UNC athletics scandal - McCants points finger

[BD80]

Plus, [ol' roy] earns extra credit for giving out reading awards at an elementary school in Rolesville, NC recently, too. No link. I just read this short paragraph in yesterday morning's Raleigh N&O. Oh, the irony...

He was planning to give him to his own players ...

but none qualified.

[ArnieMc]

I gave Ol' Roy a lot of credit for rescinding JamesOn Curry's scholarship for drug dealing early in Roy's career at unc. Unfortunately, the Carolina Way (Win at all costs) seems to have corrupted his ethics to be more aligned with the three monkeys' philosophy.

[BD80]

Interesting article:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/...c-scandal.html

What she says could have ramifications for hundreds of wins and numerous championships by UNC’s athletic teams. If she says she helped create the classes so athletes struggling academically could stay eligible to play sports, her actions could trigger serious NCAA violations. If she can show she paid no attention to who sought to get into the classes, and simply helped anyone who showed up at her door, the NCAA might stay away.

[BD80]

In what is a clear reaction to the unc academic fraud, the NCAA considering a change in its role in investigating academic fraud involving athletes. No longer would the characterization "its an academic issue" keep the NCAA from investigating:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...demic-cheating

That can't be good for the tarheels

[BigWayne]

This one is pretty interesting also....

http://www.craveonline.com/sports/in...c-scholarships

[gumbomoop]

In what is a clear reaction to the unc academic fraud, the NCAA considering a change in its role in investigating academic fraud involving athletes. No longer would the characterization "its an academic issue" keep the NCAA from investigating:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...demic-cheating

That can't be good for the tarheels

I don't have access to the Chronicle of Higher Education article which is excerpted in this link, but even the excerpts portend ominous developments that seem likely to suck UNC even deeper into its suicidal mud. For if the NCAA BOD adopts the recommendations of its Leadership Council, NCAA sanctions would likely be triggered by events such as the athletic-eligibility scam at UNC.

But we know that the NCAA has heretofore worked diligently to avoid the bloody obvious in UNC's case; so we might parse very carefully the words -- mine -- "sanctions ... likely ... triggered." Take these 2 quotations, which are CBS Sports CBB writer Matt Norlander's paraphrase of points from the Chronicle, what academics would call the primary source. No reason to think Norlander is mistranslating.

"The NCAA has acted in the past as a participatory consultant in UNC's own internal investigations, but it never took the lead on the matter because the reported fraud never happened solely through athletic channels."

"How frequent is the cheating and how often is it happening primarily through athletic departments/personnel -- and explicitly for athletes?"

Parsing "sanctions ... likely ... triggered" depends, in turn, on parsing the italicized words in the 2 quotations above. What, exactly, would constitute smoking-gun-proof of fraud conducted "solely" through athletic channels? Clearly, all jokes aside, Prof. Nyang'Oro wasn't employed "solely" by the athletic department. Similarly, and with a similar caution about cheap jokes, we don't, yet, have any evidence that athletic personnel were the "primary" conductors of the cheating. There is an interesting question about the athlete-counselors, who, although some seem to have acted on behalf of the athletic department, probably can't -- parsing precisely -- be termed "athletic personnel."

And while it's obvious that the cheating was "for [= on behalf of] athletes," was it "explicitly" so; and what constitutes evidence of such an "explicit" intent?

Still, this internal rethinking by the NCAA Leadership Council does threaten the 2005 and 2009 titles. It's a necessary, though not sufficient, [way] belated first step by the NCAA toward serious analysis, commentary, exposure, and judgment. It may well be that any further inquiry by the NCAA will stop short of vacating those titles. But a sustained, serious investigation would be different from the previous NCAA inquiry. Even to engage in the process of subjecting the details of the scam to the proposed revised standards would be to air a whole lot of dirty laundry.

What if the end-result of a this-time-serious-investigation is tantamount to a sort of modified "Scottish verdict"? Rather than "not proven," damning enough, what if the NCAA says something closer to "not quite proven"? So close -- in effect admitting that only by parsing its own standards in such a way as to fail the laugh test -- as to say, "We can't quite prove you did it 'solely, primarily, and explicitly' - and don't do it again."

Or what if the NCAA were to conduct a new investigation under proposed revised guidelines and decide to levy sanctions short of vacating the titles?

In either the modified Scottish verdict scenario or the limited sanctions scenario -- the conclusion to a serious, detailed, sustained investigation, dirty laundry, public humiliation -- the banners stay up. Is their removal the only thing that would satisfy?

I don't "prefer" that those banners come down -- though I could probably be convinced that they should -- in the sense that the banners haven't been my focus since the scam was first revealed. But I am dismayed, disgusted, to the point of angry obsession about what has happened to a great university. I'd be satisfied if the operative details of the scam were fully and publicly revealed, so that the UNC faculty would finally, thus far apparently against their own will, be forced to decide whether they are willing to reclaim their University.

[sagegrouse]

I don't have access to the Chronicle of Higher Education article which is excerpted in this link, but even the excerpts portend ominous developments that seem likely to suck UNC even deeper into its suicidal mud. For if the NCAA BOD adopts the recommendations of its Leadership Council, NCAA sanctions would likely be triggered by events such as the athletic-eligibility scam at UNC.

.

Or, more likely, the NCAA will invoke a policy change "from this time forward." Therefore, past transgressions, while neither condoned nor forgiven, will not be investigated. The answer as to why will be both "lack of resources" and a reluctance to pursue matters "retroactively."

[gumbomoop]

Or, more likely, the NCAA will invoke a policy change "from this time forward." Therefore, past transgressions, while neither condoned nor forgiven, will not be investigated. The answer as to why will be both "lack of resources" and a reluctance to pursue matters "retroactively."

Yes, this solution to the NCAA's discomfiting problem would thenceforth be known as the "Carolina Codicil" to the Scottish verdict. The Wiki entry for the Carolina Codicil will provoke and amuse, actively and retroactively.

[bob blue devil]

Willingham resigning

[Atlanta Duke]

It appears even UNC cheerleader/PR flack Bradley Bethel has decided he cannot defend the indefensible

This was on his blog on Sunday

I wasn't hired by PR, but fraud did occur, and it was bad. I'm glad UNC is adopting reforms to prevent future fraud.

http://coachingthemind.blogspot.com/...#gpluscomments

Bethel does continue to parrot the contention in the report by former Governor Martin that this was primarily an academics rather than athletics scandal, which allows UNC to argue to the NCAA to let it go

[Olympic Fan]

In what is a clear reaction to the unc academic fraud, the NCAA considering a change in its role in investigating academic fraud involving athletes. No longer would the characterization "its an academic issue" keep the NCAA from investigating:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...demic-cheating

That can't be good for the tarheels

Sarah Ganim has a new article up tonight on CNN.com about the NCAA using a revision of its academic rules to cover up its failure to act in the UNC scandal:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/us/nca...aud/index.html

Money quote:

Juggling too much?

But Gerald Gurney, a former compliance director who worked in collegiate athletics for 30 years, is skeptical there will be academic fraud changes.

"They are trying to divert attention from what I consider to be a most obvious case of outrageous academic fraud, to needing a redefinition of academic fraud," Gurney said.

Gurney and another professor, David Ridpath at Ohio University, just started research that will compare what is known about UNC's academic scandal to other institution's academic scandals and how they were handled by the NCAA.

Gurney said he suspects this may be the NCAA's way of getting around taking a second look at what happened at UNC.

"From what I see at the moment, I feel strongly it is the worst academic fraud violation in the history of the NCAA," Gurney said. "... They choose to ignore it. They are juggling so many balls right now, with respect to lawsuits, unionization issues, they really can't afford right at this moment to open up a major investigation on North Carolina. It would further jeopardize public confidence in the NCAA's ability to control athletics."

[BD80]

Sarah Ganim has a new article up tonight on CNN.com about the NCAA using a revision of its academic rules to cover up its failure to act in the UNC scandal:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/us/nca...aud/index.html

... Gerald Gurney, a former compliance director who worked in collegiate athletics for 30 years, is skeptical there will be academic fraud changes.

"They are trying to divert attention from what I consider to be a most obvious case of outrageous academic fraud, to needing a redefinition of academic fraud," Gurney said.

... "From what I see at the moment, I feel strongly it is the worst academic fraud violation in the history of the NCAA," Gurney said. "... ."

To borrow from other threads, it appears that Odin's son visited chapel hill the other day, his reaction?

