Page 1 of 50 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 991
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    UNC Athletics Scandal - Wainstein Report

    Well, here's the report.

    Short version is that a departmental assistant was the chief culprit, which is incredibly convenient.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    The Wainstein review did have access to transcripts and other UNC records, FWIW.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Summary of Roy's interview (page 129):

    Roy A. Williams
    Head Coach
    Men’s Basketball

    Williams has been the head men’s basketball coach at Chapel Hill since 2003. Upon arriving
    at Chapel Hill, Williams said he believed that McSwain was too close with the basketball players, and
    he wanted his academic advisor to have a clear separation from the athletes and be more
    professional. Williams explained that players went to McSwain’s house to do work, and while he did
    not believe that McSwain wrote papers for the students, he thought she was too much of a mother
    to them. Williams stated that Wayne Walden was his academic person at Kansas and described
    Walden as the most ethical and professional person he knew. This caused him to bring Walden and
    his assistant coach for academics, Joe Holladay, with him to Chapel Hill.

    Williams said that he had regular meetings with Walden and Holliday. Williams explained
    that he learned about independent studies and AFAM paper classes at some point, but he was not
    concerned because he trusted the University to put on legitimate classes. Williams stated that in
    2006, after noticing that many of his players were AFAM majors, he and Holladay discussed
    encouraging their players to pursue other majors. Williams stated that he thought that the athletes
    were becoming AFAM majors because their teammates and friends were all AFAM majors.
    Williams explained that he did review the players’ class schedules and at some point learned that
    Rashad McCants was taking three or four independent studies in one semester. Williams
    acknowledged that he would have met with McCants during the Spring 2005 semester to discuss his
    classes, but this was because he was concerned about McCants completing the semester, as he knew
    that McCants was going to leave for the NBA draft and his eligibility for the following year was not
    an issue. Williams stated, contrary to McCants’ claim on ESPN, that he would not have had a
    discussion with McCants about swapping out classes.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    The latest report on academic fraud at the University of North Carolina could result in the loss of employment for some university faculty members, sources close to the investigation told WRAL Wednesday.
    Of course no mention of any loss of scholarships, eligibility, or athletic department jobs. It's all the fault of those damn teachers! Sigh.
    http://www.wralsportsfan.com/wainste...-unc/14104255/
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Of course no mention of any loss of scholarships, eligibility, or athletic department jobs. It's all the fault of those damn teachers! Sigh.
    http://www.wralsportsfan.com/wainste...-unc/14104255/
    That will come after the NCAA has a chance to digest the report. This is (afaik) what happened. NCAA may decide on sanctions after.
    April 1

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    He's praising the Martin Report...
    "One POSSIBLE future. From your point of view... I don't know tech stuff.".... Kyle Reese

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    It's all the fault of those damn teachers!
    I didn't read the report, but does it matter whose fault it was if athletes took sham classes and shouldn't have been eligible?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I didn't read the report, but does it matter whose fault it was if athletes took sham classes and shouldn't have been eligible?
    It does when two of the most involved programs still have their coaches from that period.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    I'm feeling a little ill....Crowder is the goat....
    "One POSSIBLE future. From your point of view... I don't know tech stuff.".... Kyle Reese

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    This is rich. Pay no attention to the coaches making millions from winning - or in the case of UNC football, trying to win - UNC wants us to believe that the real culprit here is a departmental assistant that just wanted to help the disadvantaged. If only "those people" hadn't done so much harm to our University of the People. We had no idea, none.

    What a crock.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by moonpie23 View Post
    I'm feeling a little ill....Crowder is the goat....
    eh. while it may not lead to a LOIC, the fact that it is clear there was collusion on the academic side SPECIFICALLY for the athletes may be enough for the NCAA to bring Mjolnir.
    April 1

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I didn't read the report, but does it matter whose fault it was if athletes took sham classes and shouldn't have been eligible?
    Yes, it does.

    It's the difference between an institutional default full stop and a set of athletes who cheated in an otherwise sound system.

    In an ideal world, no athlete could cheat because the system is so rock solid. But that's hard to imagine.

    A set of defaults whereby the institution has done what it could but players transgressed is one thing. A set of defaults whereby the players transgressed because of a lack of institutional control (or even encouragement) is another. And the difference is night and day.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    “I am deeply disappointed in the duration and extent of the wrongdoing as well as the lack of oversight… that if in place would have captured and corrected this so much sooner,” UNC Chancellor Carol Folt said. “I know the Carolina community will find these findings very sobering. This never should have happened.”

    YOU WERE PART OF THAT, LADY!!!! Agggh!!!!
    "I'm deeply disappointed that we didn't cover this up better". More honest words.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Henderson View Post
    Yes, it does.

    It's the difference between an institutional default full stop and a set of athletes who cheated in an otherwise sound system.

    In an ideal world, no athlete could cheat because the system is so rock solid. But that's hard to imagine.

    A set of defaults whereby the institution has done what it could but players transgressed is one thing. A set of defaults whereby the players transgressed because of a lack of institutional control (or even encouragement) is another. And the difference is night and day.
    But is anybody arguing that "the institution has done what it could"? Isn't it simply a question of whether the collusion was on the academic side to help athletes or whether it was on the athletic side?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    eh. while it may not lead to a LOIC, the fact that it is clear there was collusion on the academic side SPECIFICALLY for the athletes may be enough for the NCAA to bring Mjolnir.
    I think this is the question. (I hope to read the report tonight but cannot until then).

    Last time, the NCAA basically said IIRC that this was an academic issue, not an athletic one. Does this report change that basic calculus?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I think this is the question. (I hope to read the report tonight but cannot until then).

    Last time, the NCAA basically said IIRC that this was an academic issue, not an athletic one. Does this report change that basic calculus?
    NCAA adjudication is pretty inscrutable, but it certainly should change the calculus. Pretty damning review of the athletic department counselors here.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    So . . . what's the difference between "No. I don't remember telling him that" and "No, I did not tell him that."?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    NCAA adjudication is pretty inscrutable, but it certainly should change the calculus. Pretty damning review of the athletic department counselors here.
    Does the report say that anyone in the athletic department steered athletes to AFAM to maintain eligibility?

    Does the report say anyone in the athletic department knew that AFAM was giving grades that were not earned?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Does the report say that anyone in the athletic department steered athletes to AFAM to maintain eligibility?

    Does the report say anyone in the athletic department knew that AFAM was giving grades that were not earned?
    Yes and yes.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Does the report say that anyone in the athletic department steered athletes to AFAM to maintain eligibility?

    Does the report say anyone in the athletic department knew that AFAM was giving grades that were not earned?
    it says people in the advising department not only steered athletes towards these classes to maintain eligibility, but in fact worked with the instructors to ensure the classes were created and that the athletes got the requisite grades.

    it may not be the athletics department proper (that was always going to be hard to prove), but IMO, enough to demonstrate it was an athletics problem.
    April 1

Similar Threads

  1. UNC Athletics Scandal - NCAA to reopen investigation
    By dukelion in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 381
    Last Post: 10-22-2014, 11:59 AM
  2. UNC athletics scandal - McCants points finger
    By aswewere in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 695
    Last Post: 06-30-2014, 01:13 PM
  3. Scholarships and Athletics
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 10:56 PM
  4. The downside of women's athletics
    By tecumseh in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 04:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •