1/ In a discussion yesterday related to statements made by @JayBilas and @GaryParrishCBS regarding @BigTicket_JW and @Iam1Cent, my position was that they have an obligation to not assume violations of NCAA bylaws without knowing and evaluating the elements of such allegations.

2/ For those who would like to look at the rules, the NCAA D-I Manual, consisting of the NCAA's so-called Constitution and Bylaws, which is 443 pages long this year, can be downloaded for free at https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4577-2019-2020-ncaa-division-i-manual-august-version-available-for-presell-now.aspx.

3/ I asked Jay Bilas to provide me the specific bylaws that he believes have been violated, and he provided me with the following: Sections 13.02.6, 13.02.7, 13.02.8, 13.02.9, 13.02.13, 13.02.15, 13.02.19, 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1, 16.01.1, 16.02.3 & 16.11.2.1.

4/ Sections that have this format, XX.0X.X.X and so on, are definitions or principles that are not things that can be violated. So the only sections he gave me that don't have leading zeros are 13.2.1, 13.2.1.1 & 16.11.2.1. Other relevant Sections are 6.4.2, 6.4.2.2 & 13.02.15.1.

5/ Sections 6.4.2(b) & 13.02.15(b) define a booster in part as someone who "[h]as made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution ...." Penny did not contribute to either, but rather to the institution, itself.

6/ The NCAA used the word "institution" in that clause and could have included it in the prohibited categories, but chose not to for whatever reason. Penny made a charitable and tax-deductible donation in 2008 to the University. He literally doesn't meet the threshold definition.

7/ The rule is terribly drafted, for instance, you can't legally give money to a non-entity like an athletic department—it would always be to the university, which is not included. There is no threshold, so is $1 enough? Does contribution mean anything different than donation?

8/ Section 6.4.2.2 says that "[a]ny individual participating in the activities set forth in [Section] 6.4.2 shall be considered a 'representative of the institution's athletics interests,' and once so identified …, it is presumed the person retains that identity."

9/ Section 13.02.15.1 says that "Once an individual, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization is identified as such a representative, the person, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization retains that identity indefinitely."

10/ So if Penny were a booster, how long is that status "presumed" or "indefinite," which controls, if it matters, and how would anyone know when to take him off the list? Since he helped James' mother in 2017, did his status really continue for nine years? No one knows.

11/ Since Penny doesn't qualify, a court need not evaluate this rule, but if it had to, it would void the rule for vagueness, because of its over-inclusive due to no threshold and no duration, so no one can really know if they are or are not a booster.

12/ Section 13.02.6 says that James became a college athlete on the date of enrollment or first practice, which is 2019. Section 13.02.7 defines off-campus evaluations. Section 13.02.8 defines family members, like his Mom. Section 13.02.9 defines recruiting-person days.

13/ Section 13.02.13 says that "[a] prospective [college] athlete is a student who has started classes for the ninth grade." It also explains when full college athlete status arises, as stated above. Why the NCAA does so, when it cannot regulate high school athletes is unknown.

14/ Section 13.02.19 defines an "individual associated with with a prospective [college] athlete" for basketball as including James' mother as well as his high school coach, Penny. Why the NCAA does so, when it cannot regulate James' mother or his high-school coach is unknown.

15/ Section 13.2.1 states that "any representative of [the institution's] athletics interests shall not be involved … in … giving … any financial aid or other benefits to a prospective [college] athlete or his or her family members or friends …." Same caveat.

16/ The exception is that "if it is determined that the same benefit is generally available to the institution's prospective students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body … determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability."

17/ Everybody else on campus has access to gifts or loans from family and friends for moving expenses and travel, which can be substantial for foreign students. I am sure hundreds if not thousands of Memphis students will attest to this.

18/ Thus, the exception would apply here, if needed. Also, it is racist to not allow aid, gifts, or loans, to poor people, who in college will likely be minorities, because of the disparate impact. (Section 13.2.1.1 is just a list of prohibited acts, subject to the exception.)

19/ Chapter 16 applies to enrolled college athletes, which for James began in 2019. Section 16.01.1 states that college athletes may not receive extra benefits, subject to exceptions. Section 16.02.3 is the same exception discussed above. None of this applied to James in 2017.

20/ Section 16.11.2.1 states that "The [college] athlete shall not receive any extra benefit," with similar additional language like the recruiting rule one above. Again, James was not a college athlete in 2017, so this does not apply to him.

21/ So we're left with only a possible recruiting rule violation, Section 13.2.1, when there is no evidence that James was recruited to Memphis in 2017, by Penny's helping his mother move his family. So big picture, how can we have a recruiting violation with no recruiting?

22/ The only way is to assume the booster rule would be enforced by a court, manufacture booster status for Penny, have a court allow the NCAA to regulate James, his Mom, and Penny, in 2017, and ignore that a gift or loan is commonly enjoyed by members of the student body.

23/ This exercise illustrates the overreaching engaged in by the NCAA, where, here, it attempts to control whether a mother can afford to move her family to a different high school, and whether the H.S. coach can choose to be charitable, when it has no legal authority to do so.

24/ The result the NCAA seeks violates basic legal rules and common sense. A child cannot control his mother or his coach, and we do not legally hold children responsible as adults for their parents' behavior. The NCAA's bad faith is everywhere, as it seeks to ruin James.

25/ There is no legal basis for the attack on James, his lawyers should pay attention to what I've had to say, talking heads should reexamine the facts and the law and stop jumping to conclusions, and President Rudd and A.D. Veatch should double-down on James and Penny. Change.