The uncheat protagonist over at PackPride, Manalishi, has posted again today! Check the link by clicking this message.
- manalishi
- PP HOF - SpecOps
- Rating: 3.1/5 this site
- 1508 posts this site
- Ignore this Member
- Send Private Message
Posted: Today 2:32 PM
Re: UNC's (eventual) sanctions -- information primer (x2)
To those who still think UNC will get a “wrist slap” – whether they be people who have only listened to and bought the PR spin, or they are pessimists who refuse to look at logic and rationale…
A closer look at the recent SMU and Syracuse infractions and penalties, as well as older sections of the NCAA handbook, will give good insight into what will basically be the “floor” that UNC can expect with its own sanctions.
The SMU infractions covered the dates post-2012, which meant that they were penalized under the new (harsher) penalty matrix.
Some important distinctions:
-- The basketball portion of SMU’s infractions involved ONE (prospective, at the time of the infraction) student athlete whose work in a summer online course was completed by a tutor.
-- As part of the penalties, the SMU basketball team was forced to vacate all of the victories in which that player participated during his succeeding Freshman season.
-- Some of the terms used in SMU’s infractions-explanation:
“… institutions act through their staff and the institution’s staff committed multiple Level I violations in this case.”
-- Along with the vacated victories that the affected player participated in, the basketball program also lost nine scholarships over three seasons, was handed a one-year postseason ban, was given recruiting restrictions, was levied fines, and the coach was given a partial suspension. Again, this was for one player whose work (in an online course) was done by a tutor.
-- SMU received the above sanctions despite NOT being charged with “Lack of Institutional Control”, the most serious allegation that the NCAA can give a school.
“Although SMU’s case involved Level I violations, the panel did not conclude there was a
lack of institutional control or a failure to comply with the terms of probation.”
Of note --
The Committee on Infractions members who comprised the panel that heard SMU’s case were:
[Redacted for copyright]