PDA

View Full Version : UNC Athletics Scandal: New Violations Delay NOA Response



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

FerryFor50
08-14-2015, 11:14 AM
https://twitter.com/InsideCarolina/status/632204713447018496

It's New Allegation Friday!

mph
08-14-2015, 11:21 AM
They are self-reporting 2 new violations, neither of which implicate basketball or football. Pulease. This is a transparent ploy to push the process back past the end of the basketball season.

devildeac
08-14-2015, 11:23 AM
https://twitter.com/InsideCarolina/status/632204713447018496

It's New Allegation Friday!

Does that make it NONA or NNOA (notice of new allegations or new notice of allegations:rolleyes:)?

Or is this just SOS or SSDD?;)

Might have to visit PackPride later today...

El_Diablo
08-14-2015, 11:30 AM
I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that the timing of this announcement means that delaying the NCAA process could push the penalties past March 2016.

cspan37421
08-14-2015, 11:42 AM
It's the Four Corners strategy again. Or, it's like pulling the fire alarm just before your exam.

NCAA needs to find their backbone and say enough already ... you still need to respond on time.

I long ago decided they're no longer a rival in my mind, and this just reinforces my feeling.

swood1000
08-14-2015, 11:42 AM
Bubba makes a presentation to the UNC Faculty Athletics Committee on the status of the NOA response. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/noa-response-highlights-faculty-athletics-committee)

He is apparently planning to go down with the ship:

"There are zero allegations of academic fraud (from the NCAA)," he said.

The notice, he said, mentions "improper benefits" given to student-athletes, but never categorizes it as academic fraud.
It is a classic example of misdirection. They weren't charged with academic fraud but with improper benefits. The latter is just as great a violation as the former (to the NCAA but not to SACS), but easier to prove. It's like somebody being charged with burglary trying to minimize it by saying that he was not charged with assault and battery.

swood1000
08-14-2015, 12:02 PM
Here's a little bit more on the new development: http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1574246-new-findings-likely-to-delay-ncaa-process


One of the items is connected with Wainstein Report discoveries, according to sources, while the other is unrelated to the current NCAA investigation and has to do with an Olympic sport.
I predict that delays such as this one will cause the process to be delayed until just after March Madness 2016.

Edit: maybe the NCAA will tell them to go ahead and submit their response to the original allegations and then they'll look at these new ones.

Duvall
08-14-2015, 12:03 PM
I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that the timing of this announcement means that delaying the NCAA process could push the penalties past March 2016.

If so, that's an incredibly risky step to take to protect the postseason prospects of a team that probably won't make it past the second weekend, especially if the speculation is correct that the new violations include academic issues with classes outside of AAS.

devildeac
08-14-2015, 12:13 PM
I find it shocking--SHOCKING--that the timing of this announcement means that delaying the NCAA process could push the penalties past March 2016.


It's the Four Corners strategy again. Or, it's like pulling the fire alarm just before your exam.

NCAA needs to find their backbone and say enough already ... you still need to respond on time.

I long ago decided they're no longer a rival in my mind, and this just reinforces my feeling.

If this strategy/plan/report is indeed true, these lying, cheating bastards have moved far, far beyond shameless. :mad:

I agree w/cspan that the NCAA simply needs to say, we want your response on 8/18/15 as originally planned.

swood1000
08-14-2015, 12:27 PM
It could also be true that the holeans concluded that any serious self-examination would probably turn up something additional, so they have "found" and included two additional but insignificant violations to demonstrate how serious they are about this process. This shows that, but for these minor additions, they are as pure as the driven snow and there is nothing else to find (a process that one might have assumed would have been undertaken when the football team was sanctioned recently, but apparently the paper classes were so well hidden that no reasonable investigation could discover them).

Duke95
08-14-2015, 12:30 PM
LOL. The new violations are WBB and men's soccer related. But it pushes the schedule back.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/

devildeac
08-14-2015, 12:39 PM
LOL. The new violations are WBB and men's soccer related. But it pushes the schedule back.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/

Maybe push it back, maybe not:

"Upon receiving the results of the review, the NCAA enforcement staff will decide whether its current notice of allegations needs to be amended. Under these circumstances, the University will delay submitting its response to the current notice on the original Aug. 18 due date, consistent with NCAA procedures. The NCAA will set a new response date following the supplemental review of the new information."


I'm guessing it does delay the process.


Time for a visit to PackPride this afternoon or evening. Heads might be exploding over there.


I'm running out of words to describe those steaming mountains of organic waste material over there.:mad:

swood1000
08-14-2015, 12:42 PM
LOL. The new violations are WBB and men's soccer related. But it pushes the schedule back.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/

"Under these circumstances, the University will delay submitting its response to the current notice on the original Aug. 18 due date, consistent with NCAA procedures. ...We fully believe that we will be able to bring the investigation to a conclusion in spring 2016, as previously anticipated."
So they acknowledge that their target for when the process will conclude is spring, 2016. Maybe around mid-April?

PackMan97
08-14-2015, 12:47 PM
If so, that's an incredibly risky step to take to protect the postseason prospects of a team that probably won't make it past the second weekend, especially if the speculation is correct that the new violations include academic issues with classes outside of AAS.

Not risky at all when the likely alternative is to be nuked from orbit.

The truth is UNC has proven time and time again they will do WHATEVER it takes.

Olympic Fan
08-14-2015, 12:51 PM
It's the Four Corners strategy again. Or, it's like pulling the fire alarm just before your exam.

NCAA needs to find their backbone and say enough already ... you still need to respond on time.

I long ago decided they're no longer a rival in my mind, and this just reinforces my feeling.

Unlike some of you, I LOVE UNC's delay strategy.

I've said before, earlier in this thread, that they were going to delay the penalty phase of the process until after this basketball season plays out. They really believe this team can win the national championship.

But that's okay. In the first place, their team isn't that good. In the second place, the longer this plays out, the longer UNC suffers. Only when the penalties come down and UNC takes its medicine can UNC do what it professes to want to do -- move on.

A blueblood like UNC (or Kentucky or UCLA or Duke) can bounce back from disaster surprisingly quickly ... once it is over. Delaying the end of the scandal merely delays the point where UNC can begin its recovery. Look at any major NCAA scandal -- the leadup to the penalty phase is the worst time for the school. As long as UNC delays, we keep getting things like the CNN article talking about "the worst academic scandal in NCAA history." We keep getting prospects like Brandon Ingram, Harry Giles and Dennis Smith running from Chapel Hill as fast as they can go.

So relax ... pop some popcorn and enjoy our neighbors problems. Let then run the Four Corners ... it's going to work as well as it did in the 1977 national title game.

devildeac
08-14-2015, 12:51 PM
Not risky at all when the likely alternative is to be nuked from orbit.

The truth is UNC has proven time and time again they will do WHATEVER it takes.

Must be one of the very few times anyone could use "truth" and "unc" in the same sentence:rolleyes:;).

swood1000
08-14-2015, 12:51 PM
“We identified this new information as part of our due diligence in preparing our response to the notice of allegations and materials for public release... Consistent with NCAA process, we promptly notified the NCAA’s enforcement staff."
If they promptly notified the NCAA then it is interesting that this new information was discovered only at the very end of the 90 days they had to respond to the NOA.

Tom B.
08-14-2015, 01:00 PM
LOL. The new violations are WBB and men's soccer related. But it pushes the schedule back.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/


How's that view from under the bus, Sylvia?

Apparently UNC self-reported the information to the NCAA this past Monday, but is just now going public about it today. Hellooooo, Friday news dump.

Duvall
08-14-2015, 01:01 PM
Not risky at all when the likely alternative is to be nuked from orbit.

The truth is UNC has proven time and time again they will do WHATEVER it takes.

I mean, they aren't getting nuked from orbit. Penn State didn't get nuked for enabling child rape, and the media browbeat the NCAA into reducing the penalties they *did* get. There's no chance ESPN and the other entities that run college athletics will allow the NCAA to give UNC a more significant penalty then that - there's too much inventory at stake.

Tom B.
08-14-2015, 01:01 PM
Unlike some of you, I LOVE UNC's delay strategy.

I've said before, earlier in this thread, that they were going to delay the penalty phase of the process until after this basketball season plays out. They really believe this team can win the national championship.

But that's okay. In the first place, their team isn't that good. In the second place, the longer this plays out, the longer UNC suffers. Only when the penalties come down and UNC takes its medicine can UNC do what it professes to want to do -- move on.

A blueblood like UNC (or Kentucky or UCLA or Duke) can bounce back from disaster surprisingly quickly ... once it is over. Delaying the end of the scandal merely delays the point where UNC can begin its recovery. Look at any major NCAA scandal -- the leadup to the penalty phase is the worst time for the school. As long as UNC delays, we keep getting things like the CNN article talking about "the worst academic scandal in NCAA history." We keep getting prospects like Brandon Ingram, Harry Giles and Dennis Smith running from Chapel Hill as fast as they can go.

So relax ... pop some popcorn and enjoy our neighbors problems. Let then run the Four Corners ... it's going to work as well as it did in the 1977 national title game.


The board's not letting me spork you, but yeah. This.

Duvall
08-14-2015, 01:03 PM
If they promptly notified the NCAA then it is interesting that this new information was discovered only at the very end of the 90 days they had to respond to the NOA.

That is awfully convenient. I also don't understand this:


First, while preparing for public release of a series of emails from the independent investigation conducted by Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft, the University found additional examples of possible instances of improper academic assistance provided to a few former women’s basketball players, directly related to allegation number two in the May 20, 2015, notice of allegations.

“We identified this new information as part of our due diligence in preparing our response to the notice of allegations and materials for public release,” said Director of Athletics Lawrence R. (Bubba) Cunningham.

The supporting documents from the Cadwalader review were released in October 2014. When were these additional examples indentified, exactly, and why were they not provided to the NCAA in time for the initial Notice of Allegations?

swood1000
08-14-2015, 01:09 PM
Saw this over on IC:


"So we report these findings to the NCAA on August 10th. Then we announce on August 13th that we are sending our response to the NOA and will have it up on the UNC web site early next week. Then today we announce that we are delaying our response because of the info we gave the NCAA prior to announcing that we were submitting our response early next week.

"Have I got that right?"

alteran
08-14-2015, 01:27 PM
Unlike some of you, I LOVE UNC's delay strategy.

I've said before, earlier in this thread, that they were going to delay the penalty phase of the process until after this basketball season plays out. They really believe this team can win the national championship.

But that's okay. In the first place, their team isn't that good. In the second place, the longer this plays out, the longer UNC suffers. Only when the penalties come down and UNC takes its medicine can UNC do what it professes to want to do -- move on.

A blueblood like UNC (or Kentucky or UCLA or Duke) can bounce back from disaster surprisingly quickly ... once it is over. Delaying the end of the scandal merely delays the point where UNC can begin its recovery. Look at any major NCAA scandal -- the leadup to the penalty phase is the worst time for the school. As long as UNC delays, we keep getting things like the CNN article talking about "the worst academic scandal in NCAA history." We keep getting prospects like Brandon Ingram, Harry Giles and Dennis Smith running from Chapel Hill as fast as they can go.

So relax ... pop some popcorn and enjoy our neighbors problems. Let then run the Four Corners ... it's going to work as well as it did in the 1977 national title game.

I agree with OF here, this is the best possible outcome for folks that want the heels to suffer.

First of all, it's a transparent and cynical ploy to buy time. It's just ridiculous that they "found" these accusations minutes before the NOA response is due. UNC is announcing to everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear exactly what they are-- and it isn't pretty.

Secondly, this pushes the window of their suffering back.

It's all good.

luburch
08-14-2015, 01:49 PM
Saw this over on IC:

More gold from IC:


So the NCAA doesn't find something but UNC does, in replying to what the NCAA did find, and UNC tells the NCAA what they overlooked...

This isn't golf, where you have to call penalties on yourself.

plimnko
08-14-2015, 02:18 PM
cheaters keep on cheating..... you do what you do best

where was all this new found "honesty" the past 18 plus years??

CameronBornAndBred
08-14-2015, 02:27 PM
LOL. The new violations are WBB and men's soccer related. But it pushes the schedule back.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/
I almost spit my gatorade on my screen when I saw that banner.


Our Commitment: Taking Action and Moving Forward Together (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/)
...slooowwwwwwlllllllly.

Henderson
08-14-2015, 03:27 PM
Unlike some of you, I LOVE UNC's delay strategy.


Like others, I agree.

Not only does it prolong the agony and potentially push out the end-of-punishment date, but it further messes with Roy's recruiting. Their are two windows in the upcoming year during which CBB recruits can sign letters of intent: The early period from 11/11 to 11/18 and the regular period from 4/13 to 5/18. Until today's announcement there was some chance that UNC's situation would be clarified before the November signing period. Now it looks like that's unlikely. There could be resolution before the spring signing period, but it's not certain. 2016 looks to be another wilderness year for UNC-CH basketball recruiting.

Interesting that these new violations appear to have occurred in the past two years. That means they were on Bubba's watch, and these proclamations of "Mission Accomplished" we've been hearing regarding resolving these problems appear to have been premature.

Given the new discoveries in WBB and the Boxill connection, I wonder where Sylvia comes out it all this. Does her health history make her untouchable? Boxill was a close pal and the WBB announcer, whom Hatchell called, "the most ethical person I know." And it is, after all, Sylvia's program.

budwom
08-14-2015, 03:40 PM
Those buffoons have become so audacious that laughter is required. They have 90 days to respond, with five days to go they say they'll be responding early
next week (right at the 90 day limit) and THEN on day 86 they suddenly find a couple of new infractions? (Of course they have a huge stockpile of them).

I just can't see how the NCAA will view this as anything but shameless gamesmanship.

porcophile
08-14-2015, 03:42 PM
http://paperclassinc.com/ghost-writer-of-unc-past/

Sagegrouse says he went to this site and didn't see the amusing summary of how things stand at UNC. You have to click on the link labeled "Moving UNC Forward" and download a pdf. Trust me: It's worth it.

Henderson
08-14-2015, 04:10 PM
http://paperclassinc.com/ghost-writer-of-unc-past/

Sagegrouse says he went to this site and didn't see the amusing summary of how things stand at UNC. You have to click on the link labeled "Moving UNC Forward" and download a pdf. Trust me: It's worth it.

This is the corrected version of that memo, shortened for UNC-CH reading levels. The original title was: "Moving Great UNC Leader Sun Forward to Defeat Imperialist Dying Dogs." And they took out the bit about going to "UNC Standard Time" which is always a half hour later than everyone else.

When you start outsourcing your memo-writing to North Korea, you get funny memos. But then again, when your entire PR campaign sounds like a Pyongyang production, it's a logical next-step. I'll bet you can hire North Koreans to do PR cheaper than you can hire an American firm. All you North Carolina taxpayers should say a word of thanks.

weezie
08-14-2015, 04:17 PM
"...has to do with an Olympic sport."


Oh no! holes rhythmic dance team taking the hit?! :eek:

devildeac
08-14-2015, 04:19 PM
http://paperclassinc.com/ghost-writer-of-unc-past/

Sagegrouse says he went to this site and didn't see the amusing summary of how things stand at UNC. You have to click on the link labeled "Moving UNC Forward" and download a pdf. Trust me: It's worth it.

Not spew coffee on your monitor screen type funny but quite amusing, nonetheless. Indeed worth a couple clicks and 2-3 minutes to read.

Nice find.

devildeac
08-14-2015, 04:21 PM
"...has to do with an Olympic sport."


Oh no! holes rhythmic dance team taking the hit?! :eek:

Beat me to it, weezie. My speculation was going to be the fencing and/or swimming and diving teams would have tire tracks on them soon.

cspan37421
08-14-2015, 04:44 PM
"...has to do with an Olympic sport."


Oh no! holes rhythmic dance team taking the hit?! :eek:

can't spork you, but I was thinking of synchronized swimming.

or maybe there's a new biathlon that involves firearms, except instead of skiing, you drive an SUV around.

CameronBlue
08-14-2015, 05:39 PM
"...has to do with an Olympic sport."


Oh no! holes rhythmic dance team taking the hit?! :eek:

Word is the NCAA is going to drop a new NOA and cite them for LOMC.

(Lack of Motor Control)

hudlow
08-14-2015, 05:45 PM
I think I recall reading about a nasty incident that took place in the 1904 Olympics involving The UNC Men's Club Swinging Team that took place in the shower room.

Maybe they've been saving that...

MarkD83
08-14-2015, 06:54 PM
Unlike some of you, I LOVE UNC's delay strategy.

I've said before, earlier in this thread, that they were going to delay the penalty phase of the process until after this basketball season plays out. They really believe this team can win the national championship.

But that's okay. In the first place, their team isn't that good. In the second place, the longer this plays out, the longer UNC suffers. Only when the penalties come down and UNC takes its medicine can UNC do what it professes to want to do -- move on.

A blueblood like UNC (or Kentucky or UCLA or Duke) can bounce back from disaster surprisingly quickly ... once it is over. Delaying the end of the scandal merely delays the point where UNC can begin its recovery. Look at any major NCAA scandal -- the leadup to the penalty phase is the worst time for the school. As long as UNC delays, we keep getting things like the CNN article talking about "the worst academic scandal in NCAA history." We keep getting prospects like Brandon Ingram, Harry Giles and Dennis Smith running from Chapel Hill as fast as they can go.

So relax ... pop some popcorn and enjoy our neighbors problems. Let then run the Four Corners ... it's going to work as well as it did in the 1977 national title game.

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. First, other teams are getting better by having new talent coming in while UNC is not getting new talent. By delaying UNC is at risk of getting low ranked recruiting classes just like this year. (Imagine if Jalek Felton backs out of his 2017 commitment. As an aside I would love for Calipari to start recruiting Felton. Talk about wonderful fireworks to watch.)

So back to the argument...the delaying of penalties means that UNC might not have any good classes in 2016, 2017 and possibly 2018. The NCAA won't have to hand down penalties for post season bans because they won't be good enough to play in the post season.

CarmenWallaceWade
08-14-2015, 08:38 PM
Nice N&O article zoning in on how old Roy and Sylvia Hatchell are being treated differently during UNC-CHeat investigation:

http://bit.ly/1HMk8Yq

MarkD83
08-14-2015, 09:30 PM
Here is how this blows up in UNC's face.

I believe if a university does not respond to allegations they are deemed to have admitted guilt regarding said allegations.
UNC realizes they have very little they can say to the NCAA so they admit some additional infractions and assume that the NCAA will add this to the current NOA thus delaying any action.
However, the NCAA has not said anything about this delaying the need for a response. The NCAA gets no response from UNC and declares that they have admitted guilt.
The NCAA then notes that these new allegations have occurred after the NCAA had finished their first investigation and this allows/forces the NCAA to visit again and reinvestigate.

The UNC administration has made every possible mis-step that they could have made during this mess, so it would not surprise me if this happens.

BigWayne
08-14-2015, 09:43 PM
Here is how this blows up in UNC's face.

I believe if a university does not respond to allegations they are deemed to have admitted guilt regarding said allegations.
UNC realizes they have very little they can say to the NCAA so they admit some additional infractions and assume that the NCAA will add this to the current NOA thus delaying any action.
However, the NCAA has not said anything about this delaying the need for a response. The NCAA gets no response from UNC and declares that they have admitted guilt.
The NCAA then notes that these new allegations have occurred after the NCAA had finished their first investigation and this allows/forces the NCAA to visit again and reinvestigate.

The UNC administration has made every possible mis-step that they could have made during this mess, so it would not surprise me if this happens.


According to the dailytarheel article on this, Bubba covered this in his presser:

The University reported this new information to the NCAA on Aug. 10, Bubba Cunningham said on a conference call Friday, and the University learned on Friday that the NCAA would extend the response deadline for the investigation of these issues. The deadline for the University to respond to the notice would have been Tuesday, 90 days after they received the notice in May. Cunningham said he didn't think the University would need more than 60 more days to deal with the new information.


So they reported the new stuff to the NCAA on Monday and kept tight lipped about it until today when they found out they would get more time. Unclear how much more time they got, but it must be at least 60 days more.

MarkD83
08-15-2015, 05:37 AM
According to the dailytarheel article on this, Bubba covered this in his presser:

The University reported this new information to the NCAA on Aug. 10, Bubba Cunningham said on a conference call Friday, and the University learned on Friday that the NCAA would extend the response deadline for the investigation of these issues. The deadline for the University to respond to the notice would have been Tuesday, 90 days after they received the notice in May. Cunningham said he didn't think the University would need more than 60 more days to deal with the new information.


So they reported the new stuff to the NCAA on Monday and kept tight lipped about it until today when they found out they would get more time. Unclear how much more time they got, but it must be at least 60 days more.

Thanks for the update. I did not realize the NCAA had approved the extension.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall to hear the conversation.

So are the new allegations proof that the reforms are not working which is bad news in trying to prove to SACS that the reforms are working?

sagegrouse
08-15-2015, 08:46 AM
Thanks for the update. I did not realize the NCAA had approved the extension.

It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall to hear the conversation.

So are the new allegations proof that the reforms are not working which is bad news in trying to prove to SACS that the reforms are working?

"Sixty days" is Bubba Cunningham's number. The NCAA needs to evaluate the self-reported infractions and then indicate what UNC should do. If I read it correctly, the soccer violation is the failure of an assistant coach to answer a question correctly on the test of NCAA rules, and the women's basketball violation is ostensibly more serious, but "more of the same" in terms of impermissible academic assistance to a player.

I suppose the NCAA could say, "Just send in your NOA response -- these other items are unlikely to change the penalties." But I expect that UNC will be given additional time.

MarkD83
08-15-2015, 08:59 AM
In regards to the overall timing...this gives UNC 60 more days until they report back. I believe the NCAA then has a time frame to respond to what UNC has said and then there is a hearing date that is set. The NCAA could come back and say we don't need all of our time to respond to UNC's response so let's still set a COI data in November with penalties announced in February.

This is risky stuff to try to delay things given that the other party has control of the time frame. Of course, the timing of all of this could be part of what is being negotiated between the NCAA and UNC. That is, let UNC have the 2016 basketball season and then hammer them.

wsb3
08-15-2015, 09:09 AM
"But I'm proud people are going to own the mistakes when they happen."


Yes, Bubba..You have so very much to be proud of for the way you have dealt with this entire scandal.:rolleyes:

OldPhiKap
08-15-2015, 10:02 AM
"Sixty days" is Bubba Cunningham's number. The NCAA needs to evaluate the self-reported infractions and then indicate what UNC should do. If I read it correctly, the soccer violation is the failure of an assistant coach to answer a question correctly on the test of NCAA rules, and the women's basketball violation is ostensibly more serious, but "more of the same" in terms of impermissible academic assistance to a player.

I suppose the NCAA could say, "Just send in your NOA response -- these other items are unlikely to change the penalties." But I expect that UNC will be given additional time.

If one is academic, don't they also need to notify SACS?

dpslaw
08-15-2015, 10:17 AM
If I read it correctly, the soccer violation is the failure of an assistant coach to answer a question correctly on the test of NCAA rules...

As I understand it, the coach's incorrect answer on the test led to the discovery of the actual recruiting violation(s). The incorrect answer is not, itself, a violation of NCAA rules; putting the incorrect answer into practice is.

devildeac
08-15-2015, 10:25 AM
As I understand it, the coach's incorrect answer on the test led to the discovery of the actual recruiting violation(s).

Hopefully he got the answer correct on the Jim Harrick question that asked how many points a soccer goal was worth? :rolleyes:

dpslaw
08-15-2015, 10:28 AM
Hopefully he got the answer correct on the Jim Harrick question that asked how many points a soccer goal was worth? :rolleyes:

Didn't the Harrick test also ask how many points a three point goal was worth?

devildeac
08-15-2015, 10:57 AM
Didn't the Harrick test also ask how many points a three point goal was worth?

Yes, indeed it did, and that was my point (or three of them anyway). ;)

Here's the (w)hole exam. Or maybe I should've posted two halves (or should that be four quarters:rolleyes:;)):

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2004-03-03-harrick-exam_x.htm#exam

(At least they didn't have to take it in Swahili...)

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-15-2015, 11:42 AM
Yes, indeed it did, and that was my point (or three of them anyway). ;)

Here's the (w)hole exam. Or maybe I should've posted two halves (or should that be four quarters:rolleyes:;)):

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2004-03-03-harrick-exam_x.htm#exam

(At least they didn't have to take it in Swahili...)

Question #7 is vague - could be "b" or "c."

cspan37421
08-15-2015, 12:02 PM
so ...

what are the odds UNC will uncover and disclose more violations in, oh, I don't know, maybe about 53 days?

blueduke59
08-15-2015, 12:14 PM
so ...

what are the odds UNC will uncover and disclose more violations in, oh, I don't know, maybe about 53 days?

The odds are very good. We'll probably hear tales of the field hockey team as well as the swim team. They are out of control and must be punished

Olympic Fan
08-15-2015, 12:58 PM
If I can steal from PackPride (still the go-to source for info on the scandal), one poster noted this fact from an N&O article:

Something that jumped out at me today from the N&O article (15AUG2015, Kane & Carter)...was the "Roll Call" graphic on Page 12A which had the following information:

1993-2011 Enrollments - Suspect Independent Studies Course
Football = 360
Men's Basketball = 110
Women's Basketball = 34

1999-2011 Enrollments - Suspect Lecture Classes that Did Not Meet
Football = 963
Men's Basketball = 226
Women's Basketball = 114

So, if we compare MBB and WBB these teams have roughly the same number of players and over the same period should have cheated at about the same rate... but what do we see from this data? We see that for independent studies classes that MBB were enrolling in suspect independent studies classes at 3.2 times the rate of WBB players and for lecture classes that didn't meet at almost 2.0 times the rate of WBB classes. Now how you can take an approach to hang WBB out to dry and let MBB skate is just amazing.

I think that's a pretty good accompaniment to the N&O story linked on the front page of DBR today, pointing out how UNC is trying to scapegoat women's basketball to protect the men's bball program.

devildeac
08-15-2015, 01:43 PM
Question #7 is vague - could be "b" or "c."

Considering the source, credit was probably given for either answer, and extra credit, perhaps with an advanced degree, for choosing both;).

devildeac
08-15-2015, 01:52 PM
If I can steal from PackPride (still the go-to source for info on the scandal), one poster noted this fact from an N&O article:

Something that jumped out at me today from the N&O article (15AUG2015, Kane & Carter)...was the "Roll Call" graphic on Page 12A which had the following information:

1993-2011 Enrollments - Suspect Independent Studies Course
Football = 360
Men's Basketball = 110
Women's Basketball = 34

1999-2011 Enrollments - Suspect Lecture Classes that Did Not Meet
Football = 963
Men's Basketball = 226
Women's Basketball = 114

So, if we compare MBB and WBB these teams have roughly the same number of players and over the same period should have cheated at about the same rate... but what do we see from this data? We see that for independent studies classes that MBB were enrolling in suspect independent studies classes at 3.2 times the rate of WBB players and for lecture classes that didn't meet at almost 2.0 times the rate of WBB classes. Now how you can take an approach to hang WBB out to dry and let MBB skate is just amazing.

I think that's a pretty good accompaniment to the N&O story linked on the front page of DBR today, pointing out how UNC is trying to scapegoat women's basketball to protect the men's bball program.

We can only hope and pray that the NCAA/COI is able to see through the same charade/farce/lie/deception/dishonesty that DBR and PackPride are realizing/discovering about the cheaters.

Henderson
08-15-2015, 02:01 PM
Yes, indeed it did, and that was my point (or three of them anyway). ;)

Here's the (w)hole exam. Or maybe I should've posted two halves (or should that be four quarters:rolleyes:;)):

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2004-03-03-harrick-exam_x.htm#exam

(At least they didn't have to take it in Swahili...)

Walker Doak at WKRB is reporting that Roy Williams took that test and got 12 out of 20, then reported a 72% score to SACS. Supposedly the SACS rep said he'd accept the score but didn't want to play golf with Roy for money anymore.

devildeac
08-15-2015, 02:04 PM
Walker Doak at WKRB is reporting that Roy Williams took that test and got 12 out of 20, then reported a 72% score to SACS. Supposedly the SACS rep said he'd accept the score but didn't want to play golf with Roy for money anymore.

Debbie Crowder must have graded it...

moonpie23
08-16-2015, 09:11 AM
they may be cracking.....a unc friend of mine was bemoaning the new violations and i asked him (jokingly) if he was ready to trade 93, 05 and 09 for it to stop......he thought about it for a sec, and said, disgustedly, "05 and 09"......dean didn't do anything wrong....

crdaul
08-16-2015, 09:51 AM
they may be cracking.....a unc friend of mine was bemoaning the new violations and i asked him (jokingly) if he was ready to trade 93, 05 and 09 for it to stop......he thought about it for a sec, and said, disgustedly, "05 and 09"......dean didn't do anything wrong....

No, other than starting the scam.....

devildeac
08-16-2015, 06:47 PM
Borrowed from my friend, Chip:


http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/download/file.php?id=1986&t=1

devildeac
08-16-2015, 06:48 PM
Once again, thanks, Chip:


http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/download/file.php?id=1984&t=1

BigWayne
08-17-2015, 06:48 PM
Bob Lee takes down Chansky's latest misguided screed. (http://bobleesays.com/2015/08/17/heres-goes-art-again/)

Bonus that you can see Chansky's ramblings without giving him a click.

This go-round the Art-ful Dodger bemoans (again) that UNC EVER opened itself up to Wainstein. THAT, claims AC, was the Biggest Mistake UNC made ….. not all the Football locker room shenanigans…. not all the Julius crap…. not all the Jennifer The Tutor crap.

Art is certainly NOT the only UNC Insider that blames “ever letting an investigator “in” to snoop around” as The #1 Mistake. I’ve heard one UNC insider (not Art) even say “The Corleone Family would NEVER do that”. I confess I double-taken at that. Maybe not the best comparable to use, but then again, maybe it was. :)

Whatever film flammery and shady shadow scheming was going-on for 20 years was: …. “everybody does it” sorta stuff and besides “We ARE Carolina” and Anything We Do is Pure and Good because We Do It…. and besides Dean recruited Charlie Scott.”

OldPhiKap
08-17-2015, 06:52 PM
Bob Lee takes down Chansky's latest misguided screed. (http://bobleesays.com/2015/08/17/heres-goes-art-again/)

Bonus that you can see Chansky's ramblings without giving him a click.

This go-round the Art-ful Dodger bemoans (again) that UNC EVER opened itself up to Wainstein. THAT, claims AC, was the Biggest Mistake UNC made ….. not all the Football locker room shenanigans…. not all the Julius crap…. not all the Jennifer The Tutor crap.

Art is certainly NOT the only UNC Insider that blames “ever letting an investigator “in” to snoop around” as The #1 Mistake. I’ve heard one UNC insider (not Art) even say “The Corleone Family would NEVER do that”. I confess I double-taken at that. Maybe not the best comparable to use, but then again, maybe it was. :)

Whatever film flammery and shady shadow scheming was going-on for 20 years was: …. “everybody does it” sorta stuff and besides “We ARE Carolina” and Anything We Do is Pure and Good because We Do It…. and besides Dean recruited Charlie Scott.”

"And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids. . . ."

-Ghost of Dean Smith that turns out to be, well, about everyone in the UNC athletic department apparently.

FerryFor50
08-17-2015, 08:06 PM
No, other than starting the scam.....

Come on. Dean was just helping these poor student athletes out of the goodness of his heart...

BigWayne
08-18-2015, 12:02 AM
N&O editorial calling out the heels for not holding Roy to the same standard as Sylvia. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article31341986.html)

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is already facing enough allegations in its academic and athletic fraud scandal to make it one of the broadest sets of charges against an athletic program in NCAA history. Somehow, however, the university’s leadership has found a way to add an entirely new allegation to the mess – sexism.

........

Some have rallied to Hatchell’s defense, saying she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players. But Hatchell’s troubles are of her own making. She either knew or should have known about the fraud. That the same isn’t expected of Williams and that his contract renewal wasn’t likewise held in abeyance until the NCAA acts are an obvious double standard.

swood1000
08-18-2015, 02:30 PM
N&O editorial calling out the heels for not holding Roy to the same standard as Sylvia. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article31341986.html)

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is already facing enough allegations in its academic and athletic fraud scandal to make it one of the broadest sets of charges against an athletic program in NCAA history. Somehow, however, the university’s leadership has found a way to add an entirely new allegation to the mess – sexism.

........

Some have rallied to Hatchell’s defense, saying she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players. But Hatchell’s troubles are of her own making. She either knew or should have known about the fraud. That the same isn’t expected of Williams and that his contract renewal wasn’t likewise held in abeyance until the NCAA acts are an obvious double standard.

The piece has "double standard" in the title but then in the body it points out that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated in that sanctions for Sylvia's team appear much more certain:

Hatchell’s contract was not renewed, and Cunningham has little to say about her status. The longtime academic adviser to the women’s basketball program, Jan Boxill, is directly implicated in the fraud in the NCAA’s notice of allegations, and the women’s basketball program could face heavy penalties. In that event, Hatchell would almost certainly have to go. Not renewing her contract could limit any eventual expense to the university.

In light of likely penalties, Cunningham’s deferring a renewal is sensible. ...

The suggestion of a "double standard" while at the same time negating that suggestion makes it seem as if writing an inflammatory article was the main goal here.

BigWayne
08-18-2015, 03:47 PM
The piece has "double standard" in the title but then in the body it points out that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated in that sanctions for Sylvia's team appear much more certain:

The suggestion of a "double standard" while at the same time negating that suggestion makes it seem as if writing an inflammatory article was the main goal here.

I imagine that there was debate at the N&O about how to write it all up. They do state "both had players deeply involved in the bogus classes that moved the NCAA to level five major allegations against the university." They also state "she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players." However, they fell short of stating that the men's team should expect sanctions. It's not that they state that the women's team is more likely to get sanctions than the men's team. They just don't really address at all the expectation of the men's team getting or not getting sanctions. There are probably still some at the N&O that are buying into the PR machine story of Roy being in the clear and the compromise was to just ignore that topic.

Duvall
08-18-2015, 04:11 PM
The piece has "double standard" in the title but then in the body it points out that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated in that sanctions for Sylvia's team appear much more certain:

The suggestion of a "double standard" while at the same time negating that suggestion makes it seem as if writing an inflammatory article was the main goal here.


That assumes that the eventual NCAA sanctions are the appropriate standard for UNC to use in assessing the culpability and responsibility of its head coaches.

Atlanta Duke
08-18-2015, 04:56 PM
That assumes that the eventual NCAA sanctions are the appropriate standard for UNC to use in assessing the culpability and responsibility of its head coaches.

The employee who gets convicted or is "encouraged" to enter a guilty plea gets their walking papers - the senior executive who avoids indictment gets to put the unpleasantness in the rear view mirror - may not be just but that is how it often works with big time organizations

swood1000
08-18-2015, 05:07 PM
That assumes that the eventual NCAA sanctions are the appropriate standard for UNC to use in assessing the culpability and responsibility of its head coaches.
No, it assumes that NCAA sanctions are the de facto standard that UNC will use. WBB doesn't have a greater degree of guilt just because Boxill wasn't as good as some others at hiding her tracks, but they may receive greater sanctions for that reason. And since the general public will associate culpability with sanctions the UNC administration will have some explaining to do if the punitive actions they take diverge a great deal from how the sanctions are distributed (unless they took the approach that both Roy and Sylvia crossed the line and must be fired). If in a criminal trial one defendant is found guilty of a felony and one of a misdemeanor, to say that the misdemeanor should result in equal punishment is to make an accusation that the trial was not credible, which doesn't tend to quiet things down. And if MBB gets lower sanctions they'll use that as a justification for letting Roy off the hook.

swood1000
08-18-2015, 05:46 PM
I imagine that there was debate at the N&O about how to write it all up. They do state "both had players deeply involved in the bogus classes that moved the NCAA to level five major allegations against the university." They also state "she is being made the scapegoat for academic fraud that started with football and men’s basketball players." However, they fell short of stating that the men's team should expect sanctions. It's not that they state that the women's team is more likely to get sanctions than the men's team. They just don't really address at all the expectation of the men's team getting or not getting sanctions. There are probably still some at the N&O that are buying into the PR machine story of Roy being in the clear and the compromise was to just ignore that topic.
In the section I quoted they linked "heavy penalties" with the activities of Jan Boxill and WBB. The implication is that since Boxill was not involved with MBB this is a factor that is not present with MBB, which therefore will not be subject to those particular penalties. In any event, the piece says that "In light of likely penalties, Cunningham’s deferring a renewal is sensible." Then they say that this is not equitable since they are both Hall of Fame coaches and since they probably had the same knowledge of the events.

But if person A is convicted of crime X and person B is convicted of crimes X and Y, it is not inequitable that they receive different punishments even if "everybody knows" that they both committed X and Y and that the only reason A wasn't convicted of Y was insufficient evidence.

Henderson
08-18-2015, 07:31 PM
N&O editorial calling out the heels for not holding Roy to the same standard as Sylvia. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article31341986.html)


Interesting This N&O editorial follows a July 20 op-ed by a former UNC WBB player asserting (with no evidence whatsoever) disparate treatment between men's and women's b-ball teams at UNC-CH. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article27955738.html

It seems to be a tantalizing story line looking for some factual basis. Is Sylvia working behind the scenes?

Duvall
08-18-2015, 08:26 PM
In the section I quoted they linked "heavy penalties" with the activities of Jan Boxill and WBB. The implication is that since Boxill was not involved with MBB this is a factor that is not present with MBB, which therefore will not be subject to those particular penalties. In any event, the piece says that "In light of likely penalties, Cunningham’s deferring a renewal is sensible." Then they say that this is not equitable since they are both Hall of Fame coaches and since they probably had the same knowledge of the events.

But if person A is convicted of crime X and person B is convicted of crimes X and Y, it is not inequitable that they receive different punishments even if "everybody knows" that they both committed X and Y and that the only reason A wasn't convicted of Y was insufficient evidence.

Punishment from whom? There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA. (Note that neither Hatchell nor Williams is likely to be personally punished by the NCAA.) UNC has more than enough information about the academic fraud that took place with players from both programs to request and require resignations from both coaches. If only one of the two is being eased out, it's telling.

Henderson
08-18-2015, 08:31 PM
If only one of the two is being eased out, it's telling.

What does it tell?

Duke95
08-18-2015, 09:50 PM
Interesting This N&O editorial follows a July 20 op-ed by a former UNC WBB player asserting (with no evidence whatsoever) disparate treatment between men's and women's b-ball teams at UNC-CH. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article27955738.html

It seems to be a tantalizing story line looking for some factual basis. Is Sylvia working behind the scenes?

What other factual basis would you like other than the facts that:

a) the fake classes started a decade before WBB really became involved
b) despite this fact, the MBB coach just received a nice contract extension and the WBB coach did not

It is patently obvious to anyone following this case that UNC has decided to throw WBB under the proverbial bus, along with any other program and its very academic integrity, in an effort to salvage the already laughable reputation of its MBB program.

sagegrouse
08-19-2015, 08:22 AM
Interesting This N&O editorial follows a July 20 op-ed by a former UNC WBB player asserting (with no evidence whatsoever) disparate treatment between men's and women's b-ball teams at UNC-CH. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article27955738.html

It seems to be a tantalizing story line looking for some factual basis. Is Sylvia working behind the scenes?

