Jay Bilas: Often interesting, frequently overheated

Until recently, I believed that no commentator could possibly have it in for the NCAA more than National Public Radio’s Frank Deford.

Move over, Frank. There’s a new hit man in town.

ESPN’s Jay Bilas, like Deford, is highly erudite. He is an attorney who played college basketball at Duke. He is a prominent ESPN basketball analyst, and he produces (frequently) the Jay Bilas Blog, hosted on the pay section of ESPN.com.

You think twice before you call out people like this.

But for Pete’s sake, when is enough enough?

Over the last six months, Bilas has written 13 posts focusing on the NCAA. The tone has ranged from a little negative to negative to hostile.

Many in Bilas’ audience would say that 13 NCAA bashes isn’t enough, but I suspect that deep down inside, he knows he can say whatever he wants, secure in the knowledge that he’s accountable for nothing.

Here’s a review of some of his recent observations:

  • The NCAA needs to be reformed because its rules and principles are unreasonable and unfair.
  • Student-athletes should be able to have agreements with agents, advisors and the like.
  • NCAA eligibility certification is “slow, ineffective and are not equipped to do the work that the schools do better and more efficiently themselves.”
  • The NCAA has created a compliance arms race that requires schools to spend large and unnecessary amounts of money.
  • The NCAA is on the wrong side of the Keller and O’Bannon likeness lawsuits.
  • Coaches should be able to call recruits without limits.
  • Too much emphasis is placed on graduation when that is not a real indicator of education.
  • Schools should be able to make their own admission standards and should be able to certify student-athletes as initially eligible, without NCAA interference.

Let’s look at that last one as a case study of sorts. Here’s what Bilas wrote:

“For example, there is no way that the NCAA Eligibility Clearinghouse (now the Eligibility Center) is in a better position to ‘certify’ the eligibility of Eric Bledsoe or Derrick Rose than was Kentucky or Memphis. It takes in and examines the same information as the two schools, and its certification is meaningless because it cannot be relied upon by the institutions. The Clearinghouse cleared both Bledsoe and Rose, and the latter was later declared ineligible as a freshman almost a year after the Clearinghouse had certified the athlete as eligible. So, what was really accomplished by spending all of that money and time? Nothing, except a lot of people outside of the athletes got paid a lot of money.”

Not so fast. While the same information is available to member schools, that same information is subject to interpretation. Was a core course listed correctly on the 48H form? Were nontraditional courses properly administered? Was there reason to believe that a prospect’s standardized test scores might not be legitimate? We can long all we want to for a laissez-faire world where independent certification isn’t necessary, but that’s not where Division I lived in 1993 when it approved initial-eligibility certification with more than 90 percent of the vote.

So it goes. Many of us might agree with some of Bilas’ various theoreticals, but we also know (as I suspect Bilas does) that it’s a complicated landscape out there, where issues involving opportunity, education, competition and economics often fail to intersect conveniently. If you want to make education a legitimate part of the student-athlete experience, then economic and competitive sacrifices must be made. If you want to provide broad access to education through athletics, then you must make the educational standards permissive enough to apply broadly. Achieving those balances can make college athletic administration difficult.

Bilas actually was something of an NCAA insider before he became an ESPN Insider. When he was a student-athlete in the mid-1980s, he was one of two student-athletes appointed to the NCAA Long-Range Planning Committee. He went on to play pro ball, serve as a Duke assistant coach and has been with a Charlotte law firm since 1992. He’s even appeared in several TV commercials and an episode of “The White Shadow.”

Like I say, he’s a smart guy – probably smart enough to know that there are few perfect answers.

If you’re an ESPN Insider subscriber, I’ll make it easy for you. Here are links to Jay Bilas’ NCAA-related blogs for the last couple of months:

October

Two major reforms could save the NCAA

Ex-athletes have a case against the NCAA

September

Debunking the myth of a level playing field

On Bruce Pearl, Eric Bledsoe, UNC

August

Let’s put an end to the Howland Myth

NCAA Insider is an occasional take on college sports issues, as viewed by NCAA communications staff member David Pickle. Opinions are his alone.

Something to believe in

On Saturday, Oct. 16, Eric LeGrand’s life changed in a way that nobody could be prepared for. As widely reported, the Rutgers defensive tackle became paralyzed from the neck down after an attempted tackle in the game versus Army.

