UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3

[swood1000]

The NCAA did not make that decision either...UNC made that decision in the W'stein report. This is the report they are now trying to disavow.

This is where the circular argument that UNC is trying to make should end. Just like other schools they have admitted to the fraud in the W'stein report

I agree that with a shower of crocodile tears they made general statements about how there had been transgressions. But I am not aware of any such statements that can be used to attach specific infractions to specific student-athletes, and that’s what we need to vacate wins.

The only concession of theirs I am aware of that can be used to make headway against them was when they agreed that the paper classes would not be good toward graduation for those not yet graduated. This should play a big part in their undoing.

…so the NCAA just accepts that and starts looking at transcripts and they have all of the transcripts.

The enforcement staff is not approaching this as academic fraud so looking at transcripts will be limited to determining which athletes attended paper classes as a result of having been steered by the advisors. If you think it should have been approached as academic fraud what is your answer to the question I asked PackMan97? How would you frame the rule?

[PackMan97]

We can probably all agree that every university, probably without exception, has available classes for which little or no work is required (even less than was required for the UNC paper classes) and which guarantee a high grade. Universities do not want the NCAA evaluating rigor or academic legitimacy of their classes, which means that the system has unequivocal fraud built into it. The fraud of the UNC paper classes greatly exceeded the standard amount of fraud. Instead of isolated classes here and there, it was a concentrated fraud factory.

No we can not agree that without exception every university has class that are less rigourous than the UNC powerpoint below. Keep in mind, we have proof that the paper used was often massively plagerized, recycled, already used for a different class, not on topic for the class and in general something that would get you academically suspended at a real school (Duke or State).



Everyone school does have easy A's that anyone who graduated high school should have no problem passing. I can agree with that. I took one of them at State with half the women's basketball team. Drama 100 - Intro to Drama. I'm pretty sure everyone made an A in that class. But you know what? Those girls showed up every class. They memorized the short plays they were assigned and gave them to the class. They took the short quizes. They got their A without likely having to do more than prepare 10 minutes before class. Every school has those.

The difference is you can't make progress toward a degree taking all the easy As. You can't fill up four years worth of course work. If you are functionally illiterate, you won't pass them. At UNC, they took classes that required nothing and turned it into a diploma.

How would you frame the rule that captures the paper classes but not the isolated instances of classes having no rigor? The rule cannot put the NCAA into the position of having to evaluate the academic content of classes that did have some content (they had to submit a paper that included appropriate citations and a proper bibliography, and that met the page-length requirements). You could draw the line at classes that are not taught by a faculty member but what about classes taught by grad students or adjuncts? There are many legitimate instances of exams being graded by higher-level students at the direction of the professor. How do you differentiate those situations from one in which the department head assigns his assistant, a college grad, to grade independent study papers?

In this case the NCAA has skipped trying to formulate that rule, and has instead said that it has no problem with low/no content classes as long as athletes are not given preferential access to them. How do you think the NCAA should have proceeded?

SACS made UNC the FIRST Research I University to be put on probation for academic fraud. The NCAA doesn't have to make that determination, SACS already did it for them. As to why the NCAA isn't leaning on that report and the Wainstein report and calling a spade a spade, is most likely because they are still trying to punish UNC for what UNC self reported.

In general, classes taught by graduate students and others are designed that way. Their name is on the sylabus. Students know about it when signing up for the class. Full faculty oversea the graduate students teaching etc. The problem is that you want to find a way out so you can keep your "precious". You'll warp you mind to justify the means, because you want the ends (those precious basketball wins).

[swood1000]

Everyone school does have easy A's that anyone who graduated high school should have no problem passing. I can agree with that.

That’s all I’m saying. Every school, including Duke and State, has professors who are willing to let somebody do an easy independent study and who are prepared to grade extremely leniently. There is no substantive difference between those classes and the UNC paper classes. Furthermore, any class in which a person can get an A and only have to prepare 10 minutes before class is not a college level class. (I took one or two of them myself.)

The difference is you can't make progress toward a degree taking all the easy As. You can't fill up four years worth of course work.

So the rule is that a few here and there are just easy classes but too many of them become academic fraud? Is that rule coherent or workable?

SACS made UNC the FIRST Research I University to be put on probation for academic fraud. The NCAA doesn't have to make that determination, SACS already did it for them. As to why the NCAA isn't leaning on that report and the Wainstein report and calling a spade a spade, is most likely because they are still trying to punish UNC for what UNC self reported.

I’m not sure I follow this. Why do you think that the enforcement staff didn’t charge academic fraud?

In general, classes taught by graduate students and others are designed that way. Their name is on the sylabus. Students know about it when signing up for the class. Full faculty oversea the graduate students teaching etc. The problem is that you want to find a way out so you can keep your "precious". You'll warp you mind to justify the means, because you want the ends (those precious basketball wins).

So please state your rule, which will distinguish between the UNC paper classes and the equally easy classes available at every university.

[PackMan97]

That’s all I’m saying. Every school, including Duke and State, has professors who are willing to let somebody do an easy independent study and who are prepared to grade extremely leniently. There is no substantive difference between those classes and the UNC paper classes. Furthermore, any class in which a person can get an A and only have to prepare 10 minutes before class is not a college level class. (I took one or two of them myself.)

Except that showing up to class and preparing for 10 minutes a class is infinitely more rigorous than the UNC paper class scheme. I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this.

I’m not sure I follow this. Why do you think that the enforcement staff didn’t charge academic fraud?

Because UNC won't admit academic fraud.

So please state your rule, which will distinguish between the UNC paper classes and the equally easy classes available at every university.

Any equally easy class at another University would be academic fraud, but such courses don't exist. Well, they did exist at UGa and the basketball team was penalized. They also had a similar scam at Auburn and they got in trouble for it. The difference is both Universities rightly called it academic fraud.

[sammy3469]

UNC claims that the ACC supports its view that the actions of the ASPSA athletic academic counselors were permitted by NCAA Bylaws. It included the ACC interpretation as Exhibit 1-4 in its first bundle of exhibits.

One question they did not ask the ACC was whether it is permissible for the athletic counselors to lead student-athletes to avail themselves of anomalous courses, not listed as such, at a rate disproportionately higher than the general student body, and whether this constituted a benefit not generally available to other students.

The entire ACC response is couched and UNC's use of it is pretty meaningless. UNC is adding additional weight and significance to 2015 memo to which they shaded the questions to the best possible light to say what the ASPSA counselors were doing is not a 16.3 violations. As the ACC notes:

In general, I would note that certain questions were difficult to answer without additional context and where that was the case, I have attempted to provide various considerations that would need to be evaluated. Further, inasmuch as the questions contemplate interactions between an academic athletics counselor and an academic department staff member (as opposed to the professor teaching the course), I have noted in some responses that this interaction would lead to scrutiny due to the fact that the professor may be the more appropriate point of contact. Finally, the analysis done by my team does not include an evaluation of the practices outlined in the
questions against institutional policies.

So basically, if the fact patterns are as UNC asserts to the ACC then maybe our conclusions are definitive.

Additionally, the ACC itself says only fact patterns 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 MAY be OK, while 5 and 6 definitely aren't OK and 8 and 9 need additional data. On 8 and 9 the ACC even goes so far to say:

We would strongly suggest that these interactions be prohibited going forward, regardless of the circumstances, as they would raise scrutiny to which the institution would be responsible for responding.

So UNC is trying to use this as a definitive get out of jail card for acts before 2015 that may or may not violate 16.3 while the ACC is saying all activities may increase scrutiny. It's laughable, but par for the course with UNC.

[Neals384]

Don't we have emails to/from Crowder, asking for a specific grade that a specific student/athlete needs? In other words, athletics specified the grade a student should get. If NCAA has the unredacted version, those students can be considered ineligible based on academic fraud.

[PackMan97]

Don't we have emails to/from Crowder, asking for a specific grade that a specific student/athlete needs? In other words, athletics specified the grade a student should get. If NCAA has the unredacted version, those students can be considered ineligible based on academic fraud.

A few smoking guns...all posts from Ted Tatos' twitter account
https://twitter.com/TedTatos

Athlete only section is a red flag - wants to maintain some academic credibility


Debbie being told what grade was needed as well as taking a pass on apparent plagerism.


Athletic Department telling AFAM Department whether it needs a course or not.


Coach Fedora making sure a player graduates out the back door since he's no longer wanted on the team. I love the line "it would be a good idea to inform the student soi they can have their senior day.

[PackMan97]

Athletes are not fit to sit in a classroom, given independent studies instead. I thought IS are supposed to be used only for exemplary students?


Debbie Crowder very upset at plagerism and well...scolds the athletes a little.


Crowder's affidavit that lots of work was required.

[PackMan97]

Don't we have emails to/from Crowder, asking for a specific grade that a specific student/athlete needs? In other words, athletics specified the grade a student should get. If NCAA has the unredacted version, those students can be considered ineligible based on academic fraud.

I imagine UNC will fight even this, but there are only a few smoking gun emails out there and as a last resort, UNC will use them and say you can prove this one student in this one class for this one semester...you can only punish that specific case. UNC will fight any type of summary judgement tooth and nail. They'll claim the other 1499 athletes enrolled in fake courses were completely legit unless than NCAA can prove otherwise.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I imagine UNC will fight even this, but there are only a few smoking gun emails out there and as a last resort, UNC will use them and say you can prove this one student in this one class for this one semester...you can only punish that specific case. UNC will fight any type of summary judgement tooth and nail. They'll claim the other 1499 athletes enrolled in fake courses were completely legit unless than NCAA can prove otherwise.

Only one student is needed to take down a banner.

[Indoor66]

I imagine UNC will fight even this, but there are only a few smoking gun emails out there and as a last resort, UNC will use them and say you can prove this one student in this one class for this one semester...you can only punish that specific case. UNC will fight any type of summary judgement tooth and nail. They'll claim the other 1499 athletes enrolled in fake courses were completely legit unless than NCAA can prove otherwise.

With the volume of evidence, the emails and UnCheat admissions on the academics, does the burden shift to the Cheats?

[UrinalCake]

^ many of those emails were discussed in the NCAA's interview with Crowder and can be read in the transcript. The statement about having "a little bit of academic integrity to uphold" was dismissed as being sarcastic or facetious. Not putting an athlete in a class by himself was because all students should get equal treatment. "Recycled papers" were defined as when a student submits the same paper for two classes they are taking at the same time, and surprisingly there is actually no university against it (though that has since been revised). And the email from Boxhill providing a grade that was required was explained in a previous interview with Boxhill as what the general requirement was for the class, not what the player needs to stay eligible.

These are all the excuses that Crowder gave. From the line of questioning in that interview, it did sound to be like the NCAA wasn't buying in.

[arnie]

That’s all I’m saying. Every school, including Duke and State, has professors who are willing to let somebody do an easy independent study and who are prepared to grade extremely leniently. There is no substantive difference between those classes and the UNC paper classes. Furthermore, any class in which a person can get an A and only have to prepare 10 minutes before class is not a college level class. (I took one or two of them myself.)



So the rule is that a few here and there are just easy classes but too many of them become academic fraud? Is that rule coherent or workable?



I’m not sure I follow this. Why do you think that the enforcement staff didn’t charge academic fraud?



So please state your rule, which will distinguish between the UNC paper classes and the equally easy classes available at every university.

I've always thought they would avoid any significant penalties and also sure the cheats will fight sanctions every way possible. However, the SEC and BIG members should be irate when that happens.

Could the other major conferences suggest their members refuse to play the cheats in any future regular season events? This would further embarrass the cheats and at least keep the scandal out in front for years. I've given up on the Swofford-lead ACC even admonishing the cheats, much less taking any action.

[swood1000]

Could the othermajor conferences suggest their members refuse to play the cheats in any futureregular season events?

I guess they could. There might be some breach of contract ramifications when it comes to things like the annual Big Ten/ACC series. But if UNC is properly punished by the COI why wouldn’t the other conferences consider that sufficient, especially given that basketball games with UNC are a big media payday for all concerned?

[BigWayne]

^ many of those emails were discussed in the NCAA's interview with Crowder and can be read in the transcript. The statement about having "a little bit of academic integrity to uphold" was dismissed as being sarcastic or facetious. Not putting an athlete in a class by himself was because all students should get equal treatment. "Recycled papers" were defined as when a student submits the same paper for two classes they are taking at the same time, and surprisingly there is actually no university against it (though that has since been revised). And the email from Boxhill providing a grade that was required was explained in a previous interview with Boxhill as what the general requirement was for the class, not what the player needs to stay eligible.

These are all the excuses that Crowder gave. From the line of questioning in that interview, it did sound to be like the NCAA wasn't buying in.

This is the important point. Ever since the NCAA spit back the NOA2 response with an upgrade to the charges, there is no reason to believe the NCAA will interpret anything in the cheaters' favor.

[Tom B.]

However, Crowder is not a faculty member and therefore does not have the authority to determine what is or is not significant academic content.

Thank you, that's something that's been bugging me ever since that affidavit of hers was released. She's basically a glorified secretary. And UNC wants everyone to think, "Well, Debbie Crowder says the courses were legit, so they must be OK!" Please.

I remember a time when the ACC as a conference dealt with issues like academic fraud- Have we fallen so far that the ACC is impotent to act when the NCAA can't or won't or for whatever reason doesn't?
Has has our collective academic credibility fallen so low that we as a conference no longer care?
I wonder does anyone still thing the NCAA threat of someday sanctions is still adversely affecting Carolina recruiting ( probably some but the effect is waning?) Isn't it time we started looking outside the box for alternative solutions? I mean more concrete solutions than just losing respect for UNC-CH (eat) and no longer finding them worthy as rivals.

That's one of the great ironies of this whole mess. When Clemson got popped by the NCAA back in the early 1980s, the ACC also levied its own sanctions against Clemson. It's always been my understanding that the member institution that was most vocal in leading the charge for the ACC to impose its own sanctions, on top of the NCAA's, was...UNC.

And then there was the case of N.C. State, which the NCAA sanctioned in 1989 for some comparatively minor violations (players selling game tickets and shoes for extra cash, etc.). It wasn't the NCAA sanctions that doomed State to a decade-plus of basketball purgatory, though. It was the fact that after the violations emerged, State's administration actually did some real housecleaning and significantly tightened academic standards for athletes.

The ACC didn't impose separate penalties against State, but there was no shortage of tut-tutting from the Carolina faithful, as they looked down their noses and wagged their fingers at their agrarian land grant cousin.

And now, this.

So yeah, you could say some of the ACC's other institutions have some legitimate axes to grind.

[Olympic Fan]

Only one student is needed to take down a banner.

(1) UNC instituted a rule in 2004 that limited undergraduates to two independent study classes a semester

(2) Rashad McCants took FOUR independent study (phony) classes in the spring of 2005 -- we know because he admitted it and voluntarily released his transcripts

(3) Thereby, by UNC's own rules, McCants was ineligible in the fall of 2005 -- even if we ignore the question of whether any or all of his four classes were phony.

(4) UNC's 2005 national title has to be vacated.

Note: McCants is not the only player on that team that was taking phony courses. He challenged his teammates to release their transcipts ... but none of them did

But Wainstein (and the NCAA) have access to the transcripts. Wainstein's report contains the number of athletes that would have been ineligible without the phony classes (although I forget at the moment what that number is)

[devildeac]

Thank you, that's something that's been bugging me ever since that affidavit of hers was released. She's basically a glorified secretary. And UNC wants everyone to think, "Well, Debbie Crowder says the courses were legit, so they must be OK!" Please.




That's one of the great ironies of this whole mess. When Clemson got popped by the NCAA back in the early 1980s, the ACC also levied its own sanctions against Clemson. It's always been my understanding that the member institution that was most vocal in leading the charge for the ACC to impose its own sanctions, on top of the NCAA's, was...UNC.

And then there was the case of N.C. State, which the NCAA sanctioned in 1989 for some comparatively minor violations (players selling game tickets and shoes for extra cash, etc.). It wasn't the NCAA sanctions that doomed State to a decade-plus of basketball purgatory, though. It was the fact that after the violations emerged, State's administration actually did some real housecleaning and significantly tightened academic standards for athletes.

The ACC didn't impose separate penalties against State, but there was no shortage of tut-tutting from the Carolina faithful, as they looked down their noses and wagged their fingers at their agrarian land grant cousin.

And now, this.

So yeah, you could say some of the ACC's other institutions have some legitimate axes to grind.

Hopefully, more than just grinding:



35698-clip-art-graphic-of-a-pilgrim-man-standing-over-a-turkey-with-his-head-on-a-stump-about-to.jpg

[swood1000]

(1) UNC instituted a rule in 2004 that limited undergraduates to two independent study classes a semester

(2) Rashad McCants took FOUR independent study (phony) classes in the spring of 2005 -- we know because he admitted it and voluntarily released his transcripts

(3) Thereby, by UNC's own rules, McCants was ineligible in the fall of 2005 -- even if we ignore the question of whether any or all of his four classes were phony.

All true but we know that the allegation along this line was removed in NOA-2 and NOA-3 and so there is not going to be a finding of ineligibility for this reason without NOA-4. Maybe when all the dust has settled the enforcement staff will explain its reasoning. Perhaps they concluded that non-athletes also were permitted to exceed the 12 hour limit and to include these courses as applicable toward graduation.

Another problem with this was the confusion between “independent study” and “special study” classes before 2007. The 12 hour limit was really on the “special study” classes (what we think of as independent study), with “independent study” actually being a kind of class that allowed students to work at their own pace and take up to nine months to complete a course. The only limit on them was 30 hours toward graduation. Crowder signed people up for “independent study” but treated them as “special study” (i.e. they had to finish in one semester didn’t get nine months). Maybe the enforcement staff decided that there was too much confusion to make charges stick on this point.

(4) UNC's 2005 national title has to be vacated.

Agreed, but it’s going to be on the basis of extra benefits, not ineligibility as a result of defective classes.

[PackMan97]

35698-clip-art-graphic-of-a-pilgrim-man-standing-over-a-turkey-with-his-head-on-a-stump-about-to.jpg

What did VT do to you? Yikes...Carolina cheats and a Hookie gets beheaded!