Page 6 of 42 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 833
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    Hey... has anyone seen Packman, Swood and Manalishi in the same room together?

    I keed. I keed.
    No, they haven't...and I doubt they ever will.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    So, UNC received today their version of the decision. If they're right now doing a victory dance over there how likely is it that none of that leaked out?

    Edit: or do they receive their copy tomorrow?
    Don't think anyone knows when they will/did receive it. Rules only require that they get it first. My guess is that NCAA sends it out soon before public release so that there is no leaking. Just too hard to contain one way or the other.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    So, UNC received today their version of the decision. If they're right now doing a victory dance over there how likely is it that none of that leaked out?

    Edit: or do they receive their copy tomorrow? I guess that's it. They were notified this morning that they will receive it tomorrow.
    From Andrew Carter at the N&O:

    Q. What is the process for unveiling the report on Friday?

    A. The university will receive a copy of the report early Friday morning. Hours later, the report will be posted publicly. About an hour after that, there will be a media teleconference with NCAA officials.
    "Amazing what a minute can do."

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    Hey... has anyone seen Packman, Swood and Manalishi in the same room together?

    I keed. I keed.
    No, they haven't...and I doubt they ever will.
    Our periodic disagreements/accusations of being a closet Tar Heel have done much to foster the illusion.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Thanks for the kind words. I guess if they skate then this is over, but I don't expect that, so we will have appeals as far as the eye can see. But even before that we will have UNC being asked by the COI to identify and list ineligible players for purposes of vacating wins. Plenty of drama ahead.
    Is the burden on the NCAA to prove that players are ineligible? Or is the cheating so prevalent in this situation that the NCAA can place the burden of proof on UNC (prove that any student should be eligible, did work, etc.)? I am curious because of this paragraph:


    Systemic Problem and the Non-identification of Specific Student-Athletes
    Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited.



    This seems to raise the possibility that the NCAA could be forced to say "we know there is rampant cheating, but unfortunately we are unable to pin it directly on individual athletes, so we are unable to vacate wins. Therefore, penalties are limited to reduction of scholarships, a 1 year post-season ban, and stripping of wins for only the couple of players explicitly mentioned, by name, in emails, who we can prove were directly placed in classes, given grades, etc".

    In other words, UNC would escape proper punishment because their cheating was so prevalent, institutionalized and long standing that it was impossible to identify individual athletes involved.

  6. #106
    No one has mentioned the 800 pound ovine in the room. Wonder what natty outfit she'll be wearing?
    The University of North Carolina
    Where CHEATING is a Way of Life

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Meany View Post
    Is the burden on the NCAA to prove that players are ineligible? Or is the cheating so prevalent in this situation that the NCAA can place the burden of proof on UNC (prove that any student should be eligible, did work, etc.)? I am curious because of this paragraph:


    Systemic Problem and the Non-identification of Specific Student-Athletes
    Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited.



    This seems to raise the possibility that the NCAA could be forced to say "we know there is rampant cheating, but unfortunately we are unable to pin it directly on individual athletes, so we are unable to vacate wins. Therefore, penalties are limited to reduction of scholarships, a 1 year post-season ban, and stripping of wins for only the couple of players explicitly mentioned, by name, in emails, who we can prove were directly placed in classes, given grades, etc".

    In other words, UNC would escape proper punishment because their cheating was so prevalent, institutionalized and long standing that it was impossible to identify individual athletes involved.
    I find this to be highly unlikely.

    Is that like saying a serial killer killed so many people it's impossible to identify them all, so we will only give a fine a 1 yr probation?

    Or we cant identify all the people hurt by Bernie Madoff, so "Mr. Madoff, forfeiture and restitution aren't necessary. We wouldn't know who to give the money to anyway."

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    There's one thing that gives me hope. At one time the NCAA gave UNCheat a kinder, gentler NOA thinking that UNCheat would work with them. UNCheat gave the NCAA the finger, however, and told them where they could shove all the allegations. The NCAA rescinded the kinder, gentler NOA and came back with a more vengeful one. This gives me hope. Basically the NCAA offered UNCheat a way out and the Cheaters slapped their hand and told them to go eff themselves and this made the NCAA mad. Let us hope that vengeance is properly served because only then will justice be served (or nearly served).

