UNC's football punishment finally handed out

[JasonEvans]

UNC just got their punishment from the NCAA.

1 year bowl ban and 15 scholarships (5 per year for 3 years) and Blake has a 3-year show cause that will essentially keep him from coaching for at least 3 years. Carolina also gets 3 years of "probation" whatever the heck that means.

Here is the NCAA's release (http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/march/unc+receives+postseason+ban+scholarship+reductions ) on it.

-Jason "need some time to think about if this is just... it is not a slap on the wrist" Evans

[oldnavy]

UNC just got their punishment from the NCAA.

1 year bowl ban and 15 scholarships (5 per year for 3 years) and Blake has a 3-year show cause that will essentially keep him from coaching for at least 3 years. Carolina also gets 3 years of "probation" whatever the heck that means.

Here is the NCAA's release (http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/march/unc+receives+postseason+ban+scholarship+reductions ) on it.

-Jason "need some time to think about if this is just... it is not a slap on the wrist" Evans

Well they've finally made it to the big time.... too bad they don't have any BCS bowl victories to forfeit!

[ScreechTDX1847]

Wow. They escaped harsh punishment considering how bad my perception was of their violations. 5 scholarships a year? Whatever...

[PackMan97]

The cheated to get to two bowl games and only get banned for one season. That's a decent ROI right there.

I'm disappointed it was more, but at least they now officially have the label of CHEATER.

[Dev11]

Just to be sure, we don't get back the 2008 and 2009 losses, right? Either way, I would request that the Victory Bell spend a little time at the Yoh, perhaps not to honor the victors but to honor those who competed fairly.

[uh_no]

Just to be sure, we don't get back the 2008 and 2009 losses, right? Either way, I would request that the Victory Bell spend a little time at the Yoh, perhaps not to honor the victors but to honor those who competed fairly.

no. we still lost those games....UNC just.... didn't win.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think UNC-CH got off easy.

SoCal

[wilko]

I think UNC-CH got off easy.

SoCal

The best way to punish UNC is to put the Basketball team on probation.

[Indoor66]

Ewing got two technicals.

[moonpie23]

i guess the hammer of thor was really just that fisher-price replica....

[mgtr]

UNC has to breathe a sigh of relief that its not double-secret probation!

[dukelifer]

no. we still lost those games....UNC just.... didn't win.

Already updated on Wikipedia. But do we now have the second worse record in the league in 2008?

[uh_no]

Already updated on Wikipedia. But do we now have the second worse record in the league in 2008?

It would seem to be so!

they are 0-5 or whatever...losses don't get vacated

[Devilsfan]

They deserved much stronger punishment.

[Newton_14]

I think UNC-CH got off easy.

SoCal

On this one we are in total agreement. I had to stop reading the WRAL article. Both Thorpe and Baddour, were talking about how UNC handled the 2 year investigation in the "Carolina Way", so therefore, "the Carolina Way is very much still intact". Give me a freaking break. Arrogance just oozes from the hump on the dump. Just admit that the program went off the rails, many mistakes were made that damaged the image, and you are doing everything possible to restore the program to respectability. What a crock.

They are also talking about "what a big heart Jennifer Wiley has" and "it is terrible what this scandal did to her". Really? She gave those guys $3500 because she has a big heart? She refused to cooperate with the NCAA and yet they prop her up as a victim? I will say this. Only at UNC_CH would that kind of spin happen. It's the "Carolina Way" alright. Big Time!

[fan345678]

Wow. They escaped harsh punishment considering how bad my perception was of their violations. 5 scholarships a year? Whatever...

A reduction of five scholarships per year for three years is significant. After the 2012 football season, they won't have a full complement of 85 scholarship players again until 2019:

2012- 85 scholarship players
2013- 80
2014- 75
2015- 70
2016- 70
2017- 75
2018- 80
2019- 85

Plus, player development will be hindered because more freshmen will need to be used rather than redshirted.

[uh_no]

A reduction of five scholarships per year for three years is significant. After the 2012 football season, they won't have a full complement of 85 scholarship players again until 2019:

2012- 85 scholarship players
2013- 80
2014- 75
2015- 70
2016- 70
2017- 75
2018- 80
2019- 85

Plus, player development will be hindered because more freshmen will need to be used rather than redshirted.

I don't think that's how it works.

Scholarships are on a year by year basis...

SO next year they can award 80 total
the year after they can award 80 total
the year after that they can award 80 total.
then 85 the year after.


It doesn't add up in the sense that they can only have 16 instead of 21 each year for the next 3 years...it just means that next years class will be smaller, or they will have to cut some guys, and in three years they can have a class that's 5 bigger.

[Newton_14]

I don't think that's how it works.

Scholarships are on a year by year basis...

SO next year they can award 80 total
the year after they can award 80 total
the year after that they can award 80 total.
then 85 the year after.


It doesn't add up in the sense that they can only have 16 instead of 21 each year for the next 3 years...it just means that next years class will be smaller, or they will have to cut some guys, and in three years they can have a class that's 5 bigger.

I did not understand the math from the OP either. I think you are correct. The only other possibility is that for the next 3 years they can only recruit 20 kids per year instead of the normal 25. I would think it has to be one or the other (5 less total ea year or 5 less newbies per year)

[Devilsfan]

They accepted the findings and want to move on. They must privately think they got off easy. I heard on a local radio program today that Swoffard was much tougher on his findings against Clemson a few years ago. Wonder if that's true.

[SCMatt33]

I don't think that's how it works.

Scholarships are on a year by year basis...

SO next year they can award 80 total
the year after they can award 80 total
the year after that they can award 80 total.
then 85 the year after.


It doesn't add up in the sense that they can only have 16 instead of 21 each year for the next 3 years...it just means that next years class will be smaller, or they will have to cut some guys, and in three years they can have a class that's 5 bigger.

That's not exactly true. The NCAA limits the number of "initial counters" in football each year. I think that limit is 25. It certainly wouldn't talk 7 years to make it up, but if you just sign five less players per year than they would have otherwise, they couldn't make it up in one year. Given that there is normally some attrition every year (transfers, pros, etc.), It probably won't affect them beyond the three years as long as they manage it right.

I also think this punishment was about right. USC only got a two year bowl ban because they completely refused to cooperate and denied pretty much everything. USC also fell under the repeat violator clause. You can't really say either of those about UNC. I find it hard to justify multiple year punishment when the actual violators are all gone for anyone who isn't a repeat violator. If you've dealt with it before, and then come back and try to get away with it again, that's different. A one year bowl ban definitely gets the message across. The only complaint that I have is that they took so long to hand it down. There's no reason they couldn't have announced this before signing day so players signing were fully informed since they won't be automatically released.

[uh_no]

I did not understand the math from the OP either. I think you are correct. The only other possibility is that for the next 3 years they can only recruit 20 kids per year instead of the normal 25. I would think it has to be one or the other (5 less total ea year or 5 less newbies per year)

I think the other guy thought it was the latter, while I'm almost 99% sure its the former. The latter doesn't really make sense since it would imply that you were only allowed to give out 20 new sholarships a year....and that limit simply doesn't exist...there are larger and smaller classes in every sport every year. For instance, if UNC had no leaving seniors, under the other guys method, it would mean that the punishment was meaningless....since they weren't recruiting any new people anyway....