PDA

View Full Version : unc Athletics Scandal - Amended NOA has been released



Pages : 1 [2]

BigWayne
04-28-2016, 02:16 AM
Nice op-ed by a UNCC professor. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article74275762.html)




UNC-Chapel Hill has been caught perpetuating a 20-year system of lies and cheating to advance its reputation and money returns from athletic victories

It has used its Southern code power to attempt to kill the messengers and in so doing has shown itself to be a bully of a very low class

It is without honor

swood1000
04-28-2016, 07:38 AM
Interesting read:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article74275762.html

Nice op-ed by a UNCC professor. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article74275762.html)


UNC-Chapel Hill has been caught perpetuating a 20-year system of lies and cheating to advance its reputation and money returns from athletic victories

It has used its Southern code power to attempt to kill the messengers and in so doing has shown itself to be a bully of a very low class

It is without honor


In the old days a duel would have been the only possible outcome of this piece. But on second thought, that required that both sides have a credible claim to honor.

dukelifer
04-28-2016, 07:54 AM
Nice op-ed by a UNCC professor. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article74275762.html)

This is a issue of honor. Athletics directed their athletes into these courses and no one ever questioned their legitimacy or value beyond helping athletes maintaining eligibility. But the larger story is bringing in athletes who are ill prepared for college-forcing them the spend the bulk of their time in sports related activities and then expecting them to stay eligible in the classroom. The focus is not on the education of the student but whether the team wins. UNC (and many other places) think of the student-athletes as athletes first and students second.

PackMan97
04-28-2016, 08:45 AM
This is a issue of honor. Athletics directed their athletes into these courses and no one ever questioned their legitimacy or value beyond helping athletes maintaining eligibility. But the larger story is bringing in athletes who are ill prepared for college-forcing them the spend the bulk of their time in sports related activities and then expecting them to stay eligible in the classroom. The focus is not on the education of the student but whether the team wins. UNC (and many other places) think of the student-athletes as athletes first and students second.

One could also tie in how they have treated whistleblowers and stamped out any sign of opposition in the falculty. UNC has also shown absolutely zero remorse during this scandal. Every action they have taken is to minimize the damage to athletics and continue their winning. Since, after all, winning cures all things.

moonpie23
04-28-2016, 08:59 AM
Nice op-ed by a UNCC professor. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article74275762.html)

UNC's eloquent rebuttal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA) (After checking that the banners were still hanging)

duke79
04-28-2016, 08:59 AM
This is a issue of honor. Athletics directed their athletes into these courses and no one ever questioned their legitimacy or value beyond helping athletes maintaining eligibility. But the larger story is bringing in athletes who are ill prepared for college-forcing them the spend the bulk of their time in sports related activities and then expecting them to stay eligible in the classroom. The focus is not on the education of the student but whether the team wins. UNC (and many other places) think of the student-athletes as athletes first and students second.

You hit the nail on the proverbial head! This is exactly the problem and explains why such outrages take place in college sports.

sammy3469
04-28-2016, 09:07 AM
didn't Bubba Cunningham say UNC would take close to 90 days to respond to ANOA? If football and roundball aren't getting hammered why are they taking that long? Looks like they would respond asap to get the distractions out of the way and tell recruits with total conviction there's nothing to fear?

Two possible reasons:

1. They may want to see if Meeks and/or Jackson come back before self-imposing. If they are going to self-impose, they probably need to do it before they give their response.
2. They want to sign some basketball guys to LOI during the Nov '16 window and/or lock in their football class in Feb 2017.

Plus at this point time is on their side.

tendev
04-28-2016, 09:07 AM
Just listened to Bilas discussion on The Zone. He is sticking to his guns and making himself look the fool. Can't really figure out his motive, but doesn't matter the reason I guess.

His motive is that he has personal relationships with the coaches and athletic administrators of the teams he covers as an analyst. They are his friends. He is a product of the athletic system that they represent. Even when they have clearly committed wrongs, while never excusing their behavior, he never fails to find some mitigating circumstance. The NCAA is an easy target for him not only because the NCAA has some ridiculously stupid rules but because all the people he has relationships with have the same personal view of the NCAA. In the UNC case, his implicit if not explicit message is when he says the NCAA's rules don't cover this is don't blame the athletics department for knowingly taking advantage of the fraudulent classes to keep athletes eligible blame UNC as an institution. There was one and only one purpose for the fraudulent classes: helping athletes who would not have been able to stay in school much less stay eligible to play without them. Bilas can make a technical argument that the NCAA rules don't cover this but that is the classic promotion of form over substance. He is definitely smart enough to know that but he can't get himself to actually say it.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 09:10 AM
So the bottom line of the amended NOA is that there will likely be no vacated wins and no banners coming down. However, all other expected penalties are still fully expected, with the caveat that since football and MBB were not named in the LOIC allegation as they were in the first one (only "student athletes" were referenced this time) we have less to go on in assuming that those sports will participate in the post-season ban that is called for when there is one or more Level I allegations and where aggravating factors greatly outweigh mitigating. Looking forward to any supplementary information for more of a clue as to their focus.

UNC has an incentive to hurry this thing through without delay because of the continued effect on their recruiting of the uncertainty surrounding post-season competition.

blueduke59
04-28-2016, 09:23 AM
So the bottom line of the amended NOA is that there will likely be no vacated wins and no banners coming down. However, all other expected penalties are still fully expected, with the caveat that since football and MBB were not named in the LOIC allegation as they were in the first one (only "student athletes" were referenced this time) we have less to go on in assuming that those sports will participate in the post-season ban that is called for when there is one or more Level I allegations and where aggravating factors greatly outweigh mitigating. Looking forward to any supplementary information for more of a clue as to their focus.

UNC has an incentive to hurry this thing through without delay because of the continued effect on their recruiting of the uncertainty surrounding post-season competition.

I agree. Makes me wonder why Bubba Cunningham said UNC would probably take most of if not all of the required 90 days for their response. Seems to me if men's sports aren't going to get hammered they would want to end this as quickly as possible

sammy3469
04-28-2016, 09:31 AM
UNC has an incentive to hurry this thing through without delay because of the continued effect on their recruiting of the uncertainty surrounding post-season competition.

They have zero incentive to hurry this along especially if Jackson and/or Meeks come back. Plus, they get to spout that MBB isn't affected to recruits for the next 6 months and see who they can lock up in the Nov early signing period and potentially lock in another football recruiting class if they can push this past the 2017 national signing day.

They did it once before, I'd be shocked if they didn't do it again.

MarkD83
04-28-2016, 09:36 AM
I agree. Makes me wonder why Bubba Cunningham said UNC would probably take most of if not all of the required 90 days for their response. Seems to me if men's sports aren't going to get hammered they would want to end this as quickly as possible

I'll be cynical and say that Bubba is now asking his lawyers to go to the NCAA and negotiate that all parties listed in the ANOA have been let go by UNC and therefore UNC should get NO penalties. He needs the 90 days for his lawyers to exert more pressure.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 09:42 AM
They have zero incentive to hurry this along especially if Jackson and/or Meeks come back. Plus, they get to spout that MBB isn't affected to recruits for the next 6 months and see who they can lock up in the Nov early signing period and potentially lock in another football recruiting class if they can push this past the 2017 national signing day.

They did it once before, I'd be shocked if they didn't do it again.
MBB recruiting has undeniably suffered as a result of the clouds hanging over their postseason. Roy wasn't able to deal with that problem in a satisfactory way before by saying that MBB was not mentioned, and he can do nothing more than keep saying same thing. The problem will remain until they get a definitive resolution.

sammy3469
04-28-2016, 10:04 AM
MBB recruiting has undeniably suffered as a result of the clouds hanging over their postseason. Roy wasn't able to deal with that problem in a satisfactory way before by saying that MBB was not mentioned, and he can do nothing more than keep saying same thing. The problem will remain until they get a definitive resolution.

Well they still got a top 20 kid and two top 60 kids this year and come out with a top 10ish recruiting class overall this year with all negative recruiting. I can't imagine it can be much worse than that after a run to the NC game and an ANOA that doesn't list MBB. Plus they already have Jalek Felton (top 30ish player) as a soft commit.

They lock in another top 10 class and even with 2 years of a postseason ban, they come out the other side at least a top 25 team.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 10:14 AM
Well they still got a top 20 kid and two top 60 kids this year and come out with a top 10ish recruiting class overall this year with all negative recruiting. I can't imagine it can be much worse than that after a run to the NC game and an ANOA that doesn't list MBB. Plus they already have Jalek Felton (top 30ish player) as a soft commit.

They lock in another top 10 class and even with 2 years of a postseason ban, they come out the other side at least a top 25 team.
OK, but it is indisputable that their recruiting has suffered as a consequence of having this hanging over them, no matter how Roy or anybody else spins it, and no matter how well they have been able to cope with it. And it's going to be hanging over them until the COI panel issues its judgment, so there is an incentive to get that behind them as soon as possible.

Edit: Roy said before that MBB was not charged in the NOA. What's he going to say now? That MBB really was not charged?

SoCalDukeFan
04-28-2016, 10:23 AM
On its website the NCAA says these are its core values

"NCAA Core Values
The Association - through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff - shares a belief in and commitment to:

The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.
The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.
The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.
The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.
An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.
Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.
Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels."


How is permitting essentially non-students to compete and excel in keeping with those values?

I don't know the minutia of the NCAA rules and regulations but the NCAA has a problem if it thinks he can allow unc to get away with this and is still keeping with its core values.

SoCal

swood1000
04-28-2016, 10:36 AM
On its website the NCAA says these are its core values

"NCAA Core Values
The Association - through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff - shares a belief in and commitment to:

The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.
The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.
The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.
The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.
An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.
Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.
Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels."


How is permitting essentially non-students to compete and excel in keeping with those values?

I don't know the minutia of the NCAA rules and regulations but the NCAA has a problem if it thinks he can allow unc to get away with this and is still keeping with its core values.

SoCal
UNC is not getting away with it. They will be penalized for numerous Level I aggravated infractions. They just are not having any of their past games vacated.

I'm not defending the NCAA's decision not to allege extra benefits, since it is clear that there were extra benefits as well as academic fraud. This just represents an investigative failure on their part. But let's not lose sight of the fact that UNC is going to be slammed, if not in fully the way that seems appropriate.

Edit: although it will not be slammed for permitting essentially non-students to compete, as you point out.

PackMan97
04-28-2016, 10:50 AM
UNC is not getting away with it. They will be penalized for numerous Level I aggravated infractions. They just are not having any of their past games vacated.


It's simple. If you are allowed to keep the spoils of your cheating...you are getting away with it. That is part of what they are proud of. The victories, banners and records need to be vacated.

UNC should NEVER be mentioned as one of the winningest programs in NCAA history, not when 23+ years of those wins are completely fraudulent. Three National Championship banners need to come down and a few handful of ACC Titles while we are at it. Failure to do so allows them to have gotten away with it.

I'm sorry, just because you slap their wrist and say "bad Carolina" doesn't mean they've been punished properly. By your definition, the NCAA could just ban them from off-campus recruiting for a season and you would call that a punishment and say they didn't get away with it.

dukebluesincebirth
04-28-2016, 10:51 AM
UNC is not getting away with it. They will be penalized for numerous Level I aggravated infractions. They just are not having any of their past games vacated.

I'm not defending the NCAA's decision not to allege extra benefits, since it is clear that there were extra benefits as well as academic fraud. This just represents an investigative failure on their part. But let's not lose sight of the fact that UNC is going to be slammed, if not in fully the way that seems appropriate.

Edit: although it will not be slammed for permitting essentially non-students to compete, as you point out.

Yes, they will be slammed hard, no matter what the COI does...apparently Duke has reached an agreement with a private bounty hunter who will be serving justice next year. He will be coming at them with all guns blazing and there'll be nowhere to hide this time. His name is Grayson James Allen.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 11:19 AM
It's simple. If you are allowed to keep the spoils of your cheating...you are getting away with it. That is part of what they are proud of. The victories, banners and records need to be vacated.

UNC should NEVER be mentioned as one of the winningest programs in NCAA history, not when 23+ years of those wins are completely fraudulent. Three National Championship banners need to come down and a few handful of ACC Titles while we are at it. Failure to do so allows them to have gotten away with it.

I'm sorry, just because you slap their wrist and say "bad Carolina" doesn't mean they've been punished properly. By your definition, the NCAA could just ban them from off-campus recruiting for a season and you would call that a punishment and say they didn't get away with it.
No, I didn't say that they will have been punished properly. I just said that they didn't get away with it, which implies little or no punishment.

But actually, that judgment can only be made after we see what happens. If MBB does not receive a post-season ban, along with serious recruiting restrictions and scholarship reductions, then they will have gotten away with it. There are some who are anticipating just that, since MBB is no longer specifically mentioned in the LOIC allegation.

But I would agree with you that they got away with it to the extent of the penalties that should have been assessed for the infractions in the original Allegation 1, now removed from the NOA.

Edit: and they certainly got away with that class of violations described by Rashad McCants.

SilkyJ
04-28-2016, 11:34 AM
No, I didn't say that they will have been punished properly. I just said that they didn't get away with it, which implies little or no punishment.


No. NO. NO. That's just your interpretation and definition. Many of us have said repeatedly that "getting away with it" = keeping the banners and wins accrued during the scandal era. That's our definition. You are active on this thread and know this.

We don't need to keep having the same semantic debate about what constitutes proper punishment or getting away with it or a slap on the wrist. Many of us believe that proper punishment, dropping the hammer, and not getting away with it = bringing down the banners. You don't believe that. You believe that forward looking punishments such as probation, suspensions, scholly reductions, post-season bans, etc. means they didn't get away with it. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

PackMan97
04-28-2016, 11:37 AM
No. NO. NO. That's just your interpretation and definition. Many of us have said repeatedly that "getting away with it" = keeping the banners and wins accrued during the scandal era. That's our definition. You are active on this thread and know this.

We don't need to keep having the same semantic debate about what constitutes proper punishment or getting away with it or a slap on the wrist. Many of us believe that proper punishment, dropping the hammer, and not getting away with it = bringing down the banners. You don't believe that. You believe that forward looking punishments such as probation, suspensions, scholly reductions, post-season bans, etc. means they didn't get away with it. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

+1

Not to mention, without stripping them of their ill-gotten history they'll just be using that on the recruiting trail to rebuild once any form of scholly reduction/ban/probation is over. They'll still be 5 time NCAA champs. They'll still be the second winningest program in NCAA history. Those are some pretty large bragging rights they get to retain from at least 23 years of cheating.

Any form of punishment that does not take away their ill-gotten gains is a slap on the wrist. That said, if they get the death penalty for a few years, I'll let them keep A banner...maybe the 93 banner?

swood1000
04-28-2016, 11:49 AM
No. NO. NO. That's just your interpretation and definition. Many of us have said repeatedly that "getting away with it" = keeping the banners and wins accrued during the scandal era. That's our definition. You are active on this thread and know this.

We don't need to keep having the same semantic debate about what constitutes proper punishment or getting away with it or a slap on the wrist. Many of us believe that proper punishment, dropping the hammer, and not getting away with it = bringing down the banners. You don't believe that. You believe that forward looking punishments such as probation, suspensions, scholly reductions, post-season bans, etc. means they didn't get away with it. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I guess I didn't realize that "getting away with it" had an agreed upon technical meaning. I'll keep that in mind.

One of the aspects of the penalties we were expecting was those penalties that would substantially weaken MBB in the future. If those come about the same as expected before then that will be a substantial blow to their program and they will feel in keenly. To that extent it could not be said that "nothing happened" (I assume that this phrase does not also carry an established and well-defined meaning that one would need to peruse all current and past UNC scandal threads in order to adequately appreciate).

PackMan97
04-28-2016, 11:52 AM
I guess I didn't realize that "getting away with it" had an agreed upon technical meaning. I'll keep that in mind.

One of the aspects of the penalties we were expecting was those penalties that would substantially weaken MBB in the future. If those come about the same as expected before then that will be a substantial blow to their program and they will feel in keenly. To that extent it could not be said that "nothing happened" (I assume that this phrase does not also carry an established and well-defined meaning that one would need to peruse all current and past UNC scandal threads in order to adequately appreciate).

All the penalties will be for moot if like their FB team, fresh off probation they are playing for the ACC Championship and a BCS bowl.

If a penalty is ineffective it is meaningless. It's very clear that FB "got away with it" and the rest of the UNC sports machine is poised to do likewise.

Devil2
04-28-2016, 12:11 PM
One could also tie in how they have treated whistleblowers and stamped out any sign of opposition in the faculty. UNC has also shown absolutely zero remorse during this scandal. Every action they have taken is to minimize the damage to athletics and continue their winning. Since, after all, winning cures all things.

The UNC AD, Bubba Cunningham, at the press conference presenting the ANOA, promised not to fix the unearthed problems , but "make sure UNC is treated fairly" during the penalty phase. That doesn't sound like someone who is contrite, but someone who is still lawyer ed up.

The NCAA ha published proposed rules to deal with a situation just like UNC's, several weeks ago. The NCAA realizes that UNC was able to use a big hole in the rules to enhance their chances of winning in athletics but that the NCAA is powerless to stop it. UNC and its lawyers have shown they will do whatever its takes to fight the NCAA and the NCAA's case is too fragile to win in court. The new rules should forever be called the "North Carolina" rule to remind everyone how UNC was able to get away with something that was clearly contrary to the NCAA goals and tenets if not its rules

sammy3469
04-28-2016, 12:12 PM
All the penalties will be for moot if like their FB team, fresh off probation they are playing for the ACC Championship and a BCS bowl.

If a penalty is ineffective it is meaningless. It's very clear that FB "got away with it" and the rest of the UNC sports machine is poised to do likewise.

FWIW, if another sport is going to get clobbered, it's going to be FB. Afterall, the Bridger presentation was made to athletic administrators (however you want to define that term) and this will be its second major sanctions in 5 years.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 12:34 PM
Having read the articles on the front page of DBR and comments here my dismay with the way the NCAA makes decisions is at an all time high.

I also saw that petition that a UNC supporter started about overturning the results for the NCAA championship.

So a kernel of an idea came up. Perhaps a petition should be started to ask the federal government to increase their oversight of the NCAA. I am not an expert on NCAA by laws but here is the essence of my thought.

Given that the NCAA declares that
1) its model is to protect the student athlete
2) it has declared in recent decisions that it will not decide the ultimate definition of academic scholarship
3) despite this public declaration it makes decisions capriciously about academic scholarship (Syracuse, Minnesota, Cal Tech (athletes registering for classes like everyone else but then being declared ineligible)).
4) has a history of making decisions outside of its declared area of jurisdiction (Penn State) only to have these decisions overturned in official judicial systems.
5) is in the midst of various active litigations questioning its obligations to the academic and financial well-being of student athletes
6) generates its revenues from interstate commerce

We petition that the NCAA be officially made part of the Department of Education with the head of the NCAA and its management be appointed by the head of the Department of Education. Furthermore, the investigation of NCAA violations and enforcement of violations of NCAA rules be under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Justice. Furthermore, the tools (such as issuing of subpoenas) that the DOJ can use to investigate current DOJ issues be available in the investigation of NCAA violations.

OK so that made me fell better to write but I am not sure I want to upload the petition yet.
I think that some serious progress could be made if a way could be found to let the NCAA have subpoena power in their investigations. That seems to be the principal cause of their impotence in the present case. Maybe it would work if a law were passed allowing them to do this under the supervision of a state or federal court judge.

In an interview (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/03/14/exclusive-ncaa-enforcement-investigators-speak-out/1988521/) a few years ago with Derrick Crawford, who was NCAA director of enforcement, he described the absence of subpoena power this way:


Q: One of the things we talked about with Jon is the public understanding of your job, and I think everyone knows you don't have subpoena power, although they may not know what that means. So in investigations and processing these cases, what challenges do you have with the power you've been given by the membership?

CRAWFORD: "This is the most challenging position I've ever held. I'm a former FBI agent and prosecutor, and the absence of subpoena power is huge. I can't state how significant because when you have those tools at your disposal you're able to move investigations along very quickly. There's really no one beyond the reach of a grand jury subpoena for documents or testimony so you're able to move a case along and get to the substance of what occurred much quicker. And I think that's part of the challenge in our process is often times the subjects or individuals we need to interview or get information, you don't have any jurisdiction or authority over them. I think it's much more challenging than I originally envisioned when I first came to the staff."

Q: What did you envision?

CRAWFORD: "I don't know that I had any real clear understanding; I knew there was a lack of subpoena power because I was told that in the interview process, but I don't think I knew what it meant in the practical term or how important that power was when you don't have it. Because I think being in federal law enforcement and as a prosecutor, you kind of take it for granted because it goes with the territory. When you don't have it, you realize, wow, what a difference it makes in terms of being able to find out what actually occurred or get relevant documents or bank records or credit card statements; things that are really easy to prove a case, particularly in a white-collar type of investigation. You don't have it here, and you're trying to connect the dots, and you know if you can get the documents you could, but you can't. So I don't know that I had any real expectation but when I got to the staff I realized, wow, how much harder it was and more challenging when you don't have that as a tool in your toolkit."

SilkyJ
04-28-2016, 12:58 PM
I guess I didn't realize that "getting away with it" had an agreed upon technical meaning. I'll keep that in mind.

No again. YOU defined "getting away with it" in your OP:


No, I didn't say that they will have been punished properly. I just said that they didn't get away with it, which implies little or no punishment.

My point was that "getting away with it" to YOU means one thing (little or no punishment) and to OTHERS (like me) it means the banners remain hanging even if they get a 5 year post-season ban (or other forward looking punishments).

I did not say there is an agreed upon definition. My point is that we all have our own definitions...and we've discussed this like 100 times so let's stop debating it. There's a clear camp that is fine with forward looking punishments, and there's a clear camp that is focused on the banners. You'll never guess which one I'm in...

swood1000
04-28-2016, 01:08 PM
No again. YOU defined "getting away with it" in your OP:



My point was that "getting away with it" to YOU means one thing (little or no punishment) and to OTHERS (like me) it means the banners remain hanging even if they get a 5 year post-season ban (or other forward looking punishments).

I did not say there is an agreed upon definition. My point is that we all have our own definitions...and we've discussed this like 100 times so let's stop debating it. There's a clear camp that is fine with forward looking punishments, and there's a clear camp that is focused on the banners. You'll never guess which one I'm in...
Look, I am not responsible for the actions of the NCAA. Let me suggest, in as amiable a way as possible, that you find someone else against whom to vent your spleen.

gumbomoop
04-28-2016, 01:23 PM
His motive is that he has personal relationships with the coaches and athletic administrators of the teams he covers as an analyst. They are his friends. He is a product of the athletic system that they represent. Even when they have clearly committed wrongs, while never excusing their behavior, he never fails to find some mitigating circumstance. The NCAA is an easy target for him not only because the NCAA has some ridiculously stupid rules but because all the people he has relationships with have the same personal view of the NCAA. In the UNC case, his implicit if not explicit message is when he says the NCAA's rules don't cover this is don't blame the athletics department for knowingly taking advantage of the fraudulent classes to keep athletes eligible blame UNC as an institution. There was one and only one purpose for the fraudulent classes: helping athletes who would not have been able to stay in school much less stay eligible to play without them. Bilas can make a technical argument that the NCAA rules don't cover this but that is the classic promotion of form over substance. He is definitely smart enough to know that but he can't get himself to actually say it.

This is the most incisive analysis I have read on EK re Bilas. And to add to tendev's acute conclusion about Bilas's resort to "form over substance," note this comment from Bilas as cited in the Dan Kane piece, accurately characterized on the front page as "generous" to Bilas: “What happened here was awful, you are not getting any argument from me."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article74273272.html#storylink=cpy

Mistakes were made; no argument from Bilas on that. Nor are we likely to get from him much focus on the actual substance of the awfulness, the purpose of the awfulness, the responsibility for owning up to the illegitimate advantages that the awfulness provided. On those substantive issues, Bilas "can"t get himself to actually say it." Indeed, what Bilas can say is itself a smokescreen to hide what he can't and won't say: “We can say it’s a failing of the NCAA rules... but that’s what the rules say, and that’s all I’m saying.”

That's all -- literally, all -- he wants to say, as he needs to focus on legalistic rules -- "form" -- so as to avoid confronting intellectually and ethically what actually happened and why -- "substance." Thus, as tendev says, Bilas's superficial and legalistic distancing of MBB from UNC allows him to absolve Roy of any responsibility. If Roy (presumably inadvertently...) took advantage of, benefited from, the ill-considered rules, don't blame Roy.

After all, it wasn't an impermissible benefit. That's all Bilas is saying.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 02:36 PM
This is the most incisive analysis I have read on EK re Bilas. And to add to tendev's acute conclusion about Bilas's resort to "form over substance," note this comment from Bilas as cited in the Dan Kane piece, accurately characterized on the front page as "generous" to Bilas: “What happened here was awful, you are not getting any argument from me."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article74273272.html#storylink=cpy

Mistakes were made; no argument from Bilas on that. Nor are we likely to get from him much focus on the actual substance of the awfulness, the purpose of the awfulness, the responsibility for owning up to the illegitimate advantages that the awfulness provided. On those substantive issues, Bilas "can"t get himself to actually say it." Indeed, what Bilas can say is itself a smokescreen to hide what he can't and won't say: “We can say it’s a failing of the NCAA rules... but that’s what the rules say, and that’s all I’m saying.”

That's all -- literally, all -- he wants to say, as he needs to focus on legalistic rules -- "form" -- so as to avoid confronting intellectually and ethically what actually happened and why -- "substance." Thus, as tendev says, Bilas's superficial and legalistic distancing of MBB from UNC allows him to absolve Roy of any responsibility. If Roy (presumably inadvertently...) took advantage of, benefited from, the ill-considered rules, don't blame Roy.

After all, it wasn't an impermissible benefit. That's all Bilas is saying.
As I read it, Bilas is saying that if you have a class and half the students are athletes, and the instructor announces that there are no requirements for the class and everybody gets an A, it is not a violation under NCAA bylaws because it affects athletes and non-athletes equally. An impermissible benefit according to the rules is something going only to the athletes.

But Bilas is just a little too glib about UNC's innocence. According to him a coach is not subject to criticism if he steers students to a course he believes to be fake as long as nonathletes are also being steered to the course. But what about this fact reported by Wainstein:


Student-athletes accounted for a disproportionately high percentage of enrollments in the AFAM paper classes. ...In percentage terms, that means that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes and 24.5% were football or basketball players. By comparison, approximately 4% of the Chapel Hill student body are student-athletes in any given year, and approximately 0.6% are football players.

I would like to hear his explanation as to why this fact does not justify the charge from the original NOA:


Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses.


and therefore constitute extra benefits. I would also like to hear his explanation as to why a coach signing a student up for a class he believes to be fraudulent does not constitute "Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete," any why this would not apply to basketball counselor Wayne Walden who "acknowledged knowing how the classes worked, including that Crowder did at least some of the grading."

Bilas also has no problem cavalierly dismissing the McCants charges.

My pet belief is that it sticks in Bilas's craw that college athletes are not allowed to be paid, and he is predisposed to overlook all instances of extra benefits that he comes across.

Doria
04-28-2016, 02:40 PM
I tend to agree with gumbo and tendev's above analyses of Bilas's positions, with respect both to what he can and cannot say, and will or will not say. I also give him props for being willing to take time and clarify what he thinks his position is with DK in the above linked article; that is, by most accounts, pretty representative of his approach through much of his broadcasting career.

However, while I acknowledge the validity of the semantic argument he's making, I have to feel (very personally) that it's still a willfully disassociative point of view that seeks to divorce any spirit from the letter of the law. Whether it's because he cannot comment further or doesn't feel an opinion, cleaved from the bare facts, would be helpful or appropriate, I can't say. Note, this isn't disagreeing with the above posts. It's just a response to his comments, one which gumbo has already expressed more eloquently and in more detail.

But I'm probably more of a Bilas fan (in terms of his broadcasting career, not his Duke career) than most here. I am as likely to yell, "Shut up, Jay," as the next person, but when he isn't doing a Duke game, I often appreciate his insight and, yes, his blunt assessment of plays and tactics. Perhaps it's because I come from academia, but I'm willing to be forgiving of his "smartest guy in the room" flaws, mostly manifested in an inability to meaningfully confront other positions than his own. Truthfully, I'd probably prefer if he didn't comment on so many macro (and political) issues during games, but again, that might be asking him to be a substantively different person than he is. This has turned into a longer post on the subject than I intended...

madscavenger
04-28-2016, 02:43 PM
I'll be cynical and say that Bubba is now asking his lawyers to go to the NCAA and negotiate that all parties listed in the ANOA have been let go by UNC and therefore UNC should get NO penalties. He needs the 90 days for his lawyers to exert more pressure.

Speaking of negotiations, wasn't it reported some time ago that UNC had made a ridiculously soft offer to self penalize (something on the order of a postseason ban for 2016-17 and loss of two scholarships) in exchange for no further punishment?

Doria
04-28-2016, 02:44 PM
Speaking of negotiations, wasn't it reported some time ago that UNC had made a ridiculously soft offer to self penalize (something on the order of a postseason ban for 2016-17 and loss of two scholarships) in exchange for no further punishment?

Do you remember where you saw that?

madscavenger
04-28-2016, 03:10 PM
Do you remember where you saw that?

It was posted here at DBR, though i can't remember exactly when.

swood1000
04-28-2016, 03:12 PM
Speaking of negotiations, wasn't it reported some time ago that UNC had made a ridiculously soft offer to self penalize (something on the order of a postseason ban for 2016-17 and loss of two scholarships) in exchange for no further punishment?
The final word on penalties is up to the COI panel. The institution negotiates with the enforcement staff, not with the COI panel.

NCAA bylaw 19.6 allows a Summary Disposition process where the institution and enforcement staff agree on everything including proposed penalties. However, the COI panel can reject that, or can propose additional penalties. If it proposes additional penalties the institution can request a hearing on the penalties. Its only option then is to appeal the penalty to the Infractions Appeals Committee.

BLPOG
04-28-2016, 03:21 PM
I would like to hear his explanation as to why this fact does not justify the charge from the original NOA:and therefore constitute extra benefits.


Student-athletes accounted for a disproportionately high percentage of enrollments in the AFAM paper classes. ...In percentage terms, that means that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes and 24.5% were football or basketball players. By comparison, approximately 4% of the Chapel Hill student body are student-athletes in any given year, and approximately 0.6% are football players.


and therefore constitute extra benefits.

Based on those figures, my back-of-Chipotle-napkin calculations indicate that athletes were about 22 times as likely to take a paper class as non-athletes. The set of football and men's basketball players were about 66 times as likely to take a paper class as non-athletes. The idea that access to the fraudulent enrollments was "equal," in any sense or interpretation regarding the proportionality, is utterly laughable.

madscavenger
04-28-2016, 03:33 PM
The final word on penalties is up to the COI panel. The institution negotiates with the enforcement staff, not with the COI panel.

NCAA bylaw 19.6 allows a Summary Disposition process where the institution and enforcement staff agree on everything including proposed penalties. However, the COI panel can reject that, or can propose additional penalties. If it proposes additional penalties the institution can request a hearing on the penalties. Its only option then is to appeal the penalty to the Infractions Appeals Committee.

i do know how it works. Perhaps, having some inside info as to its severity, they tried to stop the NOA from being issued at all. Just can't remember anything other than it was definitely posted here.

sammy3469
04-29-2016, 08:26 AM
While it has nothing to do with UNC per se, it'll be interesting to see how the Ole' Miss saga plays out in comparison now that that one exploded last night. Judging by the articles detailing Miss's NOA, these would be new allegations. Wonder if they want another bite of the apple or if they'll just sweep it under the rug.

budwom
04-29-2016, 08:34 AM
The Bilas Lesson is clear: if you have a nice job, you say anything you have to say, no matter how disingenuous, in order to
suck up to your boss. Occupational Survival course 101.

English
04-29-2016, 08:45 AM
While it has nothing to do with UNC per se, it'll be interesting to see how the Ole' Miss saga plays out in comparison now that that one exploded last night. Judging by the articles detailing Miss's NOA, these would be new allegations. Wonder if they want another bite of the apple or if they'll just sweep it under the rug.

The Ole Miss situation, as I know it, involves money to a player/players--that's dead center of the NCAA's wheelhouse and will, barring something monumental (like the dissolution of the NCAA), incite severe punishment. If, instead, the issue involved academics in nearly any form, that'd be a whole 'nother ball of bong resin.

sammy3469
04-29-2016, 09:53 AM
The Ole Miss situation, as I know it, involves money to a player/players--that's dead center of the NCAA's wheelhouse and will, barring something monumental (like the dissolution of the NCAA), incite severe punishment. If, instead, the issue involved academics in nearly any form, that'd be a whole 'nother ball of bong resin.

The thing that's analogous is they already "investigated" and sent out a very-watered down NDA on the Freeze-Tunsil era. They basically didn't find any coach to player payments since Freeze has been there.

Tunsil's leak now has coach to Tunsil texts. However, now that Tunsil's gone, I seriously doubt they can get those texts from his side (much like McCants, they both had a moment of "clarity", but will never speak to the NCAA) and coach's texts have a way of disappearing without subpoena power (and in any case should have been requested in the initial investigation). So if they are going to pursue this, they will need to get help from somewhere since I'm sure the coaches will plead ignorance.

My main point though was it'll be interesting to see how aggressively they pursue this. They gave Ole Miss their NOA at the end of Jan. Just last week their response was extended another 30 days, so like UNC they'd need to come back in and investigate again allegations/violations that should have been right in front of their face the first time.

CameronBlue
04-29-2016, 12:25 PM
The Bilas Lesson is clear: if you have a nice job, you say anything you have to say, no matter how disingenuous, in order to
suck up to your boss. Occupational Survival course 101.

Well Jay played the sport and presumably he's saying that cheating is a victimless crime. Like prostitution. I guess he should know.

porcophile
04-29-2016, 12:55 PM
I thought y'all might be interested in the following, from a friend on the UNC faculty who has followed these things more closely than I have:

The assertion that "[the paper classes] were open to all students" is a NCAA excuse not to act, not an accurate description of reality. First, there WERE paper classes that had only athletes (the most famous being AFAM 280 in the second summer session of 2011, but many others with one, two, or three students, going back to the late '90s--even some of Jim Martin's data shows this.) In other words, athletes were clearly given favored treatment; they clearly had class sections created just for them to meet their specific needs. Oh, and ALL of those sections favored either men's basketball or football.
More broadly, it is also not true that the courses were open to anyone and everyone. You had to run in the correct circles to hear by word of mouth that Crowder would be willing to put you in a paper class. She herself expressed resentment that word had made it into the "frat circuit," and there were a few other circuits where word of the favoritism got around. But Joe Blow Classics major who needed to fill his aesthetic requirement would not have known about the paper class version of "Blacks in Film."

Tom B.
04-29-2016, 02:32 PM
I found this video today. Made me feel slightly better about all this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6wFeDqCdO0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6wFeDqCdO0

PackMan97
04-29-2016, 02:38 PM
I thought y'all might be interested in the following, from a friend on the UNC faculty who has followed these things more closely than I have:

The assertion that "[the paper classes] were open to all students" is a NCAA excuse not to act, not an accurate description of reality. First, there WERE paper classes that had only athletes (the most famous being AFAM 280 in the second summer session of 2011, but many others with one, two, or three students, going back to the late '90s--even some of Jim Martin's data shows this.) In other words, athletes were clearly given favored treatment; they clearly had class sections created just for them to meet their specific needs. Oh, and ALL of those sections favored either men's basketball or football.
More broadly, it is also not true that the courses were open to anyone and everyone. You had to run in the correct circles to hear by word of mouth that Crowder would be willing to put you in a paper class. She herself expressed resentment that word had made it into the "frat circuit," and there were a few other circuits where word of the favoritism got around. But Joe Blow Classics major who needed to fill his aesthetic requirement would not have known about the paper class version of "Blacks in Film."

Of course we know this!

There are smoking gun emails where Crowder has said she put a few more regular students in a class and feels comfortable to put in a few more athletes because they don't want to raise "red flags".

The UNC administrators knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They created these classes for athletes to remain eligible and added regular students as insulation. The NCAA refusing to call UNC out on this is a <bleeping> joke. The problem is that UNC has lawyered up and most likely said "prove each and every single course and section" and limited any smoking guns to that specific instance and the NCAA has blinked and refused to tell UNC "prove they aren't".

How much you want to be some of the "regular students" were friends or family of Ram's Clubs donors whose kids were in academic trouble and needed a good/easy grade? I'm not gonna take that bet.

English
04-29-2016, 03:03 PM
I thought y'all might be interested in the following, from a friend on the UNC faculty who has followed these things more closely than I have:

The assertion that "[the paper classes] were open to all students" is a NCAA excuse not to act, not an accurate description of reality. First, there WERE paper classes that had only athletes (the most famous being AFAM 280 in the second summer session of 2011, but many others with one, two, or three students, going back to the late '90s--even some of Jim Martin's data shows this.) In other words, athletes were clearly given favored treatment; they clearly had class sections created just for them to meet their specific needs. Oh, and ALL of those sections favored either men's basketball or football.
More broadly, it is also not true that the courses were open to anyone and everyone. You had to run in the correct circles to hear by word of mouth that Crowder would be willing to put you in a paper class. She herself expressed resentment that word had made it into the "frat circuit," and there were a few other circuits where word of the favoritism got around. But Joe Blow Classics major who needed to fill his aesthetic requirement would not have known about the paper class version of "Blacks in Film."

Thanks for sharing this, and this is what absolutely sets me off. It seems the fact that this scam is so systemic and widespread and LONG has basically subsumed all instances of malfeasance into a single entity. "Paper classes" covers the whole shebang, and the ones with a few conveniently placed frat bros gets the same lip service as these instances where an athlete was put into a class two weeks before the conclusion of the semester, or complete sections were dedicated to revenue sport athletes. If the NCAA doesn't want to tackle the whole hot mess, how come they can't come up with a list of these grievous violations and address those? Cherry-picking from among the dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of violations should get them plenty far.

Perhaps they will...we'll see.

BD80
04-29-2016, 03:15 PM
Well Jay played the sport and presumably he's saying that cheating is a victimless crime. Like prostitution. ...

Um, ask the 2 grad transfers at Louisville who did not get to play in the post-season, prostitution is NOT a victimless crime!

English
04-29-2016, 03:20 PM
Um, ask the 2 grad transfers at Louisville who did not get to play in the post-season, prostitution is NOT a victimless crime!

Don't ask Jay Bilas this question unless you have a few hours to kill. His opinion on the NCAA's allowance, and institutions' use, of issuing in-season, self-sanction post-season bans is verbose. Here's a hint in case you've just returned from outer space: he doesn't much care for the NCAA rules governing this.

Indoor66
04-29-2016, 03:40 PM
Don't ask Jay Bilas this question unless you have a few hours to kill. His opinion on the NCAA's allowance, and institutions' use, of issuing in-season, self-sanction post-season bans is verbose. Here's a hint in case you've just returned from outer space: he doesn't much care for the NCAA rules governing this.

He doesn't much care for the NCAA at all. Additionally, I find him verbose about most issues.

Tom B.
04-29-2016, 03:42 PM
Don't ask Jay Bilas this question unless you have a few hours to kill. His opinion on the NCAA's allowance, and institutions' use, of issuing in-season, self-sanction post-season bans is verbose. Here's a hint in case you've just returned from outer space: he doesn't much care for the NCAA rules governing this.

Sorry for the digression, but while we've been focusing on UNC and its banners, Louisville could be at even greater risk of losing a banner. It seems pretty well-established that the Louisville players who received the, um.....benefits....included several members of Louisville's 2013 national championship team (including, IIRC, Russ Smith and Montrezl Harrell). Given that the hookers and cash were directly supplied by an assistant coach, and went only to basketball players and recruits, that seems like about as clear-cut a case of "impermissible benefits" you're going to find. And if the players who got those benefits are declared ineligible retroactively, then any game in which they played is subject to being vacated. That includes the 2013 national championship.

martydoesntfoul
04-29-2016, 03:44 PM
Of course we know this!

There are smoking gun emails where Crowder has said she put a few more regular students in a class and feels comfortable to put in a few more athletes because they don't want to raise "red flags".

The UNC administrators knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They created these classes for athletes to remain eligible and added regular students as insulation. The NCAA refusing to call UNC out on this is a <bleeping> joke.

This is ultimately what matters: UNC accepted non-athlete students into the fake classes because they knew this was the way to exploit a gigantic NCAA loophole. It was clumsy, it was pathetic, it was immoral... and it worked to perfection. Plus, it provides a perfect blueprint for everyone else.

The whole episode makes me want to vomit. It points to a society of powerful institutions that lack integrity and which can lawyer up to avoid responsibility. The NCAA is equally culpable here... and a lot of my joy is gone.

madscavenger
04-29-2016, 05:06 PM
......................Given that the hookers and cash were directly supplied by an assistant coach, and went only to basketball players and recruits..........................



How do you know this?

MChambers
04-29-2016, 06:07 PM
How do you know this?

Because the Louisville scam wasn't perpetrated by UNC folks who would have been devious enough to include a few non-athletes?

madscavenger
04-29-2016, 06:54 PM
Because the Louisville scam wasn't perpetrated by UNC folks who would have been devious enough to include a few non-athletes?


Are you insinuating that UNC folks would have provided hookers for non-athletes?

NSDukeFan
04-29-2016, 07:31 PM
Are you insinuating that UNC folks would have provided hookers for non-athletes?

If it helped them to get away with cheating they would do most anything, wouldn't they?

BD80
04-29-2016, 07:41 PM
Are you insinuating that UNC folks would have provided hookers for non-athletes?


Why bother? In my opinion, all unc students can, um, love themselves.

Tom B.
04-29-2016, 10:19 PM
How do you know this?

Just going on what's been reported. So far, to the best of my knowledge, the only people implicated have been basketball players and recruits. As I recall, all of the shenanigans (at least, all of the ones we know about so far) took place in the basketball players' dorm, right?

English
05-01-2016, 11:42 AM
Just going on what's been reported. So far, to the best of my knowledge, the only people implicated have been basketball players and recruits. As I recall, all of the shenanigans (at least, all of the ones we know about so far) took place in the basketball players' dorm, right?

By all indication of the NCAA's history, if Louisville hires a team of exceptional lawyers who can ultimately argue that, at one of the parties, a random buddy of one of the players (non-athlete) was provided "gratification," this can all be dismissed as an institutional failure but not an athletic failure. Nothing to see here, NCAA.

Of course, I jest. It was actually an admisitrator in the Athletic Dept., rather than an assistant coach, but that's basically a distinction without a difference--the NCAA will insert itself. This type of case is what they live for.

smvalkyries
05-01-2016, 01:05 PM
All joking aside it's ridiculous to compare Louisville's minor infraction with paid providers (ignoring the fact that the providers were the children of the providers and perhaps minors themselves I didn't read closely enough to remember) with Carolina's two decade long continuing erosion of the school's academic standards . To me the deprivation of and/or the elimination of the benefit for education greatly exceeds even a series of paid recruiting sexual benefits. I think unpaid sexual benefits are "provided" to recruits quite frequently and can't see that much of a difference from steering a recruit in the direction or actually paying for it. It is still "just" a recruiting violation more like USC providing Reggie Bush a house or Auburn? providing a church to cam's father. These are despicable but are still just recruiting violations and don't go to the core of a university's existence like the Carolina case.
USC got hammered by the NCAA for its recruiting violations, we expect Louisville to be severely punished for theirs but Auburn skates scot free and it looks like the UNC woman's team will absorb the brunt of the UNC punishment. What does this diverse treatment say about the NCAA? About the importance of education to the NCAA (and Carolina)? and the power of religion and football in the South? Time to dump the NCAA and get a rationale governing body for college sports.
As a tongue in cheek aside has anyone suggested that no show classes leading to a Carolina degree does not confer an impermissable benefit because Carolina has so degraded its certificate that the de facto the NCAA has ruled that it has no value? How else can the justify claiming that permitting 10 athletes to exceed the independent course limit can still graduate without having received impermissable benefits? I am not aware that any non-athletes were accored the privelge of graduating with 25 units of independent study?
Sorry Carolina, your greatest loss is the respect of your former rival. I for one have put you in a class with Maryland as wanting to be rivals but now lacking sufficient respect off the court to qualify. Carolina you have shamed the entire State of North Carolina and probably would fit in better in the SEC.

moonpie23
05-01-2016, 03:41 PM
ok, so exactly how do you think they skated? something nefarious? or some legal tiptoeing?


HOW THE EFF DID THEY SKATE??



here's what i think.....i think they (the NCAA) came to the realization that they were going to have to strip banners. If they strip banners for cheating, it definitely tarnishes the brand of the NCAA MENS BASKETBALL PLAYOFF (which is worth BILLIONS)

I don't think they used 8 months to figure out how to "lock up" HOW they were going to punish UNCheat.....i think they spent 8 months figuring out how NOT to strip banners and somehow make it SEEM legit.... giving the COI the entire 55 pages won't allow for much wiggle room.......giving them this ANOA will allow them to fine them, strip some schollies, and MAYBE....MAYBE, some sort of post season ban.....all while pretending to be enraged... IT's not that uncheat is too big to fail, it's the BRAND (ncaa champion) that's too big to fail.

Roger MILHOUS goodell (and vegas) will NEVER allow a championship to be rescinded.......nor will Emmert...

watch them get out of taking 2013 away from L'vill......they'll figure out a way.....

[redacted] the ncaa....

hallcity
05-01-2016, 04:13 PM
Sorry for the digression, but while we've been focusing on UNC and its banners, Louisville could be at even greater risk of losing a banner. It seems pretty well-established that the Louisville players who received the, um....benefits...included several members of Louisville's 2013 national championship team (including, IIRC, Russ Smith and Montrezl Harrell). Given that the hookers and cash were directly supplied by an assistant coach, and went only to basketball players and recruits, that seems like about as clear-cut a case of "impermissible benefits" you're going to find. And if the players who got those benefits are declared ineligible retroactively, then any game in which they played is subject to being vacated. That includes the 2013 national championship.

Yes, but the "benefits" were received well after the 2013 title unless there's something I don't know. I don't see how you can take a title away for something that happened after the title was earned.

cbarry
05-01-2016, 04:19 PM
Exactly! I was 100% confident all along that the NCAA was going to allow UNC to skate, and took a little heat for that opinion. As Moonpie23 said, BB is big business, and the NCAA did everything they could to avoid tarnishing that brand. A slap on the wrist (if they even get THAT) for UNC is a completely expected, though ridiculously unjust, outcome to this whole mess. The evidence is clearly there, but the NCAA found ways to only include select, less important allegations, while giving MBB and FB a pass. What a joke.


ok, so exactly how do you think they skated? something nefarious? or some legal tiptoeing?
HOW THE EFF DID THEY SKATE??

here's what i think...i think they (the NCAA) came to the realization that they were going to have to strip banners. If they strip banners for cheating, it definitely tarnishes the brand of the NCAA MENS BASKETBALL PLAYOFF (which is worth BILLIONS)

I don't think they used 8 months to figure out how to "lock up" HOW they were going to punish UNCheat...i think they spent 8 months figuring out how NOT to strip banners and somehow make it SEEM legit... giving the COI the entire 55 pages won't allow for much wiggle room...giving them this ANOA will allow them to fine them, strip some schollies, and MAYBE...MAYBE, some sort of post season ban...all while pretending to be enraged... IT's not that uncheat is too big to fail, it's the BRAND (ncaa champion) that's too big to fail.

Roger MILHOUS goodell (and vegas) will NEVER allow a championship to be rescinded...nor will Emmert...

watch them get out of taking 2013 away from L'vill...they'll figure out a way...

[redacted] the ncaa...

lotusland
05-01-2016, 07:41 PM
Heels are going to skate with the NCAA. I hope a large UNCHEATERS banner is broadcast during every field goal or free throw in every game they play in for the next 20-yrs. They may say they don't care but I know UNC fans and they definitely care how they are perceived.

plimnko
05-01-2016, 09:46 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25573979/uncs-academic-scandal-leaves-professors-university-in-danger

Faustus
05-01-2016, 09:55 PM
That's quite an article, coming from a sports site. I think it's showing that despite the cowardice of the NCAA in this (or just their obviously being paid off) the rest of the Civilized World is coming around to realizing what has taken place (and do we really believe anything has actually changed there? If the same people are still in control there, who have shown zero contrition thus far and have merely spent millions in hush money, spin, and covering up?).

Will never happen, but I wish other schools would simply refuse to play UNC in any sport for 5 years. That would deliver a form of justice even if the NCAA itself will not...

duke4ever19
05-01-2016, 09:57 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25573979/uncs-academic-scandal-leaves-professors-university-in-danger

Thanks for the link.

I have to think the academic penalties on the school are going to be rather severe. The NCAA can do whatever it wants, but the accreditation of the whole school is beyond their control, and will damage UNC's sports program in its own way.

Edouble
05-02-2016, 12:42 AM
Why bother? In my opinion, all unc students can, um, love themselves.

Ademola Okulaja set the precedent for self lovin'.

johnb
05-02-2016, 06:58 AM
It's sad to me that grown ups can possibly believe that Williams and the rest of the various coaching staffs weren't aware that their marginal students were consistently making A's in independent studies. Boggles the mind that anyone finds it plausible that the coaches weren't at least aware of the scam. And the more they protest (and the NCAA backs away), the more I find it sadly reprehensible.

Nevertheless, I don't think Carolina sports are too big to fail, nor do I think the alumni have so much clout that they're impenetrable. The breadth of the institutional and academic failures may be what allows them to skate through the NCAA investigation. At the same time, I can imagine the southern accrediting agency getting creative: professors have been pummeled for generations by the antics of sports programs, and I'd like to believe that they'll take this opportunity to mete out their own punishment.

jdj4duke
05-02-2016, 07:25 AM
Nevertheless, I don't think Carolina sports are too big to fail,.... At the same time, I can imagine the southern accrediting agency getting creative: professors have been pummeled for generations by the antics of sports programs, and I'd like to believe that they'll take this opportunity to mete out their own punishment.

I hope that you are right, but as my mother-in-law used to say, "People in hell want ice water."

cspan37421
05-02-2016, 07:46 AM
Thanks for the link.

I have to think the academic penalties on the school are going to be rather severe. The NCAA can do whatever it wants, but the accreditation of the whole school is beyond their control, and will damage UNC's sports program in its own way.

Let's hope, but there was a signed commenter to that link that claims SACS rolled over for UAB and other UA-system-related issues, implying they're no more likely to act than the NCAA.

What schools of any significant stature have had their accreditation pulled for having academic fraud - however widespread - in the comparatively small (by student count) corner of athletics? If none, is it because they all are on the up-and-up? Does anyone believe that?

I'm afraid the only court that UNC could lose in is the court of public opinion. I have more hope for that than for SACS.

sagegrouse
05-02-2016, 08:03 AM
Let's hope, but there was a signed commenter to that link that claims SACS rolled over for UAB and other UA-system-related issues, implying they're no more likely to act than the NCAA.

What schools of any significant stature have had their accreditation pulled for having academic fraud - however widespread - in the comparatively small (by student count) corner of athletics? If none, is it because they all are on the up-and-up? Does anyone believe that?

I'm afraid the only court that UNC could lose in is the court of public opinion. I have more hope for that than for SACS.

If you look at the SACS actions, they are primarily aimed at small colleges with failing finances and for-profit institutions with meager resources and suspect intentions. Removing the accreditation from UNC, one of the six founders of SACS 90+ years ago, would be unprecedented.

BLPOG
05-02-2016, 08:28 AM
Thanks for the link.

I have to think the academic penalties on the school are going to be rather severe. The NCAA can do whatever it wants, but the accreditation of the whole school is beyond their control, and will damage UNC's sports program in its own way.

There will be no academic penalties. SACS does not levy penalties. Their only tools for encouraging institutional compliance are probation and revocation of accreditation. UNC is already on probation and SACS will not revoke accreditation.

The only impact SACS will have is to increase the amount of paperwork afflicting various parties at UNC. That could have some effects on the margin in terms of faculty retention, but probably no more than public knowledge of the scandal does already.

PackMan97
05-02-2016, 08:35 AM
There will be no academic penalties. SACS does not levy penalties. Their only tools for encouraging institutional compliance are probation and revocation of accreditation. UNC is already on probation and they SACS not revoke accreditation.

The only impact SACS will have is to increase the amount of paperwork afflicting various parties at UNC. That could have some effects on the margin in terms of faculty retention, but probably no more than public knowledge of the scandal does already.

Right now, SACs has three choices.
1. give the all clear
2. pull accreditation
3. a final year of probation and the chooce #1 or #2 after that.

duke4ever19
05-02-2016, 09:39 AM
There will be no academic penalties. SACS does not levy penalties. Their only tools for encouraging institutional compliance are probation and revocation of accreditation. UNC is already on probation and SACS will not revoke accreditation.

The only impact SACS will have is to increase the amount of paperwork afflicting various parties at UNC. That could have some effects on the margin in terms of faculty retention, but probably no more than public knowledge of the scandal does already.

Thanks for the clarification.

So just as with the NCAA, the opinion of several of you is that the SACS sees UNC as "too big to fail." With that said, the question I have is, why? What does the SACS lose or risk if they remove accreditation? Forgive me if someone already explained it elsewhere.

I actually spent semester at a school that lost its accreditation the next year, but yes, it was a small school.

kybluedevil
05-02-2016, 09:45 AM
Just got into a heated argument with rival UVa and NS State alums... They claim that what happened at UNC happens everywhere. And that UNC "just got caught". It's tough to refute this argument.
I realize that the institutional nature of the fraud maybe unique... But do we really think that high-revenue athletes aren't steered to easier classes at almost all Division I schools?

Duke79UNLV77
05-02-2016, 09:51 AM
Just got into a heated argument with rival UVa and NS State alums... They claim that what happened at UNC happens everywhere. And that UNC "just got caught". It's tough to refute this argument.
I realize that the institutional nature of the fraud maybe unique... But do we really think that high-revenue athletes aren't steered to easier classes at almost all Division I schools?

There's a big difference between classes that are hard to fail if you show up and do the basic work (that might actually be most college classes) and classes that are impossible not to get A's in, even without attending one class or doing any work.

To me, it also is clearly impermissible benefits because (1) the athletes were directed to the classes, whereas emails show the administrators became frustrated when fraternities found out about the classes, (2) the athletes were allowed to take more than the limit of "independent studies" classes," (3) the athletes were allowed to drop classes late, (4) the athletes were allowed to add classes late, (5) administrators requested and received favors of having fake classes added for athletes, (6) athletes didn't even have to write the papers, and (7) athletes had forged grade changes. You'd have to be as smart as Jay Bilas is to rationalize that all of this was not extra benefits, not to mention the free rental cars, etc. Actually, you might even have to be even smarter than that, like as smart as Jay Bilas thinks Jay Bilas is.

swood1000
05-02-2016, 09:52 AM
Right now, SACs has three choices.
1. give the all clear
2. pull accreditation
3. a final year of probation and the chooce #1 or #2 after that.
I think they will do #3. One of their demands was to show that the changes UNC put in place have been effective. The state auditor had found Title IV deficiencies, UNC cleared them up, and the auditor found the actions sufficient. However the U.S. Dept. of Education is currently conducting a Program Review. SACS will most likely want to wait until the Program Review Report comes out, and since it's not likely to come out prior to the end of the first year of probation in early June, they likely will extend probation for another year.

But after that year UNC will get the all clear. All they need to do is put in place the proper procedures and they are certainly able to do that. As sage pointed out, pulling accreditation is really for small and fly-by-night schools whose precarious financial position renders them unable to reliably provide a quality education.

hudlow
05-02-2016, 10:03 AM
As sage pointed out, pulling accreditation is really for small and fly-by-night schools whose precarious financial position renders them unable to reliably provide a quality education.

So SACS won't take into consideration that UNC is NOT a small fly-by-night school in a precarious financial position that did not render them unable to reliably provide a quality education?

BLPOG
05-02-2016, 10:05 AM
Thanks for the clarification.

So just as with the NCAA, the opinion of several of you is that the SACS sees UNC as "too big to fail." With that said, the question I have is, why? What does the SACS lose or risk if they remove accreditation? Forgive me if someone already explained it elsewhere.

I actually spent semester at a school that lost its accreditation the next year, but yes, it was a small school.

SACS risks vilification and feelings of guilt for the (potential) ensuing devastation in North Carolina. Most people are averse to taking actions that would have large, public, negative consequences.

They also risk vilification and guilt for shirking their purpose if they do nothing, but the scale is different by orders of magnitude.

Clay Feet POF
05-02-2016, 10:15 AM
Well all things considered, from now on I will always use lower case letters when typing ncaa!!

MChambers
05-02-2016, 10:17 AM
SACS risks vilification and feelings of guilt for the (potential) ensuing devastation in North Carolina. Most people are averse to taking actions that would have large, public, negative consequences.

They also risk vilification and guilt for shirking their purpose if they do nothing, but the scale is different by orders of magnitude.
+1

The consequences of pulling accreditation would be enormous. No way that happens. Sort of like indicting Arthur Andersen, which happened, but was a big mistake.

SACS really has limited options, which is a pity.

kybluedevil
05-02-2016, 10:26 AM
There's a big difference between classes that are hard to fail if you show up and do the basic work (that might actually be most college classes) and classes that are impossible not to get A's in, even without attending one class or doing any work.

(1) the athletes were directed to the classes, (2) the athletes were allowed to take more than the limit of "independent studies" classes," (3) the athletes were allowed to drop classes late, (4) the athletes were allowed to add classes late, (5) administrators requested and received favors of having fake classes added for athletes, (6) athletes didn't even have to write the papers, and (7) athletes had forged grade changes.

What I'm having trouble reconciling is that the above, for the most part, occurs at most Big Time sports programs. I know Duke is different (Trajan Math Major!), but you don't have to be Jay Bilas to realize that at most places, the traditional pre-med students have different standards than their football/basketball friends. And that includes even going to classes.

It was hard for me to dismiss a UVa swimming alum admitting there were "paper"-like classes for them years ago. And we're talking about a non-televised, revenue-poor sport at an elite public university.

devildeac
05-02-2016, 10:27 AM
I think they will do #3. One of their demands was to show that the changes UNC put in place have been effective. The state auditor had found Title IV deficiencies, UNC cleared them up, and the auditor found the actions sufficient. However the U.S. Dept. of Education is currently conducting a Program Review. SACS will most likely want to wait until the Program Review Report comes out, and since it's not likely to come out prior to the end of the first year of probation in early June, they likely will extend probation for another year.

But after that year UNC will get the all clear. All they need to do is put in place the proper procedures and they are certainly able to do that. As sage pointed out, pulling accreditation is really for small and fly-by-night schools whose precarious financial position renders them unable to reliably provide a quality education.

We spent part of the weekend with my BIL and he pretty much agrees with this, too. He's a faculty member at one of the directional KY schools and is fairly familiar with some SACS policies/actions and keeps up very well with the Journal of Higher Education. Yes, he's a Duke grad and yes, he's disgusted w/the cheaters and ncaa and their recent actions (or in-actions :mad: ) and said if he were at 'Cuse of UL or any of the recent schools punished by the ncaa, he's getting some legal action ready. He also posted a quote elsewhere from a 'Cuse website that said UL would have been in great shape if only they had made the hookers available to the general student body, too :rolleyes: .

Tom B.
05-02-2016, 10:53 AM
Yes, but the "benefits" were received well after the 2013 title unless there's something I don't know. I don't see how you can take a title away for something that happened after the title was earned.

According to this article (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13927159/former-louisville-cardinals-basketball-players-recruits-acknowledge-stripper-parties-minardi-hall), the shenanigans go back to 2010.

Thurber Whyte
05-02-2016, 11:44 AM
The best SACS can practicably do is extend probation for another year and they may just do that. That would still be something. It would be a humiliating censure because it would essentially say that UNC is not committed to changing the status quo and has not been honest about the extent of its failings despite the extensive, self congratulatory list of reforms and initiatives described on its special website devoted to the scandal.

Even if SACS were inclined to remove accreditation at the end of the next probation period (assuming UNC continues to make mouth gestures with its hand while SACS tells them what they really need to do to fix the problem), I doubt they have the stomach for the struggle that would ensue because of their limited resources and lack of actual leverage over UNC.

I keep thinking of a case involving a community college in California. The school spent the better part of a decade on probation promising to correct its deficiencies and then, when threatened with actual removal of accreditation, told the accrediting agency to get bent. The school then sued and got every local politician involved and the agency had to back down. UNC has demonstrated that they will spend any amount of money on lawyers and public relations to impose their will on the situation. Here are some links although they may be behind a pay wall:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/city-college-of-san-francisco-gets-a-potential-reprieve-1402874410

http://www.wsj.com/articles/city-college-of-san-francisco-gets-2-year-reprieve-from-accreditor-1421288876 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/city-college-of-san-francisco-gets-2-year-reprieve-from-accreditor-1421288876)

PackMan97
05-02-2016, 11:45 AM
There's a big difference between classes that are hard to fail if you show up and do the basic work (that might actually be most college classes) and classes that are impossible not to get A's in, even without attending one class or doing any work.

Bingo!

Carolina had their easy A's, but couldn't keep their athletes eligible, hence the Potemkin Department of AFAM.

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


So,” Reed says, “we were admitting guys who had a lot of trouble reading and writing, and they were taking courses like Arts and Crafts for Elementary School Teachers. They learned how to make turkeys out of pinecones. But the classes met. Some [players] even graduated. What I’m trying to say is, the Carolina Way did everything the rules allowed. You were admitting students with some sort of vote of the faculty committee—stacked, to be sure, but they were approved. It was a charade at times, but it was within the rules.”

moonpie23
05-02-2016, 11:52 AM
UNCheat raises their "we only lost by 3" trophy (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article74699432.html)

oldnavy
05-02-2016, 12:48 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA....AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-02-2016, 01:05 PM
Bingo!

Carolina had their easy A's, but couldn't keep their athletes eligible, hence the Potemkin Department of AFAM.

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/13/north-carolina-tar-heels-paper-classes-ncaa
Would be funny next year if students made a bunch of pine cone turkeys for the Duke vs Cheats game. I like the subtlety and the questions it would raise... "What are those for?"

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-02-2016, 01:14 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?
But then why did they revise the "start date" for the allegations to Fall 2005? They ran 1,000 mph away from the most obvious of all of the cheating (McCants). That situation seemed to be the most blatant and easily proven - akin to the more overt cases of cheating uncovered at other schools. And yet the NCAA is choosing to ignore it completely. Dumbfounding.

moonpie23
05-02-2016, 01:23 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?

i'll have what you're smoking....

BigWayne
05-02-2016, 01:33 PM
But then why did they revise the "start date" for the allegations to Fall 2005? They ran 1,000 mph away from the most obvious of all of the cheating (McCants). That situation seemed to be the most blatant and easily proven - akin to the more overt cases of cheating uncovered at other schools. And yet the NCAA is choosing to ignore it completely. Dumbfounding.

I believe the date movement was based on tying it to the NCAA equivalent of a statute of limitations. The UNC lawyers probably threatened them on how far back they can go.

swood1000
05-02-2016, 01:37 PM
http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oldnavy http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=884505#post884505)
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?

i'll have what you're smoking...
As long as we're smoking, let's add this to the pipe: the COI panel can find the institution guilty of infractions that were not alleged in the NOA.


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

DukePA
05-02-2016, 01:42 PM
19.7.7.4 Scope of Inquiry. When an institution and/or involved individual appears before a hearing panel to discuss a response to the notice of allegations, the hearing shall be directed toward the general scope of the notice of allegations but shall not preclude the panel from concluding that any violation occurred based on information developed or discussed during the hearing. In any case, the panel may make specific factual findings based on information presented by the parties or at a hearing even if different from the notice of allegations.

Hmmmm. Is there hope? Doubt it, but we can dream.

BLPOG
05-02-2016, 01:45 PM
I believe the date movement was based on tying it to the NCAA equivalent of a statute of limitations. The UNC lawyers probably threatened them on how far back they can go.

I could be wrong about this point, but I think the NCAA "statute of limitations" deals with the amount of time between the end of a possible violation and the beginning of the investigation. If they can look at 2005-2006 they can look at 2004-2005, the infraction just needs to be related.

swood1000
05-02-2016, 01:50 PM
http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=884509#post884509)
But then why did they revise the "start date" for the allegations to Fall 2005? They ran 1,000 mph away from the most obvious of all of the cheating (McCants). That situation seemed to be the most blatant and easily proven - akin to the more overt cases of cheating uncovered at other schools. And yet the NCAA is choosing to ignore it completely. Dumbfounding.
I believe the date movement was based on tying it to the NCAA equivalent of a statute of limitations. The UNC lawyers probably threatened them on how far back they can go.
The Statute of Limitations is four years, starting in 2011. That would only allow them to go back to 2007, and to go back to 2005 they have to be using one of the exceptions. If they're not going to charge for paper classes then there doesn't seem to be much reason to go back farther.

There were two aspects of the McCants situation. The first was paper classes like everyone else, which they have apparently decided they can't prosecute. The second was having papers written for him but even in the first NOA that wasn't charged, most likely because of a lack of evidence.

Tom B.
05-02-2016, 02:09 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?


That strikes me as unlikely. At this point, I could see probation and maybe a fine for the institution as a whole, plus some program-specific penalties for women's basketball (post-season ban, lost scholarships, vacated wins, etc.). But it would seem unfair for the NCAA to impose blanket punishments like scholarship reductions or postseason bans across all sports, because so far -- to the best of anyone's knowledge -- there are several programs that weren't touched by the fake classes scandal. Would the NCAA really impose a penalty that hits softball, swimming, and field hockey as collateral damage because the football, basketball, soccer, and baseball programs were so tainted? You think the rants coming from Vitale and Bilas about how the NCAA "punishes innocent kids" are bad now -- can you imagine how insufferable they'd be if the NCAA imposed a penalty like that?

No, the heaviest penalties will fall on Sylvia and her program, and the institution may get probation and possibly a fine -- and they'll probably find some wealthy Rams Clubbers who are willing to pony up for that. So for the price of its women's basketball program and a few mil, UNC will have bought itself at least two men's basketball titles, a half-dozen or so Final Four appearances, another half-dozen or so women's soccer titles, and some ungodly number of wins, conference titles, and other postseason achievements in multiple sports.

sammy3469
05-02-2016, 02:41 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?

Without knowing what the NCAA is really basing their arguments on, it's tough to say (and why UNC will never release the exhibits anytime soon).

However, the NCAA's argument in allegation 4 appears to be based off of FAC meetings with Blanchard, Mercer (Director of ASPSA) and Baddour in 2006-7. In those meetings, the three athletic administrators (note these meetings were in response to what was going on at Auburn) claim they brought up the anomalous nature of the AFAM lecture classes taught as IS to FAC, but FAC rejected them out of hand (i.e. UNC's argument is athletic reported to academic, but academic did nothing). Wainstein says those three are full of it, and yes while FAC met, they only talked about independent study classes in general (The language the NCAA uses in Allegation 4 is very similar to the Wainstein writeup on pages 83-88). So basically the NCAA could be using these meetings as their "proof" that the athletic side knew all along what was going on, but did nothing especially going forward.

Once the NCAA "proves" athletics didn't monitor in 2006-7, then it opens up UNC to a whole host of seemingly more serious problems then just a bunch of extra benefit sanctions. If Baddour really knew back in 2006, but did nothing, well then the NCAA doesn't need much else. You'd have the AD on the hook for failure to monitor and by extension everyone in the athletics department. Game, set, match.

Anyway, that's the harshest set of facts I can come up with, but you do get a systemic cover-up that implicates the entire athletic program with that line of thought and then the harshest possible sanctions to all sports without having to prove ineligibility, etc.

Of course, I don't believe the NCAA is really looking to do any of that.

sagegrouse
05-02-2016, 02:48 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?

Yep. UNC could get absolutely clobbered -- huge fine, sanctions across all post-season activity in every sport for one year, death penalty for women's hoops. But what won't happen is for the NCAA to go back player-by-player and eliminate credit for the "fraudulent" courses and determine which athletes didn't have sufficient credits or ongoing course-work to qualify for NCAA competition. The NCAA, therefore, is unable to vacate wins and championships due to participation of "ineligible" athletes. The NCAA has basically accepted that the courses and grades count. But there are still a lot of penalties UNC could receive.

sagegrouse
05-02-2016, 02:49 PM
i'll have what you're smoking...

He doesn't need to smoke -- he's a licensed pharmacist.

yancem
05-02-2016, 02:56 PM
So if unc was to loose their accreditation, which at this point seems as likely as the NCAA actually hammering them, would that be a de facto endround of the NCAA. I mean, can unc stay a member of the NCAA (or ACC for that matter) without being accredited? How funny would it be to see unc put all of this effort to thwart the NCAA only to get blind sided by SACS. It really seems that unc has over looked the possibility of loosing their accreditation and kind of blown off SACS. They have fought so hard to make this an academic issue and not a athletic issue that they have left their backsides unguarded.

Doria
05-02-2016, 03:01 PM
So if unc was to loose their accreditation, which at this point seems as likely as the NCAA actually hammering them, would that be a de facto endround of the NCAA. I mean, can unc stay a member of the NCAA (or ACC for that matter) without being accredited? How funny would it be to see unc put all of this effort to thwart the NCAA only to get blind sided by SACS. It really seems that unc has over looked the possibility of loosing their accreditation and kind of blown off SACS. They have fought so hard to make this an academic issue and not a athletic issue that they have left their backsides unguarded.

Even if I thought they were at genuine risk of losing accreditation, which I don't, it's unlikely to happen before another year of probation, at which point most of the current public outrage is likely to have died.

I do not know, however, how losing accreditation affects NCAA or ACC membership. I want to say, logically, it would but I do not know.

Returning to Rashad a moment, even if the NCAA says all paper classes count, which appears to be the case, I still don't understand what the rationale is for ignoring the IS limit that Carolina itself set, sigh.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
05-02-2016, 03:08 PM
I see no motivation for the SACS to do the NCAAs dirty work. I would assume that they would act within the scope of their interests, and would see anything remotely related to athletics as beneath their time.

Olympic Fan
05-02-2016, 03:38 PM
The Statute of Limitations is four years, starting in 2011. That would only allow them to go back to 2007, and to go back to 2005 they have to be using one of the exceptions. If they're not going to charge for paper classes then there doesn't seem to be much reason to go back farther.

There were two aspects of the McCants situation. The first was paper classes like everyone else, which they have apparently decided they can't prosecute. The second was having papers written for him but even in the first NOA that wasn't charged, most likely because of a lack of evidence.

No, no, no -- the most damning aspect of the McCants situation does not involve fake classes or anything the NCAA has to prove ... well, it does involve fake classes, but even without considering that aspect of the case, he was ineligible in the spring semester of 2005, according to UNC's own academic rules.

Dan Kane of the N&O provided documentation last month that UNC had an institutional limit of TWO independent studies courses per semester at least as far back as 1997. McCants' transcript, which he voluntarily released, showed that he took THREE independent studies courses in the spring semester of 2005. He actually took four, but one of those was one of the bogus AFAM courses that was listed as a lecture course, but had no lectures.

That's okay -- the NCAA doesn't have to find that course irregular. They don't have to find that somebody wrote papers for him. All they have to do is look at his transcript, check that against UNC's own academic rules and see that he was ineligible BY UNC'S OWN RULES in the spring of 2005, when he helped UNC win national title.

cspan37421
05-02-2016, 03:43 PM
I still don't understand what the rationale is for ignoring the IS limit that Carolina itself set, sigh.

Follow the money. - Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat

When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money. - H.L. Mencken (attributed)

I just wish there were an atty on the other side who could test whether the NCAA and SACS were enforcing their own rules, in light of the evidence upon which all parties agree.

Nugget
05-02-2016, 03:53 PM
The Statute of Limitations is four years, starting in 2011. That would only allow them to go back to 2007, and to go back to 2005 they have to be using one of the exceptions. If they're not going to charge for paper classes then there doesn't seem to be much reason to go back farther.

There were two aspects of the McCants situation. The first was paper classes like everyone else, which they have apparently decided they can't prosecute. The second was having papers written for him but even in the first NOA that wasn't charged, most likely because of a lack of evidence.

What about the simple fact (if the documents Dan Kane published around the time of the Final Four indicating that the Independent Study course limits applied by no later than 2003 were correct) that reflected that McCants took too many Independent Study classes to be considered a full-time student in the spring semester of 2005? In which case it doesn't matter whether, in general, paper classes were open to others or whether he did or didn't do his own "work" in the paper classes?

-jk
05-02-2016, 03:56 PM
I've said it all along: they're gonna skate. <sigh>

-jk

yancem
05-02-2016, 04:05 PM
I see no motivation for the SACS to do the NCAAs dirty work. I would assume that they would act within the scope of their interests, and would see anything remotely related to athletics as beneath their time.

Oh, I totally agree but that is kind of the point. The NCAA has very large financial reasons to look the other way where as the SACS whole purpose is to ensure that students at the schools it accredits are getting a decent education. SACS doesn't have any real deterrent (or at least from what I can gather) to hold unc accountable. The fact that unc loosing it accreditation might also punish the athletic departments is just icing for the rest of us. I also agree that SACS is unlikely to take/suspend unc's accreditation but it doesn't seem like unc is really trying to address the issues in good faith and what else can SACS do?

Doria
05-02-2016, 04:12 PM
Oh, I totally agree but that is kind of the point. The NCAA has very large financial reasons to look the other way where as the SACS whole purpose is to ensure that students at the schools it accredits are getting a decent education. SACS doesn't have any real deterrent (or at least from what I can gather) to hold unc accountable. The fact that unc loosing it accreditation might also punish the athletic departments is just icing for the rest of us. I also agree that SACS is unlikely to take/suspend unc's accreditation but it doesn't seem like unc is really trying to address the issues in good faith and what else can SACS do?

I agree with you in principle, but to play devil's advocate, SACS also has a large financial reason, assuming they don't keep a billion attorneys on retainer.

swood1000
05-02-2016, 04:12 PM
No, no, no -- the most damning aspect of the McCants situation does not involve fake classes or anything the NCAA has to prove ... well, it does involve fake classes, but even without considering that aspect of the case, he was ineligible in the spring semester of 2005, according to UNC's own academic rules.

Dan Kane of the N&O provided documentation last month that UNC had an institutional limit of TWO independent studies courses per semester at least as far back as 1997. McCants' transcript, which he voluntarily released, showed that he took THREE independent studies courses in the spring semester of 2005. He actually took four, but one of those was one of the bogus AFAM courses that was listed as a lecture course, but had no lectures.

That's okay -- the NCAA doesn't have to find that course irregular. They don't have to find that somebody wrote papers for him. All they have to do is look at his transcript, check that against UNC's own academic rules and see that he was ineligible BY UNC'S OWN RULES in the spring of 2005, when he helped UNC win national title.
But what UNC responds is that the limit until 2006 was on "Special Studies for Credit," not on "Independent Studies," and McCants was taking "Independent Studies." "Independent Studies" was actually intended to be a correspondence course, with "Special Studies for Credit" being really what we think of as Independent Studies, but "Independent Studies" was what McCants was signed up for. So instead they turned this into one of the facts supporting Allegation 4 in the revised NOA:


The department did not adequately document independent study course offerings, and the college of arts and sciences failed to effectively address the use of these courses by students, including student-athletes.

As far as what happened to those Independent Study violations after 2006 we have no explanation. My guess is that UNC was able to show that the limitation was not observed in the case of non-athletes, which could also be included in the above charge.

Edit: maybe this should be called the "slovenly defense." "We're so sloppy and out of control that we don't follow our own rules for athletes or non-athletes."

swood1000
05-02-2016, 04:19 PM
I agree with you in principle, but to play devil's advocate, SACS also has a large financial reason, assuming they don't keep a billion attorneys on retainer.
SACS can't appear toothless and ineffective or else they risk a general academic decline among their schools and being told by the U.S. Dept of Education and the NCAA that their accreditation is no long acceptable.

oldnavy
05-02-2016, 04:21 PM
No, no, no -- the most damning aspect of the McCants situation does not involve fake classes or anything the NCAA has to prove ... well, it does involve fake classes, but even without considering that aspect of the case, he was ineligible in the spring semester of 2005, according to UNC's own academic rules.

Dan Kane of the N&O provided documentation last month that UNC had an institutional limit of TWO independent studies courses per semester at least as far back as 1997. McCants' transcript, which he voluntarily released, showed that he took THREE independent studies courses in the spring semester of 2005. He actually took four, but one of those was one of the bogus AFAM courses that was listed as a lecture course, but had no lectures.

That's okay -- the NCAA doesn't have to find that course irregular. They don't have to find that somebody wrote papers for him. All they have to do is look at his transcript, check that against UNC's own academic rules and see that he was ineligible BY UNC'S OWN RULES in the spring of 2005, when he helped UNC win national title.

Too bad we can't find where someone paid one of the player's mom's rent or electric bill for a month, the NCAA would be on that like flies on a cowpie!

The NCAA is a bad joke. They ONLY care about the money.

Academics?? "Ain't nobody got no time for dat"!!

As a corollary, I have come to despise Jay Bilas and his constant carping on the NCAA. Really Jay? You use your "smartest man in college BB" soapbox to rail on and on about the how the student athletes should be paid by the greedy NCAA, yet when the NCAA turns a blind eye to enforcing the most basic and fundamental function that defines "student" athlete, THE EDUCATION which is the only significant tangible benefit that the kids currently receive, you shrug it off as not really worth dealing with... or to hard to deal with, I don't know which.

Who cares if the kids can read or write when they are done, or that they are at least marginally prepared for the job market which 90% of them are going to be in immediately after "graduation"... let's make sure we pay them a few thousand dollars so they can have some walking around cash!!

Yea, that's the solution! Throw them some cash so they can share in the profits a bit for playing BB or FB, and the heck with educating them!

I wonder where Jay's interest really are in this. He makes a big show of being for the "student athlete", but is he really? I mean, if you don't get upset that UNC can totally blow off educating some of it's most "at risk" athletes for 18 plus years, how interested can you really be with regards to their welfare?

Doria
05-02-2016, 04:35 PM
SACS can't appear toothless and ineffective or else they risk a general academic decline among their schools and being told by the U.S. Dept of Education and the NCAA that their accreditation is no long acceptable.

I think that's a charitable view, though if they have, in fact, deaccredited a major school I am not aware of, I stand corrected. The comments on that article mentioned a UAB case, though in that person's view, SACS backed down ultimately.

jv001
05-02-2016, 04:56 PM
Too bad we can't find where someone paid one of the player's mom's rent or electric bill for a month, the NCAA would be on that like flies on a cowpie!

The NCAA is a bad joke. They ONLY care about the money.

Academics?? "Ain't nobody got no time for dat"!!

As a corollary, I have come to despise Jay Bilas and his constant carping on the NCAA. Really Jay? You use your "smartest man in college BB" soapbox to rail on and on about the how the student athletes should be paid by the greedy NCAA, yet when the NCAA turns a blind eye to enforcing the most basic and fundamental function that defines "student" athlete, THE EDUCATION which is the only significant tangible benefit that the kids currently receive, you shrug it off as not really worth dealing with... or to hard to deal with, I don't know which.

Who cares if the kids can read or write when they are done, or that they are at least marginally prepared for the job market which 90% of them are going to be in immediately after "graduation"... let's make sure we pay them a few thousand dollars so they can have some walking around cash!!

Yea, that's the solution! Throw them some cash so they can share in the profits a bit for playing BB or FB, and the heck with educating them!

I wonder where Jay's interest really are in this. He makes a big show of being for the "student athlete", but is he really? I mean, if you don't get upset that UNC can totally blow off educating some of it's most "at risk" athletes for 18 plus years, how interested can you really be with regards to their welfare?

I couldn't spork you because I have to spread more around. But you and I agree regarding Jay Bilas. I used to enjoy Jay's commentary but oh, how times have changed. GoDuke!

moonpie23
05-02-2016, 05:17 PM
i am definitely thinking they are gonna get hammered now that i've had a minute to scour through the data! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atL5uZMn3GQ)

hudlow
05-02-2016, 06:24 PM
i am definitely thinking they are gonna get hammered now that i've had a minute to scour through the data! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atL5uZMn3GQ)

I'll be glad to help.

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-02-2016, 06:38 PM
The Cheaters must absolutely be the most proficient bunch of cheaters that ever roamed god's green earth. There is no way they pulled that many different levers across that many years without real foresight and planning so as to be able to avoid future prosecution if they were ever found out. There's just too much precision in their cheating methods for it to be random, dumb luck. But just in case anything were ever to come out, they made sure to leave plenty enough bread crumbs to lead the NCAA to the real miscreants... WBB.

Uh huh.

Right.

sagegrouse
05-02-2016, 07:53 PM
SACS can't appear toothless and ineffective or else they risk a general academic decline among their schools and being told by the U.S. Dept of Education and the NCAA that their accreditation is no long acceptable.

Do you have any evidence that SACS is on shaky grounds with the Feds? It is hard to believe that is true.

SilkyJ
05-02-2016, 08:05 PM
I've said it all along: they're gonna skate. <sigh>

-jk

Whoa whoa. I'm not going to search, but I may have said it first...but with this being your website I guess I'll let you drive the bus, but I get to ride shotgun.


Do you have any evidence that SACS is on shaky grounds with the Feds? It is hard to believe that is true.

Evidence to support claims?! You've been downing too many of DD's homebrewed IPAs. Now back to my goose island...

arnie
05-02-2016, 08:16 PM
Whoa whoa. I'm not going to search, but I may have said it first...but with this being your website I guess I'll let you drive the bus, but I get to ride shotgun.

Let me ride too. Actually several of us thought early on they'd skate - but, maybe, just maybe, the backlash may break the skate by the time penalties are handed out.

devildeac
05-02-2016, 08:44 PM
Whoa whoa. I'm not going to search, but I may have said it first...but with this being your website I guess I'll let you drive the bus, but I get to ride shotgun.



Evidence to support claims?! You've been downing too many of DD's homebrewed IPAs. Now back to my goose island...

I've never home-brewed! (Too dangerous to marital relationships :o) I let other who know what they're doing do all the brewing.

Goose me! What Goose Island beverage is in your glass?

-jk is a bourbon man anyway but I think he's confessed to having a porter or a stout on a rare occasion. ;)

cbarry
05-02-2016, 08:44 PM
I think most of knew in our hearts UNC would skate. I know I did ever since the allegations began to surface and UNC played the deny and stall game. It's a sad state of affairs, and not fair to the rest of the universities that plays by the rules, but it was a foregone conclusion. UNC skated with the NCAA, and they absolutely will skate with the accreditation body. They have too much money/power for there to be any other outcome.


Let me ride too. Actually several of us thought early on they'd skate - but, maybe, just maybe, the backlash may break the skate by the time penalties are handed out.

-jk
05-02-2016, 08:54 PM
I've never home-brewed! (Too dangerous to marital relationships :o) I let other who know what they're doing do all the brewing.

Goose me! What Goose Island beverage is in your glass?

-jk is a bourbon man anyway but I think he's confessed to having a porter or a stout on a rare occasion. ;)

Ymm, Bourbon!

Any good bourbon, any time. Old Forester as a regular (as my sainted grandmother taught me).

-jk

Newton_14
05-02-2016, 09:25 PM
Is there any chance that the NCAA is angry that they felt pressured by UNC's legal threats and this caused the revised NOA...AND they are angry enough to hit UNC very hard with the LOIC penalty in all sports?

This is the only thing that I am holding on too... The NCAA felt it would lose the individual battles and therefore retreated only to launch an all out offensive during the penalty phase...

It could happen, right?
Quite the opposite. My read is that uncCHEAT and their band of $10mil Lawyers bullied and dictated what the ANOA would be and what the penalties would be... "If the penalites are even one inch beyond the line we, unccheat have drawn, we will sue you into the next universe and you will be sorry"

They are going to hammer Women's Hoops per uncheats wishes, not penalize men's hoops or football at all, and I honestly don't care what they do with any of the other sports because there is no real pain involved there save the athlete's on those teams., which I don't feel sorry for at all because they all chose to attend there.

Every BCS school should just make up fake majors and classes, let tutors write the one paper required, and let the athlete's train all day focusing on their sports, dare the NCAA to do anything about it, and level the playing field with the cheaters in Chapel Hill.

Am I jaded? Yes. Because the entire thing is one big freaking joke. Men's Hoops and FB deserve the Death Penalty. Instead, FB wins the Coastal, BB wins ACC Reg/Tourney, makes FF and comes within an Austin Rivers of winning the Title, and neither will face any penalties. The Paper Class Fraud across multiple majors (not just AFAM) was started specifically for Men's Basketball by Dean Smith, carried forward by Bill Gutheridge, Matt Doherty, and Roy Williams, and spread into FB, Women's Hoops, and then Olympic Sports. It went unchecked for 20 years, and the NCAA ends up not doing squat. The NCAA owes first SMU, then a ton of other schools an apology. Lots of coaches including Boeheim, Calamari and others need to have their wins and FF appearances restored. It is officially the Wild Wild West Of Sports now.

Jaded? Yeah I am. What gave it away?

moonpie23
05-02-2016, 09:46 PM
Ymm, Bourbon!

Any good bourbon, any time. Old Forester as a regular (as my sainted grandmother taught me).

-jk

i've got a big ol bottle of some sort of burbon in the cabinet....woodford? woodridge? something reserve? huge bottle.....bought it for my father in law but they didn't make the trip...

it's collecting dust......is that a good burbon?

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-02-2016, 10:05 PM
i've got a big ol bottle of some sort of burbon in the cabinet...woodford? woodridge? something reserve? huge bottle...bought it for my father in law but they didn't make the trip...

it's collecting dust...is that a good burbon?
Even bad bourbon can be good bourbon... with the right mixer.

gep
05-03-2016, 12:06 AM
...

As a corollary, I have come to despise Jay Bilas and his constant carping on the NCAA. Really Jay? You use your "smartest man in college BB" soapbox to rail on and on about the how the student athletes should be paid by the greedy NCAA, yet when the NCAA turns a blind eye to enforcing the most basic and fundamental function that defines "student" athlete, THE EDUCATION which is the only significant tangible benefit that the kids currently receive, you shrug it off as not really worth dealing with... or to hard to deal with, I don't know which.

Who cares if the kids can read or write when they are done, or that they are at least marginally prepared for the job market which 90% of them are going to be in immediately after "graduation"... let's make sure we pay them a few thousand dollars so they can have some walking around cash!!

Yea, that's the solution! Throw them some cash so they can share in the profits a bit for playing BB or FB, and the heck with educating them!

I wonder where Jay's interest really are in this. He makes a big show of being for the "student athlete", but is he really? I mean, if you don't get upset that UNC can totally blow off educating some of it's most "at risk" athletes for 18 plus years, how interested can you really be with regards to their welfare?

I too am confused with Jay's "positions". But thinking about this a bit, is it possible that Jay is "compartmentalizing" the issues here. His issue with the NCAA is specifically the money that the NCAA gets but doesn't "share" with the athletes. He's not harping on the NCAA totally, just this issue of money. Let someone else harp on the NCAA for these unc fradulent academic issues?? In other words, one single issue without the "big picture" of the NCAA?:confused:

cspan37421
05-03-2016, 05:11 AM
Goose me! What Goose Island beverage is in your glass?

-jk is a bourbon man anyway but I think he's confessed to having a porter or a stout on a rare occasion. ;)

Goose Island Bourbon County Stout - 14% ABV.

amazing stuff

devildeac
05-03-2016, 06:13 AM
Goose Island Bourbon County Stout - 14% ABV.

amazing stuff

Wrong thread ;) .

I've got a bottle of the 2013 and 2015 versions. Hmmm, weekend sipping or wait until winter 2016-17 to imbibe? Life's difficult questions.

devildeac
05-03-2016, 06:36 AM
I'm catching up on my scandal reading after being out of town for a long weekend and I'm not sure anyone posted this Barry Jacobs article from yesterday's News and Observer:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article74699432.html

Couple money quotes:

"But away from UNC’s sphere of influence, the sighs expressed exasperation.

“When you examine this, it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for athletics,” insists University of Oklahoma professor Dr. Gerald Gurney, president of the Drake Group, a national athletic reform organization. He previously labeled the paper classes at Chapel Hill “the largest and the most egregious case of academic fraud by far in NCAA history.”

And this:

"Gurney, whose professional work includes historical research on academic fraud in Division I sports, has little patience for denying the involvement of athletics in the creation and maintenance of a series of UNC paper classes heavily populated by athletes over 18 years. “That was its reason for being, and athletics certainly took advantage of it in a disproportionate manner,” he says of the scheme. As for the more narrow view that what UNC faces is primarily an academic scandal, Gurney replies, “The people at North Carolina can talk all they want – nobody in the public believes this. Come on! It’s laughable.”

Gurney insists the NCAA Committee on Infractions can, and has, gone beyond the specific findings of the enforcement staff to mete out punishment. Still, the truncated notice of violation from college sports’ governing body – especially its exclusion of a period that previously covered the 2005 basketball team’s NCAA title run – confirmed the view among cynics that the entire process was a sham destined to let the vaunted Tar Heels off the hook."

(underlining mine)

And finally:

“I’m still hopeful that the Committee on Infractions understands that the world is watching, and the credibility of the NCAA is at stake,” Gurney says.



After this ANOA, I'll guess there are plenty of folks thinking, "What credibility?"


(Almost) unbelievable/inconceivable.

oldnavy
05-03-2016, 06:51 AM
I'm catching up on my scandal reading after being out of town for a long weekend and I'm not sure anyone posted this Barry Jacobs article from yesterday's News and Observer:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article74699432.html

Couple money quotes:

"But away from UNC’s sphere of influence, the sighs expressed exasperation.

“When you examine this, it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for athletics,” insists University of Oklahoma professor Dr. Gerald Gurney, president of the Drake Group, a national athletic reform organization. He previously labeled the paper classes at Chapel Hill “the largest and the most egregious case of academic fraud by far in NCAA history.”

And this:

"Gurney, whose professional work includes historical research on academic fraud in Division I sports, has little patience for denying the involvement of athletics in the creation and maintenance of a series of UNC paper classes heavily populated by athletes over 18 years. “That was its reason for being, and athletics certainly took advantage of it in a disproportionate manner,” he says of the scheme. As for the more narrow view that what UNC faces is primarily an academic scandal, Gurney replies, “The people at North Carolina can talk all they want – nobody in the public believes this. Come on! It’s laughable.”

Gurney insists the NCAA Committee on Infractions can, and has, gone beyond the specific findings of the enforcement staff to mete out punishment. Still, the truncated notice of violation from college sports’ governing body – especially its exclusion of a period that previously covered the 2005 basketball team’s NCAA title run – confirmed the view among cynics that the entire process was a sham destined to let the vaunted Tar Heels off the hook."

(underlining mine)

And finally:

“I’m still hopeful that the Committee on Infractions understands that the world is watching, and the credibility of the NCAA is at stake,” Gurney says.



After this ANOA, I'll guess there are plenty of folks thinking, "What credibility?"


(Almost) unbelievable/inconceivable.

This is exactly what I am hoping for as well. Hopeful but not expecting...

Tommac
05-03-2016, 06:57 AM
http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/20160502/column-is-ncaa-protecting-one-of-its-top-dogs Good article in the local Times-News about the scandal.

77devil
05-03-2016, 08:23 AM
This is exactly what I am hoping for as well. Hopeful but not expecting...

We can hope Gurney is working the COI behind the scene.

devildeac
05-03-2016, 08:35 AM
This is exactly what I am hoping for as well. Hopeful but not expecting...

I probably should have underlined/bolded what you did. Thanks.

I'm hopeful, too, but not very much so any more.

cspan37421
05-03-2016, 09:26 AM
http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/20160502/column-is-ncaa-protecting-one-of-its-top-dogs Good article in the local Times-News about the scandal.

As a general rule, headlines that end with a question mark may be accurately answered with a "No."

This is a clear exception.

cspan37421
05-03-2016, 09:29 AM
I too am confused with Jay's "positions". But thinking about this a bit, is it possible that Jay is "compartmentalizing" the issues here. His issue with the NCAA is specifically the money that the NCAA gets but doesn't "share" with the athletes. He's not harping on the NCAA totally, just this issue of money. Let someone else harp on the NCAA for these unc fradulent academic issues?? In other words, one single issue without the "big picture" of the NCAA?:confused:

Usually lawyers are really good at carefully explaining why a bit of law or regulation does or does not apply for a given situation.

I've not heard this out of Jay as far as the UNC scandal goes. There's actually a lot more clarity in some of these DBR threads. Heck, our recent troll did a better job at making the case against them than Jay has for them.

oldnavy
05-03-2016, 10:07 AM
Usually lawyers are really good at carefully explaining why a bit of law or regulation does or does not apply for a given situation.

I've not heard this out of Jay as far as the UNC scandal goes. There's actually a lot more clarity in some of these DBR threads. Heck, our recent troll did a better job at making the case against them than Jay has for them.

Jay's focus seems to be fully against the NCAA.

He isn't an advocate for anything other than bringing down the NCAA. If he were on the side of the "student athlete" as he tries to portray himself when he claims "unfairness" by the NCAA, he could not possibly ignore what UNC and the NCAA have done to devalue the one tangible asset that the scholarship players receive and that is the education benefit.

Jay comes across more as an anti-capitalist than he does as pro student athlete. He has essentially staked a position that paying the athletes is more important than educating them.

If he were truly concerned that the NCAA is profiting unfairly off the backs of the athletes he could not possibly support what UNC has done, or excuse his pal Roy for being unaware or having no responsibility in the matter.

It is an untenable position for him to take.

He would be better off to say that he cares little about the welfare of the athlete and is primarily focused on breaking up the monopoly the NCAA holds on college athletics.

His crusade has all the earmarks of someone blindly seeking vengeance now that he has shown that he really cares little for the "student" part of the equation.

sammy3469
05-03-2016, 10:18 AM
But what UNC responds is that the limit until 2006 was on "Special Studies for Credit," not on "Independent Studies," and McCants was taking "Independent Studies." "Independent Studies" was actually intended to be a correspondence course, with "Special Studies for Credit" being really what we think of as Independent Studies, but "Independent Studies" was what McCants was signed up for. So instead they turned this into one of the facts supporting Allegation 4 in the revised NOA:



As far as what happened to those Independent Study violations after 2006 we have no explanation. My guess is that UNC was able to show that the limitation was not observed in the case of non-athletes, which could also be included in the above charge.

Edit: maybe this should be called the "slovenly defense." "We're so sloppy and out of control that we don't follow our own rules for athletes or non-athletes."

I mentioned this upthread, but based on the more constricted time period and how the allegations are worded in the ANOA, I don't think Allegation 4 or 5 really has much to do with Independent Study extra benefit violations, but rather Baddour, Mercer, and Blanchard covering up the fact that AFAM was teaching lecture classes as IS to UNC's FAC in 2006-7 in response to the Auburn news stories.

This is just supposition, but the facts in that Auburn case (for which they received a wrist slap from the NCAA) mostly mirror UNC's until that 2006-7 FAC meeting when Mercer, Blanchard, and Baddour didn't disclose their full knowledge that AFAM course were anomalous because they were designated as lecture courses, but taught as IS courses. Mercer knew this at least in July 2006 and didn't tell the FAC in 2006-7 when they were undergoing their review of SA enrollments in IS classes. Ergo...allegation 4 and the LOIC charge.

As an aside, this goes to the time period of the charges. In the original NOA it was 2002-11. My guess is the 2002 comes from the first FAC-ASPSA review of the IS classes. In that review FAC found nothing abnormal though Wainstein says that Blanchard only presented partial data. So it's entirely possible UNC argued to the NCAA that academic signed off on these IS classes in 2002, so nothing can really be charged for that. That changes in a big way with the 2006 review though since it can be shown ASPSA definitely knew the classes were anomalous.

FWIW, if that supposition is true (and it's impossible to know without seeing the exhibits), it's also a much harsher LOIC charge. Previously you just had an accumulation of extra benefits...now you'd have outright athletic administration complicity at the AD level.

oldnavy
05-03-2016, 11:51 AM
I mentioned this upthread, but based on the more constricted time period and how the allegations are worded in the ANOA, I don't think Allegation 4 or 5 really has much to do with Independent Study extra benefit violations, but rather Baddour, Mercer, and Blanchard covering up the fact that AFAM was teaching lecture classes as IS to UNC's FAC in 2006-7 in response to the Auburn news stories.

This is just supposition, but the facts in that Auburn case (for which they received a wrist slap from the NCAA) mostly mirror UNC's until that 2006-7 FAC meeting when Mercer, Blanchard, and Baddour didn't disclose their full knowledge that AFAM course were anomalous because they were designated as lecture courses, but taught as IS courses. Mercer knew this at least in July 2006 and didn't tell the FAC in 2006-7 when they were undergoing their review of SA enrollments in IS classes. Ergo...allegation 4 and the LOIC charge.

As an aside, this goes to the time period of the charges. In the original NOA it was 2002-11. My guess is the 2002 comes from the first FAC-ASPSA review of the IS classes. In that review FAC found nothing abnormal though Wainstein says that Blanchard only presented partial data. So it's entirely possible UNC argued to the NCAA that academic signed off on these IS classes in 2002, so nothing can really be charged for that. That changes in a big way with the 2006 review though since it can be shown ASPSA definitely knew the classes were anomalous.

FWIW, if that supposition is true (and it's impossible to know without seeing the exhibits), it's also a much harsher LOIC charge. Previously you just had an accumulation of extra benefits...now you'd have outright athletic administration complicity at the AD level.

As I try to make sense out of the NCAA's position here, I have to think that they are going to hammer UNC on the LOIC charge. Again, this is just faint hope on my part.

IANAL nor do I have an interest in law, but it seems that institutions that voluntarily belong to governing organizations such as the NFL, NCAA, etc... have shaky legal standing when suing those organizations for doing what the members have given them the authority to do.

In the NFL deflate gate case, Brady's suspension was just upheld on appeal. My understanding was that this was not because the court felt the punishment was fair or not or even that Brady was guilty or not. They simply ruled that the NFL (Goodell) had the right to suspend Brady based on the by-laws of the institution and that right was voluntarily given by the members of the institution (NFL).

For the lawyers and legal experts: If the NCAA throws the book at UNC, would the same principle apply? That is since they (UNC) are a volunteer member of the NCAA and therefore has given the NCAA the right to award punishment they (UNC) have no legal standing to sue the NCAA for acting within it's authority.

In my simple mind, this tactic would seem easier defended. To use deflate gate as an example, the original court ruled that the NFL couldn't prove that Brady or anyone for that matter had deflated the balls, therefore they overturned the suspension. However, the appeals judge ruled that the NFL had the right to suspend Brady based on the NFL by-laws. In other words, if the NFL had enough circumstantial evidence to believe that Brady had a part in deflating the balls, then they could by rights award a suspension by the authority granted by it's membership.

Of course even if this would be the case, the NCAA has to be willing to hammer UNC. The only way I see this happening is if the ego of the NCAA is bruised enough that it decides to stand up to UNC, because if they don't the NCAA has essentially defanged itself IMO.

Li_Duke
05-03-2016, 12:49 PM
Jay's focus seems to be fully against the NCAA.

He isn't an advocate for anything other than bringing down the NCAA. If he were on the side of the "student athlete" as he tries to portray himself when he claims "unfairness" by the NCAA, he could not possibly ignore what UNC and the NCAA have done to devalue the one tangible asset that the scholarship players receive and that is the education benefit.

Jay comes across more as an anti-capitalist than he does as pro student athlete. He has essentially staked a position that paying the athletes is more important than educating them.

If he were truly concerned that the NCAA is profiting unfairly off the backs of the athletes he could not possibly support what UNC has done, or excuse his pal Roy for being unaware or having no responsibility in the matter.

It is an untenable position for him to take.

He would be better off to say that he cares little about the welfare of the athlete and is primarily focused on breaking up the monopoly the NCAA holds on college athletics.

His crusade has all the earmarks of someone blindly seeking vengeance now that he has shown that he really cares little for the "student" part of the equation.

You know, I honestly don't have a problem with what Jay proposes. The top men's basketball and football players are worth millions to the school, and in many cases, whether they are taking fake classes or not, not getting much of an education. I'm fine with just calling them athletes, paying them value that's in line with the money they generate, and then leave it to them whether they want to be students as well as athletes.

However, under the current paradigm, UNC is guilty of academic fraud and cheating. They should lose accreditation, remove from the records games and championships won, and be strongly sanctioned by the NCAA going forward. And the athletes who feel that they were the victims, should sue.

oldnavy
05-03-2016, 12:51 PM
You know, I honestly don't have a problem with what Jay proposes. The top men's basketball and football players are worth millions to the school, and in many cases, whether they are taking fake classes or not, not getting much of an education. I'm fine with just calling them athletes, paying them value that's in line with the money they generate, and then leave it to them whether they want to be students as well as athletes.

However, under the current paradigm, UNC is guilty of academic fraud and cheating. They should lose accreditation, remove from the records games and championships won, and be strongly sanctioned by the NCAA going forward. And the athletes who feel that they were the victims, should sue.

Then what role would the NCAA have?

I am not disagreeing with you, but if we start to treat players as professional athletes, what role does the NCAA have? The players would need a union.

Indoor66
05-03-2016, 01:52 PM
Then what role would the NCAA have?

I am not disagreeing with you, but if we start to treat players as professional athletes, what role does the NCAA have? The players would need a union.

I have to go back and ask: What does the 6th best player on the 5th best team get paid? How does the scale work? Sure, Jah commands money. Justise commands money. Brandon commands money, etc. What about the 6th, 7th & 8th man on the team? What about a Matt - not gaudy but makes the team work - how do you value that? Talk about an unmanageable can of worms.

I say, pay them all the same - give them a full scholarship and pay their related expenses. Like my dad used to say, I'll pay your air fare & room and board but not your gambling debts.

swood1000
05-03-2016, 02:21 PM
You know, I honestly don't have a problem with what Jay proposes. The top men's basketball and football players are worth millions to the school, and in many cases, whether they are taking fake classes or not, not getting much of an education. I'm fine with just calling them athletes, paying them value that's in line with the money they generate, and then leave it to them whether they want to be students as well as athletes.

However, under the current paradigm, UNC is guilty of academic fraud and cheating. They should lose accreditation, remove from the records games and championships won, and be strongly sanctioned by the NCAA going forward. And the athletes who feel that they were the victims, should sue.
One problem is that the fans come to see amateur college athletes, not minor league pros. As soon as they turn into minor league pros a lot of people will stop caring. How about we keep amateur college athletics and those who would prefer to be paid can join the D-League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Development_League)?

Jarhead
05-03-2016, 02:24 PM
One problem is that the fans come to see amateur college athletes, not minor league pros. As soon as they turn into minor league pros a lot of people will stop caring. How about we keep amateur college athletics and those who would prefer to be paid can join the D-League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Development_League)?
Works for me.

TruBlu
05-03-2016, 02:45 PM
One problem is that the fans come to see amateur college athletes, not minor league pros. As soon as they turn into minor league pros a lot of people will stop caring. How about we keep amateur college athletics and those who would prefer to be paid can join the D-League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Development_League)?

Or go to unc. They damn sure aren't going there for the education.

oldnavy
05-03-2016, 03:01 PM
I have to go back and ask: What does the 6th best player on the 5th best team get paid? How does the scale work? Sure, Jah commands money. Justise commands money. Brandon commands money, etc. What about the 6th, 7th & 8th man on the team? What about a Matt - not gaudy but makes the team work - how do you value that? Talk about an unmanageable can of worms.

I say, pay them all the same - give them a full scholarship and pay their related expenses. Like my dad used to say, I'll pay your air fare & room and board but not your gambling debts.

Anybody that has paid their own way through school or paid for a child's education will tell you that the athletes on full scholarship are getting paid at a very good rate.

I think the argument about paying college players is similar to the argument that pro owners should pay their pro players more.

No one is ever paid enough are they? Yet kids are busting down the doors of colleges trying to earn scholarships and college kids are busting down the doors trying to earn a pro contract.

If the system was such a rip off for the players, I wouldn't expect there to be such a demand to get in.

This is what is so puzzling to me about Jay Bilas' lack of concern with UNC NOT providing an education to it's players. The education is the one thing of value that the kids get in return for their efforts... how can you blow that off?

If you want to make the argument for paying the players, I can follow the reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. It's not wrong. But, what Jay has done is basically made an argument for paying players and at the same time NOT defended what compensation they are currently afforded. This makes no sense to me on any level. That is wrong.

Karl Beem
05-03-2016, 03:12 PM
>This is what is so puzzling to me about Jay Bilas' lack of concern with UNC NOT providing an education to it's players. The education is the one thing of value that the kids get in return for their efforts... how can you blow that off?

His job depends on his lack of concern.

CDu
05-03-2016, 03:15 PM
One problem is that the fans come to see amateur college athletes, not minor league pros. As soon as they turn into minor league pros a lot of people will stop caring. How about we keep amateur college athletics and those who would prefer to be paid can join the D-League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Development_League)?

I may be mistaken, but doubt most fans watch NCAA sports because they are amateur athletics. I suspect college football and college bball would still be hugely popular even if players were paid. And I say that as someone not in favor of paying college players.

moonpie23
05-03-2016, 03:17 PM
i've said it before......no pay for college, but.....

EVERY PLAYER'S FIRST YEAR IS IN THE D-League(and you TRY OUT)......no exceptions.....ALL drafting by the league is out of the D-league...Players are paid from 40K - 100K (no more)

•levels the playing field for coaches
•instantly gives us a new business model to enjoy (and some REAL money to the league - think about the last 5 years of OAD's - you don't think ESPN would pony up for that?)
•helps players make a transition into the league with money, Physical training, number of games, popularity, NBA rules, and Coaching
•helps weed out problematic personalities that attach to new, rich draftees
•helps NBA managers with poor impulse control - which will in turn, put a better product on the floor for the league.
•opens up new endorsement revenues


i know there are some kinks that would have to be worked out, but it could be exciting...AND help college BB..


OR......just get rid of the one year rule......either

oldnavy
05-03-2016, 03:24 PM
>This is what is so puzzling to me about Jay Bilas' lack of concern with UNC NOT providing an education to it's players. The education is the one thing of value that the kids get in return for their efforts... how can you blow that off?

His job depends on his lack of concern.

No, I don't think so. He has been pretty vocal about the NCAA, so it's not like he is towing some party line.

It could be that he has gotten too close to the coaches and players (especially at UNC) that he is afraid of burning bridges.

I didn't agree with him before about paying the players, but I respected his position.

Now I don't even respect his position because I don't believe what he is saying anymore. If his concern was with the players and "helping" them, he could not possibly ignore this issue.

In fact, this issue would enrage him if he were true to the cause. His meek and passive, "meh, it was awful what happened"... is pathetic and makes him look foolish.

Li_Duke
05-03-2016, 03:35 PM
Then what role would the NCAA have?

I am not disagreeing with you, but if we start to treat players as professional athletes, what role does the NCAA have? The players would need a union.

The NCAA would still handle the majority of student athletes, just not the top players from revenue sports (eg. mid majors college basketball and football). If they can't reliability police power conference basketball and football, then maybe they should shrink their scope.

The power conferences can come up with some other sports body that doesn't try to pretend all the athletes are students. That body can handle drug testing, etc... And the athletes that fall under that umbrella can form a union (and have strikes, and all that fun stuff).

hallcity
05-03-2016, 03:36 PM
So colleges are going to pay student-athletes? Can Duke opt out of this -- just say it's not going to pay student athletes and that it intends to only compete against other like-minded school? Wait, isn't that what the NCAA is -- a group of schools which want to play intercollegiate athletics but not pay student-athletes? How could it possibly be that Duke or any other school is required to pay student-athletes whether it wants to or not? Any school that wants is free now to pay student-athletes. They can play sports against other like-minded schools. There just aren't any schools eager to pay student-athletes.

Bilas or anyone else can rail against colleges not paying student-athletes but exactly how are they going to force schools to pay student-athletes?

If there's a problem now, it's that there's really no minor leagues for football or basketball players who don't want to go to college. The reason there aren't these minor leagues is that the public isn't interested in paying money to watch minor league football or basketball. This isn't the fault of the colleges. They're not blocking the creation of such leagues.

Li_Duke
05-03-2016, 03:40 PM
I have to go back and ask: What does the 6th best player on the 5th best team get paid? How does the scale work? Sure, Jah commands money. Justise commands money. Brandon commands money, etc. What about the 6th, 7th & 8th man on the team? What about a Matt - not gaudy but makes the team work - how do you value that? Talk about an unmanageable can of worms.

I say, pay them all the same - give them a full scholarship and pay their related expenses. Like my dad used to say, I'll pay your air fare & room and board but not your gambling debts.

Let the market dictate that. We're already in an age where some schools are recruiting players by showing them brand new facilities, promising fast-track paths to the pros, telling them they don't have to attend classes, paying for strippers and prostitutes, etc... Go ahead and make them a financial offer too. That offer can include full scholarships, if that's what they are interested in. But while a full scholarship may be valuable to an athlete who wants to also be a student, it might not be valuable to an athlete who just wants to bide his time until he can make the pros.

Li_Duke
05-03-2016, 03:51 PM
Anybody that has paid their own way through school or paid for a child's education will tell you that the athletes on full scholarship are getting paid at a very good rate.

I think the argument about paying college players is similar to the argument that pro owners should pay their pro players more.

No one is ever paid enough are they? Yet kids are busting down the doors of colleges trying to earn scholarships and college kids are busting down the doors trying to earn a pro contract.

If the system was such a rip off for the players, I wouldn't expect there to be such a demand to get in.

This is what is so puzzling to me about Jay Bilas' lack of concern with UNC NOT providing an education to it's players. The education is the one thing of value that the kids get in return for their efforts... how can you blow that off?

If you want to make the argument for paying the players, I can follow the reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. It's not wrong. But, what Jay has done is basically made an argument for paying players and at the same time NOT defended what compensation they are currently afforded. This makes no sense to me on any level. That is wrong.

Aren't we paying for the degrees, more so than the classes themselves? We want them to be able to earn a good living as an adult. Would an average middle-class family send their kid to college with a price tag like Duke to attend classes for a year or two, if they know their kid would probably never earn the degree? Or if they anticipate that their kid's ability to earn a living as an adult would have no correlation with their level of education?

So how much is a scholarship worth to a family who hopes their kid will be one-and-done or two-and-done?

arnie
05-03-2016, 04:17 PM
One problem is that the fans come to see amateur college athletes, not minor league pros. As soon as they turn into minor league pros a lot of people will stop caring. How about we keep amateur college athletics and those who would prefer to be paid can join the D-League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Development_League)?

That's the right answer - I'm would no longer be a college BBall fan if the previous poster's concept was implemented. The "D" league was originally gonna help with this issue - or so we thought.

Karl Beem
05-03-2016, 04:22 PM
No, I don't think so. He has been pretty vocal about the NCAA, so it's not like he is towing some party line.

It could be that he has gotten too close to the coaches and players (especially at UNC) that he is afraid of burning bridges.

I didn't agree with him before about paying the players, but I respected his position.

Now I don't even respect his position because I don't believe what he is saying anymore. If his concern was with the players and "helping" them, he could not possibly ignore this issue.

In fact, this issue would enrage him if he were true to the cause. His meek and passive, "meh, it was awful what happened"... is pathetic and makes him look foolish.

Skipper is a UNCheat grad.

swood1000
05-03-2016, 04:23 PM
i've said it before...no pay for college, but...

EVERY PLAYER'S FIRST YEAR IS IN THE D-League(and you TRY OUT)...no exceptions...ALL drafting by the league is out of the D-league...Players are paid from 40K - 100K (no more)

•levels the playing field for coaches
•instantly gives us a new business model to enjoy (and some REAL money to the league - think about the last 5 years of OAD's - you don't think ESPN would pony up for that?)
•helps players make a transition into the league with money, Physical training, number of games, popularity, NBA rules, and Coaching
•helps weed out problematic personalities that attach to new, rich draftees
•helps NBA managers with poor impulse control - which will in turn, put a better product on the floor for the league.
•opens up new endorsement revenues


i know there are some kinks that would have to be worked out, but it could be exciting...AND help college BB..


OR...just get rid of the one year rule...either
You need to find at least one reason that the National Basketball Players Assn. would want to get on board with this. The intended effect is to reduce the salary offered to those who otherwise would be offered more money than they deserve. Reducing player salaries doesn't seem to be in sync with the goals of the Players Assn.

swood1000
05-03-2016, 04:28 PM
Aren't we paying for the degrees, more so than the classes themselves? We want them to be able to earn a good living as an adult. Would an average middle-class family send their kid to college with a price tag like Duke to attend classes for a year or two, if they know their kid would probably never earn the degree? Or if they anticipate that their kid's ability to earn a living as an adult would have no correlation with their level of education?

So how much is a scholarship worth to a family who hopes their kid will be one-and-done or two-and-done?
If the kid thinks that what he gets in college, including all the exposure and media attention, is not worth it he can go straight to the D-League.

swood1000
05-03-2016, 04:31 PM
Let the market dictate that. We're already in an age where some schools are recruiting players by showing them brand new facilities, promising fast-track paths to the pros, telling them they don't have to attend classes, paying for strippers and prostitutes, etc... Go ahead and make them a financial offer too. That offer can include full scholarships, if that's what they are interested in. But while a full scholarship may be valuable to an athlete who wants to also be a student, it might not be valuable to an athlete who just wants to bide his time until he can make the pros.
But why make them a financial offer too? If they don't find the existing incentives adequate they can go to the D-League.

swood1000
05-03-2016, 04:37 PM
I may be mistaken, but doubt most fans watch NCAA sports because they are amateur athletics. I suspect college football and college bball would still be hugely popular even if players were paid. And I say that as someone not in favor of paying college players.
It's one of the big unknowns. People disagree. If we're wrong then lasting harm will be done done. What justifies our taking that chance?

billy
05-03-2016, 04:55 PM
No, I don't think so. He has been pretty vocal about the NCAA, so it's not like he is towing some party line.

It could be that he has gotten too close to the coaches and players (especially at UNC) that he is afraid of burning bridges.

I didn't agree with him before about paying the players, but I respected his position.

Now I don't even respect his position because I don't believe what he is saying anymore. If his concern was with the players and "helping" them, he could not possibly ignore this issue.

In fact, this issue would enrage him if he were true to the cause. His meek and passive, "meh, it was awful what happened"... is pathetic and makes him look foolish.

I heard Bilas talk to Adam and Joe on 99.9 the Fan in the Triangle last week about the rationale for his position regarding UNC (link is below). It's pretty long but worthwhile in my opinion to listen to. In a nutshell, he said that, based on the rules in place (prior to the newly proposed rules regarding academic misconduct a.k.a. UNC rule), there was no rule or statute that governed this exact type of scenario. Therefore, the NCAA was rendered powerless to do anything about it. It was a very "lawyerly" take on the situation.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_basketball/audio/15667667/

SilkyJ
05-03-2016, 05:24 PM
I've never home-brewed! (Too dangerous to marital relationships :o) I let other who know what they're doing do all the brewing.

Goose me! What Goose Island beverage is in your glass?

-jk is a bourbon man anyway but I think he's confessed to having a porter or a stout on a rare occasion. ;)

The IPA of course :)


Ymm, Bourbon!

Any good bourbon, any time. Old Forester as a regular (as my sainted grandmother taught me).

-jk

77devil has me drinking a variety of orphan barrels (http://www.orphanbarrel.com/) these days.

You can count on the franklin street faithful continuing to drink their own spiked kool-aid for the next few months tho. They feel like they are going to skate.

@Packman97 or others who visit PackPride--what's the PP take on Manalishi? The ANOA seems to put his credibility in doubt, something I've questioned from the beginning. Are others finally questioning it now too? Does anyone have a fact pattern or bona fides to point to that he's credible?

Doria
05-03-2016, 07:51 PM
I don't really agree with paying players, mostly for the admittedly optimistic view that that would essentially state that a college education has no effective value. However, I have never seen why schools couldn't create a sports major that athletes could choose and which might count a certain number of sports hours as practical experience. Most schools already have courses in different departments that could be assembled to create a major (e.g., sport business administration and/or management, sports health and medicine, etc.). Even players who won't necessarily be able to go pro might be interested in making a career for themselves in sports at some level, and that could provide real practical help for them.

This wouldn't be a panacea for the issue of to pay or not to pay athletes, but isn't there a possible middle ground that could provide something of real educational benefit for these students? I just don't think this theoretically has to be an all or nothing choice, where money is the only thing schools could do to help their student athletes.

kmspeaks
05-03-2016, 08:04 PM
I don't really agree with paying players, mostly for the admittedly optimistic view that that would essentially state that a college education has no effective value. However, I have never seen why schools couldn't create a sports major that athletes could choose and which might count a certain number of sports hours as practical experience. Most schools already have courses in different departments that could be assembled to create a major (e.g., sport business administration and/or management, sports health and medicine, etc.). Even players who won't necessarily be able to go pro might be interested in making a career for themselves in sports at some level, and that could provide real practical help for them.

This wouldn't be a panacea for the issue of to pay or not to pay athletes, but isn't there a possible middle ground that could provide something of real educational benefit for these students? I just don't think this theoretically has to be an all or nothing choice, where money is the only thing schools could do to help their student athletes.

I am strongly against paying players but this is an idea I could get behind. At the first college I went to athletes got 1 credit hour per year (you picked which semester) for playing a sport. Expand this some, add in some financial management courses, business/sports law for dealing with or becoming an agent, sports marketing, etc. I was a Division II softball player with a 0% chance of playing professionally but I would have loved a program like this.

CDu
05-03-2016, 08:14 PM
No, I don't think so. He has been pretty vocal about the NCAA, so it's not like he is towing some party line.

It could be that he has gotten too close to the coaches and players (especially at UNC) that he is afraid of burning bridges.

I didn't agree with him before about paying the players, but I respected his position.

Now I don't even respect his position because I don't believe what he is saying anymore. If his concern was with the players and "helping" them, he could not possibly ignore this issue.

In fact, this issue would enrage him if he were true to the cause. His meek and passive, "meh, it was awful what happened"... is pathetic and makes him look foolish.

Pretty sure you hit the nail on the head with the bolded part. Analysts need access to coaches, and UNC is one of the big boys at the table. I think Bilas is playing politics here and chumming with the coaches. Same thing he did with the Boeheim thing, where he made the rediculous claim that the penalty should have gone to someone higher on the food chain than Boeheim, as if there is anyone really more powerful than Boeheim at Syracuse.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your post. He seems to be being willfully ignorant and it isn't a good look for him. But, I guess if you make your bed you have to sleep in it, and he seems to have made his bed on the side of the coaches.

cspan37421
05-03-2016, 08:42 PM
Listening to it now. So far, unimpressed. He makes the claim that the rules don't apply to UNC's situation here (of academic/athletic fraud). He dismisses the "extra benefit" angle. Isn't the phrase "not generally available to the student body"? It wasn't "generally" available. Putting a few stooges in there was a subterfuge to get around the notion that only athletes knew about it. It was a fig leaf.

He claims that MBB, FB, etc., was not named in the allegation. Perhaps there's a legal meaning of "naming" that is different than the common meaning. I think it's been pretty well established that MBB and FB were deeply involved and benefited from the arrangement.

What about the IS limit that McCants (at the very least) exceeded, thus ineligible? That's not a SACS issue.

On the plus side, he recognizes the difference between "easy" and "fake" classes. Just says it's a SACS issue.

He believes Roy and Gut knew nothing. "There's no way" - really? Why? No reason.

Very little said about Syracuse as a point of comparison. Claims that the only thing the NCAA can do is when the student cheats the honest academic side, not when the University cheats by offering a dishonest academic side to the student.

Claims NCAA would have to break its own rules to address this situation. Really? What rule would be broken?

Again, he did not get into the kind of specifics. He did not quote chapter and verse. He did not really anticipate objections well and explain why they're invalid.
IMO much more thorough analysis has been done here.

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-04-2016, 05:27 AM
Listening to it now. So far, unimpressed. He makes the claim that the rules don't apply to UNC's situation here (of academic/athletic fraud). He dismisses the "extra benefit" angle. Isn't the phrase "not generally available to the student body"? It wasn't "generally" available. Putting a few stooges in there was a subterfuge to get around the notion that only athletes knew about it. It was a fig leaf.

He claims that MBB, FB, etc., was not named in the allegation. Perhaps there's a legal meaning of "naming" that is different than the common meaning. I think it's been pretty well established that MBB and FB were deeply involved and benefited from the arrangement.

What about the IS limit that McCants (at the very least) exceeded, thus ineligible? That's not a SACS issue.

On the plus side, he recognizes the difference between "easy" and "fake" classes. Just says it's a SACS issue.

He believes Roy and Gut knew nothing. "There's no way" - really? Why? No reason.

Very little said about Syracuse as a point of comparison. Claims that the only thing the NCAA can do is when the student cheats the honest academic side, not when the University cheats by offering a dishonest academic side to the student.

Claims NCAA would have to break its own rules to address this situation. Really? What rule would be broken?

Again, he did not get into the kind of specifics. He did not quote chapter and verse. He did not really anticipate objections well and explain why they're invalid.
IMO much more thorough analysis has been done here.
So he sticks to a very strict interpretation of rules and dismisses the mountains of evidence that shows they cheated for decades. But with no evidence to back his statement, he adamantly declares the coaches absolutely knew nothing about this. Got it. No double standard being applied there... ahem, cough, barf.

oldnavy
05-04-2016, 07:35 AM
Listening to it now. So far, unimpressed. He makes the claim that the rules don't apply to UNC's situation here (of academic/athletic fraud). He dismisses the "extra benefit" angle. Isn't the phrase "not generally available to the student body"? It wasn't "generally" available. Putting a few stooges in there was a subterfuge to get around the notion that only athletes knew about it. It was a fig leaf.

He claims that MBB, FB, etc., was not named in the allegation. Perhaps there's a legal meaning of "naming" that is different than the common meaning. I think it's been pretty well established that MBB and FB were deeply involved and benefited from the arrangement.

What about the IS limit that McCants (at the very least) exceeded, thus ineligible? That's not a SACS issue.

On the plus side, he recognizes the difference between "easy" and "fake" classes. Just says it's a SACS issue.

He believes Roy and Gut knew nothi9ng. "There's no way" - really? Why? No reason.

Very little said about Syracuse as a point of comparison. Claims that the only thing the NCAA can do is when the student cheats the honest academic side, not when the University cheats by offering a dishonest academic side to the student.

Claims NCAA would have to break its own rules to address this situation. Really? What rule would be broken?

Again, he did not get into the kind of specifics. He did not quote chapter and verse. He did not really anticipate objections well and explain why they're invalid.
IMO much more thorough analysis has been done here.

His explanation of the NCAA's inability to rule is one thing. He can spin that anyway his legal mind wants. His complete lack of outrage for what has happened is another. It shines a light on what he really is about. He is a college coach apologist, who values his relationships within the coaching community more than he values his reputation as an objective analyst.

He has made himself irreverent as an analyst with regards to the "social injustice" of the NCAA... his outrage against the NCAA is limited to paying the players. He apparently couldn't care less that the NCAA is allowing a totally uneven playing field and is depriving student athletes of the one thing of value associated with their scholarships. So is he really concerned about the athletes?

I can't reconcile his apathy towards the abuse of steering players away from a meaningful education with his fervor over not giving the athletes some pocket money... like I said up thread, Jay's inconsistencies are untenable at best, and flat out hypocritical at worst.

You simply cannot paint yourself as a social justice crusader and be so silent on the largest abuse of players in NCAA history.

The smartest man in basketball sure looks obtuse on this issue.

Ima Facultiwyfe
05-04-2016, 08:04 AM
His explanation of the NCAA's inability to rule is one thing. He can spin that anyway his legal mind wants. His complete lack of outrage for what has happened is another. It shines a light on what he really is about. He is a college coach apologist, who values his relationships within the coaching community more than he values his reputation as an objective analyst.

He has made himself irreverent as an analyst with regards to the "social injustice" of the NCAA... his outrage against the NCAA is limited to paying the players. He apparently couldn't care less that the NCAA is allowing a totally uneven playing field and is depriving student athletes of the one thing of value associated with their scholarships. So is he really concerned about the athletes?

I can't reconcile his apathy towards the abuse of steering players away from a meaningful education with his fervor over not giving the athletes some pocket money... like I said up thread, Jay's inconsistencies are untenable at best, and flat out hypocritical at worst.

You simply cannot paint yourself as a social justice crusader and be so silent on the largest abuse of players in NCAA history.

The smartest man in basketball sure looks obtuse on this issue.
Wish I'd said that!
Love, Ima

Skitzle
05-04-2016, 09:12 AM
His explanation of the NCAA's inability to rule is one thing. He can spin that anyway his legal mind wants. His complete lack of outrage for what has happened is another. It shines a light on what he really is about. He is a college coach apologist, who values his relationships within the coaching community more than he values his reputation as an objective analyst.

He has made himself irreverent as an analyst with regards to the "social injustice" of the NCAA... his outrage against the NCAA is limited to paying the players. He apparently couldn't care less that the NCAA is allowing a totally uneven playing field and is depriving student athletes of the one thing of value associated with their scholarships. So is he really concerned about the athletes?

I can't reconcile his apathy towards the abuse of steering players away from a meaningful education with his fervor over not giving the athletes some pocket money... like I said up thread, Jay's inconsistencies are untenable at best, and flat out hypocritical at worst.

You simply cannot paint yourself as a social justice crusader and be so silent on the largest abuse of players in NCAA history.

The smartest man in basketball sure looks obtuse on this issue.

Dear Duke fans, Please don't flame me, I like Jay Bilas. I always want to support him, but this message hits home and is very well put (Sporks!)

I'm putting forward a counter theory... its probably a grassy knoll type theory but here you go.

"Everyone does it" = Duke does something that is also slightly over the gray area line with regards to student athletes = let me "protect roy" so I can "protect k" on the off chance that everything doesn't go smoothly for Duke in the future. *takes off my tinfoil hat*

cspan37421
05-04-2016, 09:12 AM
His explanation of the NCAA's inability to rule is one thing. He can spin that anyway his legal mind wants. His complete lack of outrage for what has happened is another. It shines a light on what he really is about. He is a college coach apologist, who values his relationships within the coaching community more than he values his reputation as an objective analyst.

He has made himself irreverent as an analyst with regards to the "social injustice" of the NCAA... his outrage against the NCAA is limited to paying the players. He apparently couldn't care less that the NCAA is allowing a totally uneven playing field and is depriving student athletes of the one thing of value associated with their scholarships. So is he really concerned about the athletes?

I can't reconcile his apathy towards the abuse of steering players away from a meaningful education with his fervor over not giving the athletes some pocket money... like I said up thread, Jay's inconsistencies are untenable at best, and flat out hypocritical at worst.

You simply cannot paint yourself as a social justice crusader and be so silent on the largest abuse of players in NCAA history.

The smartest man in basketball sure looks obtuse on this issue.

To be fair to "our man", he claims to agree that the cheating has been a terrible thing. Those are the words that come out. But you don't hear the slightest anguish, anger, or moral indignation in his voice. It's very matter of fact, and instead, you hear the tonal equivalent of a shoulder shrug about the whole thing.

I doubt very much he sees the scandal as an abuse of players. With respect to both players and coaches, he does not think it's realistic to expect either of them to march into the provost's office and demand that substance be added to the independent studies courses. In this I think he is correct - most - I'd say the vast majority - of these players are delighted to be moved along and given passing grades with no work (or attendance) required at all. There was at least one exception, a football player who (IIRC) sued because he was told he could not sign up for what he wanted to (this theme, interestingly, played out in the Tom Wolfe novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, where the story's legendary BB coach gets furious at one of his players for taking an interest in a real course that might require real work).

In most cases it takes two to tango, as far as the fraud is concerned. We have mostly willing victims here; Bilas knows that, so he's not going to spend energy crying foul on behalf of "victims" who don't see themselves as such.

Indoor66
05-04-2016, 10:08 AM
To be fair to "our man", he claims to agree that the cheating has been a terrible thing. Those are the words that come out. But you don't hear the slightest anguish, anger, or moral indignation in his voice. It's very matter of fact, and instead, you hear the tonal equivalent of a shoulder shrug about the whole thing.

I doubt very much he sees the scandal as an abuse of players. With respect to both players and coaches, he does not think it's realistic to expect either of them to march into the provost's office and demand that substance be added to the independent studies courses. In this I think he is correct - most - I'd say the vast majority - of these players are delighted to be moved along and given passing grades with no work (or attendance) required at all. There was at least one exception, a football player who (IIRC) sued because he was told he could not sign up for what he wanted to (this theme, interestingly, played out in the Tom Wolfe novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, where the story's legendary BB coach gets furious at one of his players for taking an interest in a real course that might require real work).

In most cases it takes two to tango, as far as the fraud is concerned. We have mostly willing victims here; Bilas knows that, so he's not going to spend energy crying foul on behalf of "victims" who don't see themselves as such.

IMO you last paragraph comes across as rather naive. You stated "position" negates the issue of relative maturity, positions of authority and influence vs the student athlete and the very prime responsibility of the "adults" involved in the process. Adults must lead the youth toward their spinach as well as their ice cream. Everyone naturally goes to the ice cream.

To abrogate that responsibility for the purposes of unCheat or any other school to win trophies and athletic honors is a complete abandonment of the purpose of a university and abandonment of the purpose of sporting competition. I hope that there is better in Universities than this.

DukeandMdFan
05-04-2016, 10:53 AM
Dear Duke fans, Please don't flame me, I like Jay Bilas. I always want to support him, but this message hits home and is very well put (Sporks!)

I'm putting forward a counter theory... its probably a grassy knoll type theory but here you go.

"Everyone does it" = Duke does something that is also slightly over the gray area line with regards to student athletes = let me "protect roy" so I can "protect k" on the off chance that everything doesn't go smoothly for Duke in the future. *takes off my tinfoil hat*

I agree that Duke and everyone else does something that is in the gray area. He doesn't want to tackle the issue of basketball players not having the same academic requirements as the rest of the non-revenue producing student body.

However, Bilas does give a lot of twitter publicity to the student-manager games, which is a more accurate reflection of the true student body.

cspan37421
05-04-2016, 11:19 AM
IMO you last paragraph comes across as rather naive. You stated "position" negates the issue of relative maturity, positions of authority and influence vs the student athlete and the very prime responsibility of the "adults" involved in the process. Adults must lead the youth toward their spinach as well as their ice cream. Everyone naturally goes to the ice cream.

To abrogate that responsibility for the purposes of unCheat or any other school to win trophies and athletic honors is a complete abandonment of the purpose of a university and abandonment of the purpose of sporting competition. I hope that there is better in Universities than this.

I did not negate the issue; I didn't address it. Actually, I agree to an extent about relative maturity, positions of authority, and so forth. Of course there is differential power (there almost always is) ... but at some point kids are deemed to be adults for a great number of reasons - military, electorally, financially - broadly speaking, legally. If we don't draw the line somewhere about letting people off the hook because of power differentials, you get odd and IMO undesirable results, some of which are PPB-related and need not be stated here, but suffice it to say one example involves two frisky people who are both over 0.08 BAC.

If promises of a sound education were made to 17-yr-olds and then later, these 18-year-olds were denied registration into a courseload of their choosing, then yeah, you have something. But IMO the more naive position is that this baloney at UNC wasn't what 95%+ of them wanted - and don't regret getting.* When the lid first blew off of this, how many gathered around Ol Roy in support (same time as Bilas' interview with him) and how many rallied to Rashad's side? Almost none have regrets or contrition. I can think just of McCants, that one FB player who reported being told "no, you're signing up for this instead", and that's it. Perhaps since then there have been a couple more (maybe WBB player(s)?) but among men's FB and BB, I can only think of that FB player and McCants. And I'm not even sure McCants felt robbed. Wasn't he just saying, in essence, "I'm not gonna lie for you all anymore" ?

* wasn't there something about UNC having to offer free real courses to those who enrolled in the fake ones? If so, I wonder how many signed up for them. I'm thinking single digits, tops.

jipops
05-04-2016, 12:01 PM
I did not negate the issue; I didn't address it. Actually, I agree to an extent about relative maturity, positions of authority, and so forth. Of course there is differential power (there almost always is) ... but at some point kids are deemed to be adults for a great number of reasons - military, electorally, financially - broadly speaking, legally. If we don't draw the line somewhere about letting people off the hook because of power differentials, you get odd and IMO undesirable results, some of which are PPB-related and need not be stated here, but suffice it to say one example involves two frisky people who are both over 0.08 BAC.

If promises of a sound education were made to 17-yr-olds and then later, these 18-year-olds were denied registration into a courseload of their choosing, then yeah, you have something. But IMO the more naive position is that this baloney at UNC wasn't what 95%+ of them wanted - and don't regret getting.* When the lid first blew off of this, how many gathered around Ol Roy in support (same time as Bilas' interview with him) and how many rallied to Rashad's side? Almost none have regrets or contrition. I can think just of McCants, that one FB player who reported being told "no, you're signing up for this instead", and that's it. Perhaps since then there have been a couple more (maybe WBB player(s)?) but among men's FB and BB, I can only think of that FB player and McCants. And I'm not even sure McCants felt robbed. Wasn't he just saying, in essence, "I'm not gonna lie for you all anymore" ?

* wasn't there something about UNC having to offer free real courses to those who enrolled in the fake ones? If so, I wonder how many signed up for them. I'm thinking single digits, tops.

I don't think it is correct to deny there is a level of exploitation involved in all this. It's actually something that Jay Smith and Willingham emphasized heavily in their book from what they saw with the interactions with many of these athletes. In very many cases there are kids being recruited into the program that have never before been put into position to assimilate into an actual academic environment, even through high school. What is being sold to them at the university is the heavy focus on athletics while providing for them an appearance of an education via a document. Boom, they've made it. The realities of their past are now gone . This is the type of system that has given unc the opportunity to grossly exploit. In their eyes, there is no need to explore any academic mission with these kids. They are just here to play sports, make the school money, and further build up the unc brand. I don't see how every kid from every type of situation should automatically be expected to have the where-with-all to just throw up a red flag.

And this is what really burns me up about Jay's almost non-reaction. Much of his premise on the ncaa has been how these kids are being exploited. Well the biggest, grossest example has been occurring right there in Chapel Hill. He should be spewing fire in the directions of both the cheats and the ncaa. Instead he offers only legalities, which just reeks in hypocrisy.

MarkD83
05-04-2016, 12:03 PM
I agree that Duke and everyone else does something that is in the gray area. He doesn't want to tackle the issue of basketball players not having the same academic requirements as the rest of the non-revenue producing student body.

However, Bilas does give a lot of twitter publicity to the student-manager games, which is a more accurate reflection of the true student body.

DukeandMdFan, these next comments are not to pick on you but lead to the biggest issue I have with the minimal action being taking by the NCAA as well as Jay's approach to this.

Since everyone does this so does Duke. Additionally, Duke just hired an ex-compliance officer from UNC and a professor who openly suggested that there was nothing serious happening at UNC and everyone should just put this behind them. Duke is also judged by the company they keep and since Duke is an intimate rival of UNC, Duke will be judged by what is happening at UNC.

So when is someone going to start questioning the legitimacy of all of Duke's championships?

Once the NCAA and SACS make their final decisions, I sure hope the Duke administration takes some stand because their silence could lead to the scenario I have listed above.

devildeac
05-04-2016, 12:38 PM
DukeandMdFan, these next comments are not to pick on you but lead to the biggest issue I have with the minimal action being taking by the NCAA as well as Jay's approach to this.

Since everyone does this so does Duke. Additionally, Duke just hired an ex-compliance officer from UNC and a professor who openly suggested that there was nothing serious happening at UNC and everyone should just put this behind them. Duke is also judged by the company they keep and since Duke is an intimate rival of UNC, Duke will be judged by what is happening at UNC.

So when is someone going to start questioning the legitimacy of all of Duke's championships?

Once the NCAA and SACS make their final decisions, I sure hope the Duke administration takes some stand because their silence could lead to the scenario I have listed above.

Start questioning? Ha! The haters have been doubting that we won any legitimate championships for over 20 years now. Laettner's "stomp," billy pecker's "Duke gets all the calls," rigged/easy pathways, etc. :rolleyes:

oldnavy
05-04-2016, 12:52 PM
I don't think it is correct to deny there is a level of exploitation involved in all this. It's actually something that Jay Smith and Willingham emphasized heavily in their book from what they saw with the interactions with many of these athletes. In very many cases there are kids being recruited into the program that have never before been put into position to assimilate into an actual academic environment, even through high school. What is being sold to them at the university is the heavy focus on athletics while providing for them an appearance of an education via a document. Boom, they've made it. The realities of their past are now gone . This is the type of system that has given unc the opportunity to grossly exploit. In their eyes, there is no need to explore any academic mission with these kids. They are just here to play sports, make the school money, and further build up the unc brand. I don't see how every kid from every type of situation should automatically be expected to have the where-with-all to just throw up a red flag.

And this is what really burns me up about Jay's almost non-reaction. Much of his premise on the ncaa has been how these kids are being exploited. Well the biggest, grossest example has been occurring right there in Chapel Hill. He should be spewing fire in the directions of both the cheats and the ncaa. Instead he offers only legalities, which just reeks in hypocrisy.

Exactly. It doesnt matter to me that the students are willing to take the freebie grades it is still exploitation. He wants them paid yet is perfectly fine that the ONE payment available NOW and the most valuable payment is witheld. Yes I know he says its awful but his reaction doesn't come close with his outrage regarding the payment issue.

DukeandMdFan
05-04-2016, 01:20 PM
DukeandMdFan, these next comments are not to pick on you but lead to the biggest issue I have with the minimal action being taking by the NCAA as well as Jay's approach to this.

Since everyone does this so does Duke. Additionally, Duke just hired an ex-compliance officer from UNC and a professor who openly suggested that there was nothing serious happening at UNC and everyone should just put this behind them. Duke is also judged by the company they keep and since Duke is an intimate rival of UNC, Duke will be judged by what is happening at UNC.

So when is someone going to start questioning the legitimacy of all of Duke's championships?

Once the NCAA and SACS make their final decisions, I sure hope the Duke administration takes some stand because their silence could lead to the scenario I have listed above.


Good points of why Duke could be perceived as hypocritical if it takes a strong stance against UNC.

I didn't mean to imply that UNC's complete disregard for academic requirements is common. I think Duke's recruitment of OADs is a gray area and there very well could be others - a tutor providing a little too much help, a professor accepting a late assignment, etc. (Actually, sometimes I think I provide a little too much help when I help my kids with their homework.) Regarding OADs, while not breaking any NCAA rules and possibly being in the best interest of the player, it isn't what one would expect from a true "student-athlete". (Hypothetically, I don't think someone who took 50% legitimate courses for four years is any worse off than someone who took 100% legitimate courses for one year.)

I also didn't mean to imply that I wasn't disappointed in Bilas's support of UNC.

cspan37421
05-04-2016, 01:36 PM
Start questioning? Ha! The haters have been doubting that we won any legitimate championships for over 20 years now. Laettner's "stomp," billy pecker's "Duke gets all the calls," rigged/easy pathways, etc. :rolleyes:

Not to mention black diamonds.

Indoor66
05-04-2016, 04:03 PM
Just for a Happy Moment (https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDRSfvH7r6DXcIg/giphy.gif) in this thread full of despair.

Skitzle
05-04-2016, 04:20 PM
Just for a Happy Moment (https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDRSfvH7r6DXcIg/giphy.gif) in this thread full of despair.

Here is some more happiness (http://giphy.com/gifs/best-gifs-duke-MPPeUXKRY3VgQ).

moonpie23
05-04-2016, 09:00 PM
35,444 views and they're still gonna skate...

our kung fu needs work....


if we could hang another banner, they would just have to shut up....

Ima Facultiwyfe
05-05-2016, 07:54 AM
35,444 views and they're still gonna skate...

our kung fu needs work...


if we could hang another banner, they would just have to shut up...

Coming right up!
Love, Ima

rasputin
05-05-2016, 10:44 AM
35,444 views and they're still gonna skate...

our kung fu needs work...


if we could hang another banner, they would just have to shut up...

When we hang another banner, the Cheats will just have somebody bake up two more for them.

duke80
05-05-2016, 11:48 AM
DukeandMdFan, these next comments are not to pick on you but lead to the biggest issue I have with the minimal action being taking by the NCAA as well as Jay's approach to this.

Since everyone does this so does Duke. Additionally, Duke just hired an ex-compliance officer from UNC and a professor who openly suggested that there was nothing serious happening at UNC and everyone should just put this behind them. Duke is also judged by the company they keep and since Duke is an intimate rival of UNC, Duke will be judged by what is happening at UNC.

So when is someone going to start questioning the legitimacy of all of Duke's championships?

Once the NCAA and SACS make their final decisions, I sure hope the Duke administration takes some stand because their silence could lead to the scenario I have listed above.

Hello DukeandMarylandFan-

I appreciate you coming onto the board and voicing your opinion, however do you really think Duke basketball and football players don't go to class and have tutors write their papers for them? I think it was last year that Cutcliffe said how impressed he was that his football players were studying on the bus on the way to an away game. You think K signs off on stuff like this. I doubt it.

As far as legitimacy of titles, you and UNC posters are the only ones I have ever heard question them. Maybe I'm naive or something, but did you actually say that Duke would be judged by what is happening at UNC? Maybe I misinterpreted your post, as I don't understand your logic.

As far as Duke or K 'weighing in' after decisions are made by NCAA and SACS, I did hear K once say that at least Duke basketball players go to class.

DukeandMdFan
05-05-2016, 02:15 PM
Hello DukeandMarylandFan-

I appreciate you coming onto the board and voicing your opinion, however do you really think Duke basketball and football players don't go to class and have tutors write their papers for them? I think it was last year that Cutcliffe said how impressed he was that his football players were studying on the bus on the way to an away game. You think K signs off on stuff like this. I doubt it.

As far as legitimacy of titles, you and UNC posters are the only ones I have ever heard question them. Maybe I'm naive or something, but did you actually say that Duke would be judged by what is happening at UNC? Maybe I misinterpreted your post, as I don't understand your logic.

As far as Duke or K 'weighing in' after decisions are made by NCAA and SACS, I did hear K once say that at least Duke basketball players go to class.

Those weren't my views. They were extrapolations made by someone else.

I do think UNC is tarnished. As a result, I think the Duke-UNC rivalry is tarnished. From this Duke fan's perspective, the rivalry was much better when it was thought to be two top programs who do things the right way on and off the court than when the perceptions of the programs are drastically different.

I think that the stink of the UNC athletic/academic scandal is so great that it extends to UNC and big-time athletic programs in general.

I think UNC and Duke recruit many of the same players.

I definitely am not questioning the legitimacy of Duke's titles.

I'm not even questioning the legitimacy of UNC's titles. They won the game on the court; they celebrated on Franklin Street; and they bought the tee-shirts. Vacating those championships doesn't take away those experiences. Unless another team is crowned a champion, I don't see any "winners" and I don't think the losses hurt any less. I'm pretty much over those losses anyway. Technically, the players should have been academically ineligible. But, they were not declared ineligible. If the "student-athletes" had been steered to some other non-independent study classes that were not overly difficult, they probably could have passed those too.

I am hoping that UNC gets scholarship reductions, although I would get some (probably petty) satisfaction in some UNC wins being vacated.

I do think that the adults who facilitated academic fraud should be fired.

I think the real victims in this are not the players/fans from the other schools which had to do schoolwork to remain eligible, but the UNC students and student-athletes who actually did a college-level amount of work and learned a college-level amount of material, but their qualifications will now be questioned when they try to find a job.

DukeandMdFan
05-05-2016, 03:05 PM
Hello DukeandMarylandFan-

I appreciate you coming onto the board and voicing your opinion, however do you really think Duke basketball and football players don't go to class and have tutors write their papers for them?

My own thoughts on tutors is that a lot of what most tutors do is in the gray area with respect to homework.

For a math class...

I think that it would clearly not be cheating for a tutor to go through the class notes and explain why the professor performed each and every step in the problem(s). I don't think it would be cheating for the tutor to go through a lot of other similar problems and teach the student how to solve the problem. Then, the student should work the problem by themselves with no hints from the tutor and submit it to the teacher.

I think that tutors of athletes and non-athletes do more than that. I think a lot of tutors help the students with the actual homework problems that they turn in. So, in classes where homework is graded, where does "cheating" begin?

1 - Tutor gives hints on how a problem might be solved
2 - Tutor checks the homework to make sure the student showed their work
3 - Tutor checks the homework and tells the student whether the problem is right
4 - Tutor checks the homework and tells the student where the mistakes are
5 - Tutor checks the homework and tells the student how to fix the mistakes
6 - Tutor checks the homework and corrects the errors
7 - Tutor does the homework and student copies it (some learning can occur here)
8 - Tutor does the homework and writes the student's name on it.

Everyone has their own line on what is acceptable. For people who draw the line at #2 or #3, they could call everyone else a cheater. I think most tutors would draw the line somewhere else. I think that what Duke tutors do/did is somewhere along the continuum.

I've had professors who have said that it is acceptable for students to work together to solve math problems and other professors who expect students to do their homework independently.

English
05-05-2016, 03:30 PM
My own thoughts on tutors is that a lot of what most tutors do is in the gray area with respect to homework.

...

This takes false equivalency to another level beyond what I've even seen from the sheep fans. What in holy hell is the purpose of opening a discussion of what proper tutorial practices include for an institution of higher learning? The honor code of the respective schools often determines that in explicit or implicit terms. What's the point?

The UNC scandal involves something as far removed from this technical distinction that renders this conversation pointless and counterproductive in this thread.

As to your theory that Bilas is, perhaps, defending UNC's hoops team in the purely hypothetical forward-thinking scenario that, at some remote time in the future Duke blurs the lines slightly, he can then defend them without allegations of Duke-bias...uhh, not buying it. Bilas' entire argument lies in the fact that academics don't fall under the NCAA's purview. He will fight tooth and nail to argue against the NCAA exerting or extending its sphere of influence, and he's clearly used this scenario to, again, make that point. His hollow finger wagging about this being a shame that some athletes were denied an education promised by the institution is just that...it's a farce, it's hollow, and it wreaks of hypocrisy. His defense of the hoops program and its CEO is laughable. The point made up-thread that Bilas is steadfastly arguing form over substance is spot-on.

Tom B.
05-05-2016, 03:39 PM
As to your theory that Bilas is, perhaps, defending UNC's hoops team in the purely hypothetical forward-thinking scenario that, at some remote time in the future Duke blurs the lines slightly, he can then defend them without allegations of Duke-bias...uhh, not buying it. Bilas' entire argument lies in the fact that academics don't fall under the NCAA's purview. He will fight tooth and nail to argue against the NCAA exerting or extending its sphere of influence, and he's clearly used this scenario to, again, make that point. His hollow finger wagging about this being a shame that some athletes were denied an education promised by the institution is just that...it's a farce, it's hollow, and it wreaks of hypocrisy. His defense of the hoops program and its CEO is laughable. The point made up-thread that Bilas is steadfastly arguing form over substance is spot-on.

Plus, Jay keeps forgetting a key point. He keeps saying that the NCAA shouldn't be in the business of judging or evaluating the bona fides of the institution's academics. That's all fine and good as a general principle, but this case doesn't require the NCAA to do that.

This case doesn't require the NCAA to stick its nose into academics and decide whether or not the classes at issue pass muster, because the university has already admitted that they don't. All the NCAA has to do is take the university's own representations -- in the Wainstein Report, in its response to SACS, and in any number of other public statements -- at face value.

Neals384
05-05-2016, 04:07 PM
I think that what Duke tutors do/did is somewhere along the continuum.

Can you offer any evidence that tutors at Duke are anywhere "along the continuum?" If not, this entire topic is pure baseless speculation.

DukeandMdFan
05-05-2016, 04:36 PM
Can you offer any evidence that tutors at Duke are anywhere "along the continuum?" If not, this entire topic is pure baseless speculation.

Of course it's speculation - this is the internet. :cool:

I also don't have evidence that any tutors or players rolled through a stop sign, but I suspect it has happened. And, if it did happen (and nobody got hurt), it wouldn't have been a great crime.

Neals384
05-05-2016, 07:08 PM
Of course it's speculation - this is the internet. :cool:

I also don't have evidence that any tutors or players rolled through a stop sign, but I suspect it has happened. And, if it did happen (and nobody got hurt), it wouldn't have been a great crime.

Now you've gone too far. Accusing student athletes of rolling thru stop signs! :rolleyes:

madscavenger
05-05-2016, 07:39 PM
Now you've gone too far. Accusing student athletes of rolling thru stop signs! :rolleyes:

There is evidence, however, to support such an accusation. When it comes to understanding STOP signs there are prerequisites, e.g. reading. The NCAA hasn't the expertise to evaluate that. Afterall, Emmert is prone to hiring alums.

bedeviled
05-05-2016, 07:51 PM
I also don't have evidence that any tutors or players rolled through a stop sign, but I suspect it has happened. And, if it did happen (and nobody got hurt), it wouldn't have been a great crime.
No way! Not at Duke. I heard our refusal to allow athletes to commit "California stops" is the reason for MBB's history with West Coast players.

Indoor66
05-06-2016, 08:07 AM
There is evidence, however, to support such an accusation. When it comes to understanding STOP signs there are prerequisites, e.g. reading. The NCAA hasn't the expertise to evaluate that. Afterall, Emmert is prone to hiring alums.

That falls on the police side, not the athletic side.:rolleyes:

swood1000
05-06-2016, 02:28 PM
Plus, Jay keeps forgetting a key point. He keeps saying that the NCAA shouldn't be in the business of judging or evaluating the bona fides of the institution's academics. That's all fine and good as a general principle, but this case doesn't require the NCAA to do that.

This case doesn't require the NCAA to stick its nose into academics and decide whether or not the classes at issue pass muster, because the university has already admitted that they don't. All the NCAA has to do is take the university's own representations -- in the Wainstein Report, in its response to SACS, and in any number of other public statements -- at face value.
Not exactly. UNC admitted that some academic fraud took place but (a) it did not admit that specific athletes were involved, which would be necessary in order to get specific games vacated, and (b) they did not admit that every "paper class" was academic fraud and should be considered a nullity, but rather they argued the opposite to SACS regarding many of them. So the enforcement staff doesn't have the admissions that they would need.

MarkD83
05-06-2016, 05:31 PM
Not exactly. UNC admitted that some academic fraud took place but (a) it did not admit that specific athletes were involved, which would be necessary in order to get specific games vacated, and (b) they did not admit that every "paper class" was academic fraud and should be considered a nullity, but rather they argued the opposite to SACS regarding many of them. So the enforcement staff doesn't have the admissions that they would need.

Swood1000 you have been the person whose takes on this situation I have enjoyed the most because they are very analytical. So here is another situation to analyze.

If the W report is still an exhibit in the ANOA, can the COI look at it and add penalties based on what is in the exhibit. Removing banners is probably out of the question but could they see the date in the ANOA of Fall 2005 and then look at the W report and say that the problem actually existed before then and even though we can't rule players ineligible we can increase the penalties accordingly since by UNC's own admission the classes extended back further than 2005.

sagegrouse
05-06-2016, 10:07 PM
Lessee.... with respect to the "bathroom bill" (HB2), the U.S. Department of Justice is threatening to cut off all federal funding to the state of North Carolina, which would include the state universities. So, the NCAA may not penalize nearly enough; the SACS will probably not penalize at all; but the Feds could bring UNC to its knees (unfortunately affecting State and other innocent victims).

Scorp4me
05-06-2016, 11:01 PM
Lessee... with respect to the "bathroom bill" (HB2), the U.S. Department of Justice is threatening to cut off all federal funding to the state of North Carolina, which would include the state universities. So, the NCAA may not penalize nearly enough; the SACS will probably not penalize at all; but the Feds could bring UNC to its knees (unfortunately affecting State and other innocent victims).

You said bring them to their knees with respect to the "bathroom bill". That struck me as funny but I admit it's late.

cspan37421
05-07-2016, 06:52 AM
You said bring them to their knees with respect to the "bathroom bill". That struck me as funny but I admit it's late.

some might want you to wipe that grin from your face.

:)

(ducks)

madscavenger
05-07-2016, 12:45 PM
And just exactly who is this Bathroom Bill? On second thought, maybe i don't wanna know.

sammy3469
05-09-2016, 08:36 AM
And now we have Boxill out claiming that Wainstein was rigged and that's she's defending herself before the NCAA (which means any real resolution isn't happening anytime soon)


Boxill said there’s one thing she can’t forget about those two days. It’s something Wainstein said.

“From the very beginning, he said, ‘Just keep in mind, at the end of this investigation, I will be writing my impressions,’ ” Boxill said. “When somebody says it’s their impressions, it’s a way of saying, ‘The facts don’t really matter.’



and


Roden said he would defend Boxill before the NCAA, and if necessary, in the courts. “In the new allegations, an entire 18-year scheme of fake classes disappears from view, but Dr. Boxill’s academic guidance of a handful of athletes becomes the focal point of a six-year debacle involving academics and athletics at the university.”



As an aside, I do sort of wonder if the rest of UNC just decided to take their lumps from the NCAA which is why the rest of the stuff went away, but Boxill decided to ride this out. It wouldn't shock me if the NCAA/UNC agreed to sanctions, but Boxill told them to shove it, so they tried to bifurcate the case, but COI told them it couldn't be bifurcated. At a minimum, if she is really taking this position, they have to wait for her to get her response, etc...so you are looking at a long drawn out process. She is also talking about following USC's McNair's defamation lawsuit playbook.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article76362827.html#storylink=cpy

Indoor66
05-09-2016, 09:01 AM
And now we have Boxill out claiming that Wainstein was rigged and that's she's defending herself before the NCAA (which means any real resolution isn't happening anytime soon)



and



As an aside, I do sort of wonder if the rest of UNC just decided to take their lumps from the NCAA which is why the rest of the stuff went away, but Boxill decided to ride this out. It wouldn't shock me if the NCAA/UNC agreed to sanctions, but Boxill told them to shove it, so they tried to bifurcate the case, but COI told them it couldn't be bifurcated. At a minimum, if she is really taking this position, they have to wait for her to get her response, etc...so you are looking at a long drawn out process. She is also talking about following USC's McNair's defamation lawsuit playbook.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article76362827.html#storylink=cpy

If she goes the defamation lawsuit route, doesn't that open up unCheat to the full discovery can of worms - including sworn depositions. They surely don't want that.

Maybe the house of cards begins to crumble and fall...

77devil
05-09-2016, 09:35 AM
If she goes the defamation lawsuit route, doesn't that open up unCheat to the full discovery can of worms - including sworn depositions. They surely don't want that.

Maybe the house of cards begins to crumble and fall...

She probably knows significantly more about the fake classes scheme than she's willing to disclose for an article. Look for UNC PR and all the enablers and supporters to turn up their attacks on Boxill. Could lead to scorched earth from both sides.

sammy3469
05-09-2016, 09:52 AM
If she goes the defamation lawsuit route, doesn't that open up unCheat to the full discovery can of worms - including sworn depositions. They surely don't want that.

Maybe the house of cards begins to crumble and fall...

It's just the opposite. She'd be suing the NCAA, so they'd have to open up all their files while some of UNC's are already in the open (I wouldn't be shocked if UNC conveniently put up all of Boxill's damaging e-mail's already)

Just to refresh on McNair. He was cited by the NCAA in the Reggie Bush case with the NCAA saying he knew what was going on. Turns out he didn't (or at least the court thinks there shouldn't have been a finding against McNair) and that the sanctions could be reversed with a bunch of damaging NCAA documents seeing the light of day in the process. Basically everything the NCAA doesn't want.

So if you're applying similar logic to the UNC case, the NCAA didn't want anyone from UNC coming back at them this way (and you can be assured the UNC threatened this) which is why all the individual academic benefits disappeared, why coaches aren't named, why the time period is so narrow, why UNC won't release the exhibits, why the NCAA doesn't cite the exhibits in the ANOA, why Emmert says they are cooperating, etc. .

77devil
05-09-2016, 10:02 AM
It's just the opposite. She'd be suing the NCAA, so they'd have to open up all their files while some of UNC's are already in the open (I wouldn't be shocked if UNC conveniently put up all of Boxill's damaging e-mail's already)

Just to refresh on McNair. He was cited by the NCAA in the Reggie Bush case with the NCAA saying he knew what was going on. Turns out he didn't (or at least the court thinks there shouldn't have been a finding against McNair) and that the sanctions could be reversed with a bunch of damaging NCAA documents seeing the light of day in the process. Basically everything the NCAA doesn't want.

So if you're applying similar logic to the UNC case, the NCAA didn't want anyone from UNC coming back at them this way (and you can be assured the UNC threatened this) which is why all the individual academic benefits disappeared, why coaches aren't named, why the time period is so narrow, why UNC won't release the exhibits, why the NCAA doesn't cite the exhibits in the ANOA, why Emmert says they are cooperating, etc. .

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant." - Louis Brandeis

Bring on the lawsuits.

MarkD83
05-09-2016, 11:57 AM
It's just the opposite. She'd be suing the NCAA, so they'd have to open up all their files while some of UNC's are already in the open (I wouldn't be shocked if UNC conveniently put up all of Boxill's damaging e-mail's already)

Just to refresh on McNair. He was cited by the NCAA in the Reggie Bush case with the NCAA saying he knew what was going on. Turns out he didn't (or at least the court thinks there shouldn't have been a finding against McNair) and that the sanctions could be reversed with a bunch of damaging NCAA documents seeing the light of day in the process. Basically everything the NCAA doesn't want.

So if you're applying similar logic to the UNC case, the NCAA didn't want anyone from UNC coming back at them this way (and you can be assured the UNC threatened this) which is why all the individual academic benefits disappeared, why coaches aren't named, why the time period is so narrow, why UNC won't release the exhibits, why the NCAA doesn't cite the exhibits in the ANOA, why Emmert says they are cooperating, etc. .

The cynic in me is out in full force right now. I think Boxhill's comments to the N&O is all part of the scheme that UNC conceived early on. Get the NCAA to put this on one person then have that person contend that this is just business as usual for teacher/student interactions and let the NCAA prove otherwise. The whole thing then disappears without any penalties.

Dr. Rosenrosen
05-09-2016, 12:09 PM
It's just the opposite. She'd be suing the NCAA, so they'd have to open up all their files while some of UNC's are already in the open (I wouldn't be shocked if UNC conveniently put up all of Boxill's damaging e-mail's already)

Just to refresh on McNair. He was cited by the NCAA in the Reggie Bush case with the NCAA saying he knew what was going on. Turns out he didn't (or at least the court thinks there shouldn't have been a finding against McNair) and that the sanctions could be reversed with a bunch of damaging NCAA documents seeing the light of day in the process. Basically everything the NCAA doesn't want.

So if you're applying similar logic to the UNC case, the NCAA didn't want anyone from UNC coming back at them this way (and you can be assured the UNC threatened this) which is why all the individual academic benefits disappeared, why coaches aren't named, why the time period is so narrow, why UNC won't release the exhibits, why the NCAA doesn't cite the exhibits in the ANOA, why Emmert says they are cooperating, etc. .
The lesson in all of this seems to be... If you're gonna cheat, go big. Don't mess around with a student here or there. Go all in. Cheat in ways that are so outrageous and extensive that you leave the NCAA no choice but to find ways to excuse it all. Make sure there are so many stakeholders and bits of intelligence open to interpretation that it all cancels itself out like some giant crazy math equation. Perhaps this is the real genius of the Carolina Way.

English
05-09-2016, 12:09 PM
The cynic in me is out in full force right now. I think Boxhill's comments to the N&O is all part of the scheme that UNC conceived early on. Get the NCAA to put this on one person then have that person contend that this is just business as usual for teacher/student interactions and let the NCAA prove otherwise. The whole thing then disappears without any penalties.

You may be right--and there's been little reason for any optimism in this whole sordid dumpster fire--but it should be high comedy hearing Boxill explain herself WRT published emails detailing exactly which grades Crowder should give her students. Or the instances of students recycling papers. Or instances of students being placed in courses with less than a month remaining in the semester. Or any number of the other grievous violations that are not business as usual even in a very loose interpretation of a compliant university environment.

We'll almost certainly never hear these explanations, given how this is not likely to be a process with any measure of transparency. Just sayin'...it would be fun to be a fly on the wall of those conversations.

sagegrouse
05-09-2016, 12:14 PM
The cynic in me is out in full force right now. I think Boxhill's comments to the N&O is all part of the scheme that UNC conceived early on. Get the NCAA to put this on one person then have that person contend that this is just business as usual for teacher/student interactions and let the NCAA prove otherwise. The whole thing then disappears without any penalties.

Except Boxill, who was non-tenured (and still head of the UNC faculty!!) got peremptorily fired a while ago.

Kindly,
Sage
'I don't know what "peremptorily" means, but it's on my self-improvement vocabulary list'

MarkD83
05-09-2016, 05:31 PM
Except Boxill, who was non-tenured (and still head of the UNC faculty!!) got peremptorily fired a while ago.

Kindly,
Sage
'I don't know what "peremptorily" means, but it's on my self-improvement vocabulary list'

Except she is 77 years old and well past retirement age, so UNC just gives her a golden parachute and says we are going to make a big deal of peremptorily firing you (which I think means we will give you a lots of money if you go along with our scheme :))

Now if Debbie Crowder was the one named and was challenging the NCAA I would be really interested in what she had to say.

MarkD83
05-10-2016, 07:16 AM
So the cynic in me is still in full force. The article on the front page about ACC concerns about TV revenue now clarifies why the rest of the ACC schools are not publicly chastising UNC. The NCAA could survive two to three years with UNC as a second tier basketball/football school, but the ACC would have a hard time locking in a lucrative TV deal with a weakened UNC.

So UNC again is playing this very well. Perhaps it is that time like at the end of game where your team is losing to say well done UNC you had a great game plan and executed it well. Make sure to save this "game" tape to see how to do this again in the future.

sammy3469
05-10-2016, 09:00 AM
So the cynic in me is still in full force. The article on the front page about ACC concerns about TV revenue now clarifies why the rest of the ACC schools are not publicly chastising UNC. The NCAA could survive two to three years with UNC as a second tier basketball/football school, but the ACC would have a hard time locking in a lucrative TV deal with a weakened UNC.

So UNC again is playing this very well. Perhaps it is that time like at the end of game where your team is losing to say well done UNC you had a great game plan and executed it well. Make sure to save this "game" tape to see how to do this again in the future.

My hope is that the schools decide Swofford's bungled the ACC network and the previous rights negotiation so badly that they decide they want new blood. You don't have a meeting go long for an hour and AD's come out saying Commissioner without some heated things being said.

A guy can hope, right.

And the TV package is much more about not fully monetizing FSU/Clemson football and second tier basketball than first tier basketball. UNC doesn't really help there.

dukebluesincebirth
05-11-2016, 11:07 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article76836992.html