UNC Athletics Scandal: Sporting News Joins the unc Bashing

[BD80]

NCAA just throwing UNC under the bus before UNC tries to do the same. Popcorn time.

We're gonna need a bigger bus ...

[English]

Sorry if this was posted up thread:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...academic-fraud

NCAA says it has no responsibility?

From my layman's read of that article (admittedly at work, without the time it likely takes to really reason out all the details), specifically WRT Willingham's involvement, it sounds to me like she is backtracking from participating in any portion of this investigation now given her suit and subsequent settlement. I could be completely misreading this, although I doubt it, but it sounds like she's saying 'if the NCAA wanted to talk to me about this fiasco, they should have done it years ago--they lost their chance because I don't want to risk being caught in a lie (or lie by omission) or violating my settlement.' It's understandable to consider, from her perspective, the logic that whatever she provided to UNC over the years would be passed along to the NCAA in an NCAA investigation, but I think we know by now that logic isn't sound.

Again, I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on DBR. Perhaps I'm making leaps where there are none to make.

[PackMan97]

From my layman's read of that article (admittedly at work, without the time it likely takes to really reason out all the details), specifically WRT Willingham's involvement, it sounds to me like she is backtracking from participating in any portion of this investigation now given her suit and subsequent settlement. I could be completely misreading this, although I doubt it, but it sounds like she's saying 'if the NCAA wanted to talk to me about this fiasco, they should have done it years ago--they lost their chance because I don't want to risk being caught in a lie (or lie by omission) or violating my settlement.' It's understandable to consider, from her perspective, the logic that whatever she provided to UNC over the years would be passed along to the NCAA in an NCAA investigation, but I think we know by now that logic isn't sound.

Again, I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on DBR. Perhaps I'm making leaps where there are none to make.

I think it goes further than that.

Mary Willingham, by the definition of her job, failed to carry out her duties while working for UNC. That is, she participated in and facilitated academic fraud for the purpose of keeping athletes eligible. This could (and hopefully will) materially impact Carolina's Athletic Department in terms of NCAA penalties and cause financial harm. I imagine part of the settlement states that UNC will not sue Mary for lying for all those years on her NCAA clearance reports and in return Mary will drop her suit for against UNC for retaliation. What Mary does not want to do is do something that could create a new claim of harm to UNC. In fact, there is likely language in the settlement that says anything both parties did prior to date X is settled, but if either party does something to harm the other that is not part of the settlement and subject to legal action.

The NCAA knew it could have interviewed her at any time. It also likely knew what UNC had cooking on the settlement. All the NCAA had to do was wait for the settlement and date X to ask Mary to be interviewed and she would have to decline. The result is Mary is the bad gal and UNC and the NCAA can claim the old "We asked, but they said no" line.

[ricks68]

I think it goes further than that.

Mary Willingham, by the definition of her job, failed to carry out her duties while working for UNC. That is, she participated in and facilitated academic fraud for the purpose of keeping athletes eligible. This could (and hopefully will) materially impact Carolina's Athletic Department in terms of NCAA penalties and cause financial harm. I imagine part of the settlement states that UNC will not sue Mary for lying for all those years on her NCAA clearance reports and in return Mary will drop her suit for against UNC for retaliation. What Mary does not want to do is do something that could create a new claim of harm to UNC. In fact, there is likely language in the settlement that says anything both parties did prior to date X is settled, but if either party does something to harm the other that is not part of the settlement and subject to legal action.

The NCAA knew it could have interviewed her at any time. It also likely knew what UNC had cooking on the settlement. All the NCAA had to do was wait for the settlement and date X to ask Mary to be interviewed and she would have to decline. The result is Mary is the bad gal and UNC and the NCAA can claim the old "We asked, but they said no" line.

That stinks.

ricks

[UrinalCake]

Henderson - add Charles Barkley to the list. He's been killing the CHeats on air, including his cohost Kenny Smith

[DashNative]

I think it goes further than that.

