PDA

View Full Version : UNC Athletics Scandal: SACS to announce June 11



Pages : [1] 2 3

BigWayne
04-07-2015, 10:06 PM
Bradley Bethel just won't go away. (https://www.change.org/p/the-columbia-university-graduate-school-of-journalism-review-and-critique-the-sensationalized-reporting-by-the-media-covering-the-alleged-university-of-north-carolina-athletic-scandal)

The signatories of this petition appeal to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism to continue the important work in holding the media accountable. We ask they review and critique the reporting of the following media outlets that have covered the alleged athletic scandal at the University of North Carolina.

Associated Press
Business Insider
BusinessWeek
CBS Sports
ChapelBoro.com
Chronicle of Higher Ed
CNN
College Baseball Daily
Courier-Journal
Daily Tarheel
ESPN
Forbes
Fox News
HBO Sports
Herald Sun
Huffington Post
National Law Review
National Review
NBC Sports
News & Observer
News & Record
NPR
NY Daily News
NY Times
Post & Courier
SiriusXM
Sporting News
Sports Illustrated
University Herald
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
WCHL
Winston-Salem Journal
WTVD-11
Yahoo Sports


I checked it twice and I don't think he called out the Onion, so I guess he's OK with this post. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-unc-inflated-grades-created-fake-classes-fo,37270/)

bob blue devil
04-07-2015, 10:18 PM
Bradley Bethel just won't go away. (https://www.change.org/p/the-columbia-university-graduate-school-of-journalism-review-and-critique-the-sensationalized-reporting-by-the-media-covering-the-alleged-university-of-north-carolina-athletic-scandal)

The signatories of this petition appeal to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism to continue the important work in holding the media accountable. We ask they review and critique the reporting of the following media outlets that have covered the alleged athletic scandal at the University of North Carolina.

Associated Press
Business Insider
BusinessWeek
CBS Sports
ChapelBoro.com
Chronicle of Higher Ed
CNN
College Baseball Daily
Courier-Journal
Daily Tarheel
ESPN
Forbes
Fox News
HBO Sports
Herald Sun
Huffington Post
National Law Review
National Review
NBC Sports
News & Observer
News & Record
NPR
NY Daily News
NY Times
Post & Courier
SiriusXM
Sporting News
Sports Illustrated
University Herald
USA Today
Wall Street Journal
WCHL
Winston-Salem Journal
WTVD-11
Yahoo Sports


I checked it twice and I don't think he called out the Onion, so I guess he's OK with this post. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-unc-inflated-grades-created-fake-classes-fo,37270/)

funny, funny. he must realize by showing the massive list of media organizations that felt the scandal was serious enough to cover, he's only adding to the overall credibility of the story... right? the signatories to the petition (at the bottom) are a hoot too!

cspan37421
04-07-2015, 10:18 PM
Alleged?

While technically true, I think they've admitted to it, so it's a bit beyond alleged now. It's a bit like saying that Bernie Madoff is alleged to have committed fraud.

billy
04-08-2015, 12:19 AM
Some of the "undersigned" comments are priceless

martydoesntfoul
04-08-2015, 01:44 AM
Well, he's up to 17 signatures. Talk about going viral!

Anyway, while we're in the spirit of reviewing and critiquing, let's have a look at his opening salvo, shall we? The [brackets] are mine.

The recent review of the Rolling Stones [It's actually Rolling Stone, and the use of italics might be effective here. Already I'm quibbling...] article about the allegations of rape at the University of Virginia show [SHOWS!] just how irresponsible the media has become in their [In their? In its? Does it even matter at this point?] public responsibility [Irresponsible... in their public responsibility? Really? For starters, I try not to use the same word, or derivations of it, twice in the same sentence. But more importantly, what exactly is going on here other than a full frontal assault on the English language? And lastly, did Bradley in fact author some of the bogus papers himself? Inquiring minds want to know.] to verify and report the truth [facts might be a better word choice here for one seeking to eventually get to the truth]. For the past 4 [in cases of less than ten, it's best to write the word four] years, the media have [Can I please get a 'has' here ladies and gentlemen?] sensationalized their [its, ugh] reporting of an academic scandal spanning nearly two decades, involving more than 3,000 students, including nearly 1,500 student athletes [Leaving aside the rambling and awkward sentence structure for just a moment, is it just me, or does a scandal spanning two decades involving 3,000+ students seems pretty sensational in its own right, without the need for any so-called embellishment?].

The above cluster (note: use of the word cluster is not intended to sensationalize my words in any way) brings to mind the eloquent words of one Emmett Fitz-Hume, who once said, and I quote:

"Well, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear?"

Thank you Bradley! Please keep 'em coming. And good luck with the documentary. Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'm anticipating that your promise to responsibly examine the irresponsibility associated with this sensational scandal will be nothing short of truthful -- and potentially Oscar-worthy.

MarkD83
04-08-2015, 07:12 AM
He forgot to add

Cadwalader, Wickershaw & Taft.

Oh wait they are the folks hired by UNC that showed all of those emails that conclude their was a 20 year scandal at UNC.

OldPhiKap
04-08-2015, 07:48 AM
Pack Pride did more investigative journalism than almost anyone on the list.

BD80
04-08-2015, 08:06 AM
Has ESPN in any way "covered" unc's academic fraud by athletes?

Duvall
04-08-2015, 08:17 AM
Has ESPN in any way "covered" unc's academic fraud by athletes?

Several reports on Outside The Lines, which now airs every other Thursday at 4AM on ESPN Classic.

porcophile
04-10-2015, 12:34 AM
There was coverage on the Russian News Network and Voice of America, too. (No kidding.)
Someone's obviously having fun at B-Rad's expense. Couldn't happen to a more deserving soul.

hudlow
04-16-2015, 11:21 AM
I bet the silence is killing them....

hud

Ichabod Drain
04-16-2015, 11:24 AM
I bet the silence is killing them....

hud

It's killing them softly...

Last commit to UNC other than Maye was two years ago.

Henderson
04-16-2015, 11:26 AM
I bet the silence is killing them....


That's a shame.

Henderson
04-16-2015, 11:32 AM
It's killing them softly...

Last commit to UNC other than Maye was two years ago.

Yeah, but that one get is exceptional. Maye is a dead-on 3 point shooter and will put Carolina over the top next year. He's better than any Duke commit.

You need to spend more time on IC. They were right about Justin Jackson being better than Winslow and Joel Berry II being better than Tyus, weren't they?

aswewere
04-18-2015, 08:47 PM
News Observer link http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article18880224.html

CameronBornAndBred
04-19-2015, 03:29 PM
News Observer link http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article18880224.html
If the statement about 20 other universities being investigated is true, that's bad news for anyone that wants to see significant punishment. That's 20 other universities that are quite content to not apply pressure.

hudlow
04-19-2015, 07:58 PM
If the statement about 20 other universities being investigated is true, that's bad news for anyone that wants to see significant punishment. That's 20 other universities that are quite content to not apply pressure.


I can see The NCAA lowering standards and making them retroactive about 20 years....

moonpie23
04-19-2015, 08:02 PM
turn off the light, close the doors.....unc has won...


they've out-lied, out-attacked, out-absorbed, out-deflected, out-sued, out-investigated, out-shredded and out-lawyered EVERYONE....


they are going to skate....

chrishoke
04-19-2015, 09:37 PM
If the statement about 20 other universities being investigated is true, that's bad news for anyone that wants to see significant punishment. That's 20 other universities that are quite content to not apply pressure.

Syracuse says hi.

Duke95
04-19-2015, 10:41 PM
turn off the light, close the doors.....unc has won...


they've out-lied, out-attacked, out-absorbed, out-deflected, out-sued, out-investigated, out-shredded and out-lawyered EVERYONE....


they are going to skate....

Do you realize what will happen if NCAA lets UNC skate? 1 - it will open the door for future fraud, because, if UNC got away with it, everyone else will too, 2 - the next time the NCAA tries to come down on anyone for an infraction, you'll have a lawsuit. UNC gets 18-23 years of fraud and University X gets busted for a few "payments"? No way.

If UNC skates, the NCAA is done.

Duke95
04-19-2015, 10:43 PM
Yeah, but that one get is exceptional. Maye is a dead-on 3 point shooter and will put Carolina over the top next year. He's better than any Duke commit.

You need to spend more time on IC. They were right about Justin Jackson being better than Winslow and Joel Berry II being better than Tyus, weren't they?

Don't forget their musings about Meeks being better than Okafor.

dukelion
04-21-2015, 09:40 PM
Around the 1:50 mark.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12736816

Troublemaker
04-21-2015, 09:57 PM
Around the 1:50 mark.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12736816

Wow, good catch! April 17th they got it (maybe).

Incidentally, that entire interview sounded very positive for Duke's chances with Brandon.

uh_no
04-21-2015, 10:01 PM
Wow, good catch! April 17th they got it (maybe).

Incidentally, that entire interview sounded very positive for Duke's chances with Brandon.

I'd temper my expectations....if a kid was SO set on heading to UNC that it took potential NCAA sanctions to head him off, I can't imagine his heart turning and heading to the dark side.

I'd tap him for kansas if I were a betting man.

MarkD83
04-21-2015, 10:15 PM
Around the 1:50 mark.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12736816

When the NCAA does issue an NOA is it something that is available to the general public? I believe that Ingram heard from Roy that UNC had a list of allegations against it. However, I would not be surprised if Roy phrased things in such a way to make it sound like he knew what the allegations would be so he could say that they were not a big deal.

OldPhiKap
04-21-2015, 10:45 PM
When the NCAA does issue an NOA is it something that is available to the general public? I believe that Ingram heard from Roy that UNC had a list of allegations against it. However, I would not be surprised if Roy phrased things in such a way to make it sound like he knew what the allegations would be so he could say that they were not a big deal.

I thought that I rand somewhere along the line that the NCAA often gives the institution notice and a chance to self-impose before announcing a decision. Maybe that's what is going on. Definitely odd.

BigWayne
04-22-2015, 02:18 AM
When the NCAA does issue an NOA is it something that is available to the general public? I believe that Ingram heard from Roy that UNC had a list of allegations against it. However, I would not be surprised if Roy phrased things in such a way to make it sound like he knew what the allegations would be so he could say that they were not a big deal.

packPride guys are sending in FOIA requests for it now, so if it has been received it will have to come out eventually.

-jk
04-22-2015, 05:54 AM
packPride guys are sending in FOIA requests for it now, so if it has been received it will have to come out eventually.

Dan Kane (http://publicrecords.unc.edu/150385/) is going fishing, too:

"My understanding is that the NCAA typically provides something along the lines of a status report six months into an investigation. I am requesting that from UNC as it relates to the academic fraud case, plus any other correspondence in the case."

-jk

OldPhiKap
04-22-2015, 07:22 AM
Drip . . . .


Drip . . . .


Drip . . . .

CameronBornAndBred
04-22-2015, 08:53 AM
Around the 1:50 mark.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12736816
I woke up to a few posts about his comments this morning. This should make today's meeting with Roy very interesting, I'm guessing it won't have quite the same tone that it would have otherwise.
I can't imagine that Roy is too pleased that the source of this information was a recruit, plus, we don't know if it's true. It is entirely possible that Ingram misunderstood, and relayed some incorrect information. True or not, it makes me smile that we learned about it from a guy who isn't wearing baby blue yet.

tux
04-22-2015, 08:54 AM
UNC spokesperson (would not want that job) is now saying that UNC has NOT received a NOA from the NCAA.

So... Ingram either misunderstood Roy or Roy... ???

UrinalCake
04-22-2015, 09:14 AM
I remember when Roy complained loudly that the NCAA was taking so long to make a ruling on PJ. Then weeks later it came out that UNC had never even applied for his reinstatement. Roy is a proven liar.

OldPhiKap
04-22-2015, 09:17 AM
I remember when Roy complained loudly that the NCAA was taking so long to make a ruling on PJ. Then weeks later it came out that UNC had never even applied for his reinstatement. Roy is a proven liar.

Which former player's mom called Roy a "snake"? (IIRC)

BD80
04-22-2015, 09:22 AM
I remember when Roy complained loudly that the NCAA was taking so long to make a ruling on PJ. Then weeks later it came out that UNC had never even applied for his reinstatement. Roy is a proven liar.

a serial misunderstanderer

DBFAN
04-22-2015, 09:33 AM
If UNC sends out a spokesperson who has no insight and no way of knowing that UNC has received any notice from NCAA, can't they say that nothing has happened. I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't lying if they don't know

UrinalCake
04-22-2015, 09:45 AM
Which former player's mom called Roy a "snake"? (IIRC)

I think that was Tyreke (sp?) Powell in his call-in to the radio show, where he said the football players were made to intentionally fail a test for learning disabilities.

What ever happened to him? At this point, nothing would surprise me in this scandal. I could wake up tomorrow and read that his body had been dredged up from the east river and my reaction would be "yep, that sounds about right."

Channing
04-22-2015, 09:53 AM
The quality on that audio is bad. I think BI could just as easily be saying Roy told him they haven't gotten an allegation notice as of the 17th. It seems odd that BI would make a claim that Roy did receive a notice (first such public pronouncement) and the interviewer to just brush over it, and nobody else anywhere in the media pick up on it.

Henderson
04-22-2015, 10:03 AM
Drip . . . .


Drip . . . .


Drip . . . .

Man, I love that tune, especially as a progression of increasingly lower minor chords. On a big pipe organ.

Skitzle
04-22-2015, 10:07 AM
UNC spokesperson (would not want that job) is now saying that UNC has NOT received a NOA from the NCAA.

So... Ingram either misunderstood Roy or Roy... ???

or UNC is lying...

neemizzle
04-22-2015, 10:09 AM
or UNC is lying...

Either of these are plausible. Its understanding if Ingram misheard. But its also understanding if UNC lied. They haven't exactly handled the situation the best, have they?

tux
04-22-2015, 10:17 AM
They haven't exactly handled the situation the best, have they?

Now that you mention it, I don't think they have handled it all that well... ;)

Skitzle
04-22-2015, 10:18 AM
Either of these are plausible. Its understanding if Ingram misheard. But its also understanding if UNC lied. They haven't exactly handled the situation the best, have they?

Lies! They've handled this academic scandal personally. People got fired, let's move on. Right chemistry department?

bob blue devil
04-22-2015, 12:41 PM
Well, between Ingram, Williams and UNC, the only one not caught red handed lying about the scandal this far is Ingram... (tongue in cheek, obv Ingram could be confused here)

ncexnyc
04-22-2015, 01:02 PM
I remember when Roy complained loudly that the NCAA was taking so long to make a ruling on PJ. Then weeks later it came out that UNC had never even applied for his reinstatement. Roy is a proven liar.
But, but it wasn't Roy's fault. The evil Bubba kept Roy out of the loop. Roy is like the proverbial mushroom.

jv001
04-22-2015, 03:32 PM
Well, between Ingram, Williams and UNC, the only one not caught red handed lying about the scandal this far is Ingram... (tongue in cheek, obv Ingram could be confused here)

Ole roy is not the father of liars, that would be satan, but ole roy is a close second. GoDuke!

Olympic Fan
04-22-2015, 05:19 PM
I was told today (by someone who should know) that UNC has NOT yet received the official NOA.

But Bubba Cunningham recently told the Raleigh Sports Club that UNC expects to receive a NOA sometime in the next six months.

There is no public notification when an NOA is issued, although the news often leaks. Usually the school has a long time to challenge the NOA and schedule a hearing with the infractions committee (which is publicized).

A school can shorten that time frame by accepting the charges, self-penalizing then asking the NCAA to expedite its ruling ... but as we've talked about before, UNC's strategy seems to be to string this out until after next basketball season -- which they can probably do.

BigWayne
04-22-2015, 05:33 PM
Andrew Carter attempts to address the Ingram NOA comment and casually throws the Women's BB team under the bus. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article19249779.html)

And so the Ingram sound bite about UNC receiving “the allegations,” which quickly spread, was something like throwing a piece of raw but nutritionally-questionable meat to a starving pack of wolves........
Logically, it follows that the men's basketball program won't be punished as severely as, say, the women's basketball program, which was shown to have a direct link (Jan Boxill) between the team and the suspect classes.

swood1000
04-22-2015, 06:16 PM
... but as we've talked about before, UNC's strategy seems to be to string this out until after next basketball season -- which they can probably do.
Is there any reason to hope that a resolution will come sooner than that?

Olympic Fan
04-22-2015, 08:06 PM
Is there any reason to hope that a resolution will come sooner than that?

Well, you can always hope ... but realistically, I think there's little chance this gets resolved before next season is over (but I continue to believe that UNC will be hit HARD by the NCAA ... just not until the spring or summer of 2016).

OldPhiKap
04-22-2015, 08:24 PM
Is there any reason to hope that a resolution will come sooner than that?

I am hoping it hangs over the program a bit longer.

Henderson
04-22-2015, 08:25 PM
Is there any reason to hope that a resolution will come sooner than that?


Well, you can always hope ... but realistically, I think there's little chance this gets resolved before next season is over (but I continue to believe that UNC will be hit HARD by the NCAA ... just not until the spring or summer of 2016).

Way too much of that hopey stuff.

Lingering cloud followed by NCAA sanctions > NCAA sanctions

sagegrouse
04-22-2015, 08:57 PM
Well, you can always hope ... but realistically, I think there's little chance this gets resolved before next season is over (but I continue to believe that UNC will be hit HARD by the NCAA ... just not until the spring or summer of 2016).

This is a UNC Board of Governors issue. I believe that the BOG wants this in the rear-view mirror, even at the cost of severe penalties. I mean, this whole mess is a reputation killer and a blight, not only on the school, but on the Board and its tenure in charge.

Therefore, I think there is a chance for a resolution sooner rather than later. "Sooner" is probably six months or less.

Yeah, I know, Bubba is mouthing off -- but it is totally for the benefit of the hard-core alumni and fans. He can be safely ignored.

OTOH, the UNC attorneys and PR consultants benefit by drawing this out for as long as possible. You know, "if you aren't part of the solution, you can make good money by prolonging the problem."

Duvall
04-22-2015, 09:00 PM
This is a UNC Board of Governors issue. I believe that the BOG wants this in the rear-view mirror, even at the cost of severe penalties. I mean, this whole mess is a reputation killer and a blight, not only on the school, but on the Board and its tenure in charge.

Therefore, I think there is a chance for a resolution sooner rather than later. "Sooner" is probably six months or less.

That would be surprising. It seems like the UNC Board of Governors is more interested in turning the university into a two-bit trade school to concern themselves with a relatively minor issue like this. It would be surprising if Cunningham didn't have a free hand to continue his obfuscation and delays.

MarkD83
04-22-2015, 09:38 PM
Way too much of that hopey stuff.

Lingering cloud followed by NCAA sanctions > NCAA sanctions

If we do a bit of recruiting math for the UNC men's bball team the lingering cloud may be > sanctions.

In 2015-16 (w/o Ingram) they have 11 scholarship players. Three will graduate next year and if one player leaves early that means 7 scholarship players in 2016-17 if no recruits come in. Even worse if Roy has to start filling in the roster with players low in the "rankings" (not that I believe these things all of the time) he may be left with mediocre teams for multiple years with very few options on being able to turn over the roster.

sagegrouse
04-22-2015, 09:48 PM
That would be surprising. It seems like the UNC Board of Governors is more interested in turning the university into a two-bit trade school to concern themselves with a relatively minor issue like this. It would be surprising if Cunningham didn't have a free hand to continue his obfuscation and delays.

Well, the Board hired the Cadwallader Law Firm, which produced the Wainstein Report, and spared no expense. But, we'll see....

rifraf
04-23-2015, 12:42 PM
More quotes from Emmert on UNC/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/33ltyn/emmert_comments_on_unc_vs_syracuse_cases/). Calls back to previous comments about it not being the NCAA's job to enforce or determine the validity of coursework.

I really think the NCAA is going to wash their hands of this entire scandal and UNC will skate with no punishment.

cbarry
04-23-2015, 12:56 PM
I agree 100%. UNC will skate without so much as a slap on the wrist. The info that came out showing UNC and the NCAA being in bed together does not bode well for UNC receiving any kind of punishment. The NCAA has truly become irrelevant if they can't dole out punishment for THIS severe of rules violations!

Unfortunately, because the NCAA is not going to punish UNC, I feel there is about a 99.9999% likelihood that Brandon Ingram will announce for UNC. Another big factor for Ingram declaring for UNC is Roy has the last meeting with Ingram. The recency bias is powerful and cannot be ignored.

I wish we could have landed Ingram, but I think we will still be pretty darn good next year, with the couple of late additions we got.



More quotes from Emmert on UNC/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/33ltyn/emmert_comments_on_unc_vs_syracuse_cases/). Calls back to previous comments about it not being the NCAA's job to enforce or determine the validity of coursework.

I really think the NCAA is going to wash their hands of this entire scandal and UNC will skate with no punishment.

MarkD83
04-23-2015, 01:07 PM
I agree 100%. UNC will skate without so much as a slap on the wrist. The info that came out showing UNC and the NCAA being in bed together does not bode well for UNC receiving any kind of punishment. The NCAA has truly become irrelevant if they can't dole out punishment for THIS severe of rules violations!

The difficulty is what do other schools do about this if the NCAA does not give any kind of punishment.

A school can't go out and blatantly cheat. A decision to not punish UNC is capricious and a school caught cheating in the future could capriciously get a death penalty punishment from the NCAA.

A school can protest by not participating in events versus UNC but that hurts the school that is protesting not UNC.

A school can protest by not participating in NCAA events but that also hurts the school and not the NCAA.

This all means that the NCAA can make any decision they want and still remain relevant.

Olympic Fan
04-23-2015, 01:13 PM
It's amazing what people read into an obscure tweet.

