Page 16 of 31 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 613
  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    Will someone please be kind enough to send me an email when something is actually done to UNCheat.
    Patience, Grasshopper. Thy Will Be Done.
       

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    Patience, Grasshopper. Thy Will Be Done.
    I know, I know, but just taking a look at the bottom of this page and there are four seperate threads concerning the scandal with one having a start date of January 2015. There are definitely many more UNCheat scandal threads in the forum archive that go back a lot further. These clowns have very deep pockets and have managed to skate for way too long. Everytime we say it's over and they'll finally get what they deserve, they roll out some new legal ploy.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    I know, I know, but just taking a look at the bottom of this page and there are four seperate threads concerning the scandal with one having a start date of January 2015. There are definitely many more UNCheat scandal threads in the forum archive that go back a lot further. These clowns have very deep pockets and have managed to skate for way too long. Everytime we say it's over and they'll finally get what they deserve, they roll out some new legal ploy.
    Some of us warned when this started that it would take a long time. The Syracuse cheating case took nine years and it was not near as long-running or extensive as this one.

    NCAA enforcement almost always takes a long time, even when a member school cooperates and works with the NCAA to uncover and penalize a cheating spott. In this case -- with UNC denying and delaying at every turn, naturally it's going to take a long time. And the NCAA has been careful to give UNC every break to present its case -- so that the final verdict will be proof against a legal appeal.

    As for UNC's lawyers, why shouldn't they try and strong everything out -- they get paid by the hour, not by whether they win or lose.

    I hate to say keep being patient, but if you want justice, it will take some more time. Note, I don't guarantee justice in this case, but I still think it VERY likely.

    Reading this, I'm not making myself 100 percent clear. I believe with near certainty that UNC will face punishment -- as a school. There will be probation and a hefty fine. I think -- but am less certain -- that UNC basketball and football (which are at the center of the scandal) will face specific penalties -- postseason bans, loss of scholarships, etc. I'm not optimistic that we will see true justice -- a long postseason ban for UNC basketball and the loss of victories and championships won with players who should have been ineligible.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    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.
    UNC is saying, look, if you had Email X, which showed ASPSA counselors requesting certain course offerings, in your hands before the 2011 NOA and didn’t charge it as an infraction then, how can you cite that same email as evidence of an infraction in 2016? The NCAA’s response, in a letter from Tom Hosty to Rick Evrard, was that before Wainstein only 3% of the evidence was available, and this did not “reflect the scope, breadth or nature of the benefits provided to student-athletes at the institution.”

    One problem with the relevance of the SACS correspondence is that SACS and the NCAA mean different things by the term “infraction.” To the NCAA it’s an extra benefits issue. To SACS it’s an academic integrity issue. So when UNC writes to SACS concerning “new information about the scope and extent of the irregularities” it is talking about academic deficiencies, and this really can’t be taken as an admission that athletes received extra benefits (or more than their fair share of the academic deficiencies).

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rougemont Nebulae
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I'm not optimistic that we will see true justice -- a long postseason ban for UNC basketball and the loss of victories and championships won with players who should have been ineligible.
    UNC will take probation. A fine? They'll pay that as well and walk away laughing. As others have noted and what consistently amazes me is that this has now all boiled down to a jurisdictional argument, or in other words:

    UNC: Yeah we cheated, we admit it. Yeah, we defrauded the NCAA by flaunting the rules, yeah we defrauded our opponents by holding them to standards we violated ourselves. So? So now we're just arguing about the record books.

    That's it. The old normal: "The Carolina Way" and the puke-inducing pride and sense of entitlement it "justified."
    The new normal: Cheating doesn't matter even when we admit it. Scoreboard!

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    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.
    According to the NCAA's new rules on academic misconduct, if the courses do not violate the university's policies and are generally available to the university's students then there is no violation, regardless of whether the courses enabled the university to maintain the eligibility of athletes who properly should not have been qualified to compete. If it doesn't violate the policies then it's a violation only if all of the following are true:
    Substantial academic assistance or exception
    Not generally available to institution's students
    Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3
    Provided by institutional staff or representative of athletics interests
    Results in certification of eligibility

    So the "easy class" loophole is far from closed, regardless of whether they're fraudulent, as long as they don't violate the university policies. An example would be the Michigan and Auburn situations where the excessive independent study classes were offered. (Actually, though, if the Michigan class was 85% student-athletes then you probably could answer yes to all of the above.)

