UNC Athletics Scandal: NCAA response

[Uncle Drew]

I posted it once before, here.



But the athlete gives consent for the NCAA to disclose the information as necessary. I don't think they find it necessary to disclose it to the News and Observer.



Yes, the NCAA has had access to all student-athlete academic information from the beginning. But they still have to make their case and prove extra benefits. It don't think it quite proves itself.

MUCH thanks Swood!

[swood1000]

MUCH thanks Swood!

That form came from this document: Policies and Procedures Regarding the Protection of Student-Athletes’ Confidential Information.

[MarkD83]

Here’s the definition of an extra benefit:



So there are two requirements:
 

• a special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests
• providing a benefit not generally available to the students on a basis unrelated to athletics ability

 
So you can’t just say that something is an extra benefit without proving that it meets the definition. Envelopes with cash are not a violation if such envelopes are generally available to the institution’s students determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability. In this case UNC argues that the envelopes (classes) were generally available to UNC students, and that anyone who wanted one could have one.

The enforcement staff has to show that there was some benefit that was a “special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests” that was distributed in greater abundance to athletes. They have argued that the assistance in locating and signing up for the paper classes was that benefit.

My point about what the NCAA could argue is that the first requirement is meet since the athletes were taking the classes identified as fraudulent by the Weinstein report and these classes were taught by UNC boosters. Therefore, the NCAA does not have to prove that they were directed to take these classes by someone in the athletic department. Prof N and Debbie Crowder are the institutional employees. Therefore, if Roy argues that he did not know, that is irrelevant and your players are still ineligible.

As far as the second requirement I believe the NCAA has already argued that by comparing the ratio of athletes to students in these classes it is clear that more athletes were aware and took these classes (extra benefit) than regular students.

[swood1000]

because they can't allow to be seen as vulnerable...


i think this is a wood shed moment for the NCAA...they MUST show, without a shadow of doubt, that they are still "in control"...they can attain this by grinding out the hard sell, then bait and switch the final chapter...

they could bury WBB, (and others) and easily "swat" unc "hard" with a mountain of meticulous "instances", and light punishment for each...all adding up to "the whole enchilada" and never touch the banners or the mb wins...curiously finding escape routes for Roy and Dean...

if they don't LOOK like they are working up a hard sweat, and armed for bear, they become totally irrelevant.

But the COI caused allegation 1 in NOA-3 to be added, which alleges extra benefits. If they're not going to find extra benefits then what kind of "instances" could they turn this into, with light punishment for each? Otherwise we have to assume that they went out of their way to get this allegation added and are just going to ignore it. How does that make them seem "in control"?

[devildeac]

The problem is that the section you cited requires “fraudulent academic credit” but the NCAA has stated in no uncertain terms that the institution has the final say as to whether academic misconduct has occurred and UNC determined that the paper classes did not constitute academic misconduct.

The following was published in the January 2015 Legislative Council Teleconference Agenda and Supplements_R...pdf:

Thanks. Sounds like the old adage: The fox is guarding the hen house.

[devildeac]

<If> banners come down, I've heard this one-of-a-kind replacement is available:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...hAKAtUtl5DBFq7

[dudog84]

The problem is that the section you cited requires “fraudulent academic credit” but the NCAA has stated in no uncertain terms that the institution has the final say as to whether academic misconduct has occurred and UNC determined that the paper classes did not constitute academic misconduct.

The following was published in the January 2015 Legislative Council Teleconference Agenda and Supplements_R...pdf:

This is where it gets very simple to me. uNC has admitted the academic fraud to the accrediting agency. Surely the COI reminded them of this last week.

It's like a crook telling the IRS "Sure I robbed the bank, but I paid taxes on the loot so leave me alone." Then when the cops come calling, says "I didn't rob no bank."

[dudog84]

The courses about which there was doubt were the classes listed as independent study. Wainstein said that because they lumped together in their records all the independent study classes it was impossible to tell just from the transcripts which classes were legitimate and which were irregular (although Crowder and Nyang’oro said that "most" were irregular). However, this doesn’t matter because NOA-3 didn’t charge extra benefits on any classes listed as independent study. Instead they charged extra benefits on "Lecture Paper Classes" that were described in NOA-3 as follows:



Wainstein described this group of classes this way:



So it appears that there is much more certainty about which classes these were and who took them.

The allegation about taking too many Independent Study classes that was in NOA-1 was dropped in NOA-2 and not reinstated in NOA-3

Wainstein included the following chart showing the lecture paper classes:

re Chart II: Interesting how the enrollment in the lecture paper classes soared (and peaked in title year 2005) under ol' Roy "I know nothing, and if I did we did nothing wrong" Williams, who after years of coming up short desperately wanted that first championship.

