Before getting to the substance of this entry, everyone must watch this video from Sporting News in which Dave Curtis explains why the DEATH PENALTY should be considered for UNC.
The following was received via email and is a great analysis of the NOA, or in some cases the lack thereof, that was released to the media. There are questions posed where questions are left due to the lack of information released. Certainly the questions posed would have been easily answered, and perhaps the record easily set straight, had UNC released the document in its entirety rather than in Mad-Lib format.
The below email is simply a fantastic analysis of the UNC NOA in line with the applicable NCAA precedent, where such might exist, and the NCAA rules.
Admittedly, this guy is a very sharp attorney so it’s not your average Joe State Fan’s analysis of some mundane and legalese-filled rules. This is not deemed to be a full-fledged legal analysis, but it is a very thought-provoking though brief analysis of the NOA and the subsequent discussion.
The email is offered in its entirety for integrity’s sake, but emphasis has been added to the more interesting points.
I decided to do a little research tonight, in the way of reviewing the NOA, along with the NCAA rulebook. Probably nothing new here, and I’d rather not forward the actual email around, but feel free to share any content that might be relevant to your arguments over the next 3 months.
While true that Davis’ name only appears once in the NOA, there are several spots where it may have been redacted, along with at least 2 others where he may be implicated once UNC files its response.
Let’s get started! On page 2 of the NOA, subsection (i) asks the university to provide a statement indicated whether _____ was aware ______(tutor) was providing impermissible benefits. I would certainly assume the first blank could be referencing Davis, given his relationship with the tutor. Who else would it be referencing?
There’s another interesting point regarding the academic support portion of the NOA. The name of the tutor is redacted in subsection (1) on page 1. In subsections (2) and (3) on pages 4-7, however, Jennifer Wiley’s name is not redacted. Does this give credence to the rumor we’ve heard all along that there’s a second tutor involved? Who knows? Interestingly, the subsection (i), possibly referencing Davis, applies to subsection (1) where the tutor’s name is redacted. Do we know for sure that Wiley is the tutor employed by the Davis household? I can’t recall if I’ve ever seen that confirmed anywhere.
Moving on, this one’s pretty general and a stretch: Subsections (t), (u), and (v) on pages 15-16 ask the university to disclose the procedures in place for monitoring the whereabouts of players. Ultimately, that should fall on Davis, but they’ll successfully navigate around that one.
The next point, and I think it’s a big one, is on page 18, specifically subsection (a), which after listing all of Blake’s transgressions, asks the university for information regarding Blake’s hiring, firing, and supervision. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part, but I think this is where the hammer falls. This is beyond Lack of Institutional Control. This is asking the university whether it employed an agent/runner. What’s the punishment for such? Who the hell knows? Everyone is trying to examine past “precedent” to predict UNC’s punishment. There is no precedent. This is unchartered water. We’re not talking about failure to monitor or even a lack of institutional control. We’re talking about an overt act by an institution or, at a minimum, the head coach. Isn’t that worse? USC and Ohio State were (or are being) cited for not regulating their program and/or covering up something that went on. Here, the institution itself is the bad actor, as it (or Davis) hired and retained John Blake.
Now, let’s move down to subsection (c) on page 21. This was the “one surprise,” as acknowledged by UNC faithful, the charge that the university failed to follow up on an impermissible benefits tip from a student-athlete. From everything I’ve heard, the media is assuming this tip referenced Chris Hawkins. I think that’s an incorrect, or at least unsubstantiated assumption. It would appear the reason for the assumption is that in subsection (a) just above it, Hawkins was identified as “an individual triggering NCAA agent legislation.” Well, in subsection (c), it references INDIVIDUALS triggering NCAA agent legislation. As further evidence of this point, see subsections (i) and (j) on page 23 which ask the university to produce documentation related to investigation of the trips. To my knowledge, there’s been no evidence that Hawkins was involved in the trips. In other words, the student-athlete’s tip may have involved Blake, Whichard, or someone else, rather than Hawkins. Personally, I think this would be better, as the “failure to monitor” portion would include multiple agents, with multiple university connections.
Going back to the possible Davis redactions, next see subsections (c) and (e) on page 22. Both of these sections focus on _________’s “attempts” at clarifying the Hawkins situation and determining whether he sould be allowed “in the facility.” Again, I think it’s fair to assume that one or both of these redactions could be Davis. Or possibly Baddour.
Why would the university redact the name of Davis and/or the second tutor? Well, it would seem to me both of these things would constitute “new information” and/or damning information against Davis, clearly the 2 things they’ve been attempting to avoid, based upon their collective reaction today. What was every pro-UNC response you heard today? Outside of no LOIC, it was “no mention of Davis” and “nothing new.” So they redact those 2 things and, as always, control the release of that information at a time and in a manner of their choosing. The efficiency of their spin machine is impressive. We all know that.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
That sums up the NOA review. Sorry if it’s too much or incoherent. Below is a brief synopsis of my NCAA punishment review, which you guys have probably seen elsewhere, but I hadn’t.
If a university is guilty of a secondary violation, possible penalties include:
1) coach/administrator suspensions
2) forfeiture of wins
3) monetary fines/penalties
4) scholarship reductionsHere’s where it gets interesting though. For A major infraction, the PRESUMPTIVE PENALTY SHALL INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1) 2 years probation;
2) scholarship reductions;
3) recruiting restrictions;
4) termination/suspensions for coaches who engaged in OR CONDONED misconduct; and
5) post-season bans.Number 5 applies “particularly in those cases where”: a) the individual offender remains in the program; b) a significant competitive advantage results; or c) the violation reflects a lack of institutional control.
The burden of proof is on the institution to prove why one or all of these should not apply where there is A major infraction. There was nothing in the manual about having 9 of them.
In addition, and this is an extremely rough overview, the NCAA also has authority to add any of the secondary penalties highlighted above for a major infraction, along with fairly broad discretion to add other penalties. It’s all in the manual, nothing worth reciting here in my opinion.
I did not see the terms “lack of institutional control,” “failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance,” or “failure to monitor” defined anywhere in the manual. In fact, with the exception of the “lack of institutional control” reference in conjunction with the post-season ban, I didn’t see any mention of those terms at all. I think these are fairly arbitrary terms given by the NCAA to establish some sort of precedent and framework for penalties. It is by no means outcome-determinative as the UNC crowd would have us believe. I think this especially true now, with a new committee chairman determined to curtail these problems.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The labels are not the equivalent of sentence guidelines. Moreover, as noted, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT. The media seems to be buying into UNC’s attempt to box the NCAA in on this, at least to some extent. As you can tell, given those 3 prerequisites for the post-season ban, every move UNC has made over the past 8-10 months has been tailored towards that one objective. Fire Blake, scream from a mountain top that his actions gave you no competitive advantage, insulate Davis, and do everything humanly possible to avoid the LOIC label at all costs. Once again, impressive posturing by the UNC spin machine.
In closing, I feel like a tremendous loser for spending the last 2 hours of my life doing this, but I needed the therapy. Regardless of what happens, I was just reminded by ESPN’s Pat Forde that we’ve already won. He was baffled at the lack of LOIC, completely baffled. Every national media person I’ve heard has slammed them today. Best of all, both PTI and Dan Patrick said that they shouldn’t get a post-season ban because they’re not good enough for that to come into play!!!!!! Even if everything goes well, they end up with 2 years probation, a reduction in scholarships, the “resignation of John Blake,” a permanent stain on their precious resume, and the official death of the “Carolina Way.” If offered this 18 months ago, we would have all cashed our chips in and left the table absolutely giddy.
In reading that analysis, it’s only fair to set out a lot of the national media’s response to the same as well:
Below is a brief exerpt from CBS Sportsline’s Brett McMurphy story entitled: A gamble on an old friend might cost Davis his job.
Gary Gibbs, Barry Switzer, Jackie Sherrill and Bill Callahan. All were head coaches — key phrase here is “were” — and Blake was an assistant coach under all four.
All of them are no longer involved in college football. Perhaps it’s a stretch to put all the blame on Blake. Hey, maybe it’s just a coincidence.Yet Davis, 60, has known — and trusted — Blake, 51, for nearly 40 years. They first met during Blake’s sophomore year of high school in Sand Springs, Okla., a suburb outside of Tulsa. Davis was Blake’s biology teacher.
“He made such an impression on me that I still remember exactly where he sat in my class when he was 15 years old,” Davis told the
Tulsa World
in 2009. “That’s John Blake. He has a gift when it comes to relationships.
“John was such a charismatic guy all the way back when I first met him in that biology class. He’s been that way his entire life. That’s why I’ve always wanted him around.”
CBSSportsline for part of the day led it’s page with a picture of Blake from his OU days labeled “BAD SANTA.”
In Tom Dienhart’s 3 and Out on Yahoo Sports he addresses Butch’s job security:
Bottom line: Davis is the boss and it’s his job to know what is going on with his assistants and current players. Pleading ignorance isn’t an alibi. In fact, not knowing what is going on in your program is as damning as knowing about wrongdoing and doing nothing about it. With all that is alleged to have gone on in Chapel Hill, I find it difficult to believe Davis had no inkling of any wrongdoing. That’s why I think that, in the end, Davis may lose his job.
Aaron Beard of the AP discusses the matter here linked on Yahoo Sports.
Given the above analysis of the rules and the opinions of the national media, it seems that there might be some credence to the fact that there’s no precedent to actually hiring an agent-like individual to the staff as the Associate Head Coach. Could it be that the NCAA didn’t use the term “Lack of Institutional Control” simply because it’s not applicable. It’s not applicable because as Dave Curtis quite succinctly sets out, this situation is maybe bigger than that.
You must be logged in to post a comment.