Page 26 of 75 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 1485
  1. #501
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    A great interview. Since I believe that Godwin's Law has not yet been invoked on this incarnation of the Cheater thread, this was one of the suggested videos that popped up at the end of that one:

    Indoor66 or killerleft may have posted that youtube clip as I know I looked at it recently, along with another "foreign" clip with English subtitles all related to this disaster. You get partial sporks credit at least. Always a hilarious viewing.
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  2. #502

    Thumbs up Manalishi strikes again

    The uncheat protagonist over at PackPride, Manalishi, has posted again today! Check the link by clicking this 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]
    Last edited by -jk; 11-25-2015 at 08:50 PM. Reason: copyright

  3. #503
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    I'm going to need more than a cigarette with moonpie after reading that post...
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  4. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by devildeac View Post
    I'm going to need more than a cigarette with moonpie after reading that post...
    Having followed Manalishi's postings on PackPride for years now, I have great respect for him. He has been right much more often than not and often well before other folks verified his allegations. Let's hope he is right again!

    Does anyone know if Manalishi has said anything recently re the likely timing of NCAA sanctions against the heels?

  5. #505
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Willy2351 View Post
    Having followed Manalishi's postings on PackPride for years now, I have great respect for him. He has been right much more often than not and often well before other folks verified his allegations. Let's hope he is right again!

    Does anyone know if Manalishi has said anything recently re the likely timing of NCAA sanctions against the heels?
    I thought he made some vague reference to the Halloween period which, AFAIK, had no significant step. But who knows.

    It seems that we are overdue for either a restated NOI or Carolina's response. No?

  6. #506
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I thought he made some vague reference to the Halloween period which, AFAIK, had no significant step. But who knows.

    It seems that we are overdue for either a restated NOI or Carolina's response. No?
    That was my understanding after they threw a couple more non-rev sports/players under the bus in mid-August, thinking 60-90 days after that event there would be some response from one or both parties.
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  7. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by Willy2351 View Post
    Having followed Manalishi's postings on PackPride for years now, I have great respect for him. He has been right much more often than not and often well before other folks verified his allegations. Let's hope he is right again!

    Does anyone know if Manalishi has said anything recently re the likely timing of NCAA sanctions against the heels?
    Nothing on timing. The sense of the situation is that unCheat will not be on the docket in the December meeting next week, though that is supposition.

  8. #508
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, West Carolina
    I guess everyone with any insider knowledge took the day off to pursue other important affairs, yesterday.
    Or even better, is the relegation to page 2 of the topics list, now evidence of true indifference toward them? (Those people)

  9. #509
    My sincerest apologies. I took yesterday off to give thanks to Marvin Austin, Twitter, Mary Willingham, Dane Kane, the idiot IT guy that left Julius Peppers transcript on a public web server and the fifth graders that a UNC football player plagerized without penalty.

  10. #510
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    My sincerest apologies. I took yesterday off to give thanks to Marvin Austin, Twitter, Mary Willingham, Dane Kane, the idiot IT guy that left Julius Peppers transcript on a public web server and the fifth graders that a UNC football player plagerized without penalty.
    Man, I have to wait a while to give you sporks, but you deserved one for this post. Good list. GoDuke!

  11. #511
    Wake me when something actually gets done about this. I'm impressed by all the analysis, but there's been a crime and I want punishment. It's just how I am.

  12. #512
    If unCheat should have the wins from 2003 through 2011 vacated, they will lose 351 victories! That would make their total fall from 2,140 (at the end of 2014-2015 year) to 1789. They would also lose two National Championship Banners ('05 & '09) making their total 3 ('57, '82 & '93). Rightfully they should also lose the wins from '93 forward and lose the '93 Championship. That would mean they would lose a total of 625 wins and their total wins would fall to 1,515.

    Duke at the end of 2014-2015 had 2062 wins.

    The 1789 wins would make unCheat rank outside of the top 50. Number 50 is Minnesota at 1,896 wins. The Cheats would be devastated.

  13. #513
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    If unCheat should have the wins from 2003 through 2011 vacated, they will lose 351 victories! That would make their total fall from 2,140 (at the end of 2014-2015 year) to 1789.

    Duke at the end of 2014-2015 had 2062 wins.

    The 1789 wins would make unCheat rank outside of the top 50. Number 50 is Minnesota at 1,896 wins. The Cheats would be devastated.
    Look on the bright side. If that were to happen, ol roy would have the rare opportunity to win his 500th game. Again.
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  14. #514

    Um...I think you misread that chart. Minnesota played its first season of competitive college basketball in the year 1896. Over its entire history, the Minnesota program has 1,541 wins (this number would be higher, but Minnesota had to vacate six seasons' worth of wins after the cheating scandal in the 1990s).

    If Carolina dropped to 1,789 wins, they would fall to 10th place, behind Notre Dame and ahead of Indiana (I'd have thought Indiana would be higher on the list). Duke would bump up to third place, behind only Kentucky and Kansas.
    "I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015

  15. #515
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Gee, I would hate to see Roy's victories knocked down below 500.

    Yup, just hate it.

    Roy is currently 335-101 at UNc (+/-) -- he would drop down to sub-.500 I think.

  16. #516
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Gee, I would hate to see Roy's victories knocked down below 500.

    Yup, just hate it.

    Roy is currently 335-101 at UNc (+/-) -- he would drop down to sub-.500 I think.
    Close, but not quite. Roy is currently 338-102 at UNC. If all of his wins from 2003-2009 were vacated, he'd lose 176 wins, which would drop his record to 162-102. If he lost all of the wins through 2011, that would cost him another 49 wins, making his record 113-102.
    "I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015

  17. #517
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Um...I think you misread that chart. Minnesota played its first season of competitive college basketball in the year 1896. Over its entire history, the Minnesota program has 1,541 wins (this number would be higher, but Minnesota had to vacate six seasons' worth of wins after the cheating scandal in the 1990s).

    If Carolina dropped to 1,789 wins, they would fall to 10th place, behind Notre Dame and ahead of Indiana (I'd have thought Indiana would be higher on the list). Duke would bump up to third place, behind only Kentucky and Kansas.
    You are correct. I misread the chart. These old eyes seeing what they want to see! Still, 10th is OK!

  18. #518
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Utah
    So, a few things.

    1. The COI will apparently meet in December. The Dec. 3 date was mentioned but not confirmed.
    2. The latest UNC document dump shows that the scandal extended well beyond the AFAM department and certainly well beyond the two pawns, Crowder and Nyang'oro, on whom UNC attempted to place the full blame.
    3. One of the main reasons why the UNC MBB program wasn't mentioned more prominently was that it has a separate academic support program from all other sports. It has had this arrangement since at least the mid 1980s.
    4. There are too many people involved for any single sport to be mentioned individually. Hence the LOIC charge overall.
    5. Sadly, many people in the media still don't understand the nature of the fraud and keep mentioning the term "easy classes." Of course, it had nothing to do with "easy classes", but rather with the fact that the "self-paced" paper classes could not, by UNC rules, count toward a degree. The fraud was that UNC labeled these classes "lecture", but never taught them as lecture but rather as independent study. Since these did not count, every athlete who took one would be ineligible in that term. Ineligible athletes = forfeited wins.
    6. Roy's claim that he did not know what was going on has been repeatedly refuted by the documents, which show that UNC a) followed athletes around on a daily basis, b) recorded and reported attendance and performance in class, study halls, tutoring sessions, etc. This info was conveyed to coaches on a DAILY basis.
    7. UNC used questionable methods to assess athletes as LD/ADHD, meaning they could receive math/FL substitutions.

    Anyone who thinks UNC is going to escape is just refusing to see the facts. UNC has already escaped in the sense that the NOA did not examine what went on before 2002 or what went on in other departments. But the fraud in AFAM is sufficient to hammer UNC for the 2002-2011 period and going forward.

  19. #519
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rent free in tarheels’ heads
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke95 View Post
    So, a few things.