An op-ed piece is often circulated for comment prior to submission. IMHO (where the H is silent) Sylvia almost certainly saw and commented on an essay by one of her former players in her defense. Being a head coach at any State U. is very political. It would have been a smart move for Sylvia to encourage an op-ed in her support, although Bubba would likely be mad about it. At this stage, Sylvia has nothing to lose

wsb3
08-19-2015, 09:08 AM
I can't seem to navigate my way in the tech world well enough to embed the audio link to Paul's show yesterday. A caller asks if Butch Davis should have been let go.

Paul's response included that this began under Dean's watch..Of course we all know this but few in the media world seem to want to say it..

Olympic Fan
08-19-2015, 12:42 PM
I can't seem to navigate my way in the tech world well enough to embed the audio link to Paul's show yesterday. A caller asks if Butch Davis should have been let go.

Paul's response included that this began under Dean's watch..Of course we all know this but few in the media world seem to want to say it..

I saw this on PackPride yesterday and spent a good deal of time looking for an audio link. I did find a link to a Butch Davis appearance on Finebaum's show earlier this week and while they did talk about the mess at UNC, Davis was very vague about the scandal and did not blame Dean at all. He did say the "issues" (I think that's the word he used) were widespread and included basketball and other sports beyond football. Dean's name was never mentioned and neither was a time frame for the scandal.

If this isn't the right segment, then I apologize ... but until somebody can link another one that does include the Dean Smith mention, I'm going to remain skeptical -- no matter how much I hope it's true.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 12:43 PM
Punishment from whom? There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA. (Note that neither Hatchell nor Williams is likely to be personally punished by the NCAA.) UNC has more than enough information about the academic fraud that took place with players from both programs to request and require resignations from both coaches. If only one of the two is being eased out, it's telling.
Your position is that the evidence available is enough to fire both Roy and Sylvia and the fact that Sylvia's program may have more evidence against it is irrelevant to that. They both crossed the line. I agree with you. But for those who draw that line in different places the additional evidence against WBB does rationally suggest different treatment without there being any need to resort to sexism in order to explain it.

There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA.
Yes, but everyone is entitled to his day in court and to hear and confront the evidence against him and to have his case decided by an impartial judge. Doesn't the COI serve that function? You speak of it as if it is just a nuisance and we should just all go out and string-em-up because we can see for ourselves what's what. You refer to the "exceptionally low" standard of whether a program was sanctioned by the NCAA. But if neither Roy nor Sylvia is being personally charged by the NCAA (or has been so far) then they will not be found guilty of having personally breached even a low standard, which should be easier to prove than a higher standard. If you are not going to consider the findings and sanctions of the COI as representing a fair treatment of these activities then why not, and what forum would you suggest as an alternative?

Roy and Sylvia are also not similarly situated since Roy's program is not only a huge money maker but the source of great pride for the university (debased as it is). The university might conclude that with sanctions facing them Roy is their best option for keeping the recruits coming to UNC and that if they tried to replace him at this point they would not be able to find somebody as effective and their number one property would be damaged more than is necessary. As to Sylvia no matter what decision they make it will not have that great an impact on the university since WBB is not one of their major programs. Furthermore, the fact that WBB is going to be slammed is a done deal and they may feel as if her presence there will not help recruiting. They may also have received advice that the length of her remission is in question and they would just like to wait and see.

Furthermore they probably anticipate that WBB will be found guilty of more infractions than MBB, as many do. Allegation 2 and part of Allegation 5 relate only to WBB. And those additional infractions are qualitatively different from the ones that MBB is charged with - they involve doing the work for the students (although I certainly agree with you that making classes available that require little or no work in the first place is in the same ballpark). If Sylvia is to be accountable for the actions of Jan Boxill then there appears to be strong evidence that she is guilty of the most egregious type of academic misbehavior. On the other hand, Roy is accountable for the actions of Wayne Walden but there is no evidence that Walden was involved with doing work for students, and even his knowledge of the true character of the paper class scheme is open to different interpretations. (We'll know a lot more once we get access to the NCAA interview transcripts.)

Do you think that sexism is the best explanation for the disparate treatment UNC is giving Sylvia and Roy?

FerryFor50
08-19-2015, 12:48 PM
Do you think that sexism is the best explanation for the disparate treatment UNC is giving Sylvia and Roy?

Way, way simpler than that.

$$$$$$$$$

PackMan97
08-19-2015, 12:54 PM
Do you think that sexism is the best explanation for the disparate treatment UNC is giving Sylvia and Roy?

I think not giving a rats rear end about WBB is the reason for disparate treatment...that and they think their charmin soft team has a shot at a NCAA title this season.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 01:06 PM
I can't seem to navigate my way in the tech world well enough to embed the audio link to Paul's show yesterday. A caller asks if Butch Davis should have been let go.

Paul's response included that this began under Dean's watch..Of course we all know this but few in the media world seem to want to say it..
Somebody made the remark that the NCAA is keeping amended allegations against Dean's tenure in reserve and as an incentive for UNC to play ball. I guess one can't blame the media for not going after Dean if the NCAA decided not to make any allegations against him.

Olympic Fan
08-19-2015, 01:11 PM
More evidence that Roy is lying to recruits:
]
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article27007096.html

From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."

Apparently, SKJ is smart enough to see through the lies. The 6-10 prospect, who committed to Virginia June 2, then decommitted two weeks later, grew up in Chapel Hill, within walking distance of the Dean Dome. He grew up a UNC fan and admitted that UNC interest was behind his decision to decommit. He's ranked the No. 28 player in the Class of 2016 by Rivals ... No. 56 by ESPN.

He just committed again ... to Kentucky:

http://espn.go.com/recruiting/basketball/story/_/id/13467026/recruit-sacha-killeya-jones-commits-kentucky-wildcats

It's like I keep saying -- the longer the NCAA hangs over UNC's head, the longer Roy's recruiting agony will continue -- despite his lies to the kids. Let them continue to delay the final ruling ... the longer it goes, the deeper their hole becomes.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 01:36 PM
From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."
Has Roy not been available to the press during all this? Why haven't they asked these questions:

Roy, the NCAA has alleged that basketball players received extra benefits:

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

and the penalty for extra benefits is ineligibility:

16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. [A] A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports. (Revised: 8/7/14)

There have been many teams in the past whose wins were vacated because of the participation of players who were ineligible as a result of having received extra benefits. How can you be "100% positive" that the COI will reject allegations one and five? Is the enforcement staff in the habit of alleging infractions that they can't support? What exactly is your optimism grounded in?

Kedsy
08-19-2015, 01:47 PM
There have been many teams in the past whose wins were vacated because of the participation of players who were ineligible as a result of having received extra benefits. How can you be "100% positive" that the COI will reject allegations one and five? Is the enforcement staff in the habit of alleging infractions that they can't support? What exactly is your optimism grounded in?

Why would a recruit care about past wins being vacated? Maybe Roy just said he's confident penalties affecting the future will not be levied?

Of course, even that is ludicrous.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 02:15 PM
Why would a recruit care about past wins being vacated? Maybe Roy just said he's confident penalties affecting the future will not be levied?

Of course, even that is ludicrous.
Let me revise my question from the press:

Roy, the NOA alleged that the men's basketball team was involved in the receipt of extra benefits and that this was enabled by a lack of institutional control on the part of the university. Isn't it true that post-season bans and reductions of both scholarships and recruiters have often been the penalty when other universities have been found guilty of such activities? What is the source of the confidence you have expressed that such penalties will not be applied in this case?

Tripping William
08-19-2015, 02:26 PM
Let me revise my question from the press:

Roy, the NOA alleged that the men's basketball team was involved in the receipt of extra benefits and that this was enabled by a lack of institutional control on the part of the university. Isn't it true that post-season bans and reductions of both scholarships and recruiters have often been the penalty when other universities have been found guilty of such activities? What is the source of the confidence you have expressed that such penalties will not be applied in this case?

And those will be your last words before your rear-end gets burned with a BB from Ol' Roy's official Red Ryder Carbine Action, 200-Hundred Shot Range Model air rifle.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 02:49 PM
And those will be your last words before your rear-end gets burned with a BB from Ol' Roy's official Red Ryder Carbine Action, 200-Hundred Shot Range Model air rifle.
Roy shouldn't have one of those. He'll shoot his eye out. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppOXpyhM2wA)

wsb3
08-19-2015, 03:21 PM
I guess one can't blame the media for not going after Dean if the NCAA decided not to make any allegations against him.

The report on how far back the scandal goes places it squarely on Dean's doorstep whether the NCAA makes allegations against Dean or not.

CameronBornAndBred
08-19-2015, 03:22 PM
More evidence that Roy is lying to recruits:
]
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article27007096.html

From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."
.
At least the kid is smart enough not to listen.

“If they got a major scholarship reduction or something like that, obviously you don’t want to commit to any scholarship that might not be there,” he added. “I definitely don’t want to commit before any punishments come down, even though I’m pretty sure there won’t be anything.”
Pretty much saying..."Well, I'd like to believe him, but hell no".

swood1000
08-19-2015, 03:29 PM
Let me revise my question from the press:

Roy, the NOA alleged that the men's basketball team was involved in the receipt of extra benefits and that this was enabled by a lack of institutional control on the part of the university. Isn't it true that post-season bans and reductions of both scholarships and recruiters have often been the penalty when other universities have been found guilty of such activities? What is the source of the confidence you have expressed that such penalties will not be applied in this case?
Or maybe this:

Roy, the NOA alleged four aggravating factors:


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)]

According to the current penalty guidelines (granted that the prior penalties will be applied in this case), the penalties for a Level I aggravated violation include a 2 to 4 year post-season ban and a 25 to 50% scholarship reduction.

5415


How can you be 100% confident that these penalties will not be applied to the men's basketball team?

swood1000
08-19-2015, 03:41 PM
The report on how far back the scandal goes places it squarely on Dean's doorstep whether the NCAA makes allegations against Dean or not.
But an article asserting Dean's guilt has to answer the question as to why, if there is anything there, the NCAA did not charge it. It appears that although the report may place it squarely on Dean's doorstep the NCAA discounted that part of the report or found the evidence insufficient.

Tripping William
08-19-2015, 03:46 PM
How can you be 100% confident that these penalties will not be applied to the men's basketball team?

"Because my masseuse completely reassured me of it, right after I finished all of my bitter complaining about how easy those doggone Haitians have it compared to me."

swood1000
08-19-2015, 03:54 PM
At least the kid is smart enough not to listen.

“If they got a major scholarship reduction or something like that, obviously you don’t want to commit to any scholarship that might not be there,” he added. “I definitely don’t want to commit before any punishments come down, even though I’m pretty sure there won’t be anything.”

Pretty much saying..."Well, I'd like to believe him, but hell no".
If Roy weren't denying that there will be any repercussions at all he would be able to point out to people who "don't want to commit to any scholarship that might not be there" that when Syracuse got their scholarships reduced the NCAA took care that scholarships would not be yanked from those who had already been offered one.


If the institution has already executed athletically related financial aid agreements to prospective student-athletes for the 2015-16 academic year that would prevent the institution from meeting this penalty, the institution has the option to begin the penalty with the 2016-17 academic year.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 04:08 PM
"Because my masseuse completely reassured me of it, right after I finished all of my bitter complaining about how easy those doggone Haitians have it compared to me."
I think you are getting close to the true foundation for these promises. The part that has me mystified is how he can ever again have any credibility with any recruit after making statements that are so transparently false. Even if his team does not get slammed he had no justification for such assertions.

Tripping William
08-19-2015, 04:28 PM
I think you are getting close to the true foundation for these promises. The part that has me mystified is how he can ever again have any credibility with any recruit's parents after making statements that are so transparently false. Even if his team does not get slammed he had no justification for such assertions.

FIFY. Meaning the Tank Thorntons, Chucky Okafors, Dell Currys, David Robinsons, Sonny Parkers, and Doc Riverses of the world (by way of example, and to say nothing mothers, who may be all-the-more important).

wsb3
08-19-2015, 05:05 PM
But an article asserting Dean's guilt has to answer the question as to why, if there is anything there, the NCAA did not charge it. It appears that although the report may place it squarely on Dean's doorstep the NCAA discounted that part of the report or found the evidence insufficient.

Maybe I am missing something here. (It would not be the first time) but I fail to see why the NCAA granting a free pass to the Dean years has anything to do with media coverage. And the report did take the AFAM scandal back to 93. So I don't think there is any question that Dean was culpable, whether the NCAA chose not to venture that far back with possible punishments.

I have to give the UNC grad, S.L. Price, credit for the article he wrote in SI..But for the most part UNC has gotten off lightly in most media outlets.

The SI article is sure worth a read to anyone that has not yet read it.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/13/north-carolina-tar-heels-paper-classes-ncaa

El_Diablo
08-19-2015, 05:24 PM
I fail to see why the NCAA granting a free pass to the Dean years has anything to do with media coverage.

Media coverage has become relatively lazy. Sports media coverage is even lazier. And the president of the largest source of sports media coverage is a UNC grad.

swood1000
08-19-2015, 05:24 PM
Maybe I am missing something here. (It would not be the first time) but I fail to see why the NCAA granting a free pass to the Dean years has anything to do with media coverage. And the report did take the AFAM scandal back to 93. So I don't think there is any question that Dean was culpable, whether the NCAA chose not to venture that far back with possible punishments.
My thinking is that if the NCAA investigated UNC and ended up not charging them for anything that happened on Dean's watch, we could understand why many in the media would conclude that there was nothing much there and focus their attention elsewhere. Why else would the NCAA not have charged it?

Duke95
08-19-2015, 05:41 PM
I think you are getting close to the true foundation for these promises. The part that has me mystified is how he can ever again have any credibility with any recruit after making statements that are so transparently false. Even if his team does not get slammed he had no justification for such assertions.

The fact that SKJ just chose Kentucky over home-town UNC says a lot about how much credibility Roy's assurances that MBB won't be touched have with recruits. Zero.

sagegrouse
08-19-2015, 05:41 PM
Y

Yes, but everyone is entitled to his day in court and to hear and confront the evidence against him and to have his case decided by an impartial judge. Doesn't the COI serve that function? You speak of it as if it is just a nuisance and we should just all go out and string-em-up because we can see for ourselves what's what. You refer to the "exceptionally low" standard of whether a program was sanctioned by the NCAA. But if neither Roy nor Sylvia is being personally charged by the NCAA (or has been so far) then they will not be found guilty of having personally breached even a low standard, which should be easier to prove than a higher standard. If you are not going to consider the findings and sanctions of the COI as representing a fair treatment of these activities then why not, and what forum would you suggest as an alternative?



We had these very questions come up in the Paterno case. No. NO! The Army Brigadier General in charge of Abu Graib was not guilty of torture and may never had set foot inside the prison. She was, nevertheless, properly fired on day one of the investigation. Similarly, Paterno gets fired for being in charge and having at least some tangential relationship to the scandal. Due process is dictated by his contract.

Roy and Sylvia should get cashiered for presiding over their teams during a horrific set of violations of NCAA rules and regs (of which obeying them is integral to their contracts). If you are saying the NCAA COI will verify these violations by UNC and that should be sufficient to dismiss them -- then OK. If you are saying that they need to be personally implicated, then I disagree.

Henderson
08-19-2015, 09:20 PM
We had these very questions come up in the Paterno case. No. NO! The Army Brigadier General in charge of Abu Graib was not guilty of torture and may never had set foot inside the prison. She was, nevertheless, properly fired on day one of the investigation. Similarly, Paterno gets fired for being in charge and having at least some tangential relationship to the scandal. Due process is dictated by his contract.

Roy and Sylvia should get cashiered for presiding over their teams during a horrific set of violations of NCAA rules and regs (of which obeying them is integral to their contracts). If you are saying the NCAA COI will verify these violations by UNC and that should be sufficient to dismiss them -- then OK.
If you are saying that they need to be personally implicated, then I disagree.


Any Abu Ghraib reference wins, especially when it's so obviously on point. Hitler, transfers, minutes, and North Korea need to step back.

swood1000
08-20-2015, 11:48 AM
We had these very questions come up in the Paterno case. No. NO! The Army Brigadier General in charge of Abu Graib was not guilty of torture and may never had set foot inside the prison. She was, nevertheless, properly fired on day one of the investigation. Similarly, Paterno gets fired for being in charge and having at least some tangential relationship to the scandal. Due process is dictated by his contract.

Roy and Sylvia should get cashiered for presiding over their teams during a horrific set of violations of NCAA rules and regs (of which obeying them is integral to their contracts). If you are saying the NCAA COI will verify these violations by UNC and that should be sufficient to dismiss them -- then OK. If you are saying that they need to be personally implicated, then I disagree.
I am totally on board with the notion that Roy was accountable for the actions of those under him. It does not need to be shown that he had specific knowledge of the wrongdoing but it does need to be shown that either a subordinate had knowledge or that a proper amount of care and caution on his part would have discovered the facts or prevented the activities. It is not plausible that both Roy and Wayne Walden did not know the relevant facts.

Duvall said:


There's no reason why the university has to make its decisions about punishments, or more accurately, decisions about further employment and contract extensions, using the exceptionally low standard of whether a coach's program was sanctioned by the NCAA.

My point is that neither do we want to use the standard of the lynch mob. Here is the standard that the NCAA holds Roy to:


11.1.1.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. An institution's head coach is presumed to be responsible for the actions of all institutional staff members who report, directly or indirectly, to the head coach. An institution's head coach shall promote an atmosphere of compliance within his or her program and shall monitor the activities of all institutional staff members involved with the program who report, directly or indirectly, to the coach. (Adopted: 4/28/05, Revised: 10/30/12, 7/16/14)


But Roy was not charged with violating this rule. What is the problem that kept the enforcement staff from charging Roy with a violation of that rule? It seems to me that in the judgement of the enforcement staff there was insufficient evidence to charge him personally (unless they are keeping that in reserve as a bargaining tool, or unless there is corruption or incompetence within the enforcement staff). Is there insufficient evidence that Roy breached this standard but there is a different standard that the university should apply, and sufficient evidence that he breached that standard? What is this other standard?

Philadukie
08-20-2015, 01:32 PM
More evidence that Roy is lying to recruits:
]
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article27007096.html

From this July 10 article in the Charlotte Observer, interviewing Sacha Killeya-Jones:

"Coach Williams said he's 100 percent positive they are not going to crack down on the men's basketball team."

Apparently, SKJ is smart enough to see through the lies. The 6-10 prospect, who committed to Virginia June 2, then decommitted two weeks later, grew up in Chapel Hill, within walking distance of the Dean Dome. He grew up a UNC fan and admitted that UNC interest was behind his decision to decommit. He's ranked the No. 28 player in the Class of 2016 by Rivals ... No. 56 by ESPN.

He just committed again ... to Kentucky:

http://espn.go.com/recruiting/basketball/story/_/id/13467026/recruit-sacha-killeya-jones-commits-kentucky-wildcats

It's like I keep saying -- the longer the NCAA hangs over UNC's head, the longer Roy's recruiting agony will continue -- despite his lies to the kids. Let them continue to delay the final ruling ... the longer it goes, the deeper their hole becomes.

Seems like a high risk, low reward strategy to tell recruits this.

If he's wrong (and he likely will be), his credibility is completely shot. The penalties will be bad enough, but once they're announced, UNC can get on with rebuilding the program. That will be a lot harder if Roy is known as a flat out liar on the recruiting trail. That's a big risk.

