UNC Athletics Scandal: Roy/Hat lying to recruits

[swood1000]

I'm not attempting to assign some concept of value to anything. I imagine that if a student researched and wrote a thoughtful paper, regardless of the environment in which this paper was written, some value was derived from the process. I would further assume that, if this process was done, the student likely learned something. That's not really what we're talking about.

My question is: what constitutes a legitimate college course that is satisfactory to provide credit toward a degree/athletic eligibility? Is it enough that, despite having affiliation with ZERO professorial staff in a position to develop a syllabus, assign work, evaluate work, and assign a grade, one or more students (claim to have) completed some type of work? Is that enough--perhaps it is enough if the UNC administration says it is (despite this clearly not meeting their own codified standards for courses)? Or, instead, does a legitimate college course require that elements of instruction and authorized evaluation take place?

My analogy, although possibly misguided, sought to point out that just because someone did some type of work, doesn't mean that the work they did was worthy of college credit. Especially under the premise that whomever assigned and/or evaluated their work was in no authorized position to do so. What if, at some point in the (hypothetical) future, it was revealed that Debby Crowder didn't actually read any of the papers, but instead provided grades purely arbitrarily? Would the fact that some students still wrote papers suggest that college credit was earned? Would a case-by-case determination still be warranted?

Is there a question involved here about which reasonable people can disagree: whether the fact that there is no faculty member grading the papers means that each such paper must be treated the same as no work being done at all for NCAA purposes? UNC would argue that if the student is making a good-faith effort, involving significant time, then there is no benefit to the SA in terms of reduction of workload, or no detriment in terms of educational value lost (though it might be lessened), so why must it be treated the same as getting credit for doing nothing?

[sagegrouse]

Is there a question involved here about which reasonable people can disagree: whether the fact that there is no faculty member grading the papers means that each such paper must be treated the same as no work being done at all for NCAA purposes? UNC would argue that if the student is making a good-faith effort, involving significant time, then there is no benefit to the SA in terms of reduction of workload, or no detriment in terms of educational value lost (though it might be lessened), so why must it be treated the same as getting credit for doing nothing?

I am probably thick, but in terms of the issue at hand:

1. Over 700 athletes over ten years took courses and received academic credit for courses were totally at variance with UNC academic policy and with any common-sense understanding of what college is about.
2. They were created, ran and graded by an administrative assistant with no faculty status or qualifications.
3. They were treated as 400-level courses, even though the enrollees in many instances had minimal academic preparation.
4. There was no faculty involvement or oversight.
5. While non-athletes took such courses, the irregular courses were clearly on the record created for athletes with academic difficulties.
6. There is evidence that officials in the athletic department were aware of these courses.
7. The "smoking gun" briefing chart showed the Academic Support Center, which is supervised formally by the academic side of UNC, was fully aware and participated in creating the fraudulent courses.
8. Even if the courses were consistent with UNC written academic policy, due to various loopholes, the SACSOC, in technical terms has "had a cow" over the practices and given UNC its strongest penalty.
9. The NCAA, which has its own lawyers, has chosen to treat these gross violations -- I mean, this is a "failure to educate" case -- as "impermissible benefits" to athletes rather than serve as judge and jury of questionable academic practices.

I continue to believe that UNC is in a "world of hurt" with respect to future NCAA penalties, but we shall see. Come to think about it, I don't really disagree with what either of you is saying, but it helps me to return to the 40,000-foot view.

Sage

[swood1000]

I am probably thick, but in terms of the issue at hand:

1. Over 700 athletes over ten years took courses and received academic credit for courses were totally at variance with UNC academic policy and with any common-sense understanding of what college is about.
2. They were created, ran and graded by an administrative assistant with no faculty status or qualifications.
3. They were treated as 400-level courses, even though the enrollees in many instances had minimal academic preparation.
4. There was no faculty involvement or oversight.
5. While non-athletes took such courses, the irregular courses were clearly on the record created for athletes with academic difficulties.
6. There is evidence that officials in the athletic department were aware of these courses.
7. The "smoking gun" briefing chart showed the Academic Support Center, which is supervised formally by the academic side of UNC, was fully aware and participated in creating the fraudulent courses.
8. Even if the courses were consistent with UNC written academic policy, due to various loopholes, the SACSOC, in technical terms has "had a cow" over the practices and given UNC its strongest penalty.
9. The NCAA, which has its own lawyers, has chosen to treat these gross violations -- I mean, this is a "failure to educate" case -- as "impermissible benefits" to athletes rather than serve as judge and jury of questionable academic practices.

