UNC Athletics Scandal: New Violations Delay NOA Response

[PackMan97]

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

I think not giving a rats rear end about WBB is the reason for disparate treatment...that and they think their charmin soft team has a shot at a NCAA title this season.

[swood1000]

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..

Somebody made the remark that the NCAA is keeping amended allegations against Dean's tenure in reserve and as an incentive for UNC to play ball. I guess one can't blame the media for not going after Dean if the NCAA decided not to make any allegations against him.

[Olympic Fan]

More evidence that Roy is lying to recruits:
]
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/spo...e27007096.html

From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."

Apparently, SKJ is smart enough to see through the lies. The 6-10 prospect, who committed to Virginia June 2, then decommitted two weeks later, grew up in Chapel Hill, within walking distance of the Dean Dome. He grew up a UNC fan and admitted that UNC interest was behind his decision to decommit. He's ranked the No. 28 player in the Class of 2016 by Rivals ... No. 56 by ESPN.

He just committed again ... to Kentucky:

http://espn.go.com/recruiting/basket...tucky-wildcats

It's like I keep saying -- the longer the NCAA hangs over UNC's head, the longer Roy's recruiting agony will continue -- despite his lies to the kids. Let them continue to delay the final ruling ... the longer it goes, the deeper their hole becomes.

[swood1000]

From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."

Has Roy not been available to the press during all this? Why haven't they asked these questions:

Roy, the NCAA has alleged that basketball players received extra benefits:

It is alleged that beginning in the 2002 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution provided impermissible benefits to student-athletes that were not generally available to the student body. …The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball.

and the penalty for extra benefits is ineligibility:

16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. [A] A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports. (Revised: 8/7/14)

There have been many teams in the past whose wins were vacated because of the participation of players who were ineligible as a result of having received extra benefits. How can you be "100% positive" that the COI will reject allegations one and five? Is the enforcement staff in the habit of alleging infractions that they can't support? What exactly is your optimism grounded in?

[Kedsy]

There have been many teams in the past whose wins were vacated because of the participation of players who were ineligible as a result of having received extra benefits. How can you be "100% positive" that the COI will reject allegations one and five? Is the enforcement staff in the habit of alleging infractions that they can't support? What exactly is your optimism grounded in?

Why would a recruit care about past wins being vacated? Maybe Roy just said he's confident penalties affecting the future will not be levied?

Of course, even that is ludicrous.

[swood1000]

Why would a recruit care about past wins being vacated? Maybe Roy just said he's confident penalties affecting the future will not be levied?

Of course, even that is ludicrous.

Let me revise my question from the press:

Roy, the NOA alleged that the men's basketball team was involved in the receipt of extra benefits and that this was enabled by a lack of institutional control on the part of the university. Isn't it true that post-season bans and reductions of both scholarships and recruiters have often been the penalty when other universities have been found guilty of such activities? What is the source of the confidence you have expressed that such penalties will not be applied in this case?

[Tripping William]

Let me revise my question from the press:

Roy, the NOA alleged that the men's basketball team was involved in the receipt of extra benefits and that this was enabled by a lack of institutional control on the part of the university. Isn't it true that post-season bans and reductions of both scholarships and recruiters have often been the penalty when other universities have been found guilty of such activities? What is the source of the confidence you have expressed that such penalties will not be applied in this case?

And those will be your last words before your rear-end gets burned with a BB from Ol' Roy's official Red Ryder Carbine Action, 200-Hundred Shot Range Model air rifle.

[swood1000]

And those will be your last words before your rear-end gets burned with a BB from Ol' Roy's official Red Ryder Carbine Action, 200-Hundred Shot Range Model air rifle.

Roy shouldn't have one of those. He'll shoot his eye out.

[wsb3]

I guess one can't blame the media for not going after Dean if the NCAA decided not to make any allegations against him.

The report on how far back the scandal goes places it squarely on Dean's doorstep whether the NCAA makes allegations against Dean or not.

[CameronBornAndBred]

More evidence that Roy is lying to recruits:
]
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/spo...e27007096.html

From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."
.

At least the kid is smart enough not to listen.

“If they got a major scholarship reduction or something like that, obviously you don’t want to commit to any scholarship that might not be there,” he added. “I definitely don’t want to commit before any punishments come down, even though I’m pretty sure there won’t be anything.”

Pretty much saying..."Well, I'd like to believe him, but hell no".

[swood1000]

Let me revise my question from the press:

Roy, the NOA alleged that the men's basketball team was involved in the receipt of extra benefits and that this was enabled by a lack of institutional control on the part of the university. Isn't it true that post-season bans and reductions of both scholarships and recruiters have often been the penalty when other universities have been found guilty of such activities? What is the source of the confidence you have expressed that such penalties will not be applied in this case?