[swood1000]

This is where it gets very simple to me. uNC has admitted the academic fraud to the accrediting agency. Surely the COI reminded them of this last week.

It's like a crook telling the IRS "Sure I robbed the bank, but I paid taxes on the loot so leave me alone." Then when the cops come calling, says "I didn't rob no bank."

You make a very good point. UNC admitted to SACS, in a general statement, that there was academic fraud (a point not lost on the COI), but it specifically denied to the NCAA that the paper classes rose to the level of academic fraud, at least the kind prohibited by NCAA Bylaws or that the paper classes violated any written UNC policy. So whatever they were referring to in their statement to SACS it did not amount to an admission that the paper classes constituted academic misconduct. Maybe they would say that their admission to SACS referred to a very low level and insignificant academic fraud. I would like to hear their answer to the question, though.

[Indoor66]

You make a very good point. UNC admitted to SACS, in a general statement, that there was academic fraud (a point not lost on the COI), but it specifically denied to the NCAA that the paper classes rose to the level of academic fraud, at least the kind prohibited by NCAA Bylaws or that the paper classes violated any written UNC policy. So whatever they were referring to in their statement to SACS it did not amount to an admission that the paper classes constituted academic misconduct. Maybe they would say that their admission to SACS referred to a very low level and insignificant academic fraud. I would like to hear their answer to the question, though.

Them hairs are getting mighty skinny for splitting.😎

[sammy3469]

Isn't it a fairly mechanical process? After determination of institutional wrong-doing, then, as a second step, the eligibility of players is examined. If players are ineligible, then wins are vacated. If NCAA wins are vacated, then championships are voided.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but the NCAA already asked for lists in the NOA3 in Supplemental Question 10 (which is standard procedure).

The interesting part is UNC responses to that question. They provide grant-in-aids, recruiting visits, etc. in accordance with that question only for FB, MBB, WBB (the 3 sports named in NOA3). They then provide a list WBB players that they believe would be ineligible under Allegation 1 (and acknowledge those WBB would be ineligible if Allegation 1 is true) while not providing a list for FB or MBB. There's no rationalization for that exclusion, so they are either being unresponsive to the COI or not releasing their full response to the NCAA.

Conveniently, UNC's response on their website looks to include all their exhibits besides for the ones in relation to Supplemental Question 10. Enforcement didn't comment on that in their July 17 response (BTW re-reading that response it sounds like Blanchard and Mercer sort of came clean to the NCAA on what happened in their interviews on reporting their concerns about these courses up the chain of command), so if it's an outstanding issue, UNC will need "time" to produce a list.

Net-net UNC seems "fine" with scholarship reductions, in home visit reductions, and fines, but will fight to keep the banners.

[Stray Gator]

You make a very good point. UNC admitted to SACS, in a general statement, that there was academic fraud (a point not lost on the COI), but it specifically denied to the NCAA that the paper classes rose to the level of academic fraud, at least the kind prohibited by NCAA Bylaws or that the paper classes violated any written UNC policy. So whatever they were referring to in their statement to SACS it did not amount to an admission that the paper classes constituted academic misconduct. Maybe they would say that their admission to SACS referred to a very low level and insignificant academic fraud. I would like to hear their answer to the question, though.

The fact that UNC can successfully employ such patent duplicity on the issue of whether the "paper classes" constituted academic fraud illustrates vividly why I maintain that the NCAA should, under the circumstances of this case, either disavow or disregard its past policy of allowing each institution to be the sole arbiter of the legitimacy of its courses. By delegating to the school complete authority to determine whether its courses satisfy minimum academic requirements, the NCAA is allowing UNC to unjustly enjoy the advantage of "having it both ways": Admitting that it committed academic fraud to SACS in an effort to portray itself as a repentant party seeking mercy, while denying any guilt of academic fraud to the NCAA as a defiant party demanding exoneration. Consequently, I believe the NCAA is effectively abdicating its duty to assure that member institutions adhere to the principles of "sound academic standards" -- and perhaps more importantly, repudiating its moral obligations to insist that member schools (a) provide student-athletes a legitimate college education; and (b) afford fellow schools the opportunity to compete fairly on a level playing field. By declining to charge UNC with violations based on academic fraud as well as extra benefits, the NCAA has in my opinion not only made a serious error in judgment that may ultimately enable UNC to escape responsibility, but has made a mockery of its own mission statement, at least to the extent that it professes to advance the principles of "sound academic standards" and "sportsmanship and ethical conduct."

[swood1000]

The fact that UNC can successfully employ such patent duplicity on the issue of whether the "paper classes" constituted academic fraud illustrates vividly why I maintain that the NCAA should, under the circumstances of this case, either disavow or disregard its past policy of allowing each institution to be the sole arbiter of the legitimacy of its courses. By delegating to the school complete authority to determine whether its courses satisfy minimum academic requirements, the NCAA is allowing UNC to unjustly enjoy the advantage of "having it both ways": Admitting that it committed academic fraud to SACS in an effort to portray itself as a repentant party seeking mercy, while denying any guilt of academic fraud to the NCAA as a defiant party demanding exoneration. Consequently, I believe the NCAA is effectively abdicating its duty to assure that member institutions adhere to the principles of "sound academic standards" -- and perhaps more importantly, repudiating its moral obligations to insist that member schools (a) provide student-athletes a legitimate college education; and (b) afford fellow schools the opportunity to compete fairly on a level playing field. By declining to charge UNC with violations based on academic fraud as well as extra benefits, the NCAA has in my opinion not only made a serious error in judgment that may ultimately enable UNC to escape responsibility, but has made a mockery of its own mission statement, at least to the extent that it professes to advance the principles of "sound academic standards" and "sportsmanship and ethical conduct."

I still don't see what is accomplished by your proposal that cannot be accomplished with extra benefits.

What changes would you make to the new system?

[Stray Gator]

I still don't see what is accomplished by your proposal that cannot be accomplished with extra benefits. . . .

I believe charging UNC with using a fraudulent academic scheme to improperly maintain the eligibility of athletes, in addition to violation of the "extra benefits" prohibition, would accomplish two things:

First, it would provide an alternative basis for sanctions -- a "second leg to stand on," so to speak -- in the event of a determination by the COI, or by the NCAA appeal panel, or by a judicial tribunal that the proof was insufficient to support the imposition of sanctions for "extra benefits." As I understand it, under the present limited allegations, if the ultimate decisionmaker accepts UNC's defense that the enrollment of some non-athletes in the courses negates the charge that access to those classes was a benefit not available to the general student population, then there is no basis for declaring any athletes ineligible, and thus no ground for vacating wins or titles or banners.

Second, quite simply, it would dispense with any legalistic chicanery and label UNC's misconduct correctly for what it really was -- in other words, it would "call a spade a spade." I'm not opposed to an "Al Capone" strategy of prosecution when necessary to achieve justice, but I suspect that the gravamen of UNC's misconduct is not as well known or understood by the general public outside of those who have been following the story as a matter of personal interest. I believe the NCAA should pull no punches in asserting charges that accurately describe UNC's wrongdoing, lest the wider public be confused or misled by a mere finding of "extra benefits," which for many connotes something far less sinister than the kind of scheme that UNC perpetrated for decades.

[JStuart]

I believe charging UNC with using a fraudulent academic scheme to improperly maintain the eligibility of athletes, in addition to violation of the "extra benefits" prohibition, would accomplish two things:

First, it would provide an alternative basis for sanctions -- a "second leg to stand on," so to speak -- in the event of a determination by the COI, or by the NCAA appeal panel, or by a judicial tribunal that the proof was insufficient to support the imposition of sanctions for "extra benefits." As I understand it, under the present limited allegations, if the ultimate decisionmaker accepts UNC's defense that the enrollment of some non-athletes in the courses negates the charge that access to those classes was a benefit not available to the general student population, then there is no basis for declaring any athletes ineligible, and thus no ground for vacating wins or titles or banners.

Second, quite simply, it would dispense with any legalistic chicanery and label UNC's misconduct correctly for what it really was -- in other words, it would "call a spade a spade." I'm not opposed to an "Al Capone" strategy of prosecution when necessary to achieve justice, but I suspect that the gravamen of UNC's misconduct is not as well known or understood by the general public outside of those who have been following the story as a matter of personal interest. I believe the NCAA should pull no punches in asserting charges that accurately describe UNC's wrongdoing, lest the wider public be confused or misled by a mere finding of "extra benefits," which for many connotes something far less sinister than the kind of scheme that UNC perpetrated for decades.

This could be the best summation of the Need To Punish the institution, and puts into words many of my feelings about the whole situation, and which I've had difficulty expressing in such a clear, efficient way. Thanks, Stray.

[DukieInKansas]

The courses about which there was doubt were the classes listed as independent study. Wainstein said that because they lumped together in their records all the independent study classes it was impossible to tell just from the transcripts which classes were legitimate and which were irregular (although Crowder and Nyang’oro said that "most" were irregular). However, this doesn’t matter because NOA-3 didn’t charge extra benefits on any classes listed as independent study. Instead they charged extra benefits on "Lecture Paper Classes" that were described in NOA-3 as follows:



Wainstein described this group of classes this way:



So it appears that there is much more certainty about which classes these were and who took them.

The allegation about taking too many Independent Study classes that was in NOA-1 was dropped in NOA-2 and not reinstated in NOA-3

Wainstein included the following chart showing the lecture paper classes:

Regarding the independent study courses: I seem to recall that some of the athletes took more independent study courses than the unc system allows for graduation/credit. Wouldn't that be an "extra benefit"? Does anyone else recall reading/hearing that?

[Duke76]

I believe charging UNC with using a fraudulent academic scheme to improperly maintain the eligibility of athletes, in addition to violation of the "extra benefits" prohibition, would accomplish two things:

First, it would provide an alternative basis for sanctions -- a "second leg to stand on," so to speak -- in the event of a determination by the COI, or by the NCAA appeal panel, or by a judicial tribunal that the proof was insufficient to support the imposition of sanctions for "extra benefits." As I understand it, under the present limited allegations, if the ultimate decisionmaker accepts UNC's defense that the enrollment of some non-athletes in the courses negates the charge that access to those classes was a benefit not available to the general student population, then there is no basis for declaring any athletes ineligible, and thus no ground for vacating wins or titles or banners.

Second, quite simply, it would dispense with any legalistic chicanery and label UNC's misconduct correctly for what it really was -- in other words, it would "call a spade a spade." I'm not opposed to an "Al Capone" strategy of prosecution when necessary to achieve justice, but I suspect that the gravamen of UNC's misconduct is not as well known or understood by the general public outside of those who have been following the story as a matter of personal interest. I believe the NCAA should pull no punches in asserting charges that accurately describe UNC's wrongdoing, lest the wider public be confused or misled by a mere finding of "extra benefits," which for many connotes something far less sinister than the kind of scheme that UNC perpetrated for decades.

the simple question I have is why was this "charging UNC with using a fraudulent academic scheme...." not done?....seems really straight forward

[swood1000]

Regarding the independent study courses: I seem to recall that some of the athletes took more independent study courses than the unc system allows for graduation/credit. Wouldn't that be an "extra benefit"? Does anyone else recall reading/hearing that?

That was Allegation 1b in NOA-1 but was not resurrected in NOA-3. One 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. Maybe non-athletes also got to exceed the 12 hour limit. Maybe they decided that they can reach the result they want without these charges. After all, if they’ve got extra benefits against one MBB player in a season that’s all you need.

[royalblue]

re Chart II: Interesting how the enrollment in the lecture paper classes soared (and peaked in title year 2005) under ol' Roy "I know nothing, and if I did we did nothing wrong" Williams, who after years of coming up short desperately wanted that first championship.

The Sgt Schultz "I know nothing" defense is just a bit much for me to believe. I hope the NCAA agrees with me

[sammy3469]

I believe charging UNC with using a fraudulent academic scheme to improperly maintain the eligibility of athletes, in addition to violation of the "extra benefits" prohibition, would accomplish two things:

First, it would provide an alternative basis for sanctions -- a "second leg to stand on," so to speak -- in the event of a determination by the COI, or by the NCAA appeal panel, or by a judicial tribunal that the proof was insufficient to support the imposition of sanctions for "extra benefits." As I understand it, under the present limited allegations, if the ultimate decisionmaker accepts UNC's defense that the enrollment of some non-athletes in the courses negates the charge that access to those classes was a benefit not available to the general student population, then there is no basis for declaring any athletes ineligible, and thus no ground for vacating wins or titles or banners.

Second, quite simply, it would dispense with any legalistic chicanery and label UNC's misconduct correctly for what it really was -- in other words, it would "call a spade a spade." I'm not opposed to an "Al Capone" strategy of prosecution when necessary to achieve justice, but I suspect that the gravamen of UNC's misconduct is not as well known or understood by the general public outside of those who have been following the story as a matter of personal interest. I believe the NCAA should pull no punches in asserting charges that accurately describe UNC's wrongdoing, lest the wider public be confused or misled by a mere finding of "extra benefits," which for many connotes something far less sinister than the kind of scheme that UNC perpetrated for decades.

Not to argue too much since I agree with your point, but doesn't the LOIC charge now incorporate most of what you are proposing?

Point "a" now says UNC's administration did not identify nor investigate the actual courses when individuals (the NCAA uses Blanchard's and Mercer's testimony) brought those concerns forward (this is different than the original LOIC which was more about failure to monitor the extra benefits ASPSA and AFAM were providing). This is a much more pointed charge at UNC's institutional heirachy and their culpability in allowing the fraud to continue. Granted, it doesn't allege outright academic fraud, but it does allege willful blindness to the "anomalous course".

I know we get hung up on allegation 1 since that is the mechanism that athletes will become ineligible, but the LOIC charge itself has been altered to place culpability at the highest levels of UNC.