Did James Joyce write the rules?

Did James Joyce write the rules?
Finnegans Wake author haunts NCAA
By: Malamute, 11 June 2003

Once more the media are twisting NCAA rule 10.3 on gambling to fit their own predilection. Part d of the rule is essentially the same as parts b and c—with accept and solicit being the key words—so why the sudden epiphany regarding the Dana Richardson e-mail and the missing part d on the Internet?

The reasonable thing for the NCAA to do, in light of all the controversy surrounding the meaning of rule 10.3, is to scold the University of Washington for its e-mail and place Coach Rick Neuheisel on probationary watch. Then, when the smoke clears, update its poorly written rule with the key phrase, “No Sports Pools.” Also, it must update all of its rules on the subject of gambling, for variations of 10.3 are scattered all over the Internet, even in some mollycoddling brochure written for the student athlete.

However, the NCAA always raises its cackles when it believes a Pac-10 school has broken one of its rules, becoming totally judgmental, using the media as its jury.

Who gave the media their voir dire? They only twist the truth--so well illustrated by their speculations on the amount of monies wagered by the Huskies’ coach. I'm still not sure what the exact amount was, and now I found out that some of the winnings was given to charity. I guess that's news twisting by omission.

The media now say the fact that part d of the rule is missing on some websites is the reason the e-mailer, Dana Richardson, misinterpreted the rule. Parts b and c are essentially the same as part d, as far as the embattled coach is concerned. Part c talks about accepting bets for the representative institution; however, Neuheisel did not solicit or accept any bets, so it matters little that part d was missing. All the parts (a through e) are exculpatory evidence.

The jury has lynched the UW and Neuheisel before their trial, and the ugliness of their hanging will certainly cow the NCAA into submission should it, otherwise, be planning some sort of doggy reincarnation, like whiskey splashing on Finnegan's corpse and his rising up again alive.

Dawg fans can expect the worst to happen, a suspension of Rick Neuheisel for at least one year and some sort of punishment for Washington, which might include a ban from post-season play, an audit of its athletic department, and a myriad of classes on NCAA rules for its staffers.

The ambiguity of the NCAA rules, including 10.3, could drive these classes in perpetuum, inside a black hole generated by a collapse of the galaxy.

Those unemployed in the Seattle area will be practicing their typing skills. Making viewgraphs for all the classes in the offing will rival a polyphony-like reading of Finnegans Wake. James Joyce’s masterful work, in complexity and unintelligibility, rivals those rules of college football’s hypocritical guardian.

The sanctimonious Pac-9 schools that claim to follow 10.3 to the letter of the law—could they say otherwise?—should be elated by the forthcoming assault on Washington, since the Dawgs, along with USC, are a pre-season favorite to win the conference championship.

Suspending Rick Neuheisel means his jettisoning, since no one wants a lame-duck coach to kick around anymore, not even the media. Because Dana Richardson interpreted 10.3 correctly--as did Neuheisel--it could cost the UW a bundle to buy Neuheisel out of his contract, like, say, 3.6 million readings of Finnegans Wake. You can't fire him for violating the spirit of the rule, that's only done in Iraq, as someone said on Fox Northwest last night.

By misinterpreting rule 10.3 themselves, the media have much to gain because of the Richardson memo. If Washington cows to the NCAA and admits Richardson misinterpreted the rule, then the media can fire more salvos at the UW, charging there was a lack of institutional control. The NCAA will never admit the phrase, "No Sports Pools," is missing from 10.3, because a litany of battered institutions would cry foul after reviewing the flimflam rules that torpedoed their programs.

Once Neuheisel is down for the count, the media will pummel Barbara Hedges into submission, as if she had gone ten rounds with Laila Ali; meanwhile the sellout crowd chants, 'a lack-of-institutional control.' During the mismatch, the NCAA will gear up to levy some heavy penalties at the UW, lest someone think the NCAA is out of control. Institutionally speaking, it is.

What do the media have to gain? It’s called creative journalism, which sells papers. The NCAA, on the other hand, is looking for some positive PR to enhance its reputation as Mr. Clean. "NCAA cleans up gambling ring at Washington," read the headlines across the nation.

Meanwhile, all the other schools in the NCAA will be holding their breath, for at least half of them, I’m sure, have student athletes and staffers who participated in March-Madness pools this year. Fortunately, for them, no one is stalking their athletes and coaches, only the ghost of James Joyce who is haunting the NCAA warehouse--where its rules’ books are packed--for only in the den of complexity, where a myriad of gobbledygook does sit, would a harboring of his spirit be fit.

Another interpretation of NCAA Rule 10.3 is provided by Mr. Joyce posthumously.

"O here here how hoth sprowled met the duskt the father of fornicationists but, (O my shining stars and body!) how hath fanespanned most high heaven the skysign of soft advertisement!"

ATTRIBUTION: James Joyce (1882–1941), Irish author. Finnegans Wake.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the way NCAA Bylaw 10.3 reads, along with my scholarly, er hum, interpretation. I'm not a lawyer, just a fan. But, really, you don't need a lawyer to interpret it, although a lawyer appearing on Fox NW gave me the inspiration and courage to interpret this rule. He concentrated on the words solicit and accept as he parsed the rule, so I did the same with my parsing.

Staff members of a member conference, staff members of the athletics department of a member institution and student-athletes shall not knowingly: (Revised: 4/22/98 effective 8/1/98)

(a) Provide information to individuals involved in organized gambling activities concerning intercollegiate athletics competition;

Comment: Neueheisel did not provide information to individuals involved in gambling activities.

(b) Solicit a bet on any intercollegiate team;

Comment: If he had been running the pool, he would have solicited a bet. However, he was the person being solicited.

Comment: He did not accept a bet on any of Washington’s teams.

(d) Solicit or accept a bet on any intercollegiate competition for any item (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) that has tangible value; or (Revised: 9/15/97)

Comment: This part of the rule is no different than parts b and c as far as Neuheisel is concerned--he's not guilty of violating it. The words solicit and accept are the relevant parts. So the fact that part d is missing on some of the web sites is irrelevant. Just the same, I'll parse the rule.

If he had been running the pool, had solicited a bet and accepted it, this part of the rule would apply. What he did do was accept an invitation to participate in a pool. That’s different than accepting a bet, which is usually thought of as an agreement between a gambler and a bookie to wager on a contest.

Examples:

1. Gambler: “I would like to place a bet on the Ohio State/Washington football game.”

Solicitor: “I accept your bet.”

2. Pool operator: “Would you like to participate in our March Madness pool?”

Neuheisel: “Yes, I would like to participate in your pool.”

3. Pool operator: “Would you like to place a bet in my March Madness pool?

Neuheisel: “Yes, I accept your invitation to place a bet.”

Pool Operator: “I accept your bet.”

(e) Participate in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through a bookmaker, a parlay card or any other method employed by organized gambling.

Comment: Neuheisel is guilty of participating in a gambling activity involving intercollegiate athletics. However, he is not guilty of participating in a gambling activity employed by organized gambling, such as using a bookmaker or a parlay card.