PDA

View Full Version : UNC Athletics Scandal: Notice of Allegations - Lack of institutional control



Pages : [1] 2

Duvall
06-04-2015, 12:33 PM
The Notice of Allegations. (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf)


It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations set forth in Allegation Nos.
1 and 2 demonstrate that the institution violated the NCAA principles of
institutional control and rules compliance when it failed to monitor the activities
of Jan Boxill (Boxill), then philosophy instructor, director of the Parr Center for
Ethics, women's basketball athletics academic counselor in the Academic Support
Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and chair of the faculty. Further, the
institution exhibited a lack of institutional control in regard to the special
arrangements constituting impermissible benefits athletics academic counselors
and staff within African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department
provided to student-athletes.

Specifically, individuals in the academic administration on campus, particularly in
the college of arts and sciences, did not sufficiently monitor the AFRI/AFAM and
ASPSA departments or provide appropriate supervision for these academic units
and their staffs. The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that
went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these
courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically
at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and
women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the
anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to
these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a
disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other
impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection
with these courses.

Dev11
06-04-2015, 12:37 PM
Christmas at Pack Pride today, I would imagine.

OldPhiKap
06-04-2015, 12:37 PM
The Notice of Allegations. (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf)

Great find and link.

Olympic Fan
06-04-2015, 12:37 PM
Might want to start a new thread -- the NOA was released ... 59 pages in the NOA with 732 pages of supporting documentation

The NOA:
http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf

The exhibits:
http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA-exhibits.pdf


It does use the dreaded words, "lack of institutional control". The key phrase (and the answer to all those who kept assuring us that basketball would skate):

"This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball."

Also interesting, the NOA is dated May 20 ... not May 22 (the date UNC acknowledged receipt)

Billy Dat
06-04-2015, 12:45 PM
In this instant gratification world, I am anxiously waiting for someone to let us know what this means for UNC Men's Hoops. I can't tell if they skated or they should be worried. It's been 5 minutes, someone should already have published a nuanced and informed take.

hurleyfor3
06-04-2015, 12:47 PM
In this instant gratification world, I am anxiously waiting for someone to let us know what this means for UNC Men's Hoops. I can't tell if they skated or they should be worried. It's been 5 minutes, someone should already have published a nuanced and informed take.

"mens basketball" + "18 years" =

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4427&d=1414558562

Tripping William
06-04-2015, 12:48 PM
In this instant gratification world, I am anxiously waiting for someone to let us know what this means for UNC Men's Hoops. I can't tell if they skated or they should be worried. It's been 5 minutes, someone should already have published a nuanced and informed take.

In 140 characters or fewer, of course.

Billy Dat
06-04-2015, 12:51 PM
Trying to parse the Twitter reactions is an interesting exercise:

ACCSports.com ‏@ACCSports 1m1 minute ago
#UNC is almost certainly going to fight Lack of Institutional Control charge. Speculation on potential sanctions is just that – speculation

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 4m4 minutes ago
UNC men's basketball, football personnel are not listed in any of the five allegations. As expected, NOA comes down hard on Boxill.

Laura Keeley ‏@laurakeeley 58s58 seconds ago
Nonrev student-athelete mentions: w basketball (26), baseball (3) W soccer (3), softball (2), field hockey (1), W track (1), W tennis (1)

Josh Goodson ‏@joshwgoodson 6m6 minutes ago
who told Boxill, Nyangoro, etc to do what they did. I mean just to wake up and say "hey I'm going to start being sketch" is -_____-

Dana O'Neil ‏@ESPNDanaOneil 10m10 minutes ago
UNC releases notice of allegations. NCAA drops a lot of major charges but broad scope. See how this plays out

CameronBornAndBred
06-04-2015, 12:51 PM
Looks like the women are taking the brunt...grrrr. This is a good breakdown of allegations.



In the first allegation, the NCAA found that UNC directed student-athletes to certain courses within the Department of African and African-American Studies, arranged assignments fo those student-athletes and recommended grades for them.
The second allegation centers on the women's basketball program and Jan Boxill, former faculty chairwoman and ethics professor.
Boxill, according to the NCAA, knowingly provided women's basketball players with academic assistance, including recommending grades for them.
The third and fourth of the allegations focus on Julius Nyang'oro, former department chair of the AF-AM Department, and his long-time assistant, Deborah Crowder. The NCAA alleges that each refused to cooperate with both UNC and NCAA investigations despite multiple requests.
In conclusion, the NCAA found that "the scope and nature of the violations set forth .. demonstrate that the institution violated the NCAA principles of institutional control and rules compliance."
t http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncaa-finds-lack-of-institutional-control-at-unc/14689222/#AiKdiAtOYwPHgzC2.99

OldPhiKap
06-04-2015, 12:57 PM
Has the NCAA ever NOT vacated all wins where ineligible players were used?

If the classes were an impermissible benefit, all that took them would be ineligible -- right?

Bluedog
06-04-2015, 12:58 PM
Looking through the exhibits and reading the e-mail exchanges is quite humorous really....

Like this one:


> Jan Boxill wrote:
>
>> Attached is a paper that <redacted name> did for the AFRI class. I never
>> heard from Eunice, so I hope this is okay, as we need a grade recorded
>> by Sept 29th. She said there were dots misplaced, but I couldn't see
>> any when I opened it up.
>>
>> I was home sick yesterday, and not sure if I'll be in today.
>>
>> Thanks, I may have to ask some HUGE FAVORS this week as well, but
>> I'll call you tomorrow.
>>
>> Jan


Deborah Crowder wrote:
> I am so sorry you are sick. That must be miserable. A bunch of folks
> are sick, but more with respiratory stuff than stomach stuff! Rest up,
> please! No worries. As long as I am here I will try to accommodate as
> many favors as possible. Did you say a D will do for <name redacted>? I'm
> only asking that because 1. no sources, 2, it has absolutely nothing to
> do with the assignments for that class and 3. it seems to me to be a
> recycled paper. She took AFRI in spring of 2007 and that was likely
> for that class. dc
>



Hi Debby,
Yes, a D will be fine; that's all she needs. I didn't look at the paper
but figured it was a recycled one as well, but I couldn't figure from where!
Thanks for whatever you can do.
Jan


Who says UNC doesn't have standards?! They gave somebody a D!! :rolleyes: I love that the paper had "absolutely nothing to do with the assignment" and wasn't even written for the class, bwahahahaha.

Olympic Fan
06-04-2015, 12:59 PM
Still scanning documents, but it's amazing the breath of the charges -- everything a UNC hater could have dreamed of, including the acknowledgement that the fraud has been on-going for 18 years. Well, maybe a hater could have hoped for a direct link to Roy (I can't find one yet). But think about this -- the Wainstein report contained just 200 or so pages of evidence ... this thing includes 732 pages! It's going to take a while to wade through it.

One interesting sideline ... I warned you not to buy Chansky's optimistic description of the NOA. It's hard to believe UNC was happy with this -- it's the Hammer of Thor. And it was just flat out wrong when he said men's basketball and football were not named -- they are front and center. Just shows you how unplugged in he is (and other UNC apologists such as Greg Barnes, Adam Gold, Dave Glenn are). The optimism that we saw from Williams and Fedora earlier this week was either a huge lie or maybe they really didn't have a clue what was in the NOA (which would mean that maybe the administration is stepping in to take this out of the athletic department's hands).

Still impossible to gauge the penalties this will bring, but it's apparent:

(1) Men's Basketball (cited as a repeat offender!) and Football will be hammered with postseason bans and loss of scholarships

(2) The University will be hammered with large financial penalties (aggravated by Debbie Crowder's cited obstruction and refusal to cooperate in the investigation -- a major breech of NCAA protocol)

(3) There is a chance that some banners come down and some games are forfeited. The acknowledgement that this goes back 18 years certainly means that the NCAA will be checking the eligibility of players on those teams.

It's going to be epic. And the longer UNC strings it out -- the longer their recruiting is going to suffer. Still think they try and delay long enough so the 2015-16 basketball team has its chance to make a title run, but that's just going to keep this cloud over the program (and kill recruiting) that much longer.

Pardon me, my popcorn's done ... time to get back to the 700-plus pages of exhibits.

Duvall
06-04-2015, 01:01 PM
Looks like the women are taking the brunt...grrrr. This is a good breakdown of allegations.


t http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncaa-finds-lack-of-institutional-control-at-unc/14689222/#AiKdiAtOYwPHgzC2.99

It's actually a pretty terrible breakdown, in that it doesn't reference the department-wide allegation of lack of institutional control at all.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:01 PM
Has the NCAA ever NOT vacated all wins where ineligible players were used?

If the classes were an impermissible benefit, all that took them would be ineligible -- right?
No.

16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. [A]
...For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility. (Adopted: 11/1/01, Revised: 8/5/04, 8/7/14)

Billy Dat
06-04-2015, 01:03 PM
Carolina Meltdown ‏@ICMeltdown 1m1 minute ago
If you think Men's BB is fine, you have not read the top of page 49.

And I quote:

"Specifically, individuals in the academic administration on campus, particularly in the college of arts and sciences, did not sufficiently monitor the AFRI/AFAM and ASPSA departments or provide appropriate supervision for these academic units and their staffs. The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses."

tux
06-04-2015, 01:03 PM
Still scanning documents, but it's amazing the breath of the charges -- everything a UNC hater could have dreamed of, including the acknowledgement that the fraud has been on-going for 18 years. Well, maybe a hater could have hoped for a direct link to Roy (I can't find one yet). But think about this -- the Wainstein report contained just 200 or so pages of evidence ... this thing includes 732 pages! It's going to take a while to wade through it.

One interesting sideline ... I warned you not to buy Chansky's optimistic description of the NOA. It's hard to believe UNC was happy with this -- it's the Hammer of Thor. And it was just flat out wrong when he said men's basketball and football were not named -- they are front and center. Just shows you how unplugged in he is (and other UNC apologists such as Greg Barnes, Adam Gold, Dave Glenn are). The optimism that we saw from Williams and Fedora earlier this week was either a huge lie or maybe they really didn't have a clue what was in the NOA (which would mean that maybe the administration is stepping in to take this out of the athletic department's hands).

Still impossible to gauge the penalties this will bring, but it's apparent:

(1) Men's Basketball (cited as a repeat offender!) and Football will be hammered with postseason bans and loss of scholarships

(2) The University will be hammered with large financial penalties (aggravated by Debbie Crowder's cited obstruction and refusal to cooperate in the investigation -- a major breech of NCAA protocol)

(3) There is a chance that some banners come down and some games are forfeited. The acknowledgement that this goes back 18 years certainly means that the NCAA will be checking the eligibility of players on those teams.

It's going to be epic. And the longer UNC strings it out -- the longer their recruiting is going to suffer. Still think they try and delay long enough so the 2015-16 basketball team has its chance to make a title run, but that's just going to keep this cloud over the program (and kill recruiting) that much longer.

Pardon me, my popcorn's done ... time to get back to the 700-plus pages of exhibits.


Trying to square the range of opinions...

E.g., here's a tweet from the DG show:

David Glenn Show ‏@DavidGlennShow (https://twitter.com/DavidGlennShow) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/DavidGlennShow/status/606504487679881216)
DG kindly accepting apologies today from internet "experts" who had predicted more severe UNC allegations, told him his analysis was wrong.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:05 PM
No.

16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. [A]
...For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility. (Adopted: 11/1/01, Revised: 8/5/04, 8/7/14)
However that last sentence was added 8/5/2004. Violations with no monetary value before that date then presumably do affect eligibility.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:10 PM
UNC was asked to provide the following:


10. Provide the following information concerning the sports programs identified in this inquiry:

A statement indicating whether the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4 apply to the institution as a result of the involvement of student-athletes in violations noted in this inquiry.

A statement indicating whether the provisions of Bylaw 19.9.7-(g) apply to the institution as a result of the involvement of student-athletes in violations noted in this inquiry.

31.2.2.3 Participation While Ineligible. When a student-athlete competing as an individual or representing the institution in a team championship is declared ineligible following the competition, or a penalty has been prescribed or action taken as set forth in Bylaw 19.9.7-(g) or 19.13, the Committee on Infractions may require the following: (Revised: 4/26/01, 7/31/14)
(b) Team Competition. The record of the team's performance may be deleted, the team's place in the final standings may be vacated, and the team's trophy and the ineligible student's award may be returned to the Association. (Revised: 4/26/01)

31.2.2.4 Institutional Penalty for Ineligible Participation. When an ineligible student-athlete participates in an NCAA championship and the student-athlete or the institution knew or had reason to know of the ineligibility, the NCAA Committee on Infractions may assess a financial penalty. (Revised: 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01)

19.9.7 Additional Penalties for Level I and Level II Violations. In addition to the core penalties for Level I and Level II violations, the panel may prescribe one or more of the following penalties: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 8/7/14)
(g) Vacation of records in contests in which a student-athlete competed while ineligible, including one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;

(2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or

(3) Return of individual or team awards to the Association.

Olympic Fan
06-04-2015, 01:14 PM
Trying to square the range of opinions...

E.g., here's a tweet from the DG show:

David Glenn Show ‏@DavidGlennShow (https://twitter.com/DavidGlennShow) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/DavidGlennShow/status/606504487679881216)
DG kindly accepting apologies today from internet "experts" who had predicted more severe UNC allegations, told him his analysis was wrong.


Glenn is in absolute denial. Even the blithering idiots on IC are aware that the bomb dropped (funny post suggesting that Chansky pack his bags and get out of town).

As for the notion that men's basketball; somehow escaped the charges, I found this on Pack Pride (al credit to the fire that kept this pot boiling):



FI56: November 12, 2009 – Email from Huffstetler to Jennifer Townsend

(Townsend), associate director in ASPSA and men's basketball athletic

academic counselor. This includes, but is not limited to, Townsend

describing a professor's reaction to teaching a course with 50 enrolled

student-athletes.

(Item7_HuffstetlerToTownsend_111209_NorthCarolina_ 00231)




FI64: April 28, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Wayne Walden (Walden), former

associate director and athletic academic counselor in ASPSA for men's

basketball. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder's inquiry

regarding Huffstetler's ability to work with men's basketball studentathletes.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromCrowder_042806_NorthCarolina _00231)



FI65: March 20, 2007 – Email from Crowder to Huffstetler. This includes, but

is not limited to, Crowder's reporting of the poor performance of men's

basketball student-athletes in a class.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromCrowder_032007_NorthCarolina _00231)



FI66: – Email from Crowder to men's basketball studentathletes

and members of the ASPSA staff. This includes, but is not

limited to, an attachment containing the assignment for a course.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromCrowder_ _NorthCarolina_00231)



FI67: – Email from Boxill to Huffstetler. This includes, but is not

limited to, Boxill providing an assignment for the men's basketball

student-athlete enrolled in her course.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromBoxill_ _NorthCarolina_00231)



FI68: July 26, 2005 – Email from Boxill to Huffstetler and Walden. This

includes, but is not limited to, Boxill providing the assignment for the

men's basketball student-athletes enrolled in her class.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromBoxill_072605_NorthCarolina_ 00231)


FI71: July 14, 2005 – Email from Boxill to Huffstetler. This includes, but is not

limited to, Boxill providing the grades for men's basketball studentathletes

enrolled in her philosophy course.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromBoxill_071405_NorthCarolina_ 00231)





FI72: July 11, 2005 – Email from Boxill to Huffstetler and Walden. This

includes, but is not limited to, Boxill reporting grades for the men's

basketball student-athletes enrolled in her course.

(Item7_HuffstetlerFromBoxill_071105_NorthCarolina_ 00231)



FI73: July 8, 2005 – Email from Boxill to Huffstetler. This includes, but is not

limited to, Boxill reporting grades for the men's basketball student-athletes

enrolled in her course.


Add these:


FI221: December 14, 2014 – Interview transcript of Roy Williams (R. Williams),

head men's basketball coach. This includes, but is not limited to, R.

Williams' concern about the number of men's basketball student-athletes

majoring in AFRI/AFAM.

(RWilliams_TR_120414_NorthCarolina_00231)



FI225: September 24, 2014 – Interview transcript of Joe Holladay (Holladay),

former assistant men's basketball coach. This includes, but is not limited

to, Holladay's understanding that Walden helped the men's basketball

student-athletes pick courses.

(JHolladay_TR_092414_NorthCarolina_00231)





FI226: August 27, 2014 – Interview transcript of Walden. This includes, but is

not limited to, Walden's explanation for AFRI/AFAM courses with

restricted enrollment, where he would call Crowder to get a student-athlete

enrolled.

(WWalden_TR_082714_NorthCarolina_00231)




FI240: November 5, 2014 – Interview transcript of Steve Robinson (Robinson),

assistant men's basketball coach. This includes, but is not limited to,

Robinson's description of how the men's basketball team handled

academic issues.

(SRobinson_TR_110514_NorthCarolina_00231)



FI314: August 27, 2014 – Interview transcript of Wayne Walden (Walden),

former associate director and athletic academic counselor in ASPSA for

men's basketball. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden's description

of Boxill's role in ASPSA.

(WWalden_TR_082714_NorthCarolina_00231)

Glenn can continue to pat himself on the back, but he's got as much credibility at this point as Chansky. This report is a disaster for UNC basketball (and that's all they care about).

Highlander
06-04-2015, 01:22 PM
It's going to be epic. And the longer UNC strings it out -- the longer their recruiting is going to suffer. Still think they try and delay long enough so the 2015-16 basketball team has its chance to make a title run, but that's just going to keep this cloud over the program (and kill recruiting) that much longer.



Do you think UNC believes a title run with all of this going on is worth the long term implications? It would cast a huge spotlight on UNC, warts and all, and the talk of the tournament would be how UNC refused an immediate postseason ban to get one more title. Tainted doesn't begin to describe how the national media would view a possible UNC championship in the light of these allegations. It would reinforce the perspective that UNC only cares about winning by any means necessary, and has learned absolutely nothing from this experience except not to get caught next time.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:22 PM
No.

16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. [A]
...For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility. (Adopted: 11/1/01, Revised: 8/5/04, 8/7/14)
However, something can be extra benefits as well as something else. For example Allegation 2 is of extra benefits consisting of impermissible academic assistance, which does result in ineligibility (for women's basketball).

mgtr
06-04-2015, 01:26 PM
How does this NOA for UNC compare to the Syracuse NOA? In other words, is it reasonable to expect the UNC penalties to be worse than those handed to Syracuse? And I wonder what SACS thinks of these allegations?

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:26 PM
So we're looking for extra benefits consisting of things that affect eligibility, such as academic fraud.

uh_no
06-04-2015, 01:35 PM
So we're looking for extra benefits consisting of things that affect eligibility, such as academic fraud.

it has nothing to do with benefits. it has everything to do with acedemic eligibility. afaik, the two are different things. Fake classes make a student academically ineligible, even if there is no impermissable benefit.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:37 PM
Allegation 1(a):


1 (a) …recommending grades…designated as lecture courses but were taught as independent study courses with little, if any, attendance requirements, minimal to no faculty interaction, lax paper writing standards and artificially high final grades. In some instances, athletics academic counselors within ASPSA made special arrangements and used these courses to help ensure the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes.

So recommending grades is a kind of fraud. The rest of this could also be interpreted as fraud.
Allegation 1(b):

1 (b) Additionally, from the 2006 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution provided impermissible extra benefits similar to those articulated above and allowed 10 student-athletes to exceed the limit of independent study credits countable toward graduation. Under the institution's policy, credit hours for independent study courses did not count toward a degree after a student exhausted the institutional 12-hour limitation. By failing to count the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses as independent study courses, and including these courses as applicable toward graduation, the institution impermissibly allowed 10 student-athletes to exceed the 12-hour limitation. [NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2006-07 through 2010-11)]


These students were taking classes that did not count toward a degree. That would affect their full-time status.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:39 PM
it has nothing to do with benefits. it has everything to do with acedemic eligibility. afaik, the two are different things. Fake classes make a student academically ineligible, even if there is no impermissable benefit.
I was simply pointing out that most of the stuff was called an extra benefit. That's not enough. We need it to also affect academic eligibility, which some of it does.

SCMatt33
06-04-2015, 01:40 PM
I'm a bit suspicious on how allegation 5 will play out. While is does mention "18 years" as a reference point (presumably 1993-2011), that allegation at the beginning clearly states that the "lack of institutional control" charge stems from the severity of allegations 1 and 2.


It is alleged that the scope and nature of the violations set forth in Allegation Nos. 1 and 2 demonstrate that the institution violated the NCAA principles of institutional control and rules compliance when it failed to monitor the activities of Jan Boxill (Boxill), then philosophy instructor, director of the Parr Center for Ethics, women's basketball athletics academic counselor in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and chair of the faculty. Further, the institution exhibited a lack of institutional control in regard to the special arrangements constituting impermissible benefits athletics academic counselors and staff within African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department provided to student-athletes.

Allegations 1 and 2, however are clearly defines as taking place from fall '02 through spring 2011 and late spring '07 and summer 2010:


It is alleged that beginning in the 2002 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution provided impermissible benefits to studentathletes that were not generally available to the student body.


It is alleged that from April 2007 to July 2010, Jan Boxill (Boxill)...

Seeing as the "lack of institutional" charge is generally used for forward facing sanctions, and doesn't usually have anything to do with retroactive eligibility, I think it's safe to say that wins prior to 2002-03 are highly unlikely to be affected. I imagine that this means that in terms of violations, merely taking one of the fake classes will not be seen as cause for retroactive ineligibility. That will likely only be levied on athletes for whom "special arrangements" were made and needed the classes to remain eligible. I imagine that when all is said and done, we will see a swiss cheese type of sanction in terms of vacated wins, similar to Syracuse. The big question is exactly who is among that group. They seem to highlight cases only in which Crowder or Boxil had direct impact on the athletes placement, therefore, it might not be as simple as "McCants took the classes and needed them for eligibility, therefore 2005 is comin' down." Of all the emails used in the investigation that mention men's basketball, none are from the 2004-05 or 2008-09 school years that I found (please correct me if I missed one). There are a ton, however, from summer '05 through '07, and then they pick up again in summer '09, conveniently dancing around the semesters preceding the '05, '08 and '09 seasons. Obviously there is a ton of information from interviews not mentioned, and the emails could possibly be talking about old stuff, but as of right now, my tea-leaf reading guess is that like 'Cuse, none of the "big seasons" will be affected.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 01:43 PM
Allegation 1(a):


So recommending grades is a kind of fraud. The rest of this could also be interpreted as fraud.
Allegation 1(b):

These students were taking classes that did not count toward a degree. That would affect their full-time status.
Allegation 1(a) was for years 2002 through 2011. 1(b) was for years 2006 through 2011.

Troublemaker
06-04-2015, 01:49 PM
They seem to highlight cases only in which Crowder or Boxil had direct impact on the athletes placement, therefore, it might not be as simple as "McCants took the classes and needed them for eligibility, therefore 2005 is comin' down." Of all the emails used in the investigation that mention men's basketball, none are from the 2004-05 or 2008-09 school years that I found (please correct me if I missed one). There are a ton, however, from summer '05 through '07, and then they pick up again in summer '09, conveniently dancing around the semesters preceding the '05, '08 and '09 seasons. Obviously there is a ton of information from interviews not mentioned, and the emails could possibly be talking about old stuff, but as of right now, my tea-leaf reading guess is that like 'Cuse, none of the "big seasons" will be affected.

I believe FI118 counts in the range you're looking for.

Still digesting. Agree with the analysis that major forward-facing sanctions will occur. Not sure about vacating wins/titles yet.

FerryFor50
06-04-2015, 01:51 PM
Trying to square the range of opinions...

E.g., here's a tweet from the DG show:

David Glenn Show ‏@DavidGlennShow (https://twitter.com/DavidGlennShow) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/DavidGlennShow/status/606504487679881216)
DG kindly accepting apologies today from internet "experts" who had predicted more severe UNC allegations, told him his analysis was wrong.


I guess David Glenn has not discovered this new thing called "CTL + F"

dudog84
06-04-2015, 01:57 PM
19.9.7 Additional Penalties for Level I and Level II Violations. In addition to the core penalties for Level I and Level II violations, the panel may prescribe one or more of the following penalties: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 8/7/14)
(g) Vacation of records in contests in which a student-athlete competed while ineligible, including one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;


I also want Hansbrough's records gone.

JasonEvans
06-04-2015, 02:01 PM
Roy Williams has often said he had no idea who Mary Willingham was. Well, it looks like Ole Roy was lying!

Laura Keely has found an email (https://twitter.com/laurakeeley/status/606514703557398529) where Jan Boxil makes it clear that Roy Williams did know Mary Willingham. In fact, Roy apparently wanted Mary to apply for a major academic advising position in the men's hoops program back in 2009.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGrF6K7W0AEG-w2.jpg

-Jason "doesn't really affect the penalties at all, but nice to note Roy is a lying sack of #@#^!%" Evans

PackMan97
06-04-2015, 02:09 PM
1. Re: Impermissible Benefits - All this means is UNC does not have to worry about vacating wins because a player was able to sign up for a class after the drop/add date, or was able to enroll in a class that was at it's enrollment limit. If you think this is all the NOA is about....I have a cousin in Nigeria that would like your bank account information to help him move some lottery winnings.

2. I believe the punishment will only go back to 2002. Although 18+ years is called out in the NOA, the specific allegations only date back to 2002. Big win for UNC

3. There is no mention of Wheels for Heels, mouth guards, bringing in current professional athletes as coaches or a host of other issues that should get Carolina in hot water. Big win for UNC.

Overall, this NOA is good news for UNC. They will likely only lose 2 NCAA titles when it should be at least three. Dean Smith is protected. Their '94 Women's Basketball Title is protected. A dozen or so Women's Soccer titles are protected. A host of ACC Titles across all sports are protected by that 2002 date. Not to mention, count on UNC after all this is over, they'll brag about how they got away with cheating in the 90s.

wsb3
06-04-2015, 02:11 PM
I will go out on a limb here & say that 99.9 % of UNC fans will argue and dispute the entire document without reading it.

And regardless of how all this turns out Thank You Pack Pride from the bottom of this Blue Devil loving heart.

Duvall
06-04-2015, 02:13 PM
1. Re: Impermissible Benefits - All this means is UNC does not have to worry about vacating wins because a player was able to sign up for a class after the drop/add date, or was able to enroll in a class that was at it's enrollment limit. If you think this is all the NOA is about....I have a cousin in Nigeria that would like your bank account information to help him move some lottery winnings.

2. I believe the punishment will only go back to 2002. Although 18+ years is called out in the NOA, the specific allegations only date back to 2002. Big win for UNC

3. There is no mention of Wheels for Heels, mouth guards, bringing in current professional athletes as coaches or a host of other issues that should get Carolina in hot water. Big win for UNC.

Not sure it's a "big win" for UNC to only be sanctioned for the offenses for which there was actual evidence beyond fevered PackPride conspiracy theories.

nocilla
06-04-2015, 02:15 PM
So is there a timeframe for penalties?

The NOA was issued on May 20 and UNC has 90 days to respond, meaning August 20. What happens after that? Does it go directly to the infractions committee or is there a back and forth negotiation?

alteran
06-04-2015, 02:19 PM
Do you think UNC believes a title run with all of this going on is worth the long term implications? It would cast a huge spotlight on UNC, warts and all, and the talk of the tournament would be how UNC refused an immediate postseason ban to get one more title. Tainted doesn't begin to describe how the national media would view a possible UNC championship in the light of these allegations. It would reinforce the perspective that UNC only cares about winning by any means necessary, and has learned absolutely nothing from this experience except not to get caught next time.

You're totally right. But UNC has yet to display one iota of long term thinking with respect to this whole thing. From day one it's been delay, obfuscate, stone-wall, and deny.

I'm reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

Tom B.
06-04-2015, 02:21 PM
2. I believe the punishment will only go back to 2002. Although 18+ years is called out in the NOA, the specific allegations only date back to 2002. Big win for UNC

. . . .

Overall, this NOA is good news for UNC. They will likely only lose 2 NCAA titles when it should be at least three. Dean Smith is protected. Their '94 Women's Basketball Title is protected. A dozen or so Women's Soccer titles are protected. A host of ACC Titles across all sports are protected by that 2002 date. Not to mention, count on UNC after all this is over, they'll brag about how they got away with cheating in the 90s.


On the other hand, Doherty's 8-20 season in 2001-02 potentially could be on the line -- which most UNC fans would probably count as a win because they'd just as soon pretend it never happened.

DukieInKansas
06-04-2015, 02:22 PM
Inside Carolina is predicting a parade in Raleigh today:

Poster #1 - " So just Womens Basketball or are more sports involved?

Essentially, are mens football and basketball named?"

Poster #2 replied - "yes and somewhat frequently. if you're up for a parade there may be one in raleigh today"

Could be some fun reading over there.

cspan37421
06-04-2015, 02:22 PM
... for Valerie Ashby, formerly and recently Chair of UNC's chemistry department, and signatory to the 3/19/2015 "The Future Demands our Attention" letter that was so widely derided here.

Therefore, say hello to your new Trinity College of Arts & Sciences Dean, Valerie Ashby.

https://today.duke.edu/2015/05/ashby-final

That's probably all I should say for now, but I am not without opinion on the matter.

SCMatt33
06-04-2015, 02:24 PM
So is there a timeframe for penalties?

The NOA was issued on May 20 and UNC has 90 days to respond, meaning August 20. What happens after that? Does it go directly to the infractions committee or is there a back and forth negotiation?

The hearing gets scheduled at that point. By rule, it should be within 60 days, but that doesn't always happen. Also, UNC can delay the process by asking for an extension to the 90 days to respond. After the hearing, the sanctions will be issued. I believe that the sanctions are supposed to be issued somewhere in the 6-12 week range after the hearing (I can't remember off the top of my head), but that doesn't always happen either. Syracuse for example, had a hearing in October and the sanctions weren't officially issued until March.

Tom B.
06-04-2015, 02:24 PM
Perhaps the best part in all of this:

The NOA does nothing to dispel the cloud of uncertainty hanging over UNC, including its football and men's basketball programs, regarding potential future penalties -- especially with regard to possible forward-looking penalties (probation, postseason bans, lost scholarships, etc.).

Have fun on the recruiting trail, Roy.

Tom B.
06-04-2015, 02:28 PM
... for Valerie Ashby, formerly and recently Chair of UNC's chemistry department, and signatory to the 3/19/2015 "The Future Demands our Attention" letter that was so widely derided here.

Therefore, say hello to your new Trinity College of Arts & Sciences Dean, Valerie Ashby.

https://today.duke.edu/2015/05/ashby-final

That's probably all I should say for now, but I am not without opinion on the matter.


http://img.pandawhale.com/144636-south-park-stan-facepalm-meme-6OUN.png

dudog84
06-04-2015, 02:40 PM
... for Valerie Ashby, formerly and recently Chair of UNC's chemistry department, and signatory to the 3/19/2015 "The Future Demands our Attention" letter that was so widely derided here.

Therefore, say hello to your new Trinity College of Arts & Sciences Dean, Valerie Ashby.

https://today.duke.edu/2015/05/ashby-final

That's probably all I should say for now, but I am not without opinion on the matter.


Absolutely unbelievable.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 02:41 PM
Trying to parse the Twitter reactions is an interesting exercise:

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 4m4 minutes ago
UNC men's basketball, football personnel are not listed in any of the five allegations. As expected, NOA comes down hard on Boxill.

The fact that basketball personnel were not listed in the allegations is irrelevant. The allegations are just generalizations. It's in the exhibits where people are mentioned.

sdotbarbee
06-04-2015, 02:42 PM
Perhaps the best part in all of this:

The NOA does nothing to dispel the cloud of uncertainty hanging over UNC, including its football and men's basketball programs, regarding potential future penalties -- especially with regard to possible forward-looking penalties (probation, postseason bans, lost scholarships, etc.).

Have fun on the recruiting trail, Roy.

Anybody know when Harry Giles is set to announce? This has to have a huge effect on that front.

cspan37421
06-04-2015, 02:44 PM
Absolutely unbelievable.

Au contraire ... in light of, shall we say, recent history at my alma mater, I find it quite believable.

weezie
06-04-2015, 02:45 PM
... for Valerie Ashby, formerly and recently Chair of UNC's chemistry department, and signatory to the 3/19/2015 "The Future Demands our Attention" letter that was so widely derided here.

Therefore, say hello to your new Trinity College of Arts & Sciences Dean, Valerie Ashby.

https://today.duke.edu/2015/05/ashby-final

That's probably all I should say for now, but I am not without opinion on the matter.

Holy mackerel. Just thinking about what husband-of-weezie will say the next time those student callers from annual giving us a ring.

DukeWarhead
06-04-2015, 02:48 PM
Didn't want to titilate, so I put the ??? in there. Serious question: Is the delivery of allegations enough to permit players to transfer to a new school and play immediately? Or must penalties actually be dished out before that can happen? I don't necessarily think any UNC players will jump ship right now, but there might not be any resolution until next spring and somebody might want to get out from under the dark cloud before then, especially if they aren't sure about playing time next year. I know I'd be considering it.
Just curious. Any info?

BD80
06-04-2015, 02:57 PM
... for Valerie Ashby, formerly and recently Chair of UNC's chemistry department, and signatory to the 3/19/2015 "The Future Demands our Attention" letter that was so widely derided here.

Therefore, say hello to your new Trinity College of Arts & Sciences Dean, Valerie Ashby.

https://today.duke.edu/2015/05/ashby-final

That's probably all I should say for now, but I am not without opinion on the matter.


http://img.pandawhale.com/144636-south-park-stan-facepalm-meme-6OUN.png

FIFA reelected Blatter. At least Ashby is new SOS.

PackMan97
06-04-2015, 02:58 PM
Didn't want to titilate, so I put the ??? in there. Serious question: Is the delivery of allegations enough to permit players to transfer to a new school and play immediately? Or must penalties actually be dished out before that can happen? I don't necessarily think any UNC players will jump ship right now, but there might not be any resolution until next spring and somebody might want to get out from under the dark cloud before then, especially if they aren't sure about playing time next year. I know I'd be considering it.
Just curious. Any info?

Expect some incoming recruits to seek a special request to be released from their LOI's without penalty. I'd also expect as you said, a fair number of transfers. Get it out of the way now.

Though some might try and wait it out and see if the NCAA hands out "Get out of UNC for free" cards allowing immediate eligibility like they did with Penn State.

Tom B.
06-04-2015, 02:59 PM
Anybody know when Harry Giles is set to announce? This has to have a huge effect on that front.

And don't forget Jayson Tatum (http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/03/five-star-2016-forward-jayson-tatum-aims-for-pre-fall-commitment-notes-north-carolinas-ncaa-issues/).

swood1000
06-04-2015, 03:14 PM
FI81 is an email from Cynthia Reynolds to Corey Holliday making a distinction between "paper classes" and "easier" classes. Since AFAM was cutting back on the number of "paper classes" they were going to have to start relying more on "easier" classes, such as acting and stagecraft.


"The other Drama grades are also poor. Some of The guys just are not taking these classes seriously enough to even get C's. This will become more of any issue since the AFAM dept is drastically cutting down on the numbers in "paper classes". That means these "easier" classes like dram 60 (stagecraft) and Dram 35 (acting) and a few others must be passed and taken seriously or we will continue to be on the eligibility line with these high risk guys."

TKG
06-04-2015, 03:17 PM
Expect some incoming recruits to seek a special request to be released from their LOI's without penalty. I'd also expect as you said, a fair number of transfers. Get it out of the way now.

Though some might try and wait it out and see if the NCAA hands out "Get out of UNC for free" cards allowing immediate eligibility like they did with Penn State.

Teams must be lining up for a shot at Luke Maye!

Kfanarmy
06-04-2015, 03:18 PM
Some of the more damning highlights..at least to me

The high level of involvement by athletics academic counselors in the administration of these anomalous courses relieved student-athletes of the academic responsibilities of a general student.

Under the institution's policy, credit hours for independent study courses did not count toward a degree after a student exhausted the institutional 12-hour limitation. By failing to count the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses as independent study courses, and including these courses as
applicable toward graduation, the institution impermissibly allowed 10 student-athletes to exceed the 12-hour limitation.

Wow…

FI56: November 12, 2009 – Email from Huffstetler to Jennifer Townsend (Townsend), associate director in ASPSA and men's basketball athletic academic counselor. This includes, but is not limited to, Townsend describing a professor's reaction to teaching a course with 50 enrolled student-athletes.

FI81: May 10, 2005 – Email from Reynolds to Holliday. This includes, but is not limited to, Reynolds mentioning the cut back in "paper courses" in the AFRI/AFAM department and the impact the reduction in courses could have on student-athlete eligibility.

FI98: February 26, 2008 – Email from Crowder to Blanton. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder mentioning that she would deliver signed forms for student-athletes quietly so as not to raise suspicion.

FI214: February 8, 2010 – Email from Kleissler to Lee. This includes, but is not
limited to, Kleissler's description of AFRI as requiring: "middle school report, not college seminar."


My NOTfavorite:

FI138: May 21, 2009 This includes, but is not limited to, Reynolds asking if the incoming freshman student-athletes could get a C or better in a specific class.

This one is particularly damning, to me anyway, as it indicates they were engineering athlete grades before they ever enrolled in classes. If you are suing UNC over the education you didn't get, I think this would be an exhibit.

cspan37421
06-04-2015, 03:19 PM
Here's what Ms. Ashby signed her name to (along with 15 colleagues in the department of which she was Chair), in part, in late March of this year:


We stand by the detailed, transparent approach of the University’s leadership in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems that were uncovered. Effective administrative controls have already been put in place in many cases to ensure that the past won’t be revisited (carolinacommitment.unc.edu). In this effort, the athletic program administration has also been completely revamped, and well underway is a comprehensive analysis of all processes that affect the lives and education of our student athletes to optimize their experience on campus. This thoughtful work is slow-going, but it will position us well for the future.

We are perplexed by the unbalanced treatment of these events in the media, which often fails to acknowledge the significant effort the university made in investigating and responding to the academic and athletic irregularities. This imbalance has been amplified by those in our community who seek out the media spotlight to rehash old issues as if they are ongoing problems. In some cases, they have cast broad aspersions on individual departments. These actions are divisive and counterproductive.

It is time to move forward from this unfortunate episode.



Safe to say that this plea was before the NCAA issued its LOIC allegation ... which presumably would not have been issued if, long ago, it obsequiously acknowledged the "detailed and transparent approach" of the UNC leadership "in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems that were uncovered" and just moved forward from this unfortunate [18-year] episode.

Some might say UNC's leadership was, indeed, transparent - in their motives. I would have preferred their approach be thorough (detailed isn't enough), but the gap between the Martin report and the Wainstein report is so vast, it seems that all that has come out thus far had to be uncovered in the face of great resistance, and pressure all along the way to just "move forward."

Trinity_93
06-04-2015, 03:31 PM
Au contraire ... in light of, shall we say, recent history at my alma mater, I find it quite believable.

You're not the only one.
.

sagegrouse
06-04-2015, 03:49 PM
You're totally right. But UNC has yet to display one iota of long term thinking with respect to this whole thing. From day one it's been delay, obfuscate, stone-wall, and deny.

I'm reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

Except when the BOG engaged Wainstein

Tripping William
06-04-2015, 03:59 PM
Interesting, but hardly surprising, that the NOA was sent to Chancellor Folt in care of an attorney located in Overland Park, KS. His bio is here:

http://www.bsk.com/people/richard-j-evrard/collegiate-sports

SCMatt33
06-04-2015, 04:14 PM
The fact that basketball personnel were not listed in the allegations is irrelevant. The allegations are just generalizations. It's in the exhibits where people are mentioned.

It's definitely relevant. Not having any basketball staff accused of anything likely means that Roy Williams will not be punished directly (i.e. show cause penalty or suspension). Remember, Jim Boeheim got punished personally because he was accused of failing to monitor members of the men's basketball staff. Since it's not men's basketball staff members accused of anything, Williams will likely escape direct punishment, which was not guaranteed before.

dball
06-04-2015, 04:17 PM
Here's what Ms. Ashby signed her name to (along with 15 colleagues in the department of which she was Chair), in part, in late March of this year:

"just moved forward from this unfortunate [18-year] episode.

Yes, 18 years doesn't seem to be "an episode" more like a maxi-series.

Perhaps, Linklater could do a movie "18 years" or "Royhood" or something.

Possible book title The Rise and Fall of the Carolina Way.

Olympic Fan
06-04-2015, 04:58 PM
Didn't want to titilate, so I put the ??? in there. Serious question: Is the delivery of allegations enough to permit players to transfer to a new school and play immediately? Or must penalties actually be dished out before that can happen? I don't necessarily think any UNC players will jump ship right now, but there might not be any resolution until next spring and somebody might want to get out from under the dark cloud before then, especially if they aren't sure about playing time next year. I know I'd be considering it.
Just curious. Any info?

Just to clarify this -- the NCAA removes the transfer penalty only for athletes whose remaining eligibility would be covered by a postseason ban. For example, if UNC basketball got a one year ban before the 2016 season (which is not going to happen unless UNC self-imposes in the next two months), then Paige, Johnson and James would be free to transfer without penalty, but Meeks, Jackson and the rest would have to stay -- or sit out if they left.

A more likely scenario is that UNC gets a 1-2 year ban after the coming season. That would free the next class -- Meeks, Britt -- and (if its two years), the next -- Jackson, Berry, Pinson.

As for incoming recruits ... unlikely UNC releases anyone at this point (less than two months before the start of preseason practice), but the looming penalties are going to just hammer UNC's recruiting next season (football and basketball). I know Fedora has been telling recruits that Football was not going to suffer. It will be interesting to see whether the likelihood of penalties changes the minds of their early commitments (who haven't signed and can renege without penalty).

As for UNC's next basketball recruiting class, it will be a miracle if UNC lands anybody of note. The Heels are facing their second straight subpar recruiting class.

But to answer your question, the mere delivery of charges does not free anybody to transfer without penalties -- it's only the actual imposition of charges that frees kids up.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 05:08 PM
A suggestion: if you have a version of Adobe Acrobat that does OCR you can run it on the exhibits document and make it searchable. (In Acrobat under Document, OCR Text Recognition.)

The exhibits that include the term "paper class" or "paper course" are: FI42, 48, 49, 55, 81, 85, 87, 108, 110.

The requirement for vacating wins is ineligible athletes, so I looked for where in the exhibits they provide lists of athletes who took these courses. Some exhibits are just completely redacted so you can't tell what they contained. In addition, redacted names appear throughout the emails. However, here are the major lists (all redacted) showing at least that the NCAA found such lists relevant.

FI141: April 6, 2009 - Email from Reynolds to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet attachment where Reynolds asks Crowder to enroll identified student-athletes in various AFRI/AFAM courses.

FI142: February 13, 2009 - Email from Reynolds to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Reynolds providing a spreadsheet attachment for student athletes enrolled in seminar courses.

FI208: March 16, 2009 - Email from Lee to Bridger and Overstreet. This includes, but is not limited to, Lee providing a list of all football student athletes enrolled in "paper courses."

FI248: January 5, 2015 - Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department.

FI249: February 4, 2015 - Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 05:19 PM
It's definitely relevant. Not having any basketball staff accused of anything likely means that Roy Williams will not be punished directly (i.e. show cause penalty or suspension). Remember, Jim Boeheim got punished personally because he was accused of failing to monitor members of the men's basketball staff. Since it's not men's basketball staff members accused of anything, Williams will likely escape direct punishment, which was not guaranteed before.
What I mean is that the exhibits are included in the allegations by reference. So the fact that "Roy Williams" and "Wayne Walden" are not found in the allegations doesn't matter because they are found in the exhibits. The allegations against the basketball program were very general. The specifics are found in the exhibits. The NCAA invited UNC to consider the allegations in light of the exhibits and specify what penalties it thinks would be appropriate.

moonpie23
06-04-2015, 05:38 PM
Goodmon saying (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13012146/ncaa-charges-north-carolina-tar-heels-five-serious-violations) "everyone does it" and "only mentioning roy once bodes well for unc"

toooskies
06-04-2015, 05:38 PM
I find it a little too convenient that the paper classes just, suddenly, ended. And that Roy has admitted being involved in ending them, but only to the degree of being concerned about student majors. I would love to see what the official story is behind how it actually ended, and if UNC did anything to cover it up. If you've been cheating for 10-20 years, how do you just... stop?

swood1000
06-04-2015, 05:43 PM
What I mean is that the exhibits are included in the allegations by reference. So the fact that "Roy Williams" and "Wayne Walden" are not found in the allegations doesn't matter because they are found in the exhibits. The allegations against the basketball program were very general. The specifics are found in the exhibits. The NCAA invited UNC to consider the allegations in light of the exhibits and specify what penalties it thinks would be appropriate.

My assumption has been that the first Allegation could just be the beginning of more charges. For example, that the charge of extra benefits by exceeding the 12-hour limitation could also result in the additional charge of those students not being full-time. Kind of that these are the allegations and the actual charges will come later, so that these allegations could result in charges against Roy. But maybe that's not correct. Maybe if Roy were going to be charged there would be an allegation against him here. I don't know.

swood1000
06-04-2015, 05:52 PM
My assumption has been that the first Allegation could just be the beginning of more charges. For example, that the charge of extra benefits by exceeding the 12-hour limitation could also result in the additional charge of those students not being full-time. Kind of that these are the allegations and the actual charges will come later, so that these allegations could result in charges against Roy. But maybe that's not correct. Maybe if Roy were going to be charged there would be an allegation against him here. I don't know.

So it looks like more charges can come later. Don't know what the practice of the NCAA is, or whether they hold back charges as a bargaining tool.


19.7.7.4 Scope of Inquiry. When an institution and/or involved individual appears before a hearing panel to discuss a response to the notice of allegations, the hearing shall be directed toward the general scope of the notice of allegations but shall not preclude the panel from concluding that any violation occurred based on information developed or discussed during the hearing. In any case, the panel may make specific factual findings based on information presented by the parties or at a hearing even if different from the notice of allegations. (Revised: 4/24/03, 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13)

Tom B.
06-04-2015, 06:12 PM
Always interesting to peruse IC at times like this. Bolded text in brackets is mine. All typos and misspellings are in the originals. Apologies in advance for the length, but there's just....so....much....material.


In response to a poster who asked if MBB and FB were named in the NOA:


yes and somewhat frequently. if you're up for a parade there may be one in raleigh today


Art Chansky is getting pilloried:


Mr Chansky might as well pack his bags and head to another state or country.


Yeah men's basketball is gonna get to grab its ankles and Art Chansky was FOS as usual.


Man.... Fu see Kay chansky and his sources. Had my hopes way up.


A sense of dread sets in:


Use "find" function on your browser for term " men's basketball" - put a space in front so it doesn't pick up "women's ..." Mentioned 20 times.


This has been such a brutal year for me. This is the only hobby I have left in my life and the team I grew up watching from my childhood has been forever tarnished. It's never going to be the same again. [I actually almost felt sorry for this guy.]


But not everyone's a pessimist:


The only way Men's B-Ball sees any sanctions is if the university allows the 'impermissible benefits' terminology the NCAA uses. There is in no way impermissible benefits if other student's were allowed and ENROLLED in those classes. Yes, student-athletes may have been steered toward these and given a higher priority over non student-athletes, but, unless there is evidence that non student-athletes were refused enrollment specifically due to student-athletes getting in over them, there were no benefits given. [Um....OK....]


Let's keep in mind that although this sounds really bad, the NCAA is likely to name as much impropriety as it can with the NOA, and then dismiss some of it with UNC's response to the allegations. Cunningham said that on some points the university agrees and on others it doesn't agree. I expect this whole thing to be a messy legal battle with the likely outcome to be some of the allegations sticking and some not, and even possibly renaming some allegations. 10 players over 18 years with all 10 coming from three sports?!?! I may be very optimistic, but I think all this sounds MUCH worse than what the final outcome will be....especially since they have taken many steps to correct the situations to prevent them from further happening......BEFORE Weinstein ever started his investigation. [KEEP HOPE ALIVE!]


This is embarassing and a shame for the school but unlike the ag school in raleigh we will recover from any sancations we get. [Because the "ag school in Raleigh" actually cleaned house and self-imposed tighter controls after it was sanctioned. Not that UNC would ever do anything like that.]


In response to the "brutal year" guy:


That's the worst kind of attitude to take on a day like this. Do you honestly think UNC runs a comparatively shady program? The microscope is zoomed in on us to a level that is perhaps unheard of. Of course they're going to find things that don't look good. Until schools agree to the same level scrutiny, they have no room to talk. [Um, dude, it ain't those other schools or what they're saying that you need to worry about right now.]


Obligatory shot at Duke, complete with intentional misspellings and unintentional bad grammar:


UNC has balls to release this NCAA junk ... if it were at [a pejorative spelling of Duke that the filter won't allow] it would Kovered up.


Non-sequiturs galore:


Not to mention practically every D1 school gives athletes first choice to classes. I am not a lawyer at all, but how could that possibly hold up in court?


I had to laugh at these next two posts, which appeared in sequence:


carolinapricelessgem: David Glenn just said no major penalties will come to MBB! I can already feel the wolp-fack aneuryms bursting

dtownheel17: Oh well if David Glenn said it...


More responses to Dave Glenn's speculation, later in the thread:


That's his own guess after reading the same thing we've all read. Not sure why folks continue to cite his opinion as some sort of proof or fact


Dave Glenn apparently didn't google NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 (Penaties for ineligible players) and 31.2.2.4 (Penalties for institutions that play ineligible players). From the last page or two:

-----

Provide the following information concerning the sports programs identified in this inquiry:

...

�� A statement indicating whether the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4 apply to the institution as a result of the involvement of student-athletes in violations noted in this inquiry.


Meanwhile....we'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids!


Myself, friends and co-workers have been saying all along that it indeed happens everywhere BUT not all other schools have rivals' fans and media so close in proximity that have nothing better to do than dig in UNC dirt and cause trouble. The football players in Miami and PJ's troubles (still hearing rumors Fats was/is a [pejorative spelling of Duke] booster and he was the one that blew the whistle on PJs benefits himself) opened Pandora's box and opened everything up.

I know for a fact uconn has a long history of basketball players taking freshman intro classes for four years, being enrolled in park and rec and phys Ed classes where they never came to class except to copy other students' finals, and a tutor center where the players walk in, grab a pre-typed paper for their classes, add their name and turn in it, student managers taking blue book finals for athletes and "dropping it" at the said athlete's feet to pick up and add his name, etc BUT there is no Uconn St or other school to have media and fans make a big deal. And seeing as uconn is the major cash cow sports wise for the state, the state and NCAA primarily look the other way as they bet away it.


More tinfoil hattery re: Fats:


I believe the part about Fat's .. he was used by [pejorative spelling of Duke] & K to set up UNC & PJ took the bait ... Fats probably supplied Lance with his Jewelry .. Duhon's mom's car ... Boozer's house & car ... etc .......


Then there's the "no good deed goes unpunished" caucus:


Well so much for the NCAA giving UNC "credit" for the Wainstein report. Not mentioned anywhere as a mitigating factor. I guess the NCAA has no interest in encouraging schools to try to exam and fix things.

I still think Dolt should be fired for ordering it. Between the $3.5 mil paid to Wainstein, the cost of defending the class action suit it has inspired, the millions spent and to be spent dealing with the NCAA, not to mention the additional hit on UNC's rep, this was a major blunder and someone's head needs to roll for it. [Right. No need for heads to roll for the actual fraud, but we definitely need to can folks for trying to figure out its extent.]


More from the same guy later in the thread (he really does not like Carol Folt):


She decided to voluntarily and unilaterally engage in conduct that has cost UNC millions, will continue to cost UNC millions and has severely damaged its reputation. We cannot afford "leadership" like that. [Again, right. Because it was the effort to uncover the extent of the fraud that "severely damaged [UNC's] reputation." Couldn't have been, oh, I don't know....the fraud itself?]


Folt should have realized nothing good would come from WR and resisted efforts to commission it (or a similar investigation). But for WR, this would be old news, UNC would no longer be a media punching bag and the University would be millions richer. Horrible decision that needs to be addressed.


OK, this one made me laugh too:


That would be 10 out of what, 2100 athletes over 19 years. Washburn was far worse than this by himself.


One guy tries to offer some perspective:


After reading through the NOA in it's entirety (and as much as it pains me to admit):

-Instead of crucifying the likes of Willingham and McCants (who, in hindsight, were dead on), our ire should be directed at Crowder, Boxill, Nyang'oro, and others at the University who KNEW what was happening was wrong.

-This is a egregious case of using these kids for their athletic prowess (at risk or not) and just shuffling them through the system.

-The indecent that McCants spoke of about the bball team piling in cars to go hand in papers was, in fact, true


Gee, I wonder if anyone will agree with him....oh, nevermind.


McCants and Willingham were liars. They did not cooperate or provide any evidence (that they didn't doctor in very obvious ways). They DID run afoul of basic safeguards regarding research protocols and put their own enrichment above the privacy and reputations of dozens if not hundreds of innocent student athletes.


"KEEP HOPE ALIVE!" Part II


Ready for a banner this year. **** this nonsense.


More piling on McCants, and "Everyone does it":


Did McCants cooperate with NCAA? Did he get his 300 million dollar payday from the NCAA? The time he probably told the truth was fall 2004 when he complained that UNC was a prison because he had to go to class, practice etc.

Shuffling through the system is going on everywhere all the way down to middle school and not just for athletes.


And Chansky has at least one defender (another member of the "Everyone does it" caucus):


They did not charge Roy Williams or any specific coach with anything. They didn't charge any athlete either. If they did, they would need a hearing too. So Chansky was right. It all boils down to Institutional control. The charge about impermissible benefits can easily get defeated by a response. UNC already punished two of the defendants. They lost their jobs. There is a difference from being at risk and actually ineligible too. Every University I know give help to students at risk of failing. That is an educator's job. So Chansky is correct.


Still more "Everybody does it":


The whole thing is pretty much BS from start to finish. Nothing has gone on at UNC that hasn't gone on at pretty much every school in America with an athletic program. Anyone who has gone to college has taken "football Physics", or something similar. Those who haven't done that are extremely few and far between.


While for others, the light bulb about the NOA and its ramifications begins to go on:


Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but whether a coach knew directly of what was going on with these classes and preferential treatment or not, someone associated with and employed by the athletics program did and that is a big problem. So while Roy may not get his name dragged through the mud, suspended etc like Boeheim, the program could still face major sanctions based on this fact.


A lot of this ultimately depends on the level of detail to which the NCAA has access. To wit, the several hundred pieces of evidence marshaled to support allegation #1, impermissible benefits, could kill MBB or exonerate it. It depends on whether the NCAA is simply using summaries mentioned in prior reports, or whether they have the actual text of the e-mails -- and how bad that is.

For instance, there are a series of e-mails between Wayne Walden and Crowder re: AFAM and the MBB team around the 2005 timeframe. Some could be good -- Crowder saying MBB players were not performing well -- while others are bad -- like Walden running down a lot of logistics for the team on assignments and the like. The devil is in the details: if specific players on that team are mentioned and there's enough evidence to say they received impermissible benefits as a result, it seems the NCAA could go down the path of saying they were ineligible. I feel like that's unlikely or else we would have seen a similar charge against MBB the same way the NCAA has specified WBB in allegation #2 (which looks pretty damning for WBB).

Give the NCAA credit: they present their case on allegation #1 pretty well in the sense that they hit you with e-mail after e-mail after e-mail suggesting hands-on academic support for athletes that other students may not have had access to. I use 'may' since there is an element of cherry-picking; who knows if Crowder was likewise helping and supporting other myriad other students as well. Regardless, these are not easy charges to rebut.


I think this whole episode gives me a little pause as to sending my own son (non-athlete) to UNC for a college education. Their academic reputation has taken a hit (that is until the other schools like Michigan, Florida, Texas, Indiana also have similar incidents discovered by the press). UNC's academic reputation has taken a hit with this.


Yes, but until the penalties are known, or some idea of them at least, opposing coaches are going to whip this 59 page document out for every single prospective recruit considering Carolina. [DING, DING, DING!]


If I were a UNC fan reading that, here's what would worry me:

1. There are all sorts of things that could be alleged based on the Wainstein Report (academic fraud, etc.), but the NCAA focused on "impermissible benefits" over a long period of time - which is going to be nearly impossible to rebut. Rather than throwing all possible charges at the wall and see what sticks, it reads like they just took the one that's easy to prove and covers the most ground (NCAA rules-wise).

2. There are an unknown number of transcripts included as FI248. No idea how many athletes are actually involved.

3. I'd wonder how seriously the NCAA will treat the charges of unethical conduct against Nyang'oro and Crowder. There's the potential for the NCAA to view it from the perspective of, "they cooperated with Wainstein, but won't cooperate with the NCAA? What are they hiding? Is the University encouraging them to not cooperate?" Could be treated as not terribly serious, but could be scary if the NCAA is looking for bear.

4. 5 Level 1 Violations including LOIC is serious business in the NCAA parlance.


From the reactions so far on this board, I'd say the majority of posters are overlooking the seriousness of the LOIC allegation. If it results in scholarship reductions especially, our major sports programs could be crippled for a decade at least. Look at how scholarship losses impacted our football program.

Besides which, a charge of LOIC is and will be red meat for the sports media, the N&O, and even many UNC alums. The University is in for a grilling, again, and it won't be pleasant. If there are scholarship reductions imposed on MBB, it would not be any surprise if RoyW finally concludes he's had enough, and retires. Ditto for our WBB coaching staff. Football's culpability seems hazy right now; more reductions could absolutely quash the program.


"KEEP HOPE ALIVE!" Part III:


The "anomalous courses" were not created by ATHLETICS just to keep athletes eligible, but created by the academic side of the university. This falls way, way, way short of what the N&O, Ridpath, Ganim, Barrett, etc. have been saying was going on. Their claims of widespread athletic department cheating are so completely absurd, it's truly laughable.


And when all else fails, Lance Thomas!


It depends on which version of the NCAA we get. If you are [pejorative spelling of Duke] and Lance Thomas, then [pejorative spelling of Duke] couldn't be held responsible for the fact that Thomas wouldn't cooperate with black diamond jesus head-gate because he was no longer affiliated with the institution. On the other hand, if you were Miami a few years ago, the university was absolutely being held responsible for non-associated individuals that wouldn't cooperate with the NCAA. Hopefully, based on the disaster that was the "NCAA did a bunch of illegal things" Miami investigation, we get the nicer of the two completely opposing precedents. Or it could a public school vs private school thing where the NCAA is impotent without the Freedom of Information Act and so it simply fails to leverage meaningful litigation against private institutions that are not subject to FoIA. I'd call it a toss up because clearly UNC being open and actually trying to enact change vs SEC style "block and deny" doesn't seem to be helping. [Yes, if your definition of "being open and actually trying to enact change" is "finally 'fessing up after years of ducking and stalling, which included feeding the NCAA the false 'it's strictly an academic issue, not an athletic issue, nothing to see here' narrative the first time around."]


Lance Thomas versus Crowder and Nyang'oro. Both Crowder and Nyang'oro are no longer employees, both have retired. I see their status as comparable to that of Lance Thomas who was no longer a student when he refused to cooperate with an NCAA investigation. in the case of Thomas the NVAA let Duke off the hook because as he was no longer a student he had no obligation to cooperate and Duke could not force him to do so. It seems that Crowder and Nyang'oro are in a comparable position as is UNC which can no longer force ex-employees to testify.


Or you could just, you know, go completely off the deep end:


some of this is angering and some amusing. If the ncaa wanted to hear from me as a private citizen I promise on all that I hold dear that they would not like what I said. I would allude to their kinship to a female dog and suggest they engage in sex with themselves in the lower realms of the Biblical universe.[WTF????]


Seriously, what is the obsession with Washburn? Wasn't that, like, 30 years ago?


Also, NCheatState can't explain away Chris Washburn. I knew Chris personally, and worked directly with him (one-on-one) when he was in 10th grade working in a CETA program. Although Chris has had his challenges, he is a decent person. But that does not change the FACT that there is NO WAY he could have qualified academically to attend ANY post-secondary institution of higher learning, much less complete ANY of the coursework at the post-secondary level.


"KEEP HOPE ALIVE!" Part IV:


As long as the Heels are playing in the tournament this upcoming season, and all the banners are still hanging at the end of this. We're good.


And finally, the mic drop:


Simple fact, this will not end well for UNC.


We are going to have very sore bottoms after this is over.......

swood1000
06-04-2015, 06:24 PM
So it looks like more charges can come later. Don't know what the practice of the NCAA is, or whether they hold back charges as a bargaining tool.

3-12-3. Amendment to Notice of Allegations. After the issuance of the notice of allegations, the enforcement staff may amend an allegation, consistent with Bylaw 19.7.4. If the amendment is immaterial to the allegation and agreed to by all parties affected by the allegation, the enforcement staff shall submit an errata memorandum detailing the nature of the change and the amended pages from the notice of allegations to OCOI for submission to the assigned panel. If the proposed amendment reflects a material change to the allegation or the parties do not agree as to the materiality of the amendment, the enforcement staff shall send a written request to the OCOI to schedule a conference call with the chief hearing officer and all affected parties. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20COI%20IOPs_05_01_2015%20-%20Board%20Approved_R2.pdf

nyesq83
06-04-2015, 07:04 PM
I expect a vigorous wrist-slapping...would love to be proved wrong.

BigWayne
06-04-2015, 07:27 PM
3-12-3. Amendment to Notice of Allegations. After the issuance of the notice of allegations, the enforcement staff may amend an allegation, consistent with Bylaw 19.7.4. If the amendment is immaterial to the allegation and agreed to by all parties affected by the allegation, the enforcement staff shall submit an errata memorandum detailing the nature of the change and the amended pages from the notice of allegations to OCOI for submission to the assigned panel. If the proposed amendment reflects a material change to the allegation or the parties do not agree as to the materiality of the amendment, the enforcement staff shall send a written request to the OCOI to schedule a conference call with the chief hearing officer and all affected parties. http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015%20COI%20IOPs_05_01_2015%20-%20Board%20Approved_R2.pdf

There is a lot left out. A lot that can easily be found trolling the internet (at least enough to know where to start looking). One such list of things to look at: http://cheatingblueram.blogspot.com/2015/03/tarnished-heels-unanswered-questions.html

The question is why the NCAA did not address the other issues. Did they just not have the bandwidth to go through and detail all of the other issues? Did they decide these 5 major allegations are enough to drop the hammer and they essentially employed a mercy rule of sorts on their investigators? Did they leave stuff out on purpose and tell UNC on the side they better come forward with all the other details or face worse punishment? The mind boggles.

Oh.....and remember, one week from today the SACS report comes out.

toooskies
06-04-2015, 07:36 PM
I expect a vigorous wrist-slapping...would love to be proved wrong.

If that happens, then every university in the country will start a fake AFAM department to get the same advantages UNC did.

TKG
06-04-2015, 08:07 PM
As far as potential penalties are concerned, I wonder if the NCAA has painted itself into a corner with such a harshly worded NOA.

MarkD83
06-04-2015, 08:13 PM
Tom B, thank your for sorting the opinions at IC. This is one time I really wanted to go over there to read the board but really did not want to wade through it all.

Duke95
06-04-2015, 08:19 PM
I expect a vigorous wrist-slapping...would love to be proved wrong.

The NCAA just showed UNC the guillotine. They not going to slap wrists with that.

UNC is in deep krzyt. They know it.

MarkD83
06-04-2015, 08:23 PM
There is a lot left out. A lot that can easily be found trolling the internet (at least enough to know where to start looking). One such list of things to look at: http://cheatingblueram.blogspot.com/2015/03/tarnished-heels-unanswered-questions.html

When I click on the link there are three books that are related to each other, one is entitled "A Sham, a sham is my school a sham?" and it looks like a children's book.....Hummm, I wonder why?

MarkD83
06-04-2015, 08:30 PM
FI248: January 5, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department. (Item9_StudentAthleteTranscripts_010515_NorthCarol ina_00231)

FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses. (AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina _00231)

The significance of these two items just sunk in. The NCAA has in their possession the information needed to "do the math" to determine which players were ineligible.

BigWayne
06-04-2015, 08:43 PM
FI248: January 5, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department. (Item9_StudentAthleteTranscripts_010515_NorthCarol ina_00231)

FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses. (AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina _00231)

The significance of these two items just sunk in. The NCAA has in their possession the information needed to "do the math" to determine which players were ineligible.

As Mary has been saying...."The truth is in the transcripts."

swood1000
06-04-2015, 08:55 PM
UNC was asked to provide the following:


10. Provide the following information concerning the sports programs identified in this inquiry:

A statement indicating whether the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4 apply to the institution as a result of the involvement of student-athletes in violations noted in this inquiry.

A statement indicating whether the provisions of Bylaw 19.9.7-(g) apply to the institution as a result of the involvement of student-athletes in violations noted in this inquiry.

31.2.2.3 Participation While Ineligible. When a student-athlete competing as an individual or representing the institution in a team championship is declared ineligible following the competition, or a penalty has been prescribed or action taken as set forth in Bylaw 19.9.7-(g) or 19.13, the Committee on Infractions may require the following: (Revised: 4/26/01, 7/31/14)
(b) Team Competition. The record of the team's performance may be deleted, the team's place in the final standings may be vacated, and the team's trophy and the ineligible student's award may be returned to the Association. (Revised: 4/26/01)

31.2.2.4 Institutional Penalty for Ineligible Participation. When an ineligible student-athlete participates in an NCAA championship and the student-athlete or the institution knew or had reason to know of the ineligibility, the NCAA Committee on Infractions may assess a financial penalty. (Revised: 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01)

19.9.7 Additional Penalties for Level I and Level II Violations. In addition to the core penalties for Level I and Level II violations, the panel may prescribe one or more of the following penalties: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 8/7/14)
(g) Vacation of records in contests in which a student-athlete competed while ineligible, including one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;

(2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or

(3) Return of individual or team awards to the Association.


Therefore, the NCAA is specifically leaving open the question of vacation of wins. I guess that would be a penalty and only violations are included in the NOA. Other penalties for Level I violations:


19.9.7 Additional Penalties for Level I and Level II Violations. In addition to the core penalties for Level I and Level II violations, the panel may prescribe one or more of the following penalties: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 8/7/14)
(a) Prohibition against specified competition in the sport during the regular season;

(b) Prohibition of all coaching staff members in the sport from involvement, directly or indirectly, in any coaching activities at the institution during the regular season;

(c) Prohibition against institutional staff members serving on the Board of Directors, Council or other committees of the Association for a prescribed period (or requirement that any institutional staff members serving in leadership positions on any NCAA council or committee resign their leadership positions);

(d) Requirement that the institution relinquish its voting privilege in the Association for a prescribed period;

(e) Recommendation that the institution’s membership in the Association be suspended or terminated pursuant to Constitution 3.2.5;

(f ) Public reprimand and censure;

(g) Vacation of records in contests in which a student-athlete competed while ineligible, including one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;

(2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or

(3) Return of individual or team awards to the Association.

(h) Prohibition against television appearances of the institution in the sport in which the violation occurred. The penalty shall specify that the institution may not enter into any contracts or agreements for such appearances until the institution has been restored to full privileges of membership. The Board of Directors is authorized to permit a closed-circuit telecast, limited to the campus of the opponent of the ineligible institution, provided no rights fee is to be paid to the ineligible institution;

(i) Pursuant to a show-cause order, disassociation of relations with a representative of an institution’s athletics interests, including:

(1) Not accepting any assistance from the individual that would aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or the support of enrolled student-athletes;

(2) Not accepting financial assistance for the institution’s athletics program from the individual;

(3) Ensuring that no athletics benefit or privilege is provided to the individual that is not generally available to the public at large; and

(4) Taking such other actions against the individual that the institution determines to be within its authority to eliminate the involvement of the individual in the institution’s athletics program.

(j) Publicizing institutions on probation on the NCAA website, in appropriate NCAA publications and in NCAA championship game programs of the involved sports;

(k) Institutionally imposed suspension of a staff member from some or all athletically related duties for a specified period, pursuant to a show-cause order, for a situation in which he or she engaged in or condoned a Level I or Level II violation; or

(l) Other penalties as appropriate.

BigWayne
06-04-2015, 09:10 PM
Therefore, the NCAA is specifically leaving open the question of vacation of wins. I guess that would be a penalty and only violations are included in the NOA. Other penalties for Level I violations:

Item 10 where they ask UNC to indicate whether the penalty provisions apply looks like they are telling UNC to come up with a list of self imposed penalties before the COI makes its own list. They are giving them one last chance to come clean and self-impose.

BigWayne
06-04-2015, 09:24 PM
Dan Kane is already on the job pointing out things the NCAA left out. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23139921.html)

The NCAA’s Notice of Allegations against UNC in the academic fraud case relies heavily on prior university investigations, particularly that of Kenneth Wainstein, a former federal prosecutor. But there were aspects of the scandal the NCAA did not take up

NancyCarol
06-04-2015, 10:56 PM
The Hell we have all mentioned in our GTHC GTH is heating up. And thus ends my brief summary of oh so many words in the NOA.

BD80
06-04-2015, 11:05 PM
Shouldn't we be saddened that the NCAA allegations will sully the reputation of an esteemed rival, thus diminishing what has often been considered the greatest rivalry in all of sports?




I crack myself up. I really do. GTHC.

OldPhiKap
06-04-2015, 11:07 PM
Shouldn't we be saddened that the NCAA allegations will sully the reputation of an esteemed rival, thus diminishing what has often been considered the greatest rivalry in all of sports?




I crack myself up. I really do. GTHC.

Nah. Diane Sawyer needs her Katie Couric.

jipops
06-04-2015, 11:16 PM
No end in sight to my personal boycott of televised "u"nc games not involving Duke or NC State. Not that I think anybody would care, though I do encourage others to join.

neemizzle
06-05-2015, 02:07 AM
This entire situation has just stunk since the beginning. Roy has done the exact opposite of tell the truth as well hasn't he? He claimed he hadn't seen the NOA (which you know good and well he had) and there are other things that stick out.

But really, if the NCAA doesn't drop the hammer, I'll be really dissapointed. Not because it's UNC, but because they really went in on Syracuse, and have went in on other programs in the past. But these documents are very serious and very telling of the future. They've shown their hand, they've unveiled what they have, and if they don't pull the trigger so to speak, then as it was said here earlier, every school will start doing.

The NCAA should make an example out of them. 18 years is crazy. We're talking an entire portion of a teen's life, that they didn't control a department, check up on anything, and completely screw around. It's disgusting. And if they get nothing but a slap on the wrist, then the NCAA should be ASHAMED.

PackMan97
06-05-2015, 03:42 AM
Dan Kane is already on the job pointing out things the NCAA left out. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23139921.html)

The NCAA’s Notice of Allegations against UNC in the academic fraud case relies heavily on prior university investigations, particularly that of Kenneth Wainstein, a former federal prosecutor. But there were aspects of the scandal the NCAA did not take up

This is the main reason I'm not ecstatic over the NOA. It could have and should have been far worse.

dukelifer
06-05-2015, 06:41 AM
This is the main reason I'm not ecstatic over the NOA. It could have and should have been far worse.

The allegations are very generic and thus a lot depends on UNC's response. The logical penalty would be a huge fine - 18 million or 36 million ( 1 or 2 million for every year) that would hit the entire Athletics Department. Women's bball will likely be hit hardest as there were clear benefits to students and they may end up losing scholarships and maybe some wins. I don't see men's bball getting hit specifically. This will take months to work through . In the end, UNCs brand has been hurt -but as we know memories are short.

MarkD83
06-05-2015, 07:14 AM
This is the main reason I'm not ecstatic over the NOA. It could have and should have been far worse.

I have been reading the posts on Pack Pride and some comments are similar to PackMan97's comments. In addition the angst is high that there are not specific mentions of ineligible players based on false classes.

Keep in mind the NCAA has created a document to which UNC gets to respond. So, first and foremost the NCAA is trying to present a strong case that is hard for UNC to refute. So the NCAA is being very cautious to make sure their are no holes in their arguments. Let me give you a few examples...

In the first allegation UNC is charged with unpermissible benefits. Giving a student-athlete a higher grade than they deserve is a benefit and not permissible even if you do the same for a regular student. It is also not permissible even in a real class. This means UNC can not defend this charge by proving the classes were "real" or by saying everyone received higher grades. If the NOA had just mentioned "paper" classes, UNC could have produced documents showing that while some AFAM classes were "paper" the ones specified by the NOA were not. So the NCAA has made it very difficult for UNC to defend itself.

In an additional allegation the NOA calls out students taking "too many independent studies". Once again even if you are a regular student you can't have too many of these classes or you are not a full time student. In order to determine which athletes had too many independent studies the NCAA has justification to get ALL of the transcripts. This means UNC can't argue that the NCAA acquired transcripts based on a false premise that they were looking for "paper" classes. In other words if the request for transcripts was based on "paper" classes UNC could make the argument that the specific classes were not "paper" so remove the transcripts from the NOA.

So the NCAA has been selective in their arguments for a reason. They are treating this as if they are already prosecuting UNC and giving UNC very little room to defend themselves.

I think the last point I caught was the timing. There are statute of limitations by-laws and there is a timing issue but also an issue of continuous abuse. Roy Williams joined UNC in 2003-04 so from a men's basketball perspective, the NCAA logically picked 2002-03 since there has been a continuous leader of men's basketball since then. Reaching back too far and UNC could use a statute of limitations argument and if they were to win this argument you could only punish UNC back fours years (I believe; isn't that convenient that that would be 2010). Well UNC can't use that argument.

So while most see the NCAA being lenient, I see a well crafted NOA that will be difficult for UNC to refute.

grossbus
06-05-2015, 07:58 AM
Very interesting analysis.

blueduke59
06-05-2015, 08:30 AM
New UNC talking point "At least we are not as bad as FIFA"

OldPhiKap
06-05-2015, 08:50 AM
New UNC talking point "At least we are not as bad as FIFA"

Not sure I agree though. At least FIFA's leader resigned.

Roy?
Sylvia?

roywhite
06-05-2015, 08:56 AM
The allegations are very generic and thus a lot depends on UNC's response. The logical penalty would be a huge fine - 18 million or 36 million ( 1 or 2 million for every year) that would hit the entire Athletics Department. Women's bball will likely be hit hardest as there were clear benefits to students and they may end up losing scholarships and maybe some wins. I don't see men's bball getting hit specifically. This will take months to work through . In the end, UNCs brand has been hurt -but as we know memories are short.

A sizable fine could be part of the punishment, but IMO would have the least impact of some other options. This is a University with substantial resources and a number of wealthy supporters.

Scholarship restrictions, tournament bans, forfeiture of wins, vacating titles(!), and censure of specific coaches leading to their dismissal would all IMO be more punitive.

TruBlu
06-05-2015, 08:59 AM
A sizable fine could be part of the punishment, but IMO would have the least impact of some other options. This is a University with substantial resources and a number of wealthy supporters.

Scholarship restrictions, tournament bans, forfeiture of wins, vacating titles(!), and censure of specific coaches leading to their dismissal would all IMO be more punitive.

. . . and more deserved.

TKG
06-05-2015, 09:08 AM
Not sure I agree though. At least FIFA's leader resigned.

Roy?
Sylvia?l

IC is "reporting" that Carolina is working on a contract extension for Huckleberry ---- the anti-FIFA.

andyw715
06-05-2015, 09:09 AM
It's definitely relevant. Not having any basketball staff accused of anything likely means that Roy Williams will not be punished directly (i.e. show cause penalty or suspension). Remember, Jim Boeheim got punished personally because he was accused of failing to monitor members of the men's basketball staff. Since it's not men's basketball staff members accused of anything, Williams will likely escape direct punishment, which was not guaranteed before.

Syracuse didn't make the NOA public so I don't know if head coach/JB was mentioned specifically in the NOA. He (head coach of men's basketball) was mentioned in the final infractions report. FWIW.

devilsadvocate85
06-05-2015, 09:11 AM
Lengthy Mike & Mike segment going on about this as I type. Still downplaying somewhat, but covering it seriously.

roywhite
06-05-2015, 09:18 AM
IC is "reporting" that Carolina is working on a contract extension for Huckleberry ---- the anti-FIFA.

Classic. It's like the White Star line working on a bigger contract for Titanic captain Edward Smith.

Troublemaker
06-05-2015, 09:23 AM
This is the main reason I'm not ecstatic over the NOA. It could have and should have been far worse.

I don't think it's even as bad as you think it is:



Overall, this NOA is good news for UNC. They will likely only lose 2 NCAA titles when it should be at least three. Dean Smith is protected. Their '94 Women's Basketball Title is protected. A dozen or so Women's Soccer titles are protected. A host of ACC Titles across all sports are protected by that 2002 date. Not to mention, count on UNC after all this is over, they'll brag about how they got away with cheating in the 90s.

I don't think they'll be losing those titles, PackMan.

As of today, June 5th, I'm thinking a 1-2 year postseason ban, and the loss of 1-2 scholarships for those years, and a harsh public reprimand.

Troublemaker
06-05-2015, 09:33 AM
I don't think they'll be losing those titles, PackMan.

Now, if there are any indications that the NCAA will look into those "at-risk" student-athletes and do the GPA math to figure out what their eligibility would've been without the "impermissible benefits," that's when it would get interesting wrt retroactive punishment.

Chard
06-05-2015, 09:48 AM
I don't think it's even as bad as you think it is:

I don't think they'll be losing those titles, PackMan.

As of today, June 5th, I'm thinking a 1-2 year postseason ban, and the loss of 1-2 scholarships for those years, and a harsh public reprimand.

You think they'll make them eat their broccoli too? ((shudder))

There should be a poll up here with various levels of sanctions that we can all take a guess at. We'll see who was the closest to the eventual sanctions.

arnie
06-05-2015, 09:54 AM
I don't think it's even as bad as you think it is:



I don't think they'll be losing those titles, PackMan.

As of today, June 5th, I'm thinking a 1-2 year postseason ban, and the loss of 1-2 scholarships for those years, and a harsh public reprimand.

And the bans will be in women's bball and possibly women's soccer. As I previously thought, the men's bball program skates. Roy will then brag that although other UNC sports programs were dirty, he kept his clean. And Swofford keeps smiling as the NCAA implies the problems started after he left as AD.

alteran
06-05-2015, 09:55 AM
FI248: January 5, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department. (Item9_StudentAthleteTranscripts_010515_NorthCarol ina_00231)

FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses. (AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina _00231)

The significance of these two items just sunk in. The NCAA has in their possession the information needed to "do the math" to determine which players were ineligible.

Yes, I think there's something to this.

Depending on what digging the NCAA does, they can probably ferret out a number of ineligible players.

There two items above are essentially saying, "these specific players-- that only you and us know who they are-- are ineligible. And we have proof that you knew they were ineligible." UNC has probably done the math and figured out which wins this SHOULD require them to vacate.

It seems odd to me that the NCAA specifically cites these ten.

sammy3469
06-05-2015, 09:57 AM
I have been reading the posts on Pack Pride and some comments are similar to PackMan97's comments. In addition the angst is high that there are not specific mentions of ineligible players based on false classes.

Keep in mind the NCAA has created a document to which UNC gets to respond. So, first and foremost the NCAA is trying to present a strong case that is hard for UNC to refute. So the NCAA is being very cautious to make sure their are no holes in their arguments. Let me give you a few examples...

In the first allegation UNC is charged with unpermissible benefits. Giving a student-athlete a higher grade than they deserve is a benefit and not permissible even if you do the same for a regular student. It is also not permissible even in a real class. This means UNC can not defend this charge by proving the classes were "real" or by saying everyone received higher grades. If the NOA had just mentioned "paper" classes, UNC could have produced documents showing that while some AFAM classes were "paper" the ones specified by the NOA were not. So the NCAA has made it very difficult for UNC to defend itself.

In an additional allegation the NOA calls out students taking "too many independent studies". Once again even if you are a regular student you can't have too many of these classes or you are not a full time student. In order to determine which athletes had too many independent studies the NCAA has justification to get ALL of the transcripts. This means UNC can't argue that the NCAA acquired transcripts based on a false premise that they were looking for "paper" classes. In other words if the request for transcripts was based on "paper" classes UNC could make the argument that the specific classes were not "paper" so remove the transcripts from the NOA.

So the NCAA has been selective in their arguments for a reason. They are treating this as if they are already prosecuting UNC and giving UNC very little room to defend themselves.

I think the last point I caught was the timing. There are statute of limitations by-laws and there is a timing issue but also an issue of continuous abuse. Roy Williams joined UNC in 2003-04 so from a men's basketball perspective, the NCAA logically picked 2002-03 since there has been a continuous leader of men's basketball since then. Reaching back too far and UNC could use a statute of limitations argument and if they were to win this argument you could only punish UNC back fours years (I believe; isn't that convenient that that would be 2010). Well UNC can't use that argument.

So while most see the NCAA being lenient, I see a well crafted NOA that will be difficult for UNC to refute.

Also note...point 10 in their request for information, references NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-g. Guess what those combined are..."Participation While Ineligible" (otherwise known as removing records) and "Institutional Penalty for Ineligible Participation" (otherwise known as the fine). Basically what they are saying is based on these impermissible benefits was anyone eligible who shouldn't have been. The NCAA has already decided those 10 people who graduated with more than 12 Independent Studies hours were (low hanging fruit) and are letting UNC say something to the effect that everything should be stricken.

Also note that 19.9.7-g (records stricken) is a broad statute related for additional Level 1 penalties. (31.2.2.3 is a more narrow one for individual cases). The NCAA is basically saying we think these Level 1 violations are so severe that records need to be removed even if we can't prove individual athletes were ineligible per 31.2.2.3.

All in all while it's not everything everyone wanted, it's a document that ties UNC hands. Without Crowder and Nyang'oro cooperating the NCAA was going to have a hell of a time of getting into the weeds on which courses were "real" and which weren't. So they just lumped everything together, threw an LOIC and 19.9.7-g at them, and said cooperate or else.

My guess is UNC comes back and gives up everything related to Woman's Basketball and hopes the NCAA leaves it at that, but the NCAA is basically saying we don't think any of these classes are real and non of the people in them should be eligible.

75Crazie
06-05-2015, 10:02 AM
I am seeing a lot of personal analysis of the published NOA, but I am not noticing a lot of comprehension of the fact that the published NOA is Carolina's version of the NOA that the NCAA submitted. They have had three weeks to perform whatever redaction they wanted to perform. We are not necessarily seeing the full scope of the NOA.

Jarhead
06-05-2015, 10:37 AM
I am seeing a lot of personal analysis of the published NOA, but I am not noticing a lot of comprehension of the fact that the published NOA is Carolina's version of the NOA that the NCAA submitted. They have had three weeks to perform whatever redaction they wanted to perform. We are not necessarily seeing the full scope of the NOA.
... and that's the truth. Up until UNC files it's NOA response, we'll only have the heels' tactical view. There are still two more steps for the NCAA. Things will become more clear in the middle of August, around the 12th, UNC's response deadline. Remember SMU? It was the lack of institutional control that wiped them out for years to come. Can we wait for the NCAA's reaction to UNC's response

Kfanarmy
06-05-2015, 10:39 AM
I am seeing a lot of personal analysis of the published NOA, but I am not noticing a lot of comprehension of the fact that the published NOA is Carolina's version of the NOA that the NCAA submitted. They have had three weeks to perform whatever redaction they wanted to perform. We are not necessarily seeing the full scope of the NOA.

Ditto here. I'm wondering how different it would be if we all knew the names of the individual athletes addressed in each of those emails.

The only thing I was surprised by in it was the lack of mention of the head coaches by name, but then again, the NCAA is essentially alleging that the entire Athletic department corrupted the Academic standards of the university--notionally at least at the heart of the NCAA--through lack of institutional control.

I'm just not sure how worse the NCAA could make the allegations. Perhaps they could have been more pointed, but there isn't a worse allegation this side of a capital crime.

Tom B.
06-05-2015, 10:56 AM
Remember SMU? It was the lack of institutional control that wiped them out for years to come.




This is a good point that shouldn't be overlooked. Also recall that when UNC's football program was under the NCAA microscope a few years ago, they were desperately hoping and trying to avoid a charge of LOIC (and were ecstatic when the NCAA didn't hit them with it). Don't underestimate the seriousness of that charge. It goes to the heart of the relationship between athletics and academics at UNC.

And if nothing else, everyone will see the words "University of North Carolina" linked in the same sentence with "lack of institutional control" again, and again, and again, all over the national media for months to come, maybe longer.

cbarry
06-05-2015, 10:59 AM
That's what I've been thinking all along. Unfortunately the Men's bball program will skate. It will be interesting to see the penalties, but I don't feel they will be overly severe. NCAA is becoming less and less relevant. Very disappointed they didn't dig deeper.


And the bans will be in women's bball and possibly women's soccer. As I previously thought, the men's bball program skates. Roy will then brag that although other UNC sports programs were dirty, he kept his clean. And Swofford keeps smiling as the NCAA implies the problems started after he left as AD.

swood1000
06-05-2015, 11:23 AM
Dan Kane is already on the job pointing out things the NCAA left out. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23139921.html)

The NCAA’s Notice of Allegations against UNC in the academic fraud case relies heavily on prior university investigations, particularly that of Kenneth Wainstein, a former federal prosecutor. But there were aspects of the scandal the NCAA did not take up
One of Dan Kane's items was:


▪ Wainstein found 329 students would have had a GPA below a 2.0 for at least one semester were it not for paper classes. More than half were athletes. There is no such analysis in the NCAA’s report.

However we don't know the nature of the analysis in FI249:


FI249: February 4, 2015 - Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student-athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses.

PackMan97
06-05-2015, 11:27 AM
Yes, I think there's something to this.

Depending on what digging the NCAA does, they can probably ferret out a number of ineligible players.

There two items above are essentially saying, "these specific players-- that only you and us know who they are-- are ineligible. And we have proof that you knew they were ineligible." UNC has probably done the math and figured out which wins this SHOULD require them to vacate.

It seems odd to me that the NCAA specifically cites these ten.

Yes, it is a big disappointment. Honestly, ANYONE taking these fake courses should be ineligible, but I guess the NCAA bought into the "you can't rule on our academics" line and is only ruling on a few cases that violated other policies. Interestingly enough, back in the day UNC's requirement was 6 hrs.

BigWayne
06-05-2015, 11:30 AM
Also note...point 10 in their request for information, references NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-g. Guess what those combined are..."Participation While Ineligible" (otherwise known as removing records) and "Institutional Penalty for Ineligible Participation" (otherwise known as the fine). Basically what they are saying is based on these impermissible benefits was anyone eligible who shouldn't have been. The NCAA has already decided those 10 people who graduated with more than 12 Independent Studies hours were (low hanging fruit) and are letting UNC say something to the effect that everything should be stricken.



I view point 10 as the NCAA equivalent of telling a child to go out and select a switch to be beaten with. They are giving UNC an opportunity to identify which players were ineligible and what the penalties (vacated games and banners) should be. As previously pointed out, the NCAA has the transcripts and can do the math themselves if UNC comes back with a twig.

Troublemaker
06-05-2015, 11:36 AM
FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses. (AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina _00231)

FI249 interests me a lot.

If I'm reading it right, there are 33 student-athletes (SA) highlighted who:
(a) did more than 12 hours of independent study
(b) would not have made enough academic progress without the extra hours of independent study. SAs need to take 6 hours per semester and 18 hours in an academic year, noted in the FI249 chart as the "6-hour rule" and "18-hour rule"

Now, of those 33 student-athletes highlighted, only a subset of 10 SAs really have their eligibility endangered, the 10 mentioned in Allegation 1B. This is because UNC changed their Independent Study policy starting with the 06-07 academic year to disallow more than 12 credit hours of independent study. (You can see the changeover in FI250; previously, 30 hours were allowed.) This is why Allegation 1B only mentions the timeframe of "2006 fall semester through 2011 summer semester."

Now, of those 10 SAs, if we're banner-hunting, we can further subset them into those who have eligibility questions for Fall 2008 or Spring 2009 by the 6-hour rule or 18-hour rule. It's all there in the FI249 chart, if I'm reading it correctly.

Of those 10 SAs, there is 1 SA who broke the 18-hour rule and might be ineligible for "fall 2008 / spring 2009" (this person is the 5th-highlighted player in the chart) and there is 1 more SA who broke the 6-hour rule and might be ineligible for "spring 2009" (31st highlighted player in the chart, or 3rd from the bottom) for a total of two SAs total.

So we have subsetted from 33 to 10 to now 2 SAs. If either of those 2 SAs are men's basketball players, maybe UNC will lose the 2009 title.

As I wrote above, I don't expect it to happen. 2005 and 2009 will both stay. But FI249 is interesting to me.

swood1000
06-05-2015, 11:48 AM
This is a good point that shouldn't be overlooked. Also recall that when UNC's football program was under the NCAA microscope a few years ago, they were desperately hoping and trying to avoid a charge of LOIC (and were ecstatic when the NCAA didn't hit them with it). Don't underestimate the seriousness of that charge. It goes to the heart of the relationship between athletics and academics at UNC.
Very true. LOIC is one of four "Aggravating Factors" mentioned:

• Multiple Level I violations. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(a)]


• A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(b)]


• Lack of institutional control. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(c)]


• Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)]



Aggravating factors call for the additional penalties of 19.9.7.

Another item of interest is in the Request for Supplemental Information:

4. Provide a detailed description of all disciplinary actions taken against any current or former athletics department staff members as a result of violations acknowledged in this inquiry. In that regard, explain the reasons the institution believes these actions to be appropriate and identify the violations on which the actions were based. Additionally, indicate the date that any disciplinary actions were taken and submit copies of all correspondence from the institution to each individual describing these disciplinary actions.
This may be one reason that no athletics department staff members are named in the allegations. They want to find out first who has already been punished. In any event it seems clear that this request would be preliminary to naming some individual(s) for additional disciplinary action.

Troublemaker
06-05-2015, 11:53 AM
Of those 10 SAs, there is 1 SA who broke the 18-hour rule and might be ineligible for "fall 2008 / spring 2009" (this person is the 5th-highlighted player in the chart) and there is 1 more SA who broke the 6-hour rule and might be ineligible for "spring 2009" (31st highlighted player in the chart, or 3rd from the bottom) for a total of two SAs total.

Just for the heck of it...

Assuming the FI249 chart was sorted alphabetically by last name, these two SAs might be Mike Copeland and Deon Thompson, respectively.

BigWayne
06-05-2015, 12:08 PM
FI249 interests me a lot.

If I'm reading it right, there are 33 student-athletes (SA) highlighted who:
(a) did more than 12 hours of independent study
(b) would not have made enough academic progress without the extra hours of independent study. SAs need to take 6 hours per semester and 18 hours in an academic year, noted in the FI249 chart as the "6-hour rule" and "18-hour rule"

Now, of those 33 student-athletes highlighted, only a subset of 10 SAs really have their eligibility endangered, the 10 mentioned in Allegation 1B. This is because UNC changed their Independent Study policy starting with the 06-07 academic year to disallow more than 12 credit hours of independent study. (You can see the changeover in FI250; previously, 30 hours were allowed.) This is why Allegation 1B only mentions the timeframe of "2006 fall semester through 2011 summer semester."

Now, of those 10 SAs, if we're banner-hunting, we can further subset them into those who have eligibility questions for Fall 2008 or Spring 2009 by the 6-hour rule or 18-hour rule. It's all there in the FI249 chart, if I'm reading it correctly.

Of those 10 SAs, there is 1 SA who broke the 18-hour rule and might be ineligible for "fall 2008 / spring 2009" (this person is the 5th-highlighted player in the chart) and there is 1 more SA who broke the 6-hour rule and might be ineligible for "spring 2009" (31st highlighted player in the chart, or 3rd from the bottom) for a total of two SAs total.

So we have subsetted from 33 to 10 to now 2 SAs. If either of those 2 SAs are men's basketball players, maybe UNC will lose the 2009 title.

As I wrote above, I don't expect it to happen. 2005 and 2009 will both stay. But FI249 is interesting to me.
This would be UNC coming back with the twig. As another member pointed out, the NCAA has charged UNC with providing impermissible benefits for providing the anomalous courses. This would cover a much wider finding of ineligibility.

RepoMan
06-05-2015, 12:54 PM
Now, if there are any indications that the NCAA will look into those "at-risk" student-athletes and do the GPA math to figure out what their eligibility would've been without the "impermissible benefits," that's when it would get interesting wrt retroactive punishment.

Why wouldn't they do that?

Sloth?

Conspiracy theory?

PackMan97
06-05-2015, 01:00 PM
Why do we need to calculate whether they would or would not have been eligible?

They took fake classes. Period.

Any Duke athlete caught in a fake class I'm sure would be ruled ineligible. I hope the same would happen at State. What is taking Carolina so long?

Kedsy
06-05-2015, 01:08 PM
As I previously thought, the men's bball program skates.


That's what I've been thinking all along. Unfortunately the Men's bball program will skate.

You guys are acting as if something has confirmed your previous views. At this point I don't see any evidence of that. We have no idea what the penalties will be.

sagegrouse
06-05-2015, 01:24 PM
You guys are acting as if something has confirmed your previous views. At this point I don't see any evidence of that. We have no idea what the penalties will be.

Kedsy et al.: Isn't it clear or likely that the academic fraud perpetrated on an industrial scale on the academic side of UNC for the benefit of athletes will result in sanctions based on LOIC. I mean, what the heck else could be LOIC? And it is no help to UNC that the ASPSA is on the academic side of the university because it strengthens the claim of LOIC. And, of course, LOIC could be applied to some or all sports as well as resulting in fines and other UNC-wide penalties.

The other thing that seems clear is that WBB is toast.

Others have read into the NCAA rules and regs more than I have, but I expect the penalty phase to decide whether specific coaches and officials get hammered.

FerryFor50
06-05-2015, 01:28 PM
In a shocking turn of events...

http://www.scacchoops.com/roy-williams-to-get-contract-extension

OldPhiKap
06-05-2015, 01:35 PM
I think the widely-divergent interpretations of the seriousness of the allegations suggests the true nature of what was released: very broad allegations with the specifics redacted. Way too early to get jazzed or bummed.

At base, the assertion that there was an 18 YEAR lack of institutional control suggests to me that this will be painful for UNC. Personally, I don't care that it stops at 2002 or so, fair punishment for that would be sufficient.

swood1000
06-05-2015, 01:38 PM
FI249 interests me a lot.

If I'm reading it right, there are 33 student-athletes (SA) highlighted who:
(a) did more than 12 hours of independent study
(b) would not have made enough academic progress without the extra hours of independent study. SAs need to take 6 hours per semester and 18 hours in an academic year, noted in the FI249 chart as the "6-hour rule" and "18-hour rule"

Now, of those 33 student-athletes highlighted, only a subset of 10 SAs really have their eligibility endangered, the 10 mentioned in Allegation 1B. This is because UNC changed their Independent Study policy starting with the 06-07 academic year to disallow more than 12 credit hours of independent study. (You can see the changeover in FI250; previously, 30 hours were allowed.) This is why Allegation 1B only mentions the timeframe of "2006 fall semester through 2011 summer semester."

Now, of those 10 SAs, if we're banner-hunting, we can further subset them into those who have eligibility questions for Fall 2008 or Spring 2009 by the 6-hour rule or 18-hour rule. It's all there in the FI249 chart, if I'm reading it correctly.

Of those 10 SAs, there is 1 SA who broke the 18-hour rule and might be ineligible for "fall 2008 / spring 2009" (this person is the 5th-highlighted player in the chart) and there is 1 more SA who broke the 6-hour rule and might be ineligible for "spring 2009" (31st highlighted player in the chart, or 3rd from the bottom) for a total of two SAs total.

So we have subsetted from 33 to 10 to now 2 SAs. If either of those 2 SAs are men's basketball players, maybe UNC will lose the 2009 title.

As I wrote above, I don't expect it to happen. 2005 and 2009 will both stay. But FI249 is interesting to me.
Nice sleuthing.

It is unclear to me exactly what the "6 hour rule" refers to. You suggested that it was that student-athletes must take a minimum of six hours per semester and without the paper-classes they would not have reached this. It seems to me that the "6-hour rule" also could refer to classes taken before the 2006-7 academic year. In the 2004-5 academic year there was a category for "Special Studies for Credit":

Special Studies for Credit
The University offers a variety of internship, experiential learning and special study opportunities for undergraduates. Variable amounts of credit up to six hours per semester and twelve hours total for graduation may be taken for graded credit.
But there is a separate category under "Other Credit Programs" called "Independent Studies and Self-Paced Study Online," with a limit of 30 credit hours toward a degree. 2005-6 has the same two categories and restrictions.

It appears that starting in 2006-7 they dropped the separate category for Independent Studies and started considering that along with what had previously been Special Studies for Credit, with the 6 hour per semester 12 hour for graduation limitation.

Therefore, in the 2004-5 academic year there would be per-semester limit on classes categorized as "Special Studies for Credit" but not for classes categorized as "Independent Studies and Self-Paced Study Online."

I count seven people who violated the "6-hour rule" in the spring of 2005 or before. This could mean that these people, without their paper-classes would not have taken at least six hours of classes. It could also mean that these people took more than six hours of "Special Studies for Credit" in these semesters. Why were these people mentioned in the spreadsheet but not in the allegations? I don't know, but it might have to do with confusion about exactly which classes were subject to the "6-hour rule" before 2006-7.

Furthermore, there are the 150 people with a 'Y' in the "Past 12 hours" column. It's not clear from this when these people exceeded twelve hours or what it means. If they are saying that there is a question whether these people exceeded the Special Studies 12 hours for graduation limitation then that's something we may be hearing more about.

Sir Stealth
06-05-2015, 01:41 PM
At the end of the day all the UNC faithful truly care about are the banners. Their obsession with what hangs from the rafters is what drove all of this in the first place. They should get much, much worse if the rules are actually applied, but at the end of the day if the banners come down it will be enough. If the banners stay up they might as well get off completely - Heels everywhere will celebrate (maybe even hang a "told you so" banner), and 10 years from now this will all just amount to a couple of bad recruiting years and we'll be hearing about the "Carolina Way" again. If Roy gets punished Boeheim-style (doesn't look like it'll happen) but the banners stay up, in 10 years few but Duke and State fans will remember that Roy was a fraud and liar. If Roy is personally left out of the penalties but the banners come down, everyone will remember.

Kedsy
06-05-2015, 01:47 PM
Kedsy et al.: Isn't it clear or likely that the academic fraud perpetrated on an industrial scale on the academic side of UNC for the benefit of athletes will result in sanctions based on LOIC. I mean, what the heck else could be LOIC? And it is no help to UNC that the ASPSA is on the academic side of the university because it strengthens the claim of LOIC. And, of course, LOIC could be applied to some or all sports as well as resulting in fines and other UNC-wide penalties.

The other thing that seems clear is that WBB is toast.