Rutgers Athletics

Click to leave your message for Eric LeGrand.This sobering story shocked football fans across the country who are holding on to hope that this young man will make a recovery. The outpouring of well-wishes was fast and furious, and Rutgers had to do something to capture them all so that they were collected for LeGrand and his family.

Almost immediately, the Rutgers athletic department set up a message page on the athletics website where fans near and far could send their thoughts, hopes, prayers and well-wishes to LeGrand.

Just one week after the incident, this message page had been “liked” on Facebook over 7,000 times and retweeted on Twitter nearly 1,000 times. Now there are Facebook and Twitter pages where you can buy a wristband to show your support.

We all see the power of the internet when it comes to distributing bad, disturbing or sensational news. How refreshing that this power has been harnessed for something so good and powerful as uplifting this young man in the middle of battle he truly cannot fight alone.

To send your message, visit http://scarletknights.com/football/eric/getwell.asp.

Eric LeGrand Believe Fund: scarletknights.com/believe/

Cut Out The Middlemen, Not July

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Somewhere along the way, the two July evaluation periods became the epitome of everything that was wrong with college basketball recruiting. Perhaps it was the anecdotes of coaches signing 11 month leases on apartments and then spending an entire month on the road recruiting. Perhaps it’s the fact that the entire evaluation period is solely focused on AAU basketball, which gets the somewhat negative moniker of “nonscholastic” in the NCAA Manual. Whatever the reason, the popular image of July is that it’s the Wild West, an unregulated feeding frenzy of coaches looking for players and any number of people looking to profit off that fact.

In reality, the July evaluation periods in men’s basketball are the most structured and heavily regulated periods in the entire recruiting landscape. While college coaches may attend open gyms at high schools, the vast majority of evaluation takes place at certified events. Certified events must register with the NCAA and meet the lengthy list of 17 requirements in NCAA Bylaw 13.18 covering topics from the price of event packets to when games can start. Not to mention they are some of the only recruiting periods that is monitored in person by members of the enforcement staff, who are making their presence felt:

“We have the NCAA gestapettes around here like World Cup officials,” one coach said, referring to the NCAA representatives — most of whom are women — who monitor the summer circuit. “You smile at a kid, they give you a yellow card. Do it twice, it’s a red card and you’re off the road.”

While that comment shows that the Basketball Focus Group has a great deal of work to do in their primary goal (building a healthy respect for the enforcement process), it’s a start that would not be possible during any of the other recruiting periods on the men’s basketball calendar.

The impetus behind ending July recruiting has little to do with what actually happens in July (largely a bunch of coaches cordoned off in little pens watching games for 12 hours a day) and more what the rising importance of the July recruiting period represents: the growing influence in the recruiting process of third parties not tied to educational institutions.

It may seem counterintuitive, but the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt AAU coaches, agents, handlers, trainers, runners, and other intermediaries is to provide coaches with more direct access to these events. The best evaluations are ones untainted by someone else’s subjective opinions or underhanded motives. Prevent coaches from evaluating first hand at July events and the events will still go on, the evaluations will just be placed in the hands of the same people above whose power in the recruiting process the Collegiate Commissioners Association is looking to reduce.

The same goes for contacts and communication. I’m not a college basketball recruiting expert but I have to believe that one of the most valuable opportunities a coach can get is a chance to sell a prospect on his program without another voice whispering in the prospect’s ear.

The trouble with the basketball recruiting model as it stands now is that it exists in limbo between the tightly controlled football recruiting rules and the looser rules that apply to other sports. Rather than crafting a new model, the basketball recruiting calendar seems to be an evolution of the other sports, with fewer contact/evaluation periods and a second limit (recruiting person-days) imposed to contain costs. To that was later added a ban on attending nonscholastic events during the academic year.

If you start with the premise that the July recruiting period works rather than fails, the path to a new basketball recruiting model seems clear. Three major evaluation periods (roughly late-September/early-October, mid-April, and July) outside of the basketball season where attendance at nonscholastic events is permitted. A smaller number of evaluation days for use during the season to scout high school games. And removal of off-campus contacts from counting against the use of off-campus recruiting days.

Such a model would move most of the in-person evaluation of prospects to outside of the periods where coaches are needed on campus most (finals and the basketball season). It would provide coaches with increased direct contact with prospects. It would give coaches direct access to cost-effective AAU tournaments that have continued to exist despite the lack of college coaches in attendance. And it would expand the opportunity for in-person monitoring by the Basketball Focus Group during periods of intense recruiting.

While the model proposed by Santa Clara head coach Kerry Keating has merit, it would be a large step in the other direction. With expanded evaluation and contact periods and more freedom to use recruiting person-days, it would spread recruiting so wide and far that the ability of institutions and the NCAA to monitor what is happening in gyms would be severely reduced. Not to mention that it would be hurt by the idea floated by the recruiting cabinet in some potential recruiting models (pdf) to abolish the annual limit on evaluations of one prospect. It’s not hard to imagine burnt-out coaches spending a large chunk of their recruiting days evaluating—or more accurately babysitting—committed prospects.

The core of Coach Keating’s plan—evaluation of prospects based on institutional discretion—could be accomplished through a different bit of deregulation, allowing coaches to watch any video of a prospect they can get their hands on. Specifically, changing this interpretation from April 29, 2009:

The academic and membership affairs staff determined that it is not permissible for an institution to obtain video (e.g., live streaming video, recorded video) of any nonscholastic activities, including regular game and all-star competition, or any summer camp or clinic competition, through a subscription fee or other associated fee paid to a recruiting or scouting service.  Further, it is not permissible to obtain any nonscholastic video that is available only to a select group of individuals (e.g., coaches), even if there is no charge associated with such individuals accessing the video.

That would open up coaches to view any video of prospects playing in any sort of game at any time. There would be one issue to be sorted out: who would provide the video of prospects? Eliminating or changing this interpretation would create a market for another middleman. If that middleman is a legitimate business providing a needed service, there are few worries. However, if it became another tool for handlers of prospects to charge a price of admission for access to a prospect, it could exacerbate the current problems. Done right thought, it allows for more evaluation of prospects without the costs (both monetary and otherwise) of having coaches on the road throughout the year.

The problem with the July recruiting period has little to do with those 20 days themselves. Rather, the problem is what the focus on those 20 days allows to happen during the other 345. The idea of eliminating the July recruiting period is not without merit, especially as the membership considers the possibility of summer practice in men’s basketball. But it’s just as likely to exacerbate the problems in men’s basketball recruiting as it is to solve any of them.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Bylaw Blog Announcement

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

As you may have gathered, the Bylaw Blog will return. Otherwise why would I have opened the site back up again?

But that’s not the big announcement.

As you may have also figured out, I have permission from the proper people to write about these topics on the internet. I said that was the only way I was coming back.

But that’s not the big announcement.

The big announcement is that the Bylaw Blog is on the move.

The NCAA has launched a brand new blogging initiative at NCAA.org. The first two blogs to launch were NCAA Insider, a look at issues in college athletics, and Socially Speaking, which highlights the best uses of social media on campuses.

I am pleased to announce that the Bylaw Blog will be the third.

All new content will appear on the NCAA’s website. Eventually, this site will cease to exist, but I will make a copy of the archives available. The address will forward you to my corner of the NCAA’s blogging site.

How Will The Site Change

For starters there will be less content, more like a post per week instead of a post per day. And there will be less (if any) commentary on individual investigations and cases, with more focus on larger trends.

The reason for that is two-fold. First, chasing the news is tiring. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who can get up and research and comment on stories every single day for years at a time. I certainly couldn’t do it, not with a full-time day job.

The second and more important reason is that I didn’t really want to write all those stories in the first place. Sure, they got a lot of traffic, but they didn’t solve any problem. It was something like giving a man a fish. They gave away the answer and did not promote a more reasoned understanding of the regulation of college athletics. Plus given the increase in “senior compliance officers” that are interviewed for stories on investigations and violations, other sources are providing that information.

In the interest of full disclosure, there is some compensation involved. But no one—especially the NCAA—is telling me to change. I’m making changes that I think will make the site the type of resource it was always supposed to be.

Thank You

I want to thank all the readers who visited the site. I want to thank all the people I’ve worked with to make this move possible. And I hope you all keep reading over at the new site.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

A bad argument on steroids

A number of commentators have postulated recently that steroids aren’t the health menace that they are purported to be. The gist of the argument is that the dangers of steroids are often overstated and that they can be relatively safe when given under a doctor’s care.

It follows, then, that adults should be able to choose on their own whether to use the steroids to enhance performance.

This logic has a strange and creepy feel.

First, some background. Here are a couple of recent discussions on the topic:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hruby/101013

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/06/what-if-we-are-wrong-again-about-steroids/

Even Brent Musburger weighed in.

Much of this commentary seems to branch from the work of Eric Walker, a former National Public Radio correspondent whose lengthy examination of the matter has provided fodder for columnists and bloggers for a couple of years now.

The central confusion is that scientists have different perspectives on the long-term adverse effects of steroids. Walker’s piece lays out a contrarian view in considerable detail, but there’s a lot of information on the web and elsewhere that argues to the contrary. With so much discussion, everybody should be able to develop a personal attitudes about performance enhancement if the issue matters enough to them.

My question is this: What about the athletes who don’t believe steroids are safe for performance enhancement? If steroids are made legal, doesn’t that create a de facto condition in which every athlete must take them to keep up?

On this point, the Walker piece relies heavily on the thoughts of noted steroid authority Charles Yesalis, whose views reflect the complexity of the entire discussion.

As knowledgeable as Yesalis is (and he is knowledgeable), he appears to espouse a fragile view that the use of performance-enhancing drugs might not be different from other tools that enhance athletic performance but invite risk (aspirin, fiberglass poles for vaulting, weight training, etc.). The message: If you can’t accept the risk, then don’t get in the field.

Should people be persuaded by such an argument? After all, it would continue to espouse free choice even if steroids were unequivocally proven to have serious adverse long-term health effects.

In fact, the ethical discussion leads to a warren of seeming inconsistencies, regardless of your position. This was examined in detail by Thomas H. Murray, president of The Hastings Center, a nonpartisan research institution dedicated to bioethics. Murray raises the key question: “What do we value in sport? Emerging technologies − from hypoxic chambers and carbon fiber prostheses to genetic manipulation − will force us consider what, after all, is the point of sport?”

For what it’s worth, those who advocate for the controlled use of performance-enhancing drugs support the concept only at the professional level. Whatever the level, the bad taste remains. Coerced drug use is a bad idea.

What do you think? Are current controls on performance-enhancement drugs appropriate? Would relaxing laws and rules in this area encourage steroid use by younger athletes? To what degree is a philosophy of “better athletics through chemistry” justifiable?

NCAA Insider is an occasional take on college sports issues, as viewed by NCAA communications staff member David Pickle. Opinions are his alone.

Kentucky’s Tip of the Week helps explain NCAA-speak

Follow Kentucky on Twitter.

It is no secret that the NCAA Manual can be a little confusing when it comes to decoding rules. There are exceptions and interpretations, subtopics and figures, limitations and waivers…it can be a little overwhelming to the untrained eye. Compliance directors across the country have the tall task of knowing the legislation and the even taller task of making sure their athletics staff members know the rules, too.

Heather McAtee, the director of compliance at the University of Kentucky, has found that it is much easier to educate the Kentucky athletics staff on NCAA legislation by incorporating a little fun. She uses her creativity and a few different forms of technology to get her ever-important points across.

“We work with a dry topic. Saying the rules over and over doesn’t help with retention.  We didn’t want to put on a lecture, but instead we needed a fun and light weight way to educate,” said McAtee.

“If they get it free or reduced, to the bench they will be introduced!
A student-athlete may not receive a special discount, payment arrangement or credit on a purchase or a service from an institutional employee or a representative of its athletics interests.
Any benefit must be available to the general student population in order for it not to be classified as an extra benefit.” -
Kentucky Tip of the Week, July 2010.

When she came to Kentucky in 2006, McAtee continued a practice she learned while working at Florida State University; emailing regular compliance updates to the entire athletics department. These updates turned into a weekly email where she tried to put NCAA rules into a fun and easy to remember format – rhymes! Her short, yet complete rhymes became the material for her weekly “Tip of the Week” emails she sends out to the athletics list serve, which even reaches the athletics grounds crew.

Like Kentucky on Facebook

“She does a great job of keeping our athletics department and coaching staffs informed throughout the year. You’d be amazed at how a simple rhyme can make things easier to remember,” said University of Kentucky assistant men’s basketball coach Orlando Antigua.

