UNC Scandal latest

[Newton_14]

Absolutely no disagreement here. If they were held out of games while the investigation was in progress and truly did nothing wrong, they absolutely should take the redshirt year.

If they were found guilty of any academic hanky-panky or deliberate actions on their part to break rules, rewarding their behavior with a redshirt year is wrong.

Bingo. And sorry, I should have made that clearer in my post. I am ok with kids found to have been innocent of any wrongdoing getting a redshirt because they were held out while the investigation took place. No issue with that whatsoever.

My beef is giving a redshirt to any of the kids that were held out but ultimately found guilty of the academic or agent/gift related charges. My understanding is a couple of the guilty kids are in fact being considered as redshirt candidates.

[uh_no]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5716015

THis is going downhill for the tarheels...if BD doesn't get fired, i'm guessing based on the board of chancellors (or whatever they're called)'s comments he'll be on a sort of 0 tolerance policy a-la the general at IU

[sagegrouse]

ESPN has article up that identified three individuals. One works for the firm of agent Drew Rosenhaus; the others appear to be independent of recognized agencies.

None of the football players are named in this attempt to deflect blame elsewhere.

sagegrouse

[wilko]

These penaties and violations...

Where does the issue stem from? Is it that they re on scholarship or participate in a team sport?

In other words could a walk-on have done some of the same things as the accused Heels (cant not smile at that) and not have it be a big deal because they are not on a scholarship? Different standard for walk-ons?

Or is the issue that they participate in the sport itself? Just curious.

[roywhite]

These penaties and violations...

Where does the issue stem from? Is it that they re on scholarship or participate in a team sport?

In other words could a walk-on have done some of the same things as the accused Heels (cant not smile at that) and not have it be a big deal because they are not on a scholarship? Different standard for walk-ons?

Or is the issue that they participate in the sport itself? Just curious.

Using a player who was or should have been ineligible is a violation. As I understand it, the player's scholarship status doesn't have anything to do with it. In practical terms, it would be rare for a walk-on player to be subject to a violation such as improper benefits from an agent. However, recall the concern that came up with the UNC basketball program because Greg Little (a scholarship football player but a walk-on so far as basketball was concerned) participated somewhat on the hoops team.

[wilko]

Using a player who was or should have been ineligible is a violation. As I understand it, the player's scholarship status doesn't have anything to do with it. In practical terms, it would be rare for a walk-on player to be subject to a violation such as improper benefits from an agent. However, recall the concern that came up with the UNC basketball program because Greg Little (a scholarship football player but a walk-on so far as basketball was concerned) participated somewhat on the hoops team.

I see.
My thought was... As opposed to an "improper benefit", what if said agent merely paid tuition allowing the player to walk-on. If different rules were in play for scholarship vs walk-ons, well then that might be a logical next step... as it minimizes their risk to a certain extent.

[Olympic Fan]

Cheating and most other rules violations come from a deliberate action on the part of the athlete. For football, these deliberate actions can cause an athlete's eligibility to change mid-season. If you violate the rule and get yourself kicked off the team, IMHO you should lose your eligibility. Do those who miss the remaining season due to getting in trouble with the law get their eligibility back?

Since all students would find themselves expelled from school beginning with the semester in which the violation is discovered, I would expect no less for an athlete. If a non-athlete student would have to forfeit his/her tuition, room, board fees, scholarships, and eligibility for participation with campus groups for that semester in which they were kicked out for academic dishonesty, then it follows that the athlete should lose their eligibility if they started out listed on the roster at the beginning of the semester.

Of course, this assumes that the athlete found cheating IS ACTUALLY EXPELLED just like any other student. I'm waiting for those UNC football players to be treated as if they were a recipient of a Morehead or other merit scholarship and was found to be cheating. Heck, treat 'em just like a regular ol' student whether the student is a recipient of any scholarships or not.

I can't believe the message UNC is sending. It's outrageous.

I am growing more and more disturbed over the academic side of the UNC scandal and specifically to the university's response to it.

Look, I'm not a Tar Heel basher and when this case exploded in August, I told everybody who would listen that while while rules seemed to have been broken, I trusted the University to respond in an ethical manner.

Now, I'm not too sure.

