unc Athletics Scandal - UNC issues new SACS report

[moonpie23]

lest we not forget...

Page 49, paragraph 2,


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.


welcome, Thor!!

[tteettimes]

SO------Let it be written.........

[hudlow]

Blame it on the officiating...

[Skitzle]

I'm so ready...

[Tjenkins]

Blame it on the officiating...

The NCAA's Committee On Infractions "gets all the calls!"

[OldPhiKap]

The upcoming penalties are officially known as "The Bloody Montrose"

[PirateDevil119]

So I keep hearing wide ranging opinions on the punishment that will be placed upon The Tar Heels. Everything from the dreaded 'death penalty' to no more than a one year post season ban and no forfeiting of wins or titles. I am wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the specific punishment the ncaa will choose. Personally, I think, and hope, it will be severe. I don't see how a small or minor punishment could possibly be justified considering the length of time the infractions took place, the widespread nature of them across several different sports, and the general non-chalant attitudes of unc officials. Not to mention the precedent the ncaa has set with other cases such as Syracuse. So anyway, I want to hear what you all think about specific punishments and justifications.

Also, I'm a first time poster but long time reader and I love the site. If this is not the correct thread for this conversation then please feel free to move it to a more appropriate location.

Go Duke!

[OldPhiKap]

So I keep hearing wide ranging opinions on the punishment that will be placed upon The Tar Heels. Everything from the dreaded 'death penalty' to no more than a one year post season ban and no forfeiting of wins or titles. I am wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the specific punishment the ncaa will choose. Personally, I think, and hope, it will be severe. I don't see how a small or minor punishment could possibly be justified considering the length of time the infractions took place, the widespread nature of them across several different sports, and the general non-chalant attitudes of unc officials. Not to mention the precedent the ncaa has set with other cases such as Syracuse. So anyway, I want to hear what you all think about specific punishments and justifications.

Also, I'm a first time poster but long time reader and I love the site. If this is not the correct thread for this conversation then please feel free to move it to a more appropriate location.

Go Duke!

Glad to see you post!

Head: The unprecedented scope and scale of the infractions must result in the severest punishment short of death penalty (which they deserve but I doubt will get).

Gut: The Cheats will keep their banners, which will really be a crime. The rest, while perhaps significant, does not take the one thing away which is the most important to Tar Heel Nation and is therefore hollow.

Hope Stephen Colbert is wrong about the gut being a better guide than the brain.

[PirateDevil119]

Glad to see you post!

Head: The unprecedented scope and scale of the infractions must result in the severest punishment short of death penalty (which they deserve but I doubt will get).

Gut: The Cheats will keep their banners, which will really be a crime. The rest, while perhaps significant, does not take the one thing away which is the most important to Tar Heel Nation and is therefore hollow.

Hope Stephen Colbert is wrong about the gut being a better guide than the brain.

How does the ncaa justify allowing unc to keep titles that were won on the backs of ineligible students taking fake classes? What do they say to the public? What is the difference between this situation and the one at USC where they stripped the football championship with Reggie bush?

[OldPhiKap]

How does the ncaa justify allowing unc to keep titles that were won on the backs of ineligible students taking fake classes? What do they say to the public? What is the difference between this situation the one at USC where they stripped the football championship with Reggie bush?

They should not be able to do so logically, which is why my mind says they come down. I'll believe it when I see it though.

[jjasper0729]

They should not be able to do so logically, which is why my mind says they come down. I'll believe it when I see it though.

I'm with you on that one... I would love to see a sledge hammer come down, but I have a feeling it's going to be a tack hammer instead.

I know there's some kind of punishment, they can't get out of it... unless there's been some backroom dealings where their lawyers were able to get the impermissible benefits allegation removed which would clear the mbb team of most things. (all of the unc-cheat fans I work with are claiming this is the case... so take it with a grain of salt)

[camion]

The primary reason I think the NCAA will use a pretty heavy hammer on UNC is that they need to make an example of UNC to avoid someone making an example of them.

Will it happen? We'll just have to wait and see.

[BigWayne]

There is no way they keep the 2005 banner. You had a key player from that team put his transcript up for view showing he should have been ineligible that season. Beyond that, who knows, but I expect a lot of games from 2006-2011 vacated based on the NOA and hopefully a bunch more before that based on the recent Dan Kane article.

I know they won't do the death penalty, but I hope they will do the next best thing which is what Baylor got hit with in 2005, a ban from non-conference games and the post season. Hopefully for two or three years.

[Tjenkins]

UNC won't get the death penalty.

I doubt we'll ever see a major revenue sport get the death penalty. Which is too bad, because some universities have definitely deserved it. I've heard football analysts bemoaning how SMU has never recovered from the death penalty. And that's how it should be, SMU was a disgrace.

If Penn State didn't get it, no program will get the death penalty. In that instance the NCAA decided that making money was more important than protecting children from predators. And as much as a loath UNC, I can't say their infractions are up there with Sandusky and Paterno.

[Eternal Outlaw]

How does the ncaa justify allowing unc to keep titles that were won on the backs of ineligible students taking fake classes? What do they say to the public? What is the difference between this situation and the one at USC where they stripped the football championship with Reggie bush?

NCAA did not strip USC of any National Championships. They are not in control of Division I National Championship game. They determined eligibility and that put the question to the BCS committee on if they wanted to strip. The question is, would the NCAA have done the same if it was a title they hand out.

[BLPOG]

I've followed the scandal pretty closely, but like several other posters I'm highly skeptical that the NCAA will level real penalties, despite the overwhelming evidence proof of cheating. Even if they did, there's literally no way - short of expulsion from the NCAA - to actually hand down a penalty commensurate with the scale of cheating.

For just a moment though, let's assume the NCAA vacates all wins with ineligible players, and let's assume they were honest about it. Let's assume that in addition to the years of fraudulent classes, the NCAA investigated the LD/ADD scam and found that basketball players had been involved for several years after the fake AFAM classes ended. IIRC, one of the documents describing the LD testing guidelines in athletics was from 2014, so let's assume that those guidelines were still in place, resulting in questionable diagnoses, this year. Even if the NCAA were to find the LD testing activities to be a systematic scam, they might not go so far as to rule any individual player ineligible. But what if, for the sake of argument, they did?

Each of these assumptions is entirely plausible, if somewhat unlikely in combination. If we add to them one more assumption - that Roy Williams retires before next season - the NCAA could leave him with a grand total of ZERO wins at the University of North Carolina at Cheater Hill. Even though the NCAA won't, the fact that we know it is possible, even likely, that he never had a full team of eligible players at UNC really speaks to the legacy of the man (at least for those not willfully blind to the facts).

[DukieInKansas]

Two Questions:

1. Wasn't it McCants' spring 2005 semester that had the 3 IS courses? Do student athletes become ineligible the semester they don't have the correct number of courses or fail to have a high (low?) enough GPA or is it the next semester they become ineligible?

2. What happened at Penn State was bad. I've seen the argument that if they didn't give PSU the death penalty, then how can the give it to unc, where the infractions weren't as horrendous. The unc issues are academic/extra benefit and did not cause physical/mental harm to children. But the academic/extra benefits at unc gave them a competitive advantage. Did what happened at PSU give them a competitive advantage? Could that be the difference and allow unc to have a harsher penalty?


(I should probably duck and run now?)

[FerryFor50]

Two Questions:

1. Wasn't it McCants' spring 2005 semester that had the 3 IS courses? Do student athletes become ineligible the semester they don't have the correct number of courses or fail to have a high (low?) enough GPA or is it the next semester they become ineligible?

2. What happened at Penn State was bad. I've seen the argument that if they didn't give PSU the death penalty, then how can the give it to unc, where the infractions weren't as horrendous. The unc issues are academic/extra benefit and did not cause physical/mental harm to children. But the academic/extra benefits at unc gave them a competitive advantage. Did what happened at PSU give them a competitive advantage? Could that be the difference and allow unc to have a harsher penalty?


(I should probably duck and run now?)

I agree.

Even though the PSU case was despicable, it wasn't really a NCAA athletics violation. It was more criminal in nature. The only competitive advantage here was not losing Sandusky as an assistant.

UNC's case (as with Syracuse) were done to keep kids eligible, which is exactly what the NCAA rules are written to prevent.

[fogey]

UNC won't get the death penalty.

I doubt we'll ever see a major revenue sport get the death penalty. Which is too bad, because some universities have definitely deserved it. I've heard football analysts bemoaning how SMU has never recovered from the death penalty. And that's how it should be, SMU was a disgrace.

If Penn State didn't get it, no program will get the death penalty. In that instance the NCAA decided that making money was more important than protecting children from predators. And as much as a loath UNC, I can't say their infractions are up there with Sandusky and Paterno.

The "infractions" not only allowed UNC an unfair competitive advantage/leg up on honest programs, and thus additional wins and championships; however, the critical focus should be the systemic FRAUD perpetrated by UNC on their own scholarship players, who for 30 years were promised a meaningful education at no cost, in exchange for the athletic gifts (and glory to UNC) they brought to the table, only to be steered to illusory classes and fake independant studies designed not to educate but rather to construct and perpetuate the mirage of legitimate academic standing.
Their kids were VICTIMS and the fraud is inexcusable. The sholarship players deserved the benefit of their bargain- a decent education and basic academic skills to prepare the vast majority to engage in life after college without a professional sports contract. They were systematically deprived and cheated by the callous greed of a corrupt institution.

UNC deserves the worst of sanctions, and their former players deserve compensation. Roy Williams pretends to care so much about his players, but is never heard to decry the fraud he knows full well has taken place for so long.

[kmspeaks]

Two Questions:

1. Wasn't it McCants' spring 2005 semester that had the 3 IS courses? Do student athletes become ineligible the semester they don't have the correct number of courses or fail to have a high (low?) enough GPA or is it the next semester they become ineligible?

2. What happened at Penn State was bad. I've seen the argument that if they didn't give PSU the death penalty, then how can the give it to unc, where the infractions weren't as horrendous. The unc issues are academic/extra benefit and did not cause physical/mental harm to children. But the academic/extra benefits at unc gave them a competitive advantage. Did what happened at PSU give them a competitive advantage? Could that be the difference and allow unc to have a harsher penalty?


(I should probably duck and run now?)

I believe, if my memory from sitting in on our annual rules clinic in college is correct, that McCants could be ruled ineligible because he was not enrolled as a full time student if those classes did not count.

[Duke95]

Two Questions:

1. Wasn't it McCants' spring 2005 semester that had the 3 IS courses? Do student athletes become ineligible the semester they don't have the correct number of courses or fail to have a high (low?) enough GPA or is it the next semester they become ineligible?

2. What happened at Penn State was bad. I've seen the argument that if they didn't give PSU the death penalty, then how can the give it to unc, where the infractions weren't as horrendous. The unc issues are academic/extra benefit and did not cause physical/mental harm to children. But the academic/extra benefits at unc gave them a competitive advantage. Did what happened at PSU give them a competitive advantage? Could that be the difference and allow unc to have a harsher penalty?


(I should probably duck and run now?)

1. McCants had 4 IS courses in Spring 2005. Every class was IS. No work, made Dean's List. = "impermissible benefit"
2. McCants was ineligible even before that semester, because he had already taken more than the allotted number of IS courses. = "ineligible player"

I don't see any credible way that 2005 banner or any of UNC's wins during that year remain. I expect we will see many, many wins vacated.

[GGLC]

I sincerely doubt that the NCAA will vacate either the 2005 or the 2009 title.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I sincerely think they should.

[SCMatt33]

So I see three possibilities for the mccants classes, assuming his transcripts line up with what's reported (sorry if that info is already in the public setting, but I don't follow quite that closely).

1) the classes are ruled completely illegitimate and don't count towards full time enrollment, thus making him indelible as a non-full time student.

2) The NCAA says that only the grades from said classes are illegitimate making him eligible through the end of the 2005 spring.

3) The NCAA says that the classes are an "impermissible benefit" and rule that he is ineligible from the point when the benefit was received, which again could either be considered the time of enrollment or upon receiving the unearned grade.

I have no inside knowledge or insight, but that's my read on how it could go down and there is for sure wiggle room about the date of ineligibility.

[53n206]

If the NCAA uses the tack hammer instead of the sledgehammer then I can see no reason why colleges across the United States will not use similar methods to keep players eligible. Having good basketball players fills the stands,puts your team on national television, makes money. Since money talks this seems like an obvious step to step to take. No-brainer. Let's all cheat.

[jbay201]

They should AT THE VERY LEAST lose 2005 and 2009 banners, have a 2 year post-season ban, multiple scholarship reductions for 2-3 years, and roy banned for 1 year.

This is the worst scandal in all of the sports that provided the uncheats with over 20 years of unfair advantage in recruiting and additional practice time for their players. It only benefited the university as most college players can't make it in the nba and with no real education have no chance for a decent job outside of basketball. When McCants spilled the beans on the fake classes he came to this realization that he had no real job prospects once he failed in the NBA. It's even worse that they exploited predominantly black students through AFAM studies department.

Glad at least talk of UNC sanctions was actually brought up at espn as it has been ignored for far too long!

[CameronBornAndBred]

This probably has been posted here before, but I didn't see it. Anyway, even if so, it's so promising that it is worth sharing twice. From Mark Emmert...


Coaches need to be responsible for what goes on in their program, whether they have knowledge or not. They need to have accountability," Emmert said. "The best penalty is to remove them from games. The committee on infractions will continue to use those penalties when they deem it important.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15107223/mark-emmert-says-north-carolina-tar-heels-allegations-come-ncaa-next-month

[mgtr]

What I would like to see, and think should happen, is best expressed by the song "I Can Dream, Can't I?" If they don't get the death penalty, it should be something close. Every player enrolled in a sham class over the past 20 years should be a) retroactively flunked in those classes, and those in sports ruled ineligible, thus causing many games, wins, titles, banners, and championships to be vacated. Every administrator involved at any level should be fired, and criminal charges pursued where possible. Coaches for the affected sports should be fired and banned from coaching at any level.

OK, not all that stuff will happen, which is why I was dreaming. But then, as others have stated, how can you possibly keep the next 100 colleges from cheating?

One thing that I think will happen (and certainly should happen) is the dissolution of the NCAA. Currently their job is to both promote college sports and to police it. That approach did not work with the Atomic Energy Committee (RIP) and it does not work with the NCAA.
OK, time to take a nap!

[devildeac]

This probably has been posted here before, but I didn't see it. Anyway, even if so, it's so promising that it is worth sharing twice. From Mark Emmert...


http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15107223/mark-emmert-says-north-carolina-tar-heels-allegations-come-ncaa-next-month

More NCAA bloviation or a large ground-to-ground missile fired across the bow of tar h**l nation?

[OldPhiKap]

More NCAA bloviation or a large ground-to-ground missile fired across the bow of tar h**l nation?

One would think that in a final four with both Boeheim and Roy present, Emmert can't really support punishing Jim for things he (allegedly) didn't know about but letting Roy skate for things he (allegedly) didn't know about. Especially when Roy was allegedly ignorant of a decade's worth of systematic practices.

Again, the mind says that the biggest hammer short of the death penalty is about to fall. But I'll believe it when I see it. Let's just say that I find my own lack of faith disturbing on this point.

[CDu]

This probably has been posted here before, but I didn't see it. Anyway, even if so, it's so promising that it is worth sharing twice. From Mark Emmert...


http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/15107223/mark-emmert-says-north-carolina-tar-heels-allegations-come-ncaa-next-month

That article says that the final notice of allegations - not a resolution to the scandal - will come in the next month or so. Which, I guess, could eventually lead to a decision sometime over the following months thereafter. But I don't know that we're going to have a resolution anytime soon. UNC would then have 90 days to respond to the NOA. Then, they'd schedule a hearing before the Committee on Infractions. Then, UNC could decide to appeal the results of that hearing. If so, it'd go to an appeals hearing. And then it would be final.

So it sounds like all the NOA will do is let UNC officially and finally know what they're charged with. Then, sometime over the next 3-6 months after that, we may have a penalty doled out.

[budwom]

That article says that the final notice of allegations - not a resolution to the scandal - will come in the next month or so. Which, I guess, could eventually lead to a decision sometime over the following months thereafter. But I don't know that we're going to have a resolution anytime soon. UNC would then have 90 days to respond to the NOA. Then, they'd schedule a hearing before the Committee on Infractions. Then, UNC could decide to appeal the results of that hearing. If so, it'd go to an appeals hearing. And then it would be final.

So it sounds like all the NOA will do is let UNC officially and finally know what they're charged with. Then, sometime over the next 3-6 months after that, we may have a penalty doled out.

I agree with what you've laid out...but unc did already get a long and specific notice of allegations, so I assume a new notice would only cover the new (nonsense)
unc brought up a few months ago in order to further delay the process (the so-called self reported stuff). So I'm guessing that won't be a particularly long NOA...?

p.s. what I find interesting is that we may be at a tipping point here. unc's strategy of delaying, denying and obfuscating nearly worked, they almost nabbed another title.
But since Ol' Roy's recent recruiting has been very badly hurt by the ongoing investigation, we might actually be at a point where unc wants to get a resolution to all this.
If they don't, they're going to continue to miss on most of their top targets.

[kAzE]

In all seriousness, I would prefer that the NCAA take away the titles and wins which were affected by the academic fraud (if the basketball program was indeed guilty of these allegations). I hope they do not impose the death penalty or any future postseason bans. The players and coaches who were a part of the scandal should suffer the consequences. Kids who have done nothing wrong (other than choosing to play for UNC) should not be punished for this. It would be extremely disappointing to see the same mistakes from the Louisville stripper fiasco repeated.

[budwom]

In all seriousness, I would prefer that the NCAA take away the titles and wins which were affected by the academic fraud. I hope they do not impose the death penalty or any future postseason bans. The players and coaches who were a part of the scandal should suffer the consequences. Kids who have done nothing wrong (other than choosing to play for UNC) should not be punished for this. It would be extremely disappointing to see the same mistakes from the Louisville stripper fiasco repeated.

I see zero chance of the death penalty. But I heartily endorse the notion of a post season ban of at least two years. Just my personal preference...plus a banner or two, of course.
(and remember, it wasn't "academic fraud" if you like following the ncaa to the corner into which they've painted themselves, it was impermissible benefits...ha, ha, ha.)

[kAzE]

I see zero chance of the death penalty. But I heartily endorse the notion of a post season ban of at least two years. Just my personal preference...plus a banner or two, of course.
(and remember, it wasn't "academic fraud" if you like following the ncaa to the corner into which they've painted themselves, it was impermissible benefits...ha, ha, ha.)

It just doesn't feel right to punish kids who were not a part of it. Vacating wins/titles, and suspending all coaches who were involved is an adequate and just punishment in my opinion. Besides, the stigma from this embarrassing scandal is likely to hurt their recruiting as it is, and there's no better feeling than beating UNC in the ACC tournament.

[Henderson]

It just doesn't feel right to punish kids who were not a part of it. Vacating wins/titles, and suspending all coaches who were involved is an adequate and just punishment in my opinion.

I respect the sentiment, and I'm often sympathetic to the players in such cases. But they chose to go to a school that cheats. What a post-season ban and/or coach's suspension says to recruits is, "If you want to play post-season basketball with a full roster for this coach, you better do your due diligence and make sure you are committing to a program that is squeaky clean and without ghosts in the closet."

No current player or recruit at UNC-CH has been blind-sided here.

[OldPhiKap]

It just doesn't feel right to punish kids who were not a part of it. Vacating wins/titles, and suspending all coaches who were involved is an adequate and just punishment in my opinion.

The NCAA could give them the option to transfer without penalty. Of course, it would help matters if they made a decision before late August when the semester starts.

I say:

1. Vacate all wins in all sports in which an ineligible player participated. Regular season, post season, whatever. This alone will vacate over a dozen national or conference championships between MBB, WBB and WSoc alone. I am unaware of an instance in which this minimal step was not taken.
2. Suspensions for all coaches who had ineligible players, length of suspension dependent on depth of that program's involvement. Emmert essentially said this last week.
3. Fine. (Rams Club will pay it anyway, so size is sorta irrelevant).
4. Post-season ban for 1-4 years for all implicated programs, depending on level and extent of involvement. Any current student could transfer and play immediately.
5. Scholarship and recruiting restrictions, again depending on level and extent of involvement.

They deserve worse, and the NCAA is impotent and feckless if it does less. (And yes, I know the last point is what keeps my otherwise-rational mind from being comfortable that justice will be fully served).

[oldnavy]

One would think that in a final four with both Boeheim and Roy present, Emmert can't really support punishing Jim for things he (allegedly) didn't know about but letting Roy skate for things he (allegedly) didn't know about. Especially when Roy was allegedly ignorant of a decade's worth of systematic practices.Again, the mind says that the biggest hammer short of the death penalty is about to fall. But I'll believe it when I see it. Let's just say that I find my own lack of faith disturbing on this point.

Ignorant, yet still concerned with the "clustering"... enough to step in and tell them to knock it off.....

So, yes he knew.

[OldPhiKap]

Ignorant, yet still concerned with the "clustering"... enough to step in and tell them to knock it off....

So, yes he knew.

He keeps a lot under that top hat.

[BluDvlsN1]

One would think that in a final four with both Boeheim and Roy present, Emmert can't really support punishing Jim for things he (allegedly) didn't know about but letting Roy skate for things he (allegedly) didn't know about. Especially when Roy was allegedly ignorant of a decade's worth of systematic practices.

Again, the mind says that the biggest hammer short of the death penalty is about to fall. But I'll believe it when I see it. Let's just say that I find my own lack of faith disturbing on this point.


I tend to agree, I'll also believe it when I see it.
The NCAA Trophy presentation last night was more like an "All Hail" unc and By the way Villanova here's the trophy.

[devilsadvocate85]

Two thoughts struck me last night at some point during the game:

1) Maybe all the obfuscation and delaying was designed to give Roy a shot at one title that the NCAA won't be taking away (implication being that UNC already knows the other two are gone).

2) We should have a quiet contest to see who can most accurately predict the penalties with guesses/predictions in the following areas:
a) number of titles vacated with years & sports
b) number of Men's BB wins vacated
c) length of post season ban

I've given up trying to imagine the financial penalty that might be involved.

The winner should get some type of special avatar or something next to their user name!

[Bostondevil]

Two Questions:

1. Wasn't it McCants' spring 2005 semester that had the 3 IS courses? Do student athletes become ineligible the semester they don't have the correct number of courses or fail to have a high (low?) enough GPA or is it the next semester they become ineligible?

2. What happened at Penn State was bad. I've seen the argument that if they didn't give PSU the death penalty, then how can the give it to unc, where the infractions weren't as horrendous. The unc issues are academic/extra benefit and did not cause physical/mental harm to children. But the academic/extra benefits at unc gave them a competitive advantage. Did what happened at PSU give them a competitive advantage? Could that be the difference and allow unc to have a harsher penalty?


(I should probably duck and run now?)

I agree that the UNC issues did not cause harm to children, but they did cause harm to UNC students. I've said it before, I'll say it here again, the people most harmed by this scandal are the tuition paying regular students who chose to go to UNC and major in African American Studies (and to a lesser extent Communications). Their degrees are national jokes even if they worked very hard for them. Imagine the ones who graduated with significant student loan debt for one of those degrees.

The athletes themselves were also harmed - they didn't get an education and certainly not every athlete who received the "benefit" of not getting an education has been able to make a career in sports.

If the NCAA does not bring severe penalties, they can expect to be sued by schools who have received harsh penalties in the past. SMU should be first up.

Discussions of the far reaching nature of the cheating always makes me think of Marion Jones. She was a communications major, btw. I've come to believe she learned to cheat at UNC. When we talk of vacated titles, I think the '94 women's title should be on the table too.

[devildeac]

He keeps a lot under that top hat.

Wait, are we talking about ol roy or ol larry? Or both? Or all the cheater coaches involved? ;)

[Atlanta Duke]

I agree with what you've laid out...but unc did already get a long and specific notice of allegations, so I assume a new notice would only cover the new (nonsense)
unc brought up a few months ago in order to further delay the process (the so-called self reported stuff). So I'm guessing that won't be a particularly long NOA...?

p.s. what I find interesting is that we may be at a tipping point here. unc's strategy of delaying, denying and obfuscating nearly worked, they almost nabbed another title.
But since Ol' Roy's recent recruiting has been very badly hurt by the ongoing investigation, we might actually be at a point where unc wants to get a resolution to all this.
If they don't, they're going to continue to miss on most of their top targets.

Agreed - UNC took some major hits in the national media once this became part of the Final Four news cycle while some writers specifically unloaded on their disdain for the Folksy Roy/Bitter Roy show (which the N&O noted was pretty much business as usual for those who cover Carolina basketball). It is very nice that Bill Raftery took the time to note midway through the second half last night how great it was that the current team attends classes, but that only reminds casual viewers what has occurred previously.

The cost of postponing this was worth the potential benefit of a championship but that ended as badly as could be hoped. Now time to try and settle up accounts.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I respect the sentiment, and I'm often sympathetic to the players in such cases. But they chose to go to a school that cheats. What a post-season ban and/or coach's suspension says to recruits is, "If you want to play post-season basketball with a full roster for this coach, you better do your due diligence and make sure you are committing to a program that is squeaky clean and without ghosts in the closet."

No current player or recruit at UNC-CH has been blind-sided here.
Exactly. They listened to the load that Roy and The Hat fed them, they took that gamble. They can transfer out if they wish. (Which is exactly what many did on the women's team when they saw the writing on the wall.)

[FerryFor50]

I respect the sentiment, and I'm often sympathetic to the players in such cases. But they chose to go to a school that cheats. What a post-season ban and/or coach's suspension says to recruits is, "If you want to play post-season basketball with a full roster for this coach, you better do your due diligence and make sure you are committing to a program that is squeaky clean and without ghosts in the closet."

No current player or recruit at UNC-CH has been blind-sided here.

Agreed.

You have to wonder, too - did the current crop of kids know?

There had to be side discussions with former players, etc that did the *wink wink* when talking about classes at UNC, or even out and out admitting what a sham it was. Stuff that always floated as "rumor" that everyone knew to be true.

[Henderson]

The NCAA could give them the option to transfer without penalty.

An obvious solution. How can this not be the rule? If your school screwed you over, what do you owe to them?

[tux]

An obvious solution. How can this not be the rule? If your school screwed you over, what do you owe to them?

I tend to agree with the general line of thought in the last couple of posts, but what do you guys think about the utilitarian argument that it's harmful to reduce scholarships as this basically removes an opportunity from some kid down the line that then gets pushed out of his scholarship. I.e., there are only a finite amount...

[BigWayne]

That article says that the final notice of allegations - not a resolution to the scandal - will come in the next month or so. Which, I guess, could eventually lead to a decision sometime over the following months thereafter. But I don't know that we're going to have a resolution anytime soon. UNC would then have 90 days to respond to the NOA. Then, they'd schedule a hearing before the Committee on Infractions. Then, UNC could decide to appeal the results of that hearing. If so, it'd go to an appeals hearing. And then it would be final.

So it sounds like all the NOA will do is let UNC officially and finally know what they're charged with. Then, sometime over the next 3-6 months after that, we may have a penalty doled out.
If the NCAA does issue a revised NOA next month, it's likely to have a bunch of new stuff in it. The minor issues UNC threw out last August to create the delay wouldn't take 8 months to write up. There are any number of things that could be added, including specific allegations for Roy if someone at the NCAA is fed up with him going on national TV repeatedly lying about how MBB has no allegations.

[oldnavy]

Agreed.

You have to wonder, too - did the current crop of kids know?

There had to be side discussions with former players, etc that did the *wink wink* when talking about classes at UNC, or even out and out admitting what a sham it was. Stuff that always floated as "rumor" that everyone knew to be true.

How much did UNC's success during their cheating years influenced the current crop of heels? If UNC had more years like the NIT runner-up season instead of the 05 and 09 NC's... do these kids even "want" to go to UNC? Is UNC a hot school for top prospects? Is Roy still the coach?

All of this is intertwined and you cannot separate the current players from the past because they are part of a continuum. Granted the current players may not be taking fake classes now, but they are reaping the benefit of those that did. The only way to make a break is for the proper punishment to be given out. Once UNC has taken it's fair punishment and repented from their cheating ways, we can move on and place a dividing rod within the program. Until then, these kids, these coaches, these administrators are reaping the benefits of two NC's and all the "branding" that comes with their success.

[OldPhiKap]

I tend to agree with the general line of thought in the last couple of posts, but what do you guys think about the utilitarian argument that it's harmful to reduce scholarships as this basically removes an opportunity from some kid down the line that then gets pushed out of his scholarship. I.e., there are only a finite amount...

My thoughts:

1. If you are good enough to get a scholarship at UNC, there are plenty of teams and schools that would love to have you.

2. If you assume that everyone shifts down, all the way to D-II (or whatever we call it these days), a loss of four scholarships nationally means that the last four players in the country that would have gotten scholarships may not get them. That seems like an awfully remote worry to stop a direct punishment of an institution that cheats.

[devildeac]

My thoughts:

1. If you are good enough to get a scholarship at UNC, there are plenty of teams and schools that would love to have you.

2. If you assume that everyone shifts down, all the way to D-II (or whatever we call it these days), a loss of four scholarships nationally means that the last four players in the country that would have gotten scholarships may not get them. That seems like an awfully remote worry to stop a direct punishment of an institution that cheats.

If scholarships are "lost" from MBB, FB, WBB, BB and WS, can they be re-distributed to other sports?

[Bostondevil]

If scholarships are "lost" from MBB, FB, WBB, BB and WS, can they be re-distributed to other sports?

Forget other sports - throw that money into the general financial aid pool.

[OldPhiKap]

If scholarships are "lost" from MBB, FB, WBB, BB and WS, can they be re-distributed to other sports?

Good question. In the "OPK Is King" world ( -- which rocks, btw -- ) I would say that a school could not do that because it increases the competitiveness of other sports that otherwise would not be as well-funded. But I do not know the rule. I guess this would be more scholarships for non-revenue sports like field hockey, swim teams, etc.? I could kind of go either way on that I guess without a whole lot of heartburn.

[ikiru36]

Good question. In the "OPK Is King" world ( -- which rocks, btw -- ) I would say that a school could not do that because it increases the competitiveness of other sports that otherwise would not be as well-funded. But I do not know the rule. I guess this would be more scholarships for non-revenue sports like field hockey, swim teams, etc.? I could kind of go either way on that I guess without a whole lot of heartburn.

How about they get redistributed to the nearest intra-conference foe, by distance, as they are the most likely to have been at competitive disadvantage in recruiting efforts during the period of cheating? Just a thought? ;)

[devildeac]

Forget other sports - throw that money into the general financial aid pool.

I thought of any possible Title IX implications but I'd roll with your idea, too.

[grad_devil]

It just doesn't feel right to punish kids who were not a part of it. Vacating wins/titles, and suspending all coaches who were involved is an adequate and just punishment in my opinion. Besides, the stigma from this embarrassing scandal is likely to hurt their recruiting as it is, and there's no better feeling than beating UNC in the ACC tournament.

A friend and I were talking, and he said "Why not give them a postseason ban (or multiple), but why not let it begin in 2-3 years? Let the current kids play their way out of the system (or transfer w/o penalty), and any new recruits who sign go in with eyes wide open?"

I thought it was novel - what say you, DBR citizens?

[PackMan97]

If scholarships are "lost" from MBB, FB, WBB, BB and WS, can they be re-distributed to other sports?

I imagine they could. It's all Ram's Club money anyways. The challenge is Title IX. They can't just give that money to a women's sport for three years and then take it back and return it to a men's sport. There would be some SERIOUS issues with that.

Now if they did something maybe where they gave one more scholarship to the wrestling team and one to the women's tennis team and were very careful to keep it balance for Title IX purposes....perhaps. However, my gut tells me giving something temporary to a women's non-revenue and then trying to claw it back later is going to be problematic.

[PackMan97]

A friend and I were talking, and he said "Why not give them a postseason ban (or multiple), but why not let it begin in 2-3 years? Let the current kids play their way out of the system (or transfer w/o penalty), and any new recruits who sign go in with eyes wide open."

I thought it was novel - what say you, DBR citizens?

No. No. and h-e double hockey sticks NO!

The current kids joined during the scandal. They were able to read the reports. See the NOA. Read the articles. If they believed a bunch of lying cheaters and their handlers, they deserve what they get.

That said, I am in favor of letting current kids leave free of the transfer penalty.

[BLPOG]

A friend and I were talking, and he said "Why not give them a postseason ban (or multiple), but why not let it begin in 2-3 years? Let the current kids play their way out of the system (or transfer w/o penalty), and any new recruits who sign go in with eyes wide open?"

I thought it was novel - what say you, DBR citizens?

I've thought for a long while that should be the general practice with the postseason ban/scholarship reduction penalties, while still allowing players to transfer. It effectively negates the "punishing current players" argument and makes every case like this one - recruits would have enough time to do their research and wouldn't be able to credibly claim they didn't know.

However, the delay would have to be offered as an option, not a mandate, to the school, because otherwise it would result in an arguably greater penalty to the program than before, since it would affect recruiting in the interim for the players who would eventually be on penalized rosters. I'd guess that in most cases schools would choose not to delay, or delay only one season, in order to avoid the enhanced effective penalty. By making it a choice, though, it adds an additional degree of fairness beyond just allowing transfers.

[swood1000]

No. No. and h-e double hockey sticks NO!

The current kids joined during the scandal. They were able to read the reports. See the NOA. Read the articles. If they believed a bunch of lying cheaters and their handlers, they deserve what they get.

That said, I am in favor of letting current kids leave free of the transfer penalty.
The problem with letting all athletes leave without restriction who would be affected by even a one year penalty is that
 
a. even a one-year penalty winds up being like a death penalty if there is a mass exodus

b. schools in the situation of UNC would not suffer a decline in their recruiting after the scandal is made public but before they are hit with the penalty. There would be no reason for athletes to shy away because there would be no risk in attending. So you would lose a part of the penalty that currently exists.

[BigWayne]

If scholarships are "lost" from MBB, FB, WBB, BB and WS, can they be re-distributed to other sports?

UNC has long been able to fund the full allowed scholarships for every team they field. I recall back in the 80s, this was one of the issues we had competing with them in non revenue sports like lacrosse. The NCAA limits how many scholarships each team can have. (http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html) The only way you could redistribute them would be to temporarily add a team they don't currently have.

[hsheffield]

Syracuse had 108 wins vacated.

won't UNC also have wins vacated related to their scandal?

so how can UNC keep the banners for games they didn't win?

[oldnavy]

Syracuse had 108 wins vacated.

won't UNC also have wins vacated related to their scandal?

so how can UNC keep the banners for games they didn't win?

You get it, no explanation needed.

The problem is, will the NCAA get it?

[hsheffield]

do Illinois and Michigan State get the banners UNC stole from them?

[CDu]

Syracuse had 108 wins vacated.

won't UNC also have wins vacated related to their scandal?

so how can UNC keep the banners for games they didn't win?

It all depends on which wins get vacated. Syracuse's wins vacated were conveniently after the 2003 title. Don't be shocked if the NCAA dances around the title years (especially 2009).

[OldPhiKap]

I thought of any possible Title IX implications but I'd roll with your idea, too.

Remember the days when we had to worry about running out of basketball scholarships?

Good times.

[hurleyfor3]

Remember the days when we had to worry about running out of basketball scholarships?

Good times.

Didn't it actually happen? Lee Melchionni paid his own way for at least a year.

[wilson]

Didn't it actually happen? Lee Melchionni paid his own way for at least a year.That was owing to NCAA regulations rather than a lack of program funding. Justin Robinson is currently in a similar situation.

[hurleyfor3]

That was owing to NCAA regulations rather than a lack of program funding. Justin Robinson is currently in a similar situation.

That's what I meant -- we had "too many" scholarship players, so Lee paid tuition and thus was technically a walk-on.

[OldPhiKap]

That's what I meant -- we had "too many" scholarship players, so Lee paid tuition and thus was technically a walk-on.

Trajan Langdon was a Padres signee and therefore was not at Duke on a basketball scholarship, IIRC.

[CDu]

That was owing to NCAA regulations rather than a lack of program funding. Justin Robinson is currently in a similar situation.

Sort of. Melchionni was a reasonably well-recruited player who got screwed by the NCAA's 8/5 rule (specifically the "5" part). Robinson was a non-recruited player who happened to get the extra available scholarship this year but won't next year (due to the 13 scholarship limit). But certainly not due to a lack of funding.

