See http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/un...f-allegations/ Actual response is here: https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/f...nded-NOA-1.pdf
Printable View
See http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/un...f-allegations/ Actual response is here: https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/f...nded-NOA-1.pdf
Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.
Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.Quote:
The courses in issue (the "Courses") were available to all students in the same manner. No special arrangements were made for student-athletes in violation of NCAA extra-benefit legislation. Student-athletes made up 29.4 percent of the enrollments in the Courses.
Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.Quote:
We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses. Accordingly, unlike Governor Martin, we found that student-athletes were far more represented in paper classes than they were in other courses offered by the department.
Didn't Wainstein include e-mails that proved that several classes were set up specifically for athletes (including several that included just 1 or 2 athletes)
And there is also a famous e-mail complaining that "frat boys" had found out about classes set up specifically for athletes.
But who cares -- what did you expect from UNC, an admission of guilt?
We can have fun parsing this, but it's really a meaningess moment in the scandal. Get back to me when UNC meets with the COI in mid-August.
Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':
Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.Quote:
We define an “active student-athlete” as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses. Thus, if a student participated on an athletics team as a freshman, did not participate on an athletics team thereafter and took one of the Courses, that individual would not count as an “active student-athlete” who took a Course because they were not subject to NCAA rules. This is different from the approach taken in the Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (CWT or the “CWT Report”), which uses a “once an athlete always an athlete approach.”
One thing UNC is truly world class at... moving the goal posts.
There was a time for me (when I was at Duke and briefly afterwards) that rooting for the ACC included rooting for UNC. Now, if I so much as see one of those toilet water blue stickers on a car, I can literally feel the rage begin to the rise inside me. God I loathe those bastards.
Yes. Questions of academic standards come under the purview of the accrediting agency, SACS. If the athletes are treated the same as the rest of the students the NCAA is happy. The following shows the way academic misconduct is currently handled (not applicable to this case). If the institution's academic misconduct policy sets a very low bar, and the conduct in question does not violate the policy, then you have to answer 'yes' to all five questions on the right side for there to be an academic misconduct violation, and if it's generally available to all students then that's that.
http://forums.dukebasketballreport.c...tid=7434&stc=1
Wasn't it determined that the AFAM courses in question, since you didn't go to an actual class, were independent study courses? I thought unc had a limit on the number of independent study courses you could take at one time and participation in these no class classes put some of the athletes over the allowed number. Am I remembering incorrectly?
Except that "bogus classes" would probably violate the institution's academic policies, so rsvman's "copycat" example would fall on the left side of the flow chart. For UNC, they were cited and penalized for academic misconduct by SACS, so that's where they would go too, I think, except that this is the post-UNC policy and not applicable (as swood points out).
I like the part where they criticize NCAA President Mark Emmert for commenting publicly on the seriousness of the case based on "outside sources." Yeah, the "outside source" upon which Emmert relied was the Wainstein report -- i.e., UNC's own internal investigation.
Without reading I'll summarize:
1) We didn't do anything wrong
2) Maybe we did but it didn't involve athletics
3) Maybe it involved athletics, but not men's basketball or football
4) Maybe it involved athletics, including football, but not men's basketball
5) Maybe it involved some men's basketball, but that was like, only during years where we didn't make a final four or anything cool like that
6) If it involved some men's basketball, during those non-cool years, it was just academics, not really an athletic thing, and therefore outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction
7) Besides, it was a long time ago
8) And anyway, we've suffered enough. Time served, already
9) This is a witch hunt. The NCAA is picking on poor little us. Go hit the big time the big time bad guys like Cleveland St.
10) Everyone does it.
11) How does the upcoming basketball team look anyway...I mean, should we just go ahead and take the hit or is there a chance of raising another banner this year?
Summarized for you. You're welcome.