by Paul Jordan
A few days ago on July 1, the day before the silly TMZ story, Jay Bilas released an incredible piece on the “insiders” section of ESPN, questioning the NCAA standards and asking the seemingly blasphemous question as to whether John Wooden could be considered a cheater. It’s a shame that more people did not get to share Bilas’s work but it was lost in the jumble of the Holiday weekend, and due to the fact it was a paid article. I found it an amazing read, and will attempt to sum up his questions and add some of my opinion as well. Like a skilled lawyer, Bilas makes his opening statement on the question of “Who should be considered a cheater” in college athletics.
"The issue for all of us to consider right now is which programs and coaches we are willing to call cheaters, why, and by what standard.If we are willing to call USC a cheater based upon certain evidence, are we therefore required to call UCLA a cheater? If so, how do we process the allegations against UConn, UMass in the Marcus Camby matter, and Memphis in the Derrick Rose matter?What are our standards, and how evenly will those standards be applied across the board?"
Bilas is one of the few writers that are going to extend some sympathy to USC for the punishments that were handed down to the Trojans, but after reading Bilas’s article, I came away with some very real concerns about who the NCAA considers a valid source when conducting an investigation:
"The key to the imposition of the harshest sanctions was whether USC had institutional knowledge of those impermissible benefits provided by a certain “agent” to Bush and Bush’s family. It took several years, but the NCAA put the hammer down on USC when penalties were finally doled out.The agent in question was an acquaintance of Bush from San Diego, from well before Bush had ever decided to attend USC. The agent is a convicted felon and former gang member that has served prison time and has never held a legitimate job. Upon his release from prison, the agent decided to start an agency and targeted Bush as a potential client.NCAA Bylaw 32.8.8.2 requires the Committee on Infractions to find a violation of the rules only where the evidence consists of “credible, persuasive” information “of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs.” In other words, the NCAA apparently believes that this vague standard of proof gives it free reign to believe whomever or whatever it wants. In the Bush matter, it was a convicted felon with no credibility."
So let me ask you — what is the difference between the NCAA taking the word of a convicted felon in Bush’s case …. or a disgruntled landlady in the Eric Bledsoe situation …. or an anonymous source a in the TMZ situation? It obvious that the NCAA needs to be policed and held to a higher standard, but they are free to run roughshod over a program like a pack of gestapos. According to Bilas, there is not much that USC could do once the NCAA had their sight set on them:
"According to USC, credible witnesses discredited the agent’s account, and there was no other evidence to establish a direct institutional link between the agent and USC. Clearly, the unsworn word of a convicted felon has significant credibility problems from the beginning, and it is hard to understand how — even with the NCAA’s vague standard — it could ever be relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of serious affairs (whatever that means).When the NCAA interviewed the agent, representatives of USC were denied the right to be present, despite USC’s repeated requests to be there. The only evidence of the interview is what NCAA reps chose to record. Representatives of USC were not allowed to cross-examine the witness, assess indicators of credibility, or otherwise challenge the statements procured by the NCAA.In the several months before the NCAA allowed USC access to a transcript of the interview with the agent, the agent had done media interviews and had collaborated on a book. The idea that the word of a convicted felon, not subject to cross-examination and without corroboration, could convict USC offends any notion of fair play."
And I have to admit, I was one of those rolling my eyes when the whole investigation started with USC and Pete Carroll. I figured that whatever USC did was crooked and it was only a matter of time before the NCAA latched onto them. And I know several Kentucky fans felt the same away about John Calipari before he came to Kentucky. And if you listen to any talk radio show or read any sports columnist outside Lexington (or even in Lexington) who will find that Calipari has the same reputation, albeit it undeserved:
"Despite the clear problems with the NCAA’s standards and the case against the Trojans, many would say, Good riddance, USC; you got what you deserved. Despite the lack of credible evidence, many would consider USC’s coaching staff to be guilty and complicit in any wrongdoing because the head coach and coaching staff are always responsible for everything that goes on in the program. Always.Well, if that goes for Pete Carroll, it goes for Jim Calhoun. And it goes for John Calipari, despite the fact that Calipari has never been named in an NCAA finding of wrongdoing (notwithstanding the NCAA’s flimsy standards of proof). If you are in charge, say many, you are ultimately responsible, and there is no way that the head coach couldn’t know what was going on right under his nose.Well, if you are among those that feel that way, you just called John Wooden a cheater. And as blasphemous as it seems, you would have to call Wooden an admitted cheater, and the chief witnesses against him would be his former players."
Meet Sam Gilbert (pictured above). Gilbert was a long time supporter of the UCLA basketball program during Wooden’s era. “Papa Sam” has been referred to as “the dark side of the UCLA basketball dynasty” Also some like to downplay Gilbert’s influence on the program, but his impact has been documented:
"Gilbert held dinners at his home, provided UCLA players with advice, counsel and much, much more. He was “Papa Sam” to UCLA’s parade of All-Americans — he even negotiated contracts, usually taking only a dollar, when the NBA beckoned various Bruins.“There were two people I listened to,” former UCLA star Lucius Allen once told The Times. “Coach Wooden as long as we were between the lines. Outside the court — Sam Gilbert.”Wooden was wary of Gilbert but generally turned a blind eye.“Maybe I had tunnel vision,” Wooden once said. “I still don’t think he’s had any great impact on the basketball program.”"
"A 1981 Times investigative series, which interviewed 45 people connected with the basketball program, established Gilbert as “a one-man clearing house who has enabled players and their families to receive goods and services usually at big discounts and sometimes at no cost.”"
It should be said that Gilbert’s involvement with the UCLA program eventually led to the Bruins being put on probation … when Larry Brown was coach … and none of the charges dated b
ack to the Wooden era. Gene Bartow, the coach that followed Wooden at UCLA, actually felt that his life would be in danger if the NCAA had investigated UCLA while he was head coach. He conveyed these concerns to the NCAA in an letter and he acknowledged that Gilbert broke many rules:
"“I believe Sam Gilbert was Mafia-related and was capable of hurting people. I think, had the NCAA come in hard while I was at UCLA, (Gilbert and others associated with the program) would have felt I had reported them, and I would have been in possible danger.“Sam was a most unusual person, and he violated many rules knowingly. Without question, he put out some front-end money (to recruits) in a few cases, and I think that could have been proven.”"
And I know that I used a few different sources in compiling this story, but I think I have to use Bilas’s close when discussing tying in John Wooden with the current crew of coaches under fire. Here is how Bilas summed it up:
"Yet the legendary coach’s 10 national championship banners still hang from the rafters of Pauley Pavilion. Can you imagine the reaction if Carroll, Calhoun or Calipari put forth the defense that they were guilty only of “trusting too much”? Nobody would take it seriously, and everyone would move toward a “show cause” hearing and the death penalty for any such coach asserting such a lame excuse.What kind of scrutiny would Sam Gilbert receive from the NCAA if he were around today?But if you accept the insubstantial evidence against USC football, it follows that you must also accept the mass of evidence against UCLA basketball. And if you label USC a cheater based on the evidence presented, you would seem required also to label UCLA a cheater. And by the standard that every head coach is responsible for what goes on in his program, you would also seem required to call John Wooden a cheater. Ouch."
Keep following www.http://wildcatbluenation.com for the best in Kentucky basketball and football news, rumors, and opinions. By Kentucky fans for Kentucky fans