UNC Athletics Scandal: Roy/Hat lying to recruits

[JasonEvans]

So basically, in 45 days, can we anticipate a response, or do we think it'll be sooner? My money is on sooner. Just rip the bandaid off, and quit pulling it off slowly.

Carolina is trying to slow the process as much as they can. There is no chance we get a response even one day before it is due. Carolina is hoping to ensure the penalties are not handed down until after the college basketball season is complete next spring because they think they have a real shot at a national title.

But, if the hoops team struggles and appears to be a Sweet 16 team at the best, I won't be shocked if Carolina pulls a Syracuse and tries to placate the NCAA by imposing their own post-season ban. The same thing could happen if the football team looks like a lower-tier bowl team.

-Jason "it would probably take a couple key injuries for Carolina to think the hoops team has no chance -- they are really convinced this coming season will be magical for them" Evans

[moonpie23]

tries to placate the NCAA by imposing their own post-season ban.

they are laughing way too hard at the NCAA for any such thing to happen...

if they can just get to the title game, the ncaa would be hobbled in doing ANYTHING to them...

[Kedsy]

if they can just get to the title game, the ncaa would be hobbled in doing ANYTHING to them...

Why?

[moonpie23]

i don't think the ncaa would hammer one of the final four immediately before, during, or immediately after the finals...

[MarkD83]

i don't think the ncaa would hammer one of the final four immediately before, during, or immediately after the finals...

Actually, it would be fitting for UNC to start to fall apart in January, try to self-impose sanctions and then have the NCAA hammer them.

[Kedsy]

i don't think the ncaa would hammer one of the final four immediately before, during, or immediately after the finals...

They did it to Memphis not long after the 2008 finals, didn't they?

[Olympic Fan]

i don't think the ncaa would hammer one of the final four immediately before, during, or immediately after the finals...

Actually, I think that depends a lot on the national narrative.

The NCAA is under a lot of national pressure to come down hard on UNC. The narrative right now -- widespread in the national press -- is that UNC has been caught with the worst cheating scandal in NCAA history. That's repeated in dozens of stories -- almost any time another school is spotlighted for violations, it's compared to the UNC mess.

Will that change over the course of the season as UNC makes it's run at the title and the NCAA decision on UNC approaches? I know that ESPN (with an UNC grad at the helm) will continue to treat UNC with kid gloves and that when the tournament starts, CBS will maintain its see-no-evil, hear-to-evil approach to off-court issues. But the multitude of the media will be all over the story -- pressuring the NCAA to take decisive action. I can just imagine Mark Emmert's Final Four press conference if UNC is involved and the issue has not been resolved.

I'm also a bit wary about the timetable. I agree with Jason that UNC is doing its best to stretch this out past the 2016 national title game. But even with every delay possible, the initial NCAA ruling should come in February. I know that UNC can appeal any decision and that will likely delay implementation of penalties past the Final Four, but if they are subject to major sanctions, it's going to make the Final Four a mess.

Personally, I don't think UNC's success or failure this season impacts their penalties (I say plural because I think it's clear they are hammered in multiple sports).

The one thing I do think works in their favor is the NCAA's historical reluctance to take down a national championship banner. As I read the Syracuse report, it's amazing the hoops they jump through to avoid pulling down the 2003 national title banner. They've never done it -- Final Four banners have come down (twice for John Calipari), but never a national title. As I read the NOA for UNC, I think it's crafted to protect the UNC title banners. They may forfeit games in the past -- maybe many games -- and they will almost certainly get penalties going forward, but I'm going to guess that even with all the evidence about players taking fake classes in 2005 and 2009, the NCAA won't touch those banners.

[Indoor66]

Actually, I think that depends a lot on the national narrative.

The NCAA is under a lot of national pressure to come down hard on UNC. The narrative right now -- widespread in the national press -- is that UNC has been caught with the worst cheating scandal in NCAA history. That's repeated in dozens of stories -- almost any time another school is spotlighted for violations, it's compared to the UNC mess.

Will that change over the course of the season as UNC makes it's run at the title and the NCAA decision on UNC approaches? I know that ESPN (with an UNC grad at the helm) will continue to treat UNC with kid gloves and that when the tournament starts, CBS will maintain its see-no-evil, hear-to-evil approach to off-court issues. But the multitude of the media will be all over the story -- pressuring the NCAA to take decisive action. I can just imagine Mark Emmert's Final Four press conference if UNC is involved and the issue has not been resolved.