Mary Willingham, by the definition of her job, failed to carry out her duties while working for UNC. That is, she participated in and facilitated academic fraud for the purpose of keeping athletes eligible. This could (and hopefully will) materially impact Carolina's Athletic Department in terms of NCAA penalties and cause financial harm. I imagine part of the settlement states that UNC will not sue Mary for lying for all those years on her NCAA clearance reports and in return Mary will drop her suit for against UNC for retaliation. What Mary does not want to do is do something that could create a new claim of harm to UNC. In fact, there is likely language in the settlement that says anything both parties did prior to date X is settled, but if either party does something to harm the other that is not part of the settlement and subject to legal action.

The NCAA knew it could have interviewed her at any time. It also likely knew what UNC had cooking on the settlement. All the NCAA had to do was wait for the settlement and date X to ask Mary to be interviewed and she would have to decline. The result is Mary is the bad gal and UNC and the NCAA can claim the old "We asked, but they said no" line.

I am a longtime lurker but I wanted to introduce myself to the board. Originally from NC, I have lived in Nashville, TN for many years, but unlike almost 100% of my neighbors, I am still a hoops person first. Practicing lawyer (employment & healthcare).

Mom always taught me to be polite when visiting someone's home, so I will try not to overstay my welcome.

I would just like to posit an alternative theory of why Mary Willingham would refuse to talk with the NCAA. She has zero incentive to do so, possibly not only because of a potential legal sanction but because of her future plans. Namely, her future as an advisor to multiple other lawsuits including Rashanda McCants and Michael McAdoo. We don't know what the terms of her settlement agreement are (at least I don't), but the terms certainly couldn't preclude her from being subpoenaed. If she doesn't speak to the NCAA, when she is called, as I am sure that she will be, the NCAA would have no testimony with which to impeach her later should she misspeak nor would they have time to try to punch holes in her statement. I would argue that scenario is just as likely as the idea that the NCAA is being nefarious with its timing. Why give the NCAA information for free? She has a book to sell. Besides, she has said before that her beef is larger than just UNC - she wants to bring the NCAA down. Taking her at face value, she probably sees the NCAA as an enemy - why fraternize with them?

[TampaDuke]

Potentially interesting development from the NCAA: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...sconduct-works

Not sure if that hurts UNC in this mess or if it helps provide them some cover (i.e., allowing them to argue that even the NCAA didn't know what the relevant academic misconduct rules were).

[martydoesntfoul]

I am a longtime lurker but I wanted to introduce myself to the board. Originally from NC, I have lived in Nashville, TN for many years, but unlike almost 100% of my neighbors, I am still a hoops person first. Practicing lawyer (employment & healthcare).

Mom always taught me to be polite when visiting someone's home, so I will try not to overstay my welcome.

I would just like to posit an alternative theory of why Mary Willingham would refuse to talk with the NCAA. She has zero incentive to do so, possibly not only because of a potential legal sanction but because of her future plans. Namely, her future as an advisor to multiple other lawsuits including Rashanda McCants and Michael McAdoo. We don't know what the terms of her settlement agreement are (at least I don't), but the terms certainly couldn't preclude her from being subpoenaed. If she doesn't speak to the NCAA, when she is called, as I am sure that she will be, the NCAA would have no testimony with which to impeach her later should she misspeak nor would they have time to try to punch holes in her statement. I would argue that scenario is just as likely as the idea that the NCAA is being nefarious with its timing. Why give the NCAA information for free? She has a book to sell. Besides, she has said before that her beef is larger than just UNC - she wants to bring the NCAA down. Taking her at face value, she probably sees the NCAA as an enemy - why fraternize with them?

Welcome to the board DashNative! You're certainly welcome here.

[grad_devil]

Potentially interesting development from the NCAA: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...sconduct-works

Not sure if that hurts UNC in this mess or if it helps provide them some cover (i.e., allowing them to argue that even the NCAA didn't know what the relevant academic misconduct rules were).

This legislation, I believe, is in response to scandals like those at UNC-CH. It's not that the NCAA "didn't know what the relevant academic misconduct rules were", it's that they're proposing more specific legislation so that future cases aren't caught in the limbo between the autonomy of the institution and NCAA rules.

