PDA

View Full Version : UNC assesses self-imposed penalties



Olympic Fan
09-19-2011, 04:02 PM
Surprised nothing on the board yet, but UNC issued their response to the NCAA investigation a couple of hours ago, including some self-imposed penalties:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6993024/north-carolina-tar-heels-vacate-2008-2009-wins-ahead-hearing

Basically, they vacated their wins from 2008 and 2009, imposed a two-year probation on themselves, fined themselves $50,000 and imposed a three-scholarship reduction on themselves for the next three years. They used the Sgt, Schultz defense to explain their nine major violations: "I know nothing ... NOTHING!" It was all a rogue agent-coach (who they paid $75,000 to resign), a rogue tutor and a rogue head coach (who they paid millions to do away, without requiring him to cooperate with the NCAA to get his buyout as Ohio State did with Tressel).

The penalties are laughably light -- ESPN's Stewart Mandell is already ripping them on twitter. We'll find out the real penalties after their hearing in late October. My guess is that the NCAA adds another year of probation (for three years total), a one-year bowl ban (this season) and reduces scholarships by at least five a year, maybe 7-8. Oh yes, the fine will be larger than $50,000 (Georgia Tech was just fined $100,000 for far, FAR less).

BTW: With UNC vacating their wins over Duke is 2008 and 2009, do we get the victory bell ... or do they keep it with their 2010 win (unless the NCAA vacates that one too).

jimsumner
09-19-2011, 04:17 PM
Surprised nothing on the board yet, but UNC issued their response to the NCAA investigation a couple of hours ago, including some self-imposed penalties:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6993024/north-carolina-tar-heels-vacate-2008-2009-wins-ahead-hearing

Basically, they vacated their wins from 2008 and 2009, imposed a two-year probation on themselves, fined themselves $50,000 and imposed a three-scholarship reduction on themselves for the next three years. They used the Sgt, Schultz defense to explain their nine major violations: "I know nothing ... NOTHING!" It was all a rogue agent-coach (who they paid $75,000 to resign), a rogue tutor and a rogue head coach (who they paid millions to do away, without requiring him to cooperate with the NCAA to get his buyout as Ohio State did with Tressel).

The penalties are laughably light -- ESPN's Stewart Mandell is already ripping them on twitter. We'll find out the real penalties after their hearing in late October. My guess is that the NCAA adds another year of probation (for three years total), a one-year bowl ban (this season) and reduces scholarships by at least five a year, maybe 7-8. Oh yes, the fine will be larger than $50,000 (Georgia Tech was just fined $100,000 for far, FAR less).

BTW: With UNC vacating their wins over Duke is 2008 and 2009, do we get the victory bell ... or do they keep it with their 2010 win (unless the NCAA vacates that one too).

I know you're joking about the Victory Bell but for those who don't know, vacating a win is not the same thing as forfeiting a game. The other team doesn't get a win. If it did, Duke could just sit tight and wait for those retroactive bowl bids to start rolling in. :)

Reilly
09-19-2011, 04:28 PM
Why would the comment about the victory bell be considered a joke? Duke did not win the game, so it doesn't get the bell. UNC, even though it is not not forfeiting the game (losing), has now, however, not "won" the game, either, so why should it get the bell?

I actually think it would be a good move on UNC's part to say, in effect, "you know, we got away from our true mission there for a while, and sullied the game, and that's not who we really are, so we shouldn't have the bell right now, and it reverts to Duke [who is clean, and almighty, and better than us] until we can win the bell again, fair and square ...."

cspan37421
09-19-2011, 04:31 PM
I actually think it would be a good move on UNC's part to say, in effect, "you know, we got away from our true mission there for a while, and sullied the game, and that's not who we really are, so we shouldn't have the bell right now, and it reverts to Duke [who is clean, and almighty, and better than us] until we can win the bell again, fair and square ...."

Obviously the wise solution is to have an engineer from NC State offer to cut the bell in half, and each school gets half. Whichever school says, "I would rather it go to my rival than see it cut in half" - they deserve the bell.

jimsumner
09-19-2011, 04:40 PM
Why would the comment about the victory bell be considered a joke? Duke did not win the game, so it doesn't get the bell. UNC, even though it is not not forfeiting the game (losing), has now, however, not "won" the game, either, so why should it get the bell?