I'm also a bit wary about the timetable. I agree with Jason that UNC is doing its best to stretch this out past the 2016 national title game. But even with every delay possible, the initial NCAA ruling should come in February. I know that UNC can appeal any decision and that will likely delay implementation of penalties past the Final Four, but if they are subject to major sanctions, it's going to make the Final Four a mess.

Personally, I don't think UNC's success or failure this season impacts their penalties (I say plural because I think it's clear they are hammered in multiple sports).

The one thing I do think works in their favor is the NCAA's historical reluctance to take down a national championship banner. As I read the Syracuse report, it's amazing the hoops they jump through to avoid pulling down the 2003 national title banner. They've never done it -- Final Four banners have come down (twice for John Calipari), but never a national title. As I read the NOA for UNC, I think it's crafted to protect the UNC title banners. They may forfeit games in the past -- maybe many games -- and they will almost certainly get penalties going forward, but I'm going to guess that even with all the evidence about players taking fake classes in 2005 and 2009, the NCAA won't touch those banners.

I have to disagree with your last paragraph. In this instance the offenses are so egregious that the banners will go. Also, I don't think the final four in 2016 will be an issue. uncheat will not be there.

[westwall]

Actually, I think that depends a lot on the national narrative.

Will that change over the course of the season as UNC makes it's run at the title and the NCAA decision on UNC approaches? I know that ESPN (with an UNC grad at the helm) will continue to treat UNC with kid gloves and that when the tournament starts, CBS will maintain its see-no-evil, hear-to-evil approach to off-court issues. But the multitude of the media will be all over the story -- pressuring the NCAA to take decisive action. I can just imagine Mark Emmert's Final Four press conference if UNC is involved and the issue has not been resolved..

--- Not entirely. I recall a CBS segment -- probably during a halftime -- several months ago in which Seth Davis and Doug Gottlieb spoke at length about the seriousness of UNC's infractions and possible penalties, and Gottlieb added "Of course Roy knew". (Nothing even close on ESPN)

[Kedsy]

I know that UNC can appeal any decision and that will likely delay implementation of penalties past the Final Four, but if they are subject to major sanctions, it's going to make the Final Four a mess.

I'm with Indoor66 on this one. I'm not particularly worried about UNC messing up the Final Four by playing in it.

[CarmenWallaceWade]

N&O article: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...e26081044.html

I didn't see this already posted and don't know if this is "news", but this move suggests that either Fedora / Williams have received credible information that has made them feel confident about any punishment falling outside of their programs, or they are rolling the dice on a desired outcome to desperately try and to stop the bleeding.

[Kedsy]

N&O article: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...e26081044.html

I didn't see this already posted and don't know if this is "news", but this move suggests that either Fedora / Williams have received credible information that has made them feel confident about any punishment falling outside of their programs, or they are rolling the dice on a desired outcome to desperately try and to stop the bleeding.

They're just saying whatever they think they need to, in order to convince recruits to come. I don't think it's possible that there is any credible inside information on the potential sanctions, much less any inside information that the NCAA would share with the school being investigated.

[BD80]

N&O article: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...e26081044.html

I didn't see this already posted and don't know if this is "news", but this move suggests that either Fedora / Williams have received credible information that has made them feel confident about any punishment falling outside of their programs, or they are rolling the dice on a desired outcome to desperately try and to stop the bleeding.

Human nature. Tell a client something will cost $1,000 to $5,000, and they will only remember you said $1,000. Tell a client that they have a decent shot at winning a case but they could likely lose significant money, and they will later claim that you told them they would win.

[sagegrouse]

N&O article: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...e26081044.html

I didn't see this already posted and don't know if this is "news", but this move suggests that either Fedora / Williams have received credible information that has made them feel confident about any punishment falling outside of their programs, or they are rolling the dice on a desired outcome to desperately try and to stop the bleeding.

I think it means they are either (a) saying what they feel they have to say to get recruits by lying through their teeth or (b) having trouble grasping the true situation due to their self-interest. With regard to the latter, I have previously quoted Sinclair Lewis: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[TruBlu]

Actually, I think that depends a lot on the national narrative.