Others have read into the NCAA rules and regs more than I have, but I expect the penalty phase to decide whether specific coaches and officials get hammered.

Well, your interpretation seems more likely to me than the unsupported "UNC will skate" pronouncements. But I don't think anything is clear at this point.

I found this on the NCAA's website:



The term "institutional control" sounds ominous, perhaps because it is the core of the expression that is at the core of the worst of NCAA violations: "lack of institutional control."


So, by the NCAA's own words, they've charged UNC with the "worst" they can. And yet a large number of people still seem to think UNC will get off easy. Some people seem sure of it, and I don't understand why.

On the other hand, I continue to believe that if you use past penalties as a guide, there is no possible punishment that can adequately punish 20 years of fake classes with the primary purpose of keeping athletes eligible. If UNC is punished no worse than Syracuse or Weber State, both of which were hit pretty hard for offenses far less serious than what went on at Carolina, would that constitute "skating"? In a sense, it would, but I don't get the impression that's what people mean when they say UNC will skate.

To me, this situation is way beyond prediction with any reasonable degree of certainty.

oldnavy
06-05-2015, 01:52 PM
In a shocking turn of events...

http://www.scacchoops.com/roy-williams-to-get-contract-extension

Hmmm.... wonder if Roy was trying to leverage this mess to his advantage? Perhaps he let it be known that he would be walking away due to all the "junk" he has had to endure (cue the violins)....

So the brilliant minds at UNC extend his contract, despite HIS program being under an allegation of LOIC.... normally folks get fired for this kind of thing.

Is there not one single person left at UNC with any common sense at all?

alteran
06-05-2015, 02:01 PM
Hmmm.... wonder if Roy was trying to leverage this mess to his advantage? Perhaps he let it be known that he would be walking away due to all the "junk" he has had to endure (cue the violins)....

So the brilliant minds at UNC extend his contract, despite HIS program being under an allegation of LOIC.... normally folks get fired for this kind of thing.

Is there not one single person left at UNC with any common sense at all?

I wonder if this is a message sent at recruits-- "Hey, we're not about to fire this guy that's trying to recruit you-- we just re-upped him in spite of the NCAA."

But yeah, weird timing.

OldPhiKap
06-05-2015, 02:02 PM
Hmmm.... wonder if Roy was trying to leverage this mess to his advantage? Perhaps he let it be known that he would be walking away due to all the "junk" he has had to endure (cue the violins)....

So the brilliant minds at UNC extend his contract, despite HIS program being under an allegation of LOIC.... normally folks get fired for this kind of thing.

Is there not one single person left at UNC with any common sense at all?

Well, to be fair, if Roy has to vacate a few hundred wins he's gonna need to work a bit longer to justify his HOF status.

Jarhead
06-05-2015, 02:17 PM
I believe that the so called notice of allegations that we have seen is not the NCAA's version. It is UNC's edited version. There are about 52 pages of stuff in the document delivered to UNC. It is that 52 pages to which UNC is required to provide a response by the middle of August. Their response could be 520 pages, more or less, and it may have UNC's suggested punishments. I would only be curious about that. More than likely the final document, the decisions of the infractions committee, is NCAA law, and we will get to see it. Be patient folks.

sagegrouse
06-05-2015, 02:18 PM
Well, your interpretation seems more likely to me than the unsupported "UNC will skate" pronouncements. But I don't think anything is clear at this point.

So, by the NCAA's own words, they've charged UNC with the "worst" they can. And yet a large number of people still seem to think UNC will get off easy. Some people seem sure of it, and I don't understand why.
I am as puzzled as you are, Kedsy, but I wonder if DBR and such message boards serve as cheap but only occasionally effective psychotherapy for addressing the internal fears of sports fans.

FerryFor50
06-05-2015, 02:25 PM
Hmmm.... wonder if Roy was trying to leverage this mess to his advantage? Perhaps he let it be known that he would be walking away due to all the "junk" he has had to endure (cue the violins)....

So the brilliant minds at UNC extend his contract, despite HIS program being under an allegation of LOIC.... normally folks get fired for this kind of thing.

Is there not one single person left at UNC with any common sense at all?

This feels a lot like even more hubris and nose thumbing by UNC at the NCAA. Is the cognitive dissonance so strong that they really feel like they'll emerge from "lack of institutional control" unscathed???

If I were the NCAA, I'd look at the extension as *exactly* that.

Dr. Rosenrosen
06-05-2015, 02:34 PM
This feels a lot like even more hubris and nose thumbing by UNC at the NCAA. Is the cognitive dissonance so strong that they really feel like they'll emerge from "lack of institutional control" unscathed???

If I were the NCAA, I'd look at the extension as *exactly* that.
Very much like their purchase and distribution of rings for the non-existent ACC Coastal FB championship. Thumbing their nose at the world... the true carowina way.

swood1000
06-05-2015, 02:37 PM
Allegation 1b is interesting. It says that the "anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses," which had appeared on transcripts as lecture courses, were actually independent study courses. When they are considered as such, certain of the students exceeded the maximum 12 independent study hours toward graduation. Since these students were allowed to exceed 12 hours of independent study classes toward graduation they received an extra benefit. This is one way of looking at it. Another way would be to say that since the university had a rule that such classes were not good toward graduation they were also not good toward fulfilling NCAA academic requirements. UNC would argue "No, we gave them an extra benefit. These classes were good toward graduation. Therefore, there was no academic ineligibility." The opposite argument would be "At the time they took these classes they were not good toward graduation. Therefore they were not good toward academic eligibility. The extra benefit was in allowing them to progress academically and graduate using those classes, but nobody had the authority at the time to convert non-credit classes into credit classes."

Also the University of Georgia case comes to mind. That was the one where the assistant coach had a fake class for basketball players. The infractions decision said "Moreover, if the pedagogical decisions within a particular class are constrained by department or university policy, as was the case here, then the area of instructor choice is bounded by those additional requirements and it is academic misconduct to ignore them." In other words if there was a university policy (such as a limitation on independent studies classes) then it was academic misconduct to ignore it. Academic misconduct is another "Severe Breach of Conduct" named by 19.1.1, along with Lack of Institutional Control.

Tom B.
06-05-2015, 02:41 PM
Couple more pieces from the N&O. No real new information here -- just observations that: (a) the NCAA went easy on individuals, other than Boxill, but (b) lots of questions and uncertainty remain about what could happen down the road, and (c) there's at least a possibility that multiple UNC sports programs (including men's basketball) could be in for a paddlin'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXQR-cPXlmY)

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23141310.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23141310.html


Also, Laura Keeley digs into some of the e-mail evidence:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23137089.html

MarkD83
06-05-2015, 03:05 PM
Up thread I gave an analysis of why the NCAA appears to be lenient in the NOA and failed to mention the other infractions related to non-cooperation by Crowder and Nyang’oro. I believe these are the NCAAs way of having defacto subpoena power. UNC will have to produce evidence to show that Crowder and Nyang’oro were cooperative.

This opens the door for further allegations that can go back further in time. Here is the logic.

The NCAA has not explicitly called out "paper classes" just impermissible benefits due to grade inflation. They have also been careful with their timeline to coincide with the tenure of Roy Williams. The timeline is to show a continuous time frame of abuse through the athletic department. The NCAA is being very cautious to not overstep their jurisdiction like they did at Penn State.

UNC will arrogantly give evidence showing cooperation by Crowder and Nyang’oro and claim once again it is an academic issue. This gives the NCAA their opening for more allegations. First, what about the current allegations. A defense stating it is an academic scandal does not negate impermissible benefits or students taking too many independent studies. It does not matter who had the idea just that they occurred. But hold on a second in showing the connection to Nyang’oro the NCAA can now institute a new allegation of "offering fake classes" which is a different impermissible benefit from inflating grades. In addition Nyang’oro became chairman of AFAM in 1992, so the NCAA now has a connection to continuous abuse back to 1992. The NCAA does not have to defend the statute of limitations by-law since UNC brought this up.

So if I were UNC I would offer a one page response...what is our penalty. The NCAA is just waiting for any new documents used by UNC to defend the non-cooperation allegation in order to pounce with more allegations. (Just one man's opinion but it is fun to think through the logic.)

swood1000
06-05-2015, 03:24 PM
Up thread I gave an analysis of why the NCAA appears to be lenient in the NOA and failed to mention the other infractions related to non-cooperation by Crowder and Nyang’oro. I believe these are the NCAAs way of having defacto subpoena power. UNC will have to produce evidence to show that Crowder and Nyang’oro were cooperative.

This opens the door for further allegations that can go back further in time. Here is the logic.

The NCAA has not explicitly called out "paper classes" just impermissible benefits due to grade inflation. They have also been careful with their timeline to coincide with the tenure of Roy Williams. The timeline is to show a continuous time frame of abuse through the athletic department. The NCAA is being very cautious to not overstep their jurisdiction like they did at Penn State.

UNC will arrogantly give evidence showing cooperation by Crowder and Nyang’oro and claim once again it is an academic issue. This gives the NCAA their opening for more allegations. First, what about the current allegations. A defense stating it is an academic scandal does not negate impermissible benefits or students taking too many independent studies. It does not matter who had the idea just that they occurred. But hold on a second in showing the connection to Nyang’oro the NCAA can now institute a new allegation of "offering fake classes" which is a different impermissible benefit from inflating grades. In addition Nyang’oro became chairman of AFAM in 1992, so the NCAA now has a connection to continuous abuse back to 1992. The NCAA does not have to defend the statute of limitations by-law since UNC brought this up.

So if I were UNC I would offer a one page response...what is our penalty. The NCAA is just waiting for any new documents used by UNC to defend the non-cooperation allegation in order to pounce with more allegations. (Just one man's opinion but it is fun to think through the logic.)
Doesn't the NCAA already have a connection back to 1992 through exceptions in the Statute of Limitations under 19.5.11:


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

(c) Allegations that indicate a blatant disregard for the Association's fundamental recruiting, extra benefit, academic or ethical-conduct bylaws or that involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation. In such cases, the enforcement staff shall have a one-year period after the date information concerning the matter becomes available to the NCAA to investigate and submit to the institution a notice of allegations concerning the matter.
Crowder and Nyang'oro were forced to talk to Wainstein in a plea deal to drop criminal charges against them. Is it outlandish to suggest that UNC told the prosecutor that it wouldn't be necessary for him to go so far as to require them to agree to talk to the NCAA?

arnie
06-05-2015, 03:37 PM
I am as puzzled as you are, Kedsy, but I wonder if DBR and such message boards serve as cheap but only occasionally effective psychotherapy for addressing the internal fears of sports fans.

As a very longterm native of North Carolina, I've been constantly reminded of how great the "University of the People" has been, is now and will be in the future. Swofford sang this song for many years and is now a huge power-broker. So yes; I will admit I probably need psychotherapy. But in the end, I truly believe the men's bball program skates and the NCAA pounds women's bball and soccer. Hope I'm 100% wrong, but I just don't think Roy and buddies get hammered.

bedeviled
06-05-2015, 03:37 PM
Allow me to add another possibility:
Mayhaps this is not so much a contract extension, per se, as it is a hush/parachute package. For instance, "Roy, there's a real possibility that either a "show cause" will force you out or we will be forced to cut you loose in an attempt to save face. How 'bout you remain in our loving embrace, and we'll throw in a contractual obligation for us to continue payouts even after your time with us is over?"

If his new contract involves the possibility that he is still owed money for the remaining years of the extension even if his services are severed, that is VERY questionable. What business owner would make such a decision when the threat of releasing that coach looms so realistically? I don't know racketeering-type laws, but I wouldn't be surprised if this crosses legal boundaries....though no one was held accountable for academic and pell grant fraud, so I guess I'll just continue to pay my taxes to Roy :p

OldPhiKap
06-05-2015, 03:46 PM
Allow me to add another possibility:
Mayhaps this is not so much a contract extension, per se, as it is a hush/parachute package. For instance, "Roy, there's a real possibility that either a "show cause" will force you out or we will be forced to cut you loose in an attempt to save face. How 'bout you remain in our loving embrace, and we'll throw in a contractual obligation for us to continue payouts even after your time with us is over?"

If his new contract involves the possibility that he is still owed money for the remaining years of the extension even if his services are severed, that is VERY questionable. What business owner would make such a decision when the threat of releasing that coach looms so realistically? I don't know racketeering-type laws, but I wouldn't be surprised if this crosses legal boundaries....though no one was held accountable for academic and pell grant fraud, so I guess I'll just continue to pay my taxes to Roy :p

This was my first thought too.

trinity92
06-05-2015, 04:37 PM
Don't get too excited, b/c this appears to be about WBB, but it is an excerpt from a 2007 email exchange between Boxill and Susan Malloy, UNC-CH's then/current?) Assistant Athletic Director for Certification and Elegibility:

"It just seems a little sketchy to allow our student-athletes to receive full credit for a course that they never had to attend like everyone else did."

* * *

"Anytime we go from a failing grade to a passing grade that raises a red flag and causes some concern just as anytime we see a grade change that all of a sudden makes a student-athlete eligible."

Like I said, it seems to be only about WBB, but hard for UNC-CH fans to continue to call this an academic, rather than an athletic, problem, when Malloy (whose title mentions only athletics) highlights the special treatment for athletes. I hated big litigation document reviews when I was practicing law, but this would have been a fascinating project to work on. I am absolutely certain the conflict checks did not ask whether the attorneys had attended Duke!

Skitzle
06-05-2015, 05:03 PM
Is it surprising to anyone that Roy Williams never emailed Wayne Walden about student academics?

NEVER? Not once?

Seriously Why weren't Roy's emails passed along. I think UNC is STILL covering things up...

Maybe they used pagers and pay phones...

Duvall
06-05-2015, 05:06 PM
Is it surprising to anyone that Roy Williams never emailed Wayne Walden about student academics?

NEVER? Not once?

Seriously Why weren't Roy's emails passed along. I think UNC is STILL covering things up...

Maybe they used pagers and pay phones...

Was there any indication that Roy Williams ever even used email?

JMarley50
06-05-2015, 05:11 PM
Is it surprising to anyone that Roy Williams never emailed Wayne Walden about student academics?

NEVER? Not once?

Seriously Why weren't Roy's emails passed along. I think UNC is STILL covering things up...

Maybe they used pagers and pay phones...


This was one of the things I started questioning. Maybe there were emails about student academics, but nothing that pointed to misconduct. OR Maybe Ol Roy just wants nothing to do with that gosh darn teknolgy junk, so he don't use email.

swood1000
06-05-2015, 05:18 PM
Up thread I gave an analysis of why the NCAA appears to be lenient in the NOA and failed to mention the other infractions related to non-cooperation by Crowder and Nyang’oro. I believe these are the NCAAs way of having defacto subpoena power. UNC will have to produce evidence to show that Crowder and Nyang’oro were cooperative.
It is interesting that the only allegations related to refusing to cooperate with the NCAA investigation were against Nyang'oro and Crowder. Perhaps you are right that the NCAA believes that UNC has the leverage to get them to talk. Cynthia Reynolds, now at Cornell, refused to be interviewed by Wainstein and would be a treasure trove of information but was not mentioned. Nor was Jan Boxill mentioned. Nor were any of the people listed in the footnote at the bottom of page 12 of the Wainstein Report mentioned, all of whom refused to be interviewed by Wainstein. One possibility is that these people did submit to an NCAA interview. Another is that the NCAA harbors no hope of getting them to capitulate. Not sure how the refusal of a former employee to cooperate can be held against a university. But why not include at least Cynthia Reynolds as well? She works at a university that is a member of the NCAA and could presumably be subject to a show cause order simply for refusing to cooperate.

-jk
06-05-2015, 05:21 PM
Despite his "Aw, shucks!" presentation, Roy's not stupid.

-jk

swood1000
06-05-2015, 05:25 PM
Is it surprising to anyone that Roy Williams never emailed Wayne Walden about student academics?

NEVER? Not once?

Seriously Why weren't Roy's emails passed along. I think UNC is STILL covering things up...

Maybe they used pagers and pay phones...
That doesn't seem surprising to me. Roy is smart enough to keep his fingerprints off something like this. Besides, who is he going to email on this subject? Walden was around the office to talk to and it was Walden's job to do that work. But whatever they can show that Walden knew, Roy is also presumed to have known.

Duke95
06-05-2015, 05:26 PM
Is it surprising to anyone that Roy Williams never emailed Wayne Walden about student academics?
NEVER? Not once?
Seriously Why weren't Roy's emails passed along. I think UNC is STILL covering things up...
Maybe they used pagers and pay phones...

Roy has enough common sense not to put things like that in an email. That's why he had underlings. I would have been shocked to see Roy's name in the NOA.

MarkD83
06-05-2015, 05:27 PM
Doesn't the NCAA already have a connection back to 1992 through exceptions in the Statute of Limitations under 19.5.11:


and maybe even:

Crowder and Nyang'oro were forced to talk to Wainstein in a plea deal to drop criminal charges against them. Is it outlandish to suggest that UNC told the prosecutor that it wouldn't be necessary for him to go so far as to require them to agree to talk to the NCAA?

I think you are correct, but the scenario I am suggesting is the NCAA "prosecutors" trying to make sure they do not allow UNC to have any way to defend themselves if/when the NCAA starts to go back the rest of the 18 years. The NCAA can state that 2002 is a connection which is purely from the date when a new athletic coach was hired. If UNC tries to produce documents that it was an academic issue so the NCAA can not get involved then the NCAA can come back and state that at the suggestion of UNC we can go back to when Nyang'oro was hired.

I just see this as a way for the NCAA to take this carefully so that any penalties aren't overturned.

sagegrouse
06-05-2015, 05:59 PM
Is it surprising to anyone that Roy Williams never emailed Wayne Walden about student academics?

NEVER? Not once?

Seriously Why weren't Roy's emails passed along. I think UNC is STILL covering things up...

Maybe they used pagers and pay phones...

Do you really believe that Roy Williams (or Mike Krzyzewski) has ever sent an email except to communicate with recruits?

billy
06-05-2015, 06:00 PM
Allow me to add another possibility:
Mayhaps this is not so much a contract extension, per se, as it is a hush/parachute package. For instance, "Roy, there's a real possibility that either a "show cause" will force you out or we will be forced to cut you loose in an attempt to save face. How 'bout you remain in our loving embrace, and we'll throw in a contractual obligation for us to continue payouts even after your time with us is over?"

If his new contract involves the possibility that he is still owed money for the remaining years of the extension even if his services are severed, that is VERY questionable. What business owner would make such a decision when the threat of releasing that coach looms so realistically? I don't know racketeering-type laws, but I wouldn't be surprised if this crosses legal boundaries....though no one was held accountable for academic and pell grant fraud, so I guess I'll just continue to pay my taxes to Roy :p

Seriously, who else are they going to hire? No one close to his level of coaching (feel free to insert joke here) is going to take that job anytime soon under current circumstances. At least the contract extension potentially keeps a hall of fame coach on retainer while the storm is weathered.

On a side note, I've never experienced such institutionalized optimism as UNC employees/fans have. Nearly annual pre-season football top-25 (I know it's the media, not the fans, but such rankings seem to be fed by self proclaimed excellence); certainty of a banner for the 2016 MBB NCAA tourney; "It's not as bad as it could have been, all we got hit with was a LOIC allegation".

Atlanta Duke
06-05-2015, 06:09 PM
This was one of the things I started questioning. Maybe there were emails about student academics, but nothing that pointed to misconduct. OR Maybe Ol Roy just wants nothing to do with that gosh darn teknolgy junk, so he don't use email.

Louisiana Governor Earl Long (brother of Huey) summed it up

Don't write anything you can phone. Don't phone anything you can talk. Don't talk anything you can whisper. Don't whisper anything you can smile. Don't smile anything you can nod. Don't nod anything you can wink.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/earllong212427.html#jZlteQ6e592u3Wo7.99

bedeviled
06-05-2015, 07:08 PM
Seriously, who else are they going to hire? No one close to his level of coaching (feel free to insert joke here) is going to take that job anytime soon under current circumstances. At least the contract extension potentially keeps a hall of fame coach on retainer while the storm is weathered
He still has 3 years under contract, which could take MBB through the fire. Nonetheless, I do agree with you that there are quite valid reasons for a contract extension.

As has been stated by you and others, UNC may want a contract extension to maintain recruiting stability or keep a good coach despite having a difficult environment to coach in. Roy may want a contract extension to get more money or as a magnanimous gesture to help his alma mater through a difficult period.

My concerns would be aspects of a contract that disregard good business practice (your good business practice mileage may vary).
1. My lesser concern is timing. Why at this specific time? I think both UNC and Roy would benefit from waiting a few months to make their decisions with more intel available. The BOT would not allow their personal businesses to commit to years and millions of dollars without getting the intel on the coming landscape of the industry.
2. My greater concern is if the contract includes obligations for UNC to pay Roy even if he's no longer actively coaching. His not coaching is such a very real, foreseeable possibility that I don't think it is a defensible position to sign on to make him the highest paid state employee knowing that he very well might not be doing any work for the state. I would be flabbergasted if a businessperson made a similar move in his/her personal business.

Regardless, watching this whole fiasco play out does not cease to be interesting.

Duke95
06-05-2015, 07:57 PM
Obviously, the timing of Roy's extension was carefully planned out. I would assume it is clear to everyone that UNC has engaged the services of a very good PR firm (e.g, Patton Boggs or the like) and each action is orchestrated to achieve a desired goal. They certainly haven't spent the last two weeks just redacting a document.

At this point, UNC needs to give the impression of stability and that they believe in their own case. They want to give every single indication that the golden goose, MBB, is above the fray. That is why every one of their drones is repeating the same line: "Roy wasn't named", as though that is the sine qua non of the MBB program receiving strong disciplinary action.

I suppose part of the "UNC is going to skate" theory comes partly from the overwhelming amount of what can only be described as propaganda from UNC and its supporters and partly from perceived hesitation on the NCAA's part. I don't think the latter has any basis in fact. Look at the NOA's discussion of the AFAM courses:

"This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses." NOA at 49.

The NCAA has specifically singled out men's basketball as a primary offender and its athletes as key recipients of impermissible benefits. Of course WBB is mentioned more frequently, because Boxill was the WBB "academic counselor" at UNC for 20 years. In no way does that exculpate the MBB program.

The only skating the UNC MBB program was doing was on thin ice, and the NCAA's NOA just took a blowtorch to that ice.

JMarley50
06-05-2015, 08:35 PM
Do you really believe that Roy Williams (or Mike Krzyzewski) has ever sent an email except to communicate with recruits?

I know K has. I have seen one with my own eyes. It was a state of the union type email, sent to a few people, including a former coach. Knowing I was a huge Duke fan, the former coach printed off an email he had received that morning and handed it to me. It was from Coach K. Taylor King's departure was discussed among a few other things.

Bostondevil
06-05-2015, 09:41 PM
Do you really believe that Roy Williams (or Mike Krzyzewski) has ever sent an email except to communicate with recruits?

I once got an email from Coach K. So yes, he sends them.

(You have my permission to be jealous as heck. :) )

JMarley50
06-05-2015, 10:00 PM
I once got an email from Coach K. So yes, he sends them.

(You have my permission to be jealous as heck. :) )

You just had to one up me didn't ya? :)

Bostondevil
06-05-2015, 10:19 PM
You just had to one up me didn't ya? :)

Hadn't read your post yet! Sorry. (Not sorry.) I got a personal email from Coach K! And yes, absolutely one of the highlights of my life.

Now, back to determining what will happen to UNC.

Tom B.
06-05-2015, 11:08 PM
On a side note, I've never experienced such institutionalized optimism as UNC employees/fans have. Nearly annual pre-season football top-25 (I know it's the media, not the fans, but such rankings seem to be fed by self proclaimed excellence); certainty of a banner for the 2016 MBB NCAA tourney; "It's not as bad as it could have been, all we got hit with was a LOIC allegation."



All of which I find baffling. They're talking about LOIC like it's some kind of misdemeanor. It's the most serious charge the NCAA can bring! It puts a wide range of possible penalties on the table. Think of just about every major college sports scandal you've heard of that resulted in severe penalties -- they were almost all LOIC cases. SMU football and Kentucky basketball in the 1980s, UNLV basketball in the 1980s and early 1990s, USC football in the early and mid-2000s. LOIC is not a phrase that you want associated with your university. Anyone who fails to appreciate the gravity of that charge and its implications is whistling past the graveyard.

neemizzle
06-06-2015, 01:22 AM
It's probably been said. I haven't read the entire posts, but I'll say it. Given Brandon Ingram's decision to come to Duke (which we're all very glad he did choose the good guys) he also mentioned that NOA awhile back. He played it off on local news when he was interviewed about his decision, and he said it had no effect on his choice at all (which I'm not sure about).

I stand firm in my mind they will get a postseason ban for this season AND/OR next season. It makes too much sense. What doesn't make sense is how every sport involved has been mentioned, but oddly, MBB is the one that would skate if a sport did skate in their program from this. It doesn't add up. It sounds like their protecting their baby. You better bet that if they self-impose a ban, they'll hammer all sports and give MBB a slap on the wrist. That's not right. Dean is mentioned in this situation. But not much. I've yet to read an email from Guthridge, or Matt, or multiple ones from Roy. How come the other ones are getting this serious treatment, and their elite sport isn't?

It makes no sense whatsoever. I said it before, the NCAA NEEDS to make an example out of them. That's not just coming from a Duke fan, but a fan in general of education. You mean to tell me, UNC is charged with LOIC, and there's a possibility that they skate? There shouldn't be any question in the matter. You break the rules, you get a punishment. They know the limits. They know what's right and wrong. You commit the sin? You deal with the consequences. End of story. I have NUMEROUS friends that have been through UNC, and to go through the classes they go through, and say an athlete was just doing what he was doing and NOT coming, and passing? That's morally wrong. It's putting them on a pedestal, and while they deserve all the credit in the world for their skill, they need to work as hard as the kid that has to pay their way through school.

That's my 2 cents worth. Whew.

Tripping William
06-06-2015, 06:49 AM
A take from columnist Scott Hamilton of the W-S Journal. YMMV.

http://m.journalnow.com/sports/columnists/scott_hamilton/hamilton-time-for-unc-to-put-up-or-shut-up/article_344ce8d8-f2d0-54f0-9130-c6ef47c8c2bf.html?mode=jqm

ChrisP
06-06-2015, 07:19 AM
A take from columnist Scott Hamilton of the W-S Journal. YMMV.

http://m.journalnow.com/sports/columnists/scott_hamilton/hamilton-time-for-unc-to-put-up-or-shut-up/article_344ce8d8-f2d0-54f0-9130-c6ef47c8c2bf.html?mode=jqm

Sounds about right to me. Scott Hamilton for Pres!!!

rocketeli
06-06-2015, 07:35 AM
Roy has enough common sense not to put things like that in an email. That's why he had underlings. I would have been shocked to see Roy's name in the NOA.

exactly. Roy's not stupid. One would think that a faculty member at a major university like Jan Boxhill("senior lecturer" which implies a sort of ad hoc position, but still) would be smart enough as well, but luckily for all lovers of truth, justice and the not-Carolina Way, she wasn't.
Her Wikipedia page has some interesting tidbits, BTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Boxill

JStuart
06-06-2015, 08:00 AM
It's probably been said. I haven't read the entire posts, but I'll say it. Given Brandon Ingram's decision to come to Duke (which we're all very glad he did choose the good guys) he also mentioned that NOA awhile back. He played it off on local news when he was interviewed about his decision, and he said it had no effect on his choice at all (which I'm not sure about).

I stand firm in my mind they will get a postseason ban for this season AND/OR next season. It makes too much sense. What doesn't make sense is how every sport involved has been mentioned, but oddly, MBB is the one that would skate if a sport did skate in their program from this. It doesn't add up. It sounds like their protecting their baby. You better bet that if they self-impose a ban, they'll hammer all sports and give MBB a slap on the wrist. That's not right. Dean is mentioned in this situation. But not much. I've yet to read an email from Guthridge, or Matt, or multiple ones from Roy. How come the other ones are getting this serious treatment, and their elite sport isn't?

It makes no sense whatsoever. I said it before, the NCAA NEEDS to make an example out of them. That's not just coming from a Duke fan, but a fan in general of education. You mean to tell me, UNC is charged with LOIC, and there's a possibility that they skate? There shouldn't be any question in the matter. You break the rules, you get a punishment. They know the limits. They know what's right and wrong. You commit the sin? You deal with the consequences. End of story. I have NUMEROUS friends that have been through UNC, and to go through the classes they go through, and say an athlete was just doing what he was doing and NOT coming, and passing? That's morally wrong. It's putting them on a pedestal, and while they deserve all the credit in the world for their skill, they need to work as hard as the kid that has to pay their way through school.

That's my 2 cents worth. Whew.

Excellent comments. I think what is being propagandized by the PR campaign out of Orange County is a lot of smoke, and misdirection. As several have noted, this is unc's redacted version, and they took at least 2 weeks to fashion it. I have to keep reminding myself of this when I read commentary that treats the document as THE only evidence.
Also, I've seen nothing about the charge that they destroyed and withheld information.
Why hasn't anyone inquired as to what information they shredded, or 'lost'? We all joked several years ago about how many shredders were going full blast during the previous inquiries, but I think this is the first definitive evidence that they actually got rid of data.
And then there is the absolute silence out of the ACC office in Greensboro. I mean, no comment whatsoever? Really?
Consider if all this was happening at, say, Clemson. Or FSU again. Wouldn't there be some comment out of the conference office?
JStuart

alteran
06-06-2015, 08:24 AM
I once got an email from Coach K. So yes, he sends them.
)

Also, he files restraining orders.

Or so I have heard.

alteran
06-06-2015, 08:33 AM
Also, I've seen nothing about the charge that they destroyed and withheld information.
Why hasn't anyone inquired as to what information they shredded, or 'lost'? We all joked several years ago about how many shredders were going full blast during the previous inquiries, but I think this is the first definitive evidence that they actually got rid of data.

Did the NOA charge them with withholding evidence (beyond Nyang'oro and Crowder refusing to cooperate)? Does it cite them for destroying evidence? Because if so, wow.

wsb3
06-06-2015, 08:45 AM
Did the NOA charge them with withholding evidence (beyond Nyang'oro and Crowder refusing to cooperate)? Does it cite them for destroying evidence? Because if so, wow.

As bad as this is for UNC don't you know they are holding their collective breath hoping these two never talk?

JStuart
06-06-2015, 09:14 AM
Did the NOA charge them with withholding evidence (beyond Nyang'oro and Crowder refusing to cooperate)? Does it cite them for destroying evidence? Because if so, wow.

My feeble brain remembers a summary of the charges on one of the boards I've been following, but -after reading the official NOA released by unc, I can't find the specifics, beyond Crowder and Nyang'oro refusing to talk or provide information. I'll look further, but I distinctly saw someone's summary of the major charges, and more than once, that mentioned destroying evidence as an 'aggravating' factor....maybe unc redacted it?
JStuart

Duke95
06-06-2015, 09:43 AM
Did the NOA charge them with withholding evidence (beyond Nyang'oro and Crowder refusing to cooperate)? Does it cite them for destroying evidence? Because if so, wow.

To be fair, Crowder and Nyang'oro had no reason whatsoever to participate. I am sure that their respective lawyers advised them to have nothing to do with the NCAA.
The NCAA a) lacks subpoena power and b) provides absolutely no protection for the respondent.

And no, the NCAA did not mention destroying or withholding other evidence, at least not that I have seen.

Troublemaker
06-06-2015, 10:10 AM
Why do we need to calculate whether they would or would not have been eligible?
They took fake classes. Period.
Any Duke athlete caught in a fake class I'm sure would be ruled ineligible. I hope the same would happen at State. What is taking Carolina so long?


This would be UNC coming back with the twig. As another member pointed out, the NCAA has charged UNC with providing impermissible benefits for providing the anomalous courses. This would cover a much wider finding of ineligibility.

Unfortunately, I think the bolded statements above are in question, though (with respect to the NOA). The NOA does not state that the courses themselves were the impermissible benefits. Rather it states this:

----------
"The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, contacting individuals within theAFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses, obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete, turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes and recommending grades."

Also:
"The high level of involvement by athletics academic counselors in the administration of these anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses relieved student-athletes of the academic responsibilities of a general student."
----------

I believe the NOA is saying that the impermissible benefits were the help the student-athletes received to get into those courses, not the anomalous courses themselves.

alteran
06-06-2015, 10:14 AM
To be fair, Crowder and Nyang'oro had no reason whatsoever to participate. I am sure that their respective lawyers advised them to have nothing to do with the NCAA.
The NCAA a) lacks subpoena power and b) provides absolutely no protection for the respondent.

And no, the NCAA did not mention destroying or withholding other evidence, at least not that I have seen.

I totally get that. I was just wondering if they'd been cited for destroying evidence.

To venture into the realm of conspiracy theory, I thought it really suspicious the way Orange County DA Woodall dangled serious charges over Crowder and Nyang'oro. Usually, DA's hassle lower folks in fraudulent schemes to get them to turn state's evidence against the key figures, not to get them to ... do what the fraudulent entity asks. (Which he claimed was to get them to work with the university on Wainstein.)

They certainly got the message that the state could charge them if information implicating them got out-- they'd be crazy to cooperate with the NCAA.

Maybe I'm being paranoid-- but the way the chips fell sure worked out well for Carolina.

Troublemaker
06-06-2015, 10:18 AM
Why wouldn't they do that?

Sloth?

Conspiracy theory?

It's not in the NCAA's "wheelhouse" to make a decision on whether the courses were fraudulent or just "easy."

And so they did not make this distinction in the NOA.

wsb3
06-06-2015, 10:25 AM
To be fair, Crowder and Nyang'oro had no reason whatsoever to participate. I am sure that their respective lawyers advised them to have nothing to do with the NCAA.
The NCAA a) lacks subpoena power and b) provides absolutely no protection for the respondent.

And no, the NCAA did not mention destroying or withholding other evidence, at least not that I have seen.

I agree..unless something forced their hand. And I do not know legally what that would be..I guess their pensions are safe & that kind of bothers me quite honestly.

Jarhead
06-06-2015, 10:45 AM
It's not in the NCAA's "wheelhouse" to make a decision on whether the courses were fraudulent or just "easy."

And so they did not make this distinction in the NOA.

A reminder -- the NOA that has been published? REDACTED is the word. Who knows what evil was redacted? Well, it appears that Scott Hamilton, Winston-Salem columnist knows. His column was posted here by Tripping William earlier this morning (http://m.journalnow.com/sports/columnists/scott_hamilton/hamilton-time-for-unc-to-put-up-or-shut-up/article_344ce8d8-f2d0-54f0-9130-c6ef47c8c2bf.html?mode=jqm) clues us in.

Duke95
06-06-2015, 10:54 AM
Kedsy et al.: Isn't it clear or likely that the academic fraud perpetrated on an industrial scale on the academic side of UNC for the benefit of athletes will result in sanctions based on LOIC. I mean, what the heck else could be LOIC? And it is no help to UNC that the ASPSA is on the academic side of the university because it strengthens the claim of LOIC. And, of course, LOIC could be applied to some or all sports as well as resulting in fines and other UNC-wide penalties.

The other thing that seems clear is that WBB is toast.

Others have read into the NCAA rules and regs more than I have, but I expect the penalty phase to decide whether specific coaches and officials get hammered.

I don't think the NCAA wanted to get involved in "academic fraud". They only mentioned it with regard to 2012. The term "fake classes" just isn't in the NCAA lexicon. The closest they came was to use the euphemism "anomalous courses." They are well aware that the NOA needed to be consistent with their argument in the McCants litigation, namely that they are not the academic police. Hence the use of the term "impermissible benefits." It was a very carefully crafted argument on the NCAA's part.

MarkD83
06-06-2015, 11:11 AM
I don't think the NCAA wanted to get involved in "academic fraud". They only mentioned it with regard to 2012. The term "fake classes" just isn't in the NCAA lexicon. The closest they came was to use the euphemism "anomalous courses." They are well aware that the NOA needed to be consistent with their argument in the McCants litigation, namely that they are not the academic police. Hence the use of the term "impermissible benefits." It was a very carefully crafted argument on the NCAA's part.

I agree with the bold statement. It makes it difficult for UNC to use the defenses they have already mentioned in the press (the classes were open to everyone and no one really knows which exact classes were fradulent). The arguments also allow the NCAA to have leverage going forward. If UNC wants to protest too much the NCAA can add another class I allegation which is academic fraud.

SoCalDukeFan
06-06-2015, 11:13 AM
link (http://www.aseaofblue.com/2015/6/6/8740243/the-ncaa-noa-part-of-north-carolina-problems)

There is also the McCants lawsuit and the SACS review.

Yes, this is "not a pleasant chapter in the history of the university."

SoCal

Troublemaker
06-06-2015, 11:14 AM
Nice sleuthing.

It is unclear to me exactly what the "6 hour rule" refers to. You suggested that it was that student-athletes must take a minimum of six hours per semester and without the paper-classes they would not have reached this.

More precisely, they need to pass 6 hours per semester. Some (http://www.pacifictigers.com/information/student_athletes/eligibility) links (http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/NCAA%20ACADEMIC%20REQUIREMENTS%20AT%20A%20GLANCE%2 0072811r1.pdf) with (http://www.lsusports.net/src/data/lsu/assets/docs/ad/policymanual/pdf/502C.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=5200) that (https://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/2007-08/specialrepts/PriorityRegistration/ProgressTowardDegree.pdf) info. (Unfortunately, the NCAA site is sort of a mess in its current format, so it's easier to link individual school sites with the same info.)

Those links also all explain the 18-hour rule, 24-hour rule, and 40/60/80 rule listed at the top of the FI249 chart



Furthermore, there are the 150 people with a 'Y' in the "Past 12 hours" column. It's not clear from this when these people exceeded twelve hours or what it means. If they are saying that there is a question whether these people exceeded the Special Studies 12 hours for graduation limitation then that's something we may be hearing more about.

My interpretation of those other "Y"s is that they are student-athletes who exceeded 12 hours but even without the extra hours, they still met the requirements of the 6-hour rule and 18-hour rule.

Troublemaker
06-06-2015, 11:29 AM
A reminder -- the NOA that has been published? REDACTED is the word. Who knows what evil was redacted? Well, it appears that Scott Hamilton, Winston-Salem columnist knows. His column was posted here by Tripping William earlier this morning (http://m.journalnow.com/sports/columnists/scott_hamilton/hamilton-time-for-unc-to-put-up-or-shut-up/article_344ce8d8-f2d0-54f0-9130-c6ef47c8c2bf.html?mode=jqm) clues us in.

I suspect they only redacted names and some dates but otherwise we have the complete NOA and exhibits.

I hope you're right, though, that they redacted entire sections from the NOA and entire exhibits that are much more damaging than what's here.

We can also hope that the NCAA adds onto the NOA at a later date. Or maybe PackPride unearths or releases new information.

But, based on what's here right now and how the NOA is written, I don't think the NCAA will hit UNC where it really hurts: vacating wins from men's basketball. I realize for other institutions, it's actually the loss of reputation that would really hurt. But I don't sense that's what they care about in Chapel Hill. (Note: I don't think men's basketball "skates," however. I think a postseason ban and loss of scholarships are in play.)

BD80
06-06-2015, 02:00 PM
I agree with the bold statement. It makes it difficult for UNC to use the defenses they have already mentioned in the press (the classes were open to everyone and no one really knows which exact classes were fradulent). The arguments also allow the NCAA to have leverage going forward. If UNC wants to protest too much the NCAA can add another class I allegation which is academic fraud.

I hope the NOA is as nuanced as I imagine it to be. The NCAA has reasonably concluded that there were sufficient irregularities over several sports with respect to AFAM to justify sanctions. By including counts of unc failing to cooperate (by specific witnesses failing to cooperate) the NCAA has forestalled the "but you can't prove anything specific." unc had the evidence and did not cooperate, the inference goes against unc.

I think the NCAA is baiting unc into a reply of "we don't know exactly which classes were fraudulent." That has LOIC written all over it. This is where they have ol' roy and fedora boxed in. Each has denied any knowledge of what was going on - pretty much the definition of lack of institutional control. It amuses me that the tar heel faithful have repeated whined that ol' roy cooperated with the investigation, answering "fully and honestly." Setting aside the likelihood that a man in his position could be unaware of what was going on, I believe the NCAA is completely fine keeping ol' roy in the ignorance box. If he wasn't responsible for overseeing academics of his players, who was? Playing ignorant is no defense to LOIC. The claim of a rogue employee also falls flat. Someone was responsible for maintaining control. Someone failed. Sins of omission v sins of commission. Doesn't matter who did something wrong, nobody at unc exercised control to stop it from happening/continuing.

bedeviled
06-06-2015, 06:23 PM
By including counts of unc failing to cooperate (by specific witnesses failing to cooperate) the NCAA has forestalled the "but you can't prove anything specific." unc had the evidence and did not cooperate, the inference goes against unc.
I think the NCAA is baiting unc into a reply of "we don't know exactly which classes were fraudulent." That has LOIC written all over it. This is where they have ol' roy and fedora boxed in

+1. I think you've identified the best strategy for the NCAA. Whether or not they have devised such a plan remains to be seen. It would be laughable if the NCAA is hanging its hat on benefits like [a tutor gets a player's assignments for him/her] or [a tutor helps an athlete turn in a paper] as part of a general/varied proxy violation that takes the place of the more egregious crime of academic fraud.

Because I am intrigued by this strategy, please allow me to restate it in a more wordy form so that it may grow in America's collective unconscious:
I read the NOA like Troublemaker - that the anomalous classes were not impermissible themselves, but the "special arrangements" to/in the classes were. Thus, it appears like the NCAA is going after penny ante, player-by-player, specific allegations. If that is the case, and the NCAA is relying on the individual proofs offered for specific players, then it's possible that only a handful of penalties would be given outside of WBB.

HOWEVER, along with the specific instances, the NCAA has inconspicuously included ample evidence that pervasive special arrangements were made throughout the athletic department. So, there are Walden-Crowder emails that would implicate a handful of specific players. In addition, though, there is also general evidence of widespread violations in MBB, such as:
FI225: September 24, 2014 – Interview transcript of Joe Holladay (Holladay), former assistant men's basketball coach. This includes, but is not limited to, Holladay's understanding that Walden helped the men's basketball student-athletes pick courses
FI226: August 27, 2014 – Interview transcript of Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden's explanation for AFRI/AFAM courses with restricted enrollment, where he would call Crowder to get a student-athlete enrolled
Of course, as you point out, UNC would argue that the NCAA doesn't have further evidence of specific wrongdoings and, therefore, cannot apply specific penalties based on those general findings. In addition, in their tradition of trying to play both sides of an argument, UNC would also argue that it is unfair to dramatically punish a program generally when the specifics aren't even known (like, "how can punishment include 2005 when you don't know if specific violations occurred during that year?"). BUT, the NCAA would counter-argue that it is possible that the evidence couldn't be found/verified because UNC was not cooperative in providing materials/people for the investigation. In the case of non-cooperation, the presumption is "guilty." Thus, any specifics within those general parameters are presumed to be guilty unless UNC, now with the burden of proof on them, provides evidence otherwise.

At first, I thought this was an error in strategy because I thought UNC could not be held accountable for Nyang'oro and Crowder not cooperating. But, here is NCAA Bylaw 10.1:

Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01)
(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution;
(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete;
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; (Revised: 1/9/96)
(d) Knowingly furnishing the NCAA or the individual's institution false or misleading information concerning the individual's involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation......[SNIP]

Since I posted Bylaw 10.1, I would like to point out that the NCAA did not include many allegations regarding Bylaw 10.1 other than against Nyang'oro, Crowder, and Boxill. Notice that the NOA does not make specific allegations against Bridger, Reynolds, Walden, Willingham, Blanton, Owens, Mercer, etc, etc for providing impermissible benefits to athletes and/or for not reporting impermissible benefits to the Compliance Office. The list of guilty parties is extensive, and their actions severly undermine the collegiate model. As such, the absence is striking. I suspect this is an indication that the NCAA truly is attempting a "you're all (athletes & staff) guilty unless proven otherwise" strategy.

rocketeli
06-06-2015, 07:29 PM
I'm in the camp that thinks the penalties, especially for men's Bball will be relatively minor, although I have no real knowledge to back up my opinion. I wonder if Roy is even smarter than we think, and he's playing a long game...MBB could negotiate to give up a few scholarships in the next couple of years, because not having recruited a lot of bodies lately means that they could do so and not really suffer.

Duke95
06-06-2015, 07:53 PM
I'm in the camp that thinks the penalties, especially for men's Bball will be relatively minor, although I have no real knowledge to back up my opinion. I wonder if Roy is even smarter than we think, and he's playing a long game...MBB could negotiate to give up a few scholarships in the next couple of years, because not having recruited a lot of bodies lately means that they could do so and not really suffer.

I see this opinion from a lot of people, and (I'm not picking on you) I'm convinced that it's because many cannot fathom the possibility that UNC's once lofty MBB program will be heavily sanctioned.

After reading through the Wainstein report and the NOA, including the exhibits, I think the hammer of Thor is headed for UNC's MBB program.

Atlanta Duke
06-06-2015, 07:59 PM
I'm in the camp that thinks the penalties, especially for men's Bball will be relatively minor, although I have no real knowledge to back up my opinion. I wonder if Roy is even smarter than we think, and he's playing a long game...MBB could negotiate to give up a few scholarships in the next couple of years, because not having recruited a lot of bodies lately means that they could do so and not really suffer.

Given the personal losses he has suffered recently and his own health scares, my guess is Roy knows playing a long game when you are in your 60s is not just thumbing your nose at the NCAA but at higher powers as well

Papa John
06-06-2015, 08:29 PM
Seriously, who else are they going to hire? No one close to his level of coaching (feel free to insert joke here) is going to take that job anytime soon under current circumstances. At least the contract extension potentially keeps a hall of fame coach on retainer while the storm is weathered.

On a side note, I've never experienced such institutionalized optimism as UNC employees/fans have. Nearly annual pre-season football top-25 (I know it's the media, not the fans, but such rankings seem to be fed by self proclaimed excellence); certainty of a banner for the 2016 MBB NCAA tourney; "It's not as bad as it could have been, all we got hit with was a LOIC allegation".

I'll bet Matt Doherty would take the job... Anyone got his phone #?

JStuart
06-06-2015, 08:30 PM
Did the NOA charge them with withholding evidence (beyond Nyang'oro and Crowder refusing to cooperate)? Does it cite them for destroying evidence? Because if so, wow.
Here's what I had seen Thursday, and not since...I couldn't find it in the redacted NOA myself:

BDevilU wrote:
wufpakman21
6th Man
4189 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
Nominate | Report
Posted: Today 11:15 AM
Re: uNC scandal: N&O OP-ED: FIRE ROY & REMOVE BANNERS
Im hearing from a few sources :

UNC charged with LOIC

UNC charged as a repeat offender in some instances

UNC failed to cooperate with many aspects of the investigation

Evidence was lost/destroyed.. various people that claimed they would cooperate and interview lawyered up. (This ties into the Wainstein report. People that interview for KW, refused to talk to the NCAA).

NCAA is charging UNC with a "wide net ". Charges and details aren't very specific.
IE... you cheated... it was a massive fraud scheme... were not going to sit here and charge you with each offense... its the totality of the crimes. (20 years+..2,000 students.. multiple sports)

UNC plans to lawyer up and fight... Bubba has already told the NCAA they aren't accepting the charges. UNC once again has no morals, no integrity... and will not accept their fate. They will drag this out even longer and try to lawyer their way out... or to a lesser penalty at the COI.

devildeac
06-06-2015, 08:40 PM
I'll bet Matt Doherty would take the job... Anyone got his phone #?

Andre Buckner might;).

I think it's: 8-20-Got D'oh

Duke95
06-06-2015, 08:41 PM
There has been no indication of evidence being lost or destroyed. The evidence that exists is sufficiently damaging anyway.

Duke95
06-06-2015, 08:52 PM
And sometimes I wonder what people really think "lawyer up" means. It doesn't mean they're putting on the Iron Man Mark V armor. UNC has lawyers on retainer.

If anyone thinks UNC wants a lawsuit against the NCAA, they are crazy. That is the very last thing UNC wants. The depositions would be brutal. Right now, the NCAA has no subpoena power. Move this to a court of law, and all that changes. It's one thing to justifiably refuse to speak to the NCAA, but it's entirely another thing to perjure oneself. I doubt any of the fraud's cast of characters would do that for UNC.

wsb3
06-07-2015, 08:06 AM
The Carolina Way. I guess I am a complete fool..(don't pile on to that comment) but I thought at some point there might actually be Carolina people who stopped hiding, & deflecting & realized what an embarrassment this entire scandal is for them, even if they are unable to recognize it. Maybe a swelling of people who thought it might be time to do the right thing.

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/columnists/scott_hamilton/hamilton-time-for-unc-to-put-up-or-shut-up/article_344ce8d8-f2d0-54f0-9130-c6ef47c8c2bf.html?mode=jqm

moonpie23
06-07-2015, 08:19 AM
the banners mean EVERYTHING to the tarheels....EVERYTHING.....Look at what they've done to the school to; A - Get them B - Keep Them. They will let the school burn as long as they can keep their precious banners.


pride.....

Indoor66
06-07-2015, 08:46 AM
the banners mean EVERYTHING to the tarheels....EVERYTHING.....Look at what they've done to the school to; A - Get them B - Keep Them. They will let the school burn as long as they can keep their precious banners.


pride.....

