UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3

[BigWayne]

All of the courses in Exhibit 1-15 are specifically named as being related to sports teams and are of limited value in obtaining a degree. For example, the one from Syracuse is limited to 4 credits vs. a degree requirement of 120 credits. UNC's problem is that they had fake classes that propped up multiple semesters of eligibility and actual degree granting.

[swood1000]

How can UNC acknowledge to SACS that academic fraud existed but then say in their response to NOA-3 that these classes “did not violate any then-existing University written policy”?

This is from the UNC response to NOA-3:
 

“Further, the Courses and their structure, content, and administration, including the five elements cited by the Staff, did not violate any then-existing University written policy.”

This is from the UNC response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

“The Wainstein report explains this information at length and in significant detail and demonstrates, as SACSCOC correctly observes, that the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang’oro and Crowder.”

What conclusion can be drawn except that they are claiming that academic fraud did not violate any then-existing University written policy? But so what?

[Indoor66]

How can UNC acknowledge to SACS that academic fraud existed but then say in their response to NOA-3 that these classes “did not violate any then-existing University written policy”?

This is from the UNC response to NOA-3:
 

“Further, the Courses and their structure, content, and administration, including the five elements cited by the Staff, did not violate any then-existing University written policy.”

This is from the UNC response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

“The Wainstein report explains this information at length and in significant detail and demonstrates, as SACSCOC correctly observes, that the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang’oro and Crowder.”

What conclusion can be drawn except that they are claiming that academic fraud did not violate any then-existing University written policy? But so what?

It proves that they are lying sacks of feces?

[devildeac]

It proves that they are lying sacks of feces?

Hey, that could be construed as being insulting to lying sacks of feces...

(Actually, that's a pretty damned funny response. )

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

It proves that they are lying sacks of feces?

And it also proves that the true Carolina Way is still alive and well. They think everyone else around them is stupid and that they can play this multi-year shell game in the hopes that everyone forgets what's really at issue. Throwing 900+ pages of B.S. at the NCAA is nothing more than another smokescreen. Hopefully the NCAA has the ability to see through it.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Hey, that could be construed as being insulting to lying sacks of feces...

(Actually, that's a pretty damned funny response. )

Good to see you have learned your lesson, grasshopper, and are now passing on your great wisdom to others.

[Stray Gator]

How can UNC acknowledge to SACS that academic fraud existed but then say in their response to NOA-3 that these classes “did not violate any then-existing University written policy”?

This is from the UNC response to NOA-3:
 

“Further, the Courses and their structure, content, and administration, including the five elements cited by the Staff, did not violate any then-existing University written policy.”

This is from the UNC response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

“The Wainstein report explains this information at length and in significant detail and demonstrates, as SACSCOC correctly observes, that the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang’oro and Crowder.”

What conclusion can be drawn except that they are claiming that academic fraud did not violate any then-existing University written policy? But so what?

So far as I can tell, the only way to reconcile the statement in UNC's response to SACS with the statement in the UNC's response to the NCAA's Second Amended Notice of Allegations is to conclude that academic fraud, even if longstanding and widespread, was an acceptable practice under then-existing official policies of the University of North Carolina. For the the school's administration to make such an admission should, in my opinion, be regarded by every person associated with UNC as disgraceful, demeaning, and embarrassing, because it undermines any notion that the institution deserved the reputation it previously enjoyed for academic excellence and integrity.

But for purposes of the NCAA's inquiry, it seems to me that the material issue is not whether the fraudulent courses violated UNC's own policies, but whether those courses enabled UNC to maintain the eligibility of athletes who properly should not have been qualified to compete. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent colleges from adopting a policy that allows athletes, and for that matter students generally, to advance towards a degree by taking courses that require no class attendance, no tests, and no work of any kind other than registration, thereby fielding players who are college students only in the sense that they reside on a campus and wear that school's uniform when competing with legitimate student-athletes from genuine institutions of higher learning.

[Indoor66]

So far as I can tell, the only way to reconcile the statement in UNC's response to SACS with the statement in the UNC's response to the NCAA's Second Amended Notice of Allegations is to conclude that academic fraud, even if longstanding and widespread, was an acceptable practice under then-existing official policies of the University of North Carolina. For the the school's administration to make such an admission should, in my opinion, be regarded by every person associated with UNC as disgraceful, demeaning, and embarrassing, because it undermines any notion that the institution deserved the reputation it previously enjoyed for academic excellence and integrity.

But for purposes of the NCAA's inquiry, it seems to me that the material issue is not whether the fraudulent courses violated UNC's own policies, but whether those courses enabled UNC to maintain the eligibility of athletes who properly should not have been qualified to compete. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent colleges from adopting a policy that allows athletes, and for that matter students generally, to advance towards a degree by taking courses that require no class attendance, no tests, and no work of any kind other than registration, thereby fielding players who are college students only in the sense that they reside on a campus and wear that school's uniform when competing with legitimate student-athletes from genuine institutions of higher learning.