The reward is low. Anyone with half a brain can see that the MBB program is at risk of facing penalties. At the very least, there's a high degree of uncertainty. So his reassurances aren't likely to be enough to persuade any recruits that it's safe to commit until the penalties are announced, as we're seeing.

Either he really believes what he's telling recruits, or he's getting really bad advice. Either way, it's not likely to end well for him, with little reward to show for it in the meantime.

As an addendum: One also has to wonder to what extent this irks the COI to hear this. Presumably it shouldn't factor into their decision making, but these are human beings, and when someone is flaunting certitude, without actually having it, those in the position of providing certitude, in whatever form they deem appropriate, don't take it well.

Olympic Fan
08-20-2015, 01:59 PM
Seems like a high risk, low reward strategy to tell recruits this.

If he's wrong (and he likely will be), his credibility is completely shot. The penalties will be bad enough, but once they're announced, UNC can get on with rebuilding the program. That will be a lot harder if Roy is known as a flat out liar on the recruiting trail. That's a big risk.

The reward is low. Anyone with half a brain can see that the MBB program is at risk of facing penalties. At the very least, there's a high degree of uncertainty. So his reassurances aren't likely to be enough to persuade any recruits that it's safe to commit until the penalties are announced, as we're seeing.

Either he really believes what he's telling recruits, or he's getting really bad advice. Either way, it's not likely to end well for him, with little reward to show for it in the meantime.

As an addendum: One also has to wonder to what extent this irks the COI to hear this. Presumably it shouldn't factor into their decision making, but these are human beings, and when someone is flaunting certitude, without actually having it, those in the position of providing certitude, in whatever form they deem appropriate, don't take it well.

I think this is a carefully planned strategy by UNC.

My point is that UNC recruiting targets in both football and basketball have consistently said that Roy or Fedora have assured them than men's basketball/football will not by penalized by the NCAA. Sacha Killeya-Jones heard it ... Chaz Surratt, who he announced his flip-flop from Duke to UNC heard it. At least half a dozen other guys have heard it.

But when UNC coaches and officials are asked about those claims, they hem and haw and either dodge the question or blame the kids for misunderstanding them. If it were just one kid ... maybe ... but when at least half a dozen kids hear the same thing, it ain't a misunderstanding.

Fedora famously dodged the question at Pinehurst during the ACC football kickoff (soon after the Surratt flip-flop). Recently Bubba Cunningham used the "misunderstanding" quote in a question-and-answer session. And last week, Carol Folt denied that her coaches were telling prospects that their sports would not be punished.

This is a blatant and organized sham that UNC is hoping will help salvage the 2015-16 recruiting seasons -- and thus give UNC a talent cushion for their 2-3 year period that are expected to be penalized. I agree that it's short-term thinking, but I also believe that Roy and Fedora will be replaced soon after the penalty phase ends and a new pair of coaches will be brought in to "move forward" in a new era of UNC sports.

PS It's interesting, but the lies seem to be helping with football recruiting, but so far, no top basketball guy is buying it.

Philadukie
08-20-2015, 02:26 PM
I think this is a carefully planned strategy by UNC.

My point is that UNC recruiting targets in both football and basketball have consistently said that Roy or Fedora have assured them than men's basketball/football will not by penalized by the NCAA. Sacha Killeya-Jones heard it ... Chaz Surratt, who he announced his flip-flop from Duke to UNC heard it. At least half a dozen other guys have heard it.

But when UNC coaches and officials are asked about those claims, they hem and haw and either dodge the question or blame the kids for misunderstanding them. If it were just one kid ... maybe ... but when at least half a dozen kids hear the same thing, it ain't a misunderstanding.

Fedora famously dodged the question at Pinehurst during the ACC football kickoff (soon after the Surratt flip-flop). Recently Bubba Cunningham used the "misunderstanding" quote in a question-and-answer session. And last week, Carol Folt denied that her coaches were telling prospects that their sports would not be punished.

This is a blatant and organized sham that UNC is hoping will help salvage the 2015-16 recruiting seasons -- and thus give UNC a talent cushion for their 2-3 year period that are expected to be penalized. I agree that it's short-term thinking, but I also believe that Roy and Fedora will be replaced soon after the penalty phase ends and a new pair of coaches will be brought in to "move forward" in a new era of UNC sports.

PS It's interesting, but the lies seem to be helping with football recruiting, but so far, no top basketball guy is buying it.


Thanks. With respect to football vs. basketball recruits, that's because the risk is probably a lot higher for recruits looking to go to the NBA. If they get it wrong, and there are post season bans, scholarship reductions, and the team just generally stinks, that's a huge hit to a kid's NBA prospects. But for the football recruits, I wonder how many that have picked UNC during this time have NFL aspirations, or to even what extent penalties impact those who do have those NFL aspirations, like they do with basketball.

PackMan97
08-20-2015, 02:31 PM
Seems like a high risk, low reward strategy to tell recruits this.

If he's wrong (and he likely will be), his credibility is completely shot. The penalties will be bad enough, but once they're announced, UNC can get on with rebuilding the program. That will be a lot harder if Roy is known as a flat out liar on the recruiting trail. That's a big risk.
.

I think it's pretty much guaranteed Roy is gone if MBB is hit with enough penalties that his credibility is shot.

At this point the upside is landing recruits and the down side is no worse than being known as the biggest cheaters in the history of the NCAA.

swood1000
08-20-2015, 02:47 PM
I think this is a carefully planned strategy by UNC.

My point is that UNC recruiting targets in both football and basketball have consistently said that Roy or Fedora have assured them than men's basketball/football will not by penalized by the NCAA. Sacha Killeya-Jones heard it ... Chaz Surratt, who he announced his flip-flop from Duke to UNC heard it. At least half a dozen other guys have heard it.

But when UNC coaches and officials are asked about those claims, they hem and haw and either dodge the question or blame the kids for misunderstanding them. If it were just one kid ... maybe ... but when at least half a dozen kids hear the same thing, it ain't a misunderstanding.

Fedora famously dodged the question at Pinehurst during the ACC football kickoff (soon after the Surratt flip-flop). Recently Bubba Cunningham used the "misunderstanding" quote in a question-and-answer session. And last week, Carol Folt denied that her coaches were telling prospects that their sports would not be punished.

This is a blatant and organized sham that UNC is hoping will help salvage the 2015-16 recruiting seasons -- and thus give UNC a talent cushion for their 2-3 year period that are expected to be penalized. I agree that it's short-term thinking, but I also believe that Roy and Fedora will be replaced soon after the penalty phase ends and a new pair of coaches will be brought in to "move forward" in a new era of UNC sports.

PS It's interesting, but the lies seem to be helping with football recruiting, but so far, no top basketball guy is buying it.
This appears to be the argument that some are making:

It's logical to conclude football and men's basketball would avoid the most significant sanctions – postseason bans, vacation of victories, massive scholarship cuts – because they're not specifically charged with wrongdoing. http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article26081044.html
This appears to be the logic: (a) the NOA alleged that student-athletes (presumably including MBB players) received special benefits, (b) if special benefits were received then the players were ineligible, (c) if the players were ineligible then the wins must be vacated, (d) but since the MBB team was specifically mentioned only in the allegation dealing with lack of institutional control none of the foregoing penalties will be applicable.

This also appears to be the logic: (a) the NOA alleged that there was a lack of institutional control that enabled special benefits for MBB players, (b) lack of institutional control is an aggravating factor, (c) the penalty guidelines say that the penalties for a Level I aggravated violation include a 2 to 4 year post-season ban and a 25 to 50% scholarship reduction, (c) however, since the MBB team was specifically mentioned only in the allegation dealing with lack of institutional control these penalties are probably not on the table.

Am I misreading this? Have I entered some bizarre alternate universe in which presumably rational people can make such statements without compunction?

Pghdukie
08-20-2015, 02:57 PM
With football,a player may be given the opportunity to transfer out of UNC without sitting a year, i.e. Penn State. With 85 scholarships it's a much broader scope than the 13 in basketball

swood1000
08-20-2015, 03:05 PM
I think it's pretty much guaranteed Roy is gone if MBB is hit with enough penalties that his credibility is shot.
On the other hand we should not underestimate the ability of a good liar to sell his spin. He'll blame it all on the unfairness of the NCAA for sanctioning MBB when there weren't even any specific allegations against MBB! I don't doubt that for many recruits it will be just a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and they'll be happy to adopt Roy's interpretation. For the discerning, however, he'll never be fully credible.

martydoesntfoul
08-20-2015, 03:05 PM
Either he really believes what he's telling recruits, or he's getting really bad advice. Either way, it's not likely to end well for him, with little reward to show for it in the meantime.

As an addendum: One also has to wonder to what extent this irks the COI to hear this. Presumably it shouldn't factor into their decision making, but these are human beings, and when someone is flaunting certitude, without actually having it, those in the position of providing certitude, in whatever form they deem appropriate, don't take it well.

Two EXCELLENT points.

Regarding the first one, I might add "hoping" as a third alternative. And after the Fedora, Bubba and Folt dodges, I maintain they are playing with fire here -- 'all in' as they say in the poker business.

Regarding the second, I have been trying to convey this point as well. If the COI has anything resembling a pulse, it will impact their decisions.

Olympic Fan
08-20-2015, 03:14 PM
Alternate universe?

That's as good an explanation as anything going on in Chapel Hill. For instance, the now famous Chansky declaration that "men's basketball" was not specifically named in the NOA.

That's ridiculous. Check these citations from the NOA (pp 22-23)

FI159: August 4, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is
not limited to, Walden thanking Crowder for enrolling student-athletes in
a course.
(Item4_WaldenToCrowder_2of2_080408_NorthCarolina_0 0231)
FI160: August 26, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is
not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an
AFAM course.
(Item4_WaldenToCrowder_082608_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI161: October 7, 2005 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is
not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an
AFAM course.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_2of2_100705_NorthCarolina _00231)
FI162: September 7, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden and others. This
includes, but is not limited to, Crowder providing the assignment for
AFAM 269.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_090706_1of2_NorthCarolina _00231)
FI163: April 13, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not
limited to, Crowder informing Walden to just email her when a student-athlete
is on a waitlist.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_041306_NorthCarolina_0023 1)
FI164: March 28, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is
not limited to, Crowder mentioning she was comfortable adding another
student-athlete to a course because she had added other students.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_032806_NorthCarolina_0023 1)

Walden is, of course, Wayne Walden, the academic support advisor for the men's basketball team. Roy Williams brought him from Kansas and in 2009 called him the most important person on his staff.

Finally, the NOA states (page 49):

The AFRI/AFAM department created anomaleous 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 th 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

Yet, in the bizzaro would that is Chapel Hill, the NCAA made no allegations against men's basketball (or football). Sylvia Hatchell is crucified because Jan Boxill, the women's basketball academic advisor, is cited in the NOA, but Roy gets a contract extension when his academic advisor -- the men he brought with him from Kansas to oversee academics -- is also cited multiple time. BTW: In the Wainstein report, Walden admits that he knew and took advantage of the AFAM scam, but "can't remember" if he ever discussed the scam with Roy.

sagegrouse
08-20-2015, 03:27 PM
On the other hand we should not underestimate the ability of a good liar to sell his spin. He'll blame it all on the unfairness of the NCAA for sanctioning MBB when there weren't even any specific allegations against MBB! I don't doubt that for many recruits it will be just a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and they'll be happy to adopt Roy's interpretation. For the discerning, however, he'll never be fully credible.


Two EXCELLENT points.

Regarding the first one, I might add "hoping" as a third alternative. And after the Fedora, Bubba and Folt dodges, I maintain they are playing with fire here -- 'all in' as they say in the poker business.

Regarding the second, I have been trying to convey this point as well. If the COI has anything resembling a pulse, it will impact their decisions.

Its also economics: in a time of great uncertainty, the near term is much more important than the long term. For Roy, job #1 is to survive another year, which means to show he can still recruit. Yeah, I know he has a long-term contract, but the amount of guaranteed money is probably small relative to his total income. Besides, no one wants to be fired.

swood1000
08-20-2015, 04:15 PM
BTW: In the Wainstein report, Walden admits that he knew and took advantage of the AFAM scam, but "can't remember" if he ever discussed the scam with Roy.

Wayne Walden's position is that his knowledge was exaggerated in the Wainstein Report:


However, the first two times Walden is cited, any ambiguity about Crowder's role is taken out: "Walden acknowledged knowing how the courses worked, including that Crowder did at least some of the grading" (p. 64) and "Walden acknowledged knowing about irregular aspects of the paper classes including Crowder doing some of the grading" (p. 73).

"I am troubled that the first two statements are very loosely worded and have been incorrectly interpreted to indicate that I knew more about those courses than is true," Walden wrote in an e-mail. …When Walden told investigators that he knew about the irregular classes, he meant that he knew they required one or two papers, did not meet in a lecture format and were similar to other independent study classes but were not titled "Independent Study."

However, he thought the classes were authorized or sanctioned by the university - including how they were taught and graded…"Statements in the Wainstein report seem to have been interpreted as if I had secret knowledge about these courses which I did not share with the coaches," Walden said. "This simply is not true." http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1501251-walden-responds
Apparently the COI enforcement staff did not feel that they could prove to the COI that Walden knew the true bogus nature of these classes (and that therefore that knowledge is attributed to Roy) or else they would have made that charge.

swood1000
08-20-2015, 04:28 PM
With football,a player may be given the opportunity to transfer out of UNC without sitting a year, i.e. Penn State. With 85 scholarships it's a much broader scope than the 13 in basketball
I think it only applies if the student will miss postseason competition for all remaining years of his eligibility.

14.7.2 Residence Requirement Waivers. The Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief may waive the one-year residence requirement for student-athletes under the following conditions or circumstances: (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 8/7/14)
(c) On the recommendation of the Committee on Infractions, for a student-athlete who transfers to a member institution to continue the student-athlete's opportunity for full participation in a sport because the student-athlete's original institution was placed on probation by the NCAA with sanctions that would preclude the institution's team in that sport from participating in postseason competition during all of the remaining seasons of the student-athlete's eligibility (see also Bylaw 13.1.1.3.3); and (Revised: 1/10/92)

swood1000
08-20-2015, 04:46 PM
Alternate universe?

That's as good an explanation as anything going on in Chapel Hill. For instance, the now famous Chansky declaration that "men's basketball" was not specifically named in the NOA.

That's ridiculous. Check these citations from the NOA (pp 22-23)

FI159: August 4, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is
not limited to, Walden thanking Crowder for enrolling student-athletes in
a course.
(Item4_WaldenToCrowder_2of2_080408_NorthCarolina_0 0231)
FI160: August 26, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is
not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an
AFAM course.
(Item4_WaldenToCrowder_082608_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI161: October 7, 2005 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is
not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an
AFAM course.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_2of2_100705_NorthCarolina _00231)
FI162: September 7, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden and others. This
includes, but is not limited to, Crowder providing the assignment for
AFAM 269.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_090706_1of2_NorthCarolina _00231)
FI163: April 13, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not
limited to, Crowder informing Walden to just email her when a student-athlete
is on a waitlist.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_041306_NorthCarolina_0023 1)
FI164: March 28, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is
not limited to, Crowder mentioning she was comfortable adding another
student-athlete to a course because she had added other students.
(Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_032806_NorthCarolina_0023 1)

Walden is, of course, Wayne Walden, the academic support advisor for the men's basketball team. Roy Williams brought him from Kansas and in 2009 called him the most important person on his staff.
As long as we are making up questions to ask people, here's one for those who assert that MBB is in the clear because there were no allegations against it apart from being mentioned in allegation 5 in the context of a lack of institutional control:

In the NOA, FI159-164 were described as "Factual information (FI) on which the enforcement staff relies for Allegation No. 1." These are references to activities of the men's basketball program that the enforcement staff is relying on to support its allegation that "the institution provided impermissible benefits to student-athletes that were not generally available to the student body." If the COI finds that this evidence does point to impermissible benefits to men's basketball players, what are your grounds for saying that there will be no repercussions for the men's basketball team?

OldPhiKap
08-20-2015, 04:53 PM
If the COI finds that this evidence does point to impermissible benefits to men's basketball players, what are your grounds for saying that there will be no repercussions for the men's basketball team?

"These are not the droids you're looking for"

BigWayne
08-20-2015, 08:10 PM
Daily Tarheel has an editorial up calling out UNC admins for giving Roy a pass and throwing Sylvia under the bus. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/opinion-unc-should-stand-by-employees-in-a-consistent-manner) I guess the DTH staff got back to school after getting some earfuls while home on summer break.

Our good friend Bradley Bethel is none too happy with the DTH staff.

Coaching the Mind ‏@BethelLearning 10h10 hours ago

Was wavering on whether to include DTH in press invited to documentary premiere. After today's inane editorial, I decided they won't be.

Dr. Rosenrosen
08-20-2015, 08:40 PM
Daily Tarheel has an editorial up calling out UNC admins for giving Roy a pass and throwing Sylvia under the bus. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/opinion-unc-should-stand-by-employees-in-a-consistent-manner) I guess the DTH staff got back to school after getting some earfuls while home on summer break.

Our good friend Bradley Bethel is none too happy with the DTH staff.

Coaching the Mind ‏@BethelLearning 10h10 hours ago

Was wavering on whether to include DTH in press invited to documentary premiere. After today's inane editorial, I decided they won't be.
Wow. DTH could wall off and charge for access to the comments section. Real entertainment there!

Tom B.
08-20-2015, 11:39 PM
Daily Tarheel has an editorial up calling out UNC admins for giving Roy a pass and throwing Sylvia under the bus. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/opinion-unc-should-stand-by-employees-in-a-consistent-manner) I guess the DTH staff got back to school after getting some earfuls while home on summer break.

Our good friend Bradley Bethel is none too happy with the DTH staff.

Coaching the Mind ‏@BethelLearning 10h10 hours ago

Was wavering on whether to include DTH in press invited to documentary premiere. After today's inane editorial, I decided they won't be.


To its credit, the DTH staff as done a pretty good job of maintaining an appropriate level of objective journalistic skepticism throughout this whole disaster. They haven't been a propaganda mouthpiece for the university or the Athletic Department by any stretch, though that would have been the path of least resistance -- and at times they've been openly and appropriately critical of how the university has handled the mess.

swood1000
08-21-2015, 11:15 AM
Daily Tarheel has an editorial up calling out UNC admins for giving Roy a pass and throwing Sylvia under the bus. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/opinion-unc-should-stand-by-employees-in-a-consistent-manner) I guess the DTH staff got back to school after getting some earfuls while home on summer break.

Our good friend Bradley Bethel is none too happy with the DTH staff.

Coaching the Mind ‏@BethelLearning 10h10 hours ago

Was wavering on whether to include DTH in press invited to documentary premiere. After today's inane editorial, I decided they won't be.
I agree with some of the comments of Neil at the end of that article:


To ignore the fact that Boxill has been identified as being far more involved in this scandal, as is clearly evidenced by the findings of the Wainstein investigation, than her men's basketball counterpart, Wayne Walden, is sloppy. And, yes, the WR does conclude that irregular class enrollment was particularly popular among athletes within the revenue sports, however, it plainly shows that Boxill was deeply involved. Wainstein's conclusions regarding Walden are vastly different. Because of this, no concrete proof of direct involvement by the staff in men's basketball could be found. Wainstein also did not find evidence to support Hatchell's direct involvement, but the women's academic advisor, Boxill, was implicated. Again, simply not extending Hatchell's contract is not a vote of guilt upon Hatchell by UNC. It likely means they want more time to assess and, as Cunningham has already publicly stated, he will review her contract next year, which will still be 2 years before it expires.

