UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3

[Indoor66]

I was hoping within 90 days after the COI hearing in August, but then I had a thought, which I pose for our litigators: Can UNC seek an injunction to stop the COI hearings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction? Could that be a safe way out of this - I'm assuming the injunction hearing would not require or allow discovery. If the court agrees with UNC, then they are home free. If it doesn't, they are no worse off and have bought a little more time. The PR spin would be that UNC wants to affirm the propriety of the NCAA looking into this.

By joining the organization, the cheats explicitly agreed to the rules of the organization. Implicit in that is acceptance of jurisdiction for the organization to apply and enforce those rules. It is hard for me to imagine a court enjoining the procedure, though in this age of activist judges, who knows.

[devildeac]

By joining the organization, the cheats explicitly agreed to the rules of the organization. Implicit in that is acceptance of jurisdiction for the organization to apply and enforce those rules. It is hard for me to imagine a court enjoining the procedure, though in this age of activist judges, who knows.

Seeing what those dirty, rotten, cheating, lying fockers have done/said since ~1988, especially in the last several years, I'm not sure any maneuver on their part would surprise me at this point.

[Indoor66]

Seeing what those dirty, rotten, cheating, lying fockers have done/said since ~1988, especially in the last several years, I'm not sure any maneuver on their part would surprise me at this point.

I agree with you. I doubt that a Court will agree with them!

[BD80]

I was hoping within 90 days after the COI hearing in August, but then I had a thought, which I pose for our litigators: Can UNC seek an injunction to stop the COI hearings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction? Could that be a safe way out of this - I'm assuming the injunction hearing would not require or allow discovery. If the court agrees with UNC, then they are home free. If it doesn't, they are no worse off and have bought a little more time. The PR spin would be that UNC wants to affirm the propriety of the NCAA looking into this.

Two-part question.

First, can they seek an injunction? Yes, they certainly can file for one.

Second, would it be meritorious and therefore have a chance of success? Absent home cooking (big caveat), I would find it hard to think that a judge would enjoin the disciplinary process of a private collective body to which UNC voluntarily subjected itself. There are also some problems with UNC's claim being "ripe" (or ready) for decision, given that they would be trying to stop the NCAA from doing something that it may or may not even do. (The NCAA could reasonably determine, presumably, that UNC is correct and therefore no discipline is appropriate). To get around this, UNC would have to argue that the fix is already in against them and the hearing would be just pro forma -- and making that assertion ahead of the August hearing would take major covfefes.

So it's possible they could file for one, but I don't expect them to do so. Unless the only goal is further delay . . . .

Implicit in your question is whether unc could seek some emergency or preliminary relief before the COI hearing and ruling.

It makes me chuckle to imagine unc's counsel standing in front of a judge arguing that unc needs expedited relief - considering unc has been stalling the COI for YEARS. But now there's an emergency?

Reminds me of my favorite trial objection: "Objection, Prejudicial!" Translation: "If you let the witness answer the question, we'll lose the case!"

[swood1000]

With respect to extra benefits, UNC has to show that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students.

To show that athletes had preferential access, the NCAA will cite Wainstein’s statement that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes, but student-athletes were only 4% of the student body. UNC disputes the 47.6%, saying that calculated properly it is really closer to 30%. But they say that either number shows that the classes were generally available to all students.

UNC argues that there is no authority for the proposition that an absence of proportionality in enrollment by student-athletes demonstrates that a class was not generally available to all students. This seems to conflict with the 1995 U. of Miami case in which benefits were provided to 77 athletes and 6 non-athletes, which held that the assistance was not “generally available” because it was not provided to non-athletes “on the same scale.”

UNC also points out that cultural and racial differences could account for a higher percentage of athletes taking AFAM classes. They say that “The percentage of African-American student-athletes on the football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball squads was more than five times the percentage of African-Americans in the University’s student body.” This argument conflicts with Wainstein, who said “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.” To counter this UNC points out that in 21 non-paper class AFAM independent studies classes offered after Crowder’s retirement, student-athletes made up 38.5% of the enrollment. (Don’t quite see the relevance of this given Wainstein’s 8.3% figure.)

If student-athletes were 4% of the student body but made up 10% of the paper class enrollments would that demonstrate that the classes were not generally available to all? What about 30%? 47.6%? Can we say that any paper class was not generally available if its paper class characteristics were not disclosed in the course listings, so that inside information was necessary to realize what perhaps the key feature of the class was?

[Lar77]

Agree with devildeac (verbatim) and the rest of you, but nothing shocks me about the behavior (or expectations) of those scum. As many have noted, they have "evolved" their position many times when the facts get inconvenient and they have done everything to kick the can down the road.

[billy]

Not surprising that UNC has cancelled Jay Smith's class largely based on the scandal. Perhaps he should teach it at Duke and offer it to UNC students through the Robertson Scholars program:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...154031604.html

[howardlander]

Not surprising that UNC has cancelled Jay Smith's class largely based on the scandal. Perhaps he should teach it at Duke and offer it through the Robertson Scholars program:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...154031604.html

Unbelievable, but not surprising.

