UNC Athletics Scandal UPDATE: UNC Receives NOA from NCAA

[JasonEvans]

Time to start a new thread...

Big news coming today (http://northcarolina.scout.com/story/1548538-unc-receives-noa?s=78&utm_source=SocialMedia&utm_medium=HootSuitePost&utm_campaign=HootSuite&hootPostID=3fa806953bc180e40f7c86488926aadb)


The University of North Carolina has received its Notice of Allegations from the NCAA, but will not release the details of the report until a later date, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The NCAA does not publicly announce delivery of a Notice of Allegations and member institutions are not required to release the full report. UNC is expected to announce the receipt of its NOA on Friday afternoon.

I'm hoping hard for the dreaded Lack of Institutional Control!

-Jason "grab the popcorn!" Evans

[MChambers]

Note the release of the news on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend. UNC's public relations firm is doing its work.

[sagegrouse]

Note the release of the news on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend. UNC's public relations firm is doing its work.

Moreover, given his whining at the Western North Carolina HOF induction, I predict that Ol' Roy will take credit for getting the NCAA to release the NOA.

[Henderson]

Time to start a new thread...

Big news coming today (http://northcarolina.scout.com/story/1548538-unc-receives-noa?s=78&utm_source=SocialMedia&utm_medium=HootSuitePost&utm_campaign=HootSuite&hootPostID=3fa806953bc180e40f7c86488926aadb)


A brother should warn folks when a link leads to Inside Carolina. There might be digestive events or party planning a person needs to prepare for. Depending on the breaks.

NOA from the NCAA and an announcement from the SACS about the same time. Hehe.

I used to hate the off season.

[Duvall]

No news coming today. (http://uncnews.unc.edu/2015/05/22/unc-chapel-hill-announces-receiving-ncaa-notice-of-allegations/)


In a joint statement, Chancellor Carol L. Folt and Director of Athletics Bubba Cunningham said the University had begun reviewing the NCAA’s notice.

“We take these allegations very seriously, and we will carefully evaluate them to respond within the NCAA’s 90-day deadline,” the statement said. “The University will publicly release the NCAA’s notice as soon as possible. The notice is lengthy and must be prepared for public dissemination to ensure we protect privacy rights as required by federal and state law. When that review for redactions is complete, the University will post the notice on the Carolina Commitment website and notify the news media. When we respond to the NCAA’s allegations, we will follow this same release process.

[Henderson]

"The notice is lengthy."

Hehe.

[dpslaw]

Andrew Carter of the N&O tweeted that UNC is now in bunker mode. Take from that what you will.

[OldPhiKap]

"The notice is lengthy."

Hehe.

It might use big words, too. Could take a few days for them to get through it. I don't think they come in an illustrated version.

[cato]

No news coming today. (http://uncnews.unc.edu/2015/05/22/unc-chapel-hill-announces-receiving-ncaa-notice-of-allegations/)

I stopped reading after the "we take these allegations seriously" part. After all, that's the best joke I'm going to hear all day.

[swood1000]

The last NOA was issued to UNC on June 21, 2011 and had been released by June 23, 2011 (http://cfn.scout.com/2/1081787.html). Of course, that one was probably not as long as this one and June 21 was a Tuesday, not the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.

[Stray Gator]

The last NOA was issued to UNC on June 21, 2011 and had been released by June 23, 2011 (http://cfn.scout.com/2/1081787.html). Of course, that one was probably not as long as this one and June 21 was a Tuesday, not the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.

As others have noted, the press release does not say that UNC received the Notice of Allegations today, only that "[w]e have received the notice of allegations from the NCAA . . . ."

[Duvall]

I stopped reading after the "we take these allegations seriously" part. After all, that's the best joke I'm going to hear all day.

UNC absolutely takes the allegations seriously, and has the law and public relations firm bills to prove it. It's the events that prompted the allegations that they don't take seriously at all.

[Neals384]

“We take these allegations very seriously, and we will carefully evaluate them to respond within the NCAA’s 90-day deadline,” the statement said. “The University will publicly release the NCAA’s notice as soon as possible. The notice is lengthy and must be prepared for public dissemination to ensure we protect privacy rights as required by federal and state law. When that review for redactions is complete, the University will post the notice on the Carolina Commitment website and notify the news media. When we respond to the NCAA’s allegations, we will follow this same release process."

This will take a long time. Bubba is a Notre Dame grad. He will need to enroll in UNC Summer School to study both Crayons 101 and Advanced Redacting 202. Both are paper classes.;)

[devildeac]

This will take a long time. Bubba is a Notre Dame grad. He will need to enroll in UNC Summer School to study both Crayons 101 and Advanced Redacting 202. Both are paper classes.;)

Crayons and paper classes? I see what you did there. ;)

Does the Advanced Redacting class come with White Out/Correction Tape or do the enrollees need to purchase their own:rolleyes:?

[flyingdutchdevil]

...Go to Inside Carolina. It's pretty amazing right now. Not as good as when Duke wins the natty or Duke spanks Carolina, but nearly as good. The uncertainty is absolutely killing the fans.

I just wanna smile all day long.

Best thing in college basketball? Duke winning it.
Second best thing in college basketball? UNC getting smoked.

[Tripping William]

As much as I am awaiting the NOA's release, I am more eagerly awaiting that part of Carolina's response that equates "deflator" with "one working to lose weight" ..... or the functional equivalent of that explanation for these particular circumstances.

[wsb3]

Moreover, given his whining at the Western North Carolina HOF induction, I predict that Ol' Roy will take credit for getting the NCAA to release the NOA.

Poor Roy..Can't all of you see that he and his beloved school are the victims in this case? Shame on the NCAA for picking on Ole Roy like this. It is not as if he had any knowledge that cheating was going on...:rolleyes:

[swood1000]

Poor Roy..Can't all of you see that he and his beloved school are the victims in this case? Shame on the NCAA for picking on Ole Roy like this. It is not as if he had any knowledge that cheating was going on...:rolleyes:
Roy says that his program is the most investigated program in history:


"We're about the most investigated program in the history of college athletics. We had two internal investigations, former Governor (Jim) Martin did an investigation, then the Wainstein Report (from a) federal prosecutor, and now the NCAA," he said. http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-21/roy-williams-cheating-tar-heels-unc-academic-scandal-ncaa-investigation


He missed the investigation by SACS. Does he think that being the most investigated program in history shows that they are the victims here? Maybe this gives us some idea of what their public relations approach is going to be: everybody else does the same things, and nobody else would be able to stand this kind of spotlight.

[devildeac]

Andrew Carter of the N&O tweeted that UNC is now in bunker mode. Take from that what you will.

His tweet (from Pack Pride):

Andrew Carter
@_andrewcarter
UNC has apparently learned nothing after five years of bad public relations and has gone into bunker mode after reportedly receiving NOA

[Tom B.]

As others have noted, the press release does not say that UNC received the Notice of Allegations today, only that "[w]e have received the notice of allegations from the NCAA . . . ."


I prefer to believe that the NCAA's original plan was to wait a little longer, but it decided to accelerate its timetable a bit and delivered the NOA today (or yesterday) as a nice little "F--- you" in response to the latest comments from Mr. Woe-Is-Me-They-Won't-Even-Tell-Us-The-Allegations-And-It's-Killing-My-Recruiting-And-There's-Nothing-To-See-Here-Anyway-Because-This-Is-All-Being-Blown-Out-Of-Proportion (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2015-05-21/roy-williams-cheating-tar-heels-unc-academic-scandal-ncaa-investigation?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter). Kind of the NCAA's way of saying, "You think recruiting is hard without knowing the allegations? OK, here you go. Maybe in the future you'll be careful what you ask for. Have a nice Memorial Day weekend and enjoy the rest of your summer, jackwagon."

Unlikely, I know. But a guy can dream.

[devildeac]

Advance notice (from Pack Pride) on what unc will release:





http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/Yeates-Redacted.jpg

[swood1000]

I send an email to SACS saying that I understand that sanctions are applied for failure to correct deficiencies, but I wanted to know whether they can also be applied as punishment. I got this response:

The goal of the Commission is to assure institutional quality, not to punish an institution. The hoped-for outcome is always to help the institution return to compliance with the accreditation standards outlined in the Principles of Accreditation. This document is found on our website at: http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2012PrinciplesOfAcreditation.pdf.


Pamela Cravey, Ph.D.
Coordinator of Communications and External Affairs
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges

[OZ]

"The notice is lengthy."


But, will it be more than "one man's opinion?"

[devildeac]

From Pack Pride:

"FYI, the 2011 NOA was 42 pages. Happened to have 99.9 on the radio and Glenn described it as the "60 plus page notice of allegations." 50% longer seems pretty significant considering the number of sports and length of the scandal, but I'm sure that there will be things that got left out. Also, when did Glenn start referring to himself in the third person as "DG"? Just when I thought he couldn't get any more annoying..."

Raleigh grocery stores might run out of popcorn and beer...

[Duvall]

Raleigh grocery stores might run out of popcorn and beer...

Well, that should make up the sales they don't get for ACC and NCAA championship games.

[OldPhiKap]

Roy says that his program is the most investigated program in history:



Oddly, that was Lance Armstrong's dodge. He couldn't have been doping because he was the most tested cyclist in history.

And, like here, there's probably a reason for all of the testing and investigating. Lots of smoke.

[Tom B.]

Oddly, that was Lance Armstrong's dodge. He couldn't have been doping because he was the most tested cyclist in history.

And, like here, there's probably a reason for all of the testing and investigating. Lots of smoke.

I also seem to recall Barry Switzer defending his Oklahoma football program with similar "logic" back in the day.

[Pghdukie]

I figured UNC should have asked Special Agent Maxwell Smart and Agent 99 if they could borrow their "Cone of Silence"!!!!

[El_Diablo]

Lots of smoke.

And that's just from Roy's house guests!

[CameronBornAndBred]

No news coming today. (http://uncnews.unc.edu/2015/05/22/unc-chapel-hill-announces-receiving-ncaa-notice-of-allegations/)

In a joint statement, Chancellor Carol L. Folt and Director of Athletics Bubba Cunningham said the University had begun reviewing the NCAA’s notice.

“We take these allegations very seriously, and we will carefully evaluate them to respond within the NCAA’s 90-day deadline,” the statement said.

The rough draft looked like this...

We take these allegations very seriously, and we will carefully lie and deny our way out of it within the NCAA’s 90-day deadline.

[OldPhiKap]

From Pack Pride:

"FYI, the 2011 NOA was 42 pages. Happened to have 99.9 on the radio and Glenn described it as the "60 plus page notice of allegations." 50% longer seems pretty significant considering the number of sports and length of the scandal, but I'm sure that there will be things that got left out. Also, when did Glenn start referring to himself in the third person as "DG"? Just when I thought he couldn't get any more annoying..."

Raleigh grocery stores might run out of popcorn and beer...

Were there a lot of redactions in the 2011 NOA? I found that to be a curios comment from UNC, that it would take a long time to do that. Would be curious whether that was also true in the 2011 NOA, or if this is a horse of a wholly different color.

Meanwhile, ESPN/AP chime in:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12932723/north-carolina-tar-heels-receive-notice-allegations-ncaa

[Tom B.]

From Pack Pride:

"FYI, the 2011 NOA was 42 pages. Happened to have 99.9 on the radio and Glenn described it as the "60 plus page notice of allegations." 50% longer seems pretty significant considering the number of sports and length of the scandal, but I'm sure that there will be things that got left out.

Honestly, if the 2011 NOA was 42 pages, I'd have expected the latest NOA to be much longer. Like, page numbers in the triple digits. The 2011 NOA just covered one sport (football) and a time period of just a few years, right? Given the length and breadth of the malfeasance that's now known, I figured the new NOA would be pretty hefty.

[devildeac]

Were there a lot of redactions in the 2011 NOA? I found that to be a curios comment from UNC, that it would take a long time to do that. Would be curious whether that was also true in the 2011 NOA, or if this is a horse of a wholly different color.

Meanwhile, ESPN/AP chime in:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12932723/north-carolina-tar-heels-receive-notice-allegations-ncaa

Here's the link to the PDF file of the 2011 NOA:

http://www.unc.edu/news/ncaa/NOA%20Response%20_%20redacted.pdf


I rapidly scrolled through the 110+ pages (based on my "counter" in the R margin of my laptop) and a lot of white spaces appear scattered throughout the report. I'm guessing they use several cases of White Out over this 3 day holiday weekend.:rolleyes:

[devildeac]

Honestly, if the 2011 NOA was 42 pages, I'd have expected the latest NOA to be much longer. Like, page numbers in the triple digits. The 2011 NOA just covered one sport (football) and a time period of just a few years, right? Given the length and breadth of the malfeasance that's now known, I figured the new NOA would be pretty hefty.

That's a good point. Don't have a good answer. Maybe they reference the 100+ page Wainstein report as an addendum/additional source?

[swood1000]

Were there a lot of redactions in the 2011 NOA? I found that to be a curios comment from UNC, that it would take a long time to do that. Would be curious whether that was also true in the 2011 NOA, or if this is a horse of a wholly different color.
You can see here (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/asset/colleges/unc/2011/09/19/10152862/Redactedresponse.pdf) the UNC response to the 2011 NOA, showing the redactions in the response and some of the redactions in the original NOA.

[madscavenger]

Crayons and paper classes? I see what you did there. ;)

Does the Advanced Redacting class come with White Out/Correction Tape or do the enrollees need to purchase their own:rolleyes:?

Don't be fooled. This gambit is right up their alley. Advanced Redacting with Crayons, a new offering, is an interdisciplinary core course. It is a paper course, of course. Tutors, if needed, will have to be screened. People who are crayoning impaired need not apply. According to Chancellor Fault, this good faith effort is so vital that a two course credit is earned by those individuals successfully completing all course work in satisfactory fashion, ie, submitting a comprehensive, completely redacted paper demonstrating knowledge of the subject matter consistent with the high standards exemplified by UNC, the flagship of public education in The Old North State.

