Co-conspirators' List Narrowing?

The latest news in the Wake Forest football imbroglio is that several intrepid reporters have been hard at work narrowing the list of potential schools that Tommy Elrod may have offered the Deacons' offensive plays to prior to games.

Based on the sentence contained in the initial press release by the Wake Sports Information Director that the school, during its investigation, had "notified all the appropriate entities related to these [Elrod's] activities" several newspapers (seemingly most successfully the Raleigh News and Observer) and other media outlets (including Sports Illustrated) have been inquiring of the schools that Wake played over the last three years if they were contacted by Wake during its inquiry.

You can follow along at https://twitter.com/jwgiglio as N&O reporter Joe Giglio keeps a running tally of the schools. The latest list at the time I posted:

photo from https://twitter.com/jwgiglio

"X" means that the school was not contacted by Wake, and as a result, we may be able to assume, that Wake did not have any electronic evidence in turn that Elrod had contacted, or attempted to contact, them offering inside information.  Note the red check marks by Louisville and Army, both of which have now admitted that they were informed by Wake of concerns during its investigation.

The pattern that seems to be emerging, also thanks to Giglio's great work (who says investigative journalism is dead? well, me, for one, for the most part) is that Elrod served as an assistant coach with others who are now on the staffs of ... you guessed it, Louisville and Army. And one more school with its box as-yet unchecked. Indiana.

Wake played Army each of the past three seasons, winning in 2014 and 2015 before falling to The Black Knights (beginning to take on a whole new meaning, isn't it?) this year in Winston-Salem, at homecoming, 21-13. If Army did have contact (particularly if it occurred as early as 2014) and notified no one in response it will be exceedingly troubling given the pride that it takes in its honor code:

photo from www.usma.edu

Not to mention the fact that its football program appeared to have turned the corner this year by beating Navy for the first time in 15 seasons.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up

Louisville has fessed up, kind of, to receiving plays from Wake Forest radio commentator Tommy Elrod, about which I wrote about earlier today. 

But it wasn't that many plays, and Wake didn't run any of them, so apparently it's okay.

Plus, get this, Louisville is offended that it has to address these issues because it has a bowl game to win.  Stop distracting us.

Seriously.

The statement from Louisville reads in full:

Lonnie (Gallaway, Louisville's offensive coordinator) received a call from Elrod during the week of the wake Forest game, and some information was shared with him that week.  Among the communication [sic] were a few plays that were sent and then shared with our defensive staff. None of the special plays were run during the course of the game. Our defense regularly prepares for similar formations every week in their [sic] normal game plan. Any other information that may have been discussed was nothing that our staff had not already seen while studying Wake Forest in their preparations for the game and the material was not given any further attention. I'm disappointed that this issue has brought undue attention to our football staff as we prepare for our upcoming bowl game.

So, in sum: "yes we cheated, helped by a traitor from the team that we were about to play, but hey, no harm no foul. Stop bothering us while we address the truly important issue, which is winning a bowl game, not sportsmanship or fair play. Nothing to see here. Move along."

Never mind the fact that the timing of "the issue" is due solely to Louisville's failure to report the contact at the time that it occurred. Or that regardless of whether or not it benefitted from the cheating, it cheated.

To all of which I say:

1. If Louisville plans on having Gallaway as its offensive coordinator for the bowl game, or any game in the immediate future, I hope that the ACC quickly disabuses it of that notion;

and

2. Petrino better be coming up with a better story than the time he told one looking like this:

photo from espn.com

No Honor Among Thieves

The saga began with the bizarre news that the Louisville football team may have obtained Wake Forest offensive plays (that the Demon Deacons had not run before) prior to the Cardinals' 44-12 win over Wake in November.

Bizarre, not because anyone would put an act of espionage or cheating past Louisville's coach Bobby Petrino or even the institution, given their collective history of unfamiliarity with the truth and familiarity with NCAA rules violations and women of leisure.  Petrino's statement when confronted with evidence that his staff had notice in advance of Wake's game plan was, given his personal history, borderline absurd: "As I've already stated this season, my coaching philosophy has always been to play the game with sportsmanship." But bizarre because, well, did at-the-time number five in the country Louisville really think it needed help to beat Wake?

But the story took a decidedly weirder turn on Tuesday, when Wake Forest announced that, after a month-long investigation, it had determined that one of its own radio commentators had been the mole providing game plans not only to Louisville, but offering them to other schools for the past three seasons. The disbelief and disappointment on the Wake side of the equation is palpable in the press release announcing the results of the investigation and in statements issued by Deac Athletic Director Ron Wellman and head football coach Dave Clawson.

Clawson summed it up: "It’s incomprehensible that a former Wake Forest student-athlete, graduate-assistant, full-time football coach, and current radio analyst for the school, would betray his alma mater. We allowed him to have full access to our players, team functions, film room, and practices. He violated our trust which negatively impacted our entire program."

That's right, the traitor wasn't some media shill hired by IMG to cover the Wake games. It was Tommy Elrod, a former Wake quarterback and 11 year coach for the Deacs before he moved to the broadcast booth in 2014, after not being retained on Clawson's coaching staff upon Jim Grobe's departure. This is the same man who, according to the school, “provided or attempted to provide confidential and proprietary game preparations on multiple occasions, starting in 2014.”

So far, Elrod's response (and that of his lawyer, another former Wake football player) has been this:

Elrod's Twitter account

There is of course rampant speculation regarding Elrod's motive in betraying his alma mater, team, and quasi-employer. I personally think the "Hell hath no fury like a quarterback scorned" (because Elrod wasn't retained by Clawson) is the leading candidate. And while others speculate regarding whether the insular world of college football in general and coaches in particular (which seems to be built on a distrust of anyone outside of the team) will turn even further in on itself, there are two other more troubling and fundamental issues, that must be addressed.

First, was Elrod not only exposing the Wake football team to a slanted playing field repeatedly the past three years, but was he exposing its players to an increased risk of injury or potential injury?  The answer has to be yes. Wake started the season with an offensive spark from newly installed sophomore quarterback Kendall Hinton, who was injured in the third game of the year (Wake started 3-0) and won't return this season. Was Hinton vulnerable to injury because the defense already knew what play had been called? Or were some of the 36 sacks that Wake has suffered this season, resulting in inevitable wear and tear on its offensive players, due to the same reason?

Even if a causal link can never be established between any particular injury and Elrod's actions, he had to be aware that he was exposing the Demon Deacon players to a higher risk of injury or, at the very least, of being worn down by opponents who knew exactly what to expect on a certain play. It doesn't matter (much) that Elrod was doing this to players wearing the same uniform that he had worn and coached for nearly 20 years. That he would willingly do this to any set of players, let alone his "own," is repugnant.

Second, why are we finding all of this out now, three years after it began, and only by happenstance and the stupidity of someone on Petrino's staff? Where were the phone calls, emails, text messages from all of the institutions of higher learning that, when receiving an offer of "help" from Elrod, immediately informed Wake or the ACC or the NCAA of his deviousness? The answer has to be: there were none because winning is more important in college football than sportsmanship or even common decency.

We don't know which schools received such an offer and which ones may have taken Benedict Elrod up on his proposals. But even if the answers are a few and one, the silence is deafening and calls into question, once again, what the true nature of college athletics is and what lessons we should all learn from its win at any cost mentality.

While Wake has essentially suggested in its press release that it does not intend to provide further information, or conduct a further investigation, regarding Elrod or his actions at this time, one hopes that this is not a matter that the ACC and the NCAA believe can be swept under the rug. Those governing bodies must conduct their own inquiries, with the focus being not on what went wrong at Wake Forest, but what went wrong at all of the other schools that had this information and at best did nothing in response.

Collective Action Instead of Litigation

You may recall my posts from last Spring and Fall about the NCAA and the efforts by former and current players to organize and to be compensated for their names, images, and likenesses ("NIL") while they competed at the college level.¹  

Things didn't turn out exactly as planned for either the Northwestern football players and their attempt to organize or for Ed O'Bannon and his fellow plaintiffs. But there may have been the dawning of a different means over the past week through which college athletes in revenue sports may well begin to realize the true value of the service that they provide.

The NLRB dismissed the Northwestern players' petition to organize not by finding that they didn't have a right to, but rather because action on the petition would not have promoted stability in labor relations. As a New York Times article on the NLRB decision notes:

Chief among the board’s reasons for declining to consider the case were the complexities of an N.C.A.A. in which one team might be unionized while others were not, and whether a union would negotiate terms that conflicted with the association’s rules. The N.L.R.B., which has jurisdiction only over the private sector, was also reluctant to wade into territory that could have raised implications for public universities. A vast majority of top-level college football programs are at public colleges, and Northwestern is the only private institution in the 14-member Big Ten Conference. ²

While the decision apparently left open for another day the issue of whether college athletes, particularly in football, are employees, "student-athletes," or both, it's difficult to imagine a scenario in the near future where either a more worker-friendly or less NCAA-beholding NLRB will find it appropriate to consider the issue.

Meanwhile, O'Bannon essentially won the battle and lost the war when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken that NCAA rules prohibiting "student-athletes" from profiting from the use of their NIL violates anti-trust law, it also found that the part of her decision that granted the former players an injunction requiring schools to compensate their athletes up to $5000 a year for the use of those images was for reasons that are not entirely clear, unsupported.

Nick Saban, Alabama's football coach, reportedly
makes $7 million a year. But the Ninth Circuit found
no justification for his players to make $5000 per year
for the use of their NIL. (photo from commons.wikimedia.org)

The O'Bannon plaintiffs petitioned last month for a rehearing of the case en banc, but regardless of the ultimate decision issued by the Ninth Circuit, the case is likely to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which will perhaps take a dimmer view of the finding that antitrust laws apply to college athletics.

This past week, however, "student-athletes" may have realized the power that they hold over the schools for which they play, albeit in an entirely different context. You've no doubt heard by now about the resignations of the President of the University of Missouri system (Timothy Wolfe) and the Chancellor of the Columbia campus (R. Bowen Loftin) in the wake of campus protests regarding the response, or more appropriately the lack of response, to racial incidents on the campus.

While the protests had been going on for weeks, they truly only gained momentum after the school's African-American football players announced that they would boycott all of their remaining games until the demands of one of the protesters, who was on a hunger strike, were met. One of his demands was that Wolfe resign, which was ignored until the players got involved and threatened not to play, beginning with Saturday's game against BYU, a contest that would have required Mizzou to pay BYU a $1 million penalty if it was cancelled.

Suddenly, more than two months after the first racial incident that drew attention, but less than two days after the announcement by the players, Wolfe held a press conference at which he said that out of his "love" for his alma mater he was stepping down. The same day Loftin announced his resignation.  And, as was pointed out in another New York Times article, the timing can hardly be coincidental.

Arguably, the Missouri players' action was undertaken for more admirable reasons than collective action regarding compensation for their work for their schools. But if it hasn't already dawned on them, it certainly has on others (including several in the most recent Times article), that this same kind of action could be easily undertaken to support payment for college players.

What's to stop the squads of the two football National Championship game finalists from talking it over at one of the free outings that the NCAA so generously provides them and deciding, "hey, what if we just decided not to play next Monday unless we start getting a share of this gigantic pie?" Would the NCAA's reaction be any different than Wolfe's was, facing a potential boycott and the loss of millions of dollars from ESPN?

Perhaps that is the only way that the NCAA will be forced to abandon its mantra of "student-athletes" while it and its members continue to rake in the cash and pay the coaches of those athletes more than any other employee. The courts and quasi-judicial bodies seem unwilling to upset the status quo.

But perhaps the status quo is about to change.

---

1 The link to the article no longer works, but can be found here: http://web.uslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014_Fall_Winter_USLAW-Magazine1.pdf at pages 12-13.

2 A link to the full text of the NLRB's decision is here: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/13-RC-121359^↩