    Note, I consider the banner from last year as tarnished as the others. Because of the delay, deny, deflect tatics and the $$ spent to keep the team from getting punished, the Cheaters had scholarships they should not have had and were allowed to play in post seasons for which they should not have been allowed. 9F

    <top_gun> I want some BUTTS! </top_gun>

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by Owen Meany View Post
    Is the burden on the NCAA to prove that players are ineligible? Or is the cheating so prevalent in this situation that the NCAA can place the burden of proof on UNC (prove that any student should be eligible, did work, etc.)? I am curious because of this paragraph:


    Systemic Problem and the Non-identification of Specific Student-Athletes
    Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited.



    This seems to raise the possibility that the NCAA could be forced to say "we know there is rampant cheating, but unfortunately we are unable to pin it directly on individual athletes, so we are unable to vacate wins. Therefore, penalties are limited to reduction of scholarships, a 1 year post-season ban, and stripping of wins for only the couple of players explicitly mentioned, by name, in emails, who we can prove were directly placed in classes, given grades, etc".

    In other words, UNC would escape proper punishment because their cheating was so prevalent, institutionalized and long standing that it was impossible to identify individual athletes involved.
    The enforcement staff is urging that penalties should be assessed based on misconduct that is not documented. I take this to be in part a reference to LOIC, for which the penalties might depend on how bad was the result of the LOIC. They are saying that even though the number of instances of documented extra benefits is limited the actual number was much greater. Also, maybe the penalties for extra benefits, in addition to ineligibility, depend on how widespread the problem was. In this way it is sort of like the prosecutor in the Al Capone tax evasion trial urging a sentence more severe than simple tax evasion might warrant because of all the other wrongful conduct that was not proved but that we know he is guilty of.

    However I think that to take down banners they will have to prove specific acts of extra benefits affecting specific athletes. But all they need is one or two MBB players to bring down entire seasons, and I donít take the enforcement staffís language that you quoted here as an indication that they were unable to produce even this. For example, there are these three involving Wayne Walden who was the MBB academic adviser, that would impact the 2005 and 2009 banners:

    FI118: January 5, 2005 Ė Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder discussing men's basketball student-athletes and the courses to which she added them.
    (Item2_CrowderToWalden_010505_NorthCarolina_00231)

    FI159: August 4, 2008 Ė Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden thanking Crowder for enrolling student-athletes in a course. (Item4_WaldenToCrowder_2of2_080408_NorthCarolina_0 0231)

    FI160: August 26, 2008 Ė Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an AFAM course. (Item4_WaldenToCrowder_082608_NorthCarolina_00231)

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Banner Come Down Later, if at All

    I believe the NCAA COI's finding of "guilty" on all five Level 1 violations doesn't immediately affect games won and lost or championships. The findings, however, create conditions where SUBSEQUENT determination of eligibility of players who competed will be made. And, if players are found to have been ineligible, then victories are vacated and -- perhaps -- championships as well.

    Reason: the NCAA has its hands full determining institutional violations. The COI is not examining individual players and transcripts. That would be a subsequent process.

    Of course, I could be completely wrong, and then I will lose my role playing a lawyer on TV.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    I believe the NCAA COI's finding of "guilty" on all five Level 1 violations doesn't immediately affect games won and lost or championships. The findings, however, create conditions where SUBSEQUENT determination of eligibility of players who competed will be made. And, if players are found to have been ineligible, then victories are vacated and -- perhaps -- championships as well.

    Reason: the NCAA has its hands full determining institutional violations. The COI is not examining individual players and transcripts. That would be a subsequent process.

    Of course, I could be completely wrong, and then I will lose my role playing a lawyer on TV.
    Suggestion: Don't hold your breath.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Asotin, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by Henderson View Post
    Tip o' the hat to these two guys.

