UNC Athletics Scandal: New Violations Delay NOA Response

[devildeac]

Once again, thanks, Chip:

http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/d...hp?id=1984&t=1

[BigWayne]

Bob Lee takes down Chansky's latest misguided screed.

Bonus that you can see Chansky's ramblings without giving him a click.

This go-round the Art-ful Dodger bemoans (again) that UNC EVER opened itself up to Wainstein. THAT, claims AC, was the Biggest Mistake UNC made ….. not all the Football locker room shenanigans…. not all the Julius crap…. not all the Jennifer The Tutor crap.

Art is certainly NOT the only UNC Insider that blames “ever letting an investigator “in” to snoop around” as The #1 Mistake. I’ve heard one UNC insider (not Art) even say “The Corleone Family would NEVER do that”. I confess I double-taken at that. Maybe not the best comparable to use, but then again, maybe it was.

Whatever film flammery and shady shadow scheming was going-on for 20 years was: …. “everybody does it” sorta stuff and besides “We ARE Carolina” and Anything We Do is Pure and Good because We Do It…. and besides Dean recruited Charlie Scott.”

[OldPhiKap]

Bob Lee takes down Chansky's latest misguided screed.

Bonus that you can see Chansky's ramblings without giving him a click.

This go-round the Art-ful Dodger bemoans (again) that UNC EVER opened itself up to Wainstein. THAT, claims AC, was the Biggest Mistake UNC made ….. not all the Football locker room shenanigans…. not all the Julius crap…. not all the Jennifer The Tutor crap.

Art is certainly NOT the only UNC Insider that blames “ever letting an investigator “in” to snoop around” as The #1 Mistake. I’ve heard one UNC insider (not Art) even say “The Corleone Family would NEVER do that”. I confess I double-taken at that. Maybe not the best comparable to use, but then again, maybe it was.

Whatever film flammery and shady shadow scheming was going-on for 20 years was: …. “everybody does it” sorta stuff and besides “We ARE Carolina” and Anything We Do is Pure and Good because We Do It…. and besides Dean recruited Charlie Scott.”

"And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids. . . ."

-Ghost of Dean Smith that turns out to be, well, about everyone in the UNC athletic department apparently.

[FerryFor50]

No, other than starting the scam....

Come on. Dean was just helping these poor student athletes out of the goodness of his heart...

[BigWayne]

N&O editorial calling out the heels for not holding Roy to the same standard as Sylvia.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is already facing enough allegations in its academic and athletic fraud scandal to make it one of the broadest sets of charges against an athletic program in NCAA history. Somehow, however, the university’s leadership has found a way to add an entirely new allegation to the mess – sexism.

....

Some have rallied to Hatchell’s defense, saying she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players. But Hatchell’s troubles are of her own making. She either knew or should have known about the fraud. That the same isn’t expected of Williams and that his contract renewal wasn’t likewise held in abeyance until the NCAA acts are an obvious double standard.

[swood1000]

N&O editorial calling out the heels for not holding Roy to the same standard as Sylvia.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is already facing enough allegations in its academic and athletic fraud scandal to make it one of the broadest sets of charges against an athletic program in NCAA history. Somehow, however, the university’s leadership has found a way to add an entirely new allegation to the mess – sexism.

....

Some have rallied to Hatchell’s defense, saying she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players. But Hatchell’s troubles are of her own making. She either knew or should have known about the fraud. That the same isn’t expected of Williams and that his contract renewal wasn’t likewise held in abeyance until the NCAA acts are an obvious double standard.

The piece has "double standard" in the title but then in the body it points out that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated in that sanctions for Sylvia's team appear much more certain:

Hatchell’s contract was not renewed, and Cunningham has little to say about her status. The longtime academic adviser to the women’s basketball program, Jan Boxill, is directly implicated in the fraud in the NCAA’s notice of allegations, and the women’s basketball program could face heavy penalties. In that event, Hatchell would almost certainly have to go. Not renewing her contract could limit any eventual expense to the university.

In light of likely penalties, Cunningham’s deferring a renewal is sensible. ...

The suggestion of a "double standard" while at the same time negating that suggestion makes it seem as if writing an inflammatory article was the main goal here.

[BigWayne]

The piece has "double standard" in the title but then in the body it points out that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated in that sanctions for Sylvia's team appear much more certain:

The suggestion of a "double standard" while at the same time negating that suggestion makes it seem as if writing an inflammatory article was the main goal here.

I imagine that there was debate at the N&O about how to write it all up. They do state "both had players deeply involved in the bogus classes that moved the NCAA to level five major allegations against the university." They also state "she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players." However, they fell short of stating that the men's team should expect sanctions. It's not that they state that the women's team is more likely to get sanctions than the men's team. They just don't really address at all the expectation of the men's team getting or not getting sanctions. There are probably still some at the N&O that are buying into the PR machine story of Roy being in the clear and the compromise was to just ignore that topic.

[Duvall]

The piece has "double standard" in the title but then in the body it points out that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated in that sanctions for Sylvia's team appear much more certain:

The suggestion of a "double standard" while at the same time negating that suggestion makes it seem as if writing an inflammatory article was the main goal here.

That assumes that the eventual NCAA sanctions are the appropriate standard for UNC to use in assessing the culpability and responsibility of its head coaches.

[Atlanta Duke]

That assumes that the eventual NCAA sanctions are the appropriate standard for UNC to use in assessing the culpability and responsibility of its head coaches.

The employee who gets convicted or is "encouraged" to enter a guilty plea gets their walking papers - the senior executive who avoids indictment gets to put the unpleasantness in the rear view mirror - may not be just but that is how it often works with big time organizations

[swood1000]

That assumes that the eventual NCAA sanctions are the appropriate standard for UNC to use in assessing the culpability and responsibility of its head coaches.

No, it assumes that NCAA sanctions are the de facto standard that UNC will use. WBB doesn't have a greater degree of guilt just because Boxill wasn't as good as some others at hiding her tracks, but they may receive greater sanctions for that reason. And since the general public will associate culpability with sanctions the UNC administration will have some explaining to do if the punitive actions they take diverge a great deal from how the sanctions are distributed (unless they took the approach that both Roy and Sylvia crossed the line and must be fired). If in a criminal trial one defendant is found guilty of a felony and one of a misdemeanor, to say that the misdemeanor should result in equal punishment is to make an accusation that the trial was not credible, which doesn't tend to quiet things down. And if MBB gets lower sanctions they'll use that as a justification for letting Roy off the hook.

[swood1000]

I imagine that there was debate at the N&O about how to write it all up. They do state "both had players deeply involved in the bogus classes that moved the NCAA to level five major allegations against the university." They also state "she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players." However, they fell short of stating that the men's team should expect sanctions. It's not that they state that the women's team is more likely to get sanctions than the men's team. They just don't really address at all the expectation of the men's team getting or not getting sanctions. There are probably still some at the N&O that are buying into the PR machine story of Roy being in the clear and the compromise was to just ignore that topic.

In the section I quoted they linked "heavy penalties" with the activities of Jan Boxill and WBB. The implication is that since Boxill was not involved with MBB this is a factor that is not present with MBB, which therefore will not be subject to those particular penalties. In any event, the piece says that "In light of likely penalties, Cunningham’s deferring a renewal is sensible." Then they say that this is not equitable since they are both Hall of Fame coaches and since they probably had the same knowledge of the events.

But if person A is convicted of crime X and person B is convicted of crimes X and Y, it is not inequitable that they receive different punishments even if "everybody knows" that they both committed X and Y and that the only reason A wasn't convicted of Y was insufficient evidence.

[Henderson]

N&O editorial calling out the heels for not holding Roy to the same standard as Sylvia.

Interesting This N&O editorial follows a July 20 op-ed by a former UNC WBB player asserting (with no evidence whatsoever) disparate treatment between men's and women's b-ball teams at UNC-CH. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...e27955738.html

It seems to be a tantalizing story line looking for some factual basis. Is Sylvia working behind the scenes?

[Duvall]

In the section I quoted they linked "heavy penalties" with the activities of Jan Boxill and WBB. The implication is that since Boxill was not involved with MBB this is a factor that is not present with MBB, which therefore will not be subject to those particular penalties. In any event, the piece says that "In light of likely penalties, Cunningham’s deferring a renewal is sensible." Then they say that this is not equitable since they are both Hall of Fame coaches and since they probably had the same knowledge of the events.

But if person A is convicted of crime X and person B is convicted of crimes X and Y, it is not inequitable that they receive different punishments even if "everybody knows" that they both committed X and Y and that the only reason A wasn't convicted of Y was insufficient evidence.

Punishment from whom? There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA. (Note that neither Hatchell nor Williams is likely to be personally punished by the NCAA.) UNC has more than enough information about the academic fraud that took place with players from both programs to request and require resignations from both coaches. If only one of the two is being eased out, it's telling.

[Henderson]

If only one of the two is being eased out, it's telling.

What does it tell?

[Duke95]

Interesting This N&O editorial follows a July 20 op-ed by a former UNC WBB player asserting (with no evidence whatsoever) disparate treatment between men's and women's b-ball teams at UNC-CH. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...e27955738.html

It seems to be a tantalizing story line looking for some factual basis. Is Sylvia working behind the scenes?

What other factual basis would you like other than the facts that:

a) the fake classes started a decade before WBB really became involved
b) despite this fact, the MBB coach just received a nice contract extension and the WBB coach did not

It is patently obvious to anyone following this case that UNC has decided to throw WBB under the proverbial bus, along with any other program and its very academic integrity, in an effort to salvage the already laughable reputation of its MBB program.

[sagegrouse]

Interesting This N&O editorial follows a July 20 op-ed by a former UNC WBB player asserting (with no evidence whatsoever) disparate treatment between men's and women's b-ball teams at UNC-CH. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/...e27955738.html

It seems to be a tantalizing story line looking for some factual basis. Is Sylvia working behind the scenes?

An op-ed piece is often circulated for comment prior to submission. IMHO (where the H is silent) Sylvia almost certainly saw and commented on an essay by one of her former players in her defense. Being a head coach at any State U. is very political. It would have been a smart move for Sylvia to encourage an op-ed in her support, although Bubba would likely be mad about it. At this stage, Sylvia has nothing to lose

[wsb3]

I can't seem to navigate my way in the tech world well enough to embed the audio link to Paul's show yesterday. A caller asks if Butch Davis should have been let go.

Paul's response included that this began under Dean's watch..Of course we all know this but few in the media world seem to want to say it..

[Olympic Fan]

I can't seem to navigate my way in the tech world well enough to embed the audio link to Paul's show yesterday. A caller asks if Butch Davis should have been let go.

Paul's response included that this began under Dean's watch..Of course we all know this but few in the media world seem to want to say it..

I saw this on PackPride yesterday and spent a good deal of time looking for an audio link. I did find a link to a Butch Davis appearance on Finebaum's show earlier this week and while they did talk about the mess at UNC, Davis was very vague about the scandal and did not blame Dean at all. He did say the "issues" (I think that's the word he used) were widespread and included basketball and other sports beyond football. Dean's name was never mentioned and neither was a time frame for the scandal.

If this isn't the right segment, then I apologize ... but until somebody can link another one that does include the Dean Smith mention, I'm going to remain skeptical -- no matter how much I hope it's true.

[swood1000]

Punishment from whom? There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA. (Note that neither Hatchell nor Williams is likely to be personally punished by the NCAA.) UNC has more than enough information about the academic fraud that took place with players from both programs to request and require resignations from both coaches. If only one of the two is being eased out, it's telling.

Your position is that the evidence available is enough to fire both Roy and Sylvia and the fact that Sylvia's program may have more evidence against it is irrelevant to that. They both crossed the line. I agree with you. But for those who draw that line in different places the additional evidence against WBB does rationally suggest different treatment without there being any need to resort to sexism in order to explain it.

There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA.

Yes, but everyone is entitled to his day in court and to hear and confront the evidence against him and to have his case decided by an impartial judge. Doesn't the COI serve that function? You speak of it as if it is just a nuisance and we should just all go out and string-em-up because we can see for ourselves what's what. You refer to the "exceptionally low" standard of whether a program was sanctioned by the NCAA. But if neither Roy nor Sylvia is being personally charged by the NCAA (or has been so far) then they will not be found guilty of having personally breached even a low standard, which should be easier to prove than a higher standard. If you are not going to consider the findings and sanctions of the COI as representing a fair treatment of these activities then why not, and what forum would you suggest as an alternative?

Roy and Sylvia are also not similarly situated since Roy's program is not only a huge money maker but the source of great pride for the university (debased as it is). The university might conclude that with sanctions facing them Roy is their best option for keeping the recruits coming to UNC and that if they tried to replace him at this point they would not be able to find somebody as effective and their number one property would be damaged more than is necessary. As to Sylvia no matter what decision they make it will not have that great an impact on the university since WBB is not one of their major programs. Furthermore, the fact that WBB is going to be slammed is a done deal and they may feel as if her presence there will not help recruiting. They may also have received advice that the length of her remission is in question and they would just like to wait and see.

Furthermore they probably anticipate that WBB will be found guilty of more infractions than MBB, as many do. Allegation 2 and part of Allegation 5 relate only to WBB. And those additional infractions are qualitatively different from the ones that MBB is charged with - they involve doing the work for the students (although I certainly agree with you that making classes available that require little or no work in the first place is in the same ballpark). If Sylvia is to be accountable for the actions of Jan Boxill then there appears to be strong evidence that she is guilty of the most egregious type of academic misbehavior. On the other hand, Roy is accountable for the actions of Wayne Walden but there is no evidence that Walden was involved with doing work for students, and even his knowledge of the true character of the paper class scheme is open to different interpretations. (We'll know a lot more once we get access to the NCAA interview transcripts.)

Do you think that sexism is the best explanation for the disparate treatment UNC is giving Sylvia and Roy?

[FerryFor50]

Do you think that sexism is the best explanation for the disparate treatment UNC is giving Sylvia and Roy?

Way, way simpler than that.

$$$$$$$$$