In my opinion, the COI will read, comprehend, and interpret the conflicting UnCheat statements by recognizing the completely self-serving exercise that any rational person would. They will not buy this B.S. The COI will hammer the cheats. Banners, championships, wins in many sports. Hundreds of wins vacated. Also, no post season for several years and a severe limitation placed on both recruiting and the number of scholarships. A TV ban for several years and multimillion dollar fines.

Other than the above, nothing will happen. 😎

[Pghdukie]

In my opinion, the COI will read, comprehend, and interpret the conflicting UnCheat statements by recognizing the completely self-serving exercise that any rational person would. They will not buy this B.S. The COI will hammer the cheats. Banners, championships, wins in many sports. Hundreds of wins vacated. Also, no post season for several years and a severe limitation placed on both recruiting and the number of scholarships. A TV ban for several years and multimillion dollar fines.

Other than the above, nothing will happen. 😎

I'll believe it when I see it. But I surely hope your right.

[bob blue devil]

How can UNC acknowledge to SACS that academic fraud existed but then say in their response to NOA-3 that these classes “did not violate any then-existing University written policy”?

This is from the UNC response to NOA-3:
 

“Further, the Courses and their structure, content, and administration, including the five elements cited by the Staff, did not violate any then-existing University written policy.”

This is from the UNC response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

“The Wainstein report explains this information at length and in significant detail and demonstrates, as SACSCOC correctly observes, that the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang’oro and Crowder.”

What conclusion can be drawn except that they are claiming that academic fraud did not violate any then-existing University written policy? But so what?

is it a safe assumption that the COI will use unc's reports with SACS in its evaluation of the case?

[swood1000]

So far as I can tell, the only way to reconcile the statement in UNC's response to SACS with the statement in the UNC's response to the NCAA's Second Amended Notice of Allegations is to conclude that academic fraud, even if longstanding and widespread, was an acceptable practice under then-existing official policies of the University of North Carolina. For the the school's administration to make such an admission should, in my opinion, be regarded by every person associated with UNC as disgraceful, demeaning, and embarrassing, because it undermines any notion that the institution deserved the reputation it previously enjoyed for academic excellence and integrity.

But for purposes of the NCAA's inquiry, it seems to me that the material issue is not whether the fraudulent courses violated UNC's own policies, but whether those courses enabled UNC to maintain the eligibility of athletes who properly should not have been qualified to compete. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent colleges from adopting a policy that allows athletes, and for that matter students generally, to advance towards a degree by taking courses that require no class attendance, no tests, and no work of any kind other than registration, thereby fielding players who are college students only in the sense that they reside on a campus and wear that school's uniform when competing with legitimate student-athletes from genuine institutions of higher learning.

The sentence immediately preceding this one in their NOA response was:
 

"The University reiterates that the same characteristics appear to have been present in both the Auburn and Michigan matters, but no violations were alleged there, much less found."

(Both Michigan and Auburn involved professors who offered high volume, low difficulty, high grade independent studies. According to UNC, the Director of the Auburn Sociology Department said that over 25% of the participants were student-athletes. They claim that at Michigan the participants were 85% student-athletes.)

So it looks like at least part of their purpose was to claim that the NCAA can't differentiate those cases by saying that violations of academic rules were involved here but not there.

But the absence of academic violations in those cases is clearly one of the differences, illustrated by the fact that (a) the university did not declare, on academic grounds, that those classes could not count toward graduation, (b) those classes were taught by a faculty member, (c) those classes did not misbrand themselves in order to circumvent university regulations, (d) the department in charge of those classes had not been told by a Dean to discontinue them because they were academically dubious, (e) no experts examined papers written in those classes and declared that the students used large amounts of “unoriginal” content, (f) the chairman of the department in charge of those classes didn’t later characterize them as involving “lax grading standards,” (g) those classes were not described, by a formal investigation, as resulting in consistently high grades that the grader awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality, (h) those classes did not result in the university admitting that there had been significant academic fraud and being placed on probation by its accrediting agency.

What did I leave out?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

The sentence immediately preceding this one in their NOA response was:
 

"The University reiterates that the same characteristics appear to have been present in both the Auburn and Michigan matters, but no violations were alleged there, much less found."

(Both Michigan and Auburn involved professors who offered high volume, low difficulty, high grade independent studies. According to UNC, the Director of the Auburn Sociology Department said that over 25% of the participants were student-athletes. They claim that at Michigan the participants were 85% student-athletes.)

So it looks like at least part of their purpose was to claim that the NCAA can't differentiate those cases by saying that violations of academic rules were involved here but not there.

But the absence of academic violations in those cases is clearly one of the differences, illustrated by the fact that (a) the university did not declare, on academic grounds, that those classes could not count toward graduation, (b) those classes were taught by a faculty member, (c) those classes did not misbrand themselves in order to circumvent university regulations, (d) the department in charge of those classes had not been told by a Dean to discontinue them because they were academically dubious, (e) no experts examined papers written in those classes and declared that the students used large amounts of “unoriginal” content, (f) the chairman of the department in charge of those classes didn’t later characterize them as involving “lax grading standards,” (g) those classes were not described, by a formal investigation, as resulting in consistently high grades that the grader awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality, (h) those classes did not result in the university admitting that there had been significant academic fraud and being placed on probation by its accrediting agency.

What did I leave out?

Right. UNC (and Jay Bilas, too) would have everyone believe these were just easy classes. But the point is a simple one that UNC is now trying to obfuscate (and that others are strangely not acknowledging)... the classes were fraudulent, as admitted by UNC themselves. That should be game, set and match.

[DukieInKansas]

How can UNC acknowledge to SACS that academic fraud existed but then say in their response to NOA-3 that these classes “did not violate any then-existing University written policy”?

This is from the UNC response to NOA-3:
 

“Further, the Courses and their structure, content, and administration, including the five elements cited by the Staff, did not violate any then-existing University written policy.”

This is from the UNC response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

“The Wainstein report explains this information at length and in significant detail and demonstrates, as SACSCOC correctly observes, that the academic fraud was long-standing and not limited to the misconduct of just Nyang’oro and Crowder.”

What conclusion can be drawn except that they are claiming that academic fraud did not violate any then-existing University written policy? But so what?

The more I read this and the comments that have followed it, the more I think that unc diploma = participation trophy. (everyone gets one.)

[swood1000]

Right. UNC (and Jay Bilas, too) would have everyone believe these were just easy classes. But the point is a simple one that UNC is now trying to obfuscate (and that others are strangely not acknowledging)... the classes were fraudulent, as admitted by UNC themselves. That should be game, set and match.

Game, set and match not because the classes were fraudulent, but because (a) they had characteristics that took them beyond the category of "easy classes" (allowing the NCAA to declare the fact without having to evaluate academics), and (b) student-athletes were given greater access to them.

[swood1000]

is it a safe assumption that the COI will use unc's reports with SACS in its evaluation of the case?

They've done so already. See the November-28-2016-letter-from-Committee-on-Infractions (the letter in which the COI told the enforcement staff to reinstate allegations related to academic misconduct). There is a reference to SACS on page 3. That page, though couched in legal jargon, could provide some solace for those concerned that the COI may miss the gist of what's going on.

[swood1000]

UNC claims that allegation 1 should be barred by NCAA Bylaw 19.8.3

19.8.3 Finality of Decisions. Any decision by a hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions that is not appealed or reconsidered pursuant to Bylaw 19.8.2 shall be final, binding and conclusive, and shall not be subject to further review by any governance body.

It can only be reconsidered if there is "new information." Their position is that there is no new information since all the relevant information, in the form of emails and interview transcripts, was either already in their hands or pointed to information that could have reasonably been ascertained prior to the COI hearing in 2011. They claim that the Wainstein Report (alias the Cadwalader Report) simply turned up additional instances of the same types of things. For example if the enforcement staff already knew of three instances of “requesting certain course offerings,” the fact that Wainstein turned up five more was just turning up more instances of the same type of information, and was not finding any “new information.” And without any “new information,” 19.8.3 prohibits reopening the matter. If they wouldn’t allege three instances why would they allege eight instances?

How can this be reconciled with this statement from their response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

"The University is in complete agreement with the Commission’s observations that the Wainstein investigation uncovered important and new information about the scope and extent of the irregularities in Carolina’s AFAM Department—the product, as Carolina expected, of the important and breakthrough access Wainstein had to Julius Nyang’oro and Deborah Crowder and thousands of documents gathered in the District Attorney’s criminal investigation."

[budwom]

one can only assume they are continuing to play the ultra long game (delay, deny, obfuscate) since all the crap they have argued MUST be considered by the COI to be a perpetual thumb in the eye.
I don't see how they have fostered the tiniest sympathy with the committee.
Therefore, their strategy must be to 1) attempt to intimidate the COI with legal bluster, and if that fails 2) commence a never ending lawsuit with the NCAA.
Many schools simply acknowledge at least SOME measure of guilt, propose an inadequate self punishment which is then negotiated upwards, and then it's over. Not with these clowns.