The one thing I do think works in their favor is the NCAA's historical reluctance to take down a national championship banner. As I read the Syracuse report, it's amazing the hoops they jump through to avoid pulling down the 2003 national title banner. They've never done it -- Final Four banners have come down (twice for John Calipari), but never a national title. As I read the NOA for UNC, I think it's crafted to protect the UNC title banners. They may forfeit games in the past -- maybe many games -- and they will almost certainly get penalties going forward, but I'm going to guess that even with all the evidence about players taking fake classes in 2005 and 2009, the NCAA won't touch those banners.

USC did lose their National Championship for Football in 2004, but I think the title was officially stripped by the BCS, and not by the NCAA (after the the appeal of NCAA rulings by USC was denied).

[Olympic Fan]

USC did lose their National Championship for Football in 2004, but I think the title was officially stripped by the BCS, and not by the NCAA (after the the appeal of NCAA rulings by USC was denied).

The NCAA doesn't award national titles in BCS level football, so there was no title to strip.

I know Fedora and Williams are telling recruits that there will be no sanctions in football or basketball, but there is no basis for that assertion. The NOA specifically noted that UNC used numerous ineligible athletes in those sports. I think every credible outside source I've read or talked to believes differently.

PA I also agree with indoor66 and kedsy that UNC is a longshot for the 2016 Final Four. I keep saying that they are going to be a borderline top 10 team next year. Now, such a team could get a favorable draw and reach the Final Four, but the odds are against them.

Virginia, not UNC, should be the ACC preseason favorite.

[Olympic Fan]

Sorry to double-post, but I just came across this fascinating thread on PackPride:

http://www.scout.com/college/north-c...e-on-billboard

Apparently, Chaz Surratt (who just flipped his commitment to UNC) and his brother are featured on a billboard that promotes a UNC dental grad. Not saying that's proof of anything wrong, but anybody who followed the PJ Hairston/Leslie McDonald scandal closely knows that the UNC dental foundation is neck deep in UNC's illegal benefits program (Fats had an office in the clinic of two of the ringleaders).

Not sure when the billboard went up (before or after he switched to NC?) ... and it's not clear whether or not the two brothers received any compensation for promoting the dentist (which would threaten their amateur status).

Just saying it's interesting.

[moonpie23]

i was at the Eno festival today and i really noticed a huge decrease in UNC gear....i think i only saw 2 or three people with unc gear on...


LOTS of duke gear....

[SilkyJ]

They're just saying whatever they think they need to, in order to convince recruits to come. I don't think it's possible that there is any credible inside information on the potential sanctions, much less any inside information that the NCAA would share with the school being investigated.

Agreed, there's just no way they can know. They may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is a very good chance they won't face sanctions, but there's no way to be certain. None of us can be certain what the sanctions will or won't be. Which is why I found this quote interesting:

Coach Fedora told me he talked to an attorney -- like, football won't be touched by that...So I just trusted him and I knew he wouldn't lie to me or anything like that. The coaches said that their lawyers told them 100% the football team won't be touched.

I mean who are these attorneys that are guaranteeing no sanctions?? Or is Fedora just making this up?? They probably do have attorney's that are telling them its at least possible they won't be affected...they may even have some laywers telling them its very likely they won't be affected, but how could any reasonable attorney tell them there's 0% chance of sanctions?! If football is affected, how does Fedora walk this back?? He's going out on a big, sleezy limb and I almost feel bad for recruits who believe his BS.

Guaranteeing no sanctions means he's either a) duping recruits, or b) the attorneys in question are really bad. I guess neither should come as a surprise, they really are doing some sleezy stuff over there...I'm just surprised recruits still aren't wise to this stuff. You think they'd do some homework. You don't ask the defendant in a murder trial if he's guilty and then when he says "No" just believe him.

[PackMan97]

Guaranteeing no sanctions means he's either a) duping recruits, or b) the attorneys in question are really bad. I guess neither should come as a surprise, they really are doing some sleezy stuff over there...I'm just surprised recruits still aren't wise to this stuff. You think they'd do some homework. You don't ask the defendant in a murder trial if he's guilty and then when he says "No" just believe him.

Or the attorneys are only given part of the information. I also find the attorney part laughable because should any athlete decide to sue, I'm certain "attorney-client" privileged will come into play should any of these athletes regret their decision enough to investigate a legal claim.

Remember when Carolina hired "experts" to debunk Mary Willingham's claims. They were given very little information (not even all of what Mary looked at) and said, given this very limited information, can you answer some very leading questions that are worded such to force the answer.