Basically, Hatchell's program is charged with more infractions, they are infractions of a different kind involving intentional misconduct (doing the work for students), and the evidence for these additional infractions is very strong, as opposed to the evidence against Wayne Walden which the enforcement staff apparently believed was not strong enough to support any charges against Walden. This is an inflammatory argument designed to stir up controversy and sell advertising space.

sagegrouse
08-21-2015, 01:10 PM
Ah, yes.... ESPN -- the master of the euphemism. In discussing the tenure of football head coach Larry Fedora, ESPN says, "Fedora estimated that he lost six or seven potential signees in the 2015 recruiting class because of the looming punishment for the school’s academic scandal."

Oh, "academic scandal" was it, when one half of the 1,500 students involved in fraudulent courses were athletes, when athletes constitute only 3-4 percent of the undergrad enrollment? And when the whole idea was a conspiracy involving the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes.

Olympic Fan
08-21-2015, 01:18 PM
I agree with some of the comments of Neil at the end of that article:



Basically, Hatchell's program is charged with more infractions, they are infractions of a different kind involving intentional misconduct (doing the work for students), and the evidence for these additional infractions is very strong, as opposed to the evidence against Wayne Walden which the enforcement staff apparently believed was not strong enough to support any charges against Walden. This is an inflammatory argument designed to stir up controversy and sell advertising space.

Fascinating, Sword, you quote the story about how Bradley Bethel has gone ballistic over the DTH article, THEN you quote the comment -- from a poster labeled as Neil on the site.

It's been reported on PackPride that Neil is the name Bradley Bethel uses when he posts on message boards. He's quite a piece of work -- he spent his brief time at UNC on twitter 24/7 trashing whistleblower Mary Willingham, then quit to produce a movie defending UNC in the scandal (while working as a shoe salesman).

While it is correct that the NCAA found far more explicit e-mails from Jan Boxill than from Wayne Walden (they did find several from Walden, which are cited in the NOA) that could have something to do with servers -- Boxill used the university server, while Walden used the athletic department server. If Hillary Clinton can ben trashed for having her own private e-mail server, why can't the UNC athletic department. Why couldn't they use the university server? Or maybe Walden was just smarter about using e-mail.

Either way, it's undeniable that both Wainstein and the NCAA found that far more MEN's Basketball players were involved in the phony classes than the WOMEN's basketball players. And the practice of men's players taking such classes goes back much, much further ... it's clear that the scam was set up to help at risk men's players and only later blew up to include football, women's basketball and even some so-called Olympic sports. They may not have as much specific evidence against Walden as against Boxill, but they have MORE evidence against the men's program than the women's program.

BigWayne
08-21-2015, 01:27 PM
Fascinating, Sword, you quote the story about how Bradley Bethel has gone ballistic over the DTH article, THEN you quote the comment -- from a poster labeled as Neil on the site.

It's been reported on PackPride that Neil is the name Bradley Bethel uses when he posts on message boards. He's quite a piece of work -- he spent his brief time at UNC on twitter 24/7 trashing whistleblower Mary Willingham, then quit to produce a movie defending UNC in the scandal (while working as a shoe salesman).

While it is correct that the NCAA found far more explicit e-mails from Jan Boxill than from Wayne Walden (they did find several from Walden, which are cited in the NOA) that could have something to do with servers -- Boxill used the university server, while Walden used the athletic department server. If Hillary Clinton can ben trashed for having her own private e-mail server, why can't the UNC athletic department. Why couldn't they use the university server? Or maybe Walden was just smarter about using e-mail.

Either way, it's undeniable that both Wainstein and the NCAA found that far more MEN's Basketball players were involved in the phony classes than the WOMEN's basketball players. And the practice of men's players taking such classes goes back much, much further ... it's clear that the scam was set up to help at risk men's players and only later blew up to include football, women's basketball and even some so-called Olympic sports. They may not have as much specific evidence against Walden as against Boxill, but they have MORE evidence against the men's program than the women's program.

Neil is a tool, but I don't think he is Bethel. His name on Disqus is just Neil. There were similar comments on Facebook commented articles by a Neil Gervais whose profile seemed real and stated he was an Engineer at Raytheon. That FB profile and all his FB related comments have been deleted. Maybe someone at Raytheon gave him a talking to.

JasonEvans
08-21-2015, 01:49 PM
Either way, it's undeniable that both Wainstein and the NCAA found that far more MEN's Basketball players were involved in the phony classes than the WOMEN's basketball players. And the practice of men's players taking such classes goes back much, much further ... it's clear that the scam was set up to help at risk men's players and only later blew up to include football, women's basketball and even some so-called Olympic sports. They may not have as much specific evidence against Walden as against Boxill, but they have MORE evidence against the men's program than the women's program.

The interesting thing about this is the way the NCAA has attacked Carolina for these violations. The NCAA is not all that interested in the content of the classes (or lack thereof). The NCAA's chief objection seems to be that athletes were given access to these classes in preference over regular students. That is the "improper benefit" that is cited in the NOA. And it is clear that the men's basketball team and men's football team were the recipients of those "improper benefits" far, far more often than the WBB or other athletic teams.

-Jason "the Carolina folks who think MBB and FB were not mentioned in the NOA have a real lack of reading comprehension skills" Evans

swood1000
08-21-2015, 03:21 PM
Fascinating, Sword, you quote the story about how Bradley Bethel has gone ballistic over the DTH article, THEN you quote the comment -- from a poster labeled as Neil on the site.

It's been reported on PackPride that Neil is the name Bradley Bethel uses when he posts on message boards. He's quite a piece of work -- he spent his brief time at UNC on twitter 24/7 trashing whistleblower Mary Willingham, then quit to produce a movie defending UNC in the scandal (while working as a shoe salesman).
I'm not following. Are you pointing out a contradiction in what I said? If I agree with one thing a person says am I considered to have agreed with every position he holds?


While it is correct that the NCAA found far more explicit e-mails from Jan Boxill than from Wayne Walden (they did find several from Walden, which are cited in the NOA) that could have something to do with servers -- Boxill used the university server, while Walden used the athletic department server. If Hillary Clinton can ben trashed for having her own private e-mail server, why can't the UNC athletic department. Why couldn't they use the university server? Or maybe Walden was just smarter about using e-mail.
We can bemoan the lack of evidence to implicate Walden, or the reasons for it, but we can't get around it.


Either way, it's undeniable that both Wainstein and the NCAA found that far more MEN's Basketball players were involved in the phony classes than the WOMEN's basketball players. And the practice of men's players taking such classes goes back much, much further ... it's clear that the scam was set up to help at risk men's players and only later blew up to include football, women's basketball and even some so-called Olympic sports. They may not have as much specific evidence against Walden as against Boxill, but they have MORE evidence against the men's program than the women's program.
I suppose we could argue about whether if one person robs a bank of $1 million and another person comes in right after and robs the bank of $500,000, we would say that the second person has only half the guilt of the first person, or deserves only half the punishment. However, I look at it this way. A head coach is responsible for the conduct of those who work for him or her.


"On April 28, 2005, the NCAA membership adopted and placed specific responsibilities on head coaches outside of NCAA Bylaw 2.8.1. Specifically, from adoption through the time period of the conduct in this case, NCAA Bylaw 11.1.2.1 placed a responsibility on head coaches to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the coach's program and monitor the activities of all staff and administrators who reported directly and indirectly to the coach. … Within that responsibility rested the presumption that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of all assistant coaches and administrators. That presumption is rebuttable." http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Syracuse%20Final%20Public%20Infractions%20Decision %20(Corrected).pdf


There is substantial evidence that Jan Boxill crossed the line in a unique way by doing work for students. Therefore that is attributed to Hatchell. Such strong evidence does not apparently exist implicating Walden, and through him Roy Williams. Therefore, Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated, it seems to me. Roy and Sylvia are both complicit in bank robbery, but Sylvia's program has additional and separate charges against it, and those other charges are supported by stronger evidence pointing to the personal responsibility of the head coach. Evidence of Sylvia's guilt is much more pronounced than is the evidence against Roy, especially if Sylvia had a close relationship with Jan Boxill. We can blame it on the stupidity of Boxill but the facts remain.

Olympic Fan
08-21-2015, 04:13 PM
I'm not following. Are you pointing out a contradiction in what I said? If I agree with one thing a person says am I considered to have agreed with every position he holds?


We can bemoan the lack of evidence to implicate Walden, or the reasons for it, but we can't get around it.


I suppose we could argue about whether if one person robs a bank of $1 million and another person comes in right after and robs the bank of $500,000, we would say that the second person has only half the guilt of the first person, or deserves only half the punishment. However, I look at it this way. A head coach is responsible for the conduct of those who work for him or her.



There is substantial evidence that Jan Boxill crossed the line in a unique way by doing work for students. Therefore that is attributed to Hatchell. Such strong evidence does not apparently exist implicating Walden, and through him Roy Williams. Therefore, Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated, it seems to me. Roy and Sylvia are both complicit in bank robbery, but Sylvia's program has additional and separate charges against it, and those other charges are supported by stronger evidence pointing to the personal responsibility of the head coach. Evidence of Sylvia's guilt is much more pronounced than is the evidence against Roy, especially if Sylvia had a close relationship with Jan Boxill. We can blame it on the stupidity of Boxill but the facts remain.

I'm not sure what you are complaining about. I'm not saying that women's basketball or Sylvia Hatchell are not guilty. I'm saying that the numbers of athletes in these bogus classes demonstrate that men's basketball is guilty -- more guilty or less guilty ... does it matter? Men's basketball is the source of the scandal and the major beneficiary. In the example you cite, they are the ones that robbed the bank of $1 million first ...

You acknowledge that a coach is responsible for those working for them ... but whether Walden is directly implicated or not, the longer and -- much more numerous -- involvement of UNC men's basketball would reflect back on Roy.

BTW: The best bank analogy would be that Dean started robbing the bank back in 1993 (or maybe 1988 or maybe earlier). But he was smart and only stole small sums at a time. Under Roy, the annual robberies increased until 2005, when he stole millions. About that time, other UNC coaches saw what men's basketball was doing and began to rob the banks themselves. Probably the worst thing that happened from Roy's point of view was when Butch Davis wanted in the scam. For his time at UNC, nobody stole more from the bank than UNC football. That made it harder to hide what was going on. By the time women's basketball got involved, so much money had been stolen for so long, that Sylvia and Jon Boxill didn't even bother to wear masks when they stole their share of the loot.

That makes them easy to catch. But even if Wayne and Roy were masked and didn't leave prints, the police caught them with they money they stole. Do you think they'd escape prosecution.

UNC apologists -- whether Brad Bethel or Neil or Art Chansky -- can spin it all they want, but they can't escape the damning lines in the NOA: The AFRI/AFAM department created anomaleous 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

OldPhiKap
08-21-2015, 04:45 PM
I think y'all are arguing two different points.

1. Is there a material difference in the evidence surrounding the involvement of MBB and WBB? On the basis of the redacted documents, I think one could conclude that there is proof of deeper ties and involvement with the WBB team than the men's. Doesn't mean the MBB isn't just as neck-deep in it (and my guess is that they were for numerous reasons) but Boxill was clearly a ringleader and clearly tied to WBB. Roy and Wayne kept it off their servers, as it were.

2. Does this difference mean that Sylvia should be treated differently than Roy? No, both should be fired. But one won't be.

swood1000
08-21-2015, 04:52 PM
I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Did I misinterpret this as deprecating the position I hold:


Fascinating, Sword, you quote the story about how Bradley Bethel has gone ballistic over the DTH article, THEN you quote the comment -- from a poster labeled as Neil on the site.
Perhaps I got my back up without good cause. If I had known that "Neil" is known to be an angel of darkness then I probably would not have bothered to agree with that one paragraph, since some (although I wouldn't expect this from anyone who was familiar with my posts) would take that as evidence of my alliance with the enemy. And then I might be summoned to Mt. Hatemore to explain myself and it could all get very messy.

I'm not saying that women's basketball or Sylvia Hatchell are not guilty. I'm saying that the numbers of athletes in these bogus classes demonstrate that men's basketball is guilty -- more guilty or less guilty ... does it matter?The purpose of my post that you responded to was to say that Roy and Sylvia are not similarly situated, and so identical treatment is not necessarily called for, and if an article attributes different treatment to irrationality or to sexism it seems to me that the author is just trying to be inflammatory.


Men's basketball is the source of the scandal and the major beneficiary. In the example you cite, they are the ones that robbed the bank of $1 million first ...

You acknowledge that a coach is responsible for those working for them ... but whether Walden is directly implicated or not, the longer and -- much more numerous -- involvement of UNC men's basketball would reflect back on Roy.

BTW: The best bank analogy would be that Dean started robbing the bank back in 1993 (or maybe 1988 or maybe earlier). But he was smart and only stole small sums at a time. Under Roy, the annual robberies increased until 2005, when he stole millions. About that time, other UNC coaches saw what men's basketball was doing and began to rob the banks themselves. Probably the worst thing that happened from Roy's point of view was when Butch Davis wanted in the scam. For his time at UNC, nobody stole more from the bank than UNC football. That made it harder to hide what was going on. By the time women's basketball got involved, so much money had been stolen for so long, that Sylvia and Jon Boxill didn't even bother to wear masks when they stole their share of the loot.

That makes them easy to catch. But even if Wayne and Roy were masked and didn't leave prints, the police caught them with they money they stole. Do you think they'd escape prosecution.

UNC apologists -- whether Brad Bethel or Neil or Art Chansky -- can spin it all they want, but they can't escape the damning lines in the NOA: The AFRI/AFAM department created anomaleous 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 basketballI don't disagree with any of this. I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Is there something I wrote that you disagree with?

DU82
08-21-2015, 08:13 PM
A sign of the times perhaps...

I was in the Nike store at the outlet mall in Mebane today, just the other side of the Orange County line in Alamance Co. They just put out a new few racks of "Team Sports" clothes. All Duke stuff, no cheaterwear. Never saw that there before. Always one small rack of good stuff, multiple racks of bad things.

moonpie23
08-22-2015, 02:30 PM
i always find myself doing a visual inventory of places where crowds gather of duke vs cheaters gear on display......their side is down.....we are up....lately...

cspan37421
08-22-2015, 09:12 PM
A sign of the times perhaps...

I was in the Nike store at the outlet mall in Mebane today, just the other side of the Orange County line in Alamance Co. They just put out a new few racks of "Team Sports" clothes. All Duke stuff, no cheaterwear. Never saw that there before. Always one small rack of good stuff, multiple racks of bad things.

I was there last month, and the Hanes store had a ton of ... Wake Forest stuff. I believe that all 3 Triangle schools are closer to this mall than Wake Forest is. Not to mention, vastly larger alumni bases. Nothing against WFU, but it did surprise me ... I couldn't think of why that would be. Still can't.

OldPhiKap
08-22-2015, 09:33 PM
I was there last month, and the Hanes store had a ton of ... Wake Forest stuff. I believe that all 3 Triangle schools are closer to this mall than Wake Forest is. Not to mention, vastly larger alumni bases. Nothing against WFU, but it did surprise me ... I couldn't think of why that would be. Still can't.

Maybe the other schools sold quicker, and WF was what was left.

westwall
08-22-2015, 10:25 PM
The interesting thing about this is the way the NCAA has attacked Carolina for these violations. The NCAA is not all that interested in the content of the classes (or lack thereof). The NCAA's chief objection seems to be that athletes were given access to these classes in preference over regular students. That is the "improper benefit" that is cited in the NOA. And it is clear that the men's basketball team and men's football team were the recipients of those "improper benefits" far, far more often than the WBB or other athletic teams.

-Jason "the Carolina folks who think MBB and FB were not mentioned in the NOA have a real lack of reading comprehension skills" Evans

Agree. Maybe -- just maybe -- the NCAA is a lot smarter than we are giving them credit for, and are looking at this at the appropriate higher level.

west"perhaps the rest of us posters are too far down in the weeds"wall

MarkD83
08-23-2015, 12:20 PM
Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
The interesting thing about this is the way the NCAA has attacked Carolina for these violations. The NCAA is not all that interested in the content of the classes (or lack thereof). The NCAA's chief objection seems to be that athletes were given access to these classes in preference over regular students. That is the "improper benefit" that is cited in the NOA. And it is clear that the men's basketball team and men's football team were the recipients of those "improper benefits" far, far more often than the WBB or other athletic teams.

-Jason "the Carolina folks who think MBB and FB were not mentioned in the NOA have a real lack of reading comprehension skills" Evans


Agree. Maybe -- just maybe -- the NCAA is a lot smarter than we are giving them credit for, and are looking at this at the appropriate higher level.

west"perhaps the rest of us posters are too far down in the weeds"wall

I also agree with Jason and Westwall. One of the reasons I believe that UNC delayed the response to the NOA is that they had been preparing to defend an "academic fraud" accusation and when they read the NOA in detail they realized they did not have a defense for "impermissible benefits". My guess is UNC has a large stack of syllabi and affadavits from professors about the validity of classes and these documents are now worthless in defending the charges actually in the NOA.

Skitzle
08-23-2015, 01:27 PM
I also agree with Jason and Westwall. One of the reasons I believe that UNC delayed the response to the NOA is that they had been preparing to defend an "academic fraud" accusation and when they read the NOA in detail they realized they did not have a defense for "impermissible benefits". My guess is UNC has a large stack of syllabi and affadavits from professors about the validity of classes and these documents are now worthless in defending the charges actually in the NOA.

Let's not forget the other underlying message of the NOA delay. "We found stuff and turned it over for WBB. As you can all see with the Wainstein Report and our reporting of these violations you know that we are honest and truthful
truthful. If there was a problem with Mbb we would have found it and turned it over also. But there is nothing to see here so we didn't turn anything over. Mbb is flawless, let's move along."

BD80
08-24-2015, 02:48 PM
Interesting factoid about unc fb:

David Hale @DavidHaleESPN
Only P5 teams w/o a 9-win season since 2000:
Indiana (last 9W=1967)
Kentucky (1984)
North Carolina (1997)

Basketball schools. Duke used to be one of those.

Will unc even be a basketball school in the near future?

OldPhiKap
08-24-2015, 02:57 PM
Interesting factoid about unc fb:

David Hale @DavidHaleESPN
Only P5 teams w/o a 9-win season since 2000:
Indiana (last 9W=1967)
Kentucky (1984)
North Carolina (1997)

Basketball schools. Duke used to be one of those.

Will unc even be a basketball school in the near future?

I'd like to see them go without a 9-win season in basketball for a few years. 8-20 sounds about right.

devildeac
08-24-2015, 03:26 PM
I'd like to see them go with a 0-win season in basketball for a few years. 0-28 sounds about right.


FIFY;).

OldPhiKap
08-24-2015, 03:37 PM
FIFY;).

Nah. I want them to win their first eight, start talking about winning a NC, then have them dusted and salt sewn into the wounds like Carthage of old.

Hope is a dangerous thing.

Duke95
08-24-2015, 03:50 PM
Nah. I want them to win their first eight, start talking about winning a NC, then have them dusted and salt sewn into the wounds like Carthage of old.

Hope is a dangerous thing.

"Ceterum censeo Carolinam esse delendam."

-Superbia Luporum Coetus

BD80
08-24-2015, 04:08 PM
Nah. I want them to win their first eight, start talking about winning a NC, then have them dusted and salt sewn into the wounds like Carthage of old.

Hope is a dangerous thing.


"Ceterum censeo Carolinam esse delendam."

-Superbia Luporum Coetus

We're talking old school. Something I can relate to.

OldPhiKap
08-24-2015, 04:17 PM
"Ceterum censeo Carolinam esse delendam."

-Superbia Luporum Coetus

Or as ancient Roman Ozzie would say, "IX-F."

devildeac
08-24-2015, 04:39 PM
Nah. I want them to win their first eight, start talking about winning a NC, then have them dusted and salt sewn into the wounds like Carthage of old.