UNC is going to get hammered, not because the NCAA is going to step in a determine which UNC classes are valid and which are not. They are going to get hammered because, according to UNC's own guidelines, hundreds of those classes are not valid -- as demonstrated by the Wainstein Retport. The report cites 169 student-athletes who would have been ineligible without the phony classes. The report includes e-mails showing administrators talking about ways to hide the phony classes and make them look legit. The report contains e-mails that prove these reports were set up for athletes -- and that the organizers were upset that "frat boys" had found out about them and had started enrolling.

In contrast to the vague comments from Emmert in the linked tweet, here are his comments when the Wainstein Report was released:

“Just based on the Wainstein report, this is a case that potentially strikes at the heart of what higher education is about,” Emmert told The Associated Press. “Universities are supposed to take absolutely most seriously the education of their students, right?
“I mean that’s why they exist; that’s their function in life. If the Wainstein report is accurate, then there was severe, severe compromising of all those issues, so it’s deeply troubling. … It’s absolutely disturbing that we find ourselves here right now.”

I repeat, UNC is going to get hammered.

And, cbarry, your pessimism about Ingram is astonishing. I still very good about our chances of getting him -- so do the majority of the nation's recruiting writers

Duke95
04-23-2015, 01:17 PM
It's amazing what people read into an obscure tweet.

UNC is going to get hammered, not because the NCAA is going to step in a determine which UNC classes are valid and which are not. They are going to get hammered because, according to UNC's own guidelines, hundreds of those classes are not valid -- as demonstrated by the Wainstein Retport. The report cites 169 student-athletes who would have been ineligible without the phony classes. The report includes e-mails showing administrators talking about ways to hide the phony classes and make them look legit. The report contains e-mails that prove these reports were set up for athletes -- and that the organizers were upset that "frat boys" had found out about them and had started enrolling.

In contrast to the vague comments from Emmert in the linked tweet, here are his comments when the Wainstein Report was released:

“Just based on the Wainstein report, this is a case that potentially strikes at the heart of what higher education is about,” Emmert told The Associated Press. “Universities are supposed to take absolutely most seriously the education of their students, right?
“I mean that’s why they exist; that’s their function in life. If the Wainstein report is accurate, then there was severe, severe compromising of all those issues, so it’s deeply troubling. … It’s absolutely disturbing that we find ourselves here right now.”

I repeat, UNC is going to get hammered.

And, cbarry, your pessimism about Ingram is astonishing. I still very good about our chances of getting him -- so do the majority of the nation's recruiting writers

Well, I hope you're right, on both counts, Oly. I've been pessimistic about Ingram too, mostly because I know it's hard to pull an eastern NC kid out of UNC's clutches.

cbarry
04-23-2015, 01:22 PM
I hope he's right, too! I am hanging onto that very very small chance Ingram comes to Duke, but not going to get my hopes up on him AT ALL! In state kids just don't go to Duke in general. Too much UNC UNC UNC ingrained into them at an early age.

As far as the NCAA, logically, they drop the hammer on UNC, but my gut says they don't.


Well, I hope you're right, on both counts, Oly. I've been pessimistic about Ingram too, mostly because I know it's hard to pull an eastern NC kid out of UNC's clutches.

Kedsy
04-23-2015, 01:29 PM
I agree 100%. UNC will skate without so much as a slap on the wrist.

I understand this is a possibility, but I can't fathom why you (and others around here) are so 100% certain that the NCAA will act one way or another. The NCAA's actions have proven difficult to predict in the past. Any certainty in this regard would appear to be folly.


The info that came out showing UNC and the NCAA being in bed together does not bode well for UNC receiving any kind of punishment.

"In bed together" seems to be a fairly large overstatement. My understanding is that the NCAA cooperating with schools it is investigating is pretty standard practice. My guess is it is pretty much the same way the NCAA interacted with, for example, Syracuse in their recent investigation.


The NCAA has truly become irrelevant if they can't dole out punishment for THIS severe of rules violations!

I agree with this. Which is why I disagree with your original conclusion.


Unfortunately, because the NCAA is not going to punish UNC, I feel there is about a 99.9999% likelihood that Brandon Ingram will announce for UNC.

This would only be true if Brandon Ingram were as 100% certain as you are. Which is unlikely. The basis for your prediction is a "fact" that is anything but, in reality is nothing more than your partially (but far from fully) informed opinion, really little more than a guess.


Another big factor for Ingram declaring for UNC is Roy has the last meeting with Ingram. The recency bias is powerful and cannot be ignored.

Do you have data to back this up? My guess is there are plenty of recruits who do NOT simply say yes to the last people they talk to. If this was such a lock, coaches would never agree to be anything less then the last meeting, and that clearly isn't the case.


I wish we could have landed Ingram...

Now you're just getting silly, speaking in the past tense about something that hasn't happened yet, based on a conclusion that doesn't entirely follow from your premise, which in turn is no more likely to be true than almost any other premise one could come up with.


The difficulty is what do other schools do about this if the NCAA does not give any kind of punishment.

If enough schools are offended by whatever action the NCAA takes (or doesn't take), they can secede from the NCAA. Some football schools have been threatening this for some time.

There may also be other rebellious actions dissatisfied schools can take. For me at least, it's hard to imagine schools like Syracuse or Southern Cal or even the Weber States of the world taking a UNC non-punishment sitting down after they were whacked for similar and/or lesser violations. And the NCAA must know this, which is why I don't agree with those who think UNC will "skate" with no punishment at all.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-23-2015, 01:32 PM
Well, I hope you're right, on both counts, Oly. I've been pessimistic about Ingram too, mostly because I know it's hard to pull an eastern NC kid out of UNC's clutches.

I would think that this week's developments certainly move the needle away from UNC. I mean, either Roy lied to Ingram (plays against Roy and UNC), Ingram misunderstood Roy and went public with a mistake (plays against Ingram), or Roy told Ingram the truth and Ingram told the truth and UNC is now lying (makes UNC look even worse). Any of that makes for an awkward dynamic at best. Coupled with Duke's PG "get," it seems like whatever Ingram's status was last week might be irrelevant.

OldPhiKap
04-23-2015, 01:38 PM
I would think that this week's developments certainly move the needle away from UNC. I mean, either Roy lied to Ingram (plays against Roy and UNC), Ingram misunderstood Roy and went public with a mistake (plays against Ingram), or Roy told Ingram the truth and Ingram told the truth and UNC is now lying (makes UNC look even worse). Any of that makes for an awkward dynamic at best. Coupled with Duke's PG "get," it seems like whatever Ingram's status was last week might be irrelevant.

This assumes that the info came from Roy. it could have come from an opposing coach or from general scuttlebutt.

Bostondevil
04-23-2015, 02:21 PM
As far as Emmert goes - he's the one that's always stressing the student in student athletes when he's asked about why doesn't the NCAA pay the players. If nothing happens to UNC as a result of not stressing the student in student athlete, the whole "these kids are in it for the education" does not fly anymore.

UNC will not skate by.

swood1000
04-23-2015, 02:32 PM
More quotes from Emmert on UNC/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/33ltyn/emmert_comments_on_unc_vs_syracuse_cases/). Calls back to previous comments about it not being the NCAA's job to enforce or determine the validity of coursework.

I really think the NCAA is going to wash their hands of this entire scandal and UNC will skate with no punishment.
On the other hand Emmert seemed quite distressed here: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11775066/mark-emmert-ncaa-president-calls-north-carolina-report-troubling


We have to consider the context in which the NCAA says that it is not their job to enforce or determine the validity of coursework. If they're saying it as a defense in a lawsuit against them by a student who claims that the NCAA owed such a duty to the student and failed to perform it, and therefore owes the student a huge amount of money, that's one thing. Their defense in this lawsuit against them is that the NCAA owes no such duty to a student, and owes no money to the student in consequence.


But consider it in the context not of the duty of the NCAA toward the student but of the NCAA's oversight of the duty of UNC toward the student and toward the NCAA to make sure that student-athletes get the same education as the other students. There is no reason to suppose that in this context the NCAA would say that it is not their job to enforce its rules by evaluating the validity of coursework, and making sure that UNC is fulfilling its obligations.

Olympic Fan
04-23-2015, 02:38 PM
Allow me to add one more thing.

A lot of people who have followed the scandal have wondered why UNC's rivals have been so silent about the two decades of cheating. Why do officials at Duke and NC State even allow ESPN to ban signs at games in Cameron and PNC that refer to the scandal? Why doesn't Kevin White and/or Debbie Yow (a notorious loose cannon) scream about the scandal? Why are Syracuse, Georgia Tech and Miami officials -- whose schools got heavy punishment for far less transgressions -- so silent on the UNC mess?

Had some conversations earlier this week with athletic officials at a number of schools. I was told that there is an amazing amount of screaming going on behind the scenes. But the ACC and NCAA have long encouraged (and enforced?) a public gag order on officials not to play this out in the media. Think back, did you ever hear a Big East rival call out Syracuse for the blatant Feb Melo cheating? Did Southern Cal's Pac 12 rivals run screaming to the press about the Reggie Bush shenanigans? There are exceptions -- I remember when Tennessee and Alabama got into a war or words about 15-20 years ago -- but little is ever said in public in most cases. That applies to the NCAA too ... you remember any Emmert quotes about how hard they were going to hammer Syracuse?

Rest assured -- officials at Duke, State and the rest of the ACC are as outraged as you are about what's been going on at UNC. But they are quiet because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer.

If that doesn't happen and UNC skates, you will hear the loudest, most sustained screams you've ever heard in athletics.

But you won't hear that, because UNC won't skate.

cbarry
04-23-2015, 03:12 PM
Thanks for posting this Olympic Fan. That makes so much sense. I really hope you're right! If you do the crime, you gotta do the time.


Allow me to add one more thing.

A lot of people who have followed the scandal have wondered why UNC's rivals have been so silent about the two decades of cheating. Why do officials at Duke and NC State even allow ESPN to ban signs at games in Cameron and PNC that refer to the scandal? Why doesn't Kevin White and/or Debbie Yow (a notorious loose cannon) scream about the scandal? Why are Syracuse, Georgia Tech and Miami officials -- whose schools got heavy punishment for far less transgressions -- so silent on the UNC mess?

Had some conversations earlier this week with athletic officials at a number of schools. I was told that there is an amazing amount of screaming going on behind the scenes. But the ACC and NCAA have long encouraged (and enforced?) a public gag order on officials not to play this out in the media. Think back, did you ever hear a Big East rival call out Syracuse for the blatant Feb Melo cheating? Did Southern Cal's Pac 12 rivals run screaming to the press about the Reggie Bush shenanigans? There are exceptions -- I remember when Tennessee and Alabama got into a war or words about 15-20 years ago -- but little is ever said in public in most cases. That applies to the NCAA too ... you remember any Emmert quotes about how hard they were going to hammer Syracuse?

Rest assured -- officials at Duke, State and the rest of the ACC are as outraged as you are about what's been going on at UNC. But they are quiet because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer.

If that doesn't happen and UNC skates, you will hear the loudest, most sustained screams you've ever heard in athletics.

But you won't hear that, because UNC won't skate.

English
04-23-2015, 03:14 PM
Allow me to add one more thing.

A lot of people who have followed the scandal have wondered why UNC's rivals have been so silent about the two decades of cheating. Why do officials at Duke and NC State even allow ESPN to ban signs at games in Cameron and PNC that refer to the scandal? Why doesn't Kevin White and/or Debbie Yow (a notorious loose cannon) scream about the scandal? Why are Syracuse, Georgia Tech and Miami officials -- whose schools got heavy punishment for far less transgressions -- so silent on the UNC mess?

Had some conversations earlier this week with athletic officials at a number of schools. I was told that there is an amazing amount of screaming going on behind the scenes. But the ACC and NCAA have long encouraged (and enforced?) a public gag order on officials not to play this out in the media. Think back, did you ever hear a Big East rival call out Syracuse for the blatant Feb Melo cheating? Did Southern Cal's Pac 12 rivals run screaming to the press about the Reggie Bush shenanigans? There are exceptions -- I remember when Tennessee and Alabama got into a war or words about 15-20 years ago -- but little is ever said in public in most cases. That applies to the NCAA too ... you remember any Emmert quotes about how hard they were going to hammer Syracuse?

Rest assured -- officials at Duke, State and the rest of the ACC are as outraged as you are about what's been going on at UNC. But they are quiet because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer.

If that doesn't happen and UNC skates, you will hear the loudest, most sustained screams you've ever heard in athletics.

But you won't hear that, because UNC won't skate.

Need to spread the love, but this demands sporks. Assuming this is true, and you've never given me reason to suspect otherwise, this is like a warm glass of milk before bedtime. Just as I respect keeping internal team matters in the locker room, and company matters out of public view, I have only minor qualms about this public approach to NCAA and conference business. Your post is very reassuring.

CameronBornAndBred
04-23-2015, 03:23 PM
Do you have data to back this up? My guess is there are plenty of recruits who do NOT simply say yes to the last people they talk to. If this was such a lock, coaches would never agree to be anything less then the last meeting, and that clearly isn't the case.

In general, I agree with all of your post...but there IS a reason people want the last word. I always think of those shows like "The Voice". I might be the best singer on the whole show, but I sure as hell don't want to go first.

tux
04-23-2015, 03:25 PM
Well, I hope you're right, on both counts, Oly. I've been pessimistic about Ingram too, mostly because I know it's hard to pull an eastern NC kid out of UNC's clutches.

Right. The fact that Ingram is the only elite 2015 recruit really considering UNC is itself a testament to the draw of UNC in eastern NC. Despite my earlier pessimism, I'm starting to think that Ingram may not want to step into all the uncertainty surrounding UNC...

Has anyone heard news of Roy's visit?

CameronBornAndBred
04-23-2015, 03:29 PM
Right. The fact that Ingram is the only elite 2015 recruit really considering UNC is itself a testament to the draw of UNC in eastern NC. Despite my earlier pessimism, I'm starting to think that Ingram may not want to step into all the uncertainty surrounding UNC...

Has anyone heard news of Roy's visit?
I want to know what he said about sharing the NCAA info. "Dadgummit, Brandon!"

SCMatt33
04-23-2015, 03:30 PM
I've a few posts around here with the line of thinking that UNC will somehow skate by on this without any significant punishment. I personally don’t see any way that can happen. The NCAA at this point has painted itself into a corner. On one hand, they are being attacked by a myriad of lawsuits accusing their whole system of amateurism and student athletes as being a sham. The absolute only thing still holding up that notion even a little bit is the education received as part of a scholarship. If the NCAA gives a pass to an institution failing to provide a legitimate education to its student athletes, there’s almost no chance the NCAA can survive further lawsuits. On the other hand, they have spent numerous resources in the last several years going after and punishing academic fraud cases. While some have pointed to comments about the differences between Syracuse and North Carolina in having direct links to the fraud on the staff, the fact remains that the classes at UNC have been irrefutably shown to be fraudulent in nature and many of the players would not have been eligible without them. The NCAA has shown fairly consistently in recent years that it will vacate any wins in which an ineligible athlete participated, also known as “strict liability.” Here is a direct quote from the NCAA report in which Memphis was forced to vacate wins because Derrick Rose’s SAT score was deemed invalid.


Ultimately, the committee concluded that it did not need to make a determination as to whether student-athlete 1 engaged in unethical conduct as defined in NCAA Bylaw 10.1 with respect to the alleged fraudulent completion of his SAT. The committee concluded that, due to the fact that student-athlete 1's SAT score was cancelled by ETS, student-athlete 1 was rendered academically ineligible to compete during the entire 2007-08 season, including the 2008 Division I Men's Basketball Championship. This is a "strict liability" situation. The institution's assertion that, prior to the start of the 2007-08 season, it did not have sufficient information to conclude that student-athlete 1's SAT test would be cancelled was not relevant under the circumstances

The NCAA is clearly stating here that they don’t care whether or not anyone on the Men’s Basketball staff knew about it, he was ineligible because the test score was invalid. It should be noted that Memphis also committed violations in regards to free travel and lodging at road games for Rose’s brother, but they clearly stated that either violation was enough on its own to make Rose ineligible. With this line of thinking, I don’t see any plausible explanation for not vacating any UNC win in which an ineligible athlete participated. Now, the NCAA can certainly do some dancing around this topic as they did with Syracuse. In that case, it was suspiciously convenient how violations starting in 2001 only resulted in wins being vacated from seasons starting in 2004, immediately after their national championship. When the NCAA looks at UNC, they will likely only vacate wins in which a player would have definitively been ineligible without the fake classes. There’s plenty of fuzzy math to do with transcripts to make it work out for UNC, potentially even with a guy like Rashad McCants. It’s also possible that the lack of definitive links between the fraud and the Men’s Basketball staff will allow them to avoid a postseason ban in that sport. There’s still no doubt in my mind that we will see a significant number of vacated wins in Men’s Basketball, and for a program like UNC, that’s still a significant black mark.

I also look at the lack of a link between Men’s Basketball and this investigation and I’m reminded of an episode of “The West Wing” from back in the day. In the show, the president had hidden a medical issue from the public and was ready to come out with the truth. He had to consult the White House lawyer on it which resulted in this exchange between his chief of staff (Leo) and White House Counsel (Oliver):


LEO: I mean, in the two and a half hours we've been sitting here have you discovered one thing that he's done wrong?
OLIVER: No.
LEO: So, what's your problem?
OLIVER: That's my problem, Leo. Are you out of your mind? He did everything right. He did everything you do if your intent is to perpetrate a fraud.

It’s always struck me that this is exactly what happened with UNC. They did everything you do if you want to get away with academic fraud. They made sure that the classes were open to all students. The made sure that no Men’s Basketball staff member was involved. They made sure to close ranks as soon as someone (McCant’s) insinuated otherwise. It appears that other teams were not so careful in this regard, and they might get it worse than Men’s Basketball.
At the end of the day, however, no matter how big or small the punishment is for the athletics program, the fact that UNC has to have its accreditation questioned as a result of this scandal is much worse for such a prestigious academic institution than any impermissible benefits case or the like could ever be.

DashNative
04-23-2015, 03:31 PM
I am with all of you guys. I don't think a recruit of Ingram's caliber would want to risk the penalties that are heading UNC's way, even if he was inclined to only stay for a year anyway. A postseason ban would make the decision look awfully silly. Duke has to be the play if he wants to stay in state. Is NC State still an option?

Speaking (writing?) of UNC, President Foot-in-Mouth, I mean Mark Emmert speaks to sportswriters: http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/index.ssf/2015/04/ncaa_president_mark_emmert_syracuse_basketball.htm l

English
04-23-2015, 03:47 PM
I am with all of you guys. I don't think a recruit of Ingram's caliber would want to risk the penalties that are heading UNC's way, even if he was inclined to only stay for a year anyway. A postseason ban would make the decision look awfully silly. Duke has to be the play if he wants to stay in state. Is NC State still an option?]

Gottfried did an in-home with BI on Monday, so yes, NCSU is still on his list.

Kedsy
04-23-2015, 04:33 PM
In general, I agree with all of your post...but there IS a reason people want the last word. I always think of those shows like "The Voice". I might be the best singer on the whole show, but I sure as hell don't want to go first.

I agree that having the last word is an advantage. I just don't think it's necessarily the deciding factor. The OP made it sound as if that alone meant the kid was going to UNC, a position which I don't think is supported by any evidence.

wilko
04-23-2015, 04:43 PM
Despite my earlier pessimism, I'm starting to think that Ingram may not want to step into all the uncertainty surrounding UNC...

AND on top of all that... they have a horrible color....

MarkD83
04-23-2015, 09:24 PM
I understand the logic that everyone has stated about why UNC will get hammered, so please help me through this nightmare of plausible deniability.

The Weinstein report showed that athletes were enrolled in fraudulent classes, but at the time the coaches and athletes thought they were legitimate classes. Therefore, the athletes thought they were eligible. The NCAA has stated that they are not responsible for determining the rigor of each individual institutions academic course load. However, they will abide by a ruling by an independent body such as the ETS deciding that Rose's SAT scores were fraudulent. So the NCAA will defer to SACS.

SACS puts UNC on probation and does not rescind their accreditation. The NCAA says since SACS ruled that UNC is still accredited that means an outside body who is able to assess UNC's academic rigor was not concerned about the AFAM classes. Furthermore if SACS does not explicitly state that students enrolled in these classes lose credit that means that SACS has tacitly ruled that students should not be penalized for taking these classes regardless of what the Weinstein report says. Therefore, the athletes who took these classes should not lose credit and would not be ruled ineligible because SACS has tacitly blessed these classes. The NCAA then states that while they are appalled by the situation they have to respect the ruling by SACS. In addition, UNC has fired those responsible and spent lots of money getting to the bottom of this.

Everyone can scream all they want but the NCAA has a case for not sanctioning UNC depending upon the language used in a ruling by SACS.

SCMatt33
04-23-2015, 09:28 PM
I understand the logic that everyone has stated about why UNC will get hammered, so please help me through this nightmare of plausible deniability.

The Weinstein report showed that athletes were enrolled in fraudulent classes, but at the time the coaches and athletes thought they were legitimate classes. Therefore, the athletes thought they were eligible. The NCAA has stated that they are not responsible for determining the rigor of each individual institutions academic course load. However, they will abide by a ruling by an independent body such as the ETS deciding that Rose's SAT scores were fraudulent. So the NCAA will defer to SACS.

SACS puts UNC on probation and does not rescind their accreditation. The NCAA says since SACS ruled that UNC is still accredited that means an outside body who is able to assess UNC's academic rigor was not concerned about the AFAM classes. Furthermore if SACS does not explicitly state that students enrolled in these classes lose credit that means that SACS has tacitly ruled that students should not be penalized for taking these classes regardless of what the Weinstein report says. Therefore, the athletes who took these classes should not lose credit and would not be ruled ineligible because SACS has tacitly blessed these classes. The NCAA then states that while they are appalled by the situation they have to respect the ruling by SACS. In addition, UNC has fired those responsible and spent lots of money getting to the bottom of this.

Everyone can scream all they want but the NCAA has a case for not sanctioning UNC depending upon the language used in a ruling by SACS.

Hasn't UNC already acknowledged that the classes were not valid? The decision to maintain accreditation going forward does not change that the grades earned in paper classes were not legit. The question then becomes whether players would have been eligible without the paper classes.

sagegrouse
04-23-2015, 09:32 PM
I understand the logic that everyone has stated about why UNC will get hammered, so please help me through this nightmare of plausible deniability.

The Weinstein report showed that athletes were enrolled in fraudulent classes, but at the time the coaches and athletes thought they were legitimate classes. Therefore, the athletes thought they were eligible. The NCAA has stated that they are not responsible for determining the rigor of each individual institutions academic course load. However, they will abide by a ruling by an independent body such as the ETS deciding that Rose's SAT scores were fraudulent. So the NCAA will defer to SACS.

SACS puts UNC on probation and does not rescind their accreditation. The NCAA says since SACS ruled that UNC is still accredited that means an outside body who is able to assess UNC's academic rigor was not concerned about the AFAM classes. Furthermore if SACS does not explicitly state that students enrolled in these classes lose credit that means that SACS has tacitly ruled that students should not be penalized for taking these classes regardless of what the Weinstein report says. Therefore, the athletes who took these classes should not lose credit and would not be ruled ineligible because SACS has tacitly blessed these classes. The NCAA then states that while they are appalled by the situation they have to respect the ruling by SACS. In addition, UNC has fired those responsible and spent lots of money getting to the bottom of this.

Everyone can scream all they want but the NCAA has a case for not sanctioning UNC depending upon the language used in a ruling by SACS.

The athletes may have "thought they were eligible," but this is utterly irrelevant. Over 1,500 student-athletes took "sham" courses where there was no instruction, class time, or even the involvement of a faculty member. These courses were created largely at the instigation of the personnel in the Academic Support Center with the connivance of an administrator in AFAM. UNC has conceded again and again that these courses were fraudulent. Therefore, I believe the reasoning in your post is circular.

It is very simple. NCAA: "Do you accept the findings of the Wainstein Report?" UNC: "Yes." Will it get settled in weeks or even a few months? Probably not, because there were other threads to consider.

MarkD83
04-23-2015, 09:33 PM
Hasn't UNC already acknowledged that the classes were not valid? The decision to maintain accreditation going forward does not change that the grades earned in paper classes were not legit. The question then becomes whether players would have been eligible without the paper classes.

Thanks, I may have missed that which does negate my nightmare. Someone still will have to do the math to see who was eligible. Can UNC invoke FERPA privacy restrictions if the NCAA wants to examine everyone's transcripts to determine eligibility?

roywhite
04-23-2015, 09:37 PM
I understand the logic that everyone has stated about why UNC will get hammered, so please help me through this nightmare of plausible deniability.

The Weinstein report showed that athletes were enrolled in fraudulent classes, but at the time the coaches and athletes thought they were legitimate classes. Therefore, the athletes thought they were eligible. The NCAA has stated that they are not responsible for determining the rigor of each individual institutions academic course load. However, they will abide by a ruling by an independent body such as the ETS deciding that Rose's SAT scores were fraudulent. So the NCAA will defer to SACS.

SACS puts UNC on probation and does not rescind their accreditation. The NCAA says since SACS ruled that UNC is still accredited that means an outside body who is able to assess UNC's academic rigor was not concerned about the AFAM classes. Furthermore if SACS does not explicitly state that students enrolled in these classes lose credit that means that SACS has tacitly ruled that students should not be penalized for taking these classes regardless of what the Weinstein report says. Therefore, the athletes who took these classes should not lose credit and would not be ruled ineligible because SACS has tacitly blessed these classes. The NCAA then states that while they are appalled by the situation they have to respect the ruling by SACS. In addition, UNC has fired those responsible and spent lots of money getting to the bottom of this.

Everyone can scream all they want but the NCAA has a case for not sanctioning UNC depending upon the language used in a ruling by SACS.

I didn't make it past the portion I bolded. I believe that is false --- that coaches and athletes were aware of the nature of the classes.

SCMatt33
04-23-2015, 09:37 PM
Thanks, I may have missed that which does negate my nightmare. Someone still will have to do the math to see who was eligible. Can UNC invoke FERPA privacy restrictions if the NCAA wants to examine everyone's transcripts to determine eligibility?

They can, but the NCAA can compel them to release the information to them under threat of penalty. The NCAA will not further release exactly which players were ineligible. In all previous NCAA reports, they simply refer to "Player A," "Player B," Etc. Even in cases where the person in question is painfully obvious, a la Derrick Rose or Reggie Bush, the NCAA does not specifically acknowledge players in their reports.

MarkD83
04-23-2015, 09:49 PM
I didn't make it past the portion I bolded. I believe that is false --- that coaches and athletes were aware of the nature of the classes.

Thanks. My nightmare was in the second part of the paragraph about who decides that the classes were fake. ScMatt helped me with that issue.

moonpie23
04-24-2015, 09:51 AM
I'm still not convinced. (although there are a lot of compelling reasons why they WILL get hammered) For me, it's hard to believe that the legal eagles protecting unc don't already think they have a good out by which to skate. When the inevitable is looming, the suits figure out a way to compromise. This doesn't seem to be the case, as it has dragged on with CONTINUED deflection and confidence.


I think they really do believe in their hearts, (and high priced spread legal advice) that they are going to skate....

I've already shot my mouth off to co-workers with promises of limo's to chapel hill, huge, expensive dinners, and a guaranteed TMZ-worthy arrest for public drunkeness should the banners come down.

Now it seems just reasonable enough that i may have to pay up.......or, they just skate......either way, it's not gonna painless...

MarkD83
04-24-2015, 11:46 AM
I'm still not convinced. (although there are a lot of compelling reasons why they WILL get hammered) For me, it's hard to believe that the legal eagles protecting unc don't already think they have a good out by which to skate. When the inevitable is looming, the suits figure out a way to compromise. This doesn't seem to be the case, as it has dragged on with CONTINUED deflection and confidence.


I think they really do believe in their hearts, (and high priced spread legal advice) that they are going to skate....
I've already shot my mouth off to co-workers with promises of limo's to chapel hill, huge, expensive dinners, and a guaranteed TMZ-worthy arrest for public drunkeness should the banners come down.

Now it seems just reasonable enough that i may have to pay up.......or, they just skate......either way, it's not gonna painless...

Perhaps the high priced legal arguement is based on a statute of limitations. Take the attached link with a large grain of salt, but it is one of those nightmare situations.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-basketball/2014/11/09/north-carolina-basketball-not-guilty-of-alleged-ncaa-violations/

I will echo what was said on the 2015 recruiting thread. Any outcome of the scandal is much easier to tolerate with a 5th National Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

dukebluesincebirth
04-24-2015, 11:47 AM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/sports/osu-sports-ncaa-outcome-expected-to-be-announced-today/article_ddb59e19-d04e-58c7-8a32-c9c489ddd3d2.html

I'm always watching to see what the NCAA is ruling in its current cases. The Oklahoma State football program ruling is supposed to be made public today. Some infractions are similar to unc.

Henderson
04-24-2015, 12:05 PM
Perhaps the high priced legal arguement is based on a statute of limitations. Take the attached link with a large grain of salt, but it is one of those nightmare situations.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-basketball/2014/11/09/north-carolina-basketball-not-guilty-of-alleged-ncaa-violations/

I will echo what was said on the 2015 recruiting thread. Any outcome of the scandal is much easier to tolerate with a 5th National Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

Another obscure blogger from 6 months ago. No sources cited. No facts. No reportage. Just some random guy without credentials sharing his views. No editor to scrutinize the "reporting." Again. Geez this gets wearying.

No wonder so many yahoos are creating blogs these days. What used to be your drunken 3 am ramblings become "articles" and you are a "journalist".

Can we bring back the post about how important critical thinking is -- the ability to distinguish information from dreck?

Not a comment about Mark's post -- he was just passing along the link.

SCMatt33
04-24-2015, 02:14 PM
Perhaps the high priced legal arguement is based on a statute of limitations. Take the attached link with a large grain of salt, but it is one of those nightmare situations.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-basketball/2014/11/09/north-carolina-basketball-not-guilty-of-alleged-ncaa-violations/

I will echo what was said on the 2015 recruiting thread. Any outcome of the scandal is much easier to tolerate with a 5th National Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

Statute of limitations is not a problem for the UNC case. To the best of my knowledge, the statute only applies to starting a new investigation. Because the most recent violations occurred less than 4 years before the initial investigation began (remember, this is technically a re-opening of the old case that was closed in 2012), and this scandal is technically a single large string of violation dating back to the nineties, UNC can be penalized for any of it. The statute of limitations is only there to stop something brand new from being investigated later (i.e. Charles Barkley admitting he took money at Auburn 25 years after the fact). The same circumstances that prevent the statute of limitations from coming into play, also help UNC in other areas. Namely, because of when the violations began, UNC will fall under the old penalty structure (like Syracuse) and they will not be subject to the repeat violator clause stemming from the initial football investigation in 2010.

swood1000
04-24-2015, 02:39 PM
I understand the logic that everyone has stated about why UNC will get hammered, so please help me through this nightmare of plausible deniability.

The Weinstein report showed that athletes were enrolled in fraudulent classes, but at the time the coaches and athletes thought they were legitimate classes. Therefore, the athletes thought they were eligible. The NCAA has stated that they are not responsible for determining the rigor of each individual institutions academic course load. However, they will abide by a ruling by an independent body such as the ETS deciding that Rose's SAT scores were fraudulent. So the NCAA will defer to SACS.

SACS puts UNC on probation and does not rescind their accreditation. The NCAA says since SACS ruled that UNC is still accredited that means an outside body who is able to assess UNC's academic rigor was not concerned about the AFAM classes. Furthermore if SACS does not explicitly state that students enrolled in these classes lose credit that means that SACS has tacitly ruled that students should not be penalized for taking these classes regardless of what the Weinstein report says. Therefore, the athletes who took these classes should not lose credit and would not be ruled ineligible because SACS has tacitly blessed these classes. The NCAA then states that while they are appalled by the situation they have to respect the ruling by SACS. In addition, UNC has fired those responsible and spent lots of money getting to the bottom of this.

Everyone can scream all they want but the NCAA has a case for not sanctioning UNC depending upon the language used in a ruling by SACS.
The University of Memphis was notified by the Educational Testing Service on May 13, 2008 that the SAT score of one student-athlete had been invalidated, rendering that student academically ineligible for the entire 2007-08 season. The NCAA called it a case of "strict liability" and said that it was irrelevant that the student had competed in good faith. He was, in fact, academically ineligible when he competed.

To the question of SACS, the question is not whether the courses rise to the minimum level that SACS will allow, but whether they are "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general."

MarkD83
04-24-2015, 02:51 PM
The University of Memphis was notified by the Educational Testing Service on May 13, 2008 that the SAT score of one student-athlete had been invalidated, rendering that student academically ineligible for the entire 2007-08 season. The NCAA called it a case of "strict liability" and said that it was irrelevant that the student had competed in good faith. He was, in fact, academically ineligible when he competed.

To the question of SACS, the question is not whether the courses rise to the minimum level that SACS will allow, but whether they are "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general."

The bold quote makes me queasy. If other students can take a fraudelent class than the athletes are absolved of wrong-doing? I guess this is why I am a scientist and not in public policy. The answer is either right or wrong depending upon the confidence interval you want to place on the statistical analysis. :) (OK maybe things are not just right and wrong. Maybe I should read the Lies and Statistics thread.)

swood1000
04-24-2015, 03:18 PM
From the Texas Southern University Public Infractions Report (1996):


"On several occasions from April 1992 through the fall of 1993, seven men's and women's track and field student-athletes received fraudulent academic credit, necessary for their continued eligibility, from three university instructors. The head men's and women's track and field coach violated the principles of ethical conduct by soliciting the assistance of instructors and other individuals at the university to award or change grades for student-athletes in courses, even though the student-athletes did not perform the required academic work, and by awarding fraudulent academic credit to two student-athletes in physical education courses he taught, even though the student-athletes never enrolled in or attended the courses."


also


"In April 1993, the head men's and women's track and field coach awarded passing grades to two women's track and field student-athletes enrolled in a physical education course
that he taught. Three credit hours were applied to each student-athlete's transcript for the 1992 spring term, even though they did not attend any classes or complete any of
the required work for the course. One of the student athletes was never enrolled in the class."


Texas Southern forfeited all games, tournaments and meets in which the students had participated. Is there any chance that the NCAA will find a violation when the requirements of a course are not completed but no violation when the course has no requirements or when the course requirements are not "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general"? Can a course in Swahili be said to have requirements when no Swahili is learned or when the single requirement, the final paper, is in English?

swood1000
04-24-2015, 03:24 PM
The bold quote makes me queasy. If other students can take a fraudelent class than the athletes are absolved of wrong-doing? I guess this is why I am a scientist and not in public policy. The answer is either right or wrong depending upon the confidence interval you want to place on the statistical analysis. :) (OK maybe things are not just right and wrong. Maybe I should read the Lies and Statistics thread.)
But the content of a class does not become "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general" merely because members of the student body in general are enrolled in the class. Or at least, one would think.

swood1000
04-24-2015, 04:08 PM
The bold quote makes me queasy. If other students can take a fraudelent class than the athletes are absolved of wrong-doing? I guess this is why I am a scientist and not in public policy. The answer is either right or wrong depending upon the confidence interval you want to place on the statistical analysis. :) (OK maybe things are not just right and wrong. Maybe I should read the Lies and Statistics thread.)
With respect to the question whether these classes were "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general" consider the following excerpts from the Wainstein Report:

"The University took a number of actions in reaction to the paper class revelations. They immediately self-reported the misconduct to the NCAA."

"Between 1993 and 2011, Crowder and Nyang'oro developed and ran a "shadow curriculum" within the AFAM Department that provided students with academically flawed instruction through the offering of "paper classes." These were classes that involved no interaction with a faculty member, required no class attendance or course work other than a single paper, and resulted in consistently high grades that Crowder awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality."

"Crowder felt a strong affinity for student-athletes in particular, and she gave them ready access to these watered-down classes to help them manage their competing athletic and academic time demands."

"Over the 18 years these classes existed, Crowder and Nyang'oro were responsible for offering 188 different lecture classes as well as hundreds of individual independent studies in the "paper class" format - with no class attendance or faculty involvement, and with Crowder managing the class and liberally grading the papers. Through this scheme, over 3,100 students received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work."

"The grades earned in these AFAM paper classes were significantly higher than grades awarded in the regular AFAM classes. The average grade issued to all identified students in the paper classes was 3.62, as compared to an average grade of 3.28 for the regular AFAM classes. That difference was even greater for student-athletes. The average grade given to all student athletes for the paper classes was 3.55, as compared to an average student athlete grade of 2.84 for the regular AFAM classes."

"In the case of 329 students, the grade they received in a paper class provided the "GPA boost" that either kept or pushed their GPA above the 2.0 level for a semester. For 81 of those students, that GPA boost was the margin that gave them the 2.0 GPA that allowed them to graduate."

"At least two of those counselors went so far as to suggest what grades Crowder should award to their players who were taking her paper classes."

"It became common knowledge among certain quarters of the student and student-athlete body that Crowder did not grade paper-class papers with a discriminating eye and that a student could receive a high grade for turning in a paper of any quality. As a result, a significant proportion of the papers submitted in these classes included large amounts of unoriginal text. In a number of cases, students submitted papers with original introductions and conclusions, but with copied "fluff" text in between, because they knew that Crowder typically just skimmed the beginning and the end of a paper before awarding a high grade."

"ASPSA made tutors available to all student-athletes, and those tutors often helped the student-athletes with their paper-class papers. While most conducted themselves appropriately, several of the tutors crossed the line between permissible and impermissible assistance and drafted parts of the papers that the student-athletes submitted for credit in these classes."

"For example, one administrator became aware in 2005 or 2006 that Nyang'oro was routinely listed as the instructor-of-record for a number of independent studies - approximately 300 per year - that was clearly well beyond what any professor could physically handle."


Try to formulate a rationale for saying that these classes were "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general" especially given the first one.

MarkD83
04-24-2015, 04:13 PM
With respect to the question whether these classes were "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general" consider the following excerpts from the Wainstein Report:


Try to formulate a rationale for saying that these classes were "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general" especially given the first one.

Ok I am convinced, so UNC's only out is to distance itself from the report they commissioned. That queals the irrational fears, but UNC may be brazen enough to try this tactic.

Sixthman
04-24-2015, 04:19 PM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/sports/osu-sports-ncaa-outcome-expected-to-be-announced-today/article_ddb59e19-d04e-58c7-8a32-c9c489ddd3d2.html

I'm always watching to see what the NCAA is ruling in its current cases. The Oklahoma State football program ruling is supposed to be made public today. Some infractions are similar to unc.

The Oklahoma State ruling is out and it would be fair to call the penalty less than a slap on the wrist. Interestingly, the NCAA went out of it's way to state that parts of the SI article which triggered the investigation were wholly without merit.

roywhite
04-24-2015, 04:22 PM
Oklahoma State football got off fairly light (based on the nature of a Sports Illustrated series of articles) in a just announced NCAA action. Not sure if this indicates much about the UNC investigation.

NCAA puts Oklahoma State on probation for one year (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12755372/oklahoma-state-cowboys-put-probation-one-year-fined-ncaa)


The NCAA has placed Oklahoma State on probation for one year after finding the school did not follow its drug testing policy and allowed its all-female Orange Pride student group to engage in impermissible hosting activities during football prospects' official and unofficial visits.

Penalties include one year of probation, $8,500 in fines, suspension of the Orange Pride program and university-imposed recruiting restrictions.


One thing unlike the UNC situation:

"The steps Oklahoma State took from a transparency standpoint should be applauded," Christopher said. "This was really one of the most cooperative investigations in recent history."

**edit to add -- I see Sixthman is on the story, too.

Henderson
04-24-2015, 04:34 PM
Oklahoma State football got off fairly light (based on the nature of a Sports Illustrated series of articles) in a just announced NCAA action. Not sure if this indicates much about the UNC investigation.

Decades of fraud to keep players eligible in multiple sports vs. bad drug testing regimes and party girls for recruits.

Yeah, that's a tough one.

sagegrouse
04-24-2015, 04:41 PM
Ok I am convinced, so UNC's only out is to distance itself from the report they commissioned. That queals the irrational fears, but UNC may be brazen enough to try this tactic.

Official "UNC" has three distinct identities:


The AD and coaches, who are for self-preservation and for keeping the alums happy. They will do anything to stay eligible and avoid penalties and keep those paychecks and donations coming in. I mean, who can blame them for acting in their complete self-interest? These guys and gals will be around for a few years, but not forever.

The academic administration, chiefly Chancellor Carol Folt, who (I expect) wants to keep the Board happy without totally alienating the other parts of the UNC family (students, faculty, alums).

The Board of Governors who -- by hiring the Cadwallader Law Firm to prepare the "Wainstein Report" -- showed they wanted this scandal out in the open, taken care of, and put in the rearview mirror. (Having served on a few boards, let me tell you that "drip, drip, drip..." is really troubling and undermines the credibility of operating management.) I expect that the Board's position will be (a) to negotiate hard with the NCAA but (b) to accept the penalty and move on. In other words, "Get it over with." The scandal is a huge blot on the academic record of the "nation's oldest public university."

Anyway, just my two cents -- change freely given.

MarkD83
04-24-2015, 04:49 PM
Official "UNC" has three distinct identities:


The AD and coaches, who are for self-preservation and for keeping the alums happy. They will do anything to stay eligible and avoid penalties and keep those paychecks and donations coming in. I mean, who can blame them for acting in their complete self-interest. These guys and gals will be around for a few years, but not forever.

The academic administration, chiefly Chancellor Carol Folt, who (I expect) wants to keep the Board happy without totally alienating the other parts of the UNC family (students, faculty, alums).

The Board of Governors who -- by hiring the Cadwallader Law Firm to prepare the "Wainstein Report" -- showed they wanted this scandal out in the open, taken care of, and put in the rearview mirror. (Having served on a few boards, let me tell you that "drip, drip, drip..." is really troubling and undermines the credibility of operating management.) I expect that the Board's position will be (a) to negotiate hard with the NCAA but (b) to accept the penalty and move on. In other words, "Get it over with." The scandal is a huge blot on the academic record of the "nation's oldest public university."

Anyway, just my two cents -- change freely given.

This is a great way to explain the conflict at UNC. So who at UNC is working with the NCAA to investigate the situation? and who gets to decide when to accept the NCAA's rulings? I would like to think it is the Board of Governors but am inclinded to think it is the athletic department.

swood1000
04-24-2015, 04:49 PM
Ok I am convinced, so UNC's only out is to distance itself from the report they commissioned. That queals the irrational fears, but UNC may be brazen enough to try this tactic.
It's hard to see how effectively UNC could distance themselves from the Wainstein Report. For example, there is UNC's own press release announcing the report:

"I appreciate Mr. Wainstein's hard work, professionalism and diligence in bringing us to today," said UNC President Tom Ross. "I expect the findings will enable Chancellor Folt to build on earlier reforms and take the decisive steps needed to bring to a close the remaining questions and concerns around this matter. …I want to thank President Ross, Chancellor Folt and the staff and students of the University for their exceptional cooperation with our investigation and for their commitment to unearthing the truth about this difficult chapter in the history of one of the country's finest universities."

Since first learning about these irregularities, Carolina has implemented numerous reforms…
Are they now going to try to say that in fact there was not much wrong and this was much ado over nothing? How could that result in anything other than going from the frying pan into the fire? The facts are there for everyone to see and by taking this approach they would be saying "And to the extent that we appeared to take the Wainstein Report seriously or that we desired to institute reforms, that was just a mistaken impression."

The bandage has got to come off and if I were UNC I think I would just rip it off all at once and get it over with. Otherwise instead of simply receiving sanctions they receive a year or two of recruiting difficulty followed by sanctions (which could be worse because of the absence of contrition).

MarkD83
04-24-2015, 05:37 PM
It's hard to see how effectively UNC could distance themselves from the Wainstein Report. For example, there is UNC's own press release announcing the report:

Are they now going to try to say that in fact there was not much wrong and this was much ado over nothing? How could that result in anything other than going from the frying pan into the fire? The facts are there for everyone to see and by taking this approach they would be saying "And to the extent that we appeared to take the Wainstein Report seriously or that we desired to institute reforms, that was just a mistaken impression."

The bandage has got to come off and if I were UNC I think I would just rip it off all at once and get it over with. Otherwise instead of simply receiving sanctions they receive a year or two of recruiting difficulty followed by sanctions (which could be worse because of the absence of contrition).

This is all very logical. However bubba has already said the w report is only one mans opinion so if bubba is negotiating with the NCAA the bandaid may come off very slowly.

Henderson
04-24-2015, 06:18 PM
This is all very logical. However bubba has already said the w report is only one mans opinion so if bubba is negotiating with the NCAA the bandaid may come off very slowly.

Bubba's sitting in the catbird's seat. If UNC-CH gets hammered hard, he says, "Hey, I just got here in 2011." If UNC-CH skates, he says, "Who's your daddy?"

swood1000
04-24-2015, 06:34 PM
This is all very logical. However bubba has already said the w report is only one mans opinion so if bubba is negotiating with the NCAA the bandaid may come off very slowly.
I hope the bandage comes off very slowly, with every new movement receiving heightened public scrutiny (schadenfreude, I think, is the term). Bubba is looking at sanctions on himself personally not to mention the effect on his reputation of this stewardship debacle. To sagegrouse's point, the Board of Governors has to assume control. It's one thing to trust Bubba to run the basketball program for a period of time but this affects the entire university, and the university's interests and Bubba's interests do not necessarily coincide. Furthermore, Bubba is now locked into an "I didn't know anything about this" stance but the university might be better off with a "We have learned our lesson and will certainly do a better job in the future" stance.

Duvall
04-24-2015, 07:20 PM
Allow me to add one more thing.

A lot of people who have followed the scandal have wondered why UNC's rivals have been so silent about the two decades of cheating. Why do officials at Duke and NC State even allow ESPN to ban signs at games in Cameron and PNC that refer to the scandal? Why doesn't Kevin White and/or Debbie Yow (a notorious loose cannon) scream about the scandal? Why are Syracuse, Georgia Tech and Miami officials -- whose schools got heavy punishment for far less transgressions -- so silent on the UNC mess?

Had some conversations earlier this week with athletic officials at a number of schools. I was told that there is an amazing amount of screaming going on behind the scenes. But the ACC and NCAA have long encouraged (and enforced?) a public gag order on officials not to play this out in the media. Think back, did you ever hear a Big East rival call out Syracuse for the blatant Feb Melo cheating? Did Southern Cal's Pac 12 rivals run screaming to the press about the Reggie Bush shenanigans? There are exceptions -- I remember when Tennessee and Alabama got into a war or words about 15-20 years ago -- but little is ever said in public in most cases. That applies to the NCAA too ... you remember any Emmert quotes about how hard they were going to hammer Syracuse?

Rest assured -- officials at Duke, State and the rest of the ACC are as outraged as you are about what's been going on at UNC. But they are quiet because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer.

If that doesn't happen and UNC skates, you will hear the loudest, most sustained screams you've ever heard in athletics.

But you won't hear that, because UNC won't skate.

ACC athletic officials may be telling people that they have agreed to keep their complaints to themselves because they know that the NCAA will drop the hammer. But given that no one can possibly know with any confidence what the NCAA is going to do about anything, it seems more likely that they just don't want to do anything to disrupt the flowing cash by making one of their business partners look bad. We're all one big happy television production company, after all.

And besides, what difference would it make? How could they make the UNC scandal play out in the media when the media - the parts of it that matter - just want it to go away? ACC athletic directors can complain about UNC getting with murder all they want, but if ESPN is just going to put Jay Bilas on air for hours on end to insist that everything Roy Williams has done was right and proper, what difference would the screaming make?

swood1000
04-25-2015, 03:13 PM
Perhaps the high priced legal arguement is based on a statute of limitations. Take the attached link with a large grain of salt, but it is one of those nightmare situations.

http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-basketball/2014/11/09/north-carolina-basketball-not-guilty-of-alleged-ncaa-violations/

I will echo what was said on the 2015 recruiting thread. Any outcome of the scandal is much easier to tolerate with a 5th National Championship banner hanging in Cameron.

19.5.11 Statute of Limitations. Allegations included in a notice of allegations shall be limited to possible violations occurring not earlier than four years before the date the notice of inquiry is provided to the institution or the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter. However, the following shall not be subject to the four-year limitation: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13)
(a) Allegations involving violations affecting the eligibility of a current student-athlete;

(b) Allegations in a case in which information is developed to indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period; and

(c) Allegations that indicate a blatant disregard for the Association’s fundamental recruiting, extra benefit, academic or ethical-conduct bylaws or that involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation. In such cases, the enforcement staff shall have a one-year period after the date information concerning the matter becomes available to the NCAA to investigate and submit to the institution a notice of allegations concerning the matter.

The Statute of Limitations is not a problem because these activities "indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period" and the four-year period is the four years before "the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter." According the the Wainstein Report:


It was only when media reports raised questions about AFAM classes in 2011 that administration officials took a hard look at the AFAM Department. They were shocked with what they found.

The University took a number of actions in reaction to the paper class revelations. They immediately self-reported the misconduct to the NCAA.
So it would seem that the four years is the four years before 2011, and will include any actions prior to this period that indicate a pattern of willful violations which began before but continued into the four-year period.

MarkD83
04-25-2015, 06:13 PM
The Statute of Limitations is not a problem because these activities "indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period" and the four-year period is the four years before "the date the institution notifies (or, if earlier, should have notified) the enforcement staff of its inquiries into the matter." According the the Wainstein Report:


So it would seem that the four years is the four years before 2011, and will include any actions prior to this period that indicate a pattern of willful violations which began before but continued into the four-year period.

OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

Henderson
04-25-2015, 08:44 PM
OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

Looking for wiggle room was what got UNC-CH into trouble in the first place. They need less wiggling out and more facing up.

Indoor66
04-25-2015, 08:50 PM
OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.

And my response is that it is (a) a continuing pattern of prohibited conduct and/or (b) a continuing pattern demonstrating a lack of intitutional control in both the athletic and university administration.

camion
04-25-2015, 09:11 PM
And my response is that it is (a) a continuing pattern of prohibited conduct and/or (b) a continuing pattern demonstrating a lack of intitutional control in both the athletic and university administration.

Yup. If it's been going on for a couple of decades then the university/athletic administration is either complicit or incompetent. Could be both.

swood1000
04-26-2015, 03:19 PM
OK..if I play the role of UNC I still see wiggle room. The period of time goes to 2007, but this was the act of rogue employees who we fired so it was not a pattern of willful violations. Therefore, the statue of limitations only goes back to 2007. So.. the 2005 championship banner stays up.
In the first place what is the definition of a rogue employee? An employee who takes an action not sanctioned by the university? If so, then these activities are always committed by rogue employees except where the university formulates official policy to carry out the plan, or maybe when the President is involved. But let's take a look at the wording:


a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involvedI don't see the term "rogue employee" here. Would a rogue employee not be an "individual involved"? Is the NCAA going to say that the university is responsible for the actions of the perpetrator during the four year period but not prior to that? What would be the rationale there?

MarkD83
04-26-2015, 03:40 PM
In the first place what is the definition of a rogue employee? An employee who takes an action not sanctioned by the university? If so, then these activities are always committed by rogue employees except where the university formulates official policy to carry out the plan, or maybe when the President is involved. But let's take a look at the wording:

I don't see the term "rogue employee" here. Would a rogue employee not be an "individual involved"? Is the NCAA going to say that the university is responsible for the actions of the perpetrator during the four year period but not prior to that? What would be the rationale there?

Keep in mind I am not defending UNC. My overall intention in these posts is to combat the irrational fears that UNC gets of without any punishment by trying to see what possible arguments they could use and then get the collective thoughts on DBR as to why those arguments won't work.

As you point out if they use the "rogue employee" argument it is logical that timing would have to include the length of time the activities were perpetrated by the "rogue employee". However,could UNC still use the argument that as soon as they found out about the problem, they fixed the problem. This means only punish us for the time where athletes were ineligible after we discovered the problem. As another poster pointed out they would either be complicit or ignorant and claiming ignorance may limit their punishment.

Like I said I am just trying to logically step through the arguments to quell the irrational fears.

mgtr
04-26-2015, 04:04 PM
And my response is that it is (a) a continuing pattern of prohibited conduct and/or (b) a continuing pattern demonstrating a lack of intitutional control in both the athletic and university administration.

I think that the lack of institutional control is the real killer here. As pointed out by Indoor66, the only alternative is willful prohibited conduct. So, UNC is either crooked or oblivious or both!

swood1000
04-26-2015, 04:38 PM
Keep in mind I am not defending UNC. My overall intention in these posts is to combat the irrational fears that UNC gets of without any punishment by trying to see what possible arguments they could use and then get the collective thoughts on DBR as to why those arguments won't work.
Of course you are not defending UNC. You are playing the role of the devil's advocate (should we say, instead, the Tarheel's Advocate?). No problem. Go for it.


As you point out if they use the "rogue employee" argument it is logical that timing would have to include the length of time the activities were perpetrated by the "rogue employee". However,could UNC still use the argument that as soon as they found out about the problem, they fixed the problem. This means only punish us for the time where athletes were ineligible after we discovered the problem. As another poster pointed out they would either be complicit or ignorant and claiming ignorance may limit their punishment.

Like I said I am just trying to logically step through the arguments to quell the irrational fears.
One problem with this is that whether or not a student-athlete is academically ineligible is a matter of "strict liability" and does not depend on anybody's good faith. It is not relevant if a student is rendered academically ineligible by the actions of a rogue employee or what steps the university took after they found out. The bottom line is that students who are academically ineligible, no matter what the reason, may not compete. Here's what they said in the University of Memphis Public Infractions Report (2009):

The committee concluded that, due to the fact that student-athlete 1's SAT score was cancelled by ETS, student-athlete 1 was rendered academically ineligible to compete during the entire 2007-08 season, including the 2008 Division I Men's Basketball Championship. This is a "strict liability" situation. The institution's assertion that, prior to the start of the 2007-08 season, it did not have sufficient information to conclude that student-athlete 1's SAT test would be cancelled was not relevant under the circumstances. This was discussed during the hearing in the following exchange:
COMMITTEE MEMBER: But I want you all to address, both sides, the issue of if either one doesn't have a valid test score -- let me give you an example. We have situations that come up from time to time before this committee where something is learned after the fact, such as person actually played sports at another institution. Nobody knew, but that person didn't have eligibility remaining, so they were ineligible. If you have a test score that is invalidated, you didn't have the scores to be admitted to begin with. Where am I wrong?
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: At the time he was admitted on the score that was provided at the time, is that your question? Was he eligible, in looking backwards, whether he was eligible or not?

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Yes. He didn't have the score.


UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: We have acknowledged that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: You have acknowledged that he was ineligible.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, and we have to address that, based on the after-the-fact information.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: It doesn't matter.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: I understand, but that is the basis. We don't believe -- we do believe that the university proceeded appropriately based on the information that it had at the time in allowing him to play.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn't do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact. If nothing had happened, if you had no information and ETS cancelled his score at a later date, he didn't have an admissible entry qualification.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That's correct. We have not contested that.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Okay. So, he was ineligible?

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes; yes, sir. The university was not aware at the time he was ineligible.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I didn't suggest that they were.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: Okay.

COMMITTEE MEMBER: I am not saying they cheated. I am saying this young man was not eligible to participate.

UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL: That is correct.

It would be reasonable for the NCAA to take into consideration the exemplary behavior of the university after discovering the problem when deciding how long a probationary period would be appropriate or how many scholarships should be lost. But is it reasonable to assume that after calling academic ineligibility a matter of "strict liability," nevertheless if the university shows itself to be really really sorry or really really the victim of a fiendish perpetrator, they will not have to forfeit games participated in by ineligible athletes? Can't see it. Does anybody know of a case in which games participated in by academically ineligible athletes were not forfeited?

swood1000
04-26-2015, 07:05 PM
The "academically ineligible" rule even applied in the case of CalTech in 2012, which appears to be about as mild and inadvertent an infraction as there could be in this area:


The violations occurred in large part due to a unique institutional policy that encourages students to "shop" for courses before finalizing their class schedules. During the first three weeks of the institution's 10-week academic quarters, students in good academic standing are not required to formally register for classes. Instead, they can attend classes in different courses before formally adding those they prefer by the end of the three week drop-add period. However, during those three weeks, because they are not actually registered in some or all of the courses they are attending, some students are only enrolled on a part-time basis. Eighteen student-athletes in 11 sports fell into this category from the 2007-08 academic year through 2010-11. While they were enrolled part-time, they were allowed to practice and compete.

A violation was found. The penalty:

The institution will vacate all wins in contests in which ineligible student-athletes participated... Further the individual records of the ineligible student-athletes will also be vacated. ... Further, the records of the head coaches in the affected sports shall be reconfigured to reflect the vacated results. The institution's records for the affected sports shall also be reconfigured to reflect the vacated institutional, coaches' and student-athletes' records in all publications in which records for those sports are recorded, including, but not limited to, institutional media guides, recruiting materials, electronic and digital media, and institutional and NCAA archives. Any reference to the vacated results, including championships, shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas, and any other forum in which they appear.

MarkD83
04-26-2015, 08:34 PM
swood100, thanks for the information about the NCAA precedents. So a quick summary for my sake...

1. Weinstein report admits fraudulent classes going back to 1993. No other ruling by outside institution needs to be made to confirm fraudulent classes (NCAA does not have to wait for SACS.)
2. Statute of limitations does not apply since the fraudulent class structure has been a continuous issue since 1993 perpetrated by the same group of UNC employees.
3. Whether the coaches, BOG or other faculty committees knew about the fraudulent class structure is irrelevant in determining eligibility. (Memphis case as example).
4. Vacating wins, records etc. is appropriate punishment. (CalTech case as example).
5. Cooperation (?) / action by UNC once they knew could lessen forward looking penalties (loss of scholarships etc.)

I don't think I missed anything.

SCMatt33
04-26-2015, 08:50 PM
swood100, thanks for the information about the NCAA precedents. So a quick summary for my sake...

1. Weinstein report admits fraudulent classes going back to 1993. No other ruling by outside institution needs to be made to confirm fraudulent classes (NCAA does not have to wait for SACS.)
2. Statute of limitations does not apply since the fraudulent class structure has been a continuous issue since 1993 perpetrated by the same group of UNC employees.
3. Whether the coaches, BOG or other faculty committees knew about the fraudulent class structure is irrelevant in determining eligibility. (Memphis case as example).
4. Vacating wins, records etc. is appropriate punishment. (CalTech case as example).
5. Cooperation (?) / action by UNC once they knew could lessen forward looking penalties (loss of scholarships etc.)

I don't think I missed anything.

I would only add to item 3 that while athletic department knowledge or participation means nothing in terms of retroactive ineligibility, it means everything in terms of forward looking penalties, more so than cooperation. As you pointed out, Memphis is the best example here. Memphis received virtually no significant forward looking penalties for Derrick Rose, and those they did receive, had more to do with impermissible benefits to his brother than the SAT.

MarkD83
04-26-2015, 09:14 PM
I also want to add something I had posted months ago related to the irrational fear that UNC is "too big to fail".

First, forfeiture of games due to ineligible players is not a "too big to fail" issue. These penalties have no impact on future NCAA/ACC revenues.

If UNC is given bans on future post season play there is also no impact on revenues.
UNC not participating in the NCAAs is similar to a year like 2010 when they were not good enough to participate and the NCAA just slots in another team.
The ACC tournament is a little tricker. Just like Syracuse not participating this year the logistics of UNC not participating can be handled. However, if the tournament is in North Carolina there could be a significant loss of fans who would attend, but I am sure the tickets could easily be absorbed by the other schools. Interestingly, the next three ACC tournaments are in Washington and Brooklyn (2017, 2018), so no UNC would have absolutely no impact on ticket sales.

If UNC is some how banned from play in the regular season, the rest of the ACC would have to make dramatic changes to its schedule. However, the absence of UNC from the schedule could be accommodated by increasing the home/away match ups that are missing in the schedules.

The only real issue then becomes the loss of the Duke/UNC games. This could result in a significant loss in revenue and marketing opportunities. Luckily there are plenty of very good ACC teams and for the time period that UNC can not compete, marketing Duke/UVA; Duke/Louisville; Duke/NCSU; Duke/Notre Dame and Duke/Syracuse would work.

moonpie23
04-26-2015, 09:57 PM
if the NCAA drops the hammer as they should, the UNC/DUKE rivalry will take a significant hit. Not only will games past be forfeited, Duke's side of the numbers will be greatly enhanced.

UNC will no longer be viewed as an "equal" or actual "rival"......they'll wear that shame for many years to come...



which is what they deserve.....



i'm all about some duke/uva/ND mixing it up....

Skitzle
04-27-2015, 12:12 AM
Losses still stand right? Wouldn't want to vacate 82-50

BigWayne
04-27-2015, 02:12 AM
Boxill claims she wasn't responsible for all the independent study classes UNC blames her for. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/jan-boxill-independent-studies)

UNC provost declares his committee to address Wainstein report will not publish a report, just another website. (http://paperclassinc.com/provost-dean-and-his-working-group/)

dudog84
04-27-2015, 08:31 AM
Boxill claims she wasn't responsible for all the independent study classes UNC blames her for. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/04/jan-boxill-independent-studies)

UNC provost declares his committee to address Wainstein report will not publish a report, just another website. (http://paperclassinc.com/provost-dean-and-his-working-group/)

Re the Boxill article:

I wonder how the rest of the faculty in these departments feel about being thrown into the mix with these "rogue" employees.

Tommac
04-27-2015, 08:41 AM
If and when UNC is required to vacate wins, who (NCAA or UNC) determines exactly which classes by years (and therefore players) were fraudulent? I didn't read the Wainstein report so maybe the specific classes have already been determined. Could be a big mess. How sweet it is!!!!!!

BigWayne
04-27-2015, 09:59 AM
If and when UNC is required to vacate wins, who (NCAA or UNC) determines exactly which classes by years (and therefore players) were fraudulent? I didn't read the Wainstein report so maybe the specific classes have already been determined. Could be a big mess. How sweet it is!!!!!!

The data in the Wainstein report is fuzzied up a bit because no individual student enrollments in fake classes are identified, but it is broken out by year and team. This graph illustrates the enrollments over time for the Men's Hoops team.

5054

sagegrouse
04-27-2015, 10:44 AM
If and when UNC is required to vacate wins, who (NCAA or UNC) determines exactly which classes by years (and therefore players) were fraudulent? I didn't read the Wainstein report so maybe the specific classes have already been determined. Could be a big mess. How sweet it is!!!!!!

Well, it's kind of a game of liar's poker. UNC looks at the evidence and proposes self-imposed penalties. (Or not, but heck, what does UNC care if Sylvia has to forfeit a few wins?) The NCAA responds with something fairly extreme. UNC counters, and then they work it out. The NCAA has the hammer, but this will probably be a real negotiation.

My prediction is that, to force UNC cooperation, the NCAA will probably put some big-dollar penalties on the table -- like forfeiting all basketball or football venues for a few seasons. In that case, losing a couple of banners and a bunch of games will look less painful to UNC.

westwall
04-27-2015, 10:53 AM
The data in the Wainstein report is fuzzied up a bit because no individual student enrollments in fake classes are identified, but it is broken out by year and team. This graph illustrates the enrollments over time for the Men's Hoops team.

5054

The numbers along the vertical axis appear to be percentages, correct? So, to interpret, this shows that during a given semester up to about 30% of Roy's team was enrolled in a fraudulent class (or, one or more fraudulent classes)?? But it doesn't indicate which members of the team were so enrolled??

davekay1971
04-27-2015, 11:26 AM
The numbers along the vertical axis appear to be percentages, correct? So, to interpret, this shows that during a given semester up to about 30% of Roy's team was enrolled in a fraudulent class (or, one or more fraudulent classes)?? But it doesn't indicate which members of the team were so enrolled??

The numbers on the vertical axis are the number of fraudulent courses enrolled in by the mens BBall players. So, in 2005, Spring semester, when the Tarheels were a well-oiled machine that seemed to have no distractions from practicing their basketball craft, the team had players enrolled in something like 23 fake courses in that one semester, alone. While the graph doesn't show which players were in those classes, or how many classes each individual player was taking, given that 7 of the top 8 players on the team were AFAM studies majors, it's a reasonable assumption that the bottom 4 scorers on the roster (those guys that specialize in jumping up off the bench after every made shot) weren't taking 20 of those 23 AFAM courses.

The only thing more consistent about the NCAA than their internal inconsistency, is their established practice of vacating wins in which ineligible players were active. I don't think it's a question whether or not the NCAA is going to vacate lots of wins. I don't even think it's a question whether or not the 2005 title will be vacated, for the reasons of the above paragraph. I think the only questions are:

(1) Will the 2009 title be vacated? I think probably not - during the 2008-2009 academic year the participation in the identified fraudulent classes was minimal, although obviously participation by many of the players on that team's roster was significant in preceding years.

(2) Will the 2008 Final Four be vacated? I think so - participation in fraudulent classes during that academic year was still relatively heavy.

(3) Will the 1993 Title be vacated? I think not. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the vacation of wins will be limited to the Williams and (perhaps) the Doherty tenures.

There will probably also be some scholarship and postseason punishments for 2-3 years upcoming. But those won't matter nearly as much to the Tar Heel fans as loss of the 2005 title. Losing the 2009 title would really crush them (since, even counting the phony Helms Award "championship", they'd be one behind Duke. Any connection back to the Dean Smith years would be worst of all.

If I were UNC I think, right about now, I'd offer up the 2005 title and some upcoming scholarship punishment and postseason play to the NCAA in exchange for sparing the 2009 title and any connection to the Dean Smith/Bill Guthridge era, let Roy resign, ride out the suspension years, and then aggressively pursue a young coach to rebuild the brand. If they did all that the right way, by 2020 they'd be back as a national power.

RepoMan
04-27-2015, 11:31 AM
(those guys that specialize in jumping up off the bench after every made shot) weren't taking 20 of those 23 AFAM courses.


Don't forget the towel waving. Probably had a class for that.

roywhite
04-27-2015, 11:38 AM
The numbers on the vertical axis are the number of fraudulent courses enrolled in by the mens BBall players. So, in 2005, Spring semester, when the Tarheels were a well-oiled machine that seemed to have no distractions from practicing their basketball craft, the team had players enrolled in something like 23 fake courses in that one semester, alone. While the graph doesn't show which players were in those classes, or how many classes each individual player was taking, given that 7 of the top 8 players on the team were AFAM studies majors, it's a reasonable assumption that the bottom 4 scorers on the roster (those guys that specialize in jumping up off the bench after every made shot) weren't taking 20 of those 23 AFAM courses.

The only thing more consistent about the NCAA than their internal inconsistency, is their established practice of vacating wins in which ineligible players were active. I don't think it's a question whether or not the NCAA is going to vacate lots of wins. I don't even think it's a question whether or not the 2005 title will be vacated, for the reasons of the above paragraph. I think the only questions are:

(1) Will the 2009 title be vacated? I think probably not - during the 2008-2009 academic year the participation in the identified fraudulent classes was minimal, although obviously participation by many of the players on that team's roster was significant in preceding years.

(2) Will the 2008 Final Four be vacated? I think so - participation in fraudulent classes during that academic year was still relatively heavy.

(3) Will the 1993 Title be vacated? I think not. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the vacation of wins will be limited to the Williams and (perhaps) the Doherty tenures.

There will probably also be some scholarship and postseason punishments for 2-3 years upcoming. But those won't matter nearly as much to the Tar Heel fans as loss of the 2005 title. Losing the 2009 title would really crush them (since, even counting the phony Helms Award "championship", they'd be one behind Duke. Any connection back to the Dean Smith years would be worst of all.

If I were UNC I think, right about now, I'd offer up the 2005 title and some upcoming scholarship punishment and postseason play to the NCAA in exchange for sparing the 2009 title and any connection to the Dean Smith/Bill Guthridge era, let Roy resign, ride out the suspension years, and then aggressively pursue a young coach to rebuild the brand. If they did all that the right way, by 2020 they'd be back as a national power.

Well done, and I agree with this in many ways:

Good overview of the offenses and the emphasis placed by the NCAA historically on penalizing programs for using ineligible (or should have been ineligible) players
A reasonable set of proposed penalties
A reasonable course of action for UNC to take in order to look ahead

Still....we've got an NCAA that seems more erratic than ever, and key UNC factions that seem hopelessly dug in....So who knows?

howardlander
04-27-2015, 11:46 AM
The data in the Wainstein report is fuzzied up a bit because no individual student enrollments in fake classes are identified, but it is broken out by year and team. This graph illustrates the enrollments over time for the Men's Hoops team.

5054

Who generated this graph?

Howard

swood1000
04-27-2015, 12:57 PM
swood100, thanks for the information about the NCAA precedents. So a quick summary for my sake...

1. Weinstein report admits fraudulent classes going back to 1993. No other ruling by outside institution needs to be made to confirm fraudulent classes (NCAA does not have to wait for SACS.)
2. Statute of limitations does not apply since the fraudulent class structure has been a continuous issue since 1993 perpetrated by the same group of UNC employees.
3. Whether the coaches, BOG or other faculty committees knew about the fraudulent class structure is irrelevant in determining eligibility. (Memphis case as example).
4. Vacating wins, records etc. is appropriate punishment. (CalTech case as example).
5. Cooperation (?) / action by UNC once they knew could lessen forward looking penalties (loss of scholarships etc.)

I don't think I missed anything.
Now that I've relieved you of all your worries I may have to plunge you back down into them by pointing out some of the uncertainties. That these activities went on is not in doubt and so a lack of institutional control would seem to be pretty easy to show. However, with respect to the “strict liability” requiring an automatic forfeiting of games participated in by a student who was academically ineligible it gets a little messy, which may be one of the reasons it is taking so long.

In the first place, a student-athlete does not become academically ineligible just because he takes a paper class but only if that class raised his GPA up to 2.0 or if without that class he would not have been a full-time student.

For football players, the paper class grade allowed the player to reach or maintain a 2.0 in 25% of the impacted semesters; for men’s basketball it did so in 14% of the impacted semesters;

So the strict liability would not necessarily apply to every game just because some of the players were taking paper classes.

Then there are other difficulties. Some cases are easy. For example there were “lecture course section[s] in which the instructor of record denied teaching the course section and signing the grade roll, or the chair stated that the course section had not been taught.” So such a class would clearly be a nullity. However, because of the way course enrollments for independent studies were handled in AFAM they could not identify with certainty which ones were paper classes. They said:


Based on confident assertions by Crowder and Nyang’oro that “most” of the independent studies offered by AFAM during that period were irregular, however, we can reasonably assume that over 50% of the total AFAM independent studies enrollments were irregular.


But does this provide the certainty to say that the independent study class student X was taking was a paper class, just because “most” of the independent study classes were paper classes? If not, is the lesson here that you can avoid the harshest penalties if you muddy the waters enough so that, although the NCAA knows that most of the classes were paper classes they lack the smoking gun to say that a particular independent study was?

Then there is still another difficulty. What if a student taking a paper class actually worked hard and wrote a good paper?

As we said above, however, the fact that a student or student-athlete was in a paper class does not necessarily mean that he or she did little work or received a grade that was not deserved.

They located 150 final papers from paper classes and analyzed them, finding a large amount of "unoriginal" content. This included plagiarism as well as excess usage of quoted material. Together with the fact that Crowder and Nyang’oro admitted the lax grading standards this makes a clear case for violations, but it becomes less clear with how much certainty we can say that the class that a specific student took must be counted as a nullity.

So the bottom line here is that although a clear case is made for a lack of institutional control, since some but not all of the paper classes provide the smoking gun that will allow the NCAA to say with certainty that the class should be treated as a nullity, it’s unclear the extent to which the NCAA is going to say that strict liability applies. This doesn't mean that games won't be forfeited but the requirement of doing so is unclear.

Olympic Fan
04-27-2015, 01:16 PM
If and when UNC is required to vacate wins, who (NCAA or UNC) determines exactly which classes by years (and therefore players) were fraudulent? I didn't read the Wainstein report so maybe the specific classes have already been determined. Could be a big mess. How sweet it is!!!!!!

On page 62 of the Wainstein report:

A total of 2,152 individual students who enrolled in the paper classes were included in this impact analysis. Of that number, 329 students (including 169 student-athletes) had at least one semester in which the grade they received in their paper class either pushed or kept their GPA above 2.0. In other words, for at least one semester in their college career, each of those students had an actual cumulative GPA above a 2.0 but a recalculated GPA (excluding the paper class grade(s)) below a 2.0. This number includes 123 football players, 15 men’s basketball players, eight women’s basketball players, and 26 Olympic sport athletes.

To me, this is the smoking gun. Wainstein couldn't reveal the names of these athletes in his report due to FERPA, but that doesn't apply to an NCAA investigation. He can tell them who the ineligible players were. Just taking a fraudulent class does not make a kid ineligible. But when that fraudulent class is the reason the kind is eligible, that's when the NCAA steps in.

Every basketball game that his 15 players played when they should have been ineligible should be vacated. If that includes an ACC or NCAA title, so be it.

And every football game played by those 123 football players should be vacated too (although some of them may already have been vacated). And several Olympic sports will lose game too.

sagegrouse
04-27-2015, 01:25 PM
Well, it's kind of a game of liar's poker. UNC looks at the evidence and proposes self-imposed penalties. (Or not, but heck, what does UNC care if Sylvia has to forfeit a few wins?) The NCAA responds with something fairly extreme. UNC counters, and then they work it out. The NCAA has the hammer, but this will probably be a real negotiation.

My prediction is that, to force UNC cooperation, the NCAA will probably put some big-dollar penalties on the table -- like forfeiting all basketball or football venues for a few seasons. In that case, losing a couple of banners and a bunch of games will look less painful to UNC.

Uh,,, that should be "forfeiting all basketball or football revenues for a few seasons"...

Also, "lack of institutional control," which would seem to address multiple violations or major violations over a number of years, may more likely be used if the UNC Compliance Office -- the official entity for monitoring adherence to NCAA rules -- fails to do its job, either through neglect or active cover-ups.

SCMatt33
04-27-2015, 01:41 PM
On page 62 of the Wainstein report:

A total of 2,152 individual students who enrolled in the paper classes were included in this impact analysis. Of that number, 329 students (including 169 student-athletes) had at least one semester in which the grade they received in their paper class either pushed or kept their GPA above 2.0. In other words, for at least one semester in their college career, each of those students had an actual cumulative GPA above a 2.0 but a recalculated GPA (excluding the paper class grade(s)) below a 2.0. This number includes 123 football players, 15 men’s basketball players, eight women’s basketball players, and 26 Olympic sport athletes.

To me, this is the smoking gun. Wainstein couldn't reveal the names of these athletes in his report due to FERPA, but that doesn't apply to an NCAA investigation. He can tell them who the ineligible players were. Just taking a fraudulent class does not make a kid ineligible. But when that fraudulent class is the reason the kind is eligible, that's when the NCAA steps in.

Every basketball game that his 15 players played when they should have been ineligible should be vacated. If that includes an ACC or NCAA title, so be it.

And every football game played by those 123 football players should be vacated too (although some of them may already have been vacated). And several Olympic sports will lose game too.

Just an added note that for players whose GPAs were held above 2.0 because of paper classes, the ineligibility would only go into effect for the following semester. So if a player took the necessary paper class in the spring, he would not be ineligible until the next fall. So it is possible that based on the wording, although 15 basketball players took a class that kept their GPA above 2.0, they may not have played the following semester because they either declared or ran out of eligibility. This would be similar to players now who don't finish out their spring coursework before going to the draft. With the majority of paper classes being in the spring, it's quite possible that most of the ineligibility would have been for the fall. Some of it may have carried through to the next spring, but it's a decent possibility that less than 15 basketball players were ineligible during ACC or NCAAT games.

BD80
04-27-2015, 01:49 PM
Well, it's kind of a game of liar's poker. ...

My prediction is that, to force UNC cooperation, the NCAA will probably put some big-dollar penalties on the table -- like forfeiting all basketball or football revenues for a few seasons. In that case, losing a couple of banners and a bunch of games will look less painful to UNC.

What constitutes "big dollar?" More than the annual attorney fees unc has spent dealing with this mess? More than the Wainstein report cost? More than the legal fees they'd incur appealing the sanctions?

unc has already proven they will spend big money to defend those banners.

Has any school been forced to forfeit all revenue in a revenue sport? That would certainly be big money.


... it's a reasonable assumption that the bottom 4 scorers on the roster (those guys that specialize in jumping up off the bench after every made shot) weren't taking 20 of those 23 AFAM courses. ...


Don't forget the towel waving. Probably had a class for that.

Towel wavers aren't made, they're just born that way. ol' roy is a towel waver.

sagegrouse
04-27-2015, 02:06 PM
What constitutes "big dollar?" More than the annual attorney fees unc has spent dealing with this mess? More than the Wainstein report cost? More than the legal fees they'd incur appealing the sanctions?

unc has already proven they will spend big money to defend those banners.

Has any school been forced to forfeit all revenue in a revenue sport? That would certainly be big money.

.

I think the original penalty Penn State agreed to was north of $60 million. Reading the tea leaves -- which are right here in my palm next to the Life Line -- I believe that the NCAA expected Penn State to object strenuously and negotiate them away. When it didn't, the huge fines were part of the final penalty, which was later reversed after the case and penalties were reopened.

BD80
04-27-2015, 02:09 PM
I think the original penalty Penn State agreed to was north of $60 million. Reading the tea leaves -- which are right here in my palm next to the Life Line -- I believe that the NCAA expected Penn State to object strenuously and negotiate them away. When it didn't, the huge fines were part of the final penalty, which was later reversed after the case and penalties were reopened.

But hasn't unc been spending about that much in legal fees? mostly sarcastic - but sadly, not entirely so

MarkD83
04-27-2015, 02:24 PM
Now that I've relieved you of all your worries I may have to plunge you back down into them by pointing out some of the uncertainties. That these activities went on is not in doubt and so a lack of institutional control would seem to be pretty easy to show. However, with respect to the “strict liability” requiring an automatic forfeiting of games participated in by a student who was academically ineligible it gets a little messy, which may be one of the reasons it is taking so long.

In the first place, a student-athlete does not become academically ineligible just because he takes a paper class but only if that class raised his GPA up to 2.0 or if without that class he would not have been a full-time student.


So the strict liability would not necessarily apply to every game just because some of the players were taking paper classes.

Then there are other difficulties. Some cases are easy. For example there were “lecture course section[s] in which the instructor of record denied teaching the course section and signing the grade roll, or the chair stated that the course section had not been taught.” So such a class would clearly be a nullity. However, because of the way course enrollments for independent studies were handled in AFAM they could not identify with certainty which ones were paper classes. They said:



But does this provide the certainty to say that the independent study class student X was taking was a paper class, just because “most” of the independent study classes were paper classes? If not, is the lesson here that you can avoid the harshest penalties if you muddy the waters enough so that, although the NCAA knows that most of the classes were paper classes they lack the smoking gun to say that a particular independent study was?

Then there is still another difficulty. What if a student taking a paper class actually worked hard and wrote a good paper?


They located 150 final papers from paper classes and analyzed them, finding a large amount of "unoriginal" content. This included plagiarism as well as excess usage of quoted material. Together with the fact that Crowder and Nyang’oro admitted the lax grading standards this makes a clear case for violations, but it becomes less clear with how much certainty we can say that the class that a specific student took must be counted as a nullity.

So the bottom line here is that although a clear case is made for a lack of institutional control, since some but not all of the paper classes provide the smoking gun that will allow the NCAA to say with certainty that the class should be treated as a nullity, it’s unclear the extent to which the NCAA is going to say that strict liability applies. This doesn't mean that games won't be forfeited but the requirement of doing so is unclear.

Thanks for the extra details. I can actually live with these details because they are what I call "doing the math". For example if to remain eligible a student had to pass 4 classes and they took 5 classes and one was fraudulent, then they are eligible. I am ok with this because it is no different than taking 5 classes and failing one. Heck when I was at Duke my last semester I only needed 2 classes to graduate but if I failed one I would not graduate so I took four just to be safe (besides which my parents had paid full tuition so why not and I did pass them all).

I was just afraid that UNC was trying to avoid having to "do the math". Now a level of complexity in doing the math is a recalculation of GPAs. Dukekay1971 suggests that the 2009 championship will remain intact. However, if we look at the summer of 2008 there were quite a few enrollments in fraudulent classes. If this means that GPAs are lowered and athletes are not eligible. If they are not elgible for 2 semesters because of their grades then UNC did use ineligible players in the spring of 2009 because of lower GPAs created during the summer of 2008. There are also academic progress rules that come into play. A student needs to pass a certain number of classes in a certain period of time even if their GPA is great. If the NCAA starts to calculate this number, how many UNC bball players in the spring of 2009 had actually meet academic progress rules if one eliminates the fraudulent classes in the summer of 2008.

As long as they do the math then that is all we can ask for.

BigWayne
04-27-2015, 02:36 PM
Who generated this graph?

Howard
One of the Packpride guys put that together. It's generated from tables of data that are in the Wainstein report. Makes it easier to visualize. There are similar charts for the football and women's hoop teams.

Like some posts above have stated, figuring out exactly which athletes in each semester should have been declared ineligible is a lot of work and is not possible to do with publicly disclosed data. The numbers on this chart show there are some time periods where you can almost guarantee somebody on the men's hoop team should have been ineligible. Also, remember, this chart and all of the data in the Wainstein report is only for AFAM dept. issues. Jan Boxill's Philosophy classes are not included in this chart, nor is EXSS or Geology, which have all been implicated in one way or another.

westwall
04-27-2015, 02:44 PM
The numbers on the vertical axis are the number of fraudulent courses enrolled in by the mens BBall players. So, in 2005, Spring semester, when the Tarheels were a well-oiled machine that seemed to have no distractions from practicing their basketball craft, the team had players enrolled in something like 23 fake courses in that one semester, alone. While the graph doesn't show which players were in those classes, or how many classes each individual player was taking, given that 7 of the top 8 players on the team were AFAM studies majors, it's a reasonable assumption that the bottom 4 scorers on the roster (those guys that specialize in jumping up off the bench after every made shot) weren't taking 20 of those 23 AFAM courses.

Many thanks for the explanation. Yikes, the data is even more incriminating than I had assumed!

swood1000
04-27-2015, 03:25 PM
Uh,,, that should be "forfeiting all basketball or football revenues for a few seasons"...

Also, "lack of institutional control," which would seem to address multiple violations or major violations over a number of years, may more likely be used if the UNC Compliance Office -- the official entity for monitoring adherence to NCAA rules -- fails to do its job, either through neglect or active cover-ups.

What do the tea leaves say about whether UNC is looking at a Lack of Institutional Control charge?

"Bad actions of a relatively few number of people were definitely compounded by inaction and the lack of really appropriate checks and balances," Chancellor Carol Folt said Thursday. "And it was together that really allowed this to persist for such a length of time." http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_26783479/massive-cheating-scandal-at-unc-involved-athletes

"In general, it is the worst case of academic fraud I have seen considering the length and depth of the fraud, along with knowledge of athletics personnel and others," Dave Ridpath, an assistant professor of sports administration at Ohio University and expert on NCAA compliance issues, wrote in an email Thursday. "It is really a textbook case of (lack of institutional control), and the NCAA has no choice but to take action."

Drake Group president Gerald Gurney and two colleagues researched every NCAA academic fraud case since the Division I infractions committee began in 1953. Gurney has little doubt where North Carolina's academic scandal stands in NCAA history.
"I can assure you the depth and breadth and sheer numbers of affected athletes is in fact the largest and the most egregious case of academic fraud by far in NCAA history," said Gurney, who has been an athletic department compliance director and run academic support programs for athletes. …"I feel almost certain that this is an egregious case of lack of institutional control," Gurney said. "If ever there was a case, this is it." http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24765822/uncs-unprecedented-academic-fraud-case-will-test-ncaa

David Ridpath, an expert on NCAA compliance issues, saw possible violations detailed in the Wainstein report.
"What is clear is that there are numerous NCAA violations and a clear and convincing case of academic fraud, unethical conduct and lack of institutional control," he wrote in an email. "I feel that one of our best public institutions sold its soul for the athletics brand, but like anything else the truth wins out and we finally have a clearer picture of what happened. Now the NCAA must take action or simply just admit it cannot police intercollegiate sports." http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article10104305.html

devildeac
04-27-2015, 03:49 PM
What do the tea leaves say about whether UNC is looking at a Lack of Institutional Control charge?

Lack
Of
Institutional
Control

Losers
On
Inside
Carolina


Sheer coincidence?

Prophetic?

Nah, I must be imagining this...

:rolleyes:

swood1000
04-27-2015, 04:26 PM
If I were UNC I think, right about now, I'd offer up the 2005 title and some upcoming scholarship punishment and postseason play to the NCAA in exchange for sparing the 2009 title and any connection to the Dean Smith/Bill Guthridge era, let Roy resign, ride out the suspension years, and then aggressively pursue a young coach to rebuild the brand. If they did all that the right way, by 2020 they'd be back as a national power.
The problem, though, is how much would UNC have to self-sanction in order to avoid the appearance that they don't think that this is such a serious matter?

Tom B.
04-27-2015, 06:01 PM
The "academically ineligible" rule even applied in the case of CalTech in 2012, which appears to be about as mild and inadvertent an infraction as there could be in this area.


A point to remember about that CalTech case -- if I'm reading it correctly, the finding of ineligibility had nothing to do with the GPAs of the athletes in question. They were determined to be ineligible simply because they weren't fully enrolled in enough courses to be considered full-time students.

So, when the NCAA has to determine whether any of the UNC players who took bogus classes would've been ineligible "but for" the bogus classes, there are really two issues in play:

(1) Would the athlete's GPA have been high enough without the bogus class(es)?

And:

(2) Regardless of GPA, would the athlete have been enrolled in enough classes to be considered a full-time student in good standing without the bogus class(es)?

You could have an athlete who had a 4.0 in his real classes, but if he wasn't enrolled in enough real classes to be a full-time student in good standing, then he was ineligible.

And if "strict liability" applies (which is what the Memphis case seems to indicate), it wouldn't matter that the athlete, the coach, or whoever thought that the athlete's bogus class(es) were real at the time. He'd be considered ineligible, period, and any wins in which he participated would have to be vacated.

As an aside, how much of a joke would the NCAA become if they let Carolina skate, but vacated wins at Cal Freakin' Tech based on a strict application of the eligibility rule and actions by student-athletes that seem to be, at worst, an innocuous oversight and failure to recognize an application of the rule that likely never even occurred to anyone before then?

swood1000
04-27-2015, 06:44 PM
So, when the NCAA has to determine whether any of the UNC players who took bogus classes would've been ineligible "but for" the bogus classes, there are really two issues in play:

(1) Would the athlete's GPA have been high enough without the bogus class(es)?

And:

(2) Regardless of GPA, would the athlete have been enrolled in enough classes to be considered a full-time student in good standing without the bogus class(es)?
And as MarkD83 pointed out
(3) Would the athlete be making sufficient academic progress (passing a certain number of classes in a certain period of time) without the bogus class(es)?

bedeviled
04-27-2015, 09:07 PM
And as MarkD83 pointed out
(3) Would the athlete be making sufficient academic progress (passing a certain number of classes in a certain period of time) without the bogus class(es)?UNC had (I don't know if they still do) a policy that athletes had to be making progress toward their degrees. Part of that requirement was that they would be ineligible if they didn't pass 6 hours applicable to their degree during the previous term. It seems like, regardless of GPA or credit hours needed for general academic standing, AFAM majors might all be ineligible if they took a bogus class or two, because I doubt many were making progress toward other majors.

dukelion
04-27-2015, 09:54 PM
Lots of good stuff in this link. Looks like UNC hasn't received the NOA but they know it's coming.

Also sheds light on how the scandal is impacting recruiting to this point.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article19768221.html

OldPhiKap
04-27-2015, 10:24 PM
Brandon Ingram said he would have committed to UNC last fall, but for the overhanging scandal.

I guess I need to thank UNC for stonewalling. If they had just come clean two or three years ago, this would all be in the rear view mirror and BI might be in baby blue.

Thanks, Roy! Thanks, Bubba!

BigWayne
04-28-2015, 01:50 AM
Ingram's decision is fodder for more columns on the scandal. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article19758228.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-1)

Is what happened at North Carolina merely an internal curriculum issue that’s beyond the NCAA’s purview, as president Mark Emmert seemed to indicate during the Final Four? If so, there’s going to be a mad race among schools to set up phony departments, the NCAA having tacitly endorsed them as long as a non-athlete or two is enrolled.

Or is what happened at North Carolina central to the NCAA’s mission of making sure member schools follow the rules they set for themselves, including the integrity of academic eligibility? If so, the Tar Heels are going to take it right in the chops.

bob blue devil
04-28-2015, 05:59 AM
Lots of good stuff in this link. Looks like UNC hasn't received the NOA but they know it's coming.

Also sheds light on how the scandal is impacting recruiting to this point.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article19768221.html

here are some quotes that tell you what ol' roy was selling:



“Before, he told me that they were going to get (the notice of allegations),” Ingram said of Williams. “But of course, it was up to the NCAA to send them and they got way backed up. So I went back and talked to (Williams). I didn’t think he was lying to me or anything like that.
“But I knew that they didn’t receive them after he came from the in-home visit.”



“You never know what’s going to happen,” he said. “Just going back, I trusted coach Williams, Steve Robinson, and I listened to everything they said. So I got a really good feel for what they said, and I don’t think anything is going to happen next year for them.”

i assume he meant "to", not "for" (although maybe that too!) in that last sentence. it is eerily similar to justin jackson (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-03-20/roy-williams-north-carolina-academic-scandal-ncaa-syracuse-jim-boeheim-college-basketball-tournament):



“He told me when he was recruiting me that (the NCAA investigation) wouldn’t affect me,” Jackson said. “I trusted him then, I trust him now.”

roy must be sticking to his, "ncaa won't do anything" guns...

sagegrouse
04-28-2015, 06:12 AM
A point to remember about that CalTech case -- if I'm reading it correctly, the finding of ineligibility had nothing to do with the GPAs of the athletes in question. They were determined to be ineligible simply because they weren't fully enrolled in enough courses to be considered full-time students.

?

IIRC the Caltech practice had nothing to do with athletics -- but it did run afoul of NCAA rules. The problem at Caltech was that some of the best HS scholars in the nation were being thrown into a highly competitive environment on day one. The school had problems with depression -- and worse -- among the students who were facing incredibly stiff competition. The first step was to eliminate grades for first semester of freshman year. A second step, instituted later, was to let freshman essentially browse the course catalog for a few weeks without definitively enrolling in courses. While it made a lot of sense for the Caltech student body, which did not a have a problem with motivation and academic ability, it did lead to violation of NCAA rules having to do with proper enrollment of athletes in at least a minimal course load.

Caltech, a Div III school, reported the problem to the NCAA and accepted the penalties.

Not exactly like the other cases we have been hearing about.

MarkD83
04-28-2015, 06:58 AM
Ingram's decision is fodder for more columns on the scandal. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article19758228.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-1)

Is what happened at North Carolina merely an internal curriculum issue that’s beyond the NCAA’s purview, as president Mark Emmert seemed to indicate during the Final Four? If so, there’s going to be a mad race among schools to set up phony departments, the NCAA having tacitly endorsed them as long as a non-athlete or two is enrolled.

Or is what happened at North Carolina central to the NCAA’s mission of making sure member schools follow the rules they set for themselves, including the integrity of academic eligibility? If so, the Tar Heels are going to take it right in the chops.

Despite all of the logic up-thread about "doing the math" to see who is ineligible, it is comments like the one in bold from the N&O article that keep making me wonder whether the NCAA will "do the math" related to ineligible UNC athletes.

OldPhiKap
04-28-2015, 07:36 AM
roy must be sticking to his, "ncaa won't do anything" guns...

And when the hammer does "unexpectedly" fall, I bet Roy will be so daggum disappointed for his kids who are such hard-working guys, Yadda yadda yadda.

Henderson
04-28-2015, 07:36 AM
roy must be sticking to his, "ncaa won't do anything" guns...

Maybe Roy didn't explain the probability/prediction distinction very well to either Ingram or Jackson.

swood1000
04-28-2015, 10:40 AM
Is what happened at North Carolina merely an internal curriculum issue that’s beyond the NCAA’s purview, as president Mark Emmert seemed to indicate during the Final Four?

Despite all of the logic up-thread about "doing the math" to see who is ineligible, it is comments like the one in bold from the N&O article that keep making me wonder whether the NCAA will "do the math" related to ineligible UNC athletes.
I wish that the media would stop confusing these two issues. One issue is whether the NCAA can be sued by a student because they had a duty to the student to make sure that the student got a good education. The NCAA's position:

" … The NCAA did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education student-athletes received at member institutions or to protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of those institutions or their employees," the association wrote. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/30/north-carolina-acadmenic-scandal-lawsuit/70697288/

But for some reason the media keeps turning this around as if the NCAA is saying that they will not look at the quality of the education for any purpose, which is ridiculous. If that were the case then rules such as this one would be unenforceable:

"The admission, academic standing and academic progress of student-athletes shall be consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general."
Clearly the NCAA cannot abdicate their oversight role in requiring that the classes that athletes take are consistent with the standards for the student body in general, and their denying that they can be sued by students for a breach of duty does not suggest that they will not require universities to fulfill their obligations to the students.

swood1000
04-28-2015, 10:54 AM
And when the hammer does "unexpectedly" fall, I bet Roy will be so daggum disappointed for his kids who are such hard-working guys, Yadda yadda yadda.
Over on Inside Carolina there are posters whose reason for being sure that any penalties will be light is that otherwise Roy would not be going after the high-level recruits so hard. After all, he could only get them by telling them that the penalties will be light and so he must know something. He has too much honor to be telling them things that he is not sure are true.

BD80
04-28-2015, 11:02 AM
Over on Inside Carolina there are posters whose reason for being sure that any penalties will be light is that otherwise Roy would not be going after the high-level recruits so hard. After all, he could only get them by telling them that the penalties will be light and so he must know something. He has too much honor to be telling them things that he is not sure are true.

I think ol' roy has already proven that he is not the most well-informed person in the world, nor is he terribly inquisitive as to matters that could negatively impact the program.

swood1000
04-28-2015, 11:02 AM
UNC had (I don't know if they still do) a policy that athletes had to be making progress toward their degrees. Part of that requirement was that they would be ineligible if they didn't pass 6 hours applicable to their degree during the previous term. It seems like, regardless of GPA or credit hours needed for general academic standing, AFAM majors might all be ineligible if they took a bogus class or two, because I doubt many were making progress toward other majors.
That's an interesting question: apart from the NCAA's progress requirements would failure to meet a university's stricter progress requirements render the student academically ineligible in the eyes of the NCAA? If not, wouldn't it violate this principle:

"The admission, academic standing and academic progress of student-athletes shall be consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general."

oldnavy
04-28-2015, 11:04 AM
I think ol' roy has already proven that he is not the most well-informed person in the world, nor is he terribly inquisitive as to matters that could negatively impact the program.

OR.... he is totally involved and in touch with all aspects of the program and his "kids".... just depends on the circumstance.

sagegrouse
04-28-2015, 11:20 AM
I think ol' roy has already proven that he is not the most well-informed person in the world, nor is he terribly inquisitive as to matters that could negatively impact the program.


OR.... he is totally involved and in touch with all aspects of the program and his "kids".... just depends on the circumstance.


Troubles on the recruiting trail could prompt UNC into a posture of "suing for peace," willingly pleading guilty in order to get some definition to the future. I have believed all along that the UNC Board of Governors wants this issued settled -- and soon -- but maybe UNC athletics is coming around to the same point of view.

oldnavy
04-28-2015, 11:24 AM
Troubles on the recruiting trail could prompt UNC into a posture of "suing for peace," willingly pleading guilty in order to get some definition to the future. I have believed all along that the UNC Board of Governors wants this issued settled -- and soon -- but maybe UNC athletics is coming around to the same point of view.

Let's hope not!

I love the fact that UNC's arrogance is coming back to bite them in the behind. I hope it continues for a few more years!!

Tom B.
04-28-2015, 11:27 AM
I wish that the media would stop confusing these two issues. One issue is whether the NCAA can be sued by a student because they had a duty to the student to make sure that the student got a good education. The NCAA's position:

" … The NCAA did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education student-athletes received at member institutions or to protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of those institutions or their employees," the association wrote. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/03/30/north-carolina-acadmenic-scandal-lawsuit/70697288/

But for some reason the media keeps turning this around as if the NCAA is saying that they will not look at the quality of the education for any purpose, which is ridiculous. If that were the case then rules such as this one would be unenforceable:
Clearly the NCAA cannot abdicate their oversight role in requiring that the classes that athletes take are consistent with the standards for the student body in general, and their denying that they can be sued by students for a breach of duty does not suggest that they will not require universities to fulfill their obligations to the students.


Exactly. It's not inconsistent for the NCAA to:

(a) say that it doesn't owe a duty to the student-athletes to ensure that they get an education or that their classes pass the minimum standards for accreditation (that duty belongs to the institution, not the NCAA), while also

(b) having the power to oversee and, if appropriate, sanction a member institution if it learns that athletes are, say, using bogus classes (or a "shadow curriculum," if you prefer) to remain eligible with the participation of support personnel whose very jobs are to monitor and ensure that athletes are meeting the necessary academic requirements and making the necessary progress for eligibility, and the tacit (if not outright) approval of coaches and other Athletic Department officials.

These are not mutually inconsistent principles.

And here, the first issue is largely off the table for the NCAA. It doesn't have to decide which classes do or don't pass muster, because UNC has already told them which ones were bogus.*



* Yes, I realize there were probably more bogus classes in other departments in addition to the classes specifically cited in the Wainstein Report. But the Wainstein Report is at least a good starting point.

OldPhiKap
04-28-2015, 01:31 PM
Troubles on the recruiting trail could prompt UNC into a posture of "suing for peace," willingly pleading guilty in order to get some definition to the future. I have believed all along that the UNC Board of Governors wants this issued settled -- and soon -- but maybe UNC athletics is coming around to the same point of view.

UNC can (and should) self-impose something, in order to mollify the NCAA and to perhaps get the pain behind them.

Problem is, they are considered to be contenders to win it all this year. So, no can do.

The clouds will continue to linger.

tux
04-28-2015, 01:39 PM
UNC can (and should) self-impose something, in order to mollify the NCAA and to perhaps get the pain behind them.

Problem is, they are considered to be contenders to win it all this year. So, no can do.

The clouds will continue to linger.


Agree. Roy apparently promised Justin Jackson that the NCAA "junk" would not affect him. My guess is that Roy has made a bunch of promises over the past 2 years.

IMO it's gone on too long for UNC to now self-impose. They thought they could ride it out, and now they are married to that decision. I would love to be a fly on the wall over there...

AustinDevil
04-28-2015, 02:55 PM
Over on Inside Carolina there are posters whose reason for being sure that any penalties will be light is that otherwise Roy would not be going after the high-level recruits so hard. After all, he could only get them by telling them that the penalties will be light and so he must know something. He has too much honor to be telling them things that he is not sure are true.

If I'm reading Ingram's comments in the N&O article correctly (not assured), then all I see him saying is that Roy promised Ingram it wouldn't affect Ingram next year. Couldn't this simply mean that Roy promises Ingram can play a year, go the OAD route, and then the penalties, whatever they are, will come to UNC later and won't affect Ingram? There may be other instances where Roy is promising high-level recruits that the penalties will be light, but I see an alternate reading of the language in that article.

swood1000
04-28-2015, 04:17 PM
If I'm reading Ingram's comments in the N&O article correctly (not assured), then all I see him saying is that Roy promised Ingram it wouldn't affect Ingram next year. Couldn't this simply mean that Roy promises Ingram can play a year, go the OAD route, and then the penalties, whatever they are, will come to UNC later and won't affect Ingram? There may be other instances where Roy is promising high-level recruits that the penalties will be light, but I see an alternate reading of the language in that article.
Yes, if Roy knows that final sanctions can assuredly be postponed until after next year then I suppose we would have to let him off the hook if all he told Ingram was that he did not have to worry about sanctions next school year.

The procedures in these cases depend upon the "level" of infraction. If the case involves a lack of institutional control or academic misconduct it is a Level I case. 19.1.1. After the Notice of Allegations the institution must respond within 90 days. 19.7.2. Within 60 days after that response the enforcement staff shall submit a written reply to the hearing panel. 19.7.3 and there shall be a prehearing conference. 19.7.4. After that it does not state that the hearing shall be held within a certain time or that the hearing panel must render its decision within a certain time. The institution then has 15 days in which to appeal. 19.10.2. Any penalties will be stayed during pendency of the appeal. 19.10.2.2. How long can all this take? In the case of Alcorn State, the prehearing conference was held 9/23/1993 and the final appeal report was issued 7/12/1995, so there is reason to believe that these things can be dragged out.

swood1000
04-28-2015, 04:29 PM
Yes, if Roy knows that final sanctions can assuredly be postponed until after next year then I suppose we would have to let him off the hook if all he told Ingram was that he did not have to worry about sanctions next school year.
Of course we can understand why Ingram wasn't completely reassured by knowing that Roy could make sure that there would be no sanctions next year. What if he has an accident and can't play next year and is advised not to enter the draft. Or what if he turns out to have Harrison Barnes Syndrome and doesn't feel that he is ready for the next level yet?

OldPhiKap
04-28-2015, 05:23 PM
Agree. Roy apparently promised Justin Jackson that the NCAA "junk" would not affect him. My guess is that Roy has made a bunch of promises over the past 2 years.

IMO it's gone on too long for UNC to now self-impose. They thought they could ride it out, and now they are married to that decision. I would love to be a fly on the wall over there...

Not sure, but didn't Syracuse self-impose a post-season ban right before the NCAA added a few things? I could be wrong.

But you're right, UNC has doubled down at every chance. While the administration said it accepted the Wainstein Report, Bubba Cunningham and the athletic department contends it is just "one man's opinion" of some facts that still need investigation.

I really laugh at the IC folks who clamor that the NCAA is moving too slow. UNC has delayed and obfuscated at every turn. They deserve the slow rotisserie roasting they are getting while hoisted on their own petards. (Yeah, lots of metaphor mixing right there, I know)

SCMatt33
04-28-2015, 06:16 PM
Not sure, but didn't Syracuse self-impose a post-season ban right before the NCAA added a few things? I could be wrong.

They did impose the ban, but that only affected when it would be enforced. The NCAA acknowledged that it was way too late in the process for a self-imposed ban to change the thinking of the infractions committee, essentially saying that they would have gotten a 1 year ban anyway. I'd imagine that UNC is in the same boat, though with their expectations next year, they would rather have a penalty delayed.

Olympic Fan
04-28-2015, 06:21 PM
They did impose the ban, but that only affected when it would be enforced. The NCAA acknowledged that it was way too late in the process for a self-imposed ban to change the thinking of the infractions committee, essentially saying that they would have gotten a 1 year ban anyway. I'd imagine that UNC is in the same boat, though with their expectations next year, they would rather have a penalty delayed.

A school can self-impose, but that's still subject to the NCAA ruling on the case. We all saw that with UNC in 2011 when they tried to self-penalize a slap on the wrist, but the NCAA added both scholarship losses and a one-year bowl ban.

No way UNC self-imposes any penalty until AFTER next season at the earliest. I keep saying, they are going to string this out so that next year's team, which they thing will be a powerhouse, will have its chance to win it all.

porcophile
04-28-2015, 06:23 PM
This from a dissident UNC professor who thinks the university's response to the scandal has been inadequate. (The 1988 committee was set up just out of general concern. The 2013 one was in response to the gathering scandal, but was much less impressive.)

1988: The Faculty Council by resolution establishes an Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics and the University.

2013: The Provost and the Athletic Director establish the Student-Athlete Academic Initiative Working Group.


1988: The Committee’s charge is to “(1) examine all relevant aspects of the University’s intercollegiate athletics program, its scope, procedures, financing and other resources, and its relations to private entities operating under the aegis of the University, (2) report to the Faculty the facts with respect to the foregoing, and in what ways and to what extent, if any, these may be at variance with the University’s purposes and standards of conduct, and (3) to make recommendations for action by the Faculty and the administration, as appropriate.”

2013: The Working Group’s goal was “to develop a rigorous and transparent set of processes for student-athletes during their entire experience at UNC-Chapel Hill.”


1988: The Committee comprises ten former chairs of the Faculty and of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee:
Doris Betts, Alumni Distinguished Professor of English (chair)
Maynard Adams, Kenan Professor of Philosophy
George Kennedy, Paddison Professor of Classics
Henry Landsberger, Professor of Sociology
Beverly Long, Professor of Communication Studies
Townsend Ludington, Cary C. Boshamer Distinguished Professor of English
Daniel Okun, Kenan Professor of Environmental Engineering
Daniel Pollitt, Graham Kenan Professor of Law
Tom Scott, Professor of Biology
George Taylor, Professor of History

2013: The working group comprises four administrators, two representatives of the Athletic Department, the Faculty Athletics Representative, a member of the Faculty Athletics Committee, a business school colleague of the provost, and an untenured assistant professor:
James W. Dean, Jr., Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Stephen Farmer, Vice Provost, Enrollment and Undergraduate Admissions
Michelle Brown, Assistant Provost (Director of the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes)
Deborah Clarke, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Bubba Cunningham, Director of Athletics
Vince Ille, Senior Associate Athletic Director
Lissa Broome, Distinguished Professor of Law (Faculty Athletics Representative)
Andrew Perrin, Professor of Sociology (Faculty Athletics Committee)
James Johnson, Distinguished Professor, Kenan-Flagler Business School
Anna Agbe-Davies, Assistant Professor of Anthropology

TruBlu
04-28-2015, 09:08 PM
Troubles on the recruiting trail could prompt UNC into a posture of "suing for peace," willingly pleading guilty in order to get some definition to the future. I have believed all along that the UNC Board of Governors wants this issued settled -- and soon -- but maybe UNC athletics is coming around to the same point of view.

Or maybe unc will plead with the NCAA that since the investigation itself has already hurt them on the recruiting trail, they have been punished enough already. This sounds more like the "carolina way".

BlueTeuf
04-29-2015, 05:16 AM
Syracuse may not have lessened their punishment/ban - but didn't they get to pick the year? Got the ban over with and limited its impact on future recruiting

Henderson
04-29-2015, 07:09 AM
Syracuse may not have lessened their punishment/ban - but didn't they get to pick the year? Got the ban over with and limited its impact on future recruiting

UNC-CH has put itself in a bit of a pickle by waiting this long.

This season is now looking promising for UNC-CH so self-imposing a ban for this coming season would be politically problematic with the fan base. Don't forget too that Roy promised Justin Jackson that the scandal wouldn't affect him.

And self-imposing a post-season ban for 2016-17 would look like a joke, since it would say, "We were bad, but we'll wait 2 years to accept repercussions." The NCAA might have other ideas about that. Not to mention what that would do to recruiting for that season. Or what an admission of wrongdoing would do to the fan base and the university's defense narrative ("We've already solved the problem, which didn't really exist anyway, and which is really an indictment of society because everyone does it."). Once UNC-CH admits wrongdoing outside the context of an overall settlement, the NCAA Committee on Infractions might go crazy on them with respect to banners, etc.

I used to shake my head at UNC-CH's refusal to negotiate a settlement of this whole mess on all fronts (NCAA, SACS and lawsuits) to put it behind them quickly so they could move on. Now they look kind of boxed in with no good alternatives to just waiting everything out and hoping for the best.

Indoor66
04-29-2015, 08:24 AM
Or maybe unc will plead with the NCAA that since the investigation itself has already hurt them on the recruiting trail, they have been punished enough already. This sounds more like the "carolina way".

If I had posting rights at inside carolina I would quote this post there. The approval would be unanimous over there. :cool:

gumbomoop
04-29-2015, 10:21 AM
UNC's -- mostly Roy's "Après moi, le deluge" -- strategy of "deflect until after 2015-16" might work just fine if Heels make deep run this coming season. Then, assuming a mere one-year postseason ban for 2016-17, who cares? Other than Tatum, Giles, Smith, Adebayo, Woods. Shoot, maybe a 2016-17 team composed of .......

C -- Hicks
PF -- Maye
SF -- Pinson
SG -- Britt
PG -- Berry

Bench -- a couple of yet undetermined 4-year guys, Stilman White, and some walk-ons

........ could upset the world and go 16-2 to win the ACC regular season as their NCAA title.

Maybe Roy or his successor will be able to persuade Meeks to stick around for one last shot at ..... something. Or maybe Joel James will take one for the team and redshirt in 2015-16, expecting 25 mpg as a redshirt senior.

Lots of options. Not rebuilding, just reloading. The decade of the Twenties looks brighter, if Krzyzewski retires.

swood1000
04-29-2015, 11:17 AM
UNC-CH has put itself in a bit of a pickle by waiting this long.

Don't forget too that Roy promised Justin Jackson that the scandal wouldn't affect him.

It might not be easy to find out exactly what Roy promised Justin Jackson. If it was only that there would be no sanctions his Freshman and Sophomore years he may have been on solid ground there. This is probably also part of the dynamic between Roy and the Board of Governors - Roy's position being that he made promises to these athletes and so the university has no choice but to delay any sanctions until after next April. If the Board of Governors pulls the rug out from underneath him by self-imposing or accepting sanctions earlier than that it would be the end of Roy's credibility with recruits and he would probably resign (blaming it all on his predecessors for instituting a system that he didn't find out about until 2011).

tylervinyard
04-29-2015, 11:25 AM
Didn't the case with Syracuse not conclude for seven years after they self-reported? And the Carolina case is much more complex affecting all sports, not just basketball? Plus, they have been way less transparent than Syracuse. Like OldPhiKap says, they've delayed and obfuscated at every turn. I imagine this will continue to be dragged out, and UNC BBall recruiting will be damaged all the way to the end of Roy's tenure. Next year's the last year they can be truly great for a while.


I really laugh at the IC folks who clamor that the NCAA is moving too slow. UNC has delayed and obfuscated at every turn. They deserve the slow rotisserie roasting they are getting while hoisted on their own petards. (Yeah, lots of metaphor mixing right there, I know)

swood1000
04-29-2015, 11:44 AM
Of course, the NCAA might have some bargaining power here. They could hit UNC with such severe proposed sanctions, monetary and otherwise, as to remove any financial incentive to be expected from post-season play next year, propose to vacate the 1993, 2005 and 2009 titles along with the 2008 final four, and threaten to impose a five year post-season ban in the future together with draconian cuts in scholarships. At that point UNC would have an incentive to agree to accept immediate sanctions in exchange for a reduction in some of these other things.

tux
04-29-2015, 12:03 PM
Didn't the case with Syracuse not conclude for seven years after they self-reported? And the Carolina case is much more complex affecting all sports, not just basketball? Plus, they have been way less transparent than Syracuse. Like OldPhiKap says, they've delayed and obfuscated at every turn. I imagine this will continue to be dragged out, and UNC BBall recruiting will be damaged all the way to the end of Roy's tenure. Next year's the last year they can be truly great for a while.

The problem for UNC is that basketball (and maybe football) is damaged either way: 1) By the lingering threat of NCAA penalties (current situation); or 2) The actual penalties when the arrive. If the NCAA follows precedent, the penalties should be severe --- and any loss of scholarships or post-season bans could set recruiting back several years. Of course, it's in the process of being set back by the lack of any resolution, but it seems UNC prefers pretending that their reputation is still largely intact than facing the harsh reality of the NCAA hammer.

Just their reaction to the Weinstein Report is comical. From "look at this impressive report that proves how transparent and thorough we are" to "wait, that's just one man's opinion"...

I honestly think UNC is holding out hope that if they delay long enough, something crazy will happen like the NCAA will dissolve or maybe the world will just end or something.

Henderson
04-29-2015, 12:18 PM
I honestly think UNC is holding out hope that if they delay long enough, something crazy will happen like the NCAA will dissolve or maybe the world will just end or something.

I think this is exactly right. And it's not that any one person holds that belief necessarily (though some might), but that's where UNC-CH as a whole, a large organization with multiple constituencies, arrives collectively as a result of the organizational dynamic in favor of standing frozen waiting for something to happen.

It's organizational paralysis. Board vs. administration vs. Some Faculty vs. Some Other Faculty vs. the Athletic Department vs. donors vs. other fan base.

They have no leader. And that's why the consensus is "Let's not do anything. Maybe something will happen."

Indoor66
04-29-2015, 12:39 PM
I think this is exactly right. And it's not that any one person holds that belief necessarily (though some might), but that's where UNC-CH as a whole, a large organization with multiple constituencies, arrives collectively as a result of the organizational dynamic in favor of standing frozen waiting for something to happen.

It's organizational paralysis. Board vs. administration vs. Some Faculty vs. Some Other Faculty vs. the Athletic Department vs. donors vs. other fan base.

They have no leader. And that's why the consensus is "Let's not do anything. Maybe something will happen."

I don't know about you, but in my life that is ALWAYS a formula for all heck to break loose and the situation to ALWAYS get worse rather than better. My best wishes to them....

JasonEvans
04-29-2015, 01:05 PM
maybe the world will just end or something.

Rooting for the apocalypse... yup, that's the perfect strategy! Ha!!

OldPhiKap
04-29-2015, 04:33 PM
Rooting for the apocalypse... yup, that's the perfect strategy! Ha!!

What, is it time for UNC and Kentucky to play each other again?

Tripping William
04-29-2015, 04:39 PM
Rooting for the apocalypse... yup, that's the perfect strategy! Ha!!


What, is it time for UNC and Kentucky to play each other again?

No; apparently for Duke & Carolina to play each other in the Final Four . . . . .

swood1000
04-29-2015, 05:05 PM
The University of Georgia had a somewhat similar case that required the vacating of wins and was decided on a basis that results in ineligibility without regard to GPA, part-time status or sufficient progress toward a degree.

The assistant coach of the basketball team taught a sham course called "Coaching Methods for Basketball." The final exam (not always administered) was a multiple choice exam with questions such as "How many goals are on the basketball court" and "How many players are allowed to play at one time on any one team in a regulation game?" and "In what league do the Georgia Bulldogs compete?" Everybody got an 'A'.

It was decided that receipt of these "free" grades was an "extra benefit" that was not "generally available to the institution's students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability." 16.02.3. Receipt of extra benefits renders a student-athlete ineligible for athletic competition. 16.01.1.

Of course this raises the question as to those paper classes that were also open to non-athletes. Were these extra benefits "generally available to the institution's students" just because a few non-athletes were enrolled? It would seem that no-content independent study classes were clearly not generally available on a basis unrelated to athletics ability, in which case there would be no requirement that without that class the student would have had too low a GPA, etc.

According to the Public Infractions Report:


While the varying and conflicting explanations proffered by the assistant coach lead to several versions of the course requirements for the class, the committee concluded that there was academic fraud no matter how described. If he is taken at his last word, then his description is academic fraud in that he described a sham course with no attendance requirements, no examinations, no information to students of his (425-point) grading policy, no reliable way to assess performance for purposes of awarding grades and no base of information from which to assure that all students were treated equally. Giving each student an "A," moreover, did not avoid the problem because those students who legitimately may have earned an "A" under the policy had that grade diluted by the fact that all others also were awarded an "A."

It should go without saying that if students do not understand the requirements for passing a class, then they cannot perform work calculated to pass it. In that situation it is only serendipity if they undertake activities that an instructor treats as relevant to class performance. It should also go without saying that if an instructor awards grades in a class when he has no basis on which to assess performance that too is academic misconduct. The committee does not disagree that within the purview of academic freedom is the choice not to require attendance, to grade on activities rather than written work, not to administer a final examination, to employ a lenient grading policy, or even to provide all students with an "A" because performance will be evaluated on minimum standards that all students will meet. The committee notes, however, that academic freedom is not academic license, and that an instructor who makes all these choices in combination at the very least creates the specter of academic misconduct. ...Moreover, if the pedagogical decisions within a particular class are constrained by department or university policy, as was the case here, then the area of instructor choice is bounded by those additional requirements and it is academic misconduct to ignore them. …The net effect of the grading policy in the basketball coaching class, therefore, was not only to award credit twice for simply participating in varsity athletics, but to do so in direct contravention of the curricular choices made by the university.

Compare with the Wainstein Report:


Between 1993 and 2011, Crowder and Nyang'oro developed and ran a "shadow curriculum" within the AFAM Department that provided students with academically flawed instruction through the offering of "paper classes." These were classes that involved no interaction with a faculty member, required no class attendance or course work other than a single paper, and resulted in consistently high grades that Crowder awarded without reading the papers or otherwise evaluating their true quality. …

Over the 18 years these classes existed, Crowder and Nyang'oro were responsible for offering 188 different lecture classes as well as hundreds of individual independent studies in the "paper class" format - with no class attendance or faculty involvement, and with Crowder managing the class and liberally grading the papers. Through this scheme, over 3,100 students received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work.

Tom B.
04-29-2015, 06:14 PM
The University of Georgia had a somewhat similar case that required the vacating of wins and was decided on a basis that results in ineligibility without regard to GPA, part-time status or sufficient progress toward a degree.

The assistant coach of the basketball team taught a sham course called "Coaching Methods for Basketball." The final exam (not always administered) was a multiple choice exam with questions such as "How many goals are on the basketball court" and "How many players are allowed to play at one time on any one team in a regulation game?" and "In what league do the Georgia Bulldogs compete?" Everybody got an 'A'.




I remember that. The assistant coach in question was in fact the head coach's son -- Jim Harrick, Jr.

My favorite question from the final exam was "How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a basketball game?"

swood1000
04-29-2015, 06:43 PM
My favorite question from the final exam was "How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a basketball game?"
Followed closely by "How many halves are in a college basketball game?" and "How many quarters are in a high school basketball game?"

Indoor66
04-29-2015, 06:51 PM
Followed closely by "How many halves are in a college basketball game?" and "How many quarters are in a high school basketball game?"

That second question might have been a stumper at the dump on the hump.

moonpie23
04-29-2015, 07:20 PM
as long as the scandal "hovers", it holds as much promise, hope and dreams as a lottery ticket the day before the drawing.

OldPhiKap
04-29-2015, 07:58 PM
I have the perception that the lingering cloud is impacting basketball recruiting more than football.

1. Am I right?

2. If so, why?

Duvall
04-29-2015, 08:06 PM
I have the perception that the lingering cloud is impacting basketball recruiting more than football.

1. Am I right?

2. If so, why?

Football recruits know that their peak seasons will probably come well after any NCAA penalties have lapsed. Elite basketball recruits don't.

OldPhiKap
04-29-2015, 08:15 PM
Football recruits know that their peak seasons will probably come well after any NCAA penalties have lapsed. Elite basketball recruits don't.

That may be. Am I wrong in thinking that there is a difference in impact?

Perhaps there is not a big enough sample size in basketball, and they had a darn good class last year in hoops. Still . . . .

wilko
04-29-2015, 08:34 PM
That second question might have been a stumper at the dump on the hump.

Im sure Pj would have had an interesting oral component to the defense of his "Quarters" assertion.

MarkD83
04-29-2015, 09:47 PM
I have the perception that the lingering cloud is impacting basketball recruiting more than football.

1. Am I right?

2. If so, why?

I have several answers

1) UNC football has already been penalized in the recent past, so UNC could try to convince a recruit that the time served is all that UNC football will be penalized. This is not a strong argument but if I were UNC I would use it when talking to a recruit.
2) Even when UNC was penalized they gave rings to the players for "winning" the Coastal division, so for a UNC football player the penalties have no effect on them personally.
3) Bowl games are not as big a deal in terms of showcasing football talent as the regular season, which means a bowl ban really has little impact on draft status in the NFL. In fact how a player performs at the combine or on a pro day may have more impact on draft status than a singe bowl game performance. For basketball, not being able to showcase talent in the NCAA tournament is a serious blow to draft status.

Duke95
04-29-2015, 09:51 PM
I have several answers

3) Bowl games are not as big a deal in terms of showcasing football talent as the regular season, which means a bowl ban really has little impact on draft status in the NFL. In fact how a player performs at the combine or on a pro day may have more impact on draft status than a singe bowl game performance. For basketball, not being able to showcase talent in the NCAA tournament is a serious blow to draft status.

This. Playing in some 3rd rate bowl game vs. staying home isn't that big of a deal, IMO.
An appearance in the Belk Bowl or the Quick Lane Bowl just doesn't compare to playing in the NCAA tournament.

Henderson
04-29-2015, 11:02 PM
I have several answers

1) UNC football has already been penalized in the recent past, so UNC could try to convince a recruit that the time served is all that UNC football will be penalized. This is not a strong argument but if I were UNC I would use it when talking to a recruit.
2) Even when UNC was penalized they gave rings to the players for "winning" the Coastal division, so for a UNC football player the penalties have no effect on them personally.
3) Bowl games are not as big a deal in terms of showcasing football talent as the regular season, which means a bowl ban really has little impact on draft status in the NFL. In fact how a player performs at the combine or on a pro day may have more impact on draft status than a singe bowl game performance. For basketball, not being able to showcase talent in the NCAA tournament is a serious blow to draft status.

4) UNC football doesn't have natty banners at risk of being pulled down.
5) UNC football fans aren't as emotionally invested in past win totals for their program or their coach.

Skitzle
04-30-2015, 09:27 AM
I have several answers

3) Bowl games are not as big a deal in terms of showcasing football talent as the regular season, which means a bowl ban really has little impact on draft status in the NFL. In fact how a player performs at the combine or on a pro day may have more impact on draft status than a singe bowl game performance. For basketball, not being able to showcase talent in the NCAA tournament is a serious blow to draft status.

If Davidson makes the Tournament and second run in 2009, do the warriors get Curry at 7?

budwom
04-30-2015, 11:26 AM
The Tarheels are not known to recruit the most cerebral of football players. They get the ones who believe Fedora. Enough said.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
04-30-2015, 11:33 AM
I have the perception that the lingering cloud is impacting basketball recruiting more than football.

1. Am I right?

2. If so, why?

It does feel this is true. Perhaps it's just the relative strength of the two programs?

Football is an over-funded, over-bloated program with a whiny and over-rated coach that can't get the top notch recruits needed to get over the hump to the next level and a fan-base that over-inflates their abilities and expectations, resulting in disappointment with their chronic underperformance.

Basketball on the other hand....

PackMan97
04-30-2015, 03:23 PM
It was decided that receipt of these "free" grades was an "extra benefit" that was not "generally available to the institution's students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability." 16.02.3. Receipt of extra benefits renders a student-athlete ineligible for athletic competition. 16.01.1.

Of course this raises the question as to those paper classes that were also open to non-athletes. Were these extra benefits "generally available to the institution's students" just because a few non-athletes were enrolled? It would seem that no-content independent study classes were clearly not generally available on a basis unrelated to athletics ability, in which case there would be no requirement that without that class the student would have had too low a GPA, etc.:

UNC can claim the classes were generally available, but that is a lie. The cheating was blatant and institutional.

I really doubt the general student body received this level of help on their courses. They certainly wouldn't have known which of the courses were fake. If they enrolled in them, it was by accident.

Boxill to Crowder on 1/25/2006
"I need another big favor. Could you put [redacted] in either AFAM [redacted] or [redacted] ? She is struggling in a class which me may need to drop, so I need a cushion."

Crowder to Wayne Walden on 1/25/2006
"FYI, I talked to [redacted] and switched him out of his SOCI into another one of ours."

Brent Blanton to Student
"I spoke with Dr. Jan Boxill, and she has you enrolled you in PHIL [redacted] it is an elective class, but right now you need the hours. I will forward an email to you that has the assignment. As for EXSS [redacted] I spoke with Dr. Osborne this morning and she is trying to see if she can get the online course materials that she can hold you to but leave you in her regular class. If she cannot, you will have to drop that class because there is an attendance component that she would be forced to hold you accoutable for. If that is what happens, she will enroll you in an EXSS independent study."

Cynthia Reynolds to Crowder
"He will come by tomorrow morning to get things set from you. Nice call on the Phil 30 (Boxill) correspondence course last semester. Didn't know Jan was doing those.
...
[redacted] left right before [redacted] and said that you would add an AFAM course ([redacted] or [redacted]??) to his schedule as he is going to drop math [redacted]. He is going to talk to Mary Willingham to get this in motion for the math substitutions. I don't think he could pass math [redacted] anyway, nor can he afford to fail the couse."

Crowder to Reynolds
"Hi Cynthia. I'm trying to stay with you but you may be asking for more creativity than I can muster. We can often do many of the things you are asking, but we do them in the summer. None of the professors are going to go along with that during a regular semester. Occasionally when we have a number of people with special issues we can put them together in a special section but we never ever put an athlete into a special section alone--just too many red flags and we have a little bit of academic credibility to try to uphold. All of that being said, talk to me and we'll see if there are any creative options."

swood1000
04-30-2015, 03:41 PM
UNC can claim the classes were generally available, but that is a lie. The cheating was blatant and institutional.

I really doubt the general student body received this level of help on their courses. They certainly wouldn't have known which of the courses were fake. If they enrolled in them, it was by accident.

I don't know how active an adviser has to be in order to qualify as an extra benefit, but having somebody to write or rewrite one's papers would not seem to be in a gray area.

PackMan97
04-30-2015, 04:17 PM
I don't know how active an adviser has to be in order to qualify as an extra benefit, but having somebody to write or rewrite one's papers would not seem to be in a gray area.

If those advisers are the ones that know which are fake courses and which are not, is the extra benefit. They are steering kids into these classes intentionally. In some cases even adding regular students in order to achieve a balance that will not raise red flags. What more do you need?

Indoor66
04-30-2015, 05:03 PM
The Tarheels are not known to recruit the most cerebral of football players. They get the ones who believe Fedora. Enough said.

...and we know that he talks through his hat. :p:rolleyes::cool:

swood1000
04-30-2015, 06:08 PM
If those advisers are the ones that know which are fake courses and which are not, is the extra benefit. They are steering kids into these classes intentionally. In some cases even adding regular students in order to achieve a balance that will not raise red flags. What more do you need?Sold!

RepoMan
04-30-2015, 08:27 PM
we have a little bit of academic credibility to try to uphold[/B].

Quotes like that are amazing!

UNC should put that on their homepage. "UNC -- Just trying to uphold a little bit of academic integrity."

MarkD83
04-30-2015, 09:54 PM
UNC can claim the classes were generally available, but that is a lie. The cheating was blatant and institutional.

I really doubt the general student body received this level of help on their courses. They certainly wouldn't have known which of the courses were fake. If they enrolled in them, it was by accident.

Boxill to Crowder on 1/25/2006
"I need another big favor. Could you put [redacted] in either AFAM [redacted] or [redacted] ? She is struggling in a class which me may need to drop, so I need a cushion."

Crowder to Wayne Walden on 1/25/2006
"FYI, I talked to [redacted] and switched him out of his SOCI into another one of ours."

Brent Blanton to Student
"I spoke with Dr. Jan Boxill, and she has you enrolled you in PHIL [redacted] it is an elective class, but right now you need the hours. I will forward an email to you that has the assignment. As for EXSS [redacted] I spoke with Dr. Osborne this morning and she is trying to see if she can get the online course materials that she can hold you to but leave you in her regular class. If she cannot, you will have to drop that class because there is an attendance component that she would be forced to hold you accoutable for. If that is what happens, she will enroll you in an EXSS independent study."

Cynthia Reynolds to Crowder
"He will come by tomorrow morning to get things set from you. Nice call on the Phil 30 (Boxill) correspondence course last semester. Didn't know Jan was doing those.
...
[redacted] left right before [redacted] and said that you would add an AFAM course ([redacted] or [redacted]??) to his schedule as he is going to drop math [redacted]. He is going to talk to Mary Willingham to get this in motion for the math substitutions. I don't think he could pass math [redacted] anyway, nor can he afford to fail the couse."

Crowder to Reynolds
"Hi Cynthia. I'm trying to stay with you but you may be asking for more creativity than I can muster. We can often do many of the things you are asking, but we do them in the summer. None of the professors are going to go along with that during a regular semester. Occasionally when we have a number of people with special issues we can put them together in a special section but we never ever put an athlete into a special section alone--just too many red flags and we have a little bit of academic credibility to try to uphold. All of that being said, talk to me and we'll see if there are any creative options."

There is clearly enough information that UNC has provided in the Wainstein report for the NCAA to hammer UNC. I am now beginning to think that the longer this takes the worse off it is for UNC. The reason for this is not the slow "drip drip drip" effect on recruiting. Instead, the longer they take the more it makes me feel the NCAA prosecutor is truly trying to put together a case from which UNC can not negotiate any concessions. Think about how long it would take to sift through the Wainstein report and all of the transcripts from UNC which you can get a hold of and write down all of the arguments for 1) lack of institutional control 2) improper benefits 3) ineligibility due to not being full time students 4) ineligibility due to inadequate progress towards graduation 5) ineligibility due to recalculated grades that are too low 6) disqualified from post season play due to low APR scores for teams. This then has to be done for all of the UNC sports teams involved not just Men's BBall.

swood1000
05-01-2015, 10:56 AM
There is clearly enough information that UNC has provided in the Wainstein report for the NCAA to hammer UNC. I am now beginning to think that the longer this takes the worse off it is for UNC. The reason for this is not the slow "drip drip drip" effect on recruiting. Instead, the longer they take the more it makes me feel the NCAA prosecutor is truly trying to put together a case from which UNC can not negotiate any concessions. Think about how long it would take to sift through the Wainstein report and all of the transcripts from UNC which you can get a hold of and write down all of the arguments for 1) lack of institutional control 2) improper benefits 3) ineligibility due to not being full time students 4) ineligibility due to inadequate progress towards graduation 5) ineligibility due to recalculated grades that are too low 6) disqualified from post season play due to low APR scores for teams. This then has to be done for all of the UNC sports teams involved not just Men's BBall.
I agree. It might also suggest that, due to the fact that the recent NCAA investigation of UNC has been described as feckless for having looked right past some things that were there to see, they are determined that nothing will get past them this time. It could also indicate that last time they trusted that UNC had come clean and self-reported everything but they no longer feel that that approach is warranted.

porcophile
05-01-2015, 11:00 AM
A question no one seems to have raised -- possibly because there's no way to answer it -- is how many of those non-athletes were the girlfriends or fraternity brother of athletes?

swood1000
05-01-2015, 11:07 AM
It could also indicate that last time they trusted that UNC had come clean and self-reported everything but they no longer feel that that approach is warranted.Although commissioning the Wainstein Report was a good step in this direction, that was necessary only because of entrenched resistance that still may not have given up all its secrets. The Wainstein investigators weren't carrying the kind of weapons that NCAA investigators carry.

Faustus
05-01-2015, 11:15 AM
A question no one seems to have raised -- possibly because there's no way to answer it -- is how many of those non-athletes were the girlfriends or fraternity brother of athletes?

Or team managers?

JasonEvans
05-01-2015, 11:22 AM
disqualified from post season play due to low APR scores for teams.

I'm not certain, but I think it would be impossible for the NCAA to hit UNC with this. Apr is based off of graduation rates and even if the NCAA finds violations in the sham/paper classes, the NCAA does not have the power to (nor does it want to) make null and void the graduation of UNC student athletes. To be clear, to hit Carolina with an APR violation, the NCAA would have to say that these kids did not actually graduate. That is probably territory the NCAA does not want to navigate. That feels like a SACS accreditation kind of thing.

-Jason "put me in the camp that thinks Carolina gonna get hammered -- the NCAA cannot stand the publicity if they don't crush the Heels for this scandal" Evans

swood1000
05-01-2015, 11:25 AM
A question no one seems to have raised -- possibly because there's no way to answer it -- is how many of those non-athletes were the girlfriends or fraternity brother of athletes?
Have there been cases involving benefits of that kind? It's not a pecuniary benefit currently. It doesn't look like something they would have promised a recruit to entice him to sign. It doesn't help to keep him eligible. But boy would it blow the top off everything if they found that!

swood1000
05-01-2015, 12:12 PM
I'm not certain, but I think it would be impossible for the NCAA to hit UNC with this. Apr is based off of graduation rates and even if the NCAA finds violations in the sham/paper classes, the NCAA does not have the power to (nor does it want to) make null and void the graduation of UNC student athletes. To be clear, to hit Carolina with an APR violation, the NCAA would have to say that these kids did not actually graduate. That is probably territory the NCAA does not want to navigate. That feels like a SACS accreditation kind of thing.

-Jason "put me in the camp that thinks Carolina gonna get hammered -- the NCAA cannot stand the publicity if they don't crush the Heels for this scandal" Evans
APR is based on ongoing academic progress, as opposed to FGR (Federal Graduation Rate) and GSR (Graduation Success Rate) so it would seem to be available for this purpose. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/academic-progress-rate-qa

PackMan97
05-01-2015, 12:26 PM
A question no one seems to have raised -- possibly because there's no way to answer it -- is how many of those non-athletes were the girlfriends or fraternity brother of athletes?

Or kids of fat cat boosters that are in academic trouble?

Olympic Fan
05-01-2015, 12:56 PM
APR is based on ongoing academic progress, as opposed to FGR (Federal Graduation Rate) and GSR (Graduation Success Rate) so it would seem to be available for this purpose. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/academic-progress-rate-qa

swood is right -- APR does not measure graduation as much as it does track ongoing academic progress. I don't have the numbers, but when the last APR was released, UNC basketball was the lowest APR in the ACC and just barely above the line where NCAA sanctions kick in (the kind of sanctions that kept UConn out of the NCAA Tournament in 2013). I've always thought that the fall in APR rates at UNC is evidence that they FINALLY (after 18 years) stopped cheating.

The APR crisis at UNC also explains when UNC strung out the PJ Hairston case for so long -- publically complaining about the NCAA dragging its heels, while UNC never applied for re-instatement. The goal was to trick Hairston into staying until the end of the semester ... UNC was so close to the penalty line with the APR that that one semester could have meant the difference between a tournament ban or not.

Not sure if the fake class issue can be applied backwards to measure the APR rate without the phony classes.

swood1000
05-01-2015, 01:18 PM
I've always thought that the fall in APR rates at UNC is evidence that they FINALLY (after 18 years) stopped cheating.
It will be interesting to compare the APR before and after 2011 crash of the paper class structure.


Not sure if the fake class issue can be applied backwards to measure the APR rate without the phony classes.
What reason would there be against it, if student-athletes can be retroactively determined to be ineligible and previously-played games forfeited for that reason?

PackMan97
05-01-2015, 01:58 PM
It will be interesting to compare the APR before and after 2011 crash of the paper class structure.

You can just look at their athletic performance and see that as well!

Men's Basketball - Last ACC Tournment Title was 2008
Women's Basketball - Last ACC Title was 2008, hasn't finished higher than 4th in the ACC since
Field Hockey - Last ACC title was 2007 with a 2009 NCAAT
Men's Golf - Last ACC Title was 2006
Wrestling - Last ACC Title was 2006
Men's Soccer - Last ACC Title was 2011 along with an NCAAT
Women's Soccer - Last ACC Title was 2009, haven't made the ACCT finals since 2009. Missed four out of the last five NCAA Final Fours (after making all but two in the previous 22 years)

I believe the 2014-15 athletic season may go down as the first in recent history that UNC won ZERO ACC Titles.

The drop off across all of their sports has been very dramatic....but it wasn't about athletics. :p

devildeac
05-01-2015, 02:15 PM
You can just look at their athletic performance and see that as well!

Men's Basketball - Last ACC Tournment Title was 2008
Women's Basketball - Last ACC Title was 2008, hasn't finished higher than 4th in the ACC since
Field Hockey - Last ACC title was 2007 with a 2009 NCAAT
Men's Golf - Last ACC Title was 2006
Wrestling - Last ACC Title was 2006
Men's Soccer - Last ACC Title was 2011 along with an NCAAT
Women's Soccer - Last ACC Title was 2009, haven't made the ACCT finals since 2009. Missed four out of the last five NCAA Final Fours (after making all but two in the previous 22 years)

I believe the 2014-15 athletic season may go down as the first in recent history that UNC won ZERO ACC Titles.

The drop off across all of their sports has been very dramatic....but it wasn't about athletics. :p

Unfortunately, 2014-15 may be the first year in recent history that Duke won 0 ACC titles:(.

snowdenscold
05-01-2015, 04:54 PM
I believe the 2014-15 athletic season may go down as the first in recent history that UNC won ZERO ACC Titles.

The drop off across all of their sports has been very dramatic....but it wasn't about athletics. :p


Unfortunately, 2014-15 may be the first year in recent history that Duke won 0 ACC titles:(.

As touched on in other threads, this is the "new normal" now that conferences have gone to ~16 teams. You still only get 1 winner, but with twice as many teams vying for it. Except everyone's conference titles to become less frequent across the board.

COYS
05-01-2015, 05:12 PM
Unfortunately, 2014-15 may be the first year in recent history that Duke won 0 ACC titles:(.

Also, not to diminish ACCT Titles, but I think the National Title makes up for the loss to the Irish in the ACCT.

cato
05-01-2015, 05:28 PM
Also, not to diminish ACCT Titles, but I think the National Title makes up for the loss to the Irish in the ACCT.

Particularly since one may not have come without the other.

Still, I am sick of other teams winning the ACC.

devildeac
05-01-2015, 05:30 PM
Also, not to diminish ACCT Titles, but I think the National Title makes up for the loss to the Irish in the ACCT.

And twice on Sunday. Or was that Monday;).

BigWayne
05-01-2015, 06:21 PM
It will be interesting to compare the APR before and after 2011 crash of the paper class structure.




Available online. (http://web1.ncaa.org/maps/aprRelease.jsp)

Next batch of data should be posted in about two weeks.


Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2004 - 2005 989
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2005 - 2006 993
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2006 - 2007 995
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2007 - 2008 989
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2008 - 2009 995
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2009 - 2010 985
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2010 - 2011 963
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2011 - 2012 959
Men's Basketball University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC 2012 - 2013 938

BigWayne
05-01-2015, 06:33 PM
BTW - Scores above are what NCAA still publishes. Those are the four year rolling average numbers.
UNC's Men's BB numbers for are:

Year Multiyear APR Single Year APR
2009-10 985 961
2010-11 963 909
2011-12 959 959
2012-13 938 917

The 961 goes away this year and is replaced by the 2014 score. They need a 935 to stay out of trouble.

OldPhiKap
05-01-2015, 06:38 PM
BTW - Scores above are what NCAA still publishes. Those are the four year rolling average numbers.
UNC's Men's BB numbers for are:

Year Multiyear APR Single Year APR
2009-10 985 961
2010-11 963 909
2011-12 959 959
2012-13 938 917

The 961 goes away this year and is replaced by the 2014 score. They need a 935 to stay out of trouble.

What would be the ramification of falling below 935?

TKG
05-01-2015, 07:00 PM
What would be the ramification of falling below 935?

Governor Martin will lead another, independent investigation sponsored by The Charlotte Observer.

MarkD83
05-01-2015, 07:37 PM
What would be the ramification of falling below 935?

According to what happened to UConn the first instance was a loss of scholarships and the second was a post season ban.

http://web1.ncaa.org/maps/aprRelease.jsp

So how does this impact UNC. In a year a student athlete can earn 1 pt for staying in school and 1 pt for staying eligible each semester which is 4 pts for a year.

APR is calculated by summing up the pts for a team dividing by possible pts and multiple by 1000 (essentially a % of possible pts gained). If UNC has a 13 man roster there are a possible 52 points. If on average there is 1 ineligible player each year that is a loss of 4 pts for each rolling average or a loss in 77 APR points. And here are the new APRs with that assumption.

2004 - 2005 912
2005 - 2006 916
2006 - 2007 918
2007 - 2008 912
2008 - 2009 918
2009 - 2010 908
2010 - 2011 886
2011 - 2012 882
2012 - 2013 861

What does this mean. Even if there are no ineligible players on the 2008-09 team, that team is ineligible for the 2008-09 tournament because of what happened in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

This is not even taking into account the effect of a rolling average if one of these teams had 2 ineligible players and you had to project forward.

Duke95
05-01-2015, 07:44 PM
So, based on the numbers there, I see that UNC's 3 lowest APRs are in wrestling (936), football and basketball (938) based on 2012-2013. Baseball and women's soccer aren't much better.

Yeah, I downloaded the entire dataset so I could play with it. That's how I roll.

Oh, Kentucky is 989. Didn't expect that.

MarkD83
05-01-2015, 08:00 PM
According to what happened to UConn the first instance was a loss of scholarships and the second was a post season ban.

http://web1.ncaa.org/maps/aprRelease.jsp

So how does this impact UNC. In a year a student athlete can earn 1 pt for staying in school and 1 pt for staying eligible each semester which is 4 pts for a year.

APR is calculated by summing up the pts for a team dividing by possible pts and multiple by 1000 (essentially a % of possible pts gained). If UNC has a 13 man roster there are a possible 52 points. If on average there is 1 ineligible player each year that is a loss of 4 pts for each rolling average or a loss in 77 APR points. And here are the new APRs with that assumption.

2004 - 2005 912
2005 - 2006 916
2006 - 2007 918
2007 - 2008 912
2008 - 2009 918
2009 - 2010 908
2010 - 2011 886
2011 - 2012 882
2012 - 2013 861

What does this mean. Even if there are no ineligible players on the 2008-09 team, that team is ineligible for the 2008-09 tournament because of what happened in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

This is not even taking into account the effect of a rolling average if one of these teams had 2 ineligible players and you had to project forward.

And I know that the 2004-05 team is already in danger just by McCants' comments, but even if for some reason you ignore the players on the 2004-05 team, in 2002-03 and 2003-04 there were 30+ enrollments in paper classes by men's bball players over the fall and spring semesters. That has to be at least 1 ineligible player those years which is 77 points lost from even a perfect score which brings these teams to less than 930 and the 04-05 team is ineligible for the 04-05 tournament. Maybe the NCAA needs to hire an "advanced analytics" expert just for this case.

OldPhiKap
05-01-2015, 10:40 PM
Jaylon Brown blows off UNC (and KY) for Cal. The cloud continues to build.

MarkD83
05-01-2015, 11:10 PM
Jaylon Brown blows off UNC (and KY) for Cal. The cloud continues to build.

This is all part of Ole Roy's and UNC's strategy. They are going to offer to give up 2-3 scholarships a year for several years knowing full well that they will only have 5 or 6 scholarship players on the team.

OldPhiKap
05-01-2015, 11:25 PM
This is all part of Ole Roy's and UNC's strategy. They are going to offer to give up 2-3 scholarships a year for several years knowing full well that they will only have 5 or 6 scholarship players on the team.

So . . . Roy hoardes offers like time outs?

BigWayne
05-02-2015, 02:49 AM
What would be the ramification of falling below 935?

They need 935 for the 4 year average to be above 930.

From http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/academic-progress-rate-qa :

What are the penalties for not achieving a 930?

There’s a range of penalties, including constest (sic) reductions and practice limitations. This is also the benchmark for teams to have access to postseason competition. Other penalties can be imposed by the Division I Committee on Academic Performance, tailored to a school’s specific situation.

If they are just barely below 930 for one year, the only likely additional penalty beyond the tourney ban is conversion of 4 hours a week of practice into study hall time.
BTW - Since this data is based on what happened by the end of last year's spring semester, UNC already knows their score.

BigWayne
05-02-2015, 03:06 AM
Great read over at the Willingham site. (http://paperclassinc.com/the-anatomy-of-athletic-academic-corruption/)

It explains a lot of the details of how the various bad actors likely fit together. Basically it's an insider's reading of the damning emails in the Wainstein report addendum.

Debby Crowder was certainly corrupt. But her email of March 28, 2006 shows that she was no lone wolf. An eligibility system in which she was the vital linchpin had been elaborated over many years and with the assistance and conscious complicity of many officers all across the UNC campus.

alteran
05-02-2015, 08:16 AM
BTW - Since this data is based on what happened by the end of last year's spring semester, UNC already knows their score.

And are probably retroactively fixing it as we speak.

OldPhiKap
05-02-2015, 08:18 AM
And are probably retroactively fixing it as we speak.

"Ignore the man behind the curtain"

"These are not the droids you are looking for"

"We run a clean program here in Chapel Hill"

tbyers11
05-02-2015, 11:41 AM
"Ignore the man behind the curtain"

"These are not the droids you are looking for"

"We run a clean program here in Chapel Hill"

I've always pictured Ol Roy kind of like Captain Renault in the casino in Casablanca.

[Ol Roy is being questioned by NCAA official]

Ol Roy: I'm shocked, shocked to find that cheating is going on in here"

[Wayne Walden hands him a sheet of paper]

Walden: "Your weekly academic progress report, sir"

Ol Roy: "Oh, thank you very much!"

swood1000
05-02-2015, 06:28 PM
There is another potential complexity. The University of Georgia case involving the sham course with a guaranteed 'A' was released 8/5/2004. In that case there were also other "extra benefits" consisting of free long distance calls that the student-athletes were allowed to make along with other monetary benefits. Also on 8/5/2004 the NCAA revised section 16.01.1.1 to add the underlined part below:


16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. [A] Unless otherwise noted, for violations of Bylaw 16 in which the value of the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the student-athlete shall not be affected conditioned upon the student-athlete repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice. The student-athlete, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of receipt of the impermissible benefit until the student-athlete repays the benefit. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility.

It looks like they modified the rule in response to this case. Therefore, assuming that extra benefits consisting of sham courses have no monetary value, such benefits received after 8/5/2004 will apparently not affect the student-athlete's eligibility by reason of being extra benefits. So it seems like we're back to looking at the effect of the loss of those classes on GPA, full-time status, academic progress and APR.

MarkD83
05-02-2015, 08:10 PM
There is another potential complexity. The University of Georgia case involving the sham course with a guaranteed 'A' was released 8/5/2004. In that case there were also other "extra benefits" consisting of free long distance calls that the student-athletes were allowed to make along with other monetary benefits. Also on 8/5/2004 the NCAA revised section 16.01.1.1 to add the underlined part below:



It looks like they modified the rule in response to this case. Therefore, assuming that extra benefits consisting of sham courses have no monetary value, such benefits received after 8/5/2004 will apparently not affect the student-athlete's eligibility by reason of being extra benefits. So it seems like we're back to looking at the effect of the loss of those classes on GPA, full-time status, academic progress and APR.

However, this does call out that these benefits are a clear mark against institutional control.

This does bring up several questions I have had about "lack of institutional control".

1) Is this the accusation that the NCAA uses in order to extract out additional information? For example, UNC you clearly have lost control because of the AFAM issue and it appears you have lost control in other departments so prove to us you have not lost control in the let's say the Ethics department.

2) Is this the accusation that the NCAA uses when there is just so much stuff going on that they are feed up with the amount of time they are spending? For example, UNC you said you gave us all of the information and then we find out you have not. We are feed up with having to do all this work so you are guilty of lack of institutional control. If you want to prove otherwise then you have to do the work.

UrinalCake
05-02-2015, 11:14 PM
According to what happened to UConn the first instance was a loss of scholarships and the second was a post season ban.


Which is why it was so important to keep PJ Hairston eligible through the fall semester back in 2013. Had they cut him loose, they would have suffered an APR hit. Instead they strung him along, telling everyone the NCAA was taking their time investigating his case, so he would continue to go to class. Then literally the day after the semester ended they revealed that they never actually requested his reinstatement from the NCAA. See ya later, PJ.

swood1000
05-03-2015, 05:02 PM
Even though the rule was changed so that after 2004 extra benefits with no monetary value would no longer affect a student-athlete's eligibility, it will be interesting to see how they treat the paper class extra benefits that occurred prior to that time, because the general rule is that receipt of extra benefits renders a student-athlete ineligible until reinstatement is granted. As they said in the University of Georgia case:


"Particular emphasis should be placed on staff instruction that all violations must be reported to the compliance director, that receipt of extra benefits results in ineligibility that may be restored only by application to student-athlete reinstatement… Of concern to the committee, however was the failure of university staff to follow long-standing, well-understood, and routine NCAA process by reporting the violations and declaring the involved student-athletes ineligible and seeking reinstatement."


The following members of the 2005 UNC championship team were also on the 2003 team: Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Jawad Williams, Sean May, Jackie Manuel, Will Johnson, David Noel, Melvin Scott, Byron Sanders. If any of them had received the paper class extra benefits prior to 8/5/2004 then they would have been ineligible until reinstated (according to the reasoning in the University of Georgia case).

Mary Willingham, in her book Cheated, says this about 2005:


"Rashad McCants, a star forward on the championship team, followed a paper classes-only schedule during the spring semester of 2005, meaning that he was relieved of all academic burdens in the season in which he pursued his national championship dream. Perversely, McCants saw his GPA rise significantly - he even made the dean's list - after a semester in which he had done no academic work. In June 2014 McCants disarmingly explained to ESPN's Steve Delsohn the logic of the arrangement. Tutors, he noted, did help some athletes with grammar and sentence structure on their paper-class assignments, but "for some of the premier players - we didn't write our papers." Instead, papers were recycled from earlier semesters or cobbled together by tutors. A more daringly dishonest curricular system can scarcely be imagined. …Many basketball players on the 2005 championship team were able to abandon all worries about their grade point averages."


If McCants took any paper classes prior to 8/5/2004 then it would seem that he was ineligible from that point until formally reinstated. If not, or if the NCAA doesn't want to look at it that way, if McCants followed a "paper classes-only" schedule during the spring semester of 2005 then he was not a full-time student and was ineligible for that reason. Hard to see how the 2005 championship can stand.

Reddevil
05-03-2015, 05:58 PM
FWIW, it appears that not one single UNC player had his name called at the NFL draft this weekend. I only see one heel added as an undrafted free agent so far. Not sure what to make of that. Strange though.

OldPhiKap
05-03-2015, 06:03 PM
FWIW, it appears that not one single UNC player had his name called at the NFL draft this weekend. I only see one heel added as an undrafted free agent so far. Not sure what to make of that. Strange though.

Fedora must be keeping their talent under his hat.

swood1000
05-03-2015, 06:28 PM
However, this does call out that these benefits are a clear mark against institutional control.
Lack of Institutional Control is listed as one of the "aggravating factors…that warrant a higher range of penalties…" 19.9.3 Other aggravating factors are:

(d) Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation;

(h) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;

I wonder how relevant to this issue it will be that Mary Willingham reports that she met on September 30, 2010 with internal investigators Lissa Broome and Steve Keadey, preserved by two different digital recordings, and shared "many troubling details about the practices of the support program," including her discovery of plagiarism, the failure of her bosses to do anything about it other than to make sure thereafter that she saw no football players, and the chilling effect of the firing of a study hall-monitor "who had made the fatal mistake of reporting to her superior that she had seen a football player receiving improper writing help from a mentor-tutor." Yet apparently in the next twelve months "not a single administrative officer in South and Steele Buildings - where chancellors, provosts and deans reside - had picked up the telephone to ask Willingham to share more of what she knew."

swood1000
05-03-2015, 06:42 PM
Of all the basketball recruits good enough to be considered at Duke, I wonder what percentage are ignored for academic reasons, because there would be no way to keep them academically eligible at Duke.

MarkD83
05-03-2015, 09:21 PM
Of all the basketball recruits good enough to be considered at Duke, I wonder what percentage are ignored for academic reasons, because there would be no way to keep them academically eligible at Duke.

In a recent interview I heard by Coach K he mentioned that academic fit, character and basketball fit at Duke were all considered when recruiting. That makes me think that 100% of those players that the basketball staff don't think are able to fit in academically at Duke are ignored (is that a double negative?). I do remember a few basketball players who were put on academic suspension after their first semester because they could not handle the academics, but that does not mean they weren't accepted based on the belief they could handle the academics.

devildeac
05-03-2015, 09:50 PM
Fedora must be keeping their talent under his hat.

Groan.

I think we may have to put a cap on the number of head covering puns when we mention Fedora.

OldPhiKap
05-03-2015, 10:04 PM
Groan.

I think we may have to put a cap on the number of head covering puns when we mention Fedora.

So fez you.

BD80
05-03-2015, 10:04 PM
Groan.

I think we may have to put a cap on the number of head covering puns when we mention Fedora.

And mortarboard transgressors