It doesn't really have any effect on the UNC-CH situation, but will have an effect on future cases of academic misconduct.

[TampaDuke]

This legislation, I believe, is in response to scandals like those at UNC-CH. It's not that the NCAA "didn't know what the relevant academic misconduct rules were", it's that they're proposing more specific legislation so that future cases aren't caught in the limbo between the autonomy of the institution and NCAA rules.

It doesn't really have any effect on the UNC-CH situation, but will have an effect on future cases of academic misconduct.

I agree, but I can see UNC arguing that the need for more specific legislation shows that the current rules were ambiguous. Don't get me wrong, I'm not buying it. But from what we've seen thus far from UNC, I can see them advancing that argument.

[Seattle Hoo]

Looks to me like the current rules don't even cover the UNCheat scheme, which makes it just all the more brilliant. You have to admire the minds at UNCheat who developed it the way you have to admire Josef Stalin as a political strategist.

[BigWayne]

I guess the official Dean Smith mourning period has concluded in Chapel Hill:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/...993-start-date

"Since the release of the Wainstein report, the idea that the University’s academic improprieties began in 1993 has gone largely unquestioned.

Now, conflicting information between the Wainstein report and the University’s response to its accrediting agency has some wondering whether that date was created to protect the 1993 national championship-winning men’s basketball team."

[-jk]

Dang. Dean was smart enough to figure K would eclipse him that early?

-jk

[howardlander]

I guess the official Dean Smith mourning period has concluded in Chapel Hill:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/...993-start-date

"Since the release of the Wainstein report, the idea that the University’s academic improprieties began in 1993 has gone largely unquestioned.

Now, conflicting information between the Wainstein report and the University’s response to its accrediting agency has some wondering whether that date was created to protect the 1993 national championship-winning men’s basketball team."

I saw this and was somewhat impressed that the Daily Tar Heel went there. As I've said several times, there is no shortage of people at Carolina who are outraged by this scandal and the light in which it portrays the University.

Howard

[Henderson]

I guess the official Dean Smith mourning period has concluded in Chapel Hill:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/...993-start-date

"Since the release of the Wainstein report, the idea that the University’s academic improprieties began in 1993 has gone largely unquestioned.

Now, conflicting information between the Wainstein report and the University’s response to its accrediting agency has some wondering whether that date was created to protect the 1993 national championship-winning men’s basketball team."

Drip, drip drip.

[JasonEvans]

Whoa... Dean's legacy... yikes for Carolina!

Here is the chart from the Daily Tar Heel with the total "irregular" class enrollments dating back to 1989. It is worth noting that pretty much all the athlete enrollments were men's basketball players until the mid-late 90s.



-Jason "I'm not clear if these 'Irregular' classes are known to be no-show/paper classes or if they might have been legit" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

Whoa... Dean's legacy... yikes for Carolina!

Here is the chart from the Daily Tar Heel with the total "irregular" class enrollments dating back to 1989. It is worth noting that pretty much all the athlete enrollments were men's basketball players until the mid-late 90s.



-Jason "I'm not clear if these 'Irregular' classes are known to be no-show/paper classes or if they might have been legit" Evans

Ahhhh, so it started after the "Triple Crown" year in 1988.

At least, that's my read and I'm sticking with it.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I guess the official Dean Smith mourning period has concluded in Chapel Hill:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/...993-start-date

"Since the release of the Wainstein report, the idea that the University’s academic improprieties began in 1993 has gone largely unquestioned.

Now, conflicting information between the Wainstein report and the University’s response to its accrediting agency has some wondering whether that date was created to protect the 1993 national championship-winning men’s basketball team."

How dare a student paper put out an article criticizing its own university backed up with actual facts!

[OldPhiKap]

How dare a student paper put out an article criticizing its own university backed up with actual facts!

Sad day when I have higher regard for the Daily Tar Heel than the Duke Chronicle.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Boxill is out.

Jan Boxill, a former chairwoman of the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has resigned from the school after being implicated in an academic fraud scandal, officials said Thursday.

http://www.wral.com/former-unc-ch-fa...ndal/14492617/

She was fired in October, then challenged it.