Yes, my friends, it's a twofer, as in how many National Championship banners should be taken behind the woodshed and put to a use commensurate with their former function, that of lining a feeding trough, so that succor may reach its intended destination.

[OldPhiKap]

Honestly, if the 2011 NOA was 42 pages, I'd have expected the latest NOA to be much longer. Like, page numbers in the triple digits. The 2011 NOA just covered one sport (football) and a time period of just a few years, right? Given the length and breadth of the malfeasance that's now known, I figured the new NOA would be pretty hefty.

All it needs is a single sentence to set the world on fire:

"Given the above, it appears that there is a lack of institutional control over the athletics department at the University of North Carolina."

[moonpie23]

the ncaa has been desperately searching for a way to go easy on UNC..


this is gonna suck worse than the seahawks' last play of the superbowl....:mad:

[Stray Gator]

"The notice is lengthy."

Hehe.

Keep in mind that the word "lengthy," when used by UNC Administrators, is a relative term. In its Response to the May 1, 2013 Report of the Special Committee of SACS, UNC declared:

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill acknowledges that an unprofessional set of circumstances occurred in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies between 1997 and 2009. During that time, 384 unique students were enrolled in courses that since have been defined as “Type 1” by an independent review conducted by former N.C. Governor James Martin and Baker Tilly consultants. Type 1 refers to a lecture course section in which the faculty member listed as 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.

The University does not believe that credit was awarded for courses in which students did no work, or that degrees were awarded to students who did not earn them. All of the evidence that has been found – as initially reported in the Review of Courses in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies and subsequently reiterated in Governor Martin’s Academic Anomalies Review Report and the Board of Governors Academic Review Panel Report – indicates that students were required to write lengthy papers in the Type 1 courses, and did what they were asked to do. In every case in which the University looked for evidence of work, evidence was found – often including drafts or final versions of the papers themselves. None of the investigations found evidence that students received credit for courses for which they did no work.

As I recall, some of the papers for which credit was reportedly given amounted to just a few paragraphs. So when UNC characterizes a document as "lengthy," I think it's wise to consider their definition to be flexible.

[Kedsy]

the ncaa has been desperately searching for a way to go easy on UNC.

People keep saying stuff like this, but they never say exactly why they keep saying it?

[DukieInKansas]

From IC - one poster's comment: “The new phone book’s here, the new phone book’s here.”

Additional Comments: "I tell ya, you know exactly why the NCAA has all of the sudden got on the ball and sent these allegations. After hearing how good we're going to be next year and all this #1 in the country hype about us (and rightfully so) they decided to get on the ball so that the punishment will take effect this fall and prevent us from winning a Natty. My guess, post season ban this year, loss of a scholly, and some vacated wins. To HELL with the NCAA. "

In response to the above comment: "And the NCAA banners? Keep them or no?"

"Rumor has it that Helms has just arrived on campus to investigate older violations."

:D There is some comedic gold over there.

[moonpie23]

because they are desperately trying to hang on to the little power they have left......tell me, what possible use does bama, Notre Dame, UNC, Duke, Uconn, Auburn, Florida, FSU, USC, OK, Texas,(or any other big athletics school) have for an organization that can hammer them out of existence ?

they are but a few secret luncheons from being on the OUTSIDE.......TV needs content. Schools and mega-conferences can do that for themselves and keep ALL the money...


if the ncaa hammers unc, the other big money schools are looking at the ncaa as a THREAT.....if they don't hammer them, the rest of the schools will scream bloody murder....


they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't..........they have to figure out a way to give the ILLUSION of still being in control...

[Bob Green]

because..........................

Conspiracy theory much?

[grad_devil]

because they are desperately trying to hang on to the little power they have left......tell me, what possible use does bama, Notre Dame, UNC, Duke, Uconn, Auburn, Florida, FSU, USC, OK, Texas,(or any other big athletics school) have for an organization that can hammer them out of existence ?

they are but a few secret luncheons from being on the OUTSIDE.......TV needs content. Schools and mega-conferences can do that for themselves and keep ALL the money...


if the ncaa hammers unc, the other big money schools are looking at the ncaa as a THREAT.....if they don't hammer them, the rest of the schools will scream bloody murder....


they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't..........they have to figure out a way to give the ILLUSION of still being in control...

The problem, as I see it, is that every institution is paranoid that every other institution is cheating. I see this constantly when working with schools on the D2 level, and I assume that D1 schools are much more paranoid.

If the power 5 break off from the NCAA, they'll still need an impartial organization to guarantee that the playing field is level. Who's that going to be? Won't they be in the same situation with this new, NCAA-like organization?

[OldPhiKap]

because they are desperately trying to hang on to the little power they have left......tell me, what possible use does bama, Notre Dame, UNC, Duke, Uconn, Auburn, Florida, FSU, USC, OK, Texas,(or any other big athletics school) have for an organization that can hammer them out of existence ?

they are but a few secret luncheons from being on the OUTSIDE.......TV needs content. Schools and mega-conferences can do that for themselves and keep ALL the money...


if the ncaa hammers unc, the other big money schools are looking at the ncaa as a THREAT.....if they don't hammer them, the rest of the schools will scream bloody murder....


they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't..........they have to figure out a way to give the ILLUSION of still being in control...

I guess the flip side is -- don't those schools want to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules? Why would Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, and others want to compete with teams on an uneven playing field?

I think there are tensions both ways. Which is probably how it should be.

[Duvall]

I guess the flip side is -- don't those schools want to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules? Why would Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, and others want to compete with teams on an uneven playing field?

I think there are tensions both ways. Which is probably how it should be.

What makes you think those schools would have a choice in whether to compete on an uneven playing field if the NCAA were to go away? Rather, the choice would be either to compete with cheating schools like Alabama and North Carolina, or compete with non-cheating schools like Army and Bucknell.

[OldPhiKap]

What makes you think those schools would have a choice in whether to compete on an uneven playing field if the NCAA were to go away? Rather, the choice would be either to compete with cheating schools like Alabama and North Carolina, or compete with non-cheating schools like Army and Bucknell.

That's my point. And as a practical revenue matter, you're not going to sink a lot of D1-level money into programs just to be in a league with Army and Bucknell.

Someone needs to be the cop. Honest teams are glad they're there, crooked teams are not. The NCAA has to deal with both kinds. Thus while I see moonpie's argument that the NCAA doesn't want to hammer UNC because teams like UNC might bolt, by the same token teams that do things right demand action and want a strong governing body. It is a tension.

Sorry if my prior post was not clear.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

because they are desperately trying to hang on to the little power they have left......tell me, what possible use does bama, Notre Dame, UNC, Duke, Uconn, Auburn, Florida, FSU, USC, OK, Texas,(or any other big athletics school) have for an organization that can hammer them out of existence ?

they are but a few secret luncheons from being on the OUTSIDE.......TV needs content. Schools and mega-conferences can do that for themselves and keep ALL the money...


if the ncaa hammers unc, the other big money schools are looking at the ncaa as a THREAT.....if they don't hammer them, the rest of the schools will scream bloody murder....


they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't..........they have to figure out a way to give the ILLUSION of still being in control...

I have been saying this for awhile. Truly a watershed moment for the NCAA.

[Kedsy]

if the ncaa hammers unc, the other big money schools are looking at the ncaa as a THREAT.....if they don't hammer them, the rest of the schools will scream bloody murder....


they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't..........they have to figure out a way to give the ILLUSION of still being in control...

This, I completely agree with.

I interpreted your previous comment to mean they won't hammer UNC, which your current comment suggests is something they can't risk, either.

They hammered USC football, they hammered Syracuse basketball. It may not be everything it should be, but I think there's a decent chance they're going to hammer UNC too.

[Duvall]

This, I completely agree with.

I interpreted your previous comment to mean they won't hammer UNC, which your current comment suggests is something they can't risk, either.

They hammered USC football, they hammered Syracuse basketball. It may not be everything it should be, but I think there's a decent chance they're going to hammer UNC too.

A lot easier to hammer a private school like USC or Syracuse than a big public school like UNC that has the resources of a state's power structure to protect them. That's what the NCAA learned from Penn State - if you can't touch a big state school for facilitating child rape, how can they punish UNC for something like this?

[Duvall]

That's my point. And as a practical revenue matter, you're not going to sink a lot of D1-level money into programs just to be in a league with Army and Bucknell.

Someone needs to be the cop. Honest teams are glad they're there, crooked teams are not. The NCAA has to deal with both kinds. Thus while I see moonpie's argument that the NCAA doesn't want to hammer UNC because teams like UNC might bolt, by the same token teams that do things right demand action and want a strong governing body. It is a tension.

Sorry if my prior post was not clear.

See, that's where I disagree. I don't think we will end up with anyone being the cop. If ESPN doesn't care, and enough of the power conferences don't care, then who else matters? The crooked teams will be in control, and the honest teams will either have to go along with it or learn to enjoy playing in Division II.

[Duke95]

Oddly, that was Lance Armstrong's dodge. He couldn't have been doping because he was the most tested cyclist in history.

And, like here, there's probably a reason for all of the testing and investigating. Lots of smoke.

Yep, it was the same like Armstrong kept telling. Marion Jones too. Wait...wasn't she a UNC women's hoops player?

Hmm....

[Duke95]

From IC - one poster's comment: “The new phone book’s here, the new phone book’s here.”

Additional Comments: "I tell ya, you know exactly why the NCAA has all of the sudden got on the ball and sent these allegations. After hearing how good we're going to be next year and all this #1 in the country hype about us (and rightfully so) they decided to get on the ball so that the punishment will take effect this fall and prevent us from winning a Natty. My guess, post season ban this year, loss of a scholly, and some vacated wins. To HELL with the NCAA. "

In response to the above comment: "And the NCAA banners? Keep them or no?"

"Rumor has it that Helms has just arrived on campus to investigate older violations."

:D There is some comedic gold over there.

Some DBR posters stirring it up. Love it.

[swood1000]

See, that's where I disagree. I don't think we will end up with anyone being the cop. If ESPN doesn't care, and enough of the power conferences don't care, then who else matters? The crooked teams will be in control, and the honest teams will either have to go along with it or learn to enjoy playing in Division II.
Could they operate without rules? University A pays a player to switch to their university and plays him the next night? If this is going to be prevented then there has to be a way of enforcing rules. How many universities do you think would go along with something like this?

[Duvall]

Could they operate without rules? University A pays a player to switch to their university and plays him the next night? If this is going to be prevented then there has to be a way of enforcing rules. How many universities do you think would go along with something like this?

If you ask ESPN's chief mouthpiece Jay Bilas, that's exactly how it should work. (If you don't ask him, he'll tell you anyway.) Schools should be allowed to police themselves, and everyone should pretend that will work out fine. And it *will* be fine for ESPN, as the content will continue to flow.

[Indoor66]

Anarchism in the College sports world will result in the same failure that anarchism produces in the business or political world - complete failure. If there are no rules or enforcement, even imperfect enforcement, there will be no intercollegiate sports (beyond club sports) within a very short period of time.

Schools, even football schools, have serious people leading them.

[moonpie23]

does anyone thing that the general public thinks the playing field is level now? Do they think that NCAA rules really prevent cheating?

[Bob Green]

Do they think that NCAA rules really prevent cheating?

NCAA rules are not designed to prevent cheating, they are designed to contain cheating. And to hold accountable those caught cheating. We do not live in a perfect world.

[swood1000]

does anyone thing that the general public thinks the playing field is level now? Do they think that NCAA rules really prevent cheating?
Laws can't prevent crime but they can inhibit it by the threat of (a) the penalty and (b) the public ignominy of being charged with the crime. Do you think that most universities aren't concerned about the consequences of being charged with rule violation by the NCAA?

[swood1000]

Anarchism in the College sports world will result in the same failure that anarchism produces in the business or political world - complete failure. If there are no rules or enforcement, even imperfect enforcement, there will be no intercollegiate sports (beyond club sports) within a very short period of time.

Schools, even football schools, have serious people leading them.
So true. Without a government to establish basic order, nobody can prosper.

[devildeac]

Don't be fooled. This gambit is right up their alley. Advanced Redacting with Crayons, a new offering, is an interdisciplinary core course. It is a paper course, of course. Tutors, if needed, will have to be screened. People who are crayoning impaired need not apply. According to Chancellor Fault, this good faith effort is so vital that a two course credit is earned by those individuals successfully completing all course work in satisfactory fashion, ie, submitting a comprehensive, completely redacted paper demonstrating knowledge of the subject matter consistent with the high standards exemplified by UNC, the flagship of public education in The Old North State.

Yes, my friends, it's a twofer, as in how many National Championship banners should be taken behind the woodshed and put to a use commensurate with their former function, that of lining a feeding trough, so that succor may reach its intended destination.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that you're obfuscating with me:rolleyes::o.

[dbcooper]

So true. Without a government to establish basic order, nobody can prosper.

Can the NCAA prove they are a governing body and hand down the appropriate disciplinary action?...... the whole world is watching and waiting... tick tock, tick tock....

DB.

[Duvall]

Can the NCAA prove they are a governing body and hand down the appropriate disciplinary action?...... the whole world is watching and waiting... tick tock, tick tock....

DB.

The whole world is watching, but the only people that matter may not be rooting for the outcome you want to see.

[BigWayne]

Chansky is out with a fluffer piece claiming inside info. that they are happy with the NOA and it will not require banner removal.
If it was really that way, they wouldn't be so tight lipped.

[porcophile]

5143
Somebody asked.

[Troublemaker]

Chansky is out with a fluffer piece claiming inside info. that they are happy with the NOA and it will not require banner removal.
If it was really that way, they wouldn't be so tight lipped.

Yeah, I don't believe it, either. The party line right now seems to be: "It's LOIC, but it's ALSO nothing to worry about!"

link in case anyone's interested: http://chapelboro.com/news/unc/chansky-unc-happy-with-notice-of-allegations/

[Duvall]

Yeah, I don't believe it, either. The party line right now seems to be: "It's LOIC, but it's ALSO nothing to worry about!"

link in case anyone's interested: http://chapelboro.com/news/unc/chansky-unc-happy-with-notice-of-allegations/

But if it *is* true, I guess we'll find out soon if the other schools in the ACC and elsewhere are interested in screaming impotently about UNC getting away with cheating, or are interested in hanging onto their piece of the college athletics billion-dollar hustle. Pretty confident that it will be the latter.

