Holiday Break: December 23, 2011
There are only two ACC games scheduled for today.
Maryland hosts Radford.
Pittsburgh hosts Wagner.
No reason for a loss today.
The Confidential
The ACC Sports Blog
Archive for the category “Uncategorized”
Holiday Break: December 22, 2011
There are plenty of ACC games on tap for today.
#1 Syracuse hosts Tulane.
Clemson hosts UTEP in an early game.
Florida State travels to Florida in a big game.
Georgia Tech hosts Mercer.
North Carolina State hosts Northwestern in a pretty big game.
Virginia Tech hosts Eastern Michigan.
Miami travels to Charlotte.
7 games on the slate… how about 7 wins???
Jim Boeheim and Syracuse Sued–Ironically
Is the lawsuit against Jim Boeheim and Syracuse University about the money or is it about justice? Unfortunately, it may not matter because the lawsuit could very well be a setback for victims’ rights.
To be sure, the two victims/Plaintiffs have told us that the lawsuit is not about the money. But, admit it, whenever you hear the words “it is not about the money,” the first thing that comes to mind is that “it must be about the money.” When it is a free agent taking 5% more to move across the country, it is always accompanied by a statement that it is not about the money. Instead, it is often portrayed as a “respect” issue. Of course, the disrespect arose out of a lack of offered money or the timing of the offer. If you have to say it is not about the money, people hearing that tend to think it is because it absolutely is about the money.
The Bernie Fine matter is not about free agency. Instead, this lawsuit is based on Boeheim calling the accusers “liars” and stating that they were doing this for the money. Surely, the irony in someone filing a civil lawsuit for monetary damages was lost on nobody, including the Confidential. But if that irony is not enough, note that the two accusers/Plaintiffs claim that this lawsuit is about justice for other victims. Mike Lang’s statement was as follows:
“Coming forward was one of the hardest things I’ve had to do in my life, and I hope by doing this, I can help other victims have the courage to also come forward — not just in this case, but in any case in which they have been abused,” Lang said.
Stop and think about that for a moment. It’s not about the money, it is about justice and encouraging other victims to come forward.
The problem is that, from a justice standpoint, Bernie Fine has already been fired. Jim Boeheim was taken to task by the media for his non-sympathetic comments and ultimately had to apologize. In apologizing, Boeheim actually cleared the way for other victims to come forward in this and all cases. Boeheim and his wife are even going to focus on supporting victims. By all accounts–short of Bernie Fine being convicted–these two accusers/Plaintiffs have already been quite vindicated. Quite a step forward for both of them and other victims’ rights.
Until yesterday. In filing the lawsuit, the two accusers/Plaintiffs demonstrated that justice will not be served unless they get more publicity and cash damages in their pocket. Again, like everyone else who professes that it is not about the money, the knee-jerk reaction is skepticism. If Fine was still suspended, it would be understandable that they would need to press forward. If Boeheim had not been criticized in the media or had not provided the sincere apologies, it would be understandable that they would need to press forward. But Fine was fired. Boeheim apologized. The Onondaga County District Attorney called the two accusers/Plaintiffs credible just a few days earlier. If there was ever a point for these two accusers/Plaintiffs to feel that Syracuse and the nation supported them, it was the point of time that existed on Monday, December 12, 2011.
Despite all of that, Tuesday, December 13, 2011, brought a lawsuit. Not a lawsuit against Fine–the perpetrator of the crimes. This is not the Goldmans suing OJ Simpson because the criminal proceedings failed to establish his guilt. This is not even the situation with third accuser Zach Tomaselli, who is suing Fine and only Fine. Instead, the two plaintiffs/accusers went after Jim Boeheim and Syracuse University. The deeper pockets.
Most importantly–let’s go back to the purported basis for the lawsuits–protecting other victims. What happens if another victim comes forward on Friday? Now that the two accusers have become Plaintiffs, will the consensus be that this new victim is merely hopping on the litigation bandwagon? After all, this victim did not come forward until after the lawsuit was filed. If there is a new round of abuse in some other area of the country–those communities will have to grapple with the question of whether it is real or just a fabricated money grab. Will future alleged victims be criticized for not filing a lawsuit? Will the failure to hire a Gloria Allred be seen as “proof” that these victims are not willing to have their theories tested in a court of law? Will the rest of the nation determine that it is a minor scandal because the court system is not involved? Will future victims reach a determination that coming forward only leads to litigation one way or another–a risk that ends up leading to more victims choosing to silently suffer? The answers to these questions may very well end up being adverse to victims.
If the accusers/Plaintiffs REALLY wanted to help victims, they had every opportunity to do so without pursuing litigation. A combined effort by Lang, Davis, the Boeheims, Syracuse law enforcement, and Syracuse University could have made a real difference in changing the culture. A coalition like that would have changed the community and could have helped change things nationally. However, that utopia was no match for the allure of publicity and cash. So, instead of taking three steps forward, this issue will have taken two steps forward and then one step backward. The two accusers/Plaintiffs have decided to leave it to other victims to victims to take it to the next level. So much for helping other victims. That is not merely irony, but disappointing.
What do you think? Is this lawsuit really going to help other victims everywhere?
Boeheim Was Right: It’s ALWAYS About the Money
When does Jim Boeheim get HIS apology? Well, he gets at least one of them today.
Jim Boeheim was criticized by some members of the media, and certainly taken to task on this forum, for his pointed statements regarding Bernie Fine accusers Bobby Davis and Mike Lang. Recall that Boeheim was forced to apologize for saying that it was all about the money. When Boeheim finally apologized for those statements, the sentiment was that Boeheim should not have interfered with the alleged victims’ pursuit of justice. After all, saying it was about the money disregarded the possibility that these time-barred claims were being advanced solely to prevent future harm. The heartfelt apologies by Boeheim certainly did the trick in removing the focus away from Boeheim.
But we were all wrong. Or at least those who criticized Boeheim were wrong. It turns out that the accusers were always after the money all along. ESPN is now reporting as follows:
Two men who say they were sexually abused by a former assistant basketball coach at Syracuse University are announcing that they are suing the school.
Bobby Davis and Mike Lang say they were molested by former assistant coach Bernie Fine when they were children. He has denied the allegations. A third man also has accused Fine. The U.S. attorney’s office is investigating.
The two men have hired Gloria Allred to handle their case.
So, there it is. Despite having an amazingly unique opportunity to advance the interests of those abused in all of society, and despite Syracuse University firing Bernie Fine, that is not enough for the accusers. Instead, it is time to “cash in.”
As it turns out, Boeheim was right. So the Confidential apologizes. You were right. You probably still should not have said it.
But you were right.
The College Football Overtime Rules Need to be Revised
With all the other hot topics to discuss, such as alleged molestation and the always-present college football post–season debate, the Confidential is hesitant to start another debate. But the college football overtime rules stink. There is no need for the NCAA to continue to use a system that is more “NHL Shootout” than the “Modified Sudden-Death” rules of the NFL during the playoff season. Let the kids play real football in overtime.
As all college football fans know, the overtime rules allow each team to get one possession at the 25-yard line. The possession order flips each overtime period. In the third overtime, teams must go for a 2-point conversion after a touchdown.
The first problem the Confidential has is that the possessions start at the 25-yard line. For the most part, teams start in field goal position. If they gain 5 yards, it is a 37-yard field goal. Even for college kickers, this is not a daunting kick (sorry Boise). In a game like LSU-Alabama, the defenses came up big all night in denying the opposing offense the opportunity to get into field goal position. And then in overtime, the rules just gave each team automatic placement there. It was a field goal contest with LSU winning and Alabama losing. The result was fair–Alabama has no reason to whine or complain. But is this really how games should be resolved? The field goal equivalent to an NHL shootout? A team does not move the ball, but can win because it has the better kicker?
To be sure, the NFL sudden-death rules are a bit harsh. The team that wins the coin flip MUST take the ball (ask the Detroit Lions about this) and the majority of time will score via a field goal to end the game. The other team does not even get the ball. That seems odd. Football is not just an offensive sport–it is a game that involves offense, defense, and special teams. Allowing the recipient to win on a field goal where the opponent does not even get a chance to put its offense on the field against its opponent’s defense diminishes the fairness and reliability of the result.
Even the NFL is moving away from the rule, allowing both teams to at least have possession of the ball in playoff overtime games. To deprive an overtime game of Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers, simply because their teams had the poor fortune of losing a coin flip, was finally deemed insufficient by the NFL. The college rules, fortunately, never wavered in recognizing that both teams deserve to put their offenses on the field.
But the NFL does not adopt entirely new rules for overtime, such as having the teams start from the opponent’s 25-yard line. Nor should college football. Just guarantee each team a chance to possess the ball and be done with it. Play normal football and see what happens.
The second problem the Confidential has with the rules is that it is as if the goal of the college football game is to end the game as soon as possible. What’s the hurry? Baseball doesn’t start extra innings with a runner on third-base.
Even the NHL plays a 5-minute overtime (albeit with 4 on 4) before resorting to the shootout. And those rules do not apply to NHL playoff games, which just continue indefinitely until there is a winner. After all, the NHL playoffs are elimination-type games (some are elimination, all count towards determining elimination).
College basketball provides 5 minute overtime period(s) with the same basic rules–regardless of whether the game is played in November or March. Who can forget the epic six-overtime Syracuse-Connecticut game? The game ended at 1:22 a.m. Is there any reason a college football game cannot extend as long as necessary to reach a reliable result? Absolutely not. In fact, college basketball features players fouling out and being unable to return in overtime. Eight players fouled out of the Syracuse-UConn game. That led to reduced rosters. In football, most teams travel with at least 65 players and usually quite a bit more. There is no concern about not being able to field a team.
That being said, the Confidential does understand that college football is grueling. Players need to be appropriate hydrated wearing all of those pads. The game is, itself, physical. So if there is a reason to not drag out the game by having coaches play a very conservative style of overtime and taking three fifteen-minute overtime periods to resolve. That is understandable. But that is why a modified form of sudden-death rules is appropriate.
In light of all of this, the Confidential proposes this for a modified, sudden-death overtime:
- The overtime game begins with the last team to score in regulation receiving the football via kickoff.
- The first kickoff by any team in overtime cannot be an onside kick. The kick must travel beyond the 50-yard line or it is a 10-yard penalty–with the receiving team choosing to apply to the recovery or require a re-kick with the penalty yardage.
- The team that receives the first kickoff can punt, score, or be scored upon.
- If the team that receives the first kickoff punts, they lose the game if its opponent scores a TD or FG.
- If the team that receives the first kickoff is scored upon via a safety, defensive touchdown or punt return touchdown, the game ends without any further action.
- If the team that receives the first kickoff scores, the other team will get one offensive possession. That team has the one possession to tie the game or win the game. If they score to take a lead, they win the game. But, if they tie the game, the overtime shifts to full sudden-death mode. The next team that scores by any method wins.
- After each team has one possession, onside kicks are allowed.
- A fumbled punt return or kickoff return counts as an offensive possession.
With this rule, both teams would have at least one chance to put its special teams and offense on the field. If the receiving team gets conservative and does not go for it on 4th down or kicks a FG, they run the risk of losing by a FG or TD later. If the team that gets the ball second chooses to go for the tie, rather than the win… so be it. Do not complain that you lost in sudden-death when you had the opportunity to win.
The only unfairness possible is if the first team with possession scores a TD, goes for two, and converts it…. in that instance, the team with the ball second has no chance to win it. But even then they could decide to kick an onsides kick if they really did not want their opponent’s offense back on the field for a sudden-death chance to win it. At least there is a chance.
Return to the LSU-Alabama overtime. By not having both teams start at the 25-yard line, either Alabama or LSU would have to drive the field to score a TD. Or have their defense make a play to get them in FG range. Or have a punt return that sets up field position. In other words, even the FG would require some performance by the three phases of football. Whomever won that game would have done something other than have a FG kicking contest. The result would be that much more reliable.
And given that the FBS system is all about the regular season being the playoff, isn’t that all the more important? Let Oklahoma State play Iowa State in a real overtime to determine if the Cowboys lose control of their own destiny. Let Alabama and LSU play real football to decide the outcome in overtime. Overtimes decide hugely important games. These overtimes would be thoroughly enjoyable for the fans watching in person and on television. Everyone wins if the NCAA adopts these more reasonable overtime rules.
College Football Playoffs–Be Careful What You Wish For!
The period between the announcement of the bowl matchups and the crowning of the national championship is the season for many to clamor that college football is a failure and will be until there is a playoff. ‘Tis the season for media personalities to jump on the populist bandwagon and complain about the evil BCS system. The easy argument is that it is absurd that college football is the only sport without a playoff–and the NCAA has one at every other level of football. But be careful what you wish for sports fans. While a playoff may seem like an overdue necessity, the current college football system is simply awesome. The Confidential thinks that football fans need to appreciate the beauty of the system, rather than looking for the few ways that it is imperfect.
As an initial matter, the current system WORKS! The BCS system is designed to ensure that the #1 team plays the #2 team. Well, it has always done that, right? If you are excluded, it is because your team is ranked #3. Maybe it should have been #2… but it was not deemed to be.
Yeah, there is often debate about who is #1 and who is #2, but isn’t that always the case? If there was a 4-team playoff, the fifth place team would be excluded as the greatest injustice in the history of injustices every year. Just think about this year… who would the 4 teams be? LSU, Alabama, Stanford, and Oklahoma State. Stanford and Alabama did not even win their conference division, much less win their conference championship. And what about 2008, where there were FIVE undefeated teams. Who are you leaving out?