As bad as a agent stuff is, a lot of that is beyond UNC's control (I'm talking about the university administration, not the coaching staff). I do think that Butch should be held accountable for hiring a known cheater (John Blake) and then not monitoring him. It's all about people -- you bring in a Ken Browning and he cheats and you can act surprised. You bring in a John Blake -- nicknamed "Black Santa" on the recruiting trail -- and he cheats and you don't get to claim shock. And the Sgt Schultz act ("I know nothing ... NOTHING!") with Austin and his pals -- when Austin's tweets and Facebook posts are all over the web so that even fans are commenting about it was ridiculous. Plus, Butch has still refused to explained how he allowed an agent and an alledged drug dealer (Chris Hawkins) inside access to his program and facilities.

Still, that's on Butch and his football program ... as far as I can see, the university response when the NCAA came calling was appropriate there.

It's only when the academic problems start to emerge that I have problems. Okay, I can understand a tutor who overstepped her job. And I don't even see where the fact that she worked for Butch as that much of a red flag (even though he was much more than a tutor for his son -- she was closer to a nanny as Joe Schad first reported. She took care of him and drive him around in the family car).

Small red flag that she continued to work for Butch for five months after she was dismissed as a tutor for the UNC program for being too close to the players. Could Butch, who was famous at Miami and Cleveland for having his fingers in every small part of the program, not have known?

Still, that's on Butch and the football staff. It's the next thing that gives me disquiet.

The nanny/tudor was dismissed as a tutor for being too close to the players. Okay, at that point, you know you have a potential problem ... did anybody investigate to see if irregularities had occurred? It would see that if you had cause to dismiss her, you'd at least check to make sure she hadn't done anything wrong to that point.

Apparently no such check was made ... or if it was, it was so cursoury that nothing was found.

That was my first big red flag.

But it gets worse.

There were players who were found to have cheated. How was that handled?

Well, at Duke or NC State or any other repudable university, a first-offense cheating conviction is almost always a suspension -- at Duke it was two semesters for Zack Asack, Ricky Price, Greg Newton of recent memory.

UNC's own honor court guidelines specify that a "normal" penalty for cheating is an F in the course and a one-semester suspension. However, the rules do allow of a minimum penalty -- an F in the course and a one semester probation. I actually have a small bit of confusion about the last part, because I was told that under probation, you could stay in school, but not represent the university (as on the football team). Apparently, that's not true and a probation is merely a slap on the wrist.

Well, flash forward to the case of Kendric Burney. He served a six-game NCAA suspension for receiving improper benefits. That ended with the Virginia game last Saturday. He was supposed to be eligible for this week's game with Miami.

But Burney was also involved in the cheating scandal. Monday night, he appeared before the UNC honor court, plead guilty to cheating and was given, not the normal punishment, but the minimum punishment -- an F in the course he cheated in and a one-semester probation ... which apparently was going to allow him to play at Miami.

But there was a complication. Burney is a fifth-year senior who was only enrolled in one three-hour course this fall. That's legal under an NCAA loophole who allows athletes in that situation to take less than the required load AS LONG AS THAT'S ALL THEY NEED FOR GRADUATION. USC's Matt Leinhart famously ended his career with one course in ballroom dancing.

The problem for Burney was that when the F for the course he cheated in last year was factored in, he was no longer one course from graduation -- and his three hours of coursework is not enough for eligibility under NCAA standards.

UNC's response was to find him a new course that he could enroll in this week -- 10 weeks into the semester -- weeks after the official last day for adding courses at UNC (Aug. 31). Burney promptly told a reporter for his hometown paper that he was back ...and a reporter for the Daily Tar Heel leaked the story of the dirty deal to make him eligible. As the story leaked, the professor who had agreed to enroll Burney late backed off and suddenly the kid was in limbo ("his case is complicated," Butch told reporters). Apparently, UNC has appealed to the NCAA to give Burney a waiver to make him eligible with just three-hours of course work this semester.

This whole episode and the university's twisted efforts to get these cheaters back on the field turns my stomach. At one point, a reporter for the student newspaper was waiting in the building where the honor court meets, trying to get in interview with a player after his session. He was ordered to leave the building -- and Chancellor Holden Thorpe actually called him to demand his departure from a public building.

UNC has not behaved with the integrity I had come to expect from them ... they've been as devious and as duplicious as UNLV in its prime (or Kentucky now). They've waged a PR campaign that would make Baghdad Bob blush -- it's not an NCAA investigation, it's a "review"; players aren't suspended, they're being held out until their status is cleared; players don't finish their suspension, they're "cleared" (visit IC and see how many fans think these cheaters were unfairly held out because the university was bending over backwards tro avoid doring anything wrong -- these poor kids were punished because the university is overcautious).

