Forum Classics

"What the hell is wrong with you guys?" Part II

Posted by Terry K. on February 19, 2002

"We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" --- Howard Beale, UBS news anchor in the movie Network

If the above quote looks familiar, it's probably because you've used it lately. Probably to answer the main question, below...

WHAT THE HELL'S WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?

Part II: Due Process and The Media Circus

It all began with Richard Ernsberger's book on recruiting in Memphis, Braggin' Rights. In the book, Logan Young is painted in an ill light. Roy Adams ins't exactly praised, but compared to Young, Adams is hit with marshmellows.

But, I'm told, "what do you expect? A lot of Ernsberger's material originates with Adams."

Couple that with the fact that Ernsberger is also a Tennessee grad and a Vol fan...

Question: Did Ernsberger lie?
Answer: I haven't a clue. I suspect, despite my distate for his book, that he didn't intend to lie. I suspect even Ernsberger doesn't have all the answers. I do know he would never have gotten an interview with Adams if he hadn't promised to stray from certain topics associated with Adams currect activities. That has been part of Adams' SOP since he started making the media circuit... "I'll talk, but not if you're going to make me your focus".

Before I go any further... Like many others here, I've give Roy H. Adams of Memphis a lot more credit than he deserves in what has happened. There is no doubt that something untoward happened in Memphis. But, unless all the parties come forth and tell the complete truth, we may never know what that something is. What I do know is that Adams, and men like him, did what they could to keep this in the press, and friendly press members started applying pressure to the NCAA to "do something". Adams is used here, because he's one name that's well-known, here, not because he's the ONLY one doing it.

Part I of this little series showed that the problem with this approach lay in a lack of facts, or worse, in a distortion of facts, that gave an incorrect impression of the University's football team as a "rogue program", and the University as either blind or sympathetic with wrongdoers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. However, the impression has stuck in the minds of many, including Dennis Dodd. And when some media members get a notion in their minds, they run with it, come hell or high water.

What is the truth? Did Logan Young give $200,000 for Means' signature? Of course not. No proof was ever given to such. Did he promise such an amount? I haven't a clue, and neither does anyone but Young, Lang and Means. However, the Media Circus printed Milton Kirk's accusation as fact. Even in the end, Young was found "guilty" of promising $115,000, to br broken down as some for Lang, some for Kirk and the rest for the Means (sidebar: if true, it meant the Means knew about this all along, which Albert denied in a meeting with NCAA reps). The testimony used to make this assertion is from Kirk, with corroboration from the ubiquitous "witness".

And what about Kirk? His connection to Adams has been established for months, now (and finally admitted on Gridscape), and it was always more extensive than Adams claimed. And what of the article writen by the Memphis Commercial Appeal's Gary Parrish? How did Adams know, almost verbatim, what the article would say, to the point he had it posted on Gridscape almost 12 hours before it went to print? When Parrish was approached about checking the relationship between Adams and Kirk, he said he would look into it. The truth is, he probably already was aware of it. It has been alleged that it was Adams, after all, who introduced the two.

When ESPN came calling to do a feature on Means and his recruitment, guess who was there there trying to provide "information"? If you guessed a certain coonskin hat-wearing UT booster, you'd earn a cigar.

He was a guest on Paul Finebaum, saying much the same stuff, and has been everywhere that anyone would listen.

"So what?" a fellow asked me. "If it's true, so what if he talked to the press?"

So what, indeed.

Some rival boosters call it the "Jelks Strategy". Have a discontented person go to the press, hammer the message "Alabama cheats!" long enough, and someone may begin to believe it. If you have just enough corroborating evidence, it makes the whole enchilada look real, even if it's four-fifths plastic and wax. It borrows on the principle of telling the "big lie", as formulated by Adolf Hitler.

And, it works.

The fact is, no one has yet been able to find much of anything about the money and Lang. We now know Means was shopped. We also know that knowledge of that shopping was sporadically given. One or two individuals, not associated with the NCAA or the SEC Office, may have warned off Arkansas, Ole Miss and Auburn coaches. These generous people didn't do likewise for Marie Robbins and the Tide. We know that Means did, in fact, sign with the Tide. And, we know that numerous phone calls were made from Ivy Williams to Logan Young, and vice versa, on signing day.

What does it all mean? Does it really matter who used the press as a weapon, if it is true?

Well, let me tell you what it meant to the NCAA. It was "proof" that Ivy Williams was involved in the scheme (which is why he was originally charged) and it was "proof" that Logan Young was in the loop, when coupled with corroborating testimony.

But... there's that little word that does so much trouble... but...

IF there was a deal for Means, why so many phone calls? If one wasn't reached until signing day, there must have been active bids going on (assuming there was a bid, at all). By whom? Did the NCAA ever check to see who all were in touch with Lang? Did anyone ever check other boosters to see who was calling who? Did anyone check to see if the Means' phone was busy? If so many people were bidding, were they doing so knowing the NCAA was watching? We know a few schools were warned off Means. Is this proof positive that this sharing of information was very, very selective? Were Alabama, Kentucky and UGA left off the list for a reason? Were they involved, at all?

Plus, despite months of grand jury testimony, where is the evidence against the coaches? If Williams has so many calls to Young, why did the NCAA drop the charges against him?

Could it be that some of the evidence didn't add up? Or, as some have suggested, maybe some weren't willing to confront the accused face to face? If not, why not?

The NCAA had no problem going after the school, despite the University's best efforts to get to the bottom of it all. The NCAA didn't have enough to charge Williams, but DID have enough to make the school pay for his alleged crimes? Something is rotten in Demark...

Where is the due process?

And, since K State's case came out, with very similar charges and circumstances, one would think the penalties would be similar. Yet, K State got ZERO sanctions, and was praised for it's compliance efforts.

Where is equal protection and equal treatment?

I'll tell you where. The NCAA has no standards for assessing penalties. It has no obligation to follow its own rules. It can pretty much do anything it likes. K State didn't make a lot of press. It isn't "sexy" enough for the NCAA to worry about. But, Alabama... Ah! Alabama, now there's a story! Scandal! Intrigue! Even a by-damned Federal Investigation! Woo-hoo! The NCAA may have felt it had no choice BUT to hit Alabama, hard, despite all the compliance efforts.

And the press, being the press, chimes in. "Alabama fans are arrogant". "Alabama fans are unrepentent". Thomas Yeager himself said that we "better pray we don't come before them, again, any time soon". The
"Fact" that Alabama is a rogue program is "well-established", thanks to the media circus a few helped orchestrate. The media circus was used to justify the NCAA's side-stepping the 1999 case, in which proper compliance was the issue. Plus, the media circus was used to overlook the fact that this was the first time Alabama had been brought up on recruiting violations, which is the center of any true "repeat offender" status.

But... there's that little word full of trouble... the truth always comes out.

Bama people have been backed into a corner. Bama acted appropriately, and did everything in it's power. On the evidence that was clear and compelling, Alabama moved to address the issues and self-impose. The school followed the rules, to the letter. If Alabama is a "rogue", it is because we were labled so, not because it is a fact. And, it is long overdue to change the image to meet the facts.

In part I, I explained that one of the things bugging Alabama fans was the issue that no one pays attention to the real facts. Now, I looked at the lack of due process, and the media circus' probable part in that.

Next: Fair Play and Level Playing Fields --- What a Crock