"There clearly be villainy afoot"

[gumbomoop]

We don't know yet whether the NCAA will investigate UNC again. Let's assume that they will not, which presumably means no sanctions, and thus the banners remain. If one sees that specific thing -- removal of the 2005 and 2009 banners -- as either the only, or by far the most, important outcome, then one might conclude something along the lines of, "nothing new here, move along."

But it seems to me that is a view more and more difficult to maintain, for the bad publicity continues to drip, drips from multiple sources, and drips ever larger and more damning drops. It's going to take more than a couple of new washers to fix this commode. In coming months, years even, we are likely to see regular articles from Dan Kane, in which Kane will report his own independent findings, along with providing further publicity for the investigations of others. For example, in his most recent piece [http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/.../103/119/271/], Kane notes that Gurney and Ridpath "say under current regulations, UNC committed NCAA violations because counselors... steered athletes" into ghost courses. The role of the counselors remains simultaneously obvious and murky: obvious because, as Mary Willingham is on record asserting, pretty much off-handedly, "everyone" in the athletic bailiwick knew what was going on; murky because long-serving supervisor/coordinator Jan Boxill's role is yet to be explained. Kane, however, has once before quietly noted her silence, so I doubt he's forgotten about her. Unless -- unlikely but not impossible -- Boxill discovered nefarious goings-on going on under her watch and demanded, as ethics require, that the scam stop, then at some point we are likely to learn that "everyone" included a Professor of Ethics and future UNC Faculty Chair. If, more likely when, that drip drops, it will make a sizable splash, with some embarrassing ripple effects.

Willingham and Prof. Jay Smith are writing a book. [Let's hope, for penance's sake, it's published by the academically prestigious UNC Press....] CNN, WSJ, and other prominent media outlets will chime in intermittently, and from UNC's perspective, interminably. Nyang'Oro's trial is forthcoming. This story has long legs.

It's an open question whether those banners will have to be modified, metaphorically, by large asterisks. If the banners remain, forever, will they themselves become, forever, a symbol not of athletic excellence, but of the athletic corruption of academic excellence? What if those banners become the widely understood symbol of "the worst academic fraud violation in the history of the NCAA"?

It's hard for me, at least, to imagine that in the midst of an insider book, several forthcoming detailed reports, and a trial, those banners won't temporarily, maybe permanently, become the butt of lots of jokes. Those banners are soon enough to become so much dirty laundry publicly and prominently displayed as to constitute an unwitting suicide note.

[Atlanta Duke]

If it were inclined to do so the NCAA could go after UNC without revising its standards, as it did when all Florida State football victories for the 2006 and 2007 were vacated

This excerpt from a story on the FSU sanctions

“Academic fraud is among the most egregious of N.C.A.A. violations,” the report said. “The committee was concerned with the large number of student-athletes involved in the fraud and especially by the fact that individuals within the institution’s A.A.S.S. unit were involved. The committee was further troubled by the fact that there were warning signs indicating that academic improprieties were taking place, but these warning signs were, for the most part, ignored.”

A.A.S.S. refers to the Athletics Academic Support Services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/sp...20cheat&st=cse

But with Mary Willingham on the plaintiffs' witness list for the upcoming O'Bannon trial, the NCAA and its member institutions are circling the wagons. As Ben Franklin said during the American Revolution - "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

[Olympic Fan]

But with Mary Willingham on the plaintiffs' witness list for the upcoming O'Bannon trial, the NCAA and its member institutions are circling the wagons. As Ben Franklin said during the American Revolution - "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

I think you are right that Willingham's involvement with the O'Bannon case is a big reason the NCAA won't act on UNC.

But I think it's the wrong response -- and here's why. O'Bannon's lawyers are trying to make the case that the education that the NCAA offers in return for their clients athletic services is a sham. However, remember they are suing the NCAA, not North Carolina. Which is more damaging? To prove that a rogue member -- UNC -- offered a sham education, but was caught and punished by an NCAA that is determined to protect the academic integrity of its institutions ... or (the current strategy) for the NCAA to assure everybody that UNC did nothing wrong.

The first defense strategy means admitting that a rogue NCAA member got away with fraud for years (we still don't know exactly when this started, but probably in the early 1990s) and that punishment was late, but it was powerful when finally delivered.