What about an 8-team playoff. If 4 is hard, try figuring out 8. If you went by BCS standings, you would have LSU, Alabama, Okie State, Stanford, Oregon, Arkansas, Boise State, and Kansas State. That’s right, no teams from the ACC or Big 10. How do you leave out Wisconsin, the Big 10 champ at an impressive 11-2 record? And so on. Is it the major conference champions that qualify? So a 7-5 Louisville or 7-6 UCLA would qualify just for winning their conference title, even though there are teams with much better records in their conference and, of course, outside their conference. The deeper you go in a playoff pool, the smaller the difference is between candidates. Is Michigan really worse than Kansas State? Are you sure? Really sure? 8 teams is just not enough.
Perhaps you think that they should have a 16-team playoff, just like the other divisions. Now you are adding four weeks to the season. The FCS playoffs have started and are already down to 8 teams. Actually, the FCS uses 20 teams and started Thanksgiving weekend. For a team like Albany, their 11-game regular season schedule ended on November 19th and they were eliminated before December. They did not have a bye week. There are no conference championship games. Albany finished the regular season 8-3, but still qualified in a playoff for the right to go 8-4. Is that what people want? 8-3 playoff teams? Of course, in the round of 16, the top seeds all advanced to the next round anyway. Despite giving the 8 teams the opportunity to pull an upset, none did. This is not surprising, given that they just played a whole season to determine who the cream of the crop was. All a 16-team playoff does is water down the regular season. Having a bunch of 3-loss teams qualify does nothing more than render some regular season losses irrelevant. You can still lose 1 or 2 more and make the playoffs, after all.
In contrast, the BCS system always pits #1 against #2. Occasionally, the debate between #2 and #3 is such that a winning #3 might get some votes that belong to the winning #2. But no matter who is crowned the champion, it is based on the performance of work from day 1 to the last day of the season. Even if you vehemently disagree as to who is #1 or #2, those are still great teams.
But, you say, the playoffs are the only way to settle a champion. Says who? Look at basketball. 3 weeks of games and you get a national champion. However, look at last year! The 9th place team in the Big East, UConn, won the national championship. Quick… name UConn’s regular season losses. I bet you cannot even name how many they had. They lost 9. Even though they lost 9 times, they were still deemed the best team–the National Champion. How can that be? The Cinderella stories of North Carolina State and Villanova were great, but nobody REALLY thinks that those schools were the best in the land.
Perhaps you are of the mind that the National Champion simply refers to the team that wins the post-season tournament, not the “best team.” Whoever wins it all deserves praise. But college football does not stop there. College football sets out to crown a National Champion AND determine who the best team is. In basketball, you play for 4 months to whittle the field down from 300+ to 68. Of those 68, roughly 20 of them are not truly among the top 68 teams. Even so , that leaves 48 that likely are the best 48 (especially if ignore that coach of the 12-loss team on the radio show circuit the morning after the bracket is announced and his team was #49). You do all that, only to discard it and play a tournament.
Is the regular season just a practice for the Big Dance? Nobody EVER says that about college football. Lose to Iowa State in week 10, and it could keep you out of the national championship. Perhaps you think that it is not fair to penalize a team who loses. Well, every March, we penalize 67 teams for losing. It’s a single-elimination tournament where every loss ends the season. #1 seed? Better beat Northern Iowa. #3 seed? Better beat Belmont. And so on.
In football, the loss in September or November may or may not end your season from a national championship perspective, but it likely will. At the very least, you lose control over your own destiny. In college football, every September game is basically just like a first-round game of the Big Dance. You have to win to stay alive. Every October game is like a Round of 32 game. Every November game narrows down to Sweet 16, Elite 8, and Final Four. And, by the time the BCS bids are announced, you are down to 2.
But the football system makes up for it with bowl games for many. Ask Pitt and Syracuse whether their weekend matchup of 5-6 teams mattered. The winner got a bowl game, the loser went home. Ask West Virginia whether its game against USF–a win that got them into the Orange Bowl–mattered. It did. And we know that West Virginia was watching Cincinnati beat UConn with glee. Three regular season games in the worst BCS conference and they all mattered greatly. If there was a 16-team playoff, would those games have mattered at all? How many college basketball games in February matter? Sure, for seeding. A few bubble teams clashing to see which 10-loss team qualifies to be a 12th seed. But merely days before the bracket is announced, those games largely do not matter. Even in the worst conference, the worst team in that conference can win its conference championship and get a ticket to the Big Dance. And notice how exciting those conference championship games are? That television is compelling. Because the games matter. Elimination games matter.