Pride, hubris and petty jealousy. Fodder leading to the FALL.

porcophile
06-07-2015, 09:03 AM
So Roy Williams will not be held accountable for what must logically be either his complicity or his negligence. Instead he gets an extension and a raise.
Now UNC is facing another test it can fail: The law school professor who has been Faculty Athletics Representatuve for the last five years (and chaired the Faculty Athletics Committee before that) wants a five-year extension of her term (http://faccoun.unc.edu/2015/04/faculty-invited-to-comment-on-faculty-athletics-representative/). Since this woman was obviously asleep at the switch, or worse, she ought to be sacked, but given UNC's recent record I wouldn't be surprised if she's made FAR-for-life.

roywhite
06-07-2015, 09:18 AM
Pride, hubris and petty jealousy. Fodder leading to the FALL.


So Roy Williams will not be held accountable for what must logically be either his complicity or his negligence. Instead he gets an extension and a raise.
Now UNC is facing another test it can fail: The law school professor who has been Faculty Athletics Representatuve for the last five years (and chaired the Faculty Athletics Committee before that) wants a five-year extension of her term (http://faccoun.unc.edu/2015/04/faculty-invited-to-comment-on-faculty-athletics-representative/). Since this woman was obviously asleep at the switch, or worse, she ought to be sacked, but given UNC's recent record I wouldn't be surprised if she's made FAR-for-life.

"De-nial" still flows strongly through Orange County, NC.

camion
06-07-2015, 09:26 AM
I posed this before.

Has UNC as a part of their "cooperation" in this investigation actually self-reported any violation to the NCAA? They have provided a boatload of facts, but have they actually said that anything they have done is a violation of NCAA rules?

hudlow
06-07-2015, 09:32 AM
So Roy Williams will not be held accountable for what must logically be either his complicity or his negligence. Instead he gets an extension and a raise.
Now UNC is facing another test it can fail: The law school professor who has been Faculty Athletics Representatuve for the last five years (and chaired the Faculty Athletics Committee before that) wants a five-year extension of her term (http://faccoun.unc.edu/2015/04/faculty-invited-to-comment-on-faculty-athletics-representative/). Since this woman was obviously asleep at the switch, or worse, she ought to be sacked, but given UNC's recent record I wouldn't be surprised if she's made FAR-for-life.


It would be a good opportunity for many employees of the school to re-negotiate contracts, since a precedent was set with Huck.

Silence is golden...

just sayin'

hud

oldnavy
06-07-2015, 09:34 AM
Pride, hubris and petty jealousy. Fodder leading to the FALL.

I think people truly underestimate the arrogance of most UNC supporters/staff. They do not simply believe that they are superior to everyone else and above it all... They KNOW that they are.

Trust me when I say, they are not dealing with the same reality that the rest of the universe deals with when it comes to perceptions regarding UNC.

The concept that UNC has done wrong cannot exist in the world they live in.

chrishoke
06-07-2015, 09:34 AM
The Carolina Way. I guess I am a complete fool..(don't pile on to that comment) but I thought at some point there might actually be Carolina people who stopped hiding, & deflecting & realized what an embarrassment this entire scandal is for them, even if they are unable to recognize it. Maybe a swelling of people who thought it might be time to do the right thing.

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/columnists/scott_hamilton/hamilton-time-for-unc-to-put-up-or-shut-up/article_344ce8d8-f2d0-54f0-9130-c6ef47c8c2bf.html?mode=jqm


And now this excellent editorial from the WS Journal

http://www.journalnow.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-unc-chapel-hill-should-sanction-self-hard-to-finally/article_dd711434-0bad-11e5-a5ad-5bce5bdcc9f0.html

Duke76
06-07-2015, 10:39 AM
I think people truly underestimate the arrogance of most UNC supporters/staff. They do not simply believe that they are superior to everyone else and above it all... They KNOW that they are.

Trust me when I say, they are not dealing with the same reality that the rest of the universe deals with when it comes to perceptions regarding UNC.

The concept that UNC has done wrong cannot exist in the world they live in.


the women's programs under the bus to save the men's programs of basketball and football. Haven't seen this discussed too much but my Carolina friends are using that tact pretty consistently. "Men's BB not even mentioned it was all the women soccer and basketball programs that the ncaa will penalize". Not sure that will go over very well on two fronts:
1. Seems pretty sexist
2. I'd say the percentage of men's basketball participation in those classes and the African American studies was of higher % than women's soccer and maybe women's bb by a pretty large margin, certainly in the Tyler Hans. era

It will be interesting to see how far they push this line of thinking and whether pushback locally or nationally becomes more material from sportswriters and others

sagegrouse
06-07-2015, 10:50 AM
the women's programs under the bus to save the men's programs of basketball and football. Haven't seen this discussed too much but my Carolina friends are using that tact pretty consistently. "Men's BB not even mentioned it was all the women soccer and basketball programs that the ncaa will penalize". Not sure that will go over very well on two fronts:
1. Seems pretty sexist
2. I'd say the percentage of men's basketball participation in those classes and the African American studies was of higher % than women's soccer and maybe women's bb by a pretty large margin, certainly in the Tyler Hans. era

It will be interesting to see how far they push this line of thinking and whether pushback locally or nationally becomes more material from sportswriters and others

That may be the strongest straw for UNC fans to clutch, but I doubt the UNC officials take much solace in the specifics on women's sports. I would ask your this, if the Boxill/WBB specifics were never mentioned in the NOA, how would they feel? WBB is a sideshow. The action is in LOIC based on ten+ years for violations of "impermissible benefits."

Duke95
06-07-2015, 10:54 AM
the women's programs under the bus to save the men's programs of basketball and football. Haven't seen this discussed too much but my Carolina friends are using that tact pretty consistently. "Men's BB not even mentioned it was all the women soccer and basketball programs that the ncaa will penalize". Not sure that will go over very well on two fronts:
1. Seems pretty sexist
2. I'd say the percentage of men's basketball participation in those classes and the African American studies was of higher % than women's soccer and maybe women's bb by a pretty large margin, certainly in the Tyler Hans. era

It will be interesting to see how far they push this line of thinking and whether pushback locally or nationally becomes more material from sportswriters and others

Men's BB not even mentioned? What?

From the NOA, pages 48-49:

"The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses.

Stray Gator
06-07-2015, 11:13 AM
I have no doubt that the NCAA will impose penalties on UNC -- the wording of the Notice of Allegations leaves no room for retreat in that regard. But I believe that the severity of the penalties, and the extent to which they directly impact men's basketball, will depend largely on three factors yet to be determined: (1) UNC's response to the Notice; (2) the NCAA's perception of public sentiment, which includes the prevailing direction of media commentary; and perhaps most significantly, (3) feedback from influential NCAA member institutions -- the people who ultimately decide the fate of the organization and its staff. The powers that be at UNC understand this, and they are already working, at the direction of PR advisors, to shape the narrative by conveying the carefully crafted impression that while these charges are being taken seriously, there's no reason for serious concern. The announcement of the contract extension for Roy is one obvious example of how UNC intends to implement this strategy. But you can bet there's much more intense activity behind the scenes, designed to either sweet-talk or strong-arm as many potential voices as possible to join the chorus by supporting the campaign to protect and save UNC basketball.

It's too soon to assess how well this strategy might work -- early indications from media response is that UNC's efforts are yielding mixed results. But in the long term, it's difficult to see how this approach can produce a good result for UNC. In fact, I believe that UNC is digging itself a deeper hole by engaging in such a conspicuous and transparent attempt to control outcomes, in the delusional belief that it can still escape any serious consequences by persuading everyone who matters to view all that has transpired in Chapel Hill over the past few decades through the lens of UNC's own self-serving technical definitions and contorted descriptions.

The terms and tone of the Notice of Allegations appear to me to send a clear signal: The NCAA is giving UNC an opportunity to ameliorate its potential punishment by coming clean, acknowledging wrongdoing, and demonstrating that it accepts responsibility by self-imposing some meaningful, but not necessarily crippling, penalties. Certainly, the NCAA does not relish the prospect of penalizing UNC, but would prefer to leave the door open for a long-respected member institution that has strayed so shamefully to repent publicly, express remorse, apologize to those who were wronged (both within and outside the UNC community), acknowledge the need to disgorge the fruits of its fraud and accept appropriate punishment, and be welcomed back into the fold in a spirit of forgiveness. But in UNC's culture of smug self-righteousness, such a response in unthinkable. Their collective delusion that they are morally superior and still the most clever people in the room remains unshaken; and that hubris -- that refusal to be humbled -- will likely be their undoing.

Unfortunately, for those members of the UNC community who are genuinely disturbed by the disclosure of these massive violations and by the attitude of denial and deflection emanating from Chapel Hill -- and no one should doubt that there are many good UNC alumni and fans who are not on board with "the Resistance" -- the reputation of UNC as a model of integrity has been severely tarnished, and that stain will persist in the eyes of many for a long time. Of course, UNC could reduce the adverse impact of the scandal and restore some measure of pride for its supporters by doing the right thing. Absent a dramatic shift in the evolving atmospherics surrounding this controversy, however, I expect that UNC's leaders will respond to the NOA by continuing to portray themselves as the undeserving victims of a few misguided rogues who have already been dispatched, by proclaiming that they have implemented new policies and procedures sufficient to rectify all past and potential future wrongs, and by urging that any penalties should be light and short-lived to spare the innocent who remain. If that is how it unfolds, I believe that the NCAA Committee on Infractions will, at the behest of other member institutions, inflict terrible pain on the Tar Heels.

wsb3
06-07-2015, 11:20 AM
Unfortunately, for those members of the UNC community who are genuinely disturbed by the disclosure of these massive violations and by the attitude of denial and deflection emanating from Chapel Hill -- and no one should doubt that there are many good UNC alumni and fans who are not on board with "the Resistance" --

I believe you Stray Gator but I have yet to encounter any of those that are not on board with resistance in my area & there is a plethora of alumni, students, & fans in Southeastern NC.

sagegrouse
06-07-2015, 11:22 AM
The powers that be at UNC understand this, and they are already working, at the direction of PR advisors, to shape the narrative by conveying the carefully crafted impression that while these charges are being taken seriously, there's no reason for serious concern. The announcement of the contract extension for Roy is one obvious example of how UNC intends to implement this strategy. But you can bet there's much more intense activity behind the scenes, designed to either sweet-talk or strong-arm as many potential voices as possible to join the chorus by supporting the campaign to protect and save UNC basketball.

It's too soon to assess how well this strategy might work -- early indications from media response is that UNC's efforts are yielding mixed results. But in the long term, it's difficult to see how this approach can produce a good result for UNC. In fact, I believe that UNC is digging itself a deeper hole by engaging in such a conspicuous and transparent attempt to control outcomes, in the delusional belief that it can still escape any serious consequences by persuading everyone who matters to view all that has transpired in Chapel Hill over the past few decades through the lens of UNC's own self-serving technical definitions and contorted descriptions.



Stray, one would also think that the long-running saga, "The Persecution of Mary Willingham," who was deadly accurate in her assertions, would not be very helpful to UNC's case before the NCAA.

Duke95
06-07-2015, 11:25 AM
Ironic isn't it? The University of North Carolina has come to embody the very antithesis of the state's motto.

Every attempt is to control perception in order to save its basketball program. The "Carolina way" has been exposed for a sham, but that doesn't matter to them. All that matters are those banners and the men's basketball program. Everything else is expendable.

4Gen
06-07-2015, 11:48 AM
Remember that Professor Ny....sp? paid back $12,000 for teaching a nonexistent course the nonexistent papers for which were graded by a secretary. How much money was thrown at UNC professors for doing absolutely nothing but perpetuating a scam. I am not a happy taxpayer.

sagegrouse
06-07-2015, 11:50 AM
Ironic isn't it? The University of North Carolina has come to embody the very antithesis of the state's motto.

Every attempt is to control perception in order to save its basketball program. The "Carolina way" has been exposed for a sham, but that doesn't matter to them. All that matters are those banners and the men's basketball program. Everything else is expendable.

Seems right on --


In 1893 the North Carolina General Assembly adopted the Latin words "Esse Quam Videri" (To be, rather than to seem) as the state motto.

As a South Carolina and Charleston native, I always thought the motto was the Latin embodiment of what North Carolinians used to say -- "A valley of humility between two mountains of conceit."

Duke95
06-07-2015, 11:58 AM
"A valley of humility between two mountains of conceit."

Reminds me of a girlfriend I had in college.

dudog84
06-07-2015, 12:11 PM
Lengthy Mike & Mike segment going on about this as I type. Still downplaying somewhat, but covering it seriously.

If only.

Although in general I can barely tolerate any of the talking heads on ESPN, I will often catch the first 10 minutes of Pardon the Interruption because I feel it will give me the top 5 or 6 sports stories of the day. I would think PTI and Around the Horn are the top such shows for them because they are on ESPN (Mike & Mike are on ESPN2), they are on after standard 8-5 business hours so more people can watch them, and they are repeated on ESPN2 and ESPNews later in the night.

I watched all of both shows Thursday and Friday and there was not a peep about UNC. I'm also certain they covered Syracuse in depth at the time.

But the kicker was The Sports Reporters this morning. Nothing until John Saunders (who I actually used to respect) finished the show with his "parting shot". Praising Roy Williams. Stating that it's an academic scandal and not an athletic scandal because non-athletes were in the courses. Taking a swipe at Rashad McCants (wouldn't even mention him by name to show his disgust). It was really quite appalling. Even for people that are entertainers more than journalists nowadays.

I was going to try and find his email so I could send him some links to emails (my favorite was where Crowder (I think) complained that frat boys had gotten wind of the courses), but why bother? You can't educate willful ignorance.

Neals384
06-07-2015, 12:15 PM
Have been working my way through the exhibits. Just a few gems so far. All are partial quotes, not the entire email. "[]" means redaction.


FI47
Cynthia Reynolds to Julius Nyang'oro
9/11/2009

Hi, Julius!
>
> I hear you are doing me a big favor this semester and that I should be
> bringing you lots of gifts and cash???????

Kidding, I'm sure, but really, is this something you kid about?


FI48
Cynthia Reynolds to Andree Williams
6/19/2009
Ms. Crowder is retiring at the end of July ................ if the guys papers are not in ............... .I would expect D's or C's at best.
Most need better than that...

Hurry up, "straight A" Crowder won't be here forever!


FI56
Janet Huffstetler to Jennifer Townsend
11/12/2009

Jenn, [] for many years, was very separate from the Academic Center. Burgess McSwain whom I'm sure you have heard of, kept it that way because Coach Smith wanted it that way. He wanted the [] boys to remain separate and not get lumped in the "athlete label" that I'm sure you have witnessed, often works against them. After Burgess got sick, Coach Williams came, Wayne came, they put [] in the middle of the Academic Center. There have been many adjustments over the years, but this summer was the first time that I felt it has made a difference in how our boys were handled. I think this is something that you need to be aware of at least. This school is not as gracious to its athletes as some.

So much for the notion that "men's BBL is not even mentioned." Seems clear from the above that there was a huge change in the approach to men's BBL academics with the arrival of Huck and Wayne.


FI64
Crowder to Wayne Walden
4/28/2006

Hi Wayne. I hope you are doing well. I have seen a number of your children who have brought in their papers. I have been in conversation with [] this week about doing some work toward the
completion of their degrees and they asked me if Ms. Janet will still be able to help them. I didn't want to put her in an awkward situation so I thought I would ask you first--are you able to still have her work with them under your umbrella? I'm hoping we can get them to complete as many hours as possible this summer while they actually have some time.

Miss Janet, Miss Janet, can you help me with this paper?


FI81
Cynthia Reynolds to Corey Holliday
5/10/2005

[Regarding drama classes]
Some of The guys just are not taking these classes seriously enough to even get C's. This will become more of an issue since the AF AM dept is drastically cutting down on the numbers in "paper classes". That means these "easier" classes like dram 60 (stagecraft) and Dram 35 (acting) and a few others must be passed and taken seriously or we will continue to be on the eligibility line
with these high risk guys.

Hey, future first-rounder. We set you up in the easiest class we could find. Get with it!


F106
Beth Bridger to Cynthia Reynolds (with note to students attached)
6/24/2009

Your paper is DUE FRIDAY, JULY 17th

DEBBIE CROWDER IS RETIRING THE FOLLOWING WEEK SO IF YOU WOULD
PREFER THAT SHE READ AND GRADE YOUR PAPER RATHER THAN
PROFESSOR NYANG’ORO YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE THE PAPER COMPLETED
BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF CLASSES, TUESDAY, JULY 21ST.

This went out to student athletes in upper caps, just as you see it, except that the title was in RED. Note that papers were due on the 17th, but as long as you turned it in by the 21st, you'd get a Crowder grade.


FI138
Reynolds to Crowder
5/21/2009

do you think the incoming students could get c's or better in sahle's class?
remember .......... they never have taken a college class
.............. .
thoughts?

Uh, gosh, let me see...


FI203
Robert Mercer to John Blanchard
3/4/2002

Here we go...

Baseball - EXSS - ss 01

Field Hockey -Geog 95 (3) ss01, ss01, fall 01
Comm 169 fall 00

M-Lax - French 95- ss 01
Comm 169 fall 00

W-Lax - EXSS 99 - ss 01
Spl Topic - spr 01
Comm 169(2)- spr 01, spr 01

W-Golf- Comm 129- fall 00

M-Basketball-
geog 95 fall 00
afam 190 spr 01
geog 95 spr 01
afam 190 fall 00
afam 174 fall 00
afam 190 spr 01
afam 190 ss 01
geog 95 spr 01
afri 190 spr 01
afri 190 spr 01

Gymnastics
Comm 129- spr 01

Apparently Blanchard had requested a count of student athletes who took Independent Studies. Several responses from different sources; this is one of them. So much for the notion that men's BBL wasn't a major user of these paper classes.

That's all for now; more later.

Duke76
06-07-2015, 12:46 PM
If only.

Although in general I can barely tolerate any of the talking heads on ESPN, I will often catch the first 10 minutes of Pardon the Interruption because I feel it will give me the top 5 or 6 sports stories of the day. I would think PTI and Around the Horn are the top such shows for them because they are on ESPN (Mike & Mike are on ESPN2), they are on after standard 8-5 business hours so more people can watch them, and they are repeated on ESPN2 and ESPNews later in the night.

I watched all of both shows Thursday and Friday and there was not a peep about UNC. I'm also certain they covered Syracuse in depth at the time.

But the kicker was The Sports Reporters this morning. Nothing until John Saunders (who I actually used to respect) finished the show with his "parting shot". Praising Roy Williams. Stating that it's an academic scandal and not an athletic scandal because non-athletes were in the courses. Taking a swipe at Rashad McCants (wouldn't even mention him by name to show his disgust). It was really quite appalling. Even for people that are entertainers more than journalists nowadays.

I was going to try and find his email so I could send him some links to emails (my favorite was where Crowder (I think) complained that frat boys had gotten wind of the courses), but why bother? You can't educate willful ignorance.

unbelievable if the men's basketball gets away with it, cause they have to be on the highest % basis, the biggest abuser of these classes, wish we could see a concise breakdown in % numbers??

devildeac
06-07-2015, 12:56 PM
It would be a good opportunity for many employees of the school to re-negotiate contracts, since a precedent was set with Huck.

Silence is golden...

just sayin'

hud

"Silence is golden, golden;
But my eyes still see,

Talkin' is cheap, people follow like sheep
Even though there is nowhere to go (except to hell)."

(bold/italics mine;))

camion
06-07-2015, 01:19 PM
In his final comments on the ESPN's Sports Reporters this morning John Saunders came out strongly for the UNC contract extension for Roy williams.

Among his points:
- Easy classes were available to regular students.
- Roy Williams and Deans Smith were/are all about educating young men.
- This was an ACADEMIC not an Athletic scandal.

Sounded like it was written by the UNC PR team.

bedeviled
06-07-2015, 01:30 PM
FI56
Janet Huffstetler to Jennifer Townsend
11/12/2009

Jenn, [] for many years, was very separate from the Academic Center. Burgess McSwain whom I'm sure you have heard of, kept it that way because Coach Smith wanted it that way. He wanted the [] boys to remain separate and not get lumped in the "athlete label" that I'm sure you have witnessed, often works against them. After Burgess got sick, Coach Williams came, Wayne came, they put [] in the middle of the Academic Center. There have been many adjustments over the years, but this summer was the first time that I felt it has made a difference in how our boys were handled. I think this is something that you need to be aware of at least. This school is not as gracious to its athletes as some. Darn FERPA! Now we'll never know which student was put in the middle of the Academic Center.

Duke95
06-07-2015, 01:32 PM
In his final comments on the ESPN's Sports Reporters this morning John Saunders came out strongly for the UNC contract extension for Roy williams.

Among his points:
- Easy classes were available to regular students.
- Roy Williams and Deans Smith were/are all about educating young men.
- This was an ACADEMIC not an Athletic scandal.

Sounded like it was written by the UNC PR team.

John Saunders knows what's good for his job. ESPN is the last place you would look for solid investigative journalism. They're not going to rock the boat as long as money keeps pouring in.
Remember, Skipper, the president of ESPN, is a UNC grad. Saunders gets nothing from pointing out UNC's fraud. He's just an average hack "journalist" making a buck.

Duke95
06-07-2015, 01:33 PM
Darn FERPA! Now we'll never know which student was put in the middle of the Academic Center.

LOL, they redacted "men's basketball", but the context makes it obvious what the paragraph is about.

MarkD83
06-07-2015, 01:54 PM
unbelievable if the men's basketball gets away with it, cause they have to be on the highest % basis, the biggest abuser of these classes, wish we could see a concise breakdown in % numbers??

One must also consider the greed of the NCAA when considering penalties. Men's basketball is the area where the NCAA has had to give the most money to UNC considering the 3 national championships and 5-6 final fours over the past 18-20 years. If the NCAA is greedy and wants money back just declare all of the NCAA tournament wins invalid and that is a hunk chunk of change.

Invalidating football wins and women's basketball and soccer wins does not amount to a lot of cash.

Indoor66
06-07-2015, 02:02 PM
One must also consider the greed of the NCAA when considering penalties. Men's basketball is the area where the NCAA has had to give the most money to UNC considering the 3 national championships and 5-6 final fours over the past 18-20 years. If the NCAA is greedy and wants money back just declare all of the NCAA tournament wins invalid and that is a hunk chunk of change.

Invalidating football wins and women's basketball and soccer wins does not amount to a lot of cash.

I seriously doubt that "refunds" from uncheat is a very big factor in the penalty thinking. Just my opinion. NCAA has other fish to fry in this one.

Tom B.
06-07-2015, 02:46 PM
The action is in LOIC based on ten+ years for violations of "impermissible benefits."




On this note, a couple of things about the NOA:

(1) Rather than going year by year, sport by sport, and athlete by athlete, the NOA just charged the whole sham classes mess (well, at least the second decade of it, because the NCAA drew a cutoff line at 2002) as a single massive, sprawling violation that spanned multiple years and sports. This is interesting to me, because the NCAA seems to be saying that when a scam is this big and has so many tentacles, it doesn't need to make individualized findings of violations, because everything occurred under the umbrella of an overarching corrupt enterprise. The very act of participating in the enterprise is a violation in and of itself. In essence, the NCAA has RICO-ized the concept of LOIC.

(2) Because of this, the NCAA has effectively shifted the burden of proof on the issues of impermissible benefits and eligibility back to UNC. The NCAA is basically saying, "When you run a 20-year scam that's this huge and far-reaching, you no longer get the benefit of the doubt. The presumption now is that anyone who participated in the scam received an impermissible benefit. If you, UNC, think that any of the athletes who participated didn't receive an impermissible benefit and shouldn't be found ineligible, then it's up to you to rebut the presumption, and to explain and prove to us who those athletes are and why these findings shouldn't apply to them, on a case-by-case basis. Have fun with that."

Neals384
06-07-2015, 03:28 PM
FI118
Crowder to Walden
1/5/2005

Oops. I knew what his middle name is but it was late in the day. It
is ok for him to have l8--if you tell me what to drop I'll be happy
to do so, or he can wait and check them all out before he makes up
his mind. DC

Wayne Walden wrote:
>Debby,
>Thank you for such a quick reply and thank you for your

willingness to
>allow [] to add this course. I should have let you know
>that _[]'s PID is There are two students currently
>emolled named [] Also, he may need to drop a course
>before you can add him to AF AM [] because he is currently enrolled in 15
>hours but is planning to drop one course.
>Thank you again for all your help!
>
>Wayne

Now all we need to know is which member of the 2005 team had the
same name as some other student. Any guesses?


FL210
Crowder to Walden
9/20/2005

Ms. Janet had talked to me at length (twice) this weekend about the
student in question and I had told her no. We are getting pressure
from on-high to reduce the numbers of independent study courses in
the dept. and it is hard to justify giving one to [] who has not
had one of our introductory courses. Janet assures me that she can
work with the student and that it will be in his best long term
interest to take this class. I will fill out an add forms for AFAM
[] that he can pick up at his convenience and he can drop the other
course at the same time. [stuff deleted]

Wayne Walden wrote:

>Debby
>I am wondering if it is still possible for a student to add a
class for this semester. We have a student with some diagnosed
learning disabilities and we are trying to help him with his
reading and writing skills while also tutoring him in his current
courses. I sense that he is getting a little overwhelmed and
wondering if there might be a course that you would recommend that
he still might be able to add in order that hemight drop one of his
current courses.

This shows:

1) At least as far back as 2005 "on high" was aware of the excess
use of paper classes.
2) The Men's BBL staff was actively involved in the effort to get
their players into paper classes
3) At least one mens BBL player had difficulty reading and writing
4) Crowder said "No" to the BBL staff at least once! "We have
standards here." You have to take an introductory AFAM course
before you can take independent study. Wow, that's strict!

Anyone know what the cutoff date is for add/drop?


FI211
Crowder to all AFAM Faculty
7/1/2009

We have started on the spring 2010 schedule and it would be helpful
if you would all send an email stating your teching requests for
spring 2010. Please do so no later than July 6. I do not plan to
continue to add fictitious courses on MWF to make our percentages
comply with the UNiversity's regulations.

Smoking Gun?

FI250 contains Excerpts from the Undergraduate Bulletin for each your starting in 97-98

In the 97-98 Bulletin:


Students attending classes may not enroll in an Independent Studies
course at the same time without the written consent of their deans.

OK, so the "deans" approved every paper class enrollment?

The same rule is included in all the UBs through the 2005-06 but starting in 2006-07, thru and including 2014-15 the UB description of Independent Studies does not include that rule. In other words, in 2006-07 the rules change made it easier to get into Independent Studies.


FI252
Beth Bridger to John Blancard
11/9/2009

Here is the ppt I presented to coaches last week.

[Slide 5 from the ppt]

What was part of the solution in the past?

We put them in classes that met degree requirement in which
-They didn't go to class
-They didn't take notes, have to stay awake
-They didn't have to meet with professors
-They didn't have to pay attention or necessarily engage with the material

AFAM/AFRI SEMINAR COURSES
- 20-25 page papers on course topic
- THESE NO LONGER EXIST

[Slide 6]
Specific Examples

Struggles Academically and Lacks Responsibility
- [] 2.2
Afam GPA: 3.7
Other GPA: 1.86

- [] 2.262
Afam GPA: 3.2
Other GPA: 1.9

Smoking Gun #2


FI289
Forwarding a Note from Boxill to Steve May
3/12/2008

We had a good time at the APPE conference. [stuff deleted] We had hoped our Ethics Bowl team would have done better, but given that it was our first such appearance at nationals, all in all they did a good job.

Oh, the irony!

Dr. Rosenrosen
06-07-2015, 03:28 PM
For all you who are worrying that MBB will get off the hook because the NOA doesn't appear to mention MBB with great frequency, just remember that there were no real rules or guidelines by which UNC performed their redaction prior to releasing their version of the NOA. They could pretty much do anything they wanted and appear to have been very loose with their interpretation of what needed to be redacted. I'm sure their PR guys racked up the billable hours scanning the NOA for any possible place where they could redact -- not to mention identifying places where they didn't want to redact as aggressively... Boxill, WBB, etc.

Let the cheaters and apologists have their moment of blissful denial. There is no way this ends up being good for them.

Neals384
06-07-2015, 03:30 PM
Darn FERPA! Now we'll never know which student was put in the middle of the Academic Center.

Not all of the redactions are student names. Some are course numbers, maybe other stuff.

In this one I'm not sure the redaction is a student's name. Try reading "Mens Basketball" for the redaction, does that work?

MarkD83
06-07-2015, 04:00 PM
I went back and looked at some of the GEMs and the 2nd or third attachment to the NOA is the entire W report, MBB is mentioned a lot in that.

dudog84
06-07-2015, 04:16 PM
re Neals384, Gems Part 2, FI211, Crowder to all AFAM Faculty:

Wow, this damns the entire faculty of that department. I wonder if SACS has seen this.

Throughout this entire debacle, I have been stunned by the silence of the majority of the faculty. Could it be that there are a lot of skeletons in a lot of closets, and none of them want anybody looking too closely at their courses and emails?

mgtr
06-07-2015, 04:29 PM
I realize that it is early days, and that allegations are just that, but assuming parts of what we have read are true, how can the NCAA possibly allow UNC to play in the 2015-16 MBB tournament? And will it turn out to have smart to blame everything on academics? I think that SACS would react negatively to that ploy. Things may get very interesting!

arnie
06-07-2015, 04:37 PM
Throughout this entire debacle, I have been stunned by the silence of the majority of the faculty. Could it be that there are a lot of skeletons in a lot of closets, and none of them want anybody looking too closely at their courses and emails?
Possibly, plus many bought in to The Carolina Way mystique and once bought in, hard to separate beliefs from reality. At least most of the faculty sheep are quiet as opposed to dishonest (aka John Saunders)

Neals384
06-07-2015, 06:21 PM
OK, I'm not a conspiracy theory nut, but I charted the dates of the various exhibits. While most of the exhibits are not basketball specific, I "Basketball Dating" - anything after April 4 of a given year is part of the next year's season. (Omitted exhibits, mostly from 2013 - 2015, that are about the various investigations). Here's the result:



Date Redacted

42


2002
11


2003
3


2004
1


2005
3


2006
31


2007
29


2008
14


2009
20


2010
77


2011
14


2012
6


2013
2



Anyone see the pattern? For 2005, and two years prior, there are very few exhibits, fewer than 2002. For 2009 and one year prior, there are far fewer exhibits than the years before and after. Coincidence, you say? I say this is all set up to let the 2005 and 2009 banners stay up! That's my conspiracy theory, and I'm sticking by it.

porcophile
06-07-2015, 06:39 PM
FI211
Crowder to all AFAM Faculty
7/1/2009

We have started on the spring 2010 schedule and it would be helpful
if you would all send an email stating your teching requests for
spring 2010. Please do so no later than July 6. I do not plan to
continue to add fictitious courses on MWF to make our percentages
comply with the UNiversity's regulations.

Great trawling job, but I think this catch is not what it looks like. Most faculty prefer Tuesday-Thursday classes to Monday-Wednesday-Friday ones because it frees them up for long weekends, but the university would like its rooms to be used five days a week and requires a certain percentage of classes in each department to be MWF. I think Miss Debbie was adding fictitious MWF classes for that reason. If I'm right, this email's only connection to the paper classes business is that it shows that her lack of principles extended beyond "helping" athletes to helping faculty.

gumbomoop
06-07-2015, 08:45 PM
Great trawling job, but I think this catch is not what it looks like. Most faculty prefer Tuesday-Thursday classes to Monday-Wednesday-Friday ones because it frees them up for long weekends, but the university would like its rooms to be used five days a week and requires a certain percentage of classes in each department to be MWF. I think Miss Debbie was adding fictitious MWF classes for that reason. If I'm right, this email's only connection to the paper classes business is that it shows that her lack of principles extended beyond "helping" athletes to helping faculty.

Yes, this is almost certainly the story of this suspicious-sounding email. The key phrase is: "... to make our percentages comply with the University's regulations." Many universities even have a legitimate, if debatable, educational reason for wanting introductory and lower-level courses taught 3 times per week, as it's assumed that frosh in particular need more weekly classroom contact with faculty.

And although I've regularly contended that the vast majority of AFAM faculty were victims rather than perpetrators of the shamscam, here some of them at least are revealed by Crowder to be willing participants in skirting what they'd undoubtedly claim is bureaucratic interference. Hardly a crime against humanity, and certainly a common practice among many departments across this land.

Still, we can hope some mid-level administrator is studying all these emails, so that next fall there might be a querulous meeting at which various constituencies at UNC carp at each other over the intersection between educational and room-scheduling "best practices."

swood1000
06-07-2015, 09:44 PM
More precisely, they need to pass 6 hours per semester. Some (http://www.pacifictigers.com/information/student_athletes/eligibility) links (http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/NCAA%20ACADEMIC%20REQUIREMENTS%20AT%20A%20GLANCE%2 0072811r1.pdf) with (http://www.lsusports.net/src/data/lsu/assets/docs/ad/policymanual/pdf/502C.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=5200) that (https://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/2007-08/specialrepts/PriorityRegistration/ProgressTowardDegree.pdf) info. (Unfortunately, the NCAA site is sort of a mess in its current format, so it's easier to link individual school sites with the same info.)

Those links also all explain the 18-hour rule, 24-hour rule, and 40/60/80 rule listed at the top of the FI249 chart

My interpretation of those other "Y"s is that they are student-athletes who exceeded 12 hours but even without the extra hours, they still met the requirements of the 6-hour rule and 18-hour rule.
Thanks for the links. To clarify the meaning of the columns on the FI249 chart:

Past 12 hours: did the student enroll in more than 12 hours of independent study and "anomalous courses" (courses originally designated as lecture but re-characterized by the NCAA as independent study)

40/60/80 rule:
A student-athlete must meet the following progress toward degree requirements:

- Start of third year: 40 percent of degree completed

- Start of fourth year: 60 percent of degree completed

- Start of fifth year: 80 percent of degree completed

25/50/75 rule: the version of the 40/60/80 rule in operation before the 2003-4 school year.

6 hour rule: Student-athletes must earn six hours toward degree the preceding regular academic term in order to be eligible for the next regular academic term. This does not include summer school hours

18 hour rule: Students going into their second or later years must have passed 18 hours toward their degree combining the previous fall and spring semesters only.

24 hour rule: Students going into their second year must have passed 24 hours toward their degree combining the previous fall, spring and summer.

Other relevant limitations, though apparently not represented by a column on FI249:

• Beginning with the 2006-7 year no more than 6 hours per semester or 12 hours total of independent studies could be taken toward graduation. Before that, this was a limitation on "Special Studies for Credit," and independent studies were limited to 30 hours total toward graduation.

• All student-athletes must be registered in 12 units to be eligible for practice and/or competition.

You said:

Now, of those 33 student-athletes highlighted, only a subset of 10 SAs really have their eligibility endangered, the 10 mentioned in Allegation 1B. This is because UNC changed their Independent Study policy starting with the 06-07 academic year to disallow more than 12 credit hours of independent study. (You can see the changeover in FI250; previously, 30 hours were allowed.) This is why Allegation 1B only mentions the timeframe of "2006 fall semester through 2011 summer semester."
FI250 also highlights the "Special studies for credit" limitations for years prior to 06-07. Do you think that these limitations do not come into play, and that no SAs in these years have their eligibility endangered? How do you interpret "Fall 2004" in the 6-hour rule column? Wouldn't it be that the person violated that rule in Fall 2004 and so was ineligible during Spring 2005 (or maybe the ineligibility was Fall 2004)? Allegation 1b only talks about extra benefits to those 10 SAs, nothing about ineligibility. But the columns in this spreadsheet have to do with eligibility and the Request for Supplemental Information pointedly asks for statement concerning eligibility "as a result of the involvement of student-athletes in violations noted in this inquiry." So it's pretty clear that ineligibility is on the table. Do you think the NCAA is willing to draw the ineligibility line at the 06-07 school year?

swood1000
06-08-2015, 12:22 PM
It's not in the NCAA's "wheelhouse" to make a decision on whether the courses were fraudulent or just "easy."

And so they did not make this distinction in the NOA.
But isn't that what they did in the case of the University of Georgia (2004) with respect to their class "Coaching Methods for Basketball"?

Consider this requirement:

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.
Does this mean that there can be no classes limited to student athletes, or does it mean that if there are any such classes they shall be consistent with the standards adopted for all other classes? And if the latter, how could they determine this without looking at the content of the class?

Do violations of the above rule always have to involve classes available exclusively (or primarily) to student-athletes? What about this argument: (a) the university standard is X, (b) one class had a standard that was 0.5X, (c) therefore the standards of this class were not consistent with the standards adopted for the university, (d) so such a class could not support academic eligibility for student athletes, regardless of whether non-athletes also were in the class.

Would it be permissible, from the standpoint of the NCAA, for a university to offer a few isolated classes having standards well below those of the rest of the classes, open to all students, as safe-havens for athletes in academic trouble? They would just need to keep SACS from finding out, and they would have to avoid any "extra benefit" feature by making sure that academic advisers generally knew about the classes and recommended them to students in extreme academic jeopardy.

In the NOA the NCAA made an evaluation of these classes: "little, if any, attendance requirements, minimal to no faculty interaction, lax paper writing standards and artificially high final grades." Isn't this an evaluation that these classes went beyond "easy," showing that the NCAA will look at the content of classes?

swood1000
06-08-2015, 12:56 PM
It's not in the NCAA's "wheelhouse" to make a decision on whether the courses were fraudulent or just "easy."

And so they did not make this distinction in the NOA.
It is true, however, that Wainstein made the comment that without having access to the papers that were submitted it could not automatically be said that any particular "paper-class" was sub-standard because there is no way of knowing whether the particular student put serious effort into his or her paper and actually deserved the grade he or she received. So part of the problem here may simply be an absence of information about the classes and the work that was done, rather than a refusal by the NCAA to evaluate them, though an argument could be made that a class with no faculty is presumed sub-standard (which is the position UNC finally took at the urging of SACS).

swood1000
06-08-2015, 01:11 PM
Wainstein found the rules unclear. Likely the NCAA does too. From a footnote at the bottom of page 18 of the Wainstein Report:


"It is unclear whether Chapel Hill in fact had any limitation on the number of independent study courses that could be counted towards a degree. We reviewed several sections of the Undergraduate Bulletin over the relevant time period and were unable to determine whether such a rule existed given the unclear language we found. Compare U. OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL, UNDERGRADUATE BULLETIN, 1991-1993 (suggesting 12 hour limit in "Special Studies for Credit" section), with U. OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL, UNDERGRADUATE BULLETIN, 1988-1990 ("A student may earn thirty semester hours of credit toward a degree at . . . through independent study courses."). Regardless of the limit that was actually listed in the Bulletin, Crowder, Nyang'oro, and every witness we interviewed about the topic believed that the limit was 12 hours."

Duke95
06-08-2015, 01:24 PM
Wainstein found the rules unclear. Likely the NCAA does too. From a footnote at the bottom of page 18 of the Wainstein Report:

I think this is what people are still missing. Special study courses and independent study courses are different. Independent study are correspondence, or distance learning courses. Per UNC's UB, a student has 9 months to complete the work for such a course. A student cannot take independent study while also attending classes without permission of the Dean.

Special study courses were limited to 6 hours per semester. Those are like regular classes. McCants took 9 hours of these in Spring 2005. However, these were called "Independent Study". If they are IS classes, then McCants would have had 9 months to do the work, plus he would have had permission to engage in that many classes while actually "attending" classes at UNC. So, that's where the improper benefits come in. If these were really IS classes, then a disproportionate number of athletes enrolled in these while "attending" other classes. Plus, since Crowder asked for papers on time, it is clear that these were not regarded as true IS classes. In addition, I'm not sure NCAA permits correspondence classes for student-athletes.

If UNC calls them "special study" instead, then McCants would have been automatically ineligible per UNC's own policy. So, the 2005 banner is toast just on that front.

That's the conundrum facing UNC.

swood1000
06-08-2015, 01:40 PM
If UNC calls them "special study" instead, then McCants would have been automatically ineligible per UNC's own policy. So, the 2005 banner is toast just on that front.
For failure to carry 12 hours during Spring 2005? He took four courses but one of them did not generate credit toward a degree?

Duke95
06-08-2015, 01:43 PM
For failure to carry 12 hours during Spring 2005? He took four courses but one of them did not generate credit toward a degree?

No, for taking more than 6 "special study" hours in one semester. The UB at the time only permitted 6. He took 9.

swood1000
06-08-2015, 01:47 PM
No, for taking more than 6 "special study" hours in one semester. The UB at the time only permitted 6. He took 9.
But isn't that the same as taking one non-credit class? That alone will not result in ineligibility as long as his other classes add up to 12, right?

Duke95
06-08-2015, 02:06 PM
But isn't that the same as taking one non-credit class? That alone will not result in ineligibility as long as his other classes add up to 12, right?

Yes, I think you could put it that way. He took 9 hours of SS, when he was only allowed 6. His total credit hours for the semester were 12. UNC counted all 3 SS, contrary to their UB.

But, one class could not count, so there were only 9 total credits. So, he would have been ineligible.

swood1000
06-08-2015, 02:26 PM
Yes, I think you could put it that way. He took 9 hours of SS, when he was only allowed 6. His total credit hours for the semester were 12. UNC counted all 3 SS, contrary to their UB.

But, one class could not count, so there were only 9 total credits. So, he would have been ineligible.
But UNC would prefer an "extra benefit" to ineligibility, so they will argue that the third "special study" was actually good toward graduation so there was an extra benefit but no ineligibility. The question would be whether anybody had the ability to authorize a third SS class in a single semester.

sammy3469
06-08-2015, 03:10 PM
But UNC would prefer an "extra benefit" to ineligibility, so they will argue that the third "special study" was actually good toward graduation so there was an extra benefit but no ineligibility. The question would be whether anybody had the ability to authorize a third SS class in a single semester.

I think you're getting too far into the weeds here. The NCAA went out of their to the institution itself was providing impermissible benefits through the ASPSA program (and went out of their way to include as many different sports as possible as referenced in the exhibits). I don't want to say the Independent Study issue is an afterthought, but as Tom noted a page ago, the entire document's written as a way to force UNC to prove the negative without a way (i.e no Crowder and Nyang'oro testimony) to do so. UNC got cute by half and the NCAA used these 252 exhibits to prove the entire ASPSA program was impermissible. The IS issue is just a way to force UNC to make some determination on what these courses actually were....ah but the catch...without Nyang'oro they can't do that.

If UNC wants to disprove this charge, they have to throw any number of student athletes under the bus on a case basis, and good luck doing that. In the NCAA testimony they also have a chain of Holladay (former men's asst b-ball coach who admits Walden helped b-ball players pick courses) to Walden (who admits he called Crowder to gets basketball players enrolled) to Crowder. The NCAA covered their bases here (and for those that don't think any men's bball banners are coming down, FI159 and 160 are e-mails from Walden to Crowder enrolling student athletes in the fall of 2008).

Basically the entire document is a big middle finger to UNC. The NCAA has taken away the "this was an academic issue" from them while at the same time not giving them a meaningful way to disprove allegation 1 without throwing themselves under the bus. I know it doesn't read like the NCAA is going for the jugular, but they neatly boxed UNC into a corner.

OldPhiKap
06-08-2015, 03:21 PM
I know it doesn't read like the NCAA is going for the jugular, but they neatly boxed UNC into a corner.

"Nobody puts Baby Blue in the corner" -- Bubba Cunningham


(Agree 100% with your analysis)

PSurprise
06-08-2015, 04:00 PM
I know it doesn't read like the NCAA is going for the jugular, but they neatly boxed UNC into a corner.

More like Jan Boxilled UNC into a corner. Muahhahaahahah! AmIright? Or am I right? Ok, I'm done.

sammy3469
06-08-2015, 04:27 PM
"Nobody puts Baby Blue in the corner" -- Bubba Cunningham


(Agree 100% with your analysis)

It's really a nicely put together argument and frankly I'm surprised the first sentence gets so glossed over. It's really the only one that matters in the entire document. By treating ASPSA itself as the de facto benefit, they force UNC to take the position that each one of the benefits noted in the attachments is just for that student athlete which by default makes that student-athlete ineligible. I mean just responding on an exhibit by exhibit basis in 90 days is going to be hard for them as the NCAA is asking for a ton of material (still at this late date which shows just how cooperative UNC has been).

BTW my favorite exhibit is FI105 from Nov 1 2011 when good old Bradley Bethel tries to codify what "independent" students should be able to do. Among the gems is "Knows where to park legally", "Navigates advising.unc.edu", "Knows what their academic worksheet looks like". Just a wow on so many levels. Keep in mind this is a summary of a staff survey (and we wonder why nothing at UNC has changed).

swood1000
06-08-2015, 05:04 PM
It's really a nicely put together argument and frankly I'm surprised the first sentence gets so glossed over. It's really the only one that matters in the entire document. By treating ASPSA itself as the de facto benefit, they force UNC to take the position that each one of the benefits noted in the attachments is just for that student athlete which by default makes that student-athlete ineligible. I mean just responding on an exhibit by exhibit basis in 90 days is going to be hard for them as the NCAA is asking for a ton of material (still at this late date which shows just how cooperative UNC has been).

BTW my favorite exhibit is FI105 from Nov 1 2011 when good old Bradley Bethel tries to codify what "independent" students should be able to do. Among the gems is "Knows where to park legally", "Navigates advising.unc.edu", "Knows what their academic worksheet looks like". Just a wow on so many levels. Keep in mind this is a summary of a staff survey (and we wonder why nothing at UNC has changed).
Yes, but so far all the NCAA is proving is extra benefits which, having no monetary value, do not result in ineligibility.

"For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility." 16.01.1.1
Unless ineligibility can be shown then no games or titles are vacated. You mentioned FI159 and 160 but aren't they just more extra benefits not resulting in ineligibility? What if UNC responds at the end of 90 days by saying that these exhibits do not show that any eligibility rule was broken? Although the 352 exhibits show a lot of bad behavior they don't show that student-athlete A became ineligible at point in time X unless somebody can demonstrate how certain exhibits show that a specific eligibility rule was violated and how.

swood1000
06-08-2015, 05:16 PM
Also note that 19.9.7-g (records stricken) is a broad statute related for additional Level 1 penalties. (31.2.2.3 is a more narrow one for individual cases). The NCAA is basically saying we think these Level 1 violations are so severe that records need to be removed even if we can't prove individual athletes were ineligible per 31.2.2.3.I don't read 19.9.7-(g) as allowing or calling for vacation of records without ineligibility having been shown.


19.9.7 Additional Penalties for Level I and Level II Violations. In addition to the core penalties for Level I and Level II violations, the panel may prescribe one or more of the following penalties: (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 8/7/14)
(g) Vacation of records in contests in which a student-athlete competed while ineligible, including one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;

(2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or

(3) Return of individual or team awards to the Association.

It appears to me that ineligibility has to be shown. I'm not sure how you arrive at "even if we can't prove individual athletes were ineligible."

swood1000
06-08-2015, 08:31 PM
32 exhibits, FI216 through 247, are interview transcripts. Each of them is listed in the exhibits file as “The University has not received and does not have custody of this record,” but this can only be an example of indirection. The question is not whether they have received the original of the interview or have custody of it, but whether or not they have been given a copy of it. Did the NCAA list 32 interview exhibits without giving UNC a copy of each one? What would be the purpose of that? Isn't it more likely that the NCAA sent UNC a copy of each interview transcript? But instead of redacting each one and including it UNC has told us that they do not have custody of it, or have not received the original of the interview. In this way they are implying that they don’t have access to the interview so cannot include it. But this can only be false.

Duke95
06-08-2015, 08:48 PM
But UNC would prefer an "extra benefit" to ineligibility, so they will argue that the third "special study" was actually good toward graduation so there was an extra benefit but no ineligibility. The question would be whether anybody had the ability to authorize a third SS class in a single semester.

You lost me on that logic. The UB clearly says you can't do 3 in one semester.

swood1000
06-08-2015, 09:19 PM
You lost me on that logic. The UB clearly says you can't do 3 in one semester.
Consider the student-athlete who was given credit toward graduation for all three and has now graduated. It's a done deal. Regardless of what the UB says this person was, in fact, given credit for all three. So UNC says "Well, we shouldn't have given him credit but we did, so it's an extra benefit. The third class was actually good toward graduation, as you can see since he graduated using it, so it obviously wasn't a situation where he didn't have enough credits. He shouldn't have, but he did."

Duke95
06-08-2015, 09:50 PM
Consider the student-athlete who was given credit toward graduation for all three and has now graduated. It's a done deal. Regardless of what the UB says this person was, in fact, given credit for all three. So UNC says "Well, we shouldn't have given him credit but we did, so it's an extra benefit. The third class was actually good toward graduation, as you can see since he graduated using it, so it obviously wasn't a situation where he didn't have enough credits. He shouldn't have, but he did."

Yeah, that's the "improper benefits" the NCAA is talking about. Without that "benefit" the athlete would have been ineligible. What point are you trying to make?
UNC provided athletes with "benefits" that benefited UNC, not the athlete. Robbing a student of a true education in exchange for diploma isn't a "benefit" to the student. McCants left UNC after 3 years anyway.

BigWayne
06-08-2015, 10:12 PM
I would presume the impermissible benefit angle is chosen here in this case to cover the general idea of something that provides a competitive advantage to the university. In the case of the more common financial inducements, it's a way of keeping better athletes on the teams by drawing them and keeping them (e.g. Hansbrough) at your school. In the case of the fraudulent classes, the benefit to the university is essentially the same. The benefit to the athlete is that he has more time to improve his game and prepare for his sports related life after/outside the university.