UNC Athletics Scandal UPDATE: UNC Receives NOA from NCAA

[moonpie23]

i guess i've got to lay out of this thread....my hopes are too high for the ncaa to go scorched earth on them, and it's not likely that's gonna happen...

if they are "happy" with the NOA, then the ncaa has been had...

[Jarhead]

What would we do without the governing agencies of every kind of sports played in America? Huh? Just what would we do without sports? If we want these things to continue then who else but the government could keep things going smoothly? But you know, the governments have not been doing all the that well with their present responsibilities, have they? Our existing structure is the only thing that will work if we let it. Just find a way to be honest and fair with the rules, and keep the cheaters out.

[neemizzle]

This entire process is killing UNC fans, but it's also putting them in a sense of denial.

By that I mean, they're convinced that UNC did "absolutely nothing" wrong. Like, really? After 20 years of this, and they think UNC did nothing wrong?

[Kedsy]

A lot easier to hammer a private school like USC or Syracuse than a big public school like UNC that has the resources of a state's power structure to protect them. That's what the NCAA learned from Penn State - if you can't touch a big state school for facilitating child rape, how can they punish UNC for something like this?

I think what the NCAA should have learned from Penn State is that a governing body can only punish its members for breaking its rules and not for breaking the laws of the United States. If it becomes clear that the NCAA will only punish private and not public institutions, then that's the end of the NCAA. Personally, I can't imagine it's really true.

[Olympic Fan]

Guys, don't panic over the Chansky piece .. it's ridiculous for a number of reasons.

A Notice of Allegations is just that -- a notice of the violations that the NCAA has discovered. It does NOT include proposed penalties -- so when Chansky suggests that UNC will be found guilty of Lack of Institutional Control, yet not get any penalties either forward or backward ... well, that's hard to believe.

LOIC is the most serious charge the NCAA can bring and it almost always brings penalties. Three years ago, when the UNC football program was nailed, there was rejoicing on the Hill because they DIDN'T find LOIC -- they were cited for "Failure to monitor" which is the next step down. And they still earned a one-season postseason ban.

Now, it's possible that the NOA did not cite any ineligible players on past teams (which is hard to believe because of the information in the Wainstein Report, which specifically cites over 100 athletes in various sports (football and basketball included) which would have been ineligible without the phony classes.

It's NOT possible that the NCAA could find LOIC and not impose penalties going forward.

I think Dana O'Neill's piece on ESPN suggests as much:

http://espn.go.com/blog/north-caroli...inning-for-unc

For UNC the nightmare is this -- do you string this out and make sure the 2016 UNC basketball team gets to make it's run ... knowing that the penalties probably hit in 2017, which would almost certainly kill recruiting that year -- a year in which three of the top 10 prospects in the country are from North Carolina. Or do you do what Syracuse did and take the penalty as quickly as possible, hoping it's just one year and you can put it behind you?

I suspect they string it out deep into the season and judge how good this team really it ... if it's a Final Four quality team, they delay, delay, delay ... if UNC proves to be the same so-so team they've been the last two years, then UNC might emulate Syracuse and self-impose a ban to get the punishment over quickly.

Again, don't pay too much attention to Chansky's puff piece or to Greg Barnes (the guy who once said the UNC scandal would be "over by Friday" -- before the 2010 football season). Even if they were plugged in at UNC (and I know Chansky is now nothing more than a fan), UNC itself is not a very good judge of what's going to happen -- three years ago, they were sure they weren't going to get a bowl ban.

I haven't seen the NOA, but if it does include the charge of LOIC control -- coming on top of their recent probation for Failure to Monitor -- I'd be shocked if they aren't hammered.

[gep]

Based on the article on DBR that Ol'Roy is complaining that this dragging out is hurting recruiting and his program, maybe dragging this out is not a bad thing for everyone else that's not unc. Because even if they have a successful season, they can still get a post-season ban in 2016... maybe even more than one year. And other issues, like loss of scholarships... will definitely crimp Ol'Roy's style. Maybe it really is time for Ol'Roy to ride off into the sunset

[Faison1]

Chansky is out with a fluffer piece claiming inside info. that they are happy with the NOA and it will not require banner removal.
If it was really that way, they wouldn't be so tight lipped.

I read his article where he thought it was wise for UNC to take Sulaimon as a transfer.

I'm not sure what he's on, but I don't think he's to be taken seriously....