    If you've been following this thread, you'll know that these two guys have put extraordinary effort into this, keeping us informed on the latest info, and explaining how life ought to work. The effort should be recognized.

    I'm a little worried about them though. What will they do now? I guess there's the appeal. But has some loved one secured the knives and razor blades just in case UNC-CH skates?

    Jokes aside, your contributions have been informative, inflammatory, and sustaining. It's been the informative part...

    Hope you aren't disappointed.

    Damn, how much we all hope your aren't disappointed.
    Add StrayGator to the list, too.

  13. #113
    I surely agree with the previous posters. My sincere Thanks for all of the effort that was put into this thread.

    As with the Time Square Ball on New Year's Eve - when does the official countdown start ? We are getting close you know !
       

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Fort Myers, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by elvis14 View Post
    There's one thing that gives me hope. At one time the NCAA gave UNCheat a kinder, gentler NOA thinking that UNCheat would work with them. UNCheat gave the NCAA the finger, however, and told them where they could shove all the allegations. The NCAA rescinded the kinder, gentler NOA and came back with a more vengeful one. This gives me hope. Basically the NCAA offered UNCheat a way out and the Cheaters slapped their hand and told them to go eff themselves and this made the NCAA mad. Let us hope that vengeance is properly served because only then will justice be served (or nearly served).

    Note, I consider the banner from last year as tarnished as the others. Because of the delay, deny, deflect tatics and the $$ spent to keep the team from getting punished, the Cheaters had scholarships they should not have had and were allowed to play in post seasons for which they should not have been allowed. 9F

    <top_gun> I want some BUTTS! </top_gun>
    I agree, that is all that will let me sleep tonight (other than, perhaps, some decent wine).
    This message was composed entirely from recycled letters of the alphabet using only renewable, caffeinated energy sources.
    No trees, wabbits, chimps or whales died in the process.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by mgtr View Post
    i agree, that is all that will let me sleep tonight (other than, perhaps, some decent wine).
    image.jpg

    gth, c!!!!!
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by devildeac View Post
    No brainer for me. Coming from Mount Hatemore, quick and easy response: bury the h**ls. ...
    There shouldn't be enough left to bury ...

    Quote Originally Posted by hudlow View Post
    Will uNC cancel classes tomorrow?

    How would one know if this happened? Tree falling in the woods ...

  17. #117
    "I'm going to the NC Zoo with my wife and two kids."

    i'm confused. You are going to chapel hole?

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    That glass looks half empty.

    Wait, now it's 3/4 empty.

    Wait, OPK stop editing your post.

    Or start sharing. Sheesh.
    Henderson
    All of them

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Henderson View Post
    That glass looks half empty.

    Wait, now it's 3/4 empty.

    Wait, OPK stop editing your post.

    Or start sharing. Sheesh.
    Will bring some to the FSU game.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Triangle, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by jafarr1 View Post
    UNC is going to skate.
    Yes, sadly. Iíd bet every dollar I had on that if I could!
    Not 1 menís hoops banner will come down. Anything less is a slap on the wrist, and condones rampant cheating. The NCAA canít compete with the attorneys THE cheaters bought. It all comes down to legal interpretation, and UNCís lawyers are higher priced/ better than the NCAAís.

    mild probation for non-rev sports, if that.
    maybe a $1,000 fine.

    Thatís it. Very sad.

    (I REALLY hope Iím wrong, but very doubtful)
    cbarry
    Morrisville, NC
    Duke '92

Similar Threads

  1. unc Athletics Scandal - Amended NOA has been released
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 465
    Last Post: 05-11-2016, 01:07 PM
  2. unc Athletics Scandal: Connecting the Dots...
    By PackMan97 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 398
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 12:18 PM
  3. UNC Athletics Scandal - Willingham's book
    By uh_no in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 02-17-2015, 10:36 PM
  4. UNC Athletics Scandal
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 839
    Last Post: 01-01-2015, 11:40 PM
  5. UNC Athletics Scandal - Wainstein Report
    By Duvall in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 990
    Last Post: 11-08-2014, 01:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •