UNC-Cheat - NCAA's response to UNC on amended Notice of Allegations

[budwom]

I think Sheed is actually a pretty bright guy, though a nut case to be sure. Stackhouse and McInnis on the other hand...

Not dissing his intelligence, but he wasn't a luminary in the classroom I am told...Dean certainly got his just desserts with the McInnis recruitment, and then some. And then some more.

[Nugget]

While it is still disturbing that the amended NOA seemed to go out of its way to avoid mentioning basketball or football specifically (inexplicably being subject to the interpretation that UNC's AFRI/AFAM dept., Athletics Dept., university administrators and Academic Support Program for Student Athletes designed an 18 scheme of fraud solely intended to help keep Women's Basketball players eligible), having read the NCAA Enforcement Staff's reply to UNC's response to the amended NOA suggests at least some hope that the NCAA won't completely roll over on this -- albeit that the focus of their allegations (other than Boxil's conduct re Women's basketball) is largely directed at the institution/Athletic Dept as a whole.

Among other things, the staff comes out squarely in favor of the notion that this is an impermissible benefits case (exacerbated into Level I violations by failure to monitor/lack of institutional control):

"[The Cadwalader report] provided, for the first time, a complete picture of the athletics department's preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses and, in some cases, how it used those courses to retain NCAA academic eligibility for student-athletes. This access provided student-athletes with advantages that other students simply did not have. However, at no point did the institution monitor the relationship between the AFRI/AFAM department and athletics. Nor did it monitor the athletics department's access to and use of these courses. Indeed, the institution demonstrated a lack of control by declining to act when notified of concerns and by allowing preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses to continue unchecked." (p. 3.)

The staff comes out swinging on the "procedural" arguments made by UNC (asserting "each is without merit"), and points out that UNC essentially offers no defense to the merits -- "ts response rests almost entirely on these procedural issues and touches only minimally on the underlying substantive facts." (p. 5.)

The "procedural" challenges raised by UNC are: (1) the NCAA lacks "jurisdiction" over "matters related to academic structure, content and process" [a/k/a the "Jay Bilas argument" -- that if UNC chose to offer "easy" classes that is none of the NCAA's business]; (2) a 4 year statute of limitations applies and there is no alleged misconduct after 2011; (3) the investigation and sanctions of UNC football in 2010-2012 were "Final" decisions on the conduct at issue in the NOA and cannot be re-opened because "nothing prevented enforcement staff from seeking and obtaining additional evidence" of the AFRI/AFAM anamolous courses at that time; and (4) "Fairness" -- namely, that the Cadwalader report is "unduly prejudicial" because of the way the witness interviews were conducted.

The NCAA staff makes short shrift of the "Finality" and "Fairness" objections (pp. 9-14), essentially pointing out that (a) the 2012 football case involved different issues, (b) the argument that the NCAA could have gotten the information that came out in the Cadwalader report by its own investigation in 2010-2011 flips the NCAA's "cooperative principle" on its head (namely, the NCAA relies on the schools to thoroughly self-investigate and provide all relevant information within the institution's control -- UNC can't use its own shoddy prior investigations to bar review of the newly discovered evidence), and (c) there is nothing unduly prejudicial about the COI's considering the publicly-available information in the Cadwalader report, the accuracy of which UNC has never challenged, noting that its "attempt to exclude this document appears only to be an effort to omit information the institution believes to be damaging..."

On the "Jurisdictional" challenge, the enforcement staff rightly notes that UNC's argument grossly mischaracterizes the allegations -- that the NCAA is not challenging whether UNC had the right to offer "easy" classes (which it agrees is outside its jurisdiction), but rather the athtletic department's uses of those classes in a manner not available to the general student body (and the university's failure to monitor/lack of institutional control over that extra benefit to athletes):

"The institution argues that ‘The NCAA's constitution and bylaws do not extend to matters related to academic structure, content, and process on a member institution's campus.’ The enforcement staff agrees. … The amended notice of allegations does not suggest otherwise. If the allegations are read closely, it is evident that the enforcement staff has no desire to challenge the institution on how academic departments are managed, even if managed poorly. Instead, each allegation in the amended notice of allegations is tethered directly to athletics and how the unmonitored athletics department used anomalous courses in a manner different from the general student body in violation of NCAA rules. The preferential and near unfettered access the AFRI/AFAM department gave athletics to the anomalous courses provided student-athletes with advantages that others simply did not have.

This is best demonstrated by uncontroverted enrollment numbers. Over the 18 years the institution offered these anomalous courses, student-athlete enrollment in the courses amounted to 47.4 percent of total enrollment. That level of use by student-athletes did not happen accidentally. Administrators who were responsible for monitoring student-athlete access to and use of courses failed in their monitoring duties. This failure is an NCAA violation impacting values at the heart of the NCAA. In addition, the institution, which is responsible for controlling its athletics department, failed in its fundamental obligation to operate in compliance with the NCAA constitution and bylaws by allowing the conduct to occur unchecked or uncorrected over a period of many years. This lack of control is also an NCAA violation impacting values at the heart of the NCAA. Contrary to the institution's position, these are athletics issues tied directly to NCAA [rules]. …
The institution identified no basis for concluding that the Committee on Infractions is without jurisdiction and, instead, wholly mischaracterized the nature of the allegations." (p. 6.)

On the Statute of Limitations, the issue is somewhat convoluted, but the Staff's argument is that the relevant deadline is Feb. 21, 2010 and that some of the violations occurred after that, so those would facially be timely. More importantly, they point out that Bylaws 19.5.11(b) and (c) have two exceptions to the 4 year window: (i) if there is a "pattern of willful violations ... that began before and continue[d] into the four-year period" (which they argue is met here) and (ii) if the allegations "indicate a blatant disregard for the NCAA's fundamental recruiting, extra benefit, academic or ethical conduct bylaws or involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation," which they argue is met here because the allegations "involve alleged violations of academic, extra benefit and ethical conduct bylaws," and the length/extent of violations from 2003 - 2011 show "blatant disregard." (pp. 7-8).

On the merits, while much of the "facts" are redacted, they take a strong position that there were Level I violations for both Failure to Monitor to the ASPSA and AFRI/AFAM departments and Lack of Institutional Control:

VII. ALLEGATION NO. 4 - Failure to monitor. (pp. 31-39) ….

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I

The enforcement staff believes the [COI] could determine that Allegation No. 4 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I) because the violation seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the collegiate model. The failure to monitor the ASPSA staff, Boxill and the AFRI/AFAM department led to preferential access to the anomalous courses, use of those courses by student athletes at a higher rate than the general student body . . .

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

Beginning in 1999, Crowder developed "paper" courses used by the student body, ASPSA and student-athletes. The almost complete lack of faculty interaction, the absence of classroom attendance, the relatively little amount of academic work required and the higher-than-average grades awarded on completion made these courses anomalous from those typically taught at North Carolina. …

Some students had difficulty meeting certain undergraduate academic requirements and Crowder designed these courses to help students missing these requirements. ... The institution took no action to monitor her, confirm the propriety of her conduct or otherwise assure that she operated in compliance with NCAA rules. …

[The facts detailed in sections largely redacted] caused the athletics academic counselors within ASPSA to turn to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses as a way to bolster the athletics academic eligibility of these at-risk student-athletes who struggled with the academic rigor of the institution. Yet, even with these documented concerns and warning signs, the institution failed to assure compliant practices and failed to monitor the important work of ASPSA staff members working with student-athletes. Although allegedly driven by a motivation to help all students, Crowder had a special relationship with athletics, specifically ASPSA, and with student-athletes. … This relationship allowed the athletics academic counselors within ASPSA to manipulate or take advantage in order to obtain a greater level of support and privileges from the AFRI/AFAM department when compared to the general student body. …

The sheer volume of activity and the closeness between the two departments allowed student-athletes to enroll in these classes at a rate of 47 percent when student athletes comprised only 3 percent of the student body population and allowed these student athletes to excel in these courses. Although it is not unusual for an institution to have perceived "easy courses" and for student-athletes to enroll in these courses, what makes this situation unique is the sheer volume of these courses, athletics' preferential access to them and the lack of institutional monitoring. [fn. 82: For example, Crowder indicated that if a student-athlete was on a waitlist for an AFRI/AFAM course, she would take care of it and enroll the student-athlete in the course.] … At risk student-athletes in particular needed these courses to retain their athletics eligibility. …

When Crowder decided to retire in 2009 and the ASPSA staff realized these courses would no longer be offered, it caused two reactions. First, the AS SA staff alerted the student-athletes that they would need to complete and tum in their homework as soon as possible so Crowder could grade the papers. …Second, ASPSA informed the coaching staff, specifically the football coaching staff, to highlight the ramifications the loss of these courses would cause. [discusses the Bridger Power Point presentation about the prior practice of putting players in the fake classes that nonetheless met degree requirements and noted that option would no longer be available.] Both reactions demonstrate the importance of these courses to ASPSA and the student-athletes enrolled in them. ...

The institution argues that the facts demonstrate a Level II violation because the institution only failed to monitor Boxill. However, as discussed above, the institution not only failed to monitor Boxill, but it also failed to monitor the relationship between the AFRI/AFAM department and ASPSA. Further, it failed to monitor student-athletes' preferential access to and use of the anomalous courses despite red flags. This failure to monitor was not limited in nature as the institution suggests and occurred over a seven-year time span. Ultimately, these circumstances provided the institution with a competitive advantage because it helped keep at-risk student athletes eligible.


VIII. ALLEGATION NO. 5 - Lack of institutional control. (pp. 40-41)

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I

…. The enforcement staff believes the [COI] could determine that Allegation No. 5 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I) because the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the collegiate model and lack of control violations are presumed Level I. Although leadership both on campus and within athletics knew of the anomalous courses and athletics' use of those courses, the institution failed to investigate and curb those practices.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation

On several occasions, the issue of the anomalous courses and athletics' use of those courses came to the attention of campus administrators. They had actual notice of concerns. During the summer of 2006, a news media report discussing an NCAA Division I school, student-athletes and their use of independent study courses garnered nation-wide attention. …

Because of Dick Baddour's …hands-off management approach, Mercer and Blanchard also did not receive support from the athletics department on this issue. Institutional leaders chose not to act. ASPSA employees understood that those on campus, at the very least, knew of the courses. …

Despite the warning to reduce student-athlete enrollment numbers and other red flags, the institution did not eliminate or otherwise address the courses and student-athletes continued to enroll in them at disproportionate rates. Further, nobody from the institution's leadership looked into why student-athletes had enrolled in these courses at such high numbers. …

Reynolds noted in an additional email that if someone other than Crowder graded the papers, the student-athletes would receive "C's and D's at best." This series of correspondence shows not only the openness with which the ASPSA department discussed the anomalous courses, but also the level of communication between ASPSA and the AFRI/AFAM department to the point where ASPSA knew that Crowder, and not an instructor, would grade the final papers. Despite this openness and the knowledge of the anomalous courses by [University] leadership … at no point did those in authority put an end to the anomalous courses or athletics' use of those courses. Further, nobody questioned the appropriateness of a department administrator, not an instructor, grading coursework. As a result, practices that compromised the collegiate model and provided unfair advantages to the institution continued unchecked for many years. ….
Despite this deficiency, it appears the compliance staff had some level of knowledge concerning the anomalous courses. In an email exchange between Brent Blanton, athletics academic counselor, and Amy Hermann, former director of compliance, Hermann references the "infamous paper classes." The record does not indicate any time where the compliance staff looked into the anomalous course issue or investigated ASPSA's close relationship with the AFRI/AFAM department. Accordingly, the institution allowed both to continue for a disturbing duration.

[budwom]

^ yeah, I wonder what penalties they might consider when their focus seems to be on the athletic dept. as a whole...I have no idea what to expect. History
says to expect nothing...but they do seem rather riled about unc's fecklessness (to be kind).

I'm still not happy about Amy Herman's landing zone...

[OldPhiKap]

The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.

[WiJoe]

I've typed this before and I'll type it again: Because it is the WORST academic scandal in NCAA history and continuing to lie and deny, if I'm the NCAA, I'm throwing a SEVERE penalty at unCHEAT, including loss of hoops title, and saying here's your option: take it, or we're shutting down your ENTIRE athletics program. Then see how tough unCHEAT is.

[sammy3469]

BTW, there are more NCAA-UNC letters about how we got to this point that are instructive here:

http://media2.newsobserver.com/stati...ponse-bond.pdf

Couple of points:

• This thing has been nasty since Dec '15 when UNC basically said they wanted to interview all the enforcement staff. The NCAA told them No and things went downhill from there
• A big part of UNC's argument seems to be just flood the COI with argument after argument on every mundane point. Needless to say, it isn't going over well.
• A bunch of people will find this rich, but most of the changes from the NOA to the ANOA seem to be based on UNC using ACC determinations on what are impermissible benefits.
• Stanky has already ruled against UNC on information to be looked/included at in the upcoming hearing.

Just reading these letters, it's pretty clear that everyone at the NCAA, from enforcement, to AMA, to the COI are pretty fed up with UNC at this point. Whether that means they do anything substantial is another matter, but Stanky (chief hearing officer of the COI and SEC commissioner) wants this over. UNC "won" on their NOA argument, but appears to have burned their bridges doing so.

[wilko]

I've typed this before and I'll type it again: Because it is the WORST academic scandal in NCAA history and continuing to lie and deny, if I'm the NCAA, I'm throwing a SEVERE penalty at unCHEAT, including loss of hoops title, and saying here's your option: take it, or we're shutting down your ENTIRE athletics program. Then see how tough unCHEAT is.

Best penalty for UNC is:
In every home game in every sport, home fans Must wear a Duke Shirt/Jersey/Hat and keep it on for the duration as a condition of the ticket to enter and remain at the home event. THAT will make sure they never do it again...

[Stray Gator]

^ yeah, I wonder what penalties they might consider when their focus seems to be on the athletic dept. as a whole...I have no idea what to expect. History
says to expect nothing...but they do seem rather riled about unc's fecklessness (to be kind).

I'm still not happy about Amy Herman's landing zone...

The NCAA's response cites an e-mail exchange between a UNC athletics academic counselor and Amy Herman, the former director of compliance at UNC, in which there was reference to the "infamous paper classes," as evidence that "the compliance staff had some level of knowledge regarding the anomalous courses" but did not look into the issue, thereby allowing the anomalous courses and the relationship between the athletics counseling staff and the AFAM Department "to continue for a disturbing duration." If it is true that Herman was aware of UNC's use of "paper classes" to maintain the eligibility of athletes but failed to investigate or report these improper benefits, I believe that absent proof of some compelling justification for her failure to act, Duke should demand her resignation or terminate her employment immediately, because it would be evident that she cannot be relied upon to perform her job, which includes protecting the integrity of the institution that has entrusted her with such responsibility. The University should not assume the risk of similar misfeasance by her in the future that could cause severe damage to Duke and everyone associated with the school.

[budwom]

^precisely

[OldPhiKap]

The NCAA's response cites an e-mail exchange between a UNC athletics academic counselor and Amy Herman, the former director of compliance at UNC, in which there was reference to the "infamous paper classes," as evidence that "the compliance staff had some level of knowledge regarding the anomalous courses" but did not look into the issue, thereby allowing the anomalous courses and the relationship between the athletics counseling staff and the AFAM Department "to continue for a disturbing duration." If it is true that Herman was aware of UNC's use of "paper classes" to maintain the eligibility of athletes but failed to investigate or report these improper benefits, I believe that absent proof of some compelling justification for her failure to act, Duke should demand her resignation or terminate her employment immediately, because it would be evident that she cannot be relied upon to perform her job, which includes protecting the integrity of the institution that has entrusted her with such responsibility. The University should not assume the risk of similar misfeasance by her in the future that could cause severe damage to Duke and everyone associated with the school.

As usual, when Stray Gator weighs in, he is spot on. Exactly.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Best penalty for UNC is:
In every home game in every sport, home fans Must wear a Duke Shirt/Jersey/Hat and keep it on for the duration as a condition of the ticket to enter and remain at the home event. THAT will make sure they never do it again...

Ew, I don't want them in our gear.

[MarkD83]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but this pdf came from unc. So how do we know it is authentic

[CameronBornAndBred]

IC is on lockdown, no mention at all.

How they doing over there? Still all rosy?

[devildeac]

The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.

The first 60-70 seconds will do, unless, of course you like really old Chicago Transit Authority music .

[alteran]

How they doing over there? Still all rosy?

There's a thread there now. Not a lot of comments. More denial than not.

[BD80]

How they doing over there? Still all rosy?

https://youtu.be/zDAmPIq29ro

[OldPhiKap]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but this pdf came from unc. So how do we know it is authentic

Manalishi vouched for it over on PackPride.

[ricks68]

Manalishi vouched for it over on PackPride.

Wasn't Manalishi either suckered in or part of the scam the last time around-----or not?

ricks

[OldPhiKap]

Wasn't Manalishi either suckered in or part of the scam the last time around-----or not?

ricks

Yes, bad joke on my part.

[wilko]

Ew, I don't want them in our gear.

Really?
So they'd have to buy something to support a university they dont like to participate in (gain admittance) to something they DO like...
Something they'd undernormal circumstances NEVER EVER consider doing of their own free will... Best case you get tons of pictures of your UNC fans to never make them forget. (may as well catch them tarred and feathered) Or no ever shows up to games ... Win Win either freaking way...