Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Did Mark Emmert Break NCAA Public Disclosure Rule?


NCAA President Mark Emmert

During an interview session with the Associated Press on October 27th, 2014, NCAA President Mark Emmert was asked about the Wainstein Report that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had released days before.

Mark Emmert on October 27th, 2014



Greg Barnes uses that as a lead in for his January 19th, 2017 commentary, "NCAA Has History of Protocol Breach Prior to UNC"

InsideCarolina Special Report



This is the NCAA's bylaw on public disclosure:

NCAA Manual 2013-2014



On December 22nd, 2016, UNC Athletics Director issued a comment after public release of the 2nd Amended Notice of Allegation by the NCAA Enforcement staff:

Bubba Cunningham Comments after 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations Release




I posted a question on Twitter, which elicited a response: 

Twitter



Three hours later, the author of the IC article answered a question in the members' forum in the same way:

InsideCarolina Message Board



Greg Barnes and @HeelTruths seem to be working from the same script. Or maybe Greg Barnes IS @HeelTruths?





There's nothing in Article 19.01.3 that distinguishes "procedural issues" from "contents of the case" in terms of "public disclosures about a pending case." 


In addition, Cunningham's December 22nd, 2016 comments did go beyond "process" when he opined:
 "We felt that the second notice of allegations issued in April fairly aligned the facts of our case with appropriate NCAA bylaws and case precedent."



Nevertheless, let's look at Cunningham's "public disclosure" comments that were contemporaneous with the alleged offending Emmert remarks:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article10110026.html
Whereas Emmert was "cementing a narrative" about the gravity of the the Wainstein Report findings, Cunningham was 'cementing a counter-narrative" that the situation wasn't so bad and that the Report's findings added "nothing new...relative to academic eligibility."

The supposed bylaw "procedural" distinction is missing here. If Emmert violated 19.01.3, then so too did Cunningham with his remarks in the wake of Wainstein.




Then there's this, six months after the Wainstein Report:

www.syracuse.com

I don't recall Emmert's "wheelhouse" commentary about the UNC case eliciting any objections over narratives being cemented or "public disclosure" violations of NCAA bylaws.