I'm shocked and disappointed that the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors have turned into cheerleaders for the football program and avoided asking the same kind of tough questions and hard scrutiny that they displayed during the NC State scandal 20 years ago. Erskine Bowles is a fan of the highest order -- remember it was his father that led the fundraising drive to build the Dean Dome.

Indeed, 20 years ago, the powers that be demanded an independent investigation of NC State. Has any person in power demanded the same for what's haping up as a far more widespread case of academic corruption? Is a university that twists and maneuvers to get a cheater like Burney -- who cheated academically and cheated by taking huge sums of illegal benefits -- back on the field as soon as possible trustworthy enough to investigate itself (just one clue ... when the tutor scandal first broke UNC began by handling it itself ... two weeks later, the NCAA stepped in to monitor the investigation, hmmm)?

I've never been a Carolina hater ... a rival, yes, but until now I always respected UNC as a worthy rival that -- like Duke -- basically does things the right way.

My perception is changing. Unless something changes drastically in this case, UNC is taking its place inn my mind among the academic scumbags of college sports.

[4decadedukie]

EXCELLENT post, I wholeheartedly agree, with one MINOR exception: Suggesting that somehow UNC's Athletic Department and coaches are NOT essential, integrated elements of the Administration, in my opinion provides an erroneous and undesirable "accountability escape hatch" for senior University leadership. Full-time and volunteer leadership (officers, trustees, executive committee members, and so forth) create the governance structure, select the subordinate officials (such as the AD and perhaps the head coaches), determine the policies, monitor the compliance, and provide the oversight. As such, it my opinion that they are fully responsible for debacles such as UNC-CH's football's simultaneous ethical disasters (academic dishonesty plus agent/illicit cash involvement). If we want to see this sort of reprehensible conduct eliminated (or at least substantially reduced), we MUST make ALL relevant individuals and entities -- even those with less-direct involvement -- accountable for results and conduct.

[davekay1971]

This whole episode has gone a long way to showing the true colors of UNC and their fanbase. Olympic Fan's great post lays out beautifully the disappointed response of the university and their clear decision to put academic integrity and ethics firmly beneath establishing a winning and profitable football program in terms of importance. I started off believing that Butch Davis was as good as gone after the season ended, a belief that was based on the assumption that UNC valued it's reputation as an academics-first university. At this point I'd say that as long as the team doesn't self-destruct down the stretch this season, the University will find an excuse to bring Butch back. That's sad.

The fanbase, at this point, is about the same as the KY fanbase in my eyes. They really could care less about the cheating and academic integrity issues. Bottom line, the first two games of the season all I heard in Charlotte was "Butch needs to go! This is terrible!" Enter a four game win streak and all I hear from the same fans is "Butch is doing a great job keeping this team together when they're getting the shaft from the NCAA! We should all support him!"

Just win, baby! That's the "Carolina way"

[moonpie23]

i actually have UNC "friends"...( i know) and at first, they were all upset and trying to hold the "carolina way" up as a beacon, disassociating themselves from butch/cheating/agents etc...NOW they are all saying it's overblown by the "media out to get us" and that they WANT butch to stay and the "kids are getting a bum rap" and all..

it's amazing what they will swallow to keep "big boy football" and unc..

[SharkD]

Sorry guys, but the unsupported quote, "scientific survey," makes the hair stand up on the back on my neck. Uh, how was the sample chosen? Random calls to listed numbers (or all phone numbers in NC)? How were respondents chosen? What was the non-response rate? How was the question teed up -- you know, introductory material? Were there other questions in the survey pertaining UNC and Butch Davis? Were there other questions in the survey pertaining to politics or other subjects?

Public Policy Polling has the survey results, questions posed, sample break down and cross-tabs in the full PDF:

PPP surveyed 597 likely North Carolina voters from October 15th to 17th. 159 of those respondents identified themselves as UNC fans. The margin of error on that subgroup is +/-7.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

PPP is considered one of the more accurate political polling firms and, as yet, the most accurate founded since 1990. During the 2008 election cycle, in both local and national races, they had the second-smallest margin of error between predicted and actual results. ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592455567202805.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...0-results.html )

That said, the relatively small sample and the potential self-selection bias may have resulted in an exaggerated degree of inaccuracy in these results.

[4decadedukie]

I have just reread this post, perhaps for the third time, and it is outstanding.

I, too, am truly shocked and deeply saddened that the most senior levels of UNC's governance and oversight structure -- including North Carolina political leadership, the Trustees, the Board and the University System's officers -- have evidently not proactively investigated, not taken decisive disciplinary actions, and not made significant institutional enhancements to ensure further illicit conduct of these types is essentially impossible.