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    According to the NCAA's new rules on academic misconduct, if the courses do not violate the university's policies and are generally available to the university's students then there is no violation, regardless of whether the courses enabled the university to maintain the eligibility of athletes who properly should not have been qualified to compete. If it doesn't violate the policies then it's a violation only if all of the following are true:
    Substantial academic assistance or exception
    Not generally available to institution's students
    Not permissible under Bylaw 16.3
    Provided by institutional staff or representative of athletics interests
    Results in certification of eligibility

    So the "easy class" loophole is far from closed, regardless of whether they're fraudulent, as long as they don't violate the university policies. An example would be the Michigan and Auburn situations where the excessive independent study classes were offered. (Actually, though, if the Michigan class was 85% student-athletes then you probably could answer yes to all of the above.)
    If what you say is true, it means as a practical matter that UNC, and other colleges, can adopt a policy that authorizes the awarding of credit -- and automatic "A" grades -- to students who enroll in courses that require no attendance, demand no work of any kind, and are not listed in the course catalog or otherwise officially publicized; and so long as those courses are technically open to the general student body, and the student-athletes are provided no assistance or exception -- which would obviously be unnecessary in such a course -- the NCAA must accept that student-athletes who were awarded straight "A"s merely by registering for such courses are eligible to compete. If UNC in fact has a policy that can be construed to permit such an absurd result, I certainly hope that the NCAA will require that it be disclosed, and that the SACS will require that it be published prominently on the front page of every UNC website and catalog, as well as at the top of every letter of intent that must be signed by a recruit's parents. That way, everyone will know that UNC's claim to be an institution of higher learning and academic integrity is as much of a laughable fraud as the following statements on the NCAA's website:

    To truly benefit from college, student-athletes have to succeed in more places than on the field. The NCAA provides opportunities to learn, compete and grow by setting standards that help prepare prospective student-athletes for college coursework and by measuring progress toward a degree once they’re on campus. . . .

    Schools are held accountable for the academic progress of student-athletes. In Division I, only those teams that make the grade can participate in championships, and teams that under-perform academically can face penalties including practice and competition limitations, coaching suspensions and financial aid reductions. . . .

    Student-athletes commit to academic achievement and the pursuit of a degree, and they are required to meet yearly standards to be able to compete. . . .


    http://www.ncaa.org/about/what-we-do/academics

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    According to the NCAA's new rules on academic misconduct, ...
    Sorry if this is an elementary question, but, when did the new rules noted in your post take effect? And, more importantly, do they apply to UNC's situation?

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by billy View Post
    Sorry if this is an elementary question, but, when did the new rules noted in your post take effect? And, more importantly, do they apply to UNC's situation?
    Effective 8/1/16, so not applicable to this case. See Bylaws 14.02.10 and Figure 14-2.

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray Gator View Post
    If what you say is true, it means as a practical matter that UNC, and other colleges, can adopt a policy that authorizes the awarding of credit -- and automatic "A" grades -- to students who enroll in courses that require no attendance, demand no work of any kind, and are not listed in the course catalog or otherwise officially publicized; and so long as those courses are technically open to the general student body, and the student-athletes are provided no assistance or exception...
    If the true nature of the classes is not listed in the course catalog then the case is very similar to the UNC paper classes (though I don't see how one could say that the UNC paper classes did not violate the institution's policies when UNC declared them not good toward graduation for those not yet graduated). I expect the current COI to explain the circumstances under which such classes can be regarded as "generally available to the institution's students," especially if the only way to know of their existence is through inside information, as with the UNC classes, and especially where athletic advisors take advantage of their inside information to load the classes up with athletes, as happened at UNC.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina

    Cool

    Bump.

    The Cheats were about to fall off the front page. Those cheating b@st@rds should stay on page one till the COI finally punishes them for their crimes (which are many).

    Here is to holding out hope that will finally happen this fall

  12. #312
    noticed that the front page article by jd king starts with,
    Jay Bilas, who has been consistent in his advocacy for student-athletes,
    unfortunately, this is untrue and frustrating to read. bilas's consistent promotion of the misinformation being put out by unc's administration to protect itself from the just repercussions of the school's abuse of the system is the opposite of advocating for student athletes. advocating for student athletes would be rightly pointing how the school has shamelessly taken advantage of student athletes for its own gain.

  13. #313
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC Raised, DC Resident
    Quote Originally Posted by bob blue devil View Post
    noticed that the front page article by jd king starts with,

    unfortunately, this is untrue and frustrating to read. bilas's consistent promotion of the misinformation being put out by unc's administration to protect itself from the just repercussions of the school's abuse of the system is the opposite of advocating for student athletes. advocating for student athletes would be rightly pointing how the school has shamelessly taken advantage of student athletes for its own gain.
    Agreed. The article would more accurately begin "Jay Bilas, who has taken every opportunity to leap upon a soap box, consistently taking potshots at the NCAA whether it suits his narrative or blatantly contradicts his espoused advocacy of student-athletes..."

  14. #314
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    One allegation that UNC disputes (on page 35 of its response) is that the paper classes “Awarded Artificially High Final Grades to Students.”

