Yeah I know their stance, but they are wrong and I hope the NCAA keeps their balls and finally does something.
Jay Bilas: NCAA officials ‘breaking their own rules’ to punish UNC
- Thread starter rick64
- Start date
Yeah I know their stance, but they are wrong and I hope the NCAA keeps their balls and finally does something.
Bilas has been around for a long time. He takes that attitude because he works for UNCheat graduate and a network that has taken on a save Dean E.Smith legacy. He also knows that the NCAA is governed by academics who do not play by the rules except for when they are to their benefit. Academics make decisions and leave carnage behind and do not care of the outcome except to their immediate and long-term benefit. Bilas knows the only way that Dean E. Smith could devise this quarter of a century scam was to include regular students. Kinda like the athletic dorms around the country that they started putting some regular students in so that technically they were no longer athletic dorms...I am tired of Bilas and all the Dean E. Smith protectors. If they are not hammered, I am done with college athletics except for UK basketball, football, and baseball.
Spot on, Jon. My simple summary:
The more true facts you know about this mess, the more you know how corrupt UNC has been and still is.
Regarding the start of your post, the NCAA will look at high school and not college classes because this is what the member institutions want. The NCAA by-laws are proposed and approved by the schools, not the NCAA itself. The NCAA simply does what the schools tell it to do.
In this case, the difference in how the NCAA looks at classes is the result of who is responsible for certifying eligibility.
For prospective athletes, the NCAA certifies eligibility through the clearinghouse (i.e., initial eligibility). Once an athlete enrolls in a college, it becomes the responsibility of the universities to certify his or her eligibility.
While the NCAA is far from perfect, in the majority of cases that cause people to complain about the NCAA's inconsistency, the actual issue is that people simply don't understand the by-laws.
For example, the Derrick Rose and Darrell Arthur cases are a textbook example people like to reference. However, the reality of the situation is this. Both issues were open and shut cases that were correctly handled by the NCAA. It sucks Kansas got off easy, but that's what was called for by the by-laws.
I think Bias is basically after the NCAA and I stand with him there .... the hypocrisy is hard to swallow.
His point addresses the academic side, and has some validity in my opinion. HOWEVER, I suspect he would also agree with many of the points here NOT related to academics. Steering players to a no-show class, holding classes ONLY for players to get grades, etc.
Here's my question .....
UNC did at least 5 internal investigations that the local paper EACH time pointed out were flawed and incomplete. So if nothing else, they can be held accountable for misleading the NCAA each time, right? That is an offense and speaks to their climate of covering up the truth.
There was an Okla St WR that was punished for not telling the NCAA the truth about an incident that wasn't even an infraction. If the standard for players is loss of eligibility than certainly for a school it should be even higher.
His point addresses the academic side, and has some validity in my opinion. HOWEVER, I suspect he would also agree with many of the points here NOT related to academics. Steering players to a no-show class, holding classes ONLY for players to get grades, etc.
Here's my question .....
UNC did at least 5 internal investigations that the local paper EACH time pointed out were flawed and incomplete. So if nothing else, they can be held accountable for misleading the NCAA each time, right? That is an offense and speaks to their climate of covering up the truth.
There was an Okla St WR that was punished for not telling the NCAA the truth about an incident that wasn't even an infraction. If the standard for players is loss of eligibility than certainly for a school it should be even higher.
"Jay, make a bad basketball pun if your family is in danger"
-Hostage negotiator
Good to have you back. Always wondered about you and jchammock. Don't know why he doesn't post here more often. He seemed to post way more on UNCheat's board than here.
You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about the NCAA rulebook and I value your opinion. Could you answer a question about the Rose and Arthur cases?
Rose was cleared to play but his test scores were later invalidated and Memphis was stripped of their tournament appearance and placed on probation. Arthur participated in the same tournament and his high school district later determined that he didn't have the required grades to be eligible and stripped his school of it's title because they determined Arthur was ineligible. The class in question was a core class and without a passing grade, he didn't have the required core credits to be eligible at Kansas. Why was it the correct decision for Arthur to be declared eligible if he didn't have the required credits?
It's because of a technicality in how Arthur's school district handled the situation.
Initial eligibility requires two things:
- High school transcript that shows you took the required core classes and had at least a 2.3 GPA in them
- Qualifying SAT or ACT score
The problem with Arthur is that, while his high school games were vacated, the school district made an explicit decision to leave the class and grade on his transcript. So while we know the class was a joke, Arthur has an official government document that states he took the class and passed. That ties the hands of the NCAA.
If the NCAA were to have declared him ineligible, that's an instance where there is a very strong likelihood that you could sue the NCAA and win.
The other thing people overlook about Memphis is that they were informed of issues very early on and chose to play Rose anyway. They took a gamble and got burned, but it was a calculated decision. So, it's not accurate to view Memphis as some innocent victim that was blindsided by this.
As much as I love Calipari and dislike Kansas, I would have made the exact same decisions as the NCAA in both instances.
Thank you @UKnCincy for this detailed explanation. To dig a little deeper for my own interest, wasn't it ETS that cancelled Rose's test score, thereby forcing the NCAA to act? If Rose/Memphis had of responded to the letters from ETS do you think there was any way of saving the teams season?
Yes, ETS cancelled the score and also proactively notified the NCAA of this. This also essentially tied the NCAA's hands.
As to whether it would have saved the season, I have no idea and it also depends on how you are defining "saved."
I would speculate, that responding would simply have revealed this to be a legitimate issue that would've still rendered Rose ineligible. So while Memphis would've avoided vacating wins, they also probably have a far less successful season.
I believe this is why Memphis made a calculated decision to ignore this and proceed, which I think was a probably a gamble worth taking if you have no qualms about violating the eligibility requirements.
I also suspect Memphis didn't anticipate ETS would both invalidate the score and then also let the NCAA know about it.
Amen. That's the point that I keep bringing up but seems to be lost by the media.
The fact is that UNC has been actively trying to minimize, misdirect and hamstring this "investigation". At what point does the NCAA start to hold them accountable (I.e. Punish) them for doing this?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was actually Memphis itself which informed the NCAA in the Fall Semester of Rose's freshman year after hearing of potential issues with the test.
It is true that Memphis was taking a chance, but the NCAA didn't instruct them not to play Rose, even though they were made aware that there might be issues.
I know there's no real point to discussing as everything has already happened the way it did, but, I would think that if Rose had of responded saying that he did indeed take the exam then it would be his word vs what ever "evidence" ETS had that his test was compromised. I would also think that if ETS had clear evidence that he did not take his exam then they would not have gone through the entire process, and just would have cancelled his test. I am just curious how likely it would have been for Rose to have not been ruled ineligible.
OK thanks for the reply. Another question; What was the difference in the Arthur case and the one with Eric Bledsoe? Bledsoe's grades were certified by his school district and the clearinghouse determined that his grades and test scores were valid and cleared him to play. Yet after Thamel's story, they sent investigators to Alabama to review his grades. I don't believe they ever did an investigation of Arthur.
That's not accurate. Memphis was alerted by Chicago schools at the start of the season and conducted an internal investigation, and a bit of a half-assed one at that.
NCAA was not alerted until that following May.
EDIT: realized I should clarify. Memphis alerted the NCAA of an authorized grade change for Rose and that this wouldn't effect his eligibility. They did not inform the NCAA about concerns about the test, which Memphis characterized as "rumors." However, Memphis took these rumors seriously enough to try and document an internal investigation at that time. They also did not inform the NCAA about his, just the grade change. NCAA first heard about the test after ETS cancelled it.
Last edited:
With Eric Bledsoe, there were also allegations of extra benefits being provided (e.g., someone paying his rent). NCAA enforcement would've focused on that.
On the initial eligibility side, that would've most likely consisted of the clearinghouse simply monitoring the final decision made by the school board. If you read Chuck Wynne's email after the board left Bledsoe's transcript unchanged, you can see that's how that was playing out.
The appearance of a wide ranging probe that looked at everything is predominantly due to Pete Thamel mischaracterizing what was actually happening.
Last edited:
I still do not understand why everyone chooses to forget the Wheels for Heels cars, smoking pot in a house owned by Roy Williams, etc.
What's the Wheels for Heels cars? I remember the ex-player smoking/selling(?) weed in Roy's rental house, but how would that lead to NCAA sanctions?
The Memphis element has sides to it that aren't clear in public
Apparantly Cal recieved a letter from the NCAA about Rose (I believe) during conference tournaments. The letter basically surmised that Rose was having post clearing house issues.
The story goes that Cal chose to not even open the letter until after the tournament, and "left it on his desk". A former Memphis beat whom I know personally verified this story to his knowledge. It's also been the opinion of Memphis insiders, and most of their fans believe it. I used to remember a lot more about it, but that was nearly 10 years ago. I wouldn't blame Cal for playing Rose. He'd been cleared twice and the tournament was coming up. The NCAA handled that pitifully.
Not sure if that helps in the discussion or not, and I probably couldn't completely verify it, but most people I know believe it 100.
Apparantly Cal recieved a letter from the NCAA about Rose (I believe) during conference tournaments. The letter basically surmised that Rose was having post clearing house issues.
The story goes that Cal chose to not even open the letter until after the tournament, and "left it on his desk". A former Memphis beat whom I know personally verified this story to his knowledge. It's also been the opinion of Memphis insiders, and most of their fans believe it. I used to remember a lot more about it, but that was nearly 10 years ago. I wouldn't blame Cal for playing Rose. He'd been cleared twice and the tournament was coming up. The NCAA handled that pitifully.
Not sure if that helps in the discussion or not, and I probably couldn't completely verify it, but most people I know believe it 100.
According to reports, the NCAA did review Bledsoe's high school transcripts and question his high school administrators and teachers about his grades. This happened after Bledsoe had left UK. His school district had also validated his grades. If they didn't have the authority to question Arthur's high school grades, what gave them the authority to question Bledsoe's?
It ALL comes down to MONEY! UNCHEATS is a big draw for the tv, and ncaa revenue. They are one of the blue blood's, and like most of them, NOTHING is going to be done about the false classes...... For athletes wanting to get to another level, it's a freaking JOKE!! For student's who get into a College to study, and use their brain and not athletic, it's a total different game! No fake classes, they have to work their brain's out to keep their scholarship! It's not fair for the smart youngster's. They can't cheat, and weasel their way into a good job by just playing!!! IT'S ![[sick]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/sick/sick0006.r191677.gif "Sick [sick]")
. I've got off topic, but the more I read the more I thought of the discrimination of the athlete, and the regular student SORRY FOR GETTING OFF THE MAIN TOPIC!! 
. I've got off topic, but the more I read the more I thought of the discrimination of the athlete, and the regular student SORRY FOR GETTING OFF THE MAIN TOPIC!! I hadn't seen those reports so I was unaware of that fact. That said, there is nothing surprising about that. The NCAA investigates lots of things. The important piece is to look at the outcome.
In Bledsoe's case, the NCAA deferred to the school district'a own investigation. The school found that there was a problem with the grade, but not enough evidence to change Bledsoe's transcript. Based on that, the NCAA took no action, which is exactly how they handled the Arthur case.
You should also keep in mind that just because an NCAA investigation is not reported, that doesn't mean there wasn't one. The NCAA doesn't publicly disclose things. I would be very surprised if they hadn't looked into the Arthur issue.
But it's also safe to say they didn't look into
It (as nobody was made aware ) so it seems as if preferential treatment was given to KU and Memphis got the shaft
And Bledsoe got the shaft
That was a point I was trying to make. If they didn't have the authority to to investigate Arthur what gave them the authority to investigate Bledsoe? That seems like selective enforcement to me.
Skipper has his hand far up the ass of a once reasonable Jay Bilas.
Hey Jay did Skippy lube your lips first or was it a three fingers dry aka "dirty bird"
Hey Jay did Skippy lube your lips first or was it a three fingers dry aka "dirty bird"
Enforcement has the ability to look into any potential issue of which they are made aware.
Why do you say they had no authority to investigate Arthur but had the authority to investigate Bledsoe?
In an earlier post you said both the Rose and Arthur cases were open and shut cases and were handled correctly by the NCAA. They chose not to question Arthur's eligibility with the knowledge that his high school athletic association had declared him ineligible and stripped his school of it's title. They then chose to question Bledsoe's school district about his high school grades.
If they handled Arthur's case correctly by choosing not to question his school about his grades then wouldn't you agree they used a double standard by choosing to question Bledsoe's school about his? If the question about Arthur's grades was an open and shut case why wasn't Bledsoe's?
Both the Arthur and Bledsoe grade issues were handled correctly and in the same fashion.
- In both instances, the NCAA became aware of issues with respect to grades of previously certified athletes
- In both instances, the NCAA was informed that the school districts were conducting their own investigations
- In both instances, the NCAA held off on taking an action with respect to revocation of initial eligibility until after the school districts rendered their decisions
- In both instances, the NCAA declined to declare the athletes ineligible because the school districts left their transcripts unchanged, despite strong evidence of issues for both
You're looking for an issue that simple isn't there.
Last edited:
I've moved away from the Chapel Hill area, still got a house to sell. Living in Music City now. Just opened a cigar lounge there! Hoping to see plenty of my Big Blue Brothers during SEC Tourney week. We already have have one former Cat as a regular.
In Arthur's case, his high school math teacher claimed he had a failing grade in his junior year and the grade was changed without his knowledge. I can't find anything that says the teacher was ever interviewed by the NCAA.
Their statement regarding that case was that for Arthur to be ineligible there would have to be evidence that Arthur or Kansas knew or should have known about the grade change. It sounds implausible that Arthur didn't know he failed math in his junior year. That makes Arthur's case extremely weak.
During the Bledsoe investigation the NCAA took a very different stance. Their statement said the NCAA reserves the right to change the eligibility status of a player if "new and correct" information comes to light that was previously unavailable.
"In the end, it's the NCAA's responsibility to get certification right even if that means changing an earlier decision. If the institution knew there was inaccurate information, it becomes an enforcement issue."
Both cases had the same outcome, but as evidenced by the NCAA's own statements, the investigations were not handled in the same manner. They did a thorough review of Bledsoe's grades but, to my knowledge, didn't even speak to the teacher who said Arthur's grades were changed.
I am not an attorney but my understanding that if you choose to to join a organization such as the NCAA you forfeit certain rights such as jurisdiction which Bilas seems to be basing his position on and the only recourse is to leave said organization.I would be curious to hear what some of the attorneys who posts on this board think
You're reading far too much into an insignificant detail and interpreting that as a change in stance. There was no change in stance and the fact they didn't interview Arthur's teacher is a complete non-issue.
Given the grade change was the only potential issue and the circus surrounding the school's investigation, I would've told the investigator assigned to the case to simply monitor the outcome and focus on the other 15-20 cases they were juggling.
For Bledsoe, I would've sent them down there given the extra benefits issues as they would be able to fill an entire day or two with interviews and have a productive trip.
Regarding the statements, the Arthur statement was misattributed to the NCAA. They didn't say that. "Multiple sources with close ties to the NCAA process" said that. The initial statement was in an ESPN story the repeated something told to Andy Katz. In a story a few months later written by Katz himself, he clarified who actually told him that.
Additionally, read Todd Leyden's quote to Katz during the summer of 2009. It states the exact same position as what you referenced above.
There is no inconsistency in these two cases.
Hey Jay how is it going for you in your defense of UNC with your Dukie brethren?
In all seriousness, unless you work for the NCAA how can you defend (with a straight face) the way they conduct investigations? If they do so much correctly how about the massive screw up they had with the Miami mess?
As for Arthur It's hilarious to think that a high school athletic governing body strips wins from a school because of an ineligible player but the NCAA was correct in their lack of pressure/effectiveness to conduct a proper investigation? That is really your position?
Latest posts
-
Dick Vitale will be on the UK-Bama game this Saturday- Latest: Louis_Skunt
-
-
