UNC Athletics Scandal: Sporting News Joins the unc Bashing

[BigWayne]

IC is all atwitter about a supposed $325,000 payout to Willingham. Has information about the terms of the settlement been released?

Not yet, but somebody at IC thinks they know and then the guy running the Sham Ram FB page posted this:
11001631_401229953380274_1651097979548109023_o.jpg

[Tom B.]

If that is the settlement amount im(non-expert)o she settled for cheap. I think UNC would pay more than that to keep Butch, Huck, Doh and the whole scandalous cast of characters from testifying under oath.

It may seem like UNC got off cheaply, but at the end of the day, that might have been about the best Willingham could hope for. It was a wrongful termination claim, so her damages were going to be whatever lost income she could prove, plus any dollar amount she could prove for damage to her reputation, etc. (something that's rather difficult to show). Considering that she was probably making in the low six figures, at best, when she was at UNC, $325,000 isn't too bad. It's basically UNC saying, "OK, we'll give you three years of your salary in a lump sum to drop the case and go away."

[lotusland]

It may seem like UNC got off cheaply, but at the end of the day, that might have been about the best Willingham could hope for. It was a wrongful termination claim, so her damages were going to be whatever lost income she could prove, plus any dollar amount she could prove for damage to her reputation, etc. (something that's rather difficult to show). Considering that she was probably making in the low six figures, at best, when she was at UNC, $325,000 isn't too bad. It's basically UNC saying, "OK, we'll give you three years of your salary in a lump sum to drop the case and go away."

So in a trial for wrongful termination would she have been able to subpoena witnesses to corroborate her allegations about cheating? They've already paid way more that that to keep the truth under wraps so I think I'd take my chances on getting a much higher settlement in that case if I could put all the pertinent folks on the stand. Actually I would probably take my attorney's advice but that would be my question to him or her.

[-jk]

I want to see the terms of the settlement: Willingham has a book coming. I suspect she'll be involved in some capacity in the player lawsuits. The SACS and NCAA want to chat.

If the settlement has muzzled her, I'd be disappointed in any settlement under several mil. Since the settlement is purported to be released, I suspect they haven't muzzled her.

-jk

[MarkD83]

Of course the other option is she saw all of the law suits coming and the amount of money being paid to PR firms and lawyers and decided before the bank of UNC runs dry let me get what I can.

[OldPhiKap]

I want to see the terms of the settlement: Willingham has a book coming. I suspect she'll be involved in some capacity in the player lawsuits. The SACS and NCAA want to chat.

If the settlement has muzzled her, I'd be disappointed in any settlement under several mil. Since the settlement is purported to be released, I suspect they haven't muzzled her.

-jk

If she is subpoenaed to testify or give a deposition in another case, this settlement would not prohibit her from giving full and honest testimony. And I would find it hard to think she would agree to be muzzled since she has a book coming out. But agree, let's see the settlement agreement.

[JTH]

It may seem like UNC got off cheaply, but at the end of the day, that might have been about the best Willingham could hope for. It was a wrongful termination claim, so her damages were going to be whatever lost income she could prove, plus any dollar amount she could prove for damage to her reputation, etc. (something that's rather difficult to show). Considering that she was probably making in the low six figures, at best, when she was at UNC, $325,000 isn't too bad. It's basically UNC saying, "OK, we'll give you three years of your salary in a lump sum to drop the case and go away."

I admit that I was surprised to hear $ 325K, although I really don't know enough to say if this is or is not a fair settlement. But, there seems to be at least some similarities to the Jan Kemp/UGA suit which resulted in her being awarded $ 2.58 million (reduced to $ 1.1 million) back in the 80's. Of course, there could be a lot of differences in the particular details of each case. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the Jan Kemp case can shed some light on why Mary could not have expected something similar.

http://www.uslaw.com/library/Academi...hp?item=318173

[BigWayne]

$325K is just a rumor. Not worth anything right now. We'll know soon enough what the real number is.

[MarkD83]

If I were on the UNC BOT (thankfully not) I would be thinking about the fiscal impact of all of this so....has anyone added up all of the costs and potential costs

1. First report from Gov. Martin = $1,000,000

https://synapse.creatavist.com/scandal
This link does a good job of summarizing costs up to 2011.

2. Wainstein investigation = $3,111,385.17 (that is an important 17 cents)

http://myfox8.com/2014/11/21/wainste...ill-3-million/

3. PR firms (as of 11/29/14) $500,000 prior to 2014 and $782,000 bill from Edelman PR firm = $1,282,000

https://www.facebook.com/occupycolle...69615309790768
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebask...ademic-scandal

4. Potential loss in student aid from the Fed Govt. In 2013 UNC received $2,300,000

http://www.shfwire.com/academic-frau...l-student-aid/

5. Settlement of Willingham suit rumored to be $325,000

6. Suits brought by former athletes : Lets say this is 1000 students each getting $10,000 = $10,000,000

That makes a grand total of $18,018,385.17. if we don't count the pending suits that is still $8 million.

According to the synapse link above

"University officials say costs associated with controversies are not financed with tuition dollars but instead through three main sources: state funds, the athletic budget and the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation Inc., a portion of the University’s endowment established through private donations. A small portion of the costs were paid through miscellaneous University funds, a spokeswoman said." with 61% financed by the athletic budget.

So 61% of the $18 million is ~ $11 million. If we don't count the pending suits this becomes $4.9 million

In 2011-12 the UNC Athletic budget was $72,400,000 with $72,200,000 in expenses for a profit of $200,000. (see link). In 2014 the profit was $324,000 (see 2nd link) I am not sure this includes the costs listed above.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc/story/9944045/
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/x14767...apel-Hill-Duke

So what does all of this mean. The rumored $325,000 to Willingham just took most if not all of the profits from the UNC Athletic Dept in 2014. If they are on the hook for 61% of the costs already incurred that takes away about 15 years of profit. If they are on the hook for expenses already incurred and the potential law suits that are pending that would be about 35 years of profit.

So...what do I do if I were on the BOT...I start to do whatever I can to minimize costs.

[Henderson]

Gregg Easterbrook's review of the Smith/Willingham book is up on the Wall Street Journal website. http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-rev...ham-1425077434. (may require subscription, but I got in without one).

Entitled, Dark Days in Chapel Hill, it's got some satisfying slashing quotable quotes, though Easterbrook ultimately succumbs to the cliche about this being just one part of a larger problem involving money and big time college sports.

[OldPhiKap]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-rev...mod=hp_opinion


Willingham book review from today's Wall Street Journal

Looks like more work for UNC's crack PR team to do.

Are they paid by Ramsclubbers, or NC taxpayers?

[Atlanta Duke]

Gregg Easterbrook's review of the Smith/Willingham book is up on the Wall Street Journal website. http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-rev...ham-1425077434. (may require subscription, but I got in without one).

Entitled, Dark Days in Chapel Hill, it's got some satisfying slashing quotable quotes

Like this?

After the Chapel Hill scandal went public, the school commissioned a flurry of reports, the two most prominent of which appeared to tell all but were at heart whitewashes...

The second report attached no blame to basketball coach Williams ... The men’s basketball program has seven coaches for a roster that averages 16—the kind of instructor-to-student ratio normally found only in doctoral programs. Yet we’re asked to believe there’s no way the coaches could have noticed that many players never seemed to need to be in class. Mr. Williams should have been fired for presiding over an institutionally corrupt program. Instead he was given a pass.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-rev...ham-1425077434

[oldnavy]

Like this?

After the Chapel Hill scandal went public, the school commissioned a flurry of reports, the two most prominent of which appeared to tell all but were at heart whitewashes...

The second report attached no blame to basketball coach Williams ... The men’s basketball program has seven coaches for a roster that averages 16—the kind of instructor-to-student ratio normally found only in doctoral programs. Yet we’re asked to believe there’s no way the coaches could have noticed that many players never seemed to need to be in class. Mr. Williams should have been fired for presiding over an institutionally corrupt program. Instead he was given a pass.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-rev...ham-1425077434

Ol Roy's not going to like that! Them's fighting words for a mountain man!!

[Newton_14]

It’s about the optics. Which are horrible. It’s also about the decision, also a horrible one.

Let me give you the other side first.

In the lawsuit by Mary Willingham against the University of North Carolina, the defendants drew the wrong judge. A judge, one that sought out the case, that was plaintiff-friendly, and who was thought to be looking for any and every reason to rule in favor of the plaintiff, the aforesaid Mary Willingham. He was chomping at the bit to make a statement, if not just against UNC, against the whole college sports paradigm.

Going through with the litigation would be costly. Discovery was about to begin, putting the University of North Carolina on the hook for a cool half million, estimated costs, just for the discovery phase alone. North Carolina’s legal team further estimated the costs of litigation, trial, and appeal of upwards of two million. At the end of the day, UNC felt it had a good chance at a favorable ruling, but there was also a legitimate chance that it would go the other direction; that UNC would be on the hook for full damages and the most dreaded result - that UNC would have to reinstate Willingham to her job.

And there were other considerations. The Willingham lawsuit wasn’t the only front UNC had to defend. There was the NCAA front, and then the front represented by former UNC players, claiming that UNC forced them into making poor academic choices that deprived them of a “real” education. Personally, I think such a case should not survive a Motion to Dismiss, but that’s just me.

North Carolina’s legal team – supposedly the best of the best – strongly advised the BOT to settle. It was forwarded as a long-term strategy. With the Willingham matter out of the way – so to speak – the University of North Carolina could focus on the other challenges it was facing. Which are multitudinous.

From what I am given to understand, this was not, and this is an understatement, a universally embraced opinion by the board. Lots of back and forth, lots of give and take, contentious, but at the end of the day the opinion of the legal team prevailed.

They pay the legal team for their advice, and at the end of the day, they took it.

From what I am told, the decision was made without any discussion of the optics of the decision, which in my opinion should have been a major, if not the primary, consideration.

North Carolina’s fans and supporters have been digging deep, digging as deeply and as strongly as they possibly can, to find some reason, any reason, to believe that behind the scenes the new leadership of their university was pushing back against a false narrative, forwarding a strong case for their school, ready to go to the last ditch to defend the truth.

This despite a conviction, and I am talking about a conviction among the most dedicated and loyal followers of UNC sports, that the entire Tar Heel nation was sold out by a former chancellor far too eager to point his finger at athletics than allow his bailiwick, academics, to be challenged.

Now they feel sold out – yet again.

The University of North Carolina may have believed that it was necessary to ignore its core, its base, the lifeblood of its support, in order to make a finely balanced cost/benefit analysis about the settlement of this case. Or, they never entered the reaction of its base into their settlement calculations.

Which is why many in the core base of UNC athletic supporters justifiably feel abandoned by the university’s leadership today.

So let me ask the leadership that made this decision a few questions:

1) Do you think the core of your university’s athletic supporters, and their opinions, should be involved in these decisions? Or do you expect them to swallow unquestionably whatever decision you make as in their best interests?

2) What steps did you take to get the rationale for this decision out in front of that core’s justifiable reaction? What steps are you taking now to explain that decision?

3) When you urge your minions to make phone calls, write letters, engage social media, all in order to hype up that core to buy the tickets, make donations, support the program, how do you expect that core to react? Do expect unconditional support for whatever decision you make?

And, you know what? If that is your expectation, you may be right. Win enough games, go a good distance in the NCAA tourney, win the Coastal Division, the core will be back, ready to overlook being tossed under the bus by the Poindexter’s that made this decision based on a risk assessment analysis that ignored them.

And that makes this call worthy of execration. If they discounted, or perhaps counted on, the (short) memories of UNC athletic supporters in reaching this decision, well … I have lost words to say what they deserve, and that is a first for me.

Wow. This is sad, sick, delusional, pick any word. As I have said from Day 1, the above is the mindset of the vast majority of unc-cheat fans and alums in this State. The person is in 100% total denial. He/She speaks of "false narratives", "untruth's", "Willingham being reinstated to her job = worse case scenario", and more importantly goes on and on about the "Core" and then slams Holden Thorpe for actually putting academics first. How awful of him. I mean you would think that these universities are there to just provide an education or something. Don't these people get the fact that the primary goal is to win athletic contests and hang banners??


I also thought the commentary about "getting the wrong judge" was hilarious. You mean they somehow managed to draw a judge in this state with no affiliation to unc-cheat? What are those odds??

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Which is why many in the core base of UNC athletic supporters justifiably feel abandoned by the university’s leadership today.

Heh Heh... exactly.

[Newton_14]

Heh Heh... exactly.

Says a lot about them in very few words eh Dr. R? I would be embarrassed and ashamed if anyone every wrote that kind of nonsense about Duke. The sad reality is, "The Carolina Way" was never anything more than a fraud. The "CORE" has always been about athletic wins no matter the price.

[Jderf]

The great thing about this board is that eventually all the threads on page one will be about UNC academic fraud.

As a DBR discussion grow's longer, the probability of a debate between UNC and Duke's current teams/rosters approaches 1.

Do we need to revise our version of Godwin's Law? The original statement definitely applied in 2011, but over the last few years the scandal seems to have superseded any discussions about the actual teams. Kinda sad, really, when you think about it.

Although... I guess another (better) explanation could be that UNC just hasn't actually been any good.

[Henderson]

Wow. This is sad, sick, delusional, pick any word. As I have said from Day 1, the above is the mindset of the vast majority of unc-cheat fans and alums in this State. The person is in 100% total denial. He/She speaks of "false narratives", "untruth's", "Willingham being reinstated to her job = worse case scenario", and more importantly goes on and on about the "Core" and then slams Holden Thorpe for actually putting academics first. How awful of him. I mean you would think that these universities are there to just provide an education or something. Don't these people get the fact that the primary goal is to win athletic contests and hang banners??


I also thought the commentary about "getting the wrong judge" was hilarious. You mean they somehow managed to draw a judge in this state with no affiliation to unc-cheat? What are those odds??

You need to spend more time on IC to buffer your shock and amazement.

If IC represents some sort of core UNC constiuency, that core lives in a group-think, see-no-evil, delusional bunker. It's actually pretty funny.

I recommend checking it out. Lance Thomas, all schools do it, no one sees the truth, K-rat is evil ergo, the refs are against UNC and pro-Duke, why is there a delay in clearing our name?, UNC should bunker down and defend all lawsuits, their own (Willingham, McCants) are evil traitors, no way the NCAA imposes sanctions because no one in athletics did anything wrong.

An interesting trend, though, at IC: Although very few posters acknowledge the seriousness of the scandal and its repercussions, many long time posters are starting to say that Roy should have a successor soon. I'm not sure it means anything, but IC has a substantial minority that thinks Roy (God though he is) has lost it and should move on. Not because he cheated by playing ineligible players, or because of the unfair scandal that resulted, but because he's been losing games.

After a while, you get used to it. Like spending time in North Korea.

[OldPhiKap]

Do we need to revise our version of Godwin's Law? The original statement definitely applied in 2011, but over the last few years the scandal seems to have superseded any discussions about the actual teams. Kinda sad, really, when you think about it.

Although... I guess another (better) explanation could be that UNC just hasn't actually been any good.

Y'know who else skipped class a lot?

Hitler.

[Henderson]

Y'know who else skipped class a lot?

Hitler.

Oh, great. And who's going to pay for the premium coffee I just spewed all over my computer?