UNC Athletics Scandal: SACS to announce June 11

[swood1000]

Ok I am convinced, so UNC's only out is to distance itself from the report they commissioned. That queals the irrational fears, but UNC may be brazen enough to try this tactic.

It's hard to see how effectively UNC could distance themselves from the Wainstein Report. For example, there is UNC's own press release announcing the report:

"I appreciate Mr. Wainstein's hard work, professionalism and diligence in bringing us to today," said UNC President Tom Ross. "I expect the findings will enable Chancellor Folt to build on earlier reforms and take the decisive steps needed to bring to a close the remaining questions and concerns around this matter. …I want to thank President Ross, Chancellor Folt and the staff and students of the University for their exceptional cooperation with our investigation and for their commitment to unearthing the truth about this difficult chapter in the history of one of the country's finest universities."

Since first learning about these irregularities, Carolina has implemented numerous reforms…

Are they now going to try to say that in fact there was not much wrong and this was much ado over nothing? How could that result in anything other than going from the frying pan into the fire? The facts are there for everyone to see and by taking this approach they would be saying "And to the extent that we appeared to take the Wainstein Report seriously or that we desired to institute reforms, that was just a mistaken impression."

The bandage has got to come off and if I were UNC I think I would just rip it off all at once and get it over with. Otherwise instead of simply receiving sanctions they receive a year or two of recruiting difficulty followed by sanctions (which could be worse because of the absence of contrition).

[MarkD83]

It's hard to see how effectively UNC could distance themselves from the Wainstein Report. For example, there is UNC's own press release announcing the report:

Are they now going to try to say that in fact there was not much wrong and this was much ado over nothing? How could that result in anything other than going from the frying pan into the fire? The facts are there for everyone to see and by taking this approach they would be saying "And to the extent that we appeared to take the Wainstein Report seriously or that we desired to institute reforms, that was just a mistaken impression."

The bandage has got to come off and if I were UNC I think I would just rip it off all at once and get it over with. Otherwise instead of simply receiving sanctions they receive a year or two of recruiting difficulty followed by sanctions (which could be worse because of the absence of contrition).

This is all very logical. However bubba has already said the w report is only one mans opinion so if bubba is negotiating with the NCAA the bandaid may come off very slowly.

[Henderson]

This is all very logical. However bubba has already said the w report is only one mans opinion so if bubba is negotiating with the NCAA the bandaid may come off very slowly.

Bubba's sitting in the catbird's seat. If UNC-CH gets hammered hard, he says, "Hey, I just got here in 2011." If UNC-CH skates, he says, "Who's your daddy?"

[swood1000]

This is all very logical. However bubba has already said the w report is only one mans opinion so if bubba is negotiating with the NCAA the bandaid may come off very slowly.

I hope the bandage comes off very slowly, with every new movement receiving heightened public scrutiny (schadenfreude, I think, is the term). Bubba is looking at sanctions on himself personally not to mention the effect on his reputation of this stewardship debacle. To sagegrouse's point, the Board of Governors has to assume control. It's one thing to trust Bubba to run the basketball program for a period of time but this affects the entire university, and the university's interests and Bubba's interests do not necessarily coincide. Furthermore, Bubba is now locked into an "I didn't know anything about this" stance but the university might be better off with a "We have learned our lesson and will certainly do a better job in the future" stance.

[Duvall]

Allow me to add one more thing.

A lot of people who have followed the scandal have wondered why UNC's rivals have been so silent about the two decades of cheating. Why do officials at Duke and NC State even allow ESPN to ban signs at games in Cameron and PNC that refer to the scandal? Why doesn't Kevin White and/or Debbie Yow (a notorious loose cannon) scream about the scandal? Why are Syracuse, Georgia Tech and Miami officials -- whose schools got heavy punishment for far less transgressions -- so silent on the UNC mess?

Had some conversations earlier this week with athletic officials at a number of schools. I was told that there is an amazing amount of screaming going on behind the scenes. But the ACC and NCAA have long encouraged (and enforced?) a public gag order on officials not to play this out in the media. Think back, did you ever hear a Big East rival call out Syracuse for the blatant Feb Melo cheating? Did Southern Cal's Pac 12 rivals run screaming to the press about the Reggie Bush shenanigans? There are exceptions -- I remember when Tennessee and Alabama got into a war or words about 15-20 years ago -- but little is ever said in public in most cases. That applies to the NCAA too ... you remember any Emmert quotes about how hard they were going to hammer Syracuse?

