understand and assess them. Personally, I like reading/hearing competing viewpoints on most issues because they force me to challenge my own beliefs. If my beliefs are sound, they'll withstand the additional critique. If not, I'll be able to develop more sustainable beliefs.
But, in this case, my opinion is that Bilas is pursuing a fruitless line of logic. When we start talking about removing jurists or jurors (using the terms loosely here) based merely on the *potential* appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest, we're heading down a VERY slippery slope. As numerous posts have already stated, if the mere possibility of such things is enough to void a decision, then all decisions or judgments will be suspect. I don't care who sits in judgment of UNC (or any other entity), a potential conflict of interest can be found or generated. In short, I just don't find his argument persuasive or helpful.
I think we'd all be better served by focusing on the underlying substance, rather than getting caught up in the procedural issues. Did UNC basketball players and athletes gain or extend their eligibility by taking "fake classes" or having others write papers on their behalf? If so, did the university and athletic department know (or should they have known)? If so, is any of that a violation of NCAA student athlete bylaws? If so, were the student athletes actually ineligible to compete? If so, what punishment is authorized and appropriate, given the circumstances?
In some ways, this pressure is good. Most issues are complex, and having competing perceptions about the root causes and impact of the issue can be valuable to those trying to understand and assess them. Personally, I like reading/hearing competing viewpoints on most issues because they force me to challenge my own beliefs. If my beliefs are sound, they'll withstand the additional critique. If not, I'll be able to develop more sustainable beliefs.
But, in this case, my opinion is that Bilas is pursuing a fruitless line of logic. When we start talking about removing jurists or jurors (using the terms loosely here) based merely on the *potential* appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest, we're heading down a VERY slippery slope. As numerous posts have already stated, if the mere possibility of such things is enough to void a decision, then all decisions or judgments will be suspect. I don't care who sits in judgment of UNC (or any other entity), a potential conflict of interest can be found or generated. In short, I just don't find his argument persuasive or helpful.
I think we'd all be better served by focusing on the underlying substance, rather than getting caught up in the procedural issues. Did UNC basketball players and athletes gain or extend their eligibility by taking "fake classes" or having others write papers on their behalf? If so, did the university and athletic department know (or should they have known)? If so, is any of that a violation of NCAA student athlete bylaws? If so, were the student athletes actually ineligible to compete? If so, what punishment is authorized and appropriate, given the circumstances?
Reading the quotes from the OP, Bilas is saying no one currently affiliated with a conference should be able to judge the merits of another conference. It makes sense.
This is not SEC - UK - UNC, it is any conference making judgement on another.
However the NCAA is set up so conferences, more to the point individuals within conferences, make a determination on correctness. No one would want Spellings or Swofford to make a ruling on UK.
All this so called favoritism is simply money. Big time sports media Vega so on benefits by north Carolina basketball not missing the tourney to not have nationally televised games plus the set back before they are recovered. All of that costs money in ratings, attendance, gambling, add revenue. Sure there are some person biases here not as much as you think. Either way it's why I don't really think UNC goes down hard. Especially when Louisville might too. One of the two schools will skate the other will be made an example of. Just don't see UNC being the one made an example of
How long have the rules governing COI membership been in place? Have the other members accepted the rules for greater than 25 years? The argument is meaningless if the membership accepts the process. This wasn't an issue until UNC found itself in front of the COI. Funny how that works...
You want to talk conflicts of interest, who is the ACC commissioner and how does he rule on anything when UNC is involved? Who runs the university system in North Carolina? Who has made all of the court room decisions when cases regarding this issue have gone before the court in North Carolina?
The rules have been this way for some time and now it is an issue since North Carolina is in trouble. Nice...
The real irony here is there any athlete who went to UNC in the last 20 years would not be able to understand what in the bloody hell he was talking about.
While we're on the subject of conflict of interest, did Bilas mention his outrage a few years back over UNC football being investigated by a NCAA official who was a former UNC football player?
But isn't it also a conflict of interest for all of the other people on the committee that have ties to other conferences? If you want to get free of (or is it free from?) conflict of interest, shouldn't everything go before an independent arbitrator or judge? Even then, you can have questions about fairness.
The best thing that could've possibly happened would to have had Coach Cal interview Bilas. Cal would talk and bullshit circles around Jay and make him look like an idiot. Someone get in Matt Jones' ear and have him try to do this. Talk about epic. 
I've been looking at the NCAA bylaws and can't tell what the voting or recusal rules are. There are references to "panels," so it may be that a panel is selected to vote on a particular case - and who would select the panel? The committee chair? Many of the committee members are people currently unaligned with a school or a conference - lawyers and citizens. I'd love to know how the Chairman fits in here, but don't. Certainly he has power.
One way to look at this is that the schools that are part of the NCAA have agreed to the governing structure that is setup. If Greg Sankey is a conflict of interest in this case, then he has a COI in all cases. But then so does any other chairman, unless they are not from a college or conference. Bottom line, the schools (members) agreed to this governance structure.