While UNC-CH is our enduring and principal athletic rival, I have always I respected the University and befriended its alumni. Obviously, this does not diminish any sports-oriented enmity and associated frivolities; after all, intercollegiate athletics largely concern fun for participants and fans. However, this extensive football duplicity (and probably criminality) -- that includes academic dishonesty, unauthorized agent contact, and illegal payments -- is not a game and is not trivial, it is critical and real-life.

I suspect many UNC Chapel Hill alumni and fans read DBR, especially threads of this nature. Therefore, I respectfully request that they fully assimilate this key thought. You and your university are now being judged by your peers -- colleagues, neighbors, associates, friends, and so forth -- NOT regarding the illegitimate actions of football players, coaches, tutors and the like, but rather concerning the CHARACTER and the ETHICS of the University of North Carolina. Like it or not, these judgments will reflect directly upon the alumni, supporters, employees, faculty and leadership of UNC. In a state like North Carolina, where alumni of major, respected universities (UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, Davidson, and several others) live, work, worship, party, and much more together, this is not an inconsequential situation. Carolina could easily develop an ethical reputation similar to UNVL’s or Kentucky’s, unless clearly decisive corrective actions are quickly implemented.

It is unfortunate, but college-age kids and coaches sometimes do foolish things, through immaturity, greed, stupidity, and the like. This is very common, many of us have had regrettable personal experiences in this regard, and it is usually pardonable. However, great institutions are supposed to have the integrity, the wisdom, the discretion, the perceptiveness, and the long-term perspective to avoid such imprudence. UNC-CH will soon be evaluated, both by local peers and by national critics, concerning whether it has passed this crucial principles and governance test. This assessment is certain to have a substantial influence on UNC’s stature during the next decades. Currently, I fear that the University of North Carolina is badly failing.

[camion]

OF#47

The most disturbing thing about the situation is that UNC officials seem much more interested in protecting the football program than in protecting the university. They have it backwards.

[JasonEvans]

It sounds crazy, but I hope the on-the-field results change the attitude of many of the folks backing Butch and his enablers.

Prior to yesterday, UNC had won 4 games in a row and likely felt it was back in the hunt for the Coastal Division title. I am sure folks were thinking about which prominent bowl they might attend and being ranked again. Heck, I bet some of the blind faithful had even dreamed about beating Miami and Va Tech to get to the ACC title game.

Well, Miami turned those dreams into nightmares yesterday with a 33-10 drubbing. Carolina gets William and Mary (a blowout) and then 2 very tough games at FSU and against Va Tech. If the Heels get thumped in both of those, Davis-backers will not be able to fall back upon the "look at the on-field results" because the team will be 5-5 and looking at a low-level bowl at best.

I heartily embrace the comments made by some of the fabulous posters in this thread over the past 24 hours or so... Carolina is at a precipice looking into the abyss where the unethical schools reside. Please step back, UNC. You have done it the right way for sooo long and been so successful doing it that way. It is not worth it.

--Jason "the pity is, a good reputation is so hard to get but a bad one comes so quickly" Evans

[sagegrouse]

Originally posted by SharkD

Originally Posted by sagegrouse
Sorry guys, but the unsupported quote, "scientific survey," makes the hair stand up on the back on my neck. Uh, how was the sample chosen? Random calls to listed numbers (or all phone numbers in NC)? How were respondents chosen? What was the non-response rate? How was the question teed up -- you know, introductory material? Were there other questions in the survey pertaining UNC and Butch Davis? Were there other questions in the survey pertaining to politics or other subjects?

Public Policy Polling has the survey results, questions posed, sample break down and cross-tabs in the full PDF:

PPP surveyed 597 likely North Carolina voters from October 15th to 17th. 159 of those respondents identified themselves as UNC fans. The margin of error on that subgroup is +/-7.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
PPP is considered one of the more accurate political polling firms and, as yet, the most accurate founded since 1990. During the 2008 election cycle, in both local and national races, they had the second-smallest margin of error between predicted and actual results. ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592455567202805.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...0-results.html )

That said, the relatively small sample and the potential self-selection bias may have resulted in an exaggerated degree of inaccuracy in these results.

Wow! Thanks for your response, SharkD. I agree with you that the sample size is a huge problem; I mean, 159 respondents? The other problem is being self-identified as a "Carolina fan." The lukewarm fans turned off by these apparent violations would, I expect, be more reluctant to admit their allegiance. Therefore, the sample may include only the diehard.

sagegrouse

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Several posts just prior to this one state very eloquently what sort of problem now exists, a new one that goes beyond what might have been done outside the rules and ethical standards set for or by the University of North Carolina. The growing online support for Butch Davis is a very visible index of the new problem.

As the investigations go on longer and longer, there seems to be a shift going on among many Carolina supporters to drift farther and farther away from the reality of misdeeds being uncovered to a new level of denial. I see this in my own family as well as among the general public. The idea that Carolina is being singled out and picked on unfairly seems to be the defense for the unthinkable.... The repeated notion that "everyone's doing this" suggests a serious shift in the view of what's right and what's wrong.

[4decadedukie]

. . . there seems to be a shift going on among many Carolina supporters to drift farther and farther away from the reality of misdeeds being uncovered to a new level of denial . . . The idea that Carolina is being singled out and picked on unfairly seems to be the defense for the unthinkable.... The repeated notion that "everyone's doing this" suggests a serious shift in the view of what's right and what's wrong.

You are, of course, absolutely correct and the trend you describe is the most troubling result of the entire situation. Denial of reality, discounting the relevant factual situation, and the rationale that "everyone does it" are all indicative of a severe, broadly-based, individual and institutional ethical lapse. While the gravity of the situations greatly differs -- and I certainly do not want to trivialize or to demean important events -- this same pattern applied in Watergate, in Nazi Germany, in the recent financial meltdown.

At its essence: (a) standards exist and (b) we are individually and collectively accountable for adherence to those standards, or for incurring the penalties and the necessary corrective actions when we fail to do so.

Reasonable people, and especially those with liberal educations, recognize this and further appreciate its enduring importance. UNC and its partisans can (to paraphrase Lincoln) fool each other, but they will never succeed at fooling the wider-world.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

You are, of course, absolutely correct and the trend you describe is the most troubling result of the entire situation. Denial of reality, discounting the relevant factual situation, and the rationale that "everyone does it" are all indicative of a severe, broadly-based, individual and institutional ethical lapse. While the gravity of the situations greatly differs -- and I certainly do not want to trivialize or to demean important events -- this same pattern applied in Watergate, in Nazi Germany, in the recent financial meltdown.

At its essence: (a) standards exist and (b) we are individually and collectively accountable for adherence to those standards, or for incurring the penalties and the necessary corrective actions when we fail to do so.

Reasonable people, and especially those with liberal educations, recognize this and further appreciate its enduring importance. UNC and its partisans can (to paraphrase Lincoln) fool each other, but they will never succeed at fooling the wider-world.

Certainly, changes in moral compass are taking place in society. College professors are dealing with a similar shift among their undergraduate students, and maybe some graduate students, who seem to have a limited understanding of the difference between copying what someone else said and paraphrasing the idea while giving some credit for the source. The Internet makes lifting someone else's ideas so easy, convenient and instant, no questions asked.

Strong trends tend to spill over to many areas with ease.

I also believe that the response from so many supporters reflects a high level of denial and disbelief. I hope Duke never has to face such a situation. The qualities central to being human aren't always pretty.

[JasonEvans]

I see.
My thought was... As opposed to an "improper benefit", what if said agent merely paid tuition allowing the player to walk-on. If different rules were in play for scholarship vs walk-ons, well then that might be a logical next step... as it minimizes their risk to a certain extent.

Just wanted to note that "walk-on" is really only a term that defines whether a player has an athletic scholarship in a particular sport. There are most certainly walk-ons who would be attractive to agents. Trajan Langdon was a walk-on at Duke. Hakeem Olajuwon, IIRC, was a walk-on his first season at Houston before being given a scholarship. The athletic world is rife with guys who were walk-ons but then turned out to be big-time NBA prospects.

The NCAA, quite rightly, does not treat walk-ons any different from scholarship athletes when it comes to the issue of improper benefits and eligibility.

-Jason "we now take you back to your regularly scheduled conversation on UNC's plunge into the abyss " Evans

[pbc2]

Just took a look at Carolina's schedule the rest of the way and their illusions of an ACC championship or even high-level bowl game will soon be over.

They are 4-3 now.
10/30 - William & Mary
11/6 @ FSU
11/13 VT
11/20 NCSU
11/27 @ Duke

There's a pretty good chance that they'll need to beat Duke in Wallace Wade to make a bowl. Wouldn't it be sweet to pull off that upset and send Butch packing?