And that is why the current football system is simply awesome! Every game is an elimination game, from September to December. Lose once, you are no longer controlling your national championship destiny. Lose twice, you are done. Lose three times, and your conference championship hopes dim. Lose four times, you are looking at a mid-level bowl. Lose five times, now you are looking at a late December bowl. Lose six times? You’ll be playing in mid-December. Lose seven times? There is no post-season (except for UCLA). Every weeks costs something measurable.
The NFL has a playoff system. Yes, the NFL allows 12 of its 32 teams to make the playoffs. The NFL is, like college basketball, more of a marathon than a sprint. You can lose an NFL game in September, another in October, another in November, and another in December, and yet still finish 12-4. No 12-4 team has been excluded from the playoffs. Quite the contrary, there have been late season NFL games that are so unimportant that teams rest their stars. You don’t see that in college football under the current system. You might if there was a playoff. Is that desirable? Meaningless games at the end of the season? Of course, unlike many other sports, Football is always single elimination. The better team does not always win. The 2010 Super Bowl was won by a #6 seed. A college football playoff would do nothing more than weaken the import of that September win over your best OOC opponent. A college football playoff would render that November win over your rival secondary. Those games are mere tuneups for the playoff.
The day that college football goes to a playoff is the day that your team no longer has to try to win every game. If a 10-2 team can make the playoffs, that’s all that teams need to strive to obtain. Sure, a team will always want to go undefeated, but the pressure to do so will no longer be there. At that point, college football will cease to be what it has been for all these decades. All the Confidential can say is be careful what you wish for–sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
ACC Football “Post-Season” Awards Released
With a conference championship game yet to play, the ACC went ahead and released its post-season awards anyway. The Confidential is always a bit surprised that awards are issued before the relevant period is over. Is the ACC suggesting that this Saturday’s HUGE game doesn’t matter? Of course not.
In any event, Mike London was named the ACC Coach of the Year. In his first season, he improved Virginia from 4-8 to 8-4. He dominated the voting, receiving 31 votes, significantly more than runners-up Frank Beamer (3) and Dabo Swinnney (2).
The ACC player of the yearwas Virginia Tech running back David Wilson. The junior has TEN 100-yard rushing games already. In fact, he also was named the ACC offensive player of the year. In the player of the year voting, he earned twice as many votes (18) as the nearest vote-getter, Luke Kuechly of Boston College (9). Also receiving votes were a Clemson duo, Sammy Watkins (8) and Tajh Boyd (7). The remaining three votes were cast for Wilson’s teammate, quarter back Logan Thomas.
In the offensive player of the year voting, Wilson received 26 votes. Boyd and Watkins finished with 9 and 8 votes respectively. Oddly, although Thomas had three votes for ACC player of the year, only two votes were cast for him as offensive player of the year. Apparently, some voter though he was the best player in the league, but not the best offensive player in the league. Yep, that makes as little sense as it sounds.
On the defensive side, Kuechly was named the ACC defensive player of the year. The Boston College linebacker’s numbers are mind-boggling:
Kuechly averaged 15.92 tackles per game for Boston College, which won three of its final five games to finish at 4-8. The figure is almost certain to set an NCAA single-season record. In order to catch Kuechly, his nearest competitor, Utah State linebacker Bobby Wagner, will need to make 73 stops over his final two contests. Kuechly’s total of 191 tackles fell two short of the NCAA mark, and his career achievements are equally compelling. In only three seasons, he has been credited with 532 stops; that’s the second-highest total by an FBS player since the NCAA began compiling individual tackling statistics in 2000.
He has done that in only three seasons and has another year of eligibility remaining.
Not surprisingly, he picked up 30 of the 45 votes. The remaining 15 votes were split between North Carolina cornerback David Amerson (14) and Duke safety Matt Daniels (1).
Bernie Fine Fired–Jim Boeheim Likely Safe
Bernie Fine has been fired, but Jim Boeheim’s job appears to be safe. Although the Confidential previously opined that Jim Boeheim was taking a huge risk in going “all-in” with respect to the Bernie Fine molestation accusations, it now appears that there is stronger evidence against Bernie Fine AND that Jim Boeheim is nevertheless going to survive. So much for the “all in” analogy. At least, the Confidential beat the rest of the blogosphere with that analogy (prove us wrong).
The Confidential’s primary concern was that Boeheim could face serious trouble for calling the accusers liars and suggesting that they were making the accusations for the money. He was also extremely confident that Bernie Fine would be vindicated. Well, so much for that. The latest news is that Bernie Fine’s wife is on tape essentially admitting that Fine was very much capable of these acts. Feel free to read the details elsewhere. In addition, there is a now a third accuser too. Not surprisingly, the University wasted little time in firing Fine, which Boeheim concurred with in a statement that he obviously did not write himself.