Hope is a dangerous thing.

That'll work, too. I'd wash out the salt with maybe some bleach or other caustic cleaning solution.

OldPhiKap
08-24-2015, 04:48 PM
That'll work, too. I'd wash out the salt with maybe some bleach or other caustic cleaning solution.

Well, you ARE a doctor. So I'll take that as sound medical advice.

Duke95
08-24-2015, 06:23 PM
Good article from Ridpath of the Drake Group. He excoriates UNC for its misdeeds and questions whether the NCAA has the ethical stones to hammer them as they deserve.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2015/08/24/will-the-ncaa-punish-the-university-of-north-carolina-past-situational-ethics-say-otherwise/

royalblue
08-24-2015, 06:43 PM
8-20 what a "special" season 2002 was for the heels
Duke won the triple crown winning 3 times by a total of 66 points vs heels
On my days off I take a shot at 8:20 in the morning
And then 8:20 in the evening to give a nod to the heels
for a marvelous season.
I love to dream about some kind of follow up to that with a banner removal party that could be in our future.

OldPhiKap
08-24-2015, 06:54 PM
8-20 what a "special" season 2002 was for the heels
Duke won the triple crown winning 3 times by a total of 66 points vs heels
On my days off I take a shot at 8:20 in the morning
And then 8:20 in the evening to give a nod to the heels
for a marvelous season.
I love to dream about some kind of follow up to that with a banner removal party that could be in our future.

I like the way you think!

Pghdukie
08-24-2015, 08:39 PM
The cheaters should take a lot of lessons from the Little League World Series. Play with class and integrity. But we know that isn't going to happen!

Tom B.
08-24-2015, 10:51 PM
8-20 what a "special" season 2002 was for the heels
Duke won the triple crown winning 3 times by a total of 66 points vs heels

Duke actually pulled off a "triple triple" that year, triple-crowning the other three Big Four schools. We swept Carolina, N.C. State, and Wake in the regular season -- then beat them all again in the ACC Tournament (Carolina in the quarterfinals, Wake in the semis, and N.C. State in the finals, after State had upset #1 seed -- and eventual national champion -- Maryland in the other semifinal).

JasonEvans
08-25-2015, 01:30 AM
Good article from Ridpath of the Drake Group. He excoriates UNC for its misdeeds and questions whether the NCAA has the ethical stones to hammer them as they deserve.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2015/08/24/will-the-ncaa-punish-the-university-of-north-carolina-past-situational-ethics-say-otherwise/

Folks, this is a great article well worth reading. I think the author puts some real pressure on the NCAA not to go lightly on the Heels. By saying that he expects the NCAA to not have the guts to hammer Carolina, he is challenging the very soul of the NCAA.


Now the question is will UNC actually be punished and sanctioned as they should, or will the NCAA try to give one of their very important institutions a free pass or a much less tougher road? This is a tough question to answer given past inconsistencies and I certainly have my doubts that UNC will get sanctioned as they should in the form of lost titles, scholarships, post-season opportunities etc.

We found that NCAA is very inconsistent in its rulings and certainly does often err on the side of caution when it has a case that involves a major Big 5 institution. In other words, we found selective enforcement and an appearance of favoritism toward certain schools. In cases where punishment was actually carried out on a Big 5 member, it was typically due to the media doing the work of exposing issues for the NCAA and the organization had no other choice but to implement sanctions.

-Jason "if you are a member of the NCAA committee on infractions, how can you read this and not realize that your legitimacy and credibility are at risk if you go soft on the Heels?" Evans

Skitzle
08-25-2015, 02:34 AM
Folks, this is a great article well worth reading. I think the author puts some real pressure on the NCAA not to go lightly on the Heels. By saying that he expects the NCAA to not have the guts to hammer Carolina, he is challenging the very soul of the NCAA.




-Jason "if you are a member of the NCAA committee on infractions, how can you read this and not realize that your legitimacy and credibility are at risk if you go soft on the Heels?" Evans

Just a quick question. Why did UNC commission the Wainstein Report?

They commissioned the Martin Report as a "look, nothing to see here" get off our back idea. What was the item them forced their hand for the Wainstein Report?

I forgot! It's been 2 years since it was commissioned... JEEZ this scandal has gone on for a long long LONG time.

BigWayne
08-25-2015, 03:01 AM
Good article from Ridpath of the Drake Group. He excoriates UNC for its misdeeds and questions whether the NCAA has the ethical stones to hammer them as they deserve.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2015/08/24/will-the-ncaa-punish-the-university-of-north-carolina-past-situational-ethics-say-otherwise/

Inside that article is a link to a more lengthy discussion (http://journals.humankinetics.com/AfcStyle/DocumentDownload.cfm?DType=DocumentItem&Document=02%5FRidpath%5FJLAS%5F2014%2D0021%5F75%2D 103%2Epdf)of the "situational ethics" of NCAA enforcement. It's a long read, but interesting for those of us that have been following this closely.

Of special note, the official interpretation is clear in demonstrating that there
does not have to be direct involvement of an athletic staff member for the fraud to
be considered a major NCAA violation as mentioned above. The definition of a staff
member is extremely broad and even includes students and volunteers.......

This means any involvement by a staff member in academic misconduct must
be reported to the NCAA as academic fraud since it meets the definition of the
official interpretation.

MarkD83
08-25-2015, 06:49 AM
Just a quick question. Why did UNC commission the Wainstein Report?

They commissioned the Martin Report as a "look, nothing to see here" get off our back idea. What was the item them forced their hand for the Wainstein Report?

I forgot! It's been 2 years since it was commissioned... JEEZ this scandal has gone on for a long long LONG time.

I believe that articles by Dan Kane in the N&O were a contributing factor. I forget if SACS came to UNC before or after the W report and whether that had anything to do with it.

left_hook_lacey
08-25-2015, 07:57 AM
The cheaters should take a lot of lessons from the Little League World Series. Play with class and integrity. But we know that isn't going to happen!

Yes, because they never cheat in the Little League World Series.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/02/11/jackie-robinson-west-little-league-world-series-team-stripped-of-u-s-title/

http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/top_10_frauds_in_sports_history/danny_almonte_little_league.html?state=stop

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/18/sports/baseball-little-league-strips-title-from-team-in-philippines.html

There has been and always will be cheating in sports, at every level. That is what makes it even more remarkable for the teams and clubs that rise above the temptation to stoop to that level. Such as, you know.......us.

moonpie23
08-25-2015, 08:07 AM
can the pulitzer be co-awarded to Dan Kane & Pack Pride?

CameronBornAndBred
08-25-2015, 08:32 AM
-Jason "if you are a member of the NCAA committee on infractions, how can you read this and not realize that your legitimacy and credibility are at risk if you go soft on the Heels?" Evans
That has happened over and over again during this years long scandal and it hasn't affected any banners. It's been a running theme (NCAA is weak, UNC is corrupt, why aren't they showing some backbone..blah, blah, blah.) in countless writings, and nothing has changed yet. I wouldn't expect this one to affect any NCAA opinions either.
They are fun to read though.

Dr. Rosenrosen
08-25-2015, 08:42 AM
NCAA process aside, my hope is that "pulling a UNC" becomes the real life equivalent of "getting Munsoned"

sagegrouse
08-25-2015, 08:47 AM
Just a quick question. Why did UNC commission the Wainstein Report?

They commissioned the Martin Report as a "look, nothing to see here" get off our back idea. What was the item them forced their hand for the Wainstein Report?

I forgot! It's been 2 years since it was commissioned... JEEZ this scandal has gone on for a long long LONG time.

The UNC Board of Governors commissioned the Wainstein Report. What is this organization? From one source:


The UNC Board of Governors is the policy-making body charged with “the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance” of the University of North Carolina system, according to UNC's website.

The report by Gov. Martin is described thusly on a UNC web site:


Then-Chancellor [Holden] Thorp asked former N.C. Gov. James Martin to explore, with no restrictions, any issues raised by the University’s review of courses offered in African and Afro-American studies. Martin was assisted by Baker Tilly, a national management consulting firm specializing in academic operations procedures and controls. The University cooperated fully. The report reviewed courses taken by all undergraduates between 1994 and 2012.

Thorp and Martin were friends. Martin has since backtracked on his dismissive summary of UNC behavior at the time his report was released:


“This was not an athletic scandal. It was an academic scandal, which is worse; but an isolated one.”

Last month he sung a different tune. From the N&O:


Now, in a book slated for release in October, Martin says he misspoke. He believed it was an athletic and academic scandal then, and he believes it now.

“I could have said, ‘Not only is it an extraordinary athletic scandal, but it is also an incredibly damaging academic scandal,’” Martin said in a galley of the book provided to The News & Observer by the book publisher.

My view (although others disagree) is that the UNC BOG got tired of the continuing trickle of bad news and incomplete or untruthful accounts coming out of the athletic department; the Board believed the continuing scandal was damaging to UNC, and it wanted to get to the bottom of it and put the scandal and whatever penalties arose in the rear-view mirror. Under this theory, Chancellor Carol Folt would have been instructed to carry this out, and "Get it behind us."

Others see continuing obfuscation and delay aimed at preserving a single national championship opportunity for men's basketball. I don't know that is true -- although that would be a UNC fan's desire. I see a process going on with the usual delays, with the matter in the hands of University counsel and beyond the reach of, for example, the basketball program. But heck, I am probably a trusting and naive soul with an unreasonable faith in the integrity of major universities.

Tom B.
08-25-2015, 11:08 AM
Just a quick question. Why did UNC commission the Wainstein Report?

They commissioned the Martin Report as a "look, nothing to see here" get off our back idea. What was the item them forced their hand for the Wainstein Report?

I don't think it was a single item or event -- just a steady drip-drip-drip of information that kept making its way to the press (most notably Dan Kane of the N&O), which eventually exposed the Martin Report to be worthless. I think the BOG finally got tired of being in a perpetually reactive mode because they were always hearing about new embarrassing details for the first time in the press, so they hired Wainstein and told him to turn over as many rocks as he could in an effort to eliminate (as much as possible) the potential for future nasty surprises.

PackMan97
08-25-2015, 11:27 AM
Just a quick question. Why did UNC commission the Wainstein Report?

They commissioned the Martin Report as a "look, nothing to see here" get off our back idea. What was the item them forced their hand for the Wainstein Report?

I forgot! It's been 2 years since it was commissioned... JEEZ this scandal has gone on for a long long LONG time.

Mary Willingham went on the offensive at the beginning of 2014 and was accompanied by several major news outlets running similar stories (Bloomberg News, USA Today). This all dropped early in January 2014. Wainstein was hired by the end of February.

I believe without the added pressure from Mary and a few national media outlets, UNC would have tried to let the Martin report be the final word...but it's a bit tough to say there are functionally illiterate athletes at UNC earning degrees because they don't do any work or take real classes.

53n206
08-25-2015, 01:01 PM
Is this a significant thread to be continued?

TKG
08-25-2015, 01:16 PM
Wait until Friday........

tux
08-25-2015, 01:35 PM
I don't think it was a single item or event -- just a steady drip-drip-drip of information that kept making its way to the press (most notably Dan Kane of the N&O), which eventually exposed the Martin Report to be worthless. I think the BOG finally got tired of being in a perpetually reactive mode because they were always hearing about new embarrassing details for the first time in the press, so they hired Wainstein and told him to turn over as many rocks as he could in an effort to eliminate (as much as possible) the potential for future nasty surprises.

I agree, except even the scope of the Wainstein report was limited by UNC. UNC needed a more credible report than that produced by Martin, but they were still trying to thread the needle...

Indoor66
08-25-2015, 02:03 PM
Why not? You know they are out there....

OldPhiKap
08-25-2015, 02:07 PM
Wait until Friday before Labor Day weekend........

Friendly amendment

Kfanarmy
08-25-2015, 02:20 PM
Just a quick question. Why did UNC commission the Wainstein Report?

They commissioned the Martin Report as a "look, nothing to see here" get off our back idea. What was the item them forced their hand for the Wainstein Report?

I forgot! It's been 2 years since it was commissioned... JEEZ this scandal has gone on for a long long LONG time.
perhaps Michael McAdoo's 2011 lawsuit turned some heads as well as the steady drip, drip, drip coming from N&O reporting....

Kfanarmy
08-25-2015, 02:22 PM
I knew something was missing.

Lar77
08-25-2015, 03:19 PM
The UNC Board of Governors commissioned the Wainstein Report. What is this organization? From one source:



The report by Gov. Martin is described thusly on a UNC web site:



Thorp and Martin were friends. Martin has since backtracked on his dismissive summary of UNC behavior at the time his report was released:



Last month he sung a different tune. From the N&O:


My view (although others disagree) is that the UNC BOG got tired of the continuing trickle of bad news and incomplete or untruthful accounts coming out of the athletic department; the Board believed the continuing scandal was damaging to UNC, and it wanted to get to the bottom of it and put the scandal and whatever penalties arose in the rear-view mirror. Under this theory, Chancellor Carol Folt would have been instructed to carry this out, and "Get it behind us."

Others see continuing obfuscation and delay aimed at preserving a single national championship opportunity for men's basketball. I don't know that is true -- although that would be a UNC fan's desire. I see a process going on with the usual delays, with the matter in the hands of University counsel and beyond the reach of, for example, the basketball program. But heck, I am probably a trusting and naive soul with an unreasonable faith in the integrity of major universities.

I agree for the most part Sage. I recall the Wainstein Report was still limited in its scope, but indicated that there was some dang smoke in the air, which no one within the UNC community seems to want to pursue. I agree that the process is still winding its way at its own pace (frustratingly slow), although I think there is influence from the athletic department through one or more persons of higher importance to Chancellor Folt and her continued employment.

I feel certain, at this point, that there will be sanctions from the NCAA, but they will satisfy no one (Tar Hole, PackPride, us, or anyone else). The university may change a little, but it's tough to change institutional culture.

I go back to the suggestion of building a wall around Chapel Hill and filling it with water.

devildeac
08-25-2015, 03:34 PM
I agree for the most part Sage. I recall the Wainstein Report was still limited in its scope, but indicated that there was some dang smoke in the air, which no one within the UNC community seems to want to pursue. I agree that the process is still winding its way at its own pace (frustratingly slow), although I think there is influence from the athletic department through one or more persons of higher importance to Chancellor Folt and her continued employment.

I feel certain, at this point, that there will be sanctions from the NCAA, but they will satisfy no one (Tar Heel, PackPride, us, or anyone else). The university may change a little, but it's tough to change institutional culture.

I go back to the suggestion of building a wall around Chapel Hill and filling it with water.

My suggestion was cement. Ozzie's was water. Remember, you can't swim out of cement...

Indoor66
08-25-2015, 04:33 PM
My suggestion was cement. Ozzie's was water. Remember, you can't swim out of cement...

I want to raze all the buildings and plow the land and sow it with salt. The people can get out or be plowed under. (I prefer they stay to save other areas incipient problems.)

devildeac
08-25-2015, 04:40 PM
I want to raze all the buildings and plow the land and sow it with salt. The people can get out or be plowed under. (I prefer they stay to save other areas incipient problems.)

We might be able to rent out some space on Mt. Hatemore with suggestions like that;).

hudlow
08-25-2015, 04:54 PM
I just want someone to make a move...

FerryFor50
08-25-2015, 05:04 PM
I just want someone to make a move...

Pretty sure they already did...

5430

hudlow
08-25-2015, 05:39 PM
Pretty sure they already did...

5430

Ramageddon?

gep
08-25-2015, 05:39 PM
I feel certain, at this point, that there will be sanctions from the NCAA, but they will satisfy no one (Tar Heel, PackPride, us, or anyone else). The university may change a little, but it's tough to change institutional culture.


Wouldn't SACS change something more significantly? At least academically? If at least that, maybe athletics gets somewhat under control. At least going forward

devildeac
08-25-2015, 05:42 PM
Ramageddon?

Or sheepocalypse?

OldPhiKap
08-25-2015, 05:44 PM
Or sheepocalypse?

"When the mutton hits the fan"


(Sorry, that was offal)

Indoor66
08-25-2015, 05:53 PM
"When the mutton hits the fan"


(Sorry, that was offal)

Let's go watch the Wool Fight.

DukieInKansas
08-25-2015, 06:49 PM
Let's go watch the Wool Fight.

We will be watching in shear delight. :D

TKG
08-25-2015, 07:22 PM
We will be watching in shear delight. :D

That's bbaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddd!

MarkD83
08-25-2015, 07:50 PM
It does not take much to get this fan base distracted by bad puns especially with UNC being the butt of the jokes.

IrishDevil
08-25-2015, 08:27 PM
It does not take much to get this fan base distracted by bad puns especially with UNC being the butt of the jokes.

Ewe don't say?

devildeac
08-26-2015, 09:22 AM
For today's medical lesson, always remember you can't spell furunculosis (or carbunculosis!) without u-n-c.

Posted without any sheepishness whatsoever.

PackMan97
08-26-2015, 09:38 AM
It does not take much to get this fan base distracted by bad puns especially with UNC being the butt of the jokes.

Not to distract from the distraction, but this is the best part of the entire scandal. After hearing so many "amphibious" jokes, I can't look at a Carolina fan passing by without laughing it up on the inside.

CameronBornAndBred
08-26-2015, 09:41 AM
Not to distract from the distraction, but this is the best part of the entire scandal. After hearing so many "amphibious" jokes, I can't look at a Carolina fan passing by without laughing it up on the inside.
It took this scandal to do that?

PackMan97
08-26-2015, 10:04 AM
It took this scandal to do that?

Yes, I used to seethe with a white hot anger because I knew they were a fraud. 5 years into the scandal, I realize they their fans are just a big freaking joke. They don't deserve all the emotion I was giving them. They aren't our rival, they are the butt of all jokes.

swood1000
08-26-2015, 10:33 AM
We will be watching in shear delight. :D
I shorn nuff hope we aren't starting this up again.

swood1000
08-26-2015, 11:08 AM
For today's medical lesson, always remember you can't spell furunculosis (or carbunculosis!) without u-n-c.

Posted without any sheepishness whatsoever.
Not to mention uncinariasis. But back to the crooks.

rasputin
08-26-2015, 11:46 AM
I shorn nuff hope we aren't starting this up again.

Well, you can't pull the wool over my eyes.

DukieInKansas
08-26-2015, 11:48 AM
Well, you can't pull the wool over my eyes.

I suppose we should stop ramming the puns into these posts.

hudlow
08-26-2015, 12:07 PM
I suppose we should stop ramming the puns into these posts.


Yeah, quit flocking around, there's too much work to be done.

MarkD83
08-26-2015, 12:44 PM
I suppose we should stop ramming the puns into these posts.

The only way to stop the puns is to stop "goating" people into writing more.

BigWayne
08-26-2015, 01:39 PM
Sorry I have no puns to offer, but there are a couple new items for your reading pleasure today.

Letter to the N&O from a former NCSU asst. football coach pointing out that UNC admissions office is complicit in bringing in unqualified "student"-athletes. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article32364027.html)

The elephant in the room is the fact that not a single one of these woefully underqualified students was admitted by any UNC coach or athletic official; those decisions were made by admissions personnel and their administrative supervisors.

Season ticket holding professor defends poor treatment of Sylvia. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/letter-editorial-mistaken-about-hatchell)
It is not unreasonable for any coach to have trusted that all our courses offered legitimate instruction overseen by faculty.

alteran
08-26-2015, 02:18 PM
Yes, I used to seethe with a white hot anger because I knew they were a fraud. 5 years into the scandal, I realize they their fans are just a big freaking joke. They don't deserve all the emotion I was giving them. They aren't our rival, they are the butt of all jokes.

From a personal perspective, I agree totally. This may actually be the best part for me.

When their fans start getting just a little preachy, I just smile, like I'm stifling a laugh. (And sometimes, I am.)

They either get a little sheepish, or seethe but can't say anything.

Either way, it's a win.

alteran
08-26-2015, 02:33 PM
Sorry I have no puns to offer, but there are a couple new items for your reading pleasure today.

Letter to the N&O from a former NCSU asst. football coach pointing out that UNC admissions office is complicit in bringing in unqualified "student"-athletes. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article32364027.html)

The elephant in the room is the fact that not a single one of these woefully underqualified students was admitted by any UNC coach or athletic official; those decisions were made by admissions personnel and their administrative supervisors.

Season ticket holding professor defends poor treatment of Sylvia. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/letter-editorial-mistaken-about-hatchell)
It is not unreasonable for any coach to have trusted that all our courses offered legitimate instruction overseen by faculty.

For the first article, I call BS on the writer.* He's wrong, the only question is whether he realizes it.

I had a friend-- a huge UNC fan friend-- who told me about teaching as a TA at UNC. He learned from personal experience that if eligibility of revenue athletes got threatened by something as prosaic as the failure to do assigned work or flunking tests, the compliance office paid you a visit. They made sure to get the message across to the teacher about where your bread was buttered. I have no doubt that the same dynamic exists for the admissions office. If this guy really believes what he wrote, he's unspeakably naive.

The clear culprit is an endemic culture of revenue sports having primacy over academics across the university. THAT'S the Carolina Way. That rot starts from the head downward, not from the plebes in the admissions office. UNC needs to change its culture-- and by its actions, UNC has left no doubt that fixing the culture is not on the table.

Picking on people from the admissions department is a nonsense shell game. It's scapegoating.

The only thing that surprises me is that UNC hasn't thought of this particular scapegoating strategy yet. Maybe this is a trial balloon.

--alteran

* BTW, good link. The fact that I disagree with its conclusion does not mean I don't think it was a good link to forward.

PackMan97
08-26-2015, 02:56 PM
The clear culprit is an endemic culture of revenue sports having primacy over academics across the university. THAT'S the Carolina Way. That rot starts from the head downward, not from the plebes in the admissions office. UNC needs to change its culture-- and by its actions, UNC has left no doubt that fixing the culture is not on the table.

Picking on people from the admissions department is a nonsense shell game. It's scapegoating.

The only thing that surprises me is that UNC hasn't thought of this particular scapegoating strategy yet. Maybe this is a trial balloon.
.

When you realize that Carolina does not want to fix the problem, everything else is on the table. Throw your hall of fame women's coach and cancer survive under the bus. Toss out a men's soccer coach who has won an NCAA title. Let loose on the rowing team. Admissions, Academics, The Press, Pack Pride, everything and everyone else is too blame.

Keep in mind, UNC has yet to have an independent review. So far everyone has been hired and paid for by the University and had their scope of examination tightly controlled by UNC.

alteran
08-26-2015, 03:04 PM
When you realize that Carolina does not want to fix the problem, everything else is on the table. Throw your hall of fame women's coach and cancer survive under the bus. Toss out a men's soccer coach who has won an NCAA title. Let loose on the rowing team. Admissions, Academics, The Press, Pack Pride, everything and everyone else is too blame.

Keep in mind, UNC has yet to have an independent review. So far everyone has been hired and paid for by the University and had their scope of examination tightly controlled by UNC.

You know-- and it's kind of embarrassing to admit this on a Duke board (and this may make me ineligible for Mt. Hatemore induction down the line) -- but I'm actually more than a little saddened for UNC. I really thought better of them than this.

As my profile says-- I went there. It's a good school. Now, I was brought up as a Duke fan and got a face full of UNC arrogance my whole life, so when I went there my hatred of the athletic programs never waned-- but I really loved the place. Its just sad to see them do this.

Okay, back to the hate.

porcophile
08-27-2015, 08:39 AM
Season ticket holding professor defends poor treatment of Sylvia. (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2015/08/letter-editorial-mistaken-about-hatchell)
It is not unreasonable for any coach to have trusted that all our courses offered legitimate instruction overseen by faculty.

The "season ticket holding professor" is Cindy Schauer, the associate professor of chemistry for life who specializes in writing fan girl letters to the Daily Tar Heel instead of research articles: Highlights of Cynthia Schauer's research (http://www.chem.unc.edu/people/faculty/schauer/index.html?display=highlights)
She's the one who wrote that "Move Forward" letter that seems to have stalled out at 140 faculty signatures, I'm happy to say. The letter, and she, get thoroughly taken apart here: Moving UNC Forward (http://mindingthecoach.blogspot.co.uk/)

Duke95
08-27-2015, 10:05 AM
The fangirl has been an associate professor at UNC for 27 years. No tenure track there, it seems.

sagegrouse
08-27-2015, 10:09 AM
The fangirl has been an associate professor at UNC for 27 years. No tenure track there, it seems.

As an associate professor, she has tenure.

porcophile
08-27-2015, 12:12 PM
As an associate professor she has tenure, but there is no guarantee that she'll ever be promoted. Associate professors usually are, but associate professors don't usually stop doing research or scholarship altogether.

Duke_92
08-27-2015, 12:32 PM
As an associate professor she has tenure, but there is no guarantee that she'll ever be promoted. Associate professors usually are, but associate professors don't usually stop doing research or scholarship altogether.

I'm not sure that she has stopped doing research altogether. Some researchers don't put much energy into updating their webpages. There is some recent research by her floating around out there.

http://www.pubfacts.com/author/Cynthia+K+Schauer

BigWayne
08-27-2015, 01:05 PM
* BTW, good link. The fact that I disagree with its conclusion does not mean I don't think it was a good link to forward.

When I post a link, unless I add an opinion, it's mostly for informational purposes so people can see what is going on in regards to the scandal. The NCSU ex-coach piece is very interesting because a lot of different people are interpreting it differently.

BigWayne
08-27-2015, 01:11 PM
Dan Kane at the N&O has another story up that should be in Friday's print version. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article32472684.html)
It's basically a review of the Ridpath article from a few days ago, with the added conclusion that the NCAA will go easy on UNC. In a way I think it's mostly a click bait article for all the people that fret that UNC won't get punished appropriately and the Walmart fans that want assurances everything will be OK.

53n206
08-27-2015, 01:21 PM
When you realize that Carolina does not want to fix the problem, everything else is on the table. Throw your hall of fame women's coach and cancer survive under the bus. Toss out a men's soccer coach who has won an NCAA title. Let loose on the rowing team. Admissions, Academics, The Press, Pack Pride, everything and everyone else is too blame.

Keep in mind, UNC has yet to have an independent review. So far everyone has been hired and paid for by the University and had their scope of examination tightly controlled by UNC.

Will there ever be an independent review?

porcophile
08-27-2015, 01:22 PM
I'm not sure that she has stopped doing research altogether. Some researchers don't put much energy into updating their webpages. There is some recent research by her floating around out there.

http://www.pubfacts.com/author/Cynthia+K+Schauer

I'm no chemist, so I don't know what that field's publication norms are, but I'm guessing that 16 co-authored articles in twenty years is unimpressive. Schauer's sometime co-author Tom Meyer had 10 in the first six months of 2015.

howardlander
08-27-2015, 02:33 PM
I'm no chemist, so I don't know what that field's publication norms are, but I'm guessing that 16 co-authored articles in twenty years is unimpressive.

That's probably true. My publication rate is higher than that and I'm neither a faculty member or a Phd. Of course I am also not a chemist, but still for a tenured faculty member in a scientific discipline, that seems pretty low.

Howard

Duke95
08-27-2015, 02:48 PM
So she can't teach and can't publish. 27 years at UNC.

LOL.

BD80
08-27-2015, 03:44 PM
See? Everybody DOES do it!

http://t.co/VKs1HDoF3I

Auburn's Athletic Department saves a major (Public Administration):

"Public administration majors account for less than 1% of Auburn’s undergraduate student body. But in the fall semester of 2013, documents show, 51% of the 111 students pursuing the degree were athletes. Among them were the football team’s starting quarterback and running back, its leading wide receiver and the three defensive players who led the team in interceptions, tackles and sacks. At the time the athletic department learned of the plan to close the major, Auburn’s football team was coming off its worst season in a half-century and had just fired its coach.

'If the public administration program is eliminated, the [graduation success rate] numbers for our student-athletes will likely decline,' a December 2012 internal athletic department memo said."

Boy, what a mess. Where could a coach with that kind of stink on him ever find a job ...

BigWayne
08-27-2015, 04:05 PM
See? Everybody DOES do it!

http://t.co/VKs1HDoF3I

Auburn's Athletic Department saves a major (Public Administration):

"Public administration majors account for less than 1% of Auburn’s undergraduate student body. But in the fall semester of 2013, documents show, 51% of the 111 students pursuing the degree were athletes. Among them were the football team’s starting quarterback and running back, its leading wide receiver and the three defensive players who led the team in interceptions, tackles and sacks. At the time the athletic department learned of the plan to close the major, Auburn’s football team was coming off its worst season in a half-century and had just fired its coach.

'If the public administration program is eliminated, the [graduation success rate] numbers for our student-athletes will likely decline,' a December 2012 internal athletic department memo said."

Boy, what a mess. Where could a coach with that kind of stink on him ever find a job ...

Interestingly, the WSJ author is a Duke graduate, class of 2010.

madscavenger
08-27-2015, 04:57 PM
The more infractions to be examined, the more examination.


Bubba Stop Blowin Them Blue Bubbles Blues

That paler shade of blue again
looks in the mirror fair, and then
awaits dismissal every day:
Bring on those pikers, they will pay.

The mirror smiles, how dost thou plead;
you're charged with cheating, can't you read?
Forget the kindling, we've enough
the NOI is plenty tough.

Should you insist, we'll grant delay
Investigations? More, we say.
More interviews, a Martin quote,
sure go ahead and cut your throat.

Just keep on at it Rams, you're through
Henceforth thou name is SMU.



Epilogue: Salvation/Redemption/Somesuchthings(and don't forget-return the rings)

Hey Bubba, Hell's a poppin
Best that you think soon of stoppin
Beg forgiveness, say Hail Marys
Stop those brown bag cash and carries
Take down banners, tout de suite
Give meaning to student athlete!

cspan37421
08-27-2015, 07:09 PM
The fangirl has been an associate professor at UNC for 27 years. No tenure track there, it seems.

I wonder how close she was with Valerie Ashby.

Tappan Zee Devil
08-27-2015, 07:29 PM
As an associate professor, she has tenure.

Once you are tenured, all you need to do is show up to teach your courses and attend the meetings of whatever committees you are placed on. And none of that needs to be done well.
(I speak as an academic with several 80+ year old professors in our department who refuse to retire and still use the same teaching notes that they developed in the 1980s).

However, you do need to keep publishing for a least a few years beyond being tenured to be promoted to full Professor.

Jarhead
08-27-2015, 09:59 PM
Looks like someone has changed the subject.5433

Duke95
08-27-2015, 10:33 PM
See? Everybody DOES do it!

http://t.co/VKs1HDoF3I

Auburn's Athletic Department saves a major (Public Administration):

"Public administration majors account for less than 1% of Auburn’s undergraduate student body. But in the fall semester of 2013, documents show, 51% of the 111 students pursuing the degree were athletes. Among them were the football team’s starting quarterback and running back, its leading wide receiver and the three defensive players who led the team in interceptions, tackles and sacks. At the time the athletic department learned of the plan to close the major, Auburn’s football team was coming off its worst season in a half-century and had just fired its coach.

'If the public administration program is eliminated, the [graduation success rate] numbers for our student-athletes will likely decline,' a December 2012 internal athletic department memo said."

Boy, what a mess. Where could a coach with that kind of stink on him ever find a job ...


Good find.

MarkD83
08-27-2015, 11:59 PM
I'm no chemist, so I don't know what that field's publication norms are, but I'm guessing that 16 co-authored articles in twenty years is unimpressive. Schauer's sometime co-author Tom Meyer had 10 in the first six months of 2015.

I am a chemist and would give her a bit of a break. The journals she is publishing in are very good journals (JACS, Science). In addition the co-authors are typically graduate students and post-docs that are doing the lab work and it is part of their training/degree requirements to do enough research to be a co-author.

oldnavy
08-28-2015, 06:06 AM
I am a chemist and would give her a bit of a break. The journals she is publishing in are very good journals (JACS, Science). In addition the co-authors are typically graduate students and post-docs that are doing the lab work and it is part of their training/degree requirements to do enough research to be a co-author.

The pecking order on the authorship is usually indicative of who usually is leading the research.

aimo
08-28-2015, 09:33 AM
(I speak as an academic with several 80+ year old professors in our department who refuse to retire and still use the same teaching notes that they developed in the 1980s)..

I think I sat next to one at the Washington Duke/Fairview yesterday. Nearly put us to sleep with his long-winded babbling. He was either a religion or an English professor.

SmartDevil
08-28-2015, 07:57 PM
What's with the ageist references here late in this thread? I had some BRILLIANT professors at Duke who were in their late 70's and well into their 80's. Being approved to take classes with them was an honor in itself. And their classes took students to another level of thinking regarding the subject matter AND the ability to think in such a way and apply it to other issues.
Don't perpetuate stereotypes on DBR whether they relate to age, race, gender, etc.
It doesn't belong here. (Or anywhere else.)

BD80
08-28-2015, 09:18 PM
What's with the ageist references here late in this thread? I had some BRILLIANT professors at Duke who were in their late 70's and well into their 80's. Being approved to take classes with them was an honor in itself. And their classes took students to another level of thinking regarding the subject matter AND the ability to think in such a way and apply it to other issues.
Don't perpetuate stereotypes on DBR whether they relate to age, race, gender, etc.
It doesn't belong here. (Or anywhere else.)

And get off my lawn!

Tappan Zee Devil
08-28-2015, 09:57 PM
What's with the ageist references here late in this thread? I had some BRILLIANT professors at Duke who were in their late 70's and well into their 80's. Being approved to take classes with them was an honor in itself. And their classes took students to another level of thinking regarding the subject matter AND the ability to think in such a way and apply it to other issues.
Don't perpetuate stereotypes on DBR whether they relate to age, race, gender, etc.
It doesn't belong here. (Or anywhere else.)

My comment was more to the point that they are using teaching notes from the 1980s.

JasonEvans
08-29-2015, 12:14 AM
Keep in mind, UNC has yet to have an independent review. So far everyone has been hired and paid for by the University and had their scope of examination tightly controlled by UNC.


Will there ever be an independent review?

This is a bit problematic. A truly thorough examination would require a staff of dozens of folks and would likely take months. It would require going through records and pouring over hundreds of thousands of emails. Wainstein's bill via the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft was $3,111,385.17. So, if you folks are calling for an "independent" investigation that is not paid for by UNC, I would ask... who else should pay a few million for it?

I'm pretty sure that UNC told Wainstein to only look into AfAm irregularities because they did not want him to uncover improper classes or grades in other departments (I'm looking at you, Philosophy department and we all know about that absurd Military History class that was loaded with athletes and gave out tons of easy As). I would love to see something more expansive and complete, but I see no way it can be done without UNC paying for it.

And, truth be told, I'm not sure it matters all that much at this point. If some new report were to discover even more widespread academic fraud would that really matter? What UNC did is so huge in scope already, I'm not sure adding another 20, 200 or even 2000 improper grades/classes would really change anyone's opinion of Carolina or impact the NCAAs potential penalties. What I would like to see is some investigation of what Carolina has been up to the past few years. When that fateful powerpoint was shown to everyone with the fraudulent classes detailed and the words “THESE NO LONGER EXIST,” splashed across the bottom of the slide, don't we want to know if someone in the room asked, "Why can't we start up a new set of classes in a different department?" Put simply, I want to know how much work Jan Boxill required of athletes taking her Philosophy classes in recent years.

-Jason "you wanna talk about clustering... guess how many of Carolina's recent players are communications majors? PJ Hairston, Leslie McDonald, John Henson, Dexter Strickland, Kennedy Meeks, and Reggie Bullock. There's a ton of current players majoring in the highly difficult academic arena of Exercise and Sports Science... that's a legit major at a major university?!?!" Evans

Dr. Rosenrosen
08-29-2015, 06:22 AM
This is a bit problematic. A truly thorough examination would require a staff of dozens of folks and would likely take months. It would require going through records and pouring over hundreds of thousands of emails. Wainstein's bill via the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft was $3,111,385.17. So, if you folks are calling for an "independent" investigation that is not paid for by UNC, I would ask... who else should pay a few million for it?

I'm pretty sure that UNC told Wainstein to only look into AfAm irregularities because they did not want him to uncover improper classes or grades in other departments (I'm looking at you, Philosophy department and we all know about that absurd Military History class that was loaded with athletes and gave out tons of easy As). I would love to see something more expansive and complete, but I see no way it can be done without UNC paying for it.

And, truth be told, I'm not sure it matters all that much at this point. If some new report were to discover even more widespread academic fraud would that really matter? What UNC did is so huge in scope already, I'm not sure adding another 20, 200 or even 2000 improper grades/classes would really change anyone's opinion of Carolina or impact the NCAAs potential penalties. What I would like to see is some investigation of what Carolina has been up to the past few years. When that fateful powerpoint was shown to everyone with the fraudulent classes detailed and the words “THESE NO LONGER EXIST,” splashed across the bottom of the slide, don't we want to know if someone in the room asked, "Why can't we start up a new set of classes in a different department?" Put simply, I want to know how much work Jan Boxill required of athletes taking her Philosophy classes in recent years.

-Jason "you wanna talk about clustering... guess how many of Carolina's recent players are communications majors? PJ Hairston, Leslie McDonald, John Henson, Dexter Strickland, Kennedy Meeks, and Reggie Bullock. There's a ton of current players majoring in the highly difficult academic arena of Exercise and Sports Science... that's a legit major at a major university?!?!" Evans
Additional investigation would likely reveal that they are still covering up and lying to everyone about the true extent of the fraudulent scheme. Revelation of say 200 additional instances of cheating might not change our opinion of them as cheaters, but it would be instructive as to how forthcoming they've actual been (or not been) with the NCAA and SACS. But your point about who is going to pay for it is dead on. It seems no one has any real incentive to pay for and conduct much additional investigation. We probably just have to wait for the next Marvin Austin to get the ball rolling.

Also, I think we should be careful to distinguish between fraudulent schemes and easy classes. Every school has easy classes. Very few conduct fraudulent class schemes for 20 years.

Dr. Rosenrosen
08-29-2015, 07:33 AM
Just for pure entertainment value, from IC...


UNCTarheel1984
Re: UNC Release on New Info Submitted to NCAA
Thursday at 7:51 PM



blueheaven71 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- ibleeduncblue2 wrote:

if the ncaa keeps digging maybe they will dig deep enough to un-kover things in derham .. unc has balls to report stuff .. only wussies Kover up & hide stuff for years


bartholemew wrote:Is this university out of its freaking mind? If you dig deep enough, you will always be able to find something. If we keep this up, the NCAA will buy a home in Chapel Hill and never leave us alone.



---------------------------------------------

If Marvin Austin wouldn't have tweeted then wouldn't UNC continue to be covering up as well? UNC doesn't have the balls to report stuff, they have the stupidity to keep finding stuff to report. Let the NCAA move on! This is beyond ridiculous!

Word.

Plus, by now Carolina would have an NCAA Championship in football and probably two more in basketball.

CameronBornAndBred
08-29-2015, 08:57 AM
Just for pure entertainment value, from IC...