The second strategy validates the O'Bannon claim that the NCAA doesn't really care if its athletes get an education.

If the O'Bannon case is driving this, I think the NCAA is taking the wrong approach.

[gumbomoop]

If it were inclined to do so the NCAA could go after UNC without revising its standards, as it did when all Florida State football victories for the 2006 and 2007 were vacated

This excerpt from a story on the FSU sanctions

“Academic fraud is among the most egregious of N.C.A.A. violations,” the report said. “The committee was concerned with the large number of student-athletes involved in the fraud and especially by the fact that individuals within the institution’s A.A.S.S. unit were involved. The committee was further troubled by the fact that there were warning signs indicating that academic improprieties were taking place, but these warning signs were, for the most part, ignored.”

A.A.S.S. refers to the Athletics Academic Support Services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/sp...20cheat&st=cse

It's useful to think about this very important prior case, as it seems so precisely to identify a central element in the UNC fraud: athlete counselors steering athletes into ghost courses. Call it the "FSU Standard."

But take care, for the Carolina Codicil to the "FSU Standard" reads: "This standard shall be deemed non-standard for UNC."

Now, here's Dana O'Neil on the McGary case: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/...9/103/119/271/

O'Neil's description of the NCAA's handling of this case is "airball." Money passage: "On April 15, the NCAA agreed its punishment for street drugs -- a full year's suspension -- was too severe and decided to reduce the penalty for first-time offenders to half a season. But McGary failed under the old rule, and even upon appeal was denied." Call this the "Upside-Down Ex Post Facto Standard."

The Carolina Codicil to the "Upside-Down Ex Post Facto Standard" reads: "This standard shall be deemed non-standard for UNC, and shall therfore apply Rightside-Up for UNC."

We are following Alice into the NCAA rabbit hole. Mark Emmert: "(1) The FSU Standard is inapplicable to a case that precisely meets the standard, so UNC cannot be punished for having cheated. (2) In view of the controlling Carolina Codicil to the FSU Standard, any further investigation into the UNC fraud constitutes ex post facto retribution. Since UNC did not understand that enrolling athletes in fraudulent courses to maintain their eligibility was fraudulent, we cannot, in good conscience, contemplate retroactive punishment. Especially must we the NCAA diligently avoid any action that smacks of sanctioning member institutions for cheating when they were unaware that cheating is cheating."

"We shall, of course, clarify what constitutes cheating, so that member institutions will henceforth be on notice. We shall, naturally, consider each case on its merits, taking special care to apply, where applicable, the Carolina Codicil."

Postscript: The UNC faculty approved Emmert's statement by overwhelming voice vote, though no voice could actually be heard.

[Atlanta Duke]

NYT has an article on the coverage by Dan Kane and the N&O of the unpleasantness in Chapel Hill (with a shout out to the contribution of Pack fan WufWuf1 in advancing the story). The quote from UNC PR flack Joel Curran is reminiscent of Richard Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler responding to Watergate stories


Reporter Digging Into Scandal Hits a University’s Raw Nerve

“We admire the News & Observer’s long tradition of fair-minded journalism; we just wish they would practice it more often,” the university’s newly appointed vice chancellor for communications, Joel Curran, said in a statement. “In our case, the paper seems more content to rehash old news rather than report new solutions.”

Not surprisingly, Kane sees it differently.

“They have done all kinds of things to prevent this from ever happening again, and they emphasize that many, many times,” he said. “But what’s left unanswered is how this all happened, and what actually happened. That’s where the battle forms. It’s like that old saying about history — if you don’t understand it, you’re doomed to repeat it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/sp...tml?ref=sports

[BigWayne]

Meanwhile, the NCAA is so upset with UNC,.... they put Idaho on probation.

http://collegefootball.ap.org/articl...emic-standards

[moonpie23]

someTHING is keeping the ncaa at bay…..what could that be?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

someTHING is keeping the ncaa at bay…..what could that be?

It would be interesting (and probably dismaying as an NC resident) to know just how much they have spent on PR consultants. The whole thing is just so rotten. I am surprised that more alums with clout have not stepped forward to condemn the charade. I guess they, too, care more about the integrity of the wires holding up those banners than the integrity of their beloved, uh, school.