[OldPhiKap]

Not surprising that UNC has cancelled Jay Smith's class largely based on the scandal. Perhaps he should teach it at Duke and offer it through the Robertson Scholars program:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...154031604.html

I imagine that State and Wolfpack Nation would give him an endowed fellowship to teach it in Raleigh.

[devildeac]

I imagine that State and Wolfpack Nation would give him an endowed fellowship to teach it in Raleigh.

Our checkbook is ready...

[OldPhiKap]

Our checkbook is ready...

Maybe we should create a GoFundMe page to have it streamed as a webinar, open to all. You know, as a public service and all.

[Kfanarmy]

A few things:
1. Despite what UNC would like us to believe, it wasn't really available to all students
2. It was in one or two departments, so even if it was available to more students, only students in those departments would really benefit from it.

If you got a degree from the med school, the school of nursing, the school of public health, the econ department, or almost any other department, employers are pretty aware that your degree wasn't compromised. As much as UNC wants to call this an academic issue, it really isn't. It was an athletics issue involving a department or two that was willing to break the rules specifically for athletics benefit. The VAAAAAST majority of the school was not involved.

I would question the degree of any student-athlete from UNC over the last 25 years. I wouldn't question the degree over the average student at UNC over that time frame.

I don't really get this...We know there were more paper classes than those in the AFAM department. I have never made the assumption you indicate here. I think if you've gone to UNC in the decades since this scandal originator took the head job in the UNC Athletic department , who happens now to be the ACC commish, your transcript is sketchy. The other departments were simply never examined. So we don't know if the small number of paper classes in those other Schools are accurate. Many of the paper classes in AFAM were discovered through investigation. We don't know if Swofford and team had an arrangement with other schools, let's say the Arts, Sports Medicine at all. What we do know is that the one rock that was turned over led to a cess pool. There are likely many more rocks in the same situation that we will never know about.

[PackMan97]

If you got a degree from the med school, the school of nursing, the school of public health, the econ department, or almost any other department, employers are pretty aware that your degree wasn't compromised. As much as UNC wants to call this an academic issue, it really isn't. It was an athletics issue involving a department or two that was willing to break the rules specifically for athletics benefit. The VAAAAAST majority of the school was not involved.

I would question the degree of any student-athlete from UNC over the last 25 years. I wouldn't question the degree over the average student at UNC over that time frame.

I could not disagree more...well, maybe I could, but I don't have all day to type the response

#1. It is likely the Dental school was in dirty with Fats Thomas, mouthguards and folks were likely funneling improper benefits to high profile UNC athletes. This directly ties to the integrity of the entire operation. It calls into question what the folks giving this money are getting in return. I would also say it calls into question their overall ethics of anyone associated with the Dental School/Foundation. Are they getting kickbacks/bribes for using/recommending certain products to their patients? Do I know they are putting the welfare of their patient above their own benefit?

#2. We know Matt Kupec, a Vice Chancellor at UNC and in charge of fund raising, had an affair (that ended two marriages) with Tami Hansborough (mom to Tyler) and used his influence to get her a job as well as fly both her and himself around the coutry to see her younger son play at ND games. He had to go to then Chancellor Thorpe to get approval to hire Tami for a position in which her only qualifications appears to be a) was sleeping with the boss and b) the mom of a great basketball player than Carolina wanted to stay for his Senior season. If the folks at the highest level of the university are willing to play loose and fast with ethics like this...what else do they let slide?

#3. We know through the Wainstein email dump that XSS and COMS were implicated as sources of paper classes, but never investigated. Who else gave these paper courses? Again, this goes to something being rotten in the University where the default action is cover up, deny and bury it.

#4. Don't even get me started on the sexual assault/rape crisis and title IX invesitagtion they have going on over there. That is absolutely disgusting and again goes to show that above all UNC wants to cover up any problem and avoid the hard self-examination that results in real lasting change.

#5 One of the major players, Jan Boxill was the fracking head of the Faculty Senate she was so beloved by her fellow academics. This just goes to the entire narrative that the place is rotten to the core.

#6 Deborah Strohman, a long suspected source of paper classes was promoted to the faculty of the Kenan Flagler Business school. This should tell you all you need to know about how serious UNC is about rooting out the rot. Those that keep their mouths shut, get treated very well.

#7 Their unending attacks against Whistleblowers,. and Mary Willingham in particular. If you had a research grant and wanted to consider UNC, how important is it to know if something is amiss with the research program you are funding that someone will blow the whistle? To me this gets to the core of what a Research I University is about.

UNC has shown that they will cover up, deny, deflect, attack the messenger and stop at nothing to avoid responsibility is so many different areas, no I can't be certain that the average student's education hasn't been compromised by this scandal. At the very least, without positive proof, their sense of ethics is likely highly compromised. I have a coworker who is a big UNC fan and their response to all this is basically, "Who cares, everyone does it, 2017 champs, suck it!". That is someone whom I will never trust or look at the same because of this scandal. It goes beyond sports and bleeds into how you treat people, your view on ethics, integrity and honor.

So, I hope that properly addresses whether or not I think UNC grads have the smell of taint on them.

[JasonEvans]

Another UNC athlete speaks out on the scam, and skewers UNC for their response to it.

https://victoriajacksonsports.com/20...d-amended-noa/

Everyone needs to read that very thoughtful and impassioned column. Jackson knows of what she speaks, she has the perspective of an athlete at UNC during the heart of the academic scandal. She pulls no punches and is clearly ashamed at her school for its attempts to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

[wsb3]

I read that...Interesting. She won't be popular in baby blue land.

[CDu]

I don't really get this...We know there were more paper classes than those in the AFAM department. I have never made the assumption you indicate here. I think if you've gone to UNC in the decades since this scandal originator took the head job in the UNC Athletic department , who happens now to be the ACC commish, your transcript is sketchy. The other departments were simply never examined. So we don't know if the small number of paper classes in those other Schools are accurate. Many of the paper classes in AFAM were discovered through investigation. We don't know if Swofford and team had an arrangement with other schools, let's say the Arts, Sports Medicine at all. What we do know is that the one rock that was turned over led to a cess pool. There are likely many more rocks in the same situation that we will never know about.

Nobody in my field seems to share your concern about the School of Public Health at UNC (one of the strongest such schools in the country). Trust me; folks can tell the difference between a candidate who received a fraudulent education and one who did not.

[Stray Gator]

With respect to extra benefits, UNC has to show that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students. ...

It's evident that a strategic objective of UNC and its attorneys is to confine the focus of the "special benefits" inquiry to the sole issue of whether students other than athletes had access to the paper courses. But it seems to me that the critical question is not, or at least should not be, so narrowly limited, because the potential benefits do not end with mere access. Even if UNC can prove that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students -- putting aside for the moment the question of whether courses can be regarded as "available" when their existence is not published in the official catalog or through some other medium that would ordinarily be expected to convey notice and pertinent information to the general student population -- isn't there evidence that UNC athletes enjoyed other "special benefits" with respect to those courses that were not extended to regular students? For example, were non-athletes allowed to enroll in these courses after the normal registration closed, as athletes were apparently permitted to do? Were non-athletes required to attend classes, take tests, or satisfy other obligations from which athletes were routinely exempted? And most tellingly, was the coursework of the non-athletes graded by a secretary or other staff member not qualified to teach the course? If there is in fact sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that only the athletes were provided such differential treatment, then why wouldn't that support a finding of "special benefits" warranting the imposition of sanctions, notwithstanding any proof by UNC that the paper classes were generally available to all students?

[BigWayne]

It's evident that a strategic objective of UNC and its attorneys is to confine the focus of the "special benefits" inquiry to the sole issue of whether students other than athletes had access to the paper courses. But it seems to me that the critical question is not, or at least should not be, so narrowly limited, because the potential benefits do not end with mere access. Even if UNC can prove that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students -- putting aside for the moment the question of whether courses can be regarded as "available" when their existence is not published in the official catalog or through some other medium that would ordinarily be expected to convey notice and pertinent information to the general student population -- isn't there evidence that UNC athletes enjoyed other "special benefits" with respect to those courses that were not extended to regular students? For example, were non-athletes allowed to enroll in these courses after the normal registration closed, as athletes were apparently permitted to do? Were non-athletes required to attend classes, take tests, or satisfy other obligations from which athletes were routinely exempted? And most tellingly, was the coursework of the non-athletes graded by a secretary or other staff member not qualified to teach the course? If there is in fact sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that only the athletes were provided such differential treatment, then why wouldn't that support a finding of "special benefits" warranting the imposition of sanctions, notwithstanding any proof by UNC that the paper classes were generally available to all students?

I do not believe their argument is for the NCAA. They are floating this BS for consumption by the compliant sports media apologists and their delusional fan base. They are trying to set up the pity party to try to influence the NCAA to reduce the sanctions after the fact like they have done in a few recent cases.

[MarkD83]

I do not believe their argument is for the NCAA. They are floating this BS for consumption by the compliant sports media apologists and their delusional fan base. They are trying to set up the pity party to try to influence the NCAA to reduce the sanctions after the fact like they have done in a few recent cases.

My addition to your comment is that the UNC athletic administration is trying to offset the massive fine they may get. Since they have successfully used the "woe is me" defense they will get a lot of donations (and already have) to offset their legal costs as well as any fine. Whereas the UNC fan base will do anything to protect their banners, the UNC administration knows that their jobs and way of running the athletic department depends upon $$$$.

[Trinity_93]

"'But Mr Dent, the [courses] have been available in the local [AFAM] department for the last [eighteen years].'
'Oh, yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them yesterday. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.'
'But the [courses] were on display...'
'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
'That's the [AFAM] department.'
'With a flashlight.'
'Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.'
'So had the stairs.'
'But look, you found the [classes], didn't you?'
'Yes,' said Arthur, 'yes I did. [They were] on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying *Beware of the Leopard.'"