The upshot is that Boeheim was wrong about Bernie Fine. Barring some sort of series of conspiracies, it would appear that Fine is going to have a permanent cloud over his name, which tarnishes Boeheim. If Joe Paterno got fired for simply being morally deficient, where does calling the accusers of child sexual abuse liars out for money rank? One would think that Boeheim would be in trouble. As usual, there are commentators who got their name in the press today opining accordingly.
But, overall, it has been surprisingly quiet. It does not appear that there is a groundswell of momentum against Boeheim. The question is why? The Confidential believes that there are five key points that aid Boeheim’s position:
- The Penn State matter involved an assistant coach observing the rape of a 10-year old, without anyone bothering to have the police notified. Ever. In contrast, the Syracuse matter involves allegations that nobody affiliated with Syracuse has ever witnessed. Also, while the evidence is mounting against Fine, there is not one piece of evidence that is not questionable–be it the credibility of the accusers or the allegations that the tape of Mrs. Fine was doctored. This is simply not open and shut. Nobody knows if Fine can even be convicted due to statutes of limitation, much less whether he will be. There may never be any trial. While things have gotten worse, they are still far below the evidence in the Penn State matter.
- Boeheim’s harshest comments were very much a knee-jerk reaction to an accusation against him seeing one of the accusers in Bernie Fine’s hotel room in the 1980’s. There was no sense that Boeheim would have seen any activity, and even the accused later clarified that Boeheim did not have knowledge. In between, however, Boeheim’s harsh response also addressed this misleading statement by the accuser. While the import of the allegations against Fine were the real news story, Boeheim had a legitimate right to respond to the one statement involving him. Unfortunately, he got carried away and commented on things that he should have left to the school to address. But because he had a fair reason to respond, going too far in his response is at least somewhat understandable.
- To his credit, Boeheim wisely backtracked from his harsh statements by at least allowing for the possibility of changing his mind if he was wrong. He had used harsh words, but the totality of his words did leave an opening for him to be wrong. Even if he never expected to be wrong, this was helpful in showing that he was not 100% dismissing the possibility that the allegations were true. In retrospect, this may have been very important.
- The Syracuse University response has been outstanding. Boeheim may not have lived up to what his bosses wanted in the first hours, but there is absolutely no indication that his bosses were beholden to him. In a strange way, Boeheim’s harsh remarks demonstrated that he absolutely does not tell the administration what to do. He was harsh, but the Chancellor has been very measured. And then the decision to fire Fine was swift, appropriate, and agreed-upon by all. Within hours of Syracuse University learning about the audio tape, Fine was done. And, most importantly, Boeheim apologized. The words were likely written by another, but he did what he needed to do.
- ESPN’s failure to release the tape earlier. Had ESPN provided the tape originally, Boeheim’s response may have been very different. Because ESPN didn’t show their entire hand, Boeheim probably deserves a mulligan on his “all in” approach. Everyone was misled by the veracity of these allegations. Nobody was 100% convinced it happened when first reported. Even with the tapes, the holes in this story are such that reasonable doubt may always exist. Because we all got fooled, Boeheim’s remarks go from a terminable offense (perhaps) to a regrettable statement.
In the end, it would appear that the Confidential’s concern that Boeheim was going too far will not be realized. At least today. Nobody knows what the news will bring tomorrow will bring. This story gets weirder by the day.
The good news is that the news media did not choose to punish Jim Boeheim for merely his words. This happens in society and Boeheim would not be the first to suffer a severe penalty for the wrong words. Syracuse University would have been well within its rights to have a zero tolerance approach to insensitive statements. But this was not so severe that he HAD to be fired. And this country has always been quick to forgive the truly contrite–and with Boeheim being part of the decision to fire Fine AND issuing an apology–the healing process began before anyone could jump in to say he should be fired.
But the best news is that Boeheim is now in a position to advocate from a position of strength for all of us to be a bit more careful when assuming that allegations are false. Although we can think of motives to lie and reasons to disbelieve, Boeheim can go on the speaking circuit and advocate that we all be a little more sensitive. Kind of like Michael Vick and the pro-dog promos. Not all incredible stories are false. Not all people who report abuse are doing it because they plan to sue. If he can share that message going forward, this is a great opportunity for meaningful change to happen. And that’s something that the accusers and Boeheim should be able to agree on as a silver lining of this very strange situation.
Latest on Syracuse’s Bernie Fine
The Confidential opined that Jim Boeheim may have been making a mistake in putting his neck on the line for Bernie Fine. The premise of that was NOT that Jim Boeheim was a bad boss or a bad friend. Quite the contrary, his support for Bernie Fine makes him an outstanding boss and friend. He’s the guy you want in an alley with you. He’s the guy you want in your foxhole.
The problem is that his public announcements went beyond merely responding to the one fact regarding him and, instead, interjected himself into the story. He called the accusers liars. No real gray area there.
To extricate himself would require some sort of “proof” that these allegations against Fine were false. Proving a negative is always difficult. Proving a negative from 20 years ago is more so. Proving a negative in the absence of a venue is next to impossible. At present, the only venue is the venue of public opinion. Fortunately for Syracuse and Boeheim, the public seems generally tired from all the awful news that arose out of the Penn State scandal. And the Syracuse situation comes nowhere near the Penn State situation. But that does not make this issue a “clean” one.
Quite the contrary. Right now, the Syracuse Police Department is in a battle with the District Attorney to see who can deflect attention away from its own possible failings quick enough. The District Attorney is up in arms that he was never alerted about this years ago. The District Attorney wants the police records–even to the point of obtaining a subpoena. This does not sound like a team environment. The Syracuse Police Department may or may not be behind a leak that one of the accuser’s ex-girlfriends reported this incident to the District Attorney’s right-hand man. The call was never returned. All one can say is, be careful what you wish for, Mr. District Attorney.
Frankly, for all we know, nobody ever called anyone! But, in their zeal to cover their own butts, the Syracuse law enforcement team has decided that the best way to CYA is by shifting the blame onto its partner in stopping crime. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, the accusers, Bernie Fine, Jim Boeheim, and Syracuse University, all sit in the middle of this unexpected battle. It’s kind of hard for anyone to strengthen and support their position when “law and order” are so busy trying to disappear from the scene of this accident (that may or may not have occurred).
For the accusers, this mess adds to their position. Competing claims of incompetence by law enforcement officials bolster the claim that nobody took the accusations seriously enough. More importantly, this debacle is keeping the issue in the news. If this is about notoriety, mission accomplished.
This, of course, is the opposite of what Fine, Boeheim, and Syracuse want. Their preference would be for this to shift out of the limelight for somewhere between “a while” and “forever.”
Look… nobody knows the truth. For all the character witnesses supporting Fine, he may have done some or all of the things alleged. For all the knee-jerk desire to assume that a human being would not have invented these serious allegations, this is a sick world sometimes. Worse yet, there is nowhere for anyone to find “hope.” Whoever is telling the truth, we are not going to like the result.
But, at this stage, determining what “the truth” is seems like wishful thinking. There are too many questions to be investigated and resolved, and there is an emerging concern that there is little reason to have faith in those doing the investigating. The bottom line is that this is not going anywhere fast. Jim Boeheim valiantly stood up for his colleague and friend. Hopefully, he has a chair nearby. This may not ending anytime soon.
The Next Day: Jim Boeheim Continues “All-In” Strategy
With a police investigation just beginning into the accusations of molestation levied against Bernie Fine, Jim Boeheim has ramped up his “all-in” strategy. While at least one Syracuse blog has posited that it is ESPN that is playing “a dangerous game,” The Confidential thinks otherwise. Instead, the Confidential believes that it is Jim Boeheim that is playing the dangerous game here. A very dangerous game.
In fact, there is nothing unequivocal about Jim Boeheim’s statements in this matter. He is 100% behind Fine. He is 100% against the accusers. As reported by Syracuse.com, Boeheim has said:
“This is alleged to have occurred … what?” Boeheim asked late Thursday night. “Twenty years ago? Am I in the right neighborhood? It might be 26 years ago? So, we are supposed to what? Stop the presses 26 years later? For a false allegation? For what I absolutely believe is a false allegation? I know he’s lying about me seeing him in his hotel room. That’s a lie. If he’s going to tell one lie, I’m sure there’s a few more of them.”
Boeheim was speaking of Bobby Davis, the 39-year-old man who has declared that Fine, SU’s assistant basketball coach for 36 seasons, molested him on hundreds of occasions over a period of some 15 years beginning when Davis was 12 or 13. Specifically, Boeheim was referencing the charge by Davis that he, Boeheim, had seen Davis on multiple occasions in Fine’s hotel room on Orange basketball road trips.
“I never have been in Bernie Fine’s hotel room in my life,” Boeheim said. “This is what, 16 to 18 years ago, or whatever it is? But I don’t recall ever walking into any of my assistant coaches’ rooms. Now, could I have once … one time? I have a pretty good recollection of things, but I don’t ever recollect ever walking into Bernie Fine’s hotel room. Ever.”
Boeheim did admit that Davis, who lived in Fine’s basement for a while as a teen and served for a time as an Orange ball boy, did periodically travel with the SU basketball team. But, Boeheim offered, Davis traveled for a practical reason.
“I know Bobby,” Boeheim said. “He was one of 300 ball boys we’ve had. This kid ended up being a babysitter for Bernie. He babysat Bernie’s kids. That’s why he was on the trips. He’d babysit. The kid only traveled, to my knowledge, if he was babysitting Bernie’s kids. This is when he was 18 years old. He was helping to babysit the kids. That’s the only time I know about, from talking with Bernie.”
Asked what Davis’ possible motivation would be to tell his disturbing story at this time, Boeheim hesitated not at all.
“Here’s why,” he said. “The Penn State thing came out and the kid behind this is trying to get money. He’s tried before. And now he’s trying again. If he gets this, he’s going to sue the university and Bernie. What do you think is going to happen at Penn State? You know how much money is going to be involved in civil suits? I’d say about $50 million. That’s what this is about. Money.”
No middle-ground here at all. Boeheim is calling the accuser a liar and providing a motive.
As a preliminary matter, as it relates to the singular question of whether Bernie Fine had inappropriate contact with two minors, there are only two possibilities. The first possibility is that the victims’ accusations are untrue. The second possibility is that Bernie Fine’s denial is untrue. What else is there?
Suppose the victims’ accusations are untrue. Who is going to make that determination? A jury found OJ Simpson to be not guilty of murder, but a fair number of people deemed that to be an incorrect verdict. Strictly speaking, the jury only made the conclusion that he was not guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So maybe they were 80% sure he was guilty, but did not think that 80% guilty met the standard. If a jury finds Bernie Fine not guilty, will the public be satisfied with that conclusion? Or will there be the backlash: “sure, a Syracuse jury did not find the coach innocent…must have been a kangaroo court.”
The same goes for a decision by the police or prosecutor not to press charges. It is unclear whether any outsiders will truly give due credit to such a determination made by local authorities. So there may continue to be a sense of doubt.
In the best case scenario for Bernie Fine, not only do the police not press charges against him, the police press charges against the accusers for making a false allegation. That would be the type of message that suggests that not only is Bernie Fine innocent, but the evidence suggests otherwise. A similar scenario would be if the accusers were charged with conspiracy. Such a scenario could arise if one accuser decides to come clean that it is a false allegation.
Short of that, it is difficult to envision a situation where this issue is resolved without some lingering doubt. This means that, even within the “untrue” side of the equation, there is the possibility of Boeheim having miscalculated in his zeal. It’s difficult to prove a negative. This includes “my long-term assistant did not molest anyone.” You can be confident in his innocence, but that only goes so far.
In contrast, what if the accusations are true? The unwavering support is honorable; however, unless it is 100% impossible for the allegations to be false–failing to acknowledge the minimal possibility could be very troublesome. In the circumstance where the accusations are true, Boeheim will have put his reputation fully on the line to defend Bernie Fine only to have that blow up in his face. The honor in defending his colleague will shift to a valid criticism that he is incapable of making character determinations. What begs the question–why make the determination at all?
In fact, incorrectly calling someone a liar and accusing them of making up statements for the purpose of money will lead to lawsuits. While Boeheim might have avoided responsibility based on the circumstances of the conduct, false statements might open up a new door of potential liability.
And this will also cause Boeheim to be lumped into the same category as Paterno. Sure, you don’t believe it can happen. But you don’t make that decision–you make sure that the police make that decision. And you don’t interfere with the police making that decision by making public statements putting the weight of your reputation against the accusers. This could all end very badly for Boeheim.
It is also not clear what would qualify as “truth.” If the police open an investigation and find other victims, is that enough to be “truth”? If it goes to a grand jury, is that enough to be “truth”? If there is an indictment, is that enough to be “truth”? Or will it take a conviction. An argument could be made that it is “all of the above.” If so, there are many stages where Boeheim will have erred in placing his reputation behind Fine.
There is one more matter here. Syracuse University issued a statement. The Chancellor issued a statement. Unless Boeheim was encouraged to make a statement by the Syracuse legal team, he may have gone against the preferences of that team. If so, even if Boeheim is right, he may have caused more trouble for his employer.
Boeheim deserves credit for supporting Fine, but he has certainly gone “all in.” And even if you think you have a great hand, going “all in” is not without its risks.
What do you think? And not just whether you would respect what Boeheim has done, was it the smart thing to do?
Recent Comments
Atlantic Coast Confidential RSS
The Confidential 