[wilson]

Sort of. Melchionni was a reasonably well-recruited player who got screwed by the NCAA's 8/5 rule (specifically the "5" part). Robinson was a non-recruited player who happened to get the extra available scholarship this year but won't next year (due to the 13 scholarship limit). But certainly not due to a lack of funding.This is a more nuanced explanation of what I was trying to say...both Melchionni and Robinson fell victim (perhaps to differing degrees) to NCAA regulations...they may have been different regulations, but they're both regulatory matters. Thanks for the added detail.

[sagegrouse]

Didn't it actually happen? Lee Melchionni paid his own way for at least a year.


That's what I meant -- we had "too many" scholarship players, so Lee paid tuition and thus was technically a walk-on.

I think the issue was a maximum on number of new recruits in a single year. That rule has since been tossed out. The 2002-2003 roster shows as freshmen -- JJ, Shel, Shav, Dockery and Michael Thompson in addition to Lee. I guess the max was five.

[Olympic Fan]

do Illinois and Michigan State get the banners UNC stole from them?

No ... even if UNC's two titles are vacated.

There is a difference between vacated and forfeited ... with a forfeit, the team that lost gets to claim a win.

With a vacated game, the victim of the crooked program can remove a vacated game from its record as a loss ... but cannot claim it as a win. This came up with the football games that UNC vacated due to the first cheating scandal in 2011. There are actually several losses to UNC that Duke COULD remove from its record but has so far chosen not to.

[wilson]

No ... even if UNC's two titles are vacated.

There is a difference between vacated and forfeited ... with a forfeit, the team that lost gets to claim a win.

With a vacated game, the victim of the crooked program can remove a vacated game from its record as a loss ... but cannot claim it as a win. This came up with the football games that UNC vacated due to the first cheating scandal in 2011. There are actually several losses to UNC that Duke COULD remove from its record but has so far chosen not to.Can we take them off if Ted Roof hurts his back?
*ducks*

[Duke95]

It all depends on which wins get vacated. Syracuse's wins vacated were conveniently after the 2003 title. Don't be shocked if the NCAA dances around the title years (especially 2009).

I would be shocked, not because I have any faith in the NCAA, but because it would be utterly stupid of them to do so. The NCAA would be putting themselves at great risk by protecting UNC's banners, while gaining nothing. The evidence will continue to mount against those banners as more documents are released and more media (and non-media) dig into the story.

[CDu]

This is a more nuanced explanation of what I was trying to say...both Melchionni and Robinson fell victim (perhaps to differing degrees) to NCAA regulations...they may have been different regulations, but they're both regulatory matters. Thanks for the added detail.

Yeah, my response was definitely getting into the weeds. Your point was (and is) definitely valid that it wasn't finances that cost Melchionni and likely Robinson a scholarship.

[Indoor66]

A friend and I were talking, and he said "Why not give them a postseason ban (or multiple), but why not let it begin in 2-3 years? Let the current kids play their way out of the system (or transfer w/o penalty), and any new recruits who sign go in with eyes wide open?"

I thought it was novel - what say you, DBR citizens?

It is novel but does not address the issue being penalized. It is the University that is penalized for conduct in violation of rules that the University voluntarily agreed to by joining the NCAA. The effect on the student athletes is the result of University decisions. If the students are short-changed, so to speak, it is the fault of the University and there is where their complaint lies. Allow them to transfer with no penalty. If probation results in a multi-year down period, so be it. In this case there is admitted and evidentiary cheating from 1988 to 2011 (and later, I am sure). That is 23 years. Five years of probation and any resultant lesser status in athletics is not unreasonable or unfair.

[sagegrouse]

I would be shocked, not because I have any faith in the NCAA, but because it would be utterly stupid of them to do so. The NCAA would be putting themselves at great risk by protecting UNC's banners, while gaining nothing. The evidence will continue to mount against those banners as more documents are released and more media (and non-media) dig into the story.

Look, there are certainly politics and negotiations in all NCAA penalties. That said, it seems that "vacated" wins and championships are arrived at through mechanical means. Were there players who were not eligible, given the violations that occurred? In the case of UNC basketball, that would seem to arrived at by looking at every players transcript and doing some calculations. I dunno where that's gonna end up.

[MarkD83]

In the past swood and others have done a good job of looking through NCAA rules and seeing what penalties are warranted based on NCAA by-laws and what penalties are comparable to what other schools have received.

Calculating penalties based on these two criteria is using our minds rather than our guts. So why should we use our minds instead of our guts. As mentioned in other threads the NCAA is in the middle of several lawsuits that will affect the court's view of the NCAA. This means there is a watchdog that can make life difficult for the NCAA if they do not take a logical approach to penalties in the UNC case. Add to that it has been stated that NCAA lawyers have been talking to COI members about the lawsuits, so the COI members know they can not stray to far from the by-laws.

What makes us think that the "gut-like" lenient penalties will be given are comments from Emerett that UNC has been cooperating. This sounds like a negotiation that would favor lenient "gut-like" penalties. However, it is an NCAA violation if the school does NOT cooperate. In fact two of the infractions are for lack of cooperation. In addition, the NOA requires that UNC supply additional information. Here is a copy of the NOA for reference.

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

So I favor the logical approach to calculating penalties. In the logical approach I start with what the UNC football team received as a penalty for :

"• A former tutor "constructed significant parts of writing assignments" for three players, provided more than $4,000 in impermissible benefits to players after she graduated and refused to cooperate with the investigation.

• Seven players accepted more than $27,500 in benefits, including cash, flights, meals, lodging, athletic training, admission to clubs and jewelry. One player received more than $13,500 in cash and gifts.

• The program allowed a former player, who was determined by the NCAA to be an agent runner, to have regular access to current student-athletes at its athletic facilities without any oversight. "

This quote is from http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7677271/north-carolina-tar-heels-handed-postseason-ban-2012-ncaa

For these infractions that involved 10 total players and occurred over a 2-3 year period, UNC football 1) vacated 2 years worth of wins, 2) was banned for 1 year of post-season play, 3) vacated 9 scholarships over three years (3/year; Is this even a penalty on a football team?) and 4) was placed on 2 years probation. There were no monetary penalties (at least none that I saw in the article). UNC self-imposed the vacating of wins and the loss of scholarships, so they admitted some guilt as they moved forward.

On the other side of the ledger is the death penalty. According to the NCAA rules it applies to repeat offenders who are on probation so last May when UNC received the NOA listed above the were technically off probation, so the NCAA has a logical explanation to not enforce the death penalty.

http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-penalties

However, how severe is the death penalty. The above link says that the DP can be for 1-2 years where schools can not participate and coaches can not coach at the institution. (There are a few more details but no mention of monetary penalties or vacated wins.

Now then my logical prediction if we just look at one sport, MBB, that has 13 scholarships. A defacto death penalty would be to reduce the number of scholarships in half. (Can a team even compete with just 6 players playing? Yes this year's Duke team). The UNC football team lost ~3 % of their scholarships for a 2-3 year issue involving ~16% of their team. By a quick count of AFAM majors the MBB team had 80-90% of their team involved in an issue that lasted 6 times as long. That would calculate up to a 20% scholarship reduction for 15 years (that is a really ridiculous time frame). All wins would also be vacated since that is what the UNC football team did. Finally, that leads to a 5 year post season ban. This is by default a death penalty.

The Ram's club can probably buy their way out of some of this since the NCAA will need money in case the court cases turn against the NCAA. So my prediction.

1. Enough money to cover the cost of any law suits that the NCAA loses. (This reduces the other penalties.)
2. Loss of 3 scholarships for 3 years.
3. Vacate wins from 2002-2011. This has no monetary or long term consequences for the program and should be a no brainer for UNC to accept just as they did for the football team.
4. Post-season ban for the 3 years coinciding with the loss of scholarships.

In fact, if UNC were smart they would have offered all of this up a while ago. Now with their recruiting in a tailspin maybe they will consider this as a self-imposed penalty.



What am I thinking UNC has taken every single mis-step possible just to get to last night and they lost...so hammer them with the DP!!!!

[Skitzle]

The sham noa delay, the ncaa compliance of not sending out a revised noa during the season, and emmerts talk of "cooperation" are all signs that say to me that the banners stay up.

Anything less than the banners coming down is UNC getting off easy.

[BigWayne]

The Ram's club can probably buy their way out of some of this since the NCAA will need money in case the court cases turn against the NCAA. So my prediction.

1. Enough money to cover the cost of any law suits that the NCAA loses. (This reduces the other penalties.)
2. Loss of 3 scholarships for 3 years.
3. Vacate wins from 2002-2011. This has no monetary or long term consequences for the program and should be a no brainer for UNC to accept just as they did for the football team.
4. Post-season ban for the 3 years coinciding with the loss of scholarships.

In fact, if UNC were smart they would have offered all of this up a while ago. Now with their recruiting in a tailspin maybe they will consider this as a self-imposed penalty.



What am I thinking UNC has taken every single mis-step possible just to get to last night and they lost...so hammer them with the DP!!!!

Even the Ram's club does not have that kind of money. If the NCAA loses these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs are going after the march madness money.

[lotusland]

I imagine they could. It's all Ram's Club money anyways. The challenge is Title IX. They can't just give that money to a women's sport for three years and then take it back and return it to a men's sport. There would be some SERIOUS issues with that.

Now if they did something maybe where they gave one more scholarship to the wrestling team and one to the women's tennis team and were very careful to keep it balance for Title IX purposes...perhaps. However, my gut tells me giving something temporary to a women's non-revenue and then trying to claw it back later is going to be problematic.
That doesn't seem right. Isn't there a limit on the number of wrestling scholarships a team can offer? Seems like that would be a nice competitive advantage for their wrestling team. It might not be important to the unc faithful but acc athletes and coaches competing against unc in wrestking wouldn't like it.

[OldPhiKap]

The sham noa delay, the ncaa compliance of not sending out a revised noa during the season, and emmerts talk of "cooperation" are all signs that say to me that the banners stay up.

Anything less than the banners coming down is UNC getting off easy.

I have this concern too, but let me ask the group:

1. If there is still a revised NOA coming, then wouldn't it be the case that the COI has not met or discussed it yet?
2. Related -- can the NCAA and an institution bypass the COI in making a plea deal? Or is the COI the one that needs to recommend accepting a deal?

While I do not have a lot of faith in the NCAA as an institution, the COI is made up of some serious people who do have to think about precedent and their personal reputations.

I guess at core, I'm not sure who "the NCAA" is in this context -- Emmert or the COI.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I disagree with the general sentiment here that the current kids deserve some punishment and ought to suffer with the program.

The decisions of a 16 or 17 year old kid to trust a coach's assertion regarding the scandal and forthcoming punishments doesn't warrant them being tossed into the same bucket as the athletic department's plotting and scheming.

A kid who dreams of playing high level college ball who has Roy sit in his living room and tell him there's nothing to worry about ought to have a reasonable expectation that he is being told the truth.

Now, if some players go down as collateral damage to the program, those kids ought to be mad as (go to) hell (Carolina) at thr coaches and be able to jump into a program at their earliest possibility.

To me, it is just a different angle on the supreme irony of the NCAA saying they act to protect the students in cases like this, while they appear so hamstrung and impotent in this scandal.

As they say, "don't hate the player, hate the game." In this instance, the game is UNC, the players are, well, the players.

[hudlow]

I disagree with the general sentiment here that the current kids deserve some punishment and ought to suffer with the program.

The decisions of a 16 or 17 year old kid to trust a coach's assertion regarding the scandal and forthcoming punishments doesn't warrant them being tossed into the same bucket as the athletic department's plotting and scheming.

A kid who dreams of playing high level college ball who has Roy sit in his living room and tell him there's nothing to worry about ought to have a reasonable expectation that he is being told the truth.

Now, if some players go down as collateral damage to the program, those kids ought to be mad as (go to) hell (Carolina) at thr coaches and be able to jump into a program at their earliest possibility.

To me, it is just a different angle on the supreme irony of the NCAA saying they act to protect the students in cases like this, while they appear so hamstrung and impotent in this scandal.

As they say, "don't hate the player, hate the game." In this instance, the game is UNC, the players are, well, the players.

...or the "played"

[sagegrouse]

The Ram's club can probably buy their way out of some of this since the NCAA will need money in case the court cases turn against the NCAA. So my prediction.

1. Enough money to cover the cost of any law suits that the NCAA loses. (This reduces the other penalties.)
2. Loss of 3 scholarships for 3 years.
3. Vacate wins from 2002-2011. This has no monetary or long term consequences for the program and should be a no brainer for UNC to accept just as they did for the football team.
4. Post-season ban for the 3 years coinciding with the loss of scholarships.

In fact, if UNC were smart they would have offered all of this up a while ago. Now with their recruiting in a tailspin maybe they will consider this as a self-imposed penalty.

What am I thinking UNC has taken every single mis-step possible just to get to last night and they lost...so hammer them with the DP!!!!

Thanks for thinking through this, Mark. A few comments, not all tongue-in-cheek:

UNC's basis for suing is restricted. It joined a private organization and agreed to be bound by its rules and procedures. Of course, UNC is paying lawyers big time to represent it before the NCAA and later during the appeal process.

You missed the sacrificial lambs. Will women's basketball receive the death penalty? Maybe not, but it will be close. And surely Sylvia Hatchell is toast. Maybe the same for Anson Dorrance, although I haven't followed women's soccer's transgressions so closely.

Due to the presumably harsh penalties on WBB and women's soccer, will men's basketball's penalties be reduced? I expect UNC to negotiate in that direction --to preserve its cash cow and premier program.

Surely there will be a monetary fine in the tens of millions, and I think UNC will accept a monetary penalty to preserve its championships. Those banners mean a lot to the Tar Heels.

Loss of scholarships and post-season bans for MBB: I think that's about right and may be the upper limit.

Moreover, will the coaches be suspended?

Anyway, thanks again for your analysis.

[sagegrouse]

I have this concern too, but let me ask the group:

1. If there is still a revised NOA coming, then wouldn't it be the case that the COI has not met or discussed it yet?
2. Related -- can the NCAA and an institution bypass the COI in making a plea deal? Or is the COI the one that needs to recommend accepting a deal?

While I do not have a lot of faith in the NCAA as an institution, the COI is made up of some serious people who do have to think about precedent and their personal reputations.

I guess at core, I'm not sure who "the NCAA" is in this context -- Emmert or the COI.

Emmert is the CEO and chief spokesman. Penalties and enforcement are vested in the Committee on Infractions and in the Infractions Appeal Committee. Investigators are employees of the NCAA, but presumably the COI has the ability to steer the investigation.

As Kevin White reminded us a few months ago, "The NCAA is an organization created to administer rules enacted by the schools." The penalties come from the COI, which consists of school and conference reps and private citizens.

[sammy3469]

No ... even if UNC's two titles are vacated.

There is a difference between vacated and forfeited ... with a forfeit, the team that lost gets to claim a win.

With a vacated game, the victim of the crooked program can remove a vacated game from its record as a loss ... but cannot claim it as a win. This came up with the football games that UNC vacated due to the first cheating scandal in 2011. There are actually several losses to UNC that Duke COULD remove from its record but has so far chosen not to.

Yeah, the 1990 Syracuse lacrosse title* was later vacated by the NCAA. Guess what, the result is still on their own website with a tiny little asterisk by the Syracuse name that takes you to an explanation of the violation (same with the Michigan or Memphis runner-up years in MBB). Big whoop. I sort of feel the whole "vacate" thing is a big canard at this point. All it will really do is put an asterisk on the '05 and '09 results, and then we'll get to argue and be pissed off every time ESPN says they "won" 5 titles. Much more important in the grand competitive scheme of things, is the MBB receiving a 4 year postseason ban and Roy getting what should come to him.

http://www.ncaa.com/history/lacrosse-men/d1
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/champs_records_book/1999-00/m_lacrosse.pdf

[OldPhiKap]

Emmert is the CEO and chief spokesman. Penalties and enforcement are vested in the Committee on Infractions and in the Infractions Appeal Committee. Investigators are employees of the NCAA, but presumably the COI has the ability to steer the investigation.

As Kevin White reminded us a few months ago, "The NCAA is an organization created to administer rules enacted by the schools." The penalties come from the COI, which consists of school and conference reps and private citizens.

Thanks, sage. This makes me feel better about the process. If there is anyone who should be cheesed off about this, it is the institutions that are trying to compete while following the rules. And some (like UGa and USC) that have felt the whip for much smaller offenses.

So I am guessing that there cannot be any real bargaining before the new NOI comes out, and that Emmert really has no power to give UNC binding assurances at this point. Which makes much of the tea leaf reading for the last year kinda pointless.

[Duke95]

Emmert is the CEO and chief spokesman. Penalties and enforcement are vested in the Committee on Infractions and in the Infractions Appeal Committee. Investigators are employees of the NCAA, but presumably the COI has the ability to steer the investigation.

As Kevin White reminded us a few months ago, "The NCAA is an organization created to administer rules enacted by the schools." The penalties come from the COI, which consists of school and conference reps and private citizens.

Exactly.

Mark Emmert is a figurehead. NCAA just kept him because nobody else wants to be NCAA president. He's not making the punishment decisions. All the NCAA cares about with regard to UNC is a) not getting another lawsuit, which is unlikely anyway, since UNC would open itself to massive discovery, and b) not making a decision that would imperil its position in the existing lawsuits.

[OldPhiKap]

Exactly.

Mark Emmert is a figurehead. NCAA just kept him because nobody else wants to be NCAA president. He's not making the punishment decisions. All the NCAA cares about with regard to UNC is a) not getting another lawsuit, which is unlikely anyway, since UNC would open itself to massive discovery, and b) not making a decision that would imperil its position in the existing lawsuits.

But here, there is a distinction between "the NCAA" as an institution and the COI that "mak[es] the decision," no? That's what I am driving at with my question upthread. I know that the members of the COI largely are representatives of several member institutions, but that is distinct from the administrative body or the collective group of representatives that constitute "the NCAA." IF the COI decides to do something, they have the power to do it (subject to appellate and perhaps court review) without a veto from some other collective body of administrators who otherwise seek to further their (perhaps conflicting) interests. Right? (Asking, not stating)

[sammy3469]

I have this concern too, but let me ask the group:

1. If there is still a revised NOA coming, then wouldn't it be the case that the COI has not met or discussed it yet?
2. Related -- can the NCAA and an institution bypass the COI in making a plea deal? Or is the COI the one that needs to recommend accepting a deal?

While I do not have a lot of faith in the NCAA as an institution, the COI is made up of some serious people who do have to think about precedent and their personal reputations.

I guess at core, I'm not sure who "the NCAA" is in this context -- Emmert or the COI.

1. When Enforcement put out the original NOA, the case was assigned to a COI panel (and the chair of COI was probably involved with enforcement even before that, but that's a more confusing). So a COI panel has at least seen the original NOA.

2. They cannot bypass that COI hearing panel. Even if enforcement and UNC agree to the summary disposition process that agreement still has to be presented to the COI hearing panel for approval (ie the COI still has to approve the findings of fact). There's also the nugget that only UNC can propose penalties for Level 1 and 2 violations. Enforcement cannot agree to them; only the COI panel has to endure they meet the penalties prescribed in Bylaw 19.

Now, the big reason why the NCAA might want to go this route in this case is that if UNC ultimately agrees with the COI panel, they cannot appeal the ruling. Unlike a full hearing, that's the end of the road and would put an end to this for the NCAA. Further, if the COI hearing panel does modify the penalties, only the penalties can be appealed to Infractions Appeal Committee. Basically, it would get UNC to admit guilt (whatever you want to say that guilt is).

So basically Emmert can be out there spouting how cooperative UNC has been if they've both decided they want a Summary Disposition process now, without it really affecting the COI panels determination of what the sanctions should be. Having UNC agree to the facts, is hugely important to the NCAA to prevent another USC fiasco (and is probably why no one besides Boxill, Julius, or Crowder has an explicit allegation against them in the original NOA).

Now having said all that, the mere fact that there is a NOA and the fact that Emmert and UNC both say they are expecting a new NOA, means that they are not in the summary disposition process as an NOA implies the two sides don't agree on the facts.

[Channing]

It's about the school and the program. Punishment is for the program, and may affect "students" currently on the team. It is very unfortunate and perhaps unfair to current students, but, as anyone in the real world knows, life isn't fair. There is a free transfer policy in place for players who will graduate during a penalty year. No need to give everyone a free ride out.

Also, while banners coming down would be great, I don't think it will reallyhave an impact on the program prospectively. These are guys who still claim a bakery championship; they will continue to champion and claim the lost championships. . Post season bans and scholarship reductions will have the biggest impact on the program on a go forward basis, because the pain will be felt currently.

[Stray Gator]

. . . Surely there will be a monetary fine in the tens of millions, and I think UNC will accept a monetary penalty to preserve its championships. Those banners mean a lot to the Tar Heels.

Loss of scholarships and post-season bans for MBB: I think that's about right and may be the upper limit. . . .

The problem with this result -- which ought to make the NCAA wary of negotiating any such deal -- is that it would be immediately recognized and widely denounced as a thinly disguised artifice for enabling the school to "buy" those championships. Simply stated, it sends the message that a school can effectively violate the rules and cheat competitors in order to procure an NCAA national championship (or two or three) as long as the school (and/or its boosters) are willing to pay a ransom to the NCAA if caught.

We know that even if the NCAA strips titles, UNC and its fans will thumb their collective noses while continuing to display the banners and count the vacated championships, proclaiming indignantly that their teams "won those titles on the court." But their defiance will be seen by everyone else (with the possible exception of a few apologists in the media) as nothing more than the pathetic whining of a disgraced program wallowing in shameless denial.

However, if the NCAA allows UNC to retain titles that were obtained by fraudulent means -- using players that were in fact ineligible -- that would effectively validate their right to keep and enjoy the fruits of a poisonous tree. Can the NCAA withstand the reaction from other member institutions and the public if it permits UNC to benefit from its wrongful conduct by allowing the school to "pay off" the authorities for its misbegotten gains?

[OldPhiKap]

1. When Enforcement put out the original NOA, the case was assigned to a COI panel (and the chair of COI was probably involved with enforcement even before that, but that's a more confusing). So a COI panel has at least seen the original NOA.

2. They cannot bypass that COI hearing panel. Even if enforcement and UNC agree to the summary disposition process that agreement still has to be presented to the COI hearing panel for approval (ie the COI still has to approve the findings of fact). There's also the nugget that only UNC can propose penalties for Level 1 and 2 violations. Enforcement cannot agree to them; only the COI panel has to endure they meet the penalties prescribed in Bylaw 19.

Now, the big reason why the NCAA might want to go this route in this case is that if UNC ultimately agrees with the COI panel, they cannot appeal the ruling. Unlike a full hearing, that's the end of the road and would put an end to this for the NCAA. Further, if the COI hearing panel does modify the penalties, only the penalties can be appealed to Infractions Appeal Committee. Basically, it would get UNC to admit guilt (whatever you want to say that guilt is).

So basically Emmert can be out there spouting how cooperative UNC has been if they've both decided they want a Summary Disposition process now, without it really affecting the COI panels determination of what the sanctions should be. Having UNC agree to the facts, is hugely important to the NCAA to prevent another USC fiasco (and is probably why no one besides Boxill, Julius, or Crowder has an explicit allegation against them in the original NOA).

Now having said all that, the mere fact that there is a NOA and the fact that Emmert and UNC both say they are expecting a new NOA, means that they are not in the summary disposition process as an NOA implies the two sides don't agree on the facts.

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thorough response! The two bolded sections go to the heart of what I was trying to articulate in my questions.

[Henderson]

I just binge-read the entire thread. My immediate reaction was: What an incredible variety of smart voices weighing in. I'm not going to mention individuals, but those of you who've been providing input know who you are. Thanks to all of you.

I kind of feel like we're in an information-overload/wait and see position. What could be said about the just, likely, or unlikely punishment has been said. I've reached my maximum input threshold on this question. Nothing left to do or say about the matter until we hear something official.

[dukebluesincebirth]

I just binge-read the entire thread. My immediate reaction was: What an incredible variety of smart voices weighing in. I'm not going to mention individuals, but those of you who've been providing input know who you are. Thanks to all of you.

I kind of feel like we're in an information-overload/wait and see position. What could be said about the just, likely, or unlikely punishment has been said. I've reached my maximum input threshold on this question. Nothing left to do or say about the matter until we hear something official.

Completely agree...DBR has been my go-to source of info on all of this, and posters on here (much smarter than I) have done an awesome job explaining. Thanks guys/gals! Now it's just tick tock tick tock tick tock until something is released...I guess we could pass the time by re-watching that Kris Jenkins shot over and over again!:)

[sammy3469]

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thorough response! The two bolded sections go to the heart of what I was trying to articulate in my questions.

The one caveat in all this discussion, is the real power guy in this discussion isn't be Emmert, but rather Greg Sankey, the current SEC commissioner and Chair of the COI. He's the one determining the NOA process, etc, the one that controls the SEC money, is a witness in many of the suits against the NCAA including the O'Bannon one, etc. UNC's ultimate fate is much more in his hands than Emmert's.

[OldPhiKap]

The one caveat in all this discussion, is the real power guy in this discussion isn't be Emmert, but rather Greg Sankey, the current SEC commissioner and Chair of the COI. He's the one determining the NOA process, etc, the one that controls the SEC money, is a witness in many of the suits against the NCAA including the O'Bannon one, etc. UNC's ultimate fate is much more in his hands than Emmert's.

Thanks. Interesting article on Sankey, which I guess gives me hope in the integrity of the process:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25104638/who-is-new-sec-commissioner-greg-sankey

[DukieInKansas]

My gut feeling is the longer this draws out, the worse it will be for unc. Punishment may not be as harsh as some would like but will be more than unc is seeking. The longer it goes on, the more information comes out - and none of it makes unc look good.

[Lar77]

My gut feeling is the longer this draws out, the worse it will be for unc. Punishment may not be as harsh as some would like but will be more than unc is seeking. The longer it goes on, the more information comes out - and none of it makes unc look good.

This is a great point. Think about it. Had the cheats surrendered on the original NOA, the learning disability scam may never have been uncovered.

The PR team has yet to produce anything to make the cheats look good.

I thought Hardin's column today was damning as a significant shift in attitude for him.

[AustinDevil]

I've heard football analysts bemoaning how SMU has never recovered from the death penalty.

I agree that this sentiment is the consensus, but it's absolutely not true. SMU never recovered from the presidency of (longtime Duke administrator) Ken Pye, who intentionally deemphasized sports to the extent that, to take one example, the football team in 1989 did not return to Texas Stadium or the Cotton Bowl, but to a woefully outdated and undersized on-campus stadium that hadn't been used for games since the early 1940s. These steps contributed greatly to the demise of the Southwest Conference in 1994, and SMU's exclusion from the Big XII. It's the conference demotion from which they've never recovered.

[OldPhiKap]

I am okay with Carolina never recovering.

If we're taking a poll or something.

[Tom B.]

We know that even if the NCAA strips titles, UNC and its fans will thumb their collective noses while continuing to display the banners and count the vacated championships, proclaiming indignantly that their teams "won those titles on the court."

I'm not sure about this. In the past, when other programs have had wins vacated, part of the penalty included taking down banners and returning trophies associated with the vacated wins. When Michigan was hit, the penalty specifically included a provision requiring Michigan to take down its 1992 and 1993 Final Four banners and return those trophies. Syracuse also had to remove any banners and return any trophies associated with any of its vacated wins (though they got to keep the 2003 national championship banner and trophy, because that season wasn't covered in the penalties).

So if the NCAA strips Carolina of one or more titles, I think the banners have to come down and the trophies have to be returned. Carolina still might "claim" the titles (with an asterisk) in its media guide, but there won't be any public displays of hardware.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not sure about this. In the past, when other programs have had wins vacated, part of the penalty included taking down banners. When Michigan was hit, the penalty specifically included a provision requiring Michigan to take down its 1992 and 1993 Final Four banners. Syracuse also had to remove or return any banners or trophies associated with any of its vacated wins (though they got to keep the 2003 national championship banner, because that season wasn't covered in the penalties).

So if the NCAA strips Carolina of one or more titles, I think the banners have to come down and the trophies have to be returned. Carolina still might "claim" the titles (with an asterisk) in its media guide, but there won't be any public displays of hardware.

Someone had a link in an earlier thread -- they cannot be displayed if vacated, nor can press materials from the school count them as championships or wins.

[AustinDevil]

I am okay with Carolina never recovering.

If we're taking a poll or something.

Frankly, I am too! My point was simply that I get annoyed with the uninformed "SMU never recovered so we can't give it again" line of thinking.

Carolina has earned the death penalty. Let them have it.

[tux]

I'm not sure about this. In the past, when other programs have had wins vacated, part of the penalty included taking down banners and returning trophies associated with the vacated wins. When Michigan was hit, the penalty specifically included a provision requiring Michigan to take down its 1992 and 1993 Final Four banners and return those trophies. Syracuse also had to remove any banners and return any trophies associated with any of its vacated wins (though they got to keep the 2003 national championship banner and trophy, because that season wasn't covered in the penalties).

So if the NCAA strips Carolina of one or more titles, I think the banners have to come down and the trophies have to be returned. Carolina still might "claim" the titles (with an asterisk) in its media guide, but there won't be any public displays of hardware.


I don't think vacating wins and championships would be an empty penalty for UNC. UNC fans put a lot of stock in their place in the NCAA pecking order. Whether someone in a bar can argue that UNC actually won those games doesn't really matter. It would be a constant reminder of the scandal. I think UNC would rather take some postseason and scholarship hits than give up wins and one (or two) banners. They can move past the former eventually and may even rebuild to blue-blood status --- actually removing the banners would be much tougher to take IMO.

Of course, some combination of both would be the proper response by the NCAA. My guess would be that 2005 is gone, but they get to keep 2009. So, there will be some vacated wins, but not as many as opposing fans would hope. And I think we'll see a 1 or 2 year postseason ban w/ scholarship reductions. And the football team may get by with time served... (I.e., I anticipate being rather annoyed when the punishments get announced.)

[Duke95]

I think a lot of people here are still solely focused on the "fake classes" and not realizing that there were plenty of other instances of academic fraud, such as plagiarism, academic support individuals writing papers, etc. These are clear examples of academic fraud, which are directly in the NCAA's "wheelhouse".

If the NCAA fails to punish UNC for this, there will be a massive outcry from every other institution who has been punished at some point for far less, not to mention a thorough dismantling of the NCAA in court.

And, some here seem to forget that there are millions of documents still to be released. The NCAA knows that these will be pored over.

[devildeac]

I am okay with Carolina never recovering.

If we're taking a poll or something.

I'll subscribe to this magazine.

[quahog174]

I think the death penalty and SACS accreditation are intertwined. The NCAA can't enforce a death penalty based on academic improprieties without SACS also dropping UNC's accreditation in my opinion. UNC is too big of an institution and to lose accreditation would affect so many innocent people. Therefore I foresee UNC getting hammered and losing schollys and titles, and going on multi-year probation from SACS, but not losing accreditation entirely or getting the death penalty.

[wsb3]

I don't think vacating wins and championships would be an empty penalty for UNC. UNC fans put a lot of stock in their place in the NCAA pecking order. Whether someone in a bar can argue that UNC actually won those games doesn't really matter. It would be a constant reminder of the scandal.

Well stated.I concur.

[OldPhiKap]

I think the death penalty and SACS accreditation are intertwined. The NCAA can't enforce a death penalty based on academic improprieties without SACS also dropping UNC's accreditation in my opinion. UNC is too big of an institution and to lose accreditation would affect so many innocent people. Therefore I foresee UNC getting hammered and losing schollys and titles, and going on multi-year probation from SACS, but not losing accreditation entirely or getting the death penalty.

When and what is the next SACS action on the calendar?

[johnb]

I think the death penalty and SACS accreditation are intertwined. The NCAA can't enforce a death penalty based on academic improprieties without SACS also dropping UNC's accreditation in my opinion. UNC is too big of an institution and to lose accreditation would affect so many innocent people. Therefore I foresee UNC getting hammered and losing schollys and titles, and going on multi-year probation from SACS, but not losing accreditation entirely or getting the death penalty.

UNC can replace the 2005 banner with this one:

"Like Lehman Brothers,

We're Too Big To Fail"

[OldPhiKap]

"If I had a hammer,
I'd hammer in the morning.
I'd hammer in the evening.
All over this land.

"It's the hammer of justice. . . ."

[Tripping William]

"If I had a hammer,
I'd hammer in the morning.
I'd hammer in the evening.
All over this land.

"It's the hammer of justice. . . ."

You sure you spelled that right? ;)

[OldPhiKap]

You sure you spelled that right? ;)

The hammer of Justise dropped on UNC last year. Twice.

Heh.

[BigWayne]

When and what is the next SACS action on the calendar?

I'm pretty sure they have a date in June where they consider whether to let UNC off of probation or put them on for the 2nd and final year of probation.
Then the next June they either have to lift the probation or remove the accreditation.

[killerleft]

I disagree with the general sentiment here that the current kids deserve some punishment and ought to suffer with the program.

The decisions of a 16 or 17 year old kid to trust a coach's assertion regarding the scandal and forthcoming punishments doesn't warrant them being tossed into the same bucket as the athletic department's plotting and scheming.

A kid who dreams of playing high level college ball who has Roy sit in his living room and tell him there's nothing to worry about ought to have a reasonable expectation that he is being told the truth.

Now, if some players go down as collateral damage to the program, those kids ought to be mad as (go to) hell (Carolina) at thr coaches and be able to jump into a program at their earliest possibility.

To me, it is just a different angle on the supreme irony of the NCAA saying they act to protect the students in cases like this, while they appear so hamstrung and impotent in this scandal.

As they say, "don't hate the player, hate the game." In this instance, the game is UNC, the players are, well, the players.

Maybe Roy is counting on what you say here to rule the day, and is snickering to himself. "Lied to 'em, dadgummit, and now it will be true! Bwahahahahahaha!".

[hudlow]

Louisville self imposes again...

http://www.syracuse.com/acc/index.ssf/2016/04/louisville_announces_self-imposed_scholarship_recruiting_sanctions_due_to_es cort.html

[OldPhiKap]

Louisville self imposes again...

http://www.syracuse.com/acc/index.ssf/2016/04/louisville_announces_self-imposed_scholarship_recruiting_sanctions_due_to_es cort.html

It is truly a sad day when Louisville has more honor than The Flagship.

[BD80]

Louisville self imposes again...

http://www.syracuse.com/acc/index.ssf/2016/04/louisville_announces_self-imposed_scholarship_recruiting_sanctions_due_to_es cort.html

This might get ol' roy's attention: less time recruiting and less time hosting recruits = more time on the golf course

[OldPhiKap]

This might get ol' roy's attention: less time recruiting and less time hosting recruits = more time on the golf course

Last time Roy was in Augusta for the Peach Jam, Roy stayed a day, played golf, and then left Steve Robinson to do the recruiting by himself.

By contrast, K, Capel ,Scheyer, and Nate were all here.

Result? Giles, Tatum to Duke. Don't recall if Bolden or Jackson were here or not.

[BigWayne]

Louisville self imposes again...

http://www.syracuse.com/acc/index.ssf/2016/04/louisville_announces_self-imposed_scholarship_recruiting_sanctions_due_to_es cort.html

The "penalties" proposed are pretty toothless. They are restricting one scholarship in 2017-18 and 2018-19. This leaves them with one scholarship left to fill this year so they can go after Marques Bolden. If they were serious, they would reduce one for 2016-17 and give up on Bolden.

They are also reducing recruiting time for this year, which is not a huge penalty as they probably only have one guy they are after.

The only reason this looks like they are trying is because UNC has done nothing.

[tux]

The "penalties" proposed are pretty toothless. They are restricting one scholarship in 2017-18 and 2018-19. This leaves them with one scholarship left to fill this year so they can go after Marques Bolden. If they were serious, they would reduce one for 2016-17 and give up on Bolden.

They are also reducing recruiting time for this year, which is not a huge penalty as they probably only have one guy they are after.

The only reason this looks like they are trying is because UNC has done nothing.

This is what you do when the scandal is bad, but more or less finite and self-contained. You offer to take some lumps but in a way that lessens their impact. The fact that UNC has done the opposite is a pretty good indicator to me that the wrongdoing actually goes much deeper than what was exposed by Weinstein et al.

[wsb3]

Happened to run across an older report from the Star New (Wilmington) about the scandal.

“I will say one thing, though, Coach really stresses academics. He gets weekly reports on what guys are doing in class. If a guy misses a class, misses an assignment, anything negative, he’s on top of it.”

JP Tokoto


But yet somehow Old Roy knew nothing of fake classes. Simply amazing.