Rest assured -- officials at Duke, State and the rest of the ACC are as outraged as you are about what's been going on at UNC. But they are quiet because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer.

If that doesn't happen and UNC skates, you will hear the loudest, most sustained screams you've ever heard in athletics.

But you won't hear that, because UNC won't skate.

ACC athletic officials may be telling people that they have agreed to keep their complaints to themselves because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer. But given that no one can possibly know with any confidence what the NCAA is going to do about anything, it seems more likely that they just don't want to do anything to disrupt the flowing cash by making one of their business partners look bad. We're all one big happy television production company, after all.

And besides, what difference would it make? How could they make the UNC scandal play out in the media when the media - the parts of it that matter - just want it to go away? ACC athletic directors can complain about UNC getting with murder all they want, but if ESPN is just going to put Jay Bilas on air for hours on end to insist that everything Roy Williams has done was right and proper, what difference would the screaming make?

[swood1000]

Perhaps the high priced legal arguement is based on a statute of limitations. Take the attached link with a large grain of salt, but it is one of those nightmare situations.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-baske...aa-violations/

I will echo what was said on the 2015 recruiting thread. Any outcome of the scandal is much easier to tolerate with a 5th National Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

19.5.11 Statute of Limitations. Allegations included in a notice of allegations shall be limited to possible violations occurring not earlier than four years before the date the notice of inquiry is provided to the institution or the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter. However, the following shall not be subject to the four-year limitation: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13)

(a) Allegations involving violations affecting the eligibility of a current student-athlete;

(b) Allegations in a case in which information is developed to indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period; and

(c) Allegations that indicate a blatant disregard for the Association’s fundamental recruiting, extra benefit, academic or ethical-conduct bylaws or that involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation. In such cases, the enforcement staff shall have a one-year period after the date information concerning the matter becomes available to the NCAA to investigate and submit to the institution a notice of allegations concerning the matter.

The Statute of Limitations is not a problem because these activities "indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period" and the four-year period is the four years before "the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter." According the the Wainstein Report:

It was only when media reports raised questions about AFAM classes in 2011 that administration officials took a hard look at the AFAM Department. They were shocked with what they found.

The University took a number of actions in reaction to the paper class revelations. They immediately self-reported the misconduct to the NCAA.

So it would seem that the four years is the four years before 2011, and will include any actions prior to this period that indicate a pattern of willful violations which began before but continued into the four-year period.

[MarkD83]

The Statute of Limitations is not a problem because these activities "indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period" and the four-year period is the four years before "the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter." According the the Wainstein Report:


So it would seem that the four years is the four years before 2011, and will include any actions prior to this period that indicate a pattern of willful violations which began before but continued into the four-year period.

OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

[Henderson]

OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

Looking for wiggle room was what got UNC-CH into trouble in the first place. They need less wiggling out and more facing up.

[Indoor66]

OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

And my response is that it is (a) a continuing pattern of prohibited conduct and/or (b) a continuing pattern demonstrating a lack of intitutional control in both the athletic and university administration.

[camion]

And my response is that it is (a) a continuing pattern of prohibited conduct and/or (b) a continuing pattern demonstrating a lack of intitutional control in both the athletic and university administration.

Yup. If it's been going on for a couple of decades then the university/athletic administration is either complicit or incompetent. Could be both.

[swood1000]

OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

In the first place what is the definition of a rogue employee? An employee who takes an action not sanctioned by the university? If so, then these activities are always committed by rogue employees except where the university formulates official policy to carry out the plan, or maybe when the President is involved. But let's take a look at the wording:

a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved

I don't see the term "rogue employee" here. Would a rogue employee not be an "individual involved"? Is the NCAA going to say that the university is responsible for the actions of the perpetrator during the four year period but not prior to that? What would be the rationale there?

[MarkD83]

In the first place what is the definition of a rogue employee? An employee who takes an action not sanctioned by the university? If so, then these activities are always committed by rogue employees except where the university formulates official policy to carry out the plan, or maybe when the President is involved. But let's take a look at the wording:

I don't see the term "rogue employee" here. Would a rogue employee not be an "individual involved"? Is the NCAA going to say that the university is responsible for the actions of the perpetrator during the four year period but not prior to that? What would be the rationale there?

Keep in mind I am not defending UNC. My overall intention in these posts is to combat the irrational fears that UNC gets of without any punishment by trying to see what possible arguments they could use and then get the collective thoughts on DBR as to why those arguments won't work.

As you point out if they use the "rogue employee" argument it is logical that timing would have to include the length of time the activities were perpetrated by the "rogue employee". However,could UNC still use the argument that as soon as they found out about the problem, they fixed the problem. This means only punish us for the time where athletes were ineligible after we discovered the problem. As another poster pointed out they would either be complicit or ignorant and claiming ignorance may limit their punishment.

Like I said I am just trying to logically step through the arguments to quell the irrational fears.

[mgtr]

And my response is that it is (a) a continuing pattern of prohibited conduct and/or (b) a continuing pattern demonstrating a lack of intitutional control in both the athletic and university administration.

I think that the lack of institutional control is the real killer here. As pointed out by Indoor66, the only alternative is willful prohibited conduct. So, UNC is either crooked or oblivious or both!

[swood1000]

Keep in mind I am not defending UNC. My overall intention in these posts is to combat the irrational fears that UNC gets of without any punishment by trying to see what possible arguments they could use and then get the collective thoughts on DBR as to why those arguments won't work.

Of course you are not defending UNC. You are playing the role of the devil's advocate (should we say, instead, the Tarheel's Advocate?). No problem. Go for it.

As you point out if they use the "rogue employee" argument it is logical that timing would have to include the length of time the activities were perpetrated by the "rogue employee". However,could UNC still use the argument that as soon as they found out about the problem, they fixed the problem. This means only punish us for the time where athletes were ineligible after we discovered the problem. As another poster pointed out they would either be complicit or ignorant and claiming ignorance may limit their punishment.

Like I said I am just trying to logically step through the arguments to quell the irrational fears.

One problem with this is that whether or not a student-athlete is academically ineligible is a matter of "strict liability" and does not depend on anybody's good faith. It is not relevant if a student is rendered academically ineligible by the actions of a rogue employee or what steps the university took after they found out. The bottom line is that students who are academically ineligible, no matter what the reason, may not compete. Here's what they said in the University of Memphis Public Infractions Report (2009):

The committee concluded that, due to the fact that student-athlete 1's SAT score was cancelled by ETS, student-athlete 1 was rendered academically ineligible to compete during the entire 2007-08 season, including the 2008 Division I Men's Basketball Championship. This is a "strict liability" situation. The institution's assertion that, prior to the start of the 2007-08 season, it did not have sufficient information to conclude that student-athlete 1's SAT test would be cancelled was not relevant under the circumstances. This was discussed during the hearing in the following exchange:

COMMITTEE MEMBER: But I want you all to address, both sides, the issue of if either one doesn't have a valid test score -- let me give you an example. We have situations that come up from time to time before this committee where something is learned after the fact, such as person actually played sports at another institution. Nobody knew, but that person didn't have eligibility remaining, so they were ineligible. If you have a test score that is invalidated, you didn't have the scores to be admitted to begin with. Where am I wrong?
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: At the time he was admitted on the score that was provided at the time, is that your question? Was he eligible, in looking backwards, whether he was eligible or not?

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes. He didn't have the score.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: We have acknowledged that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: You have acknowledged that he was ineligible.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, and we have to address that, based on the after-the-fact information.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: It doesn't matter.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: I understand, but that is the basis. We don't believe -- we do believe that the university proceeded appropriately based on the information that it had at the time in allowing him to play.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn't do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact. If nothing had happened, if you had no information and ETS cancelled his score at a later date, he didn't have an admissible entry qualification.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That's correct. We have not contested that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Okay. So, he was ineligible?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes; yes, sir. The university was not aware at the time he was ineligible.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I didn't suggest that they were.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Okay.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I am not saying they cheated. I am saying this young man was not eligible to participate.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That is correct.

It would be reasonable for the NCAA to take into consideration the exemplary behavior of the university after discovering the problem when deciding how long a probationary period would be appropriate or how many scholarships should be lost. But is it reasonable to assume that after calling academic ineligibility a matter of "strict liability," nevertheless if the university shows itself to be really really sorry or really really the victim of a fiendish perpetrator, they will not have to forfeit games participated in by ineligible athletes? Can't see it. Does anybody know of a case in which games participated in by academically ineligible athletes were not forfeited?

[swood1000]

The "academically ineligible" rule even applied in the case of CalTech in 2012, which appears to be about as mild and inadvertent an infraction as there could be in this area:

The violations occurred in large part due to a unique institutional policy that encourages students to "shop" for courses before finalizing their class schedules. During the first three weeks of the institution's 10-week academic quarters, students in good academic standing are not required to formally register for classes. Instead, they can attend classes in different courses before formally adding those they prefer by the end of the three week drop-add period. However, during those three weeks, because they are not actually registered in some or all of the courses they are attending, some students are only enrolled on a part-time basis. Eighteen student-athletes in 11 sports fell into this category from the 2007-08 academic year through 2010-11. While they were enrolled part-time, they were allowed to practice and compete.

A violation was found. The penalty:

The institution will vacate all wins in contests in which ineligible student-athletes participated... Further the individual records of the ineligible student-athletes will also be vacated. ... Further, the records of the head coaches in the affected sports shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated results. The institution's records for the affected sports shall also be reconfigured to reflect the vacated institutional, coaches' and student-athletes' records in all publications in which records for those sports are recorded, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting materials, electronic and digital media, and institutional and NCAA archives. Any reference to the vacated results, including championships, shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas, and any other forum in which they appear.

[MarkD83]

swood100, thanks for the information about the NCAA precedents. So a quick summary for my sake...

1. Weinstein report admits fraudulent classes going back to 1993. No other ruling by outside institution needs to be made to confirm fraudulent classes (NCAA does not have to wait for SACS.)
2. Statute of limitations does not apply since the fraudulent class structure has been a continuous issue since 1993 perpetrated by the same group of UNC employees.
3. Whether the coaches, BOG or other faculty committees knew about the fraudulent class structure is irrelevant in determining eligibility. (Memphis case as example).
4. Vacating wins, records etc. is appropriate punishment. (CalTech case as example).
5. Cooperation (?) / action by UNC once they knew could lessen forward looking penalties (loss of scholarships etc.)

I don't think I missed anything.

[SCMatt33]

swood100, thanks for the information about the NCAA precedents. So a quick summary for my sake...

1. Weinstein report admits fraudulent classes going back to 1993. No other ruling by outside institution needs to be made to confirm fraudulent classes (NCAA does not have to wait for SACS.)
2. Statute of limitations does not apply since the fraudulent class structure has been a continuous issue since 1993 perpetrated by the same group of UNC employees.
3. Whether the coaches, BOG or other faculty committees knew about the fraudulent class structure is irrelevant in determining eligibility. (Memphis case as example).
4. Vacating wins, records etc. is appropriate punishment. (CalTech case as example).
5. Cooperation (?) / action by UNC once they knew could lessen forward looking penalties (loss of scholarships etc.)

I don't think I missed anything.

I would only add to item 3 that while athletic department knowledge or participation means nothing in terms of retroactive ineligibility, it means everything in terms of forward looking penalties, more so than cooperation. As you pointed out, Memphis is the best example here. Memphis received virtually no significant forward looking penalties for Derrick Rose, and those they did receive, had more to do with impermissible benefits to his brother than the SAT.

[MarkD83]

I also want to add something I had posted months ago related to the irrational fear that UNC is "too big to fail".

First, forfeiture of games due to ineligible players is not a "too big to fail" issue. These penalties have no impact on future NCAA/ACC revenues.

If UNC is given bans on future post season play there is also no impact on revenues.
UNC not participating in the NCAAs is similar to a year like 2010 when they were not good enough to participate and the NCAA just slots in another team.
The ACC tournament is a little tricker. Just like Syracuse not participating this year the logistics of UNC not participating can be handled. However, if the tournament is in North Carolina there could be a significant loss of fans who would attend, but I am sure the tickets could easily be absorbed by the other schools. Interestingly, the next three ACC tournaments are in Washington and Brooklyn (2017, 2018), so no UNC would have absolutely no impact on ticket sales.

If UNC is some how banned from play in the regular season, the rest of the ACC would have to make dramatic changes to its schedule. However, the absence of UNC from the schedule could be accommodated by increasing the home/away match ups that are missing in the schedules.

The only real issue then becomes the loss of the Duke/UNC games. This could result in a significant loss in revenue and marketing opportunities. Luckily there are plenty of very good ACC teams and for the time period that UNC can not compete, marketing Duke/UVA; Duke/Louisville; Duke/NCSU; Duke/Notre Dame and Duke/Syracuse would work.

[moonpie23]

if the NCAA drops the hammer as they should, the UNC/DUKE rivalry will take a significant hit. Not only will games past be forfeited, Duke's side of the numbers will be greatly enhanced.

UNC will no longer be viewed as an "equal" or actual "rival"...they'll wear that shame for many years to come...



which is what they deserve....



i'm all about some duke/uva/ND mixing it up...

[Skitzle]

Losses still stand right? Wouldn't want to vacate 82-50