Page 1 of 31 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 613
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati

    UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    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.

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    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?
    A plane takes off in Baltimore and touches down on Bourbon Street

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    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.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    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.
    Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':

    We define an “active student-athlete” as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses. Thus, if a student participated on an athletics team as a freshman, did not participate on an athletics team thereafter and took one of the Courses, that individual would not count as an “active student-athlete” who took a Course because they were not subject to NCAA rules. This is different from the approach taken in the Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (CWT or the “CWT Report”), which uses a “once an athlete always an athlete approach.”
    Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by 75Crazie View Post
    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.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Correct side of the Durham/CH border
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



    Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.
    One thing UNC is truly world class at... moving the goal posts.

    There was a time for me (when I was at Duke and briefly afterwards) that rooting for the ACC included rooting for UNC. Now, if I so much as see one of those toilet water blue stickers on a car, I can literally feel the rage begin to the rise inside me. God I loathe those bastards.
    "UNC makes me think of a pile of vomit in a school hallway. They keep trying to throw more and more of that peppermint neutralizer on it and act like it's candy, but the puke smell won't go away." -- (Internet-winning comment on N&O article re: UNX cheating scandal)

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



    Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.
    Their new definition would seem to pretend that an athletic department would not have an interest in ensuring that former athletes graduated to maintain their APR.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    Not that it's necessarily OK, but that it's not under the purview of the NCAA to regulate it.
    Quote Originally Posted by 75Crazie View Post
    But there was enough athlete participation to remove it from the purview of SACS.
    It's an athademic issue, relating solely to acalethic irregularities. Nothing to see here.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?
    Yes. Questions of academic standards come under the purview of the accrediting agency, SACS. If the athletes are treated the same as the rest of the students the NCAA is happy. The following shows the way academic misconduct is currently handled (not applicable to this case). If the institution's academic misconduct policy sets a very low bar, and the conduct in question does not violate the policy, then you have to answer 'yes' to all five questions on the right side for there to be an academic misconduct violation, and if it's generally available to all students then that's that.

    Attached Images Attached Images

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    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.
    Putting aside the question of counting, is the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 all that meaningful? I wonder how many other institutional academic cheating programs exist at UNC, and what percentage of students in those programs are student-athletes?

  14. #14
    Wasn't it determined that the AFAM courses in question, since you didn't go to an actual class, were independent study courses? I thought unc had a limit on the number of independent study courses you could take at one time and participation in these no class classes put some of the athletes over the allowed number. Am I remembering incorrectly?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Yes. Questions of academic standards come under the purview of the accrediting agency, SACS. If the athletes are treated the same as the rest of the students the NCAA is happy. The following shows the way academic misconduct is currently handled (not applicable to this case). If the institution's academic misconduct policy sets a very low bar, and the conduct in question does not violate the policy, then you have to answer 'yes' to all five questions on the right side for there to be an academic misconduct violation, and if it's generally available to all students then that's that.

    Except that "bogus classes" would probably violate the institution's academic policies, so rsvman's "copycat" example would fall on the left side of the flow chart. For UNC, they were cited and penalized for academic misconduct by SACS, so that's where they would go too, I think, except that this is the post-UNC policy and not applicable (as swood points out).

  16. #16
    I like the part where they criticize NCAA President Mark Emmert for commenting publicly on the seriousness of the case based on "outside sources." Yeah, the "outside source" upon which Emmert relied was the Wainstein report -- i.e., UNC's own internal investigation.
    "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. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



    Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.
    Would this also include, for example, a football player who played in the fall of the semester, but took a "paper class" in the Spring semester? I wonder.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    I like the part where they criticize NCAA President Mark Emmert for commenting publicly on the seriousness of the case based on "outside sources." Yeah, the "outside source" upon which Emmert relied was the Wainstein report -- i.e., UNC's own internal investigation.
    It's so inside, it's outside. The Escher Defense.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    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.
    HOLD IT ....do you think they would lie???

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Without reading I'll summarize:

    1) We didn't do anything wrong
    2) Maybe we did but it didn't involve athletics
    3) Maybe it involved athletics, but not men's basketball or football
    4) Maybe it involved athletics, including football, but not men's basketball
    5) Maybe it involved some men's basketball, but that was like, only during years where we didn't make a final four or anything cool like that
    6) If it involved some men's basketball, during those non-cool years, it was just academics, not really an athletic thing, and therefore outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction
    7) Besides, it was a long time ago
    8) And anyway, we've suffered enough. Time served, already
    9) This is a witch hunt. The NCAA is picking on poor little us. Go hit the big time the big time bad guys like Cleveland St.
    10) Everyone does it.
    11) How does the upcoming basketball team look anyway...I mean, should we just go ahead and take the hit or is there a chance of raising another banner this year?

    Summarized for you. You're welcome.
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

Similar Threads

  1. UNC Athletics Scandal: Crowder Emerges
    By wsb3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 758
    Last Post: 05-25-2017, 04:33 PM
  2. UNC Athletics Scandal: New Violations Delay NOA Response
    By FerryFor50 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 788
    Last Post: 10-21-2015, 09:11 PM
  3. UNC Athletics Scandal: Roy/Hat lying to recruits
    By PackMan97 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1113
    Last Post: 08-14-2015, 01:24 PM
  4. UNC Athletics Scandal - Willingham's book
    By uh_no in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 02-17-2015, 09:36 PM
  5. UNC Athletics Scandal
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 839
    Last Post: 01-01-2015, 10:40 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
  •