[swood1000]

A "Type 1" course was a lecture course in which the faculty member listed as instructor of record denied teaching the course section and signing the grade roll, or one in which the chair stated the course section had not been taught. According to UNC in their First Monitoring Report:

All of the evidence that has been found…indicates that students were required to write lengthy papers in the Type 1 courses… None of the investigations found evidence that students received credit for courses for which they did no work.

According to the Wainstein Report

It was also well known that quality played little to no part in the paper class grading process. In fact, it was even the subject of jokes among the ASPSA football counselors and tutors. In one email chain, for example, Learning Specialist Amy Kleissler ("Kleissler") and Lee joke about how tutor Whitney Read ("Read") is worried that a particular football player may not have enough time to get his paper done for his paper class. Kleissler comments that "I still don't think [Read] is absorbing what I am saying about the paper. I finally just said 'think middle school report, not college seminar paper.'" This one comment speaks volumes about the low expectations placed on the players in the paper classes and the irrelevance of quality to Crowder's grading decision.

Let's look on the bright side. If UNC gets a pass from the NCAA on this, Duke no longer has to pass over recruits for academic reasons.

[swood1000]

UNC was asked by SACS how it intended to handle Type 1 courses for students who had not yet graduated. UNC said that 80 of the 348 students were still enrolled on March 15, 2013. Of the 80, 34 were not a problem because that course was not necessary for graduation. The remaining 46 students "will all be required to take an additional course to supplement any Type 1 course used to fulfill requirements for their UNC-Chapel Hill baccalaureate degree."


In other words, they treated those classes as not valid for purposes of fulfilling degree requirements. Can they then turn around and say that, on the other hand, those classes were valid for purposes of fulfilling NCAA academic requirements?

[uh_no]

UNC was asked by SACS how it intended to handle Type 1 courses for students who had not yet graduated. UNC said that 80 of the 348 students were still enrolled on March 15, 2013. Of the 80, 34 were not a problem because that course was not necessary for graduation. The remaining 46 students "will all be required to take an additional course to supplement any Type 1 course used to fulfill requirements for their UNC-Chapel Hill baccalaureate degree."


In other words, they treated those classes as not valid for purposes of fulfilling degree requirements. Can they then turn around and say that, on the other hand, those classes were valid for purposes of fulfilling NCAA academic requirements?

Ethically? No.

Legally? Sure. they can say whatever they want. Nothing they say is under oath. they can say whatever the heck they want. Of course, either the NCAA or the SACS can disregard anything they say.

[swood1000]

Ethically? No.

Legally? Sure. they can say whatever they want. Nothing they say is under oath. they can say whatever the heck they want. Of course, either the NCAA or the SACS can disregard anything they say.

What I actually was asking was whether they can say this with any credibility.

[Bob Green]

If UNC gets a pass from the NCAA on this, Duke no longer has to pass over recruits for academic reasons.

I disagree with the quoted statement 100 percent. No matter what decisions the NCAA makes, those decisions should have zero effect on how Duke conducts the admissions process.

[swood1000]

I disagree with the quoted statement 100 percent. No matter what decisions the NCAA makes, those decisions should have zero effect on how Duke conducts the admissions process.

The statement was intended tongue-in-cheek.

[Bob Green]

The statement was intended tongue-in-cheek.

I'm very happy to hear your clarification.

[Dukehky]

They're gonna skate by with probation.

[Kedsy]

They're gonna skate by with probation.

Based on what?

[Dukehky]

Because I'm Mark Emmert and want UNC to skate.

Intuition.

[swood1000]

In their "Type 1" arguments, UNC is arguing for a two-tiered approach: (a) classes that can be used toward graduation, and (b) classes too inferior to be used toward graduation but that can be used to satisfy NCAA academic requirements. And they defend independent study classes that, on the one hand, are named in a Letter of Intent to Discharge as a reason for discharge because they "involved minimal academic expectations and that were offered at times to accommodate student-athletes," but on the other hand are asserted to be of sufficient quality to satisfy NCAA academic requirements.

There is some precedent for this approach:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." Adolf Hitler

[grad_devil]

Because I'm Mark Emmert and want UNC to skate.

Mark Emmert != Roger Goodell.

Emmert does not have a seat on the Committee on Infractions, and while he may pass his wishes along to NCAA staff, they don't have a seat on the committee either.

[arnie]

Because I'm Mark Emmert and want UNC to skate.

Intuition.

Totally agree and have for last few years. Swofford is too strong an ally and he also has a lot to lose. Probation and maybe loss of a scholarship is my prediction. People will scream and then forget.