I continue to believe that UNC is in a "world of hurt" with respect to future NCAA penalties, but we shall see. Come to think about it, I don't really disagree with what either of you is saying, but it helps me to return to the 40,000-foot view.

Sage

There is no question that there are infractions galore here. No question about the "world of hurt." I just think that one reason they went with "extra benefits" instead of a charge grounded in the illegitimacy of the "Type I" classes is because proving the latter case is just a little messier and more time-consuming than they want to be bothered with if they don't have to.

[bedeviled]

the NCAA has taken the position that fraud is only fraud if an institution self-reports. Anything the NCAA finds...[SNIP]...is an impermissible academic benefit

I hear ya. I posted a while back on the cleverness of the NCAAs current allegations. Presently, swood and I have been discussing the viability of additional (insurance) allegations of academic fraud and whether or not SACS proceedings aid such allegations. And, to your point, the basic delight that I'm trying to hold onto is the following: After all their loathsome efforts to avoid the topic, if UNC agrees with SACS that it committed academic fraud, won't they have to self-report it to the NCAA, thus making the case against themselves?

So it looks like SACS and UNC had been on the same page in looking at these activities as fraud prior to the Wainstein Report. The change after that was that SACS realized that it hadn't been limited to just two people.

My reading of the situation/documents is that knowledge of untoward activities was present pre-Wainstein, but the activities were not determined to be 'fraud' until post-Wainstein. This is reflected in the section of your chosen quote highlighting the new evidence that degrees were not earned appropriately, which is contrary to UNC's previous declarations to SACS. Even if your reading is correct, though, I still appear to be more convinced than you that NCAA allegations of academic fraud would be strengthened by the latest SACS round, provided that the SACS report does include statements of findings rather than only being directives for the future.

The November 13, 2014 (post Wainstein) letter from SACS mentions "fraud" two times

Acknowledged. Still, the recent SACS correspondence and UNC's response are the first times that a regulatory body or UNC, itself, has referred to its actions as fraud. (After all, the Wainstein report was just one man's opinion, right? )
I *think* you might argue that UNC will find a way to say, "it constituted academic fraud as it pertains to our relationship with SACS but does not count as fraud as it would be understood within our relationship to the NCAA." Perhaps it would go down like this:
UNC uses one side of their mouth to tell the NCAA "Oh, yes, we did agree with SACS that it was fraud...because the teaching was deficient, which isn't your concern, especially since non-athletes took the classes, too" while, out of the other side of their mouth, UNC is telling SACS, "Yes, it's terrible. We understand that students were given unearned credit because grades had no relationship to work done and the course was not appropriate for higher education."
I happen to think the NCAA could see through that and prosecute effectively (if they wanted to). I haven't figured out a more substantial reasoning for UNC other than talking out of two sides of their mouth, a tactic which usually unravels due to documentation and inconsistencies.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if UNC takes a look at verbage like this:

The subcommittee confirmed that an institution is required to report a violation of Bylaw 10.1-(b) any time an institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant) is knowingly involved in arranging fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or enrolled student-athlete, regardless of whether the institutional staff member acted alone or in concert with the prospective or enrolled student-athlete

and says, "Well, it is fraud that is relevant to the NCAA, but we don't have to report it because, now that we've found the fraud, the individual is a former athlete, rather than prospective or enrolled. What's done is done; we can't change the past. Let's move forward." Are there any precedents for academic integrity issues that were found after the athlete left the school?

[swood1000]

I hear ya. I posted a while back on the cleverness of the NCAAs current allegations. Presently, swood and I have been discussing the viability of additional (insurance) allegations of academic fraud and whether or not SACS proceedings aid such allegations. And, to your point, the basic delight that I'm trying to hold onto is the following: After all their loathsome efforts to avoid the topic, if UNC agrees with SACS that it committed academic fraud, won't they have to self-report it to the NCAA, thus making the case against themselves?

The difference you and I continue to have is that you believe that SACS will be conducting a sort of quasi-trial (like the NCAA willl do), where offenses are charged and guilt is determined. You believe that a determination of guilt by SACS will aid the NCAA case. But I think that all SACS is going to do is assert that such and such actions took place. Those actions will be news to nobody since SACS is not going to be conducting a new investigation. It's just going to reiterate what was found by Wainstein and ask UNC to provide assurance that such actions will not take place again. If UNC can do so SACS will be happy and take them off probation. There won't be anything to self-report to the NCAA because no new actions will be uncovered. Since there will not be a new investigation there will not be any findings. And even if SACS characterizes these activities as fraud that doesn't help the NCAA. That's just somebody's opinion, and besides, when SACS says "fraud" are they talking about an offense having all the elements that the NCAA must prove in order to establish fraud for their purposes?

