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.