I actually think it would be a good move on UNC's part to say, in effect, "you know, we got away from our true mission there for a while, and sullied the game, and that's not who we really are, so we shouldn't have the bell right now, and it reverts to Duke [who is clean, and almighty, and better than us] until we can win the bell again, fair and square ...."

Because the game never happened. Therefore it would stay in the possession of the holder. Since UNC won the last non-vacated game between the two teams, they would retain possession of the Bell.

And trust me, you do not want to think about the 2007 Duke-Carolina game. Or the 2006 one. Or the 2005 one.

Actually, the last 20+ years.

But I digress.

roywhite
09-19-2011, 05:28 PM
I know you're joking about the Victory Bell but for those who don't know, vacating a win is not the same thing as forfeiting a game. The other team doesn't get a win. If it did, Duke could just sit tight and wait for those retroactive bowl bids to start rolling in. :)

Really, is there a more hollow gesture than vacating wins?

-jk
09-19-2011, 05:39 PM
Really, is there a more hollow gesture than vacating wins?

Ask Bobby Bowden.

-jk

roywhite
09-19-2011, 05:48 PM
Ask Bobby Bowden.

-jk

That's a great example of the penalty actually meaning something, you're right.

Doesn't seem to have slowed down John Calipari much, and certainly doesn't impact a program like scholarship restrictions or a TV ban.
Will the gesture by the Heels satisfy the NCAA?

-jk
09-19-2011, 06:07 PM
...
Will the gesture by the Heels satisfy the NCAA?

Good Lord!, I hope not. They deserve so much more.

-jk

uh_no
09-19-2011, 06:14 PM
That's a great example of the penalty actually meaning something, you're right.

Doesn't seem to have slowed down John Calipari much, and certainly doesn't impact a program like scholarship restrictions or a TV ban.
Will the gesture by the Heels satisfy the NCAA?

The NCAA actually made a big stink when he celebrated his 500th win (or something like that...500th game maybe? who knows) or they had something in the media guide and the NCAA came in and forced them to remove it, threatening sanctions if they didn't

Kimist
09-19-2011, 09:42 PM
So if these "offers" made by unc represent their acknowledged mea culpa (meaning they are apparently content with their own suggested punishment) what is the likelihood now that the NCAA might really slam them with sanctions far more severe??

If it's anything like a courtroom plea bargain, one would think the "other side" (NCAA) might really be loaded for bear and unc already knows it! Will (fake?) contrition work for the heels?

Something akin to the teenager who wrecks the family car and then offers as punishment that he will not stay out past 2 am on one Saturday night.:D

k

buddy
09-19-2011, 10:11 PM
Since the wins were "vacated" instead of the games being forfeited, do we still have losses? Otherwise, how can we be 0-2 and the dark side 0-0 for the same contests? Not that it helps our overall futility that much. But I still hope the games are forfeited so we can be bowl eligible for 2009. As for the bell, today's students (and those of the past decade) probably don't know there is one, or think its part of the Carolina cheer squad.

roywhite
09-19-2011, 10:12 PM
So if these "offers" made by unc represent their acknowledged mea culpa (meaning they are apparently content with their own suggested punishment) what is the likelihood now that the NCAA might really slam them with sanctions far more severe??

Something akin to the teenager who wrecks the family car and then offers as punishment that he will not stay out past 2 am on one Saturday night.:D

k

...and the teenager announces that he will accept a retro-active license suspension that covered the last 6 months, places himself on probation, and asks Dad for the keys to the new vehicle.

Reilly
09-19-2011, 10:21 PM
Because the game never happened. Therefore it would stay in the possession of the holder. Since UNC won the last non-vacated game between the two teams, they would retain possession of the Bell.
.....

But the game *did* happen. Duke showed up, fielded a team per the rules, and was looking for a fair contest. UNC also showed up, did not field a team per the rules, and had no interest in upholding the rules of college football.

The winner of the game gets the bell. UNC did not win, per its actions today. Duke did not win, per the score on the field. Under the circumstances, I say it should go to Duke. Not because I hate UNC (I do), not because I want the bell (I do) .... but I do think UNC needs to come to grips w/ what it has done. They violated the sense, spirit and literal rule of fair play. On some level, goofy trophies like The Victory Bell, and the ax, and the old bucket, and this and that, are all about the sense of fun and fair play -- gather w/ your rival, play for something goofy, sport at its best, realize we're all in this together. At least that's what it symbolizes to me. Maybe I missed the fine print that said the bell goes to the team with the agent runner associate coach, the felony-indicted former player in the weight room who allegedly transports peanut butter and pepper balls, and "A"'s for papers about Mohammedism and Africa w/ its 115 million people. UNC won the last time we played fairly for it, but it hasn't given us a fair game in a while, so should not keep the bell during its time of not living up to its end of the bargain.

OldPhiKap
09-19-2011, 10:25 PM
But the game *did* happen. Duke showed up, fielded a team per the rules, and was looking for a fair contest. UNC also showed up, did not field a team per the rules, and had no interest in upholding the rules of college football.

The winner of the game gets the bell. UNC did not win, per its actions today. Duke did not win, per the score on the field. Under the circumstances, I say it should go to Duke. Not because I hate UNC (I do), not because I want the bell (I do) .... but I do think UNC needs to come to grips w/ what it has done. They violated the sense, spirit and literal rule of fair play. On some level, goofy trophies like The Victory Bell, and the ax, and the old bucket, and this and that, are all about the sense of fun and fair play -- gather w/ your rival, play for something goofy, sport at its best, realize we're all in this together. At least that's what it symbolizes to me. Maybe I missed the fine print that said the bell goes to the team with the agent runner associate coach, the felony-indicted former player in the weight room who allegedly transports peanut butter and pepper balls, and "A"'s for papers about Mohammedism and Africa w/ its 115 million people. UNC won the last time we played fairly for it, but it hasn't given us a fair game in a while, so should not keep the bell during its time of not living up to its end of the bargain.

I see where you're coming from. But no guarantee that we would have won anyway.

Let's beat the tar out of those cheating ferrets and end the discussion. GTH,C!!!

killerleft
09-19-2011, 11:56 PM
Because the game never happened. Therefore it would stay in the possession of the holder. Since UNC won the last non-vacated game between the two teams, they would retain possession of the Bell.

And trust me, you do not want to think about the 2007 Duke-Carolina game. Or the 2006 one. Or the 2005 one.

Actually, the last 20+ years.

But I digress.

Perhaps the best thing would be to win the game this year and refuse to take the bell because Carolina has ruined the very idea of fair and honest competion. Or we could take it to Auto Bell and steam clean the cheat off of it for about a week.

throatybeard
09-20-2011, 03:55 AM
Perhaps the best thing would be to win the game this year and refuse to take the bell because Carolina has ruined the very idea of fair and honest competition. Or we could take it to Auto Bell and steam clean the cheat off of it for about a week.

Better get Maaco.

jimsumner
09-20-2011, 10:40 AM
But the game *did* happen. Duke showed up, fielded a team per the rules, and was looking for a fair contest. UNC also showed up, did not field a team per the rules, and had no interest in upholding the rules of college football.

The winner of the game gets the bell. UNC did not win, per its actions today. Duke did not win, per the score on the field. Under the circumstances, I say it should go to Duke. Not because I hate UNC (I do), not because I want the bell (I do) .... but I do think UNC needs to come to grips w/ what it has done. They violated the sense, spirit and literal rule of fair play. On some level, goofy trophies like The Victory Bell, and the ax, and the old bucket, and this and that, are all about the sense of fun and fair play -- gather w/ your rival, play for something goofy, sport at its best, realize we're all in this together. At least that's what it symbolizes to me. Maybe I missed the fine print that said the bell goes to the team with the agent runner associate coach, the felony-indicted former player in the weight room who allegedly transports peanut butter and pepper balls, and "A"'s for papers about Mohammedism and Africa w/ its 115 million people. UNC won the last time we played fairly for it, but it hasn't given us a fair game in a while, so should not keep the bell during its time of not living up to its end of the bargain.

You're right. The games did happen. UNC did not win them. But Duke did lose them. The stats for the game count. UNC's wins were vacated but Duke's losses were not. A curious situation. We're told that team sports are zero sum but in this instance they aren't.

But losing a game whose win is later vacated by the winning team doesn't equate to a win by the original losing team. It's still a loss.

A forfeit is a different thing. But these aren't forfeits.

And yes, this all makes my head hurt.

Duke79UNLV77
09-20-2011, 11:04 AM
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Charlotte-Marine-finds-peace-through-charity-in-Kenya-120271264.html

Barcott was nearing graduation at UNC Chapel Hill and committed to joining the Marines. But as he'd soon discover, something would happen on the way to war.

"I was fortunate enough to take Swahili classes with the starting lineup of the men's basketball team at UNC. That was quite an experience," he said.

http://followthetarheels.posterous.com/the-sad-story-of-will-graves

In addition, his academic track record was often less than sparkling as well. As one former teammate noted: I think he failed Swahili. Everyone on the team takes that class and Im pretty sure Will was the first one to fail.

hudlow
09-20-2011, 11:17 AM
I had a teacher in the 6th grade that used to let us paddle ourselves...we made a lot of noise and looked like we were killing ourselves. But we sure weren't going to inflict much damage. So we didn't take it very seriously...

hud

Reilly
09-20-2011, 11:23 AM
... losing a game whose win is later vacated by the winning team doesn't equate to a win by the original losing team. It's still a loss.

A forfeit is a different thing. But these aren't forfeits.....

True, losing a game whose win is vacated doesn't equal a win by the orginal losing team; it is still a loss; and, these are not forfeits.

All that is true, and none of it matters. Showing up and playing by the rules and losing is *worlds better* than cheating and winning (temporarily) and then vacating the win.

The losing team still lost, but is better -- performed better by any metric that counts -- than the team that is, um, now on "vacation."

It's simple, really:

You win the game fair and square, you get The Bell.
You "win" the game by cheating, you lose. Big time. No Bell for you. No soup, either. If you're contrite enough, we might let you have a peanut butter and pepper ball.

budwom
09-20-2011, 11:25 AM
I agree the penalties are a complete joke.

I do need clarification on one point: the Harold's Son writer interpreted the loss of three scholarships over each of the next three years as meaning UNC's total will be
82, 79 and 76 over the next three years; I interpreted it as 82 over each of the next three years, obviously a pretty minor penalty.

Olympic Fan
09-20-2011, 02:04 PM
I agree the penalties are a complete joke.

I do need clarification on one point: the Harold's Son writer interpreted the loss of three scholarships over each of the next three years as meaning UNC's total will be
82, 79 and 76 over the next three years; I interpreted it as 82 over each of the next three years, obviously a pretty minor penalty.

That's what you get for trusting the Harold's Son (lol!). You are right -- UNC will limit themselves to 22 yearly scholarships over each of the next three years and an overall limit of 82 for the three year penalty.

BTW: I object to the moderators changing the title of this thread. It was not offensive OR wrong -- UNC DID low ball the NCAA. They know that the NCAA will be add on penalties -- the only question is whether they NCAA will really hammer them or merely make a moderate increase. I guarantee that they loose more scholarships and have to pay a larger fee ... I THINK (but am less certain) that they also get at least a one-year bowl ban.

budwom
09-20-2011, 03:28 PM
That's what you get for trusting the Harold's Son (lol!). You are right -- UNC will limit themselves to 22 yearly scholarships over each of the next three years and an overall limit of 82 for the three year penalty.

BTW: I object to the moderators changing the title of this thread. It was not offensive OR wrong -- UNC DID low ball the NCAA. They know that the NCAA will be add on penalties -- the only question is whether they NCAA will really hammer them or merely make a moderate increase. I guarantee that they loose more scholarships and have to pay a larger fee ... I THINK (but am less certain) that they also get at least a one-year bowl ban.

In defense of Harold's Son, he is still Mourning Harold.

-bdbd
10-27-2011, 11:04 AM
UNC former coach defending himself before the NCAA Committee on Infractions...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/10/21/john.blake/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_wr_a1