[BigWayne]

They are turning on each other over in Chapel Hill.

Why has a contract extension been awarded to the men’s coach but not to the Hall of Fame women’s basketball coach?

Best part of it though is the comment from one David Kuo, which starts with:

UNC is the modern plantation. In America today can you think of a more institutionally misogynistic and racist entity than UNC? This latest attempt to save men’s basketball only provides further evidence for this truth. Everything and everyone must be sacrificed to save the men’s basketball program and somehow preserve the reputation of Dean Smith. Having already thrown their academic reputation into the flames along with a number of low-level staffers (all women and/or minorities), the old white guys running the Ram’s Club have decided that Sylvia Hatchell will be the next sacrifice offered up.




Oh BTW - check the main page at http://www.dailytarheel.com/
In the upper right, they have a countdown clock to when the UNC response to the NCAA NOA is due.

[devildeac]

They are turning on each other over in Chapel Hill.

Why has a contract extension been awarded to the men’s coach but not to the Hall of Fame women’s basketball coach?

Best part of it though is the comment from one David Kuo, which starts with:

UNC is the modern plantation. In America today can you think of a more institutionally misogynistic and racist entity than UNC? This latest attempt to save men’s basketball only provides further evidence for this truth. Everything and everyone must be sacrificed to save the men’s basketball program and somehow preserve the reputation of Dean Smith. Having already thrown their academic reputation into the flames along with a number of low-level staffers (all women and/or minorities), the old white guys running the Ram’s Club have decided that Sylvia Hatchell will be the next sacrifice offered up.




Oh BTW - check the main page at http://www.dailytarheel.com/
In the upper right, they have a countdown clock to when the UNC response to the NCAA NOA is due.

Nice find. I like the fact that the clock is ticking but ol' roy can't use the f*ur c*rners, incessant fouling (many uncalled) or any of his sequestered timeouts in this situation.

[bedeviled]

But I think that all SACS is going to do is assert that such and such actions took place

I agree that SACS will not have an investigation, trial, or uncover new findings. It looks like I speculate beyond your position in that I think
- SACS is likely to use the term 'fraud' when referring to those actions
- the change in nomenclature to 'fraud' from UNC's previous terms du jour is important
- it would strengthen the NCAA's academic fraud case if SACS and UNC determine the activities to be fraud

How much easier a case would be depends on the details of how it all goes down or doesn't (eg are unearned grades included in the activities that UNC refers to as fraud), but I think you probably have a good idea of my perspective...for whatever it's worth, as I'm a non-attorney message board poster blabbering about allegations that don't even exist [insert grumbles about offseason here].

[Indoor66]

Oh BTW - check the main page at http://www.dailytarheel.com/
In the upper right, they have a countdown clock to when the UNC response to the NCAA NOA is due.

Also check out the poll below the clock (results as of 08:15, 6/30/15):


How confident are you about a successful future for the North Carolina women's basketball team?

---

---

• Very confident. 14%
• A little confident. 0%
• Somewhat confident. 7%
• Not confident. 19%
• Everything is on fire. 60%

[swood1000]

I agree that SACS will not have an investigation, trial, or uncover new findings. It looks like I speculate beyond your position in that I think
- SACS is likely to use the term 'fraud' when referring to those actions
- the change in nomenclature to 'fraud' from UNC's previous terms du jour is important
- it would strengthen the NCAA's academic fraud case if SACS and UNC determine the activities to be fraud

How much easier a case would be depends on the details of how it all goes down or doesn't (eg are unearned grades included in the activities that UNC refers to as fraud), but I think you probably have a good idea of my perspective...for whatever it's worth, as I'm a non-attorney message board poster blabbering about allegations that don't even exist [insert grumbles about offseason here].

If the NCAA can pull off the extra benefits angle they'll be able to turn all the fraud into extra benefits. That seems to be their favorite approach. It would seem to be easier to prove that something is a benefit than to prove that the quality of something falls below a level claimed to be too low.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Also check out the poll below the clock (results as of 08:15, 6/30/15):


How confident are you about a successful future for the North Carolina women's basketball team?

---

---

• Very confident. 14%
• A little confident. 0%
• Somewhat confident. 7%
• Not confident. 19%
• Everything is on fire. 60%

Of course everything's on fire. It is Hell, after all.

[devildeac]

Of course everything's on fire. It is Hell, after all.