With the evolution of social media, McAtee made her tips viral by posting to the Kentucky compliance Facebook page and Twitter feed. The Facebook page now has more than 600 likes and the Twitter feed has over 1600 followers, which means fans and boosters are likely getting the message, too.

“Rules aren’t necessarily applicable for fans, but it is good for them to know and they want to know,” explained McAtee. “In fact, we are one of the few compliance departments where fans actually know the names of staff members.”

Unconventional, yes.

McAtee, like all compliance directors, knows how important it is for everyone to know the rules. She also knows how important it is for everyone to remember the rules.

“People will actually repeat the rhymes to me when they see me in the hall,” said McAtee.

Memorable, you better believe it.

And that is the point.

Address violence, without a broad brush

The recent news about the arrest of Baylor basketball player LaceDarius Dunn on a domestic-violence charge focused on what happened and when (if ever) he will be able to return to the Bears lineup.

The follow-up story is likely to be renewed attention on the issue of athlete violence. ESPN’s Dana O’Neil produced a quality examination of the issue yesterday.

In case you missed it, Dunn was arrested Oct. 5 after a Sept. 27 incident. The attorney for his long-time girlfriend told Yahoo! sports that she suffered a fractured jaw after she was struck in the face but that she did not want to file charges. The local police eventually arrested Dunn anyway. Baylor coach Scott Drew suspended Dunn indefinitely after news of the arrest broke. On Oct. 6, various media reported that the young woman issued a statement denying that Dunn struck her and that her jaw was broken. Dunn reportedly was suspended from school in the days following the incident but now appears to be back in class after action by a university judicial body.

The Dunn matter was the latest to raise questions about athlete violence (the O’Neil piece lists others). The worst case played out last spring when Virginia women’s lacrosse player Yeardley Love was killed and her former boyfriend, a Virginia men’s lacrosse player, was charged with her murder.

The NCAA’s Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct Committee had made a commitment to look at issues surrounding athlete violence before the Dunn incident, and although eyes no doubt roll at the thought of a “committee examination,” it is the most ordered way for experts to evaluate and address the problem.

It should be obvious that no responsible person affiliated with college sports condones violent behavior. The trick in dealing with this on a macro basis is in determining whether athletes are somehow uniquely violent. Some studies suggest that may be so, but they raise more questions about which athletes we’re talking about and why they may be violence-prone.

Over time, various studies have postulated that athletes are less ethical than other populations, and hardly a day goes by that their collective academic ability isn’t called into question. Now we again face the question of violence.

Put it all together and what emerges is a distorted image of student-athletes. In fact, the vast majority of them are young people who have special physical gifts but who have the same goals and concerns as other college students. A few of them are undeniably privileged because of their athletic gifts, and more than a few feel stress in their lives, perhaps owing to their over-achieving ways. Others have difficult backgrounds that may adversely affect their behavior.

But describing them broadly is simply impossible. They are men and women, black and white, rich and poor. Depending on their level, their athletic abilities range from professional quality to not much more than intramural. What they expect from their athletic experience is all over the lot. Any observer should be careful about applying overly broad conclusions about “athletes,” either positively or negatively.

New NCAA President Mark Emmert talked about the topic with ESPN’s O’Neil.

“Ideally this is something that happens at the university level, where there is a much greater familiarity with the individual situation,” Emmert said. “But on the other hand, at the national level we have to have serious conversations to see if we can find a way to send an unequivocal message that this will not be tolerated…I would describe it as just in the talking stage right now, but it’s something we’d like to move on quickly. We’ve done a great job in terms of educating and working on alcohol abuse and drug abuse. We haven’t done everything we can in regards to domestic violence and we absolutely have to. One incident is one too many.”

The NCAA can’t make a rule that stops violent behavior, but it certainly can facilitate an effective examination of the issue, help with education and assess how to deal with offenders.

The last part is where things get tricky.

What do you think? What role should the NCAA play when it comes to dealing with student-athletes who are accused of criminal conduct? Are such matters best dealt with by institutions and conferences or should the NCAA itself be involved? Is it appropriate to suspend someone who is accused by not yet convicted? Is there a difference in this discussion between felony charges and misdemeanors?

NCAA Insider is an occasional take on college sports issues, as viewed by NCAA communications staff member David Pickle. Opinions are his alone.

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·