UNCTarheel1984
Re: UNC Release on New Info Submitted to NCAA
Thursday at 7:51 PM

Plus, by now Carolina would have an NCAA Championship in football and probably two more in basketball.

Hell, lets just say they would have won everything every year.

Not sure how he figures BBall would have won anything more; they haven't been punished once yet. The ONLY impact they have felt has been in the last season with recruits smartly staying away. Those are guys who wouldn't have seen the court yet, anyway.

Duke95
08-29-2015, 09:54 AM
If there's one thing that the NCAA investigation has uncovered, it's how stupid and delusional the UNC fan base really is.

devil84
08-29-2015, 10:51 AM
-Jason "you wanna talk about clustering... guess how many of Carolina's recent players are communications majors? PJ Hairston, Leslie McDonald, John Henson, Dexter Strickland, Kennedy Meeks, and Reggie Bullock. There's a ton of current players majoring in the highly difficult academic arena of Exercise and Sports Science... that's a legit major at a major university?!?!" Evans

Actually, yes, Exercise and Sports Science is a quite legitimate major, and some majors within it are quite difficult. Over at UNC, within EXSS there are three undergrad majors: Sports Administration, Fitness Professional, and Athletic Training. The grad school swaps Exercise Physiology for Fitness Professional.

Required courses for undergrad degrees include Biology, Human Anatomy, Human Physiology, Biomechanics*, Neuromuscular Control and Learning*, and Physiological Basis of Human Performance*, among others. Most of these are lab science classes, not readily made into, uh, "independent study" or "paper classes." The asterisked classes are not needed for Sports Administration, instead needing Econ 101, Fundamentals of Sports Marketing, Finance and Economics of Sport, Legal Aspects of Sport, and Field Experience in Sports Administration. Let's guess what wing of the program athletes choose.

Why do I know so much about the department? My son is there in the Exercise Physiology grad program. Ex Phys has no faculty or students who have prior degrees from UNC. Like Roy, they don't give a I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. about UNC. :) Or, at least their revenue sports, anyway. Seriously...they don't really discuss anything about ACC football or basketball (triathlons, marathons, cycling, and weight lifting...now you're talking!). They are doing quite serious research in conjunction with medical and engineering departments that is absolutely fascinating. My son is working on his thesis in a study with an engineer at Duke, Dr. Brian Mann, and is also interning on a separate long-term study of exercise during and after breast cancer treatment at UNC. Some of the research is comparing the actual oxygen consumption of both highly competitive cyclists and organ transplant patients to their currently calculated VO2Max. Their findings will not only impact competitive athletes, but also may help tweak anesthesia procedures to be safer for surgical patients, among other conclusions.

Now, why Exercise Physiology and Sports Administration are in the same department...that's another matter. There is little overlap between the two, from what I understand. I see what my son is learning, and it's impressive. I'm not sure I'd say the same for the "Field Experience" course for some Sports Administration majors.

Tom B.
09-01-2015, 10:22 AM
This thread was about to fall off the front page. Now, we can't have that happen, can we?

moonpie23
09-01-2015, 11:10 AM
This thread was about to fall off the front page. Now, we can't have that happen, can we?

absolutely not.....HEY!! i heard there were some cheaters over in chapel hill............also heard that the misery office had expanded to super warehouse size !!

JasonEvans
09-01-2015, 01:03 PM
Well, we can keep the thread alive with this little nugget of actual news: Michael McAdoo (not to be confused with failed hoops player James Michael McAdoo or successful hoops player Bob McAdoo), the former football player and well-known plagarist has turned UNC's delay tactics (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/former-tar-heels-football-player-mcadoo-again-suing-unc/14866666/) back against the University.

McAdoo filed a class action lawsuit against Carolina back in November claiming he had been denied an education because Carolina steered him into AfAm classes against his wishes. As you may recall, UNC tried to get McAdoo's suit tossed claiming the statute of limitations had run out. Well, now McAdoo (through his lawyers) says the new NCAA violations recently discovered by UNC actually prove that new evidence is constantly being found in this issue and the statue of limitations should not be expired.

IANAL but it sure seems like all the stuff uncovered in the past couple years would make a lawsuit viable. McAdoo did not know there was a university-wide scheme to prevent him (and others) from getting an education until very recently. The fact that UNC perpetrated this scheme against McAdoo several years ago shouldn't void the entire suit... I hope!

-Jason "I am dying to see a whole host of Carolina officials forced to testify under oath!" Evans

P.S. - I am sadly well aware that Carolina will likely settle this before allowing depositions to happen

MarkD83
09-01-2015, 01:18 PM
Well, we can keep the thread alive with this little nugget of actual news: Michael McAdoo (not to be confused with failed hoops player James Michael McAdoo or successful hoops player Bob McAdoo), the former football player and well-known plagarist has turned UNC's delay tactics (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/former-tar-heels-football-player-mcadoo-again-suing-unc/14866666/) back against the University.

McAdoo filed a class action lawsuit against Carolina back in November claiming he had been denied an education because Carolina steered him into AfAm classes against his wishes. As you may recall, UNC tried to get McAdoo's suit tossed claiming the statute of limitations had run out. Well, now McAdoo (through his lawyers) says the new NCAA violations recently discovered by UNC actually prove that new evidence is constantly being found in this issue and the statue of limitations should not be expired.

IANAL but it sure seems like all the stuff uncovered in the past couple years would make a lawsuit viable. McAdoo did not know there was a university-wide scheme to prevent him (and others) from getting an education until very recently. The fact that UNC perpetrated this scheme against McAdoo several years ago shouldn't void the entire suit... I hope!

-Jason "I am dying to see a whole host of Carolina officials forced to testify under oath!" Evans

P.S. - I am sadly well aware that Carolina will likely settle this before allowing depositions to happen

If it is any solace the price for UNC to settle any lawsuits may be escalating the more they delay and deny.

Which makes me think of a request. Does anyone have a handy tally of how much this is costing UNC in terms of investigations they have funded, PR firms they have paid etc.....

OldPhiKap
09-01-2015, 02:06 PM
IANAL but it sure seems like all the stuff uncovered in the past couple years would make a lawsuit viable. McAdoo did not know there was a university-wide scheme to prevent him (and others) from getting an education until very recently. The fact that UNC perpetrated this scheme against McAdoo several years ago shouldn't void the entire suit... I hope!



"Judge, how can you expect my client to have known about this, when Roy Williams and Butch Davis themselves profess that even they didn't know?"


Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

porcophile
09-02-2015, 05:22 AM
This lengthy account is real “inside baseball” stuff, certainly more than many of you care to read, but since nothing else is being posted, please allow me --

Several people on this board have been perplexed by the docility of UNC’s faculty in the face of the administration’s bungling and the university’s disgrace. The proceedings of a recent Faculty Executive Committee meeting illustrate why that passivity continues.

The FEC met Monday to consider a resolution calling for a committee to be set up to “lead a campus conversation on the academic implications of the changes coming to college sport.” I'm reliably informed that this was a modified and somewhat defanged version of a proposal submitted last spring by the ad hoc “Athletic Reform Group” and tabled until this fall. In its modified form it said nothing specifically about UNC and its troubles, but adopting it would have been the first instance of the faculty actually doing something collectively

Predictably, the chair of the Faculty Athletics Committee, Joy Renner (more about her later) spoke in opposition, asserting that her committee "is already doing a lot of this" (having discussions) and that, in any case, these issues were in their purview. The next hour was spent debating whether the FAC or a newly appointed, independent committee should take charge of this campus discussion. The good news is that a number of members understood the need for a separate committee, not least because one of the things that should be discussed is whether Renner’s committee has been doing an adequate job of oversight. Ms. Renner remained adamant, however, saying at one point, “I can tell you that if there's a separate task force, my committee will not accept that. It would undermine us."

Renner also argued that the Faculty Council shouldn’t take a public stance on athletic matters anyway, because there are more important problems facing the university. If the Council spoke about athletics and related problems, “what kind of message would that send?” (This argument is rather odd, given that both SACS and the NCAA have criticized UNC’s faculty for failing to control the university’s athletic program.)

Finally, the Chair of the Faculty, Bruce Cairns, spoke to say that he respects "our faculty governance structure," and would be hesitant to upset it. He referred the modified resolution to Renner’s committee to see if they can modify it further to make it acceptable to them. This guarantees, of course, that nothing meaningful will come of this.

It has long been obvious to anyone familiar with the situation that Renner is a toady and a shill. Cairns, on the other hand, has made a good show of listening to all sides and of course he has been a great improvement on his predecessor, the odious ethicist Jan Boxill. But he has been a moderator (at best), not a leader, and the effect has been to render the faculty voiceless, even assuming it could agree on something to say.

MarkD83
09-02-2015, 06:08 AM
This lengthy account is real “inside baseball” stuff, certainly more than many of you care to read, but since nothing else is being posted, please allow me --

Several people on this board have been perplexed by the docility of UNC’s faculty in the face of the administration’s bungling and the university’s disgrace. The proceedings of a recent Faculty Executive Committee meeting illustrate why that passivity continues.

The FEC met Monday to consider a resolution calling for a committee to be set up to “lead a campus conversation on the academic implications of the changes coming to college sport.” I'm reliably informed that this was a modified and somewhat defanged version of a proposal submitted last spring by the ad hoc “Athletic Reform Group” and tabled until this fall. In its modified form it said nothing specifically about UNC and its troubles, but adopting it would have been the first instance of the faculty actually doing something collectively

Predictably, the chair of the Faculty Athletics Committee, Joy Renner (more about her later) spoke in opposition, asserting that her committee "is already doing a lot of this" (having discussions) and that, in any case, these issues were in their purview. The next hour was spent debating whether the FAC or a newly appointed, independent committee should take charge of this campus discussion. The good news is that a number of members understood the need for a separate committee, not least because one of the things that should be discussed is whether Renner’s committee has been doing an adequate job of oversight. Ms. Renner remained adamant, however, saying at one point, “I can tell you that if there's a separate task force, my committee will not accept that. It would undermine us."

Renner also argued that the Faculty Council shouldn’t take a public stance on athletic matters anyway, because there are more important problems facing the university. If the Council spoke about athletics and related problems, “what kind of message would that send?” (This argument is rather odd, given that both SACS and the NCAA have criticized UNC’s faculty for failing to control the university’s athletic program.)

Finally, the Chair of the Faculty, Bruce Cairns, spoke to say that he respects "our faculty governance structure," and would be hesitant to upset it. He referred the modified resolution to Renner’s committee to see if they can modify it further to make it acceptable to them. This guarantees, of course, that nothing meaningful will come of this.

It has long been obvious to anyone familiar with the situation that Renner is a toady and a shill. Cairns, on the other hand, has made a good show of listening to all sides and of course he has been a great improvement on his predecessor, the odious ethicist Jan Boxill. But he has been a moderator (at best), not a leader, and the effect has been to render the faculty voiceless, even assuming it could agree on something to say.

As you mentioned above this is what SACS has asked UNC to fix. Anymore meetings like this and the FEC won't have any issues to discuss because UNC won't be accredited.

davekay1971
09-02-2015, 07:47 AM
Wainstein's bill via the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft was $3,111,385.17. So, if you folks are calling for an "independent" investigation that is not paid for by UNC, I would ask... who else should pay a few million for it?

Maybe we could get a crowdfunding campaign going. I turn down regular requests from about two dozen presidential hopefuls these days, but I'd kick in 50 bucks to fund this! Who's with me?

moonpie23
09-02-2015, 07:56 AM
i'd kick in a lot more than fifty bucks......if this were possible, i'd dip into my closet change jar stash...

royalblue
09-02-2015, 09:25 AM
I would gladly make payments the rest of my life!

DukeDevilDeb
09-02-2015, 09:32 AM
Once you are tenured, all you need to do is show up to teach your courses and attend the meetings of whatever committees you are placed on. And none of that needs to be done well.
(I speak as an academic with several 80+ year old professors in our department who refuse to retire and still use the same teaching notes that they developed in the 1980s).

However, you do need to keep publishing for a least a few years beyond being tenured to be promoted to full Professor.

I have been teaching here for thirty years and spend a significant portion of every summer reformulating, rewriting and deleting sections of my notes. Every one of my older (60+) colleagues does this same. The most popular teacher in our department is in his mid-80s. So please be careful what you say. In truth, no one could get away with this. But it is an urban myth that resurfaces frequently. There are some tenured faculty who should be gone... but many of them aren't even 60!

I hope you apologize to the many outstanding older Duke professors who continue to do an outstanding job.

PackMan97
09-02-2015, 09:43 AM
This is a bit problematic. A truly thorough examination would require a staff of dozens of folks and would likely take months. It would require going through records and pouring over hundreds of thousands of emails. Wainstein's bill via the law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft was $3,111,385.17. So, if you folks are calling for an "independent" investigation that is not paid for by UNC, I would ask... who else should pay a few million for it?

Take it out of the More at Four program. /shrug

I would say using Wainstein's bill is a bit of a red herring here, he was billing $1,000/hr for his services and I think his investigators were somewhere not to far below that. I feel confident that we could hire some folks that billed far less. The first place I'd start would be a statistical analysis of transcripts of all athletes that ought not cost but a mid five figures to find patterns and suspicious areas to investigate. Remember, one doesn't need to investigate the entire university and all the emails. One merely needs to start at the scene of the crime (the transcripts) and work their way back. Find courses that raise concerns and investigate those professors. If enough courses/professors get flagged in a department, investigate that department further. It's not rocket science and it sure doesn't need to cost $3,111,385.17.

English
09-02-2015, 09:56 AM
As you mentioned above this is what SACS has asked UNC to fix. Anymore meetings like this and the FEC won't have any issues to discuss because UNC won't be accredited.

This is point worth emphasizing--I wonder if, in its requirements of UNC, SACS has made request (demand?) that UNC turn over its meeting minutes from such faculty meetings as this one. I'd think so, considering that one of the main sticking points was the divorce between the academic side of the university and the more insidious athletic funhouse in which the lunatics run the asylum. Just having an Faculty Athletic Committee, by SACS own stance, is not enough to show that there is substantive oversight and ownership of athletic/academic performance and standards. IANAL, but I'm curious if these types of meetings, advisory in nature and having broad implications on the manner in which the state university spend tax dollars, should be public forums in any case.

Of course, it's wishful thinking that a de-clawed independent committee charged with raising campus-wide discourse about the implications of changing academic standards in college sport (or whatever buzz-phrase detracts from a UNC-centric discussion to a more universal "college sports are broken" conversation) would have any positive effect on the culture over on the Dump.

JasonEvans
09-02-2015, 10:31 AM
Renner also argued that the Faculty Council shouldn’t take a public stance on athletic matters anyway, because there are more important problems facing the university. If the Council spoke about athletics and related problems, “what kind of message would that send?” (This argument is rather odd, given that both SACS and the NCAA have criticized UNC’s faculty for failing to control the university’s athletic program.)


Odd?!?!!? It is more than odd, it is ridiculous. There is no "more important problem" facing UNC right now than the way athletics forced the academic side of the university to destroy its standards. It is so serious, it has forced SACS to question the very credibility of a UNC degree. In fact, if you asked someone to design the worst nightmare UNC could face, SACS taking a long hard look at removing Carolina's accreditation would almost certainly be front and center in that nightmare.

-Jason "thanks for the great report, porcophile, it still seems that many leaders at Carolina are utterly clueless about how serious all of this is" Evans

Tripping William
09-02-2015, 03:39 PM
Odd?!?!!? It is more than odd, it is ridiculous. There is no "more important problem" facing UNC right now than the way athletics forced the academic side of the university to destroy its standards. It is so serious, it has forced SACS to question the very credibility of a UNC degree. In fact, if you asked someone to design the worst nightmare UNC could face, SACS taking a long hard look at removing Carolina's accreditation would almost certainly be front and center in that nightmare.

-Jason "thanks for the great report, porcophile, it still seems that many leaders at Carolina are utterly clueless about how serious all of this is" Evans

Just a quibble: I think Duvall has alluded obliquely on occasion to this ("obliquely" perhaps to steer clear of the PPB-O-Meter, I'm guessing), but some budgetary and other goings-on in the NC General Assembly, essentially directed (as I understand it from far, far away) to making Carolina much more "vocational" and and a lot less "liberal [key word] arts," may well constitute a bigger threat to the long-term existential health of the institution-as-we-know-it than the athletic/no-academic!/no-both scandal would be.

Henderson
09-02-2015, 06:23 PM
Just a quibble: I think Duvall has alluded obliquely on occasion to this ("obliquely" perhaps to steer clear of the PPB-O-Meter, I'm guessing), but some budgetary and other goings-on in the NC General Assembly, essentially directed (as I understand it from far, far away) to making Carolina much more "vocational" and and a lot less "liberal [key word] arts," may well constitute a bigger threat to the long-term existential health of the institution-as-we-know-it than the athletic/no-academic!/no-both scandal would be.

The state legislature's budgetary sway over UNC-CH is diminishing over time. The school has a budget of about $2.4 billion, less than 20% of which comes from the state.

howardlander
09-02-2015, 06:41 PM
The state legislature's budgetary sway over UNC-CH is diminishing over time. The school has a budget of about $2.4 billion, less than 20% of which comes from the state.

I think that's a bit misleading, as I think fair portion of that budget number represents the medical center as opposed to the "academic side". But the point is the same: the state support per student, while still more than most (maybe all?) other states, has been diminishing.

Howard

cspan37421
09-02-2015, 06:50 PM
The state legislature's budgetary sway over UNC-CH is diminishing over time. The school has a budget of about $2.4 billion, less than 20% of which comes from the state.

I suspect legislatures have influence over state schools wildly disproportionate to the % of budget they contribute.

@ UVA ... only 6% of budget comes from the state. Although I doubt the state controls 100% of decisions at UVA, the Governor appoints ALL members of the Board of Visitors (i.e., Trustees) there. I suspect the net effect is one heckuva lot more than the degree of influence that 6% would imply, though it's probably hard to quantify.

sagegrouse
09-02-2015, 07:06 PM
The state legislature's budgetary sway over UNC-CH is diminishing over time. The school has a budget of about $2.4 billion, less than 20% of which comes from the state.

Twenty percent? That's a HUGE percentage these days. The University of Colorado at Boulder -- how about 4.4 percent?


State government funding is provided by the State of Colorado. The university receives this State funding to support general operations and financial aid. The amount received from the State is determined annually and is influenced by the State legislature, the Colorado Department of Higher Education, the State’s economic condition and the overall State budget pressures. Currently state funding is 4.4% of our total budget.

MartyClark
09-02-2015, 07:29 PM
UNC is a dream client any law firm. Rich, angry and wrong.

MarkD83
09-02-2015, 09:15 PM
UNC is a dream client any law firm. Rich, angry and wrong.

There have been posts here and on Pack Pride bemoaning the fact that the NCAA has not taken any action and how the NOA has only covered certain nefarious dealings and not others. I believe the NCAA knows that whatever penalty they hand out that UNC will sue them. Therefore, the NCAA is doing everything by the book and even giving UNC some leeway in proceedings. (The extension due to the 2 minor infractions is an example.) The NCAA does not want to have any technicality let UNC slide out of this.

sagegrouse
09-02-2015, 11:20 PM
There have been posts here and on Pack Pride bemoaning the fact that the NCAA has not taken any action and how the NOA has only covered certain nefarious dealings and not others. I believe the NCAA knows that whatever penalty they hand out that UNC will sue them. Therefore, the NCAA is doing everything by the book and even giving UNC some leeway in proceedings. (The extension due to the 2 minor infractions is an example.) The NCAA does not want to have any technicality let UNC slide out of this.

I am a little confused, Mark. Give me an example of a member institution that ever sued the NCAA. I would be surprised if the bylaws didn't preclude such action.