Or maybe this:

Roy, the NOA alleged four aggravating factors:

1. Multiple Level I violations. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(a)]
2. A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(b)]
3. Lack of institutional control. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(c)]
4. Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)]

According to the current penalty guidelines (granted that the prior penalties will be applied in this case), the penalties for a Level I aggravated violation include a 2 to 4 year post-season ban and a 25 to 50% scholarship reduction.

PenaltyGuidelines1.jpg


How can you be 100% confident that these penalties will not be applied to the men's basketball team?

[swood1000]

The report on how far back the scandal goes places it squarely on Dean's doorstep whether the NCAA makes allegations against Dean or not.

But an article asserting Dean's guilt has to answer the question as to why, if there is anything there, the NCAA did not charge it. It appears that although the report may place it squarely on Dean's doorstep the NCAA discounted that part of the report or found the evidence insufficient.

[Tripping William]

How can you be 100% confident that these penalties will not be applied to the men's basketball team?

"Because my masseuse completely reassured me of it, right after I finished all of my bitter complaining about how easy those doggone Haitians have it compared to me."

[swood1000]

At least the kid is smart enough not to listen.

“If they got a major scholarship reduction or something like that, obviously you don’t want to commit to any scholarship that might not be there,” he added. “I definitely don’t want to commit before any punishments come down, even though I’m pretty sure there won’t be anything.”

Pretty much saying..."Well, I'd like to believe him, but hell no".

If Roy weren't denying that there will be any repercussions at all he would be able to point out to people who "don't want to commit to any scholarship that might not be there" that when Syracuse got their scholarships reduced the NCAA took care that scholarships would not be yanked from those who had already been offered one.

If the institution has already executed athletically related financial aid agreements to prospective student-athletes for the 2015-16 academic year that would prevent the institution from meeting this penalty, the institution has the option to begin the penalty with the 2016-17 academic year.

[swood1000]

"Because my masseuse completely reassured me of it, right after I finished all of my bitter complaining about how easy those doggone Haitians have it compared to me."

I think you are getting close to the true foundation for these promises. The part that has me mystified is how he can ever again have any credibility with any recruit after making statements that are so transparently false. Even if his team does not get slammed he had no justification for such assertions.

[Tripping William]

I think you are getting close to the true foundation for these promises. The part that has me mystified is how he can ever again have any credibility with any recruit's parents after making statements that are so transparently false. Even if his team does not get slammed he had no justification for such assertions.

FIFY. Meaning the Tank Thorntons, Chucky Okafors, Dell Currys, David Robinsons, Sonny Parkers, and Doc Riverses of the world (by way of example, and to say nothing mothers, who may be all-the-more important).

[wsb3]

But an article asserting Dean's guilt has to answer the question as to why, if there is anything there, the NCAA did not charge it. It appears that although the report may place it squarely on Dean's doorstep the NCAA discounted that part of the report or found the evidence insufficient.

Maybe I am missing something here. (It would not be the first time) but I fail to see why the NCAA granting a free pass to the Dean years has anything to do with media coverage. And the report did take the AFAM scandal back to 93. So I don't think there is any question that Dean was culpable, whether the NCAA chose not to venture that far back with possible punishments.

I have to give the UNC grad, S.L. Price, credit for the article he wrote in SI..But for the most part UNC has gotten off lightly in most media outlets.

The SI article is sure worth a read to anyone that has not yet read it.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...r-classes-ncaa

[El_Diablo]

I fail to see why the NCAA granting a free pass to the Dean years has anything to do with media coverage.

Media coverage has become relatively lazy. Sports media coverage is even lazier. And the president of the largest source of sports media coverage is a UNC grad.

[swood1000]

Maybe I am missing something here. (It would not be the first time) but I fail to see why the NCAA granting a free pass to the Dean years has anything to do with media coverage. And the report did take the AFAM scandal back to 93. So I don't think there is any question that Dean was culpable, whether the NCAA chose not to venture that far back with possible punishments.

My thinking is that if the NCAA investigated UNC and ended up not charging them for anything that happened on Dean's watch, we could understand why many in the media would conclude that there was nothing much there and focus their attention elsewhere. Why else would the NCAA not have charged it?

[Duke95]

I think you are getting close to the true foundation for these promises. The part that has me mystified is how he can ever again have any credibility with any recruit after making statements that are so transparently false. Even if his team does not get slammed he had no justification for such assertions.

The fact that SKJ just chose Kentucky over home-town UNC says a lot about how much credibility Roy's assurances that MBB won't be touched have with recruits. Zero.