[Stray Gator]

UNC claims that allegation 1 should be barred by NCAA Bylaw 19.8.3



It can only be reconsidered if there is "new information." Their position is that there is no new information since all the relevant information, in the form of emails and interview transcripts, was either already in their hands or pointed to information that could have reasonably been ascertained prior to the COI hearing in 2011. They claim that the Wainstein Report (alias the Cadwalader Report) simply turned up additional instances of the same types of things. For example if the enforcement staff already knew of three instances of “requesting certain course offerings,” the fact that Wainstein turned up five more was just turning up more instances of the same type of information, and was not finding any “new information.” And without any “new information,” 19.8.3 prohibits reopening the matter. If they wouldn’t allege three instances why would they allege eight instances?

How can this be reconciled with this statement from their response to the SACS letter of November 13, 2014:
 

"The University is in complete agreement with the Commission’s observations that the Wainstein investigation uncovered important and new information about the scope and extent of the irregularities in Carolina’s AFAM Department—the product, as Carolina expected, of the important and breakthrough access Wainstein had to Julius Nyang’oro and Deborah Crowder and thousands of documents gathered in the District Attorney’s criminal investigation."

I would expect UNC's lawyers to contend, based on their definition of "new information," that the statement in the SACS response doesn't constitute an admission that refutes their claim of finality with respect to the 2011 proceeding, because it merely acknowledges that the Wainstein investigation uncovered new information regarding "the scope and extent of the irregularities," which only amounts to more instances of the same type of misconduct. But I would also expect the COI to reject this contention on two grounds: First, UNC's attempt to define "new information" so that it would encompass only information about different types of offenses is unreasonably narrow; in effect, it would be equivalent to a serial murderer arguing that evidence of additional killings that were only uncovered after his first trial for murder cannot authorize prosecution of him for those subsequently discovered crimes. Second, even if the term "new evidence" could be limited to new and different misconduct, most legal codes and regulations contain an exception to the rule of finality where evidence of similar wrongdoing was fraudulently concealed or was not reasonably discoverable through the exercise of due diligence. UNC's position necessarily posits that the NCAA should be barred from prosecuting violations that were vastly more extensive and enduring than was evident from information available in 2011, on the theory that it was the NCAA's duty to continue pursuing the investigation at that time until it could find the voluminous additional information not then disclosed -- perhaps even deliberately concealed -- by UNC, but only later uncovered by Wainstein. Using the same analogy, that would be equivalent to the serial murderer arguing that he should escape responsibility for any subsequently discovered killings because it's the state's fault that it didn't continue to investigate until it had uncovered the evidence of those additional crimes that he had concealed or that was otherwise not reasonably discoverable at the time of his first trial. Just more of the transparent absurdity that doesn't pass the straight-face test, but for which UNC's lawyers are being lavishly rewarded.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I would expect UNC's lawyers to contend, based on their definition of "new information," that the statement in the SACS response doesn't constitute an admission that refutes their claim of finality with respect to the 2011 proceeding, because it merely acknowledges that the Wainstein investigation uncovered new information regarding "the scope and extent of the irregularities," which only amounts to more instances of the same type of misconduct. But I would also expect the COI to reject this contention on two grounds: First, UNC's attempt to define "new information" so that it would encompass only information about different types of offenses is unreasonably narrow; in effect, it would be equivalent to a serial murderer arguing that evidence of additional killings that were only uncovered after his first trial for murder cannot authorize prosecution of him for those subsequently discovered crimes. Second, even if the term "new evidence" could be limited to new and different misconduct, most legal codes and regulations contain an exception to the rule of finality where evidence of similar wrongdoing was fraudulently concealed or was not reasonably discoverable through the exercise of due diligence. UNC's position necessarily posits that the NCAA should be barred from prosecuting violations that were vastly more extensive and enduring than was evident from information available in 2011, on the theory that it was the NCAA's duty to continue pursuing the investigation at that time until it could find the voluminous additional information not then disclosed -- perhaps even deliberately concealed -- by UNC, but only later uncovered by Wainstein. Using the same analogy, that would be equivalent to the serial murderer arguing that he should escape responsibility for any subsequently discovered killings because it's the state's fault that it didn't continue to investigate until it had uncovered the evidence of those additional crimes that he had concealed or that was otherwise not reasonably discoverable at the time of his first trial. Just more of the transparent absurdity that doesn't pass the straight-face test, but for which UNC's lawyers are being lavishly rewarded.

And isn't it understood that the NCAA and the school under investigation are supposed to be working cooperatively to investigate and uncover wrongdoings? It would seem in this case the cheats are arguing that it was all up to the NCAA. But that's not how it's supposed to work.

[ncexnyc]

Will someone please be kind enough to send me an email when something is actually done to UNCheat.