UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3

[swood1000]

See http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/un...f-allegations/ Actual response is here: https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/f...nded-NOA-1.pdf

[swood1000]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.

The courses in issue (the "Courses") were available to all students in the same manner. No special arrangements were made for student-athletes in violation of NCAA extra-benefit legislation. Student-athletes made up 29.4 percent of the enrollments in the Courses.

Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.

We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses. Accordingly, unlike Governor Martin, we found that student-athletes were far more represented in paper classes than they were in other courses offered by the department.

Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

[Olympic Fan]

Didn't Wainstein include e-mails that proved that several classes were set up specifically for athletes (including several that included just 1 or 2 athletes)

And there is also a famous e-mail complaining that "frat boys" had found out about classes set up specifically for athletes.

But who cares -- what did you expect from UNC, an admission of guilt?

We can have fun parsing this, but it's really a meaningess moment in the scandal. Get back to me when UNC meets with the COI in mid-August.

[rsvman]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.



Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.



Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?

[Rich]

So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?

Not that it's necessarily OK, but that it's not under the purview of the NCAA to regulate it.

[75Crazie]

Not that it's necessarily OK, but that it's not under the purview of the NCAA to regulate it.

But there was enough athlete participation to remove it from the purview of SACS.

[sagegrouse]

But there was enough athlete participation to remove it from the purview of SACS.

Yes, and the athletic department and the student-athlete advisory organization offered services and assistance to athletes with respect to these courses that were not available to other students.

[Tom B.]

Yes, and the athletic department and the student-athlete advisory organization offered services and assistance to athletes with respect to these courses that were not available to other students.

And let's not forget this:


PP.jpg


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

[Indoor66]

And let's not forget this:


PP.jpg


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

Maybe it does. Patience, Grasshopper.

[Olympic Fan]

And let's not forget this:


PP.jpg


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

Great point. I don't see why everybody is sweating UNC's absurd defense.

(1) as noted before, saying phony classes are open to all students is no defense -- FSU was hammered for a phony class that was open to all students and had a majority of non-athletes involved.

(2) We have evidence -- the slide show presentation that Tom B. cites and dozens of e-mails uncovered by Wainstein that show that many of the phony classes were set up specifically for athletes -- often at the request of the sports' academic advisors.

I am frankly amazed that this is the best UNC has got after $18 million in legal fees.

[MarkD83]

Great point. I don't see why everybody is sweating UNC's absurd defense.

(1) as noted before, saying phony classes are open to all students is no defense -- FSU was hammered for a phony class that was open to all students and had a majority of non-athletes involved.

(2) We have evidence -- the slide show presentation that Tom B. cites and dozens of e-mails uncovered by Wainstein that show that many of the phony classes were set up specifically for athletes -- often at the request of the sports' academic advisors.

I am frankly amazed that this is the best UNC has got after $18 million in legal fees.

They did get two final fours and a national championship

[devildeac]

And let's not forget this:


PP.jpg


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

This appears to be the slide that budwom referenced as the one he wants made into a 6' x 6' banner for the COI to see.

[swood1000]

And let's not forget this:





Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

UNC would probably respond that this is just the opinion of the person who created it, and that doesn't establish the fact.

[swood1000]

There appears to be more slight-of-hand going on with the percentages put forward by UNC of paper classes taken by student-athletes. Wainstein had said that 47.4% of the enrollments in the lecture paper classes were student-athletes. The number that UNC came back with, 29.4%, besides using a different definition of ‘student-athlete,’ also included enrollments in independent study paper classes.

So why would Wainstein not include independent study paper classes in his figure? One reason could be that because of the way course enrollments for independent studies were handled in AFAM it was impossible to identify the number of students who were enrolled in independent study paper classes. (Based on assertions by Crowder and Nyang’oro that “most” of the independent studies offered by AFAM during that period were irregular, however, Wainstein assumed that 50% of the total AFAM independent studies enrollments were irregular, and used that figure in his calculations.)

UNC’s objection is that only 25.4% of active student-athletes enrolled in independent study classes, accounting for only 17.7% of the enrollments in these classes, so they want that lower 17.7% figure to be averaged in. The lowness of this figure is probably influenced by the fact that according to Wainstein, Coaches Holladay and Williams had a preference against independent studies and for the structure of a regular lecture class. As such, they directed Walden to encourage players to opt for lecture classes over independent studies. Maybe the athletic advisors generally followed this practice. Some reasons might be (a) because a lecture class looks less fake, (b) because of the limitation on the number of independent study classes that could be used toward graduation, and (c) because the undergraduate curriculum requirements that required students to take classes within a certain number of different curriculum areas or “Perspectives” could be not be satisfied with independent study classes.

UNC’s calculations are confusing. At one point they say that “the courses in issue” are referred to as the “Courses.” On page 6 they say that active student-athletes accounted for 37.2% of the enrollments in the Courses. Then on the next page they say “Active student-athletes accounted for 17.7% of the enrollments in the Courses that were taught as independent studies. The combined percentage of the active student-athletes that took the Courses was 29.4%.” This is how they arrive at their 29.4% figure to put up against the 47.4% figure used by Wainstein. But if student-athletes were 37.2% of enrollments in the Courses and 17.7% of the enrollments in that subset of the Courses consisting of independent study, how does it make sense to combine those percentages, and what is that supposed to represent? Anybody have any ideas? These percentages are also discussed on pages 37-38 and 75-77. The document is here.

[swood1000]

There appears to be more slight-of-hand going on...

Actually, it's sleight of hand. Slight of hand is in the same category as:

Sneak peak
Deep-seeded
Shoe-in
Baited breath
Wet your appetite

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Actually, it's sleight of hand. Slight of hand is in the same category as:

Sneak peak
Deep-seeded
Shoe-in
Baited breath
Wet your appetite

Sporks for words!

[rasputin]

Actually, it's sleight of hand. Slight of hand is in the same category as:

Sneak peak
Deep-seeded
Shoe-in
Baited breath
Wet your appetite

That's a long road to hoe.

[Indoor66]

That's a long road to hoe.

Actually, a long ROW.

[mgtr]

I thought that Rasputin was being facetious.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I thought that Rasputin was being facetious.

For all intensive purposes, it's the same thing. Unless it's a whole nother thing.