[MarkD83]

Happened to run across an older report from the Star New (Wilmington) about the scandal.

“I will say one thing, though, Coach really stresses academics. He gets weekly reports on what guys are doing in class. If a guy misses a class, misses an assignment, anything negative, he’s on top of it.”

JP Tokoto


But yet somehow Old Roy knew nothing of fake classes. Simply amazing.

But technically, Roy could be right because the report each week was that the players missed no classes or assignments. What the report may not have said is that there were no classes or assignments. :)

[4Gen]

Happened to run across an older report from the Star New (Wilmington) about the scandal.

“I will say one thing, though, Coach really stresses academics. He gets weekly reports on what guys are doing in class. If a guy misses a class, misses an assignment, anything negative, he’s on top of it.”

JP Tokoto


But yet somehow Old Roy knew nothing of fake classes. Simply amazing.

So Tokoto know he know.

[CamrnCrz1974]

Happened to run across an older report from the Star New (Wilmington) about the scandal.

“I will say one thing, though, Coach really stresses academics. He gets weekly reports on what guys are doing in class. If a guy misses a class, misses an assignment, anything negative, he’s on top of it.”

JP Tokoto


But yet somehow Old Roy knew nothing of fake classes. Simply amazing.

Link to the article and quote:
http://acc.blogs.starnewsonline.com/44479/as-bad-as-williams-feels-for-players-his-tar-heels-feel-worse-for-him/

Article is from October 2014.

[smvalkyries]

We all know the NCAA lacks cajones and will soft ball the Carolina penalties. The real penalty Carolina will suffer for much longer is the diminition of the meaning of their rivalry with US. As a SoCal who lived closer to Carolina than Duke when in college I always respected Carolina and rooted for them outside the conference. As a Socal i am fortunate that I rarelt meet UNCCH alumni so I have been able to keep rooting for and respecting them. Unfortunatelt now after the disclosure of the twenty year academic scandal my feelings about Carolina equate more to my feelings towards Maryland than towards a well respected rival. I know that this is really harsh but I had a lot more fondness and respect for Carolina than most of you who had to deal with their alumni and fans on a daily basis. Maybe someday Carolina may return to rival status but now to me they are no more a respected rival than the non-ACC brackish water reptiles except of course that I generally like the terrapin players more than the UNCCH players. If Carolina is no longer worthy of being our rival who will replace them. Note we are playing UNLV this year, andmaybe Kentucky but I don't think either can ever achieve the academic respect that Carolina once had. Maybe Virginia if they can continue to field quality teams for another decade.
Meanwhile I feel sorry for Carolina they have lost something impossible to replace- the respect of a former rival- the respect of the DUKE community. I also am sorry the we Duke have lost a respected rival- while I do feel a similar disdain that I used to feel for Maryland and South Carolina when they were in the conference- my disdain for Carolina will always be tempered with a feeling of sorrow, regret, and perhaps even pity which I never fealt for Maryland and South Carolina. Maybe I finally just found something good about ACC expansion. We have many new relationships to forge to compensate for the one we lost.

[SilkyJ]

How in the world does this thing take a year just to get to the end of the allegations phase! Didn't the first NOA go out in May/June of 2015?! Its takes a year from when you submit allegations, to finalize them?! Don't give me this BS about finding new infractions, that was 9 months ago.

The NCAA must be full of incompetents, which is why I'm continually shocked that you guys think they will arrive at the correct decision. They might take 6 more months to even render a decision. These guys take 1.5 years to do what the private sector would do in 60 days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzC1Dgh17A). Give me a computer and 2 good analysts and I've have this thing wrapped by memorial day.

[sammy3469]

How in the world does this thing take a year just to get to the end of the allegations phase! Didn't the first NOA go out in May/June of 2015?! Its takes a year from when you submit allegations, to finalize them?! Don't give me this BS about finding new infractions, that was 9 months ago.

The NCAA must be full of incompetents, which is why I'm continually shocked that you guys think they will arrive at the correct decision. They might take 6 more months to even render a decision. These guys take 1.5 years to do what the private sector would do in 60 days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzC1Dgh17A). Give me a computer and 2 good analysts and I've have this thing wrapped by memorial day.

I'd just say, that the NCAA did that with Penn State and that didn't turn out exactly great for them. I'd also say there is a big difference between enforcement and COI, a COI led by Stanky that hasn't messed around lately when cases actually get to them.

[Olympic Fan]

This is one of the longest and most involved cases of malfeasance in NCAA history.

Is it surprising that it's taking a little (and only a little) longer than normal?

As Sammy suggests, they want to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

There is also the development of new information -- I think it's pretty clear that Dan Kane's latest article proved that UNC lied in its earlier response, both to the NCAA and SACSW (about the limit on independent study courses being instituted in 2006, when Kane provided documentation that the limit was in place before the turn of the century). That revelation alone proves that -- by UNC's own rules -- that Rashad McCants (who released his records, which show he took three listed independent courses in the spring of 2005*) was ineligible in 2005. For the first time I believe a banner is coming down ... no way they can ignore that.

Incorporating that information does take time.

Doubt if you want, but the hammer is going to fall. And when it does, the NCAA isn't going to screw it up (as they did with Penn State and Miami).

(* Note: McCants transcript shows that three of his four courses were listed as independent study at a time when UNC had a limit of two independent study courses per semester. His fourth course was one of the phony AFAM courses that was listed as a lecture course, but in reality never met and involved only a paper that was graded by a secretary. In this case, the NCAA doesn't have to prove or even suggest that course was phony ... all they have to do us show that his three listed independent study courses were in violation of school policy. That's why the 2005 banner is coming down.

[MChambers]

How in the world does this thing take a year just to get to the end of the allegations phase! Didn't the first NOA go out in May/June of 2015?! Its takes a year from when you submit allegations, to finalize them?! Don't give me this BS about finding new infractions, that was 9 months ago.

The NCAA must be full of incompetents, which is why I'm continually shocked that you guys think they will arrive at the correct decision. They might take 6 more months to even render a decision. These guys take 1.5 years to do what the private sector would do in 60 days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzC1Dgh17A). Give me a computer and 2 good analysts and I've have this thing wrapped by memorial day.

You must not deal with government regulatory agencies. 1.5 years is nothing.

[SilkyJ]

This is one of the longest and most involved cases of malfeasance in NCAA history.

Is it surprising that it's taking a little (and only a little) longer than normal?

....

Incorporating that information does take time.

What's surprising is how long "normal" is for these guys. Do they work 20 hours/week?

Yes, incorporating that information takes time. However long it takes to put it into a spreadsheet and sort by "number of fake classes." So maybe a couple hours? A day just to make sure its all correct? This stuff doesn't take this long unless its being done by people who are incompetent. But, this ain't exactly the private sector where people are judged and compensated based on actual results, so maybe my expectations are just misaligned...

[oakvillebluedevil]

Doubt if you want, but the hammer is going to fall. And when it does, the NCAA isn't going to screw it up (as they did with Penn State and Miami).


I 100% agree with your post and think it's a great point, except the bold.

The NCAA has screwed up so many things, that I have no faith they'll turn it around now. Hope, maybe, but no faith at all. And at this point that's what this whole thing comes down to.

[swood1000]

How in the world does this thing take a year just to get to the end of the allegations phase! Didn't the first NOA go out in May/June of 2015?! Its takes a year from when you submit allegations, to finalize them?! Don't give me this BS about finding new infractions, that was 9 months ago.

The NCAA must be full of incompetents, which is why I'm continually shocked that you guys think they will arrive at the correct decision. They might take 6 more months to even render a decision. These guys take 1.5 years to do what the private sector would do in 60 days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzC1Dgh17A). Give me a computer and 2 good analysts and I've have this thing wrapped by memorial day.
Why are you equating speed with competence? After they begin an investigation the enforcement staff is under some pressure to move things along and if there are going to be allegations to get them out as quickly as possible because delay at that point works to the detriment of the university (harming their recruiting). But in this case it was UNC who caused the delay. This gave the enforcement staff the opportunity to take their time in putting their case together, and why shouldn't they? Additional delay only works against UNC. What would be the benefit of hurrying? That would only increase the chances that they would make a mistake or overlook something.

Edit: they have to put together the specific facts necessary to prove extra benefits against each student-athlete. It can take a while.

[hallcity]

It has seemed to me as if UNC has been asking for a bill of specifics. The first NOA seemed quite general. My guess is that UNC was pressing to know which athletes were ineligible for which semesters and why. Also, they may want to know exactly why the NCAA thinks they lost institutional control. My guess is that the NCAA originally said, in effect, "Look at this forest" and UNC said "What forest? You'll have to tell us exactly which trees you're talking about." I don't think that going tree by tree is going to help UNC but it would take time to draft a bill of specifics for something this big. Of course, if they do get a bill of specifics their party line that football and basketball aren't accused of a thing will get blown up. It's also possible that some coaches and administrators will get specifically accused.

We'll see shortly.

[Indoor66]

What's surprising is how long "normal" is for these guys. Do they work 20 hours/week?

Yes, incorporating that information takes time. However long it takes to put it into a spreadsheet and sort by "number of fake classes." So maybe a couple hours? A day just to make sure its all correct? This stuff doesn't take this long unless its being done by people who are incompetent. But, this ain't exactly the private sector where people are judged and compensated based on actual results, so maybe my expectations are just misaligned...

You do realize the volume of documents that have been presented and need review - in the hundreds of thousands - and that is the total that are available to the public through the Wainstein report. The NCAA has access to much, much more information - including all transcripts for thousands of athletes during the indicated period. Add to that the info developed by Kane (which I am quite sure was in the hands of the NCAA prior to Kane publishing in the N & O) and you now take the issue back an additional fifteen or so years. This is a monumental task, not a stroll through the park reviewing a few submitted pages.

[devildeac]

How in the world does this thing take a year just to get to the end of the allegations phase! Didn't the first NOA go out in May/June of 2015?! Its takes a year from when you submit allegations, to finalize them?! Don't give me this BS about finding new infractions, that was 9 months ago.

The NCAA must be full of incompetents, which is why I'm continually shocked that you guys think they will arrive at the correct decision. They might take 6 more months to even render a decision. These guys take 1.5 years to do what the private sector would do in 60 days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjzC1Dgh17A). Give me a computer and 2 good analysts and I've have this thing wrapped by memorial day.

Give me a computer, 2 other guys from the Ymm, Beer thread and a few bombers from 3 Floyds and we'll have it ready for you by midnight tonight and I'll promise you that all DBR and PackPride posters will be fully satisfied.

Seriously, I think you've summarized quite nicely the frustration a lot of readers here are feeling and other posters have explained the numerous reasons that the NCAA is taking the extra time to be as precise as they can before the next step.

[swood1000]

What's surprising is how long "normal" is for these guys. Do they work 20 hours/week?

Yes, incorporating that information takes time. However long it takes to put it into a spreadsheet and sort by "number of fake classes." So maybe a couple hours? A day just to make sure its all correct? This stuff doesn't take this long unless its being done by people who are incompetent. But, this ain't exactly the private sector where people are judged and compensated based on actual results, so maybe my expectations are just misaligned...
What was charged was extra benefits in the form of "special arrangements" from athletics academic counselors, such as
 
• requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes,

• contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses,

• obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes,

• suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete,

• turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes,

• recommending grades


These are the type of things that they have to prove and it can take some work especially where people are not especially cooperative, or can't remember, or are not available and they need to track down the documentation. It's not as simple as a listing of classes suspected of being paper classes.

Edit: we should be urging the enforcement staff to take their time, not speed things up. There's no benefit in speeding things up.

[OldPhiKap]

There's no benefit in speeding things up.

I would like to see something resolved before they get to compete for an ACC bowl slot this fall. I doubt we will though.

[swood1000]

I would like to see something resolved before they get to compete for an ACC bowl slot this fall. I doubt we will though.
Well if an amended NOA were released tomorrow UNC would have until 7/7/2016 to respond to it. Then there are 60 days for the enforcement staff to respond and for the parties to hold the prehearing conference, taking us to 9/5/2016. COI panel needs to review everything so probably wouldn't hold the hearing before 10/1/2016. In the Syracuse case it was four months from the start of the hearing to the release of the decision. This case might not have as many things to slow it down but it doesn't look like it will be happening before bowl season.

[OldPhiKap]

Well if an amended NOA were released tomorrow UNC would have until 7/7/2016 to respond to it. Then there are 60 days for the enforcement staff to respond and for the parties to hold the prehearing conference, taking us to 9/5/2016. COI panel needs to review everything so probably wouldn't hold the hearing before 10/1/2016. In the Syracuse case it was four months from the start of the hearing to the release of the decision. This case might not have as many things to slow it down but it doesn't look like it will be happening before bowl season.

Exactly. So UNC's delay has gotten them an extra basketball no football season. At minimum. Even on that expedited schedule, that puts a decision in February of 2017 -- weeks before the ACC championship, and a month before next year's Selection Sunday.

Unless UNC self-imposes. But it cannot do that given Roy's and Hat's assurances that those programs are in the clear.

[TNDukeFan]

Exactly. So UNC's delay has gotten them an extra basketball no football season. At minimum. Even on that expedited schedule, that puts a decision in February of 2017 -- weeks before the ACC championship, and a month before next year's Selection Sunday.

Unless UNC self-imposes. But it cannot do that given Roy's and Hat's assurances that those programs are in the clear.

Umm...does that mean somebody should change the title of this thread?...

[plimnko]

i can only hope the ncaa is as tired of carolina's stalling tactics as i am and drops a sledge hammer on those cheating &%$@!!'s!!!! sooner rather than later

[devil84]

Well if an amended NOA were released tomorrow UNC would have until 7/7/2016 to respond to it. Then there are 60 days for the enforcement staff to respond and for the parties to hold the prehearing conference, taking us to 9/5/2016. COI panel needs to review everything so probably wouldn't hold the hearing before 10/1/2016. In the Syracuse case it was four months from the start of the hearing to the release of the decision. This case might not have as many things to slow it down but it doesn't look like it will be happening before bowl season.


Umm...does that mean somebody should change the title of this thread?...

It's all in the definition of a hammer. Is it a single hammer of Thor that crushes everything in one massive stroke? Or is it more like hammering in a nail where typically take three or four (or lots more) hits before the nail is completely, deeply seated? I'll look at it as a hammer drop for the NOA, another for UNC's response, one for the prehearing, one for the hearing...and who knows, maybe something else happens to add to the tap, tap, tap of the hammer? I'm up for that.

Each time the hammer hits the nail is another reminder to recruits and fans, ripping the scab off a somewhat healed (from their perspective) wound. I'm game to draw this out another year, even longer. Pass the popcorn.

[ricks68]

Give me a computer, 2 other guys from the Ymm, Beer thread and a few bombers from 3 Floyds and we'll have it ready for you by midnight tonight and I'll promise you that all DBR and PackPride posters will be fully satisfied.

Seriously, I think you've summarized quite nicely the frustration a lot of readers here are feeling and other posters have explained the numerous reasons that the NCAA is taking the extra time to be as precise as they can before the next step.

I'm in, and I'll even supply the beer.

ricks

[OldPhiKap]

I'm in, and I'll even supply the beer.

ricks

I hope you understand the financial commitment you are making here.

[devildeac]

I hope you understand the financial commitment you are making here.

He's one of my 2 faithful/dependable/loving/trustworthy/discerning Asheville beer mules. Trust me, he knows the big bucks (and high ABV) he'll outlay for this venture. ;)

[ricks68]

I hope you understand the financial commitment you are making here.

I figure it's the only way I can finally draw down on my overflowing full size beer fridge.:rolleyes: I have less than zero room for any new brews, and my wife has threatened that I can no longer use our regular fridge for storing the excess.:o

ricks

[wsb3]

i can only hope the ncaa is as tired of carolina's stalling tactics as i am and drops a sledge hammer on those cheating &%$@!!'s!!!! sooner rather than later

I have thought the same thing. At what point does the NCAA get really ticked about the arrogance that is the Carolina Way.

[moonpie23]

does the NCAA have to pour the entire can of whoopass on them at one time? couldn't they go ahead and take down 05, give out the 5 year post season ban and then say "more to come!"????


that would be cinnabon sweet.....

[wilson]

does the NCAA have to pour the entire can of whoopass on them at one time? couldn't they go ahead and take down 05, give out the 5 year post season ban and then say "more to come!"????


that would be cinnabon sweet...
https://youtu.be/I_keWS1i3RA?t=14s
EDIT: Rats; video owner doesn't allow embedding.
"To the pain."

[Newton_14]

does the NCAA have to pour the entire can of whoopass on them at one time? couldn't they go ahead and take down 05, give out the 5 year post season ban and then say "more to come!"????


that would be cinnabon sweet...

I have seen the "5 Year Ban" tossed out numerous times by multiple parties, so not singling you out here MP, but there is just no way. If they get a post-season ban for Men's BB, it will only be one season.

Have there been teams previously that received a multi-year post-season ban in Men's BB? Anybody know?

[moonpie23]

I have seen the "5 Year Ban" tossed out numerous times by multiple parties,

could you be a little bit more of a buzz stripper? i'm still having breakfast and drinking coffee.....real world in 5, 4, 3, 2,

[wilson]

Have there been teams previously that received a multi-year post-season ban in Men's BB? Anybody know?About 15 years ago, unc served a multi-year absence from the NCAA Tournament known as "the Matt Doherty era."

[Newton_14]

could you be a little bit more of a buzz stripper? i'm still having breakfast and drinking coffee...real world in 5, 4, 3, 2,

Ha, sorry. In that case, they will get the 5 year ban after the NCAA learns unc-lv stole critical evidence from DBR last night and then deleted all evidence submitted to DBR in the previous 24 hours!

[Duke95]

I have seen the "5 Year Ban" tossed out numerous times by multiple parties, so not singling you out here MP, but there is just no way. If they get a post-season ban for Men's BB, it will only be one season.

Have there been teams previously that received a multi-year post-season ban in Men's BB? Anybody know?

Southern Miss just did. Yesterday.

At the same time, I really don't like hammering the kids who are already there, so if a multi-year ban happens, the kids should be allowed to transfer with no penalty.

[arnie]

Southern Miss just did. Yesterday.

At the same time, I really don't like hammering the kids who are already there, so if a multi-year ban happens, the kids should be allowed to transfer with no penalty.

And I'm fairly sure NCAA allows those transfers when school is banned from post season. But this is moot, since no men's bball ban will occur. Now for Sylvia and the soccer programs, expect all those remaining players will be eligible to transfer after the hammer.

[Faison1]

I think I told you guys about the time my UNC friend gave me a scented candle that had the inscription:

"The Smell of Success"

"The Carolina Way"

It had little argyles on it.

Unfortunately, I don't have it any longer....it went straight to the trash.

[timmy c]

I think I told you guys about the time my UNC friend gave me a scented candle that had the inscription:

"The Smell of Success"

"The Carolina Way"

It had little argyles on it.

Unfortunately, I don't have it any longer...it went straight to the trash.

Why would anyone purchase a candle that smells like cheating, lying, denial, and self-aggrandizement?? If someone actually lit that wick you would have to call the HAZMAT team in to fumigate.

[wilson]

I think I told you guys about the time my UNC friend gave me a scented candle that had the inscription:

"The Smell of Success"

"The Carolina Way"

It had little argyles on it.

Unfortunately, I don't have it any longer...it went straight to the trash.


Why would anyone purchase a candle that smells like cheating, lying, denial, and self-aggrandizement?? If someone actually lit that wick you would have to call the HAZMAT team in to fumigate.Did the candle look like this?
6267

[diablesseblu]

It may be telling that the NCAA has to clarify this?

http://www.greensboro.com/sports/accxtra/ncaa-releases-new-academic-rules-will-not-affect-unc-investigation/article_96e3565a-9275-5534-afb0-5da53a3a7cec.html

[bedeviled]

It may be telling that the NCAA has to clarify this?
http://www.greensboro.com/sports/accxtra/ncaa-releases-new-academic-rules-will-not-affect-unc-investigation/article_96e3565a-9275-5534-afb0-5da53a3a7cec.html
Can't let the hackers win. Recalculating route down Short-term Memory Lane :)

NCAA Redefines Academic Misconduct Policy
New policy voted in today, because of the carolina "Scandal" http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...conduct-policy
This is insanely embarrassing for UNC, assuming they're capable of such a reaction
Yay! Another story with "UNC=Misconduct" as its theme. I'm going to miss this. Maybe we should do a fundraiser to convince UNC to just keep doing what they were doing. I'd pay quite a bit and put it my budget under "entertainment"

Maybe we should do a fundraiser to convince UNC to just keep doing what they were doing. I'd pay quite a bit and put it my budget under "entertainment"Heck, in that case, I'd be able to write it off my taxes!
What's interesting is that the NCAA has now specifically defined unc's past actions as "academic misconduct."
While I doubt the NCAA will try to use the new standards in the ongoing investigation, it is clear that the NCAA considers unc's past actions to be academic fraud and a violation of even the most meager of standards.
The new rules require schools to have their own academic integrity policies that apply to all students. Each school determines its own policies and the NCAA says a university must follow them when there's an academic integrity issue involving an athlete.
... Universities still want to control what's academic fraud on their own campus, but they want the NCAA to make an obvious violation charge if the school's investigation “came out with an absurd result,”Hmmm. "Absurd result." Wonder if that refers to the Wainstein report?
Just like Dean Smith revolutionized college basketball with the 4 corners (which resulted in the advent of the shot clock), UNC has again set the bar higher for athletics with a new definition for academic violations
I hope these become known widely and collectively as the "UNC Rule."
It can be the real life equivalent of "munsoned."

[bedeviled]

While I'm at it, a few blacked out scandal posts, so the authors don't have to repeat their work:


IF the ncaa does what they should and hammers the cheats and part of the punishment is vacated wins and banners, how does that affect hansbrough being the all time leading scorer? does jj get it back or is the a permanent asterisk beside his name?It depends on whether Hansbrough was himself declared ineligible. According to the NCAA's statistics policy (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf), if a win was vacated but an individual player was not declared ineligible then his individual records are not altered, except that for vacated NCAA tournament games any individual NCAA honor, such as setting a tournament record, has to have an asterisk to a footnote stating "Later vacated."

To record vacancies for NCAA tournament games, the wins and losses of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record and treated as if no games had been played. To record vacancies for regular season contests, the wins and ties, but not the losses, of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record. This affects season records, all-time records and coaches' records. Example: If Team A was 18-10 for the season but has to vacate three regular-season wins and a win and loss in the NCAA Tournament, then Team A's record would now stand at 14-9 for the season. All records that are changed should have an asterisk with the footnote stating something to the effect of "Later vacated by NCAA action."

The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics and the opponents' records are not affected by this action. Since the team's participation in the NCAA tournament is vacated, any team or individuals receiving NCAA tournament honors, such as being named to the All-Tournament Team or setting a tournament record, shall be asterisked with the footnote stating "Later vacated."

Individual records and performances of other players (teammates and opponents) who participated in these contests shall not be altered except for those players who were declared ineligible.

In compliance with the intention of the COI penalties, all team and coaches' streaks (such as wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks, and so on) are terminated by the vacancy of a contest. For individuals, only the student-athletes who were declared ineligible would have streaks terminated

So it's analogous to the situation with vacated wins, in that the wins might be stricken from the record, but that wouldn't award the other party the win/title/record?Right. Just like the opposing team's record is not affected by a vacated win, the innocent player on the guilty team is not affected (except for the asterisk in connection with NCAA tournament honors).

Edit: so any points by Hansbrough when he was ineligible would be affected.

Allow me to discuss one aspect of this case.

The NCAA has always been vey concerned about a school enforcing its own rules (both for conduct and academics). The NCAA has always struggled when a school has lax rules (especially in regard to academics).

For instance, the NCAA doesn't have any set rules for marijuana usage and punishment. The organization allows individual schools to set their own policy -- it can be one positive test leads to suspension or one positive test is a warning, two are a short suspension and three warrant expulsion ... whatever the school dictates. But the NCAA DOES step in when a school adopts a certain set of rules, then ignores them to protect an athlete. If the rule states one positive test is suspension and you hit the athlete with a warning instead THAT will bring down NCAA penalties.

That's why the NCAA wrestled so much with UNC's multiple academic shenanigans -- sham courses that apparently never violated the school's policies. That's why the NCAA came up with the creative measure of labeling the phony classes as an illegal benefit.

But it's why I also think that Dan Kane's latest revelations are so devastating -- and make it very likely that UNC loses the 2005 NCAA title banner. I also shows why UNC went so far as to lie to the NCAA and the SACS about its policy on independent studies -- claiming (to both investigative agencies) that a limit of two independent study courses per semester was adopted in the 2005-06 school year.

Kane proved that the two course limit was in place much earlier -- at least back to 1997. He also has access to Rashad McCants' transcripts (which McCants released) that show he took three independent study courses in the spring semester of 2005, when he helped UNC to the 2005 national title (he actually took a fourth, but that was one of the phony AFAM courses that was disguised as a lecture course). Now the NCAA doesn't have to prove that was a phony course. It doesn't have to prove that any of the three independent study courses on his transcript were phony. The very fact that he was enrolled in three independent study courses -- in violation of UNC's own academic rules -- proves that McCants was ineligible when he played in the 2005 Final Four.

No wonder UNC lied about its policy.

[BLPOG]

While I'm at it, a few blacked out scandal posts, so the authors don't have to repeat their work:

Hero!

[DukieInKansas]

It may be telling that the NCAA has to clarify this?

http://www.greensboro.com/sports/accxtra/ncaa-releases-new-academic-rules-will-not-affect-unc-investigation/article_96e3565a-9275-5534-afb0-5da53a3a7cec.html

While the board was on hiatus, I wandered over to IC to see if there was an internet wide ban on sports boards. I briefly looked around and I think there was a thread that seemed to take this new rule as proof that they had done nothing wrong. Still clinging to the "not an athletic issue" over there.

[Indoor66]

I think I told you guys about the time my UNC friend gave me a scented candle that had the inscription:

"The Smell of Success"

"The Carolina Way"

It had little argyles on it.

Unfortunately, I don't have it any longer...it went straight to the trash.

That scent was Eau de Poop.

[swood1000]

Maybe this is the post that the hackers particularly didn't like. The question was whether there is indisputable proof that the 2005 championship will be affected. The NOA referenced this item:
 
FI118: January 5, 2005 - Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder discussing men's basketball student-athletes and the courses to which she added them. (Item2_CrowderToWalden_010505_NorthCarolina_00231)
 
6268

In the NOA this email is referenced as "Crowder discussing men's basketball student-athletes and the courses to which she added them." This falls squarely within one of the extra benefit allegations in the NOA, "contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses," leaving only the question as to whether this student-athlete played during the championship. If this player is found to have received this extra benefit then any game participated in by him from January 2005 forward will be vacated.

[swood1000]

Also there was this link (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article15573662.html) dealing with Hansbrough and the NAVS class.

The syllabus for the NAVS 302 class shows that it was a different type of course than in other years. It had no required exams or quizzes and no major research paper. Students received much of their grade from a two- to three-page double-spaced midterm paper and a group project that required a 20-minute oral presentation split among five students. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article15573662.html



A Naval Weapons Systems class in 2007 was filled with athletes (30 of 38 students), including six men's basketball players. Average grade: 3.63. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article12601562.html



Oct. 3, 2012: Thorp says information about a Naval Weapons Systems class from 2007 has been forwarded to Martin. Documents show six basketball players took the class on advice from an academic counselor assigned to the basketball team. The class was taught differently than ones before it and since, with papers and a presentation necessary for grading, instead of written tests and exams. http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article15573848.html

[badgerbd]

It may be telling that the NCAA has to clarify this?

http://www.greensboro.com/sports/accxtra/ncaa-releases-new-academic-rules-will-not-affect-unc-investigation/article_96e3565a-9275-5534-afb0-5da53a3a7cec.html

As part of the camp that believes that, no matter what should happen, UNC will get off easy, this worries me.
It's away for the NCAA to claim they agree what UNC did was wrong, but technically they can't punish them. Then, to save some face, they can point to new rules/guidelines they've set up to prevent this from happening again.

[Duke95]

As part of the camp that believes that, no matter what should happen, UNC will get off easy, this worries me.
It's away for the NCAA to claim they agree what UNC did was wrong, but technically they can't punish them. Then, to save some face, they can point to new rules/guidelines they've set up to prevent this from happening again.

No. It isn't. In any way, shape, or form. Please just think about it, and you'll realize what that isn't the case.

The "UNC will skate" camp is largely driven by a) lack of information, b) PR, and c) utter disbelief that the NCAA could have the minimal competence and honesty to punish UNC for its staggering number of transgressions.

I understand c). But a and b...not so much.

[arnie]

No. It isn't. In any way, shape, or form. Please just think about it, and you'll realize what that isn't the case.

The "UNC will skate" camp is largely driven by a) lack of information, b) PR, and c) utter disbelief that the NCAA could have the minimal competence and honesty to punish UNC for its staggering number of transgressions.

I understand c). But a and b...not so much.

And d) John Swofford

[MartyClark]

No. It isn't. In any way, shape, or form. Please just think about it, and you'll realize what that isn't the case.

The "UNC will skate" camp is largely driven by a) lack of information, b) PR, and c) utter disbelief that the NCAA could have the minimal competence and honesty to punish UNC for its staggering number of transgressions.

I understand c). But a and b...not so much.

I hope you are right but I'm not feeling it. I'm in the c) camp.

[Merlindevildog91]

And e) the NCAA will have the cojones to do what needs to be done.

I want to believe but the cynic in me says otherwise.

[fuse]

All I can think about when I see this thread subject is The Shawshank Redemption and the rock hammer. Even though the investigation has been going on longer than it took Andy Dufresne to dig out of Shawshank, I imagine UNC will come out of the storm drain squeaky clean on the other side.

[wilson]

All I can think about when I see this thread subject is The Shawshank Redemption and the rock hammer. Even though the investigation has been going on longer than it took Andy Dufresne to dig out of Shawshank, I imagine UNC will come out of the storm drain squeaky clean on the other side.I'd rather they get dumped in a river of "I'm a real wanker for saying this."

[cbarry]

And e) the NCAA will have the cojones to do what needs to be done.

I want to believe but the cynic in me says otherwise.

Same here. If the NCAA drops the hammer on UNC (as it SHOULD!!), it will hurt itself financially. When UNC does well, its fans spend lots of money, watch lots of TV, etc. I see a VERY VERY slim chance that UNC will face major penalties. I am firmly in the camp who believes UNC will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and that angers me. If they get anything more than a stiff reprimand, and certainly if any revenue sports get hit, I will be EXTREMELY (but pleasantly) surprised. I think the NCAA is perfectly content to let UNC skate. Both the NCAA and UNC are probably hoping that if they drag this out long enough, people will forget, details will be lost, etc...

(Note: I was also wrong on who was going to win the Natty this year, and whether Grayson was coming back... so hopefully I'll be wrong on this too!!)

[kmspeaks]

Same here. If the NCAA drops the hammer on UNC (as it SHOULD!!), it will hurt itself financially. When UNC does well, its fans spend lots of money, watch lots of TV, etc. I see a VERY VERY slim chance that UNC will face major penalties. I am firmly in the camp who believes UNC will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and that angers me. If they get anything more than a stiff reprimand, and certainly if any revenue sports get hit, I will be EXTREMELY (but pleasantly) surprised. I think the NCAA is perfectly content to let UNC skate. Both the NCAA and UNC are probably hoping that if they drag this out long enough, people will forget, details will be lost, etc...

(Note: I was also wrong on who was going to win the Natty this year, and whether Grayson was coming back... so hopefully I'll be wrong on this too!!)

Is the bolded part really true though? In the 6 years since its last (illegitimate) title uNC has missed the tournament once and been eliminated in the round of 32 twice, but I'm pretty sure the tournament is still a big draw. If the NCAA hits the cheaters with a 1-3 year postseason ban I doubt CBS/Turner are in a panic about paying the bills for broadcasting the tournament. There will still be plenty of eyeballs on the screens.

[OldPhiKap]

Is the bolded part really true though? In the 6 years since its last (illegitimate) title uNC has missed the tournament once and been eliminated in the round of 32 twice, but I'm pretty sure the tournament is still a big draw. If the NCAA hits the cheaters with a 1-3 year postseason ban I doubt CBS/Turner are in a panic about paying the bills for broadcasting the tournament. There will still be plenty of eyeballs on the screens.

This.

The institutional risk risk to the NCAA by not doing something strong greatly exceeds any potential financial hit. If anything, the ACC takes a hit by losing a revenue contributor. But since Swofford was Carolina's AD when this all started, it's kinda hard to take him seriously.

[turnandburn55]

Is the bolded part really true though? In the 6 years since its last (illegitimate) title uNC has missed the tournament once and been eliminated in the round of 32 twice, but I'm pretty sure the tournament is still a big draw. If the NCAA hits the cheaters with a 1-3 year postseason ban I doubt CBS/Turner are in a panic about paying the bills for broadcasting the tournament. There will still be plenty of eyeballs on the screens.

And does vacating previous wins and titles hurt the NCAA financially? Honestly, I think pulling banners down will hurt the Cheats more than a ban will.

That being said, I think they can / should / will? do both. You need to illustrate loud and clear that the Cheats weren't speeding 70 in a 55. They were doing 134 in a 15.

[MarkD83]

For those that think UNC won't be hammerd because they are a BIG draw in the NCAA tournament, here is an interesting article from Money magazine.

http://time.com/money/4283816/ncaa-basketball-tv-ratings-streaming/

”was the lowest-rated national championship game ever,”

To be fair the article does point out that streaming the game online was an alternative way to watch the game.

[OldPhiKap]

For those that think UNC won't be hammerd because they are a BIG draw in the NCAA tournament, here is an interesting article from Money magazine.

http://time.com/money/4283816/ncaa-basketball-tv-ratings-streaming/

”was the lowest-rated national championship game ever,”

To be fair the article does point out that streaming the game online was an alternative way to watch the game.

Syracuse basketball is a bigger draw than UNC.

Any major football team (FSU, USC, Penn St.) dwarfs any basketball team when it comes to revenue.

[cbarry]

They perpetuated the worst scheme of cheating with fake classes, etc for such a long time-- playing with athletes that practiced all day instead of going to class gave them an unfair advantage, not to mention made a farce out of their university's education. They really really need to be punished in a BIG way. I hear all of the logical points why they SHOULD be punished, and I agree 100%. My gut just tells me they will get off easily.

[Bostondevil]

For those that think UNC won't be hammerd because they are a BIG draw in the NCAA tournament, here is an interesting article from Money magazine.

http://time.com/money/4283816/ncaa-basketball-tv-ratings-streaming/

”was the lowest-rated national championship game ever,”

To be fair the article does point out that streaming the game online was an alternative way to watch the game.

It was on TBS! I think that had something to do with it. Probably more than streaming.

[sagegrouse]

For those that think UNC won't be hammerd because they are a BIG draw in the NCAA tournament, here is an interesting article from Money magazine.

http://time.com/money/4283816/ncaa-basketball-tv-ratings-streaming/

”was the lowest-rated national championship game ever,”

To be fair the article does point out that streaming the game online was an alternative way to watch the game.

Well, it was on TBS, not on an over-the-air network. Who knows how many eyeballs were watching 'cuz non-subscribers go the neighbors or the corner bar?

[SilkyJ]

This.

The institutional risk risk to the NCAA by not doing something strong greatly exceeds any potential financial hit. If anything, the ACC takes a hit by losing a revenue contributor. But since Swofford was Carolina's AD when this all started, it's kinda hard to take him seriously.

If the NCAA is taking any of these factors into its calculus when determining UNC's punishment, then we've already lost. The facts should be judged independently and regardless of the entity being judged and its financial effects on the system. That would be like a district attorney considering the effects of a case he is trying on his campaign/election status. But that's never happened before...

[porcophile]

(The word should be "shamelessness." They're not without sham.)

UNC has given its C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service Award to Joy Renner. Ms. Renner is the untenured teacher of X-ray technicians who chaired the Faculty Athletics Committee that failed to notice – or at least failed to report – the “irregularities” revealed by the Wainstein Report. She still chairs that committee, and was instrumental last fall in derailing a proposal to set up an ad hoc faculty committee to examine the university’s athletic program in light of recent events.

She also serves on the Nominations Committee (for faculty officers and committee chairs), the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee, and the Committee on Special Talent.

Previous recipients of the Massey Award include Jack Evans and Jan Boxill.

[Olympic Fan]

Glad to see this up at the top ...

There is a point I want to make. We tend to look at this as a men's basketball scandal because, quite frankly, we're interested in men's basketball first on this board. And, indeed, the AFAM scam started with men's basketball to benefit men's basketball.

But over the 18 years of the scam, the academic shenanigans spread to a whole host of other sports -- football, women's basketball, women's soccer, baseball ...

When you read the NOA, it's clear that the NCAA is going to hit UNC with a hammer that has a very large head. That's one of the things that has made it very hard to measure the extent of the coming punishment -- it's going to go far beyond men's basketball.

No, I don't see the death penalty for any UNC sports, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the punishment that NC State got in the Jackie Moreland case in 1957. That was just one athlete in one sport, but it came less than two years after NC State was hit with a one-year probation for running illegal tryout camps in basketball. The NCAA responded by giving NC State four years of probation -- a probation that covered ALL of the school's varsity sports.

It was a devastating penalty -- it not only prevented the 1959 NC State basketball team from going to the NCAA Tournament, it prevented the 1957 ACC championship football team from going to the Orange Bowl (Duke went instead and beat Oklahoma). Tough for the Pack to deal with, because football was not accused of doing anything wrong.

Reading the NCAA's NOA, it appears certain that men's basketball, women's basketball and football will be nailed. I didn't see mention of evidence that's in the Wainstein Report that women's soccer and baseball are involved. So I don't know if those sports skate. Maybe the new NOA (if that is indeed coming) will include those sports.

[whereinthehellami]

For all those posters saying that they think UNC will skate or get a slap on the wrist keep in mind that this was systematic corruption and fraud. This really could be a case study of systematic corruption and fraud. The amount of people involved in the cheating and in the cover-up is absolutely incredible.

Carolina will be known to me for only one thing for the rest of my life...cheating.

[MCFinARL]

(The word should be "shamelessness." They're not without sham.)

UNC has given its C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service Award to Joy Renner. Ms. Renner is the untenured teacher of X-ray technicians who chaired the Faculty Athletics Committee that failed to notice – or at least failed to report – the “irregularities” revealed by the Wainstein Report. She still chairs that committee, and was instrumental last fall in derailing a proposal to set up an ad hoc faculty committee to examine the university’s athletic program in light of recent events.

She also serves on the Nominations Committee (for faculty officers and committee chairs), the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee, and the Committee on Special Talent.

Previous recipients of the Massey Award include Jack Evans and Jan Boxill.

Academic politics are super ugly just about everywhere. But this would appear to be a particularly sleazy example.

[oldnavy]

Glad to see this up at the top ...

There is a point I want to make. We tend to look at this as a men's basketball scandal because, quite frankly, we're interested in men's basketball first on this board. And, indeed, the AFAM scam started with men's basketball to benefit men's basketball.

But over the 18 years of the scam, the academic shenanigans spread to a whole host of other sports -- football, women's basketball, women's soccer, baseball ...

When you read the NOA, it's clear that the NCAA is going to hit UNC with a hammer that has a very large head. That's one of the things that has made it very hard to measure the extent of the coming punishment -- it's going to go far beyond men's basketball.

No, I don't see the death penalty for any UNC sports, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the punishment that NC State got in the Jackie Moreland case in 1957. That was just one athlete in one sport, but it came less than two years after NC State was hit with a one-year probation for running illegal tryout camps in basketball. The NCAA responded by giving NC State four years of probation -- a probation that covered ALL of the school's varsity sports.

It was a devastating penalty -- it not only prevented the 1959 NC State basketball team from going to the NCAA Tournament, it prevented the 1957 ACC championship football team from going to the Orange Bowl (Duke went instead and beat Oklahoma). Tough for the Pack to deal with, because football was not accused of doing anything wrong.

Reading the NCAA's NOA, it appears certain that men's basketball, women's basketball and football will be nailed. I didn't see mention of evidence that's in the Wainstein Report that women's soccer and baseball are involved. So I don't know if those sports skate. Maybe the new NOA (if that is indeed coming) will include those sports.

I have it on good authority that MBB and Football will not be affected, so I am not sure why you think they will.

Roy and Fedora have both said they were NOT named in the NOA and therefore they will NOT be penalized...

Watch yourself OF... you may get hit for rumor mongering!! :p:p:p

[killerleft]

(The word should be "shamelessness." They're not without sham.)

UNC has given its C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service Award to Joy Renner. Ms. Renner is the untenured teacher of X-ray technicians who chaired the Faculty Athletics Committee that failed to notice – or at least failed to report – the “irregularities” revealed by the Wainstein Report. She still chairs that committee, and was instrumental last fall in derailing a proposal to set up an ad hoc faculty committee to examine the university’s athletic program in light of recent events.

She also serves on the Nominations Committee (for faculty officers and committee chairs), the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee, and the Committee on Special Talent.

Previous recipients of the Massey Award include Jack Evans and Jan Boxill.

Shhh, don't let Duke know. They'll nab her and make her a Special Dean of Irony or something.

[BigWayne]

UNC Friday document dump is the response to SACS to try to get off of probation in June. (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/)

From the amount I could read through before I got sick of it, it's pretty long and full of blustery stuff about forming committees and making new policies. It had some information related to numbers of athletes requiring review, etc. It also compares %tile SAT scores and GPA vs. UNC system wide scores to make them look better.

1st pass, I didn't see a lot of evidence that their new policies are actually working. It wouldn't surprise me if SACS gives them another year of probation.

[OldPhiKap]

UNC Friday document dump is the response to SACS to try to get off of probation in June. (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/)

From the amount I could read through before I got sick of it, it's pretty long and full of blustery stuff about forming committees and making new policies. It had some information related to numbers of athletes requiring review, etc. It also compares %tile SAT scores and GPA vs. UNC system wide scores to make them look better.

1st pass, I didn't see a lot of evidence that their new policies are actually working. It wouldn't surprise me if SACS gives them another year of probation.

Thanks, BigWayne. I look forward to the PackPride analysis within the next 48 hours.

I wonder what Friday the new NOA will be released. This month would be nice.

[77devil]

UNC Friday document dump is the response to SACS to try to get off of probation in June. (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/)

From the amount I could read through before I got sick of it, it's pretty long and full of blustery stuff about forming committees and making new policies. It had some information related to numbers of athletes requiring review, etc. It also compares %tile SAT scores and GPA vs. UNC system wide scores to make them look better.

1st pass, I didn't see a lot of evidence that their new policies are actually working. It wouldn't surprise me if SACS gives them another year of probation.

Despite the volume the report lacks substance. Lots of repetition that "Carolina's"(their usage, how quaint) reforms are working but no details or data to substantiate the claims. The section on control over athletics is particularly banal and insipid.

[slower]

For all those posters saying that they think UNC will skate or get a slap on the wrist keep in mind that this was systematic corruption and fraud.

And nobody EVER gets away with that, do they?

We all hope that those of you who are assuring us that a big hammer is gonna fall are correct. But until it happens, many of us shall remain skeptical.

[porcophile]

Despite the volume the report lacks substance. Lots of repetition that "Carolina's"(their usage, how quaint) reforms are working but no details or data to substantiate the claims. The section on control over athletics is particularly banal and insipid.

If SACS doesn’t extend UNC’s probation for a second year I’ll be amazed. The administration has done almost nothing by way of meaningful reform and has acted as if probation is a matter of no consequence. Consider some of the actions they’ve taken in the past year:

(1) Although UNC was cited for inadequate faculty oversight of its athletic program, the Faculty Athletic Representative who had failed to report the clustering of athletes in UNC’s now-notorious "paper classes" was reappointed. When her term expired last year it would have been easy simply to replace her. The chancellor was urged to do so, but did not.

(2) The chair of the Faculty Athletics Committee also ignored what was being done to maintain athletes' eligibility, yet she, too, continues in office, and in fact just received an award for “distinguished service.” She continues to obstruct attempts to address UNC’s problems.

(3) The chancellor appointed a new dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, who had been chair of the Department of Exercise and Sports Science. In that capacity, he had helped to maintain the eligibility of athletes with weak credentials by admitting them to his department's graduate program.

(4) Although the administration settled out of court a wrongful dismissal suit brought by the principal whistleblower, Mary Willingham, the chancellor and provost have never acknowledged that her charges were correct, much less apologized for denouncing her as a liar.

(5) As of last October the university had spent over $7.5 million on outside legal and public relations advice to deal with these matters. That this money comes from "private sources" doesn't alter the fact that it would not be needed had the administration acted more forthrightly and decisively to begin with.

(6) Perhaps on the advice of these public relations consultants, the official narrative continues to portray the problem as primarily the doing of a rogue professor and departmental secretary in a single department, despite the well-established fact that faculty members in other departments were part of the eligibility scheme.

(7) UNC’s men's basketball and football coaches have both received past bonuses based on their players' academic performance, yet both claim to know nothing about how that performance was achieved. Although it seems obvious that they either knew or should have known, in the past year each received a contract extension and a substantial raise.

(8) UNC’s athletic director continues to tell various audiences that UNC intends to have a top ten team in every sport. In pursuit of that goal, the university’s football team hired a defensive coordinator who came from Auburn trailing clouds of disrepute. When nine senior administrators were given pay raises by the Board of Trustees as a reward for good work, the athletic director's raise was the largest.

(9) There has always been considerable overlap between the Board of Trustees and the board of the Rams Club, UNC’s booster organization, but last year this symbiosis reached a new high when the president of the Rams Club and the chair of the BOT simply exchanged places. I know of no other serious university with as close a connection between its governing body and a booster club.

(10) The university has announced that it will be constructing a new $20 million indoor practice facility for football and undertaking a $4 million renovation of the men’s basketball locker room. By comparison, the library budget was cut by $3,372,322 in 2013-14.

By itself each of these actions might be negligible, but no institution serious about reform, or even one concerned about appearances, could possibly have done them all.
UNC’s administration claims that it has responded to SACS’s concerns by instituting more than 70 "reforms and initiatives." But many are trivial (one initiative was setting up a website to list the initiatives); others are exercises in barn door closing; and it's fair to say that they do more to increase administrative oversight of the faculty than faculty oversight of athletics. SACS has quite rightly asked for evidence that these changes have actually made any difference, and in fact there’s little evidence that they address UNC’s problems at all (although the administration has been reluctant even to say what the problems are). The administration’s most recent so-called reform is the establishment of a “Chief Integrity Officer.” Since this official will monitor integrity for an administration whose own integrity is questionable, one suspects that this is mere window dressing.

[madscavenger]

Thanks, BigWayne. I look forward to the PackPride analysis within the next 48 hours.

I wonder what Friday the new NOA will be released. This month would be nice.

Memorial Day weekend would be more likely, and it fits. May the Carolina Way rest in peace (not!).

[BandAlum83]

I have it on good authority that MBB and Football will not be affected, so I am not sure why you think they will.

Roy and Fedora have both said they were NOT named in the NOA and therefore they will NOT be penalized...

Watch yourself OF... you may get hit for rumor mongering!! :p:p:p

Are you serious?
No penalties for the men's sports?

[SlapTheFloor]

Are you serious?
No penalties for the men's sports?

This was all just the fault of an overzealous women's basketball team. Thank God, Roy found it and put an end to it.

[BandAlum83]

This was all just the fault of an overzealous women's basketball team. Thank God, Roy found it and put an end to it.

/snark

[SilkyJ]

For all those posters saying that they think UNC will skate or get a slap on the wrist keep in mind that this was systematic corruption and fraud. This really could be a case study of systematic corruption and fraud. The amount of people involved in the cheating and in the cover-up is absolutely incredible.
.

Brother, this is the definition of preaching to the choir. Point your megaphone to InTheAnnapolis.


Thanks, BigWayne. I look forward to the PackPride analysis within the next 48 hours.

I wonder what Friday the new NOA will be released. This month would be nice.

April 2017 is more likely.

Can we please change the title of this thread? Methinks it is woefully misleading in terms of timeline. UNC is schedule to receive an updated NOA next month. Last time they received an NOA they had 90 days to respond, which they took, and then managed to obfuscate and buy themselves 6 more months. Anyone who believes this isn't going to drag well into the summer and even late 2016 is delusional.

The chances the NCAA doles out any punishment in May 2016 is the same chance that UNC petition to overturn the national title game has: zero. The hammer, if and when it does fall, will not fall in May.

[OldPhiKap]

Brother, this is the definition of preaching to the choir. Point your megaphone to InTheAnnapolis.



April 2017 is more likely.

Can we please change the title of this thread? Methinks it is woefully misleading in terms of timeline. UNC is schedule to receive an updated NOA next month. Last time they received an NOA they had 90 days to respond, which they took, and then managed to obfuscate and buy themselves 6 more months. Anyone who believes this isn't going to drag well into the summer and even late 2016 is delusional.

The chances the NCAA doles out any punishment in May 2016 is the same chance that UNC petition to overturn the national title game has: zero. The hammer, if and when it does fall, will not fall in May.

I would be surprised if this is resolved before bowl selection.

[JetpackJesus]

Memorial Day weekend would be more likely, and it fits. May the Carolina Way rest in pieces.

Fixed.

[gumbomoop]

Like many of you, I have been on campus in CH, have spent time in the library there, and have admired the scholarly work of a number of UNC professors.

The summary provided by porcophile in the essential post #199 is crushing. By which I do not mean, "Wow, porcophile really crushed it this time" -- though that is true. Rather, I mean I am crushed by the weight of this evidence that this wonderful university is being seriously, maybe irreparably, harmed from within.

Those colluding in the coverup have produced an ethical and intellectual calamity. Although I have adamantly insisted all along that the eligibility scam was an athletic-academic scandal, the diminution and abasement of the academic soul of the University, by those we should confidently expect to be its guardians, is horrible, horrible.

[oldnavy]

This was all just the fault of an overzealous women's basketball team. Thank God, Roy found it and put an end to it.

So true!

Amazing!! He was quick to point out that he recognized an issue with clustering and put a stop to it, yet later on he claims he had no idea that anything wrong was taking place!!

So, in Roy's world he thinks it "looks bad" for a group of African American students to be clustered in the AFAM major.... yea Roy that would be really weird!

It would be like the debate club coach thinking it looks bad for his team to be predominately PolySci or Philosophy majors.

[OldPhiKap]

Dean was a saint. Gut and Doh were not in charge long enough to change things. Roy has a Forest Gump-like innocence about him. Football has already been punished. Women's soccer must be clean because, well, Mia Hamm say no more. Yup, women's basketball must be sacrificed -- er, must be to blame.

[Indoor66]

So true!

Amazing!! He was quick to point out that he recognized an issue with clustering and put a stop to it, yet later on he claims he had no idea that anything wrong was taking place!!

So, in Roy's world he thinks it "looks bad" for a group of African American students to be clustered in the AFAM major... yea Roy that would be really weird!

It would be like the debate club coach thinking it looks bad for his team to be predominately PolySci or Philosophy majors.

Or filled with people who like to argue. :p:cool:

[Indoor66]

A great one from PackPride. (http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.jpg)(I don't know how to insert, so I just linked. Maybe a Mod can fix.)

[jv001]

Dean was a saint. Gut and Doh were not in charge long enough to change things. Roy has a Forest Gump-like innocence about him. Football has already been punished. Women's soccer must be clean because, well, Mia Hamm say no more. Yup, women's basketball must be sacrificed -- er, must be to blame.

Oh, how I hate Uncheat. I wish every sport they have would never win another game. Arrogant bunch of college administrators and most uncheat fans want to win at all costs, even if it means cheating to get the wins. Dean knew! GoDuke!

[budwom]

It's important to keep in mind that unc finds itself at an inflection point in this wondrous mess.

We just concluded phase one, which consisted of lying, obfuscating, delaying and denying in order to maximize chances of winning
a national championship. And it very nearly worked (thank you Mr. Jenkins).

But now the landscape, she is decidedly different. Ol' Roy's recruiting has been en toilette for the past couple years as
kids and their parents/advisors point out the distinct possibility of imminent (not imminent enough) doom in chapel hill.

So at this point, Ol' Roy very much needs for the NCAA to make a ruling, as bad as it may be for him. If there is no resolution
in the next few months, Ol' Roy will once again miss on nearly all of his recruiting targets....and with Paige and Johnson gone (and the
possibility that Jackson, Hicks, or Meeks could all consider leaving) the cupboard needs replenishing.

So while I'm sure unc is looking to minimize its penalties as it spars with the NCAA (and while the unc publicity machine continues to extoll the
virtues of their athletic dept.) I'm certain that they will NOW look to have a determination made as quickly as possible....in short, if there's another
NOA based up the ludicrous "new violations" unc found as part of their delaying strategy, I think you'll see unc responding ASAP in an effort
to get this all resolved.

[JasonEvans]

A great one from PackPride. (http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.jpg)(I don't know how to insert, so I just linked. Maybe a Mod can fix.)

http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.gif

[53n206]

Shhh, don't let Duke know. They'll nab her and make her a Special Dean of Irony or something.

Or of more important to the UNC athletic programs they make make her the Dean of Ironing.

[oldnavy]

A great one from PackPride. (http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.jpg)(I don't know how to insert, so I just linked. Maybe a Mod can fix.)

That is Perfect!

[Faison1]

http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.gif

This made even my UNC Alum wife laugh.....

Those guys from State are out for blood....if UNC skates, State might come over to Franklin Street and burn the place down.

[CameronBlue]

This made even my UNC Alum wife laugh....

Those guys from State are out for blood...if UNC skates, State might come over to Franklin Street and burn the place down.

Let's take up a collection for some lighter fluid.

[Indoor66]

Let's take up a collection for some lighter fluid.

Nah, let's use napalm + magnesium powder. Do it right!

[BD80]

Nah, let's use napalm + magnesium powder. Do it right!

Just check the wind direction before setting it off

[TruBlu]

Just check the wind direction before setting it off

No need to check the wind. It always blows toward unc from all directions. Because, you know, unc sucks.

[devildeac]

No need to check the wind. It always blows toward unc from all directions. Because, you know, unc sucks.

Ah, yes, c*rolina blew, always in season...

[PackMan97]

Just check the wind direction before setting it off

I was thinking thermite...or phosphorous.

As for checking wind direction, a northerly win would help us the most. Though since the predominant wind is west to east, it's been about the only thing that's stopped State from hiring someone to nuke Chapel Hill. The fallout wouldn't be pleasant.

[Henderson]

I was thinking thermite...or phosphorous.

As for checking wind direction, a northerly win would help us the most. Though since the predominant wind is west to east, it's been about the only thing that's stopped State from hiring someone to nuke Chapel Hill. The fallout wouldn't be pleasant.

Come on, man. Take one for the team.

[BandAlum83]

Just check the wind direction before setting it off

Awe, c'mon guys. Chapel Hill is a lovely town. I had some good times over there. I learned how to shag at Purdy's. Granted, unlike today, I was at Duke when the "joke" was: "What is there to do in Durham on a Saturday night? Go to Chapel Hill."

I also have some fond memories of brunches with my parents over there when they came to visit.

[diablesseblu]

Awe, c'mon guys. Chapel Hill is a lovely town. I had some good times over there. I learned how to shag at Purdy's. Granted, unlike today, I was at Duke when the "joke" was: "What is there to do in Durham on a Saturday night? Go to Chapel Hill."

I also have some fond memories of brunches with my parents over there when they came to visit.


Understand, and appreciate, your experiences and memories in CH. That said, I love beyond words how Durham is flourishing these days. There's really no good reason to drive over to CH anymore (other than to see the Devils beat the Heels).

A bonus -- it's very difficult for the Tar Heel fans I know to be reading constant kudos about Durham!

[killerleft]

UNC won't get the death penalty.

I doubt we'll ever see a major revenue sport get the death penalty. Which is too bad, because some universities have definitely deserved it. I've heard football analysts bemoaning how SMU has never recovered from the death penalty. And that's how it should be, SMU was a disgrace.

If Penn State didn't get it, no program will get the death penalty. In that instance the NCAA decided that making money was more important than protecting children from predators. And as much as a loath UNC, I can't say their infractions are up there with Sandusky and Paterno.

How many predators do you reckon they didn't get at Penn State? Are they thick as thieves?

[swood1000]

UNC released its First Monitoring Report (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/) on 3/11/2016, as required by the 7/1/2015 letter from SACS (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2015/07/SACSCOCLetterJuly1-2015.pdf) placing them on probation. In one section (http://www.unc.edu/sacs/March2016/Web_Public/Reports/FR%204.7.html) of this First Monitoring Report it dealt with issues under Title IV, which concerns federal loans and grants to students.

6289

There they said that they had corrected all the Title IV deficiencies that the State Auditor had found (http://www.unc.edu/sacs/March2016/Web_Public/Docs/4.7/state-audit-letter-jan-7-2015.pdf). They said that the Department of Education requested supplemental student information in March 2015, is conducting a Program Review which remains open, and that "the University will provide SACSCOC with a copy of the Final Program Review Determination (FPRD) when it is issued."

UNC was placed on probation at the SACS Board of Trustees meeting held 6/11/2015. One of the requirements of the 7/1/2015 letter was that was that


The University must provide evidence of the effectiveness of its new Title IV Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) process put in place for the 2014-2015 academic year.

It would seem, then, that if the Dept. of Education has not issued its FPRD by June 2016 that SACS is going to have to extend its probation for another year.

Some observers have wondered whether the Dept. of Education is going to find a violation by UNC of Title IV regulations due to various aspects of the paper class scheme. (Was UNC really providing "education" to all those receiving grants and loans, did UNC improperly count some Independent Study courses as good toward graduation when they were not?)

According to the Dept. of Education Program Review Guidelines (https://www.ifap.ed.gov/programrevguide/attachments/2009ProgramReviewGuide.pdf), the Final Program Review Determination that UNC says it is waiting for is actually preceded by a "Program Review Report." But I can find no reference to a Program Review Report, nor is there a request for one in the UNC public records requests (http://publicrecords.unc.edu/public-records/). The Program Review Report is supposed to be issued within 75 days after the "review team" leaves the institution following the Program Review. If, as UNC stated to SACS, the Program Review remains open, then the chances of getting either a Program Review Report or a Final Program Review Determination by June seem remote.

[MarkD83]

UNC released its First Monitoring Report (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hills-first-monitoring-report-responding-to-sacscoc/) on 3/11/2016, as required by the 7/1/2015 letter from SACS (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2015/07/SACSCOCLetterJuly1-2015.pdf) placing them on probation. In one section (http://www.unc.edu/sacs/March2016/Web_Public/Reports/FR%204.7.html) of this First Monitoring Report it dealt with issues under Title IV, which concerns federal loans and grants to students.

6289

There they said that they had corrected all the Title IV deficiencies that the State Auditor had found (http://www.unc.edu/sacs/March2016/Web_Public/Docs/4.7/state-audit-letter-jan-7-2015.pdf). They said that the Department of Education requested supplemental student information in March 2015, is conducting a Program Review which remains open, and that "the University will provide SACSCOC with a copy of the Final Program Review Determination (FPRD) when it is issued."

UNC was placed on probation at the SACS Board of Trustees meeting held 6/11/2015. One of the requirements of the 7/1/2015 letter was that was that



It would seem, then, that if the Dept. of Education has not issued its FPRD by June 2016 that SACS is going to have to extend its probation for another year.

Some observers have wondered whether the Dept. of Education is going to find a violation by UNC of Title IV regulations due to various aspects of the paper class scheme. (Was UNC really providing "education" to all those receiving grants and loans, did UNC improperly count some Independent Study courses as good toward graduation when they were not?)

According to the Dept. of Education Program Review Guidelines (https://www.ifap.ed.gov/programrevguide/attachments/2009ProgramReviewGuide.pdf), the Final Program Review Determination that UNC says it is waiting for is actually preceded by a "Program Review Report." But I can find no reference to a Program Review Report, nor is there a request for one in the UNC public records requests (http://publicrecords.unc.edu/public-records/). The Program Review Report is supposed to be issued within 75 days after the "review team" leaves the institution following the Program Review. If, as UNC stated to SACS, the Program Review remains open, then the chances of getting either a Program Review Report or a Final Program Review Determination by June seem remote.

And if the DOE report says that UNC has not complied with Title IV deficiencies does that mean that UNC would be in trouble with the Feds?

[diablesseblu]

And if the DOE report says that UNC has not complied with Title IV deficiencies does that mean that UNC would be in trouble with the Feds?

Short answer.......YES. This is one facet of UNC's "issues" that's been largely ignored. (It's not sexy, but reminds me of Al Capone and his indictment on tax evasion.) That said, "Inside Higher Education" recently focused on it. Also, the people at the "N&O" have been reminded of this issue. Maybe this will be the next focus of Dan Kane?

UNC may be able to exert undue influence with the NCAA re: their phantom courses. However, this part of the puzzle possibly involves federal crimes.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

New Dan Kane article focusing on the NCAA's new academic misconduct rules... some harsh stuff in there about the folks down the road.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article72234912.html

[sagegrouse]

New Dan Kane article focusing on the NCAA's new academic misconduct rules... some harsh stuff in there about the folks down the road.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article72234912.html

Former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has today's "money quote:"


“I just think about those young men who the vast majority are probably first generation in their family having the chance to go to college, and the chance not to just play basketball in North Carolina but the chance to get a degree from the University of North Carolina,” Duncan said. “That’s a life-transforming opportunity. And the fact they were denied that chance is mindboggling. It’s mindboggling. And they were denied it systemically, systematically. This was part of the University of North Carolina basketball system.”

[MChambers]

Former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has today's "money quote:"
Duncan sounds like a member of Packpride. I agree with him, but I'm surprised to see a public figure state something so directly and clearly.

[BD80]

Former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has today's "money quote:"

“I just think about those young men who the vast majority are probably first generation in their family having the chance to go to college, and the chance not to just play basketball in North Carolina but the chance to get a degree from the University of North Carolina,” Duncan said. “That’s a life-transforming opportunity. And the fact they were denied that chance is mindboggling. It’s mindboggling. And they were denied it systemically, systematically. This was part of the University of North Carolina basketball system.”

The true ugliness underlying the "carolina" way, is the refusal to admit that an education is different than a degree.

tar heels will look at the quote and smirk, but we GAVE them degrees! What is the problem? They didn't even have to go to class or study to get the degrees!

They have no problem with the fact that AFAM majors were churned out without a scintilla of education, leaving essentially as ignorant as when they arrived. Having taken multiple classes such as Swahili without learning to even speak a word of Swahili

It is like trying to explain to a fox that eating chickens is wrong.

[sagegrouse]

From today's business news story on a PPB topic of some controversy in North Carolina:

As Connecticut makes overtures to lure away Bank of America from its long-established headquarters in Charlotte, has North Carolina's reputation already gone from Tar Heel to tarnished?

A secondary topic could be how UNC athletics is also hurting the reputation of the state.

[swood1000]

And if the DOE report says that UNC has not complied with Title IV deficiencies does that mean that UNC would be in trouble with the Feds?
Potentially. According to the State Auditor, for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2014, approximately 12,813 UNC Chapel Hill students received $194,741,088 in Title IV federal student financial aid. Anything that endangers that has to be a big deal. However, the findings of a Program Review are often of mundane things that just have to be fixed, or that involve minor payments or penalties.

There are three requirements (http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3169.pdf) for students to be eligible to receive Title IV funds: the school must be licensed by the state, it must be accredited, it must be certified by the Dept. of Education (ED) to participate in the program. UNC's accrediting agency, SACS, has placed it on probation for one year, ending in June. It can be placed on probation for only one more year, after which if it hasn't resolved the problems that SACS has pointed out it will lose accreditation and eligibility for Title IV funds for its students.

It's possible that both SACS and the NCAA are waiting to see what will be in the Title IV Program Review Report. It would seem that SACS would lose face if they removed UNC from probation and gave them a clean bill of health only to have a damning Program Review Report be issued. (SACS itself must meet a specific set of criteria in order to continue receiving recognition from ED.) The NCAA enforcement staff might wish to see what ED investigators have found before sending the revised NOA.

ED says (http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3169.pdf) that it relies relies on accrediting agencies and state licensing to determine standards of program quality, and that its only direct involvement in determining institutional eligibility for Title IV programs is by protecting the fiscal integrity of its funding programs through certification by ED. This shows typical reasons for loss of eligibility:

6292

So this Program Review has now been going on since at least March 2015. I don't know what is a typical length but the Program Review of a community college (https://www.pima.edu/press-room/whats-happening-announcements/docs/201410-federal-student-aid-program-review-report-sept-2014.pdf) took four days.

Edit: or maybe the Dept. of Education is waiting for a declaration by SACS before issuing its Program Review Report. Don't really know who's supposed to go first.

[cspan37421]

Former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has today's "money quote:"

Denied? Maybe a couple. Most were very willing "victims" of the University of No Class(es)

[sagegrouse]

Former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has today's "money quote:"


Duncan sounds like a member of Packpride. I agree with him, but I'm surprised to see a public figure state something so directly and clearly.


“I just think about those young men who the vast majority are probably first generation in their family having the chance to go to college, and the chance not to just play basketball in North Carolina but the chance to get a degree from the University of North Carolina,” Duncan said. “That’s a life-transforming opportunity. And the fact they were denied that chance is mindboggling. It’s mindboggling. And they were denied it systemically, systematically. This was part of the University of North Carolina basketball system.”

The true ugliness underlying the "carolina" way, is the refusal to admit that an education is different than a degree.

tar heels will look at the quote and smirk, but we GAVE them degrees! What is the problem? They didn't even have to go to class or study to get the degrees!

They have no problem with the fact that AFAM majors were churned out without a scintilla of education, leaving essentially as ignorant as when they arrived. Having taken multiple classes such as Swahili without learning to even speak a word of Swahili

It is like trying to explain to a fox that eating chickens is wrong.


Denied? Maybe a couple. Most were very willing "victims" of the University of No Class(es)


"Willing victims" -- maybe when they were students -- but probably not so happy now. When athletes are given a free pass to stay eligible and even get decent grades without doing any work, the coaches then are able to make demands on the players that are utterly unhindered by academics.

The entire affair stinks to high heaven and UNC really does deserve the death penalty for men's hoops. Moreover, the declining reputation of the state due to the controversy over HB2 may end up further soiling UNC in the eyes of the NCAA Committee on Infractions and reduce the resistance of the COI to harsh penalties. While I don't think men's basketball will get shut down, but it should be for a year or more. I expect WBB will get the death penalty, and maybe that will protect the men's team. But this whole mess of fraudulent courses was a creation of and for men's hoops. Burn 'em all, COI!

Not so kindly today,

Sage Grouse
'You know, I was initially nominated in the very first post as one of only two or three candidates for what turned out to be Mt. Hatemore. I demurred because -- basically -- living far away from North Carolina, I don't meet any objectionable Tar Heel fans and don't have the visceral attitudes of the eventual winners. But I'm gettin' purty darned visceral now!'

[swood1000]

Denied? Maybe a couple. Most were very willing "victims" of the University of No Class(es)
I think that works as a response to a student-athlete suing UNC for not having received an education after he knowingly took fraudulent classes. But it doesn't work to relieve UNC of any of the blame for using a "college education" as part of the inducement during recruitment, knowing that the student would not be able to successfully complete the necessary courses, regardless of whether the student knowingly took the fake courses after he discovered the truth and it was too late.

[MarkD83]

Potentially. According to the State Auditor, for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2014, approximately 12,813 UNC Chapel Hill students received $194,741,088 in Title IV federal student financial aid. Anything that endangers that has to be a big deal. However, the findings of a Program Review are often of mundane things that just have to be fixed, or that involve minor payments or penalties.

There are three requirements (http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3169.pdf) for students to be eligible to receive Title IV funds: the school must be licensed by the state, it must be accredited, it must be certified by the Dept. of Education (ED) to participate in the program. UNC's accrediting agency, SACS, has placed it on probation for one year, ending in June. It can be placed on probation for only one more year, after which if it hasn't resolved the problems that SACS has pointed out it will lose accreditation and eligibility for Title IV funds for its students.

It's possible that both SACS and the NCAA are waiting to see what will be in the Title IV Program Review Report. It would seem that SACS would lose face if they removed UNC from probation and gave them a clean bill of health only to have a damning Program Review Report be issued. (SACS itself must meet a specific set of criteria in order to continue receiving recognition from ED.) The NCAA enforcement staff might wish to see what ED investigators have found before sending the revised NOA.

ED says (http://constructionlitmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/3169.pdf) that it relies relies on accrediting agencies and state licensing to determine standards of program quality, and that its only direct involvement in determining institutional eligibility for Title IV programs is by protecting the fiscal integrity of its funding programs through certification by ED. This shows typical reasons for loss of eligibility:

6292

So this Program Review has now been going on since at least March 2015. I don't know what is a typical length but the Program Review of a community college (https://www.pima.edu/press-room/whats-happening-announcements/docs/201410-federal-student-aid-program-review-report-sept-2014.pdf) took four days.

Edit: or maybe the Dept. of Education is waiting for a declaration by SACS before issuing its Program Review Report. Don't really know who's supposed to go first.

So it may be that the Dept of Education, SACS and the NCAA are all trying to avoid defining exactly what a college education should include. Their quandry is that they thought they were dealing with institutions that at least in principle were trying to educate students. The NCAA's new legislation is an attempt to close the gap of dealing with unethical administrations. I sure hope the Dept of Education steps up and makes an emphatic statement, but I am not holding my breath.

[77devil]

From today's business news story on a PPB topic of some controversy in North Carolina:


A secondary topic could be how UNC athletics is also hurting the reputation of the state.

I can assure you that if B of A moves it HQ out of NC, Connecticut is the last place it will go.

[Indoor66]

I can assure you that if B of A moves it HQ out of NC, Connecticut is the last place it will go.

I would guess FL or TX if happens.

[BandAlum83]

I would guess FL or TX if happens.

The tallest bldg in the southeast is the Bank of America bldg in Atlanta. Atlanta would be a candidate to move to. The recent NC legislature overturning of a Charlotte law that was passed designed to provide LGBT people equal rights has many businesses exerting pressure on the NC governor.

That would be a reason for BocA to potentially consider leaving NC, not the UNC debacle. Either way, I could hardly believe the Bank would leave the south.

BTW, Texas isn't the south, it's Texas. Florida isn't the south either, unless you are north of Orlando.

[Indoor66]

It seems there may be a new missle from the NCAA to UNC and it raises the Level 1 counts from 5 to 6 and adds a Level 2 count. Check out PackPride - that is the source. Also see BlueDevilicious (https://twitter.com/BlueDevilicious).

A bad day over at the dump on the hump! (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr39/wolfgar112/varwwwclientsclient1web2tmpphpQXOxvT.gif%7Eorigina l) :p:cool:

[swood1000]

It seems there may be a new missle from the NCAA to UNC and it raises the Level 1 counts from 5 to 6 and adds a Level 2 count. Check out PackPride - that is the source. Also see BlueDevilicious (https://twitter.com/BlueDevilicious).

A bad day over at the dump on the hump! (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr39/wolfgar112/varwwwclientsclient1web2tmpphpQXOxvT.gif%7Eorigina l) :p:cool:
Those were some incendiary charges.

[devildeac]

It seems there may be a new missle from the NCAA to UNC and it raises the Level 1 counts from 5 to 6 and adds a Level 2 count. Check out PackPride - that is the source. Also see BlueDevilicious (https://twitter.com/BlueDevilicious).

A bad day over at the dump on the hump! (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr39/wolfgar112/varwwwclientsclient1web2tmpphpQXOxvT.gif%7Eorigina l) :p:cool:


Those were some incendiary charges.

Nothing on wralsportsfan or the N&O sites yet.

[devildeac]

Borrowed from BDevilU at PackPride:

6294

Looks like they may have to hang another banner...

[MarkD83]

Borrowed from BDevilU at PackPride:

6294

Looks like they may have to hang another banner...

They have enough banners for the 2002-2011 time frame perhaps the next banner starts in the 1980s.

[OldPhiKap]

It seems there may be a new missle from the NCAA to UNC and it raises the Level 1 counts from 5 to 6 and adds a Level 2 count. Check out PackPride - that is the source. Also see BlueDevilicious (https://twitter.com/BlueDevilicious).

A bad day over at the dump on the hump! (http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr39/wolfgar112/varwwwclientsclient1web2tmpphpQXOxvT.gif%7Eorigina l) :p:cool:

Any other source than Bluedevilicious retweeting that post? I am not familiar with the original source.

[Indoor66]

Any other source than Bluedevilicious retweeting that post? I am not familiar with the original source.

This person on Twitter (RCCPMD) (https://twitter.com/rccpmd) is allegedly a P5 Conference Compliance person. Manalishi and st8dukegrad87 over on PackPride attest to his knowledge of the rules and seeming accuracy of info. If you read his Twitter feed it is quite interesting.