Hell? Well, here ya go:

[OldPhiKap]

As much as I detest UNC, I would have to admit that those who live in the Triangle or in NC have a big advantage in this category. For the last 25 or 30 years, my distaste has been at a distance and I do not live among The Anointed Ones Who Do Things The Carolina Way. So I gladly concede that I am not in the running for this. Although I will pit the depths of my loathing against anyone.

[wsb3]

They are turning on each other over in Chapel Hill.

Why has a contract extension been awarded to the men’s coach but not to the Hall of Fame women’s basketball coach?

Best part of it though is the comment from one David Kuo, which starts with:

UNC is the modern plantation. In America today can you think of a more institutionally misogynistic and racist entity than UNC? This latest attempt to save men’s basketball only provides further evidence for this truth. Everything and everyone must be sacrificed to save the men’s basketball program and somehow preserve the reputation of Dean Smith. Having already thrown their academic reputation into the flames along with a number of low-level staffers (all women and/or minorities), the old white guys running the Ram’s Club have decided that Sylvia Hatchell will be the next sacrifice offered up.




Oh BTW - check the main page at http://www.dailytarheel.com/
In the upper right, they have a countdown clock to when the UNC response to the NCAA NOA is due.

Wow. The comments are priceless. I mentioned before that I have a hard time seeing Sylvia Hatchell just walk away into the night & be the fall guy for UNC...I know they will pay her a lot of money but she has always struck me as so combative, so defiant...There are too many posters with better memory than I but isn't this the same woman that when Coach G had Duke rolling & they beat UNC 3 times in a season & yet Hatchell was defiant in post game about how they were the better team?

If this plays out where Men's Bball skates & she & her program take the blunt of the penalties when anyone with half of a brain knows this was not created to keep women's basketball players eligible..Some day she will explode.

[swood1000]

Wow. The comments are priceless. I mentioned before that I have a hard time seeing Sylvia Hatchell just walk away into the night & be the fall guy for UNC...I know they will pay her a lot of money but she has always struck me as so combative, so defiant...There are too many posters with better memory than I but isn't this the same woman that when Coach G had Duke rolling & they beat UNC 3 times in a season & yet Hatchell was defiant in post game about how they were the better team?

If this plays out where Men's Bball skates & she & her program take the blunt of the penalties when anyone with half of a brain knows this was not created to keep women's basketball players eligible..Some day she will explode.

The difference is that with the women they have the smoking gun (Boxill and her activities). It will be interesting to see whether this translates into harsher penalties since it seems really to be simply that Boxill was not as adept at covering her tracks and lacked the guile of some of the others.

[JStuart]

I hear ya. I posted a while back on the cleverness of the NCAAs current allegations. Presently, swood and I have been discussing the viability of additional (insurance) allegations of academic fraud and whether or not SACS proceedings aid such allegations. And, to your point, the basic delight that I'm trying to hold onto is the following: After all their loathsome efforts to avoid the topic, if UNC agrees with SACS that it committed academic fraud, won't they have to self-report it to the NCAA, thus making the case against themselves?

My reading of the situation/documents is that knowledge of untoward activities was present pre-Wainstein, but the activities were not determined to be 'fraud' until post-Wainstein. This is reflected in the section of your chosen quote highlighting the new evidence that degrees were not earned appropriately, which is contrary to UNC's previous declarations to SACS. Even if your reading is correct, though, I still appear to be more convinced than you that NCAA allegations of academic fraud would be strengthened by the latest SACS round, provided that the SACS report does include statements of findings rather than only being directives for the future.

Acknowledged. Still, the recent SACS correspondence and UNC's response are the first times that a regulatory body or UNC, itself, has referred to its actions as fraud. (After all, the Wainstein report was just one man's opinion, right? )
I *think* you might argue that UNC will find a way to say, "it constituted academic fraud as it pertains to our relationship with SACS but does not count as fraud as it would be understood within our relationship to the NCAA." Perhaps it would go down like this:
UNC uses one side of their mouth to tell the NCAA "Oh, yes, we did agree with SACS that it was fraud...because the teaching was deficient, which isn't your concern, especially since non-athletes took the classes, too" while, out of the other side of their mouth, UNC is telling SACS, "Yes, it's terrible. We understand that students were given unearned credit because grades had no relationship to work done and the course was not appropriate for higher education."
I happen to think the NCAA could see through that and prosecute effectively (if they wanted to). I haven't figured out a more substantial reasoning for UNC other than talking out of two sides of their mouth, a tactic which usually unravels due to documentation and inconsistencies.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if UNC takes a look at verbage like this:and says, "Well, it is fraud that is relevant to the NCAA, but we don't have to report it because, now that we've found the fraud, the individual is a former athlete, rather than prospective or enrolled. What's done is done; we can't change the past. Let's move forward." Are there any precedents for academic integrity issues that were found after the athlete left the school?

This may not be absolutely in response to your initial discussion of the 1st time use of the 'fraud' term, and I can't locate the posting -possibly not yours- that raised the idea that the NCAA had never used the term 'fraud' with unc before. It took me a few days, but I finally located my file of the 1st NCAA penalty report, and the first paragraph is as follows:
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT
MARCH 12, 2012
A. INTRODUCTION.
On October 28, 2011, officials from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a
former assistant football coach ("former assistant coach") along with his legal counsel
appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations of
NCAA violations in the institution's football program.
The violations in this case fell into three categories: 1) a former tutor committing
academic fraud with student-athletes and providing impermissible benefits to studentathletes;
2) the provision of impermissible benefits to student-athletes by various
individuals, including sports agents and their associates; and 3) unethical conduct by the
former assistant coach. From the 2008-09 academic year into 2010, the former tutor
committed multiple major violations involving football student-athletes at the institution.
During the 2008-09 academic year and the summer of 2009, the former tutor engaged in
academic fraud with and on behalf of three football student-athletes ("student-athletes 1,...

No, they didn't cite ACADEMIC FRAUD as a penalty later in the document, but doesn't it look good
up there in the first category? (emphasis added by me)
JStuart

[Indoor66]

This may not be absolutely in response to your initial discussion of the 1st time use of the 'fraud' term, and I can't locate the posting -possibly not yours- that raised the idea that the NCAA had never used the term 'fraud' with unc before. It took me a few days, but I finally located my file of the 1st NCAA penalty report, and the first paragraph is as follows:
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL
PUBLIC INFRACTIONS REPORT
MARCH 12, 2012
A. INTRODUCTION.
On October 28, 2011, officials from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a
former assistant football coach ("former assistant coach") along with his legal counsel
appeared before the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions to address allegations of
NCAA violations in the institution's football program.
The violations in this case fell into three categories: 1) a former tutor committing
academic fraud with student-athletes and providing impermissible benefits to studentathletes;
2) the provision of impermissible benefits to student-athletes by various
individuals, including sports agents and their associates; and 3) unethical conduct by the
former assistant coach. From the 2008-09 academic year into 2010, the former tutor
committed multiple major violations involving football student-athletes at the institution.
During the 2008-09 academic year and the summer of 2009, the former tutor engaged in
academic fraud with and on behalf of three football student-athletes ("student-athletes 1,...

No, they didn't cite ACADEMIC FRAUD as a penalty later in the document, but doesn't it look good
up there in the first category? (emphasis added by me)
JStuart

It also looks good in conjunction with the repeat offender issues.

[BigWayne]

In another sign that national understanding of the UNC scandal is taking deep roots, check this paragraph from an article on Texas' investigations.

Martez Walker, P.J. Tucker and J'Covan Brown are the former UT players named in the story. Their methods of alleged cheating came in different ways and at different points over the past nine years. Unlike the North Carolina scandal, which involved staff members, tutors, department chairs and a culture of widespread academic fraud, the Texas case appears to be a few players perhaps trying to get by on their own nefarious means (if said nefarious behavior even definitively happened).

[BigWayne]

WSJ doing some digging in Chapel Hill.

Requester Organization:
The Wall Street Journal
Description:
"I would like to request copies of any and all communications between UNC officials (including officials in the Office of the President or the Athletic Department) regarding tickets to football or basketball events for members of Congress or their legislative aides from Jan. 1, 2012 to the present."

[neemizzle]

As much as I detest UNC, I would have to admit that those who live in the Triangle or in NC have a big advantage in this category. For the last 25 or 30 years, my distaste has been at a distance and I do not live among The Anointed Ones Who Do Things The Carolina Way. So I gladly concede that I am not in the running for this. Although I will pit the depths of my loathing against anyone.

So you're saying being around these "Carolina" fans around here are an advantage to be around? Because I live here (and am a youth pastor in Durham) and it's definitely not an advantage. Hahaha. It's funny. Most people say, "you're a pastor, and you pull for the Devils?" My response is always "YUP, at least I'm not in Chapel H*ll..I mean Hill..."

UNC fans in the area are starting to either a) completely get disgusted with this entire process and insist they've done nothing wrong or my favorite, b) know they're in trouble, and know that UNC has to pay for it.

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. That's what it feels like to them.

It sure does feel nice in the Promised Land with the title this year, doesn't it?