    1. The COI will apparently meet in December. The Dec. 3 date was mentioned but not confirmed.
    2. The latest UNC document dump shows that the scandal extended well beyond the AFAM department and certainly well beyond the two pawns, Crowder and Nyang'oro, on whom UNC attempted to place the full blame.
    3. One of the main reasons why the UNC MBB program wasn't mentioned more prominently was that it has a separate academic support program from all other sports. It has had this arrangement since at least the mid 1980s.
    4. There are too many people involved for any single sport to be mentioned individually. Hence the LOIC charge overall.
    5. Sadly, many people in the media still don't understand the nature of the fraud and keep mentioning the term "easy classes." Of course, it had nothing to do with "easy classes", but rather with the fact that the "self-paced" paper classes could not, by UNC rules, count toward a degree. The fraud was that UNC labeled these classes "lecture", but never taught them as lecture but rather as independent study. Since these did not count, every athlete who took one would be ineligible in that term. Ineligible athletes = forfeited wins.
    6. Roy's claim that he did not know what was going on has been repeatedly refuted by the documents, which show that UNC a) followed athletes around on a daily basis, b) recorded and reported attendance and performance in class, study halls, tutoring sessions, etc. This info was conveyed to coaches on a DAILY basis.
    7. UNC used questionable methods to assess athletes as LD/ADHD, meaning they could receive math/FL substitutions.

    Anyone who thinks UNC is going to escape is just refusing to see the facts. UNC has already escaped in the sense that the NOA did not examine what went on before 2002 or what went on in other departments. But the fraud in AFAM is sufficient to hammer UNC for the 2002-2011 period and going forward.
    All correct. But you left out the important concept of illegal benefits that the NCAA is using to establish SA ineligibility. They are not going to argue fraudulent classes. Uncheat has been boxed out with this NCAA angle and it would seem there is no way around it. They have no good argument against illegal benefits.

    Capone went away for tax evasion, not murder, etc., but the net outcome was essentially the same for the good guys. Same thing here as I see it.
    “Coach said no 3s.” - Zion on The Block

  20. #520
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke95 View Post
    So, a few things.

    1. The COI will apparently meet in December. The Dec. 3 date was mentioned but not confirmed.
    2. The latest UNC document dump shows that the scandal extended well beyond the AFAM department and certainly well beyond the two pawns, Crowder and Nyang'oro, on whom UNC attempted to place the full blame.
    3. One of the main reasons why the UNC MBB program wasn't mentioned more prominently was that it has a separate academic support program from all other sports. It has had this arrangement since at least the mid 1980s.
    4. There are too many people involved for any single sport to be mentioned individually. Hence the LOIC charge overall.
    5. Sadly, many people in the media still don't understand the nature of the fraud and keep mentioning the term "easy classes." Of course, it had nothing to do with "easy classes", but rather with the fact that the "self-paced" paper classes could not, by UNC rules, count toward a degree. The fraud was that UNC labeled these classes "lecture", but never taught them as lecture but rather as independent study. Since these did not count, every athlete who took one would be ineligible in that term. Ineligible athletes = forfeited wins.
    6. Roy's claim that he did not know what was going on has been repeatedly refuted by the documents, which show that UNC a) followed athletes around on a daily basis, b) recorded and reported attendance and performance in class, study halls, tutoring sessions, etc. This info was conveyed to coaches on a DAILY basis.
    7. UNC used questionable methods to assess athletes as LD/ADHD, meaning they could receive math/FL substitutions.

    Anyone who thinks UNC is going to escape is just refusing to see the facts. UNC has already escaped in the sense that the NOA did not examine what went on before 2002 or what went on in other departments. But the fraud in AFAM is sufficient to hammer UNC for the 2002-2011 period and going forward.
    Good summary and update. Still not sure why we have not seen either a revised NOI or the response from UNCheat yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    All correct. But you left out the important concept of illegal benefits that the NCAA is using to establish SA ineligibility. They are not going to argue fraudulent classes. Uncheat has been boxed out with this NCAA angle and it would seem there is no way around it. They have no good argument against illegal benefits.

    Capone went away for tax evasion, not murder, etc., but the net outcome was essentially the same for the good guys. Same thing here as I see it.
    Exactly. Which is why "improper benefits" makes it an athletic scandal, not "merely" an academic one (although I think the latter is worse than the former for an institution with any integrity. But that of course does not apply here).

Similar Threads

  1. This is the most athletic 14 year old I've ever seen
    By AAA1980 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-22-2017, 11:25 PM
  2. UNC Athletics Scandal - Wainstein Report
    By Duvall in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 990
    Last Post: 11-08-2014, 12:37 AM
  3. BCS announces play-off details
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 08:55 PM
  4. Duke-Kansas football details firmed up
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 02:55 PM
  5. athletic scholarships
    By tecumseh in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 01:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •