NCAA takes a swing at Nocera

[HooperScooper]

Does the NCAA typically do this? I've never seen anything like it.

http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2012/02/news-not-fit-to-print/

 

[Fishy]

The funny part is that they are mostly correct. He's been on a mission and the first piece cited was not great work.

I don't care, though.

He's gotten under their skin and it's clear that the NCAA is frustrated that they haven't been able to ding him in their upfront or backdoor attempts to do so. The frustration seeps through with their bit about the fiancee.

It was a "meaty" issue and even though a watchdog pronounced there to be no conflict, "a reasonable person" might think differently. ("A reasonable person", by their definition, is no doubt someone who agrees with them.) Then, there was the Mitt Romney analogy. Painful to watch.

They close by saying that he "previous conflict of interest" as if they had already proven the one they allege.

(Who wants to bet how the Poynter Institutes' attention was drawn to this situation?)

Punchless.

 

[pepband99]

So, let me get this straight...

The combat his pieces on conflicts of interest and things being "questionably motivated," by accusing him of the same thing.

How about a factual retort, given the NCAA's willingness to divulge information about the investigation?

Pathetic.

 

[CL82]

Bad move by the NCAA. They come accross as petulant and petty.

 

[Excalibur]

Their response appears to be that because the previous article was B.S., this one is too. Lots of attention to the merits there.

 

[UconnDon]

Absolutely not a scintilla of defense for NCAA actions vis-a-vis Boatrite; rather an ad hominum attack on Nocera for his past alleged transgressions. Methinks the NCAA mouthpiece protests to much without a response to Joe Nocera's questions and statements related to his two pieces re Ryan.

Let's hear you defend the investigative committee's actions, delays and final results amounting to zero which did cost the kid prime days from his career and untold anguish for him , family and friends..

The NCAA, by its actions and lack of definitive public responses is arrogant. Pickels, by extension is both clueless as to the arrogance, and unresponsive to the issues.

 

[upstater]

The funny part is that they are mostly correct. He's been on a mission and the first piece cited was not great work.

I don't care, though.

He's gotten under their skin and it's clear that the NCAA is frustrated that they haven't been able to ding him in their upfront or backdoor attempts to do so. The frustration seeps through with their bit about the fiancee.

It was a "meaty" issue and even though a watchdog pronounced there to be no conflict, "a reasonable person" might think differently. ("A reasonable person", by their definition, is no doubt someone who agrees with them.) Then, there was the Mitt Romney analogy. Painful to watch.

They close by saying that he "previous conflict of interest" as if they had already proven the one they allege.

(Who wants to bet how the Poynter Institutes' attention was drawn to this situation?)

Punchless.

I'm having trouble figuring out how the NCAA braintrust represents academic institutions. This is more the sort of thing you'd see in the comments on an ESPN blog.

 

[freescooter]

Thkis is like 2 kids throwing mud balls at each other. Joe IS on a mission to make the NCAA look bad and he DIDN"T provide factual information to back up his claims in th eBoatright case, and he did ignore pertinent information. he did the track issue. Mis-stated the facts and the reasons for th eNCAA action. The NCAA, for its part ought to just let this matter drop. They made their decision. Its over. Move on. Look I have know idea based on what is out there if Boatright was treated fairly, badly or something in between. I tend to think based on the facts presented, not opions, facts, he deserved the initial suspension but not the second one. So he got screwed, a little. But I also know that there might be other information which was not made public that could change my view in either direction. Bottom line, though is that it is over and the sooner the NCAA just moves on the better for it and everyone else.

 

[suzyq]

Bad move by the NCAA. They come accross as petulant and petty.

Which of course they are.

 

[Chief00]

Nocera definitely got under their skin. Good for him. He hit a nerve and they reacted in a strange manner.

 

[willie99]

NCAA looks petty

which of course, they are

 

[uconnfan68]

Bad move by the NCAA. They come accross as petulant and petty.

And written by Pickle. You can't make this up.

 

[uconnbill]

The NCAA comes out of this looking bad. Why would they even put this out in all honesty. Why not just ignore it. The NCAA looks like a kid here.

 

[UconnDon]

Our underlying problem is that a player, while under NCAA investigation must be sitting down during games to be played as the investigatory phase continues, only as a safe guard against forfeiture of games played IF the resultant investigation finds him/school guilty of eligibility infractions. If the NCAA could not assess the penalty for prior transgression against games played during the investigation, the "innocent until proven guilty" concept would be preserved. Why not, NCAA??

 

[dogpause]

This is amazing, a classic example of the pot calling out the kettle.