Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 613
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    I thought that there was language in one of the NOA's that specifically said even though regular students were in the fake classes, the numbers were disproportionate and they still constituted an impermissible benefit.

    UNC is grasping at straws here. All of the evidence that they cheated is out in the open. They have spent three years delaying and arguing, but it's time to face the music.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    I think so, because the athlete out of season is still governed by NCAA rules. They said:

    "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."

    They used 'and' instead of 'or' but it's inconceivable that they would make a blunder so transparent as trying to exclude football player in the Spring. I mean, their lawyers wouldn't open themselves up to that kind of ridicule would they?
    I obviously don't get this. If unc defines these "student-athletes" are not "student-athletes" when not participating in their sports season... so not governed by NCAA rules... can they take part-time jobs when their sport is not in season? Like all other non-athlete students? What about commercial advertisements? And every other kind of "extra benefits" that don't count if not governed by the NCAA... Would unc allow these "extra benefits" when a sport is not in season? I bet not...

  3. #43
    Welcome back Mr. Kane!
    http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...152707069.html

    This is compelling -- from the Crowder interview earlier this month -- none of which I had seen yet:

    She (Crowder) said she asked Nyang’oro what grades he offered. He told her A’s and B’s.

    “He said you have to work to get a C,” Crowder said. She added that she saw some papers that she thought were “C” quality, and in some cases the student accepted the grade and in others she let them redo the paper for a higher grade."

    Crowder acknowledged that she asked the program to send her lists of athletes to be enrolled, while other students often had to visit her office and make their cases.

    Sulentic asked Crowder about one of those counselors’ take on her grading: “It was well known that if Debbie graded it, the grades would be high just that simple.”

    Crowder said that was just opinion, not “based on any fact."
       

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Century City California (LA)

    I have finally had enough

    Not sure what has taken me so long but.. I have finally had in with UNC-CH (eat). Like Dr RosenRosen and since I live on the left coast and don't have to deal with their alumni on a regular basis I used to respect UNC-Ch and actually root for them especially out of conference. At this point I feel betrayed- our once respected and worthy rival has been exposed as nothing more than a semi-pro sports institution and every single one of the degrees it has bestowed has been diminished. At least until the do the right thing by admitting and fixing their disgraceful activity and maybe even then to me they will remain more like Maryland or for the old timers South Carolina than a respected rival. Sporting events with them I will consider as exhibitions similar to baseball playing the Durham Bulls. Yes I still want to beat them but more because I feel disdain for them than the desire to beat a rival. This Carolina is your true penalty- you have lost the best rivalry in college basketball. You have lost the respect of an esteemed academic rival. You remind me of a group of dirty brackish water reptiles except even with them we generally liked and respected Maryland basketball players. Maybe South Carolina is a better example but even Mike Grosso was supposed to go to class.
    Yes Carolina it won't be the same without you and yes you have caused us to lose our rival as well. Carolina you are NO LONGER OUR RIVAL- Much to my regret YOU DON'T DESERVE TO ASSOCIATE WITH DUKE. (and I will reduce my employment offers if any, to UNC-CH alumni? by at least 10% in the future.)

    Steve Poucher Class of 1970.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santa Cruz CA
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Big Wayne I believe, who has been pretty spot-on throughout on this issue.

    Big Wayne, what's the COI gonna do?
    Well I was a few hours off but got the right day. I guess they figured they had to do a presser to get some supporting BS for the reporters to put in their stories. I'm sure they will all be on their way to the beach tomorrow and unavailable for comment.

    I haven't had time to read it today because I have been getting ready for the weekend. (-1.8 ft tide on Saturday. Time to dig clams.) Thankfully a bunch of you pulled the main points out for me. Sort of a cliff notes version I guess.

    This approach of nitpicking and claiming the NCAA doesn't have authority is more of the crap they pulled in NOA2. The NCAA response was to double down and up the charges. I don't think Sankey is going to buy it this time either. Based on the last Sankey response, I think this attempt is just a setup for some future attempt at a lawsuit or some sort of appeal. They surely couldn't think this would be well received at the NCAA.

    I think the previously announced timeline of a COI meeting in August is still on track.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Carolina Beach
    Quote Originally Posted by smvalkyries View Post
    At least until the do the right thing by admitting and fixing their disgraceful activity...
    Steve Poucher Class of 1970.
    Well, I think we can forget about UNC doing the right thing. That ship sailed long ago.

    They have no shame...

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    From Luke DeCock in the N&O:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/s...152660089.html

    Some gems:

    "It remains a cynical defense, one predicated on legalese and semantics and technicalities and straw men (“media accounts”), which is revealing because when it serves North Carolina’s purposes to be contrite, as the university was when the Wainstein Report was released or in negotiating with its academic accreditors, the university has no trouble being contrite. When the Wainstein Report is a complication, it tries to lawyer its way out from under it."

    And:

    "Begging for forgiveness with one hand while slapping away the NCAA with the other, it makes you wonder whether the university, collectively, really feels any guilt at all for this cancer that rotted within for so long. Either way, the scandal remains an embarrassing stain on North Carolina’s reputation whether it technically violated NCAA bylaws or not."


    And:

    "But the case is going to be heard, finally. The issues, never more starkly defined, will be argued. North Carolina faces the difficult task of winning over an infractions committee that is both judge and prosecutor, but the university’s position is clear, even if its conscience shouldn’t be, no matter what the NCAA decides."

    (bolded mine)

    Beyond shameless.
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by gep View Post
    I obviously don't get this. If unc defines these "student-athletes" are not "student-athletes" when not participating in their sports season... so not governed by NCAA rules... can they take part-time jobs when their sport is not in season? Like all other non-athlete students? What about commercial advertisements? And every other kind of "extra benefits" that don't count if not governed by the NCAA... Would unc allow these "extra benefits" when a sport is not in season? I bet not...
    This is a minor point and not really related to this thread but I can't help it because this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. There is no NCAA rule preventing student athletes from working. They can even, with some stipulations, work camps and clinics or give lessons in the sport they play to earn money in the off season.

    Relevant bylaw is 12.4 on page 69 if anyone is interested.

  9. #49
    I think UNC just brought the death penalty into play. The only acceptable response to a member institution refusing to play fair, accept responsibility and self punish is to put them down like a rabid dog.

    UNC athletics should be given a two year break, but I'm okay if the NCAA just cancels their membership entirely.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    Easy classes would actually be okay.

    These are phony classes -- classes that never met, were never taught and in many cases were listed as taught by professors who had no idea that their names were used. Some of the classes required a short term paper -- which was graded by a secretary, not an educator. And the same papers were recycled year after year.

    I've had UNC apologists tell me that there's nothing to the scandal because every school has easy classes and they stick athletes there. Well, that's true.

    But in UNC's case, these are not easy classes -- they are fictional classes or, as Wainstein called them, paper classes. He found dozens and dozens of such classes covering more than 18 years and involving more than 1,500 athletes. We don't know the names of athletes who took advantage of the scam -- except one - Rashad McCants in the spring of 2005, when he was a big part of UNC's national championship team. We know because he released his transcripts and every course he took that semester was a phony class. We don't know about his teammates, except we know that the top seven players on that team were all majoring in African-American Studies.
    Does anyone know if Debbie Crowder has a Masters degree? If the rules for accreditation are the same at UNC as they are at Duke I believe the person "teaching" the class has to have a degree higher than the students. For example, a graduate student cannot teach a class of graduate students; the class has to be taught by someone with a PhD or who is studying for their PhD.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area
    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.

    So if a guy is ineligible for a semester because of grades, and they put him into the bogus class to get his GPA up, he doesn't count as an "active athlete" while his GPA is subpar?

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area
    Quote Originally Posted by BLPOG View Post
    The redefining of student-athlete seems like a really boneheaded move by UNC. Thirty percent is still an outrageously disproportionate number, to the point that the argument that the classes were primarily for athletes or unfairly benefited athletes remains pretty much as strong as with 50%.

    That 20% former athletes really makes things look much worse for UNC. While it might mean fewer declarations of ineligibility than a scenario in which all had been active, it actually reinforces the idea that the classes were for athletes. It shows that athletes were admitted to the school without regard for their academic abilities and that they needed these classes as a cover even if they weren't on a team any longer. It shows that they were aware of the classes because of their athletic involvement. The only thing it does sort of in favor of UNC is possibly show that those students chose the classes rather than being told by athletics staff to take them. Of course, to properly evaluate that, you'd have to see why they left the teams, if they ever rejoined, and whether they were active when they enrolled. I'd bet the answers to those questions would not be favorable to UNC's portrayal of events.
    I doubt it. I suspect the 20% were people in an ineligible status because of grades...I would bet they were "inactive" while they were taking these classes, then became active again when their grades were back up.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I think UNC just brought the death penalty into play. The only acceptable response to a member institution refusing to play fair, accept responsibility and self punish is to put them down like a rabid dog.

    UNC athletics should be given a two year break, but I'm okay if the NCAA just cancels their membership entirely.
    Absolutely not going to happen, as much as they deserve it.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I doubt it. I suspect the 20% were people in an ineligible status because of grades...I would bet they were "inactive" while they were taking these classes, then became active again when their grades were back up.
    Wouldn't such "students" still be on scholarship? Wouldn't that make them subject to NCAA regulations?