The more I think about it, the more wrong Bilas is.
I'm not saying that Sankey has a conflict of interest. I'm saying (as was Bilas) that there there will be an APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. As we've seen in the federal government recently, organizations tend to bend over backwards to avoid that appearance. If we knew who votes and how the voting is set up, it would be helpful.
Perhaps. But is the rule fairly applied. If it is, leave it alone. If not, make the adjustments needed. Seems straightforward.
For me, I do not want any rival conference making a decision about who things are done.
You can look at every conference and see the dirt and wonder why the commissioner, who is supposed to be an upstanding person, did not get involved.
Go back to Auburn and Newton, Ohio State and the tat for jerseys, Louisville Escortgate, UNC Classes for Mental Giants, Duke Gold for Games.
These commissioners are just like everyone else. They are turning a blind eye when they have to look inward, but willing to sit on the throne judging others.
It certainly is not perfect, but there needs to be a system that fairly decides the issues and punishments.
None of the other conferences have the payout of the ACC, got to keep these boys around. Its a no brainier.
The NCAA doesn't operate with common sense and why must it be UNC that gets the actual fair treatment that other schools who have been crushed haven't? I'd say USC brand in CFB is a huge one--they were destroyed unjustly for what the crime was--and as was pointed out by the several who wanted them to get drilled, NCAA assumes you are guilty and have to prove innocence, and they had Paul Dee of Miami FL as Chairman of the COI, Missy Conboy of Notre Dame (not that she'd have any interest in hurting USC, lol) a member was from UCLA as well (see comments on Conboy). Remember, this was for a player/agent issue--not academic fraud.
My thing for those who want to defend Bilas stance is that I understand your points and his points. What I jump on him unlike you is that he's using things that don't matter and throws little arrows out and has a platform based on where he went to school and the market that hires them. He's "in the club" and uses that platform to protect said people who helped him. Loyal and I respect that--but it's transparent. Conflict of interest. Again, I've pointed out how that can be used against him, the ACC, specifically Duke and UNC within media circles, and yet we are to believe they are legit. So if so, why can't Sankey or anyone else who had proceeded over these type of investigations? Dare I say the reason they do go outside is due to conflict of interest within a conference to protect a program that helps their brand?
UNC committed Academic Fraud and broke NCAA rules. This is all moot if they didn't do so and didn't get caught. They did. So now they can't use their puppets to lecture who is the judge and how they get punished. They got caught. Being "fair" goes out window when you get caught violating rules. Do I think they are alone in doing so? Hell no, but I also don't complain if I get pulled over doing 80 in a 70 while people fly past me. You break a rule, get caught, you pay the price and conflict of interest is laughable. That can be applied to all forms of life and specifically within how the NCAA operates, as I stated previously. Don't violate rules and if you do, don't get caught-then this isn't an issue. When you do, and have balls to want to dictate who and how you are punished, you deserved criticism. Bilas is doing friends a favor and no coincidence he did so as budget cuts were happening at his employer. That's a conflict of interest potentially to, wouldn't you say? Do I think he was in danger? No--but just saying when you want to use a phrase to help your cause and it's easily turned back against you, then be prepared for the limits to be pushed.
The self appointed "Commish" needs to quit lecturing and acting holier then thou.
What Bilas wants is impossible.
And quite frankly, no one who isn't in the tank for UNC gives a damn.
This whole argument is based on the premise of whether you believe that UNC cheated or not.
Bilas has some arguments , not based on the reality of whether they cheated or not, but whether they broke written rules based on the technical syntax of the rule itself.
Its absurd. Bilas is saying the same thing at Bubba - yes, UNC cheated, but they cheated in a way that isn't specifically defined in the bylaws of the NCAA.
And this is why Bilas is saying there is a conflict of interest with Sankey, because he (and UNC) believes that Sankey is going to use common sense when applying his judgement and refused to be constrained by the letter of the law.
As I said, no one that isn't in the tank for UNC is going to say that Sankey had a conflict of interest if he along with the committee drop the hammer on UNC. and therefore no one will give a damn other than cheaters and those who support cheaters.
And quite frankly, no one who isn't in the tank for UNC gives a damn.
This whole argument is based on the premise of whether you believe that UNC cheated or not.
Bilas has some arguments , not based on the reality of whether they cheated or not, but whether they broke written rules based on the technical syntax of the rule itself.
Its absurd. Bilas is saying the same thing at Bubba - yes, UNC cheated, but they cheated in a way that isn't specifically defined in the bylaws of the NCAA.
And this is why Bilas is saying there is a conflict of interest with Sankey, because he (and UNC) believes that Sankey is going to use common sense when applying his judgement and refused to be constrained by the letter of the law.
As I said, no one that isn't in the tank for UNC is going to say that Sankey had a conflict of interest if he along with the committee drop the hammer on UNC. and therefore no one will give a damn other than cheaters and those who support cheaters.
Sure, I can agree that there is an 'appearance' of COI. But as I stated before, this is a built in to the system from the start.
Similar threads