[davekay1971]

What makes you think those schools would have a choice in whether to compete on an uneven playing field if the NCAA were to go away? Rather, the choice would be either to compete with cheating schools like Alabama and North Carolina, or compete with non-cheating schools like Army and Bucknell.

Army cheats! Go NAVY!

[Troublemaker]

A lot easier to hammer a private school like USC or Syracuse than a big public school like UNC that has the resources of a state's power structure to protect them.

Coach K's on top of it, Duvall.

He gave a speech on Tuesday to the NC General Assembly, pleading with them to emphasize education: http://www.goduke.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?&db_oem_id=4200&id=4076991

(Coach K also asked for a moment of silence for Dean and Gut at the beginning, which was a nice gesture.)

[Bob Green]

Army cheats! Go NAVY!

Oh yeah! Instant reputation points for you!!

[TampaDuke]

If you ask ESPN's chief mouthpiece Jay Bilas, that's exactly how it should work. (If you don't ask him, he'll tell you anyway.) Schools should be allowed to police themselves, and everyone should pretend that will work out fine. And it *will* be fine for ESPN, as the content will continue to flow.

I dunno. The professional sports leagues once thought they could prosper without commissioners, too. But they long ago realized that the money wouldn't flow if they had to rely on themselves to police each other.

The LA Clippers ownership last year and the Patriots this year may not like the power they've ceded to the watchdog, but the other teams (and even the Pats themselves) still arrived at the inevitable conclusion that ceding such control is a necessary prerequisite to keep money flowing.

[sagegrouse]

does anyone thing that the general public thinks the playing field is level now? Do they think that NCAA rules really prevent cheating?

I think the rules prevent the most obvious forms of cheating -- like under-the-table payments, fake jobs, completely fraudulent academics. But, of course, some of it occurs.

The school reps to the NCAA are the university presidents. The AD's have their own committee but often accompany and always advise the college presidents.

The university boards -- most of the members, anyway -- value academics and do not want their schools to give bogus educations to athletes or recruit illiterates. But, of course, it happens. I was very impressed with the UNC BoG's actions in hiring Cadwallader to produce the "Wainstein Report." We'll see how they get involved in the "penalty phase" of both NCAA and SACS.

[MarkD83]

Now that the NCAA notice has been issued I have a poll question. Would removal of past victories OR future loss of post season play and scholarships irritate IC posters more.

[Indoor66]

Now that the NCAA notice has been issued I have a poll question. Would removal of past victories OR future loss of post season play and scholarships irritate IC posters more.

The short, but probably accurate answer is: BOTH. IC is close to agitated depression.

[JetpackJesus]

Now that the NCAA notice has been issued I have a poll question. Would removal of past victories OR future loss of post season play and scholarships irritate IC posters more.

I would think the former, assuming certain victories in 2005 and/or 2009 (and 1993, ideally) are vacated. Losing one or more titles would be a devastating blow to the UNC fan's flawed belief system that says they are better than Duke (and everyone).

[OldPhiKap]

Now that the NCAA notice has been issued I have a poll question. Would removal of past victories OR future loss of post season play and scholarships irritate IC posters more.

Everything is secondary to the 2005 Banner. Everything.

[MarkD83]

Yeah, I don't believe it, either. The party line right now seems to be: "It's LOIC, but it's ALSO nothing to worry about!"

link in case anyone's interested: http://chapelboro.com/news/unc/chansky-unc-happy-with-notice-of-allegations/

How good are Chansky's sources? After reading his article it sounds like IC should be having a party.

[OldPhiKap]

See, that's where I disagree. I don't think we will end up with anyone being the cop. If ESPN doesn't care, and enough of the power conferences don't care, then who else matters? The crooked teams will be in control, and the honest teams will either have to go along with it or learn to enjoy playing in Division II.

I still don't think we're saying anything different. The question was whether the NCAA will cower now because it is afraid of losing the support of cheaters, or whether it will show backbone now because it is afraid of losing the support of those who follow the rules. You are saying (I think) that if there is no NCAA, there is no cop at all. If I understand you, then, I agree -- but we are talking about two different things.

[-jk]

How good are Chansky's sources? After reading his article it sounds like IC should be having a party.

Chansky has great sources. Whether he chooses to use them is, well, an entirely different question...

-jk

[53n206]

Re, NCAA, ESPN, major athletic conferences: "Money talks, b.s/ walks." So much money involved.

[moonpie23]

i guess i've got to lay out of this thread.....my hopes are too high for the ncaa to go scorched earth on them, and it's not likely that's gonna happen....

if they are "happy" with the NOA, then the ncaa has been had....

[Jarhead]

What would we do without the governing agencies of every kind of sports played in America? Huh? Just what would we do without sports? If we want these things to continue then who else but the government could keep things going smoothly? But you know, the governments have not been doing all the that well with their present responsibilities, have they? Our existing structure is the only thing that will work if we let it. Just find a way to be honest and fair with the rules, and keep the cheaters out.

[neemizzle]

This entire process is killing UNC fans, but it's also putting them in a sense of denial.

By that I mean, they're convinced that UNC did "absolutely nothing" wrong. Like, really? After 20 years of this, and they think UNC did nothing wrong?

[Kedsy]

A lot easier to hammer a private school like USC or Syracuse than a big public school like UNC that has the resources of a state's power structure to protect them. That's what the NCAA learned from Penn State - if you can't touch a big state school for facilitating child rape, how can they punish UNC for something like this?

I think what the NCAA should have learned from Penn State is that a governing body can only punish its members for breaking its rules and not for breaking the laws of the United States. If it becomes clear that the NCAA will only punish private and not public institutions, then that's the end of the NCAA. Personally, I can't imagine it's really true.

[Olympic Fan]

Guys, don't panic over the Chansky piece .. it's ridiculous for a number of reasons.

A Notice of Allegations is just that -- a notice of the violations that the NCAA has discovered. It does NOT include proposed penalties -- so when Chansky suggests that UNC will be found guilty of Lack of Institutional Control, yet not get any penalties either forward or backward ... well, that's hard to believe.

LOIC is the most serious charge the NCAA can bring and it almost always brings penalties. Three years ago, when the UNC football program was nailed, there was rejoicing on the Hill because they DIDN'T find LOIC -- they were cited for "Failure to monitor" which is the next step down. And they still earned a one-season postseason ban.

Now, it's possible that the NOA did not cite any ineligible players on past teams (which is hard to believe because of the information in the Wainstein Report, which specifically cites over 100 athletes in various sports (football and basketball included) which would have been ineligible without the phony classes.

It's NOT possible that the NCAA could find LOIC and not impose penalties going forward.

I think Dana O'Neill's piece on ESPN suggests as much:

http://espn.go.com/blog/north-carolina-basketball/post/_/id/15413/notice-of-allegations-is-only-the-beginning-for-unc

For UNC the nightmare is this -- do you string this out and make sure the 2016 UNC basketball team gets to make it's run ... knowing that the penalties probably hit in 2017, which would almost certainly kill recruiting that year -- a year in which three of the top 10 prospects in the country are from North Carolina. Or do you do what Syracuse did and take the penalty as quickly as possible, hoping it's just one year and you can put it behind you?

I suspect they string it out deep into the season and judge how good this team really it ... if it's a Final Four quality team, they delay, delay, delay ... if UNC proves to be the same so-so team they've been the last two years, then UNC might emulate Syracuse and self-impose a ban to get the punishment over quickly.

Again, don't pay too much attention to Chansky's puff piece or to Greg Barnes (the guy who once said the UNC scandal would be "over by Friday" -- before the 2010 football season). Even if they were plugged in at UNC (and I know Chansky is now nothing more than a fan), UNC itself is not a very good judge of what's going to happen -- three years ago, they were sure they weren't going to get a bowl ban.

I haven't seen the NOA, but if it does include the charge of LOIC control -- coming on top of their recent probation for Failure to Monitor -- I'd be shocked if they aren't hammered.

[gep]

Based on the article on DBR that Ol'Roy is complaining that this dragging out is hurting recruiting and his program, maybe dragging this out is not a bad thing for everyone else that's not unc. Because even if they have a successful season, they can still get a post-season ban in 2016... maybe even more than one year. And other issues, like loss of scholarships... will definitely crimp Ol'Roy's style. Maybe it really is time for Ol'Roy to ride off into the sunset:cool:

[Faison1]

Chansky is out with a fluffer piece claiming inside info. that they are happy with the NOA and it will not require banner removal.
If it was really that way, they wouldn't be so tight lipped.

I read his article where he thought it was wise for UNC to take Sulaimon as a transfer.

I'm not sure what he's on, but I don't think he's to be taken seriously.....

[swood1000]

A "Type 1" course was a lecture course in which the faculty member listed as instructor of record denied teaching the course section and signing the grade roll, or one in which the chair stated the course section had not been taught. According to UNC in their First Monitoring Report (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2013/06/Public-Response-to-the-Jan-15-2013-Request-from-SACSCOC.pdf):


All of the evidence that has been found…indicates that students were required to write lengthy papers in the Type 1 courses… None of the investigations found evidence that students received credit for courses for which they did no work.


According to the Wainstein Report (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/reports-resources/investigation-of-irregular-classes-in-the-department-of-african-and-afro-american-studies-at-the-university-of-north-carolina-at-chapel-hill-2/)


It was also well known that quality played little to no part in the paper class grading process. In fact, it was even the subject of jokes among the ASPSA football counselors and tutors. In one email chain, for example, Learning Specialist Amy Kleissler ("Kleissler") and Lee joke about how tutor Whitney Read ("Read") is worried that a particular football player may not have enough time to get his paper done for his paper class. Kleissler comments that "I still don't think [Read] is absorbing what I am saying about the paper. I finally just said 'think middle school report, not college seminar paper.'" This one comment speaks volumes about the low expectations placed on the players in the paper classes and the irrelevance of quality to Crowder's grading decision.
Let's look on the bright side. If UNC gets a pass from the NCAA on this, Duke no longer has to pass over recruits for academic reasons.

[swood1000]

UNC was asked by SACS how it intended to handle Type 1 courses for students who had not yet graduated. UNC said that 80 of the 348 students were still enrolled on March 15, 2013. Of the 80, 34 were not a problem because that course was not necessary for graduation. The remaining 46 students "will all be required to take an additional course to supplement any Type 1 course used to fulfill requirements for their UNC-Chapel Hill baccalaureate degree."


In other words, they treated those classes as not valid for purposes of fulfilling degree requirements. Can they then turn around and say that, on the other hand, those classes were valid for purposes of fulfilling NCAA academic requirements?

[uh_no]

UNC was asked by SACS how it intended to handle Type 1 courses for students who had not yet graduated. UNC said that 80 of the 348 students were still enrolled on March 15, 2013. Of the 80, 34 were not a problem because that course was not necessary for graduation. The remaining 46 students "will all be required to take an additional course to supplement any Type 1 course used to fulfill requirements for their UNC-Chapel Hill baccalaureate degree."


In other words, they treated those classes as not valid for purposes of fulfilling degree requirements. Can they then turn around and say that, on the other hand, those classes were valid for purposes of fulfilling NCAA academic requirements?

Ethically? No.

Legally? Sure. they can say whatever they want. Nothing they say is under oath. they can say whatever the heck they want. Of course, either the NCAA or the SACS can disregard anything they say.

[swood1000]

Ethically? No.

Legally? Sure. they can say whatever they want. Nothing they say is under oath. they can say whatever the heck they want. Of course, either the NCAA or the SACS can disregard anything they say.
What I actually was asking was whether they can say this with any credibility.

[Bob Green]

If UNC gets a pass from the NCAA on this, Duke no longer has to pass over recruits for academic reasons.

I disagree with the quoted statement 100 percent. No matter what decisions the NCAA makes, those decisions should have zero effect on how Duke conducts the admissions process.

[swood1000]

I disagree with the quoted statement 100 percent. No matter what decisions the NCAA makes, those decisions should have zero effect on how Duke conducts the admissions process.
The statement was intended tongue-in-cheek.

[Bob Green]

The statement was intended tongue-in-cheek.

I'm very happy to hear your clarification.

[Dukehky]

They're gonna skate by with probation.

[Kedsy]

They're gonna skate by with probation.

Based on what?

[Dukehky]

Because I'm Mark Emmert and want UNC to skate.

Intuition.

[swood1000]

In their "Type 1" arguments, UNC is arguing for a two-tiered approach: (a) classes that can be used toward graduation, and (b) classes too inferior to be used toward graduation but that can be used to satisfy NCAA academic requirements. And they defend independent study classes that, on the one hand, are named in a Letter of Intent to Discharge as a reason for discharge because they "involved minimal academic expectations and that were offered at times to accommodate student-athletes," but on the other hand are asserted to be of sufficient quality to satisfy NCAA academic requirements.

There is some precedent for this approach:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." Adolf Hitler

[grad_devil]

Because I'm Mark Emmert and want UNC to skate.

Mark Emmert != Roger Goodell.

Emmert does not have a seat on the Committee on Infractions, and while he may pass his wishes along to NCAA staff, they don't have a seat on the committee either.

[arnie]

Because I'm Mark Emmert and want UNC to skate.

Intuition.

Totally agree and have for last few years. Swofford is too strong an ally and he also has a lot to lose. Probation and maybe loss of a scholarship is my prediction. People will scream and then forget.

[camion]

I have long thought that the only reason sufficient for the NCAA to hammer UNC would be to save its own skin. I think this is now close to being the case. I'm not sure that anyone in power at the NCAA realizes it.

In any event I think someone is going to get hammered as a result of this investigation. It might be UNC.

[uh_no]

Totally agree and have for last few years. Swofford is too strong an ally and he also has a lot to lose. Probation and maybe loss of a scholarship is my prediction. People will scream and then forget.

they didn't last time...hence this time

[Duke95]

I have long thought that the only reason sufficient for the NCAA to hammer UNC would be to save its own skin. I think this is now close to being the case. I'm not sure that anyone in power at the NCAA realizes it.

In any event I think someone is going to get hammered as a result of this investigation. It might be UNC.

If UNC doesn't get hammered, we might as well.

[JasonEvans]

What I actually was asking was whether they can say this with any credibility.

The "do they have any credibility left?" ship sailed a loooooong time ago for UNC.

-Jason "I truly think the NCAA can either hit Carolina hard or cease to be relevant... and I think the latter is a real possibility" Evans

[Papa John]

In their "Type 1" arguments, UNC is arguing for a two-tiered approach: (a) classes that can be used toward graduation, and (b) classes too inferior to be used toward graduation but that can be used to satisfy NCAA academic requirements. And they defend independent study classes that, on the one hand, are named in a Letter of Intent to Discharge as a reason for discharge because they "involved minimal academic expectations and that were offered at times to accommodate student-athletes," but on the other hand are asserted to be of sufficient quality to satisfy NCAA academic requirements.

There is some precedent for this approach:

Godwin's law has already been invoked? And the discussion was just getting started... Oh well... ;)

[uh_no]

Godwin's law has already been invoked? And the discussion was just getting started... Oh well... ;)

really? seems like it took us about 5 years sine the allegations first came to light!

[Papa John]

really? seems like it took us about 5 years sine the allegations first came to light!

Fair point... I was, of course, talking about the speculative dialog surrounding the NOA and what it might contain. But you are correct... What is this, the 10th thread on the UNC scandal? Is anyone keeping track? It's literally the gift that keeps on giving...

[moonpie23]

anything less than 05 AND 09 coming down is skating.....imho

[uh_no]

Fair point... I was, of course, talking about the speculative dialog surrounding the NOA and what it might contain. But you are correct... What is this, the 10th thread on the UNC scandal? Is anyone keeping track? It's literally the gift that keeps on giving...

some day I need to find Mr. Pack Pride, take him out to dinner, and buy him a beer.

[Kimist]

This entire process is killing UNC fans, but it's also putting them in a sense of denial.

By that I mean, they're convinced that UNC did "absolutely nothing" wrong. Like, really? After 20 years of this, and they think UNC did nothing wrong?


As I live in the general area of Orange County, I can assure you there are many (most?) unc faithful who DO feel that way.

For those few who will, reluctantly, admit that the unc machine might have made a few errors along the way, the next words out of their mouths are always "but everybody else does it!!"

It's really more or less a Pavlovian type response on their part. . .

k

[ChrisP]

anything less than 05 AND 09 coming down is skating.....imho

I concur. I don't think either banner will come down, unfortunately, but...a man can dream, can't he? :(

I live in NC and spend most of my time in Chapel Hill now (ah, what we do for love!) and other than ONE Facebook friend who's a UNC grad, I haven't heard a peep of outrage from any other UNC fans/grads over this whole mess. I really want to believe that our fan base would not react the same way - and I have little doubt that many of us who post here would be appropriately shamed and outraged - but, unfortunately, the cynic in me says that sports fans, more often than not, find ways to rationalize bad behavior when it comes to the team(s) they pull for. Sad, but true, IMHO.

[MarkD83]

Upstream in this thread there was a suggestion to go look at IC for reactions (I know I need to take a shower). It is interesting to see the balancing act of who will win and lose depending upon the NCAA penalties and compare them to this board. I have not ventured over to Pack Pride to get a similar read but I can piece things together from reading posts on DBR and IC.

So here is my brief summary:

IC : If UNC is severely punished it will be because of aggressive advocacy journalism on the part of primarily the N&O. (UNC did nothing wrong.)
PackPride : If UNC is severely punished it will be because of UNC's institutional arrogance and the hypocrisy that is the Carolina Way.
DBR : The decision is a test of the NCAA's legitimacy.

If I take a broader perspective and talk to my friends from the SEC none of these issues are being tested by the NCAA's decision. Instead, their view is the NCAA has rules about how to conduct athletic programs. Sometimes the rules are broken and programs will be punished. Then everyone moves on. I think that once the NCAA ultimately doles out punishment everyone on IC, Pack Pride and here will declare victory of some sort and everyone will be disappointed.

Perhaps the "victory" for UNC's rivals is the length of time this has already dragged on and if it continues to affect the next recruiting cycle.

[wsb3]

As I live in the general area of Orange County, I can assure you there are many (most?) unc faithful who DO feel that way.

For those few who will, reluctantly, admit that the unc machine might have made a few errors along the way, the next words out of their mouths are always "but everybody else does it!!"

It's really more or less a Pavlovian type response on their part. . .

k

It is the same in New Hanover County & I suspect 99% of Carolina fans everywhere are saying & trying to believe the same company line.

I am naive. I expected a little better out of their fan base.

But the part of their fan base that I am the most disappointed in....Educators....I know many people who are good teachers/ UNC fans, & yet they don't mind that their beloved UNC set up a plan of academic fraud for their athletes. They make excuses or remain silent. One man I love dearly that has been a teacher for many years told me that He did not think Roy knew. Forgive me I will say this once again. Not knowing is just as bad because you sat in living rooms across the country & promised parents that their child would receive a first class education. But of course Roy knew. He knew enough to look the other way at a program that was in place long before he became HC.

[Bob Green]

...and everyone will be disappointed.

You just hit the nail on the head!

[Olympic Fan]

I know (and like) a bunch of UNC people. I do know people who are embarrassed and upset about the scandal (and they are almost all UNC grads). On the other hand, I know plenty who are in deep denial -- most (but not all) are the Wal-Mart fans.

Just to go on record, from what I'm hearing from sources I trust, UNC is going to be nailed going forward, but I'm doubting that any banners come down or that wins are vacated.

I hear veteran administrators speculate that UNC will get postseason bans and scholarship reductions in a number of sports -- specifically, basketball, football, baseball, women's basketball and women's soccer (all sports that have benefited from the AFAM scandal). How long those bans might be, I don't know, but I was told that UNC would be treated harshly as a two-time offender. The punishment they got in March of 2012 specifically started that any other NCAA violations in the next five years would result in repeat offender status.

[toooskies]

I don't know how you wouldn't take down the 2005 banner when the team was nearly all AFAM majors. Pretty much any finding of long term guilt will declare at least some of those players ineligible.

[Duvall]

Sorry, PackPride. Looks like you will have to catch up to UNC the old-fashioned way - hire the greatest coach in college basketball history and let him do work for four decades. No shortcuts.

[wilko]

Since my friend you have revealed your deepest fear
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers


Tear down the wall
Tear down the wall
Tear down the wall

[hurleyfor3]

If I take a broader perspective and talk to my friends from the SEC none of these issues are being tested by the NCAA's decision. Instead, their view is the NCAA has rules about how to conduct athletic programs. Sometimes the rules are broken and programs will be punished. Then everyone moves on.

Ya know, I see this too with SEC people. It's like getting the flu to them, it sucks for awhile but it happens to everyone at some point and you just spend your week in bed and move on. Or like getting a speeding ticket, you pay a little and you drive slower for awhile but as long as you don't get too many too quickly you're OK. Unc fans clearly don't have a lot of experience with this. Nor do we, but we can learn from the SEC (!).

[Trinity_93]

I know (and like) a bunch of UNC people. I do know people who are embarrassed and upset about the scandal (and they are almost all UNC grads). On the other hand, I know plenty who are in deep denial -- most (but not all) are the Wal-Mart fans.

Just to go on record, from what I'm hearing from sources I trust, UNC is going to be nailed going forward, but I'm doubting that any banners come down or that wins are vacated.

I hear veteran administrators speculate that UNC will get postseason bans and scholarship reductions in a number of sports -- specifically, basketball, football, baseball, women's basketball and women's soccer (all sports that have benefited from the AFAM scandal). How long those bans might be, I don't know, but I was told that UNC would be treated harshly as a two-time offender. The punishment they got in March of 2012 specifically started that any other NCAA violations in the next five years would result in repeat offender status.

First, OF, thanks for passing on your insights, but I'm looking forward to seeing what ethical and logical contortions will be necessary if the NCAA is to let UNC keep the 05 banner.

I can understand that the NCAA might make a tactical decision not to look too closely at 2009, in particular Tyler H.'s mad Kiswahili skills. After all, listening to the man talk, it's pretty clear that in a just world, English would have counted as his second language. However, I can't see that the 2005 championship can possibly stand. McCants has admitted he only took paper classes in spring 2005 and produced his straight-A transcript to prove it, so the NCAA has prima facie evidence that the 2005 team played an ineligible McCants (ineligible either on the basis of his GPA minus the fake classes or because without his fake classes in spring 05 he wasn't a full-time student -- take your pick), and by well-established precedent, one ineligible player is all it takes.

Don't get me wrong, I know anyone expecting justice to emerge from this process is incredibly naive, but after vacating over 100 of Jim Boeheim's wins and USC's national championship in 2004, how does an NCAA spokesman defend letting 2005 stand? I know I wouldn't want to be the one to field that question from Dan Kane.

[davekay1971]

Sorry, PackPride. Looks like you will have to catch up to UNC the old-fashioned way - hire the greatest coach in college basketball history and let him do work for four decades. No shortcuts.

Mike Krzyzewski is getting a little long in the tooth to take on a new job and work there for four decades. Plus, I doubt he'd leave Duke to work for a cross-state/in-conference rival.

State might have some luck hiring a young guy of Dean Smith's caliber, though...

[swood1000]

I don't know, but I was told that UNC would be treated harshly as a two-time offender. The punishment they got in March of 2012 specifically started that any other NCAA violations in the next five years would result in repeat offender status.

The trouble is that all the violations that we're talking about here happened before the last case. The last NOA was issued to UNC on June 21, 2011 and their three years of probation began March 12, 2012.


The repeat-violator legislation ("death penalty") is applicable to an institution if, within a five-year period, the following conditions exist:


Following the announcement of a major case, a major violation occurs and
The second violation occurred within five years of the starting date of the penalty assessed in the first case. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-penalties

[swood1000]

First, OF, thanks for passing on your insights, but I'm looking forward to seeing what ethical and logical contortions will be necessary if the NCAA is to let UNC keep the 05 banner.

I can understand that the NCAA might make a tactical decision not to look too closely at 2009, in particular Tyler H.'s mad Kiswahili skills. After all, listening to the man talk, it's pretty clear that in a just world, English would have counted as his second language. However, I can't see that the 2005 championship can possibly stand. McCants has admitted he only took paper classes in spring 2005 and produced his straight-A transcript to prove it, so the NCAA has prima facie evidence that the 2005 team played an ineligible McCants (ineligible either on the basis of his GPA minus the fake classes or because without his fake classes in spring 05 he wasn't a full-time student -- take your pick), and by well-established precedent, one ineligible player is all it takes.

Don't get me wrong, I know anyone expecting justice to emerge from this process is incredibly naive, but after vacating over 100 of Jim Boeheim's wins and USC's national championship in 2004, how does an NCAA spokesman defend letting 2005 stand? I know I wouldn't want to be the one to field that question from Dan Kane.
Right. McCants made some statements which, if true, would cause the 2005 championship to be vacated. In the course of the infractions process there will be a hearing to determine the facts. In the NOA they had to have alleged McCants' charges. UNC can certainly respond with their reasons why McCants should not be belived but how could that be anything other than a decision to be made after the hearing?

[Olympic Fan]

Don't get me wrong, I know anyone expecting justice to emerge from this process is incredibly naive, but after vacating over 100 of Jim Boeheim's wins and USC's national championship in 2004, how does an NCAA spokesman defend letting 2005 stand? I know I wouldn't want to be the one to field that question from Dan Kane.

Just to be accurate, the NCAA didn't vacate USC's national title -- because the NCAA doesn't award a national title in FBS football. There's nothing to vacate -- other organizations (the CFA etc.) pass out the football titles

As for UNC, I am perfectly baffled as to why UNC would not have hundreds of games (in all sports) vacated. I thought that at the very least, the 139 players that Wainstein identified as being ineligible without the phony classes would have all the games they played in vacated. I do believe the evidence -- including testimony by McCants and Willingham -- should result in AT LEAST the 2005 banner coming down.

But I'm hearing that the NCAA doesn't want to go there. Notice that they jumped through hoops to let Syracuse keep its 2003 title. The NCAA has vacated Final Fours, but never a national title in men's basketball.

[Oriole Way]

Totally agree and have for last few years. Swofford is too strong an ally and he also has a lot to lose. Probation and maybe loss of a scholarship is my prediction. People will scream and then forget.

Why do people keep mentioning Swofford as if he matters whatsoever? He's just the commissioner of the ACC. He's not going to influence Emmert or anyone on the Infractions Committee.

Do you really think Swofford would somehow retaliate against the NCAA if they punish his alma mater? And do you think he actually has the power to single-handedly do anything via the ACC that would actually hurt the NCAA? Or, if you don't think the threat of retaliation is a concern, then why do you think that Emmert or anyone else in the NCAA cares what the commissioner of the ACC thinks about potential sanctions?

[mgtr]

But if the NCAA is afraid (thoughtful choice of that word) to uphold their own rules, why should they continue in existence? Can anyone reasonably argue that bad enforcement is better than no enforcement?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Just to be accurate, the NCAA didn't vacate USC's national title -- because the NCAA doesn't award a national title in FBS football. There's nothing to vacate -- other organizations (the CFA etc.) pass out the football titles

As for UNC, I am perfectly baffled as to why UNC would not have hundreds of games (in all sports) vacated. I thought that at the very least, the 139 players that Wainstein identified as being ineligible without the phony classes would have all the games they played in vacated. I do believe the evidence -- including testimony by McCants and Willingham -- should result in AT LEAST the 2005 banner coming down.

But I'm hearing that the NCAA doesn't want to go there. Notice that they jumped through hoops to let Syracuse keep its 2003 title. The NCAA has vacated Final Fours, but never a national title in men's basketball.
From whom are you hearing it? Not being snarky. Just that I was under the impression no one besides UNC and the NCAA have any real clue where this will end up. Unless it's an insider who has seen the NOA, aren't we just dealing with speculation by outsiders?

[arnie]

Why do people keep mentioning Swofford as if he matters whatsoever? He's just the commissioner of the ACC. He's not going to influence Emmert or anyone on the Infractions Committee.

Do you really think Swofford would somehow retaliate against the NCAA if they punish his alma mater? And do you think he actually has the power to single-handedly do anything via the ACC that would actually hurt the NCAA? Or, if you don't think the threat of retaliation is a concern, then why do you think that Emmert or anyone else in the NCAA cares what the commissioner of the ACC thinks about potential sanctions?

Yes, unfortunately he has quite a bit of power- he could lead the Power 5 separation from NCAA if sanctions against UNC aren't minimized. He has refused to publicly discuss UNCs issues despite admonishing Clemson many years ago for far less. Swofford may have been "indirectly" involved with AFAM in the 90s as AD. I hope I'm wrong, but fear NCAA doesn't have the backbone to fight this.

[wsb3]

Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Memphis forced to vacate a final four berth over a bad SAT score? Not that Coach Cal knew anything about it....

[uh_no]

Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Memphis forced to vacate a final four berth over a bad SAT score? Not that Coach Cal knew anything about it....

Yep. UMass as well. ...not that cal knew anything about that either

[hurleyfor3]

But I'm hearing that the NCAA doesn't want to go there. Notice that they jumped through hoops to let Syracuse keep its 2003 title. The NCAA has vacated Final Fours, but never a national title in men's basketball.

So cheating's OK if and only if you win the championship?

[dpslaw]

Yes, unfortunately he has quite a bit of power- he could lead the Power 5 separation from NCAA if sanctions against UNC aren't minimized. He has refused to publicly discuss UNCs issues despite admonishing Clemson many years ago for far less. Swofford may have been "indirectly" involved with AFAM in the 90s as AD. I hope I'm wrong, but fear NCAA doesn't have the backbone to fight this.

First and foremost, Swofford has to keep peace within the conference. If he attempted, even informally, to intervene with the NCAA on behalf of UNC, the other member schools would erupt. Swofford would be gone, and the ACC would be weakened and damaged, perhaps irreparably.

[arnie]

First and foremost, Swofford has to keep peace within the conference. If he attempted, even informally, to intervene with the NCAA on behalf of UNC, the other member schools would erupt. Swofford would be gone, and the ACC would be weakened and damaged, perhaps irreparably.

He's good at talking from both sides of his mouth. His UNC ties are extraordinary and I believe his loyalties to Carolina are much stronger than ACC. Again, UNC should be slapped with significant loss of scholarships, vacated titles and future post season bans- I just don't think it happens to the mens BBALL program.

[Olympic Fan]

From whom are you hearing it? Not being snarky. Just that I was under the impression no one besides UNC and the NCAA have any real clue where this will end up. Unless it's an insider who has seen the NOA, aren't we just dealing with speculation by outsiders?

I can understand your skepticism. I'm just an anonymous internet poster.

But I do have sources who know what is in the NOA. They're not telling me everything, but I was told it includes the phrase "lack of institutional control". I'm not sure how they dealt with the ineligible players Wainstein found, but my sources suggest that the NOA doesn't go into that.

And, oh yes, I was told that UNC received the NOA Tuesday, but didn't acknowledge receipt until Friday.

[Tom B.]

But I do have sources who know what is in the NOA. They're not telling me everything, but I was told it includes the phrase "lack of institutional control." I'm not sure how they dealt with the ineligible players Wainstein found, but my sources suggest that the NOA doesn't go into that.




Holy moly, if you thought that Boeheim's wigout in Cameron in 2014 was bad, this might just make his head explode. He just got suspended and had to give back over 100 wins for problems that were comparatively less severe, pervasive, and long-running.





And, oh yes, I was told that UNC received the NOA Tuesday, but didn't acknowledge receipt until Friday.




I was wondering about that. UNC's press statements on Friday acknowledged receiving the report, but never specifically noted when they'd received it. They just left it for the reader to assume that they'd received it the same day. I speculated at the time that UNC had received the report earlier, but kept it under wraps. Then IC spilled the beans on Friday, and UNC had to acknowledge that they'd received it.

[MarkD83]

I can understand your skepticism. I'm just an anonymous internet poster.

But I do have sources who know what is in the NOA. They're not telling me everything, but I was told it includes the phrase "lack of institutional control". I'm not sure how they dealt with the ineligible players Wainstein found, but my sources suggest that the NOA doesn't go into that.

And, oh yes, I was told that UNC received the NOA Tuesday, but didn't acknowledge receipt until Friday.

So when Roy made his comment about wanting the NCAA to tell UNC about the NPA because he was tired of waiting, UNC already had the NOA. Which means Roy was kept out of the loop.......

[bob blue devil]

Just to go on record, from what I'm hearing from sources I trust, UNC is going to be nailed going forward, but I'm doubting that any banners come down or that wins are vacated.

I hear veteran administrators speculate that UNC will get postseason bans and scholarship reductions in a number of sports -- specifically, basketball, football, baseball, women's basketball and women's soccer (all sports that have benefited from the AFAM scandal). How long those bans might be, I don't know, but I was told that UNC would be treated harshly as a two-time offender. The punishment they got in March of 2012 specifically started that any other NCAA violations in the next five years would result in repeat offender status.

on the topic of whether or not banners come down, is it even possible to tell whether banners will come down from the NOA? my impression is that the NOA doesn't prescribe any punishments and that all one can ascertain is how severe are the violations they are accused of. with that in mind, isn't LOIC the worst possible news they could get at this point?

[sagegrouse]

So when Roy made his comment about wanting the NCAA to tell UNC about the NPA because he was tired of waiting, UNC already had the NOA. Which means Roy was kept out of the loop.......

I thought his comment appeared devious when first reported. Now I think he was a lying, cheating hyena -- he know the NOA had been received and proceeded to complain about not having received it.

Roy, you've found your inner Eddie Haskell!

[77devil]

on the topic of whether or not banners come down, is it even possible to tell whether banners will come down from the NOA? my impression is that the NOA doesn't prescribe any punishments and that all one can ascertain is how severe are the violations they are accused of. with that in mind, isn't LOIC the worst possible news they could get at this point?

Unless the NOA includes accusations of ineligible players, there is no basis for vacating wins and pulling banners. In broad strokes, Oly Fan and Chansky have provided the same info. presumably from different sources at UNC. First, the NOA uses the term LOIC, and second, it does not include accusations about use of ineligible players in basketball.

I'm assuming for now that UNC skates on vacating wins and the 2005 banner and is hammered going forward. The question is why did the NCAA decide not to go there? I'm guessing it's because it is a party to the pending lawsuit(s) against UNC, while hoping that the NCAA penalizes the university more severely going forward in lieu of taking the banner. The NCAA should use the banner as leverage in the sanction negotiations, as in we are coming back to expand the NOA if you don't back down.

[Tom B.]

So when Roy made his comment about wanting the NCAA to tell UNC about the NPA because he was tired of waiting, UNC already had the NOA. Which means Roy was kept out of the loop.......

I think Roy's latest griping about not knowing the allegations occurred last Sunday -- so if the NOA was received on Tuesday, Roy was technically correct that UNC hadn't received the allegations yet. That being said, things like this usually don't happen in a vacuum. I claim no inside knowledge, but it seems unlikely to me that there was no communication between UNC and the NCAA, or no "heads up" of any kind from the NCAA to let UNC know that the NOA was coming soon. I find it hard to believe that 48 hours before the NOA was sent, Roy didn't have at least an inkling that it was imminent.

As far as possible sanctions go....so now we're looking at the possibility that the NCAA lets UNC's athletics program keep all its ill-gotten accolades from the years it knowingly took advantage of the fraud, but will punish current and future UNC athletes who presumably had no role in it. Seems exactly backwards to me.

[Tom B.]

I'm assuming for now that UNC skates on vacating wins and the 2005 banner and is hammered going forward. The question is why did the NCAA decide not to go there? I'm guessing it's because it is a party to the pending lawsuit(s) against UNC, while hoping that the NCAA penalizes the university more severely going forward in lieu of taking the banner. The NCAA should use the banner as leverage in the sanction negotiations, as in we are coming back to expand the NOA if you don't back down.


The more I think about this, the more I believe that the 2005 banner really comes down to McCants. His accusations supplied the most direct link between the basketball coaches and staff, the Athletic Department, ASPSA, and the academic side of the fraud. But remember, McCants refused to talk to Wainstein. If he also refused to talk to the NCAA (which he's under no obligation to do -- he's no longer a college athlete, and the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power), the NCAA would have a much harder time substantiating his claims, especially given that everyone else associated with that team seems to have circled the wagons and nobody else is talking.

[wsb3]

The more I think about this, the more I believe that the 2005 banner really comes down to McCants. His accusations supplied the most direct link between the basketball coaches and staff, the Athletic Department, ASPSA, and the academic side of the fraud. But remember, McCants refused to talk to Wainstein. If he also refused to talk to the NCAA (which he's under no obligation to do -- he's no longer a college athlete, and the NCAA doesn't have subpoena power), the NCAA would have a much harder time substantiating his claims, especially given that everyone else associated with that team seems to have circled the wagons and nobody else is talking.

How could the NCAA vacate wins Memphis had over a fake SAT score & not dole out like punishment, for a school that did far worse to make players eligible? I'm not saying they will but if they don't Memphis should scream to the heavens... not that it would do any good.

[Bob Green]

As far as possible sanctions go....so now we're looking at the possibility that the NCAA lets UNC's athletics program keep all its ill-gotten accolades from the years it knowingly took advantage of the fraud, but will punish current and future UNC athletes who presumably had no role in it. Seems exactly backwards to me.

Overall, I agree with you. In regard to future UNC athletes, they would have no one to blame except themselves. If they do not desire to be punished, they should not decide to attend UNC.

[77devil]

As far as possible sanctions go....so now we're looking at the possibility that the NCAA lets UNC's athletics program keep all its ill-gotten accolades from the years it knowingly took advantage of the fraud, but will punish current and future UNC athletes who presumably had no role in it. Seems exactly backwards to me.

Maybe, just maybe, the NCAA infractions committee will present UNC with an option when they meet to negotiate: self declare ineligible athletes and vacate the wins and awards in return for relatively minor additional punishment, otherwise major sanctions affecting current and future teams for years to come will be imposed. One can hope the NCAA negotiators have a spine

[Tom B.]

Overall, I agree with you. In regard to future UNC athletes, they would have no one to blame except themselves. If they do not desire to be punished, they should not decide to attend UNC.

True. And having thought about it some more, I need to qualify what I said. I don't think it would be "backwards" to impose some forward-looking penalties, like scholarship losses or post-season bans. A meaningful and effective sanction needs to carry some sting that's going to have real and tangible (as opposed to just symbolic) impact going forward. It's unfortunate that the impact will be felt by athletes who weren't around when the fraud occurred, but as you said, it's not like they chose UNC blindly. There's been more than enough inforamtion out there for literally years now to clue any rational person in to the possibility that UNC could face significant sanctions. And at the end of the day, it's not the NCAA's fault that UNC gets sanctioned -- it's the fault of the people who perpetrated and facilitated the fraud in the first place.

What seemed backwards to me, though, was the possibility that we could end up with forward-looking sanctions exclusively -- essentially, a judgment that says UNC did bad stuff for years, but that doesn't do anything to take away any of the benefits that the bad stuff enabled them to acquire. It would be like sentencing a Ponzi schemer to prison, but not requiring him to give back the money he made off the scheme.

[Bob Green]

What seemed backwards to me, though, was the possibility that we could end up with forward-looking sanctions exclusively -- essentially, a judgment that says UNC did bad stuff for years, but that doesn't do anything to take away any of the benefits that the bad stuff enabled them to acquire.

Again, I'm going to quibble. Forward-looking sanctions sting hard. They will continue to make it hard for UNC to recruit. Ol' Roy thinks it is hard to recruit right now, let's see how hard it is to recruit with a post-season ban in place. Current and future athletes are collateral damage.

From a certain perspective, perhaps twisted, vacating past wins and titles is an empty punishment. The sports fan can still say, "the players we put on the court beat the players you put on the court."

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this mess ends up being, my expectation is Ol' Roy will retire. His ego will not accept him being found guilty of cheating.

[Indoor66]

Whatever the ultimate outcome of this mess ends up being, my expectation is Ol' Roy will retire. His ego will not accept him being found guilty of cheating.

Maybe Roy and the "Dean" coaching tree will be the punishment.

[left_hook_lacey]

Now that the NCAA notice has been issued I have a poll question. Would removal of past victories OR future loss of post season play and scholarships irritate IC posters more.

If I were to put myself in their shoes and think about it(heaven forbid) if it were happening to us, I would have to believe future loss of post season play and scholarships would not only irritate the fans more, but also cause more damage to the actual program itself.

Sure, they would have to eat some serious crow if their prestigious banner(s) had to come down, but at the end of the day it's a spectator sport that's engrained into the culture and routines of so many. Not tuning in for a season or two because post-season play isn't even possible would be far more painful than trying to say completed games and accomplishments never happened.

[dukebluesincebirth]

If UNC receives a post season ban for one or more years, would current players be allowed to transfer without penalty?

[Jarhead]

If UNC receives a post season ban for one or more years, would current players be allowed to transfer without penalty?

Probably, yes, but...

[swood1000]

I'm trying to think of a rationale that the NCAA could use to say that paper-classes that UNC stated clearly were not good toward a degree were nevertheless sufficient to keep an athlete academically eligible.


2.5 The Principle of Sound Academic Standards.

Intercollegiate athletics programs shall be maintained as a vital component of the educational program, and student-athletes shall be an integral part of the student body. 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.

By not being good toward a degree aren't we saying that by definition they were not consistent with the standards adopted for the student body in general? The argument would somehow have to be that this did not make the players ineligible, so wins do not automatically have to be vacated, although other sanctions must be applied. Maybe they would call it an extra benefit without monetary value, which does not result in automatic ineligibility. But somehow they would have to call them valid classes, which kept players above the minimum number of classes that had to be carried. I just can't imagine a train of reasoning along this line that could be made with a straight face, but this seems to be what our "sources" are telling us to expect.

[madscavenger]

I'm trying to think of a rationale that the NCAA could use to say that paper-classes that UNC stated clearly were not good toward a degree were nevertheless sufficient to keep an athlete academically eligible.


By not being good toward a degree aren't we saying that by definition they were not consistent with the standards adopted for the student body in general? The argument would somehow have to be that this did not make the players ineligible, so wins do not automatically have to be vacated, although other sanctions must be applied. Maybe they would call it an extra benefit without monetary value, which does not result in automatic ineligibility. But somehow they would have to call them valid classes, which kept players above the minimum number of classes that had to be carried. I just can't imagine a train of reasoning along this line that could be made with a straight face, but this seems to be what our "sources" are telling us to expect.

If they were not good toward a degree, isn't it possible that non-athletes who took these same courses (and passed!) might have to at least temporarily return their diplomas?

[gumbomoop]

I'm trying to think of a rationale that the NCAA could use to say that paper-classes that UNC stated clearly were not good toward a degree were nevertheless sufficient to keep an athlete academically eligible.


By not being good toward a degree aren't we saying that by definition they were not consistent with the standards adopted for the student body in general? The argument would somehow have to be that this did not make the players ineligible, so wins do not automatically have to be vacated, although other sanctions must be applied. Maybe they would call it an extra benefit without monetary value, which does not result in automatic ineligibility. But somehow they would have to call them valid classes, which kept players above the minimum number of classes that had to be carried. I just can't imagine a train of reasoning along this line that could be made with a straight face, but this seems to be what our "sources" are telling us to expect.

Spot on.

Although I can easily imagine the NCAA desperately wanting to thread the needle to conclude that a number of scam-enrolled players over a number of sham-result seasons were not, somehow, technically (?), ineligible, I can't yet imagine any such line of "reasoning" passing the laugh test. Getting around the ineligibility issue would seem to require not merely that the NCAA fudge its own clearly stated rules and standards, but that it flout directly, and obviously, those rules and standards. The NCAA would be saying, accurately, "The NCAA is a joke."

[swood1000]

If UNC receives a post season ban for one or more years, would current players be allowed to transfer without penalty?
14.7.2 Residence Requirement Waivers. The Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief may waive the one-year residence requirement for student-athletes under the following conditions or circumstances:
(Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
(c) On the recommendation of the Committee on Infractions, for a student-athlete who transfers to a member institution to continue the student-athlete's opportunity for full participation in a sport because the student-athlete's original institution was placed on probation by the NCAA with sanctions that would preclude the institution's team in that sport from participating in postseason competition during all of the remaining seasons of the student-athlete's eligibility (see also Bylaw 13.1.1.3.3); (Revised: 1/10/92)

13.1.1.3.3 Transfer From Institution Placed on Probation by Committee on Infractions. It is not necessary for an institution to obtain permission in writing to recruit a student-athlete at an institution that has been placed on probation with sanctions that preclude it from competing in postseason competition during the remaining seasons of the student-athlete's eligibility. However, the student-athlete's institution must be notified of the recruitment and may establish reasonable restrictions related to the contact (e.g., no visits during class time), provided such restrictions do not preclude the opportunity for the student-athlete to discuss transfer possibilities with the other institution [see Bylaw 14.7.2-(c)]. (Adopted: 1/10/92, Revised: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)

[swood1000]

If they were not good toward a degree, isn't it possible that non-athletes who took these same courses (and passed!) might have to at least temporarily return their diplomas?
In their First Monitoring Report (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2013/06/Public-Response-to-the-Jan-15-2013-Request-from-SACSCOC.pdf) to SACS, UNC said there was nothing they could do about people who already graduated except offer them the opportunity to take a replacement course.


The University cannot address the status of students who took Type 1 courses and have already graduated. According to University policy, transcripts are "frozen" one year to the date after a student receives a degree. As the policy [see Attachment C] states: "Adjustments may be made to a transcript only for one year following the date of graduation." Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill has verified that the students who took a Type 1 course and graduated in or after May 2012 had fulfilled more than the 120 credits required for graduation, and did not need the Type 1 course to obtain the degree.


It was the people who had not yet graduated and who were relying on a paper-class to fulfill a degree requirement who were told that they had to take an additional class.

[swood1000]

The policy (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2013/06/Public-Response-to-the-Jan-15-2013-Request-from-SACSCOC.pdf) that UNC adopted with respect to the students who had not graduated but who were relying on a paper-class to fulfill degree requirements was "an additional course will be required":


These forty-six (46) students will all be required to take an additional course to supplement any Type 1 course used to fulfill requirements for their UNC-Chapel Hill baccalaureate degree. All Type 1 courses, associated grades, and credit will remain on the transcript but if it had been used to satisfy a requirement in the past, either in a major or within the General Education curriculum, or as part of the minimum 120 credit hours, an additional course will be required.


However, they also offered them the opportunity to prove that the work they did for the class was valid or to take a "challenge examination":


Each student who successfully completed a Type 1 course will be offered three possibilities for proceeding to graduation:


Provide the past coursework, so that it can be re-evaluated by a committee of faculty members knowledgeable in the topic;
Sit for a challenge examination;
Take an additional course(s). Each student who received credit for a Type 1 course will be required to earn an additional three academic hours to graduate; a student who took more than one Type 1 course will have that requirement increased by an additional three-hour course for each credited completion of a Type 1 course. If this option is pursued by a student, tuition and fees will be covered by the University. UNC-Chapel Hill will also cover the costs of textbooks and other related/required instructional materials.

[moonpie23]

any idea when they are going to bring forth the tenesmus?

[devildeac]

any idea when they are going to bring forth the tenesmus?

Probably when the girl with colitis goes by...

(see Misheard Lyrics thread-sorry, I couldn't resist connecting your use of tenesmus with those lyrics and this situation:o)

[BD80]

This will take a long time. Bubba is a Notre Dame grad. He will need to enroll in UNC Summer School to study both Crayons 101 and Advanced Redacting 202. Both are paper classes.;)

They had to cancel the Advanced Redacting Class. Redacting 101 was literally a paper class. 202 was supposed to use computers and word processing programs, but the "students" kept getting white out on the monitors.




I'm trying to think of a rationale that the NCAA could use to say that paper-classes that UNC stated clearly were not good toward a degree were nevertheless sufficient to keep an athlete academically eligible. ...

By not being good toward a degree aren't we saying that by definition they were not consistent with the standards adopted for the student body in general? ...

" ... then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

[BD80]

" ... then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

The truly sad thing is ... this will probably be the essence of unc's response. Life imitating art.

[swood1000]

According to Mary Willingham, these classes were a favorite of the 2005 championship team.
5147
The members of that team said "With conviction, each one of us is proud to say that we attended class and did our own academic work." http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24584187/mccants-teammates-deny-claims-reports-show-many-took-suspect-classes. They did not, however, say how much work that was.

[Kfanarmy]

See, that's where I disagree. I don't think we will end up with anyone being the cop. If ESPN doesn't care, and enough of the power conferences don't care, then who else matters? The crooked teams will be in control, and the honest teams will either have to go along with it or learn to enjoy playing in Division II.

the money cares...people don't watch unregulated sports.

[Duvall]

the money cares...people don't watch unregulated sports.

ESPN seems to think otherwise, and it's their business to know what people watch. I am inclined to defer to their assessment.

[plimnko]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/26/theres-only-one-way-the-ncaa-gets-unc-investigation-wrong-a-2016-postseason-ban/

[Duke95]

the money cares...people don't watch unregulated sports.

Are you kidding? Major sports are rife with cheating. Look at professional cycling, professional tennis, professional soccer (the Operacion Puerto doping scandal quickly comes to mind), etc., etc.

People still watch all these sports and fans insist their team/player is the one "fighting the good fight" and everyone else cheats. Meanwhile, the money keeps pouring in.

[Duvall]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/26/theres-only-one-way-the-ncaa-gets-unc-investigation-wrong-a-2016-postseason-ban/

Dauster's not a Carolina grad, he's just an idiot.

[moonpie23]

andy katz lobbying for "no action until 2017. i guess he missed the "make moonpie happy" email....

[plimnko]

Dauster's not a Carolina grad, he's just an idiot.

my mistake......i couldn't tell the difference

[Kfanarmy]

Are you kidding? Major sports are rife with cheating. Look at professional cycling, professional tennis, professional soccer (the Operacion Puerto doping scandal quickly comes to mind), etc., etc.

People still watch all these sports and fans insist their team/player is the one "fighting the good fight" and everyone else cheats. Meanwhile, the money keeps pouring in.

Absolutely agree that cheating can be rempant. As for the money, scandals: expose's on cheaters, sell advertising space. I think the average fan would lose interest eventually if cheating were simply to go unpunished. Whether big school or small school, if you want the kind of money that the NCAA tourney brings in, there must appear reason for the little guy to enter the arena. How hard the hand is slapped is not nearly as important as that the hand is slapped to achieve the effect of the punishment with fans.

This is whack a mole. The NCAA has to nail each one of the big cheaters, even though we all know another one, perhaps the same one, will pop back up pretty quickly. It must be done.

[CameronBornAndBred]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/26/theres-only-one-way-the-ncaa-gets-unc-investigation-wrong-a-2016-postseason-ban/
The first reply in the comments is perfect.

[swood1000]

According to the Wainstein Report there was no evidence to back up the allegations of Rashad McCants since McCants would not speak to them.


"Given McCants' failure to provide details about this alleged cheating - such as the names of either the tutor(s) who allegedly drafted these papers or the other basketball players who allegedly turned them in for credit - and his unwillingness to be interviewed, we are left with no evidence to support those allegations."


So I suppose if he also refused to talk to the NCAA they might have decided that there was insufficient evidence to include those allegations in the NOA. Maybe UNC reached a "settlement" with him.

[Richard Berg]

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/26/theres-only-one-way-the-ncaa-gets-unc-investigation-wrong-a-2016-postseason-ban/
I agree with the author. Taking away future NCAA trips would be unfair to Paige et al.

Let them play, but make the UNC's share of the purse $0 for the next several years. Ideally the proceeds would be donated to charity or something, though in reality some of it would get redistributed to other AD's in the field as quid-pro-quo for votes on the sanctions committee.

[swood1000]

I agree with the author. Taking away future NCAA trips would be unfair to Paige et al.
But who would be to blame for that? UNC can elect to speed things up:

19.6.1 Summary Disposition Election. In a case involving Level I or Level II violations, the institution, involved individuals and the enforcement staff may elect to use the summary disposition procedures specified below. To invoke the summary disposition procedures, the enforcement staff, involved individuals, if participating, and the institution must agree to summary disposition. The institution, an involved individual or the enforcement staff may require, as a condition of agreement, that the parties jointly submit the proposed findings of fact to the chair of the Committee on Infractions or his or her designee for a preliminary assessment of the appropriateness of the use of the summary disposition process. (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13)
If they did this (which of course they won't because they want to drag it out as much as possible) UNC would get its post-season ban early enough that Paige and the others would have an opportunity to transfer and play elsewhere next season.

[roywhite]

I agree with the author. Taking away future NCAA trips would be unfair to Paige et al.

Let them play, but make the UNC's share of the purse $0 for the next several years. Ideally the proceeds would be donated to charity or something, though in reality some of it would get redistributed to other AD's in the field as quid-pro-quo for votes on the sanctions committee.

I don't see any reason to go easy on UNC. Not only did fraud continue over a 20-year period, but they have stonewalled and dragged their feet for the last 3 or 4 years. If UNC administrators cared about Marcus Paige or possible sanctions for the 2016 tournament, they could have dealt more forthrightly with these problems much earlier.

Punishment that involves just financial penalties is insufficient.

[tux]

But who would be to blame for that? UNC can elect to speed things up:

If they did this (which of course they won't because they want to drag it out as much as possible) UNC would get its post-season ban early enough that Paige and the others would have an opportunity to transfer and play elsewhere next season.


I'm pretty sure Paige and his fellow upperclassmen do not want to finish their college careers at another school. My position is that I recognize the ways that a postseason ban would be very tough on Paige et al., whether that meant missing the tournament or having to spend their senior year at a new university AND also think the whole thing falls under the "tough s***" umbrella. Any NCAA penalties are going to have to punish someone, and that punishment on some level will be "unfair". The punishments are meant to serve as a meaningful deterrent and (hopefully) be proportional to the allegations and fit more or less into the history of such NCAA actions. Otherwise, what's the point.

If a postseason ban happens for 2016 (and I think it's very very unlikely for that to come down in time), Paige and his teammates will have no one to blame but the UNC administrators who have put most of their time and energy into covering up the depth of breadth of this scandal. UNC has a top 5 (maybe #1) team in part due to those delaying tactics. Would they have Jackson, Pinson, Hicks, etc. if they had been more forthcoming?

So, I find it completely disingenuous to argue now that a ban would only punish this super-talented team. Don't get me wrong: I actually think the NCAA would like this UNC team in the tournament next year. But a 3-5 year postseason ban (for every athletic team implicated) starting in 2016 would be a punishment in line (IMO) with 20 years of fraudulent classes that kept athletes eligible... you wouldn't really need to reduce scholarships, which I actually don't support. That kind of ban would affect recruiting plenty even with a full slate of scholarships. It would also probably rid UNC of some "staff" that really need to go, but would be tough to fire.

[PackMan97]

So, I find it completely disingenuous to argue now that a ban would only punish this super-talented team. Don't get me wrong: I actually think the NCAA would like this UNC team in the tournament next year. But a 3-5 year postseason ban (for every athletic team implicated) starting in 2016 would be a punishment in line (IMO) with 20 years of fraudulent classes that kept athletes eligible... you wouldn't really need to reduce scholarships, which I actually don't support. That kind of ban would affect recruiting plenty even with a full slate of scholarships. It would also probably rid UNC of some "staff" that really need to go, but would be tough to fire.

Everyone on the current UNC team committed to play for UNC during the early days of this scandal. They have no one to blame but themselves.

[killerleft]

Everyone on the current UNC team committed to play for UNC during the early days of this scandal. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I think Jon Jackson is already quoted as saying something to the effect that Roy told him the scandal wouldn't affect his time at Carolina.

[swood1000]

Everyone on the current UNC team committed to play for UNC during the early days of this scandal. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Marcus Paige signed with North Carolina on 01/08/2011 but the scandal didn't hit the papers until August, 2011.

[OldPhiKap]

I think Jon Jackson is already quoted as saying something to the effect that Roy told him the scandal wouldn't affect his time at Carolina.

"Face it. You messed up. You trusted us."

-- Roy "Otter" Williams

[BD80]

I think Jon Jackson is already quoted as saying something to the effect that Roy told him the scandal wouldn't affect his time at Carolina.

"You f---ed up. You trusted us."

It is amusing/uncanny/scary how much of Animal House can be applied to unc's handling of the situation.

[swood1000]

Marcus Paige signed with North Carolina on 01/08/2011 but the scandal didn't hit the papers until August, 2011.
I got that from ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/67416/marcus-paige) but this (http://patch.com/iowa/marion/marion-senior-signs-intent-with-university-of-north-carolina) says he signed his Letter of Intent in November of 2011. Maybe Marcus should have been more circumspect.

[tux]

Everyone on the current UNC team committed to play for UNC during the early days of this scandal. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I place 99.99% of the blame at the feet of the adults at UNC. I'll reserve judgement for the 18-22 year old kids. Should Paige really "blame himself"... You know, I'm getting too old to pull against 18 year olds; it's pretty bad form IMO. I would like Duke to beat UNC three or four times in 2016 but wish nothing but the best for the kids on UNC's team.

[swood1000]

I place 99.99% of the blame at the feet of the adults at UNC. I'll reserve judgement for the 18-22 year old kids. Should Paige really "blame himself"... You know, I'm getting too old to pull against 18 year olds; it's pretty bad form IMO. I would like Duke to beat UNC three or four times in 2016 but wish nothing but the best for the kids on UNC's team.
But it's not pulling against him to note that he may have caused his own injury. It seems that the four and five star players being recruited by UNC recently have been alert to that.

[Trinity_93]

...they could reduce players for a couple of years. Imagine the basketball teams (both men's and women's) only allowed to field four players at a time. The baseball team could play with only two outfielders. Women's soccer could go 1-4-4 plus the goalie. If the banners aren't coming down, a few years of playing a man (or woman) down might be next best thing, and no student-athlete (cough!) loses out on the chance to get a UNC education.

[PackMan97]

I place 99.99% of the blame at the feet of the adults at UNC. I'll reserve judgement for the 18-22 year old kids. Should Paige really "blame himself"... You know, I'm getting too old to pull against 18 year olds; it's pretty bad form IMO. I would like Duke to beat UNC three or four times in 2016 but wish nothing but the best for the kids on UNC's team.

You are probably right, I imagine Paige is just putting some misplaced loyalty into the machine. I wonder how he felt when UNC put him on display as "the smart black kid that knows how to read". Unfortunately UNC made him part of the story.

http://thegazette.com/2011/09/13/marcus-paige-says-hes-100-percent-committed-to-north-carolina

"I always knew I'd get it out of the way, as soon as I was confident I knew which school I wanted to go to," Paige said. "I’ve always been a Carolina fan, and I developed a pretty good relationship with Coach Williams. When I knew they were 100 percent interested in me, I couldn’t turn it down. So I got it out of the way.

This just goes to show how much UNC has benefited from their cheating ways that they get such loyalty from a Marion, Iowa kid. Of course, ask PJ Harriston how that loyalty worked out when you make a few mistakes.

[Duvall]

I agree with the author. Taking away future NCAA trips would be unfair to Paige et al.

Let them play, but make the UNC's share of the purse $0 for the next several years. Ideally the proceeds would be donated to charity or something, though in reality some of it would get redistributed to other AD's in the field as quid-pro-quo for votes on the sanctions committee.

You mean the money that is a fraction of the revenue from UNC basketball, and that UNC already shared equally with the rest of the ACC? Not much of a deterrent to future misconduct.

[PackMan97]

You mean the money that is a fraction of the revenue from UNC basketball, and that UNC already shared equally with the rest of the ACC? Not much of a deterrent to future misconduct.

No home athletic events at all for the next 2 years.

[Duvall]

No home athletic events at all for the next 2 years.

That would certainly get the attention of the school, though it would be rough for Duke to lose two easy basketball wins.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

UNC should cop to everything today and release all documents while the rest of the universe watches FIFA crash and burn.

[PackMan97]

That would certainly get the attention of the school, though it would be rough for Duke to lose two easy basketball wins.

I'm not suggesting the games not be played, just they should be away games instead of home games. Not only does this punish their budget and their fans, it also has the bonus of giving a little back to their opponents who get an extra home game out of it. Especially helpful in football :)

[JasonEvans]

That would certainly get the attention of the school, though it would be rough for Duke to lose two easy basketball wins.

The games would still be played -- Duke would still get the wins -- it is just that the games would be at Duke, not at UNC.

I like this punishment, but it will never happen.

The notion that it would be wrong to punish the 2016 basketball team is just so outrageous and ridiculous. The author even says punishing Syracuse was ok because they were not national title contenders. As if the commitment and hard work of the Syracuse players last year was somehow worth less than the Carolina kid. Puh-lease!!!

In a perfect world, there would be some way to actually re-do the 2005 (and other) tournaments with Carolina taken out of the mix. Of course, minus a time machine that is impossible. So, the only reasonable way to accomplish it is to punish the team moving forward. If that denies them a shot at a national title, so be it.

The author says it would be fine to punish the 2017 team because it would give players time to transfer and move to other programs. Ok, if that is your primary concern (and I agree that it is troubling to punish the kids who did nothing), then the moment you ban Carolina from the post-season, allow the players to transfer wherever they want right away. I see it going down like this:


At first, the notion of immediate transfer eligibility is rejected by all the Carolina players, who vow to go undefeated the rest of the way to prove they are the best. But then there is a crack in the armor. Nate Britt, a native of Maryland, wants a ring and decides to give a late-season boost to Maryland, who have spent the entire season in the top 5 but need a backcourt spark off the bench. The true shocker comes when Marcus Paige says he is going to go home to Iowa St. hoping to help them break Kansas' decade-long hold on the Big 12 regular season title. The damn is broken at that point and everyone rushes to get out. Over the next 3 days, Kennedy Meeks decides he likes warmer weather and follows his buddy Joel Berry to Florida where they are both instant starters. Brice Johnson and Isaiah Hicks are another package deal, headed to Kentucky where they are going to replace the ineligible Skal Labissiere and the hard-luck, injury prone Alex Poythress. Among the top Carolina players, only Theo Pinson remains at UNC, joining Joel James, Stillman White, and freshmen Kenny Williams and Luke Maye as the only scholarship players still at UNC.

-Jason "please let this happen!" Evans

[Duke95]

Has the NCAA released the updated APR scores yet? I've just seen that we're #1 in both football and basketball in the ACC. Other than that, I haven't seen the new numbers.

[El_Diablo]

How long does it take to redact some names?

[Ichabod Drain]

Has the NCAA released the updated APR scores yet? I've just seen that we're #1 in both football and basketball in the ACC. Other than that, I haven't seen the new numbers.

Haven't seen the scores either but what I saw on twitter said Duke basketball was third in ACC with 995 out of 1000.

[tux]

How long does it take to redact some names?


True, but my understanding (someone please correct me) is that a school is not obligated to publish the NOA, only to respond in 90 days to the NCAA. UNC's statement that they would release a redacted NOA is just part of some "new transparency". It makes me think of the pros and cons of making the NOA public. It's not going to be clear what the penalties will be, right? It could very well create a new round of questions from all the armchair investigators. In terms of recruiting, it very well may increase the level of uncertainty. But if Chansky is right about UNC being "happy" with the NOA, one would think releasing it sooner rather than later would be a net positive for UNC.

(Is it possible that UNC could decide that they can't release it? I.e., for some legal reason "discovered" during the redaction process?)

[Edit: Also, for the NOA to help recruiting, UNC will need to extrapolate the likely penalties from the NOA, right? But that would not be smart of them to do IMO...]

[BigWayne]

Has the NCAA released the updated APR scores yet? I've just seen that we're #1 in both football and basketball in the ACC. Other than that, I haven't seen the new numbers.

You can find them here:

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

BTW - UNC Men's Hoops has a multi year score for 2014 of 952, which is not mathematically possible based on the single year scores we have seen on the web previously. I don't know how to find the single year scores anymore, but if someone does, this should be checked.

[77devil]

You can find them here:

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

BTW - UNC Men's Hoops has a multi year score for 2014 of 952, which is not mathematically possible based on the single year scores we have seen on the web previously. I don't know how to find the single year scores anymore, but if someone does, this should be checked.

You can find the individual year numbers using the link by extracting the report for each year of the current multi year period. The individual year scores for men's basketball for the last four years are 909, 959, 917,and 1000 which averages 946. Maybe there is weighting used in calculating the average.

1000 is a remarkable improvement and convenient considering UNC was approaching the 940 minimum.

[Ichabod Drain]

You can find the individual year numbers using the link by extracting the report for each year of the current multi year period. The individual year scores for men's basketball for the last four years are 909, 959, 917,and 1000 which averages 946. Maybe there is weighting used in calculating the average.

1000 is a remarkable improvement and convenient considering UNC was approaching the 940 minimum.

I believe the minimum is 930. UNC had a four year average of 938 for 2012-2013.

[sagegrouse]

True, but my understanding (someone please correct me) is that a school is not obligated to publish the NOA, only to respond in 90 days to the NCAA. UNC's statement that they would release a redacted NOA is just part of some "new transparency". It makes me think of the pros and cons of making the NOA public. It's not going to be clear what the penalties will be, right? It could very well create a new round of questions from all the armchair investigators. In terms of recruiting, it very well may increase the level of uncertainty. But if Chansky is right about UNC being "happy" with the NOA, one would think releasing it sooner rather than later would be a net positive for UNC.

(Is it possible that UNC could decide that they can't release it? I.e., for some legal reason "discovered" during the redaction process?)

[Edit: Also, for the NOA to help recruiting, UNC will need to extrapolate the likely penalties from the NOA, right? But that would not be smart of them to do IMO...]

I believe the State of North Carolina Freedom of Information Act has some bearing here.

[Bob Green]

How long does it take to redact some names?

That depends upon how many names have to be redacted.

[JasonEvans]

That depends upon how many names have to be redacted.

A friend pointed out to me that if Carolina really was "happy" with the NOA, they would have gotten it out there as soon as possible. We are already into summer recruiting for hoops and every day this hangs over their head is bad for Roy. So, every day longer it takes for them to get the redacted version released makes it increasingly likely that the NOA is not as rosy and pleasant as some are trying to have us believe.

They've had it for more than a week now -- supposedly got it on Tuesday, alerted the world they had it on Friday following the IC leak. Even if there is a ton that lawyers have to look over to redact and "protect the innocent" this is taking a lot longer than it should.

-Jason "I eagerly await Chansky's next spin when the full document is a lot worse than he painted it to be" Evans

[94duke]

I believe the minimum is 930. UNC had a four year average of 938 for 2012-2013.

from the NCAA:

Currently, teams must earn a 930 four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in NCAA championships. In 2015-16 and beyond, teams must earn a four-year APR of 930 to compete in championships.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/academic-progress-rate-explained?division=d1

[Bob Green]

A friend pointed out to me that if Carolina really was "happy" with the NOA, they would have gotten it out there as soon as possible. We are already into summer recruiting for hoops and every day this hangs over their head is bad for Roy. So, every day longer it takes for them to get the redacted version released makes it increasingly likely that the NOA is not as rosy and pleasant as some are trying to have us believe.

I agree the unknown is damaging to their recruiting efforts so I am in no hurry to see the redacted NOA.

[tux]

I agree the unknown is damaging to their recruiting efforts so I am in no hurry to see the redacted NOA.

But the NOA is not synonymous with the penalties, right? Or is it the assumption that the NOA will give everyone (including recruits) some idea of what the penalties may be?

[BigWayne]

You can find the individual year numbers using the link by extracting the report for each year of the current multi year period. The individual year scores for men's basketball for the last four years are 909, 959, 917,and 1000 which averages 946. Maybe there is weighting used in calculating the average.

1000 is a remarkable improvement and convenient considering UNC was approaching the 940 minimum.

Thanks for the tip on the single years. The APR score is done by a ratio of achieved points (based on an athlete successfully completing a semester) vs. possible points (total number of athletes in that semester). For the multi year, they are possibly adding up all the raw scores for the 4 years and then doing the average.

[Tom B.]

But the NOA is not synonymous with the penalties, right? Or is it the assumption that the NOA will give everyone (including recruits) some idea of what the penalties may be?

Correct. The NOA is a document that notifies the institution of the violations that the NCAA believes to have occurred. It doesn't spell out penalties -- that comes later, in a subsequent phase of the process. But people familiar with the process can tell from the NOA and the nature of the violations alleged what kinds of penalties might be on the table down the road.

[swood1000]

A friend pointed out to me that if Carolina really was "happy" with the NOA, they would have gotten it out there as soon as possible. We are already into summer recruiting for hoops and every day this hangs over their head is bad for Roy. So, every day longer it takes for them to get the redacted version released makes it increasingly likely that the NOA is not as rosy and pleasant as some are trying to have us believe.

They've had it for more than a week now -- supposedly got it on Tuesday, alerted the world they had it on Friday following the IC leak. Even if there is a ton that lawyers have to look over to redact and "protect the innocent" this is taking a lot longer than it should.

-Jason "I eagerly await Chansky's next spin when the full document is a lot worse than he painted it to be" Evans
Except that they don't want to release it until they have decided definitively what their response is going to be to every allegation, so that they can release that along with it and so that they don't look like a bunch of inept sad sacks who can't figure things out. Maybe there are some different potential approaches that are still up in the air.

[weezie]

"a bunch of inept sad sacks who can't figure things out"

Catchy. Reads like a great ńew bumper sticker.

[OldPhiKap]

Except that they don't want to release it until they have decided definitively what their response is going to be to every allegation, so that they can release that along with it and so that they don't look like a bunch of inept sad sacks who can't figure things out. Maybe there are some different potential approaches that are still up in the air.


Catchy. Reads like a great ńew bumper sticker.

Henceforth, I shall refer to UNc's administration as "sacks of steaming ineptitude"

[devildeac]

You can find them here:

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

BTW - UNC Men's Hoops has a multi year score for 2014 of 952, which is not mathematically possible based on the single year scores we have seen on the web previously. I don't know how to find the single year scores anymore, but if someone does, this should be checked.


You can find the individual year numbers using the link by extracting the report for each year of the current multi year period. The individual year scores for men's basketball for the last four years are 909, 959, 917,and 1000 which averages 946. Maybe there is weighting used in calculating the average.

1000 is a remarkable improvement and convenient considering UNC was approaching the 940 minimum.

The numbers I saw from the link were:

07/08: 989
08/09: 995
09/10: 985
10/11: 963
11/12: 959
12/13: 938
13/14: 952

I didn't see the 909 and 917. What am I missing? Were those two low scores redacted in some manner:rolleyes:?

[77devil]

The numbers I saw from the link were:

07/08: 989
08-09: 995
09/10: 985
10/11: 963
11/12: 959
12/13: 938
13/14: 952

I didn't see the 909 and 917. What am I missing? Were those two low scores redacted in some manner:rolleyes:?

Those are the 4 year scores for the year ending. It's not clearly defined as such but opening the full report for any year displays the annual and 4 year results.

[devildeac]

Those are the 4 year scores for the year ending. It's not clearly defined as such but opening the full report for any year displays the annual and 4 year results.

Thanks. That helps and makes more sense. I still think they cheated:o.

[devildeac]

Henceforth, I shall refer to UNc's administration as "sacks of steaming ineptitude"

Sacks of steaming &*%$ works far better but I'd bet you probably already knew that;):rolleyes:.

[77devil]

Thanks. That helps and makes more sense. I still think they cheated:o.

Just because UNC reported a perfect score for last year? You are so cynical DD.

[devildeac]

Just because UNC reported a perfect score for last year? You are so cynical DD.

It's a gift and I'm not as dumm (sic) as I look:o. Now, where'd that turnip truck go?:rolleyes:

[roywhite]

The numbers I saw from the link were:

07/08: 989
08/09: 995
09/10: 985
10/11: 963
11/12: 959
12/13: 938
13/14: 952

I didn't see the 909 and 917. What am I missing? Were those two low scores redacted in some manner:rolleyes:?

Redaction...isn't that a new major over on the Hill?

Yeah, it starts with coloring books, but can lead to some career opportunities, right there at the institution. And always comes in handy for government work. Definitely a growth area.

[andyw715]

From a recent article on syracuse.com regarding it's MBB APR.

"North Carolina, for instance, maintained solid APR scores by using no-show classes for 18 years to help athletes remain eligible, an issue that is currently being investigated by the NCAA." ah snap!

[swood1000]

Catchy. Reads like a great ńew bumper sticker.
That is what they're using isn't it? The sad sack defense? Eighteen years of pervasive academic misconduct, and when it comes to light they are shocked...shocked. They tried their best but just couldn't catch on. They've even got two versions of it. The paper classes, academically barren as as they were, still were "consistent with the policies and standards adopted by the institution for the student body in general."

If they're going to use the sad sack defense perhaps the Crazies could help them to revel in it: sad sack sad sack...

[nocilla]

Except that they don't want to release it until they have decided definitively what their response is going to be to every allegation, so that they can release that along with it and so that they don't look like a bunch of inept sad sacks who can't figure things out. Maybe there are some different potential approaches that are still up in the air.

And it also has to be released on a Friday to reduce exposure.

[hood7]

And it also has to be released on a Friday to reduce exposure.

Friday, July 3 would be very convenient for such purpose.

[dpslaw]

UNC's multi-year football APR has steadily declined since 08-09. The most recent multi-year rate now stands at a precarious 937. Do they give rings for that?

[PSurprise]

Friday, July 3 would be very convenient for such purpose.

That's a state holiday...do you think anyone is going to be working overtime on this? :)

[tux]

Announcing receipt on a Friday and publishing on a Friday (maybe) suggests something, but hard to square that with Chansky. Not that I put a lot of faith in Chansky. Of course, UNC could be doing the Friday dance as a bit of misdirection -- making everyone think they'd like to bury it, only to have it be much better for UNC than anticipated. Either way, it will be the most read document in NC over the weekend if we get it today.

[PackMan97]

Announcing receipt on a Friday and publishing on a Friday (maybe) suggests something, but hard to square that with Chansky. Not that I put a lot of faith in Chansky. Of course, UNC could be doing the Friday dance as a bit of misdirection -- making everyone think they'd like to bury it, only to have it be much better for UNC than anticipated. Either way, it will be the most read document in NC over the weekend if we get it today.

I read on PackPride a quote from Folt that suggested next week at the earliest. Doubt it drops today.

[bedeviled]

Kudos to UNC for honoring their vow to be transparent, though I had originally thought they meant it in a different way ;)

Does anyone know of a source that examined communication between Swofford and the UNC Athletic Directors during the scandals?
I would think someone would have requested that info for conspiracy reasons at some point. My curiosity is that I think it would be interesting to see a first-hand account of how conferences and schools interact with each other in the collegiate sports model while navigating violations. (However, I'm not curious enough to make a public records request myself, partly due to professional reasons)

[El_Diablo]

I read on PackPride a quote from Folt that suggested next week at the earliest. Doubt it drops today.

Yes, she says next week at the earliest:

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-still-reviewing-notice-of-allegations-release-on-hold/14675256/

It is pretty much guaranteed to be on a Friday afternoon, given UNC's track record, so I would put money on June 5th if there were some kind of pool.

[hudlow]

Please enjoy this musical interlude - get a Coke and a snack and refresh yourselves while we wait for another chapter of "Can We still Claim The Sky was Painted Blue Just For Us?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyCa35_mOg

[MarkD83]

Please enjoy this musical interlude - get a Coke and a snack and refresh yourselves while we wait for another chapter of "Can We still Claim The Sky was Painted Blue Just For Us?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyCa35_mOg

Here is a great quote from IC "Sometimes we whose patience are being tested do tend to stew in our own juices.......makes this a pretty juicy board."

On a side note....I need intervention help!!! I have been reading Pack Pride and IC and can't help but be amused by the divergent points of view and how many posts there are about this subject. This board is much more patient (except for me.) OK I will post in a more positive thread to feel better.

[Boba]

Editorial from our local paper on the UNC mess.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/columns/story/2015/jun/01/tar-heels-may-face-tough-call/307200/

[tux]

Editorial from our local paper on the UNC mess.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/columns/story/2015/jun/01/tar-heels-may-face-tough-call/307200/


The UNC PR machine is definitely earning its money. We have a scandal that ran for 18+ years, involved athletes from multiple sports, and probably spanned multiple academic departments (despite the limited scope of the Weinstein Report). That scandal largely removed the burden of an academic workload from a large swath of UNC athletes, a significant competitive edge both in recruiting and on the field... yet we are now debating whether the postseason ban for basketball should be 2016 (no, the team's too good) or 2017 (okay, that seems a bit more fair), or maybe we should let Roy just pick his punishment. Maybe give up that 2005 banner and call it a day... Good lord! What a snow job. When Roy expressed concern about AFAM clustering, it wasn't that he put an end to the paper classes, he just didn't want the scheme to seem so obvious by having his whole team major in AFAM. People are really losing site of exactly what went down in Chapel Hill as well as Roy's complicity in the entire ordeal.

[Henderson]

Editorial from our local paper on the UNC mess.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/columns/story/2015/jun/01/tar-heels-may-face-tough-call/307200/

So that writer has no clue either.

Back to Tom Petty....

[OldPhiKap]

Editorial from our local paper on the UNC mess.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/columns/story/2015/jun/01/tar-heels-may-face-tough-call/307200/


The UNC PR machine is definitely earning its money. We have a scandal that ran for 18+ years, involved athletes from multiple sports, and probably spanned multiple academic departments (despite the limited scope of the Weinstein Report). That scandal largely removed the burden of an academic workload from a large swath of UNC athletes, a significant competitive edge both in recruiting and on the field... yet we are now debating whether the postseason ban for basketball should be 2016 (no, the team's too good) or 2017 (okay, that seems a bit more fair), or maybe we should let Roy just pick his punishment. Maybe give up that 2005 banner and call it a day... Good lord! What a snow job. When Roy expressed concern about AFAM clustering, it wasn't that he put an end to the paper classes, he just didn't want the scheme to seem so obvious by having his whole team major in AFAM. People are really losing site of exactly what went down in Chapel Hill as well as Roy's complicity in the entire ordeal.


So that writer has no clue either.

On to Pink Floyd....

"All in all, it's just a-nother brick in the wall"

(We sure don't need no education)

[ricks68]

So that writer has no clue either.

Back to Tom Petty....

Really, really stupid understanding of the situation by the writer, IMHO.:rolleyes:

ricks

[Kfanarmy]

Editorial from our local paper on the UNC mess.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/sports/columns/story/2015/jun/01/tar-heels-may-face-tough-call/307200/

While the intent of the article may be more of a "pick your own poison" message, it seems to downplay the two-decades worth of cheating as equivalent to one ineligible player. The whole notion of the head cheater picking his own punishment is just absurd.

[sagegrouse]

While the intent of the article may be more of a "pick your own poison" message, it seems to downplay the two-decades worth of cheating as equivalent to one ineligible player. The whole notion of the head cheater picking his own punishment is just absurd.

It also overlooks the likelihood that the NCAA will really put the heat on Roy to retire or face major personal penalties.

[Duvall]

It also overlooks the likelihood that the NCAA will really put the heat on Roy to retire or face major personal penalties.

Likelihood? Is placing pressure on a coach to resign or face major personal penalties something the NCAA has done in the past?

[hurleyfor3]

Likelihood? Is placing pressure on a coach to resign or face major personal penalties something the NCAA has done in the past?

Show-cause penalties are more a both/and than an either/or but have the same effect.

[hudlow]

Show-cause penalties are more a both/and than an either/or but have the same effect.


....depending on the timing...allowing Roy a shot at another National Championship with a "loaded" team" while keeping this investigation on simmer would surely lessen the "effect."

[Tom B.]

....depending on the timing...allowing Roy a shot at another National Championship with a "loaded" team" while keeping this investigation on simmer would surely lessen the "effect."

Which is basically what the NCAA did to Jerry Tarkanian in 1990-91. And we know how that worked out. :)

[Jarhead]

....depending on the timing...allowing Roy a shot at another National Championship with a "loaded" team" while keeping this investigation on simmer would surely lessen the "effect."

...but, that would then require a new investigation, wouldn't it?

[FerryFor50]

Ol' Roy hasn't seen the NOA:

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-s-roy-williams-says-he-hasn-t-seen-ncaa-allegations/14682871/

Must be hard to see (and breathe) with your head up your own arse.

Lends credence to the notion that he had no idea this stuff was going on, though.

[Indoor66]

Ol' Roy hasn't seen the NOA:

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-s-roy-williams-says-he-hasn-t-seen-ncaa-allegations/14682871/

Must be hard to see (and breathe) with your head up your own arse.

Lends credence to the notion that he had no idea this stuff was going on, though.

I will disagree with you on the portion I highlighted. I think it lends credence to the notion that he knew fully what was going on. Now he just stays "above it all." All I can do is call B.S.

[BigWayne]

I will disagree with you on the portion I highlighted. I think it lends credence to the notion that he knew fully what was going on. Now he just stays "above it all." All I can do is call B.S.

Exactly, he is purposely not looking at it, so he can continue with the charade of being unaware of any bad acts.

[FerryFor50]

I will disagree with you on the portion I highlighted. I think it lends credence to the notion that he knew fully what was going on. Now he just stays "above it all." All I can do is call B.S.

I was mainly saying it tongue in cheek. Of COURSE he knew. But doing stuff like this at least makes you think he's just not very smart. ;)

[Tripping William]

Exactly, he is purposely not looking at it, so he can continue with the charade of being unaware of any bad acts.

This strikes me more as a deliberate decision by his higher-ups to keep it from him.

[Duvall]

Exactly, he is purposely not looking at it, so he can continue with the charade of being unaware of any bad acts.

Probably less that than being able to avoid answering any questions about the notice until the university has prepared its response. And Williams probably *hasn't* read the report, though he has surely been briefed by people that have.

[tux]

Probably less that than being able to avoid answering any questions about the notice until the university has prepared its response. And Williams probably *hasn't* read the report, though he has surely been briefed by people that have.

Totally agree. This IMO is standard operating procedure for these sort of things. It doesn't really say much about Roy one way or the other.

[PackMan97]

Totally agree. This IMO is standard operating procedure for these sort of things. It doesn't really say much about Roy one way or the other.

Other than his ability to lie and dissemble.

His statement, while likely 100% accurate is also shows a complete lack of desire to get to the bottom of this scandal and root out all of the rotten pieces of the machine. Of course, we all know why, Roy is neck deep in this mess.

[devildeac]

I will disagree with you on the portion I highlighted. I think it lends credence to the notion that he knew fully what was going on. Now he just stays "above it all." All I can do is call B.S.

5159

[devildeac]

Other than his ability to lie and dissemble.

His statement, while likely 100% accurate is also shows a complete lack of desire to get to the bottom of this scandal and root out all of the rotten pieces of the machine. Of course, we all know why, Roy is neck deep in this mess.

5160