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Wouldn't such "students" still be on scholarship? Wouldn't that make them subject to NCAA regulations?
    The point is that UNC response creates a whole new definition of student athlete for their analysis that no one else does and totally different than what the NCAA uses in all the metrics it uses and publishes
       

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil2 View Post
    The point is that UNC response creates a whole new definition of student athlete for their analysis that no one else does and totally different than what the NCAA uses in all the metrics it uses and publishes
    Classic. case of if you don't like the answer, redefine the question
       

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Meany View Post
    The drop from roughly 50% to 30% is huge (40% of the athletes Wainstain identified are not considered athlete's by UNC's definition). It is very difficult to imagine what could possibly account for nearly half of these kids, who were at least at some point an athlete, under any definition becoming a non-athlete. This was a very large group of athletes. There is no way that 40% were kids who dropped their sport.

    Unless I am missing something, it would seem like there must be something like you have suggested (athletes trying to regain eligibility).
    I loved davekay's theory below. It seems reasonable that at any one time, 40% of athletes are out of season while taking classes, e.g. football players in spring semester.

    It would also be an utterly ridiculous and hilarious re-defining of "student-athlete." But I think UNC is capable of trying to run with that argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    From UNC's comment and the way they define it, they aren't even saying the participants are all former athletes. They strictly define an athlete as someone currently participating in athletics. They IMPLY that Wainstein unreasonably included all these people who had played a sport once upon a time but are not longer involved in athletics. What UNC's definition allows is an athlete who is simply out-of-season to not be counted as an athlete. IE: a football player taking a bogus spring class or men's basketball player making a bogus summer class to keep their GPA above water is, by UNC's entirely invented definition, not actually an athlete.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Wouldn't such "students" still be on scholarship? Wouldn't that make them subject to NCAA regulations?
    I would really love to see UNC's calculation which they conveniently didn't include. They're basically reclassifying 390 "enrollments" as non-SA. To get to that number that means it's a lot of football or "other non-revenue sports" stuck around after they were either injured or decided to punt the sport which surprisingly doesn't seem that believable.

    BTW there are some juicy details in the exhibits:

    Exhibit 1-21 is an e-mail from the NCAA to UNC where they list the benefits specific SAs received. UNC left in the SAs tutors so we know they NCAA is looking at what Walden was doing.

    Exhibit 1-28 list all the classes from 99-09 with at least 50 enrollments where the average GPA was over 3.50. A whole lot of the typical Phys Ed and Music classes. But then you get to AFAM190 with 1389 enrollments and an average GPA of 3.70. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

    There's also this tidbit at the end of their response, so they're admitting their WBB program is done:

    The women’s basketball student-athletes identified in Allegation 1 as recipients of “extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements,” participated in team championships with the women’s basketball team (in various capacities) during the 2002-03 through 2012-13 seasons. The violations adversely affected each student-athlete’s eligibility for future
    competition at the point in time in which the extra benefit was provided, per the terms of Bylaw 16.11.2.1, and thus the student-athletes’ participation in team championships during the 2002-03 through 2012-13 seasons is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4. A chart summarizing the years of competition and number of contests competed (including championship
    participation) for each involved student-athlete is provided as Exhibit D-9.
    Of course, Exhibit D-9 appears to be left out of what they released.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by niveklaen View Post
    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.
    I think that this is the key to the question as to whether non-current athletes should be included in the count of athletes taking paper classes. If we assume that UNC has an incentive to make sure that athletes do not drop out and fail to graduate, UNC will probably encourage them to continue to use the services of the athletics academic counselors (ASPSA). If so, and if they were steered to the classes by the academic counselors, what difference does it make that they were not currently on a team? Perhaps there was no extra-benefit with respect to them if they were not ‘governed by NCAA rules’ at the time, but it still demonstrates powerfully how the ASPSA machine was pushing people into these classes.

    UNC said that they subtracted 171 people from the number used by Wainstein. These would be the people who at one time were student athletes but not when they took the paper classes. I’d be interested in seeing the total number of students who were student-athletes for at least one semester and who were ‘not governed by NCAA rules’ for at least one semester, and learning what percentage of them took the paper classes, and how that compares with the percentage of non-athletes who took the classes. Maybe the enforcement staff will touch on this in their reply.

  20. #60

    I think I remember

    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.
    that a paper from a woman basketball player had its grade raised. Paper had a couple of problems - it was on the wrong subject and had been handed it earlier by another student. Athletic department was involved in getting the grade raised.

    No reason for the NCAA to care I guess.

    SoCal

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
  •