    Now, it is true that the chairman of the department described the classes as having “Lax Paper Writing Standards” but UNC insists that such quotes should not be considered by the COI since they resulted from UNC’s own investigation, and UNC did not require its investigator to utilize procedures that it now laments were not used. UNC believes that if an institution conducts its own investigation it should have the option of not using the formal procedures called for in an NCAA investigation, giving it the right to exclude any findings from the COI if it wishes. What could be wrong with that?

    One would have expected UNC to directly respond to the Cynthia Reynolds email described by the Wainstein (CWT) Report as follows:

    In one email to a football operations coordinator, André Williams, during the second summer session of 2009, Cynthia Reynolds, the Associate Director for ASPSA and Director of Football, wrote that “Ms. Crowder is retiring at the end of July . . . if the guys papers are not in . . . I would expect D’s or C’s at best. Most need better than that . . . ALL WORK FROM THE AFAM DEPT. MUST BE DONE AND TURNED IN ON THE LAST DAY OF CLASS.” As reflected in that email, the football counselors were painfully aware that many of their charges would not get the grades they “need” to remain eligible if someone other than Crowder graded their papers.
    But they did not. Instead they dispute which classes the paper classes should be compared to in order to determine that the grades were too high. They end with their standard refrain:

    The foregoing is not meant to criticize the CWT Report, but rather to show the danger of trying to use portions of it for purposes that CWT did not intend. CWT quite simply was not tasked with determining whether student-athletes received a benefit not available to other students, which is the issue that is relevant here.
    But the fact that Wainstein was not tasked with determining whether student-athletes received extra benefits is irrelevant. It is relevant whether the classes awarded artificially high final grades to students (if student-sthletes received preferential access to the classes).
    Last edited by swood1000; 06-14-2017 at 11:55 AM.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    One allegation that UNC disputes (on page 35 of its response) is that the paper classes “Awarded Artificially High Final Grades to Students.”

    Now, it is true that the chairman of the department described the classes as having “Lax Paper Writing Standards” but UNC insists that such quotes should not be considered by the COI since they resulted from UNC’s own investigation, and UNC did not require its investigator to utilize procedures that it now laments were not used. UNC believes that if an institution conducts its own investigation it should have the option of not using the formal procedures called for in an NCAA investigation, giving it the right to exclude any findings from the COI if it wishes. What could be wrong with that?

    One would have expected UNC to directly respond to the Cynthia Reynolds email described by the Wainstein (CWT) Report as follows:



    But they did not. Instead they dispute which classes the paper classes should be compared to in order to determine that the grades were too high. They end with their standard refrain:



    But the fact that Wainstein was not tasked with determining whether student-athletes received extra benefits is irrelevant. It is relevant whether the classes awarded artificially high final grades to students (if student-sthletes received preferential access to the classes).
    Sorry, swood, but the UNC response is just pettifogging -- UNC insists that the NCAA apply the highest standards of evidence and then apologizes that its devastating (to UNC) internal report did not meet these standards and, therefore, can not be used to make a finding against UNC. Holy moly!!! No one on the COI will buy that ridiculous argument, but I understand why UNC and its team felt compelled to make it as an act of desperation.

    Kindly,
    sage Grouse
    'swood, I am saying "sorry" because you are an attorney and the standard of reasoning here is beneath your profession'
    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

  16. #316
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Does the following email from Crowder to Wayne Walden (academic advisor for men’s basketball) suggest that Crowder gave preference to Walden’s kids with respect to moving from the wait lists into the classes? Does it appear that this is what was happening here?

    Attached Images Attached Images

  17. #317
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Does the following email from Crowder to Wayne Walden (academic advisor for men’s basketball) suggest that Crowder gave preference to Walden’s kids with respect to moving from the wait lists into the classes? Does it appear that this is what was happening here?
    Just for fun, here are the UNC MBB players who were on the team in the Spring of 2006 (at the time of this email) and also at the time of the 2009 championship. Anybody receiving extra benefits in 2006 would be ineligible until reinstated.
    Marcus Ginyard
    Bobby Frasor
    Danny Green
    Mike Copeland
    Tyler Hansbrough

  18. #318
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Just for fun, here are the UNC MBB players who were on the team in the Spring of 2006 (at the time of this email) and also at the time of the 2009 championship. Anybody receiving extra benefits in 2006 would be ineligible until reinstated.
    Marcus Ginyard
    Bobby Frasor
    Danny Green
    Mike Copeland
    Tyler Hansbrough
    Tyler's mom was getting extra benefits as well ...

    Does it balance out since she was giving extra benefits?

  19. #319
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Tyler's mom was getting extra benefits as well ...

    Does it balance out since she was giving extra benefits?
    Only if they were made available to the general student population...
    [redacted] them and the horses they rode in on.

  20. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by devildeac View Post
    Only if they were made available to the general student population...
    You prevert! 😋😎
       

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
  •